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.

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

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.

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 going to 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 dollar federal grant from our partners in the U.S.

Department of Agriculture allowed us to plant 2,249 trees in fiscal year 2025, and we have 2,700 trees planned in fiscal year 26.

Urban Forestry 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.

Uh the next best day is today.

Uh so let's get to work today.

Uh let's invest in Encanto.

Uh, 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.

You know, not long ago, as was mentioned, this site was a Ramada Inn, 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's 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.

Transformation of the site into an intergenerational community with a total of about 400 housing units is truly remarkable.

The units that have already come online for seniors, the units that we're celebrating today, and the units to come are going to continue to be a core piece of how we change our community and we develop housing.

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.

Through policies like affordable housing permit now, investments in supportive services, and collaboration with our local, state, and federal partners.

We are proving that affordable housing doesn't have to take a decade to deliver.

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

This is truly a great day to be here in Memorial Park right here in the beautiful neighborhood of Logan Heights.

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.

We want to be sure that our parks are the best they can be.

And when we have these opportunities to work with the uh various sports leagues of the city to come and introduce programs and to help us fund improvements to our parks, it is very, very vital to our overall success.

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.

It doesn't have to be this way.

We can make changes.

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.

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 Diego's head at a price they can't afford.gov slash minimum wage.

All right, good morning.

I will now call the city council meeting of Tuesday, November 4th, 2025 to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Councilmember Campillo.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

And Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting our Chip Chief Deputy City Attorney Karen Lee, Independent Budget Analyst, Charles Monica, Council of Affairs Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Coda Zeiser, and myself your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

City Clerk.

A quorum is now present.

We will begin this morning with the land acknowledgement and the pledge of allegiance led by Councilmember Moreno.

We respectfully acknowledge that the Kumiai Nation are the original inhabitants of the unceded land, now known as San Diego.

Despite enduring the horrors of genocide and colonization, the Kumia spirit remains unbroken.

We honor the resilience of their ancestors who fought to protect their culture and land.

Today they carry their legacy forward, ensuring that their traditions continue to thrive in gratitude and strength.

We stand with the Kumiyai Nation connected to our past and committed to a thriving future.

Please face the flag, put your hand over your heart and repeat after me.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

Thank you.

I'd like to highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during today's meeting.

Please note the time allocations for proclamations and consent items for meeting management purposes.

No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, City Clerk.

We will now dispense with the approval of the proclamation items, which are just item 30 and S500.

So, Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

The proclamation items being approved are 30 and S500.

We did not receive any comments on these items via RE comment form, which have been so none were distributed to the council.

We do not have any public comment speakers here in council chambers or in the virtual queue.

So that does include public comment on proclamations.

His mission is to inspire innovation while helping protect our planet.

Together, Claudia and Chris are bringing the community together through a hands-on workshop in sewing, mending, embroidering, and upcycling.

Reminding us that sustainability starts with learning and sharing skills.

Every year, the global fashion industry generates over 92 million tons of textile waste.

The slow fashion movement is about more than just clothes, it's about celebrating craftsmanship, reusing what we have, and choosing originality and care over fast consumption.

And what better way to do that than here in the city of San Diego?

We're known for innovation, creativity, and a deep respect for our environment.

This celebration strengthens our local art community, supports small business owners, and connects people across cultures through creativity and care for our planet.

So today I am proud to proclaim November 9th, 2025 as slow fashion day in the city of San Diego.

Congratulations to everybody and thank you for making San Diego the home of sustainable style and community empowerment.

And I would like to call up Claudia and Chris to see if they would like to say a few comments.

Thank you for the city of San Diego for believing in our mission of sustainability through fashion and bringing community together.

And we're really excited to create this one of a kind experience and event for all of San Diegans to experience.

Yeah, um thank you guys so much for uh this opportunity and um for stamping slow fashion and sustainability as an important uh initiative within San Diego.

Uh we've been doing this for a while, and we've built such a great community.

But we feel like with your support in this uh proclamation that it's gonna amplify it even more.

So uh just uh really thank you so much, and we're truly grateful.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Two local celebrities we have here.

Uh so with that, uh Council President, I am happy to make a motion to move the proclamation items.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

So we do have a motion by Councilmember Moreno to move the proclamations.

We'll go next to Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

All right, thank you, Council President.

I'll start by seconding the motion.

Um very quickly, just um thanks for bringing that forward, Councilmember Moreno.

The um the hat that you all did for um the San Diego Wave was it's my favorite hat.

Um it's my favorite San Diego hat right now.

Um I love it.

I um you do great work and um there was an opportunity to I think represent the city, represent our culture in a really really cool way.

So I just wanted to say thank you for that.

Um I love that that hat.

Um, uh, I'll thank Council Member Von Wilbert for joining uh me in proclaiming November 2025 to be youth homeless outreach prevention and education month here in the city of San Diego.

As I think we all know, um, far too many young people in San Diego and across the country are experiencing homelessness, uh, and that plays itself out in a variety of ways from uh youth who are um sleeping in cars with their parents uh to youth on the streets.

Um none of it's okay.

Um I think this this month where we recognize and build awareness of of the issue is incredibly important.

It helps us identify the causes and potential solutions.

Um we know the disproportionate impact of uh that that homelessness has on youth of color who've been unfairly separated from their families.

Uh, this is particularly uh a um a problem that has impacted um black youth um in San Diego and across the country again when um their parents have been unfairly separated from their children.

Um we know that LGBTQ uh youth who are not safe in their homes are disproportionately experiencing homelessness.

And so uh raising awareness of this issue, which I think I hope truly that every single one of us should not be okay with a single young person experiencing homelessness is a real it is really important for us um seeing some strides on this issue.

And to that point, I wanted to thank the council um for uh your support of including funding for the safe parking uh lot at Central Elementary in our budget.

Um we took a big step forward last week with San Diego Unified uh approving an agreement um with Jewish Family Service to um to administer that.

We're hoping families can move in by the end of this month.

And when that happens, um, forty plus families who are living moms living in their cars with kids in unsafe places will have a safe place to go with wraparound services.

And so um, thank you to uh all of my colleagues for being willing to step up and chip in at the end of the end of the budget cycle this past year.

Um we funded it a couple times, and it looks like we're finally gonna be able to get it off the ground.

So I wanted to say thank you all for that.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Moreno, a second by Councilmember Gila Rivera to move the proclamations.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campbell.

Uh thank you so much, Council President.

I I would uh like to congratulate the people who are helping so much with fashion and the environment.

Thank you so much.

I'm I want to find out where you are and come and visit you and get some things made.

I I just love that whole idea.

You're wonderful.

Thank you.

Thank you for bringing forward the proclamation, you guys.

Um but I also want to recognize the month this month as Youth Homelessness Outreach Prevention Education or Hope Month.

And too often many people forget that many of our unhoused neighbors across the city aren't only adults, but also families and also young people.

This proclamation serves both as a recognition of the important work done by uh San Diego Youth Services and Promises to Kids, our own San Diego Housing Commission, which actually converted some of its office space to a young person's homeless shelter.

Uh and and to the many, many other providers in our city who reach out and help our youth who happen to be homeless.

Uh this hope uh group recognizes the collective efforts across all agencies, organizations, and communities.

And we're gonna keep working until every single young person has a safe and stable place to call home.

These uh services uh that the organizations provide are essential to our shared goal of meeting individuals where they are and ensuring that they have all the support they need so that they will have homes of their very own.

So thank you very much for bringing that proclamation forward.

And of course, I am in favor of uh voting yes on the proclamations.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Uh I'll thank my colleagues for bringing the proclamations forward.

No better way to amplify these two very important, although very distinct aspects of who we are as a city uh isn't important to highlight that.

So with that, we have a motion by Councilmember Moreno, second by Councilmember Ila Rivera to move the proclamations.

Clerk, please call the vote.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously, eight to zero with Council Member Von Wilbert absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, we're gonna pause for photos on slow fashion day.

So you want to join us here in the pit as we affectionately call it.

Back to business.

We will now proceed with the approval of the consent items.

All right.

Now we will proceed with the approval of the consent items.

Are there any requests to pull items from by the council members?

Not seeing any request.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

The consent agenda includes items 5051 through 106 and S five oh one.

I do not have any comments here in Council Chambers.

Going to those participating remotely.

I'm starting the five-minute timer.

Blair Beekman, if you can please let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

I think I want to speak to item 50.

Okay, please proceed.

You'll have one minute.

Uh thank you.

Uh it's a contract for electronic electronic filing system things.

Um to increase the total compensation uh from three 330 to 392,000.

Um to extend uh for the for the extension of the contract in funding.

Uh well, I didn't say that very well, but in that event, uh has this contract process been negotiated within the contract time limits.

You had an item yesterday where you thanked people for working within the the limits of getting contracts, new contract signed on time.

And I hope that process is going well.

I hope this item is falling uh under the on-time scheduling, you know, the new practices, a better contract uh efficiency.

Good luck in those efforts.

Thank you for everyone's efforts uh in that uh working towards those really important good goals.

And um that's really building our good future, I think.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment on the consent agenda, but I will note for the record the potential appointments that are on the agenda this morning.

Item one hundred five is the potential appointment of Ronald Diaz to the climate advisory board.

Item one hundred six is the potential appointment of Dr.

Lawana Richmond to the consolidated plan advisory board.

And we did not receive any public comment via our e-comment forms for these items.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

With that, we'll turn it over to the council members for comments and entertain a motion on the consent, and we'll start with Council Member Moreno.

Happy uh to make a motion on the consent agenda.

Um, I do have comments on item one oh no five, which is the appointment of District Eight resident Ronald Diaz to the Climate Advisory Board.

Uh Mr.

Diaz graduated from Southwestern College with an associates in mathematics.

He then transferred to San Diego State University and graduated with the bachelor's of science degree in civil engineering and did a capstone project in comprehensive stormwater pollution prevention program.

Um I want to thank Mr.

Diaz for your willingness to serve our community, and and I know that you will be a great asset to the climate advisory board.

Um with that, I'm happy to move uh the consent agenda.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

Again, we have a motion by Councilmember Moreno move the consent items and we'll go to Councilmember Foster.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

And I will be speaking briefly on item 106.

I want to congratulate Dr.

Lawana Richmond from Council District 4 on her appointment to the consolidated plan advisory board.

Dr.

Richmond is known for being the visionary behind the Afro Futurism Lounge.

This is an annual cultural and creative convening held Comic Con that highlights black creators and explores the intersections of imagination, technology, and social progress.

But Dr.

Richmond is very active in various grassroots organizations and groups in District 4.

She holds a doctorate in educational leadership from UC San Diego and Cal State Sam Marco's joint program, a master's degree in information systems from National University and a bachelor's degree in business administration with an emphasis in operations management from San Diego State University.

Confident that she will serve in excellence.

And again, thank you, Dr.

Richmond, for all you do and your willingness to serve.

With that, I will second the consent agenda.

All right, thank you, sir.

We have a motion by Councilmember Moreno, seconded by Councilmember Foster to move the consent items.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights.

I'll just add my thank you to those that are being appointed or reappointed.

Appreciate your willingness to give back to the city by serving on the respective boards.

So with that, um clerk, please call the roll.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously nine to zero.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

So with that, do we have any comments from the mayor's office, city council members, city attorney, independent budget analyst or city clerk?

City clerk.

Sorry, you know what I'm gonna say.

Today is voting day.

Uh please make sure that you vote.

If you are a city employee or in the area, there is a voting box right outside of City Hall.

And if you need to mail it in, please make sure you get it postmarked for today for it to count.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you for that reminder, City Clerk.

Not seeing anybody else.

We'll move right along.

We will now take up our morning discussion agenda.

Clerk, please introduce item S502.

Item S502 is the contract extension with ACE parking for Balboa Park Tram Services.

This does is a six vote item required pursuant to Charter Section 99.

If you would like to speak to this item, please be sure to submit your speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box or if you're participating remotely, star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you for that introduction.

Uh staff, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need for the presentation.

Hi, thank you.

John Richards, Deputy Director in Parks and Recreation for Balboa Park.

Uh, 10 minutes, please for the presentation.

When you're ready.

Good morning, Council President and Council members.

Uh joining me with the presentation today is Conrad Ware, program manager with the Parks and Recreation Department.

Today I'll be presenting on a proposed contract extension with ACE parking for Balboa Park Tram Service.

Presentation outlines the need for continued services, fiscal details, current service levels, and proposed expanded services and key stakeholders.

Proposed actions include two main items.

First, to adopt an ordinance authorizing the mayor or their designee to execute a contract extension with ACE parking for an additional two years, raising the total contract amount to 6.128 500,000.

Second, to authorize the chief financial officer to allocate and expend up to 2.8 million dollars from the designated general fund and TOT funds over the next two fiscal years.

Due to upcoming changes, such as the implementation of paid parking in Balboa Park, we need to extend this contract to ensure uninterrupted operations while a new RFP will take place.

This slide shows some background on the current tram operations contract.

The city issued an RFP in May of 2019, received one responsive proposal.

The contract was awarded to Ace Parkin in December 2020 for a five-year term not to exceed 3.33 million dollars expiring this December 20th, 2025.

Funds for tram services have already been allocated in the approved fiscal year 26 budget.

The proposed extension provides time to gather and analyze a full year of data following the rollout of paid parking.

This information will be essential to shape a new data-driven competitive bidding process.

During this period, we'll ensure continuity of service for visitors, staff, and volunteers, while also supporting new mobility needs such as off-hour staff shuttle operations.

The extension also gives us flexibility to adjust service levels as needed while maintaining the stability of reliable tram service throughout the transition to paid parking.

Balboa Park attracts more than 14 million visitors annually.

Many of these visitors rely on the free tram service to navigate between parking areas and the park central attractions.

Since the late 90s, the city has partnered with an external vendors to operate this tram system, which helps reduce vehicular congestion in pedestrian heavy areas.

In 2013, the city invested in purchasing its own trams, expanding capacity and efficiency.

Since then, Ace Parking has operated the system and now moves an average of 35,000 passengers monthly and 430 passengers each year with a capacity of 44 passengers per load dependent on its configuration.

The tram's continued operation directly supports accessibility, safety, and positive visitors, staff and volunteer experience in Balboa Park while being free.

Financially, the operation or financially, the original contract for tram services with ACE Parking total $3.33 million.

The proposed two-year extension adds $2.8 million, bringing the total to $6.13 million.

Funding for the current level of service will come from the TOT and general fund at an annual cost of $800,000.

Future development of Balboa Park Park and Management Fund will be used as eligible expenses for the expanded tram services in the amount of $415,000 annually.

The Balboa Park Tram Service currently operates year-round and runs daily every 10 to 15 minutes with five stops connecting key park destinations.

Service hours adjust seasonally, with summer and fall operating from 9 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

equaling 11 hours of service each day.

Winter and spring hours are from 9 a.m.

to 6 p.m.

equaling nine hours of service each day.

This schedule ensures easy access across the park while reducing vehicle traffic in pedestrian areas.

With the implementation of paid parking, we're proposing to expand tram services to better support both visitors, staff, and volunteers.

The additional annual cost of this expanded services is estimated at 415,000.

Trams will continue running daily on a 10 to 15 minute schedule between the same five tram stops, ensuring consistent service throughout the park.

Under the new plan, trams will operate year-round from 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m., providing longer hours of access equal to 12 hours per day.

We're also introducing an on-demand service during off-pink times from 7 a.m.

to 9 a.m.

and 6 p.m.

to 11 p.m.

daily to accommodate staff and volunteers needing transportation outside regular operating hours.

We will double the on-demand level of service for the first few months to allow for a successful transition with the new parking program.

Including their staff, volunteers, contractors, and vendors are the primary beneficiaries of this extension.

Additionally, maintaining consistent free tram operations ensures accessibility for all visitors, including families, seniors, and individuals individuals with mobility challenges.

It also enhances the visitor experience by reducing traffic and promoting a safe and accessible environment.

This extension supports Balboa Park's continued role as a premier destination and reflects the city's commitment to serving its residents and visitors alike.

Once again, the proposed actions include two main items.

First, to adopt an ordinance authorizing the mayor or their designee to execute a contract extension with ACE Parking for an additional two years, raising the total contract amount to 6.1285.

Second, to authorize the CFO to allocate and expend up to $2.8 million from the designated general fund and TOT funds over the next two fiscal years.

Due to upcoming changes, such as implementation of paid parking in Balboa Park, we need to extend this contract to ensure uninterrupted operations while a new RFP process will take place.

This concludes my presentation.

Additionally, I have a representative of ACE parking here to answer any questions as well.

All right, thank you for your presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you.

We do have some speakers here in Council Chambers for this item.

Um Deisha Crownover.

As well as uh Gillian Reza and Katie McDonald.

If you can all please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

And Desha, you can please come forward to the microphone.

You'll have two minutes.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Desha Crownover, and I'm the executive director of San Diego Junior Theater.

I am urging for your approval for the continuation expansion of the Balboa Park Tram Service.

San Diego Junior Theater at the Casa del Prado Theater and Classrooms welcomes over 2,000 children, teachers, families, volunteers, artists, and senior citizens each week.

Our program runs seven days a week, including rehearsals, classes, performances, and camps, bringing thousands of families into the heart of the park every month.

Specifically for San Diego Junior Theater and all of the youth arts organizations in the Casa del Prado, including the Plant Society and the Senior Center.

We have families at Balboa Park from 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

every week.

As the city prepares to implement paid parking, it is essential to maintain and expand free tram service to ensure that all families, regardless of income or mobility, can continue to enjoy access to the heart of Balboa Park's cultural district.

Reliable Tram Service also supports our teaching artists, production teams, and volunteers who often arrive during early mornings, evenings, and weekends.

And without dependable access, the reach and inclusivity of our programs could be significantly impacted.

We strongly urge your approval of the contract extension with ACE parking to maintain and expand tram service during the transition to paid parking.

The step provides essential continuity while the city develops long-term solutions to keep Balboa Park welcoming, accessible, and inclusive to all families and visitors.

On behalf of the thousands of children and families who find creativity, confidence, and community in the Casa del Prado, thank you for your continued partnership and for prioritizing access for everyone who loves Balboa Park.

Thank you.

Gillian or Jillian, my apologies if I'm asking the question.

Good morning.

My name is Jillian Riza.

I'm with the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership.

I'm speaking today in support of the proposed extension of the Balboa Park Tram Services contract with EACE parking.

Balboa Park welcomes over 12 million visitors each year.

Families, children, seniors, casual park users, and thousands of attending programs and performances.

For all of them, the tram is a critically important connector, linking distant parking areas to museums, gardens, playgrounds, and open spaces.

It helps families move forward, move safely and comfortably, allowing children and seniors to participate fully in park programs and ensures casual visitors can enjoy the park without worry.

As the city prepares to implement paid parking, the continuation and expansion of free tram service is essential.

Families and program participants need reliable access, and cultural organizations rely on the tram to support attendance camps, classes, and team member access.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Katie.

Good morning, Council President, Council members.

I'm Katie McDonald.

I'm the president and CEO of Forever Balboa Park.

I'm here today to speak in support of Parks and Rec recommendation that we extend ACE parking's contract through the end of 2027.

As you all know, Balboa Park needs consistent and dependable tram service, especially now as we anticipate the many changes that are going to impact the park because of paid parking.

All great parks around the world meet the mobility needs of their visitors, and this program will assure that.

As we all plan, the cultural district and the rest of us who think about the entire 1200 acres of the park, and we plan to create an extraordinary experience for local visitors and those from around the world.

We must invest in this improved and expanded service.

Obviously, the service is also going to mitigate whatever negative impact there might be on distance parking for volunteers and staff.

And I personally am very pleased to hear about this on demand service, which is going to meet the safety needs of staff and volunteers who work very long hours in the park.

So I urge your support of the of the proposal and thank Parks and Rec for their ongoing support.

Thanks.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment here in Council Chambers, going to those participating remotely, starting with Peter Kamiski.

If you can please unmute, you'll have two minutes.

Good morning, uh Council members and Council President Peter Kamisky Belbo Cultural Partnership.

Really, I don't believe there's much more to add.

Jillian Dish and Kyle have highlighted the needs for you very clearly.

I'll just underline the uh the one point that KIT left with, which is that the tram service is now uh an essential and critical element of power corporations, cultural district specifically, uh, given that we are now moving um our uh paid uh sorry, a free parking option, uh, quite remote, and also the the team members, and it's really important that they still be able to get access, uh ready access to their facilities.

Uh thank you for supporting this item.

Access within the park is is is a critical element, uh, and we look forward to the passage of this item.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Uh thank you for this item.

Thanks for the public comment.

Thanks for the previous public comment.

That very well described.

I was gonna describe that I really like the trams of uh Balboa Park is it is like a buddy to me.

I don't know why.

It's been it's just it feels good to me every time I see the trams going around.

And um, yeah, with the upcoming parking issues, it it's a it's importance uh is it just can't be understated and uh thank you for its service.

Um I hope that with the upcoming parking issues being considered on the uh lower parking lots.

Um that that it was initially decided it was only gonna be two hours.

I think you're haggling that that could be at least three or four hours.

I think that has to be respected in how people can get up to the main attractions, the center of the park.

And uh, you know, a three or four hour time is really needed.

Uh just so people can explore and have the day without having to rush back and forth, you know, between parking lines.

And so good luck that how you're working on that.

And um tram service would help a lot in with that, uh, obviously.

So um good luck with this, and and as always, what I've been trying to say really good luck with overall uh the Balboa park uh fee issues that you're currently at about a you know five to six and an eight to ten uh level.

I hope you can bring that down to like a two to three to five to six dollar level uh with parking fees.

Um I think that's more appropriate and works more patterns of government working with community as opposed to ourselves being at a rock concert or ourselves being at a uh a bunch of rock stars doing the rock star thing.

Uh it's way too expensive, I think what you're offering.

Yeah, I really hope you can bring it down a lot.

I'm trying to practice how to say that well.

So thanks for your time.

Thank you.

No other hands are raised.

That concludes public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, we'll turn it over to Councilmember's questions, comments, and retain a motion.

We'll start out with Council Member Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh, thank you to the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership at Forever Balboa Park at Junior Theater for their comments today, as well as the comments from the public.

While I continue to oppose charging for parking at Balboa Park, the fact that it is happening means that more people will be parking further away from the center of the park to take advantage of the free or lower price parking at the outer lots.

And as always, we have a responsibility to ensure that those visitors and employees and volunteers could get to their destinations in the park safely and conveniently.

Increasing the frequency of the tabs uh tram service is essential to making that possible.

And I also appreciate the addition of new ways for people to move around the park.

The on-demand service uh late at night and early in the morning will make it easier for people to get around the park at those hours.

These are important improvements.

ACE parking has done a great job with the tram service over the years, and I will make the motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

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

We'll go next to Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you so much.

I uh just want to thank Ace Parking for doing such a fabulous job.

Um people have told me how kind uh and respectful the tram drivers have been and how much they've helped people.

I I just want to thank you for the good service, and uh I'm happy to second the motion and support it.

Thank you so much.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

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

We'll go next to Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Um thank you for the work in the presentation on this item.

Um I'm I too think we need to have a lot more expanded service since we are going to be charging for parking now.

Um thank you to the folks who came in today, including uh Katie McDonald friends.

I really appreciate all the work you're doing there and with junior theater.

I didn't realize you were there from 6 a.m.

to 11 p.m.

That's a big uh category.

So appreciate your work there as well.

I love the Casa del Prado.

Um and thank you to ACE Parking for the great job that they've been doing for the past few years on this contract.

I have a couple of questions about um how will the on-demand services be accessed?

I think that's a great idea, but I want to make sure the public understands how they can get those services.

So we're working with ACE parking, and Ace Parking will have an additional staff as a dispatcher.

So as someone arrives for work in the morning, if they're there prior to the green trams operation, so at say 7 o'clock or after 8 o'clock at night, they can pick up the phone, call the dispatcher.

This dispatcher will put them in rotation and have them picked up.

Okay.

Will there be certain points throughout the park where they pick people?

You'll have it all mapped out, the public will know what number to call.

So it's not for the public, it's specific the the on-demand service is specifically for staff and volunteers for the the hours of outside of the operations of the green tram.

The expanded service of uh 8 a.m.

to 8 p.m.

for the green trams are for anyone to include staff, volunteers, and the public.

Got it, understood.

Okay.

Um and one more question.

One of the PowerPoint sled said that we are doubling the service level for the first few months.

Why aren't we increasing it permanently since people will probably be using it more often?

So one of the things we uh, and this is the reason why we didn't go to our one of the reasons why we didn't we didn't go to RFP this year was we we're not quite sure what the behaviors are going to be and what what's going to be needed.

So this gives us by uh an opportunity to be successful within this transition to allow uh a second uh sprinter van style vehicle to rotate on one side of the park while the other um can rotate wherever else.

Additionally, they can go along park boulevard up and down where the other uh once again the green trams are not street legal.

That no, that's great.

I think this is all fantastic.

My question is why would we stop doing that after the first few months as opposed to just continue this expanded service?

I'm not sure if it will be needed after a few months.

So we know there's gonna be a lot of behavior modifications within um the transition of paid parking.

So we'll work with our partners in ACE and we'll have real-time stats to understand what those needs are, and if we need to expand the services or decrease the services or alter the time frames, then we can do that.

Okay, but if there is a consistent need, we will continue providing the service.

Hopefully, depending on funding, right?

So, right now within funding, we're we're um uh we're putting or asking for enough funding for the expanded services for the first several months, first few months.

And then as we uh draft the future RFP looking at um user data, we can um incorporate that into the RFP uh at a later date as well.

Okay.

Um got it.

Well, thank you.

I'm I'm supportive of this item.

I really appreciate the work you're doing here, and thank you, you know, to all our partners at ACE parking as well.

And thank you to staff for bringing forward the contract before it expires.

I know the staff report expires December 19th, so thank you for bringing back the contract before it expires that I could vote for it.

So I appreciate you very much.

Um I appreciate staff bringing forward pre-expired contracts more and more for the council to look at, and I will uh support the item.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you for uh the presentation.

Um, although I voted no on the paid parking at Balboa Park, I am glad to see the city is conducting a request for proposal and study for the tram services.

I I wish we would have done this before we started moving forward with paid parking, but I am pleased that we are moving forward.

Um it's my understanding that the study is being conducted internally uh to analyze how to better use the tram service we currently provide and how paid parking may impact how many people use the service.

Is this correct?

Yes, ma'am.

We'll be collecting the data from ACE parking from their daily uh writer counts and then city staff will analyze the data.

Wonderful.

For this study, has city staff reached out to MTS or SANDAG for their expertise?

So we did reach out to MTS and asked them if they had any feedback on the current um contract or any additional like route information, and there were no comments provided.

Okay.

Um I think based on the study's findings, obviously, we still have to look at what comes out of it.

Um I would request and I would urge us to utilize MTS in SANDEG as we conduct the analysis for this study.

Uh will the scope of the study include utilizing Park Boulevard and Sixth Avenue as potential routes for the tram to use.

What we'll do is we'll have the data also from the on-demand service, which is allowed to go up Park Boulevard and 6th Avenue.

The Green Tram won't allow that, so we won't have any data from the Green Tram since it's uh not street legal.

Well, will the RFP include trams that would meet California street legal vehicle requirement?

That's something that we could look into.

I would highly recommend um that we do uh look at that data.

I think um well, first of all, when the study is completed, if you could please on top of reaching out to Sandag and MTS, um, if you could please um uh show it to the city council, obviously.

Um the current tram system does not operate on city streets since these vehicles um do not meet California street legal vehicle requirements.

Uh the RFP needs to make sure that our tram service can operate on our city streets to better serve patrons of the park.

I think choosing not to use our city streets is a complete missed opportunity as patrons pay for parking for using the crown jewel of the city.

We need to make sure we are utilizing every tool to make their experience better.

Um I will support the item before us today.

Um I I would like to see all of uh everything that I mentioned.

Um Sandag, MTS, uh the RFP, including Sixth Street and Park to be very specific.

We don't know what we don't know, right?

Just because we've been operating uh the same way, doesn't mean that that's the best way to operate.

Um and I I do think it's very very important for engineers to look at this study to make sure we're maximizing uh the capacity of the trams.

I do understand that part of the California code requires the trams to go a certain speed limit and also to have um seat belts.

Put them in the RFP, see if that um pencils out.

If it doesn't, then we could cross that bridge.

But once again, I think it's a missed opportunity if we don't include sixth and park in the study.

Um but thank you for uh the presentation, and um that concludes my comments.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you to our parks and rec staff bringing this extension forward.

Uh this this uh service that's been provided since 19 uh the 1990s.

Uh obviously we know the service is necessary since uh Balboa Park will be impacted by the charging of parking, something I did not support.

Um, but knowing that we have uh visitors who are going to need this service to make them have a chance to enjoy Bubbo Park.

If we're going to be charging people for something, we should provide them with a service or an improved experience, and I think that this is something that will improve the experience for people visiting.

Just to be very, very clear.

People who use this tram service are gonna pay nothing to use it, correct?

That's correct, sir.

Very good.

And second, in terms of ADA accessibility, are we going to have uh the ability for people who don't who have mobility issues, the ability to use the tram, get on and off staff to support them.

What does that look like?

Yes, currently there is the ability for the trams to offer the ADA access.

We also have a shuttle type service that they use for higher occupancy within the um within the park.

So that also has a lift.

Understood.

Well, it I appreciate that since I anticipate folks with mobility issues are probably going to be choosing to pay less to and therefore parking further away, uh providing them with the accessibility is something that is just baseline very fair.

So I appreciate that being involved here.

I'll be supportive of the item.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campio.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Um I'll offer a couple of uh closing thoughts.

One is all the organizations identified this as an integral part of Balboa Park and the Balboa Park experience.

We've got a lot of experience with it.

That should play well as you understand what happens with the paid parking, how that may change uh visitor behavior going forward.

So a couple of questions that we did not bring up as a briefing, so I apologize for not giving advance.

So if you want to get back to me on them, um October 4th, I had my wife and I visited the Mingay, and we did take the tram over to the Mingay, and we were told tram ends at six o'clock.

But your system says you go to eight o'clock through October.

So I don't know how we monitor when they actually stop the tram service.

So if you could get back to me, and maybe that was a glitch, maybe we misunderstood, but I would appreciate that.

Um yeah, I'll review, I'll take a look at the website and see what the website says for the times.

You said October 4th?

October 4th.

Okay, thank you, sir.

Uh then the other question is uh the power uh the slide deck mentioned that we purchased the green trams back in 2013, I think it said.

Do we have a game plan or will that be part of the year-long study and then the RFP in terms of whether we should replace them, we should whether we should make that part of the RFP.

I understand one of the green trams is frequently out of service, just it's getting old.

So uh is there a game plan for that?

So we need to research what kind of trams would be beneficial, hearing that they potentially should be street legal versus not street legal.

So those are some of the things, and then additionally, the um any grant opportunities or funding opportunities that would be available for those tram services as well.

All right, thank you for that.

And I will echo, I think Councilmember Campbell made the drivers are delightful.

They fill that you know, very short drive with lots of anecdotal stories about the history of Bell Ball Park.

Makes for a very great visitor experience, even for us who've been around for over a long time, learned a few things.

So uh again, not seeing anybody else the lights.

We have a motion by council member Whitburn, the second by Councilmember Campbell, uh, to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the role.

I started the voting system, please cast your vote.

That does pass unanimously nine to zero.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

I'm glad the students were able to stick around for my fabulous comments and experience what city council is all about.

So thank you for visiting.

Uh with that, we will now take up non-agenda public comment.

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

Clerk, please proceed with not agenda, public comment.

Thank you.

Going to those participating remotely.

We currently have three people with their hands raised.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute and proceed.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

Uh, really quick short Tuesday meeting, morning meeting uh this morning.

Um hi to everyone.

Um, I guess just to do some house cleaning things today.

First off, um, you know, it's been a while.

I have not seen uh Joyce Sonata at any public meetings for a while.

I hope she's okay, and that she can I can hear her voice again.

I hope I can hear her return to the public meeting process.

And uh I hope she's doing okay and just a hi to her and uh onward we go with working out our our lives here in the community process.

Uh I'm interested again.

I mentioned you know the importance of uh uh I'm living in the SF Bay area right now.

I'll be back uh in a few weeks for a visit and then back here permanently permanently back in March or uh in March.

And um in San Francisco, man, uh the San Francisco mayor and uh the tech department's agencies he works with corporations, they really asked Trump to calm down his National Guard and sending in troops to San Francisco and the Bay Area.

It really worked.

And he just I think they offered just an awful lot of logic that we always have been trying to do, that I hope we can continue to do.

And if we just present a really clear case why it's important to not be over-military militarizing ice raids here in San Diego and in other areas, I think we can really make important headway.

That you know, we we have a way of working that's decent, and he Trump needs to respect that.

And good luck that we are working on that.

Good luck that we're working on um the uh flock issues and the AOPR issues.

We really can reduce some AOPRs, and we really can question if Flock is the right company for ALPR things.

I hope we can still continue that that questioning uh with all the new smart streetlight tech coming in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is 1384.

After that is 7499, then Al Mastro.

1384, please unmute.

I can't unmute for you.

There you go.

Hello, Ernie Casco.

Senior resident pilot at Tory Pines Glyde Report, former La Jolla trustee, Tory Pines Glyde Report Subcommittee Lahoy, U.S.

Coast Guard Aux Hillary has mass team.

Coast Guard Hillary Hazmat team, both La Jolla Town Council, La Jolla Shores Association, and resident pilots, literally hundreds citizens are demanding city of San Diego and police authority take immediate action.

Convene the Torrey Pines advisory board and implement the San Diego recreational waiver as a working solution to resolve the ongoing dispute at our over our recreational freedom.

Your leaseholder, Air California Adventure is breaking the law, blocking pilot access, forcing pilots into uh sign a fair access pass and waiver to use a free public park.

This crime needs to be resolved by the end of the year, or the crime will continue.

It is illegal to turn our recreational freedom into a privilege that requires a license and a fee under any circumstances.

This is a city liability and responsible to resolve the dispute within a legal timely reply, not another rabbit hole.

The San Diego recreational labor does just that, separates the out-of-control snapshot flight director, dictation dictatorship over the sport of hang gliding and paragliding, isolating safety concerns, allowing all parties to remain and operate as a club, leaving the city in control while securing city liabilities.

The case is coming out.

My home was invaded.

I have been poisoned with a biohazard over the commercialization of a public park.

I'm under threat of violence, dying of identity virus, and stage four cancer.

Your knee solder has committed genocide.

This is public extortion by city leaseholder, blocking public access, forcing payment.

This crime has been going on since 1998.

It needs to end today, Joe Lakaba.

Your time has concluded.

7499, if you can please unmute.

After that is Al Del Mastro, then Madison, please proceed.

Bob Kazuski here.

I have filed two documents with my comments, including the Dockweiler waiver and the proposed Torrey Pines glider port waiver.

I asked that the proposed glider port waiver be docketed and approved.

Earlier this year, KUSI News reported a collision between a paraglider and an RC plane at Torrey Pines Glider Port.

The headline drone collides with Torre Pines Paraglider, forcing emergency ending, end quote, by Danielle Dawson.

The article reads in part, quote, civilian operated drones are an ever growing presence in the sky, but in recent weeks, the pitfalls of their ubiquity have been on full display.

Here in San Diego, a Torrey Pines paraglider was forced to make an emergency landing when a drone can't became entwined in his parachute.

The paraglider who shared a pro video of the run-in on YouTube says the collision caused two tears to the parachute and cut two lines among other damages.

Thankfully, he was uninjured in the incident.

The paraglider said he reported the incident both to both the FAA and San Diego Police Department.

This is happening in our Torrey Pine City Park, owned by the City of San Diego.

Who has the expertise to review these kinds of accidents and make operational recommendations to the site operator to keep citizens safe?

Who?

Who, Joe La Cava?

The answer is no one.

It is a gross negligence by you, Joe La Cava, to knowingly allow a flight business to operate in a city park without appropriate oversight.

This city must reactivate the Tory Pine City Park Advisory Board.

Why in the world would this city have a climate advisory board advising the city on how to influence the weather, which you don't own and can't control, and not have an advisory board advising on the Tory Pines glider port, which you do own and can control.

Implement the waiver and reactivate the advisory board now.

That concludes your comment.

Going on to Al Del Mastro and then Madison, please unmute.

Hi, my name's Al Del Mastro.

I'm a senior.

Every one of these penalties these restrictions affect us more than the larger corporations that have lar hundreds of units.

Me and my wife live in our unit.

We chose to do that instead of owning a home 20 years ago because we wanted to be responsible seniors.

We're just blue-collar people.

And um the restrictions you put on us are just really unfair.

You if you put it on any small business, you're setting them up to fail.

Uh, this new thing where junk fees are involved.

I noticed that we never used to charge a pet rent from everybody.

All our apartments have doggy doors for the tenants.

We're we're big animal lovers.

But uh, we charge a print rent now because the state took our ability to put a pet department in.

And uh, you know, the new trash fees, you know, that was kind of a lie that you told people.

I called several one of your departments on your offices, and you said this was only going to affect um only going to affect single family homes.

But if you own a duplex or a triplex, you get three times the billing or two times the billing or a forklix, four times the billing billings.

And um, you know, unfortunately, we have to pass the fees on this year alone.

My insurance went up uh 200, 300 percent really from last year.

And um, you're just driving small mom and pops out of the industry.

Time has concluded.

Madison, if you can please unmute.

Then our final speaker is Becky Reppy Madison.

It looks like you are if you can please unmute.

I will have to move on to the next caller.

Becky Rapp, if you can please unmute.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I serve on my community planning group and work in public health, and I'm here to ask that the city agenda is a discussion and enforcement framework for assembly bill eight.

The state law that is taking into uh taking effect January 1st.

So AB 8 closes a dangerous loophole that has allowed high potency and intoxicating hemp products to be sold outside the licensed or permitted market, often in convenience stores and vape shops where there's little oversight and easy youth access.

These products are being packaged and promoted like candy, despite posing real risks to the developing brain, including addiction, psychosis, and impaired learning.

Starting in 2026, all intoxicating cannabinoid products, regardless of whether they come from hemp or marijuana, must be tested, tracked, and taxed.

But to make this work, San Diego must have a local enforcement plan.

I'm asking the city council to agendize AB 8 and develop a citywide framework and law enforcement and code enforcement, specifically focusing on updating local ordinances to align with AB 8's new definitions and restrictions.

The discussion should include training inspectors and officers on how to identify illegal product sales, and also the launching of a public education campaign on the harms of high potency marijuana and intoxicating hemp products and our effect on youth and young adults.

The conversation should not only be about enforcement, but should also include prevention and education.

San Diego has the opportunity to lead our county with a proactive health-based approach that protects our young people and ensures community safety.

Thank you.

That does conclude non-agenda public comment for today's meeting.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Uh, and this is the second group from the E3 Civic High School.

Thank you for visiting City Hall.

Uh thank you to City Clerk for uh managing this uh group of students and give them a little taste of what we do down here.

With that, we will now adjourn for the noon recess and reconvene open session at 2 p.m.

or shortly thereafter.

With a total of about 400 housing units is truly remarkable.

The units that have already come online for seniors, the units that we're celebrating today, and the units to come are going to continue to be a core piece of how we change our community and we develop housing.

This is the way it should be done.

Too many in our neighborhoods have been pushed through 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.

Through policies like affordable housing permit now, investments in supportive services, and collaboration with our local, state, and federal partners.

We are proving that affordable housing doesn't have to take a decade to deliver.

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.

This is truly a great day to be here in Memorial Park right here in the beautiful neighborhood of Logan Heights.

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.

We want to be sure that our parks are the best they can be.

And when we have these opportunities to work with the uh various sports leagues of the city to come and introduce programs and to help us fund improvements to our parks, it is very, very vital to our overall success.

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.

It doesn't have to be this way.

We can make changes.

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.

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.

The rents will remain affordable for 55 years, as well as rental assistance for many of these families.

And that's going to provide a greater opportunity for housing stability in San Diego's high cost rental market.

We are proving that San Diego can build more homes that our residents need, and that we're doing it the right way.

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

Good afternoon.

I'll reconvene the city council.

Tuesday, November fourth, twenty twenty-five.

Clerk, please call the role.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Campbell.

Council Member Whitburn.

Council Member Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilper.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Councilmember Eli Rivera.

Council and Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting or Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald, independent budget analyst, Charles Modica, Council of Oh, my apologies.

Council of Affairs Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Coda Seizer.

And myself, your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

All right.

Quorum is now present, so let's get into it.

Clerk, please introduce item three thirty.

Item three thirty is an informational item.

It is the twenty twenty-five annual report on homes.

If you'd like to speak to this item, please be sure to 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.

All right, staff.

I see you've settled in.

Uh introduce yourselves to the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good afternoon, Council President.

My name is Sam Soleil, senior planner with the City Planning Department.

I need approximately 15 minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you.

Joining me today is also a Deputy Director, City of City Planning, Seth Lichney, and Heidi Pomblum, City Planning Director.

Today I will be presenting an informational item on the 2025 annual report on homes.

The presentation will provide an overview of relevant data points and key takeaways.

Staff will be available to answer any questions and take feedback on the development of future annual reports.

The 2025 annual report on homes is a comprehensive review of housing permitting data of the city during calendar year 2024, which includes data reported in the housing element annual progress report.

The annual progress report details information on home development proposals and permitting data, the progress made on this meeting the city's regional housing needs assessment targets, and overall the progress made on implementing the general plans housing element.

The annual progress report is required to be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which occurred in March of 2025.

The annual report on homes also includes an analysis of the use of the city's density bonus programs, a summary of housing permitting data trends, an analysis of home development on sites and the housing elements, adequate sites inventory, and an assessment of the city's progress to affirmatively further fair housing.

Starting with the 2024 housing data, in calendar in calendar year 2024, next slide.

Of those new homes permitted, 12%, or 1,062 were homes were deed restricted affordable for very low, low, and moderate income households.

The city issued about 64 home permits per 10,000 San Diegans in 2024.

In comparison, Los Angeles and San Francisco issued about 45 and 13 home permits per 10,000 residents in their cities in 2024, respectively.

Home issuances were widely dispersed throughout the city.

Most new home permitting in 2024 are concentrated in the communities of Uptown and Navajo, each exceeding 1,000 homes.

Other areas with strong permitting activity include Kearney Mesa, Downtown, North Park, and Carmel Mountain Ranch, ranging from 5 to 700 homes.

In 2024, affordable home permitting is led by City Heights, Uptown, Claremont Mesa, and Southeastern San Diego, with one to 200 affordable homes each.

The city's accessory dwelling unit or ADU homes permitting continues to accelerate.

In total, 2,285 ADU homes were permitted in 2024, a sharp increase from the previous years.

2,285 ADU homes represents approximately 26% of the total permitted homes in 2024.

As shown on this map, ADU homes were permitted throughout the city.

However, Claremont Mesa, North Park, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU building permit approvals in 2024.

Providing a diversity of home types ensures more people have opportunities to live in San Diego through different stages of their lives.

About 59% of new homes were either studio homes or one bedroom homes.

Approximately 41% of new homes contain two or more bedrooms, which can meet the needs of families of various sizes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch, Uptown, and Downtown were the most common areas for homes with two or more bedroom building permit approvals in 2024.

Moving on to the city's density bonus program.

In 2024, under the ADU Home Density Bonus Program, 653 ADU homes were permitted, which 39% were affordable.

Claremont Mesa, Linda Vista, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU density bonus homes.

The number of new homes approved through the ADU density bonus program substantially increased from 2021 to 2024, from 20 new homes in 2021 to 653 new homes in 2024.

Approximately 64% of homes permitted through the program in 2024 were affordable.

The top 10 community planning areas utilizing the ADU Home Density Bonus Program from 2021 to 2024 are listed here on screen.

In 2024, under the Complete Communities Solutions Program, 1,917 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Uptown, North Park, and Greater Golden Hill were the most common areas for new complete community solutions housing homes.

This program saw a substantial increase in utilization from 2021 to 2024, an increase from 154 new approved homes in 2021 to 1,917 new homes in 2024.

Additionally, 302 new affordable homes were permitted through the program in 2024, more than double from calendar year 2023.

Here on screen are the six community planning areas where Complete Community Solutions programs was used from 2021 to 2024.

In 2024 under the Affordable Home Density Bonus Program, 2,619 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Navajo, Kearney Mesa, and Uptown were the most common areas for new affordable home density bonus homes.

Similar to the previous programs, the affordable home density bonus program saw a substantial increase in utilization, particularly regarding affordable homes.

The number of homes permitted through the affordable home density bonus program increased by about 175% from 2021 to 2023.

However, in 2024 it saw a decrease of approximately 80%.

Here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas of affordable home density bonus program between 2021 and 2024.

The city's inclusionary affordable housing regulations encourage diverse and balanced neighborhoods with homes available for households of all income levels.

The inclusionary affordable housing regulations have resulted in 235 new affordable homes in this arena cycle.

Here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas for newly permitted homes.

The Affordable Housing Permit Now program expedited reviews for 100% affordable home projects and shelter projects the program was created to implement Mayor Gloria's executive order 2023-1.

The program was used to approve 3,094 homes from 2023 to 2024 and here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas with the most common areas for affordable housing permit now usage.

Moving on to trends and implementations the city has continued to permit on average 5,100 new homes from 2014 through 2022.

The city has been averaging 9,200 permanent homes between 2023 and 2024.

The city is on track to meet its above moderate income housing goals with more than 28000 homes permitted so far.

Affordable home production remains behind RENA targets underscoring the need for continued focus on lower income housing programs and incentives.

Since the start of the sixth arena cycle the city has permitted about 34240 homes roughly one third of our total 108 home target.

To meet our arena goals by 2029 will need to permit approximately 74000 additional homes over the next five years.

Since 2021 86% of all new homes and nearly nine in 10 affordable homes were located within mobility zones one and two mobility zones one and two are areas that have the greatest access to transit by permitting more homes near transit the city is implementing the goals of the climate action plan.

The city is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing a key component to furthering fair housing is providing opportunities for all community members to live in a neighborhood of their choice.

To do so the city is encouraging more affordable homes in high and highest resource areas where they are currently limited.

The city has updated its inclusionary and affordable housing regulations to allow offsite affordable homes in higher resource areas.

In addition the affordable housing in all communities ordinance now allows affordable multi-home developments in base zones that previously did not permit them when located in higher resource areas recent community plan updates have also increased housing capacity in this area in these areas although 68% of the city is classified as a high or highest resource area only 31% of affordable homes have been permitted there.

Increasing affordable homes production in these areas remain essential to furthering fair housing and expanding housing choice for all affordable housing permitted in the city are within multiple home developments.

However only 12% of the highest resource area and 21% of high resource area permit multiple home developments.

For the city to reach its very low, low and moderate arena allocations more affordable homes must be permitted in high and highest resource areas of the city in closing I would like to note some key takeaways and next steps in 2024 we permitted 8,782 new homes we continued our permitting trend of above 5,100 new homes 1,062 affordable homes were permitted in 2024 and while this is a positive development the city will need to permit approximately 74000 homes by 2029 to meet our arena goals affordable homes are primarily approved through multiple home developments additionally low resource areas are producing the most affordable homes and more affordable homes are needed to be built in high and highest resource areas staff held a public workshop and presented to the land use and housing committee and planning commission in October today this item is being presented to the city council moving forward we'll shift our focus to the annual progress report and the annual report on homes where input from this process will help inform the next report this concludes staff's presentation

Affordable homes are primarily approved through multiple home developments.

Additionally, low resource areas are producing the most affordable homes and more affordable homes are needed to be built in high and highest resource areas.

Staff held the public workshop and presented to the land use and healthy committee and planning commission in October.

Today this item is being presented to the city council.

Moving forward, we'll shift our focus to the annual practice report and the annual report on homes, where input from this process will help inform the next report.

This concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

I'll turn it over to the office of the IBA for comments.

Thank you, Council President.

Amy Lee with the IBA's office.

Given council's interest in affordable housing development, our office released IB report 25-35 on October 30th.

This report uses the data set underlying the 2025 annual report on homes to do a deeper dive of the city's local housing programs, including the density bonus program, complete communities housing solutions, inclusionary housing, and the ADU bonus program.

We think you we think city planning for making this data publicly available.

Between 2021 and 2024, we saw the number of affordable homes dramatically increase almost threefold from 675 homes in 2022 to slightly more than 2,500 homes in 2023, mainly due to a notable uptake in units permitted using the density bonus program.

This resulted in 2023 being an outstanding year for uh affordable housing production.

We note most 100% affordable housing projects take advantage of density bonus.

In 2024, the overall number of affordable homes permitted slightly dropped slightly over 1,000, which is a drop of 59% from 2023, but appears consistent with prior trends.

In 2024, the number of units produced under density bonus appears closer to pre-2023 trends, with more growth in complete communities, which more than doubled, and ADU bonus program, which more than tripled relative to 2023 levels.

We note that inclusionary housing produced one unit in 2024, which is an outlier, but may suggest that developers subject to inclusionary housing opted to pay the in loo fee, thereby contributing to affordable housing through the affordable housing fund.

Our analysis also broke out local housing programs according to TCAC resource areas across the four-year period.

As staff mentioned, over two thirds of the city is in a high and highest resource area.

Based on our analysis, most affordable units built in the highest resource areas are permitted through the density bonus program, followed by complete communities.

The density bonus program remains the lead leading contributor to affordable homes and moderate resource, but also low resource and high segregation and poverty resource areas.

On a percentage basis within each incentive program, 71% of density bonus affordable units are split between moderate and low resource areas.

50% of complete communities affordable homes are located in high resource areas.

40% of ADU bonus units are located in low resource areas, and 48% of inclusionary housing units are located in moderate resource areas.

Lastly, our report analyzed city housing programs based on income restriction categories, which showed most affordable homes were deed restricted to very low and low-income households for most programs, except for ADU bonus, which had 93% of homes deed restricted to moderate income.

We think it is important for council to be able to continue monitoring these impacts of the city's affordable housing production and housing program outcomes, and look forward to revisiting these analyses in coming years.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Amy.

We always appreciate the uh input of the office of the IBA.

With that, Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We do have several speakers uh here in chambers and in the queue, so it'll be a minute and a half.

Um, starting with Jeffrey Um Cuter.

You have time seated to you.

If you can please raise your hands, Yvonne, excuse me, Yvonne Jones, Dana Givitt, Susan Baldwin.

Thank you.

And Pam uh Beagle.

Thank you so much.

You will have seven minutes.

Thank you.

Please start off at the timer.

Okay, great.

Why don't we skip forward in the interest of time to the third slide?

So what we'd just like to do is and first of all, we thank the uh planning department for putting this together.

Um we are pleased that every year we get more and more data.

That doesn't mean we get everything where we want, but uh we are making progress towards more information on this.

That the main observation of the of the housing report is um as and what I've done here is I prorated it to where we are in the cycle.

So the last column basically says that relative to how long the cycle is and how many above moderate, we're at 122% of what our target would be.

Um, and that's we'll get to what that means, but basically, if we're building what the market thinks we want to be building, then the market's gonna start to slow down.

The middle one, the 9% moderate, one of the things that we'll get to in a minute, is that because we don't really survey rents and we don't really know if new units are being rented at mark at moderate rates but as non-deeded, we have a bit of a blind set there.

And if you actually look at other cities reporting, they count moderate even if it's not deeded, and that makes a big difference of what we see and what other people see, and it has consequences for our policy making.

And then if you look at the low and very low, again, these tend to lag with where our targets are, even on a pro-rated basis.

And what that says is in this, we see this persisting across the fourth, fifth, and now sixth housing cycle, and it says that you know, indeed, this is a tough nut to crack, and and we're not getting closer to catching up in those areas.

Um we go to the next slide.

So you know, kind of what the reporting blind spots here are.

First of all, we don't, because of the way the reporting is based on an HCD report and what HCD wants, and that's housing and community development.

What HCD wants is they want to know how many bill new units have you permitted.

And so one of the things that's important from your overall housing supply isn't just how many new buildings get built, but how many homes get demolished as part of new construction, and it'd be nice if we kept track of that.

The biggest reason to knowing how many we demolish is uh we have a lot of programs in the city of San Diego that require replacement units, um, and it'd be good to know how many we taken away, how many are we actually replacing, because in some cases we may destroy naturally occurring affordable housing in order to build new deeded units, and this is particularly true as we have added moderate income as one of the options for things like complete communities, it'd be good to know are we coming out ahead, or are we just kind of breaking even on those programs?

So that's an important thing we'd like to know.

Um just from the standpoint of rent surveys, talked about it before, we'd actually have a more complete view of the market.

You know, we talk a lot about the more supply we have, the lower rents are, but it'd be good to actually see how that tracks across different income levels to see are are we are we getting there or are we falling behind.

And then finally, um, the RENA numbers are some projection from the Department of Finance at the state level, and what really makes makes a difference is if I'm a builder, does the market make sense for me to build?

And one of the things that often is a leading indicator of overproduction is vacancy rates, and um we have a slide on that as well.

So if we could start to track something like that, I think would help us with our policymaking.

If you go to the next slide, I'll just touch on some of these again.

Um over six 60 percent of California's um affordable housing is unsubsidized, and so um as opposed to coming through an affordability deed, and so it's very important that we track and preserve that as we can.

A lot of effort's been put into the affordable housing fund and other ideas, but the less we destroy the more the more affordable the city remains.

Um, next slide.

Um this just says so San Diego, it's it's not really normalized, but over the past three years, San Diego's lost um 20,000 units of unsubsidized affordable housing through various mechanisms.

Um and uh one of the things that's really uh helpful is um you know COSTAR has a lot of data that's not necessarily accessible to us to the public, but you know, if if the city of San Diego could subscribe to that and have the uh IBA go through that or something that would help us, I think that would be good.

The next slide, just to keep throwing.

So one of the things that we had a concern about when we went to increasing the ability to deed affordable at moderate income, is that people would choose to move their housing projects from deeded at low and very low income into moderate income.

And one way to look at that is in the 2024 uh report on housing, we can see that in fact um the proportion of deeded affordable units has shifted from the lower incomes to the higher incomes.

If we go to the next slide, there's a potential explanation, which is one of the things that happened in 2023 is we did the affordable housing now.

What that program did is it pulled a lot of projects into 2023, particularly because they were 100% affordable.

So it may be that when we get to 2025, we'll see a change in this, but as it looks right now, um 2024, we were if you look at the low and very low categories, which is what our inclusionary housing ordinance requires, we're at about six percent of the new housing was deeded at that level, and our inclusionary housing ordinances at 10%.

And one of the things that that happens here, if you go to the next slide, is actually why don't you keep going?

Next slide.

Which is just leave everything alone right now.

We've kind of settled that, and we keep hearing things about ADUs and new programs to densify, you know.

I what I would like to see is that with ADUs, we just see how the uh for sale ADU program works before we started hypothesizing other things, but go to the next slide.

Um this is that complete communities has a very arbitrary low threshold density of 20 units per acre, even though you can build up to 100, 200 units per acre.

And because of that, the net affordable housing that comes out of that is only a few percent for four-sale projects.

The only thing that brings it up is the 100% affordable projects that are being built under complete communities.

And one of the things we would like to see is just raise that threshold from 20 to 45 dwelling units per acre, and it would make a big difference, including being able to have a community plan update that that includes townhouses, which today are turned into complete communities.

Thank you.

And that was seven and a half minutes.

I double check my math.

Micah Geary.

And if I can have the following individuals, please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

It's Micah Geary, then Kathleen McLear and Mary Young.

No, Micah Geary?

No.

Oh, okay.

I'm with you.

Come up to the microphone then.

You'll have a minute and a half.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Foster, Council President Lacava, and other council members.

I'm Kathleen McLeod.

I have lived in under-resourced diverse in Canto for 45 years.

I was one of plaintiffs in the lawsuit, Patrice Baker et al.

pertaining to the concentration of poverty in low resource communities.

And I'm now on the oversight committee for the settlement agreement.

I will make three points about the annual report on the on the annual report on homes, which is the source document for measuring progress on the settlement agreement.

Number one, the city data reported is not specific enough that we can see the needle is moving in the right direction in our effort to reduce the overconcentration of low-income housing in our neighborhoods.

We are requesting a report on applications in that pipeline.

This will allow us to project future permits based on applications to make more informed decisions.

Specifically, we need a separate section in the report devoted to housing finance through the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

This information is vital to my community.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is Kathleen.

Sorry, that was Kathleen.

Mary Young.

Thank you.

Hi, I'm just gonna jump on uh to to what Kathleen had to say.

I'm Mary Young, and I am also from I live in Alta Vista.

My community is southeastern San Diego.

Um I read the report.

Um I'm I'm going to come from a very emotional uh place, um less uh data-driven.

Uh when I read the report, I thought to myself this is not what I'm I'm really kind of seeing, you know, as I drive through my community.

Um I'm I'm I'm still feeling a lot of concentration of uh of poverty.

Um I I don't see a lot of change, right?

You know, um I I still feel that our community is still being redlined, and um, and if you look at the map, you know, they really haven't changed.

So um I as Kathleen has said, um the report may be something that is good for the city, right?

And it just feels like um it's going to be well, just do better.

Thank you for that concluding.

Lessen our community more and high resources.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

I've started the five-minute timer and going to those participating remotely.

Sally Small, if you can please unmute there.

You go.

Thank you very much.

Uh good afternoon, everyone.

Um glad to see the report on homes again.

Um looking back uh as Kathleen McLeod as well as Mr.

Heater and uh Mary Young have stated, we still see a lot in Southeast San Diego and then Canto where the the changes have not happened.

Um almost all of ours were affordable, 314 out of 326 for the Choice Valley area.

Um, and Canto having 44 with the density bonus.

We're still getting stuffed with the very low and the low.

Uh we know our neighborhood uh is now considered moderately resourced, uh, and part of it is truly low and segregated and doesn't really apply.

We're still uh a little flustered by that.

Um the number of NOAAs destroyed versus how many new ones are coming in for density bonus is affecting us here in uh Southeast and Canto.

Uh rent surveys definitely needed.

Whatever happened to SROs, is that possible to uh do that again in downtown?

Um need to stop allowing the Ded at moderate income uh and start focusing on the lowest of the low and put them in the highest and high resource areas.

Thank you.

We are still redlined.

Thank you.

Next is Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

All right, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman, thanks a lot for this item.

A lot of interesting information.

Um I'm really um I don't know what to do about the future of very low-income affordable housing, what to do about that, extremely low.

And um, there's a level beyond beyond that.

You've very nicely been talking about how we can house people, that shelter is not the only option in our lives.

For instance, is directly housing people.

Um I'm just perplexed by the whole housing system.

I don't understand why we can't talk about uh mixed income ideas more and the co-mingling and the bringing together of different incomes within a neighborhood.

I mean, I understand the concept of property value and things like that, but you build everything just to be more and more inflationary and and more and more exclusionary.

You don't build for cooperation, you don't build for community sharing, you build to to compartmentalize and and to put people in boxes in corners and separate income levels in separate areas of town.

I mean, that's a specific goal.

When are we gonna start bringing all of that together and working together cooperatively as a community as a neighborhood process?

Mixed income does that stuff awesomely well, and we don't at all talk about that stuff.

It's right there, ready to go.

Please.

Thank you.

Next is Al Domestro.

Alda Mastro.

Hi, my name is Del Mastro.

And um I'm a senior, I'm a small owner, property owner, and um one thing I never hear you guys talk about is making home ownership.

I think if you guys would allow us to separate our duplexes in Claremont, that we could sell them to the tenants.

You could give us incentives on it by as much paper, as much money as we carry for the tenant, whether it's a DOM payment or it's the whole thing.

You could make home ownership that way.

If you gave us incentives, like we wouldn't have to pay state tax on that.

You know, that would be a really great program to let everybody participate in home ownership to make a city of only renters.

The idea that you're gonna make another hundred thousand units in San Diego, it scares the hell out of me.

I uh we don't have the resources.

I've seen some of the stuff you build in my Claremont area.

Oh my god, that one is pretty popular to show to people where you've put you let somebody put 17 units on the back of a duplex.

The impact that has to the community in the neighborhood with no parking.

I mean, you're really stealing people's quality of life.

And uh, I don't think we have to be Los Angeles.

I think we can just stay San Diego.

I don't understand why we have to do that over and over again here.

We only have uh 9,000 almost people.

We're gonna build a hundred thousand units.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer did conclude.

There are two speakers in the queue.

No additional speakers will be taken.

Wesley Morgan, if you can please unmute.

Yeah, hi.

Uh Wesley Morgan.

I'm speaking in support of building more homes for all types across San Diego, especially in our high resource neighborhoods like Ocean Beach, Mission Hills, Claremont, and Point Lama.

Um, looking at last year's report doesn't look like there's a lot of production in those areas, and I'd like to see more.

Um the report shows progress.

It's over 8,800 homes permitted, but it also shows uneven that progress remains.

There's too many of our high resource communities, still add very few homes, even as demand and prices rise city wide.

Um, we also spent much of 2025 stock debating ADU reforms instead of creating momentum for the broader housing solutions we actually need.

Looking ahead, I'd like to see San Diego take on single stairway reform, which would enable larger units and more family-sized homes and small infill projects.

Also, condo defect liability reform, like the previous color mentioned, to make home ownership and small-scale condo projects financially feasible again and start building equity across all of our citizens.

Um, every new home we build today becomes tomorrow's naturally affordable housing.

So let's not get stuck at um stopping new construction um in favor of only looking at what it does today, because every new housing project we do build um creates more.

If we want future generations to afford to live here, we must build more market rate affordable and ownership housing alike.

Every neighborhood with good schools, parks, and trained access.

We have the infrastructure, we have the amenities, we have the resources, especially in our highest resource areas.

Um, let's continue to move forward.

And thank you for your support, council.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is sad asad.

If you can please unmute, hello, council members.

My name is Saad.

I'm a housing advocate.

Um, I want to uh note that the city of San Diego San Diego permitted nearly 9,000 homes last year.

That represents real momentum and hard work from our planning department and the city councils who should recognize that progress and thank you for the hard work that development services and planning department have done to accomplish accomplish that.

However, we are still far from our goals.

108,000 homes, we've only built 29,000.

One key issue is two-thirds of San Diego is neighborhood, our neighborhoods with great schools and good jobs.

Yeah, only one-third of affordable homes get built there.

The reason is simple, those neighborhoods don't allow apartments.

Just 12% of our highest opportunity areas permit multifamily housing.

That's a problem, and it deprives people of opportunities.

When teachers can't afford to live near schools, a young or a young family gets priced out of neighborhoods with good schools.

We've created that problem.

That's a problem that can be fixed.

Uh, the solution is clear.

Let's allow apartments in our high opportunity areas.

It's lower cost housing.

We have programs that are doing that.

The density bonus program, complete community program, the ADU program.

These tools are working.

The report shows that.

We need every neighborhood contributing.

It doesn't have to be towers everywhere, but allowing more hours and areas are currently restricted to single unit detached homes isn't working for San Diegans.

We need to create opportunity for essential workers and strengthen our whole community.

Thank you, and thank you for your work.

Thank you for that concluding mark.

And that concludes public comment for this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Well, now I'll turn it over to council members for questions and comments.

Remember, this is an information item only, and no motion is required.

And we'll start out with council member Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you to our planning department for their preparation and hard work on this.

Um courage to see that we saw growth in District 7.

Navajo had uh leading in overall housing production.

Uh Linda Vista with significant affordable housing.

Uh but uh questions I have today really come at this from an AFFH lens uh where we clearly still have some work ahead um looking at the report.

High and highest resource areas make up two-thirds of our total uh land uh square footage, but only a third of affordable homes built since 2021 are located there.

Uh so I have some questions as it relates to that.

Um, particularly looking at the HCD letter that uh came in uh from September 10th as it relates to AFFH, it said that the element current uh the housing element currently includes marginally sufficient actions to affirmatively further fair housing uh and that the element contains an action to develop an initiative to open up housing opportunities for all income groups in all zones that allow residential development within the city.

It then says without knowing what strategy is developed, the potential beneficial impact in terms of meaningful change to AFFH are unknowable.

I that was a really important sentence to me.

And I know that given our settlement uh regarding concentration of poverty in the Baker v.

San Diego case, what what are we gonna be doing here to make sure that we're not marginally compliant but are truly compliant?

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um I think you're referring to the HCD letter on the housing element certification from September from a couple of years ago.

That's right.

Okay.

Um so um since that time, um, as part of our response that we um have agreed to report uh we had agreed to report on every other year basis on the city's actions um related to affirmatively furthering for housing.

We have chosen to provide that information to this council annually as part of the annual report on homes, which is why you do see that information included in it.

In terms of concrete actions, um that is part of the city planning department as well as economic development and development services department's regular and ongoing work program, specifically to highlight um for you within the city planning department work program.

Um we have updated community plans and high resource communities over the past several years, particularly like to highlight Mission Valley in your district, um, but also university and home crust most recently.

Uh we did also update plans in Mira Mesa and Kearney Mesa, and then uh we uh plan to be presenting to this council later this year updates in Claremont as well as college area.

Um in addition to increasing capacity for new homes within these high resource areas, um, there is other work to be done.

Um we do not zone for affordable housing.

We don't have zones that are affordable housing versus market rate housing.

We zone for density.

Typically, when you allow for more density, you do provide more opportunities for affordable housing.

So when we look at the reason why so much of the city is included in a high resource area, but we're not seeing the production there, it's because it is single-family zoned.

Um, and the single family zoning is what prohibits affordable housing from occurring in a market rate or an affordable housing situation.

Um those are you know the types of challenges that our city faces.

We do have a signific uh a significant portion of our residentially zoned land is zoned for single family, which does exclude the options for affordable housing in communities across the city.

Um so those um are the types of um programs um that we will be looking at um going forward is looking at opportunities to provide not um you know necessarily significant new densities in those areas, but looking for opportunities for smaller scale um neighborhood home type development.

Okay, thank you for that answer.

The implication of what you just said is that we can't become we can't follow AFFH because we have too much single family zoned uh lots.

Is that because you said So I didn't say we can't follow AFFH.

Okay.

The city is implementing its certified housing element to comply with our obligations to affirmatively further for housing.

That being said, what I was highlighting for you is that there are certain challenges associated with this existing land use patterns that will have to be addressed in order to fully and comprehensively address land use practices that have been in place for decades.

Understood.

Uh okay.

I'm looking at the IBA's report here that shows that uh created within the density bonus program, still a majority of homes were in a moderate or lower resource area and restricted to low or very low income households.

Uh I think that it it doesn't.

Well, let me point out a couple other things.

Uh the inclusionary housing policy we have permitted 4.9% of affordable housing with 94.1% restricted to either very low or low-income households.

It seems to me that the market is not taking low income low and very low income housing to areas of high resource.

So what's what's our strategy like to truly get that in a concentrated place along transit and not to actually say we should transform single-family lots into multifamily housing.

So there's no one single approach.

What's the best approach we're using right now then?

Um so the best approach that we are currently using right now is increasing zoning capacity in high resource areas, and we've done that largely through our community plan updates.

Uh we do have other opportunities to be able to address and provide incentives.

I think that what you're referring to from inclusionary housing is that inclusionary housing is often not being built as part of the on-site development as part of the project.

Um so um I think that does warrant a look at the inclusionary housing uh regulations that we have on the books.

One of the reasons why we bring this item forward to you every year, um, and just to provide a little bit of context, we are required to submit to the state each year data that shows the number of homes that were permitted at each affordability level.

We are not required by state law to provide all the supplemental information that's required and that's provided in this report to this council.

The reason why we do this is so that we can have these conversations about what policies are working and what policies need further reflection and refinement.

So, you know, to your point of your questions there, um, those are things that we look forward to working with the council um to bring forward any necessary refinements or reforms in the future.

So refinement of the inclusionary housing program is what I'm hearing.

Um that could be one um potential you know opportunity, but like I said, there is no single silver lining here of you know, this is the one fix.

If there was one simple fix, we would have done that already.

Sure.

I would just point out that that is only 4.9% of affordable housing, ADU bonus, complete communities, and density bonus make up the other 95%.

So it seems that that one is uh weighted a little too low, so maybe we should look at that.

Uh let's talk about community involvement and engagement with local planning groups.

Um a constant refrain I'm hearing from planning groups is simply they don't they don't really feel heard, whether it's by the council or city staff.

Um there's lots of requests they make, so I understand uh that not everything can be not all input can be implemented.

Um is the planning department still sending representatives regularly planning groups, especially to low and moderate resource areas.

So if there are questions from a community planning group, we do have assigned community planners that continue to be available for all community planning groups.

Um we have heard concerns and if there are any specific instances where perhaps um there have been um questions or concerns raised to the community planner and there have not received a response, I would like to hear about that.

Um but the expectation from our staff for the assigned community planners is that they do respond to each community planning group inquiry to provide necessary information.

I would like to point out um that there are a lot of community planning groups across the city, and so for citywide plans and policies, we do rely on the community planners committee to be able to share and um engage with the community planning groups um through that forum for matters that affect uh the city on a citywide basis, which is consistent with the council policies.

Understood.

Uh community engagement is a core component of AFFH, isn't it not?

That is correct.

Okay.

Uh I think that I would like to get a sense of if the engagement that that is and ought to be meaningful is is really meeting the level that our constituents have.

I think folks from the community who've came in here today have pointed out that they're not quite feeling that, and I think that that's not just a good practice, it's a legal obligation we have.

Um a question I have about for sale versus for rent.

The report uh doesn't break down housing permits uh by rent and sale.

It really only had it by uh affordability level.

Um do we have a sense of how many of those permits were for rent and how many were for sale, at least proportionally?

We don't have that information as part of this report, and the reason why is because when we issue a permit, we do not collect information uh based off of what the intended ownership of that is.

The way that we would be able to get that information is through a subdivision process.

So if we issue permits, um it may be that a future subdivision comes in to condu minimize apartment building, but that's not required to be processed concurrently uh with the building permit application, so that's why the information is not readily available in the report.

Um, but certainly um one of the points of bringing this item to the council is to get your feedback on how we can provide better information to you on an ongoing basis to be able to best inform your policy decisions.

So that's something that we can certainly look into because there is the potential to be able to gather that information through the subdivision process.

Okay.

Um nearing the end of my questions here.

One of the things that keeps coming up a lot is the sustainable development area that was passed a couple years ago.

And I'm wondering, I mean the sustainable development areas are correlated with transit.

Well, they're they're legally bound to transit areas, right?

And because transit is closely correlated with income opportunity or the resource zones, I should say.

Because we've so concentrated affordable housing along the transit, which is its own benefit, it has its own other benefits, but we haven't truly punched through to high resource areas where transit isn't uh easily available.

Um does your department regularly analyze the sort of whether the in the resource areas around the SDA are fluctuating up and down.

I noticed that our report has more than four zones or four categories of resource zones, but the state regulation is typically to keep it to four.

Is there a reason we use something different than that?

And have you noticed that SDA is actually maybe working against us meeting AFFH.

So when we did put together the sustainable development area a couple of years ago, one of the key criteria in developing the criteria was ensuring that there was no significant reduction in opportunities for high resource areas and making sure that there was not a disproportional impact on low resource areas.

So that analysis has done and will continue to be done.

Um I think that that's helpful feedback for future reporting years as well to include that here.

Um I would like to point out that this council adopted the 2024 update to the general plan last July.

It's was known as Blueprint SD, and there is a specific section within the general plan that specifically talks about the importance of balanced and equitable development and really having to balance the city's climate goals with its obligation to affirmatively further for housing, because oftentimes, as you pointed out, it doesn't cleanly um align because a lot of the areas that have the highest resource areas have the lowest access to transit.

I would like to take just one minute to point out that affirmatively furthering for housing is a variety of things.

It's not just one single thing.

So it's not just putting affordable housing in high resource areas, it's also not excluding affordable housing from low resource areas.

Um but what it is, it is um calling for a balance of things.

You pointed out community engagement is important.

Infrastructure is also very important in that as well.

And so investing infrastructure in the areas with the greatest need as a corollary um to additional affordable housing and development continues to be to be really important.

Um in this context of looking at the permitting of homes, um, it's a little bit um out of context with the bigger picture, uh, which also includes a robust um CIP and infrastructure conversation as well.

Okay, which we don't have a lot of money to implement at this moment.

I will leave that to the Department of Finance to speak to.

Understood.

Uh very last question, and I uh appreciate the council president give me the extra time here.

Um the density threshold for complete communities here.

Um I thought it was an interesting concept to to increase it from 20 to 45 dwellings per acre, uh, which would uh I think essentially uh prioritize uh well I think it would, for my understanding, it would push us more towards having the well, affordable housing in however you want to define it, areas that are uh suitable for it.

Um what do you think of that idea?

So we monitor um complete communities.

One of the purposes of monitoring um the implementation of our programs is to get feedback from the council.

So we're happy to take any feedback from the council.

Um any desires for any changes um to that as we move forward with any other housing reforms.

Um the um the the density thresholds are intended to incentivize the production of housing.

Um, but there are instances, of course, where you can have a plan for 20 dwelling units per acre and wind up with a much higher um density.

Um, and then the trade-off, of course, is um the contribution towards neighborhood amenities um through the payment of a neighborhood enhancement fee or an on-site improvement as well as a 40 percent um affordable housing requirement.

I think that that adjustment there really needs to be looked at hard.

Uh, my understanding of it is that it's it's it's actually going to help us create uh housing more of an affordable housing rather than relying on other programs to uh essentially drive up whether it's height or uh density without the infrastructure.

So um I I would recommend that we take a really hard look at that and see where that is appropriate to integrate into community plans uh and uh I think the community members who put that forward uh have the math to show that that's a smart idea.

So uh with that uh appreciate the uh time, uh Council President, and thank you to staff for your answers.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campia.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

Um I too appreciate the planning department's work in developing this document as it helps us better track the progress of the city in meeting our arena goals.

Um I also appreciate the report from the IBA to further analyze the city's local housing programs that incentivize additional affordable homes.

Um, although I do recognize the work that the city has done to create innovative programs to build more housing, it does look like we're not going to reach our arena goal for moderate or affordable homes.

Uh there's no doubt that without programs like our affordable home density bonus program, ADU reforms, 100% affordable housing permit permitting incentives, complete communities and inclusionary housing program, we would probably have an even lower number of homes built.

In fact, the IBA pointed out in their report that nearly 71% of affordable housing produced since 2021 has been through the city's density bonus program, which to me says that our programs have been effective in incentivizing the production of affordable homes.

However, the city still needs to uh permit more than 108,000 new homes to meet its arena target for the 2021-2029 RENA cycle.

Uh through 2024, just 27% of the RENA target has been met.

Uh that's a total of 29,000 58, uh 29,058 permitted homes.

Uh, 24,260 of those fall in the above moderate income category, leaving just 4,798 being built or poor permitted that are affordable or moderate income homes.

In other words, over 24,000 of the homes permitted are for more affluent San Diegans, and only 4,800 are for the rest of us.

Um, in fact, out of the 8,782 new homes permitted in 2024, only 1,061 were deed restricted as affordable, representing 12% of all permitted homes, which is a 58% drop uh from 2023.

Uh the rest were meant for those making above a moderate income.

More people are finding it difficult to find a home to live in that meets the needs of their families because simply there's not enough affordable or moderate income homes being produced.

This report shows that 465 new moderate income homes were issued, building permits in 2024, bringing the total to 747 since 2021.

This is actually an improvement over previous years, but it certainly is not um we're not likely to meet our arena goal numbers of 19,319.

I would also note that the IBA pointed out that 92.7% of the ADU bonus program homes were deed restricted to moderate income households, contributing the most homes in this income category across all programs.

With that program changing, it is unclear if we will see this trend continue.

Obviously, the tracking we're on needs to change if we have any hope of making sure all San Diegans have a home because San Diego is simply becoming a city only for the wealthy.

If we want to be able to continue to be a place where middle income residents can live, we need to change this trend, and it will take deliberate action by this city council.

A moderate income in 2025 for a family of four is 130,000.

This is the income level that people like teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, and many employees within our city workforce make.

They are the backbone of our economy, and we must find ways to make sure they can live in a home that fits the needs of their families.

On the 2024 TCAC resource area distribution chart in the report, it shows that 68% of the city is considered a high or highest resource area.

This is really where we should be focused on building more affordable uh housing.

Since 2021, only 19% of all homes permitted were in the highest resource area, which compromises 52% of the city.

More homes need to be built in these areas that are affordable and that are moderate.

What can this council do to help facilitate more affordable homes being constructed in higher resource areas?

So uh I'll refer a little bit back to the answers and to Councilmember Campio.

Um, but we do need to continue to identify opportunities in high resource areas to increase the capacity.

Um there's also uh a market issue associated with the construction of affordable housing.

But with respect to the private property, there are other areas that we do coordinate with state agencies on, particularly with respect to the availability of tax credits and the prioritization for funding.

So I think we can have a lot more conversations about some potential opportunities.

I will note that the Department of or the Mayor's government affairs team is I think going to be presenting the legislative platform to the council fairly soon.

Yeah, it'll come to EDNIR this week and then full council sometime in December.

And you will notice that there is specifically a line included within that legislative platform to lobby at the state level in particular to prioritize uh financing for affordable housing in high resource communities.

And I know it's hard for us to compare ourselves to other cities in the nation, right?

Because of our strict land use rules here in the state of California.

But I'm curious if we've looked at any other cities in the state of California and seen programs that are potentially I know a lot of them are looking at us, uh, but I I'm wondering if there's there are any other programs in San Jose in which San Jose is feeling the same thing we're feeling, right?

Um in regards to housing, the city of Los Angeles.

Um have we been looking at other programs throughout the state?

Um so we do coordinate uh with our peer cities, our largest cities across the country, the 30 largest cities across the city on a regular basis in California in particular.

We are in always in coordination uh with the big cities, um, particularly San Jose and Los Angeles.

Um how do you coordinate?

Um at the staff level we coordinate, uh, but also through our government affairs teams as well.

You just meet?

We do.

Okay.

Oh, that's that's wonderful.

I didn't know that.

Yes.

You meet on a monthly basis.

Um, I mean, it doesn't always work out to be a monthly basis.

Um, I do have relationships with the planning directors for San Jose, San Francisco, and um Los Angeles in particular.

Uh we meet with Los Angeles quite frequently because there is a lot of um efficiencies um between the two jurisdictions.

We have more similarities between our two jurisdictions than we do to many times other um cities in Northern California.

Um San Diego is looked to um as an example in many instances for its housing programs, um but of course there's always something to be learned from other cities.

Um San Francisco has some innovative um strategies moving forward, but I will note that um on a per capita basis, San Diego is um issuing more permits uh per capita than other large cities in California.

That's scary, especially considering that we're not meeting, we're not gonna be meeting our arena goals.

I mean, the fact that you're coordinating is I think wonderful.

Um, and we absolutely need to do more for um moderate income, and I do recognize that the state of California incentivizes low and very low income, especially through TCAC, um, but we certainly need to be pushing the state um for more incentives for the moderate income.

Thank you for that, by the way.

Uh finally, I do want to note that according to this report, 653 new ADU homes were issued through the ADU home density bonus program in 2024, with 253 of those being affordable.

Um I truly believe that ADUs are an important part of the city's efforts to create more homes.

However, as I mentioned earlier, the council altered this program earlier this year, and I would expect that the amount of homes created through this program will decrease.

Um does staff, do you have any projections on what those numbers might look like in the near future?

Uh it's hard for us to project building permit activity in a particular um in any particular year, as I had mentioned, um zoning capacity and allowances are one factor, um, but market conditions, availability of labor, cost of materials, market lending interest rates all influence that so it's hard for us to um predict in any particular year what the outcome of any particular change may be.

So you don't know what the numbers might look like for we don't know what they might look like for next year, and that's the report that's that that is the purpose of the annual reporting.

Okay, thank you.

Um, I do look forward uh to continuing to work with the planning department and solving these problems because if we cannot find additional ways to build more moderate and affordable homes, our city is gonna see more homelessness as well as issues with attracting people to come work and live um, especially if they can't find affordable um homes uh that fit their their families.

Um but thank you for the report and I do appreciate all the work that you guys are doing.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Reno.

We'll go next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the annual report.

Thank you for the presentation this afternoon.

For the many San Diegans who are struggling with housing costs, this report offers reasons for hope.

This additional housing will help keep rents in check.

The biggest worry that I hear from my constituents these days is about the cost of living and particularly the cost of housing.

Many people who have grown up here want to stay here, and many of my constituents want their children and their grandchildren to be able to stay here too.

Housing costs are subject to the same forces of supply and demand as anything else.

And adding housing supply can help to moderate housing costs.

Much of the new housing has been built here in the urban center of our city, including downtown, close to public transit and close to good jobs.

In fact, nearly one-third of all new homes permitted in 2024 and over the past four years have been here in District 3.

That's not surprising.

People want to live here.

It is an increasingly vibrant district, and it is an economically diverse district.

We've been opening market rate units and affordable units, where the rent is capped at 30 percent of the household rent.

Those affordable complexes include Harrington Heights with 270 units, which opened this summer at East Village, and Jack Aranda on 9th with 88 units, which opened last month at Cortes Hill, and there is more on the way.

And the new units here include units for families.

This past year we added more than 800 units with two or three bedrooms.

And as predicted, the increase in supply is having a moderating effect on prices.

In fact, average rents in this part of town have been much more stable in the past couple of years than they were in years past when we were seeing double-digit rent increases.

Year-over-year rents here have generally been increasing only slightly, and in some cases decreasing slightly.

Housing is certainly still expensive, but the added supply is clearly helping to keep rents from skyrocketing.

While we're permitting more housing than we have in decades, I am concerned that affordable housing faces growing uncertainty from federal actions, proposed cuts to HUD programs, reductions in housing vouchers, and potential funding changes for supportive housing could impact struggling families and slow the creation of new affordable units.

These cuts would have ride-ranging effects on housing and homelessness, and we'll have to keep an eye on that closely.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Councilman.

We'll go next to Councilmember Ila Rivero.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the work on this.

Planning on the IBA's office.

I think it's an important part of the conversation.

It makes me think that some perhaps in the future when we hear this report, it might be good to occur alongside the conversations about what the city is funding and not funding.

There's the capacity piece.

You're if I understand you correct, trying to create the conditions for homes to be built.

And then there are some of the conditions to allow for homes to be built.

And then there's all these other factors that go into as to whether or not they will actually be built.

So from a capacity perspective.

And this is this is where having multiple departments here at the same time would probably be probably be helpful.

My guess is is that if there were more funding, we might have been able to make better use or kind of build upon the capacity that was created through some of the changes that were made, but that's not really your job to track that part, right?

So we don't provide funding typically to private affordable um housing projects.

Our economic development department um does um through certain programs provide um gap financing and facilitates the construction of housing on public land.

Um and then the San Diego Housing Commission also administers funds.

There's also funding for affordable housing on the private market as well, um, of which we have very little control.

And then there's also um funding that comes from the state through the form of tax credits that are allocated by the state.

Right.

So I just for whatever it's worth, Coda, I think maybe in the future um and Council President, to the extent that you're you're willing to do this as well, when we when we hear the the annual report on homes, I think that the title gives the impression that it's going to be super comprehensive look.

And planning plays one role, an important role, but only one role in a um system that requires many, many different people and departments to do many, many different things, some of which are within the city's control, some uh that aren't, some that we could lean more into, and others um that we may not want to.

So I I do want to say thank you for the work that you're doing.

I think that it's important that we've we've done what we what we can.

I think that there's some pride to be taken in uh some of the numbers that we see there, especially in the context of California as a state.

And um I I think Councilmember Moreno's uh points and some of Council Member Woodburn's points um make it clear there's a lot more work to be done in terms of making housing affordable here in this city.

So um again, for whatever it's worth, I think there might be some value in having this kind of more comprehensive conversation where we can kind of understand the push and pull.

There's budget decisions that we make that again in theory with more gap financing could have made these numbers go even further.

Um and and um I think that's just a really important part of the conversation that's not necessarily um meant to be included in this particular report.

So thank you again for that.

Oh, go ahead.

I was just gonna add um just for the sake of the conversation here, because you mentioned other things that influence things.

Really, the idea for this is not just to increase the capacity in the existing high resource areas, but it would ideally mean that other communities that are currently identified as low resource communities transition up to high and highest resource communities, and that does take community investment, economic development, et cetera.

Absolutely.

So what would it take to make projects pencil, market rate projects pencil in in um communities where that's currently not the case?

Yeah, that is that is a excellent question that um has um some complex answers and has many unanswered.

And then there's the and again, this is I think why having multiple departments at the same time, including perhaps the housing commission.

And then the question about you know, does do we as a city want to invest in middle income housing in communities um that want middle income housing in their communities but are not seeing the market respond.

There's a whole lot of hoping and wishing for market to do things that it's not doing and hasn't done in a very, very long time.

And so um again, I I I think the I appreciate what you all included in the report.

I think there's a lot of important information there, and there's so many levers that need to be pulled.

Um if we're gonna have a compar comprehensive conversation around homes, let's have a comprehensive conversation around homes, and that requires more than planning and the IBA to be part of the conversation.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Elo Rivera.

We'll go next to the chair of the Land Us and Housing Committee, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

I hung back a little bit here because I wanted to hear from all our our colleagues, especially because we had this discussion at committee.

Um and I think just to summarize all of it, I I think what we do have to accept that this is just a snapshot in time at the end of the day.

This is what the numbers look like.

But this last year we're seeing some significant moves in areas.

Um I think we shared a committee in our lengthy conversation that um as much as the city has accomplished, there is a significant amount more work to do.

Um and I think part of that challenge is that we have created capacity, we have created pathways in which um capacity can be taken and made use of, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every other condition and the market factors all play in correctly to actually allow that be to be produced.

And we are in a time and an era where I I think we should all be concerned about the various economic factors that are weighing heavily on not just housing production.

I think if you saw in reporting today, there's um a bit of discussion about how office space as a whole within our region is um struggling as well.

And that is not unique to San Diego, but we have weathered it better better than many other um large cities.

And so to me, I think the takeaway that I continue to have is that um recognizing that we we have a significant portion of the city that is considered high and highest resource, um, but yet only 31% of affordable homes are built in those areas.

And part of that is because of the challenge of the cost to produce homes in that area.

I think that's partially why we might see as market conditions shift, less use of inclusionary as we know it, and use of other incentive programs that the city has designed to try to encourage that affordable housing component to be built.

And for those programs not to exist, we would have little to no affordable housing in those areas likely as a result.

So again, this is a snapshot in time.

I think we we talked quite a bit about how each of these items is a piece of the puzzle.

Um, and I think the longer trend line is gonna be important.

We are continue to make a significant number of moves at the city to try to um broaden that capacity um to incentivize the types of units that we're not seeing, especially two bedroom family units uh and above.

Um, but I I I think I I'll be looking for a continued progress.

Um, and as much as this provides us some positivity that we've been moving in the right uh trend lines, I think seeing where economic conditions take us in the next couple of years will really be the test as to whether um we see the production that matches up with the RENA goals that are set out for us.

So thank you to City Planning for um your work on this report and hope to see more as we move forward.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Council President Program.

We'll go next to Council Member Foster.

Uh yes, thank you, Council President.

Um I too just wanted to really um hear my colleagues um comments.

I I still do have um some concerns in regards to how we monitor progress, and at the same point in time, how do we mitigate the concentration of poverty?

Um I think my fundamental concern, and something that I'm really struggling with, Heidi, that hopefully you can connect the dots.

I I'm still not hearing a mechanism in regards to authority to per se stop a project as folks are going through the permitting process if we are not in line with our general plan or or or the things where we are trying to foster more production of affordable in high and highest resource areas.

I'm still lost based on everything that we've been through in housing and the process.

What do you have in place and as you are monitoring and seeing that we are still still seeing affordable in certain areas and not in others?

How are you what what do you have?

How does that work?

What does that look like?

In terms of our monitoring of the information, so that information is included in the report.

Um what we try to do through the report is we specifically have a section related to the permit distribution by resource area and a discussion of affirmatively furthering for housing.

Just to clarify, not the report.

I understand the report.

I think the the report is a snapshot, a look in time.

I'm talking real-time process.

We have the land use codes on the books, projects are constantly moving, which is why I think you hear folks wanting more transparency and able to identify permits and so forth.

Um and as you see or recognize that we are upside down or not achieving, say the Baker's settlement of by 2028 that we have certain numbers, right?

What's in place?

How are you what what is your policing authority that's gonna say, hey, we cannot allow this project in this area to move forward?

So we are okay.

Thanks for the clarification.

So we don't have authority if a project is permitted under the city zoning regulations.

We as staff don't have authority to stop a project if it meets the rules and regulations under the code.

The council has authority to change the land use regulations.

The complication with that is that there are many restrictions from the state through the housing accountability act that do limit that authority.

There are also additional requirements if the council were to deny a housing application in the form of additional findings that would be required by state law to be made for that denial of the housing project.

But in terms of any changes uh to disallow projects that are currently allowed, uh, that is something that would require changes to the city the city's existing regulations.

Okay, and I think that just based on my knowledge of the Baker's settlement, where we're at the commitment of by 2028, 70 percent, or whatever the numbers are, will you know affordable will be going to high the highest re I think it's high, I think it's uh moderate, high and highest, right?

The way the settlement is is written.

So I guess what I'm getting at is based on what you said, I think that's some place where potentially we need to look, because how are we if we determine that we are in violation of the settlement or or or nearing those that that violation, how do we then manage that or mitigate?

What are our I'm feeling our options?

I I feel like I'm looking at the Baker plaintiffs and saying, hey, yeah, we went to court, yes, we settled.

But at the end of the day, not too much we can do because of state statutes, state laws, the way the land use codes work, and we're done.

So the requirement in the settlement agreement um from the terms of the settlement agreement is if by 2028 um it is not demonstrated that there's substantial progress in increasing the production of affordable housing in moderate high and highest resource areas, then at that time the city would develop and present to this council in a public hearing an action plan to affirmatively further fair housing to achieve this target in a manner that is consistent with state and federal law.

So in other words, you're saying we have to get there before we trigger something to take action.

We don't have to wait.

The settlement agreement requires that as a trigger, but the city is not prohibited from taking additional actions before that time.

Okay.

All righty.

Um and I think that's where based on what I'm saying, because I do share in the sentiment of the report indicates one thing, right, which is I think our actuals based on permits and and actual production, right?

Um, but again, when you drive communities, you drive the district, you look at what's actually going and what's being put in place, I think it paints a different picture.

Um so I think um I've reached out to have a series of meetings with um Christina.

We're going to be um meeting as well.

Um, but I think I need to look beyond um in and have that as part of the conversation as well.

Um, because I'm just concerned.

Um you know, 2028 is it's it's it's coming and it's coming quickly.

Um, and and just as I look at the production and what we are getting, I I just don't, I'm not comfortable with where we will be.

Um, not to mention what was brought up by my colleagues, where everything that consistently does continue to come from the state is really centered around uh transit priority areas, right?

What we did with the SDA, and if you look at how we are built out from a transportation perspective, your your low-income areas, district four, my almost my entire district is a TPA, right?

And and so um when you just leave it to the market to take care of itself, that is very problematic for me.

Um and so those are the things that I'd really like to understand and get to the bottom of so that we are as we talk about planning, um, to where I feel like I'm on a little more solid footing versus kind of what I hear you say is we are identifying um we just simply identify areas for density or availability to build, and then based on the parameters and what's in land use code, the market determines type use programs, things of that nature.

So it seems like we need to be a little more focused in certain areas if we are realistically going to hit what the intention is, and that is to see more affordable in those other three resource areas.

Right?

I think we're still a little too broad.

So but we'll add that to the conversation as we continue to move forward.

Um thank you.

Um council president, that concludes um my comments at this time.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Um, you know, this is kind of a mandatory annual report that you do, we appreciate it very much.

I think everybody understands it is just a snapshot.

Uh, but I thought I heard you say, Heidi, that you were hoping that you get some policy uh direction out of the council given the results of that.

I'm hoping something comes across from the comments of my colleagues.

Um a lot of thoughts come across to me.

I I want to pick up on something that you said, and that council member Ela Rivera and this calorie had been so jammed up with so many things that we've been doing this year.

It would have been perfect to make it a more comprehensive housing day, as I know we've done in the past.

But one of the things I didn't hear anybody talk about, and you mentioned as almost an aside, is that the other option is to take a local resource community and rise it up so that it becomes a moderate um resource community.

Um not for the intention of focusing affordable housing in that area, uh, but we don't talk about that in this context of housing.

Um, and that's something which is equally difficult to figure out how do we reverse course of historically low resource communities and rise them up and how do we get that private investment and whatever little public investment might be possible to change the conversation about health care and education and recreational opportunities and good infrastructure, et cetera, et cetera, to do that.

Um certainly worth um uh having a larger conversation.

The other thing that I think about, and uh you'll sense a little bit of frustration.

We certainly welcome for the public to come here and talk about this and organizations to come and talk about this.

I would certainly want the building industry to have the same kind of public hearing, so you can go and yell at them because they're the ones that are actually building the homes, and why aren't their members actually responding to the needs of the San Diegans?

They profess that they're actually trying to support.

And that I can throw the chamber in there and I can throw ADC and a whole lot of other organizations.

This is the only place for you all to come is here in front of City Council because we're the only ones that have these open sessions for the public.

So naturally you're gonna come to us, but there are so many players that have to really step up to make the difference.

Um in that same regards, when we have this conversation about affordability of housing, we don't talk so much as Council Member Ilo Rivera said about incomes and whether incomes are keeping pace.

Um kind of economy are we building if we're continuing to build towards what I would overly simplistic describe as a two-tier economy where we're creating a lot of high-end jobs and we're creating a lot of low-end jobs, we're gonna continue to struggle with this conversation because as everybody has pointed out, the ability to really build at the lower income and the very low income with the resources we have, is just not uh going to be feasible until that silver billet shows up and we can be able to do that.

Um the uh the very brief observations I'll make in terms of what you made in your presentation uh that I've kind of noticed for 2024.

Uh, if I understood it correctly, the number one was Uptown, which was probably an outgrowth of the Hillcrest Focus Plan Amendment, right?

Uh Navajo probably is still a remainder of the redevelopment area and how we uh uh converted that from low um low use industrial to uh more intense residential.

Um Curry Mesa is probably starting to creep up because of the community plan update that we did up there.

We've already seen a number of buildings.

I'm not crazy about where they decided to plop those uh high density buildings in that community, but at least it's a good start for delivering um delivering more housing.

So that's those are good things.

Um on the other hand, um the Marina Corridor specific plans hasn't really jumped start any real new housing, uh something we're all waiting for.

Um I thought we had something across the state, across the uh street from the um Claremont trolley station that still kind of is slingering out there.

There was some talk uh further south along Tecalodi trolley station that sparked up and then kind of went away, and we're still kind of waiting.

There's an extraordinary amount of opportunity along that particular corridor.

Um a couple of questions.

One you probably don't know this precisely, but anecdotally, when the city does something, how long does it take for the marketplace to respond?

Um so I will caveat that no, we do not know precisely, but we would estimate that it takes the market two to three to five years to respond.

So we've been very busy for the past five years, I I would argue, um, ever since uh a majority of us came into office, and Mayor Gloria came into office to try to do everything at our disposal to try to make it easier to build housing.

Uh some of which have been embraced by our community, some of which has not.

Um, and I'll throw myself in the bucket bucket on some of those things as well.

Um again, this is kind of a standardized report, but I was kind of hoping in the key takeaways, you might come up with conclusions or findings that this program really seemed to be responsive to the home builder industry.

These, which we thought were good things, really never took hold.

I still remember I'm gonna get this wrong, what I still call the small lot subdivision.

You don't have to build a condo, you can subdivide your properties, and it never really seemed to have taken hold.

But what particular programs do you feel like wow, we really nailed it, we really responded to the marketplace, and we're really seeing good production, albeit at the pace that it is.

So affordable home density bonus, which is largely driven by the state, has driven the production of a lot of housing, not just in the last couple of years, but even you know, predating a lot of um predating this mayor as well as this council.

Um complete communities did see a quicker uh reaction, I think, from the market than many other programs have had.

Um a lot of times that um can indicate you know pent up uh demand um for a housing product that um may have been artificially um quashed um by regulations.

Um in some instances um you know it's it's kind of hard to say, right?

Because when you evaluate a program, that doesn't mean that each and every individual project was in itself the ideal uh project.

Um but overall, in terms of production of housing, um, complete communities has um produced um a quick number um of housing units um rather quickly.

Um but the affordable housing density bonus program um has remained that.

But I would say aside from those programs which are harder to measure um and tie because they don't get processed through certain program is is simply increasing the zoning capacity through the community plan updates.

I mean, I I would say that that is the single largest um driver behind it.

You know, we can look at all these different programs and they can give us these numbers, and some show greater usage than others, but behind that is the permitting data that doesn't fall into any of those programs and are simply because the capacity has been added through those community plan updates.

Yeah, and that's why I kind of started out with where I'm seeing the numbers and the actions we took that, like you said, set a new tone and sends a clear message to the industry.

Come here.

And we do see this, right?

After North Park was updated with a pretty significant new um capacity from the existing condition at the time, we did see building permits significantly increase in North Park.

We've seen that most recently with Hillcrest as well.

All right.

Um with not asking you to go into detail, but I think the land development code update is right around the corner.

Are we going to see some lessons learned, refinements, improvements, and some of the work that we've done in the past?

Yeah, we do.

So the purpose of the annual updates of the land development code, um, and thank you for your feedback over the years, Council President.

We really do try to keep these two uh refinements and clarifications and implementation of state law.

Uh we um will be bringing forward over a hundred items, um, but many of those are clarifications and implementation of state law or areas that we have heard feedback that perhaps more clarity is required in the municipal code, or there was you know some minor unattended consequence um that can be addressed through those as well.

Um those will be the subject of future hearings in 2026.

Okay, I would be remiss if not if not only mentioning the land development code coming up our way, but we have two community plan updates, Claremont and the college area as well.

I suspect there will be a lot of density uh introduced with those two updates.

Um I'll stop there.

Thank you for the good work.

There's a lot of number crunching to put these together.

Uh we appreciate you coming every year and sharing that information.

And uh again, as Councilmember Ila Rivera and several of my colleagues mentioned.

Perhaps it might be productive to bundle it with the other activity that is within the city's purview, um, economic development in particular.

Uh but um everybody that plays a part in this.

So thank you very much, and I appreciate your responsiveness to all my colleagues' questions.

All right, with that, clerk please introduce item 331.

Thank you, Council President.

Item 331 is the proposed amendments to Council Policy 200-15, increasing the loss of revenue fee for valet zones, increasing the streetery permit fee, and an informational update on progress of parking reform items.

If you'd like to speak to this item, now is the time to submit a speaker slip to the high um to the front of the room in the clear box.

And if you are participating remotely, please raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, said uh City Clerk.

So just uh we're gonna be making a slight change on this docket item.

Uh the docket 331 really covers two big issues, valet zones and streeteries.

We are not going to discuss the streeteries.

We're gonna send that back to staff to reevaluate that and bring it back at a later date.

So the conversation today is only gonna be action on valet zones and then whatever informational update on uh parking reform that uh will be offered as well.

But again, essentially item C that you see on the agenda uh streetery permit fee changes is not going to be discussed today.

So apologies.

Anyone that showed up to want to talk about that, uh, we will bring that back at a later date.

So uh with that, staff, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Hi, good afternoon, Bethany Bizak.

I'm the transportation director.

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

We'll need 10 minutes for today's item.

All right, when you're ready.

We are coming back here to City Council since the parking reform items passed this June.

Since that time, valet operators have expressed an interest in having flexibility to utilize more than two parking spaces to operate their valet operations.

We've coordinated with valet operators since that time to provide options for up to six spaces for new operators with the opportunity for cost recovery given the operators are using dedicated space within the right-of-way for their private operations.

With that, I'll turn it over to Maggie.

Thank you.

The parking reform package passed in June, gave the city greater flexibility to extend meter enforcement hours, extend meter forcement hours to include Sundays, and update pricing during special events.

The fiscal year 26 budget assumed assumptions included expedite implementation of various parking meter tasks, and so today we wanted to provide an update on the status of these various parking meter implementation tasks.

To date, four large parking meter implementation tasks have been completed.

The city has installed approximately 100 metered spaces along Fifth Avenue from Broadway to K Street.

We have designated a special event zone within a half mile of Petco Park and are charging increased pricing during special events that occur at Petco Park.

We have extended meter hours to Sundays in commercial areas, and we've extended all meter hours by two hours within all parking meter zones.

We do have additional parking meter implementation tasks for the rest of the fiscal year, and these include installing meters adjacent to and at Bubbo Park, establishing a residential permit program for Sundays and extending all parking meter hours to include Sundays, and then filling in meter space gaps within existing parking meter zones.

Today we are here to propose an update to council policy 200-15.

Council policy 200-15 provides guidance for passenger loading and unloading zones for valet operations.

The parking reform package that was adopted at City Council in June reduced the maximum number of sizes a valet operator could have for passenger loading and unloading.

It reduced it to two spaces maximum and included updated fees for those two spaces.

Since trying to roll out this update, valet operators and hotels have provided feedback and emphasized the need to update the number of allowable spaces in the council policy, which is why we are here today.

We had stakeholder meetings with them over the summer to seek feedback on the proposed updates, and we have paused implementation pending council policy updates today.

Now we are allowing new operators to have up to six spaces, provided they demonstrate a need, which needs include things like number of uh rooms at the hotels, or if if any other operations are occurring at the hotel, such as a restaurant.

Uh existing valet operators can keep the current spaces if the annual fee is paid.

So there are two operators that have more than six spaces.

If they are interested in keeping the seven spaces in the eight spaces that they have, then they can keep those.

Um otherwise they are able to reduce the number of spaces that they have.

We've also added a partial valet zone, which is available for valet that starts at 5 p.m.

or later, and these are typically our restaurants.

We are proposing a new loss of revenue fee associated with the spaces beyond the first two spaces, and this loss of revenue fee is equivalent to the anticipated loss of revenue from a metered parking space.

So I'll go through the fees.

This is a discounted rate for the first two spaces.

We're projecting that revenue can be as high as $20,000 for two spaces.

And so this $5,000 is a discounted rate for the first two spaces.

If a valet operator would like to expand their valet zone beyond the two spaces, and they are located outside of the special event zone, so it beyond half a mile of Petco Park, we are proposing $10,000 per space.

This is the cost of full utilization of the metered space, not within a special event zone.

And then if a valet operator is located within the special event zone, we are proposing a fee of $15,000 per space, which is also the cost of full utilization per metered space within a special event zone.

For partial valet zones, we are proposing a fee of half of the standard valet zone, which is $2,500.

It's important to note that these proposed fees only apply to valet zones within parking meter zones, and that's parking meter zones that have active parking meters.

And then the revenue that that's generated from the loss of revenue fee must be spent within the parking meter zone.

It was generated in on activities related to parking mobility and traffic safety, similar to parking meter revenue.

Because this really is a loss of revenue fee from a parking meter revenue.

For the expanded valet zone, not within a special event zone.

We are taking the rate that the meter charges per hour, which is $2.50 per hour, and we're multiplying that by the duration the meter is active for a day.

That's 12 hours a day.

That comes out to $30 per day per meter of how much revenue a meter could generate at full utilization.

That's then multiplied by 350 days per year, which comes out to $10,500 per year per meter.

For the expanded valet zone, uh for special event zones, we also need to factor in the additional fees that are being charged during special events.

We're currently charging $10 per hour for approximately six hours per event for 100 events per year.

We do need to subtract that revenue from the 10,500 per per year revenue.

Um so we take the $10 per hour that we're charging minus the $2.50 per hour.

I'm gonna come out to $7.50 per hour of additional revenue during events.

That that's multiplied by the six hours per event, 100 events per year, that's $4,500 per year per meter of additional revenue only during special events.

And so this is then added on to the $10,500 per year per meter to come up with a proposed fee of $15,000 within the special event zone.

This slide shows the previous fees and then the proposed updated fees.

Um it also shows examples of fees that valet operators would pay.

Uh so it's important to note that the current valet operators currently have on average four spaces.

Um, and so we've we've highlighted the the main fees for the four spaces, depending on if this is a permit renewal or a new application, and if the the hotel is located within a special event zone or not within a special event zone, fees can range between 25,000 to $36,000 for the average valet operator.

And with that, that completes our item.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

I understand the office of the IBA would like to make some comments.

Thank you, Council President.

Sario Alcalde for the office of the IBA.

Um, I'd like to offer additional context on the proposal before you, starting with the proposed increase to the loss of revenue fee for valet zones based on existing valet operations, the loss of revenue fee is protected to generate up to about a million dollars annually, assuming no change in behavior.

We know that this revenue was not budgeted for fiscal year 2026, so it's additional revenue beyond what we what was assumed at the additionally, the loss of revenue fee is distinct from the valet zone permit fee, which allows for the use of a valet parking zone.

Well, the legal review from the city attorney's office is still pending regarding on how funds may be used.

The Department of Finance insisted that the loss of revenue fees will be treated similarly to parking meter revenue and deposited into a parking meter fund available for activities related to parking mobility or traffic safety within the parking meter zone.

And lastly, we understand that the city will not be charging the loss of revenue fees to businesses operating in the parking meter district that do not currently have parking meters.

We want to thank the transportation department for answering our questions, and this concludes my comments, and our office is happy to answer any questions.

Thank Council President.

All right, thank you, Sergey.

I always appreciate the IBA's comments on these.

So with that, uh Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We do have several speakers here and online, so it will go down to a minute a piece for meeting a minute apiece for meeting management.

If I can have the following individuals please come up to the yellow reserve seats, and if I can have Jeffrey Burrs please come up to the microphone.

Jeffrey, you have time seated to you by Vlad.

Excellent.

Thank you.

So you'll have two minutes once you get up to the microphone.

You can proceed.

After that, if we can have Kim Avant, Fred Taiko, David, Ryan, John Williams, Shane Garule, Jaden Muldorn, Ashton Garras, and Robert Spicer.

If you can all please come up to that first row, please proceed when ready.

Good afternoon, uh Council President Lacava and Council members.

My name is Jeff Berg.

I'm the general manager of the Marriott San Diego Gas Lamp District, located definitely within the special events uh zone.

Uh we completely understand and appreciate the need of increased revenues for the city.

A great city of San Diego is all what we want.

I've been 27 years in this market and putting a face to the name of a hotel.

We are not a faceless corporation.

We're owned by a family.

Things that an operator can affect, and I say this every day to my team is a great arrival experience, breakfast, everything in the room working, clean uh clean rooms, and a great departure.

We're gonna lose two of those if we just have two spaces.

It's a safety issue.

We've all gone to hotels before.

It takes more than just a moment or two to get out of the car, be greeted properly by the valet, unload your bags, especially if you have kids, and travel today is not easy.

And it's never really been easy.

Uh we have had um uh some safety issues on our street because we're right next to Petco Park.

People excited to get into the game, running out in front of cars, so we encourage you all to please allow us or mitigate some of this stuff that's going on and and allow us to have our zone.

We are willing to pay more.

Um, we are happy to work with the council.

Uh that's something that's equitable for everyone.

Um, we simply can't afford a 14,700 percent increase.

We're going from 650 dollars to 95,000.

That is a tremendous unheard of amount of money.

I can use that to buy uniforms, I can use that to hire more people, and to just keep going with a having a great hotel.

San Diego also is a drive-in market.

We have many people that come to the city.

We're supported by an amazing convention center.

We need the space to properly welcome our guests.

Thank you very much for your time.

Kim.

Good afternoon, Council President and Council members.

Um, I understand from the city staff that this is only going to be implemented in metered parking areas.

Um, but I also understand that a number of areas of San Diego have have or will have metered parking implemented.

Um, I'm the general manager of the Grand Colonial Hotel and 910 restaurant in La Jolla, which I anticipate may soon be on the list of a metered parking area for the city.

Um, the Grand Colonial has proudly served La Jolla for over a century.

We are historic locally owned hotel and restaurant that not only welcomes visitors from around the world but also supports dozens of local jobs and businesses through vendor and supplier relationships.

My hotel operates a small valet stand in front of our property to ensure safe, efficient, and convenient guest access in a part of La Jolla where curb space is limited.

It's important to note that La Jolla has no metered parking.

So currently the city does not lose any parking revenue by allowing our valet to operate.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Fred Taiko.

You have five people speeding seating you time, Mike.

Umard, maybe.

Thank you.

Marshall Anderson.

Taylor Murphy.

And Al Castle Patel.

Thank you.

You'll have five minutes, please proceed.

Good afternoon, Council President, members of the council.

This policy affects all of San Diego, but my comments today will specifically be tailored towards the highest impact areas, which is the 14,000 rooms in the downtown Little Italy as well as La Jolla area.

And is with that we must register and oppose unless amended uh position on the parking V increase.

This would not only this proposal would not only discourage valley operations, but would simultaneously increase traffic congestion as well as pose safety risks for uh while raising costs for guests.

Ultimately hurting tourism in local businesses that are vital to San Diego's economy.

Just to give you an example of the negative impacts on hotel operations.

Earlier this year, um there was a limited rollout of this policy during the weekend of Comic Con.

In each of the locations have produced serious congestion as well as safety concerns from double parking in the middle of the street to dangerous uh unloading and loading conditions that uh that endangered both guests as well as staff.

In recognition of this, the mayor's office paused the implementation and sought collaboration with businesses to find a better solution.

We would like to thank Randy Wilde of the mayor's office as well as the transportation department for bridging this gap.

However, as while we were able to work through a number of the details, the current proposal remains unworkable.

For many of our operators, the proposal represents anywhere from a 6,000 to 14,000 percent increase in costs, just to maintain the current their current operations.

I mean that without with those numbers, that's unrealistic.

Understand that for many hotels, ballet is not a luxury, but is a necessity.

Uh when you look at downtown, uh this is because many of the downtown properties are not designed to accommodate self-parking.

Valet provides a public benefit by managing multi-modes of transportation in the busiest parts of town.

This includes guests that arrive by car, charter bus, taxis, as well as app based transportation.

It maintains orderly traffic by pretend preventing double parking as well as keeping emergency routes clear.

We asked the city adopt an alternative fee of 5,000 for spaces outside the special event zone and 7,500 within the special events zone.

This still represents a significant increase, but a workable one that preserves jobs, protects public safety, and keeps San Diego competitive.

Additionally, we request we respect requests that staff report on the performance of valet revenues as well as meter utilization in six months to a year at a future committee hearing.

Finally, with the cost of business rising across the board between wages, utilities, as well as insurance.

This consideration will help our tourism industry remain competitive while ensuring that the city receives a fair as well as reliable return on revenues.

We urge you to reconsider the proposal and adopt a more thoughtful data-driven fee structure that supports both public safety as well as economic activity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

David Ryan.

Hi.

Um I work at the Hardwatch Hotel uh right in the Dashlamp area, right next to Pyco Park and the convention center.

And um currently we're looking at reducing our five spots down to two on the uh L Street area, and I can only see that being detrimental to congestion and traffic, and you'd see more of our employees being forced out into the street to talk to possible um guests and other people looking for parking, which it definitely isn't just hotel desks down there, as we are right next to all of the events and conventions.

And um, I think that's only detrimental and it's a safety concern and um traffic congestion concern.

Thank you.

Thank you, John Williams.

Hello, my name is John Williams.

I've been working as a valet parker for over 10 years, and in my experience, two spaces is not enough.

It will cause congestion, it will be a safety issue for me and my team.

It will be a safety issue, preventing emergency traffic to get through, firemen, police, etc.

We asked for more spots in two.

Thank you.

Thank you, Shane.

Good afternoon, council.

I'm a site manager for Ace Parking in downtown.

Just wanted to speak on the safety concerns I have, especially being by the ballpark in a high congestion area with a lot of patrons of the events of the hotels, the employees of all the different businesses down there.

The streets are already crazy as it is during these days.

Um, whether it be Ubers, ride share drivers, things like that blocking the streets, semis blocking the streets.

It's already um a safety hazard as it is to make sure people are getting out of the street, making sure they're not unloading in the street.

Um, this is just gonna make it much worse at all these hotels.

Uh the street congestion is gonna be much worse.

Um, you're putting a liability on the employees, uh, the guests that have to give out uh get out on the street and unload.

So it's really just gonna jeopardize um the safety and experiences of everybody in the downtown area.

More than it already is congested, it's just gonna make it a lot worse.

So we definitely need more space than the uh two allotted spaces.

It's just not gonna work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jaden Good afternoon, and thank you for your time.

My name is Jaden Moldown.

I work as a valley captain at the Marriott Gas Lamp Quarter Hotel.

I'm also a college student, and this job helps support my education and living expenses.

The city's proposal to convert our hotel's curb space into metered parking is more than a small change.

It's a serious safety concern.

Right now we can stage about eight cars along the curb.

If meters are installed, that drops to just two.

On a narrow one-way street like K Street, especially during Padre games are or concerts that would force cars to double park, block traffic, and put guests, pedestrians, and staff in unsafe situations.

This change also threatens our livelihoods.

Our team depends on efficient service to earn tips and keep operations moving.

With only two spaces, the process slows slows, traffic backs up, um, and both guest experience and income decline.

For students and workers like me, that can mean the difference between keeping this job or losing it.

I ask that you consider this proposal.

That curve is not just parking, it's essential to safety, guest experience, and livelihood of our team.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Ashton Good afternoon, council members.

Uh, my name is Ashton Garrett.

I manage the valley operations of the Marion Gas Camp Quarter as well as support operations at other hotels in the city.

I'm here to share my concern about the proposal to reduce our curb space from seven to eight vehicles down to only two.

On an average day, my team parks 50 to 100 cars, and during peak months, that number rises to nearly 200.

With only two spaces, it becomes impossible to safely and efficiently handle that volume.

Cars will be forced to double park, idle in traffic lanes, and queue into the street, creating dangerous conditions for pedestrians, hotel guests, and my valet staff as they move vehicles and luggage through heavy congestion.

Our location sits directly next to PECO Park, which hosts events drawing up to 40,000 people at a time.

In unfortunate event of an emergency, it is already challenging for emergency personnel to navigate the surrounding area.

Uh further reduction in our curb space would make it nearly impossible for first responders to reach the hotel or kneebar areas quickly.

Putting guests, staff, and the public at risk.

This proposal also threatens jobs with the curb space needed to thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next, if I can have Robert Spicer, Robert Strait, Mark Asuncion, Maria Bonilla, Nicholas Royer, and Mark Fitzgerald, as well as Daniel Reeves.

Please come up to the first road.

And Robert, you can proceed when ready.

Hello, everyone.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council members.

My name is Robert Spicer.

I've been working in the downtown area for the past five years as a valley manager with ACE parking.

Most of our hotels in the gas lamp area have more than 300 plus rooms.

And during P check-in times, it's not uncommon for us to have 10 to 15 vehicles or guests waiting to arrive at once.

Managing that volume with only two curb spaces is not in anyone's safety, it's not in anyone's safe uh manner or efficiently, and is impossible when hotels are limited with only the two spaces.

This creates unsafe conditions not only for the guests and staff, but also the pedestrians and passing vehicles as well.

Guests arriving to our hotel are being dropped off in act in active traffic lanes.

Valet staff are forced to manage vehicles in the street.

Pedestrians, including families with children and visitors unfamiliar with the area, are stepping into harm's way.

That is not the experience we want to give them when they come to San Diego.

Even more concerning when these curbs are blocked with large events.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Robert Street.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Robert State.

I am also a valley manager here in San Diego.

Policy 215 that was established in 1984 was long before Petco Park was built in downtown San Diego, moving the Padres from Jack Murphy Stadium into downtown 2004.

Prior to Shell being built in 2021, and before the large crowds moving Comic-Con in large events into the convention center.

We already have lots of traffic in downtown, as you've heard.

Two spaces is going to be hard.

Everyone here has stayed at hotels.

We all know you check in at 3 p.m., check out 11 a.m.

If you have a thousand-room hotel, everyone's leaving at the exact same time.

The amount of traffic to move in and out of two curb spaces would congest the city and cause some dangers to the people, as everyone said.

Not just the staff, but even cyclists, motorists, and just people walking around.

Double parking, you cannot see in your intersections, you can't see the traffic coming around corners.

I do believe it needs to be amendment amended before anyone were to be heard.

Thank you.

Mark Asuncion Um good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Marc Assuncion, and I serve as the uh LAS facility manager at the Court Garden Marriott downtown, overseeing the valley operations.

Uh currently our Valley Lane accommodates six to seven vehicles at a time.

Reducing that space to only two available spots would only uh disrupt our daily operations and create serious uh safety concerns for our employees, pedestrians, and neighboring businesses, such as the House of Blues uh next door as well.

Limited space would lead to increased traffic congestion, as uh everybody else said as well, as guests check in, creating unnecessary hazards along the street.

Um, in addition, our property regularly hosts multiple events, including one called dinner detective on weekends, during which we validate 30 or more vehicles that arrive all at once.

As you can see, with less than half of our current driveway capacity, it would be extremely difficult to manage these events efficiently or safely.

For these reasons, we would respectfully request that uh council reconsider any reduction to our valley lane space, uh, maintaining our current capacity without any additional cost supports, not only our thank you for that concluding comment.

Maria Bonilla.

Hi, my name is Maria Bonia.

I was I'm the valley manager at the Alma Hotel.

Um what you guys are trying to do from reducing our spaces from five spaces to two spaces is gonna bring a lot of congestion to i street, especially because we have a lot of drop-offs, a lot of delivery trucks, and we're already there's already double lanes on our spaces there.

Is this really dangerous for our valleys and our guests at the hotel?

We are really close to as it is to the trolley station, and our employees are already dealing with homeless people.

So dealing with only two spaces is gonna make it very dangerous for all of us.

So I really would like you guys to reconsider from the two spaces to keeping our spaces.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicholas Royer Good afternoon, council.

Uh, my name's Nicholas Royer.

I'm a uh Valley Manager with Laz Parking.

And yeah, I work at the Carte Hotel currently, and it's located in Little Italy, and it can potentially be affected and uh decreased on to two parking spaces uh for our valet operations.

Uh this would be very unfortunate because it's it is a 246-room hotel.

Uh we can get up to 100 cars in a day.

And again, uh just like what was said before, everybody likes to arrive at the same time.

Uh check-in starting at 3 p.m., check out um early in the morning.

So it could really negatively affect our operations and increase risk uh of safety hazards uh with guests, valets, and uh just nearby pedestrians.

So this needs to be changed.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mark Fitzgerald.

Mark Fitzgerald, you have time seated to you by Luis Baez.

Please raise your hand.

Thank you.

And uh Quel Ben Vieira, please raise your hand.

And the O Estrada.

You'll have four minutes, please proceed.

Thank you, uh, Council President and members of the council.

Uh, my name is Mark Fitzgerald, and I represent Laz Parking.

Uh, here in San Diego, we operate seven hotels and several restaurants within the uh downtown downtown community.

Uh I started here in San Diego 24 years ago at one of the hotels that's actually being impacted by the uh the valley permits.

Uh we respectfully urge you to oppose the proposed fee increase.

Um having such a dramatic increase for us represents anywhere from an 8,000 to a 16,000 percent increase at our locations.

Uh we saw firsthand during uh Comic-Con that that Wednesday evening a check-in what uh the impact could be to the AC Hotel, uh, one of the two hotels that was impacted by the uh reduction in the zone.

We uh we saw guests getting out in the streets, families getting out in the street, our our team was getting out in the street.

Uh it is definitely a challenging environment.

Uh it is definitely a challenging environment uh uh, you know, and safety first before anything else, uh, but the arrival, the departure process was uh impacted heavily, um, really trying to make sure that uh the guests that are that are checking in uh have a uh you know a welcoming environment or the first impression for the hotel, uh we're also the last impression for the hotel, uh, but making sure that we're welcome welcoming them in, that they find uh the front desk easily, and uh in most of these environments, you have people that are you know driving around the block, you have one-way streets, um, and it's not always uh easy for guests to know how to even get back to the hotel.

Um for us, we're we're really recommending we we all agree that looking at the fees is something that I think is there's everybody in here agrees that looking at the fees and increasing them makes sense, uh, but having some kind of alignment, having an 8,000 to 16,000 percent increase is so dramatic.

Um, we were just talking about housing before this and the you know, looking at the types of increases and how that impacts the community.

Um this is impacting the community one way or the other.

Um, and I know it was mentioned earlier about not being faceless organizations, but these are people that that run these hotels, these are people that own these hotels.

Um we're trying to create jobs for people and you know for for us, our mission statement is creating opportunities for our employee and value for our clients uh and and having these fees going up uh is gonna negatively impact that type of a mission statement.

Um so we we're actually asking if you could just consider the actual meter utilization when looking at the the increases rather than um you what what is kind of taken account for 100% utilization.

Uh in the end, we're we're not using the spaces 100%.

The the community still uses those spaces from loading to unloading.

You have taxes, you have Ubers, you have delivery drivers of other natures that are coming in.

I think the Valley community has always worked hard to accommodate uh the needs that come in.

We we don't turn people away when they're loading and unloading, uh, but in situations where all of a sudden you go down from six spaces down to two spaces, you really are uh putting a crunch on on the community that's just going to have ripple effects that that that could lead to safety and uh and service issues.

So uh just respectfully ask that that you reconsider and thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Daniel Reeves.

Daniel, you have time seated to you by um Shrez Fairchild.

You'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you, Council President Lujava, uh, Council members, Steph.

Uh thank you for your time today.

My name is Daniel Reeves.

I represent the um the Guild Hotel on West Broadway, but I'm also sort of a long-time downtown parking gadfly.

I was on the downtown parking management group for like 10 years.

Um so I've been involved in a lot of these conversations over the years.

Um I want to start by saying I recognize you all are in a tricky spot, revenue is key, and you gotta find it where you can get it.

Um and parking spaces, curb space has been mismanaged downtown for a very long time.

So this uh conversation is overdue, and I'm glad we're having it.

That said, um, as you've heard the fees proposed to you today are shockingly high.

They will have a huge impact on hoteliers and operators in downtown as well as elsewhere.

But um, since that territory has been covered, I also want to talk to you about something else, and that's historic properties.

Historic properties are uniquely constrained.

They um don't have on-site parking or rarely do because they're historic, they're not able to modify their buildings in order to add a portica share or a drive-thru ballet to pivot away from on-street valet.

Um, and because they aren't able to offer self-parking, they actually need more parking spots per guest than your average hotel does.

And so, because of these reasons, they're actually even more impacted by any fee, regardless of what the fee ends up being, they're more impacted by it.

So, what I'd ask of you today is to just consider offering some additional breathing room as you consider what you're doing with this policy this afternoon.

And I thank you for your time.

Thank you.

And Penelope Wright.

Sorry, I should have called you when I called everybody else.

You are our final speaker here in Council Chambers.

Sorry about that.

I tried to walk fast.

Good afternoon, Council.

I'm sorry, can you go to the higher mic, please?

Yes, I can.

Thank you.

Now you're meeting.

Good afternoon.

Um, my name's Penelope Wright.

I'm with uh Safe Co-Parking, and I'm representing um a lot of the hotels and timeshares in the area that we provide services to.

This will enable us to safely um get our guests out of their cars and vehicles in a safe manner.

Um with um our team helps reduce uh double parking and unsafe drop-offs and um active traffic.

Our workers support pedestrian safety and smooth traffic flow in emergency vehicles.

We will not be able to do that with just two spots.

It's too large of a flow for um our spaces.

Also, we uh represent two historical properties um in the gas lamp district.

Um, one of them is the gas lamp plaza suites, and it cannot make alterations to its facility due to its historical nature, and it would enable their guests who thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

I'll start the five-minute timer and go to those participating remotely.

We currently have four people with their hands raised.

Bess, if you can please unmute hi, thank you for your time.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Um, good afternoon, members of the council.

My name is Bess Miller, and I represent the courtyard by Marriott, San Diego downtown.

I want to respectfully ask you to oppose this proposed ballet fee increase unless it is substantially amended.

For our hotel, particularly, this proposal represents uh six thousand dollar increase, which is not sustainable with no parking structure, operating with only the first two valet spots for significant construction and operational challenges, such as double parking, unsafe floating, um, especially along sixth and broadway, which are two of the busiest downtown streets.

Uh as Jeff mentioned earlier, we understand the need for the additional revenue for the city, but please consider having any any new fee structure based on actual meter utilization rather than the potential unrealistic assumption of the 100% usage.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

Next is Blair Beekman.

After that, Michael Trimblay.

Please unmute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Really nice uh dialogue on the previous item.

Thank you.

I have to learn to use reason instead of a motion more uh to describe um the previous item.

Thank you.

Um yeah, this this item uh is difficult.

There's a series of these sort of items right now.

We're having uh a good luck to patients for everyone uh in understanding how these systems can work.

There can be answers.

Uh good public comment to describe you know their point of view, where they're coming from.

Uh good luck in the dialogue that can happen.

That um these are large, large corporations with a lot of money, and uh that is significant to people and how to understand the issue.

Um, it makes it easier, but it's still painful that we have to go through it.

So uh good luck how we can talk about it and um and always keep the parking fees low as possible for uh the parkings and stuff.

Uh thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Next is Michael Tremblay, if you can please unmute and then Al Del Mastro.

Good afternoon, committee members.

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

The city's new valley pricing structure poses a serious public safety and economic concerns, represents not just an increase but a disregard of how the hospitality industry operates.

And it's essential for the roles of the curbside zone to play in safely moving millions of visitors throughout down through downtown each year.

These costs push businesses to reduce or eliminate play zones.

We'll see immediate public safety impacts.

Guests forced to unload in traffic lanes, ride shares, double parking and intersections and emergency access and pedestrian safety compromised during major events.

So the valley operations aren't a luxury, they're a critical part of San Diego's transportation and visitor infrastructure, removing them due to unmanageable costs will create unnecessary risks and confusion for visitors, residents, and employees.

I'd like to thank Randy from the mayor's office and transportation department for working with us to provide some flexibility, but I really would urge the council to find further compromise and work together.

Sorry, thank you for that concluding remark.

Alden Mastro, if you can please unmute your final speaker, hi, my name is El Del Mastro.

Um, I don't understand why we have no business sense at all in the community that the idea that you don't think that we could hurt our tourism industry.

You'd you'd have to look at Las Vegas or Hawaii, how we have how they've hurt their tourist industry by overcharging people for parking for this, for that.

Nickel and Diming and gouging the public and gouging the uh the uh visitors here.

Um we we probably get a lot of visitors.

I know um what was it?

I believe it's the travel magazine wrote up that San Diego has the most expensive airport in the nation.

What a reputation is that, you know, for people to come here.

We're we may be a beautiful city, but if we're on an affordable to the tourist, we're gonna lose a lot of revenue that way.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment on this item.

All right.

Thank you, Madam City Clerk.

We will now go to council members for questions, comments, and our team of motion.

And as a reminder, uh sub-item C, which deals with streeteries, is being returned to staff, and we will not be taking any action on that today.

So uh I will turn first to Councilmember Woodburn.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Thank you for the presentation.

Uh thank you to the mayor's office, uh, the transportation department, everybody affected by this policy for the continued dialogue on these parking changes.

We've been discussing these changes for better part of a year now.

Uh when the city made changes to council policy 200-15 earlier this year, it became clear that the two space limit was too restrict too restrictive for some of the downtown hotels that rely on valet service.

Um we heard uh quite a bit of that concern here in the room uh this afternoon.

Um that's come up many times in the conversations that I've had with hotel operators.

The proposed revisions in front of us today would allow operators to purchase additional spaces beyond those two spaces, so they wouldn't be necessarily limited to just the two spaces anymore.

Um to the proposal in front of us, the cost to purchase those additional spaces is designed to reflect the value of those spaces to the city.

It's designed to be equivalent to the revenue that the city would have otherwise collected if it were uh a metered space.

Now we heard uh quite a few concerns this afternoon about the cost of those additional spaces.

Um of the points that has been raised is that the proposal in front of us assumes that the metered spaces would have otherwise been used 100 percent of the time.

Uh that those meters uh would have had 100 percent occupancy.

From the city's perspective, that stems from the fact that the hotels will have control of those spaces 100 percent of the time.

They will never be used as metered spaces.

But the hotelliers make a fair point, I think, that um if there were meters there, they would not be used 100 percent of the time.

Um at the end of the day, what we're seeking here is the replacement cost.

Uh we should reference the utilization that they most likely otherwise would have had, and I don't think the meters replaced by valet services uh would necessarily have had a 100 percent occupancy.

There's reason to believe that it uh could well have been lower.

Uh so I do support adjusting this proposal.

The city's parking demand study uh that was presented to us in January found that the average occupancy uh of the meters downtown was 74 percent on Thursdays and 76 percent on Saturdays.

So a 75 percent occupancy would be a reasonable assumption for calculating what the meters would have otherwise brought in.

So figuring that and looking at the proposed actions, I will make a motion that reflects that.

Uh the motion will be to approve sub-item A and sub-item B with the following amendments to the expanded valet zone fee.

Uh updating the expanded standard metered zone to $7,500 per space, updating the expanded special event meter zone to $10,000 per space, and updating the expanded partial valet zone to $7500 per space.

Um, in effect, uh for the uh standard metered zone, uh that's a decrease uh from 10,000 to $7500 uh per expanded space, and for the special event meter zone, uh that's a reduction of uh from $15,000 to $10,000 uh for uh each expanded special meter event zone space.

Uh we've got the slide um that we will put up on the screen that uh reflects those numbers so that everybody can see that.

Um other request I would like to ask uh staff, I'll direct this to Mr.

Wilde, um, if we can report out on valet revenue and utilization uh during the budget process when we're reporting on the parking meter revenue fund uh in six months or a year.

Mr.

Wilde, is that something that we can commit to?

Yes, absolutely.

Thank you.

Uh downtown parking is among the most competitive in San Diego.

Every space matters to businesses, to residents, and to visitors.

Uh this policy uh ensures that valet services remain possible while also enabling the city to recover the cost of lost parking revenue.

I think this is a thoughtful step, uh the result of quite a bit of dialogue that helps to keep downtown vibrant, supports our businesses, and ensures fairness in how the public right-of-way is used.

Um with that motion, that will conclude my comments.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

So we do have a motion on the table, which is to approve proposed action sub item A and sub item B with the proposed uh reductions in the categories shown on the screen.

And we'll get that written up uh by the city clerk.

Oh, that'll be it.

Okay.

So you can see it on the screen for my colleagues.

So uh we'll go next to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, I do appreciate the motion from my colleague, uh, Councilmember Whitburn, which I think does do a good job of balancing um what we expect to be behavioral changes um with implementing this fee while acknowledging the um average occupancy utilization um that we already show in our study.

Um and I think this number seems to match up well with that as well, uh, while also ensuring that the city does recover the cost and and produce the revenue that is expected with the changes that we have made in terms of parking policy.

Um thing I just wanted to ask for uh uh one last clarification with staff, and this was it's written in the IBA report as well, but I just want to triple check, especially because this has come up particularly for folks in the convoy district.

Um, but we want to confirm that um for parking meter districts that do not currently operate meters, that the city will not be charging fees to valet zone permit holders.

Yes, that is correct.

We will not be charging fees within existing parking meter zones that do not have parking meters.

That includes the convoy district.

Thank you.

So seeing that the policy today does um expand the valet zones to um allow them the usage of more than two spaces, um anti's the additional um cost with a um average occupancy utilization rate.

Um I am happy to second today's motion.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

So we have a motion uh by councilmember Whitburn and a second by Council President Pro Tam Lee as shown on the screen.

And I don't see uh council member Ilo Rivera thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you to um Bethany, you and your team for the work on this uh IBA for your analysis.

Um I appreciate um hearing from the folks from the hotel industry.

Um and I appreciate that valley operations can help reduce congestion, um improve um traffic flow at in certain areas.

Um but I I I do want to take a step back here.

Um Sergio, are you are you able to provide it any estimate of the difference in revenue based on the motion in front of us?

Um we're seeing up to 780,000 dollars for it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um again, I understand that this is a significant increase.

I think that speaks to the very, very significant subsidy that was being provided for a very, very long time.

Um I appreciate the acknowledgement um from some of the folks in the industry that that was the case.

At the end of the day, curb streets and sidewalks are our public spaces.

Those are assets that belong to San Diegans, and when private for-profit businesses use those spaces to generate revenue.

I think it's fair that they contribute to the cost of maintaining and improving it.

Uh I think this is especially important as we're having multiple conversations here at this council about asking residents to do uh to do more, to pay more.

And it feels unfair to me to ask our residents to do that and not ask very profitable industries to uh to do the same.

So uh and this isn't about punishment, it's about fairness and responsibility.

These are public spaces that are being used for private profit.

And with the investment from the revenue, we can create a better system for everyone that doesn't depend on uh valet to ensure that there's decent traffic flow.

Uh I think that there's significant opportunity in in what is in front of us and what was recommended by staff.

Bethany and her team do an incredible job of of stretching the dollars that they get at the transportation department to make miracles work with an incredibly efficient team of city workers that get good stuff done.

And Bethany, I just want to make sure that I'm I'm not misunderstanding how this revenue could be used.

It could be reinvested directly into public improvements to improve street safety.

Um that includes lighting, 88 accessible sidewalks, safer crossings, improved loading zones, all of those would be theoretically uh allowable expenses with this revenue, correct?

That's correct.

Um I appreciate that.

So again, I I understand the concern.

I see the benefit that can come from it, but what I want is a city that works for our residents, and we get a city that works for our residents when we have a better resource city, and it's I think the first place we need to start.

I said this before, I'll say it again when we're asking for those resources, is those folks who are profiting from and visiting our city to pay their fair share.

And if I'm understanding the numbers correctly of a hundred cars per day, and what the uh assumed additional expenses would be, uh it sounds like about a dollar per car would fully account for um an additional dollar per car would fully account for the cost recovery here and allow Bethany and her team to have uh three quarters of a million dollars more to improve San Diego street safety for everyone.

Um I think that that is is um certainly worth noting.

I appreciate the staff recommendation for that reason.

Um Councilor Whitburn, I appreciate um you trying to kind of strike a balance here.

Um, but I I desperately want um Bethany and her team to have all the resources that they seem see necessary to do the work that they um are charged with doing.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Council Council President.

Member Illa Rivera.

Uh, we're gonna go back to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Um I uh very much appreciate uh councilmember Ila Rivera's um focus on city residents um and attention to the continuing cost of living struggle for our residents and wanting to prioritize our city residents.

Um I do want to make the point that this represents a massive increase in what the hotels will be paying uh for these spaces downtown.

And I will ask uh our transportation department, what is what has been uh the ongoing fee that hotels have paid for valet spaces.

The fee before the June action was a $317 renewal fee in a $600 new application fee.

The June action increased the permit renewal fee to be $600, new application $1,000, and then $5,000 for the first two spaces.

Okay, so essentially we're going from $317 and $600, and then $600 and $1,000 to what is now $7,500 and $10,000 for additional spaces.

Um I think that is a significant increase, and I think that um that revenue uh will bring substantial dollars into the transportation department uh that will help to pay for many of the improvements that are so desperately needed in our uh parking districts.

So um absolutely want to acknowledge uh council member uh Ila Rivera's uh prioritization of our city residents.

I do think uh this is a substantial increase uh on these downtown businesses and will endure to the benefit of our residents.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

I believe the IBA had some clarifications.

Yes, um, Councilmember Shawnee Lorra.

I just want to clarify that the figure that the amount that I just mentioned, $780,000 will still come in.

That's 200, about a quarter million less from the million that I mentioned earlier.

Just wanted to clarify that.

So you the original numbers you projected a million.

But you think with this change of council member Whitburn it would drop to 780?

Up to 780,000.

A thousand.

Okay.

Just a little bit different.

Next to Councilmember Foster.

I'm sorry, just I just want to make sure I'm clear.

So staff's recommendation would be the million.

Right.

And then the modified motion that's on the floor is the 78.

Uh that's correct, Councilmember.

The initial estimate that staff presented to you uh at the 10 and $15,000 amounts would have generated just over $1 million on an annual basis.

The modified motion that's put before you right now is anticipated to generate around $780.

So it's a delta of around $220,000, just to be clear.

Okay.

Back to just my colleague's question on what we charged previously.

How long were we charging those fees?

I'm not sure exactly.

I think multiple years we were charging $317 for in essentially unlimited number of spaces.

Or unlimited too.

But we don't know how many years was it?

50 years.

Do we know?

Does the industry know?

How long?

10 plus years, 20 years.

20 years.

So thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Um not seeing anybody else on the lights.

I guess a couple of thoughts occurred.

One, Councilmember Whitburn.

I appreciate given that probably most of these are in your district and probably are the most impacted.

I appreciate you taking the leadership on that.

Um I appreciate the mayor's office and staff working.

Uh it is a good reminder, and I'm glad you said it, Councilmember Whitburn, that the current policy actually says two max, and that's it.

So if we didn't take any action today, um I think uh there would be a greater impact, at least we're offering um property owners uh at least some discretion in terms of how many valley spaces they need for their uh safe operation um in front of their particular business.

So uh I think that is a good move going forward.

Um I'm gonna stop my comments and go to Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you very much to our staff here today.

Um after hearing the discussion before us today, I I am I'm concerned about the way we are really approaching each of the each item that comes before us as a way of whether it's trying to recover revenue for other budgetary purposes, which is has its virtues, but I think we're getting away from the fact on on so many things that we're charging more and more for things without trying to improve the experience of someone who's going to actually receive it.

And then in this case, a valet zone in and out is really an important part of the experience of someone who's visiting San Diego of a person from San Diego who's visiting downtown.

Uh let's just be very clear.

Reducing a hotel's spaces from two uh to two uh it has created a danger, and we've heard it directly from the workers here.

Uh I've heard it from constituents out in in the in in my district about what they're seeing as this plays out.

Um so reducing that number, increasing the number is an important part of subitem A, uh which I fully support.

And as I look at the costs, the multiplier effect here, we could look into the past and say we should have recovered more in the past, but the multiplier itself really does seem very, very high.

The operating space, uh most of which is what we heard is not really about valeting a car, but rather facilitating drop-offs and pickups in a safe manner.

It's important part of keeping business flowing.

Uh it's about meeting the expectation of our city's guests.

And I can understand that strictly speaking, a hotel utilizing a space where a city resident could be parking, and therefore the city could be recovering parking meter revenue from.

Uh they're taking something from us and they're using it themselves.

But there's a few key problems to looking at it that way.

First, many hotels secured permits from the city, whether it's for renovation or construction in the past, and were built with the understanding and the financial implications of having that valet as part of facilitating their business.

So they relied on us to put forward the mechanism for them to facilitate their business, and now we're pulling the rug from under them.

And so that's not a good way to facilitate investment in our region.

It's not a good way to communicate to an industry that uh rules like this are gonna change uh when we have a budget problem.

Second, I think the transaction incurring in front of us is more like a person buying something in bulk.

The cost recovery concept makes a lot of sense.

Uh and by keeping it as a metered spot, the city would be taking on risk that someone parks there.

With the hotel keeping it as a valet spot and paying for it, they're actually alleviating us from the risk that someone's gonna go there.

So if this were a proper arm's length transaction in a marketplace, the seller wouldn't charge full price.

The seller would discount the product.

By taking it off our plate entirely, you would normally have a discount.

So I appreciate where Councilmember Whitburn is going to drive down the price, and I think that that's actually more fundamentally fair when we actually talk about what a transaction ought to look like.

And to supplement Councilmember Whitburn's point, the Department of Finance would tell you, and I think the IBA would tell you as well, our meter revenue projections that a lot of this is based on were incredibly far down this year after we raised it from 125 to 250, and when we went to the surcharge zone up to $10.

So to try to get a sense of what the true cost recovery is at this point, I think is a bit unrealistic, uh and therefore in my opinion, unfair to charge a higher price.

If the hotel is going to guarantee the city money for using our property, that guarantee is us offloading risk.

The other aspect of this is that the valets aren't really moneymakers for their hotels.

They're certainly not big money makers for their hotels.

They are a facilitating component of the other thing that makes money for them, which is people paying their room nights, which makes us money as TOT, which we just increased to 13.75%.

Focusing on the number of cars in the hotel's valet garage isn't the correct metric to analyze.

It's to see the meter spot exactly.

I'd also say let's if we could imagine the downside, if we overburden uh the transportation in and out of our hotels with the new TOT rate at 13.75, we might lose more revenue by a decrease in people staying.

If we had uh one visitor every two to four days per hot per parking spot, not stay at a hotel because we've made it either too expensive or we've made the experience not uh not enjoyable enough.

Losing just a few rooms per night at each hotel will actually overcome the amount we were going to make in TOT compared to what we're charging for the valet space.

Uh so we have to look at it from a holistic perspective and not just say this is what's in front of us, because we could be actually making more money for the city by not charging more.

But we don't have that analysis in front of us.

I'll end with this.

I think the city we can't simply continue to demand more and more out of residents and visitors alike without improving the experience that people are paying for.

And I appreciate the workers who actually run into the street every single day to make sure that people are getting in and out of their car safely, showed up here to tell us what they're seeing.

Uh and uh while I don't think that the price in front of us and in the motion in front of us is necessarily the the correct and fair price.

I understand that councilmember Whitburn is is doing his best to get us to a point where uh we will create safety and we will create some revenue generation, and it's my hope that it doesn't backfire on us.

And I would ask that staff, after having a whole nother year of meter revenue in the bank, come back to us and show us if it's actually worth $7,500 and $10,000.

Because if it isn't, then we are not charging what I think would be the fair amount uh for uh from the hotels who are gonna use these spots.

Uh so with that, I'll I'll be supportive of the motion, Councilmember Whitburn, and I appreciate you bringing the price down to really make sure that our local economy that is supported by our hotels, particularly in downtown, continues to thrive.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campillo.

Um I'll finish up my comments.

Um just because it's just as important to me as it was to Council President Pro Dam Lee, this fee will not be charged to valet in community parking districts that do not have meters.

Correct.

The loss of revenue fee will not be charged outside of precometer zones that do not have meters.

Uh thank you.

The um I think the media got a little carried away and uh got a lot of people excited.

So thank you for the clarification.

And then I also just looking at, I just want to make sure that we don't need to do a little bit of cleanup.

I'm supportive of the action as the council member has put in front of us to make sure that I understand what the resolution says versus what Councilmember Whitburn has uh put out there that the annual partial valet zone would be 7500 dollars.

Irrespective of whether it's a standard or a special event.

Those are all for the expanded spaces.

Right for the expanded, right.

Beyond that.

Um I was just having difficulty finding that somewhere in the resolution.

So if all I wanted was a partial valet zone, it would come in a little bit less expensive.

I don't have any valet, I just want it because I'm a restaurant or a theater.

The resolution says 2500.

My understanding of what's being proposed is that Partial Valley zone, the first two spaces for a partial valet zone is $2,500.

The motion's not proposing to make any changes to that.

The $7500 is just if someone is a partial valet zone and wants to expand.

Okay, that's a clarification I need.

Thank you.

Uh and I just wanted to double check Council Member Whitburn, so I appreciate that.

Um not seeing anybody else on the lights.

Uh we have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn, a second by Council President Pro Tem Lee, as shown on the screen, which is the proposed action sub item A and B with the following amendments uh to the expanded valley zone fee.

And with that, city clerk, please call the roll.

I'm sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes seven to one with council member Ilo Rivera voting no, and Councilmember Von Wilbert absent.

Thank you.

All right, again, thank you to staff and the mayor's office for all the good work uh and the outreach and thank you.

Councilmember Whitburn for the work that you did.

So with that, clerk, please introduce item 332.

Thank you.

Item 332 is the proposed response to grand jury report.

Never been challenged.

City of San Diego Development Impact Fee Program Redux.

This item is not subject to the mayor's veto.

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

Thank you.

All right.

Staff, as you settle yourselves in, let us introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, and good afternoon, Council President La Cava and members of the council.

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

We need about uh 15 minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

On May 30th, 2025, the San Diego County Grand Jury filed a report titled Never Been Challenged City of San Diego Development Impact Fee Program Redux.

This report focuses on concerns about the city's compliance with the mitigation fee act or MFA and allowable uses of development impact fees or DIF.

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

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

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

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

And we also consulted with the Office of the City Auditor.

This item was discussed at Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on October 23rd, and the committee unanimously recommended council approval of staff's proposed actions.

For the action, the council is being asked to provide feedback, approve the proposed response, and authorize the council president to execute and deliver the response to the presiding judge of the San Diego Superior Court no later than the November 26, 2025 deadline.

Per California Penal Code 933-05.

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

Responses to grand jury recommendations must indicate that the recommendation has been implemented, has not yet been implemented, but will be in the future, requires further analysis, or will not be implemented because it is either not warranted or is not reasonable.

Next slide.

So we are providing a brief summary of the draft response to the nine findings and 13 recommendations directed to the mayor and city council.

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

I'll start with four findings with this which the city agrees.

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

The city agrees and acknowledges not meeting the 180 day deadline due to the complexity of consolidating and reconciling over 50 separate funds.

The transition to a citywide diff structure known as Build Better San Diego is intended to streamline this process and improve future compliance.

For finding four, the city agrees that many community plans and their corresponding financing plans are outdated, some by more than a decade.

With 52 planning areas, frequent updates are infeasible.

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

So for finding five, the city also agrees there are instances where administrative charges to diff accounts have been exceeded.

The target percentages in each community's public facility financing plan or impact fee study.

The city now enforces a 5% cap on the administrative expenses for citywide diff funds and legacy accounts with new controls in place to prevent future overages.

And finally, the fourth finding with which the city agrees is finding seven.

Administrative funds from 22 legacy diff funds, totaling about $720,000 were used to support the development of Build Better San Diego.

The city agrees and states this was this use was consistent with past practices and legally permissible under California government code for administrative actions like preparing Nexus studies.

Next, there is one finding with which the city partially disagrees, and that is finding one.

The city has not filed diff annual reports in accordance with the MFA for the last four fiscal years.

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

This includes identification of unexpended funds held for five years and their intended use.

And the response is that the city disagrees.

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

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

Thank you, Erin.

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

I will now go through each recommendation and proposed response.

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

The fiscal year 2024 annual DIF report has been published and was heard by council on October 21st.

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

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

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

Recommendation 9 is to re-evaluate the nexus for all diff funds held for more than five years and refund any without nexus justification.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Six recommendations are proposed to not be implemented because they are not warranted.

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

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

Next, recommendation five is to amend Council Policy 000-31 to prioritize diffeded projects and enhance reporting.

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

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

Recommendation six is to amend Council Policy 800-14 to prioritize DIF funded projects and force stricter reporting and limit administrative fees.

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

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

Giving that existing policies, reports, and processes already address the goals of this recommendation.

The proposed response is that additional amendments to Council Policy 800-14, which was last updated in December 2022, is to strengthen the city's CIP prioritization process using an objective framework are not warranted.

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

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

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

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

Recommendation 11 is to return $700,000 used for build better SD to respective community diff and recommendation 12 is to ensure that builds better SD administration and nexus study updates are paid from the city's general fund.

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

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

For action, the council is being asked to provide feedback, approve the proposed response, and authorize the council president to submit it to the presiding judge of the superior court by the November 26, 2025 deadline.

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

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

Otherwise, this council and mayor will send separate responses.

That concludes our recommend our presentation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

Uh we always appreciate the good work done by the Office of the IBA.

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

Jeff Heater, if you can please come forward, you'll have two minutes.

Yeah, thank you for the presentation and for this item.

Um what I would like to just say is I agree with the finding number six of the grand jury and the recommendation eleven.

Uh it does seem like we created this new program for the citywide diff, and that should have been segregated from the accounts that already existed.

Um, and it's hard to see how you could equitably, given that how unevenly distributed those previous accounts were and that they had to be used for a specific purpose.

It's hard to see how you could equitably pull from some things and and not from others and come out with an arrangement that made sense.

The other issue is the reason we were supposed to it was challenging already to use the money that was in these individual accounts, and if we drained it, um it makes it even harder to get anything out of this.

And I I would just say on behalf of the public.

I mean, this is all complicated legal stuff, but what people really want to see are parks and libraries and uh you know improvements in their communities, and we thought we were gonna get more of that with um this the citywide diff structure because we'd have more money to do something somewhere, but it just seems like we're we're we're all thinking we're doing something somewhere else, but I'm not I'm not sure we're seeing anything anywhere.

And I I think we've got to figure this out.

Part of it's a budgetary thing.

We've heard in the the budget discussion.

We said, well, you know, we've got diff money.

Um eventually we have to refund it if we don't spend it.

Can we can we buy a park?

Can we do this?

And and the the it always comes back to well, we can we can create a park, but we can't operate it because we don't have the budgetary ability to operate it, and that this just isn't working for the public.

Thanks.

Thank you.

I'll start the five-minute timer and go to those participating remotely.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute, you'll have two minutes.

All right, thank you, Blair Beekman.

Um, you've been having this sort of item uh frequently at uh committees and uh city council itself actually lately.

Um it's been ongoing.

I'm sorry, I don't understand it better.

I wish I did.

You're having uh very thank you for the previous public comment, by the way, and you're having a very uh lively discussion on the subject.

Uh I've offered my two cents that I wish I could make it into four cents at this point, but I can't.

I'm still stuck at two cents.

And just my basic idea that um for as much as uh impact fees, uh adjusting them, having them flexible uh does help often in situations, and uh it actually does uh it has a nice system.

It's so inconsistent and uh skizy that it it it creates problems sometimes.

And I just reminded that the importance of consistency with impact fees uh can actually do something kind of nice as well.

And um I know you're everyone's torn between how to how to do that better.

So I just wanted to remind the importance of consistency, and that you recently had you know the land trust issues as a presentation, just to get a sense of uh what it's about.

That relies heavily on consistency and creating uh an established area and zone of how to think and work with our land issues for the future.

And I I just I have that same sort of feeling with uh impact fees that it takes out the uh you know that that stock market capitalists, anything goes ideal.

Um, and that does work.

I mean, it does create important things, but um I don't know.

I just wanted to remind consistency again.

Uh thanks for your time.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

So with that, we will turn it over to my council colleagues for questions, comments, and entertain a motion, and we'll start with Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, we heard this item at the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting last month that has mentioned the committee unanimously recommended approval of the proposed responses.

Uh, thank you to the grand jury for reviewing the city program to the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst for compiling the information, and of course, to the planning department for working with both to prepare these responses.

The transition from more than 50 community-specific development impact fee programs to a citywide structure has been a major undertaking, and I want to acknowledge the planning department for their work to make that transition successful.

Uh, there is still more work to do.

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

Uh, our communities are often told that when new housing is built, the infrastructure will follow through development impact fee investments in parks, sidewalks, fire stations, and libraries, and we owe it to our residents to show that those commitments are indeed being met.

Uh appreciate the city's efforts so far.

I look forward to continued progress in increasing transparency around development impact fee spending.

It'll make the motion to approve the staff recommendation.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

We have uh councilmember Whitburn making uh a motion to move a staff recommendation.

Um I don't see anybody else.

Oh, Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Uh I'll second the motion.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, second by council member Hilo Rivera.

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

Um not seeing anybody else in the lights.

I'll kind of say thank you for the good work and putting the grand jury response together.

I agree with the recommendations.

Um we talked about diff quite a bit uh with the annual report going forward.

Um, and I think we're finally getting out of an era where elected officials convince communities to accept new development because of the windfall of diff fees that uh as everybody has acknowledged never really translated to uh the kind of infrastructure improvements that the community thought they were getting with that.

Um, and there's probably a nexus here in this conversation uh between this and the housing report that shows you with the kind of housing that we're actually building and what kind of fees we get, whether it was the old diff or the new citywide fees, just is not amounting to a very much amount of money.

The um I supported the citywide fees exactly because we were just never generating the kind of dollars within the individual and the 50 different pots of money that would actually accomplish anything.

It was good kind of maybe gap money, uh, but it really never generated enough to be able to finance the infrastructure identified in the um facilities finance plans.

And I did a rough calculation that might get myself in trouble.

But if you divide $702,000 by 50 community plans, you get about 14,000.

It probably would have cost us 14,000 to update each of the facilities finance plan if we did it on an annual basis, which I think we can all agree was not a productive use of those funds, and we're in a better place with the citywide fee.

That will also only provide some gap financing, as I think we saw last week with the uh City Heights Library Fund, uh, getting funding out of the citywide bucket.

So, with that, uh, I will be supporting it as well.

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

Clerk, please call the roll.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes 6 to 0 with Councilmember Moreno, Councilmember Von Wilbert, and Councilmember Campbell Absen.

Thank you.

All right, thank you again.

Thank you to the Office of the IBI for your good work.

With that, uh, we have one adjournment in memory by Councilmember Foster.

Sir Thank you, Council President.

With great respect, we adjourn today's meeting in memory of Mr.

Gordon Brown Sr., a trails trailblazer, teacher, and pioneer who changed the face of golf, and who shaped the lives of countless young people in San Diego and beyond.

Mr.

Brown was born in 1936 in Charleston, South Carolina.

At just 10 years old, he was introduced to the game that would define his life.

Golf became more than a sport for him, it became his purpose.

By age 18, he and a small group of friends challenged segregation at the Charleston Municipal Golf Course.

They simply wanted the chance to play.

But that simple act turned into a civil rights fight that helped open golf to players of color.

Decades later, the NAACP Charleston chapter honored him for that courage, recognizing his role in desegregating the sport and standing for equality.

After serving in the United States Army, Mr.

Brown moved to San Diego.

Here, he built a family, a career, and a legacy rooted in mentorship and service.

He quickly became known as one of San Diego's top amateur golfers, winning tournaments and inspiring others through both his talent and humility.

In the 1970s, he and his wife Harriet decided to give back.

Together they started teaching neighborhood kids the game of golf, not for profit, but for purpose.

The passion led to the creation of the Southeast Junior Golf Program, which later became the San Diego Inner City Junior Golf Foundation.

Through it, they taught thousands of children golf and life skills completely free.

Mr.

Brown believed golf could teach much more than a swing.

It could teach patience, focus, and integrity.

It could build confidence and open doors for child children who rarely got those chances.

His children continue that legacy.

His daughter Avis Brown Riley made the LPGA, made LG LPGA history, becoming the first African American woman to compete in both the U.S.

Women's Open and the U.S.

Senior Women's Open.

Mr.

Brown received countless honors for his service to the game, including being named a PGA Southern California San Diego Chapter Honorary Life Member.

A well-earned recognition for decades of leadership, teaching, and impact.

Yet, if you asked him, his proudest title was simply teacher.

Because he believed that teaching others was a true measure of a life well lived.

His son Horace once said he's San Diego's dad when it comes to golf.

And that's exactly how this community will remember him.

On behalf of the Fourth Council District, I extend my deepest condolences and prayers to his children, Avis and Horace, and to the entire Brown family.

We also honor their memory of his beloved wife, Mrs.

Harriet Brown, who passed earlier this year.

Together they built a legacy of faith, love, and opportunity that continues to shape young lives, as well as to the many students and young golfers who carry their lessons forward.

May we honor his life by creating the same opportunities we work to provide.

And by remembering that one person's passion can transform a community.

Rest in power, Mr.

Gordon Brown Sr.

This concludes my comments.

Thank you, member.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster for detailing a remarkable life.

With that, we will now adjourn council to the next regularly scheduled council meeting on Monday, November 17th, 2025 at 10 a.m.