[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.
[1:58:48] 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.
[3:06:32] >> 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.
[3:33:00] >> 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,