GLP-1 Treatments, Semaglutide or Tirzepatide Medical Weight Loss in Del Mar, CA

After years of development, it appears that the Hillstone Restaurant Group is preparing to change direction and open a new Honor Bar location in Del Mar at 1404 Camino Del Mar.

Previously, What Now reported that this would become a new location of Gulfstream seafood restaurant, another concept from Hillstone Restaurant Group, but the project appears to have shifted to Honor Bar, according to SanDiegoVille. If this is true, the new Honor Bar will move into the former Bully’s North building, which operated from 1969 until its closure in late 2017. Construction on the site is currently underway, and the restaurant is targeting a first-half 2026 opening. Customers can expect the brand’s menu of shareable snacks, sandwiches, cocktails, wines, and beers in a casual, approachable setting.

Hillstone Restaurant Group, founded in 1977 by George Biel, operates more than 45 upscale restaurants across the U.S. Its portfolio includes Houston’s, Hillstone, R+D Kitchen, South Beverly Grill, Gulfstream, Honor Bar, White House Tavern, and more. The company opened its first Houston’s in Nashville and has since expanded nationwide, maintaining a focus on quality ingredients and attentive service.

The Del Mar location will be Hillstone’s first in San Diego County. Early proposals for the project date back to 2017 and included input from neighboring properties. Plans were delayed over several years, reportedly due to city objections and the pandemic, before moving forward with the current Honor Bar concept.

The new building will include underground parking and an interior designed for casual dining and take-home service. This will be an excellent landing space for Honor Bar, especially with plenty of foot traffic coming from the nearby Del Mar Plaza.

Honor Bar currently operates locations in Beverly Hills, Montecito, Dallas, and Santa Barbara. The Del Mar restaurant will bring the brand’s signature combination of approachable small bites and elevated hospitality to San Diego County for the first time.

APTOS — A yearslong legal battle between Santa Cruz County and a group of private homeowners in Rio Del Mar over who has the right to a beachside walkway appears to have reached the end of its road.

Santa Cruz County spokesperson Jason Hoppin told the Sentinel Thursday that on Dec. 10 the Supreme Court of California declined to hear an appeal of a lower court’s September ruling, which designated a 37-foot concrete walkway along the backside of a row of homes next to Seacliff State Beach a point of public access.

“The case is over,” said Hoppin.

He added that the issue will return to the trial court level and a hearing Feb. 11, 2026, in order to resolve any outstanding issues. This includes clarifying who is responsible for removing the green chain-link and plastic fencing propped up on either end of the nearly quarter mile-long pathway adjacent to Beach Drive, which is just a stone’s throw from the Rio Del Mar roundabout.

The walkway has been a point of enduring contention between the county and a group of 27 homeowners known as the Rio Del Mar Beach Island Homeowners Association for the better part of a decade. The county has argued that paved stretch of land on the back side of the homes is a public right-of-way and point of coastal access, while the homeowners have contended that it’s a private patio space.

The dispute boiled over in December 2018 when the county tore down a fence, gate and masonry wall that had been established at both entry points to cordon off public access near the homes, most of which are vacation rentals. The action sparked a lawsuit from the homeowners who claimed the opening had exposed them to vandalism and was an invasion of privacy. The county filed a counter lawsuit arguing that the passageway was within the public domain and its absence created safety issues for pedestrians who would be forced to take a route next to passing vehicles.

The legal process played out for years after that as both parties pulled nearly century-old permits, photos and other evidence to support their positions.

In 2023, the homeowners were authorized to prop up the fencing and a Santa Cruz County Superior Court judge ruled last year that the county had no title or interest in the walkway, which cleared the way for it to be privatized.

The county appealed those decisions to the state’s Sixth Appellate District, whose justices found the rulings rested on shaky legal ground. The lower court’s decisions were overturned in September and the public’s right-of-way was restored. The homeowners then made one final appeal to the highest court in the state, and it was rejected.

“As the Court of Appeal indicated, additional legal proceedings are necessary to fully address the property rights of the Rio Del Mar Beach Island homeowners,” a spokesperson for Nossaman LLP, the law firm representing the homeowners association, wrote in a statement Thursday. “The County is aware it has not complied with its own zoning code and state law in this matter.”

But for the county and some of its supporters in the community, the issue is all but closed from a legal perspective.

“It’s a shame that it has taken so long, but I was confident that the public access argument was the right outcome here,” said Rio Del Mar resident Barry Scott, who has lived adjacent to the row of homes for 11 years. Scott has lobbied for public access to be restored and said he was even deposed by the homeowners during legal proceedings a few years ago. “I’m just glad to see some resolution coming and I look forward to the fences being removed and the access restored to the public,” he said.

Hoppin said the county considers the fencing a public nuisance and believes it is the responsibility of the homeowners to have it removed as soon as possible. He added that the county will have to absorb the litigation fees throughout the eight-year saga, but a judgement of $3.8 million the county was previously ordered to pay to the homeowners is now void in light of the state Supreme Court’s denial.

“It’s very good that taxpayers will save that money,” he said.

The walkway has also attracted attention from the California Coastal Commission, which took issue with the homeowners’ desire to limit public access. The commission asserted that the fencing violated its permitting conditions related to a protective revetment at the beachside foot of the walkway and levied a $4.7 million fine against the homeowners in 2023.

DEL MAR — The city of Del Mar could face penalties from the state if it continues refusing to process the Seaside Ridge housing project application, California Attorney General Rob Bonta’s office said in a Dec. 5 letter to city officials.

Carol Lazier, who owns the 929 Border Avenue property on the bluff overlooking Del Mar Dog Beach, first proposed the 259-unit Seaside Ridge project back in 2022. Of the 259 units, it proposes 42 units for low- to extremely low-income households.

While Lazier argued that the city was required to process the application administratively, city staff have repeatedly stated that the application cannot proceed because it is missing required materials, including a rezoning application, a Local Coastal Program Amendment, a coastal development permit, and conditional use permits.

Bonta’s letter follows Lazier’s re-filing of a lawsuit against the city to compel it to process the application. Lazier originally sued the city in 2024, but a judge dismissed the case, ordering the developer to first exhaust all available remedies by appealing the city’s determination that the application was incomplete.

At a September meeting, the Del Mar City Council unanimously declined to order a de novo hearing to consider an appeal formally. Lazier re-filed her lawsuit in San Diego County Superior Court in October, asking the court to step in once again.

Bonta’s office argues that Del Mar has effectively blocked Seaside Ridge developers from any straightforward process to seek an appeal from the City Council or courts, stating that this approach is “untenable.”

“Our letter simply tells the City that it must either narrow its questions and process the application without further delay, or deny the application so the project applicant can seek relief in court,” the AG’s office said. “Lowering the cost of rent and homeownership for Californians has been a top priority for Attorney General Bonta since taking office, and he is committed to ensuring that cities and counties comply with state housing laws to get us there.”

City Manager Ashley Jones acknowledged Bonta’s letter in a Thursday statement.

“While the City was not contacted by the DOJ prior to receiving the comment letter, we are currently evaluating the DOJ’s comments and will continue to adhere to the procedures set forth in State housing law regarding our review of the Seaside Ridge development application,” Jones said.

Seaside Ridge developers argue that because their preliminary application was submitted while Del Mar’s Housing Element was uncertified, the city is required to process the project under the state builder’s remedy law.

However, Del Mar staff contend that the builder’s remedy does not apply in this case because the project’s square footage changed by more than 20% between the preliminary application and subsequent applications.

Bonta pushed back against this argument.

“The City’s conduct to date could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions,” Bonta said.

He also said Del Mar could be assessed financial penalties under Assembly Bill 712. This law takes effect at the start of 2026 and states that when housing developers prevail in a lawsuit against a public agency for noncompliance with housing reform laws, they are entitled to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs, and the court must impose a fine on the public agency.

Other builder’s remedy cases have resulted in favorable outcomes for developers, such as the recent case against the city of La Cañada Flintridge.

Last year, a Los Angeles Superior Court judge sided with a housing developer in their lawsuit against the city, ruling that La Cañada Flintridge violated housing law by refusing to process an application for an affordable housing project that qualified under builder’s remedy.

The city initially appealed the ruling, but dropped the appeal in March after being told it would have to pay a $14 million bond to continue litigation. This is an element of the Housing Accountability Act, which states that cities that pursue appeals after being found to have improperly denied a housing development are liable for the costs of delay to the project caused by the appeal.

In October 2022, the city of Del Mar received a preliminary development application for a 259-unit residential project called Seaside Ridge.

Since then, the city rejected multiple applications from property owner Carol Lazier as “incomplete” for reasons including failure to initiate the proper steps to change the zoning of the property.

In a Dec. 5 letter, the California Department of Justice warned the city that those “incomplete” determinations could be in violation of state housing law.

Lazier has argued that the project should be eligible to proceed under the Builder’s Remedy because Del Mar did not have a state-certified housing element, which outlines plans to accommodate new housing, at the time the preliminary development application was submitted.

“There is no dispute,” reads the DOJ letter, “that the preliminary application was submitted at a time when the City had not adopted a housing element that was in substantial compliance with the Housing Element Law.”

Lazier filed a petition in San Diego County Superior Court over the city’s multiple findings that the project applications were “incomplete.” But a judge dismissed the petition because Lazier had not exhausted all “administrative remedies,” referring to an appeal to the Del Mar City Council. Pending that outcome, the judge said, Lazier could resume her legal challenge.

In September, the council unanimously voted against an “initial consideration of courtesy appeal.”

“The City’s course of conduct precludes judicial review of the project as proposed and frustrates the applicant’s ability to test the legal merits of the City’s positions,” the DOJ letter said. “The City’s conduct to date could be seen as a deliberate attempt to avoid an adjudication regarding the applicability of the Housing Accountability Act’s Builder’s Remedy provisions.

The letter continues, “The application process must either narrow outstanding issues and guide an applicant toward a complete application or generate a lawful denial within a reasonable time.”

Lazier filed another petition in San Diego County Superior Court in October that would allow Seaside Ridge to proceed. It says city officials “have affirmatively and repeatedly violated— in bad faith including through actions and inactions that are frivolous, pretextual, intended to cause unnecessary delay or entirely without merit— the most basic of legislative mandates adopted by the State to provide for the development of housing sufficient to meet its housing need for all income levels.”

Del Mar City Manager Ashley Jones said via email that the city is “currently evaluating the DOJ’s comments and will continue to adhere to the procedures set forth in State housing law regarding our review of the Seaside Ridge development application.”