DEL MAR — As the Del Mar City Council finalized its ordinance regulating short-term rentals in the city in the second half of 2024, one council member began to question whether she might have a conflict of interest, due to her own practice of renting out her two condominiums as monthly rentals.
Mayor Terry Gaasterland, who was serving as deputy mayor at the time, brought the matter to the attention of the Del Mar city attorney and city manager, seeking advice from the California Fair Political Practices Commission on whether she had a conflict of interest.
After recusing herself from one meeting about the ordinance in August, Gaasterland said she received advice from the FPPC that she could continue participating in discussions and votes about the ordinance, which she did.
The public did not learn about the fact that she had rented out her own units until recently, after it was revealed that she had registered her two adjacent properties on Sea Cliff Way, both of which were considered her primary residences, as existing short-term rentals with the city.
Now, other council members have raised concerns about the short-term ordinance, adopted in September, being at legal risk due to this potential conflict of interest. The ordinance resulted from years of work and community input, and is intended to result in transient occupancy tax revenue for the city that it wasn’t previously collecting.
In a contentious discussion on Monday, the council agreed in a 2-1 vote, with Dan Quirk opposed and Gaasterland recused, to request that the California Fair Political Practices Commission review whether Gaasterland had a conflict of interest.
“Our focus tonight is about protecting the city and to ensure that it is not endangered as a result of any potential conflict of interest or nondisclosure by Mayor Gaasterland,” said Councilmember Tracy Martinez, who brought forward the item with Councilmember John Spelich.
The two council members clarified that the city is not claiming Gaasterland did anything wrong, nor are they initiating an investigation at this point. Instead, they are referring the matter to a third party to ensure that the ordinance is protected.
“The goal of this agenda item is to be transparent to the public and ultimately determine if there is anything the City needs to do to protect the integrity of the adopted STR Ordinance, keep the Ordinance on track for Coastal Commission consideration, and understand potential conflicts for future participation” (in decisions related to the ordinance), an agenda report states.
While the issue will only be referred to the FPPC for now, the city’s agenda item originally recommended that the council also refer the matter to the San Diego County Civil Grand Jury, San Diego County District Attorney’s Political Integrity Unit, and California Attorney General’s Office.
However, this drew ire from several residents, including friends and family of Gaasterland, who said this would do nothing to protect the STR ordinance and would only cause her reputational damage.
“You’ve recommended a criminal referral of your mayor. That is a crater in somebody’s life,” said resident Shirli Weiss.
Quirk heavily criticized Martinez and Spelich for bringing the item forward before receiving input from the FPPC on whether Gaasterland was conflicted.
“I don’t think this should be an agenda item,” he said. “My understanding is that Mayor Gaasterland has already reached out to the FPPC for clarification on this.”
Gaasterland pushes back
Gaasterland was recused from the City Council discussion about the potential conflict of interest, but did speak during public comment to defend herself.
The mayor stated that she has only rented out her condos for periods of at least 30 days, in compliance with the rules of her condominium complex’s homeowners association, and that she did not believe this constituted a short-term rental.
However, the language eventually adopted in the new ordinance defines STRs as rentals of 30 days or less, with exceptions for monthly rentals.
On Aug. 26, the council decided that under the ordinance, monthly rentals are exempt from STR regulations as long as they meet one of two criteria: if the rental period starts at the beginning of a calendar month and goes through the end of the same calendar month, or starts on a certain day within the calendar month and goes through the prior day of the subsequent calendar month.
Gaasterland said that in August, she began to worry she may have a conflict of interest. For this reason, she said, she did not attend the discussion about monthly time frames on Aug. 26.
After sending a letter to the FPPC in August to inquire whether her participation in discussions would create a conflict, Gaasterland said that she had a phone call with an FPPC representative, who advised her that she could participate in discussions if the ordinance would not result in a financial benefit to her.
“It is important to me to understand conflict in this matter. Thus, I reached out to the FPPC in August 2024 and was advised that I could participate in the STR discussion, because the STR ordinance would not have a financial impact on the rental of my two condo units,” Gaasterland stated.
She then participated in meetings about the ordinance in September, including a first reading on Sept. 9 and its adoption on Sept. 23. Gaasterland ultimately voted against the ordinance on Sept. 23.
Gaasterland stated that she has never rented out her property as a short-term rental, has not advertised it on platforms such as Airbnb or Vrbo, and does not have a property manager. She also said she has rented to fewer than 10 people over the years, with at least one of the tenants returning every summer.
After the council added an item to Monday’s agenda to discuss her potential conflict of interest, Gaasterland reached out to the FPPC again on Monday to ask for written confirmation that she did not have a conflict of interest.
FPPC spokesperson Shery Yang confirmed that the commission received the letter, and the matter is currently under review.
Gaasterland also noted that she did not influence the passage of the ordinance, as she was the sole opposing vote when the former City Council adopted the ordinance 4-1 in September.
“This is political theater,” she said of the agenda item.
Martinez said she felt ethically obligated to have a third party analyze the situation and determine whether there was any wrongdoing. She also pushed back against Gaasterland’s assertion that she has not operated a short-term rental, claiming that Gaasterland has rented out her property for shorter periods.
“I know for a fact that Mayor Gaasterland has done a three-day rental. I know that. That constitutes a short-term rental,” Martinez said.
After the meeting, Gaasterland stated that the situation Martinez was referring to involved an instance when she allowed some of Martinez’s family members to stay in her unit for a three-day period. She stated that there was no lease and that this was an instance of a friend helping a friend.
When asked about this, Martinez confirmed that her family did utilize Gaasterland’s condo for a short stay in 2023, for which they paid $200 per night. She also confirmed that no lease was involved.
Registry review
The city of Del Mar created a registry for short-term rentals in 2023, allowing existing short-term rentals (STRs) that were active prior to the adoption of the new ordinance to be grandfathered in and operate with a permit under less restrictive regulations than those required for new STRs.
Residents were given until the end of 2024 to register their rentals with the city.
On Dec. 31, the last day the registry was open, Gaasterland and her husband Karl Willert registered their two properties on Sea Cliff Way, city records show.
Gaasterland said she registered both of her and her husband’s properties out of an abundance of caution, just in case they did meet the definition of a short-term rental.
“In the utmost of caution, and because of the ambiguity in the language in the ordinance about the 30-day rule and applicable exemptions, I entered the townhouse (as well as my primary residence) in the registry,” Gaasterland said in a June 16 letter to the FPPC.
The fact that Gaasterland signed up for the registry indicates she should have been recused from crafting the ordinance, Martinez and Spelich argued.
“In the submitted registries, the Mayor and/or her spouse stated that they had operated each of the two units as short-term rentals at some point during the past 10 years prior to adoption of the STR ordinance as required by the Ordinance. As such, the Mayor should have publicly disclosed her STR rental activities and been recused from participating in the development and adoption of the City’s STR ordinance,” a report for the agenda item states.
With her registry submissions, Gaasterland provided examples of two leases — one from Jan. 30, 2022, to Feb. 28, 2022, and one from Oct. 29, 2024, to Nov. 27, 2024.
City staff sent letters to Gaasterland and Willert in May stating that neither of the properties appeared to be STRs, as one of the properties appeared to be a long-term rental and the other included a lease that began after the ordinance was passed.
These two rentals were removed from the registry and will not be grandfathered in under the new ordinance.
Some residents defended Gaasterland, arguing that the 30-day issue was confusing and that she had done the right thing by seeking clarification from the FPPC. However, others said the situation indicates a lack of transparency.
“This is an unfortunate but necessary inflection point for the City of Del Mar, one that calls for integrity, clarity, and leadership. It represents a most serious governance issue — one that will continue to impact the image of our City. How we respond now will shape our credibility, our legal posture, and our civic identity,” resident Tate Scott wrote in an email.
Martinez and Spelich also raised other concerns, noting that Gaasterland was one of two council liaisons for the development of STR regulations, and claiming that she advocated for policies in the ordinance that would have benefited existing STR owners.
This included removing the 10% limit on STRs in condominium complexes, eliminating the requirement for new STRs to be located within a primary residence, and waiving in-person inspections of units. The units that Gaasterland registered with the city are both in a condo complex.
Gaasterland said these elements would not benefit her because she did not believe she was operating a short-term rental, and that she believed these were legitimate issues raised by residents.
Council members also noted that Gaasterland did not publicly disclose that she received rental income from her properties on her required Form 700 until August.
Gaasterland acknowledged that this was a careless mistake, which she rectified immediately upon realizing that she had had not checked a box on the form regarding the amount of gross rental income received.
Next steps
The city’s STR ordinance is awaiting approval from the California Coastal Commission before it can take effect. The law could be voted on as early as this fall, according to Joshua Smith, a representative of the Coastal Commission.
A previous version of the ordinance was rejected by the state commission in 2018, and the city began the process again in 2023.
To protect the new ordinance, some council members said they hope to ratify it with a future vote.
Going forward, Gaasterland told The Coast News that she plans to rent out her unit only for periods of 31 days or more. While she said she never tried to hide the fact that she rents out her units, she conceded that she could have made more disclosures.
However, she also cast some blame on City Attorney Leslie Devaney, who she said never gave her explicit direction that she had a conflict of interest.
Devaney stated at the Monday meeting that council members are generally referred to the FPPC for advice on conflicts of interest. They are also given ethics training under Assembly Bill 1234 to help them determine what constitutes a conflict of interest for them.
“In our AB 1234 training, we tell people that your conflicts of interest are your own responsibilities,” Devaney said. “The training we give, as required by the legislature, is to give each public official the ability to spot issues that are of a conflict nature, so that they can protect themselves.”
Both Devaney and City Manager Ashley Jones also emphasized that they were not involved in bringing the item regarding Gaasterland’s potential conflict of interest to the agenda.
The city scheduled a closed-session meeting earlier this month to discuss concerns about conflict of interest and the option to refer the issue to various agencies for review. However, Quirk declined to attend the meeting, and since Gaasterland was unable to attend the meeting in full, there was no quorum.
For this reason, the discussion had to be brought to open session, Martinez said.
CORRECTION: This story previously stated that Terry Gaasterland had not reported her ownership of her second property on her Form 700. It was updated to clarify that she had reported ownership of both units, but had not reported that she received rental income from them.
