Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
February 17, 2026 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: T Dixon <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:01 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Second Reading and Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Del Mar Municipal Code, Section 8.04 to Regulate the Digging of Hazardous Holes on the Public Beach Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Can I ask, what is the future we are going for?
Should every child stop to read a tome on the local rules and regulations before stepping foot on sand and playing with friends? Are we planning on issuing fines to six year olds? The train tracks are falling into the ocean, San Diego budget is a mess, federal agents are disappearing people off our streets, and officers can’t prevent a single individual from standing on a highway bridge and stranding tens of thousands in dangerous standstill traffic for eight hours on a Friday. It is somewhat laughable and makes a caricature of Del Mar that the city council thinks it is a priority to limit the fun that can be had on the beach. Why does it have to be a city ordinance rather than just common sense judgement of lifeguards ? Perhaps the city council yearns for the past where children were closely watched and disciplined with yardsticks. Maybe the time should be better spent upgrading the exceptionally poorly rated beach parking lot.
February 17, 2026 Item 7
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Kseniia Izgarskaia, Senior Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 13, 2026
SUBJECT: Staff Red Dot for Item 8: Interim Fire Prevention Staffing and Amendment to Cost Sharing Agreement with the City of Solana Beach for Fire Transition Management Services
Staff is issuing a red dot to adjust the proposed Fire Marshal compensation in Exhibit A to the Resolution (Attachment A). This adjustment is intended to ensure the City remains competitive with regional salaries in order to recruit and retain a highly qualified interim, extra-help retired annuitant Fire Marshal in the short term and a permanent Fire Marshal in the future, if approved by Council.
Attachment:
Revised Exhibit A to the Resolution (Attachment A)
February 17, 2026 Item 8
CITY OF DEL MAR
FIRE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
SALARY INCREASE 3.0%
POSITION TITLE RANGE
Fire Marshal* F530
-Hourly 94.6108 - 115.0000
-Bi-Weekly 7,568.86 - 9,200.00
-Monthly 16,399.20 - 19,933.33
-Annual 196,790.43 - 239,200.00
Administrative Fire Battalion Chief F519
-Hourly 50.1800 - 60.9941
-Bi-Weekly 5,620.16 - 6,831.34
-Monthly 12,177.01 - 14,801.24
-Annual 146,124.16 - 177,614.83
Fire Battalion Chief F510
-Hourly 45.8816 - 55.7693
-Bi-Weekly 5,138.74 - 6,246.16
-Monthly 11,133.93 - 13,533.36
-Annual 133,607.12 - 162,400.29
Fire Captain F480
-Hourly 35.1878 - 42.7710
-Bi-Weekly 3,941.03 - 4,790.35
-Monthly 8,538.91 - 10,379.09
-Annual 102,466.88 - 124,549.13
Fire Engineer F465
-Hourly 30.3676 - 36.9120
-Bi-Weekly 3,401.17 - 4,134.15
-Monthly 7,369.21 - 8,957.32
-Annual 88,430.50 - 107,487.82
Firefighter/Paramedic F462
-Hourly 29.9297 - 36.3798
-Bi-Weekly 3,352.13 - 4,074.53
-Monthly 7,262.95 - 8,828.16
-Annual 87,155.36 - 105,937.88
** Added on 2/17/2026 by Resolution 2026-xx
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025
ANNUAL SALARY
February 17, 2026 Item 8
FIRE EMPLOYEE COMPENSATION PLAN
SALARY INCREASE 3.0%
POSITION TITLE RANGE A B C D E
Fire Marshal F530
-Hourly 94.6108 99.3413 104.3084 109.5238 115.0000
-Bi-Weekly 7,568.86 7,947.31 8,344.67 8,761.90 9,200.00 -Monthly 16,399.20 17,219.16 18,080.12 18,984.13 19,933.33 -Annual 196,790.43 206,629.95 216,961.45 227,809.52 239,200.00 Administrative Fire Battalion Chief F519
-Hourly 50.1800 52.6890 55.3234 58.0896 60.9941
-Bi-Weekly 5,620.16 5,901.17 6,196.23 6,506.04 6,831.34 -Monthly 12,177.01 12,785.86 13,425.16 14,096.41 14,801.24 -Annual 146,124.16 153,430.37 161,101.88 169,156.98 177,614.83 Fire Battalion Chief F510
-Hourly 45.8816 48.1756 50.5844 53.1136 55.7693
-Bi-Weekly 5,138.74 5,395.67 5,665.46 5,948.73 6,246.16 -Monthly 11,133.93 11,690.62 12,275.15 12,888.91 13,533.36 -Annual 133,607.12 140,287.47 147,301.85 154,666.94 162,400.29 Fire Captain F480
-Hourly 35.1878 36.9472 38.7946 40.7343 42.7710
-Bi-Weekly 3,941.03 4,138.09 4,344.99 4,562.24 4,790.35 -Monthly 8,538.91 8,965.85 9,414.14 9,884.85 10,379.09
-Annual 102,466.88 107,590.23 112,969.74 118,618.22 124,549.13 Fire Engineer F465
-Hourly 30.3676 31.8860 33.4803 35.1543 36.9120
-Bi-Weekly 3,401.17 3,571.23 3,749.79 3,937.28 4,134.15 -Monthly 7,369.21 7,737.67 8,124.55 8,530.78 8,957.32
-Annual 88,430.50 92,852.02 97,494.62 102,369.36 107,487.82 Firefighter/Paramedic F462
-Hourly 29.9297 31.4262 32.9975 34.6474 36.3798
-Bi-Weekly 3,352.13 3,519.74 3,695.72 3,880.51 4,074.53 -Monthly 7,262.95 7,626.09 8,007.40 8,407.77 8,828.16
-Annual 87,155.36 91,513.12 96,088.78 100,893.22 105,937.88
CITY OF DEL MAR
EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2025
February 17, 2026 Item 8
To: Mayor Martinez, City Council members Gaasterland, Quirk, Spelich City Manager Ashley Jones
Re: Item #9, City Council agenda, Tuesday, February 17, 2026 The action requested:
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) to declare that the small Cityowned 10th Street vacant lot within the City’s Civic Center is exempt surplus land in accordance with the Surplus Lands Act (SLA); and authorize the City Manager to file the Resolution with the California Housing and Community Development Department (HCD).
The housing impact:
HOUSING IMPACT: The intent of this action is to implement the City’s certified 6th Cycle Housing Element Program 3B by declaring the Cityowned 10th Street vacant lot exempt surplus land and following other procedures set forth in the Surplus Lands Act and HCD’s implementation guidelines. This will allow the City to seek developer proposals, process development approval, and enter into a ground lease. The goal is to build 8 small units for lower income households in a common structure on this lot in the downtown Del Mar Civic Center complex. NE.
AND The City is seeking to lease the 10th Street property to an affordable housing developer to build and operate affordable rental homes for up to 8 lower income households.
The vacant 10th Street property is only 0.10 acres (4,356 square feet) in size.
The cited vacant lot owned by the city complete with utilities in place, originally purposed for the Del Mar Historic Society’s single structure Alvarado House now located at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, is indeed small at 4,356 square feet total. Given the city’s requirements for all other structures February 17, 2026 Item 9
existing or currently in construction as stated in many documents including the City Charter, while providing “low income” housing is a worthwhile goal, the beneficiaries of such housing should not be crammed into a very few teeny tiny square feet only useful for single room occupancies (SRO). Low income housing should provide lower income households. Ie families, with room to live a life to be able to be part of the community. The available 10 Street lot is ample for two acceptable units, if squeezed, perhaps three. No more and certainly not eight. Del Mar is a lovely place to live and should respect “low income” families and not attempt to cram many minuscule units on a very “small” lot.
Julie Maxey-Allison
10 Street
February 17, 2026 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ashley Jones
Sent: Sunday, February 15, 2026 8:41 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Red Dot: Item #9 City Council Agenda 17 Feb 2026 Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joy Ehrenfeld <[email protected]>
Date: February 15, 2026 at 7:59:39 PM PST
To: Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>, John Spelich <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, "Terry TG. Gaasterland" <[email protected]>, Ashley Jones <[email protected]>
Subject: Red Dot: Item #9 City Council Agenda 17 Feb 2026 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor Tracy Martinez and City Council members John Spelich, Dan Quirk and Terry Gaasterland,
Re: Item #9
I have lived next door to the Civic Center property since 1985 and have heard many ideas for this parcel since it was first created. Originally there were plans to sell it off to recoup some of the costs of the new Civic Center. Then there were plans to move the Alvarado House Museum there. The latest of course is for Low Income Housing.
The proposal tonight for 8 units on this 4,356 sq ft lot, which is next door to and across the street from our residential R-2 zone, has never been proposed before. Yet you are being asked to sign a Resolution to allow 80 units per acre! Where is the background information?
The Planning staff has done studies on this property. A few years ago they hired an expensive outside consultant who drew up a detailed plan for this lot with drawings, setbacks, a building, etc. The prior proposals for this lot were 3-4 units, never 8.
Would 8 units mean 3-4 stories? Would 8 studio rentals lead to month to month tenants? (We have been told by our Consultant that this lot is too small for Senior Housing because February 17, 2026 Item 9
2 that requires that services be provided.)
Of course if this Resolution is passed by the City Council the Design Review Board would not be able to do anything to protect the neighbors because the Developer would have the right to build 8 units regardless of the City Codes and Guidelines.
The Staff Report claims that notices were mailed to “the interested persons” but who is more interested than the neighbors? None of us knew anything about these changes until we saw them on tonight's Agenda.
The Resolution you are being asked to sign even allows for possible COMMERCIAL USES! See page 4 #4 of the Resolution which says: "which may have ancillary commercial ground floor uses.”
Please protect the neighbors and reject this proposal for 8 units AND Commercial uses on this small .10 acre lot adjacent to our homes.
Thank you,
Joy Shadle Ehrenfeld
10th St
February 17, 2026 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Brad Walters <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: red dot, Item 9
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council,
I’m wriƟng in support of Staff’s recommendaƟon on Item 9, facilitaƟng the creaƟon of up to 8 units of affordable housing for the vacant lot on 10th Street.
Best,
Brad Walters
Straƞord Ct.
February 17, 2026 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ashley Jones
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 11:25 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Amanda Lee; Karen Brindley
Subject: Fwd: Item #9
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:
From: Becky <[email protected]>
Date: February 16, 2026 at 8:04:00 PM PST
To: Tracy Martinez <[email protected]>, "Terry TG. Gaasterland" <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, John Spelich <[email protected]>, Ashley Jones <[email protected]> Cc: Julie Maxey <[email protected]>, Mark Maggenti <[email protected]>, Ethel Grant <[email protected]>, "G. Stuart Mendenhall" <[email protected]>, Edita Donnelly <[email protected]>, Kurt Kicklighter <[email protected]>, Jeanne Blumenfeld <[email protected]> Subject: Item #9
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello council members,
I am the homeowner at 231 10th St, which is directly across from the city-owned 10th Street vacant lot known as "Parcel 3" in the City of Del Mar Agenda Report of February 17, 2026. My husband and I live there full time. Just east of us is a hotel, and just west of us is another house.
We would like you to be aware that our property is directly across the street from the lot, with us having a full view of that lot, and the lot having a full view of our house. We have attached photos to this effect; our house is the beige home with blue trim.
As we have a full view, and I (Rebecca) have been an avid birdwatcher for years, we have often enjoyed observing the wildlife that frequents the property, including a peregrine falcon. As this lot is so close to the coast, we are concerned that there will not be an EIR (Environmental Impact Report) as it has been stated that the property is "categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section February 17, 2026 Item 9
2 15312 of the State CEQA Guidelines which covers Surplus Government Property Sales", listed below:
Class 12 consists of sales of surplus government property except for parcels of land located in an area of statewide, regional, or areawide concern identified in Section 15206(b)(4). However, even if the surplus property to be sold is located in any of those areas, its sale is exempt if:
(a) The property does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental purposes, and
(b) Any of the following conditions exist:
(1) The property is of such size, shape, or inaccessibility that it is incapable of independent development or use; or
(2) The property to be sold would qualify for an exemption under any other class of categorical exemption in these guidelines; or
(3) The use of the property and adjacent property has not changed since the time of purchase by the public agency.
We would respectfully request to understand how it was determined that this property "contains no sensitive coastal resources" and that it does not have significant values for wildlife habitat or other environmental purposes.
Thank you for your attention,
Rebecca and Kurt Kicklighter
231 10th St, Del Mar, 92014
February 17, 2026 Item 9
3 February 17, 2026 Item 9
4 February 17, 2026 Item 9
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Laura DeMarco <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 5:39 AM
To: Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk Cc: Ashley Jones; Amanda Lee; Karen Brindley; Stephanie@Coastal Leach; City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 10 red dot: Lower STR fees and extend their term to 3 years in order to maintain significant STR TOT revenue
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear City Council Members and Staff,
The city’s STR permit fee should less than $816 for the initial 2-year permit and $598 for subsequent 2-year renewals. Here are the reasons why these fees should be lower and/or lengthened to a longer 3-year term:
1) Del Mar is utilizing the same comprehensive STR outsource provider, Deckard, as Vista which charges STR permit fee of $150/year; $225 for Carlsbad, and $300 for initial permit and $336 for renewal in Newport Beach. Why should Del Mar’s effective initial annual permit fee of $408 be $258 higher than Vista’s, $183 more than Carlsbad’s, and $72-$108 more than Newport Beach’s? 2) Del Mar’s proposed initial permit fee applied to 150 registered STRs would generate annual revenue of $61,200 which is more than 3x Deckard’s $20,000 annual cost. See attached scope of Deckard’s comprehensive STR services from their contract with Del Mar for reference. 3) A lower permit fee and longer term of 3 years helps incentivize “Mom & Pop” STR operators, the majority in Del Mar, to not switch to monthly vacation rentals to avoid being subject to STR regulations including the permit fee; the added cost for the city’s required $1M liability insurance; 13% TOT collection and remittance to the city; being subject to city tax audits and building inspections; and being forced to hire professional property managers who charge 20-25% of gross revenue.
4) A lower fee also offsets the hassle to property owners of having to collect 13% TOT from each STR tenant and remit it to the city unlike Solana Beach which contracts directly with STR websites like Airbnb and VRBO for ongoing TOT collection and remittances. Notably, Solana Beach’s initial annual permit fee is $259 ($149 less than Del Mar’s) and $159 for renewals ($140 less than Del Mar’s). 5) Even more significantly, a lower fee helps the city generate $775,000 in estimated annual STR TOT revenue needed to fund the city’s priority projects, especially those that are unfunded like sand replenishment needed to protect our eroding beaches and bluffs and to underground dangerous power lines in high wildfire hazard zones.
It will already be difficult for the city to generate $775,000 in TOT revenue that tantalized voters to approve Measure M STR TOT ballot initiative. Why? Because 21 of the 150 registered STRs will be eliminated within the next 12-24 months when they are sold and their grandfathering rights are terminated. The 21 lost STRs include 5 already sold; 1 pending sale; 2 listed for sale on the MLS; 6 pocket listings for sale; and another 9 that will be coming on the market according to the families that own them and local realtors.
Following are some examples, primarily in North Beach, including the number of bedrooms and bathrooms and their property value:
February 17, 2026 Item 10
2 STRs sold:
2418 Ocean Front (3/4) 12/4/2025 $15.1M
1935 Santa Fe (3/2) 8/6/2025 $5.0M
1817-1819 Coast (7/3 triplex) 8/21/2025 $3.2M
1759 Coast (3/3) 2/24/2025 $2.7M
460 CDM #1 (2/1) $1.0M
STR sale pending:
1834-1836 Ocean Front (6/5) TBA $10M+
STRs listed for sale on MLS:
931-939 Ocean Ave (5/5) $20.0M
2715 CDM condo (2/2) $1.3M
STR pocket listings for sale with last list price:
1905 Santa Fe (3/3) $5.3M
211 27th St. (3/3) $6.4M
157 26th St. (5/6) $11.6M
2165 Balboa (3/2) $5.9M
1234 Oriba (2/1) $3.5M
126 7th St. (3/3) $4.5M
Three of 9 STRs coming to market with Zillow est.
2721 CDM condo (2/2) $1.7M
258 19th St. (3/2) $4.3M
146 24th St. (5/3) $4.1M
The loss of these 21 full-time STRs, which are primarily located in vacation houses available all year in high demand North Beach, could cost the city ~$200,000 of the $775,000 in TOT revenue.
Unfortunately, these 21 lost STRs cannot be replaced on Del Mar’s STR TOT rolls due to the ordinance. First, they exceed the new ordinance’s cap of 129 STRs. Secondly, they generate the highest STR revenue and TOT, especially the ones on Ocean Front and Ocean View, as vacation houses with year-round availability and the best beach access as reflected in their high market value.
Unfortunately, Del Mar’s STR ordinance insures that this attrition continues as the heirs of the elderly owners, most of whom are over 80 years old, cash in and sell their family’s vacation property, especially in North Beach, where ocean front houses sell for over $10M. As a result, over 100 full-time STRs generating over $600,000 in TOT revenue could be lost over the next 10 years.
Will primary residence owners step up to replace these lost STRs? Not likely as only 23% of Del Mar’s registered STRs were primary residences prior to the enactment of STR regulation. In addition, it will take two to four primary residence STRs to replace the TOT revenue generated from a single full-time STR.
In summary, Del Mar must create more incentives in the form of lower permit fees and operating costs and ease of operation with longer-term STR permits in order to keep generating over $500,000 in TOT revenue needed for beach replenishment and undergrounding.
Thanks for your consideration,
Laura
February 17, 2026 Item 10
3 February 17, 2026 Item 10
5 February 17, 2026 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Gina Corsini Mattern <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:48 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; City Manager Mail Box; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez Subject: February 17th Red Dot
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
I am writing as a concerned resident of Del Mar to inquire about the City's plans for budgeting the new Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue from short-term rentals (STRs).
We are now on the cusp of collecting significant new funds—potentially in the range of $775,000 annually, as estimated during the Measure M campaign. This revenue, approved by voters, is intended to support services impacted by tourism and to help keep our city thriving.
Del Mar's charm continues to draw visitors year after year for our beaches, events, and unique smalltown feel. However, with the new regulations and the 13% TOT now applying to STRs alongside hotels, there is a real risk that some hosts may reduce listings or that visitor numbers could soften if costs rise or options feel constrained. We have seen similar concerns in other coastal areas where tighter rules have shifted demand elsewhere.
That is why I am seeking clarity on the City's plans for this fresh revenue stream. Specifically:
Will the Council allocate a meaningful portion to proactive tourism promotion—such as marketing campaigns, digital outreach, partnerships with Visit California, or events that highlight Del Mar as a premier, accessible destination? Cities like San Diego have successfully used TOT funds through their Tourism Marketing District to drive visitor spending and maintain strong occupancy.
On infrastructure, will we invest in enhancements that directly support tourism, like improved beach access, better signage, upgraded public facilities, or traffic solutions to make visits smoother and more enjoyable? These targeted improvements benefit both residents and visitors, ensuring our economy remains robust through repeat visits and higher spending at local businesses.
Additionally, the upcoming permit fees will add another layer of cost for operators. The proposed fee amount of $816 for a 2 year permit seem excessive. The Council had originally stated they wanted the permit fee to "breakeven", given the low number of properties Del Mar will have to manage, this amount in not inline with the cost to manage 150 units. We should be closer in line with Solana Beach ($259).
Permit fee combined with the TOT, application processes, and ongoing compliance requirements like February 17, 2026 Item 10
2 biennial renewals, these could further pressure hosts to limit availability or exit the market if not balanced thoughtfully.
This new revenue provides a powerful tool to counteract any potential dip and keep tourism vibrant— sustaining jobs, supporting our local economy, and preserving what makes Del Mar special. I urge the Council to commit to a forward-looking allocation plan that prioritizes promotion and visitor-friendly infrastructure.
I look forward to hearing your vision for these funds and would welcome any opportunity to discuss this further.
Sincerely,
Gina Mattern
February 17, 2026 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Kimberly Jackson <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 3:14 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; City Manager Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot 2nd reading STVR Permit fee is too high Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Honorable Council Members,
The $816 permit fee is too steep. Can you please consider a $450 permit fee for 2 years? This, coupled with the new collection of TOT is just too steep of a money grab.
Please reconsider in the 2nd reading? Please also note that many of the STVR Operators in Del Mar showed up at the first reading for item 10 but you moved it to the front of the meeting and our voices were not heard. None of us support this steep fee. Please reduce?
I will not be in attendance tonight to speak, I am on a college tour with my son.
Thanks for considering,
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Kimberly Jackson
FOUNDER
Vacation Rental Management
(503) 957-9354
[email protected]
www.vacationrentalsbykimberly.com
February 17, 2026 Item 10
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 1:46 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 11 – Immediate Action on Undergrounding Design Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
We urge the City Council to direct
staff to begin the design process
immediately for the remaining
undergrounding districts.
There is no justifiable reason to
delay design until construction funds
are fully in hand. Design takes years.
If we wait, we guarantee further
delays. If we begin now, Del Mar
will be ready the moment
February 17, 2026 Item 11
2 construction funds become
available.
Residents in these districts have been
waiting nearly a decade. They voted
for this program in 2016 and have
been taxed accordingly. Continued
delay is unacceptable.
Undergrounding is not merely about
aesthetics or property values, though
it clearly enhances both. It is
fundamentally a public
safety imperative. The devastation
we witnessed in Pacific Palisades,
Altadena, and Pasadena just over a
yer ago, should serve as a clear
warning. Overhead utility lines in
February 17, 2026 Item 11
3 communities with mature trees and
dense foliage create real and
preventable risks. Del Mar is not
immune.
I grew up in the Pasadena area and
drove through neighborhoods just a
month after they were destroyed. The
devastation was horrific, and we
personally know many who were
affected. We cannot wait for tragedy
to force action here.
Failing to move forward aggressively
on design would be fiscally
shortsighted and potentially
irresponsible. The responsible course
is clear: begin design now so
February 17, 2026 Item 11
4 construction can proceed without
unnecessary delay.
The residents have waited long
enough!
Thank you for your attention and
leadership.
Sincerely,
Colleen & Jeff Lambert
325 14th St.
Del Mar, CA 92014
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jonnell Agnew <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:03 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Underground of wires
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To the city council.
My take on getting plans for all areas M U S T be started now and continue until all plans are complete. We have had 10 years Of time wasted because city council did not move forward or prioritize undergrounding of wires.
I plead with you to dedicate a team to get plans completed so we can start undergrounding wires as soon as one district is finished and on to start the next district immediately.
Do NOT spend money on fixing streets until all wires are underground. It is foolish to fix streets just to tear them up to put wires underground
Also get all homeowners onboard with where wires will be placed and cost to property owners to prepare their property for access to main electrical panel. We need to pay for this and need to budget our money. Now if city pays for access to electrical panel, that would be ideal since the tax money is earmarked for wires, and should not be used for anything but wires moved underground.
Please work smart not harder.
Sincerely,
Jonnell Agnew,
346 9th St
Del Mar ca 92014
Since 1990 been a property owner.
CSR #5437
304 W Sierra Madre Blvd
Sierra Madre, CA 91024
626-483-8552
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: JP McDermott <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 2:42 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; [email protected]
Subject: District 2 Under-grounding Design
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members
Our strong desire is to start design on District 2 as soon as possible.
We read Council member Quirks assessment of the many recent changes in esƟmated costs, health of the Measure Q funds and the significant lead Ɵmes for design. It seems a beƩer low-risk move is to begin the design work right away on District 2. Our family has been in Del Mar since the early 1960's and what a wonderful giŌ to the Beach Colony community (and the rest of the City!) by removing the unsightly poles and wires! Please vote to begin the design work right away.
Regards,
JP & Candy McDermoƩ
239 25th St.
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Dennis Cruzan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 4:30 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Red Dot Item 11
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Our family, Del Mar residents for many years are excited about the undergrounging project. We support moving forward with design of the infrastructure knowing that Ɵme could affect these design costs.
Many of us voted for Q, and we want it to happen as soon as possible. Let’s find the will and money to design as much as we can concurrently to insure we are delivering the actual construcƟon much faster.
Dennis Cruzan
450 SerpenƟne Dr.
Del Mar, Ca
92014
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Sam Clark <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 5:04 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Donna Clark
Subject: Undergrounding
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hi I’m the homeowner at 620 Amphitheatre, Del Mar, CA 92014. My wife and I have been perplexed by this for as long as we have owned our home. (purchased 4/2019) How long could this take and how long will the bureaucracy continue to kick the can? The way I see it the most valuable real estate was handled first (hiding behind fire codes or whatever!) some legitimate priorities but feels overall another CA take 5 times as long and spend 5 times as much. I’m a ranch owner with heavy equipment I could have got on my street with my excavator, skid steer, and a few rented attachments and done all the excavating myself in this much time! And don’t say it’s not that simple Mr. Clark, it is!! Get this done and don’t keep dragging it out. You’re just wasting money the longer you wait and I have not read any legitimate reasons for delay.
Regards,
Sam
Sam W. Clark, IV
SAMCAM, LLC
5924 Norway Road
Dallas, Texas 75230
M: 214.729.6169
[email protected]
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Jenny <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 5:06 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Jennifer Belezzuoli
Subject: ITEM 11 Under-grounding Project
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
ITEM 11
Honorable City Council Members and UPAC Chair,
I appreciated the details and comments relayed in both Mr. Quirk’s email dated February 1, 2026 and Ms. Gaasterland’s email dated February 16, 2026 regarding the positive developments in connection with the city’s under-grounding project. We whole heartedly agree with their recommendations to use the current momentum, synergies and cost savings to accelerate the under-grounding trajectory and timeline.
As permanent residents of Del Mar, who voted in approval of Measure Q over 10 years ago, we have been dismayed at recent timelines which have extended this project completion into three additional decades. As permanent residents, we are levied this tax for every purchase we make and every purchase we have made for the last ten years. However, the current timeline suggests we may never see its completion in our neighborhood. The unsightliness of the power lines is clearly contradicting the beauty of our city. However, even more important, the undergrounding of our city’s power lines and the removal of frail, old wooden poles is critical for the safety and the reliability of our power systems throughout the entire city. Electrical power is an essential service, and as such, warrants an expeditious approach to modernizing our current infrastructure.
We fully support the acceleration of the under grounding project to ensure the reliable and safe electrical power delivery to our residences and businesses.
Most respectfully,
Jennifer and Ernest Belezzuoli
424 Carolina Road
Del Mar, CA 92014
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 5:52 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Power Lines
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council Members
Our strong desire is to start design on District 2 as soon as possible. We read Council Member Quirks assessment of the many recent changes in esƟmated costs, health of the Measure Q funds and the significant lead Ɵmes for design. It seems a beƩer low risk move to begin the design work right away on District 2. Our family has been in Del Mar Beach Colony since the early 2009 and in Del Mar since 1976. What a wonderful upgrade to the Beach Colony community (and the rest of the city!) by removing the unsightly poles and wires! Please vote to begin the design work right away.
Warmly,
Csilla Crouch
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 7:57 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fwd: Red Dot undergrounding
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
From: Robin Crabtree <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Feb 16, 2026 at 7:18 PM
Subject: Red Dot undergrounding
To: Ashley Jones <[email protected]>, Tracy Martinez RN <[email protected]>, Terry Gaasterland <[email protected]>, Dan Quirk <[email protected]>, John Spelich <[email protected]>, Melinda Gould <[email protected]> Dear Council Members
Please support the motion to start the planning and design for District 2 undergrounding ASAP so that once the current project is complete then District 2 is shovel ready….ready to go.
Council member Dan Quirk shared that actually with changes in costs and the status of measure Q funds that moving quickly to start planning for District 2 is very realistic! My husbands family goes back to the 1920’s on the beach and to think those poles go back that far! Over 100 years!! I think it’s time for everyone who enjoys the beach community to no longer see poles and wires throughout the beach community.
Please support District 2 to get started ASAP. Thank you Robin and Dan Crabtree
Sent from my iPhone
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ernest Hahn <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 8:44 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Measure Q overhead electric lines and poles district 2.
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am writing to express my strong support for initiating the design phase for the District 2 utility undergrounding project as soon as possible.
I have lived in Del Mar since 1973 and reside on 25th Street in the Beach Colony. Having grown up here and remained part of the community for decades, I have seen firsthand how important thoughtful infrastructure improvements are to preserving the character and safety of our neighborhood. The overhead poles and wires are not only visually intrusive in one of the most iconic coastal areas of the city, but they also present long-term reliability and resiliency concerns for residents.
Given the recent discussions regarding cost uncertainty, Measure Q funding health, and the lengthy timelines associated with engineering and permitting, beginning the design work now appears to be the most prudent and lowest-risk path forward. Moving into design does not obligate construction immediately, but it allows the City to be prepared, informed, and positioned when funding and timing align.
Undergrounding utilities in the Beach Colony would be a meaningful improvement for residents and visitors alike and a lasting investment in the quality and appearance of Del Mar. I respectfully encourage the Council to authorize the design phase for District 2 so the process can begin without further delay.
Thank you for your consideration and for your continued support and work on our community.
Sincerely,
Ernie Hahn
Del Mar Resident —
2427 Camino Del Mar
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Ron Butler <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 9:20 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Under grounding utilities
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
To whom it may concern,
I think the under grounding of uƟliƟes is a very important issue for the beach colony. Please conƟnue progress to that goal, including moving forward with the design process.
Regards,
Ron Butler
1911 Coast Blvd
619-981-3474
[email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Pam Linton <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 9:22 PM
To: [email protected]
Cc: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Re: UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING UPDATE - Please Read My Message Below Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello Terry,
We appreciate your support of the undergrounding project. We were told by the listing agent (Toni Cieri) in 2003, when we bought this house, that SDG&E had the money and utility undergrounding was set to happen. That was 23 years ago! And in the (long) meantime a two story house was approved in our primary view. And the cable lines were thickened and added to a few times. Very frustrating.
Last week , Wed. morning, we suddenly lost power to our house. We thought it must be a planned outage, but it was just two homes. I called the city, then SDG&E, they came out, and the old transformer on the alley that goes to our house, and one neighbor’s house had blown out, so we had no power from 8:30am-4:45pm. I had reported that box sparking in the past too. That transformer box and wires have been in our view for 23 years. There’s another one up there now, but we’re still hopeful that this project will happen, finally.
Thank you,
Pam and Scott Linton
1310 Stratford Court
Area 1B
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Brett Crosby <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 9:29 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Under grounding utilities in the beach colony
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello esteemed Del Mar city Council members,
I'm writing to express my support for the under grounding of utilities in the Del Mar Beach colony area. I have been a long time resident and homeowner on 24th St. and have been looking forward to this project since it was first proposed.
It seems there have been many delays in the schedule and I'm hoping there will be no further delays.
I believe you have a vote coming up on this topic tomorrow and I wholeheartedly support voting to start as soon as possible.
There will be a meaningful improvement for both the residents and visitors of this area.
Thank you very much and godspeed!
Brett Crosby
251 24th Street, Del Mar, CA 92014
Thanks,
Brett Crosby
619.920.0988
[email protected]
LinkedIn
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: John Scannell <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 9:43 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Utility lines/poles district 2
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I firmly support initiating the design phase for the District 2 utility undergrounding project and encourage you to move forward on this as soon as possible.
I recently moved to Del Mar and reside on 24th Street in the Beach Colony. In my life, I have lived in many parts of the country and have seen firsthand the problems the arise when municipal government overlooks the opportunity to develop a long-term plan that preserves the character and safety of the community while preparing for growth and development of the future. Our community must evolve and grow while considering the needs and interests of existing residents.
While there are many uncertainties, the future of poles and wires is underground. Overhead lines are more risky, unreliable and subject to damage from storms and other factors (car accidents, vandalism, etc). Additionally, moving the lines underground adds to the beauty and atmosphere of Del Mar.
Decisions can’t be made without a plan from which to work, so I encourage you to move forward with beginning the design work for moving the lines underground or we will just continue to spin our wheels discussing things in the abstract. Designing the project is only the first step on a long, but necessary, journey to move the lines underground. With a plan in place, the City is not obligated to start anything right away, but it prepares the City with information and positions it to act at a time when the funding is available. Without a plan, any funding the becomes available will go elsewhere to other projects that have been planned and are prepared to move forward.
The Beach Colony would improve significantly with a lasting impact for both residents and visitors with underground lines and utilities. I encourage the Council not to delay the design phase for District 2 and begin this long and tedious process as soon as possible.
Thank you for your efforts to improve our community.
Sincerely,
John Scannell
236 24th Street
Del Mar
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: austin <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, February 16, 2026 10:10 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box; Dan Quirk; Terry Gaasterland; Tracy Martinez; John Spelich Subject: Undergrounding utility poles district 2
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members
I am in strong support of begining the design process in district 2. Not only are they an eyesore I have personally experienced two black outs due to transformers failing one resulƟng in a fire in my 13 years as a resident. Please do not delay this overdue project any longer as I was hoping to see this in my lifeƟme.
Regards,
AusƟn Birch
2405 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, Ca
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: dale spaviolet.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:38 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Fw: Undergrounding utility poles district 2
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members
I am in support of moving forward with the design process in district 2 for the undergrounding of our utility poles.
Please do not delay this overdue project any longer.
Regards,
Dale Hall
2403 Camino Del Mar
Del Mar, Ca
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Michael Davis <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:48 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Design Early debate
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello - I am Mike Davis, my wife Celia & I live at 150 25th Street in Del Mar. We would like to support the suggestion of moving forward early with the undergrounding design work for our District (I think it is 2), and for that matter the other ones listed in Terry Gaasterland's email too.
Thank you, Mike & Celia Davis
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: [email protected]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 8:59 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: District 2 Undergrounding
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I am wriƟng to express my support for iniƟaƟng the design phase for the District 2 uƟlity undergrounding project as soon as possible.
Undergrounding the uƟliƟes in the Beach Colony would provide crucial safety and reliability upgrades to the neighborhood.
I understand that this project has been in the works for a while and that there are sƟll quesƟons on costs, funding, permiƫng and engineering. StarƟng the design phase now for District 2 would allow the City to be well-posiƟoned to act when these outstanding issues are resolved.
Sincerely,
Laura de Petra
Del Mar Resident
2411-2413 Camino Del Mar
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Amy Cheshire <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:21 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Tracy Martinez; John Spelich; Terry Gaasterland; Dan Quirk; Ashley Jones; Martin Boyd Subject: Red Dot - DMCC Meeting – 17 Feb 2026 - Agenda Item 11 CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
DMCC Meeting – 17 Feb 2026 - Agenda Item 11 - Undergrounding Program Updates Dear Honorable Mayor Martinez, Deputy Mayor Spelich and Distinguished Members of the City Council:
My name is Amy Cheshire and I’m the Vice-Chair of UPAC. I’ve been a member of UPAC for 6 years. One of the very clear mandates for UPAC as an advisory committee is to “…ensure the citywide utility undergrounding program moves forward in a timely manner…” All of the residents of Del Mar have been contributing tax dollars to the Measure Q fund for almost ten years. It’s very important that we, as a city, take the most fair and equitable path forward in providing the benefits of utility undergrounding to everyone in the city. That means moving forward “in a timely manner” with the design of future districts.
We should begin designing District 2 as soon as possible. If we finish the design in four years and haven’t yet grown our Measure Q reserves to an appropriate level to start construction, then a future City Council can make a decision about whether to borrow funds to expedite construction. The risk of the District 2 design going stale and requiring an engineering review should be analyzed by City Staff and addressed in the next UP cash flow presentation to City Council on March 3rd.
Utility undergrounding isn’t just an expense on the City’s balance sheet. When the City finishes an undergrounding district, wires and poles come down permanently. Pristine ocean views open up. Property values increase. Fire risk decreases. The gains for the City in safety, scenic beauty and wealth will last forever.
Thank you for taking action to ensure that the undergrounding program moves forward in a timely manner.
Sincerely,
Amy Cheshire
Vice Chair, UPAC
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Toni Cieri <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 9:31 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Cc: Terry Gaasterland
Subject: Item #11 Undergrounding of Powerlines
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please move forward with the design as soon as possible.
Thank you,
Toni Cieri
255 20th St.
Del Mar, CA 92014
Toni Cieri
DRE #00780968
Broker Associate
Phone:858-229-4911
BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY California Properties
www.Delmarhouses.com
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Adelphia <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 10:25 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Agenda item #15
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organizaƟon. Do not click links or open aƩachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Dear Council
I wholeheartedly support funding for the development of the plan to underground uƟliƟes in district 2 - the Beach Colony . We’ve had transformer fires down here for years, not to menƟon the obvious visual blight. Let’s get it done! Sincerely,
Christy Hahn
2027 Coast Blvd
Sent from my iPhone
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Bill Carpenter <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 12:02 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Item 11 - undergrounding planning timing
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Please accept this comment:
We've crawled (Tewa) and walked (Districts 1) - it's time to run! Government needs to balance efficiency with fairness. Most of Del Mar has waited patiently as other districts go first. Please sacrifice a small amount of efficiency for a large amount of fairness.
And, planning (and implementing) sooner might be less costly anyway! So, please get on with the planning ASAP.
Bill Carpenter - Luneta Drive
Bill Carpenter | Strategic Advisor & Broker Associate DRE#01943283 [email protected] | 858.232.2339 m SeaDreamHomes.com
February 17, 2026 Item 11
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: D. Wohlford <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2026 2:24 PM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Undergrounding
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Flagged
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
Hello:
I have been a Del Mar resident for most of my life, first in the beach area when I was growing up and have now resided on Cuchara Drive for 28 years.
We have been very patiently waiting for utility undergrounding to come to Cuchara Drive. We spoke with our neighbors about forming an assessment district years ago but were unable to garner enough support to make it financially viable.
I encourage the Council to make the undergrounding of utilities a higher agenda priority. We pay taxes and vote in local elections just like other residents. However, we are growing tired of our neighborhood being penalized at the expense of other parts of the City when it comes to the undergrounding of utilities. I may not be alive when it is finally our turn and I am not that old!
Please look at the timeline and speed thing up!
Thank you!
Dana Wohlford
1155 Cuchara Drive
Del Mar
February 17, 2026 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Memorandum
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: February 12, 2026
SUBJECT: Staff Red Dot for Item 12: Update to 2026 City Council Regional and Local Appointments
At the request of a City Councilmember, staff is distributing City Council Policy 202 – Responsibilities and Expectations of Council Liaisons to City Advisory Committees as a Red Dot for Item 12 on the February 17, 2026, City Council Agenda.
Attachment – City Council Policy 202
February 17, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202
RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF
COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE
AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 1 OF 4
POLICY:
The following are guidelines to assist council members in performing their duties as liaisons to city advisory committees, Del Mar Community Connections (DMCC), Del Mar Village Association (DMVA), various Del Mar non-profits, and as Del Mar representatives to outside agencies. These guidelines also apply to the appointed of community representatives to outside agencies, including the Del Mar Representative to the San Diego County Water Authority Board.
A. City Advisory Committees
1. Council Liaison primary responsibilities include:
a. Assist with the recruitment of qualified volunteers and encourage them to apply to serve on the committee when vacancies occur, recognizing that the city’s goal is to have at least two qualified applicants for each position. b. Recruit another Council member to attend meetings in their place when the liaison is unable to attend.
c. Assist Committee Chairs with the following:
i. How to run a meeting;
ii. How to accommodate public testimony and input;
iii. How to prepare and distribute agendas, including review of draft agendas with the chair (A sample agenda is attached to use as a template);
iv. Clarifying the process for committee members and the public to get something on the committee agenda;
v. Ensuring that the committee stays on task;
vi. Knowing when city staff should, and should not, be asked for assistance.
Generally, simple requests for information from staff can be made directly by the chair or committee members while requests for staff work should go through the Liaison(s) who can carry them to the City Manager and staff for response;
vii. Establishing goals and a work plan for the committee each March in conjunction with the City’s budget and goal setting process. d. Inform and assist the committee as a whole including:
i. Understanding the city’s system of advisory committees including:
February 17, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202
RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF
COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE
AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 2 OF 4
1. Understanding the role of a committee member;
2. Understanding the scope of the committee’s charge;
3. Understanding the relationship between the committee, council, public, and city staff; and
4. Understanding any budgetary constraints applicable to the committee’s work.
e. Ensuring the committee stays on task and within the scope of its charter and mission, adopted council goals, and any direction provided by council. f. Ensuring the committee understands its role is advisory only. g. Assisting the committee in completing its advisory recommendations to Council in a timely manner.
h. Effectively communicating committee advisory recommendations to Council. i. Facilitating transition to a successor liaison when there is change. j. Where appropriate, advocating for committee recommendation.
2. Reporting:
a. To the committee. The liaison(s) to a committee should give a brief report to the committee at the beginning of each meeting covering:
i. Any recent actions of the City Council or upcoming Council agenda items relevant to the committee’s work; and
ii. Any recent actions of outside entities or governments, of which the liaison has knowledge, relevant to the committee’s work. b. To the Council, staff, and public. The liaison(s) should give a report, in public session, at council meetings covering:
i. Updates on the committee’s work;
ii. Identification, and discussion as appropriate, of any difficulties the committee is experiencing and recommendations for how assistance can be provided;
iii. Any committee actions/recommendations;
February 17, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202
RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF
COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE
AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 3 OF 4
iv. Any specific requests from the committee for assistance, guidance, or other support; and
v. In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance as a written report can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting. A sample form for such reports is attached.
3. Attendance:
a. Council Liaison attendance. It shall be the policy of the City Council that Council Liaison(s) assigned to Council advisory committees make it their goal to attend the advisory committee meetings. The liaison(s), in communication with the committee chair and each other, may determine whether one, both, or neither of the committee liaison(s) are needed at a particular committee meeting. It is also the goal of the City Council to promote the continued progress of the advisory committees and not require that a Council liaison be in attendance in order for that committee to meet.
b. Committee member attendance. Del Mar Municipal Code, Chapter 2.30 states that if a member of a commission, board, or committee is absent from three meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaison(s) shall work with committee chairs to determine whether absences are for cause and will notify the Administrative Services Department when a committee member has three or more absences without cause within a 12-month period.
B. Council or Council Appointed Representatives to Outside Agencies
1. Responsibilities:
a. Represent Del Mar to the outside agency, its staff, and to the public in conformance with the city’s goals, priorities, and objectives in a manner consistent with the city’s adopted policies and priorities and with any direction from council as a whole.
b. Attend meetings of the outside agency to which the Council member or appointee serves as a representative, securing the services of an alternate where possible on those occasions where the primary Council member or appointee is unable to attend.
c. Be diligent in reviewing agenda materials and preparing for meetings.
February 17, 2026 Item 12
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
202
RESPONSIBILITIES AND EXPECTATIONS OF
COUNCIL LIASIONS TO CITY ADVISORY
COMMITTEES AND OF COUNCIL
REPRESENTATIVES TO OUTSIDE
AGENCIES
DATE REVISED: 11-19-2018
BY RESOLUTION: 2018-82
PAGES: 4 OF 4
d. Speak up, orally or in writing, to the outside agency to represent Del Mar’s positions on issues relevant to Del Mar and be an advocate for Del Mar’s positions.
4. Reporting: The Council representative or appointee should report to the Council, staff, and public at council meetings as follows:
a. A summary of the outside agency’s activities since the prior report. b. Any specific actions, polices, or directions of the outside agency that affect Del Mar.
c. Any significant upcoming activities of the outside agency of potential interest to Del Mar.
d. On any outside agency committee or subcommittee changes affecting Del Mar. e. In addition to providing oral updates to the Council, written reports are encouraged for matters of importance as a written report can be included in the public agenda packet and accessible following the Council meeting. A sample form for such reports is attached.
5. Arranging Presentations. From time to time it may be appropriate for a Council liaison or appointee to an outside agency to arrange for a presentation by the agency to the full Council in a public meeting. When this seems appropriate, the following guidelines can be followed:
a. Bring the request to Council for discussion and concurrence before taking it up with the outside agency;
b. Work with the Mayor and staff to put the presentation on a Council meeting agenda; and
c. Work with the outside agency to assist them in preparing their presentation.
February 17, 2026 Item 12
COUNCIL QUESTIONS & STAFF RESPONSES – FEBRUARY 17, 2026 SURPLUS LANDS ACT – 10th STREET AFFORDABLE HOUSING AGENDA ITEM #9
1. In 2022, Council received the results of a study that showed 4 units on the Civic Center parcel. Red dots are coming in with concerns that the number is now more than that. Could you please point me to the council meeting date when conceptual plans for the Civic Center lot were presented? Was there an update presentation in 2024?
The 10th Street lot at Civic Center is identified in the certified Housing Element (HE) to produce at least 4 lower income units, as well as a second City-owned site on 28th Street to produce at least 3 lower income units. This project has been discussed at multiple Council meetings including goals and priorities meetings. Key dates are listed here and further described in background included below:
March 25, 2021 Council initial adoption of HE
June 13, 2022 Council review of preliminary studies for public sites relied upon for lower income housing in the HE
April 3, 2023 Council readoption of HE certified by HCD June 19, 2023 Council adoption of Resolution to confirm incorporation of revisions per HCD’s stated expectation in their May 2023 certification letter April 7, 2025 Council adoption of Resolution to authorize application for Smart Growth Incentive Program grant funding for a lower income housing project on 10th Street that is 4 to 8 units in size
June 16, 2025 Council allocation of $500,000 to Program 3B implementation from Housing Fund
Following initial adoption of the HE in March 2021, HCD questioned whether the small sites on 10th Street and 28th Street were feasible to develop affordable housing. On June 13, 2022, the City Council received a presentation of the findings of Phase I planning studies to implement the Housing Element. The studies concluded that development of affordable housing at the Fairgrounds, 10
th Street, and 28th Street were all feasible
strategies. These studies of publicly owned sites are published as an Appendix in the Housing Element and are available online:
https://www.delmar.ca.us/DocumentCenter/View/8627/Appendix-E---Phase-I-Studies_FINAL Program 3B is the specific Housing Element program that addresses 10 th Street and 28th
Street. HCD required specific edits be incorporated in Program 3B in order for the City’s Housing Element to be certified as discussed at the April 3, 2023 City Council meeting (Item 12) to re-adopt the HE and the June 19, 2023 City Council meeting (Item 12) to February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
adopt a Resolution to confirm incorporation of non-substantive revisions to explicitly state HCD expectations of milestones for implementation relating to the 10th Street and 28th Street properties. See Program 3B page 4-21 in the certified Housing Element for details.
The main takeaway from HCD’s required changes for final certification is that the City is expected to pursue the 10th Street and 28th Street housing projects in addition to pursuing the Fairgrounds housing project.
City staff has discussed next steps for these sites at prior City Council goals and priorities discussions and City Council meetings. At the April 7, 2025, City Council meeting (Item 4), the City Council adopted a Resolution to authorize submittal of an February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
application to SANDAG for Smart Growth Incentive Program funds for the 10th Street project and two other projects. The report identifies a projected project budget of $4,804,600 including a grant funding request for $3.5 million, local match of $500,000 from the City’s Housing Fund, and $804,600 for in kind match (staff time, additional consultant time beyond grant allocation, and waiver of fees for developer). The project description in that Agenda Report and in the grant applications was for construction of 4 to 8 units for lower income households.
The City Council allocated $500,000 from the Housing Reserve fund for implementation of Program 3B affordable housing in the two-year budget adopted June 16, 2025. Unfortunately, the City was not awarded SGIP grant funding, but the funding still remains available to support a future affordable housing project at 10 th
Street if and when that decision comes before the City Council at a future date.
The requested action to declare the 10th Street exempt surplus land is an important milestone for the City to demonstrate implementation of Program 3B. The action before Council is not requesting any decision on a specific development project. It is a required preliminary step related to land disposition in accordance with the Surplus Lands Act.
To answer the question about why the City would want to pursue a potential range of lower income units between 4 and 8 units, it is because it provides the City the greatest flexibility available to maintain its Housing Element in compliance with State law. The 2022 studies considered a 2-story building concept with four, 2-bedroom units (718 sf average size) in structure with one single point of entry to look like other single dwelling units and duplexes in the neighborhood.
That same 2-story structure can also accommodate 8 units if designed as studios or one-bedroom units closer to 500 sf in size. The HE requires the City pursue a project to issue building permits for at least 7 units by 2027. By pursuing the 8 units on 10th Street, the City can feasibly reach this milestone. A similar process will be followed for the 28th Street(floodplain) site when staff capacity becomes available to also work on that project in addition to the rest of the special project workload in process.
It should be noted that the City has never discussed potential for a project at the 10th Street location at a height that would exceed two stories.
UNDERGROUNDING AGENDA ITEM #11
North Stratford (1B):
February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
1. When will we get some of the details about this project (i.e. number of laterals, overhead feet, trench feet), as well as the City’s engineer cost estimate with the line-item detail? The overhead footage is 3,825 with approximately 50 laterals. To avoid confusion with draft versions, we are waiting for the final 60% SDG&E design, final telecommunications designs, and civil plans before providing the detailed line-item estimate and trench footage.
2. When is it expected that north Stratford will go out to bid? Reference the agenda report. Bidding is anticipated the 3 months prior to construction.
Stratford (1A)
3. What were the total construction contingencies used for this project? Can staff explain how and when these contingency charges developed? (Total construction contingency estimate for Stratford was $511,531.)
Reference the agenda report. For Stratford Court (1A), additive change orders were issued due to abandoned utilities, design adjustments for the location of the joint trench and structures, and cutover coordination. Deductive change orders were processed for a reduced quantity of retaining wall and concrete driveway repairs.
4. What have the total charges for construction management & support been? These services are billed at an hourly rate. The estimate for these services was $415,250 and $71,513.
The construction management and support task order has been billed for $449,976, with an additional task order amendment of $42,435 processed to account for the extended construction schedule, which is within the amount (including contingency) authorized by the City Council. The construction management team was fully engaged in contract management, contractor coordination, homeowner coordination and communications, and utility coordination, with additional efforts required due to the schedule extension.
NOVA has billed $52,436 or 73%.
5. Were any of SDG&E’s contingencies utilized for Stratford? The contingency was $207,767 of a total $1,592,881 estimate. If any of the contingency was used, can staff explain how and when it was incurred?
Reference the agenda report. Additive change orders were due to temporary meter work and night outage work at commercial customers.
Crest (X1A)
February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
6. Have there been any construction or SDG&E contingencies realized so far for the Crest project?
Reference the agenda report. No, SDG&E has not yet started.
7. What have the billable hours and charges been for the consultants so far? a. Nova ($119,633 estimate/not-to-exceed) – $10,108 or 8% through December 6, 2025
b. Helix ($123,400 estimate/not-to-exceed, including $56,800 for cultural/archeological) – $30,245 or 25% through January 18, 2026
8. For the construction management services of KCM, how many hours have they billed so far for Crest? (Personal observation: I have been to the construction site 50+ times, and I believe I’ve only seen KCM on site once while I was there. By comparison, it appears that T&C has experienced/senior people regularly on site as well as two traffic control people who regularly talk to or assist residents who need to get by.) KCM has billed $89,170 of 15% through December. John Stephenson (KCM) is actively working on the project as the City’s construction manager and is in frequent contact with myself, public works, the contractor, homeowners, and utilities. Furthermore, a large portion of KCM’s scope is contract management which requires office work and we have him stationed atCity Hall with an office. The contract managementincludes ensuring the contractor proceeds per the contract and only bills accordingly. To this point, $110,000 in savings have been identified thus far. Also, construction is currently occurring in Work Zones 1 and 2.
9. The estimate for the amount is $687,346 and notes 18-month construction even though the actual construction is expected to only take 12 months. There has been some discussion from staff that much of their time is devoted to working with residents.
However, wasn’t a good bit of the pre-construction work (i.e. “Resident interface” cost estimate of $87,656) already spent to communicate and coordinate with residents? The task order includes 12 months of full-time during civil construction, plus an additional 6 months of part-time during homeowners and utility construction, resulting in a total project timeline of 18 months. KCM did a great job coordinating with residents in advance. However, coordination during construction presents an entirely different challenge and is critically important to project success and timely completion.
10. The billable rate of KCM at about $175 per hour is fairly expensive and translates to an annualized salary of $350,000. With the total of $663,280, that translates to 3,790 hours.
February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
(A standard number of hours for 12 months for a full-time employee is approximately 2,000 hours.)
As previously noted, the task order is for 18 months and includes hours for KCM for construction management, as well as Utility Specialists and Fuscoe for support services.
The total task order amount is $663,280, which includes $42,500 for Fuscoe and $21,470 for Utility Specialists for design support services. KCM’s construction management services total $599,300. This scope includes contract management and administration; ensuring and documenting compliance with the contract documents and specifications; budget and schedule monitoring; prevailing wage labor compliance; submittal and request for information (RFI) management; change order management; daily construction monitoring; homeowner service lateral coordination and tracking; resident communications; and coordination with utility companies.
These construction management services are typical for capital improvement projects, although this project requires a higher level of coordination with homeowners and utility companies than is generally required on other projects.
Also, a consultant billing rate of $175 per hour does not translate into an annualized salary of $350,000. Consulting billing rates are generally 2x to 3x higher than an equivalent employee's hourly salary to account for business overhead, taxes, benefits, and non-billable hours (marketing/admin).
11. Since the contract is priced in billable hours, how does the City ensure it is getting the work it is paying for?
Staff ensures performance through close coordination, including weekly meetings, adherence to the task order (e.g., contract administration, homeowner coordination, etc), and review of monthly invoices.
12. Does the billable estimate of $663,280 change since Utility Specialists is no longer engaged with the City on this project?
Utility Specialists is engaged through the existing task orders, which includes Stratford Court South (1A) for construction, Crest Canyon (X1A) for construction, and Stratford Court North (1B) for design, and continues to provide services for Crest Canyon (X1A).
Thus, no change to this task order. Utility Specialists will not be engaged as the prime consultant for Stratford Court North (1B) for construction, Beach Colony (2) for design, or any other task orders to follow.
13. Can staff look at revisiting the number of hours that we budget for construction management (KCM) since it looks like T&C has a robust management infrastructure and February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
personnel for this job? I believe the same was also true of Teichert on the Stratford job.
This is in contrast to the smaller Tewa pilot project.
Staff believes the task order is reasonable, aligns with industry standards, and does not require revisiting. The City’s construction manager and TC’s project manager serve distinctly different roles on the project. As noted in the response to Item #10 above, the City’s construction manager represents the City’s interests under the contract and ensures that the contractor is constructing the project in accordance with the contract documents.
In contrast, TC’s project manager represents the contractor’s interests and is responsible for delivering the project efficiently, profitably, and in compliance with the contract. TC’s project manager oversees construction operations and field staff, controls the means and methods of construction, manages subcontractors and suppliers, is responsible for project costs and profitability, and etc.
The role of the City’s construction manager is standard practice for these types of lowbid contracts and cannot be replaced by the Contractor’s project manager.
Additionally, prior to contract award, staff solicited proposals from other construction management firms and received a significantly higher cost estimate for comparable services.
14.Martin Boyd appears to be doing an excellent job managing the undergrounding projects and has probably gained a lot of very valuable experience and insights from the Tewa project, the Stratford project, and the start of Crest. Is there an opportunity going forward to rely more on Martin and reduce the billable hours or budget for the external consultants?
As one of the City’s two principal engineers, Martin’s role is to manage all aspects of the City’s Undergrounding Program along with many other capital projects for the City. There is no capacity for either of the City’s engineers to additionally serve as the dedicated construction manager for their projects. This role is contracted out by the City as a standard practice for CIP projects, and is consistent with the practices of other municipalities. Capital projects require a dedicated team to complete, and the City needs a construction manager whose sole focus is overseeing the construction of the project. Utilizing the services of a competent firm with an expertise in construction management is a critical component to the successful completion of the City’s capital program, including Undergrounding.
15.Council approved the bid for T&Con September 8. It was noted by staff then that the total construction would be about 12 months and that the work would be done in 3 phases, February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
each about 4 months. The pace of work for phase 1 appears to be slower than expected, particularly given that it included the lagoon section which is telecom only and has few laterals. Is this also staff’s observation?
Please reference information provided in the agenda report.
16. I heard phase 1 is to be finished in mid-March (about 6 months total) and I am aware that phase 2 has already been started, before the completion of phase 1. Can staff clarify if this has been an adjustment from what was previously communicated? Reference the agenda report. The contractor has allocated an additional crew to begin Phase 2 work without impacting the overall schedule.
Potential timing conflict of lagoon trail project in fall 2026 and removal of poles and overhead telecom lines along lagoon.
17. The bird nesting season puts restrictions on when work can be done near the lagoon. It seems that the poles and overhead telecom lines here would have to come out before a trail can be constructed. Who owns these poles and is responsible for their removal? AT&T is responsible for removing the poles along the lagoon.
18.Can the poles and lines be removed in or by late August, with potential trail construction starting in early September?
The utility companies have confirmed that all poles for Phase 1 should be removable ahead of Phases 2 and 3. The anticipated timing is around August. However, this is contingent upon the completion of all TC Construction work and homeowner laterals in Phase 1, and ultimately depends on the Utility Companies’ schedules. As observed with Stratford Court (1A), delays are possible. Additionally, the pole removals are subject to the results of a bird survey during nesting season.
Measure Q balances:
19. Would it be possible to get monthly balances and cash flows for Measure Q funds? It is my understanding that we have not fully drawn down the $5 million I-bank loan approved in September because we still have positive Q balances. Monthly balances and cash flows of Measure Q would be helpful in understanding this.
Staff has advised there are capacity issues with this frequency of reporting along with concerns that the revenues are always a quarter behind, the cashflow is a mix of fund balance plus anticipated loan proceeds, but the actual timing of the loan reimbursements versus expenditures is not aligned, yet all is anticipated. These and other factors can easily lead to a long list of financial footnotes and caveats, which at February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11
that point can compromise the value of a monthly report. A bi-annual report may be more beneficial and could likely be accommodated by staff.
February 17, 2026 Item 9 and Item 11