Good afternoon, everybody.

I want to let you know that the active transportation and infrastructure committee will be starting shortly.

A majority of the committee members here.

But as soon as we do have a quarrel, we'll get the meeting started.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Welcome to the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of April twenty third, twenty twenty-six.

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

Sarah, please proceed.

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

Here.

Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Council President Pro Temli.

Chair Whitburn.

Also attending the meeting today is City Attorney Representative Ryan Garrety, Mayoral Representative Randy Wilde, and IBA representative Noah Fleischmann.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the speaker slip box on the lectern 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 on the city's webpage.

To join the Zoom webinar by telephone, please dial 1669 2545252.

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-229-4290 pound.

This information is also available on the agenda and it will appear on the screen during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be delay.

And please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak.

If you wish to speak to a particular item, please wait for that item to be called.

And then raise your hand by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you are a call-in participant by selecting star nine on your cell phone or landline.

If you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered.

Chair.

Thank you, Sarah.

A quorum is now present.

Uh, as a note to the public, we're going to be hearing our agenda uh slightly out of order in that we are reversing items nine and ten.

So we're going to hear items one through eight, then uh we'll skip forward to item 10, go back to item nine, and then we'll hear item 11.

Let's take up not agenda public comment.

The council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Sarah, please proceed with further instructions.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

Per rule 2.7, non-agenda public comment is 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.

Each speaker will have two minutes, and we will begin with in-person testimony.

Blair Beekman, please approach the elector, and you will have two minutes to provide your non-agenda public comment.

Hi, I don't know if both mics are needed, but uh let me situate this.

Hello.

Hair's a little weird looking.

Hi.

Uh this is the last committee meeting for the month of April.

Um we won't see each other again until uh council meeting.

We won't see each other again till May.

So um I think it's really important to make clear we had a very important uh budget meeting uh a couple days ago, council meeting that offered budget issues.

A lot of community weigh in, and um I really hope the mayor can take to heart that I really want to practice the ideas or just haven't put it out there that we don't have to be so uh urgently committed to cutting the deficit of budget issues in San Diego.

There can be a process of of uh putting uh making budget deficit issues more of a long-term issue, and that way we can ensure our social services and good programs.

The fact that you're thinking of cutting uh neo good day center funding uh is pretty shocking to me.

And I'm I'm officially nailed.

I talk here, try to uh talk about good social services.

A social service program I'm totally involved with is being massively reduced.

It can still function, but it's not it's not the way to function, you know.

I I think we could be doing a lot better and putting things out over time.

Uh we have to have that mind frame more, and we have to have those conversations more regularly here.

I feel it's not everything cut, cut, cut instantly, immediately have to.

We we can space things out over time.

There can be ways to do Oakland.

I keep saying offers great examples of how to do that.

And um, we have to be considering that surveillance tech isn't everything.

We know how we can cut things and still practice good public safety, save lots of dollars for other programs.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes testimony here in the committee room.

So I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment at this time.

Beginning with Becky Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm here today to speak about road safety and the real consequences of reducing staffing and programs that are tied to Vision Zero.

Um from the mayor's proposed 2027 budget.

Traffic deaths still remain a serious public health issue.

And this budget um moves us in the wrong direction.

Nationally, about one in three traffic deaths involves a drunk or drug driver.

And according to the federal data, a significant number of drivers killed in crashes, test positive for drugs, including marijuana.

In some studies, more than half of injured or killed drivers had at least one drug in their system.

When we reduce staffing for traffic safety, we're not just cutting positions.

We are weakening the enforcement and education, which help prevent impaired driving crashes from happening at all.

Safe street design, things like um traffic calming, protected bike lanes, and better lighting.

Um reduces the likelihood and severity of crashes, including those involved involving impaired drivers.

So without the staff to plan and implement, we're left relying on a system that reacts after an incident happens instead of preventing it.

Public safety should not be cut short.

It's not just about emergency response, it's about prevention, it's about maintaining roads and streets that are safe, as well as public education regarding drug prevention and enforcement of law.

So I just urge this committee to reconsider reductions to transportation safety, staffing and programs, and to treat road safety as one of the most important public health safety issues that we're facing.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Peggy Walker.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

As a public health educator and youth mentor, I follow drug trends impacting young people.

One issue of escalating concern underscored by research and traffic safety data is the dangerous impact of marijuana youth on driving.

I want to share a new six-year study of traffic fatalities conducted by the American College of Surgeons.

It showed nearly half of drivers killed in car crashes had THC in their blood at dangerously high levels.

The study said THC traffic deaths are soaring and called for stronger anti-drug driving campaigns.

It emphasized that THC levels and crash fatality victims blood tests indicate the drivers consume close to driving time, meaning drivers are either using marijuana right before or during driving.

And consumers are unaware of or ignore the impact and risks of high potency THC use on driving.

As a result, public messaging about the risk of cannabis use before and while driving must be stronger and clearer.

We educate kids in our youth groups, but we need public entities like your committee to help better deliver the message to the public not to smoke or consume marijuana and drive.

Alcohol servers are required to undergo training regarding responsible service related to drinking and driving.

I respectfully suggest the same be required of marijuana purveyors to ensure that they understand their responsibilities surrounding marijuana consumption.

Thank you for hearing my concerns.

Thank you for your comment.

Phone number ending in 8700.

Please press star six to unmute and begin.

I will be speaking on walkability, bicycling, petty cabs, sidewalk cafes, and so and a little bit of other stuff.

So the petty cabs are back.

And I think most of you know I love petty cabs.

I I love their bright lights, they're colorful.

I I just they're just part for me, they're part of the urban setting.

And I'm glad we're keeping them.

I would like to say this that I know we had the wonderful ordinance of thank you, uh Chair Whitburn.

Um they're using the horns a little more, which is great, but their speed isn't so great.

They really speed up and down the bike lanes.

And um uh it's just it feels dangerous.

It feels dangerous for pedestrians and for uh, you know, regular bicyclists.

And uh I don't know what the speed limit is on petty cabs, but uh I wish we could uh figure that out and slow them down.

I think they're going to uh you know there'll be many more of them as we get towards summer, but I love having them.

Some of them play music very quietly uh for their riders, uh, so it doesn't create noise downtown.

And uh I think they're sneaking through with that one.

But anyway, let's keep the petty cabs, but maybe improve the speed limit.

Uh okay.

Um let's see.

Um sidewalk cafes.

You know, I'm walking all the time.

And uh gosh, they take up a lot of the sidewalk.

And and I I'm I'm sure that you're enforcing the limits on that, but uh with the power carts and people walking, uh people with disabilities.

It just seems it can be really like we're not really taking care of the case.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

The five-minute timer has exhausted with two hands remaining in the queue, and we will take no other callers beyond these remaining hands up.

Judy Strang, please unmute and begin.

Yeah, uh, good afternoon, active transportation and infrastructure.

And hello to Chair Whitburn.

Thank you for your service on this committee.

As a parent who lost a child in an automobile accident, I'm very sensitive to the work you do and the importance of it.

I had an opportunity to speak yesterday to community and neighborhood services regarding e-biking and the new role at place in traffic safety.

And yet again today, I watched a near fatal accident occur.

So I'm sharing again my thoughts from yesterday.

So I apologize to Van Wilpert and Wa uh Foster who were on the committee yesterday.

There was an article in the Journal of the American Medical Association regarding the use of marijuana and how it damages the brain's working memory.

The working memory is different from short-term memory because the memory that you're using right now, and when you're a biker or a pedestrian or a driver, you are gathering information all the time to make safe decisions.

And we know that marijuana use reduces brain activity in certain areas of the brain used in decision making memory, paying attention and emotional processing.

And this becomes really relevant for the working memory.

Imagine if you are either a driver or an e-biker, a pedestrian and you want to cross the street and you want to do it safely, which is what I watched almost happen unsafely this morning.

The type of information you have to gather.

And so for our walkers and our drivers and our e-bikers, marijuana impaired would dramatically affect all of us.

My concern is the message is being sent out from our city's pot shops.

Don't convey this message at all.

In fact, do just the opposite.

I just would hope that we could do more about clear messaging about the role of marijuana use in walking, driving, and e-biking.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark and the final hand up in the queue.

Madison, please begin.

Hi, thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Whitburn and committee members.

Um, I wanted to talk about AB 2697, which is currently moving through the state legislature, and which proposes to allow drive-through marijuana dispensaries.

But it would also be up to local jurisdictions to choose whether to allow that.

So I'm here to urge you to use your local authority and reject this idea.

This committee has worked hard to prioritize safe streets and reduce impaired driving and promote thoughtful active transportation.

Drive-through marijuana sales directly conflict with those goals.

They are by design car dependent.

They incentivize more vehicle trips, more idling, and more normalization of substance access behind the wheel.

Unlike other retail marijuana is a mind-altering substance.

And we know a key challenge.

There is still no reliable practical roadside test for marijuana impairment.

That means enforcement is already difficult.

Adding drive-through access would only make that job harder and send the wrong signal.

That purchasing a psychoactive substance from behind the wheel is just another routine errand.

We should also consider the broader street environment.

Drive-thru models increase curb cuts, traffic conflicts, and queuing in roadways and parking lots.

Exactly the kinds of design features this committee typically tries to reduce for a pedestrian and cyclist safety.

And also culturally, this matters because the built environment shapes behavior.

When we normalize drive-thru access to marijuana, we further embed car use and substance use into everyday routines in ways that are hard to undo.

San Diego has the ability to say no.

Local control is built into this proposal for a reason.

So I urge you to prioritize safe people-centered infrastructure and reject drive-through marijuana sales in our city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right.

Do we have any committee mayor, city attorney, or independent budget analyst comments?

Seeing that, uh, do we have any uh requests for continuance of items on today's agenda?

Uh hearing none, let's go ahead and move on to our agenda today.

We'll dispense with the approval of our consent items.

Do we have any requests to poll an item from the consent agenda?

Seeing done, let's move forward with public comment on the consent agenda.

Sarah, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open, and the consent agenda includes items one through five.

Item number one, approval of the committee minutes from February 19th, 2026.

Item number two, request an extension of the obligations of construction contract with Burtech Pipeline beyond five years to June 14th, 2027 for the construction of sewer group 843 project.

Item number three, request for authority to accept appropriate and expend additional highway safety improvement program grant funds for the Tory Pines Road Guard Guard Rail Project.

Item number four, acceptance of highway bridge program grant and agreement with Santa Fe irrigation district for the El Camino Real to Via de la Valle project.

And item number five, request approval of a second amendment to the consultant agreement with Kleinfelder for extension of professional services during the construction of Lakeside Valve Station Replacement Project.

We've received one speaker slip here in chambers to speak to the consent agenda.

Blair Beekman, if you will please approach the lector.

And you've indicated you wish to speak to items one and three on the consent agenda.

So I will place two minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

I'll try to be quick.

Um I wanted to speak to um quickly.

Uh you had vision zero items uh and and crosswalk criteria.

Um previously uh from uh at the meeting minutes February 19th, the committee here.

I was interested.

Um, just a quick reminder.

I think you're doing some nice things with vision zero here.

You're taking it low-key, you're taking uh speed management issues low-key.

You're not trying to do overemphasize tech.

And it's nice for that.

I think believe it or not, as much as Oakland and San Jose are trying to be innovators with these things.

I think there's a lot of innovation in staying behind a bit and not serving community before technology.

I think that should be respected, and thank you for that.

Don't feel bad.

Um, I also wanted to comment that um with uh for item three, uh, the cross the uh guardrail issues, cross guardrails uh seems like a helpful thing for this item.

And if there is technology involved, uh uh good luck on good tech accountability policies and stuff.

The same with uh the speed management things and uh future crosswalk criteria and uncontrolled location things that was on the meeting minutes.

Uh good luck on good tech accountability policies, the continuing efforts and uh thank you.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on the consent agenda.

One minute per item with a grand total of three minutes.

Phone number ending in 870.

If you can please unmute by pressing star six and indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Uh thank you, Sarah.

Uh two through five.

Okay, we'll place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Please begin.

And Sarah, I haven't had time to do much practice on my work uh for this meeting.

So I I may go over at times.

Please forgive me for that.

Okay.

Uh on number two, I did look at this pretty closely.

The bird tech uh pipeline pipeline extension ordinance to extend the contract for an additional 12 months, no funds being requested.

Uh, a question on this there were there were two items giving the reason for the extension, and on number two uh of the two uh reasons for the delay.

Uh, do we have a map showing where SDG and E ducts are located since this duct was unforeseen and unknown?

That kind of surprised me.

And on number one of those reasons, I guess the risks uh is this risk is covered in the original contract agreement.

Um does trench lift mean over the ground?

If so, wouldn't it be included in the original design?

I hope that makes sense to you.

Um I think there's some work that needs to be done on that.

Uh, how that all thing is thing is coming together.

So on number three, uh, with the guardrails, the walk uh guardrail project, uh, Tory Pines, what a gorgeous area.

And uh isn't that something that beauty can have a dark side?

And uh just that that staff report was scary and and so real and raw.

And I really appreciated how you told us what you know can and has happened there.

So thank you so very much.

Love grant funds and uh the EOC was sketchy under the goals they had to be decided, which I don't feel comfortable with usually.

So not much on four and five except to thank engineering and capital projects.

All the consent items are coming from engineering and capital project.

Love all of you.

Your work is so tremendously important, and and thank you for everything you do.

Uh on number four, of course, except the highway bridge uh program grant funds.

Yay, more grants.

And uh, I can't say much.

I just accept to thank Engineering and Capital Projects on number five and all the rest on the list.

So thank you very much.

Love to all thank you for your testimony and chair.

This concludes comment for the consent agenda.

Thank you, Sarah.

We'll open it up to committee member discussion, questions, and comments, and we'll entertain a motion for the consent agenda.

I'll be happy to make the motion.

And we'll get a second from Councilmember Lee.

Is there any further discussion?

Uh Vice Chair Foster.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um, I think one of the callers had a good question on the utility um trench.

Is there someone that can answer how we had such an unforeseen condition?

Yes, I'm not sure how we how we should stop how we have no indication of a trench like that.

Uh it sounds like someone's online.

This is uh Donnie Girardi, uh assistant deputy director at CMFE.

Um, yeah, so sometimes when you're trench list is below ground, and so you're actually tunneling underneath the ground.

Uh and sometimes you hit an obstruction.

Uh and in this case, I only 43.

There is a um a concrete obstruction.

Uh it was just unknown.

We believe it was overpour related to uh uh concrete encasement.

So uh a pipe was encased in concrete, and as they were tunneling, they start hitting that concrete, and so they had to go in there and remove that.

But sometimes it's it's hard to know what's buried underneath the ground on the under an entire alignment.

And so you do encounter issues like that.

Sometimes it can be a rock or a boulder.

I can understand soils conditions, but when we have a joint trench that's encased, or I don't know if it's a joint trench, I don't know exactly what it was, what it is.

Um, but I guess my question would be typically anyone doing work in the right-of-way has to pull a permit.

Part of that process, one would think as they go through there's a close-out process.

And typically the closeout process includes as builds, and they typically indicate the work that they have done and any changes in route, uh elevation, anything.

So I I just being a little more specific.

How are we not understanding when we have this type of condition?

I can address that.

Janice Sharrow, um senior civil engineer, engineering capital projects.

So right before the construction of sewer group 843 um started, there was a SDG undergrounding.

And so we just happened to cross paths months after they completed.

So we weren't able to obtain the Osbelts prior to trenching there.

And so that, you know, when we got to that area, we saw the trench, and that's when we started coordinating.

So it was just a timing issue.

Okay.

Understood, but I would assume you know we have the information, we know where things are going.

Sounds like just need to improve coordination and um how we are executing.

So um, thank you for that.

I'll be supportive of the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you very much, Councilmember Foster.

Seeing no further discussion on the consent agenda, uh, I made a motion to approve the consent agenda.

It was seconded by Councilmember Lee.

Uh Sarah, please take the vote.

And the consent agenda passes unanimously 30 with Councilmember Von Wilbert absent.

All right, let's take up our discussion agenda.

Uh please introduce item number six.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number six is the amendment to the municipal code, section 22.3105 to increase the work limit by city forces on public works projects.

And if you're watching on City TV or the live stream online, you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 16169-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160-229-4290 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

Please introduce yourselves for the record uh and let us know how much time you'd like for the presentation, and feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon.

My name is Salmer Hassan.

I am a deputy director with the Stromwater Department.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn, committee members.

With me here is Christopher Eckhart.

He's a senior civil engineer that will be presenting the item.

We will need seven minutes.

But before we start the presentation, I want to uh give uh uh Randy Wilde from the mayor's office uh opportunity for opening remarks.

Thank you.

Thank you, Summer.

Um, Randy Wilde, Senior Policy Advisor in Mayor Gloria's office.

I just wanted to share a few quick notes before staff proceed with the presentation on this item.

Uh the item is intended to be a simple process change to reduce administrative workload for existing infrastructure work that's performed by city forces.

It's not a shift toward more in-house work or a change to how the city delivers projects.

I also want to note that we are uh that we were unable to swap out the staff report in time for this meeting, but the proposal uh is to adjust the threshold from its current level at $500,000 to $5 million as reflected in the presentation staff will provide.

Apologize for that.

Uh, and that will absolutely be reflected going forward if this item advances.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh ATI committee members.

The summary proposed action is to amend the San Diego Municipal Code Section 22.3105 to increase the authorization threshold for the use of city forces on public works projects from $500,000 to $5 million per project.

The proposed action will increase work by city forces from $500,000 to $5 million without requiring council approval.

Projects will still need to be authorized for the annual budget or by council action.

The action does not change the council's authority to approve projects, and it will not decrease the council's authority or transparency in any way.

Sorry, City Forces public works projects.

First, cost efficiency.

It eliminates contractor overhead and profit, reducing construction costs and change orders.

It allows for faster delivery by saving time, removing the procurement process.

It allows for operational optimization, fast adjustments, and flexibility to respond to unforeseen field conditions, changing priorities, workload, and resources.

For example, the stormwater department repurposed one pipe repair crew to perform channel maintenance after the January 2024 flooding, and reduced community disruption.

Shorter durations minimize disruptions to residents, businesses, and traffic.

The next several slides highlight the types of projects performed by city forces by the stormwater transportation and public utilities departments.

The program specifically focuses on storm drain repair.

Thirty-seven projects have been successfully completed of the 49 initiated.

For the transportation department, in-house pavement and sidewalk replacement projects have also increased in recent years.

Pavement replacement costs save on average $300,000 per repair mile when performed by city crews.

Sidewalk replacement costs save on average $15 per square foot when performed by city crews.

Additionally, in house crews tackle repairs on streets with low pavement condition indices, which tend to be more costly when repaired by contractors.

Also, pavement and sidewalk replacement projects by city forces are shorter in duration compared to the typical two to three year timeline for a CIP project.

Repair projects can also be performed incrementally for efficient implementation without the need to assemble a CIP package.

The example shown here show the kind of work city crews perform across nine service water reservoirs.

The photo highlights a team member accessing the marina reservoir outlet tower for repairs.

In 2025, the Corrosion City Forces team completed important repairs at several dams, fixing measurement devices at Barrett, restoring power at L Capitan, and rebuilding access platforms at the Sutherland and Morena Dams.

This work keeps raw water moving to treatment plants, supports maximizing local water use, and maintain safe, reliable access for staff.

Their problem solving skills and ability to get challenging work done has saved the department approximately two million dollars.

As we describe, this action offers several important benefits for city departments within house crews.

This concludes our presentation, and we're happy to take your questions.

Thank you.

Yes, Chair, we've received one speaker slip here in the committee room, Blair Beekman.

If you'll please approach the lecture, and you will have two minutes to speak to item number six.

Hi, thank you.

Thank you for the report.

Um I'm not quite sure exactly how to best understand these things.

My my words here may be a little off, but um I have good intentions and good intentions from staff here in this report.

Thank you.

Um it was my my feeling that um working you know towards a more efficient efficient creating a more efficient process like can be a good thing, and that um uh as an example, you showed the the pavement issues.

If a con if you if you do it through the city, it's a way if you have one pavement project going, maybe you can hire do the same hiring contractor for several pavement issues.

Is that kind of what can happen here?

It was also being explained, I think that city government itself can do the pavement instead of doing contractor things.

So that's I think what was stated.

And my own idea from that is you know, as an efficiency process, uh maybe that ways to address efficiency is one thing.

Uh I I'm a bit concerned about losing procurement, the procurement process that offers a sense of oversight and review.

And um, I I hope that can be noted and talked about here.

Can we talk about overall you know best practices in efficiency?

It's interesting that you want to put uh city government in charge of more things.

Uh a good concept, I feel.

I feel because of the 80s and the Reagan era, everything was had to be assigned to private contractors, and we took everything out of the city control, and now we're bringing it back to city control, which is uh interesting.

An interesting concept.

And uh so good luck what we can be doing with this.

Um it's tough budget times.

I I'm fully in favor of the ideas of revenue.

We have to have good revenue sources.

Good luck what we can do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on item six, and as a reminder, each speaker will have two minutes.

We will begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six to begin.

Uh, thank you, Sarah.

I'm sorry, how much time?

Two minutes.

Thank you so much.

Uh Joy Sunyata CD3.

Mr.

Wilde, um I love staff report.

And in the backup, when you first bring it forward, it had staff report at the top.

So when I tried to download it, and then the PowerPoint came up.

So I I missed actually, I'm sorry, I missed how you explained that regarding the staff report being missing.

I just wanted to let you know that I love, love, love the staff reports.

And they're they're just so important to the public, and they're so good for us.

We understand them so well.

I mean, it helps us understand them well.

So thank you.

Okay.

Thank you, Stormwater Department.

We love you.

Keep up the great work.

You've made big strides in you know, in the last several years, I would say.

But I think they're okay, the 500,000 to 5 million.

That's uh uh a big leap, it seems, but uh there's probably a range all the range of the projects in there.

But I love I have the feeling of a partnership here with the city council, and that's gonna remain strong uh as far as the decision making, the approval of all of that.

So uh thank you so much for that.

And then on the transparency and the accountability.

Um I think you made one statement that you know it's it's strong and and remains you know good from very beginning on this and will continue.

So that's just what I want to second the motion on that that it was good, it is good, and it will remain good on the transparency and accountability.

So uh this is an important item, and uh I really appreciate it so very much in love to all.

Thank you for your testimony.

And Chair, this concludes comment on item six.

Thank you very much, Sarah.

We'll turn it over to the committee for questions and comments and entertain a motion, and we'll begin with Councilmember Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you for the presentation on this item.

I uh certainly understand the desire to streamline and make our uh capital improvement projects uh processes more efficient, uh, especially given project costs have uh risen over time.

Um I also and this council in many uh different scenarios has often talked about the benefit of the utilization of city forces, and we've touted that work.

Um and I noticed that a lot of this presentation seems specifically to tout the benefit of using city forces on projects, um, which I will just admit felt a little unnecessary given that's what the council seems to describe um pretty regularly.

So can you help me understand?

Does this item today change our ability to use city forces on projects?

As you pointed out that we've already been doing today.

I'll take a stab at this.

Uh, thank you, can uh council member Lee.

Uh it does not.

Uh so probably the slides were a little bit uh misleading, as you mentioned by us uh in clue including several slides that describes the type of work that city forces do at this transportation department, stormwater and PUD.

These are the three departments that they use uh city forces for the most part.

Uh so uh we wanted to include the information just to give a context for the overall item.

So the item before you only raises the limit for the city forces, the labor portion from the current $500,000 to $5 million.

And it's mainly due to uh the salary increases and just the increased cost overall.

So it does not add to the type of projects that are done by the by city forces, nor the number of projects.

And for many reasons.

Um I'll be more than happy to go into more details.

Let me know if you need more explanation.

No, that thank you.

And and I seem to recall um on emergency projects that are needed, whether they are done by city.

Well, when they're when there are emergency needs that end up being contracted out, there is authority that's given to accomplish that work at that time that the council later ratifies.

Is that similar if a situation comes up for city forces that exceeds this threshold?

Okay, so currently what we do, we initiate the projects at the beginning of the year, all these CIP projects, similar to the rest of the CIP projects that are managed by ECP.

The CIP projects that are slated for city forces, they are part of the annual CIP budget.

So you'll see them in the in the report.

And in the course of um implementation of these projects, if the city labor amount exceeds the current $500,000 limit, we come before you here on individual council actions to ask for your permission or for the authorization.

So my question is is more specific to when there's an emergency need.

As I understand when there are other emergency needs, for example, for stormwater, we are able to do that work and retroactively come back to the council for approval.

Is that the same case if city work is able to accomplish that job?

Absolutely.

So currently Chris covered this in one of his slides.

The Stormwater Department in-house pipe repair team completed three uh Stormwater emergency projects this year.

So it it follows this typical CIP process, if that's the case.

Correct.

And then if if it exceeded the amount, then it came back to council at some point for ratification in the future.

Okay.

Uh that's helpful to understand.

Um I mean, maybe to to Randy, just a note.

Um I know you you pointed out that, of course, the staff report that we're all looking at um noted that the threshold was set at 30 million dollars and that it was updated um to be five million dollars.

That's a pretty big shift.

And so I was just really curious what the thought process was to determine the $30 million that was presented, and then why that was changed to $5 million.

Sure.

Happy to take that, um, council member.

So the uh original um kind of starting point was $30 million to be equivalent to the um current authorization threshold for uh private contracts for public works, um, as we were collecting information from departments about kind of what are the actual uh projects that are currently triggered under the $500,000, what are those project costs like?

Um we found that five billion was going to be um uh probably a better compromise where most of the kind of routine work um that is is triggering most of these items coming through council um would be uh alleviated under a five million dollar scenario and maybe a handful uh of projects would continue to need that authorization.

We think that's a a reasonable compromise and apologize for the staff report.

Understand there were some technical glitches with uh getting that swapped out, um but our intention was to come forward with that five million.

Okay.

Um it is just confusing to me because it obviously it's a change that happened had to happen in a pretty short period of time frame before today's meeting to be in the presentation, but not to make the staff report.

So and that's not a small difference.

I mean, that's a six-time full difference on that authorization number.

Um how many projects in the last year were completed in-house that would have fallen into the category between $500,000 and five million dollars, and how many of them would have fallen between the level of five million to $30 million?

I can answer for the Stormwater Department.

So in the last um several years from 2022 up to 2025, we had seven out of 15 uh in-house projects that exceeded uh the $500,000 limit.

For FY27, three out of our five projects that are planned for uh FY27 will exceed the $500,000 limit.

So you can say probably half of our projects overall will exceed the $500,000 limit, and that's by the way, without consideration of the upcoming salary increase.

Um not sure if someone is available from the other departments.

Good afternoon, Philip Lowry, Deputy Director from Transportation.

Uh for us in the upcoming year, we've got uh a total of three projects uh currently that would exceed the 500 K of those two of those would be below five million, and only the in-house mill and pave would exceed that five million dollar mark for personal expenditures.

So we'd still be bringing that to you.

Thank you for sharing that.

And uh of course, I think one of some of the examples that were shared uh in help in-house mill and pave is one of them, and and I think every council member probably has a huge appreciation for that work that's done.

Uh sidewall work, um, sidewalk work this last year was also falling uh into that category.

Um, and in large part because I think everything got bundled together in a way in which was presented to council to be able to move that forward.

Um I think the last question I have is is this just stuck out to me.

One of the benefits that was touted here in the report and in the presentation is that quote, this does not change the council's authority to approve projects and does not reduce transparency in any way.

Can you explain to me why that's the case and how yeah, so these projects are uh CIP projects, whether they are done by the Inforce team or um the traditional CIP where they're contracted out, uh so the council's authority is approving these projects as part of the annual CIP budget process.

They will be listed every fiscal year at the beginning of the fiscal year through the budget process.

Uh if they are not, let's say we plan a project for any reason uh after the adoption of the uh fiscal year budget, um, then either they would have to come to the city council as an individual action if it's uh a standalone CIP, or it will be um if it's a sublet like the smaller projects, the budget has to be already available.

So for the stormwater department, for example, we do have an annual allocation uh the flood resilience and the green infrastructure.

So if we initiate a project throughout the year, it's the budget is already approved by council.

So that's really the the point of saying that.

And in terms of accountability uh and transparency, again, these projects are listed as part of the CIP.

They're uh already posted on uh map Viewer as any other CIP.

Uh and we update the City Council.

I'm sure a lot of you received my emails at the beginning of these projects that we notify the city council at the beginning of uh the initiation of these projects.

So that's what we mean by transparency and accountability.

Uh I I think I understand the efficiency component of it.

And I think where I struggle, and Randy, maybe I'll just turn back to you on this is is the argument that having fewer things come to this council and fewer items that require approval can be marketed as improving, not having any impact on authority or transparency, which I think just on the basic simple fact of having fewer meetings and fewer items available to the public would suggest that's not the argument.

I'm I'm not saying that's not why you don't do it.

I just I just hard not to be surprised by that being a talking point.

Understood.

Um and I think that's fair critique of of that wording.

Um and uh really our intent is to to do this in partnership with council.

Partially this item was in response to some comments from members of this committee.

I think around this time last year we saw a lot of these types of items coming forward.

Um we hope that we can find mutual agreement where we're at the we have the right level of of authorization and and transparency.

And if there's a desire to see additional transparency measures for these types of projects, I think that's something that we're open to, but understood.

Thank you for noting that.

It did stick out in my mind that it felt like not that long ago, I guess last year, where there was an item where the shift in authority was um a sticking point on this committee and it did not move forward.

Um for me, frankly speaking, knowing that this was an item that two days ago suggested that 30 million dollars was the right threshold, and as of today, the five million dollars is the right threshold tells me that we don't seem to actually know what the threshold is.

Um is 500,000 the appropriate amount today given the costs that we face.

I I I don't know that that's necessarily the question at this point.

Um that shifted in 2022 as is pointed out in the report from when it was 100,000.

Um but to me this is not about the choice of using city workforces.

In fact, the title of this item seems to be to suggest that we are increasing um the title and the presentation of this item seems to suggest that we're increasing the work that's gonna be done by city forces, and that's not the case.

I think if what you answered is true in the very beginning, which is that our use of city forces remains unchanged, then I'm not really concerned about having one or two additional items come to this council for approval to be able to showcase that work, especially at a time when um external forces seem very happy to attack the work of city forces and the need for city employees to do that work.

Um so I actually don't seem that to find that to be a hindrance as much as it is actually us being transparent about the benefits and the costs of choosing to do our work in-house.

So um with that, I I'm not gonna be able to support this item today.

Uh look forward to hearing comments from my colleagues too.

So thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Council Member Lee.

Vice Chair Foster.

Yes, thank you.

Um and I think maybe trying to gather my thoughts here, Randy.

I know we had a briefing.

Um you know my comments and and my concerns.

Um, but I think it might be helpful as we talk about the administrative burden.

There's typically a process that happens with HR and our REOs as we are looking at contracting work.

Um so I think it might be good to kind of sh provide some context into that um process.

Um, but with that, I think um, if I can say this.

Because I'm confused on that process, typically I viewed it as uh working with uh REOs had the first right of refusal, say $500,000.

Any work we were doing, $500,000 and below, city forces had first right of refusal to accept or to say, hey, we're at capacity, go ahead and contract out this dollar value.

That's the process that I'm familiar with.

Where this gets interesting is if you look at our design bid build projects over time, and I understand the recent issues we're having in regards to inflation and in certain things.

But typically, if you look at our design bill projects, our bread and butter was always around five million dollars on a on a project, even if we do jocks, right?

Where we do a 30 million dollar limit, you start to look at task orders.

Our bread and butter is typically about that amount.

So how are we relieving that administrative exercise in dealing with our REOs?

Or can you help me to better understand that?

Because it seems like almost they'd have to go through the entire CIP that's being presented and say, okay, yeah, we'll we'll pick this one, we'll pick one, two, three, four, five.

Can you kind of shed some context there if that makes sense?

You understand where I'm going, because I would agree I'm not seeing any type of um per se change in mayor's authority and and uh you know certain contracts that have to come to council, but I am as we're thinking it's an administrative relief.

I'm not necessarily seeing that, if that makes sense.

Customer, I can try and start to respond to that.

I I think the administrative uh workload that this uh action before you is intended to uh to reduce is the work of staff to prepare and bring forward those items to council, which is considerable.

And I welcome staff's comments on kind of how much workload that that adds.

Um but as far as kind of the the other process that you're speaking to about going through the REOs.

I don't know if Bethany or other uh staff here could speak more to the details of that.

So the process was specifically to move council administrative burden, not necessarily administrative burden in regards to our internal process as we look at outsourcing versus in house.

That process stays intact the way it is.

Yes, council member uh Bethany Bizak, Chief Performance and Logistics Officer.

So uh Chris is also here as well, oversees uh PUD and Stormwater and I oversee transportation.

So uh yes, honestly, the the administrative component of this is just the amount of staff time that it takes to bring the item forward, uh the staff reports, and then also participating in the meeting.

So that's really the streamlining and and it's then the streamlining times the number of projects that Summer or Phil was speaking to.

That's the amount of time ultimately I get saved.

This is not at all changing our coordination with our unions.

Okay.

Um that's interesting because you know, if you look at how we execute our CIP, um, I'm gonna say the front-end process is done by one group and construction management is done by another.

And so, you know, even as you look at projects, um, I I think that's going to uh move me to have more conversations on um uh again our structure um uh as we um go through this.

Um but also I think um, and let me ask this question because in here, I don't believe I saw anything or anything being proposed to updating council policy um the council policy zero zero zero-31 capital improvement program transparency, as you touched on our budget process.

Are we now going to see um a column or indication as we are outlining the projects that will specifically on the front end indicate the projects that are to be self-performed?

We're more than happy to uh take any suggestions, but what I was thinking, at least for the Sunwater department, usually the name of the project indicates if it's going to be done by our in-house um crew pipe repair crews versus traditional CIP.

But again, to be transparent with the name, the only people that really know the difference in in the name designation is really our own internal staff and the fiscal staff.

So we're more than happy to add maybe a paragraph uh, you know, ahead of the list of these projects, uh, which ones would be uh slated for in-house crews versus contract and out.

And I want to take an opportunity to go back to the your previous question about whether we are changing the type of work or the coordination with REOs.

Typically we have, and I'm sure that's that's the same case for transportation and um PUD.

We have a very specific criteria for suitability of projects for our in-house pie prepare team in terms of the diameter of the pipeline, the depth of the trench, uh, the traffic uh area, whether it's high traffic area or not, uh, preferably projects within the right-of-way, uh, if it's with in open space, but not necessarily very steep slope.

So there are certain skill set that our teams have that can complete these projects, and the type of equipment, construction equipment that we have.

Projects that are outside of these criteria, they're outside of our skills set and equipment.

So we have to contract them out, even if they are smaller in terms of dollar amounts.

So there's there are so many factors that we take into consideration, and that's part of the CIP plan and process that we go through every single year when we are planning out our CIP projects.

Just wanted to provide additional background context to the process.

Understood.

Um I I think Chair, um, as we continue to have this conversation, and Randy, I don't know how you want to deal with this.

Um, but I think as we are having this discussion, I think we need to do some work to council policy 000-31, the capital improvement program transparency policy as a companion item to this to make sure that there's clear understanding as what the expectations are as we are going through the budget process and have that volume three and so that council can understand what's being asked, um, and also the public has the understanding as well.

So um if we can um I guess modify um the item and I will support if we modify it and to keep it moving to council to um have additional conversation, but I think that would be an important piece as we have these discussions.

That makes sense.

You following me?

Do you want to put that in the form of a motion?

Um so I would say um I would move um staff recommendation with the addition of requiring an update to capital and to council policy 000-31 capital and improvement program transparency to detail out um the uh necessary provisions to make sure that we are identifying these uh proposed self-reformed projects as we are going through the budget process.

Okay.

Um Mr.

Wilde, does that it's on the fly?

I don't know if it made sense, but is it is it clear, is it doing more?

I believe so.

I believe that the intent is to make it clear as the budget is coming forward which projects are going to be uh contracted out versus performed in-house.

There may be scenarios where we don't know, as my only hesitation, but I I I feel that there's probably tweaks we can make to the council policy that will make this clearer.

Okay.

Uh the two of you can connect between now and council to make sure that uh Okay, very good.

I'm happy to second the motion then.

So we have a motion and a second on that.

Um seeing no further discussion, please call the vote.

Uh oh, sorry, uh Councilmember Lee.

Yeah, I just have a question from my colleague just to understand the motion.

Uh so council policy 000- uh 3-1.

Um does that apply to only contracted CIP work externally.

Or is there an applicability to city work?

Because uh, because when I look through it, it it just seems to only focus on our contracting processes externally.

I'll give you my interpretation.

CIP capital improvement projects are capital improvement projects, regardless of if they're performed in-house or uh or by external stakeholders.

The difference is what we call capital improvement versus maintenance projects, which are categorized different and um and dealt with um differently.

So if you want to clean up what I just said by all means, uh I have to look at the council policy actual language.

I'm a little bit rusty on the language, so we'll look at it and um we'll connect with the Randy and the mayor's office and consult back with you.

Yeah.

Okay, thank you.

I uh I'll stick with my where I am, but I appreciate your uh um additional thought on this.

All right.

Uh so uh essentially we're looking to move this forward to council with further discussion on uh the matter that Vice Chair Foster brought up.

Uh let's take the vote the item passes two one.

All right, thank you very much.

Council Member von Wilbert, absent.

Okay.

All right, let's move on to uh items seven and eight.

We're gonna hear a combined presentation for those two items, item seven and eight.

Uh after we get the combined presentation, we will take public comment on both of those items together.

So we'll have combined public comment on items seven and eight.

Uh and then we will uh come back to the committee and entertain separate motions for each item.

Sarah, please introduce items seven and eight.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number seven is award of design build phase funded contract agreement with Hensel Phelps Construction Company for the Alvarado Laboratory Improvements and Trailer Project.

And item number eight is award the consultant agreement contract with new city consulting for the purpose of providing professional construction management services during the design and construction of the Alvarado Laboratory Improvements and Trailer Project.

And if you're watching on the live stream online, you'd like to dial in, please call 1669-2545252 inputting webinar ID 160-229-4290 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

All right, please introduce yourselves for the record.

Let us know how much time you would like for your presentation.

Begin when you're ready.

Thank you.

Uh, we'll probably need about 10 minutes.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh my name is Parita Amorlan.

I'm an acting deputy director with the engineering and capital projects department.

I'm joined today by Edgar Lozano, senior civil engineer, also with the engineering and capital projects department, and uh Dr.

Violet Rennick, Assistant Deputy Director with the Public Utilities Department.

We are requesting uh approval of two items.

The first is to award a design build construction contract with Hensel Phelps Construction, and the second is to award a construction management consultant agreement with new city consulting for the Avalar Alvarado Lab Improvements Project.

Uh and with that, I'll turn it over to Edgar Lozano to give an overview of our request.

Hi, uh, my name is Edgar Lozano.

I am a senior civil engineer with ENCP.

The engineering and capital projects department, along with the public utilities department, are seeking approval to award two separate but companion actions.

Like Preeta mentioned, the first is to award a phase-funded design bill contract with Hansel Phelps Construction for an amount not to exceed approximately 152 million for the design and construction of the Alvarado laboratory, of which 12 million will be awarded as part of phase one.

Second, we are seeking approval to award a construction management contract to new city consulting for an amount not to exceed approximately six million for construction management and inspection services.

So what does the Alvarado Laboratory do?

The Alvarado Lab performs regulatory compliance monitoring required under federal and state water quality permits, like the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit or MPDES, and Title II recycled water requirements.

The section that oversees lab accreditation and data reporting requirements for all 10 facilities that are part of the environmental monitoring and technical services division is housed right here at Alvarado Lab.

It supports Point Loma, North City and South Bay operations.

This past year, the lab analyzed over 93,000 wastewater samples and over 54,000 drinking water samples.

This translates to 62% of Alvarado staff supporting wastewater monitoring and 38% supporting drinking water monitoring.

This is one of the city's primary primary water and wastewater quality laboratories protecting public and environmental health.

And without this lab, the city cannot legally generate compliance data.

The existing laboratory was originally constructed in the 1990s, and it continues to serve as the city's primary wastewater chemistry facility.

However, while regulatory requirements have evolved significantly over time, the building's infrastructure has not kept pace.

The facility is expected to support a workforce of more than 130 scientists.

Notably, staff dedicated greater portion of their time to wastewater regulatory reporting than they do to drinking water activities, reflecting the increased complexity and analytical demands associated with recycled water monitoring programs.

The city's accrediting authority, which is the California Environmental Laboratory Accreditation Program or ELAB, has identified multiple structural and HVAC deficiencies.

These include leaks and flooding caused by deteriorating mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, or MEP, as shown in the lower left image.

These include leaks and flooding caused by deteriorating mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems, or MEP, as shown in the lower left image, malfunctioning air handlers that result in extreme temperature fluctuations with laboratory spaces as shown in the lower center image, and inoperable chillers that necessitate the use of temporary rental air conditioning units as seen in the last picture.

Expanding more on the regulatory noncompliance that has been documented at the Alvarado lab.

This includes HVAC systems that are interdependent across multiple lab spaces, an inability to consistently maintain required temperature and humidity controls.

There are airflow and contamination control concerns, analytical areas lack proper separation, multiple fume hoods that cannot be easily repaired or used in the facility, such as the one shown in the picture that is currently out of service.

And there are noted structural deficiencies within the building itself.

These are regulatory compliance deficiencies and not aesthetic issues.

Like I mentioned, the lab is accredited by the state of California's environmental laboratory accreditation program, also known as ELAB.

If accreditation is jeopardized, the city cannot legally produce compliance data, and the data defensibility can become compromised.

We would immediately need to outsource analyses.

This would be very costly for the city and increase the risk associated with quality control and assurance.

Additionally, some and some lab analyses cannot be outsourced, and they must be performed at the Alvarado Lab.

ELAP requires that we have controlled environments, segregated analytical spaces, independent ventilation and pressure control, and proper safety systems.

So here's what we plan to do about this.

To ensure that these requirements are met and to address all of the noted ELAB deficiencies, this proposed CIP project will include the following scope of work.

A 43,000 square foot renovation and interior remodel of the existing building, construction of a 31,000 square foot new building expansion that will serve both as additional laboratory and office space for increased operation on staffing needs.

18,000 square foot subgrade parking that includes about 100 parking spaces, which will be replacing the parking area loss with the expansion.

We will meet all sustainability requirements such as lead silver certification and exceed the city's zero emissions building policy.

This project will include installation of swing space for staff via temporary trailers, and lastly, it will include inspection, assessment, and repair of an underground 72-inch water transmission line.

The city will deliver this project through a design build contract with Hensel Phelps Construction and Smith Group Architects.

For the design bill contract, the city used a two-step design bill procurement under the San Diego Municipal Code.

We used a best value weighted criteria selection method that was based on both price and qualifications.

In July of 2024, the city issued a request for qualifications or RFQ, of which nine teams responded and three firms were shortlisted and issued the RFP.

The teams were scored on project experience, technical approach, construction plan, and equal opportunity contracting.

In February of this year, Hansel Phelps construction was determined as the winning design bill team.

One important point to highlight is that not only was Hensel Phelps the highest scoring, most qualified team, they also happened to be the lowest bidder.

And you can see the difference in price between the Hensel Phelps bid and the highest bidder, Clark Construction, which was approximately $30 million difference.

Additionally, our internal engineers estimate was within 5% of Hensel Phelps cost.

And from research we've conducted, the price for similar lab projects in the past 10 years ranges from 1,000 to $2,300 per square foot.

Our project is on the lower end with approximately 1,400 per square foot.

We have the opportunity to award this contract to the best team with the best design for the lowest costs.

This guarantees that the city is receiving the best possible value for dollars.

For the construction management consulting contract, the city used a qualification space selection for the San Diego Municipal Code.

In August of 2025, the city issued a request for proposals to three proposing firms.

The teams were scored on specialized experience with life science and lab construction, their technical approach, key personnel, and knowledge of the local environment.

New city consulting was the highest scoring team, and in February of 2026, they were determined the winner.

City staff completed negotiations with New City Consulting, resulting in a final contract amount of approximately six million dollars.

Their scope of services will include construction management, inspection services, estimating, and constructability reviews.

And now we'll walk you through more specific examples of what this project entails.

The picture on the left is an example of one of the existing chemistry labs.

As you can see in its current configuration, the space is inefficient.

Staff have difficulty pushing sample carts around, and there's constrained space and movement, which raises safety concerns.

In the picture on the right, Hensel Phelps has proposed an open lab concept that emphasizes lighting and visibility, ease of use, efficient adjacencies, and ergonomics.

The lab spaces have well thought out sample receiving areas and workflows.

And the workstations themselves are modular and adjustable and can accommodate changes over time, adapting to future technologies.

This will further reduce the cost of future tenant improvements.

This contract also includes roughly two and a half million in fixtures and equipment, such as fume hoods and deanized water systems.

In this example, the picture on the left is showing the outdated and inefficient existing HVAC system at the Alvarado lab.

Recently, one of the main air handlers completely gave out, and temporary air handlers were brought in to push share through the vents and ducts to ensure that the fume hoods were still able to operate.

However, these short short-term emergency solutions are not sustainable in the future.

The picture on the right shows what we will get with the CIP project.

It shows a necessary modernization of the entire lab campus with a building addition and tenant improvements to the existing building, including replacing the entire HVAC and MEP system with brand new systems.

A functioning HVAC supports the health and safety of public utility staff.

Lastly, this picture on the left shows an aerial view of the existing site plan of the lab campus.

The picture on the right shows the proposed expansion of the new building towards the west and remodel of the existing building on the east side.

You can also see the addition of the ground level parking as well as the new rooftop solar PV panels.

All of our glazing will be low E energy efficient glass, which has a thin transparent coating that reflects heat.

So keep the lab warm in the winter and cooler in the summer.

The glazing was strategically placed on the northeast orientation of the building in order to minimize direct sunlight exposure and keep energy costs down.

The building itself will be a 100% all electric facility and will include electric vehicle EV charging stations.

These energy efficient measures will ensure that we meet lead server at a minimum and all of our zero municipal building policy requirements.

In terms of funding, the breakdown per fund is as follows: approximately 25% funding from water, 23% from uni, and 52% from metro funds, with the exception of the pipeline inspection and repair, which will be which will be 100% water fund.

I want to emphasize that this project is being funded entirely by enterprise funds, and the project will not impact the general fund.

For the schedule, we are targeting June of 2026 to issue the limited notice to proceed, starting with design and permits.

Fully utilizing the design build delivery method, we will be able to perform design and construction concurrently.

Construction of the office trailers will begin almost simultaneously as design is ongoing.

Once the office trailers are complete in the spring of 2027, administrative staff will partially vacate the existing building into the trailers as construction of the new lab starts and will be ongoing until the summer of 2029.

Lastly, the renovation of the existing building will last from the summer of 2029 until contract completion in the spring of 2031.

In terms of overall equal opportunity goals, the mandatory SOBE EOB goals for the design book contract is 3.4%.

Hensell Phelps was able to achieve 4% SOB EOB participation or roughly $6 million, which is higher than the mandatory.

For the construction management consulting contract, the mandatory SOBE EOB participation is 3.7%.

However, New City Consulting themselves is a certified EOB firm and has met this requirement.

Both contracts would be subject to the city's project labor agreements or PLA.

In summary, this project is not an optional modernization.

This project is a regulatory compliance requirement for public health and safety.

It is an accreditation preservation project and a financial risk mitigation strategy.

Maintaining a compliant laboratory protects our permits, our ratepayers, and our regional partnerships.

The design bill contract with Hansel Phelps and the construction management contract with New City Consulting.

With your help, we aim to issue the notice of proceed for both of these contracts in June of this year.

And we look forward to delivering this very important project for the city of San Diego.

And with that, we'll take uh questions.

Thank you.

Sarah, do we have any public comment on these items?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we've received two speaker slips here in the committee room.

Blair Beekman, if you'll please approach the electron.

Each speaker will have one minute per item with a total of two minutes to speak to sister items seven and eight.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Sister items seven and eight.

Thank you.

Um I was interested in this item, listening to it.

How it in whatever way it sounds like a good project.

Expensive, very expensive.

Um, but uh I was wondering how it can be related to issues around uh uh Mexico and the Tijuana River Valley.

I know you're working on pure water issues, and um how this will be relating to future pure water uh statistical data is important.

Uh hopefully, I don't know if it needs to be said, uh, but if um hopefully learning the statistical data from our future pure water uh can be a a good process, a pure process, so to speak, and that um you'll be working towards best intentions and best goals.

And um I'm I'm kind of happy in how I'm hearing uh current council people talk about pure water.

Um I think they're offering a very um much more realistic approach than when it was first uh developed here or first you know, brought here.

Um I think we're being much more realistic about it.

It's not the absolute greatest thing.

Um but in the end, you know, it's gonna take time to involve it, I think, in our in a regular service water use.

I think we really have to think of it more as a really good potable water system or portable water system at this point still.

Um how that can help with Mexico, you know, would be astounding how Mexico can learn from that.

How Mexico can be a part of such systems, what sort of guidance they can offer and and an exchange that we can have in a process of uh building the future of Tijuana River Valley together in uh cleaner water.

It take we really have to work on that with Mexico and find avenues and channels if this can help in that way.

Good luck in these efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to speak to items seven and eight.

We will begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

You can press star six, and you will have one minute per item.

So we'll place a total of two minutes on the clock for you to speak to these.

Okay, good.

I'll speak, I'll speak to both.

Thank you, Sarah.

Uh Joy Asaniata.

Wow.

Thank you so much.

Excuse me.

That that presentation was fabulous.

I mean, it was so technical, yet I got a lot of it.

So thank you for that.

Because you know, I'm I'm not in those higher realms of understanding that stuff.

But it was excellent.

And you just sold it to me so easily.

And yes, it's it's big, it's expensive, but the way you presented it about the aesthetics and the employees and the impact and the light and uh drinking water and the wastewater and the analysis and the lab and what what is needed for compliance, it's just terrific.

So uh under the uh EOC, uh uh Hansel Hansel Phelps, Alpha Labs.

You're great.

12 subcontractors on this, 15 backup items.

Yes, there was underrepresentation in three different categories.

I didn't understand all three.

But what did stand out for me is that you mentioned Pacific Islanders in carpentry, and you don't see that too often to honor the Pacific Islanders uh and their work.

So thank you, thank you for that.

And a new city, uh less than 15 employees, so you know, workforce uh report that they you know had to put in was just for the 15.

So uh thank you for everything.

Um let's see what I wanted to say.

That sounded very, very important.

I'd love to talk about the general plan and its impact.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time for these items.

Thank you for your comment.

And Chair, this concludes testimony for items seven and eight.

Thank you, Sarah.

I'll turn it over to the committee for questions and comments.

Uh, and we will take separate motions on item seven and eight.

I will be glad to make the motion on item seven to kick things off, and I will look to see if we have a second on that.

Is that the answer?

Okay.

We have a second from Vice Chair Foster.

Seeing no further discussion, please take the vote.

Okay, we're got operator error here.

I hit the wrong button.

So we're gonna do that again.

Please revote.

And this item passes unanimously 3-0 with council member von Wilbert absent.

Thank you.

Uh that takes us to item number eight.

Uh, for any questions or comments.

Just really quick on item seven, if I can add Hinsel Phelps, looks like looks like they had a deficiency in their EOC program evaluation regarding African American representation for carpenters.

Can we make sure we have some conversations with them to understand how they plan to address that or what efforts they make on a on a daily basis to improve that um underrepresentation?

Thank you.

Yes, absolutely.

All right, we're on item eight.

I'll go ahead and make a motion to approve item eight.

We have a second from uh councilmember Lee.

Uh, seeing no further discussion of item eight, please take the vote.

Item eight passes unanimously three zero with council member von Wilbert absent.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right, we're gonna skip ahead one.

Uh it take up item 10, then we'll go back to number nine, and then we'll move to item 11.

Uh this begins our information agenda.

Uh, Sarah, please introduce item number 10.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number 10 is the pavement management plan annual update.

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

Inputting webinar ID 16029, 4290 pound.

Chair.

All right.

Uh, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you would like for your presentation.

And feel free to get settled in and begin your presentation whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, Chair Whitburn, Alex Ubaldo, interim deputy director with the transportation department.

I'm joined by my colleague Aja Vance, um, interim as assistant deputy director.

I'm also joined by many uh members of our transportation department who are involved in the paving program, as well as members of the engineering and capital projects virtually attending, who helps us with our asphalt overlay program.

I'll be presenting today on the payment management plan annual update, and we will need 10 minutes for this presentation.

The payment management plan annual update is a physical document that has been posted on the city's San Diego website.

It is a supplemental document to the original pavement management plan that was published in January 2024.

This is the second annual update to that original plan.

This document aims to highlight our accomplishments in fiscal year 2025, establishes our goals in fiscal year 26, documents uh our funding needs in fiscal year 27 and beyond.

And this document was recommended by the performance audit of the city street maintenance program, which recommends that annual goals be established for paving mileage, equity, and unimproved roads, plus anticipated challenges and strategies to address them.

This slide outlines the two primary approaches we use for pavement treatments, preventative maintenance and rehabilitation.

On the maintenance side, Slurry SEAL is applied to streets that are still in good satisfactory and fair condition.

It's a relatively low cost treatment, about 270,000 per mile, and it helps extend the life of the pavement.

The goal here is to keep good streets and good condition and avoid more expensive repairs down the road.

On the rehabilitation side, we have overlays and reconstruction.

These are used for streets in more advanced stages of deterioration.

Overlays are typically applied to streets in poor moderate conditions where the underlying structure is still sound, while reconstruction is used for streets that have failed and require full rebuild.

These rehabilitation treatments are significantly more expensive at roughly 1.5 million dollars per mile on average.

Overall, the rehabilitation costs about five to six times more than maintenance, and as a result, deferring maintenance leads to more streets falling into poor or failed condition, which increases long-term costs.

By investing preservation early, the city can treat more miles of roadway and maximize limited funding.

Fiscal year 25 accomplishments are that we delivered the first annual update to the original payment management plan in fiscal year 25.

We set an equity factor into the street prioritization and selection process in fiscal year 24 and exceeded that goal in fiscal year 25.

We also expanded in house paving to increase cost effective delivery by adding two additional mill impaved teams, and we exceeded our annual paving mileage goals.

Fiscal year 25, as shown in the graph, is the second highest maintenance completed in the last five years.

In fiscal year 26, we're aiming to complete 225 lane miles of maintenance via our slurry seal projects and 115 lane miles of rehabilitation via contractors delivered through ECP, as well as completing 30 lane miles of rehabilitation via our city in house crews.

As mentioned in fiscal year 25, two new mill and paved teams were funded, and their purpose is to focus on addressing streets ranging from poor to failed conditions that are not being addressed by our contractors at a cost effective rate when compared to the contractors.

And that gave us the strong baseline.

Based on that, we set a proportional goal that since 43% of streets are in with are in communities with equity needs, then at least 43% of paving should occur there.

In fiscal year 25, we exceeded that goal with 52% of streets selected for paving located within communities with equity needs.

We set the same goal for fiscal year 26 to select 43% of streets within communities with equity needs.

Unimproved streets include both paved and unpaved streets and alleys that are not billed to city standards.

In the original PMP, we set a goal to request funding to improve two unimproved streets per year.

In this update, we are continuing that goal for fiscal year 26 and beyond.

It's important to note the substantial cost difference between maintaining improved streets at approximately 1.5 million dollars per mile for overlay versus 6 to 15 times more to fully improve an unimproved street.

Due to ongoing budget constraints, the pavement program received only 59% of the fiscal year 25 funding need and 32% of the FY26 projected funding needs identified in the original PMP.

As a result, additional funding is needed to meet the city's PCI goals.

We have the current known funding scenario.

We have the funding scenario to achieve a PCI of 70, and a scenario to maintain a PCI of 65.

Maintaining a PCI of 65 was established as the more realistic goal target in the fiscal year 25 PMP update last fiscal year, given the city's current budget constraints.

And as a result, pavement conditions are projected to decline from a PCI of 65 down to 63 at the end of this fiscal year, even assuming that we complete our fiscal year 26 mileage goals.

The first funding scenario that we evaluated is the known funding scenario.

In this scenario, we project that we will receive 700 million dollars over a 10-year period from funding sources such as RMRA, TransNet, gas tax, and street damage fee.

If we were to rely solely on these funding sources over the 10-year period, we're projecting that the PCI would drop down to 52 by fiscal year 36, which is in the poor category.

This indicates that additional funding sources are needed to improve our street conditions.

This funding scenario showed that to achieve a PCI of 70, the projected 10-year funding need is $2 billion, and a projected funding gap is 1.3 billion dollars over the 10-year period.

Lastly, we also evaluated a funding scenario to maintain a PCI of 65.

Again, this was the target established in last year's PMP update as the more realistic goal given the ongoing budget constraints.

Under this scenario, the projected 10-year funding need is 1.8 billion dollars with a funding gap of approximately 1.1 billion dollars over that period.

To reach a PCI of 65 by the end of fiscal year 27, the funding need is 224 million dollars in fiscal year 27.

However, the proposed budget for paving in fiscal year 27 is 66.5 million dollars.

We have our known funding uh sources scenario, which would result in a PCI 52, which is in the poor category at the end of the 10-year period.

We have the funding scenario to maintain the PCI of 65, which is in the FAIR category, and then we have the reach of PCI of 70, which would result in 70 at the end of 10-year period, which is in the good category.

All three scenarios show their corresponding tenure funding needs and funding gaps.

These challenges include similar to last year, a limited number of contractors bidding on our projects, which leads to a lack of competition and availability of contractors to come complete our work.

We're also anticipating funding shortfalls, an unreliable funding source can result in deferred and more costly maintenance and rehabilitation and makes future project planning challenging.

We have an aging pavement network.

More streets are falling into poor condition, require more costly rehabilitation instead of lower cost maintenance.

We have material cost escalation, volatile asphalt and material prices, reduce how much work we can deliver with the available funding.

We have operational capacity, staffing, equipment, and overtime constraints can limit production efficiency.

And we have schedule uncertainty from bundled delivery.

Um coordinating paving and bundling them with utility projects improves efficiency and can provide savings, but can also delay schedules and shift delivery timing.

And we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Sarah, do we have any public hubit at this item?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we've received one slip.

Blair Beekman, if you'll please approach the elector, and you'll have two minutes to speak to item number 10.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

I hope this item um can it can relate nicely to um what was that item six um limiting you know the work plan ideas for the future city workers.

I mean, I think that's what its title is, and it was a confusing title.

Thank you for your questions uh and how to address it.

I understood it.

I mean, they literally tried to explain there can be a way that there can be more city jobs, and they don't have to hire out for contractors for things like payment issues.

Um I was encouraged by those words.

And um I don't know if that it means lacking other uh city services or perhaps uh council person and lee can better explain that in the future.

Uh we're all trying to work through it, and I I think you guys did a great job asking for clarifications and accountability for the future of the item.

Thank you.

Um another concept uh of this item that uh we're trying to address our pavement issues, and we realize that budget-wise, we may have to take a step back from uh the exuberance and support we wanted to give to community with payment, and um that can be okay.

And I guess as community, I hope we're learning to to accept that and that can be okay for other uh programs and services to be uh maintained.

Um and finally, uh in your recent uh repayment, you've been using like a black pavement, like uh over by the commercial street area, for instance.

It's very clean and smooth and helpful, but it's very, very black.

And you know, San Diego has a tradition of using white pavement a lot.

Uh and it has a better um uh reflectibility and and solar purpose.

And um I hope we keep considering that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on item 10.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will begin with phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six to begin.

Thank you, Sarah.

Joy Sonya to C D3.

This is so big, isn't it?

Because uh, you know, our people want this done.

If not, you know, they want it done now.

It can't be done now.

And the funding gap is awesome.

It's it just blows me away the funding gap, but I needed to hear that.

And the report is very good.

Uh thank you to the audit department for the performance audit and lovely equity uh metric portion of it.

And it sounds like you met the findings uh on that.

And I thank you, thank you for that.

Uh it's good to see uh equity uh being covered uh as much as possible.

We're doing a really great job on equity.

So what to do about the funding gap?

I liked what you said.

I can't really speak to it well, but instead of just talking about, hey, we don't have the money to to fix our roads.

You talked about the other uh problem with uh I won't say it well, but competition or contracts or who can also participate.

I I don't can't say it well, but thank you for that.

This is not just about us not having enough money, it is always more complex than simple.

So it's just a great item, and thank you to the mayor.

And uh, hey, you know, what are we gonna cut to take care of our roads?

Um all I can say is take we're gonna have to take one step at a time and you know do whatever we can and face the reality of of what we we've got in our budget.

So uh we're we're doing good and we're we're facing it.

We gotta face it, and you did it.

You presented the statistics and the data.

Thank you for that.

Just keep up the great work.

Love to allow the thank you for your concluding remark.

And this concludes testimony for item 10.

All right, thank you very much, Sarah.

Uh we will now turn it over to committee members for questions and comments.

This is an information item, so no motion is required.

I'll start it off by just uh thanking you again for the presentation, but more importantly, for all the work that everybody in the transportation department puts in uh to all the planning and uh strategy and work uh that goes into uh completing so many miles of pavement maintenance and and rehabilitation.

It's certainly something that is uh priority for my constituents.

Uh one of the questions we got you know affair about, and I think you touched on it uh was you know, somebody's got a uh a neighborhood uh street that's at really bad condition, uh sees uh uh uh a nearby street that's a better condition, get paved uh and wonders uh why that is, but I think that that has to do with the fact that it's more cost effective to keep some of those uh streets that are in uh tolerable condition, intolerable condition, uh uh and then as the uh uh buddy uh is available to to do those rehabilitation.

Am I is that is that an accurate interpretation of what people are seeing out there yes, Chair Whipburn, that's uh an accurate representation of what you said.

Where we with the limited funding we can get more slurry sealed uh and maintain those um roadways are in fair condition because they're five to six times less uh the less cost less compared to an overlay, which is about 1.5 million dollars per mile.

So more cost effective in the log run.

All right.

Uh let's go to Vice Chair Foster.

Uh yes, thank you for the presentation and um appreciate the briefing um that my office received.

Um really pleased to hear that we are continuing the commitment of the 43% of streets.

Um you know are within communities um with equity needs.

So I truly do appreciate that.

Um also like um that that you are continuing to um look at our unimproved um streets, I guess I will say.

Um you know it does say in here we will continue to request right funding.

I think we need to figure out how we can actually um receive that funding um the for our two um two uh say streets that we identify.

Um and I say that because we have a considerable amount of unimproved streets in district four.

Um and so as I do appreciate the 43 percent, um you you know we are still at a deficit.

Um the other thing that I would um just want to throw in um really appreciate the Mill and Pave um team.

Um I get excited every time I get emails.

Um because in my mind that's how we're getting it done, quite honestly.

Um and and um it's really focused on those failing um streets.

Uh and so I think that's really a good thing.

Um the um the only other thing um that I would uh probably like to add in um I'll say this to you, Bethany.

I am requesting um some time to go out into the district um with you and your um leadership, some things I'd like to look at.

I know we've done some updates to our um street preservation um ordinance and and things to make sure we're going curb to curb, but we've had a lot of work done um over the past um few um years, and I just have some concerns.

Um and these may be things that are dating back.

Um, but there's some areas where we've had um some significant work done.

We have work ongoing in the area as well.

Um, but I just want to make sure we understand on the same page what the what the future looks like uh because we do have some streets where you can clearly see the trenching um in certain things, and um it there's some things that need to be addressed.

Um and so um you should be receiving that um phone call so we can um go out into the district and um just do some on-site um observations, I guess I'll say.

Um, but other than that, thank you so much.

Um we're making progress.

Um I know our budget constraints don't put us anywhere close um to where we um want to be or need to be.

Um, but I think this is an important item for all of us, and we'll continue to uh monitor this and and uh hopefully get where we need to be at some point in time.

So thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Foster.

Uh Councilmember Lee.

Thank you, Chair, and um thank you for this presentation.

I I was gonna speak more on the one next, but they're both sort of tied together.

Um and I think in a lot of our discussions, we all recognize that city infrastructure continues to run behind where we understand that it needs to be.

Um, and that that is not a um surprise any council member because road conditions are probably one of the top things we hear from residents.

Um, and the reminder that I think our team has been um doing well is helping residents understand that that is not a problem that has just surfaced in the last couple of years.

It is something that has um been a result of insufficient funding over decades, and um and that is a very difficult problem for us to address in a time when our resources are uh especially at a low.

Um I know that the challenging part of this plan is that it it really just shows how far behind we are from the funding that's necessary, almost to a point where it almost feels a little bit unrealistic.

Um and my only encouragement is is to think about how we can use this in a way to communicate with residents to understand understand that gap because even as we balance a budget this year, every year, um that does not give us the funding that's necessary to address the backlog, and that backlog continues to grow.

And so I always use this example of we're paying our monthly mortgage as an example as a homeowner, but we're literally not addressing a leaking roof um that is gonna slowly deteriorate and that requires much more to address.

And that's the kind of challenge that the city needs to find um an avenue to address into the future.

So um thank you for this presentation as always, and and really helping to use it as a a chance to explain to people how road repair really works in the city of San Diego and what's needed for us to accomplish what everyone would like to see.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Lee.

This was an informational item.

Our next item is an action item, sir.

Please introduce item nine.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number nine, approved project list to be funded by the fiscal year 2027 road maintenance and rehabilitation account funds.

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

Being sure to input webinar ID 160229 4290 pound.

Thank you.

All right.

Please, again, for the record, introduce yourselves and let us know how much time you'd like for your presentation and begin whenever you're ready.

Thank you, Chair.

Alex Ubaldo, interim deputy director with uh transportation department.

Again, Aida Vance, um, interim assistant deputy director, also with TD.

Uh, for this presentation, we'll need about 10 minutes.

So, pavement management is supported by multiple departments within the city of San Diego.

Transportation is the lead department, and we're responsible for maintaining all of the infrastructure within the right-of-way, maintaining pavement maintenance and rehabilitation records, and managing the pavement maintenance program.

Engineering and Capital Projects Department is a supporting department when it comes to pavement management.

They oversee our asphalt overlay program, and the other utility departments like stormwater and public utilities have projects that impact our pavement that require pavement restoration.

Planning department does planning of transportation infrastructure, and the development services department permits projects that impact our payment.

So lots of different departments are supporting our payment management program.

Today we'll be discussing the maintenance program that Transportation Department manages.

So the maintenance program is funded through the road maintenance and rehabilitation account, also known as RMRA.

It funds our slurry seal and Cape SEAL treatments, which are completed on roads that are in good satisfactory to fair conditions.

RMRA is the primary source of funding for our maintenance treatments.

It's funded through Senate Bill One, which invests $54 billion over a decade to fix roads, freeways, and bridges across California.

And the street lists must be approved by City Council via resolution and submitted by July 1st in order to receive the funding.

And there's been a steady increase in this funding over the past fiscal years.

The funding is only about 31% of the fiscal year 25 payment management plan funding needs for the maintenance program to maintain a PCI of 65.

So although it is our primary funding source, as you have heard today, more funding is still needed to be allocated to both maintenance program as well as our overlay program.

Um and completing many projects that were in the backlog within that fiscal year.

Overall, this reflects that the program is effectively aligning expenditures with the available funding while scaling up delivery to address backlog.

Once we identify how much funding we are anticipating anticipating receiving through the RMRA program, we perform the street selection process.

We use the five-year paving plan that our that our pavement management system recommends for treatments.

We select streets using years one, two, and three from the five-year paving plan recommendation.

And so what our engineer team does is group streets geographically for project bundling to bundle them into projects.

This year we have six slurry seal projects.

We prioritize streets based on criticality, incorporating the equity factor and focusing on higher classification roadways, the higher volume roadways.

We then conduct a conflict check to ensure selected streets are not already scheduled for work through other projects.

And during the design phase, we go in the field and review the street condition to ensure that the correct treatment is being selected for our pavement.

So the fiscal year 27 RMRA will be allocating will be allocated to six Slurry SEAL and Cape SEAL projects throughout the city.

These projects are shown on the map on the slide.

And you can also see that these projects on streets.sandiego.gov.

If you or any members of the public are interested in seeing more information on what streets we're are selecting, the fiscal year 27 funding will be allocated to approximately 276 lane miles of pavement maintenance.

So when selecting streets for paving, we try to select streets at percentages that are similar to the total percent of the street network within each council district.

Not all council districts have the same street network percentages within their council district.

In fiscal year 27, the proposed RMRA mileage is mostly within 1% different than the total network percentage within each council district, with exception to CD3, which is receiving slightly higher compared to their roadway network.

And this is because CD3 is receiving just slightly lower mileage in the overlay program.

Otherwise, all the other districts shown shows a distribution very similar to the network percentages.

Each year, we make adjustments to ensure that both the overall and historical distribution remain within one percent of each district's share of the roadway network.

And then we also consider the communities with equity needs metric when selecting streets for paving in fiscal year 27.

You'll remember from the previous presentation that our goal was at least 43% of streets needed to be selected within communities with equity needs.

We have selected for fiscal year 27 47 of 47% of streets as part of the RMRA program within communities with equity needs.

Thank you again.

Sir, do we have any public hobby of this item?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we've received two speaker slips here in the committee room.

So we will begin with Blair Beekman.

Please approach the elector, and you'll have two minutes to share your testimony for item nine.

Hi, thank you.

Um, to clarify myself, exuberance is not the right word.

Determination.

There was a very much of a determination from city council that you guys wanted to um have good projects uh going with pavement.

Thank you for uh the clarifications from council person um foster that uh equity is still an important uh way to address our pavement, and that 43% will not be affecting the lower income neighborhoods of San Diego, and that's nice to know.

And um I also need to be more clear that uh I I guess there's a there's a difference, I'm not fully sure between asphalt and pavement.

And over on 20th and commercial, the um the uh re pavement was uh a re-asphalting of the area.

It's very smooth and it was really needed, but it was very, very black.

And I think there's concerns that um that deep dark color uh it is not good for our environment and it's not what we're trying to develop for our future environmental concerns.

So it's cheap, it sounds like uh just to use that asphalt coating and helpful, but um and it covered the whole street, not just a pothole.

So if there's some way to develop uh a better reflective material if you're just gonna use asphalt in the future, I think that should be possibly a priority.

Um, a lot of heat comes down, and and we need to figure out ways to not be so heat-oriented, but to for heat to be reflective instead of absorbing.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Ian Embryon.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the ATI committee.

My name is Ian Hembry, and I am the advocacy and community manager for the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition.

We are very enthused to see that the city plans to fund implementation of the citywide speed management plan using RML RA funds.

This plan has been in the works for a long time, and we were initially disappointed when the mayor's draft budget did not include dedicated funding for implementing the plan.

However, we are still very concerned about the draft budget and its impact on street safety in the city.

During the presentations you received from staff on the speed management plan, they acknowledged an important fact about reducing speeds that changing the sign is not enough.

We need engineering and enforcement solutions to actually make a difference.

Unfortunately, the mayor's strap budget did not include funding for the multimodal team of the transportation department.

This team is responsible for making the quick and easy change design changes during resurfacing that slow speeds down.

These include adding bike lanes, narrowing travel lanes, and even changing the configuration of parking, both to create more parking availability and to increase safety.

They also assist with click quick build projects that improve safety on short timelines.

If the mayor's proposed budget isn't changed, the speed reductions targeted in this plan will not be realized.

We should use these flexible funds, RMRA funds to keep the multimodal team on board so they can assist in the work outlined in the speed management plan section of the NOE for this item, including quote engineering evaluation, speed boat speed zone development, signage enhancements, and targeted traffic calming measures to support compliance with lower speeds and quotation.

This committee's recommendation to council should be explicitly stated in the May revision of the draft budget.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

And I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to give comment on item nine.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We will begin testimony with Harry Bobbins.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

Good afternoon.

My name is Harry Bubins with respect Bird Rock to support this agenda item.

We strongly support project PP 09, the speed management plan implementation.

This investment will save lives.

Lower speeds mean people survive crashes instead of dying.

It reduces the severity of injuries, which directly cuts emergency response runs, hospital costs, and long-term trauma care expenses.

It also lowers liability.

When streets have unsafe, outdated speed limits, the city is exposed to lawsuits after every serious crash.

Fixing the speed limit reduces that legal vulnerability.

Eliminating the multimodal program.

The team that designs bike lanes, pedestrian crossings, and complete streets is a step backward.

You cannot post lower speeds without designing streets that feel slower.

You cannot build bike lanes without bike lane planners.

Our request approve project PPO9 and the RMRA list and restore the multimodal program so our streets are both signed and designed for safety.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next caller is Zoom user.

If you can please unmute and state your name for the record, you will have two minutes.

Thanks a lot, Henry O here.

I think we have to shove the bike lanes in the city for a few years because we're gutting the other programs for kids and young people to recreate and everything and education.

We just have to shove the bike lanes and I would even have more paved streets south of 94.

Maybe do uh the southern part of San Diego has been neglected for decades.

I think we should have uh whatever mile of street you do in North County, like north of eight, you should do like two miles south of 54.

So it's not equitable how they've been treated.

You know, it's not about it's just about making it right, kind of making it right.

And then also I would like to eliminate a lot of jobs on the planning department for the city streets and sidewalks, and just have the Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts in every community go around and tell you guys what streets need to be done first.

You could pay them by the cookies from them.

They could get Boy Scout badges walking around the neighborhood, so it would give them an insight into their neighborhood.

A lot of the streets have been paved once that are terrible.

Like Tech Lodi and Marina Boulevards is worse than Tijuana was in the 50s.

It's just terrible down there.

But you know, you probably know what the really super bad ones are, but incorporate the Girl Scouts and the Boy Scouts, they can get a badge, they can do community service and even pay them.

Give them the Padre tickets or something like that.

And that would really because no more bike lanes for a couple years.

There's way too many already.

I have a bike.

I just ride it down at the beach.

Uh I try not to get on the roads, but um because it is dangerous.

Okay, thanks a lot for your time.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

And Chair, this concludes testimony for item nine.

Thank you, sir.

We'll turn it over to committee members for questions at Covet's, and we'll entertain a motion on this item.

We'll begin our conversation with uh Council Member Lee.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um, RMARMRA funding continues to be a critical source uh funding for improving the city street network.

And as um I've had an attempt to explain to residents, it is actually one of the only sources of funding that we receive directly that goes towards um supporting street repair.

Um, and while it's increased, it's certainly not increased enough to match the need that we have.

Um, so I I really want to thank the department um for all the efforts to try to maximize the use of that funding to spend down any existing uh opportunities from previous years.

And um I do believe that there are a number of residents who have seen the significant improvements uh in recent years thanks to the investments that we have made.

Um in FY26, uh 30 almost 31 miles were proposed to be paved uh because of this funding in my district.

Um and I believe a large amount of that was uh really due to pure water uh as well, and so there's gonna be uh some connection there.

Um I'm pleased to see an additional 32 miles uh in the district that is slated for FY27.

Um and we really appreciate the the full list of streets so that we can try to plan ahead on how we uh communicate with residents, but also um how we communicate with those residents who will be disappointed to not see their their street listed.

Um and that is something I I think we also always have to just be clear in uh communicating with residents on.

Um my FY27 budget priority memo in January did include a number of um street segments, uh not the long list that we have done in past years, but really focused on those that we had been receiving ongoing community feedback on.

Um, and our office would certainly like to see them prioritized if funding becomes available.

Um one of those segments uh has been one mentioned many times in University City, which is Ariba Street from Palmilla Drive to Regents Road, and uh that has been placed on the mill and pave list for this year, and we can tell you that's that's gonna be um hugely appreciated, not just because of the improved street condition.

That um segment sees a lot of usage, not just by vehicles, but also cyclists and pedestrians, and I think there's a safety component there as well that we think um uh the mill and pave will help to improve.

Um of the other segments that were on our list, um, I I do want to note that there are ones in particular that sometimes I think we identify because they tie to very specific scenarios that we hear from constituents.

Uh just one example, one that I I think many residents who have lived here have uh expressed for two decades is Antrim Way in Mira Mesa, small segment um street PCI score is about 35.

Um but uh what's unique to them is that their uh road was impacted by paving trucks that were paving uh performing nearby work and therefore we're parked on their street segment, and then of course um additional traffic uh relating to detours, and those are the kinds of things that we um flag from a feedback standpoint that we think uh go beyond telling the story of the actual scores that are identified.

Um I did want to ask with the rest of the mill and pave list.

Um we appreciate seeing um other segments that are completed that of course have significant PCI scores.

How how does the department ultimately determine what uh uh is eligible for mill and pave and how can we best work with um the department to help identify segments that would be eligible and and maybe match up with where we're hearing some of the most significant feedback from constituents?

Good afternoon, Philip Lowry, Deputy Director with Transportation.

Um when looking at what where we're going to send the mill and pave teams.

If you look at streets SD, you'll see that there are I mean it's a target-rich environment, right?

Um the we we we first look for PCI.

We look to balance it across council districts.

We look to have proportional coverage for the communities with equity needs.

Um then we also consider those those contacts that we've had from other stakeholders like the council offices when because in some cases you're hearing about roads that are that are affecting your constituents in ways that may not be visible just to us when we're looking at numbers.

Um we we we take all of those factors into account, um, and then we start looking for things like uh conflicts.

So when might other types of work be planned upcoming or or was recently done, those sorts of things to establish the list.

And the end result is as as we've covered, that there are just far more needs than we have capacity to meet.

But those are the those are the planning factors we use in developing the list.

I certainly don't want to be the one that takes the street off the list, but I think if there are opportunities to sit down and sort of coordinate um and share some of the the context and feedback, um, and also get an understanding for why some segments may not be prioritized.

Um again, that just helps us with communication uh to residents.

I I think there's a about a mile-long stretch um that's on the mill and paved list for this next year that I recognize where that is.

Um immediately I think of a parallel street just north of it that is heavily traveled to a nearby park that has even just recently seemed to have fallen under greater deterioration as well.

Not saying that's a better argument than the other, but knowing that we're likely gonna hear residents when you we do repair one street, they talk about an adjoining one.

We want to be prepared to how we can um address the concerns that are brought up.

So when we get an opportunity, we'd love to sit down and talk about that.

So again, thank you to the team for their work uh on this front and can only appreciate additional streets getting paved.

Thank you, Councilmember Lee.

Uh I will echo the appreciation.

Uh I know my constituents are certainly looking forward to seeing the pavement improvements of the coming year.

Uh and also the safety improvements.

Uh, I think it is really important that the implementation of the speed management plan is included here.

Uh the plan was adopted by the city council, uh, but implementing it takes uh the requisite funding to uh have the sightage uh to lower speed limits in uh school zones and in business districts, uh areas where there's a bit of history of crashes as well as areas where there are just uh a lot of pedestrians and bicyclists.

So uh a lot of good news in here.

Thank you for that.

Uh let's go to Vice Chair Foster.

Uh yes, just a quick question.

Um, just as I look at this part, did the PowerPoint change or the number change from the time we had our briefing to here?

Same PowerPoint, same information, Saul?

Okay.

All right, thank you.

All right.

Uh let's see, this is an action item.

So I think we need a motion on this one.

Okay, it all seconded it, or we got a second from uh Councilmember Lee.

Okay, we've got a motion uh to adopt a staff recommendation from Vice Chair Foster, a second from Councilmember Lee.

Please call the vote.

Councilmember Foster, can you review register?

Oh, yeah, I'd like to clarify um because uh councilmember Foster, when we presented the briefing, it was actually the overall paving program for FY27.

So it included the mill and pave, the ECP overlay, whereas this is focused solely on the Slurry SEAL RMRA item.

And with that, this passes unanimously 30 with Councilmember Marty von Wilbert absent.

Thank you.

Thank you again.

All right, Sarah, please introduce our final item for this afternoon.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number 11 is an information item on the broadband master plan.

And if you're watching on City TV and you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252 and putting webinar ID 160-229-4290 pound.

Thank you.

All right, please introduce yourselves for the record uh and let us know how much time you would like for your presentation.

Uh feel free to get settled in and begin your presentation whenever you're ready.

There we go.

Uh good afternoon.

Uh, I'm Ian Brazzle, Assistant Deputy Director with the Department of IT.

Uh, I'm here with Mike and Mao reader, uh program coordinator with the Department of IT and uh director Jonathan Banke.

Um we would like uh 17 minutes.

Right.

All right, uh good afternoon, uh Chair Whitburn and committee members.

My name is Ian Brazzle, Assistant Deputy Director with the Department of IT.

I will be presenting today alongside my ten Mao Reader, digital equity program coordinator.

We're also joined by Jonathan Banke, Chief Information Officer, and over Zoom, uh Manjeet Singh, Deputy Director with the Development Services Department.

Uh, we're here today to present the broadband master plan's findings and recommendations, which were developed through a two-year-long engagement with consultants from Columbia Telecommunications Corporation or CTC to identify how we as a city can improve broadband internet access and affordability uh in San Diego.

This effort, funded by a $500,000 CPUC state grant has culminated in two distinct documents from CTC.

The first and primary document is called the broadband master plan.

The second document, uh supplemental to the main plan is called the implementation plan, which as the name suggests focuses on how to implement the many recommendations laid out within the master plan.

I'll now turn it over to MITEN to provide background on the work conducted by the city and CTC and what we've learned regarding the broadband landscape in San Diego.

Thanks, Ian.

Uh so to frame the importance of this master plan, up until now, the city has not had a comprehensive data-driven roadmap to guide decisions about our broadband environment.

The absence of a coordinated plan has put San Diego behind many other major cities, both nationally and within our region that have already established broadband strategies.

The consequences of not having a plan became especially apparent during the pandemic when thousands of residents struggled to access basic resources and services due to the digital divide.

This led to the city directing the city council directing Department of IT in 2020 to connect low income households to the internet.

And from that directive, the SD Access for All Initiative was born.

The goals outlined in this slide were developed through a series of interdepartmental working groups in preparation for the broadband master plan's development.

They focus on improving access and affordability for residents and small businesses by identifying communities with the greatest need, streamlining internal city processes, exploring creative partnerships with external entities, and determining how to best leverage existing city assets to support these objectives.

Throughout the master plan's development, we conducted extensive stakeholder engagement spanning seven months.

Internally, CTC met with stakeholder departments and teams across the city, those that manage relevant assets and those that play other critical roles in digital equity initiatives and broadband deployment, including economic development and development services in relation to telecoms and real estate permitting and leasing processes, transportation and public utilities on their existing fiber infrastructure, and others.

Additionally, CTC met with all major internet service providers that operate in San Diego to conduct a market sounding.

We also contracted with six community-based organizations and areas most impacted by the digital divide to lead our outreach efforts, listed here at the bottom of the slide.

They utilized a variety of creative methods to reach residents, including focus groups, door knocking, promotoras, and tabling at local events.

CTC also conducted a statistically valid randomized phone survey across San Diego to gain additional data regarding device ownership, digital skills, broadband access, and more.

Before we present the specific findings and recommendations, it's important to briefly cover what our broadband environment looks like today, including what the city's digital equity initiative is already providing to the public.

As mentioned, the city has been working to address broadband access and affordability since 2020, when City Council directed the Department of IT to connect low-income households to the Internet.

In response, Department of IT established the SD Access for All program aimed at increasing equitable access to technology and the internet.

Through this initiative, the city now provides a public Wi-Fi network at more than 350 locations.

We offer six free weekly digital skills classes and support internet hotspot and laptop lending through our libraries.

Most recently, our navigators have been serving as frontline staff support, helping hundreds of residents navigate the Bubble Park parking portal through our toll-free helpline to obtain their free parking resident parking passes.

While these services have made significant progress, they only address a part one part of the challenge.

To fully close the digital divide and identify long-term solutions, we need a deeper understanding of the actionable steps the city can take to address the root issue, which is closely tied to broadband infrastructure.

Broadband adoption is typically higher in a city when both availability and affordability are in place.

Unlike the county of San Diego, the city does not face an availability challenge.

99.6% of San Diegans have access to at least one cable or wireline provider.

However, data and resident feedback show that affordability remains the primary barrier.

About 17% of households do not have a home broadband subscription, and this climbs to more than 30% in low-income neighborhoods.

In San Yasidro, 41% of households lack a wired broadband subscription, and in the promise zone, the rate is 33%.

One major contributing factor is the lack of competition.

When we look at broadband providers, options across San Diego, including both traditional wireline and wireless services, more than one-third of locations still have only a single provider available.

To support this, a report from the CPUC's public advocates office published just this year stated that broadband pricing in San Diego is heavily influenced by local competition.

The report notes that, quote, where competition is limited or absent, prices are higher.

Affordability challenges have been further intensified since the end of the affordable connectivity program or ACP program.

ACP was a federal subsidy created during the pandemic that made internet service extremely affordable.

Often under $10 per month, or even free for qualifying households when combined with some low cost plans.

More than 14,000 San Diego households relied on ACP.

And all of them lost that support in April 2024 when Congress cut program funding.

Low-cost plans for major San Diego broadband providers still exist for eligible households, but navigating the enrollment process remains difficult for many residents.

Historically, fiber deployment has been concentrated in higher income neighborhoods.

In recent years, however, fiber has expanded significantly in areas with higher density with higher density housing, increasing access to lower income communities.

Even so, affordability remains the barrier, the primary barrier preventing many households from adopting home broadband.

During this effort, the city and CTC developed a data-driven formula that establishes digital equity priority areas to clearly identify which pockets of the city are most impacted by the broadband affordability crisis.

This map offers a tangible tool for focusing city programming and infrastructure investments where it will have the greatest impact.

The digital divide in San Diego is not evenly distributed.

It is most pronounced among low-income families, seniors, and communities of color who are far more likely to lack both home internet and the devices or digital skills needed to participate fully in modern life.

These disparities reinforce existing inequities and limit access to critical resources.

With that, I'll hand it over to Ian to dive into the key findings in the report.

Thank you.

Additionally, through our market sounding efforts, ISPs expressed concerns about the street preservation ordinance, though the available data from DSD provided another story.

Some ISPs argued that the SPO places extremely high costs for certain deployment efforts, whereas city staff claim that they've worked closely with local ISPs to address those concerns.

In order to identify where any improvements and efficiencies can be further built into the SPO, the master plan recommends collecting additional data on broadband-related construction delays and moratorium waiver requests to identify where the truth lies between their two perspectives.

Extensive interviews were held with city staff involved in the deployment of wireless communication facilities, which allow for new and existing wireless service providers to more effectively compete in areas of San Diego, which have historically been dominated by a single traditional wired service provider.

Interviews were held with staff who are involved in the processing of wireless site permits or with staff within departments whose assets are frequent targets for wireless site deployments.

Through those interviews, CTC found that due to inefficiencies in the review and approval processes of wireless site permits, the deployment of new sites can take one to two years and sometimes even more.

These delays have been caused by competing priorities within asset owning departments, a lack of centralized coordination and authority of the overall permit process, a lack of defined turnaround times for each step in that permit process, and more.

It is important to note that several departments, including economic development and development services, have already begun making improvements to some of these processes, but there is still room for growth.

Some of the recommendations laid out in the master plan include establishing DSD as the centralized decision maker entity over certain wireless siting permit processes, the approval of proposed updates to council policy 600-43, the creation of a 3D map of eligible city assets for wireless deployments, a templatized approach to certain wireless facility designs, as well as a recommendation to ensure that any applicable fees are cost recoverable as the city reassesses those overall permit workflows.

CTC was also tasked with identifying where strategic public-private partnerships could be utilized to further expand high quality, affordable broadband to the city's digital equity priority areas.

As a result, they provided several recommendations, including templates for two strategic RFPs, one for city use and the other catered to the San Diego Housing Commission.

In the development of those recommendations, CTC understood that the city is facing difficult budgetary challenges.

So these RFPs have been designed with those concerns in mind.

The first RFP requests that proposers identify what non-monetary incentives might persuade them to more quickly deploy fiber and wireless networks in targeted communities, such as expedited access to local city assets, waiving certain permit fees, and more.

The second RFP focuses on the housing commission's affordable housing properties.

CTC recommends that the Housing Commission utilize a bulk by procurement vehicle to purchase broadband subscriptions on behalf of their tenants, with the understanding that 30% of low-income households choose not to subscribe to any broadband service due to their unaffordable monthly costs.

The master plan also recommends establishing agreements with San Diego MTS to deploy public Wi-Fi to targeted high traffic transit hubs where demand would be highest.

This also applies to any city recreation centers in high priority areas.

The plan also recommends that the mayor and any interested council offices support a regional call to action to the San Diego business community to encourage increased donations of old computers and other devices to trusted local refurbishers, such as the San Diego Futures Foundation and computers to kids to provide low-cost devices to residents who would otherwise be unable to afford one.

Last but not least, the Broadband Master Plan utilizes the extensive community feedback collected by CTC and our local CBOs to make recommendations to improve the existing SD Access for All programs.

Currently, the demand for digital equity programs at libraries, rec centers, community centers, and housing commission sites exceeds our service levels, and there are gaps in service coverage across some of the city's digital equity priority areas.

The plan acknowledges the lack of available city funding to expand these programs to a size that fully meets the needs of their intended communities, and therefore it's recommended that the city explore the use of philanthropic funding sources and corporate sponsorships to make up the gap in funding.

This will further contribute to the existing alternative funding sources which have been utilized to support SD Access for All, including the Employee and Empower Grant for our navigators, grant funding used for this master plan effort, and multiple alternative funding sources for our mobile hotspot program.

This funding will also allow the city to establish a grant program for local CBOs in our targeted digital equity priority areas.

These CBOs have spent years building trust with specific communities and residents who could highly benefit from digital equity programming, but may be difficult to reach strictly through existing city services.

A pilot program which grants funds to strategic CBOs may allow for a much higher impact per dollar in those communities than if the city were to try and establish those relationships directly.

The plan also recommends the establishment of a citywide digital equity coalition, which would bring together organizations that might not otherwise convene for the purposes of information sharing, problem solving, and the coordination of similar services.

The coalition could also provide advisory feedback to the city on its current and future proposed programs to ensure that those programs align with the region's needs.

Our team has been working with the city's web team on a user-friendly website where residents can review the key takeaways from the plan if they don't wish to review the full document.

That site, along with both the master plan and supplemental implementation plan, are now live.

Um we are working to ensure widespread communications will take place once we provide this presentation at full council.

Uh we will also be conducting several presentations at local community centers to ensure that the public is aware of what the city has learned through this effort and how we plan to address the identified gaps.

Uh following our initial communication push, we will be working internally with all of these city stakeholders to implement many of the plan's recommendations, and we will be publicly tracking various metrics and KPIs along the way to keep residents informed of our progress.

Uh, we hope you've uh enjoyed our presentation and we welcome any questions about the master plan that you may have at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah, do we have any public comment on this item?

Thank you, Jerry.

We've received one speaker slip here in the committee room.

Blair Beekman, if you'd please approach the lecture, and you will have two minutes to speak to item 11.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

It's time for a Blair Beekman speech.

Um I've been doing this work since 2015 in San Jose mainly.

Uh I worked here in 2022.

I don't quite understand how you guys work here in San Diego with your broadband issues, but it was really vitally important that in the quest for digital equity.

That um to talk about digital equity is not just digital equity in and of itself and placement.

It's about community, it's about where it's placed in the neighborhoods.

Is it safe in the neighborhoods?

What are the practices that you're relating to the community in the neighborhoods?

How it's being placed.

Do you have consistent organized practices with that?

Is it something the community can count on?

Um there is absolutely no mention here of the public in this process.

You describe what you're doing for each other and how wonderful and beautiful you are.

Really good of you.

But I I think you guys have been noticing that you're starting to get some serious complaints about your broadband placement.

And it's people are angry about it.

And you guys aren't making that conversation at all clear with the public.

You aren't working with the public.

Um, you have a real distance.

Um, it's a real issue that we're building a future of technology that is a shared process, and you have to learn to share.

And um, good luck what you can be doing to do that, right?

It becomes easier and easier the more you practice it.

San Jose, Berkeley, Oakland, they especially Berkeley.

Berkeley had terrible policies that they did some practice and work on and got better and better at it.

And it just becomes an easier thing to work with community.

Don't offer broadband in placement areas where it's dangerous.

There's a broadband tendency to do that, to experiment, to see if it's dangerous or not.

Trusted if it's dangerous, don't harm people in placement, please.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide testimony on item number 11.

We will begin with phone number ending in 870.

You can press star six to unmute.

You will have two minutes.

Uh thank you, Sarah, for everything today.

Uh Joy Sanyata CD3.

This is a great presentation.

The master plan is great.

Thank you, everybody.

I I'm, you know, I'm in the new world.

I'm accepting it, I'm adapting to it, I'm learning about it.

And we've got to get our underserved communities and their beautiful people involved.

And you're doing a great job.

This is a really good step.

So uh what I want to say, uh, well, uh, there's so much to say, but I uh I'll I'm glad it's coming to City Council.

Uh I definitely will have more to say then.

But the broadband infrastructure that you mentioned, and I believe you mentioned along with that, is the policy changes that are needed.

So, you know, policy changes are so critical.

I'm learning more and more the impact of that.

So uh make sure that we put our policies first, and then you know how we go from there will be clear and on point and strategic and face the important needs of our underserved community.

So I just want to say this before the city council meeting on this item.

I'm gonna go let me just make a quote.

As of 2020, the digital revolution resulted in over 550 million active internet uses users and help bridge the digital divide gap between rural and urban India.

Now, I I just touched a little bit of that uh a while back.

I'm gonna study that because I think we can learn from India.

They are fabulous.

They are the pioneers of the world when it comes to broadband and giving it to all their people.

You know how huge India is.

I think it's over a billion, isn't it?

So anyway, love to you on this.

Uh IT, you're the best five stars and love to all.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Zoom user.

If you can please unmute and state your name for the record, you will have two minutes.

Oh, Henry here.

Yeah, I was just thinking when you guys are talking.

Has anyone uh considered Starlink?

Talk to Elon Musk and Starlink is the fastest there is, top of the line.

Maybe get 500 guys for four kids.

Pitch and maybe get a discount on it.

But Starlink, you can hot spot off that personal hotspots.

There's no underground stuff.

Elon's even coming out with a Starlink phone.

That's gonna compete with the iPhone.

It's gonna be half the price.

Every young kid, four kids.

They got iPhones.

They have phones.

They know how to do it twice as good as I do.

I've got all sorts of phones and internet.

They know what more than I know how to do it.

I got all the stuff.

So I think they already know and they can get it if they want.

Even if they're really poverty stricken kids.

We have no India kids here.

They say in India.

The poorest kid in San Diego.

Lives like a king compared to some poor kid in India.

You know, so it's like um go for Starlink.

I wouldn't underground anything.

Let the let the other companies spectrum underground if they want to underground, let them.

But we shouldn't be getting involved in any of that stuff.

Starlink's gonna come in and just it's like having the having a wheelbarrow and a shovel compared to a backhoe and a track.

You know what?

And he's saying it's just a change of the whole internet space.

So anyway, you guys got it going on.

Thanks for your time.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes testimony for item number 11.

Thank you, Sarah.

Uh, we will now open it up to the committee for questions and comments.

This is an informational item, so no motion is required.

Uh this one.

Uh, we'll begin our conversation with Vice Chair Foster.

Um thank you, Chair, and thank you, staff, for the um presentation.

Um, this is something that's important to the District 4 office, something that we really um you know focused on uh you know during our COVID um time.

Um in the the actual plan and the grant and the dollars that we um uh uh secured.

Um I know there was a little bit of wasn't as easy as one would think to go after those dollars.

Um, but I do appreciate this administration and your efforts um to keep these efforts moving and to keep um things uh moving forward.

Also um really um good to hear that we have moved the SDX for all into ongoing um expenditure versus one time.

So um we don't have to per se arm wrestle.

Um I would like to think on an annual basis.

So um just thank you for those efforts.

Um always here to help as we are out in the community and and hearing what we are hearing.

Um and uh thank you again.

Thank you, Vice Chair Foster.

Uh let's go to Councilberg.

Uh thank you.

Thank you for the presentation on this front.

And um uh obviously broadband access has been important to us.

I in reviewing it, I was I was sort of curious how um how we've thought of broadband as time is sort of shifted.

It has felt like in the last couple of years, technology has moved very quickly.

And so um I what at what speeds at this point do we classify as broadband use?

So we're we're really aiming for uh a hundred symmetrical as our standard, uh a hundred megabit upload, hundred megabit download.

Um, but a lot of the the technologies we're looking at nowadays far exceed that.

But in terms of low-income plans and sort of a standard baseline, that's what we're looking at.

So when we look at the percentage of um infrastructure that's available as as was noted in the report, is it at that 100 symmetrical already?

Sorry, could you say that again?

The existing infrastructure that we have throughout the city is already deployed to allow for 100 symmetrical.

I don't think minus, for example.

There are pockets that don't meet that standard, but for the most part, yes.

Um, yeah, the and and uh it's about a lot of it has to do with affordability.

The the speeds we can reach in San Diego are typically reaching the the minimum requirements that we're we're looking for.

Um, but some of the low-income plans, for example, don't meet those requirements um or or are difficult to uh apply for.

Um but some of the low income plans for example don't meet those requirements um or or are difficult to uh apply for um but but generally speaking we're seeing broadband level speeds across San Diego.

Got it I I know some of the um some of the service providers have their own programs uh for lower income access um and California has its lifeline program unfortunately the federal ACP program correct was I forget when it phased out but that was okay that was an unfortunate loss and so the data set that we have here is is from 2023 roughly and and so do you have an anticipation of how things might have changed in that time frame as different programs have existed or not and also just as as speeds and access has changed as well.

Yeah a lot of the data in the report comes from 2024 uh some from 2025 um it is a snapshot in time so we know there have been additional expansions since a lot of this data was secured um we we just sort of had to take a snapshot at any given time um but uh in terms of uh your question was about uh really lifeline and and some of those other supportive programs right I mean really just tied to the data and how we understand um adoption has been since that is I think the the focus that we have here well we're seeing fiber expand rapidly um I I believe last year we saw uh approximately 15,000 new sites get lit up with fiber.

Um it's it's coming down the line of uh fixed wireless is also incredibly popular right now and it's becoming more reliable.

Um but San Diego does have a competition issue.

It's expanding rapidly but a third of the city lacks any sort of competition.

Um we're seeing some bead funding uh supporting some new fiber expansions for ATT uh in some select areas around town um that was just awarded in January of this year.

Um and although those focus on very specific underserved or unserved populations um it's it's technically in the hundreds of of sites as they use that bead funding to expand fiber um what we expect to see is um all of the homes uh that hit that fiber along the way to where their destination is are also going to get lit up with fiber as well.

So there's some incentives coming into town it's rapidly expanding um but there's a lot of room for growth.

Um obviously the the report actually seems to rely very heavily on fiber expansion and um I know that's a challenge depending on the type of network and um when we think of fiber are we thinking of all the way to a user's home or in many cases I believe the expansion has often been to some local node where the remainder of the connection is actually solid coaxial or in some other way and and so how are we categorizing the expectation from a city wide standpoint.

The the data we're utilizing is fiber to the premises the that's really what we're focusing on is the individual residential access to direct fiber.

Got it and I ask that because um in many cases I I mean I I have a home where we do not have direct access to fiber.

I believe the network has been updated in in within the region to allow for faster speed.

So I believe we're at or maybe not on the upload side um exceeding those speeds and so the the speed numbers that you had mentioned seem more important to me than the actual technology that's used to access to hit it in part because of the other types of technology that you've mentioned fixed wireless someone on the public mentioned satellite access which I I know is changed rapidly as well.

And so as we move forward I would hope that we are flexible enough to recognize that I fiber is very difficult to deploy compared to some other new technologies and so as that changes I want to ensure that we're encouraging um multiple ways in which ISPs can really achieve that and and perhaps really focus on the affordability of the adoption as the the real mechanism that we're trying to track.

Yeah I think the the report does reflect that same sentiment I think there's a lot of different technologies out there's different incentives for each of them to to encourage them to expand more um there are internet service providers in town that are not heavily invested in fiber but are still increasing their speeds to multi-gigabit speeds at this point.

So you're you're right it's not um solely focused on fiber.

That is typically I mean that is the gold standard still of what we're trying to achieve but we do understand there's a lot of limitations to to the deployment got it.

I think that concludes my questions I appreciate the uh effort to try to organize this in a from a citywide perspective.

Thank you Chair Thank you Council really let's go back to Vice Chair Foster.

Just just really quick and and this is something that always troubled me and when things became so critical during COVID when when kids had to be home.

Everything is really in the cloud.

Um, my kids had to operate from computers and um how they turned in their assignments, which made this um very, very important.

Is there as we talk about the funding and all the conversations we had as we were trying to expand um access, are the schools involved?

Is they move their system to this I don't know what you call it, their cloud or the way they do things.

Is San Diego Unified uh involved in this in providing some um support and uh they are.

I don't I I don't have a lot of insight into their device um provision like programs.

I know they provide a lot of devices.

I don't know if we have any more background on that.

Yeah, doing during the uh pandemic, we did partner with them on I think 10 school sites, and I know they've got Chromebooks, so they did have programs.

Um I haven't received the latest information, um, but we we have talked with them over time.

I also know that certain schools in town also work with some of the refurbishers that we spoke about earlier.

So, like computers to kids, for example.

Um, we actually just visited their facility recently and they had a pallet of I don't know how many, probably hundreds of refurbished computers ready for a school.

Um so that's also an option they've been using.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Foster.

I'd like to want to uh say thank you uh to staff for all the work that has gone into this presentation.

I appreciate the emphasis on uh access and affordability and how important that is, and the recognition that it's important that we have a strategy.

Uh also want to thank the high-speed internet providers that operate in our city, including ATT and Cox Communications, Spectrum, T-Mobile, Verizon, uh, for all the investment that they have made in our communities, uh, including our low-income communities.

Uh that investment is one of the reasons why San Diego is ahead of many other cities when it comes to internet access.

Uh number of low-cost programs for households that need them are offered as well.

Um, you talked uh fair about the need to increase competition.

Um that some of the data uh that uh was collected was collected in 2024.

You need time to analyze the data, process it, come up with a report and recommendations.

Uh certainly uh there have been some advances uh since that data was collected.

And uh the more technologies and the more companies and the more options uh that we have available to offer increases the competitive environment uh uh for uh users.

Uh to what degree does the implementation plan allow for incorporation of new data?

Um, some of the advancements in technology and the ability to use those advancements to help to create a more competitive environment.

I I think for example, one of the two RFP templates that our consultant provided us with, it's very open-ended.

It's very um, it puts a lot of emphasis, especially on some of the more scrappy independent ISPs that are starting to enter the market, especially in the fixed wireless space.

Um, and so it really reaches out to that community in general to say, what can we do to incentivize you to start building more rapidly?

Um and it acknowledges the fact that we don't have a lot of uh money to incentivize them with.

So it's uh could it be a modification in policies or uh waiving of certain fees uh to get them on some of our city assets quicker uh to deploy those wireless networks?

And a lot of those are smaller companies that are trying to enter the market.

Um there are other opportunities for program expansions.

Um that's the biggest one I can think of, though.

We also uh have the RFP for our housing commission that looks uh that's going to look into a bulk buy procurement vehicle.

Um that's also open to any provider that's interested in entering that space.

Um that could be traditional wireline, that could be a fixed wireless provider.

Um, and we also leave that very open-ended for for some creative solutions to some to get some new blood uh in San Diego.

I thought that um what councilmember Lee uh was saying was interesting about focusing on speed availability at the end of the day, that's what we're going for.

Uh is there room to consider speed availability in this plan going forward.

In in what sense?

Uh just uh considering speed in the expansion of services.

Yeah, rather than focusing just on one technology, focusing at the end of the day on ultimately what's important, which is the access to the the speed.

However, there we do uh the CTC has recommended to the city that we do identify specific baselines.

So for example, if we're looking at bulk buy agreements or fixed wireless expansions, um, that we do set minimum standards for speeds um because there are still solutions out there that are pretty slow.

Um, and and uh at this point we we shouldn't be um uh incentivizing that.

Uh we need to put a lot of emphasis on speed.

Thank you.

Um last question here.

The report uh states that developing a municipal broadband system in San Diego would require major subsidies from the city.

Uh and that the preferred option for expanding broadband actually includes a variety of different strategies.

Could you expand uh those and other ways that we could expand the broadband environment without municipalizing the system?

Uh yeah, so that sort of goes to the notion of putting a call out to the ISP communities to see what we can do to incentivize their expansions.

We spoke to CTC early on in this project about just the question of um, you know, we knew the questions was gonna come up as to municipal broadband.

What uh what would that take?

What would that look like?

Um, they quickly sort of pulled those numbers and showed how how massive of an investment that would require.

Um, and so it's really a matter of getting creative with policy decisions, um, operational efficiencies on the city just so that we can process permits faster.

Um a lot of the uh options we have right now are non-monetary.

It's it's making our operations faster, it's figuring out ways to uh make the barrier of entry for the ISPs lower.

Thank you.

Um our city staff Badge Singh is uh on the line and could provide some additional insight.

Please go ahead.

Um thank you, council member.

Uh so my name is Manjit Singh, I'm a deputy director for telecom utility section.

I worked with Ian on a lot of this.

I want to add this here.

Uh that we are trying to push this to grow organically.

What it means is we have identified city assets, about 5500 APNs that we can work with telecom companies to leverage those and come build sites on those 5G60 sites and 15,000 our light poles and uh street signalize intersections where we can use them.

This will organically grow the fiber, because otherwise, if we're trying to do it, the fiscally is not viable to become sort of uh a mixed provider with telecom companies, would rather let them build those that infrastructure because the cost is astronomical if we were to go all in and trying to build fiber.

Uh they are aggressively upgrading their uh cable infrastructure to upgrade to the fiber.

And we already have 40% of the city is fibered, another 99% total, including the you know is uh uh coex enabled, which already support up to one gigabit speeds.

So the our challenge neighborhoods are very few, and we're working with uh you know different philosophies, different ways to augment and improve those those areas.

Our challenge has been that the ACP went away in 2024, which uh you know, which is about 104,000 subscribers that were severely impacted, but you know, they they how how far how they went to different service provider or different plans.

We don't know that data, we don't have that kind of data, but we estimate about 20 to 30,000 folks who are impacted.

But uh to address 20 to 30,000 folks to target about, you know, it's roughly about a billion dollar worth of fiber costs if we were to go all in fiber.

So we're trying to find the best route in this discussion, which uh Ian shared.

Uh we have multiple ways that we're working with telegram.

First and foremost is obviously sharing those assets.

Second is streamlining our permitting, especially uh asset running department working with the park and rec, um EDD, real estate guys to speed up the process, have DSD act as a single point of contact so we can we can give a better turnaround times uh when they are coming on city assets, and then having uh, as Ian mentioned, standardized uh building on uh uh different locations.

For example, uh on street signal on a street light to go on a uh a standard design where the city approves nine pre-approves 95% of the site already with you know um meeting their internal criteria.

So that is also we're trying to pitch with them, pitch to the telecom companies.

Also leverage those assets and create a revenue stream for the city given the city fiscal scenario.

This will help us significantly uh without much or at any cost to the city at all.

Uh when we started this plan, there was a possibility of a lot of broadband grants and funding, which kind of went away.

So we we streamlined and adapted based on that uh scenario, fiscal scenario to stick with what we have and try to work out the best and target only the pockets that are uh most challenged.

Uh, meanwhile, building a comprehensive plan to organically grow the network that we have.

Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.

Thanks for being available and providing that additional information.

Um this is an informational item.

Uh we will uh hear this at full city.

Do we know when it's coming to the city council yet?

That has not been confirmed.

Okay.

We're we're aiming for uh the week of May 11th.

Okay.

We haven't gotten that confirmation.

Okay, sounds good.

Uh thank you again for the presentation, all the work that went into it, and for uh answering our questions.

Much appreciated.

Thank you.

All right.

Well, with that, that brings us to the end of our agenda for today.

We want to thank the uh members of the public and all the staff for their participation.

I'll now adjourn this meeting of the active transportation and infrastructure committee to the next regularly scheduled meeting on Thursday, May 21st, 2026 at nine in the morning.

We are returned.