One of our most recent additions to the center, our Black Services program.

Each photo you see today tells a story not just of the buildings and milestones, but of people of Bridget Wilson, Ben Dillingham, and countless others who shaped our movement.

Thank you for celebrating with us today.

Together we honor the past and shaped a future worthy of our legacy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I get a little upset.

But I'm sure it was for a good reason.

Let me know.

Moving right along.

Let's welcome County Commissioner Bob Lehman, a very proud veteran and a person that is the executive director of the San Diego Museum Council and is an advocate for LGBTQ veterans.

Bob Lehman.

Hi everyone, good morning.

Thanks for being here.

One that reminds us that history matters and why it must never be forgetting forgotten.

When I joined the Marine Corps in 1983, being gay and serving your country were two things that couldn't coexist.

We wore our uniforms with pride.

We also carried a quiet fear that at any moment someone could end our careers, our dreams simply for being who we are.

For ten years I served proudly from Camp Pendleton to the USS Carl Vinson to combat duty during the Persian Gulf War.

I earned medals and commendations, but none of them changed the simple truth that LGBT service members had to serve in silence.

That's why this exhibit matters.

It tells a story of courage, not only in the battlefield, but in the fight to be seen, to be counted, and to serve with honor and authenticity.

When Don't Ask Don't Tell was finally repealed, I was honored to speak at Pride Cell Pride celebrations on bases and aboard ships here in San Diego.

Places that once would have expelled me for standing on that very stage.

I especially remember one young transgender sailor who invited me to speak on her ship.

After the ceremony, we cut cake, and she was so proud to wear her uniform openly to serve her country fully.

I'll never forget the light in her eyes that day.

And yet today we see that same right to reserve under attack again.

This time aimed at our transgender brothers and sisters, the same fear, the same misinformation, the same efforts to erase people from service, from history and dignity.

That's why exhibits like this are not just displays of the past, but they're acts of resistance.

They remind us that freedom is not permanent.

It must be defended and over and over in every generation.

We must remain vigilant.

We must keep telling these stories.

The stories of those who served in silence, those who fought for the right to be seen, and those that are still fighting for that right today.

But if we forget our history, we risk repeating it.

We fail to speak out, we fail those who come after us.

So let this exhibit be more than remembrance.

Let it be a call to action to honor, to educate, and to ensure that every American, gay, straight, trans, or otherwise, can serve with pride, without fear, and with full measure of respect they have earned.

Thank you.

Thank you, Bob.

The veterans that are here with us today raise your hand so we can thank you for your service to our great nation.

Thank you.

We only have two more speakers left.

You know, it's it's wonderful when I see our community leaders uh of color that are active not only in the Latino African American Asian Pacific Island, they're coming to the Native American, but also on our community.

Uh and it's uh Tutie said uh that that we've been here since the beginning of time before the explorers that's two spirited, and it's because the Native Americans uh have always acknowledged us.

So please welcome a very hard working activist for decades and decades.

Uh ladies and gentlemen, Carolina Bramos.

By the way.

Good morning.

Today we opened this exhibit to share our LGBT history in San Diego.

It's important to compartis, then Movimento LGBT, the nuestras luchas y nuestros logros.

Storytelling and sharing our history of our movement and our struggles and our accomplishment is really important.

In nuestra community Latina, oh I'm sorry, Carla.

In our Latino community, we too have been a part of the movement here in San Diego.

Fundado por Teresa Ojos y Adan, and luego se formou C Sisters Involved.

Over 40 years ago, the Latino, the Latino LGBT community came together to create a group called Orgullo, which means pride.

And out of that evolved a women's group called Sisters Involved, which was a group that formed to help and raise money for other organizations, especially in our HIV community.

The Latino LGBT movement was not to separate us, but to celebrate our language, our culture, our way with our flavor.

I forgot to write the English part, sorry.

As a Latino community, we have participated and contribute to the movement with our way, but also to be inclusive of our Latino community here in San Diego and from across the border.

Thank you so much.

And as Latinos, we do storytelling, so as you walk through the maze, you can see how important and storytelling for our community is really important.

That's how we keep our culture alive.

So this historical event is really important for all of us.

Thank you.

Let's hear it for our interpreter.

She knows more Spanish than I do.

I was very impressed.

All I know is the cobell.

Thank you for your leadership, your compassion, and your commitment to ensuring our history and our voices are always seen, heard, and celebrated.

Thank you.

Let's hear it for our city councilwoman, Dr.

Jen Campbell.

Are you writing a memoir?

Kinda.

I'm not really a politician.

So as a member of the Stonewall Generation, I have witnessed how far we've come.

Oh, I could tell you some stories too.

But we must remember that progress is never necessarily permanent.

In today's political climate, our rights, our dignity, and even our existence, our very existence is under attack.

That's why this year's City Hall exhibit, our history will not be erased, is so important.

It's more than a theme, it's a promise to those who came before us and a commitment to those who will follow us.

Normal Americans who deserve the same rights as every other person in America.

And with that, I am honored to officially declare alongside Mayor Gloria, Councilmember Whitman, I'm sorry, Whitburn.

We've only been friends for twenty years, and Councilmember Von Wilpert, who just came out a year ago, God bless her.

October fifteenth, twenty twenty five is LGBTQ History Month in the city of San Diego.

Yay, San Diego.

Three, two, one.

Good morning.

I will now call the city council meeting of Monday, October 27th, 2025 to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilbur.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting, our city attorney Heather Ferber, Deputy Director in the IBA's office, Gillian Andalina, and myself, your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

A quorum is now present.

We will begin this morning with an invocation by Clerk Fuentes, followed with the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance led by Council Member Winburner.

Grant those who hold office in this city.

Please face the flag, put your hand over your heart, ready begin.

I pledge leadership to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stays one they should undergone indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you, Council President.

I will now highlight the slides on the screen that are that are being shown here in Council Chambers and through the Zoom webinar.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room, place it in the clear box.

No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony for better meeting management purposes.

Each speaker will have one minute per item per person.

If you would like to speak on three or more items, you will have a maximum of three minutes.

No speaker slips here in council chambers for closed session.

Going to those participating remotely.

Moving on to the next speaker, Robert Johnson.

If you can please unmute and let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

Anywho, yeah, I'd like to do all of them.

And you guys had your Zoom audio on, so while you guys talking in the beginning was please proceed.

An accident from a parking enforcement officer and um somebody else.

And as you're set to be um, you know, bringing in um a lot more parking um things and potentially more officers to deal with um you know the raisin increases um or not the raise at the price increases for the parking.

Um, you know, you need to be mindful, like are we gonna be um having to you know pay out a bunch of money from different um parking enforcement officers, you know, getting an accidents.

Um you know, and potentially, who knows, even fights people are probably gonna be pissed off.

Um and then, you know, when you're talking when we're dealing with personal injury and and trip and falls like on a regular basis, um, you know, I feel like you guys need to go back into where you're contracting with places like downtown partnership, San Diego Downtown Partnership, or you know, decades when you're saying that they go and they make sure that everything is going good and looks good in the the city when we know that that money is not being spent wisely because when you do uh you know engage with nonprofits, all they do is profit off of the backs of mostly people suffering because downtown partnership is also part of Tent City and people are dying.

Anywho, so then you've got your um public employment for the clerk as well.

Um, for the most part, I think you do good, but I also do think that um, you know, there's times where you could do better when you know you're very you guys pick and choose who you want to hear from and who you um allow to do things like that other people wouldn't do.

So I think you need to be mindful and being equitable as far as that goes.

Like, you know, if somebody um you know started speaking after you already took public comment from the virtual comment, like you wouldn't necessarily let everyone do that, but as long as it's somebody who's you know gonna be in there to play the game and give you guys accolades, you'll do it.

Um, and then like as far as somebody not being able to pick like get to their um zoom or to unmute on time.

I feel like there are certain people you'll wait, you know, just a little bit longer for, and other ones you'll really kind of bypass it and make sure that you can um you know disenfranchise them because then they can't speak, and then you know, not going back to them and allowing them another opportunity.

Um you just need to, if you're gonna do that, do it for everybody.

Don't just select who you're going to pick and choose um on who you're going to, you know, give benefits to and not.

Thank you.

Your time has concluded.

Million Mile Man, if you can please unmute.

Okay.

Uh ready to go.

Yes.

Can you tell me which item or items you wish to speak to?

Well, the previous speaker had mentioned the downtown partnership.

Um thank God we have the downtown partnership.

You'll have one minute to speak on that item, then please proceed.

Thank God we have the downtown partnership.

Great group of people.

Powerful elite bankrolling a district two candidates for city council.

Thank God for these people.

We are blessed as city to have such a wonderful club.

I mean, I don't know how to join, but I'd like to join.

I don't know if they would allow me in, but they have a wonderful candidate running for district two.

And I encourage everyone to vote for your time has concluded.

That does conclude public comment on the closed session agenda.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

With that, we will now recess into closed session and reconvene council today at 2 p.m.

or shortly thereafter, tap him on the shoulder and say, hey, Austin, they're talking about you again.

And then I know that he'll smile like that, and that truly will make me happy.

Thank you guys very much.

You made him proud.

All right, with that, I'd like to invite the mayor, Andy Field, and of course the Matchitar family to come up here to unveil the signal.

You guys did his proud.

Thank you very much.

We know that guy.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Really?

We've got a booth over there with all the beautiful things that people all know this community.

All those things, and as we as law enforcement, that's how deep this river runs.

It's very, very cool.

Anyway, take a look at that.

There's plenty of food to eat.

Thank you guys for coming.

Thank you everybody for being here.

And if you didn't understand what Chris was saying, if you leave here hungry, it's your fault.

There's plenty of food over there.

Enjoy everybody's company and have a wonderful day.

Thank you.

Three, two, one.

When we say that we're America's finest city, I want to be explicit and say we are that in part because of our LGBTQ plus uh citizenry.

And the fact that we have an exhibit to educate our fellow residents about the contributions of this community, I think are truly important.

We are integral to our city and its success, and we're not going anywhere.

These are indeed some of the most troubling times for the LGBT community.

Trying to erase from history books, schools, museums, and archives, even those in our nation's capital.

Exhibits like this are more important than ever.

When I joined the Marine Corps in 1983, being gay and serving your country were two things that couldn't coexist.

We wore our uniforms with pride.

No matter how loud the voices of hate may be, the truth is that we are normal human beings who deserve the same rights as every other person in America.

We are coming together to revitalize the Encanto Recreation Center here.

In addition to some plants, we're also gonna do a little touch-up, a little paint here and there to make sure that this great community has a great uh park and recreation space.

I want to tell you that this uh effort, particularly with the trees, are a part of something that we call Ready Set Grow San Diego.

A $10 million federal grant from our partners in the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

It allowed us to plant $2,249 trees in fiscal year 2025, and we have 2,700 trees planned in fiscal year 26.

Urban Forester Program, our mission is to plant, protect, promote, and like I said, maintain our existing trees for a more livable and sustainable San Diego.

Let's grow a green San Diego, everyone.

Trees have amazing benefits to you all as neighbors in the community in that they not only help clean the air but also help to address traffic control, provide shade, address the heat island effect, and so forth.

So we're all very, very excited to see this happen today in Icanto.

The best day to plant a tree was about 30 years ago.

The next best day is today.

So let's get to work today.

Let's invest in Encanto.

Let's make this neighborhood better, and let's come back tomorrow and do it all over again.

I think what we have here today, Pacific Village is another perfect example of what progress on housing looks like.

One of the many older motels along this key corridor in our city.

It is now a 64-unit project that will provide permanent supportive housing for veterans, transition age youth, and other San Diegans who are previously living on our city streets.

And it's happening in a neighborhood that is rapidly evolving.

This is a hotel that has been so valuable for the people of San Diego.

It was just early last year that folks who were driven out of their homes by flooding took refuge here.

Soon a new group of residents will be able to find longer term housing at this renovated hotel.

Addressing homelessness has been one of my top priorities since I was elected to council seven years ago.

And throughout my terms, I've always welcomed shelters, providers of services.

The Housing Commission's been an incredible partner with the city.

We all work together to make sure the San Diegans of all walks of life can find housing.

Pacific Village wouldn't be possible without all of the extensive collaboration that we just shared.

State, county, federal, local.

We can see why it's hard.

But those partnerships make it easy and make it possible.

It's proof that when we can think differently, act quickly and deliver meaningful results faster.

It's a part of a growing movement here in San Diego.

One that says that housing is not a privilege, but a right and a priority.

We got some more housing to build, everybody.

Today I'm proud that we are able to be here to cut ribbon on phase two of this incredible project, making 228 new affordable homes available to San Diegans.

And my friends, this project is not happening in a vacuum.

It is the third that we've opened in just the last week on what I've been calling our Build More Housing San Diego Tour.

These apartments are within walking distance of grocery stores, schools, parks, restaurants, and they're connected to the rest of the city by some major transit corridors.

This is the way it should be done.

Too many in our neighborhoods have been pushed to the margins, forced to indoor housing insecurity and displacement.

That is unacceptable.

Housing is not a privilege, it is a human right.

And with this project and the many more that we have down the pipeline, we are at a turning point.

For the city of San Diego, this project represents exactly the kind of partnership that we have worked to try and scale citywide.

We can do it faster, and here is your proof.

Every ribbon that we cut, we are seeing real progress on our shared effort to ensure that all San Diegans have a place to call home.

Our kids deserve safe, high quality places where they can play, grow, and enjoy the outdoors.

And thanks to an extremely generous contribution of nearly $50,000 from Wave FC, we were able to completely resurface it.

It is so important for us to show up and lean into our community.

We want to be about more than just what you guys see out on the field.

We believe in the health and wellness of young kids, hence this project.

It's so important to their health and well-being, especially now more than ever, that we're taking care of each other and allowing these kids opportunity to just be out and play and be healthy and happy.

This kind of investment is a shining example of what happens when our city can partner with community-minded organizations that want to have a positive impact in the neighborhoods and in the lives of San Diegans.

By permitting more homes, we're easing the pressures on the housing market and helping it make cost of living a bit more manageable for San Diegans.

The programs and policies that are cited in the homes report uh indicate a city that is serious about solving the housing issue.

It has led to the greatest surge of new housing in San Diego in 20 years.

The annual report on homes shows that the policies and decisions we make are translating to real results for real people, and we see that in the data.

We're also building in the right places.

Nearly all of the affordable new homes and the vast majority of all permanent homes are located near high quality transit.

That means more San Diegans with access to opportunities while spending less time in traffic and helping us cut pollution.

I will do everything in my power to build more homes near good paying jobs, high performing schools, and high quality community amenities.

Because every San Diegan deserves the dignity of a roof over their head at a price they can afford.

And I will not stop until that is a reality.

New homes add desperately needed inventory to our region, providing more housing opportunities to more people.

Because of Mayor Gloria's leadership, the city is making progress toward achieving its housing construction goals.

Yes, San Diego is a very expensive place to live.

We are making those changes, and the end result hopefully is a San Diego that is more affordable for everybody, a place where people, particularly in the working and middle classes, can afford to live here and not just live but thrive.

Three, two, one.

San Diego is becoming a place that is the model for the rest of the state when it comes to affordable housing.

And you know, the governor has made very clear, the legislature has made clear that the state of California has to build more housing.

And I'm pleased that our city is stepping up and leading the way when it comes to showing other cities on how you can actually put more roofs over people's heads at prices they can't afford.

This grand opening is particularly special because what it means for the 270 families who will make their homes here at Harrington Heights.

Every ribbon that we cut, every key that we place into the palm of a new tenant brings us closer to the collective goal that I have for our city, which is a roof over every San Diegan's head at a price they can't afford the house.

And now in January of twenty twenty five, it will increase to seventeen twenty five per hour based on the consumer price index.gov slash minimum wage.

And let us know how much time you will need.

Good afternoon, Council President McCauban Council members.

I'm Ben Batalia, assistant director with the Department of Finance.

With me today is Rolando Charvel, Director of Finance, and Chris Purcell, Financial Operations Manager.

We are here today to present the fiscal year twenty twenty-five year-end financial performance report.

And we'll need about ten minutes, please.

Okay.

Thank you.

The fiscal year twenty twenty-five financial performance report compares unaudited revenue and expenditure activity to the projections included in the third quarter report.

This report focuses on significant general fund variances from the third quarter report, significant changes to the available fund balance, the status of general fund balance and reserves, significant variances in non-general fund revenues and expenditures, and finally the status of non-general fund and risk management reserves.

The development of this report was a team effort, and I'd like to thank all the departments for their valuable contributions.

The unaudited actuals are expected to end the fiscal year of $3.8 million less than previously projected, and this net decrease is attributed to $4.6 million in other major revenues, primarily due to reduced interest earnings due to timing differences between funds or advanced for capital projects, and when reimbursement is received with bond or commercial paper proceeds.

$2.3 million in transient occupancy tax due to a continued softening demand in leisure and business travel.

$1.6 million in property tax revenue, primarily due to reduced 1% property tax collections, and increased prior year refunds.

These decreases are partially offset by an increase of $3.1 million in sales tax as the retail sales experienced a modest uptick as consumers stocked up on goods in anticipation of potential increases tied to proposed tariffs, and $2 million in franchise fees due to increased tonnage collected at facility franchise sites.

Total departmental revenues are expected to end the fiscal year 10 million above the projections included in the third quarter report.

This net increase is primarily comprised of $7.1 million in economic development due to an increase in lease and concession revenue generated from city owned properties, including Mission Bay and Pueblo lands.

However, this did require an increased transfer to the park improvement funds, which will be discussed later.

$4.9 million in fire rescue, primarily due to increased reimbursement from the fire EMS Transport Program Fund for eligible expenditures and current support of that program.

$2.1 million in police, primarily due to additional reimbursement for parking enforcement in parking meter zones, $1.8 million in transportation from increased reimbursements for services, including from the parking meter operations fund.

These increases are partially offset by decreases of $7.8 million in homeless homelessness strategies and solutions due to a decrease in TOT revenue, including revenue temporarily restricted due to the little due to the litigation regarding Measure C, and the delayed reimbursement of an estimated $2.1 million from fire rescue strike team deployments, which are now expected to be received in fiscal year 26.

If not for these delays, which combined had an impact of approximately $7.5 million, the general fund's position would be stronger, and the mitigating actions outlined later in this presentation may not have been as necessary.

When looking at personnel cost and fringe benefits, which are tied to staffing levels, these are expected to end the fiscal year $1.3 million less than previously projected.

This is in addition to a historical savings adjustment specific to personnel costs that was included in the third quarter report.

The decrease is primarily comprised of savings and salaries, primarily in the fire rescue and police departments, resulting from regular attrition, retirements, and early departures of recruits from the 142nd Police Academy.

The partially offsetting increase in overtime is primarily within fire rescue to maintain constant staffing, and the transportation department for strategic off-peak staffing to maintain service levels and address backlogs.

These increases in overtime were partially offset by a reduction in the police department, resulting from the implementation of a dedicated staffing unit to provide closer oversight of overtime operations.

For non-personnel expenditures, these are expected to end the fiscal year 2.6 million below projections, with savings in nearly all categories except for transfers out and capital expenditures.

These savings are in addition to the historical savings adjustment estimated from non-personnel costs in the third quarter report and are primarily due to the implementation of intentional mitigating actions.

Some notable decreases are the partial refund of public liability contributions due to claims ending the fiscal year below projections, reduced homeless shelter expenditures due to reduced programming activity during the wind down of some shelters, reduced non-discretionary costs, including IT and electricity, and delayed or deferred expenditures due to the suspension of non-essential spending.

These decreases were offset by the increases in transfers out and capital expenditures, which resulted from the increased transfer to the Mission Bay and Park Improvement Funds previously referenced, as well as the reclassification of expenditures projected as supplies and information technology to capital expenditures.

Here we have a summary of the significant changes since the third quarter report.

This covers much of the same material already discussed, but through a slightly different perspective.

As you may remember, the third quarter report estimated a negative 10.1 million available fund balance, which would have required a draw from the general fund stability reserve.

Since then, 14.5 million in developments further reduced the projected available fund balance to a negative 24.6 million.

These include the 6.9 million net decrease in major general fund revenues when excluding mitigating actions, primarily due to reduced interest earnings and decreases in TOT and property tax.

5.4 million decline in TOT revenue available for reimbursement due to the Measure C litigation, and $2.1 million in outstanding strike team reimbursements, which are still undergoing review by the state.

To mitigate these decreases, there was a series of intentional mitigating actions, as well as some positive developments totaling 24.6 million.

These include 9.8 million net increase in departmental revenues when excluding the negative impacts of measure C and strike team reimbursements, and includes the increase in lease and concession revenue mentioned earlier that did require an increased transfer.

$6 million in increased reimbursements from the EMS fund to support eligible expenditures, a $3.3 million refund in public liability claims transfer due to lower current year claims payments, $2.3 million from the closure of obsolete or inactive funds, $1.8 million in additional reimbursements of parking enforcement in parking meter zones, and the cumulative refund of 1.5 million in current and prior year unemployment insurance contributions.

This highlights measures carried out as of the year end and reflects the continued commitment to fiscal stability and efforts to close the previously projected shortfall.

Here we can see the impact of the changes from the third quarter to the unaudited year and actuals.

As noted, the general fund now expects the end of fiscal year with a negative net projected activity of 105 million, representing an improvement of 10.1 million from the projection in the third quarter report.

This means that the city will have exhausted the entire 105 million of excess equity from fiscal year 24 when the budget had assumed using 84.4 million.

This will result in the general fund entering fiscal year 26 with no remaining excess equity available.

However, due to the intentional mitigating actions, the city no longer anticipates drawing on the general fund stability reserve.

As a result, the general fund emergency stability reserves end the fiscal year with a combined balance of 207.1 million, which remains unchanged from fiscal year 23 after two years of suspended contributions.

The Department of Finance is currently working with the mayor to develop proposed revisions to the city's reserve policy and is expected to present those later this year.

So to conclude, while we experienced some developments that further reduced our available fund balance, positive developments combined with a series of intentional mitigation actions, closed the projected shortfall reported in the third quarter report, and improved our position by 10.1 million.

As a result, the city no longer anticipates needing to draw on the general fund stability reserve.

However, we are fully exhausting the 105 million in excess equity.

Implementation of mitigating actions and positive developments were the primary reasons of this positive change.

However, we will note that moving forward, the ability to mitigate deficits will be more challenging as one-time options are nearly exhausted and there's no longer excess equity to draw upon.

Updated projections are anticipated to be completed in November with the release of the five-year financial outlook for fiscal year 2027 to 2031.

That concludes this presentation.

We're available for any questions.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

I'm gonna turn it over to the office of the IBA for commentary.

Julian?

Thank you so much, Council President.

I'm Jillian Andalina with the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst.

Um my team is getting set up real quickly, but just to do a little bit of an intro.

We released our review of the year-end report last Tuesday.

And I am here joined by Amy Lee and Sergio Alcalde to provide an overview of our report.

So the next slide shows an overview here.

Um at a high level, our report highlights significant differences in general fund revenues and expenditures compared to the third quarter projection, as well as the adopted budget for an additional perspective.

We focus on major general fund revenues and provide an overview of how they performed throughout the year, including additional discussion on cannabis business tax and the transfer from the emergency medical services fund.

On the expenditure side, our report covers major variances from the adopted budget with an emphasis on the largest component, salaries and wages.

As we routinely do, we provide additional information on public safety over time.

And finally, we include updates on homelessness programs, various uh reserves, as well as access equity.

Now I will pass it on to Amy.

Thank you, Gillian.

As noted by the Department of Finance, general fund revenues increased by 6.2 million over third quarter projections, but ended the year $5 million lower than the adopted budget.

For the four major revenues, there were notable declines relative to adopted budget, particularly for sales tax and franchise fee revenues.

Property tax ended the year with a slight decrease of 1.8 million relative to adopted budget due to lower than expected revenue from assessed property values and increased refunds for the commercial property side.

Sales tax revenues fell significantly below projections, which had assumed growth over fiscal year 2024, but ended the year 1.2% lower.

These declines were likely driven by drops in one-time equipment purchases in business and industry, as well as less consumer spending on groceries and gas.

The general fund portion of TOT revenue ended the year $7.2 million below adopted budget, which was $1.1% above fiscal year 2024 actuals, but much lower than the 5.9% growth rate assumed in the adopted budget.

For franchise fees, actuals came in below adopted budget due to a decrease in SDGE franchise fee, but saw a slight increase in the last quarter due to increases in payments from the Sycamore Canyon landfill.

Our office will continue to monitor potential changes in revenue, particularly sales tax and franchise fees with the release of the first quarter report for fiscal year 2026.

For other general fund revenues, cannabis tax revenue tax revenue ended the year $2.7 million below adopted budget, largely driven by competition from the legal market and decreased wholesale prices from an oversupply of cannabis products.

We note that CBT rate for retail outlets operating in the city increased by 2% in May.

However, the city treasurer has noted it is unknown whether this tax increase significantly impacted sales in May or June or contributed to the revenue decline.

The largest increase in general fund revenues was in the departmental revenues category, which reflected a $15.2 million transfer from the EMS fund to reimburse eligible general fund expenditures.

This is $6 million higher than assumed in the third quarter.

The fiscal year 2026 ending fund balance for the EMS fund is projected to be $2.9 million, indicating that ongoing drawdowns of this magnitude from the fund are likely unsustainable after this fiscal year and limit the ability to reinvest back in the EMS system.

Next, I will hand it over to Sergio to cover general fund expenditures.

Thank you, Amy.

For general fund expenditures, year in actuals came in $15.6 million above the adopted budget.

This is largely due to a $35 million increase in salaries and wages, as highlighted in the green of the table.

This increase was partially offset by an $18 million decrease in non-personal expenditures.

I'll note just a few of the largest variances from the adopted budget.

The largest expenditure increases include $35 million in additional overtime, which is the primary driver of the net salaries and wages overage, almost $8 million in additional transfers to the parks improvement funds, driven by increased mission paid lease revenues and $7 million in contractual expenses for the parks and rec department, primarily for enhanced security services as well as inflation adjustments for to the San Diego Humane Society contract.

These increases were offset by decreased spending in several areas, including $10 million in contractual service expenditures related to homelessness, almost $7 million in debt service savings to the general fund, and $5.5 million in cost savings from the November 2024 election.

As mentioned in the previous slide, year-end overtime expenditures were $35 million over the adopted budget.

This overage is largely largely related to the fire rescue and police departments.

Fire rescue ended the fiscal year exceeding their overtime budget by about $18 million, but with a net general general fund impact of $5 million due to other offsetting revenue and cost savings.

The overage is primarily due to staffing shortfalls, backfield leave time, and an abnormally higher number of strike team deployments compared to prior years.

The police department exceeded its overtime budget by about $9 million, but has a net general fund impact of just short of $8 million due to other offsetting revenue.

This overage represents a $700,000 improvement from the third quarter report, which the department attributes to centralizing overtime planning by the department's new staffing unit and enhanced oversight from commanding officers to ensure that overtime is only approved when absolutely necessary.

Moving on to the general fund reserve and access equity.

The fiscal year 2025 reserve balance is anticipated to remain at 207 million dollars or 11.8% of the average operating revenues from the past three years.

This balance is about $31 million below the fiscal year 2025 reserve policies target of $238 million or $13.6 of the operating revenues.

The Department of Finance has anticipated to propose provisions to the reserve policy before the end of the calendar year.

The third quarter report project projected fully exhausting $105 million in access equity, as well as drawing $10 million from the general fund reserve.

However, largely due to new mitigations like the EMS fund transfer, use of fund balances from inactive funds and additional reimbursements for prior year activities.

The previously anticipated draw from the reserve is no longer necessary.

I'll now hand it back to Amy to cover homelessness program updates and the development services fund reserve.

Thank you, Sergio.

Regarding homelessness programs, the HSSD's total year-end expenditures came in $4.7 million below third quarter projections between general fund and staff state HAP funds.

Staff vacancies, mainly at shelter programs, are a large contributor to these savings.

High rates of staff turnover and recruiting challenges are due to compensation and a demographic served.

Additionally, staff vacancy rates were directly impacted by the closure, opening, and relocation of nine shelter programs in fiscal year 2025.

As staff leave for other employment employment during a shelter window, and as staff get hired on during ramp up.

We also know other changes, including $618,000 over, largely due to unexpected supplies charges from the safe sleeping and domestic violence shelters.

Additional savings came in from delayed shelter ramp up at the single adult and senior shelter operated at Veterans Village and security cost savings from the public restrooms contract.

Next, we turn to the DSD fund and reserve where year end expenditures exceeded revenues by 21 million, leading to a shortfall of 17.8 million.

This represents a six million dollar further decline from third quarter projections.

Additionally, there is no reserve balance.

Underlying reasons for the shortfall are consistent with prior quarterly monitoring, with revenues coming in even lower than previously anticipated due to permit extensions and a journal slowdown in permitting activity.

For instance, permiss permit applications year over year dropped by around 60% and permit insurances are down 9.6% from fiscal year 2024.

Additional expenditure overages in the last quarter are attributed to relocation costs at DST's two new lease office spaces that were previously unknown during the third quarter report, as well as personnel expenses.

Staff indicated plans to begin replenishing the reserve in two to three years' time and exploring additional mitigation measures such as interval invoicing, which would rely on periodic invoices after certain services are rendered throughout the permit application process.

This is aimed at capturing revenue that might otherwise be lost or delayed due to canceled or delayed projects.

With that, I will hand it over to Gillian to wrap up.

Thank you, Amy.

In conclusion, our report covers significant general fund revenue and expenditure changes since the third quarter, as well as the adopted budget to serve as another tool for evaluating city expenditures.

Fiscal year 2025 ended the year needing over 20 million dollars more in excess equity than was originally planned in the adoptive budget, relying on all of the 105 million dollars in FY2024 excess equity to balance the budget.

We also saw major general fund revenues come in below adopted budget projections as sales tax and franchise fee actually declined from 2024 and TOT revenue remained relatively flat.

However, these decreases were almost fully offset by increases in departmental revenue.

We will continue to closely monitor revenue trends in 2026 and look forward to the release of both the first quarter and the five-year financial outlook, which will both be released in November.

Thank you.

All right, thank you to the Office of the IBA.

We always appreciate your candid assessment and report.

So with that, clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We have no speakers here in council chamber, so I've started the five-minute timer.

I'm going to those participating online.

This is for item 200.

Blair Beakman, if you can please unmute.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

All right, thank you.

Blair Beekman, happy Monday to everyone.

Happy end of October.

Um, I wanted to comment.

Um Thanks for this item.

Um I am impressed and I'm happy in um the current mayor's dedication to want to balance the budget and the steps to take to do that.

Um, I I want to be dedicated to that process.

Uh, in being from San Jose, they had a pretty uh stringent uh team that wanted to make sure that their budgets were were reasonably balanced each year.

And they they have a good fiscal responsibility way of working sometimes in some ways that would probably be of interest to yourselves.

You you guys work more like you know, big cities like Oakland and San Francisco.

Um check out San Jose.

They they offer a bit of a they're a big city, but they offer kind of a small-time way to work on their budget issues, and it's uh they can be very neat and efficient.

And um it's really important learning lessons, I think.

A balanced budget.

Uh Clinton, Bill Clinton used to try to work for a balanced budget, and it was a very good feeling when he could balance the budget.

Um, with that all said, um, I hope with that that we can uh take a bit of time and care uh if if it's gonna take some time to balance the budget, it's gonna take a few additional years.

Um, I think our council has just done an awesome job this past year in trying to define the importance of equity and making sure we have our programs in place in our local neighborhoods.

Thanks for all their efforts.

Uh so good luck on how to work on balancing the budget and uh really be considering uh how to reduce ALPRs.

Uh if you reduce them by, you know, uh 10 to 2025, that's about 50,000 in savings.

And I think there's a way to really easily reduce AOPRs by that much.

So good luck we can work on that and get some budget savings there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Andrea Ebbing after that, the original, and then Kathleen Lippett.

Hi, my name is Andrea Ebbing.

Uh hi, my name is Andrea Ebbing, and I wanted to talk about the um looks like the homeless unexpected expenses and DVD shelter unexpected expenses.

Um, and just I'm curious about that one because um people aren't being housed, and these safe sleeping sites are super dangerous and terrible things are happening where people aren't being fed, people are dying.

Um, and the DV, the DV resources aren't actually providing anything of the sort.

There's no, it's like a hamster wheel you actually do if you show up and they say, here's a list of places you can check out.

They'll have you get an EBT card or give you clothes.

It doesn't really do anything.

So I'm not sure what the expenses are for.

Um, but yeah, I think that there is an issue there.

Um, I also am curious about the 154 million dollars of other pay that was issued in 2024, and the 142 million dollars of other pay that was issued in 2023 to city workers, um all of which was denied by our um denied the knowledge of by our auditor.

So I'm not sure like how we don't know what that money is still, how nobody's concerned about what that money is.

154 million dollars is a lot of money.

Um, and it was it's dramatic, like dramatic increases, 8 million additional dollars to STPD when they're overtime was 145 million.

I mean, I I don't I don't understand.

It doesn't feel balanced to me at all.

And it feels like you know we're talking about these random miscellaneous increases, but there's nothing to show for it.

So I'd love to see real records um and real tangible evidence of these expenses that we are incurring.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is the original.

If you can please unmute it is so great just listening to your racketeering propaganda update um where you guys sit and talk about how you're gonna pretend to balance a budget that will never be balance.

Because the intent is never to balance it.

You know what I mean?

But it's like what a great job to go into the government because you know there's gonna be billions of dollars to spend.

How fun is that for people who love money?

It's like pedophiles going to schools and going where the kids are, you know what I mean?

You just gotta go where it's at so that you can make sure you're gonna um be able to engage in as much nefarious things as possible.

And it's just interesting because it's like, I mean, you guys, I mean, then you even worry about your funding being cut for certain things, and it's like, but I mean, you engaged in all the stuff that you know you were told not to, and then you did it, and so it's like there's consequences to that.

And then when you sit here, I mean, because the government people need to realize it's like 90 10, right?

You gotta pay your salaries, that's 90% of your budget and the money wherever it's gonna go, right?

As long as you pay people off and do whatever, then you got 10% for the services, and you're like, listen, all we can do is give you a little bit, but if you guys want more, we're gonna have to come after you for more money.

And then that's again gonna be the 90-10.

So 90% of that is gonna go to salaries, 10% of it.

So you can never catch up.

But that's the point in doing business, right?

I mean, it's like going and saying something's on sale when it never really was.

But as long as people believe that, then they're gonna spend all that money thinking they saved a bunch of money.

It's like you guys telling us like we're saving money, or you're gonna balance the budget, or you knew you need things for unexpected expenses, like the homelessness.

So I'm just wondering, is that for like dissolve it?

Like, did you guys purchase more lie to dissolve the bodies that are you know uh dying in Tent City?

I mean, sometimes you guys just shovel up their ashes with the tent and get rid of it.

So I don't know, or is it maybe more pay to Teresa Smith to make sure that she murders more people so you guys bring in more money?

I don't know.

Your time has concluded.

Next is Kathleen Lippett, if you can please unmute.

The five-minute timer has also concluded.

And there was only one speaker in the queue when it did conclude, Kathleen Lippett.

If you can please unmute.

Good afternoon, council.

My name is Kathleen Lippett.

It is beyond naive for the city to expect that it will ever benefit from the belief that tax and marijuana businesses will ever result in tax revenues that can compensate for the harmful impact of this industry.

Moreover, what guarantee do residents have that the funds that will not be directed from infrastructure maintenance would be redirected appropriately instead of being directed to some other cause that is not pertinent to what the city has claimed it will do.

We need some kind of guarantee that these funds will be used as they are stated that they will be used.

The city, like the county, seems to be there, seems to have been a determination to ignore all the research data and evidence that a marijuana permitting scheme would fail any cost benefit analysis that was objectively conducted.

The unpermitted, unlawful marijuana businesses will continue to succeed successfully compete in any of your attempts to regulate this market.

Please consider if you have any concept or appreciation for the environment that this industry has caused an unbelievable amount of environmental damage.

And only those who have uh choose to ignore it.

It's frustrating.

It's beyond frustrating.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

I'll turn it over to my council colleagues.

This is an information item only, and no motion is required.

And we'll start out with council member Bal Mulbert.

Um thank you very much for the presentation on this item.

It is good news that we're not going to tap into our reserves this year.

I mean, we expect this to hold until the end of the year.

Because this is only the third quarter.

We're still waiting for the fourth quarter.

So this reflects unaudited actuals for last fiscal year.

We're currently going through an auditing process right now, but this will be very, very close to how we end the year.

Okay, so want to make sure.

Um this is, I mean, that's great.

I know we're still under our target of reserve policy because we haven't been contributing, but it's good that we're not taking out of our reserve.

So kudos to you and the Department of Finance and all the departments for finding those savings.

Um I do see the you know, police and fire overtime is uh increasing, especially with fire overtime.

I do have a question about the strike team deployments because those are largely cost recoverable since we're deploying to other jurisdictions, correct?

That is correct, Council Member.

So basically, if you look at the the cost for fire rescue overtime, a lot of it there are substantial savings on the salary as well, a lot of it being driven basically with a constant staffing model, and then there's uh uh several million coming from strike team deployments that'll offset a large portion of the the other uh component of the overage.

Okay, but then since we are sending our personnel out to other jurisdictions for strike teams, does that leave us more short staffed here at home?

Meaning that more of our firefighters do have to do overtime to cover the gaps here.

I'm getting nods from some of the firefighters in the back of the someone from the department of fire rescue is here to answer that question.

Correct.

I did we'll need you to sorry.

Just so the folks on on the Zoom can hear.

Good afternoon, council members.

Um Michelle Yamamoto is also online.

We do get reimbursement.

We put a salary survey out to state and federal governments, and so what they do is we also get backfill, we get uh reimbursement for the backfill.

Oh, great.

Okay, that's fantastic.

Yeah.

Um, and you know, I it is important that we do help our neighbors uh because we want them to come here if we are ever in need as well.

Um I'm wondering are is it the increased wildfires we're seeing?

Or is there other you know the floods after wildfires?

What are the strikes that we're headed out on lately?

So it's a combination of everything, just depends on its wildfires, whatever is needed out there throughout the state and the region.

Uh yeah, I know we we go all the way as far as Florida and Louisiana if we need help with hurricane recovery and correct.

All of that.

Okay.

Um got it.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

Uh and I appreciate what you do.

Uh, we had five fires in January this year alone.

So I want people to be staged and ready to go.

Um, in terms of police overtime, that does seem that we're seeing an improvement in the trend of reducing the amount of overages.

And so that's kudos to the police department on working to get that closer to the budget number.

Uh, I know that in the IBA report it says we'll see even more progress in the next report, but I just want to say thank you for your work on that.

That's been a hard thing the city has tried to tackle for a long time.

At the same time, we do want police responding to priority calls, and you know, I don't I do want to see if this will increase wait times for residents calling for service.

Um, that's something that I'm gonna track very carefully.

Obviously, 911 emergencies we're still getting to on time, but if we reduce our overtime costs, but for non-emergencies, residents are waiting 30, 40 minutes to have their their phone calls answered by police.

I'd like to know that so that we can adjust um accordingly and explain to the public why the overtime budget might need to be increased again if we're waiting for police response.

Um, and then I have one more question about the the DSD revenue shortfall and overages.

Uh um I believe that the PowerPoint said that DSD development services fund and reserve year ed expenditures were 21.2 million dollars higher than revenues, so they've depleted the reserve balance and an estimated shortfall of 17.8 million.

So the 17.8 million, will that come out of the general fund?

It will not, no.

That is a separate enterprise fund.

Uh they um they have their own fees that recover their costs.

They do have a uh a multi-year plan to get to balanced with increased revenues and adjustments to their operations.

Okay, then so then the shortfall if the reserve balance was depleted and there's a shortfall of 17 million.

Where would that come from?

So that will that will be uh made up over the next coming years as revenue increases and expenditures decrease.

Got it.

So that's but isn't there 17 million in bills that have to be paid now?

I'm trying to understand what that means.

So there is technically a one-day loan to make sure that they're balanced at the end of the fiscal year.

So they essentially start the next fiscal year about 17 million in the whole, but then again over this current fiscal year, and also on next fiscal year, they do anticipate to uh make that up.

Okay, and that loans coming from the general fund?

Or from some other fund?

It it's it's from the general fund or another fund with another cash source.

Okay, got it.

And I see the expenditures are an additional relocation costs.

I do we do have to get out of cob.

I'm hoping that's not more expensive than we thought was gonna be, though.

So okay, um, thank you.

But again, this is overall good news.

Um, and hopefully we'll see more with the TOT increase now that measure C is finally seems to be settled.

Um thank you for the report.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Baummel.

We'll go next to Council Member Ila Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you to Department of Finance and IBA for um your work on this.

Uh I for both DOF and for the IBA.

Um, I'm curious if there's anything that you think is important is especially important for the council to take into consideration as we're making decisions um kind of in in lifetime.

So, are there any trends that we saw with respect to revenue or expenditures that we should be thinking about and how they could impact uh our performance during this current fiscal year?

Do you want to start, Julie?

Sure.

Happy to uh I honestly want to echo some of the closing points of DOF's presentation too.

Um, just that the um, you know, a lot of the one-time resources have been exhausted.

Excess equity has been exhausted um for 2024.

Um we have nothing assumed for 2026.

Um so kind of what they had kind of been discussing is just that um future mitigations are gonna be more and more difficult.

So, in other words, the ability to pay for the things that we are currently doing, it's going to be more difficult to find one-time sources for that.

So the choice before the council will ultimately be identifying ongoing revenue streams or making reductions.

Is that a fair translation?

That's fair.

Rolando and that's correct, Councilmember.

So as you may remember, we made some significant progress in terms of tackling the structural shortfall that was projected last year.

We but it down north of 300 million dollars to closer to about 50 million dollars.

That's that's the last number we had.

Um so now we're working on the five-year outlook.

We'll see where we stand and that'll be released a couple of weeks from now.

Uh, but in terms of trends, absolutely.

Um the the other thing I would add is the softening on some of our revenues, uh sales tax TOT growing at about less than one percent that will happen in the FY25.

Uh, you know, it we do expect a little bit better growth uh coming up, but there's a lot of instability in the in the economy right now, a lot of it being driven by some of the federal policies that we're seeing.

So that's just something we need to be careful about.

Those are the two revenues that are most sensitive to economic downturns with the government shutdown currently.

We don't know what type of impacts that'll have.

Some of the discussions on the Federal Reserve, so all of that is playing into in the tariffs of score, of course.

All of that had playing into our local economy as well.

Thank you.

Speaking of tariffs, I think there's reference to a increased expenditure in the third quarter for the the tents at safe sleeping due to tariffs.

Is I this is like a very specific question in what is a massive, massive budget.

But I am curious about that.

Do we know which tariff that was?

I don't know if there's someone from HSSD to answer that question.

Councilmember Sarah Darman here on the line, if you can hear me.

Uh, we did in we had two shipments of tents to safe sleeping.

In our second shipment, we did receive an increased tariff on those tents.

Uh, we were able to absorb that cost that was uh that ended up getting transferred to our county capital grant that we have for safe sleeping.

Um I don't have the number right in front of me, but happy to provide that with you.

Um it was uh a couple tens of thousands of dollars in addition to what we paid for the tents for safe sleeping for that tariff cost.

Okay.

Um so these would have been tariffs that went into effect very early in the administration's tenure.

Are they are there are they purchased from China?

I'm trying to understand.

It's just very they were purchased from China.

Okay, yes, so they were purchased from China and shipped to the port of Long Beach, and we did have to pay tariffs at that point.

All right.

Um I'm seeing ancillary expenditures at the two safe sleeping sites and domestic violence shelter exceeding exceeded third quarter projections by six hundred and eighteen thousand dollars due to unanticipated supplies charges, including a large order for safe sleeping tents, which are impacted by tariffs.

So of that six hundred and eighteen thousand dollars is a is that a majority of it impacted by tariffs, is it it I received live numbers?

It's 24,000.

Okay.

In just tariff costs.

Okay, I'd be curious to understand kind of where the 590 or so other thousand uh dollars in unanticipated supplies charges, what those are a result of.

We also have Amy coming up from our office.

Thank you.

Um thank you for your question, Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

So the difference is at the time of third quarter reporting, there were uh the additional cost from the two tent purchases was not factored into the year-end projections.

And so those were unanticipated um charges that ended up being reflected at the at the last quarter, and that's where we see that uh $500,000 difference and overage uh in year end.

So uh it sounds like marginally uh there were increases due to tariffs, but for most part it is the cost of purchasing the tents that was not anticipated at the time of third quarter.

Got it.

And why was the purchase uh necessary in an in an unanticipated way?

I would add council member that it was not only the purchase of supplies, but also the uh purchase of a fence to surround the facility, which we identified as a a very important need to it, but we're happy to provide you with the breakdown of all the purchases and submit that to your staff if that works for you.

Yeah, that'd be great.

I I I think these are relatively small numbers in the big scheme of the huge budget that we have, and they're not small in terms of percentage.

And so I I want to get a better sense of the vulnerability of this program to price shocks if it looks different for safe sleeping than it does for traditional shelter.

That's an important factor for us to keep into consideration.

Um just in in understanding the the broader context of how we're responding to homelessness, uh, how we're increasing housing opportunities.

If one of our ways of dealing with responding to the crisis is a tactic that is subject to increases in cost in the 30, 40, 50 percent range.

That's a really important thing for us to keep in mind as we're making decisions on the like uh from a long-term perspective.

Um that sort of volatility, because this particular type of this this tool, this tactic is or intervention, however, we want to refer to it, is so supply dependent.

It would seem like a intervention that is more subject to price fluctuation than some of the other interventions that we uh we rely on.

So I appreciate the responses, everyone.

It just it jumped off the page to me.

Um thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Yelo Rivera.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Um I'll wrap it up by thanking everybody at Department of Finance for your continuing monitoring over the course of the year and then this year-end report um and uh the candor in which you're presenting uh how we ended FY25 and how that affects 26 and what we're looking at as we enter FY27 budget conversations.

Again, thank you to the office of the IBA for your in-depth assessment and equal candor going forward uh as uh was mentioned uh as we start the FY27 budget process.

Uh, we won't have the excess equity, which I still think is an awkward uh name for for those dollars to fall back on.

Uh and as you said, in general, not the one-time uh funds available as we've had in the past.

So look forward to more conversations going forward.

So thank you.

Uh, this was an information item on all only, and no motion is required.

So, with that, clerk, please introduce again for those who didn't hear uh item 201 is being returned to staff, the master lease agreement.

Uh item 201 is being returned to staff and will not be heard this afternoon.

So, clerk, please introduce item S400.

Thank you, Council President.

Item S400 is the waiver of council policy 100-18 community parking district for fiscal years 2026 and 2027 and allocations of 2026 funds to the transportation department.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please be sure to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon, or if you're hearing council chambers, submit your speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, uh, City Clerk.

So, staff, once you get settled in, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Yes, good afternoon.

Hi, my name is Bethany Biesek.

I'm the transportation director.

I'm joined by Maggie McCormick, a deputy director for the transportation department.

This afternoon's item is to waive council policy 100-18 for fiscal years FY26 and FY27, and additionally in action to allocate the 15% of the FY26 parking meter revenue to the transportation department to address high priority maintenance needs in the individual parking districts.

We will need 10 minutes for this item.

All right, when you're ready.

The community parking district program was established in the late 1990s to help manage a portion of parking meter revenue on behalf of the impacted community.

Community uh parking meter revenue is a restricted fund.

It must be spent within the parking meter zone, which is typically the same size as the community parking district boundary.

Um, and it must be spent on activities related to parking, mobility, and traffic safety.

So, really the intent of the community parking districts was to receive and help spend a portion of that revenue within the community parking district boundary on behalf of the community.

There are currently four active community parking districts.

That's downtown, mid-city, uptown, and Pacific Beach.

There's actively parking meters within these community parking districts generating revenue, and there are seven total, but three do not currently have parking meters and are not generating revenue.

The community parking districts are managed by 11 organizations.

The organizations are shown on the screen.

As reported by a recent grand jury report on the parking program, the managing organizations are largely made up of groups like business improvement districts and not community parking districts.

In fiscal year 25, the budget of the community district uh community park district program was $3.3 million.

That included some of the fund balance.

Um in FY26, the proposed budget for the community park and district program is 1.8 million dollars.

So there's been some recent reviews of the community parking district program.

In March 2025, the city received a letter from the mobility board expressing concerns regarding the community parking district program.

Some of the concerns were related to the governance structure, representation of community needs, and how funds were being used.

And then in April 2025, a grand jury report came out that called on the city to disband the community parking district programs.

And the grand jury highlighted concerns related to admin costs and bureaucracy.

So transportation department received this program once sustainability and mobility department was dissolved.

And in May of 2025, in light of these reviews, we decided to initiate a review of the community parking district program for fiscal year 25.

First, we started by reviewing if the community parking districts had documentation that was required by their operating agreements with the city of San Diego.

We found that much of the required contract documentation was missing, and there were some concerning contract management practices related to this program.

Seven out of the 11 community parking districts did not have agreements with all of the subcontractors.

Seven out of 11 community parking districts did not always provide invoices that detailed work completed or provided proof of deliverable for the service on the invoice.

Three community parking districts did not appear to be charging reasonable fees, and 11 community parking districts did not always do a competitive procurement process for all their subcontractors.

Also showed that funding was largely going to administrative expenses or lower priority activities.

The table on the right shows the top five reimbursement categories from fiscal year 25, which is about 80% of the total reimbursements.

The top reimbursement requests category was administrative.

35% of the reimbursements are going to administrative items.

And then the remainder of the activities were largely going to maintenance or decorative items.

Maintenance activities were things like maintaining string lights or maintaining the Fifth Avenue Bollards or other maintenance activities.

And then decorative items were installing decorative crosswalks or intersection murals.

The community parking districts only spent about 30% of their fiscal year 25 budgeted amounts.

And there were significant city staff efforts dedicated to oversight and managing this program, but after completing this review, we feel are better dedicated to implementation of parking improvements throughout the community parking districts.

So we'd like to highlight the critical infrastructure needs that the transportation department has within these community parking district programs or parking districts.

We have three examples shown on the screen, some of our more popular backlogs within these community parking districts.

Between the four community parking districts, we have almost 3,000 street lights that known streetlight outages.

And we have almost 3,000 known sidewalk repair locations across these four community parking districts.

We also have a variety of unfunded vision zero projects such as crosswalk striping and rectangular rapid flashing beacons and blank out signs.

And these are all projects that are requested by the public through the Get It Done program or stakeholder requests.

So transportation is proposing to waive council policy 100-18 through June 30th, 2027, so a two fiscal year waiver.

This action is also proposing to reallocate 1.8 million dollars, which was the FY26 budget to the community parking districts to the transportation department to complete critical infrastructure needs immediately within the community parking districts, such as street light repairs.

And then if this action is passed, then 100% of the parking meter revenue and the fund balances will be available in FY26 and FY27 to high priority eligible projects within the impacted communities.

We have also evaluated how we're currently budgeting these funds and reporting out on revenue or reporting out on expenditures, how this how these funds are used.

And so we are proposing a new budgeting and community engagement process.

These funds have historically been allocated to eligible activities at the end of the fiscal year, but starting as part of the fiscal year 25 budget and beyond, we are proposing to uh allocate the budget for this revenue source as part of the annual budget process moving forward.

And then previous year revenues are revenues and expenditures are also proposed to be reported on as part of the year-end report.

And so through this process, community partners and council offices will have opportunity to provide input on the revenue allocations for this funding source.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We do have quite a number of speakers online and hearing council chambers, so we'll be going to a minute and a half, starting with David Roger, if you can please come up to the microphone after that.

Clayton Fowler, Tim Douglas, Scott Chipman, and Ben Nichols.

If you can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats in the front, and please proceed when ready.

Thank you.

My name's Dave Rogers.

I'm a 70-year native San Diegan.

And again, the mayor's office is making a attempt to take funds to try and solve other issues.

If you actually saw how these were being used, we issue a parking district issues a proposal, and then the city actually approves it, then the parking district goes and builds it, and then the city was sends the money.

So for them to say that there's any issues with how things are being spent or anything, I think we need to talk to the mayor's office and the city who's issuing those POs, and they have existing POs that they issued last year that they still not paid.

So I I really think that the best bet is for you not to approve this and to actually go and talk to the parking districts and find out what the mayor's really trying to do.

Okay, they're trying to steal like 1.8 million dollars, and they've they've this 30 percent that they talked about that didn't get spent, it's only because they wouldn't approve any projects by any of the parking districts.

So the mayor's office and how these this is being operated is ludicrous, and it's another attempt to steal all the funds that should be spent by the districts.

Thank you.

Thank you, Clayton Fowler.

Good afternoon, Council President Locava and Council members.

My name is Clayton Fowler with the downtown San Diego Partnership.

Community parking districts play a crucial role in making our community safer, more vibrant, while at the same time furthering the city's climate action plan through projects that would enhance mobility options.

DSDP has remained good stewards of CPD resources, which honors a longstanding partnership between the city, our special districts, and the residents, visitors, and businesses of downtown San Diego.

Over the past four years, we have worked with the community and city staff on several important approved reimbursement-based projects that have directly enhanced public safety, mobility, and accessibility.

We understand the need to evolve, therefore we support the two year suspension of the Council Policy 100-18, but respectfully ask that the DSDP be part of the annual reviews and our B Street project with a cost of uh about 21,500 on 6 and B be added to the proposed list of projects in downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tim Douglas.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My name is Timothy Douglas.

I'm the elected president of Aspeny Local 127, who represents the skilled labor for the city.

Local 127 represents about 300 of his members within the transportation department.

Standing next to me this afternoon is one of those members, Mike Alejo, who is elected official within ASNE Local 127 and holds a job classification as a street light technician for the City Transportation Department.

Mike and his fellow co-workers within the department are waiting to hear the results of this afternoon's city council meeting to see if they can immediately get to work tonight to start repairing more street lights within the city.

Please let Mike and local 127 members light up City of San Diego in each of your districts by supporting this action the department is requesting today.

Thank you, folks.

Thank you, Scott Chipman.

50-year resident.

Should never have been created in the first place.

False promises that we were going to get infrastructure improvements.

And uh I'm not sure they got have that they've received any money.

Uh the mismanagement, if there's mismanagement there, Discover PB has never been well managed.

And I think they've learned from the best, the city.

Um this was supposed to be a one-year trial.

There was no data collected before the meters were installed.

No data collected.

There was no measurement.

How are you going to determine success or failure?

A recent survey of the parking district meters showed that over 50% were empty, yet side streets are packed with cars.

Um this is seems like another money grab.

And are we saying that if we didn't have a parking district, that street lights wouldn't get repaired, and curbs broken curbs wouldn't get repaired?

Uh this is a risk management issue as well.

So now to backfill your mismanager mismanagement, it appears you intend to take the estimated $860,000 that the good people at Pacific Beach who thought this was going to be good for the community were promised.

And use it for maintenance.

Ben Nichols.

Hello, my name is Benjamin Nichols, and I'm the executive director of the Hookrist Business Association, and I'm representing our 1800 small business members.

The HBA begrudgingly supports the temporary suspension of 100-18.

And while we regret the suspension of the policy, um and the community programs that is funded, my members would forgo those projects, provided that uptown really sees improvements that the city has promised.

Uptown parking meter money is required by law to be spent in uptown, but our community hasn't seen it.

Uptown must receive tangible community improvements above and beyond what is provided outside parking meter districts.

We need to see street lights repaired.

We need to see curb and sidewalks repaired, trip hazards removed, and curbs repainted.

A suspension of the policy rather than outright cancellation allows the city to show us that this money can be spent well while still preserving the policy for future activists if needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I started the five minute timer going to those participating remotely.

We currently have five speakers in the queue, starting with Sunny Lee.

You'll have a minute and a half.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, Sunny Lee with the Pacific Beach Community Parking District.

First, I want to say that the Transportation Department's report is not telling the full story in relation to Pacific Beach.

And the city has had primary control over the PB's parking meter revenue to date.

And after a two-year delay on installation, what was supposed to be a pilot project was never reviewed or evaluated.

If this pause moves forward, it cannot result in Pacific Beach losing its voice or visibility.

We expect a formal public and clearly defined input process, transparent utilization and revenue reporting, and firm timelines for actual improvements during the pause, not after.

PB is not refusing partnership, but we are insisting on accountability, transparency, and an intentional plan to repair trust with our community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrea Ebbing, if you can please unmute.

After that is the original, Blair Beekman and then McCow Michael Tremblay.

Please proceed.

Hi, my name is Andrea Ebbing, and I wanted to just say that this feels really like a big giant cash grab, and it does feel like people are being bullied into agreeing to this.

We need to conduct business in San Diego.

We have to allow people to live here and build business.

And what's happening, I can't think of anyone worse at all, at all, to operate and run and oversee anything than Todd Gloria's office.

I couldn't think of a worse, more dishonest, more chaotic, more um obfuscated process than that.

So whatever the report says, number one, I don't believe the reports at all anymore.

Number two, whatever the report says, I don't care what it says, there's no one worse to manage it than his office.

He can't manage what he's already doing.

And number three, I want to like be really clear.

I want to find a way to differentiate.

Um I'm saying the city, I have a feeling there are people up there in their roles that aren't doing what Todd Gloria's office is doing.

So I'm gonna urge everyone to please just you know, take the can down the road, do whatever you can to delay this process because we all know this is just like another money grab.

And um, I do think there's a shift and a change in tide, and I think it's gonna behoove you in your roles and your um public acceptance and like thank you.

Thank you.

Your time is concluded.

The original, if you can please unmute after that is Michael Blair McMahon.

Can you put the time up?

You don't have it on the Zoom, the screen actually couldn't even see the um it's all blurry.

So can you make the time on the screen for the Zoom users?

It may be the way that you're viewing the meeting.

You get to select sometimes.

I don't, I didn't switch anything.

It's it's just showing the the chambers right now.

And I see your screen on the side is showing the time, but it's not on the actual Zoom.

I didn't do anything, it's what you guys are doing.

Your time will start and we will troubleshoot to see if there's anything else.

But Zoom did update and now gives you the option to decide at what view you want to have.

Please proceed.

Okay, well.

Anyway, um, Andrea's right.

This is a money grab.

It's really sad to see because you guys are the gatekeepers of what happens in the city.

And you know, on one hand, you can sit here and say that these um parking districts aren't doing what they're supposed to be doing, but if you are keeping them from spending that money, um, then you guys are to blame.

And that's the sad thing is that you know it could go either way.

It could be that you have influence on these boards um or these um committees or whatever it is, and and you do get to determine that money um through that board, which is nefarious.

But then if you have boards that are good or commissions and and they're supposed to be these districts are supposed to be able to provide things for their community, and you're not allowing them to do it, that is a huge problem.

So it's like no matter how the the city is engaged, they are the gatekeepers, and they're the ones that determine whether or not something gets implemented or it doesn't.

And it's sad because you know, like if that 1.8 million dollars could go to these districts and they have been, you know, thinking about all the things that their district wants, and then you guys are gonna take that over.

We can already see by the way that you guys run things that it isn't going to be produced, producing what the communities want, and that is the sad part.

So you guys need to get your act together because and people need to see what's really going on here that things aren't supposed to go the way that you think, that it is an illusion of choice, that it's an illusion of things going the way that you want.

People thank you guys for destroying things when you know you there needs to be some kind of accountability because money comes in and we don't have anything to show for it, but you guys are kind of giving rated and whatnot.

Blair Beakerman, if you can please unmute all right, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

Um, I'm still hoping San Diego City government can help facilitate open conversation and dialogue between the different parking commissions of the city.

Um, I think that's a good practice.

We we we can practice good luck on those efforts.

And I hope you're working on parking fees uh for the Balboa Park area at the two to five dollar range and not at the 10 to 8 to 10 dollar range.

Um that way we can talk like city government working and not you know a rock concert.

That's my learning how to say that.

And to conclude, um, as San Diego San Diego City government is simply going through uh an important review time of how it shares its neighborhood surveillance data collection technology with federal government agencies.

I hope this is a time we are currently learning important lessons at a plethora of additional surveillance and data collection tech does not equate better public safety for local San Diego neighborhoods, and that minimal use of surveillance technology and data collection sharing can still accomplish uh much of the same public safety needs and simply works as well towards responsibility, inventiveness, and profit.

You guys are gonna be putting in a ton of new tech, you know, uh with these smart street light things.

Uh, do you have good guidelines in place?

Do you have good tech policies in place?

Does the community want to get involved in such a process and ask those sort of questions?

They can and they should be allowed to.

Um, what do you have in store going on right now with all of this tech?

Uh, how is it gonna relate to federal agencies?

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is and our last speaker is Michael Trimblay.

If you can please unmute.

Good afternoon.

My name is Michael Trimble, the executive director of the Gauss Lamp Quarter Association.

I'm here today to express my strong opposition to the mayor's decision to eliminate council policy 100-18 and dissolve the community parking districts.

For more than two decades, this program has empowered neighborhoods like the Gas Lamp Quarter to reinvest parking revenues directly into safety parking and mobility projects that enhance the pedestrian experience throughout downtown.

Community parking district organizations have spent decades building effective neighborhood-based programs that reflect the unique needs of the communities they serve.

That collaboration should be strengthened, not discarded.

Working collaboratively means working collectively with all neighborhoods within the community parking districts, not selectively choosing who gets a seat at the table.

Instead of dismantling the program that to deliver real and visible improvements, the city should engage all districts to strengthen the oversight, improve efficiencies, and ensure transparency moving forward.

Eliminating Council Policy 100-18 entirely sends the wrong message, one of unwillingness to collaborate, and a signal that these funds may be redirected for the purposes other than they what they were intended for.

The Gas Am Quarter Association remains committed to transparency, accountability, and collective progress.

We urge the city to work with, not around the community partners who have long delivered results on the ground.

Together, we can find a solution that will serve all San Diego neighborhoods fairly and effectively.

Thank you.

That does include your time.

I will note for the record that item S400 did receive one web comment form in favor and one in opposition.

Those were distributed to the council.

And just for the webinar's view, if you go to view on the upper right-hand corner and select follow host view, you will see everything that's being shared.

My apologies, thank Council President.

Thank you for the extra time.

All right.

Thank you, City Clerk, and thank you for that explanation.

So I'll turn it over to my council colleagues for questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And we'll start out with Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to start by thanking the many residents and parking district representatives and other community members who took the time to testify today to send comments to my office to meet with me and my staff about this matter.

Your input and your ideas have been absolutely instrumental in shaping this discussion.

And I want to thank our transportation and finance departments for all of your work on this item.

I want to recognize Randy Wilde from the mayor's office for hearing me out on my priority to ensure that neighborhoods that have parking meters truly see that the parking meter revenue is benefiting their neighborhoods.

Community parking districts are a valuable tool for neighborhoods to advance their own priorities.

Over the years, they have delivered both long-term and short-term projects that make our communities more vibrant and more accessible.

The normal street promenade that is currently under construction in Hillcrest is one of the many examples of that.

There have also been community shuttles in various neighborhoods, murals, traffic calming measures, enhanced lighting, bike racks, parking space, reconfigurations, and so on.

These districts have given residents a direct role in shaping their public spaces.

At the same time, there have been real challenges.

State restrictions limit how these funds can be used, and the reporting and reimbursement processes have frustrated both the city and the parking districts.

In speaking with community members, and I have spoken with a lot of community members about this, the message that I have heard most clearly is they want to know exactly how the parking meter revenue is being spent, and they want to have a say on how that revenue is spent.

By pausing, not eliminating, by pausing the community parking district program for two years and letting the city manage the parking revenue for two years.

While ensuring that it also reflects community priorities.

That immediate impact is why I can support this proposal today.

And I'm going to make the motion to support staff's recommendation today.

And in the spirit of reflecting community priorities, I will highlight several requests that would go a long way toward demonstrating that the city is attentive to those priorities.

Repainting the faded crosswalk in Cortez Hill at Ash Street and Eighth Avenue, as well as simply continuing the conversations with East Village and Little Italy and Mid-City so that their residents and their businesses feel heard during the pause, and if they do feel heard during this two fiscal year pause, then feel comfortable continuing with the new process permanently after that pause is complete.

Mike is one of the most in-demand employees in the city of San Diego and would love to see you tackling uh the various uh projects on this list.

So thank you again, and again, I'll move the staff recommendation.

All right.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn to move the staff recommendation.

I'll jump in uh next.

So I appreciate all the work the staff has done on this item.

Thank you, Randy Weil uh at the mayor's office for organizing the stakeholder group and making sure you heard from our community partners.

And I appreciate the staff for being creative and finding opportunities to use parking district funding for immediate community needs.

I think this two-year pause, as Councilmember Whipburn said, strikes a better balance between how this item was originally introduced to City Council a few weeks ago and what we heard from our community partners.

I recognize the concerns raised by our parking districts, particularly the feeling of trust throughout this process.

And while I have full confidence in Bethany and her department's ability to get the boots on the ground on day one and get to work on the improvements we need around our city, restoring trust will be demonstrated by action and keeping the parking districts as a vital part of the process.

So a couple of questions.

I've appreciated the direct communication between our community planning groups and soliciting their feedback for CIPs and would like to see something similar for the parking districts for the routine maintenance and smaller improvements.

So either to staff or to the mayor's office.

Have we considered how this would look during the budget cycle and over the course of the year?

Thank you, Council President.

Yes, absolutely.

And I can take a first crack at that and uh have the team follow up with more details.

Um so we uh are looking at how uh for fiscal year 27, if if these action requested actions are approved, the city would go about budgeting through the annual budget process 100% of all of those parking revenues uh across all of the meter zones.

And so our desire would be to have conversations uh with community groups, with council offices with those parking districts uh at the very beginning of the budget process.

Um we're obviously a little bit past step one of the FY27 budget development process at this stage.

We'd like to put out a memo uh providing kind of the projected available revenue for each parking district in the next month in November and have that kind of kick off the process to solicit public input from the community parking district entities, other stakeholders and council offices, um, engage with them directly in terms of their priorities.

I think we've we've heard some of those already today, but would want to dig into what is possible given what is projected for FY27 with each of them, foresee that being part of the council budget priority memo process as those are revised, um, some additional conversations with you all.

I think we're very open to the type of survey that we have for the um capital improvement program that you referenced from community planning groups.

We could develop something pretty similar, either directly with our CPDs or open to the general public.

I think we're very open to the council's input on that.

Um, and then of course, as the uh mayor's initial draft budget comes out in April, uh volume one of the budget would provide detail on how we would propose allocations based on all that input uh within each meter zone.

So hoping that that creates enough detail in terms of the proposed allocations that that can be discussed as part of the regular budget review uh process.

All right, thank you, Randy, for that uh response and that approach.

I know this will be a little bit tricky because I want to manage expectations.

Um our budget typically doesn't say we're going to fill X number of potholes or a side this particular sidewalk fix of that, uh, but I'm um confident that there will be a process you will develop one uh if this item passes today to try to figure out how to do that and how to communicate better uh going forward.

So let me zero in on district one.

I have one uh parking district in Pacific Beach.

They've expressed specific needs such as street lights and pedestrian safety improvements within the business corridors.

Do we know yet where staff will be starting with their improvements within Pacific Beach?

Um, Councilmember, we do have a priority list of locations within each one of the community parking districts.

We have electricians who are ready to go even this evening if this action is performed.

Um the priorities have been generated by the input from some of these stakeholder groups, and um and we'll continue to listen to the demands of customers also and get it done.

So happy to follow up with the individual locations that we plan to prioritize within the Pacific Beach.

Okay, and we'll put our oar in the waters, so to speak, and work with our parking district in district one to make sure we get that communication from them and then pass that along to to you all.

So, with that, uh, I will be seconding the motion.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn to move the staff recommendation, a second by myself.

We'll go next to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Maggie and uh Bethany for the presentation uh and to the department for um the amount of work.

Uh I know the Department of Finance and others uh were involved in these conversations as well.

Um we've had numerous candid conversations on this item, and I I just want to share my appreciation for the ongoing effort to engage.

Um, I want to thank those in the public who offered comment on this item and recognize that the city has partnered with numerous organizations when it comes to community parking districts, um and that each of them are unique in identifying the needs of their communities and how they have operated each district, and in some cases, are just either in the early stages of forming or operating their parking district.

In my district in particular, I'll take a moment to recognize the convoy district partnership, which as I understand it has undergone a significant amount of change since the city first approved the Carnamesa Community Parking District in December of 2023 in order to align themselves with serving in this new capacity.

And it's also acknowledged the letter that they submitted expressing their frustration with the changes that are being brought forward.

Um, first of all, I I don't believe we should shy away from the concerns that have been brought up regarding community parking districts, uh, whether it's from the county grand jury report or from our own mobility board.

I will point out though that when this policy change was first reported in the Santa Union Tribune, it was noted that neither body recommended disbanding the parking districts or even a waiver.

They only offered efforts to improve them and the city's oversight of them.

I want to also acknowledge the transportation department's review of this program, which identified concerns regarding um how it has been operated.

Um, and I welcome the review of all of our city programs and believe that we should be constantly looking for ways to improve programs for the betterment of communities that they serve and for the city as a whole.

Um, Randy, I'm gonna turn to you just because I know I asked you this question when we first briefed this, but to really talk a little bit about parking districts, because um I think it's important to understand what our roles are.

Um I think it's been painted to the media a bit, um, how the parking districts play a role uh when it comes to managing um some of these funds.

Um who actually approves the budgets for the community parking districts.

So the community parking districts, uh, thank you for the question, are required to submit uh an annual work plan to the city.

Uh those annual work plans are reviewed by department staff in the past that had been the Sustainability Mobility Department, and I believe at some point before that it was the economic development department, so it's it's shifted departments a few times in terms of management of the program.

That would go through staff review and then be brought forward to the council for approval.

That's usually around the same time as the annual budget, but has sometimes trailed or come just before that.

Um so it's kind of handled as its own separate process.

And then as uh reimbursement requests come in, those are obviously reviewed and approved by the department.

Okay, so as I understand it, um the departments help to manage the work plan and the budget that is brought forward to the council, this council, so we as a body approve the budgets for these parking districts, and then when it comes to reviewing the proposed expenditures and issuing the reimbursements for those expenditures, that has been done by the city of San Diego as well.

Um I think that's an important thing to note because I believe it just shows that it is our collective responsibility when it comes to working together towards viable solutions for parking districts in the future.

And I think with that response, it's only fair that I express my utter frustration and disappointment with how the administration has chosen to enact changes to this program.

Essentially, what we're seeing is a gutting of community parking districts, even if it's only for the next two years, without genuinely working with them to begin with.

This action today, while not as dramatic as the original proposed action, which was to rescind the community parking district policy altogether, pauses the policy for two years in order to redirect 1.8 million dollars of annual funding as part of the 15% that we left in the community parking districts agreements.

And as a reminder to my colleagues, that agreement previously, not even before this year, was 45%.

And we already changed that policy at the beginning of this year to ensure that new parking meter revenues only went to the city and not to the parking districts.

And now we're effectively today asking to pull the rest of it.

As I've made clear before, I am increasingly frustrated by how this administration's lack of transparency and communication with the public continues to erode community trust.

An example of this lack of communication is that I, and I'm gonna presume other members of this council, first learned that this policy proposal was actually coming forward through an article in the San Diego Union Tribune.

And in that article, as with today's presentation, the focus on the city's narrative seemed to be on the failure of the parking districts, while ignoring the fact that the city shares in that responsibility.

It says, quote, in city-led discussions on the current compromise, the direction felt predetermined, and the mayor's staff made it clear that the changes were effectively a done deal.

In a further line, it says, quote, under a that these changes were accepted under immense pressure and what felt like a guided closed door conversation in which, quote, the pause or something else, something worse.

I'll ask for my additional three minutes, was the only path presented.

I think if anyone's listening to this, you might understand exactly how frustrating it is that this is how we are communicating to the public and the partners that we have claimed to work with.

So, Randy, I'm gonna ask how did the mayor's office engage with stakeholders on the changes that occurred in the last couple of weeks?

Which community parking districts did you work with?

Sure, I don't have the list in front of me, but there were several community parking districts, several non-community parking districts, and several council offices that we engaged with over a couple of meetings uh since this item was returned the last time around.

Um so those that was a series of two discussions and some individual follow-ups with various community parking districts and stakeholders as well.

Um included uh a handful of the existing community parking districts.

Um includes the um downtown partnership, uh, Hillcrass Business Association, Discovery PB, um, and several others that are escaping me at the moment, but as a handful of community parking districts and then other other stakeholders as well, including circuit like San Diego and several council offices.

Were there parking districts that were left out of that conversation?

Yes, not every council, not every community parking district was part of that.

And why not?

To manage a small group of stakeholders to represent various uh areas of the city.

There's quite a few different entities that are all managing districts downtown, for example.

Um I mentioned this because I it this sounds like some parking districts were left out of the conversation, and I will note that despite our district containing a parking district, and I very much appreciate the briefing from transportation, that there was um no outreach from the mayor's office to our office as well on the policy direction of this item today.

Um can you explain the uh and this is maybe more so for staff, but can we explain again the state or local policy limitations when it comes to the expenditures of parking meter revenues?

And even if these funds are reallocated, that 1.8 million dollars, would those requirements still need to be met?

Yes, uh, it is per California state law, parking meter revenue must be spent within the geographic boundary of the parking meter zone, which is very similar to the geographic boundary of the community parking district.

It must be spent on items related to parking mobility and traffic safety, and the 1.8 million dollars will be required to be spent on activities related to that.

Um what's what is the intent?

So the intent of the 1.8 million dollars is specifically on projects that are within the parking meter zones as they exist.

Correct, it has to be spent within those areas.

Um, in in asking to redirect it to the transportation department, I guess what I'm wondering from a budgetary standpoint, because the council members have been briefed on the shortfall that the transportation department has within its budget, how do we expect to spend the 1.8 million dollars on filling a budget shortfall and on the enhanced benefits that parking districts have asked for as a part of our partnership with them.

Yes, so the department's prioritization and intention is to spend the vast majority of this funding in FY26 on streetlight repairs.

As Maggie represented, we have several thousand streetlight repairs within each one of the CDPs uh that need to be repaired based on get it done requests.

So that is the intention.

As we've noted, though, stakeholders have asked for some other services as well.

So we expect over the course of the FY27 budget cycle that we'd also be able to address those.

For instance, uh the downtown partnership has indicated streetlight uh excuse me, sidewalk locations as well.

So uh it is the department's commitment in coordinating with Department of Finance to get to those other needs that have been represented by the stakeholder groups.

In regards to enhancements, the transportation department has not been budgeted this year, quite frankly, to be able to provide enhancements.

Uh, this overtime allocation to transportation will allow us to do significant amount of streetlight repairs, and it will be all on overtime.

So essentially the increase level of services because of the overtime that will be granted to the transportation department.

Thank you, Bethany, for explaining that.

And I I think it should be fair.

I mean, that is thank you for that explanation, because I think that transparent thing to share with folks is that if there is an expectation that the parking districts are going to see this funding spent on enhanced services, that's not feasible.

We're not gonna be able to just fill our 1.8 million dollars in need and provide enhanced services that we are promising.

Um look, I I understand the tremendous need that we have as a city when it comes to our current fiscal challenge.

I just wish we were much more transparent about that need before we take action that strips funding and partnership from what's called a community effort, and without putting in real mechanisms to ensure that feedback will still be prioritized for the allocation of these funds moving forward.

I don't know what the conversation two years from now will look like when this policy is uh if this policy is passed and it's waived.

Um but what I think might happen as a result of this is that we are ultimately going to disincentivize the communities that we have been working with to implement parking solutions, especially without the opportunity for them to provide community feedback and engagement on how these funds provide the enhanced benefits that they've long been promised.

Um this is where I've heard clear feedback from my parking district in convoy, which I'll be frank initially I I expected may not have a lot of feedback.

We're not collecting revenues now, um, and so this isn't a significant loss.

But where they are most frustrated, it sounds like is the idea that they understand there may be a future point the city looks to put parking meters in Kearney Mesa in the convoy area, and that one of the main reasons that parking district was established was because of this policy, which now may no longer exist.

Um I'll just conclude with the last 30 seconds to say that um I understand that several of the impacted parking districts are reluctantly willing to go along with today's proposal, um, and I think that's a nice way for them to put it.

I cannot support the waiver of this policy today.

Um, and as much as I understand the need for transportation funding, I believe there are other ways.

I would hope that we can find that funding and to also ensure that it is properly budgeted for in the future.

Um thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

We'll go next to council member Foster.

Yes, thank you, um, Council President, and thank you, staff um, for the presentation and just in listening to the discussion and I just a couple of I guess high-level questions.

Um in regards to as you're looking at the next two years, I believe the policy outlined.

Uh I I guess I'll call it administrative dollars, right?

How much you can allocate for administrative purposes for the city.

Is that changing as we are having this discussion, or are we still keeping that number down?

And actually dollars going to the actual what I'll say work in place.

Yes, so the administrative dollars, uh, for instance, for the city treasurer to procure parking meters or place those, et cetera, uh, that won't change for the upcoming years.

This is not related to that funding.

So I guess I'm not understanding.

What how are we?

I I guess I'm kind of lost in the action then.

And and I guess what I'm driving at is in what I want to make sure of is that as we are collecting revenues, we're not seeing an exorbitant increase in what I call back of house administrative fees.

I want to make sure that what we are spending the dollars on is actually in the right of way dealing with parking infrastructure in this specific designated areas.

That's correct.

The new allocations of money are taking the 15% that would have gone to community parking districts, and it is allocating it to specific repairs within the right-of-way, not increased overhead or administrative costs for city staff.

Very good.

And then just as we are doing this and taking that last 15%, I guess just when we look at this continued conversation, um what are you guys planning to do to resolve the expenditure issues?

And I'm concerned because clearly these organizations have been working with city staff and city staff providing oversight, right?

So what's being put in place, and I've asked this question on several other items.

Is it going to be another policy that's written administrative regulation?

How are we going to make sure that staff knows what's an eligible expense, what's not eligible expense, and that we are all marching in the appropriate direction, so that this is no longer an issue and we are serving the public in getting the work done that needs to be done.

Yes, I can speak to how transportation would be managing the program moving forward.

If the community parking districts were to continue to have a 15% allocation, this would be the first year that transportation would be managing that program.

And I can tell you that part of the process that we went through to review all of the past practices was quite frankly to have transparency about how all parties were conducting and operating business.

And the intent was to understand how they were being managed and for the department to ensure that that was very tightly coordinated, but also in partnership with both parties, the city and the community parking districts.

So what does that?

I I guess what does that look like?

What is the facilitating document?

I'm looking for specifics because I want to make sure as we talk about transparency that whatever decisions are made internally by the city, for example, even in the when I went through the notes, it said here's examples of projects, right?

How are we picking these projects?

How are we identifying them?

How do they know what they are going to be getting?

Yes, so I think your question might be best answered by Department of Finance.

I'll hand it over to Ben Bitalia.

In but I will say this in the in the working groups that we had with these stakeholders, we discussed what the FY27 budget setting process would look like in terms of establishing resources and allocations in advance of the fiscal year rather than cost recoverability and rec and um reporting out and expenditures at the end of the year.

So Department of Finance has established a new schedule for what that would be proposed to look like for FY27.

Thank you for the question.

Ben Bitalia with the Department of Finance.

So we acknowledge increased transparency is needed for this revenue source as it's essentially tripling.

Um our plan for the FY27 draft budget is to work very closely with the transportation department, stormwater department, the city treasurer department, and the police department who all utilize this funding source to develop a plan on how to use this 30 million dollars each year.

That'll be included in the draft budget that gets presented to the city council and the public on April 15th, and then available for discussions during the council's uh budget review committee meetings.

Council will ultimately have the opportunity to make I guess how long how big is the budget?

How big is the budget documents?

You have three volumes that go into pretty much detail, right?

That's correct.

I guess what I'm driving at is somewhere you guys have to have some type of document that's going to guide the departments.

If it's you just named four departments, basically, right?

Each department should understand what's an eligible expense, what falls in there, and how this works.

The same thing the public should be able to understand.

I'm looking for a document, not a six billion dollar budget, three-volume document where we got to go hunt and pack because work is done to get the book the budget published.

So, how are you guys going to present or put this together so all the departments who are responsible for execution understand what they are to be doing and what they are not supposed to be doing?

So we don't have it, because I'm still really lost how these entities were spending money on things that were not eligible, but yet it there was a process that touched several hands, which tells me there needs to be some other clarification before it gets to the budget so that we know exactly what we are doing and that we are in a good place.

That's the clarification I'm looking for, and I'm not hearing it.

I'm looking for we're going to put it in the budget.

Councilmember, I I think what you're asking for is a clear explanation of what is legally eligible for expenditures under these uh these funds.

We do have pretty significant legal memos and guidance from the city attorney's office over the years.

I think there was some effort to consolidate some of that into an aggregated document.

I think we could turn that into something that's maybe more user-friendly and maybe attach that to uh the memo that I referenced earlier about here's projected revenue calling for uh public input on that.

I think maybe that would be a helpful tool.

Correct.

And I would also like to understand as you're putting the budget together, how are you going to work with the various council offices, work with the organizations that were once the that are I'm gonna say still there at this point, right?

How are you going and how are you going to get that feedback?

I think all of that should be very well spelled out so everyone knows exactly how this city is operating.

That is transparency.

Understood, council member, and Department of Finance has laid out exactly what those steps would look like for the FY27 budget setting process.

And those steps, because we're entering that phase would be starting in November and in December with reporting out on the past expenditures for last year and establishing the framework for next fiscal year.

So that's ultimately going to be led by Department of Finance because as you indicated, it is several different operating departments that will need to understand the plan for next year.

And quite frankly, have the resources associated with individual assets and expectations within each community parking district for that year as well.

So that needs to be laid out at the beginning of the budget process because ultimately the allocations and the funding then need to follow through the approval process when the budget is set.

So Department of Finance will be leading that exercise.

So Department of Finance is back into you.

I just was told that process is basically started.

So my last question would be does my does my office, does my team have that information in front?

Do they have that information?

So as we are as we go through the budget process that we understand this portion of the budget.

Do they have what do they have a document you provided them everything?

And they there's clear understanding as what's eligible, what's not eligible, all the things, all the tangibles, how you're going to be meeting with the various folks.

I can cut in uh council member.

I I think what you're asking for is more details in the memo that comes out in November and/or some type of formalized council policy, which I think honestly we would be happy to work on with council, looking for some direction on how you all would like to formalize this process, especially given that this is a two-year temporary suspension of the current policy.

Um but I think we recognize a need to uh budget differently going forward for the city's share of these revenues regardless.

So we'd be happy to work on formalizing some type of process document or policy with you all.

Okay.

Um just if uh I'm gonna be looking to my colleagues.

I don't really have any parking district just yet, but I am having conversations in regards to the Black Arts and Culture District to look at what we can do there.

So this is important to me because we need to find ongoing revenues to take care of Imperial Avenue, that entire corridor.

So this is critical, is down the line, but I just want to make sure that as my colleague says, we find things out in the newspaper that there's all these issues to where we are being proactive.

Every we we are putting together the appropriate what I will call SOPs or whatever whatever your internal documents are that can be made public so everyone understands step A, B, C, D through Z that gets us to what's being included in the budget and going from there.

Okay, fair enough.

I'll conclude there.

I'll be supporting the item today, but understand I'm going to be very critical when this comes back because I want to make sure we cross our T's dot our I's and that we are transparent and the appropriate districts know exactly what's taking place.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Uh Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council President.

I uh appreciate Councilmember Foster's uh questions.

Uh the question about what expenses are eligible has been a huge source of frustration and confusion for quite some time.

Um that's a function of a couple of things, uh changing state legislation being one of them, uh, but also that those interpreting the existing legislation, those people have changed because this program has been housed in three different departments in recent years.

So imagine the frustration of a parking district when the answer you get one year is not the same as the answer you get another year.

So having more clarity about precisely uh what is an eligible expense uh under the current interpretation, I think would be helpful to all parties, as would real transparency about um uh how these expenses are being used.

I did want to just expand on a couple of nuances that I think are important to have out there.

Um has to do with administrative expenses.

Um excuse me.

Up until now, um of the inefficiencies has been the fact that there have been two buckets of administrative expenses.

Uh the city has had administrative expenses that um uh come out of some of these funds, and the parking districts have also had administrative expenses that have come out of some of these funds.

Under the uh program that we're gonna be doing for the next two years, the administrative expenses uh that were uh within the parking district control, those will no longer be administrative expenses.

Those those dollars will go directly into um repairs.

Um the city will continue to have administrative expenses in the way that it did in the past.

Um, what's changing there are the administrative expenses that used to be collected uh in the parking districts, but that will now be directly funneled into neighborhood repairs.

The other thing though that I want to highlight is the nature of the public input, because historically the expenses of the parking districts were subject to the most public input uh what that money was spent on, but the public didn't really have much of a say in what the city was spending the money on.

Uh that is going to change to the benefit of residents over the next couple of years, because both buckets of money, what was previously uh going to the parking districts and what was previously going to the city, all of those funds will now be within the budget process that will be subject to council approval and by extension uh neighborhood input.

So uh with those nuances out there, uh just wanted to clarify that.

Thank you again, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights and the risk of uh adding more confusion, but hopefully a little bit of clarity to Councilmember Foster's.

Uh Department of Transportation taking this over is relatively recent, and I understand in the what was at one time the request for parking districts to submit their FY26 work plan that the Department of Transportation set pretty strict guidelines of what was eligible for their funds.

So one presumes those are public documents, and council member Foster and the rest of the council members could be provided with that list, because that would be an easy starting point to answer his question.

That we have that list of what is eligible of what was allowed to be spent.

So can that be shared?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, so we have that list.

I don't know if that'll answer your question, Councilmember Foster, but that was what was communicating to parking districts as they were developing their work plans.

So you wanted to add some additional consult uh comments, Councilmember Foster?

Just one last question.

The work that's being done, it will all be by city forces, correct?

It's not going to be outsourced.

Yes, absolutely.

Okay, thank you.

RS all right now with not seeing anybody uh on the lights.

Uh, we have a motion by council member Whitburn, a second by myself to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Uh sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes eight to one with council president pro tem leave voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you again to the departments and to the mayor's office for the conversation this afternoon.

We'll look forward to more updates.

Uh so with that, uh Clerk, please introduce item S401.

Item S401 is to approve termination agreement related to the 1983 corporation grant deed between Ocean Industries Inc.

and City of San Diego.

Approve first amendment to serve sports percentage ground lease for property located on the corner of El Camino Real and Via de la Vallea Delmar, California, 92014 wave portions of Council Policy 700-10 determined that the proposed actions are exempt under CEQA.

If you'd like to speak on this item in our hearing, Council Chambers, please submit your speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box.

And if you are participating remotely, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

And City Clerk, how many how much public comment do we have?

We do have over an hour of public comment at one minute each already.

So we're about 60 60 plus.

Okay, thank you for that.

So folks can begin to prepare the timing of their comments or the duration of their comments.

So staff, uh, now that you've settled in, uh, let us uh please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good afternoon good afternoon, honorable council president, council members.

I'm Christina Bibler, Director of Economic Development, and with me today is Deputy Director of Real Estate Lucy Contreras and Deputy City Attorney Jenny Goodman, and we'll need 13 minutes for our presentation.

All right, again when you're ready.

Okay.

Today's item before you includes actions associated with the surf sports ground lease termination agreement for use restrictions within the grant deed, waiving a portion of council policy 700-10, and determining these actions categorically exempt from CEQA pursuant to specific sections 15323 and 15301.

Next slide.

In 1983, Watts Industries conveyed approximately 600 acres of land to the city.

Within the grant deed, 114 acres, now known as the polo fields, and the property upon which the Fairbuck Fairbanks Country Club was built and operates, as well as three small parcels consisting of steep hillside topography.

You can see that on the slide outlined in yellow.

This slide shows the distinction between the polo fields and the country club leases.

In the mid-1980s, the polo club graded lot one for the polo fields, and the property has remained public open space grass fields for the past 40 years.

While leased to the polo club, they invested millions in property improvements for weekly polo matches, horsebording and training, and other ancillary uses of the open space, including large charity events, weddings, Christmas tree sales, pumpkin patch events, and other similar activities.

Then in the early 1990s, the polo club began allowing SURF to use the property for daily soccer practices to host major soccer tournaments and other large sports tournaments.

And over the next decade, the activities on the polo fields included not only soccer tournaments but lacrosse tournaments, flag football, and thoroughbred thoroughbred horse events.

All the while, the polo club continued to host approximately 13 to 15 polo matches each season, drawing over a thousand people to the site for these matches, which include elaborate halftime shows and afterparties.

And the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club, now the Bay Club, has leased lot two in the darker yellow on the slide since 1983.

That lease will remain in effect through 2044.

The use restrictions in the grant deed do not apply to lot two.

I'm now going to turn the presentation over to Lucy Contreras to speak to the deed restrictions.

Thank you, Christina.

Exhibit B to the 1983 grant deed includes deed restrictions which required that the affected land be retained in as natural a condition as possible, but allows various active and passive recreational uses.

It generally prohibits non-commercial recreational activities that involve large assemblages of people or automobiles without further providing any guidelines to determine what constitutes non-commercial activities or what would constitute a large assemblage of people or automobiles on the 114-acre polo field site.

It also includes several provisions for obtaining the grantor's consent for uses not specifically prohibited or otherwise allowed under the grant deed.

Generally the same or similar activities continued for over two decades with an average of 41 days of large events per year, inclusive of the polo matches.

In 2002, Ocean Industries, the successor by merger to the original Grantor, agreed that the polo club slash surfs use of the property for large events, including soccer and lacrosse tournaments, were allowable uses under the 1983 grant deed.

To balance impacts to the neighbors, Ocean Industries restricted large soccer and lacrosse tournaments to 25 special event days per year.

However, Ocean Industries did not restrict the number of days that polo matches could be held, nor did it restrict events that would not otherwise be considered a large event.

The use restrictions contained in exhibit B to the deed only apply to the affected land.

The affected land is outlined in red in this slide.

Lot one, as mentioned before, is the area commonly referred to as the polo fields.

Lots four, nine, and ten are steep hillside parcels that are not under a lease nor used for any purpose other than open space.

Lot two in the middle of this image is the country club parcel and is not included in the definition of affected land.

This slide illustrates the historical use of the property with various dates shown for lease commencement, uses, grantor clarification, and up to the most current leasehold with SURF, which took effect in 2016, as we've previously stated.

The deed restrictions state that as long as the grantor owns any land within the benefited land and the city owns any interest in the affected land, they could amend or terminate the use restrictions.

Affected land again refers to the polo fields, which is lot one, and three small steep hillside parcels contiguous to the southern boundary line of the country club parcel.

The benefited land is comprised of five different HOA groups consisting of approximately 341 units.

Ocean Industries, the Grant Or owns two parcels of steep hillside conservation land within the benefited land.

Therefore, the restrictions can be terminated.

Here is a map clearly outlining the distinct properties on this site.

This slide shows the location of the benefited land areas, which are outlined in blue, which is again comprised of five different HOA groups.

The areas outlined in red are two parcels within the benefited land that are still owned by Ocean Industries, the successor by merger to the original Grantor.

The use restrictions in the 1983 deed are solely for the benefit of the expressly identified parcels upon which the Grantor was building and selling homes.

There has been concern voiced within the community that terminating the use restrictions will deprive the property and the community of the open space protections.

The city has no intention to change the open space use of the polo fields and intends for it to continue within the same or similar activities as have occurred on the site for decades.

Terminating the use restrictions does not leave the affected land vulnerable to development or intensified use.

First, the city is concurrently amending the long-term lease to ensure that the use of the property remains consistent with the historically allowed uses, including the requirement that it remain in as natural condition as possible for public open space.

Second, numerous planning documents that govern the property designate lot one as open space and a floodway zone.

The slide demonstrate the city's continued commitment to ensure the uses remain intact and are further specified in the general plan, specific plan, zoning and land use designations, not to mention this is also an open space floodplain zone, special flood hazard area.

There are no changes to any of these governing governing documents and approved plans with this action for consideration.

This slide shows that the space in its entirety for both the polo field site and the Fairbank Country Club site remain open space as stated previously, which is articulated on this map as the gray shaded area.

Open space that is designated in community plans and other land use plans is an important component of the open space system because of its value in protecting natural landforms defining community.

Community boundaries, providing natural linkages between communities, providing visually appealing open spaces, and protecting habitat and biological systems of community importance.

The Fairbanks Country Club specific plan was prepared in conjunction with the benefited land planned residential development in 1982.

Residential development will cover approximately 142 acres of the community, with the remaining 643 acres, including the land conveyed to the city in the 1983 deed designated as open space.

The entirety of the conveyance in the 1983 grant deed is included in this open space designation, separate and apart from the grant deed open space use restriction.

Removing the grant deed use restrictions does not impact the Fairbanks Country Club specific plan designation.

And now I will hand the presentation back to Christina.

Shifting specifically to the polo field site, SURF has managed a site on behalf of the city since 2016, and the images on the site slide reflect the condition of the property over the past 10 years.

The photo on the right shows a fully activated condition of the property when there is a large event.

Sorry, the picture on the left is from just prior to them assuming the responsibility for the 2016 lease.

Litigation challenging the 2016 lease with Surf Cup was unsuccessful.

The court determined that Surf Cup lease and the activities contemplated therein did not result in any environmental impacts based on the historical usage of the property.

However, ambiguity ambiguities in the lease restrictions have led to decades of disputes, lawsuits, and conflicting interpretations by neighbors, Surf, and the city.

Homeowners argue the deed prohibits most events.

The city maintains 40 large events per year, event days per year is consistent with historic use and in alignment with the grantor's repeated consent, and activities that could be construed as commercial uses have occurred for decades, including when the polo club had the lease between 1986 and 2015.

The Polo Club rented out barns and stalls for boarding up to 200 horses, offered horse riding lessons, charged admission to polo matches, food truck sales, merchandising at events, etc.

Therefore, the proposed lease amendment before you today allows the city to take a couple of important steps to be a good landlord as well as a good neighbor.

It removes ambiguity, strengthens language, and further protects the city, the Less C and the neighborhood from unnecessary dispute.

The First Amendment clarifies the definition of what a large event is for both sporting events and non-sporting events and provides a metric by which non-sporting events can be measured and counted against the 40-day limit on large events.

This will enable the city to better enforce the limitation on large events going forward.

For sporting events, a large event will be defined as any event that uses 75% or more of the playing fields.

This typically means 18 or more of the 25 playing fields utilized for sporting tournaments.

A typical playing field is 120 by 80 yards, and in the event of a standard standard-sized playing field is broken down into two smaller fields for younger players, those who play 5v5 versus 11B11.

That will only count as one field for the purposes of calculating the number of fields being used.

This should assist the city with its enforcement efforts to ensure there's no mission creep as potentially alleged in the lawsuit.

To help mitigate some of the existing traffic congestion associated with large events, Surf has agreed to implement additional traffic control measures near the entrance and exit of the subdivision and at the intersection of El Comino Real and Via de la Valle.

The First Amendment also requires SURF to update its traffic management plan to reflect these additional traffic mitigation measures.

Surf has also agreed not to hold any large events on the 4th of July weekend.

This will eliminate competing traffic congestion wrought by the nearby Del Mar Fairground activities during that holiday weekend.

Previous soccer tournaments held on the 4th of July weekend typically generated majority of the complaints in a year.

The required calendar of events will also be easily accessible on Surf's website near the home page, and the city will agree to cross-post the calendar on its website for additional access to the public.

Additionally, the city will require trash and refuge cleanup along via de la Valle following an event within 24 hours.

So in closing, the proposed actions to approve the termination agreement, the First Amendment, waive portions of Council Policy 700-10, and determine that actions are exempt under CEQA.

That concludes our presentation, and we're here to answer any questions.

I also think that uh Brian Enge is here, uh Chief Operating Officer of SERF and would like to make a few comments.

All right, uh, thank you for the presentation, and we will begin public comment.

And since we're proposing to change the existing lease, we'll turn it over to the Let's see for initial comments.

Brian Eng, if you can please come forward.

We have a video that we'll be sharing as well.

The people seating time, if you can please raise your hand, Andy Proser, Sophia Sines, Aaron Bice, Kendall Nichols, Mary Storm.

Mary Storm, thank you.

Ben Boyce, Chris Wall, Ryan Ennart, and Jordan Douglas.

You'll have 10 minutes, please proceed.

Right.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Brian Enge.

I am the chief operating officer of Surf Sports.

Surf Sports has been part of the San Diego community for over 50 years.

We started by organizing youth soccer games in parks across the city in the 70s, and today we're one of the nation's premier youth sports organizations.

From youth soccer to lacrosse and community events, our programs have helped thousands of kids each year grow both on the field and off.

And Surf Sports Park is our home field, sitting on the city's polo fields property in Carmel Valley.

It's where San Diego families gather every week to watch their loved ones play.

And when young athletes from across the country come to compete against the best of the best.

Our soccer games and tournaments generate an annual economic impact of more than 120 million, supporting local hotels, restaurants, and small businesses.

Believe it or not, that is on par with Comic Con.

We also generate a large amount of rent and other payments each year for the city and the state.

And a major reason is the significant investment that SURF has made in these fields over time.

I direct your attention to the boards next to me that these volunteers have halfway done.

To see what the fields look like in 2016 before we took over, and in 2025 now that they look like.

These fields were in pretty rough shape when we took them over, but we've invested millions of dollars and a lot of TLC to make sure that they are the highest quality in the world.

This is the same grass that the professionals play on at Petco Park today.

That's a huge asset for our local athletes and community.

And we've transitioned the irrigation to recycled water, saving millions of gallons of drinking water each year as a result.

Additionally, an environmental contractor hired by Surf recently broke ground on improvements to the portion of the Coast to Crest Trail that runs across the site.

A key deliverable to the lease.

But most importantly, I want you to understand how these fields change lives.

Over the last decade, youth athletes have earned more than 30 million dollars in college scholarships on this on this patch of grass, more than any other patch of grass in the United States.

And let me just restate that.

Every year, local kids earn millions of dollars in scholarship money on these fields alone.

Not only that, but we offer scholarship money to our own young athletes from the local community.

Kids from all over the county who otherwise might not be able to have the opportunity to participate in our soccer program, get to play for free.

This is all about giving back to the city that has given so much to us.

The proposed grant deed revision and lease update before you today will ensure that SURF continue continue benefiting San Diego communities far into the future.

They provide a clear and balanced solution to the challenges the city currently faces with the property.

One that protects the city, respects surrounding neighbors, and ensures the parking continues serving our community as it has for decades.

Okay, give you one chance to get all that emotion that is pent up sitting around all afternoon waiting for this item.

The protocol that we use here is if you disagree, thumbs down, becomes very visible to the council members up here.

And if you support, thumbs up.

Just equally when the opponents uh start speaking.

I'm sure we'll have a lot of thumbs up supporting each other.

But let's try to keep it civil and get through this hearing.

Thank you.

We are not seeking to intensify the use of this property.

This solution.

I'll start again.

We are not seeking to intensify the use of this property.

This solution simply codifies how it's been used for decades and adds clarity so everyone understands what's allowed.

At Surf Sports, we see this as a win-win.

I want to thank the city attorney's office, the economic development department, and council president Lakava's office for their leadership in developing this solution.

We're also grateful for the outpouring of community support this solution has received.

On Friday, we delivered more than 1,500 letters from parents, athletes, coaches, alumni, local businesses, and residents across San Diego, all supporting this solution and urging your approval today.

To close, I'd like to show you what this park means to families across our cities and why adoption of this solution is so important to so many.

I'd like to play a short video that brings these stories to life.

This is our home.

It's a special place.

It's a home we love and care for.

And since 2016, we've transformed a horse property into the best youth sports facility in the U.S.

But it's more than land.

It's a home that offers opportunities and experiences for kids.

It's home to a thousand kids, and it's the foundation for 15,000 surf kids from Hawaii to New York.

We're a club that produces more national championships, college scholarship athletes, national team players and pros than any other.

It's just so vast, so big.

Everyone just pushes each other.

We always see a positive environment.

It just encourages everyone to keep coming to training and to keep working hard.

And when we play in the game, we're all like one family.

And we we always strive to get the best results.

Our home is the foundation of our three premier tournaments.

Teams come from across the globe for the opportunity to play on the best fields against the best competition.

And most importantly, to be recognized.

Over 600 college coaches and many pro scouts attend each of our premier events.

Indeed, more college scholarships have been earned on our grass than any other piece of grass in America.

Most importantly, we help kids chase their dreams and we change their lives for the better.

Surf sports has donated over seven million dollars to youth-based charities and scholarships.

And over 250,000 into serving athletes each year.

By offering scholarships, athletic growth, personal development, and opportunities to play at the next level.

We are truly changing lives.

Protect our fields.

Protect our fields.

Protect our fields.

Thank you.

All right, we'll continue with public comment.

Uh and I understand we have at least one elected official in the audience and would like to extend the courtesy.

Councilmember Jill McDonald, who is a council member from the City of Solana Beach and is also currently the chair of the board of the San Dieguito River Valley Joint Powers Authority.

Council member.

Thank you for my one minute.

Um both this San Diego River Valley JPA and the City of Solana Beach have sent in very detailed letters about our opposition to this plan.

And I'm impressed with the very slick presentation of the polo fields surf cup, whatever we're calling it now.

Um don't know that I believe a lot of it, but it was lovely and clearly cost a bunch of money.

Um what I do know is that I have lived in this neighborhood for 40 years, and I have lived in Carmel Valley, Del Mar, and the city of Solana Beach, and have watched how the intensification of this property have changed the ability to go a mile to visit a friend or two miles to have lunch.

And it's not just during the July 4th weekend and the fair, it's throughout the fair when there is also activities at the polo fields, including this summer, where friends of mine got caught in traffic for an hour just to go from the very northwest corner of Carmel Valley to um Solana Beach.

Please consider this comment.

Christina Leva.

I'm gonna be calling several speakers to come up to the yellow reserve seats at the front.

Christina Leva, Polly Wheatley, Dina Lever, Sarah Ward, Drip, um, Udo Juan MD, Lisa Ross, Carol Um Carriage, and Shauna Anderson.

If you can all please come up to those yellow reserve seats.

Christina, you have time seated to you by Rick Leva, if you can please raise his hand.

Thank you so much.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

It's lovely to see you all again.

Thank you for hearing.

I'm having started your time.

If you can go to the higher mic, this one.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

So we can hear you.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Diana.

Thank you all for being here again.

It's lovely to see you all, and I really hope that you really take the time to listen to the community today.

You're being lied to today.

These guys are slick.

Surf is so confident that they have won this.

They are deep pockets from their angel investors and pioneer sports.

We don't even know their names now.

It's not a local soccer club anymore.

Um they've they've allowed they've they don't live anywhere near the fields.

They've hired the best lobbyists, social media marketing people, PR firms that money can buy.

The video is a perfect example.

And after almost 10 years now, the number one thing that Surf promised the city council and the community was to complete the Coast of Crest Trail.

It was the number one thing on their list.

Suddenly, two weeks ago, after 10 years, the trail's been started.

Wow.

Until now they have refused.

Who knows why?

After 10 years of community requesting a calendar, just so we could know when to time traffic so we can get out of our driveways or know when to tell friends, you know, to be prepared for it.

They would not provide a calendar to us, even though it's a condition of the lease.

And now, suddenly this week, a calendar has appeared on their website.

And guess how many events are next year days?

60, not 40, like they're doing in their addendum.

More of an intensification that's even allowed.

They are liars.

They continue to operate with unpermitted appearal gym on the back of their fields that you guys just found out about a few weeks ago.

Why would you consider a new lease when they never followed the first lease?

Surf arrogance towards their neighbors and their surrounding communities has been present since day one.

And any community concerns were forwarded by dreams straight to Surf.

And Surf replied with disdain, ridicule, and hate towards us.

They will continue to disregard the community concerns, the city code, they never follow, they never get permits.

The days of use are all a lie.

They don't care about the environment, and any terms you put in this new addendum, they don't care about.

Thank you.

Polly Wheatley.

So put your thumbs up.

We'll see it.

Polly Wheely, you have time seated to you by Candace Bowman.

If you can please raise your hand.

Thank you.

I'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Okay, hi there, um, Council members.

Good afternoon.

I'm here because Surf Cup lies.

Look at all the people here in favor of Surf.

They are here on a lie.

They all have been lied to to get them to come here.

Because the park is not in danger of closing.

The park has a valid lease until 2044.

Surf exploits these parents and they exploit the environment.

They are shameless, and voting for them would be shameful.

They lied in 2016 when they came before this city council and said there would be no intense intensification of use.

They lied in a court of law under oath when they swore that they did not need to do CEQA because they would not use the fields any more than they had been used in 2016.

They do not honor the contract that they signed with the city of San Diego currently.

Why do you think everyone is so outraged?

For years and years, countless organizations and individuals have brought to your attention the violations in the lease perpetuated by Surf Cup Sports.

They have shown a blatant disregard for the contracts to which they are a party and to the environment.

They trench, they build, they run electrical, they dump stormwater, and they hide revenue.

And if you reward them today, you will be rewarding a huge Florida-based business that doesn't follow the rule of law and that is exploiting the city of San Diego.

You will be teaching the people in this room that the contracts don't matter and that the law doesn't matter, that if you cheat, you win, that if you have enough money, you can buy the city.

Kids all over the world enjoy playing soccer, and they don't play it in tournaments of 500 teams.

This is an invention that Surf came up with to make money.

Surf Cup has invented this mechanized sports model.

Let them go build a facility in a place that has the infrastructure to handle 500 teams at a time.

Rancho Santa Fe and Del Mar does not have that capacity.

We have one road in and out, and there is no state mandated evacuation plan for any of these tournaments.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Dina Lever.

Dina, you have time seated to you by Bernard Casino, Barada, Barbara, my sorry, Barbara Casino.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Here's a partial list of the city's elected officials, community organizations, and businesses who stand firmly against the proposed expansion of Surf Sports Park and the removal of deed restrictions that protect this public land.

California State Senator Catherine Blakespear, the 22nd Agricultural District, the City of Del Mar, the City of Solana Beach, the Joint Powers Authority, the San Dieguido Planning Group, the Carmel Valley, Round Ship Bernardo, and San Dieguido Community Planning Groups, the Environmental Center of San Diego, the Bird Alliance, formerly Audubon, the San Dieguido River Valley Conservancy, the Friends of the San Dieguido Valley River, Whispering Palms, Sintera, Rancho Santa Fe Homeowners Associations, Santa Fe Downs, Local Businesses, and many, many more.

In addition, nearly 1,500 individuals have submitted letters directly to your offices, and over a thousand more have signed petitions on change.org opposing removal of these grant deed restrictions.

Now, while Surf Sports stage a public event outside this very building last Friday, complete with players carrying boxes of letters from people outside the affected communities.

Our coalition chose a different path.

We respect your time and sent thousands of genuine letters of opposition directly to your offices.

Today I urge you to look beyond orchestrated videos and deep pocket lobbying.

Listen to the overwhelming chorus of voices, cities, environmental groups, community leaders, and residents who are united in opposition.

Message is clear.

Honor the deed restrictions and the people you represent.

Thank you, Sarah Wardrop.

You have time seated to you by Stephanie McGunny.

Thank you so much.

How do you do?

My name is Sarah Wardrip.

I'm a resident of Rancho Santa Fe.

Fifteen years ago, I lost my 16-year-old son.

You can imagine my horror on July 27th of this year.

I received a call that my 17-year-old daughter had been involved in a very serious car accident on her way home from work, only a half mile from our home.

A surf soccer parent visiting from out of state, frustrated by the traffic, crossed two lanes and crashed into her car.

Both vehicles were totaled, and my daughter went to the hospital.

Emergency crews struggled to get through the heavy traffic that stretched for miles.

Sadly, accidents like this occur nearly every week.

Our two-lane roads just can't handle the thousands of cars that show up for surf events, and emergency services are called out every weekend.

The kind police officers who helped at my daughter's accident told me they worry for their own safety every time they deal with a dangerous traffic from these events.

Many of my neighbors have had similar accidents and scary close calls.

I worry it's going to take a tragedy before SURF or city officials truly understand how serious this traffic problem has become.

This is not just about youth sports.

It is about the safety of our families and the quality of life in my community.

We deserve the same protection as any other neighborhood.

This right now needs to be an issue settled in the courts.

Our community needs your support to keep my family and all the families in my neighborhood safe.

Thank you.

Thank you, Udo Wan.

After that will be Lisa Ross, Carol Carringer, Shauna Anderson, Lee Haidu, and Pamela Heatherington, if you can start coming up.

Please proceed.

Honorable council members.

San Diego is allowing Surf Cup Sports unfettered use of the affected land that far exceeds the limit of 25 days' worth of events per year.

This is not fair to the surrounding homeowners and cities that are impacted by this egregious behavior.

Activities drop thousands of people and tens of thousands of vehicles annually to this sensitive habitat.

In the event of a fire or flood, the logjam of traffic surrounding the area could result in the loss of life.

The grant deed calls for leaving the space in its natural condition as near as possible for passive uses.

The city must honor its promise to public to the public to preserve this land as open space.

This space protects the fragile wetlands downstream where regional sports or regional groups have invested nearly 200 million dollars to restore the lagoon.

The trail here remains incomplete despite an obligation that the leaseholder build it.

Canceling the deed restrictions would weaken enforcement to complete the trail.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Lisa Ross.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Lisa Ross.

I'm chair of the San Diego chapter of Sierra Club, and these folks in opposition can add to the opponents, the oldest and largest environmental organization in San Diego and Imperial Counties.

On behalf of our 13,000 members, 26,000 supporters, we strongly urge you to reject this proposal.

And minimally, this chat this change requires secret review, in our view.

Thank you.

Thank you, Carol.

Carol Carridge from Del Mar.

I know for sure that Del Mar rejects this proposition.

I just want to make sure that you know that.

Although I'm a strong environmentalist, I'm also concerned about the kids.

They need a place to play.

But I'm not sure that they understand where they're playing on an incredibly strong wet wetlands area and really sensitive bio in a lagoon, basically.

And I don't think that they understand that.

And I think that one step we could take would to be make them an ambassadors to keep the land as environmentally safe as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shauna Anderson.

You have time seated to you by Nathan Lacy.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you, Shauna Anderson, executive director of the San Dieguito River Park JPA.

Thank you for the city's partnership with us.

The JPA is opposed to the termination of deed restrictions on this property and submitted a lay letter for the record.

The river park lies at the heart of this property, dedicated to the city in exchange for granting development rights elsewhere.

A big win for the city that is now in jeopardy.

Community officials and leaders and surrounding residents, well outside of the benefited lands, as you've heard, have voiced strong concerns about the removal of these deed restrictions.

The JPA is not opposed to soccer use on the site and never has been.

There is room for both, but the river park has been reduced to a 17-foot-wide strip of land next to the river, the only free publicly accessible recreational use left on the property.

No native habitat remains, consumed with commercial for-profit uses not accessible to the public.

I submitted a photo of that area.

The JPA is concerned about the future of this property and river corridor.

We urge that your council guarantee the future of this property as permanently protected open space by doing the following things.

Rezone this property to open space and dedicated as permanent parkland per council policy 717.

Reserve a 100-foot-wide natural open space buffer and Coast Acrest Trail for the San Dieguito River Park, as the JPA urged the city to do during their RFP lease process.

Add a deadline to the lease that the Coast Crest Trail be completed no later than January 27.

Without protections in place, what's left is the current zoning, and the vast majority of this property is not zoned open space.

It is zoned AR12, which allows single family residential lots, potentially at a higher density.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Lee Haydu.

Lee, you have time to see it to you by Mark Henan Fit, please raise your hand as well as Neil Meyer.

You'll have three minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I am president of the San Dieguito River Valley Conservancy.

I am here to urge you to oppose the termination of Exhibit B land use restriction on the polar fields property.

These restrictions were created as part of a public bargain.

In the 1980s, the city allowed dense hillside development at Fairbanks Ranch, development that was up not otherwise permissible under the city's growth management plan in exchange, more than 600 acres were preserved as permanent open space for passive public recreation.

That land included the proper surf cup property.

Wait a minute.

This is not a small detail.

It is the foundation of the public consent.

Removing these protections today would break a promise made to the community and would send a message that conservation commitments in San Diego are conditional and reversible.

This could happen to any of your communities.

This property sits in the heart of the San Dieguito River Valley, one of the most intact river river systems left in the coastal Southern California.

It is functional floodplain, which protects downstreet wet downstream wetlands and habitat, including the W19 restoration site, where nearly two million two million in public investments have been made to improve quite the water quality, expand habitat, and restore natural hydrology.

So if the deed restriction is stripped away, there is nothing to prevent the gradual introduction of more intensive commercial uses, more lighting, traffic, grading, and infrastructure, all incompatible with the watershed protection the public has already paid for.

It is also puts at the risk of the Costa Gras Trail, which runs along the southern edge of the property and is one of the region's signature public access quarters.

Surf Cup Leash has required completion of the trail for almost nine years.

And now I hear that they started two weeks ago.

Isn't that just something they could have been doing it for the last nine years, which we've been trying to get them to do?

So last minute they come across.

Weakening exhibit B would make enforcement even harder and would jeopardize public trail access permanent permanently.

We understand that legal mechanism may allow the city to remove these protections, but legal ability is not the same as public benefit.

This decision is not just technical, is the choice about values, precedent, and trust.

If a long-standing open space, a covenant can be dissolved to res to resume litigation or to enable more commercial use, then there's no conservation promise in this city that will feel secure.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Thank you.

If you have written comments that we can take them and distribute them.

Pamela.

Pamela, you have time to see it to you by John Heatherington.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Council President Lacava and Council members.

I am Pam Heatherington, director of the Environmental Center of San Diego.

I think you have received our attorney's letter already.

The City of San Diego continues to infringe upon lands that were dedicated as a condition of approval, areas that were specifically set aside for public benefit, open space, and community use.

Allowing uses that fall outside of these conditions violates the intent of their dedication, undermines public confidence, and in the city's ability to protect our shared resources.

These lands were never meant for private or commercial exploitation.

They were meant for everyone, for the community, for nature, and for future generations.

Yet time and again, the city fails to uphold that responsibility.

We've seen this pattern before at camp land at Paradise Point.

Public lands entrusted to the city only to be chipped away for private gain until the public fought back.

And now again, we're sending the wrong message.

What kind of example are we setting for our children?

That it's okay to take what was meant for everyone and turn it into something exclusive, that if you have enough influence or money, you can rewrite the rules.

These lands were meant to inspire stewardship, not selfishness, to teach fairness, not favoritism.

We owe it to our children and to the generations that will come after them to do better.

The city must honor the original terms of dedication and protect these spaces as they were intended for the public, for the community, for all of us.

Because once we lose this sense of fairness and stewardship, we lose more than open space.

We lose part of who we are as a community.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Paul Hock, if you can please come forward.

And he has time seated by Randy Collander.

If you can please raise your hand.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes.

And if I can have the following individuals, please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Jeff Hayding, Michelle Sandler, Sasha Kunart, Dave Wilkie, Krista Bana Bonaviti, David Tarov, Kathy Cunningham.

If you can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats, please pr proceed when ready.

Yes, I'm Paul Hawk.

I'm an architect.

I'm a resident of Whispering Palms in Rancho Santa Fe.

And I'm not against athletics or sports or soccer.

I'm a retired athlete myself.

What I'm against is the overuse of that property.

It was limited to what was originally held in the lease to 25 event days, we wouldn't be here.

But when you get 40, 50, 60 event days with horrendous traffic problem that backs up if we had to buy from the entrance into Surf Park all the way to Interstate 5 at Flower Hill, and you pick the wrong day, you're stuck in that traffic.

Yeah, it'll take you an hour to get through there.

Um what I'm here for is to say, you know, let's let's keep it the way it is.

Don't reject all restrictions on that property.

Uh it gives them carte blanche to wherever they want to do, and God knows what that would be.

Uh they have you know, wine festivals there instead of soccer, they're selling wine.

Uh is that what's up?

Tell your kids.

Uh turn into commercial use.

You know, sequence should have been invoked the first time around.

It wasn't.

It definitely needs to be brought up now.

Uh the number of accidents that come out coming out of that driveway is horrendous.

This is previously stated.

Uh I've had I've seen three there.

I I've had to dump the dog and groceries on the floor of my truck, slam it on the brake, but someone pulls out, not realizing the traffic's 40 speed is 45 miles an hour, and they just pull out in front of you.

Uh and then they have people out there supposedly directing traffic, some traffic rental people, they stand up there, wave their arms and tell you to slow down.

Well, that's not effective traffic control.

They have no plan of how they're gonna do that.

They put up cones and hope people stop or slow down.

That's not traffic control.

Um I think the best thing is to leave leave the Destrictions in place and proceed from there and enforce them.

They haven't been enforced in all the whole time.

Just because they haven't been enforced, doesn't mean it's okay.

If they had enforced them to begin with, we again we wouldn't be here.

But they have it.

And so they come back now and say, well, we don't enforce them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jeff.

Jeff, you have time to see it too by Bruce Sandler.

If you can please raise your hand.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Hi, Council President Joe Locava, Council members.

My name is Jeff the Dean.

I first came down here in 1980.

Now, and then I came down 90 and I lived here ever since 35 years.

And I'm I'm just amazed that this is might happen.

I'm offended by what's goes on down there.

I live right next to it.

Uh on a side note, I belong to the uh Sudoma Carmel Valley Planning Board.

The board voted unanimously to oppose this.

They live with it, they hear the people.

We don't know these people, we just know that it's wrong.

I per the my vo views to today are gonna be my personal views.

Um I think the summer report did a lot of injustice.

There's a lot of deletions, omissions, and it's quite misleading.

They don't even list the uh all the uses of the property in the 1983 deed.

The agricultural uses, you know, gardening, growing crops, uh, the paths of recreational, non-commercial uses, walking, jogging, hiking, similar uses like that.

As far as the the summary claims that there's no guidelines for the act of non-commercial recreational uses.

There isn't.

They're I list them right in the deed.

They're not they're they're right there in the deed, but the summary doesn't include them.

Trying to mislead you.

So I think we all agree that that cancerly say that the party that deeded this land of the city was limiting it to small non-commercial recreational uses.

We we can all agree to that.

You know, picnicking, walking, hiking, you can't even access the coast to uh crest trail because there's fences and locked gates.

That's what my neighbors tell me.

When I checked on the ownership for this, it said that the ownership of those two so-called lots belongs the mailing address to the owner is an Irvine.

It's not Santa Monica or Ocean Industries is based out of.

Thank you for that concluding.

Michelle Sandler.

Hello, my name is Michelle Sandler, and thank you for having me here and hearing me out.

I am just a very, very concerned citizen.

I live right behind the polo fields, and I am again also like many people, not against kids playing soccer, but when they're saying that they're being respectful of the surrounding residents and uh the surrounding area, they are blatantly lying.

When I'm hearing bullhorns and cheering at 7 a.m.

and on Sunday mornings, that is not respecting the quality of life of the surrounding residents.

And it doesn't mean I don't care if at 8:30 in the morning they're they're doing it, but when you're starting at 7 o'clock in the morning, that is a bit of on the ridiculous side.

The other thing is uh I see hordes and hordes of kids and people, and I wonder what their evacuation plan is, if there were ever any kind of disaster or any kind of emergency to exit that area.

There's one eager thank you.

Thank you.

Um Sasha.

You have time seated to you by Diana Hughes.

Please proceed, you'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Sasha, and I am here on behalf of my best friend Tess.

I'm gonna read her personal statement.

I'm here to share a personal story about a place that once meant a great deal to my family and me, the polo fields.

When I was growing up, the polo fields were a cherished destination for us.

It was where we went for long walks, where we fed horses, climbed trees, and spent carefree afternoons running through open grass and picnicking.

I remember the joy of discovering a rope swing my dad built one summer.

It felt like a piece of pure magic.

We didn't play polo, we certainly didn't own horses, but that never mattered.

The space was welcoming, a true public commons where children prayed freely and families from all walks of life came together.

It felt like it belonged to everyone.

A rare example of a genuine open space in a city that's constantly developing.

But in recent years, everything has changed since the soccer organization assumed control of the land, the landscape, both physical and emotional, has shifted.

The rope swing is gone, many of the trees have been removed, fences now divide the open grass, and what was once a peaceful gathering place feels more like a private complex, full of cars, noise, dust, and restricted access.

Access is no longer spontaneous or inclusive unless you're paying to participate in organized soccer events.

You're not really welcome.

It doesn't feel like a park anymore, it feels like a business.

I've always understood this land to be a gift, something entrusted to all of San Diego, San Dieguido's residents.

I used to ride my bark my bike along the trail to the beach, always knowing the gates would be open, except for the rare holiday.

But now more than often they're locked.

And the promise written on the signs of daily public access is no longer honored.

What saddens me most that is that we've lost something that once belonged to all of us.

The polo fields are no longer for the surrounding community.

They now serve a narrow purpose, primarily for those who drive in from elsewhere.

It isn't just about nostalgia, it's about what kind of city we want to live in.

Are we creating spaces that foster community inclusion and connection with nature?

Or are we handing them over to private interests at the expense of the public good?

I hope we can find a way to bring back the spirit of the polo fields.

Thank you.

Dave Wilkie.

You have time seated to you by Gail Brady.

Sorry, Gail Brady.

Thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Good afternoon.

Thank you all very much for your time today.

I'd like to present some facts about the historical use data that you may not have heard before.

I have lived in the community for my entire life.

I played youth soccer from age six all the way through high school.

I love youth soccer.

However, the materials the city and surf submitted and their claims about protecting historical use are deliberately misleading.

They rely on spreadsheets from 1993 to 2014, but those spreadsheets don't define what makes an event large.

What Surf described as a small to medium event in 2016 when negotiating their lease, they are now counting as a large event for historical purposes.

They included approximately 14 polo club events and call them all large.

No polo event has ever come close to the size of a typical surf event.

When you combine surf's manipulated data with the polo club data, it adds up to 40 events.

No coincidence, this is the number of days they have suggested for the lease, and none of the events were ever as large as what they're hosting now.

This is purposely misleading.

They manipulate the data in two ways.

First, the polo events never had anything close to the number of cars they routinely park on the fields now.

According to Ron Bonaducci, the president of the polo club at the time, their matches never had larger numbers of cars that come to Surf's massive regional events that take place almost every weekend.

Second, they're counting 30 Christmas Day tree sales in the historical data.

The Christmas tree lot was a small portion of the land, nothing remotely close to the thousands of cars and people that currently cover the area.

The deception continues when you note that Surf failed to provide you with data for 2014 through 2016.

They omitted these dates because there were no dog shows, Christmas tree sales, or polo events to help them manipulate their historical data.

If you're looking for historical use to justify your decision today, thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Krista.

Asmidzillion.

Thank you so much.

Hi, my name is Christa Bonaguidi.

Why did Surf Soccer and the City Attorney collude to bring this idea to the city council?

Why is the city attorney recommending and supporting this vote by the city council?

I know surf soccer is paying the city's attorney fees for our litigation.

This seems alarming, and it looks like a very cozy relationship between Surf and the attorney's office at the city has developed.

It looks like a conflict of interest, and it looks like it's about money.

You know, it's nice to see some kids here.

I thought there were gonna be kids here, but there aren't.

They tell you that we're trying to get rid of children's soccer on these fields, and we are not.

We support the local kids using the fields for their soccer clubs.

The days that you and your clubs use the fields are do not qualify as the large events, and they are not what we are discussing here today.

The kids are safe.

Surf is lying to you about this.

I'm in a unique position because I've dealt with surf soccer over 20 years.

I played polo there, and my husband was the president of the San Diego Polo Club.

In 2012, the surf president at the time tried to bribe both my husband and the polo manager with envelopes full of cash for more event time on the fields.

My husband said no to the cash bribes.

I know they have offered two neighbors money to stop the HOA from filing its lawsuit, bribes.

This is how Surf does business.

They bribe and then they lie.

They lied to our HOA board, telling us that we would keep the polo and the horses.

They lied.

They lied to the city about their calendar of events and about their revenues.

They lie when they say they do not create traffic for the local residents and surrounding areas.

They lie because they use the polo fields for commercial use, and they say they don't.

They lie about the facts.

The kids are safe.

Kathy Cunningham.

You have time seed to you by Merv Morris.

Thank you.

If I can ask David Therov, Marty, Enric, Tracy Sherman, Brian Guy, Monica Bradley, Derek Harrison, and Peter Stogstill, and Tim Bradley to please come up to the front row.

Please proceed, you'll have two minutes.

Hello, thank you.

I am a 30-year resident of the polo homes, so I've seen all this go down.

You have been told that Surf Club sports is about kids and community, but they're just a professional PR image, and it's fiction.

This social media post from a parent describing the experience of attending a Surf Cub tournament tells a very different story.

This is a quote.

Traffic is horrendous.

A 10 minute drive turns into 45.

Families fight for parking spaces like a war zone.

There's dust everywhere, no shade, filthy portable toilets, and overpriced food that sits out all day.

It's $20 a day just to park, $50 for the weekend.

End quote.

This is not a youth sport experience.

This is a commercial operation built for profit, not for children.

Surfs promise the city youth recreation, continued equestrian and open space protection, not a $20 per car parking business, food concessions, and overcrowded mega events.

That surf brags are second only to Comic Con.

This is a two-lane highway, in and out.

Pioneer Sports and Entertainment, a Florida-based investment firm that places youth soccer over with adult sports festivals and corporate events.

They've built unpermitted structures, ignored environmental orders, and monetize every inch of public land without our local government enforcing CEQA.

Ignoring the lease and the deed restrictions causes dangerous situations on open public space with only a two-lane road access.

And now Pioneer Sports Entertainment wants to remove the very deed restrictions that will keep this private enterprise in compliance if they comply.

Council member, this vote is not about kids.

We love kids.

We love soccer.

That's not going away.

They're lying.

It's about accountability, integrity, safety, and public trust.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

David.

David Therop.

You have time to do by Michael Scott.

Thank you so much.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council members.

How do you justify to the taxpayers that you are putting the city in a position where they are vulnerable to many lawsuits?

This type of amendment to the lease is so far reaching that is essentially a new lease with different terms.

Organizations will argue that they should if I had an opportunity to compete in a new request for proposal.

Any business now could sue the city for uh not being open to bids on that.

The surrounding cities of Del Mar, Solana Beach, Rancher of Santa Fe could sue.

Surrounding neighbors and communities could sue for loss of property value.

We already have reports from real leaders stating open houses are failing because buyers are too shocked by the traffic and noise they encounter when they come into the neighborhood.

This could make for a very nice large class action suit.

There are environmental groups that are ready to take you to court.

There are thousands of pages of documents and history to back up the massive increase in use.

Environmental agencies at both state and federal levels are now aware what is potentially at stake and are ready to act accordingly.

Thousands of homeowners, neighbors, and organizations who have been fighting against the constant abuses of the land, the grant deed, surf's arrogant disrespect for the community.

They're not going to give up on their efforts because of one ill-informed city council vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Marty.

You have time ceded to you by Michelle Morris.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Marty Ehrlich.

The polo fields were open to the public.

We'd walk our dogs play with our grandchildren.

It was a wonderful place before Surf Cup came in.

Let me remind you that there were proposed projects on a piece of property adjacent to the polo fields at the intersection of Via de la Valle and El Camino Riel.

These were not permitted by the City of San Diego because of increased traffic and environmental issues.

Yes, the golf driving range and a senior living community would bring dozens, maybe hundreds of cars to the area.

Surf brings thousands, and are hoping to build a sports complex on that same piece of property that I just described to you.

Let me emphasize this.

A no vote, and I certainly hope that you vote no, will keep kids on the field and keep the existing lease in place.

We are not trying to shut that down.

According to the Surf Surf's owners uh reports, the city and the city and the tourist authority.

Um represent local players represent 10 to 50 percent of their business on the field.

The other 85 to 90 percent are out of towners.

This is now, this is how they get the tourism authority to give them money every year.

Of the 10 to 15 percent of the kids, how many do you think live in the area?

Not many.

Uh who isn't allowed to uh to play on these fields?

Solana Beach Rux Soccer, Legends, Rec Soccer, Rancho Santa Fe attack, etc.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Tracy Sherman.

Don Cooper, seated time.

Thank you.

You are being told to vote yes to terminated grant deed because it is supposedly clear, not clear, and doing so will open the door for the city to rewrite the Surf Cup with no restrictions.

This is a very deceptive message intended to skillfully manipulate you into making changes that will have negative impacts and be irreversible for years to come.

Surf signed a lease agreeing to abide by the grant deed in 2016, and SURF wants to renege on its previous promises that they made when they signed that original lease.

The city's proposed lease amendment attempts to limit large events by field count, not by traffic, pollution, and impacts and safety.

It calculates allowable use as historical, which has been inaccurately skewed by manipulating the records.

This proposal actually incentivizes SURF to bring in more cars, which cause great harm and is no benefit to the city.

Surf Cup makes millions and millions of dollars annually on their parking fees.

The harms the original grant deed sought to address and mitigate are exacerbated beyond measure and could grow exponentially if this deed is abolished.

Do not be deceived by false unchecked promises.

Look at the documented facts that have been circulated to you in your information packets, please.

These are certifiable public records.

We are not lying.

Therefore, no charges against me.

Oh well, I could benefit from that reclassification from what is legal, but it will open the door to many future wrongdoings.

Ryan Guy.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, counsel.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Ryan Guy.

I'm a coach at Surf for over a decade now, a parent of three players and a former player myself.

I suppose you could call me a lifer.

Surf Sports Park shaped who I am.

First as a kid growing up here, and then later as a collegiate athlete.

And finally, as a professional player, I got to live the dream that Surf offers.

Now, for it's doing the same thing for my kids.

And it's doing the same for its true thousands of other kids.

This place is more than a soccer complex.

It's a beacon, a field of dreams, if you will.

And it's drawing families from all over to experience its culture, the excellence here, and the opportunities.

There's been plenty of talk about how active the fields are, but I would contend that this activity reflects exactly what this space was meant for.

Serving kids, families, and the broader San Diego community.

As a coach, I've seen this park shape kids for far beyond the game, and I count it as a blessing to be a part of a team of coaches that teaches things like resilience, humility, and discipline.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Monica Bradley.

Diana, before you start my time, I would like to excuse my husband, Timothy Bradley.

He had to leave a little early.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Please proceed when I hello, good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Monica Bradley, and this is my fourth year with Surf.

I just I'm not gonna write notes.

I didn't plan to write notes because I want to speak from the heart.

I want you guys to understand what this has done for my kids.

Um I moved here for Surf.

And not by choice, but by my daughter's choice.

She uh tried out for surf soccer.

They gave her an opportunity.

And we had a summer house here that we would come to, and she just said, I want the opportunity that I can't have in the city that we live.

They have opened many doors, not just for one, but two, three kids of mine.

We have been able to travel.

We have yet been able to be challenged, not just as a family, but them as a player, them as an individual.

They hold themselves to high standards because of Surf.

Surf is the proving grounds for a lot of kids.

When you come to Surf, you feel a certain excitement that you don't anywhere else.

They have done an amazing job.

So thank you for the same.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Derek Harrison.

Good afternoon to the city council.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Derek Harrison.

Uh I am a 30-year San Diego resident and a 15-year member uh uh at San Diego Surf as a parent.

We've had three girls uh that have played there.

And in fact, one of my fondest memories was back in 2016 when our three girls came here to speak at the city council, and um I can tell you that in addition to a lot of the um uh a lot of the principles that they've learned playing soccer at SURF, uh civic engagement was one of the foundational pre foundational principles that they learned here uh almost 10 years ago.

Uh our oldest daughter, Naya Harrison.

Uh, she's a graduate of Stanford University.

Uh she played soccer there, uh, received a four-wide scholarship to play soccer, and she's now currently uh a rookie in our NWL season at San Diego Wave.

Our second daughter, Ava, is following in big sister's footsteps.

She's a freshman at Stanford, also there playing soccer.

And uh Mia, our youngest.

She's working in and following in that.

Thank you for that concluding statement.

Peter Stagzil.

Peter Stoxdell.

After that, we have George Rogers, Bill Garten, Bob Reef, Troy Johnson, Claire Johnson, Ron Putman, and Barb Putman.

If you can all please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

Last call for Peter.

Peter Sogzil.

I don't see a Peter coming up to the microphone.

So next is George Rogers.

Good afternoon.

Um, my name is George Rogers.

I am a San Diego native and past president of Surf Soccer, board member for about 35 years.

I've been involved with surf soccer and these facilities from the very beginning, and my family has a deep interest in the success and proper utilization of the facility under the discussion today.

Um I'll just point out a couple of them.

Um personally, I I have five family members that have gone through surf that has uh they've all grown in character, strength, and joy over the last 35 years.

My family has enjoyed five national championships as well as learning how to deal with losses.

Um I travel around the country due to my business, and I can tell you that this facility greatly enhances San Diego's reputation in the soccer community and youth sport community.

And uh thank you very much.

Thank you.

Bill Garton.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Uh, my name is Billy Gotson.

I'm the director of soccer for the younger soccer program at Surf Soccer Club, and I can only talk soccer.

I don't see exploitation or lying only the joy I see on the faces every day of the kids that walk on to our amazing fields to play the sport that they love.

The program that I oversee us 35 teams of six to eleven-year-olds with many varying levels of play, hundreds of excited players each day, elite and recreational.

We provide and I sanction hundreds of scholarships and financial aid and support every year for many, many players who ordinarily cannot afford to play.

I'm most proud of that.

Surf Sports Park is where they come for their recreational love.

They love soccer.

This is where they get their enjoyment, their inspiration, and their escapism at times, and their really valuable physical activity and their regular, necessary and meaningful workouts and exercise.

Soccer provides that in abundance.

Most parents put their kids into soccer because of the great workout that the sports provides, irrespective of the levels of play.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Bob Reef, R-E-I-F.

Rife.

Reef, I said it right the first time.

Thank you.

Thank you for making time for me.

Um I think I'm the oldest one here, and I was raised in Coronado.

I remember this conversation about the bridge.

Uh so a lot of interesting points of view, but I just wanted to present to you today, just to insert the idea of of really uh the power of sports.

I was a person who brought Nike and Tiger together.

I don't know if you remember his comments about uh I'm ready for you, you're ready for me.

They're uh 12 uh courses in America.

I can't play because of the color of my skin.

The power of sports for societal change is really important.

We've heard a lot today about residential problems, and they're all good points of view, but really I want to represent the best interests of kids.

There are 200,000 kids going across this field a year.

They're learning all the benefits of sport.

I think uh you should be proud of the decisions you've made in the past.

I encourage you to pass this and do the right thing.

This is the right thing.

Next is Troy Johnson.

Uh, thank you guys for your time.

Uh my wife and I took over San Diego magazine four years ago because we wanted to lift up these stories of the people do remarkable things in San Diego.

We need partners to do that.

Surf sports is that partner through Delmar Wine and Food Festival.

The Surf Sports has been massive for lifting up the voices of the people in San Diego's food and drink culture.

That food and drink industry employs 210,000 San Diegans who depend on it for their livelihoods, for their families' livelihoods, and they're facing a massive challenge right now.

Rising food costs are killing them.

And this festival shines a huge national and local light on them, provides real revenues to their families and the community and the inclusion.

Um food sports or surf sports gives basically this gathering has pulled so many people to that park and express and shine a light on people from Barrio Logan, on people from Convoy, on people from Little Italy.

It is one of the most positive things that I've been involved with in a long time, and it has been wide open to the community.

Claire Johnson.

Good afternoon.

My name is Claire Johnson.

I'm the CEO of San Diego Magazine and one of the co-founders of Delmar Wine and Food Festival.

For 77 years, San Diego Magazine has told the story of the city in print online, and of course, through events that bring people together.

Delmar Wine and Food Festival is one of those spaces.

It's a celebration of who we are and what we share.

Hosting this festival at Surf Sports Park is essential, not just because it's a venue, but because it's become a symbolic backdrop that represents the best of who we are and the best of life in San Diego, including serving as a massive fundraiser for feeding San Diego.

The cities, cities are remembered for their art, for their food and their spirit, not just their roads.

And every great city needs somewhere for its people to gather, space to connect with each other, and yes to visitors too, to eat, to listen, to collaborate, and to belong to the place and to each other.

When cities lose those spaces, they lose that essential connection, that heartbeat that keeps communities alive.

And places to gather are increasingly becoming harder to come by.

Thank you for that including remark.

Ron Putman.

Good afternoon.

My name is Ron Puttman.

I'm with Maui Waui Hawaiian Coffees and Smoothies.

I'm the director of the regional support along with my wife.

We've been a vendor for uh surf sports for 20 years.

And it's allowed us an opportunity to help us supplement our income and grow our business.

Not only has it helped us grow our business, but we have employed several youth uh kids to help us with uh uh with our with our business.

So Ma'awi or Surf Sports has been a big involvement with us, and it also has allowed to teach my kids.

I have three girls that helped us get them through college.

Not just that, but it did help support it.

But it did, I did also help teach them to be able to basic uh skills for for business, cost of goods, inventory.

Uh so again, surf has been a great influence for us uh and and my family.

Thank you.

Next is Barb.

My name is Barbara Patman.

My business name is Maui Wai Hawaiian Coffees and Smoothies.

I've been a vendor at Surf Sports Park for 20 years.

Surf not only provides college and scholarship opportunities for our youth, it also provides opportunities for local business owners like myself.

It has allowed my husband and I to raise our three daughters, and it has also allowed us to provide jobs for an ongoing staff of about 20 employees.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Daniel Bunn, if you can please come up to the microphone, and then we have Havon Feinblatt, Netbeth Nelson, Alvin Michaels, Michelle Mirza, Melvin Queller, Neil Flaster, Kim uh Godwin, and Jonathan Wenkel.

If you can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

You'll have one minute, please proceed.

Hi, Daniel Bunn.

I'm actually the HOA president of First Interior Homeowners Association, which is one of the communities around this area.

Those two little red squares you see in the map of the area being affected, or north of us.

Anyway, that's something about I'm really okay with the idea of the student the kids playing soccer in the area.

The problem is the traffic and the terms of the lease that are maybe being stretched out a little bit.

Um I think that there is some a lot of vitriol going on between the residents and this program that's going on.

And I've lived in this area since 1977.

I've seen the changes that have happened there, and it is significant.

One of the things that's particularly interesting, which goes more to you guys, even is the roads.

I know you've been talking about the old 100 year old bridge at Alcapan Real for some time to get done.

It's also Vita La Valle, which is basically a roller coaster from the uh corner of Elkman Real to Vita to 5.

I've had a business there for 30 years.

Drive it every day.

It has definitely gotten worse.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Javon.

You have time to see it to you by Sharon Fogg, if you should please thank you.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Okay, uh, I was born and raised right above the polo fields as close as you can get.

Um, I just want to say this before I begin my speech.

I think that what all of the SURF supporters are missing here is we definitely are not trying to take away your soccer.

This has absolutely nothing to do with this vote, which it seems to be the propaganda uh apparently seems to be uh telling all of you, which is quite odd.

I mean, they have a lease until 2044.

It's signed by the city, so I don't get why that's even on topic.

So the proposed lease addendum is riddled with ambiguity and contains no meaningful language about enforcement.

As a reminder, the current lawsuit uh the city attorney is attempting to avoid stems directly from the city's failure to properly enforce the existing lease through the Department of Real Estate Asset Management.

Since 2016, when the lease was first granted to SURF, uh they have made extensive changes to the open space, which you're all of sure aware of, changes that have effectively shut out the uh the public when the uh community members raised concerns about unpermitted or illegal activities.

The city's response was not enforcement, but retroactive approval through uh ministerial permits.

Here are just some of the documented history of Surf's violations of the granteed misuse of the property.

Large screen fencing throughout constructing uh constructed a massive concrete platform in the floodplain, obstructed trail access, installed commercial structures, trailers and cargo containers throughout the added utilities.

I mean, this goes on, this is all public information.

I really think you're all aware of.

I'm gonna cut this short and just say um I I think you're really opening the floodgates here.

If you vote this through, it I think it breaks all trust, not just for Del Mar areas or North County.

I think throughout all of San Diego, I think everyone's watching this.

There's thousands of people that have paid attention to this.

And if you guys can do this here, uh you know, near the polo fields, I think this is really gonna speak volumes for what you can do elsewhere and break trust.

So I think this is what this is really about, and I really ask you to vote no on this.

It's ridiculous.

They can keep playing soccer, no one's saying that.

Uh, just just I guess you know, please do not vote yes on this.

It's ridiculous.

Thank you.

Beth Nelson.

Beth Nelson, 23-year nearby resident of the polo fields and San Dieguido Planning Group member.

I was here in 2016 at this podium speaking against awarding the it lease to Surf Cup.

At that time, I was already getting stuck in traffic backups on a routine basis, trying to get home due to all the after-school traffic coming to practice at Surf Cup, not to mention the traffic on event days.

Our roads and infrastructure were insufficient to handle this volume of activity at the site then, and nothing has changed in almost the decade since, except that the events and practices have gotten bigger and more frequent.

So the impacts have become more severe.

Despite what you've been told about historical use not changing, anyone, anyone who lives in the area can attest that it has.

As an eight-year planning group member, I know the importance of proper land use and community planning and SIGWA review to protect the community.

Uh, these these decisions should not be made hastily, but with careful forethought to serve the community.

Thank you.

Alvin Michaels.

Good afternoon.

I'm here today to say why I feel the way I feel about Surf Cup.

And it's not about the kids, it's not about playing soccer, it's about their disregard for the local community.

I was involved in an accident.

A gentleman from Orange County with his granddaughter pulled out into traffic, did not see me coming.

I swerved to avoid them, otherwise we would be talking about a fatality and not mine, his.

Oh gosh, that went by really fast.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ms.

Mirzlaw.

Melvin.

Guilar.

I'll do it really quick.

There's been talk about uh changes made in the lease and all that, but no one's really talking about how soccer has evolved.

I don't know that anyone knows here, but we're having a World Cup here in the US this year or this coming year, I should say.

So everything has changed.

I wasn't really gonna mention that.

I wrote what I wanted to talk about.

Um I'm here representing the Latino community that takes part in the San Diego Surf.

I'm responsible for making sure those Latino players keep their hope and dreams a reality.

San Diego Surf provides scholarships to these players, and we have helped a lot of them either become professional soccer players or continue their education in college.

All of it has happened at this complex.

This complex in San Diego Surfs have made and will continue to keep this hopes and dreams alive for hundreds of kids.

I ask you to join me in giving the Latino community an opportunity by approving the granteed revision and lease update.

Thank you.

Thank you, Neil Flaster.

After Neil, it'll be Kim Godwin, Jonathan Wenkel, and then Randy Grossman is our last speaker here in Council Chambers.

So this is not about anything other than a deal's a deal.

People move into a neighborhood, they know what they're getting, they know what's around them, they choose to pay, they choose to live there, or they don't.

There's a deal.

If you make this deal go away by playing FTSE with the uh with the powers that be, the people with the money, then deals, and we're seeing it all over.

We're seeing it in our federal government, we're seeing it with our Congress, we're seeing it with the Justice Department.

You're all we have left.

A deal's a deal.

There's a lease.

Period.

Thank you, Kim.

Hi, my name is Kim Godwin, and I'm a native San Diego.

I have lived above the polo fields for 40 years.

As most of us here today, I am not opposed to soccer on the polo fields.

I'm opposed to its overuse and commercial commercialization, such as such as mainly Mozart festivals, wine festivals, bands, and more.

What happened to what started out as a great field for soccer?

No one asked Surf Club spend all this money on it.

So far, Surf Club has not mediated the traffic, astronomical traffic on Beetle Valley and El Camino Real.

I have to leave my home by heading north first, then west, so that I can get on the south high head south on the freeway.

My neighbor has just recently put her home on the market, and because we do look down on the soccer field and she's open to all the traffic and noise, it's causing people to not be that interested in her property.

Um more sentence.

Are you seeding your time?

And then Randy.

Okay.

Then I've started the five minute timer that concludes council that comes concludes public comment here in Council Chambers.

Going to those participating remotely, we currently have six speakers in the queue.

It'll be one minute each, starting with Jason Stahl.

After that, Blake Sonic and 0759.

Jason, if you can please unmute.

Good afternoon.

I'm a voter and resident of District One in one of the two neighborhoods along via Delaware.

I oppose the removal of the surf lease restrictions for the simple reason the surf creates a negative impact on the local community and makes no effort to be a better neighbor or address the issues they create.

Online Surf annual estimates touch 100,000 visitors, and one gentleman said it was actually 200,000 for their events.

And every single visitor transits along Via Delaware, a two-lane rural road that has not been modernized or improved in over 25 years.

The transportation department has confirmed that no plans for modernization or improvement exists for the road.

Zero.

My neighbors and I, we live here and welcome guests to enjoy the area and events.

We are forced to deal with the traffic created by these events.

We are forced to deal with the degrading condition of the road caused by the traffic volume and speeds.

We are forced to deal with the trash and debris that collects along the road and landscape.

We are forced to deal with not having a community plan for this largely ignored economic corridor.

And no surf representative has ever spoken to actual residents on how Surf can be a good neighbor.

I encourage this council and surf to engage with your constituency and collaborate with us on a community plan that strikes a balance and manages expectations for everyone.

Until then, I adamantly oppose throwing away a 40-year lease agreement to do Surf Park Watch to do whatever they want to do.

Blake, if you can please unmute.

You are unmuted.

Oh, there we go.

Please proceed.

Hi, good afternoon.

Blake Sonic Schmelz.

I am a partner in the soccer community of both Surf and many other organizations that utilize those fields.

The Surf Complex is the pinnacle of soccer complexes.

The events they host are the pinnacle of youth soccer events.

I am proud to be to have worked with them.

I am proud of all they have accomplished.

I went to high school at Tory Pines.

I graduated from Urshif San Diego.

My family lives in Rancho Santa Fe.

And all of us are very proud to not just be a part of SURF and that complex, but of all the kids that it's impacted over the last 20 plus years.

I encourage the city council to approve this measure, and I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is 0759.

After that is the original.

And then to 5423.

Hello, I'm 0759, otherwise known as Alan Blankenheimer.

I'm a resident of Fairbanks Polo Club Home.

Let me tell you what the city and Surf fear most.

They're not.

They say in their comments that they've submitted to you.

Um they refer to the friends litigation and the Court of Appeals decision, but they didn't tell you what it was.

They say in their papers, the case did not specifically address interpretation of the 1983 grant deed.

Let me just read one sentence from that opinion.

This is from the 2021, excuse me, 2001 opinion of the US of the uh San Diego Court of Appeals.

The grant deed and its amendment incorporated into the lease.

Do not permit the multi-day events to increase beyond 25 days per year.

What what the city and surf are worried about is not ambiguous.

Your time has concluded the original.

If you can please unmute.

Yeah, I want to remind you guys who you represent.

It's not supposed to be outside interests and to profit off of the people that you're supposed to be representing, and making sure that when they come in and tell you that this is a problem for their community, that you're not siding with somebody who's from Florida, with all the people that come in from out of town and talk about how great soccer is, all while the community is very concerned about things like an evacuation.

When you have people that are coming in and using those facilities and literally going over lanes and head like having a head-on collision with somebody else, that is proof enough that there's a problem when you only have a one-way road.

We already know what happens when fires happen, and when you guys continue to add things like this, because you can care more about profit than you care about your people you're supposed to represent.

Unfortunately, this is going to pass, and it should show the people the way that this city works.

They don't care about you.

Next is phone number ending in 5423.

If you can please unmute 5423, I can't unmute for you.

If you press star six, star six.gov, and those will be distributed.

Blair Beekman, please proceed.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Uh I I usually live in central and south uh San Diego County.

So uh, but I'm always interested in North County issues, and uh I love the sea turtles in the North County area and the lagoons and and the environmental issues.

So it's important the work that's done is in North County, and um like with the uh Losan Corridor track issues, so I hear community really wanting good environmental concerns, they have environmental concerns.

Um I hope I've heard a few people speak about on this item that I hope can be applicable.

That it's not that they want to end the sports fields so much, it's just they want the people in charge of these sports fields to play by the rules more and to take advice and to honor the contracts involved and and what all the things they're doing wrong with the contracts.

As city government, can you talk to this group about about better developing those things and making them clear and working with the community?

That's the key, I think it seems to this process.

Good luck in working in these terms.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker, 7499, if you can please unmute Bob Kozuski here.

I've read the online materials, and this item exactly parallels what's happened at the Tory Pines glider port.

In this item, there's a lot of very valuable land that's been granted to the city for non-commercial recreational use by citizens.

And just as with the glider port, there's also a business trying to swoop in and gobble up control of this public land through a long-term lease.

The business, as usual, has deep pockets to afford lawyers, lobbyists, flick presentations, and cookie cutter letters to push their private agenda.

Concerned citizens are David against Goliath.

The 1983 grant deed states that the city shall prevent a long list of obviously commercial activities.

While that document was signed 42 years ago, it is consistent with the wishes of the community as expressed by the July 2025 San Diego Planning Group letter and reflected by those in opposition today.

That letter states, quote, profit-driven entities may come after the open space in other districts next, end quote.

I don't have a dog in this fight, but this kind of business takeover of public land is an ongoing problem throughout the city of San Diego.

It needs to be stopped everywhere.

And that does conclude public comment for this item.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Um City Clerk, uh, and of course the professional way in which you handle uh very large conversations.

And my apologies, I did not know for the record that we did receive six in favor, 269 uh opposition, and one in opposition here in chambers that did not wish to speak.

My apologies, Council President.

Thank you for adding to that.

So um this being a district one issue, I'm gonna kick this off.

Uh I want to thank everyone that offered testimony testimony or submitted comments.

This item is an unusual case when there is act of litigation council members and city staff are told to stay silent, which is very good advice.

But today we're at a public hearing where the public, including litigants and their attorneys are allowed to make comments and submit material to influence today's decision.

That's what a public hearing is all about.

Uh and as you know to my colleagues who have listened intently to what me, my colleagues and staff will say in this manner, all in all a delicate conversation indeed.

As we've heard, there's multiple interest groups, neighbors, neighboring communities, neighboring cities, as well as the Lessee and the newest interest groups, environmental organizations, as the conversation catches our attention as to near and long-term protection of open space in the San Diegu River Valley.

And for the council, if I can speak on behalf of my colleagues, we're all always seeking confidence operations as position actants to properly manage leases and assets as well as protect the city and taxpayers.

With all that number of issues that have been raised, I'm focusing on maintaining the open space protections found in the exhibit B of the 1983 grant deed, preventing intensification of uses on the property, strengthening the current lease to give the city more tools and to hold the lessee accountable, removing the vagueness that have plagued this lease since 2016, and which I have been very vocal about, and respond to the concerns of neighboring cities in the Sandy Guido River part to ensure the Lesee is a good partner or at least not a bad partner.

I will not be focusing on the Milan property, which is next door, as it is not a matter before the council today, and probably will be a subject conversation in the days, months, and ahead.

So with that, I have a few questions for city staff or our city attorney.

I'll let you divide it up.

Does the new language in the lease or the lease amendment ensure that the subject land will remain open space for recreation with no permanent structures?

Yes.

Section 8.2, which addresses improvements in the original lease, is amended by adding one sentence.

Does this expand what the LESCE can do regarding structures temporary or permanent, or is the amendment intended to offer stronger language for city enforcement?

It's the latter, Council President.

So that would be to offer stronger language for city enforcement.

Correct.

Beyond the lease and the first amendment, what other regulations or restrictions apply to and protect this property and restrict uses?

Council President, we have uh Tate Galloway, I believe, joining us from there he is virtually.

Yes, uh Council President.

The land use plan, uh which is the specific plan and the general plan as well as underlying zoning would remain in place and would not be affected by this action.

Okay, so that does offer uh it does offer regulations and restrictions to protect the property and restrict uses?

Correct.

The land use plan identifies the area as open space.

Okay, thank you, Tate.

Uh community members in neighboring cities have voiced concerns about traffic trash and intensification of use.

Uh in my reading of the First Amendment, it strengthens the traffic management and requires mitigation by the LESE.

There have been reports of increased letter surrounding the polo fields and along via de la Valle falling events, and I believe the First Amendment for the first time addresses litter abatement and cleanup.

To staff am I correct in both matters?

Yes.

Not a part of today's action regarding traffic.

I invite those concerned, and I know that that is most of you, join me and others to reopen the conversation to make Via Delavalle safer.

I would strenuously disagree with all due respect to my colleagues at the Department of Transportation.

There is a plan in place, it just is not going forward.

Uh, and I've expressed my frustration with that.

So we hope to reopen that conversation about improving in Via de la Valle to make it safer whether there's a surf cup event or not.

Uh the language of the current lease speaks to 25 events by Surf Sports, but also talks about historic use of the fields by the polo club and sub-leases on the property.

So the question is does the First Amendment allow for an intensification of use of the property as compared to the historic uses, which I know some people disagree with, or maybe a lot of people disagree with.

How will the lessee be held accountable in the amended lease?

Thank you for the question, Council President.

Um, this is one of the challenges for operations to be able to effectively administer the lease given the conflicts between what the deed restriction has as well as a historic use, not to mention what the lease had.

So this clarifies under the uh new amendment that it is the historic use and that there is no intensification of events that will be permitted as a result of this amendment.

Okay.

I've heard.

Um the bottom line: does the First Amendment beyond the current lease allow intensification or expansion of use?

No, it does not.

Okay.

And then the last question and critical you've been really great all day, and I know you're not happy with some of the things that you're hearing.

Those are software pitches.

I am being direct.

So the last question, this one's particularly critical for me.

Does the first amendment give the city the same less or more enforcement tools over the original lease?

The city will gain more enforcement tools over the original lease.

That's a very good question, and I will follow up on that.

So I have some questions for the left C.

Does somebody want to speak for Surf Sports?

Okay, well, that's what the council's here to decide.

So since I took office over four years ago, I've been thinking, seeking comp completion of the Coast to Crest Trail.

After four years of asking them broken promises, I keep getting insurance as yet nothing has happened.

And as members of the public identified, what is the completion date of restoring the trail that you claim that is started and why should we believe you?

Yes, council council uh President Lacava, my name is Jonathan Mankel.

I'm general counsel with Pioneer.

Um we have broken ground, as you know.

Um we are using an environmental engineering firm by the name of Recon Environmental.

We are serious about getting this done, and it's anticipated to be completed by the end of next year.

The reason it takes that long is because we have a very long avian breeding season where we have a limited amount of work that we can do during that season so as to not upset the breeding of the birds.

But we intend on following through with this.

We're having biweekly calls with our team.

And if any members of the public wish to uh email me or find out what's going on with the trail, you're all welcome to.

Okay, okay, you've been warned multiple times.

The last thing I want to do is clear the chambers.

But please let's let's get through this.

So the request from the San Dieguido River Valley JPA, as you know, the 2016 lease, much to my horror, had no deadline, said you have to do the trail, but it had no deadline in it.

Why the council would approve it?

I don't understand.

Would you agree to add to the language of the First Amendment a deadline for completing the trails since you've already started the work?

We can we are happy to talk about that.

One of the complexities there is is in well, we're we're subject to weather uh weather issues.

Okay, no, I understand.

I've been a development consultant, I've worked with resource agencies.

The Sandito River Valley JPA said 2027, which is good six months longer than what you had anticipated.

Yes.

And and also with the understanding that there are several years of maintenance after that.

So that we're talking about the completion immediately prior to the maintenance.

Right.

We're talking about the complete the physical completion of the trail, as you said.

Mitigation requires monitoring five years probably of monitoring going forward.

Um, and so I appreciate your commitment.

This is a question of whether anything you say or anything we say actually has any faith by the public.

These are some small steps that I think actually speak to the challenges we have going forward since you've started construction.

Um I appreciate you agree to that.

Do you have any problem with that, Ms.

Goodman?

No, I do not.

And I'm thinking June 30th, 2027, in compliance with what the executive director said.

So that gives you six more months than which you were asked.

I think that's doable.

Thank you.

Um, for the benefit of the river park, will you add a fence or railing to separate the sports, the very active sports events from the trail users?

There is a part of that remediation process is not only grading to make the the the surface of the trail mere more traversable by bike and and by and by but yes, we will there's a fence that will be put in as well as part of the process.

Okay.

Uh that's probably I think for best for both uses adjacent to that.

So continuing, uh, and here's your opportunity.

The language of the first amendment should hold you more accountable, and there are good neighbor actions in the lease, and it should not require good people like Maggie Brown, God rest her soul, or community members, to annually ask the city for the event calendar and to improve traffic during large events.

So this is your opportunity.

Speak to how the changes under the first amendment will alter your operations.

Well, we definitely, as you know about the different changes that are being made.

We we have already begun drafting a traffic mitigation plan.

We intend on um implementing some additional traffic measures to try to alleviate congestion during large events.

Um we are restricted, of course, to the to the 40 days of large events.

And we are also going to manage the trash around the surrounding fields during large events or after large events.

And we've already begun dust mitigation efforts to keep the dust down to a minimum using a environmentally friendly product that's not just water.

Water isn't as effective as this product that's an environmentally friendly product that we intend on implementing and cost quite frankly over 100,000 to put in.

All right.

With that, and having been here now in year five and inherited the lease in the council's decision back in 2016.

Have not been the best in terms of being a good neighbor.

I'm not going to ask you for your commitment because that's really inappropriate.

But in a lot of times, in a lot of ways, you the organization has been stepping on their own feet and causing problems.

But I'm hoping that you have learned your lesson.

I'm going to say a few more things at the end, but figure that out.

Bottom line.

Okay, I you you you can sit down.

Thank you.

So thank you for those answers.

I want to thank again the city staff and the city attorney's also for doing the work that should have been done before approving the 2016 lease.

I'm I'm still frustrated.

I'm confident that with today's action that the city will assert its rightful role in managing and forcing the uses of the property and accrue every penny of revenue.

No longer will the city struggle in responding to every constituent's complaint but not have the tools to do anything, and no longer will the district one office be helpless because of the vague and weak lease.

If my colleagues agree, this is an opportunity for a new day.

And considering today's action, I was never swayed by the efficacy of the Lesse's programs.

This was about strengthening the city's control and enforcement of the property and the lease.

And if they do, I expect the city to step in without hesitation, if it even if it means shutting down a sporting event or a community event.

Building and rebuilding our trust in the community really is rests on your shoulders of EDD code enforcement going forward.

And that's why I think this is a step in the right direction.

As to the river valley, the city can always do better in protecting the environment and open space.

Today's action, in my opinion, does not weaken current protections and regulations of all uses in the river valley.

And as a side benefit, I'm hopeful that this resets the standard for which we hold less ease of city property to account and how we manage our leases.

So given the responses that I've heard and the material that was submitted, I will move the staff recommendations with the following conditions.

And I think we have a slide.

Although I'm going to add a fifth one.

I'm leaving now, sorry.

And I'm going to add a fifth bullet point.

Who's controlling?

Okay.

The fifth one.

So I'm going to read the first four and then add the fifth.

Pursuant to section 3.1.1, update the base rent on or before September 1st, 2026.

Pursuant to Section 3.1.2, give the required notice, which is 180 days, and update the percentage rent on or before September 1st, 2026.

But I want to make sure that we are on top of it.

Request EDD, provide evidence that the LESI is current with the base rent and the percentage rent.

Fourth, ensure that gross revenue has been calculated across the entire premises prior to the readjustment.

We've talked about that.

And then the fifth one is insert a requirement that the uh coast to crest trail is completed by June 30th, 2027.

Because I changed things based on testimony that I heard today.

I did have this prepared.

Why?

Because the city attorney has to review these things, and it's based on that.

And if I had heard things that would have changed my mind, as I did.

Yeah.

I'd like to tell you.

I've already I've already made the motion and with the commission.

No.

Okay.

One more chance.

It's very awkward for me to do it since I'm kind of leading the conversation, but you want me to clear chambers?

I know you're frustrated.

I know you're going to be disappointed by my recommendation.

We have eight other council, or maybe seven other council members that will have their own opinion.

So with that, um I have a motion with uh moving the staff recommendation with the following amendments.

And we'll turn it over to Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Or wait, does the city attorney want to weigh in?

Thank you, Councilmember.

Just for clarity, could we clarify that you are asking for the first amendment to include the first full bullet points?

Or are you asking staff to agree that they will do these things?

I'm sorry.

Is it your motion that these items would be included in the first amendment to the lease?

No, that the fifth one would, not the first four.

Not the first four, just the fifth.

Thank you.

Because the first two are in the original lease.

And the fourth one is kind of ensuring that the council, the first two, and the fourth one are for the council to really ensure how EDD conducts work going forward.

Council President, if I may just uh it would be easier for operations if the last one, the last two, excuse me, four and five were directed towards staff.

Oh, okay.

Just yeah.

Okay.

Um actually I want the fifth one incorporated into the first amendment.

Is that clear?

Okay.

And that's the yeah, the the third and fourth one are directed to staff.

Okay.

Actually, all the first four are all directed to staff.

Make sure that gets done.

Um so we'll turn it over to my colleagues, and we'll go to council.

Oh, uh Councilmember Moreno has seconded the motion.

Uh so we have a motion as shown up there, staff recommendation with those amendments.

Uh, and uh by myself and a second by councilmember Moreno, so we'll go next to Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

All right, thank you, Council President.

Um, I want to say thank you to the folks who who showed up today and have engaged in this.

Um Council President, I I um it's clear there's a lot of passion on uh in the community around this issue, the concerns about what this this might mean.

I also uh will say to you for everyone here, um you know and care about your community as well as a council member possibly can.

And the same is true for the environment.

Um I think your your record speaks for itself on that front.

Um how I got to know you is from your your work in that space.

Um and um in the nine or ten years I've known you, that's been incredibly consistent.

Those two things your commitment to your community, commitment to the environment, and certainly com uh commitment to ensuring that members of the public are and feel heard.

Um so I'm gonna um offer you significant deference in terms of uh the way that you feel like we should proceed on this, and I think that the amendments that you've offered are important in terms of changing the way that the city does business.

Uh I understand and uh I understand some of the frustrations that have been um expressed.

I'll also um say you know that the the activities that happen on those fields.

I I I hear and understand the frustrations with the disruptions, and I also want to say that I'm someone who delete believes deeply in the power of youth sports, the ability of youth sports to transform folks' lives to find opportunity and belonging on fields or in pools or um on courts that they can't find anywhere else.

Um I would like to find a path path forward here and a path forward that has minimal disruption on the community and maximum opportunity for young people.

So uh with all that being said, I uh do I'd like to invite the Lessee back up if I if I may.

So as of a couple years ago, whenever groups hold organized permitted events in our parks, they contribute a modest opportunity fund fee.

These dollars go to straight into recreation centers and programs that expand opportunities for Sandy Higgins, especially in neighborhoods that have historically lacked access to quality parks and youth programs.

If your events were held at the city park, the events that are held at um held at the fields would clearly qualify for large outdoor the the large outdoor event fee in the parks and rec fee schedule.

Applying the opportunity fund fee to those events ensures that this site operates under the same rules as other spaces, and that a small share of the value created on that public land is reinvested into uh in in a way that benefits families, especially young people citywide.

And I'll just say this is about consistency and fairness, making sure that when events are held on city lands, those events help make recreation accessible to everyone in our city.

The the fee applied is $18 per hour per field.

Um that's the maximum opportunity fund fee.

Uh does SURF agree to pay that fee for the events that are for the the events that are held.

This is a totally new question.

I don't completely understand it.

It would be a fee of $18 per hour per field for the the large events that are held.

I can't agree to that standing here without any context.

Yeah.

Councilmember, uh good afternoon.

Randy Grossman, I'm outside counsel for SURF.

Uh thank you.

I'd like to just point out that SERV does pay a substantial money amount of money through its sleeve currently for upgrades of the fields, and so we think that the money that the council member is contemplating by that by that fee, we believe is already incorporated.

It's definitely not incorporated, it's a separate fee.

It's a separate fee.

It's a separate fee that again all other programs pay when they run sports programs in our city.

Well, be happy to talk to the city attorney about it.

Well, I'm talking to you now.

So talk to me about it.

I'm council member Council President Lakaba has has asked for these provisions be included when the the lease is amended.

I'm asking for you all to commit $18, one eight, there's no zeros behind that, one eight per hour per field when you're running these programs, so that young people in communities like uh City Heights, like Stockton can have access to the athletic programs that you say are so important to you.

That's not an excessive ask.

I uh and I think it's a very reasonable ask, and it would put you on par with everyone who runs an athletic program on the city's park and rec fields across the city.

No competitive disadvantage.

In fact, it levels the playing field in multiple ways, you with those other programs and for the kids in the city in the parts of the city that don't have access to your programs.

It it is a it's an understandable ask, Councilmember, but I I do think that the amount of money that SURF is paying already through its lease is already accounting for that.

So it's so the amount of money that they are paying.

I'll just say this.

This interaction is incredibly incredibly telling and very much, very much is going to weigh on how I think we should engage in lease negotiations in the future.

If you guys can't, if you guys cannot commit $18 per hour per field, 18 for the the kids in our city who have the least access to opportunity, that tells me a lot about who we're doing business with.

Sure.

Um again, this is totally new, but I do want to just add some context for people here because I I think like I think it's um I don't want the perception to be that we're not paying our fair share.

So can I share that for a second, please?

I understand that you don't want that to be the perception, but that's the perception.

That's that's what I'd like to clear up, sir.

Right.

So I'm asking you to commit $18 per hour per field in a manner that is consistent with everybody else who runs large events like this at city parks across the city.

Today we pay about two million dollars a year to keep this facility.

I'm not asking about that.

I'm not asking about that.

That's to keep the facility at a world class level so you can hold the events that you have and you charge the charge the rates that you charge.

That is that is beneficial to you and the city.

I'm asking for you to contribute $18 per hour per field, exactly in accordance with the city's opportunity fund fee scale.

Councilmember, can we just take a timeout to talk about it and do some calculations and that's okay with the council president?

And have a discussion about this.

I think this is the first time it's been raised and be happy to engage in it.

But let's just run we'll bring it back this hearing.

Yes, of course.

Okay.

Get your calculators out and figure out what that number is and what it's worth to you.

Uh council member, uh so we'll come back to you, we'll circle back to you, Councilmember Yo Rivera.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh I want to thank the public for their participation, not just today, but for showing up for months to various committees.

Uh they've spent a lot of time and money coming down to City Hall, a lot on research, and certainly a lot on printing.

And I have a lot of sympathy for uh what the opponents of the item and the proponents of the item are really facing.

The opponents are asking for safety consideration and for consistency for communicated expectations and legal obligations to be met.

And the proponents, they put on what is well known as a very important component of youth sports for our region.

It's world renowned.

It's definitely a draw to our region, and they work hard to put on a successful experience.

And the residents who live by and SURF as an organization have done a lot of work to try to find a solution here because the city, beginning in 2016, failed to implement the land use agreement that was signed by City and SURF.

I I see this issue uh and I hear all the different um are complaints, some are concerns, some are worries, uh, some are demands.

I hear all of those, and there's something much more fundamental to this item.

It's a repeat issue with many, many city issues.

We make a deal with someone, and then instead of holding them to the terms of the deal, we let them do whatever they want.

And when it finally becomes a problem for the city, we have to backtrack and negotiate and try to figure out a solution.

We repeatedly send the signal that we will always be held to our own end of the bargain, but we never seem to hold the other side to their end of the bargain.

Over the last five years, as a council member, I've seen issues where if it was renegotiating a contract for chemicals to keep our water supply safe, or a bid or multiple bids for city land to develop or services to engineer infrastructure infrastructure pipes or enforcing terms of a license of a business in a timely fashion, or many other contracts that we've seen amended.

They seem to be to the city's detriment.

We always seem to be held to our promises and not hold others to theirs.

Surf doesn't really have much at stake here as far as I can see it with the current lease running to 2044.

They create benefits for our region and they're getting benefits in return.

I do not see the city staff or the city attorney's office who've worked to find a solution at as part of the problem.

They are not part of the problem.

And they're trying to give the council options.

Someone made a comment earlier alluding to potential conflict of interest from city staff or the city attorney's office.

I don't see it that way.

The original deed restrictions are vague.

It's hard to navigate and enforce things that are vague.

But the city as an organization has let the problem fester for nine years.

We didn't clear up ambiguities when they were first observed years ago, and now here we are, facing the resolution of one lawsuit in court if we potentially vote no and the threat of several more if we vote yes.

It's not so much the threat of litigation that faces me.

It's that those threats are grounded in the concept that we have to follow through on our own commitments.

The problem is us, the city, yet again.

Certainly not the residents who live by live nearby.

I think it's the responsible course forward for me to vote to keep the lease the same.

And the motion before us, it does good.

I won't deny that.

I see that the motion before us has virtue.

Uh but we have to apply fundamental principles across multiple decisions.

When I see an issue like the one before us today, I don't start from the specifics of this item and work backwards to the principle.

I start with the fundamental principle and apply it to the circumstance.

I see the virtue of this motion staff's recommendation, and but I and I appreciate that the council president for working to improve the recommendation with these amendments, but I can't support it because the fundamental principle is stated by members of the public is what was said earlier.

The deal is a deal, and that deal was made in 2016.

We made it, Surf made it.

We both ought to stick to it, but most of all, the city has a duty to enforce it.

Yes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmore Campio.

Umbody else up, Councilmember Baumwolber.

Um thank you for the the presentation and the work on this, and um thank you to everyone who came out in the community um in all the things that have been submitted.

Um Sean, I saw the photo, thank you, and I read the binder.

Thank you to the folks who put this together, and the staff report was actually very good, and all the backup materials were very good in this.

Um also hear the frustration of many folks, but I think everyone here does agree that at the end of the day we do want children to be able to play soccer on these fields.

I have heard no one here say that we have to eliminate soccer from these fields, and it's pretty amazing actually, what some of these young kids are doing.

I mean, I the wave, the San Diego Wave is one of the most impressive women's soccer teams in the nation, and we should have more girls getting the opportunity to play.

Um I know that this this uh soccer organization does incredibly good things for students, for people, all of that.

Um I also know that the community around it is facing a significant barrier in terms of traffic and public safety, is what I chair.

That's the committee that I chair, and I do understand getting an ambulance or a fire truck or a police car through the traffic is hard.

Um I do appreciate the Del Mar Wine and Food Festival as well.

I mean, it's a beautiful event.

At the same time, we can do these things while being better stewards to the community.

Um and I want to thank Shauna for being here as well, um, who is the head of our uh JPA with the San Diego River Valley, um, who has done wonderful work uh and I have a couple of questions going forward.

First, my first question is why if we in 2016, the original lease agreement with the soccer organization required the Coast to Crest Trail to be completed.

Why is that not done nearly 10 years later?

If I could ask the Lesie to come up and answer from a um from a quality standpoint, we prioritized the quality of the field.

If you look at the field in 2016, it was in disrepair.

We have spent over seven million dollars repairing that, putting in irrigation, changing the water source, and bringing in the new sod.

The new sod was put in this spring, so that portion of the change is completed.

The next priority for us is the Coast Trust Trail, which we've already spoken to today.

Okay, um I have I've been on the trail, I've cleaned up the trail.

We're not asking you to build a bridge, are we?

It's it's graded ground.

I don't understand why this has taken so long.

It's simply a trail on flat earth.

Can I speak?

Yeah, go for it.

If I could just speak to that, it's actually a little more complicated than I ever realized in just working with the environmental engineers over the last several months and getting them to go out there and give us bids.

Um we're doing right now removal of non-native vegetation over time, there's overgrowth and and vegetation that doesn't belong, it's not native to the area.

Um, so that's one step.

Um, they have to grade, obviously, as you know.

Um, they're putting fencing up.

They have to put in uh anti-erosion measures and things like that.

There, when they're grading, by the way, there is uh archaeological surveys that have to be done.

If there is any kind of bones or parents of bones that are that are uncovered, everything has to stop.

Because along these riverbeds, I've been told a lot of times, way way back, the Native Americans would be living by these riverbeds, and their people might be buried near them.

So it's it's much more complicated than just leveling a piece of dirt.

Um but we are we are we are working towards this as as hard and as fast as we can.

Um again, we're also limited from February one until September 15th is the avian breeding season where we cannot do much of anything.

We can do some small stuff, but we cannot grade.

We cannot build fences because it will disrupt the ecosystem and the environment, and that and we have to say no, we can't do it.

Okay.

I imagine you had to have similar issues building out the sod, the ground, the grading of everything right adjacent to this trail.

I just this doesn't have to take this long.

You can get this done before the end of 2026.

No, we can't.

No, we can't.

I'm happy, um, Councilmember von Wimbler to share with you the schedule that we have with Recon Environmental that shows the gating items when they can occur in light of the breeding.

The breeding season again is Feb one to September 15th.

And during that time period, little can be done.

I'm happy to share information with you and the rest of the council as to how we came about with this schedule, getting it to the end of hopefully at the at the at the earliest, which we really want to get end of 2026.

Okay.

Um, Shauna, when's the next JPA meeting?

November 14th.

November of what?

14th.

Okay, so do you commit to coming to the next JPA meeting and publicly explaining to everybody why it's going to take so long on November 14th at 11 a.m.?

It's at the county building.

Yeah, let me just tell me what what date again?

It's uh November 14th at 11 a.m.

at the county building.

That should be fine.

Um that's fine.

Yes.

Wonderful.

I don't know why you haven't been there before.

Um, what is the plan for a traffic for effective traffic control?

We already have traffic control in place when we have large events.

I need to hear his answer.

We we bring we bring either the San Diego County Sheriff or a private traffic control company to come out to handle that.

We've also implemented or placed a traffic control person right by the HOA that's just right by the entrance to the uh to the surf sports park.

The other thing that we are going to do, as I said, is we we plan on utilizing there's an intersection, El Camino Real and Via de la Valle, which has a light, it's right across the street from the market restaurant.

We plan during large events to shut that light down and implement traffic control so that cars can move much more quickly through there.

Okay.

So my question for our attorneys is how can any of this be enforced in the amended lease?

What if that light wasn't shut down?

What if there wasn't adequate traffic control?

What mechanisms do we have?

Because obviously we as a city haven't been enforcing this lease for years.

And so what mechanisms will go forward in this current amendment to require these things to happen.

Do you want to address the operational part of that?

Sure.

Uh Councilmember Von Wilburt, I can take the first part, and if there's still another part, the city attorney would like to join by all means.

The way that it's drafted currently allows for the city to take a look at not only a dated traffic management plan, but one that currently considers what the active use is of the site.

We also know that the intersection of Via de la Valle as well as El Camino Real is on our current CIP list and hopefully will add to reduce congestion and more efficient traffic management in the area.

As far as traffic control goes, one of the things that we've been talking about from an operations uh perspective is again spot checking and making sure during those calendar events we have staff that go by to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to be doing per the lease, and it does give us a little bit more of that opportunity to enforce.

If they're not going to perform, we can send them default notices and ultimately terminate the lease.

Do I have the transmitter?

Um, not unless the council member invites you.

The public comment period is over.

No, I I'm sorry, you can't.

I my question though is what liquidated damages are we putting into this lease to to enforce it on the spot.

There are no liquidated damages in the existing lease or in the proposed first amendment.

The first amendment was narrowly tailored to address the issue regarding the use restrictions and it wasn't an opportunity to completely renegotiate the terms of the existing lease.

We have an existing lease that was approved in 2016.

It does not include liquidated damages.

There are other enforcement mechanisms, including as Ms.

Biz Bibler just mentioned, that if they are not complying with the lease, we can send them default notices and ultimately terminate the lease if it becomes a persistent problem or they don't address it.

Councilmember, can I just add one thing to that comment?

Please remember that these are not only our customers, these are our children.

This is why we do this.

So the the focus on safety and traffic control is of highest priority for us.

And so we will continue to be good citizens.

We will continue to be good tenants, and we will absolutely enforce every aspect of this lease, not only because it's part of the lease, because it's part of our mission.

It's part of our kids.

One last thing just to note, and I I think the council knows this, but there is a plan by the city to widen El Camino Real, which is one of the roads that's adjacent to the Surf Sports Park, is only right now a two-lane road, and quite frankly, can't handle the traffic in the area because of the population growth.

Um I know everybody likes to put the blame on SERF for traffic, but it it you know just not the case.

Um in addition, we're also working uh jointly now with the 22nd AG to try to coordinate um our our efforts at keeping traffic under control.

Um, and um we intend on doing that and having having monthly or bi-monthly meetings to to try and work towards that.

Okay.