DEL MAR — The City Council declined to order a de novo hearing to formally consider an appeal by developers of the proposed Seaside Ridge project, who argue that the city has illegally determined that their project application is incomplete.
The appeal was filed on July 31 by Carol Lazier, owner of the 929 Border Avenue property just north of Del Mar Dog Beach and developer of the Seaside Ridge project proposed at the site. The nine-building development would include 259 housing units, including 42 units for low- to extremely low-income households.
Lazier first submitted a preliminary project application to the city of Del Mar in 2022, arguing that the city is required to process their application administratively.
However, city staff declined to move forward with processing the project after determining the application to be incomplete on three separate occasions in 2023. Staff say the application is missing various materials, including a rezoning application, a Local Coastal Program Amendment, a coastal development permit, and conditional use permits for the project.
“Several applications, both legislative and discretionary in scope, need to be submitted for the CDP [Coastal Development Permit] to be deemed complete,” Principal Planner Matt Bator told the council on Monday. “Without the necessary and required application materials, staff cannot thoroughly analyze the proposed project in relation to the city and state regulatory framework.”
Project representatives claim they are not required to submit these materials under various state housing laws. In 2024, Lazier sued the city to compel it to process the application.
However, a judge dismissed the petition in June, stating that the developer needed to exhaust all administrative remedies at the city level, such as an appeal, before the courts could intervene.
Monday’s meeting was the first time the project was reviewed at a City Council meeting, with Seaside Ridge asking the council to order a de novo hearing to formally consider their appeal.
In an email to the city, Lazier said she has owned the property for 25 years and has long contemplated how it could best serve the community. She said affordable housing at the site would help to address the city’s housing challenges.
“Our application is complete according to housing laws and must be processed according to [Housing and Community Development]. I initiated this project 3 years ago and assumed we would be much further along in the process. Please look at our project with fresh eyes. It is a win-win for Del Mar and Seaside Ridge,” Lazier said.
At least two councilmembers needed to support a de novo hearing to move forward, but none did, instead upholding staff’s previous findings that the application was incomplete. The council received a staff presentation and heard from project representatives, but did not discuss the project itself.
Darren Pudgil, a spokesperson for the Seaside Ridge project, said they have exhausted their options at the city level and will be returning to court for resolution in the case.
“We are disappointed that the city council based its decision on a presentation by city staff that was laden with erroneous information,” Pudgil said in a statement. “The future of Seaside Ridge now rests with the courts. As the judge in our case requested, we have exhausted all administrative remedies with Del Mar. We are preparing to re-file our lawsuit against the city of Del Mar as soon as possible.”
Appeal arguments
At the heart of Seaside Ridge’s appeal is the builder’s remedy law, which allows projects with affordable units to bypass zoning requirements if the city in which they are proposed does not have a certified Housing Element.
According to a June legal alert from the California Department of Justice, a builder’s remedy application becomes effective at the time of submission of a complete “preliminary application.” Seaside Ridge’s preliminary application was submitted in the fall of 2022, when Del Mar’s 6th Housing Element was still uncertified.
However, Del Mar staff claim the builder’s remedy does not apply in this case, citing state law that says a preliminary application will essentially be voided if the project size changes by more than 20%. The preliminary application for Seaside Ridge included a square footage of 308,968 square feet, while the subsequent CDP application stated a square footage of 396,259.
“The [CDP] application materials submitted to the City on March 30, 2023, proposed a Housing Development Project consisting of 396,259 square feet of construction, a 28% increase in size, and as a result, voided the ability of the Applicant to assert the benefits of the Builders Remedy,” the city states.
Seaside Ridge has refuted this, claiming that the original square footage of 308,968 square feet was a clerical error.
In response to the city’s argument that the project lacked a rezoning application, Seaside Ridge said the city is already required to rezone the 929 Border Avenue property to comply with its own Housing Element.
Del Mar’s 6th Housing Element lists the property as a contingency site for rezoning if the city cannot reach an affordable housing agreement with the Del Mar Fairgrounds to develop at least 61 affordable units on their property.
Because the city has an exclusive negotiating rights agreement with the Fairgrounds to study the possibility of developing affordable units, city leaders say they are not required to rezone it under their agreement with state housing officials.
However, Seaside Ridge argues that state law requires the city to rezone the property regardless of its discussions with the Fairgrounds. They also note that talks with the Fairgrounds have repeatedly hit roadblocks over the last year due to concerns from Fairgrounds leaders about statements and positions made by city leaders.
Project representatives argue that they are being denied due process by the city, and note that other builder’s remedy cases have resulted in favorable outcomes for developers.
Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with a housing developer in their lawsuit against the city of La Cañada Flintridge, ruling that the city violated housing law by refusing to process an application for an affordable housing project that was submitted before the city’s Housing Element was in compliance.
The city initially appealed the ruling, but dropped its appeal in March after being told it would have to pay a $14 million bond to continue litigation.
“The state has warned cities that they must approve Builder’s Remedy projects like Seaside Ridge or face the consequences, like the city of La Cañada Flintridge did recently. In addition to attorneys’ fees, if the court finds the city violated the Housing Accountability Act, it will impose a minimum fine of $10,000 per unit, which could be multiplied by a factor of 5 if the city acted in bad faith,” Pudgil said.
