By David Garrick / San Diego Union-Tribune / November 18, 2025
A sharply divided San Diego City Council voted 6-3 Tuesday to approve annual parking passes for Balboa Park that are intended to allow frequent park users to avoid daily and hourly parking fees coming in January.
The council’s approval of the permits, which will cost $100 a year for city residents and $300 a year for nonresidents, comes after city officials retreated last week from much higher prices proposed initially.
Council members who voted in favor called the lower rates a good compromise and stressed that Mayor Todd Gloria and his staff had made many concessions this year to the council and frequent park users.
Council members who voted against the permit fees — Stephen Whitburn, Raul Campillo and Vivian Moreno — criticized the entire idea of parking fees in Balboa Park.
Their comments echoed complaints from three dozen clubs and other organizations in the park focused on dance, gardening, beekeeping, model railroading, playing bridge and other activities.
Those groups expressed particular frustration with the price of permits for nonresidents, noting that nearly half the members of some Balboa Park organizations live outside the city.
Whitburn said he couldn’t vote for something so unpopular, especially at a time when local residents are facing so many other fee and cost increases.
“San Diegans are deeply unhappy about paying for parking in Balboa Park,” he said. “This feels like an admission charge to Balboa Park, and that really rubs people the wrong way.”
Moreno said the park is a place of low-cost enlightenment and adventure for many of the residents in her South Bay district.
“It’s a place where everybody is able to enjoy the beautiful scenery of San Diego,” she said. “The park is incredibly accessible to residents who are economically challenged. You can go there for an entire day and have a different experience without having to pay much — if any — money.”
Campillo’s critiques were more focused on city finances.
He said the new fees could drive nonprofit organizations out of the park, depress admissions revenue at museums and hurt the park’s restaurants, depriving the city of sales tax revenue.
“We could actually lose money on this and therefore need to reduce services and maintenance in the park,” Campillo said.
He also criticized Gloria’s staff for not conducting a market survey to determine what price points for parking would deter large numbers of visitors and what price points would have less significant effects.
“It seems to me that a market survey would have been an incredibly important component,” Campillo said. “We don’t have any idea how much money we’ll actually collect. We have no idea whether we could lower the cost while increasing the revenue.”
Campillo said the fees are an example of city officials passing the buck to residents by forcing them to pay more so the city doesn’t have to make budget cuts.
“Instead of tightening our own belt, the city is tightening the belts of the very people it’s supposed to serve,” Campillo said.
Councilmember Sean Elo-Rivera agreed that the context for the new parking fees should be potential city budget cuts. But he focused on the unpopular cuts the council avoided having to make last spring by adding this new revenue stream.
“This council attempted to do what we could to find resources to avoid those cuts,” Elo-Rivera said. “We never have folks show up here and say they want fewer firefighters, fewer lifeguards, fewer librarians — and I certainly don’t hear ‘we want fewer potholes filled.’”
Councilmember Marni von Wilpert was less enthusiastic about her yes vote, suggesting the parking fees should be repealed if city voters approve a local sales tax increase in 2026.
Some critics of the new parking fees suggested they were an attempt by the city to punish city voters for narrowly rejecting a one-cent sales tax increase in November 2024 that could have eased the city’s budget crisis.
“I don’t love this — I don’t think anybody loves this — and this is the kind of fee I’d like to see go away if we are able to pass a sales tax (increase) next year,” von Wilpert said.
Council President Joe LaCava stressed that the final proposal approved Tuesday includes several compromises requested by the council in September and several more compromises requested by frequent users of the park.
To appease the council, the proposal includes some free parking at Inspiration Point, more frequent tram service from there to the center of the park and the permits approved Tuesday.
All park users will be allowed to park for free for three hours at Inspiration Point, an overflow lot at the park’s southern edge, from which trams will take people to the park’s more popular destinations.
After three hours, residents will have to pay $5 a day to park at Inspiration Point, and nonresidents will have to pay $10 a day.
When the parking fees kick in Jan. 5, tram service will run with expanded hours, operating from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. for park visitors.
In addition, staff and volunteers will be able to access on-demand trams from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. and from 6 p.m. to 11 p.m.
Staff and volunteers can also park for free in lots closer to the center of the park than Inspiration Point.
To appease frequent users, the annual parking pass fee for city residents was dropped from $300 to $150, and the fee for nonresidents was dropped from $375 to $300.
On quarterly passes, the proposed fee for residents was dropped from $80 to $60 — but the proposed fee for nonresidents rose from $100 to $120.
The council also approved monthly passes for $30 to residents and $40 to nonresidents. Plans for those prices didn’t change.
City officials estimate that users making three weekly visits to the park will save $1,248 if they park in the most convenient — and most expensive — lots, and that they will save $780 if they park in lots a bit farther out.
The annual, quarterly and monthly permits will allow unlimited parking in all Balboa Park lots, regardless of location, as well as along designated on-park roadways.
Passes will not be valid in the San Diego Zoo parking lot or on streets located outside of Balboa Park boundaries where meters will be added, such as Park Boulevard and Sixth Avenue.
The total amount of revenue the city expects to generate from parking fees and permits in Balboa Park continues to dwindle with each change the city makes.
Critics said the projected revenue in the ongoing fiscal year of $2.9 million to $4 million will have a minuscule impact on the city’s $2.2 billion annual budget. Parking revenue from the park was initially estimated at $12.5 million.
Seriously?!
Councilmember Marni von Wilpert was less enthusiastic about her yes vote, suggesting the parking fees should be repealed if city voters approve a local sales tax increase in 2026.
I’ll trade you a fee for some people for a tax on all?! That’ll fly like a lead pig in your next upcoming campaign for congress.
I’m thinking about how much time and money is spent on these types of money grabs from our citizens to make up for the actions of the Mayor and City Council that has ultimately put San Diego in a budget crisis. It is becoming very obvious to me the council is missing the mark on how to solve this problem.
Stop spending. Decrease the amount of spending for staff. A business would not hesitate to do this.
Shannon G. – right on! Thank you.
I’m sure I’m not the only San Diegan who will reduce or even cease visiting the park. I don’t live where there’s reasonable public transportation for getting there. I don’t use Uber or Lyft, either of which would probably cost as much or more round trip than I’d pay in parking fees for what is often a short visit of a couple 2-3 hours. It’s not worth $150/year to me. Paying per visit might easily approach the $150/year pass.
What about families of low/limited incomes? Talk about regressive fees!!
Both Balboa Park and Mission Bay Park are dedicated as *regional parks*! But, higher fees will be required from regional residents who live outside of the city of San Diego.
Often when I come to the Central Mesa I buy an expensive caffe latte, at minimum, or enjoy a meal at one of the restaurants as I did two days ago at the Mingei’s Artifact for lunch with 5 others. What about anyone wishing to attend the summer weekly concerts at the Organ Pavilion.
I think about all of the park institutions and businesses which depend on commerce from visitors, be they local or from out of town: museums, restaurants and other food providers. I think about the artists in Spanish village. What about the Old Globe performances? Would parking fees apply to Handicapped placards/license plates?
Are the fees limited to the Central Mesa or the entire park? West Mesa (I’m sure is included)? Morley Fields sports complex & velodrome? East Mesa golf course? Then there are the Navy Hospital employees and SD High School people who utilize parking south of Park Blvd.
This is going to be very messy and the city will not gain the kind of revenue needed for operation and maintenance of the Park. I’m also concerned that any revenue gained will be subtracted from amounts the Mayor and Council might normally allocate for Balboa Park. My thoughts on the myriad negatives to this plan to force everyone to pay for use of their own parkland just keep spiraling.
At least I am, if not happy, relieved, that the City is finally considering nominally priced ($100 per year) for City residents parking passes, as a way to deal with parking issues. The OB Planning Board had repeatedly, over the years raised the subject of parking passes for local residents and parking fees for non-residents as a way to dissuade travelers from setting up semi- permanent residence in the beach lots. The City alway said it was not a workable solution. San Diego needs to take care of the people who live here. Let the tourists pay.