How to send letters to the editor

Dear Editors, posted 07/16/10 As one of many who support Design Review Board approval and a City-wide vote on Form-Based Code and any other major changes to Del Mar's planning process, I applaud you for your emphasis on "revitalization" and the DRB's role.  I especially appreciate your survey and the related June follow-up articles and illustration which, by pointing out the difference of opinion between Del Mar voters and others who responded, make important adjustments to the results published initially.  The survey now stands as an early indicator of how voters might cast their ballots when given an opportunity to do so. Hopefully the City Council has taken note. Jan McMillan, 12th Street Dear Editors, posted 07/15/10 Del Mar elections are coming – quality candidates needed The November elections can be a very pivotal election for Del Martians.  The city is running on financial fumes and there ARE solutions to make our city more fiscally sound. Candidates that want to take on the beast of ‘bloated pensions and out-of-control back end’ benefits, please step forward. Please run and take a leadership role to stop the bleeding. Our current council is reluctant to step forward and take a leadership roll to CUT the costs of government.  Cities all over the county are reducing bloated pension programs, re-defining retirement contributions, and cutting the costs of government. Pension reforms have occurred in Solana Beach and Carlsbad. Silence in Del Mar.  Escondido has reduced the fire department back end costs. Silence in Del Mar. Our sheriff’s contract is completely out of control. Employee benefits run amuck. Did you know that Sheriffs even get their birthday off as a paid holiday? And our current council reaction- silence. The City of Del Mar’s pension cost in 2003 was just over $300,000. In 2009 it is over $900,000. How come?  Please, if you want to cut $100,000’s of waste, please consider running for our city council.  AND, then be proactive and step forward to take a leadership role.  Our city will greatly benefit from this type of leadership. Jim Benedict, Christie Lane     << Dear Editors, posted 07/02/10 The results of the Sandpiper's survey to its readers on Del Mar's revitalization plans (Sandpiper, June 2010) has the potential of being seriously misleading. Four full pages are devoted to a report on the survey's results. For instance, according to the article "Your Opinion Counted" nearly 50% of the survey respondents either agreed or strongly agreed that "Parking structure should be added downtown." Similarly, well over 50% of the survey respondents presumably answered in the affirmative the question "Would you favor increasing the allowable height of buildings along the west side of Camino Del Mar?" In fact, it would seem pretty clear that the very limited responses received to the Sandpiper survey, renders it nearly meaningless. As reported in the main article (p.8) there were only 155 responses to the survey. Del Mar is estimated to currently have approximately 4,300 residents (presumably a decrease from the 4,900 reported in the 2000 Census). In other words, less than 3% of Del Mar residents responded to the survey, which brings into question whether the results were in fact worth reporting. Moreover, the article reports that of the total number responses, 16% (25 of responses) were from business owners who obviously have their own priorities and not necessarily those of the public at large. There is undoubtedly value to informal surveys of resident opinion of matters of community interest. However, unless such surveys cover either a significant number of residents or are conducted using standardized sampling techniques, they are likely to be essentially meaningless. As long time readers and contributors to the Sandpiper, we're confident that your publication did not intend to mislead readers and thereby advance a particular political agenda. Nevertheless, there is a real danger that by reporting on a survey as presumably representing resident preferences (where in fact the survey only represents a minuscule fraction of resident opinion) the community and members of the City Council may be misled. Ralph Reisner, Surf View    << Editor's note:   Editor's note:  Click here for an article analyzing resident vs. non-resident opinions in the Sandpiper survey.  Editors: posted 06/15/10 I watched the Del Mar Council meeting on TV last night, and what I heard was not quiet approvals, but emphatic disapproval of a proposed Form Based Code.  Full Design Review Board process is what is wanted (control), but is not what the FBC is really all about.  A real FBC is a VERY DETAILED expression (in words and pictures) of what the "community" wants the downtown to look like - so detailed that a developer can read and look at it and propose something that should pass approval of a planning director for having met those details.  That is what FBC is supposed to do, and Del Mar can't let that happen! Therefore, because of that issue, plus parking requirements, development benefits required, lack of City financial participation and basic economics, we will have spent a lot of time, money and frustration for another plan to put on the shelf!  If this is not true, please explain why. Thanks. Ralph Peck, 11th St   << Dear Sandpiper Editors, posted 06/13/10 [with reference to the FBC presentation to the Council on June 14] Not only do I believe there should be a vote prior to any City Council implementing action but that vote should PRECEDE an expensive EIR by the City.  The most recent wasteful expenditure of >$311,000 for utility undergrounding prior to a vote is a perfect example of this City's unfortunate budgeting practices,  and that is a major reason why voters have had enough with the Council's pleas for more taxes. If you add together all the studies and consultants over the past 12 years it is a huge number. Most of the proposals failed to come to fruition. And this city has the dubious distinction of having the highest staff : resident ratio in the state.  Therefore, prior to spending even more money on Form Based Codes, the citizens must be consulted as to their support. Pam Slater-Price, Grand Avenue   << Dear Sandpipers, posted 06/10/10 The idea that the Del Mar Plaza is suitable for a 'Trader Joe's with a  Del Mar twist' is naive. Parking and access make it hard to think that this savvy chain would consider it for a minute. Continuing the effort to establish a Plaza food market, let alone one offering products at competitive prices, will fail. And food co-ops seldom succeed. Highest, best use of the space is upscale retail, especially restuarants. Why fight it? Hugh McCandless, Seaforest Court    << Dear Sandpiper Editors, posted 06/07/2010 "Form Based Code" Would Destroy Precious Resident Controls  Back in 1973, when the State first required all cities to have zoning laws, Del Mar's response was unique: 140 citizens worked together to form the Community Plan that has made our town such a sought-after place to live.  It is our most precious asset. And it would be destroyed by the proposed Form Based Code, which would take zoning away from voters and put it in control of un-elected people. Such a disastrous change is not needed. Residents could support some changes under our present system--see responses from readers in the June Sandpiper.  SO LET'S POINT THAT OUT TO THE COUNCIL AT ITS JUNE 14 MEETING,  when Form Based Code is on the agenda. Chuck Newton, Forest Way    << Sandpiper Editors: posted 06/06/2010 Short term rentals have become a thriving business in Del Mar.  See http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOtEEGf04jI.  Every city along the North County coast, except Del Mar, imposes a TOT on short term rentals. The argument that TOT comes out of the short term rental owner's pocket assumes that the maximum amount the market will bear, including taxes, is being charged to the tourist.  Thus, for example, if a rental in Encinitas costs $20,000 a week including TOT, then the comparable rental in Del Mar should be either lower or the TOT counterpart is going into the owner's pocket.  The argument that short term rental owners already pay property tax that covers the cost of tourist amenities ignores the fact that hotels and motels also pay property taxes.  In placing Prop. J on the ballot for voter approval, the entire council agreed that all tourists in Del Mar should be treated the same way without regard to their choice of lodging. Simply stated: All tourists should pay their fair share of the over $1 million a year it costs to maintain our beaches and parks.   Carl Hilliard, Crest Road    << Sandpiper Editors: posted 06/05/2010 I was disappointed with the Prop J flyer included in your June issue. Not because I expected the Sandpiper to oppose this new tax, but because of the blatant dishonesty of the graphic. You compare the Del Mar Motel to a multi-unit apartment building, implying that one is subject to TOT and the other is not. That, as you should know, is not the case. All buildings of three units or more are already subject to TOT on short-term rentals. The purpose of Prop J is to impose an 11.5% tax on residents like me who occasionally rent our homes to visitors. My renters don¹t use any more city services I do. It is unrealistic to think this tax will be paid in addition to market rents --- it will come out of the pockets of the homeowners. I already pay my fair share of property and income taxes. I don't dispute the need for additional city revenue, particularly to pay for capital improvements such as the beach safety center, the new shores park, and a decent city hall. But it is unfair to lay this burden of double taxation, along with intrusive regulation, on residents who already pay our fair share. Joe Sullivan, Ocean Front  << HUZZA! posted 06/03/10 Great issue, all you editors. Thanks for all the effort that goes into it. Pat JaCoby, Sea View Avenue   << Editors posted 05/28/2010 There is a fundamental error in Councilman Carl Hilliard’s letter to the editor that there is NO connection between the “temporary train stop” they say they now wish to locate ½ mile south of the entrance statue, behind the businesses on Jimmy Durante Blvd and across the tracks from the neighborhoods on 21st thru 24th Streets; vs. the 25 years-in-the-Fairground master plan Permanent stop at the rear of the fairgrounds, north of the river. The connections are simple: Timing and money. The temporary stop could have been built as a “temporary” measure in 2007, but wasn’t. Now it’s time to do the designing and environmental permitting for the Permanent Stop- at the west edge of the Fairgrounds – a spot from which patrons can easily walk to fairground events. Both projects would be seeking funding from the same source – the Race Track Leasing Commission – who, in effect, gets the money from the operator of the VERY VERY lucrative racing contract at Del Mar. That Commission could also get the construction financing from that same source. Hilliard adds further confusion by contending they must first build new trestles over the river, ignoring the existing one is about to get a $3.5 million “face lift,” from the NCTD on whose board he sits, to strengthen it. Plus, he knows that until it is decided where the tracks should go south of the river (there are three competing routes) using the existing strengthened trestle makes sense. When will the politicians stop treating everyone like mushrooms, keeping them in the dark and feeding them manure? Helen and Richard Nielsen-Eckfield, Caminito Madrigal, Carlsbad   << Letter to the Editor of the Sandpiper posted May 11, 2010 Recent potshots at the Fair Board taken by Helen and Richard Eckfield and supported by the Sandpiper are off the mark. The Fair Board has nothing to do with the seasonal train platform, nor with the temporary train platform. The former is a SANDAG project; the latter, an NCTD project. Neither is within the Fair Board’s jurisdiction. The two platforms are stand-alone issues. Targeting one at the expense of the other makes no sense. The $80 million project, which includes a seasonal train platform, won’t happen for another five to 10 years. Double tracking from Solana Beach to Del Mar has to be in place before the platform can be installed. As soon as NCTD can erect the temporary train platform, it will be ready to serve our community by reducing traffic congestion, limiting greenhouse gas and helping to alleviate parking problems – all the good things we’ve agreed the seasonal platform will accomplish. Once we have the seasonal platform, the temporary one can easily be moved and used elsewhere. Yes, it’s true people will have to walk next to the street to get to the Fairgrounds, just as they did when we had the train station. Nothing is cast in concrete yet. When the best proposal is put together, the City Council will invite and welcome community input. But to oppose the temporary platform in order to increase the pressure to build the seasonal platform doesn’t accomplish anything that’s in the public interest. Why cut off your nose to spite your face? Carl Hilliard, Del Mar Councilmember & NCTD Boardmember     << Sandpiper Editors: posted 05/16/10 The city is about to start the “charrette” process in adopting the new Form Based Code for planning Del Mar’s revitalization.  That means the residents are going to be able to see what it is, and if they like it.  After over a year developing it, they say the new code will make it easier for commercial property owners to redevelop their downtown property.  Personally, I have my doubts. In case you don’t know, the Form Based Codes are how you implement the new Smart Growth Process, which basically means stopping “sprawl” by “filling in” the developed community.  Now that is really what we need to do in Del Mar. It means making the downtown area more dense, larger size (resulting in higher buildings along the sidewalks on both sides of Camino Del Mar) so low-cost housing can be provided on the second floors, less required on-site parking (to be offset by satellite parking lots, or garages to be reached by shuttles – HA!) and providing the City with more property tax and sales tax revenue. I can’t help but believe the latter is the driving force for changing the way we have been doing planning for a long time!  Please participate in the forthcoming “charrette”! Ralph Peck, 11th St    << Editors: posted May 11, 2010 This months edition of the Sandpiper contained a 2-page article by Form Based Code committeeman, attorney Dwight Worden, listing his view of the impediments to developing such new planning code - closing with his belief that we should have a robust city-wide discussion NOW to get the community's views!  Why didn't we have such robust discussion BEFORE spending over a year of time and money on whether the community even wanted to redevelop downtown, or not?  Certainly, it would be what the City wanted from increased property and sales taxes, but would the residents want such transformation?   Yesterday's sunday newspaper had a good article in the ARTS section about the redevelopment of the North Park community of San Diego.  That redevelopment was fueled by the Arts, and was so successful, it appears it may be hard to keep it from becoming a restaurant and bar center with many attendant problems with the resident neighbors! We are about to start the robust discussion of redevelopment of Del Mar, so you might want to check out the redeveloped area of North Park at 30th & University in San Diego.  Ralph Peck, 11th St    << Editor, posted May 5, 2010 I have a nit to pick with Ann Gardner's very informative piece on the Flower Hill expansion. It is unfair to compare Gepetto's replacing Thinker Things to "losing Panniken to a Starbucks." Thinker Things did not go out of business. The owners chose to relocate to Solana Beach because, they told me, of the uncertainty of mall redevelopment plans. Gepetto's is also a locally owned family business. In my experience the merchandise, selection, pricing, and personal service are comparable to Thinker Things. Sincerely, Joe Sullivan , Ocean Front    << Correction posted May 5, 2010 Hershell Price, the author of "Don't Make our Homes Hotels" on page 6 of the May print issue, pointed out that the sign in the photo showed his own rental properties which he says are already covered by TOT.  The Sandpiper regrets the error. Correction  April 16, 2010 Editor:  I wrote an article about the Fairgrounds, its Master Plan, and its environmental stewardship for the February 2010 Sandpiper issue entitled "Trust your Eyes not Your Ears."  In that article I referenced that the Master Plan proposes:  "...1 million square feet of new development at the fairgrounds."  This should have said "...1 million square feet of construction of which about 300,000 feet reflects new projects and the balance demolition and rebuilding." Dwight Worden   << Rupert Relief Fund May 2010 Issue | Dr. and Mrs. Wadia | Luneta Drive Detail from Murduck Master Plan 2010. Courtesy Rupert Murduck. Dear Sandpiper, Thank you for your front page story on Murduck acquiring the Sandpiper with the great downtown development. We have started an investment fund for this project, which promises to double your money every twelve months. All inquiries should be addressed to our treasurer, Mr. Art Olson, c/o The Sandpiper. Come join our millionaires club! Dr. and Mrs. Wadia | Luneta Drive     <<   Slater Slams Split: MEMORANDUM May 2010 Issue | Pam Slater-Price | Grand Avenue From: Supervisor Pam Slater-Price To: San Dieguito River Park JPA The City of Del Mar Planning Commission considered the Andrews Lot Split at its April 13, 2010 hearing. The Andrews lot is directly west of the Grand Avenue Bridge Overlook and parking area. The project proposes to subdivide a 2.4-acre single-family residential property into two separate parcels in order to build a second residential unit on the portion of the property closest to San Dieguito Road. The applicant is asking the Coastal Commission to modify the Deed Restricted Open Space Easement on the property required when the first residential unit was constructed. In addition, the project requires a Conditional Use Permit from the City of Del Mar to allow a reduction in the 100-foot buffer from the wetlands to a 50-foot buffer and to build in a portion of the 10-foot-wide-steep-slope setback required under the City’s Bluff, Slop and Canyon Overlay Zone standards. A portion of the parcel is also located in the flood plain of the San Dieguito River. The project is being reviewed by Coastal Commission staff. The contact is: Lee McEachern California Coastal Commission (619) 767-2370 This project will have a significant impact on the River Park. I am concerned that the City of Del Mar did not notify the River Park of this potential project within the River Park’s Focused Planning Area. Therefore, I am bringing it to the JPA’s attention and will also notify the California Coastal Commission of this lack of notification.   Pickens Suit Settled May 2010 Issue | Bud Emerson, Klish Way The “Trees and Views” conflict between Madeleine Pickens and Charlie and Lynn Gaylord has been finally resolved. Because that conflict attracted some media attention and represented a significant test of the Trees and Views Ordinance, it is worthwhile to recapitulate what actually happened. The house now occupied by Ms. Pickens was built by Arthur Nicholas. Nicholas’s original application was opposed by the Gaylords (and other neighbors) on grounds of excessive view blockage. The DRB agreed with the Gaylords’ arguments and required Nicholas to move the western wall of his house a significant distance to the east in order to protect the Gaylords’ view to the south. The DRB further required Nicholas to limit any plantings in the patio area between his house and the beach to less than two feet in height so that they would not obstruct the Gaylords’ view. This requirement is clearly spelled out in the DRB Recommendation but was not further memorialized, e.g., by a deed restriction. Sometime after occupying his new house, Nicholas began to plant vegetation in his patio that soon exceeded two feet. The Gaylords made several attempts to negotiate with Nicholas in order to reduce the impact on their view but he was not receptive. Eventually, in May 2007, the Gaylords submitted an application to the city under the Trees and Views ordinance. Shortly thereafter, Nicholas sold the property to the Pickens family (for the Del Mar record sum of $35M) and when Madeleine Pickens moved in later in 2007, the Gaylords proposed mediation as a means of resolving the issue. Ms. Pickens failed to attend the mediation session and her lawyer stated that he was not authorized to negotiate on her behalf. The Gaylords then proceeded with their Trees and Views application. The application was heard by the Planning Commission at their June 2008 meeting. One Commissioner was recused on grounds of financial conflict with one of the parties. The remaining (4) commissioners unanimously found that (a) the Gaylords had suffered unreasonable view blockage by Pickens’ vegetation, and (b) the Gaylords had satisfied the requirements of the Trees and Views ordinance in their attempts at negotiation/mediation. The Commission then tackled the issue of restorative action by forming a sub-committee to work with the applicants, the appellant and the city on an appropriate course of action. Their recommendations were reported at the July meeting of the Commission and were approved by the Commission as a whole. It is worth noting that the only argument presented by the appellant to justify the existence of the subject vegetation was in order to provide privacy on the patio. It is also worth noting that this is a patio that (a) abuts onto the public beach, and (b) is overlooked by the second stories of immediate neighbors both to the south and north. The Commission explicitly rejected the argument that the plantings were necessary for providing privacy. It may be argued that, even with the blockage caused by the Pickens hedge, the Gaylords still enjoy an enviable view. This is perfectly true. But it’s also true that, when they bought their house, the substantial purchase price undoubtedly factored in the extent of that original view. In other words, they paid for that view and while that doesn’t make it an absolute property right, it is certainly reasonable for them to require a reason for reducing it that is much more substantive than a transparently implausible claim of loss of privacy. Ms. Pickens appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to the City Council. After a public hearing in November 2008, the Council upheld the Commission’s determination and resolved that Ms. Pickens should undertake certain restorative action. In September 2009, Ms. Pickens filed suit against the City in Superior Court. In March this year, the City and Ms. Pickens agreed to a settlement, Ms. Pickens complied with the restorative action required by the City, and the suit was dismissed. Our Trees and Views Ordinance has survived its most severe challenge to date. Shroom Gloom May 2010 Issue | Helen and Richard Eckfield, Carlsbad, reported by Bud Emerson The Fair Board continues to get very critical feedback on its ill-advised master plan. At its April 6 monthly meeting two knowledgeable citizens from Carlsbad, Helen and Richard Eckfield, presented compelling testimony about problems with the recently constructed Arena roof and poorly designed plans for a train stop. The Eckfields have coined a phrase for the Fair Board’s communication style called “ Mushroom Management--to raise a mushroom you keep it in the dark and feed it steer manure.” They pointed to the “300 percent cost overrun of the new roof closing from a planned $4 million to now over $15 million as ‘not our fault’...good management is also constructing it so that it does not create new problems...it now blocks not only fans, but the stewards from seeing the start of some of the races.” As long time advocates of a permanent seasonal train stop, The Eckfields stress that it is very critical now that “we are on the verge of actually adding to the traffic load of the fairgrounds, not just with your plans for the Las Vegas-izing of the fairgrounds turning it into a convention center, but also the pending addition of additional weeks of racing now guaranteed to come to Del Mar from Hollywood Park courtesy of State legislation sponsored by Assemblyman Martin Garrick...building a train stop will be required mitigation of the traffic impact that will result.” The Eckfields note that the train stop in the north west corner of the fairgrounds “has been in your Master Plan since 1985...that’s 25 years in planning.” Noting that the staff is now proposing instead to implement an inadequate temporary platform near the Southfair development, “ I urge you to now fund the construction design and environmental permitting of the first 600 feet of the Permanent Stop north of the river, built above the 100 year flood plain--from which people can easily walk to fairground events, and to which inebriated concert party goers can easily stagger in order to get a safe ride home.” They urge affected 21-24th street residents and Southfair businesses to ask the City Council for an assessment of the proposed temporary stop impact on their neighborhoods when train loads of fair-goers and other event goers are deposited there. The Eckfields have long been frustrated trying to get the Fair Board and the staff to give serious consideration to their detailed recommendations.   Shirts Shorts Out April 2010 Issue, John Haraden, 11th Street In the Sandpiper’s March edition, Gary Shirts presents a flawed six-point defense of under-grounding. This article refutes his six points and clarifies his points as ploys for subsidizing under-grounding. (1) Gary’s self-imposed obligation to under-ground his utilities does not extend to his neighbors. They have private-property rights that protect their properties from Gary’s obligation. (2) Under-grounding does not provide a safer community. Fire Marshall Bob Scott attaches a low probability to a downed-line-ignited fire. Insurance companies dismiss any enhanced safety by refusing to lower fire-insurance premiums in under-grounded districts. The companies’ actuaries expect no reduction in claims. (3) Gary only asserts his value judgment that pole removal creates a more attractive community. Other residents may value the poles as bird perches and view pole removal as scattering their winged friends and the morning choir. (4) Asserting now is the time for pole removal assumes a compelling reason for pole removal. Gary never presents a compelling reason. Beautification, enhanced fire safety, and increased utility reliability remain discredited arguments. (5) Justifying high under-grounding assessments as compensations for low Proposition 13 assessments only consigns his affluent neighbors to penury. If Gary finds Proposition 13 objectionable, he should confront it directly. (6) Adopting a problem-solving approach for Del Mar’s less affluent confirms there is no solution for Del Mar’s less affluent. If the entire community cannot fund the Shores’ debt, a few district members cannot fund the less affluent’s under-grounding assessments. John Haraden, 11th Street

Thank you, Senator Kehoe! April 2010 Issue | Payson Stevens, 7th Street Friends: The Fairground Board did not seem very responsive to our concerns at the recent hearings. Senator Christine Kehoe is pushing for legislation to create a San Dieguito River greenbelt. She needs letters of support so please take the time to send one to her and let your concerned Del Mar and Solana Beach friends know. We need to ensure our concerns are heard and this enormous expansion project is kept under control. Below is the one I mailed for ideas and modification to Senator Christine Kehoe. Payson Stevens, 7th Street 2445 Fifth Avenue, Suite 200 San Diego, CA 92101 Re: Del Mar Fairgrounds Greenbelt Dear Senator Kehoe: It is heartening to hear that you are committed to legislation ensuring that there is permanent public access to the area along the San Dieguito River. Like so many Del Mar residents and the Del Mar City Council, my wife and I oppose the current 22nd Agricultural District’s plans as presented in their EIR. The negative impacts on our community are well documented (air quality, traffic, noise, etc.). More importantly the need to mitigate the impacts on the lagoon wildlife and ecosystem are critical as preserving and protecting what is left of San Diego’s fragile, estuarine environments is essential. As the Fairboard does not seem responsive to our community concerns thank you for taking on this very important issue and making our voices heard. Sincerely yours, Your Signature

Delmarvelous Ideas April 2010 Issue | Maile D'Arcy, Executive Director of the Del Mar Foundation, Van Dyke Avenue The Del Mar Foundation has a new five year long-term plan, a vibrant outlook for our programs, community events, and grants. The Board’s vision for the Foundation is positive, forward-thinking and ambitious. One exciting change is the transformation of our community grant process to a more proactive approach. A recent experiment in this effort was the DelMarvelous Ideas insert in your water bill. Thank you to all who submitted their wonderful ideas many of which we will working with in the coming year - stay tuned! I look forward to working with you and seeing Del Mar benefit from DMF’s programs and grantmaking. Maile D’Arcy, Executive Director of the Del Mar Foundation, Van Dyke Avenue

Undergrounding:  Reply to Ralph DeMarco March 2010 Website | Art Olson, Avenida Primavera letter from Ralph DeMarco 02/20/2010   To Ralph DeMarco I was sorry to see your trees uprooted, and happy to see what you are doing to remove other potentially dangerous and precarious eucalyptus trees.  My photos of the fallen tree were meant to illustrate the strength and impact of the storm and not to make a point one way or the other about undergrounding, since that was not the subject of the piece that it accompanied. Moreover,  I would have loved to be at the right place at the right time when other wind damage started two fires.  Unfortunately, as a volunteer photographer who has a full time profession in biomedical research, I cannot chase down spur of the moment events.  However, since cameras and video recorders are practically ubiquitous, I would have thought that someone would have captured these.  That most certainly would have been the case had the fires actually spread into a true conflagration.  Fortunately that was not the case, but if people do happen to be at any such event, I would encourage them to record it, and to send it in to the Sandpiper. Art Olson, Avenida Primavera

Undergrounding:  Reply to Anne Farrell March 2010 website | Art Olson, Avenida Primavera Letter from Anne Farrell 01/30/2010   To Anne Farrell I’m glad that you read my article, but perhaps had you read it more carefully you would not have been so disappointed.  Firstly, the article was a report about a meeting that took place January 19 and was written prior to the Sandpiper print deadline of January 20, and prior to the fires that were caused by fallen wires.  More important, the piece reported on a meeting that was not a debate about the merits of undergrounding, but rather an opportunity for those who had just received their assessment notices to ask questions and state their case if they thought there assessment was not fair.  In such a setting one would expect to get a biased view of the undergrounding, since those in favor or happy with their assessment would likely not bother to show up.  Thus my reporting captured the events and opinions expressed.  I do not recall anyone raising the issue of fire safety at that meeting.  As for the accompanying cartoon -- I take full responsibility for its inclusion with the article, and others on the editorial board concurred with that decision.  I felt that while it did not represent a balanced view of the undergrounding issue, it did graphically convey much of the sentiment that pervaded the meeting that I reported. I point you to this month’s report of the City Council hearing that I wrote after the 2 February meeting.  Here I do report on the issue of fire safety as it was discussed at that meeting.  Perfect balance is a difficult thing to maintain, even when one sees strengths and weaknesses on both sides of an issue.  Perhaps the accompanying image to this month’s report better portrays my views on the issue. Art Olson, Avenida Primavera

Deaf to Debt March 2010 Issue | Mark Whitehead, Santa Fe Avenue I want to comment on a corrosive process occurring on the ‘hill’ and in our council chambers. I write as a former neighbor of friends in the Crest Road area. The undergrounding ‘initiative’ could, if voted for by a majority, force some of our neighbors into debt, a debt they testified publicly would be a hardship. Think for a moment how much courage and humility it must take to admit that in public. Some have limited income, getting by because the house is finally debt-free. Others are trying to save precious discretionary income for their kids’ college aspirations. So it is hard to countenance a council or our affluent neighbors who “listen” to people admit they cannot afford this and then ignore them as if their plaint is just one opinion, possibly just a minority view, so let the voters decide. Good government should protect the least advantaged among us. I admire those residents of modest means for balking at potential forced indebtedness and I stand with them. I urge the council, to stop this process and advise that contiguous property owners interested in undergrounding should simply accomplish it privately as has been successfully done in the past. Mark Whitehead, Santa Fe Avenue

No, Please! March 2010 Issue | Don and Susan Instone, Crest Road At a time of unprecedented economic hardship by many in our town, we are dismayed to learn that some of our North Hills neighbors are nevertheless planning to vote in favor of undergrounding utilities in our area. As many have testified, this will place a tremendous financial burden on them if this initiative is approved. The costs and fees are extraordinarily high for those on fixed incomes and some may have to sell their homes if this measure is passed. Many are losing sleep over the fear of being taxed on something they cannot afford. How can folks be expected to pay for this when they’re already having difficulty meeting their basic needs and expenses? How sad that the “haves” apparently value esthetics - sometimes masquerading as safety - over the suffering of our neighbors. We urge residents and the City Council to vote “no.” Don and Susan Instone, Crest Road

Powerful Fall March 2010 Issue | Ralph DeMarco, Avenida Primavera reply from Art Olson 02/26/10   The caption of your photo of the large toppled tree in front of our house should have been: The dangers of power line tree trimming. Even though we undergrounded our power line 12 years ago, SDG&E’s previous tree trimming created an unbalanced tree more prone to catastrophic failure in high winds. However, the power company achieved its goal: the falling tree didn’t hit a power line. Instead, it demolished a wall, fence, shed and carport; almost crushed the neighbor’s house and narrowly missed our three children returning home from school that afternoon. The DeMarco house, identified as the Del Mar Castle, appeared in the February edition of the Sandpiper.  The Eucalyptus came down Thursday PM.  Photo Art Olson It would have been even more newsworthy to include a photo of the two fires – ignited by fallen power lines - on nearby Forest Avenue that same afternoon. This would demonstrate the hazards of deadly high voltage wires dangling above our heads and by all our trees. A sample can be seen on YouTube under power line safety. Photo Art Olson Del Mar’s corrosive ocean air, high winds, large trees and overhead power lines with deteriorating transformers are a dangerous combination. So far we have been saved by the vigilance of alert homeowners and the fire department’s quick response. But what happens when a homeowner isn’t there to call for help, 50 mph Santa Ana winds are blowing or fire fighters are too busy battling other fires (like the Witch Creek Fire started by downed power lines) miles away? Ralph DeMarco, Avenida Primavera

Measure for Measure March 2010 Issue | Susan Schneider, Luneta Drive Dear Editors, I have asked these questions of the City Council and the Undergrounding Committee members but haven’t received any answers so I’m hoping perhaps with your investigative reporting you can find out for many of us: 1) If the proponents of undergrounding and the City Council members are coming to the conclusion that the main issue is safety, than why are we being assessed according to our views? Why are my husband and I being assessed over $34,000 for our 2,000 square foot brick home while our neighbors in huge McMansions are being assessed much less? If it’s about safety now, then assess us according to those measureables, not our views. (We protested our view assessment since the wires in our yard are not in our line of sight but up high. But it wasn’t up to us to decide that obviously. Ernesto Aguilar, who never came into our home to have a look, thought otherwise.) 2) Where will the funds for those unable to pay come from? Are we to add donations to that fund to requests for donations for the Shores Property, the new lifeguard station and the lagoon restoration? 3) The majority of speakers last night were concerned with the financial impact of this project, in the current economy, on their own families and on their neighbors. There was a lot of compassionate concern that those who can afford another tax would force their will on those who can’t. That type of compassion is what makes Del Mar so special. Will the many people who live in Del Mar only part time, and who will comprise a large part of the general vote, share that concern for our neighbors? Do you think the City Council understands who they should be most concerned about and protective of with huge issues like this? The summations from the City Council members were very disappointing to me. Someone should remind Crystal Crawford that the Ocean Pines project was taken on before the greatest financial crisis in our nation’s history. Her constantly bringing that up was irritating. And Mr. Filanc, in his support of the project for safety concerns, should have been smart enough to realize that the current assessment measurables are for views, and he should have commented on that as well. Thank you for letting me vent and provide input, even if this is not the appropriate venue. I just found last night very difficult. My heart went out to our wonderful, struggling seniors as well as those young families who have been hit hard at work and now at home. I hate to think of the anxiety this ill-timed project is causing them. Susan Schneider, Luneta Drive

Disappointing Report about Undergrounding letter received January 30, 2010 | Anne Farrell, Via Alta reply from Art Olson February 26, 2010 Dear Editor, I am very disappointed to read Art Olson’s piece regarding undergrounding of power lines.  There was not a hint of objectivity, and that was exacerbated by the accompanying illustration – this project is not about “street cosmetics” as the illustrated check states.  Never once did Mr. Olson address what is the most critical underlying issue of this effort: public safety.  Perhaps he isn’t aware of the fire that was started on Forest Way when a tree fell on a power line during February’s big storms.  Surely he remembers the panic we all felt when we were evacuated in the last big San Diego County fire.  All of us in Del Mar are at risk of wildfires from just such an incident as a spark from a fallen overhead electrical line – it would not take much for a fire to spread all over the canopy of trees that covers Del Mar’s hills.  Yes, an assessment district is complex, but as the residents in the southernmost part of town found, the results are well worth it – for safety reasons, for aesthetics, and to increase property values.  A group of dedicated neighbors in the North Hills and Sunset districts are working hard to realize this project in the best, most cost-efficient way possible.  In addition (something not mentioned by Mr. Olson), there are efforts under way to assist those on fixed incomes to participate in the project.  Make no mistake: undergrounding power lines is good for all of Del Mar.  It is something that the City should be working on in every neighborhood.  But since they are not, it has been up to volunteers to do the heavy lifting.  I’m sorry that Art Olson and the Sandpiper couldn’t present a fuller, more objective, and truer picture of what this project is all about, and how many people support it. Anne Farrell. Via Alta   Scratch Rash development February 2010 Issue | Drew Cady, 9th Street December 11, 2009  Letter to the Board of Directors, 22nd District Agricultural Association, State of California  commenting on the draft EIR for the expansion and development of the Del Mar  Fairgrounds  Dear Board Members of the Del Mar Fairgrounds, Agricultural District No.33:  I attended a meeting of the Fairgrounds Board of Directors several weeks ago and spoke to you during the public 3' commentary.  What I said is that I believe the quality of  life, not just for human beings, but for all the creatures who live on and near the Del Mar  Fairgrounds land will be radically and negatively altered forever by the enormous development which you have set forth in your plan.  This development is wrong and  represents the greedy interests of a few people who are shortsighted and unaware of  the fragile ecosystem which exists around this massive fairgrounds land.  The other  evening while at the Inn LʼAuberge Hotel, I viewed an historic photograph of the river  basin that is now the Del Mar Fairgrounds.  Before me was a serene wilderness which  represented perhaps one of the most wonderful aspects of this relatively undisturbed  coastal area, up until man placed his heavy footprint upon it.  The slow takeover and  alteration of this marshland and delta which is the outflow of waters from a major  watershed along southern California has been mostly without regard for the damage  that it has caused to the natural environment.   We have learned a great deal in recent decades about how critically important these  natural environments are in maintaining a sustainable lifestyle for those of us who live in  this region, as well as for our offspringsʼ future.  To overdevelop this fragile land area, as  you have depicted in your ʻmaster planʼ is thoughtless and reckless and damaging to  the future potentials of this region.  Like any environment, ours relies upon a cycle of life  and a restorative water culture, which can endure all the burdens which mankind places  upon it.  I dare say, we are at a critical juncture in our history; one, that perhaps we will  look back upon in future years, and realize that without significant efforts to preserve our  watersheds, we would not have been given the privilege to continue to reside in this  coastal desert land.  The earth is a naturally sustaining ecosystem which miraculously  absorbs so much of the industrial and overdevelopment schemes of man, but we are  rapidly approaching a time when these fragile systems will not be able to counteract the  enormous pressure put upon them by Manʼs non-sustainable usage of natural  resources.   We are at this crossroad together and it is only through careful planning that we will be  able to assist the earth as it attempts to restore from all of the plunder it has endured  during the "reign of man."   Our erroneous political structures and overactive  development instincts have proven us a weak caretaker of these lands, but we now  have perhaps our last opportunity to reverse this behavior and begin to work with the  earth's naturally sustaining systems in building a healthier and friendlier environment in  which to sustain our race and take care of all the other living beings on earth.   You can either ignore the pleas of what you might regard as a radical environmentalist  without any rationale for how to better utilize these Fairgrounds, or you can recognize  that your master plan represents a short sighted personal gain for few, at the expense of  the masses and our revered nature.  Senator Christine Kehoe may be able to put pressure to stop this development: senator.kehoe@sen.ca.gov Phone 619 645 3133 or 916 651 4039 or sign petition of opposition at: www.ipetitions.com/petition/notofairgroundsexpansion/ If enough of us speak out adamantly about this, we may well be able to stop this development! Drew Cady, 9th Street

Fishy smell at Fairgrounds February 2010 Issue | Steve Rothe, Stratford Court Sirs: I went to website(sdfair.com)but found no meaningful way to communicate except the comments section(general). There certainly wasn’t a dedicated response section for the EIR proposal. Ridiculous. I am writing to voice my “No” vote for this terrible proposal. What part of the smell test does this pass? What part of the appearance of impropriety and conflict of interest do these decision makers not see? Why are we allowing obviously conflicted interests to overwhelm the obvious majority of disapproval that screams back NO! Who does this insane project benefit? Certainly no one who lives here. The absurdity of this proposal flies in the face of any reason. Please convey the depth of anger and frustration that I hear from my fellow neighbors on Stratford Court. No to the proposal. No to the plan. Steve Rothe, Stratford Court

More density for del Mar? February 2010 Issue | Ralph Peck, 11th St From what I’ve read, Del Mar’s Form Based Code Committee is planning to revitalize downtown based on state law AB1268, which mandated defining “urban smart growth zones” and building more “affordable housing units”. That’s it! “Urban smart growth” refers to stopping sprawl, making town centers more dense (crowded), and providing more “affordable housing”. Is that what we really want in our little village of Del Mar? Well, we’re going to get a taste of what’s to come (if we let it) very soon, as the city begins by massaging the traffic downtown with one-lane each way and angle parking!! Please pay attention to what the city plans to do to our downtown! If you don’t like it, PLEASE LET THE CITY COUNCIL KNOW IT! Ralph Peck, 11th St

Don’t sink River Park! February 2010 Issue | Stu Smith, Board Member, Friends of the San Dieguito River Valley To: San Diego City Council Members 12/08/2009 I respectfully request that you do NOT reduce funding to the the San Dieguito River Park JPA. I understand that the City of San Diego is under great financial pressures right now, as are most governmental and other agencies. However cutting funding to the SDRP would have serious long term, perhaps fatal, consequences to the park because, as you know, the city is the major supporter of the park, providing roughly a third of the operating costs. Many people, San Diego residents and others, have labored for decades and donated considerable amounts to make the SDRP a reality. Please do not jeopardize this community effort which is creating an outstanding resource for the citizens of San Diego and the region. No doubt you are being contacted by others who are more eloquent in expressing their support for the SDRP. Here I offer my photographs of some of the treasures within the park.  Click here Stuart Smith, Rimini Road

Please say yes! February 2010 Issue | Freda Reid, Cuchara Drive To : the editor The 1989 Joint Powers Agency (JPA)( agreement of shared responsibility for the San Dieguito Riverpark is in jeopardy due to San Diego’s decision to help balance its budget by withdrawing payment of its assessment, 36% of operating costs . Del Mar, Solana Beach, Poway, Escondido and SD County are supportive in spite of similar problems . In 20 years the JPA staff of 6 plus 5 rangers, has achieved wonders. Most visible are the many miles of multipurpose trails in the river valley between Del Mar and Julian; control of invasive species; Sikes Farmstead renovation; construction of a pedestrian bridge over Lake Hodges and recovery from the 2007 Fire. Additionally, Grant Funds have produced in excess of $150 million for land purchase, superstructure, education programs, lagoon restoration, and efficient management of the Park. It was sad to see the JPA Board debate the need for Inflicting furloughs on the small, caring and dedicated staff. Please continue your personal support and encourage San Diego to find a way to live up to its long time promises as it considers huge new commitments of funds. Freda Reid, Cuchara Drive

Re: Bullet Train December 2009 Issue | Don Kennedy Daves article states: “The proposed route from Los Angeles to San Diego goes (will go east?) from downtown LA to Ontario to Riverside to Temecula to Escondido(down I-15) to the Miramar area. Then the train will cut across San Diego County to UTC.” End of near quote. What kind of a route is that? Few people in Del Mar/San Diego would use such a route to go to, or from, LA. There is no mention of our EXISTING Amtrak route. Are the existing train tracks to be abandoned? or, are they to remain in use? What will happen to the precarious tracks on the bluff in Del Mar? Nothing? Will the fine North/South excavation of the tracks in Solana Beach and the excellent Solana Beach Train Station be abandoned? Dave’s article raises many more questions than it answers. Thank you, Don Kennedy, Rimini Road

Dave Druker responds: December 2009 Issue | My article last month on the high speed rail left at least two unanswered questions: What happens to the coastal rail? The coastal rail will continue to be used as it serves a different market than the high speed rail. From Irvine to downtown Los Angeles, the coastal rail may be electrified to provide higher speeds. Why would anyone from San Diego take the high speed rail to Los Angeles? While the route may be longer because the speed is higher and the stops are less numerous, the trip time may be less. Also the high speed rail provides a transit alternative for those people commuting from southeast Riverside to San Diego County. Finally, as Ontario Airport begins to provide more flights to the rest of the world, the high speed rail will provide connectivity for us to this airport.

Re: EIR December 2009 Issue | Nancy Jellison I am aghast at the Master Plan EIR for the Del Mar Fairgrounds. It would appear the reason for the expansion is void of any consideration for the environment of Del Mar. Indeed, the impact of immense traffic to the air quality alone would make the idea deplorable. It would appear the Plan has been motivated by a voracious greed for money, and little for compassion. In addition, the Plan would impact the village atmosphere of Del Mar, and make it into a commercialized area, rather than the charming village we all know and love. The traffic into town would be impossible, as well as the parking situation. Del Mar cannot sustain huge amounts of people and traffic, nor can Highway 5 which is already dreadful, and certainly not Highway 101. This plan must be stopped by the people of Del Mar. Sincerely, Nancy Jellison, Mira Montana Drive

Letter to Sandpiper December 2009 Issue | Chuck Newton Despite some obscure headlines, I think November was one of Sandpiper’s very best issues ever. Congratulations!!! And it also aroused some questions that I wish I had the energy to pursue: 1. The Planning Department is proposing modifications for Camino del Mar, even as the Interim Planning Director has an ad-hoc committee studying a different plan called Form Based Code. Seems like a duplication of staff time and money. 2. Howard Gad wrote that individual property owners could opt out of the Form Based Code. So what would then apply? The current zoning? (Which I thought would be superseded by the new Code.) And what if the owner of a property covered by the Code wanted a variation? Would that be permitted, and if so, who would decide? The DRB/Planning Commission, or the ad-hoc committee? 3. The spread on the Ag District’s scheme was a real scoop, and is a juicy bone to pick in future issues. Flooding, for example. I recall that in report to the City Council on the Feb. 21, 1980, flood, the City Manager said there was 7-foot wall of water coming over Hodges Dam, and if a forecast new storm had actually arrived, the river could have reverted to its original course to the ocean around 24th street. (See photo page 2) In my files I found an October, 1971, engineering report which predicts the river’s main course would wipe out the area where the Fairboard proposes a hotel and other huge buildings. The volume of such a flood appears to be about what the City Manager had predicted if the expected storm had actually arrived.  photo 4. Many years ago when I was on the Planning Commission, Dwight Worden, former City Attorney, told us that State law requires cities such as ours to have Planning Commissions. But I wonder if he could now tell us under what circumstances a City Council can bypass the Commission on a critical issue such as allowing restaurants to use city sidewalks at insignificant rental rates. Chuck Newton, Forest Way

Utility Undergrounding Update
Letter to the editor posted on July 8.  Click here.

Letters concerning the new sidewalk cafes on 15th Street
Most recent letter June 7.  Click here

An Open Letter to the City Council
A Letter to the Editor | February 2009

The composition of the Form Based Code Committee (FBCC) that was recommended at your last council meeting could have some unfortunate ramifications for the community. Twenty-five years ago the Planning Commission was comprised pretty much as has been recommended for the FBCC. There was a “design professional” (a very aggressive architect), three “citizen planners” (3 contractors and developers), a real property professional (a real estate agent). They represented a very pro-growth council that was overwhelmingly defeated in 2 elections (1986 and 1988). Actual residents with no dog (potential economic gain) in that fight were excluded from representation on the commission. We have not seen the likes of that kind of land use committee until now with the most recent recommendations. I will not belabor the point, but it was exactly that kind of committee and attitude that gave way to Measure B, the very ordinance you would like to repeal. Many residents among us have been accused of living in the past; unfortunately, and ironically, the committee representation that was recommended will take us back to the past.

At the very least the “design professional” should be a DRB member, the “planning professional” should be a member of the Planning Commission and the “financial expert” should be a member of the Finance Committee and there should be, at the very least, 2 residents at large. It has already been stated that the “traffic” seat should be filled by a TPAC member. Members of Boards and Commissions generally have some knowledge of the Community Plan and for the most part are not trying to receive economic gain from changes in zoning.

The plan as presented did not include review by the Design Review Board. This level of review should not be omitted.

The Council has given voice to the desire to give developers incentives and certainties rather than the vagaries of Measure B. No one mentioned that Measure B gives a certain amount of security and certainty to the community. That certainty is the ability to have input into the uses of the property and benefits to the community in exchange for the bonuses given to the developers. Measure B has the ability to ensure that the benefits (services and amenities) offered to the entire residential community offset the impacts of the development. These assurances, though equally important, are broader than just protection of the adjacent neighborhoods. It appears that you may be stacking the deck against residential interests in your quest to give developers incentives.

from Brooke Eisenberg-Pike, Hoska

Come Meet Nick Leibham
A Letter to the Editor | November 2008

The DELMARFORUM

We are a group of Del Mar families who have been inviting progressive candidates and incumbents into our homes for the last several years to discuss issues that affect our community, the nation, and the world. Delmarians have been effective in getting good people elected and getting them to focus on issues we think important.

We hope you can attend a wine and cheese reception for candidate Nick Leibham on Wednesday October 22, at 6pm. Don and Luann Countryman have agreed to host the event at their home on the corner of Crest and Amphitheater. Nick has an excellent chance to unseat Brian Bilbray, the current occupant of the "Randy Duke" seat in Congress.

Many of us were disappointed that Francine Busby was unable to win this seat two years ago, so some have concluded that this is a "safe" seat. The facts suggest otherwise. First of all, we need to remember that the 2006 race in our 50th district was the most expensive race in Congressional history, a whopping $16million. The Repub Party spent $10 million to defeat Francine because they saw this as a watershed race. Busby's campaign was overwhelmed by this massive infusion of outside support. Even so, she missed by only 2 percentage points.

This year's race offers a much more hopeful opportunity. In the last 16 months, 8 thousand new Democratic voters have registered. And more than 4200 new Independent registrants poll about 2-1 for Nick. During the same period, Republicans have lost 3700 registered voters. Recent polls in this district put Bush at 26% and Bilbray at 42%. The Leibham campaign has 3 offices and employs 15 staff members. In addition to Democrats, they are micro-targeting 32 thousand Republican women with no man in the house--polling shows about 50% of them are leaning toward Leibham. Leibham has identified over 100,000 supporters. Bilbray has about 110,000. There are about 60-80 thousand Independents. A high percentage of these targeted voters are pro-choice, pro-environment, and anti-gun. Of course, the crumbling economy moves more voters to the Democratic side.

Nick is a young, attractive, articulate, energetic candidate with progressive values--our kind of guy. We have a very good chance to do our part in taking back our country by putting a quality person in the 50th for the first time ever. We hope you will join us on Wednesday and size Nick up for yourselves. If you agree, bring your check books and help him make it happen.

Some Key Brian Bilbray Votes For Your Consideration

Please RSVP soon so we can order enough food and wine: call Ryan at 769 697 1084 or email ryan@picknick08.com

Linda and Jerry Hirshberg
Henry Abarbanel and Beth Levine
Luann and Don Countryman
David Druker
Rosanne and Joel Holliday
Crystal Crawford
Joe Sullivan
Mary Ann and Bud Emerson

back to top

Support “H” for Community Services
A letter to the Editor | October 2008

On Nov. 4 Del Mar voters will decide whether to approve Measure H giving the city council authority to raise the City’s transient occupancy tax (TOT) from 10.5% up to 13 %. The TOT is the tax paid by hotel visitors that historically has been used by our city for community services. However, when placing measure H before the voters, the city council, at the same time also introduced a municipal code “amendment” formalizing their intent to consider forgoing more than $300,000 of potential TOT revenue annually if the hotels decide to form their own private marketing agency. That money, instead, could be collected by our local hotels to be administered by them; effectively limiting the City’s take to less than 13%.

We authored an argument against measure H because we believe that, while the city should increase the TOT to 13%, all of the money should go into our general fund. We were concerned about the intent of the council-proposed “amendment”, signaling to the hoteliers a willingness to potentially limit the TOT the city would collect, and we objected.

Based on our objection to the unwarranted concession to the hoteliers, potentially limiting the funds available for general city needs, the city council September 22 rescinded their code “amendment”.

By this letter we wish to acknowledge the council’s recent action rescinding the “amendment”, and state our willingness to now support measure H. We hope the community will similarly vote for measure H and, at the same time, appreciate the concerns we raised in our argument that they will read when opening the voter’s ballot guide.

While the council rescinded their objectionable code “amendment”, they reiterated on September 22 continued interest in limiting the amount of TOT the City could receive in order to provide marketing support for and by the hotels. They handed off to the next council the opportunity to pass a re-written “amendment” if measure H passes. We hope measure H passes and encourage the community to weigh-in on how the “amendment” related to the TOT is ultimately written and how the money of any TOT increase is spent. It is our wish, as residents and former Mayors and Council Members, that the council will utilize the entire, maximum TOT revenue for city purposes, and allocate it based on community input.

Mark Whitehead; Brooke Eisenberg-Pike; Deborah Isackson-Groban; Jan McMillan; Jacqueline Winterer.

back to top

Re:  How Green Is Del Mar?
A Web Exclusive: This letter to editor did not appear in the print edition | posted on the web August 7, 2008

Dear Editor,

Having grown up in Hobart, Tasmania, [which, by the way, has the cleanest water in the world] and having  lived later as an adult in Perth, Western Australia, before coming to Del Mar, I have lived and experienced conservation and using natural resources for energy.

Solar was my way of life in the early 70s ; our heating and the energy source for all our needs, including our heating of our swimming pool, came from solar energy. Low flush toilets to conserve water, drought resistant landscaping to conserve water [we live in a reclaimed desert] -- people should be seriously encouraged to use all these measures to "green" our city.

Kay Hansen, Del Mar

back to top

A Response Re:  Clarification on use of Shores Property  A Web Exclusive: This letter to editor did not appear in the print edition | posted on the web June 3, 2008

The Resolution approved by the City Council in August, 2007 was premised upon the Del Mar Shores fundraisers raising the full cost of the agreed upon $ 8.5 million purchase price. Circumstances have now changed since August, with the City now stepping in with a plan for short term borrowing of $3.5 million to fill a funding gap left by the fundraisers who did not succeed in raising the full amount. By its own terms, the resolution did not bind the City Council to any particular use of the property.  It expressed the intention of the City Council to at least preserve the existing open space but did not specify the uses to be made of the developed portion of the site other than for the Winston School use.   The City has assumed a substantial financial risk in order to preserve the opportunity to purchase the Shores property, borrowing money it does not have.  If the fundraisers fail to raise the additional funds needed, the City will have to find another means of raising the money to repay the debt (special tax, etc.).  Placing the City Hall on that portion of the Shores property currently occupied by the School District is an option the City Council should consider from both a financial , and land use perspective for the entire community. In this way, the cost of the new City Hall construction and possibly the repaying of the $3.5 million debt could be covered by the lease of the existing City Hall site for a mixed retail/ residential development. This would not violate the intent of the City Council as expressed by the August, 2007 resolution. 

Bettina Experton and Wayne Dernetz

Bettina Experton is Chair of the Del Mar Finance Committee.
Wayne Dernetz is a former city manager and city attorney.

back to top

It's time to look at our high-priced Sheriff's Contract   A Letter to the Editor | June 2008

Our fair city is always looking for ways to expand revenue sources, but rarely looks at the exploding cost side of government. I think it is time to closely scrutinize our sheriff's contract that has grown over 100% in the last few years with little to no increase in protective services.

In 1998 the Sheriffs budget for our city's police protection was approximately $660,000. In 2008 the same budget, for the same basic services is $1.2 million. The notes in the published city budget states that this cost jump is mostly attributed to exploding pension costs.

Like the City of San Diego , our city is experiencing out-of-control pension increases.

It is high time that our city leaders take a hard look at other police protection options. One option that should be reviewed is forming a brand new police department with the cities of Solana Beach and Encinitas. Thanks to Mayor David Druker for taking a leadership role and bringing this issue up with the mayors of those cities. The solution is NOT to attach our protection needs to other cities like Coronado , Carlsbad , or San Diego . These cities also have the high price of backend benefits as well.

Another solution to explore is a new police force with highly paid police officers and fair pension plans.

We will have two new faces on the council this year with Henry and David retiring. Maybe this new city council can put a priority on reviewing the cost side of government with a focus on our police-protection contract.

Jim Benedict, Del Mar

back to top

Clarification on use of Shores Property  
A Letter to the Editor | June 2008

This is in response to Bettina Experton's suggestion, in the May edition, that a new City Hall might be built on the Shores site once it is acquired by the City. Some may be unaware of the history of the City's interest and efforts to acquire the property. The City at one time explored the possibility of putting a new city hall on the Shores property. That idea was considered and rejected by the council several years ago, even before the property was declared surplus by the school district. Again, on August 6, 2007, the council adopted a resolution stating: “The City's long term goal is to maximize the open space and recreational uses on the property. Although other public facilities are permitted under current zoning, the City Council has no intention of pursuing other uses … such as a new fire station or city hall.”

When the City was unable to fund the purchase of the property, generous contributors from Del Mar and the Winston School agreed to help fund the purchase to preserve the educational and recreational use of the property. The contributors, the fundraisers and the community have relied upon the City's stated purposes for acquiring this beautiful five-acre parcel in Del Mar.

We continue to raise funds to pay off a $3.5M note to the District. To suggest now that the City change its position on use of the site would dismay both contributors and fundraisers, whose efforts, along with the City's and the School District 's, have made it possible to at last acquire the Shores property.

Joe Sullivan, Chair, Campaign for Del Mar Shores

back to top

Revitalization Score: Residents 1, Landlords 6
A Letter to the Editor | June 2008

If I were writing the headline for the City Council's action on April 7, that's how it would read.

The Council agreed to spend $250,000 for a specific plan to increase retail sales. Just to get its bait back with the city's 1% share of the sales tax, $2,500,000 of new sales will be needed.

Meanwhile, 6% of sales on new rents will go to downtown landlords--a flood of new income on properties with typically low property taxes, especially those sheltered by Proposition 13 (see Dernetz, Nov. 2007 Sandpiper ).

This landlords' windfall will surely not draw support from residents when the plan goes to a vote. To avoid defeat, the downtown owners should throw something meaningful into the pot, and here's a suggestion: Create a Downtown Assessment District for providing parking.

Chuck Newton, Del Mar

back to top

Losing Ground In Del Mar  A Letter to the Editor | December 2007

Del Mar underground is not progressive as some DRB members seem to think. If they are impressed by tricky architects' d r awings of “invisible” basements, they might do well to reconsider. Digging yourself into the earth on that scale has proved regressive, taking our once relatively civilized community back to the rough power games of cave dwellers.

In the pre-excavation era, Del Mar was not only one of the loveliest but also more equitable communities in San Diego county, due in part to the Community Plan that for decades regulated issues like bulk, mass, air, light, and density by defining the different floor-area-ratios in different areas of the city. Based on its citizens' mutual agreement to live together in a city, that plan has contributed to their good quality of life, which excluded mansionization. But there was the Achilles heel of the basement provision that has now grown to the 3000+ sq.ft. underground wine cellars, entertainment centers, offices, and guest rooms requiring ever larger, more polluting, more noisy excavations.

Over a period of several years, sand is blown all over the neighborhood, and giant equipment screeches and groans, consuming huge amounts of energy. This waste concerns also human physical and mental energy diminished by ever-growing air and noise pollution, increase of construction equipment traffic, and anxiety about the cumulative geological instability in our hilly town. Just look at the surreal excavation on Klish close by Tewa: the sandstone bluffs are fast disappearing to reveal eerily large spaces underground . Who says that this is good for Del Mar? The ongoing inflation of basement space is the result of individual creative greed, not of a community's wishes. The enormity of the basement provision has crept up on us, but with growing speed and momentum. We need to rethink it as a community.

Dagmar Barnouw, Del Mar

back to top

Guidelines : Letters to the Editor

The Sandpiper welcomes readers' letters and articles on topics of interest to the Del Mar community. We strive to provide a variety of viewpoints represented in a responsible manner. Letters should not exceed 100 words; articles should not exceed 350 words.

Writers of letters and articles selected for publication will be notified prior to publication. We regret we cannot return or acknowledge unpublished letters or articles.

Letters may be shortened and articles may be edited to satisfy space requirements. Letters and articles submitted must include the writer's name, address and phone number. Readers may also recommend or propose articles. Send to:

The Sandpiper, Box 2177, Del Mar, CA 92014; or
editor@delmarsandpiper.org

back to top