Rules Committee Meeting – March 18, 2026

Good morning, Mr.

Stump.

Would you like to do a mic check for us?

Hello, how are you?

Good morning.

Thank you.

Mike Chatter, the Microsoft.

Good morning, Mr.

Musum.

Would you like to do a mic check?

Sorry, can you hear me?

We can hear you great.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Good morning, and welcome to the Rules Committee meeting of March eighteenth, twenty twenty-six.

I'm Joel Ocava, Councilmember for District One and Chair of the Committee.

Our committee's liaison, Sarah Jordan will go over instruction for today's meeting.

Sarah.

Thank you, Chair Locava.

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

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

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

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

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

Councilmember Campio here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

And Councilmember Elo Rivera is currently not in attendance, and I am present.

Also attending the meeting today, Jillian Andalina with the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst, Kathy Steinman with the Office of the City Attorney, Matt Yeagan with the Office of Mayor Todd Gloria, Abby Reuters, the committee consultant.

With that, Sarah, please continue with public comment instructions.

Thank you, Chair.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the box indicated in the table 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 also 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.

If you need to participate by telephone, you may dial 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160-439420 pound.

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

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

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

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

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

Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Sarah, for reviewing those instructions for the benefit of the public.

A quorum is now present.

We will now take up non-agenda public comment.

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

Sarah, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you.

Peru 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, and each speaker will have two minutes to provide their non-agenda public comment.

And again, to participate by phone, you may dial 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160499420 pound.

We will begin with in-person testimony, Catherine Rhodes.

You will have two minutes to share your non-agenda public comment, and you will be followed by allegedly Audra.

Hello, this is Catherine Rhodes.

And what I want to talk about is Donna Fry and her wonderful leadership, what she would do.

Whenever I would come when she was here, or I'm sure Joe Lakava too, because he's been around for a while, we would come here and during non-agenda public comment or during any agenda item, what she would do, and she would say to the city attorney, um, I don't think we had the IBA there or the mayor's office, she would always say, is that correct?

And then she would get them to actually answer all our questions.

So we would come here and just say, um, you know, let's just say any of the ballot measures or anything.

She would say that um she would ask questions.

And anytime we had anything to do with the environment, let's just say the children's poll, um, she would actually meet with us and she would bring it up and she would be our champion.

And so right now, we don't have any champions of you and the city council.

I would like a champion, I would like Joe Lacava, my council person to be my champion.

Um, just like Donna Fry, where I wasn't in her district, I would like Royal Campia to be my champion.

Um, specifically, if you're if you're gonna write gonna be running for mayor, um, we have opportunities for you to bring in revenue.

Please take the opportunities to be a leader and lead, just like Donna Fry.

Donna Fry did so much for so many people.

And all and that was just because during the non-agenda public comment, when anybody come came up here with just some random, anything random.

Um, instead of saying, you know, oh, I'll talk to you, she would say, I'll talk to you, but I also want the city attorneys in the mayor's office to um go through these issues also.

So we could get down to the bottom of things, and she would solve problems.

She solved so many problems for so many people, and it was all because of her lovely, wonderful leadership.

She didn't um she was happy to um forward anything to the city attorney during on agenda or to the mayor's office.

And I wish all of you knew that you had that opportunity too.

Thank you.

Thank you, allegedly, Audra.

Joe, your behavior last night was very telling because you were targeting one half of the audience that was not in favor of the item that was brought forward.

And passing that was very dangerous, especially after Sean was talking about him already being affected by that action and how it actually is counterproductive and it goes against what you're saying.

And if he can be considered anti-Semitic and being Jewish, that is very dangerous because how are you going to be able to determine what is hate speech?

Because you could say I'm anti-Semitic because I don't like pedophilia and I don't condone it.

And when I expose that or talk about those that are engaged in it andor complicit by way of doing nothing to stop it, that doesn't make me anti-Semitic.

That makes me anti-pedophilia.

Anti-pedophile.

And it's dangerous when you are who's going to be determining what kind of speech is determining that.

Because if if I'm just speaking about things that are taking place in a certain community or different things like that, that doesn't mean that I hate those people.

And if I'm going to be considered like, are you going to put me on a list?

Is that how it's going to go?

Because you guys are collecting data, and that how are you going to use it?

What are you going to do to punish people to make sure that they change their behaviors and capitulate to what you guys have laid out?

I mean, if it can happen to Sean, it's going to happen to anybody.

So I mean, it's like none of you guys listened to that.

It was very interesting when he's giving you firsthand knowledge of something that took place, and none of you guys really considered that.

Which I feel like, I mean, if you have it right there in front of your face and you just ignore it, then that means that you're willing to put me on a list and put me in a place where I'm going to be held accountable just for talking about things that I am disgusted with.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Paul Krueger.

Hi, I'm Paul Krueger, and I live in Talmudge.

And I just wanted to say that Catherine's comments about Donna Fry prompted me to take less than a minute to thank her publicly for the work she's done in bringing these issues of importance to the forefront and specifically the mission bay leases, because from the way I followed it, if Donna hadn't studied that closely and written an article about it for the Ocean Beach Rag, it may not have been propelled to the point of discussion that led us down this very positive road of uh challenging the state on these automatic um lease renewals and lease reviews.

And I think that we should all thank Donna any time we can for her public service that extended beyond her time at the council, and that she really exemplifies what a public servant is.

And I want to thank her again publicly for that.

And I want to thank Catherine for bringing that up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes non-agenda public comment here in chambers.

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

We currently have seven hands raised, and we will begin testimony with Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, members of the rules committee.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm here today to urge you not to consider or move forward with permitting 36 more pot shops in our city.

Well, the program is presented as an opportunity to create equity.

We cannot ignore history and lessons learned from our past.

For decades, the tobacco industry expanded aggressively under the guise of economic benefit, only for the public to later bear the cost through increased health care burdens, addiction, and loss of life.

This ultimately led to major legal actions holding the tobacco industry accountable for misleading practices and the public health crisis it created.

Retribution didn't happen overnight, but it did happen, and it came at an enormous financial and social cost.

We're now watching a similar trajectory unfold with the marijuana industry, witnessing concerns about health access, mental health impacts, impaired driving, and normalization of use.

Yet, even with all we know, we're being asked to expand the industry through the seed program.

History tells us that when industries grow faster than regulation and public awareness, the consequences fall on communities.

And eventually governments are forced to step up, and often through costly litigation.

We have to be honest.

According to scientific data, the harms will eventually become undeniable.

And taxpayers will once again be left to pick up the pieces, similar to what happened with the tobacco industry.

We should not have to learn the same lesson twice.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Madison.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, good morning, rules committee.

I just wanted to share a federal policy update because it is relevant to how local governments think about marijuana regulation and future policy decisions.

A new report from the Congressional Research Service makes clear that marijuana remains in a legally uncertain position federally.

While rescheduling has been discussed, federal researchers no longer say it is likely.

More importantly, the report explains that even if rescheduling happens, that alone would not bring state marijuana industries into compliance with federal law.

In other words, the legal conflict remains, and marijuana growth, possession, and trafficking are still prohibited federally under the drug enforcement administration, unless Congress makes broader statutory changes.

For a committee focused on rules, oversight, and governance.

This matters because local policy is still being built around a framework that remains unsettled at the national level.

Congress is also actively revising hemp policy, including a total THC standard taking effect this November, showing that cannabinoid regulation continues to shift as lawmakers respond to unintended consequences.

When federal policy is still evolving, local governments should be cautious about expanding systems that may later require significant adjustment.

Strong oversight, careful review of impacts, and attention to long-term regulatory consequences remain important for San Diego as these discussions continue.

Thank you.

Thank you for your test.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

It was quite a learning experience for myself last night at the uh meeting uh agenda item about uh a resolution on um anti-Semitic guidelines that we can possibly we be working towards that we will be working towards now that was approved.

Um thanks for the words of DRA.

Uh she has deep concerns, as many of the community do, as her words to the concept that uh police uh what are our actions of our police going to be in having to learn these guidelines and put them out on the streets.

Are they gonna be able to practice de escalation with these concepts as well?

Uh in learning these uh these guidelines that can be difficult to navigate.

And I I tried to uh state as many others did that uh this is a type of item, even council person la Carva, uh Council President von Wilpert, uh Council President Lee, and even Councilman President Campillo all made attempts that we need to continue the efforts to talk about this item, and that uh we we bring it back to the human uh rights commission.

I can't quite remember its name.

I'm sorry about that, but uh bring it back to the commission and uh that we refine the concepts of what exactly we're doing with these things.

And um uh there is uh practices, there's another um set of guidelines.

Uh, I can't remember its name right now.

Uh it's the Jerusalem New Document or something like that.

And I it tries to work more towards democratic practices, and that is a shared open process for all of us to engage in.

Um, the set of rules in this uh IRA pack is uh a bit uh I don't know what to how to describe it.

It's it's just it's a bit questionable and doesn't quite offer the same human rights values and inclusivity that we don't have to fear.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

The five-minute timer has concluded, and we have four hands remaining in the virtual queue, and we'll take no other callers for non-agenda public comment at this time beyond these four remaining hands up.

Phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

Uh thank you, uh Joy Sanyata CD3.

I'll start by saying this.

Thank you.

That was a stellar discussion on item F 500 yesterday.

I put my phone down for a minute and miss my time to speak.

So here are my comments now.

This quote resonates with me.

Anti-Semitism often serves as a warning sign of a society moving away from human rights and democracy, ultimately threatening everyone, not just Jews.

Ultimately threatening everyone, not just you, end of quote.

Dear council.

This is anti.

This is a an anti Semitism definition.

If it helps to foster human rights and democracy for all, then I vote yes.

I'm gonna say that again.

Dear council, if this anti Semitism definition helps foster human rights and democracy for all, then I vote yes.

It was a great meeting.

Um Chair President Lacava, a great job.

That was challenging.

You and the city clerk will get five star awards.

So it's a beautiful day.

Have a beautiful day, love to all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry Ann Skelly.

Please unmute and provide your comment.

Good morning, rules committee chair Lakava.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly, and I attend my planning group here in District One, where we discuss the value of good rules and policies in our city.

I am a parent of young adult sons and a community volunteer who work in youth programs for decades.

I value the Rules Committee 2026 work plan that emphasizes customer service as one of its goals.

I would respectfully suggest that it is time for the rules to be enforced around the illegal sale of flavored inhaled marijuana products.

This is required by the State Department of Cannabis Control, the DCC, and ABE 1207, a 2023-2024 bill.

An annual City Code Enforcement Check at a minimum is important because Department of Cannabis Control does no enforcement at all of its permitties.

The enforcement of the rules would be very welcome to parents, educators, public health advocates, and others who work on behalf of our youth.

It is a beginning in recognizing that there are real costs of marijuana consumption to young adults, families, neighborhoods, and society in general.

The costs are extremely high in mental health costs alone, which is becoming more clear with each new study.

Thank you for your consideration of enforcement of the rules against the illegal sale of flavored inhaled marijuana products.

Have a good day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Stump.

Please unmute and provide your non-agenda public comment at this time.

You have received written comments from me and a letter this morning from the chairperson of the Loves Penesquitos Reserve group asking you to withdraw this Nora and start the process again.

No one is opposing doing fire prevention and fire hardening.

That's not the issue.

The issue is the way the city went about issuing getting a permit itself for conversion of the parking lot into a hiliport.

Instead of SDGE making the application to use the parking lot as a hill port.

Second, no consideration was given to the changed use from a parking lot in an environmentally sensitive preserve to a hiliport.

And how that hill of how many landings, how many takeoffs, and what the route was going to be from this new use as a hill of port?

We're asking that you withdraw that Nora.

So an appeal doesn't have to be filed today.

Thank you.

Read the letters, read Ms.

Barnes letter.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

And the final caller in our queue this morning for non agenda public comment is Zoom user.

Please unmute and provide your comment.

Thanks for taking my call.

I want to talk about how you guys run the meetings.

How about getting if you go to like Spectrum and try to change your cable?

They have a big TV screen that has all the names of guys on the board, like 10 guys.

You walk in there giving your name and you're on the list.

How about if you guys get a TV screen up there and have the top 10 guys coming up to talk on the screen so they know who they are, and then have the maybe the top two guys sit off to the left of the microphone to speed up the meetings.

And then how about in the meetings have the Zoom users maybe have like 30 guys talk and then have five Zoom users talk instead of having to wait until the whole end of the meeting to talk, kind of rotate maybe 40 guys live and then five guys uh remote and kind of do it that way.

It kind of makes it a little more even to speed up the meetings, and then also uh here, old Israel.

Webster dictionary just changed the meaning of the word uh with the Gaza strip as um genocide.

They put it uh Webster says genocide as in the Gaza strip.

That's number one, and number two is Oshuit.

So the Gaza Strip now is defined as genocide.

It could be why, you know, people wonder why people there's Jew hatred coming up.

I wonder why, man.

Look at the videos.

But uh, and also I've just found out you guys don't have a picture of Trump up there.

That's that's hatred, man.

That's Trump hatred.

Get get him with the with his arrest thing, his mug shot up there.

That'd be great, man.

Thanks a lot.

All right, man.

Thank you for your testimony.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Um, thank you for that.

Um, we'll now move on to committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, and independent budget analyst for any comments.

Not seeing any uh attempted by the public speakers.

There's about a hundred things I could talk about.

Uh for those of you who saw the change here in chambers.

There's nobody's picture up here.

City council members' pictures are were taken down.

The mayor's picture, I don't think was ever up here uh in the president's.

So um artwork is up here instead, all the way around.

And a much nicer display of our city flag, such as it is.

Um, to uh Mr.

Stump, happy to talk with you about the item, which is a one-day agreement.

It is not a conversion of a parking lot to a permanent helicopter landing spot, uh, but happy to talk with you about that, and I will look into it with council member von Wilpert uh as well.

Um, you know, I grew up watching Donna Fry during that era, uh, and I learned a lot about what council was like, and I can tell you I'd rather have been counsel back in those days than on these days.

Um you can see we're in 35 minutes into our very long meeting, and we haven't even started the business uh of the uh on the agenda.

It's a different time.

Uh and not seeing any other comments from my colleagues.

Do we have any requests for continuance on any items on the agenda?

Not seeing any.

So we will go to consent agenda.

Sarah, please introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair.

The consent agenda item number one is the approval of the committee minutes from February 18th, 2026 and February 25th, 2026.

This item will remain on the agenda, uh consent agenda, unless a committee member requests to pull an item off of consent.

Are there any such requests?

Not seen any.

Uh Sarah, please proceed with public comment on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the item number one is now open.

Each speaker will have one minute.

We will begin with in-person testimony, allegedly, Audra, if you'll please approach the lectern.

Find it interesting, Joe, that you're like, you can watch the public meeting if you want to know, but you're supposed to be putting things in minutes so that it can be something that you can go back to and see the progress or different things.

But in um the uh 25th minutes, it says that I gave comment on limited opportunities for public engagement about raising taxes and exploiting the public because of this.

I was talking about the way you guys do things with Prop 218, is unconstitutional because there will never be enough people to meet the quota in order to say no, they don't want it.

So I feel like when you guys have somebody write something in here, it's not a reflection of what I said.

It's a disservice to the people when you know it's like sure you can go back and look at a meeting, but what is the point of actually changing what people say unless you want to hide the truth?

Because that's what it seems like to me if you guys can't have a even just accurate reflection of what people have said.

Thank you.

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

We'll begin testimony with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beekman.

I wanted to speak on both meeting minutes.

So I guess that's just item one.

Yeah, um uh Blair Beekman.

Uh it is a Jerusalem declaration on anti-Semitism uh JDA.

Uh that is uh an interesting uh alternative to the IRA that I hope we can better talk about and good community practices for everyone.

Uh everyone involved in the feature of the item.

Thank you.

Uh, for this item, I wanted to um quickly mention uh just you uh uh uh as part of the meeting minutes process uh previously had items on uh item uh Senate bill uh 707 that you're gonna further talk about today.

I think it's been a great thing.

And I I feel a sense that the community feels good about it too.

So thank you that we're talking about it and uh good luck how we talk about it today as well.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Chair, this concludes comment for item one.

All right.

I will now turn it over to committee members.

Uh, entertain a motion to approve the consent or make an amendment.

Uh Council President Pro TAM Lee will move the consent items.

Councilmember Campillo will second.

Uh and I'm guessing I'm feeling chatty after two very long meetings.

We don't write the minutes here.

We can change the minutes if somebody objects or wants a correction.

We don't write the minutes.

Um we have a motion by council president Pro Tem Lee and a second by Council Member Campio to move the consent items.

Uh all in favor say aye.

Any opposed or abstaining?

All right, that passes unanimously.

Now, discussion agenda item number two.

Sarah, please introduce the item.

Item number two, amendments to the rules of council for consistency with state Senate bill number 707 and recordings of closed session.

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

And when prompted, and put webinar ID 1604399420 pound.

All right.

Um Abby, who is on my policy staff, please introduce yourself formally for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, Council President and members of the rules committee.

My name is Abby Reuter.

I am senior policy advisor to council president Joe LaCava and Rules Committee Consultant.

I will need no more than eight minutes for this presentation.

All right, when you're ready.

So as a reminder of the background of this item, SB 707 was signed into law in 2025 and modified the Brown Act, which governs local legislative bodies and the public's right to attend and participate in local public meetings.

Local changes to comply with SB 707 must be in effect by July 1st, 2026.

This presentation will focus on two provisions of the Brown Act as modified by SB 707.

The first is the same time allotment for virtual and in-person speakers.

And the second is the policy on disruption of telephonic or internet service.

Rule 2.6 and rule 2.7 of the rules of council are proposed to be modified, and a new rule 2.15 is proposed to be created.

These are included in draft form in attachment one provided in the backup materials.

Following the feedback at the informational item at the February Rules Committee meeting, our office reassessed the five-minute timer and have decided to leave it as is.

If additional guidance or case law comes out, we will revisit the revisit the topic.

The changes to Rule 2.6 add in language for both virtual and in-person speakers to group themselves into organized presentations in advance of a council meeting.

The modifications are intended to be minimal to provide flexibility for the clerk and council administration to adjust after July 1st based on public feedback, staffing capacity, and technology.

To operationalize organized presentations, the Office of the Council President has been working with the city clerk and council administration to propose a process.

Recognizing that it is difficult for public speakers to gather the correct number of speakers for our with our current meeting management process.

Council agendas will now include a notice indicating whether public comment for that item will be one minute or two minutes.

Implementation of this for each council committee will be at the discretion of the chair of that committee.

Implementation of this for each council committee will be at the discretion of the chair of that committee, as meeting management is the purview of the council president for city council meetings and committee chairs for city council committee meetings.

Organized presentations will be taken before individual public comment and will be limited to a maximum of 15 minutes.

This responds to the feedback from the public and committee heard at the February Rules Committee meeting.

Those who wish to have an organized presentation, whether in person or virtual, would need to fill out a form provided by the Office of the City Clerk at least 24 hours before the start of a regularly scheduled council or committee meeting as posted on the meeting agenda.

For special meetings that are posted less than 48 hours in advance of the meeting, the form would need to be submitted 18 hours before the start of the meeting.

The 24 hour submission window strikes a balance between providing sufficient administrative time for the clerk or council admin to facilitate this presentation while also providing time for the public to coordinate who would see time or be part of such an organized presentation.

Electronic presentation materials intended to be displayed during the organized presentation would be due at least two hours prior to the start of the meeting as posted on the meeting agenda.

This will allow for the clerk or council administration staff to upload the file and scan for cyber threats prior to display during the meeting or troubleshoot if there are any technical difficulties.

Separating the two submission time frames is intended to provide the public as much preparation time as possible.

And electronic files would not be shared in advance with city staff, council offices, or the public.

Presentation materials are not required for an organized presentation, and the group may opt to pool their time without additional audio or visual aids.

The organized presentation form would need to be filled out properly, and every member of the group must be present, whether that be all in person for an in-person organized presentation or all virtually for an organized presentation delivered virtually.

City clerk and council administration will work towards allowing mixed attendance, a combination of group members, whether in person or virtual, as technology and staffing allows.

If some members of the group are not present at the time of the presentation, the group's time will be reduced proportionally.

This would go beyond Brown Act requirements and also apply to committee meetings for consistency and clarity.

Additionally, this item proposes a change to rule 2.7 related to non-agenda public comment.

This would clarify that the 16-minute maximum per issue applies separately for in-person and virtual speakers.

If there are eight or more speakers on a specific issue in person, the maximum time for that item is 16 minutes, which is calculated as two minutes per speaker up to eight speakers.

This is being clarified to have a separate maximum of 16 minutes for virtual speakers on a given topic.

Seating of time would continue to be prohibited for non-agenda public comment.

This item also proposes a new rule 2.15 to comply with the requirement for a policy on disruption to telephonic or internet service.

It clarifies the difference between a disruption prior to or during closed session versus open public session.

If the disruption affects a public meeting, council would recess for an hour or inter until service is restored, whichever is faster.

City staff will make good faith efforts to restore service, including troubleshooting platform or teleconferencing software, resetting or replacing audio visual equipment, attempting alternative connection methods, contacting necessary support staff or service providers, switching to backup equipment or platforms if available, and all of these restoration efforts that are undertaken would be documented.

For efficiency, this item proposes to include amendments to Rule 8.4.

Rule 8.4 currently requires transcription of closed sessions except those related to personnel matters.

The Brown Act does not require closed sessions to be transcribed, and it is very costly to have a court reporter attend and transcribe sessions.

The proposed amendments will provide for recording closed sessions, which allows for efficiency and eliminates the requirement of costly transcriptions.

We provide an informational presentation to this committee in February, and this is the first action item.

If it passes, this item will be heard at full council in April, but the modifications would not take effect until after July 1st, 2026.

The requested action today is to recommend that the council president's office works with the city attorney's office to draft an ordinance to amend the rules of council effective July 1st, 2026 for consideration by the City Council.

Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

All right, thank you, Abby, for the presentation and the good work you've done on this.

Also want to thank uh the city clerk as well as council administration for the work to get us to this point, trying to understand the scope of Senate Bill 707 and how we modify what we do to meet the new requirements.

And with that, um Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received 11 slips here in chambers.

We will begin with allegedly Audra.

You will be followed by the group presentation, Victoria Labruzo, followed by Paul Krueger.

And I have one final slip that has been turned in.

There's no name on it, so if you have turned in a slip and I did not call out your name, if you can please come up and let us know what your name is.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Please begin.

Of course, because you guys want to hear from everybody.

Um, I find it interesting that you're like fill out the form properly, and if they don't, are they gonna find out in time so that they can correct it?

Um, I think that having the 16 minutes, I don't even think you should do that, like uh impeding someone's ability to talk about something that they want just because other people are.

That'd be like saying that people what that want to come and speak on this item if there's so many of us, only certain ones can talk.

Um, but I think that you need to be equitable with virtual and in person and allow people to virtually donate time.

Um, so that if we can do it here, we should be able to do it on the phone as well.

Um, because I I really don't understand why you would say no in that aspect.

It just doesn't make any sense.

Um, and uh I don't know.

I think that we should have more time.

We shouldn't be cut down to one minute if there's more people speaking.

It's just weird because you even said, Joe, you like when people have the 15 minutes because you actually get to hear what they want to talk about.

Thank you.

And our next speaker is Victoria.

Victoria, you've been seated time by Felicity.

Felicity, please raise your hand.

Thank you.

Bill, Wade?

Is Wade Waterman here?

Jill, Carl, Christopher, and Sage.

All right, that's a total of eight minutes.

I'll put eight minutes on the clock in front of you for you to manage.

It's eight.

I thought I had nine.

Sorry, one more time.

Nope, that's every minute because I thought for sure I'd be able to get 10 in, but now I'm gonna have to canter instead of trot.

I have eight.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um, good morning, committee chair Lakava and uh committee members.

I'm Victoria Labruzzo, Chair of the CPC.

So I will have to kind of hurry this because it's uh got to be sped up.

You've all received our correspondence and likely many letters from your district CPGs that have recommended support for a seat at the table.

Next slide, please.

Thanks, Natalie.

I want to express why a seat at the table direct ties directly with SB 707, quoting directly from the state legislators.

SB 707 presents an opportunity to strengthen our governments and empower community members to be engaged.

Ultimately, we aim to create robust public meetings and increase participation across the state.

Because seat at the table advances the same objective as SB 707, strengthening meaningful public participation.

It is well suited for consideration as today's uh procedural review.

Next slide.

In a nutshell, a seat at the table is about structured presentation time for CPGs and CPC.

We are requesting that the rules committee provide in addition to the rule amendments discussed today, an amendment for recognized planning groups and CPC presentations.

This would include structured and predictable presentation time at council meetings and committee meetings.

Next slide.

Ah, I'm gonna cut this slide just.

I don't have time.

So next slide, please.

Uh I'd like to go back a little ways uh when President Lakava was Chair Lakava of the CPC.

This takes us back to two those 2013, and where Chair Lakava at the time put together a presentation for the importance of CPGs and CPC.

Next slide.

I pulled out a few slides of his presentation to emphasize our points.

These two bullets that you see circle are key to our proposal.

President Lakava had the wherewithal over a dozen years ago to recognize the problem and bring it to light.

And despite the fact that it happened years ago, here we are today recognizing the same problem because it exists still today, and that's what brings us to the seat at the table.

President Lacava's concerns in 2013 are at the heart of our proposal today.

Next slide.

It's apparent in this slide that President Lacava recognized that CPGs were mischaracterized as gatekeepers in a negative way.

CPGs are not gatekeepers.

Rather, they are recognized link between communities and city hall.

Today's diverse CPGs recognize the need for housing and thoughtful growth.

Their role is not opposed to development, but to ensure that development aligns with adopted community plans and infrastructure realities.

Next slide, please.

We sent a seat at the table to DSD and as well as council, and we heard back from uh DSD.

We appreciate that Director Lowe took time to respond to us, but the response she provided frames the issue that public, including CBGs, already received the same amount of time speaking time as project applicants.

This is not actually the issue CPC is raising.

The issue we are highlighting is not the total number of minutes that are available through seated public comment being equal.

The issue is whether the city planning groups are recognized for who they are and that they have the ability to present their deliberated, deliberated recommendations in a structured and predictable way.

Next slide.

Next slide.

City staff has uh the advantage of continuous dialogue with commissioners or council members, which enables them to shape their understanding of the issues in real time.

While community positions can be filtered or even reframed, CPGs and CPC need to be untangled from staff representation.

We literally don't have a seat at the table.

Next slide.

The San Diego General Plan is very specific about the reality of community planning groups, which I've laid out on this slide.

But putting this in a nutshell, the general plan institutionalizes community participation through planning groups.

That means CPGs are not just courtesy, they are part of the city's planning network.

Next slide.

This is ironic.

Community planning groups must rely on the seated plan uh seated public comment time.

Today I came to this meeting without knowing if I would have time allotted for this presentation.

I emailed CPG members multiple times throughout the past few weeks seeking time seaters to come downtown on a weekday at 9 a.m., potentially paying $18 to park.

Even after I collected four time seaters, I knew at best that would give me 10 minutes if President Lacava provided two minutes each.

That didn't happen.

I had to be prepared to adjust my presentation on the fly, which meant possibly leaving out slides, which I've had to do.

So to put it clean clearly, the anxiety is real.

Meanwhile, project applicants and staff are provided known and structured presentation time.

Next slide.

So we are specifically asking for, we are asking for CPG presentation sections in meeting agendas.

On this slide is an example of an item presentation order, but I'm going to go ahead and move forward.

So next slide.

Providing structured presentation time for CPGs and CPC ensures that the city's own advisory bodies have the opportunity to present their analysis in a coherent and efficient manner.

This modest procedural adjustment simply ensures that the city's recognized CPGs can civilly, respectfully, and productively present their perspective with the same clarity and time afforded to staff and project applicants.

Next slide.

That was just to show you that all CPs stand behind us that came to our meeting.

We had a 22 to zero vote to put this before council.

Next slide.

Oh my kind of a whole minute.

And this is an example.

This is just a smattering of the planning groups that are behind this and that have asked.

These are your community community planning groups that wrote you a letter or voted for this action.

These are your democratically elected, officially recognized community representatives chartered by the city of San Diego to represent public on land use and housing issues and other matters of significance.

Next slide.

And I'd like to leave you with this.

This action, if taken today is one small step towards strengthening confidence in the city's decision making process and improving communications between council and the communities it serves at a time when public trust is being tested.

This modest reform provides a clear and immediate opportunity to demonstrate that community voices are not only heard but valued.

Thank you for your time.

And Jeff, you will be followed by Paul Kruger.

Thank you, Council members, and we appreciate the emphasis that's been put on preserving group presentations at City Council.

This is important to us.

In particular, moving the 48 hours down to 24 gives us a reasonable amount of time to prepare ahead of time, particularly when we get agendas late on a week and we have to prepare for a Monday or Tuesday.

Even the people that we don't agree with often have the small presentations, and I think that's fair as well.

The only other thing that we would like to request is in the case when you have a group of time seaters that are virtual, that the presenter still be allowed to be in chamber.

So and the reason for that would be you know, I think it's a better it's a matter of respect, but also a better experience.

I think if we could do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final in-person speaker on this item is Paul Krueger.

Thank you very much, Paul Kruger.

I just wanted to endorse the comments made by the representative of the CPG and to um remind the council that many of us from uh communities, excuse me, feel completely outgunned by several aspects of this project process, which include the fact that the mayor, as the chief executive of the city sets the tone, tenor, and content for staff reports, and that many of you have staff members who are politically and policy-wise aligned with the outlook of the mayor on issues that sometimes conflict with what community members may believe, and that we clearly lack the access to your offices and the offices of the mayor in terms of presenting and more importantly, rebutting the positions of staff that are presented at these meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

We currently have eight hands raised at the start of the five minutes, and we will begin testimony with Madison.

Please unmute.

You will have one minute.

Hi, thank you.

I just wanted to briefly mention one aspect of this change and say thank you for continuing to allow the five-minute timer at the beginning of Zoom public comment for speakers to raise their hand.

That extra window may seem small administratively, but for many members of the public, it makes participation much more accessible.

People joining remotely are often balancing work, family responsibilities, technology delays, or simply trying to follow when their item is being called.

And those few minutes help ensure they do not miss their opportunity to speak.

For many residents, remote participation has become an important way to stay engaged with city government and keeping that process workable helps preserve broader public involvement.

It also supports fairness because it gives people a reasonable chance to enter the queue rather than losing their opportunity because of a short delay or technical issue.

I appreciate the committee recognizing that small procedural decisions like this can make a real difference in whether community members feel included in the process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is phone number ending in 8700.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

And you will have one minute.

Thank you.

Five-minute rule left as is.

Thank you on the notice of duration.

Thank you for the closed session change.

I'll learn that one on the fly.

Now that was micro.

Here is my macro.

Zoom is tech.

It was born out of a very traumatic time of change.

Hybrid became the norm.

Here we are in the new world now.

And let's just open to change and ride that wave.

I love CPG and love to all.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Peggy Walker.

Thank you.

I'm strongly in favor.

This makes it so much easier for people like myself who want to participate in a group presentation, but generally must participate singularly from work or at a distance, because we don't have the luxury of coming to council chambers and sitting through a long meeting waiting for our item.

Many of those who do come in person or working on behalf of special interests and may be paid to attend in person, giving them an advantage.

Many who speak virtually are not in that position.

This will enable more balanced, equitable discussion.

I also strongly support the six gested structured time for CPGs.

Thank you for this item.

Please approve.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Douglas.

Good morning.

I understand the spirit of same time allotment for in-person and virtual comments.

In theory, this sounds terrific.

But due to the antiquated technical capabilities of our current system in San Diego, SB 707 will have the exact opposite effect on the public's ability to express their stance on important issues.

This presents another hurdle for me, but it likely creates greater hurdles for the majority of San Diegans who are working or caring for children.

One minute is hardly enough time to delve into the subject matter.

I've dragged my nice husband downtown for an extra minute because I know I can count on him.

The current proposal for pooling time would only be allowed for groups of five to ten people.

Why should I enlist a minimum of four other people to seed time when I only need two minutes to speak?

It makes no sense.

Why not two to ten people?

That's a much better number.

Let's not make this more difficult for amazing city uh clerk and her amazing staff.

There needs to be another solution.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Uh thank you that you are going to try to keep the uh the five-minute rule uh as uh when you start Zoom.

Um I I I offered I wrote a letter on the subject myself, and um I offered, I thought of words of Madison who spoke on this also was important to her.

So um thank you for that.

And um I wanted to ask, thank you for the words of Paul Kruger, who very much clarified uh what uh community efforts can help lend to in the in the city government process.

Thank you for his clarifications.

That was nice.

To also quickly offer, are you now only gonna allow either one minute or two minutes and not one minute 30?

That one minute 30 is a great process, you offer in San Diego.

You just do it better than any other city in the California.

Uh, can you continue one minute 30 in some way, please?

Uh can you can you talk about that here?

Thank you.

Thank you.

And at the exhaustion of the five-minute timer, we have five hands remaining.

We will take no other callers beyond these five individuals.

Continuing on with Kathleen Lippett.

Good morning.

Thank you for letting me speak.

And I certainly echo the comments of Victoria Labrusso.

They are spot on.

Our current current city council members may be unaware, but they should be reminded of a 2001 article written by Dorian Grove, UT reporter, called Foxes Guarding Our Hen House.

By 2016, he reported once again, nothing had changed.

There was no changes that led to increased public transparency or the ability of the public to be able to intervene and know when changes were coming.

Laura Black, then department director of planning planning department in 2019 proudly reported that DSD had provided over a hundred amendments to the land use codes.

They were not amendments.

Contrary to her assertion, they were not just for simple clarification and streamlining, but they were so controversial that many.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Zoom user.

Thanks for taking my call.

Hey, Joe, you did a great job running that meeting, man.

That was a big challenge.

You did a great job.

I say more power to the planning groups.

They know their communities.

Like our state law gave us it's okay to steal 950 bucks.

And then it's okay to build 780 views in your backyard in Linda Vista before anybody knew about it.

I say more power to the planning groups.

Let the staff is just working for the mayor and half those guys, young guys, they don't know what they're doing.

The planning commission, the guys that own property, they should have the say what goes on in their neighborhoods, like Barrio Logan.

And you know, they should have a say.

They should have their own mayor.

But planning group more, they want to participate, and they their homeowners, they know what's going on.

They should have the power before the mayor does what happens in their neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Becky Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Becky Rapp, and I appreciate this opportunity to speak.

I'd like to thank the CPC chair Victoria and all planning group members who came down to donate time.

Victoria is a voted in representative of the public, represents our voice, a crucial and essential voice that deserves a seat at the table.

We're not just observers in this process.

We are active stakeholders.

We bring forward community perspectives, long-term planning considerations, and on the ground insight that directly impact the success and fairness of decisions being made.

When only one side is consistently given structured time, it creates an imbalance.

A fair process isn't just about listening, it's about ensuring all relevant voices are giving equal space at the table.

Granting CPC and planning groups allotted speaking time, does not slow a process, but it strengthens it.

And it leads to better informed decisions, increased transparency, and greater trust from the community.

Thank you.

I support this.

Thank you for your comment.

Edgar Ramirez, please unmute and begin.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Edgar Ramirez, and I'm the communications chair for the North Park Planning Committee.

I thought the I saw that the MPPC logo was part of the CPC's presentation, and I want to clarify that when this proposal was presented to the full board, we rejected it.

The CPC often does this to speak on behalf of all CPGs.

The MPBC specifically rejected it because we did not have confidence that the majority of the CPGs pushing for this proposal are doing nearly enough to bring diverse voices to their groups.

This year's we had 20 of our neighbors run for a board and 200 people voted in person and online.

That is not something that the majority of the CPGs can claim.

So we ask that the committee members consider this that the seat consider that with this proposal, who are the people involved in these conversations and who has the ability to attend these meetings in the middle of the workday.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And the final speaker on item number two is our time to act.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Nicole Lilly.

I'm the executive director of our time to act.

I'm just calling in to express appreciation to the city staff that are trying to figure out a solution to comply with this new state legislation and the state bill and still make it so that people can participate virtually and in person.

I especially like the attention to creating opportunity for group presentations and seating time in that way.

I understand that this is quite difficult and there's frustration as a community member and as a community organizer in these changes coming and how it can impact, but I appreciate the staff's attention to really trying to make sure that accessible options are still available in both means of communication.

And just um look forward to seeing the council continue to try and make sure there's as much equity as possible in this uh proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes testimony for item two.

All right.

Um thank you, Sarah, for handling all that.

Um, bringing this item forward, I'll take the liberty of kind of kicking things off.

Um, I'll start out by thanking the public.

I I don't think we've ever had a discussion that was so on point uh and so thoughtful in your comments.

I very much appreciate that.

Uh, there's just one correction I need to make.

Uh Catherine Douglas, we did eliminate the five person minimum.

Uh, we heard testimony last time uh that that was problematic, that you may have a case where just somebody wants one extra uh minute or one extra two minutes.

Uh so there is no longer a minimum with uh this uh proposal.

Uh everybody else was on point.

Um I again want to thank uh city clerk, the council administration, and the city attorney's office for their swift work and collaboration to adjust uh and respond to SB 707.

As we mentioned briefly, last time SB 707 had multiple components to it.

Some of those had to be in place on January 1st.

Our City Clerk and Council Administration uh worked quickly to respond to that deadline.

Uh and now we're focusing on the other deadline of uh July 1st.

Uh and that's why we're kind of taking it through in this fashion.

I think it is, and I think a couple of the speakers recognize that that actually San Diego has a very robust process.

One of the key things about 707 was mandating remote call-in, uh, which we have been doing uh since as was said during the pandemic uh going forward.

The biggest change that we had to respond to was to make remote calling and in-person calling equal.

Uh and uh that sounds pretty straightforward.

It turned out to be very complicated because every time we came up with one solution, it exposed another problem.

And we've solved that one and it exposed, but what about this scenario?

And really trying to find that equal balance.

Uh my colleagues want to speak to it, so I'm gonna kind of try to wrap up my comments.

Um it does require us to balance, and there was a lot of consideration for the operational side, what the city clerk does, what council administration does, and trying to balance and make that shift.

Most of the ideas that we came up with will not be permanent changes uh to the rules of council, but to get something in place to demonstrate that compliance with 707, and then we can watch react and respond going forward.

We did address, I think, many of the concerns, if not all the concerns we heard at the last meeting.

Uh and um, I already went through that.

I will ask the city attorney about the question about a seat at the table.

Uh, for those of you who remember, good strategy, point out what I actually said back in the day.

That's how you do uh your advocacy.

Um that was a day where I was fighting to keep planning groups in place.

There was a lot of talk about killing planning groups entirely back in that day.

And some of you uh probably remember that I also was the lead on updating 600-24.

Um a lot of that was driven by city attorney's interpretation of the law uh and places that we had been out of compliance with the law, perhaps since day one.

So a lot of those changes were driven by legal uh interpretations.

So um I don't know if you have an answer on this at this moment.

I I don't.

What I can say is we do have attorneys in our office who specialize in land use projects that involve CPGs, and they are looking to the issue, and I can have them circle back with you.

Okay.

Um and uh I almost don't need to remind my um committee members, but there was an accusation made at the last meeting that somehow we give structured time to outside organizations or outside advocates or outside lobbyists.

We do not.

The only time we have structured comment is during uh a quasi-judicial land use, where due process mandates that we allow the applicant to speak, and an appeal where we let the appellant go first and the applicant to speak again, a quasi-judicial.

I'm not an attorney, I accept those words from the city attorney's office as opposed to the regular book of business that we do that does affect communities.

Let's let's acknowledge that.

So I want to appreciate all the good feedback we've gotten from the public.

We will work with the city's attorney's office on this.

We will bring your input in.

Um to Jeff to your point.

This is a big transformational change.

What we're trying to do is ease both um city clerk and council administration into this.

And so what we're really looking at is to divide in-person and remote, get that stabilized, make sure we're running that correctly, and then entertain the idea of actually doing the mix and match, which add a level of complication there.

But we want to give these good people a break about making that transition, but your voice is not being ignored.

We're just trying to ease that that process uh going forward.

So we we're hearing you.

So uh with that, um I will uh make a motion uh to uh have uh the council president's office uh work with the city clerk uh council administration and the city attorney's office uh to bring forward an ordinance change to the full city council.

And with that, I will turn it over to my colleagues.

And that is the staff recommendation uh on the staff report.

We'll turn it over first to council member Moreno.

Thank you.

And and thank you for the presentation.

Um I also want to take the opportunity to thank council president and his staff for bringing this forward in order to meet the state's July 1st deadline for implementation.

Um and I also want to thank the city clerk and her team for the work they do every day to make sure our meetings uh run smoothly.

Um I do have questions for the city clerk, so if you don't mind coming up to the podium.

Uh my question is what is the operational implication of requiring that an organized presentation is composed of two versus three versus five people.

I appreciate the question, and I first like to just start by saying it is definitely a policy decision for you all, but just to give you the operational, you know, we are here to ensure fair, consistent and efficient administration of public participation.

I would recommend um maintaining a minimum of three to five individuals for group presentations rather than allowing pairs.

This approach would help preserve the intent of group presentations as reflected as a reflection of a shared collective perspective rather than extension of individual speaking time.

It also promotes equitable access by reducing the potential for individuals to circumvent standard time limits through multiple or duplicate signups, something that I do not believe I will be able to, or even council administration would be able to um to manage.

From an operational standpoint, council meetings require careful time management to ensure all agenda items and public participations are conducted in an orderly and efficient manner as a result of the 24-hour window for submission, which for council meetings lands on a weekend.

Staff may have limited ability to fully review, verify, and screen all participants in advance, meaning we won't actually know if there is just a pair of people, if it's their iPhone and their tablet signing up, or if it's actually two different people.

Establishing a slightly higher minimum group size provides a practical and consistent framework that supports efficient meeting management.

Additionally, managing maintaining these standards supports smooth meeting flow and reduces administrative complexity during meetings, allowing staff to focus on facilitating an accessible and orderly process for all participants.

I also want to emphasize that increased community engagement is both welcome and anticipated for my office.

A reorganization of the division for legislative services is already under consideration to better support expanding participation, engagement, and enhance customer service delivery moving forward.

With all that being said, I will definitely make anything work that the council wants to have.

I just wanted to flag those uh considerations as well and manage expectations of what my office can and cannot potentially provide in regards to clear ambiguity if um if it's a pair versus a group.

Thank you for the opportunity.

Wonderful.

Thank you for um your comments.

Um to me it sounds like the clerk is saying that there will be an operational impact to her office uh to f to facilitate these organized presentations.

Um obviously the lower number of people that constitutes a group will likely result in more organized presentations being submitted, which in turn has a greater impact on her staff.

So that's something that the council um needs to be conscious of.

Um I wasn't quite sure if I understood the city clerk um, but I would like to ask for the record if there's a legal standard that we should follow that would help us best determine the minimum number of people that constitutes a group.

Under the Brown Act, the um council can make reasonable rules to conduct its business and when making these rules, um, there are other legal principles that apply, such as the First Amendment, equal protection, and other things.

There is we didn't find any case law that sets a minimum on a group presentation, keeping in mind that SB 707 is brand new, so there really isn't any case law out there.

Um but we do um whatever the number is, we would recommend that um you consult with our office and we would give legal advice on that.

I don't want to give legal advice on the in in public at this moment that could potentially expose us to litigation.

So maybe um a document giving you time uh to uh research and if the legal um recommendation is is that there isn't a time and that we're able to or there isn't an amount of people were able to uh decipher that based on the council's needs.

I think that would that would greatly help us so if we could have something in writing.

I don't want to commit to a memo at this time, but certainly we will we will touch base with your office uh outside of a meeting.

I think a memo is warranted though.

I will we'll discuss it internally with the office, but we will do our best to provide something to you.

Okay, so I'm formally requesting a memo.

Noted.

Thank you.

Um I'm happy to second the motion, Council President, and that concludes my comments.

I'm sorry, I just wanted to provide if I could just some background.

We did do benchmarking on uh seating of time and group presentations since the beginning of SB 707 was being discussed, and just for your all's awareness, um we are definitely one of the cities that allows for more flexibility for the public to actually uh speak and have time.

Those cities and even the county of San Diego that allows for any seating of time or group presentations, the minimum is a three people is what we could find for the cities that even allowed for it.

A lot of cities do not actually allow for organized presentation or seating of time, or for places like the county or the city of Tula Vista, when they do allow for group presentations of three or more, is actually just for land use items.

So I applaud the council and the city of San Diego for allowing this for all discussion informational items and not being so you know clear to just have it be for land use items.

But there is that um precedence from the other municipalities as well.

Thank you.

Uh all right, thank you, Councilmember uh Moreno for the second.

So that's a motion by myself to move the staff recommendation, a second uh by myself.

I'll just interject real quickly.

This is the back and forth we have, and I think for all the things we agree with the city clerk, this was the one point that we didn't.

Uh the initial conversations about 707 was actually taking away a lot of public comment in person because we could not replicate it remote remotely.

Uh and we do pairs in person all the time.

It works very well, it's very easy to manage, but we can't do it in person if we can't do it virtually.

And that was really the struggle that we had.

But I appreciate the question.

We'll get that legal interpretation.

And I get it, we're we're we're walking into new territories, right?

And so I understand the the limitations on this, but we also we need legal advice.

Thank you.

Thank you for making that request.

We'll go to council member Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to say thank you to Abby for the presentation and the work on this.

Thank you uh to everyone in your office.

I know you you all give this a tremendous amount of thought.

Um as you um spoke to I don't know if anyone who has sat on this dais spent more time in these chambers um for better or for worse uh prior to being a council member than uh then than you did, and you take public participation um very very seriously.

Um I know that um and and have seen that in action both prior to our time as colleagues and um since we've been up here together.

Um so thanks for the work on this.

Appreciate the the questions um from Councilmember Moreno, and I'll be uh supporting the motion.

Thank you.

All right, thank Council Member Yolo Rivera.

We'll go next to Council President Protoum the lead.

Thank you, Council President, and uh again, thank you to and your team for your work here alongside the clerk uh as well as the city attorney's office.

Uh and then it sounds like there's still some questions to answer, um, but those are important.

Um I do know one question that sort of popped up in my mind just looking at how uh the rules are amended and um to think about group presentations is something that I think we heard even from the public.

Trying to to plan and be prepared um for the time that's available at council, um especially understanding that we have meeting management um needs that we have to consider as well.

But if how would group presentations be uh factored from a time standpoint?

And is that tied to the per minute speaker, I mean per speaker uh allocation of time that is determined oftentimes day of based on what's needed for meeting management?

Uh that's a great question.

That's one of the things we wrestled with when we came up with the idea uh uh requiring uh organized presentations to let us know in advance or let the city clerk and council administration advance.

Okay, that everybody was comfortable with that, that's great.

Oh, wait a minute.

They won't know how much time are they is this gonna be 50 people that are gonna be speaking and we're gonna have a one-minute requirement.

Uh is there only three people speaking, they would get two minutes.

Uh and so um where we landed, uh, and I'm open to the minute and a half.

I was just trying to simplify things a little bit, was that the chair of the committee or the council president for the council would make a decision prior to that 24-hour deadline.

And then that way people would know that uh speakers are only going to have one minute.

And then they can decide how many people they need to have seating time, or we're going to have two minutes.

And they would have that time.

And incumbent on that, this is I'm I was a little bit kind of uncomfortable.

Is that whatever time limit that chair or that council president sets would be locked in for that docket item?

So that everybody has that same opportunity.

I don't want to say organized presentation X, you only have one minute, you've got to show up with 10 people, and then at the day of a hearing, going, oh, maybe not so many people, but you're still stuck with that requirement going forward.

So a balancing act.

That will you know, I would suggest for all of us to continue to evaluate and see how well it works.

I imagine logistically that would be a bit challenging, especially now that would insert a another component within a time frame prior to a meeting to make that determination.

And and I guess maybe more so a question for the city attorney's office.

I I presume we couldn't the time that's allotted for organized presentations per speaker would need to match the time that's provided to individual speakers.

Correct.

Everyone should be treated equally.

That frustration is uh is noticeable uh and and I'm not sure what the answer to that is either, other than it it it just popped up in my mind that that could be a drastic difference depending on how much time ends up being allotted.

Um and it makes it very hard to prepare internal presentation if you don't know.

Yeah, if you don't know.

Uh I guess that's not different than what we have today.

Um and so that might be one thing to keep in mind.

Um I do appreciate the presentation about a seat at the table.

I that's come up in a number of uh planning groups, and of course, through the CPC.

I I've been curious how we might be able to approach that, so look forward to any uh information from the city attorney's office.

The way frankly I I see it has having been someone who served on a planning group myself for almost a decade is that our planning groups and the CPC are going to be speaking at in items that they intend to speak on regardless.

Um that's typically just been the case.

And so um understanding what ability they have to I I understand I don't think we can treat time differently for members of CPC unless it's determined somehow that that's going to be categorized in some different way, but even giving the ability for those presentations to maybe take place first might be something to consider um that I would throw out there.

Since we'll be setting up for organized presentations in advance, um that it's still worth some discussion and how we can organize those in a meaningful fashion, recognizing that they are entities that we uh all interact with within our districts.

So other than that, I think that's the feedback I've gotten.

Happy to support the item.

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

We'll go next to uh Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Ms.

Ray, for your good work.

Um, and from the last meeting taking uh a lot of the feedback uh as it related to this proposal, um, as we could hear from the members of the public, they're they're clearly pleased with in large part with the several of the adjustments that were asked for, and I I appreciate them too.

Um I really appreciate the presentation from uh the CPC.

Um and I'm I completely agree with them that advisory groups that represent their community ought to be given the ability to present on items that go through them to the same degree as applicants.

And oftentimes CPGs support the proposals and support the projects, and in fact, applicants pray to get that support because it almost always means that the project will succeed at council.

And in my view, creating that dynamic encourages development to meet with the communities, meet the needs of the communities and communities will see the value in providing valid feedback.

And alternatively, I think the applicants uh and when they are provided time to present their um their information, which is really valuable.

Um it seems that we should hold them to the same standard of requiring them to show up with the same number of people needed to seed time.

Typically, they actually do.

Uh I feel that if CPGs are considered members of the public applicants should also be considered members of the public, even though they are applying for something in the city.

Um I just want to be very clear about something.

Well, presentations virtually, if you have 15 people in the queue, they will cede their time.

The city clerk will take their names out of the Zoom uh participant list and say these are the people who are seating time for one person to put on something for the council, correct?

I would ask the clerk to clarify if this is incorrect, but that is our understanding, they would be matching the names submitted or phone numbers, or however someone chooses to include their name in the um the form to the folks who are in the Zoom in order to clarify how much time they have.

Abby is correct.

Um we did do a flyer that's in the backup material that we would use to promote it as well.

And we have been working with the web team and have already created a draft form, but the form will have certain instructions and things that the lead organizer will actually check off that they understand.

And one of those big things that you understand is that you add each participant and that participant's name, phone number, and more specifically if they're attending virtually, how will their name appear on the Zoom or what number will they be calling in from so that as I said in the chair, I can match that up.

But if it doesn't match, for example, you can actually come in and it can say Zoom user one and you don't change your name, which we will do a tutorial and add that to how to actually change your Zoom username and stuff like that for public participation.

Then I can't assume that Zoom user one is Greg, right?

So then if they didn't actually update their name and I can't find them on the list, then that would proportionally lower their time.

We're also still doing some testing because there is something called a backroom back zoom backstage.

And so we're still testing through that to see if that would be a tool that we could use to actually uh move all of the organized presentation people to that backstage area to actually prep them in.

But that's why we can't commit yet to mix participation testing is still ongoing to make sure that that's something that we can facilitate and that we can have available with our Zoom gov license.

Understood.

So what I'm hearing is that there is an effort to try to sort of blend folks who show up in person for the purposes of seating minutes to a presentation as well as virtual people.

There is an effort that we will continue to test and make sure that we can get there.

We're just uh Understood.

Thank you very much for that.

Last question for you, Ms.

Ryder.

I'm as I see in the proposed changes, organized presentations will be taken before individual public comment.

Does that that means if the applicant comes forward, presents, that also means that any group that has submitted the form as an organized presentation will also get to go second or if there's multiple third fourth before we go to individual members.

Yes, that's correct.

Very good.

Okay.

Well, I like that prioritization.

I like the fact that we're pushing it to the front so the council can get as much information in an organized fashion and uh from the stakeholders who have a lot going on, um, and I really appreciate that effort.

I think that that's going to uh alleviate a lot of stress and time and cost uh to members of CPGs who want to uh present as a group virtually or any group that wants to prevent uh present, excuse me.

Um so uh because of those things that we're working on.

Um I really do think that we're this right at this moment.

Well, it doesn't have everything the public wants.

I think that we should move forward in support today, keep working on creating those efficiencies uh, Madam City Clerk, um, because this is a significant improval over the pro process as it exists today.

It goes beyond what the Brown Act requires.

I thank you, Council President.

Um I know the presentation noted that, but it should be said it should be said again.

Um something to be proud of that we don't do the least that the law requires, we do better than that.

So thank you, Council President, for your good work on this.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campio.

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

All in favor say aye.

Aye, aye.

Any opposed or abstaining?

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

Again, city clerk, committee consultants, uh council commit uh uh administration.

I stumbled on that one.

Okay, uh now we're on to item three.

Uh and as you may have heard when we were considering ballot measures for the primary, uh, how we do ballot measures here at rules is a little bit different than the normal docket items.

I want to note for the public that three ballot measures were submitted on time in accordance with council policy zero-21, but will be heard not today, but at the April Rules Committee.

Uh those were all items brought forward by council members.

They understand that.

Uh some of them actually requested that, uh, and that helps us with meeting management purposes.

The title of those that are going to be deferred to April are listed in the staff report.

The other thing that we've done, because uh maintaining the quorum can always be problematic, that we've taken all the ballot measures brought forth by the public first to make sure we get through to that.

Hopefully, we'll have enough time to get all through the ballot measures proposed uh by council members uh that April option is available.

So how we do ballot measures uh being brought forth, whether by the public or by council member.

Proponents will have up to but no more than three minutes to present their proposal.

They are the presentation of the item.

Members of the public will have one minute to comment per item.

Sarah will periodically remind the committee and the public of these instructions.

And in accordance with the council policy 0-21, the rules committee may take the following actions.

One, the committee may request the proponents of a proposal or a city department, furnish background information, provide an analysis of the proposal, and report back to the committee.

Or two, the committee may refer the measure to the city count attorney's office to prepare a ballot measure.

Once the ballot measure has been drafted, the measure will return to the committee for a second discussion, including any additional policy direction necessary to complete a draft of the measure before the measure is forwarded to the council for consideration.

And keep in mind there's actually a third possibility.

If the committee takes no action on a proposal, then consideration for that proposal is ended.

So with that, there is more explanation to be had, but Sarah, please.

Oh yes, Sarah, please introduce item three.

Thank you, Council President.

Item number three is the initial committee review of ballot measure proposals for the November 2026 election in accordance with Council Policy 000-21.

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

Inputting webinar ID 160-439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right.

With that, we will take the first two sub-items together due to the similar nature of the topics.

So Sarah, please introduce the process for today.

Thank you, Council President.

For item number three, we have eight sub-items.

Sub-items A and B will be introduced and heard together.

Sub-items C through H will be introduced and heard individually by the committee.

The sub-items will be heard in alphabetical order, and due to the number of items being heard, proponents will have up to but no more than three minutes to present their sub-item.

I will be keeping time.

Public comment will then follow the presentation for each subitem.

And again, due to the number of items heard, members of the public will have one minute to speak on each subitem.

Please keep this in mind when you're preparing and providing your comments.

And there is a clock at the front of the room.

All right.

With that, hopefully that makes sense, and we're happy to answer any questions as we go along.

So sub-item A is consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Catherine Rhodes to amend the municipal code related to transit occupancy tax, including reclassifying online travel companies slash agencies as hotel operators.

Subitem B shares a lot in common.

Consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Zachary Russam to amend the trans occupancy tax to apply to online and other travel companies.

Now for clarification, Miss Rhodes submitted two proposals, both related to the transit occupancy tax that we that me and my staff interpreted as one proposal.

Ms.

Rose has clarified that she considers her proposal as two separate proposals.

Thus, I am giving her or her representative a total of six minutes to present her proposals.

And we'll then go to Mr.

Russum next.

So I want to thank again the presenters.

Please introduce yourselves for the record and begin your presentation.

We will not start the clock until you actually have introduced yourself.

Three minutes can be a challenging time, but keep in mind that you will have up to three minutes per measure for a total of six measures.

And I understand rather than Miss Rhodes making that presentation that she has designated somebody else.

So first give yourself your name for the record.

Thank you.

Mandy Havley.

Oh, sorry, not the first vice, the first vice chair of the Sunset uh Sunset Cliffs National Park Council as well as the first vice chair of the Peninsula Community Planning Board.

Thank you.

I'll be presenting on both of these ballot measures today.

You'll have up to six minutes.

Go ahead and start the clock.

All right.

Thank you.

The purpose of these are to generate tax much needed tax revenue for the city of San Diego.

We start on page 11 of the presentation.

Measure one to confirm equal treatment of traditional and online hotel bookings by reclassifying online travel companies as hotel operators into the municipal code through a public vote and also charge the transient occupancy tax for all other hotel fees, such as the currently untax resort fees and cleaning fees.

Slide.

Thank you.

Shall the City of San Diego update language to confirm equal treatment of traditional and online hotel bookings by reclassifying online travel companies as hotel operators in an amended ordinance and amend municipal code section 35.0102.

Definitions for operator to include the words online travel companies or OTC, third-party agents, and rent to include the words hotel fees such as resort fees and cleaning fees.

Currently we have amount of the 13.75 general fund TOT that's currently on the table.

Next slide, please.

And we'd like to also add hotel fees such as resort fees and cleaning fees in the definition of rent.

Next slide, please.

Underlying changes to the transient occupancy tax operator means the person who is the proprietor of the hotel, recreational vehicle park, or the campground, whether in the capacity of owner, less C, sublessee, or mortgagee in possession licensee or any other capacity.

Operator will also include online travel companies, third party agents, a managing agent, a resident manager, or a resident of any agent of any type of character other than an employee without management responsibility.

Next page, rent means the total consideration that's charged to a transient as shown on the guest receipt for the occupancy of a room or portion thereof.

Including uh charges for utility and sewer hookups, we see that hotel fees such as resort fees and cleaning fees, equipment, etc.

etc.

As you can see listed here.

On the next slide, I have an example.

You can see on the first tier, if someone were to go directly to the hotel for a booked room of 200, the cost would eventually generate a $27.50 transit occupancy tax at the current rate of 13.75.

Now, in the event they would vote that same room through an online travel company, they would buy those wholesale at a marketed discount.

Um we would lose out on that transient occupancy tax and only receive a total of $20.63.

And then again, we see that between the direct booking and the versus over the counter, we have a difference, uh, a negative six dollars and eighty-seven cents per night loss.

And so we see next slide in this example that the general fund getting the full 2750 revenue based upon this 200 night of hotel room stay.

Um we note that the total visitor cost stays the same.

The only thing that would change is how much we would collect in the TOT.

Next slide, please.

Um, here's an example from the um San Diego County Lodging Association presentation on uncollected TOT.

The next slide also has a breakdown of an example from the San Diego County Lodging Association presentation.

The next, this would be the final portion of this uh ballot measure.

Now the second part is a two-part measure uh regarding the transit occupancy tax.

So part A would replace the convention center expansion measure C up to the 3.25 TOT increase that would go for hotels to 4%.

And we would then in part B break down if it were to pass in part A, that we would generate a new 4% TOT, and we would break it down 1% to the convention center repair, 1% for homeless and affordable housing, 1% for infrastructure, and 1% for arts, libraries, Balboa, and park, or anything the city council wants instead of the unneeded $1 billion renovation.

The other thing that this does remedy is that the current measure C tax that was approved has a sunset clause on this.

And if you go to page 28, we understand that there is a poison pill to this.

This will end.

And so I believe that the city could find much needed revenue by increasing the TOT and then aligning and spreading the love to those four parts of revenue here in the city.

Um right now, currently the city of San Diego on page 29 uh has a TOT rate of 10.5%, which was last increased in 1994, which was over 32 years ago.

We currently rank about 115 in the entire nation.

We're the eighth largest city, and I believe we need to start charging our visitors to properly maintain our our city when they come to visit.

Um, as part of that, um, again, I would like to see if this measure is approved, um, it would authorize a general tax to the general fund with 50% voter approval or a special tax for anything the city wants to direct money to, which requires a two-thirds vote approval.

So by default, if the voter approval is between 50 and 67%, then the new TOT revenue would go to the general fund.

Um, I've exceeded my time.

All of this information is in the uh presentation that has been provided to council.

All right, thank you, Catherine, for bringing this forward, Mandy, for your presentation.

You packed a lot in in six minutes.

Thank you.

Would you like me to stand here or take a seat?

Take a seat.

Thank you.

Yeah, wait in case there's any questions.

Um for the benefit uh of uh both the presenter.

Uh could you remind us what subitem B is?

Sarah Thank you, Chair.

Yes.

Subitem B is consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Zachary Russin to amend the transient occupancy tax to apply to online and other travel companies.

All right, Mr.

Russam is participating remotely.

Uh so if you could introduce yourselves for the record.

Uh and again, you will have up to three minutes, and then you can begin your presentation.

Great.

Can you all hear me?

Yes.

Great, thanks.

I'm sorry.

I'd rather I'm in cold, wet the northeast and not California today.

So thank you for uh letting me participate via Zoom.

So good morning, Chair Locava, members of the rules committee.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

My name is Zach Rossom.

I'm head of state and local policy for booking holdings.

Booking Holdings is the world's leading provider of online and travel related services, serving consumers and local partners in more than 220 countries and territories through consumer facing brands, including Booking.com, Priceline, Agoda, Kayak, and San Francisco based open table.

Our hundreds of California based employees are proud to work with our thousands of hotel and restaurant partners across the state, the vast majority of which are small businesses, empowering them to reach a global customer base.

Our mission is to make it easier for everyone to experience the world.

We provide a marketplace built on transparency, trust, responsibility, and fair competition in order to serve our customers who deserve choice, great value, and an easy booking experience.

I'm here today to urge your committee to take steps that will allow the council to consider placing a ballot measure on the November ballot to amend the local tax code to expand the tax base for the transient occupancy tax to include the total transaction value the guest pays and make online travel companies like ours, the tax responsible party for any applicable tax on the compensation we earn from customer bookings.

Now, as I understand it, to keep a possible ballot measure alive for November, this committee must vote today to instruct the city attorney and treasurer to work with stakeholders to draft such a measure for further consideration by the full council later this spring and summer.

Council can later decide to move forward or not, but to keep the possibility alive, a procedural milestone needs to be reached, I think today or this week.

Um and I'm here to say that we at Booking Holdings have been and continue to remain eager to work with the city attorney and treasurer on that drafting, as we've done in Anaheim, for example, which acted similarly in 2022 with their measure J.

I'll also note that Los Angeles has placed a similar measure on the June ballot, and several smaller uh uh jurisdictions in the state are also considering acting similarly uh in the coming period.

So to summarize, I'm here today to communicate booking holdings um uh uh uh eagerness to support such a measure in San Diego, as we sincerely believe will provide much needed clarity regarding the application of the local TOT for the city, for our local hotel partners for online travel companies, um, and while generating additional revenue uh for important city services.

So that's really all I'm here to say.

I'm happy to I don't know if it's appropriate to take questions, but I'm happy to take questions if that's appropriate.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh yeah, stay online.

Uh questions may come up uh from the committee and certainly would want you to hear the public comment uh going forward.

Uh so we are taking uh these two items together, A and B.

Uh, so the public will have uh we're not gonna ask you what you want to speak to, we'll give you up to two minutes.

Uh you can balance your own manage your own time.

So with that, uh Sarah, please go to public comment.

Okay.

I'll stand corrected.

Uh we're gonna give you up to three minutes.

Please tell us up to three minutes, one per minute per each of the two items brought forward by Catherine, one by the gentleman.

Please tell us which ones you want to speak to, and please speak to the ballot measures that have been put forward.

So you have up to three minutes if you want to speak to all three, one minute if only you want to speak to one.

So, Sarah, we'll thank you for that uh refresher.

Uh, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for sub item A and sub item B is now open.

And as Chair Lakava mentioned, each speaker will have one minute per measure for a total not to exceed three minutes total.

Please indicate which measure or measure you'll be speaking to.

Beginning with Catherine Rhodes, you have submitted a slip that you would like to speak to item or sub-item A and sub item B.

So we will place three minutes on the clock for you.

And you have been seated time by Angela Better, and Angela has also indicated she wishes to speak to item 3A and 3B.

So that will give you six minutes total on the clock in front of you to manage.

Please begin.

Wow, wonderful.

Hi, I'm Catherine Rhodes, and I want to very much thank uh Mandy Havlik for presenting it for her for us.

You know, the city needs revenue.

Um Todd Gloria um just what had a video where he said that he gave you the city council the opportunity to increase revenues through ballot measures, and you guys have failed to do that.

And therefore we have to cut services.

We don't.

This right here is your solution.

And I'm so so happy that the um the booking people from you know the the online travel companies are here to say that they totally support this.

I thought they totally supported it too.

They're not going to be losing any money.

Um I mean, they're going to the money is going to go toward you, and it's going to actually help um visitors.

So I'm so happy about that.

Um I wanted to talk talk mainly about number B.

Um, you know, when the original convention center expansion measure C, they put a poison pill in it that says that if you don't create if you don't take out convention center expansion bonds within 10 years, then the 1.25 to 3.5% special tax for the convention center expansion homeless and infrastructure is going away.

That's going to be deleted.

You actually um updated your municipal code just recently and said we're starting to collect the um the tax on May 1st, 2025.

So if you look at your specific municipal code section 35.0201B imposition of special tax below, it says the imposition date of the additional tax is May 1st, 2025.

The additional tax shall continue to be imposed for 42 years.

And then number one says if no convention center long-term expansion bonds have been issued within 10 years after the imposition date, then the additional tax shall cease April 30th, 2025, which is 10 years after the imposition date.

So right now you have nine years, because I don't think you're going to do convention center expansion.

I think you know now it's going to be probably two billion instead of only one billion dollars.

And they're just using the money that's come coming in for um, they're using it for the convention center to fix a roof, um, to fix the air conditioning to make it you know nice.

They're they're actually using it for improvements, which is totally fabulous.

And so what this measure had here as part of the um the special tax, if you know, if we get the two-thirds percent um on part A, we could actually um we could actually put money back toward the convention center.

So part of this right here is one percent for the convention center.

So the convention center will get at least, you know, probably about 35, 38 million dollars still.

So it's not a bad thing for the convention center.

In fact, now, because we're not gonna build the convention center, they're actually going to keep the money for themselves, which is totally fantastic.

Um, otherwise they're gonna be out of luck, and you're gonna be out of luck, and you guys are gonna have to come up with a um with a TOT thing.

And this will also um and one of the other one percent, you know, instead of um Penny for the Arts, it's Penny for the Arts and Parks, which is Balboa Park.

And so you or like and libraries too, or anything you want to do.

And in fact, the lodging industry should be the people who decide, you know, because it's you know, they're um they have whatever they think should be in there, should really be in there.

The only thing I'm asking for is that one percent goes to homeless because we really have a homeless problem.

And if this tax that is going on right now, that up to 3.25% goes away, we're also going to lose um the percentage of that that we have for homeless, and that money is gonna go away.

And I I want to keep I want to help the homeless.

And um, I want to make sure the convention center gets as much money as they need.

And I really hope you guys send this um, and even if you don't really understand it, just send it to the city attorney, the IBA, and the mayor's office for them to analyze it for you.

This is such a wonderful opportunity.

And for Royal Campillo, again, if you're gonna be running for mayor, you need to lead.

We need leadership from you.

You could you could have this on the November ballot, and you could be the champion for us, and also for Joe Local, please be our champion.

Please say, be like Donna Fry.

Please say um, yes, this is it.

And then you guys could go around and um you know, present it and say this is what you wanted to do instead of cutting library hours instead of not having money for infrastructure.

Um, you guys actually can be um solution oriented.

And so um one thing I wanted to mention is that uh right now uh the current current California effective tax rate is 17% for Anaheim and Garden Grove, 16.5% for San Francisco, 16 for Long Beach, 15.75 for San Diego, and 15.5 percent for Los Angeles.

So basically, um you'll just move up past Long Beach and you'll be the but this 4%, you'll be the same as San Francisco.

So this is um, and you'll still be less in Anaheim.

And then um, you know, other places in the United States has a 20.5 percent for Omaha, Nebraska, and I put all these different things, 17.75 for Honolulu, but places like New York City and um Vegas and Florida, they actually also charge a um per diem or per night room um room charge.

I don't know if you know if it's 20 dollars or ten dollars or whatever it is for each night per room.

So they have a TOT, plus they also have a um a uh a per diem added to it, and so they collect so much taxes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is allegedly Audra.

You have indicated you wish to speak to sub-item A and sub-item B.

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

So I appreciate Catherine Rhodes, she's always got good information, and obviously, this is a good way to bring about revenue.

Um my concern is that you guys um are not good stewards of our money.

And so the more money that you get, I'm concerned that it wouldn't like with the homelessness.

Of course, that's uh definitely a good um avenue to take, and we should be addressing that, but I just don't feel like you've already spent the money on homeless wisely.

So it would be concerning for you to get this money, and then even also have an opportunity to um spend some of it however you would like.

I feel like if you guys were um could be trusted, and it was like you you do the things that you say, and you know, the city was looking really great because I feel like there's so much money that comes into this city, and just looking around is not a reflection of that, and it should be.

I mean, we shouldn't have to see.

I mean, I saw a woman defecating on the street as I was just going to grab something before in between the meetings yesterday.

And it's like, I mean, again, I tell you guys the homeless sit outside your chambers every night.

As I was leaving last night, I saw three of them just waiting because they have to like wait until everybody's gone, and then they pile up right there.

And so my hope would be that if you did do this and you would spend the money correctly, and actually we could see it a decrease in that.

But it's sad because people are dying quicker than they're gonna get into housing.

So again, this is a fantastic way to bring in even it bring in revenue, you know.

But then I think about the transient occupancy tax and the hotels that were being used to house undocumented people when they came here illegally.

The Ramada in Mission Valley and the old four points that is now comfort in off of Rosecrans.

And you guys could have used that to tax for that to bring in revenue for the city, but I guarantee you you exempt it.

And that those were the fully occupied for a very long time, years.

Not just like one day and one person coming in, but it's like when there are opportunities to make money.

I don't understand why you guys are selective with it when two full hotels.

I mean, those both of those hotels renovated and they're brand new.

So I mean, they were getting a bunch of money from doing this, but where's the money to the city for taking up those hotels and and money that could go towards homelessness and stuff?

So I just wish you guys would be more cognizant.

I mean, I think you are, I think you know what you're doing.

I don't think that this is um like you're you're you're ignorant.

It's willful negligence.

And so I just you know, hopefully, if this does pass it, you guys will use that money wisely and it will go to help what is needed.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Fred Taiko.

And Fred, you have submitted a slip to speak to sub item B.

So we will place one minute on the clock.

Good afternoon, Council President, members of the council.

My name is Fred Take and I'm with the San Diego County Lodging Association.

And I'm here today to speak uh uh in support of uh item number three sub item B, the ballot initiative to modernize the uh uh the municipal code governing collection of the transient occupancy tax.

Now, for context, the San Diego's current TOT code is written before online bookings were even possible.

So it goes without saying that an update to the code is long overdue.

In doing so, we'll provide stability, certainty, as well as fairness to how TOT is applied.

Specifically, uh, this effort will ensure consistent tax treatment across all lodging, improve transparency as well as administrative efficiency for both the businesses and the city, reduce legal ambiguity.

That creates compliance challenges, particularly for our smaller properties.

Other cities like Anaheim have successfully taken this issue on.

So uh we appreciate your support for subitem B.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker here in chambers is Paul Kruger.

You have submitted a slip wishing to speak to sub item A.

So I will place two minutes on the clock for you to speak to the measures within subitem A.

Oh, I won't take that long.

I just um speaking at Catherine's uh behest, she asked me to express my support for what but actually both of these items.

Um while I often speak on behalf of many people who oppose um tax increases due to our concern about the ability of the city to wisely and appropriately spend that money and the in the case of the empty homes tax, the assurance or clear possibility of a very costly lawsuit.

This seems like a uh very reasonable and appropriate um measure to take to increase revenue.

And I would just say on behalf of the public that uh um Catherine's statement about if you're confused, just ask the city attorney to write something up resonates with me and maybe with you because I frankly don't understand why the industry is supporting a measure that would increase the amount of money they'd have to pay.

I I don't understand that.

I'd like some more clarity about why the booking industry supports this, and I hope that one of you will ask the um representative from the industry to explain that for us.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And that concludes testimony here in chambers.

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

We will begin with Zoom user.

If you can please unmute and indicate which sub-item you would wish to give comment to.

Uh A and B.

All right, so I'll place three minutes on the clock.

Please begin.

Cool.

This is a no-brainer.

We should definitely do this.

And uh, frankly, I've been watching this lady for a few years.

We should hire her as the give me the money.

She has a lot of different ideas how we can make money.

And I don't know, you guys ignore or something, but I've seen her come forward and say a lot of things, and it's either way over your head or there's some kind of backroom.

Our mayor is like so weak, man.

He's got a backroom deal going on with somebody.

How come the mayor wasn't even at the meeting yesterday?

That's a very important thing.

The mayor's nowhere to be found.

It's just doesn't ring true, man.

Something's definitely fishy going on.

But anyway, these this is a no-brainer.

I went to Waiky Keith last month and paid in price line, got the tickets, we got there.

Then all of a sudden we got to pay an extra 56 bucks a day for some fee occupancy, and then there was a couple other ones, like a couple bucks for this, a couple bucks for that.

And we had to pay like before we got there too, after we already paid the tickets and everything.

So people are charging fees, man.

And you don't even know.

Well, I didn't know about it, but all of a sudden we got to come up with another 550 bucks just to get in there.

So it's happening throughout the industry, but we have the greatest city.

People want to come here, just they'll pay the money.

You know, just we gotta find other ways.

Hire her as a find me the money girl woman.

And she got the ideas.

You need to listen to her on other things.

Ballot measures or whatever it is you're doing, but it's just it's right in front of us.

We gotta just take it, man.

Okay, thanks a lot.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is phone number ending in 8700.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

And if you can please indicate which sub-item or sub-items you would like to speak to.

I'll speak to all three.

All right.

Three minutes, please begin.

Okay, thank you.

Uh I am so excited.

Catherine, I I just I wish I were there in the chamber.

Um, darn it.

Um, Catherine, yes, this is a golden opportunity.

And and jump on board, all you champions.

She's inviting you.

She's she's asking you to be a champion that you're capable to be.

Please do it on these on this item.

So we are one people, one family, and one San Diego.

Hotels, tourists, and so forth.

They sit at our family table in the kitchen.

They help us decide how we're gonna give you up the people that make a certain amount of money and and the people that don't, the underserved, and we balance the pie out.

Six dollars and eighty-seven cents rechange.

Is that wonderful?

That's gonna help our family and their needs.

I want these measures to move forward.

I'll speak on on the third measure in a moment from the uh from Zachary.

Uh, but I want these these two measures to move forward.

Catherine, you have my support.

I am beyond excited.

I love the fact that you talked about the money going back to the convention center.

Hey, my big canary that has the band-aids all over it that is asking for our help, it's gonna be helped.

Uh that canary is also known as the convention center boiler.

So I I just am so thrilled that you mentioned that the uh big canary is gonna get help, and you know that's a metaphor, you all understand that.

So, yes, we need monitoring, we need transparency, and we need accountability on this.

Please have this move forward, uh, as Catherine mentioned, I believe, and get the support from the IBA, the city attorney, the city council, and so forth.

She needs your help to bring this together.

So that's terrific.

So, Zachary on B.

I I'm not sure what to do on this, so I can't come forward strongly for you, but I do have this strong thing to invite you to do.

I hope I have feeling you're doing this already to collaborate with Zachary and Catherine.

Uh collaboration between Zachary, Catherine, and Mandy.

You know, we're all in this together, so jump on board.

These are three great big items, and I'm so excited.

I I really vote yes on the first two, and then uh collaboration between Zachary and and the uh on the A and B uh to make something uh to come out of that together.

So thank you for listening.

I love to all.

Thank you.

And the five-minute timer has concluded.

We have three hands remaining to speak to sub-items A and B.

We will not take any callers beyond these remaining three hands raised.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and indicate which sub-item or items you'd like to speak to.

Um, all three items.

Okay, three minutes, please begin.

Thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um, thank you for these efforts uh in this public process.

Um to reiterate uh some previous uh public comments.

Uh San Diego is a great city, it's like uh everyone's best friend kind of city.

And uh I hope our public meeting process can reflect that in how we move forward with uh things.

Uh good luck in those efforts from all of us.

Uh thank you to Catherine Rhodes.

Uh her words were really nice to hear.

She is doing some nice work, and uh thank you for her efforts and explanations and ideas.

Um I wanted to comment uh my main public comment for my three minutes of time.

It shouldn't take all that time, but um I I I want to be a bit uh so much good public comment.

Um I'm gonna be a bit of a stickler in that um I use the Agoda app a lot.

It it's a uh it's cheaper than the other booking apps, and uh it gets uh it gets places that are cheaper and near public transit.

And uh it gets uh it gets places that are cheaper and near public transit.

It's an interesting app.

And I'm just I'm concerned that um uh I I I admire the intentions and efforts from a person speaking about the tax issues.

It sounds like the booking companies are agreeable to tax issues.

Um I think there's a bit of a discrepancy on calling the booking companies hotels themselves.

Uh I I I think they're travel agencies.

I uh uh they would be classified more as travel agencies and and work in a tax bracket more in those terms.

Um I I'm just trying to offer beginning clarifications and how to talk about this if we can make the subject easier to talk about and to move forward with it, however, you move forward with it.

But I just thought I should offer some beginning clarifications.

That it's more of a travel agency and to think start calling it a hotel, maybe a bit of a stretch, but I admire the intentions of everybody.

And it sounds like everyone wants to want to work on compromise.

Good luck in those efforts uh what can be done.

Um that that seems key at this time.

And uh that uh a compromise does seem one to be reached and how to do that.

Um I'm guessing good luck uh in those efforts again.

And uh thank you for your time.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Andrea Ebbing.

Please unmute and let us know which sub-item or sub-items you would like to speak to.

Good morning.

Uh this is Andrea Ebbing, um, fresh out of prison, Las Colinas for speaking up about the truth and the reality of what's taking place in San Diego.

And I'm thrilled I would like to speak on all of the items.

I am thrilled to hear that we're doing this.

I've been talking about what happened when we had Convis, um, the transient occupancy tax, that sort of thing.

Put the taxes on the in the appropriate place.

Listen, San Diego is already the most expensive place as it is, right?

So this makes sense because yes, it costs us to live here, but it also costs to visit here.

I mean, this is just like an incredible place.

And people will be happy not only to pay it, I think people love San Diego so much that we could even do a contribution where it's not like a demand and we're like asking for taxes and you have to pay to come to San Diego.

I think what we could do is be like, hey, like let's invest in San Diego.

Let's give people an opportunity to not only present the basic bare minimum tax, but let's also do like a fund so that we can beautify and have these amazing events and bring world-class DJs and bands and like um talent and speakers and like the TED event, all the stuff that's happening, people are are gonna want to like participate in.

So I do love it.

I love that we're kind of like getting back to this.

Um, it's like basically like you want to go to the Grand Prix, you want to go to Monaco, you want to go to these places.

You pay for it.

Like there's a fee associated with that.

So it's perfectly reasonable.

And um, if I sound overjoyed and and jubilant af after having uh, you know, a week of hell that you cannot possibly imagine.

Oh my gosh, I can't explain.

I can't wait for the rest of public comments.

Um, but uh it's because this is the first comment that I'm like released to hear.

And I'm like so excited because when I just had to go to the Bell Bonds place, I stopped at the hotel next door and they talked to me.

I used to work there for six years when it was W Hotels, and now it's the Republic.

I had to use their phone, and they told me that they were emailed by the city saying, what would you like us to cut?

What extra taxes would you like?

And they were super offended by it.

So this transient occupancy tax is actually great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the final speaker in our queue for sub item A and sub item B is Tony.

Please unmute and let us know which you would like to speak to Um I'm the hotel uh vacancy tax.

Okay.

Or the I'm sorry, can you rename the rephrase the name of it or just repeat it?

We have subitem A, which is the consideration of ballot measure proposed by Catherine Rhodes to amend the municipal code related to the transient occupancy tax, including reclassifying online.

Okay.

We also have a second sub-item that has to do with the transient occupancy tax as well.

If you wish to speak to that item as well.

Yes, I do.

Okay, so all right.

We'll give you three minutes, please begin.

Thank you so much.

So my name is Anthony Ralphs.

Um I am the vice chair of the Boulevard Planning Group.

A little bit about me.

Uh I won't try to speak too long or make too much about me, but uh just wanted to share that uh about 12 years ago I had the opportunity to visit Rwanda Africa.

And one of the first things that I noticed uh upon immediately getting off the the plane, in fact, before we were even allowed to step foot off the plane, uh, was we were told that uh single use plastic bags were banned in Rwanda, and therefore all of our plastic bags would need to be left on the plane.

Now, what does this have to do with single uh uh occupancy tax for the hotels?

Well, um, it has to do with the cleanliness of our downtown.

It has to do with people's want and their willingness to come to our beautiful city, um, which is uh growing more trash infested and filled by the day because we don't have adequate uh cleanup services and cleanup crews.

And this is something that I noticed when I was in Rwanda was that uh upon driving to the hotel, it was about a 30-minute drive to the hotel, and uh I realized in that 30-minute drive to the hotel that I did not see a single piece of trash littered alongside of the road.

And this like really dispelled the stereotypes of what I was expecting um Africa to look like in my head upon arriving there.

Um I'd been hit with the images growing up of you know the desert and sub-Saharan Africa and Huts, and it was nothing like that.

Imagine my surprise to learn that they're way further ahead of cleaning up their city and managing their city and their city's trash problem than we are.

And part of the way that they did it is they employed their homeless to pick up trash.

And to everyone's credit and everyone's benefit, this not only helped the homeless who hadn't gotten a chance to go to school um to have a source of employment, but it also ensured that the city was totally clean and that you couldn't see a single piece of trash um on the side of the road.

So that's something that I would uh suggest that we look into.

I think that that would really help our tourism industry.

And I uh with this final minute, I want to say that I support both of these measures that have been proposed.

Um I think that for far too long San Diego has catered to the tourism industry and not enough to the local residents and uh the local hardworking people who make San Diego the great city uh that it is on a regular day in and day out basis.

And uh and I'd like to see more legislation passed like that, that that's on the table that um puts more of the onus back on to the uh visitors uh to the guests of San Diego to pay their fair share and not put so much of that burden upon the residents who live here all the time.

Um with that said, I want to thank the speakers that have gone before me.

Um I want to uh especially thank the last caller and and uh say that I I show solidarity with you, and I am sorry for what you experienced at Los Colinas, and I hope that you're doing well now.

And uh thank you to Blair as well.

Thank you for your comment and chair.

This concludes testimony for sub item A and sub item B.

All right, um, thank you for managing all that.

Um again, I want to thank uh Catherine uh Mandy for the presentation as well as Zach for his portion uh and all the members of the public uh for sharing your voices.

Um we know I guess I want to say a couple of things.

One, I think we're all champions.

We might not show it here in council, but I think all nine of us on council are champions within our respective district.

Very proud of the work that each one of us does.

Second, I think we understand this because Catherine's been talking about this for a very long time.

Um my head can be a little thick, but it does get down there.

So I think we understand this.

I've had conversations I know with the city treasurer um about this and the complicated way the TOT and online um travel companies uh operate uh has been an ongoing bit of conversation for a very long time.

Um we've been potentially been missing millions of dollars.

I think the backup material suggested 20 million.

Uh some have suggested two, three million, given some of the resolution that the city treasurer has been able to do.

We don't know, but we know at this point in the city life, anything is going to be significant.

Uh and it's clear that at least one component of the industry saw a value in addressing this gap.

Uh we appreciate uh Vex and Booking.

Jumping in early, as many other jurisdictions have done.

Uh Ms.

Rhodes has also pointed out that we are behind on our TOT compared to other jurisdictions and highlighted some of the ideas around how TOT is classified as a special tax.

And I think it's worth noting for the public that is listening.

Um we did the um tourist marketing uh marketing district in 2008.

That was not an easy conversation.

Uh that was a prolonged conversation to right-size that, build that broader base of support.

Same thing in 2018 when we did when we did Measure C, I played a tiny part in that.

Um that was a complicated uh compromise that was worked out uh with all the parties involved to put measure C on the ballot.

You could call it a poison pill after 10 years.

Uh it was um a very clear indication of what we were trying to do.

And officially, the expansion of the convention center is still on the table, officially.

So there may be a conversation about that in January.

So I think we ought to move this concept forward.

I can't read my writing now.

Understand how we would uh approach these given the special tax component of TOT and what that requires in terms of voter threshold, uh what kind of uh uh net proceeds we would actually get, the input from the industry.

Fred, I appreciate you showing up today.

Uh because any good idea like this needs a broad basis support.

TOT is one of our favorite, tends to be the easier one uh to build uh get the voter requirements, uh, but it would make a big difference if it's a two-thirds vote or a 50 percent vote and how we would structure that.

Uh further, there may be other I also want to recognize the reason I'm also supporting this uh because I've taken kind of a hard position about any new taxes.

Uh we know that there may be other measures coming in November that may cut significantly into our revenue stream.

Uh thus we have to really make sure that we try to protect uh the funds and the revenue streams that come into the city uh and try to balance that that out.

So I will move to request the city attorney's work uh work with Council District One to prepare a draft ballot measure language related to and modifying the definition of operator to include online travel agencies to explore additional modifications related to the applicability of TOT to hotel fees, the rate of TOT, and changing TOT to a general tax and return to rules committee at a future date to continue the conversation.

And with that, I will go next to Councilmember Ela Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I'll start by uh by thanking the folks who worked on on this as well.

Um Catherine, uh Mandy, thank you for the presentation.

Um Mr.

Russim as well.

Um super important to know that we're uh getting our fair share as a city um and cleaning up and making the cleanups necessary to do so.

Um your motion, Council President, I think uh is inclusive of not just um you know some of what was brought here today, um, but also as you mentioned, um, a way of making sure that we are um taking the the measures necessary to prepare ourselves if the outside efforts of some wealthy interests in this city to defund our environmental services department um if those have the legs that they want them to have, um we need to make sure that we're protecting our city from that, and I think that moving this forward is a way of doing that.

Um and I think that we should have absolutely nothing off the table when uh a group is willing to defund essential city services at the level of a hundred million dollars or more.

Um we need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to protect um our residents from those impacts.

Um this is a way of doing that, and uh I look forward to the next step in this process.

Thank you, Council President.

I second your motion.

All right.

We have a motion by myself and a second by Councilmember Ila Rivera.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh as this is the first reading, I'm interested to see what the details of the uh second reading would be.

I wanted to know that as you as you pointed out, Council President, um Measure C back in the day was uh carefully crafted uh set of uh policy decisions that was, I think, one of the first times in San Diego history.

We've seen pretty much well, not not every, but we saw groups that had been at serious loggerheads come together and say this is something we're gonna move forward together.

And uh given the efforts that that took, the relationship building that took, I think it's important that we really work with the stakeholders, especially that we're part of that, to talk about the TOT rate.

Um we just implemented it a year ago uh fully.

Uh, we're gonna see what the full economic ramifications of that will be.

Um so analyzing that is really important to me to see where that might end up.

Um it is my belief based on the economics, we simply can't just start charging 17 percent like Anaheim would, and I don't think that's what you were saying either.

Um and so uh as we dig into that, let's let's make sure we have the economic analysis uh to see um what that might actually uh result in.

Um I think Catherine Rhodes for her good work and her tenacity to keep this moving forward.

I think that the redefinition or uh clarification of the definitions of who this law would be applicable to uh is long overdue.

Uh and I appreciate the members of the public for being in here today.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Campia.

You're you're right on point of what it would take uh to actually bring something back to the committee that have substance there.

Uh and you know the way our motions have to work with ballot measures.

Uh, we would certainly talk to the proponents of both A and B as well as the lodging industry as well as this continues to evolve.

Uh, not seeing anybody else on the lights.

Uh, we have a motion by myself and a second by council member Ila Rivera.

All in favor say aye.

Aye.

Opposed.

Abstaining.

Uh that passes unanimously.

Okay, on to item C.

Uh first, Sarah, please introduce item C.

Thank you, Chair.

Subitem C is the consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Shane Harris to terminate and repeal paid parking fees in Balboa Park.

Um Mr.

Harris has contacted us and said he is not going to uh present his item.

Um, but it has been docketed.

Uh and so with that, um, we will proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We have received a slip here in chambers, allegedly, Audra.

If you would please approach the elector, and you will have one minute to speak to sub-item Cird that Sean's not here, but I mean Shane, whatever.

Um, but I'm sure you're not gonna pass this or want to have anything to do with it, though we should be repealing these um paid parking.

I mean, people are having a very hard time just paying for food and stuff, and now if they want to come and enjoy, say, Balboa Park, they're gonna have to pay a pretty hefty penny to do so.

Um, and again, it's like if you guys could be trusted with our money, it's like I'd be willing to be like, here, take it.

If you guys were if the the world around us looked good, like, but when you guys get more and more money, and then you want to come after us for more money, and I just it's like when are you gonna start to show where all of that's going?

Because it feels like it's going into everybody else's pockets.

Um, and so and this impedes people's ability to drive, and that's the point too is getting people out of their cars, so kind of like penalizing them in a way of going like if you can't pay, then you can't drive the car and you can take our public transit.

Thank you.

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

As a reminder, each speaker will have one minute, and we will begin testimony with phone number ending in 8700.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

Uh, thank you.

Uh Joyce out of CD3.

I was really, really, really surprised at myself when I looked at this item, because I really wanted to help our city and get some revenue through the parking fees.

And uh I was kind of on the fence as to just how to do it.

It got to be so complicated.

But I I'm really leaning into no fees for parking.

Uh and and it just surprised me that I'm going that way.

And the reason I'm going that way is because the community, uh, how are we gonna deal with the cuts?

Pros and cons on the cuts.

You know, this is a good example on the budget.

Uh you know, we cut something and the community lashes back at us, and they don't think we're helping our city.

So, what do we do about this?

How do we navigate um these items?

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Our next speaker is Tony.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, council, good morning.

Um I wanted to speak with regard to the parking uh situation.

I just wanted to say um it's it's very clear and obvious to the people of San Diego that no one's in favor um of this uh tax on the parking at Belville Park or rather than these um meter and spots in Bellville Park.

Obviously, Balbull Park is a historic place that San Diegans and have enjoyed and loved for forever.

Um, and taking that away from people makes it harder for us to have things that we can do in the city that don't require us to spend money.

Um, and that historically has always been something that people have really appreciated.

And we've noticed that uh people have taken it upon themselves to start vandalizing the parking meters.

Well, the same thing is gonna start happening to flock surveillance cameras as well.

Uh, but the county has decided or the city has decided that they're gonna support them anyway.

So please repeal these uh parking meetings.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Craig Wilt.

Please unmute and begin.

Greg Wilt, have you given you permission to speak?

Please unmute and provide your comment on sub item C at this time.

Okay, Greg, we will come back to you.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Pikman.

Uh yeah.

Uh thanks for the words of Anthony.

Uh to follow up on his words.

Um the technology in the current new parking meters in Balboa Park.

Are is city council and city government prepared to have simple, honest conversations with community if they were at to ask about the surveillance and data collection involved in the parking meters at the park at this time.

I hope you can.

Uh it's important that we try and that you really make the efforts towards that.

Um, I've said continuously that um, you know, two dollars to five dollars, two dollars for res local residents and five dollars for out of towners uh is a much more fair system if you're gonna have parking fees at all.

And that I hope we can talk more openly and regularly about the concepts of uh parking fee allocation that may be going to both Balboa Park and to the general fund.

It's mentioned in a recent memo from the zoological society agenda item.

I hope we can have more conversations on that subject.

Thank you.

And providing Greg Wilt one final opportunity to give comment to sub item C.

Hi, thank you.

Can you hear me now?

We can hear you, please proceed.

Thank you.

Yes.

Um, as a longtime San Diego resident and a homeowner in Tierra Santa, I would like to express um my opposition to these parking fees for these public areas.

Um I my wife and I, we pay $14,000 a year in property taxes.

And and then to put additional burdens just to go see some of the beautiful sites in San Diego, I think is unfair.

And that's all I wanted to say.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony, and Chair, this concludes public comment on sub item C.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh so I'll turn it over to my colleagues on the committee uh for questions, comments, and whether to offer a motion.

Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

It's my understanding.

Um conversation with uh Mr.

Harris is not pursuing this in this method uh any any further, as particularly through his letter to the council as well.

Um I think everyone knows where we I stand on where every council member stands on that, but so I won't be making a motion today, but just to reiterate uh that I agree with the uh goal of this, but no motion today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campillo.

Uh just real quickly for some of the public comment, which kind of surprised me.

Uh Blair, reach out to our office.

We have a clarification that you and I have talked about.

Um and what you found confusing in the staff report.

We can clear that up.

Uh second, there actually is no charge for residents at 74% of the uh lots down at Balboa Park.

So you do have to register, costs you five bucks to register, and uh there's no charge for residents.

Um I hope that is clear.

And we're I know the mayor's office has been working really hard to communicate that the confusing situation.

All right, there is no motion, so sub-item C is this uh dispensed with.

We'll go next to sub item D.

Um, please introduce that.

Thank you, Chair.

Sub-item D is the consideration of a ballot measure proposed by John Stump to prohibit parking fees for general revenue in Balboa and other dedicated parks.

All right, Mr.

Stump, I believe you're still online.

Uh introduce yourself for the record, and once you do that, we'll start the three-minute clock uh and begin your presentation.

Uh thank you, uh Mr.

Chair.

Um by the way, I have put in a call to your office and looking forward to our discussion about the change of use.

Okay.

Um, um I spent it at ballot proposal before the council took action to make permanent uh paid parking in Balball Park till 2078 with the zoo agreement.

My proposal in summary is that and some of what the council did by lockboxing revenues um earned in Baalball Park to Balball Park.

I really like what my proposal is is that all institutions that are in Bell Ball Park pay a proportional fee to the city for the number of visitors and impacts they have on the park, whether it's for uh impacting parking, facilities, infrastructure, water, sewer, uh regardless.

That would be in the lock box for Balboa Park, and uh would be part, you know, Balball Park is part of the regional park system, so it would be in a subset of that.

This proposal would eliminate paid parking, but I'm open to any proposal that would have organizations that benefit and profit.

I use the term loosely, uh profit from attracting tourists to pay their proportional share of police, fire, and other services, so that we don't have to lay off city employees.

There's a reimbursement for the services they received.

Thank you very much.

All right, thank you for that presentation.

And with that, Sarah, please proceed with public comments.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received two slips here in chambers, allegedly, Audrey.

If you would please approach the lector and you will have one minute to speak to sub-item D.

This is interesting.

I'm wondering if you're just talking about tourists and it being charged, and how would the entity that is in Balboa Park determine that?

And if they do pay a fee for visitors, then that's going to come down the pike to the people that are enjoying whatever amenity that is.

So I'm not really sure, you know, how that really is going to work out.

Um, but I do think that we should terminate and repeal paid parking.

Um, I'm just concerned that when we like it, there's always a trickle-down effect of you raising something and thinking that it's not going to affect anybody else, but when that happens, they're gonna want to get full cost recovery for having to pay for visitors to come there.

And then the people that are again visiting there are gonna have to pay uh for that.

So I don't know.

Um I just you know which taxes really went to the things that they say they do, but whatever.

Thank you.

And we've also received a slip in favor of item sub-item D from Catherine Rhodes.

If you are still in the room, it is your turn to speak.

So we will move on to the virtual queue beginning the five-minute timer.

We will begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

You will have one minute.

Uh Joyce, thank you.

Uh Joy Signatus C D3.

I thought I have to speak from my public heart.

I thought I understood this item.

And then I just listened to the presentation.

Okay, everybody.

Could you keep it simple?

Could you please explain an item at a level that I and I'm sure other people can understand?

I I really don't get the sophisticated talk about these agencies, paying money, and then where does it go?

You know, I was thinking more of make sure that the money we do get in from uh these parking fees and zooming everything, uh, don't go just into the general fund, but it go back into the park.

Now, I guess I missed the vote on that.

But I argue that I want the money to go into the general fund because of our budget.

We need to put it in the pocket.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker to sub-item D is Tony.

Please unmute and begin.

Tony, I have given you permission to speak to provide comment to sub-item D at this time.

All right, Tony, we will come back to you moving to Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Uh, thank you, City Clerk, that you can uh come back to Tony eventually or Anthony.

Uh thank you.

Um thank you also to count to Council President LaCarva.

I have a letter all ready to go to ask you the very question and um clarification.

Uh thank you uh and what you can offer in return.

Uh I am understanding the the memo uh that is in question.

Uh it may have been just a beginning idea of where general fund where uh parking fee allocation money could be going to the general fund.

It was just a beginning idea, possibly.

And that's what I try to offer in my letter that I'll send to you today.

Um it may actually working both general fund and Balboa Park special funds for the uh parking fee allocations for Balboa Park may actually be a compromise notion for uh Mr.

Stump, who is presented, he doesn't want uh any sort of uh parking fund money going to uh I guess Belpoal Parks.

Uh hopefully it can help.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we're turning to Tony for one final opportunity to provide comment on sub item D.

It's a little unclear, but we can hear you.

Sorry, I'll give you a few more seconds to try to figure it out.

Sorry, is that better?

Can you hear me now?

That's better.

Please proceed.

Well, thank you.

I just wanted to say uh I'm in support.

I would like a little bit more clarity as I've heard repeated by some of the previous scholars.

Um I do think that there's a little bit more that needs to be discussed in the details for this proposal, but I do think that it could be a great proposal and it could be a great idea.

Um this way we're not putting, say, the tax or the cost of parking at Belville Park onto the people that are visiting the park, but rather the businesses that are drawing the people to the park itself.

And um I think that it's something that I mean I don't know what their figures are, but I do think that it's something that they can afford clearly as they've uh establishments that have been there, some of them for close to 100 years.

Um like I said, I don't know what their financials are, but I would much prefer them to be the ones that uh make it affordable and accessible for us to come to the park in terms of uh paying uh some of the operating costs that are associated with it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes testimony for sub item D.

All right, thank you, Sarah.

Thank you, Mr.

Stump, for bringing the item in your presentation.

Thank you.

The public waiting in.

I'll turn it over to committee members, questions, comments, and possibly entertain a motion.

We'll start with Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll read my uh my sentiments from the prior item, obviously, in support of free parking at Balboa Park.

Um, but at this moment I will not be making the motion today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh, not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Uh, we'll again thank Mr.

Sump for bringing this item forward.

Uh, and with no action taken, uh, we'll dispense with sub item D.

And we'll move quickly to sub-item E.

Uh, Sarah, please introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair.

Sub-item E is the consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Jason Moore to pass a traffic congestion and mobility impact tax ordinance.

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

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you, uh Mr.

Bohr, uh, for bringing this item forward.

Introduce yourselves for the record, and then let us know how much you have up to three minutes, excuse me.

Yeah, good morning.

Uh, you know, I want to move over this one.

Uh good morning, Chair and members of the rules committee.

My name is Jason Moore, and I'm a resident of district one in the city of San Diego.

I submitted this proposal to introduce a potential ballot measure for the city to evaluate as part of its policies policy discussions ahead of the November 2026 election cycle.

Um the proposal is titled, though not super importantly, uh, the traffic congestion and mobility impact tax and is presented as a framework for consideration for further review by the city attorney's office and independent budget analyst.

Um and next slide.

Um my slides and speech are rather slim just because I knew that you were provided the um supporting material as well.

Um the concept is straightforward.

The proposal would apply a modest excise tax um importantly on the transportation network companies, not the passengers for rides originating within the city of San Diego from the border to downtown to the beaches to the airport, so many different places um throughout San Diego.

The proposed rate is 3.75% for shared rides and 4.25% for non-shared rides.

Uh the tax would apply to transportation network companies such as Uber and Lyft and would be imposed on the companies for the privilege of conducting commercial ride services that rely heavily on the city's public transportation infrastructure.

Next slide, please.

A closely related precedent exists in San Francisco in 2019 after the Board of Supervisors placed the measure on the ballot, not through voter um whatever it's called, but the board of supervisors placed the measure on the ballot.

Voters overwhelmingly approved the traffic congestion mitigation tax with which applies a percentage tax to ride hailing trips originating within the city.

That measure took effect in 2020 and in its 2019 pre-COVID inflation estimates was projected to generate approximately 30 million dollars annually for transportation and mobility improvements.

This example demonstrates that similar policy frameworks have already been implemented in major California cities.

Next slide.

Next slide.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

A couple closing points.

And if the estimates are anything similar to San Francisco, it could over the next decade generate hundreds of millions of dollars for our transportation infrastructure, which as we know is um in need of repair.

So that's kind of the closing comment I'll make, and I'd be happy to open the floor for any comments or questions the committee may have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Mr.

Moore.

With that, Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

Allegedly, Audra, you are first to speak to sub item E.

You will have one minute.

This is interesting because I know that this is going to come down the pike for all of us who drive.

This is stuff that's being pushed as uh their modes of transportation.

So it's actually going to increase the cost of that when we're putting fees on all of these different companies that are providing that for the people.

So I mean, you know, that 3.75% or whatever the other one was is potentially that's gonna go and the people that are using that service are gonna have to pay for it.

So I just I think we should be honest here and not try and act like this is not gonna affect the people.

But again, I know this type of congestion uh taxes and and fees are it's like being used in New York and stuff like that.

So this is going to impede people's ability if it does come down.

Um we've received a speaker slip in favor from Catherine Rhodes.

If you are still here.

And our final speaker is Jason.

Uh good morning, Council President, Council members.

Uh, my name is Jason Moore.

Apparently, today that's going to require some clarification.

This Jason Moore spent 20 years working in San Diego politics to shape regional policy.

I'm not the Jason Moore proposing this ride share tax.

I've had people reach out asking why I'm supporting a tax increase.

Again, I'm not.

I oppose it.

Ride share is not a luxury in San Diego.

It's how people get home safely, how workers commute, and how many avoid driving under the influence.

Ride share usage is highly price sensitive.

I want to say that again.

Ride share usage is highly price sensitive.

Even small increases reduce demand, especially among lower income riders, and that has real consequences.

This proposal comes from one of the most affluent communities in the region, not the communities that rely on these services every day.

And for the record, I am that Jason Moore, but I am not that Jason Moore.

And if anyone is still a little unclear.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on this sub-item, beginning with Blair Beakman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have one minute.

All right, thank you.

Uh Beekman.

Thanks for this item.

Thanks for public comment on this item.

Um I'm interested uh to take a page out of Catherine Road's uh words.

Um, how can this sort of tax money if passed uh can be serving uh the ideas of good tech accountability?

Uh for this item and upcoming item G.

Uh I think uh tech accountability can really help ideas of the fiscal accountability and what that can mean.

Uh so good luck in in considering uh good tech practices if this passes.

And um the concepts of accountability is immeasurable.

Uh good conversations between myself and and council person lacava on on parking fee issue allocation issues can have an important effect on how John Stump how he decides and and thinks about and creates this proposition issues.

So clarifications are important.

Good luck what we do together as a community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tony.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, Cox.

Good morning.

Um, just calling to uh say that I'm in support of this proposition uh to tax the uh rideshare companies.

I believe this would also include over and lift as well.

I would ask um that this uh proposal that it declude um uh rideshare united, which is actually a unionized uh uh rideshare program that we have here in San Diego.

Um it lacks the funding and sort of the support from people using it on a more regular consistent basis to really get off the ground um the way that many of us have hoped it would.

Uh but this might be the sort of deal then where if the big major Lyft and Uber are taxed at this rate, this would uh enable San Diegans to afford and to begin looking for the alternative, uh, which is rideshare united.

Um so I am heavily in support of this tax, and I would love for um there there to be more of a follow-up uh with regard to information about this proposal.

Thank you for your comment.

Kathleen Lippitt, please unmute and begin.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Well, I appreciate the intent of Jason Moore's ballot measure.

It's a well-meaning measure to find another source of revenue that would go towards repairing San Diego's roads that are truly in terrible shape.

But the reason is not because they're insufficient revenues, it's due to the city's attempt to fund their preferred projects, maybe millions of dollars on bicycle lanes.

But because San Diego roads are in such bad shape, because of the deferred maintenance.

Deferring maintenance is always seems to be a go-to measure when the city wants more money.

The Jason Moore that is not in favor of this measure, wisely pointed out that many people who are in need of ride share because they are inebriated or under the influence, really need this.

So it would not be wise to increase the number of DUIs for this measure.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Phone number ending in 2658.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

Phone number ending in two six five eight.

We cannot hear you.

Yes.

Can you hear me now?

Great.

Yes, please proceed.

Peter Bauman.

Peter Bellman from Chair of Santa.

I oppose this measure.

I agree wholeheartedly with the second Jason Moore.

We don't we need to stop all the taxation.

Um clearly the city is having revenue problems.

How about we evaluate and reduce services rather than keep taxing and taxing and taxing?

There's no accountability for the mayor or the city council to reduce services.

Um so it's it's just getting ridiculous.

We can't even live here anymore.

I live here my whole life.

And it's getting unaffordable.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Belyn, please unmute and provide your comment.

Hi.

I think there are great proposals to increase revenue to pay for um highly valued city services.

My concern with this one is it directly increases the cost of transportation and the cost of living for people who need rideshare.

Uh, for some, it might be a privilege they just don't want to drive, but I know people who take it because you know, public transit isn't gonna get them on time.

So they will do rideshare.

And the cost has been doubling over the past couple years.

So an additional cost to it, you know, it makes uh transportation more accessible for people who are using rideshare, not just because they want to, but because they need to.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes testimony on the sub-item.

All right, thank you, Sarah.

Uh thank you, Mr.

Moore, this Mr.

Moore, uh, for bringing this.

I think it's one of the more sophisticated uh measures brought forward by an individual.

So I appreciate that.

Thank you to members of the public.

Uh I'll turn it over now to Councilmember ILO Rivera for questions, comments, and maybe a motion.

Um thank you, Council President.

I just want to say thank you for bringing this forward, understanding um the goal you're trying to achieve.

Um I I will say that I think as designed um or kind of as as proposed, I should say the impact would still very much be um felt by riders and um uh at a time when the cost of living is going up in the way it it has when uh gas prices are going up in the way that they are.

Um and um the pricing is as dynamic as it is.

Um the ability for the companies to pass these uh fairs along to folks, um it's just too easy for them to do it.

And and I I think I'm I'm very much thinking about working class folks who can't afford a car and do rely on on ride share at times um uh because of timing or um our public transportation system isn't serving the part of the city where they're working uh or living as as much as we want that to happen if it's not happening yet, um that um relatively modest tax on the corporation, which I'm all for them actually paying.

Um would love to take it straight from the execu executives of those corporations if we could.

Um I I think we'll just add uh few percentage points to the cost of rides.

There are all and then the other impact I have concerns about is on on drivers and competition as automated uh vehicles um uh are attempting to make their way here to San Diego.

Um there's a a massive competitive advantage um for the corporations running those automated vehicles in comparison to um a vehicle with a driver in it, despite many of the safety concerns that exist with those.

Um this would put the many thousands of of folks who depend on driving um for their income, um put their livelihood um potentially even more at risk.

So I very much um appreciate the intent here.

Um I think um and then the last thing on the automated vehicles, those are very heavy vehicles that have significant uh wear and tear impacts on our streets.

Um the and the the um so um if this was something aimed at them, um I I might um be more interested in moving it forward.

Again, appreciate the work that was done on it because it's clear that a lot of thought was put into this.

Appreciate the the intent, um, but for the reasons stated, um, I won't be supporting it.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Ila Rivera.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for those comments, Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Thank you, Mr.

Moore for uh putting this idea forward.

I appreciate the intent of what you are bringing forward, but I think on balance and in practice, it would not be uh the appropriate move forward today.

First, I think it would hurt vulnerable communities that rely on rideshare because they cannot afford cars, gas and insurance.

Uh the New York Times just two days ago chronicled at length how high car payments make ownership feel impossible and uh vehicle prices rising, auto loan interest rates and insurance and maintenance costs make it harder for people to buy or keep cars, and so many of those people are turning towards ride share uh impacting people trying to go to work or school uh with this extra percentage is is another burden for them, and and I don't think we should be putting that on them.

Uh second, I'm hesitant to put any more obstacles in the way of individuals who use ride sharing to avoid drinking and driving.

Uh two years ago, my family and I were almost killed by a drunk driver, and I know Mr.

Moore sympathizes with that reality that many families face.

Don't get me wrong, I know you're not trying to make it easier at all uh for people to get away with that.

I just feel that this hurdle leads to potential harm that is not outweighed by the revenue we might get from this.

Uh and so I want to thank you for your suggestion to help us obtain revenue, but on balance, I'm can't support today.

Appreciate you coming in person yourself.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campillo.

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

Thank you, Council President.

Uh I'll echo my colleagues here, but um especially want to echo what Council Member Ilo Rivera noted in terms of the the gap uh that I I believe is already coming that we're gonna have to be prepared to address, which is that autonomous vehicles um already face some competitive advantages.

They don't classify as rideshare activity as well.

And so um as as well intentioned as this might be as a proposal uh that we would actually uh unintentionally further that gap as that as we face it, uh which I think is something that uh you know folks likely would feel there's a need to address um as a significant challenge for our region moving forward.

So uh thank you again though for the proposal.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Temley.

Um, I'll add my thank you as idea.

This is probably one of the more sophisticated presentations we've seen.

Um there may be a time and a place for this.

I don't think it's right now.

You kind of good ideas often have to have good timing or a good moment as well.

But I think I really appreciate you thinking about this, thinking a little bit outside the box uh going forward.

So uh so again, thank you.

And with no motion, we will consider sub-item E dispense.

But again, thank you for your good work.

Uh we'll next go to sub-item F.

Thank you, Chair.

Please introduce it.

Subitem F is the consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Councilmember Raul Campillo to establish free parking at beaches and bays in the city of San Diego.

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

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

So I see staff has set uh settled in.

Uh introduce yourself for the record, and you will have up to three minutes for your presentation.

Whoop.

Good morning, Council President and members of the rules committee.

My name is Vic Vitile, and I serve as Deputy Chief of Staff for Councilmember Rolicampio.

I'll need three minutes for my presentation.

Today, the Office of Councilmember Rolloc and Pio is bringing forward an item for the initial consideration of a potential ballot measure for the November 2026 election that parking shall remain free at city-owned parking lots and beaches and bays.

The action before the committee today is straightforward.

We are requesting that the committee direct the district seven office to work with the city attorney and the independent budget analyst to conduct preliminary fiscal, operational, and legal analyses of this proposal.

These analyses would help uh inform the framework of a potential ballot measure that parking shall remain free at city-owned beaches and bay parking lots.

The results of these analyses would then be brought back for back to the rules committee for further consideration.

Access to San Diego's beaches and bays depend on public parking lots that allow residents and visitors to utilize these spaces.

These lots play an important role in supporting coastal recreation and access to our shoreline shoreline amenities.

It is key to note that the city currently does not charge for parking in the beach and bay parking lots that it owns and operates.

This proposal is intended to explore ways to enshrine this long-standing policy and maintain public access to the coast.

The concept under consideration would be to add a section to the San Diego Municipal Code establishing that parking in city-owned beach and bay parking lots shall remain free of charge.

By codifying this policy, the measure would aim to preserve public access to beaches and bays for residents and visitors while maintaining the city's current practice of free parking in these coastal lots.

It is also important to clarify what this measure would not do.

The proposal would not apply to existing parking meters or other paid parking programs elsewhere in the city.

It would also not prevent the city from installing installing parking meters on nearby public streets adjacent to beach parking lots.

In other words, the focus is specifically on city-owned beach and bay parking lots themselves.

To close, we are requesting the direction we are requesting direction for the city attorney and independent budget analysts to conduct the necessary preliminary analysis and work with our office to develop the framework for potential ballot measures.

These findings would then return to rules committee for further discussion.

Thank you, and we are available to answer any questions.

All right, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Campillo, for bringing this item forward.

Vic for your presentation.

Sarah, let's go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We'll begin with allegedly Audra.

So actually it's a good one.

Um but um it's concerning because then if you're talking about the streets nearby, I mean, I'm sure that's gonna come down at some point.

And then will that be fought by saying that this is a place that needs to um collect revenue as well.

But I think this is good because I don't think people should be priced out of enjoying the things that are um uh the amenities of San Diego.

There's a lot of um beauty wrapped up in the disgustingness of the city, but um you know I just feel like the more that we start charging people for different things, it's gonna keep families from being able to go and enjoy this.

And um so hopefully this will pass, who knows?

Whatever.

All right.

Thank you.

And we have received a speaker slip in favor from Mandy Havilick.

And I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to speak to this sub-item F.

We will begin with Catherine Douglas.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have one minute.

Keep beach and bay parking free in San Diego.

San Diego's coastline is a public resource protected under the coastal California Coastal Commission's policies, emphasizing access.

Charging for parking effectively creates a paywall to the beach.

Our beaches belong to all residents of San Diego, not just those who are lucky enough to live along the coast.

Visitors without transit options, which is most people are disproportionately affected.

Public beaches should remain accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford parking fees.

Until transit is significantly improved, charging for parking disproportionately impacts those with fewer options.

Coastal access should remain open, equitable, and easy, not dependent on ability to pay.

A resounding no to paid parking at our beaches.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Mary Beth Lazaro.

Please unmute and provide your testimony.

Yes.

This is Mary Beth and Dan Lazaro.

And we resoundingly support this and hope that you move it forward.

The quality of our town surrounds the fact that it's a beach community.

Yes.

Do not want to have to pay for the beaches and parking.

Yeah.

We just we just want to keep the small town atmosphere.

I recognize that this is a large city, but we don't want to be like Los Angeles.

We want to keep the small town feel.

And having no pay at the beaches is part of that.

We've lived here for over 40 years.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Tony.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, good morning, Council.

Um, I am in support of this measure to uh have free parking um at all of our beaches or at all of the ones where this would be available.

Um I think that this is a good proposal.

Um, and I support Robo Campio and his office um in putting forward this proposal, and I hope that it passes, and um, I hope that it's not just something that uh is a good idea that no one puts a proposal for this this morning.

So I hope somebody will um pass the motion, and I hope the motion gets a second um so that it can advance in the legislative process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Catherine Rhodes, please unmute and begin.

Hello, this is Catherine Rhodes, and first I want to thank Barl Campillo for putting this forward.

Of course, we should have um you know, free parking at the beach when I was younger.

My mom had six kids, and the only thing that we had money to do was go to um go to the beach.

And so and we also um because we were under 14, we used to get out actually get to go free to the zoo.

And so um one thing is that it in theory you can um charge parking if that you wanted to, just for areas where there's formational material, like let's just say right by the roller coaster.

But for the other parts of um for the other parts of Mission Bay, those are state tide lands that are owned by all of us in the state of California.

And so um any person from the state of California should have the same access as people that are um just public here.

And so thank you so much for putting it forward to totally support this.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Shane Harris.

Please unmute and begin.

Yes, uh, good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Shane Harris, and I'm here at San Diego Public Advocate and strong support of Councilmember Raul Campill's proposed ballot measure.

This proposal does something simple but powerful.

It protects free parking at our city's beaches and bays by placing it into law if the voters put it through.

That balance matters because it isn't just about parking, it's about access.

Our coastline is one of San Diego's greatest public assets, and it should remain accessible to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay.

Even the small fees create barriers, real barriers for working families, senior and everyday residents.

And without this measure, the question of beach paid parking would still be on the table.

Every budget cycle, every fiscal crisis.

This proposal gives certainty to the people of San Diego.

It puts the decision in the hands of voters, like Balboa Park should have been done.

San Diegans have made it clear our beaches should remain open and accessible to all.

I re I urge you to move forward with this proposal to the full council.

Thank you for your testimony.

And with the five-minute timer exhausted, we have six hands remaining in the queue.

We'll take no other callers beyond these six individuals.

Phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

You will have one minute.

But thank you.

Uh Julie Sonata CD3.

Yes, move this forward.

Uh remain free at beaches and bays.

San Diego has coastal access that is great.

And a lot, if not most of our public are water lovers.

I really, really love the small town speakers, the ones that spoke about the small town idea and how beautiful that is.

I love urban, but I've lived in small towns throughout my life, and uh uh they're both great.

So and Catherine Rhodes, that was a really fun example.

I I can picture you as a little girl uh enjoying the beaches of San Diego.

So uh thank you, everybody.

Move this forward.

Love to all.

Thank you.

Our next caller is phone number ending in 2658.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

Yeah, city council.

This is uh Peter Will from Tarasana.

Um, yeah, I also want to express my strong support for advancing council member Capillo's uh proposal to uh permanently enshrine the beaches and bays for free public access, not pay.

Um, so we really need to find other ways to generate revenue than burdening the things that make San Diego so great.

Access to the beaches, which I do almost every day.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

Kathleen Lippett, please unmute and begin.

Thank you to Councilmember Camp Peel for his proposal to make beach and bay parking free.

It is consistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 that allows public have access to the beach ongoing.

Beach access is a fundamental right in California, and as stated earlier, the proposal is a barrier to public access.

In the same way that the city continues to permit streeteries, which are also barriers to the public access of beaches and the right-of-ways, public right-of-ways.

It was a privilege granted to alcohol licenses during COVID policies that determined alcohol and marijuana businesses were considered essential while small businesses and churches, family and public celebrations, and even a surfer visiting the beach was chastised and prevented from celebrating.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you for your comment.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

All right, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um this is an important item right next to Balboa Park parking fee issues.

Uh the park and the beach are the big one too.

And uh good luck, how you can address this.

Um, there is an initial question of revenue, and that our community has really decided to vote against uh tax increases for revenue.

So we're having all these difficult questions to ask.

It does ask the question how can we find, you know, really unique, different new revenue sources.

And that that takes a really imaginative creative thinking from yourselves.

Uh until we get to that good place.

Uh, I hope we can support the ideas of of how we have to address revenue overall.

And we have to acknowledge that as a as a full community process.

So I don't know the answers here.

I'm just trying to offer clarifications.

Uh we need a new uh system of how we have money management, how we can think of money management.

And that means uh thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Belyn, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Yes, similar as to the other speaker was saying uh it's a tough one because we want to generate revenue, and people who can pay into it should probably pay into it.

Uh, but I work with youth in different capacities.

Uh, Mid City Can, we have a program focused on access to nature because low income families uh often don't have access to nature, and so we try to provide that opportunity.

And paper parking uh does create an additional barrier and deterrence from families uh going out and enjoying what is one of the few free uh open spaces where they can connect with uh nature and overall wellness.

So for that reason, I think this is a good ballot measure.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And the final speaker in the queue is Mandy, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Bandy Havlik.

I'm a district two candidate for city council.

I also want to thank Councilmember Rao Campillo for bringing forward this conversation.

Access to our coastline should never come with a price tag.

Our beaches are one of San Diego's greatest public assets, and they belong to everyone, not just those who can afford to pay for parking.

Charging for beach parking creates a barrier, especially for working families, seniors, and young people who rely on our coast as an affordable way to enjoy the outdoors.

In a time when everything is getting more expensive, keeping beach access free is one of the simplest, most meaningful ways we can support our communities.

Freeze parking isn't just about convenience, it's about equity.

It ensures that everyone, regardless of income or neighborhood, can experience the beauty of our coastline.

If we truly believe in coastal access and we need to protect it, let's not nickel and dime residents for something that should remain open and accessible to all.

Please keep our beaching park free.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark, and this concludes testimony on sub item F.

All right.

Again, thank you to Councilmember Campillo for bringing it forward.

Vic for your presentation and the public weighing in.

And we will now turn it over to the committee members.

Uh, comments, questions, entertain a motion.

And we'll start with Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much to my deputy chief of staff, Vikram Vatil, for your good work and for getting stakeholders uh involved in this process and uh helping me shepherd this through.

San Diego's beaches and bays, they are not just amenities.

They are essential public spaces that belong to everyone for everyone's enjoyment, for everyone's health, and for everyone to call themselves a San Diegan.

For many residents, especially those who do not live near the coast, these spaces are their third homes, where third spaces, excuse me, where they can gather and relax and connect outside of home and work without paying an entry fee.

So ensuring continued access to these spaces is about equity and quality of life, what it means to live in San Diego.

Access to our coastline should not depend on your zip code or your ability to pay, and free parking in city-owned beaches and bays lots helps ensure the families from every neighborhood can enjoy these spaces.

This is especially important for inland communities, where getting to the coast requires time and planning and transportation.

Recently, when my team visited Linda Vista in our district, we heard something that really stuck with us.

Teachers told us how students at Montgomery Middle School who live in one of the lowest income neighborhoods in our city.

They can see the ocean every day from their campus.

But many of them have never actually been there.

That reality should give us pause.

Linda Vista means beautiful view.

That beautiful view is our beaches and our bays, most especially Mission Bay.

Our job is to make sure the coast is not just something you can see, but something you can experience no matter where you live, so that it remains a linda vista and doesn't become a vista cara, an expensive view.

This measure is about maintaining what we already do today by keeping parking in city-owned beaches and bay parking lots free.

So let's protect it.

It provides clarity by codifying that practice in the municipal code.

It does not impact existing parking meters or limit the city's ability to manage the parking on nearby streets.

We absolutely need to continue to invest in better transit and alternative ways to access the coast.

We need to do more.

But we also have to be honest with our current reality.

Many families still rely on driving to get to the beach, and this measure works within that reality to ensure access is preserved right now, not just in the future.

Our beaches are also a cornerstone of San Diego's identity and economy.

Keeping them accessible supports tourism in local small businesses and the broad coastal economy that delivers a lot of money to our city's budget and our revenue streams.

Ensuring that some portion of coastal access remains free benefits both residents and visitors, which in turn helps the businesses, which in help in turn helps our budget.

But at the end of the day, this is all about giving the public a voice.

This proposal simply asks that we place this policy before voters so they can decide whether to preserve free parking in our beaches and bay lots.

I believe the people of San Diego should have that opportunity to weigh in on how we protect access to our coastline.

This is about protecting access to one of our most important public resources.

It's about making sure that every San Diegan, not just those who live near the coast or within our city boundaries, can experience and enjoy our beaches and bays.

And at bottom, it allows the public to exercise their voice and their power.

So with that, Council President, I would like to move that my office work with the city attorney and IBA to provide preliminary fiscal operational and legal analyses of this proposal and draft the framework for a ballot measure for parking and beaches at bays to remain free in the City of San Diego and report back to the rules committee.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campia.

So we have a motion uh by Councilmember Campio to move the idea forward.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

Um also thank you to my colleague, Councilmember Campillo, for bringing this important uh ballot proposal.

Uh coastal access is a vital public resource for residents across San Diego, especially for residents that I represent in District 8.

We are incredibly fortunate to have this coastline in such a close proximity to our communities, and it's something that should remain accessible to all.

Uh, much like Balboa Park, our coastline represents a shared public asset.

I have consistently supported policies that preserve access to these spaces.

For uh that reason I oppose the implementation of paid parking at Balboa Park, as I believe it creates barriers for families and individuals who may not otherwise have access to open space and recreation opportunities.

Ensuring that our natural resources remain accessible is a matter of public good.

Coastal access should remain free for everyone.

My residents rely on these spaces for recreation connection and well-being, um, increasing their quality of life regardless of income or the neighborhood that they live in.

And so for those reasons, I am honored to second the motion before us today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Campillo, we have a second by Councilmember Moreno to move the idea forward.

Um I don't see anybody else on the lights.

Um I'll offer some thoughts.

Oh, Council President Pro Temli would go first.

Sure.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Um, first off, I want to emphasize that I uh absolutely also agree uh on the need for protecting coastal access when it comes uh to the beaches, coast line and the bays.

Um I don't think that's something that differs for any of us that are up here on this dais.

Um in this proposal in particular, I think one thing I want to emphasize is that I strongly believe that we should be protecting parking, especially for residents uh in San Diego.

Um that is not something that I would support charging for.

Um frankly, given the way that we've seen Belbo Park parking implemented in this last year, uh don't believe that we have the capacity to do anyhow.

Um I don't believe that there's a current proposal to charge for beaches and bays.

However, putting about measure forward that would codify not just for this period of time, but for the uh long-term future under any council, uh, whether there's any willingness to address um congestion needs when it comes to access to the coast, um, the possibility that visitors, like in almost every coastal city up and down the state, uh, could be paying for parking, uh, shouldn't be something that we should hamstring any future council uh or any future public from considering.

And that's what this was certainly would do.

Um that's the perspective I would have.

I I would argue right now that we are going to continue to protect parking access uh on our beaches and bays, and especially make that the case for residents, something that I certainly would stand by.

Um, and that's why at this point I cannot support the measure being proposed.

All right.

Thank you, Council President Pro Demoli.

Uh, I'm not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Oops, Councilmember Campio.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to address one specific note that uh Council President Pro Tim Lee made, uh, noting uh the the distinguishing between residents versus non-residents.

Um if at some point the City of San Diego wanted to uh start charging non-residents for parking, um is my understanding, belief, and researched analysis that going for that uh would run into Coastal Commission problems uh because of the state law that requires us to have access to our coastlines, and the um differentiation would be undoubtedly overturned by the Coastal Commission.

If at some point the City of San Diego wanted to start charging non-residents for parking, is my understanding belief and researched analysis that going for that would run into Coastal Commission problems because of the state law that requires us to have access to our coastlines and the differentiation would be undoubtedly overturned by the Coastal Commission.

They charge.

Those might have been approved by the Coastal Commission.

They might even have search charging at certain points.

But there's no differentiation between between Californians of different cities and the state law would in essence say that if we are going to protect paid parking for residents of San Diego like like you uh undoubtedly support, we cannot differentiate.

We have to protect it for all Californians.

So that's my analysis of that.

I would hope that you would allow us to move forward with the research to be able to bring something forward uh at a second meeting and and make a final determination at that point.

Um if if my answer on that is wrong, I would uh uh you know feel free to uh reject the idea at that point.

But I appreciate your input and I appreciate that you uh uh are um noting your support for free parking.

Pro Tam Lee.

Did you uh thank you for letting me uh jump back on the mic.

Uh I appreciate that analysis as well, Councilman Kampio.

I don't think any of us should probably speak uh in advance of the Coastal Commission uh determining making any determination as they might on an issue.

I know that this has been posed to them, I think from the mayor's administration.

And uh if what you said is true and the Coastal Commission would not allow for the differentiation, uh then I would project that the city would not be charging for parking if we can't make that differentiation, at least according to what I have indicated that I support.

Uh however, if they could make that differentiation, then putting a measure on the ballot would ensure that even if that was possible, we would not be able to charge.

Um I think there are a couple of other logistic issues to consider as well, which is whether there's been discussions with Mission Bay lessees uh about special events that we have that are on city owned property uh and other leases that the city already has currently within the vicinity.

And uh those would all be dynamics that I imagine would have to be considered.

So thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

They have it.

No, sorry.

I just want to say that absolutely have talked with Lessies as well.

Uh and again, I I I don't think we heard many call in today, but their input would absolutely be welcome in between a first and second reading as well.

Um with that, I will conclude my comments.

Almost.

For sure.

No, uh at this point.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you.

Uh these ballot measures do often re uh require a lot of dialogue, and which is why it takes two hearings at committee to really flesh these things out before it goes uh if it does uh go forward to the full council.

Um I think it's no secret that uh when my September memo came out last year that uh paid parking uh in the beaches and bays was on that list.

Uh I have since had an epiphany uh about that.

Uh the public has spoken loud and clear.

Um actually when I heard from the public it was don't charge at beaches and bays.

Um I've also I don't know that I can qualify myself as a student of of history uh but when I reflect on actions taken by previous council members or mayors uh over the years or even at the state level, uh tapping into a frustrated and angry public have locked us into things that have proven to be unwieldy, uncomfortable, and difficult if not impossible to change, starting as early as the People's Ordinance uh over a hundred years ago, even I would dare say Prop 13, uh the coastal height limit, uh all tapped into a frustration and anger and locked us into things that made it uh, as I said, difficult if not impossible to change.

And so I'm leery about uh any kind of ballot measure.

Um I think everybody understands there is no proposal on the table.

Uh I think the public has made it loud and clear to the mayor and to the council about not doing that going forward.

Uh nevertheless, I'm intrigued enough uh for Councilmember Campia to make a case uh on this and how this would work and the caveats that would be embedded in that.

I think of um uh Councilmember Kersey's infrastructure measure, uh a couple of other measures that uh had caveats and carve-outs in that uh I would be interested to see if that was uh included in any proposal going forward uh that probably would be required for me to get another yes vote beyond uh this morning uh to the point that was raised.

There has been a lot of talk about the leases on Mission Bay that accrues to both the Mission Bay as well as the shoreline parks that also had very specific language that limited that lease revenue towards only capital improvements, which has significantly tied our hands.

We can build a new cover station, but the streets are in disrepair and the landscaping is in bad shape in many places and the sidewalks are cracked, but we can't tap that to do those ongoing maintenance because they don't qualify as capital projects.

That item is that kind of charter change is not in front of us.

Uh but maybe someday we'll figure out how to bring that forward with the support of the leaseholders who I think actually would like to see those kind of uh routine maintenance done uh make sure the mission bay and the shoreline parks are their very best.

So at this stage I will be supporting uh the idea, but uh I remain a little bit leery about whether I will continue my support, but I wanted to give you a chance, Councilmember Campio, uh, to carry this just a little more forward.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Campio and a second by Councilmember Moreno.

Uh let's do a vote.

Given what I'm hearing.

And that passes three, two.

Uh so we will look forward when you're ready to schedule this to be brought back back to rules committee.

Council President.

Very briefly, I know my staff has communicated with you about a different meeting that I have to chair in just a few minutes for the San Diego River Conservancy.

So I just wanted to say thank you to my colleagues and beg their forgiveness for the fact that I have to leave.

I know it's oftentimes difficult to keep quorum for here, uh, so I do appreciate them for understanding the other meeting wouldn't have quorum if I don't go.

So uh, but I do want to say I want to thank Council President Pro Tem Lee for his item that's coming forward.

I think it's it's quite wise.

I want to thank Councilmember Elo Rivera for his item as well, which I think is similarly wise.

I know the details will be fleshed out, but I just wanted to appreciate their um hard work of them and their staffs at this point uh on the record and uh look forward to uh perhaps suggesting some uh uh concepts further.

Uh I appreciate that Councilmember Elo Rivera and his team have before us uh uh transparency and ethics item that's about to be heard.

Um, and I know my staffs reach out to his, so thank you, Councilmember Elo Rivera for bringing it forward.

And okay, thank you.

Uh we also have a time challenge for this room uh because CNS is actually meeting this afternoon uh at two.

Uh so um as long as we can maintain quorum for another half hour or whatever it takes to hear the two remaining items.

Um with that uh Sarah, please introduce sub-item G.

Thank you, Chair Lakava.

Subitem G, consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee to advance fiscal accountability and transparency reform.

I'll turn it over to Angie, our chief of policy to help present the item.

Thank you for waking me up.

Yes.

Uh introduce yourself for the record and then um uh please proceed.

Good afternoon, Chair Locava and members of the rules committee.

I am Angeli Hoyos, Chief of Policy for Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee.

I am here today to present a ballot measure regarding fiscal accountability and transparency reform in the City of San Diego for consideration on the November 2026 ballot.

Council District 6 requests the rules committee consider a proposal focused on fiscal accountability and transparency by considering the following amendments to the city charter, which requires voter approval.

Number one, specifying the role of a chief operating officer or COO.

These amendments could include describing job requirements, day-to-day duties, and council authority to ratify dismissal of the COO by supermajority.

Number two, adding language to strengthen council budgetary authority by providing the opportunity to propose fiscal mid-year budget adjustments.

And number three, ensuring offices that have independent oversight functions have sufficient funds to ensure their stability and effectiveness by exploring whether to establish baseline funding mechanisms, prohibiting reductions unless approved by a supermajority at the council, or other options during the city council's annual budget process.

These options are based on preliminary analysis of other city charters, such as Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Chicago, and we look forward to further analyzing other cities should this sub item pass today.

This slide presents a brief timeline of the strong mayor form of government.

The most recent circumstance was last year when Mayor Gloria retained city manager responsibilities.

Since it has been in place for 20 years, our office believes it is in the best interest of the city to analyze how we can improve the strong mayor form of government.

It is our goal with this policy to ensure the city is maintaining fiscal accountability and oversight.

Our proposal aims to prioritize the best interest of city residents and businesses, reserve checks and balances, ensure an ethical government, and maintain strong but accountable mayoral governance.

With that, Council District 6 requests to work with the Office of City Attorney to investigate the legal issues involved and develop proposed language for potential amendments to the San Diego City Charter related to fiscal accountability and transparency of the city as a municipal corporation and return to the rules committee for further consideration.

Thank you, Chair.

That concludes my presentation.

Thank you, uh Council President Bodeon Lee for bringing this item forward on the leave for the presentation.

Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've got one speaker slip here in chambers, allegedly Audra.

Please approach the lector to provide your comment to sub-item G.

You will have one minute.

Because there's not a lack of money, it's the spending issues.

And I'm not sure that changing the city charge charter is going to really give us what we need because there's always going to be gatekeepers in place to impede the be uh the public's ability to see what's really going on.

A lot of times things don't come out until some kind of exposure happens, and then you guys want to address it.

It's kind of um so I don't know how this is going to really change anything that is going to benefit the people and show um I don't know, because we don't have an ethical government, and I don't know that I mean Todd Gloria is never around.

It's like he only comes when he wants a photo op.

And so I don't know why we even call this a strong mayor government form of government.

Um, other mayors actually are part of their councils and and engage with the people.

I feel like he he just tries to hide away while spending our money.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Adrian Kwaikkowski.

Good afternoon, Council President, members of the council.

My name is Adrian Kwikowski.

I'm here today as a resident of the city, a taxpayer.

Uh no one's paying me to be here.

Um I have a little bit of knowledge uh on this topic.

Um I was one of the authors of our strong mayor form of government in 2004.

I was also the campaign manager for that ballot measure.

I was involved in key charter amendments in 2008.

I was a member of the city's charter review committee from 2007, 2008.

That's the last time we had a comprehensive review of our city charter and governance structure, and I was a campaign manager that made this form of government permanent in 2010.

Uh, some questions I have about the proposal before you uh who will the COO report to, uh, who will direct the COO on a daily basis?

I have concerns over the termination of the COO.

You do not want to have a situation where a mayor has terminated a COO and the council has reinstated that person, and now you have conflict and a hostile relationship.

It's a real problem.

Uh I look forward to working with you on this.

I am here to be a resource uh and help you uh if you move forward.

So thank you so much.

Thank you.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to give public comment to sub-item G, beginning testimony with Serena Pelka.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, good afternoon.

This is Serena Poco with Climate Action Campaign, where we're dedicated to securing a healthy, safe, and affordable clean energy future for all San Diego families.

And we're calling in to support this proposed ballot measure.

Amending the charter to require the mayor appoint a COO is vital to increase accountability for the implementation of work that supports our San Diego communities.

A COO will establish clear operational accountability, which is critical to ensure adopted policies and climate and infrastructure solutions are implemented implemented effectively to improve quality of life in the city.

We need systems that ensure decisions are made in the public interest and with meaningful oversight and strengthening council's role in the budget process and ensuring stable funding for independent oversight bodies like the independent budget analyst and ethics commission are critical.

So we encourage your support for this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Rhodes.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, this is Catherine Rhodes, and I want to very much support this.

Um, you know, I I always thought that when we voted um over 20 years ago, we voted for a strong mayor, strong city council form of government instead of a city manager.

I thought you were supposed to be co-equal with the mayor.

I didn't know that the mayor can make changes mid-year, and you guys can't do anything about it.

And so what happens is um what that now it makes sense if everybody at the city council is scared of the mayor because if you stand up for anything um that he doesn't like, um he can take projects away from your council district that you previously approved.

And so, yes, you you you need a check and balance on the mayor because the mayor right now has always been out of control, and he's mean.

So uh we need a strong mayor, strong city council form of government, not just a strong mayor form of government.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

Uh, thank you, Joyce and Yada C D3.

Uh we could talk about this for a month.

It is such a big item.

And and I'm kind of on the fence for it, and yet I'm not.

Uh Council Pro Cham Lee, you're just great.

I I just really am riveted when you talk.

Um accountability and transparency.

The problem is systemic.

Yes, I agree with you that the strong mayor governance needs to be looked at.

You know, you hear me talk about CODA being there in the city council meeting representing the mayor.

That's not enough for me.

I do want to be there with the mayor.

I want to hug the mayor as I do with other people, you know, when they're there in city council working for us.

So I don't know what to do on this.

We this isn't enough.

It's not.

And we have to find another way to go into the systemic problem.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is time to act.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Nicole Lilly.

I'm the executive director of our time to act.

I'm calling to support this item because it's critical that our city council have more accountability and oversight over our mayor.

Um, just seeing the last budget cycle, we see the ways in which the strong mayor system can be utilized to hurt public services, cut public goods.

Um, I'm especially interested in the baseline funding floor to ensure the stability and effectiveness of our offices, especially those doing community services.

And I think that we need to have greater accountability within our legislative system at the city.

So I'm just going to support this item's continued consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Uh, this is an interesting item.

Uh, thank you for it.

Um there's been a lot of city council talk.

Uh, how can we have a more uh responsible uh uh uh purveyor uh who can uh be responsible for the uh projects and programs uh for the city.

It sounds like a really interesting way to uh create uh new concepts of the relationship between strong mayor and city council.

It and it's needed.

Oakland has the same exact problem.

Um, I think it's a strong mayor problem around the country that you're trying to address.

It's really good luck.

And and that I think we have to acknowledge that maybe in 10, 15 years' time, uh the strong mayor system overall isn't the best system, and we may want to change.

But until that time, this is a really good way to work towards a compromise process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And at the exhaustion of the five-minute timer, we have six hands remaining, and we will take no other callers beyond these six hands up.

Shane Harris, please unmute and begin.

Shane Harris, I have given you permission to speak to subitem G.

Please unmute and begin your comment.

All right, we will return to you.

Moving along to Balen at mid-city can.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you, uh, Councilman Burley for bringing this forward.

I'm calling on behalf of Mid City CAN to express our strong support for this measure.

We support adding a chief operating officer accountable to all city officers, allowing city council to propose mid-year budget adjustments that are responsive to community needs and promote uh transparency to the public and establishing baseline funding for independent offices that are critical to government accountability and um good policy.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Catherine Douglas.

Please unmute and begin.

I'm in strong support of this proposal.

We absolutely should bring back the COO position.

Our past COO recognized and told the mayor and city council that a severe severe funding issue existed.

The reaction from the mayor was to eliminate the COO position.

Look where we are today.

We are in a terrible situation.

Bring back the COO, and I like the checks and balances.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lucky.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello.

Uh my name is Lucky Aiden.

I'm the youth organizer with PANA.

And I'm here to express my support for this item as a necessary step to strengthen physical accountability and ensure public trust and how resources are managed.

Transparent financial practice laws allow communities to better understand, evaluate, and engage with decision making process.

So I'm here to support this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Tony.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, can you hear me?

We can hear you.

Please proceed.

Oh, thank you.

Good afternoon, Council.

I am in strongly in favor of this proposal.

I can Lee.

And I also want to say that I'm really, really tired of Republicans moonlighting as Democrats.

And I'm really I they figured out the code.

They figured out how to uh get themselves elected uh by pretending that they are Democrats and progressive ones at that, um, and then turning around and being major stalls and uh gatekeepers to any real substantial lasting progress in the way that Todd Gloria has um done so effectively throughout his term.

Uh Todd Gloria has been an absolute embarrassment to this city.

Um he stands for nothing, and he's never available or accountable to the people.

And I know that uh me and my friends have been requesting a meeting with him, had been requesting a meeting with him for over six months, which we were routinely denied, and instead given um access to his uh counsel, which they don't have the authority to to make legislation or pass legislators.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Youth will please unmute and begin.

Hello, rules committee.

My name is Liliana Sordiano, and I serve as the director of policy um at Youth Will.

We're a youth advocacy organization serving young people throughout the region, um, 25 and under.

And today we are supportive of this item to move forward because we believe that there is a bigger need for accountability when it comes to our budget discussions, especially in the past few years that we've been seeing our youth programming deeply impacted.

Um, and then not possibly, but yeah, thank you.

Thank you.

And returning to Shane Harris for a final opportunity to provide comment to sub item G.

Yes, good afternoon, uh, council members.

Uh my name is Shane Harris, San Diego Public Advocate, and I am here in strong support of council member council president pro Tem Kent Lee's proposal on fiscal accountability and transparency reform.

This measure is about restoring trust in how our city operates by ensuring we have a chief operating officer in place to oversee city operations, budget, and finance, because clearly the mayor cannot do it.

We can bring back a critical layer of professional management that helps keep our government running effectively and responsibly.

Just as important, exploring budget process reform strengthens checks and balances between the executive branch and the legislative body.

Something essential and a strong mayor system and guaranteeing sufficient funding for independent oversight bodies like the auditor and ethics commission ensures real accountability, not just promises on paper.

At its core, this proposal prioritizes the best interests of our residents, businesses, and ensures an ethical government.

Please move this to the full council for a vote of putting this on the ballot in November.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

And this concludes testimony on sub item G.

All right, thank you, Cyril.

Um the mayor's office would like to make a comment.

Thank you, Council President Matt Yagiagan, Director of Policy, Office of Mayor Todd Gloria.

Excuse me.

Um, just a few comments uh on the proposed measure today.

Um, first, I'd like to say that Mayor Gloria is committed to the same goals invoked in Councilmember Lee's memo related to fiscal accountability, transparent government, uh, and effective oversight.

Those are not in dispute.

However, the mayor has serious concerns about advancing this proposal to the November 2026 ballot.

The mayor respects Councilmembers Lee's right to raise these questions to the public.

But a proposal to restructure the city charter deserves more than just a memo in a committee hearing.

We believe that it deserves a holistic review of the full charter and what changes would actually do to San Diego's government.

First, this is a structural shift, not a reform.

This proposal is a shift of executive authority from the mayor's office to the city council.

San Diego voters approved the strong mayor form of government and have reaffirmed it.

Any structural weakening of mayoral authority should come after serious review of the city charter, likely through a charter review committee.

While appreciate while I appreciate the framing of this as a fiscal accountability measure, the real effect is that the proposal expands legislative power over executive functions.

The mayor is constitutionally responsible for running.

It would mandate that the mayor appoint a COO and give council supermajority power to ratify any dismissal.

The mayor opposes this provision.

Under the charter, the mayor is the city's chief executive.

Personnel decisions, including the authority to hire and remove senior staff, are an inherent executive function.

Giving the council veto power over those decisions is a direct incursion and to executive authority.

Additionally, the mayor restructured the COO function last year as an executive management decision.

That is his prerogative.

A charter amendment that strips that flexibility from this, and every future mayor sets a concerning precedent.

On the proposal related to the mid-year, the mayor understands the frustration.

The city faces a significant structural deficit, and the council wants more tools and flexibility.

That is a legitimate concern.

But the answer to a budget crisis is not to restructure budget authority.

It is disciplined collaborative budget work, which the mayor is committed to and actively engaged in.

Mid-year council budget authority creates operational unpredictability, risks politicizing individual departmental cuts, and undermines the clear lines of fiscal accountability the proposal claims to strengthen.

When a department needs a mid-year correction, the mayor, as chief executive, is the appropriate actor.

That is how accountability is supposed to work.

Clear authority, clear responsibility.

The mayor is open to conversations about improved budget transparency and council information sharing, but a structural shift in budget authority that compromises executive accountability should be subject to a charter review process.

Additionally, the mayor supports funding for the city's oversight agencies, the ethics commission, city auditor, IBA, City Clerk, Commission on Police Practices.

These institutions matter.

But the mayor has significant concerns about enshrining funding floors in the charter, and we have some basic questions.

How are the floors to be calculated?

How are they indexed?

What happens when they conflict with real budget constraints?

Charter level mandates reduce fiscal flexibility in genuine emergencies and can produce unintended consequences when the overall budget contracts.

The proposal references Los Angeles and San Francisco's models, cities that have faced exactly this problem.

The mayor cannot support a proposal with an undefined mechanism, but is willing to discuss a solution that does not require locking in an untested formula into the city charter.

Lastly, on process, charter amendments are permanent structural changes to this to San Diego's government.

They require significant analysis and public discussion.

In the past, the council has convened a charter review committee that discussed these sorts of proposals over the span of months and years, not days.

The mayor would welcome a formal deliberate charter review process, one that engages all branches of government and the public.

What he will not support is using a fiscal crisis as a cover to rush structural changes onto the ballot before the ink on the proposal is dry.

We are open to an open and honest conversation with the council on this and look forward to the discussion today on the rules committee.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Mr.

McGaygan.

With that, we will turn it over to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh one second.

Let me just make sure I have my notes here.

Okay.

Um I want to start just by noting this uh proposal is about strengthening fiscal accountability and transparency in how our city operates.

Sandy goes had a strong mayor form of government for nearly 20 years, and it's appropriate that we periodically review how that system is working, especially given the fiscal challenges that we're facing today.

Uh this I believe is an opportunity for us to strengthen uh that form of government.

Um the first uh note that I will share as a priority is that we are looking to protect independent oversight.

Um, and we believe that that starts with the independent oversight offices, uh, which we've identified here as potentially including the city auditor, ethics commission, independent budget analyst, city clerk, and the commission on police practices.

Several of these are defined in our charter uh to have sufficient funding to operate, but but that sufficiency is not defined.

These offices play a critical role in ensuring transparency, ethical conduct, and public trust in our government.

They have relatively small budgets, but they have an outsized responsibility when it comes to impact.

We've also heard uh from directly from these offices about the challenges they face.

Uh at a recent audit committee meeting, the Office of the City Auditor spoke about ongoing resource restraints and the impact that that has had on their work.

I believe our city auditor is available and did want to ask just a quick question here to our city auditor virtually.

I'm here.

Thank you.

Andy, nice to see you.

Uh and wanted to ask just how the auditor's budget, as one example, since you presented it on this, has um as a proportion of the city's budget has changed over the past decade.

Uh sure, thanks for the question.

Um, the Office of the City Auditors budget has declined uh from a dollar and thirty-nine cents out of every thousand dollars the city spends uh back in uh fiscal year 2014 to only 96 uh cents today, and that's because over time uh the overall city organization we're charged with auditing uh and investigating has grown by billions of dollars uh and thousands of employees, and the Office of the City Auditor has not been uh provided uh the resources to keep up, and in fact, the administration has asked uh for significant uh reductions in the last several fiscal years.

And so I think as as you know, our audits and investigations routinely identify opportunities to cut costs, uh increase revenues, approve improve efficiencies, uh, and continuing to underfund uh the Office of the City Auditor, I think will cost residents and taxpayers a lot more in the long run.

Thank you.

Uh, I think this question is important because it gets at a core issue, which is whether our oversight functions are being resourced in a way that matches their importance.

Um, ultimately, our proposal looks to uh explore ways to establish a baseline level of funding.

Uh, we've seen some examples proposed by uh the Office of the City Auditor and/or to consider um uh restrictions on how funding is reduced when it comes to oversight offices.

The goal is to ensure that offices responsible for holding our government accountable remain stable, independent, and effective.

Our second priority in this measure is to strengthen fiscal accountability in the budget process.

Uh currently the council already approves our annual budget, uh, but it doesn't have any mechanisms by which we can propose mid-year adjustments.

And in a time of especially uh large fiscal uncertainty, this limitation has made it difficult for us to respond proactively.

Um, and so that is something that I will look forward to exploring and would uh encourage any feedback from my fellow colleagues.

Um finally, our third proposal is to clarify the operational leadership here at the city, um, which is uh ensuring that San Diego as the eighth largest city in this country and one with over 10,000 employees, billions of dollars in annual operations, has someone that is clearly accountable for the day-to-day operations of the city.

The proposal would re-establish a chief operating officer role, clarified responsibilities for day-to-day management, and the intent here is to clear account uh is to have clear accountability and effective management, especially fiscal management during challenging fiscal times.

Our ballot measure is uh guided by three principles.

Uh one, again, to protect independent oversight, secondly, to strengthen fiscal accountability, and third, to ensure transparent and effective governance.

Uh I just want to note that this is not about any personalities or any one administration.

Uh and I appreciate the mayor's perspective about the item, uh, to which my only response is that this is much more than just a memo and a discussion of this committee.

We'd certainly be happy to hear from the mayor when this item is brought forward next.

Um, is about making sure that our system of government continues to work effectively for taxpayers and residents, both today and into the future.

Strong leadership works best when it is paired with strong accountability, and that's what we're looking to achieve.

So, with that, I will move the staff's recommendation forward.

Look forward to working with my colleagues as well as the city attorney's office as we further refine this proposal.

All right, thank you, sir.

We have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you, and thank you uh for the presentation, and thank you to Councilmember Lee for bringing forward this ballot proposal.

Uh this measure would implement much needed charger charter amendments to increase transparency and also help ensure that the city's independent offices receive basic funding.

As chair of the audit committee, I'm especially pleased to see the city auditor included in this proposal.

The city auditor plays a critical role in ensuring transparency and accountability in the city of San Diego through independent oversight.

The auditor's office consistently brings forward recommendations that improve operations and also generates meaningful cost savings.

For example, the 2024 performance audit of police overtime included recommendations expected to reduce overtime expenditures by approximately six million dollars annually, more than the entire annual budget of the auditor's office from one single audit.

Similarly, the performance audit of the city's management of its lease golf property portfolio identified approximately $2.5 million per year in additional revenue from the Fairbanks Ranch Country Club.

These audits clearly demonstrate the value this office provides.

What is particularly concerning is that this work continues even as the auditor's budget is being reduced.

Funding has declined from a dollar and thirty-nine cents per 1,000 dollars of city spending to 96 cents, despite a proven track record of producing savings and also most importantly, improving transparency.

Earlier this year, the auditor also noted that the office is funded below comparable agencies nationwide, which average approximately a dollar and fifty cents per thousand dollars in city spending.

If we're serious about transparency and fiscal responsibility, we must ensure that the auditor has the resources necessary to fulfill the responsibility entrusted to the office by the city charter and our taxpayers.

In 2006, the independent budget analysts reported that two of the most significant reforms recommended were the creation of the audit committee and the establishment of the auditor's general position, now the independent city auditor.

Given how essential the this role was deemed to restoring public trust, it's equally essential that it be performed at the highest level of excellence.

We are fortunate to currently have an independent auditor operating at that level, as reflected by national recognition and awards.

Those involved in the recruitment process can attest that even a national search yields very few candidates with comparable qualifications.

Government auditing standards do not require or recommend term limits as a as a best practice.

Continuity is essential to maintaining effective oversight and ensuring the progress is not lost.

For that reason, I would like to propose an amendment to this item, which is to remove term limits for the city city auditor.

Allowing for continuity in this position would help ensure that the city retains experienced leadership and preserves institutional knowledge while strengthening oversight of public funds.

Creating more accountability and transparency in the city of San Diego.

So for these reasons, and if the maker of the motion is amenable to the changes.

I am.

Thank you.

I'm happy to second the motion on the floor.

Thank you.

That concludes my comments.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

So with that one amendment, uh, we have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee and a second by Council Member Moreno.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Council President Pro Tem and Angeli for uh bringing this forward and the work to bring it forward.

Um I think there's um some really important components of this that have been part of budget conversations and conversations throughout the year that the council has had for a number of years now.

Um some of the frustrations uh that we've had about feeling as though the budget that we've passed is being implemented frustrations with the rigidity of the process during um during the mid-year and questions about accountability, and then obviously um the public knowing that our independent offices that are there to um let them know that the information coming from the auditor, the independent budget analyst, um commission on police practices and ethics commission is all um not just done well but uh properly resourced.

And then questions about accountability, and then obviously the public knowing that our independent offices that are there to let them know that the information coming from the auditor, the independent budget analyst, the commission on police practices and ethics commission is all not just done well but uh properly resourced.

I think it's important.

I I know that this is the beginning of the of a process, and so uh um you know we will certainly and during that process we're gonna get an analysis from the IBA about potential costs.

Um I would imagine that that'll be part of it.

Um we'll get analysis as to whether or not what we're looking to do is consistent with best practices, and that's all an important part of shaping this into what we ultimately want ultimately would want it to be, which is uh to achieve the desired outcomes.

Um I I think we're uh I see the path that we're headed down.

I appreciate all of that and appreciate the work, the work that that's going into this.

The one thing I will say, and uh so everything I just said about the independent offices being well funded, I mean that, and generally speaking, I have uh I get very nervous when we start locking up um buckets of money.

Uh the more that we do that with, the more um the less flexibility we have overall.

And um that does not mean it's not a thing worth doing because as I said, uh letting the public know that we are properly resourcing these independent offices is incredibly important.

What I would say it adds is pressure for us to resource this city properly as a whole so that we're not um robbing Peter to pay Paul.

And for far too often in this city we've done that, and I think we certainly don't want to be robbing from independent offices in order to pay for essential services, and we don't want to be robbing from essential services to pay for our independent offices.

That requires this city to be adequately resourced.

Um with all that being said, uh thank you again for bringing this forward.

Uh I'll be supporting the motion.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

Um, I'll offer a few thoughts.

I'll be supporting uh the item as well uh to give my colleague or colleagues a little bit of insight as to where I'm going.

I know we're kind of running late.

I don't I'm gonna keep saying this over and over again.

This is the council's house.

This is not the mayor's house.

The mayor comes here when we invite him or when he asked to be invited.

This is where the council does its business.

That's why the mayor is not here.

We're not a small little city that has a mayor sitting up there with the council members uh going forward.

Um I think was Ms.

Rhodes.

This council is not afraid of the mayor.

Uh if you've watched council um, especially over the past year, we are not afraid of council.

Previous councils, we're afraid of Mayor Faulkner, of previous mayors, uh, but uh I think we are a strong counsel and a strong mayor uh form of government, as Donna Fra used to say back uh in the day.

Uh I'll get off my soapbox.

Um of the ideas that my colleague uh uh brought forward uh once again demonstrates how much we think alike on a lot of things.

Um but let me put a little bit of uh flavor on that.

Um the uh chief operating officer I'm in support of.

It was my idea last June to put that into the budget.

Um I actually have a draft sitting in my um inbox.

Uh I don't think it should be effective until January 2029.

Uh I think it would be unrealistic to attract the kind of talent uh that we would need to impose it any sooner.

Uh with the kind of recruitment you would want to do, I think it'd be unfair to get really a highly qualified candidate that we would expect for our big city uh to actually take the position uh when the mayor would be leaving and he would not or that person would not know who their boss was.

Uh so that would be one thing that I would be interested in.

Um I'm very curious about the council participating in the mid-year adjustments uh going forward.

Um I I have thrown my colleagues under the bus.

I don't like what happened last June where we did a lot of things on the fly.

We didn't get the IBA involved until 20 minutes into the budget meeting.

Um we ought to be very, very careful about what kind of mid-year adjustments and the risk it places to ongoing services and actually employee jobs uh going forward.

So I would be very curious about the language in that uh and I will repeat what I said earlier.

I'm very uncomfortable about lock boxes despite the intent.

I have not seen any punitive action uh on any of the independent um boards um or positions going forward.

And so I would be very curious about what specific language might be brought forward to actually describe that.

Last year when I was uh elected council president for the very first time, I actually me and my staff had an idea about a charter review committee.

Suddenly 2025 kind of blew up, and there really wasn't a good time to do a charter review committee.

Uh but um I will ask uh my colleague to make sure that we really think about any ripple effects or any domino effects about some of the ideas you have and how they might affect the integrity of uh uh uh the charter.

And uh to my colleague, you made a comment.

I would hope that you would invite to the mayor before the next committee meeting to get their input.

You may know what it is already, uh, but um uh to make sure we're all working together.

I think that would be a good idea, whether you take his ideas or not.

So with that, uh, we have a motion by council president pro tem Lee uh and a second by oh I'm sorry.

I'm not in favor of removing term limits.

Um I think that's a necessary council uh the city auditor was extended quite easily.

The budget analyst was extended quite easily.

Um and so I would want to be very careful about that.

Open to the language, see what you have in mind with that.

But we have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee, a second by Councilmember Moreno.

Uh please call the vote.

Oh, actually, we could have done a voice vote uh that does pass 4-0 with council member campio absent.

So thank you, sir, for bringing that forward in the healthy dialogue uh this morning.

Uh, if we have a little bit of time, I know Councilmember Marina had warned us that she needed to depart.

We still have a quorum, uh, I believe.

Uh so we'll go quickly to sub-item H.

Sarah, please introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair Lakava.

Sub item H, consideration of a ballot measure proposed by Councilmember Sean Ila Rivera to reform campaign finance and ethic laws.

Chair.

All right, please introduce yourself for the record and make your presentation.

Good afternoon, Chair Lacava and members of the rules committee.

My name is Rosa Lasquaga, Deputy Chief of Strategic Initiatives.

On behalf of Councilmember Elo Rivera, I'm here to present on our ballot measure proposal for November 2026 election to establish a comprehensive campaign finance and ethics reform package for the City of San Diego.

There are main loopholes and limitations that prevent true transparency and disclosures.

Voters are making decisions at the ballot box and through their elected officials without knowing who is spending money to influence them.

Currently, there is real-time influence and no real-time disclosure.

Big business groups are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on deceptive mail, text, and social media campaigns on live city agenda items, and by the time disclosure is required, the vote has already happened.

Additionally, people paid to influence city decisions are also funding the campaigns of the decision makers they lobby.

This direct financial relationship promotes public trust and creates an inherent conflict of interest.

The county of San Diego prohibits this action, and the city of San Diego is behind.

Spending in our elections.

Voters cannot make informed decisions when the true funders of campaigns are deliberately concealed.

Shadow campaigns exist with no accountability.

Candidates for San Diego office are conducting months of paid candidate-like activities before they're formally filed to run, shaping voter opinion with no disclosure obligation attached to any of it.

Lastly, voters have a right to know when someone is spending extraordinary personal wealth to influence an election.

Current rules allow self-funded candidates to conceal the true scale of their personal spending, obscuring crucial information from voters.

Everything we walk through isn't hypothetical.

These are loopholes that are being used right now in San Diego in real elections and on city decisions.

Therefore, Councilmember Ila Rivera is proposing actions to increase accountability and bring in reforms on the problems we have identified.

Voters deserve to know who is contributing to local policies, actions, and campaigns.

The requested action for this item is as follows.

Seeking approval for the rules committee to work with the city attorney to draft a ballot measure for November 2026.

Thank you, and I'm here to answer any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Elo Rivera for bringing the item forward for the presentation as well.

We'll go to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for sub item H is now open, and allegedly, Audra, you have submitted a slip.

Please approach the lecture and you will have one minute.

Yeah, Todd's not here because he likes to make music videos with our money.

Um, and it's like vampires can't come unless you're invited in.

Uh so Sean, this is actually pretty good.

I mean, I think there should be transparency and accountability for people that are funding people to be up on dioceses like this.

There's a lot of things that are that you can already go and find out about going towards people in the PACs and seeing who supports and that there's money that is being basically put into people's pockets.

Andrea Ebbing uh speaks about it a lot.

She finds a lot of fraud um in this manner.

So anything to make sure that people are being um responsible and not um you know having some political agenda that's being pushed, but then I have to think about because there's been times when it was found out that there were people bust in here for an item.

So it's like things like that also need to be exposed and stopped so that we're not you know swaying the you guys' decisions because of that.

So thank you for your concluding remark.

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

Each speaker will have one minute.

We will begin testimony with Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rath, and I'm I'm here to speak in strong support of increased transparency and accountability in how decisions are made in our city.

Right now, the public is too often left in the dark.

And San Diegans deserve to know who is influencing policy before it reaches this dais.

We've seen clear examples where industries, including the marijuana industry, um, have had a seat at the table in shaping policy through advisory groups, internal decisions, and direct relationships with decision makers.

In some cases, individuals involved in policy development have had financial ties to the very industry that they are helping regulate.

Examples of this come from former members of the code monitoring team and the technical advisory committee.

Whether these conversations happen at the staff level, um, in advisory committees or informational conversations, the reality is the same.

The public is not getting a transparent picture.

Backdoor dealings is never the way to implement policy.

Thank you for bringing this item forward.

Thank you for your testimony.

Moving to phone number ending in 8700.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

You will have one minute.

Uh thank you, uh, Joyce and Yada C D3.