Well, good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of October 23rd, 2025.

Our committee liaison, Sarah Jordan, will provide information and instruction for the public to participate in today's meeting.

Sarah, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

While members of the public are able to attend the meetings in person, this meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website.

And council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide testimony via a call-in or internet-based service option must enter the virtual speaking queue within five minutes after conclusion of in-person public testimony or before the virtual speaking queue is exhausted, whichever occurs first.

This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to manage and conduct city business.

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair.

Notices were posted in accordance with the Brown Act 72 hours in advance in a public location, allowing any member of the public, should they wish to participate, uh, to make comments.

And just to take a note to thank uh City Clerk Harris of Jackson, Mississippi for all of her help and her whole office's help coordinating this.

Uh, thank you very much.

Thank you, Councilmember Von Bulpert.

Sarah, please call the roll.

Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Committee Member Foster.

Committee member von Wilbert.

Present.

Chair Whitburn?

Here.

And also attending today's meeting is City Attorney Representative Dana Fairchild, Mayor Representative Randy Wilde, and IBA Representative Donnie Noen.

And if you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the speaker slip box at the table at the front of the room.

Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management.

Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

To join the Zoom webinar by telephone, please dial 1669-2545252 and when prompted.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn per Rule 2.7, non-agenda public comment as an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee.

And each speaker will have two minutes.

And as a reminder, if you're watching on City TV or the live stream and online, please dial 1669-2545252 inputting webinar ID 160685-1166 pound.

We've not received any speaker slips here in chambers.

So I will start the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes, beginning with Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm here to speak about the traffic safety concerns surrounding the proposal to allow uh digital billboards in our city.

San Diego has long recognized the dangers of roadside distractions, and that's why we don't currently allow digital billboards.

These bright, flashing, constantly changing displays are proven to draw drivers' attention away from the road, increasing crash crash risk, particularly at intersections and along high speed corridors.

Allowing them now would undermine years of progress towards vision zero and safer streets for everyone.

Digital billboards don't just impact drivers.

That's the opposite of what this committee works for.

Safer, more walkable, and bikeable communities.

There's also an equity concern.

Many traditional billboards are already concentrated in lower income neighborhoods.

And adding digital displays would compound those impacts, flooding the same areas with bright lights and ads for alcohol, marijuana, and tobacco products.

San Diego's original approach was smart.

Limit billboards to protect safety and preserve community character.

That wisdom still holds true today.

So I urge this committee to oppose any idea of digital billboard expansion and to keep our roadways safe, our drivers focused, and our neighborhoods protected.

Let's prevent new distractions before they become another source of traffic collisions and community harm.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your testimony.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

All right, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Uh thanks for the previous public comment.

Um, I um I come from tech accountability ideas or digital billboards, and I hope you guys can be clear on those kind of concepts.

You're having trouble with that.

Um, for myself, I'm back in the San Francisco Bay Area.

I was in San Diego last week.

Most of the meetings were canceled, unfortunately.

And um, but I was at a few.

The PAB meeting was really important last week.

Um, to uh direct my public non-agenda public comment uh towards technology issues that relate to the transportation board here.

Uh it's my concern.

Well, interest that uh councilperson uh Moreno at uh City Council a few days ago spoke to the importance of of getting her park uh projects done in Ote Mesa area.

I'm concerned that uh is um a reason why the holdups of the park issues are happening at that time at this time is because of tech issues because we're working so much to better understand the data collection involved and how to better address our federal agencies that there's just a bit of a holdup to get the technology into the park system and to get it the plans implemented.

I hope uh council personal and people OT Mesa can have patience.

And that's a big big question right now.

And then we can be better addressing things like Flock.

That I think I'm learning personally that we can really ask for a different, you know, data collection company besides Block.

Good luck in those efforts to really be working on that at this time, and that we still can address reducing AOPRs.

We can continue that good fight.

And man, in the Bay Area, we are working like dogs to address you know Trump's coming in with new federal uh forces, you know, and um San Francisco has talked him down.

What can we do in San Diego to continue best practices to reduce over militarization?

We can make those ask.

Good luck how we can do that.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding statement.

Our next speaker is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, active transportation and infrastructure.

I came because I wanted to share some information that we've been gathering in our after-school programs, working with teenagers, and we've observed over time that more and more of them have been choosing the school that they work at that's closest to their high school because they don't drive.

And what we've discovered is nationally, 23% of all teens did not drive during their senior year, which I think surprises most of us who care about traffic safety, particularly as it relates to teen and young adults.

But the difference in ethnicity is sort of startling.

Only 14% of Anglo teens or seniors, actually, this is all about, didn't drive this last year.

While depending on the ethnic group, 35 to 40 percent of ethnic seniors didn't drive this last year.

So we have a whole different population that's driving.

And one of the concerns that we have is whether they're getting the appropriate information they need about how important it is to drive.

Drug-free, alcohol free, distracted free, marijuana-free.

And we need to depend more on our attorney general as we have in the past, our San Diego PD department, to get that information out there so that our young people who used to in the past be driving and learning about driving or have a graduated driver's license, which sort of requires some learning along the way.

Get the information so that we can protect them from the problems that come with this type of driving of distracted, drug impaired, marijuana impaired, alcohol impaired driving.

Thank you for letting me share this information today.

Thank you for your testimony and chair with the five-minute timer exhausted and no other hands in the queue.

This concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right, let's see if we have any committee member, mayoral, city attorney, or independent budget analyst comment.

Uh Councilmember Vud Wilpert.

Uh, thank you very much, Chair.

Um, today I want to take a moment to let everyone know that today is the last day for our friend and colleague uh Nick Mass Nick Cassiola in our San Diego police department here at the city of San Diego.

Uh, Nick's role on the executive protection detail is often unseen by the public, but they have the enormous responsibility to keep track of all nine city council members and the mayor and keep us safe in times when currently elected officials are under threat, unfortunately.

So beyond that, Nick has been a friendly face who smile greets you when you walk into City Hall.

He has a brand new baby, which is very exciting, who to whom we gave a city council onesie.

We hope that means that he'll grow up to be a city council member.

And uh Nick, your professionalism, good humor and perspective will have a long affecting uh mark on the city on the council.

Thank you for your entire career of service here at the San Diego Police Department.

We want to thank you and good luck up in Carlsbad.

We'll miss you, but we do have a certificate to celebrate your contributions to the city, and we hope that you come back and visit us anytime.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Vod Wilpert.

Uh, and I will echo the congratulations.

Thank you very much for your service to the city over these years and uh for keeping the public and all of us safe.

It is very much appreciated.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh, do we have any requests for continuance?

Seeing no requests for continuance, let's move on to our agenda for today.

Let's dispense with the approval of our consent items.

Do we have any requests to pull an item from the consent calendar?

Seeing no request to pull items, uh, let's move forward with public comment on the consent agenda.

Sarah, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open.

The consent agenda includes items number one through six.

Item one, approval of committee minutes from September 18th, 2025.

Item number two, request for an extension of the construction contract with Burtech Pipeline Incorporated for the construction of the Belpoa Park Pipeline Phase Three Project.

Item number three, time extension of a construction contract with Steve Rados Incorporated, and Fifth After Fifth Amendment to Consultant Agreement with Lee and Roe Incorporated for the pump station to power reliability and surge protection project.

Item number four, award a consultant agreement with Kleinfelder Incorporated for the purpose of providing design and construction support services for the Cielo and Woodman Pump Station Project.

Item five, reimbursement agreement between City and Sandag for construction of Imperial Avenue Bikeway Pavement Repair Project.

And item number six, time extension of construction contract with Otis Elevator Company and authorization of a construction change order number four for the Civic Center Plaza Elevator Emergency Modernization Project.

Please note each speaker will have one minute per item with a maximum of three minutes to speak to the consent agenda.

If you can please indicate which items or items you're speaking to when I call on you in the virtual queue.

We will begin with in-person testimony.

Aria Grossman, if you would please approach the lecture, and you have indicated you wish to speak to item five, so I will put one minute on the clock for you.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

My name is Arya Grossman.

I'm the policy manager at Circulate San Diego, and I just wanted to speak today in favor of advancing this item and the Imperial Avenue Bikeway Project in general.

Circulate San Diego has been engaged on this project since 2021.

Our planning team has conducted infrastructure audits, bike pad education, and other community engagement in support of advancing this project.

When our planning team performed initial walk audits in 2021, we told community members that the project would break ground the following year.

You know, now it's 2025.

Um, so we just want to encourage the city to work with Sandag and get this project running as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that concludes testimony here in chambers.

So I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment to the consent agenda items one through six.

We will begin testimony with Blair Beekman.

I've given you permission to speak, and if you can please indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Yeah, uh I wanted to speak to the uh consent count well to the uh approval of committee minutes item one, I guess.

Okay, one minute, please begin.

Thank you.

Yeah, uh hi to council person von Wolpert, still in Jackson, Mississippi.

Nice to see.

Uh good luck to her work there, her continual work there.

Um, I wanted to mention that um uh you have a on the council on the uh committee minutes of last time and on at council this past week.

You talked about uh impact fee issues, and you have an item today you're gonna talk about it.

Good luck with this item and continued effort.

So thank you that it's here.

Uh to me, uh what I mentioned at council this last week.

To me, it's important to think of consistency with impact fees.

I know that's not always uh possible, and there is a certain charm in having fees going all over the place month after month, uh, year after year.

But uh consistency, you know, we were working on land management issues and things.

There's a consistency to impact fees that people simply like and feel comfortable with.

And um I just wanted to remind ourselves of that.

Thank you.

Thank you for sharing your testimony.

And Chair, this concludes comment for the consent agenda items one through six.

Thank you, Sarah.

Well, let's turn it over to committee members for any questions or comments.

We'll entertain uh motion and uh we'll begin with Vice Chair Lee.

Cheryl, go ahead and move the consent agenda.

Very good.

Uh let's go to council member Vogue Wilbert.

I will second.

All right.

Uh we have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda.

Uh seeing no further discussion, Sarah, please call the roll.

And Councilmember Von Wilbert, if you can please register your vote.

I vote yes.

Thank you.

And Chair, the consent agenda passes unanimously 30 with committee member Foster absent.

Very good.

Let's move on to our discussion item.

Uh, Sarah, please introduce item number seven.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number seven is proposed response to grand jury report, never been challenged.

City of San Diego Development Impact Fee Product Program Redo.

And if you're watching on City TV, the live stream online, and you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 160 685 1166 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh once you get settled in, please feel free to introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you'd like for your presentation and begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Chair Whitburn and members of the committee.

I'm Aaron Noel with the Office of the IBA, and I'm joined by Amy Lee from our office.

Um we need about 15 minutes.

So on May 30th, 2025, the City Council uh the San Diego County Grand Jury filed a report entitled Never Been Challenged, City of San Diego Development Impact Fee Program Redux.

Um, this report focuses on concerns about the city's compliance with the mitigation fee act or MFA and allowable uses of development impact fees, also known as DIF.

Per the grand jury report, the mayor and council are required to provide comments to the presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court on the applicable findings and recommendations within 90 days.

However, the council president's office requested and received an extension for the response to November 26, 2025.

The proposed joint mayoral and council response covers the nine findings and 13 recommendations applicable to the city of San Diego and is provided as attachment one to the IBA report 25-33, which was issued on October 13th.

For this grand jury report, various departments assisted the IBA in the development of the proposed council response, including compliance, city planning, engineering, and capital projects, the Department of Finance, the City Attorney's Office, and the Mayor's Office, and we also consulted with the Office of the City Auditor.

Staff are here, and on the webinar available to address any questions.

For action, the council, the committee is being asked to provide feedback, approve the proposed response, and authorize the council president and move this forward to the city council.

Per Penal Code 933-05.

In responding to each grand jury finding, the city is required to either agree with the finding or disagree wholly or partially with the finding.

Responses to grand jury recommendations must indicate that the recommendation has been implemented, has not yet been implemented but will be in the future.

Requires further analysis or will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.

We're providing a brief summary of the draft responses to the nine findings and 13 recommendations directed to the mayor and city council.

And note that the findings generally serve as a basis for the recommendations made by the grand jury.

I'll begin with four findings with which the city agrees.

So finding number two says that the city has been chronically late publishing annual DIF reports in violation of the MFA since FY 2015, which requires these reports to be published within 180 days of fiscal year end.

And the proposed response is agrees, and the city acknowledges not meeting the 180-day deadline due to the complexity of consolidating and reconciling over 15 separate community def funds.

The transition to a citywide diff structure build better San Diego is intended to streamline this process and improve future compliance.

That many community plans and their corresponding financing plans are outdated, some by more than a decade.

The city has adopted citywide nexus studies for parks, mobility, fire, and library, replacing individual updates, and these studies allow for more regular updates and better reflect current needs.

So the next two findings with which the city agrees is finding five.

Next, I'll summarize the one finding with which the city partially disagrees.

This is finding number one.

The city has not filed DIF annual reports in accordance with MFA for the last four fiscal years, FY21 through 24.

So the city partially disagrees because while reports were not published within the statutory timeframe of 180 days, the substantive content required by the MFA was included in the annual DIF reports and consolidated DIF fund reports.

And the last category of findings is with which the city disagrees.

And there are four of these.

So I'll summarize these starting with finding number three.

The city does not comply with MFA, annual and five-year reporting requirements.

And the reporting detail does not provide timely objective, substantive and accurate data that meets all MFA requirements.

The proposed response, the city disagrees and asserts substantial compliance and notes enhancements to reporting since FY 2023, including an identification of unexpended funds held for five years for over five years and their intended use.

Finding number six, um the city also disagrees.

This is with community-based diff funds have been spent by the city to develop the citywide build better program in violation of MFA.

The city maintains that using administrative funds for nexus studies and policy updates is legally permissible and necessary for program continuity.

And then the last two findings with which the city agrees.

Finding eight, the cost of developing the Build Better San Diego program structure should have been borne by the city's general fund.

The city disagrees and notes the citywide nexus studies are a continuation of prior diff funded updates, and using diff funds is consistent with statutory allowances.

And finding nine, the grand jury concluded that despite warning signs, the cities failed to take an appropriate corrective action in administering the DIF program.

And the city disagrees and cites improvements in reporting, internal controls, and the transition to citywide diff as evidence of corrective action.

Now I'll pass it off to Amy to discuss the proposed responses to the 13 recommendations and wrap up.

Thank you, Erin.

Of the 13 recommendations, the proposed response for five recommendations is has been implemented.

I will go through each recommendation and proposed response.

Starting with recommendation three, which is to publish the fiscal year 2024 annual diff report in full compliance with MFA within 90 days of the grand jury's report.

The fiscal year 2024 annual DIF report has been published and was heard by council this past Tuesday, October 21st.

As an attachment to that report, the DIF funds report provides details required under FMA.

Excuse me.

Next, recommendation eight is to implement safeguards to ensure administrative diff charges are within applicable caps, justified and visibly managed.

The proposed response details the city's implemented internal controls to ensure administrative charges do not exceed the 5% cap for all diff funds, including routine review of annual budget allocations for diff administrative charges, as well as during Nexus study updates and the preparation of the annual DIF report to remain within the 5% cap.

Recommendation 9 is to reevaluate the Nexus for all DIF funds held more than five years and refund any without Nexus justification.

The proposed response affirms the city's compliance with MFA as the city makes findings to establish the valid nexus for DIF funds that are unexpended for more than five years in the annual DIF report.

The majority of these unexpended funds are allocated and waiting to be spent down.

In fiscal year 2024, only four community-based DIF funds accounts have unallocated balance, which the city took action to allocate with council's actions on the fiscal year 2024 annual DIF report on October 21st.

Additionally, the transition to build better SD largely addresses the issue of long-term unallocated fund balances.

Recommendation 10 is for city planning to establish processes for compliant management of diff funds and publish the annual DIF reports within 180 days.

The proposed response points out substantive compliance to MFA requirements and that the transition to build better SD is aimed at simplifying the reporting process with just four fund categories as opposed to the cumbersome and timely process required to consolidate and reconcile over 50 community-based DIF accounts.

The city endeavors to achieve the 180-day time frame with these changes.

Recommendation 14 is to start a training program for all city staff administering DIF programs.

The city has implemented ongoing coordination training and knowledge sharing to ensure compliance with MFA requirements.

Next, we move on to the two recommendations with a proposed response of has not yet been implemented but will be implemented in the future.

This includes recommendation one to initiate within 90 days an outside independent performance and financial audit of all city diff accounts as required by MFA.

As the proposed response, city planning has requested and will identify funding for the city auditor to conduct an independent financial audit of diff accounts pursuant to MFA.

Beyond the scope of the MFA requirements, however, the grand jury recommendations also includes a performance audit of the city's DIF accounts.

City planning has also requested the city auditor consider a performance audit of DIF funds as part of its fiscal year 2027 risk assessment and annual work plan subject to the availability of funds.

Additionally, the city's annual comprehensive financial report or ACFR audits the city's financial statements for all funds, including DIF.

Recommendation two is to publish all results of the independent audit on the city's website within 90 days and notify the public.

The proposed response describes standard process for the pro for the release of the city auditor reports.

In the last set of proposed responses, six recommendations are proposed to not be implemented because they are not warranted.

This includes recommendation four, which is to freeze expenditures, loans, or transfers from community diff accounts until all recommendations and issues are corrected and an audit is complete.

The proposed response reaffirms the city's compliance with the MFA and states that recommendation four would delay critical infrastructure and may conflict with contractual obligations and council adopted budget actions.

Next, recommendation five is to amend council policy 00-31 in to prioritize diff funded projects and enhance reporting.

As discussed in the proposed response, Council Policy 000-31 was comprehensively updated in December 2022 to support transparency and public access to CIP related information.

Since requirements of the MFA are addressed separately in the annual DIF report, additional amendments to the council policy are not necessary to achieve the goals of this recommendation.

Recommendation six is to amend council policy 800-14 to prioritize DIF funded projects, enforce stricter recording, and limit administrative fees.

The proposed response emphasizes that DIF is one of several funding sources for CIP, and the city's CIP process first identifies and prioritizes based on need, and then appropriate funding follows.

Using DIF funds first undermines the existing prioritization process and may lead to funding misalignments, delays, or inequities.

Given that existing policies, reports, and processes already address the goals of this recommendation, the proposed response is that additional amendments to Council Policy 800-14, which was last updated in December 2022 to strengthen the city CIP prioritization process using an objective framework are not warranted.

Next, recommendation seven is to amend the municipal code to require community plans and associated PFFPs and IFSs be updated every five years.

The proposed response reiterates that the city's transition to citywide DIF has made updating PFFPs and IFSs unnecessary, as the only reason to update these plans would be to justify new community-specific DIF fees.

Instead, PFFPs and IFSs have been replaced with four citywide Nexus studies that form the basis of new citywide DIFs.

Community-specific DIF funds will continue to be expended in accordance with the adopted PFFPs without requiring additional updates.

Recommendation 11 is to return more than $720,000 used for Build Better SD to respective community diff and recommendation 12 is to ensure that build better SD administration and nexus study updates are paid from the city's general fund.

The proposed response for both, as previously mentioned, is that use of DIF administrative funds for Build Better SD as a continuation of the city's planning and administrative functions previously funded with community diffally permissible under the California government code.

Moving forward, city planning plans to ensure that citywide Nexus study updates and administration costs are funded by the applicable citywide DIF funds, while community-specific administrative DIF funds continue to be used to administer those community-specific funds.

For action, the ATI committee is requested to provide feedback and forward its approved proposed response to the full city council.

Note, while this is a joint mural and council proposed response, the council may choose to amend or change this response.

If the final response that the council approves is agreeable to the mayor, then the joint city response will be sent to the presiding judge.

Otherwise, the council and mayor will send separate updates.

That concludes our presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Ms.

Lee.

Thank you, Ms.

Noel.

Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received one speaker slip here in chambers.

Ariana, or excuse me, Aria Grossman.

If you'll please approach the lecture and you will have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Arya Grossman.

I'm the policy manager at Circulate San Diego, and I am speaking in favor of the city's proposed response to the grand jury report regarding development impact fees.

Circulate sent a formal letter to committee members yesterday, and I have copies to distribute today if that's allowable.

In 2017, Circulate recommended that the city recalculate these fees based on a square footage basis, and the city eventually did adopt this more equitable structure.

And I just want to urge everyone today, as the city considers updating Nexus studies in accordance with the grand jury's finding that fees continue to be calculated on a square footage basis.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, I'm not seeing oh, I see one hand go up in the virtual queue, so I will begin the five-minute timer for if any others who may wish to provide comment for item number seven.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

All right, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

I'm doing some busy work right now.

I did not better understand this issue, but it sounds uh of interest.

Uh thank you for the public comment previously.

And um I will be reviewing this uh item and uh thank you for it, and good luck in the uh further discussion uh public discussion of uh what impact fees can be in our future.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And with no other hands in the queue.

This concludes comment for item number seven.

Thank you, Sarah.

Let's turn it over to the committee members for questions and comments, and we'll entertain a motion and we'll begin with Vice Chair Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, thank you to the office of the IBA for your um very thorough um work on preparing this response.

I know we've seen this uh, I know they call it a redux, but we've seen this grand jury report before with a number of the issues that have been brought forward.

Um, and I just appreciate the thoroughness in which you evaluated um our our response, but also to our departments for uh their work to move forward on this as well.

I think I think the the I think the narrative that we've set forward of recognizing that as the eighth largest city in the country, we have a complex um uh system of existing diff funds, and I think these reports continue to show us why our move to a citywide build better um diff fund program makes sense for a variety of reasons.

The tracking and management of the number of funds that we've had, the number of community plans um that the city uh is trying to work on.

Um city planning does a tremendous amount of work moving forward, um community plans as it is, but the idea of trying to move and update each of those every five years as an example.

Just I I think it's just a little bit of a detachment from how we are approaching our work as a whole.

So I I know in my community in particular, um, diff funds have oftentimes sat for a very long time because some of the projects that have been identified are pretty large in scale.

They require a significant amount of funding to be able to uh be secured in some cases uh well over a decade.

Um, and and now with our citywide diff, we've had the ability at times to also fill the uh gaps that exist between what is collected from development within those communities to actually ensure that projects do move forward.

And so um I do want to commend the department for doing what they can to answer to the concerns that have that have been brought forward by each of these reports, but also to actually move our expenditures forward.

Um, and I think we're seeing that in terms of uh projects being allocated and appropriated within the different communities.

So, with that said, I'm happy to move uh the staff's recommendation.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Lee.

Uh, and I would agree with Vice Chair Lee's comments.

Uh appreciate the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst for the presentation and bringing uh this uh forward uh certainly to the applying department, all the other departments involved in uh putting together the proposed response.

Um thank the grand jury for reviewing this very important city program.

Uh no question, transitioning from 50 plus community-specific development impact fee programs to a citywide structure is certainly a major undertaking.

Um want to acknowledge all the work that has gone into making that transition successful.

We do still have work to do.

We do need to ensure that the public can easily see where and how these development impact fees are being spent.

Um our communities are told when uh new housing is built that the infrastructure will follow through diff investments in parks and sidewalks and fire stations and libraries that I think we do owe it to our residents to clearly show how those funds are being used to deliver those improvements.

I appreciate the city's efforts so far.

Look forward to continued progress in increasing transparency and accountability around development impact fee spending.

So I will be supporting the grand jury uh proposed response.

I will be happy to second the motion that was made by Vice Chair Lee.

And let's hear from Councilmember von Wilpert.

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the IBA for all the responses you drafted.

Um I too will support the motion today, and thank you to the grand jury for digging in.

Um, it has been frustrating, as we all know to see so many development impact fees that have not been expended as quickly as we'd like, which is one of the reasons we did change to a citywide fee.

So hopefully we can move projects through faster.

Um also we we definitely need to hold uh developers accountable who say that they are going to build some of the infrastructure as part of their requirements and then wait till the end of the housing development to think about building the amenities we need, and then the cost goes up.

So I just thank you to the grand jury.

I'm glad that we're moving forward on this.

We do need to make sure we get these things done on time.

And uh we'll you know, we had a very robust discussion about diffs the other day at council, and we're gonna be doing a new nexus study soon, and I look forward to finding more fire stations over that way.

But uh, thank you again to the IVA for this, and I'll support the motion.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Von Wilpert.

All right, we have a motion by Vice Chair Lee that I seconded, Sarah.

Please call the roll.

And committee member von Wilbert, if you can please register your vote.

I vote yes.

Thank you.

And Chair Item 7 passes unanimously 30 with committee member Foster absent.

Thank you, Sarah.

That brings us to the end of our agenda today.

Thank you to all the members of the public and staff for your participation.

I will now adjourn this meeting of the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, November 20th, 2025 at one o'clock in the afternoon.

We are adjourned.