[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.
[1:52:40] 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.
[3:26:24] 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.
[4:04:00] 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,