-
                Readers' page

home

about us

calendar

readers' page

articles

web archives

print archives

photo gallery

contact us

support us

How to send letters to the editor

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

 

Thank you, Hershell Price: reply
September 30, 2009 | Hershell Price

Dear Editor,

 
Our group efforts to reduce Train Horn Noise and have our City Council consider the creation of a Quiet Zone at Coast Boulevard have paid off.  The City Council will consider our proposal to create a Quiet Zone at its October 26th meeting.  This item will be heard under Oral Communications at 7 PM. It was suggested we do it this way so that everyone could be there at that time.  The Councilmembers will be able to consider and act upon our request.  Please mark your calendars and be there for sure.
 
Hershell Price
Grand Ave

 

Thank you, Hershell Price
September 28, 2009 | Jim and Bernadette Watkins

Those who live near the train tracks may have noticed the train whistle or horn had gotten louder and longer in duration this year. Much louder and much longer, sometimes on the south bound train starting at the bridge north of town. Like the weather, everyone talks about it, but no one does anything. Well, Hershell Price did, he called on the powers to be and local residents and got the job done. Almost in days, the volume is down and the duration less- THANKS HERSHELL. Thanks for your efforts and our peace .

Jim and Bernadette Watkins
Grand Ave

 

Re:  Chicanery on Crest  Original Article
September 21, 2009 | Ken Paulovich

In response to your September article, there has been no appreciable reduction in the volume and speed of Crest traffic due to the new permanent chicane. During the late afternoon peak volume period, essentially all vehicles are traveling north, so they merely speed around the chicane caravan-style without slowing or stopping.
Pedestrians are safer, not because of the chicane, but because of the pathway incorporated into the adjacent mini-park.
I have witnessed several angry confrontations and near misses when two opposing vehicles attempt to pass around the chicane first.
The permanent chicane has not been an effective traffic-calming device.

Ken Paulovich
Crest Road

 

 

Re: Cake, and Eat It Too!  Original Article
September 18, 2009 | Joe Sullivan

Sandpiper Editors,

This is in response to your September article proposing a Redevelopment Agency to develop the city hall site and provide funds for capital improvements, including payment of the debt on the Shores property. This creative idea merits further consideration.

I would like to clear up a few factual errors concerning the Shores Park.

The article incorrectly states, “in March 2007, the City stepped in to help finance the acquisition of the Shores property.”  In fact, in 2005 the City Council made acquisition of the Shores a top priority and asked residents to undertake private fundraising to help make that possible. The fundraising group, now known as the Friends of Del Mar Parks, was organized under the umbrella of the Del Mar Foundation. In addition, the City negotiated an agreement to keep the Winston School on the property. Winston agreed to raise a substantial portion of the necessary funds as a pre-payment of rent, agreed to upgrade the school buildings within ten years, and agreed not to bid against the City to buy the property.

The City purchased the property for $8.5mm in May 2008 with $5mm in donations, borrowing the balance of $3.5mm. The Friends committed to continue fundraising to pay off the note.

The article incorrectly states, “the repayment promise has fallen short”.  In fact, the fundraising by the Friends has continued as promised. In the past year we have contributed about $175,000 to make required payments on the loan. To date, no funds have been taken from the General Fund or the Open Space fund for acquisition of the Park. The City, with support of the Friends, is wisely exploring alternate sources of financing in case private contributions are not available to cover the entire balance.

The article incorrectly states that the Library was acquired through General Obligation bonds.   As one of the fundraisers at the time, I know that the Library was purchased with private funds raised by the Friends of the Library along with City borrowing against payments due from the developer of L’Auberge. 

The article incorrectly states, “the Shores property … cannot be compared to the Powerhouse Park or the Library…” In fact, the projects are directly comparable. Powerhouse Park was but a dirt lot slated for commercial development until the community had the vision to see it as a park. The landmark library building was an office building, for sale to private developers, before the community had the vision to see it as a future library. The Shores may now look like nothing but old school buildings with an ill kept ball field, but the more than 500 folks who have contributed to help the City buy the property have the vision to see it as a vibrant community park for future generations.

Joe Sullivan
President, Friends of Del Mar Parks

 

Re: Cake, and Eat It Too!  Original Article
September 2, 2009 | Bettina Experton

In response to Jan McMillan, the new South end anchor which we refer to in our article is about the redevelopment of the City Hall site under a Master Plan for a mixed used retail – residential complex, and not to the Shores property which can remain with its current use of a park and a school while the higher density redevelopment will be applied to the commercial City Hall site. This can be summarized as a ”density transfer” to allow for open space such as park and school use on the Shores site.

Incidentally, we believe that the best site to build a new City Hall would be on the vacant private property directly South and adjacent to the City Hall site and East of the Art ists Motel. Parking for a new City Hall on that location will be provided with the proposed new City underground public parking, under the newly developed City Hall site. 

Bettina Experton
Past member of the City Finance Committee

 

Re: Cake, and Eat It Too!  Original Article
August 28, 2009 | Jan McMillan

Dear Sandpiper Editors:
 
I read with interest Brian Huster and Bettina Experton's proposal to create a Del Mar Redevelopment Agency and declare both the City Hall and Shores sites "blighted." While the the authors went into considerable detail about how the City Hall property could be subsequently redeveloped, they said very little about future uses for the Shores site.  I may have missed something in the article, but I came away wondering which of the two properties they envision as "a needed South end anchor" of the City--the City Hall parcel or the Shores?  Or both?
 
My husband and I made a modest donation to the Del Mar Shores campaign with the expectation that the site will be used as a park, open space and the Winston School. I would appreciate knowing if the authors have other uses in mind.  I hope not. 
   
Jan McMillan
12th Street

 

 

Chicanery Indeed!  Original Article
August 28, 2009 | Frank Chisari

Despite the optimistic anecdotal claims about traffic on Crest Road in the September Sandpiper, the improvement in traffic on Crest Road cannot be ascribed to the recently installed measures. Traffic improved long before the measures were installed, thanks to the widening of I-5 which reduced cut-through traffic from a congested freeway, and to the high cost of fuel which reduced traffic volume all over the county. And walkers and joggers feel safer because there’s a Garden Club-funded park there now that gets them off the road, not because of the City-funded chicanes.

The problem that plagued this process from the outset is the absence of any objective evidence that the approved measures are either appropriate or effective, and the lack of a plan to determine objectively if they will achieve their intended purpose after they’re installed. Because pre-installation traffic counts did not take into consideration the corresponding measurements on feeder streets (i.e. I-5, Camino Del Mar, and Del Mar Heights Road), it will never be possible to determine objectively if the improvement touted in the article is due to the Crest Road modifications or to regional effects.

As with all anecdotal evidence, the claims of improvement reflect the underlying bias of the observers one chooses to quote, not the underlying facts which can only be determined by appropriately controlled measurements.

The decision to modify Crest Road was based on such anecdotes, plus emotional appeals by political supporters, and wishful thinking. The fallacy in that reasoning is that, if the supporters ultimately realize that their preferred solution has failed, it will be much more difficult to approach the Council to take action again. There are too many competing priorities in our City, and not enough money.

Based on those anecdotes, however, the Council imposed unproven measures on an entire neighborhood of citizens who almost unanimously opposed them. It was obvious then that this was not an evidence-based decision. It is unfortunate now that, without objective evidence to support the anecdotal claims that it is publishing, The Sandpiper is propagating the myth that it was the right thing to do.

Frank Chisari
Crest Road

 

Fairness in Renting and Water Billing
August 21, 2009 | McLean Vincent

I write this in hopes of initiating local legislation that would require Landlords to install separate water meters if they choose to bill multi-unit Tenants for water usage.

There are numerous examples of legislation across the nation in recent years banning the practice of water bills on a pro-rata share.  This has been enacted to insure fairness to renters so that they cannot be billed for water which they do not use. 

There are currently multi-unit renters in Del Mar that are being billed for water usage on a pro-rata share. In this scenario, there is no way to determine the fairness to each Tenant in billing them for their individual water use.  There is no consideration for multi-unit renters who may not be residing in their leasehold property full-time, or may be out of town for considerable periods of time.  These renters are billed for water they do not use.

There is no accounting of the water bill provided to the Tenants, just a water bill determined by the Landlord.  There is no documentation of what the Landlord is billed by the City, or a reconciliation of the “pro-rata share formula”.   They may even charge an administration fee for doing so.  Nobody knows but the Landlord!

In addition, there are apartment complexes in Del Mar that charge some Tenants for pro-rata share of water, while other Tenants in the same complex are not charged for any water usage.  Perhaps the Landlord is taking the liberty to negotiate different deals with each Tenant?  Are there even any laws governing that practice?

Renters have separate meters for S.D.G. & E.   Why should it be any different for water?

In conclusion, Landlords who want to bill their Tenants for water should be required to install water sub-meters.  There needs to be a law banning water bills on a pro-rata share.  There is no other fair way.

The obvious solution that would be less expensive to the Landlords than installing sub-meters would be for them to simply charge a higher lease rate that would offset their desire to back-bill water usage that cannot be determined fairly to the Tenants.

Tenants Legal Center - Water billing Click here.

Mclean Vincent
Camino Del Mar

 

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



   
 

© 2007-2010 Del Mar Community Alliance, Inc.  All rights reserved.
 

 

 

ackli