Good afternoon.

Welcome to the Economic Development and Intergovernmental Relations Committee meeting of November 5th, 2025.

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

Thank you, Chair Kempio.

While members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person.

This meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and the council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide virtual testimony must enter the virtual queue by raising their hand before the virtual queue closes.

This queue will close when the last virtual speaker finishes speaking, or five minutes after in-person testimony ends, whichever occurs first.

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

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair.

Thank you.

I'll now call the meeting to order.

Vice Chair Foster.

Councilmember Campbell.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here I'm also present, also present.

Uh Noah Fleischmann Fiscal and Policy Analyst from the Office of the IBA, Deputy City Attorney Brian Bune from the Office of City Attorneys, and Chris Ackerman Ivela, Policy Advisor from the Office of the Mayor.

Sarah, please continue with public comment instruction.

Thank you, Chair Campio.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the tray indicated at the front of the room.

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

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins, and members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

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

Inputting webinar ID 160-324-0614 pound.

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

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

Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it's your turn to speak.

If you wish to speak to a particular item, please wait for that item to be called and then raise your hand to speak by tapping tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you're a called participant, by pressing star nine.

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

Chair.

Thank you, Sarah.

A quorum is now present.

We'll begin with non-agenda public comment, and the council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council committee meetings.

Per rule two point seven, non-agenda public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee, and each speaker will have two minutes.

Smoke-free housing is desirable and more marketable.

Smoking can cause fires and significant damage to residential property.

Smoke free housing can qualify.

And finally, smoke-free housing can increase a property's competitiveness in the low-income housing tax credit program.

The California Tax Credit Allocation Committee awards an extra point for properties that prohibit smoking in at least 50% of units, making these properties more likely to receive a tax credit.

So I pass these on to you and hope you'll view them and other economic business benefits as good reason to support smoke-free housing ordinance here as other cities are doing.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Terry Ann Skelly.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, economic development and intergovernmental relations committee.

Chair Campillo, my name is Terry Ann Skelly.

It is very important how an end on what our city spends its money.

I thank you for serving on this important committee.

As a mother of three adult sons, I was extremely pleased that this committee has supported in the past internship programs for teens and young adults as part of the city budget.

The journey from high school into college or employment training is far more complicated and stressful than ever.

And decisions about college are confusing and expensive and seem demanding.

Parents were pleased to read the recent Union Tribune article about the crackdown on illegal cannabis delivery services and raising the penalties for any illegal cannabis activity here in San Diego.

While the city is at it, parents would be thankful to this committee for any efforts to remove the city's billboards suggesting the use of marijuana as a solution to young adults' anxiety and stress.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you for your comment.

And the final hand raised in the queue is Armin King.

Please unmute and begin.

Yes, hello.

Um thank you for listening to me.

I just wanted to say that the multi-unit housing is a um to go against that and ban smoking.

That that's too general.

We have patients, we have seniors who utilize cannabis for their medicine.

And a lot of people in low-income communities are living in multi-unit housing, and that would prevent the seniors and people who use cannabis for medical purposes that I'm aware of to not be able to live there, causing landlords to be able to evict them unjustly because of them taking their medicine much needed.

And so that's the one thing, and I don't have much to say.

I just want to say uh what happened to social equity and where is it at now?

And I would like to see our um economic um development department and city council prioritize cannabis social equity over any other cannabis related issues.

We had it in our hands, we allowed it to be snatched away.

And when are we going to stand up and truly speak for the people and do something right by the people and not continue to give it um more privileges to the industry that is um wants to monopolize the industry?

So until cannabis social equity is brought to the table.

I would I would hope that you great people would prioritize equity over any other cannabis issues.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And with the five-minute timer expiring and no other hands in the queue, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you to members of the public for their participation uh in non-agenda public comment.

We'll now move to committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, and IBA comments.

Do we have any comments?

Any request for continuance?

Yes.

Yep.

And I think on the consent agenda, we have Dr.

Campbell.

Yes, thank you.

I'd like to uh pull consent item number two for discussion.

Very well.

That shall be written for discussion agenda.

Uh we will take that up as requested.

Uh Sarah, let's proceed with public comment on the balance of the consent agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open, and the consent agenda includes item number one approval of the committee minutes from October 8th, 2025.

Each speaker will have one minute and chair with no speaker slips here in chambers and seeing no hands go up in the queue.

This concludes testimony for item number one.

Very well.

I'll now turn it to committee members in questions to entertain a motion.

I'll make the motion to approve the consent agenda.

And I have a second from Dr.

Campbell.

Seeing no questions or comments, we'll now call the role.

Vice Chair Foster.

Councilmember Campbell.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Yes, and I'm a yes as well that passes 4-0 with all members present.

We will now go to the item pulled from consent on item number two.

Councilmember Campbell, would you like to hear a presentation on the item?

I would like to hear presentation.

I think it'll be helpful.

Thank you.

Very good.

Let's please introduce that, Sarah.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number two is the third amendment to flat rate lease agreement with Air Center MYF covering 7.77 acres at the Montgomery Gibbs Executive Airport.

And if you're watching on City TV at the live stream online, you can dial 1669-2545252 and input webinar ID 160-3240614 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

We will uh turn it over to our director of airports, Jorge Rubio and his staff.

Please uh let us know how much time you need.

Sure.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, committee.

Uh my name is Jorge Rubio.

I'm your deputy director of uh airports.

Uh and I'm glad to present this item to you, which has been long uh coming.

I'm here to talk about the the third amendment to the lease uh agreement with Air Center My F at the airport.

And we want to provide you with a background um Air Center MYF uh in in one shape or another.

They've been a tenant at the airport since uh uh 2020.

Uh there was a first amendment to the lease uh which extended the term.

There was a second amendment which extended the term.

There were concessions for those.

And um the lease uh commenced on March 8th of 2025.

Uh the LECI started paying rent to us even though the permits were not approved, which means that they're paying us rent and uh um uh it the the development is not there yet.

They have not been able to obtain all of the approvals yet, and they are requesting a two-year extension uh to March 8th, uh 2027 to obtain all those approvals, including uh NIPA, which is an FIA requirement, National Environmental Policy Act.

So for the consideration of the amendment, the Delesi wants to add option parcels two and three to the leasehold and start paying rent for those immediately, which would bring um the rent from 107,000 to 148,000 per year.

And they're looking to revise the general development plan uh which will increase uh what they want to invest at the airport from 10 million to 15 million.

A little bit about uh uh the the developer del SE, Ivor and Dingshire, they are the principals, and they've been at the airport since 1976.

They own a company that's called uh Corporate Helicopters.

So if you uh being in San Diego, you probably are familiar with their operation, but they provide uh charter operations, they provide uh tours, flight training, uh utilities, uh they they list uh their helicopters for performing surveys, and they are located uh currently at the airport within as a sublishi of Crown Air Aviation, which is uh a master tenant of us.

And this slide you can see that um uh they are located in developed area ready.

So the first start that's the current location that they have, and uh the new location where they're looking to start construction is depicted there as raw land.

And this uh slide uh is a depiction of what they're trying to do at our airport.

Um again, this is uh the first development that we're trying to do at the airport from raw land.

And um there's different uh f phases which I'm going to show you next, but it it includes uh this um uh aviation general aviation terminal along with multiple hangers that will house their helicopters, as well as it will provide separation from what we have right now, uh which is um uh fixed wing, so regular small airplanes uh that are commingling with aircraft.

So we're trying to provide for more safety and separation, so this will help us take care of that uh concern that we have at the airport right now.

This is just uh a list of the improvements that they're looking to do.

Uh they're looking to invest again 15 million uh phase one.

They're looking to do um start on March 1st, 2028.

Uh there's a lot of hangers, a lot of uh ramp um and and uh landscaping areas and phase two, uh March uh 31st of 2037.

So I want to emphasize for phase two, even though the requirement is that they could build the facilities by then or the development by then for that phase two, they are looking to start paying rent uh to us immediately.

And their hopes is that you know they can start building doing the construction so that they don't have to come back and develop everything all at once.

That's that's what they're looking to do.

148,000 dollars uh per year, that's what they're looking to pay, about uh 12,000 per month, that is.

Uh there will be adjustments uh of for CPI on the sixth year and uh every 10 years after, and the same thing for fair market uh value adjustment on the 11th year and and uh every 10 years after that.

And since we don't collect any revenue from from uh the general fund, this is a source of revenue for the airport's enterprise fund, and this is how how uh we survive through rents and user fees at the airport.

So, what this will do for the community, I mean it meets the cities' strategic uh goals, and uh it will provide uh permanent and uh long-term jobs for San Diegans.

It would also build additional infrastructure for us and it will connect us more to the nation.

And what we're requesting for you today is basically to adopt uh a resolution authorizing the mayor of designee to sign this uh agreement.

And uh, we're uh asking for you to adopt a resolution declaring that this uh amendment is exempt from uh uh CIQA.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you for the presentation.

Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've not received any speaker slips here in chambers, and I see no hands up in the virtual queue.

So this concludes testimony for item two.

Very good.

We will go to council member comments and questions.

Dr.

Campbell.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

So much uh, in my opinion, clearer than the staff report on this one.

That's why I wanted to have it pulled because um you explained it so well verbally.

Uh so I understand that they that uh want to wait a little bit longer because they need a couple of permits from some agencies that haven't come through as of yet.

Uh so they want to wait until 28 was it or 27.

So what they're looking is uh they're looking to extend it for uh two years until 2028, I think.

And what what they're looking to do is it's not an extension up to that date, they could probably get the permits before that.

So it it would the commencement date could move ahead of the extension.

It's just an up to date.

Okay, that that sounds good.

So I would be willing to make the motion that we accept the recommendation.

Very good.

We have a motion.

Uh any cut further comments and questions.

Seeing none, I'm happy to second the item.

Thank you for the presentation.

Just very briefly, I noticed that we market rate uh rent kicks in in the 11th year.

Briefly, why are why are we not collecting it in the first 10?

What we do is we do uh an appraisal on the land, so that's kicking in right now.

Uh so the 11th year is again fair market uh rents after the the commencement date.

So on the commencement date, it's it's it's um it's the appraisal that we're doing right now.

Then on the 11th year, we're catching up again.

That this is typically what we do at airports, so we have to comply with federal grant assurances and they recommend increases every five years.

So we do CPI with the fair market, CPI fair market until the end of the lease.

Understood.

So there's increases baked in at various regular points.

Right.

Excellent.

Uh in that case, I'll sec I've seconded the motion.

We have a motion and a second, and I will call the role of Vice Chair Foster.

Yes.

Councilmember Campbell.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Yes.

And I'm a yes as well.

That passes unanimously with all members present.

We will now move on to the discussion agenda number three.

Sarah?

Thank you, Chair.

Item number three is approval of a 50-year percentage lease with Alps hospitality covering a hotel project on 19.27 acres of land located at Montgomery Air Gibbs Executive Airport at 8110, Arrow Drive, San Diego, California, 92123, and consent to a 34-year sublease with 8110 Aero Solar LLC for the installation and operation of a solar panel system on approximately two acres of land and on the hotel rooftop.

And again, if you're watching on TV or the live stream and you'd like to dial in, please call 1669-2545252 and putting webinar ID 160-3240614 pound.

Chair.

Thank you very much.

We'll now go back to Mr.

Rubio and his staff.

Uh, and please introduce and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Uh, for this item, we have Jennifer Beers.

She is our program manager for real estate uh uh at at the airports, um, and uh she will be providing a presentation.

Very good.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Okay, so today we we are going to be discussing the lease agreement for a hotel with Alps hospitality at Montgomery Gibbs Executive Airport.

As you can see, um the hotel is uh located in the lower left-hand corner of the site plan, and it's located in Council District 7 in Kerney Mesa.

The proposed new lease provides the Lessee with a new 50-year lease term rather than the remaining 27 years in the existing lease.

The current annual rent includes a minimum rent of 541,000 plus $80,716 per year in additional rent as consideration for the second amendment.

The lessee pays the higher of minimum or percentage rents.

Percentage rents in calendar year 2024 were substantially higher than the minimum rents at over $860,000.

Most importantly, the current agreement does not provide for any adjustments to fair market value of the rents.

The lease also complies with the Surplus Land Act.

As stated in the previous slide, the Lessee will be investing $8 million in repositioning the hotel, and the renovations are listed on this slide.

As some background on the Lessee, Alps Hospitality Inc.

has 18 years of experience in the hospitality industry and has hotels in all over California, including Milpitas, Carlsbad, and Solana Beach.

They were awarded developer of the year in 2015 by Intercontinental Hotel Group, a franchise group for its hotel development in Carlsbad.

That development consisted of a full service holiday in and an extended stay, Staybridge Suites Hotel on 9.6 acres.

So an appraisal conducted provided a fair market rental amount of 1.89 million dollars per year or 157,400 per month.

This is over three and a half times the current minimum rent.

The new lease will be 50 years in term and will include a deferred rent loan for the first 40 months of the lease.

It will also include periodic minimum rent adjustments based on CPI or the average of percentage rents for the previous three years.

This rent adjustment is on the sixth year.

Periodic increases in minimum rent will occur every five years thereafter.

And percentage rent adjustments will occur on the 11th year and every 10 years thereafter.

So due to significant investment and the repositioning of the hotel to a higher level Marriott brand, a percentage of rooms will be going offline temporarily during the construction period, and the tenant will not realize sufficient revenue to make the new minimum rent payment during the 40 month construction period and has requested reduced rent during this time.

The city is to provide the lessee with a bona fide loan for the deferred portion of the minimum rent.

The reduced minimum annual rent during the renovation period is $1 million.

That's $83,334 monthly, and the deferred minimum annual rent is $890,000 or $74,167 monthly.

The fair market interest rate of the loan is 8%.

The airports team worked extensively with the city's attorney's office, the Treasury Department, and the Department of Finance on discussing and reviewing the terms of the loan and the interest rate.

An amortization schedule was put together by the Treasury Department and reviewed and approved by Department of Finance staff.

The LESCE has also provided a personal guarantee as additional security for the loan.

The LESC pays the higher of percentage rents or minimum rents.

The city will be receiving the cash equivalent of $1.89 million dollars.

Of this amount, $890,000 per year will be deferred for the first 40 months of the lease term.

This amount will be compounded monthly at an 8% interest rate and paid back over a 10-year period starting on the 41st month of the lease term.

A little background on the Sub Les C.

They are a small business based in California and has the majority of their projects in San Diego County.

The solar system will create clean energy to offset um Alps annual electric load.

The batteries that will be installed on site can only support 100% of the site load at any point in time.

They cannot export electricity off site.

And the system is projected to offset 1,300 tons of CO2 emissions per year.

This lease will enable the city to meet its strategic plan priorities by fostering local community prosperity through its hospitality services for San Diegans and visitors, and protecting and enriching neighborhoods by provising providing visitors and San Diegans with hospitality services.

The economic development department is recommending the adoption of resolutions authorizing the mayor or designee to execute this 50-year lease agreement with Alps Hospitality Inc.

and declaring that this lease is categorically exempt from CEQA.

And with that, I will open it to any questions.

Thank you very much.

Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've not received any speaker slips and no hands have been raised in the virtual queue.

So this concludes public testimony for item three.

Very good.

We will now go to council member for questions and comments and entertain a motion.

And I will I'll just wait another minute.

Do you have you have you have questions on this item, Dr.

Campbell?

Yeah, I I have a couple of questions for you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Um I believe in the presentation I heard you use the term so surplus land act.

Correct.

I I don't see that in the staff report.

I might have missed it.

What is that about?

It um yeah, it is in the surplus.

Um it is in the staff report.

Um was any of this land declared surplus?

Um so the staff confirmed with the California Department of Housing and Community Delephone development that the lease um with this lesie is not a disposition of surplus land.

Oh, I see, okay.

I'm sorry I missed the whole sentence.

It does not contemplate development or demolition um within the meeting of the surplus land act.

Okay.

And then I wondered um uh about the 19.27 acres, does that include the pickleball courts in the golf course that may go in?

Yes, it does.

And the top the what is it, top golf?

Correct.

All included.

That's gonna be there too.

Correct.

Um just to clarify, the top golf, it's uh actually like a room where you practice.

It's not necessarily the field that they have in Vegas or some of those bigger cities.

It is going to be a suite.

A smaller version of it.

Correct.

Okay, I got you.

Okay, yeah, I wondered about that because that plus the hotel is gonna be on about 10 of the acres, is that right?

Um, the old one was on uh that's enough anchor acres for all of this, I assume.

It's about 19.2 acres for the hotel.

Um, we were collecting percentage rents before, and that this will just uh what this this is allowing us to do is to get the fair market value of the lands.

So they gave us a minimum rent for the lands rather than just a percentage.

And uh that I think that's the big win that we are looking to get out of reports.

Okay, and um I also wanted to ask you a little bit more about the solar, and you did you did give me a lot more information on that than we had the previous time.

So the solar is going to be put on the roof of the hotel.

Is that right?

What we envision, and we we was talking with the developer, by the way, the developers here, and uh the gentleman with the solar company he is uh via Zoom if if we have additional questions.

But what they're looking to do is to put the solar on top of the hotel and also on the land where the where the vehicles park, so the the parking areas.

Yeah, so it'll make a nice cover for the cars that are parked.

Correct.

And um you said something about 100% of that energy would be to energize the hotel.

That is correct.

Um what we understand is that uh the hotel, the the the developers of the hotel, not the developers of the owners of the hotel.

Um they use uh this company at other locations of milpedas and whatnot.

So uh they're used to working with these companies, so they're bringing them over so they can provide them with the solar.

They're trying to offset uh some of the electrical costs.

Um they are looking to realize some savings, but they will be uh connected to SDGNE, and they'll take advantage of the times when the energy is uh obviously higher or lower.

Well, they would be receiving two wheels for that.

Okay, so will they be on the net metering plan with SDG and E?

It's uh net meter three, I believe.

I think that's what they're looking for.

Okay, and um you you did talk about a battery storage, but all the storage would go just to the hotel, did you say?

That's correct.

So what what the what uh the not the hotel, but uh we speaking with uh the gentleman uh that is supporting the solar panels on, but uh he explained to us is that um they're looking to just provide energy to the hotel.

Uh he thinks that wing wing if they were to try to even sell the energy to the utility company, they would only get and and please don't quote me because I don't run really know the number, uh five cents versus just uh you know charging more to to the hotel to make up for them allowing them to be there, something like that.

Yeah, so it turns out they're not a commercial seller of of that solar.

They're just providing it for the hotel, and at night time the storage would be used to light the hotel, whatever it needs to be correct, energy services.

Well, that sounds good.

That really uh straightens that question out that we had offline.

So I really I really appreciate that.

I appreciate that we're gonna have the new lease.

And will this lease also then change every few years of the CIP.

Uh Jennifer, I don't know if oh, the presentation is off, but if you don't mind, Jennifer clarifying that.

Sure.

Um yeah, I stated earlier um the lease does have CPI adjustments.

Um CPI, yeah.

Yeah.

So I I noticed uh on the first item, yes, we had the CPI adjustments.

I'm just wondering on this one.

Yeah, so there are periodic um minimum rent adjustments based on CPI or the average of percentage rents for the previous three years when they're done.

So the first rent adjustment is on the sixth year, and then after that it's every five years thereafter, and then their percentage rent adjustments on the 11th year and every 10 years thereafter.

Wow.

Okay, so we get both, both percentage adjustment on the rent as well as the CPI.

Correct.

Well, it's it sounds like a very wonderful thing.

Uh complicated, but once you work out all the parts, it makes uh good sense, I think, and uh I'm happy to uh provide the motion uh that we agree with the staff recommendation.

Very good.

We have a motion from Councilmember Campbell.

I'll second.

Uh I uh having read through the agreement.

I know this is a significant improvement over the previous lease, uh which didn't have as much financial return and had limited community environmental benefit overall, and now we've improved on that.

And the base rent and revenue structures are now consistent with market expectations.

Um overall future focused deal that I think is gonna be more suitable for the city's portfolio in the long term.

Uh and it brings in private investment, which is something to be uh happy about as well.

So uh with that I uh second the motion.

Uh not seeing any other council member questions or comments.

I will call the role.

Vice Chair Foster.

Yes, Councilmember uh Campbell.

Yes, Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Yes.

And I'm a yes, and that passes with all four members present.

Uh now let's go to our next item, item number four.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number four is the establishment of a cannabis delivery services business permit and enhanced commercial cannabis enforcement mechanisms.

And if you're watching on City TV, the live stream online and you'd like to call into the meeting to speak, please call one six six nine-2545252 and when prompted, and put webinar ID 160-324-0614 pound.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

I will be handing over the presentation to my office's policy advisor, Summer Patton.

Just one moment.

Um nine minutes for the presentation.

Nine minutes, very good.

Good afternoon, Chair Campio and committee members.

I'm here today to present Councilmember Campio's proposal to establish a cannabis delivery services business permit and enhance commercial cannabis enforcement mechanisms.

Despite legalization of adult use cannabis in 2016, the illicit cannabis market continues to grow.

In California, the illicit market accounts for about 60% of total cannabis consumption.

In 2017, the Medicinal and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act combined both medicinal and adult use commercial cannabis activity into one regulatory framework and gave local jurisdictions the ability to regulate or prohibit cannabis activity within their jurisdictions.

As a result, the legal cannabis industry is subject to numerous state and local regulatory requirements that may differ throughout the state by jurisdiction.

And while the Department of Cannabis Control has made significant strides to improve state and local coordination and enforcement, the nature of the cannabis market and the ability for illicit or traditional businesses to avoid regulation, enforcement remains a challenge at the state and local levels.

Before we discuss the proposed local license, it would be helpful to review the state licensing framework.

The Department of Cannabis Control licenses and regulates cannabis business by activity.

The focus of our discussion today is on retail licenses.

Type 9 is a non-storefront retailer or a delivery only license by state standards.

And type 10 is a storefront retailer, which is a brick and mortar cannabis retail outlet.

These retail outlets are also allowed to deliver cannabis.

These state licenses come with stringent regulations to ensure public safety, consumer safety, and protect workers, including limits on the amount of cannabis a delivery driver can carry, age verification requirements for consumers, and limits on where deliveries can be made to protect public land, schools, daycares, and youth centers.

Currently, the city regulates commercial cannabis activity for cannabis production facilities and cannabis outlets through the municipal code.

Cannabis production facilities are non-retail establishments that manufacture, store, transport, or cultivate cannabis wholesale.

Production facilities require a CUP and are taxed at a business tax rate of 2% of gross receipts.

And cannabis outlets, the retail establishments that allow delivery services are taxed at a cannabis business tax rate of 10% of gross receipts, and delivery services from within the city are only allowed with this cannabis outlet with the CUP.

And delivery from outside the city is allowed pursuant to state law, and those businesses are required to register for a business tax certificate with the city, and they are also subject to a 10% cannabis business tax rate.

However, there are currently no explicit permit requirements within the San Diego Municipal Code to regulate these businesses.

State law requires delivery service access statewide, and local zoning prohibits delivery only facilities within city limits, it creates a regulatory gap at the local level.

Through this gap, state licensed delivery businesses can enter San Diego to deliver to consumers and potentially use a licensed cannabis production facility to restock products and deliver to consumers faster.

For example, an Orange County business can enter San Diego and deliver legally and restock from a cannabis production facility and make additional deliveries, which is not a regulated use.

Or businesses could carry more product than is allowed or make deliveries while already in city limits rather than make deliveries per request.

These businesses, while licensed, may be operating outside of their license requirements, which allows them to deliver faster, outcompete compliant cannabis businesses, and avoid local taxes.

And while no single policy can meaningfully address the illicit cannabis industry as a whole, these amendments seek to assess fees and taxes from a currently unregulated cannabis use delivery services that are legally permitted to deliver cannabis under state law but are not regulated by the code, and to strengthen local civil enforcement tools to address the ongoing challenges of the illicit industry.

Next, please.

The proposed amendments would require any out-of-town state licensed delivery operator doing business in the city to obtain a cannabis delivery services permit.

The permit would require proof of a state license, a local business tax certificate, and information of employees and owners.

Currently, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Long Beach, and Ventura currently require a local license for delivery services.

Further engagement with these cities will be conducted prior to full city council consideration.

We need additional analysis on permit requirements, fee benchmarking, and operational outcomes from each of these cities to help inform San Diego's implementation.

Should committee recommend continuing work on this item.

In addition to creating a local delivery license requirement, this proposal expands civil enforcement authority by raising penalties for all commercial cannabis violations, up to $20,000 per day, and a maximum of 800,000 in total civil penalties per business for ongoing violation.

And it also establishes a local private right of action, which is the legal tool that allows a private individual or entity to file a civil lawsuit and enforce rights under a specific law.

This has been implemented specific to cannabis at the state level through AB 1171, which authorizes state licensed cannabis businesses to bring lawsuits against unlicensed commercial cannabis operators.

And in order to prevail, the licensed operator is required to demonstrate in court actual harm that's caused by the unlicensed activity.

And at the local level, many cities regularly establish private rights of action within their ordinances to strengthen enforcement.

For example, Los Angeles includes a private right of action as part of its hotel worker protection and workload requirements.

And Oakland includes a private right of action for violation of its paid sick leave requirements.

And specifically related to cannabis, AB 1171 is limited to disputes between state licensed businesses and unlicensed operators at the state level.

A local private right of action would allow the city to enforce local requirements, such as a local permit requirement that are not covered under AB 1171.

And this wouldn't replace any current enforcement tools, but can serve as an additional legal pathway to support the legal market.

And to prevent any misuse or unintended consequences, the city can tailor this language to determine who may bring a claim and under what circumstances to ensure that this tool is applied fairly.

Our office has reviewed this concept initially with internal city departments that administer and enforce existing cannabis regulations, including the development services department, city treasurer's office, police department, and undergone a preliminary review with the city attorney's office.

Additionally, we have engaged with cannabis workers and industry stakeholders to gather feedback.

Today we are seeking feedback from on the policy concept from committee.

Should the committee recommend continuing work on this item, our office plans to work with the mayor's office, government affairs team to engage with the cities mentioned earlier that have implemented similar license types and increased enforcement in addition to undergoing a full review at the city attorney's office.

Additionally, we plan to conduct more thorough stakeholder and community engagement before getting final city staff feedback to incorporate into a draft ordinance prior to council consideration.

Staff's recommendation is to request that the District 7 office work with the City Attorney's Office, independent budget analyst office, and stakeholders to prepare amendments to Chapter 4, Article 2, Division 15 of the San Diego Municipal Code to establish a regulatory framework for out-of-town cannabis delivery services and strengthen enforcement capacity to support the legal market.

And with that, we're available for any questions.

Thank you very much for the presentation.

We'll go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received six slips here in chambers, so we will be again with in-person testimony.

Donella Nelson, you have been seated time by Brent.

Is Brent here?

Thank you.

Each speaker will have one and a half minutes, so I will place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

My name is Donell Nelson, and I work in the cannabis delivery as a delivery driver in San Diego for the past seven or five years.

When I first started in this industry, I felt like I was a part of something legal, safe, that things were moving in the right direction and changing the stigma of cannabis.

I remember the first time I ever took a delivery, I met a woman who thanked me for bringing product to her to her home without her risking of going off the street.

That moment reminded me that this job isn't just about driving, it's about helping people feel safe, care for, and seen.

Over time, I watch unlicensed delivery services and black market shops spread throughout San Diego.

They operate without oversight, without testing, without care for the safety of their customers.

The products that they sell are not lab tested, and that means that customers and consumers could be buying from something that is contaminated or harmful without even realizing it.

That's dangerous, especially for those consumers that have medical medical reasons.

A lot of our customers depend on delivery because they physically cannot leave their homes.

They rely on legal delivery drivers like me to bring them safe, tested products that they can trust.

When someone turns into an unlicensed source, they don't know who's showing up at their door.

They don't know if the product that they're purchasing that they could really rely on that relief.

And licensed shops, customers know our names.

We are documented, we are background checked, and we are trained employees.

That builds trust within the community.

People feel safe ordering from someone who's verified and represents a legitimate business.

That kind of connection is what keeps the industry credible and it keeps it safe.

That's why I support stronger permits and tougher informative enforcement against unlicensed operators.

This isn't just about competition, it's about fairness, it's about safety, as protect and about protecting the people who are trying to do things right, both for the workers and consumers.

All I ask is that the city make these changes and remember us, the people behind the will.

We are out there every day trying to make sure that we are providing safe quality products from legal businesses.

We are not the problem.

We are trying to be part of the solution.

We just want a fair chance, a safe job, and a system that values keeping this industry moving forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Todd Walters.

Todd, you will be followed by AJ Estrada and Phil Rath.

If AJ and Phil can move to the reserve seats at the front end of the room.

And Todd, I will place one minute and 30 seconds on the clock.

Good afternoon, council members and staff.

Thank you for your time.

My name is Todd Walters.

I'm the president of UFCW Local 135, and we represent about 500 members throughout the city and the county that work in cannabis.

We work really hard to create jobs, have labor standards, health insurance, some form of retirement, and this is under attack.

The current illicit market is thriving under delivery, and that's the one aspect that's hard to enforce.

These businesses, a lot of times are from out of town, or or they may not even have a storefront.

And like the report said, they may have uh warehouses that are very illegal, might be in a in a van or a car.

But we need to do something to control this.

The private right of action is something that's fairly new that where some private citizen can sue somebody else for not following the law.

We're having lots and lots of problems having enforcement, not just here in San Diego, but all throughout the state and in other states around the country that have cannabis, the enforcement aspect's been very difficult to chase down.

The most important piece of this is that private right enforcement.

And I just asked you guys to support us on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

AJ?

Hi, good afternoon, committee.

AJ Strado with the San Diego Building Trades Council, just here to support our brothers and sisters at UFCW.

Um I think this is a great example where unions come in uh to set standards, especially when we're talking about labor standards, when we're talking about quality control.

Um this is obviously the start of a discussion, but anything we can do to ensure that the drivers and the product getting to consumers is the best they can possibly be while strengthening the uh the opportunities for revenue uh with these uh fines.

Um I think it's a good discussion, and I'm I'm grateful that the committee is looking at it and moving it forward, hopefully.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Phil Rath, you have been seated time by COA.

Is Coa here?

Okay, so I will place three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Uh thank you.

Good afternoon.

It's nice to see you all.

I'm Phil Rath.

I'm here today representing the UMMC, which is a trade association of local permitted businesses.

Um, as much fun as it is to watch business and labor beat each other's brains out in this chamber.

Uh, I am here today to tell you that we support every word that you heard from our labor partners.

Uh we have no disagreement with them whatsoever.

In fact, they articulated my points very well.

I think this is a great first step in getting control of a very uncontrolled section of the marketplace.

Um, pretty much all economic research right now shows that more than half of all cannabis sold in this uh in this city is not taxed.

That's 10 cents of every dollar that you're missing for your budget.

And uh it really is a glaring opportunity for you to raise your own revenues and help a legal industry that is imperiled and help the workers who rely on good jobs.

We are uh labor-friendly, we um make sure all of our employees are actually employees and not contract employees.

Um I will say that the hard part about this, as you probably already know, is that this law, like many laws, is not self-enforcing.

As fun as it is to make law, many people have a great incentive to violate the law unless they are forced not to do so.

I will be optimistic that the private right of action is going to provide some mitigating effect on that.

I am not completely convinced that that will solve the problem.

Uh just this morning I was told by a member of our organization who owns a shop here that he received a call from San Diego PD on Monday, who had pulled over a van full to the brim with weed, and that person said, Well, I'm a delivery driver and produced documents that claimed he was a driver for our store.

And that person said, Well, I'm a delivery driver and produce documents that claimed he was a driver for our store.

That driver was not a driver for our store.

They simply uh copied those documents online and said that's their story.

Uh that is the kind of thing that is going to be necessary to actually stop this activity.

So I know this is tough budget times, but we can't just pass laws and expect everyone, especially in this market in this industry, unfortunately, to behave simply because it's the right thing to do.

The dollars are just too big for people to avoid doing that.

So I hope that we will be able to continue to be part of the conversation.

We appreciate the sponsorship of UFCW, our partners, and Mr.

Campillo, and we'd like to stay engaged in that and hopefully can provide industry insight into what's actually happening so that we can actually get control of that section of the marketplace and stop bad product and bad uh business practices and actually help your budget.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public testimony here in chambers.

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

Each speaker will have one and a half minutes.

We will begin with Terry Best.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

I'm Terry Best, a voter in District Three.

Um, please let's take care to define and clarify the private right of action proposed on the staff presentation.

As the staff member suggested, we should carefully craft the language surrounding that.

We have the leeway we can do it the way we want to.

Excuse me.

We must also um get solid community input on what that means, specifically what kind of harm would need to be established to qualify to file uh civil action, and what is the purpose of this?

Let's look deep.

Lastly, please prioritize social equity and all cannabis policy.

We are seeing policy created to improve the positions of the current industry, but not policy to improve the lives of those harmed by the can of by cannabis prohibition.

Thank you for your service to San Diego.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Armand King.

Please unmute and begin.

Um, yes, so my question is I have multiple questions, but um I'm hearing that stakeholders were talked to about this initiative.

Um, but what did those stakeholders include communities?

Did they include social equity advocates?

Did they include the cannabis education project, ASA, normal, and many other true advocates?

And I I don't believe so.

I have not heard of this, but I do believe those stakeholders you're talking about are the very industry folks who do want to monopolize the industry.

And uh, although I don't all the way agree with um the verbiage of this initiative, it's not all the way bad, but there's some there's some red flags that I would love to sit down with you, Mr.

Campillo, to talk about because there's some gray area that may very well uh uh perpetuate the war on drugs again, and we want to make sure that the language is correct.

This isn't as of as it is now, this is not ready to move forward, and true community input and stakeholders need to be talked to.

Um, and cannabis social equity has to be prioritized before any further um uh strengthening of the current industry.

And I would love uh Mr.

Campio, I know you mean well, and I would love to see that same strong talking role PPO that stood up at Bayside and Linda Bis the end day with his constituents and spoke strongly about supporting the people.

I want that MPO back, and let's do this for social equity and the people of San Diego, not corporate green.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I am a member of my local planning group.

I am very concerned this item has come forward as expanding delivery-only licensing in efforts of combating the ill illicit market is the wrong direction.

The city should focus on regulating and enforcing the system we already have, not expanding it and further complicating enforcement.

Right now, San Diego struggles to monitor its 36 permitted marijuana storefronts and dozens of production facilities.

The city's own reports and the grand jury have highlighted major gaps in enforcement from unlicensed operators to illegal advertising and tax evasion.

Allowing a new, quote, delivery-only category will multiply those challenges, spreading limited enforcement resources even thinner.

Delivery operations are especially difficult to track, and vehicles move across jurisdictions, operate out of sight, and make it nearly impossible for law enforcement to verify whether sales are legal or illegal.

Expanding this activity will only blur those lines further and make accountability weaker.

Before considering any expansion expansion, the city should conduct a full audit of its existing marijuana regulatory system, including how enforcement resources are being used, how tax revenue is spent, and how illegal operations continue to thrive despite the current laws.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the final hand up in the queue is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, economic development.

And thank you to Chair Campillo for your efforts in many of our behalfs, especially parents.

I realize that underlying this is the need to collect the correct taxes from the both illegal and legal businesses, and we're trying to put the illegal businesses out of business.

And maybe that would help us have some energies to do collection of taxes from the permitted businesses.

I think we're all concerned about enforcement and whether the city has the capacity to enforce it from where we've sat, it doesn't look like it, so we have some concerns.

But I do want to say I'm thrilled with the idea of taking a look at the delivery services for the parents and those of us living in our neighborhoods.

We well recognize the delivery trucks that wander around and uh seem to come from nowhere and go back to nowhere, and we wonder about their carrying pot.

And uh if anybody even knows anything about them, and so a permitting process could be the beginning to understanding that better.

Again, without enforcement, it there's just so many questions yet to be answered, but I do appreciate Chair Capillo's efforts.

It was well received here in the parent community.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time, and Chair, this does conclude public testimony for item four.

Thank you to members of the public for their participation, and I'll kick us off with this item.

Uh, first, thank you, Ms.

Patton for your really good work on this and uh collaborating with with many different parts of our community.

I do want to thank uh UFCW local uh 135 and the workers who are here today to share their stories and explain just what we're trying to get at here in protecting good jobs, supporting the legal cannabis market.

I'd also like to thank the mayor's office and the city attorney's office and their staffs for reviewing this concept uh and working to get us to this next step.

Uh we've seen how the story goes when uh illegal cannabis is treated solely as a criminal issue, relying on more staffing and more public funding to chase the problem.

Uh what we really have is an economic problem.

Unless the risks, uh financial risks outweigh the financial rewards, we will continue playing a game of whack-a-mole with bad actors who will find loopholes to continue to operate their businesses illegally and avoiding paying their taxes.

We've seen increased crackdowns on illicit storefronts and some success by the Department of Cannabis Control and the state task force in targeting the illicit market.

But let's be very clear that the illicit market accounts for 60 percent.

It is simply more profitable and has thrived long before government attempted to regulate it, and the penalties we impose are absorbed as a cost of doing business and notices can be ignored.

This doesn't just damage local budgets, it's killing opportunities for good jobs.

It's essentially punishing operators who play by the rules.

Folks who want to start a business, folks who operate, pay their workers well, provide benefits, keep it local and pay their taxes, are looking around at the environment and saying, why are there so many people getting away with breaking the law?

60% of the competition is breaking the law.

The mechanisms that we're looking at today, and hopefully moving forward with my colleagues' support, introduce more meaningful economic consequences and legal risk for non-compliance and helps level the playing field for the legal market.

It's a unique tool with clear precedent in other cities.

It's worth advancing for further development.

So with that, I move staff's recommendation to request that the District 7 office work with the city attorney's office, the IBA, and stakeholders to prepare amendments to Chapter 4, Article 2, Division 15 of the San Diego Municipal Code to establish a regulatory framework for out-of-town cannabis delivery services and then strengthen enforcement capacity to support the legal market.

Uh with that being the motion, we'll now go to council members and colleagues for per second, and I will go to Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you so much.

I I have a quick question about the um fee, the penalty fee at 20,000 per day.

Uh but the maximum is 800,000 in total.

Um do we have to have a maximum?

I'll defer to the city attorney for the legal requirement for a maximum.

But just um to answer your question about where the figures came from, those were just used from LA's municipal code as an increase to what we currently have for now.

So as stated in the staff report, the legal analysis hasn't yet concluded, so I cannot answer your question specifically, but as Ms.

Breton said that it is being used in other jurisdictions in terms of an amount.

A cumulative amount.

Yeah, it so, in other words, 40 days of the $20,000 fine would be the 800,000, and that would have to stop.

And then they could go on with their illegal business.

Unless some of the stability, obviously.

Yeah.

I I would like to see a much higher maximum.

I think in that particular illegal business, the 800,000 would be almost nothing.

So I as you reconsider all the details of all this.

I hope if you have to put a maximum in, which I prefer not to, let it just keep going.

Uh fine.

But if if you don't uh have to put a max, then I'd like to just see it continue to accumulate until they are totally broke.

And um I appreciate that.

Uh and I am happy to second the motion.

This is a good step toward trying to control a black market business that is getting in the way of the legal businesses and uh getting in the way of health uh for youngsters who shouldn't legal businesses would never sell to and uh we we really have to control this industry much more.

I'd like to see uh quality control on the product itself.

Uh controlling the level of THC, I know that would be a whole different uh thing and possibly a state law, but um or even a federal law once we get to that point.

But in the meantime, uh I really am appreciate the steps taken.

I appreciate the fact that we'll be able to have civil suits brought by legitimate companies against illegitimate companies.

I think that's gonna be a good step.

So thank you so much for bringing this, and I'm all in favor of it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's a second member uh second from Councilmember Campbell.

Hear you loud and clear.

Heavier hammer, I hear you loud and clear, assuming that there's nothing in the law that Mr.

Carlin can find that prohibits that.

Uh seeing no further comments or questions on the board, uh, thank you again for the presentation and for the public's cooperation or rather participation today, and I will call the roll.

Vice Chair Foster.

Councilmember Campbell.

Yes.

Councilmember Lee.

Yes.

And I am a yes, and that passes 4-0 with all members present.

Thank you, everyone for that.

Let's now introduce item number five.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number five is approval of the updated 2025-2026 City of San Diego legislative platform.

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

Inputting webinar ID 160-324-0614 pound.

I'd like to introduce Director of our Government Affairs, Mr.

Walt Bishop.

Please take it away.

Let's know how much time you need.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, 10 minutes for our presentation.

Very good.

Uh thank you, Chair Campillo and members of the Economic Uh and Intergovernmental Relations Committee.

Um, I'm excited to present uh updates to our city's legislative platform for the 2025-2026 legislative session.

Want to thank each of your respective offices and all the city departments uh that contributed to this year's update.

So just going through a quick review on what the legislative platform is.

Um city's legislative platform provides our team uh guardrail for what we can take formal positions on throughout the legislative session at both the state and federal levels, and gives us the ability to respond agile to fast-moving developments as things arise at the state and federal levels.

For the formation of this, as we head into year two of the respective state and federal legislative sessions, it's another opportunity uh to update our priorities to adapt to what's happening in Sacramento and Washington, DC.

Our guiding principles uh remain unchanged.

Uh, they are promoting social justice, equity, and inclusive economic development, preserving local control, and supporting fiscal stability and funding opportunities.

So I now want to highlight some of the high-level updates we've made uh to this year's platform in section one.

You'll see updates to various state items, including home hardening, so supporting legislation to address the ongoing insurance affordability crisis and support efforts to mitigate risk for homeowners, uh support for a 2026 statewide housing bond, uh, support policies that make it viable again to build condos in California, and then uh on the low uh income housing tax credit side, support uh the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee uh to incentivize projects in high resource areas for the allocation of tax credits.

Uh on the federal side of things, uh, in adapting to the first 10 plus months of the Trump administration on how uh the housing urban development uh side oppose efforts to gut HUD via staffing and funding reductions, which we've seen on more specific side support existing legislation such as the Road to Housing Act and Cut Red Tape for Housing Act.

Uh the continuum of care program, which we've seen as of late have some changes to it.

So we want to uh write in there oppose harmful changes to any COC funding, and then oppose any efforts to restrict federal nutrition programs.

When it comes to section two, uh just some highlights here, uh including funding for transit agencies to support uh uh these agencies to stabilize their operations, um, support the establishment of a statewide rate assistance program to help limit the cost burden on water and wastewater rates for San Diegans, support uh efforts to provide local jurisdictions more flexibility from statewide mandates via carb, and then support legislation related to uh hold polluters accountable and reduce uh utility costs through investor-owned utilities on section three, um support legislation to add fusion energy as a clean energy technology on the federal side, uh oppose unnecessary tariffs that harm our local businesses and the broader regional economy, as was talked about in the last item, uh protect the legal cannabis industry, um, and then on the immigration side at the state level, support state level advocacy to ensure that immigration enforcement adheres to due process, protects human rights, and enhance privacy protections.

Continuing on section three, uh, this is more federally focused, uh, oppose any new burdensome restrictions that make it harder for our city to uh receive and go after federal grant funding and financing.

Support legislation that makes certification or other credential transfers easier for military spouses, dependents, or veterans.

And then finally, support federal efforts to increase transparency within uh federal immigration agencies, including visible identification, prohibiting enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools and hospitals, and the creation of an online database to track those in ICE custody.

I want to thank the uh city clerk's office for these updates here regarding uh conflict of interest codes, and then on the use of records retention, the use of technology in section four.

And then finally, in section five, um focus on uh uh we saw last session uh quite a few bills um pertaining to uh statewide preemption of ALPR technology, so we want to get out in front of that for this session.

So uh added language to oppose legislation that restricts or disallows the deployment of ALPR technology to solve and prevent crimes.

In addition, uh support legislation that cracks down on illegally modified mufflers that lead to unnecessary noise pollution throughout San Diego.

On Prop 36 treatment infrastructure, so support funding for the implementation of proposition 36 to support the sex uh successful implementation of treatment options for those charged with treatment mandated felonies.

And finally, uh oppose the deployment or use of federal military or national guard personnel against civilian populations engaging in constitutionally protected activities and support state uh state efforts to safeguard residents from unauthorized or excessive federal enforcement actions.

So, in closing, uh I ask for your support in advancing this to the full city council for full adoption, and again appreciate your input uh into this year's update, and with that, happy to answer any questions.

Thank you, Mr.

Bishop.

We'll go to the public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received two slips here in chambers.

We will begin with Paul Kruger.

You will be followed by A.J.

Estrata.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Um we get more time with so few speakers.

It's been adjusted.

Two minutes per speaker.

Thank you very much.

I I don't know that I need all the time, but um while the while the um suggestions by staff uh were uh legitimate, it seems like we're missing the big picture here when we come to the issue of local control and the extent to which it is a huge issue throughout the state and here with the passage of SB 79.

Um there is uh a huge backlash against uh state requirements for um increased and often inappropriate uh construction projects, and uh I would urge this council to please um stress the need for uh more local control when it comes to um our city's ability to limit uh requirements for uh huge high-rise buildings and mostly with no parking, which is uh as we've all come to see a ridiculous uh requirement.

So specifically, um the the state's insistence on overriding proposition D, the 30-foot height limit, and saying that the city has no right through an even voter-approved initiative uh to require or allow a height limit.

Number two, surplus lands.

This is a huge issue that was brought to the fore with Mission Bay, and there was discussion among this council about pushing back against surplus lands.

Please discuss that.

Finally, as we know, um the mayor without consulting this uh council, um endorsed SB 79 on a statewide basis.

Anything you can do to um strengthen your role in these issues would be much appreciated.

Thank you, AJ.

Hey everybody, uh AJ Estrata of the San Diego Building and Construction Straits Council.

Um I just wanted to point out something that I noticed with uh section five public safety number 30, page 33, uh oppose legislation that restricts or disallows the deployment of automatic license plate reader technology to solve and prevent crimes.

I think this conflicts with uh an earlier section 3.6 immigration, page 28, uh number 13.

Oppose efforts that erode due process or expand surveillance or enforcement activities against residents based on immigration status, political expression, or participation in civic movements.

Now, I do not believe the San Diego Police Department has any intention to do any of that, but as I've said before coming to council committee, this is not about the San Diego police department.

Uh local law enforcement has found utility in this program.

I've heard them say that, but the concern of all rational people should be whether that utility justifies the infrastructure of mass surveillance we are building for the federal government.

The Trump administration's coziness with the multi-billion dollar companies that sell surveillance tech, specifically flock, uh, is terrifying.

It's terrifying because this is a lawless federal federal government that openly defies courts, Congress, and and everything in between.

Flock technology, specifically the technology being discussed today can only be deployed a fraction of the time.

So a big concern is what is it doing the 20 other hours in the day that it's not being used?

Um and how is that going to impact San Diego's trying to get to work, trying to access health care or even attend a protest.

How will this federal government use this technology against our communities?

It is a it's a program that's a feast for those that are searching for retribution against people exercising the First Amendment protection activities, not to mention the retroactive prosecute uh persecution for things not yet criminalized yet.

And just as a matter of public record, uh surveillance technology does not prevent crime.

Uh I notice it says in that in section five public safety to solve and prevent crimes.

Surveillance is not prevent crime, surveillance gets convictions.

Uh and if the goal is to lower crime rates, we should be investing in housing, health care, and things like that.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

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

As a reminder, each speaker will have two minutes and we will begin testimony with Jeff Hewder.

Please unmute and begin.

Yes, hello.

This is uh Jeff Huder from David's for Better San Diego to uh expand on what Paul Krueger said earlier, and also to follow up on a letter we submitted to the web form.

Uh basically um what happened with SB 79 is the letter was written as if it represented the legislative platform and the will of the council.

And in fact, it was written by a consultant who took that liberty.

Um we were never able to find out from the mayor um as to who made that decision, whether it was the mayor directing that letter, or whether it was the government of the mayor's office generating that letter, or it was the consultant herself that was generated that letter.

But regardless, if the legislative platform is the will of the council, then the lint the name and the signature on anything that's a letter of support should come from the president of the council, and that could be done as the discretion of the council president, or if the council president feels that legislation is too controversial, as SB 79 was, then the council president could refer that to the full council for a vote to decide whether to support or not support legislation.

The purpose of the legislative platform is just to inform the discussions that the city's lobbyists have with various legislators.

It's not purpose, isn't to take very vague and general statements and synthesize some sort of form of uh support for a uh complicated and again controversial piece of legislation.

So in the future, we would like to make sure that the legislative platform makes it clear that the uh the legislator, I mean the consultant doesn't have that discretion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kate Callan.

Please unmute and begin.

I would like to ask the council members to consider three facts, and I'll go over some points that Paul and Jeff made.

First, Todd Gloria never consulted you or even informed you before his lobbyists announced in July that the city had supported SB 79.

Second, Assemblyman Chris Ward knew before you did that Gloria made that decision.

Third, Ward announced the city's support for SB 79 in a message to his district.

And that's how the people of San Diego learned about it.

The mayor has insisted that the city's legislative platform gave him license to pursue his own political agenda with impunity.

That is not how democracy works.

If you want Todd Gloria to act more like an elected official and less like a king, please follow Donna Fry's advice.

We need some mechanism whereby the legislative platform will fully preserve local control and protect public parkland.

And we need much more transparency in how the legislative platform is followed.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And with another hands in the queue.

This concludes comment for item five.

Thank you to the members of the public for their participation.

I will kick us off here.

Uh, want to first express my thanks for the government affairs staff for their work on this year's legislative platform, uh, which uh for decades has served as our roadmap to advocate effectively at the state and federal levels, ensuring San Diego's priorities are heard and reflected in future legislation and in funding opportunities.

I'm happy that uh several of the proposed editions that my staff and I uh put forward uh were incorporated this year by our government affairs department, uh including clear language supporting open and fair trade policies that reduce barriers and costs for small businesses and exporters in San Diego.

Uh new language that supports comprehensive immigration reform, protecting immigrant workers and defending the right of all residents to peacefully protest and speak freely.

And the platform now also opposes the use of military and national guard forces on civilian populations, calls for oversight of private contracting with immigration within immigration enforcement, which I think are important values for our city.

Uh, I do have uh a slide that which should be available on the screen at this point uh with uh a suggestion, rather an amendment uh to include here.

It's about uh bullet 15 and the state policy priorities.

Uh, given the discussion that we had, I believe it was back in July.

I remember that uh we we had a long discussion over surplus land act as it related to Mission Bay Park and Park Lands.

Uh, I remember um being a bit of confusion over how state law works, and I know that uh Councilmember Campbell and Council Member Von Wilbert uh in particularly were championing our uh seeking uh of a exemption for Mission Bay Park uh from the Surplus Lands Act because of the nature of which our local charter and uh requires parkland to be put before a uh a vote of the public.

Uh that whole debate happened.

And I think that that is a good point that was brought forward by the public.

Uh so I would uh move approval of staff's recommendation uh with this amendment to add in uh with the with the strikeout of the end of that sentence and in that was there, but include uh supporting legislation that would amend the state surplus land act to clarify not all public land is suitable for housing, particularly while development would conflict with city charter or voter-approved measures, including but not limited to dedicated public parkland, such as Mission Bay Park, Boboa Park, Mission Trails Regional Park, other regional parks, open space, and canyons, and supporting legislation that would amend the state surplus lands act to exclude Mission Bay Park.

Given the Mission Bay Park Master Plan's extensive public input uh and knowing what we're trying to aim for over the long term there, uh, and that the uh sense of the council at that moment during that item was that we wanted more clarity on that particular application of surplus lands act.

I think that that would be uh an important part uh to include here.

Uh I strongly support the state's efforts to include middle income housing, affordable housing, and of course the surplus lands act plays an important role in that.

We go through that process regularly.

Uh this clarification ensures that we do work aggressively to address our housing crisis while upholding city charter and the will of the voters here in San Diego that want us to protect open space and parkland, uh, particularly in the one item it was about Mission Bay Park, but I believe it would be equally applicable to each of our other major parks, open space and canyons.

Uh and uh I do I do have a question uh Mr.

Mr.

Bishop.

Um we have the principles that lay out at the beginning the guiding principles, and then we have the aspect of specific legislative um sentiment or goals that come about with assembly bills and Senate bills.

Uh the concept of local control there.

Um I think that the public makes a good point.

Uh and I think one of the interesting things is that San Diego has been at the forefront of taking steps to improve the number of housing units uh and a lot of other cities don't follow our our leadership on that.

Uh at the same time, the state does seem to come forward with ideas that end up affecting cities that have uh qualified housing elements and put even more onus on a city like San Diego that goes to a further extent.

When you and your office and the mayor uh and our state lobbyists are looking at the concept of local control and preserving it, given that we have our own rules that are passed, whether they're disputed at the city council or not, what do those conversations look like such that we still advocate for local control, which has been at the forefront of the state of California without ceding our authority to the state legislature?

What do those conversations look like and how do how do you process the sort of dichotomy between those two things?

Yeah.

Um so with any piece of legislation, um, we'll take it introduced, to weigh in on it.

Um what happens is we'll take a review of something if something we want to oppose.

I take that that position with a uh recommendation to the mayor with a description, sort of translate how that would play out at a local level, um, and then provide that recommendation to the mayor.

Mayor would give me then direction to our state lobbyists uh topp, um, and then I would direct her to take a position on behalf of our uh of our city.

So I I I do want to correct some of the comments that were made by the public because I think some of them were not accurate.

Okay.

Um, that our state lobbyists is going rogue, which is not the case.

They are fully directed by myself and the mayor.

So I provide a recommendation the mayor.

The mayor then gives me the green light or red light, and we proceed as is.

So I just want to correct the record that our state lobbyists is not doing something without clear direction coming from our office.

Understood.

I never thought Ms.

Topp was doing anything rogue.

I I figured it was completely at the direction of of the mayor's uh team and and yourself.

Um in terms of the positioning of the city relative to whether it's taking a position as the city or the position as the mayor, what goes into the calcul, not the calculation, but rather the um specifics of whether it's the mayor himself versus the city itself, of which the city council is the policymaking body.

How does that do that come about?

So for for example, like there was a few bills that the the mayor himself sponsored this past legislative session.

Um for example, AB 379, which had to do um uh by assembly member Kraut, that was the mayor's uh name next to that.

Um in regards to this document here, which believe gives us the authority to take positions that are based on what is in this document.

I will say to this to this body, we are making an adjustment to that going into 26 to where we will be putting if we're taking a position on something, we're gonna be putting the mayor's name to that, and then this body wants to take a uh resolution to full council and have that adopted on a piece of specific legislation.

Then we'll take a position on behalf of the city.

That is one adjustment that's come out of this kerfuffle, if you want to call it, um uh of this past year.

So that's one change and adjustment we're gonna make on on our end of things.

I think it's cleaner.

Um we avoid some of the situations that we've had play out this year.

Understood.

Well, I appreciate that commitment, and I I welcome uh I welcome the mayor's team if they feel that there's something that the city should take a position on.

Obviously, having uh the council weigh in.

Uh I think that on the vast majority of uh legislation that does come before us, it's usually a 9-0 vote uh because when it's particularly when it's of serious public concern.

Um I know that it probably wouldn't on every single issue, but uh that commitment is very important to me, and I hope that the public uh hears or heard that open commitment right there.

Uh and I think Mayor Gloria for that commitment as well.

And I'll just give one example of last year, like for example, SB 569, which we sponsored Senator Blake's fear, which led to the creation of our Caltrans delegated maintenance agreement is one example that council took a resolution on.

Understood.

Well, thank you very, very much for that.

Uh with that, I will uh thank you for your good work on this.

I know this is uh this is very granular and requires a lot of uh analysis of state and federal overlapping issues, so thank you for your good work on this.

And Councilmember Campbell is next on the lights.

Thank you so much, Chair.

Um, and thanks, Walt, for the the presentation, all the good work that you do.

I really appreciate it.

Uh I have about five different suggestions to make.

First of all, as you've heard from me before, I am interested in raising the percentage of the property tax in this county that goes to the city of San Diego's coffers.

Uh, because right now I think it is way too low an amount.

In my study of the history of this, I have found that the state legislature is in charge of directing counties to change how they uh how they spread out the uh amount of money that is collected.

And you can correct me if any of what I'm saying is wrong.

Uh this was what I learned from the legislative IBA kind of person from the state legislature a few years back when I asked this question.

Um my understanding is that the uh original um ordinance that decided how this money would be distributed was done maybe approximately around 1950, so it was a very long time ago, when San Diego was a small city.

Uh and it was uh the amount of money that would be uh distributed was based on the amount of services to the residents of those areas.

And uh in those days, probably the county just had more fire department, more police department in the form of sheriffs, etc., than the city did way back when.

However, now the city is the eighth largest city in America and much larger than it was.

And uh there is some question as to whether the uh percent we get to the city conference is 12 and a half percent from each dollar, or is it uh upwards of more toward 18 percent?

There I've heard both numbers given uh from the document I received in my local property tax bill, I think it's still 12.5 percent.

Um but at any rate, uh I know a lot of the that money goes to schools and to our local schools as well as those around us.

I would like to have see that the county would break down exactly where everything is going, and it would probably take the state legislature to pass an act to make that happen.

But in the meantime, I would like to see our legislative people bring to the legislature the idea that it is time to reform the percentage amounts that are distributed to large cities from county property taxes, and that we are certainly not getting our share.

We have at least a third of the population in this county.

This is a huge county with about three and a half million people, maybe not even quite that many, and we have at least 1.4 to 1.5 million of those people within our city limits.

So I think we need to have a big raise in terms of how much property tax we get back since we provide the lion's share of it.

Okay, so that's that's my number one ask, which I've been bugging you about for a long time now.

I'm sorry about that.

But do you have any update on that particular topic or any correction?

I do not, Councilmember, I will have to get back to you.

Okay.

Uh soon, I hope.

Um, on the uh THC uh, the cannabis laws in our state.

I would like to see the state legislature enact quality controls on the amount of THC in both marijuana and hemp products.

I don't believe that that has any uh quality issues uh about it.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that it does not.

Uh having lived a long time and been in the era when everyone was smoking pot way back in the late 60s.

I know the amount of marijuana has increased dramatically uh in terms of contents of THC, and I think that's a very dangerous, and I'd like to see um university studies that I believe have already been done that talk about what levels would be safer than other levels, and I'd like to see the state regulate that with the quality control system, much like the FDA does with medications.

And I I'm not sure, but I think it might be in some hemp products also.

I'm not sure, but I think that should be checked because it could easily be in hemp products.

So that's number two.

Any any thing you know about that?

Is anybody attempted that yet?

I I'd have to do some research on that, council member.

Okay.

Uh my third ask is about the trains that go through the bluffs north of our city.

Uh my understanding is that uh it is a huge railroad commercial, one of the biggest, if not the large the biggest in the nation economically.

I'm not I'm not sure that's true, but I've heard that.

I wonder why the legislature has not taken action to be sure that those trains are moved inland so that they do not fall off those bluffs.

Now we have to close that transportation almost every weekend because of the danger.

And uh as the train goes by, there's a lot of friction, a lot of shaking, and those bluffs are in terrible danger of falling further.

So I really wonder why has the legislature not taken up fixing that.

At least the legislature legislators from the southern part of the state.

Seems to me we should have had action on that.

Yeah, I I'll say uh in addition to I think we've gotten some resources via the state legislature.

I would also say this is also a federal issue uh via FTA.

Um to your point, it's the second busiest rail corridor in the country outside of Northeast Regional, so New York to Boston.

Second bigger New York C DC, sorry.

Um so yeah, and this is something we've been continually pressing on at the federal level.

Um we got some funding through the biportion infrastructural office, Senator Blakesphere at the state level has been taking a leadership role on this.

Um yeah, I think continually do more again.

This is all gonna come down to a dollars and cents issue as well to be able to move those tracks inland.

Um, but it's consistently front and center one of our biggest priorities that we go to the state and federal governments on.

Well, I have a feeling that the state will be held responsible once a train goes down those cliffs.

So the sooner the better, I would say to the state legislature.

Um the fourth thing I wanted to talk about was the surplus land act.

I think I I would I like I like the uh additions and amendments that our chair has brought forward.

I just wonder if we could maybe expand it, or maybe uh you or the chair could explain why not to do this, and that would be to reform the surplus land act act definition of publicly owned land to uh exclude parkland as well as the other things in in his amendment.

Uh is that too broad to exclude all parkland?

That's a good question, uh Councilmember Campbell.

Uh I think I think it what I was focusing in on is what uh essentially I learned from the debate back in July over uh the land that was at discussion at the time.

Uh I think that any parkland, if any parkland were to be declared surplus by the city, we couldn't dispose of it without a vote of the public by two-thirds margin.

Is that correct, City Attorney?

Good afternoon.

Hilda Mendoza, Deputy City Attorney.

I believe what you are referencing, Councilmember Campio.

Can you lean into the mic, please?

There you go.

I believe what you're referencing is land that has been dedicated under Charter Section 55.

Not all city parks are dedicated under Charter Section 55.

So if it is dedicated, it is to be used for park and recreation purposes only.

Any change to that would require a vote of the people.

Um or it could be it would require a vote of the people.

Understood.

Can you give me an example of parkland that's not dedicated parkland?

I would have to defer to the park direct department, uh, council member.

They're the ones, and probably also EDB.

They're the ones that would have the list of those that are dedicated and those that are not.

Understood.

Uh Councilmember Campbell, my my intention was to capture exactly the point that you're putting forward right now, which is that we want to see the surplus land act, not as we try to what's the right way to put this.

As we try to bring to life our park master plans for various different parks that exist, that that's taken into account and that the surplus land act essentially excludes that and with a very specific mention of Mission Bay Park.

So I think I think I was aiming at what you were trying to, but it seems like that the language of it was not uh entirely fulsome to your liking.

I just I just think you know, we have over 600 city parks, and I would feel bad if those neighborhoods lost their parks.

Even with over 600, we don't have enough.

So I think in perpetuity to try to make sure that they don't go down to housing needs.

I I think we should we should try to do that.

Let's let's try to get where there are open spaces, such as in the unincorporated parts of the county, to open up and and help us with this housing situation instead of the having the state legislature push it all on cities.

Um I can't speak for other cities, but I really feel that our city is unique and that uh we need to be very careful.

Of course, I believe in more housing.

Obviously, I'm the author of the Midway Rising uh bills, but but I uh I do think that we have to be careful how we do it.

That is a a very uh a place that's ripe for redevelopment and could easily take housing.

Therefore, I think it's a perfect place to do it.

However, there are other neighborhoods that would not be perfect place to do it, and parks are not a perfect place to do it.

I think I have an answer for you.

So the surplus lands act would only apply where there would be a lease or development on city a city piece of city land like Mission Bay Park.

So if that's because we would be extending, or at least the the concept was that there might be at least longer than 15 years to develop what is in the Mission Bay Park Master Plan, which is 500 room hotel or so, and that therefore the SLA kicks in.

But on the types of parkland that you're talking about, uh it would it doesn't seem to me that there would be we should be worried about what you're pointing out, though it's right to be worried about it.

I don't think we need to be worried about it because in those sorts of things it would be essentially the SLA wouldn't kick in because we wouldn't be essentially selling it off or doing anything, and if it did, we'd have to have a two-thirds vote of the public on practically all of that dedicated parkland.

So um I think maybe we can formulate uh some concepts to either clarify, make more perfect the language that you're talking about as we hopefully move this forward to full council.

But uh I I I completely agree with your the core of what you what you believe, which is parks need to state parks.

Yes, yeah.

I I agree and I I appreciate everything you've explained, and I agree that if the city has leased it to a commercial organization uh such as for a hotel, that's a that's a different matter if it's already been uh been done in the past that it and it would be a good place for that kind of situation.

However, calling it surplus land, I think is just ridiculous because then it comes under the surplus land act.

So I'd rather have uh uh maybe a revision of the surplus land act so that it leaves out dedicated parkland and we'll make sure that all our parks are dedicated.

We might have to go to the ballot for that.

And then uh I think we need to have somewhere in that act preserve preservation of local control over things like SB 79, which I'm I was completely against, and um I haven't read the latest version that finally came through the legislature, so I hate to say I'm against that.

I've got to read it first.

But uh I d the idea of putting high-rise apartment buildings among uh one level or two level or even three-level family housing such as townhomes, I think is disgustingly ridiculous.

So I I don't know, it gets in the way of airflow, it gets in the way of uh health by uh blocking airflow, and I just don't think it's the right thing to do to neighborhoods that have single family homes.

I do not believe cities should get rid of single family home neighborhoods.

I think we should possibly encourage them.

But I would encourage the places that have open lands to open up to the idea of neighborhoods, whether it's with high-rise buildings or not.

But let's try and use a little common sense as we develop these things.

So whatever we can do to keep San Diego, San Diego, so that when you're going down the five, you're not blocked in by huge amounts of cement as you are in LA.

I would like to see San Diego State, San Diego, with good airflow from the ocean.

So thank you so much.

Uh do you have any answers to that particular complaint?

Uh no, I don't council member.

I think we've we've talked about that quite a bit at at also Councilmember Lee's committee uh about a month ago.

Um and I know uh director von Bloom is currently working on the implementation of the of the uh the law itself.

Yeah, and I must say that I want to congratulate our planning department what they've done in terms of planning and part of my district, the Claremont plan is coming up for renewal.

And our planning department very seriously took into consideration the fact that we need a lot more housing, but on the other end, we have to be very careful we'll replace it.

And where they have suggested, I think makes good sense, uh public policy-wise and common sense wise, and I want to thank our planning department publicly for doing that, and uh thank them for their support of the citizenry.

Thank you very much for your support and all the work you do.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Well, did I hear a second?

Oh, yes, I I was gonna say, you know if you need a second, you got it.

Very good.

Thank you.

Uh seeing no one on the lights at this time.

Um I will I Vice Chair Foster.

Yeah, just um quickly, Walt, I know you have been talking with my office.

Um, and I know there's been some conversations about getting a couple of things added or or talking about intent and so forth.

What's the next steps in this?

Does this just simply um makes it through here, goes to council?

Yes, we'll wrap this up.

Yeah, so if today's action with council member campio's amendment is adopted, we will take this full council next.

The plan is next month uh for full adoption and another opportunity for uh further amendments um to the platform itself before full adoption.

Okay.

Um with that, I'll be supportive of the item today moving.

Um, but I would like to fall back, have some additional conversations.

Um I do share concerns um you you know what was voiced by my office on the um license plate readers.

Um also I think there were some conversations on Prop 36, um and also just some other things in regards to economic development, um, I think um things that we can take a look at.

Um I also do have concerns on um I guess housing, some of our things are broad, right?

And as we are doing letters of support.

So I'm good to hear that there's a process I think that you are vetting out to uh make sure you mitigate any um circumstances like um we did in the past.

Um and and also one other thing.

Is there a way to deal with unfunded state mandates in here?

Is there something we can do?

Because I feel like we keep getting I feel like we keep getting things shoved down our throat and and we end up in with issues.

So is there some way that we can increase our lobby into to make sure our our representatives know hey, you know, make sure there's a little change associated with painting rib curb sometimes, doing certain things.

That that is the uh if you figure that out, council member, give me a call.

Um but yeah, it's some to it to be honest with you, it's it's one of the biggest challenges we face in Sacramento is just the cost of unfunded mandates.

And again, I'd like to think they when you're developing legislation or some ideas that that thought process enters your mind, and unfortunately that sometimes is not the case, and that's our job, it's Liga City's job, CSAC's job as well, and continue to beat the drum on.

Listen, uh you pass these costs down to us.

There's uh there's a limited amount of resources.

So in those instances, that's where we might have to take an opposition position.

We don't like to press that button, but at some sometimes you need to to make a point and and hopefully if it's something that's gonna add uh significant cost burden on us, you know, hopefully stop that.

Understood.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair Foster.

Seeing no one else on the lights, we have a motion.

We have a second, and I'll now call the role of Vice Chair Foster.

Councilmember Campbell.

Yes.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Yes.

And I am a yes, that passes unanimously.

4-0.

Let's introduce our next item, number six.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number six is the fiscal year 2025 citywide annual grants report.

And if you're watching on City TV at the live stream online, please call 1669-25452, 5252, and when prompted, input webinar ID, 160-324-0614 pound.

Chair.

Very good.

Mr.

Bishop.

Your team is up again, and Brittany Bailey, our grants and special programs manager as well for the presentation.

Thanks, Councilmember.

Uh, we'll need 10 minutes for our presentation.

Very good.

And with that, I'd like to uh hand the floor over to Brittany Bailey, who will take you through today's presentation.

Brittany.

Thank you, Walt, and good afternoon, honorable council members.

I'll begin with a brief overview of our division's function.

The grants division in government affairs coordinates with all city departments as well as external community-based organizations to ensure that the city is being as strategic as possible in our pursuit of grant resources.

As you may recall, our division was created in response to recommendations from a 2017 performance audit aimed at improving our citywide grants operations.

Beginning in FY19, the grants management function was consolidated under government affairs, and the FY25 report is our seventh report to date.

Since then, in accordance with the audit's recommendations, we have developed process enhancements that have resulted in more efficient, transparent, and successful grant operations.

These include improved internal communication and collaboration on grant opportunities, the creation of an automated workflow system called the grant review team that requires department management, our department of finance, and ultimately the mayor to approve all grant applications before they're submitted.

Dedicated grants division support for training and technical assistance and comprehensive annual reporting of all citywide grant activity, which is what today's presentation covers.

Our two primary constituencies are our internal city departments that we support and empower to go after grant opportunities, and our external agencies and community-based partners who we partner with on collaborative applications.

We also provide a written official support for grant applications from outside CBOs and regional partners such as Sandag and the Airport when it makes strategic sense to do so.

Our collaboration with our regional depart uh partners has brought in millions of additional funding to San Diego, benefiting our region even when we're not the primary applicants or recipients.

Reflected in our Muni code is the requirement to report annually on the city's grant performance, which is what we're presenting today, that allows you and the public to evaluate our grant performance over time.

Next slide.

Here you'll see a diagram representing the intersectional relationships and grants functions at the city, which are shared across departments and branches as we all work together to secure and manage grants.

City departments primarily write their own grant applications, and if successful, are responsible for the implementation of their grant funded projects and programs.

Department of Finance tracks grant awards and back of house accounting reimbursement and reporting requirements.

And overall, the grants team under the mayor's office reviews approves monitors and reports on citywide grants, in addition to providing support to grant-seeking departments by assisting with notice of funding opportunity evaluations, application project management, supplemental grant writing and editing, and preparation of technical documents.

Next slide.

This year in FY25, we had 112 applications for a total of almost 600 million dollars, a new city record.

That is an 80% increase since last year on the value of the grant applications.

Numerically, slightly down from last year's 120 applications, but overall in FY25, you can see that departments went after higher value grants.

This year in FY25, we had 36 awards for a total of just over 164 million.

In comparison, last year in FY24, we had 82 awards at 204 million, representing a decline in overall grant awards and a 40 million dollar uh lesson last year.

The primary driver of this was lack of state and federal earmarks.

Next slide.

If you'll look at the overall five-year performance, this is our second year in a row that we've had declining grant awards.

Uh, this was not a surprise.

It was projected to happen.

Our awards for a few years were increased due to COVID-era stabilization funds.

Additionally, during this time period, Congress brought back earmarks, which are now called congressionally directed spending, and we've had a great delegation that's looked out for us.

In previous years, we also benefited from a booming economy in California with lots of funding coming down from the state from our state assembly members and senators who ensured that our priorities were funded.

What happened next?

Well, the city spent down our COVID funding and the state was hit hard with a massive deficit.

In FY23, we received 129 million in federal earmarks, and in FY25, we received none.

That is the nature of grant funding sometimes.

However, what we also see here is an overall linear growth in terms of grant applications, and that reflects all the hard work our teams are putting into finding funding, vetting opportunities, and putting forward competitive programs and projects.

This is great progress year over year.

Next slide.

From a composition perspective, our funds were pretty evenly split between competitive and non-competitive sources of funding, which is consistent with last year.

However, this year our share of funding from state sources increased to 78% with just 21% federally so federally sourced and nominal local and private funding.

Next slide.

This year, the department with the most amount of applications was the police department, accounting for 13 grant applications.

Public utilities department applied for the most amount of funding at 180 million.

The most amount of grant awards goes to transportation with over 90 million in awards and police for 11 grant awards.

A lot of times we may have great potential funding opportunities, but may not be able to go after the grant because there isn't enough capacity to manage it on the back end.

Grants may have a one, three, five, or ten year spend down timeline, and each comes with its own reporting requirements.

Grant applications are a lot of work, but the real work begins post award.

In that vein, we also want to give a shout out to parks and recreation at 45 active grants.

They're managing the largest portfolio of any other department.

Next slide.

Looking at our FY25 grants program highlights, this year the city auditor completed a performance audit of the citywide grants program, making a number of recommendations.

The grants team has been actively working on audit recommendation implementation and expects to be finished by the third quarter in 2026.

Additionally, due to budgetary concerns, the grants team, previously split between government affairs and the DCO's office, was consolidated under the mayor's office under one team.

Also, we are not breaking news here.

The Trump administration has been a challenge and will continue to be for the remainder of his time in office.

We continue to try to find ways to adapt to new policies and direction.

We want to acknowledge that overall this is a challenging time for federal funds.

Moving on to our team's accomplishments, in FY25, we completed our conversion of the grant review team from SharePoint to the docketing system on base, which has allowed us to take advantage of system efficiencies and made the review process more robust and transparent.

Our team reviewed over 200 grant notices of funding opportunities and work with departments to vet those NOFOs for priority projects and programs.

We provided dozens of letters of support to outside agencies and organizations, and we continue to hold our quarterly grants working group meetings, attended by an average of 60 to 80 city staff across 21 different departments in order to provide training and information of citywide interest.

Next slide.

So what's next?

In FY26, our team will be continuing with our audit recommendation implementation, which will include new tools and resources.

Chief among them is the grant strategic plan, which we are currently heavily into planning and development phase.

The strategic plan will help us identify priority projects and programs, identify challenges, capacity training needs, and potential funding sources, and will help us ultimately better align available funding with city needs.

We will also be implementing a citywide grants library to centralize storage of grant applications and debrief notes, which will be available for citywide use.

Additionally, the recent audit made mention of a few different investment strategies to supplement our work, including a grants writing contract and NOFO subscription service.

And finally, we will continue to be aggressive in applying for federal and state grants, but understand the challenging environment at the federal level and the uncertainty around the budget at the state level in light of implementation of the one big beautiful bill.

Next slide.

That concludes our presentation, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for that presentation.

Let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

No slips have been submitted here in chambers, and seeing no hands go up in the queue, this concludes testimony for item six.

Very good.

With that, I think seeing no one on the lights, I do simply want to say that uh given the extremely difficult funding environment that we were in.

I know we're going to be relying on your team, uh, Mr.

Bishop and Miss Bailey, even more and maybe the long-term economic ramifications of various federal uh policies mean that grant funding is even more important and becomes even harder to secure.

Uh, is it still the situation that matching funding becomes one of the biggest impediments to us achieving other grants?

Yes.

Uh full stop.

Um I think it's one of the more most important things.

And um again, we we just had an audit that we responded to, went through a very comprehensive process.

And if if you again give me a magic wand to wave, if I can wish for one thing, it's more revenue to be able to do matching funds and apply for more things, right?

Because at some point, you know, there's only so many nickels under the couch cushion that we can find.

Um, but more revenue sources will allow us to do more and be more aggressive in that space.

Yep.

And if they discontinue the penny, the nickels become even more valuable.

All right.

I appreciate your very good work.

I see no further comments or questions from my colleagues, so thank you for your presentation today, and we'll see you again soon.

Uh with that, we come to our item number seven uh on our information agenda.

Let's please introduce it.

Item number seven is the Seaport San Diego project update from Seaport San Diego Project Team.

If you're watching on City TV, please call in 1669-2545252 if you wish to provide a comment.

Inputting webinar ID 1603240614 pound.

Chair.

Very good.

Uh I'd like to welcome our guest today who will be presenting on Seaport San Diego.

We'll hand it over to Yehudi Gaff Gaffin, our CEO of the project, and Kathy Breedlove, Director of Planning, both from the Seaport San Diego development team.

Uh please let us know how much time you would need to go through the presentation.

Uh we need about 10 minutes for the presentation.

Very good, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Campio and members of the EDIR committee.

I'm Yehudi Gaffin.

People call me GAF.

I'm the CEO of One Highway One, the development entity that was uh selected by the Port of San Diego to enter into an ENA for the redevelopment of the seaport site.

Um the proposed project is anticipated to include a component of infrastructure financing that would involve the participation of the City of San Diego and hence our presentation today to bring you up to date.

While we are still in the entitlement phase of the project with the port, we we are we were invited here today to provide this committee with this update on the project.

Um the update has four components a project overview that you'll see.

We're going to go through our current status on entitlements.

Uh, we're going to talk uh briefly about the economic benefits and then discuss the infrastructure financing concepts.

The slide you see before you is the existing site.

Uh as I mentioned, it's on Port Tide Lands within the city of San Diego.

It encompasses not only the existing Seaport Village, which is about 13 acres, but also the embarcadero Marina Park, which we call the peninsula, the existing processing fish processing facility, which is operated by Santa Monica Seafood, existing Roco Park, and the G Street Mole, which includes the Tuna Harbor Park.

It does not include the fish market restaurant, which is under lease to the brigantine, or the old police headquarters, which is also under separate leasehold.

The site's approximately 35 acres of land and 35 acres of water, totaling around 70 acres.

The um this rendering you see here is the project, which has actually been stitched into downtown.

At the center of the project is what we feel the jewel in the crown, which is our uh tower, our observation tower.

And uh you'll see that we hope this will become the new postcard image, the Instagram image of San Diego as we move forward.

Uh the uh you'll also see here our enhanced public parks, our access piers, recreational marina, and we feel this will bring people closer to the water than they're currently able to do.

The site plan you see has been color-coded.

Um you'll see that the plan includes the yellow, which is mainly hospitality, it's really the anchor of our project, roughly 1,900 rooms in a variety of price points.

We've really tried to provide what isn't available downtown, everything from a hostel, a uh micro hotel, select service, limited service, and a luxury hotel.

We are also proposing a multiple attractions, a world-class aquarium shown in in the purpley blue color, a learning center, which is a partnership with San Diego Unified School District, and Scripps at UCSD.

Uh we have a marine science technology component, uh, an event center for live performances that's operated by AEG, our partner.

We were actually working with them last week in New York.

Block G on new facilities to support our commercial fishing industry in San Diego, and also redesigned tuna tuna harbor park, which is being planned in conjunction with the Midway to create our nation's largest veterans park, which will wrap around the midway.

This is the embarcadero, the enhanced embarcadero that goes from the G Street Mole on the left.

You see our aquarium.

You'll see we've really widened it out from the existing 20 feet.

It averages around 60 to 70 feet, and in places it's 100 feet, so much widened for our public and visitors, for our locals and visitors to use.

This is a vision looking onto the peninsula.

You'll see we've retained the famous carousel, the low carousel that is historic.

The public really love this carousel, and we've tried to build it into our park space.

Next slide.

This is Block D and E, which is really our major public space.

We've removed the cars, we've turned the entire peninsula over to the public as a recreational open space.

It's a combination of open lawn areas, multi-purpose, new children's play area, and an urban beach which isn't available downtown.

Next slide.

This is our children's play area.

It'll be free, it'll be accessible by all, putting a lot of energy into it as to how it's going to actually operate.

This is the end of the peninsula, a multipurpose space which can be used for yoga or events.

Next slide.

This is our urban beach, a place for either passive or active recreation.

You'll be able to launch paddle boards.

If you want to swim, you'll be able to, or just keep keep your toes in the sand and enjoy passive reading of a book.

Next slide.

This is our reconstructed wetland where we want to be able to have the public be able to actually see the tidal movement, experience what our coast used to look like before the RIPRAP was all installed around our bayfront.

I'll now touch on our current status.

We're in the process of our environmental review.

The draft EIR is underway, and we anticipate that being finalized next year with a certified EIR following in 27.

A significant milestone for us was our MOU with the California Coastal Commission, which has really given us more certainty as related to the completion of our entitlement process of our process for enabling the coastal development permit and the amendment to the Port Master Plan.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Next slide.

It diverts a portion of the incremental tax revenue from the project, which would include uh pieces of the property taxes, the hotel taxes, and sales taxes.

Does not include increase any property tax assessments, does not come out of the general fund, and the city uh provides no guarantees for those bonds as we go forward.

It only pays for public infrastructure, no private infrastructure.

And the types of public infrastructure are listed here, things like shoreline stabilization, uh mobility improvements, public utility improvements, the promenade, green strand, the urban beach, etc.

Next one.

The um it does align with the city's long-term strategic plan to foster regional prosperity, to protect and enrich every neighborhood.

I live downtown and I really feel this will enrich our downtown.

It advances mobility and infrastructure and it champions sustainability.

I'm really proud that the entities you see on this screen today have all supported us over the years.

This has taken a lot longer than we anticipated.

COVID obviously interrupted it.

Although we were selected in 2016, I feel we really started this project after COVID around 2021, 2022.

I thank you for your time and we'll turn it over to the next section.

Very good.

Thank you so much.

Uh we will go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll begin with in-person testimony.

Tony Gordon, if you can please approach the lector, and you will be followed by AJ.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Good afternoon, council members and staff.

My name is Tony Gordon, and I'm the vice president of real estate at the Port of San Diego.

I would like to thank the committee for taking the time today to hear this presentation on the Seaport San Diego project.

The central embarcadero is unlike any other site along San Diego Bay, ideally located on the waterfront in the center of downtown, and one of the most heavily visited sites on Port Highlands.

The port has been pursuing a reimagination and redevelopment of the central embarcadero since 2015 with a goal of creating a world-class waterfront destination with new experiences for visitors and locals to enjoy.

The Board of Port Commissioners selected the one Highway One team back in 2016 following an extensive and competitive solicitation process that involved a well-attended open house for members of the public to provide input.

The port is currently working through an extensive entitlement effort to advance the project, in addition to engaging in ongoing conversations with California State Land Staff, Coastal Commission staff, and other important stakeholders.

We look forward to continuing to work with city staff and other stakeholders to help deliver this important project for our region.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

AJ.

Good afternoon again.

Our top priority is to support investments into the city that provide living wages, uh, opportunities for growth through registered apprenticeship programs, uh, and that treat all workers with dignity and dignity and respect, which is why I'm sharing our support for the C Port Village, the Seaport San Diego project and the transformative benefits that it's gonna bring for our city.

Um it does have a project labor agreement on it, which means thousands of on-site construction jobs, uh, and then permanent on-site positions uh afterwards.

Uh this means that Seaport San Diego will provide local families, local working families with high quality, high-wage job opportunities right here in the heart of our city.

And we're also excited to see such a bold vision uh that prioritizes our open and public spaces, especially our bay front.

New public plazas, walkway parks, and other public amenities uh would make the Seaport San Diego a truly special place for San Diegans to visit and tourists to visit and to be proud of.

So we look forward uh for this project to move forward and hopefully can you all uh support this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes testimony here in chamber.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes beginning testimony with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

All right, uh Blair Beekman.

I was attending uh a San Jose uh public meeting today.

Sorry, I'm late.

Um yeah, for this item.

Um I wanted to first uh I comment that uh I I question um with the the previous item on grant issues.

If that is an item that uh is there a way to invite public review and oversight for the grant process of the future?

Something to consider.

Uh thank you.

With this item, uh for me it's really important that we're working uh on tech accountability uh so much and so well.

We have the chance to uh that um the it's a really good item to speak to the seaport issue areas and how they consider about uh travel and tourism and commerce to have a really good tech accountability plan in place.

I think helps promote tourism and uh people want to come to an area to see uh you know best practices in action uh and that their community is being uh having both public safety and an open public policies that people can feel safe about the technology and not fearful.

Um to do that well, I think can bring in a lot of good tourism, and uh people want to be around that and see that.

So uh just wanted to remind that in these seaport issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Daniel Cooper Schmidt.

Please unmute and begin.

Daniel, I have given you permission to speak.

We cannot hear you.

Okay, we will move on to Clayton Fowler.

Clayton, please unmute MV in.

Good afternoon, Chair Campio and committee members.

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

For over three decades, the DSDP has remained committed to bolstering the economic prosperity and cultural vitality of downtown.

DSDP is proud to work every day towards a more vibrant and inviting downtown for our residents, workforce, and visitors.

We're a proud supporter of Seaport San Diego, including the transformative cultural and economic benefits it will generate here in downtown and across the entire region.

Seaport San Diego will provide beautiful and functional public spaces and amenities that all San Diegans can access and enjoy on the Bayfront.

It will be a place to relax, learn, and recreate just steps from the from and directly connected to downtown's unique neighborhoods.

We also look forward to the powerhouse job creation opportunities and economic activity that will come with a fully reimagined Seaport San Diego.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is registered as Zoom user.

Please unmute and begin.

Well, thanks for taking my call.

Well, I've been waiting for this project for 20 years, man.

You guys are doing a great job.

World-class design people.

I think it's really nice, man.

The sooner the better.

And the beach is going to be incredible.

I go down there about once a week, walk around.

Uh I this got a little late in the game, but um, you know, the county has that county building, and they have the pickleball courts and basketball court and like a dog run.

It's like in a rectangular space.

I don't know if you guys could fit one of those things in there.

Maybe by seat by the not on the beach or nothing, but just in the back where it starts or something.

Would that be incredible?

Have pickleball and a dog run and then a uh basketball court.

It's a small thing where the county has it.

You've been walking around there, he probably has seen the county building where they have that.

It's really working for the neighbors and everything.

So hey, full ahead, go for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And returning to Daniel Cooper Schmidt, I've given you permission to speak.

Please unmute and begin.

Daniel Cooper Schmidt.

Okay.

All right.

Chair, we're not able to make the connection.

Um you can submit your comment to council committee at San Diego.gov, and this will conclude public testimony for item number seven.

All right.

Thank you to the members of the public for their participation.

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

And I will kick us off here.

First, I just want to thank the Seaport San Diego project team for this update.

I know you've been working on this extensively for years, and uh the collaboration you've had with the city, uh, economic development department, mayor's office, and with the Port of San Diego has been extensive.

So thank you for that.

Uh since I learned of this project several years ago, uh, and and getting an understanding of just what this is going to provide for our region.

Uh really every single time I drive on Harbor Drive, I think about this project and what it means.

Uh fundamentally, it's a visionary project that San Diego always seems to be passed over for.

Uh but because of one highway one, we have this, and it's being developed by a San Diego company.

Uh it's a transformational project for the waterfront, one that breathes new life into a key part of our city while prioritizing environmental sustainability, great local jobs, and public access.

It improves what I believe is our global reputation by creating the waterfront our city deserves, and it creates something that will have positive economic ripple effects for generations.

And it will become a welcoming destination where people can enjoy the bay, visit local shops and restaurants, spend time with their families.

It will bring people to San Diego and give San Diegans something to be sincerely proud of.

In my opinion, the existing Seaport Village site has outlived its attraction, and we often speak of highest and best use of parcels of land.

The project in front of us, I think qualifies as the highest and best use of any waterfront in the world, frankly.

This will put San Diego on the same level in quality as places like Sydney and Vancouver and Singapore.

But because of how the team has designed it to meet the needs of San Diegans, it'll be far more accessible to working and middle class families while creating great union jobs.

There will be luxury, but also affordability.

There will be world-class amenities, but that will be very San Diego centered.

And the city will also gain important new revenue through hotel taxes, property taxes, sales taxes, and uh funds that go straight back to supporting city services and community priorities.

So I appreciate the project team's strong partnership with labor, their commitment on a project labor agreement, which ensures San Diegans benefit directly from the jobs created.

This is an indispensable part of the project's positive impact.

So I want to ask a few quick questions.

Uh Mr.

Gaffin, I know that uh you mentioned the tax increment, the enhanced infrastructure financing district.

Um I know it does require the county to get on board to formulate one of these.

Have you had any conversations with the county about this?

We have had initial conversations with the county.

It's positive.

Uh, but we really wanted to advance the conversations with the city first because they're the larger contributor.

Understood.

Uh from my understanding of it, for this project to get done, the city will have to take up an enhanced infrastructure financing district, similar to what we did for the Midway Rising project in March of 2024.

I believe that passed unanimously with the city uh council.

Uh I'm a big supporter of EIFDs just generally speaking because they help create development, and contrary to the idea that they remove property tax dollars for city purposes, they instead create the full incentive for investment that leads to an overall larger tax base.

Uh in the chicken or egg debate when it comes to development, an EIFD is both the chicken and the rooster, really, uh, to make sure that we have more eggs and more chickens.

Uh perhaps the metaphor is a bit much, but it's critical for everyone to understand that EIFDs are wise paths forward, uh, and without it, we really build nothing.

Um so I think the port for being great partners uh for working on this all along as well.

Um I know that with the EIFD it it is really really important and really really a wise path.

Um another question about uh different topic, mobility and accessibility.

Uh what's planned to allow for traffic flow, walkability, uh public pedestrian safety, you name it.

What's in the plan for that?

Sure.

So one of the core principles of the project is to enhance mobility on land and on water, and it's been very much built into our design.

We've included bike and pedestrian pairs that link to downtown and beyond a mobility hub within our project, connections throughout the site to make Seaport San Diego much more accessible to everyone.

The goal is to be able to connect to and walk or bike the entirety of Seaport Village with with ease, much easier than it is today.

So it's a major focus of ours.

We realize that to get the number of people to it, this will have to be focused on to have it be frictionless.

Very good.

Um of the things that I bring up on many different items as it relates to development uh is the affordability for San Diegans throughout our region.

I know it's early, there's you know, uh in terms of the layout of what's coming forward, but the plan right now is for various amenities, hotel rooms, restaurants at all price levels, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah, you won't need to only go to a wide tablecloth restaurant.

We've really put a lot of effort into making this comfortable for all, whether you come from La Jolla, from Barrio Logan, from City Heights.

Uh we will have failed if that isn't comfortable for everyone.

Understood.

Well, I appreciate that commitment.

Um I'm looking forward to continued partnership.

I know we've had great conversations, particularly with our economic development department and the mayor staff uh and and with the port.

And so uh I really appreciate you bringing this vision forward.

Uh the I can I can see it now is the phrase I want to say, but I tell people if you're looking at the next two decades of San Diego, this project is the one that really transforms it.

So thanks for your good work.

I'll go to my colleagues and we'll go to Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Gaff.

Uh thank you for landing in San Diego in the first place.

Thank you for making our city more beautiful.

Everything you do is just fantastic.

I so appreciate it.

So appreciate you.

And uh I'm anything I can do to help with this project, I'm there.

Uh I I did want to mention our mobility uh or lack of motorized vehicle law that I think I did the first year I was on council a long time ago, it seems like for our beachfront uh boardwalks and uh through Belbo Park as well as uh Mission Bay Park, and that is uh we aren't allowing motorized vehicles.

At the time, the problem was with the rental uh scooters.

However, since then, so many other things have become motorized, and the law just didn't specify only scooters, the law was very broad.

And if you weren't handicapped in the electronic device because you're handicapped like an electronic wheelchair, you had to either pedal the bike yourself walk yourself or whatever, because um it was we had too many accidents with those motorized vehicles, and we had to put a stop to that.

So if you need us to extend that to that portion once we get near time to open it, we'd be glad to.

And in the meantime, uh all I can say is I love it, I love you, and I thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Uh, we'll go to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Um Thank you, F and your team for coming to provide this presentation and this update, and thank you to the chair for um helping to docket this as well.

Uh we've we've actually gotten a chance to get a glimpse of this, I think, in the regular updates that we get from our port commissioners.

And I will note that every time they have helped to express what's in the horizon uh for the port, they've done so with quite a bit of excitement, and this is a a key component of that.

Um I actually learned a bit here in this discussion as well, so I'm gonna express a little bit of my shock that you've you've been in the CNA since 2016, uh, which which I think shows how challenging um bringing a big vision might be.

And and what I do appreciate is that from the very start of when we've seen this, it is a fairly big vision.

Um, and especially in 2016, I imagine that was quite bold.

And a lot has changed in San Diego in that time frame.

Um, a lot has changed in the world.

And so one thing I just want to be very cognizant of is recognizing that um a lot of what uh folks have been dealing with in terms of bringing projects to life, even in the last couple of years, is been facing headwinds with economic conditions, rising interest rates, um, costs going up uh across the board.

And I can only imagine that applies to you just as much as it's applied to anyone else.

Um and as with other major projects uh in San Diego, I think my big interest always is that I I do want to ensure that as a city we are capable of being bold uh and dreaming of of big visions, but that we also ensure that we um have the pathways to be successful because none of these visions are just for show.

We as San Diegans, I think want to see them come to life because they represent the future of how we see the city improving.

Um I think part of the discussion that you had was uh was especially on um the potential for tax increment financing um relating to the city.

I know uh councilmember Kimpio mentioned the county portion as well.

Um and I think same thing uh as Councilmember Kimpio, I would just reiterate that with with other major projects that we've seen.

I think there is there's an emphasis on projects that are transformative in that without them there would be no increment to begin with, and the opportunity to reinvest that and to help you ensure that the public infrastructure is available to bring uh vision to life.

I think those dots connect fairly well.

This council has seemed to acknowledge that in the past.

Um and so I I appreciate that you're bringing that up for discussion, because I think just to clarify, this is this is a project that's currently going through the process with the port of San Diego.

And so, therefore, really where we'll see it as a city is if there is a a city component from a financing standpoint, correct?

That's correct.

Yeah.

So uh yeah, so thank you for for that.

I I think for us we're really looking forward to hearing and seeing the updates um as they progress through the port.

Um, and then when it comes time to have those discussions at the city, I'm sure we're ready to do so as well.

And I'll take a moment to thank our economic development team, which I know is likely working hard with your team uh and others to try to bring this to life.

On the EIFD side as well, I will I will note the same thing when the midway discussion came up.

I you know that it's a it's a tool that I think folks have considered.

We've seen it in place in Ottawa, for example.

I've had conversations with folks uh about the convoy region within San Diego as well, where the city has mapped out long-term plans for um transforming communities and how that transformation needs support for the infrastructure that will support it.

Um and so I think these dots all connect when we have these discussions.

So thank you again, Chair, and thank you again for the presentation today.

Thank you.

I just have to say I I really appreciate the work done by city staff with us and port staff as well.

We we couldn't have done it without that.

Uh this has been a long journey.

Um I anticipate it being further.

I have a saying that we we plan on God laughs and I've learned to through this project, but we have for the duration.

We we're gonna make this succeed.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

We'll now go to Vice Chair Foster.

Uh yes, thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you, Gaff to you and your team and economic development.

Um, I know we spoke briefly.

Um I don't know if it was yesterday um or today, I can't remember.

Um, but I I just really um just want to convey my support.

Um I have been getting uh regular updates.

Um I talked with our port commissioners as well.

Um also had um I I believe an update uh from the team um not too long ago.

Um I too think um and appreciate the discussion on the um EIFD.

Um I think it's a good tool that um as my colleagues have all said here um the dots seem to connect for what we're trying to accomplish here.

Um and I just think this would um really uh be a great asset um once completed um and really transform our waterfront um to where it is actually more functional, more accessible, um in and uh really just like the educational component as well that's being proposed.

So um looking forward to the continued conversations.

Um my office is always available um as you continue the process, and and just want to thank you for all your work and um I want to say continued focus um as you meet your challenges and things as you keep moving forward.

So thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Last thing I just point out, I just want to say uh getting the MOU with the Coastal Commission, I know is uh is not something everyone's capable of doing.

I really want to congratulate you on that, and that give that should give every party that has been looking at this, uh every other development company, every every actor in the development space in the San Diego region to understand uh what that collaboration looks, what collaboration can bring about, and the fact that you went and got that done is is excellent and gives us uh humongous wings underneath the wings of uh wind underneath the wings of this project.

So very, very well uh good job well done there.

Uh and uh with that, no other comments or questions.

Thank you very much for your the presentation and keep up the great work for our entire region.

Thank you for your time.

And with that, that comes to the end of our agenda.

That was an information item, no motion needed.

We'll adjourn the economic development and intergovernmental relations committee meeting to December 10th, 2025 at 2 p.m.

Thank you.