[0:02] 41 Military equipment outline

[0:03] our summary and the goal of

[0:04] the presentation is to seek San

[0:07] Diego County approval for

[0:08] the continued use of military

[0:09] style equipment as defined in

[0:13] California State Assembly Bill

[0:13] 41 to outline and explain

[0:14] the uses for current equipment

[0:18] being utilized by the San Diego

[0:18] Police Department and to

[0:19] outline the equipment described

[0:21] in the State Assembly Bill 41

[0:22] currently utilized by

[0:23] the department is needed to

[0:26] maintain public safety and

[0:27] the highest quality of police

[0:28] service to all our communities.

[0:31] Only.15 percent of the adopted

[0:31] fiscal year 2026 Department

[0:35] budget is allocated for

[0:36] equipment listed in Assembly

[0:41] Bill 41.

[0:42] This here is a graph

[0:42] representing 2.15% of the oc

[0:45] budget.

[0:45] Budget Comparison.

[0:50] The annual budget for military

[0:50] equipment costs decreased by

[0:51] approximately $8,000.

[0:54] Therefore the percentage of

[0:55] the annual budget for military

[0:58] equipment for 2024 was.16

[1:02] percent and in 2025 was 2.15%.

[1:03] The number of swat producers

[1:03] calls and the use of specialty

[1:08] munitions such as pepper and

[1:11] ozone fighters increased from

[1:15] 2024 this year to this 2024 two

[1:15] versus 2025 use comparison of

[1:16] all of our.

[1:20] So our call colleagues.

[1:23] And 2024 we had 1911 and 16 and

[1:24] so forth on the table here.

[1:27] Our purity assists increased

[1:36] from 53 and 2024 to 85 and 2025

[1:37] .

[1:37] >> Our goal the presentation is

[1:38] to emphasize that the San Diego

[1:40] Police Department does not

[1:41] participate in a 1033 program

[1:42] for procuring surplus military

[1:42] equipment.

[1:46] The last piece of equipment

[1:46] department received from this

[1:47] program was an unmanned robot

[1:50] and that was returned in MARCH

[1:51] of 2020.

[1:51] The items listed in the sd pd

[1:55] annual military equipment

[1:56] report are all manufactured by

[1:56] civilian companies.

[2:00] The acquisition and

[2:01] implementation of each tool

[2:01] stems from incidents where

[2:02] lives were lost and an

[2:05] important equipment need was

[2:05] identified.

[2:06] The overall purpose of their

[2:09] use is de-escalation standoff

[2:10] distance safety and most

[2:11] importantly the preservation of

[2:15] human life.

[2:16] I will go over the City pd swat

[2:16] team.

[2:20] The majority of the equipment

[2:20] described in the symbol will 41

[2:21] as utilized exclusively by

[2:21] the city pd swat team.

[2:25] The mission of the cbt swat

[2:25] team is to use training, sound

[2:26] tactical planning and equipment

[2:29] to bring a safe resolution to

[2:30] critical incidents.

[2:33] The cpd swat team maintains

[2:34] the highest level of

[2:34] operational readiness through

[2:35] the development of sound

[2:36] tactical strategies and

[2:38] innovative training programs.

[2:39] The cpd swat team is always

[2:43] used by the department as a

[2:44] de-escalation tool.

[2:45] Only certain specific exigent

[2:48] circumstances will dictate

[2:49] early aggressive tactical

[2:49] action.

[2:50] A vast majority of all swat

[2:51] cards and with a peaceful

[2:53] resolution the primary response

[2:58] team or security officers as

[3:02] 365 days a year, 24 hours a day

[3:03] coverage in the field.

[3:04] The pretty concept was adopted

[3:07] by the cpd after the Crandall

[3:08] Street tragedy in JUNE of 1981.

[3:12] The primary mission is

[3:13] emergency citizen and officer

[3:13] rescues.

[3:14] Our special response Team

[3:18] officers as high as a minimum

[3:21] of a team leader and six

[3:22] officers on call at all times.

[3:23] The srt concept was adopted by

[3:26] the cpd after the McDonald's

[3:26] restaurant tragedy in JULY of

[3:27] 1984.

[3:30] The primary mission is hostage

[3:31] rescue and complex armed

[3:35] barricaded suspect response

[3:35] swat sniper team.

[3:39] We have two team leaders and 12

[3:40] officers fully staffed highly

[3:40] trained officers that provide

[3:44] overwatch protection at large

[3:44] events.

[3:45] Snipers also provide a swat

[3:49] team a greater standoff,

[3:49] distance and observation

[3:50] capability at critical

[3:50] incidents.

[3:54] Swat snipers are assigned to

[3:55] large events to protect

[3:55] citizens against an attack like

[3:58] what occurred at the Las Vegas

[3:59] Harvest Festival in OCTOBER of

[3:59] 2017.

[4:03] The primary goal is to protect

[4:03] citizens against a sniper based

[4:08] or active shooter type attack

[4:09] as dpd swat team compliant with

[4:09] a surveillance ordinance.

[4:13] Equipment utilized by San Diego

[4:14] Police Department and

[4:15] exclusively by the cpd swat

[4:17] team complies with a

[4:18] transparent and reasonable use

[4:19] surveillance technology.

[4:19] The surveillance ordinance

[4:22] adopted by the City of San

[4:28] Diego on SEPTEMBER 9th, 2020 to

[4:28] .

[4:29] >> I'll go over some of our

[4:29] equipment.

[4:31] The armored rescue vehicles we

[4:32] have one two door armored

[4:33] rescue vehicle and one four

[4:35] door armor rescue vehicle.

[4:36] Provides a high level ballistic

[4:37] protection for a rescue team

[4:37] when dealing with armed

[4:40] suspects.

[4:41] The armored rescue vehicles are

[4:42] not equipped with any fixed

[4:45] weapons and are utilized by

[4:46] the swat team as a defensive

[4:46] tool.

[4:47] Ballistic protection during

[4:50] citizen and officer rescues

[4:50] etc. The four door armored

[4:51] rescue vehicle is equipped with

[4:55] biochemical radiological or

[4:56] nuclear detection equipment and

[4:57] a fresh air breathing system.

[5:00] This allows officers to safe

[5:00] access into a potentially

[5:01] hazardous environment to affect

[5:05] a citizen or officer rescue.

[5:06] And this here is a picture of

[5:07] one of our Bearcat armor rescue

[5:10] vehicle, The Unmanned Aircraft

[5:15] Systems or uars that us systems

[5:15] utilized by the department can

[5:16] assist at any incident where an

[5:20] aerial perspective will be

[5:20] beneficial.

[5:21] Uars are only used during

[5:21] critical incidents and high

[5:24] risk operations.

[5:25] Authorization from the Chief of

[5:28] Police us allows swat officers

[5:29] to obtain a view of an area

[5:30] without sending an officer to

[5:31] an unclear dangerous position

[5:34] where a robot has limited or no

[5:35] access us are only used by

[5:39] officers that have completed

[5:40] certification course and have

[5:40] attended continuous training

[5:41] for safe operation.

[5:44] All the us srp inventory can be

[5:48] legally purchased by civilians

[5:49] .

[5:50] Picture of a couple of our us

[5:55] equipment The Prime Minister

[5:55] rifles Patrol officers carry

[5:59] the colt carving Alice's air 15

[5:59] rifle.

[6:00] Swat officers only had down

[6:04] defensive semiautomatic ar 15

[6:05] rifles.

[6:05] Our swat snipers only have

[6:06] the accuracy international

[6:10] through a caliber bolt action

[6:10] rifle and ammunition is listed

[6:11] in a report associated with

[6:16] each weapon system and a

[6:16] picture of our rifles that we

[6:19] have in a department.

[6:20] >> Pepper ball launchers.

[6:21] The verbal answers are used

[6:25] only by swat officers used to

[6:26] deploy an extended range air

[6:26] ball in response to an

[6:30] assaultive or actual resisting

[6:30] suspect.

[6:31] Swat officers must complete a

[6:31] pepper ball certification

[6:34] course and requalify with

[6:35] the pepper ball equipment

[6:39] annually.

[6:40] >> Diversionary device or

[6:40] flashbang Flashbang canisters

[6:44] are only used by swat officers

[6:45] used as an attention getting or

[6:45] distraction device.

[6:49] When deployed the canister

[6:50] emits a loud noise and bright

[6:51] light after a 1.5 second delay.

[6:55] Only deployed in a cleared area

[6:56] with at least five feet of open

[6:56] space.

[6:57] And swat officers must complete

[6:59] a certification course and

[6:59] requalify with the equipment

[7:04] annually.

[7:05] 40 millimeter launchers

[7:06] The department has two types of

[7:06] 40 millimeter launchers single

[7:10] launchers and mortar launchers

[7:10] also exclusively used by swat

[7:15] only used to launch 40 million

[7:16] sponge rounds or chemical agent

[7:17] fare around exclusively by

[7:17] Swat.

[7:21] The 40 millimeter sponge round

[7:21] is used only on assaultive

[7:22] suspects or suspects active

[7:25] resisting with access to a

[7:26] weapon.

[7:26] The 40 millimeter chemical

[7:27] agent fair rounds are used to

[7:31] drive a suspect from a

[7:32] structure or to prevent a

[7:33] suspect from accurately firing

[7:33] at a location as citizens or

[7:34] officers in an emergency

[7:38] situation.

[7:39] Example of our single motel

[7:44] launchers.

[7:45] Chemical agents.

[7:46] Chemical agents are deployed

[7:46] exclusively by swat officers.

[7:50] Chemical agents are used to

[7:51] drag a suspect or suspects from

[7:51] a structure location.

[7:52] They're also used to prevent an

[7:55] armed suspect from accurately

[7:56] firing at officers and citizens

[7:57] during an emergency situation.

[8:02] Chemical agents can be used on

[8:03] violent or assaulted persons

[8:03] open air only with

[8:04] the permission of the chief of

[8:07] police or his or her designee.

[8:07] Delivery methods depend on

[8:08] proximity to the target type of

[8:09] agent being deployed and size

[8:16] of the structure.

[8:16] >> Beanbag shotguns are an

[8:17] extended range impact weapons

[8:18] capable of firing at obvious

[8:21] beanbag round the back shotguns

[8:22] are fixed with a bright orange

[8:22] or stalk and foreign for easy

[8:26] identification.

[8:27] Beanbag shotguns can be

[8:28] deployed to impact suspects

[8:28] demonstrating assaultive or

[8:32] life threatening behavior and

[8:33] beanbag shotguns are not

[8:33] utilized by the department

[8:34] during civil unrest or crowd

[8:38] control situations.

[8:38] >> Bridging equipment exposed

[8:43] to breaching use during crisis

[8:44] situations when necessary for

[8:44] the swat team to quickly and

[8:45] effectively breach a door or a

[8:49] wall can be used to defeat a

[8:50] fortified door wall or barrier

[8:51] and is considered a cutting

[8:51] tool.

[8:55] Effective explosive bridging

[8:56] techniques allow swat officers

[8:56] immediate entry into a

[8:57] structure with minimal risk to

[9:01] victims officers and suspects.

[9:01] Only use with a of the swat

[9:02] commanding officer and incident

[9:03] commander when all safety

[9:07] considerations have been

[9:07] evaluated.

[9:08] Example was used by Las Vegas

[9:08] swat officers to defeat door

[9:13] fortification while responding

[9:13] to the Harvest Music Festival

[9:14] Active shooter in 2017.

[9:19] I will now go over a couple

[9:20] examples of Swat College where

[9:20] this equipment was used on

[9:24] OCTOBER 11 and OCTOBER 26th,

[9:31] 2025 Eastern Division officers

[9:32] received a radio call of a

[9:32] subject involved in a prior

[9:33] domestic violence radio call

[9:34] who potentially pointing a

[9:37] rifle at a hotel staff.

[9:37] Shortly after patrollers

[9:38] arrived a quality swat response

[9:42] was called when swat officers

[9:42] arrived on scene.

[9:43] The relief patrol officers who

[9:43] were set up inside the hotel

[9:47] and on the outer perimeter

[9:48] outside the hotel, the armored

[9:49] rescue vehicle and Bearcat was

[9:53] deployed on the outer perimeter

[9:54] near the hotel room window.

[9:54] The subject to provide armor

[9:55] for swat officers.

[9:55] Swat quickly established a

[10:00] contact team in the hallway

[10:00] outside the hotel room where

[10:01] the suspect was located.

[10:06] So I was given the mission to

[10:07] continue negotiate

[10:08] the emergency negotiations team

[10:11] into arrived and made numerous

[10:12] attempts to contact

[10:12] the suspect.

[10:13] Meanwhile, swat officers

[10:14] deployed to fast rank devices

[10:18] in front of the suspect's hotel

[10:18] room door to grab his

[10:19] attention.

[10:19] So officers on the outer

[10:20] perimeter deployed chemical

[10:20] agent fair rounds into

[10:25] the window of the hotel room by

[10:26] offering 40mm launchers and

[10:27] three swat officers.

[10:29] Later the 24 to 30 b chemical

[10:30] agent battle grenade underneath

[10:31] the suspect's hotel room door.

[10:36] During swat operations cpd unit

[10:37] provided overwatch operations

[10:37] via a drone for the duration of

[10:42] the incident.

[10:42] A second volley of chemical

[10:43] agent terror rounds was

[10:43] deployed into the room.

[10:44] Following the additional volley

[10:48] of fair rounds into

[10:48] successfully convinced

[10:49] the suspect to exit the hotel

[10:49] room.

[10:51] Enter is what you use

[10:52] the successfully took a suspect

[10:52] to custody without further

[10:59] incident.

[11:00] A second example was a car.

[11:01] It was also a 411 On AUGUST

[11:05] 16th, 2025 senior police

[11:05] officers responded to a mental

[11:06] case by call where the subject

[11:07] attempted to stab his family

[11:10] members with a machete.

[11:10] Swat officers arrived on scene

[11:11] and replaced patrol officers on

[11:12] the perimeter of the Target

[11:16] residence with swat personnel.

[11:16] The armored rescue vehicle

[11:17] Bearcat was deployed to

[11:18] the front of the residence to

[11:22] provide armor for swat

[11:23] officers.

[11:23] U.S. Maintain drone overwatch

[11:24] for the duration of

[11:24] the incident.

[11:28] The subject partially exited

[11:29] the residence multiple times.

[11:29] The subject was holding a

[11:30] propane tank and attempted to

[11:33] lay himself on fire.

[11:34] The subject was holding a knife

[11:35] and would throw objects at

[11:35] units.

[11:40] Swat units impact the subject

[11:41] with a 40 40mm Film Baton

[11:41] Projectiles.

[11:45] Shortly after the subject

[11:46] exited the structure and threw

[11:46] out as officers the subject

[11:47] made multiple statements that

[11:51] he wants to suicide by cop.

[11:52] Swat officers deployed chemical

[11:56] agent for rounds of 40

[11:56] millimeter launcher into

[11:57] the residence which had no

[11:58] effect on the subject.

[12:01] So officers deployed a second

[12:02] volley of chemical agent fire

[12:02] around him to the structure.

[12:03] Shortly after the subject

[12:03] opened the front door of

[12:07] the residence lay on

[12:08] the stomach and extended his

[12:09] hands forward.

[12:09] Swat officers advanced forward

[12:10] and took the subject into

[12:10] custody.

[12:13] Swat deployed U.S. Drone assets

[12:14] and many trapped robots into

[12:15] the residence And the interior

[12:19] part to thwart making entry.

[12:20] Swat officers then made entry

[12:24] to the residence.

[12:25] Over a projected commander we

[12:30] have for the following year

[12:31] there'll be a taco which is a

[12:32] compact rugged trek robotic

[12:36] platform designed to provide

[12:37] immediate situational awareness

[12:37] in high risk or confined

[12:38] environments.

[12:38] Engineered with a low

[12:42] propulsion system and robot

[12:43] construction, the tactic can be

[12:44] safely applied to areas that

[12:44] are too dangerous, too small or

[12:49] too unstable for personnel.

[12:50] In closing the summary goal

[12:50] the presentation is presented

[12:54] Police Department respectfully

[12:55] asks City Council to certify

[12:55] the continued use of the safety

[12:56] equipment in this presentation.

[13:00] Each piece of equipment is

[13:01] crucial for the Department's

[13:01] ability to maintain public

[13:02] safety.

[13:02] Thank you.

[13:07] We'll open for any questions.

[13:07] >> All right.

[13:08] Thank you for the presentation.

[13:08] Clerk Please proceed with

[13:09] public comment.

[13:09] Thank you.

[13:13] One minute per person We will

[13:14] have the timer up on the screen

[13:14] for today's meeting.

[13:20] Maximilian Schmidt if you can

[13:20] please come forward to

[13:21] the microphone after that will

[13:21] be allegedly our order.

[13:22] And Lori Lippman, if you can

[13:23] please come forward to

[13:24] the other reserved seats at

[13:29] the front.

[13:29] >> Hi.

[13:30] I've tried to think of a

[13:35] creative idea to help people

[13:40] with this $48 million worth of

[13:40] military equipment when there's

[13:41] only really about 40 high risk

[13:46] warrants per year.

[13:47] And that idea is to use public

[13:51] service announcements to help

[13:52] people on San Diego streets who

[13:57] are dying of drug overdose and

[13:58] even committing suicide.

[13:59] And just having simple public

[14:05] service announcements nothing

[14:05] too overbearing that say on I

[14:06] don't know how you'd worded it

[14:11] basically say like you know

[14:12] what since before the time of

[14:16] Christ half of society has been

[14:17] pagans who've done group

[14:17] rituals to read people's mind

[14:23] and other half hasn't and that

[14:23] these people have been trying

[14:24] to drive these people crazy by

[14:28] reading their minds and that

[14:29] you're not crazy.

[14:29] >> Human beings can worship

[14:30] the devil and read minds and

[14:31] they could help people.

[14:40] Thank you Alejandro.

[14:40] My apologies.

[14:41] Bad habit to just put the timer

[14:47] in here and then you have

[14:47] the one up there.

[14:48] Please go buy the one.

[14:48] Yeah.

[14:49] Thank you.

[14:49] This is interesting that you're

[14:51] saying necessary for the public

[14:52] safety.

[14:53] I think it's more police safety

[14:53] And I'm wondering you know,

[14:54] you're talking about active

[14:57] shooters.

[14:58] I mean we had a mosque be shot

[14:59] up when you guys had, you know,

[15:00] over two hours of time and

[15:04] information coming in and yet

[15:04] people died And you know, lpr

[15:10] was used to basically go on a

[15:11] goose hunt.

[15:11] So I'm just wondering it's like

[15:15] these things are used against

[15:16] the public and it's concerning

[15:16] to me to have witnessed an

[15:17] invasion on our border and to

[15:22] know how many tools could have

[15:22] been utilized to stop that.

[15:23] In fact our we have like every

[15:28] military in San Diego County

[15:28] and everybody wanted to say

[15:29] that our borders were secure

[15:33] when in fact that's not what

[15:34] was happening.

[15:35] And so it's sad to see that

[15:35] these these are weaponized

[15:39] against the public.

[15:40] It's not being used to protect

[15:40] us.

[15:41] It's being used to protect you

[15:46] guys while the public has to

[15:46] pay for these things and yet

[15:47] they are being used against us.

[15:51] I just find it extremely

[15:52] negligent area.

[15:58] >> Lori Lipson Good afternoon.

[16:01] Laura Lippman She her District

[16:23] three are you kidding me?

[16:23] Are you really going to use

[16:23] precious resource of of money

[16:23] to further militarize

[16:24] the police mass policing is

[16:24] mass militarization and is not

[16:24] safety.

[16:24] I hope you wake up and stop

[16:24] politicking and work for

[16:24] the people.

[16:25] I'll be back tomorrow About

[16:27] the Swat Association.

[16:48] >> Right.

[16:57] Thank you.

[16:57] Also at the five minute time

[16:57] hour I go to those

[16:57] participating remotely I would

[16:58] like to note that we did

[16:58] receive zero comments in favor

[16:58] and one comment in opposition

[16:58] to your comment form which have

[16:58] been distributed to the Council

[16:58] currently have four speakers

[16:59] with their hands raised.

[16:59] >> Toni if you can please a

[16:59] meal Yes and hear me Yes please

[17:18] proceed.

[18:00] Yes I just wanted to touch upon

[18:00] the distinction that order me

[18:01] because I agree with your point

[18:01] wholeheartedly and I don't

[18:01] support this of this this

[18:01] proposal.

[18:01] i just want to make

[18:01] the distinction There's a

[18:01] difference between public

[18:02] safety versus police safety.

[18:02] Right.

[18:02] And I found it very notable

[18:02] that they were saying they only

[18:02] use 308 rounds but 308 rounds

[18:02] If you've ever fired anything

[18:03] that has a3083 awaits when they

[18:03] go through houses they don't

[18:03] they don't absorb through one

[18:03] piece of drywall.

[18:03] They don't stay in one room.

[18:03] They affect the house is next

[18:04] door the neighborhoods next

[18:04] door This is excessive Voting

[18:04] for this cat is excessive and

[18:04] then justifying it by saying

[18:04] that it's a civilian company.

[18:04] Ibm was a civilian company.

[18:04] They made punch cards for

[18:05] the Nazis.

[18:05] Boeing is a civilian company.

[18:05] They also make high grade

[18:05] military weapons along with

[18:05] planes.

[18:05] So that's not a justification

[18:06] And I just want to encourage

[18:06] everybody that's going to vote

[18:06] for this to attend to keep

[18:06] meetings to attend Privacy

[18:06] Advisory Board meetings I have

[18:06] concluded next is 8700 If you

[18:06] complete them you Thank you

[18:07] Joy.

[18:07] It's America.

[18:07] I'll I'll say this first and

[18:07] then some additional comments.

[18:09] Yes to the trust board left Yes

[18:10] to the swat.

[18:14] Yes to special operations of

[18:15] the cpd.

[18:15] Yes to real life time Examples

[18:21] Yes to robots and so forth and

[18:22] obedience to police officer

[18:27] safety So all the backup is

[18:28] what would you be phenomenal

[18:29] there into the San Diego Police

[18:33] Department procedures for

[18:34] military equipment special

[18:38] operation It's 103 pages long.

[18:39] I just quickly went through it.

[18:45] It's huge These procedures

[18:46] apply to all members of

[18:46] the police department.

[18:47] No of course doing all course

[18:51] every page of that was the word

[18:52] draft And I get worried about

[18:53] draft because when they become

[18:57] final they can change And

[18:58] sometimes I don't know what's

[18:58] in the final draft and

[19:03] the final thing and maybe you

[19:04] don't have concluded my

[19:05] apologies I'm mean that's

[19:05] concluded.

[19:06] Natalie Raskin If you can

[19:08] please unmute.

[19:09] All right.

[19:09] Natalie Rafferty this is

[19:14] concerning to me in the area of

[19:15] being homeless before and how

[19:15] this MAY or MAY not be used

[19:20] moving forward.

[19:21] Knowing what I know and what we

[19:26] MAY be looking at I, I feel

[19:27] that people are going to start

[19:28] to get in wrestling with what's

[19:32] going down in our government.

[19:33] That's just what I'm feeling.

[19:37] And the 50 caliber rifle rifles

[19:38] they shoot through I think it

[19:43] said a foot of steel.

[19:48] I don't know how that is

[19:49] protecting with all this money

[19:54] protecting its citizens.

[19:55] Now are they going to be held

[19:56] to a protocol in the police

[19:56] using what they're supposed to

[20:00] use with them?

[20:00] From my research being

[20:01] accountable when they upload

[20:06] their data when it was used,

[20:07] are they going to be audited on

[20:08] a regular basis and how and

[20:11] when they used it.

[20:12] >> Your time has concluded,

[20:12] Amanda, if you can please And

[20:17] you there you go again.

[20:24] Please proceed On I go What

[20:30] the speaker before me said I'd

[20:31] also like to thank the people

[20:32] of San Diego that have been

[20:32] showing up to meetings and

[20:36] we've been clear we do not want

[20:36] a police state in San Diego.

[20:41] We are one of the safest major

[20:42] cities in the country.

[20:42] The only people who are

[20:47] advocating for increased police

[20:48] power are the ones who have

[20:48] spent the last ten years being

[20:49] verbally terrorized by Fox News

[20:53] propaganda.

[20:53] Military members don't want

[20:54] the constitutional right they

[20:55] fought for trampled on

[20:59] Immigrants don't want to use

[21:00] illegally surveil them and our

[21:01] black and brown residents don't

[21:01] want to use the traumatize and

[21:06] extortion for bail Remind you

[21:06] that pd arrest blacks again for

[21:09] only resisting arrest nine

[21:10] times more often and have

[21:11] violence used against them

[21:15] seven times more frequently

[21:16] Last night between 1 A.M. And

[21:16] 145 I was walking by City pd

[21:21] helicopter not once, not twice,

[21:21] nine different times.

[21:22] I live right next to Children's

[21:23] Hospital with me.

[21:28] Their time has concluded.

[21:29] Blair Beakman If you can please

[21:30] unmute the five minute timer

[21:30] that also is included here in

[21:32] council chambers No additional

[21:33] speakers will be taken.

[21:33] >> Your final speaker please

[21:34] proceed.

[21:34] All right.

[21:34] Thank you.

[21:39] Where Between There was a too

[21:40] many public speakers a minute

[21:41] 30 would have been helpful and

[21:43] appropriate for an item like

[21:44] this.

[21:44] I wanted to comment that you

[21:48] know, coming out of the era of

[21:49] 911 a continual war this kind

[21:50] of item was not really on our

[21:50] agenda.

[21:54] 1520 years ago We learned to

[21:55] bring it on our agenda.

[21:56] We've learned to talk more

[21:59] about accountability and

[22:00] openness and its importance

[22:01] Compared to 10 or 15 years ago

[22:05] we've taken a bit of a break

[22:06] and how a better talk about

[22:07] accountability in the last five

[22:07] years here in San Diego I think

[22:12] we now understand that it's a

[22:13] continual learning process that

[22:14] we have to be considering our

[22:18] accountability and open public

[22:18] policy.

[22:19] So for the good efforts that

[22:19] the police describe with this

[22:24] item we always have to be

[22:25] considering what is the future

[22:26] of better practices for for

[22:26] swat issues and for technology

[22:30] issues And we have to learn to

[22:31] speak of the spoken and

[22:31] unspoken things and things like

[22:36] are real time issues.

[22:37] >> Thank you.

[22:37] Thank you.

[22:38] That does it for public comment

[22:38] on this item.

[22:41] All right.

[22:41] Thank you.

[22:42] City clerk We'll turn it over

[22:43] to council members for

[22:43] questions.

[22:44] Comments Entertain a motion.

[22:45] We'll start with Councilmember

[22:48] Bond.

[22:48] Walbert Thank you.

[22:49] Thank you for the presentation

[22:50] and for everyone who commented

[22:53] today And the reason this was

[22:54] direct docketed this year I

[22:55] didn't go to Public Safety

[22:55] Committee is because nothing

[22:56] has changed and no new

[22:59] equipment was purchased between

[23:00] last year and this year.

[23:01] So it's a very similar report.

[23:06] But I do I do a couple of

[23:07] questions about some of city

[23:07] assist versus Code 11.

[23:12] Can you explain to the public

[23:13] the difference between a Code

[23:13] 11 and a pretty assist?

[23:19] >> Yes, different security

[23:20] assistance.

[23:20] Code 11 is just the name of how

[23:21] many start ups respond to an

[23:24] incident If poor to assist or

[23:25] simply we have The parity

[23:29] officers are always working 365

[23:30] 24 hour coverage on the field

[23:31] for patrol officers their

[23:35] collateral duty is swat So

[23:35] whenever we need to supplement

[23:36] patrol officers with any

[23:42] frequency or any way to call

[23:42] patrol officers can assist or

[23:49] respond a call 11 is a

[23:49] lactation so I call it from

[23:50] where we deal with our better

[23:53] on barricade suspects, active

[23:53] shooters, citizen rescues,

[23:54] officer rescues and that sort.

[24:00] So it's a for activation as

[24:01] opposed to peer to assist is

[24:01] more patrol level where two

[24:02] calls were petty officers

[24:04] working patrol can assist and

[24:05] supplement patrol officers if I

[24:06] can add to that.

[24:06] So by design the primary

[24:12] response team it's a collateral

[24:12] duty.

[24:13] These are patrol officers in

[24:13] each and every district that

[24:16] works out there Every shift it

[24:17] bridges the gap from a response

[24:22] that requires specialty skills,

[24:22] tactical skills.

[24:23] Now for example, you know,

[24:29] maybe have a mental incident

[24:29] where a subject is threatening

[24:35] suicide or threatening harm to

[24:36] another person.

[24:37] It doesn't rise to the level of

[24:37] a full swat call out When we

[24:41] have a code 11, code 12, it

[24:42] means the Calvary showing we

[24:42] have a special Toys r Robotics

[24:46] or Bearcat or armored vehicle.

[24:47] We have a lot of other

[24:47] resources to use in the context

[24:52] of complete response and that

[24:53] depends It's dependent on

[24:53] the situation.

[24:58] So pretty officers are already

[24:59] on duty for the most part in

[25:00] this What have we called them

[25:00] home?

[25:01] That is correct.

[25:04] Okay.

[25:04] Got it.

[25:05] And can I ask why we're having

[25:10] more pretty assessed is because

[25:10] it's being a useful tool or

[25:11] people are getting more violent

[25:12] or what do you think is

[25:14] happening?

[25:15] >> I can't come to why we're

[25:16] having more peer to assess but

[25:17] I definitely are being

[25:20] requested More on the field to

[25:20] assist patrol officers get to

[25:26] that also is that mitigate risk

[25:26] ?

[25:27] Again pro officers are also

[25:32] swat We they attend multi

[25:32] stream in addition to the full

[25:33] time swat team So in a

[25:39] department that I can say it's

[25:39] fairly junior in terms of his

[25:40] years experience it brings a

[25:42] lot of risk liability as we

[25:43] resolve these incidents.

[25:43] Okay.

[25:44] And I also know that a lot of

[25:44] the equipment that we're

[25:49] talking about today also goes

[25:49] through review for the Privacy

[25:50] Advisory Board.

[25:50] It's drones, attack cats,

[25:51] everything.

[25:53] And so those use policies are

[25:53] online for people to see.

[25:54] The Privacy Advisory Board has

[25:55] already advised on the use of

[25:59] these technologies as well.

[26:00] You know I got to see drones in

[26:05] action on a pretty assist that

[26:06] I was on a ride along for and a

[26:10] young woman had to be pulled

[26:10] out of her bedroom window

[26:11] because an adult naked male and

[26:12] broken into her living room in

[26:15] the early hours of the morning

[26:16] and she was rescued out of her

[26:17] bedroom window, didn't have

[26:18] shoes or a shirt so I gave him

[26:21] a jacket and he was in there

[26:22] completely wrecking her house

[26:26] very clearly either on drugs or

[26:26] something.

[26:27] And for two hours we sat there

[26:28] doing call outs and finally

[26:31] the drone team came in because

[26:32] they've been able to

[26:32] de-escalate.

[26:33] They could actually send it in

[26:33] once the door was breached to

[26:36] see where he was in the room.

[26:37] And I didn't realize that when

[26:37] you use chemical agents

[26:41] the poor victim of that crime

[26:42] and couldn't go back to her

[26:42] apartment because she'd have to

[26:48] have it all the chemicals taken

[26:48] out.

[26:49] So I just I was very impressed

[26:50] with the way that it was done

[26:51] And he was taking them over

[26:52] the counter in a shower.

[26:53] But I've also seen incidents at

[26:58] least one where in the city did

[26:58] settle a lawsuit for excessive

[26:59] force on a pretty response And

[27:00] so I don't want to talk about

[27:03] that particular case but I do

[27:04] want to ask does the department

[27:05] engage in continual training

[27:09] after every period to your

[27:10] response or swat response to

[27:10] say what went right went wrong

[27:11] and how can we do better

[27:13] the next time?

[27:14] >> Yes.

[27:19] So we like my partner explain

[27:19] we have monthly mandatory

[27:20] monthly swat training and a lot

[27:24] of these equipment like we

[27:25] explain we do annual report

[27:25] vacation recertification for

[27:26] all the equipment whether it's

[27:29] the chemical agents,

[27:30] the breaching equipment.

[27:30] So we do have annual

[27:31] certifications and after every

[27:35] incident we do a debrief

[27:35] amongst the team to talk about

[27:36] what went right or wrong, what

[27:39] can be done better and what was

[27:40] one Well so we do debrief every

[27:40] instead as well.

[27:44] >> Okay If you need us to push

[27:45] for more funding for continual

[27:46] training I think the command

[27:50] trainings are fantastic You

[27:51] know participate in one Let us

[27:51] know if you need help because

[27:52] you are making life and death

[27:54] decisions out there And so

[27:55] the more support we can get you

[27:56] to do all that hard work that

[27:59] you're doing I'd be happy to

[28:00] help with that And for you

[28:01] know, we went over a long

[28:04] explanation last year about

[28:05] what the Bearcat is.

[28:05] I'm not going to get into it

[28:05] again.

[28:09] This is all in public record

[28:09] But you know the Bearcat if you

[28:10] haven't seen it, it it is

[28:14] completely a defensive vehicle.

[28:15] There's no external ability to

[28:15] fire from it and it does

[28:18] protect the public because it's

[28:19] used in mass shootings.

[28:20] We actually got the Bearcat

[28:26] because of the you see drone

[28:27] McDonald's shooting in which

[28:29] police had no way to approach

[28:29] the McDonald's.

[28:30] I mean if you see a picture of

[28:31] the store front, it just

[28:34] riddled with bullet holes.

[28:34] 22 people were killed, 19 were

[28:35] injured And every time police

[28:38] went up they were shot at.

[28:39] And in 1981 when you talk about

[28:42] the Crandall Street tragedy,

[28:43] that's when police a gentleman

[28:48] got very gentleman a murderer

[28:48] got very mad at his neighbor,

[28:53] started a physically assaulting

[28:53] her over a garden plant in 1981

[28:54] And the two police officers

[28:57] responded and he shot them both

[28:58] in the driveway And every time

[28:59] an ambulance tried to come to

[28:59] the officers he started

[29:00] shooting at the ambulance

[29:03] drivers from the window and

[29:03] the police officer bled out and

[29:04] then he started shooting at his

[29:08] neighbors and people walking by

[29:09] And so the police couldn't stop

[29:09] the active shooter because he

[29:12] killed two officers trying to

[29:13] get to him And nobody could

[29:14] approach that.

[29:17] That's what the Bearcat is for

[29:17] so that you can't approach an

[29:18] active shooter and disarm them

[29:22] while not being shot and

[29:22] killed.

[29:23] And so it's it looks like a

[29:23] tank but it is not a tank.

[29:26] It took me a lot to learn that

[29:27] And so I do understand what

[29:27] it's for now.

[29:28] And so anyway, thank you for

[29:31] bringing this forward and I'll

[29:32] make the motion to approve

[29:36] Stache recommendation.

[29:36] All right.

[29:37] Thank you, Council members.

[29:38] So we have a motion by Council

[29:38] member Von Wolpert to move

[29:43] the staff recommendation and

[29:44] council member Campbell will

[29:48] second and Council member e

[29:49] Lowe Rivera have comments.

[29:49] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[29:50] Thank you for the presentation

[29:53] here.

[29:54] i did have let me start with

[29:58] one question The staff report

[29:59] references make sure I get

[30:07] the language right here.

[30:08] New equipment describing

[30:09] the updated procedure includes

[30:12] drones and pepper ball

[30:13] launchers So those are new

[30:17] equipments.

[30:22] It's a newer model of oh come

[30:22] in that we already have So we

[30:23] already have drones.

[30:24] These are just different

[30:24] models, newer models that we

[30:27] have in our inventory Now same

[30:28] thing with our curveball

[30:28] launchers we already have those

[30:32] launchers is it just different

[30:32] models, newer models that are

[30:33] more accurate?

[30:37] >> Okay.

[30:37] So there's new equipment

[30:38] though.

[30:38] Yes.

[30:38] New inventory.

[30:39] Yes.

[30:40] Okay.

[30:41] One of the things that caught

[30:45] my attention was a slight

[30:46] difference in language in

[30:47] the flash section in comparison

[30:47] to the sting ball munitions

[30:51] section flash bangs references

[30:51] that there's a reference to

[30:56] being used in quote some mobile

[30:57] field force operations whereas

[31:01] sting ball ammunition can be

[31:02] used in quote limited instances

[31:05] during normal field force

[31:05] instances.

[31:06] Can you explain the difference

[31:10] between some and limited

[31:11] instance instances?

[31:11] I'm sorry, can you repeat

[31:12] the question again?

[31:15] Was that Eric repeat

[31:16] the question again please.

[31:16] Yeah.

[31:20] So the flash bangs section let

[31:21] me just pull it up so I get it

[31:21] exactly right.

[31:24] But I think I did pull that

[31:25] language specifically from

[31:29] the report.

[31:30] Flash bangs can be used in some

[31:34] mobile field force operations

[31:35] and sting ball munitions And

[31:35] that section it says that they

[31:39] can be used in quote limited

[31:39] instances during mobile field

[31:40] force instances.

[31:43] So there's one section which

[31:44] has some another section where

[31:48] it says limited instances.

[31:49] What's the difference between

[31:49] some instances and limited

[31:50] instances?

[31:54] So the flash bangs are a

[31:54] tension game device or

[31:55] distraction device during civil

[32:02] unrest or protests.

[32:03] Ossie spray the four millimeter

[32:04] baton rounds per ball and flash

[32:06] bangs can be used for their

[32:07] approval of the incident

[32:07] commander The pepper ball,

[32:11] the rubber, the sting those

[32:12] require a special assistant

[32:13] chief of approval to be used

[32:15] during civil unrest situations.

[32:16] So limited instances means

[32:20] there's more specific

[32:21] guidelines around when they can

[32:21] be used.

[32:21] Yes.

[32:22] Okay.

[32:25] That's what I thought.

[32:26] I think I brought this up last

[32:26] year.

[32:27] I continue to have concerns

[32:29] about our policies around flash

[32:30] bangs.

[32:34] This is a technology that's

[32:35] been cited in multiple reports

[32:39] as causing significant

[32:44] injuries, maiming or killing

[32:44] people.

[32:48] I understand that our police

[32:49] department needs to have

[32:50] the equipment necessary to

[32:54] deescalate to respond in

[32:58] significant crises and to do

[32:59] that in a society where there

[33:00] are way too many guns on

[33:00] the street and way too many

[33:03] high powered weapons on

[33:03] the street.

[33:04] I recognize all of that.

[33:04] But because of concerns I've

[33:08] raised in the past and that I

[33:09] continue to have around

[33:12] the flashbangs in particular

[33:13] around some of the looseness in

[33:14] the language there I'll be

[33:14] voting no Council PRESIDENT

[33:18] Thank you.

[33:18] >> All right.

[33:19] Thank you.

[33:19] Council member Eli Rivera Not

[33:22] see anybody else in the lights.

[33:23] We have a motion by council

[33:26] member Von Wilpert second by

[33:27] Council member Campbell to move

[33:27] a staff recommendation Before

[33:30] we go there, Councilmember

[33:31] Foster I'm sorry.

[33:36] Yes, Thank you for

[33:36] the presentation.

[33:40] I mean I appreciate

[33:44] the questioning thus far.

[33:45] My colleague I believe asked a

[33:49] question regarding the Privacy

[33:50] Advisory Board and going

[33:50] through the surveillance

[33:54] technology ordinance.

[33:59] I didn't hear a verbal direct

[33:59] response to the to the question

[34:04] But for the items that are that

[34:04] are on here, I guess the new

[34:05] new items all of these have

[34:08] gone through that process and

[34:09] have been approved in

[34:12] accordance with the trust

[34:13] ordinance.

[34:13] Yes, that is correct.

[34:17] Okay.

[34:18] The other question that I have

[34:22] is in the staff report it says

[34:23] the military equipment use

[34:24] procedure must be posted on

[34:28] the website at least 30 days

[34:29] prior to any public meeting

[34:29] regarding military equipment.

[34:32] How did you guys meet that

[34:33] requirement?

[34:37] I do see the information

[34:38] specific for the item on

[34:42] the council agenda but I

[34:42] believe we post that.

[34:45] I want to say typically seven

[34:46] days prior to this meeting.

[34:49] So how are you guys meeting

[34:50] that 30 day require them in in

[34:51] accordance with assembly bill

[35:02] 481 We had our committee

[35:02] meeting and we just look at

[35:06] the staff report here If I

[35:11] could just if I could assist

[35:11] with that answer.

[35:15] >> Councilmember Foster If you

[35:16] can if you can announce or

[35:17] announce yourself what office

[35:20] you're with I'm sure.

[35:21] I'm Jill Christy, deputy city

[35:25] attorney with the city

[35:25] attorney's office.

[35:26] >> So if I just before you get

[35:29] started I guess I just want to

[35:30] ask I would assume the police

[35:33] department is responsible for

[35:34] this action.

[35:35] >> I'm a little curious as to

[35:35] why you're responding.

[35:39] I just have a timeline and I

[35:40] wasn't sure if it if you had

[35:44] the exact dates So I was going

[35:45] to assess but okay.

[35:45] No, please.

[35:48] I just just curious is there

[35:49] the asset owning department and

[35:49] the responsible department?

[35:50] So I'm just trying to

[35:53] understand why you're injecting

[35:58] into the conversation at this

[35:58] point.

[35:58] >> My apologies.

[35:59] I'm going to go ahead and have

[36:02] staff I'm going to defer to

[36:02] staff if you have the dates and

[36:06] if you don't I have the date

[36:07] Yes, we have the date for

[36:09] the committee meeting was held

[36:16] on JUNE 3rd of 2026.

[36:16] Jill Christopher has more

[36:17] detailed timeline If you're

[36:18] okay with that, she can answer

[36:19] that for us.

[36:19] So you said your community

[36:23] meeting was when it was on JUNE

[36:28] 3rd, 2026.

[36:29] Okay.

[36:29] So that's a community meeting

[36:32] but I believe in the staff

[36:37] report it says that

[36:38] the equipment use procedure

[36:39] must be posted on the website

[36:42] at least 30 days prior to any

[36:43] public meeting.

[36:43] So I would assume that if you

[36:46] had a public meeting on JUNE

[36:46] the 3rd that you would have

[36:50] also had to posted on your

[36:51] website 30 days prior to.

[36:51] So I'm trying to understand

[36:55] your process and how you met

[36:55] that requirement as the item is

[37:00] before us today.

[37:01] So I guess you're up now and I

[37:04] think you're listening to you.

[37:04] >> Yes.

[37:05] Good afternoon Councilmember

[37:09] Foster If I could just with

[37:10] some additional dates to help

[37:14] clarify the annual military

[37:14] equipment report was actually

[37:19] posted on the website on MARCH

[37:23] 2nd and the updated procedure

[37:27] was posted to the website on

[37:28] MAY 30th and the 30 days would

[37:32] be required prior to the public

[37:33] meeting which would be today's

[37:37] meeting because it was direct

[37:38] docketed.

[37:38] Usually we would do that before

[37:44] Public Safety Committee meeting

[37:55] So I guess I'm a little

[37:55] confused because it's the way

[37:59] it is and maybe you can clarify

[38:00] the Assembly Bill 41 was

[38:00] written in the staff report

[38:04] says any public meeting so if

[38:07] you posted on MAY 30th and then

[38:11] you had a meeting on JUNE 3rd I

[38:16] don't know if we have met said

[38:19] requirement of Assembly Bill

[38:32] 481 would you agree So I so I

[38:36] believe the 30 days would be

[38:37] the public hearing concerning

[38:37] the military equipment use

[38:41] which would be subsection b of

[38:45] government code 7071 And I do

[38:50] recognize that it does say any

[38:50] public hearing concerning

[38:51] the military equipment and

[38:54] therefore I would our

[38:55] interpretation would be that

[38:59] the use policy would actually

[39:00] have to be up before the public

[39:04] safety Committee meeting.

[39:05] We at this time we did not

[39:08] interpret it to mean

[39:08] the community engagement

[39:18] meeting will who drafted this

[39:23] report the sending of

[39:29] the Department code on a turn

[39:32] to use words It feels as if we

[39:32] have a procedural issue.

[39:33] I think where the confusion MAY

[39:37] be is that the state law

[39:38] requires for the for the use

[39:42] policy to be posted before

[39:43] the public hearing not

[39:43] the public engagement meeting

[39:46] which is that JUNE 3rd meeting

[39:46] that's referenced.

[39:47] This would count as the hearing

[39:51] which if the use policies were

[39:52] posted the revised use policies

[39:52] were posted on MAY 30th and we

[39:55] would be within that 30 day

[39:56] period or beyond that 30 day

[39:56] period.

[39:57] So I think with our

[40:00] interpretation that counting

[40:01] this is the first hearing under

[40:01] state law we would be in

[40:04] compliance understanding and

[40:05] seeing concern there that it

[40:08] wasn't posted by the community

[40:13] meeting which was on JUNE 3rd.

[40:14] >> So am I to understand that

[40:15] we're going to a community

[40:18] meeting?

[40:19] I guess the expectation is we

[40:20] don't give the community time

[40:23] to be prepared with any

[40:27] questions, comments, concerns

[40:28] And I'm a little concerned

[40:32] because this report indicates

[40:33] the staff report says 30 days

[40:36] prior to any public meeting

[40:37] that's what's in the staff

[40:46] report.

[40:51] I hear you, Councilmember.

[40:52] I think yes, you're right that

[40:53] there was that piece of

[40:55] confusion there.

[40:56] I think as we look ahead for

[40:59] next year to have this posted

[41:00] 30 days prior to any public

[41:01] meeting regardless of

[41:01] the hearing or communication

[41:03] that effort is a commitment we

[41:08] can make.

[41:09] >> So am I to understand you're

[41:12] indicating you did not meet

[41:13] the requirements of ab 481 but

[41:17] yet you are still asking this

[41:18] Council to move this item

[41:22] forward today If I MAY

[41:22] Councilmember Foster We

[41:26] interpreted as the community

[41:27] meeting is not a public meeting

[41:30] and that was our interpretation

[41:35] of the procedural process and

[41:36] therefore we we are in

[41:40] accordance with ab 481 based on

[41:40] our interpretation that a

[41:44] community meeting is not a

[41:45] public meeting in accordance

[41:46] with this legislative body for

[41:49] approval.

[41:54] Okay.

[41:54] Um I'd have to go through

[41:59] the statute in more detail.

[42:00] I'm a little concerned that we

[42:00] are qualifying our

[42:04] interpretation today as we are

[42:04] here.

[42:05] Council PRESIDENT I will pause

[42:09] there but unfortunately I can't

[42:10] support the item that's before

[42:13] us today.

[42:14] Seems like it would be in

[42:17] the best interest of the police

[42:22] department and the community to

[42:23] properly notice and bring

[42:24] the item back and continue to

[42:27] move forward So um but I'll

[42:28] I'll in there and turn it back

[42:28] over to you.

[42:32] Council PRESIDENT Thank you.

[42:32] All right.

[42:33] Thank you Council Member Foster

[42:33] Always appreciate your comments

[42:37] observations and we'll go back

[42:38] to council member Von Wilpert.

[42:39] Thank you And thank you to

[42:41] Councilor Foster for raising

[42:42] procedural issues because it is

[42:43] important for the public to be

[42:43] able to see these policy And

[42:47] I'm reading on California

[42:51] legislature C.A. That Section

[42:52] 7071 subsection b of the law

[42:53] states that it needs to be

[42:53] placed on the enforcement

[42:56] agencies Internet website at

[42:57] least 30 days prior to any

[43:02] public hearing.

[43:03] So I could see why you be

[43:03] the different to be in a

[43:04] hearing in front of the city

[43:05] council versus a meeting It

[43:06] says the word hearing

[43:07] regardless in the future can we

[43:11] just do a before 30 days before

[43:11] the public meeting too?

[43:11] Yes.

[43:15] Council Member okay.

[43:16] All right.

[43:16] Thank you.

[43:17] I mean if we have it done you

[43:18] might as well posted on

[43:20] the website early so okay.

[43:21] Thank you.

[43:21] All right.

[43:22] Thank you.

[43:22] Council member Von Wilpert not

[43:25] seen Councilmember Huston And

[43:29] just to clarify and I know

[43:30] the police department has a

[43:30] whole they basically have all

[43:33] of their policies and

[43:34] procedures in one location

[43:39] That's a pretty extensive

[43:39] document.

[43:40] So I hope when you are I'm

[43:44] taking this type of action that

[43:45] you don't just rely on it being

[43:52] in that section but post it in

[43:53] a manner in which it is easily

[43:56] identifiable and folks

[43:57] understand the document that

[44:02] they should be reviewing or

[44:02] looking at.

[44:03] So just if you can do that I

[44:06] think that would improve our

[44:07] process.

[44:07] So thank you, Council PRESIDENT

[44:11] All right.

[44:12] Thank you, Councilmember Foster

[44:13] Not to anybody else I'd like to

[44:13] speak We have a motion by

[44:16] council member volleyball

[44:17] Putnam seconded by Council

[44:18] member Kimball to move

[44:18] the staff recommendation.

[44:21] Clerk Please call the roll as

[44:22] the voting system Please cast

[44:22] your vote in Council

[44:23] Councilmember Camp You If I can

[44:24] have your vote For the record

[44:28] Yes.

[44:32] >> This passes 7 to 2 with

[44:33] Council member Ella River and

[44:34] Council member Foster voting No

[44:38] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[44:38] right thank you City Clerk With

[44:42] that please introduce item 200

[44:42] .

[44:43] >> Thank you very much for your

[44:43] work.

[44:44] Thank you.

[44:44] Item 200 is the master lease

[44:46] agreement to finance general

[44:47] fund vehicles and equipment.

[44:48] Six votes are required pursuant

[44:51] to Charter section 99.

[44:52] There are no organized

[44:56] presentations for this item

[44:56] today.

[44:56] Thank you.

[45:15] Council PRESIDENT.

[45:16] All right.

[45:16] You settle yourselves in

[45:20] introduce yourselves for

[45:21] the record and let us know how

[45:22] much time you need for

[45:24] the presentation.

[45:25] >> Good afternoon.

[45:26] Council PRESIDENT And members

[45:29] of the Council Jody Pantaleo,

[45:30] assistant director of

[45:31] the Department of Finance and

[45:35] presenting with me today is

[45:35] Marisol Levinas, also from

[45:36] the Department of Finance.

[45:39] We'll need about seven minutes.

[45:40] All right.

[45:40] When you're ready.

[45:40] Thank you.

[45:44] Good afternoon again.

[45:45] The item for your consideration

[45:45] this afternoon is

[45:49] the authorization of a master

[45:49] lease agreement with JPMorgan

[45:53] Chase to finance general fund

[45:54] fleet and equipment in an

[45:57] amount not to exceed 48.3

[45:57] million.

[46:01] This item was presented and

[46:02] approved by the Budget and

[46:03] Government Finance Committee

[46:03] meeting last month.

[46:07] I will now turn it over to

[46:08] Marisol to go through

[46:08] the details.

[46:11] Thank you.

[46:15] >> The proposed financing of

[46:16] 48.3 million is anticipated

[46:19] anticipated to be used for 213

[46:20] general fund fleet vehicles and

[46:24] equipment that have been

[46:24] ordered and are anticipated to

[46:25] be delivered over a 15 month

[46:29] period following execution.

[46:30] Associated sales tax outfitting

[46:33] costs for the vehicle and

[46:34] equipment will be cash funded

[46:35] and are budgeted in the vehicle

[46:38] replacement fund.

[46:39] The purchase contracts for

[46:39] these vehicles and equipment

[46:43] were approved by city council

[46:44] in JULY of 2022 with

[46:44] the understanding that they

[46:48] would be financed through mfp

[46:49] with a master lease agreement

[46:49] brought forth closer to

[46:51] the time of the vehicle or

[46:56] equipment delivery.

[46:57] Based on current market

[46:58] conditions, estimated interest

[47:00] rates range from 3.91% to 4.1%

[47:05] depending on the repayment

[47:05] terms.

[47:06] Actual rates will be determined

[47:10] at closing.

[47:10] Lease payments will be made

[47:11] semiannually from the vehicle

[47:12] replacement fund.

[47:15] The projected debt service for

[47:16] this financing was incorporated

[47:20] into the city's five year

[47:21] financial outlook and remains

[47:21] within the debt ratio limit

[47:25] established by the city's debt

[47:25] policy as shown in this

[47:26] schedule.

[47:26] Annual payments are expected to

[47:30] peak in the early years and

[47:30] then gradually decline as

[47:31] obligations are repaid.

[47:35] Assuming a full draw of

[47:35] the 48.3 million total debt

[47:39] services anticipated at 56.8

[47:40] million over the life of

[47:44] the agreement, the proposed

[47:48] agreement establishes a

[47:49] financing agreement between

[47:50] the city as a lessee and

[47:52] JPMorgan as a lessor.

[47:53] The bank was selected through a

[47:54] competitive procurement

[47:54] process.

[47:58] The agreement provides funding

[47:58] availability over a 15 month

[48:02] acquisition period that is

[48:03] expected to span from

[48:04] approximately SEPTEMBER of 2026

[48:08] through DECEMBER of 2027.

[48:09] The city MAY draw only

[48:12] the funds it needs and is under

[48:13] no obligation to utilize

[48:14] the full authorized amount.

[48:17] Any unused capacity MAY also be

[48:18] available to finance additional

[48:22] eligible equipment and vehicles

[48:22] if needed.

[48:23] The interest rates will be

[48:27] fixed at closing and financing

[48:28] will only proceed if rate

[48:31] remains below the established

[48:32] ceiling of 7%.

[48:33] The city commits to budgeting

[48:35] and appropriating annual lease

[48:40] payments through the term.

[48:41] An additional feature of this

[48:42] agreement as the optional

[48:42] escrow.

[48:45] This allows the city to draw

[48:46] down all or a portion of

[48:50] the financing proceeds before

[48:50] before vehicles or equipment

[48:51] are actually delivered.

[48:55] The escrow feature gives

[48:56] the city additional flexibility

[49:00] if there are delivery delays or

[49:00] if market conditions make it

[49:01] financially beneficial to fund

[49:01] earlier.

[49:08] As we wait for assets to arrive

[49:08] since it's anticipated that

[49:09] the city will be pay will pay

[49:12] the vendors upon asset delivery

[49:13] then reimburse itself through

[49:13] the lease funding.

[49:17] The city is required by

[49:17] Treasury regulations to declare

[49:18] its official intent to

[49:21] reimburse itself during

[49:22] the master lease agreement.

[49:23] The ordinance contains language

[49:27] satisfies this requirement.

[49:31] >> As Josie mentioned this item

[49:31] went to Budget and Government

[49:32] Efficiency Committee and JUNE

[49:32] 17th.

[49:36] After City council today

[49:37] the first reading of

[49:40] the ordinance the second

[49:41] reading will be after

[49:42] the summer recess and AUGUST

[49:42] 25th 2026.

[49:45] With the execution of

[49:45] the agreement in early

[49:49] SEPTEMBER.

[49:50] Thank you for your time and we

[49:51] welcome any questions.

[49:55] This concludes our

[49:56] presentation.

[49:56] >> All right.

[49:57] Thank you for the work.

[49:57] Thank you for the presentation.

[50:00] And with that clerk please

[50:00] proceed for public comment.

[50:01] Thank you.

[50:02] Council PRESIDENT If I can have

[50:05] Maximillian Schmidt and then

[50:05] allegedly Audra, you'll have

[50:06] one minute the timer will be on

[50:12] the screen.

[50:12] >> Hi.

[50:16] I spoke earlier about a

[50:21] creative idea to do with these

[50:25] 214 vehicles amounting to $48

[50:26] million.

[50:30] I'm actually a victim of

[50:30] whatever you want to call them

[50:34] Modern day pagans, the occult

[50:39] Freemasons that well actually

[50:40] tried to make me crazy and even

[50:45] suicidal or turned to drugs by

[50:49] saying my thoughts out loud and

[50:50] my creative idea is to have a

[50:50] public service announcement

[50:55] with these woke one of these

[50:56] 214 vehicles saying to people

[50:59] that if you think that you're

[51:00] crazy because people are saying

[51:03] your thoughts out loud on that

[51:04] pagan rituals have actually

[51:05] existed before the time of

[51:08] Christ giving people

[51:09] the ability to be telepathic

[51:10] and to even drive other members

[51:14] of their community insane by

[51:14] saying their thoughts out loud

[51:15] You are not crazy.

[51:32] You're being targeted under

[51:33] point of order really quick

[51:38] regarding the last item and

[51:39] whether or not that community

[51:43] meeting was something where

[51:43] they were bringing forward this

[51:44] item for the first time it

[51:47] would require the notice.

[51:48] So I think you guys need to see

[51:49] if that was a community meeting

[51:52] where they were bringing it

[51:52] forward for the first time as

[51:53] information than it technically

[51:57] would need to be noticed 30

[51:57] days prior.

[51:58] So I think there's maybe a

[52:02] technicality here that you guys

[52:03] need to review to make sure

[52:03] that you're doing this abiding

[52:06] by the law because I don't

[52:07] believe that you are And I

[52:08] think that you were right but

[52:11] that you need to look a little

[52:11] bit deeper anyway.

[52:12] So as far as this equipment and

[52:16] these vehicles goes, I mean Jp

[52:17] Morgan and Chase I mean has

[52:17] connections to BlackRock.

[52:21] I don't understand why, you

[52:22] know, some billionaires were

[52:22] concerned about and others were

[52:26] not.

[52:26] And when we're spending this

[52:27] amount of money I mean when you

[52:28] guys are getting all of these

[52:31] electric vehicles and this new

[52:31] type of infrastructure, it's

[52:32] going to cost the people more

[52:35] money and it doesn't really

[52:36] save us money over time And nor

[52:41] is it what happened with

[52:41] the clock.

[52:42] That's weird.

[52:42] I'll keep taking it.

[52:43] Keep going.

[52:45] Okay.

[52:45] Thanks anyway.

[52:46] I was like I got more time.

[52:50] A little fun was like I'm going

[52:51] back in time.

[52:51] This is so weird.

[52:55] You guys are bummed but that we

[52:56] need to be mindful of like how

[52:56] much it's actually costing

[52:59] whether these things are

[53:00] beneficial to the environment

[53:01] because if you really do your

[53:04] research you can find that they

[53:05] are actually detrimental not

[53:05] only to the environment but

[53:09] also to public health and

[53:10] safety And we should be

[53:11] concerned about giving money to

[53:14] these entities that are engaged

[53:15] in very nefarious things like

[53:16] BlackRock and Vanguard which is

[53:21] involved with Chase and Jp

[53:21] Morgan.

[53:21] Thank you.

[53:22] I started off I'm a timer going

[53:24] to those participating remotely

[53:25] and you raised a point of order

[53:26] and that's where your time was

[53:26] And when you finish your point

[53:28] of order then we started your

[53:29] clock so you could speak to

[53:33] the item itself.

[53:42] Amanda if you can please unmute

[53:43] we can hear you.

[53:44] >> Please proceed.

[53:44] Okay, perfect.

[53:48] So I'm sitting here looking at

[53:52] a slide from last year's budget

[53:53] year where we had a I think it

[53:56] was $158 million deficit Looks

[53:57] like we budgeted 95 million for

[54:01] medium heavy duty and 40

[54:01] million for light duty.

[54:06] Now sitting here listening that

[54:07] we're going to finance another

[54:08] 48 million so at least more

[54:12] city vehicles are road than

[54:12] potholes.

[54:13] Our streets are flooding.

[54:13] If the foundation of my house

[54:16] is leaking, I'm not going to go

[54:17] out and finance a brand new

[54:17] Camaro.

[54:21] >> The people in the city are

[54:21] sick to death of the financial

[54:22] mismanagement the City Council

[54:22] has displayed.

[54:27] I promise you that we will be

[54:27] auditing the out of each and

[54:31] every single contract.

[54:32] We trust you with our money

[54:33] like we trust Bill Cosby

[54:33] the poorest drinks Please vote

[54:37] no to add to our deficit.

[54:37] Please use the resources we

[54:38] have already given you

[54:42] responsibly and allocate our

[54:43] taxes responsibly.

[54:43] Thank you.

[54:44] Thank you, Larry Ackerman If

[54:51] you can please unmute I will be

[54:51] open.

[54:52] I didn't say anything in this

[54:55] diagram about electrical

[54:55] vehicle use.

[54:56] Good luck in that pursuit and

[55:00] how we are addressing

[55:01] the future of electric battery

[55:02] use What that what a good safe

[55:02] electric battery means for our

[55:06] future.

[55:07] We make good early steps to

[55:08] make that conversation more

[55:08] clear.

[55:09] Good luck in those continued

[55:11] efforts for our fleet service

[55:12] and for our communities.

[55:12] >> Thank you.

[55:13] Thank you Tony.

[55:16] If you can please unmute.

[55:22] Yes, I wanted to agree with

[55:22] the sentiments that were spoken

[55:23] earlier by a couple of

[55:24] the constituents namely with

[55:28] Amanda and namely with Audra.

[55:29] And I want to say any time that

[55:33] Audra tells a member of city

[55:33] Council that you're doing

[55:34] something right that should

[55:34] really tell you something.

[55:39] And Henry Foster, you are

[55:39] definitely doing something

[55:40] right.

[55:40] As well as Shawn Ella Rivera,

[55:43] thank you both for routinely

[55:43] being some of the only too

[55:44] courageous enough to take a

[55:49] bold stance when it comes to a

[55:50] principled stance when it comes

[55:51] to doing things the right tone

[55:55] and the wrong way.

[55:55] Can you speak to the item?

[55:56] Audra had a point of order on

[55:57] which is why we keep her that

[55:59] time But speak to the item

[56:00] please.

[56:00] >> Sure.

[56:05] I don't understand why we're

[56:05] necessarily going with Morgan

[56:06] as the ones that are financing

[56:10] this project.

[56:11] I would love to see us actually

[56:11] financing with someone

[56:16] differently If we can do like

[56:17] an independent credit union or

[56:17] someone local.

[56:22] Jp Union is, you know, known

[56:23] for definitely being out of

[56:23] code of conduct and have all

[56:27] kinds of lawsuits against them

[56:28] for various reasons.

[56:33] Thank you.

[56:33] And your final speaker with our

[56:36] hand raised at the moment,

[56:41] please unmute Verde.

[56:42] Can you hear me?

[56:42] Yes.

[56:43] Please proceed.

[56:47] So from my understanding they

[56:51] want a 48.3 million but

[56:52] the city to go into debt for

[56:52] these vehicles which would be

[56:57] including sd pd meaning.

[57:02] So we're just adding on to that

[57:03] and going into debt.

[57:08] Also if this does pass,

[57:09] the ordinance gives the mayor

[57:10] or the city the ceo and cfo

[57:14] authority to change the list

[57:14] finance assets without

[57:15] returning to council or

[57:15] approval.

[57:20] I think that's an issue.

[57:21] I don't understand how we're

[57:26] taking all of this money and

[57:27] investing in military police

[57:32] infrastructure.

[57:33] I just can't understand it.

[57:33] Thank you.

[57:34] Thank you for that input.

[57:38] Public comment on this item.

[57:39] >> All right.

[57:40] Thank you, City Clerk.

[57:40] Well I'll turn over to council

[57:41] members for questions.

[57:44] Comments Entertain a motion.

[57:44] >> We'll start with

[57:45] Councilmember Moreno.

[57:46] Thank you and thank you for

[57:50] your presentation.

[57:51] I've become uneasy with

[57:51] the structure by which the city

[57:56] purchases and then leases

[57:56] vehicles.

[57:57] The city will initially fund

[57:57] the cost of the vehicles and

[58:02] equipment purchases and then

[58:02] reimburse itself through lease

[58:03] financing.

[58:08] This is similar to buying a

[58:09] washer with cash and then

[58:14] taking out a loan afterward to

[58:15] reimburse yourself.

[58:15] In essence replacing an upfront

[58:20] cash payment with a debt that

[58:21] must be paid over time with

[58:21] interest.

[58:22] Now consistent with those

[58:27] concerns I do not I did not

[58:28] support last year's cooperative

[58:28] procurement contract for

[58:32] the purchase of various

[58:33] vehicles and equipment.

[58:33] I also didn't support last

[58:38] year's master lease agreement

[58:39] to finance general fund

[58:39] vehicles and equipment.

[58:44] Now I do understand that this

[58:45] is the way the city has

[58:45] purchased vehicles in recent

[58:46] years and I'm simply

[58:51] uncomfortable with how the city

[58:51] is perpetually issuing debt to

[58:52] fund vehicles and equipment for

[58:52] our fleet.

[58:57] So I will not be supporting

[58:57] this item before us today.

[58:58] Thank you.

[58:58] All right.

[59:03] Thank you, Councilmember Moreno

[59:03] .

[59:07] Does our councilmember Manuel

[59:08] thank you for the presentation

[59:13] and you know, I wish that we

[59:14] had done this with

[59:20] the community presentation that

[59:20] was heard a budget government

[59:21] efficiency committee on

[59:22] the cost benefit analysis of

[59:25] whether to rent versus buy a

[59:26] different equipment.

[59:27] I do with my staff but I think

[59:27] it would have been very helpful

[59:33] to see the side by side.

[59:34] What I have a couple of

[59:34] questions about you know

[59:35] the question that they're asked

[59:40] about in addition to vehicles

[59:40] is there requirement here to be

[59:41] purchased or utilize certain

[59:42] conditions vehicles or that it

[59:44] is just the financing and

[59:45] the list to be able to separate

[59:45] this item with just

[59:45] the financing?

[59:50] Okay.

[59:51] So then how are we going to

[59:55] track who buys what and what

[59:56] it's used for Because

[59:56] the rental contract got

[59:57] completely out of control and

[1:00:02] I'm nervous for this one now to

[1:00:02] get it.

[1:00:03] We have Gina Davis from General

[1:00:04] Services available to answer

[1:00:11] this question.

[1:00:18] Good afternoon Councilmember

[1:00:18] Bond.

[1:00:18] This is from the General

[1:00:19] Services Department.

[1:00:24] I'm list of vehicles that we

[1:00:30] produced to put together in

[1:00:30] the financing agreement.

[1:00:31] These were vehicles that were

[1:00:35] purchased prior to the cda.

[1:00:36] So these are vehicles that were

[1:00:40] maybe purchased in the last 2

[1:00:40] or 3 years that will be

[1:00:41] arriving and eligible for

[1:00:41] financing.

[1:00:46] In terms of the these we do

[1:00:47] have 20 EVs on order.

[1:00:52] That are set to arise in

[1:00:52] the next year or two.

[1:00:58] But we are carefully watching

[1:00:59] the financial constraints that

[1:00:59] you bring.

[1:01:00] They tend to be more expensive

[1:01:04] than combustible engine

[1:01:04] vehicles and their market

[1:01:08] availability is also recently

[1:01:12] constrained.

[1:01:12] I hope that answers your

[1:01:18] question.

[1:01:38] Okay.

[1:02:23] So is the list of vehicles in

[1:02:32] the stack of materials the list

[1:02:32] of vehicles I can produce for

[1:02:54] you The list of vehicles that

[1:02:57] we think will come in during

[1:02:57] this financing period.

[1:02:57] Again, these were purchased and

[1:02:57] we believe that they will arise

[1:02:58] during this financing period.

[1:02:58] They could arise later.

[1:02:58] In which case will they would

[1:02:58] get on to the next master lease

[1:02:58] agreement.

[1:02:58] But I'm happy to produce what

[1:02:59] we believe will will arrived in

[1:02:59] this financing period.

[1:02:59] Yeah, I think that would have

[1:02:59] been helpful when we voted on

[1:02:59] the financing to have a list of

[1:02:59] what we're buying next to.

[1:03:00] I know that these that

[1:03:00] the purchases were made a while

[1:03:00] ago because we don't pay for

[1:03:00] them to be able to drive,

[1:03:00] correct?

[1:03:00] Right.

[1:03:01] But it would have been helpful

[1:03:01] to have that list matching up

[1:03:01] with this item so we'd have to

[1:03:01] go digging for it.

[1:03:01] >> Okay.

[1:03:01] Thank you for that feedback

[1:03:01] Councilmember.

[1:03:02] We did make an attempt to

[1:03:02] summarize So just in terms of

[1:03:02] the types of vehicles and also

[1:03:02] the way this agreement is set

[1:03:02] up, we do have the flexibility

[1:03:02] to as Gina do did if these

[1:03:03] specific vehicles don't come in

[1:03:03] within that position period we

[1:03:03] have the ability if there's

[1:03:03] some other firetruck for

[1:03:03] instance that comes in within

[1:03:03] that 15 month period we have

[1:03:04] the ability to finance that.

[1:03:04] So I but I would take

[1:03:04] the feedback but also we want

[1:03:04] to be careful not to indicate

[1:03:04] that this action is not

[1:03:04] authorizing the vehicles

[1:03:05] specifically that are being

[1:03:05] financed.

[1:03:05] This is just a financing

[1:03:06] agreement in a certain amount

[1:03:11] not to exceed a certain amount

[1:03:11] .

[1:03:11] Okay.

[1:03:12] Then what was the point of

[1:03:18] the study showing which

[1:03:18] vehicles were cheaper to rent

[1:03:19] versus which were cheaper to

[1:03:19] buy?

[1:03:20] Are we comparing the vehicles

[1:03:23] coming in to that study which

[1:03:24] was very helpful?

[1:03:25] Would it not be heard Today we

[1:03:25] heard the Budget and Efficiency

[1:03:29] Committee.

[1:03:36] So if I if I could if I could

[1:03:37] try and answer that question.

[1:03:37] Councilmember Bond.

[1:03:39] So the cda that you heard at

[1:03:46] Budget Committee recently,

[1:03:47] those were that's a practice

[1:03:47] that we are going to embark

[1:03:53] upon for our purchases in

[1:03:53] the future.

[1:03:54] But again, as Jose noted, these

[1:03:58] the vehicles that are being

[1:03:59] financed as part of the 48.3

[1:03:59] million are our vehicles that

[1:04:04] we already ordered.

[1:04:04] So we didn't have an

[1:04:10] opportunity to take a look at

[1:04:10] the cost benefit analysis for

[1:04:11] these specific vehicles.

[1:04:15] But we will moving forward.

[1:04:22] Okay.

[1:04:22] All right.

[1:04:28] I mean that's unfortunate but

[1:04:29] I'm glad we are having a study

[1:04:30] to see which is cheaper to rent

[1:04:34] or buy for individual vehicle.

[1:04:35] I have a finance question and I

[1:04:40] have a contract in question So

[1:04:41] with the interest rate it

[1:04:41] the current Fed interest rate

[1:04:45] right now on 3.5 5.75%.

[1:04:51] Yes Councilmember these rates

[1:04:51] are these interest rates are

[1:04:52] derived from the Fed interest

[1:04:56] rates and they speak to

[1:04:57] the different terms of

[1:04:58] the financing for these

[1:04:58] vehicles.

[1:05:03] So it's not exactly the same as

[1:05:04] the Fed interest rate.

[1:05:04] It's not exactly the same as

[1:05:09] the federal funds rate.

[1:05:10] Yeah, understood.

[1:05:14] But 7% is double the Fed

[1:05:15] interest rate right now.

[1:05:18] So it's as we this wouldn't go

[1:05:18] through but an even 6.9% I mean

[1:05:19] that's ridiculous.

[1:05:20] I wouldn't take a loan out for

[1:05:23] that given the interest rate in

[1:05:24] the three I can't remember that

[1:05:29] is a not to exceed that we have

[1:05:29] included in the ordinance it's

[1:05:30] yes it's unlikely currently as

[1:05:35] shown in the staff report,

[1:05:35] the interest rates are ranging

[1:05:36] between 3.5 and 4%.

[1:05:40] That's what we are seeing

[1:05:41] currently and I don't expect it

[1:05:44] to go up in the next 15 month

[1:05:45] period up to the 7%.

[1:05:51] But that's just legal not to

[1:05:52] exceed for California state law

[1:05:52] is 12%.

[1:05:53] So we wanted to at least rein

[1:05:57] it in and not just leave that

[1:06:03] default rate maximum rate but

[1:06:04] the current expectation your

[1:06:04] rate is not expected to be 10%.

[1:06:09] So why didn't you just put in

[1:06:10] the contract that it wouldn't

[1:06:10] be above a point of

[1:06:12] the interest rate the Fed

[1:06:19] interest rate comes from above

[1:06:19] us In the past six months with

[1:06:24] all the market volatility

[1:06:24] the interest rates have moved

[1:06:25] significantly and if we cap

[1:06:31] the interest rate at say 4%

[1:06:32] that could prevent us from

[1:06:36] the financing when the vehicles

[1:06:37] come in.

[1:06:37] So it would be my

[1:06:42] recommendation to give at least

[1:06:46] some buffer in case interest

[1:06:47] rates move up to 35%.

[1:06:48] We do have the ability under

[1:06:53] this contract to after a year

[1:06:54] to refund it at a lower

[1:06:55] interest rate but it would

[1:06:55] still give us the flexibility

[1:06:59] to finance the vehicles as they

[1:07:00] come in because the alternative

[1:07:00] to not financing the vehicles

[1:07:01] when they come in is to pay

[1:07:04] cash as noted, the vehicles

[1:07:05] have already been ordered and

[1:07:11] when they come we have to pay

[1:07:11] for them.

[1:07:12] So if if we are constrained

[1:07:13] severely constrained under this

[1:07:17] financing agreement,

[1:07:17] the alternative would be to

[1:07:18] just pay cash.

[1:07:24] So my question wasn't to set

[1:07:24] the value at 4%.

[1:07:25] My question is why don't I put

[1:07:26] it in the could I hear you on

[1:07:28] the interest rates are all over

[1:07:29] the place because Washington dc

[1:07:30] is totally nuts right now But I

[1:07:34] just I feel like this bank

[1:07:35] could be taking advantage of us

[1:07:35] 7% too much.

[1:07:36] Why would the contract say

[1:07:39] the interest rate will be set

[1:07:39] within 1% whatever the Fed

[1:07:40] interest rate is?

[1:07:40] That's what I'm saying.

[1:07:41] That will give you

[1:07:46] the flexibility I keep with

[1:07:47] the California state law as 12%

[1:07:48] That is it seems like we

[1:07:48] shouldn't be saying that

[1:07:51] textually on interest So

[1:07:52] council member maybe I can

[1:07:52] clarify how the interest rate

[1:07:57] is calculated.

[1:07:58] The 7% is not provided to us by

[1:07:58] the bank.

[1:08:03] What is provided to us in

[1:08:04] the bank's response to our rfp

[1:08:10] is an index In this case it's

[1:08:11] what's called the sofr which is

[1:08:11] the secured overnight financing

[1:08:12] rate.

[1:08:16] So for as shown in the staff

[1:08:16] report for example they give us

[1:08:21] an index in this case the sofr

[1:08:22] and it's pegged to that index.

[1:08:28] So as of today or as of last

[1:08:29] month when we wrote the staff

[1:08:32] report based on the index it

[1:08:32] was the 3.5%.

[1:08:36] So fast forward six months If

[1:08:37] there's some movement in

[1:08:38] the index we MAY have an

[1:08:42] effective interest rate of even

[1:08:43] as low as 3% or it could be 4%.

[1:08:48] It's tough recommendation to to

[1:08:54] provide some of some safety net

[1:09:01] for our fiscal planning that we

[1:09:01] if the interest rate and again

[1:09:02] it's not at once we execute

[1:09:06] this it's not really what

[1:09:07] the bank would say or do Right

[1:09:08] If the market interest rates if

[1:09:13] the sofr index goes up

[1:09:13] significantly, we could have an

[1:09:17] effective interest rate of 6%

[1:09:18] or 6.5% And so it staff

[1:09:22] recommendation that if interest

[1:09:23] rates go up that significantly

[1:09:24] that we would not be using this

[1:09:29] financing tool and would try to

[1:09:30] find alternatives effectively.

[1:09:34] So the 7% is not the bank's

[1:09:35] proposal.

[1:09:35] Got it.

[1:09:41] Okay.

[1:09:42] I still think we could we

[1:09:43] should capital lot lower than

[1:09:43] that.

[1:09:46] I thank you for clarifying that

[1:09:47] .

[1:09:48] My last question is the harp

[1:09:52] rental contract was absolutely

[1:09:53] out of control in inappropriate

[1:09:54] in and a model of how the city

[1:09:57] shouldn't be spending money on

[1:09:58] authorized So what are we doing

[1:09:59] to prevent that from happening

[1:10:05] again so I don't know what did

[1:10:22] you know Again you are muted.

[1:10:22] >> Oh, apologies.

[1:10:23] Thank you for your question

[1:10:27] Councilmember Bond wilpert

[1:10:27] General Services along with

[1:10:28] the purchasing and contracting

[1:10:33] department are reviewing every

[1:10:34] single purchase requisition and

[1:10:39] that is coming through to

[1:10:40] request rentals through part I

[1:10:45] believed that a little bit of

[1:10:46] that was talked about during

[1:10:47] budget committee when the cba

[1:10:50] was presented to the committee.

[1:10:51] So we are monitoring that very

[1:10:52] closely in partnership with

[1:10:58] purchasing and contracting.

[1:10:59] But I would defer to Claudio

[1:11:03] Barcus for more details on on

[1:11:04] monitoring that contract And

[1:11:09] for all of you here, I don't

[1:11:12] believe she's here today.

[1:11:13] All right.

[1:11:13] Thank you.

[1:11:20] Those are all my questions.

[1:11:20] >> All right.

[1:11:21] Thank you.

[1:11:22] Council member panel part We'll

[1:11:22] go next to Councilmember

[1:11:22] Foster.

[1:11:23] Yes.

[1:11:25] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[1:11:26] Thank you for the presentation.

[1:11:26] I do understand that, you know

[1:11:32] this is I must say pretty hurt

[1:11:32] in the discussion we're having.

[1:11:37] These were already in the queue

[1:11:37] already ordered fabrication

[1:11:43] moving forward and now which is

[1:11:43] expecting I guess delivery of

[1:11:49] set vehicles I do share in

[1:11:50] the concern I'm actually even a

[1:11:54] little more troubled in regards

[1:11:55] to staff coming up with the 7%

[1:12:00] I guess I'll call it a

[1:12:01] contingency because you are

[1:12:06] the ones who make that

[1:12:07] determination as to what is

[1:12:08] acceptable and what's not.

[1:12:10] And so I think it's signaling

[1:12:11] that 87% increase is acceptable

[1:12:12] which I think is creating

[1:12:17] somewhat of the discomfort.

[1:12:22] So I guess I would ask the city

[1:12:29] attorney's in regards to what I

[1:12:34] can find in regards to

[1:12:35] the interest rates which as

[1:12:38] the ordinance authorization

[1:12:39] permits rates up to 7%.

[1:12:45] Can we pull that back in and

[1:12:49] bring that number back down to

[1:12:50] the 4.14% or to do it in I

[1:12:51] don't know what it gets us If

[1:12:54] we say 1% over the feds deal to

[1:12:55] move this forward And then if

[1:12:59] there's anything that happens

[1:13:00] you can provide us with a

[1:13:00] written you know, provide

[1:13:05] council PRESIDENT Or in

[1:13:06] the members a written

[1:13:06] memorandum if there's some type

[1:13:11] of immediate action that we

[1:13:12] need to do is that the council

[1:13:13] get something docketed or

[1:13:16] directed off if it's going to

[1:13:21] impede said authorization.

[1:13:22] I would ask Deputy City

[1:13:28] Attorney Marguerite Minard if

[1:13:29] she has an answer to that

[1:13:29] question as she sits here today

[1:13:33] or if that's something that we

[1:13:33] would need to look into

[1:13:34] further.

[1:13:34] Thank you for the question,

[1:13:38] Councilmember Yes, I can

[1:13:39] definitely look at that further

[1:13:44] and get back to you but the if

[1:13:44] you if you're just asking about

[1:13:45] changing the capping

[1:13:46] the interest rate in ordinance

[1:13:52] that can be done that can be

[1:13:58] done today or do we need to

[1:13:58] bring the item back?

[1:14:03] I don't see any legal issues

[1:14:04] with doing that today but I

[1:14:04] would want to defer to staff

[1:14:08] about other issues that that

[1:14:09] might bring up with

[1:14:14] the contract.

[1:14:15] >> Councilmember if I could

[1:14:15] jump in a little bit there, I

[1:14:20] think it's probably within this

[1:14:21] councilor and the front of

[1:14:21] the city attorney obviously and

[1:14:22] whether or not it is but to set

[1:14:24] a cap on the interest rate for

[1:14:25] this.

[1:14:25] That said, I do think that it's

[1:14:30] worth having some additional

[1:14:31] flexibility beyond just that 4%

[1:14:32] as you've heard from Jose.

[1:14:35] That's secured overnight rates.

[1:14:36] They can vary.

[1:14:36] They can go up and down pretty

[1:14:37] significantly.

[1:14:40] The 7% kind of cap that you

[1:14:40] have right now is the point at

[1:14:41] which your debt management

[1:14:45] staff and I think appropriately

[1:14:46] telling you that's the point

[1:14:46] where we will try to find

[1:14:47] another mechanism for financing

[1:14:50] these vehicle purchases.

[1:14:51] Those payments are coming down

[1:14:52] when the vehicles are delivered

[1:14:55] period.

[1:14:56] The 7% is really more for our

[1:14:57] own internal planning that I

[1:15:01] think it is signaling a bank

[1:15:01] the interest rates that they

[1:15:02] can charge off our standard

[1:15:05] overnight rate of 3.5% and

[1:15:06] the bank is saying we're going

[1:15:07] to charge you 6.5%.

[1:15:07] I suspect that you would also

[1:15:10] hear the city saying no you're

[1:15:11] not.

[1:15:11] Our contract is actually tied

[1:15:12] to looking at the standard

[1:15:15] overnight financing rate.

[1:15:16] But honestly I'm happy to pitch

[1:15:17] that back over to

[1:15:17] the Department of Finance And

[1:15:18] generally if you wanted to add

[1:15:23] anything more I'm sorry and I

[1:15:23] appreciate that Charles, but I

[1:15:28] think conversation that's been

[1:15:29] ahead of the day is is just

[1:15:30] making sure we have some fiscal

[1:15:36] responsibility And I think any

[1:15:37] I'm not going to sign on

[1:15:41] the car note at 7% I'll take

[1:15:46] the trolley so I think that's

[1:15:51] the I think that's the concern

[1:15:52] that you're having now How do

[1:15:52] we make sure we have

[1:15:57] accountability and control?

[1:15:58] Not so much a the bank

[1:16:02] understands this but it's a

[1:16:02] double edged sword.

[1:16:03] We're giving staff the ability

[1:16:06] to go as high as 7% which you

[1:16:10] know water follows the least

[1:16:11] the path of least resistance

[1:16:12] with the caveat that those

[1:16:12] vehicles are already ordered

[1:16:15] and pending delivery.

[1:16:16] Right.

[1:16:16] So what does that have to do

[1:16:21] with the interest rate vehicles

[1:16:22] need to be paid for that?

[1:16:23] What does it have to do with

[1:16:25] the interest rate?

[1:16:26] Well, first of all, dollars

[1:16:27] need to go out the door when

[1:16:31] the vehicle for the lever to so

[1:16:32] paying cash up front We haven't

[1:16:32] budgeted on an ongoing basis to

[1:16:35] be paying for for paying for

[1:16:36] vehicles in cash on an ongoing

[1:16:40] basis which means without that

[1:16:41] money we cannot reimburse

[1:16:41] ourselves for that money which

[1:16:45] means that there are other

[1:16:45] vehicle purchases or other

[1:16:46] services that would have to be

[1:16:47] pulled back at that point.

[1:16:50] So I'm not I'm not disputing

[1:16:50] that.

[1:16:54] I'm just simply asking

[1:16:55] the question what does

[1:16:56] the purchase price have to do

[1:17:00] with the interest rate If you

[1:17:00] already know your fire engines

[1:17:03] are already going to be at 7%?

[1:17:04] Is that what we're saying or

[1:17:09] our our fancy gtx Mustangs are

[1:17:12] going to be at 7%.

[1:17:17] What are we I'm lost Cost of

[1:17:18] the vehicles cost of

[1:17:18] the vehicle.

[1:17:19] We're talking about an interest

[1:17:22] rate councilmember if I MAY

[1:17:23] clarify logistically since for

[1:17:26] an example of one fire truck

[1:17:30] that's say 5 million if it were

[1:17:31] supposed to be financed We have

[1:17:36] because it's going to be

[1:17:36] financed We have not budgeted

[1:17:40] the 5 million to be paid out to

[1:17:40] the vendor.

[1:17:41] We have only budgeted

[1:17:45] the interest cost of

[1:17:50] the 250,000 And as an example

[1:17:51] I'm just this is not hard

[1:17:54] numbers say if the 250,000 was

[1:17:55] based on a 3.5% interest rate

[1:17:58] and the interest rate goes up

[1:18:03] to 7%, the interest cost will

[1:18:03] go up.

[1:18:08] But we if if this Mattingly's

[1:18:09] was capped at 4%, we would not

[1:18:13] have the ability we would have

[1:18:14] to come up with 5 million to

[1:18:14] pay in this fiscal year which

[1:18:17] is not in the budget.

[1:18:18] So that's the practical

[1:18:22] consequence And just as staff

[1:18:23] in terms of the recommendation

[1:18:27] it was it is a balancing act If

[1:18:32] we have this interest capped at

[1:18:33] 12% we we understand that

[1:18:37] that's you know, we are we are

[1:18:37] communicating that we would

[1:18:38] finance this even if

[1:18:41] the interest rate rates were

[1:18:42] 11.9.

[1:18:46] But on the other side we are

[1:18:51] also trying to predict

[1:18:51] the situation of having to pay

[1:18:52] cash and not have a financing

[1:18:53] in place.

[1:18:55] So it's the balancing between

[1:18:56] the two.

[1:18:56] >> I understand.

[1:18:57] So my to what you are

[1:19:01] indicating you have 7% in

[1:19:05] the budget across the board

[1:19:06] The up at this point they are

[1:19:07] all projections because this is

[1:19:10] all subject to appropriations

[1:19:11] currently based on this

[1:19:15] timeline These lease payments

[1:19:20] will most likely or I'm pretty

[1:19:21] sure that it's scheduled to

[1:19:24] trigger only from fiscal year

[1:19:25] 28.

[1:19:26] These would not have an impact

[1:19:28] on fiscal 27.

[1:19:28] >> Okay.

[1:19:29] Yes.

[1:19:34] So that that is so I, I also as

[1:19:34] I indicated before, that really

[1:19:38] just gives us time to to find

[1:19:39] another mechanism or if we are

[1:19:42] forced to pay if the market is

[1:19:47] so crazy on one day and that we

[1:19:48] are forced to lock in at say

[1:19:53] 6.9% we MAY be we MAY be forced

[1:19:54] to pay that lease payment in

[1:19:56] fiscal 28 but that will give us

[1:19:57] time to refinance, find other

[1:20:01] mechanisms so that that's not

[1:20:02] we are not locked in for

[1:20:02] the remaining lease.

[1:20:09] So this gives us that option.

[1:20:09] Okay.

[1:20:09] I appreciate that.

[1:20:14] I was trying to get you there a

[1:20:14] pause and turn it over to

[1:20:15] the next council.

[1:20:15] Thank you.

[1:20:19] All right.

[1:20:20] Councilmember Foster will go to

[1:20:20] next to Councilmember Ella

[1:20:32] Rivera and I did I was I was We

[1:20:33] still have a motion right now.

[1:20:36] A motion?

[1:20:46] Yeah.

[1:20:47] Okay So what I want to say

[1:20:48] thank you to my colleagues for

[1:20:52] raising the questions that were

[1:20:52] asked.

[1:20:56] I think it's a bunch of things

[1:20:56] that are going on here at once.

[1:21:00] So we have concerns about

[1:21:01] the way that the city has

[1:21:05] approached leasing versus

[1:21:06] purchasing and the lack of a

[1:21:06] strategy there.

[1:21:11] The additional cost, the big

[1:21:11] picture that that has meant for

[1:21:16] the city and I'll just say that

[1:21:17] in my mind it's a classic

[1:21:20] example of the superficial way

[1:21:24] that the city approached fiscal

[1:21:25] conservatism or responsibility

[1:21:33] in previous eras saving a

[1:21:36] dollar Now that will end up

[1:21:37] costing us $10 or $20 even more

[1:21:41] down the road.

[1:21:42] I also understand that, you

[1:21:43] know, these are vehicles that

[1:21:46] have been purchased.

[1:21:46] I do.

[1:21:47] I think And Charles, maybe you

[1:21:51] can speak to this this is more

[1:21:57] of a forward looking question.

[1:21:58] This comes comes at us

[1:21:59] piecemeal And as a result I

[1:22:02] think as it is the council by

[1:22:07] the end of that process it it's

[1:22:08] it's like it's more difficult

[1:22:11] to make the decision and that's

[1:22:12] not good for anyone involved.

[1:22:16] And so I'm wondering if you can

[1:22:17] if you have ideas about ways

[1:22:21] where these sort of items are

[1:22:22] or actions I should say are

[1:22:26] brought to us more holistic

[1:22:27] early is that is that feasible

[1:22:31] in your mind in some ways

[1:22:32] potentially yes.

[1:22:32] Moving forward, I do want to

[1:22:33] acknowledge the headwinds of

[1:22:36] both debt management and fleet

[1:22:37] have been facing over the last

[1:22:38] several years.

[1:22:40] First you go back 4 or 5 years

[1:22:41] and sorry maybe a few more

[1:22:42] years than that and the city

[1:22:45] did actually switch its

[1:22:46] approach from cash funding

[1:22:46] the purchase of vehicles to

[1:22:47] essentially debt funding

[1:22:50] the purchasing vehicles And I

[1:22:51] while this is a master lease

[1:22:52] agreement, I want to be clear

[1:22:52] This is the financing for

[1:22:54] vehicles that are being

[1:22:55] purchased, right?

[1:22:56] >> So that moves things to kind

[1:22:59] of the financing being in

[1:23:00] arrears.

[1:23:04] We do have where we should also

[1:23:05] recognize that over the last

[1:23:06] three years the time difference

[1:23:09] between when an order was put

[1:23:10] in and when a vehicle was

[1:23:10] delivered grew pretty

[1:23:11] significantly and now it's

[1:23:11] starting to shrink again.

[1:23:13] So we are dealing with some

[1:23:14] larger kind of contextual

[1:23:18] headwinds that would have made

[1:23:18] that more difficult over

[1:23:19] the last several years.

[1:23:20] That said, is there an

[1:23:23] opportunity to look at vehicle

[1:23:28] purchases at the same time that

[1:23:28] we're looking at financing?

[1:23:29] I guess potentially you know,

[1:23:30] usually we will be looking at

[1:23:33] the needs for additional

[1:23:34] vehicles when we are going

[1:23:34] through the budget process and

[1:23:35] they can also come in on an ad

[1:23:38] hoc basis as well tying that to

[1:23:43] a financing mechanism I suppose

[1:23:44] is fine but at some point you

[1:23:44] are still going to have to have

[1:23:48] in all likelihood an annual

[1:23:48] master lease agreement if we're

[1:23:49] going to continue debt

[1:23:50] financing vehicle purchases

[1:23:51] it's going to come for you and

[1:23:52] essentially loop all of those

[1:23:57] together.

[1:23:57] There is both value in being

[1:23:58] able to say these are the exact

[1:24:02] vehicles we want to purchase so

[1:24:02] that you can say this is what

[1:24:03] this debt will fund And then

[1:24:06] there's also real value in what

[1:24:07] you heard the Department of

[1:24:07] Finance say We want some

[1:24:08] additional flexibility because

[1:24:11] delivery dates change need

[1:24:11] change.

[1:24:12] Our order dates change as well.

[1:24:17] So is there a way to

[1:24:17] consolidate these and have a

[1:24:21] more holistic discussion Tend

[1:24:22] to Typically yes.

[1:24:22] But I don't know if you are

[1:24:24] able to ever do everything in

[1:24:25] just one day or in one action

[1:24:33] for sure and then theoretically

[1:24:34] the flexibility is still

[1:24:39] regulated by the budget and

[1:24:39] what we've budgeted for.

[1:24:44] But this is where it gets a

[1:24:45] little bit squishy Even in my

[1:24:48] mind we can budget for amounts

[1:24:49] total amounts but there's still

[1:24:49] a lot of flexibility for

[1:24:53] the mayor within those amounts

[1:24:54] And and so the constraints

[1:24:58] within an action like this do

[1:24:59] become a little bit more

[1:25:06] important or I, I think that

[1:25:07] maybe kind of bringing in a

[1:25:11] separate line of conversation

[1:25:12] because the execution of

[1:25:12] the budget where there are

[1:25:16] there's maybe more flexibility

[1:25:17] on the mayor side and there

[1:25:17] should be and then there's just

[1:25:18] the actual financing of

[1:25:20] vehicles not being presented to

[1:25:21] you And my mind is really just

[1:25:22] the financing side.

[1:25:25] So totally I think what I'm

[1:25:26] going with that is language

[1:25:26] that speaks to the mayor's

[1:25:27] authority or the ceo's

[1:25:33] authority the flexibility

[1:25:33] that's there the some of

[1:25:37] the guardrails that we would

[1:25:38] like to think are applied

[1:25:42] through the budget.

[1:25:43] >> They're there in terms of

[1:25:44] totals and not necessarily some

[1:25:47] of the specifics.

[1:25:48] I think what I'm what I'm

[1:25:48] getting at is I think all of

[1:25:49] these things are running

[1:25:52] together and what we have is a

[1:25:54] mess for dogs to navigate right

[1:25:58] now.

[1:25:59] >> So kind of building off

[1:26:00] the questions that my

[1:26:09] colleagues asked there's is

[1:26:15] there a sweet spot here that

[1:26:16] doesn't feel like you'd be

[1:26:17] having like your hands would be

[1:26:22] tied in a way that would be

[1:26:23] impractical but also address

[1:26:27] the council's concerns about

[1:26:28] this being not a blank check

[1:26:32] but a check with with more with

[1:26:34] much more latitude And it feels

[1:26:39] like we're prepared to give

[1:26:40] consumer Thank you for that

[1:26:40] question.

[1:26:45] If I could just reframe

[1:26:45] the discussion a little bit

[1:26:46] when we're looking at

[1:26:49] the interest rate that staff is

[1:26:50] is providing in terms of

[1:26:54] whether we have 4% or 7% not to

[1:26:54] oversimplify but the interest

[1:26:55] rate is really the price of

[1:26:55] money.

[1:26:56] Right?

[1:26:59] And it depends on the economy

[1:27:00] is doing If for example during

[1:27:04] covid the interest rates went

[1:27:05] up significantly really

[1:27:09] significantly But normally

[1:27:10] they'll be hovering around that

[1:27:10] 4% that we've been talking

[1:27:13] about If there's high inflation

[1:27:14] interest rates will go up But

[1:27:15] we will also benefit from that

[1:27:18] when we invest in our pool.

[1:27:19] So this is all economically,

[1:27:19] you know, driven by

[1:27:23] the economics So it's not I

[1:27:23] mean the 7% is just a guardrail

[1:27:24] to make sure that to the extent

[1:27:28] things really go out of whack

[1:27:29] that there is an opportunity

[1:27:32] for us to basically pull out

[1:27:33] from from this agreement.

[1:27:33] Right.

[1:27:34] Right.

[1:27:34] So but I guess from listening

[1:27:38] to my colleagues, we want a

[1:27:38] guardrail And that seems to be

[1:27:42] that feeling is that

[1:27:43] the guardrails are too wide and

[1:27:46] should be brought in a bit

[1:27:47] because 7% is is not a number

[1:27:48] that we're comfortable with

[1:27:52] recognize And again that this

[1:27:53] has been budgeted for These

[1:27:54] vehicles have been purchased

[1:27:57] all all of those things remain

[1:27:58] a fact And I think what I'm

[1:28:01] hearing my colleague say is

[1:28:02] there's a certain point at

[1:28:02] which the interest rate would

[1:28:06] be so high then it'd be worth

[1:28:07] us stepping back for a second

[1:28:11] and saying is to do we just

[1:28:12] want to pay cash and then deal

[1:28:16] with the consequence of that

[1:28:17] come with that.

[1:28:17] That MAY not be realistic and a

[1:28:21] decision that we would wrestle

[1:28:21] with and ultimately come to

[1:28:25] the conclusion that 7% is not

[1:28:25] something that we like but it's

[1:28:26] better than the alternatives.

[1:28:30] But it doesn't sound like 7% is

[1:28:30] a place where the council's

[1:28:31] comfortable going today.

[1:28:34] So where's the sweet spot again

[1:28:35] between where we think it's

[1:28:38] going to be the anticipated

[1:28:39] 3.91 to 4.14 If I'm reading

[1:28:43] that correctly and the 7% which

[1:28:43] sounds like it's too high in

[1:28:48] the eyes of my colleagues and I

[1:28:49] completely understand why.

[1:28:49] >> Understood.

[1:28:52] And maybe one way to look at

[1:28:53] this would be historically for

[1:28:56] these types of interest rates

[1:28:57] we could provide you with what

[1:28:57] that can look like because I

[1:29:01] would assume that for the most

[1:29:07] part they've been around that

[1:29:08] 4% 5% I don't And if you have

[1:29:09] that off the top of your head

[1:29:10] or I would say that is correct

[1:29:15] in my recollection I don't

[1:29:15] think under this equipment and

[1:29:16] vehicle financing programs we

[1:29:20] have executed a lease that has

[1:29:24] had an interest rate of more

[1:29:26] than 5% as my recollection as

[1:29:32] our recommendation.

[1:29:33] >> I think if you dial back a

[1:29:37] few years I think this cap was

[1:29:38] 6% in the past two years when

[1:29:42] we saw the interest rate move

[1:29:43] in the upward direction we

[1:29:46] bumped this up.

[1:29:47] I mean sitting here today I

[1:29:51] would say I think I would be

[1:29:51] reasonably comfortable if we

[1:29:57] pushed us down back to 6%.

[1:30:02] Okay.

[1:30:03] >> And just for the record,

[1:30:03] that previous speaker was

[1:30:05] Rolonda Shoval, the chief

[1:30:10] financial officer.

[1:30:11] I appreciate that that that's

[1:30:15] helpful because nothing would

[1:30:16] prevent you if we if if we got

[1:30:19] to a place where 6% was no

[1:30:20] longer realistic for whatever

[1:30:24] reason you could come back and

[1:30:26] ask for authority above that or

[1:30:32] no it would Yes, we could It's

[1:30:37] it's approved this item because

[1:30:38] of the length of the financing

[1:30:38] It is an ordinance So any

[1:30:41] amendment would be I mean I

[1:30:42] should let the city attorney

[1:30:45] speak to this Sorry.

[1:30:46] Yes that's true.

[1:30:47] You could come back and ask

[1:30:51] the council to approve a higher

[1:30:51] interest rate but it would be

[1:30:56] an ordinance.

[1:30:56] Okay.

[1:30:57] So you need and then all

[1:31:00] the time is associated with

[1:31:00] that.

[1:31:01] But it's not it's not as easy

[1:31:01] as flipping a switch.

[1:31:02] Yeah.

[1:31:07] Okay.

[1:31:08] Well just to get us started in

[1:31:09] terms of a motion council

[1:31:12] PRESIDENT, if I could, we'll

[1:31:13] just kind of again as a

[1:31:17] starting point staff

[1:31:17] recommendation with

[1:31:20] the reduction of the interest

[1:31:21] rate from the 7% that it's

[1:31:25] currently capped out to 6% and

[1:31:26] open to amendments from from my

[1:31:26] colleagues.

[1:31:30] But just so we have a motion to

[1:31:30] work from, the last thing I'll

[1:31:34] say is I don't particularly

[1:31:35] like doing business with big

[1:31:35] banks.

[1:31:39] I use a credit union $48.3

[1:31:39] million and there's a certain

[1:31:40] like world we only have so many

[1:31:44] competitive options right in

[1:31:44] the city has a process that

[1:31:48] requires us to choose best

[1:31:49] option from an interest rate

[1:31:50] perspective, right?

[1:31:51] This was what it was that that

[1:31:56] was correct.

[1:31:57] And until we get to a place

[1:31:58] where you know, we've got a a

[1:32:01] public bank or something along

[1:32:02] those lines, we're going to

[1:32:03] continue to have limited

[1:32:06] options for financing at this

[1:32:06] amount.

[1:32:07] That concludes our motion

[1:32:08] Council PRESIDENT Hopefully

[1:32:11] that doesn't create more havoc.

[1:32:12] All right.

[1:32:15] And just as a clarification

[1:32:19] that is amending the 7% that is

[1:32:20] listed in paragraph 2.1 of

[1:32:25] the master lease agreement for

[1:32:25] .

[1:32:26] So Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[1:32:30] Lee So we do have a motion by

[1:32:30] council member Eli Rivera and

[1:32:31] we'll go to you Council

[1:32:34] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Thank you

[1:32:35] Council PRESIDENT Thank you to

[1:32:35] the Department of Finance for

[1:32:39] giving this presentation to our

[1:32:40] cfo MR. Shirvell for coming up

[1:32:41] here to answer a couple of

[1:32:43] questions as well.

[1:32:44] I appreciate my colleague's

[1:32:48] commentary in terms of process

[1:32:49] ,we certainly had the full

[1:32:49] discussion or at least

[1:32:50] the informational item at

[1:32:53] committee talking about

[1:32:54] the benefits of leasing versus

[1:32:58] buying.

[1:32:59] I think for me to be frank, I

[1:33:00] think where we stand today is

[1:33:02] this is really a financing

[1:33:07] mechanism that is part of our

[1:33:08] need to conduct business as a

[1:33:08] city for vehicles that we've

[1:33:12] already purchased as well and

[1:33:12] have an impact on this fiscal

[1:33:13] year based on what we've heard.

[1:33:17] And so I, I feel like we're

[1:33:18] getting into the weeds on on

[1:33:22] where that the cap of an

[1:33:22] interest rate percentage is

[1:33:23] knowing that that's not where

[1:33:27] it stands at the moment but

[1:33:27] that the flexibility is needed

[1:33:28] for us to conduct this business

[1:33:32] and if we were ever to exceed

[1:33:36] one of the guardrails you know

[1:33:36] whether 6% or 7% is

[1:33:41] the appropriate level, it just

[1:33:42] feels like we're we're getting

[1:33:42] a little far into that.

[1:33:46] If it rises above 6% it's going

[1:33:47] to be because interest rates

[1:33:47] across the country have risen

[1:33:51] that heavily And we're we're

[1:33:52] going to be dealing with a

[1:33:52] bigger problem at that point,

[1:33:53] which is what do we do with

[1:33:55] vehicles that have been ordered

[1:33:55] and whether we have

[1:33:56] the financing capacity to

[1:34:00] complete those purchases as

[1:34:00] intended.

[1:34:01] I think one of the big

[1:34:02] differences of ensuring that we

[1:34:05] at least have the master lease

[1:34:05] agreement in place is that we

[1:34:06] know we're going to be leasing

[1:34:07] based on the vehicles that we

[1:34:10] have already ordered and

[1:34:11] the change ends up being much

[1:34:11] smaller When you're talking a

[1:34:15] percent over over a long scale

[1:34:20] of time for leasing vehicles

[1:34:21] versus if tomorrow we said

[1:34:21] we're not going to be leasing,

[1:34:22] we're now needing to purchase

[1:34:25] these vehicles.

[1:34:25] The exact problem comes where

[1:34:26] next year we're not going to

[1:34:27] have the ability to appropriate

[1:34:29] those funds to make those

[1:34:30] purchases given we already know

[1:34:31] what financial position we're

[1:34:34] going to be in next year.

[1:34:35] So I think this lease versus

[1:34:35] buy conversation is going to be

[1:34:39] really important as we look to

[1:34:40] the future and what the city

[1:34:40] can choose to do when we have

[1:34:44] more financial capacity to make

[1:34:44] those choices.

[1:34:45] But it does feel like we're a

[1:34:48] little bit constrained as we

[1:34:49] stand right now.

[1:34:53] So I'm fully comfortable with

[1:34:54] leaving it where the guardrail

[1:34:58] was at 7% If the Department of

[1:34:59] Finance feels like 6% as a as a

[1:35:03] guardrail is sufficient as

[1:35:04] well.

[1:35:08] Also comfortable with that.

[1:35:09] I also just don't want to see

[1:35:10] us coming back here in a year

[1:35:13] because let's just say

[1:35:14] the federal administration does

[1:35:15] something crazy and interest

[1:35:18] rates go up significantly and

[1:35:19] now the city cannot conduct its

[1:35:19] business in paying for

[1:35:23] the vehicles that we've already

[1:35:23] committed to.

[1:35:24] I'm not I'm just not sure what

[1:35:25] benefit that gives us all other

[1:35:28] than the chance to complain

[1:35:28] that that's happened And yet

[1:35:29] we're still going to have to

[1:35:33] prove either that higher

[1:35:33] interest rate capacity or

[1:35:34] choose a completely different

[1:35:37] way to to pay for vehicles

[1:35:38] which doesn't seem to do us any

[1:35:38] favors.

[1:35:43] So I will second the motion

[1:35:43] again if there's any openness

[1:35:47] to pushing that back up to

[1:35:48] the staff's recommendation.

[1:35:49] I'm fully comfortable with that

[1:35:49] as well.

[1:35:52] But again looked at to look to

[1:35:53] our colleagues to figure out

[1:35:53] what to do next.

[1:35:54] >> Thank you.

[1:35:54] All right.

[1:35:57] So with that we have a motion

[1:36:00] by council member Ella Rivera

[1:36:01] and second camera by Council

[1:36:05] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee with

[1:36:05] the staff recommendation except

[1:36:09] to amend the.

[1:36:10] They're going to put it up on

[1:36:15] the screen but the maximum rate

[1:36:15] from seven down to six and

[1:36:16] they'll put that language up

[1:36:20] much better than I said that.

[1:36:21] So before we go back to

[1:36:22] Councilmember Problem Walbert,

[1:36:23] I do want to ask a question

[1:36:24] directly.

[1:36:25] This is a two party agreement

[1:36:30] The city and the lessor.

[1:36:30] Is there any issue with

[1:36:34] changing that number?

[1:36:34] I hope not.

[1:36:39] I do not believe there'll be an

[1:36:40] issue but that is something I

[1:36:41] would need to circle back with

[1:36:43] the bank.

[1:36:44] Okay.

[1:36:49] Because it is actually a limit

[1:36:49] both ways, right?

[1:36:50] The lessee is not permitted and

[1:36:53] the lesser does not required to

[1:36:55] exceed that 7%.

[1:36:55] Correct.

[1:37:00] Okay.

[1:37:01] So you might be back here a

[1:37:02] little bit sooner.

[1:37:05] Is that what you're suggesting

[1:37:06] If the lessor is not happy with

[1:37:11] that, Yeah, we would need to

[1:37:16] provide clarification at

[1:37:16] the second reading.

[1:37:16] Okay.

[1:37:17] Yeah I'll have to revisit what

[1:37:20] the process would be.

[1:37:21] >> Okay.

[1:37:21] And then just real quickly

[1:37:22] because we've spent a lot of

[1:37:26] time on this you said if

[1:37:26] the interest rates do go up,

[1:37:27] start approaching that

[1:37:27] guardrail, whatever that

[1:37:30] guardrail is, you have

[1:37:31] alternatives.

[1:37:31] Are those given all the things

[1:37:35] the cities engaged in realistic

[1:37:38] alternatives if this if we

[1:37:43] can't use this mechanism we

[1:37:44] would have to reissue an rfp.

[1:37:47] Some of the alternatives would

[1:37:48] be frankly bond finance these

[1:37:48] vehicles.

[1:37:52] Okay.

[1:37:53] >> Yes, I appreciate you're

[1:37:57] willing to do that but I think

[1:37:58] I also realize that there are

[1:37:59] actually very limited

[1:37:59] alternatives.

[1:38:02] So all right.

[1:38:03] So we do have a motion in a

[1:38:04] second by council PRESIDENT Pro

[1:38:07] Tem Lee that is now up on

[1:38:08] the screen and will go back to

[1:38:09] council member Yvonne Wolpert.

[1:38:12] Thank you and thank you for

[1:38:12] engaging in this discussion.

[1:38:13] I think it's actually very

[1:38:17] important because I'm sick and

[1:38:18] tired of the city getting

[1:38:19] ripped off and a lot of public

[1:38:22] callers called in here asking

[1:38:23] us to use taxpayer money

[1:38:23] wisely.

[1:38:24] Are we not purchasing fire

[1:38:24] trucks possibly with this

[1:38:29] financing or any other large

[1:38:34] equipment vehicle trucks?

[1:38:40] I know that we are, yeah.

[1:38:43] So on APRIL 6 to 2026 our very

[1:38:44] own city attorney Heather

[1:38:45] Ferber released a press release

[1:38:48] saying City of San Diego sues

[1:38:48] fire truck manufacturers for

[1:38:49] antitrust violations and

[1:38:53] overcharging the taxpayers.

[1:38:53] The price of these vehicles was

[1:38:54] going up because they saw

[1:38:58] the city with the customer and

[1:38:59] the overcharges every time and

[1:39:02] the difference between 3%

[1:39:02] interest and 7% in interest

[1:39:03] could be millions of taxpayer

[1:39:04] dollars.

[1:39:06] And so what I'm asking for is

[1:39:07] not a set interest rate.

[1:39:08] What I'm asking for is making

[1:39:11] sure the city is paying an

[1:39:12] interest rate that any other

[1:39:13] market buyer would pay And

[1:39:15] we're not getting ripped off.

[1:39:16] That is simply what I'm asking

[1:39:16] for.

[1:39:20] And so in the contract I want

[1:39:21] to know that the city is going

[1:39:21] to pay the standard overnight

[1:39:25] financing rate at the time And

[1:39:30] is that in the contract or now

[1:39:31] I see why you would say over 7%

[1:39:31] we would no longer finance it,

[1:39:32] put it in the city's best

[1:39:35] interest and to use cash or

[1:39:35] other mechanisms.

[1:39:36] That is the fiscal decisions

[1:39:37] we're making in the contract.

[1:39:39] I want to know we're not being

[1:39:40] ripped off even 5% if the if

[1:39:43] the so first 3.5% is a rip off.

[1:39:44] So what contractual obligation

[1:39:48] do we have to make sure we're

[1:39:49] paying the interest rate any

[1:39:49] other person would pay?

[1:39:50] That is my question.

[1:39:53] I'm not yelling at you.

[1:39:53] I'm so sorry.

[1:39:54] It's not your fault.

[1:39:55] I just the city gets ripped off

[1:39:57] all the time and we need to

[1:39:58] protect ourselves.

[1:39:59] So what is in the contract

[1:40:02] saying we will pay the standard

[1:40:02] overnight rate at the time of

[1:40:03] the issuance?

[1:40:07] Thank you for the question,

[1:40:07] Councilmember.

[1:40:12] So we we issued a request for

[1:40:12] proposal So this was a

[1:40:13] competitive bid that we

[1:40:16] received.

[1:40:17] There are very limited banks

[1:40:18] that are in this business.

[1:40:22] We received two proposals and

[1:40:22] this was the more competitive

[1:40:26] proposal which we picked.

[1:40:27] The interest rate is not pegged

[1:40:31] to the federal funds rate

[1:40:32] directly.

[1:40:32] It is pegged as explained

[1:40:36] earlier to the secured

[1:40:37] overnight financing rate which

[1:40:37] is based on the Fed rate which

[1:40:41] is based on the Fed rate.

[1:40:42] So that is the rate that banks

[1:40:42] use for this particular

[1:40:46] mechanism.

[1:40:47] So both the banks that offered

[1:40:51] that was the index that this

[1:40:56] gets peg to and for each of

[1:40:56] the financing.

[1:40:57] So some of the smaller vehicles

[1:41:00] are financed over a shorter

[1:41:01] term So there's a different

[1:41:01] index.

[1:41:02] So it's based on the term of

[1:41:05] the vehicles and I believe that

[1:41:05] these are competitive rates If

[1:41:10] we compare our recently priced

[1:41:10] bonds for three years.

[1:41:14] So these are shorter term

[1:41:15] financing So they are slightly

[1:41:19] lower And based on where

[1:41:20] the yield curve is, I believe

[1:41:20] these are competitive rates.

[1:41:21] I agree.

[1:41:24] But why What guarantees we get

[1:41:25] them?

[1:41:26] You're saying we would go up to

[1:41:26] 7%?

[1:41:29] I'm happy I can stop now

[1:41:29] The answer is I don't think

[1:41:30] there is something in

[1:41:30] the contract protecting

[1:41:31] the city so I'm not going to

[1:41:33] vote for this But this is a

[1:41:34] conversation we need to be

[1:41:35] having because we're seeing

[1:41:35] that we're suing the companies.

[1:41:39] We're buying these trucks from

[1:41:39] for overcharging us because

[1:41:43] we're a city The people rip us

[1:41:44] off all the time and taxpayer

[1:41:45] money shouldn't be used to

[1:41:45] paying the pockets of companies

[1:41:48] who would overcharge us just

[1:41:49] because of our government.

[1:41:49] So thank you.

[1:41:50] I'm happy to have these

[1:41:53] conversations offline but I do

[1:41:53] think we should have better

[1:41:54] conversations about how we lock

[1:41:55] our contractual protections in

[1:41:58] when we purchase things.

[1:41:59] >> Councilor if I can just add

[1:42:00] there are terms in the contract

[1:42:03] that refer to an equipment

[1:42:04] lease race that is tied to what

[1:42:04] is defined as an index rate.

[1:42:07] The index rate is actually

[1:42:08] defined as a percentage of that

[1:42:09] standard overnight rate plus a

[1:42:09] spread percentage.

[1:42:12] So there are terms in

[1:42:13] the contract associated with

[1:42:13] that.

[1:42:14] I saw that in the definitions

[1:42:14] portion.

[1:42:15] I didn't see that that we get

[1:42:19] that rate I think like an

[1:42:19] attachment of like within ten

[1:42:20] days of a vehicle purchase But

[1:42:26] it it should be in there.

[1:42:27] All right Thank you Council

[1:42:31] member of I'm All for it We'll

[1:42:32] go next to Councilmember

[1:42:33] Whitman Thank you Council

[1:42:39] PRESIDENT So leaving it at 7%

[1:42:44] or reducing it to 6% there's no

[1:42:49] difference in terms of a

[1:42:50] competitive advantage or

[1:42:50] disadvantage for the city in

[1:42:54] terms of negotiating with

[1:42:55] the bank because there's no

[1:42:59] negotiation with the bank going

[1:43:00] forward at all.

[1:43:01] It's all formulaic going

[1:43:05] forward at this point.

[1:43:06] Am I correct about that?

[1:43:06] That is correct.

[1:43:07] Once the agreement is executed

[1:43:10] it's just purely based on a

[1:43:11] formula and the interest rate

[1:43:12] those in the market based

[1:43:12] interest rate.

[1:43:17] So whether we set this at 6% or

[1:43:21] whether we set it at 7% or

[1:43:24] whether we use the state 12%,

[1:43:25] it's all based on a formula

[1:43:27] based on the federal rates at

[1:43:30] the time.

[1:43:35] That is correct In which case

[1:43:41] as I'm understanding it,

[1:43:42] reducing it to 6% simply

[1:43:46] complicates the city's position

[1:43:47] In the event that the federal

[1:43:54] rate goes higher.

[1:43:55] That is correct.

[1:43:56] We would have to come back to

[1:44:03] city council for an amendment.

[1:44:08] Charles Our independent budget

[1:44:13] analyst MR. Monica it seems to

[1:44:18] me like the simpler thing to do

[1:44:23] would be to leave it at 7%

[1:44:24] since there's not really a

[1:44:29] discretionary element to it

[1:44:29] going forward.

[1:44:33] >> Well I would I will burden

[1:44:38] you with that.

[1:44:39] I will ask the maker of

[1:44:45] the motion because I would I'm

[1:44:45] comfortable with 7% at this

[1:44:47] point.

[1:44:53] I guess Would it be your

[1:44:54] preference that I make a

[1:44:58] substitute motion or would you

[1:44:59] prefer to leave your motion,

[1:45:00] let your motion stand and I

[1:45:00] vote?

[1:45:04] Some of us would vote no on it

[1:45:04] .

[1:45:05] How would you what would you be

[1:45:05] your preference on that or do

[1:45:10] you have a preference?

[1:45:10] Yeah.

[1:45:11] I mean the preference is to

[1:45:11] keep the business of the city

[1:45:15] moving in a way that

[1:45:16] the council is comfortable

[1:45:16] with.

[1:45:20] We need six votes.

[1:45:21] >> We need six votes on this

[1:45:26] vote So I'm okay.

[1:45:27] >> I'll make a substitute

[1:45:28] motion if it I don't see what

[1:45:28] happens.

[1:45:29] I'll make a substitute.

[1:45:32] I will say that yes, I think

[1:45:32] you're 100% right.

[1:45:33] It would be simpler And what I

[1:45:37] was trying to account for is

[1:45:38] the trade off in the simplicity

[1:45:44] with council at least six

[1:45:44] members of the council being

[1:45:49] comfortable that if if

[1:45:49] the interest rates started to

[1:45:50] creep higher and higher and

[1:45:54] higher that the council would

[1:45:55] have an opportunity to reflect

[1:46:00] on what that means before it

[1:46:01] could jump to 7%.

[1:46:01] So there is an additional step

[1:46:06] that that would require staff

[1:46:06] to make if we ended up in that

[1:46:07] situation.

[1:46:12] But again it's it's with an eye

[1:46:13] on the six votes necessary in

[1:46:18] order to get us the six votes

[1:46:19] that we need in order for us to

[1:46:20] move forward with this which I

[1:46:24] do think we need to do And

[1:46:25] trying to find a place of

[1:46:26] consensus here.

[1:46:26] >> Okay.

[1:46:26] I appreciate your driving

[1:46:30] towards consensus and I don't

[1:46:31] know exactly where this will

[1:46:37] lead but I'll go ahead and make

[1:46:38] a substitute motion to stick

[1:46:38] with the original staff

[1:46:39] recommendation If we get

[1:46:43] the six votes great.

[1:46:43] If not, obviously we'll

[1:46:44] probably go back to what you're

[1:46:45] suggesting So I'll make a

[1:46:49] substitute motion to stick with

[1:46:50] the original staff

[1:46:51] recommendation or we have a

[1:46:51] substitute motions You've

[1:46:55] referred back to the staff

[1:47:01] recommendation and Council

[1:47:02] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee will

[1:47:02] second that motion And I'm

[1:47:08] going to go to Councilmember

[1:47:08] mpo who has not yet spoken on

[1:47:09] this item.

[1:47:09] >> So thank you.

[1:47:10] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[1:47:11] Thank you to my colleagues for

[1:47:13] their questions and I

[1:47:14] sympathize with where they're

[1:47:15] going on us for staff We put

[1:47:19] out a request for proposals for

[1:47:20] this type of financing vehicle

[1:47:21] and we got two responses.

[1:47:25] >> You said yes, that is

[1:47:25] correct.

[1:47:26] When we put out that request

[1:47:27] for proposals did we set

[1:47:32] the ceiling in that request or

[1:47:33] did it come or do we leave that

[1:47:37] open ended?

[1:47:38] We do not put a ceiling in

[1:47:39] the request for proposals

[1:47:44] because we we suggest an index

[1:47:44] that is the market based

[1:47:45] accepted index.

[1:47:49] We put that in our request for

[1:47:50] proposals.

[1:47:50] >> Okay.

[1:47:56] So what was the non accepted

[1:48:00] proposals cap if this one was

[1:48:01] at seven or the other one at

[1:48:02] Council Member Again the cap is

[1:48:06] not coming from the banks.

[1:48:07] The banks in their responses

[1:48:13] propose an index and a spread

[1:48:13] to an index based on which

[1:48:14] the interest rate is set.

[1:48:18] That is staff recommendation

[1:48:19] because if there was no cap it

[1:48:25] would default to the cap under

[1:48:26] the interest rate cap under

[1:48:26] state law which I believe is

[1:48:27] 12%.

[1:48:31] >> So I was confused about what

[1:48:31] you're saying there.

[1:48:32] Okay.

[1:48:32] Well it seems that there's a

[1:48:37] desire that we would follow

[1:48:37] more attention into that

[1:48:42] component so that or at least

[1:48:43] have some attention paid to

[1:48:44] that particular component of

[1:48:44] the overall deal because we

[1:48:49] have many councilmembers,

[1:48:50] myself included wondering what

[1:48:54] is the right level of place and

[1:48:55] it seems that even if 7% but

[1:49:00] biologically all before earlier

[1:49:01] if something really strange

[1:49:02] happens 7% might not even be

[1:49:03] enough And we need to come back

[1:49:06] to council to ask for something

[1:49:07] even higher than that, correct?

[1:49:08] >> That is correct.

[1:49:08] Okay.

[1:49:12] So it sounds like in the future

[1:49:13] we need better guardrails.

[1:49:19] I think at this moment that it

[1:49:19] seems going forward what we

[1:49:20] have is the substitute motion

[1:49:21] from Councilmember Webber is

[1:49:23] the right way to go and to be

[1:49:24] able to make sure that

[1:49:31] the tools we need as a city are

[1:49:36] paid for and onward.

[1:49:37] So I appreciate

[1:49:37] the conversation we're going

[1:49:38] here.

[1:49:38] It seems like there's more of

[1:49:39] an upstream problem or upstream

[1:49:42] concern I should say rather

[1:49:43] than the item that's directly

[1:49:43] in front of us.

[1:49:47] And so I really hope that we

[1:49:48] focus on how to make

[1:49:49] the overall process meet

[1:49:54] the needs of the councilmembers

[1:49:55] of the city as a whole.

[1:49:55] So I'll support the motion in

[1:49:56] front of us but also knowing

[1:49:59] that we need to drive down

[1:50:00] the cost of borrowing or at

[1:50:01] least get the lowest rates we

[1:50:01] possibly can to save every

[1:50:06] dollar possible.

[1:50:07] >> Thank you.

[1:50:07] All right.

[1:50:08] Thank you, Council member

[1:50:08] Campbell.

[1:50:09] We'll go back to council

[1:50:13] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Thank you

[1:50:14] Council PRESIDENT I did offer

[1:50:15] the second thank you council

[1:50:19] member Whitburn for for this

[1:50:19] though the way I look at this

[1:50:20] is really just like any other

[1:50:25] adjustable rate loan frankly.

[1:50:26] I mean if we're going to pay

[1:50:27] this from a personal standpoint

[1:50:28] which most of them are based

[1:50:31] off of the Federal Reserve rate

[1:50:31] the indexed rate plus an amount

[1:50:32] that is set in as I think

[1:50:33] Charles confirmed the terms of

[1:50:37] the agreement do set that rate.

[1:50:37] So we are literally just going

[1:50:38] to be moving up and down along

[1:50:42] with what the federal rate ends

[1:50:43] up being So that plus whatever

[1:50:43] that spread is.

[1:50:48] So again I do think it is it is

[1:50:49] standardized to some degree

[1:50:49] The guardrail is that if it

[1:50:50] moves significantly for any

[1:50:55] particular reason that we have

[1:50:55] some chance to rethink how to

[1:50:56] act upon that.

[1:51:00] And I mean we'd also be in a

[1:51:00] very difficult position if

[1:51:01] rates moved that heavily

[1:51:01] upwards.

[1:51:07] So I just would note that So

[1:51:08] that's why I'm comfortable with

[1:51:09] where we are leaning and look

[1:51:09] forward to seeing what

[1:51:13] colleagues are or I think that

[1:51:13] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[1:51:14] we'll go back to Councilmember

[1:51:18] Foster.

[1:51:18] Oh yes, Thank you.

[1:51:24] And I do understand the need

[1:51:24] and the flexibility.

[1:51:29] I think it's just a a manner of

[1:51:30] ensuring that we have city

[1:51:36] staff that is getting

[1:51:37] essentially this is a policy

[1:51:37] call.

[1:51:42] What is that amount before you

[1:51:43] say hey, no which right now

[1:51:43] it's 7%.

[1:51:44] That's the authority you're

[1:51:44] asking for.

[1:51:49] I think I would ask I will be

[1:51:50] supportive but just I think

[1:51:54] maybe if there's a way as we

[1:51:55] start to say the highest we

[1:51:59] probably paid is 5% if you look

[1:51:59] historically through this

[1:52:00] process.

[1:52:00] That's right.

[1:52:05] So maybe if it's something

[1:52:06] where you see things moving up

[1:52:07] to that 5% tile range or you

[1:52:12] just send a memo across so we

[1:52:12] can understand what's in front

[1:52:13] of us where the rate is at

[1:52:18] which a plan is moving forward

[1:52:19] because it MAY impact you know,

[1:52:20] you say 200 vehicles to where

[1:52:23] now you've got to make a

[1:52:24] decision on are you going to

[1:52:25] come back to council, ask for

[1:52:28] more authority over 7% or

[1:52:28] whatever the case MAY be But at

[1:52:29] least we kind of have a heads

[1:52:33] up and understand if you just

[1:52:34] fire off a memorandum and let

[1:52:34] us know.

[1:52:39] Fair enough.

[1:52:40] >> Thank you.

[1:52:40] Yes.

[1:52:41] All right.

[1:52:47] Think COUNCILMAN Foster MR.

[1:52:48] Market, you have some closing

[1:52:48] comments by council PRESIDENT

[1:52:49] And then kind of debate whether

[1:52:52] or not to bring this up and

[1:52:52] actually consider Foster I

[1:52:53] think your recommendation of a

[1:52:55] mental notice is a good one

[1:52:56] just because in the unfortunate

[1:52:57] event that we get to some place

[1:53:01] where this rate would end up

[1:53:02] exceeding 7%, you hear staff

[1:53:03] talk it out will be evaluated

[1:53:03] if there's another approach to

[1:53:08] take.

[1:53:09] It's not just going to be this

[1:53:09] master lease agreement on this

[1:53:10] debt.

[1:53:10] Financing of vehicles is going

[1:53:13] to be more expensive every

[1:53:13] other form of debt the city

[1:53:14] could take out at that point is

[1:53:15] also going to be more expensive

[1:53:15] as well.

[1:53:20] So I think the earlier there

[1:53:21] was kind of a question are

[1:53:21] there really any other

[1:53:26] significant options if we're

[1:53:26] looking at other forms of debt?

[1:53:27] Probably not.

[1:53:33] But there are flows up as well.

[1:53:34] So if I were in the trouble I

[1:53:35] just wanted to add one more

[1:53:35] point.

[1:53:37] The city has a very strong

[1:53:37] credit rating and the interest

[1:53:38] rates that we are getting

[1:53:39] depending on what type of

[1:53:43] competitive process we go

[1:53:44] through, whether it be a bond

[1:53:45] sale, the Tran that we just

[1:53:49] issued Now these rates they're

[1:53:49] low because the credit rating

[1:53:50] of the city is low.

[1:53:54] If interest rates go up we'll

[1:53:55] still have a lower rate

[1:53:56] compared to everyone else but

[1:53:56] it will be a higher interest

[1:54:01] rate.

[1:54:02] So we're talking about the 7%

[1:54:05] If we if we need to pay 7%

[1:54:06] other cities that have a lower

[1:54:06] rating, the city will probably

[1:54:07] pay more than that And other

[1:54:11] corporations pay and pay more

[1:54:12] than that.

[1:54:13] So it all depends on what

[1:54:13] the market does And this just

[1:54:18] wanted to reframe that a little

[1:54:18] bit.

[1:54:19] The interest that we're getting

[1:54:19] around 4% that's what we're

[1:54:20] getting now.

[1:54:24] It all depends on the economy.

[1:54:25] It all depends on the price of

[1:54:25] money that is currently out

[1:54:26] there.

[1:54:26] Right.

[1:54:30] The more inflation there is

[1:54:30] the higher of interest rates.

[1:54:31] We just want to make the point.

[1:54:31] Thank you.

[1:54:32] All right.

[1:54:32] Thank you.

[1:54:33] There's nobody else on

[1:54:36] the lights.

[1:54:37] We have a motion by council

[1:54:37] member Woodburn, the second by

[1:54:38] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[1:54:39] to move the staff

[1:54:42] recommendation.

[1:54:43] >> clerk please call the roll.

[1:54:44] I'm sorry At the voting system

[1:54:44] please cast your vote.

[1:54:51] Total member Campion Yes, thank

[1:54:51] you.

[1:54:56] That passes 7 to 2 with Council

[1:54:56] Member Moreno Councilmember

[1:54:57] Member Voting no Thank you

[1:54:58] Council PRESIDENT All right

[1:55:01] Thank you for the Clerk Thank

[1:55:02] you to staff for a robust

[1:55:03] conversation.

[1:55:07] Thank you MR. Chavez for

[1:55:08] showing up and adding MR.

[1:55:08] Monica for adding your

[1:55:13] perspective to the Council And

[1:55:13] I appreciate my colleagues

[1:55:14] digging in.

[1:55:18] So with that clerk please

[1:55:19] introduce item 203 Item 203 is

[1:55:19] a Southwest Village specific

[1:55:29] plan project number j0614791

[1:55:30] and District eight This item is

[1:55:30] not subject to the mayor's

[1:55:30] veto.

[1:55:33] The expected public comment

[1:55:34] time is one minute per person

[1:55:35] and we did receive a organized

[1:55:40] presentation for this item.

[1:55:40] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[1:55:41] That presentation is in person.

[1:55:45] All right.

[1:55:45] Thank you.

[1:55:46] City Clerk Staff a chance to

[1:55:53] settle with COUNCILMAN Moreno.

[1:55:54] >> Did you want to make a

[1:55:54] statement?

[1:55:54] Yes.

[1:55:57] I'm recusing myself from Agenda

[1:55:58] item 2 or 3 Southwest Village

[1:55:58] Specific plan Project number p

[1:56:03] rj dash 061479.

[1:56:04] I have a conflict of interest

[1:56:10] because the project will have a

[1:56:11] material financial interest on

[1:56:17] residential property I own and

[1:56:18] I will leave the dais and not

[1:56:18] participate in the discussion

[1:56:22] or in the vote.

[1:56:23] Thank you.

[1:56:23] All right.

[1:56:24] Thank you, COUNCILMAN Moreno.

[1:56:25] So I'll give you a minute to

[1:56:35] leave the chambers.

[1:56:35] All right.

[1:56:40] I'm a fact All our staff to

[1:56:41] introduce yourself and let us

[1:56:42] know how much time you need for

[1:56:45] your presentation.

[1:56:46] 15 minutes, please.

[1:56:46] All right.

[1:56:47] When you're ready.

[1:56:52] Good afternoon, Council members

[1:56:52] .

[1:56:53] I'm Oscar Galvin's development

[1:56:53] project manager with

[1:56:54] Development Services

[1:56:54] department.

[1:56:58] And joining me is joining

[1:56:59] principal planner with the city

[1:56:59] Planning Department and Michael

[1:57:00] Prince, assistant deputy

[1:57:00] director.

[1:57:04] The item before you is

[1:57:04] the Southwest Village specific

[1:57:09] specific plan project.

[1:57:09] The 490 Project Acre project

[1:57:15] site is generally bounded north

[1:57:16] of the us Mexico international

[1:57:20] border east of Interstate 85

[1:57:21] south of State Route 95 and

[1:57:21] west of the Central Village

[1:57:24] Specific plan area within

[1:57:25] the automaker Community plan

[1:57:30] area.

[1:57:31] The required approvals include

[1:57:32] a subsequent environmental

[1:57:37] impact report amendments to

[1:57:38] the general plan and Otay Mesa

[1:57:39] Community Plan the Southwest

[1:57:43] Village specific plan a

[1:57:44] rezoning best interactive map

[1:57:48] type development permit hpi

[1:57:49] Boundary Line Adjustment Road

[1:57:50] Improvement Ordinance and Road

[1:57:54] Improvement Resolution.

[1:57:59] >> >> The project proposes 5130

[1:58:05] homes 175,000ft of commercial

[1:58:06] uses approximately 35 acres of

[1:58:10] parks approximately 16 acres

[1:58:10] for potential future school

[1:58:15] uses 190 acres of surrounding

[1:58:15] natural open space Connection

[1:58:20] of Caliente Avenue offering

[1:58:21] North-South access and

[1:58:21] the connection to Buyer

[1:58:22] Boulevard offering East West

[1:58:26] access.

[1:58:31] The specific plan area includes

[1:58:31] approximately 70 owners

[1:58:35] Driveway homes shown in blue

[1:58:36] owns approximately 239 acres.

[1:58:42] Otay Mesa llc shown in Orange

[1:58:42] owns 55 acres.

[1:58:43] The Hendler Trust shown intent

[1:58:47] on the 20 acres The city of San

[1:58:48] Diego shown in red owns 12

[1:58:48] acres San Isidro Industrial

[1:58:53] Park llc shown in green on 60

[1:58:54] acres and other property owners

[1:58:56] shown in purple owned

[1:59:02] approximately 95 acres Since

[1:59:03] 2017 more than 30 many meetings

[1:59:08] with land owners have occurred

[1:59:09] On SEPTEMBER 13th, 2018 a

[1:59:10] notice of application was

[1:59:14] mailed to all property owners,

[1:59:15] tenants and community planning

[1:59:15] group within 300ft of

[1:59:19] the development On MARCH 4th

[1:59:20] 2020 a publicly noticed your

[1:59:21] scoping meeting was held at San

[1:59:25] Ysidro High School.

[1:59:26] Public review of the draft year

[1:59:30] occurred between MAY 1st 2025

[1:59:31] and JUNE 23rd 2025.

[1:59:35] The MARCH Historical Resources

[1:59:36] Board hearing made Planning

[1:59:37] Commission hearing and today's

[1:59:37] City Council hearing have been

[1:59:39] publicly noticed for

[1:59:45] the signing of municipal.

[1:59:46] >> The Southwest Village

[1:59:47] specific plan is being prepared

[1:59:48] in accordance with the Otay

[1:59:51] Mesa Community Plan adopted in

[1:59:51] 2014.

[1:59:52] The Otay Mesa Community Plan

[1:59:53] requires a specific plan for

[1:59:58] the Southwest District of Otay

[1:59:58] Mesa to implement the general

[1:59:59] plan City of Villages Strategy

[2:00:03] The Community plan requires

[2:00:04] that the Southwest Village be

[2:00:05] planned comprehensively through

[2:00:05] a single contiguous specific

[2:00:10] plan.

[2:00:10] The plan must be privately

[2:00:11] sponsored and developed

[2:00:12] collaboratively with the city

[2:00:15] The Otay Mesa community Plan

[2:00:16] envisions Southwest Village as

[2:00:17] a compact, walkable, transit

[2:00:17] oriented village with

[2:00:21] sustainable and efficient land

[2:00:21] use.

[2:00:22] The specific plan would address

[2:00:23] design details for the village

[2:00:28] core public spaces and provide

[2:00:28] a complete multimodal

[2:00:29] circulation system connected to

[2:00:33] the broader Otay Mesa Network.

[2:00:34] Tri Pointe Homes has prepared

[2:00:35] the Southwest Village specific

[2:00:35] plan to implement the Community

[2:00:39] plan's vision and policy

[2:00:40] direction within the Southwest

[2:00:41] Village specific plan area.

[2:00:45] The specific plan creates a

[2:00:46] mixed use village that

[2:00:47] implements the Otay Mesa

[2:00:47] Community Plan and the city of

[2:00:51] villages Strategy.

[2:00:52] It lays out a balanced

[2:00:52] framework for new homes, shops,

[2:00:57] parks, schools and open space

[2:00:58] to support a complete connected

[2:01:02] community and allows up to 5130

[2:01:02] new homes in a variety of

[2:01:03] housing types consistent with

[2:01:07] community plan policies.

[2:01:08] A village core near the Buyer

[2:01:09] Boulevard and County Avenue

[2:01:09] would focus on higher density

[2:01:13] mixed use development to

[2:01:14] support transit and

[2:01:14] walkability.

[2:01:15] The plan also refines land use

[2:01:19] designations to reflect site

[2:01:19] constraints while protecting

[2:01:20] about 200 acres of sensitive

[2:01:20] habitat.

[2:01:25] The specific plan would provide

[2:01:25] the detailed policy and

[2:01:26] regulatory framework to guide

[2:01:27] cohesive development throughout

[2:01:30] Southwest Village.

[2:01:31] The specific plan creates a

[2:01:31] connected multimodal mobility

[2:01:36] network with a grid street

[2:01:37] pattern, a potential transit

[2:01:38] hub and safe walking and biking

[2:01:42] routes.

[2:01:42] Complete streets, trails and

[2:01:43] bike paths link neighborhoods

[2:01:44] to the village core parks,

[2:01:48] schools and future transit

[2:01:49] reducing reliance on driving

[2:01:49] and supporting the city's

[2:01:53] climate and mobility goals.

[2:01:54] The plan refines street types

[2:01:54] upgrades, bicycle routes and

[2:01:59] coordinates with city and sand

[2:01:59] bags.

[2:02:00] Regional plans to improve

[2:02:01] access along California Avenue

[2:02:04] via Boulevard and throughout

[2:02:05] the village.

[2:02:05] The specific plan provides up

[2:02:09] to 35 acres of parks and

[2:02:09] recreation areas including two

[2:02:10] neighborhood parks supported by

[2:02:14] smaller parks, plazas, sales

[2:02:15] and trails.

[2:02:15] A value based recreation

[2:02:19] standard ensures each planning

[2:02:20] area delivers high quality

[2:02:25] amenities as it develops.

[2:02:25] Larger parks would be public

[2:02:26] while smaller spaces would be

[2:02:27] privately maintained with

[2:02:30] public access parks and trails

[2:02:31] connect homes, schools, open

[2:02:31] space and the village core

[2:02:35] including a nine acre park near

[2:02:36] the core and a seven acre park

[2:02:37] in the north.

[2:02:41] A future school next to a

[2:02:42] neighborhood park creates a

[2:02:43] community hub and updated trail

[2:02:43] connections link the village

[2:02:50] The broader Otay Mesa system.

[2:02:50] The specific plan preserves

[2:02:53] about 200 acres or roughly 41%

[2:02:54] of the area as permanent open

[2:02:55] space protecting sensitive

[2:02:59] habitats steep slopes and

[2:03:00] landslide prone areas to

[2:03:00] support needed infrastructure

[2:03:04] like the Buyer Boulevard

[2:03:04] extension.

[2:03:05] The plan includes coordinated

[2:03:06] habitat conservation

[2:03:06] adjustments developed with

[2:03:09] state and federal wildlife

[2:03:10] agencies.

[2:03:10] These changes would replace

[2:03:15] affected lands with higher

[2:03:15] value habitat resulting in a

[2:03:16] net gain of about 14 acres of

[2:03:20] major power.

[2:03:20] The conserved areas form a

[2:03:21] contiguous open system that

[2:03:25] supports regional habitat

[2:03:26] linkages, scenic views, trails

[2:03:27] and natural buffers while

[2:03:27] ensuring development avoid

[2:03:31] sensitive biological resources.

[2:03:36] The specific plan also outlines

[2:03:36] for water, wastewater,

[2:03:37] drainage, stormwater and

[2:03:37] utility systems needed to

[2:03:41] support development including

[2:03:42] extension of offsite

[2:03:42] infrastructure upgrades to

[2:03:46] existing pump stations and to

[2:03:47] new wastewater lift stations.

[2:03:47] Infrastructure would be

[2:03:51] installed with appropriate

[2:03:52] setbacks from street trees and

[2:03:53] designed to align with

[2:03:56] the village's complete street

[2:03:57] network.

[2:03:57] The specific plan phasing

[2:03:58] ensures that essential public

[2:04:02] facilities such as parks and

[2:04:03] key roadway segments like

[2:04:03] the Buyer Boulevard connection

[2:04:07] to San Ysidro are delivered in

[2:04:07] step with new homes.

[2:04:11] Schools are recognized as vital

[2:04:12] community facilities with two

[2:04:12] potential school sites included

[2:04:15] a primary site and planning

[2:04:16] area 16 and an optional

[2:04:16] secondary site and planning

[2:04:20] area seven subject to Santa

[2:04:21] Sandra School District Needs

[2:04:22] The plan provides clear phasing

[2:04:26] thresholds for school site

[2:04:27] acquisition and requires future

[2:04:27] development to pay school

[2:04:30] impact fees to support new

[2:04:31] educational facilities.

[2:04:32] Joint use park opportunities

[2:04:32] are encouraged so that school

[2:04:36] recreation areas can serve

[2:04:37] the broader community during

[2:04:41] non-school hours helping

[2:04:41] integrate schools into

[2:04:42] the village's public space and

[2:04:42] recreation network.

[2:04:46] Finally, the closest fire

[2:04:47] station serving the specific

[2:04:49] plan area include fire stations

[2:04:50] 29 and Fire Station 43

[2:04:54] additionally fire station 49 as

[2:04:54] planned approximately three

[2:04:55] quarters of a mile north of

[2:04:59] the specific plan area just

[2:05:00] west of County Energy Avenue

[2:05:04] along Otay Mesa Road.

[2:05:04] The specific plan establishes

[2:05:05] supplemental development

[2:05:06] regulations that refine

[2:05:08] the municipal code to guide

[2:05:09] future development.

[2:05:10] These standards address

[2:05:13] setbacks height mixed use

[2:05:14] design grading walls and

[2:05:14] fences, brush management

[2:05:18] trails, transportation

[2:05:18] facilities and wildlife

[2:05:19] crossings.

[2:05:19] They also define recreation

[2:05:23] requirements and allowable

[2:05:23] alternative land uses providing

[2:05:24] flexibility while maintaining

[2:05:28] the plan's overall vision.

[2:05:28] Together these regulations form

[2:05:29] the implementation framework

[2:05:33] that ensures all future

[2:05:33] projects align with the plan's

[2:05:34] land use mobility,

[2:05:37] environmental and design goals

[2:05:38] .

[2:05:39] The specific plan also includes

[2:05:39] a comprehensive rezone of

[2:05:43] approximately 747 acres for

[2:05:44] both properties within and

[2:05:48] partially within the plan area

[2:05:48] to apply new bass zones that

[2:05:49] directly implement the land

[2:05:52] uses within the specific plans

[2:05:53] Land Use framework as part of

[2:05:54] the specific plan properties

[2:05:58] would be rezone from the air

[2:06:02] 112 that are Annex one room

[2:06:02] three seven arm to five arm one

[2:06:07] three over one to op one one

[2:06:08] and the O.C. One one zones

[2:06:11] The rezoning introduce

[2:06:11] opportunities for a mix of

[2:06:12] residential densities mixed use

[2:06:16] areas schools, parks and open

[2:06:16] space.

[2:06:17] The Southwest Village specific

[2:06:21] plan includes a coordinated

[2:06:21] phasing program to ensure that

[2:06:22] infrastructure utilities

[2:06:25] drainage systems and

[2:06:26] circulation improvements are

[2:06:30] delivered in step with new

[2:06:30] development improvements to

[2:06:31] roads, water and sewer systems,

[2:06:35] stormwater facilities and other

[2:06:36] essential infrastructure would

[2:06:36] be constructed as each planning

[2:06:40] area moves forward.

[2:06:41] >> Aligning upgrades with

[2:06:45] actual growth paths can you

[2:06:45] came back okay and make sure we

[2:06:46] got at least five.

[2:06:49] Sorry for the interruption.

[2:06:50] A phasing summary outlines

[2:06:51] the anticipated sequence of

[2:06:54] land uses over time while still

[2:06:55] allowing flexibility in how

[2:06:59] individual development projects

[2:06:59] proceed.

[2:07:00] The first phase includes a

[2:07:03] testing tentative map for 920

[2:07:03] homes including 92 affordable

[2:07:04] homes.

[2:07:07] Setting the foundation for

[2:07:08] early infrastructure and

[2:07:12] community facilities.

[2:07:13] >> The Phase one roads are

[2:07:18] shown in this slide as a

[2:07:19] requirement for item one.

[2:07:19] Preston Tentative Map Buyer

[2:07:22] Boulevard West shown in purple

[2:07:25] will be constructed constructed

[2:07:26] prior to the 700 dwelling unit

[2:07:26] in Phase one.

[2:07:30] Per the specific plan, other

[2:07:31] planning areas will be subject

[2:07:32] to future project level

[2:07:35] analysis including as it

[2:07:36] relates to Buyer Boulevard West

[2:07:37] for necessary infrastructure,

[2:07:41] public facilities and emergency

[2:07:41] action access required at each

[2:07:45] phase of development.

[2:07:46] >> a subsequent air and a

[2:07:50] mitigation monitoring and

[2:07:51] reporting program were prepared

[2:07:51] in accordance with section.

[2:07:55] In addition, in addition secure

[2:07:55] findings of fact and a

[2:07:56] statement of overriding

[2:07:56] considerations have been

[2:07:59] prepared.

[2:08:00] There are significant and

[2:08:04] unavoidable impacts to land use

[2:08:04] air quality historical

[2:08:08] resources, human health, noise

[2:08:09] traffic, utilities and tribal

[2:08:13] cultural resources.

[2:08:14] >> For Otay Mesa Community

[2:08:16] Planning Group voted to

[2:08:17] recommend approval of

[2:08:21] the project.

[2:08:22] The Planning Commission voted

[2:08:23] to recommend approval of

[2:08:26] the project.

[2:08:27] Staff recommends approval of

[2:08:31] the Southwest Village specific

[2:08:31] Plan project.

[2:08:32] >> Thank you.

[2:08:32] All right.

[2:08:36] Thank you for the presentation

[2:08:37] Will now hear from

[2:08:38] the applicant on the project.

[2:08:41] I've been told that staff told

[2:08:41] you 15 minutes so I guess I'll

[2:08:42] honor the 15 minutes.

[2:08:45] So do we have a representative

[2:08:48] from the applicant?

[2:08:54] >> Their time is now.

[2:08:54] So introduce yourself for

[2:08:55] the record.

[2:08:58] And as I said you will have up

[2:08:59] to 15 minutes for your

[2:08:59] presentation.

[2:09:00] Thank you.

[2:09:00] Good afternoon.

[2:09:03] City council members.

[2:09:04] My name is Alan Kashani.

[2:09:05] I'm with Tri Point Homes.

[2:09:07] My title is director of Land

[2:09:08] Entitlements and wanted to say

[2:09:13] thank you to staff for getting

[2:09:13] us to this significant

[2:09:14] milestone.

[2:09:14] I've been involved with this

[2:09:16] project for a little over 20

[2:09:17] years.

[2:09:18] If we could go to the next

[2:09:21] slide please just a little bit

[2:09:22] about checkpoint homes were

[2:09:23] formerly Part d homes We've

[2:09:26] built in many of your districts

[2:09:27] And the point we're trying to

[2:09:27] make with this slide is we do

[2:09:31] more than just building homes.

[2:09:31] We build facilities.

[2:09:32] We build fire stations.

[2:09:35] We've provided fire trucks,

[2:09:37] we've built parks, etc..

[2:09:43] Next slide and we can move on

[2:09:43] from this slide.

[2:09:47] I'm going to try and move

[2:09:47] through this presentation

[2:09:48] quickly and Oscar covered this

[2:09:51] one so we can go to the next

[2:09:52] slide a little bit about this

[2:09:56] slide is that we had a lot to

[2:09:56] contend with in regards to

[2:10:01] ownership although the purple

[2:10:02] squares are one acre parcels

[2:10:05] that were created in 1910 and

[2:10:06] I'm going to get into that a

[2:10:07] little bit more But the blue is

[2:10:10] what tri pointe owns and of

[2:10:14] that we're about 1500 to 2100

[2:10:14] units.

[2:10:15] So there'll be some discussion

[2:10:19] I think about 700 units and

[2:10:19] buyer being triggered at that.

[2:10:20] But I wanted to mention we have

[2:10:23] a lot of skin in the game to

[2:10:24] see buyer done and see

[2:10:26] the project through.

[2:10:32] Next slide please.

[2:10:32] Our planning effort was most

[2:10:36] recently in well as a City

[2:10:37] submittal made in 2016 when we

[2:10:41] initiated a plan and amendment

[2:10:42] we've been doing a subcommittee

[2:10:46] that's an offshoot of the Otay

[2:10:47] Mesa Planning Board to review

[2:10:50] the land use plan and and work

[2:10:50] through the project And then

[2:10:51] after that we worked with

[2:10:55] the wildlife agencies.

[2:10:59] We also went to the Otay Mesa

[2:11:00] Enhanced Infrastructure

[2:11:01] Infrastructure Financing

[2:11:04] District to talk about buyer

[2:11:05] and getting funding for buyer

[2:11:09] and they allocated some funds

[2:11:10] about 6 million at the time for

[2:11:10] design and construction and

[2:11:14] buyer And and then also we went

[2:11:19] to the Otay Mesa Planning Board

[2:11:20] and received a unanimous

[2:11:20] unanimous support.

[2:11:21] And something else I wanted to

[2:11:24] say about this slide is that we

[2:11:27] had a project website Southwest

[2:11:28] Village plan.Com and we're

[2:11:28] particularly proud of that

[2:11:29] outreach because we responded

[2:11:32] to every single email acquire

[2:11:32] inquiry during the life of our

[2:11:37] planning effort And then we

[2:11:37] went to Historical Resource

[2:11:38] Board and Planning Commission

[2:11:41] got the project approved.

[2:11:42] Next slide please.

[2:11:46] And this is just a summary

[2:11:47] slide of by the numbers of all

[2:11:51] the things we did 75 meetings,

[2:11:56] 20 subcommittee meetings,

[2:11:56] mailers, website, etc. We can

[2:12:00] we can go to the next slide.

[2:12:01] Thanks Kevin.

[2:12:01] Some constraints and Southwest

[2:12:06] Village we had a landslide area

[2:12:06] to reconcile from the general

[2:12:07] plan which there was a lot of

[2:12:11] area lost to the yellow and

[2:12:11] then a vernal pool habitat

[2:12:15] conservation plan went forward

[2:12:16] in around 2018 and all

[2:12:16] the orange area was lost And

[2:12:20] then there's some parcels and

[2:12:24] bright green where the city

[2:12:25] acquired some land for

[2:12:30] conservation that that also

[2:12:30] affected the land plan as we

[2:12:34] see it.

[2:12:36] Let's go to the next slide and

[2:12:37] I'll skip this one because

[2:12:41] Oscar covered it But Buyer

[2:12:42] Boulevard is particularly

[2:12:42] tricky.

[2:12:46] It's been in the community plan

[2:12:50] since 1981 but somehow these

[2:12:51] areas in yellow and light

[2:12:56] fluorescent green became

[2:13:01] conserved and wildlife

[2:13:01] conservation banks were done

[2:13:02] over those areas And the dashed

[2:13:06] line represents where buyer is

[2:13:07] going to go and we had to

[2:13:08] thread the needle and could not

[2:13:11] locate buyer anywhere else

[2:13:11] because to the south was

[2:13:12] landslide to the northwest

[2:13:16] Moody Canyon which was

[2:13:16] sensitive.

[2:13:17] So this caused a lot of

[2:13:17] negotiation with the wildlife

[2:13:18] agencies.

[2:13:21] Next slide And we had 27

[2:13:21] meetings with them field

[2:13:25] meetings, working meetings and

[2:13:26] it was a long arduous process

[2:13:30] But we came out the other end

[2:13:31] Next slide with basically we

[2:13:35] next to the road down from four

[2:13:36] lanes to two lanes through open

[2:13:36] space and then the wildlife

[2:13:40] agencies required some Mesa top

[2:13:40] replacement.

[2:13:41] There was about four acres of

[2:13:42] vernal pool habitat that we're

[2:13:45] impacting and they required 75%

[2:13:48] conservation in planning area

[2:13:49] 23 which MAY come up today.

[2:13:50] So I have another slide to go

[2:13:54] over that and then try point

[2:13:55] had to kick in about 100 acres

[2:13:59] of our land for conservation

[2:13:59] And as part of the negotiation

[2:14:00] and while we're at it we

[2:14:03] incorporated an emergency

[2:14:04] vehicle access route and baked

[2:14:05] that into the plan as part of

[2:14:08] the negotiation with them.

[2:14:13] That's that's that's on Tri

[2:14:14] Point's property and connecting

[2:14:16] up to a road along the border

[2:14:17] wall.

[2:14:22] Next slide.

[2:14:22] So they required the 9.8 acres

[2:14:26] of 75% conservation and in a

[2:14:27] particular area called pay 23

[2:14:31] and it's shown in dashed And we

[2:14:31] just wanted to explain why they

[2:14:35] were interested in that area

[2:14:36] And there were three things

[2:14:36] Basically the city acquired two

[2:14:40] parcels for Vernal Pool

[2:14:40] Conservation Planning Area 23

[2:14:44] has vernal pools on it and then

[2:14:45] also to the north and around it

[2:14:50] is is vernal pool conservation

[2:14:50] conservation plan.

[2:14:54] So the green is actually a city

[2:14:54] mitigation site and that was

[2:14:59] done for I think it was

[2:15:00] the media in their interchange.

[2:15:04] Next slide Oil Lander is a

[2:15:09] subdivision that was done in

[2:15:10] 1910 and we thought we'd show

[2:15:13] you a slide about the land use

[2:15:14] that came out the other end

[2:15:14] the specific plan.

[2:15:17] So there's 120 lots that were

[2:15:18] subdivided back then and

[2:15:22] the city incorporated the area

[2:15:25] in 1984 and the current zoning

[2:15:26] is Air one one which is one

[2:15:30] unit per ten acres.

[2:15:31] What's what's so City and Tri

[2:15:34] Point owns 31 of those 120 lot

[2:15:38] so that leaves 89 lots and of

[2:15:38] those 60 of the 89 lots are in

[2:15:42] red and yellow with

[2:15:43] significantly enhanced value or

[2:15:47] the red is 3262 homes per acre

[2:15:51] in in the village core area and

[2:15:52] then the yellow is 15 to 29

[2:15:57] homes per acre and then areas

[2:16:01] that are hatched green with

[2:16:05] the hatching were designated

[2:16:06] 75% conservation by the vernal

[2:16:06] pool conservation plan I, I

[2:16:10] think there was a letter from a

[2:16:11] party today that actually owns

[2:16:15] a parcel there that was

[2:16:16] designated 75% conservation by

[2:16:16] a plan that preceded us.

[2:16:20] I thought that was important to

[2:16:20] share.

[2:16:21] And then there's some

[2:16:24] neighborhood park area and then

[2:16:25] some area in white that's non

[2:16:28] developable But planning Area

[2:16:29] 23 really was the area that got

[2:16:29] impacted as a result of buyer

[2:16:33] having to go through 100%

[2:16:33] conserved lands.

[2:16:38] Next slide and one more please

[2:16:42] Phase Phase one is Tri Point's

[2:16:43] ownership and we incorporated

[2:16:46] an impact area delineated red

[2:16:47] which includes Buyer Boulevard

[2:16:47] and our emergency vehicle

[2:16:51] access route And then we

[2:16:51] included an area to borrow

[2:16:54] material from in areas outside

[2:17:00] the colored area and our buyer

[2:17:00] Boulevard is triggered at

[2:17:01] the 700 It needs to be

[2:17:04] completed by the 700 unit in

[2:17:08] this graphic next slide just a

[2:17:12] little depiction is 420 homes

[2:17:13] are shown in the north and 500

[2:17:14] homes in the south with a mix

[2:17:17] of detached paired homes and

[2:17:18] townhomes.

[2:17:22] Next slide please.

[2:17:23] What what is being contributed

[2:17:24] with phase one which is tri

[2:17:27] point homes Ownership is our

[2:17:28] intention is to after

[2:17:33] the projects approved are

[2:17:33] certified go to the Air Safety

[2:17:37] Board and seek funding for

[2:17:37] the road And we have monthly

[2:17:41] meetings with a planning staff

[2:17:42] to talk about financing

[2:17:43] opportunities in that spirit

[2:17:46] and move that forward.

[2:17:47] There's also local mobility

[2:17:47] fees that are a potential

[2:17:51] funding source.

[2:17:52] These are all existing fee

[2:17:56] mechanisms in place but we did

[2:17:56] want to share we're

[2:17:57] contributing over 100 acres of

[2:18:00] our land buyers important

[2:18:01] because it provides gravity

[2:18:02] sewer to the mesa.

[2:18:06] So not only not only is it

[2:18:07] triggered at 700 it kind of

[2:18:11] activates Southwest Village and

[2:18:12] all the all the property owners

[2:18:13] and various ownerships there

[2:18:15] you know, instead of having 70

[2:18:16] pump stations, you know there's

[2:18:17] a there would be a gravity

[2:18:20] system and then also it's

[2:18:20] 1,000,000yd of cut that is

[2:18:25] really not practical practical

[2:18:25] to dispose of elsewhere.

[2:18:29] It would most conveniently be

[2:18:30] disposed of at like a $3 per

[2:18:34] cubic yard price as opposed to

[2:18:34] a $30 per cubic yard price

[2:18:38] where it and try point

[2:18:39] subdivision so we can

[2:18:39] accommodate it.

[2:18:44] We just have to go get funding

[2:18:44] for it and our plan is to build

[2:18:45] it.

[2:18:48] We also kicked in 6.5 million

[2:18:48] for over 300 acres of open

[2:18:52] space to try point would be

[2:18:53] turning over to the city.

[2:18:54] The 6.5 million is for long

[2:18:57] term funding.

[2:18:58] We're not required to do that.

[2:19:02] The current mcp doesn't require

[2:19:03] us to do that but we recognize

[2:19:06] that's a practical way to move

[2:19:07] Southwest Village forward and

[2:19:10] we're contributing over 30

[2:19:11] million and community

[2:19:11] improvements that benefit

[2:19:15] others including backbone roads

[2:19:16] and utilities and then

[2:19:19] contributing 50 million in

[2:19:20] fees.

[2:19:20] That's just in our first

[2:19:24] tentative map.

[2:19:25] Oscar if we I'm sorry Kevin if

[2:19:26] we can go to the next slide.

[2:19:29] We're also I mentioned

[2:19:30] the three and a 40 acres of

[2:19:30] open space.

[2:19:31] We're doing a 33 acre vernal

[2:19:34] pool restoration project to

[2:19:35] move the specific plan forward.

[2:19:39] And then we've cited a ten and

[2:19:40] a half acre park on our

[2:19:43] property And then both schools

[2:19:44] once the first school is

[2:19:48] entirely on dry points property

[2:19:49] and then the second school

[2:19:49] which is optional for

[2:19:53] the school district is on

[2:19:54] the on most of dry points

[2:19:54] second property.

[2:19:58] So we feel like we open space

[2:19:59] schools parks we've kicked in a

[2:20:01] lot to to get this community

[2:20:06] going And next slide this is

[2:20:07] just a graphic that gives you a

[2:20:08] flavor for the types of

[2:20:11] elevations of homes.

[2:20:11] Next slide.

[2:20:16] And then just to wrap up, I

[2:20:17] think I've shared all this but

[2:20:17] I did want to say the proposal

[2:20:21] includes 10% affordable housing

[2:20:21] in our project.

[2:20:22] We're planning on doing that on

[2:20:26] site and that's the end of my

[2:20:30] presentation.

[2:20:30] All right.

[2:20:31] So we have a presentation by

[2:20:32] staff and a presentation by

[2:20:35] the applicant with that clerk

[2:20:36] Please proceed with public

[2:20:40] comment.

[2:20:40] We will start with our first

[2:20:44] organized presentation not

[2:20:44] first because we have multiple

[2:20:45] first because it's the first

[2:20:46] ever organized presentation for

[2:20:46] the city.

[2:20:49] Congratulations.

[2:20:49] Marcela Escobar is our lead

[2:20:50] presenter and if I can have

[2:20:51] the following participants

[2:20:54] please raise their hands.

[2:20:55] Michael Shumaker, William

[2:20:59] Spurgeon Danny Dennis Handler.

[2:21:00] Steven Shoemaker.

[2:21:00] Tom Noel Rufo Ben Handler.

[2:21:04] Antonio Lizarraga and Calvin

[2:21:05] Shaw.

[2:21:05] You can all raise your hands at

[2:21:06] the same time.

[2:21:09] Thank you so much.

[2:21:09] You'll have nine minutes.

[2:21:10] MISS Clark Just a point of

[2:21:15] clarification Michael

[2:21:15] Schumacher speaking right after

[2:21:16] me is a part of the Cavaliers

[2:21:17] and you can make it your own

[2:21:17] times.

[2:21:18] Okay.

[2:21:18] Thank you so much.

[2:21:19] Good evening.

[2:21:19] Before you go, if he is going

[2:21:23] to be you said who Michael

[2:21:24] Schumacher you'll be sharing

[2:21:24] your time.

[2:21:29] So he didn't just come up

[2:21:30] because then it's going to take

[2:21:30] all that time for him to Thank

[2:21:30] you.

[2:21:31] Thank you so much.

[2:21:31] Please proceed.

[2:21:32] Yeah, yeah.

[2:21:33] Just stay there.

[2:21:33] Just be great.

[2:21:34] Good evening.

[2:21:37] Council PRESIDENT LaCava,

[2:21:37] Members of the City Council.

[2:21:38] My name is Marcela Escobar.

[2:21:39] I'm the PRESIDENT Ceo of

[2:21:42] Atlantis Group.

[2:21:42] I'm here first of all to

[2:21:43] respectfully request a

[2:21:47] continuance of this item.

[2:21:48] I think I've been doing this

[2:21:49] for 39 years now and I don't

[2:21:51] oppose projects.

[2:21:52] This is only the second time

[2:21:53] that we are in

[2:21:53] the uncomfortable position of

[2:21:56] having major concerns over a

[2:21:57] project and we feel that this

[2:22:01] particular specific plan that's

[2:22:01] moving forward has a flawed

[2:22:02] roadway infrastructure plan

[2:22:06] associated with it.

[2:22:06] What basically is going to be

[2:22:07] happening is you've been told

[2:22:08] today that you're approving

[2:22:11] over 5000 units but what you're

[2:22:12] going to get is 700 units over

[2:22:15] the next probably 15 years by

[2:22:16] approving some items c and f it

[2:22:19] will be a de facto moratorium

[2:22:20] in that area because nothing

[2:22:24] else in this specific plan is

[2:22:24] going to be able to move

[2:22:25] forward.

[2:22:25] We believe the way that

[2:22:28] the analysis was done was not

[2:22:29] appropriate and it basically

[2:22:33] defers what needs to happen for

[2:22:34] all of the traffic analysis for

[2:22:34] the rest of the specific plan

[2:22:38] to a later date our clients

[2:22:38] were actually shut out of

[2:22:39] the process.

[2:22:43] You got some very pretty slides

[2:22:43] talking about all the public

[2:22:46] outreach during all of those 20

[2:22:47] some odd meetings that were had

[2:22:48] with the wildlife agencies.

[2:22:51] The two primary other primary

[2:22:52] landowners, the Bachmanns and

[2:22:53] the handlers I'm here

[2:22:53] representing the handlers were

[2:22:56] not included in that process

[2:22:56] despite the fact that we asked

[2:22:57] the city multiple times to

[2:23:01] please include us in that

[2:23:01] process.

[2:23:02] The plan before you before you

[2:23:05] today is not the one that was

[2:23:05] shared during the initial

[2:23:08] outreach meetings.

[2:23:09] The first time that everybody

[2:23:09] saw the new plan was when it

[2:23:10] came out for public review.

[2:23:13] We think that there are some

[2:23:14] things the plan does need to go

[2:23:14] forward.

[2:23:15] We understand that But we think

[2:23:19] that it can be done in a more

[2:23:19] equitable fashion.

[2:23:20] Now I'll turn it over to MR.

[2:23:23] Schumacher.

[2:23:24] Thank you, Michel.

[2:23:26] Is there a time clock that I

[2:23:32] can read or a seven minutes?

[2:23:33] We can't share that.

[2:23:33] I'm sorry.

[2:23:34] Yeah, I'm pausing your time.

[2:23:36] We can't share the timer and

[2:23:37] the and the visual at the same

[2:23:38] time because we're having

[2:23:38] problems.

[2:23:41] But I'll give you a 32nd or a

[2:23:42] one minute wrap up time so

[2:23:43] you're aware.

[2:23:43] Thank you.

[2:23:46] Please proceed.

[2:23:47] >> You have seven minutes and

[2:23:47] one second.

[2:23:51] Thank you, Michel.

[2:23:51] Go ahead.

[2:23:51] Thank you.

[2:23:52] Good afternoon.

[2:23:52] Council PRESIDENT LaCava and

[2:23:56] San Diego City Council members

[2:23:57] My name is Michael Handler

[2:23:57] Shoemaker and I'm speaking on

[2:24:01] behalf of bdm 28 llc You

[2:24:02] listeners handler Their trust

[2:24:02] on this.

[2:24:05] The Handler family is the third

[2:24:06] largest property owner in

[2:24:06] the Southwest Village.

[2:24:07] My family has been an active

[2:24:09] property owner in Otay Mesa

[2:24:10] since the 1960s.

[2:24:14] My grandfather donated 37 acres

[2:24:15] for Buyer Park 25 years ago as

[2:24:16] evidenced by sup Item h of this

[2:24:19] agenda item our family's

[2:24:19] donation is critical to

[2:24:20] the buyer West Broadway

[2:24:23] extension in conjunction with

[2:24:24] the Bachman family We as

[2:24:25] the two largest property owners

[2:24:28] after tripling submitted a

[2:24:29] letter to all of you last week

[2:24:30] that we hope you had time to

[2:24:30] read.

[2:24:33] As stated we are simply asking

[2:24:34] you to delay adoption to allow

[2:24:34] city staff time to address

[2:24:38] several fatal flaws and

[2:24:38] inadequacies so that all

[2:24:39] the property owners have a

[2:24:42] reliable planning document with

[2:24:43] which to move forward.

[2:24:43] We also followed up that letter

[2:24:47] with a more detailed analysis

[2:24:48] that lists all we believe must

[2:24:49] be corrected before adoption.

[2:24:52] One of the biggest flaws in

[2:24:52] the specific plan is that it

[2:24:53] requires the extension of Buyer

[2:24:56] West to be operational prior to

[2:24:57] the occupancy of the 700 unit

[2:25:01] buyer West is approximately one

[2:25:01] mile of expensive roadway

[2:25:05] estimated to cost at least $60

[2:25:06] million for two lanes just one

[2:25:06] each way.

[2:25:09] This aspect of the phasing plan

[2:25:10] effectively prevents other

[2:25:11] owners from even beginning to

[2:25:14] process entitlement

[2:25:14] applications until Buyer West

[2:25:15] is built.

[2:25:15] Please be aware that

[2:25:19] the applicant takes the initial

[2:25:20] allocation of 700 units and

[2:25:21] requires everyone to wait.

[2:25:24] Nobody knows the answer to

[2:25:25] the questions of what happens

[2:25:28] if Buyer West is never built or

[2:25:28] unreasonably delayed.

[2:25:29] Here are a few areas that we

[2:25:33] want to resolve with city staff

[2:25:34] and the applicant.

[2:25:35] We think it is a mistake to

[2:25:38] allow the applicant to proceed

[2:25:38] with 699 units.

[2:25:41] The sequel findings list 14

[2:25:42] entitlements some of which are

[2:25:43] not before the council today.

[2:25:46] So Buyer West cannot be legally

[2:25:47] built until these are also

[2:25:47] approved.

[2:25:48] The air never analyze what

[2:25:51] happens if the critical right

[2:25:52] of way acquisitions fail.

[2:25:53] Nobody knows when Buyer West

[2:25:55] will be built or how it will be

[2:25:59] paid for.

[2:26:00] >> We think it was also a

[2:26:03] mistake to not evaluate first

[2:26:04] building the extension of

[2:26:05] Caliente Avenue before Buyer

[2:26:05] West is shown on

[2:26:08] the presentation screen.

[2:26:09] We think this will cost only

[2:26:13] 15% of Buyer west and produce

[2:26:14] far more housing that will be

[2:26:14] built not only by the applicant

[2:26:18] but others as well.

[2:26:19] The specific plan fails to

[2:26:19] provide you with

[2:26:23] the information needed to make

[2:26:23] an informed decision today.

[2:26:24] Of particular importance is

[2:26:27] the complete lack of any

[2:26:28] infrastructure financing plan

[2:26:32] fair share contribution formula

[2:26:33] or cost information.

[2:26:34] The recent and nearby Otay Mesa

[2:26:37] Central Village specific plan

[2:26:38] include a roadway trigger

[2:26:42] analysis with fair share

[2:26:43] percentages that the Central

[2:26:43] Village would pay Most of

[2:26:46] the cities that my team has

[2:26:47] worked in require a separate

[2:26:48] chapter and all specific plans

[2:26:52] and precise plans that outline

[2:26:52] the financing plan,

[2:26:53] the estimated cost and the fair

[2:26:57] share contributions.

[2:26:57] We believe you should consider

[2:26:58] this as a requirement before

[2:26:59] adoption of the Southwest

[2:27:02] Village Specific plan not

[2:27:03] after.

[2:27:03] More importantly, we asked

[2:27:07] the city both the city and

[2:27:08] the applicant how the immense

[2:27:08] costs would be financed when

[2:27:09] and how fair share

[2:27:12] contributions would be

[2:27:12] determined.

[2:27:13] The response we received was

[2:27:17] that after the air was

[2:27:17] certified in the specific plan

[2:27:18] adopted these issues would be

[2:27:18] addressed.

[2:27:21] We believe that this is

[2:27:22] critical information that you

[2:27:23] need to know before you decide

[2:27:26] whether to adopt what is

[2:27:27] proposed or not.

[2:27:28] With all of this in mind,

[2:27:28] please delay your vote today

[2:27:31] and instruct staff as the lead

[2:27:32] agency to work with us,

[2:27:32] the applicant and the other

[2:27:36] property owners to find

[2:27:37] equitable solutions.

[2:27:38] With the facts in hand

[2:27:38] the matter will come back to

[2:27:41] you So that you can make an

[2:27:42] informed decision on what you

[2:27:43] know rather than what you or

[2:27:46] someone else might think.

[2:27:47] This will ensure that San Diego

[2:27:47] benefits from greater housing

[2:27:48] production and infrastructure

[2:27:50] in the entire Southwest

[2:27:50] Village.

[2:27:51] >> Thank you for your

[2:27:55] consideration.

[2:27:55] Thank you.

[2:27:56] That concludes your

[2:28:00] presentation then You still

[2:28:00] have three minutes but you're

[2:28:01] good.

[2:28:04] All right.

[2:28:05] Alright continue on with

[2:28:06] the rest of public comment.

[2:28:10] City Clerk Thank you.

[2:28:10] Council PRESIDENT Going to

[2:28:11] individual speakers starting

[2:28:12] with Roll Alcantara if you can

[2:28:14] please come up to the podium

[2:28:14] after that if I can have

[2:28:15] the following individuals

[2:28:19] please come up to the yellow

[2:28:19] reserved seats.

[2:28:23] Chris Abrams Jim Whalen.

[2:28:24] Rob Hixon.

[2:28:24] Michael King.

[2:28:29] Maximilian Schmidt, Antonio

[2:28:29] Blas and Manuel Garcia.

[2:28:33] And then last is allegedly

[2:28:33] Audra please come up to that

[2:28:34] front row for better meeting

[2:28:35] management role.

[2:28:38] You'll have one minute you'll

[2:28:38] see the timer up on

[2:28:38] the screens.

[2:28:39] Please proceed.

[2:28:39] Thank you.

[2:28:43] Good afternoon.

[2:28:44] The City Council roll out

[2:28:45] cantar with cross-border

[2:28:46] express as supports this

[2:28:47] project generally and also

[2:28:48] continued growth in Otay Mesa

[2:28:48] as proud members of

[2:28:52] the community we recently

[2:28:53] celebrated ten years having

[2:28:53] served over 31 million

[2:28:57] travelers and generated

[2:28:58] approximately 1.5 billion in

[2:28:58] annual economic impact for

[2:29:02] the regional and bi national

[2:29:03] economy.

[2:29:03] This growth however should be

[2:29:04] matched with the pending

[2:29:08] completion of essential roadway

[2:29:08] infrastructure Most urgently

[2:29:09] the unfinished segment of

[2:29:12] Champagne River Road between la

[2:29:13] Media and Britannia continues

[2:29:13] to force passenger vehicles and

[2:29:17] heavy logistics traffic into a

[2:29:18] single constrained access point

[2:29:19] through the Britannia Airway

[2:29:21] intersection frequently

[2:29:22] impacting emergency vehicle

[2:29:23] access to the community during

[2:29:26] peak traffic With additional

[2:29:27] housing development underway

[2:29:31] including thousands of approved

[2:29:32] housing units at Cactus and

[2:29:32] Epica.

[2:29:33] This is not merely a traffic

[2:29:36] inconvenience but a matter of

[2:29:36] public safety.

[2:29:37] Going forward we respectfully,

[2:29:41] respectfully urge the City

[2:29:41] Council and the city to

[2:29:42] prioritize funding for

[2:29:46] the build out of a broader core

[2:29:47] roadway network in all times.

[2:29:48] Thank you for that concluding

[2:29:48] comment.

[2:29:55] Chris Abrams.

[2:30:00] Please proceed.

[2:30:01] >> Hello my name is Chris

[2:30:01] Abrams.

[2:30:02] My address is 3268.

[2:30:05] Governor Drive in San Diego.

[2:30:06] My family owns the South wind

[2:30:10] property which is adjacent to

[2:30:10] the Southwest Village.

[2:30:11] I just want to say that we have

[2:30:15] found to our point great to

[2:30:16] work with and I'm here in full

[2:30:16] support of the project.

[2:30:17] Thank you.

[2:30:22] Jim Whalen.

[2:30:27] This working?

[2:30:28] Yes.

[2:30:28] Good evening.

[2:30:29] Council PRESIDENT LaCava and

[2:30:32] members of the Planning

[2:30:33] Commission.

[2:30:33] No it's not.

[2:30:37] City Council memories go.

[2:30:38] Jim Whalen General Associates.

[2:30:42] We're here for the Abrams

[2:30:43] family but in support of

[2:30:44] Southwest villages.

[2:30:46] I have a long history in Otay

[2:30:47] Mesa We have probably 4 or 5

[2:30:48] different families we've worked

[2:30:52] for and I know the area well.

[2:30:53] Tri party knows what they're

[2:30:53] doing.

[2:30:57] I've worked with them for 35

[2:30:58] years let's say, and they have

[2:31:02] a long track record of success

[2:31:03] with Master Plan communities.

[2:31:03] This is probably the last one

[2:31:04] in San Diego.

[2:31:07] The overall plan is a good

[2:31:08] balance between development and

[2:31:09] very, very high value open

[2:31:13] space especially the vernal

[2:31:13] pools.

[2:31:14] I worked on the Vernal Pool

[2:31:16] habitat conservation plan in

[2:31:17] the 2017 and the concurrence

[2:31:18] from the wildlife agencies is

[2:31:22] hard won.

[2:31:23] That's a big deal If they pull

[2:31:24] this together after all these

[2:31:24] years, this multiyear effort

[2:31:27] with many stakeholders is

[2:31:28] always going to have somebody

[2:31:29] who's not completely happy with

[2:31:32] the situation.

[2:31:33] But there is a funding

[2:31:34] mechanism for the Times of

[2:31:35] the year award winning remark.

[2:31:41] >> Rob, thank you very much.

[2:31:41] >> Effort.

[2:31:42] Good afternoon.

[2:31:42] Late afternoon City council

[2:31:46] members.

[2:31:47] Council PRESIDENT My name is

[2:31:48] Rob Hicks and I've been serving

[2:31:51] in no time this year.

[2:31:52] Chair of the Planning Group for

[2:31:52] the last 16 years.

[2:31:57] Nobody wants my job back.

[2:31:58] I've been trying to get rid of

[2:31:58] it.

[2:32:02] But anyway, city staff has done

[2:32:03] an outstanding job and in this

[2:32:03] whole project we've been

[2:32:07] working on the Southwest

[2:32:07] Village Plan and we did

[2:32:08] the whole community plan update

[2:32:13] and we've contained and Michael

[2:32:14] is a big part of that So

[2:32:14] they've done an outstanding

[2:32:14] job.

[2:32:17] This will help solve our

[2:32:18] housing issues in San Diego.

[2:32:19] We've asked a lot of try point

[2:32:20] and they've delivered.

[2:32:23] No one has ever been excluded.

[2:32:29] >> Michael King.

[2:32:30] Good afternoon COUNCILMAN

[2:32:31] Lukather and Council members.

[2:32:35] My name is Michael King and I

[2:32:36] am a conservation organizer

[2:32:37] with the Sierra Club of San

[2:32:41] Diego and live in District

[2:32:41] three.

[2:32:42] While the Sierra Club supports

[2:32:45] building more housing, it

[2:32:46] really matters where we put it.

[2:32:52] This project, according to

[2:32:52] the city's own blueprint S.D.,

[2:32:53] identifies the site as one of

[2:32:54] the least appropriate places

[2:32:57] for dense village development.

[2:32:58] It is a high driving area with

[2:32:59] no existing transit and no

[2:33:02] planned transit improvements.

[2:33:03] Yet the environmental review

[2:33:04] still concludes that this

[2:33:04] project is consistent with

[2:33:08] the city's climate action plan.

[2:33:08] Just as concerning

[2:33:09] the environmental review did

[2:33:09] not complete the transportation

[2:33:14] modeling required by the city's

[2:33:15] own transportation study manual

[2:33:15] for a project expected to

[2:33:20] generate more than 57,000 daily

[2:33:21] vehicle trips.

[2:33:21] Without that analysis neither

[2:33:25] you nor the public has a

[2:33:26] complete understanding of

[2:33:26] the project's true climate and

[2:33:31] transportation impacts.

[2:33:32] San Diego deserves housing that

[2:33:32] is consistent with our general

[2:33:33] plan, our climate action plan

[2:33:37] and our environmental laws.

[2:33:37] Thank you for that concluding

[2:33:38] comment.

[2:33:48] Maximillian Schmitt How do we

[2:33:49] know that we're not going to be

[2:33:54] targeted in these homes?

[2:33:55] Is San Diego City Council going

[2:34:01] to give us some guarantee that

[2:34:01] we're not going to get targeted

[2:34:02] in our home?

[2:34:07] Because I've been targeted in

[2:34:07] one home and over ten

[2:34:13] apartments in liberal cities

[2:34:13] across America.

[2:34:14] And the living situation in

[2:34:14] America.

[2:34:19] For some people like myself is

[2:34:19] completely untenable.

[2:34:25] On there are literal people who

[2:34:25] have done in a group ritual on

[2:34:30] a checkered board floor inside

[2:34:30] a masonic lodge who have

[2:34:31] the ability to look through

[2:34:36] your eyes and read your mind

[2:34:37] who will literally mentally

[2:34:37] torment you inside your home.

[2:34:42] So there needs to be some

[2:34:43] guarantee or something that

[2:34:44] you're not going to get

[2:34:49] targeted inside your home or

[2:34:50] for you to ever support Time

[2:34:50] has expired.

[2:34:56] Antonio Blas After Antonio Blas

[2:34:57] as Madeleine Garcia and then

[2:34:58] allegedly Andre please come

[2:35:01] forward to the microphone.

[2:35:02] >> I'd like to know if you were

[2:35:07] given a copy of that because I

[2:35:08] know I'm not going to have time

[2:35:08] for one minute.

[2:35:09] >> Yes, you can go to the other

[2:35:19] microphone over there to Okay.

[2:35:25] Do you see council members

[2:35:26] represented all of the other

[2:35:31] property owners on this village

[2:35:32] ?

[2:35:32] Excuse me On the agenda Tract

[2:35:33] Subdivision.

[2:35:33] Unless any changes are made for

[2:35:36] the protection of us,

[2:35:37] the owners we will not change

[2:35:37] our position.

[2:35:38] We're not opposed to

[2:35:42] development.

[2:35:43] But you need to point out that

[2:35:43] the definition of undeveloped

[2:35:48] subdivision parking lot and

[2:35:49] undeveloped property is very

[2:35:49] different.

[2:35:55] The average price of an

[2:35:55] available undeveloped accurate

[2:35:59] is roughly $674 six and 65.

[2:36:02] >> The Senate bill three three

[2:36:09] housing crisis because this has

[2:36:10] been aggressively masterplan

[2:36:10] for health into the community

[2:36:11] this year legally allowed to

[2:36:17] change zoning not the law

[2:36:17] restricts the cities from

[2:36:21] owning our properties and

[2:36:21] that's what has been happening

[2:36:22] in our properties.

[2:36:22] I'm giving you just a little

[2:36:23] bit of the highlights.

[2:36:27] Thank you.

[2:36:27] >> Thank you for your

[2:36:28] information.

[2:36:30] Your time has concluded on They

[2:36:37] do have the letter the.

[2:36:38] >> Yes.

[2:36:38] Please proceed.

[2:36:42] Hi, this is Manoel Garcia,

[2:36:43] property owner Orlando Track in

[2:36:43] California local agencies must

[2:36:48] provide adjacent property

[2:36:49] owners and residents with

[2:36:50] formal public notice before

[2:36:50] approving most new development

[2:36:54] proposals and zoning changes.

[2:36:55] These requirements are designed

[2:36:55] to guarantee due process and

[2:37:00] allow the public to review and

[2:37:01] weigh in on projects that MAY

[2:37:02] alter their community.

[2:37:02] According to Oscar Galvez,

[2:37:07] the threat from the city of San

[2:37:07] Diego I quote Unless you

[2:37:13] require to be notified before

[2:37:13] me we normally we are not

[2:37:14] required to send public

[2:37:14] notices.

[2:37:19] Was this tailored for this

[2:37:20] project Only negative

[2:37:20] consequences?

[2:37:21] Southwest Village

[2:37:21] Representative Jim Yea yea

[2:37:25] along with city officials were

[2:37:26] questioned by some division

[2:37:31] property owners as why many of

[2:37:32] our vacant lots were marked as

[2:37:32] open space.

[2:37:35] The city official and I

[2:37:36] responded I don't have an

[2:37:36] answer.

[2:37:42] We'll get back to you.

[2:37:42] >> Okay.

[2:37:42] Thank you.

[2:37:43] We do have the letter as well

[2:37:53] allegedly addressed.

[2:37:53] >> This is extremely

[2:37:54] concerning.

[2:37:54] I'm sure it's going to pass

[2:37:55] unfortunately.

[2:37:59] But why is there not equity

[2:38:00] with all of the landowners?

[2:38:00] There seems to be something

[2:38:05] extremely nefarious going on

[2:38:06] here And with there being no

[2:38:06] transit flood roadways that are

[2:38:11] deferred to a later date, you

[2:38:12] talk about emergency vehicle

[2:38:13] access but someone was just

[2:38:13] talking about traffic impeding

[2:38:18] an emergency evacuation zone

[2:38:19] And I feel like you guys sit

[2:38:19] here and you build density and

[2:38:20] you want to do all these

[2:38:23] walkable villages multimodal

[2:38:24] mixed use stuff.

[2:38:25] But it's like if people are not

[2:38:25] going to be able to use their

[2:38:29] cars, how do you expect people

[2:38:30] to evacuate when you put

[2:38:30] everybody density in an

[2:38:31] extremely high fire zone?

[2:38:32] I'm just wondering do you think

[2:38:36] about that when when you want

[2:38:36] to push us out of our vehicles?

[2:38:37] What is that route to leave

[2:38:42] public transit that everybody

[2:38:42] has to go get on a bus that you

[2:38:43] hope that they have a bike that

[2:38:44] they can get out in time.

[2:38:47] I'm just wondering why you guys

[2:38:48] don't bring this kind of, you

[2:38:53] know, protection in you care

[2:38:54] more about doing business and

[2:38:54] making sure people can build

[2:38:55] but you're putting people in

[2:38:59] danger.

[2:39:00] Thank you.

[2:39:01] I started the five minute time

[2:39:01] recording of those

[2:39:02] participating remotely.

[2:39:02] I would like to note that we

[2:39:05] did have one speaker in favor

[2:39:06] that wanted to register their

[2:39:07] position but did not wish to

[2:39:08] speak here in council chambers.

[2:39:12] Paul Benton.

[2:39:13] We also received zero comments

[2:39:14] in favor and for comments in

[2:39:14] opposition of your economic

[2:39:15] forum which have been

[2:39:17] attributed to the Council

[2:39:18] currently have four speakers in

[2:39:19] the queue with their hands

[2:39:19] raised.

[2:39:20] Starting with Victoria if you

[2:39:23] can please unmute Victoria.

[2:39:29] >> Good afternoon.

[2:39:29] My name is Victoria from

[2:39:30] the jury I'm here on behalf of

[2:39:30] Supporters Alliance for

[2:39:31] Environmental Responsibility or

[2:39:35] Safer.

[2:39:36] Safer is concerned that

[2:39:37] approval of the project and

[2:39:37] certification of the subsequent

[2:39:41] air will violate secure by one

[2:39:42] failing to adequately disclose

[2:39:42] and mitigate the project's

[2:39:43] significant air quality health

[2:39:48] risk biological resources noise

[2:39:49] and bmt impacts and to failing

[2:39:49] to require all feasible

[2:39:54] mitigation measures for

[2:39:54] the project's significant and

[2:39:55] unavoidable impacts.

[2:39:56] Specifically, say fairness, air

[2:39:59] quality, biological resources

[2:39:59] and noise experts found that

[2:40:00] the project would have

[2:40:01] significant air quality and

[2:40:05] health risk impacts from diesel

[2:40:06] particulate matter emissions

[2:40:06] significant impacts to special

[2:40:07] status species, significant

[2:40:12] construction and operational

[2:40:13] noise impacts and significant

[2:40:13] impacts that the air failed to

[2:40:18] adequately analyze and mitigate

[2:40:19] State variance Experts also

[2:40:20] found that your plan to include

[2:40:25] several mitigation measures to

[2:40:26] reduce these impacts.

[2:40:27] Therefore requested the City

[2:40:27] Council deny approval of

[2:40:30] the project and the air.

[2:40:30] >> Thank you.

[2:40:31] Thank you.

[2:40:31] Next is Blair in?

[2:40:38] If you can please unmute before

[2:40:38] I go.

[2:40:43] Thank you for frequent thanks

[2:40:44] for this item our nicely for

[2:40:48] our nice we heard that from

[2:40:49] the purpose of public comment

[2:40:53] presentation You know it's

[2:40:54] doesn't necessarily have to be

[2:40:55] built so large if you can think

[2:40:55] of reduction size that's

[2:41:00] important building individual

[2:41:00] homes you're building kind of a

[2:41:06] town hall double home model I

[2:41:07] guess or some flexibility.

[2:41:08] It's a really nice land area to

[2:41:08] just build individual homes or

[2:41:12] to work with the landscape more

[2:41:12] instead of just popping down

[2:41:13] tons of concrete and houses.

[2:41:18] And another suggestion and of

[2:41:19] course coming up with new ideas

[2:41:24] of mixed income can be really

[2:41:24] helpful for this area.

[2:41:25] We got to start somewhere to

[2:41:25] really be more experimental and

[2:41:30] creative with mixed income.

[2:41:31] Is this a place to do it?

[2:41:31] We can do some really nice

[2:41:32] things with it.

[2:41:35] It's obvious a lot of

[2:41:36] flexibility and choices towards

[2:41:36] a democratic future and not

[2:41:42] just a selfish me as in future.

[2:41:43] >> Thank you.

[2:41:43] Thank you.

[2:41:44] First of all if you can please

[2:41:48] unmute.

[2:41:48] >> Thank you.

[2:41:49] Good afternoon Council

[2:41:50] PRESIDENT, council members and

[2:41:54] staff Serious value in many

[2:41:55] hands but I am speaking as a

[2:41:59] South County resident of over

[2:42:00] 45 years and a former member of

[2:42:01] your time is a community

[2:42:01] planning group in that capacity

[2:42:05] serving on the planning group I

[2:42:06] had the opportunity to

[2:42:06] participate in the Southwest

[2:42:07] Village subcommittee that

[2:42:11] included a thorough engagement

[2:42:11] process and each element of

[2:42:12] the specific plan.

[2:42:12] I'm here today in support of

[2:42:16] the tri point homes and this

[2:42:17] project like all meaningful

[2:42:17] large scale projects this one

[2:42:23] has taken some time to do it

[2:42:23] right and they've done their

[2:42:24] user time well.

[2:42:28] They have worked to incorporate

[2:42:28] community input and we were

[2:42:29] particularly excited to see

[2:42:36] the extension of this a viable

[2:42:36] barge that will help connect

[2:42:39] Mason City, Cedar and so on.

[2:42:40] With that I want to

[2:42:40] respectfully request your

[2:42:41] approval of this item before

[2:42:41] you today.

[2:42:42] Thank you.

[2:42:46] Thank you.

[2:42:46] And our final speaker with her

[2:42:47] hand raised is 8700.

[2:42:57] If you can please unmute just

[2:42:57] please follow Marcello Escobar

[2:43:03] and Partners to Equity And I

[2:43:03] believe rather than

[2:43:08] the continuance they said a

[2:43:09] return to staff I totally and

[2:43:16] for that and I am for wishing

[2:43:17] for me follow me on So the item

[2:43:22] g no to that ordinance of a

[2:43:28] street overview and across all

[2:43:28] type to be open space and if

[2:43:33] I'm right on the other item I

[2:43:33] don't remember the figures but

[2:43:34] the affordable housing is

[2:43:39] extremely low and that's not

[2:43:40] fair especially for that area.

[2:43:46] So it's a big project Great

[2:43:47] talking until and follow

[2:43:48] Marcella Escobar and her

[2:43:51] partner Thank you to all Thank

[2:43:51] you And that does conclude

[2:43:52] public comment on this item.

[2:43:57] >> All right.

[2:43:57] Excuse me.

[2:44:01] Thank you City clerk And

[2:44:02] congratulations on the first

[2:44:03] implementation of sb 707 Off to

[2:44:03] a good start.

[2:44:07] We would normally go to

[2:44:08] the council member who

[2:44:09] represents the district but as

[2:44:09] you heard she has recused

[2:44:13] herself so we'll start out with

[2:44:14] the chair of our Land Use and

[2:44:15] Housing Committee Council

[2:44:20] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee thank

[2:44:21] yous PRESIDENT And I know our

[2:44:22] colleague Representative sticks

[2:44:26] out but look forward to having

[2:44:26] this conversation about this

[2:44:27] item We spent a lot of time

[2:44:32] talking about the need for more

[2:44:33] housing especially not just

[2:44:33] affordable housing but also

[2:44:34] market rate.

[2:44:37] We've also seen the impact of

[2:44:38] that in the last year or two

[2:44:39] especially with rents have gone

[2:44:43] down with additional housing

[2:44:44] units that have been brought

[2:44:44] forward And so that is

[2:44:45] something that I think we

[2:44:49] continue to face a challenge of

[2:44:50] across the entire city.

[2:44:50] This has been an interesting

[2:44:55] discussion hearing from both

[2:44:56] the project applicants Well

[2:45:01] from all the work that's been

[2:45:02] done from a city standpoint on

[2:45:02] the specific plan but also from

[2:45:06] those who MAY have different

[2:45:07] perspectives and how we can

[2:45:07] move forward.

[2:45:11] And I think one thing I really

[2:45:12] taking into account here is

[2:45:12] that this is all part of

[2:45:13] the Otay Mesa community plan

[2:45:16] that was previously updated and

[2:45:17] approved in 2014 as I

[2:45:17] understand it that specifically

[2:45:23] designates this area for urban

[2:45:24] village development and that

[2:45:28] community plan when passed also

[2:45:29] included a requirement for a

[2:45:29] site specific plan for

[2:45:35] Southwest Village and that's

[2:45:36] what's before us today.

[2:45:36] Correct, which is

[2:45:37] the implementation of what was

[2:45:42] originally outlined in

[2:45:42] the urban automated cami plan

[2:45:43] the update in 2014?

[2:45:47] Yes, that's correct.

[2:45:47] I also noted commune engagement

[2:45:53] and the majority support

[2:45:54] the nearly unanimous support I

[2:45:54] believe that came out of

[2:45:55] the attendees of the planning

[2:45:59] group and then the support that

[2:45:59] came out of the Planning

[2:46:00] Commission based on some of

[2:46:01] the correspondence that we

[2:46:06] received I did note that it

[2:46:06] appears to some of the concerns

[2:46:11] that we're hearing are directed

[2:46:11] toward the broader policy

[2:46:12] decision of planning Southwest

[2:46:13] Village as a residential

[2:46:16] village with no time a

[2:46:17] community plan.

[2:46:18] That decision itself was made

[2:46:18] back in 2014 when the plan

[2:46:23] again was updated.

[2:46:24] I think from what we're hearing

[2:46:29] there's different camps today

[2:46:33] coming out on this item and

[2:46:33] there's one that specifically

[2:46:34] would suggest that the specific

[2:46:39] plan itself doesn't match up

[2:46:39] with where the general plan is

[2:46:40] today and blueprint and then

[2:46:45] others who simply believe that

[2:46:46] there should be a different

[2:46:46] implementation of it.

[2:46:47] Is that how you're seeing

[2:46:48] the feedback that the city is

[2:46:51] proceeding?

[2:46:52] But Council Councilmember I

[2:46:57] think we've heard a number of

[2:46:58] comments today related I think

[2:46:58] that was one of the ones raised

[2:46:59] In fairness to the Opposition

[2:47:04] there is questions related to

[2:47:04] some of the implementation

[2:47:04] aspects.

[2:47:05] Staff is here to recommend

[2:47:06] approval of the specific plan

[2:47:10] the associated actions and has

[2:47:10] identified findings appropriate

[2:47:15] to support implementation

[2:47:16] consistent with the goals and

[2:47:17] policies of the Otay Mesa

[2:47:17] Community Plan, the general

[2:47:22] plan and all of

[2:47:22] the requirements of the Land

[2:47:23] Department Code.

[2:47:23] >> Okay.

[2:47:28] Thank you For me when when I

[2:47:29] see an item that has over 70

[2:47:30] landowners that are in the area

[2:47:33] the be also called for schools

[2:47:34] parks, other infrastructure

[2:47:35] that are going to be built out

[2:47:35] within this space I can see

[2:47:39] clearly why the city would and

[2:47:40] the community practically

[2:47:41] sought a site specific plan so

[2:47:45] that there would be something

[2:47:46] that it would help to guide how

[2:47:46] this community would come

[2:47:47] together so that it wasn't done

[2:47:51] just by parcel.

[2:47:52] I appreciate the fact that

[2:47:53] the plan does call for 5000

[2:47:53] plus homes commercial space

[2:47:57] again the additional

[2:47:58] infrastructure that's needed

[2:47:59] And I think what I'm hearing

[2:47:59] also is that the real question

[2:48:03] that often comes before us at

[2:48:04] this council and in land use

[2:48:04] discussions is how do we ensure

[2:48:05] and see the infrastructure that

[2:48:09] is also asked for come to

[2:48:09] fruition.

[2:48:10] So let me ask you a couple

[2:48:14] questions I guess on on that

[2:48:15] front a lot of the focus of

[2:48:16] the discussion seems to have

[2:48:20] been specifically on fire

[2:48:21] Boulevard And could you explain

[2:48:24] to us the necessity of light by

[2:48:25] Boulevard needs to come first

[2:48:33] in phase one I that's Mary Rose

[2:48:34] transport transportation to

[2:48:34] speak the.

[2:48:38] Hi good afternoon your friends

[2:48:38] here with with transportation

[2:48:42] development in regards to

[2:48:43] the requirement for fire

[2:48:44] Boulevard west to be

[2:48:48] constructed prior to the 700

[2:48:49] dwelling unit was based on a

[2:48:53] regional travel demand model

[2:48:54] and project description

[2:48:54] distribution for the proposed

[2:48:55] space development.

[2:49:00] So based on that analysis

[2:49:00] the analyzes of two 699

[2:49:05] dwelling units among community

[2:49:06] and then the remaining 221

[2:49:10] along Fire Boulevard with

[2:49:10] specific to that can you

[2:49:11] explain how the 700 sort of

[2:49:16] unit threshold was determined?

[2:49:16] It's not just an arbitrary

[2:49:17] number, right?

[2:49:18] It is It is because of that

[2:49:22] infrastructure analysis,

[2:49:23] the static analysis.

[2:49:23] >> Yes, that's correct.

[2:49:24] That's based on the regional

[2:49:27] model.

[2:49:28] >> Why is this plan any more

[2:49:29] viable than for example,

[2:49:33] the alternate alternative plan

[2:49:34] that's been presented by some

[2:49:35] landowners that talk about

[2:49:39] phase one with calendar instead

[2:49:39] of buyer?

[2:49:40] And can I ask you to speak a

[2:49:41] little closer to the mix and

[2:49:44] make sure that everyone can

[2:49:45] hear in the recording?

[2:49:45] Thank you.

[2:49:46] So this is specific to

[2:49:50] the proposed development in

[2:49:51] their proposed phase

[2:49:52] development and we found that

[2:49:56] it did analyze the 699 dwelling

[2:50:01] units along Coyote Avenue and

[2:50:02] then the remainder on viable

[2:50:07] part was let me try and sort of

[2:50:08] step back for a second.

[2:50:13] So one of the reasons why

[2:50:13] the specific plan identifies

[2:50:16] both Buyer Boulevard and Client

[2:50:17] as two major circulation

[2:50:17] element roadways is one it's

[2:50:22] implementation of the overall

[2:50:23] circulation element that was

[2:50:24] identified in the 2014 Otay

[2:50:28] Mesa Community Plan providing

[2:50:28] sort of regional access to a

[2:50:32] village that will provide up to

[2:50:33] 5130 homes.

[2:50:33] Additionally there's other just

[2:50:37] mobility access requirements

[2:50:38] fire access requirements for

[2:50:43] build out of those 5000 plus

[2:50:43] homes.

[2:50:44] So what the applicant proposed

[2:50:44] the tri point homes as

[2:50:48] the largest landowner and

[2:50:48] the applicant for the specific

[2:50:49] plan which was required in

[2:50:53] accordance with the community

[2:50:54] plan as you stated was to

[2:50:54] provide a mobility network that

[2:50:59] identified build out conditions

[2:50:59] as well as phased

[2:51:00] implementation consistent with

[2:51:05] their actual vesting tentative

[2:51:06] map or their project that they

[2:51:06] also were proposing

[2:51:10] concurrently and that analysis

[2:51:10] was accepted by staff and

[2:51:11] determined to be appropriate as

[2:51:14] to when Buyer Boulevard should

[2:51:15] come online.

[2:51:16] The alternative analysis that

[2:51:16] was provided to the council

[2:51:21] earlier prior to the hearing

[2:51:21] was not submitted for staff's

[2:51:22] formal review.

[2:51:25] It could be considered as part

[2:51:26] of a nother discretionary

[2:51:27] permit application for

[2:51:31] implementation should other

[2:51:32] property owners choose to

[2:51:33] submit an application.

[2:51:37] So for example East of Buyer

[2:51:37] Boulevard and wish to proceed

[2:51:40] in advance of or concurrent

[2:51:40] with the first tentative map

[2:51:45] that the applicant has proposed

[2:51:46] That was actually something

[2:51:47] that sort of stuck out when I

[2:51:51] was hearing from some of

[2:51:52] the opposition as well about

[2:51:52] the potential of county for

[2:51:54] example being considered in

[2:52:00] phase one is what if there's a

[2:52:00] contention about the funding

[2:52:04] mechanisms to construct buyer?

[2:52:05] Would that be any different

[2:52:10] with county we would defer to

[2:52:10] city planning staff to just

[2:52:15] sort of Samarra around who is

[2:52:16] in here to can speak to those

[2:52:29] financing deliberations.

[2:52:30] Good evening everyone.

[2:52:36] I mean when I was seven deputy

[2:52:36] director at city planning in

[2:52:39] terms of by what award we have

[2:52:40] presented to the board and have

[2:52:43] around $2 million allocated to

[2:52:44] a boulevard, we're also working

[2:52:48] with the f d board to allocate

[2:52:48] additional funds through bonds

[2:52:49] which is yet to happen But

[2:52:50] that's something that is being

[2:52:53] worked on Also there is

[2:52:54] opportunities for credits if

[2:52:59] the applicant is going to be

[2:53:00] the project they are required

[2:53:04] to pay development impact fees

[2:53:05] and specifically or time is a

[2:53:07] local majority of around $12

[2:53:07] million for the first phase of

[2:53:08] the development and that can be

[2:53:12] issued in the form of credits

[2:53:13] towards being able to work.

[2:53:13] So that's what we are working

[2:53:17] on in terms of financing

[2:53:18] mechanisms from Bible River.

[2:53:19] But I want to understand and

[2:53:22] this is the question or if you

[2:53:23] have a different question Well

[2:53:23] actually thank you for for

[2:53:24] walking through all that

[2:53:27] because I remember is serving

[2:53:28] on the f d as well voting on

[2:53:33] allocating funding and to buy a

[2:53:34] boulevard extension.

[2:53:35] And so I think what we've heard

[2:53:37] is a an alternative proposal

[2:53:37] for example, as to why we don't

[2:53:42] consider building on Kelly and

[2:53:42] t to unlock other housing

[2:53:43] opportunities.

[2:53:46] And I'm wondering if there's

[2:53:46] been any discussion about

[2:53:50] financing for that separate

[2:53:51] fire In terms of calendar we

[2:53:56] are in discussions for

[2:53:56] reimbursement agreements for

[2:53:57] that as well but different

[2:54:00] portions of it.

[2:54:00] I will need to look into

[2:54:01] the specific details exactly

[2:54:02] which location to be able to

[2:54:05] better answer that question.

[2:54:10] Did you want to come up in

[2:54:11] Sorry and French Gonzalez

[2:54:12] Senior traffic engineer

[2:54:16] developments Services

[2:54:16] Department I think like MR.

[2:54:20] Prince mentioned what's

[2:54:20] presented today as

[2:54:21] the alternative plan was never

[2:54:26] submitted to staff and as he

[2:54:26] said it could be submitted with

[2:54:27] a future development

[2:54:30] application.

[2:54:31] But I think the essence of your

[2:54:32] question is a little bit

[2:54:36] towards why did the applicant

[2:54:36] try point homes choose to

[2:54:40] construct a central avenue to

[2:54:41] access phase one rather than to

[2:54:45] construct Caliente because as

[2:54:46] MR. Prince noted, both Caliente

[2:54:50] and viable vard connection will

[2:54:51] ultimately be needed to support

[2:54:55] this level of development

[2:54:55] that's proposed through this

[2:54:56] specific plan.

[2:55:00] So if if you want to address

[2:55:04] why the applicant try point

[2:55:05] homes chose to present Central

[2:55:09] Avenue instead of Caliente

[2:55:10] Avenue to serve their first

[2:55:11] phase, I'm sure they would be

[2:55:13] happy to answer that question.

[2:55:28] Sure the importance of buyer is

[2:55:32] really to get a secondary

[2:55:33] permanent vehicular access but

[2:55:38] we've we've the six 700 units

[2:55:43] basically we access through our

[2:55:44] property Central Avenue we

[2:55:48] there's a on that oil lander

[2:55:48] map there's a number of one

[2:55:49] acre parcels where we don't

[2:55:53] have right of way for Caliente

[2:55:53] So we obviously wanted to

[2:55:57] provide access into our

[2:55:57] property through our property

[2:55:58] that we control and we focused

[2:56:02] on on buyer instead of caliente

[2:56:03] because we don't trigger

[2:56:07] caliente with our because we

[2:56:08] have access through Central

[2:56:08] Avenue.

[2:56:12] We don't trigger caliente

[2:56:12] anything further for ourselves

[2:56:13] And we wanted to focus on buyer

[2:56:16] which is a permanent like fire

[2:56:21] access secondary access at If

[2:56:22] you're just focusing on

[2:56:22] clientele you only have one way

[2:56:26] in to Southwest Village and one

[2:56:27] one way out.

[2:56:28] So Buyer We focused on buyer

[2:56:31] which provides a secondary

[2:56:32] access So as as part of this

[2:56:36] initial phase even with the 700

[2:56:37] units or so try point we'd be

[2:56:41] building out central as an

[2:56:41] access point on the northern

[2:56:42] side as well as a portion of

[2:56:48] buyer buyers extension.

[2:56:49] That's that's correct.

[2:56:50] At the point the buyer West

[2:56:54] would be done by 700 buyer

[2:56:58] Boulevard West there's a

[2:56:58] portion of buyer east that

[2:57:01] would be done during the 700.

[2:57:02] Got it.

[2:57:02] Okay.

[2:57:06] Thank you.

[2:57:07] Um, I noticed there's a section

[2:57:10] under section 7.12 that seems

[2:57:15] to suggest that property owners

[2:57:15] can go through with other

[2:57:16] phases or phasing of

[2:57:20] the project could be swapped if

[2:57:25] there was an ability to access

[2:57:30] property without going through

[2:57:30] buyer Can you talk through 7.12

[2:57:31] and whether that does offer

[2:57:34] some flexibility for out of

[2:57:35] their property owners?

[2:57:36] I would just sort of point to

[2:57:39] Ashley is technically section

[2:57:39] 7.13 phasing in the specific

[2:57:44] plan Subsection g refers to

[2:57:45] sort of the phasing of some of

[2:57:49] the public facilities other

[2:57:49] planning areas will be subject

[2:57:50] to future project level

[2:57:54] analysis including as it

[2:57:55] relates to Buyer Boulevard West

[2:57:55] for necessary infrastructure,

[2:57:59] public facilities in emergency

[2:58:00] access required at each phase

[2:58:04] of development So that's

[2:58:04] the language that is in

[2:58:05] the draft specific plan before

[2:58:09] you today Essentially what that

[2:58:09] means is what I stated earlier

[2:58:10] which is other property owners

[2:58:13] within the Southwest Village

[2:58:14] specific plan area MAY choose

[2:58:15] to come forward with a specific

[2:58:18] development project proposal

[2:58:19] and if they can demonstrate

[2:58:20] that they meet access

[2:58:24] requirements, fire safety

[2:58:25] requirements and all of our

[2:58:29] regulations of the code that

[2:58:29] they could proceed with

[2:58:30] development without

[2:58:33] the necessary without

[2:58:34] necessarily requiring

[2:58:35] the construction of Buyer

[2:58:35] Boulevard.

[2:58:36] So essentially it's like if

[2:58:39] they can present an analysis

[2:58:39] that that staff can support

[2:58:40] staff could permit those

[2:58:43] developments without the need

[2:58:44] to construct buyer But we have

[2:58:45] not seen that analysis.

[2:58:49] We have not seen any other

[2:58:49] development application

[2:58:50] proposals.

[2:58:53] So staff cannot speak to to

[2:58:54] those specifically or reach an

[2:58:57] affirmative conclusion.

[2:58:58] Okay.

[2:59:02] Thank you for sharing that.

[2:59:08] Um, based on what I know so far

[2:59:09] I, I feel like this reminds me

[2:59:12] a little bit of different but

[2:59:13] in my own district where we've

[2:59:16] had some projects that have

[2:59:17] come forward and there's larger

[2:59:18] infrastructure needs that

[2:59:21] frankly are connected because

[2:59:22] of what's in the community plan

[2:59:23] And some of the challenge that

[2:59:26] we always face is how do we

[2:59:27] ensure that the infrastructure

[2:59:28] that's planned for actually

[2:59:32] gets completed and so I do hear

[2:59:33] that argument because I look at

[2:59:33] a portion of my district large

[2:59:37] development that has come in

[2:59:38] And I also know that for it to

[2:59:38] be successful long term

[2:59:42] the remaining connection points

[2:59:42] need to actually happen and

[2:59:47] that some of the discussion

[2:59:47] about whether there's financing

[2:59:48] available for it how that

[2:59:51] happens it always gets left up

[2:59:51] to question.

[2:59:52] But I will also say at the end

[2:59:53] of the day the housing that

[2:59:57] we've built despite those

[2:59:57] questions not being answered

[3:00:01] has still been needed.

[3:00:02] And I think part of the reason

[3:00:03] you're hearing from folks today

[3:00:06] is really this question of how

[3:00:06] do we ensure that the site

[3:00:11] specific plans infrastructure

[3:00:11] that's drawn out actually gets

[3:00:15] completed.

[3:00:16] And so what what gives us

[3:00:17] confidence from a city

[3:00:20] standpoint that for example

[3:00:21] that it won't end at 700 units

[3:00:25] I'm going to argue that 700

[3:00:26] units is also still needed from

[3:00:27] a housing perspective.

[3:00:30] But I think going beyond that,

[3:00:31] how do we how do we actually

[3:00:34] ensure that we get the 5000

[3:00:35] plus units, the completion of

[3:00:38] buyer going west and

[3:00:39] the additional infrastructure

[3:00:46] improvements that are necessary

[3:00:46] ?

[3:00:47] So staff has presented a

[3:00:48] specific plan in environmental

[3:00:51] analysis that details all of

[3:00:52] the actions necessary to

[3:00:54] approve up to 5100 130 homes

[3:00:55] Sorry I keep saying that number

[3:00:56] specifically but that's sort of

[3:01:00] what's before you today project

[3:01:04] includes about intended a map

[3:01:05] by the project applicant for up

[3:01:08] to 920 homes and additionally

[3:01:13] property owner can build up to

[3:01:14] 2100 homes So that represents a

[3:01:18] significant portion of

[3:01:19] the overall specific plans

[3:01:20] development capacity and there

[3:01:23] has been significant investment

[3:01:24] in the processing of

[3:01:28] the entitlements to bring

[3:01:29] forward today to ensure that

[3:01:33] there is development potential

[3:01:33] within the area.

[3:01:37] Currently it is designated for

[3:01:38] neighborhood village use as in

[3:01:39] the community plan but it is

[3:01:42] zoned for agricultural use So

[3:01:43] there is no the ability for a

[3:01:47] property owner to build today.

[3:01:48] This provides a more detailed

[3:01:48] environmental analysis entitled

[3:01:52] Specific development for to

[3:01:53] come in at at specific phases

[3:01:56] and allows other property

[3:01:57] owners to proceed with their

[3:02:01] own projects.

[3:02:02] Um I guess the last question I

[3:02:05] will ask then is that if if

[3:02:06] another property owner did want

[3:02:07] to move forward with a project

[3:02:12] and could make a proposal or to

[3:02:13] consider building out for

[3:02:14] example a portion of Kelly to

[3:02:16] to to allow for that phasing to

[3:02:16] happen That is what would be

[3:02:17] possible if it was submitted

[3:02:21] and analyzed from a city

[3:02:21] standpoint.

[3:02:22] That's correct.

[3:02:25] The staff staffers would review

[3:02:26] and analyze that in accordance

[3:02:27] with if the specific plan were

[3:02:27] to be adopted it would reviewed

[3:02:30] in accordance with

[3:02:31] the allowances of the specific

[3:02:31] plan the regulations of

[3:02:34] the Land Development Code and

[3:02:35] would ensure that it follows

[3:02:40] the process similar to what

[3:02:41] the best intended of map

[3:02:41] process was followed for it

[3:02:45] concurrent with the specific

[3:02:45] plan.

[3:02:45] Correct.

[3:02:46] Um I guess the last question I

[3:02:49] would ask and this might be

[3:02:50] really more so a point question

[3:02:53] but aside from the first 700

[3:02:54] units that have been discussed,

[3:02:54] how many total what's the total

[3:02:58] capacity of homes that tre'quan

[3:03:07] is able to build?

[3:03:11] It's it's somewhere between

[3:03:11] 1500 to 2100 is chaplain's

[3:03:15] intent to complete that for

[3:03:16] Absolutely We we have we have

[3:03:16] to work through our land

[3:03:20] position before we go buying

[3:03:25] other projects where and we're

[3:03:25] out of work we really need to

[3:03:26] keep building homes So this is

[3:03:29] our future basically.

[3:03:30] >> Thank you for answering that

[3:03:34] MR. Kashani Why don't you stay

[3:03:39] a little closer just in case?

[3:03:39] >> Oh, okay.

[3:03:41] I suspect others will call you

[3:03:46] up.

[3:03:47] >> Thank you to staff again for

[3:03:47] the presentation.

[3:03:48] Thank you for those answering

[3:03:49] the questions.

[3:03:51] I hear the concerns about

[3:03:51] the need for infrastructure and

[3:03:56] how how we're actually going to

[3:03:56] plan and guarantee that

[3:03:57] the housing that's needed

[3:04:01] actually happens across

[3:04:01] the board.

[3:04:02] But I also believe that there's

[3:04:02] going to be a vested interest

[3:04:06] across the board to see that

[3:04:06] happen.

[3:04:07] Um I believe that there's going

[3:04:10] to be a need to to build out

[3:04:11] whatever type one has available

[3:04:11] within their capacity but also

[3:04:15] to ensure that the other

[3:04:16] infrastructure that's necessary

[3:04:16] also moves forward so that we

[3:04:20] see other portions of the site

[3:04:21] specific plan come to life.

[3:04:25] The argument that we've heard

[3:04:26] from some folks in opposition

[3:04:26] today that would suggest that

[3:04:27] none of this should be

[3:04:30] considered probably flies in

[3:04:30] the face against most folks who

[3:04:34] are still remaining in the room

[3:04:34] And that's not one that I

[3:04:39] adhere to based on the analysis

[3:04:39] and the work that the city has

[3:04:40] done to plan and to have

[3:04:44] the committee plan updated and

[3:04:44] to align what we can with our

[3:04:48] general plan and blueprint as

[3:04:48] well.

[3:04:49] So given where we stand at

[3:04:50] the moment I'm going to make a

[3:04:50] motion for staff's

[3:04:53] recommendation to move forward

[3:04:54] and I look forward to hearing

[3:04:55] from my colleagues for their

[3:04:55] feedback.

[3:04:58] >> Thank you.

[3:04:58] All right.

[3:04:59] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem So we

[3:05:00] have a motion to move the staff

[3:05:00] recommendation.

[3:05:03] I'm going to jump in again

[3:05:07] would prefer to refer to my

[3:05:08] council district representative

[3:05:11] but that's where we are So

[3:05:12] thank you for the good work.

[3:05:13] There's a lot of questions that

[3:05:17] are being raised here that I'm

[3:05:17] not sure were vetted at earlier

[3:05:21] stages of the hearing but we

[3:05:22] are where we are.

[3:05:26] Part of my perspective is going

[3:05:27] deep into my career maybe

[3:05:31] engineer for East Elliott piece

[3:05:32] of property that was subdivided

[3:05:36] in a very bizarre way and

[3:05:41] remains undeveloped because

[3:05:42] the only way that it was going

[3:05:42] to be developed is if

[3:05:43] the property owners actually

[3:05:46] agreed and they could never

[3:05:46] come to an agreement about how

[3:05:51] to collaborate and a little bit

[3:05:52] of experience with the old

[3:05:56] Arroyo Sorrento area that looks

[3:05:57] to be the same as when I was

[3:06:00] looking at it way more years

[3:06:01] than I would care to admit

[3:06:01] right now.

[3:06:05] So it troubles me in terms of

[3:06:06] these kinds of complexities and

[3:06:10] how we can try to navigate when

[3:06:11] we go and play on somebody

[3:06:15] else's property.

[3:06:16] So a couple of questions Why

[3:06:20] did I do this to the staff?

[3:06:21] >> a Did anybody else submit an

[3:06:24] application?

[3:06:25] No other applications have been

[3:06:29] submitted where are any

[3:06:30] properties prevented from

[3:06:30] submitting an application?

[3:06:34] No with the city have been

[3:06:35] willing to accept tentative

[3:06:36] maps submittals to be done

[3:06:39] concurrent.

[3:06:40] Lee Yes.

[3:06:40] Okay.

[3:06:44] Now just to clarify those could

[3:06:45] not be approved in advance of

[3:06:45] the specific plan but no

[3:06:49] property owners were precluded

[3:06:50] from submitting in advance.

[3:06:51] It could have been bundled with

[3:06:55] multiple actions.

[3:06:56] The theory the yeah they

[3:06:56] wouldn't necessarily be

[3:06:59] processed concurrently Exactly

[3:07:00] because the applicant is

[3:07:00] preparing the specific plan but

[3:07:01] they could be processed and

[3:07:04] sort of at the same time they

[3:07:05] just would not be able to be

[3:07:09] approved prior to adoption of

[3:07:09] the specific plan.

[3:07:09] Okay.

[3:07:10] I think the city ought to think

[3:07:11] differently when we get to

[3:07:13] these bizarre areas and

[3:07:14] hopefully this is the last one

[3:07:14] So you don't have to come up

[3:07:15] with a new protocol because I

[3:07:20] think it's a little troubling.

[3:07:21] >> One of the observations I

[3:07:22] made that has actually not been

[3:07:26] raised here is why we're even

[3:07:26] here because the Otay Mesa

[3:07:30] Community plan talks about this

[3:07:31] area as a neighborhood village

[3:07:35] And so that was one of

[3:07:36] the things that I was curious

[3:07:36] about And I noticed that

[3:07:40] the slide deck of the applicant

[3:07:40] shows a very pretty pictures

[3:07:44] for the mixed use area.

[3:07:45] Slide four speaks to a village

[3:07:45] core.

[3:07:46] The community plan calls for a

[3:07:50] neighborhood village and yet a

[3:07:50] specific plan assigned village

[3:07:53] quarter areas 24 through 27

[3:07:54] which is split among numerous

[3:07:58] underlying property owners.

[3:07:58] So how do we expect this

[3:07:59] neighborhood village which is

[3:08:02] supposedly the driving element

[3:08:03] of the whole Southwest village

[3:08:07] to ever happen notwithstanding

[3:08:08] the issues that were raised by

[3:08:08] some of those in opposition

[3:08:09] tonight?

[3:08:12] But it seems like if you wanted

[3:08:13] to thwart the village court

[3:08:14] from ever happening you would

[3:08:17] do it exactly the way

[3:08:18] the specific plan is doing it.

[3:08:19] It does That question makes

[3:08:24] sense.

[3:08:25] Can you kind of clarify what

[3:08:29] the village core is targeted

[3:08:29] which the village court to me

[3:08:30] is The most important thing

[3:08:33] about Southwest Village?

[3:08:34] It appeared to be the most

[3:08:35] important thing in the Otay

[3:08:38] Mesa community plan.

[3:08:39] We wanted a neighborhood

[3:08:39] village here.

[3:08:40] We wanted this mixed use

[3:08:43] pedestrian friendly And yet

[3:08:44] where the village Core is

[3:08:47] located is in that segment of

[3:08:48] this crazy ownership that has

[3:08:52] the most property owners And

[3:08:53] it's almost like it's intended

[3:08:53] to sabotage it and we will

[3:08:57] never see that actually ever

[3:08:58] manifest itself.

[3:09:02] So why did we pop it there when

[3:09:02] we could have popped it

[3:09:03] someplace else that maybe had a

[3:09:07] singular ownership that made it

[3:09:08] more likely that it would

[3:09:08] happen and happened perhaps

[3:09:09] sooner?

[3:09:12] It's a tough question for you

[3:09:12] but I think correct.

[3:09:13] I do think it is a difficult

[3:09:17] question to answer.

[3:09:17] Let me start by saying that

[3:09:18] the obviously ownership

[3:09:22] challenges are important and do

[3:09:23] need to be considered But

[3:09:23] the ultimate long term

[3:09:27] geographic makeup of the area

[3:09:32] is is a contributing factor.

[3:09:33] So where the major roadways are

[3:09:37] expected to intersect where you

[3:09:37] have sort of a central area

[3:09:42] geographically and sort of what

[3:09:42] that can look like in terms of

[3:09:43] creating public facilities in

[3:09:46] and around it.

[3:09:51] So there is no easy solution to

[3:09:52] an area that is identified, you

[3:09:53] know that you're planning out

[3:09:56] long term.

[3:09:57] But I think that the what

[3:10:00] the staff's proposal today

[3:10:01] provides for implementation of

[3:10:06] housing within the area

[3:10:06] opportunities for commercial

[3:10:07] and mixed use development and

[3:10:10] public facilities that can

[3:10:11] access internally within

[3:10:11] the area and to throughout

[3:10:15] the community and to our

[3:10:16] regional areas.

[3:10:20] >> And I get that it seems that

[3:10:21] such a discretionary action

[3:10:22] something that is so important

[3:10:25] to the amount of time as

[3:10:25] the community plan could have

[3:10:29] navigated that conversation and

[3:10:30] got to a place that's more

[3:10:31] likely because again this is

[3:10:34] really why we're even talking

[3:10:35] about this going forward.

[3:10:41] The Okay so let me get to

[3:10:42] the probably the bigger

[3:10:45] the more foundational issue One

[3:10:49] I don't want to copy out

[3:10:50] the other property owners who

[3:10:51] either were included and didn't

[3:10:53] speak up or were not included

[3:10:54] and prevented from speaking up.

[3:10:59] i'm not going to arbitrate that

[3:10:59] .

[3:11:00] But the idea that Caliente

[3:11:03] would seem like a better

[3:11:04] candidate for the primary

[3:11:08] access to the north that we

[3:11:08] kind of defer to the developer

[3:11:09] and say well I have central I'd

[3:11:10] rather do central rather than

[3:11:13] Caliente but if we're looking

[3:11:14] at a specific plan, maybe we as

[3:11:18] a city should have insisted

[3:11:18] saying Caliente is where we

[3:11:19] need to open this up so that we

[3:11:23] can remove any constraints to

[3:11:23] the rest of the development

[3:11:28] area And we chose not to.

[3:11:29] Is there actually a technical

[3:11:29] reason why we chose not to

[3:11:33] other than clearly try point

[3:11:34] did not want to because they

[3:11:34] didn't control that you don't

[3:11:36] control buyer either but we're

[3:11:42] making buyer happen so has been

[3:11:47] as has been mentioned before

[3:11:48] Caliente is one access point so

[3:11:52] ultimately we need to main

[3:11:57] access points try point homes

[3:12:01] needs a secondary access at 200

[3:12:06] dwelling units for fire access

[3:12:07] And I don't know for sure if

[3:12:12] they had negotiated the what's

[3:12:12] shown as the emergency access

[3:12:17] to the south to rail court in

[3:12:17] San Ysidro at the time that

[3:12:18] they were planning what they

[3:12:21] were going to do.

[3:12:22] So that MAY have had something

[3:12:25] to do with it.

[3:12:26] I think also if you I don't

[3:12:27] know if we have a map that

[3:12:31] shows the ownerships Caliente

[3:12:36] Avenue alignment overlaid on

[3:12:36] the ownerships but I believe

[3:12:37] that's part of the issue with

[3:12:41] Caliente too is a large portion

[3:12:41] of the of Caliente north of

[3:12:45] buyer is in that area with

[3:12:50] multiple property owners So was

[3:12:51] that a technical reason?

[3:12:55] Was that the preference of

[3:12:55] the applicant?

[3:12:56] I mean we can debate that but

[3:13:01] but yes, I think that's some of

[3:13:01] the answer to that.

[3:13:05] I don't know, Oscar, if we were

[3:13:06] pulling at this let me thank

[3:13:06] you.

[3:13:09] Does that start to address

[3:13:10] the question?

[3:13:11] It's a difficult question for

[3:13:11] you to answer and a question of

[3:13:14] we are the city giving

[3:13:15] discretionary approval so we

[3:13:19] have some say in the matter to

[3:13:20] try point say we're going to

[3:13:24] walk away and never come back

[3:13:25] if we did that that's a

[3:13:25] rhetorical question.

[3:13:28] You don't have to answer that

[3:13:29] And I don't even want to talk

[3:13:30] about the secondary evacuation

[3:13:32] route once I figured out where

[3:13:37] it was I'm assuming if the fire

[3:13:38] department is okay with that

[3:13:42] secondary access over dirt

[3:13:42] roads all the way to

[3:13:43] the border, I'm not going to

[3:13:46] question that.

[3:13:47] So let me get to the larger

[3:13:51] issue.

[3:13:52] So I don't know if South has

[3:13:52] had a chance.

[3:13:53] There was a letter from Chatham

[3:13:56] Brown that came in today that

[3:13:57] raised pretty foundational

[3:14:01] issues.

[3:14:01] A lot of the presentation says

[3:14:06] this is all about the Otay Mesa

[3:14:06] community plan and the Channel

[3:14:07] Brown I shouldn't speak on

[3:14:11] behalf of other people said

[3:14:12] you're not even consistent with

[3:14:15] your general plan And given how

[3:14:16] much work that the city has

[3:14:20] done to build the general plan

[3:14:20] and directing development where

[3:14:26] we think it's best from a

[3:14:26] climate action point of view we

[3:14:27] have coal mines travel

[3:14:30] greenhouse gases are famous or

[3:14:34] infamous village propensity map

[3:14:35] There's a little bit of a

[3:14:35] problem there.

[3:14:39] Do they have a good case in

[3:14:39] their argument?

[3:14:40] >> So the general plan or

[3:14:44] blueprint City anticipates that

[3:14:44] lower propensity areas will

[3:14:49] generally accommodate less

[3:14:49] growth than higher propensity

[3:14:54] areas.

[3:14:55] However, neither the general

[3:14:59] plan nor its programmatic air

[3:15:00] are prohibits residential

[3:15:00] development or land use changes

[3:15:04] in lower propensity areas.

[3:15:05] So the village clinical

[3:15:08] propensity map really serves as

[3:15:09] a planning guide for future

[3:15:10] plan updates or specific plans

[3:15:14] rather than a regulatory

[3:15:14] threshold or mandatory limit on

[3:15:18] residential development.

[3:15:19] In some it anticipated less

[3:15:23] density and lower propensity

[3:15:28] areas but does not prohibit.

[3:15:29] Okay There was some questions

[3:15:29] raised I think both in that

[3:15:30] letter and I think some of

[3:15:33] the public speakers that raised

[3:15:34] questions about whether we did

[3:15:35] all the traffic studies and all

[3:15:38] of the most travel studies

[3:15:39] there was supposed to do for a

[3:15:39] project of this size.

[3:15:42] How do you respond to those

[3:15:43] accusations?

[3:15:43] Transportation staff can

[3:15:48] respond to that.

[3:15:48] So we're sorry.

[3:15:52] So vmt analysis was prepared

[3:15:53] for the project and the project

[3:15:57] is located in a vmt inefficient

[3:16:00] area which is in Mobility zone

[3:16:01] four and the project will pay

[3:16:05] the required active

[3:16:05] transportation in lieu fee

[3:16:06] consistent with the Mobility

[3:16:10] Choices regulations and rely on

[3:16:11] the findings and sources of

[3:16:15] the mobility Choices program as

[3:16:16] mitigation to the extent

[3:16:17] feasible so was addressed.

[3:16:20] >> Okay, So you rebut those

[3:16:21] accusations?

[3:16:22] Yes, that's correct.

[3:16:26] >> Okay.

[3:16:31] Trying to think for a moment

[3:16:32] what else I wanted to ask you

[3:16:36] while I have the moment so I'm

[3:16:37] not going to be supporting

[3:16:40] the motion.

[3:16:41] I don't want to deny

[3:16:42] the project.

[3:16:42] I think there's more work that

[3:16:45] can be done in a lot of

[3:16:51] different levels because I

[3:16:51] think despite your answers that

[3:16:55] there are some serious concerns

[3:16:55] that are raised and some of

[3:16:59] the questions that I raised and

[3:17:00] with all due respect to try to

[3:17:01] point to I think as a fine

[3:17:05] developer I I've known Allen

[3:17:06] for a number of years but I

[3:17:07] think we could have taken a

[3:17:09] different and better approach

[3:17:10] with this project that I think

[3:17:11] would have had a potentially

[3:17:14] better outcome.

[3:17:15] Hindsight's wonderful but I

[3:17:19] think there is more work to do

[3:17:24] on this and so I won't be

[3:17:25] supporting the motion but I

[3:17:29] would be supporting it being

[3:17:30] returned to staff to work out

[3:17:31] some of these issues so that we

[3:17:34] have a tighter project, we have

[3:17:35] more of the influence of

[3:17:39] the other property owners and

[3:17:40] we actually set this up for

[3:17:44] success which I'm not entirely

[3:17:48] convinced of going forward I

[3:17:49] think.

[3:17:50] Oh, let me ask one last one

[3:17:50] last question because this was

[3:17:54] raised in someplace Do we

[3:17:55] actually does the applicant or

[3:17:59] Allen do you actually have

[3:17:59] the permits in hand

[3:18:00] the regulatory and wildlife

[3:18:03] permit?

[3:18:04] No, we need the project

[3:18:09] approved to start that process.

[3:18:09] Okay.

[3:18:13] Can I address a few other

[3:18:14] things that you brought up

[3:18:14] earlier?

[3:18:15] You don't need to Okay.

[3:18:18] Thank you though with all due

[3:18:19] respect, I know developers have

[3:18:19] different positions about

[3:18:23] whether to accept have a permit

[3:18:24] in hand or not.

[3:18:27] That's your call.

[3:18:28] But I won't I won't be

[3:18:29] supporting I would be

[3:18:29] supporting returning this to

[3:18:33] staff to work out some of these

[3:18:33] issues that I think are

[3:18:34] actually start out outstanding

[3:18:37] despite the very good work that

[3:18:38] staff has taken to bring this

[3:18:38] item forward.

[3:18:42] I think the city at a certain

[3:18:43] authority a little bit stronger

[3:18:43] and drive what is arguably

[3:18:48] the very last big masterplan

[3:18:48] community that's going to

[3:18:49] happen in this town.

[3:18:53] I'd like to see it go off to be

[3:18:53] the very best that it can be.

[3:18:54] So I'll close there and I will

[3:18:58] go to Council member Yvonne

[3:18:59] Wolpert Thank you Council

[3:19:00] PRESIDENT Thank you for

[3:19:02] the work on this.

[3:19:03] I do have a question about fire

[3:19:03] evacuation.

[3:19:04] Can you please bring up

[3:19:07] the slide that says fire access

[3:19:12] and the presentation And I have

[3:19:13] a couple of questions related

[3:19:13] to the plan public facilities

[3:19:14] and the phasing of their

[3:19:17] delivery while you're looking

[3:19:17] for the side.

[3:19:18] I do agree we need more housing

[3:19:19] in the city.

[3:19:22] i want to thank the Sierra Club

[3:19:23] for being here though because I

[3:19:26] also have concerns about over

[3:19:26] 100% conserved land.

[3:19:27] Maybe we should build

[3:19:31] the roadway elevated but it all

[3:19:32] at that Leave that to

[3:19:32] the wildlife agencies to

[3:19:35] discover or to discuss.

[3:19:36] But what we're experiencing up

[3:19:41] in my council district is we're

[3:19:42] taking on increased density and

[3:19:42] we're not getting

[3:19:43] the infrastructure we were

[3:19:47] promised including fire

[3:19:47] stations.

[3:19:48] A fire station 48 was supposed

[3:19:52] to be built and done by 2024

[3:19:53] and I think we've even gotten

[3:19:53] construction out of the ground

[3:19:58] yet And we took on 2500 homes

[3:19:58] in that area.

[3:20:02] So same thing with fire access

[3:20:03] roads.

[3:20:08] I just I don't see us holding

[3:20:08] the city.

[3:20:09] I don't see it holding

[3:20:09] ourselves I don't see is

[3:20:10] willing developers are partners

[3:20:12] to building the infrastructure

[3:20:13] we need as we take on increased

[3:20:14] density.

[3:20:15] And so when I looked at this

[3:20:18] map I was very concerned that

[3:20:19] they're not even going to be a

[3:20:19] secondary access road until

[3:20:24] after 200 units are built.

[3:20:25] But what's not on this map is

[3:20:26] that seriously the high school

[3:20:30] is right there right in Kalak

[3:20:30] County.

[3:20:31] So can you imagine trying to

[3:20:32] evacuate not only the entire

[3:20:32] high school but the community

[3:20:35] around it?

[3:20:35] But what if the fires in

[3:20:36] the canyon near the high school

[3:20:37] then you can't direct an

[3:20:40] evacuation out that way.

[3:20:41] So why wouldn't we require that

[3:20:45] secondary orange line to be

[3:20:45] built when the first unit is

[3:20:46] built?

[3:20:46] Why would we put 200 homes

[3:20:49] there and 200 families there

[3:20:50] and not build a secondary

[3:20:59] access road from day one?

[3:20:59] >> Can I ask Tyler Larson from

[3:21:00] Fire Rescue Department to speak

[3:21:04] on that question please?

[3:21:04] >> Yes.

[3:21:05] Apologies for leaving

[3:21:05] the chamber early.

[3:21:11] My name is probably Lois and

[3:21:12] the supervising deputy marshal

[3:21:13] pertaining to fire rescue

[3:21:14] department We numerous

[3:21:15] discussions about about this

[3:21:21] plant over over multiple years

[3:21:21] So the code the base code reads

[3:21:27] that project are all sprinklers

[3:21:29] up to 200 units are allowed one

[3:21:30] access road When the amendments

[3:21:35] came out in 2023 by then we

[3:21:36] already looked at the fire

[3:21:40] protection plan, the evacuation

[3:21:41] plan We agreed upon all the all

[3:21:42] the way up to the fire marshal

[3:21:43] that the base plan is

[3:21:50] acceptable.

[3:21:51] There's a code one second it's

[3:21:54] one of the 126.1 An exception

[3:22:00] to is that no dwellings are to

[3:22:00] be added to a single fire

[3:22:01] access road unless connected

[3:22:06] with a future development as as

[3:22:07] approved by the Target

[3:22:07] official.

[3:22:08] So we had a lot of internal

[3:22:11] discussions regarding the phase

[3:22:11] plan and get our operational

[3:22:17] experience and you know robust

[3:22:18] resources over the last couple

[3:22:19] of decades We we're comfortable

[3:22:26] with the plans in place.

[3:22:26] Got it.

[3:22:31] I have a feeling that it's not

[3:22:32] going to work out the way we

[3:22:33] think it is 33 to the most

[3:22:34] constrained station in the city

[3:22:38] of San Diego and we were

[3:22:38] promised in their fire station

[3:22:39] years ago.

[3:22:40] So I have a feeling that folks

[3:22:42] at Station six and 29 are going

[3:22:43] to get completely overrun by

[3:22:47] this 43 two so far out the not

[3:22:48] going to be get to be there in

[3:22:52] time And what is the plan for

[3:22:53] building fire station 49 which

[3:22:53] is supposed to be right a

[3:22:59] county road Duffy's in P.A.

[3:23:05] Infrastructure we have it

[3:23:05] started late in the day If I

[3:23:06] did I just Our fire department

[3:23:10] is so under-resourced and we

[3:23:11] just had entire conversation

[3:23:11] about this in our city budget

[3:23:12] and our firefighters came in

[3:23:17] here en masse begging us to

[3:23:18] have more fire stations And

[3:23:19] we're putting housing in high

[3:23:22] fire scenarios and we have what

[3:23:23] my district is now police

[3:23:24] district in Stonebridge Estates

[3:23:28] in our joint planning groups

[3:23:29] are up in arms at us about not

[3:23:30] having a second fire station

[3:23:30] there now So the future council

[3:23:33] members for District eight will

[3:23:33] have to live with this.

[3:23:34] And so I just I don't I don't

[3:23:39] believe that this is

[3:23:40] the appropriate way to plan for

[3:23:40] our fire department overall

[3:23:45] because it won't get built.

[3:23:46] I also have a question about

[3:23:47] why I mean it actually comes

[3:23:47] from the call based on my

[3:23:52] questions about why not county

[3:23:53] road wide and viable of our

[3:23:53] being done.

[3:23:54] I hadn't even thought about

[3:23:54] the village plan And

[3:23:57] Councilmember I understand your

[3:23:58] question So I also won't be

[3:23:58] supporting this today because I

[3:24:03] can't make the findings and I

[3:24:04] would support sending it back

[3:24:04] to staff.

[3:24:05] But I do want housing.

[3:24:09] I just I'm sick and tired of

[3:24:10] seeing the city and our

[3:24:11] residents hold the bag when

[3:24:11] folks are supposed to build

[3:24:12] the fire station on the road

[3:24:13] and they don't.

[3:24:20] So I got I think Councilmember

[3:24:20] Yvonne Wolpert We'll go back to

[3:24:25] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[3:24:25] Thanks PRESIDENT I appreciate

[3:24:26] the feedback from colleagues

[3:24:27] and being able to look and

[3:24:30] discuss this further.

[3:24:31] This has been an interesting

[3:24:32] conversation because I feel

[3:24:33] like part of the question we're

[3:24:35] asking which is not the one

[3:24:35] that's on here today from folks

[3:24:36] is whether this entire site

[3:24:41] specific plan should happen

[3:24:42] period, which in my opinion has

[3:24:47] been determined from a city

[3:24:48] standpoint from the moment we

[3:24:51] passed the total community plan

[3:24:52] update back in 2014.

[3:24:53] And so we continue to argue

[3:24:53] over the implementation of it

[3:24:58] which work us versus how it

[3:24:59] goes.

[3:24:59] But even if a county was built

[3:25:01] out tomorrow and not by we

[3:25:02] still only have one egress

[3:25:03] point from the community which

[3:25:03] would present the same issue

[3:25:04] challenging issue I think in

[3:25:07] terms of evacuation etc. And I

[3:25:08] understand there are different

[3:25:13] opinions in the room here

[3:25:13] today.

[3:25:14] I'd be curious as to whether

[3:25:14] this continues if it gets sent

[3:25:15] back but it sounds like there

[3:25:20] needs to be some conversation

[3:25:20] about whether we actually

[3:25:21] desire to see the housing that

[3:25:25] we say that we need and that we

[3:25:26] have planned for and approved

[3:25:31] over a decade ago.

[3:25:32] And now when we're sitting

[3:25:32] during the implementation we

[3:25:37] can make all the pieces of it

[3:25:37] or revisit the entire

[3:25:38] discussion as to whether we'd

[3:25:43] like to move forward at all.

[3:25:43] So again, I understand

[3:25:44] the frustration of the need for

[3:25:49] building that infrastructure

[3:25:49] and the financing challenges

[3:25:50] that we have.

[3:25:50] I did hear just enough from

[3:25:51] the Planning Department about

[3:25:55] how we anticipate moving

[3:25:55] forward especially with

[3:25:56] the support that has already

[3:26:02] been dissipated And I can

[3:26:02] understand from explanations

[3:26:03] why I would choose that path

[3:26:07] because it's the one that they

[3:26:07] have the greatest control here

[3:26:08] and we're asking them to

[3:26:13] basically build the road.

[3:26:14] So I look forward to any

[3:26:15] additional feedback in one way

[3:26:15] or another.

[3:26:16] I appreciate Council PRESIDENT

[3:26:19] For the suggestion that if if

[3:26:19] this isn't ready for some

[3:26:20] reason that we at least

[3:26:23] continue the conversation.

[3:26:24] Thank you.

[3:26:30] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[3:26:31] not see anybody else on

[3:26:31] the lights.

[3:26:32] This is a little tricky and I

[3:26:36] think after five years of being

[3:26:37] a council member, one of

[3:26:42] challenges we have is how much

[3:26:43] work what ten years, 20 years

[3:26:44] to get to this point for this

[3:26:48] plan and then it gets dropped

[3:26:49] in front of us.

[3:26:49] I think even planning

[3:26:50] Commission gets kind of an

[3:26:55] opportunity to weigh in Council

[3:26:55] doesn't quite judicial So it's

[3:27:01] a package deal and it's and I

[3:27:01] don't want you know from my

[3:27:02] point to be clear but this is

[3:27:07] not take it or leave it kind of

[3:27:08] thing because it's not set up

[3:27:08] that way.

[3:27:09] Either you approve it or you

[3:27:12] don't And I'm not personally

[3:27:13] interested in that And I know

[3:27:19] that making a comment like send

[3:27:19] it back to staff to do more

[3:27:20] work if not like a couple of

[3:27:24] weeks there's a whole lot of

[3:27:24] conversation.

[3:27:25] There's a whole lot of

[3:27:26] documentation for whatever if

[3:27:26] any changes have to be done.

[3:27:30] So it's a little bit

[3:27:30] problematic, right?

[3:27:31] The system that we have in

[3:27:36] place makes it pretty

[3:27:37] difficult.

[3:27:37] But I think the question is

[3:27:42] goes back to if this is not

[3:27:43] about housing even though I

[3:27:43] have a little bit of heartburn

[3:27:44] about some of the elements of

[3:27:48] this, it is how we deal with

[3:27:49] multiple property owners, how

[3:27:50] we deal with a single entity

[3:27:54] coming out and getting

[3:27:54] the authority to do that.

[3:27:55] They put the money on

[3:27:55] the table.

[3:28:00] I give them certain rights.

[3:28:00] Some of the questions have been

[3:28:01] raised and I think to me are

[3:28:02] serious enough that I'd like to

[3:28:05] get resolved rather than saying

[3:28:06] let's just approve it and see

[3:28:06] if somebody sues us.

[3:28:07] I hope we've learned from from

[3:28:11] the past.

[3:28:12] But again, you know where I

[3:28:17] landed was sending it back to

[3:28:18] see if some of these issues

[3:28:24] both from a technical analysis

[3:28:25] as well as embody this to make

[3:28:29] sure that this is as successful

[3:28:30] as everybody wants it to be

[3:28:36] going forward So we'll throw it

[3:28:36] over to Council member Wittman

[3:28:37] Thank you.

[3:28:37] Council PRESIDENT Interesting

[3:28:41] discussion here If this were to

[3:28:44] go back to staff, do you

[3:28:51] perceive what do you perceive

[3:28:52] transpiring if this were to go

[3:28:57] back to staff So staff wanting

[3:29:03] to take the feedback period

[3:29:04] from the council members today

[3:29:04] coordinate with the applicant

[3:29:05] and determine if there is a

[3:29:09] change in the project before

[3:29:09] the council.

[3:29:10] So that could include

[3:29:15] modifications to the specific

[3:29:16] plan further evaluation I see

[3:29:17] the attorneys on the way.

[3:29:21] It's all different Her Sorry I

[3:29:27] misread of q So so yeah so we

[3:29:28] understand that the Council

[3:29:28] several council members have

[3:29:33] raised a couple of issues

[3:29:34] related to other mobility

[3:29:35] analysis that would potentially

[3:29:39] be looked at in coordination

[3:29:40] with the applicant.

[3:29:40] >> MS. Local Hi, thank you.

[3:29:41] My name is Elise Low and

[3:29:45] the Development Services

[3:29:46] Director and I just want to

[3:29:47] thank the Council for their

[3:29:47] questions today If in fact this

[3:29:51] item were to go back to staff

[3:29:51] there definitely needs to be

[3:29:52] specific direction.

[3:29:53] We do have the questions that

[3:29:57] you said before you but it's my

[3:29:58] observation that there's really

[3:30:02] not enough specifics here as to

[3:30:03] exactly what you want to see.

[3:30:08] You had questions about that

[3:30:08] neighborhood areas you had

[3:30:09] questions about the fire

[3:30:09] access.

[3:30:10] You had questions about

[3:30:15] facilities financing.

[3:30:16] It would really be to staff as

[3:30:20] well as the applicant if we

[3:30:21] could get some further

[3:30:21] specifics because we don't want

[3:30:22] to run into this again and come

[3:30:25] back to you with something that

[3:30:26] you felt like we weren't able

[3:30:27] to answer it.

[3:30:27] So thank you.

[3:30:32] Thank you.

[3:30:33] Um, let me ask the applicant if

[3:30:38] you would like to respond to

[3:30:38] the variety of different

[3:30:39] concerns that have been

[3:30:44] expressed either by my

[3:30:49] colleagues or by those who have

[3:30:50] expressed property or concerns

[3:30:51] about the proposal in front of

[3:30:55] us?

[3:30:55] >> Yes.

[3:30:56] Thank you.

[3:30:56] Regarding village core, that

[3:31:01] was a very deliberate location

[3:31:02] geographically where

[3:31:02] the village core is in

[3:31:07] the center of Southwest Village

[3:31:07] and the densities fan out

[3:31:08] radially.

[3:31:08] That was the guiding principle

[3:31:13] for the specific plan you're

[3:31:14] saying.

[3:31:14] So I did want to clarify that

[3:31:15] if that's where it happens to

[3:31:19] be And typically from a

[3:31:20] developer standpoint

[3:31:20] the optimal time to build

[3:31:25] the village core is when you've

[3:31:25] got a lot of rooftops and

[3:31:26] that's when the value increases

[3:31:27] and some of these one acre

[3:31:31] parcels will recognize

[3:31:32] the value and sell and someone

[3:31:32] could come in and and build

[3:31:37] that or build that area.

[3:31:38] So I did want to give some some

[3:31:38] color to that because that

[3:31:39] seemed to be one of the things

[3:31:44] that we heard in regards to

[3:31:44] clientele.

[3:31:47] We I've we've spent $15 million

[3:31:48] on this specific plan lately.

[3:31:53] I'm getting 20 to $30,000

[3:31:53] invoices just from the city

[3:31:57] every two weeks And I can't

[3:31:58] continue to do that And to ask

[3:31:59] us to go back and look at

[3:32:04] buying more right away to

[3:32:05] develop and when we already

[3:32:05] have access into our project

[3:32:09] and we're just trying to get

[3:32:10] some houses going so we can go

[3:32:11] after Buyer Boulevard and and

[3:32:17] keep going I honestly I don't

[3:32:17] know like what between Kelly

[3:32:22] R.A. And the Court I don't know

[3:32:22] what else we can go back and

[3:32:23] do.

[3:32:23] I do want to respond to there

[3:32:24] was one thing I meant to share

[3:32:28] There's a correction memo that

[3:32:29] was done just before planning

[3:32:33] commission in regards to

[3:32:33] the 700 unit threshold that

[3:32:34] lets other property owners

[3:32:39] propose something different

[3:32:40] than the 700 trigger That

[3:32:40] appears to be the sticky issue

[3:32:41] for them.

[3:32:45] The door has been opened

[3:32:46] enhanced a little bit further

[3:32:46] with specific plan language

[3:32:51] that lets them propose a

[3:32:51] project and propose something

[3:32:56] different And in regards to

[3:32:57] Councilmember Yvonne Wolpert,

[3:32:58] concerns about fire pushing out

[3:32:58] by buyer doesn't help fire.

[3:33:02] We think we're trying to do

[3:33:03] the right thing by advancing

[3:33:04] roads which is what we do and

[3:33:09] and help activate the community

[3:33:10] so much.

[3:33:10] So one of the concerns that has

[3:33:16] been raised is that you know

[3:33:19] you can do the 689 without

[3:33:26] building Fire Boulevard and

[3:33:27] once you build a 699 you would

[3:33:31] no longer have an incentive a

[3:33:31] financial incentive to build a

[3:33:32] fire boulevard because the cost

[3:33:37] associated with Building Fire

[3:33:38] Boulevard would be greater than

[3:33:43] your proceeds for building

[3:33:44] the rest of the housing that is

[3:33:44] proposed.

[3:33:45] What's your response to that?

[3:33:50] What is the risk that you're

[3:33:50] going to do?

[3:33:51] >> 680 I needed to then say

[3:33:52] okay, we're done here.

[3:33:52] The incentive is all

[3:33:55] the permits that we hold After

[3:33:56] that if we hold up to 2100 that

[3:34:00] leaves 99 That leaves 1800

[3:34:00] permits that we can't pull

[3:34:06] because buyer isn't complete.

[3:34:06] So the permits are

[3:34:07] the incentive for us to keep

[3:34:07] going And that's our our

[3:34:12] intention is to get the air

[3:34:13] certified so we can be one step

[3:34:13] closer to perfecting

[3:34:17] the project starting final

[3:34:18] engineering drawings and moving

[3:34:19] forward into getting funding

[3:34:24] secured with drawings and

[3:34:25] getting a vernal pool Major

[3:34:25] amendment done And by the way

[3:34:26] that vernal pool major

[3:34:29] amendment in order for us to

[3:34:30] start grading we we have to do

[3:34:35] a habitat conservation plan for

[3:34:36] a butterfly and that

[3:34:37] the intention is to bundle that

[3:34:41] together with a major amendment

[3:34:42] and go after buyer And our

[3:34:42] first phase together with

[3:34:48] the wildlife agencies.

[3:34:49] So before we turn dirt you know

[3:34:49] that's moving in the step

[3:34:50] towards getting buyers started

[3:34:52] for construction.

[3:34:57] Thank you.

[3:35:03] A couple of questions for staff

[3:35:04] Are the other landowners are

[3:35:10] they legally precluded from

[3:35:10] entitling their properties

[3:35:15] until Buyer Boulevard is built

[3:35:15] ?

[3:35:16] No.

[3:35:22] The there is the there has not

[3:35:22] been a determination made on

[3:35:27] any other specific development

[3:35:28] projects because there have

[3:35:28] been no other projects

[3:35:29] submitted.

[3:35:34] So staff cannot confirm whether

[3:35:34] or not a project could be

[3:35:35] approved.

[3:35:39] The specific plan needs to be

[3:35:39] adopted first.

[3:35:40] The specific plan if adopted as

[3:35:41] presented today includes

[3:35:45] language that a lot would allow

[3:35:46] for other project applicants to

[3:35:51] proceed with an application

[3:35:51] prior to the implementation of

[3:35:52] buyer If their analysis

[3:35:53] confirms that they can meet

[3:35:57] requirements then they could be

[3:35:58] approved without the need to

[3:35:58] construct buyer.

[3:35:59] I know it's a conditional

[3:36:03] answer but that's sort of we

[3:36:04] Can I give you a definitive

[3:36:04] answer yes or no because there

[3:36:05] is no it nothing before us

[3:36:08] today to make that conclusion.

[3:36:14] Thank you.

[3:36:20] The esd conversation has come

[3:36:21] up a couple of times.

[3:36:21] What are the prospects at this

[3:36:26] point as you see the forward

[3:36:32] try to recover its costs in

[3:36:33] constructing viable land either

[3:36:34] through developer impact fee

[3:36:40] credits or through the ifp

[3:36:49] Regarding Buy Woodward just to

[3:36:50] give a little context I think

[3:36:52] currently the project is

[3:36:53] estimated at around $59 million

[3:36:53] around $2 million have been

[3:36:59] allocated to the project using

[3:36:59] funds.

[3:37:00] We're also working with the f d

[3:37:00] board to allocate additional

[3:37:05] funds to this project through

[3:37:09] bonds And the first phase of

[3:37:10] this project includes around

[3:37:10] 900 units and the credits for

[3:37:15] that for local mobility or

[3:37:16] development of back These would

[3:37:17] be around $12 million which can

[3:37:20] go towards viable toward

[3:37:21] the entire development was that

[3:37:22] would be additional credits we

[3:37:26] could work with the applicant

[3:37:27] for credit sharing across

[3:37:28] various other developments So

[3:37:32] there are opportunities but

[3:37:33] this is what we have currently.

[3:37:33] >> Thank you.

[3:37:37] I appreciate that as well.

[3:37:44] It's challenging issue here By

[3:37:44] default position is to build

[3:37:45] more housing At the end of

[3:37:49] the day people are struggling

[3:37:50] with the cost of living and

[3:37:55] that is most significantly

[3:37:56] the cost of housing And

[3:38:01] the biggest opportunity that we

[3:38:02] have to address the cost of

[3:38:07] housing is by building more of

[3:38:13] it And short of a really,

[3:38:13] really compelling, obvious

[3:38:18] straightforward reason to hold

[3:38:24] up this project I don't want to

[3:38:25] do that.

[3:38:25] So I think you need a second to

[3:38:30] your motion still am I correct

[3:38:30] ?

[3:38:31] >> I'll second the motion.

[3:38:31] All right.

[3:38:32] So we have a motion by Council

[3:38:37] PRESIDENT Pro Town Lee to move

[3:38:38] the staff recommendation

[3:38:39] the second by Council Member

[3:38:39] Whipple.

[3:38:43] We'll go now you might got

[3:38:43] council member Campbell first

[3:38:47] since she hasn't spoken yet

[3:38:48] thank you thank you Council

[3:38:48] PRESIDENT Thank you.

[3:38:53] And I was just wondering if

[3:38:53] that motion had been seconded

[3:38:54] or not.

[3:38:55] I agree with my colleague

[3:38:58] COUNCILMAN Whitburn.

[3:38:59] This has been going on for 20

[3:39:00] years.

[3:39:04] It's here.

[3:39:05] Let's make a decision.

[3:39:06] We've got a motion in a second.

[3:39:08] Let's vote and let's see how it

[3:39:15] turns out.

[3:39:15] All right.

[3:39:15] Thank you.

[3:39:16] Council member Campbell will

[3:39:17] now go to council member Yvonne

[3:39:17] Wolpert.

[3:39:19] Thank you.

[3:39:20] It was brought up that buyer

[3:39:21] Boulevard construction wouldn't

[3:39:21] help the fire department but I

[3:39:26] categorically disagree with

[3:39:26] that.

[3:39:27] Do you know where the closest

[3:39:27] buyers each unit is?

[3:39:31] 3229 And to get up to Cali and

[3:39:32] they'd have to get on

[3:39:35] the freeway and then on the 95

[3:39:36] and go over it by about four

[3:39:41] minutes from that station it's

[3:39:41] much easier And I know that I

[3:39:42] am a unique position here

[3:39:43] because I grew up in Scripps

[3:39:47] Ranch and I watched my high

[3:39:47] school friends homes burn down

[3:39:48] in the theater fire.

[3:39:49] So we have the cost of housing

[3:39:52] and rough But guess what?

[3:39:52] The cost of rebuilding is

[3:39:53] really awful.

[3:39:53] Too many people in Altadena are

[3:39:56] really feeling that right now.

[3:39:57] So if we're going to build

[3:39:58] things that build the fire

[3:39:58] stations around them and I

[3:40:02] think it's awful that we ask

[3:40:03] our fire department personnel

[3:40:04] to come in here and be on

[3:40:09] the hook for development

[3:40:09] project with their promised

[3:40:10] things.

[3:40:10] Well, the fire marshal signed

[3:40:11] off on it.

[3:40:11] It's not fair to that fire

[3:40:13] marshal their promise that

[3:40:14] these things will happen and

[3:40:14] they don't.

[3:40:18] And so I think it's quite rude

[3:40:19] that we put our fire personnel

[3:40:19] in that position when they come

[3:40:20] in later to city hall saying

[3:40:21] hey, our working conditions are

[3:40:25] terrible because we built all

[3:40:25] the fire stations so please

[3:40:26] help with the power station at

[3:40:28] position anymore.

[3:40:29] All right.

[3:40:29] Thank you.

[3:40:34] Council member Yvonne Wolpert I

[3:40:34] don't see anybody else on

[3:40:39] the lights so we have a motion

[3:40:39] by Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[3:40:43] Lee and a second by Council

[3:40:44] member Campbell to move

[3:40:44] the staff recommendation which

[3:40:49] in that tiny tiny point is up

[3:40:49] there on the screen.

[3:40:54] Oh my apologies.

[3:40:54] Oh, she just wanted the vote.

[3:40:55] So let me correct that Council

[3:40:59] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee made

[3:41:02] the motion and Council member

[3:41:03] Whitburn second in the motion

[3:41:03] so my apologies for that.

[3:41:04] So with nobody else in

[3:41:09] the lights please call

[3:41:09] the roll.

[3:41:10] >> I started sorry the voting

[3:41:10] system Please cast your vote.

[3:41:12] Councilmember Campos I can get

[3:41:13] your vote for the record.

[3:41:17] >> Yes.

[3:41:23] And that passes six to do with

[3:41:24] 6 to 2 with Council PRESIDENT

[3:41:25] LaCava and Councilmember Von

[3:41:28] Wilpert voting no Thank you

[3:41:33] Council PRESIDENT And

[3:41:33] Councilmember Moreno recused

[3:41:34] Yes.

[3:41:34] So thank everybody for a very

[3:41:36] long day And I think a very

[3:41:41] productive conversation.

[3:41:46] I think the opposition has some

[3:41:47] work to do given today's action

[3:41:51] by the council.

[3:41:52] So with that we're not done yet

[3:41:56] folks.

[3:42:01] You guys can go and get to my

[3:42:01] script.

[3:42:06] We will now take up non agenda

[3:42:07] public comment council members

[3:42:07] of respect and appreciate

[3:42:11] the public some point our fully

[3:42:12] committed to protecting every

[3:42:13] participant's free speech

[3:42:13] rights at council and committee

[3:42:15] meetings.

[3:42:16] >> Clerk Please proceed with

[3:42:16] public comment.

[3:42:17] Thank you.

[3:42:19] Council PRESIDENT Pearl 2.7 on

[3:42:19] Agenda Public comment is an

[3:42:20] opportunity for members of

[3:42:23] the public to comment on items

[3:42:24] that are not on the agenda but

[3:42:25] within the subject matter

[3:42:25] jurisdiction of the City

[3:42:25] Council.

[3:42:29] Each speaker will have two

[3:42:30] minutes please And if there are

[3:42:31] eight or more speakers on a

[3:42:31] single topic either in person

[3:42:34] or virtually the maximum time

[3:42:34] for the topic will be 16

[3:42:35] minutes.

[3:42:36] If you're in chambers please

[3:42:39] submit your speaker slip Now if

[3:42:39] you're joining us virtually

[3:42:40] now's the time to raise your

[3:42:42] hand by pressing the raise your

[3:42:43] hand icon or if you're calling

[3:42:47] participant Star nine If I can

[3:42:52] start with Barbara Pinder and

[3:42:52] Barbara Pinder.

[3:42:53] I did note that you did submit

[3:42:56] to an on agenda public comment

[3:42:57] Speaker slips You only get one

[3:42:58] two minute allocation so you

[3:43:02] can speak to both topics in

[3:43:02] those two minutes.

[3:43:02] Thank you.

[3:43:06] This is my first time ever here

[3:43:07] and my first full council

[3:43:07] meeting.

[3:43:11] What an experience.

[3:43:11] I ended up here by accident

[3:43:15] last Friday because I had a

[3:43:16] very unpleasant encounter with

[3:43:16] the dog walker who left a big

[3:43:21] mess on the sidewalk And I can

[3:43:22] tell you I walk the I walk San

[3:43:23] Diego a lot and I have never

[3:43:25] ever walked without running

[3:43:30] into dog And she didn't clean

[3:43:31] up her mess And it was a hard

[3:43:31] mess.

[3:43:35] The dog was sick and it was not

[3:43:36] solid And I looked at her said

[3:43:37] You left your mess And she says

[3:43:40] I'm not cleaning up that

[3:43:40] liquid.

[3:43:41] And I said Well then you need

[3:43:44] to go back home and come back

[3:43:44] with something to clean this

[3:43:45] mess up And she didn't.

[3:43:49] So it's not the city's

[3:43:49] responsibility to clean up

[3:43:53] everybody's dog and there have

[3:43:54] to be tougher measures.

[3:43:55] I came down here to talk to

[3:43:55] somebody.

[3:43:58] There is some county ordinance

[3:44:03] that they're responsible And I

[3:44:04] don't know how we can enforce

[3:44:04] that.

[3:44:04] I, I don't know take

[3:44:08] the pictures of her, take her

[3:44:09] picture and posted on the walk

[3:44:09] of shame somewhere.

[3:44:13] But please think of something

[3:44:14] That's my one topic And

[3:44:18] the real reason I.

[3:44:19] >> I took a tour of the to

[3:44:22] honor Ruby Valley We could go

[3:44:22] Saturday and it's absolutely

[3:44:23] pathetic and appalling And then

[3:44:27] I learned that the city of San

[3:44:31] Diego owns property in San

[3:44:32] Ysidro and they're planning on

[3:44:33] putting drying fields and

[3:44:36] pumping sewage into these

[3:44:37] fields and letting them dry

[3:44:37] next to sand and several

[3:44:40] neighborhoods and that's just

[3:44:41] not acceptable.

[3:44:42] So I don't know who's aware of

[3:44:46] that and who's not And if any

[3:44:46] of you are not familiar I mean

[3:44:47] everybody's familiar with

[3:44:51] the beach closures and

[3:44:52] the toxic problem and something

[3:44:52] it's taken way too long to deal

[3:44:55] with this mess.

[3:44:56] But if you haven't seen the big

[3:45:01] jump documentary, I recommend

[3:45:01] you watch it.

[3:45:02] It's 37 minutes at one price

[3:45:06] that the corner of film

[3:45:06] festival in 2023.

[3:45:07] Thank you very much.

[3:45:11] Thank you Maximilian Schmidt if

[3:45:11] you can please come up to the I

[3:45:12] was trying to educate people

[3:45:15] but everyone left.

[3:45:16] I wish I'd been able to speak

[3:45:17] last Friday when the state

[3:45:21] attorney retires concluded but

[3:45:22] there are people online and we

[3:45:25] do have city tv so there's

[3:45:25] people watching Maximillian

[3:45:26] Schmidt and then allegedly

[3:45:30] address Please proceed.

[3:45:31] Hi.

[3:45:31] I have caught the city of San

[3:45:34] Diego and liberal cities across

[3:45:39] America red handed and guilty.

[3:45:40] Guilty Guilty for an

[3:45:44] underground genocide.

[3:45:45] Basically the Internet has

[3:45:45] something called explain like

[3:45:48] I'm five and that's what I'm

[3:45:48] going to do since before

[3:45:53] the time of Christ people have

[3:45:54] been able to worship pagan gods

[3:45:58] to be able have the ability to

[3:45:59] look through people's eyes and

[3:45:59] read people's minds and they

[3:46:03] will try to get someone

[3:46:08] isolated and crazy by doing

[3:46:08] this And the person when they

[3:46:13] talk about it get a labeled

[3:46:13] mentally ill and it's B.S.

[3:46:17] The person's not mentally ill

[3:46:17] And if you search targeted

[3:46:22] individual on Amazon hundreds

[3:46:22] of books will come up in every

[3:46:23] and in every single language

[3:46:27] and in every country in

[3:46:28] the world people are turning to

[3:46:31] drugs and suicide because

[3:46:32] they're driven crazy by

[3:46:32] Freemasons who are saying their

[3:46:37] thoughts out loud.

[3:46:38] And what we need to do is we

[3:46:42] need to these books on Amazon

[3:46:42] every single one says that it's

[3:46:46] technology That is how these

[3:46:47] people are reading your mind or

[3:46:48] and these books are actually

[3:46:51] written by the people who are

[3:46:52] trying to depopulate them to

[3:46:53] make them more paranoid and

[3:46:56] more confused.

[3:46:57] And if the people who are feel

[3:46:57] all alone they need to know

[3:47:01] that you are not alone.

[3:47:02] You are not the only person who

[3:47:05] feels like you're going crazy

[3:47:06] because people are saying your

[3:47:10] thoughts out loud constantly

[3:47:11] are mentally torturing you and

[3:47:12] we know you're not mentally ill

[3:47:17] and you're not alone and oh

[3:47:18] shame on San Diego City Hall

[3:47:22] for screwing with my head.

[3:47:23] You guys are guilty.

[3:47:23] Shame on you.

[3:47:24] You know what you're doing.

[3:47:28] You're also saying my thoughts

[3:47:28] out loud.

[3:47:29] I never thought in a million

[3:47:30] years that the stalkers who say

[3:47:33] my thoughts are that in public

[3:47:34] streets that you guys would do

[3:47:35] it too and you know your guilt

[3:47:37] Shame on all of you and

[3:47:38] everyone is concluded allegedly

[3:47:48] Andre 500 people Oh So like I

[3:47:54] told you guys this morning Tim

[3:47:54] Allen passed away.

[3:47:59] I should bother you as he is a

[3:48:00] light skinned African-American

[3:48:04] man at ten City who is sitting

[3:48:07] in his tent dead for roughly

[3:48:07] five hours before anybody came

[3:48:08] and got him And he is part of

[3:48:12] the lawsuit.

[3:48:13] There were a couple of people

[3:48:13] in his tent.

[3:48:16] In fact, his attorneys spoke to

[3:48:17] him last night.

[3:48:21] I'm very concerned that I keep

[3:48:21] coming to you guys.

[3:48:26] >> Two people died just last

[3:48:26] week or within the last two

[3:48:27] weeks whatever.

[3:48:31] And now another one today.

[3:48:35] And I keep asking you how many

[3:48:36] need to die before you guys do

[3:48:37] something because there's a lot

[3:48:40] of people that are dying that

[3:48:41] have overdosed on fentanyl that

[3:48:45] don't do fentanyl.

[3:48:46] And I'm concerned that this

[3:48:50] man, Tim Allen had a very

[3:48:50] strong testimony that he was

[3:48:54] going to be giving in

[3:48:55] the lawsuit that would be

[3:48:59] beneficial to winning.

[3:49:00] And so as Stephen Whitburn

[3:49:01] likes to laugh in my face I'm

[3:49:05] very concerned because then it

[3:49:05] makes me question does he have

[3:49:06] something to do with the deaths

[3:49:09] if you don't care because it's

[3:49:12] your friend who runs that place

[3:49:17] And it's just I just I don't

[3:49:18] understand.

[3:49:22] >> It's very difficult to come

[3:49:23] and talk to people time and

[3:49:27] again that profess to care

[3:49:27] about the public And I come and

[3:49:31] tell you about people dying and

[3:49:32] it falls upon deaf ears and

[3:49:33] it's like I wouldn't want to be

[3:49:37] reaping what you guys are

[3:49:37] sowing because now you're

[3:49:38] you're like complicit.

[3:49:41] You don't even care.

[3:49:42] >> I mean I've been coming for

[3:49:43] years talking about people

[3:49:46] dying and being raped and it's

[3:49:47] like yeah we can talk about

[3:49:48] rats and all these things but

[3:49:51] when are these lives going to

[3:49:52] matter to you guys?

[3:49:56] That place need to be shut down

[3:49:56] .

[3:49:57] I started the five minute timer

[3:49:57] start going to those

[3:49:59] participating online.

[3:50:00] >> We have nine speakers in

[3:50:00] the queue.

[3:50:03] Hector if you can please unmute

[3:50:04] .

[3:50:04] >> All right.

[3:50:05] Thanks a lot.

[3:50:08] Hey, JULY is officially White

[3:50:09] History Month like I said a few

[3:50:12] days ago and on the 15th of

[3:50:13] JULY we're going to be

[3:50:17] celebrating It's called the

[3:50:18] Joe Biden Day The Joe Biden

[3:50:23] PRESIDENT Who let the illegal

[3:50:23] aliens in and facilitated

[3:50:27] the invasion like 2 million

[3:50:28] people and which you guys

[3:50:32] helped facilitate and spent

[3:50:33] the money on.

[3:50:33] So we're going to start

[3:50:37] cracking down on getting rid of

[3:50:38] all these guys so we don't need

[3:50:38] to build more housing.

[3:50:42] There's thousands of units in

[3:50:43] Mission Valley that are rented

[3:50:43] for 3500 a month.

[3:50:48] There's hundreds of them.

[3:50:48] They're vacant.

[3:50:49] We got plenty of housing.

[3:50:52] We just got to get rid of

[3:50:53] the illegal aliens that are

[3:50:56] occupying the other housing and

[3:50:57] probably a million guys in

[3:51:00] California at least maybe a

[3:51:01] hundred thousand in San Diego.

[3:51:05] They're here illegally just

[3:51:06] blatantly ignoring our laws And

[3:51:10] the criminal part of you as or

[3:51:11] facilitating them and kind of

[3:51:15] cutting tons of slack that time

[3:51:16] for they got to go.

[3:51:19] Plus in a bright or not a good

[3:51:20] side but we're losing 3 to 1 to

[3:51:23] Belgium right now with about 20

[3:51:24] minutes to play in the soccer

[3:51:24] game.

[3:51:28] So it's up in Seattle But we

[3:51:29] really got to get all these

[3:51:30] people out of San Diego that

[3:51:34] even the supporters or so like

[3:51:38] the guys that start firing guys

[3:51:39] that work in the city that

[3:51:40] celebrated Charlie Kirk's

[3:51:43] death, these guys got to go

[3:51:44] They're abomination to our city

[3:51:48] and send them down and start

[3:51:48] smelling that sewer gas in

[3:51:49] Tijuana.

[3:51:52] We better not be putting it in

[3:51:53] a field.

[3:51:58] Let it dry out, have some mercy

[3:51:59] on the little Mexican kids down

[3:51:59] there.

[3:52:02] Come on One before the porta

[3:52:06] Don't make me smell sewer gas.

[3:52:07] That would be great.

[3:52:07] Let me.

[3:52:08] That's brutal, man.

[3:52:11] Come on.

[3:52:11] Your time has concluded.

[3:52:12] I'm going to John Stump If you

[3:52:15] can please unmute.

[3:52:20] Well, thank you very much for

[3:52:20] working this long day.

[3:52:24] I want to compliment Vivian

[3:52:29] Marino for abstaining or

[3:52:30] absenting herself because of

[3:52:30] conflict of interest on

[3:52:34] the last matters And

[3:52:35] particularly I want to

[3:52:39] compliment Council PRESIDENT

[3:52:39] Joe LaCava on the way he

[3:52:44] handled his disclosures or lack

[3:52:49] of just conflicts on the appeal

[3:52:54] matter.

[3:52:54] Joe LaCava did the right thing.

[3:52:55] He stated that he had no

[3:52:59] contacts or he hasn't

[3:53:00] participated with them and

[3:53:03] demonstrated that he was an

[3:53:04] unbiased judicial quasi

[3:53:08] judicial figure.

[3:53:09] You know in Goldberg versus

[3:53:13] Count Kelly the Supreme Court

[3:53:14] established that due process

[3:53:14] protections and minimum

[3:53:18] procedural safeguards that

[3:53:19] include the right to timely and

[3:53:22] adequate notice of the basis

[3:53:23] for the action opportunity to

[3:53:24] defend again against

[3:53:27] the reasons for the action.

[3:53:28] Opportunity to confront and

[3:53:32] cross-examine any adverse

[3:53:33] witnesses an opportunity to

[3:53:33] present arguments and evidence

[3:53:37] orally right to disclose

[3:53:42] opposing evidence assistance of

[3:53:42] retained counsel at parties

[3:53:43] expense decision based on legal

[3:53:47] rules and evidence produced at

[3:53:48] the hearing decision stating

[3:53:52] the evidence relied on and

[3:53:52] the reasons for

[3:53:53] the determination and most

[3:53:57] importantly an impartial

[3:53:57] decision maker.

[3:54:02] Council members If you got an

[3:54:03] appeal that's in your district

[3:54:04] and you have a lot of contact

[3:54:07] and you've gone back and forth

[3:54:07] .

[3:54:08] Please abstain from

[3:54:12] participating in that decision

[3:54:12] because it's obvious that you

[3:54:17] MAY have been a biased figure.

[3:54:18] >> Thank you very much.

[3:54:21] Next is Terence Kelly.

[3:54:25] >> If you can please unmute.

[3:54:26] >> Good evening San Diego City

[3:54:27] Council Chair LaCava My name is

[3:54:30] Terence Kelley and I attend my

[3:54:31] planning group.

[3:54:31] I work in public Health and

[3:54:35] Youth Mentor and and tutoring

[3:54:36] programs my youth mentoring and

[3:54:40] tutoring programs in this city

[3:54:40] includes teens from very

[3:54:41] diverse backgrounds.

[3:54:45] On their behalf I came today to

[3:54:46] report that this is the very

[3:54:49] teens from these diverse

[3:54:49] backgrounds who experience

[3:54:50] health inequities.

[3:54:54] You strive to mitigate

[3:54:54] especially as these teens have

[3:54:55] been targeted by tobacco and

[3:54:59] marijuana companies.

[3:55:00] The African-American Tobacco

[3:55:00] Control Leadership Council

[3:55:04] released more excellent

[3:55:04] research regarding how and i

[3:55:05] quote Big tobacco strategically

[3:55:10] targeted blacks and the deadly

[3:55:10] consequences end quote.

[3:55:14] Now we're taking a close look

[3:55:15] at the role of big marijuana as

[3:55:16] well in creating health

[3:55:19] inequities through their

[3:55:20] promotion of smoking and vaping

[3:55:20] of marijuana products.

[3:55:24] Most often containing high thc

[3:55:24] levels of marijuana Research

[3:55:29] continues to grow regarding

[3:55:29] the role of these products in

[3:55:30] creating cancer and chronic

[3:55:33] disease related health

[3:55:34] inequities among minority

[3:55:38] populations, I respectfully

[3:55:39] suggest that the city's

[3:55:39] enforcement efforts to

[3:55:43] eliminate and toxic eating

[3:55:43] products.

[3:55:44] Sometimes nicotine, sometimes

[3:55:48] marijuana sometimes cbd be

[3:55:48] increased and that no new

[3:55:53] business permits be allowed for

[3:55:53] tobacco and marijuana

[3:55:54] businesses in the city's

[3:55:54] neighborhoods.

[3:55:58] They only harm those

[3:55:58] populations that you most

[3:55:59] strive to serve.

[3:56:02] Thank you for hearing my

[3:56:03] concerns this evening.

[3:56:03] >> Thank you.

[3:56:04] Judy Strang If you can please

[3:56:12] unmute.

[3:56:13] >> Judy Strang I can't.

[3:56:13] There you go.

[3:56:16] Hi and good evening And thank

[3:56:17] you all for staying.

[3:56:18] As always, I appreciate that

[3:56:21] you're as exhausted as your

[3:56:22] audience out here is and want

[3:56:26] to thank City Council person

[3:56:27] Van Wilpert for sharing her

[3:56:27] cancer journey with us.

[3:56:31] I think it's extremely

[3:56:31] important that it gets as much

[3:56:35] attention as possible having

[3:56:36] high visibility elected

[3:56:40] officials speak to it helps a

[3:56:41] great deal.

[3:56:41] I called in because I was

[3:56:45] really interested in item 400

[3:56:46] and the PowerPoint presentation

[3:56:50] that was presented by law

[3:56:51] enforcement regarding the very

[3:56:55] dangerous person who apparently

[3:56:56] was experiencing a psychotic

[3:56:56] episode and threatening

[3:57:00] everyone who was around them

[3:57:01] And the explanation of how much

[3:57:05] this affects public safety

[3:57:06] because it doesn't necessarily

[3:57:06] end in this incident.

[3:57:07] It can be taken out into

[3:57:10] the neighborhood as well.

[3:57:11] The thought that occurred to me

[3:57:12] as a public health educator if

[3:57:15] that's the end result of public

[3:57:16] health decisions made that

[3:57:20] could have perhaps changed

[3:57:20] the course.

[3:57:21] And I'd just like to remind us

[3:57:25] that we should Media release

[3:57:25] came out regarding a highly

[3:57:30] visible incident with a

[3:57:30] psychotic episode due to a

[3:57:35] marijuana use that occurred

[3:57:35] with a girl name.

[3:57:40] I'm sorry Briana She has a very

[3:57:40] interesting last name.

[3:57:45] Specter stabbed a roommate and

[3:57:45] friend and her dog when she

[3:57:46] experienced a cannabis induced

[3:57:50] psychosis after just taking two

[3:57:54] hits off her roommate's bong.

[3:57:55] And help us to remind ourselves

[3:57:59] that when we see this psychotic

[3:57:59] episodes that were presented to

[3:58:03] us today as 400 as well as this

[3:58:03] recent media release regarding

[3:58:08] a court decision, let's take a

[3:58:09] really good look at what we do

[3:58:10] when we make decisions about

[3:58:13] marijuana.

[3:58:14] We don't need more of it in our

[3:58:14] neighborhoods.

[3:58:14] Thank you.

[3:58:15] Thank you.

[3:58:18] The five minute timer had

[3:58:18] concluded there are six

[3:58:19] speakers in the queue.

[3:58:20] No additional speakers will be

[3:58:20] taken.

[3:58:22] Francine Maxwell if you can

[3:58:23] please unmute.

[3:58:23] >> Good evening Francine

[3:58:26] Maxwell Southeastern San Diego

[3:58:27] resident.

[3:58:28] I would like to make sure that

[3:58:31] I continue with my request as

[3:58:32] the Council goes on their

[3:58:33] legislative break.

[3:58:36] The city continues to run and

[3:58:37] there's opportunities for

[3:58:41] the community to get educated

[3:58:41] especially given the consent

[3:58:46] agenda last week where our

[3:58:46] energy equity campus was given

[3:58:51] another extension from dsd.

[3:58:56] So it's very interesting that

[3:58:57] the ib a shared with some

[3:59:01] constituents and some of my

[3:59:02] neighbors that yes there

[3:59:02] the legislative branch but

[3:59:05] the operational branch is

[3:59:06] really controlled by

[3:59:06] the legislative branch.

[3:59:10] And so that's why this land

[3:59:11] that used to be shovel ready

[3:59:15] it's not shovel ready anymore

[3:59:16] but the person in charge of it

[3:59:19] Demetrius he doesn't have

[3:59:20] the same love for making sure

[3:59:24] that people in San Diego are

[3:59:24] employed.

[3:59:25] His developers are from out of

[3:59:29] town his right hand So the city

[3:59:30] should be looking at that

[3:59:31] because it's going to be

[3:59:34] the council that gets this

[3:59:35] reverted and the state is MAY

[3:59:39] force us to sell because it's

[3:59:40] going to be classified as

[3:59:40] surplus land.

[3:59:44] So again with all of that being

[3:59:45] misconstrued it would be nice

[3:59:49] to either the ipa or dsd would

[3:59:54] hold an educational opportunity

[3:59:54] so the community can be

[3:59:55] educated on why for 20 plus

[3:59:59] years something that was shovel

[3:59:59] ready is now having fires on it

[4:00:04] and illegal dumping And it's

[4:00:04] just very interesting because

[4:00:08] there's no communication and

[4:00:09] this is prime land and we

[4:00:14] deserve better.

[4:00:14] And I'm hoping that during

[4:00:15] the legislative break the city

[4:00:18] can take it upon themselves to

[4:00:19] do some educational

[4:00:20] opportunities for constituents.

[4:00:24] Thank you for allowing me to

[4:00:24] speak.

[4:00:24] >> Thank you.

[4:00:25] Next is Madison.

[4:00:32] If you can please unmute.

[4:00:33] Hello.

[4:00:33] Good afternoon Council members.

[4:00:38] I'm here to encourage the City

[4:00:39] of San Diego to take seriously

[4:00:42] the public health and safety

[4:00:43] impacts of today's high potency

[4:00:43] marijuana.

[4:00:47] Over the past decade marijuana

[4:00:48] has become far more potent than

[4:00:48] in previous generations.

[4:00:53] Many people still view it as

[4:00:53] harmless But emergency

[4:00:54] physicians, addiction

[4:00:57] specialists and mental health

[4:00:57] professionals are seeing

[4:00:58] increasing cases of cannabis

[4:00:58] dependance.

[4:01:02] Cannabis and do psychosis

[4:01:03] impaired driving and accidental

[4:01:07] ingestion by children.

[4:01:07] Just this week a coalition of

[4:01:08] major transportation and safety

[4:01:12] organizations led by

[4:01:12] the American Trucking

[4:01:13] Association warned the federal

[4:01:13] government that weakening

[4:01:16] marijuana testing requirements

[4:01:17] could have serious consequences

[4:01:18] for truck drivers.

[4:01:21] Airline pilots, transit

[4:01:21] operators and other safety

[4:01:22] sensitive workers.

[4:01:26] They emphasized that there is

[4:01:27] currently no scientifically

[4:01:27] validated roadside or workplace

[4:01:31] test that measures real time

[4:01:32] marijuana impairment.

[4:01:35] Because of that drug testing

[4:01:36] remains one of the few tools

[4:01:37] available to reduce the risk of

[4:01:41] impaired individuals operating

[4:01:41] vehicles and equipment that

[4:01:42] the public depends on.

[4:01:45] Splitting their concern

[4:01:46] highlights that marijuana

[4:01:46] impairment is difficult to

[4:01:50] detect making prevention

[4:01:50] especially important here in

[4:01:55] San Diego.

[4:01:56] In this city carefully

[4:01:56] considers the public health

[4:02:00] impacts of future marijuana

[4:02:01] related policies.

[4:02:05] Normalization causes harm

[4:02:05] especially with products that

[4:02:06] carry real risks for developing

[4:02:09] brains mental health, workplace

[4:02:14] safety and impaired driving.

[4:02:15] Thank you.

[4:02:15] Next is Becky Rapp.

[4:02:23] If you can please unmute.

[4:02:24] >> Good evening.

[4:02:25] My name is Becky Rapp and I

[4:02:26] wanted to bring to your

[4:02:29] attention some encouraging news

[4:02:29] from the dea.

[4:02:34] The agency has announced their

[4:02:37] plan to classify the drugs 7-h

[4:02:38] as a schedule one controlled

[4:02:38] substance.

[4:02:41] Many people know seven h as

[4:02:41] the highly intoxicating

[4:02:42] psychoactive compound found in

[4:02:47] Kratom which is being sold in

[4:02:47] products found in smoke and

[4:02:48] vape shops.

[4:02:51] This federal action is

[4:02:52] important because the city of

[4:02:52] San Diego has already

[4:02:56] prohibited the sale of kratom

[4:02:56] products due to the public

[4:02:57] health risks they present.

[4:03:01] Yet residents continue to

[4:03:02] report seeing kratom products

[4:03:05] openly displayed and sold

[4:03:06] despite the city's ordinance.

[4:03:10] The dea decision provides

[4:03:10] another enforcement tool and

[4:03:11] creates an opportunity for

[4:03:12] the city to work alongside

[4:03:15] state and federal agencies to

[4:03:15] enforce the laws that are

[4:03:16] already on the books.

[4:03:20] I also want to point out

[4:03:20] another concern.

[4:03:21] Many smoke shops and vape

[4:03:25] stores continue to sell

[4:03:25] products that don't comply with

[4:03:26] local or state laws including

[4:03:30] intoxicating hemp products that

[4:03:30] are often advertised or labeled

[4:03:31] as cbd plus.

[4:03:34] Some of these products are

[4:03:35] marketed as wellness products

[4:03:36] even though many contain thc or

[4:03:39] other psychoactive ingredients.

[4:03:40] This is why education and

[4:03:44] enforcement are both so

[4:03:44] important.

[4:03:45] I'd like to ask the Council and

[4:03:45] the City Attorney's office to

[4:03:49] use this opportunity to

[4:03:50] strengthen enforcement.

[4:03:50] San Diego's existing ordinances

[4:03:54] increase inspections of smoke

[4:03:55] and vape shops, educate

[4:03:59] retailers and hold repeat

[4:03:59] violators accountable.

[4:04:00] Thank you.

[4:04:02] Next is 8700 If you can please

[4:04:06] unmute.

[4:04:11] Do not enjoy Senator.

[4:04:16] I'll begin with the condolences

[4:04:17] to Tim Allen's family and

[4:04:23] friends on his death.

[4:04:28] Like all of us he was and is on

[4:04:29] a sacred journey.

[4:04:34] Peace be with you Tim.

[4:04:34] Next council member Van

[4:04:35] Wilpert.

[4:04:38] Thank you for sharing your

[4:04:38] words.

[4:04:43] And then on to the next.

[4:04:44] I notice today that all of

[4:04:48] the agenda items were missing

[4:04:48] in reference to committee It

[4:04:53] happening at a committee and

[4:04:53] there was no name for

[4:04:58] presenters and attorney and so

[4:04:58] forth.

[4:04:59] So is that going to be

[4:04:59] permanent because all of

[4:05:03] the agenda items were like that

[4:05:04] and it didn't feel good

[4:05:08] The next is one minute allowed

[4:05:13] on going to be a stringent rule

[4:05:14] now ten And if so is it based

[4:05:17] on group presentations because

[4:05:20] the group presentations are

[4:05:21] only allowed one minute each So

[4:05:25] one minute feels very

[4:05:26] stringent.

[4:05:26] And if you could just clarify

[4:05:27] that I don't remember reading

[4:05:30] that on the Seminole seven

[4:05:30] presentations.

[4:05:36] So actually present with Carver

[4:05:40] I want to congratulate you on

[4:05:40] something and also Council

[4:05:41] member Campbell but it started

[4:05:45] with you You tend to really

[4:05:50] engage the public when it's

[4:05:50] appropriate.

[4:05:51] And I just want you to know how

[4:05:55] much I appreciate that you

[4:05:56] corrected me or not corrected

[4:05:59] but clarified me on the Jenny

[4:06:00] Care program item And that

[4:06:04] meant a lot to me And I noticed

[4:06:05] that you do it in various ways

[4:06:09] with the public And so I

[4:06:09] mentioned it.

[4:06:10] It comes to council member DR.

[4:06:14] Campbell Community and I'm

[4:06:15] sorry your time has concluded

[4:06:16] Blair Beckman and then Barbara

[4:06:18] Gordon your final speaker Blair

[4:06:23] Beckman Please proceed.

[4:06:23] >> All right.

[4:06:24] The zoom timer isn't working.

[4:06:27] My my zoom MAY cut out.

[4:06:28] Sorry If it does, we simply

[4:06:29] should be continuing ongoing

[4:06:29] community dialog and

[4:06:34] conversation and how to

[4:06:34] formally leave the vendor flock

[4:06:35] and look for a better

[4:06:38] principles vendor Can we also

[4:06:38] simply give up the pr vendor

[4:06:42] process altogether at this time

[4:06:43] and for the sd community to

[4:06:44] work out new data collection

[4:06:44] arrangements?

[4:06:47] If you think you're

[4:06:48] the eventual owners of the most

[4:06:49] recent large copier placement

[4:06:52] in San Diego neighborhoods I've

[4:06:52] been describing for months now

[4:06:53] how both the city of Oakland

[4:06:54] and Kent County of Alameda are

[4:06:56] currently developing an 18

[4:06:57] month process of full community

[4:07:02] input to discuss best practices

[4:07:03] and leaving plug and for a new

[4:07:03] better principal they hope

[4:07:06] vendor This is simply a good

[4:07:07] beginning Model San Diego

[4:07:07] should be referred to at this

[4:07:08] time and as we are learning to

[4:07:11] better question how data

[4:07:12] companies like Fox seem to be

[4:07:12] overly developing its data

[4:07:13] within the context of

[4:07:16] supporting international

[4:07:17] policies of continual war and

[4:07:17] more openly addressing Floc

[4:07:21] over the next few months.

[4:07:21] San Diego should also be

[4:07:22] working towards a yearly review

[4:07:26] process in a small reduction of

[4:07:27] unnecessary or redundant

[4:07:27] surveillance technology and

[4:07:30] annual pr use within local San

[4:07:31] Diego neighborhoods.

[4:07:31] In theory this will not overly

[4:07:32] limit or take much away from

[4:07:35] the use of surveillance

[4:07:36] technology within current San

[4:07:37] Diego neighborhood public

[4:07:37] safety concerns and yet

[4:07:40] continue the efforts towards

[4:07:41] more clear, consistent ideas of

[4:07:41] better principled tech

[4:07:45] practices and oversight.

[4:07:46] I'm trying to develop this

[4:07:47] public comment towards

[4:07:47] consensus building compromise

[4:07:50] and good logic for everyone in

[4:07:51] San Diego.

[4:07:51] A final reminder that it's my

[4:07:52] understanding that former San

[4:07:56] Diego councilperson Monica

[4:07:56] Montgomery Step has always felt

[4:07:57] that the numbers of new airport

[4:08:01] purchases for San Diego,

[4:08:02] the recent airport purchases

[4:08:02] for San Diego neighborhoods a

[4:08:06] few years ago could eventually

[4:08:06] be reduced.

[4:08:07] And to conclude, I beg of

[4:08:08] yourselves to have more open

[4:08:11] accountable for community

[4:08:12] conversations about both

[4:08:12] the current spoken and unspoken

[4:08:16] procedures and guidelines

[4:08:17] within the future of aopa for

[4:08:18] use in real time in San Diego.

[4:08:22] Thanks for your time meeting

[4:08:22] today guys.

[4:08:23] >> Talk to you tomorrow.

[4:08:23] Thank you.

[4:08:24] Thank you.

[4:08:25] And Barbara Gordon, our final

[4:08:26] speaker.

[4:08:27] >> Good evening.

[4:08:28] As a public health advocate I

[4:08:32] am here today to encourage

[4:08:33] the city to send a letter of

[4:08:33] support for Senator Blake

[4:08:37] Spears Senate bill 926 which

[4:08:38] addresses the growing misuse of

[4:08:43] nitric oxide while preserving

[4:08:44] the access for legitimate

[4:08:48] medical dental and culinary

[4:08:48] uses across California.

[4:08:53] The recreational misuse of

[4:08:53] nitric oxide has become an

[4:08:54] increasingly public health

[4:08:54] issue.

[4:08:58] The widespread availability of

[4:08:59] these large capacity canisters

[4:09:04] and products marketed for

[4:09:04] inhalation has contributed to

[4:09:05] the rising rate of misuse.

[4:09:10] Particular among our

[4:09:10] adolescents and young adults

[4:09:11] repeated exposure to this gas

[4:09:15] can cause serious neurological

[4:09:20] injury and cognitive impairment

[4:09:21] .

[4:09:22] Sb 926 focused on strengthening

[4:09:26] the safeguards around the sale

[4:09:27] and distribution of these

[4:09:27] products.

[4:09:31] The bill helps prohibit

[4:09:31] avoidable harms while

[4:09:32] supporting responsible retail

[4:09:37] use at protecting the health

[4:09:38] care providers, food service

[4:09:38] professionals and other

[4:09:43] legitimate uses.

[4:09:43] Preventing substance misuse

[4:09:44] requires a proactive ballot

[4:09:48] policy that prioritizes health

[4:09:48] and safety.

[4:09:49] This bill will address

[4:09:53] the emerging public health

[4:09:54] concerns before its results

[4:09:59] Even greater harm to our

[4:09:59] community.

[4:10:00] I respectfully urge your

[4:10:03] support for sb 96.

[4:10:04] This legislation represents a

[4:10:09] meaningful opportunity to care

[4:10:09] for vulnerable populations and

[4:10:14] the potential misuse against.

[4:10:15] Thank you for your leadership

[4:10:16] in advancing these policies

[4:10:16] that improve the health and

[4:10:20] well-being of all San Diegans

[4:10:21] and Californians.

[4:10:21] Thank you for letting me speak.

[4:10:26] Thank you.

[4:10:27] That does conclude my agenda.

[4:10:28] Public comment for today's

[4:10:28] meeting.

[4:10:29] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[4:10:29] right.

[4:10:30] Thank you to the clerk.

[4:10:32] We will now adjourn Council to

[4:10:33] the regularly scheduled council

[4:10:34] meeting on Tuesday But before

[4:10:38] we adjourned the city attorney

[4:10:38] have anything to report out in

[4:10:43] closed session?

[4:10:44] >> Thank you, Council

[4:10:44] PRESIDENT.

[4:10:45] There is nothing to report out

[4:10:45] from closed session.

[4:10:46] All right.

[4:10:49] It's important to make that

[4:10:50] statement though We will now

[4:10:50] adjourn Council to

[4:10:51] the regularly scheduled council

[4:10:52] meeting on Tuesday JULY 7th,

City Council Meetings — Monday Agenda Revised Added S400

Transcript