[11:10] Yeah

[13:10] And

[14:32] and and and and

[16:32] and

[20:51] pictures

[22:34] and

[24:03] and

[24:37] and

[25:04] and and

[25:37] and

[27:02] and and Yeah and and

[29:02] you

[29:09] .

[29:10] All right, I want to thank

[29:14] everybody in chambers or

[29:15] watching online for your

[29:15] patience.

[29:19] We now have quorum so I will

[29:20] now call the city council

[29:24] meeting of Tuesday FEBRUARY

[29:25] 24th 2026 to order Clerk Please

[29:30] call the roll present Council

[29:30] sorry Council Member Campbell

[29:33] here Councilmember Whitburn

[29:33] Councilmember Foster Council

[29:34] Member Von Wilpert Council

[29:38] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee here

[29:39] Council Member Campion

[29:43] COUNCILMAN Moreno Councilmember

[29:43] Eli Rivera and Council

[29:44] PRESIDENT LaCava present also

[29:47] attending the meeting are City

[29:48] Attorney Heather Ferber,

[29:49] independent budget analyst

[29:49] Charles Monica, council affairs

[29:52] advisor and the Mayor's office

[29:53] code advisor and myself your

[29:54] city Clerk Diana Fuentes Thank

[29:57] you Council PRESIDENT All

[29:57] right.

[29:57] Thank you.

[29:58] City Clerk And as I said, a

[29:59] quorum is now present.

[30:02] We will begin this morning with

[30:02] the land acknowledgment and

[30:03] the Pledge of Allegiance led by

[30:11] council member Whitburn.

[30:12] We respectfully acknowledge

[30:17] that the and are the original

[30:17] inhabitants of the Unceded land

[30:18] now known as San Diego.

[30:21] Despite enduring the horrors of

[30:22] genocide and colonization,

[30:22] the community spirit remains

[30:23] unbroken.

[30:26] We are the resilience of their

[30:27] ancestors who fought to protect

[30:27] their culture and land.

[30:31] Today they carry their legacy

[30:31] forward ensuring that their

[30:32] traditions continue to thrive

[30:36] and gratitude and strength with

[30:36] the combination connected to

[30:37] our past and committed to a

[30:41] thriving future.

[30:42] Please space the flag Put your

[30:46] hand over your heart.

[30:46] Ready?

[30:46] Begin.

[30:47] I pledge allegiance to the flag

[30:50] of the United States of America

[30:51] and to the Republic for which

[30:54] it stands One nation under GOD,

[30:55] indivisible with liberty and

[31:04] justice for all.

[31:04] >> Clerk Please go over how

[31:05] the public can offer their

[31:05] testimony.

[31:06] Thank you.

[31:09] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to

[31:10] highlight the site on

[31:10] the screen that reviews how

[31:11] the public can offer their

[31:12] public testimony during today's

[31:12] meeting.

[31:13] Please note the time

[31:14] allocations for proclamations

[31:15] and consent items for meeting

[31:18] management purposes The order

[31:19] can be found on the agenda

[31:19] Summary found online or at

[31:20] the table in the back of

[31:20] the room.

[31:23] You can also use if you are in

[31:24] person please complete a

[31:27] speaker slip locate at

[31:28] the entrance of chambers and

[31:29] bring it to the front of

[31:29] the room into the clear box.

[31:30] Council ambassadors are

[31:33] available near the entrance and

[31:33] can assist with questions and

[31:34] speaker slips.

[31:37] No further in-person testimony

[31:38] will be taken once the council

[31:38] begins Virtual testimony.

[31:39] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[31:42] All right.

[31:42] Thank you, City Clerk.

[31:43] Before we move to hear public

[31:44] comment on the proclamation

[31:47] items, we have a title change

[31:48] for item 31 which will now be

[31:52] Mayor Mesa Little League 50th

[31:53] anniversary.

[31:53] Oh, is that correct?

[31:57] Council PRESIDENT Thank you for

[31:58] confirming Now that it's been

[31:58] read into the record I will

[31:59] note that the agenda will be

[32:02] updated to reflect the new

[32:02] title and the proclamation will

[32:03] be swapped with a revised copy.

[32:04] Clerk Please proceed with

[32:09] public comment.

[32:11] I would like to take if I can

[32:27] take one second My apologies.

[32:28] We are going to start with a

[32:28] public comment on

[32:32] the proclamation items.

[32:33] We have no public comments

[32:33] speakers here in council

[32:34] chambers We are going to those

[32:37] participating remotely starting

[32:38] with 8700 if you can please I'm

[32:42] you and let me know what is

[32:42] the item or items that you wish

[32:47] to speak to Number 30 only.

[32:47] Thank you.

[32:48] You'll have one minute.

[32:53] Please proceed.

[32:53] Thank you.

[32:54] Joy Senior Proceed three.

[32:56] First of all a quick thank you

[32:57] to Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[33:01] for wearing his a red jacket

[33:02] for the last presentation was

[33:05] wasn't that a fabulous moment

[33:10] for us to have terrific.

[33:11] So on this one thank you City

[33:12] attorney server and council

[33:15] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee 14 Dating

[33:16] Violence Awareness and

[33:20] Prevention Month Yes the two

[33:25] keys are intervention and

[33:26] prevention In my opinion

[33:30] the most important way to help

[33:31] our teens is to teaching them

[33:35] to be more self aware.

[33:36] Thank you to all involved and

[33:41] the Family Justice Center for

[33:41] your safe Place.

[33:42] That's terrific.

[33:46] Keep up the great work and love

[33:46] to all.

[33:46] Thank you.

[33:50] Next is the original If you can

[33:51] please unmute and let me know

[33:52] which item or items you wish to

[33:52] speak to.

[33:55] Number 30 as well The Teen

[33:55] Violence.

[33:59] Please proceed.

[34:00] You know it's really sad to see

[34:00] you guys when you do things

[34:03] like this.

[34:04] I mean of course this is

[34:05] extremely important but you

[34:08] ignore all of the abuse of

[34:09] children that takes place in

[34:09] the county that you guys are

[34:10] involved in that the city

[34:13] attorney is involved in

[34:14] the child trafficking that is

[34:15] taking place.

[34:19] Your safe place is not a safe

[34:19] place.

[34:20] It's engaged in the same child

[34:23] trafficking, engaged with

[34:24] foster care, things like cps,

[34:28] child protective Services which

[34:28] does anything but protect

[34:29] children.

[34:33] It promotes and engages in

[34:34] child trafficking, child abuse,

[34:38] covering up of sexual abuse.

[34:39] So as you guys sit here and you

[34:40] signal as though you're doing

[34:42] something right at the same

[34:43] time you ignore those types of

[34:47] atrocities that you are engaged

[34:48] in that the people pay for.

[34:52] And so it's just really sad to

[34:53] see that you will do things

[34:53] like this engage with

[34:57] the people that you know and

[34:57] prop them up like your safe

[34:58] place when they should be shut

[35:00] down and defunded.

[35:05] Your time has concluded.

[35:05] >> All right.

[35:06] Hi, this is Andrea Ebbing.

[35:10] Your safe place is a money

[35:11] laundering facility that was

[35:15] launched by Casey Gwinn which

[35:16] used to be a family justice

[35:20] center But then it was taken

[35:21] over by sd pd then it was taken

[35:21] over by Mara Elliott and now

[35:24] it's run by our county Rico mob

[35:24] boss Summer Stephan.

[35:29] It is not a safe place at all.

[35:30] It's a money laundering

[35:30] facility.

[35:31] The Union-Tribune caught on to

[35:34] that in public records if you

[35:35] look in public records for your

[35:38] safe place and those records

[35:39] are you know they they call it

[35:42] all these different things now

[35:43] it's like one safe place your

[35:44] safe place because it's not

[35:44] following guidelines Teen

[35:47] violence How about my teen

[35:48] who's 17 years old is now in

[35:49] violent relationships because

[35:52] she was abducted when she was

[35:53] 12 years old and her maternal

[35:54] bond was severed after I was

[35:57] her loving mother her entire

[35:58] life in her county contracted

[35:59] rehab owner dope dealer

[36:02] murderer father abducted her

[36:03] and summer stuff and sold her

[36:03] for kickbacks.

[36:07] Now she has a lifetime of

[36:08] issues and so do I and so do

[36:08] her sisters Because you guys

[36:12] have done nothing has

[36:12] concluded.

[36:13] Next is Becky Rap if you can

[36:17] please and mute and let me know

[36:18] what items or items you wish to

[36:18] speak to.

[36:22] I'd like to speak to item 30.

[36:23] Thank you And thank you for.

[36:26] My name is Becky Rapping.

[36:27] I'd like to thank you for

[36:30] recognizing Teen Dating

[36:31] Violence Awareness and

[36:32] Prevention Month and for

[36:36] the leadership of City

[36:37] Attorney's Office and your safe

[36:37] place.

[36:40] But as we talk about prevention

[36:41] we must also talk about

[36:42] the developing adolescent brain

[36:46] and the teen brain is still

[36:50] forming and it governs

[36:51] the prefrontal cortex, governs

[36:52] impulse control decision making

[36:55] and emotional regulation.

[36:55] Regular marijuana use during

[37:00] adolescence has been associated

[37:00] with impaired judgment

[37:01] increased impulsivity,

[37:05] heightened anxiety and in some

[37:06] cases in many cases for youth

[37:10] paranoia and aggression.

[37:11] When judgment is impaired and

[37:11] emotions are intensified,

[37:15] conflicts escalate more quickly

[37:16] and it is imperative that we

[37:20] combine preventing we combine

[37:24] prevention with teen dating

[37:25] Violence prevention must be

[37:25] included in your time as have

[37:30] considered My apologies.

[37:31] Next is Ernie Casper You can

[37:35] please unmute Yes Ernie Casco

[37:39] What item are items you wish to

[37:39] speak to on the proclamations

[37:43] I'm speaking on all the items

[37:48] first particularly on the bad

[37:49] choices Joe Lacob is making is

[37:53] that a proclamation and 3232

[37:58] all of them you'll go to I

[37:58] reported I okay give me my

[38:03] minutes are reported a direct

[38:04] violation of Joe Lacob his

[38:07] office I reported negligent

[38:08] homicide attempted murder as

[38:12] assistant flight director.

[38:13] Ernie Ernie we're going to cut

[38:13] you off.

[38:14] You can do that at non agenda

[38:17] Public comment later this

[38:22] morning this is proclamations

[38:22] Kathleen Lippert if you can

[38:23] please unmute and let us know

[38:26] which item or items you'd like

[38:27] to speak to on the proclamation

[38:31] agenda.

[38:31] >> Thank you.

[38:36] I'd like to address item 30.

[38:37] >> I'd like to point out that

[38:40] the policies that the city

[38:41] continues to support also

[38:46] continue to contribute to

[38:46] problems that you have with

[38:50] teens and especially where drug

[38:51] abuse is involved and you're

[38:55] increasing availability access

[38:56] etc. And then you wonder why

[39:00] you got this collateral damage.

[39:01] The increase is in parallel to

[39:05] those policies I'd like to

[39:05] share Robert Malone He was

[39:10] the inventor of the marinade

[39:10] vaccine platform and his

[39:11] recommendation for the most

[39:15] valuable things that we can

[39:15] teach children and it's

[39:19] regulating their emotions that

[39:20] prevents that is crime

[39:20] prevention.

[39:24] It's addiction prevention, it's

[39:24] suicide prevention and it's

[39:29] generational healing.

[39:30] It's how we stop raising adults

[39:34] who accept it explode, implode

[39:35] or shut down At the first sign

[39:35] of discomfort emotional

[39:40] regulation is not just a soft

[39:41] skill you're trying to sort of

[39:44] concluded and the five minute

[39:44] timer had concluded before her

[39:48] speaking So no additional

[39:49] speakers will be taken on

[39:49] the proclamations That does

[39:50] conclude public comment.

[39:53] >> All right.

[39:54] Thank you, City Clerk.

[39:55] We will now turn it over to

[39:58] council members for any

[39:59] questions, comments and

[39:59] entertain a motion And we'll

[40:00] start with Council PRESIDENT

[40:03] Pro Tem Lee Thank Council

[40:04] PRESIDENT I'll be speaking to

[40:05] items 30 and 31 and I'll start

[40:07] by making a motion to move

[40:08] the Proclamations agenda with

[40:11] the update of the title of item

[40:11] 31 as Mayor Mesa Little League

[40:12] 50th Anniversary Opening day

[40:16] for item 31 I am proud to bring

[40:17] forward a proclamation

[40:20] declaring FEBRUARY 28th as

[40:21] Mayor Mesa Little League's 50th

[40:24] Anniversary Opening day For 50

[40:24] years mermaids a little league

[40:25] has been a cornerstone of

[40:26] the community bringing

[40:26] generations of families

[40:28] together and providing young

[40:29] people opportunities to grow

[40:33] both on and off the field As

[40:33] many know, Little League is

[40:34] much more than about baseball.

[40:35] It's about teamwork,

[40:38] discipline, resilience and

[40:39] sportsmanship while also

[40:39] creating supportive space when

[40:43] it comes to youth today

[40:43] the league involves over 1000

[40:44] families within the community

[40:48] and I like to always recognize

[40:48] that it is entirely run by

[40:49] volunteers.

[40:49] That means the parents,

[40:53] the coaches community members

[40:54] who are often giving their time

[40:54] whether it's during games or in

[40:58] between And after long workdays

[40:58] they help make possible this

[41:02] opportunity for the next

[41:03] generation within our

[41:03] community.

[41:04] So the proclamation is not just

[41:07] a milestone but it is five

[41:08] decades of dedication,

[41:08] leadership and community

[41:12] involvement and I'll be excited

[41:13] to join them this Saturday for

[41:13] Opening Day to celebrate this

[41:17] achievement For item 30 I want

[41:18] to thank City attorney Heather

[41:18] Herbert for leading this

[41:22] proclamation on National Teen

[41:23] Dating Violence Awareness and

[41:23] Prevention Month which is

[41:26] commemorated annually each

[41:27] FEBRUARY at City Hall.

[41:28] The City Attorney's office has

[41:28] been a leader in providing

[41:31] community resources and

[41:32] supportive services at no cost

[41:33] for those experiencing domestic

[41:37] violence, dating abuse, elder

[41:37] abuse, trafficking and much

[41:38] more.

[41:41] At the resource center called

[41:42] Your Safe Place, our team has

[41:42] had the opportunity to visit

[41:45] and support your safe place in

[41:46] their work and it is one small

[41:47] part of what the City

[41:51] Attorney's office does that

[41:52] really benefits the community

[41:52] in a significant way.

[41:56] I know several of our senior

[41:57] Unified Board trustees are here

[41:57] with us today to raise

[42:01] awareness on this issue And

[42:02] it's my pleasure now to hand

[42:02] this over to City Attorney

[42:05] Ferber to share her words.

[42:06] Thank you so much.

[42:07] It's an honor to join Council

[42:10] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Kenley this

[42:11] morning in sponsoring this

[42:11] proclamation recognizing

[42:14] FEBRUARY as teen Dating

[42:15] Violence Awareness and

[42:16] Prevention Month recognizing

[42:20] this month is important to

[42:20] raise awareness, support

[42:21] survivors and acknowledge

[42:22] the dedicated people and

[42:25] organizations working to

[42:26] present prevent cycles of

[42:26] violence for our youth.

[42:30] Teen dating violence is a

[42:31] serious public health issue

[42:31] that affects young people

[42:34] across all communities.

[42:35] Statistics tell us that 1 in 3

[42:36] teenagers have experienced

[42:40] dating abuse and about the same

[42:41] number report having committed

[42:41] dating abuse themselves.

[42:44] These numbers are alarming and

[42:45] underscore the need for

[42:45] comprehensive prevention

[42:49] efforts.

[42:49] Teen dating violence is often

[42:50] linked to other harmful

[42:51] behaviors including bullying,

[42:53] sexual harassment and physical

[42:54] violence.

[42:54] Teen survivors face increased

[42:58] risk of truancy Dropout teen

[42:59] pregnancy, suicide eating

[42:59] disorders and other harmful

[43:00] behaviors.

[43:03] Without intervention these

[43:04] patterns can persist into

[43:08] adulthood preventing sorry for

[43:09] perpetuating cycles of abuse.

[43:13] The City Attorney's office

[43:14] operates your safe place

[43:14] The San Diego Family Justice

[43:15] Center which provides teens

[43:18] with a confidential safe

[43:19] environment to learn about

[43:19] healthy relationships, receive

[43:20] safety planning and access

[43:23] comprehensive services.

[43:24] Throughout its 24 years of

[43:24] serving San Diego.

[43:28] The Family Justice Center has

[43:28] helped break cycles of dating

[43:29] violence and now serves over a

[43:32] thousand clients a month.

[43:33] >> Your Safe Place partners

[43:34] with schools and community

[43:35] organizations to teach boundary

[43:38] setting consent practices and

[43:38] online safety This year to

[43:42] recognize teen Violence

[43:43] Awareness and Prevention Month.

[43:43] Your safe Place changed it for

[43:47] my youth poster contest to a

[43:48] social media reels contest and

[43:48] San Diego Unified School

[43:52] District has been one of our

[43:52] partners on this.

[43:53] We hope you'll look for

[43:54] the winning reel on social

[43:54] media soon.

[43:57] I want to thank San Diego

[43:58] Unified School District Board

[43:59] members Sharon Whitehurst Payne

[44:02] and Sabrina Basso and student

[44:03] board member Leana Wen.

[44:05] Thanks for coming to show your

[44:06] support this morning.

[44:07] We appreciate your partnership

[44:07] in this important work.

[44:11] Together we can create

[44:12] protective environments, engage

[44:12] influential adults and peers

[44:16] and support teen survivors to

[44:17] increase safety and reduce

[44:17] harm.

[44:20] >> Thank you so much.

[44:21] >> All right.

[44:22] Thank you both for your

[44:22] comments.

[44:25] So we do have a motion by

[44:26] council member Lee with excuse

[44:26] me Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[44:30] Lee with the correction for

[44:31] the title on item 31.

[44:32] And we'll go next to

[44:32] Councilmember Whipper.

[44:35] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[44:36] I am happy to second the motion

[44:37] and I want to thank Council

[44:40] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee and City

[44:41] Attorney Herbert for bringing

[44:42] forward those two proclamations

[44:45] that we just heard.

[44:45] I am pleased to bring forward a

[44:46] proclamation this morning

[44:49] declaring that Cecilia moreno

[44:50] day in the city of San Diego

[44:50] Cecilia's legacy and commitment

[44:54] to the neighborhood of

[44:55] Hillcrest cannot be overstated.

[44:56] Many of us Cecilia is

[44:59] the longtime owner of the Crest

[45:00] Cafe a Hillcrest landmark maybe

[45:04] a Hillcrest Institution.

[45:05] But much of what she does for

[45:05] the community takes place

[45:06] behind the scenes.

[45:09] For decades she has been one of

[45:10] these steady hands and strong

[45:13] voices that has moved Hillcrest

[45:13] forward.

[45:14] She has continuously served

[45:15] the Hillcrest Business

[45:18] Association Board of Directors

[45:19] since 1989.

[45:23] That's 37 years always with

[45:24] thoughtfulness and integrity

[45:24] and a deep love for

[45:25] the neighborhood.

[45:28] She was the first donor to

[45:29] the Hillcrest Pride flag that

[45:32] she was also the first donor to

[45:33] the renovation of the iconic

[45:37] Hillcrest sign.

[45:37] Personally investing in

[45:38] the initiatives that keep

[45:42] Hillcrest vibrant and inclusive

[45:42] and unique.

[45:43] Cecilia machado is in chambers

[45:47] with us this morning along with

[45:48] Ryan Bedrosian, the PRESIDENT

[45:48] Of the Hillcrest Business

[45:52] Association and Ben Nichols,

[45:53] the executive director.

[45:53] I would like to invite them to

[46:03] come out up to the microphone.

[46:04] Hello everybody.

[46:10] I just I, I have a few words.

[46:13] I have a few words.

[46:14] I know Cecilia is not a big fan

[46:18] of public speaking but I am so

[46:18] excited to be here today to

[46:19] recognize Cecilia's leadership

[46:22] over the last 37 years.

[46:23] When she joined the board of

[46:27] the va, Chris Kehoe was our new

[46:31] fresh faced executive director

[46:31] .

[46:32] I want to tell one story that

[46:36] is illustrative of Cecilia his

[46:37] leadership over the years When

[46:41] we were working on deciding to

[46:42] create the Hillcrest Pride flag

[46:46] that we all know at normal

[46:47] Street there we were taking a

[46:47] vote in our executive committee

[46:51] meeting and we were discussing

[46:51] it and debating it and

[46:52] eventually the committee

[46:53] decided yes, we're going to

[46:55] build this pride flag.

[46:56] And I said Well it's going to

[46:57] cost some money and we have to

[47:00] privately raise that money.

[47:01] You have to get it in the door.

[47:02] And so we voted the group voted

[47:05] and it was approved obviously.

[47:06] And then the very next thing

[47:06] that happened was Cecilia

[47:10] reached into her bag and she

[47:10] opened her checkbook and she

[47:14] wrote a check and then she

[47:15] looked around the table at

[47:15] everyone that was there

[47:16] the leaders of our business

[47:19] community And she said Who will

[47:20] match me?

[47:20] And so that day before we

[47:25] adjourn that meeting we had

[47:26] raised a quarter of the amount

[47:26] that we needed for the Pride

[47:27] flag.

[47:29] And it's that kind of strongly

[47:30] leadership putting skin in

[47:30] the game.

[47:31] It's one thing to vote.

[47:35] It's another thing to support

[47:35] and get involved.

[47:39] And so there that is an example

[47:40] of Cecilia's behind the scenes

[47:44] leadership but also many, many

[47:45] years of tastes of Hillcrest

[47:49] and neighborhood committee

[47:49] meetings and approving minutes

[47:54] and budget reviews and

[47:54] neighborhood scheming so much

[47:58] to celebrate and I can say with

[47:59] confidence you are going to

[48:03] enjoy retirement less than all

[48:03] of that good stuff.

[48:04] >> So thank you for your many

[48:04] years.

[48:08] Appreciate it.

[48:09] >> Thank you very much, Ben.

[48:13] Congratulations, Cecilia and

[48:13] thank you very much, Ryan.

[48:17] Anybody who has been Hillcrest

[48:18] lately knows that it is a

[48:19] happening place these days.

[48:22] The three of you have been

[48:23] instrumental in its progress

[48:24] and we very much appreciate it.

[48:26] So thank you again.

[48:27] Thank you Council PRESIDENT And

[48:28] again I will second the motion

[48:31] to approve the proclamations.

[48:32] All right.

[48:32] Thank you.

[48:33] So we do have a motion by

[48:36] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[48:36] which includes the correction

[48:40] for the title on item 31,

[48:41] the second by council member

[48:41] whitburn.

[48:42] >> Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[48:43] Lee you have additional

[48:43] comments?

[48:43] Yeah.

[48:46] If you didn't mind I thought

[48:47] I'd invite our guests from

[48:50] Senior Unified to come on up

[48:51] and share a couple remarks

[48:51] since they're here in support

[49:13] of Proclamation 30.

[49:14] >> Thank you Councilmember Lee

[49:18] and thank you to the city

[49:18] council and our city attorney

[49:19] Heather Ferber.

[49:22] We're really happy to partner

[49:23] with you on this very important

[49:24] proclamation.

[49:28] Of course San Diego Unified is

[49:28] anything where we can, you

[49:32] know, support our students And

[49:33] teen dating is something that

[49:37] 10% of teens suffer from so

[49:37] that they're impacted by.

[49:38] So it's a it's a really serious

[49:42] it's you know, it's something

[49:42] that I think a lot of people

[49:46] are not aware of And anything

[49:47] we can do to create more

[49:48] awareness around this issue is

[49:51] extremely, extremely important

[49:51] .

[49:52] And I also have with me here

[49:53] our student member Alina Nguyen

[49:56] who's a goes to Hoover High and

[49:57] my colleague DR. Whitehurst

[50:01] Payne who serves with me on

[50:02] the San Diego Unified School

[50:02] District.

[50:05] Did you want to say I just

[50:06] wanted to say thank you so much

[50:10] for being with us in support of

[50:11] this proclamation.

[50:15] Thank you And thank you also

[50:19] I've actually challenged

[50:20] several several of you to get

[50:25] involved with our students And

[50:26] I think last week a week before

[50:29] last with you last week with

[50:30] you and men middle school and

[50:35] the students bring forth things

[50:35] because they serve on the dais

[50:39] with us And I felt that we need

[50:40] to be here today to show them

[50:40] support that we are with them

[50:45] And this is a very important

[50:45] issue.

[50:46] So thank you for bringing it

[50:46] forth.

[50:54] City Attorney Thank you.

[50:55] Thank you.

[50:58] Council PRESIDENT All right

[50:59] Marty, anybody else in

[51:00] the lights Again we have a

[51:00] motion by Council PRESIDENT Pro

[51:04] Tem Lee with a correction to

[51:08] the title of item 31 and a

[51:08] second by Councilmember

[51:08] Whitburn.

[51:09] Clerk please call the roll

[51:10] Sorry, the voting system Please

[51:19] cast your vote That passes

[51:25] unanimously 6 to 0 with Council

[51:25] member Moreno, Councilmember

[51:26] Campo and Councilmember Yvonne

[51:27] Wolpert.

[51:28] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[51:28] right.

[51:29] Thank you.

[51:30] City Clerk We will now take a

[51:33] quick pause for photos and we

[51:33] will start with item 13 Dating

[51:34] Violence Awareness and

[52:17] Prevention Month

[54:17] and

[54:51] you know, I think we missed a

[54:52] moment.

[54:53] I think we ought to give a big

[54:55] round of applause for Cecilia

[54:56] moreno for the good work she's

[55:10] done over the years All right.

[55:10] Well listen carefully.

[55:14] We will now move on to

[55:15] the approval of the consent

[55:15] items.

[55:15] But first we have some

[55:19] housekeeping to do.

[55:22] First I will be pulling items

[55:23] 103 and f 500 from the consent

[55:28] agenda to be heard for

[55:28] discussion later this morning

[55:29] And that will happen after we

[55:33] conclude with the remainder of

[55:34] the consent agenda.

[55:36] Again I am pulling items 103

[55:37] and 500 and we will hear them

[55:41] after we dispense with

[55:42] the consent agenda.

[55:42] Second, I believe city staff

[55:46] has corrective statements to

[55:51] make for items 51 and 102 Do we

[55:51] have somebody here from

[55:52] engineering capital projects to

[55:55] come up to the microphone?

[55:56] Introduce yourself for

[55:58] the record and make your

[56:03] statement.

[56:04] Thank you.

[56:05] Council Member This is I am

[56:05] Catherine Dunker.

[56:08] I'm Assistant Deputy Director

[56:08] with Engineering Capital

[56:09] Projects and I'm here to

[56:13] provide you no update to item

[56:14] 51 which is the item 12 to

[56:17] extend the construction

[56:21] contract for sewer and Water

[56:22] Group 763 project with p c

[56:26] construction So subject to

[56:27] docketing this item our city

[56:31] Attorney's office has

[56:36] discovered a minor concern and

[56:37] she recommended the update

[56:37] the environmental language

[56:41] because the date the city

[56:42] attorney's office didn't want

[56:46] to use a passed secure

[56:47] exemption so we had to make

[56:51] the minor change as requested

[56:51] by the city attorney's office

[56:55] which doesn't affect the intent

[56:55] of the action.

[57:00] So that's basically it.

[57:01] Is that sufficient?

[57:01] City Attorney Okay.

[57:02] Thank you for that.

[57:05] Thank you.

[57:06] All right.

[57:07] And then for item 1 or 2, do we

[57:07] have somebody from the Planning

[57:10] Department?

[57:10] I see We do.

[57:11] So please introduce yourself

[57:12] for the record and make your

[57:12] statement.

[57:14] Good morning, council members.

[57:15] I'm semi-rural assistant deputy

[57:16] director with the city planning

[57:19] this revision clarifies that in

[57:20] the event that any funds are

[57:24] returned to city pursuant to

[57:24] Section 2.4 or the contribution

[57:25] agreement with City of Chula

[57:29] Vista, those funds would be

[57:30] deposited back into the all

[57:31] times enhanced influx

[57:35] infrastructure Financing

[57:38] District Public First Use Fund

[57:38] 200803 Okay.

[57:38] Thank you.

[57:39] Thank you for that And again

[57:40] that's sufficient.

[57:43] Okay.

[57:43] All right.

[57:47] So I have pulled item 103 and

[57:47] that's 500.

[57:48] Are there any other request to

[57:51] pull an item off the consent

[57:51] agenda?

[57:56] Not seeing any with that clerk

[57:57] please proceed with public

[57:57] comment on the balance of

[57:58] the consent agenda.

[58:02] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[58:03] Please note each speaker will

[58:03] have one minute per item per

[58:05] person If you would like to

[58:06] speak on three or more items

[58:07] you will have a maximum of

[58:07] three minutes.

[58:10] The consent agenda includes

[58:11] items 1050 through 60 to 100

[58:14] through 1 or 2 104105 and as

[58:17] a5a1 with items 103 and s 500

[58:18] pulled from the consent agenda

[58:18] as noted by the Council

[58:23] PRESIDENT Also let me note for

[58:23] the record the potential

[58:24] appointments that are on

[58:25] the agenda this morning.

[58:27] Item 105 is the potential

[58:27] reappointment of former

[58:31] Missouri and Ted Miyahara to

[58:31] the Planning Commission.

[58:32] If you'd like to speak on any

[58:36] of the consent items please be

[58:37] sure to submit your speakers up

[58:37] to the front of the room in

[58:38] the clear box.

[58:41] I do not see any speakers here

[58:41] for the consent agenda in

[58:42] chambers going to those

[58:45] participating remotely.

[58:46] We'll start with Blair Beekman

[58:47] If you can please let me know

[58:48] which item or items you wish to

[58:50] speak to.

[58:51] >> All right.

[58:56] Perfect Man I wanted to speak

[58:57] to items so as possible one

[59:00] item 52 and items 54 through 60

[59:00] You'll have three minutes.

[59:05] >> Please proceed.

[59:05] Thank you.

[59:06] First to speak to item 52

[59:06] agreement to extend

[59:09] the contract with Lexie Paul

[59:10] there's a lot that Lexie Paul

[59:14] does in terms of data

[59:15] collection for our police and

[59:18] fire departments and there are

[59:19] role and job.

[59:20] They've been doing this for

[59:23] quite a while now for at least

[59:24] 5 to 10 years We've gotten used

[59:29] to their working style but they

[59:29] were really uncomfortable to

[59:30] work with at first and I think

[59:33] we have to be noting that in

[59:34] this time that we're addressing

[59:38] issues that Lexie posed they're

[59:39] a little tough.

[59:42] They tend to work with police

[59:43] more than community.

[59:48] And so I, I hope like what was

[59:48] spoken very nicely yesterday by

[59:49] council personnel.

[59:52] Rivera I hope we're really

[59:53] considering how to move forward

[59:57] with our with our good thinking

[59:57] and best practices and we don't

[59:58] let them languish.

[1:00:02] It's okay to move forward with

[1:00:03] our best practices and.

[1:00:06] Question Lexie Paul there used

[1:00:06] to be one of the question flock

[1:00:07] That can be okay and that

[1:00:08] should be an okay conversation

[1:00:11] to have publicly Good luck how

[1:00:11] we can have it have those

[1:00:15] conversations and for items 54

[1:00:16] through 60 and pure water

[1:00:20] things and also sewer issues

[1:00:21] which are right next to each

[1:00:24] other you have about 4 or 5

[1:00:25] items on pure water and then

[1:00:26] you have two items going on

[1:00:29] sewer construction issues.

[1:00:29] I try to bring sewer issues and

[1:00:34] pure water issues together When

[1:00:34] I speak when they're together

[1:00:35] and other times they go to

[1:00:35] committee agendas.

[1:00:39] I hope that can be okay in

[1:00:40] the future and I'm not likely

[1:00:43] should not do that.

[1:00:43] i think there's a really

[1:00:44] important connection in

[1:00:45] the future Pure water and sewer

[1:00:48] whatever the subject matter is

[1:00:49] and I hope I can be allowed to

[1:00:53] make those connections and good

[1:00:54] luck that we can be allowed

[1:00:54] overall it's public to make

[1:00:55] those connections that public

[1:00:58] comment time that can be a

[1:00:59] little uncomfortable to council

[1:01:03] but we're trying for good.

[1:01:04] We're trying to offer a good

[1:01:05] sense of how to view our

[1:01:05] issues.

[1:01:05] Good luck.

[1:01:07] How to work that out between

[1:01:08] us.

[1:01:08] With that said, pure water and

[1:01:12] good luck that it's three years

[1:01:13] now that I think it's supposed

[1:01:13] to be fully operational is what

[1:01:17] I'm learning recently and good

[1:01:17] luck we do that well and and

[1:01:22] that we're honest and clear

[1:01:23] with each other how the process

[1:01:23] is going.

[1:01:24] I know we're trying to do that.

[1:01:24] Good luck and the continued

[1:01:27] efforts that we do that and

[1:01:27] make it a clear public process

[1:01:28] for all of us and accountable

[1:01:32] to you Conclude item at 501 Is

[1:01:36] that is about an encampment

[1:01:40] resolution funding round two

[1:01:41] things I'm assuming this is

[1:01:45] yeah I know Oakland has been

[1:01:46] working on on their homeless

[1:01:49] issues and they've taken kind

[1:01:50] of a stringent approach

[1:01:51] sometimes and it's done

[1:01:51] something uncomfortable.

[1:01:55] They backed off a bit and

[1:01:56] instead started working on

[1:01:56] cleaning items through

[1:01:57] the city.

[1:02:00] How do how do you do clean up

[1:02:00] best practices if that can be a

[1:02:01] part of this process and best

[1:02:04] cleanup practices using Cal

[1:02:05] State money?

[1:02:05] >> Good luck how to do that.

[1:02:09] Thank you.

[1:02:12] 8700 after that entry I mean

[1:02:18] 8700 If you can please let me

[1:02:22] know which item or items you

[1:02:22] wish to speak to.

[1:02:26] >> I will be speaking to 5154

[1:02:31] to 57 And if I go one Thank

[1:02:31] you.

[1:02:32] >> Thank you.

[1:02:32] Have three minutes.

[1:02:36] Please proceed.

[1:02:39] Joyce Any other See the three

[1:02:40] heads up on the 51 that

[1:02:45] the staff just spoke on Pulled

[1:02:46] it out for a minute and spoke

[1:02:46] on it.

[1:02:47] I really as a public I really

[1:02:51] really need more information in

[1:02:51] the backup on the fecal

[1:02:54] exemption and what's involved

[1:02:55] there because you know I'm

[1:02:56] really interested in Chico and

[1:02:59] how the new changes are coming

[1:03:00] into place So I need more

[1:03:04] information on that.

[1:03:05] I hope that's available.

[1:03:05] Thank you.

[1:03:08] I'm 54 to 57.

[1:03:09] They are all pure water items

[1:03:14] and I want to go on the record

[1:03:18] again that this historic San

[1:03:18] Diego water project has my

[1:03:26] strong support and in on s5o1ba

[1:03:27] homelessness item a new

[1:03:32] agreement with h c d allows for

[1:03:36] an admin update to the grant

[1:03:37] program.

[1:03:41] The new agreement will end in

[1:03:45] APRIL APRIL 30th this year So

[1:03:46] but what happened was good and

[1:03:50] the encampment which is my old

[1:03:51] central library across from

[1:03:55] the United States Postal

[1:03:55] Service big, big, big, big

[1:03:59] thank you to all those involved

[1:04:00] on this encampment homeless

[1:04:05] issue As I have spoken many,

[1:04:06] many times on that I got to

[1:04:09] know the people around the post

[1:04:10] office there.

[1:04:10] I talked with them.

[1:04:14] We had they see conversations

[1:04:14] at time.

[1:04:15] It was a little scary at times

[1:04:19] but I supported the encampment

[1:04:20] ordinance and I think

[1:04:23] the cleanup and the help that's

[1:04:24] been done is really, really

[1:04:24] terrific.

[1:04:28] Now I will say this is

[1:04:28] the truth.

[1:04:29] Some of it is coming back

[1:04:32] around the post office again

[1:04:33] and I'm concerned about that.

[1:04:39] So I would love to all in and

[1:04:39] great work and we're all

[1:04:40] involved in this.

[1:04:41] Listen to all the voices

[1:04:41] please.

[1:04:43] Thank you.

[1:04:44] Thank you.

[1:04:45] Andrea, if you can please

[1:04:48] unmute and let me know which

[1:04:49] item or items you wish to speak

[1:04:51] to by Andrea Ebbing I'd like to

[1:04:52] speak to 5351 and the Pure

[1:04:57] water as well.

[1:04:57] >> You have three minutes.

[1:04:58] Please proceed.

[1:04:58] Thank you.

[1:05:01] So the new gov applicant

[1:05:02] tracking I think it's important

[1:05:06] we really look into what

[1:05:07] the capabilities are and

[1:05:07] looking at people's backgrounds

[1:05:08] and histories.

[1:05:11] If we haven't learned from

[1:05:12] the Amy NOx harm reduction case

[1:05:12] where background checks were

[1:05:17] pulled but yet somehow her four

[1:05:17] year prison sentence for

[1:05:22] massive fraud went undetected

[1:05:23] and then we continue to award

[1:05:27] the millions of dollars for

[1:05:27] harm reduction.

[1:05:28] So that was you know, after

[1:05:32] multiple reports of what was

[1:05:32] actually going on and then

[1:05:33] continue to award them, that's

[1:05:34] the same exact thing that

[1:05:36] happened with the rehab

[1:05:37] contract that is basically

[1:05:42] uncovering everything that's

[1:05:43] taking place in the county,

[1:05:44] the city in the malfeasance

[1:05:44] side of things.

[1:05:47] So our just must have been

[1:05:48] updated or are just must have

[1:05:48] been altered to allow these

[1:05:52] criminal convictions huge

[1:05:53] felonies to be removed.

[1:05:53] So if we have a good tracking

[1:05:58] system for applicants with

[1:05:58] the county and city that would

[1:06:01] be good on the 58.

[1:06:02] So I think we need to look at

[1:06:07] this this big case with

[1:06:11] Mitchell drug kingpin that was

[1:06:16] caught You know, we have

[1:06:17] obviously there's ties to

[1:06:17] Diego.

[1:06:18] I mean we're the border, right?

[1:06:22] So we need to look at what's

[1:06:22] going on here.

[1:06:26] We need to pay attention to

[1:06:27] the sewage crisis not making

[1:06:32] freight trucks more accessible

[1:06:32] and easier to pass through

[1:06:33] the border.

[1:06:38] Otay I have deep concerns about

[1:06:41] the like the fact that the two

[1:06:42] are to one a sewage crisis is

[1:06:43] important priorities.

[1:06:45] I like to see that we have

[1:06:46] items on here that look to

[1:06:51] address it but we might want to

[1:06:52] look at the ceo of sandag who

[1:06:57] was appointed and then suddenly

[1:06:57] Dora Vargas resigns out of

[1:07:02] safety concerns and his primary

[1:07:02] concern is okay and $130

[1:07:03] million to replace conduit and

[1:07:07] billions of dollars to allow

[1:07:08] trucks to pass through quickly.

[1:07:09] I don't know It doesn't seem

[1:07:12] really legit to me.

[1:07:13] It seems actually very

[1:07:13] concerning.

[1:07:18] So so yeah, let's let's clean

[1:07:18] up sewage crisis and and not

[1:07:22] think for one second that air

[1:07:23] purifiers are going to do it

[1:07:28] And that's about it.

[1:07:28] >> Thank you.

[1:07:29] Thank you.

[1:07:29] The five minute timer did

[1:07:30] conclude there's two speakers

[1:07:31] and the keynote additional

[1:07:33] speakers will be taken

[1:07:34] the original and then seven 499

[1:07:35] the original Please let me know

[1:07:38] which items or items you wish

[1:07:38] to speak to.

[1:07:45] Yes 54 through 6101 two one and

[1:07:46] then s501.

[1:07:46] Thank you.

[1:07:47] You'll have three minutes.

[1:07:47] Please proceed.

[1:07:48] All right.

[1:07:52] Well, you know the problem with

[1:07:53] the t1a river valley that you

[1:07:54] guys are going to start wanting

[1:07:56] to put that into the pure water

[1:07:57] system and anything you're

[1:07:58] doing with pure water and sewer

[1:08:01] is super egregious because you

[1:08:02] guys are not only taking

[1:08:02] billions of dollars from people

[1:08:06] who are working really hard

[1:08:07] trying to just survive but we

[1:08:12] are using our fresh water for

[1:08:13] A.I. Datacenters and live near

[1:08:17] mining So when we're sitting

[1:08:18] here talking about giving

[1:08:18] people back their own sewage

[1:08:22] that's why sewage and pure

[1:08:23] water actually have to do with

[1:08:24] each other.

[1:08:27] They're not separate issues

[1:08:28] because you're putting giving

[1:08:29] us sewer water back Acting like

[1:08:33] that is going to be beneficial

[1:08:34] for the people And then you

[1:08:34] talk by that water with a bunch

[1:08:35] of chemicals and I mean let

[1:08:38] alone the fluoride which is

[1:08:39] runoff from fertilizer that

[1:08:39] goes into the water that people

[1:08:44] claim is good for your teeth

[1:08:44] and all of those things you

[1:08:49] guys need to put together how

[1:08:50] much money you've spent on this

[1:08:51] and really start to think if

[1:08:52] you're doing what's best for

[1:08:54] the people when our freshwater

[1:08:55] is being not only controlled

[1:08:56] and diverted but it is being

[1:09:00] used for things that is not

[1:09:00] human consumption.

[1:09:01] So it is ridiculous how much

[1:09:05] money we've been spending on

[1:09:06] that and you guys need to quit

[1:09:06] doing your sole source permits.

[1:09:10] It is another way that you guys

[1:09:11] engage in fraud and including

[1:09:15] with the emergency with

[1:09:16] the single sole source that you

[1:09:21] guys are doing you guys wait

[1:09:21] till the last minute to take

[1:09:22] care of things and it's

[1:09:26] absolutely ridiculous that you

[1:09:26] know, we have to keep spending

[1:09:27] more money and doing things

[1:09:28] that you should be about

[1:09:32] keeping at a regular basis just

[1:09:32] like the homeless stuff.

[1:09:33] You guys sit here and act like

[1:09:37] you should not be doing it or

[1:09:37] engaging in any more contracts

[1:09:38] until you actually do something

[1:09:42] that is helping the homeless

[1:09:43] than encampment that you guys

[1:09:44] are talking about by the post

[1:09:48] office every night people are

[1:09:49] there sleeping because they

[1:09:50] have nowhere to go and there is

[1:09:53] no bathroom down there So

[1:09:54] people are going to

[1:09:55] the bathroom in the street.

[1:09:55] Where do you expect them to go

[1:09:59] if the bathroom is closed at

[1:10:00] night and those people are just

[1:10:05] outside your building at night

[1:10:06] all over downtown.

[1:10:06] But you guys sit here and you

[1:10:07] profess just like the mayor

[1:10:10] that everything is cleaned up.

[1:10:11] That's.

[1:10:11] It is.

[1:10:12] People are dying.

[1:10:15] You guys get people testing

[1:10:16] strips for their drugs, you get

[1:10:17] them pipes and needles and just

[1:10:21] in case they overdose you're

[1:10:22] not doing anything.

[1:10:22] You put them in a tent city

[1:10:23] where drinks for change in

[1:10:26] downtown Partnership are

[1:10:27] killing these people and having

[1:10:28] them raped and then denying it.

[1:10:32] There's no fire extinguisher

[1:10:33] was like you guys need to

[1:10:34] really go in and audit

[1:10:34] Everything needs to be audited

[1:10:38] that you are doing with

[1:10:39] the homeless because you are

[1:10:40] taking advantage of them and

[1:10:40] you act like you're cleaning it

[1:10:44] up when all you do is have

[1:10:45] downtown partnership go at them

[1:10:45] at 6:00 in the morning and tell

[1:10:46] them to leave so nobody sees it

[1:10:49] So people don't go to work and

[1:10:50] see what you guys are failing

[1:10:54] at fixing Get your together

[1:10:55] has concluded 7499 If you come

[1:10:59] please unmute I'd like to speak

[1:11:06] on items all the contract items

[1:11:10] 5360 (210)012-1212 three three

[1:11:10] minutes.

[1:11:11] >> Please proceed Bob because

[1:11:17] this year I 7259 6162 101 to 1

[1:11:18] and one All three are all

[1:11:21] contracts with private

[1:11:21] businesses.

[1:11:22] Let's review a few case studies

[1:11:23] relating to private business

[1:11:26] contracts with the city.

[1:11:27] Does anyone remember the red

[1:11:28] light camera deal that Mayor

[1:11:28] Sanders made with a private

[1:11:32] business?

[1:11:33] That business got a cut of

[1:11:33] the money from those tickets

[1:11:34] And what did we find?

[1:11:38] Well, of course we found that

[1:11:39] there was a conflict of

[1:11:39] interest between the business

[1:11:40] profit and justice prohibited.

[1:11:43] Fortunately, Mayor Filner

[1:11:44] stopped that scam.

[1:11:44] What do we see with

[1:11:45] the contract in Highland Cloud?

[1:11:50] We see that citizens have to go

[1:11:50] to a private website to obtain

[1:11:51] city documents, the documents

[1:11:54] and other materials are created

[1:11:55] by the city but rather than

[1:11:56] publish those documents on

[1:11:56] the city's own website,

[1:12:00] the city is paying an outside

[1:12:01] business to host those items

[1:12:01] The citizens have to visit or

[1:12:06] be registered with private for

[1:12:06] profit businesses.

[1:12:07] They get city documents and

[1:12:07] notice that's crazy.

[1:12:12] What do we see with a business

[1:12:12] managing our own John's Park a

[1:12:13] parking structure We see that

[1:12:14] the business decided it was

[1:12:17] inconvenient to accept cash so

[1:12:18] therefore citizens do have some

[1:12:19] other form of private business

[1:12:23] relationship such as the credit

[1:12:23] card the in our parking

[1:12:24] structure as I mentioned before

[1:12:25] I personally resisted that

[1:12:29] practice and are now has been

[1:12:29] gracious enough to accept my

[1:12:30] cash payments so far.

[1:12:31] But this shows how business

[1:12:34] interests cannot be trusted to

[1:12:35] manage public resources without

[1:12:40] some form of oversight And

[1:12:41] the granddaddy of them all is

[1:12:42] the Torrey Pines Glider port.

[1:12:46] That's a tricky one Because of

[1:12:47] the two steps removed the city

[1:12:47] leases are part to the business

[1:12:48] known as our California

[1:12:51] Adventure And then our

[1:12:52] California adventure requires

[1:12:53] citizens to be members of

[1:12:53] another business called Uber to

[1:12:57] use the site usually has

[1:12:58] decided that it can use public

[1:12:58] testimony in court or even

[1:13:03] public testimony to this city

[1:13:04] council as justification for

[1:13:04] expulsion from their

[1:13:05] organization.

[1:13:10] I know this because I was

[1:13:11] expelled from you explicitly

[1:13:11] for my speeches to this

[1:13:12] council.

[1:13:17] So it's a California adventure

[1:13:17] .

[1:13:18] Simply go to your phone and ask

[1:13:18] them to expel anyone they don't

[1:13:19] like You submit as their

[1:13:20] bidding so that their

[1:13:22] California adventure can say

[1:13:22] Sorry it's not our fault but

[1:13:23] you can't use the park because

[1:13:27] you're not a member of use for

[1:13:28] Joel and Todd Gloria both know

[1:13:29] about this little game but they

[1:13:32] both look the other way And

[1:13:33] the relationship between real

[1:13:34] estate assets and the business

[1:13:34] is far too chummy to provide

[1:13:39] any effective oversight.

[1:13:40] If you doubt me, file a Freedom

[1:13:41] of Information Act request for

[1:13:45] the email between cities Rosita

[1:13:45] Sanchez and her California

[1:13:46] venture You'll be surprised.

[1:13:47] And of course as you all know

[1:13:51] there's no advisory board to

[1:13:52] advise the city on this corrupt

[1:13:52] situation.

[1:13:53] So it continues to this day

[1:13:56] under all of your noses In all

[1:13:57] of these cases the abuses

[1:13:58] result from a dirty mixture of

[1:14:03] our government monopoly and

[1:14:03] private business greed without

[1:14:04] appropriate oversight with

[1:14:09] regard to all of the contracts

[1:14:10] in these 15 items I am

[1:14:10] demanding that this Council

[1:14:15] ensure that there is proper

[1:14:15] oversight to guarantee that

[1:14:16] citizens rights are not abused.

[1:14:21] And with regard to the Council

[1:14:22] your time has concluded.

[1:14:26] >> If you raise your hand after

[1:14:27] the five minute time or you can

[1:14:28] definitely call or send an

[1:14:28] email through city clerk to

[1:14:29] find out that that does

[1:14:32] conclude public comment on

[1:14:32] the consent agenda.

[1:14:33] All right.

[1:14:33] Thank you City Clerk.

[1:14:34] So I will now turn it over to

[1:14:37] council members questions,

[1:14:38] comments and entertain a motion

[1:14:39] and not see anybody in

[1:14:39] the lights.

[1:14:44] I'll move the consent items

[1:14:45] through next to council members

[1:14:50] Council PRESIDENT Pro Can we

[1:14:51] all have our second to

[1:14:51] the motion?

[1:14:51] All right.

[1:14:52] And then we also have Council

[1:14:58] member Foster on the lights Now

[1:14:59] .

[1:14:59] Yes.

[1:15:00] I just want to speak briefly to

[1:15:03] item one for Pearce.

[1:15:04] This item addresses a

[1:15:05] settlement of some insurance

[1:15:09] subrogation claims related to

[1:15:14] the JANUARY 2020 to the JANUARY

[1:15:15] 22nd 2024 floods just while

[1:15:15] we're resolving this litigation

[1:15:19] I just can't say enough that we

[1:15:20] need to make sure that we are

[1:15:26] continuing to remain focused on

[1:15:26] our impacted families.

[1:15:27] Most of these families are

[1:15:32] still navigating repairs and

[1:15:33] doing financial strain and

[1:15:38] uncertainty and some impacted

[1:15:39] did not have adequate insurance

[1:15:39] coverage at all.

[1:15:40] So I just want to let my

[1:15:44] community know that I remain

[1:15:45] committed to ensuring that

[1:15:45] the city continues working

[1:15:46] towards keeping our channels

[1:15:48] and waterways clear of debris

[1:15:50] and implementing long term

[1:15:58] solutions so that our most

[1:15:58] vulnerable communities are not

[1:15:58] left behind.

[1:15:58] So just want to make sure that

[1:15:59] we are continuing to do

[1:15:59] the good work and meet our

[1:15:59] commitments.

[1:15:59] Thank you.

[1:15:59] All right.

[1:16:02] Thank you, Captain Foster for

[1:16:03] your comments.

[1:16:03] We'll go next to Councilmember

[1:16:04] Gila Rivera Thank you, Council

[1:16:04] PRESIDENT.

[1:16:07] I just want to say thank you,

[1:16:08] COUNCILMAN Foster for making

[1:16:09] sure that parts explicit

[1:16:09] Obviously the folks who were

[1:16:14] impacted continue to be

[1:16:15] impacted regardless of whether

[1:16:15] or not they've been able to

[1:16:19] return back to their homes,

[1:16:20] whether that's from still

[1:16:20] picking up pieces, living

[1:16:26] somewhere else or the trauma

[1:16:27] that comes with every time it

[1:16:27] rains.

[1:16:33] So I just very much appreciate

[1:16:34] Councilmember Foster learning

[1:16:35] folks and that we haven't

[1:16:35] forgotten about what happened

[1:16:36] or about the responsibilities

[1:16:38] that we have to be forward.

[1:16:38] Thank you.

[1:16:39] Council PRESIDENT All right.

[1:16:40] Thank you Council member Gila

[1:16:40] River.

[1:16:41] And I will add that when you

[1:16:44] have these complex litigation

[1:16:44] matters can be difficult for

[1:16:45] the public to understand what

[1:16:46] we're doing, how we're doing

[1:16:46] it.

[1:16:49] I thought that was a good

[1:16:49] reminder.

[1:16:50] Councilmember Foster So with

[1:16:56] that we have a motion by myself

[1:16:57] to move the consent items with

[1:16:57] the removal of one of three and

[1:17:01] it's 500 and we'll hear next in

[1:17:01] a second by Council PRESIDENT

[1:17:02] Pro Tem Lee Clerk Please call

[1:17:02] the roll.

[1:17:04] I'm sorry the voting system

[1:17:10] Please cast your vote that

[1:17:18] passes unanimously 6 to 0 with

[1:17:19] council member Moreno, counsel

[1:17:20] for Campi and Councilmember Von

[1:17:21] Loper Absent.

[1:17:22] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[1:17:23] All right.

[1:17:23] Thank you.

[1:17:24] As I described, we will now

[1:17:28] hear the two items that I

[1:17:29] pulled from consent.

[1:17:29] >> clerk Please introduce item

[1:17:35] 103 I Number 103 is the Second

[1:17:36] Amendment to Agreement for

[1:17:36] Legal Services with Schwartz

[1:17:39] Sommer Janet Colley Shatner and

[1:17:40] Bush llp to provide continuing

[1:17:40] legal services as a panel

[1:17:47] outside counsel If you'd like

[1:17:47] to speak to this item please be

[1:17:48] sure to submit a speaker side

[1:17:49] to the front of the room in

[1:17:52] the clear desk in the clear

[1:17:53] box.

[1:17:53] We're here participating

[1:17:54] remotely Start line of

[1:17:55] the Raise your hand I think.

[1:17:55] Council PRESIDENT All right.

[1:17:57] Thank you.

[1:17:58] Do any of my colleagues need to

[1:17:59] hear a presentation on this Not

[1:17:59] hearing anyone So we will waive

[1:18:04] the presentation but I

[1:18:05] appreciate you being here MR.

[1:18:06] Now so with that clerk please

[1:18:08] proceed with public comment on

[1:18:09] item 103 There are no public

[1:18:10] there are no public speakers

[1:18:10] here in council chambers.

[1:18:13] One of those participating

[1:18:14] remotely the original You have

[1:18:19] two minutes please on mute.

[1:18:20] Two minutes.

[1:18:20] I get that you guys have

[1:18:24] problems that you did this.

[1:18:25] Yeah.

[1:18:25] It's interesting because you

[1:18:26] know we are always paying for

[1:18:30] you guys to have legal

[1:18:31] services.

[1:18:31] You know you've got your city

[1:18:37] attorney, your county council.

[1:18:38] We have the district all these

[1:18:39] people in play to really

[1:18:44] protect the organized crime You

[1:18:45] guys are And it's sad because

[1:18:48] then the people need to get

[1:18:49] justice somehow We've got to

[1:18:49] find our own way.

[1:18:54] But you guys use our money

[1:18:55] the money that people work

[1:18:56] really hard to cover your butts

[1:18:56] and the things that you do that

[1:19:01] are so egregious like not

[1:19:43] taking care of infrastructure,

[1:19:43] like harming the homeless, like

[1:19:43] harming children.

[1:19:44] I mean it's pretty ridiculous

[1:19:44] how much money we have to spend

[1:19:44] to do that.

[1:19:44] I feel like because you guys

[1:19:44] are engaged in it you're

[1:19:45] choosing to do that that on a

[1:19:45] personal capacity you should be

[1:19:45] responsible because even

[1:19:45] the money that comes out of

[1:19:45] settlements due to your guys's

[1:19:45] negligence comes from

[1:19:46] the people we have to pay that

[1:19:46] off And it's like you guys sit

[1:19:46] here and you act like what

[1:19:46] you're doing is beneficial to

[1:19:46] the community.

[1:19:47] I'm just wondering when that's

[1:19:47] actually going to happen, when

[1:19:47] you're going to need all these

[1:19:47] attorneys to protect you and to

[1:19:47] make sure that they because

[1:19:47] they don't sit here and make

[1:19:48] sure that you're not violating

[1:19:48] people's civil rights, that

[1:19:48] you're not you know, wasting

[1:19:48] people's money engaging in

[1:19:48] fraud, waste and abuse and

[1:19:49] stuff like that's exposed all

[1:19:54] the time that you guys have

[1:19:55] the protection behind you And

[1:19:55] you also should be held

[1:19:56] personally liable for that.

[1:20:01] So it's it's ridiculous

[1:20:02] the kinds of things that we

[1:20:02] have to spend money on when

[1:20:03] again people are out on

[1:20:07] the streets just wanting to get

[1:20:08] into some kind of shelter

[1:20:09] because they see all these

[1:20:09] homes go up around them and

[1:20:13] think oh, is that going to be

[1:20:14] for us?

[1:20:14] And it's like no, that's not

[1:20:15] for you guys but here take some

[1:20:16] Narcan and some needles and

[1:20:20] pipes go do some drugs or you

[1:20:21] want to test it.

[1:20:21] Here's a test strip and you got

[1:20:22] it.

[1:20:25] So that's it Just see what you

[1:20:31] guys do, what that does, what

[1:20:32] everybody can please.

[1:20:37] >> I mean I just I'm just

[1:20:37] asking if we contract with this

[1:20:42] law firm if we look at every

[1:20:43] single individual in the law

[1:20:44] firm and who's for 60 forms

[1:20:44] they appear on I guarantee you

[1:20:48] they're all over summer

[1:20:49] Steffens And if they are I'm

[1:20:54] asking that the board do does

[1:20:55] take a look at the relationship

[1:20:56] between this firm and her

[1:21:01] office and her family.

[1:21:02] Her family makes every single

[1:21:03] decision every single court in

[1:21:03] San Diego and has done so for

[1:21:06] years decades right.

[1:21:07] So I think that's an important

[1:21:08] one for the people.

[1:21:12] So if if this law firm is

[1:21:13] the one selected to I guess

[1:21:14] represent the city against

[1:21:19] the people or the county, I'm

[1:21:20] not quite sure what it is.

[1:21:20] It seems like probably for

[1:21:21] white collar crime, right to

[1:21:22] cover up all that stuff.

[1:21:26] So we can just kind of track

[1:21:26] those campaign donations.

[1:21:27] It's vote outcome.

[1:21:30] Look up the 460 forms and we

[1:21:30] should look at every single

[1:21:31] attorney in this firm and who

[1:21:35] they're paying off.

[1:21:36] It's really unfortunate that we

[1:21:37] have so much malfeasance going

[1:21:41] on that's gone unchecked.

[1:21:42] So if we do go with this firm

[1:21:43] firm I'm asking you to please

[1:21:48] see how we as residents, as a

[1:21:48] community can hold the people

[1:21:49] accountable that

[1:21:54] the organization is like

[1:21:55] the bar, the state bar and spc

[1:21:56] and the Judicial Commission

[1:21:59] Commission employees practices

[1:22:00] refuse to hold people

[1:22:00] accountable.

[1:22:05] We have the district attorney I

[1:22:06] know the city okay?

[1:22:07] But when we have somebody going

[1:22:12] up and saying oh my gosh,

[1:22:13] Amanda Knox or whatever it Amy

[1:22:13] not spent hundreds of thousands

[1:22:17] of dollars on plastic surgery

[1:22:18] and credit card payments yet

[1:22:18] she herself has paid hundreds

[1:22:23] of thousands of dollars very

[1:22:24] openly in credit card payments

[1:22:25] with taxpayer dollars campaign

[1:22:25] funds.

[1:22:30] But we can't hold her

[1:22:31] accountable.

[1:22:31] She has 2 million identical

[1:22:32] campaign transactions to Nathan

[1:22:32] Fletcher.

[1:22:35] We can't hold her accountable.

[1:22:36] Maybe these attorneys can but

[1:22:37] only if they're not paying her

[1:22:38] off And I guarantee you they're

[1:22:38] in her system.

[1:22:41] Thank you.

[1:22:42] Next 27499 If you can please

[1:22:48] unmute club because this year I

[1:22:48] don't have any prepared

[1:22:53] comments on this item but I do

[1:22:53] want to add my voice to

[1:22:54] the concerns expressed by

[1:22:54] the previous speakers.

[1:22:58] Thank you.

[1:22:59] >> Thank you.

[1:23:00] Next is Ernie Casco and then

[1:23:09] 8700 30 332 asco here One

[1:23:14] second I'm speaking on item 30

[1:23:15] a few minutes ago You would not

[1:23:16] let me speak concerning

[1:23:16] violence and prevention and

[1:23:21] your poor decisions.

[1:23:21] It's time to stop the crime

[1:23:22] within your own administration.

[1:23:23] Torrey Pines Glad report

[1:23:27] Complaint is well documented on

[1:23:27] your desk.

[1:23:28] >> This is one of three where

[1:23:31] we're talking about item one of

[1:23:32] three So if you want to speak

[1:23:32] to that we're happy to hear

[1:23:38] your comments not agenda public

[1:23:38] comment will follow.

[1:23:44] I have asked you to unmute if

[1:23:45] you'd like to speak on I don't

[1:23:45] want to hear three legal

[1:23:46] services.

[1:23:49] >> This is on legal services.

[1:23:49] Okay.

[1:23:50] Let me go back to what I was

[1:23:51] saying.

[1:23:55] I should not be forced to sign

[1:23:55] any legal waiver or city

[1:24:01] liabilities while you're

[1:24:01] already covered by California

[1:24:02] recreational statue laws.

[1:24:03] This is misappropriation of

[1:24:07] public money going into private

[1:24:08] accounts and and demands a full

[1:24:13] transparent city audit that

[1:24:14] would end the corruption.

[1:24:14] It's time to stop the crime

[1:24:19] within in your administration

[1:24:20] Torrey Pines Gary Port complain

[1:24:24] is well documented on your desk

[1:24:25] It's illegal for anyone to turn

[1:24:26] a freedom into a privilege for

[1:24:27] a license and a fee under any

[1:24:30] terms, circumstances or

[1:24:31] condition.

[1:24:31] Allowing this crime and

[1:24:32] violence to continue is a

[1:24:36] violation of your oath and

[1:24:37] automatic forfeiture of your

[1:24:38] chair of office.

[1:24:42] We have a petition Black Beach

[1:24:43] recreational scandal to stop

[1:24:44] the illegal commercialization

[1:24:45] and privatization of San Diego

[1:24:48] parks with hundreds of

[1:24:49] signatures demanding

[1:24:49] authorities take action.

[1:24:50] Why?

[1:24:55] We have unanimous letters of

[1:24:56] support from the Hawaii Town

[1:24:56] Council Officers Association to

[1:24:57] reconvene the Torrey Pines

[1:25:00] Advisory Board as needed for

[1:25:01] public safety and oversight.

[1:25:02] City Council has a beautiful

[1:25:07] proven solution known as

[1:25:08] the San Diego recreational

[1:25:08] waiver that would end

[1:25:09] the dispute.

[1:25:12] The San Diego Recreational

[1:25:13] waiver stops city internal

[1:25:13] corruption by separating

[1:25:14] the business from free public

[1:25:19] access to San Diego

[1:25:20] Recreational labor isolate city

[1:25:25] concerns that you won't address

[1:25:26] ,secures city liabilities,

[1:25:26] restores recreational freedoms

[1:25:27] and addresses the victim and

[1:25:31] witnesses.

[1:25:32] Well the damage resulted in a

[1:25:32] timely fashion.

[1:25:33] It's a win for city liabilities

[1:25:38] restores our recreational

[1:25:38] rights and freedom for years to

[1:25:39] come.

[1:25:39] It's the best decision City

[1:25:43] council could make to combat.

[1:25:44] Do you want me to walk away

[1:25:49] while you blatantly rob America

[1:25:49] ?

[1:25:50] City Council is liable and

[1:25:50] needs to address victims

[1:25:51] witnesses who have been damaged

[1:25:56] Your time has concluded 8700

[1:25:57] And then our final speaker is

[1:25:57] 8813.

[1:26:01] As noted, the five minute timer

[1:26:01] had concluded These are our

[1:26:02] final speakers.

[1:26:07] Thank you Joyce And I wasn't

[1:26:08] planning on speaking on this

[1:26:11] but something came up that

[1:26:12] encouraged me to do it.

[1:26:18] I'll listen to see what your

[1:26:19] vote is going to be because

[1:26:20] you're certainly qualified to

[1:26:25] know about who to vote.

[1:26:25] You know this is the quality of

[1:26:26] what we want for our attorneys.

[1:26:31] But I do want to say this that

[1:26:31] I think it was about three

[1:26:36] years ago or so when I had a

[1:26:37] real big opening on attorneys

[1:26:41] and law and I realized it was

[1:26:42] really a difficult thing for me

[1:26:43] to accept that our legal

[1:26:47] obligations create absolutely

[1:26:48] every step we take along

[1:26:54] the way in government And I

[1:26:55] don't think I'm wrong on that.

[1:26:56] I don't think I'm exaggerating

[1:27:00] and I was just blown away by

[1:27:00] that.

[1:27:01] I needed their help And they

[1:27:07] were not just there healthy

[1:27:08] were vital attorneys in law but

[1:27:08] at the same time the fact that

[1:27:12] it just permeates everything

[1:27:13] was just shocking to me And I

[1:27:18] really felt sad about it.

[1:27:23] But I'm on board now and so but

[1:27:24] we just must have that that

[1:27:25] strength, that part of our our

[1:27:30] workings Now we can look at

[1:27:31] the federal level and see

[1:27:31] the rule of law which is you

[1:27:35] know, the gym, the heart of our

[1:27:35] country and how it's being

[1:27:36] diminished lately And yet it

[1:27:41] was so exciting when

[1:27:41] the Supreme Court and I guess

[1:27:42] it's not there yet came forward

[1:27:43] with that decision on

[1:27:47] the tariff And that does affect

[1:27:48] our community big time and that

[1:27:54] was a positive thing But it's

[1:27:54] very complicated.

[1:27:55] But the threatening of the Fed,

[1:27:59] the law of the rule of the law

[1:27:59] in our country, the fact that

[1:28:00] that's coming forward big time

[1:28:05] now it just it's hard to not be

[1:28:06] disheartened by it.

[1:28:07] So I'm for this item and I

[1:28:13] thank you for listening.

[1:28:13] You've been up to getting

[1:28:14] comment.

[1:28:15] Thank you 813 if you can please

[1:28:18] and you okay control here so

[1:28:22] yeah so we'll start off by

[1:28:23] saying you know when the city

[1:28:29] council council is transparent

[1:28:30] and lawful you don't need

[1:28:35] lawyers or you know, for legal

[1:28:35] fielding.

[1:28:36] You know you need

[1:28:36] accountability quite frankly

[1:28:40] And if the city was behaving

[1:28:41] without fraud and corruption,

[1:28:42] its attorneys wouldn't be

[1:28:47] working overtime to be

[1:28:47] protecting it.

[1:28:48] And and it is worth asking why

[1:28:52] the city or city council rely

[1:28:53] so heavily on legal

[1:28:54] representation when addressing

[1:28:58] the public's concerns against

[1:28:59] the city for operating free

[1:29:04] from fraud and corruption then

[1:29:10] there wouldn't be any need for

[1:29:10] any of this.

[1:29:11] But here we are and more waste

[1:29:15] and I to agree with

[1:29:16] the previous speakers who are

[1:29:22] concerned.

[1:29:22] Thank you.

[1:29:23] Thank you.

[1:29:29] That concludes all the comment

[1:29:29] on this item.

[1:29:29] All right.

[1:29:30] We'll turn it over to

[1:29:31] councilmember questions and

[1:29:31] comments.

[1:29:32] I'll go ahead and move

[1:29:33] the staff recommendation.

[1:29:39] Can I get a second?

[1:29:40] And we have a second by council

[1:29:46] PRESIDENT Pro tem We as anybody

[1:29:46] night again we have a motion by

[1:29:47] myself and a second by council

[1:29:48] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee to move

[1:29:51] the staff recommendation Clerk

[1:29:51] Please call the roll Start

[1:29:52] the voting system Please cast

[1:30:09] your vote that passes

[1:30:12] unanimously 5 to 0 with

[1:30:12] Councilmember Moreno.

[1:30:16] Councilmember Kemp, you

[1:30:16] Councilmember but Opening

[1:30:17] Councilmember Whitburn absent.

[1:30:18] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[1:30:18] All right.

[1:30:21] Thanks, Jennifer And thank you

[1:30:21] to the team that put this

[1:30:22] together.

[1:30:22] >> With that please introduce

[1:30:27] item 500 items 500 is

[1:30:28] settlement of City of San Diego

[1:30:28] versus San Diego County local

[1:30:33] agency formation Commission at

[1:30:38] all San Diego Superior Court

[1:30:39] number 25603103c claim number

[1:30:44] and a if you'd like to speak on

[1:30:44] the side of six minutes because

[1:30:45] up to the front of the room or

[1:30:46] star nine of the raise your

[1:30:46] hand I can't thank you council

[1:30:49] PRESIDENT All right Thank you.

[1:30:50] All right Thank you.

[1:30:50] Staffers showing up Do my

[1:30:51] colleagues need a presentation

[1:30:51] on this?

[1:30:56] Not seeing any one requesting

[1:30:57] clerk Please proceed to public

[1:30:57] comment.

[1:30:58] There's no public comment here

[1:31:02] in council chambers or sorry at

[1:31:03] the five minute time are going

[1:31:04] to those participating remotely

[1:31:05] the original if you can please

[1:31:06] unmute you'll have two minutes.

[1:31:07] Yeah this is interesting

[1:31:12] because you guys this has to do

[1:31:12] with anti slapp motions which

[1:31:17] are used to prevent lawsuits

[1:31:17] designed to punish or

[1:31:18] intimidate people like

[1:31:22] defendants from exercising

[1:31:23] First Amendment right to being

[1:31:24] able to you know, talk about

[1:31:24] these things and in that

[1:31:28] they'll get their attorney's

[1:31:29] fees and whatnot when it's

[1:31:29] granted.

[1:31:30] So it's it's interesting to

[1:31:34] continue to see because you

[1:31:35] guys feel like you're

[1:31:36] transparent enough so that like

[1:31:41] we know what you engage in but

[1:31:42] then it doesn't go beyond that.

[1:31:42] You don't go in and fix

[1:31:43] the issues as to why these

[1:31:46] types of things are happening

[1:31:47] and now we have to pay know 116

[1:31:53] or whatever thousand dollars

[1:31:53] out of the public liability

[1:31:54] fund And again the public

[1:31:58] liability fund is funded by

[1:31:59] the people that you're wasting

[1:31:59] your money with.

[1:32:04] And this is in other ways

[1:32:05] because it just shows how much

[1:32:06] you guys try to silence people

[1:32:10] and try to you know, I need to

[1:32:11] do it here in these meetings.

[1:32:16] You guys do it wherever when

[1:32:17] you don't like what someone

[1:32:18] saying if there was any kind of

[1:32:18] dissent But there's only

[1:32:22] dissent because of the fraud,

[1:32:23] waste and abuse that you guys

[1:32:24] engage in like if you weren't

[1:32:24] engaged in those type of things

[1:32:28] and you were actually using

[1:32:29] your money wisely and spending

[1:32:29] it on stuff that the world

[1:32:30] around us would be changing not

[1:32:34] getting worse.

[1:32:35] I mean it's just it's sad

[1:32:36] because people do thank you but

[1:32:36] they don't really pay

[1:32:37] attention.

[1:32:40] They don't listen and really

[1:32:41] look into what you guys are

[1:32:41] doing and seeing how much money

[1:32:46] that they are throwing at you

[1:32:47] guys that you're basically

[1:32:48] using It's toilet paper And so

[1:32:54] it's just you know the hope is

[1:32:55] that one day you guys want to

[1:32:56] change your course, correct.

[1:32:58] And actually do things for

[1:32:59] the betterment of people but

[1:32:59] not just your pockets and your

[1:33:00] friends pockets because people

[1:33:04] are suffering.

[1:33:05] I mean they really are And you

[1:33:05] guys don't give a and it's

[1:33:10] just it's a reflection of

[1:33:11] the world around us.

[1:33:11] Time has concluded.

[1:33:19] Next is 813 and Andrea Avenue

[1:33:19] then 8700 please email 8813.

[1:33:26] There you go.

[1:33:27] But I think you know I just

[1:33:27] wanted to make a comment

[1:33:28] regarding the protocol and then

[1:33:32] you guys not wanting to have a

[1:33:33] presentation or if you have

[1:33:34] public engagement and

[1:33:38] the public understand what it

[1:33:39] is that you guys will be voting

[1:33:40] on, that's that's an issue

[1:33:40] That's a problem as it is

[1:33:45] people are turned off by these

[1:33:45] meetings because they don't

[1:33:46] know what the is going on And

[1:33:50] instantly you you're you know

[1:33:50] you're talking about politics

[1:33:56] and the subject just gets shut

[1:33:57] down But it's because of how

[1:34:02] you guys how you guys do things

[1:34:02] here.

[1:34:03] It's like gosh you should have

[1:34:04] a presentation for people who

[1:34:08] don't know what's happening at

[1:34:09] least because you know you guys

[1:34:14] only yesterday when have people

[1:34:15] absent that like it's pretty

[1:34:20] disappointing but so the way

[1:34:21] they are because of how you

[1:34:25] guys how you guys work or don't

[1:34:26] work okay I got to say thank

[1:34:31] you Thank you.

[1:34:32] Next is Andrea I think if you

[1:34:36] can please I'm you are being

[1:34:37] I'm so glad to see that we have

[1:34:38] First Amendment rights.

[1:34:39] i would know that.

[1:34:39] You know what I mean?

[1:34:42] Like I have no idea We have

[1:34:43] First Amendment rights in San

[1:34:44] Diego because I use my First

[1:34:44] Amendment rights to report

[1:34:49] really violent crimes and

[1:34:49] the abduction of my children,

[1:34:50] the drugging of my children And

[1:34:55] instead of anybody helping me

[1:34:55] they removed charges and they

[1:35:00] omitted my children from

[1:35:01] reports and they prosecuted me

[1:35:02] for almost six years for

[1:35:07] reporting the crimes that took

[1:35:08] place.

[1:35:08] So I didn't even know we were

[1:35:09] allowed to speak freely.

[1:35:10] I didn't know we were allowed

[1:35:13] to report crimes or opioid

[1:35:14] distribution or insurance fraud

[1:35:19] or the malfeasance taking place

[1:35:19] from our local government

[1:35:20] leaders who are actually

[1:35:25] working in a rico enterprise

[1:35:26] but doesn't want anyone to know

[1:35:26] that that's what's taking

[1:35:26] place.

[1:35:27] >> But unfortunately for

[1:35:31] everybody the local feds who

[1:35:32] aren't doing their jobs are

[1:35:32] being watched by the real feds

[1:35:37] who are watching them not do

[1:35:37] their jobs at this point

[1:35:38] because it has gotten so far.

[1:35:39] So we can carry on pretending

[1:35:43] that people have First

[1:35:44] Amendment rights in San Diego

[1:35:45] They don't Come on, you say one

[1:35:45] wrong word, you're cut off.

[1:35:49] You're shut down.

[1:35:50] You can't get on your you know

[1:35:50] it's but the good thing is

[1:35:55] the good news is there are so

[1:35:55] many of us now and everybody's

[1:35:56] coming together.

[1:35:56] >> All these community

[1:36:00] coalitions, whatever has been

[1:36:01] happening here in San Diego is

[1:36:01] definitely coming to an end And

[1:36:06] i really hope that the people

[1:36:07] have participated at that

[1:36:07] level.

[1:36:08] I go to prison because that's

[1:36:09] what they deserve Their

[1:36:12] children deserve everything our

[1:36:13] children have suffered.

[1:36:13] But I pray to GOD that they

[1:36:18] don't ever experienced it but

[1:36:19] their parents should their

[1:36:20] parents experience prison time.

[1:36:26] Thank you.

[1:36:26] Finally a time I concluded

[1:36:27] There are three speakers in

[1:36:28] the queue and additional

[1:36:28] speakers will be taken 8700

[1:36:33] please I'm you.

[1:36:39] Thank you Joyce in yellow for

[1:36:40] the three again I was planning

[1:36:41] on speaking on this but here we

[1:36:45] go.

[1:36:46] Excuse me PRESIDENT McCarver.

[1:36:52] I do agree that I would ask you

[1:36:52] to take a drink.

[1:36:57] A coffee helps present a

[1:36:58] couple.

[1:36:58] I do agree that we we do so

[1:37:04] many present ation you know

[1:37:05] even 3 minutes or 5 minutes

[1:37:10] would be so great Consider that

[1:37:10] would you?

[1:37:11] So again I'm not prepared but I

[1:37:11] am prepared.

[1:37:16] I love the First Amendment

[1:37:17] rights and we need to fight

[1:37:17] defense like this and keep it

[1:37:22] and keep it.

[1:37:22] We have First Amendment rights

[1:37:23] right and council right now we

[1:37:28] can say anything you want to

[1:37:28] say.

[1:37:29] It'll be on record.

[1:37:29] You don't get it.

[1:37:30] I'll say it Feel better because

[1:37:34] you said it.

[1:37:34] People will hear it.

[1:37:35] It's on city tv, you know I

[1:37:40] mean this is are we need more

[1:37:41] people coming forward and you

[1:37:41] know First Amendment rights in

[1:37:45] this way.

[1:37:46] So the only concern I have is

[1:37:47] that we should be learned about

[1:37:51] qualified immunity when I was

[1:37:52] researching code section items

[1:37:53] and that was new to me So I

[1:37:57] just I don't know how qualified

[1:37:58] immunity is handled nationally

[1:38:03] or locally but I would say that

[1:38:04] I hope that there's a more

[1:38:10] balanced in there that we don't

[1:38:11] because the proponents people

[1:38:11] really love it.

[1:38:16] It keeps you all since you know

[1:38:16] the overabundance of lawsuits

[1:38:17] coming forward and

[1:38:21] the proponents like

[1:38:22] the opponents if I can say this

[1:38:22] right, I think that it you

[1:38:26] know, it allows officials

[1:38:27] perhaps a little too much

[1:38:33] leeway to not have to come

[1:38:34] forward in litigation.

[1:38:35] So I don't know the full truth

[1:38:35] of all the facts in that, but I

[1:38:39] do know that I want First

[1:38:40] Amendment rights and thank you

[1:38:41] for that Comments or your time

[1:38:45] has concluded 7499 And then

[1:38:46] Ernie Casco 749 Please on

[1:38:56] behalf it's good here again I

[1:38:57] don't have any prepared

[1:38:57] comments on the second but I do

[1:38:58] want to add my voice to

[1:38:59] the concerns expressed by many

[1:39:02] of the previous speakers.

[1:39:03] I also want to thank each of

[1:39:03] those speakers for researching

[1:39:04] these items and voicing their

[1:39:08] concerns for the rest of us.

[1:39:09] Thank you to all speakers who

[1:39:09] take their time to address this

[1:39:10] Council.

[1:39:14] However, I do want to correct

[1:39:15] Joyce and others comments

[1:39:16] regarding our freedom to speak

[1:39:16] at this Council.

[1:39:21] As many of you know I was sued

[1:39:21] by the city's contractor for

[1:39:22] California Adventure for my

[1:39:23] speeches exposing their actions

[1:39:26] at the Torrey Pines Glider

[1:39:26] port.

[1:39:27] The court erroneously

[1:39:31] determined that that business

[1:39:32] somehow is a private citizen,

[1:39:33] that those are private citizens

[1:39:38] and I cannot show what they're

[1:39:38] doing in our glider port

[1:39:43] without defaming them.

[1:39:44] And I was not protected by

[1:39:45] the fact that they were public

[1:39:45] figures.

[1:39:46] In fact they were determined

[1:39:50] somehow not be public figures

[1:39:51] Even though they're operating

[1:39:51] our own city park the city

[1:39:56] should have stepped in to help

[1:39:57] and correct that but the city

[1:39:57] did not.

[1:39:58] So we do not have the free

[1:40:02] speech that Joyce and yada has

[1:40:02] expressed and I hope the city

[1:40:03] will take action to correct

[1:40:04] that in the future.

[1:40:08] Thank you.

[1:40:09] >> Next and our final speaker

[1:40:10] is Ernie Casco, if you can

[1:40:14] please on Yes.

[1:40:15] Speaking on item 500 and

[1:40:20] the crimes are reported to your

[1:40:20] office, Joe LaCava and San

[1:40:21] Diego Police Department I just

[1:40:26] heard some serious violations.

[1:40:27] Your leaseholder tried to end

[1:40:31] my life.

[1:40:32] He killed a pilot, assaulted me

[1:40:33] the following day breaking my

[1:40:38] back was sued for $50,000, came

[1:40:43] back and switched my wing when

[1:40:44] I landed Crash landed on a

[1:40:45] building After that he poisoned

[1:40:49] me.

[1:40:50] Where is my police report?

[1:40:51] Joe LaCava Why haven't you

[1:40:55] taken action when there is a

[1:40:56] legal solution on your desk?

[1:41:01] I want to know I've asked many

[1:41:02] a time out for you to take

[1:41:02] action.

[1:41:07] We have our back speech

[1:41:07] recreational scandal petition

[1:41:15] to stop the illegal

[1:41:15] commercialization and

[1:41:16] privatization of San Diego

[1:41:19] parks with a town council

[1:41:20] source association unanimously

[1:41:21] support to reconvene the Torrey

[1:41:25] Pines Advisory Board and

[1:41:26] implement the San Diego

[1:41:26] recreational waiver that would

[1:41:31] end the dispute.

[1:41:32] It's a win for city

[1:41:32] liabilities, restores our

[1:41:33] recreational rights and

[1:41:38] freedoms for years to come.

[1:41:39] It's the best decision you can

[1:41:39] make If you want me to walk

[1:41:43] away while you blatantly rob

[1:41:44] America, City Council is still

[1:41:45] liable and needs to address

[1:41:49] victims and witnesses who have

[1:41:53] been damaged and dying of stage

[1:41:54] four cancer Because your

[1:41:55] leaseholder poison me with a

[1:41:56] biohazard you need to take

[1:42:02] action to stop the corruption

[1:42:08] within your own administration

[1:42:08] .

[1:42:09] Implement the San Diego

[1:42:14] recreational waiver immediately

[1:42:15] not send me down another rabbit

[1:42:20] hole that ends nowhere.

[1:42:20] Your time has concluded and

[1:42:21] that concludes public comment

[1:42:22] on this item.

[1:42:22] All right.

[1:42:26] Thank you, City Clerk And with

[1:42:27] that we'll take it over to

[1:42:28] council members Questions,

[1:42:28] comments entertain a motion and

[1:42:32] I'll go ahead and move item as

[1:42:33] 500 and a second by Council

[1:42:38] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Not

[1:42:39] anybody else in the lights

[1:42:40] again we have a motion by

[1:42:40] myself and a second by council

[1:42:41] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee to move

[1:42:45] the recommendation on this 500

[1:42:46] word Please call the roll Start

[1:42:46] the voting system Please cast

[1:42:57] your vote that passes

[1:42:58] unanimously 5 to 0 with

[1:42:58] Councilor Moreno.

[1:43:03] Councilmember Camp, you had a

[1:43:03] Ron Wilbur and council member

[1:43:04] whip or an absent Thank you

[1:43:04] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:43:05] All right.

[1:43:08] Thank you With that we will now

[1:43:09] take up non agenda public

[1:43:09] comment Council members respect

[1:43:10] and appreciate the public

[1:43:11] support and are fully committed

[1:43:13] to protecting every

[1:43:14] participant's free speech

[1:43:15] rights at council and committee

[1:43:15] meetings.

[1:43:16] Clerk Please proceed with

[1:43:21] public comment.

[1:43:22] Thank you.

[1:43:22] Council PRESIDENT Pearl 2.7

[1:43:23] knowledge that a public comment

[1:43:24] is an opportunity for members

[1:43:24] of the public to comment on

[1:43:26] items that are not on

[1:43:26] the agenda but within

[1:43:27] the subject matter jurisdiction

[1:43:27] of the City Council.

[1:43:32] Each speaker will have two

[1:43:32] minutes.

[1:43:33] Please note if there are eight

[1:43:33] or more speakers on a single

[1:43:34] topic the maximum time for

[1:43:36] the topic will be 60 Minutes If

[1:43:37] you're in chambers like some

[1:43:38] other speakers up If you are

[1:43:42] virtual please press star nine

[1:43:42] on the raise your hand

[1:43:43] participant There are no

[1:43:43] speakers here in chambers

[1:43:44] starting the five minute timer

[1:43:47] going to those participating

[1:43:48] remotely.

[1:43:49] We currently have six speakers

[1:43:49] and like you starting with

[1:43:50] William Pittman if you can

[1:43:57] please unmute we're beginning

[1:43:57] Academy for you.

[1:43:58] There you go.

[1:44:03] Yeah go.

[1:44:04] I got it.

[1:44:04] Hi everyone.

[1:44:05] Thanks for the morning meeting

[1:44:05] today.

[1:44:08] I come from the Francisco Bay

[1:44:08] Area.

[1:44:09] >> They take the Brown Act

[1:44:10] public meeting process really

[1:44:14] seriously and they play it by

[1:44:15] the book And it's I mean you

[1:44:15] have to practice the protocols

[1:44:16] and decorum of the public

[1:44:20] meeting process to the letter

[1:44:21] And it's really nice to be in

[1:44:22] San Diego that you guys are

[1:44:26] just a bit more loose about it.

[1:44:26] Thank you.

[1:44:27] I will do my best to practice

[1:44:33] public meeting decorum and that

[1:44:33] I feel it's important to

[1:44:34] practice it but thank you that

[1:44:38] that you can listen and that

[1:44:39] First Amendment rights are

[1:44:39] really important here in San

[1:44:40] Diego and that we respect them

[1:44:45] and and we're trying to not

[1:44:45] have said that we're allowed to

[1:44:46] talk about issues that

[1:44:47] the public thank you for

[1:44:50] allowing that and good luck How

[1:44:51] we address that together as a

[1:44:52] community sounds like an

[1:44:56] interesting item Previously to

[1:44:57] allow public comment I wanted

[1:45:02] to comment also from yesterday

[1:45:02] .

[1:45:03] Yeah that I was really

[1:45:06] impressed by Councilperson

[1:45:12] Brett with words on what are we

[1:45:13] actually going to be working on

[1:45:14] as a as a city in these tough

[1:45:18] budget times?

[1:45:19] I really believe that what's

[1:45:19] happened with the Trump issues

[1:45:24] it's not necessarily Trump or

[1:45:24] conservative right wing ism

[1:45:25] It's just that we see a better

[1:45:30] way.

[1:45:31] I think a better way is

[1:45:31] presenting it to us what is

[1:45:32] possible and what to work

[1:45:35] towards I mean truly best

[1:45:36] practices and best goals And I

[1:45:37] don't think we should shy away

[1:45:41] from those things.

[1:45:42] I really hope we make

[1:45:43] the efforts to talk about

[1:45:43] the future tech accountability

[1:45:44] and how we can do things

[1:45:48] smarter and better principal

[1:45:48] and that that is no crime to

[1:45:49] work on And that's not a

[1:45:53] partizan issue.

[1:45:54] That should be a consensus

[1:45:54] community sharing issue that we

[1:45:59] need to really talk about this

[1:46:00] year and not feel afraid to

[1:46:01] talk about it in this election

[1:46:01] year.

[1:46:02] So good luck How we can be

[1:46:06] doing that.

[1:46:07] >> Thank you.

[1:46:07] Thank you.

[1:46:08] Next history on Scully than

[1:46:09] the original bacon please and

[1:46:11] nutrients.

[1:46:12] >> Good morning San Diego Scuse

[1:46:18] me San Diego City Council Chair

[1:46:18] LaCava My name is Marianne

[1:46:19] Skelly and I'm here as a

[1:46:20] planning group attendee and a

[1:46:23] community volunteer.

[1:46:24] Yesterday I described one of

[1:46:25] the teen programs at our high

[1:46:28] schools that are important to

[1:46:29] me and the safety to all of us

[1:46:30] here in the city.

[1:46:33] It's called the Start Smart

[1:46:34] Program.

[1:46:35] It's a program to reduce drunk,

[1:46:35] drugged and distracted driving

[1:46:39] by teens.

[1:46:40] The conversation yesterday

[1:46:41] regarding Budget Media Report

[1:46:46] and the proposed 2027 budget

[1:46:46] should be an opportunity to

[1:46:47] reflect on the cost of drunk,

[1:46:51] drugged and distracted driving

[1:46:51] by teens and others in

[1:46:52] the city.

[1:46:57] Marijuana and other drug

[1:46:57] impaired driving imposes

[1:46:58] significant budgetary,

[1:47:02] operational and financial

[1:47:02] strains on first responders

[1:47:03] police, fire, emergency and

[1:47:07] hospital personnel.

[1:47:08] These costs include specialized

[1:47:09] training, extended incident

[1:47:14] response times, forensic

[1:47:14] toxicology and prosecution

[1:47:19] often totaling hundreds of

[1:47:20] thousands of dollars per

[1:47:20] incident.

[1:47:21] And of course and of course

[1:47:25] the cost to families and to

[1:47:26] neighborhoods.

[1:47:26] Are incapable recognizing

[1:47:31] the enormous budget impact of

[1:47:31] marijuana use and impaired

[1:47:32] driving should prompt us to ask

[1:47:37] what could our city do to

[1:47:38] interpreted the cost to use

[1:47:43] marijuana then drive.

[1:47:44] We should ask what do the huge

[1:47:44] imposing marijuana billboards

[1:47:45] suggest?

[1:47:48] Is the answer?

[1:47:49] Is it time to revisit our

[1:47:49] billboard policies?

[1:47:54] If only from a budget

[1:47:55] perspective the commercializing

[1:47:56] and promotion of marijuana use

[1:48:00] is a cost intensive unnecessary

[1:48:00] expense.

[1:48:01] Thank you for allowing me to

[1:48:07] speak today.

[1:48:07] >> Thank you.

[1:48:08] Next is the original then 8700

[1:48:11] Background Original Police And

[1:48:12] there you go.

[1:48:13] >> So interesting to see all of

[1:48:17] the cover ups that take place

[1:48:17] in the city.

[1:48:18] And it's also interesting to

[1:48:23] know that we live in a world

[1:48:23] where our children are being

[1:48:29] sacrificed actually being

[1:48:30] eaten.

[1:48:30] It's called jerky with

[1:48:31] different names for it, you

[1:48:33] know, and they drain their

[1:48:34] blood and stuff.

[1:48:35] But you got to scare them first

[1:48:35] because you know you've got to

[1:48:40] get adrenal in in that blood so

[1:48:41] then they can drain it.

[1:48:41] So they've got to be tortured,

[1:48:44] you know, and it's interesting

[1:48:45] that, you know, things like

[1:48:46] this can come out and just do

[1:48:51] it doesn't bother, you know,

[1:48:52] who you know, children being

[1:48:53] sexually abused or they have

[1:48:56] their teeth taken out so that

[1:48:57] when they're you know, doing

[1:49:02] sexual favors for people it's

[1:49:07] better you know?

[1:49:08] And we live in a world where

[1:49:08] many of these children come

[1:49:12] from foster care and better

[1:49:13] groups from their families.

[1:49:13] And it's interesting because

[1:49:18] you guys you know also

[1:49:18] incentivized a bunch of

[1:49:19] children, unaccompanied minors

[1:49:24] to come across the border.

[1:49:24] You had a few thousand in

[1:49:25] the convention center where you

[1:49:26] were surely vaccinating them

[1:49:29] during pregnancy tests and

[1:49:29] different things.

[1:49:30] And then like a month later

[1:49:34] they just disappeared because

[1:49:34] they got their sponsor.

[1:49:35] Right.

[1:49:35] And then, you know, hundreds of

[1:49:40] thousands of those children

[1:49:40] have not been checked.

[1:49:44] But that's not a problem.

[1:49:45] Right.

[1:49:46] Let's worry about what ice is

[1:49:46] doing now.

[1:49:47] Let's worry about, you know,

[1:49:50] making sure you guys see people

[1:49:50] and are protected.

[1:49:51] Why don't you guys care about

[1:49:56] those things Or you can close

[1:49:57] it And that that's why I think

[1:49:57] everybody should be asking if

[1:50:01] people are pedophiles.

[1:50:02] Because if you don't care about

[1:50:02] the things that are going on

[1:50:03] with children, they must be

[1:50:06] engaged in the abuse of them.

[1:50:07] And even just sitting there

[1:50:12] silent is complicity to men.

[1:50:13] So the battle versus good is

[1:50:18] evil and so on and the struggle

[1:50:18] Your time has concluded After

[1:50:21] 8700 and back you rep the 700

[1:50:29] please unmute Star six.

[1:50:29] Thank you Joy.

[1:50:30] So you had a cd3 First of all a

[1:50:32] couple of things before I began

[1:50:33] budget I'll speak on

[1:50:38] the Colorado River crisis next

[1:50:38] week.

[1:50:38] I'm going to do the budget

[1:50:42] today and then a council

[1:50:43] PRESIDENT Pro tem I hope I said

[1:50:48] that right yesterday about I'll

[1:50:49] say it again but I know it's

[1:50:49] edited.

[1:50:53] You said something that's close

[1:50:53] to this.

[1:50:54] I think what you do on a daily

[1:50:55] basis to remove the structural

[1:50:59] budget deficit I forgot to say

[1:51:00] yesterday is that from an

[1:51:04] operational standpoint?

[1:51:05] So I just hope I'm saying that

[1:51:10] right about you.

[1:51:10] I love your work.

[1:51:11] You're very good.

[1:51:11] Thank you.

[1:51:14] So the budget okay.

[1:51:15] Last night it was easy for me

[1:51:20] to say what I want for the f y

[1:51:25] 27 budget yet I did find it a

[1:51:26] bit uncomfortable to speak at

[1:51:30] my cuts.

[1:51:31] I need to do much better on

[1:51:35] cuts at the upcoming budget

[1:51:36] hearings.

[1:51:39] No Council member zero s Blair

[1:51:44] related to I loved what he said

[1:51:45] and I think is absolutely

[1:51:49] verbatim What city are we

[1:51:55] trying to be?

[1:51:56] >> Excuse me what city are to

[1:52:00] be those that have the most

[1:52:00] share?

[1:52:01] What city are we trying to be?

[1:52:04] I know you said that and I

[1:52:05] added this those that have

[1:52:05] the most share So then I think

[1:52:09] I'm right on that that question

[1:52:10] and that's terrific.

[1:52:10] Let's put that on the top of

[1:52:14] all of our budget to

[1:52:15] deliberations to expand on a

[1:52:16] little bit you're going to

[1:52:16] probably have to cut me off

[1:52:20] pretty quick point on the I'm

[1:52:26] going to expand on are one

[1:52:29] people one San Diego I want to

[1:52:29] broaden one.

[1:52:30] I'm sorry your time has

[1:52:31] concluded.

[1:52:31] We'll hear from you again next

[1:52:35] week but you wrap if you can

[1:52:35] unmute.

[1:52:39] >> Good morning Council

[1:52:39] PRESIDENT And council members.

[1:52:40] My name is Becky Rapp and again

[1:52:41] I'd like to thank you for

[1:52:44] the opportunity to speak today

[1:52:45] and I want to acknowledge that

[1:52:46] Vision Zero was recently

[1:52:49] discussed at the Active

[1:52:50] Transportation and

[1:52:50] Infrastructure Committee and I

[1:52:54] appreciate the city's continued

[1:52:54] commitment to eliminating

[1:52:55] traffic fatalities and serious

[1:52:55] injuries.

[1:52:59] Vision Zero is an important

[1:53:00] public health goal and it

[1:53:01] reflects our responsibility to

[1:53:04] make San Diego streets safer

[1:53:04] for everyone.

[1:53:05] We know that lowering speed

[1:53:09] limits and redesigning streets

[1:53:10] are critical strategies.

[1:53:11] Speed directly impacts crash

[1:53:15] severity and when drivers are

[1:53:16] attentive and sober reducing

[1:53:21] speeds absolutely saves lives.

[1:53:21] However, if Vision Zero is

[1:53:22] going to be truly effective, we

[1:53:25] must also address one of

[1:53:26] the most significant

[1:53:27] contributors to severe and

[1:53:27] fatal crashes and that's drug

[1:53:30] and alcohol impairment.

[1:53:31] Nationally, about 1 in 3

[1:53:35] traffic fatalities involves an

[1:53:36] impaired driver.

[1:53:36] A posted sign alone will not

[1:53:40] change the behavior of someone

[1:53:41] who is under the influence.

[1:53:42] Impaired drivers have slower

[1:53:45] reaction time reduced judgment

[1:53:46] and are more likely to speed or

[1:53:47] ignore traffic signals

[1:53:50] altogether.

[1:53:51] If we're serious about

[1:53:52] achieving zero traffic deaths,

[1:53:56] prevention must be part of

[1:53:56] the process and that includes

[1:53:57] incorporating drug and alcohol

[1:54:01] prevention efforts, public

[1:54:01] education campaigns and

[1:54:06] meaningful visible enforcement

[1:54:06] .

[1:54:07] A simple but very impactful

[1:54:08] suggestion would be to remove

[1:54:11] all billboards promoting and

[1:54:12] advertising marijuana products

[1:54:13] in our city.

[1:54:16] I urge the Council to ensure

[1:54:17] that its Vision zero policies

[1:54:17] move forward.

[1:54:21] Impaired driving prevention is

[1:54:22] not treated as a separate issue

[1:54:23] but as a core piece of

[1:54:26] the city's traffic safety

[1:54:26] strategy.

[1:54:27] >> Thank you very much.

[1:54:27] Thank you.

[1:54:32] Next is Andrea Arena.

[1:54:33] The five minute timer did

[1:54:33] conclude our six speakers and

[1:54:34] the keynote additional speakers

[1:54:35] will be taken.

[1:54:37] Andrea Irving then 8813 then

[1:54:37] 7499.

[1:54:41] >> Hi this is Andrea having a i

[1:54:42] am a victim of a horrific

[1:54:43] violent crime here in San

[1:54:43] Diego.

[1:54:47] My children were abducted

[1:54:47] driven across the country on a

[1:54:52] permanently suspended license

[1:54:52] by a felony charge strangler.

[1:54:53] Our county and city have

[1:54:56] abandoned all of us completely.

[1:54:57] I'm not talking about this in

[1:54:58] past tense.

[1:55:02] This is a current issue.

[1:55:02] This is not going away.

[1:55:03] I didn't forget about my

[1:55:07] children and the filthy pig

[1:55:11] bottom feeding alcoholic pig

[1:55:16] drug court judge who was at one

[1:55:17] point a family court judge.

[1:55:17] Her name is Paula Rosenstein.

[1:55:21] You might find her on the bar

[1:55:24] of the night owl at 6 A.M.

[1:55:25] Being sloughed off so she can

[1:55:26] go into her courtroom and body

[1:55:30] broker that pig sold my

[1:55:30] children for rehab kickbacks.

[1:55:35] That's not a past tense thing.

[1:55:35] It's never going to go away.

[1:55:39] And our mob boss D.A. Better be

[1:55:40] on alert that the real feds are

[1:55:41] watching her and her husband.

[1:55:45] That's why he had to step down

[1:55:45] four years early.

[1:55:46] We need to look at the larger

[1:55:47] system.

[1:55:49] Ernie, the guy who was talking

[1:55:50] earlier are you kidding me?

[1:55:50] Are you guys kidding me?

[1:55:54] Seriously, this many cover ups

[1:55:55] ,this many removals of police

[1:55:56] reports everybody is in really,

[1:55:59] really deep trouble right now

[1:55:59] and I hope everyone sees it

[1:56:03] coming to them in slow motion

[1:56:04] because it won't be stopped.

[1:56:07] I can assure you one thing this

[1:56:08] was a started off as a case

[1:56:12] where you know anybody could

[1:56:13] have done their job and then

[1:56:14] law enforcement would have

[1:56:14] helped us.

[1:56:15] Victim services would have

[1:56:17] helped us But no family courts

[1:56:18] didn't help us.

[1:56:18] No.

[1:56:19] Everybody's a pig in a bottom

[1:56:19] feeder.

[1:56:22] Everybody wants a little bit of

[1:56:22] blood money.

[1:56:23] But guess what?

[1:56:23] Now it's a rico case and firms

[1:56:26] from all over the country are

[1:56:27] salivating for this case.

[1:56:30] And Ernie and anyone who's

[1:56:31] experienced the alteration of

[1:56:32] charges, removal of records,

[1:56:36] alteration of court records

[1:56:36] let's collaborate.

[1:56:41] Let's make it a rico case for

[1:56:41] all.

[1:56:42] >> Thank you so much.

[1:56:45] Your time has concluded

[1:56:55] 81317499813 please and mute

[1:56:55] your eye Matt.

[1:56:59] >> Yep.

[1:57:00] Can you hear me?

[1:57:00] Yes.

[1:57:00] Please proceed.

[1:57:01] Okay.

[1:57:01] Here.

[1:57:04] Amen to Andrea Irvin.

[1:57:05] Thank you so much for that.

[1:57:08] And so first stop for

[1:57:11] the concerned citizen with

[1:57:12] stage four cancer.

[1:57:12] Ernie, I believe that's your

[1:57:13] name.

[1:57:16] Thank you so much.

[1:57:17] I felt that fire and I do hope

[1:57:21] that justice is served.

[1:57:22] >> It's crucial that more of

[1:57:26] the public participate in these

[1:57:27] government agency meetings from

[1:57:28] the county to Phenix to

[1:57:32] the city council to the city

[1:57:32] council.

[1:57:33] They continue to gather with so

[1:57:33] much and it's all by design.

[1:57:36] They need the public disengaged

[1:57:36] and distracted with other

[1:57:37] things especially just trying

[1:57:40] to get by a county full of

[1:57:40] people barely surviving when

[1:57:45] they should be thriving

[1:57:45] especially here in San Diego.

[1:57:46] The programing and

[1:57:50] indoctrination runs deep Many

[1:57:51] government employees under

[1:57:55] the illusion that they're

[1:57:56] simply doing their job and

[1:57:56] contributing to progress.

[1:58:00] Biggest delusion ever.

[1:58:00] I'd like to take the rest of my

[1:58:03] time to speak on the United

[1:58:04] Nations agenda for the 21st

[1:58:04] century.

[1:58:05] It's real.

[1:58:05] It's here.

[1:58:08] They've moved incrementally an

[1:58:08] intentionally doing things

[1:58:09] right under our noses then

[1:58:13] convincing us it's for our

[1:58:14] safety our benefit that just

[1:58:18] sick twisted inverted system It

[1:58:19] has the people rooting for

[1:58:23] their own enslavement.

[1:58:23] I urge the public to at least

[1:58:24] acknowledge that these local

[1:58:27] government agencies are failing

[1:58:27] the people.

[1:58:28] They've only been effective in

[1:58:32] getting more people dependent

[1:58:33] on them for them all by design,

[1:58:39] all for control like that San

[1:58:43] Diego, thanks for your

[1:58:44] comments.

[1:58:44] Yes it does.

[1:58:48] Thank you.

[1:58:52] 7499 If you can please unmute

[1:58:57] Bob Kozinski here.

[1:58:58] As I've mentioned yesterday

[1:58:59] the city government including

[1:58:59] Todd Gloria, Joe LaCava and

[1:59:02] this entire council has been

[1:59:03] allowing a private business to

[1:59:04] abuse its role in managing one

[1:59:08] of our most iconic city parks

[1:59:08] at the Torrey Pines Glider

[1:59:09] port.

[1:59:09] As I also mentioned yesterday,

[1:59:12] it's certainly reasonable for

[1:59:13] the city to purchase products

[1:59:13] from outside vendors.

[1:59:16] It's even reasonable for

[1:59:17] the city to purchase outside

[1:59:17] services.

[1:59:18] But it is unreasonable and

[1:59:22] inappropriate for the city to

[1:59:22] force citizens into business

[1:59:26] and membership relationships

[1:59:27] with private businesses in

[1:59:27] order to access city services

[1:59:31] and resources including access

[1:59:32] to our city parks.

[1:59:32] That's where you've crossed

[1:59:33] the line.

[1:59:37] There is no reason why this

[1:59:37] city can't manage the Torrey

[1:59:38] Pines glider port just as

[1:59:41] the city manages our beaches

[1:59:41] and parks and tennis courts and

[1:59:45] volleyball courts and dog parks

[1:59:46] and streets and sidewalks and

[1:59:47] even this building itself.

[1:59:50] Imagine if the city turned over

[1:59:51] control of this building to a

[1:59:52] private business who decided

[1:59:55] that anyone who testified

[1:59:56] against them would not be

[1:59:57] allowed in this building or

[1:59:57] allowed to call in to this

[1:59:57] council?

[2:00:00] Yet that's exactly what's

[2:00:01] happening at our Torrey Pines

[2:00:01] City Park.

[2:00:04] Let's remember all of these

[2:00:05] abuses from red light cameras

[2:00:05] to forced relationships with

[2:00:09] private businesses for city

[2:00:10] communications to not accepting

[2:00:10] cash for parking in our

[2:00:13] structures to force memberships

[2:00:14] with private businesses to use

[2:00:15] our city parks.

[2:00:19] These are all abuses that arise

[2:00:19] when the city hires outside

[2:00:23] businesses and then shirks its

[2:00:24] duty to ensure that citizens

[2:00:25] are treated fairly by those

[2:00:25] businesses.

[2:00:29] What's ironic is that all of

[2:00:30] you left wing council members

[2:00:33] and Mayor would very quickly

[2:00:34] accuse conservatives of putting

[2:00:35] business interests above

[2:00:38] the public.

[2:00:39] If you observed any of these

[2:00:39] actions by conservatives but

[2:00:43] here you are doing exactly

[2:00:44] the same thing every single day

[2:00:48] Reactivate the Torrey Pines

[2:00:49] City Park Advisory Board and

[2:00:49] implement the Torrey Pines

[2:00:50] waiver.

[2:00:53] Now thank you.

[2:00:54] >> Next is Madison if you can

[2:00:58] please and mute then Arnie

[2:00:59] Casco and Michael Schmitz our

[2:00:59] final speaker.

[2:01:00] All right.

[2:01:02] Thank you.

[2:01:03] Good morning, council members.

[2:01:04] Last week the Public Health

[2:01:07] Institute announced findings

[2:01:08] from a major longitudinal study

[2:01:09] published in jama Health Forum.

[2:01:12] The study's followed 463,000

[2:01:17] adolescents and young adults.

[2:01:17] It found that teens who

[2:01:18] reported past year cannabis use

[2:01:22] at double the risk of

[2:01:23] developing psychotic disorders

[2:01:27] and doubled the risk of

[2:01:28] developing bipolar disorder and

[2:01:28] young adulthood.

[2:01:32] They also faced significant

[2:01:32] higher risks of depression and

[2:01:33] anxiety.

[2:01:36] Importantly, the cannabis use

[2:01:37] came first.

[2:01:37] >> On average the use proceeded

[2:01:42] psychiatric diagnoses by nearly

[2:01:42] two years.

[2:01:43] This strengthens the evidence

[2:01:46] that adolescent cannabis

[2:01:47] exposure is not just correlated

[2:01:47] with but MAY contribute to

[2:01:51] serious mental illness.

[2:01:52] Adolescent cannabis use remains

[2:01:52] common.

[2:01:56] The risks are rising while

[2:01:57] the perception of harm is

[2:01:57] falling.

[2:02:01] The study also found higher

[2:02:02] rates of cannabis use among

[2:02:02] youths enrolled in Medicaid and

[2:02:06] those living in more

[2:02:07] socioeconomically deprived

[2:02:07] neighborhoods.

[2:02:08] That means commercialization

[2:02:10] MAY be widening mental health

[2:02:11] disparities something our city

[2:02:15] cannot ignore.

[2:02:16] I urge the City Council to

[2:02:17] strengthen local restrictions

[2:02:20] on youth targeted cannabis

[2:02:21] marketing support funding for

[2:02:22] school and community based

[2:02:25] prevention programs require

[2:02:26] clear prominent warnings about

[2:02:30] high potency thc products and

[2:02:30] partner with pediatric

[2:02:34] providers to expand screening

[2:02:35] and early intervention for

[2:02:35] cannabis use.

[2:02:36] The mental health of our young

[2:02:40] people is worth fighting for.

[2:02:40] Thank you.

[2:02:44] Thank you.

[2:02:49] Next, is there any Casco?

[2:02:50] >> Yes.

[2:02:50] Hello.

[2:02:54] Ernie Casco, Senior resident

[2:02:54] pilot.

[2:02:55] Torrey Pines Glider apart.

[2:02:55] Yeah.

[2:02:58] My home was invaded and I

[2:02:59] reported to you and you did

[2:03:00] nothing about it and it was

[2:03:03] invaded again.

[2:03:04] Torrey Pines Glider part is

[2:03:05] well documented on your desk.

[2:03:08] Your lease holder is breaking

[2:03:08] the law.

[2:03:09] I should not be forced to sign

[2:03:10] a lease holder waiver when city

[2:03:13] liabilities are already covered

[2:03:14] by California recreational

[2:03:14] Statutes law.

[2:03:15] This is misappropriation of

[2:03:18] public funding going into

[2:03:19] private accounts and demands a

[2:03:23] full transparent city audit

[2:03:24] that would end the dispute by

[2:03:24] exposing it.

[2:03:28] It's illegal for anyone

[2:03:29] including your city leaseholder

[2:03:32] to force anyone into a license

[2:03:33] and a contract for our freedom.

[2:03:35] You've turned our freedom into

[2:03:40] privilege.

[2:03:40] >> This is unacceptable under

[2:03:41] any terms, conditions or

[2:03:45] circumstances allowing this

[2:03:46] crime to continue is a

[2:03:46] violation of your oath of

[2:03:46] office.

[2:03:47] Joe LaCava Time for you to step

[2:03:52] out of office.

[2:03:53] We have a petition Black Beach

[2:03:54] recreational scandal to stop

[2:03:56] the illegal commercialization

[2:03:57] of Torrey Pines Glider port and

[2:03:58] San Diego Parks with hundreds

[2:03:59] of signatures demanding

[2:04:02] authorities take action.

[2:04:03] We have a unanimous letter of

[2:04:04] support from town council

[2:04:07] the Shores Association to

[2:04:07] reconvene the Torrey Pines

[2:04:12] Advisory Board permanently as

[2:04:13] needed for public safety and

[2:04:13] oversight at Torrey Pines Glad

[2:04:17] to Port City Council has a

[2:04:18] beautiful solution known as

[2:04:19] the San Diego Recreational

[2:04:22] waiver that would end

[2:04:22] the dispute.

[2:04:23] The San Diego recreational

[2:04:26] waiver stops city leaseholder

[2:04:27] internal corruption by

[2:04:28] separating your screwed up

[2:04:32] business with free public

[2:04:32] access and rights.

[2:04:33] San Diego Recreational Waiver

[2:04:37] Isolate safety concerns Secure

[2:04:38] single city liabilities

[2:04:38] restores our recreational

[2:04:39] rights and freedoms and

[2:04:42] addresses the victim and

[2:04:42] witnesses that have been

[2:04:43] damaged by your administration.

[2:04:46] Poor decisions It's time for

[2:04:47] City Council to make good

[2:04:51] decisions and restore

[2:04:51] recreational rights and

[2:04:52] freedoms for years to come.

[2:04:56] By implementing the San Diego

[2:04:57] recreational waiver, it's

[2:04:57] the best decision you can make.

[2:05:01] Joe LaCava.

[2:05:01] If you want me to walk away

[2:05:02] while you blatantly rob

[2:05:05] American.

[2:05:06] Your time has concluded.

[2:05:06] Michael Schmidt your final

[2:05:10] speaker please unmute.

[2:05:15] >> Good morning my lovely

[2:05:16] friends Diana.

[2:05:16] Hi.

[2:05:21] I was going to home because I

[2:05:24] just found out today that

[2:05:34] puppies will drive in on

[2:05:35] driverless Google Drive is

[2:05:40] situated in their traffic

[2:05:40] signal sign.

[2:05:43] It needs a replacement as soon

[2:05:44] as possible and second to

[2:05:56] everything from yesterday to I

[2:05:56] .

[2:05:57] That concludes your comments.

[2:05:57] Yes and thank you.

[2:06:00] That concludes on agenda public

[2:06:01] comment for today's meeting.

[2:06:02] >> All right.

[2:06:02] Thank you City clerk With that

[2:06:03] we will now adjourn for

[2:06:06] the noon recess and reconvene

[2:06:06] open session at 2 P.M. Or

[2:06:07] shortly thereafter.

[2:17:34] Thank you

[2:17:35] .

[2:19:36] >> And

[2:22:05] I

[2:23:41] will go

[2:24:32] and

[2:24:38] All right, good

[2:24:38] afternoon.

[2:24:39] I will now reconvene the city

[2:24:42] council meeting of Tuesday,

[2:24:43] February 24th, 2026.

[2:24:43] Clerk Please call the roll.

[2:24:47] Thank you.

[2:24:48] Council PRESIDENT Council

[2:24:49] Member Campbell here Council

[2:24:49] Member Whitburn here Council

[2:24:52] Member Foster Council Member

[2:24:53] Von Wilpert Council PRESIDENT

[2:24:57] Pro Tem Lee Council Member

[2:24:58] Campo Council Member Moreno

[2:25:02] Present Council member Eli

[2:25:03] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT

[2:25:03] LaCava present.

[2:25:04] Also attending the meeting are

[2:25:07] Assistant City Attorney Leslie

[2:25:08] Fitzgerald, Independent Budget

[2:25:09] Analyst Charles Mollica,

[2:25:12] Council Affairs Advisor in

[2:25:12] the Mayor's office, Code

[2:25:13] advisor and myself your city

[2:25:14] Clerk Diana Fuentes Thank you.

[2:25:16] Council PRESIDENT All right.

[2:25:17] Thank you City Clerk.

[2:25:18] Quorum is now present with that

[2:25:21] clerk Please introduce item 332

[2:25:22] Item 332 is the Preservation

[2:25:23] and Progress package a if you

[2:25:26] would like to speak to this

[2:25:27] item please be sure to submit

[2:25:28] Your speaker slips to the front

[2:25:31] of the room in the clear box.

[2:25:32] If you are seating time please

[2:25:32] be sure that you're submitting

[2:25:33] your speaker slip with

[2:25:35] the person that you are seating

[2:25:36] time to.

[2:25:36] They should be coming up

[2:25:37] together and if you are virtual

[2:25:40] now's the time to raise your

[2:25:41] hand by pressing Star nine or

[2:25:41] the raise your hand icon.

[2:25:44] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[2:25:49] right thank you With that as

[2:25:50] you settle in please introduce

[2:25:52] yourselves for the record and

[2:25:53] let us know how much time you

[2:26:07] need.

[2:26:07] Thank you very much.

[2:26:08] Good afternoon.

[2:26:11] I'm Kelly Stanko, deputy

[2:26:12] director of the Climate

[2:26:13] Preservation and Public Spaces

[2:26:13] Division in the City Planning

[2:26:14] Department.

[2:26:16] I'll need about 20 minutes for

[2:26:17] my presentation today.

[2:26:17] >> All right.

[2:26:18] When you're ready.

[2:26:21] Thank you so much.

[2:26:21] Good afternoon.

[2:26:22] Council PRESIDENT LaCava,

[2:26:23] members of the City Council I

[2:26:25] am pleased to present to you

[2:26:26] today package a of preservation

[2:26:27] and progress a comprehensive

[2:26:27] update to the city's heritage

[2:26:30] preservation program.

[2:26:31] The goals of preservation in

[2:26:35] progress are to advance equity

[2:26:36] and preservation, ensure

[2:26:36] the program is equitable and

[2:26:40] fiscally responsible in its

[2:26:41] implementation, identify and

[2:26:42] protect historical properties

[2:26:45] and districts Reform Permit

[2:26:46] processes to better encourage

[2:26:47] adaptive reuse of historic

[2:26:50] buildings on their original

[2:26:50] site and adopt objective design

[2:26:51] standards for historic

[2:26:55] properties and districts and

[2:26:55] remove regulations that

[2:26:56] unnecessarily impact properties

[2:27:00] that lack significance.

[2:27:00] Staff has grouped the updates

[2:27:04] into Package a and Package b in

[2:27:04] a package which is before you

[2:27:05] today includes items that are

[2:27:06] not significantly complex and

[2:27:09] that do not involve amendments

[2:27:10] to the historical resources

[2:27:10] regulations or historical

[2:27:13] resources guidelines.

[2:27:14] Package b which we'll be

[2:27:15] developing this year includes

[2:27:18] updates that are more complex

[2:27:19] in nature that do include

[2:27:19] updates to the historical

[2:27:20] resources, regulations and

[2:27:23] guidelines or that require more

[2:27:23] extensive environmental

[2:27:27] analysis.

[2:27:28] The items included today in

[2:27:29] Package eight include

[2:27:29] amendments to the historic

[2:27:32] preservation element and

[2:27:33] appendix f of the city's

[2:27:33] general plan Amendments to

[2:27:37] the Land Development Code of

[2:27:38] the city's Municipal Code

[2:27:38] including amendments to

[2:27:39] the appeal process for historic

[2:27:42] designations, clarifying

[2:27:43] amendments to the applicability

[2:27:44] of complete community housing

[2:27:47] solutions and emerging and

[2:27:48] thematic historic districts and

[2:27:48] other cleanup items and updates

[2:27:52] to the city's historic

[2:27:53] Preservation Fund to focus on

[2:27:53] the advancement of equity and

[2:27:57] historic preservation.

[2:27:58] Looking first at the amendments

[2:27:58] to the general plan staff is

[2:28:02] proposing updates to

[2:28:02] the narrative sections of

[2:28:03] the historic preservation

[2:28:04] element that include an updated

[2:28:06] discussion regarding Native

[2:28:07] American resources and

[2:28:08] consultation to incorporate new

[2:28:12] laws that have gone into effect

[2:28:12] since 2008 and updated

[2:28:13] discussion of the San Diego

[2:28:17] Municipal Code requirements to

[2:28:18] remove detailed discussion of

[2:28:18] regulatory requirements and

[2:28:21] permit processing consistent

[2:28:22] with other general plan

[2:28:22] elements.

[2:28:23] Removal of references to

[2:28:26] conservation areas a failed

[2:28:27] concept that was explored with

[2:28:30] the 2008 General Plan and

[2:28:31] the addition of language

[2:28:32] regarding the identification,

[2:28:32] interpretation and celebration

[2:28:36] of buildings in areas that are

[2:28:37] ineligible for designation but

[2:28:37] nevertheless important to

[2:28:40] the community as well as minor

[2:28:41] updates to outdated language

[2:28:42] terminology and the number of

[2:28:43] resources on the city's

[2:28:48] register policy updates within

[2:28:49] the historic preservation

[2:28:50] element include incorporating

[2:28:50] policies regarding tribal

[2:28:54] cultural resources and

[2:28:54] consultation with

[2:28:55] the culmination to have that

[2:28:58] have been included or in recent

[2:28:58] community plan updates removal

[2:28:59] of the concept of conservation

[2:29:02] areas and replacement with

[2:29:03] language regarding celebration

[2:29:03] and interpretation of

[2:29:07] properties that do not meet

[2:29:08] the criteria for historic

[2:29:09] designation Ensuring that

[2:29:12] preservation efforts recognize

[2:29:12] and celebrate the histories of

[2:29:13] all communities including

[2:29:14] groups that have been

[2:29:16] traditionally underrepresented

[2:29:17] in the city's historic

[2:29:18] preservation work encouraging

[2:29:21] the use of objective design

[2:29:22] standards for development on

[2:29:23] sites with historic resources

[2:29:23] and promoting the use of

[2:29:27] sustainable materials and

[2:29:27] practices in restoring

[2:29:28] resources and developing

[2:29:28] mitigation strategies to

[2:29:34] address climate change impacts

[2:29:35] .

[2:29:35] Appendix f of the General Plan

[2:29:36] provides a summary of San Diego

[2:29:39] history The City Planning

[2:29:40] Department is currently in

[2:29:41] begun work on a city wide

[2:29:42] historic context statement that

[2:29:45] explores the historical themes

[2:29:45] and events that have shaped

[2:29:49] the city's built environment.

[2:29:50] The context statement will be

[2:29:53] completed in approximately 2 to

[2:29:54] 3 years and Appendix f will be

[2:29:54] comprehensively updated when

[2:29:57] that work is complete.

[2:29:58] In the interim staff is

[2:29:59] proposing updates to better

[2:30:00] address tribal cultural history

[2:30:03] as well as the impact of past

[2:30:03] zoning and lending practices on

[2:30:04] segregation and lack of

[2:30:07] infrastructure investment

[2:30:08] including reference to Appendix

[2:30:08] a of the housing element which

[2:30:09] provides a detailed discussion

[2:30:14] of these topics.

[2:30:15] >> Preservation and Progress

[2:30:16] package include several

[2:30:16] amendments to the Land

[2:30:19] Development Code of the city's

[2:30:20] Municipal Code in regard to

[2:30:21] the Historical Resources Board

[2:30:24] appointments in terms

[2:30:25] the deadline for the mayor to

[2:30:26] appoint a chair to the hrp will

[2:30:28] be extended from APRIL 15th to

[2:30:29] APRIL 30th 30th to better align

[2:30:32] with Historical Resources Board

[2:30:33] Docketing timelines.

[2:30:33] >> Additionally staff is

[2:30:34] proposing to incorporate a

[2:30:37] degree of flexibility to

[2:30:38] the appointment of technical

[2:30:39] experts and professionals to

[2:30:42] the Historical Resources Board

[2:30:43] .

[2:30:43] Five of the 11 board seats are

[2:30:44] required to be filled by

[2:30:47] technical experts in the field

[2:30:47] of architecture, landscape

[2:30:48] architecture, architectural

[2:30:51] history, history and

[2:30:52] archeology.

[2:30:52] If one of those seats is

[2:30:53] vacant, the board is unable to

[2:30:56] carry out its duties under

[2:30:57] the code.

[2:30:57] The proposed amendments add

[2:31:00] that if a qualified volunteer

[2:31:01] cannot be found to fill one of

[2:31:01] the five professional seats,

[2:31:04] that seat MAY be filled by a

[2:31:05] second professional from one of

[2:31:05] the other preservation related

[2:31:08] disciplines with no more than

[2:31:09] two professionals from the same

[2:31:10] field on the board in those

[2:31:14] professional seats.

[2:31:15] While the city will always

[2:31:15] endeavor to have each of

[2:31:16] the five professional seats

[2:31:19] filled by their respective

[2:31:19] technical experts, this

[2:31:20] amendment will provide much

[2:31:23] needed flexibility in the event

[2:31:24] that a qualified volunteer

[2:31:24] cannot be found when a vacancy

[2:31:28] arises.

[2:31:29] >> Amendments are proposed

[2:31:29] related to noticing and

[2:31:33] the time limit for review by

[2:31:33] the Historical Resources Board.

[2:31:34] The amendments to noticing or

[2:31:35] cleanup items to align with

[2:31:37] other city noticing

[2:31:38] requirements.

[2:31:38] A clarifying amendment is also

[2:31:42] included to clearly state that

[2:31:43] the 90 day time limit for

[2:31:43] the board's consideration of a

[2:31:46] designation action starts with

[2:31:47] the first hrp meeting in which

[2:31:51] the designation is considered.

[2:31:51] >> Amendments are also proposed

[2:31:52] related to appeals of historic

[2:31:56] designations by the Historical

[2:31:57] Resources Board a decision by

[2:31:58] the Historical Resources Board

[2:31:58] to designate a historical

[2:32:01] resource can be appealed to

[2:32:02] the City Council when

[2:32:03] the current appeal process was

[2:32:03] developed.

[2:32:06] The city Council at that time

[2:32:06] opted to defer the question of

[2:32:07] significance to the Historical

[2:32:11] Resources Board and retained

[2:32:11] more limited oversight over

[2:32:12] designation actions.

[2:32:15] As a result, the City Council

[2:32:16] currently MAY only grant an

[2:32:16] appeal and overturn a

[2:32:17] designation if there are

[2:32:20] factual errors in materials or

[2:32:21] information presented to

[2:32:21] the board.

[2:32:22] Violations of bylaws or hearing

[2:32:25] procedures or new information

[2:32:26] that speaks to why the resource

[2:32:30] is not significant In recent

[2:32:30] years.

[2:32:31] The current city Council has

[2:32:32] expressed interest in expanding

[2:32:32] their oversight of the appeal

[2:32:35] process to include

[2:32:35] reconsideration of the historic

[2:32:36] designation itself.

[2:32:39] The amendments will add a

[2:32:40] fourth finding of findings not

[2:32:40] supported consistent with

[2:32:41] the appeal process for

[2:32:44] development permits.

[2:32:45] This would allow the City

[2:32:45] Council to reconsider

[2:32:46] the designation itself by

[2:32:49] looking at the information that

[2:32:50] was presented to the historic

[2:32:51] Historical Resources Board when

[2:32:53] they considered designation and

[2:32:54] adopted findings to designate

[2:32:55] the property and determine

[2:32:58] whether the board's findings

[2:32:58] are supported by

[2:32:59] the information in the record

[2:33:00] Before moving on from this

[2:33:04] amendment, I did want to note

[2:33:04] that when the proposed

[2:33:05] amendments were first presented

[2:33:05] at public meetings,

[2:33:08] the amendments included adding

[2:33:09] the ability to appeal to

[2:33:12] the Historical Resources Board

[2:33:13] does not designate a property

[2:33:14] which cannot be appealed or

[2:33:17] under the current regulations.

[2:33:18] The Policy Subcommittee of

[2:33:19] the Historical Resources Board

[2:33:22] recommend that the new ability

[2:33:23] to appeal when a property is

[2:33:23] not designated be limited to

[2:33:27] the property owner which was

[2:33:28] what was presented to

[2:33:28] the Historical Resources Board.

[2:33:32] This raised concerns related to

[2:33:33] due process and consistency

[2:33:33] with other appeal processes and

[2:33:37] so ultimately adding

[2:33:38] the ability to appeal when a

[2:33:38] property is not designated has

[2:33:42] been removed from preservation

[2:33:42] and progress package a which

[2:33:46] will retain the status quo in

[2:33:47] regard to board decisions to

[2:33:51] not designate additional more

[2:33:52] minor amendments related to

[2:33:52] appeals of historic

[2:33:56] designations include aligning

[2:33:57] appeal filing requirements with

[2:33:57] other city appeal processes as

[2:34:01] well as adding a deadline to

[2:34:02] docket the appeal within 180

[2:34:02] days of the appeal filing.

[2:34:06] Currently there is no deadline

[2:34:07] and appeals remain pending for

[2:34:07] years when the property owner

[2:34:11] does not wish to proceed to an

[2:34:12] appeal hearing.

[2:34:12] This amendment would require

[2:34:13] the issue of significance and

[2:34:15] designation to be settled and

[2:34:15] finalized within a reasonable

[2:34:20] time frame.

[2:34:21] >> Amendments are proposed to

[2:34:23] San Diego Municipal Code

[2:34:24] section 1 to 3.0206 That will

[2:34:25] clarify the role of the board

[2:34:29] and the city Council in

[2:34:29] reviewing National Register

[2:34:30] nominations consistent with

[2:34:30] the National Historic

[2:34:33] Preservation Act and the city's

[2:34:34] responsibilities as a certified

[2:34:38] local government.

[2:34:39] >> The Last Land Development

[2:34:39] Code Amendment is a clarifying

[2:34:40] amendment to the Complete

[2:34:43] Communities Housing Solutions

[2:34:43] regulations which will clarify

[2:34:44] that complete communities is

[2:34:47] allowed within thematic and

[2:34:48] emerging historic districts.

[2:34:49] If the property is not a

[2:34:49] designated contributing

[2:34:53] resource there's currently one

[2:34:54] dramatic historic district

[2:34:57] the Chinese I eight Chinese

[2:34:57] Asian dramatic historic

[2:35:01] district downtown and one

[2:35:01] emerging historical district

[2:35:02] the Ocean Beach Cottage

[2:35:05] Emerging Historical District in

[2:35:05] the city.

[2:35:06] This does not change how

[2:35:07] thematic and historic I'm sorry

[2:35:10] thematic and emerging

[2:35:11] historical districts have

[2:35:11] always been regulated by

[2:35:12] the city and is consistent with

[2:35:15] the city's historical district

[2:35:16] procedures which clearly state

[2:35:16] that only contributing

[2:35:19] resources are regulated.

[2:35:20] >> a traditional historic

[2:35:25] district has a more compact

[2:35:25] geographic boundary with a high

[2:35:26] concentration of contributing

[2:35:30] resources that embody why

[2:35:30] the district is significant and

[2:35:31] a low concentration of resource

[2:35:34] non contributing resources

[2:35:35] which do not embodies

[2:35:35] the district's significance.

[2:35:39] All properties within a

[2:35:39] traditional historic district

[2:35:40] boundary are therefore

[2:35:43] regulated to different degrees

[2:35:44] to preserve the sense of place

[2:35:45] and significance of

[2:35:45] the historic district.

[2:35:49] The two maps on the screen show

[2:35:49] two of the city's traditional

[2:35:50] historical districts Sherman

[2:35:53] Heights and the South Eastern

[2:35:54] Community Planning area shown

[2:35:55] on the left and South Park in

[2:35:58] the greater Golden Hill

[2:35:58] planning area as shown on

[2:35:59] the right.

[2:35:59] Both of these districts have

[2:36:02] tightly defined geographic

[2:36:03] boundaries and a high

[2:36:03] concentration of contributing

[2:36:04] resources indicated on the map

[2:36:07] with pink dots In Sherman

[2:36:11] Heights 70 per 74% of the 529

[2:36:12] properties within the district

[2:36:16] boundary are contributing And

[2:36:19] in South Park 73% of the 407

[2:36:20] properties within the district

[2:36:20] boundary boundary are

[2:36:24] contributing all properties

[2:36:25] within the boundaries that

[2:36:25] these districts are regulated

[2:36:26] to different degrees to

[2:36:29] preserve the historic nature of

[2:36:29] the district and the distinct

[2:36:30] sense of place.

[2:36:31] The Matic and emerging historic

[2:36:34] districts are different from

[2:36:35] traditional historic districts.

[2:36:35] Their boundaries can be much

[2:36:39] larger and they only have

[2:36:40] contributing meet resources

[2:36:40] that meet the theme and convey

[2:36:41] the significance of

[2:36:41] the district.

[2:36:44] If a property within

[2:36:45] the boundary of a thematic or

[2:36:45] emerging historical district is

[2:36:49] not designated as a

[2:36:49] contributing resource to

[2:36:50] the district, it is not

[2:36:50] regulated.

[2:36:53] Looking at the Ocean Beach

[2:36:54] Cottage emerging Historical

[2:36:54] district specifically

[2:36:58] the boundary shown here in

[2:36:58] Orange encompasses the original

[2:36:59] Ocean Beach subdivision and

[2:37:02] represents the area in which

[2:37:06] eligible beach cottages

[2:37:07] constructed between 1887 and

[2:37:07] 1931 can be found.

[2:37:10] The area encompasses

[2:37:11] approximately 3000 parcels.

[2:37:14] Only 72 of those parcels about

[2:37:15] 2.4% are designated as

[2:37:16] contributing resources to

[2:37:19] the district.

[2:37:20] The remaining 2900 plus parcels

[2:37:20] have never been regulated as

[2:37:24] part of the district.

[2:37:24] Since its designation in 2000

[2:37:25] and the proposed amendments

[2:37:29] would clarify that complete

[2:37:30] community housing solutions can

[2:37:30] be utilized on those parcels.

[2:37:33] The historic district will

[2:37:34] remain in place and

[2:37:35] the designated contributing

[2:37:35] resources will continue to be

[2:37:36] regulated as they always have

[2:37:41] been.

[2:37:41] >> Looking at the Ocean Beach

[2:37:42] Cottage Emerging Historical

[2:37:43] District which is thematically

[2:37:46] based compared to a traditional

[2:37:47] historical district like South

[2:37:48] Park you can see the vastly

[2:37:51] different concentration of

[2:37:52] contributing resources and why

[2:37:53] only contributing resources are

[2:37:56] regulated as part of a

[2:37:56] thematically based district

[2:37:57] such as the Ocean Beach Cottage

[2:38:01] Emerging historical District.

[2:38:01] >> This is explicitly stated in

[2:38:04] the Historical Resources Board

[2:38:05] procedure on establishing

[2:38:06] historic districts which states

[2:38:06] in regard to the Ocean Beach

[2:38:10] Cottage emerging historic

[2:38:10] district quote only those

[2:38:11] properties identified in

[2:38:15] designated as contributors are

[2:38:16] currently regulated and quote

[2:38:16] additionally to be designated

[2:38:20] as a contributing resource to

[2:38:21] the Ocean Beach Cottage

[2:38:21] Emerging Historical District a

[2:38:22] property must be volunteered by

[2:38:23] the property owner for

[2:38:28] designation.

[2:38:29] >> The proposed amendment to

[2:38:29] the Complete Community's

[2:38:30] Housing Solutions regulations

[2:38:33] which cannot be used within

[2:38:34] designated historical districts

[2:38:34] in order to preserve

[2:38:38] the concentrated collective

[2:38:39] significance of a traditional

[2:38:39] historic district is a

[2:38:40] clarifying amendment.

[2:38:43] The prohibition was never

[2:38:43] intended to entire apply to

[2:38:44] the entire boundary of a

[2:38:47] thematic or emerging historical

[2:38:48] district where the district is

[2:38:48] just the contributing resources

[2:38:52] and nothing else.

[2:38:53] This does not impact how

[2:38:53] the contributing resources

[2:38:54] within these districts are

[2:38:57] regulated or how staff has

[2:38:57] always applied the regulations.

[2:38:58] Complete community housing

[2:39:01] solutions will continue to be

[2:39:02] prohibited on contributing

[2:39:02] properties within emerging and

[2:39:06] historic thematic historic

[2:39:06] districts and permitted on

[2:39:07] properties that are not

[2:39:08] designated as contributing

[2:39:13] resources.

[2:39:14] >> The last item in

[2:39:15] Preservation and Progress

[2:39:15] Package a is a change to

[2:39:16] the city's historic

[2:39:18] preservation Fund which

[2:39:19] primarily receives revenue from

[2:39:20] civil penalties and enforcement

[2:39:20] fees from unpermitted

[2:39:24] alteration of historical

[2:39:24] resources.

[2:39:24] There are presently

[2:39:28] approximately 100 $100,000 in

[2:39:28] the fund.

[2:39:29] The proposed changes would

[2:39:32] focus defined expenditures on

[2:39:33] work that advances equity in

[2:39:33] historic preservation such as

[2:39:34] funding efforts that support

[2:39:37] the identification sation and

[2:39:38] preservation of resources

[2:39:39] significant for their

[2:39:39] association with cultural

[2:39:42] groups and communities that are

[2:39:43] underrepresented in historic

[2:39:44] preservation as well as direct

[2:39:47] financial assistance to very

[2:39:47] low and low income owners of

[2:39:48] historic properties to assist

[2:39:49] with maintenance and

[2:39:54] restoration.

[2:39:54] >> Preservation and Progress

[2:39:55] package was presented at three

[2:39:56] public meetings of

[2:39:59] the Historical Resources

[2:40:00] Board's Policy Subcommittee in

[2:40:02] JULY, AUGUST and OCTOBER of

[2:40:03] 2025.

[2:40:06] Staff also held Virtual Public

[2:40:07] Workshop on OCTOBER 8th, 2025

[2:40:07] where all items were presented

[2:40:08] and staff responded to

[2:40:14] questions and feedback.

[2:40:15] >> On OCTOBER 23rd

[2:40:15] the Historical Resources Board

[2:40:19] considered the item a motion to

[2:40:19] recommend adoption of package

[2:40:23] as presented which at that time

[2:40:24] included the added ability for

[2:40:25] a property owner to appeal when

[2:40:29] a property is not designated by

[2:40:29] the board failed with a vote of

[2:40:32] four in favor and six opposed a

[2:40:33] follow up motion to recommend

[2:40:37] adoption of package a subject

[2:40:38] to removal of the added ability

[2:40:38] to appeal when a property is

[2:40:42] not designated and a request to

[2:40:43] do just that.

[2:40:43] A discussion regarding

[2:40:44] the number of votes required to

[2:40:46] designate a resource be

[2:40:47] included in preservation

[2:40:48] progress Package b also failed

[2:40:51] with a with a vote of five in

[2:40:52] favor for opposed and one

[2:40:52] abstention.

[2:40:53] There were no additional

[2:40:56] motions and the Board's

[2:40:57] consideration of Preservation

[2:40:58] in progress package a concluded

[2:41:01] without a recommendation.

[2:41:01] The two primary areas of

[2:41:06] discussion for the historical

[2:41:06] Resources Board were the added

[2:41:07] ability to appeal when a

[2:41:11] property is not designated and

[2:41:12] the fourth appeal finding being

[2:41:16] added to the appeal process.

[2:41:17] In the first case there was

[2:41:17] disagreement over who should be

[2:41:21] able to appeal when a property

[2:41:21] is not designated.

[2:41:22] And as to the added appeal

[2:41:25] finding there was concern from

[2:41:26] some board members that adding

[2:41:30] that finding would dilute

[2:41:31] the subject matter expertise

[2:41:35] that the historical Resources

[2:41:36] Board provides on considering

[2:41:40] historic designations of those

[2:41:40] two items.

[2:41:44] The first item the ability to

[2:41:45] add when a property be able to

[2:41:46] appeal when a property is not

[2:41:49] designated has been removed

[2:41:50] from the package that is no

[2:41:50] longer included and adding

[2:41:54] the fourth appeal finding is

[2:41:54] still before the council and is

[2:41:58] the policy decision as to which

[2:41:59] council would prefer

[2:42:02] the current appeal process or

[2:42:03] the proposed fourth finding as

[2:42:03] well.

[2:42:04] >> On OCTOBER 28th

[2:42:04] the Community Partners

[2:42:08] Committee voted 28 to 0 two

[2:42:08] zero to oppose preservation in

[2:42:09] progress Package a and

[2:42:12] recommend that the proposed

[2:42:13] findings not supported appeal

[2:42:13] finding be removed that

[2:42:16] the voting requirements for

[2:42:17] the Historical Resources Board

[2:42:18] be changed to a simple majority

[2:42:18] of board members present to

[2:42:22] designate and that the ability

[2:42:23] to appeal historical resources

[2:42:23] board decisions to not

[2:42:27] designate a property be added

[2:42:27] back into package a.

[2:42:31] Lastly, on NOVEMBER 6th

[2:42:31] the Planning Commission voted

[2:42:32] unanimously to recommend

[2:42:33] approval of Preservation and

[2:42:35] Progress Package a as presented

[2:42:36] The Land Use and Housing

[2:42:36] Committee reviewed Preservation

[2:42:40] and Progress package on JANUARY

[2:42:40] 15th and unanimously

[2:42:41] unanimously recommended

[2:42:44] approval with a recommendation

[2:42:45] to report on the use of the new

[2:42:46] appeal finding As part of

[2:42:47] the Board's annual written

[2:42:50] reports the Council the City of

[2:42:51] San Diego joins the other

[2:42:55] largest cities in the nation

[2:42:56] and being a certified local

[2:42:56] government meaning that

[2:42:57] the city's historic

[2:42:57] preservation program has been

[2:43:00] certified by the California

[2:43:01] State Office of Historic

[2:43:01] Preservation and the National

[2:43:04] Park Service to pursuant to

[2:43:05] the National Historic

[2:43:05] Preservation Act as a certified

[2:43:06] local government we are

[2:43:09] required to submit changes to

[2:43:10] the city's historic

[2:43:11] Preservation Ordinance to

[2:43:14] the California State Office of

[2:43:14] Historic Preservation.

[2:43:15] On OCTOBER 23rd the state

[2:43:16] office confirmed that they have

[2:43:19] no objections to the proposed

[2:43:19] changes and supports the city's

[2:43:24] efforts.

[2:43:24] >> Therefore staff is

[2:43:25] recommending that the City

[2:43:25] Council approved

[2:43:28] the resolutions and ordinances

[2:43:29] for Preservation and Progress

[2:43:30] Package a including

[2:43:30] the resolution adopting

[2:43:31] the amendments to the Historic

[2:43:34] Preservation Element and

[2:43:35] Appendix offer the general Plan

[2:43:35] The Ordinance adopting

[2:43:38] amendments to the land

[2:43:39] Development Code of

[2:43:39] the Municipal Code and

[2:43:40] the Resolution adopting

[2:43:41] amendments The purpose and

[2:43:44] intended Use of the Historic

[2:43:45] Preservation Fund.

[2:43:45] This concludes my presentation

[2:43:46] today.

[2:43:48] Thank you.

[2:43:49] All right.

[2:43:49] Thank you for the presentation

[2:43:50] And with that.

[2:43:52] Clerk please introduce item

[2:43:53] three Excuse me.

[2:43:53] >> With that please proceed

[2:43:54] with public comment.

[2:43:54] Thank you.

[2:43:57] I will proceed with public

[2:43:58] comment.

[2:43:58] We have quite a number of

[2:43:59] speakers here in chambers as

[2:44:02] well as online so we will be

[2:44:03] going to a minute apiece If we

[2:44:07] can start with the following

[2:44:07] individuals and if they can

[2:44:08] please come up to the yellow

[2:44:09] reserved seats and the front

[2:44:09] seats.

[2:44:12] Jennifer Ayala Ion Stiegler

[2:44:17] Mandy Havlik Wesley Morgan,

[2:44:18] David Swarns, Stephanie

[2:44:23] Benevento and Jeff Hunter.

[2:44:24] If you can all please come up

[2:44:25] to the front row and Jennifer

[2:44:26] Ayala if you can please come up

[2:44:32] to the microphone.

[2:44:33] >> Is this on?

[2:44:33] Yes it is.

[2:44:36] Thank you.

[2:44:36] Good afternoon.

[2:44:37] Council PRESIDENT And council

[2:44:38] members.

[2:44:41] My name is Jennifer Yarbrough I

[2:44:41] colleague Access Planning and

[2:44:42] Research where I head our

[2:44:45] historical resources practice I

[2:44:46] want to briefly respond to any

[2:44:46] claims that might be made

[2:44:47] today.

[2:44:47] I do not believe that

[2:44:50] the clarification should be

[2:44:51] necessary but given

[2:44:52] the testimony that's been given

[2:44:52] in the past it is important to

[2:44:56] clearly state what package does

[2:44:57] or does not do and support

[2:45:01] the work staff has presented

[2:45:01] Package does not change

[2:45:02] designation criteria.

[2:45:05] It does not reduce protections

[2:45:06] for designated resources.

[2:45:06] It does not eliminate expert

[2:45:07] review.

[2:45:11] It does not alter the 45 year

[2:45:11] review process and it does not

[2:45:12] speed up development.

[2:45:15] The added findings are

[2:45:16] supported Appeal Ground does

[2:45:17] not create an open ended

[2:45:20] political override.

[2:45:21] The Council would remain bound

[2:45:22] by the city's adopted

[2:45:26] designation criteria and would

[2:45:26] determine whether Hrb findings

[2:45:27] are supported by

[2:45:27] the substantial evidence in

[2:45:30] the record.

[2:45:31] This clarification is aligned

[2:45:32] with many other California

[2:45:32] cities and counties where

[2:45:35] the elected governing body

[2:45:35] makes the final designation

[2:45:36] decisions.

[2:45:36] Thank you very much.

[2:45:37] Thank you for that concluding

[2:45:45] statement.

[2:45:46] >> I am Stigler.

[2:45:50] Yeah, Hi I'm I own Stigler

[2:45:51] foia, a preservation architect

[2:45:51] who has worked inside San

[2:45:55] Diego's policy framework for

[2:45:56] more than four decades.

[2:45:56] I'm here as your memory and

[2:46:00] under Republican Mayor Susan

[2:46:01] Golding and City manager Jack

[2:46:01] McGorry.

[2:46:04] We spent over five years

[2:46:05] hammering out today's status

[2:46:10] quo on historic designation

[2:46:10] appeals.

[2:46:11] This is about that Fourth

[2:46:11] Amendment that they're trying

[2:46:14] to put in.

[2:46:15] I did this together with

[2:46:15] the Preservation Ordinance

[2:46:19] Rewrite Committee a carefully

[2:46:19] orchestrated bipartisan

[2:46:20] committee on which were placed

[2:46:25] two very pro property owner

[2:46:25] attorneys Karl Zobel and

[2:46:26] Marielena Burke.

[2:46:30] As a lifelong Democrat and

[2:46:30] frankly embarrassed that a

[2:46:31] Democratic led city is now

[2:46:34] attacking the long standing

[2:46:35] historic Preservation Appeals

[2:46:36] process over a handful of

[2:46:40] designations a year and

[2:46:41] shifting a technical evidence

[2:46:44] based process into a political

[2:46:44] one.

[2:46:45] What is before you today is not

[2:46:45] you.

[2:46:51] It's a return to the de novo

[2:46:51] model that the Council of Thank

[2:46:52] you for that closed 30 years

[2:46:53] ago after Minneapolis variance

[2:46:53] with its flawed.

[2:46:56] >> Thank you.

[2:47:04] You have welcomed.

[2:47:05] Thank you Manny.

[2:47:06] You did not break with

[2:47:10] the thumbs up or thumbs down.

[2:47:10] The clapping we get a lot of

[2:47:11] people want to hear from that

[2:47:12] Just kind of slow the down So

[2:47:12] thumbs up or thumbs down?

[2:47:14] It's a very strong And

[2:47:15] the little cards you got very

[2:47:16] strong visuals up here.

[2:47:19] Thank you Angela.

[2:47:19] Better is sitting time so

[2:47:20] you'll have two minutes.

[2:47:20] Please proceed.

[2:47:24] Thank you.

[2:47:24] Good.

[2:47:25] Good afternoon.

[2:47:26] Council PRESIDENT And council

[2:47:26] members.

[2:47:27] My name is Bandy Havlik.

[2:47:29] I am a longtime District two

[2:47:30] community leader and advocate

[2:47:30] and someone who spent years

[2:47:34] working alongside residents and

[2:47:35] planners to protect

[2:47:35] the character and livability of

[2:47:36] Ocean Beach.

[2:47:40] My children attended Ocean

[2:47:40] Beach Elementary and like many

[2:47:41] families this isn't just a

[2:47:44] neighbor said neighborhood I

[2:47:45] visit.

[2:47:46] It's a neighborhood that I have

[2:47:46] roots in and I'm going to raise

[2:47:50] my family.

[2:47:51] I'm here because I'm deeply

[2:47:51] committed to protecting

[2:47:52] the place we call home.

[2:47:56] Today is decision on

[2:47:57] preservation and progress

[2:47:57] Package is not just about

[2:47:58] policy language.

[2:47:58] >> It's about whether we

[2:48:00] respect the intent behind

[2:48:01] historic preservation and

[2:48:02] community planning or whether

[2:48:06] we allow technical changes to

[2:48:07] weaken protections residents

[2:48:11] have relied on for decades.

[2:48:12] Ocean Beach is cottage

[2:48:12] emergence.

[2:48:13] An emerging historical district

[2:48:16] exists because generations of

[2:48:16] community members have

[2:48:17] recognized that these small

[2:48:21] cottages in the surrounding

[2:48:22] neighborhood fabric define our

[2:48:26] historic coastal identity.

[2:48:27] The emerging the emerging

[2:48:31] designation is reflecting

[2:48:32] the unfinished work

[2:48:32] specifically the city's

[2:48:33] responsibility to complete a

[2:48:37] comprehensive survey not an

[2:48:38] invitation to limit protections

[2:48:39] before that work is done.

[2:48:43] Reducing the district to only

[2:48:43] 72 cottages ignores the broader

[2:48:44] historic context and

[2:48:48] the reality that many more

[2:48:48] structures MAY qualify and

[2:48:49] before altering policies in a

[2:48:52] way that could permanently

[2:48:53] shape Ocean Beach, the city

[2:48:54] must complete the survey

[2:48:54] process a meaningful and

[2:48:58] meaningfully engaged a

[2:48:59] community package raises

[2:48:59] serious concerns because it

[2:49:03] could open the door to

[2:49:04] increased densities or programs

[2:49:04] like complete communities

[2:49:08] without adequate infrastructure

[2:49:09] planning.

[2:49:09] We already struggle with

[2:49:10] parking availability lacking

[2:49:14] infrastructure and coastal

[2:49:15] climate issues.

[2:49:15] We understand the need to

[2:49:20] address home and affordability

[2:49:20] issues and we just ask that

[2:49:21] again to not to pause or amend

[2:49:25] package for the community.

[2:49:26] >> Thank you.

[2:49:26] Thank you for that concluding

[2:49:27] remark.

[2:49:31] Wesley Morgan.

[2:49:32] >> Good afternoon Council

[2:49:32] members.

[2:49:33] I am Wes Morgan and I want to

[2:49:37] thank city staff for the two

[2:49:37] years of public input and

[2:49:38] engagement on this package.

[2:49:42] It is a modest but important

[2:49:43] step forward and I look forward

[2:49:44] to more complex work to package

[2:49:47] be on the topic of Washington

[2:49:48] Beach.

[2:49:48] The existence of 72 historic

[2:49:49] cottages and a context

[2:49:53] statement do not default an

[2:49:53] entire community into a

[2:49:54] historic district.

[2:49:54] There is no state, national or

[2:49:59] local criteria under which

[2:49:59] the following in this community

[2:50:00] would qualify as a geographic

[2:50:03] historic district And if there

[2:50:04] was the integrity requirement

[2:50:05] simply is not met.

[2:50:05] Roughly 2% of parcels are

[2:50:08] contributing while recognized

[2:50:09] districts require well over 50%

[2:50:10] have demonstrated continuity of

[2:50:14] character as well.

[2:50:15] In fact designation is not

[2:50:15] governed by rules and it is

[2:50:19] governed by rules not sentiment

[2:50:19] .

[2:50:20] It's troubling to see respected

[2:50:21] preservation groups shift from

[2:50:24] those standards to broad claims

[2:50:25] that the entire Obie community

[2:50:26] is historic without documented

[2:50:30] integrity.

[2:50:31] It clarifies that complete

[2:50:31] immunity does not apply to

[2:50:32] historic cottages and never

[2:50:36] will it apply only to non

[2:50:36] historic parcels.

[2:50:38] >> Thank you very much Stevens

[2:50:45] David Swarns My pleasure.

[2:50:45] David Simonds from Golden Hill.

[2:50:46] I'm the owner of properties in

[2:50:47] the two districts highlighted

[2:50:50] by staff and was involved with

[2:50:51] their adoption.

[2:50:51] I mainly wish to address

[2:50:55] the lack of good faith by

[2:50:56] changing the rules midstream

[2:50:56] and long term pipeline projects

[2:50:57] specifically the proposed

[2:51:01] district districts and from

[2:51:02] community plan updates from 19

[2:51:03] 2016 including that

[2:51:07] the original commitment was to

[2:51:08] processes by Golden Hill by

[2:51:09] 2018 which was you know

[2:51:13] sometime back.

[2:51:14] Each year we've been told next

[2:51:14] year this past week we were

[2:51:18] told after this project because

[2:51:19] of staff work commitments to

[2:51:19] the preservation and progress

[2:51:24] that's that's just that's

[2:51:24] disingenuous and not it's not

[2:51:29] and nobody ever told me life

[2:51:29] was fair but it's supposed to

[2:51:30] at least pretend to be fair.

[2:51:36] I intend I still have concerns

[2:51:36] about projects being under

[2:51:40] sequel what packages and b as

[2:51:41] well as recent related changes

[2:51:46] to the general plan which rely

[2:51:46] on and reference

[2:51:47] the preservation program.

[2:51:52] >> Stephanie Benevento My

[2:51:52] apologies.

[2:51:53] >> That was great.

[2:51:57] My name is Stephanie Benvenuto

[2:51:57] .

[2:51:58] I'm here on the San Diego here

[2:51:59] on behalf of the San Diego

[2:51:59] Building Industry Association

[2:52:02] we want to express our sincere

[2:52:03] thank you to staff for putting

[2:52:03] in so much work to create this

[2:52:04] balanced starting policy

[2:52:04] package.

[2:52:09] We are very eager to see

[2:52:09] package be move forward But for

[2:52:10] today's consideration we again

[2:52:14] want to reiterate that what our

[2:52:14] industry looks for is

[2:52:15] certainty, predictability and

[2:52:15] clarity.

[2:52:16] This is a very modest but very

[2:52:19] important step forward in that

[2:52:20] process and will help enhance

[2:52:20] all of the pro housing work

[2:52:21] that this council in this

[2:52:24] administration has already done

[2:52:25] to ensure that things are not

[2:52:25] inappropriately sidelined

[2:52:26] because of some confusion

[2:52:31] around what policies mean with

[2:52:31] regard to historicity.

[2:52:32] So we appreciate your time

[2:52:32] today.

[2:52:33] Thank you very much And urge

[2:52:37] your vote in support.

[2:52:38] >> Jeff Tutor Jeff Tutor you

[2:52:39] have several people sitting in

[2:52:42] time if they can please raise

[2:52:43] their hands And I know you have

[2:52:43] a presentation.

[2:52:44] We'll get that up as well.

[2:52:48] David Modi If I haven't called

[2:52:49] your hand don't don't raise it

[2:52:49] yet.

[2:52:49] Thank you.

[2:52:54] The intent to give it.

[2:52:55] Thank you.

[2:52:55] Yvonne Jones.

[2:52:59] Laura Hanson.

[2:52:59] Paula Kruger.

[2:53:05] Leslie Bruce.

[2:53:06] Rick Roche.

[2:53:06] Thank you.

[2:53:11] Priscilla Birkby rg First of

[2:53:11] all Oh sorry.

[2:53:12] Elizabeth Kelly Thank you.

[2:53:18] William MacLean Brook mp and

[2:53:23] Deidre Lee Thank you.

[2:53:24] You'll have 13 minutes.

[2:53:28] I'll set the timer for you.

[2:53:29] >> Great.

[2:53:29] Thank you.

[2:53:30] Council members.

[2:53:34] One of the things I'd like to

[2:53:35] do today is before we go to

[2:53:35] something as substantial as

[2:53:39] what we're going to do today,

[2:53:40] there should have been some

[2:53:40] more coherent analysis of what

[2:53:45] the conditions are in San

[2:53:45] Diego, how historic

[2:53:46] preservation relates to us And

[2:53:50] you know, we're sort of jumping

[2:53:50] into the de novo process

[2:53:51] without asking why historic

[2:53:52] preservation itself is

[2:53:56] important to us.

[2:53:57] One of the things that I want

[2:53:58] to show today is there's a lot

[2:54:02] of misconceptions about

[2:54:03] historic preservation And one

[2:54:03] of the things is that destroyed

[2:54:04] neighborhoods and older

[2:54:08] neighborhoods in general are

[2:54:09] more affordable for San Diego

[2:54:14] and both homeowners and renters

[2:54:14] they aren't freezing population

[2:54:15] or diversity.

[2:54:15] They're diversifying faster

[2:54:20] than the rest of San Diego.

[2:54:21] And finally the rehabilitation

[2:54:26] and reuse of historic resources

[2:54:26] is a much more sustainable

[2:54:27] strategy than just tearing

[2:54:28] buildings to the ground and

[2:54:28] starting over.

[2:54:32] So if you go to the next slide,

[2:54:33] one of the things that we did I

[2:54:38] just like to summarize

[2:54:38] the historic context of

[2:54:39] the story context I guess and

[2:54:44] that is if you look at the next

[2:54:45] slide how did we get here?

[2:54:50] Well, what happened was is

[2:54:51] there's a lot of statements

[2:54:51] about San Diego being frozen in

[2:54:52] time.

[2:54:56] The reality is that when we

[2:54:57] moved on fully to an automobile

[2:54:58] culture and the city expanded

[2:55:03] north of I-80 to the first

[2:55:04] Claremont Mesa Kearny, Mesa,

[2:55:08] Serrano mesa, etc. We really

[2:55:14] just left behind those existing

[2:55:15] neighborhoods.

[2:55:16] You know, when we look at

[2:55:16] community plan updates for

[2:55:20] South Bay communities, there's

[2:55:21] never any economic development

[2:55:22] plan no idea to bring jobs to

[2:55:27] these areas.

[2:55:27] There's always a lack of

[2:55:28] infrastructure.

[2:55:29] And one of the things that

[2:55:32] sustained our South Bay

[2:55:33] communities and this is

[2:55:37] District two, three, eight and

[2:55:38] nine is really been the fact

[2:55:38] that we have these stabilizing

[2:55:43] neighborhoods that are valued

[2:55:44] by people despite the other

[2:55:44] conditions that don't exist.

[2:55:49] What happened is we expanded

[2:55:50] out and then for purposes of

[2:55:51] urban containment we said we're

[2:55:55] not going to keep going any

[2:55:56] further.

[2:55:56] We've reflected that

[2:55:57] development back And now that

[2:56:01] we've decided that we want to

[2:56:02] that we care about that city

[2:56:03] again, we're at this contention

[2:56:07] of should we allow people to

[2:56:08] just mow down our neighborhoods

[2:56:09] and start over or should we

[2:56:12] take what we have today and

[2:56:13] enhance it further?

[2:56:19] >> So the next slide you know,

[2:56:24] first I just like to so we

[2:56:25] actually as the preservation

[2:56:25] community we actually

[2:56:30] commissioned a study by place

[2:56:30] Economics which is a national

[2:56:31] firm that specializes in

[2:56:36] economic analysis of historic

[2:56:37] districts that are actually

[2:56:42] typically higher by planning

[2:56:43] departments like Dallas,

[2:56:43] Philadelphia, San Antonio State

[2:56:48] higher them.

[2:56:49] So there are very reputable

[2:56:50] things So you don't have to

[2:56:50] take my word for it.

[2:56:51] You can actually take another

[2:56:54] firm for it.

[2:56:55] So one of the things we did in

[2:56:56] this report is still in

[2:56:56] preparation.

[2:56:57] When it's done we'll share with

[2:57:00] you.

[2:57:01] But to kind of get to it first

[2:57:01] I think the first thing is

[2:57:06] believe it or not, additions

[2:57:07] are growing faster than

[2:57:07] the rest of the city.

[2:57:08] So not only are we not stopping

[2:57:12] development, we're actually

[2:57:12] adding more people to historic

[2:57:13] districts in San Diego than

[2:57:15] the rest of the city at large.

[2:57:22] And if you go to the next slide

[2:57:22] and how is that happening?

[2:57:23] A lot of infill development is

[2:57:28] small scale development and it

[2:57:29] doesn't look like we're adding

[2:57:30] all this housing when in fact

[2:57:30] we are.

[2:57:35] And a perfect example of that

[2:57:36] is any new development.

[2:57:36] There are twice as many areas

[2:57:37] being added to an historic

[2:57:40] district and it's not just

[2:57:40] south of a community.

[2:57:41] These are actually designated

[2:57:42] historic districts And we say

[2:57:47] that we're making it illegal to

[2:57:48] add housing or that historic

[2:57:48] preservation and freezing

[2:57:49] things in time.

[2:57:52] This data clearly shows

[2:57:52] the opposite is true.

[2:57:53] We're adding twice as many

[2:57:57] almost twice as many well one

[2:57:58] and a half times as many areas

[2:57:58] to historic districts as we're

[2:57:59] adding to the rest of the city.

[2:58:04] And how let's give an example

[2:58:05] to put a picture on in the next

[2:58:05] slide.

[2:58:06] So this is an example of a win

[2:58:06] win situation.

[2:58:09] So this was a dilapidated

[2:58:09] fourplex in Hillcrest.

[2:58:15] The owners bought this

[2:58:16] property, they rehabilitated

[2:58:16] it, taken advantage of

[2:58:22] the mills So it's got all these

[2:58:23] original windows into very

[2:58:23] beautiful building.

[2:58:27] But on top of that they added

[2:58:28] to areas to this property.

[2:58:28] So we we did the best of

[2:58:33] historic preservation and we

[2:58:34] did the best of infill housing

[2:58:34] in this project and these

[2:58:35] things are possible.

[2:58:38] So go into the next slide.

[2:58:39] >> The other thing is about

[2:58:39] diversity.

[2:58:45] So because as historic

[2:58:45] properties older properties

[2:58:50] tend to be smaller in San Diego

[2:58:51] and they tend to be in more

[2:58:52] diversified areas anyway we're

[2:58:56] finding that

[2:58:57] the diversification of historic

[2:58:57] district is actually a very

[2:58:58] rapid process.

[2:59:03] We're not freezing things a

[2:59:04] place again and this is not

[2:59:05] only true for people who live

[2:59:09] in these areas but that's also

[2:59:09] true for homeownership.

[2:59:10] And so this is an important

[2:59:14] part of that going to the next

[2:59:14] slide.

[2:59:15] And again this gets back to

[2:59:16] the different types of housing

[2:59:22] typologies that we have in

[2:59:23] stork districts and the fact we

[2:59:23] have smaller homes In some ways

[2:59:26] our storage districts are

[2:59:27] missing middle already And if

[2:59:28] you look at when we get a

[2:59:28] planning department

[2:59:33] presentation on the kinds of

[2:59:33] things that we want to do as

[2:59:34] missing people, typically they

[2:59:35] just come to our district and

[2:59:39] take pictures on blackboards as

[2:59:40] complexes eight classes,

[2:59:44] duplexes and as can be seen

[2:59:45] here, this is where people with

[2:59:49] incomes between 50 and 100,000

[2:59:50] people are disproportionately

[2:59:50] finding that those housing

[2:59:53] options in our historic

[2:59:54] districts.

[3:00:00] >> Next slide.

[3:00:01] And a lot of concern about

[3:00:02] the mills And frankly for those

[3:00:06] of us who've been our houses

[3:00:07] one time, the mills action

[3:00:08] isn't nearly as much about that

[3:00:08] as somebody who's trying a

[3:00:12] young family is trying to buy

[3:00:12] into the market today and

[3:00:13] the Mills Act provides a

[3:00:17] mechanism for that lowering not

[3:00:18] just lowering the monthly cost

[3:00:19] of housing but also helping to

[3:00:24] subsidize maintenance of those

[3:00:24] historic properties as well.

[3:00:25] So I think that's that's

[3:00:26] important.

[3:00:32] Next slide.

[3:00:33] And this is really important.

[3:00:39] So we're talking if we go

[3:00:40] beyond just historic districts,

[3:00:41] we say look, how old is our

[3:00:45] housing stock and how does that

[3:00:46] affect affordability?

[3:00:46] We often hear this term that's

[3:00:47] called filtering which says

[3:00:51] that we go over to the right

[3:00:52] side of this graph and we build

[3:00:52] premium rate brand new housing

[3:00:57] And you know, in 40 years it

[3:00:57] filters down and then we have

[3:00:58] affordable housing.

[3:00:58] Well this graph in some sense

[3:01:03] confirms that you know, you

[3:01:04] start over here on the right

[3:01:04] and you get down to 1980, 40

[3:01:09] years ago and sure enough we're

[3:01:09] in a more affordable level But

[3:01:14] unfortunately we should be.

[3:01:15] What we don't do at that point

[3:01:16] is we don't preserve this

[3:01:16] housing So we say we're going

[3:01:21] to filter down something and

[3:01:22] then we demolish it all and

[3:01:22] we're going to build the brand

[3:01:23] new things on the right And we

[3:01:27] destroyed that filter engine.

[3:01:27] More importantly, if you see

[3:01:28] here this is our naturally

[3:01:29] occurring affordable housing

[3:01:33] and one of the things that gets

[3:01:33] overlooked is 61% of all

[3:01:39] the housing available to people

[3:01:40] in lower incomes is rented on

[3:01:44] the market and they don't go to

[3:01:45] the housing commission is not

[3:01:45] deeded it.

[3:01:46] Those are just market rentals

[3:01:51] and this is where those market

[3:01:52] rentals are coming from And and

[3:01:56] so it should be the linchpin of

[3:01:57] our preservation policies that

[3:01:57] we protect this No.

[3:02:02] One housing.

[3:02:02] Next slide.

[3:02:03] So I think I just like to talk

[3:02:07] about and you can skip for one

[3:02:08] more is how does this factory

[3:02:13] how does preservation factor

[3:02:13] into our preservation or

[3:02:14] climate goals?

[3:02:19] And if you look at the city

[3:02:19] study of what goes into our

[3:02:20] landfills well 34% of

[3:02:25] everything on our landfill is

[3:02:25] construction and demolition

[3:02:30] waste which is to say buildings

[3:02:30] and 34% is in organic

[3:02:31] materials.

[3:02:31] Well, we know from all

[3:02:32] the debates that are having

[3:02:36] near over traffic and whatnot

[3:02:36] that organics are getting a lot

[3:02:37] of attention But we don't even

[3:02:38] have construction and

[3:02:42] demolition in our climate

[3:02:42] action plan.

[3:02:43] It is not even considered as a

[3:02:44] climate factor.

[3:02:48] So if you go to the network,

[3:02:49] you know it's I think important

[3:02:50] to get to where you have real

[3:02:54] data And so here's a case study

[3:02:54] that was done by a group called

[3:02:59] lpa Design Studios and they

[3:03:00] were contracted to renovate

[3:03:01] this Granger building that was

[3:03:06] downtown San Diego.

[3:03:06] And the way that they

[3:03:07] considered it is to go to

[3:03:08] the next slide and they

[3:03:12] considered multiple options.

[3:03:12] They considered whether it just

[3:03:13] leave the building where it is

[3:03:17] do nothing, do a light

[3:03:17] renovation.

[3:03:18] It is mainly preserving

[3:03:19] the inside but not necessarily

[3:03:24] getting And they said well

[3:03:25] let's just leave that aside.

[3:03:25] Got it.

[3:03:26] And finally they said Well what

[3:03:26] if we just tear the whole

[3:03:29] building down?

[3:03:29] Well, we often say well, new

[3:03:30] construction you know, we have

[3:03:35] modern technology we can

[3:03:36] decarbonize and things like

[3:03:36] that.

[3:03:37] But what the study analysis

[3:03:41] shows is that the equivalent

[3:03:41] carbon production from

[3:03:47] destroying that building

[3:03:47] outweighs any of the new

[3:03:53] benefits of decarbonization in

[3:03:54] that operation of the new

[3:03:54] building.

[3:03:55] And in fact the best strategy

[3:03:58] has to take your existing

[3:03:59] buildings, do a renovation of

[3:04:00] those buildings and put them

[3:04:04] back into production And that's

[3:04:05] taken this what was a rundown

[3:04:10] former office building and

[3:04:11] turned it into a night party

[3:04:17] hotel in downtown San Diego

[3:04:17] Going to the next slide.

[3:04:18] The other thing is, you know,

[3:04:22] we also look for green

[3:04:23] buildings but sometimes it's

[3:04:24] good to just look at humbler

[3:04:24] places.

[3:04:29] You know, in Mill City And this

[3:04:29] is a project that's going in if

[3:04:30] you're familiar in Oakland

[3:04:34] Boulevard where the ymca is

[3:04:34] This is across from the ymca.

[3:04:40] This was a thrift store, a two

[3:04:40] story building.

[3:04:41] And what they did with this is

[3:04:46] they preserve that sort of

[3:04:47] entry facade and very cool kept

[3:04:48] the trolley design and kept

[3:04:51] that front mezzanine and then

[3:04:52] they built up behind it.

[3:04:53] You know there's a step back to

[3:04:57] get that separation with

[3:04:58] the existing historic building

[3:04:59] but there's quite a lot of

[3:04:59] housing here.

[3:05:00] This is almost a whole block of

[3:05:03] new affordable housing in this

[3:05:04] city And again we think this is

[3:05:04] a win win.

[3:05:09] How did this happen?

[3:05:10] Well, the historic resources

[3:05:10] staff worked with the developer

[3:05:15] of this project, Oakland

[3:05:16] Development and they were able

[3:05:16] to come up with this

[3:05:17] accommodation of the historic

[3:05:21] structure in the new

[3:05:21] construction And this is more

[3:05:22] of what we'd like to see rather

[3:05:23] than just saying well we needed

[3:05:27] the normal process so we can

[3:05:28] just scrape our buildings

[3:05:29] rather than come up with a

[3:05:33] consistent creative solutions

[3:05:33] for our historic preservation.

[3:05:36] So I'll just say if you go to

[3:05:43] the next slide our findings

[3:05:44] aren't really that much

[3:05:45] different than what the aba

[3:05:45] did.

[3:05:50] We had a study that was

[3:05:51] commissioned for the idea a

[3:05:51] couple of years ago that

[3:05:56] largely found that historic

[3:05:56] preservation was a benefit to

[3:05:57] us in San Diego not a negative

[3:05:58] and something that we should

[3:06:02] continue to encourage.

[3:06:03] And I guess just to summarize

[3:06:07] what these things show is that

[3:06:08] first of all the most

[3:06:08] affordable home is the one

[3:06:09] that's already there.

[3:06:13] So preservation is very

[3:06:14] important.

[3:06:15] We have areas that are, you

[3:06:15] know, densify and it's about

[3:06:21] adding units here and they're

[3:06:21] hitting singles and doubles not

[3:06:26] about hitting home runs and we

[3:06:27] hope that the overlay package

[3:06:27] and consider everything

[3:06:28] together.

[3:06:32] >> Thank you.

[3:06:33] Next is Shane Harris, public

[3:06:38] advocate Shane Harris you have

[3:06:39] time to go to by Keith if you

[3:06:39] can please raise your hand.

[3:06:43] Thank you William Korman.

[3:06:44] Thank you and Sandra Strong.

[3:06:44] Thank you.

[3:06:48] You'll have four minutes before

[3:06:49] you begin though if I can ask

[3:06:50] for the following individuals

[3:06:50] to please come forward.

[3:06:54] Eric DeVol William Reilly, Lynn

[3:06:55] Miller and Kathleen Laverty if

[3:06:55] you can all please come forward

[3:07:00] to the yellow reserved seats

[3:07:00] and please begin already.

[3:07:01] >> Thank you MADAM Clerk.

[3:07:01] Good afternoon.

[3:07:02] Council PRESIDENT And members

[3:07:06] of the City Council.

[3:07:06] My name is Shane Harris and I

[3:07:07] serve as a San Diego public

[3:07:07] advocate.

[3:07:12] Over the past year my office

[3:07:12] has stood with homeowners,

[3:07:13] historians, architects,

[3:07:13] neighborhood planning groups

[3:07:18] Soho and stakeholders citywide

[3:07:18] to defend the integrity of

[3:07:23] the Mills Act and San Diego's

[3:07:24] historic preservation process.

[3:07:25] When concerns grew about

[3:07:25] weakening preservation

[3:07:29] protections, I didn't stay

[3:07:30] silent.

[3:07:30] I launched the Hands off

[3:07:31] the Mills Act initiative.

[3:07:34] I met with residents who

[3:07:35] invested their savings

[3:07:36] restoring historic homes under

[3:07:36] city guidelines.

[3:07:41] I spoke with historians who

[3:07:42] spent decades documenting San

[3:07:43] Diego's story and I worked with

[3:07:47] community leaders who

[3:07:48] understood preservation isn't

[3:07:48] nostalgia.

[3:07:49] It's stewardship,

[3:07:53] accountability and fairness.

[3:07:53] What I heard across San Diego

[3:07:54] was simple and clear.

[3:07:59] People want preservation done

[3:08:00] transparently, professionally

[3:08:01] and equitably.

[3:08:05] Today we're discussing item 332

[3:08:05] Preservation in progress.

[3:08:06] But key parts of this package

[3:08:10] move us away from preservation

[3:08:11] ,not toward it.

[3:08:12] Let me say clearly the folks

[3:08:12] standing behind me or sitting

[3:08:17] behind me are not NIMBYs.

[3:08:17] They are not anti housing.

[3:08:18] You can be pro housing and

[3:08:19] still demand a fair process.

[3:08:23] You can support development and

[3:08:23] still expect developers to

[3:08:24] engage neighborhoods in good

[3:08:25] faith and build trust.

[3:08:29] Many developers do that.

[3:08:30] But too often this conversation

[3:08:30] has been driven by talking

[3:08:34] points that communities and

[3:08:35] neighborhoods like obstacles

[3:08:36] instead of partners.

[3:08:36] And that's not how you get

[3:08:41] housing done or trust built.

[3:08:42] The debate is not housing

[3:08:42] versus history.

[3:08:46] It's about balance, integrity

[3:08:47] and trust.

[3:08:47] One of the most concerning

[3:08:48] elements is the proposed

[3:08:53] Ennoble appeal process which

[3:08:54] would allow the City Council to

[3:08:54] substitute political judgment

[3:08:58] for expert determinations of

[3:08:59] the Historic Resources Board.

[3:08:59] For more than 20 years

[3:09:05] the historic resources Board

[3:09:06] nor this Council has supported

[3:09:06] a de novo process because

[3:09:10] historic designation requires

[3:09:11] specialized expertise, training

[3:09:12] and consistent application of

[3:09:12] adopted criteria.

[3:09:18] The hrp is made up of

[3:09:19] architects, historians and

[3:09:19] qualified citizen experts

[3:09:23] appointed specifically to

[3:09:24] evaluate historical

[3:09:24] significance respectfully.

[3:09:25] None of you none of the City

[3:09:30] Council has that specialized

[3:09:30] experience nor long standing

[3:09:31] history serving as the body

[3:09:35] that conducts historical

[3:09:36] assessments.

[3:09:36] Council's role is legislative

[3:09:42] solely the authorities whose

[3:09:42] role is technical, technical

[3:09:43] and evaluate of those roles

[3:09:47] were intentionally separated

[3:09:48] like church and state.

[3:09:49] And when those lines blur,

[3:09:49] confidence in the system

[3:09:50] erodes.

[3:09:54] Limiting citizen appeal rights

[3:09:54] for non designations also

[3:09:55] raises serious equity and

[3:10:00] participation concerns.

[3:10:00] If we are serious about

[3:10:01] inclusion my friends we should

[3:10:06] not narrow the public's ability

[3:10:07] to engage decisions that shape

[3:10:07] their community.

[3:10:08] Now my office is not here to

[3:10:08] simply oppose.

[3:10:12] We're here to propose with

[3:10:13] the proposed amendments to

[3:10:14] strengthen this package, remove

[3:10:18] the de novo appeal and keep

[3:10:19] appellate structure focused on

[3:10:19] procedural compliance not

[3:10:24] political Re hearing to retain

[3:10:25] parity and appeal rights So

[3:10:25] fairness runs in both

[3:10:26] directions.

[3:10:29] Three Pass final action until

[3:10:29] the independent economic equity

[3:10:34] and climate analysis is fully

[3:10:35] reviewed publicly.

[3:10:35] Four.

[3:10:36] Before altering protections in

[3:10:36] emerging historic areas

[3:10:40] complete comprehensive surveys

[3:10:41] so decisions are informed and

[3:10:41] accurate.

[3:10:42] These amendments don't stop

[3:10:42] progress.

[3:10:47] They improve it.

[3:10:48] San Diego is already losing

[3:10:49] historic resources every year.

[3:10:49] From La Hoya to Pacific Beach

[3:10:53] County to submission, Hill's

[3:10:54] bankruptcy will go down hill

[3:10:54] Sherman Heights.

[3:10:55] This item is called

[3:10:59] Preservation of Progress.

[3:10:59] >> Let's ensure preservation

[3:11:00] actually remains in it real

[3:11:01] progress going forward.

[3:11:10] Thank you Erik Duvall.

[3:11:11] >> Good afternoon.

[3:11:11] Erik Duvall from Ocean Beach

[3:11:12] Historical Society.

[3:11:12] But I was with that I would

[3:11:16] have my remarks on a phone.

[3:11:17] I can see that right now.

[3:11:21] I would encourage you folks to

[3:11:22] reject package a.

[3:11:22] I would encourage you to

[3:11:23] actually represent your

[3:11:27] communities as opposed to green

[3:11:28] groups not supporting

[3:11:33] the communities This is a

[3:11:34] historic resources board as you

[3:11:35] know did not support this

[3:11:35] package.

[3:11:39] The Ocean Beach Historic

[3:11:40] District needs the full

[3:11:40] comprehensive survey to be

[3:11:41] completed.

[3:11:45] Ocean Beach is already built

[3:11:46] out.

[3:11:46] It is already densely populated

[3:11:50] narrow streets, tiny lots and

[3:11:51] on street parking has been at a

[3:11:52] premium for decades plural.

[3:11:57] At this point please vote to

[3:11:58] support the community over

[3:11:58] the special interests and

[3:11:59] reject package.

[3:12:02] Thank you.

[3:12:10] >> William Reilly William

[3:12:10] Reilly You have time to go to

[3:12:11] you by Lorna Field.

[3:12:11] >> Thank you.

[3:12:12] All right.

[3:12:12] My name is William Reilly.

[3:12:15] I came to San Diego just shy of

[3:12:16] 50 years ago when I joined

[3:12:21] the Navy and I was stationed at

[3:12:21] Coronado.

[3:12:22] I went to boot camp here.

[3:12:23] I lived for two years in

[3:12:26] Imperial Beach.

[3:12:27] 28 years in Pacific Beach and

[3:12:33] 18 years in Ocean Beach.

[3:12:33] In six months we made more

[3:12:34] connections than we did in

[3:12:37] Pacific Beach In 28 years

[3:12:38] Because O.B. Is a community and

[3:12:42] they care about their people.

[3:12:43] And when I got here all

[3:12:44] the places seemed all little

[3:12:49] town seemed like small separate

[3:12:49] communities in and of

[3:12:50] themselves which have all been

[3:12:55] built in in between ever since.

[3:13:00] But I believe that if

[3:13:01] the council votes to put this

[3:13:02] package forward we are going to

[3:13:06] lose community.

[3:13:07] Community in my sense is common

[3:13:07] unity.

[3:13:12] That's all of us working

[3:13:12] together toward community.

[3:13:13] And I believe that if this goes

[3:13:18] forward the city council is

[3:13:19] going to hand outside

[3:13:25] developers and outside

[3:13:25] investors.

[3:13:31] San Diego's heart and soul on a

[3:13:31] platter.

[3:13:32] And I would just like to say

[3:13:37] that complete communities is a

[3:13:37] complete misnomer.

[3:13:38] If this goes forward it should

[3:13:43] be called complete annihilation

[3:13:44] of communities.

[3:13:44] >> Thank you.

[3:13:45] William I'm sorry.

[3:13:49] That was William Lynn Miller.

[3:13:50] Lynn, you have several people

[3:13:55] sitting your time.

[3:13:55] If I can have the following

[3:13:56] individuals please raise their

[3:13:56] hand.

[3:14:01] Barbara Holton Chris Baca

[3:14:06] Alpaca Bell.

[3:14:12] >> Amanda Baca.

[3:14:13] >> Rosemary Sutter.

[3:14:19] Arlene Fink.

[3:14:19] Evelyn Viera.

[3:14:20] Corey Miller.

[3:14:24] James Miller.

[3:14:25] I don't see a James Miller

[3:14:26] raising their hand.

[3:14:26] Oh sorry.

[3:14:30] Thank you.

[3:14:35] Meredith Holton Templeton.

[3:14:36] Bill Wilson.

[3:14:36] Janet Griffith.

[3:14:42] Griffin Thank you.

[3:14:43] And Colleen Little That is 15.

[3:14:47] Please proceed.

[3:14:48] Thank you.

[3:14:48] Hello, I'm Glenn Miller.

[3:14:54] I'm with Coastal caretakers.

[3:14:55] We are opposed to

[3:14:56] the modification known as

[3:14:56] Package eight.

[3:15:00] I'm a native optician.

[3:15:01] My family has been there for

[3:15:01] four generations.

[3:15:06] We attended the elementary

[3:15:07] schools there, Graduated from

[3:15:07] Point Loma High School.

[3:15:08] I'm here because I care about

[3:15:12] Ocean Beach which is one of

[3:15:13] the treasures of San Diego.

[3:15:13] But what I say to you about

[3:15:18] Ocean Beach can be applied to

[3:15:18] homes in all of our

[3:15:19] communities.

[3:15:24] What has remained the same are

[3:15:25] the people who choose to live

[3:15:25] in Ocean Beach.

[3:15:30] O.B. Attracts outliers

[3:15:31] mavericks, iconoclasts

[3:15:36] the faces of the people change

[3:15:36] .

[3:15:37] But there is a rebellious

[3:15:38] nature that runs through time.

[3:15:42] These outliers did not choose

[3:15:43] to have more controls and

[3:15:43] regulations on their personal

[3:15:48] property by certifying them

[3:15:49] historic.

[3:15:54] I'm sure they asked what are

[3:15:55] the benefits as opposed to what

[3:15:55] are the downsides?

[3:16:00] The city of San Diego targeted

[3:16:01] Ocean Beach as the only

[3:16:02] historic district that would be

[3:16:06] excluded from the exemption.

[3:16:07] That means Ohb would receive no

[3:16:08] protection from complete

[3:16:13] communities building.

[3:16:13] Package a is intended to give

[3:16:18] complete community legal rights

[3:16:19] to build in obeying.

[3:16:23] I have a question for you Had

[3:16:24] you already decided how you're

[3:16:27] going to vote?

[3:16:34] Are we wasting our time here?

[3:16:35] >> It feels that way from this

[3:16:35] side.

[3:16:40] Doesn't mean it's true but it

[3:16:41] feels that way from the side.

[3:16:42] From over here it seems like

[3:16:46] your focus is meeting

[3:16:46] benchmarks mandated by

[3:16:47] the state rather than serving

[3:16:52] your constituents.

[3:16:53] You are not hearing us and you

[3:16:57] are silencing our voices in so

[3:16:58] many ways.

[3:16:58] You no longer honor

[3:16:59] the recommendations of planning

[3:17:04] boards which are the voices of

[3:17:04] the people.

[3:17:06] You use ministerial procedures

[3:17:07] that silence the voice of

[3:17:13] the people.

[3:17:14] You wait until the last minute

[3:17:15] to post agendas for committee

[3:17:19] or council or council meetings

[3:17:20] which takes away our power to

[3:17:20] organize.

[3:17:26] You delete documents from

[3:17:26] websites that support our

[3:17:27] arguments.

[3:17:28] We are asking you to listen to

[3:17:34] our voices.

[3:17:35] >> You have a misconception of

[3:17:35] Ocean Beach.

[3:17:40] There is a bumper sticker that

[3:17:41] says Ocean Beach is beside

[3:17:47] the point.

[3:17:48] Point Loma is on top of

[3:17:48] the hill facing the bay.

[3:17:49] Ocean Beach is on the other

[3:17:53] side of the hill facing

[3:17:53] the ocean.

[3:17:54] Point Loma and historically

[3:17:54] were the wealthier side of

[3:17:59] the hill options were on

[3:18:00] the other side of the hill with

[3:18:01] low to income but low to

[3:18:05] moderate incomes, smaller homes

[3:18:05] and many, many, many

[3:18:06] apartments.

[3:18:06] In fact Ocean Beach according

[3:18:11] to current 2026 data has

[3:18:16] approximately 63% of houses

[3:18:20] renter occupied while 37% are

[3:18:21] owner occupied.

[3:18:26] We are not trying to stand in

[3:18:27] the way of positive change.

[3:18:28] We welcome it.

[3:18:32] We are asking you to listen to

[3:18:32] us.

[3:18:33] Are you listening?

[3:18:39] Look at the conditions of

[3:18:39] the roadways.

[3:18:40] The city in their rush to build

[3:18:44] has not built an infrastructure

[3:18:45] that will come that will

[3:18:46] accommodate more people.

[3:18:50] Come to Ocean Beach now during

[3:18:51] peak traffic It takes 20

[3:18:51] minutes to get to the freeway

[3:18:55] And then when you get to

[3:18:56] the freeway it's like you've

[3:19:01] been transported to Los Angeles

[3:19:01] .

[3:19:02] Midway Rising will feed into

[3:19:07] that same freeway Pretending

[3:19:08] that Ocean Beach has rapid

[3:19:08] transit is dishonest.

[3:19:14] We have a bus line and no plans

[3:19:19] or money to build rapid transit

[3:19:19] .

[3:19:20] If the city does not have money

[3:19:20] to replace light bulbs and

[3:19:25] street lights, where will they

[3:19:25] find the money to build

[3:19:26] the necessary infrastructure?

[3:19:31] Obie is the last SoCal beach

[3:19:32] town to maintain its authentic

[3:19:36] scale and feel.

[3:19:37] In the 1950s the waves of Ocean

[3:19:38] Beach carried surfers on long

[3:19:43] wooden boards and O.B. Locals

[3:19:43] contributed to the growth of

[3:19:48] surfing in the 1960s.

[3:19:49] The village became known as

[3:19:54] the riot zone because there was

[3:19:55] police action against O.B.

[3:19:55] Protesters.

[3:19:56] Protesters who opposed

[3:20:00] the Vietnam War.

[3:20:00] These colorful artists and

[3:20:01] activists earned Ocean Beach

[3:20:05] the title of Southern

[3:20:06] California's Haight-Ashbury.

[3:20:12] What is now becomes the past

[3:20:13] and then it becomes part of

[3:20:13] history.

[3:20:18] The 50s, 60s and 70s should be

[3:20:19] included in O.B. History.

[3:20:24] >> In 1999 the city decided to

[3:20:30] reframe the district as I'll

[3:20:30] try to say this right.

[3:20:31] The Ocean Beach Cottage

[3:20:32] Emerging History Historic

[3:20:36] District and make it a

[3:20:36] volunteer process.

[3:20:37] How do you think those outliers

[3:20:41] felt about volunteering to be

[3:20:47] historic?

[3:20:48] Our ocean or Ocean Beach

[3:20:48] history should not be limited

[3:20:53] to trolley car cottages.

[3:20:54] Our history is more than that.

[3:20:59] The new name erases some of our

[3:20:59] history.

[3:21:00] Ocean Beach history includes

[3:21:05] churches, church row,

[3:21:06] the library, the elementary

[3:21:07] school, the surfing culture and

[3:21:11] the activist subculture as well

[3:21:11] as the cottages.

[3:21:17] We suggest that Ocean Beach

[3:21:17] Historic District becomes

[3:21:23] the official name with over

[3:21:23] 3000 parcels.

[3:21:24] The Ocean Beach Historic

[3:21:24] District is geographically

[3:21:29] the largest historic district

[3:21:29] in San Diego.

[3:21:30] Its massive size is why it is

[3:21:35] being targeted for

[3:21:36] deregulation.

[3:21:36] The developer's projected rents

[3:21:37] and profits explain the rush to

[3:21:41] build.

[3:21:42] Beyond the historic designation

[3:21:47] lies greater concerns.

[3:21:48] Proposition d The coastal

[3:21:49] height limit was voted on and

[3:21:52] passed in 1972.

[3:21:53] Its law It prohibits

[3:21:58] the construction of any

[3:21:59] building taller than 30ft in

[3:22:04] the coastal zone that is

[3:22:05] the area between Pacific Ocean

[3:22:05] and Interstate five.

[3:22:06] That means Ocean Beach, Point

[3:22:10] Loma and Sunset Cliffs are west

[3:22:10] of I-5.

[3:22:16] Therefore even if you choose to

[3:22:17] vote for package and it passes

[3:22:21] complete communities cannot

[3:22:21] build legally above the 30 foot

[3:22:27] height limit.

[3:22:27] Water runs downhill onto

[3:22:28] the cliffs and into the ocean.

[3:22:33] Ocean Beach is a sensitive

[3:22:34] geologic zone and flood zone.

[3:22:39] The city should require

[3:22:39] California Coastal Zone ceqa

[3:22:45] and Air evaluations on every

[3:22:45] structure.

[3:22:46] Instead they waive these

[3:22:50] requirements.

[3:22:51] >> >> We propose that you vote

[3:22:57] no on package a and change

[3:22:58] the name to Ocean Beach

[3:23:03] Historic District.

[3:23:04] That would solve a lot of

[3:23:05] problems.

[3:23:05] There is a thong.

[3:23:05] I'm almost done.

[3:23:10] There's a song that was written

[3:23:11] called Starry Starry Night.

[3:23:15] Remember I'm not going to sing

[3:23:15] it.

[3:23:16] I promised my family I would

[3:23:16] not.

[3:23:17] But we feel like this.

[3:23:21] They were not listening.

[3:23:22] They did not know how.

[3:23:24] Perhaps they'll listen now.

[3:23:30] >> Thank you.

[3:23:31] >> Next is Kathleen.

[3:23:38] After that if I can have

[3:23:38] Natalie Barron, Diane

[3:23:38] So

[3:23:39] derberg, Dean Glass, Sharon

[3:23:44] Gill and Barry Hucker please

[3:23:45] come up to the yellow reserved

[3:23:45] seats.

[3:23:46] Kathleen you have time to away

[3:23:49] Scott Francis.

[3:23:49] Thank you.

[3:23:50] And Marianne call them.

[3:23:50] Thank you so much.

[3:23:51] You'll have three minutes.

[3:23:52] Please proceed.

[3:23:54] Thank you.

[3:23:55] If you guys can move forward

[3:23:56] here and instead of your

[3:24:00] computers for a few minutes, I

[3:24:01] want to take you back in time.

[3:24:05] This is a historic 1887

[3:24:06] subdivision map of Ocean Beach

[3:24:11] which a long time friend of

[3:24:11] mine had in his work.

[3:24:16] We have sub standard five lots.

[3:24:24] >> We already have gradients.

[3:24:24] Some of these lots are over

[3:24:25] eight and the size of a normal

[3:24:25] lot.

[3:24:29] You can see them here when they

[3:24:30] first did the subdivisions.

[3:24:30] Okay.

[3:24:35] Also we had sand dunes there

[3:24:36] and they lie under some of

[3:24:36] this.

[3:24:41] We have flooding and in here it

[3:24:47] shows where the natural springs

[3:24:47] are.

[3:24:48] Remember the Lamborghinis that

[3:24:53] flooded in the garages twice

[3:24:54] which I'm sure our taxes help

[3:24:59] pay for that.

[3:25:00] Have a natural spring under

[3:25:00] the parking lot next to

[3:25:01] the lifeguard station.

[3:25:06] Wow.

[3:25:06] And there's a map right here

[3:25:07] that shows it and other ones.

[3:25:12] There's also more that are not

[3:25:12] marked on this map.

[3:25:13] Up the hill up in cottages I

[3:25:18] found where there are pumps

[3:25:18] historic pumps outside in

[3:25:19] the yard showing where these

[3:25:24] are.

[3:25:24] Two houses up from me.

[3:25:30] They had a well we have water

[3:25:31] and we have had sinkholes on

[3:25:31] Niagara.

[3:25:36] Near Sunset Cliffs.

[3:25:36] Right next to the right, a

[3:25:37] property that is one of

[3:25:42] the properties they're talking

[3:25:42] about putting large tall

[3:25:43] buildings.

[3:25:48] I know of three sinkholes when

[3:25:49] I was there when they were just

[3:25:54] falling through.

[3:25:55] >> We need secure we need to do

[3:26:00] environmental We need to do

[3:26:01] the history.

[3:26:01] We have buildings down there

[3:26:06] that have history of people.

[3:26:07] One of the buildings down by

[3:26:12] the beach it was the police

[3:26:12] station.

[3:26:13] It was the library before it

[3:26:17] moved to the current library.

[3:26:18] It had a Ferris wheel across

[3:26:19] the street from it.

[3:26:24] It is still there And we have

[3:26:29] artisans in that building now.

[3:26:29] >> Some that have been there

[3:26:30] since the 60s.

[3:26:35] We have people that are

[3:26:36] inspired by Ocean Beach as far

[3:26:41] as artists, musicians, writers

[3:26:41] .

[3:26:42] By the way, I'm a writer.

[3:26:43] I've done three Ocean Beach

[3:26:45] books and I've done one on

[3:26:46] Sunset Cliff.

[3:26:46] And believe me, I will write

[3:26:47] down history.

[3:26:52] My grandmother is in pictures

[3:26:53] in Ocean Beach with my great

[3:26:58] grandmother and might be

[3:26:59] returning as concluding in

[3:26:59] 1924.

[3:26:59] >> Thank you for that

[3:27:04] concluding comment.

[3:27:05] >> Look towards the history.

[3:27:10] I'm sorry if I'm saying I never

[3:27:10] correctly.

[3:27:11] Barron Barron.

[3:27:11] We'll get you.

[3:27:16] Just hold on one second.

[3:27:17] I'll come and help you get

[3:27:17] there.

[3:27:21] Please come up to the mic.

[3:27:21] >> Hi there.

[3:27:22] My name is Betsy Barron.

[3:27:24] I'm on the board of the Ocean

[3:27:25] Beach Historical Society.

[3:27:31] I I got to tell you, I spent 52

[3:27:32] years of my life in Los

[3:27:32] Angeles.

[3:27:38] I didn't know anything that was

[3:27:38] going on there because I barely

[3:27:39] even knew my neighbors no less

[3:27:40] What was going on with

[3:27:43] construction and development

[3:27:43] and all those things because

[3:27:44] there was really just no

[3:27:44] community.

[3:27:50] But I really fought to move

[3:27:50] here 18 years ago.

[3:27:51] >> I even up a jacket.

[3:27:55] I want to go see it.

[3:27:56] >> It says Oh girl because

[3:27:57] that's how I feel now.

[3:28:01] I'm an O.B. Girl.

[3:28:01] I'm a retired archeologist.

[3:28:06] I try very hard to preserve

[3:28:07] things to keep things the way

[3:28:07] they are.

[3:28:08] >> Again, not against progress

[3:28:12] but we need to learn from our

[3:28:13] history.

[3:28:14] And I was in here 13 years ago

[3:28:19] taking pictures of people here

[3:28:20] fighting for the 30 foot height

[3:28:20] limit.

[3:28:25] When I worked for the San Diego

[3:28:26] Reader and here I am again

[3:28:26] Thank you Diana So

[3:28:30] derberg.

[3:28:36] >> I'm thinking about to

[3:28:37] the neighborhood voices that

[3:28:37] are no longer with us.

[3:28:38] I wish they were here today to

[3:28:42] speak on these issues.

[3:28:43] When I was early born of

[3:28:47] University Heights she went 3

[3:28:48] to 3 times total preservation

[3:28:53] honorees on her honorary awards

[3:28:53] including the highest

[3:28:54] designation of preservationist

[3:28:54] of the year.

[3:28:59] Another that comes to mind is

[3:29:00] Ann Trowbridge, a stellar civic

[3:29:00] leader.

[3:29:04] He passed away some 13 years

[3:29:04] ago.

[3:29:05] I was here the day when he

[3:29:06] stood at this microphone and he

[3:29:10] looked at the dais and he said

[3:29:11] What happens to people when you

[3:29:11] get in public office?

[3:29:16] The hubris that overcomes you.

[3:29:17] Have things changed?

[3:29:17] Well, we'll see.

[3:29:18] We'll see that.

[3:29:22] But the so called package a and

[3:29:23] an older review is nothing but

[3:29:23] a power grab And I bring

[3:29:28] politics in the process in San

[3:29:28] Diego.

[3:29:29] Let's keep our historic

[3:29:34] resources decisions using

[3:29:34] established protections and

[3:29:35] thank you for that.

[3:29:36] I'll bring politics into it.

[3:29:42] >> Dean Glass Hi.

[3:29:43] I'm going to read in part a

[3:29:44] letter from Susan Grant Holley,

[3:29:48] a lawyer whose practice focuses

[3:29:49] on skills application to

[3:29:50] the built environment, who has

[3:29:53] consulted with and represented

[3:29:54] so for many years to assist in

[3:29:55] their efforts to protect and

[3:29:59] adaptively reuse historic

[3:29:59] resources.

[3:30:00] Her work focuses on historic

[3:30:03] resources statewide many

[3:30:04] reflected in 50 published legal

[3:30:05] opinions.

[3:30:05] Good afternoon.

[3:30:06] It is my considered legal

[3:30:10] opinion and concerned that this

[3:30:10] Council's consideration of

[3:30:11] package and in particular its

[3:30:14] section updates to

[3:30:15] the designation appeal process

[3:30:16] including additions of de novo

[3:30:20] finding has not received

[3:30:21] essential skill review package

[3:30:22] a will again allow to novo

[3:30:22] appeals related to the historic

[3:30:26] designation and to this Council

[3:30:26] against the recommendations of

[3:30:27] its Historical Resources Board.

[3:30:32] The community, the Planning

[3:30:32] Committee and the Neighborhood

[3:30:33] Historic Preservation

[3:30:33] Coalition.

[3:30:34] These groups concerns are well

[3:30:38] founded.

[3:30:38] I recall efforts to expand de

[3:30:39] novo appeals to this council

[3:30:40] years ago that were smartly

[3:30:43] defeated Historic status as so

[3:30:43] who knows?

[3:30:44] >> Thank you.

[3:30:49] Thank you, Sharon Girl Sharon

[3:30:49] your time's needed to you by

[3:30:54] Michael You'll have two

[3:30:54] minutes.

[3:30:55] Please proceed.

[3:30:55] Thank you.

[3:30:59] We all agree that owners should

[3:30:59] be allowed to voluntarily turn

[3:31:00] their properties into historic

[3:31:05] museums but we don't agree.

[3:31:05] What we don't agree on is

[3:31:06] the question of whether we

[3:31:07] should use government

[3:31:10] regulations to force historic

[3:31:11] designation on properties Most

[3:31:16] people don't really care about

[3:31:16] his historic preservation.

[3:31:17] That's why designation lowers

[3:31:22] property values When we reject

[3:31:23] restrict what is done, what can

[3:31:27] be done with property and that

[3:31:27] means less property tax income

[3:31:35] for the city We have built into

[3:31:36] like two at La Hoya Code we

[3:31:36] have painted all the city like

[3:31:38] it La Hoya code that are

[3:31:39] boarded up and rotted only

[3:31:43] because we designated them

[3:31:44] historic.

[3:31:44] A property owner wanted to

[3:31:48] replace those building 1745

[3:31:49] years ago with a 17 unit

[3:31:50] apartment building.

[3:31:55] But there's still there because

[3:31:55] the historic the California

[3:32:00] theater next to the city hall

[3:32:00] has been vacant for over 30

[3:32:01] years only because it was

[3:32:05] designated historic and older

[3:32:06] wanted to build over 200 units

[3:32:07] of housing but preservation

[3:32:11] sued them So nothing happened.

[3:32:11] Historic designation doesn't

[3:32:16] just reduce property tax income

[3:32:17] but city buildings that are

[3:32:22] designated The mere threat of

[3:32:22] designation reduces property

[3:32:23] values The city wants to sell

[3:32:27] that the city administration

[3:32:28] complex that we're in.

[3:32:29] But there is little interest.

[3:32:33] Developers know that if they

[3:32:34] tried to get building permits

[3:32:34] to do anything with this

[3:32:38] property the hrb would

[3:32:39] designated historic all our

[3:32:44] problems would go away If we

[3:32:45] just make historic designation

[3:32:49] voluntary Only the city will

[3:32:50] get a huge increase in property

[3:32:50] tax.

[3:32:51] We'll have new housing all over

[3:32:54] the city and we'll be able to

[3:32:55] sell this building for a ton of

[3:32:55] money.

[3:33:00] >> Thank you.

[3:33:01] Barry Hager I understand you

[3:33:02] have several people sitting in

[3:33:02] your time.

[3:33:04] They can please raise their

[3:33:05] hand and.

[3:33:06] Guillory Thank you Joseph

[3:33:11] Curran Gabrielle Cook of Kaiser

[3:33:14] Curtis me Thank you Susan Dean

[3:33:20] Jordan Persky Paul Engler.

[3:33:20] Christina Fogerty.

[3:33:25] Regina Agarwal Thank you Robert

[3:33:30] Grover and Victoria Carter.

[3:33:30] Thank you.

[3:33:35] You'll have 12 minutes But if I

[3:33:36] can just ask the following

[3:33:36] individuals to also come up

[3:33:39] Tyler Martin Bruce, Craig

[3:33:40] Sherman, Kristen Harms and

[3:33:41] Alyssa Stewart.

[3:33:45] If you can all please come up

[3:33:46] to the yellow reserved seats

[3:33:46] You MAY proceed when ready and

[3:33:50] your PowerPoint is up.

[3:33:51] Please just say next slide.

[3:33:52] Thank you And when I'm done

[3:33:55] with my comments I'll ask for

[3:33:56] folks to hold up their blue

[3:33:56] cards please.

[3:33:56] Good afternoon.

[3:34:00] Council members.

[3:34:00] I'm Barry Hager and I'm

[3:34:01] speaking for Mission Hills

[3:34:02] Heritage Today I'd like to

[3:34:05] start by saying that we support

[3:34:06] the goals of preservation and

[3:34:06] progress and most of

[3:34:10] the amendments proposed in

[3:34:11] Package eight.

[3:34:11] However, some of the proposed

[3:34:15] amendments are very troubling

[3:34:16] and will set back historic

[3:34:17] preservation in San Diego

[3:34:21] without advancing the goals of

[3:34:22] the initiative which include

[3:34:22] equity and a more effective

[3:34:26] preservation program.

[3:34:26] The most troubling aspect is

[3:34:30] the proposed new findings not

[3:34:31] supported or de novo grounds

[3:34:31] for appeal.

[3:34:36] The new grounds will for appeal

[3:34:37] will allow the City Council to

[3:34:37] review the information provided

[3:34:41] at the Hrb and make different

[3:34:42] findings and reach a contrary

[3:34:46] conclusion.

[3:34:47] >> Next slide please.

[3:34:47] Here are the problems with

[3:34:51] the de novo review ground.

[3:34:52] First of all, the current

[3:34:53] historic designation and

[3:34:57] appeals process has worked well

[3:34:57] for decades.

[3:34:58] The process is rigorous and

[3:35:01] the decision making board is

[3:35:02] composed of volunteer citizens

[3:35:03] with expertise in various

[3:35:07] fields.

[3:35:07] Council members are capable of

[3:35:08] reviewing Hrb decisions based

[3:35:12] on the current limited grounds

[3:35:12] for appeals.

[3:35:13] But council members lack

[3:35:17] the expertise, training and

[3:35:18] accumulated knowledge of

[3:35:18] the hrb.

[3:35:22] Council members are not

[3:35:23] schooled in the criteria for

[3:35:28] designation and unlike the Hrb

[3:35:28] council members will not be

[3:35:29] required to conduct site visits

[3:35:32] before voting with an eye

[3:35:33] towards applying

[3:35:37] the designation criteria.

[3:35:38] >> The broader appeals grounds

[3:35:38] for appeal will also invite

[3:35:42] more appeals for a second bite

[3:35:43] at the apple.

[3:35:44] The consequences will be

[3:35:47] unpredictable all uneven

[3:35:48] decisions with more potential

[3:35:52] for appealable error and

[3:35:53] litigation.

[3:35:54] Adding the de novo ground will

[3:35:58] only decrease the authority of

[3:35:58] the hrb and add an element of

[3:36:03] politics into appeals.

[3:36:04] To make matters worse, staff

[3:36:08] stripped out of packaging

[3:36:09] the right to appeal decisions

[3:36:13] to not designate properties

[3:36:13] The current appeals process

[3:36:14] only allows appeal of decisions

[3:36:18] to designate a property not

[3:36:18] decisions to not designate.

[3:36:23] In response to criticism over

[3:36:23] the years, staff initially

[3:36:24] proposed to remedy the one

[3:36:28] sided appeals process by

[3:36:29] including and package the right

[3:36:29] to appeal decisions to not

[3:36:33] designate with grounds similar

[3:36:34] to those for appealing

[3:36:37] decisions to designate.

[3:36:38] However lobbying by

[3:36:39] the development by lobbying

[3:36:43] development development

[3:36:44] industry consultants convinced

[3:36:48] staff to limit the right to

[3:36:49] appeal non designations to

[3:36:53] property owners only.

[3:36:53] Legitimate concerns were then

[3:36:54] raised about the fairness of

[3:36:57] only allowing property owners

[3:36:58] to file appeals but not other

[3:36:59] interested parties.

[3:37:02] But rather than restoring

[3:37:03] the right of all interested

[3:37:07] parties to appeal designation

[3:37:08] decisions do not designate

[3:37:08] staff instead stripped

[3:37:13] the entire section from

[3:37:13] packaging.

[3:37:14] >> After the OCTOBER 23rd Hrb

[3:37:18] meeting with the proposed

[3:37:19] expansion of appeals to include

[3:37:22] the de novo grounds but no

[3:37:23] right to appeal decisions to

[3:37:27] not designate packages even

[3:37:27] more skewed in favor of

[3:37:28] overturning designations of

[3:37:32] historic resources packages

[3:37:33] should not be adopted without a

[3:37:37] right to appeal hrb decisions

[3:37:38] to not designate property.

[3:37:43] Next slide.

[3:37:46] And you can see whoops we

[3:37:47] should be on number four now.

[3:37:56] >> You can skip the fourth.

[3:38:01] >> So let's take a look.

[3:38:02] >> Oh, I'm sorry We've gone too

[3:38:02] far.

[3:38:06] Let's go back one more.

[3:38:10] This is Slide four.

[3:38:11] >> So it's supposed to be Let's

[3:38:15] look at the Hrb has to say

[3:38:16] about de novo I think we've

[3:38:17] Yeah, Here we go.

[3:38:17] Okay.

[3:38:20] Sorry.

[3:38:21] Again, the staff presentation

[3:38:21] indicates that the Hrb policy

[3:38:24] is subject committee was

[3:38:25] generally supportive of all

[3:38:29] other aspects of package

[3:38:30] including the de novo ground

[3:38:34] but h r b member Carla Farley,

[3:38:35] one of the four members of

[3:38:36] the Policy subcommittee voted

[3:38:40] against package specifically

[3:38:40] citing the de novo issue for

[3:38:45] comment at the h r b meeting

[3:38:49] and on OCTOBER 23rd was quote

[3:38:50] to novo I'm no on de novo.

[3:38:51] That's the short of it And when

[3:38:54] you can hear that nobody has

[3:38:55] put this thing forward

[3:38:56] obviously for some very good

[3:38:59] reasons I don't know if we want

[3:39:00] to be the ones to stand out and

[3:39:04] quote the h r be voted down.

[3:39:05] Two motions to support package

[3:39:09] a largely due to the inclusion

[3:39:09] of the no ground.

[3:39:13] Next slide please Let's discuss

[3:39:13] the recommendations made by

[3:39:14] the Community Planners

[3:39:17] Committee.

[3:39:18] As a reminder the Community

[3:39:19] Planners Committee consists of

[3:39:23] the chairperson dozens of all

[3:39:23] the official community planning

[3:39:27] groups in the city of San Diego

[3:39:28] who are volunteer residents

[3:39:28] elected by residents to

[3:39:32] represent their communities to

[3:39:33] make recommendations to

[3:39:37] the city on planning matters.

[3:39:37] It is truly the People's

[3:39:38] Planning Committee.

[3:39:42] Here is an excerpt from Staff's

[3:39:42] Report to the Planning

[3:39:47] Commission on Package.

[3:39:47] The Community Planners

[3:39:50] Committee voted 28 to 0 two

[3:39:51] zero to oppose preservation and

[3:39:55] progress package and recommend

[3:39:56] that the proposed de novo

[3:40:00] findings not supported appeal

[3:40:00] finally be removed.

[3:40:01] That the putting requirements

[3:40:04] for the historical resources

[3:40:05] Board be changed to a simple

[3:40:10] majority to designate and that

[3:40:11] the ability to appeal historic

[3:40:11] historic resources Board

[3:40:15] decisions to not designate a

[3:40:16] property be added back into

[3:40:19] package a.

[3:40:20] When was the last time you saw

[3:40:24] 28 organizations agree on one

[3:40:24] position?

[3:40:28] >> Next slide please.

[3:40:28] When you compare

[3:40:29] the recommendations by

[3:40:33] the community planners

[3:40:33] Committee and the Planning

[3:40:34] Commission, a stark contrast

[3:40:38] comes into view The seven

[3:40:39] appointees of the mayor who sit

[3:40:42] on the Planning Commission

[3:40:43] voted to recommend a package

[3:40:47] that represents the voice of

[3:40:47] the development industry The 28

[3:40:52] volunteer residents who sit on

[3:40:53] the Community Planners

[3:40:56] Committee rejected package that

[3:40:57] is the voice of the people.

[3:40:58] We ask that you please heed

[3:41:01] the voice of the people when

[3:41:02] you vote on this matter today.

[3:41:06] Next slide please.

[3:41:06] I have one more quote for you.

[3:41:10] Here's what the San Diego Yimby

[3:41:11] group said about these reforms

[3:41:15] in their OCTOBER e-newsletter.

[3:41:15] Quote The city wants to make it

[3:41:19] easier to override historic

[3:41:20] preservation rules.

[3:41:21] Proposed changes would let city

[3:41:24] council overrule expert board

[3:41:29] decisions on historic buildings

[3:41:29] ,potentially clearing the way

[3:41:30] for more housing.

[3:41:34] Close quote from this headline

[3:41:34] .

[3:41:35] It's clear that the Yimby group

[3:41:35] and their building industry

[3:41:39] allies are trying to set up a

[3:41:40] false choice of historic

[3:41:43] preservation or more housing.

[3:41:44] We can have both.

[3:41:48] What the statement does

[3:41:49] underscore is that the de novo

[3:41:53] appeal ground will scale back

[3:41:54] historic designations which

[3:41:57] which will result in the loss

[3:41:58] of more historic resources

[3:41:58] going forward.

[3:42:02] And the city has not analyzed

[3:42:03] the impacts of the proposed

[3:42:03] reforms.

[3:42:07] >> Next slide please.

[3:42:08] The proposed de novo amendment

[3:42:12] is moving us towards a system

[3:42:12] where historic resources will

[3:42:13] only be designated if the owner

[3:42:17] wants it to be.

[3:42:18] While that MAY be the goal of

[3:42:22] some in this room that is not

[3:42:22] the best practice for historic

[3:42:23] preservation and all San

[3:42:26] Diegans will suffer under that

[3:42:27] system.

[3:42:31] >> In closing we urge you to

[3:42:35] reject package a until one

[3:42:36] findings not supported appeal

[3:42:40] ground has been removed to

[3:42:40] the right to appeal Non

[3:42:41] designations has been added

[3:42:45] back in and three the city has

[3:42:46] completed an environmental

[3:42:50] analysis of the impacts of

[3:42:50] the proposed amendments.

[3:42:54] Let's not blow up blow up a

[3:42:55] system that works well.

[3:42:59] And now let's see those know on

[3:43:00] de novo cards out there yet

[3:43:01] there's a sea of people out

[3:43:02] there.

[3:43:05] >> Thank you very much.

[3:43:11] >> Thank you, Tyler Martin

[3:43:11] Hello, counsel.

[3:43:12] >> Good afternoon, Tyler Martin

[3:43:15] Ocean Beach I wrote a letter to

[3:43:16] Councilmember Campbell's office

[3:43:17] last DECEMBER which exemplifies

[3:43:20] multiple historic cottages that

[3:43:21] met the definition of

[3:43:25] the district multiple community

[3:43:25] planning groups have actually

[3:43:26] supported the demolition of

[3:43:27] cottages simply because

[3:43:30] the property owner did not

[3:43:30] volunteer their property into

[3:43:31] the district.

[3:43:35] That's happened four times for

[3:43:36] contributing resources and up

[3:43:36] to six other times for non

[3:43:40] contributing resources.

[3:43:41] And one of the reasons why I'm

[3:43:45] most supportive of complete

[3:43:45] communities is not only

[3:43:46] the housing supply but it's

[3:43:47] the activation that this is

[3:43:47] going to bring to Newport

[3:43:50] Avenue.

[3:43:50] I have witnessed several

[3:43:54] revolving door businesses on

[3:43:54] Newport Avenue in ten years.

[3:43:55] Rite Aid, our largest footprint

[3:43:59] is now dead and for sale just

[3:43:59] in time.

[3:44:00] Union Bank is empty for years

[3:44:03] and there are multiple boarded

[3:44:04] up retail places They need

[3:44:08] customers keep mom and pop in

[3:44:09] business so big box retail like

[3:44:14] Target doesn't come into town.

[3:44:14] We need customers on.

[3:44:15] Thank you for that concluding

[3:44:15] remark.

[3:44:19] Bruce Kearns Bruce can do you

[3:44:20] have several people sitting in

[3:44:23] your time alone accounts?

[3:44:24] Paul Johnson And I understand

[3:44:24] that there'll be several

[3:44:25] speakers You guys can manage

[3:44:28] your own time.

[3:44:32] Jessica mckee I'm David Roth.

[3:44:38] Bill Al Adele or Jeanette

[3:44:38] o'Dell?

[3:44:42] Ginger Weatherford.

[3:44:42] Jennifer McDonald.

[3:44:45] Maureen Robert Turner.

[3:44:50] Eva Thorne of a Thorne.

[3:44:51] Oh thank you.

[3:44:54] Diane Kane.

[3:44:54] David Goldberg.

[3:44:58] John Eisenhower.

[3:44:59] Nicholas Wilson.

[3:45:04] Virginia Wilson.

[3:45:05] There were 16 people that ceded

[3:45:05] your time.

[3:45:08] It is a maximum of 15 minute

[3:45:09] presentation.

[3:45:10] You'll have the 15 minutes.

[3:45:10] Okay.

[3:45:13] And it's Alana Will speak first

[3:45:14] and then Bruce However you guys

[3:45:15] one minute or two.

[3:45:18] >> Thank you.

[3:45:18] >> Hello.

[3:45:19] The presentations you will you

[3:45:23] are hearing today from Soho in

[3:45:24] the preservation community are

[3:45:25] grounded in documented evidence

[3:45:28] and in the law package is not a

[3:45:32] minor administrative update.

[3:45:33] It makes sweeping structural

[3:45:33] changes to how historic

[3:45:37] resources are evaluated,

[3:45:37] designated, appealed and

[3:45:38] protected in the city of San

[3:45:38] Diego.

[3:45:42] These changes directly affect

[3:45:43] historic properties, historic

[3:45:47] districts and the integrity of

[3:45:47] the city's preservation

[3:45:48] framework.

[3:45:51] Under secure any discretionary

[3:45:52] action that MAY cause a

[3:45:52] physical change to

[3:45:56] the environment requires

[3:45:56] environmental review.

[3:45:57] The secret guidelines to define

[3:46:01] a project broadly and city

[3:46:02] ordinances clearly fall within

[3:46:06] that definition When you weaken

[3:46:06] historic protections, you

[3:46:07] increase the likelihood of

[3:46:11] demolition alteration, arson

[3:46:12] and loss.

[3:46:12] That is a physical

[3:46:13] environmental impact.

[3:46:16] The staff's reliance on prior

[3:46:16] environmental documents is

[3:46:21] legally insufficient.

[3:46:22] Key provisions in package

[3:46:22] including the de novo appeal

[3:46:25] process and other substantial

[3:46:26] changes were never analyzed in

[3:46:26] prior ers.

[3:46:30] You cannot rely on old

[3:46:31] environmental documents to

[3:46:34] approve new policy changes that

[3:46:35] reduce protections.

[3:46:35] Square requires informed

[3:46:39] decision making based on

[3:46:40] current analysis.

[3:46:40] The courts have been clear

[3:46:44] changes to preservation

[3:46:45] ordinances can constitute

[3:46:49] secret projects when they MAY

[3:46:50] result in direct physical

[3:46:50] changes to historic resources

[3:46:54] Code revisions that reduce

[3:46:55] protections are not exempt

[3:46:59] Proceeding today without

[3:47:00] environmental review exposes

[3:47:04] the city to significant legal

[3:47:04] risk.

[3:47:05] The staff report itself

[3:47:05] acknowledges this proposal is

[3:47:09] part of a broader comprehensive

[3:47:10] update Segmenting parts a and b

[3:47:14] avoids analyzing the whole of

[3:47:15] the action and seek or

[3:47:16] prohibits this piecemeal way

[3:47:19] The law requires you to

[3:47:20] evaluate the full scope and

[3:47:24] cumulative impact of what you

[3:47:25] are doing and the impacts are

[3:47:25] real.

[3:47:28] With this we will lose Historic

[3:47:29] resources Package a-roads

[3:47:33] Historic District protections

[3:47:34] and strip safe strip safeguards

[3:47:35] from existing and pending

[3:47:39] districts including ocean

[3:47:39] beaches, Cottage district and

[3:47:43] the Asian thematic district.

[3:47:44] These changes would make it

[3:47:45] easier to alter or eliminate

[3:47:48] historic resources that

[3:47:49] contribute to neighborhood

[3:47:49] character and cultural identity

[3:47:53] and environmental impact Report

[3:47:54] is the legally required

[3:47:58] mechanism to identify impacts,

[3:47:59] consider alternatives and

[3:48:08] develop mitigation measures

[3:48:08] Regarding the Hrb rejected

[3:48:12] package the cpc 28 communities

[3:48:13] across the city rejected it

[3:48:18] over 500 written comments have

[3:48:19] been submitted with opposition

[3:48:22] outweighing support by roughly

[3:48:22] 12 to 1.

[3:48:26] That level of engagement is not

[3:48:27] incidental It reflects

[3:48:28] widespread concern across

[3:48:31] the city.

[3:48:32] You were recently reminded in

[3:48:33] Save Our Access versus City of

[3:48:36] San Diego that inadequate seek

[3:48:37] review carries consequences.

[3:48:38] The Court of Appeal ruled

[3:48:42] against the city for failing to

[3:48:43] conduct sufficient

[3:48:46] environmental risk analysis

[3:48:47] That is not abstract It is

[3:48:51] recent history moving forward

[3:48:52] today without full sequel

[3:48:56] review and in disregard of all

[3:48:56] of the advisory bodies and

[3:48:57] overwhelming public opposition

[3:49:01] would be premature and legally

[3:49:01] vulnerable.

[3:49:06] Historic resources are not

[3:49:06] obstacles to progress.

[3:49:07] They are part of San Diego's

[3:49:11] environment fabric just as

[3:49:12] surely as air, water and trees

[3:49:16] preservation and growth are not

[3:49:17] mutually exclusive but growth

[3:49:21] must proceed lawfully,

[3:49:22] transparently and with full

[3:49:26] environmental accountable city

[3:49:27] .

[3:49:27] You are being asked to approve

[3:49:28] sweeping structural changes

[3:49:32] without environmental veto that

[3:49:32] square requires.

[3:49:33] For these reasons we

[3:49:36] respectfully urge you to pause

[3:49:36] packaging and require

[3:49:40] comprehensive environmental

[3:49:41] review before proceeding.

[3:49:46] >> Thank you, Mayor.

[3:49:46] >> Thank you PRESIDENT

[3:49:47] Secretary Director Save our

[3:49:51] Heritage Organization and

[3:49:52] the historic the decision

[3:49:55] whether a property is historic

[3:49:55] or not is not the end all.

[3:49:56] You still retain the land and

[3:49:59] use decision you always have

[3:50:00] about whether the resource

[3:50:05] stays was demolished or or

[3:50:05] incorporated into

[3:50:09] the development or moved even

[3:50:10] It's simply a baseline This

[3:50:14] determination about whether a

[3:50:15] property is historic or not

[3:50:19] Just like another environmental

[3:50:19] determinations is whether

[3:50:24] the site like is the site of

[3:50:25] vernal pool or is it not a

[3:50:25] vernal pool.

[3:50:28] So it's just to identify it so

[3:50:29] it's properly treated and

[3:50:32] the process that moves forward

[3:50:33] It is a factual not political

[3:50:33] question.

[3:50:38] The land use decision, like I

[3:50:39] said, still remains in

[3:50:44] the council's hands.

[3:50:45] So there's been some complaints

[3:50:45] that you can't do the tradeoffs

[3:50:48] of the new project against

[3:50:48] the resource.

[3:50:49] Well that's not true.

[3:50:52] You always retain that and

[3:50:53] the discussion but you have to

[3:50:58] have the baseline discussion

[3:50:58] about whether that the resource

[3:51:02] is historic or not before you

[3:51:03] can even get there.

[3:51:06] And so it's a very important

[3:51:07] it's not a tool to stop

[3:51:11] development never has been even

[3:51:12] if there are some people that

[3:51:13] would like it to be it's not

[3:51:13] possible.

[3:51:17] It's a fact based process.

[3:51:22] People come to us sometimes and

[3:51:22] say Can you stop this

[3:51:23] development and said No we

[3:51:26] can't but we can determine

[3:51:30] whether the property there is

[3:51:31] historic or not and should be

[3:51:32] considered in the development

[3:51:35] process.

[3:51:36] It is actually extremely

[3:51:37] difficult for a property to

[3:51:40] qualify for a designation.

[3:51:41] It must meet a rigorous set of

[3:51:45] criteria a documented in a

[3:51:46] report of 100 160 pages or a

[3:51:46] longer review at public

[3:51:50] meetings and a supermajority

[3:51:54] vote by the h r b designation

[3:51:55] does not dictate what

[3:51:56] the property can be used for or

[3:52:00] whether it can be modified,

[3:52:00] moved or even demolished.

[3:52:01] It simply ensures that its fate

[3:52:05] is fairly considered along with

[3:52:05] community and environmental

[3:52:06] factors and the final land use

[3:52:09] decision.

[3:52:10] This is a red herring If all of

[3:52:11] the properties that we're

[3:52:14] potentially eligible for

[3:52:15] designation in the city of San

[3:52:19] Diego and represent around 1%

[3:52:20] of the built environment, this

[3:52:24] is not an issue.

[3:52:25] Well as in the iab report it

[3:52:28] says we only have conflicts of

[3:52:29] less than one a year in

[3:52:30] the last four years.

[3:52:33] I think maybe we have had two

[3:52:34] but they've all been resolved

[3:52:38] This is just not worth all

[3:52:39] the time and effort and money

[3:52:43] the city is spending on this.

[3:52:44] We have so has never stopped

[3:52:49] the development that MAY come

[3:52:49] as a surprise to some people

[3:52:50] with all the rhetoric out there

[3:52:53] but we never have.

[3:52:54] We've delayed some developments

[3:52:58] to get when you don't follow

[3:52:59] the process but we've never

[3:52:59] stopped the development where

[3:53:02] we get into real problems is

[3:53:03] when the city denies whether

[3:53:04] the property is historic or

[3:53:04] not.

[3:53:07] That's already been deemed by

[3:53:08] experts as historic doesn't

[3:53:12] work real well and the law This

[3:53:12] approach opens the doors to

[3:53:16] multiple legal challenges and

[3:53:17] delays.

[3:53:17] The right approach is what we

[3:53:21] saw with the Sports Arena

[3:53:22] project that the building was

[3:53:26] recognized as historic a report

[3:53:26] was done, it went through

[3:53:30] the process was designated and

[3:53:31] then the developer came back

[3:53:34] with the right argument,

[3:53:35] the one that's legally

[3:53:35] defensible.

[3:53:39] Well, we know it's historic but

[3:53:40] we can't use it in the new

[3:53:44] development and we think

[3:53:44] the development is more

[3:53:45] important and they made

[3:53:46] the case to get it removed That

[3:53:49] went through smoothly, no

[3:53:53] delays and was approved.

[3:53:54] That's the way it should be

[3:53:55] done If you deny it's historic.

[3:53:59] We have all kinds of challenges

[3:53:59] to that.

[3:54:00] If you say it's historic and I

[3:54:01] don't want it, it's a different

[3:54:07] argument The h r b and

[3:54:07] reviewing board bodies

[3:54:11] supported the decision on

[3:54:12] the on the sports arena in

[3:54:13] contrast from trying to deny

[3:54:16] something as historic as almost

[3:54:16] always creates unnecessary

[3:54:21] conflicts and delay the city

[3:54:21] council itself established

[3:54:25] the current process so subject

[3:54:26] matter experts not politicians

[3:54:26] would make the designation

[3:54:30] decisions.

[3:54:31] The structure was designed to

[3:54:35] save council time, avoid legal

[3:54:36] lengthy apparent appeal

[3:54:36] hearings and you know everybody

[3:54:41] that has an ax to grind come up

[3:54:41] here and appeal to the council

[3:54:45] for for no reason.

[3:54:46] This idea of de novo hearing

[3:54:49] comes up every few years has

[3:54:50] multiple times but no h r b is

[3:54:54] approved it no city council has

[3:54:59] approved it and that's because

[3:55:04] these proposals return change

[3:55:05] the fact based current process

[3:55:06] to a political free for all If

[3:55:10] the proposed new appeal grounds

[3:55:10] for de novo hearings were

[3:55:11] adopted anybody could appeal

[3:55:14] for any reason that would

[3:55:14] create more certainty for

[3:55:18] developers, not less and or

[3:55:19] whatever and inevitably

[3:55:20] increase both litigation and

[3:55:23] project delays.

[3:55:24] Instead we could move remove it

[3:55:25] entirely from your hands like

[3:55:29] we had to do with the historic

[3:55:31] districts as we have in process

[3:55:32] one and almost eight years like

[3:55:36] we had to do with them and we

[3:55:41] could go to the state or to

[3:55:42] the National Register or any

[3:55:42] other body and get it

[3:55:46] designated And you still have

[3:55:46] to deal with sequel.

[3:55:47] Remember the Coronado Railroad

[3:55:51] check almost ten years to

[3:55:52] resolve and three lawsuits

[3:55:56] before it was all resolved Each

[3:55:57] time the lawsuits were resolved

[3:55:57] in our favor And then we just

[3:56:01] got back to where we were at

[3:56:01] the beginning.

[3:56:02] We weren't trying to stop

[3:56:02] the project.

[3:56:03] We wanted as much of

[3:56:06] the resource preserved as part

[3:56:07] of the project as possible and

[3:56:10] it fairly treated not denying

[3:56:11] that it was historic just

[3:56:16] causes you know like I said

[3:56:17] the delays it's it's and you

[3:56:19] hear me laughing a little but I

[3:56:20] it just doesn't make any sense

[3:56:20] to do that.

[3:56:25] It's anyhow it could delay

[3:56:25] projects that could cost

[3:56:31] projects They had story tax

[3:56:32] credits as far as trying to use

[3:56:34] them because they're time

[3:56:35] sensitive and applying for tax

[3:56:39] credits.

[3:56:40] So none of this is possible in

[3:56:40] the current process because

[3:56:44] the h r b decisions currently

[3:56:44] are final.

[3:56:45] We have lost so many resources

[3:56:49] to decay fire, demolition,

[3:56:49] neglect and redevelopment Each

[3:56:54] year the number of surviving

[3:56:54] sites declines with

[3:56:55] the proposed changes even more

[3:56:58] of these era in irreplaceable

[3:56:59] resources will be lost.

[3:57:00] The whole reason this is being

[3:57:03] proposed is to demolish more

[3:57:04] historic structures than you do

[3:57:05] today.

[3:57:08] We should not make it easier to

[3:57:09] remove them.

[3:57:09] These are the sites that make

[3:57:13] San Diego beautiful

[3:57:14] economically prosper and help

[3:57:14] preserve naturally occurring

[3:57:18] affordable housing.

[3:57:19] They are what make our city

[3:57:19] unique The places places that

[3:57:23] sets San Diego apart and make

[3:57:24] it one of the most desirable

[3:57:25] places to live and visit

[3:57:28] the few years ago Los Angeles

[3:57:32] checked to see what heritage

[3:57:33] tourism visitors who actually

[3:57:37] spend twice as much spend twice

[3:57:38] as long as other tourists we're

[3:57:39] looking at in Southern

[3:57:39] California.

[3:57:42] And so they studied San Diego.

[3:57:43] Do you think we would have

[3:57:44] studied it?

[3:57:47] But as the neighborhoods it's

[3:57:47] the world being in a place

[3:57:48] different from where they were

[3:57:52] from, they want to experience

[3:57:52] being there, sitting in a cafe

[3:57:56] on the street and enjoying

[3:57:56] the ambiance.

[3:57:57] But once these resources are

[3:58:01] gone they're gone forever.

[3:58:02] You MAY wonder why we fight so

[3:58:02] hard.

[3:58:05] Well, we don't get a second

[3:58:06] chance.

[3:58:06] The quality of life is

[3:58:10] irreparably diminished when we

[3:58:10] lose these resources.

[3:58:14] Finally well not finally you

[3:58:15] you don't have the information

[3:58:15] required by law to make

[3:58:19] the decision today the city has

[3:58:20] not completed the necessary

[3:58:21] environmental review analysis

[3:58:25] are provided the mitigate and

[3:58:25] some people forget that that's

[3:58:29] required to support such a

[3:58:29] decision.

[3:58:30] Without that work you cannot

[3:58:33] legally process this proposal.

[3:58:34] You are legally obligated to

[3:58:39] reject it outright and tell

[3:58:39] the required studies are

[3:58:44] completed But the thing I mean

[3:58:45] here about a little

[3:58:48] disingenuous on the Ocean Beach

[3:58:49] district saying it's it's a few

[3:58:53] cottages but staff doesn't know

[3:58:54] what the resources are and

[3:58:54] should be should they haven't

[3:58:57] done the survey It's commercial

[3:58:58] it's recreational.

[3:59:02] There is a whole part called

[3:59:03] Wonderland.

[3:59:03] Part of that is still there.

[3:59:08] It's social it's community

[3:59:08] activism.

[3:59:13] It's national activism.

[3:59:13] They're there.

[3:59:14] The churches, the businesses

[3:59:18] are full Survey has to be done

[3:59:19] before you know what there is

[3:59:19] to be lost And you can't do

[3:59:23] that without moving a district

[3:59:27] nomination forward or seeking

[3:59:28] to remove a current protection

[3:59:28] that's currently in place

[3:59:32] without doing the work.

[3:59:33] Yeah, that is also not legally

[3:59:37] enforceable.

[3:59:38] So it's extremely important

[3:59:42] that you take the time to do

[3:59:43] this right.

[3:59:43] Strip out Nobel hearing, strip

[3:59:46] out the Ocean Beach one and

[3:59:47] move forward.

[3:59:47] Please do not forward

[3:59:51] the current proposal as there

[3:59:51] is now.

[3:59:52] >> Yeah Yeah.

[3:59:55] Craig Sherman Not here Craig

[4:00:02] Sherman Christian Harms Good

[4:00:07] afternoon I'm Kristen Harms

[4:00:08] with the University Heights

[4:00:09] Historical Society and I'm here

[4:00:12] speaking on behalf of

[4:00:13] the Neighborhood Preserve

[4:00:13] Neighborhood Historic

[4:00:17] Preservation Coalition in

[4:00:17] strong opposition to package a

[4:00:21] the Coalition represents 12

[4:00:22] neighborhood based preservation

[4:00:23] organizations I think many of

[4:00:26] which are here today.

[4:00:27] Raise your hands that have

[4:00:31] decades of experience working

[4:00:32] collaboratively with the city

[4:00:33] on preservation policy and

[4:00:37] implementation Yet Package a

[4:00:37] was advanced without meaningful

[4:00:42] community input and prioritizes

[4:00:42] development efficiency over

[4:00:43] the protection of our

[4:00:46] irreplaceable all historic

[4:00:47] resources Package weakens

[4:00:52] protections makes it easier to

[4:00:52] overturn historic designations

[4:00:56] allows de novo review that

[4:00:57] politicizes decisions and

[4:00:57] separates environmental review

[4:01:01] in ways that avoid a full

[4:01:02] evaluation of impacts.

[4:01:06] It will also accelerate

[4:01:06] the loss of historic resources

[4:01:07] in Ocean Beach Historic

[4:01:12] District Comment Please reject

[4:01:12] Thank you package and comment.

[4:01:13] Alison Stewart You're our final

[4:01:14] speaker here in Council

[4:01:19] chambers Thank you.

[4:01:20] My name is Elisa.

[4:01:20] I'm a longtime Ocean Beach

[4:01:21] resident here to oppose

[4:01:24] the approval of preservation

[4:01:24] and package progress Package a

[4:01:29] what is being presented under

[4:01:29] the guise of preservation is

[4:01:30] actually doing the opposite of

[4:01:34] that for our beloved town of

[4:01:34] Ocean Beach.

[4:01:35] This package claims to align

[4:01:36] with the Strategic Plan to

[4:01:39] protect and enrich our

[4:01:40] neighborhoods via opportunities

[4:01:43] for new homes which in itself

[4:01:44] is a paradox because you can't

[4:01:45] protect enrich anything when

[4:01:48] you're Infilling our already

[4:01:48] small lots with new

[4:01:49] development.

[4:01:53] >> It also claims to champions

[4:01:53] sustainability by permitting

[4:01:54] new homes located near transit

[4:01:58] But there is no sufficient

[4:01:59] transit in Ocean Beach that

[4:02:02] will compensate for the strain

[4:02:03] that this will put on

[4:02:03] the already difficult parking

[4:02:04] situation in our town.

[4:02:07] Your number one job as City

[4:02:08] Council members is to represent

[4:02:09] the interests of your

[4:02:12] constituents and I promise that

[4:02:13] none of your constituents in

[4:02:14] any district support this.

[4:02:17] Elections are coming up this

[4:02:18] summer for half of you and

[4:02:19] they'll be for the other half

[4:02:23] soon And we will not forget how

[4:02:24] you voted on that when we vote

[4:02:24] at the ballot box.

[4:02:25] >> Thank you.

[4:02:27] Concluding comments.

[4:02:31] >> That is the last speaker but

[4:02:32] there's going to be a lot of

[4:02:33] people online.

[4:02:33] Just try to hold it down.

[4:02:37] I think we're getting a clue

[4:02:38] about who's out there and what

[4:02:39] your feelings are.

[4:02:42] >> I started the five minute

[4:02:42] timer going to those

[4:02:43] participating online.

[4:02:46] It is one minute each.

[4:02:47] We currently have nine speakers

[4:02:47] in the queue starting with

[4:02:48] Kevin Hastings If you can

[4:02:53] please unmute.

[4:02:54] >> Hi, I'm Kevin Hastings.

[4:02:58] I'm on the lobby planning group

[4:02:58] .

[4:02:59] They did not support this

[4:02:59] package.

[4:03:03] The cpc did not support it.

[4:03:03] The historic Resources Board

[4:03:04] does not support it.

[4:03:07] So I'd like to know for anyone

[4:03:08] voting for this what

[4:03:09] qualifications you guys have to

[4:03:13] vote contrary to these experts.

[4:03:17] MR. Danko said the purpose of

[4:03:18] packaging one of them is to

[4:03:19] quote identify and protect

[4:03:22] historical properties and

[4:03:23] district.

[4:03:23] So I suggest instead of staff

[4:03:27] spending time to erase the or b

[4:03:28] Cottage district from their

[4:03:28] website and erase it from

[4:03:32] the municipal code, spend that

[4:03:32] time serving our district for

[4:03:33] contributing resources.

[4:03:38] Staff are doing this in 12

[4:03:38] other neighborhoods.

[4:03:39] MR. Eco showed a map of Obi's

[4:03:41] concentration compared to other

[4:03:42] historic districts.

[4:03:42] The difference there is those

[4:03:45] districts have all those dots

[4:03:46] because they've actually been

[4:03:46] surveys.

[4:03:50] O b deserves a survey before

[4:03:51] being wiped off the map.

[4:03:51] Thank you.

[4:03:54] Next is Craig Benedetto.

[4:03:59] >> If you can please unmute.

[4:04:00] >> Good afternoon.

[4:04:01] Craig Benedetto speaking today

[4:04:05] on behalf of ne of San Diego.

[4:04:05] We are here today to speak in

[4:04:06] support of the staff

[4:04:06] recommendation.

[4:04:07] We'd like to recognize

[4:04:09] the Planning Department for

[4:04:10] their efforts to try and

[4:04:11] balance all the inputs through

[4:04:11] this thorough engagement

[4:04:12] process.

[4:04:14] We believe this is a balanced,

[4:04:15] very modest package of changes

[4:04:15] that reflects the city's

[4:04:16] commitment to historic

[4:04:19] preservation of important

[4:04:19] resources as well as its

[4:04:20] commitment to stakeholder

[4:04:20] engagement and input.

[4:04:24] It also commits to an

[4:04:24] appropriate process for

[4:04:25] appeals.

[4:04:25] The concerns being expressed

[4:04:29] that the council can't weigh

[4:04:29] the technical merits and a de

[4:04:30] novo hearing is just incorrect.

[4:04:33] You handle these kinds of

[4:04:33] issues every day and you are

[4:04:34] elected to listen to the voices

[4:04:35] of all of your constituents and

[4:04:37] you do.

[4:04:38] Please keep in mind that San

[4:04:39] Diego is the outlier.

[4:04:39] Most other jurisdictions

[4:04:43] reserve historic designation

[4:04:43] and appeals to the highest

[4:04:44] elected body.

[4:04:44] Ultimately we believe that

[4:04:47] changes can be made to

[4:04:48] the city's historic review

[4:04:49] process that protects important

[4:04:49] resources, allows for all

[4:04:53] voices to be heard while also

[4:04:53] reducing inappropriate

[4:04:54] impediments to the creation of

[4:04:55] much needed new housing.

[4:04:58] Thank you for your

[4:04:59] consideration your support of

[4:04:59] the staff recommendation.

[4:05:03] >> Peter if you can please and

[4:05:03] mute.

[4:05:04] Peter Kempson.

[4:05:07] Hello.

[4:05:07] Hi.

[4:05:08] Can you hear me?

[4:05:08] Yes.

[4:05:09] Please proceed.

[4:05:13] Peter Gibson.

[4:05:14] I opposed packages from

[4:05:14] the council tonight Package a

[4:05:17] revised to remove the de novo

[4:05:18] appeal for historic

[4:05:18] designations and leave

[4:05:21] the appeals process as is.

[4:05:22] Prior to 97 the historic site

[4:05:23] board was only advisory and

[4:05:26] council could and did

[4:05:27] relitigate almost every case.

[4:05:28] The Council deliberately

[4:05:31] shifted to the current model

[4:05:32] for reasons of expertise,

[4:05:32] efficiency and consistency.

[4:05:36] The uncertainty others have

[4:05:37] complained about comes from

[4:05:37] decades of underfunding city

[4:05:38] surveys and not implementing

[4:05:41] historic districts.

[4:05:42] Recreating a process that did

[4:05:43] not work will not fix

[4:05:43] the issue.

[4:05:46] I also ask the city Council a

[4:05:47] package of advice to ensure

[4:05:48] that all districts are treated

[4:05:50] the same and not single out a

[4:05:50] single community.

[4:05:51] Establishing boundaries.

[4:05:54] All properties must have a

[4:05:55] relationship contributing or

[4:05:55] not.

[4:05:56] To ensure that package achieves

[4:05:59] its goal of advancing equity

[4:06:00] preservation, it cannot single

[4:06:01] out a single community such as

[4:06:01] Ocean Beach.

[4:06:04] Thank you.

[4:06:05] >> Next is Daniel if you can

[4:06:06] please.

[4:06:09] Um you.

[4:06:09] Hello.

[4:06:14] My name is Daniel Dan.

[4:06:15] I believe that package weakens

[4:06:15] protections for historic

[4:06:19] resources and allows political

[4:06:20] override of expert decisions

[4:06:20] through de novo appeals.

[4:06:24] I ask the City council to stand

[4:06:25] with the community and reject

[4:06:28] package as currently written.

[4:06:29] This proposal would result in

[4:06:30] the permanent loss of historic

[4:06:32] resources and it should be sent

[4:06:33] back to be made better with

[4:06:34] meaningful community input.

[4:06:37] I care deeply about

[4:06:38] the neighborhoods and historic

[4:06:39] homes in San Diego.

[4:06:39] I believe there is way too much

[4:06:43] focus on increasing new housing

[4:06:43] at any cost to the character of

[4:06:44] our city.

[4:06:48] Already even in my non historic

[4:06:49] neighborhood of Mira mesa most

[4:06:50] of the 80 use allowed or too

[4:06:53] large and the architecture

[4:06:53] clashes with the homes built

[4:06:57] here by and large in the 1970s

[4:06:57] and 1980s.

[4:06:58] The 80 you stand out like a

[4:06:59] sore thumb are and are

[4:07:02] positioned in ridiculous

[4:07:02] locations and front yards

[4:07:03] looming over residents

[4:07:06] backyards ruining the views of

[4:07:07] neighbors and impacting

[4:07:08] communities with more vehicles

[4:07:08] And crowded parking in a

[4:07:11] neighborhood already notorious

[4:07:11] for too many cars.

[4:07:16] Please reject package a.

[4:07:16] Next is Katherine Rhodes.

[4:07:20] If you can please unmute.

[4:07:21] Hello.

[4:07:21] This is Katherine Rhodes from

[4:07:22] the pli Heritage.

[4:07:25] It was great to see community

[4:07:26] activist Mandy Havlik who's

[4:07:26] running for council district to

[4:07:30] oppose package.

[4:07:31] The Ocean Beach community does

[4:07:31] not want these changes put

[4:07:35] forth by developers and I'm

[4:07:36] just going to talk about some

[4:07:36] I'll be talking points.

[4:07:41] The historic nature of Kobe is

[4:07:41] undisputed.

[4:07:44] The community is historic not

[4:07:45] just single lot.

[4:07:45] >> Applications for her

[4:07:46] historic district was filed

[4:07:49] with the state in 1999.

[4:07:50] Residents and property owners

[4:07:54] has relied on this designation

[4:07:55] for over a quarter of a

[4:07:55] century.

[4:07:56] Bob needs protection.

[4:07:59] It's already one of the densest

[4:08:00] communities with smaller lot

[4:08:03] size rear yard homes and

[4:08:04] multiple apartments.

[4:08:04] 70 to 80% of all be residents

[4:08:08] are renters.

[4:08:09] Lp is not some all rich white

[4:08:13] exclusive neighborhood made up

[4:08:14] of entirely single family

[4:08:14] homes.

[4:08:18] Historic Resource Board opposed

[4:08:19] to the Community Planning

[4:08:19] Committee post at the Ocean

[4:08:22] Beach Planning Board opposed it

[4:08:23] and your time has my apologies.

[4:08:28] Your time has concluded.

[4:08:28] The five minute timer has also

[4:08:29] concluded There are five people

[4:08:30] in the queue.

[4:08:33] The additional people will be

[4:08:33] taken the original If you can

[4:08:34] please unmute and the double

[4:08:37] speak in this item is off

[4:08:38] the chart You guys circumvent

[4:08:39] the will of the people all

[4:08:42] the time No matter how many

[4:08:43] times people say they don't

[4:08:43] want it you will go above and

[4:08:47] beyond them to try and

[4:08:47] implement something And all

[4:08:48] while you're sitting here

[4:08:51] saying that it's going to

[4:08:52] preserve or protect you Use

[4:08:53] the gaslighting words that do

[4:08:56] the complete opposite it And

[4:08:57] you guys you're going to pass

[4:08:57] this.

[4:08:58] That's what's so sad is that

[4:09:02] you we hear you look out for do

[4:09:03] you and are you going to do

[4:09:05] the right thing because your

[4:09:06] actions will speak very loudly

[4:09:07] more than your words And it's

[4:09:10] like you guys sit here and just

[4:09:11] the fact that you use other

[4:09:15] means to go above and beyond

[4:09:16] the people when you sit here

[4:09:17] and say you represent them, you

[4:09:19] want to do the best for them

[4:09:20] and then you go around.

[4:09:21] So it's just people need to

[4:09:24] really pay attention and see

[4:09:25] that this government that is in

[4:09:29] place that you didn't install

[4:09:30] that has been installed because

[4:09:30] they need them there to do

[4:09:31] these things that they don't

[4:09:34] care about You and they will

[4:09:35] never do what's in your best

[4:09:35] interest.

[4:09:36] As you can see time and time

[4:09:40] again.

[4:09:40] Next is Rene Moser.

[4:09:43] If you can please unmute.

[4:09:44] >> Hi, good afternoon Chair and

[4:09:45] council members.

[4:09:49] My name is Rene Mazur with

[4:09:50] the Atlantic Group and we

[4:09:51] wanted to thank staff for their

[4:09:51] thoughtful and comprehensive

[4:09:53] work on Package a We support

[4:09:54] the general Plan amendments.

[4:09:54] The Targeted Land Development

[4:09:58] Code updates and the refocusing

[4:09:58] of the Historic Preservation

[4:09:59] Fund to advance equity and

[4:10:03] support Historically

[4:10:03] underrepresented communities.

[4:10:04] The clarifications regarding

[4:10:08] complete communities housing

[4:10:08] solutions with within emerging

[4:10:09] and thematic historic districts

[4:10:12] provide important regulatory

[4:10:13] clarity while maintaining

[4:10:14] protections for designated

[4:10:17] contributing resources.

[4:10:18] We look forward to Package b

[4:10:19] and we respectfully encourage

[4:10:19] your approval.

[4:10:22] Thank you.

[4:10:23] >> Next is Jeffrey Ansen.

[4:10:27] If you can please unmute.

[4:10:28] >> So this is Jeffrey Hansen

[4:10:32] for Craig Sherman apc You

[4:10:33] received a letter now on behalf

[4:10:36] of Coastal caretakers received

[4:10:37] a letter commenting on ceqa

[4:10:38] issues And I know that you've

[4:10:41] heard a lot about that today.

[4:10:41] If you could please review that

[4:10:45] letter as well as the coastal

[4:10:46] caretakers letter and vote no

[4:10:46] on item 332.

[4:10:50] I would add one additional

[4:10:50] piece.

[4:10:51] There's case cited protection

[4:10:55] of Oakland's architectural and

[4:10:56] historic resources v city of

[4:10:56] Oakland that cases cited in

[4:11:00] the letter and I just want to

[4:11:01] quote to you that that court

[4:11:05] quote decline to adopt

[4:11:06] the position that nothing less

[4:11:06] than official designation of a

[4:11:10] building as an historic and

[4:11:15] resource is suffices to trigger

[4:11:15] secular requirements and in

[4:11:16] fact it's a determination of

[4:11:20] whether the property MAY be

[4:11:20] eligible for listing.

[4:11:25] So when you review the letter,

[4:11:25] please keep that in mind on

[4:11:29] that second issue and with

[4:11:29] that, thank you.

[4:11:34] >> Next is Patricia Foley

[4:11:35] again.

[4:11:35] If you raise your hand after

[4:11:36] the five minute time where you

[4:11:37] can definitely send in your

[4:11:40] comments the city clerk at San

[4:11:41] diego.Gov and they will be

[4:11:41] distributed.

[4:11:44] >> Patricia please proceed.

[4:11:44] Hi Yes dear council members can

[4:11:48] you hear me?

[4:11:49] Yes.

[4:11:49] Please proceed.

[4:11:49] Okay.

[4:11:50] I'm sorry.

[4:11:50] Okay.

[4:11:51] Protect our historic district's

[4:11:53] reject package.

[4:11:54] All town stands is another

[4:11:55] clear example of long term

[4:11:58] disinvestment in historic and

[4:11:59] cultural resources.

[4:11:59] >> Presidio already identified

[4:12:04] on Soho's most endangered list

[4:12:04] along with El Campo, Santo and

[4:12:05] the Adobe Chapel represent some

[4:12:08] of the last remaining historic

[4:12:08] structures outside of the core

[4:12:09] historic district the new

[4:12:13] tribal Park and state Historic

[4:12:14] Park.

[4:12:15] And let us remember Old Town is

[4:12:15] part of the most visited state

[4:12:18] historic perking California.

[4:12:18] More importantly, over 200

[4:12:23] tribal members and descendants

[4:12:23] remain buried at Presidio.

[4:12:24] Yet the neglect continues.

[4:12:28] Fires Encampments, biohazard

[4:12:29] hazardous waste, human impacts

[4:12:33] broken chain link fencing,

[4:12:34] debris, invisible burn areas.

[4:12:38] This is a national historic

[4:12:38] landmark.

[4:12:39] With this level of

[4:12:39] deterioration be tolerated at

[4:12:42] Cabrillo National Monument or

[4:12:43] at any other historic cemetery

[4:12:47] in San Diego, your time has

[4:12:48] completed.

[4:12:48] >> My apologies.

[4:12:49] Your time has concluded.

[4:12:51] Hobbs is our final speaker.

[4:12:56] If you can please unmute I was

[4:13:01] I can't unmute for you.

[4:13:01] Sorry.

[4:13:05] Thank you for including me.

[4:13:09] I'm here to speak that I'd like

[4:13:14] to see the proposal denied for

[4:13:19] the many reasons that people

[4:13:19] have spoke today including that

[4:13:20] removing these protections

[4:13:23] would erode the character of

[4:13:24] Ocean Beach and it would not

[4:13:28] create affordable housing

[4:13:28] the taller out of scale

[4:13:33] incompatible developments once

[4:13:33] they're introduced the damage

[4:13:34] will be permanent and

[4:13:35] the unique charm and

[4:13:37] the historic fabric of ocean

[4:13:38] Beach will be replaced by

[4:13:38] structures that will be

[4:13:39] suffering The connection

[4:13:42] between the communities past

[4:13:43] and its future.

[4:13:43] Thank you.

[4:13:44] Thank you.

[4:13:45] And that does conclude public

[4:13:48] comment on this item.

[4:13:48] >> Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[4:13:49] All right.

[4:13:52] Thank you City Clerk Thank you

[4:13:53] for everybody who showed up in

[4:13:54] chambers to speak.

[4:13:54] Thank you For those who see

[4:13:57] the time because it's so much

[4:13:58] more efficient and we actually

[4:13:58] get a better story for those

[4:14:02] who put their words together

[4:14:02] over ten 15 minutes.

[4:14:06] >> But I appreciate those who

[4:14:07] actually speak for one minute

[4:14:08] and try to pack a lot in and

[4:14:11] that 60s Thank you city Clerk

[4:14:12] for once again handling it very

[4:14:16] professionally and courteously

[4:14:16] with all the folks many who

[4:14:17] showed up for the first time.

[4:14:21] So with that will now turn it

[4:14:21] over to our council members for

[4:14:22] questions, comments and

[4:14:26] entertain a motion.

[4:14:26] >> So we'll start with council

[4:14:27] member Campbell.

[4:14:27] Thank you so much.

[4:14:30] Council PRESIDENT And thank you

[4:14:31] for the presentation and thank

[4:14:32] you for everyone who came in to

[4:14:35] speak.

[4:14:36] This is citywide not just be

[4:14:40] but I love my observations and

[4:14:41] that's with my district So I'm

[4:14:45] I'm so happy to see you all.

[4:14:46] I want you to remember that I

[4:14:46] vote against complete

[4:14:50] communities.

[4:14:51] I was the only one who voted

[4:14:51] against taking away parking

[4:14:55] from multifamily structures

[4:14:56] etc. Etc. So I got to tell you

[4:14:59] I'm your friend and I just I

[4:15:00] just want to say that I'm going

[4:15:01] to have a few questions here

[4:15:04] that I think will help you to

[4:15:09] understand what it is that is

[4:15:10] the real meat of what this is

[4:15:10] today.

[4:15:11] And so the first thing I'd like

[4:15:14] to ask staff could you please

[4:15:15] explain the three types of

[4:15:20] historic designation liens And

[4:15:21] this has to do with houses.

[4:15:21] This doesn't have to do with

[4:15:24] the wonderful fact that Obx is

[4:15:25] a historic area.

[4:15:25] It has a great history.

[4:15:29] It's a fun place.

[4:15:29] I think everyone in San Diego

[4:15:33] loves it who's ever visited it

[4:15:33] and I know all our tourists

[4:15:35] love it as well but that is not

[4:15:38] the same thing as a historic

[4:15:39] designation of a property.

[4:15:42] So if you could please explain

[4:15:44] I'm happy to And I think in in

[4:15:48] providing the information it

[4:15:49] might be helpful to just to

[4:15:49] share a little bit about my

[4:15:53] history with the program.

[4:15:54] I've been working with the city

[4:15:54] for 24 years, almost all of

[4:15:58] that in historic preservation.

[4:15:59] I worked on bringing forward

[4:15:59] additional properties for

[4:16:00] designation as part of

[4:16:03] the Ocean Beach Cottage

[4:16:03] Emerging District.

[4:16:04] I wrote our current historic

[4:16:05] district policy.

[4:16:08] I wrote the historic

[4:16:09] preservation element of

[4:16:09] the Ocean Beach Community Plan

[4:16:13] which calls for intensively

[4:16:13] surveying the community and

[4:16:17] bringing and converting

[4:16:18] the district from a district to

[4:16:22] a multiple property listing

[4:16:23] which just like a emerging

[4:16:23] district only regulates

[4:16:27] the contributing resource is

[4:16:28] And I also wrote the current

[4:16:29] language is incomplete

[4:16:29] communities that we are

[4:16:32] clarifying today so I'm I'm

[4:16:33] very familiar with the program

[4:16:33] with the history of

[4:16:37] the district.

[4:16:41] That being said, the ocean

[4:16:42] Beach Cottage Emerging District

[4:16:46] was designated in 2000 after

[4:16:46] the Ocean Beach Historical

[4:16:47] Society approached the city in

[4:16:51] around 1998 with a desire to

[4:16:52] designate beach cottages in

[4:16:56] their community.

[4:16:56] However they wanted that any

[4:17:00] potential designation to be

[4:17:01] voluntary They did not want to

[4:17:02] force property owners to

[4:17:05] designate as part of

[4:17:05] designation of the district

[4:17:09] staff in the historical

[4:17:10] Resources Board looked at

[4:17:11] the information that the Ocean

[4:17:12] Beach Historical Society pulled

[4:17:15] together and found that

[4:17:16] the properties did not qualify

[4:17:16] for designation as a

[4:17:20] traditional historic district.

[4:17:20] >> And I'll pull back up on

[4:17:24] the slot on the screen here.

[4:17:25] The comparison on Slide 15

[4:17:26] between a traditional historic

[4:17:29] district and the Ocean Beach

[4:17:29] Cottage emerging historic

[4:17:33] district The Ocean Beach

[4:17:34] Cottage District is

[4:17:38] thematically based meaning it

[4:17:42] applies only to beach cottages

[4:17:48] constructed between 1887 and

[4:17:49] 1931 that have been volunteered

[4:17:49] by the property owner for

[4:17:49] designation of the boundary

[4:17:49] that is drawn on the map simply

[4:17:52] shows where those resources can

[4:17:53] be located because you're not

[4:17:54] going to find, you know, an

[4:17:58] ocean beach cottage in, you

[4:17:58] know, North Park or La Hoya.

[4:17:59] However, we have to draw a

[4:18:00] boundary on a map to show you

[4:18:03] where they are.

[4:18:04] But within that if we can

[4:18:05] advance one more slide please.

[4:18:05] Thank you.

[4:18:08] Within that only the designated

[4:18:09] pink contributing resources are

[4:18:12] regulated and that's because

[4:18:13] those resources are scattered

[4:18:17] So far throughout the district

[4:18:18] and lack a concentration that

[4:18:22] creates a sense of place

[4:18:23] Contrasting that with a

[4:18:27] traditional historic district

[4:18:27] on the left such as South Park

[4:18:28] and most of our historic

[4:18:32] districts in the city And those

[4:18:33] cases the vast majority of

[4:18:33] properties contribute to why

[4:18:34] this the district is

[4:18:37] significant.

[4:18:38] It creates a sense of place

[4:18:38] that you are trying to protect

[4:18:42] a collective significance that

[4:18:43] you are trying to protect and

[4:18:43] that is why we regulate all

[4:18:46] properties within those

[4:18:47] traditional historic districts.

[4:18:48] Ocean Beach is our only

[4:18:51] emerging historic district.

[4:18:52] That district type was created

[4:18:56] for Ocean Beach in response to

[4:18:57] what the Ocean Beach Historical

[4:18:57] Society was bringing forward at

[4:19:01] that time We no longer have an

[4:19:02] emerging historic district type

[4:19:02] in our historic district policy

[4:19:06] because it's not consistent

[4:19:06] with historic preservation

[4:19:07] practices.

[4:19:10] So it is the one and only

[4:19:10] district and it's why we have

[4:19:11] recommended that it be

[4:19:14] converted to a multiple

[4:19:19] property listing in the future

[4:19:19] .

[4:19:19] Thank you.

[4:19:24] So in other words there are

[4:19:25] three designations o b is not a

[4:19:28] historic district.

[4:19:33] It has an emerging district

[4:19:36] quality about it from the year

[4:19:37] 2000 there was a time limit on

[4:19:41] the number on the number of

[4:19:42] years that it could take to

[4:19:47] become a historic district and

[4:19:51] that was 27 years ago And that

[4:19:56] the consideration of which

[4:19:57] properties bought that is not

[4:19:57] the city's job.

[4:20:01] Can you please explain how is

[4:20:02] it that a household that wishes

[4:20:05] to be a historic designation

[4:20:06] gets to be that way?

[4:20:06] Sure.

[4:20:10] So the Ocean Beach Cottage

[4:20:11] Emerging Historic District is a

[4:20:15] designated historic district.

[4:20:16] It's just a different type of

[4:20:16] district.

[4:20:17] It is an emerging district and

[4:20:20] it is voluntary in nature.

[4:20:21] So in order for a property to

[4:20:22] be designated as part of that

[4:20:25] district, the property owner

[4:20:26] would need to approach heritage

[4:20:29] preservation staff and request

[4:20:29] that designation.

[4:20:30] We would require some minimal

[4:20:34] documentation from them about

[4:20:35] their building and how it meets

[4:20:39] the theme and and

[4:20:40] the significance of

[4:20:40] the district.

[4:20:41] And then we would take that

[4:20:42] forward to the Historical

[4:20:44] Resources Board for for

[4:20:45] designation.

[4:20:48] We have not had any requests

[4:20:48] since 2008.

[4:20:49] There were seven updates to

[4:20:49] the district after it was

[4:20:52] originally designated that

[4:20:53] resulted in the current 72

[4:20:54] properties but we have not had

[4:20:56] any new requests since 2008.

[4:20:57] If we did receive one we would

[4:21:01] bring it forward.

[4:21:02] I'll also just add briefly that

[4:21:07] within the district since only

[4:21:07] the contributing parcels are

[4:21:08] regulated as part of

[4:21:11] the district, everything else

[4:21:12] within the community is

[4:21:13] reviewed as an over 45 review

[4:21:16] meaning the city's requirement

[4:21:17] that any property that's 45

[4:21:17] years old or older has to be

[4:21:20] reviewed for potential

[4:21:21] significance when there's a

[4:21:22] building permit application.

[4:21:26] If we see a cottage come across

[4:21:26] our desk during that review

[4:21:27] process which doesn't happen

[4:21:31] very often but if it does we

[4:21:31] will flag for the property

[4:21:32] owner that hey you could be

[4:21:33] eligible as part of this

[4:21:36] district if you were interested

[4:21:37] and we provide the information

[4:21:38] but we ultimately cannot compel

[4:21:41] them to participate in

[4:21:41] the district.

[4:21:45] Thank you.

[4:21:46] So you have to ask for it.

[4:21:46] Okay.

[4:21:50] And you have to fit

[4:21:53] the requirements of being built

[4:21:54] between 1887 and 1931 and

[4:21:55] the Ocean Beach Historical

[4:21:58] Society which asked for

[4:21:59] the emerging idea was to

[4:22:03] complete a comprehensive survey

[4:22:04] of the community over the past

[4:22:09] 27 years and evidently that has

[4:22:09] not been done.

[4:22:10] But it doesn't matter because

[4:22:13] still when a property comes up

[4:22:14] to the city like that we still

[4:22:14] ask the historic board to

[4:22:17] review it.

[4:22:22] Does this change?

[4:22:23] Well, let me just say why we're

[4:22:26] having this change over my

[4:22:27] seven years on this council I

[4:22:28] have seen the historic Resource

[4:22:31] Board decisions that come to

[4:22:32] the Council are sometimes

[4:22:36] confusing sounding,

[4:22:37] particularly given the strict

[4:22:41] limitations on what the Council

[4:22:41] is allowed to discuss by law

[4:22:46] about these things.

[4:22:47] And so this fourth option will

[4:22:51] give the Council more ability

[4:22:52] to articulate the points that

[4:22:56] we find pertinent and provide

[4:22:56] guidance moving forward.

[4:22:57] We certainly do not want to

[4:23:01] lose our historic ness in San

[4:23:01] Diego.

[4:23:06] Now importantly, this policy

[4:23:06] clarifies that complete

[4:23:11] communities is still allowed

[4:23:12] and thematic and emerging

[4:23:12] districts so there's no change

[4:23:15] there.

[4:23:16] Does this have anything to do

[4:23:20] with sequence or ada use?

[4:23:21] >> No, it doesn't have anything

[4:23:25] to do with 80 use.

[4:23:29] We do review and approve 80

[4:23:30] used on designated parcels and

[4:23:30] in designated historical

[4:23:31] districts all the time So it's

[4:23:34] not related to accessory

[4:23:35] dwelling units in terms of

[4:23:39] square.

[4:23:39] Our environmental analysis

[4:23:40] staff and the City Planning

[4:23:43] Department has reviewed package

[4:23:44] a and has prepared a

[4:23:48] consistency memo finding that

[4:23:49] the package is consistent with

[4:23:49] the analysis and other

[4:23:53] environmental impact reports

[4:23:54] prepared for other initiatives

[4:23:55] and that there are no new

[4:23:55] impacts and if there's any

[4:23:59] additional detail that's needed

[4:23:59] on that I'm happy to invite our

[4:24:04] environmental staff up to

[4:24:04] clarify.

[4:24:05] >> Well, I don't think that's

[4:24:05] necessary.

[4:24:09] You don't have to worry.

[4:24:09] It doesn't involve that and it

[4:24:13] doesn't involve ada use And I'm

[4:24:14] afraid you've been misled as to

[4:24:14] how huge it is.

[4:24:18] It's not huge is just to help

[4:24:19] the council so that when

[4:24:23] there's a strange request that

[4:24:23] we don't quite agree with we

[4:24:27] can ask other questions and

[4:24:28] make decisions based on other

[4:24:31] things besides the limited

[4:24:32] amount that the law says we can

[4:24:33] at this point.

[4:24:37] So that's what I'd like to say

[4:24:41] is that this is for the whole

[4:24:42] city that we're on your side

[4:24:46] and that this will help us to

[4:24:47] make better decisions.

[4:24:50] So for that reason I would like

[4:24:50] to move staff's recommendation.

[4:24:55] >> Thank you.

[4:24:55] All right.

[4:24:56] We have a motion by Council

[4:24:57] member Campbell to move

[4:25:00] the staff recommendation and

[4:25:00] we'll go next to Council member

[4:25:01] Whitburn.

[4:25:01] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[4:25:05] Thank you both Stanko and to

[4:25:06] the Planning Department for

[4:25:07] the presentation and your work

[4:25:09] on this package.

[4:25:10] I also want to thank

[4:25:11] the historic preservation

[4:25:14] groups and all the community

[4:25:15] members who turned out this

[4:25:15] afternoon for this

[4:25:16] conversation.

[4:25:19] I appreciate the time that many

[4:25:20] of you have taken to be with me

[4:25:24] and my staff and your passion

[4:25:24] for protecting San Diego's

[4:25:28] history.

[4:25:29] It's good to see longtime

[4:25:30] friends in this chamber who

[4:25:30] have different perspectives on

[4:25:32] this issue.

[4:25:33] I share the goal of having a

[4:25:34] historic preservation program

[4:25:38] that is credible, that is

[4:25:39] accurate and that is worthy of

[4:25:43] public trust.

[4:25:43] I also appreciate that many of

[4:25:44] the advocates for historic

[4:25:48] preservation here today

[4:25:48] recognize the housing

[4:25:52] affordability challenges that

[4:25:53] our city faces.

[4:25:54] Every San Diego who supports

[4:25:57] both historic preservation and

[4:25:58] housing affordability knows

[4:26:02] that we can achieve both.

[4:26:07] That's why I believe that

[4:26:07] updates like those proposed in

[4:26:11] Package a are important These

[4:26:12] reforms strengthen noticing

[4:26:12] requirements.

[4:26:16] They clarify appeal processes

[4:26:16] and they improve alignment

[4:26:21] between state and local review

[4:26:22] all while maintaining strong

[4:26:26] protections for truly historic

[4:26:26] resources.

[4:26:27] They help to ensure that

[4:26:27] preservation decisions are

[4:26:31] transparent and are fair and

[4:26:36] are defensible Districts three

[4:26:37] The district that I represent

[4:26:38] the urban core of the city

[4:26:40] downtown all the historic

[4:26:41] neighborhoods around Balboa

[4:26:46] Park offers many examples of

[4:26:46] historic preservation done

[4:26:50] right The Western Metal Supply

[4:26:51] Company building at Petco Park

[4:26:52] That is a great classic example

[4:26:56] of adaptive reuse.

[4:26:56] The chicken Pie shop in North

[4:27:01] Park shows how historic

[4:27:01] preservation and new housing

[4:27:06] can coexist successfully and

[4:27:06] more recently the establishment

[4:27:07] of the city's first lgbtq

[4:27:11] cultural historic district in

[4:27:11] Hillcrest demonstrates how

[4:27:12] preservation can evolve to

[4:27:15] better reflect our full and

[4:27:20] diverse history.

[4:27:20] Within my district I've seen

[4:27:21] historic appeals almost

[4:27:22] entirely in our business

[4:27:24] corridors where buildings have

[4:27:25] often sat vacant for long

[4:27:29] periods or experienced

[4:27:29] substantial alterations.

[4:27:30] The designation of the old

[4:27:34] mission Hills Library was

[4:27:35] appealed to the City council

[4:27:39] and we upheld that designation

[4:27:39] as historic And the outcome has

[4:27:43] been terrific.

[4:27:44] You could not ask for a better

[4:27:45] contribution to

[4:27:48] the neighborhood than the old

[4:27:49] Mission Hills Library at

[4:27:49] the bookstore that is there

[4:27:54] today I want to address a

[4:27:55] concern that I know a number of

[4:27:58] you have Several people who

[4:27:59] spoke today expressed concern

[4:28:03] about the proposed change to

[4:28:04] the historic designation

[4:28:05] appeals process that gives

[4:28:08] the city council the ability to

[4:28:09] determine that the findings are

[4:28:12] not supported.

[4:28:13] The argument against that is

[4:28:17] that the hrp is made up of

[4:28:18] experts in the field and that

[4:28:21] we should respect their

[4:28:22] expertise and accept their

[4:28:22] decision.

[4:28:27] I respect the members of

[4:28:27] the Historical Resources Board.

[4:28:32] I respect their expertise.

[4:28:32] I respect their service to our

[4:28:33] city.

[4:28:36] I care what the h r b has to

[4:28:37] say and I understand

[4:28:37] the argument that we should

[4:28:41] defer to their expertise but

[4:28:46] that cuts both ways.

[4:28:47] You know who else has a lot of

[4:28:47] expertise?

[4:28:51] Our city's planning director

[4:28:52] Heidi Van Block who is sitting

[4:28:53] right over here she got her

[4:28:56] degree in city and regional

[4:28:57] planning and on top of that she

[4:28:57] has a law degree.

[4:29:01] She has years of professional

[4:29:02] experience in the field.

[4:29:02] Urban planning is an academic

[4:29:07] field and this city's planning

[4:29:07] department is chock full of

[4:29:11] people with advanced degrees in

[4:29:12] urban planning.

[4:29:12] They are subject matter experts

[4:29:15] Given all that expertise,

[4:29:16] should the City Council just

[4:29:20] approve everything that

[4:29:21] the City Planning Department

[4:29:21] determines?

[4:29:22] Is urban planning best practice

[4:29:25] after all, they're the subject

[4:29:30] matter experts.

[4:29:31] A lot of what we do up here is

[4:29:32] we try to figure out what to do

[4:29:35] when really smart people

[4:29:35] disagree when experts in their

[4:29:39] fields disagree.

[4:29:40] Experts disagree all the time.

[4:29:44] The experts on the h r b

[4:29:45] frequently disagree with one

[4:29:45] another.

[4:29:46] If you look at the most recent

[4:29:50] minutes posted online, the h r

[4:29:53] b had split votes of 723822426

[4:29:54] and 524.

[4:29:54] So which of those experts were

[4:30:01] right and which were wrong?

[4:30:01] You know who is ultimately held

[4:30:05] accountable for the decisions

[4:30:06] The city council this city

[4:30:11] council is held accountable for

[4:30:11] the decisions that it makes.

[4:30:12] So I think that it is

[4:30:15] reasonable for the city council

[4:30:16] to be able to make

[4:30:16] the decisions that it thinks

[4:30:20] are proper.

[4:30:21] >> I understand the fear about

[4:30:25] adding findings that supported

[4:30:26] the fear is that it will result

[4:30:30] in a flood of appeals of

[4:30:30] designations and that this

[4:30:35] Council will overturn many more

[4:30:35] historic designations.

[4:30:39] At this point we don't know but

[4:30:39] I hear the fear.

[4:30:40] I personally think it is

[4:30:44] unlikely to result in many more

[4:30:45] appeals and I personally think

[4:30:49] it is unlikely to result in

[4:30:53] more appeals or designations

[4:30:54] being overturned.

[4:30:54] But I think we should monitor

[4:30:55] that because we don't know at

[4:30:59] last month's land Use and

[4:31:00] Housing Committee meeting I

[4:31:00] asked staff to monitor

[4:31:03] the implementation of

[4:31:04] the findings not supported

[4:31:05] appeal standard and include an

[4:31:08] update on its usage in

[4:31:09] the annual Historic Resources

[4:31:13] Board report to the Council.

[4:31:14] We will see what if any impact

[4:31:18] this change actually has And I

[4:31:19] appreciate the planning staff

[4:31:19] agreeing to this that will

[4:31:23] allow us to track the true

[4:31:24] effects of the proposal.

[4:31:27] If your worst fears come true

[4:31:28] then we need to do something

[4:31:29] about that.

[4:31:29] If nothing happens then it's

[4:31:32] probably okay.

[4:31:33] At the end of the day I am

[4:31:37] confident that preserving San

[4:31:38] Diego's history and advancing

[4:31:42] equitable inclusive growth are

[4:31:43] not mutually exclusive goals In

[4:31:47] my view in my view Package a

[4:31:48] represents a careful measured

[4:31:52] step toward a system that does

[4:31:53] both of those things better And

[4:31:57] I look forward to continuing

[4:31:57] this conversation as we

[4:31:58] continue to refine this

[4:32:02] approach together.

[4:32:02] So I will.

[4:32:03] Second Councilmember Campbell's

[4:32:07] motion Thank you again to all

[4:32:07] of you for your advocacy on

[4:32:08] these issues and thank you.

[4:32:11] >> Council PRESIDENT All right

[4:32:12] .

[4:32:12] Thank you, sir.

[4:32:13] So we have a motion by council

[4:32:14] member Campbell and a second by

[4:32:14] COUNCILMAN Whitburn to move

[4:32:16] the staff recommendation.

[4:32:17] I don't see anybody else on

[4:32:21] the line.

[4:32:22] I'm going to ask a few

[4:32:25] questions And one one of

[4:32:26] the public speakers talk about

[4:32:26] grandfathering.

[4:32:30] I assume there's some folks in

[4:32:31] progress.

[4:32:31] How does that affect

[4:32:32] applications that might be in

[4:32:36] progress in regard to

[4:32:41] the appeal findings to

[4:32:41] the whole package or that MAY

[4:32:42] be the whole package but more

[4:32:45] specifically to the appeal I'm

[4:32:45] trying to think of where

[4:32:49] grandfathering would be

[4:32:50] relevant.

[4:32:50] I mean in regards to

[4:32:51] the appeals we do have appeals

[4:32:54] that are currently on file and

[4:32:55] these proposed amendments would

[4:32:56] apply to appeals going forward

[4:32:59] but not to the ones that are

[4:33:04] currently pending In terms of

[4:33:05] complete communities housing

[4:33:09] solutions I believe projects

[4:33:10] are able to opt into new

[4:33:10] regulations.

[4:33:11] They're grandfathered into

[4:33:11] existing.

[4:33:15] They can opt in to new if they

[4:33:16] choose to.

[4:33:16] >> Okay.

[4:33:17] I think part of your point is

[4:33:18] that there isn't a lot of

[4:33:19] dramatic change.

[4:33:20] The appeal is obviously

[4:33:21] the most important one.

[4:33:25] I'm going forward So I wanted

[4:33:29] to build on the questions and

[4:33:30] comments that my colleague

[4:33:34] Councilmember Campbell said

[4:33:35] The emerging district through

[4:33:39] 72 that have voluntarily is

[4:33:40] there a threshold by which it

[4:33:40] would change from an emerging

[4:33:45] district to a historic district

[4:33:46] if there were x number of

[4:33:50] identify cottages in

[4:33:51] the current criteria for that

[4:33:51] district?

[4:33:55] >> So when the emerging

[4:33:56] historic district type was

[4:34:00] created the policy stated that

[4:34:01] when you had enough

[4:34:01] contributing resources as part

[4:34:06] of the district you would look

[4:34:07] at converting it either to a

[4:34:07] traditional district or

[4:34:11] thematic district.

[4:34:16] This district the contributing

[4:34:16] resources are so scattered they

[4:34:17] would never have that

[4:34:20] concentration of typically

[4:34:21] about 65% contributing that we

[4:34:22] would look for in a traditional

[4:34:22] district where we regulate

[4:34:25] everything within the boundary

[4:34:26] .

[4:34:26] So if it were ever converted to

[4:34:27] anything it would be a thematic

[4:34:30] type district.

[4:34:31] But our current district policy

[4:34:32] doesn't reference thematic

[4:34:35] districts because preservation

[4:34:36] as a whole as a field moved

[4:34:37] away from thematic districts

[4:34:41] and towards multiple property

[4:34:42] listings which is why the Ocean

[4:34:42] Beach Blue Plan historic

[4:34:46] preservation element recommends

[4:34:47] converting the district to a

[4:34:48] multiple property listing which

[4:34:48] would have the same type of

[4:34:52] regulation that the district

[4:34:53] currently has just in a modern

[4:34:53] preservation format.

[4:34:57] Okay.

[4:34:57] I wanted to ask because I think

[4:34:58] I heard 3000 properties and

[4:35:02] some representation There are

[4:35:03] hundreds of these cottages so

[4:35:07] even if every single one of

[4:35:07] them converted it wouldn't meet

[4:35:11] a threshold.

[4:35:12] I don't foresee that they are

[4:35:13] so scattered in the existing

[4:35:18] boundary I don't see how you

[4:35:18] would hit that concentration

[4:35:19] And just anecdotally in terms

[4:35:21] of what we've seen in the over

[4:35:22] 45 review we are not coming

[4:35:22] across eligible cottages on a

[4:35:23] regular basis.

[4:35:27] >> Okay.

[4:35:28] And I know I put you on

[4:35:29] the spot I don't mean to hold

[4:35:30] you there but I think that was

[4:35:32] kind of what I thought you

[4:35:32] would probably go in terms of

[4:35:38] us making changes.

[4:35:38] I've been here five years and I

[4:35:39] have a hard time remembering

[4:35:42] how many times an appeal came

[4:35:43] to us.

[4:35:44] Do you have any data on 2025,

[4:35:44] 2024 about how many appeals

[4:35:48] actually made it to city

[4:35:48] council?

[4:35:49] I apologize.

[4:35:49] I don't have numbers in front

[4:35:50] of me.

[4:35:53] I will say in most instances

[4:35:54] appeals come before the city

[4:35:58] council when the property owner

[4:35:59] does not want designation and

[4:36:00] the property has been

[4:36:00] designated as part of a project

[4:36:04] review process That happens

[4:36:09] maybe once or twice a year if

[4:36:14] that we did have a little kind

[4:36:15] of flurry of appeals a couple

[4:36:16] of years back where a member of

[4:36:20] the community was appealing

[4:36:21] designation where the property

[4:36:21] owner wanted a designation And

[4:36:25] so we saw kind of a little

[4:36:26] uptick Then Those were all

[4:36:26] appeals where staff did not

[4:36:31] support the appeal and

[4:36:31] the council upheld

[4:36:32] the designation.

[4:36:36] We have not seen appeals of

[4:36:37] properties where the owner

[4:36:37] wanted designation since

[4:36:42] the appeal fee went into effect

[4:36:42] .

[4:36:43] >> So not very often I'm just

[4:36:45] kind of checking my notes for

[4:36:51] the other question that I had

[4:36:52] and you know how I look at

[4:36:53] these things So the findings

[4:36:57] not supported So when we get a

[4:36:58] discretionary review project

[4:37:02] and we're told this is a quasi

[4:37:03] judicial de novo hearing and we

[4:37:09] want to deny the project, we

[4:37:09] get advised that you better dig

[4:37:10] deep and you better tell us

[4:37:14] which findings you're not

[4:37:14] making or what the findings are

[4:37:15] that you're going to overturn

[4:37:19] this if it's simply a council

[4:37:19] member saying Hey, I can't make

[4:37:24] the findings so the three

[4:37:25] current findings that are are

[4:37:26] available to you would continue

[4:37:26] to be available to you.

[4:37:29] We'd be adding this fourth

[4:37:30] finding of findings not

[4:37:31] supported and what that would

[4:37:34] require the Council to do in

[4:37:35] making that finding is to look

[4:37:36] at all of the information that

[4:37:36] was presented to the board

[4:37:40] regarding the building's

[4:37:41] history and how it meets

[4:37:41] the city's criteria for

[4:37:42] designation and determine

[4:37:46] whether the findings that

[4:37:47] the board made when they

[4:37:47] designated designated it

[4:37:48] because they do have to adopt

[4:37:51] findings specifying which

[4:37:52] designation criteria

[4:37:52] the property meets and why

[4:37:53] whether that finding that

[4:37:57] the board made is supported by

[4:37:58] the record by all of

[4:37:59] the information that was

[4:37:59] presented to the board and if

[4:38:02] you find that it is not

[4:38:03] supported then you can overturn

[4:38:04] the designation on that ground.

[4:38:04] Okay.

[4:38:07] Thank you for clarifying that.

[4:38:09] >> It was a symbol of all three

[4:38:13] words in reflecting on

[4:38:18] the comments by the public I

[4:38:19] will tell you that anytime

[4:38:19] anybody uses the word to give

[4:38:24] me your yimby I pretty much

[4:38:25] toss out their arguments.

[4:38:26] >> The argument that you're

[4:38:31] politicizing or you're putting

[4:38:32] in the hands of politicians I

[4:38:32] cannot say it doesn't resonate

[4:38:36] resonate with me because we do

[4:38:41] de novo hearings all the time.

[4:38:41] We're asked to be experts on

[4:38:46] biology's soils engineering,

[4:38:47] traffic engineering, even

[4:38:51] interpretation sequel and that

[4:38:52] is a requirement we do all

[4:38:58] the time and it's a big ask of

[4:38:58] asking enough Our council

[4:38:59] members sometimes we support

[4:39:03] the appeal, sometimes we don't

[4:39:04] based on our best efforts.

[4:39:09] So I don't see that the one

[4:39:10] change that seems to occupy

[4:39:15] most folks mind as in itself a

[4:39:15] compelling However what is

[4:39:16] compelling to me is that

[4:39:21] appeals are few and far

[4:39:21] between.

[4:39:26] I've seen appeals if my memory

[4:39:27] serves me which it doesn't

[4:39:28] often they actually support an

[4:39:28] appeal and we've rejected

[4:39:32] appeals everybody.

[4:39:33] Some people walked away happy,

[4:39:38] some people walked away unhappy

[4:39:38] But nobody felt like as far as

[4:39:42] I could tell that while if I

[4:39:43] just had one more tool here and

[4:39:44] so I am not going to support

[4:39:49] the package for the inclusion

[4:39:50] of the findings not supported

[4:39:50] I'm not going to ask for an

[4:39:55] amendment but I would ask my

[4:39:56] colleagues to think twice about

[4:39:56] it.

[4:40:01] I would ask about be

[4:40:02] reevaluated as to what are we

[4:40:02] really doing with this Because

[4:40:03] a few people thought that was a

[4:40:04] good idea just as very

[4:40:07] compelling to me and I don't

[4:40:08] see any evidence that it

[4:40:12] actually is an important tool

[4:40:13] that we're dramatically

[4:40:13] reducing that is causing

[4:40:14] disruption, interference, what

[4:40:18] have you.

[4:40:19] But clearly in the public's

[4:40:19] eyes the fear of what it could

[4:40:24] mean is disruptive And I'm just

[4:40:25] exhausted in terms of cutting

[4:40:26] people off for no apparent

[4:40:27] value.

[4:40:34] I to be very honest.

[4:40:35] So I want people to support

[4:40:35] the package with the findings

[4:40:36] that support it included I

[4:40:40] think the rest of it is very

[4:40:40] good work for package.

[4:40:41] I would want to begin to think

[4:40:46] about what you're going to

[4:40:46] throw in the package be.

[4:40:47] And the other thing somebody

[4:40:48] mentioned quite passionately

[4:40:48] about the protection of

[4:40:52] the coastal height limit want

[4:40:52] to come see a five story

[4:40:53] building in Pacific Beach?

[4:40:56] You want to see a 23 story

[4:40:57] application of Pacific Beach?

[4:41:01] Yeah, that's my exactly a lot

[4:41:02] of what we do is not what we do

[4:41:07] It's what Sacramento tells us

[4:41:08] to do.

[4:41:08] It doesn't make me happy with

[4:41:13] the councilmember who wants to

[4:41:14] listen to the public and do

[4:41:15] what I think are good things

[4:41:15] but simply implementing convert

[4:41:19] our municipal code into what

[4:41:20] Sacramento tells us to do.

[4:41:26] >> So with that I Oh okay.

[4:41:27] Yeah I'm not ready to call yet

[4:41:27] but thank you Charles But I

[4:41:32] think that concludes my

[4:41:33] comments Otherwise I think

[4:41:33] staff for the good work and

[4:41:34] thank all of you for coming out

[4:41:35] and my go to Councilmember

[4:41:40] Campbell Thank you so much for

[4:41:41] letting me speak again I'm

[4:41:45] sorry you're exhausted so far

[4:41:45] so are we.

[4:41:46] But I just wanted to say that

[4:41:51] Obie has 2.4% properties of its

[4:41:57] parcels whereas Sherman Heights

[4:42:01] of 74% in the historic area and

[4:42:02] South Park 73% in the historic

[4:42:02] area.

[4:42:03] So it gives you some idea of

[4:42:08] the criteria by which a

[4:42:09] historic district is is chosen

[4:42:12] and is able to become one.

[4:42:17] So I'm sorry about that But we

[4:42:18] do have the 30 foot weight

[4:42:18] limit and I'm fighting all

[4:42:19] the time for that.

[4:42:19] >> Thank you.

[4:42:23] All right.

[4:42:23] Thank you.

[4:42:24] Yes, ma'am.

[4:42:24] Campbell, you said it much

[4:42:25] better than the point I was

[4:42:30] trying to make Council council

[4:42:31] PRESIDENT.

[4:42:31] >> I can't think of

[4:42:32] the PRESIDENT I won't repeat

[4:42:32] all my comments from

[4:42:35] the letters hearing.

[4:42:35] But I think many of them

[4:42:36] reflect a mix of what some of

[4:42:37] my colleagues have already

[4:42:41] shared, which is I think

[4:42:42] the council PRESIDENT Self as

[4:42:43] he noted this council already

[4:42:47] is expected to have de novo

[4:42:48] hearings on a variety of

[4:42:48] subjects even if there was

[4:42:53] another body determined.

[4:42:54] And then I would note to

[4:42:55] Councilmember Woodburn's point

[4:42:55] many of the land use matters

[4:42:58] for the city evolve to this

[4:42:59] body as it currently stands and

[4:43:00] I'm pretty sure this is a group

[4:43:04] that would not appreciate it if

[4:43:05] those decisions were simply

[4:43:06] made by a body of experts which

[4:43:07] are the Planning Commission

[4:43:10] aside from city staff.

[4:43:11] So it's again a bit of a double

[4:43:12] edged sword.

[4:43:12] So I appreciate the same

[4:43:16] arguments that Council

[4:43:16] PRESIDENT Had.

[4:43:17] I just have the opposite view

[4:43:18] of it which is that I don't

[4:43:18] believe this is going to add a

[4:43:22] significant number of

[4:43:23] opportunities for this council

[4:43:23] to to hear items that we're

[4:43:24] actually going to be

[4:43:28] overturning especially since

[4:43:29] fees have been put in place to

[4:43:30] deter frivolous appeals from

[4:43:34] taking place.

[4:43:35] And I fully support the idea of

[4:43:40] some review in a year or so to

[4:43:41] understand if this has changed

[4:43:42] the number of appeals we get

[4:43:42] and what happens with

[4:43:46] the findings that supported

[4:43:47] component being an option and

[4:43:48] that'll give us a chance to

[4:43:54] sort of move forward from there

[4:43:54] And that's why I'm happy to

[4:43:55] support the just granite.

[4:43:55] Thank you.

[4:43:56] All right.

[4:43:56] Thank you.

[4:43:59] At the present certainly I

[4:44:00] don't see anybody else like so

[4:44:01] we have a motion by council

[4:44:03] Campbell and second by

[4:44:04] COUNCILMAN Lippert to move

[4:44:04] the staff recommendations.

[4:44:06] >> clerk Please call the roll.

[4:44:07] >> I certainly going to simply

[4:44:18] cast your vote That passes 5 to

[4:44:19] 1 with council member Lacob

[4:44:28] Council PRESIDENT And Council

[4:44:29] member Eli Rivera Council for

[4:44:29] Campaign and Council on

[4:44:30] rebuttal over absent Thank

[4:44:30] Council PRESIDENT All right

[4:44:31] again thank you everybody that

[4:44:35] showed up and so with that

[4:44:41] clerk please introduce item 331

[4:44:42] excuse me item 331 is

[4:44:42] the dedication of city owned

[4:44:43] land for the Fenton Parkway

[4:44:43] Bridge.

[4:44:48] If you were here I'd like to

[4:44:49] speak to this item.

[4:44:50] Please limit your speakers up

[4:44:50] to the front of the room in

[4:44:51] the clear box If you're

[4:44:53] participating remotely now's

[4:44:54] the time to raise your hand by

[4:44:55] pressing Star nine or the raise

[4:44:55] your hand icon.

[4:44:58] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[4:44:59] All right.

[4:45:17] Thank you.

[4:45:17] Good afternoon.

[4:45:18] Council We're going to give a

[4:45:23] little chance for the oh okay

[4:45:23] Crowd initiative.

[4:45:28] I'll wait for your okay.

[4:45:38] Okay I probably was not so you

[4:45:38] should self record and let us

[4:45:39] know how much time you need.

[4:45:40] >> Thank you.

[4:45:41] Good afternoon again Council

[4:45:42] PRESIDENT Council members.

[4:45:42] I'm Mark Frederick.

[4:45:46] I'm the program manager for

[4:45:47] real estate dispositions in

[4:45:48] the Economic Development

[4:45:48] Department.

[4:45:53] I'm going to wrap thoroughly on

[4:45:54] first talk in this market.

[4:45:55] Would you mind taking your

[4:45:55] conversations out into

[4:45:58] the foyer there please?

[4:46:12] Please move along So okay.

[4:46:13] The gentleman from Mission

[4:46:19] Heritage your constituent

[4:46:24] council member library.

[4:46:25] MR..

[4:46:25] There we go.

[4:46:25] Okay.

[4:46:26] I'm sorry for the restroom.

[4:46:27] Please start from

[4:46:27] the beginning.

[4:46:31] No problem at all.

[4:46:31] Mark Frederick I'm the program

[4:46:32] manager for real estate

[4:46:33] dispositions and the Economic

[4:46:36] Development Department.

[4:46:37] With me today is Tyler Garland.

[4:46:37] He's a property agent on

[4:46:38] the dispositions team.

[4:46:43] Also with us today is Lucy

[4:46:43] Contreras who's the deputy

[4:46:44] director of economic

[4:46:48] development Department and

[4:46:49] Kevin Risch who is with

[4:46:49] the city attorney's office.

[4:46:53] This presentation will take

[4:46:54] approximately four minutes.

[4:46:55] The subject of the presentation

[4:46:55] is the dedication of sea on

[4:46:59] land for the construction of

[4:47:00] the Fenton Parkway Bridge.

[4:47:01] If approved, the dedication

[4:47:01] will allow San Diego State

[4:47:06] University to move forward with

[4:47:06] the construction of the bridge

[4:47:07] which is part of the continued

[4:47:08] development of San Diego State

[4:47:11] Mission Valley.

[4:47:12] >> This slide shows the first

[4:47:13] two of three requested actions

[4:47:16] that staff is proposing today

[4:47:17] for council approval adopt a

[4:47:18] resolution authorizing

[4:47:18] the mayor or his designee to

[4:47:23] take all actions necessary to

[4:47:23] facilitate the dedication of

[4:47:24] just over two acres of land on

[4:47:29] city owned property for public

[4:47:30] street purposes specifically

[4:47:31] for construction of the bridge.

[4:47:34] Number two authorize the chief

[4:47:35] financial officer to move just

[4:47:39] under $93,000 from

[4:47:39] the appropriate transportation

[4:47:40] fund to the Public Utility

[4:47:44] Department's water fund to

[4:47:45] encumber the land with

[4:47:45] the bridge.

[4:47:46] This is based on the appraised

[4:47:47] value of the land and

[4:47:50] reimbursement costs from

[4:47:51] transportation to puti for

[4:47:56] improvements made to the land.

[4:47:57] This next slide shows the last

[4:47:58] of three requested actions that

[4:48:02] staff is proposing adopt a

[4:48:03] resolution stating that

[4:48:03] the City Council as a

[4:48:04] responsible agency under

[4:48:04] the California Environmental

[4:48:09] Quality Act or cpa has reviewed

[4:48:09] and considered the final

[4:48:14] environmental impact report for

[4:48:14] the Fenton Parkway Bridge

[4:48:15] Project which was certified by

[4:48:15] the Board of Trustees of

[4:48:19] the California State University

[4:48:20] in 2024 and further adopts

[4:48:25] the mitigation, monitoring and

[4:48:26] reporting program findings of

[4:48:26] fact and statement of

[4:48:31] overriding considerations that

[4:48:32] are associated with the final

[4:48:32] environmental impact report.

[4:48:33] At this time I'd like to hand

[4:48:37] things over to Tyler to provide

[4:48:38] some additional background

[4:48:38] information on the project.

[4:48:39] Thank you Mark.

[4:48:43] This slide provides a brief

[4:48:44] recap and timeline of San Diego

[4:48:45] State's redevelopment of

[4:48:48] the stadium site in 2018

[4:48:49] Measure d passed authorizing

[4:48:50] the sale of the city site to

[4:48:54] sdsu to which in 2020

[4:48:54] the property was then

[4:48:55] transferred in 2020 to

[4:48:55] Snapdragon Stadium was

[4:49:00] completed and the city and csu

[4:49:00] entered into a memorandum of

[4:49:01] Understanding or mou to

[4:49:05] construct the Front and Parkway

[4:49:06] Bridge In 2026 the city seeks

[4:49:07] to dedicate the land and

[4:49:11] transfer the property rights

[4:49:11] from the Public Utilities

[4:49:12] Department or Puti to

[4:49:13] the Transportation Department

[4:49:13] to allow for the construction

[4:49:16] of the bridge.

[4:49:17] This slide shows the property

[4:49:18] location and describes

[4:49:18] the project.

[4:49:24] The bridge will be located

[4:49:24] southwest of Snapdragon Stadium

[4:49:25] and the Mission Valley River

[4:49:25] Park.

[4:49:26] It will connect Barton Parkway

[4:49:29] on the north side of the river

[4:49:29] to Camino del Rio north on

[4:49:30] the south side of the river.

[4:49:31] The dedication area will

[4:49:35] encompass approximately two

[4:49:35] acres.

[4:49:36] Once completed the bridge will

[4:49:37] be approximately 400ft long and

[4:49:41] will provide vehicular bicycle

[4:49:42] and pedestrian access access

[4:49:43] across the San Diego River.

[4:49:43] The combined cost of

[4:49:48] the dedication incurred

[4:49:48] mitigation and appraisal was

[4:49:49] approximately $93,000 and will

[4:49:54] be paid by the transportation

[4:49:54] Department deputy under

[4:49:54] the mou.

[4:49:59] Sdsu design will designed and

[4:50:00] construct the bridge to meet

[4:50:01] the Transportation Department's

[4:50:01] design standards after

[4:50:02] construction has been

[4:50:02] completed.

[4:50:07] Sdsu will undertake all

[4:50:07] maintenance responsibility of

[4:50:08] the bridge for five years upon

[4:50:12] expiration of sdc use five year

[4:50:12] maintenance obligation

[4:50:13] The Transportation Department

[4:50:14] will take over maintenance

[4:50:17] responsibility for the bridge.

[4:50:18] To recap these next two slides

[4:50:19] state the staff's three

[4:50:19] requested actions for council

[4:50:23] approval.

[4:50:23] This concludes our presentation

[4:50:30] Subject to any questions you

[4:50:30] MAY have.

[4:50:31] All right.

[4:50:31] Thank you for the presentation

[4:50:32] and the work to bring this

[4:50:32] forward.

[4:50:36] Clark please proceed with

[4:50:36] public comment.

[4:50:37] I have no public comment here

[4:50:38] in council chambers going to

[4:50:42] those participating remotely.

[4:50:43] We have currently two speakers

[4:50:44] I'm sorry the five minute timer

[4:50:45] the original if you can please

[4:50:48] on mute after that will be 700.

[4:50:54] You guys are so good at people

[4:50:54] .

[4:50:55] It's really interesting.

[4:50:56] We're just like normal for

[4:50:56] people that end up in like

[4:50:59] the world right?

[4:51:00] So like as you like we're going

[4:51:01] to it's going to be this entity

[4:51:06] like the transportation firm

[4:51:07] then it's the public utilities

[4:51:08] is going to have their hand in

[4:51:08] it.

[4:51:09] So is this city like it's just

[4:51:12] it's funny how things kind of

[4:51:13] go from hand to hand.

[4:51:13] The people are going to be

[4:51:14] responsible and this isn't

[4:51:17] going to adversely affect

[4:51:18] the you know, public utility

[4:51:19] funds and stuff like that And

[4:51:23] that's a good picture.

[4:51:24] I mean you really do like

[4:51:25] you're good at really just you

[4:51:29] know, the poker face is, you

[4:51:29] know, trying to tell people

[4:51:30] that like you want to hear from

[4:51:35] them So you give them a minute

[4:51:36] and then you're like you know

[4:51:36] what?

[4:51:37] It's really nice to be able to

[4:51:37] have 15 minutes to have you

[4:51:40] really just explain everything

[4:51:41] that's going on and then you

[4:51:48] know like I just oh my gosh.

[4:51:49] It just it's it's really

[4:51:49] actually comical to see

[4:51:53] the things that you guys do and

[4:51:54] how you spend our money and

[4:51:55] when you're doing busy work and

[4:51:59] you really want people to

[4:51:59] believe that it's not going to

[4:52:00] adversely affect them But like

[4:52:01] any time you take that money

[4:52:04] and do something with it, it

[4:52:05] adversely affects the people in

[4:52:06] the community.

[4:52:10] All your like we want to hear

[4:52:11] from you we represent And then

[4:52:12] what did they say?

[4:52:17] No, we don't want this.

[4:52:17] A lot of people say no we

[4:52:18] don't.

[4:52:18] And you're like You know what?

[4:52:19] In order to get the answer we

[4:52:20] want we're going to have to go

[4:52:22] above them But we're going to

[4:52:23] make them believe that we

[4:52:23] actually talk about them and

[4:52:27] that we're doing this for them

[4:52:28] .

[4:52:35] So that's great and really

[4:52:36] saying what you want to do in

[4:52:37] all government I mean you know

[4:52:40] all while you know our

[4:52:40] governments are filled with

[4:52:41] 10,000 babies and you know,

[4:52:45] make sure and starve them right

[4:52:53] before they give you a blow job

[4:53:00] 8700 if you complete a new Oh,

[4:53:05] thank you Joyce And the other

[4:53:06] 53 very quickly.

[4:53:11] She was a great asset.

[4:53:12] Snapdragon is a great asset and

[4:53:18] I'm really excited about this

[4:53:18] bridge.

[4:53:19] I haven't been looking at

[4:53:20] Snapdragon but once the bridge

[4:53:24] is done I definitely plan on

[4:53:24] going there and walking across

[4:53:25] the bridge So I know you'll be

[4:53:30] approving this and I support

[4:53:30] you and thank you.

[4:53:31] >> Thank you.

[4:53:32] That concludes the comment for

[4:53:32] this item.

[4:53:35] All right.

[4:53:36] Thank you, City Clerk.

[4:53:37] And with that we'll turn over

[4:53:37] to council members for

[4:53:37] questions.

[4:53:38] Comments Entertain a motion

[4:53:42] We'll start We won't start.

[4:53:42] We'll start with Council member

[4:53:47] Kimball.

[4:53:48] Oh, I just want to ask you guys

[4:53:48] about traffic lights I do not

[4:53:53] see in this drawing which is

[4:53:53] lovely.

[4:53:54] Any traffic lights at either

[4:53:54] end of this bridge And I think

[4:53:59] both ends are going to need it.

[4:54:00] >> Is that going to be

[4:54:00] included?

[4:54:04] Thanks for the question,

[4:54:05] Councilmember.

[4:54:05] I'm actually going to defer

[4:54:06] that to the engineering and

[4:54:07] capital projects because I

[4:54:10] don't know the answer to that.

[4:54:11] I believe they're here

[4:54:11] virtually.

[4:54:12] Miriam, can you answer that

[4:54:22] question?

[4:54:23] >> Good afternoon.

[4:54:23] This is Mary Moros, an engineer

[4:54:24] with the Engineering Capital

[4:54:28] Project department.

[4:54:29] Would it be okay if I this to

[4:54:34] ever ever ever It is with

[4:54:35] the Transportation Department

[4:54:35] So if you on the line can you

[4:54:40] please unmute and enter

[4:54:40] the councilmembers question?

[4:54:40] Yes.

[4:54:41] Good afternoon.

[4:54:45] There will be traffic signals

[4:54:46] at both ends.

[4:54:46] >> Thank you.

[4:54:47] In that case I'm all in favor

[4:54:48] and I move stance

[4:54:54] recommendation.

[4:54:55] >> All right.

[4:54:56] So we have a motion by

[4:54:56] Councilmember Campbell to move

[4:55:01] the staff recommendation.

[4:55:02] Okay.

[4:55:02] And Councilmember Foster will

[4:55:03] second the motion.

[4:55:06] The staff recommendation.

[4:55:07] You know, apparently because

[4:55:13] just in a mood that's couple

[4:55:14] questions I hadn't really

[4:55:14] thought about it.

[4:55:15] I have a little bit harder

[4:55:18] about the design of the branch

[4:55:19] but that's not in front of us

[4:55:20] today so I'll leave it at that.

[4:55:26] The 92,000 reimbursing pretty I

[4:55:26] understand that beauty is in

[4:55:30] our bodies and so we have to be

[4:55:30] made whole.

[4:55:31] Where's the $92,000 coming

[4:55:31] from?

[4:55:36] It's coming from

[4:55:37] the Transportation Department.

[4:55:41] So 80,000 of that is from an

[4:55:42] appraisal third party or

[4:55:43] outside appraisal to encumber

[4:55:43] the land.

[4:55:44] And yes, it's the land, you

[4:55:47] know, area above the riverbed.

[4:55:48] The balance is reimbursement of

[4:55:53] funds from transportation to

[4:55:54] beauty for mitigation cost of

[4:55:54] that land.

[4:55:55] That was the work that was done

[4:56:00] prior to this Right now why is

[4:56:01] transportation doing that as

[4:56:05] opposed to selling state?

[4:56:11] Well, I guess what I one way to

[4:56:12] answer is that the cost of

[4:56:12] the bridge is over 50,000,053

[4:56:13] million The city has

[4:56:17] contributed a little over $8

[4:56:18] million came from the proceeds

[4:56:19] carve out from the proceeds of

[4:56:23] the sale of the stadium site.

[4:56:27] The balance then over close to

[4:56:28] 45 million is coming from sdsu

[4:56:29] and the developers out of

[4:56:33] impact fees for us dsu Mission

[4:56:33] Valley.

[4:56:37] So this particular 93,000

[4:56:38] ultimately the Transportation

[4:56:39] Department will be the managing

[4:56:44] department for the asset.

[4:56:45] >> They're making the payment

[4:56:49] for that these days 93,000 is a

[4:56:49] lot of money So maybe at

[4:56:55] the 2022 amount you probably

[4:56:55] talked about cost sharing

[4:56:56] between the two entities.

[4:56:57] I'm going to have to ask you to

[4:57:00] go forward.

[4:57:01] I think I'd like to defer if I

[4:57:02] can to the city attorney note

[4:57:08] that the mou contains that

[4:57:09] senior Deputy City Attorney

[4:57:10] Kevin raised the 2022 mou did

[4:57:15] not specifically address

[4:57:16] the issue that you're asking

[4:57:16] about the payment from

[4:57:21] the general fund to the water

[4:57:22] Utility Fund.

[4:57:22] >> Okay.

[4:57:28] But I really did want to make a

[4:57:28] big thing about that.

[4:57:29] But so was there a policy

[4:57:33] decision that we should that

[4:57:34] transportation should take into

[4:57:34] its minimal coffers and pay for

[4:57:35] this?

[4:57:38] I mean it's 93 out of like you

[4:57:43] said a $50 million bridge.

[4:57:44] I'm sorry I don't have a good

[4:57:50] answer for you for that

[4:57:51] Councilmember I can look at

[4:57:51] the historical context here.

[4:57:52] I work with Department of

[4:57:53] Finance and Transportation and

[4:57:55] her doctor and how much Chavez

[4:57:56] and he'll have to come back

[4:57:57] with response on the meeting.

[4:57:57] >> Okay.

[4:58:01] I didn't bring it up earlier so

[4:58:02] I'll be otherwise in support of

[4:58:06] this But I think an answer

[4:58:07] about how that decision was

[4:58:07] made maybe there is actually a

[4:58:13] very good context with this

[4:58:14] anyway so nobody else in

[4:58:14] the lights.

[4:58:15] We have a motion by council

[4:58:18] member Campbell second by

[4:58:19] Councilmember Foster.

[4:58:25] Clerk Please call the roll a

[4:58:25] surplus someplace.

[4:58:30] Castro that passes unanimously

[4:58:37] 6 to 0 with a council member

[4:58:38] people are very councilmember

[4:58:39] competing council member over

[4:58:42] upset Thank you All right Thank

[4:58:43] you for the good work We'll get

[4:58:43] back to you.

[4:58:44] >> Okay.

[4:58:44] I appreciate that.

[4:58:48] All right.

[4:58:49] We have two items coming up a

[4:58:49] partnership with the city

[4:58:55] council and the Facilities

[4:58:55] Finance Authority.

[4:58:56] So clerk, please introduce this

[4:59:00] city council specific for

[4:59:01] Public facilities Finance

[4:59:01] Authority related items.

[4:59:02] >> Thank you.

[4:59:05] Council PRESIDENT Item 330 is

[4:59:05] the authorization for

[4:59:06] the Public Facilities Financing

[4:59:07] Authority of the City of San

[4:59:11] Diego Water Revenue Bonds Item

[4:59:12] eight does require six votes

[4:59:15] pursuant to Charter section 99

[4:59:15] .

[4:59:16] Item one is the Authorization

[4:59:17] of Public Facilities Financing

[4:59:18] Authority of the City of San

[4:59:21] Diego Water Revenue bonds.

[4:59:22] This item is not subject to

[4:59:22] the mayor's veto.

[4:59:23] If you'd like to speak on this

[4:59:24] item now's the time to raise

[4:59:27] your hand Starry night of

[4:59:28] the raise your hand icon or

[4:59:29] something Your speaker speakers

[4:59:29] up to the front.

[4:59:30] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[4:59:30] right.

[4:59:31] Thank you.

[4:59:32] Please introduce yourselves for

[4:59:33] the record and let us know how

[4:59:38] much time you need and actually

[4:59:39] before you start this item does

[4:59:43] recall require six votes So

[4:59:50] don't anybody go anywhere.

[4:59:51] I'm not telling you how to vote

[4:59:51] but it does require 60 votes

[4:59:52] With that staff please

[4:59:55] introduce all the record and

[4:59:56] let us know how much time you

[4:59:56] need.

[4:59:57] >> Good afternoon.

[4:59:57] Council PRESIDENT And members

[5:00:00] of the Council Jose Manuel,

[5:00:01] Assistant Director of

[5:00:02] the Department of Finance And

[5:00:02] presenting with me today are

[5:00:03] Alison Falcon Stein finance and

[5:00:08] Coordinator Gabriela montano

[5:00:09] Torres finance handlers and

[5:00:14] Brett Butler, the Chief Deputy

[5:00:15] city attorney will need about

[5:00:15] ten minutes.

[5:00:16] All right when you're ready.

[5:00:16] Okay.

[5:00:19] Today we are seeking

[5:00:19] authorization for the issuance

[5:00:20] of the Public Facilities

[5:00:21] Financing Authority of City of

[5:00:25] San Diego Water Revenue bonds

[5:00:26] as background what are you to

[5:00:30] issue 70 bonds periodically to

[5:00:31] finance ascap program At this

[5:00:32] time the Department of Finance

[5:00:33] has determined that there is an

[5:00:37] opportunity to capture savings

[5:00:38] by refunding or refinancing

[5:00:38] certain outstanding water

[5:00:42] revenue bonds currently to

[5:00:43] series that were issued ten

[5:00:48] years ago in 2016 are eligible

[5:00:49] for funding and meet the city's

[5:00:54] debt policy guidelines for

[5:00:54] ongoing What is the ip?

[5:00:55] The city issues commercial

[5:00:56] paper to finance expenses on an

[5:01:00] interim basis and between bond

[5:01:01] issuances since we will be in

[5:01:01] the bond market with

[5:01:06] the refunding we are planning

[5:01:07] to take out any outstanding

[5:01:07] commercial paper.

[5:01:08] At the same time we expect we

[5:01:11] MAY reach up to 150 million in

[5:01:12] expenses covered by commercial

[5:01:16] paper by JUNE 2026 About 98% of

[5:01:17] the funds will go towards

[5:01:17] pipeline projects.

[5:01:22] The proposed 2026 bonds will

[5:01:23] pay down the outstanding

[5:01:23] commercial paper and reset

[5:01:28] the program capacity.

[5:01:29] But that alternate 2000

[5:01:29] The slide highlights the key

[5:01:33] financing elements of the bond

[5:01:33] issuance.

[5:01:34] The issuer of the bonds will be

[5:01:35] the Public Facility financing

[5:01:39] Authority of the city of San

[5:01:39] Diego.

[5:01:40] The structure will be the same

[5:01:41] legal structure as the prior

[5:01:44] water revenue bonds.

[5:01:45] The repayment sources for these

[5:01:46] bonds will be net system

[5:01:47] revenues at the Water Utility

[5:01:50] Fund.

[5:01:51] These bonds will be issued on a

[5:01:52] tax exempt basis.

[5:01:52] The final maturity of the new

[5:01:56] money portion will be the usual

[5:01:57] 30 years and for the refunding

[5:01:58] component we will match

[5:02:02] the same existing maturities.

[5:02:03] The ordinance will authorize

[5:02:04] either senior or subordinate

[5:02:04] leans and currently we are

[5:02:09] anticipating these bonds to be

[5:02:10] issued on the senior Lean and

[5:02:10] these bonds will be issued

[5:02:15] publicly via a negotiated sale.

[5:02:15] The slide describes

[5:02:16] the financing team that was

[5:02:20] selected to support this

[5:02:21] transaction.

[5:02:21] The municipal advisor is Public

[5:02:22] Resources Advisory Group which

[5:02:27] was selected via a competitive

[5:02:28] process.

[5:02:28] The Bond and Disclosure Council

[5:02:32] will be Hawkins Delafield and

[5:02:33] Wood which is also selected to

[5:02:34] be a competitive process.

[5:02:34] The trustee an escrow agent is

[5:02:38] us Bank Trust company.

[5:02:39] They were also selected to be a

[5:02:39] competitive process and they

[5:02:44] serve as the Bond Council I'm

[5:02:45] sorry the bond trustee for all

[5:02:45] other bonds issued under

[5:02:49] the same legal framework for

[5:02:49] the underwriters.

[5:02:50] The Department of Finance

[5:02:51] issued an rfp in DECEMBER and

[5:02:55] we received numerous proposals.

[5:02:56] The selection and award process

[5:02:57] is underway and we will seek

[5:03:01] Council approval of

[5:03:02] the selection in conjunction

[5:03:02] with approval of

[5:03:03] the preliminary official

[5:03:07] statement in MAY for fiscal

[5:03:08] considerations of the refunding

[5:03:13] component depending on market

[5:03:14] conditions we are aiming to

[5:03:17] fully refund the 2016 and 2016

[5:03:18] be water revenue bonds and

[5:03:18] their entirety.

[5:03:23] There are 307 million

[5:03:23] outstanding between these two

[5:03:24] bonds If all our estimates as

[5:03:25] of JANUARY 21st and are subject

[5:03:29] to change we estimate we will

[5:03:29] save over $46 million for

[5:03:30] the water utility fund and

[5:03:35] the amount varies year to year

[5:03:36] There will be more upfront

[5:03:39] savings of 5 million per year

[5:03:39] between 2027 to 2029.

[5:03:40] Then it goes down to 2.7

[5:03:44] million annually and then 0.3

[5:03:44] million thereafter.

[5:03:48] We estimate this will provide

[5:03:49] 30% net present value savings

[5:03:49] overall for the new money

[5:03:55] component it is anticipated to

[5:03:56] provide 150 million in bond

[5:03:56] proceeds to pay down

[5:04:02] outstanding commercial paper

[5:04:02] that we will issue for water

[5:04:03] utility cip projects.

[5:04:03] The following are estimates

[5:04:07] based on rates as of JANUARY

[5:04:08] 21st and are subject to change.

[5:04:11] The estimated interest cost is

[5:04:12] 4.23% and the estimated annual

[5:04:17] debt service is as follows We

[5:04:18] estimate 4.3 million in

[5:04:22] the first year 2027 and 8.8

[5:04:23] million average annual payments

[5:04:28] thereafter For 30 years this

[5:04:29] bond issuance is supported by

[5:04:29] approved water rates.

[5:04:30] The water utility has a debt

[5:04:35] affordability test called

[5:04:36] the additional bonds test which

[5:04:36] we must pass before we can

[5:04:37] enter into a new debt

[5:04:40] obligation.

[5:04:41] There are also requirements to

[5:04:42] maintain or increase water rate

[5:04:42] that level sufficient to

[5:04:47] achieve minimum annual debt

[5:04:48] coverage ratios for as long as

[5:04:48] the debt is outstanding.

[5:04:52] The coverage ratios require

[5:04:52] the water utilities net

[5:04:53] revenues to be at least 120% of

[5:04:58] senior debt service and 110% of

[5:04:58] water utilities Total debt

[5:04:59] service for the life of

[5:05:03] the debt.

[5:05:04] The projected revenues from

[5:05:04] the approved rate case through

[5:05:05] 2027 will allow the water

[5:05:09] system to meet these covenants

[5:05:09] but additional rate revenues

[5:05:10] will be needed beyond

[5:05:11] the approved rate increases due

[5:05:15] to the ongoing capital program

[5:05:15] and the operations and

[5:05:16] maintenance costs which include

[5:05:20] the cost of purchased water.

[5:05:21] The level of rate increases

[5:05:22] will be evaluated under future

[5:05:27] cost of service studies.

[5:05:27] The slide shows the anticipated

[5:05:28] timeline, the ordinance and

[5:05:32] companion item are being

[5:05:33] presented to you today In MAY

[5:05:34] we plan to bring the disclosure

[5:05:38] document called the Preliminary

[5:05:39] Official Statement for City

[5:05:40] Council on Paper for approval

[5:05:44] is expected to be printed and

[5:05:44] distributed shortly thereafter.

[5:05:45] We anticipate the bond sale to

[5:05:46] occur in early JUNE and bond

[5:05:51] closing two weeks after that.

[5:05:52] And now I will turn it over to

[5:05:52] Chief Deputy City Attorney

[5:05:57] Brett Bortolotti to cover

[5:05:57] the legal structure and legal

[5:05:58] documents.

[5:05:58] >> Thank you, Alison.

[5:06:02] As discussed, these are revenue

[5:06:03] bonds and the structure is

[5:06:04] the same as prior bond

[5:06:09] transactions involving the city

[5:06:10] the corporation known as San

[5:06:10] Diego Facilities Equipment

[5:06:15] Leasing Corp and the authority

[5:06:15] itself as the issuer.

[5:06:16] The bonds are limited

[5:06:21] obligations of the authority

[5:06:21] and they'll be the debt service

[5:06:22] will be repaid out of net

[5:06:26] system revenues upper water

[5:06:27] utility the legal documents

[5:06:33] which you've seen before same

[5:06:33] structure We have the indenture

[5:06:34] the master installment purchase

[5:06:35] agreement, the assignment

[5:06:39] agreement, the continuing

[5:06:39] disclosure certificate and

[5:06:40] the bond purchase agreement all

[5:06:41] described on the slide in

[5:06:45] the materials previously in

[5:06:45] the staff report.

[5:06:46] I won't belabor the point If

[5:06:47] you have any specific questions

[5:06:47] happy to answer them.

[5:06:51] However.

[5:06:52] And then so with that

[5:06:52] the authorization that we seek

[5:06:57] today with the ordinance is

[5:06:58] issuance of the water revenue

[5:07:02] bonds and one or more series

[5:07:03] the first being the new money

[5:07:04] piece of up to $150 million and

[5:07:08] then the authority to refund

[5:07:09] certain water revenue bonds to

[5:07:09] achieve debt service savings

[5:07:15] also includes the operation to

[5:07:16] execute certain related

[5:07:16] financing documents and

[5:07:20] authorize the cfo to establish

[5:07:21] one or more special interest

[5:07:22] bearing funds for the proceeds

[5:07:22] of our issued bonds.

[5:07:25] The second part b is

[5:07:26] the authorization of a

[5:07:26] reimbursement resolution that

[5:07:31] just allows the city to for tax

[5:07:32] reasons declare its intent to

[5:07:37] reimburse itself for expenses

[5:07:38] frontloaded with bond proceeds.

[5:07:38] And so with that I'll turn it

[5:07:44] back to Jose that complete our

[5:07:45] presentation.

[5:07:45] >> Please let us know if you

[5:07:49] have any questions.

[5:07:50] We also have Adam Jones from

[5:07:50] Public Utilities available

[5:07:51] online Should you have any

[5:07:51] questions?

[5:07:52] Thank you.

[5:07:55] All right.

[5:07:56] >> Thank you for

[5:07:56] the presentation.

[5:07:57] Please go to public comment And

[5:08:01] we have no public comments

[5:08:01] because here in council

[5:08:02] chambers going to those

[5:08:05] participating remotely we have

[5:08:05] 8700 and the original 8100 if

[5:08:12] you can please on you city

[5:08:12] clerk appointees would you

[5:08:17] please not start my time?

[5:08:18] I have a technical question

[5:08:18] that okay we do have to start

[5:08:23] your time.

[5:08:23] I can definitely call you after

[5:08:24] the meeting for any technical

[5:08:24] issues.

[5:08:25] No, no no no, no, no.

[5:08:30] It has to do with this item and

[5:08:30] how it's flowing and managing

[5:08:31] the public comment And you can

[5:08:35] speak on both items right now

[5:08:36] item 330 an item for one if

[5:08:37] you'd like to speak on both

[5:08:42] items what would be the time of

[5:08:47] allowed for minutes?

[5:08:47] >> Okay.

[5:08:48] Wasn't there a valid question?

[5:08:48] Thank you.

[5:08:53] Okay I know it's been a long

[5:08:54] day but this is a very, very

[5:08:59] important item and I'm looking

[5:09:00] at it so I'll take whatever

[5:09:00] time I can get.

[5:09:04] I probably won't need four

[5:09:05] minutes.

[5:09:05] You you out a cd three water

[5:09:09] revenue bonds The refunding of

[5:09:10] bonds will provide net present

[5:09:19] value savings of 13% equaling

[5:09:20] 46.4 million in total estimated

[5:09:20] debt service.

[5:09:27] My focus on the statutory

[5:09:28] report I quote to finance or

[5:09:32] refinance additional capital

[5:09:33] improvements to the water

[5:09:39] system the refunding of certain

[5:09:39] outstanding water revenue bonds

[5:09:45] to achieve debt savings debt

[5:09:46] service savings provided by any

[5:09:51] such refunding complies with

[5:09:51] the city's debt policy and

[5:09:52] the execution of related

[5:09:58] financing documents and actions

[5:10:03] and of quote Now what I did is

[5:10:04] I looked at our San Diego debt

[5:10:09] policy eight pages I believe we

[5:10:10] have one that one updated on

[5:10:14] JULY 28th 2025 I noted was

[5:10:20] disclosure practice working

[5:10:20] group disclosure control

[5:10:25] procedures on over 12 articles

[5:10:26] on that To me that included

[5:10:32] policy newly issued me of

[5:10:32] the oversight of these bond

[5:10:38] items 108 pages and that kind

[5:10:39] of the current update is pretty

[5:10:39] darn terrific.

[5:10:44] So I got a question from

[5:10:44] the staff report on

[5:10:45] the environmental impact to

[5:10:50] this activity is not subject to

[5:10:51] sequel silence.

[5:10:55] So this is from the question

[5:10:56] this activity related to

[5:11:01] the pure water ip projects I

[5:11:02] support your wide decision on

[5:11:07] water revenue bonds and its

[5:11:07] impact on our water reach.

[5:11:08] Thank you so much for listening

[5:11:13] with me and thank you for

[5:11:13] answering my question.

[5:11:18] I hope it was appropriate.

[5:11:19] Thank you.

[5:11:20] Next is the original course It

[5:11:25] was because we get four minutes

[5:11:26] That's why she was trying to be

[5:11:26] hesitant to answer that

[5:11:27] question.

[5:11:30] Enjoy.

[5:11:31] You got to pay attention to

[5:11:31] the people.

[5:11:32] They do things in order to make

[5:11:33] you think you don't know what

[5:11:36] you're talking about.

[5:11:37] So yeah, it's interesting when

[5:11:37] we're talking about debt

[5:11:43] because you guys only put us in

[5:11:44] debt and you act like we're

[5:11:48] doing this even though

[5:11:49] the people from their their

[5:11:50] utility bills are paying this

[5:11:55] back right into paying off

[5:11:55] the globe and then you say

[5:12:01] you're not going to raise

[5:12:02] the rates even though you guys

[5:12:02] continually raise the rates.

[5:12:07] So pretty much anything and

[5:12:07] everything you could I mean you

[5:12:08] guys would taxes on everything

[5:12:09] eventually that's probably

[5:12:14] going to come But you know just

[5:12:14] interesting to look like you

[5:12:15] want to spin it in a way that

[5:12:19] there's going to be some kind

[5:12:19] of debt savings and that it's

[5:12:20] somehow beneficial And then

[5:12:24] when Joyce talking about

[5:12:25] the pure water stuff, it's like

[5:12:26] how many billions of dollars

[5:12:30] are we going to spend on that?

[5:12:31] You know, just curious to know

[5:12:32] like where is this really going

[5:12:36] when you guys are talking about

[5:12:36] buying water?

[5:12:37] We got to buy it.

[5:12:38] Go buy it how to transfer and

[5:12:42] then when we transfer it we

[5:12:43] lose about 50 to 75%.

[5:12:48] Doesn't really matter Like

[5:12:49] we'll just buy some more but

[5:12:50] then we'll also divert it out

[5:12:50] into the ocean.

[5:12:50] Right?

[5:12:54] Because that's sustainable And

[5:12:54] then we'll also make sure that

[5:13:00] there is a fresh water or a

[5:13:01] lithium mining along with air

[5:13:01] datacentres because these

[5:13:06] things are crucial to our

[5:13:06] sustainability right?

[5:13:07] And then it's like you know

[5:13:12] when it comes to the people

[5:13:12] what we're going to give you is

[5:13:13] doing water.

[5:13:14] And so I'm just wondering if

[5:13:18] we're funding you know, like

[5:13:18] what's this one thing really

[5:13:19] Because I mean we could drill

[5:13:24] for water.

[5:13:25] People like to see the water

[5:13:28] tables too low But come on, you

[5:13:29] know it's one not when you guys

[5:13:30] are wasting water like them.

[5:13:34] That's the thing if you like

[5:13:34] really were if we were really

[5:13:35] having, you know, in dire

[5:13:40] straits where we're like we

[5:13:41] really have to get people back

[5:13:41] to our own sewer Jamaicans make

[5:13:42] them think it's good you know,

[5:13:46] we're going to put all these

[5:13:46] toxic chemicals in there and be

[5:13:47] like We're not putting too much

[5:13:48] lye in there.

[5:13:48] I mean that does dissolve

[5:13:51] bodies but it's not going to

[5:13:51] dissolve yours.

[5:13:57] Don't worry about it.

[5:13:58] You know, don't you think that

[5:13:58] you wouldn't waste water like

[5:14:02] that like you know, sending it

[5:14:03] from one place to another and

[5:14:04] you know, purchasing it all

[5:14:04] while you like release it into

[5:14:08] the ocean?

[5:14:09] I mean it's weird that you guys

[5:14:10] want to highlight certain

[5:14:10] things but like the things that

[5:14:14] could really actually help

[5:14:15] people and you know, give us

[5:14:20] fresh water even you don't want

[5:14:21] to do But anything that will be

[5:14:22] like you know what we're going

[5:14:23] to have to do is take more

[5:14:26] money from the people You guys

[5:14:27] are like and you guys jump on

[5:14:27] that like why don't?

[5:14:33] I mean it's crazy because it's

[5:14:34] like good and people buy it.

[5:14:35] I mean they just like Thank you

[5:14:39] for this step.

[5:14:40] Like it's crazy to like witness

[5:14:40] all this stuff.

[5:14:46] I mean it's like a comedy show

[5:14:46] So I appreciate you guys like

[5:14:47] all diamonds.

[5:14:51] Do they like show their true

[5:14:52] colors and then make sure that,

[5:14:53] you know, they have to let

[5:14:53] people know what they're doing?

[5:14:57] I mean you guys do for this is

[5:14:57] that you don't do anything

[5:14:58] about it.

[5:14:58] Would you sit there and be

[5:15:04] like, Well we want to hear from

[5:15:05] you But unfortunately, you

[5:15:06] know, we didn't terms like it's

[5:15:10] like well I mean we want to

[5:15:11] help you.

[5:15:11] >> We're not going to actually

[5:15:12] go after the people that are

[5:15:13] all over raising your taxes.

[5:15:14] I mean it's just like

[5:15:15] the doublespeak is off

[5:15:15] the charts But I mean you guys

[5:15:16] do a good job of moving people

[5:15:20] And you know, I just would like

[5:15:21] to know at some point I mean do

[5:15:21] you guys get fresh water?

[5:15:22] You just given us a I don't

[5:15:27] know.

[5:15:27] But yeah, this whole item both

[5:15:34] of them So that concludes with

[5:15:35] a comment on these items about

[5:15:35] it.

[5:15:37] >> All right.

[5:15:37] We will take councilmember

[5:15:38] questions and comments on both

[5:15:43] items and then entertain a

[5:15:43] motion by the City Council on

[5:15:48] the staff recommendation and

[5:15:49] we'll start with Councilmember

[5:15:49] Foster.

[5:15:50] Yes, Thank you, Council

[5:15:50] PRESIDENT And thank you.

[5:15:55] I'm staff for the presentation.

[5:15:56] I will just simply move stance

[5:16:01] recommendation Thank you.

[5:16:01] All right.

[5:16:02] Thank you Councilmember Foster

[5:16:03] So emotional with the staff

[5:16:03] recommendation.

[5:16:05] Can I get a second Council

[5:16:08] member Marina okay so we know

[5:16:14] it's fine.

[5:16:15] i'll say something.

[5:16:16] So we do have a motion by

[5:16:19] Councilmember Foster and a

[5:16:20] second by COUNCILMAN Marino to

[5:16:20] move the staff recommendation.

[5:16:21] >> Councilmember Campbell, I

[5:16:25] just want to say thank you so

[5:16:25] much.

[5:16:26] A 13% overall savings is

[5:16:30] terrific.

[5:16:34] The interest rate is low 4.23 I

[5:16:35] assume this is lower than

[5:16:36] before and that's why we're

[5:16:40] doing this and or at least part

[5:16:41] of it.

[5:16:41] And I really you guys always

[5:16:42] amaze me.

[5:16:46] You come up with these great

[5:16:47] ways to save us money and I

[5:16:48] know you do really appreciate

[5:16:52] that And we appreciate it too.

[5:16:53] So I just want to tell you

[5:16:53] Thanks.

[5:16:54] I'm all right.

[5:16:54] Thank you.

[5:16:58] Councilmember Campbell.

[5:16:59] Not for anyone else in life.

[5:16:59] Again, we have a motion by

[5:17:03] Councilmember Foster and a

[5:17:03] second by Councilmember Moreno.

[5:17:15] >> clerk please call the roll

[5:17:15] that perfectly that honestly 6

[5:17:16] to 0 with Council member Eli

[5:17:20] Rivera Councilmember mpo and

[5:17:21] Councilmember Yvonne Lippert

[5:17:21] upset Thank you Council

[5:17:22] PRESIDENT All right.

[5:17:22] With that we will now adjourn

[5:17:26] as the city council and convene

[5:17:26] as the Public Facilities

[5:17:27] Financing Authority to vote on

[5:17:31] the public facilities financing

[5:17:32] authority item.

[5:17:33] Can I get your same motion,

[5:17:36] Councilmember Foster You're

[5:17:36] saying second COUNCILMAN Around

[5:17:37] for item for one Not see

[5:17:42] anybody else on the line to

[5:17:42] speak?

[5:17:43] Kirklees Clerk please call

[5:17:43] the roll.

[5:17:44] I'm sorry The voting system

[5:17:49] please cast your vote that

[5:17:58] passes unanimously with

[5:17:59] Councilmember Rivera Council

[5:17:59] Chair Campo and Council

[5:18:00] rebuttal open absent Thank you.

[5:18:01] Thank you.

[5:18:02] We will now take up public

[5:18:02] facilities Finance Authority

[5:18:03] non agenda Public comment

[5:18:07] The public Facilities Finance

[5:18:08] Authority members respect and

[5:18:08] appreciate the public support

[5:18:09] and are fully committed to

[5:18:12] protecting every participant's

[5:18:13] free speech rights at

[5:18:14] the Public Facilities Finance

[5:18:14] Authority meetings.

[5:18:19] Clerk Please proceed with

[5:18:19] public comment.

[5:18:20] Thank you.

[5:18:20] Approval $2.7 in a public

[5:18:21] comment It is an opportunity

[5:18:23] for members of public to

[5:18:24] comment on items that are not

[5:18:24] on the agenda within

[5:18:25] the subject matter jurisdiction

[5:18:26] of the public facilities

[5:18:29] financing Authority.

[5:18:29] Each speaker will have two

[5:18:30] minutes.

[5:18:30] If you're in chambers you can

[5:18:31] submit a speaker slip If you're

[5:18:35] on line please be sure to start

[5:18:35] press star nine or the raise

[5:18:36] your hand icon Dave Collins If

[5:18:48] you can please come forward If

[5:18:49] if you can go to the higher

[5:18:54] mike right there the higher

[5:18:55] the higher microphone right

[5:18:55] over there.

[5:18:56] Just go to your right.

[5:19:02] >> Yeah that Yeah.

[5:19:03] >> All right.

[5:19:07] All right.

[5:19:12] The first responsibility of

[5:19:17] government is to protect its

[5:19:18] citizens.

[5:19:22] I'm here today to tell you for

[5:19:27] 55 years this every city

[5:19:28] council, every chief of police,

[5:19:34] every mayor has not protected

[5:19:40] the taxi drivers and Sally

[5:19:44] Siegel and the 11 bus companies

[5:19:45] used to be one call out There's

[5:19:49] 11 now there's 50 cab drivers

[5:19:54] at two border crossings and

[5:19:55] soon there will be three border

[5:19:55] crossings.

[5:19:59] Another one it'll take me to

[5:19:59] the subject that I have before

[5:20:00] you today.

[5:20:05] They're called wildcatters in

[5:20:06] Spanish.

[5:20:06] It's right their rules what

[5:20:10] they do is steal money by way

[5:20:15] of taking our customers from

[5:20:16] the taxes and from the 11 long

[5:20:21] haul bus companies that go to

[5:20:21] six different states The police

[5:20:26] department knows about this

[5:20:26] problem.

[5:20:31] Some of you MAY know about this

[5:20:32] problem.

[5:20:32] >> I know Vivian Moreno knows

[5:20:33] about this problem because I

[5:20:37] talked to her chief of staff

[5:20:42] and he instructed me don't go

[5:20:43] to the city council, Go to

[5:20:46] the mayor because it was my

[5:20:47] idea Also I wanted to go to

[5:20:48] the top.

[5:20:48] I don't want to start with

[5:20:52] committees and studies of

[5:20:53] people at the bottom.

[5:20:53] >> I wanted to go to the top.

[5:20:54] He said, You know you go to

[5:20:57] the top and you'll talk to an

[5:20:58] assistant for the mayor which I

[5:21:03] did Very nice lady.

[5:21:03] She referred my problem to

[5:21:04] the police department.

[5:21:07] I got a phone call from

[5:21:13] the police that I explained I

[5:21:14] put your time letter Call me

[5:21:15] about your time, sir.

[5:21:18] >> That was two minutes.

[5:21:19] Yeah, that was too much.

[5:21:19] If you have the additional

[5:21:20] comments we can definitely give

[5:21:21] you a piece of paper.

[5:21:23] You can write them down and we

[5:21:24] can give them to the council.

[5:21:24] But that does conclude your

[5:21:25] time for today.

[5:21:26] I could almost understand you.

[5:21:28] I'm sorry.

[5:21:29] We'll have my staff come talk

[5:21:30] to you and give you a piece of

[5:21:30] paper to give any more written

[5:21:31] comments.

[5:21:33] But I do have to be fair and

[5:21:34] move on to the other callers.

[5:21:35] Oh you got the mayor's office

[5:21:41] right there going with an on

[5:21:42] agenda public comment starting

[5:21:43] with the original If you can

[5:21:50] unmute you're saying that see

[5:21:51] people come in and be treated

[5:21:56] like the you know because like

[5:21:56] the first time I went to any

[5:21:57] kind of public meeting it was

[5:22:01] like I thought I really did.

[5:22:02] I was like I think that these

[5:22:02] people are going to listen

[5:22:06] because that's their job.

[5:22:06] They're supposed to represent

[5:22:07] the people and then you quickly

[5:22:11] find out if you're paying

[5:22:12] attention that that's not

[5:22:12] what's taking place.

[5:22:15] And it's really sad because

[5:22:16] people are suffering and they

[5:22:17] want help And when things get

[5:22:22] implemented say like he's a

[5:22:22] taxi driver then you have

[5:22:23] things like Uber.

[5:22:23] I'm not really sure what he's

[5:22:27] talking about but you know when

[5:22:27] you implement things and you

[5:22:28] you push out you know people

[5:22:31] that were doing something in

[5:22:32] one way just like you know with

[5:22:36] wanting to get rid of gas cards

[5:22:37] you push out the people that

[5:22:37] work on those and then you

[5:22:38] bring in the people that do

[5:22:41] electric type of stuff And you

[5:22:42] just it's sad because you act

[5:22:46] like you're doing benefit but

[5:22:47] like it cancels itself out and

[5:22:51] you know it's just interesting

[5:22:51] to see that and to see how

[5:22:56] people you know, really just

[5:22:56] just want help.

[5:22:57] I mean they really do They

[5:22:58] think that you guys are going

[5:23:01] to come in and listen to them

[5:23:01] and it's like unless they

[5:23:02] disagree with anything and

[5:23:06] everything that you guys do,

[5:23:06] you just you just shut them

[5:23:11] down And it's sad because

[5:23:11] there's you know, people have

[5:23:16] tried for so long like.

[5:23:17] Right.

[5:23:17] It's it's just too unfortunate

[5:23:20] And I'm just wondering at what

[5:23:21] point are you guys going to

[5:23:21] actually do something

[5:23:22] beneficial Because again, with

[5:23:26] all this water stuff I mean

[5:23:26] there's fresh water in

[5:23:31] the earth like our creator I

[5:23:32] don't know which GOD you guys

[5:23:32] serve.

[5:23:33] It's very apparent it's not our

[5:23:37] creator but you know there's an

[5:23:37] abundant amount of water in

[5:23:41] there and the fact that it is

[5:23:42] something that is used to

[5:23:42] control people is really sad

[5:23:46] And the fact that you think

[5:23:47] giving us our sewage back to us

[5:23:53] we will to you guys next is

[5:23:58] 8700 If you continue.

[5:24:03] Thank you, Jason.

[5:24:04] Yeah, the three first of all

[5:24:08] PRESIDENT LaCava more than ever

[5:24:08] when you made your statement

[5:24:12] about citizen participation

[5:24:13] just really resonated with me.

[5:24:18] Thank you so much And I felt

[5:24:19] sincerity in that because that

[5:24:23] really means a lot to me and I

[5:24:23] thank you so much.

[5:24:28] So here we go.

[5:24:29] I don't trust the sd, cwa,

[5:24:32] the San Diego County Water

[5:24:33] Authority Systems and perhaps

[5:24:37] their associated bodies.

[5:24:42] Now what I did is I Googled sd

[5:24:43] c w a and their involvement

[5:24:47] with issuing bonds.

[5:24:51] They have $1.7 billion in

[5:24:55] outstanding long term debt,

[5:24:56] financial vulnerability and

[5:24:57] rising cost.

[5:25:01] The taxpayer rather than just

[5:25:02] the construction of

[5:25:02] infrastructure.

[5:25:07] Now I could speak a long time

[5:25:08] on this.

[5:25:08] I only read it once.

[5:25:11] I need to go back.

[5:25:12] But they looked at it and they

[5:25:15] said that this is all based on

[5:25:16] a positive and negative

[5:25:16] context.

[5:25:19] You could look at it two ways

[5:25:24] One we would judge the f b c a

[5:25:25] I found that just really

[5:25:29] enlightening how you could do

[5:25:29] that.

[5:25:34] And I it just stunned me And I

[5:25:34] have to go back and read that

[5:25:38] whole thing because maybe I am

[5:25:38] I'm not getting the context of

[5:25:39] the full picture because some

[5:25:43] of you council members maybe

[5:25:43] all of you really understand

[5:25:48] these pricing increases on

[5:25:49] the water for us people and I

[5:25:52] don't get it yet.

[5:25:53] So I just want to thank you so

[5:25:54] much for today.

[5:25:58] Thank you for all you're doing

[5:25:58] for water and for the bond

[5:26:02] the water revenue bonds And

[5:26:03] thank you for listening to me

[5:26:04] and for considering some of

[5:26:04] the things I think you be

[5:26:10] including comment that does

[5:26:11] include non agenda public

[5:26:11] comment for fee.

[5:26:14] All right we've closed public

[5:26:14] comment I want to build on

[5:26:15] Joyce thank you.

[5:26:19] I want to thank Kevin Smith,

[5:26:19] the city clerk's office for

[5:26:20] taking the time to help that

[5:26:24] gentleman Clearly a first time

[5:26:25] visitor to council chambers

[5:26:25] about how to fill out a

[5:26:26] speaker's lap and then also a

[5:26:29] thank you to code advisor who

[5:26:29] has walked out with a gentleman

[5:26:33] to hear more specifically about

[5:26:34] the issues that he has and find

[5:26:34] a way to help him.

[5:26:38] So with that we will adjourn as

[5:26:39] the Public Facilities Finance

[5:26:43] Authority and reconvene as

[5:26:43] the City Council.

[5:26:44] And with that we will now

[5:26:45] adjourn Council to the next

[5:26:48] regularly scheduled council

[5:26:49] meeting on Monday MARCH 2nd,

City Council Meetings — Tuesday Agenda Revised Added S500-S501

Transcript