Good morning and welcome to the special economic development and intergovernmental relations committee meeting of April 16, 2026.

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

Thank you, Chair Campio.

While members of the public are able to attend the meetings in person, this meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and council administration will continue to make arrangements with 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 Kempio.

Thank you.

I'll now call the meeting to order.

Uh Vice Chair Lee.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember uh Foster will be absent today.

He's currently at MTS, and I am present.

Also present with us is Noah Fleischmann, our senior fiscal and policy analyst from the office of the IBA, Deputy City Attorney Brian Bune from the Office of the City Attorney, and Chris Ackermann Avila, policy advisor from the office of the mayor.

Sarah, please continue with the comment.

Thank you, Chair Campio.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of the committee room 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.

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-340-6084-pound.

This information is also available on the agenda and 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 a 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 raise your hand.

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

Thank you, Sarah, for reviewing those instructions.

The quorum is present.

As a note to the public, we will hear an on-agenda public comment at the end of the meeting this morning.

We'll first move to committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, and IBA comment.

Do we have any?

Hearing none, do we have any requests for continuance?

Hearing none, we'll now dispense with the approval of our consent agenda.

Do I have any requests from uh the members to pull an item from the consent agenda?

Councilmember Campbell.

Oh, no.

She's getting ready to make a motion, I think.

Let's proceed with public comment, Sarah.

Thank you, Chair.

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

The consent agenda includes items number one through four.

Item number one, approval of the committee minutes of March 4th, 2026.

Item number two, a ten-year lease agreement for two thousand one hundred and eighty-nine square feet of retail space with Rivian Samoy Samoil, doing business as Clown Market, including extension options and a first amendment to lease agreement for 960 square feet of retail space with Rivian Samuel.

Um, doing business as Clown Market at Montgomery Gibbs Executive Airport Retail Center at 8690 Arrow Drive.

And item number four amendments to live entertainment worker safety ordinance.

Each speaker will have one minute to speak to items on the consent agenda with a maximum of three minutes.

If I call your name, please indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

And chair, we have no speaker slips here on the consent agenda, and I'm not seeing any hands go up in the virtual queue.

So this concludes testimony for items one through four on the consent agenda.

Very good.

Thank you very much.

I would like to move the consent agenda.

I'd like to um say first of all that uh looking into detail and doing our homework about each of these items.

It appears that they're definitely uh needed and that they do make sense.

Uh we will change uh the Montgomery Gibbs Airport um area to much better, more efficient model.

Uh the traffic control tower will be moved to the other side of the runway, which the FAA approved.

It will be rebuilt to higher level, higher number of feet, uh, so that there will be much more safety for the air traffic there.

And uh the item four, we definitely need to just add a few words to that to make sure that city-owned properties are covered for the safety of those who work there.

So I uh I really appreciate these, and I move the consent agenda.

Thank you.

We have a motion.

Do we have a second?

I see a second from Vice Chair Lee.

Uh Mr.

Rubio, just so we have it on the public.

What is clown market?

We provide uh sales of the for those who couldn't hear them on the radio or on the on the television.

Uh they provide retail services.

So funny name, retail services works out.

I've thought to myself, we're not putting a circus at Montgomery Gives there, right?

So thank you very much.

We have a motion and a second, I will call the role.

Vice Chair Lee.

Yes.

Councilmember Campbell.

Yes.

And I am a yes that passes 3-0 with the three members present, and that dispenses with our consent agenda.

We'll now move on to our discussion agenda.

Sarah, please introduce it.

Item five.

Thank you, Chair Campio.

Item number five, amendments to special event parking rates in downtown San Diego.

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.

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-340-6084 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll now uh hand the present presentation over to my office's deputy director of policy, Summer Patton.

Please let us know how much time you'll need.

Thank you.

We'll need 10 minutes for the presentation.

Good morning, Chair Campio and committee members.

I'm Summer Youssef Patton, Deputy Director Policy for Councilmember Campillo, presenting the special event parking rate amendments in downtown San Diego.

With me is Vic Fatile, Deputy Chief of Staff for Councilmember Campio.

As you know, the fiscal year 2026 adopted budgeted re incorporated revenue assumptions tied to the 2025 parking reform package.

The reform package was introduced and passed shortly before the fiscal year 26 budget was adopted and implemented recommendations from a comprehensive parking demand management study commissioned by the city in June of 2024 and released in January of 2025.

The parking reform package included amendments to the municipal code to adjust the maximum parking rates up to $20 to allow for the future implementation of dynamic pricing.

The increased hourly special event parking rate at $10 per hour went into effect three months later in September of that year.

The intent of the parking demand management analysis was to support the implementation of a data-driven demand-based framework for parking and curb space management that's flexible and capable of adapting over time.

The study includes detailed strategies and recommendations specific to each community parking district, including demand-based rate structures, and notes that rate structures can vary depending on one peak season, one peak parking occurs during peak seasons, days of the week, or times of day.

And also notes that rate adjustments should be made on a regular schedule if the city chose to implement a demand-based rate structure.

However, the ability to make rate adjustments is limited by current deficits in the fiscal year 26 budget.

The adopted budget relied on 28 million dollars in parking revenue projections as a budget mitigation measure.

These projections assume the timely approval and implementation of these reforms.

Estimating the package would generate 28 million in parking revenue and 6.3 million due to event-based meter revenue alone.

And as these projections were determined during the budget process, they didn't include potential changes to behavior or secondary economic impacts as a result of the rate increase.

The independent budget analysts also noted in their June 2nd report that the revenue projection may be overstated if implementation was delayed, but also added that estimates would be reasonable if there are no additional delays in implementation, and considering that the rates that were allowed in the parking reform package were variable.

It allowed some for some fluctuation there.

The mid-year budget projections show that the special event meter revenues will end the fiscal year $4.6 million below budget, and the IBA report accompanying this item shows an updated revenue projection of $1.9 million for the year specific to special event parking rates.

Since its implementation in September, the increased special event rate has generated significant community concern.

Feedback from businesses, event attendees, residents, and workers have reported difficulty absorbing the increased parking costs and also have noted the lack of engagement during the policymaking process.

Workers in the hospitality and service sector especially have reported difficulty managing parking costs, particularly during weekday surge pricing that stretches to half a mile around Petco Park.

And while transit options exist, late evening reliability and scheduling constraints limit options for many downtown employees.

Small businesses have also noted declines in customer visits following the September 25 implementation date and have yet to fully recover.

And residents have similarly reported that the rate increase during evening hours makes it difficult and costly to find parking near their homes throughout the week.

And while a $10 hourly rate supports revenue generation and overall mobility goals, it also generates financial barriers and economic and accessibility impacts that have not been considered in analyses to date.

And as implemented, the rate prioritizes proximity for event attendees that are willing to pay, while encouraging attendees who cannot pay to park further from their destinations or choose transit options, and limits options for residents, workers, and other downtown visitors altogether.

The fixed demand-based rate combined with a half-mile enforcement area lacks the flexibility needed to be responsive to balance diverse commercial and residential needs with the city's overall revenue objectives and mobility goals.

A small majority, or 36%, said that they were likely to attend fewer events, while 30% would use alternative transportation.

And almost a quarter or 23% stated that their attendance has not changed.

This indicates that while a portion of a special event attendees are making alternative arrangements to arrive downtown, which serves the intention and goals of the policy, a majority are either foregoing their trip entirely, which has a secondary impact on economic activity, or they're absorbing the cost of parking into their trip, which generates revenue for the city, but also influences if visitors decide to spend additional time and money in the downtown core.

These poll results also outline responses by gender, age, race, parental status, and income, which provides relevant data and context to consider how price increases affect behavior and influence access to downtown.

However, current city analysis does not consider how the rate has any difference in impact or exacerbates existing differences in access to recreation and amenities downtown, particularly by age and income.

And also, existing analysis does not consider the secondary economic effects through sales tax projections or workforce impacts.

The most significant impact is on downtown employees, and the table here shows a simple estimate to consider how a week of paid parking during a special event period may impact different income earners who work downtown.

This example takes this week, April 11th through 19th, and assumes that someone chooses to park during the special event window.

With three games this week and four non-event days, this means that on three occasions, parking will be $60 for six hours during the window.

And on four days, metered parking will be $15 for six hours.

So while a salaried worker at 80% AMI or $92,000 per year, and a worker making $100% AMI or $130,000 per year can make the decision to park close to their event or take transit without impacting other financial necessities.

For minimum wage workers, the financial burden significantly limits that choice, and particularly for those that don't live in the downtown core.

They will consult the special event schedule each week and determine the trade-offs to park further away or take transit and manage their scheduling constraints and transit availability before or after a shift, again, which serves the city's overall mobility goals, but presents an accessibility issue.

To address these concerns related to accessibility and economic impact and balance the mobility and revenue goals of the city, the following amendments are proposed to the special event rate.

They're reducing the special event meter rate from $10 to $5 per hour, shortening the total enforcement window from six hours to five hours, and limiting the special event parking zone to five blocks or quarter mile surrounding Petco Park.

Limiting the special event zone to a quarter mile around Petco Park would reduce the impact specifically to walking distance around special events, which is the intention of the policy.

As a result, parking meter revenue from special events will be reduced, but exact revenue impacts will depend on demand and utilization patterns in the amended special event zone.

These changes are proposed to preserve the mobility benefits of special event pricing by encouraging turnover and reducing congestion near PETCO Park during special events, while significantly lowering the financial burden on residents, workers, and visitors.

The staff recommendation is to approve amendments to add a new special event section to municipal code section 86.0123, establishing a $5 special event rate, a maximum five-hour application window, and a defined special event area limited to five blocks surrounding PETCO Park, and also to approve amendments to Council Policy 200-04 to remove Section C2 on special events and incorporate it into the municipal code, Section 86.0123.

With that, we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you very much.

We will now go to the IBA for their comments.

Thank you so much, Chair Campio.

I'm Jillian Andalina with the Office of the IBA.

Our office released a report reviewing the proposed changes to the special event parking program on Tuesday.

And apologies, I don't believe it's attached to the item for today, but it is on our website.

We reviewed information provided by the Transportation Department, including actual meter revenue transaction data from 22 special events from September to January to develop a fiscal estimate for the proposed changes.

It's important to note that only limited data is available and allowing the program to operate over a longer period of time and normalize would provide a more reliable basis for evaluating fiscal impacts of changes to the program.

However, based on the limited data available, the table on page four of our report summarizes our analysis.

Under the current special events program, based on actual events through January, average revenue per event is 25,000.

We did receive revenue data for events through March, though not broken down to a level needed for our analysis, but on the aggregate does support the $25,000 average revenue per event that we use in our analysis.

Assuming this holds constant at an assumed 80 events per year, the total estimated annual revenue of the program as it exists today would be about $2 million.

Using the same actual parking meter data but filtered for only those within the inner quarter mile zone being proposed, reducing the hours of enforcement from six to five, and cutting the rate in half, the average revenue per event is estimated to be $368,000 annualized.

This is a 1.6 million dollar drop from the current program.

This reduction would be offset by revenue from meters in the outer quarter mile that would no longer be part of the current program and would default to the standard $2.50 per hour.

We estimate this would represent roughly $320,000 a year.

Altogether, we estimated that the proposed changes would net 1.3 million dollars less than the current special events program.

These figures assume that parking demand and driver behavior would remain constant under the proposal, which admittedly is over simplistic, and some changes in demand and behavior should be expected.

But ultimately, actual revenue impacts will depend on actual usage patterns over time.

However, it is worth looking at data we do have for corresponding events that were held in both September 2024 prior to the implementation of special events parking rates and in September 2025 after implementation of those rates.

The analysis of the transportation department, which is attached to our report, offers insights to into driver behavior under the current program.

Across eight comparable events between again September 2024 and September 25, transactions increased by 63%, suggesting greater parking space turnover, which is one of the basic objectives of parking meter zones.

Beyond that, meter revenue actually grew nearly 12 fold, despite the increase in rates being only eight times higher than in 2024, which suggests that demand has also grown year over year despite higher special event rates.

With that in mind, we want to point out a potential unintended impact on businesses that may be currently benefiting from the increased turnover in nearby parking spaces that could offset some of the retail sales and foot traffic that this proposal aims to encourage.

The last note I'll make before closing is that the staff report suggests that secondary impacts to sales tax were not considered in previous parking meter budget projections.

We also did not incorporate them into our analysis because we believe potential impacts on city revenues to be nearly immaterial.

This is because the city only receives one cent in sales tax revenue for every dollar spent in the city, so shifts here would likely be relatively small.

And it would be speculative to incorporate potential sales tax impacts, given the many assumptions we would have to be make about purchasing and travel decisions of individuals and how they would have otherwise spent any cost differential and whether it would have any impact at all on other purchasing decisions.

When looking at sales tax revenues, we typically look at larger macroeconomic impacts and trends upon which to base projections.

In closing, we anticipate the limit with the limited data available that the proposal would result in a reduction in downtown parking meter revenue, which would require parking and pedestrian safety related infrastructure investments in the downtown area to be reduced in a corresponding manner, or for general fund expenses elsewhere in the budget to be reduced to maintain those investments.

These impacts should be weighed against the proposal's goals of alleviating cost impacts to residents, visitors, and workers, and encouraging economic activity.

Thank you.

Sarah, let's go to a public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received eight slips here in the committee room.

We will begin with Justine Murray, who has been seated time by Ariana.

Is Ariana present?

Thank you.

And Clayton?

Great.

Each speaker will have two minutes, so I will put six minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Campio and Council members.

My name is Justine Murray, Vice President of Government Affairs for the Downtown San Diego Partnership, representing more than 300 businesses, property owners, residents, workers, and stakeholders across downtown.

For over 30 years, we have been the voice of the downtown community, advancing downtown's cultural vitality and economic prosperity.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today, and thank you to Councilmember Campillo for your leadership on this issue.

We're here today with a clear request.

Reduce the hourly rate to $5 and better target the geographic area.

At its core, this conversation is about access.

Downtown succeeds when it's accessible, when people can easily come in, whether they are workers, residents, families, or visitors.

At $10 per hour, this is no longer a parking management tool.

It functions as an entrance fee, and it sends a message that downtown is simply too expensive.

We already see the impacts.

Businesses are reporting declines in foot traffic and customer activity for the first time in years.

The spontaneous visits that support our restaurants, retail, and hospitality businesses are being discouraged.

When parking costs rise this sharply, behavior changes, and that is exactly what we are seeing on the ground.

This area of downtown or in the ballpark is designed to benefit from foot traffic and activity generated by special events.

But foot traffic is declining because when San Diegans and tourists are facing a $10 per hour parking fee and over 300% increase from previous years, they are forced to choose between attending a special event and supporting a nearby business.

That means fewer meals before the game, fewer drinks after, and fewer visits to local shops and cafes.

People might still be coming to the event itself, but they're not staying and they're not spending.

And over time, that impacts small businesses, jobs, and San Diego's workforce.

We're also concerned that the city's analysis is far too narrow.

Measuring revenue success primarily through parking revenue does not capture the full picture.

This is not just about parking revenue today, it's about lost customers, lost sales, and lost economic activity.

Based on real data from our members who work in downtown every single day, businesses are seeing reduced transactions and customer activity for the first time in years.

Many of these businesses operating in downtown for decades.

This is not caused by the broader economy.

It is simply caused by the added cost burden in downtown.

For example, one of the members who provided us with data compared the performance of their downtown location to an extremely similar location elsewhere in the city of San Diego.

For years, they've operated on pretty much the same margins.

But for the first time since this policy took effect in September, the downtown location has seen a continued decline in transactions month to month since September that is not occurring at their other site within the city.

So it's not economics, it's the burdens on downtown.

And this example does not stand alone.

Our members are experiencing these impacts across downtown.

You might wonder why this is having such a broad effect on downtown's economy when this is supposed to be limited to special events.

Well, to the general public, the city made parking downtown more expensive in September.

We're also hearing clearly that the policy is confusing both to workers, residents, tourists, visitors, San Diego, and abroad.

Parking should be simple and intuitive.

You should not need a background in policy to understand what you'll be charged.

Yet today a driver has to scan a QR code, navigate multiple pricing structures, city website landing pages, press releases to try to figure out what they are paying for.

When people are uncertain, they assume the worst, and many will simply choose to not come downtown, and they already are not.

Additionally, our workers and our residents are hurting.

The current geographic scope is too broad.

The current zone is almost 200 blocks.

And to put that in perspective, downtown San Diego is 300 blocks.

So the special event zone takes up two-thirds of downtown.

We hear that other cities have this in place.

I would argue that our special event zone is different than other cities with what they offer and the types of events they hold.

But I can guarantee you that LA special event zones is not over two-thirds of all of downtown LA.

That just doesn't make sense.

It extends well beyond the areas directly impacted by events and places an unfair burden on residents and workers who are not attending them.

They're not exempt from this policy, and they're paying the price.

Some examples.

That's roughly 12 to 14 blocks, nearly a mile from the ballpark.

If they are five games a week, they might be paying up to $300 that week just to park on a city street at home.

What message are we sending about coming to live downtown?

A college student bartending downtown may have to choose between paying $60 to park for a shift near their job or walking more than a mile to their car late at night north of Broadway to avoid these fees.

And let's note public transit, the trolley stops at 12 a.m.

Many of these businesses close at 2 a.m.

Do we want a college student walking over a mile so they can afford to get home at 2 a.m.?

This is not the kind of accessible and safe downtown we should be creating.

And a restaurant in a front and gee, they're also within the zone, nearly 10 blocks away without receiving any of the benefit of ballpark foot traffic during a special event or a game.

This is ultimately a policy choice, whether to prioritize short-term parking revenue or long-term economic health of downtown.

We want to be clear.

We are coming with a solution.

We're coming to the table trying to figure this out with a balanced approach.

We're not asking for a reappeal.

We're asking for balanced policy.

A $5 hourly rate still represents a significant increase from previous years.

Prior to last year, it was 250.

That's a 100% increase.

We recognize the city is in a budget deficit, and we think that these amendments strike a balance.

A smaller, more targeted zone better aligns the policy with where events actually occur.

On behalf of the downtown San Diego Partnership, the California Restaurant Association, the San Diego County Lodging Association, with support from our partners at the Ball Park District, Gas Lamp Quarter Association, Asian Business Association, San Diego Regional Chamber, the California Apartment Association, and the Southern California Rental Housing Association, we urge you to reconsider this policy.

We ask that you reduce the hourly rate to $5 and refine the geographic boundary.

Special events should be moments when we maximize activity and support small businesses.

Welcome people in, not create barriers that push them away.

I know that we're being told to wait until September.

But what do we say to the worker who is now choosing to leave downtown because they can't afford to work here?

What do we say to the resident?

What do we say to the business that's closing and reducing revenue for the first time in years?

What do you say when you're not collecting the TOT from downtown that you thought you would because people aren't spending?

Downtown should feel welcoming, not restrictive.

We urge you to support this item today.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

If I call your name, if you can please move up to these front seats at the right of the audience.

We will begin with Heather Klein.

You will be followed by Paul Kruger, Fred Taiko, and Dominic.

And each speaker will have two minutes.

Yes.

And each speaker will have two minutes, this lectron right here, and there's a clock right in front of you, so you can manage your time.

Okay.

Hi, I'm Heather Klein.

Um I'm a business owner downtown.

We operate restaurants and bars, and we've been downtown for over 17 years.

And the parking is affecting us negatively in many ways.

The first way is attracting quality employees.

We can't, we already have problems attracting quality employees because of the parking downtown that they don't want to pay.

And this just exacerbates that issue.

We've had two employees assaulted on their way home from the bar at 3:30 in the morning because they've had to park so far away to avoid the rates.

Um, it's it's not safe.

Uh we also have issues with our guest counts.

Our guest counts are down 20% over last year.

And when we ask people, they tell us that downtown is disgusting, they don't want to come downtown, and they definitely aren't gonna pay $10 an hour to park.

Um, I feel like downtown is dying if you walk down Fifth Avenue.

It's a ghost town at night.

Um, we're pretty busy, but it's it's a ghost town, and seeing all of these businesses close is it's so discouraging, and then having to navigate this on top of that.

It's not working for us.

So we just we beg you to please reconsider that.

Um thank you for your time.

Appreciate it.

Thank you.

Paul Krueger.

Uh thank you very much.

I lived and worked downtown for more than a decade, and uh I know how it works there, and I know how unequitable this current system is.

It's a shame that we don't take a closer look at the impact of these policies before we um make them law.

The most important impacts that I see, and I knew it from the day it happened, is that people who own a condo uh and have underground parking aren't affected.

But who is somebody who's renting uh uh uh uh an apartment on the periphery, 16th or 17th and G Street has no parking, and jockeys around at the meters until uh the time expires and they can keep their car there overnight.

What does this do?

It makes it impossible for them to find a parking place.

Number two, employees.

We know that employees come downtown, many of them, they can't take transit because of the hours, or they have another job or they have family issues.

They could manage to park at a meter for a dollar and a quarter or 250 until it expires and then get to their car after.

Now you're looking at 40 or 60 dollars, which is um so much of their shift wage that it doesn't make sense to go there.

Let me last focus on the uh periphery.

While I feel like five dollars an hour is too much, it should go back to 250.

The most important change is to limit the geographic impact.

This uh area is way too big.

It has nothing to do with ballpark attendance, it's simply a revenue generator.

And please don't talk about parking management.

What this does is capture people.

They have to stay at the meter for four or six hours because they're there for a special event.

It makes absolutely no sense.

Please approve.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Fred.

Good morning, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

On behalf of the San Diego County Lodging Association, we'd like to thank Councilmember Campillo's leadership on reassessing the special event parking policy.

Downtown hotels offer a wider range of amenities, not only to serve hotel guests, but for residents and visitors who enjoy everything that downtown has to offer.

Unfortunately, the implementation of the special event pricing has reduced customer traffic for downtown businesses.

The combination of higher cost, the size of the zone, extended hours, have created uncertainty for all visitors.

All of this has made downtown less accessible.

The opposite of what redevelopment strives for.

This likely contributed to the drop in projected parking revenues.

But the impacts extend far beyond parking revenues.

When one sector suffers, all the sectors suffer.

Fewer visitors mean fewer patrons.

Fewer patrons ultimately means fewer employees scheduled per shift.

That has real consequences for jobs and the overall uh economy.

We appreciate Councilmember Campillo's commitment to a transparent data-driven process and urge the committee support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dominic.

And Dominic, you will be followed by Michael and Jason.

If those two gentlemen would like to move to the front right corner of the room.

Two minutes.

Thank you.

My name is Dominic Lamandry.

I'm the district manager for the East Village Association.

We represent over 700 businesses within the East Village boundary, which is about 130 blocks of downtown San Diego.

And I'm here today to voice my support for council member Campillo's memo and amendment to the special event parking rates.

Um to really add our weight to what has been mentioned before by Justine, Paul, and Fred.

This has had a very detrimental effect to downtown downtown businesses, downtown's economy, downtown's economy is the engine of down of the city of San Diego.

And this seems very counterintuitive to put some shackles on that engine and further drag it down because it has uh really uh limped back from COVID.

So we should be encouraging people to come downtown to patronize our businesses, to shop locally, and to attend our number one ballpark in America.

But this proposal, I feel like does the opposite of that.

And I just want to contend to or push back against this narrative that this money is being reinvested in the community.

Portion of it is being reinvested in the community.

A larger portion, unfortunately, is being invested to plug holes in the city's budget.

$3.5 million most recently went to East Village Green to pay for project overtures.

Um 2.2 or 2.3 million is now going to their uh Department of Environmental Services for sidewalk sanitation.

Um point two is going to the city treasurer's office for I would imagine processing all the new tickets that the city is now issuing.

So I understand that some street lights have been fixed in downtown and other parts of the city, but the vast majority of the money that is being pulled from the parking districts in the city of San Diego, especially downtown, are being used to plug holes in the city's budget and not being reinvested into the communities that the mayor's office is claiming it is.

So thank you.

Good morning.

Council President and members of the committee, my name is Michael Tremble.

I'm the executive director of the Gas Lamp Quarter Association, and we're here to support Councilmember Orell Campillo's 555 plan.

For the Gas Lamp Quarter, this is about the people who keep downtown, keep downtown running every day.

For our workers and our visitors and our customers, the current parking structure has made it harder and more expensive for restaurant employees, hotel staff, retail workers, and the hospitality teams to get to work.

And it has made visitors think twice about coming downtown to dine, shop, and stay and enjoy everything the gas lamp has to offer.

That's just bad for small business.

And it hurts the entire downtown community.

When parking rates feel excessive and punitive, people don't just pay more, they change their behavior.

They leave earlier, they skip dinner, they cancel plans, they avoid shopping, or decide not to come downtown at all.

That means fewer customers for small business, fewer tips for workers, and less activity for the restaurants, bars, hotels, and shops that help drive our local economy.

The 555 plan brings common sense and balance back to this policy.

It still addresses the event demand, but it recognizes that downtown is more than a stadium zone.

It is a neighborhood, an employment center, and one of San Diego's most important visitor destinations.

This plan supports the workers who need access to their jobs, the visitors who want to welcome, want to be welcomed, and the small businesses that depend on a healthy, active downtown.

So I urge you to support the 555 plan and look to the future for downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Jason.

Hello, everyone.

First time speaking of this thing, so a little nervous.

But uh I'm Jason Nichols, and I'm here with Radar Report.

And Radar Report is a um a community of um for restaurants that shares their data anonymously.

And um I'm not here to say for it or against it, I'm just here to share some data with you guys.

Uh so according to Radar Report, we have about over 100 restaurants that participate in it.

And as a whole in San Diego, restaurants are up uh 3% in sales uh year to date.

Um, but we have about 20 restaurants that participated in the glass gas lamp area, and we're seeing anywhere from uh 12 to 20 percent dip in sales in this specific area.

Um so I find that a little bit interesting.

And then when we surveyed these restaurants that were down 12 to 20 percent, some of the biggest things they said um were the reasons was locals stopped coming uh back to the gas lamp.

You know, if you have a choice of going to Little Italy, uh South Park, North Park, um, Point Loma, and you don't have to pay these um big fees on the parking.

Um, they're gonna choose those spots.

So uh I don't think they've really seen an impact with the tourism.

Um, that because admin flows, but more locals not participating at restaurants in the gas lamp anymore.

So thank you guys for your time.

Thank you.

And Cameron Harper has submitted a speaker slip in favor, but wishes not to speak to the item.

That concludes testimony here in the committee room.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We currently have five hands raised in the virtual queue, and we will begin with Chris Duggan.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, Councilmember Campillo and committee members, Chris Duggan, CRA.

I appreciate your leadership, uh, Councilmember Campio.

I want to take this time to thank everybody that is there this morning, all the team members that are showing the support for rolling this back.

I think the people that it's hurting is the team members, the restaurant servers, our bartenders, the back of the house.

These are the individuals being penalized.

Not only for when they come down to work, as it was outlined by Fred and Justine, but even the people that want to come down and patronize our restaurants and bars.

They're not doing so.

They're not coming down in droves.

They might go to an event, special event, podra game, concert.

But there are people that just don't go down to downtown anymore.

We're seeing boarded up storefronts.

It's real.

Michael Trimble would tell you about the storefronts that are closing up.

And when you go to 250 to $10 overnight, that's gonna have an impact.

I think we're seeing it in the news.

I think we're seeing it in the parking rates.

And while I appreciate the IBA, you know, data is data.

It's showing it.

They're not getting the revenue that is expected.

And you know what?

It's hurting our downtown, and the CRA stands behind the 555, and we want downtown back.

It's time.

Let's approve 555 today.

Let's go.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you, Sarah.

Uh Joyce and Yata C D3.

Of course, yes, on this.

Yet I want to say this.

I have lived close to Petco for 20 years.

Downtown is alive and well.

Number one, the conventiers.

They crawl all over our streets, enjoying everything.

I see it every almost every single day.

The tourists are here.

Downtown is thriving.

Petco is vibrant, exciting.

And so let's not go to any negativity about downtown except for this.

If you're a low-income senior person, you can't enjoy downtown as it offers.

Restaurants go out of business because they charge too much.

I can't go to restaurants.

You wouldn't believe the prices in the gas lamp by the Petco.

And they do go up during special events.

So here we are, desperately trying to help residents, low-income people, workers.

Yes, let's do that.

But let's not gentrify downtown because we have to be very cautious about the big picture.

What are we charging to get into Petco?

I can't go to Petco games anymore.

When I moved here, I paid less than $10 to sit on the grass.

And I did it often.

Now I can't even sit on the grass or whatever you sit on now.

So this is a great thing to do, but we're missing something here.

Let's look at the main point.

I don't feel we're looking at the main point yet.

We're fighting over revenues and we're cutting this and we're cutting that.

And we think we're helping the low-income people.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Sa'ad Assad.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, council members.

Um, I want to express my concern about this proposal.

I think it's fair to be discussing what's the right rate for downtown parking.

Um, but I think we should be using it based on occupancy data of parking stalls, not simply organized opposition.

Um it could be that the meter prices are too high, or it could be that they're too low.

Um, we should be looking at whether there's actual vacancies and spots.

Um, I'm also concerned about shrinking the zone to five blocks.

If that happens, you just simply have that spillover into those residential street streets that we do care about.

Um, if you have lower prices just five blocks away, six blocks away, then people will park there, which is kind of defeating the point is that we don't want it spilling over into those areas.

So I'm concerned about the geographic reduction.

Uh, another thing worth saying plainly is the revenue by state law must stay in the neighborhood where it's collected.

Uh, I think it's already funded 1200 broken street lights, 2200 potholes.

These revenue funds and benefits the same workers and employees uh across the neighborhood.

The money stays there.

So if you don't have that money, you have more potholes, more sidewalks that are unrepaired, making it less livable, less walkable for people to safely move around.

And that includes just simple street lights at night.

Um, so cutting that rate reduces that reinvestment.

Um, a lower rate doesn't fix any sidewalk, it doesn't build a single bus bench or a single bus shelter.

So I'm concerned that uh that type of policy may be challenging for our ending goals.

Um I'll also note that in that PowerPoint slide, one of the things that was interesting was that 30% of people did choose other mobility options.

So I think that's the goal that we want to have is create those options so people are not uh leading to lots of congestion downtown.

So, in summary, um, I think it's right to discuss the right rate, but we should use the occupancy data.

That's the most important thing, not anecdotes, not organized opposition, but what is the right actual rate based on the data?

Thank you.

Just let's conclude your time.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have two hands remaining in the queue.

We'll take no other callers beyond these remaining two individuals.

Malia Smith, please unmute and begin.

Hello, thank you.

I am a general manager in East Village for one of the restaurants.

And I really wanted to speak on behalf of our employees today.

Um the gentleman before did mention about other um transit options.

I did just want to remark a lot of the employees that do work have two jobs just to make ends meet, as it is very expensive here in San Diego in general.

And a lot of them do not have the time to go and find another transit option to take a trolley or a bus to come into towntown.

So the ones that are having to work in the mornings, especially, they are forced to have to pay these increased pricings.

And it is a financial strain, even more than they're already having to endure.

And it is very difficult to find great employees that are wanting to work downtown as a result.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And the final speaker in the queue is Shane Harris.

Please unmute and begin.

Yes, good morning, council members and committee.

My name is Shane Harris, public advocate of San Diego.

I want to start by thanking Councilmember Raul Campillo for being a voice for businesses, restaurants, working class San Diegans, and residents and bringing this proposal forward.

Because right now, something is clearly out of balance.

Last year, the city created a special event parking zone around Power Petco Park, raising part meter rates up to $10 an hour, applying them across roughly a half mile area, and then forcing those rates for up to six hours around games and major events.

That's not a small change.

That's a dramatic increase.

And people are feeling it.

People that work at these restaurants, people that um own these restaurants and small businesses, as well as residents as a whole.

What council member Campill is proposing is targeted, is the targeted fix, I believe.

The 555 plan.

It lowers the rates from $10 to $5 an hour, reduces the enforcement window from six hours to five, and shrinks the zone from a half mile radius down to about five blocks around Petco Park, which seems to be more realistic, focusing the policy where the impact actually is.

That is smart data-driven policy.

Because right now we're hearing from workers seeing the struggle and seeing the decline in the gas lap from small businesses seeing fewer customers walking through their door and from residents who feel priced out.

Um I will say this is a lifelong San Diegan.

Um living in other places, seeing downtowns rising in other places, we are really at stake of losing our downtown if we don't make dramatic changes.

This is the plan, I believe that is the right way forward to begin that innovative thought and to bring people back into downtown.

I urge your support today uh for this uh proposed item, send it to the full city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And as I called the five-minute timer, one final hand had gone up.

Gary Hewitt, please unmute and provide your comment.

All right.

Uh good morning, committee.

Uh Gary Hewitt, um, downtown resident.

I'd like to bring up um the I think there's a double standard here in this proposal where the Padres, the hotels and other landowners can charge 60 to 100 per event for parking.

And now under this plan, the city would only be able to charge 25.

I believe the reason is that these businesses rely on lower priced city provided parking spaces for their employees.

While the potteries and hotels could and legally probably are required to provide parking for their employees, they instead clear out their garages and parking lots on special events days to maximize their profits and direct their employees to fend for themselves to provide to find their own parking.

In reality, the meter parking spaces around the stadium have historically been filled up by these employees.

And if they're not being used by people coming into town to go to the baseball game as they're taken up hours before the games even start.

So if the intent is to really lower the cost of parking for visitors, then why does the 555 plan not include the 10,000 plus private parking spaces available during special events?

If it's good for the city to lower their prices, then why would it not make sense for the private sector to also lower their prices?

Another alternative would be a fourth five, a five percent parking occupancy fee that could be charged in downtown so the city can get some of that 60 to 100 per event revenue.

Thank you very much for your consideration.

Thank you for your testimony and chair this concludes comment for item five.

Thank you to members of the public for their uh in both in person and virtually for their comments today.

Uh I will kick us off uh on this discussion.

Um thank you, Ms.

Patton, for your great work and working with all the stakeholders across downtown, really across the city, who uh understand what the implication of this policy has been.

Um I do want to jump into just a few of the details uh of the financials that were um put forward uh through the IBA report.

I think there's an issue with the um the transactions, uh Ms.

Andalina, you mentioned that the transactions are higher.

I have a question about how transactions are tracked.

Um, and if that actually correlates with occupancy.

Um, what is the definition of a transaction in your report?

Since it's considered so much higher, it seemed that that stood out to me.

Yeah, I mean, um I can uh ask the transportation department to also um chime in here as well, but it is just um when people put in their payment, um, and you know, when people park and they put in their payment and so the the data that we have is um based on you know what type of payment they have.

So does that include both um at a meter and through an app that people can use based on the signage that's there?

Um I'm not sure about an app.

Um I can ask the transportation department to comment on the app.

Well, I guess the point I'm making is there's no way to tell if a person if a car has actually moved, it's what what transaction means from the transportation department's point of view is someone walked up and put their credit card in.

It's not if it's a new car, it's not if it they essentially a person could go out of the restaurant, swipe again to get an extra 15 minutes and then go back into the restaurant.

There's no way for us to differentiate if there's a new car or to show that anyone more people have showed up.

It's simply the number of times a credit card got swiped, right?

Councilmember Chris Ackerman with the mayor's office.

We have the treasurer's office here if you'll touch that question with more clarity.

Okay.

Where?

Hello, sorry, good morning.

Um this is Bethany No Con parking program manager.

Um, so yes, these would just be transactions that are taken at the meter.

Um, this includes uh any payments made through the parking app as well.

Um, it does not track occupancy.

It does not track if it's a new vehicle, it is simply just a session that was paid for um via credit card coin um through the app and um by those means.

Understood.

And the app allows people to pay for a certain amount of time, and if they need more time, they then get back on their app, add more time and continue on with their day, right?

Correct.

If it is um allowed so during a special event, extending the session if they didn't max out the session, that would be allowed.

Um, in an area where it is, you know, maxed out at two hours, they would not be able to continue extending their session.

Okay, so the conclusion that more people are coming downtown based on the number of transactions really isn't supportable based on what you're telling me, right?

Um, I mean, it would just be yeah, the the increased revenue um and in transactions that we're receiving.

Right.

But when the point is that you think more cars are actually coming and more people are coming, that's not actually supportable by the number of transactions, since people will pay for 30 minutes and then pay for another 15 minutes and then pay for another 15 minutes.

Transactions is not the same thing as people coming downtown, correct?

So council member transactions is sorry, Charles Moddock, City's IBA, transactions are not the same thing as uh people necessarily coming downtown.

Essentially, whenever a meter is fed.

That said, when we see a significant increase in transactions, that suggests that there is at least some increased turnover as opposed to just a change in behavior and how often people are paying for the same price.

Uh the other thing that I believe is.

The very next thing that I was about to say is that because each of our meters has like a certain amount of time that can be fed, you just heard that they're the point at which things are maxed out.

Um, in as much as we see increased transactions.

What that what that data basically does not suggest is that there's a decline in the number of cars parking there.

Happy to have conversation on what kind of potential implications are.

But when you combine that with the additional revenue that we're seeing that is above the amount that rates actually increased, that does suggest to us an increased demand in parking downtown despite the rates.

Understood.

I think the point is is that given the the reliance on the word transaction as if it's so much more doesn't mean more people are actually coming downtown.

Not necessarily, but it's suggests that that's why we said it's not conclusive evidence that there are more people coming downtown.

Got it.

Appreciate that.

Uh I know the downtown partnership has been collecting data and analyzing that.

Um, Ms.

Murray, I know that your um your members have been very, very vocal about what we're seeing in terms of front of their businesses, in terms of in front of their uh establishments.

Can you go into a little bit more detail about the data that you've collected and that you've observed?

Yeah, so and I appreciate that.

There was a comment that what we're saying is anecdotal and and quantitative data from our members collected is is not anecdotal, so thank you for that.

Um we have members that track the number of transactions that they receive per month at their businesses.

We have collected that data, aggregated it compared to previous years.

What they are seeing is consistently month over month reduced transactions.

To us, that tells us that if people are using meters, they're not coming into downtown to then go to a business to then get to the meter to then go home.

They are using the meter for the special event only.

Additionally, to your point, um increased transaction rates do not correlate to more business.

Our members are seeing with that data of reduced transactions that they're not having the same amount of business and revenue and in members of transactions.

When you increase a parking structure past 6 p.m.

for the first time ever, you are going to have increased transactions.

I don't know why that's not pointed out.

But additionally, when you have folks that are having to come back to pay meters, I just spoke with um one of our members who operates a taco shop in the special event zone.

They had a customer who went in last Friday at 8.30.

They read the sign, they were able to figure it out, scan the QR code, figure out they had until 9.30.

They tried to feed the meter.

The meter only let them pay for 55 minutes.

So they were telling them they were worried, hey, can I leave at 8 or at 925, go back out, feed the meter again, and then come back.

The numbers don't mean that people are coming downtown.

Our data is showing across businesses across the 200 blocks that for the first time in years, they are seeing reduced transaction rates, which means they're seeing reduced amount of people in and out of their businesses.

Understood.

Okay.

Thank you for pointing out that the extra hours that we had beyond 20 the beginning of middle of 2025 actually allows for more simply more transactions.

Um I want to thank the folks who've called in uh and and the people who are here to explain the burden this is creating.

Um and I want to be clear about the intention and goal of this policy.

It is to lift the burden off the residents and small businesses and the workers who are bearing the brunt of the rate increase.

Yes, the city needs more money.

Yes, the city needs to address downtown congestion, and yes, the city wants to encourage people to use transit.

But we have constituents and stakeholders and workers who were never brought into the conversation in the first place, telling us this is directly impacting their ability to thrive in San Diego.

And we need to listen to that.

And when they talk about their data, how their businesses are suffering, we need to listen to that data as well.

It's our job to listen, first and foremost.

So we can't brush off the constituents and tell them just to wait another year to be absolutely certain how painful it is for them.

They're telling us now, and we are well aware, and they are willing to provide their own sales data if we would just sit down at the table and look at it.

We shouldn't tell them that they're somehow making record-breaking profits and their businesses are benefiting when that's not what's happening.

We need to be willing to revisit this and make amendments that make sense now, just like we did with the Balboa park parking issue.

We must have the humility to say that the projections we approved back in June are not materializing as expected, and our approach of making optimistic assumptions and hoping for the best is not working, particularly when the burden is falling on the folks who need us to be working for them.

We've passed the financial burden onto residents and workers and attractions that bring economic activity and cultural vitality to our city.

So, what does our proposal today do?

We understand that demand pricing is the right way to move forward, and we need to manage that congestion, but the current version in place is too blunt.

It's too aggressive.

So I'm asking that we do something more pragmatic and something more responsive to the message of our constituents and the workers who live and work here.

It makes downtown smarter and our policy more targeted and the results fundamentally more fair.

Our response to the tough economy should not have been to quadruple down on the last source of parking revenue we have and then ask the businesses to pay for it and then blame them when the price increases or shifts are reduced or employees are let go.

Because the reality is that the strain doesn't stop at the business level, as we just heard from the public comment, workers themselves are already stretched thin.

Many are juggling multiple jobs and navigating the challenge of fighting affordable parking and now face the added pressure of losing a significant portion of their paycheck.

On top of that, they're forced to constantly second guess where they are supposed to park, especially around games and special events, with schedules that are anything but predictable.

Let's address something that's clearly not working for them.

Let's bring the impacted parties to the table to and ask them how we can better manage this.

Ask them what's not feasible, and then move forward from there.

And let's simply be willing to acknowledge that a reduction in economic activity in downtown is gonna have a downstream effect, whether it's sales tax or TOT, other drivers of revenue sources, especially when we're seeing or under projection.

I think the decision to charge for $10 per hour downtown as an experiment, but it's not a fair one.

Quadrupling the price of parking right when people want to show up the most for special events with their families, it's a painful experiment.

An experiment that makes a minimum wage worker pay 33% of their wages to park anywhere near their job at the same time that the lower foot traffic means their hours might be reduced.

That's a double gut punch to minimum wage and middle class workers in San Diego.

No one should have to pay a third of their paycheck to go to work.

And I bring the attention to this.

When a person spends 30% of their wages on housing, it's called being rent burdened.

And we work hard on policies to alleviate that.

Now we have a policy in place that makes them parking burdened.

That's just not fair.

I would I would ask that for people saying we need more data, why start with the steep experiment first instead of ratcheting it back to a reasonable level and seeing what works best.

Shouldn't we adjust the price with what the businesses and residents and workers who showed up today and have called are telling us is workable, then analyze the data.

I don't think we should dismiss those concerns for an entire year.

We should be adaptable.

When the council approved the package on parking last year, the context was that we would be able to adjust the meters and rates to be responsive to demand.

After a decade of not charging more, after decades of the same exact cost.

So the package was meant to make us flexible.

It was not a blanket approval to charge $10 per hour for businesses and residents up to Broadway and to then not touch it again.

Now we all understand that a special event rate means that the rate will go only go into effect exactly two hours before an event and four hours after.

$10, 17 blocks away, six hours, it's not just a harsh experiment, it's a confusing policy, which I know many of my constituents don't understand and simply believe it's act applicable at all times throughout all of downtown, which makes them not want to show up anywhere.

And the last point I'll make is this, and it's a much more macroeconomic point.

Right when we're trying to revitalize downtown, right when we want more investment to refurbish buildings and create more housing down here, right when we are in need of more good paying construction jobs and long-term employment for our region, the city sent the signal that the fight to the financial markets that we were going to quadruple the cost of access to that downtown area at our most economically vibrant time.

The current $10 per hour policy tells financial markets, tells investment firms, tells people who have a vision for bringing downtown back to an amazing place that it should be, that the city is okay with 30 percent, 36 percent of our customer base coming less often, 30 percent of our customer base staying fewer hours, and that we're doing nothing at all to encourage the 11 percent of people who don't want to come downtown.

If we don't right size the policy, everyone thinking about investing and improving downtown will think twice, which is to say the policy is not working the way it should, because it hurts workers and it confuses the public and collects far less than it was projected to.

And it's just another fee that the public sees the city of San Diego charging them.

So let's give relief to workers, clarify the structure for the public, and send the signal we want people to come back downtown with more money in their pocket to spend.

So with that, I'll make a motion to approve the staff recommendation and turn it over to my colleague who's on the lights, Dr.

Campbell.

Thank you for the your wonderful uh ability to phrase things so well and give a good explanation of uh why you uh brought your staff to present this.

Uh, we don't have um an actual presentation from the IBA's office except for what he said, and because um council members received his report and hopefully read it ahead of time.

Um I just like to first of all uh posit that uh downtown decrease in business is due to many, many, many factors, including the large decrease in foreign and American tourists, due to policies on peace and economics, that are federal level, that this city has absolutely no control over, and yet we depend half of our budget on sales tax and tourist tax.

That is a big problem when tourism goes down.

And that is probably the main reason that economics in downtown is going down right now.

But we don't know, because this was based not on correct data, it was just based on pie in the sky.

And there are many lessons to be learned from this.

Number one, all the other members of this committee and the entire council except me voted for deficit budget last year.

I am the only one who voted against it because it is wrong for this city to vote deficit budgets.

We don't have enough money to do that kind of thing.

We do not have a printing press to fill in the gaps, and we need to always balance the budget, as it says in our city charter.

We are supposed to balance the budget by July 1st every summer.

The mayor presented a balanced budget last year, but guess what?

Most of the council members didn't like it.

I didn't like it either, because it laid off parks and rec people.

It didn't necessarily lay them off, but it closed rec centers, therefore.

It didn't uh it didn't lay off library people directly, but it did close down the libraries for a couple days a week.

That was the initial budget proposal to make it balance.

And what did the budget committee suggest, and what did my colleagues vote for?

They voted against the mayor's balanced budget.

Instead, they voted for a substitute put in at the very last minute on the very last day of the budget meetings by the chair, Henry Foster, who's not here today, and is the chair again of the budget committee.

And he put in deficit spending, and why?

Because he had a dream that all these millions of dollars were going to come in from all these parking fees that they decided to put in.

So they screwed up, and they blame the mayor.

Do not blame the mayor.

He presented a balanced budget, and he is presenting a balanced budget again this year.

Lesson two.

When you're going to make legislation, when you're going to be a council member voting on things, remember to take into account the impact of everything you do, every law you make.

What is the impact on the entire people affected by it?

This was not taken into account.

There was no time because it was like, hurry up, fill this deficit.

That is an incorrect way to govern.

Government should be responsible.

Government should be mature, inclusive of all parties that are affected by whatever it is we do, especially the people and especially business, because in this nation we have succeeded because of regulated capitalism, and that must continue to be encouraged.

So I am sorry to hear that downtown businesses are losing, losing business, because that is a shame.

But I would also point out that these other areas of the city that have restaurants that are charging less are increasing in their business, and that could be one reason why.

However, I think the overall economy is also needs to be taken into account.

But one thing I will say that's good about this is that when there are special events, not only at Petco Park, but at areas nearby, such as the Bayfront Hilton, there is less traffic jams.

Traffic around the ballpark is much better, much better controlled now than it was in the past.

Another thing I want to point out is that the data that the traffic department used to determine how many funds came in from the parking meters is data based on seven months from September 1, 2025 to March of 2026.

We need a year's data.

We need at least a year's data to see how much impact this will have.

The $2 million expected, and of course the council expected 20 million.

I told them at the time you're dreaming.

So I was the only one who voted against it because of the deficits.

But let me let me just say this.

See what the income is from it.

And in the meantime, the city needs to give us a map that has the boundaries, their current boundaries of what is the $10 an hour parking fee, and all the names of the streets on those maps, which they did not do this time, and all the names of the businesses on those streets.

And then the associations downtown can show us which businesses have failed.

We want to see exactly where they're located.

We want to see exactly how many people are parking at what meters where, because indeed I agree, we definitely need to decrease the geographic area that has the $10 meters.

If you live in Los Angeles, it's $9 an hour to park at any time anywhere in their business areas.

So we are lucky.

We live in heaven here.

This is the best city in America.

And one of the reasons is that the government failed to act in the past to be sure that the infrastructure was taken care of over the last 150 years.

It was not taken care of.

And so now here we have all these needs that are costly and not the money to fill them.

And so we have to make up that change in our needs and our needs for a bigger budget.

And so that's something to take into account when people vote against a sales tax that would have helped tremendously.

And that would that's last year, that's the past.

All of that is over.

The $10 are in right now in a certain area.

But before we move forward, I think we need at least a year's data, which will come to us September 1st.

That'll be the end of the one-year period of the $10 meters.

We need that map that I explained in detail so that we can look at it and decide how to decrease the geographic area of the charge and whether or not the money received from the $10 charge is worth the problems that it may also have caused, in which case then we need to lower the rate.

But we do not have the information, we do not have the data.

I'm a doctor.

We have made all these fees without even thinking about the overall, the overall extent to which they might impact people.

And so therefore, I would like to add, I would like to give a substitute motion.

I would like to move that the existing regulations regarding special event parking stay as they exist today until we have data from the program for at least 12 months.

I request that this item come back to EDIR when that sufficient data is collected, and the committee can make an informed decision on the amount that should be charged.

And also remember, I'm just going to throw this in here.

Petco Park has been sold out.

So people are still coming.

Tobacco Park at least.

Okay.

So that's the first part of my motion.

Second part of my substitute motion is a request that the data include large maps with the street names and businesses included, illustrating also where the majority of the cars park during the affected hours and where they park within that geographic area that is currently in place.

Once we have that data, we will be much better able to make a parking map that fits, and we will be much better able to decide how much should we be charging per meter.

And with that, I make the substitute motion.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, County.

Thank you, Council.

Committee presidents are.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

I see the IBA is on the lights.

Yes, thank you so much.

I just wanted to comment and provide a little bit of clarity on the fiscal year 2026 projections of the special event program.

Initially it was projected to be at 6.3 million.

Um now in the fiscal year 2026 mid-year report, it's projected to be 1.7.

A couple of things are major drivers to this, and this is um a later implementation time, going from July, which was assumed in the budget, to September, which actually occurred.

And then also in the initial projections, a larger radius, um a mile radius was assumed as opposed to what actually was implemented, which was a half a mile.

I think it was always supposed to be a half a mile.

So those are the two things that led to that decline in projection.

And like I said in earlier in my comments, um, just looking at the eight events in September 2024 versus eight events in 2025.

Um, the revenue has increased almost 12 times versus an eight-time increase in the rates.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I see council member leees on the lights.

Vice Chair.

Yikes.

Um, let me let me start off with something simple.

If I could ask the City Attorney's Office just to confirm one thing.

Last year the council and the city passed a balanced budget.

Um I'd have to get back to you.

I mean, as required in the charter.

Yes, as required in the charter.

Um, dreams of income that was potential that was not present.

Based on assumptions.

You could argue a budget is full of assumptions.

Um, thank you uh for that as well.

Um there's a lot to go off of here.

Uh I appreciate the IBA for their their analysis uh on a lot of this um uh data and to point out the nuances of uh parking revenue assumptions, the realities of implementation timeline, et cetera, uh, other than just looking at a chart of numbers uh on screen, which I think we've spent a lot of uh the time of the year doing so.

Uh I'd like to argue that every single member of this council um spends a pretty significant amount of time trying to fully understand the implications of every decision that we make from a financial standpoint that is not lost lightly on me or anyone else here.

Uh and I would also point if if I recall this correctly, that the comprehensive parking package reform package that was brought forward that included changes to the special event parking were approved unanimously by every single member of the council, I believe.

Um let me know where I think things have shifted from that.

Uh and I'm gonna thank Council Member Campio for bringing this item forward uh and his team for their work on this thus far, um, and to all the stakeholders and folks who have given their commentary uh, regardless of your perspective on this issue.

Um that comprehensive parking package, when it was passed, uh offered the option of dynamic pricing up to $20 an hour.

Uh it was part of the city shifting to offering a program uh that is much like other big cities around the country in trying to match parking management and demand based on what we see within different areas of the city.

Now, when that item came to the council, it was simply to broaden our policy to allow for a range of options to be considered.

What the council did not approve, nor did it come back to us was a specific set of parking policies and packages as we understand for special events.

So I will note that even the note that we just heard from the IBA of the assumption that the initial special event zones were anticipated to be one mile.

I had not heard that before until that moment.

I think it was inadvertent in the projections.

It was always supposed to be a half a mile.

So let me let me just note that it was an administrative decision to charge downtown special event parking rates at the current package that we have that includes the rates that were determined, the geographical boundaries, and the time frame that's allotted for how that can be charged, other than it meets within the limitations of the council policy that was updated, uh uh starting four hours before an event, but the cap of whether what that was um what was levied was something that was determined administratively.

I guess I'll just ask the mayor's office how we came about this particular administrative decision for this package of rates.

And that is the hourly rate, the distance, and the amount of time frame that was.

I'll defer the Department of Transportation to that question.

We have staff in the audience for that.

Hi, good morning, Bethany Bisak, Chief Performance and Logistics Officer.

So yes, the special event zone was initiated with the ability to charge at a one mile radius, up to $20 per hour.

And it was elected to pursue a smaller radius at a lower amount.

Um so that was really ultimately a policy decision to balance what the demand, what an unknown demand utilization might look like, also balancing the economic impacts as well.

And so the policy allowed to charge for a greater area and a larger amount, and it was elected to be pulled back to be able to evaluate what the ultimately the impact would look like long term.

Um I have Ahmad here.

He's our our parking manager with the transportation department.

He can share any other decisions that were made at that time.

Thank you.

Good morning.

I'm Adriak program manager with the transportation department.

The original assumption was a one mile based on survey data we actually gathered that shows that people are willing to walk up to a mile for the sake of getting a uh reasonable price on reason price on parking.

However, as Bethany mentioned, the policy decision was decision was made to reduce it to half a mile and test how that data would show uh that this is the data that would show what the overall uh influence and impact this would cause, and then revisit and change that distance depending on one year worth of data.

Um so you've noted it's based on the policy.

When I look at the council policy that's being amended today, there's no mention of uh up to a mile for special event zones.

That is correct.

And this is exactly it's meant by design to give that flexibility in which we could revisit the policy and revisit the distance depending on the actual data and the needs that get determined once we have that information.

Um so I appreciate that you you share how uh some of the data goes to making a decision here, and and Bethany, you mentioned that ultimately it is really just a policy choice.

And so that's where I think I'm gonna turn back to the mayor's office and ask from a policy standpoint, how did we I I get the math and the data data and and we gotta work with the information that we've got, but somewhere the decision was made to land on this particular package.

And obviously the decision was also made to change from one mile to half a mile, um, which everyone loves telling us that every anytime the council makes a change in policy that we are impacting uh revenue assumptions.

Um but there seems to be something fairly off if we made a very aggressive revenue assumption and a policy decision was made somewhere to change that.

Yeah, essentially, council member, we presented a range of options and we elected a path forward that aligned with the range that was presented.

So that's what I'll add.

Uh I think Dr.

Campbell would note it it feels like it maybe was trying to match a budgetary number.

Uh, but to be frank, even that at half a mile obviously does not accomplish that.

Um the program as it currently thank you for taking the moment to answer the questions.

The program as it currently exists clearly has issues, um, and we should be willing to acknowledge that.

Um I I want to ask, because this has come up uh both in media and I think just in discussions around, but how much is that is a citation for an expired meter?

Can someone answer that?

I can speak to that again, Bethany No Khan parking program manager with office of the city treasurer.

An expired meter citation is currently it's 4250 for the base fine amount with an $11 state surcharge.

Thank you for answering that.

And so as you just heard, and if you do the math, a citation for an expired meter in comparison to what the city is charging for a potential full special event rate across six hours means that it would be cheaper to just sit in an expired meter than to pay the city for the parking.

And I only note that because I still remember that when this program was launched with the numbers that were there, that was one of the very first things that the media pointed out.

And transparently, it's mind boggling to me that we somehow came up with a number where we'd be ridiculed for the citation being cheaper than the actual parking.

Um I I say it because I think we just need to acknowledge that that is uh what the pricing is.

Um the same price extending from next door to Peco Park all the way across larger swaths of downtown does not feel dynamic to me.

Um I was just at a game this week where a private lot next to the park was $50, and literally right next to the entrance of the park, um, less than the city.

Um several blocks away, I think we can certainly assume that it was likely less than that.

And I think what that ultimately tells us is that $10 is simply too much.

Um if we are charging more than the private lots next door, I mean we're actually it's probably great for a private lot parking uh owner um if the city does that, but I don't think that actually makes sense when it comes to um any of the users and visitors that we might see.

Um to be very fair though, I think when it comes to parking management and trying to match pricing up to what we consider to be the right price dynamically, to me, five dollars is actually also too low if the next door private lot is charging twice as much as what the city is charging.

There's been a lot of talk about um how parking meter revenues are reinvested back into the parking zone.

Someone brought that up in public comment.

Um and I want to share my agreement with that criticism uh because uh when we had changes come forward to community parking districts, uh, and I'll recall that I I was a sole no vote on that.

Um I noted at the time that the city cannot simultaneously backfill our budget shortfall and invest in the improvements above and beyond uh what was currently being delivered in those parking districts, um, using the parking meter revenue that the city was now clawing back.

And it's my opinion that we should be transparent enough to acknowledge that the city is using, utilizing parking meter revenue in order to accomplish the day-to-day responsibilities of the city in these districts.

We're in a budget deficit.

It's okay to tell people that that is exactly what we're doing.

Uh, but that's also exactly all we're doing.

Um and I think to suggest otherwise, I think only furthers the the frustration that anyone might have with whether the city is actually accomplishing what we're saying with the program.

Um I think we should be similarly thorough in our analysis if we're truly interested in parking management and the use of data to inform our decisions.

Um we owe it to the public to be more thoughtful and transparent in accomplishing that.

For example, there have been a lot of uh discussions about the impacts of downtown residents and employees in particular, which I think all of us care about.

Um but I do have to ask is there a general sense of what a monthly parking pass is in downtown, especially within a vicinity to the ballpark.

Um I don't have a clear answer to that.

I I will note that a simple online search suggested that parking permits, uh monthly parking passes in lots surrounding the PECO park area could be anywhere from 200 to 400 a month.

And so I'm just gonna note, because this has been used as such an argument, that even at 400 a month, it would always make more sense to get a parking pass for certainty and for pricing instead of parking at a meter.

If you're a full-time employee or if you're a resident that's using a parking meter 40 hours a week, I I I just think we should be transparent enough to acknowledge that that is not a sensible way to um to pay for parking.

And and so I think that is something that the city should also understand when we're coming up with policy is what we're lots are charging around us for special events, but also what they're charging for monthly parking.

Uh because again, if we are overcharging what folks could otherwise be accomplishing um uh which should be getting from a private lot, that's something that's helpful for us to know.

If we're undercharging, that's also again helpful for us to understand.

And I would note that at 400 a month, it would still be more sensible to get a parking pass than to pay $2.50 an hour, much less $10 an hour.

Um, I I do agree that there is a concern when it comes to utilization by visitors, diners, shoppers, et cetera.

Again, if I'm fair, I will note I avoid going into downtown during special events and games because I am going to assume that parking and uh accessibility to some of the uh restaurants and such are going to be more challenging during that time period.

And I I assume that other residents uh do acknowledge that as well.

But ultimately, that's why coming up with uh clear and coherent policies um that are backed from a data standpoint are really important.

Um to me, I I really appreciate Councilmember Campillo's effort to address this because we we have heard from folks.

I do think the challenge is real.

Uh it needs to be acknowledged.

Uh, I believe that changes are warranted.

Uh I I'm not as quick to jump to uh five dollars as an immediate cap to anything that we would do for special events relating to PECO Park while we're still allowing $20 for any other kinds of special events in the city.

Um that just seems to be a distance.

Um I don't think the cap was ever the issue, as much as to me the the geographical boundaries have been a really big concern.

Um the number of hours and how the total rate exceeds what a citation would be also just seems to be a very practical and reasonable concern.

And so I would love to see changes um that would better match what's realistic within the region and to actually accomplish the city's effort to be dynamic.

Um although uh not not specifically to this just uh plan that's presented to us today.

So hope that gets my thoughts across.

Thank you, Chair.

It certainly does, Vice Chair Lee, and I appreciate the the the thoroughness of which you went through the way in which we arrived at this problem.

I appreciate that a lot.

Um hearing the concerns of my colleagues who I I can hear uh coming from very different perspectives of of how we got here and and broader problems that we have with the city budget as well.

Um hearing no second on my motion and hearing no second on the alternative motion.

Um I will pick up on something you mentioned, uh council member uh vice chair Lee that uh understanding we we need to actually get the price right.

We got to get the distance right, and we need to take into account a few more components, particularly the private lots you pointed out uh that are uh while still expensive, more reasonably priced than street parking for folks who need to use it.

Um so at this point I will uh both the motions at this point are uh failing to have a second, I'll put forward a second motion that I'll request that the city attorney continue working with the council district seven office to add a new special events section to the municipal code, changing the existing hourly rate along with possible changes to the geographic zone and hour for consideration at a future city council meeting with the caveat that we'll get the data in front of uh you uh uh council chair, or excuse me, vice chair, uh as we work on those details.

All right, we have a second from council member Campbell.

Appreciate that.

Uh I think my staff's heard we need to adjust for uh private lots.

We need to adjust for uh size.

Councilmember Campbell wants uh more detailed and granular sense of the actual storefronts and businesses that are impacted at various points throughout downtown.

Heard that one loud and clear.

And uh we will um I would make one request as well.

I know that one of the attachments to the transportation department's report mentioned what where people will um how far distance people will walk in making making that trip given the price of parking to get somewhere.

I would just note that that was from a summer consumer styles survey from 2010.

Let's get a survey that's actually up to date and more about downtown San Diego and the and the concerns that we are facing.

Um with that, we have a motion and a second, and I will call the roll.

Vice Chair Lee.

Yes.

Councilmember Campbell.

Yes.

And I am a yes.

Thank you very much to my colleagues for supporting the second motion, and we will get to work.

Thank you for everyone who came in today.

Sarah, let's move to our next item.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair Campillo.

Item number six is the draft fiscal year 2027 annual action plan for head programs, fiscal year 2027 annual head programs allocations and associated actions.

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

Inputting webinar ID 1603406084 pound.

Chair.

All right.

We have uh staff from our economic development department before us for item six.

Please introduce yourself and let us know how much time you're gonna need uh for this actually very, very important fiscal action, uh fiscal year 27 annual action plan.

Good morning, Chair Campillo and members of the EDNIR committee.

My name is Melissa Villalpando, community development coordinator with the Economic Development Department.

Joining me today is Nadine Hassoon, community development specialist, and it's our pleasure to present the uh the draft fiscal year 2027 annual action plan.

We respectfully request 12 minutes for this presentation.

Very good.

Let's begin.

At the end of this presentation, the EDNIR committee will be asked to recommend council's approval of action items 1 through 20 related to the fiscal year 2027 annual action plan and HUD entitlement allocations and other actions associated with the ongoing management of HUD entitlement grant programs administered by the economic development department.

The action plan serves as the city's application to HUD for FY27 entitlement grant funds.

Projects and programs recommended for funding will help the city make progress towards achieving its five consolidated plan goals.

The action plan includes budgets for three HUD entitlement grant programs, CDBG with the budget of roughly $13.8 million, which focuses on improving the living environment for low and moderate income individuals, households, and neighborhoods.

Home with a budget of approximately $31.5 million, which increases affordable housing opportunities with rental housing production and home ownership assistance.

And ESG at 969,322, which provides shelters, outreach, and rapid rehousing services and homelessness prevention programs.

These budgets reflect the confirmed HUD entitlement grant amounts released on April 3rd, 2026.

The CDBG budgets presented to you today are based on HUD regulations and budgetary priorities.

To summarize, HUD regulations limit administrative expenditures to 20% of the overall CDBG budget.

Nonprofit capacity building and fair housing services are also supported with admin funds.

Public services expenditures are limited to 15% of the overall CDBG budget.

The remaining 65% of the CDBG budget is currently split between affordable housing at 10%, city and nonprofit facilities at 35%, and economic development at 20%.

The action plan process begins with the CDBG annual notice of funding availability, which includes an RFQ to determine an organization's eligibility to receive and successfully manage CDBG funds.

Qualified applicants are invited to an RFP and proposals are scored by the Consolidated Plan Advisory Board.

Details on this timeline and process can be found in attachment six.

We will now go over the organizations proposed for CDBG funding and FY27.

The consolidated plan goal for economic development focuses on inclusive economic growth, strengthening small businesses, and supporting local entrepreneurs, expanding workforce development, and improving access to job opportunities.

To this end, 11 organizations are recommended for funding for awards totaling 2.3 million.

All organizations are repeat CDBG and CED awardees.

Another consolidated plan goal is to develop vibrant and equitable neighborhoods by investing in public facilities, critical infrastructure, and nonprofit facilities, and enhanced accessibility, resiliency, and sustainability.

This goal is associated with nonprofit capital improvement projects.

Under this goal, four organizations are recommended for awards totaling about 2.3 million dollars.

Promised to kids foundation is a new awardee of CDBG and the NCIP category.

For public services, the associated consolidated plan goal focuses on improving community services by addressing critical needs and promoting equity through improved or increased access to community programming.

Under this goal, eight organizations are recommended for awards totaling approximately 1.26 million dollars.

All organizations are repeat awardees of CDBG in the public services category.

The services provided provided under these projects are varied and include meal delivery, health services, apprenticeship and workforce training and youth services.

Funding within this category is capped at a maximum of 15% of the entitlement allocation and program income.

This 15% includes the homeless set aside.

As just mentioned, the annual action plan before the council today also includes recommended allocations for projects related to homeless services as defined by Council Policy 700-02, which states that up to 25% of the city's annual CDBG public service budget, not to exceed $1 million, shall be set aside for the city's homeless programs in FY27.

This is approximately $441,000.

The CDBG Homeless Services Set Aside is expected to fund one program, being the City of San Diego Family Shelter Program.

This program's goal is to improve housing stability for individuals and households with critical needs, including persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness, by providing appropriate housing and service solutions grounded and best practices.

The annual action plan also includes approximately 1.38 million for the bridge to home program, which provides gap financing to help affordable housing projects move forward and create homes for households unable to afford market rate housing.

And also approximately $3.26 million to allow contingency increases of program budgets for previously approved CIPs or nonprofit facility improvement projects up to the originally approved allocation in order to ensure timely completion of projects.

Any new city projects, if identified during the fiscal year, would be presented to city council for approval.

I will now hand the presentation over to Nadine to review the other HUD entitlement grant programs.

Thank you, Melissa.

The two remaining HUD entitlement programs included in the action plan are the home program and the emergency solutions grants program.

The home program is administered by the San Diego Housing Commission and provides federal funds for housing activities such as construction, acquisition and rehabilitation of affordable housing, first-time homebuyer down payment financial assistance, and tenant-based rental assistance.

In fiscal year 2027, home funds are proposed to be allocated to rental housing unit production and first-time home buyer assistance.

In FY27, new grant funds will be $4.8 million with an anticipated $2.8 million in program income from loan payments and $23.9 million in previous years grant funding for a total anticipated home budget of $31.5 million.

The Housing Commission proposes allocating $30 million to affordable rental housing development.

Please note that of the $30 million, $13 million is earmarked for the NOFA, and the remaining balance is already committed to existing home projects.

The first time home buyer program will receive $378,000 of home funds, which represent a portion of the overall FTHB budget, which is approximately $3 million.

$1 million will go to program administration.

Here are two examples of projects that are funded in part with home funds.

On the left is Hacka Hakarandan 9th, formerly known as Cortez Hill.

This development received a $5 million housing commission loan, of which $1.8 million are federal home funds.

It includes $87 affordable rental units, $14 for individuals experiencing chronic homelessness, and $73 for households with extremely low income, all at 30% of the San Diego's area median income.

The Housing Commission has also awarded 87 HUD project-based vouchers to this project.

This project is fully leased and will celebrate its grand opening on May 7.

On the right is Avanzondo, located in San Isidro and currently under construction.

The project received a $4 million housing commission loan, of which $3 million are home funds.

It will include $101 Affable units plus two managers units and will remain affordable for 55 years for households earning 30 to 60% of the AMI.

Avanzondo broke ground on October 14 and is expected to be completed in summer 20 to in the summer of 2027.

The final HUD grant program we will discuss is the emergency solutions grants program or ESG to provide funding for homelessness activities.

Eligible activities include outreach and engagement, shelter operations, homelessness prevention, and rapid rehousing.

The housing commission administers the ESG program on behalf of the City of San Diego in coordination with the Regional Continuum of Care and the City's Homelessness Strategies and Solutions Department.

The Housing Commission proposes to use ESG funds for the following two programs: the Connections Housing Shelter, which is a program contracted with PASS or people assisting the homeless to provide up to 70 emergency shelter beds for single adults experiencing unsheltered homelessness in the city of San Diego.

The program is anticipated to serve approximately 160 individuals and successfully exit 42 residents to permanent housing in fiscal year 2027.

The second project is the homelessness prevention program.

This program offers short-term assistance paired with case management services and financial resources to help clients either remain in their current housing or to explore other housing options.

This program is anticipated to serve 31 households at risk of homelessness in fiscal year 2027.

As an overview of the projected ESG funding for FY27, the Housing Commission anticipates spending 60% of the allocation on shelter activities, 33% on prevention, and approximately 7% on admin costs, which are split between the housing commission and the city.

The public comment period for the draft action plan began on April 7 and will end on May 7, 2026.

All comments received during the public comment period and during the public meetings, including today's meeting, will be included in the final version of the action plan before it is submitted to HUD.

And staff responses will be included when merited.

On April 8th, the consolidated plan advisory board voted to recommend council approval of the fiscal year 2027 draft action plan.

And we anticipate presenting actions to city council on April 21st.

And upon approval, we intend to submit the final action plan by May 15, 2026.

And that concludes our presentation.

City and Housing Commission staff are available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Sarah, let's please go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received seven speaker slips here in the committee room.

We will begin with Stephanie Ortega, if you can please approach the lectern.

Rohdy, Angie, and Latoya, if you can please move up to these front reserve seats on the right side of the room.

You will follow next.

Each speaker will have two minutes on the clock in front of you to manage your time.

Good morning, committee chair, vice chair, and council member.

My name is Stephanie Ortega, and I work at Promises to Kids, a local nonprofit serving San Diego's foster children.

We have requested support for renovation of our new Mission Valley facility, which will serve San Diego's current and former foster youth by improving access to our supportive case management, assistance with education and employment, child care, a basic needs pantry, therapeutic counseling, and community meeting spaces.

This new foster youth and family support campus will provide greater service access to the approximately 500 current and former foster youth who reside in the city of San Diego.

This is a critical need given that approximately 50% of unhoused individuals indicate they were previously in foster care.

And fate that can be avoided by providing accessible supportive services.

Upon completion of the renovation for which we have requested CDBG funds, the campus will become a vital community asset as it gives youth who have experienced abuse and neglect a place to build heal and hope and have hope as they prepare for self-sufficiency.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Roadie Good morning, Chair.

Good morning, uh committee.

My name is Rhodi Saria.

I'm the new executive director for Urban Core San Diego.

Uh, for those who may not be familiar with or with the Urban Corps, we're more than just a nonprofit.

Uh, we're a second chance engine for the city of San Diego.

We take 200 of our the city's most resilient yet disadvantaged youth.

And provide them with a dual path, a path towards a high school diploma and on-hand vocational training.

You may have seen our core members work around the cities, planting trees, uh, cleaning up works, um homeless encampments, enforcing our not necessarily enforcing, but uh instilling cleaning up the homeless encampments and our recycling program.

Uh, while these young men and women are out improving the city's infrastructure, our infrastructure, uh, when they return back in the afternoon needs repair.

I'm here today to discuss the CD PG request for critical for a critical campus necessity, replacing a thousand 165,000 square feet of damage roof at our facility.

Uh currently, these leaks aren't just maintenance headaches.

There are barriers towards our education.

Every time it rains, our classroom stability is threatened.

The funding for this project just isn't buying shingles in labor.

You are securing the safe, dry professional learning environment for our core members.

You are helping us reduce the massive overhead of an emergency repair so we can keep those dollars focused on what matters the most.

The 200 students that rely on us for their future.

The City of San Diego has been a steadfast partner with the urban core for years, and we do not take that for granted.

The investment in our facility ensures our campus remains a safe haven for the workforce development for years to come.

I urge you to support the funding to keep our mission of transforming both the landscape of San Diego and the losses.

Important.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Angie, good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to speak on this agenda item.

I am Angie Michena.

I'm here as a resident and as a representative of Logan Heights Community Development Corporation or Logan Heights CDC.

We are a local nonprofit and community-based organization that has been serving the Greater Logan Heights area for over 30 years now.

We are grateful to have been a recipient of CDBG funding for several years and are recommended for funding again this year under the community economic development program.

This program has specifically supported our small business development work and our emergent entrepreneurship program for several years.

But these folks receive a series of trainings, resources, connections to capital and grant opportunities to grow their business.

And I just can't stress enough how important this funding is, not just for those individuals, but for the economic development of communities like Logan Heights that rely so strongly on uh small business activity.

And with that, I just want to strongly urge you to maintain the funding for CDBG and specifically the community economic development portion as presented in the annual action plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Latoya McKelvin.

We can come back to Ms.

McCalvin.

Neo, if you would please approach the lectern.

Nao.

Jennifer Gilmore.

Jennifer, you will be followed by Hassan.

Please begin.

For Gilmore, I serve as the CEO of Kitchens for Good, and we've been fortunate enough to have CDBG funding support for many years now, and we appreciate it.

I'm here today just to give you an idea of how we'll be using the funding if approved to drive economic mobility here in San Diego.

As you may know, Kitchens for Good is serves as an economic uh engine for people who low to moderate income job seekers and early stage entrepreneurs.

The funding that we've requested would be invested into San Diego's first culinary impact center.

Um this project just isn't a building, it's an economic engine, and once complete, it will be the largest uh workforce and food business accelerator in Southern California.

Okay.

Um San Diego's food economy represents nearly one in six jobs here in San Diego.

Yep, for many residents, um, access to that economy remains out of reach.

At the same time, early stage entrepreneurs, food entrepreneurs are frequently blocked from scaling their businesses because of a lack of affordable rentable kitchen space.

In fact, within San Diego, there's only 6,000 square feet of rentable kitchen space by the hour.

The starting rate is typically about $40 an hour.

Um, in this building, we will establish 12,000 square feet of rentable kitchen space for early stage low to moderate um entrepreneurs.

This model aligns directly with HUD priorities, expanding economic opportunities, stabilizing households, and strengthening our community.

And so we really appreciate your consideration.

Um we appreciate your past support, and we're so excited about the future and being able to move people into work and wealth.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hassan, good morning.

Uh thank you for the opportunity to speak today with you.

Uh my name is Hassan Abdurhman.

I work with the Somali Family Service, a nonprofit organization that has been focused on economic development in the city of San Diego for the last 25 years.

Today I'm here today to strongly support the proposed FY 2027 CDBG Community Economic Development and Technical Assistant Projects in challenging economic times.

CED projects offer some of the best returns on investment.

CDBG CED funds that don't uh they don't just batch problems, they build solutions, helping new small businesses establish in San Diego and provide technical assistance assistance for entrepreneurs and lead directly to job creation.

I also I also wanted to highlight for every CDBG dollar, many of the nonprofit organizations leverage additional profit investment to create local jobs and expand tax base in San Diego.

Most importantly, uh the this investment in uh to reach residents, this man will reach residents uh who need it the most, our un our underemployed and unemployed neighbors who wants to work and but lack the connections or training.

Uh will this project will be helping them become a self-sufficient and reduce the demand on other services, uh, safety net services.

Please support the proposed CDBGCD project in physics uh it's a physic it's physically responsible.

It's proven and it works.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Latoya McKelvin.

And Miss McKelvin, you will have two minutes.

There's a clock in front of you to manage.

Thank you.

Um my name's Latoy McKelvin, and I am the founder of Movement Matters Collective.

And though we did not directly receive funds from the CBDG, um, we are beneficiaries of it.

I am an alumni of the LEET program, the Logan Heights uh Emergent Entrepreneurship Program.

And through this program, not only was I able to receive access to capital support and access to mentors that I still utilize today.

This was five years ago.

And within those five years, I have been able been able to build a thriving business that doesn't just support me, but it actually gives back to the San Diego community.

We've been able to provide um in 2025 alone, $30,000 worth of services at no charge to our community members in health and wellness, PLADIS, yoga, breath work, meditation, all of the things that help them to feel good inside and out.

We've been able to hire four instructors and pay them above a living wage.

And um we intentionally uh circulate our dollars back into the community.

So most of our vendors are, I can honestly say actually happen to be other LEAP alumni that are um that have gone through the program over the last five years.

We've also been able to bring in business from outside of San Diego, bringing those dollars in here so that those folks can utilize our services.

So it allows us to pay and um add to the vibrancy of the San Diego economy.

So I am here in full support of the uh CDBG.

Thank you so much.

Thank you for your testimony and one final call for now.

Nell.

Okay, Neo has turned in a speaker slip um in favor of this item.

So I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to speak to item number six.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We have four hands raised at the moment, and we will begin with phone number ending in 8700.

Please unmute and begin.

You have two minutes uh thank you, Sarah.

Uh Joy, excuse me, Joy Sanyatha.

This is interesting for me.

I've done this for years on the on this uh item.

Uh I looked at the EOC program evaluation.

I was surprised to find it there for the first time.

I'm sure it's been there.

So I quote Amount of action, 16,481,981 dollars and 65 cents.

Funding source, HUD, equal employment opportunity, compliance, contracts, and agreements associated with this action are subject to the city's EEO outreach program, end of quote.

So a question.

Uh, do you think this compliance is enforced?

And who would monitor this?

Okay, also from me.

When does the ESG grant program expire?

I thought it was fall of this year.

Also, from me.

Uh, this is on the 20 points in my likes or my my suggestions.

Uh proposed actions, there's 20 of them.

So on number 14, we need detail metrics on this action.

I.

Number 15, transparency and accountability for number 14 transfers.

Number 18.

If this is not provided to HUD.

Can we please look at 18?

They're really, really pressing on this HUD.

Can we have metrics on this amount?

I look forward to your comments today from the committee and at VDP.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Marcy.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Marcy Roque, and I serve as the president of Traveler's Aid San Diego, a 120-year-old nonprofit social services organization.

Our CDBG public service program called Senior Solutions serves extremely low-income San Diegans who are over 55 and immunocompromised.

We coordinate and pay for transportation for medical appointments, such as dialysis or cancer treatments and essential trips for groceries or prescriptions.

This is a popular program that is well subscribed and serves some of San Diego, some of San Diego's most vulnerable residents.

It is a lifeline and improves health outcomes.

So far in our fiscal 26 program, we have provided over 5,700 one-way passenger trips to our clients, primarily for medical visits or essential trips to grocery stores or pharmacies.

We are fortunate to have been recommended for public service CDBG funding in fiscal 27.

Thank you in advance for approving this important and impactful funding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

On item number six.

Becky Rapp.

We cannot hear you.

I will circle back to you.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

At the end of the day, we right now have 27.

And then Blair Beekman, I hope you can hear me okay.

And so let me uh switch this real quick.

I just wanted to offer a quick thank you for this item.

Uh, it was really nice to hear public comment on this argument.

And it's a good learning process for myself.

Uh, really important issues, how we better be how we're better working with HUD in the next four years.

Um, these sort of programs and project ideas are really helpful to that end to really uh working together.

I think there can be good ways we can work together with federal agencies and uh this this item and how people are talking about it proves something important.

Uh good luck on the efforts uh with this item and our continued work uh in working with HUD.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And giving Becky Rapp one more opportunity to speak to item number six.

Yes, good morning.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak.

Um, I want to focus on where the city has that this the city has a clear opportunity to strengthen this plan, protecting residents in multi-unit housing from secondhand smoke exposure.

HUD already requires smoke-free policies in public housing and has long encouraged these protections across federally assisted housing because secondhand smoke is it is a serious public health risk, particularly for children, seniors, and individuals with chronic conditions like asthma and heart disease.

Yet, as we review the action plan and the proposed allocation of millions in federal funds for affordable housing, housing rehabilitation and supportive services, there does not appear to be any incorporation of smoke-free multi-unit housing policies.

Um the city has the authority to set expectations.

You can prioritize or require smoke-free policies in projects funded through home or CDBG and programs like bridge, bridge to home.

And you can incorporate this into your scoring criteria.

Um, and you can ensure that public investments are aligned with these basic health protections.

This is especially important in lower income multi-unit settings where residents often have the least ability to control their exposure.

No one should have to choose between housing affordability and clean air in their own homes.

So today I just asked that this committee incorporate smoke-free multi-unit housing policies into this action plan before it moves forward.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And with the five-minute timer expiring and no hands left in the virtual queue.

This concludes comment on item six.

Thank you very much to the members of the public for your participation on this item, and thank you very much to our staff for their presentation and the good work that they're doing.

Uh, as we heard from members of the public, it's incredibly vital that this funding be put in the hands of these organizations, the public that the members of the public they serve oftentimes are vulnerable on a knife's edge with their own budgets and the services they need to continue to continue to thrive in all areas of San Diego.

Um, this report comes to us every year and continues to highlight just how important these dollars are.

And of course, we always wish we had more HUD dollars.

Uh, and given the very significance of this and how good our staff is at putting this all together, uh, I appreciate their good work.

And I'll make a motion to approve staff recommendation and go to council member Campbell.

Thank you, Chair.

I I am delighted to make second to this motion.

And I I can't thank you enough for all the good work you all do.

Uh these uh grants are so small compared to the amount needed, and yet you're able to stretch those dollars and do so much good for so many.

I really uh appreciate that, and I know the whole council does.

So we are delighted to uh second this motion and thank you so much, Chair.

Thank you.

Seeing no further comments or questions, I'll call the role, Vice Chair Lee.

Yes, Councilmember Campbell.

Yes.

And I am a yes, that passes with three members present.

Thank you.

See a full council.

We will now move to our non-agenda public comment.

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

Sarah, let's please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

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

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

Christine Martinez, if you'll please approach the lecture, and you will have two minutes.

You will be followed by Bob and Carlos.

If those gentlemen would like to move to the front reserve seats on the right.

Good afternoon.

I'm Christine Martinez from Arts and Culture San Diego.

I represent more than 150 different arts and culture groups throughout our city.

I wanted to be here today on the heels of the release of Mayor Gloria's uh fiscal year 27 draft budget.

Um, I know it's not what's on the agenda today, but it's something that's very true to my heart.

Our arts and culture leaders and organizations were literally stunned to see that even though hard decisions were being made across the city, um, that our budget is being zeroed out almost completely.

Arts and culture grants are going away completely.

There's no other program that is suffering like we are in this proposed budget.

Um just to bring it home for you.

You know, you've heard us all say we're an economic driver.

That is true.

We don't understand why, in these difficult budget times where there is a deficit, you would want to cut programs that are earning money for the city.

We are driving TOT.

We're employers.

We offer valuable programming.

This is not an empty threat.

I wish it wasn't something I had to say.

We had a town hall meeting, emergency town hall meeting.

In fact, we had to have two because of the over overwhelming response.

We had more than 240 people attend and say, what can we do?

These are arts organizations, large and small, who are saying we are going to have to lay off people.

We are going to have to cancel a lot of these programs that are free in the districts that serve seniors, at-risk populations, children.

Some organizations are talking about folding all together.

It is not an empty threat, it's a reality.

I wanted to be here to share that because, of course, even our partners in Balboa Park, they're suffering because of parking fees as well.

So they're getting a double whammy.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bob Lehman.

Good morning, Committee Chair Campio, Council Members, Campbell and Lee.

My name is Bob Lehman, the executive director of Senegal Art Matters, advocating for artists, cultural workers, and institutions across our region.

As you can imagine, this has been a very difficult last couple of days.

But I wanted to come here this morning to talk to you about economics.

From the city's own creative economy report from 2024, the city states that we are a 10.8 billion dollar regional economic engine, supporting nearly 170,000 jobs, most of them in small businesses, independent work.

That's 3.7% of our regional GDP GDP.

The report itself is very clear in its recommendations.

It calls for more funding from the city, public and private support for small businesses, affordable creative space, workforce development, career pathways, equity investments, integration to our broader economic strategy.

In other words, invest more, support more, grow the sector.

But the current proposal does the exact opposite, eliminating 11.8 million dollars in arts and culture funding.

That is one of San Diego's largest business sectors.

Nearly half of the jobs it supports exist outside the arts.

It's a multiplier industry.

You don't shrink a sector that supports 170,000 jobs and expect economic stability.

This is not just about arts funding.

This is about jobs.

It's about small businesses.

This is about whether San Diego chooses to invest in one of its more important economic engines or to dismantle it.

I urge you to reconsider these cuts and work with us to protect the strength of this vital sector.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the committee room is Carlos Perfect.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Carlos Zanato.

I'm here on behalf of the Policy Research Center for Tobacco in the Environment, a collaboration between San Diego State University and Say San Diego.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

Last month the committee uh discussed the business improvement district bid program.

We are excited to hear that the program is designed to strengthen small businesses, support communities, create jobs, and attract new businesses in San Diego neighborhoods.

These important goals that help build vibrant, economically strong and connected communities across the city.

We believe that a smoke-free outdoor dining experience directly supports these same goals.

San Diego proudly promotes itself as a healthy outdoor-oriented city, one where residents and visitors can enjoy clean air, active lifestyles, and welcome public spaces.

Outdoor dining is a big part of the identity.

However, when smoke uh drifts through restaurant patios, it can discourage families and consumers from choosing to dine in those specific areas.

As a district nine resident, this is something that I've experienced personally.

Uh my family and I have had to change dining plans countless times because of the smoke pollution coming from restaurants that allow uh smoking in outdoor patios.

I have a four-year-old and a two-year-old.

Uh, my four-year-old had asthma, and it's a very issue that continues happening uh within our area.

Um, when customers feel uncomfortable, businesses can lose out on that specific item as well.

Creating smoke-free outdoor dining spaces can help uh make commercial areas uh more inviting, increase food traffic, and support local businesses, which aligns directly with the committee goals.

In addition, smoking levels leave behind toxic residuals on tables and services, disposing patrons, harmful chemicals, even after smoking is gone.

Uh, addressing this issue helps ensure that the shared spaces remain clean and safe for everyone.

Uh, thank you for the time uh and for the attention being given to this issue.

We appreciate the opportunity to share our work and to be a resource of the community.

I have also provided a briefing document for each committee member, and I respectfully request that it be entered into uh the public record.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this concludes public testimony here in the committee room.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We currently have six hands up, beginning with Peggy Walker.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, thank you.

I'm Peggy Walker, and I'm here to ask you in light of the huge city budget deficit to consider that announcement prevention is worth a pound of cure.

We know today's high potency marijuana is a major public health concern with negative economic outcomes.

Experts point to the economic drain of marijuana use in terms of medical and mental health treatment needs and costs, including outcomes like homelessness that burden the city budget and usurp taxpayer funds.

In light of high public health and economic costs, I urge you to consider suggestions to protect the public from marijuana's adverse effects given by the National Academy of Science, Engineering, and Medicine, which was chartered to advise government officials on pressing pressing scientific matters.

Those of adverse effects range from lower IQ and youth to increased rates of psychosis, suicidal ideation, cancer, early stroke, heart disease, and cannabis hypermesis syndrome, all devastatingly costly.

To address these, the academy is calling for urgent preventative action, including potency caps, advertising restrictions, best practices to limit youth access, and surveillance systems to track public health impacts.

ER admissions, for one, have risen steadily over the past decade, and doctors say ER and hospitalization costs can range as high as 50 to 70,000 per person.

The Academy's suggested actions could help reduce marijuana's public health drain and its height social and economic costs.

Thank you for considering these suggestions.

Thank you for your testimony.

Holmes at UCSD.edu.

If you can please unmute and provide your comment at this time, all right, thank you.

Um good morning.

Uh, my name is Howard Holmes, and I'm a graduate social work student.

And I wanted to highlight the issue of benefit cliffs, where small increases in income can cause working families to suddenly lose essential supports like food assistance, health care, or child care.

In a high cost city like San Diego.

Um this can make it this can actually make it harder for families to achieve stability even as they earn more and try to move forward.

I encourage the committee to support and advocate for policies that phase out benefits more gradually so families are not penalized for making economic progress.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Um, I wanted to comment um kind of my uh thoughts of the week.

Uh, I think it can be relevant to this uh committee, that um good luck in working on uh the Balboa Park parking fee issues and the you know how how those issues can relate to overall accountability issues that you're trying to work on with park lease agreements coming up.

Uh I think that's going to be a really interesting community effort from all of us.

And uh so I'm interested in how that will progress.

Hopefully, the Balboa Park parking fee allocation process can be made more clear.

Um, I'm starting to have those conversations to understand how to have that conversation.

So yeah, it's a learning process, and uh hopefully uh things can be understood and uh all sides can uh have a part in a in the process.

Um I also wanted to comment uh that uh what else?

Uh uh ideas about uh uh our technology, our surveillance technology.

I think we actually can be addressing uh the future of flocks still in this era of war.

Good luck that we can be.

Um it's interesting that we actually can be.

And uh, and to consolidate and to bring together working on how to bring a new AOPR vendor besides flock, at the same time working on uh limiting our surveillance technology use in a neighborhood and still doing the same amount of public safety service.

That's an interesting combination that uh you know we can be addressing those things, even in this era of war, which is uh a testament to uh how we're trying to really practice peace at the local level and give ideas to the world towards peace.

So good luck what we can do in better reasoning, our best selves, and uh thanks for meeting today.

Thank you for your comment.

Peter Gomiski, please unmute and begin.

Uh good morning, Czech and Peel and members of the committee.

My name is Peter Kamiski, executive director of the Balboa Park Cultural Partnership.

The partnership represents 25 member organizations providing diverse year-round programming for all ages in every council district.

Together, our network of 500 trustees, over 7,000 volunteers and over 30 and 500 staff, serves 6.2 million visitors annually, and that's just within the park.

I'm here today on behalf of those members who are stunned by the elimination of OSP and CCSD grants from the mayor's proposed budget.

We all want Balbo Park to remain the economic engine that it is.

If that is the goal, eliminating the very programs that fund accessible cultural programming and sustain local jobs moves us in the opposite direction.

By cutting these grants, the city is not just reducing support.

It is weakening a proven driver of economic activity and local tax revenue.

You've already heard from San Diego Arts Madison Arts and Culture San Diego.

We stand together in strong opposition to this proposal.

This disproportionate cut, compounded by the impacts of the paid parking program, place small organizations at real risk of closure and creates long-term potentially irreversible damage to mid-size and larger organizations.

Many are already experiencing losses not seen since the 2080 crisis.

As the city's economic development committee, you have the opportunity to act.

I urge you to consider all options to reinvest in programs that consistently create jobs, drive tourism, and generate TOT and sales tax revenue.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

The five-minute timer has exhausted.

We have two hands remaining in the queue.

We'll take no other callers beyond these remaining two individuals.

Phone number ending in 8700.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

I will really try to do better on that.

Um, Joyce and Yata.

Um, first of all, quickly, uh, please excuse me, everyone, if I was too harsh on the HUD item.

It's great work that you're doing.

I've been looking at this for years, and the improvement and how this is done and the work that is done to make it happen, are excellent.

So I just want to know that love to all of you.

Um, I want to say this about today also.

Uh, committee vice chair, President Pro Chem Lee.

Thank you for the two yikes.

And a committee member, Dr.

Campbell, thank you for the robust comments on balancing a budget.

And Chair Campiel, thank you for your excellent work.

I want to read this quickly because I love it so much.

It's from uh Google.

Economics is the social science that studies how individuals, businesses, and governments manage scarce resources to satisfy unlimited wants.

Dr.

Campbell, you're gonna just have to partner strongly with our chair, Foster the Third, who I think is excellent because we need to be different with this year's budget.

I'm hearing you, Dr.

Campbell, and I'm gonna be looking at what you said because what you said is so powerful.

And uh you got me.

You you hooked me, and I'm ready for the budget more than ever now.

So thank you, everybody.

Uh, thank you for listening to me and love to all.

Thank you for your testimony.

The final hand in the queue is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Raff, and I come today to express appreciation for the mayor's draft 2027 budget.

He does not appear to view the social socially equitable and economic development um program or the seed program as a sound financial investment.

At first glance, it does not appear that funding has been allocated to launch this program.

And this is a welcome decision as residents across San Diego are asking for policies that prioritize both public health and responsible use of limited city resources.

The seed program would require significant upfront investment, ongoing administrative costs, and funds that our city just does not have.

At the same time, our city is already facing serious public health and behavioral health challenges that we just can't ignore.

Healthcare professionals, especially those in emergency departments, are raising these concerns about what they are seeing in in real life right here in San Diego.

Increases in marijuana-related emergency visits, including psychosis, anxiety, and exacerbations of underlying mental health conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

Problems impacting real people and real families across our city.

Education and prevention are far less expensive avenues and support the overburdened behavioral health system we currently have.

So it's time to reassess current policies and ensure accountability is existing in existing programs and make decisions that truly reflect the long term well being of our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and chair.

This concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you to all the members who've called in today, and thank you for those who came downtown to let us know your views on our particular legislation.

That brings us to the end of our meeting.

So we will adjourn the economic development and intergovernmental relations committee meeting of April 16th and see you at our next regularly scheduled meeting.

Thank you.