DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Previously, attendance regulations stated that if a member of a City advisory committee, Design Review Board, or Planning Commission was absent from three regular, adjourned, or special meetings within a 12-month period without cause, the term of said member is automatically vacated. Council liaisons to the commission, board, or committee shall determine whether the absence was for cause.
On April 21, 2026, City Council adopted Resolution 2026-22 amending Council Policy 200 with the goal of adjusting permitted absences to align with the needs of the City, recognizing the difference between advisory committees and quasi-judicial bodies; provide a clear and consistent definition of “just cause” absences; and streamline the removal process when appropriate.
The City Council also introduced an Ordinance (Attachment A) on April 21, 2026, removing attendance requirements from the DMMC and instead referencing that attendance provisions will be adopted by Council resolution. This procedural change will help eliminate redundancy with the Council Policy and give the Council more flexibility to amend attendance requirements in response to the City’s changing needs. If the proposed is adopted, it will go into effect on June 4, 2026, giving staff time to communicate the pending changes to committee members with full implementation beginning when the Ordinance becomes effective.
If the recommended action is approved, staff would ensure a smooth rollout of the attendance requirement changes by proactively notifying all committee members; continuing to provide notice of attendance requirements at the time of appointment; providing pro-active courtesy notifications to members at risk of being removed from their seat due to attendance considerations; and continuing to track meeting attendance including the cause of the absence.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Ordinance Amending DMMC Chapter 2.30.020
2 May 5, 2026 Item 10
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEL MAR MUNICIPAL CODE
CHAPTER 2.30.020 REGARDING THE ATTENDANCE POLICY FOR
COUNCIL APPOINTED BOARDS, COMMISSIONS, AND
COMMITTEES
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar promotes community volunteerism and depends on its many talented residents who volunteer for City boards, commissions and committees; and WHEREAS, in order for these City boards, commissions and committees to function effectively, it is important that members attend all meetings and participate fully; and WHEREAS, it is understood that committee members may periodically be absent from meetings due to illness, work obligations, and other circumstances beyond their control; and WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar has created regulations regarding absenteeism in order to have a method to deal with absences without cause; and WHEREAS, the City Council most recently adopted Ordinance 792 on December 18, 2006, revising the committee attendance provisions in Del Mar Municipal Code Chapter
2.30.020- Attendance; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has reviewed the attendance provisions and desires to include revisions to meet the current needs of the City.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION ONE:
The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated by reference into this action.
SECTION TWO:
That DMMC Chapter 2.30.020 is hereby repealed and replaced to read as follows:
2.30.020 Absence from Meeting.
Attendance requirements for members of City boards, commissions, and committees shall be established by resolution of the City Council, as may be amended from time to time as may be necessary.
SECTION THREE:
The City Council finds that approval of this Ordinance is exempt from the preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378. This action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have a potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA.
No further action under CEQA is required.
3 May 5, 2026 Item 10
Ordinance No. XXXX
SECTION FOUR:
This Ordinance was introduced by the City Council on April 21, 2026.
SECTION FIVE:
The City Clerk is directed to prepare and have published a summary of this Ordinance no less than five days prior to the consideration of its adoption and again within 15 days following adoption indicating votes cast.
SECTION SIX:
If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this Ordinance is, for any reason, held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance.
SECTION SEVEN:
Upon adoption, the Ordinance will take effect and be in force 30 days from the date that the City Council takes action to adopt the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a regular meeting held on the 5
th day of May 2026.
____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________
Christina Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
4 May 5, 2026 Item 10
Ordinance No. XXXX
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Ordinance No. XXXX, which has been published pursuant to law, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5 th day of May 2026, by the
following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
5 May 5, 2026 Item 10
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Ashlea Houston, Management Analyst
Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Approval of Task Order Amendment with Michael Baker International for the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory
REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council: 1) Approve a $9,000 Task Order Amendment (Attachment A) with Michael Baker International for additional parking supply and speed hump data validation and GIS integration for the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory; and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the Task Order Amendment.
BACKGROUND:
In recent years, increased fire risk and other public safety concerns have prompted the City to pursue a comprehensive, citywide inventory of colored curbs, parking spaces, and constrained roadways. This inventory is intended to support assessments of emergency vehicle access throughout Del Mar; Parking Enforcement operations, including the issuance of citations and validation of contested violations; and the preparation of the City’s annual parking monitoring report to the California Coastal Commission under its Paid Parking Coastal Development Permit (CDP).
By developing this data within a Geographic Information System (GIS) layer, the City will be better equipped to evaluate citywide curbside conditions and inform future operational and policy decisions.
On August 18, 2025, the City Council approved a Task Order with Michael Baker International (MBI) in the amount of $135,500 to conduct the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory. The original scope of work is included as Attachment B.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Since August 2025, the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory has made significant progress, with preparation of the final Curbside Management Report currently underway.
In addition to the original scope of work, staff has identified several supplemental tasks necessary to ensure the inventory is comprehensive, accurate, and useful for City operations and public safety analysis. These include additional on-street and off-street parking data collection, as well as speed hump data validation and GIS integration (Exhibit A to Attachment A). Staff therefore recommends issuing MBI a Task Order Amendment (Attachment A) in the amount of $9,000 to complete this work, as described in more detail below.
1 May 5, 2026 Item 11
City Council Agenda Report
Task Order Amendment with MBI for Citywide Curbside Management Inventory May 5, 2026
Under Task 6, staff is requesting expanded analysis and data collection related to the on-street parking supply inventory to verify fire hydrant locations, parking within the public right-of-way, and constrained roadways for integration into the City’s GIS database. These efforts are critical to producing an accurate on-street parking inventory and developing reliable recommendations related to emergency access. Staff also requested the inclusion of additional off-street parking locations beyond the original scope to provide a more complete understanding of citywide parking supply, particularly for use in the Paid Parking CDP and future monitoring efforts.
The proposed Task Order Amendment adds Task 8 to incorporate traffic calming measures such as speed humps, bumps, and cushions into the GIS database. While not in the original scope, including this data will establish an accurate and centralized inventory to support operational maintenance efforts and future evaluations. The City is currently evaluating its options for assessing traffic calming measures including the chicanes on Crest Road related to public safety and emergency vehicle access. Lastly, MBI has included four additional meetings under Task 10 to support project completion.
Due to the transition in the management structure for the City’s Fire Department, staff has asked MBI to defer completion of the final Curbside Management Report until the new Fire Department leadership is in place and available to review the draft report, provide input, and develop public safety recommendations. As a result, presentation of the final report and deliverables to Council has been deferred from April 2026 to Fall 2026.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The total cost of services to be provided as part of the recommended action is $9,000. Council approval of the recommended action will result in an amendment to the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025- 2026 Operating and Capital Budget to allocate $9,000 from the General Fund as shown below:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
The proposed City Council action does not constitute a “project” under the definition set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378 because it will not have the potential to result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and is, therefore, not subject to CEQA. No further action under CEQA is required.
NEXUS TO CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES:
Citywide Curbside Management Inventory is a Tier 2 City work plan item for Fiscal Year 2025- 2026.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Michael Baker International Task Order Amendment Exhibit A to Attachment A – Scope of Work and Fee Estimate Attachment B – Original Scope of Work
PROJECT FUND ACCOUNT AMOUNT
Citywide Curbside
Management Inventory General Fund 49.8000.8037 $9,000
2 May 5, 2026 Item 11
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us May 5, 2026
Michael Baker International SENT VIA EMAIL
Attn: Tim Thiele
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260,
Carlsbad, CA 92008
[email protected]
RE: TASK ORDER AMENDMENT & NOTICE TO PROCEED FOR CITYWIDE CURBSIDE
MANAGEMENT INVENTORY OF RED CURBS AND ON-STREET PARKING ALONG PUBLIC STREETS IN DEL MAR (ACCOUNT 49.8000.8037)
The City previously issued a Task Order (TO) with Michael Baker International (MBI) on August 18, 2025, for tasks related to the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory Project. This TO Amendment and Notice to Proceed (NTP) is for additional parking supply and speed hump data validation and GIS integration. The TO amendment is issued pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the as-needed Consulting Services Agreement between the City of Del Mar and MBI (Consultant), the term for which is December 8, 2025, to December 7, 2028.
Consultant shall execute additional tasks related to the Citywide Curbside Management Inventory Project, as described in the Consultant’s proposal dated April 22, 2026, and included as Exhibit A to this TO. The total cost for this TO shall not exceed $9,000. The project schedule shall commence upon execution of this TO/NTP, and shall be completed by November 2026, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, in accordance with the proposed scope of work included in the attached Exhibit A.
The primary contact for this Task Order and invoicing is Ashlea Houston, Management Analyst, who can be reached at [email protected] and (858) 704-3631. Please sign and return a copy of this Task Order electronically through OneSpan, the City’s electronic document routing program. Please contact Management Analyst Denise Galvan at [email protected] or (858) 704-3657 with any questions about executing this Task Order.
Approved by: Accepted by:
City of Del Mar Michael Baker International
_____________________________________ _______________________________________ Ashley Jones Date Tim Thiele Date
City Manager Vice President
cc: Ashlea Houston, Management Analyst
Clement Brown, Assistant City Manager
Exhibit A: Scope of Work and Fee Estimate for Task Order Amendment 3 May 5, 2026 Item 11
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 | Carlsbad, CA 92008 | Office: 760-476-9193 | Fax: 760-476-9198 | www.mbakerintl.com City of Del Mar April 22, 2026
Public Works Department
2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd,
Del Mar, CA 92014
Re: Citywide Curbside Management
Subject: Proposal for Task Order Amendment #1
To the City of Del Mar,
As requested, Michael Baker has developed the following which outlines the scope (Attachment A) and fee (Attachment B) for the above referenced project. This amendment covers the work completed above what was previously assumed in the original scope of work.
Attachment A – Scope of Work
Task 6.1: On-Street Parking Supply Inventory
The on-street parking inventory required excessive detailed manual checks and GIS inputs above what assumed in the original scope of work. This includes:
Fire hydrants verification (desktop verification required) ROW verification (data manually transformed from excel to GIS required) Constrained Roadways verification (data measured and labeled in GIS required) Task 6.2: Off-Street Parking Supply Inventory
The off-street parking was expanded to include the following additional parking facilities:
L’Auberge Del Mar Parking (additional field visit required) Seagrove Parking Lot (data provided by city)
Court Street Parking Lot (additional desktop mapping required) Task 8: Speed Hump Data Validation
This new task was added at the request of the City Staff to add speed humps throughout the City to the GIS database and maps. The data validation included manual checks of the list provided by City staff and additional GIS inputs.
Task 10: Meetings & Coordination
Michael Baker will be available to attend up to two (2) virtual meetings and two (2) in-person meetings to support the project through completion. This could include additional coordination with Emergency Services (fire and police) as well as TPAC and City Council meetings as requested. 4 May 5, 2026 Item 11
2 City of Del Mar Curbside Management Amendment #1_4.21.26 Attachment B – Fee Estimate
Michael Baker will complete the tasks outlined in this scope and fee on time and materials basis no to exceed $9,000. The estimate by task is shown below.
LABOR COSTS AMOUNT
Task 6.1: On-Street Parking Supply Inventory $4,500
Task 6.2: Off-Street Parking Supply Inventory $1,500
Task 8: Speed Hump Data Validation $1,800
Task 10: Meetings & Coordination $1,200
LABOR COST SUBTOTAL $9,000
DIRECT COSTS AMOUNT
NA $0
DIRECT COSTS SUBTOTAL $0
TOTAL FEE $9,000
5 May 5, 2026 Item 11
5050 Avenida Encinas, Suite 260 | Carlsbad, CA 92008 | Office: 760-476-9193 | Fax: 760-476-9198 | www.mbakerintl.com City of Del Mar February 27, 2025
Public Works Department
2240 Jimmy Durante Blvd,
Del Mar, CA 92014
Subject: City of Del Mar – Curbside Management
To the City of Del Mar,
As requested, Michael Baker has developed the following scope (Attachment A) and fee (Attachment B) to conduct a citywide curbside management inventory of all of the red curb and on-street parking along public streets.
Attachment A – Scope of Work
Task 1: Citywide CAD File
In order to compile a city-wide CAD file showing the edge of pavement of all public roadways, Michael Baker will:
1.1) Review previous Pavement Management Plan (March 2024) and utilize available records. This information will be confirmed against actual field conditions during Task 1.4.
1.2)Conduct a review all of the readily available existing topo files that have been compiled over the years through various projects MBI has been involved with. The edge of pavement linework from all of the various individual files will be compiled into one city-wide CAD drawing (see subtask 1.5).
1.3)Fill gaps in the linework where existing topo is not available utilizing readily available aerial imagery (i.e.
Google Earth or Near Maps). This will include the approximate locations of all driveways access public roads.
1.4)Field verify roadway widths against aerial imagery where the topo is not available.
1.5)Compile city-wide CAD base file of approximate curb/edge of pavement locations within city right-of-way.
Task 2: Curbside Management / “No Parking” Inventory
Building upon the work completed in Task 1 to draw the edge of pavement of all public roadways, Michael Baker will establish the “No Parking” zones throughout the City by:
2.1) Conducting a detailed inventory of the existing red curbs and “no-parking” signage throughout the City through a detailed GIS enabled field verification. Using the ESRI phone application, Michael Baker will conduct a detailed driving tour of the entire city to geo-locate the beginning and end of each red curb zone as well as all signed no-parking zones. This scope assumes the driving tour will require one driver and one GIS operator.
2.2)During the driving tour, Michael Baker will utilize a vehicle mounted video camera to record City streets.
Michael Baker staff will review the camera footage to verify curb markings and signage. The recorded footage allows for screen shots and rewind/rewatch capabilities to backcheck and verify GIS inventory. 6 May 5, 2026 Item 11
2 City of Del Mar Pavement Assessment Scope and Fee – rev 02/27/25 Task 3: GIS Delivery
The results of the CAD drawings from Task 1 and the curbside inventory from Task 2 will be converted and documented into one City-wide GIS database which will be delivered in a format compatible with the City’s current system to be determined (anticipated to be a shapefile or geodatabase). The “no-parking” areas will be summarized on a separate layer to allow for an automated ticket validation to be able to enforce tickets. The GIS database will include the following:
• Lengths of red curb
• Lengths of other curb utilization (green, yellow, blue, white) • Lengths of signed no parking (with different parking categories) • Driveway locations
MBI will generate a PDF “Map Book” using a city-wide grid system. Each individual map will be developed at a discernable scale where curb color would be legible. In addition to the PDF maps, a spreadsheet database will be exported from the GIS files.
Task 4: Emergency Services Coordination
Upon completion of Task’s 1 & 2, Michael Baker will meet with City Staff and Emergency Services personnel (including Fire and Police) to review the existing street widths. The purpose of this detailed review is to:
• Review intersections with turning movement and accessibility concerns; • Review areas of general parking compliance/non-compliance that may be reinstated or removed; This scope assumes up to 3 meetings with City staff and Emergency Services personnel.
Task 5: Truck Turn Templates
Based on the feedback provided in Task 4, Michael Baker will coordinate with the City staff to identify the intersection locations with the highest concern. At these priority locations, Michael Baker will conduct truck turning templates utilizing typical dimensions of emergency fire trucks.
For the purposes of this scope and fee, it is assumed truck turn templates will be developed for up to twenty (20) separate turn movements. It should be noted that multiple turn movements may be required at the same intersection (i.e. northbound right-turn movement and southbound left-turn movement is counted as two turn movements). It is assumed the City of Encinitas will provide emergency vehicle design parameters to Michael Baker and work will not begin prior to receipt of emergency vehicle information.
Task 6: Parking Supply Inventory
Michael Baker will review the GIS curb data compiled in Task 3 to estimate the total number of on-street parking available on public streets throughout the City. Unmarked parallel parking spaces will be estimated based on the lengths of curb where there are no parking restrictions. Marked parking spaces will be counted individually. 7 May 5, 2026 Item 11
3 City of Del Mar Pavement Assessment Scope and Fee – rev 02/27/25 Using the recorded footage from Task 2 as well as Google Earth Streetview, the parking inventory will be broken down by the type of parking and will include the following categories:
• Regular spaces;
• ADA;
• Time restricted ;
• Limited time (i.e. 20-minute or 2-hour);
• Reserved / Permit Only.
Task 7: CDP Required Off-Street Parking Inventory
Michael Baker will conduct a field inventory of public off-street parking facilities associated with the City’s CDP requirements. Parking type and categories similar to those included in Task 6 will also be recorded. This includes the following:
a) City Hall
b) Community Services
c) Public Works
d) Shores Park
e) Trailhead Parking Lot at Jimmy Durante Blvd
f) Trailhead Parking Lot at San Dieguito Drive
g) Trailhead Parking Lot at St. Peters
Off-street private parking lots outside of the public right-of-way is not included as part of this task.
Task 8: Curbside Management Report
Michael Baker will document the approach, methodology, and results of the curbside management and parking assessment in a technical report. This scope assumes a total of two submittals of the technical report (draft & final). If more than two submittals of the report are required, an addendum to this scope of work and fee will be prepared. The technical report will include dates and times of field observations, approach, and methodology of all assessments, as well as all supporting maps, figures, exhibits and tables.
Task 9: Red Curb Verification
Based on conversations with City Staff, the City currently records all legitimate red-curb markings throughout the City in a physical document. Michael Baker will coordinate with City staff to review this documentation and cross reference against the digital databases created in Tasks 2 & 3 The purpose of this review is to identify curb markings for potential removal by the City. All locations identified for potential removal will be recorded in a separate GIS layer.
Deliverables:
• CAD Files of existing edge of pavement and curb lines with approximate location of driveways • GIS & excel spreadsheets of painted curbs throughout the City to allow for ticketing validations • Curbside Management Report (Draft & Final)
8 May 5, 2026 Item 11
4 City of Del Mar Pavement Assessment Scope and Fee – rev 02/27/25 Exclusions:
• New Topo Survey
• Parking Utilization Study
• Printed materials (all deliverables will be submitted electronically) • Development of field application for ticket validation. • Off-Street Private Parking Inventory
Attachment B – Fee Estimate
Michael Baker will complete Tasks 1-9 outlined in this scope and fee on time and materials basis no to exceed $135,500. The estimate by task is shown below.
LABOR COSTS AMOUNT
Task 1: Citywide CAD Drawings $40,000
Task 2: Curbside Management / “No Parking” Inventory $15,000 Task 3: GIS Delivery $12,500
Task 4: Emergency Services Coordination $3,500
Task 5: Truck Turn Templates $7,500
Task 6: Parking Supply Inventory $8,000
Task 7: CDP Required Off-Street Inventory $8,000
Task 8: Curbside Management Report $25,000
Task 9: Red Curb Verification $14,000
LABOR COST SUBTOTAL $134,000
DIRECT COSTS AMOUNT
Mileage Reimbursements $1,500
DIRECT COSTS SUBTOTAL $1,500
TOTAL FEE $135,500
9 May 5, 2026 Item 11
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst
Karen Brindley, Planning and Community Development Director Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: De Novo Hearing on an Appeal of Encroachment Permit (EP) 25-049 EP Appellant/Applicant: Paul Rael
Appellant’s Address: 1612 Stratford Way (APN: 299-280-47-00) REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) denying EP25- 049 or provide findings to support an alternative determination.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
This is a de novo (new) hearing on application EP25-049 as part of the City’s appeal process.
A “de novo” hearing means a “new” hearing by the reviewing body as if the action had not been previously heard and as if no decision had been rendered, except that all testimony, evidence, and other material from the record of the previous consideration may be included in the record of the review. Pursuant to Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 1.12.050(A), the determination by the subordinate authority (in this case, the City Manager) is advisory only.
On April 24, 2025, the Applicant applied for a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit (EP25- 049) proposing:
A mountable concrete curb between the roadway and DG shoulder; A 6-inch concrete curb adjacent to the property fence line; Relocation of walkway pavers; and
Asphalt grasscrete within the decomposed granite (“DG”) shoulder.
On January 5, 2026, the City denied EP25-049 (Attachment B) after staff determined that the proposed encroachments are inconsistent with DMMC Section 23.28.040(B)(3), which prohibits encroachments that create the impression that public right-of-way is reserved for private use. (See also, Council Policy (“CP”) 110.)
Accordingly, staff could not make Findings 2 and 5 of DMMC 23.28.070(C.1-6), related to interference with the intended use of City right-of-way and potential detriment to the interests 1 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
of the general public. The proposed encroachments would modify the existing DG shoulder in a manner that could convey that the area is reserved for private use, potentially discouraging public parking.
On January 20, 2026, the Applicant (Paul Rael) filed an appeal with the City Clerk of the denial of EP25-049 (Attachment C).
On April 7, 2026, the City Council initially considered the appeal to determine whether or not to set the matter for a de novo public hearing. As part of the Initial Consideration, the City Council received a presentation by staff, public testimony, and considered all the current facts in the record at the time. The Council voted to set the application for a de novo public hearing at a future City Council meeting.
BACKGROUND:
Stratford Way is a narrow, improved street within the hillside community. The improved road width along the project frontage at 1612 Stratford Way is approximately 16 feet wide, with an unauthorized decomposed granite shoulder installed in the public right-of-way that is approximately eight feet wide. However, because the north side of Stratford Way adjacent to the property does not restrict parking, the actual road width can be reduced to as little as eight feet when vehicles are parked on the street, posing a public safety issue due to constrained fire engine access.
West of the subject property, street parking is prohibited due to the narrow width and curvature of the street as it loops north and turns into Luneta Drive.
Prior to the redevelopment of the subject site in 2020, the property contained a single-family residence with landscaping extending to the edge of pavement, with the driveway access located where the decomposed granite currently exists.
In 2021, Mr. Rael (Applicant) applied for an Encroachment Permit (EP) EP21-066 to install 3- foot by 6-foot concrete pavers over the existing decomposed granite within the public rightof-way, which was denied because it was found to be inconsistent with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.040 – Prohibited Encroachments and Section 23.282.070 – Findings for Approval.
On October 3, 2024, Code Enforcement Case CE24-170 was opened after the City received a complaint regarding newly placed gravel along the frontage of 1612 Stratford Way.
Staff determined that the Applicant had not received authorization to install the loose gravel as shown in Attachment D, and therefore, required its removal. The Applicant was advised to contact the City to obtain an encroachment permit for any improvements in the public rightof-way.
It appears that the Applicant subsequently removed the loose gravel and installed decomposed granite material within the right-of-way without authorization. 2 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
On January 8, 2025, the Applicant applied for a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit (EP25-006) proposing:
A new concrete walkway;
A six-inch concrete curb adjacent to the property fence line; Grasscrete (concrete squares with grass between them); and DG improvements within the public right-of-way.
The proposal would have modified approximately eight feet of the public right-of-way along the northern property frontage.
The Applicant indicated the proposed improvements would provide a more durable surface than the existing unauthorized DG. This portion of the right-of-way is primarily used for parking due to the narrow width of Stratford Way.
On February 25, 2025, the City denied EP25-006 because the proposed encroachments would create the appearance that the area within the right-of-way is reserved for private use, which is prohibited by DMMC Section 23.28.080(B)(3). (See also, CP 110.) In addition, staff could not make two of the six findings for approval under DMMC Section
23.28.070(C.1-6), specifically:
Finding 2 – The proposed encroachments would not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of the City right-of-way; and
Finding 5 – The proposed encroachments would not be detrimental to the interests of the general public.
In addition, the proposed materials conflict with City Council Policy 110, which states:
“Inappropriate Proposals for Use of a Right-of-Way or Easement:
It is the City’s policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.”
Staff advised the Applicant that, due to the narrow width of Stratford Way, asphalt would be the only material likely to be supported for improvements within the right-of-way because it would functionally widen the street, which is important due to the existing narrow street width.
A visual timeline is included as Attachment E showing the condition of the property dating back to its redevelopment in 2020.
APPEAL/STAFF RESPONSES:
3 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
Below are the Appellant’s reasons for appeal (shown in bold text) with staff’s responses (shown in italics):
Appellant Point 1: The design has been revised with additional technical information for consideration. The Appellant and his representatives revised the proposed encroachments with additional information after EP25-049 was denied. Staff did not have the benefit of considering this information prior to issuing the denial. The Appellant indicates that the additional information, provided after the denial was issued, depicts how the existing number of informal parking spaces will be the same before and after the improvements and demonstrates how the design allows for public on-street parking. Furthermore, the revised plan provides a 5-foot safety buffer to allow pedestrians a refuge off the paved surface when vehicular traffic passes. In addition, curb and gutter drainage improvements would be built to City standards.
Staff Response:
The City’s practice is to review and make a determination on submitted proposals based on the information provided by the Applicant. Typically, staff will work with applicants to find an acceptable solution; however, after the denial of EP25-006, and throughout the review process of EP25-049, staff indicated that an acceptable solution would be to propose asphalt within the shoulder in the ROW. Throughout a multi-year process, the City considered multiple types of materials proposed by the Applicant and consistently conveyed that the frontage should be improved with asphalt based on the street design width and the required DMMC findings.
In addition, the proposed material is inconsistent with City Council Policy 110, which does not authorize improvements that would give the impression or appearance that the area is privately owned or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property. This process resulted in two encroachment permit denials. The proposed material, asphalt “grasscrete,” would consist of asphalt squares with gravel in between (rather than grass, as the name infers). While the Appellant indicates that staff did not have the benefit of considering the revised design prior to denial, staff has determined that the revised design consists of the same proposed improvements that were previously reviewed and denied. The City Manager’s decision is final unless appealed. An applicant would need to submit a new application and go through the review process for any new proposals.
Appellant Point 2: The Appellant seeks to improve the parking shoulder section of the public right-of-way between the Appellant’s property line and Stratford Way’s paved roadway. According to the Appellant, this area is comprised of dirt that washes away during rain events and is wide enough to be used as a parking shoulder by neighbors on Stratford Way, an area where on-street parking is limited. The parking shoulder area appears unfinished, and the Appellant proposes to beautify the area at his expense for the benefit of the City.
Mr. Rael is proposing this improvement with a grasscrete base covered in charcoal gray decomposed granite to provide (and continue) the informal on-street parking. The color of the 4 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
grasscrete and DG will closely match the color of the roadway asphalt, giving the appearance that the parking shoulder is an extension of the street. In addition, the grasscrete and DG solution is permeable, which would allow stormwater to percolate into the soil. Moreover, the proposed curb and gutter improvements along the property frontage will match the existing curb-and-gutter design located immediately west of the property. No loss of parking is anticipated, and the parking shoulder can accommodate up to three (3) vehicles, and the proposal maintains the same areas for informal parking. The concrete paver walkway proposed at the entry provides an entry path to the residence but still allows vehicles to drive over it to park.
Granting the approval of the EP would not convey that the encroached upon area is owned or reserved for private use as an existing fence and landscaping along the property line clearly delineates private property from public right-of-way. The proposed materials and colors provide an informal parking shoulder that do not match the private improvements of the home, therefore not creating an impression that the parking shoulder is or will be used for private property use.
Staff Response:
Del Mar has many narrow streets; therefore, when development is proposed including use of the City right-of-way, each site is evaluated carefully for appropriate frontage improvements.
This section of Stratford Way has approximately 16 feet of paved roadway. Should the City need to widen the street in the future, the proposed encroachments would be a limiting factor.
Since parking is available on the north side of Stratford Way along the frontage of the property, there is only approximately eight (8) feet of improved traversable asphalt road width for vehicles if there is a vehicle parked on the street. Emergency vehicle apparatus may be unable to navigate through the area due to the narrow width of the road as shown in Attachment C. Moreover, the City has concerns about potential runoff over time from loose gravel associated with the use of asphalt grasscrete/DG. With vehicles constantly parking over this material, the material may loosen and erode on the street during rain events.
The City is in the process of working with Michael Baker International (MBI) to evaluate colored curbs citywide. Based on the study provided by MBI, the City may make recommendations to reevaluate parking in certain areas due to the traversable paved road width. It is important that improvements within the right-of-way be designed to public street standards, such as asphalt, to preserve future flexibility for roadway widening and safe vehicular access.
While the concrete pavers for the entryway provide a hardscaped surface that vehicles can drive over, they may give the impression that the area is private property and could reduce available parking. In addition, the proposed materials incorporate a design element that differs from a clear delineation of public right-of-way (e.g., asphalt) to private property. While the existing fence on the property line may provide a delineation, the fence also acts as a safety barrier between the public traversable space and the grade drop-off on the Appellant’s property, as the property itself sits at a lower elevation than the street. 5 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
Appeal Point 3: The Del Mar Community Plan description about residential streets.
The Appellant cited an excerpt from the Community Plan describing residential streets as having an informal “country road” character due to the lack of sidewalks, curbs and gutters, and the presence of private landscaping along the edges of pavement. This characteristic is considered by many in the community to be a positive aesthetic feature worthy of preservation. Mr. Rael is providing public improvements that beautify the City’s right-of-way and is aesthetically pleasing, consistent with the Community Plan. The staff recommendation of asphalt material to match with the existing roadway material is not a positive aesthetic feature consistent with the Community Plan.
Staff Response:
While aesthetics is one of the findings for approval, the City’s practice regarding similar improvements within the right-of-way is to preserve the ability to widen City streets when necessary. The EP was denied on the basis that Findings 2 and 5 of DMMC Section
23.28.070 could not be made because the proposed improvements would potentially interfere with use of the right-of-way should the City need to widen the street in the future. In addition, the proposed encroachments may be a detriment to the interests of the general public by proposing decorative-like material that is inconsistent with material typically used for public parking. In this specific encroachment scenario, the proposed material may alter the intended use of the right-of-way, potentially deterring public parking and creating a pinch point if vehicles are parked along this street segment.
As previously mentioned, the proposed materials conflict with City Council Policy 110, by resulting in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property.
The alternative to the Applicant’s proposed materials would be the use of asphalt in this section of ROW to avoid having the parking shoulder appear privatized. As shown in Attachment F, there are various examples throughout town that are similar scenarios to this EP where the applicant installed a different material than asphalt and the dedicated parking shoulder appears privatized. More specifically, the grasscrete material along the ROW of 444/456 10th Street (Attachment E) gives the impression that the shoulder is private property because vehicles are parked against the curb rather than on the grasscrete material. This creates a narrow pinch point for vehicular access and can create public safety access issues as discussed above.
CONCLUSION:
DMMC Section 23.28.020 defines a Long-term, Minor Encroachment Permit as an improvement designed to have a permanent appearance and intended use for a period of 365 days or more, including but not limited to driveway aprons, pathways, walkways, and vegetation.
Pursuant to DMMC Section 23.28.070, there are six required findings to approve a Longterm, Minor Encroachment Permit that generally relate to public safety, intended use of the 6 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
right-of-way, community character, aesthetics, and conversion of public land for private use.
An EP shall only be approved if all six findings can be made.
Finding 1: That the issuance of the EP will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property.
The proposed encroachments will not endanger public health, safety or welfare, or the surrounding property. The proposed encroachments would improve an area currently comprised of DG and located within a parking shoulder cutout that is used primarily for vehicle parking.
Finding 2: That the issuance of the EP will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City Right-of-Way or Easement.
Staff cannot make this finding. As the road width of Stratford Way is approximately 16 feet, the proposed encroachments may deter the public from parking within this shoulder due to the impression that the shoulder is private property. Therefore, it could result in a loss of public parking. This would unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a right-of-way.
City Council Policy 110 identifies proposed materials that result in the impression or appearance that the encroached-upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property as an inappropriate proposal for use of a right-of-way or easement, unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.”
Finding 3: That the issuance of the EP will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.
The proposed encroachments will not have an adverse impact on the welfare of the community or on the community’s appearance or aesthetics.
Finding 4: That the issuance of the EP will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.
The proposed encroachments would create minor changes to the ROW and will not cause an unnecessary change in the character of the community.
Finding 5: That the issuance of the EP will not be to the detriment of the interests of the general public.
Staff cannot make this finding. The proposed encroachments in the City right-of-way would occur within a wider section of the right-of-way currently used for public parking, which would unnecessarily limit parking in this area. Furthermore, the proposed asphalt grasscrete material gives the impression that this portion of the public right-of-way is private property.
This could deter the use of publicly available parking. 7 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City Council Agenda Report
De Novo Hearing of EP25-049
May 5, 2026
Finding 6: The proposed Encroachment will not convert significant area of public property to private use.
The improved width of Stratford Way is 16 feet, and the Appellant installed DG with rolled curb along the property frontage right-of-way is approximately 8 feet wide. Therefore, the proposed encroachments are only proposing to enhance the existing materials and not further converting significant area of public property to private use.
Based on the information above, staff cannot make two of the six required findings and therefore cannot approve EP25-049. In accordance with DMMC 23.28.070(C), findings must be made to approve the Encroachment Permit. As such, staff recommend that the City Council adopt a Resolution denying EP25-049 (Attachment A).
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact related to this agenda item as this is a private development proposal.
All fees associated with the appeal were paid for by the Appellant.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT:
In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(4) and 15270(a), CEQA does not apply to a project which a public agency rejects or disapproves.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Resolution Denying EP25-049
Attachment B – EP25-049 Denial Letter
Attachment C – Appeal of EP25-049
Attachment D – Loose Gravel Image
Attachment E – Visual Timeline
Attachment F – Other Similar Encroachments in Del Mar
8 May 5, 2026 Item 12
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, DENYING ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 25-
049, A REQUEST TO INSTALL ASPHALT GRASSCRETE
MATERIAL, MOUNTABLE CONCRETE CURB, AND A 6-INCH
CONCRETE CURB WITHIN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY ON THE
NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AT 1612 STRATFORD WAY
(APN: 299-280-47-00) IN DEL MAR, CALIFORNIA
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) is the owner of the public right-of-way adjacent to 1612 Stratford Way; and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2025, Paul Rael (Applicant) applied for a Long-term Minor Encroachment Permit (EP25-049) seeking approval to install asphalt grasscrete, a mountable curb, and a 6-inch concrete curb within the public right-of-way adjacent to 1612 Stratford Way; and
WHEREAS, Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) 23.28 requires a Long-term Minor Encroachment Permit (EP) be approved by the City Manager; and WHEREAS, the on January 5, 2026, EP25-049 was denied by the City Manager based on findings that the proposal would be inconsistent with DMMC 23.28; and WHEREAS, on January 20, 2026, the Applicant timely filed an appeal of the City Manager’s denial of EP25-049 with the City Clerk; and
WHEREAS, in the appeal document the Applicant asserts that: (1) the design has been revised with additional technical information for consideration; (2) the Applicant seeks to improve the parking shoulder section of public right-of-way between the Applicant’s property line and Stratford Way paved roadway; and (3) the Del Mar Community Plan description about residential streets provides an informal “country road” character; and WHEREAS, on April 7, 2026, the City Council initially considered the appeal of the City Manager’s denial of EP25-049 and determined to hear the application at a de novo public hearing; and
WHEREAS, on May 5, 2026, the City Council of the City of Del Mar held a duly noticed de novo public hearing to review the referenced entitlements, and at which time all persons desiring to be heard were heard; and
WHEREAS, oral and written evidence was submitted and considered to include without limitation:
a. Plans developed by the Applicant;
b. Written information submitted with the application;
c. Agenda Report, dated May 5, 2026, incorporated by reference as though fully set forth herein; and
Attachment A 9 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Resolution 2026-XX
d. Additional information submitted and testimony provided during the hearing on May 5, 2026.
WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.070 provides that an Encroachment Permit may be approved or conditionally approved only if the decision maker makes all of the findings set forth in Section 23.28.070(C); and
WHEREAS, DMMC Section 23.28.040(B)(3) describes prohibited encroachments to include: Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community; and WHEREAS, City Council Policy 110 states that, “It is the City’s policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized” and grasscrete materials represent inappropriate proposals for use of a right-of-way in that the materials will give the appearance of private property instead of a paved City street for public use; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City Council’s action to reject or disapprove a project is statutorily exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(a)(1) because it will not have a potential result in a direct or indirect physical change in the environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar that Encroachment Permit EP25-049 is hereby denied based on the following:
Section 1:
The Project proposed by the Applicant would fall within the types of prohibited encroachments set forth in DMMC Section 23.28.040 – PROHIBITED ENCROACHMENTS, specifically Subsection (B)(3): Any Encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community.
The installation of asphalt grasscrete material with a new mountable concrete curb within the parking shoulder in the public right-of-way creates the impression that the parking shoulder is private property.
Section 2:
In addition, the proposed materials conflict with City Council Policy 110, which states:
“Inappropriate Proposals for Use of a Right-of-Way or Easement: It is the City’s policy that proposals for development encroachments that would result in an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property will not be authorized unless the City Council makes a finding that the proposed encroachment will result in a public benefit to the community.” Attachment A 10 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Resolution 2026-XX
Section 3:
DMMC Section 23.28.070(C) requires the City Council to make all six findings in this section, which include 23.28.070(C)(2), “The proposed encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City right-of-way or easement”,
23.28.070(C)(5), “That the issuance of the EP will not be a detriment of the interests of the general public”.
Findings 2 and 5 cannot be made with respect to the Applicant’s project. The proposed encroachments are in an area dedicated to public parking on Stratford Way. The paved road width of Stratford Way is approximately 16’, the proposed encroachments may deter the public from parking within this shoulder due to the encroachments giving the impression that the shoulder is private property. In addition, the proposed encroachments in the City right-of-way would occur within a wider section of the right-of-way currently used for public parking, which would unnecessarily limit parking in the area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council that EP25- 049 is denied.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, State of California, at a Regular Meeting held on the 5th day of May 2026. ____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Christina Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
Attachment A 11 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Resolution 2026-XX
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5th day of May 2026, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
Attachment A 12 May 5, 2026 Item 12
1050 Camino Del Mar, Del Mar, CA 92014 | 858.755.9313 | www.delmar.ca.us January 5, 2026
Paul Rael
1612 Stratford Way
Del Mar, CA 92014
[email protected]
Subject: Denial of Encroachment Permit (EP) 25-049 (1612 Stratford Way) A request for authorization to 1) remove the existing concrete walkway pavers and add new concrete walkway pavers to the east of the existing pavers, and 2) install a new concrete curb and asphalt grasscrete material along the property frontage within the public rightof-way.
This letter is to notify you of the denial of your application for Encroachment Permit EP25-049 to utilize the public right-of-way adjacent to 1612 Stratford Way to install concrete pavers, a new concrete curb, and asphalt grasscrete material within the parking shoulder of the public right-ofway along the property’s frontage.
As indicated in the February 25, 2025, denial letter for EP25-006 and in accordance with Del Mar Municipal Code (DMMC) Section 23.28.040(B)(3) (Prohibited Encroachments), “Any encroachment that would convey an impression or appearance that the encroached upon area is owned by or reserved solely for the private use of the adjacent property with no associated public benefit to the community”, is specifically prohibited.
The proposed encroachments under EP25-049 would be prohibited because the new concrete pavers would create an impression that the walkway is private property by creating a seamless connection between the existing pavers on private property with the proposed pavers in the public right-of-way. In addition, the installation of asphalt grasscrete material with a new mountable concrete curb within the parking shoulder in the public right-of-way creates the impression that the parking shoulder is private property.
In addition, DMMC Section 23.28.070(C.1-6) (Findings for Approval) specifies that an Encroachment Permit may only be approved or conditionally approved if all six findings can be made. For EP25-049, the City cannot make all six findings. Specifically:
• DMMC 23.28.070 (C.2)
The proposed encroachment will not unreasonably interfere with the intended use of a City right-of-way or easement.
The proposed encroachment is in an area dedicated for public parking on Stratford Way.
As the road width of Stratford Way is approximately 16’, the proposed pavers would be Attachment B 13 May 5, 2026 Item 12
EP25-049 (1612 Stratford Way)
Denial Letter
January 5, 2026
installed a few feet east of the existing concrete pavers in the public right-of-way and would result in a loss of public parking on the street. • DMMC 23.28.070 (C.5)
The proposed encroachment will not be a detriment to the interests of the general public.
The proposed pavers would match the existing pavers in the City right-of-way; however, these pavers would encroach in a wider section of the public right-of-way that is used for public parking, which would unnecessarily limit parking in this area. Furthermore, the proposed asphalt grasscrete material gives the impression that the parking shoulder within the public right-of-way is private property. This could deter the use of publicly available parking.
The decision of the Assistant City Manager is final unless a written appeal is filed with the City Clerk’s office ([email protected]), accompanied with a processing fee, within ten (10) working days from the date of notice of the action taken on the application. The appeal is then forwarded to the City Council, which determines at the initial consideration whether to reject the appeal, thereby upholding the Assistant City Manager’s decision, or to set the matter for a subsequent date for a new (de novo) public hearing review.
If you have any questions on this matter, please contact Nestor Machado, Associate Management Analyst at (858) 755-9314 or email [email protected].
Clem Brown
Assistant City Manager
CB:nm
Attachments
Attachment A – Proposed EP Plans
Attachment B 14 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment C 15 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment C 16 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment C 17 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment D 18 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment E 19 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment E 20 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment F 21 May 5, 2026 Item 12
Attachment F 22 May 5, 2026 Item 12
City of Del Mar
Agenda Report
________________________________________________________________________________________________________ City Council Action:
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
FROM: Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk Via Ashley Jones, City Manager
DATE: May 5, 2026
SUBJECT: Council Consideration of City Flag Display Policy REQUESTED ACTION/RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) establishing a new City Council Policy related to Flag Display at City Facilities (Exhibit A to Attachment A).
BACKGROUND:
The City’s major flag poles are located at the Del Mar Civic Center, Del Mar Community Building, Beach Safety Center and Sea Grove Park. Historically, the City displays only the United States Flag at these locations in accordance with Federal and State laws.
Recently, the City has received several requests from members of the public to lower the United States Flag or to display alternative ceremonial flags. The requested actions have fallen outside of the United States Code, Title 4, Chapter 1, known as the Flag Code and have not been directed by the President of the United States or ordered by the Governor of California. Additionally, the City currently has no established policy regulating the display of flags at City facilities. Following the most recent requests, a majority of the Councilmembers expressed an interest in staff preparing a proposed City Flag Display Policy for Council consideration.
DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS:
Staff evaluated how other agencies in the County regulate flag display at City facilities and found that many agencies including the cities of Encinitas, Coronado, La Mesa, Escondido, Vista, National City, San Diego, and Santee along with the County of San Diego have established flag display policies. Generally, these policies state that the agency follows the Flag Code when displaying the United States Flag and specify other limited City related circumstances when the United States Flag may be lowered. Some examples include: the death of an active-duty resident member of the United States Armed Forces, an emergency responder serving the City, or a Councilmember. Some agencies also include provisions in their policy that allow the City to lower the flag for other appropriate commemorative reasons as determined by the Mayor or Council.
1 May 5, 2026 Item 13
City Council Agenda Report
Consideration of City Flag Display Policy
May 5, 2026
Importantly, flag policies also generally specify that flag display at City flag poles is a form of government expression not intended as a forum for free speech or expression of the public. As such, most agencies limit the types of flags that may be displayed, which vary from agency to agency but typically include the United States Flag and sometimes the State of California and/or City flags. Some agencies, such as Coronado and La Mesa, expressly address the display of military and POW/MIA flags. Most agencies do not expressly authorize the display of alternative non-government, ceremonial flags in their flag policy, with some agencies authorizing display of certain ceremonial flags through alternative means or separate Council action.
Based on staff’s research, the attached Resolution (Attachment A) proposes establishing a City Flag Display at City Facilities Policy that addresses display of the United States Flag and is consistent with other agencies in the County. Specifically, the proposed policy:
• Includes a purpose statement clarifying that flag display at City facilities is a form of government expression.
• States that the City will follow the federal Flag Code and orders of the President and Governor when displaying the United States Flag.
• Specifies that the flag will be lowered in accordance with the above referenced regulations and lists limited City related circumstances when the flag will be at half-staff including the death of a resident member of the armed forces or a first responder serving the City killed in the line of duty, or an active Councilmember. • Given that the City has an appointed Mayor, specifies that the flag may be lowered for other appropriate commemorative reasons as determined by a majority of the Council.
Consistent with Council Policy 301, a request to fly a ceremonial flag could be brought forward by two Councilmembers for consideration and direction by a majority of the Council.
• Specifies that the United States Flag will be displayed on City flagpoles. • Clarifies that flags displayed on City-owned property leased to a third party, such as the Winston School and Del Mar Community Building, should follow the Flag Code but are not subject to other City-specific provisions of this policy. .
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact or action to be taken by the City Council related to this agenda item.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A- Resolution Adopting City Council Policy related to Flag Display at City Facilities
Exhibit A to Attachment A- City Council Policy 121- Flag Display at City Facilities 2 May 5, 2026 Item 13
RESOLUTION NO. 2026-XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DEL
MAR, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING CITY COUNCIL POLICY 121
PERTAINING TO FLAG DISPLAY AT CITY FACILITIES
WHEREAS, the City of Del Mar (City) displays the United States Flag at the Del Mar Civic Center, Beach Safety Center, and Seagrove Park; and WHEREAS, the City does not have a policy regarding the display of flags at City facilities; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to establish a policy that provide procedures for the display of flags at City facilities; and
WHEREAS, in adopting this Policy, the City Council declares that flags and flag poles owned or maintained by the City are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression or speech by the public but rather as a nonpublic forum for the display of government flags, and any commemorative flags authorized by the City Council as an expression of the City Council’s official statement (government speech).
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, hereby ratifies and approves City Council Policy 121- Flag Display at City Facilities, as set forth in Exhibit A to this Resolution; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that City Council Policy 121 be incorporated into the City Council Policy Book.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5
th of May 2026.
____________________________
Tracy Martinez, Mayor
City of Del Mar
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Christina Cameron, City Attorney
City of Del Mar
3 May 5, 2026 Item 13
Resolution No. 2026-XX
ATTEST AND CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
CITY OF DEL MAR
I, SARAH KRIETOR, Administrative Services Manager/City Clerk of the City of Del Mar, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY, that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution 2026-XX, adopted by the City Council of the City of Del Mar, California, at a Regular Meeting held the 5th of May 2026 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
RECUSE:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________________
Sarah Krietor, Administrative Services
Manager/City Clerk
City of Del Mar
4 May 5, 2026 Item 13
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
121 Flag Display at City Facilities
DATE ADOPTED: MAY 5, 2026
BY RESOLUTION: 2026-XX
PAGES: 1 OF 2
I. PURPOSE
It is appropriate for the City to have a clear policy with respect to the display of the United States of America Flag (US Flag) at City flag poles located at the Del Mar Civic Center, Beach Safety Center, Del Mar Community Building, Seagrove Park, and any other City flag poles that may be erected.
This Policy serves to instruct City staff on the appropriate display of the US Flag at these locations.
In adopting this Policy, the City Council declares flag display at City flagpoles at City facilities are a form of government expression and not intended as a forum for free expression of the public.
II. DEFINITIONS
1. A “commemorative flag” as defined in this Policy shall mean a flag that identifies with a specific historical event, cause, nation or group of people that the City Council chooses to honor or commemorate consistent with the City’s mission and priorities.
2. “Half -Staff” means the position of the flag when it is one-half distance between the top and bottom of the staff. Unless otherwise specified by the Flag code or ordered by the President of the United States (President) or the Governor of the State of California (Governor), the flag, when flown at half-staff, should be first hoisted to the peak for an instant and then lowered to the half-staff position.
The flag should be again raised to the peak before it is lowered for the day.
3. “Full-Staff” means the flag is raised all the way to the top of the flagpole and is the normal position used for everyday display at City facilities.
III. POLICY
1. It is the Policy of the City of Del Mar that the US Flag shall be displayed at the Del Mar Civic Center, Beach Safety Center, and Seagrove Park flag poles, and any other flag poles that may be erected, in accordance with the United States Code Title 4, Chapter 1 (“Flag Code”). The flag shall be displayed at full staff except when it is designated to be flown at half-staff in accordance with the Flag Code or this Policy.
2. Flags shall be lowered to half-staff as required by federal law pursuant to the direction of the President or Governor.
3. Additionally, the City of Del Mar will lower the United States Flag to half-staff in observance of the following occasions:
a. Upon the death of any active City employee killed in the line of duty, from the time of death until interment.
b. Upon the death of a resident serving in the United States Armed Forces killed in the line of duty, form the time of death until interment.
c. Upon the death of any current City of Del Mar elected official from the time of death until interment.
5 May 5, 2026 Item 13
CITY OF DEL MAR
CITY COUNCIL POLICY BOOK
121 Flag Display at City Facilities
DATE ADOPTED: MAY 5, 2026
BY RESOLUTION: 2026-XX
PAGES: 2 OF 2
d. For other appropriate commemorative occasions as determined by the majority of the City Council.
4. City-owned properties that are leased to a third party shall be treated as private leasehold interests and are not subject to the provisions of this Policy. However, if a lessee chooses or is required (e.g., for operational purposes such as a school or other public agency) to erect and display a flag, the flag should be displayed in accordance with the Flag Code.
6 May 5, 2026 Item 13