City Council - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. I'm gonna go ahead and call our meeting to order with a roll call from our city clerk, Kathy Valdez.

The record shall reflect that all members are present.

Our deputy mayor, Dan O'Donnell, is gonna lead us in our pledge tonight.

Please rise if you're able and remove your hats. You may begin. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

We'll go to our city clerk, Kathy Valdez, for some procedural items.

Thank you, Mayor. In accordance with the Brown Act, I'd like to announce that as a result of convening simultaneous meetings, the members of the Buena Sanitation District will receive compensation of $147.75 for the district meeting pursuant to Buena Sanitation District Ordinance 2006-1. I would like to remind everyone that the VISTA municipal code requires members of the public to serve order and decorum at the meeting and to conduct themselves in a courteous manner. The ordinance was adopted to allow for public input and to facilitate city business without disruption in the meeting. Applause is appropriate for items listed under the presentation portion of the agenda only. Students wishing to receive credit for attending this evening's meeting must stay for a minimum of one hour. However, I ask that you stay for the completion of the item rather than leaving in the middle of a discussion. When you are ready to leave, you may ask for the staff members at the back of the room to sign your paper.

Thank you. To speak on an item on tonight's agenda, please fill out the slip of the number you'd like to speak on and give it to the clerk, secretary, staff here at the dais. Speaker slips are available on the table just outside the chambers. For members of the public participating via Zoom, you may use the raise your hand feature to indicate that you'd like to speak. You can also press star nine on your phone. We will announce when to raise your hand to indicate you'd like to make a comment on the specific item being discussed. Speakers will each have three minutes to address the city council, and we'll go to our city manager, John Connolly, for approval of tonight's agenda.

Thank you, Mayor. No changes to this evening's agenda.

Okay. We have four presentations this evening, so I'd like to invite my fellow council members to join me at the podium for the first three presentations.

It's my first one, so bear with me in this Deputy Mayor role. So we're gonna do our first presentation as a proclamation declaring June, 2026 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual Pride Month. In the City of Vista, accepting the proclamation this evening will be Max Despositi from the Executive Director of the North County LGBTQ Center.

Wonderful, yeah.

Whereas our nation was founded on the principle of equal rights for all people and the City of Vista supports the rights of every citizen to experience equality and freedom from discrimination, and whereas in June 1969, patrons and supporters of the Stonewall Inn in New York City staged a protest to resist harassment and discriminatory laws and practices against the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, intersex, and asexual LGBTQIA plus community. These protests mark the beginning of the modern LGBTQIA plus movement. And whereas LGBTQIA plus pride celebrations take place around the world every June to commemorate the beginning of the Stonewall riots, including North County's own pride celebration, Pride by the Beach, which is attended by over 23,000 people and will be celebrated on Saturday, June 6th and whereas the North County LGBTQ Resource Center was founded in 2008 with a mission to serve, empower and advocate for San Diego North County's diverse LGBTQIA plus community and has been an advocate for equality and inclusiveness while providing valuable support and life-saving services throughout North County San Diego region. Whereas the new LGBT Center at 1919 Apple Street, Oceanside, with its 18,000 square foot facility, now provides case management, housing assistance, behavioral health services, housing resources, immigration services, and many additional supportive programs to thousands of North County residents, including residents of the City of Vista. and whereas the North County LGBTQ Resource Center has hosted Pride by the Beach every year since 2007. And this year's Pride by the Beach theme will be the Fabric of Community, celebrating the visibility and resilience of North County's LGBTQIA plus community and will be held on Saturday, June 6th from noon to 6 p.m. And whereas everyone should be able to live without fear of prejudice, discrimination, violence, and hatred based upon race, religion, gender identity, or sexual orientation. And whereas Vista has a diverse community that includes people of all ethnicities, religions, and professions. The City Council urges all Vistans to respect and honor our diverse community and to celebrate and build a culture of inclusiveness and acceptance. Now therefore, the Mayor and the City Council of Vista do hereby proclaim June, 2026 is Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, Intersex and Asexual Pride Month in the City of Vista.

Thank you. I just wanted to acknowledge the leadership of this council in taking such a stand. It's been a few years already. I believe the City of Vista was the second city in North San Diego County to also raise the pride flag after Encinitas. So I wanted to take the leadership, thank the leadership, but also as a reminder for the times we're living in. We all come from a very heavy week last week in San Diego, where brothers and sisters from our community, the Muslim community, has been targeted from hate. And it's just a reminder to all of us the importance of visibility at this moments right here because they're not just symbolism. They really set the tone of what's acceptable, what's not when it comes to being inclusive, loving each other, and not scapegoating anyone for being who they are. So my invite for this proclamation today to make sure they were intentional every day in supporting our communities. I see a lot of elected officials sometimes using the LGBT community as a scapegoat to get easy votes. Mayor, I'm looking at you with all my kind heart. But targeting LGBT people or fear mongering about trans people is not the way to go. We can do better. And I think it's an opportunity for us to walk the walk every day. This includes all of us to make sure we are more inclusive on the journey of the diversity, the beautiful diversity that we have here in our county, here in Vista, where we can uplift the voices of those that work, of those that are, including our immigrant families and our LGBT people. So with this, I really thank you for this, and thank you, Mayor, thank you, the Council. We'll see you at Pride by the Beach. Thank you.

Okay, our next proclamation is one declaring May 2026 as Jewish American Heritage Month in the city of Vista. And we're proud tonight to have Rabetson Nakama Greenberg, co-director of the Chabad Jewish Center of Vista and Oceanside with us and members of the congregation. Please join us. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

How are you? Good to see you.

Can I give this to you? Thank you very much. Okay.

Thank you very much to the community for coming to be with us tonight. We're glad to be able to honor Jewish American heritage in the city of Vista with this proclamation. It reads, whereas Jewish American Heritage Month provides an opportunity to celebrate the contributions of Jewish Americans and to encourage all residents to learn more about Jewish history and heritage in the United States, whereas Jewish American Heritage Month traces its origins to 1980 when Congress passed a resolution authorizing and requesting the president to proclaim April 21st through the 28th, 1980 as Jewish Heritage Week. Whereas in 2006, the president proclaimed the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month, establishing an annual national observance. The American Jewish community has grown to more than seven million people nationwide, representing approximately 2% of the population of the United States. Jewish Americans have made and continue to make profound contributions to every aspect of American life, including public service, military service, education, science, medicine, business, literature, and the arts. Jewish Americans have been recognized for extraordinary achievements in medicine, physics, economics, chemistry, literature, peace, and including earning numerous Nobel prizes. The city of Vista is proud to recognize and celebrate many contributions of Jewish American residents and their lasting impact on civic, cultural, and economic vitality of our community. Whereas the month of May provides a meaningful opportunity for the residents of Vista to participate in educational programs, ceremonies, and activities that honor Jewish heritage and recognize the accomplishments and enduring legacy of Jewish Americans. Now, therefore, be it proclaimed by me as the mayor of the city of Vista and our city council, and we hereby proclaim the month of May as Jewish American Heritage Month in the city of Vista. and urge all residents to observe this month with the appropriate programs, ceremonies, and activities that honor the history, culture, and contributions of Jewish Americans. And I want to recognize Robertson Greenberg to say a few words, but before that, Council Member Melendez asked to say a few words.

Very good.

Thank you all for being here tonight. It's such an honor to be surrounded by Jewish community. I really wanted to share during this moment, I understand the mayor wanted to read the proclamation, but I felt it was very important for me to speak. I have Jewish heritage as well, but for many Jewish people, we don't always know what our heritage is because of the discrimination that Jewish people have faced. So when I was very, very, well, not very young, but when I was younger, I lost my grandmother. And when she passed, our grandfather, who was an Irish Catholic, told us a very troubling secret that he had held for a very long time, which was that my grandmother was Jewish. My mom's mother was Jewish, and because my grandmother wasn't able to celebrate the holidays, I now celebrate the holidays in her honor, and I just want to say thank you for being an embracing community and for being here and representing and being who you are, and I support you and I stand with you.

write anything or something? I don't know about that. Thank you so much. Really? That's so special. Thank you for your special words.

Wow. Okay.

I'm so honored to be here tonight. Wow. Mayor Franklin, members of the City Council, distinguished guests, dear friends, I'm here on behalf of the Jewish community. And I'd like to sincerely thank the City of Vista for this meaningful proclamation recognizing Jewish American Heritage Month. The Jewish story and the American story have been intertwined since the very beginning, long before the ink was even dry on the Declaration of Independence. The Jewish people arrived on the shore seeking the one thing that they were denied for centuries, the freedom to just be. Our history here has not always been easy. There were times when Jews felt very unwelcome, like you were saying before, and the doors were closed to us. But the Jewish spirit is resilient. In the face of adversity, we did not merely survive. We built, we contributed, and we thrived. Our ancestors called America the golden of Medina. the golden country. They saw in this nation something unique in the history, in the human history, a country founded on the belief that freedom and justice belong to all, endowed by our one shared creator. The idea deeply reflects the Torah's timeless teaching that every human being is created in the divine image and possesses inherent dignity and worth. The Rebbe, Rebbe Nachum Mendel Schneerson of blessed memory, often taught that every person has the ability to bring more light into the world through acts of kindness, faith, and moral courage. America gave Jewish communities the freedom not only to preserve our identity, but to contribute our light openly and proudly to the society as a whole. And so from the earliest days of American experiment, Jews have contributed our sweat, talent, values, and dreams to strengthening this country and helping ensure that the promise of freedom remains a reality for all. This year is especially special since we're celebrating the 250 year anniversary of America. And so my hope and prayer is that the bond between our country and the Jewish community continues to grow ever stronger. May America always remain a place where we do not merely tolerate differences, but that we celebrate the unique light that each community brings to our shared story. Thank you for the recognition. We are proud to call this country and the city of Vistar home, and may America continue to uphold its core values of faith, freedom, opportunity, and justice for the generations to come. Thank you all so much.

And Gideon Rappaport wanted to say a word also.

My name is Gideon Rappaport. My father and mother were Bernie and Lee Rappaport. They were Jewish, and they were contributors to this community to the extent that this building was built, the library was built, the firehouse was built, Tri-City Hospital was improved, all under their influence, part of their large influence, My father served on the city council and was mayor for two years. And they worked very hard to improve the city in many, many ways. In fact, there were days proclaimed in honor of them in the past. I have a sheaf of... testimonies to that. I just wanted to remind people that the buildings that they make use of and enjoy were built by people and they were built including by Jews who contributed to the building. Thank you so much.

No, you just squeeze in there. We'll move on. Thank you. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Thank you.

Okay, our final proclamation tonight is one declaring, thank you again to all the congregation of Chabad for being here. I look forward to being with you on Thursday night this week. Thank you. Our final proclamation is declaring May 2026 National Water Safety Month in the City of Vista. Accepting the proclamation this evening are our Wave Water Park Manager, Angela Palacic, and the Deputy Fire Chief, Robbie Ford.

Good, very good. Good to see everybody.

All right. Whereas water safety is a critical public health issue and drowning remains a leading cause of unintentional injury and death, particularly among children. I have a two-year-old nephew who's doing his swimming lessons right now, getting ever closer to swimming independence. We're excited about that. Education, awareness, and access to water safety resources can significantly reduce the risk of drowning and water-related injuries. The National Water Safety Month is recognized each May to promote safe practices around pools, beaches, and all bodies of water. The City of Vista is committed to protecting the health and safety of its residents through proactive education and community programs. The Wave Water Park provides swimming lessons, aquatic programs, and public education that equips individuals and families with life-saving water skills, collaborates with aquatic water programs, providers such as Love to Swim and Expand Access to Services, offers youth scholarships to support families in need of financial assistance for swim lessons, Whereas the Vista Fire Department plays a role, a vital role in emergency response, prevention, and community outreach, helping ensure residents are prepared and protected in and around the water, it is essential that individuals of all ages learn how to swim, practice active supervision, understand water hazards, and know how to respond in an emergency. Now, therefore, it is my privilege as Mayor, on behalf of the City Council, to hereby proclaim the month of May as National Water Safety Month in the City of Vista, and we encourage all residents to take an active role in preventing water-related accidents and injuries. It is further proclaimed that the City of Vista invites residents, families, and visitors to take the following water safety pledge. It reads, I pledge to be safe in and around water by never swimming alone, always jumping in feet first, staying away from pool drains, following all pool rules. Be it further proclaimed that the City of Vista encourages the community to participate in local programs and resources offered by the Wave Water Park and the Vista Fire Department to build a safer, more informed community.

All right.

Good evening. As the Mayor mentioned, Water Safety Month is very important, so some lessons are important. We have lots of water in San Diego County and lots of beaches, so be swim safe and always swim with a buddy. Thank you.

On behalf of the Fire Chief Gerard Washington, I would like to thank Recreation for their leadership and their collaboration with the Fire Department in this very important shared measure As we embark upon the summer months, thousands of residents will recreate in their pools or in their community. And the ability to train and teach our community to actively participate in watching our kids will undoubtedly save lives. Thank you.

And I just wanna commend all of our Wave Water Park employees. You do a great job providing for the safety of our patrons. I think we have an excellent safety record and I always enjoy throwing Timmy into the pool and watching the quick response. That's our dummy. And every once in a while he gets thrown into the pool He's not a live dummy. And it's a very quick response. Within 30 seconds, they identify that there's a child or a child equivalent in trouble. And our lifeguards are always excellent to jump in and save that life. So they're always doing a great job. I always like to see they do a wonderful job with the active scanning. They do a very, very important job. And we give thanks to all of you for keeping everybody safe at the wave. Okay, our fourth presentation this evening is from our Community Development Director, Joe Vacca, who will provide an update on recent state housing laws.

Thank you, Mayor and members of the City Council. So this isn't an exciting topic, but it's a necessary topic that we'll cover, and we're gonna try to do so with brevity, and then we'll take questions at the end of our presentation. So first I'm gonna go over Senate Bill 79 that was authored by Scott Wiener and signed into law October 10th of last year. And it becomes effective July 1st of 2026. The intent behind this Senate Bill was to address the state's housing shortage by establishing transit-oriented development zones to increase density around transit and to override inconsistencies that the local zoning would present. So this bill upzones land within 200 feet, a quarter, and a half a mile of qualifying transit stops within these areas known as transit-oriented development zones. It increases residential density on any site that's zoned for commercial, residential, or mixed-use zoning. The Tier 2 stops would allow building heights between 55 and 85 feet in height, and density between 80 and up to 140 dwelling units per acre, depending on their proximity to the transit location. Sandag is our metropolitan planning organization for our region, is responsible for creating the maps in Vista. And for our community, the Sprinter stops are the two primary locations that will be considered Tier 2 transit-oriented development stops. And then we have one on Melrose and one in Buena Creek, and I'll discuss that. So with this bill, there's no new CEQA exemptions, so CEQA is applicable. It does not include any new ministerial approval process, so we would require site development plans here in Vista. However, a developer could utilize another housing law which could potentially create a ministerial approval process. So cities have some options. The bill goes into effect and the city must comply with state law on July 1st. But cities may adopt implementing ordinances or alternative plans, which could potentially limit or adjust or modify the application of SB 79 subject to limitations. Alternative plans essentially propose to move around the densities, but they still must achieve the overall maximum density that would otherwise be allowed in the overall transit-oriented development areas. Essentially, there's no net loss available. So while it could shift density, you'd still have to have the same overall maximum. If a city elects to create their own local implementing ordinance, that ordinance or an alternative plan must be reviewed and approved by HCD before it becomes fully effective. And they have between 90 and 120 days to provide their first review and comment. So NCTD may also adopt their own individual development standards and develop residential projects on their agency-owned properties here in Vista within the transit-oriented development zones. In terms of the overall eligibility requirements, the minimum density must include at least five dwelling units, and it also must be either the greater of 30 dwelling units per acre or the minimum density of the transit-oriented development zone. The floor area of the units shall not exceed an average of 1,750 square feet. And these development projects are defined as housing development projects under the Housing Accountability Act. And anti-displacement requirements apply. So if it's an existing rental unit, they would have to deal with the existing tenants on site. These development projects can also utilize state density bonus. And there are affordability requirements that are applicable. If there's over 10 units in the project, then affordability requirements are required on a sliding scale. And when you provide more units in the project, then it requires more affordable units. And this is synonymous with how density bonus law is applied. Also, our local inclusionary ordinance here in Vista would also be applicable. They would be required to use labour in line with unions if the project included development at 85 feet in height. And then this cannot include any transient occupancy uses such as hotels or motels. So this is the Vista Transit Centre and this is a draft map that was prepared by our GIS in collaboration with Planning and our City Attorney's Office. We've been working closely and I'm grateful for Allegra's assistance in reviewing the Senate Bill and the applicability here in Vista. So this demonstrates the green areas closest to the transit center are parcels within 200 feet. And then the next ring, the concentric circle, is showing parcels within a quarter mile, and they're in yellow. And then it shows parcels within a half a mile. And then we highlighted some school and vacant parcels in yellow. But you can see most of the areas already built out. Then we have the Civic Center location, and that's also a Tier 2 transit-oriented development stop. And again, it shows parcels within 200 feet in green, which is just a handful. And then it shows the properties that are within a quarter mile in yellow, and then properties within a half a mile in red. And again, it's predominantly built out. Then this shows the Melrose Drive Station. And you can see the areas that's shaded is not included because it's outside the municipal boundary of Vista. So everything to the north and west is in the city of Oceanside. And again, this is predominantly built out. And then there's the additional Buena Creek Station, which is located in the unincorporated area of San Diego County, outside of our municipal boundary. And in the unincorporated areas, the Senate bill is not effective until the seventh RENA cycle, which starts in 2029. We also wanted to highlight that there's currently a bill pending, SB722, that's an urgency bill, and it's in review in legislature, and it's proposing to exempt mobile home parks and trailer and RV parks from compliance with the requirements for the Senate bill's applicability of zoning. And if it's approved, it will go into effect immediately. So this demonstrates the development standards that would be required in the different concentric circles. So first, in the 200 feet, the maximum allowed height would be 85 feet and the max density is 140 dwelling units per acre. And then within the quarter mile, the maximum height is 65 feet and the max density is 100 dwelling units per acre. And then in the next, between a quarter mile and a half a mile, the maximum allowed height is 55 feet and 80 dwelling units per acre would be the maximum density, which is consistent with the proposed general plan 2050 heights and density ranges. So if there's no action taken, the default SB 79 state zoning standards would become effective July 1st, and the city is required to conform with state law if anyone were to file a development application utilizing this law. We could also prepare a local implementation ordinance for consideration and adoption, which would be a significant undertaking. And then we could also consider preparing a transit-oriented development alternative plan which again would shift around the density within the areas, but you'd still have to have the same maximum density otherwise allowed. So again, we're highlighting that SANDAG is responsible for providing us with the actual SB97 TOD maps and all cities within this region must use those maps in coordination with their implementation of Senate Bill 97 zoning. So SANDAG is currently preparing the maps and they've not been finalized and so once we receive those, those will be provided for the public's use but we don't have those at this time and they're pending. So for now, staff recommends taking a wait and see approach, and eventually we may be considering working on an implementation ordinance in the future, but because the densities are fairly consistent with what we're proposing in the general plan update, we feel like there shouldn't be that much impact in our local communities. So based on analysis and the maps, we don't anticipate a large influx of development to result in VISTA from this updated legislation. Most of the transit-oriented development areas are built out, and a significant portion of the areas are hilly, sloping terrain that are already within built single-family neighborhoods. And any future redevelopment, if the general plan update gets adopted, would have to comply with the predominant underlying density at 80 dwelling units per acre. Next, we want to highlight a bill that was enacted previously to just give you some background and history on how that's been working out. So Assembly Bill 2097 became effective January 1st, 2023. And this state law prohibits public agencies from imposing their minimum automobile parking requirements on any residential, commercial, or mixed-use development projects that are located within a half a mile of a major transit stop. So as you know, we have two in downtown. The law was intended to reduce housing costs, to encourage more sustainable transportation options, and to decrease greenhouse gas emissions and reduce development costs by not requiring parking. The sense it was enacted in the beginning of 2023 all of our local developers and Vista have included parking in their proposed development projects Recognizing need to have parking for their customer base So in conclusion, there's no updates required by staff But we wanted to just share that the state law does prohibit us from requiring parking in downtown however, most of the developments that have come forward have elected to provide parking consistent with our either density bonus requirements or the underlying zoning standards. Next, I'm gonna highlight Assembly Bill 130 and Senate Bill 131 that go together and relate to CEQA reforms. So these were two budget trailers that became effective June 30th, 2025. And first, it makes permanent a five-hearing limit on housing development projects that was originally enacted under Senate Bill 330 in 2019. It amends the Housing Accountability Act and Permit Streamlining Act to make the requirements of those laws permanent. So the rule that is included now, the housing development projects are subject to only the ordinances and standards that are in effect at the time a preliminary application is submitted, as well as time limits for action on that application. So if someone does a preliminary application on a development project in 2026, but they don't file a formal application until 2028, they would be subject to the ordinances and requirements that were in effect during 2026, and that's state law. So this bill also repeals the expiration provisions of the Housing Crisis Act of 2019, and it removed that sunset clause, because that was going to go away, but now it makes it permanent, and those housing laws now remain in effect going forward. So Assembly Bill 130 did revise CEQA to add a new statutory exemption for qualifying housing development projects, and these are the standards or requirements to meet that statutory exemption. The development area must be 20 acres or less in size and within an incorporated city, and it must either have been previously developed or surrounded by urban uses. The site must be consistent with the underlying applicable local plans, so the general plan and zoning. And the density must be at least 50% of the housing element default density. And it must not include demolition of a historic structure. And it must also avoid hazardous sites or sensitive lands such as prime farmland. Furthermore, the property must not include any transient lodging such as a hotel or a motel. The development project must meet the specific tribal consultation requirements and could include mitigation for tribal cultural resources. And if it's in an area within 500 feet of a freeway, it must also include environmental hazard and air filtration standards. Projects that are over 85 feet tall must comply with prevailing wage and other labor standards. Or if it's 100% dedicated to lower income households for the units, it must also comply with labor standards. And then there's additional provisions for projects in San Francisco within the law. So AB 130 amended the Permit Streamlining Act to cover that any housing development project, regardless of whether the permitting process is discretionary or ministerial, is applicable now. And it added a new 60-day time limit to approve or disapprove a ministerial project. Senate Bill 131 changes CEQA to exempt rezoning actions that implement the provisions of a city's adopted housing element, and also exempts agricultural employee housing projects. So if we're working on a program that was required in our housing element, it's not subject to CEQA review. So next I'm gonna switch gears and discuss Senate Bill 684 and Senate Bill 1123. They're both intended to streamline approval of projects for 10 or fewer residential units. So 1123 created a ministerial approval process for qualifying subdivisions. It tiered off and added to Senate Bill 684, which goes back to 2023. And that bill enabled ministerial approval of up to 10-unit small lot subdivisions on urban multifamily sites that were less than five acres in size. And the newer Senate Bill 1123 expands eligibility beyond just multifamily limitation to now include vacant single family lots that are less than one and a half acres in size. And that became effective July 1st of 2025. So this Senate Bill 1123 requires staff to ministerially approve a parcel map or tentative map and final map for a housing development project that subdivides either the multifamily zone parcel or a vacant single family zone parcel into 10 or fewer parcels that would contain 10 or fewer residential units. And again, it's a ministerial approval process and it must be done within 60 days. So the eligibility requirements for the ministerial approval, again, is that the lot to be subdivided if it's in multifamily or vacant single family. Multifamily is five acres in size and single family is one and a half acres in size. And they must be substantially surrounded by qualified urban uses. And they cannot have been previously subdivided under any other state law. So the new subdivision would create 10 or less parcels, and the parcel sizes in multifamily must be at least 600 square feet, and the parcels in single-family areas must be at least 1,200 square feet. So also if a parcel is in the housing element as a housing element site, the development must yield at least as many units as projected originally in the housing element. And if it's not in the housing element, the development must yield at least as many units as the maximum allowed density would accommodate. And the average total floor space for the proposed units cannot exceed 1,750 square feet. Our city's objective development standards and design standards apply unless the standard will require densities less than 30 units per acre or height limits less than the base single-family zoning. Also, requirements for the project of the subdivision, we can't preclude the development from receiving an approval. The setbacks would be adjusted to ensure that they meet at least the minimum required under the building code. And then the floor air ratio standards are basically at 100% lot coverage for subdivision three to seven units, or 1.25 FAR for subdivisions of eight to 10 units. Furthermore, our objective standards would apply unless they would require enclosed recovered parking or parking standards greater than one off-street space per unit. And it could go down to zero parking if it's within a half a mile of transit. And the minimum requirements on the size, width, depth, or dimensions of an individual parcel, except it must meet those minimum square footage standards of 600 square feet in multifamily and 1,200 square feet for single family. So fairly complicated, but that's where we're at. Next is Assembly Bill 2632. So this became effective January 1st, 2025, and essentially it indicates that thrift retail stores must be treated the same as non-thrift retail stores for the purposes of zoning development standards, including height, size, parking requirements, and setbacks from adjacent uses or permitting. Furthermore, thrift retail stores are not to be prohibited from receiving used and donated items for sale in the store. So essentially we cannot refuse to allow a thrift store in a zone where a retail store would be permitted by right. Next I'm going to talk about updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit and Junior Accessory Dwelling Unit laws. So first, with detached ADUs, updates have authorized detached ADUs on a lot with an existing, up to eight existing ADUs on a lot with multifamily dwellings, provided the number of ADUs does not exceed the number of existing units on the lot. This government code also clarifies that two ADUs plus one junior ADU, so that could include up to one attached ADU, a detached ADU, and one JADU are all allowable on properties with a single residence. So essentially it would create four units. And that ADUs may be located within a front setback with the maximum size of 800 square feet. And HCD has clarified that a local agency may apply their front yard setback standards, but we cannot preclude an ADU of at least 800 square feet from being built on a property, even if that ADU would exist partially or wholly within the front setback. So also in regards to building heights for ADUs, With the detached ADU, it establishes a base height limit of 16 feet and it also increases the maximum height limit of a detached ADU to 18 feet if the ADU is either within a half a mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a high quality transit corridor and provides an additional two feet for roof pitch to align with the roof pitch of the primary dwelling unit. It also increases the height to 18 feet for a detached ADU that's on a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family or multi-story dwelling. And then it establishes a maximum height limit on an attached ADU to 25 feet or the existing primary dwelling unit height limit if it's lower than 25 feet. And it doesn't require a local agency to allow an ADU to exceed two stories. With the junior ADUs, there was update related to owner occupancy. So currently, our code requires and states that the owner of the primary residence shall occupy either the primary residence or the junior accessory dwelling unit. Assembly Bill 1154 narrowed this requirement, and now it only applies when the JADU shares sanitation facilities such as the bathroom with the single-family dwelling. So if the JADU has its own bathroom, then the property owner does not have to reside on the property any longer. Also, it clarifies that JADUs cannot be constructed in accessory dwelling units, so we're going to have to update our code, which suggests that a JADU can be constructed in an accessory building, and that wasn't the intent when the code language was drafted, so we'll be working on that. And then Senate Bill 1117, which is currently pending in the legislature, would limit the amount of impact fees that cities could collect on accessory dwelling units larger than 750 square feet. So if someone proposed to build a 1,000 square foot ADU, we could only charge the impact fees for the difference of the 250 square feet. So if that gets enacted, we'll be incorporating that into our updates. So the work plan for a planning division includes updating our ADU and JADU ordinance to be consistent with these recent changes and updates in state law, which we are applying now based on state law, but we wanna make sure that we can incorporate those into our local ordinance for clarification for the community. So that concludes our presentation, and Allegra and I are available for any questions.

I've got a question for you with regard to this chart, which is, I don't know, maybe five, six, or seven in your presentation. As far as the SB 79 changes to height, I know you said the height and density is consistent with our proposed 2050 general plan. How do these height and densities compare to existing zoning laws in VISTA?

So in our downtown, the max height currently is at 60 feet and the max density is currently at 40. So we would want to preserve the height limitations in our specific plan downtown as we work through the general plan update if that gets adopted. And the general plan update calls for 80 dwelling units per acre in the downtown. So the density's gonna be right there. And then the height's gonna be close. And keep in mind that a lot of the projects that are being constructed or proposed at this time do utilize density bonus. And one of the frequent concessions they request is for height. But one of the important clarifications that I think the Council needs to be aware of is that to build an apartment project taller than five stories requires concrete and steel in the first few stories, and that dramatically changes the cost of the development. And that's why we don't anticipate seeing high-rise buildings in Vista, because the market doesn't necessarily pencil for that level of construction.

Do you remember what the density and the height on the Ryland building is?

Yes. So the density is right around 80 dwelling units per acre, and it's five stories. It's right around 60 feet in height, approximately. Okay. And then the new Santa Fe Senior apartments that are 100% affordable, those were constructed at 100 dwelling units per acre, and they have limited parking, and we haven't had any parking complaints in that neighborhood, and that's fit within the fabric of that part of the Santa Fe corridor. And so I think those density ranges between 80 and 100 are consistent with our land plan that we're proposing for our general plan, and we think that we don't anticipate this Senate bill significantly impacting Vista.

I appreciate that. It sounds like the real discussion is relevant more to our general plan since our general plan is basically consistent with these numbers and we've certainly had that conversation. It's unfortunate to see Sacramento forcing this kind of density from my personal perspective particularly taking away the parking standards, creating ultra density and high rise. We are seeing some of our neighboring cities build very high dense, highly dense, high rise buildings. And it doesn't necessarily get cheaper to live there when we have those kind of developments. I would encourage the city council to think again because we haven't adopted our 2050 general plan about this significant license for density within Vista. And if we do have the ability to prefer less dense, lower rise, I think that's really what the people of Vista want. So with that, let's hear from Council Member Contreras next.

Yeah, thank you so much for this update. It's really important to stay on top of all these things. So, you know, what is it then that can be done at the general plan level to curtail some of the density from this group of bills?

Well, we think we're on the right track of proposing the 80 dwelling units per acre for our downtown because we've recognized that there's been some recent development at that scale and it's fit within the fabric of the downtown and it's contributed overall to the economic viability of downtown. And so, We're comfortable with the 80 dwelling units per acre for downtown. We think it's appropriate, and we've studied it. But in terms of reducing the densities in Senate Bill 79, we really don't have an opportunity to do that. The only, I think, mechanism we could try to utilize would be the alternative plan, but again, YOU COULD ONLY REDUCE TO 50% IN SOME AREAS AND YOU HAVE TO INCREASE UP TO 200% IN OTHER AREAS TO ACHIEVE THE SAME LEVEL OF DENSITY THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AREA.

DOES THAT MEAN WE WOULD BE SHIFTING DENSITY FROM AREAS THAT MIGHT BE MORE APPROPRIATE FOR DENSITY TO AREAS THAT ARE MORE SEMI RURAL IN THEIR CHARACTERISTICS?

No, because we're stuck with those concentric circles. We'd have to plan within those circles, and we don't think that some of the single-family neighborhoods will ever be redeveloped at those densities anyhow, because they're already built out, and it's just not very practical. So we think in the downtown along the corridors where there are some opportunities for development and redevelopment, we're already at the 80 dwelling units per acre, so we think it should be fairly consistent with Senate Bill 79

Okay. Yeah. And so it doesn't sound like there's too much of an opportunity to change our general plan in light of, you know, additional regulations?

No. Okay.

Okay, and I think that this general plan in total was like 4,000 more individuals than the previous general plan or something. It was something like that when we looked at it, so. Thank you, I really appreciate all this information. I have one additional question. At one point we were talking about tiny homes that are movable. Does that intersect with any of these new regulations?

No, I mean there's a slight intersection in the fact that theoretically the tiny movable homes could be used as accessory dwelling units if they were put in in a permanent fashion. And then we do recognize now that HCD has clarified and through updates in state law that ADUs up to 800 square feet can be in the front yard setback area. So there's some little bit. And that's regardless of zone? Correct. But we haven't seen any applications for tiny movable homes.

I don't think we've allowed for that, have we?

It's silent in our municipal code now, but I think if someone were to propose one for an accessory dwelling unit, I don't think we could preclude it if they were building it on a permanent foundation.

OK, because we had a discussion here about movable tiny homes. And it sounds like, you know, I'm not necessarily a big fan of our municipal code being silent on something. I'd rather be very upfront about what we can and can't do. And so I think maybe that begs the question that we should probably put some stipulations in for movable tiny homes or reopen that discussion. Outside of that, again, thank you so much. This was very informative.

Okay, thank you very much. I don't see any other requests to speak on this item, so thank you for the excellent presentation.

Thank you.

That'll bring us to the oral communications opportunity tonight. Any member of the public may address the council on agency-related matters not on the agenda by requesting to speak during this section of the agenda. If you're participating via Zoom, please use the raise your hand feature or press star nine now if you'd like to speak. The number of speakers heard during this segment is limited to 10. Any remaining speakers will be heard under the second oral communications item if there are more than 10. We'll hear first from Robin Rutherford, who's here in the chamber. You want to just pull that microphone back towards you.

Good evening, Mayor Franklin and council members. I'm here to talk about illegal fireworks, especially since the 4th of July is coming up. I'm here in honor of our cat, Mel, our buddy and sweet boy, who we had to have put to sleep the day after the 4th of July last year after he suffered a stroke from being traumatized by all the illegal fireworks that were going off in our area. Even my husband and I were upset by all the fireworks going off. It was like a war zone. We saw fireworks being set off right up the street from this building. while the City of Vista's fireworks were going off. There was a firework set off less than 200 yards from our house. And poor Mel was running from room to room just trying to get away from all the noise. And I feel sure that mill would still be alive today if the only fireworks that went off were the city's fireworks at Brangle Terrace Park, and people had respected the ordinance against illegal fireworks the city has in place. Please strongly consider informing the public more aggressively of the dangers of setting off fireworks, which should only be done by professionals. Each year since the pandemic, the launching of illegal fireworks has gotten worse, and last year was the worst yet. We even hear fireworks set off close to our house periodically during the rest of the year for no reason whatsoever. I understand it is very difficult to locate the offenders, but it seems to me the phrase, if you see something, say something, applies to this issue as well as any other issues. So if a homeowner sees another homeowner shooting off fireworks, they should call the sheriff's office. I'm sure neighbors will say, oh, we don't want to get involved, but they'll certainly be involved when their house catches fire, someone gets hurt, or their pet is so frightened they suffer a stroke like Mel. Not only do they frighten pets and wildlife, they are a very serious threat to homes and property. And I thank you very much.

Sure. Ma'am, I just want to let you know I've asked our city attorney to review a policy that will come before this council for consideration regarding illegal fireworks in the near future. So I appreciate your comments.

Okay, now we're gonna hear, we're gonna Zoom, we'll hear from Madison and then from Judy String.

Hi, good evening, City Council. I wanted to speak about the growing dangers of marijuana commercialization and the very real risks it poses to families, especially when it comes to impaired driving. A recent national study analyzing nearly 482,000 Americans found that cannabis use among parents has risen dramatically over the last decade. Today, about one in 12 parents report using marijuana on most days of the month. Daily marijuana use among parents is now four times more common than daily alcohol use, and nearly 6 million children in the United States live with a parent who uses marijuana regularly. Normalization of this substance has changed behavior. When marijuana becomes more commercialized, more accessible, and more socially accepted, we inevitably see more impaired driving on our roads. And unlike alcohol, marijuana impairment can be difficult to measure in real time, even though it clearly affects reaction time, attention, judgment, and coordination. Families are paying the price for this experiment. Children are being raised in environments where marijuana use is increasingly treated as harmless, despite research linking parental marijuana use to impaired parenting practices, accidental pediatric exposures, increased risk of neglect, and higher likelihood of substance use among adolescents. We should be deeply concerned that younger parents, lower income households and families already facing challenges are seeing some of the largest increases in daily use. Commercialization targets these communities and children are often the collateral damage. As policymakers, we should not be making access easier through expanded retail, drive-through marijuana sales, or increased normalization. We should be investing in prevention, public education, impaired driving enforcement, and honest conversations about the risks marijuana poses to developing brains and public safety. Our children deserve roads that are safe, homes that are stable, and communities that prioritize prevention over profit. Thank you.

Judy String.

Good evening, Vista City Council. Thank you for letting me share something that's been on my mind and perhaps you've had this problem as well in your family this last few months. But it would remind us that May is National Clean Air Month and that one of the first weeks in May was Air Quality Awareness Week. One of the things that has been pointed out to us is the role of secondhand smoke in causing heart palpitations. breathing in the fine particles that come from tobacco and marijuana, secondhand smoke, causes inflammation and stress. And this affects the heart's electrical system, causing or triggering temporary or regular heartbeats, an experience that we saw within our own family. And I would mention to you that secondhand smoke and vapor, be it tobacco or marijuana, degrades indoor and outdoor air quality both by increasing the concentrated level of toxic chemicals and particular matter. Secondhand smoke is often defined is for those fine particles under 2.5 micrometers. Can you just imagine? Because of their size, they can be inhaled deeply into your lungs and even enter the bloodstream, sorry. the National Institute of Health reminds us that how important it is that our outdoor public spaces, our pedestrian areas, be as free of secondhand smoke as our ordinances can give us, particularly here in our cities. And it mentions, and I suppose this doesn't come as any surprise to you, that that within about 23 feet from the smoker, you can smell it and it affects your health. So perhaps as we head into the summertime, the enforcement of our smoke-free beach and park laws could be stepped up and we might take a new look at the possibility of putting in place smoke-free outdoor public areas. Thank you.

Thank you. The opportunity for all communications will be closed for this meeting and that'll move us to our consent calendar. The recommendations on the consent calendar will be enacted in one motion unless an item is removed from the calendar. Any member of the public may remove an item by submitting a request to speak card to the clerk secretary by using the raise their hand feature on Zoom or pressing star nine. Items removed from the consent calendar will be considered immediately following adoption of the calendar. We have 11 consent items tonight. Please note that the recommended action for item C10, CIP numbers 8262 and 8313, the slurry seal project 2026, award of contract includes the adoption of a resolution amending the capital project budget for fiscal years 2024 and 25 and 2025 and 26. Council Member Fox.

Motion to approve the consent calendar.

Council Member Contreras.

I'll second that motion, thank you.

A motion and a second, please cast your votes. The consent agenda is adopted unanimously. We have four public hearings this evening. Our first is regarding sewer service rates for fiscal years 2026, 27 through 2028, 2029. Public hearing is now open. If any members of the public wish to speak on the side of the may indicate so by using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine or submitting a request to speak card. Speakers will be called upon after the presentation Anyone wishing to submit a written protest should do so at this time. Protest letters must be received by the city clerk prior to the close of this public hearing. Letters received after the close of the public hearing will not be counted. Sewer Engineering Division Manager Ken Natz will introduce the item.

Hello and good evening, Honorable Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council Members, our sewer repairs that are here tonight or watching from home. Again, I'm Ken Nats. I'm accompanied by Sanjay Gar from Water Resources Economics to discuss the sewer service charges for fiscal years 2026-27 through 2028-29. Staff recommends that the Council and Board introduce and adopt ordinances establishing rates for sewer service charges for both the Vista and Buena sewer systems. These ordinances are included as exhibits eight and nine in your packet. The proposed ordinances rescind the previously established sewer rates and codify the three-year rate structure that was discussed with the city council and board at the February 10th, 2026 meeting. Also documented as part of the wastewater cost of service studies that were received and filed by the board and council on March 24th, 2026. The proposed rate increases are primarily due to capacity improvement projects that were identified in our recently completed 2025 sewer master plan and the cost to treat sewage at the Encino Wastewater Authority. The ordinances also codify the collection of future sewer service charges by the county tax assessor on the property tax roll. This is in line with the resolutions adopted by the city council and the board at the February 10th meeting. Since the time that the cost of service studies were received and filed in March, outreach efforts have been underway. Notifications were sent to all our customers in both English and Spanish with information on the proposed rate adjustments, the opportunity to provide comments, and the schedule of tonight's hearing. The notices also included a QR code that customers could use to find more information on our website. The website provides stakeholders with all related information on the topic, including our overview of the program, the notices, the rate studies, the three-year rate tables, the agenda reports from our February and March meetings, our capital improvement program six-year outlay, and links to our 2025 sewer master plan. Additional details are also provided on the billing changes, in the notifications and on the website, and most importantly, on the Lifeline Rebate Program. This Lifeline Rebate Program provides our customers up to a 30% rebate. if they meet the housing and urban development low income requirements for San Diego. These thresholds are set at approximately $85,000 for single adult households and $97,000 for households with two or more adults. The City Council allocated an additional 25,000 to the Lifeline Rebate Program as part of the February 10th meeting. Lastly, staff provided written responses to all correspondence received as of last week and provided additional information to address any customer concerns that were raised. We received a total of 17 written protests that are included as exhibit seven in your packet. Since the number of protests is less than 50% of the customers for each agency, the council and the board may adopt the rates as presented tonight. So with that, I'm gonna pass it off to Sanjay for a quick rundown on the methodology used for the rate studies.

Thank you, Ken.

Thank you, Ken. Honorary Mayor, City Council, staff and public, it's my pleasure to be here to talk about this important matter about the sewer rates and the investments that are needed. My presentation is to go over a rate study overview, discuss the financial plan, discuss what cost of services, the analysis, the proposed rates, impacts to our customers and the rate survey. Whenever we do a study, we look at many different factors behind that study. We ask ourselves the policies about how do we assess the fee, how do we achieve certain key objectives. Second step is the financial plan. This is a step where we ask ourselves how much revenue do we need on an annual basis to reinvest in the system to make sure we provide this critical service. The next step is the cost of service. This is allocating the cost so every customer pays their fair share. This is a fee for service. This is not a tax. So there needs to be a proportionality behind it. Next step is the rate design where we ask ourselves, how do we collect a fee? How much fixed should we have on the commercial side of the house? How much variable? And then lastly is the documentation, which we provided the last time I met with you. And now we're at the public hearing where the city council and the board can consider the adoption of the rates. These rates fall under Prop 218. Prop 218 is a voter initiative through a series of court cases. Wastewater is considered a property-related service and has defined that there needs to be a proportionality. We need to make sure we look at the business of providing the service, look at the customers, and make sure there's a nexus. That nexus is illustrated or documented in our administrative record, the report that we've provided, that shows all the math behind it. In addition, we can't have subsidization occur. Everyone needs to pay its fair share. And now we're in the procedural requirement of public hearing where we've notified customers about this rate increase and we're considering the adoption. Last rate study was completed in August 2017. The last increase was July 1st of 2022. So it's been some time. And since then, of course, inflation has hit us all. In addition, we have significant capital improvement plan, CIP, that's been identified, over $50 million for Vista and $23.5 million in Buena. These investments are to make sure we provide this critical service in our community. When we look at any kind of revenue adjustments, we ask ourselves, how do we maintain the operating costs? How do we make sure we meet our reserve balances? We do have a reserve policy, 50% of operating, 15% of previous annual encina costs, and an emergency. These reserves are needed in case risk occurs, something goes wrong. Hopefully nothing ever goes wrong, but if something does go wrong, we have the money in the bank to quickly solve that problem. They also deal with cash flow situations, especially when we assess charges on the property role. We've developed an Excel model, non-proprietary, that staff has a copy of. These are four graphs that show you the indicators of the financial plan. And the next slide, actually, I want to take a time to look at it to the top. Left corner says revenue requirement VISTA. The bars are expenditures. The line is the revenue. The current and proposed are the same because there's no revenue adjustments here. The next bar down below on the left is the capital project VISTA. It shows the capital improvement. As I mentioned, we are significantly investing in our community. Based on these two information, then we look at the fund balance. The dotted line is the reserve target that I mentioned earlier. The green bars are the ending balances. We're below the balance in 2029, and then we're negative fund balance if we were funding all the CIP. And also it shows the coverage ratio that you're meeting In order to make sure we meet our minimum reserve targets, we're recommending a 5.5% increase in revenue. And by doing that, we meet our reserve targets. We're also anticipating a debt issuance in 2030 of approximately $15 million. When we get closer to 2030, we can determine the appropriate size of that debt issuance. But for the first three years, we're looking up to 2029. The next step is the cost of service. This is the proportionality where we look at the strength of flow of each of your customers and we look at the cost associated with Encina and we make sure everyone pays the proportional share. Cost of service is a realignment. In a lot of ways, I like to look at it as you're realigning your car, you're making it straight. And so whenever we do this, there are some customers that may see a little bit more of an increase and some customers that may see more of a decrease based on the cost of service analysis, which again is illustrated in our administrative record. The cost of service analysis, we are using the same strength for commercial, which is the best available data. We are maintaining the fixed and variable for commercial, which is 30%, and we've updated the capacity rental charge. These are the proposed rates that we're showing you right over here from 2026 to 2028 for Vista. We do the same exercise for Buena, where we're showing you the current situation. We would be not meeting our reserve target in 2030 and almost have a negative fund balance in 2031. In order to meet our reserve balance, we recommend a 4% increase in the next three years. Again, we do a cost-of-service analysis. We look at the stormwater cost. The main difference between stormwater is the stormwater is the difference between the city limit and the county cost in this analysis. We've also maintained the same strength, and we've also updated the capacity rental charge. Here's the proposed rates for Buena. Here's it for the county. And then most importantly is the impacts to our customers the first year. Here's the current bill, the proposed bill. So as you can see, the city of Vista, single family will go up by $36. This is an annual increase. For multifamily, it'll be $26. For Buena City, it's $53. Multifamily, 38. And then the county is 29 and 21. And again, this is a combination of the financial plan and the cost of service analysis, which is the realignment and the proportionality that's needed in order to meet Prop 218. So what does this mean overall when we look at our survey of other prevailing agencies that provide wastewater? Here's a survey of that information. We can see that the average line is the dotted. We are below the dotted line. And we're showing you the current and the proposed over here. And you can see some other agencies that are much higher. And we also know that many of these agencies will be conducting sewer rate studies in the future and they will see increases. I'm going to pause here to see if there's any questions that I may answer from City Council.

The only question I have, so I know that we received an email regarding single family homes versus multi-family homes and why are the rates higher for single-family homes? Can you just explain that really quick as why that would be the case?

Yeah, so we look at household size. Household size for single-family are higher than multi-family, so that's what takes into account. Thank you.

Council Member Melendez, did you have a question? Okay, no other questions right now.

So that, excuse me, that concludes our presentation.

Thank you very much. All right. Council Member Melendez.

Thank you. I press my button to speak just to say thank you for this effort. You know, as elected officials, there's never a fun time for us to increase rates, but it is something that we have to take a look at seriously to make sure that we can maintain services. And I appreciate the methodology we're able to present before us, understanding that these new rates are proportional, and they also allow us to not just maintain our system, but invest in our system. I know at our recent council meeting, we had a discussion about capital improvement projects and I just had to share my praise of our city departments that have been so diligent to administer these funds and how you know a good keeping everything in good working order with in our sanitation system, by making those investments and repairs that are long awaited, that helps to build public trust so that when we have these conversations, it's much easier for us to be responsible and have a transparent conversation in front of the public and with the citizens or residents of Vista who are paying these fees and say, you know, this is the methodology and this is the cost of us doing business and for us to have good solid wastewater systems, which we all want to have. And so, you know, even though I know there can be different grievances about increasing rates, I'm very confident in our process. I think we've had a very transparent process. So I'm happy to make the motion to close the public hearing and accept these recommendations and rate increases. But I did have a question for the city attorney. We're in a unique position as elected council members that we're also appointed as wastewater board members. Can you explain that a little bit for us?

on the wastewater board members. So there's, we have, you have joint representation. And so you basically, when you are sitting on the certain board, you have a fiduciary duty to that entity. And so you just need to make sure that there's no conflicts of interest as you're deciding or on an agenda for each of those agencies.

Okay, so when we make this decision tonight, are we making it as council members, or are we making this as members of the Board of Buena Sanitation?

You're making it as both, but there's no crossover in this because these are distinct service areas.

Okay.

So.

Okay. So, but, you know, it is clear that our responsibility on the council is expansive to this infrastructure specifically, which actually doesn't just impact the city of Vista. It also impacts the county of San Diego, Buena Sanitation. So, yeah, with that, I would want to move forward that motion. And thank you so much for all of your work.

We do have one member of the public that wanted to be heard on this item. I'm gonna ask a couple of clarifying questions before we do that. Just for clarity of understanding, did your study analyze the number of residents on average for single family dwellings in the City of Vista?

We looked at the census data and we did take that into account.

Did you determine specifically, I don't know if you know it or not, but did you determine specifically what the average occupancy for single family residences was?

We looked at it. I don't recall what the number was because we used that number. So we do something called mass balance.

But the study does ascertain that number scientifically. Correct. And I understand you don't have it off the top of your head. I'm not asking you for it, but this has become relevant. You'll understand why I'm asking it. you do ascertain a number that's the mathematical average occupancy for single-family homes. Correct. Is that right?

Yes.

Okay. And for the purposes that we're discussing tonight, this will become relevant, multifamily, can you explain what multifamily means in a simple term?

Multifamily means more than one dwelling unit.

Right, so housing units that are large structures that each individual unit comprises, not necessarily multiple families within one unit, but because multiple families live in the same structure, that's why we call it multifamily, right?

So I don't know your specific definition in the city. So I don't want to...

I'm not trying to get overly complicated here or legalistic. I'm just pointing out for anybody that may not be aware that the definition of multifamily doesn't mean that there are multiple families living within a single dwelling unit. It generally refers to the fact that there are multiple dwelling units within a single physical structure versus one family unit within a physical structure. Okay. I think this will have some relevance. And I assume that we ascertained the average occupancy for each dwelling unit for multifamily in our study.

Yeah, now note that it's based on the census data. So it can be outdated whenever the last census data was occurred.

Right, but probably the average occupancy for a single family unit and the average occupancy for a multifamily unit. Our rate structure is set with a higher amount for a single family home because you ascertain mathematically that a single family dwelling unit contains a higher number of individuals living in it on average mathematically than a multifamily unit. Is that correct?

Yes.

Okay, because our study is required to ascertain that in order to set these rates so that they're fair and proportionate. Is that right? Correct. Okay, I just wanted to walk everybody through that because sometimes some people may think that there are more people living in a multifamily based on the way it's described or that term. We use it in government speak and not everybody's familiar with the term. So I just wanted to establish that for clarity so that people understand how we arrive at these rates. So I'm gonna, without you having these specific mathematics, I'm gonna posit that on average, there are more humans living in each single family dwelling unit in the city of Vista than there are human beings dwelling in each dwelling unit that is considered multifamily.

Correct.

Because there are probably more people that are single that live in apartments.

Correct.

I know I was once single and lived in an apartment. Okay, with that, let's hear from the member of the public that wanted to be heard. We have Cheryl Kakos that wanted to be heard. Ms. Kakos, you have three minutes. Please come forward and address the council.

Hi, thank you for listening to me. I guess I'm in a single family.

If you pull that microphone as close to your mouth as possible, we'll hear you better.

I guess I'm in a single-family dwelling. I own a home. It's about, I think it's like 1,200 square feet, a little bit less. I'm by myself, one person, and I feel, I guess, very cheated that I'm only one person, yet I'm paying for another unit or the other houses around me that have mom and dad and three kids and four kids and, you know, those kind of things going on. So I just don't think it's fair that I should have to pay as much since it's just me, myself, and I living in my home, even though it's a single family dwelling unit. That's it. I don't know what else to say. I just don't think it's a fair deal. So thank you for listening to me, and I hope it gets changed. Thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate your comments. And I would just say that this is something that is an interesting point of conversation for the council. I mean, other cities, other municipalities provide both the freshwater utility and the sewer utility. And in those cities, it's common for the city to assign a sewer charge based on the units of fresh water that are consumed. The sort of interesting thing about that is it can be even more unfair to single family dwellers because single family homes tend to have a large irrigation consumption. And that irrigation charge, the irrigation water does not go down the sanitary sewer. Instead, it goes, you know, it is absorbed in the ground, evaporates, or it may go down the storm sewer. But if you were to have a per unit charge, as those other municipalities do, If you happen to water your yard, then you might pay substantially more for sewer. So it's sort of a catch-22 for the city of Vista. And I'm addressing this not only because you brought it up, but because this is something that we get asked from time to time. And I just like to be an explainer of these things. If we were to do it on a per-unit basis, most... Most single-family homes would actually pay substantially more, even though the units they're using are not going down the sanitary sewer, and that's what we're paying for here. This is for the effluent sewer. And so, sort of how do you fairly assign the cost based on the actual demand that each dwelling unit or parcel is placing on the sanitary sewer? There's not... We're open-minded and open-eared to a better mathematical calculation, but I just wanted to share with you that in other cities, there's actually a higher cost burden placed typically on the single family homeowner because of the per unit charge than is actually consumed for sanitary sewer processing. So it looks like we have one more speaker here. We'll hear from Faroo Mirazai Shayani.

Hello, everybody. I think to this point, it has been the most unlogical reason to charge for the sewage. As you explained it so well, because family with one like me, and I'm a retired college professor, and I am out of my house even for many months, and I have to pay the same amount for the sewage. This is so unfair. I hope one day educated people find out there must be some way, some reasons based on the usage. That's all I wanted to say. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Yeah, it would almost require I don't want to give my, some of my colleagues might be getting some ideas, me sharing this, but it would require a separate meter for irrigation water than the one used for potable water in your home. And some of my colleagues might be very interested in charging a much higher rate for irrigation water or prohibiting irrigation if they were metered separately. And, of course, it would require great expense for homeowners to have a separate meter. The meters are quite expensive themselves. So... It isn't that we're not open-minded to that, but if you can think of a mathematical formulary that's more fair to the single-family dweller, then I would consider it. But I just wanted to point that out. It can actually really work the other way. If you don't irrigate, if you don't have a yard or landscaping, this wouldn't apply to you. But most single family homes do have irrigation. And for that reason, it basically becomes a way to transfer the cost of the sanitary sewer because people that live in an apartment or multifamily typically would not have a substantial quantity of irrigation. And so it actually transfers more of the cost of the sanitary sewer to the, and it's unfairly because it isn't related to the demand that they place on the sanitary sewer, just the number of units of water that they use, even if the water is being evaporated or being sunk into the earth to water the grass. So I just wanted to point that out because you're not the only one that's raised that concern over the 12 years I've served in the council and I can see how it seems unfair. But I just wanted to point out that the alternative method of calculation could actually be much more unfair for the single family homeowner. I don't know if that brings you any, it probably doesn't satisfy you much at all, but it is the truth. So I just wanted to point out the mathematics there. Council Member Contreras.

You know I was and continued to be concerned but I tried to sweat through the numbers with with our staff and with city manager and there was no other structure that I think would be permissible. And it's funny because Mayor, I had a similar conversation about usage and metering. And I do understand that this could be extraordinarily unfair to folks who are in a single family that might be living by themselves. One of the things that we have to reconcile with is the fact that we haven't had any increases, yet the cost to maintain our sewer system continues to go up. So it's very difficult. I was hoping to find some creative avenue to mitigate the type of increase that we're seeing, and I just haven't been able to find that. The closest thing I could do was advocate and get that $25,000 additional contribution to the Lifeline rebate program, understanding that some folks might run into an issue where they really cannot afford this. So, It's really unfortunate. I hate when we have to increase. I hate when we're... there's no money anywhere else to keep this system going. And there's a lot of different reasons why there wasn't an increase for so many years. But when that happens, we have to reconcile with the fact that this system is critically important to everybody and that it needs to be maintained before there are severe issues. And you know, it's a difficult time right now for a lot of people and it continues to get more and more difficult. And so one of the things that I have made very vocal here at the council is I want to keep my eye on the lifeline rebate. How many folks are inquiring and needing help? How can we, you know, if we see an increase in folks seeking help to be able to pay this bill, we need to be able to address that as a council. So I am sorry that this rate structure might seem unfair to those who are alone. In my district, our single family homes tend to have a lot of folks in them. So there's also that set of facts. And it's just a difficult thing to do. Again, like I said, I'm not happy about it. I wanna maintain, be vigilant, but I know that there's just no way around it at this time. So I'll go ahead and I'll second the motion. Not in an enthusiastic way, but in a way where this is the reality of the situation that's before us. Thank you so much for all the information. Thank you for trying to work with me to figure out other creative ways where we wouldn't see this type of cost increase. And looking at all the information, this is gonna be the best path forward for us at this time. Thank you.

Council, Deputy Mayor O'Donnell.

If you listened to the last meeting, I think all of us shared our displeasure with the idea of a rate increase at 4% or whatever number. I think it's actually come down from the original discussion that we had had. I think it was somewhere around 5.5% during the original discussion. I understand your frustration because I am in a home with two young children, my wife, and I can tell you because I have a water monitoring system on my home that I use 83% on average less than my expected water usage every single week. So I'm impacted by it just as much as everybody else, even though I have a household of four. But I think what kind of gets lost in the discussion, so I sit on the Encina Wastewater Board for the city, and there are millions and millions and millions of dollars going into infrastructure projects that keep toilets flushing, that keep our sewer systems clean, that continue to build out our, I mean, we have some of the best sewers in all of California. And it takes a lot to maintain, keep them clean, and a lot of other things. I know where the money goes because I sit on those boards. I sit on our capital improvements committee with them. So it gives me a purview into other areas. But it doesn't mean the frustration is any less for me. And I don't like the idea that we're raising rates at 4%, but we also kept them very low for the last three years as well. So I appreciate both of your comments. I don't disagree with them. But I also understand the need on this side to make the increase. So I just wanted to share that with you. But I definitely feel what you're saying. And again, I don't disagree. But unfortunately, until we find a better method of divvying out how we would create these fees for different households, this is kind of what we're stuck with.

We also have Jose Fregoso that wanted to be heard on this.

GOOD EVENING MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL, AND STAFF. I THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE AN OPEN HEARING JUST FOR SURE. I DIDN'T EXPECT IT WAS GOING TO BE A REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING BUT THAT'S OKAY. You know, I kind of feel for the two folks that just kind of spoke on that. I understand their frustration. You know, I work for the San Diego County Water Authority, and I retired from there, and I understand about the water rates and all that. But I'm kind of here because I know, I've been in residence before, In Vista, I left Vista in 2003 and left to Hidden Meadows in Escondido for 15 years, and now I'm back. But before in 2003, I remember getting a lot of the documentation, how they were going to measure your water meter. And I kind of laughed, so I don't know exactly how... what happened, how did they implement it, the cost of the dueling. And so I've been back in Vista now for at least nine years, live here in Alta Vista. But I feel the same way. I feel the same way for certain parents because I only have two people in my house as a single. My son's building a house right next to me and it's just going to be two people too. And I understand how some people feel that way, that the rate is not fair. And I'm not complaining about the fees for the department because I get to see them and they do an awesome job. They come and they clean our lines yearly, once a year, and they do a fantastic job. What I want to see, I want to be able to see a fair rate you know, process to be done. And then I'm here speaking to the city council, you know, so we can get a little bit more involved. I know that the city of Vista is going to be growing into, you know, the apartments, you know, commercial, you know, a lot of these other units are going to impact our big pipeline of the sewers because those pipes are not going to grow by itself. you know, as we're dumping more, you know, we feel the other people like myself on the dueling, the family dueling process that we are actually paying for that increase. It's going to get to a point where these pipelines are going to have to be replaced or enlarged. And we want to make sure that the city council is, it's, the store on this money. I mean, are we putting money aside to enlarge these pipes? Because they're not going to get bigger by itself. You know, I want to make sure as we authorize projects that, you know, that we're not impacting and we're having to have to pay for all that. You know, we'll pay our share. I have no doubt that I'm willing to pay our share, but I...

Right. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I just point out too that most of the cost of upsizing our system, increasing capacity, actually comes from when people build new housing units. They pay impact fees and generally are required. It's one of the most difficult parts of our planning process, because it's probably the largest, let's say it's the largest impact fee that we place. We require developers to build large sections of increased sewer infrastructure, and it's extremely expensive, in the tens of millions of dollars. So typically, NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT DOES FUND THE GROWTH IN CAPACITY. AND ALSO, I JUST MAKE ANOTHER OBSERVATION, WE OWN 43% OF ENCINA, RIGHT? BETWEEN OUR TWO AGENCIES, I THINK THAT'S THE NUMBER.

32.

32% BETWEEN OUR TWO AGENCIES. So we own about a third of the sewage treatment plant and the waste is moved by gravity mostly, by electric pump for portions of it. And then when it gets to the waste treatment facility, we have to use electricity to basically cook it into a solid And the EPA in the last several years, not this current administration, has put a mandate on us to cease our conversion of methane gas. The effluence produces methane gas, and we were using that to do what's called co-generate. And recent regulations have decided, am I right, Ken? We're actually going to flare a lot of that methane that we were using for generation on site. Isn't that right?

That is correct.

It defies all imagination. So the effluents creates methane gas. We were converting that methane gas to electricity to create the electricity to dry the effluent. It was solid. And now instead of using the methane gas that naturally occurs, which is brilliant, right? I mean, you don't let that escape. Now we're going to light it on fire. And the EPA is telling us that that's better. I can't possibly imagine how that that's better for the environment. It's certainly gonna cost us a lot more money. We have to purchase supplies of electric energy you know, from the grid instead of producing it on site. It's extremely maddening and frustrating. And that's one of the other costs that we're now passing along to the rate payer. So, you know, the policies that we're making at a macro level in Washington, D.C. sometimes are increasing our costs. So that one is particularly frustrating to me because it doesn't make any sense. With that, we definitely, none of us here are happy about having to raise rates. This doesn't find responsibility with the individual sitting in front of us, but we allowed too long to go by before doing this study. So what is the date of the next rate study?

We will be engaging that rate study in approximately two years. We'll be back in on the third year to evaluate it. We have a fairly large capital improvement program coming up. There'll be numerous projects coming for the council over the next year. The hope is we have some very large magnitude projects in year three of that plan. The hope is to streamline and fine tune those projects to reduce those projected costs.

Yeah, because we waited so long, we didn't have a cost increase for sewage for a long time in Vista. We didn't raise rates. And now after having waited too long to reanalyze what our actual costs are, Now we have a rate increase that seems like it's really large, but the reason it's really large is because we've had all these increase the costs and we didn't act in a timely way to increase rates, which is a benefit to the homeowner and the rate payer because they weren't paying the increased costs. The city's general fund was picking these things up. However, we were funding them through reserves more accurately, probably, right?

reserves in the in the sewage system, but ultimately Inflation has come knocking and we have to right size these these fees a deputy mayor Just for clarification just so we can so right now Encina is going through a project that would put in linear generators in Which they can utilize multiple different fuel sources would all of it be burnt off or is some of that going to go into linear generators to actually fuel the plant and and cut some of that cost from electricity and

Yes, the future project will be using the additional methane gas coming off the digesters to generate electricity on the linear generators. And then in a future projected plan is to basically pump that additional energy back into the grid. To the mayor's point, as far as wasting the methane gas, the Encino Wastewater Authority currently produces 80% of the energy on site. Even though they have the capacity with the cogeneration system to produce 100%, they're not allowed because of the pollution control district requirements.

What's our percentage of demand that we're going to generate after we're required to make this current change? We're going to go from 80% to what percent? We're going to be at 100% again.

We'll be at 100% with the new project. It's a co-generation linear emission augmentation retrofit.

Which doesn't help us right now, but in the long term saves us money as far as energy efficiency and costs that will not get passed back on to the consumers.

That is correct. The power off the grid that's purchased by Encina right now, if we weren't able to do the project with the new emission requirements, there's a projection of about $5 million in addition for energy fees. So this project is about a $30 million project. About $14 million is going to be funded through grants. And so the return on investment to the rate payer is very massive.

That's good. OK. Well, thank you, everyone, who came to participate in the process. With that, we have a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. And as Council Member Contreras pointed out, we did increase the amount of funding that's available through North County Lifeline. So if there are any seniors in our community that cannot afford their utility bills, we encourage them to reach out to North County Lifeline and seek relief for utility bills there through monies that have been appropriated by this council. Okay, thank you everyone. That will bring us to our, and that motion is adopted unanimously. That'll bring us to our second public hearing regarding the levy of assessments for fiscal year 2026, 2027. The public hearing is now open. If any members of the public wish to speak on this item, then we indicate so by using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine. We're submitting a request to speak. Card speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Our finance director, Mike Sylvia, will introduce the item with a presentation expected to be shorter than the duration of the last public hearing.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. This is an annually recurring item. It requires two steps to complete. The first step was completed in April. On April 14th, Council authorized the preparation and approval of the annual engineer's reports for Landscape and Lighting District No. 1, Street Maintenance District No. 1, and the South Melrose Landscape Maintenance District. Including in those was the rates of assessments, which are unchanged from prior years, and ordered tonight's public hearing. The recommended assessment rates in all districts are at pre-Proposition 218 maximums, again, unchanged from prior years, and the required noticing for this public hearing was provided via the city website as well as newspaper publication. Staff's recommendation is to conduct and close the public hearing and approve The three council resolutions associated with this item, which will authorize the assessments to be included on the fiscal year 26-27 secured property tax bills. With that, staff's available for questions.

And there is no increase in the amount being levied, just a continued levy, a continuance of levy?

The rates, the aggregate amount may vary a bit just because of parcel identifiers consistent with the assessment formula, but the rates themselves are unchanged.

Very good, Deputy Mayor.

Move to close the public hearing and accept staff recommendations.

Council Member Contreras.

I just have a question. So does this mean that we're going to decrease the service or are we maintaining the service? Because that was part of like the crux of the issue.

So I would say the service level is probably fairly consistent. To your point, council member, the subsidy is a bit larger. It's about $40,000 larger this year than it was last year. It's about 7.8% higher.

So in order to maintain just a consistent level of service, more and more will be coming out of the general fund?

At least for fiscal year 26-27, that's correct.

Okay, and then moving past that?

At this point, we haven't done that analysis. We will provide that to Council as we do every year at the outset of each operating budget's biennial season, probably in January of 2027 when we have better estimates.

Okay, because part of the discussion, too, is the fact that in our medians, Some of the landscaping is fairly old and takes a lot of water and we had a segment that we did with drought tolerant landscaping and if I'm not mistaken, it was 35% less to maintain that median than the other medians that hadn't been retrofitted. So are we anticipating that we're going to continue to have a conversation? Because I know one of the things I brought up is one, I don't want to, reduce maintenance on our trees. I'm really afraid of some of the trees in the median not getting the type of attention that they need. We've seen it in other cities. I think we even saw one of our trees go down here. So when are we gonna have that discussion? I know we had a discussion. I don't feel that we're done with that discussion.

So we're not, we are continuing to evaluate our medians for those opportunities as they come up, but it would take a significant capital cost to make those changes and implement drought tolerant landscaping in all of our medians, so it would just require council direction on how we're gonna go about finding that revenue.

Yeah, I really do think that it's important and that we should be looking at identifying the low hanging fruit medians and kind of have a priority. We've really gone through a lot of exercises in prioritization when it comes to capital projects and I'm really happy that the council usually tends to have consensus on prioritization but I would rather have these discussions sooner than later And I really don't, I haven't closed the book. I feel like it's not closed on this discussion. I still think there's a lot of different aspects of it that need to be discussed, especially because there's other parts of the district that have less beautiful plants in the median. And those folks are needing, are, you know, through the general fund are subsidizing other areas in the city that get to have you know, different landscaping in their median. So I think overall there's an equity issue and I definitely see that, you know, in my district where I would love to see better maintenance of our median, some underperforming sad trees that have looked the same height for decades. that I think need to be replaced because there's no amount of water or treatment that's gonna help them grow to their capacity. And I just don't think it's fair. So I am 100% committed to not closing this discussion on how we're going to have equity in our medians throughout the city and ensure that folks aren't subsidizing other areas of the city that have decided that they don't want to pay more for a myriad of reasons, for additional maintenance or to upkeep the maintenance. And I mean, it was just an astounding no across the board that we didn't want, that folks didn't want that. And I totally understand that, but I don't like that we're continuing to dip into our general fund to maintain this 7.8%. Now in the future, it's gonna be higher and it's gonna continue to be higher. And I'd rather use that funding to do some overhauls and to fund other things in the city than to continue promoting inequity in our medians. Thank you, that's where I stand on it.

You know, it's a very valid point that you're making. I agree with you completely. No one area of the city should subsidize another area of the city. It's a difficult problem. I know our finance department did the best job that they could in communicating with the residents in the South Vista Lighting and Landscaping District about the need for additional resources. What I would suggest, instead of lowering the standard of service anywhere in the city, I would suggest that we analyze what that subsidy is, And I think the South Melrose District aligns fairly closely with District 4, if I'm not mistaken. Isn't that right? Is there a little bit of overlap with District 3? Not much, maybe a little?

I actually think the South Melrose District is a little smaller than District 4. Is it? I'm not positive, though.

You know, I would think one proposal that might create the equity that you seek is if we could identify what that subsidy is and then direct the beautification consistent with the council's values for environmental protection. Maybe we could seek to dedicate, I mean, one of our goals as a council is a more beautiful Vista. So rather than try and reduce landscaping and beautification in one area to eliminate a subsidy, maybe we should make it a priority to find an equal subsidy and find a mathematical formula that's fair to the residents in the rest of the city to provide a subsidy of the exact same amount and intentionally, and maybe council members could direct some beautification projects within their districts that would specifically work to make those areas of the city more beautiful, create more equity and increase property values and wellness and, you know in the in the other areas that are because i you're you're right uh you make a very good point and uh but i i know that council member o'donnell uh doesn't want to see uh south fist to reduce you know the the landscaping and beautification it is sort of um You know, the people that have purchased homes there would, myself included, would probably be very sad to see a reduction in tree cover and other living things. But you're absolutely right. You know, the rest of the city should provide no subsidy for that. So I think there might be a way that we could figure that out. Can I just provide a comment about that? Sure, sure.

Mayor, I really appreciate you bringing this up because I do think that that's a discussion that we should have as a council. I would love to see that agendized. And also, my idea of reducing the level of service is reducing the type of plants that maybe aren't as beautiful as California native plants are that would use a lot less water, right? And potentially there's also the ability, you know I love talking about the public right of way and how we can enhance it, make it beautiful. I have several parkettes happening in my district. So I'm all about it and I look forward to having this discussion with this entire council in the future. I really appreciate your support on it, thank you.

As long as it makes flowers and color, then I'm for it. And then I think we have to take very carefully what Mr. Conley said about how many years of payback would it take for the capital improvement if we were to tear out one type of planting, how many years would it take to recover the cost in the savings I think we want to consider that. I don't know what the name of our bushes are that are in the median. They make these beautiful pink flowers on Shadow Ridge Drive, and I certainly enjoy those. I'll just say on behalf of the District 4 residents, we'd like to keep our little pink flowers if we could. So, Council Member Melendez.

Yes, I want to just share my support for your comments, Council Member Contreras, and I do support the voters who made a determination about how much they're willing to pay, but if one group of people wouldn't be satisfied with the level of service right down the street, yet they want their median to look a certain way, I think that there's a big disconnect. And so we can see it with our own eyes. When I go down Melrose, the further south I go, the greater the improvements look. And that's a reflection of our city government. It shows the public that we care more about some areas than others. So it's very important that we're having these conversations because it is an equity issue. And when you get down to the brass tacks of it, there are areas and taxpayers that are subsidizing other areas. And I don't know if those residents that are being subsidized would ever want to admit that they are, you know, receiving a handout to have those beautiful flowers. So I think it's really important to invest in all areas of the city equally. You know, beautification is not just important for, you know, of course, environmental purposes, having local birds and bees, having access to flowers, for example, which is very, very important. I wouldn't want to rip out any plants that currently exist because we already have so much hardscaping happening where we're running out of plants, right? We're seeing more concrete being poured, more asphalt being poured. It's just not a good situation. We need to have... safe and familiar environment for our you know little critter friends but at the same time beautification is really important for the human mind and mayor I appreciate you bringing up and hearkening us back to our city goals right that it is a city goal to beautify the city of Vista And let's just be honest, right? Some areas look more beautiful than others, and rather than just say, oh, that's just how that neighborhood is, I think we have to take some honest responsibility for ourself as a governing group to how we're gonna fix the problem that is in front of us, not point fingers and say, oh, it's your problem. it's because of this past council or you know, it's our problem now. So I would love to hear from city staff what the economic impact of that would be, how we could deliver that in a timely fashion, and you know, how we can maybe even pilot a style of of land stewardship that involves more native plants than just like ornamental products. So I definitely support this conversation and yeah, I think folks that are in this, was it this South Melrose Landscape Maintenance District that are really benefiting from, you know, the lift that the entire city is providing for them. I hope that they appreciate it, right, and that they can come out and support beautification throughout the entire city.

Deputy Mayor O'Donnell.

So first, I appreciate the comments. I would actually be in full support of having that discussion. I don't disagree that there's an equity issue that exists within the city when it comes to landscaping. I do want to get clarification because I understand the comments from Council Member Melendez and don't disagree with them, but when we built out South Melrose, those were planned communities. Did the city build that out or was that part of the agreement when construction and development went in for the medians and all the other landscaping areas?

It was really a combination of both. There were some areas that were built by development. The city did a number of capital improvements in that area. It was just all more recent than the north part of the city. So these standards were newer and more improved.

And so I agree. I do think it's a reflection upon the government. But I also, I don't want to completely throw out that it's past councils because it was done under past councils. And so it's challenging for us to play catch up now only because we have so many things that we've done that we want to continue to do to beautify this city. And I don't want to say it's not a priority, but it just doesn't rank as high as some of the other things that we want to do. But I would be super and just very open to discussion, even involving other agencies like Sierra Club or whoever might be able to work with us to get native plants to beautify areas. I was very disappointed in the vote, but I understood it when the assessment failed. but I drive past the pink flowers every time they're in bloom. They're right on the way to my home. So I assure you, I don't want them to be going anywhere either, but we do need to have a greater conversation about that because I do think that other areas of the city have been neglected and they need to have those same resources and beautification projects done. So I just wanted to say that I support it and look forward to that discussion in the future to see what we can do.

Council Member Fox. I just wanted to check if we had a second on that motion. I'd like to second the Deputy Mayor's motion.

Very good, thank you. Do you recall what the subsidy is for the South Melrose Lighting Landscape District in broad ballpark terms?

There isn't a subsidy for the South Melrose Maintenance District.

Okay.

And there isn't one for the Street Maintenance District either. The only general fund subsidy is for the landscape and lighting, number one.

Okay, so does that mean that we've reduced the services that we're providing to the $122,000 of revenue that we're generating?

Essentially, yes.

Okay, that's actually quite important what you've just said because you've sort of knocked down the idea that there's a subsidy for South Vista. Am I telling it incorrectly here?

I think it's fair to say there's been no element that has escalated and paralleled inflation.

Okay. Well, I didn't understand at all what you just said, but let me say this. Just so we all understand, just the people that are watching at home, all 12 of them, understand what we're talking about. The South Melrose Lighting, it's not lighting, the South Melrose Landscape Maintenance District, this is the median of the roadway only.

It's actually areas of street trees.

There's massive slopes throughout the business park that are also landscaped and covered under this district, so it's not just the medians.

Okay, not just the medians. But I will tell you, correct me if I'm wrong, again, but most of Shadow Ridge Drive, for instance, the sides of the street are cared for by the Homeowners Association. That's correct. Yeah. Most of the, this would be a misconception to think that the city is caring for the vast majority of the landscaping in South Vista, because it just generally wouldn't be the case. The stuff that's in the median, and as was pointed out, some of the landscaping in the business park, which I don't want to reduce landscaping in the business park, but I don't live in the business park and it wouldn't aggrieve me as terribly. I want to see the landscaping kept up everywhere and beautified everywhere. But let's definitely bring this back. But I appreciate you helping me set the record straight there. The subsidy is for the lighting and landscaping and the lighting and landscaping district number one is a citywide benefit. So that's not one geography of the city that's receiving a subsidy. That is quite an important point here. So I want to just underscore that. Council Member Contreras.

Yeah, I think we... So... It's, I think once we have this discussion fully, we can really zoom in onto where the subsidy is because there's definitely a geographic component to the subsidy. I mean, we all understand that there is complexity in this landscaping district But there is definitely a disproportional amount in other areas where we don't have the same beautification and everybody's paying for it, but they don't have it. So I look forward to that conversation. I think it would be really good. And the last point is one of the last council meetings where I talked about you know, can we take a look at our right of way for some native milkweed for monarchs and stuff like that and our struggling pollinators and I think there's a potential there in some conversations that I've had to even get some help from other agencies. So I really look forward, I think this is gonna be a really great conversation once it comes back to the council and we can really zoom in on on a map and look at some of these areas and plan a little bit better and more cohesive beautification throughout the city. So thanks, I really appreciate having this type of discussion.

Very good, we have a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. That item is approved unanimously to bring us to item PH3, our third public hearing regarding fees and policies and procedures for recreation and community service. The public hearing is now open. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item, they may indicate so by using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine or submitting a request to speak. Card speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Our Recreation and Community Services Director, Margaret Hamer, will introduce the item.

Good evening, Mayor Franklin and Deputy Mayor O'Donnell and City Council. We're here this evening to discuss the recreation and community service fees, policies and procedures, and our updates. And I'll turn this over to our management analyst, Sydney Ruff.

Thank you for that introduction. And as stated, we are here to provide annual updates. It's part of the department's a proactive approach to ensure that we are fiscally responsible, operationally efficient, aligned with current industry standards, as well as the community needs. So with that, One of the first proposed suggestions is to have standardized groups A through D prioritizing residents for facility rental categories. I'll expand a little bit on the minor discrepancies we discovered later on, but current groups are listed on the left and the proposed groups on the right. Group A represents the most affordable rental rate, while Group D represents the highest rental rate. And the big difference here is that Group A and Group D are very similar, but Groups B and C would be switched to essentially prioritize residents. So residents would have the most affordable rate, Group A, Group B, and then non-residents would be for group C and group D with, of course, nonprofits getting the best deal of their tier. Moving forward, we do wanna note that we've come up with an approximate 4% increase for the majority of fees for the recreation community services, facility rentals and programs. Notably, many of the rates have been the same for a long time. One example of this is that Recreation Rancho Buena Vista Adobe and Gloria McClellan Senior Center facilities and programs have remained the same since January of 2024. I do want to point out that since 2024, CPI has risen 7% per the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. And in the proposed fees, everything would take effect January 1st, 2027 to give the community time to adjust and prepare unless otherwise specifically stated. Regarding athletic fields, our softball and football slash soccer fields have remained at the same rate since January 1st, 2012. So the proposed increases are about $1 for the majority of them as that's what 4% typically comes out to. Continuing with that, the tennis, pickleball, basketball courts have also been the same since January 2024. and would receive $1 increases. Raintree Park Sports Arena has been the same since January 1st of 2016. And we can see that's an approximate $1 to $3 increase. At the Vista Sports Park, the concession building rates have remained the same since 2012. Tournament rates have remained the same since 2014. And cross-country race rates have remained the same since 2024. And again, the proposed changes would take effect January 1 of 2027. And then the field lights have remained the same at $17 per hour since July of 2009 and it is proposed to have a $1 per hour increase. Neighboring cities including Carlsbad and Oceanside currently charge $20 per hour. Upon doing some analysis of the expenses for the sports lighting system versus the revenue generated from light fees, there is a discrepancy and expenses do exceed revenue. For cultural arts facilities, currently the Avvo Playhouse offers a five-hour rental block option and a 10-hour rental block option. To mirror that, staff are proposing that the Moonlight Amphitheater also have a five-hour rental block option. Upon our analysis, we did see that the current cultural arts facilities only have three categories, groups A, B, and C. So to create some standardization within the department, a group D was added. And so if you consider that the full rental rate, then group C would be 30% less group D Group B would be 50% less Group D and Group A would be 63% less Group D. So that's how we were able to make that modification. For the 2027 Moonlight Summer Season, staff recommend a 10% increase to all adult tickets. So that would be the orchestra adult, reserved adult, et cetera. That would put the highest ticket at $78 for the 2027 summer season, whereas currently it's at $71. This 10% increase is based upon future projections. The cultural arts budget operates on a $200,000 general fund subsidy cap and to ensure that is met in the future, the 10% increase is recommended, especially given that the summer season will cross two fiscal years. There will be two shows in fiscal year 27, three shows in fiscal year 28. While fiscal year 27 has already been, that budget has already been adopted, we're looking at fiscal year 28 and making preparations already. Currently, the reserved lawn fees are slightly less than the reserved section. The primary difference between those is the style of seating. So in the reserved lawn, it's a soft lawn chair, whereas in the reserved section, It's one of the hard plastic stadium seats. However, they still have the exact same viewing from the stage. And so staff recommend that the reserved lawn fees match the reserved section. to provide equitability because ultimately we can go back and forth on the pros and cons of each style of seating and people are gonna have their preferences one way or the other, but ultimately the view from this stage is what staff would prefer the fees to be based upon. And then these fees would take effect when the 2027 summer season tickets go on sale, which is typically in the fall, so September or October.

You're talking about the patch of lawn at the top of the bowl, right? Not the actual lawn seats above the concession?

Not the general lawn seating, sorry. Thank you for allowing me to clarify that. I appreciate that. Right behind the orchestra, there are alternating styles of seats, the hardback versus synthetic turf. That's what the reserve lawn is, thank you.

I just wanted to clarify that, thank you.

And then for the wave water park, they would also receive an approximate 4% increase. This is actually consistent with prior year increases. And for general admission, we can see this results in about a $1 to a $3 increase. So very modest and palatable. It is consistent with increases in prior years to provide smooth increases as opposed to large spikes. And continuing for department-wide consistency, 4% increase to select programs.

I have a question for you. Sorry to interrupt your train of thought. Both with regard to the wave and Moonlight, can you speak to, I know you probably read the concern that we received from Rachel Beld, and I know you just spoke to it, but can you speak to, I mean, ultimately, while we want to maintain access for everybody as affordable, Ultimately, we want to provide the long-term fiscal durability. Is that the right word for the moonlight? We want it to be able to operate in perpetuity. It's a great cultural gem for us. And one of the ways we do that is by operating without a significant subsidy or trying to reduce the subsidy to zero. So, ultimately, what we need to do is have the business mindset that we want to, you know, we don't need to collect a dollar more. We're not trying to make a profit. But we want to collect as close to 100% of the operating cost as we possibly can. so that the people who are enjoying it are paying for the show. Could you just speak to the flexibility in pricing? Because I know we do have some flexibility in pricing. Obviously, when you're running a business, some people in some methods of acquiring tickets are going to pay more than others. Can you just speak to the flexibility in pricing? I mean, we used to sell a lot of wave tickets. I don't know if we still do on Groupon, for instance, and it was a better price. I just want to check in right now and make sure that obviously we want to sell all the tickets. We want to drive the maximum amount of revenue from having the most number of people in seats possible. Is my question as clear as mud? Am I making sense?

I'll try my best. Yeah. To start off with these proposed increases, if you look at the most affordable seat versus the highest ticket price, we're looking at a difference of $19 to $78. So there's a great range. 19 being general on. That is correct. And that is on purpose. We want a significant range to make sure that it is still affordable and still less than $20 to go see a Broadway-style musical at the Moonlight Amphitheater in the summer with your family, right? So there's that aspect. And then as far as maintaining fiscal responsibility, The orchestra seats are almost entirely sold out every night. And so the 10% increase, we don't anticipate having a huge drop in attendance given that we have such dedicated patrons for whom the Moonlight Amphitheater is quite beloved.

I think you answered my question right there. We want to be 100% sold out. We are subsidizing, so we're not recovering 100% of the cost, but we want to sell as many seats as possible, and we don't want any vacancies. So I think you put your finger on it right there.

Thank you.

It's important. Thank you.

And yes, we will not be turning a profit with this.

Right. May I ask in the same vein of questioning about the moonlight, do we perform an audit on expenditures from the moonlight every year? Like, do we know where all the money goes? Like, is it going to performances? Is it going, like, do we have that information?

Yes, 45% of the budget is for salaries and benefits. That would be the biggest chunk. That is going to be true for pretty much any division within the Recreation Community Services Department.

Awesome. And forgive me if we have, and if I've seen it before, but is it possible for me to get a peek at that at your leisure? Could you email it to me at your leisure?

Yes.

Thank you.

Any other questions before we move on? Thank you very much for letting me interrupt you. Oh, Council Member Fox has a question.

Yeah, it's in the same vein of questions, so I might as well do it now. Do the reserve lawn seats sell out or at the same rate as the orchestra seats do?

They sell probably slightly less, but still are very popular. I think our our operations manager could probably speak to exact percentages better than me, but they do sell out, or they do have a very high selling percentage. If you were to look online for trying to buy single tickets for the upcoming show Mean Girls, it's kind of tough.

Yeah, because I think my question, the reason for that question is that You know, that one's about a 30%, almost a 30% increase year over year, which is a sticker shock to a lot of people. And so I think that's why, where that concern is, is not necessarily that the price itself, but the change in price year over year. If we're trying to even things out, having an average of 10% increase all across the board, except for a 30% on a specific single seating arrangement that is not necessarily the most popular, maybe second most popular. Economically, if one's selling out consistently, I'd recommend kind of raising that one more than the ones that don't sell out. You know, that way you can kind of keep parity across the popularity and not have people that want orchestra seats that can't get them because there's an over, too much demand for them, not enough supply. And then ones that have enough or more supply than demand, you want to kind of even those out a little bit. So the other question I had on this was, is there any, like the Wave, we have a resident rate? Is that something that we've ever talked about doing for the Moonlight itself, since we do subsidize that with city resident taxpayer money, that if they're subsidizing it already through their taxes, that they might be able to get a better rate than people from other areas? Is that something we've discussed at all?

I'm not aware of that. Maybe in many years past, so I hesitate to affirm no.

Okay, I mean, that's something I'd be interested in. I'm not sure if the rest of my council would be, but the idea that if the city of Vista, our tax revenue, our general fund is subsidizing something, then they're already paying extra via taxes, via sales tax, and a lot of those are property taxes. And the same reason that we would subsidize or have a lower price for residents for the wave, it would make sense to do something for the moonlight as well, but that's just a, you know, I'll bring that up now, we can talk about it probably when it's, when the presentation's over, but those are my two comments so far, is just that, you know, again, a 30% year over year on one specific thing getting targeted out is, that's a pretty big jump, and so I could see why residents would react the way that they did, so.

All right, continuing to wave water park programs, they also would receive an approximate 4% increase. This does, for the less expensive programs and events, look to be about a dollar. It does end up being a couple dollars for the more expensive programs. This is, of course, excluding lap swimming because that was a recently instituted program, so we will leave it alone. Before moving on to the policies and procedures, can we address any other questions or concerns about the facility rental programs and fees?

Yeah. My question goes to the cultural arts facilities. I don't see that, it just talks about Moonlight Amphitheater. Is the Avvo part of this as well?

The Avvo Playhouse is part of the facility rental programs and fees. There is a recommended, well, because we went for my group A to C to a group A to D structure. We kind of had to reconfigure the entire thing. So there are changes in pricing for the Avvo Playhouse as far as the non-performance day daily rate, the performance day daily rate, and then of course, overtime hourly rates. but it would follow the exact same fee structure where group D is the most expensive or the full rental rate with the discounts appropriately for groups A, B and C. And then additionally, there were some other minor changes, for instance, adding a marquee customization, one time $50 fee for those who are interested.

Okay, but that's not, we don't have that in this packet, right? It's just in the...

It's as part of one of the exhibits to the agenda report.

Right. And so one of the things that for me, because we're still, the lowest block is still five hours. That is correct. This is, it's much better than 10. I'll tell you that. I'm seeing a lot more use of the OVO. I still have a real issue with five hours being the minimum, and I really want to get us to three hours. What are we doing to get to three hours?

I would have to review the MOU with IATSE, the local union, because I do believe there stipulates minimum requirements in hours. I want to say that's around at least about four hours or close to it. So operationally, we have to find something that's feasible. So we could go down one more hour. I don't want to promise because I haven't quite gone through it operationally. That's fine.

I don't want to put you in, like, a super hot seat, okay, and get you in trouble or anything. But this is something that I have brought up every single year for years. I'm glad we're at five hours and not ten hours. I'm seeing more use of the avo. I want to get to three hours. Like, Brooks Theater has a three-hour. I don't think that IOTC is – I don't think they're super inflexible to this type of thing. I feel like there is something that we could do to bring it down from a five hour block to try and get to that goal of three hour. And I want to have a joint conversation between the city and IATSE. In the past, I've spoken to the president of IATSE. I said, hey, I'm trying to do this with the AWO. Is there some kind of apprenticeship program that we can get started? Can we weave that into this minimum hour structure? I think there's a lot of opportunity there. Maybe I'm wrong because maybe the conversations I'm having are totally different than the conversations that the city is having, but I wanna find the discrepancy between these two conversations because I do think that there's a middle ground And the less it costs for our residents to put on really cool shows in the Avvo, the more economic opportunity and benefit we're gonna see, not just for the downtown, but for the entire city. And I wanna get to that goal of reducing the amount of time that you need to rent. Because some of these performances might require a 10-hour block, some of them, They probably could use like a one hour, but we're probably not gonna go to one hour, right? And so can we have this as a discussion this year with the North Star being getting to a three hour block? for rental. And I don't have to do that for the Moonlight, but I need to do that for the Avil, because this is an underperforming asset that the city has that should be an economic engine for the entire downtown, because my businesses down there cannot make it on two nights a week, right? I want to make sure that we're stimulating the downtown. We have a beautiful downtown plan. It looks great. There's a lot of capital improvements that we want to do. And I think it all kind of fits into each other. But if I can't get this block to go from five to lower, I think we're missing a lot of events. And every year that goes by where we're missing probably five to 10 events for the downtown that would be programmed outside of what the city does is a huge loss. So I just want to make it very clear. I want to have this conversation and I want to get to a three hour block. That's the only thing that I have a question about at this time. Thank you so much.

Do anybody else have questions before we move along?

No? Okay. Next up are recommendations to the policies and procedures. While there were a lot of housekeeping items, we wanted to highlight some of the more major suggestions. The first would be our Section 12, which is cancellations and refunds. It's currently several pages of text paragraphs, which is not necessarily the easiest for the customer or for staff. So we've recommended converting that to a table for our ease and for our customers as well. And then it also gave us the opportunity to really see areas where we could shore up and have standardization across our programs. And so this is one of the tables that's proposed for the policies and procedures. A lot simpler. And then it's also recommended that three new sections be added to the policies and procedures that include sports field philosophy, the recreational youth sports organizations, as well as their responsibilities and code of conduct. Historically, this hasn't been as part of the policies and procedures. However, upon reviewing current practices by other cities, this is included in their policies and procedures and is adopted by Council, which is why it is before you. And of course, for the recreational use sports... What is the philosophy? Well, it includes the fact that recreation's a vital part of the community and that the, forgive me one moment, I'm gonna reference it really quickly. Essentially, our recreational services do improve the quality of life for citizens, and that cooperation with other organizations to assist in providing to meet community needs is desirable and it's valuable, and by virtue of their intrinsic value to the community, We would have organizations that are considered city sponsored or a city recognized status which enables field use and prioritization of field use for youth leagues. And so it would outline what the eligibility requirements are for youth leagues that are recreational versus competitive and they would be given field allocation priority over other groups as well.

So does that mean that Little League gets it first before like an adult league, is that? Okay.

That is correct.

Is that the primary intent in adding that?

Yes, and this is what's currently done. It's just not memorialized in our current policies and procedures.

Very well.

And with that, can we address any other questions or concerns?

Very good, we have many agenda items left tonight. So hopefully few questions, but let's go down the list here. Council Member Contreras.

Yeah, you know what? Most of my questions have been answered. I'm just always curious as a data point too, you know, maybe this could be sent over, but just for every single one of our programs, I'm just curious what the number is, right? And so I know that we just added the open gym and like open swim. Really curious to see how those are going, how they're performing. And I think that when we review our recreation and community services policies and procedures and updates for fees, it would be really good. I know that these like packets get super long, but it would be really awesome to have those data points in here just so that when we're increasing the fee to something, like it's just additional information for making good decisions. Right. And so, um, even like when we were talking about the moonlight specifically and seeing, um, cause I see in the weekly update all the time, I was like, Oh my gosh, like, the season passes for orchestra just like off the charts right and so being able to have some more of that information so we can look at the different seating arrangements because like for me it's like the general lawn I always want to keep that as accessible to the public as possible and so I do have a little bit of an issue with like I feel like If I took a family, it would be kind of expensive even to go to the lawn, right, to go see Mean Girls. So I want to see what we can do about that. But overall, thank you so much, and I look forward to seeing some more data in the future. Thanks.

Council Member Fox.

Perfect, yeah. So, of course, the two things that I brought up about the, you know, 30% jump or 27-point-something percent jump, as well as potential... resident rates for the moonlight and then the only other thing that that i had was more general was i think when i was reading the the you know what's what's been happened uh the the history of it i didn't see that it went to our art commission is that correct i mean sorry our parks and rec commission is that correct that this these fees the specific fees did not go to the parks and rec commission I would love it in the future if they could, because it would be really nice to get some feedback before it comes to us from, you know, the people that are, you know, kind of representing the community that we put them, you know, we bring them in to look at the stuff specifically to get community feedback before it comes to us. So some of those things like, you know, that like the resident rates or something that might come out of, you know, out of something like that. So. That's my only other comment on this, but thank you so much for all your work on this. Obviously, there's a lot of changes, which means that's a lot of work to do. So thank you very much.

Council Member Melendez.

Yes, thank you, Councilmember. I really like that suggestion. And, you know, unfortunately, we're in a position to increase fees again, and it is so painful. And I feel like we were just here a year ago doing this. Weren't we here a year ago increasing fees? And we do it every year. And I know everything goes up. But I think it needs to go up in the right way. I really appreciate giving clarity to the customer and improving the – people's understanding of how to access the services as well as how to get a refund. That's wonderful. I love seeing that there's a code of conduct being included on our sports rentals. For the moonlight, the tiered lawn, I don't think that that is the same as the hard back seats that are embedded in the amphitheater. I've sat in different seats throughout the moonlight and I believe from my experience and my perspective of the stage that the sight line is different. You are seated lower in a lawn chair than you are in a stadium seat. That alone is reason to have the lawn seats cost less than a stadium seat. In addition to that, you're on the lawn. It is absolutely... I see it as being a more accessible option to get closer to the stage than it is an opportunity for us to just sell more seats at the same price. Otherwise, let's put in more stadium seats. Let's find a way to increase seating in the moonlight overall. So I do have a problem with that. I would really love to see my council kind of reevaluate this part of the public hearing. I don't think I can move forward at this time knowing that the tiered lawn is the same as the stadium seats. What I do think is that it sounds like there is a high, high demand for orchestra seats. I think we can increase it beyond 10%. However, doing a 10% increase across the board, except what did you mention council member, a 27 increase for lesser desirable lawn seats. I just don't think it makes sense for the customer, especially when it's kind of being reflected in the discussion that I heard that those tiered lawn seats are sold less quickly than the stadium seats and the orchestra seats. So for those seats that are in high, high demand, the best business decision here is to increase the rates of those seats first. And the patrons of those orchestra seats do have access that allow them to pay a little bit more. They want to see the moonlight thrive. And I've said this for a couple of years now. I've called them out, right? Those season pass holders, those patrons of the moonlight that buy orchestra seats, I believe that you can afford to pay a little bit more. And so far, I've been well received in that. So I think I'm representative in saying that orchestra ticket purchasers can pay a little bit more. And so I'd love to hear what my council members have to say about that. But it's a matter of math as well. So maybe we need to reevaluate. What does it look like to maintain our subsidy ceiling, and keep general seating and lawn seating up top affordable, not treat tiered lawn seating as exactly the same as stadium seating, and then do a little bit of a push in those orchestra seats that are being sold out every single night. That would be my wish. The Wave Water Park, I'm just wondering if we're in a position to increase our rates continuing attendance challenges. So how are we doing in terms of attendance? This season has been kind of weird, right?

Well, we haven't had a very hot weather yet. I think that attendance to all aquatics and pools are usually driven by warm weather. It's been quite cloudy. If you were at the Strawberry Festival, it was even drizzling. People don't come out for that sort of weather. So we're hoping and anticipating for that to happen. We did have an unfortunate situation where the flow rider is beyond repair. And so that is a setback. The investment to actually fix it would really be too much when it was already scheduled to be completely repaired when we close in the future. So again, we're optimistic. And when it gets warm enough, we're hoping people come and We're doing the promotions, but absolutely we can't control the weather.

It's been tough. And I grew up here, and I've never seen weather like this. It reminds me of my grandma's house in Puerto Rico. And it's tropical, it's strange, it's climate change. And so I'm very concerned about our ability to continue to bring folks into the wave water park. It's an ongoing issue, but I know that you're doing your best. I completely support a three-hour window for the avo. I think that we could have, in my perfect world, we'd have a one-hour window where someone could rent it for a children's story hour or an acoustic set or a corporate speaking job. So I think that this is, it sounds like when we bring it up, I hear concerns from staff about the labor union. So this sounds like a labor management issue and it's simply a negotiation conversation, right? What would be best? Can we guarantee them more work? more weeks of the year by having more accessible entry costs for artists and vendors to access the Avvo, that would be my hope is that we can offer more work throughout the year for those skilled theater technicians by making the Avvo more accessible. Five hours is a long time and it's still a high cost. So let's definitely bring that conversation back. I think the biggest thing right now is that the fees that are being recommended for the Moonlight, I don't think they're quite the right fit. So that's my take. I'd love to hear from the rest of my council and see if there's any agreement on that. Thanks.

Could I mention something real quickly just to give some insight? The reason staff had recommended that is because they are on the same tier and what we have found will happen is we'll have maybe an older adult or somebody who doesn't have the same level of abilities having a hard time sinking into the chair and then they have to step up to pay for the other chair, and then we have to increase that price even though they're on the same tier. So we get complaints from customers as well. So that's what somewhat triggered that brainstorming of like, hey, it's the same tier level, let's take a look at this, especially when we have some customers who are unable to transition from one chair to the next. So that's a little bit where it came from.

I completely understand. And I've been part of a party that we purchased different types of seats, right? Some of us want to sit on the lawn and have a picnic. Some of us want to have like a proper seat and a nice structured back. I think that that's also a marketing conversation. How do we market the lawn seats and talk about them as an economic option and more of a picnic-friendly option? They're not as comfortable as stadium seats, and so the customer should be aware of that as well. So I think that there's different ways to have a conversation. without making a determination that they are the same sight line. I heard in the presentation that the main reason why we want to price them the same is because the viewing is the same, and I completely disagree. We might see that in the mapping, that they're the same distance from the stage, but you are seated lower in a lawn chair.

If we were to install seats in those sections, would we increase revenue?

The challenge is that they're the same level. So you can't put a seat in front of a seat. That's how it works. There's the regular chair and then it's a lower lawn chair. So they're on the same tier. So you could not put a actual hard seat in front of a hard seat. You'd be right in front of somebody. You'd have to change the grading and I'm sure that would be a high expense. Right now they're the same level.

Aren't there some areas of the reserve line that don't have hard plastic seats?

On the top of the hill, and that's all the same price?

No, that's the general line. The reserve line. Aren't there some parts of the reserve line that don't have hard seats?

I believe most of them are in front of hard seats.

Is that right?

Our operations manager is here. She can elaborate.

Is that the case? Are there hard plastic seats on every?

Yes, we have five tiers of lawn. And behind the first four tiers of lawn, there is a row of hard seats. The only row that does not have hard seats behind it is the last row, tier five. It's at the top.

And is that basically what we're discussing here?

Correct.

Is there a reason we couldn't add hard seats on that row?

It's due to the rake of the theater. Our theater is raked so that each row, starting at row A, the row behind it is slightly higher. That continues up at tier one and row K, which is the reserved row behind it. They sit even, which is why the lawn chairs must be lower. But row J, which is in front of the first row of lawn, is lower. than that row, so it's due to the rake. If we replaced the lawn seating with stadium seats, the stadium seats that share the row with them would be even and you wouldn't be able to see.

I see. So okay, that's a hard no on my question. Very good, Deputy Mayor. Thank you very much.

At least she said it nicely. One, thank you for coming back so quickly because I know that it has not been a year. It's only been a few months since we just had this discussion and you went through the whole jumping through hoops to get us down to rates that we wanted. And then now you're back here a few months later doing the exact same thing, having to raise them. So I appreciate all the work that's gone into it. I understand the concerns over the reserve lawn prices given all that's gone into this. And I also know that the contract that we just signed DID INCREASE PRICES PROBABLY QUITE SUBSTANTIALLY AS FAR AS A LABOR EXTENT IS CONCERNED. I'M OKAY WITH THEM, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE CONCERNS WITH IT, SO I'LL LET THE COUNCIL DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO HAVE FURTHER DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. THE ONLY OTHER THING I WILL SAY, JUST BECAUSE I'M GOING TO TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY EVERY TIME YOU SIT IN FRONT OF ME, ONCE WE HAVE THE VISTA UNIFIED JOINT USE AGREEMENT, THE SOFTBALL FIELDS AT BRANGLE TERRACE PARK, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF THEY ARE ABLE TO BE CONVERTED INTO BASEBALL FIELDS. and if we can do a joint use to allow use of the softball or the non-regulation size fields for softball at the different schools and other areas throughout the city for our adult leagues. Beyond that, thank you, great job.

Council Member Contreras. Oh, I'm good. Okay. Did we have a motion and a second here? No.

I move to approve.

Okay, we have a motion to approve. Does anybody want to offer a second? I'll offer a second. Let's see if we have... I understand the concern, but we have the $19 seats. If the pricing is a challenge, I mean, we want to maintain the quality of the shows. We want to maintain the... minimality, minimus, the minimal nature of the subsidy. What's the word I'm looking for there? Maybe there is no word for that. Yeah, we want to make sure the subsidy is as small as possible. That way the people who are not there enjoying it aren't having to pay for those who there are enjoying it. And what we're really talking about is not the ability to afford to attend, It's whether or not you're in a seat that's as good. So if paying for it is the issue, then you just sit a little bit further back and you still get to see the show. So we're providing the opportunity to be there. We're just maximizing our revenue. I mean, that seems fair to me. So I think that's where we're at. Council Member Fox.

Since this wouldn't actually take effect until the 2027 season anyway, is there a chance we could potentially pass the remainder of this and just leave the Moonlight section for a later date?

I would object to that because we've invested quite a bit of time in the subject right now and the council, I mean, in all seriousness, the council's time and this, it's not going to be a friendly problem to solve when we get there. So let's cut the baby in half right now.

I think that the big piece is just that one seating issue where it's going to 30% increase on a single seat. And so I think that's where we're getting, we're running into a, an art and,

Can we make it a 20% increase and move this item forward and be done with this? Can we do that instead?

Would you take a substitute motion to approve everything except the moonlight?

I wouldn't want to leave it out. If you want to offer a compromise, let's get a little closer to where we all want to be. and move on.

Could we do a, instead of a 27%, keep the reserve lawn seats at the same 10% and increase orchestra to make up the difference?

I just feel like that's a substantial leap. I understand that people can pay it, but at the same time, that's a huge leap.

Why would we not increase those seats at all? Why would we not increase them at all?

Just in line with the rest of everything. I just don't want the 27%.

How about instead of 27%, we go 17% and we call it a deal? Can we do that? Seriously.

I'll tell you what, I'm gonna split the, here's how I'll amend my motion.

I'll do a 15% increase on those seats if we'll add, just to even it out, a $2 increase on both the orchestra adult seats, which are 73, make them 75, and then the $78 ones, move them to 80. And hopefully that will somewhat offset the cost. And if there's not a reasonable offset there to where it would pencil out, let us know. And I would like to approve this tonight. And if there's some math that's not mathing there, I see my city manager.

I just want to be clear that whatever the changes are, we still have a subsidy. So the subsidy is largely covered by the Moonlight Cultural Foundation's donation that they make to us annually. So they're really covering the difference, and we've broken even with their payment to us. So the slight difference that you're adjusting, the prices are not really going to matter in the big scheme. We're still going to have a subsidy, and I'm anticipating that the Cultural Foundation's donations will cover it.

Okay, I'm going to leave my motion as is.

As you just offered it, right?

I can do it that way or I can just go back to the original motion. If we can support 15% and then increase $2 on the other two across the board, then I'm fine with that. And when I say across the board, I'm speaking specifically to, sorry, let me get that back.

Are you okay with that as the second year?

I don't have a problem with it. I'd be more amenable to that as well. Staff understands it, what staff's thought.

But that is only reflected upon the orchestra seat. So you're basically increasing every tier of the orchestra seat between Friday and Saturday and Wednesday, Thursday, Sunday by $2 and then just increasing 15% of the general, where'd it go? The reserved, the reserve loan. And the season ticket equivalent. Sure. Okay, deal.

Understood.

Are we understood? Are we clear? I don't even know if I'm clear on my motion.

I don't know if I'm either, but as long as staff, I think we're close enough. Yeah.

If you need clarification afterwards.

Yeah, we're investing a lot of time into something that's, okay. We have a motion to second. City attorney, you going to be able to make the notes on this? And city clerk, you know what to write down.

15%, $2 increase on all the other ones.

There we go, that's it. Okay, motion to second, please cast your votes.

Mayor, can I respectfully ask that we move up, I think it's D4, the VCC grant. We have Betsy Heitman representing this community clinic.

Yeah, I'm happy to do that.

She's been here for some time.

That would be my pleasure. Unfortunately, we cannot move it in front of Public Hearing 4. Our public hearings have to happen according to schedule. Perfectly fine. We'll do what we can. Let's power through Public Hearing 4 if we can. You got it. But I would, yeah. Unfortunately, it might not, that one might not be that easy. But, you know, we could all briefly offer our thoughts on it if we would like to move things along. Okay, that item, PH3 as motion was approved unanimously. And... Yeah, okay. Very good. Let's go to PH4, final public hearing regarding amending chapter 1908 of VISTA Development Code. Public hearing is now open. If we could have everybody's attention. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item, they may indicate so by using the raise your hand feature where it is a star nine. Submitting requests to speak. Card speakers will be called upon after the presentation. CIP Engineering Division Manager Matt Atteberry will offer a very brief introduction of the subject, not the complete one that he intended to. Mr. Atterbury.

Good evening, Mayor and City Council. I'm Matt Atterbury, CIP Engineering Division Manager. This public hearing item is requesting to amend Chapter 19.08 of the VISTA Development Code. Let's start off with some background on the city's paving network. The City of Vista's paving network is currently estimated to have a value of just over $516 million, the largest of all the city assets. The network consists of 84.9 miles of arterial streets, 105.1 miles of local streets, and 1.4 miles of alleys and park access roads. Graphically, this is shown here as a pie chart. The larger numbers shown are the square footages.

Now the major element of this change is that we're going to go to a five-year moratorium on trenching for new pavement and a three-year for the slurry overlay. That's correct. I don't want to deprive you. I know you put a lot of effort into this and I will apologize to you in advance. Would it offend you or would the council be missing out on any significant detail? This is about protecting our investment in pavement. Mr. Connolly says other cities have already gone to this five-year standard. It's about protecting the integrity of pavement. Would the council be okay dispensing with the extensive discussion of the subject? I have no objection. You've reviewed it? Okay. Is there anything that we're missing that's critical that we don't understand? I'm going to let you give you another... We can skip right to it. Okay. I'll make a motion that we adopt the amendment to the Municipal Code offered by staff here to protect our pavement. We didn't hear or see any of our public utilities come forward to object. We don't want to the public utilities and to the people listening at home, after we put significant public investment into repaving the road service, we do not want people cutting it up. We provide adequate notice in advance to our utilities. When we're going to provide, we have a schedule and we're asking the public utilities to plan accordingly, not to be lazy and come back and want to cut our brand new streets open. So with that, if there's a second for staffs,

I will second. Okay, very good. Motion to second. Thank you for your hard work on this.

Any requests to speak on this item? Yes, Council Member Contreras.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you. This is great. And our biggest offender is Vista Irrigation District. And I'm thoroughly appalled by the job that they do after our streets are so beautifully done. And then they come in and kind of ruin the streets. So this is great. I'm looking forward to it. And thank you so much to staff for bringing this forward.

Okay, we have a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. That includes closing the public hearing. Thank you for the excellent report. We appreciate you. Sorry to have cut you short. Yes, wonderful work. Okay, we had a request that I would like to honor to move item D4 up. So we'll move forward to grant agreement with Vista Community Clinic to support a new resource area in Vista. If any members of the public may wish to speak on this item, they may indicate so by using the raise their hand feature by pressing star nine or submitting a request to speak card. Speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Our Housing and Homeless Services Division Manager, Jonathan Leung, will introduce this item.

Thank you and good evening Mayor, City Council Members. This item solicits the City Council's discussion and consideration of a one-time $20,000 grant to Vista Community Clinic in support of a new proposed resource area in Vista. With me tonight is Management Analyst, Catalina Langan, who will provide the staff presentation.

Good evening. To contextualize tonight's discussion, the city of Vista has a longstanding history of funding support for Vista Community Clinic. The city of Vista has awarded over $1 million in community development block grant CDBG funding to Vista Community Clinic for a variety of eligible activities since the city began receiving CDBG funds in fiscal year 96-97 for an average of approximately $30,000 annually. VCC was awarded a $25,000 grant through the city's ARPA non-profit grant program in August 2022 and received funding in March 2025 for support of the tobacco decoy program. Finally, VCC received $52,000 of opioid settlement funds for fiscal year 25-26 for additional support of CDBG-funded Rancho Buena Vista Project Reach, a youth intervention program. On May 6th, 2026, staff received a letter of request from VCC for funding support from the city of Vista for its new resource area. This new community resource will be a hub for the dispersal of donated food, diapers, hygiene products, and more. The resource area builds upon VCC's efforts to provide basic needs resources for its patients, the majority of whom have incomes placing them below the federal poverty level. VCC is requesting a one-time funding support of $20,000 to purchase refrigeration equipment which will allow for the storage and distribution to patients of a variety of perishable goods. This equipment will assist VCC in meeting the nutritional needs of its patients, particularly children, many of whom currently do not receive the full benefits of fresh fruits and vegetables and proteins including meats and milk. Staff have prepared a grant agreement to meet BCC's request, which is included in the agenda packet for the city council's consideration tonight. The requested funding support would leverage the following partnerships between VCC and VISTA programs. First, VCC partners with the Buena Creek Navigation Center, or BCNC. VCC supports clients at BCNC through ongoing primary care services. In addition to regular care, they provide a full medical unit on a quarterly basis, bringing comprehensive clinical services directly on site. They also maintain a monthly HIV prevention and information booth. The VCC had also previously provided these services to the VISTA Safe Parking Program in 2024 and is exploring a service partnership for the Safe Parking Program again in the near future. Conversations are underway to determine how VCC can effectively meet participant needs. Lastly, with Project REACH, VCC is actively serving 38 youth for the 2025-26 program year. This program serves youth through academic assistance, volunteer and mentoring opportunities, and recreational activities. Together, these leveraged supports strengthen the overall system of care and expand the reach of services available to VISTA residents. VCC is targeting September 1st as the anticipated opening date for this resource area, and site acquisition is underway. Once a suitable space is identified and the lease is secured, VCC estimates it will take roughly four weeks to prepare the site for its first day of operation. The resource area is expected to operate three days per week, and within those hours, VCC anticipates serving 30 to 50 patients per day. That equates to a weekly impact of up to 190 unique patients. On a monthly basis, that's up to 600 patient visits, and annually, the resource area will provide up to 7,800 instances of nutritional support.

Are these funds that were surplus from the Safe Parking Program, is that right?

Correct.

Okay, very good. Deputy Mayor Donnell, you had a, and I apologize because I hit the button and cleared everybody out.

I only have one question for you. You want to introduce yourself just so the public knows who you are.

Sure. Good evening. My name is Betsy Heitman. I'm the Chief Development and Government Affairs Officer at Vista Community Clinic. Thank you for having me here this evening.

Any comment that you want to make prior to my question?

No, I think there's sufficient information. Pardon, the staff has adequately laid everything out.

Awesome. So my understanding is this grant is going to people at risk, people in need, and children to try and feed them.

Correct.

Where did the $20,000 number come from? Or is it just the remaining balance that's left over, as the mayor suggested?

The $20,000 was requested to support the acquisition of refrigerator and freezer units for the resource area for the perishable foods.

Is that an adequate amount?

We believe it is, yes.

So you don't need more than that? I didn't ask you if you want more than that. You're talking to a fundraiser here.

We support the past support of the city, and we believe that $20,000 would be a generous gift.

Wonderful. Well, I will make the motion to approve it. I appreciate all the work that you do with our city and our partnership. I look forward to it for many years to come.

Thank you so much. I don't recall the last time that you asked the council for any discretionary amount. I know we've partnered on many things, but it certainly seems like a worthy cause, so I'll second it.

I appreciate that.

Thank you for being here. Council Member Melendez.

Yes, thank you Betsy for being here and thank you staff for coordinating this opportunity. I absolutely will second this item. I think refrigeration for healthy fresh foods is extremely important and really missing in some of our food hubs at this time. And I think the opportunity for the city of Vista to provide these funds immediately with potential opening in September means that there's not gonna be any hurdles, right? Rather than VCC having to go chase down additional grants you know, put a lot of footwork into acquiring funds, $20,000 for refrigeration. It's just a hurdle that our community doesn't need to deal with. So I'm excited for folks to be able to have more access to fresh foods as well as services. When people come in for the basic need of food, they're also going to be connected to all the services that VCC has to offer. I think that that's really important. So really happy that you're here. Thank you for asking for support so that we can connect our community to your services.

Councilmember Contreras.

Yeah, I just want to say thank you very much for everything that VCC does. And I appreciate that you all are moving forward in this direction. Food insecurity has always been an issue for our community here in Vista. And as the economic situation becomes more and more dire for folks, the ability for them to get the nutrition that they need is becoming very difficult. So this is huge for our city. I've talked to our city manager about cold storage and refrigeration. I'm extremely passionate about that because I know that we need it. And so here is this opportunity to move forward in a partnership so that VCC can, can provide that holistic approach to health that we've always counted on you to provide. So thank you so much and I'm all in favor of this.

Thank you.

Council Member Fox.

Perfect, yeah. I remember last year I took a tour of the facility and you were saying that that was one of your biggest needs. So I'm happy to support this, to support you so you can support our community. Thank you.

Thank you.

Deputy Mayor. Super random question. For the maintenance of the refrigeration systems, is this like a refrigerated truck or is it?

No, this will be in an actual leased space.

Okay.

So commercial grade refrigeration and freezer.

With staff maintenance?

Pardon?

Staff would be maintaining. Yes. Awesome. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Please cast your votes. That motion's approved unanimously. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much.

Thanks for sitting through all those public hearings. We're gonna try and move up the hearings where we think we have the most number of people waiting so that folks don't have to spend all night with us on these exciting topics. So we're gonna go next to the discussion D2 regarding, there's no speakers on that one? D1 and D3, what's D3? Yeah, Avvo Playhouse. Who's got the most speakers? Are you here for D3 or D1? D3, raise your hand. Oh, two for each? Okay, well, then I guess... Oh, D, all right. All right, we're just going to go in order then. Let's go D1. Okay, we have three more discussion items. Sorry, we're trying to get you all out of here and home to your families. Our first is preliminary review of proposed zone change on La Tortuga, APN 16615091. Any members of the public wish to speak on this item may indicate so by using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine or submitting a request to speak card here at the dais. Speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Community Development Director Joe Vacca will introduce the item.

Thank you very much, Mayor and members of the City Council. So the project site's at 415 La Tortuga. It's approximately three acres and it's vacant and undeveloped. And applicant Haase and the Land Development has proposed a zone change for City Council to consider this evening for a four-story structure that's 110,000 square feet in size with a maximum building height of 50 feet. Access would be taken from La Tortuga Drive and they're proposing 32 parking spaces and landscape slopes. If approved by the Council for them to file a formal application for a zone change, they would be proposing to change the zoning from C1 to C2, and ultimately they would need a special use permit for a self-sorge facility that exceeds the 35 foot height limitation, and they would need a site development plan permit for development of the site. This is an exhibit that demonstrates the existing C1 zoning in the proposed area that they're requesting to go to C2. This is the preliminary site plan that the applicant has prepared, and it shows a square pad that would terrace the property with some significant grading. And along Hacienda Drive, while this exhibit doesn't show it, they are proposing some landscaping with a passive park at the Hacienda frontage. This is the contemporary design of the building. It's a boxy architecture. Again, 50 feet in height at the max, above grade. So since zone changes are legislative changes, they're at the discretion of the city council. And ultimately, it would require a public hearing before the Planning Commission where they would make a formal recommendation to the city council. And traditionally, staff has always presented all preliminary requests for any legislative land use change to the city council for discussion. and also to obtain public input prior to any formal review of an application. So tonight's not a final decision, it's just a point in time where the Council can either terminate any more additional processing or say that they will consider a future application. This application has been considered multiple times since 2018 to the present. Back in 2023, there was a very similar application that was filed and at that time the City Council decided that they did not want to proceed with reviewing a zone change request. So tonight we're requesting that the City Council provide input to the applicant related to their proposed zone change and they're present and have fulfilled a speaker card. That concludes my presentation.

Very good. We have three public speakers on this item. We'll start with Lieutenant David Mortenberg, the California Highway Patrol. Thank you for your patience.

Good evening. On behalf of the California Highway Patrol, we oppose the change based on three things. First, security risks. Development of a four-story storage facility on this parcel directly adjacent to the CHP Oceanside Area Office opposes a potential security concern for the California Highway Patrol. The California Highway Patrol Oceanside Area Office is a multi-level structure with secure parking raised higher than street level on Latulika Drive, Depending on how the grade is adjacent to the site, it would easily provide direct views into the secured parking area. CHP seeks to avoid property adjacent with multi-story buildings as occupants of the adjacent building may have targeted employees or views of access to areas limited to the public. While this may be an extreme example, there's a case in May 31st of 2002 in a CHP office standing in a secure back parking lot in the Willows area office where a shooter from an adjacent apartment complex shot at officers in the back parking lot. Second, communication interference. The overall height of the new structure may affect antennas on our tower and regarding connectivity to other towers for communications. This may result in a cost to the state of adjusting and moving existing dishes, antennas, and other infrastructure to allow communication. And then third, traffic access and congestion. Depending on the design of the entrance of the site, there could be a potential blocking of the street and multiple customers waiting for access, especially when customers of the storage facility are using moving trucks or larger vehicles. This could interfere with rapid patrol deployments and other operations. So based on those three criteria, we are opposed to the change in the construction.

Thank you, Lieutenant. Next we'll hear from William O'Gorman, and then we'll go to Zoom and hear from Joe Exline.

Can we share the time? Alonzo Gonzalez with Pacifica Companies, along with Will Gorman, who's our civil engineer.

SURE, ALL OUT.

I APPRECIATE THAT. SO THANK YOU, MAYOR, COUNCIL MEMBERS, FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE OURSELVES AND THE PROPOSAL. MY NAME IS ALONZO GONZALEZ. I AM THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ENTITLEMENT FOR PACIFICA COMPANIES. PACIFICA COMPANIES IS A SAN DIEGO COMPANY WITH A LARGE PRESENCE. throughout the county as well as the state and in Vista in particular where we have two retail buildings, two senior living facilities and a history of successfully developing and managing our properties. In this case, we have an extensive history of looking at the highest and best use for this parcel. So we have the ability to develop a variety of uses, but in this case, the site itself is particularly limiting. So why self-storage? It's good for small businesses, provides easy and immediate access to extra inventory, the lowest traffic generation use, provides a buffer zone between the uses. It's great for access challenged locations like this one, and it's better than leaving the property undeveloped. Based on our feasibility study and public input, what we wanted to avoid were the high traffic uses, traditional retail. We wanted to avoid competing with the retail just east of us. They have superior location to traffic access and yet are not fully utilized. They still have a number of vacancies. Plus, the additional features, the physical features of the site that Will Gorman, our traffic engineer, will get into are also significantly limiting.

Hi, my name is Will Gorman from REC Consultants, the civil engineer on the project. I just want to briefly touch on the engineering aspects, what makes this site difficult. The site's very steep, and what makes it, there's almost 80 feet of elevation differential, and what makes it perfect for self storage is that we get a reduced parking count compared to traditional retail. I believe retails five spaces per 1,000 square feet of floor area. And due to the steep topography, if we went for a typical retail, we would have to have additional parking, additional drive aisles, pedestrian access, and that would just means more retaining walls, which could potentially make the project cost prohibitive. If you have any other specific engineering questions or site plan questions, we'll be available to answer.

Very good. And in conclusion, I would say that we've had seven community meetings in the past, two more recently for a total of nine. This is the first time we've been hearing of CHP's reservations, but the action today would just allow us to explore a less retail type of use. It's just the schematics that have been developed. We'd be going into design development, and we would be happy to continue coordinating with the community, with city staff, including CHP, to make sure that that's appropriately developed in those phases. Right now we're just asking for the ability to pursue use that is not traditionally retail with self-storage facility, which the community agrees is more appropriate for this site. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Now we'll hear from Joe Exline on Zoom. Joe Exline, are you with us? Is he still there? Okay, Mr. Exline, we're not hearing you. All right, we may try you again in a few moments. Mr. Exline, if you can hear us, let's go to comments from Council Member Melendez.

Yes, please let us know if there's any further public comments, but I appreciate the presentation.

Hello?

Go ahead, Mr. Exline. You have three minutes.

I'm sorry, I had trouble unmuting myself. My name is Joe Exline. I'm a resident of Shadow Ridge, and I oppose this for a few different reasons. Number one, it looks like this really came up for discussion before, and there's been no significant changes in the proposal. Number two, I don't see a need for self-storage. There's plenty of self-storage around here. There was a new one just built on South Murrows and Oceanside. Number three, that the park area that they proposed in their plan, there's a significant number of unhoused individuals that are inhabiting that area of Vista. And I feel that a new area for them to inhabit would not be a good thing in that area. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Council Member Melendez.

Thank you. I have to start off by saying that I really do appreciate that the developer has considered adding park space to the Hacienda portion of this development. And we actually do have a number of new park sites in that area. Hacienda is becoming a really lovely community track to some attractive parks. and including the new site on Breeze Hill Drive, and the new park on Matagal that is being developed. And so I absolutely think that parks, when we activate a space with proper landscaping and pathways and park amenities that it actually improves the public use right there's more positive uses that come out of developed park areas so I do appreciate that that has come out of this development process I also am now hearing the concerns from CHP and so I think that it is something that's going to need to be addressed Maybe there's some level of mitigation regarding heights or security that can be addressed by the developer. But ultimately, this is a difficult location. I think you said that, Mr. Gonzalez, that this is a challenging location. It is right behind the Vista Jail. It is adjacent to other services like CHP, but the biggest facility that this parcel is connected to is the Vista Jail. I don't see traditional retail doing very well. Additionally, with the grading, it's a very difficult slope. It's a very difficult location. So I do support something positive going in that location. And I think that we can move forward and see how the developer would mitigate some of CHP's concerns. I also want to address the concern that this site needs to be, that we have to hold off on development for the purpose of economic development. If you look at the existing retail just a block over, you have the former LA Fitness location, you have the Chevron, you have a number of frequently turned over retail locations. And if we are going to improve economic opportunities in that area, that center really needs some love. So I think that denying the opportunity to develop in one area while conveniently ignoring an underutilized commercial center right next door isn't necessarily better planning. So I would like to see something effective go in this space. And although self-storage is not my favorite form of land use, It is a form of land use that has its benefit to the community, and it has to go in an appropriate location. From talking to the residents in this area, there's really not much beneficial use that can occur right behind the jail. Not many people are going to go get coffee or a sandwich or shop at a clothing store right behind the jail. That's another reason why you'll see a cannabis retailer in that location. It's a little bit more difficult. It's a less desirable location. So now that we have a developer that's interested in providing something for us in that space, it would be good to explore that. So I do support that. I'm not sure if staff is needing a motion or if we can just have consensus here. But as long as the developer is willing to address and mitigate CHP's concerns, I think that it's something that we can reasonably move forward with.

Just out of curiosity, because they are seeking input here, what would your preference be with regard to the more modern style or the Spanish style that they proposed?

You know, I'm not too picky in terms of design. I think that there's a number of designs that would be nice. I think continuity is very important. Again, this is a parcel that's right behind the jail. So any type of design would be prettier than the jail.

Okay. Council Member Contreras.

Yeah, you know, I've never been a fan of storage. And I haven't been a fan of storage on this parcel. I understand it's a challenging site, but I feel like that's not the responsibility of the city of Vista. And these are some of the same comments I had a long time ago when I first came on council. So, you know, there was... there was the decision made to go with retail cannabis instead of building something different on this plot of land. And... You know, thankfully for the city, we're receiving some good tax dollars from that. But it did take a large portion of the site. And I just, I don't know. I'm not totally sold on the idea of putting storage here. I just feel like we have a lot of storage. I don't know what other retail would look good here, but... I'm just being consistent with my previous comments all these years ago to now. Not super thrilled about this project. That's it for me, thanks.

Deputy Mayor. Are we approving a zone change tonight or are we just discussing? We'll have to come back.

This is for consideration of submitting their application.

Really design review.

Yeah, this is a really tough one for me because I have actively been against storage units coming to the City of Vista since I was elected. I ran a campaign saying I would not approve a single storage unit if it came before this body. So it's hard for me to get to a yes on this. I want to respect the council member who represents the district as well, though, as I know they have afforded me that same consideration and respect in the past. I mean... This is, I know this has come before us so many times and I don't know what the issue is with trying to develop, I mean I understand the typography and the grade and all the things that go into it and I also, I patron the little mini mall, whatever you want to call it, the retail shops over off Hacienda and Melrose right there and I agree, it's not, It's not being utilized in the manner I think that they expected it would. I don't foresee retail performing any better. In fact, I think it would perform worse in that location. Listen, I'm open to you moving it forward, but I'm going to tell you this. If you have had nine public meetings with with the residents in the area. I would really encourage you to reach out to CHP because I have not heard that concern before. But I will be open to a storage unit in this location. But I want to make sure that all public input, including CHP, is brought forward and that any design is something that they can approve as well. Short of that, when it comes back before us, I'll give you the opportunity, but if those things are not met, you're gonna probably get a no out of me. So I don't wanna waste your time or your money, but I just wanna let you know where I'm at and be transparent with you, as I have been in the past on this very location.

Council Member Fox.

Thank you, yes, I don't have very strong feelings as a positive or negative, so my first reaction is to take the opinion of the council member who represents the district, and and if I don't have a very strong reason against it, to let it pass or let it go to the next body and for them to put their critiques on it and everything. Design-wise, between the two options, I don't have strong feelings either. Again, I'd like it to match what's near it. Yeah, but maybe not the jail, though. Maybe not match that. Yeah, you can match that. SO I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE MOTION OR THE DISCUSSION AS IT IS. I WOULD ALSO AGREE TO TRY TO WORK WITH CHP AND SEE IF YOU CAN MITIGATE THEIR CONCERNS. IF WE CAN'T MITIGATE THOSE THEN I MIGHT END UP BEING AGAINST IT AT THE END BUT IF WE CAN MITIGATE MOST OF THOSE I SEE NO PROBLEM WITH IT. IT IS PROBABLY THE BEST USE OF THE LAND AS IT IS. IT IS A TOUGH SPOT LIKE EVERYONE SAID SO THANK YOU.

If you had a Spanish-style roof, I like the Spanish thing better. It's more consistent. It's kind of a timeless architecture. The modern stuff, in my opinion, is destined in 20 years to look not good. So I don't like the modern stuff. I like the stuff that looked good 200 years ago and is going to look good 200 years from now. If you have a 45-degree roof on that Spanish-style thing, that's kind of like a faux thing. I think you'd have a flat roof right behind it, right? But you could potentially have a high enough perch that you couldn't basically aim over it. I don't know. There might be some way to mitigate it. I don't love it either, but I recognize you're right under the law to use your land for the best and highest use. And... you know, office space is not at a premium right now. I don't, the property is not viable for retail really. And as far as, you know, storage space goes, People seem to use it and I don't think they're coming from like, you know, three counties over to store their stuff. So it's obviously people that live in the area that need storage space. You know, so as much as, you know, nobody loves the thought of it, it's obviously our residents are obviously the ones using it. So they're getting some value out of it. So the issue with your outreach is it's now, eight years old, right? Is that right? It's 2026 and it was 2018 when you did it, is that right?

We've had two recent meetings within the last three months.

Okay, okay, thank you. I appreciate you letting us know that. Well, yeah, I think the CHP issue is salient. I don't recall them bringing that up when we talked about this before, but there's got to be some way that you could... reduce that issue. So one of your designs said a community garden. Oh, I wanted to ask, are we having any issues on this land with the maintenance of it with transient population? Are we having, is it causing the city any grief right now?

In the area, there are some challenges, but in particular on this property, not that we know of.

Okay, all right. Because that's important to you. I mean, look... It is our job to allow you the best and highest use of your land. If this is that best and highest use, and we've been looking at this for a long time now, and we can't imagine with the challenges you have there. This is one of the things I don't think we liked about it before, is just the sheer height of it. I want to look again, and I think this would become a subject of conversation, at four stories tall. I'm looking at this. I think I need to see a better rendering of what the side profile of this thing would be. I'm not sure if it's in here. Is it in here?

Yeah, I see that. I'm not sure that that.

Well, kind of this, but so how tall is it at the rear? And that's, it's 50 feet. Is that the, which side of the CHP side? On my screen here is on the left.

Where I show the 50 feet tall in red, that would be facing the freeway. Yeah.

The CHP is on the left. The CHP would be behind it.

So it's about 45, 40, 45 feet tall.

Okay. And then how much taller is the land? Because the land behind it goes up like this, right?

It does continue to go up.

Is there actually, does this actually get taller with the land that goes up? Does this actually get taller and look down?

No, because they're going to terrace the property. They're going to create a big super pad and then it's actually a split level design for this building.

I guess what I'm saying is I want to see the land behind it.

So we haven't analyzed that yet to be fair to everybody here.

Yeah, but I'm just... I'm doing my geometry here with my protractor in my mind. This thing doesn't look down on the CHP behind it, does it?

No, no, no, not at all.

I mean, I don't mean to imply that the lieutenant was mistaken in his analysis, but...

I mean, at the highest point, it may be reaching their grades. We haven't analyzed that yet.

It doesn't seem like it would offer a vantage point into the property behind it.

Pat is at 347 in their drawing and the top of the adjacent property that the CHP is in at 375 roughly. So it's about 28 feet. above the pad. So you would have potentially looking onto the CHP property.

Okay. Okay. All right. That's what I was trying to figure out. Cause I know the property continues to rise in elevation behind it. So yeah, I would say if you can figure out how to do something design wise on the roof that would deprive, you know, maybe it's a very aggressive grade on the wall, on the roof line, a very steep roof line. And the flat roof is so low that you basically would, I don't know, need a ladder or something to get up over the top of it. Does that make sense? There's probably a way to do that. I don't know. It's awfully tall. Boy, if you could shave one floor off of this thing, it'd probably be a lot more palatable. I don't know if you can pencil it out, but it would be a lot more palatable. That's my thought. So a mixed review. But I mean, at the same time, you know, it's a tough site. You guys know it's a tough site. You bought it with that in mind. You've been thinking about it for a long time. You didn't bring an application in 2018 because some of these concerns. I mean, you know, you might be advised to power through, you know, rather than wait for the better thing, I don't know. It's just a tough site, you guys know that. So we'll work with you, but we're gonna need you to work with us too. Sound good? Okay, very good. That'll bring us to the conclusion of that item. We will move on to item D2, discussion regarding CVBID Advisory Board event recommendations. Any members of the public wish to speak on the side of the main case will be using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine or submitting a request to speak card. Speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Our assistant city manager, Imelda Huerta, will introduce the item.

Thank you, Mayor. Good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the City Council. My name is Imelda Huerta, Assistant City Manager, and tonight I have Aaron Schultz, our Economic Development Manager with us, who will provide a report on the Central Vista Business Improvement District Advisory Board Events Recommendation.

Thank you, Imelda. Good evening, Mayor, members of the City Council. On November 12th, 2025, the City Council designated $100,000 from the fiscal year 2024-25 year-end fund balance to fund downtown special events. On April 13th, 2026, the Central Vista Business Improvement District Advisory Board recommended allocating the funds to support a series of signature events. The recommended event series includes Rod Run, Fright Night, Cowboy Christmas, K-Pop Anime Fest, San Diego Beer Week, and Dia de los Muertos. The proposed funding allocations total $90,000 and the remaining $10,000 would be reserved as contingency funds to cover unexpected event costs at the discretion of the CBBID Advisory Board. The proposed council investment would ensure the continuation of these community events and their positive impact on the vitality of our downtown businesses. Many of these events have faced rising costs in recent years for labor, security, marketing, and other expenses. Rod Run and Fright Night are requesting the highest amount of funding at $25,000 each as they continue to grow and add additional elements that broaden the appeal of the events. Staff are seeking direction from City Council on the CVBID Advisory Board events recommendation. This concludes my report. I and T.J. Crossman, the CVBID Advisory Board Chair, are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thanks for your patience, T.J. Okay, for brief comments respecting and approving the recommendation of the CVBID Advisory Board, Council Member Contreras.

Yes, thank you so much. So when we first allocated $100,000 towards downtown events, it was under my understanding that the city council would have the final say and purview over expending the funds or dedicating them. So I appreciate this item coming before the council. One of the things, so looking at the proposed events, I 100% agree with Fright Night. I think there needs to be a lot more investment. The community is super happy with Fright Night and there's more expansion that can happen and security that needs to happen at the same time. So I'm totally fine with the $25,000 for Fright Night. Honestly, I'm pretty good with all of these with the exception of Rod Run. I feel like the $25,000 being asked for Rod Run, I don't see a justification for it. This is an event that I don't see, I don't see a lot of community involvement and participation to the level that I think a $25,000 investment warrants. So I would be good with moving the remainder with the exception of Rod Run. That's where I'm at. I'll go ahead and make a motion for that. And I would, in addition, you know, this $100,000 that was set aside for downtown events, what I envision that this funding would be utilized for is to bring new events forward. And You know, I think potentially what we need to do, you know, just like we did, we had a downtown committee that was short-lived with the purpose of reviewing the historic downtown to make short-term, mid-term, and long-term planning for the historic downtown to be a great place for community and for economic opportunity. I do think that we need to set or have some kind of discussion, whether it's another short-lived committee or it's a discussion that we have here at council. But I do believe that we need to have we need to be able to have different creative events kind of bubble up to the top that might inspire new connections for residents and people that don't live here in Vista to make it to the historic downtown. And I'm committed as a council member and as a resident here in Vista to ensure that we have good planning for future events and that any creative events that are out there in the minds of folks, that we kind of look at what those are and how we can bring them to the downtown and program the downtown. So that's where I'm at. I'll go ahead and make that motion and I would love to hear from the rest of my council, thanks.

Council Member Fox.

Thank you. Do we know how much was granted to the Ron Rudd in the past? Is this about in line with what it's cost in the past?

So for 2024 and for 2025, we granted $15,000 those years.

A LITTLE BIT MORE THIS YEAR, BUT I THINK THAT THE CDBID, I KNOW THEY DO A GREAT JOB ON BRINGING US EVENTS. I KNOW THIS LIST IS A LOT OF THE EXISTING EVENTS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WAS INTENTIONALLY SINCE THE OTHER ONES HAVE TO COME FOR GRANTS THROUGH APPLICATION PROCESSES, SO THESE ARE THE ONES THEY KNOW have had success in the past. We've already seeded these events. They're successful. We want to keep them in our city. So it makes that so they can free up the additional money, the $50,000 that they get from the local businesses to seed new events and to not have it go towards the same events over and over. Was that kind of the plan?

Correct. Correct. That is correct. And last year, the CBB ID and staff, we did go out for a request for qualifications for a downtown event organizer, which brought events such as the Rod Run, activated the AVO. We'll talk a bit about that at the next discussion item as well. But we do have the CBB ID representative here as well as a downtown VISTA representatives.

Yeah, and as a CDB, is that correct in my assumptions that putting some of these old or these more successful past events into this funding frees you up to do exciting fun things through the existing grant program?

Let me try and explain this the best way I can because sometimes my ADHD puts me all over the place. There was a point, probably a year or two, what we wanted to do is we wanted to try and use grant money as seed money to help people start getting invested and help them grow an event themselves and then help them get going. There's honestly and truly, there's only probably about four people that really invest into these events. And two of them are sitting right there. Those two women back there, they have their hands into the rod run. The rod run is a 31 year. I believe this is going to be the 31st or 32nd year. They do Fright Night, they do the Rod Run, and they do several other different events. So their time, and they also run businesses in the downtown area. So their time is very limited. So with the Rod Run, yes, we've talked about the Rod Run and value and everything else. to try and bring more value, try to get more people down there, because number one, our ultimate goal is to get more people to inhabit, to solicit the downtown area and to get people down there. So what they did is they hired a, it's called a perfect vent, an event organ planner. And this is our second year, I think, with them. This is going to be the second year with them. I feel as though they are an amazing company. They actually put on the Catalina Wine Mixer, which is a successful event. So I got to believe that they're going to do good with this. The first year was kind of the dance of, how does this work? How does that work? And so now that they have one year under their belt, we're trying to make that better. We also do do other little micro events. But when we do those events and we take those events into consideration, we're looking for people that are gonna bring value down into the downtown area, not people that are gonna ask for grants for their hobbies and do what they want in the downtown area. We specifically look for people and organizations that are gonna bring community, that are gonna give free events, that are gonna give value to the community and where we see best fit for value to bring to the businesses and to also give entertainment.

Yeah. And so, I mean, when I was talking about that year in fund balance and trying to figure out, you know, I was very adamant about getting a little bit extra money into this fund specifically because, I mean, I've been one of the downtown business owners that pays into that fund every year, although I have a business to business company that really doesn't see a whole lot of benefit in having more people downtown. I know that our CVB ID board works really hard to find good events and so with a bunch of downtown business owners spending a lot of their time at these meetings trying to allocate kind of a limited pool of money that having the city have some skin in the game here and if we think it's valuable enough to ask our businesses to put some money into this that we have some skin in the game as well. So when it comes to economic development, having a thriving downtown IS IMPORTANT TO HAVE A THRIVING CITY AND WHEN IT COMES TO LOCAL TOURISM, PEOPLE COMING FROM OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES, THINGS LIKE THAT, HAVING SOME GOOD EVENTS TO BRING THEM INTO OUR DOWNTOWN CAN BE MASSIVE. SO THANK YOU FOR ALL OF YOUR HARD WORK ON THAT. I'M GOING TO OFFER A SUBSTITUTE MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.

TRACY LAWSON WANTED TO BE HEARD. TRACY?

I just wanted to expand on Rod Run. We are asking for $10,000 more. This is the 36th year that Rod Run has taken place. It's one of the longest, well-established events that people really look forward to every year. Rod Run typically is participated by a certain demographic. We felt that in order to make this sustainable, we wanted to capture a younger audience. Last year, we actually expanded and we added an off-road component to it, which was wildly successful. It was really fun. We are trying to set ourself up for in the event that we don't get participants like we've seen that Rod Run dies down, that we are in a position that we can transform this event into something different, something bigger, something better. Discover Vista has always looked at an event that we've had like an outdoor experience, OxFest. So that is adding all of the outdoor components, surfing, skate, And by adding these little components into it, like we did last year with the off-road, we could transition the rod run. Not that we want to eliminate it, but if we had to transition it into a different event, we could. Because we added that component last year, it increased our expenses. Trophies, T-shirts, security, the footprint. So we had added expenses. So that's what this money is gonna go for. to make it something different, not just your typical rod run. And this event is designed specifically not to have a lot of vendors. So we don't make a lot of money from vendor participation because we really want the attendees to patronize the restaurants and the retail that is down there. And we don't have a big footprint to add vendors. So we don't get the money from that. So that's why we're asking for the additional money to kind of transform it to add in that different component, off-road, choppers, motorcycles, and then test some other events as well. Thank you.

May I make a wording change? Because I said staff's recommendation, and I should have said CDBID's recommendation for my motion.

I'll second your motion, Deputy Mayor.

So I'll just be honest with you. I had no problem with any of these except for the $25,000 for Rod Run. And it's not because I don't like Rod. I've gone to Rod Run every year for the last six years. I brought my son there this year. I actually love the event. Based on the comments, and forgive me if I missed it because I was scribbling notes while I was talking about it, but like Securities and trophies doesn't in my mind justify an extra $15,000 so from from an adverse Advertising aspect or like what are we doing to grow it and I and before you answer that just hold off What did we spend as a city last year did we partner it to try and promote the event from through through like social media or any other materials and

Yes, I apologize. The CVBID, we do have a separate budget for advertising and social media. And I'm trying to find it in my spreadsheet here.

And so I guess my question would be, what is allocated currently that we would have spent on top of this? And then was there additional funding spent on top of that to promote it?

So the total budget for promotion and advertisements per year for these events through the CVBID is $5,000. We do put it in our VISTA magazine and some of our media outlets as well.

Is that for all of these events or just for this specific event, $5,000?

That is for all.

So not a lot of money in the grand scheme. yeah so i would rather see more money used towards advertising the event because again i love the rod run i really genuinely do um my my father worked on cars his whole life growing up i wish i had his knowledge of vehicles but i don't uh but it i definitely can appreciate the beauty that goes into bringing an old classic car and displaying it for our community and the people that want to go down there and enjoy it um

And I do want to clarify, so that is for social media printing advertisement. We do have a separate budget line item for a website administration where some of these events are also posted.

So I appreciate that. What I wanted to know is did we spend $5,000, $10,000 on this specific event? And in which case, what did we get from it? Because I feel like this past year was actually one of the more sparse attendances I've seen in the times that I've gone. And I don't know if you all can reflect on that and maybe share if attendance went up or if you have an idea of what attendance was this year. But just from perception, and unfortunately perception's reality sometimes, it seemed like it was a lower turnout than it has been historically. You're welcome to come up. As the two people that work on this event, I am happy to hear your answers to this question.

So the city actually gives us the attendance report after each one of our events, and attendance was down, but I think it was down like 500. So in 2024, we had, I think it was 8,500 attendees, and this last one was close to 8,000.

I just feel like when I went in, I want to say it was like 22 or either right after COVID. I mean, I felt like there was a huge crowd. Maybe I'm wrong. I don't know if we have those numbers. Do we have those numbers?

Yeah, it was similar to as described. We showed a 2024 attendance of around 6,400 and a 2025 attendance of 5,100. What about prior years? Do we have that information?

We don't have that here, no. Wish we did. That's all right. Yeah. So, all right, can you just explain to me while you're up here, because I apologize, I might take away with security and trophies. What is $25,000 going to go for this event?

It's not just, I'm sorry, it's not just trophies.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to interrupt you. But also, if that money is being allocated to transition this to a different event, I would rather it just be separated and a separate event created, if that makes sense. Do you know what I'm saying? Yes. Because that's the verbiage that was used. And if I misunderstood, please do correct me.

No, well, last year we broke even. We even lost a little bit because we added in that off-road component. And when you add in that bigger footprint, there was additional security. There was different additional operational setup. So it's security, safety requirements, traffic control, printing, marketing, T-shirts, trophies, entertainment, production, stages, restrooms that we had to put all over. So our operating costs have exceeded and we haven't asked for any more money in the last two years, but it's just to cover those costs and to grow the event. in the future and just to set us up for future growth.

As someone who has spent a lot of money on things prematurely, is there any takeaways from this to where maybe having done it for the first time in last year's event, you're like, hey, I could have either streamlined this or cut back on that or done this differently to try and cut down the costs versus just trying to say like, hey, this is what it costs. And so that's what we're going to ask for.

Yeah, I think we always work with our planners to see where we can cut costs. And, you know, last year we had different color T-shirts. We had tank tops. We had, you know, different varieties where this year we're like we're going to streamline it to one T-shirt. But still those costs are more this year than they were the last two years. So, yeah, we always sit down and plan on where we can cut costs.

And so within this $25,000, I know that we have, is it Discover Vista, that's the event organizer, is that the new, or who's the new organizer for this, or the program?

Oh, Perfect Event is the planners that we hire to plan the event.

So now that they're a year into this, what are they going to do differently? Have they given you any plan of what they're going to do differently that would necessitate an additional cost? Because if attendance has gone down, it's, in my opinion, it's because it's not being shared with the public enough, right? So do they have an outreach or do they have some idea of how they can help bring more people in and more patrons in?

I hear what you're saying, Mr. O'Donnell. I'm sorry, I wanted to call you Dan. I don't know if that's appropriate. TJ, it's okay if you do it, sorry. I'm big into marketing. At my business, I do a lot of marketing.

Just got a mailer from you last week.

See, exactly. I've been on the CVBID board for, I don't know, seven, eight years, something like that, I think. And that's been my number one thing because... Even though, yeah, you're paying a tax, it's minimal. What is it, $300 a year, something like that? A lot of people have a really high expectation. Is $25,000 a lot of money? Absolutely it is. Does it bring down, I think the $5,000, the 5,000 people population, I think that's a little low. I think Tracy was more accurate on that. And what that is is that's the cost of $3.12 a person. That's dirt cheap. Is the 25 grand a lot of money? Sure it is. We don't have anybody else stepping up. We're not getting other people that, we used to hold a bidding time frame of people to come down and apply for grants. Some of them were really lame. Some of them worked out. We accepted some. We didn't accept some. Some people couldn't even fill out the application properly. So we just... So these are the people that are actually doing stuff. And for the cost of $3 a person to get them into the downtown area and to give people other opportunities. And we've been... trying hard really hardcore the last few years of getting more people um one of our criteria is now is they need to get the banner downtown and have that going across the road that's one of the criteria because that's whatever that cost is that's that's shooting fish in a barrel but we're forcing them to do that and we're really forcing to market them we're um We have a bunch of forward-thinking members on the CVB ID now, and especially in the last couple years, things have been changing and evolving. And I understand 100% your concerns, and I'm 100% with you. But I assure you, we are trying to increase that, and we've been talking to these ladies about this, and we're all working together for a general solution and to bring more people downtown. Now, is there a guarantee? Absolutely not. But those issues have been addressed, and we are working towards bettering that. And once again, it's a 36-year tradition that's been in vista, and I think it would be a real shame to do it, especially when these ones are the predominant ones of stepping up and taking control and doing these things, and kind of like what they created with Fright Night. That's my opinion on the whole thing.

And I want to tell you, I appreciate the work that CBBID does. I really do. I know you guys work very hard to do this work. I guess my other question. I went to San Diego Beer Week.

I just want to say one more thing, too. We are a nonprofit. We don't make hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's not our goal. One thing that we pride ourselves on is we try to keep our costs down. We did not raise the entry fee this year for Roadrun, and it hasn't been raised in a long time. Just like Fright Night, we keep that ticket price down low. We're not in it to make a lot of money. The expenses... you know, I would be happy to sit down and show you the P&L and, you know, what the expenses were that we paid last year. We don't anticipate that being double. We just want to cover, you know, what the expenses are for Rod Run. And not only that, we have insurance that we pay for. We have storage fees that we pay for. We do our taxes. So part of that money is spread out from all of our events to keep Discover Vista running and keep the lights on. But again, it's not like we're sitting on a cash bucket full of money.

In no way am I trying to imply that you are, because I understand that you're not.

But that's one thing, too, is we try to keep our costs down so people can participate. And that's part of asking for the funds as well, so we can keep those costs down. Don't have to raise our prices.

I'm gonna step in here and I wanna move this item along.

Okay, I have one last question because I went to the Beer Fest festival last year and I know that there's a lot of potential for that. And I would actually rather see, I'm willing to give you a year on the rod run, but I would rather see that go to 20,000 and then 15,000 invested into Beer Week or into the Beer Fest. So that would be my substitute motion if it's palatable. I'll second that. But I want to give you the, I don't want to strip all the funds. I just know that there's a lot of opportunity there. And I think that there's probably more opportunity there to get a larger draw to downtown Vista for businesses in there. And so that's what I would like to see in this and then put it at 20,000 instead of 25 and leave everything else the same, just add 5,000 to the beer fest.

Thank you. And just to let you know, we have been talking about the beer fest and the Brewers Guild and all that stuff. So it is in the talks.

So if you can accept that, that would be my motion and I'm happy to approve that.

What's the revenue from the bid?

From the CVB ID? It's approximately, or it is 50,000 a year.

Oh, okay. I mean, look, here's my only point is we've asked these folks, they've given years of service we've asked them to do the hard thinking and decision-making here. And we're kind of, you know, we're Monday morning quarterbacking it a little bit, is my honest feeling. And I just, you know, they're going to do the hard work of it. They're the ones putting in the effort. I'd like to just respect their recommendation that they brought us here, for better or worse. I mean, they've got more – You guys have spent many hours thinking about it. We've spent a few minutes thinking about it. That's my thought.

Will the loss of $5,000 in this situation significantly impact you in a negative way, or do you feel like it would be well utilized at the Brewers Fest or the Brew Fest that we would put on?

I think it would be more impactful if it was used directly for the rod run rather than splitting it up. That way they can focus 100% and try to give you a better product for the rod run rather than come in a little bit short, have to worry about raising the rest of the money, and then only have a little bit for the beer.

Okay. I'm a reasonable person and I agree. I don't want you to go through all this work and then me come in here and tell you no just because of some issues that I see that are in my mind somewhat glaring. On the assumption I'm on this council next year, what I will tell you is that I'm willing to do it tonight for this, but I want to see like the actual real results. I don't want to hear I think this, I think that, I think I want to know tangible results that came out of applying $25,000 because if, you know, I can appreciate the discrepancy in attendance from city versus, you know, whatever, but I'm going to attend it again this year, you know, and if, in my opinion, I don't think $25,000 is validated toward it, you're really gonna have to show me next year as to why it would be if you're gonna come back with the same request. If not, I do think $5,000 in this situation as far as getting people into the city would be well spent on a Brewers Fest. Why do I keep forgetting the name of it?

Are we still going down the line here?

Rhythm and bruise, thank you. So I withdraw my motion. You do speak out of turn.

I haven't got a chance to speak, y'all. I really would love to.

That's all, so I'll withdraw my motion. I know it's been seconded, but those are my thoughts on it. I wish you good luck this year.

Mayor, am I recognized? Yes. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much Imelda and Aaron for your assistance on this item. Quick question, is this a regular budget item that we are supplying the CVB ID or was this just due to one time year in fund? One time, okay. Okay, so one time funds. So for me.

I'm sorry, just to clarify, these are annual events that we typically budget for, correct?

No, this $100,000 that we're discussing is a one-time funding. Oh, yes, correct.

You're in fund balance, correct.

Yeah.

For these annual events.

Okay. So we already have investments that we make to the CVBID, or are they self-funded through the levies that are on the businesses?

So they do do a self-assessment every year that generates $50,000. Okay.

And that's your budget? It's $50,000? OK. You guys are doing a lot with $50,000, first of all. And then for our year-end fund balance, we have a little bit of extra funding, $100,000. This is how you decided to split it up. I'm not going to pretend to know better than you on exactly what the best use of these funds are. But I do think we need to be realistic about what the risks are, right? Because we don't know the outcome of what the rod run will look like with these future investments. But I really do appreciate it, T.J., and Tracy and Natalie, that you're here and you've been having these discussions. Because I'm actually seeing the vision of what you're describing, Tracy. I went to the Rod Run when you had the expansion last year. And yeah, you added a stage. It was a teeny tiny stage in front of the Sinopolis, right? And it was kind of this like bluesy, like steampunky, like duet. And it was great. And I spent most of my time over in the expanded area. And I can see with the youth culture of hanging out in parking lots and showing off their cars and their modern kicks and whatever, I can see an expansion of youth culture at the Rod Run. I understand what you're trying to do. We know that beer is always gonna be a thing. I do think that we might have to really reckon with, is the Rod one gonna be a sustainable event over a longer period of time? And maybe we need to really lean more on what works. But for a one-time investment of funds to trial something, I completely support what you're trying to do. I totally understand. But this is also kind of like the disconnect here I feel is due to, concerns about process where I'm not necessarily in those meetings with you, understanding how you're coming to these decisions. For our oversight of the CVB ID, Imelda, what is the, like what is the city council and just like the city governance's ability to like review budgets and like audit the process, what does that look like?

We do bring the annual levies to the City Council, the assessments. We're more than happy to report out at that time the stats for the year. I know during the joint dinner meetings with the CVBID and City Council, we also report out the annual report at that event. However, we're more than happy to come back more often to the city council and report out on the events that are being planned for the coming fiscal year.

Yeah, and Tracy, you said that you all are willing to share that. I'm not necessarily needing that right now, but I know that as business owners in the downtown, you have a unique position And this is essential for you. You need to get people's feet on the ground in downtown. And based on all your conversations and your feedback and your experience, if this is how you believe you can do that, I believe you. but we will see, right? We will have to see if people really do want to see an expansion of the Rod Run. I think it would be cool, but I'm not the most popular person, so I won't always be right about that. But I think that we do have like larger questions about the use of funds, right? The extent of marketing, day of operations, street closures are expensive, logistics, toilets, Of course, materials and supplies, t-shirts, those types of things. So I think that I would love to talk to you more about what it means to have a successful event, right? What really makes the Rod Run successful? Is it gonna be more marketing? Or is it really changing the programming? So I'm sure that there's more discussions that need to be had, but I support allotting $25,000 so that you guys can kind of kickstart maybe a new initiative. If it doesn't work out, then we don't have more funds available, so we would have tried.

I do want to make a really, I think, important point. I don't want you guys to think that we're coming in here jumping from 15,000 to 25,000. Broad Run is our most expensive event to host. We are capped at the CVBID. That's the only reason that we've been limited to only 15,000. If we could have asked for more money, we would have, but CVBID limits the amount of grants that they can. It's normally a $10,000 grant, and that's the most amount of money that you could get from CVBID. we were lucky enough to get that extra $5,000. So I don't want you to think, oh, we just are asking for all this. It's the most expensive, and we've had these funds.

So that's why it's been capped. I think that you could be successful coming back to us with a greater plan for how you want to seed future funds, because we do believe in you. but we do have a governance obligation to see a plan. And I'll give one more piece of advice in the business that I do. I have to struggle to let go of sentimentality, right? We're like, I want to hold on to something because I love it, even though it's not necessarily working. And I think maybe that's a little bit what's happening with the rod run, but you know what? We're going to give it a shot. We're going to give it a shot because we do love it, okay? So I believe in you and what you're working on, and thank you for putting in the effort and being here tonight. Thank you.

Councilmember Contreras.

Awesome. Well, you know, I really want, I appreciate getting more details about the $25,000. That's something in the future. It's imperative that the council understands because this is a significant increase. And so I guess my question is, you have the 50,000 every year, we go back and re-approve, there's not an appetite to increase the bid fee, so we're stuck with this 50,000. So is that also gonna be on top of this? what is that 50,000 gonna be used for outside of this 100,000?

Yeah, so the CVBID board will approve, look at a budget for that 50,000. Typically it's been spent on different marketing expenses, as Imelda said earlier, the website, as well as additional events, right? So whereas with this proposal, the board is proposing that this money be used on some of these existing events, it frees up the CVB ID money to be used on new events. We already have an application in right now for Chicana Art Festival that someone wants to do later this year. So it allows the CVB ID board to consider that and consider allocating funding towards that and other events.

Okay, so it's the funding for the previous events is all going to the $100,000, right? It's going to be funded by the $100,000. Correct. Which allows you to have... a freer budget to explore. What I really wanted to see with this 100,000, it was just a fun swap at this point, but I really wanted to see more diverse programming come. So if that's what you're promising me that is coming down, I'm okay, but I have got to get more details because at the end of the day, I fought for $100,000 in the year-end fund budget to go to downtown for the purpose of having events, for the purpose of economic expansion and vitality in the downtown, and I wanna make sure that comes to fruition. I have a lot of heartache of the 25,000 going to Rod Run. I think it's an enormous budget But if anybody can do it, I know it's you all. So I'm gonna put my trust in you. I'm such a watchdog and I love to have oversight over things. So it's still a little bit difficult for me to vote yes, but I'm going to trust in the creativity and the events that you've been able to bring to the city and how enjoyable our community is when they're in downtown, going to the different restaurants, having a fun time with their family. I wanna continue to see that grow. And hopefully we can continue to allocate additional funds. Outside of that, I would love to see some more communication where just like council member Melinda said, I want to know what the recommendations are, right? I want to understand the direction that you want to go in. So that way when it comes time, if we have funding left over, we know, okay, you know what? The a hundred thousand, that was great, but actually they need 125,000 this year, right? Or, maybe we're gonna put some different parameters on the 100,000 moving forward, right? So those are the things that, those are the communications and discussions that I wanna have and just know that I'm always available to have those because I really wanna see a successful VISTA and a successful historic downtown and I do think that all our bid districts need to have some good programming because I will say this over and over and over again, but Area C gets totally left out. So I would love to see some programming over there as well. So don't hesitate to come and give us your opinion. Yeah.

Just for the record, our meetings are generally the first Monday of the month at 8.30 in the morning, right around the corner. Yeah. You're welcome to join us.

Staff will make sure we include details in the weekly updates as well.

You know, I can't wait to get the weekly update and I go through it. So anything that's in there, I look at it. Please put the stats. I would love that. I can't always make it, but if I can make it to one of your board meetings, I will definitely go. But don't hesitate to reach out and yeah, we'll have more communication about it. So I'll be a yes on this. but I just need to see it pan out. Thank you.

If Doris does not already, please ask her to put those on our calendars.

Will do.

And I just want to say thank you again that you're still willing after all these years to put this, you've been with us for, I don't know, five hours tonight, and that you're willing to put, no, seriously, that you're willing to put the time in for all that. I mean, I can't, it's just a huge amount of work. Thank you. Because after all these years, it would have been easy for you to go, I'll let somebody else do this. And, you know, so thank you for putting the time in because look, this is not really about marketing the downtown business. you guys, I want you guys to follow this. This is not about marketing because if it was just about marketing, I don't need, I don't, you know, I don't own your business. I'm not getting anything for it. This is about community. This is, we're not paying for marketing here. We're paying for a community. Uh, That's what the real value of this is. These events, they build community, and this is what the city is doing. That's for all the people in the city. I really liked that you, TJ, had command of the actual dollar amount. You did your math. You're a great businessman. You knew it was three and a half dollars for every head that you're bringing in. 312. 312. I'd love this and I'm gonna stop myself from going down the rabbit hole, but I'd love to know how that compares to the other events, but I'm not gonna ask you right now. I'm just glad that you have a command of that number and you know the economy of what the cost is to get these bodies into the downtown. I think that's great that you've approached this. It's a volunteer activity. You've approached it with the same great sense that you run your business. So I just want to say thank you again. We really appreciate all the hours that you put in to making not just our businesses successful, but seriously to building community for us in Vista. Thanks for making Avista a great place to live.

And to take that one step further, John, is I'm the first one and the only one that does not have a business in the bid. I came out there, so I have no skin in that game. I have no pony in that race. I am there 100% purely for the city of Avista and the community. I mean, you all know what I do.

You've gone a great big heart for the city. We know that.

But yeah, I appreciate all you all. And thank you very much for your time.

Thank you. Yeah. Round of applause for you, definitely.

Do we need to vote on that or no?

You guys deserve an extra, yeah, we're going to vote on it. You guys deserve an extra free meal from the city. We have a motion to second. Please cast your votes. And this is on the original CVBID recommendation.

Do we need to vote to accept the substitute motion as the motion?

I think it was withdrawn. Okay. I heard it was withdrawn. So this is, yeah, this is your motion that I seconded. as long as nobody objects to that. Everybody cast your votes, lock them in. That's approved unanimously. Thank you all. Thank you very much.

And I just want to say, I attend all these events. I actually hang out in Vista and hang out in our downtown. I'm a seven-minute walk away, so I will be at every single one. I have big skin in the game.

All right, we only have seven minutes left until we pull the ripcord here, so we gotta, you guys hear that? We gotta move quickly. Seven minutes left. All right, here we go. Third item regarding Avvo Playhouse upgrades and operations. Any members of the public who wish to speak on this item may indicate so by using the raise your hand feature by pressing star nine, submitting a request to speak right here at the dais. Speakers will be called upon after the presentation. Assistant City Manager Imelda Huerta will introduce the item briefly.

Thank you. Good evening again, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, members of the City Council. With me tonight is our Recreation Community Services Director, Margaret Hamer, and we will be reporting out on the Avvo Playhouse upgrades and operations. As a brief background, in March, 2024, a temporary advisory stakeholder committee was established for the Avvo Playhouse. The purpose was to investigate, discuss, and recommend to the City Council ways to increase the use of the Avvo. as an economic and cultural resource for the city. The committee was tasked with performing public outreach, soliciting public input and facilitating stakeholder discussions around increased opportunities at the AVO. The committee was comprised of a diverse group of community stakeholders, including two CVBID members, two downtown business owners, one current user at the Avvo, two representatives from local nonprofits, art organizations or foundations, one member of the Parks and Rec Commission, and one member of the Public Arts Commission, and a city staff member. The committee met four times during a 12-month period. At the recommendation of the committee, staff presented a report to the city council in March, 2025, outlining identified deferred maintenance items and proposed facility upgrades. Additionally, the committee unanimously recommended that the city council complete the identified deferred maintenance and facility upgrades for the AVO totaling approximately 1.3 million plus contingency to enhance the venue as a modern multi-use destination that supports downtown visitation, increases rental opportunities and showcases local talent. You can see the breakdown on the screen. The committee also recommended utilizing previously allocated year-end fund balance resources to offset rental fees for nonprofit hosted events and encourage the council to consider the project cost during upcoming budget deliberations, year-end fund balance discussions and future grant funding opportunities. ON MARCH 11, 2025, THE CITY COUNCIL RECEIVED THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE AVO THEATER ADVISORY STATEHOLDER COMMITTEE AND DIRECTED STAFF TO ISSUE A REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS THAT INCLUDED A PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT AND TO BRING BACK POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR REPAIRS, AVO THEATER USAGE DATA AND LOWER FEE RATE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE CITY COUNCIL REVIEW. Staff released the RFP for the Avvo Playhouse operator November of last year. The RFP proposed the development and operation of the Avvo Playhouse as a high-quality mixed-use entertainment and educational venue that aligns with the city's general plan, attracts visitors, provides cultural community benefits to the residents. The RFP required proposals to include the design and renovation of the existing city-owned theater, including upgrades to the sound, lighting, signage, and other identified improvements along with the initial financial investment to transform the AVO into a modern, attractive, multi-use destination that increases rentals, supports local talents, and enhances downtown economic vitality. After three extensions, the RFP closed in February of ninth of this year when proposal was submitted and was deemed non-responsive as certain requirements outlined were not met. Staff received feedback indicating the limited risk, indicated that the limited response to the RFP was primarily attributed, attributable to the projected maintenance costs, which prospective operators determined would render operation of the facility financially infeasible. Staff reconvene and updated the AVA facility deferred maintenance and upgrade costs, which now total $1.8 billion. 1.8 million. On the screen, you can see the breakdown of the different maintenance items, which includes the sign tower, lighting, seating, carpet, hanging globe lights, sound upgrades, video, et cetera. I did wanna note in 2024, staff received 250,000 from the state. 2023 general fund specified grant project advanced by assembly member, Lori Davies. These funds were used for the installation of new roofing at the Avvo. Just quickly wanted to note prior to the presentation of the committee's recommendation report to the council in March, 2025, the CVBID met in January of last year and approved the recommendation to draft an agreement with Humboldt Bike Communications, the selected finalists for the downtown special events or organize a request for qualifications. On February of last year, the CVBID reviewed the draft agreement and approved the agreement as presented. The agreement was fully executed in February 27, 2025, and included key proposed events such as Aval Unplugged, a series of live audience performances featuring musical artists and podcasters. Recent AVO unplugged events have included the Shred Talk skateboarding history event, featuring a screening of the Skate SD documentary and a panel discussion, concert by Dutch Interior, Rocky Horror Picture Show, the Beer vs. Wine sip-off events, Couples Unfiltered, the Haunted Vista Live Ghost, and other events such as the K-Pop and Strawberry Festival, which activate the moonlight. I'm sorry, activate the AVO, excuse me. Tonight, staff are requesting City Council discuss the operations and propose upgrades to the AVO and provide direction to staff regarding next steps. This concludes our report and we are happy to answer any questions.

Council Member Melendez.

Mayor, do we have any speakers?

Oh yes, we do have some speakers. Thank you for reminding me. We have Bill Hornung and Jacob Friedrichs.

As we wait our speakers, I would like to see if we have unanimous consent from the council to extend for 15 minutes.

Certainly. Without objection.

Oh, we're on time. Never mind.

I will not.

I withdraw. Thank you. I'd love to hear from our speakers. Thank you. I thought we were limited until 10 o'clock. No, no, no. I know what time it is.

Mr. Hornung.

Good evening. We know how to clear a room. So good evening, Mayor, Deputy Mayor, Council staff. Just wanted to quickly give some feedback. We have been very involved in the Oval Theater the last seven or eight months. Mel just showed you kind of a list of some of the things that we've put on a bunch of interviews Indie concerts, Merti Mister podcast, the Vista Skateboarding Society celebration, K-pop festival, on and on. And what we really tried to do during that whole effort as part of the downtown special events program was really just to kind of try out a lot of different things. And I think we've had some really good successes in all that. But maybe just as important also is just trying to realize what the facility itself is. has really needed to kind of go through to pull off some of those things and so when it comes to the actual facility improvements we really have found that we've had no complaints at least from people who have gone into the Yavo about the particular status of the venue itself, they love it. They love the, you know, the character of it, the feel of it. If you talk to like the bands and stuff, they think it's just amazing we even have a green room because there used to be an out in their car. So from that perspective, we don't really see the huge need for major facility improvements, although it could really use some facility improvements. And so we think all the recommendations that came back are totally spot on if we have just an extra $2 million lying around. So we're 100% behind that. But if you do have to... prioritize what we've heard loud and clear and through our experience is really number one by a large margin is having a really awesome projector and screen in there. That's really prevented us from doing a lot of other things that we hope to do in there. Whether it's movies, almost all performances these days like to have some kind of video imagery in the background. And it's really kind of hard to do right now. So that would be by far number one. Number two, the marquee obviously has seen better days. And if any of you ever want to just enjoy the sheer torture of changing that marquee, come on down. The staff from the Recreation and Community Services Group have to go through that, and it's definitely a challenge. And last but not least is just maybe some basic upgrades to the consent.

Mm-hmm.

Thank you, Jacob Fredericks.

Good evening, Mayor Franklin, council members. My name is Jacob Fredericks and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in front of you all. Since my last time speaking at the council regarding the OVO, I've had the opportunity to produce and oversee multiple events inside the facility. This has provided valuable insight into its inner workings and a taste of what we could do for the community We have done a wide variety of events ranging from free all the way to $25 shows with large headlining acts. Over the last seven months, these shows have become not only great for the citizens of Vista, but also very advantageous for our local business owners. I have been fortunate enough to collaborate with many businesses across downtown, often multiple in one event. Not only are the businesses that I work with directly benefiting, but indirectly, local establishments are receiving hundreds of extra dollars on slower days of the week due to our events. The Avos supports downtown businesses, but also creates cultural momentum, meaning that there are shows and constant events to look forward to. For younger generations, I do not believe that there currently stands any establishment that brings out the types of acts that they are looking for. There are bars and breweries putting on successful shows, but for high school age students, you'll be hard pressed to find space for them. For those reasons, I believe effective renovations to the theater for my team and I to continue our work is deeply important. Not just for entertainment, but for the future culture and identity of Vista. Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you. Council Member Melendez.

Yes, thank you staff and thank you Bill and Jacob for speaking on this topic. Thank you for being part of groups that are taking this opportunity where we are reducing the barriers to access this public facility so that we can revitalize this space from the inside out, right? It makes me so happy. For years I've been saying, you know, we don't have, you know, a problem with the Avvo except for that there's no programming. We just need to open it up for programming. And so I was right. As soon as we opened it up, all this cool shit started happening. And now we're getting more people into our downtown. We're getting collaboration with our businesses. It's exactly what we wanted. And I just want to see more people. people get involved, right? I never want to insinuate that there's just one group that the City of Vista is working with or that one organization has a monopoly on having access to the Avvo. So I think the more opportunity, the better. And I completely agree that we can open up programming opportunities by one, reducing the hours that are the minimum hours. I'm committed to having those union conversations myself to make sure that we get there. But we want to be able to reduce those barriers. And five hours is still a long time. Bill and Jacob, would you say that five hours is kind of a big block for you guys to program? Mm-hmm. Yeah, 100%. Okay, so I think that that needs to be a priority for our policy. And then in terms of financing, we need to put $250,000 towards AV immediately. We need to have an improved screen and sound so that we can show films and we can have visuals that we weren't able to show before. I think that that's really going to enhance the programming. Everything else is aesthetically, you know, what it is, you know, it's older seating. It's a tight concession stand. It's teeny tiny bathrooms. It's, you know, an old marquee. Those are things that I think can come in time as we continue to benefit from the revenue opportunity that comes with programming. So that would be my suggestion, Council, is, you know, in a business direction, can we invest in audiovisual as immediately as possible? Beyond that, I think that this is fantastic. I love the Avvo. I did plays at the Avvo when I was a kid. Anytime I get a chance to go to some of the new programming that's been happening, I've tried to stop by because it's magical inside. It really is. And I think that we should be proud of opening it up to the public and to the community. I want you to just run with it. That is your building. So I want you to put your creativity into it. And there's no rules. You guys get to tell us what you want. And it's now our job to try to make it happen for you. So let's see if we can get some better audio and visual in there. That would be my hope. Thank you so much.

Did you say $250,000 for that? Cause I mean, I was just gonna say, one of those video walls, the LED is like $100,000. Why don't we put one of those in? Yeah.

I'm looking at the list. The last three items are AV. Am I right? That adds up to 240.

I'm just saying if you're going to put that kind of money into it, where is this money coming from? Is this, did we set aside money?

No, I'm saying that.

We have not identified a source for this. We wanted to make sure the council was comfortable with the list, and then we were gonna bring it back at the year-end fund balance.

And Mayor, I'm reflecting that in terms of priority, I would say, well, maybe not even lighting upgrades, but sound upgrades and video upgrades would be the top priority. $120,000 would be the priority for spending that we should do.

Before we spend all this money that we haven't figured out where it's coming from yet, I'm okay with, you know, putting together like a plan, but I just don't want to get too excited about spending it until we figure out where the money's going to... Is the thought that this is going to be on the wish list for a year in fund balance? Is that what... Yes. Okay. All right. Do we have... I mean, it's okay not to take this right now, but I'd love to see a list of all the things that are hopeful candidates for the year-end fund balance so that I could figure out how this, because I kind of want to think about like, is this the most important use of one and a half or $2 million? I want to do all these things. I just, Council Member Contreras.

All right. I love what you all have been doing with the AVO. You know, for me, what I can do up here is try to right-size policies so that things can actually be utilized. And 100%, I'll say it again, I need to get to that three-hour block. I'm right there with Councilmember Melendez. It's been year after year that we're requesting this. And we just, I gotta know a definitive, this is what IATSE is saying we can't do, so we can't get to the three-hour block, or we found a compromise. And if it's a roadblock, then we'll take the roadblock at that time and open it up and see what we can do to get around it or to actually get to a compromise. This is a lot of money. I think the Avvo's worth it, personally. I think that we will see a return on investment in the Avvo. But again, going in line with what the council has been doing, I do think that some of these can be prioritized over others and we can have a phased approach. Because I think we can probably get there over the course of a few years, understanding that certain things are much higher priorities. I have never rented the Avvo or worked it, so I don't understand exactly what those priorities are. Definitely being able to utilize a projector, I think, is like common sense, right? So how much is that? What's the total cost for being able to project stuff?

Is this the video upgrades? Yes. I know our operations manager, Shelby Coffran, is here. But I am assuming it is the video and sound upgrades.

Yeah. I would just like just to get a little bit of direction on prioritization. So lighting, sound, and video at 60,000 each.

Correct. The video would encompass the projector and projector screen that we would need to upgrade. And then the sound would be a new sound board that we need. I think those are the two priorities you're looking at.

Okay. With the new seating, is that replacing all of the seating? How many seats?

About 382, 385 seats in that theater.

Are we at all looking at removing some of the seats in the front so people can dance?

We are discussing that, yes.

And what's the cost for that? Because I could go in there and just unscrew them right now. Because the last time I was there, the last time I was there, I wanted to dance. And other people did, too. And we found a way, but it wasn't super comfortable. So I think that that should be a priority. I would assume that it's not super expensive to just take some of the seats out. I think it's a longer discussion about how we want to format that. And I would want that in the wish list as well for year-end fund balance. But I think $120,000 for the sound and lighting, I feel like we have that somewhere.

You're smiling. You're telling me no. To clarify, the sound upgrades is 60,000 videos, 60,000, and then lighting upgrades is 120. Right.

But do we need the lighting upgrade as well or just the sound and video?

The lighting would be an enhancement that we would eventually need. We're not using LED lighting, so we're paying more in utilities than we probably should be for the amount we're now programming in the Avvo. This is older lighting. It costs a little more to turn on and keep on. LED is going to be a bit more sustainable and user-friendly for the people coming in to rent, so we do want to eventually make that. I don't know if it necessarily needs to be the top thing on the list at this point.

Yeah, I would love to have more solar panels downtown and try and run the avo. We have like 60% of our needs here through our solar panels, so I know that we did the new Michigan lot ready to put solar panels in the future, and I don't know if there's some kind of connection that we can do there in the future, but okay, well, thank you. I think, you know, for me, I'm 100% in on upgrading the sound, upgrading the video. I think... Do we have a number of, a data point that shows number of events prior to whenever it was that we moved from five hours to ten hours? Like, if you don't have that right now, that's fine, but I want to see that. Because I think if we're able to do some of these improvements and then we get to that three-hour block, I feel like I'm going to see some kind of a J curve, meaning exponential growth at the Avvo, which is great and something that I really, really want to see. I haven't been able to go to all these events. They all seem very interesting. So that's where I'm at. I am 100% in for sound, 100% in for video, and then I want to have a longer-term conversation. that happens this year before the year-end fund balance discussion about what the best configuration of the current seating is, because I think removing some of those, maybe it's two rows in the very center part, could be conducive to having some more fun. And maybe even putting tables, I don't know. So we can look at that and have a more thorough discussion about that. But this is where I stand. And I do support the totality of the 1.8, but I would want to phase that out over the course of maybe three to five years.

Thank you. If I could just mention real quickly, some of these items are safety issues. So we do have groups that are currently using them, theater groups, and they have brought to our attention different pieces of the ceiling falling down and then complaining about the chairs having the handles not... broken and things like that. So we've received quite a few different complaints. So it might be worthwhile, you know, before the year in balance is reviewed is maybe we do tours and so you can see it firsthand and understanding that priorities to get that sound and everything else. But I think the safety areas are what also you'd want to have as a priority because especially if you want more and more people there and more activities, we want to make sure we're providing a safe environment for those who are enjoying it.

Yeah, and that it's not a 4D experience that is not planned for. So, okay, yeah, I mean, I think this all needs to come... I think it needs to come back. I would love to see the prioritization. Maybe it's done in different buckets, right? So there's safety... category that has a prioritization for safety. There's accessibility that has a prioritization for accessibility. These different buckets, I'm not an expert in it. I'll leave it up to you to figure out what those categories are. But for us to look at all of these and have them within those categories is going to make it easier. But I do know that 100% the sound and video needs to get upgraded ASAP. So I'm fine moving forward with that. And then having another discussion way before the year end fund balance about the AVO, these additional categories and the reformatting possibilities of the seating. All right, thank you so much. And I appreciate all your work. It's been fantastic, staff and community.

Deputy Mayor. Are these in any particular order or just a list?

It's just a list.

So I would actually like to hear from staff, not tonight, just in that same vein that you're speaking of, your priority list of what you think would be most important for this space, so that way we can have that discussion and understand, not just based on your feedback, but the feedback overall of what's taking place at the AVO. of what really the necessities are early on. I'm not going to support funding it tonight, but I will support funding the 120. I just want to know where it's going to come from and if we actually have it. So I'm sorry, I thought you wanted to do it tonight. I'm like, no, we're going to, let's hit the brakes. There actually may be free solar programs available for the Avvo. And I think we all have that information, but I'm happy to send it over. I guess every time we have this discussion, I just wanna know what is the end goal? Like what are we trying to do with the ABO? I still have these grand envisionments of it being something like the belly up and not to take away and like we could keep all the programming that we've installed in there in the last year, but then just, create something bigger. And if we're going to put all these investments into it, is the end goal to get an RFP where someone's going to be like, hey, now I don't need to spend $2 million. Now I only need to spend $6 million or whatever stupid number it's going to be to get this improved to where I can actually program it and share it as a community space, but actually make it profitable, generate revenue, do all the things that I think would be beneficial, not just for the Avvo, but for downtown Vista and our entire city, to be honest with you. I mean, I know there's so many great ideas of things that could be happening downtown. I would love to see them come to fruition, but the AVA would just be that next beacon to draw everybody in if all the other things can happen in that small little corridor of great things that are happening in downtown Vista. I think that's the greater discussion, and I know that we've had it before, and I don't think that we can come to a consensus on it, but I think that if we're gonna make a $2 million investment, which I think is necessary and I support doing, we just need to have an idea of what the end game is, because if we just keep throwing money at this and it's not gonna be profitable, and I understand the community benefit to it, But there's got to be a way to activate this to make it generate revenue for the city. So I would love to kind of have a deeper dive into what that can be and what we can actually accomplish with $1.8 million in investments today. And I like the phased approach to it. But if we have the funds left over that are necessary, I'd be open to speeding it up as well. Yeah. and just go from there so yeah i would love to have a discussion if we know where the funding is coming from for the 120 000 and then just see a priority list i know all of you have input on this uh share it with staff and and not that you've had these discussions so um i would love to see where these items rank by you all before it comes to us at least that way it gives us an idea of like hey can we spend half a million right now or should we spend 200,000 on these three items, you know, and it just gives us a better parameter of what to work in. But my end goal is to get something that will be more like the belly up. Not necessarily only for that, but I mean, you're talking You can get bigger bands, you can get headliners for comedy shows. There's so much stuff on top of all the programming that we've done. And I just think there's a lot of potential and opportunity in this space. So I think it's wise to invest in these items. I really wanna have a greater discussion around what it is we hope to do once these are done. You may. Oh, also, I can ask you a question after that.

Fantastic. Okay, so when this comes back, I'm in agreement with you. So are you asking that when we discuss this, that we, one of the items that we discuss is what is the council goal for the AVO?

Yeah, I mean, you know, it doesn't have to be in the near future because I don't think that we're going to be able to program it the way that the goal, but I mean, I would think before.

I mean, if we can get to a consensus about what the future goal would be.

Yeah, I think that it'd be good if we can have a light agenda and have that discussion. Okay. I'm open to it. Okay, perfect. I'm assuming you didn't have a permit to dance that evening at the AVO?

You know, it was only two people dancing total. So I'm sure. It was dark. I couldn't see.

I appreciate all the work that has gone into this. I know that this is years in the making. It's long before I've been on this council. It will be long after my tenure here, I'm sure. But I really do appreciate everything that goes into it. So thank you for the hard work, and I will look forward to getting that information back the next time we speak.

Council Member Fox.