Del Mar City Council Meeting Agenda
Del Mar Town Hall
1050 Camino del Mar, Del Mar, California
June 2, 2026 City Council Meeting
INFORMATION RECEIVED
AFTER THE COUNCIL AGENDA
WAS DISTRIBUTED
(“Red Dots”)
Del Mar City Council
June 2, 2026
Del Mar, California
June 2, 2026
June 2, 2026 Item 3
Agency Overview
NCTD’s Unique Space:
• NCTD’s is 1-of-3 systems in the nation that
operate heavy rail, hybrid rail, and bus service.
• Operate in the second busiest rail corridor in the
nation – LOSSAN Corridor
• NCTD is a Railroad of Record and Rail Common
Carrier (designated by FRA/STB)
• San Diego Subdivision / Escondido Subdivision
• Amtrak / Metrolink / BNSF / STRACNET
1 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Agency Overview • Operating Budget and Capital
Improvement Program to be
adopted in June 2026
• $180.9 million to support NCTD
operations and $57 million for
capital projects over the next
five years
• Guiding principles – “North
Star”
2 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Service Area
• NCTD’s service area includes eight cities in
San Diego County, unincorporated and rural
areas, and Marine Corps Base Camp
Pendleton, with commuter rail service also
extending to downtown San Diego.
• The total population of NCTD’s service area
is estimated to be 951,394.
• Total systemwide boardings were over 8.49
million in FY 2025, a 10% increase
compared to the previous fiscal year.
3 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Services Provided
4 COASTER SPRINTER BREEZE
FLEX LIFT
June 2, 2026 Item 3
Recent Initiatives
5 Bus Transition
• 450+ employees
• 55+ procurements
• 3 new systems
NCTD+
• San Marcos
• Vista
Facility Updates
• Updating current
facilities, fueling
stations and transit
centers
June 2, 2026 Item 3
FY2027-FY2031 Regional Factors
6 • Declining population / school closures in San Diego County • San Diego Region CPI of 3.8% in 2025
• NCTD’s Budget Request = 1.17% increase
• Budget Reviews for FY2025 / FY2026 / FY2027
• Service Changes / Eliminations
• Rising oil prices caused by global geopolitical events • Diesel $4.63 (excluding taxes and fees - 74% increase over 2025) • Gasoline $4.95 (excluding taxes and fees – 17.5% increase over 2025) • Statewide new car registrations are still in decline
• Tariffs on vehicle and vehicle parts are ongoing
June 2, 2026 Item 3
FY 2027 Proposed Budget
7 June 2, 2026 Item 3
FY2027 Major Assumptions
• Sales tax revenues (TDA and TransNet) are calculated and allocated by SANDAG to MTS and NCTD based on population (NCTD will receive 29%) • State Transit Assistance and State of Good Repair revenue estimates are provided by the State Controller’s Office
• Federal Transit Administration funds are appropriated by Congress • SB125 TIRCP and ZETCP one-time revenues of $13.7 million • Fare revenues based on ridership projections by mode of service do not account for future changes to the fare ordinance
• Fuel expenses for diesel assumes $110-120 barrel/oil
8 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Federal and State Unfunded Mandates
• Excess liability insurance: $7 million for FY27 ($1.5 million higher than FY26) • Positive Train Control: $2.2 million for FY27
• Zero emission transition: $1.7 million for bus hydrogen fuel for FY27 • California Innovative Clean Transit (ICT) requires all public transit agencies to gradually transition to a 100 percent zero-emission bus (ZEB) fleet by 2040 • Hydrogen fuel prices continue to increase due to supply disruptions and station shortages. High prices and limited infrastructure have slowed adoption. • There is no budget for Rail Zero Emission transition due to lack of funding from the state
• Storm Water Mitigation and Environmental Compliance: $700K for FY27 9 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Boardings by Modes
10 June 2, 2026 Item 3
Boardings by Year
11 June 2, 2026 Item 3
North County Transit – San Diego Railroad
www.gonctd.com
June 2, 2026 Item 3
1 Leslie Carrillo
From: Roger Reynolds <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, June 2, 2026 8:11 AM
To: City Clerk Mail Box
Subject: Comments on the Under grounding Process
Attachments: Del Mar Undergrounding Project Comments.docx 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.
Roger Reynolds
624SerpenƟne Dr.
Del Mar resident in the same property since July 1969
For today’s meeƟng.
June 2, 2026 Item 11
To the Del Mar City Council:
2 June 2026
I will address four issues in relation to the more than a decade long undergrounding process:
- It’s origins in discussions in City Council meetings that resulted in Measure Q in a mailing to Del Mar citizens
- The degree to which the financial responsibilities of the undergrounding process to individual family properties was made clear.
- The excavation process by which preparations for the actual underground were undertaken on Crest Rd
- The aesthetic impact on (in particular) our home at 624 Serpentine Dr
ORIGINS
City records show that the undergrounding process was discussed by the Council and a procedure was proposed that resulted in Ballot Measure Q November of 2016. It addressed “general city services and infrastructure projects”. “Utility undergrounding” is listed without any elaboration.
At that time individual citizens had no idea what their individual costs would be nor how such costs would be determined. As the project moved forward, The Council was focused on the financial obligations it would have, legal issues and so on. This is understandable.
But it left individual citizens’ issues proportionally un addressed.
COST TO INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS
City documents show that Council discussion and the dissemination of information regarding the cost of the project occurred 22 September 2025. Less detailed communications were disseminated before that time. The 2025 document discusses the City’s budgeting but is still far less specific about the individual citizens’ situation: “There are 80 properties requiring undergrounding of their private service lateral at the expense of the property owner.”
It is unclear to me how the decision to place considerable (but still unclear) logistical and financial responsibilities on the individual citizens. Was this decision voted on? It states that “homeowners will be required {my emphasis] to install their portion of the service laterals and upgrade electrical panels, as necessary, including obtaining SDG&E and City inspector approvals”. - “Service laterals” are not defined.
- The determination of probable costs proved to be onerous: a long, fraught and still unresolved task.
- It is my impression that the City documents made little to no effort to clarify, to assist, or even to recommend possible contractors who could undertake the mandated trenching process.
A list of possible contractors was provided, but my on-line research showed that some \on the list had proven seriously flawed.
PROCESS
June 2, 2026 Item 11
I don’t know exactly when the daily digging up of the road in front of our house began. I estimate 6 – 8 weeks. The process has not yet ceased.
It was never clear who was actually running the preliminary phases of the Crest Canyon Project. When the week-day work began, trenches were dug in the road in front of our home each morning, and then filled with asphalt in the afternoon, only to be dug up the following day, and re-filled, etc.. Day after day, week after week. More recently, a new tactic was used: large, heavy metal plates covered trenches at the end of each day, a process only manageable by CAT machines.
Because of our house’ proximity to the road, the construction activity, starting at 7:00AM disrupted my wife’s sleep at a time when she is still recovering from open heart surgery.
There are only 2 north-south routes by which someone can get from the relative north of Del Mar to its southern border: the coastal highway and Crest Road. I normally use only the Crest route.
But for the past months, whenever I need to use my car, it was necessary to negotiate with the workers as to when/how I could get out of my driveway, etc. Travel was, in effect, confined to the coastal highway. Visitors to our home, delivery trucks, etc. experienced considerable frustration as the “Detour” signs provided were often haphazard and that portion of Del Mar is libertine.
The cited memo of 22 September also states that “Extensive coordination has already occurred with Residents”. I did, in fact have many cordial and detailed on-site conversations with John Stephenson and other “associated workers” about our specific desires regarding what would happen in the garden area between our front patio and the street in the preparatory process.
HOWEVER: An absolutely crucial element in the larger picture was never mentioned, namely the City’s ability to assert easements and, in effect, do whatever it wished at the eastern edge of our property.
So, in effect, all of the conversations, the specific drawings, the phone conversations, the email exchanges, and the verbal detailing that we were able to obtain from various figures of authority had no meaning whatsoever.
It had been my mistaken impression the John Stephenson was the “project manager”, and because of our concerns about how the undergrounding process would affect us, I met with John (often with other workers of various status), on site, many times, in an effort to clarify exactly what was to be installed in what we thought was our front yard. He was always responsive and courteous. Martin Boyd, more recently, has tried to explain the events that have already occurred, and that Is appreciated. It is still the case that our experience does not mesh with assertions from the City’s representatives.
AESTHETICS
Part of our concern was the fact that Karen had designed a unique hedge for the front of our home (See Illustration 1 below) involving expensive plantings of New Zeeland Tea Tress and Lumbago bushes and their constant care by an excellent gardener. We had hoped that, with consistent consultation and written agreements about the expected outcome of the undergrounding process, June 2, 2026 Item 11
The harm that we feared could be mitigated. What actually happened was worse than we could have imagined. (See Illustration 2.)
Had we known from the beginning that we were, in effect, powerless to affect the construction outcome, a great deal of time and concern could have been avoided.
A major part of the unpleasantness of the undergrounding process in addition to months of noise, dust, disruption, etc , has been the requirement (!) that each household was responsible for selecting a contractor and obtaining numerous time-consuming permissions, completing required trenching from the main electrical panel to the street. We live very close to the street, but our cost will be at least $15K.
One hesitates to imagine what would be the case if the distance were many times the roughly 20 feet that is our case.
My purpose in making this statement is to assert that:
My wife and I lead very active and absorbing lives. We were not made aware of the considerable disruption the undergrounding process would entail in our case. We were not alerted to the fact that, because of the City’s “domain” rights, we would have no power to affect the process or its outcome. The fact that information would be available if you searched for it did not serve in our case.
We were not expecting to bear the cost or the responsibilities that the required trenching would entail.
I have to wonder about the efficiency of the preparatory process that required so much of what appeared to be a very strangely recursive process (still not completed after several months and, as understood, awaiting also a further phaseof digging later in the process.). Had I understood what would actually occur in pursuit of the undergrounding process,, I could not have supported the original Measure Q, which I naively did.
Below is a before and after comparison.
June 2, 2026 Item 11
June 2, 2026 Item 11
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA QUESTIONS
June 2, 2026
Item 13 – Review Fiscal Year 2025-26 Third Quarter and Proposed 2026-27 Operating and Capital Budget Update
1. In table A you laid out “other revenue” and indicated it was largely from an insurance reimbursement. How much is the actual reimbursement? Response: The reimbursement identified in Table A is estimated to be $150K. While that is the main driver for this net adjustment, there are about 15 other accounts included as detailed in Exhibit A of Attachment A. This one-time amount will be noted during the Council presentation, and staff will ensure similar singular adjustments are more specifically called out in future reports.
2. The TOT reduction in third quarter from STRs is also referenced in the report. Is that because of how long it took California Coastal Commission (CCC) to approve the ordinance so we could implement it?
Response: Correct, the timing of CCC approval, plus the official permit application period, which delayed the start of permitted rental activity subject to TOT from what was originally anticipated.
3. Investment income is included in the agenda report, but there isn’t sensitivity analysis. What is the basis for that?
Response: The investment income proposed for adjustment in Table D of the Agenda Report is from interest earnings and is not provided by the City’s investment advisors.
The investment income is estimated by staff based on anticipated fund balances and similar earnings based on recent activity.
4. There is a second reference to liability insurance claim reimbursement. Is that the same as the one from third quarter or is that a different one? Response: This for two different claim reimbursements estimated in the amount of $372K.
5. What was the amount of the Small Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) funding grant we anticipated but did not get? What was it for? What happened with the Smart Growth Incentive Program? Did we cover that in an earlier Council? Response: The City submitted applications for Smart Growth Incentive Program (SGIP) funding for the Camino Del Mar (CDM) Bridge Project, Climate Action Plan (CAP) Update, and 10th Street Affordable Housing Project. Of those, only the CDM Bridge and CAP Update scored high enough to be awarded funds. As such, the Budget Update reflects removal of the anticipated $3.5M grant award for the 10th Street Housing Project that was included in the Original Budget adopted by Council in June 2025.
June 2, 2026 Item 13
6. Table K lays out unbudgeted expenditures that would hit the CIP Reserves? $1.67M for CDB Bridge and Riverpath?
Response: Correct. This table identifies two important Capital Improvement projects that are active and have known funding gaps. The table is provided for reference and as a reminder when considering any actions that would appropriate CIP Reserve funds to other capital projects.
7. With regard to the Fire agreement, do we have any visibility as to the stability of that agreement or do we have reason to believe it will escalate in a noteworthy manner? Do you anticipate the annual obligation for our portion of the Fire coop with Solana Beach will be approximately an increase of $524,295.00 annually?
Response: The current interim cost sharing agreement, including amendments approved by Council, with Solana Beach for fire management staffing/services is estimated to have a new fiscal impact to Del Mar of $524,295. The Budget Update includes this one-time budget increase which will become part of the baseline for the next year’s budget. The interim agreement is anticipated to be replaced with a permanent cost sharing agreement in the coming months. The two cities are currently evaluating data and other inputs to inform a mutually agreeable cost-sharing methodology. The methodology and resulting costs under the permanent agreement is not anticipated to increase beyond the 50/50 split under the current interim agreement. As such, the current costs included in the budget could be looked at as a “worst case” scenario, which may be reduced slightly based on the final proposed cost sharing methodology between the cities.
8. What date/month more specifically would the funding gap of $1,200,000 be due for the Camino del Mar bridge replacement?
Response: It is currently estimated that the Camino del Mar Bridge Replacement project will begin construction sometime in the first quarter of 2027. The current total estimated project cost is $80M. As a best practice, the City’s required match funds totally $9.2M (11.47%) for the project should be fully funded prior to bidding the project for construction and awarding a contract.
9. By what amount is the Housing Reserve being reduced in FY 2026-27? Response: The projected Housing Reserve balance at June 30, 2027, after a $250K transfer in and an anticipated $600K transfer out, is projected to be $1.97M.
10. Why is the X1A/Crest Canyon Undergrounding Project budget being reduced by $2.7M?
Response: The Crest Canyon project budget is being reduced by the previously reported $2.7M in project savings resulting from favorable bidding for the project. The funds will go back to the Measure Q fund balance.
June 2, 2026 Item 13