Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Homeless Shelter topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council demands stronger protections after marathon debate over "Hope at Vine" shelter lease
Summary
After hours of public comment and analysis from the independent budget analyst and city attorney, the City Council voted 7-2 to return the Hope at Vine lease to staff with instructions to negotiate additional protections and bring revised terms back for consideration; staff had proposed a 30-year lease and major tenant-improvement commitments for a campus-style shelter.
The San Diego City Council on July 22 stopped short of approving a long-term lease for a proposed 1,000-bed shelter campus dubbed "Hope at Vine," instead directing staff to return with negotiated changes and stronger assurances after a contentious hearing that included more than a hundred public speakers and a critical independent budget analyst report.
City staff proposed leasing a 1.8-acre, multi-level property at 3554'3590 Kettner Boulevard for a 30-year term with an initial rent of $1.95 per square foot, a 3.5% annual escalation, 19 months of free rent during construction and an estimated $18.2 million in tenant improvements to repurpose the building for shelter operations. The proposal included a landlord contribution and a "flip fee" entitling the city to 14% of net sale proceeds if the owner flips the property within five years.
The Independent Budget Analyst Charles Modica told the council the lease terms appeared above local market rates for comparable industrial/flex properties, that some TI estimates were prepared by the landlord's consultants, and that the city had not yet conducted an independent appraisal. Modica's office recommended additional review and asked the council to consider an RFP process or other steps to better understand market options and long-term operating costs.
During a long public-comment period, supporters including major service providers, hospital and medical groups, the Downtown San Diego Partnership and labor organizations urged the council to secure the site to add shelter capacity and co-locate health, housing navigation and employment services. Opponents cited neighborhood impacts, the size of the proposed congregate model, fiscal risk, use of housing funds for TI work, and a perceived lack of community engagement or competitive procurement.
City negotiators and the property owner, developer Doug Hamm, described site due diligence, environmental reports and agreements that staff said reduced the City's near-term risk. Staff argued a campus model yields operational savings and service integration versus a scattered-site approach and highlighted that many temporary beds will demobilize in the coming year.
Council members pressed staff and the mayor's negotiators on multiple legal and fiscal issues, including: independent TI cost validation, who bears risk for structural or environmental remediation, how property taxes and post-construction reassessments would affect operating budgets, whether federal/state grant funds proposed for TIs would displace affordable-housing investments, and whether the city had alternatives. Several council members said the lease, as drafted, shifted too much long-term risk to the City.
After extended debate the council voted 7-2 to return the staff recommendation with direction: staff should negotiate and document stronger lease protections (including lender non-disturbance agreements and enhanced environmental remediation guarantees), convene an operations/design working group that includes the San Diego Housing Commission, the Regional Task Force on Homelessness and people with lived experience, and return with an updated lease, validated TI cost estimates and operating-funding contingencies for council review on the requested schedule. Councilmembers Lee and Moreno voted no.
What's next: Staff will re-negotiate lease language, incorporate agreed modifications, further validate TI estimates, involve additional oversight partners in a working group and return to council with revised documents and a clearer project budget and operating plan.
Why it matters: The proposed campus would be one of the city's largest single shelter investments. The council's direction reflects concern about long-term fiscal exposure, procurement transparency and protective legal language when the city is assuming significant tenant-improvement responsibilities and ongoing operating costs.
Provenance: Staff presentation (Christina Bibler, Casey Smith, Steve Cushman), property owner testimony (Doug Hamm), IBA report (Charles Modica), city attorney remarks, and council vote (7-2).
