Dear Supporters,

In recent weeks, newly uncovered documents, emails, and meeting minutes have revealed significant inconsistencies in the City of Del Mar’s explanation for dismantling Gwen’s Memorial Garden. If local code or liability reasons truly necessitated its removal, we would expect clear evidence. Instead, Del Mar consistently cites a California Coastal Commission (CCC) “mandate” that the CCC itself claims never existed, and the City has neither held a public forum nor produced any substantive report on the alleged “hazards.” Here’s an overview:

1. No Public Forum or Transparent Process

What We’d Normally Expect: If a city revokes a volunteer program or removes a longstanding community project, it typically involves a public discussion, an official vote, and a transparent revocation process—especially for an Adopt-a-Spot site that had been publicly acknowledged for years.

What Happened:

• No Publicly Noticed Hearing: No City Council or Parks & Recreation Committee (PRC) meeting ever addressed the need for removal, raised concerns about hazards, or deliberated on revoking Gwen’s Garden’s Adopt-a-Spot status before dismantling.
• No Formal Vote or Revocation Process: No meeting minutes reflect a vote to revoke the garden’s Adopt-a-Spot status or to order its removal.
• Handled Administratively, Out of Public View: The decision appears to have been made entirely behind closed doors, without input from the community or the advisory committee that initially approved it.
• Why It Matters: A public, City-approved volunteer project was revoked in private with no opportunity for public input, no record of deliberation, and no clear explanation.

 

2. Conflicting CCC Narrative

City’s Claim: Removal was “mandatory” under CCC regulations.

CCC’s Actual Statements:

• No Enforcement Action: Emails and Public Records Act responses show the Commission never issued a removal order or violation notice.
• Senior CCC Staff: Confirmed they were “not involved with the removal” and would not open a violation case.
• Timing: On the same day Del Mar pinned the blame on the CCC, the City Manager notified CCC staff after taking action—no prior directive existed.
• Why It Matters: Del Mar publicly claimed it “had no choice,” yet every CCC communication contradicts that narrative, suggesting the City acted unilaterally. Then, post‐facto attributed it to the Commission.
   

3. Adopt-a-Spot History: “No Authority” vs. Years of Oversight, and No Record of Revocation

City’s Claim: The garden was never formally approved, and Del Mar lacked authority because it was on “state land.”

What the Records Show: 

• Signed Application (Feb. 17, 2017): Del Mar’s Public Works Director explicitly authorized “North Dog Beach” for volunteer planting/weeding.
• Unanimous PRC Vote (Mar. 8, 2017): The committee approved “Jimmy Joe’s Garden” with minor conditions (use native plants), even offering to help secure a retroactive Coastal Development Permit if needed.
• Ongoing Recognition (2017–2023): Multiple PRC minutes reference the garden as an active, city-endorsed volunteer project. As late as 2023, mapping larger Adopt-a-Spot sites was discussed—including “North Beach/Camino del Mar (Jimmy Joe’s)."
• Why It Matters: Far from a “rogue” or “unapproved” project, Gwen’s Garden enjoyed formal, documented oversight. A city cannot claim it lacked authority while actively guiding plant selections and volunteer compliance for years.
   

4. No Documented Safety or Environmental “Hazards”

City’s Claim: Urgent stormwater/safety issues justified immediate removal.
Contrary Evidence: 

• No Engineering or Environmental Studies: Despite citing “hazards,” Del Mar hasn’t produced any technical report or inspection showing a threat.
• PRC Updates (2017–2023): Mention only routine horticultural notes; no mention of emergencies or serious risks.
• Why It Matters: Genuine hazards typically lead to documented staff assessments or at least a formal, public report. The lack of evidence calls the City’s “danger” rationale into question.
   

A Disconnect Between the City’s Story & Its Own Records

All available evidence contradicts the City’s stated rationale for removing Gwen’s Memorial Garden.

1. Adopt-a-Spot Approval Did Occur
2. No Mandate from the Coastal Commission
3. No Verified Hazards Were Documented
4. No Formal Public Process Took Place

Gwen’s Memorial Garden was dismantled on a rationale that does not match the available facts, raising serious concerns about Del Mar’s governance transparency.

Adding to the mounting concerns, Del Mar’s handling of governance issues has come under heightened scrutiny, as the District Attorney’s Public Integrity Unit is now inquiring into an unrelated City Council vacancy dispute. While this matter is distinct from the removal of Gwen’s Garden, it raises broader questions about transparency and decision-making within the City.

 

How You Can Help

1. Share This Update: Post on social media, community boards, or Nextdoor to counter misinformation.
2. Contact Local Media: Encourage outlets like the Del Mar Times or ABC 10 News to investigate the discrepancies between the City’s claims and official records.
3. Demand Transparency: Urge the City Council and the City Manager to publicly clarify why they cited a CCC enforcement that never existed and to release any documentation that might justify the removal of the garden.
    

Thank you for your continued support. We remain dedicated to a fair resolution for Gwen’s Memorial Garden based on honest explanations and open governance rather than unsubstantiated mandates or backroom decisions.

—Friends of Gwen’s Memorial Garden