You see a San Diego work best out in the field and our employees, please give them a high five, uh a thumbs up because they are doing the work on behalf of the city and our residents, and they're really proud to be doing what they're doing.

Three, two, one.

Peter Seidler loved this city.

And he didn't just talk about making San Diego a better place.

He actually did it.

And so naming this street Peter Sidler Way uh is a promise that we will continue the work that he began to lead with heart to lift up those in need and to build a San Diego where everyone has a place in this great city.

For both Peter and Trevor and Tony, who all have had a tremendous impact on the Padres franchise and a tremendous impact in our San Diego community.

It's fitting that these three streets named after these three great men will continue to greet Padres fans when they come to Petco Park for decades to come.

Peter Love, Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman.

And we would be humbled to join them with this honor.

For me personally, whenever I get to drive up Imperial and now part of Peter Seidler Way in the car, I get a big kick out of it because my kids are always excited.

Go ahead and tremble, Dad.

We're gonna get on go on your street for a minute.

I just think of Peter's family and the fun that those kids will have when they get to come up on that street.

His compassion, his vision that has left an indelible mark on the city of San Diego, and today it quite literally becomes a part of our city's map.

Peter showed us the way, and now fittingly he has one named after him.

Coast ride, please.

I was in the Marine Corps four years.

I was in Coronado.

I was in the Navy for four years.

So this is our annual veteran and military uh spouse uh appreciation breakfast.

This is my fourth time coming here.

I will not miss this.

I love coming here.

I love this event.

I think by by this event right here, it shows that they support the veterans.

I feel appreciated.

I feel valued.

I learned a lot of skills in the military that helped me to be the person that I am.

The the military service has definitely been a benefit to me in how I do my city work.

I'm appreciating us doing our support to the military.

This year there was more police officers than ever before.

We never had this many police officers.

I think it would be encouraging if we could just get the other veterans to get here.

I've seen this grow.

Uh and like I said, I know that there are a lot more veterans that can be here.

We can pack this place out.

You have given to this nation, and you continue to give to this city, and we see you, we salute you, we respect you, and most of all, we thank you.

We are here today in Oak Park to celebrate Kate Sessions Day and to honor a woman who helped make San Diego what we all know and love today as America's finest city.

Kate Sessions knew a good idea when she planted one.

She believed the trees could turn uh what was then a city of dry brush hills into something absolutely beautiful and something that we all enjoy today.

All right.

Look at that.

Not only are we just celebrating new trees that we plant in the ground, we want to celebrate our existing trees that we have that already provide us lots of benefits and shade and ecosystem services.

Kate Sessions taught us that when you plant a tree, you're literally planting hope for cooler streets, cleaner air, and stronger communities.

And that's what you all are doing here today, and I'm so grateful that you take time out of your busy schedules to help plant these 30 trees all across Oak Park.

Happy Kate Sessions Day, everybody.

Today marks an important milestone for Coral Gate and the Sanny Cedro community, one that has been years in the making.

We were trying to get them to like upgrade the swing, the slides, evening out some sidewalks, getting rid of some trees.

We never imagined that we were gonna get a new park for Coral Gate.

It takes all of us to be able to put a park together.

And uh first part of that is to really understand the recreational needs of our communities.

Now we have this amazing park, and it's really important.

If our kids are playing, then they're probably out doing other things.

So let's invest in their being able to be kids, and the transformation we see today is the result of persistence, partnership, and shared commitment.

It shows what's possible when residents advocate.

One, two, three.

Another example of this office's commitment to investment in family friendly space.

Specifically, what have we done?

We have two children's play areas, new fitness equipment.

By the end of this year, we will complete it ninety-three new or improved park projects across the city of San Diego in just the last five years.

And I hope that that's reflective of a city administration that knows that infrastructure is a priority, that quality of life is what makes us special and unique in San Diego, and that the city's priorities are correct to benefit residents and children particularly.

Good morning.

I will now call the special city council meeting of Wednesday, December seventeenth, twenty twenty-five to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilper.

Council President Pro Tem Lee?

Here.

Councilmember Campio.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting are Chief Deputy City Attorney Kathy Steinman, independent budget analyst, Charles Matica, and myself, your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, City Clerk.

Quorum is now present.

The clerk will now go over how the public can offer their testimony.

Clerk?

Thank you, Council President.

I just like to highlight that the information will be shown on the screen momentarily, but is also on the agenda cover page.

The order can be found on the agenda summary found online or at the table in the back of the room.

If you are in person, please submit a please complete a speaker speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room.

Item seven oh two is confirming the selection of a council president pro Tem, standing council committee assignments and appointment of council members to the audit committee for the calendar year twenty twenty-six.

This item is not subject to the mayor's veto.

Item seven oh three is confirming the appointments of Mayor Todd Gloria and Council members to outside organizations for calendar year twenty twenty-six.

Please proceed when ready.

Would you like to see how many people here?

Please proceed when ready.

Right.

Yeah, I was just wondering is the timer gonna come up.

Oh, it's not showing you.

Uh I'm not oh, there it goes.

Oh, sorry.

All right, thank you.

It's not used to working on the code.

I want to make sure I get it right at the way.

So thank you.

Um thank you, council members.

First, with regard to um the appointments.

Uh, you know, one thing I I think is disappointing to us is you know, we keep engineering the council to have less and less input from the public, and and particularly land use and housing is one of the rare chances that we have a public to try and have some impact on the regulations that come before the full council.

And honestly, if you look at the whole process that we have now, um typically what happens is um the city publishes a set of regulations.

Um those then go to the planning commission, and uh frankly, at this point, the planning commission you know, doesn't have a diversity of of inputs at this point, they don't have planners, they don't have economists.

Um basically it's just the building representation group, and so there's almost nothing that comes out of the planning commission that has a meaningful impact.

And so then if we go to land use and housing, and we've already said, well, the the planning commission was okay with this, they'll just kind of rubber stamp it.

If we need a diversity of opinions and sort of you know, kicking people off to put more friendly and unanimous voices in is not a good, it's just not a good situation.

We if a vote of the council on a complex issue is unanimous, it means you haven't really debated or discussed or thought about the nuances or complications of the unintended consequences.

You know, democracy is it's messy and divided, it's not unanimous, and I I think we should strive for more of that.

Um and then the second thing I'll just say about you know, pointing the mayor to a bunch of outside things.

We as a public have no access to the mayor.

You know, if if we send requests to speak to the mayor, we don't even get a response.

Um, he doesn't appear at public forums.

Um, you at least give us the opportunity to come before you and express our opinions and you listen respectfully to us and and render your own opinion, but at least we have a voice as the public in front of the council.

We don't have that with the mayor, and you know, doing things that burnish his reputation for whatever he's gonna do in his next job by doing these appointments.

You know, we'd like the mayor to be more accountable to us, and we'll have a discussion about that uh when we get to the legislative platform.

Anyway, I I just again we do a lot of work and we do a lot of thought into what we do to come before the council and present our ideas.

And you know, I don't expect people to agree with me or agree with us as an organization, but I do expect um there to be a respectful and thoughtful consideration of the uh of the of what we bring to you, and we'd just like to see that you know, not just honored but valued, because if you're just bulldozing the public with the things that you do, you're not gonna realize later when there's a backlash or you realize the unintended consequences that we told you were intended, and I just with I think there's just a better and more collaborative way that we can be doing this with the public.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That does conclude our public comment here in Council Chambers.

I've started the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely, starting with Zoom use.

Starting with Zoom user, if you can please unmute.

That guy was describing King Gloria, man.

King Gloria or whatever.

Sorry, I'm gonna speak uh hold your time.

Are you speaking on both items, sir?

To uh where do you go?

Uh King Gloria once again, he goes on vacation to Philippines for 450,000.

Seeing his buddies over there is uh relatives and stuff and charges.

That's that's the thing of the king.

Let the meat cake.

Let's uh let's have the citizens uh pay parking fees.

Even on Sundays, that's like sacrilegious.

Anyway, that other guy was describing the the tyranny of the Democratic Party all the way through our governor, our county board of supervisors, and you guys, man.

He doesn't want to talk to nobody.

All he does is use the uh city TV for propaganda.

He opens a park and park and he's proud of opening a park after 40 years or 30 years of getting a swing set.

That's like something to be proud of.

I don't know, man, but next year is gonna be the year of ice when uh Trump releases the ICE agents and other thousands, Sandio County, and we're gonna clear out some housing units for uh underprivileged people and the poor.

Positive.

And we're gonna have more instead of uh are you speaking to the items of this is not an agenda public comment.

So if you want to provide any input on the items, we'd really like to hear it.

We have pause your time, so we have asked you to unmute if you had additional comments on the item.

If you don't, we don't we'll move on.

Happy New Year.

Thanks a lot.

Thank you.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Umgratulations to uh continuing the pro tem uh and also the council president.

It's a good one too.

I'm pretty happy with it.

Um really nice public comment uh from the in-person public comment person.

Well, I wish I could say that more often, and I hope his words can be taken really um to heart.

Uh we're working on heart.

Good luck how we can do that together in in this for the San Diego community.

Um hopefully in what can be considered as business of the uh Pro Tem, uh, I I wanted to very quickly offer that from the really convoluted public meeting process this fall, a new flock contract has been approved for two more years in Oakland.

But in that time, Oakland City Council made the promise they would look for a new AOPI vendor.

Besides, can you speak to the items and not non-agenda public comment?

Sorry about that.

I knew I was taking a chance.

Uh I think I'm finished with what I was saying, but I had a question, additional procedural question.

Is there going to be non-agenda public comment uh today for uh it's not listed uh for this special meeting?

Will there be an agenda public comment today if that can be answered?

Thank you.

Uh the docket is uh posted and there is no non-agenda public comment for the special council meeting and the special meeting of the housing authority.

The original, if you can please unmute.

Yes, I would like both, please.

So as you guys are, you know, it's interesting to see that you guys are the ones that select who goes on what committee, where everybody is placed, and sometimes that can be good, but sometimes that can be bad.

And with the audit committee, it's really important that to when you guys are doing that, yeah, you're going to be looking at things like Tent City because it is something that is um you know going through an audit right now, supposedly um through the city.

But you know, it's it's important that you guys aren't using these opportunities to put people on these committees or assignments to be gatekeepers of you know, transparency and accountability.

It's extremely important that as we go into this new year, that you guys are really showing the people that you do care about where our money is going and um who you're giving it to, because much of the time when you guys um you know engage in in um relationships with people outside of uh the city that you are you know giving money to, it affects the ability for things like an audit to come forward when you know, like Stephen Whitburn is friends with Teresa Smith.

He's not going to be making sure that you know there's no people dying in Tent City, that it doesn't go to 25 as we are approaching 2026, that you know, people are actually getting into housing, like making sure that all of these programs are actually doing what you guys claim because it's unfortunate that people have to lose their lives because nobody wants to look into the things that need to be.

And it's more detrimental not to look into those things than it is to you know show the people that you really do care and that you're not just exploiting the homeless by giving entities money that aren't going to stand up to what is required.

And if that's the case, then you need to move on to different entities so that they can provide what is needed for these people.

And as far as Todd Gloria concluded, thank you for your comments.

Lori Saldania, if you can please unmute.

Uh good morning.

Yes, I'll speak to both items 702 and 703 this morning.

And um starting with 702 on the committee assignments, I agree and want to thank Jeff Heater for his remarks on the changes and how the council is operating.

Uh you know, that there is dwindling support for meaningful public engagement.

We have fewer and fewer opportunities to address the council, and as been noted, uh, zero opportunities to address the mayor.

And uh I think that there are some ways that you can change that.

So one, you make sure that the chairs of these committees understand their obligations.

Once they start a meeting and they approve an agenda, I think every chair for every committee should know that, for example, if you approve an agenda with an item listed and you choose not to take it up, you need to take special actions to override that.

Uh just now, the the chair of this committee said that even though he had the option to allow non-agenda comment, he's not going to do that today.

Um previous meeting added non-agenda to special meeting, but then decided the last minute to deny the public the chance to speak.

And that should make for an interesting legal consideration uh when that is challenged in court on how someone can if you're going to chair a committee, and I notice that you haven't made any changes to chair assignments, then uh which is unfortunate.

Um, in some cases.

I I approve of the audit committee chair and vice chair.

I think these are two members who are done an excellent job of holding people accountable, and I appreciate their work very much.

Um, community and neighborhood services.

I have just the opposite sense.

The meetings were not held for several months last year, and nothing has been done to improve community services when it comes to housing and short-term vacation rentals.

There was an informational only hearing, and in fact, this committee has very few action items.

It's mostly information and not action.

So the public safety committee is the same rubber stamp for the police department, and uh so it's just going to be business as usual into the new year.

And in some ways, that's not serving the public's interest.

Thank you for that committee.

Hello.

Yes, that was your time.

John Sump, if you can please unmute.

Hi, good morning.

Um I want to just talk about uh the appointments to outside boards.

Um really pleased to see the appointments to uh the board I used to serve uh as an employee at number 18, Retzi.

And I think Shawnee Lo Rivera and Vivian and Henry Foster, that's a good selection.

The one uh that I also want to support, but maybe ask for a little bit of a change is number 26.

Uh community power board of directors.

I I really support uh councilman Shawn Elo Rivera, particularly for his comments yesterday concerning the gouging by S D GE.

I think the given the comments made at council yesterday, the people would be better served by making the alternative uh Marnie Von Wilpert, because she uh actually asked about the gouging and the 20 million dollars worth of salary that um we were being forced to pay.

Uh later on when we get to the uh policy issues.

I want to talk about uh item number 43 on page 19.

So I asked the council to make a change on number 26 and replace uh Joe Lacava with uh Marnie von Welpert.

And thank you very much.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment on these items.

Um all right, thank you to the clerk for handling that.

So uh as we adopt council committee assignments, I want to note that early next year we will be reviewing the rules of council and proposing changes, including some standard cleanup language.

Any proposed changes, of course, to the rules of council will go through the process required by the municipal code, which includes being heard by the rules committee before they are considered by the council.

As a whole, this process will take several months, and there will be opportunities for public comment at committee and council.

As the proposed committee chairs remain consistent from last year, my office was reviewing the possibility of bringing forward a temporary rule of council in January, allowing committee chairs greater discretion about creating new committee work plans, which we know requires a lot of work, which I wanted to you to be aware of now.

The temporary role of council would allow new committee work plans for 2026 to be optional or simply roll over the uncompleted portions of the 2025 work plans.

So with that, I look forward to receiving input about other potential changes to the rules of council as the year progresses.

So with that, to kick things off, I will make a motion on item 702 to approve the uh staff recommendation and now turn it over to my call uh colleagues for questions, comments, and entertain a second to that.

We'll go council president pro tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh I'll keep it short and just want to thank uh the council president for his nomination to serve against the Council President Pro Tem, as well as to thank my colleagues uh for the consideration of that and look forward to working with the Council President and all of my colleagues in uh the year ahead.

Uh with that I'll second the motion.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion by myself and a second by council president pro Tem Lee to move the recommendation under 702.

Go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you for the good work on this.

Uh I'm going to be voting no.

Subitem A, absolutely agree, Council President Pro Tem Lee has been doing a great job uh in your stead when you've needed to be out and has done a good job uh overall.

Item C no issue with the audits committee.

Uh there's two members obviously uh are well suited and have done great job in that regard.

As it relates to subitem B and uh the one year I had the pleasure to serve on L UNH, disappointed to see I won't be serving there for a second year.

Uh I want a more accessible and more transparent San Diego, one where ideas can be debated openly at length, not punished for being expressed.

And earlier this year, my office was in discussions with the chair of land use and housing about permit streamlining, something that constituents and businesses and unions wanted to see, something that could reduce housing costs, something that could spur jobs in our region.

And we were told to wait till 2026.

Well, here we go.

Committees matter because this is where real discussions and real work can happen and where real work does happen.

Committees are the only forum for public consideration and unscripted debate.

Committees are where council members introduce ideas, challenge assumptions, can get into the depth of what the ideas will do and elevate constituent voices before the final decisions are made, and ultimately to provide recommendations before it comes to full council.

Instead, council council committee assignments where controversial issues are discussed, seem to be reserved for those willing to say yes or go along with the program.

I will continue to ask hard questions and speak for residents who concerns may be politically inconvenient yet still deserve to be heard.

When common sense questions are proposed by the public, especially planning groups and various boards and commissions, I will ask them of staff.

That is what open governance should look like, and it is what I will continue to advocate for.

When land use and housing items come to full council, I will use my full eight minutes to ask hard questions like I did all year.

And since I will only be given eight minutes, I'll have to ask them quickly.

I will continue to look forward uh to good ideas coming forward from my colleagues at each committee.

I do have the privilege to serve on to my colleagues who were soon to be appointed or reappointed to EDNIR.

I want to make clear you can bring any idea or any item to our committee without fear, it might be blocked simply because I might disagree with the proposal.

I will make space for your ideas.

And as a city council, we ought to create that space for colleagues to put forward ideas, especially when we disagree with them instead of prioritizing city staff ideas.

Some folks might not like my prosecutorial style or my probative questions.

Too bad.

That's what many ideas and items around here clearly need.

And without fear or favor, I will continue to ask them.

I look forward to continuing this advocacy on all the other committees I am on.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh just as a reminder to the public, a year ago, uh my proposal was to have Councilmember Whitburn on land use and housing then as well.

Uh and the uh movement of Councilmember Whitburn off of audit uh was not certainly um gratefulness for the good work you did on audit committee.

Uh and it was a change that was requested that I thought made a lot of sense.

So uh I respect and as uh Councilmember Campio was very eloquent in articulating, there is multiple ways for council members to raise their voices, whether it's an objections or support or advocacy uh through the committee structure uh as well as through the full council.

So I appreciate those diversity uh opinions going forward.

Council President.

Just I appreciate you bringing up Councilmember Whipur and I do want to point out that I find his diligence is questioning his thoughts uh that will be going to the committee to be productive and did not want that to be uh any sort of implication about him whatsoever as him taking that slot.

And I don't think any of us assume that was the case.

So uh but I appreciate your comments.

Not seeing anybody else on the lights, uh, we have a motion by myself and a second by council president pro tem Lee to move 702, the recommendations for item 702, please call the role.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes you that passes eight to one with councilmember Campio voting no.

All right, so I'll open up the floor to entertain a motion for item 703.

And not seeing anybody on the lights, I will move item 703.

Uh can I get a second?

Uh we're gonna make one change.

No.

Okay.

Uh Councilmember Von Wolper just speaks out there, Councilmember Campbell.

So not seeing any other discussion.

Um I've made a motion to move the recommendations for item 703 and a second by Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Clerk, please call the roll.

I'm sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously 9 to 0.

All right, thank you very much.

Um for that line of business.

With that, clerk, please introduce item 700.

Item 700 is the approval of the updated 2025-2026 City of San Diego legislative platform.

If you'd like to speak on this item, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon or submit your speakership to the clear box at the front of the room.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Thank you for that.

Uh so Mr.

Bishop, please introduce yourself for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Uh thank you, Council President uh Walt Bishop, Director of Government Affairs, and we'll need 10 minutes for our presentation.

All right.

When you're ready.

Thank you.

Uh Council President Lacava and honorable members of the City Council.

I'm excited to present updates to our city's legislative platform for the 2025-2026 legislative session.

I first want to thank your respective offices and the city departments that contributed to this year's update.

For a quick review on what the legislative platform is, the city's legislative platform provides our department uh guardrails for what we can and cannot take formal positions on throughout the legislative session, and our core advocacy priorities at the state and federal levels.

It gives us the ability to respond agily to fast moving developments at the uh state and federal levels throughout the year.

Uh as we head into uh final year of a two-year state and uh federal legislative session, it's another opportunity to reimagine our priorities in Sacramento and Washington, DC, as the Trump administration is in full swing, and the second year of a two-year legislative session in Sacramento in the last year of Governor Newsom's uh uh gubernatorial uh term.

Our guiding uh principles remain unchanged.

Uh they're promoting social justice, equity, inclusive economic development, preserving local control, and supporting fiscal stability and funding opportunities.

I now want to highlight some of the high-level updates we made to this year's platform.

In section one, you will see updates to various state items, including home hardening, so supporting legislation to address the ongoing insurance affordability crisis, and support efforts to mitigate risk, supporting a 2026 statewide housing bond at the state level, support policies that make it viable to build condos in California again, and finally support the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee to incentivize projects in high resource areas for the allocation of tax credits.

On the federal side of things, in adapting to the first 10 uh 11 months of the Trump administration, uh we've uh identified a few uh updates to make, including opposing efforts to gut HUD via staffing and funding reductions, support legislation such as the Road to Housing Act and Cut Red Tape for Housing Act, oppose harmful changes to the COC program as we've seen in the last few weeks, and oppose efforts to restrict uh nutrition programs.

On section two, um, you'll see uh funding for transit agencies, so supporting funding to stabilize these agencies, uh support the establishment of a statewide rate assistance program to help limit the cost burden on water and wastewater rates, support efforts to provide local jurisdictions with more flexibility from statewide mandates at CARB, and then finally uh promoting uh polluter accountability and uh investor-owned utilities.

On section three, supporting legislation to add fusion energy as a clean energy technology, oppose unnecessary tariffs that harm local businesses and the broader regional economy, protect the local cannabis, uh the legal cannabis industry.

On the immigration front, support state level advocacy to ensure that immigration enforcement adheres to due process, protects human rights, and enhances privacy protections.

On the federal grant side, um, we've uh pose new burdensome restrictions on federal grant funding and financing.

Uh, in the veteran and military spouse space, support legislation that makes certification or other credential transfers easier for military spouses, dependents or veterans.

And then again, support federal efforts uh to increase transparency with immigration agencies, which includes visible identification, prohibiting enforcement at sensitive locations such as schools, and creation of an online database for those in ICE custody.

On section four, I want to thank the city clerk's office for these updates to help modernize and streamline various reporting requirements at the state level.

And then on section five, we've seen numerous state bills the past few years that would preempt or limit local government's ability to regulate ALPR technology.

So I wanted to have language included to be able to push back on the legislation that would not allow the conversations such as the one we had take place last week in this body happen.

Support legislation that cracks down on a legally modified mufflers that lead to unnecessary noise pollution.

Support funding for the implementation of proposition 36 to support the successful implementation of treatment options for those charged with treated treatment mandated felonies, and then finally oppose the deployment uh or use of federal military or national guard personnel against civilian populations engaging in constitution constitutionally protected activities and support state efforts to safeguard residents from unauthorized or excessive federal enforcement actions.

And then just on the committee action, this was approved unanimously at the EDNIR committee on November 5th with amendments from Chair Campillo, which you can see on the screen in front of you.

And in closing, I ask for your support for the full adoption and again appreciate your input into this year's update and look forward to working with all of you and your offices to advance the city's interests in Sacramento and Washington in 2026.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the presentation with that clerk.

Please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We do have speakers here in Council Chambers.

If we can start with Park Troutman, if you can please come up to the microphone.

After that is Jeff Hudder and then Nancy Bem.

We do have uh quite a number of speakers on the virtual queue, so we will be going down to a minute and a half.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council President, Council members.

My name is Park Trautman.

I'm with San Diego 350.

We greatly appreciate the new points on the platform that were for section two on fossil fuel accountability per your make polluters pay resolution earlier this year and for lowering utility rate investor-owned utilities.

And of course, we certainly appreciate your comments on Monday in the STGE rate transparency hearing.

We know that there are entrenched interests who benefit from the status quo even as it harms San Diegans.

We know that they will not, of course, correct on their own.

They will not give up easily, even when they cannot give basic defenses of what they're doing, as we saw them spectacularly failed to do so on Monday.

We ask that you do continue to advocate in the coming year, and we look forward to working with you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff Hudder, please.

Thank you, Council Members.

So with regard to the legislative platform, I think there's broad public support for the general principles that are in the legislative platform.

But where we have an objection is that with regard to SB 79 this year, the legislative platform was used to weave out of whole cloth the idea that somehow the city of San Diego supported SB 79 and its specifics, and it's very clear that that's unlikely that we would have seen anything around broad support.

And in fact, we had to submit public records requests, which were uh, of course, not answered by the mayor because the mayor never answers public records requests.

And we asked the council to take a position on it, and you refuse to take a position on it.

When you have something that's obviously controversial and contradicts many of the things that San Diego is doing, that needs to come to the council.

It's not at the discretion of some staffer within the mayor's office and some consultant to make these decisions, present them to the to the rest of the state.

And San Diego's purported support was no doubt influential in getting SB 79 passed, but if you did pay it attention, it barely passed every single step that it went through, and it needed to be given a close examinant vote by this body as well.

So take back your power.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Nancy Bym.

Good morning.

My name is Nancy.

I'm with the San Diego Families for Justice and part of the trust coalition.

I live in District 9.

I'm here to ask you to vote no on agenda item 700 until number 30 under public safety is removed.

This one states oppose legislation that restricts or disallows the deployment of ALPR tech to solve and prevent crimes.

Sneaking in a redline policy position last minute before this meeting to oppose any restrictions in light of what the Trump regime is doing feels reckless and is a slap in the face to hundreds of people who raise their voices to all of you last week.

Why would we want to tie our hands in all San Diegans to a technology that has already been abused and will be abused again?

The Trump regime just installed Pellantier at the Department of Education.

Like what are we doing right now?

Why is a Democratic supermajority in lockstep with the Trump regime marking marching towards this Orwellian future?

Please vote no on the audits to 700 until at least number 30 is removed.

And additionally, I wanted to share.

I work in homeless services specifically for a Cal AIM program.

And I just want to share that I do support the inclusion of 50 to 59 under the state homelessness efforts and under 34 to 39 under federal.

And for immigration, we also support uh the inclusion of 80 um 8 to 15 under focus 3.6.

But circling back to item 700, um, overall, number 30 on ALPR tech.

Just as you said, right?

We want to be able to have civil discourse around this.

And so thank you for that concluding comment.

Sorry, the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely, starting with Lily O'Rani, if you can please unmute.

Lily.

There you go.

Hi, um I'm Lily Rani.

I'm a member of the DSA, and I'm speaking for myself today.

Um, I appreciate the opposite.

So looking at this plot um policy platform, I wanted to say first I appreciate the opposition to federal surveillance based on immigration political expression and participation in civic movements.

This is important for those of us in universities.

I also hope that you oppose state surveillance related to civic movements, including those that target teachers who speak about uh Palestine in the classroom, which has created a big statewide surveillance infrastructure.

Um I also wanted to speak about the item that Nancy before me just spoke about uh the platform proposal to oppose legislation restricting or disallowing the deployment of ALPR technology.

So yeah, I just agree, I disagree with that as a policy platform.

If the goal is to make sure that we are able to have local conversations, debates, and regulations, like the staff presenter said, then this policy platform would be about preventing state preemption of local surveillance or ALPR regulations.

However, this is not about state preemption.

This is about opposing legislation like SB 34, which present prevents out-of-state data sharing.

Nobody who spoke last week in council said that they were against SB34.

And SB 34 and other common sense state regulations provide a baseline of protections for those neighbors of ours who are unincorporated.

Lori Saldania, if you can please unmute.

Thank you.

I just need to point out that in the previous item you initially said that people would have two minutes per item, and then you changed it mid-conversation.

So are we are we clear that I have one minute in time?

I'm happy to speak to you offline if you can.

We'll restart your time at a minute 30.

And you can have your time.

I appreciate that uh on this item.

So uh thank you for supporting legislation to lower investor-owned utility rates and to hold the fossil fuel industry accountable for climate-related damages.

Uh, I don't understand why you redlined the that you support legislation to promote programs for expanding solar and storage.

At the same time, you want to lower rates that you're also holding support for um fair tariffs and better funding.

So it seems contradictory.

If you're going to contradict yourself in your efforts, you will probably achieve none of these in the end.

Likewise, support federal legislation and funding to address wildfire prevention has been redlined.

If you're going to support new housing being built, uh then you definitely need to seek federal legislation and support efforts to provide more protection for those houses that are being built in fire areas, which are increasingly everywhere, basically.

So I I and the final thing I'll say is it seems contradictory.

We had a person testify yesterday about the efforts to kick artists, performers out of Balbolo Park and some are leaving San Diego, and yet you put in a measure to support funding that promotes affordable housing for artists.

Again, you can't have it both ways.

If you're making life uncomfortable for people, if you're making life riskier for housing, uh, or making increasing the risk of fires, and they are not supporting legislation to address those things.

You're not supporting more solar on buildings.

This is the most contradictory set of of items that I have ever reviewed.

That concluding comment next is Tanner, if you can please unmute.

Um that uh uses to make ALPRs any other opposing LPRs prohibited.

Um, as we saw last week, this is a very controversial issue and uh redlining any laws that prevent regulating this further is goes against all the citizens last week that showed up to city council voice in their opposition.

If this technology is so great, we do not need laws like this that promote uh oppose this kind of um surveillance systems.

So I want to make sure that you know item number three, item number 30 uh about ALPR is removed from this item.

I don't think that this goes well with things that these uh city stands for.

We do not want this technology being used in the first place.

And while we uh respect how city council voted last week, that does not mean that we should oppose any future regulation on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That was the five-minute timer here in Council Chambers.

We have nine people in the queue.

No additional speakers will be taken after that.

John Stump, if you can please unmute.

Uh thank you very much.

Um I want to focus on uh page 19, starting with item 33, which asks to encourage uh non-fossil fuel.

Um but you know that's often a code word to encourage uh fission.

And so in on page 19, uh federal one uh and 33 should make clear that the council policy is not to encourage fission, which creates nuclear waste like San and Ofrey.

Secondly, on page 19, number 43.

You know, it's general statement.

The statement should really be expanded to say by limiting uh executive pay to no more than 110 percent of the average of all the public powers.

Um have got to say more than just encourage lower rates.

You've got to tell them how you want it done.

The other thing that's necessary is to switch what's being charged to stockholders versus ratepayers.

Fix that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Patricia.

If you can please unmute Alliance San Diego strongly opposes the language added to the city's 2026 legislative platform that commits the city to opposing any state legislation that would restrict the use of ALPR technology.

Last week, an overwhelming number of community members and organizations came before you to raise serious concerns about ALPRs and flock safety.

Those concerns were clear and unified.

Yet this language was added in direct disregard of public input.

This is especially troubling given a recent memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi that the government will use all tools necessary to hunt people.

In that context, defending surveillance is not just irresponsible, it's dangerous.

ALPR technology poses significant risk to civil liberties and the safety of immigrant, black, brown, LGBTQ, and other historically over police community communities.

By adopting this language, the city is choosing surveillance over community trust and corporate technology interest over constituent input.

It undermines the democratic participation and signals a willingness to resist state state level guide rails to prevent misuse, abuse, and mission creep of surveillance technologies.

We urge you to amend the legislative platform to remove this language.

If it is not removed, we urge you to vote no.

Please listen to your constituents and reject policies that promote surveillance at the expense of our civil liberties.

Next is Becky Rapp, if you can please unmute.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Rapp.

I'm a public health educator and member of my planning group, and I'd like to support the updated 2026 legislative platform while also highlighting a public health concern that it should help to address.

But that protection does not apply to privately owned affordable housing, even when public resources like Section 8 vouchers or local housing funds are used.

As a result, families with the same income, both in subsidized housing, can receive very different health protections based on property ownership.

One example is Skyline apartments in Rancho Bernardo.

Because it is privately owned, families there may still be exposed to secondhand smoke in their homes despite the project's public funding.

As the council prioritizes creating homes for all of us and protecting every neighborhood, public dollars should not support housing that exposes children, seniors, and medically vulnerable residents to known health hazards.

So I urge the council to ensure that the legislative platform supports policies at the state and local level that require all affordable housing projects receiving any public funds to be designated smoke free.

This would close an inequitable blue poll and align our housing investments with the city's health safety and sustainability goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is uh Ren, if you can please unmute the COVID.

Hello, uh, good morning.

My name is Ren Gionet.

I'm a district one resident, a student at UC San Diego, and a member of the Student Civil Liberties Union.

I oppose the 2025-26 legislative platform unless item 30, which opposes restrictions on ALPR technology is removed.

This position ignores the serious and well-documented failures of flock safety.

A company with a history of disregarding city directives and mishandling sensitive data.

For example, in Denver, the company admitted to having a pilot program which gave customs and border protection access to ALPR data after months of denying it to Colorado government officials.

Recently, in Eugene, Oregon and Cambridge, Massachusetts, flock cameras continued operating even after contracts were suspended.

The privacy advisory board has already recommended pausing flock camera use until strong oversight and safeguards are in place.

Given this history, there is no justification for imposing reasonable limits on ALPR technology.

While I recognize that ALPRs may help address police staffing challenges, efficiency cannot come at the expense of civil liberties.

We should not rely on an untrustworthy vendor to collect and store sensitive data about our community.

If ALPRs are to be used at all, it must be it must be done so responsibly with a reputable vendor, enforceable policies, and meaningful community oversight.

I urge the council to remove item number 30.

Or to vote on this measure.

Vote no on this measure if that is not to be done.

Thank you.

John, if you can please unmute.

Good morning, Council members.

John Brady lived experienced advisors.

We want to address item number three.

We suggest that you should uh consider the ALPR is simply a surveillance technology.

I think we understand that.

That is what the underlying patents indicate by building profiles.

ALPR technology goes beyond license plate identification and clearly becomes a surveillance tool.

This should be removed.

On another note, we feel that you should add an effort to uh remove corporations and undue influence on government, period.

It is clear from the actions of this administration, which is simply doing what is happened all along that corporations have undue influence on politics in general through unlimited contributions now that they're people.

We feel that you need to review the history of corporations.

Corporations were created as public person uh purpose entities with a limited life over the decades that has changed dramatically.

But during that period of time, there was significant significant concern about undue corporate influence and politics and now we can clearly see the paper pay for play opportunities that allow the people's voice to be overridden through money.

Please add that to our legislative agenda.

Thank you for your time.

The original, if you can please unmute the double speak that you guys engage in is off the charts because on one hand, you're sitting here saying that you want to stop rate increases and this and that from these different entities, all while you yourselves engage in rate hike increases.

And it's like if you really wanted to help people, you wouldn't encourage that on your own hand and discourage it with somebody else.

Is it because you're making money and you don't want them to?

Um, it's just very contradictory the way that you guys um engage in the work of the city.

And you know, it's interesting to see that you only started really caring about the ALPR once illegal immigrants started, you know, being looked at, which was known to have that was gonna happen because what they did was commit a federal offense crossing the border the way they did.

So, you know, more surveillance is actually gonna come in.

That's the problem is that this is going to make it so that Palantir and AI, everything is all over the place, mass surveillance, so that we're gonna be tracked and traced everywhere.

We already are with other technologies and all of the smart infrastructure that you guys want to bring in, is going to do the same thing.

So, you know, and and with the surplus land stuff that you guys want to do and support, um, you know, it doesn't matter, like there are homes all over the place.

The problem is is all of the policies, the other increases in costs and different things.

I mean, the then the homes aren't affordable.

So you guys always get in your own way of being able to provide it.

So it doesn't matter how much land you have to use.

Your time has concluded.

Thank you, Zoom user.

If you can please unmute.

Hi guys, how are you guys?

Yeah, I wanted to comment on section three and section five, and then uh on the immigration thing.

Um, right now at the airport, you can't fly if you're an illegal alien.

They run your facial recognition.

The TSA is cooperating with Trump and immigration tournament on Ice Africa Airport.

And they're also doing the first stage of doing the IRS, where the one judge said it was illegal for the IRS to let go of everyone's information for the illegal aliens to track them.

But it's going up the food chain.

I'm sure the Supreme Court's probably gonna rule in favor of letting the records go on that.

So it's just a matter of time.

Uh we need to get like uh 100,000 illegal aliens out of the city of San Diego, and we need to do it fast so everyone doesn't riot.

And we can call in the Marines.

You've already beefed up the Marines at the border, and we're building that wall and cumba, plugging that hole.

So I know you guys don't like it, you don't want it.

Everyone's gonna cry about it, but Trump's gonna cut the money off.

We're gonna be really in debt pretty soon.

And then I also want to acknowledge the bubble guy.

I saw the bubble guy at Balball Park last month.

He had all these kids around laughing, the parents were having a great time.

How can we ban the bubble guy from at the fountain at the luminous place?

Everyone's having fun.

We're gonna ban the bubble guy from bubble.

Your time has concluded.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, thank you, uh, Blair Beacon.

Thank you for this item.

Um, I could have spoken my previous public comment at this time.

I didn't realize that.

Sorry.

Um, thank you to the words of Lily Arani and uh the person from the student ACLU.

Uh, they very nicely tried to offer um the work in uh Oakland right now is been incredible.

Uh it's real idealistic.

Uh we can leave the flock company for a different ALPR vendor.

Um, that's idealism.

That's good principles.

Um, you're talking about ALPR use, uh, that you want to continue it.

Is that based on something of local rights and state rights things if I'm understanding, and that you're fighting the federal administration.

I want to work with the federal administration on terms of like Oakland.

I mean, not just they have new technology practices, they have an awesome uh social services system in place to really bring down the violent crime issues.

It's not just tech.

You know, it's a combination of things.

That's what we explained to Trump to ask for more funding is how do we serve our social services for violent crime issues.

You guys, you may have something to involve with state and local rights to we we need to understand and you want to work towards, but it's from that we have to make very clear we want to be reducing the future of AOPRs that can be doing the same amounts of public safety neighborhood health that a four of additional tech you say tries to offer.

You have to make that argument clear in how you talk about this in the future, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker, Judy String.

Good morning, City Council.

Thank you for this opportunity to share some thoughts about the strategic plan for 2025 and 26, most particularly 2026.

I am quite impressed with the language that says things like create homes for all by ensuring that every San Diego has access to secure affordable housing.

And then it goes on to say that we should have access to safe and secure.

And then the next language talks about safe and comfortable spaces, and then it talks about livable and sustainable communities.

I just like to remind you what we know at PTA.

Two-thirds of all of California's children live in multi-unit housing that is not protected by smoke-free and vape-free ordinances.

Talk about a world that wants to improve how people live and should start with children.

We need to take a good look not only at the city's regulation, but we should certainly support any California state legislation that would improve the lot of children who have no choice but could be surrounded and probably are by secondhand and third hand smoke and the health issues that will come from it and follow them and be extraordinarily expensive to them, to their family, to all of us, and particularly those who are parents and grandparents watching them grow up and feeling how handicapped they are by and all we need are some policies to reduce that.

Um our atmosphere and our living environment, so they're smoke free and bait free.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes all the comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, we'll turn it over to the council for questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And we'll start with the chair of EDIR, Councilmember Campia.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Thank you, Mr.

Bishop, for the presentation and members of the public for your comments.

Uh before we get into the details, I just do want to flag that item number 30 of section five on ALPRs was not snuck in at the last minute as an adjustment.

It was an amendment at committee, was supported at the time 4.0.

I know that there's been a lot of discussion since then.

The use policy of ALPRs hadn't yet had its day at council.

And if I remember there was only one, maybe two uh public speakers at EDNI who had anything to say about ALPRs at the time.

I understand there might be some debate about right now, but it wasn't snuck in far from it.

And I'll be asking about it in a few minutes.

Uh I want to begin by expressing my appreciation for our government and fair staff for their work that they have to undertake uh every cycle as our legislature is uh re-elected, and the legislative platform is a very important tool.

It's our roadmap to advocate effectively at the state and federal levels, ensuring San Diego's priorities are heard and reflected in statewide and federal legislation and funding opportunities.

I'm very glad that there's several additions uh that I recommended that were incorporated.

Clear language suggesting open and fair trade policies that reduce barriers and costs for San Diego small business and exporters, new language supporting comprehensive immigration reform and protection of immigrant workers, and of course, defending the rights of all residents to peacefully protest and speak freely.

And the platform now opposes the use of military and national guard forces on civilian populations, calling for oversight of private contracting within immigration enforcement.

The government affairs team deserves a lot of credit.

This is a heavy lift in incorporating amendments from various folks and the committee uh recommendation regarding surplus lands act.

That one has come up at multiple council meetings, and as we work to aggressively addition um address uh housing costs, it's essential that we do so in a way that upholds the city charter, respects the will of the voters who have repeatedly acted to protect open spaces, so I appreciate the thoughtful balance reflected in the final language.

Uh, Mr.

Bishop, let's jump into section five, item 30 on ALPRs.

Uh the point as it currently is written reads to oppose legislation that restricts or disallows the deployment of automated license plate readers technology to solve and prevent crimes.

Uh obviously that the the wording of that is is very, very specific as to what the your team and and uh the mayor on behalf of the city through this platform would do when legislation comes that restricts or disallows it.

Have you had any conversations over the last uh month as we've as we've heard from the public as to their uh their nuance and appropriate uh concerns about how technology overall is used?

Um is is there an explanation for why it's worded in that specific way or what your office needs to adequately reflect the council's policy goal.

Yeah.

Um and thank you for the question, Councilmember.

Uh yeah, so what I'm trying to get at with the languages, and we've seen the last few legislative uh years in the legislature specific this year, year before, year before that, various bills um that would preempt local government, take away the authority of local governments to regulate ALPR technology.

I know this body had a big family discussion last week on on how to do that.

Uh, my goal with this language and to money morning quarterback myself, I probably would have made it uh a little clearer to say we are trying to protect against statewide preemption on taking away your ability to regulate this technology, whether you're for and against it and different.

That is my goal with getting this language into the platform is to be able to protect against any statewide preemption.

Understood.

I'm wondering if that could be adjusted as opposed to an oppose kind of language the way it is.

Uh it I I feel like that we want to reflect the nuance.

Do you have any ideas on how we could properly get that so that you and your team can do what you need to do, but also convey the I think the right wording is nuance, the nuance of what people in San Diego want to see the you know, amplify the good, but remove the risk.

Is there something is there a different way to word this?

Yeah.

Um so just came up with some options uh here.

One I'd like to read out into the record.

Uh support legislation that preserves local control over the regulation of automated license plate reader, otherwise known as AFR technology, to ensure robust oversight, transparency, and privacy protections, which I think gets at the heart of what we're trying to accomplish here.

Okay.

I I think that that wording is appropriate.

Supporting local control is uh something that we see throughout uh the um the platform land use decisions, fund all sorts of ways, right?

Um so can you read that one more time?

Yep, absolutely.

Um support legislation that preserves local control over the regulation of automated license plate reader, otherwise known as ALPR technology to ensure robust oversight, transparency, and privacy protections.

Understood.

Okay.

Um I think that that more accurately captures what the council discussion was showing.

Uh though the though the language is item 30 was, I understand what we were aiming at.

I think that framing it in terms of that type of support for legislation would be the right way to move forward.

Uh at this moment, council president, I would like to move approval of staff's recommendation with an amendment to section five, item 30 to read as Mr.

Bishop wrote read into the record if we need to send or if he needs to send uh that typed up for uh publishing on the screen so that my council colleagues can see the motion.

All right, duly noted that you've made that motion.

We'll give the clerk uh team a moment.

Um Mr.

I mean Mr.

Bishop and Council Member Campio.

Good uh is that correct?

Yes, that looks correct, just to be very clear for the record, it would be striking out the current language and replacing it with the language as uh published on the screen.

Okay.

And that concludes my motion.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Campillo as the staff recommendation as amended, and we'll go next to Councilmember Campbell.

Sorry about that.

Thank you so much.

Um I would like to second the motion as amended.

And I'd just like to say a few words on the ALPR issue, first of all.

I I agree.

Local control is very, very important.

We are very strict and are stricter than anywhere else in the nation.

We will continue to watch it to make sure it is only used to fight crime.

Secondly, I'd like to talk a little bit about the gentleman who said something about supporting fission.

I see in our platform, we are supporting fusion.

Uh perhaps he doesn't understand the differences more than just one letter.

Uh fission has leftovers of plutonium that have a 26,000 year life, uh half-life.

In other words, in 26,000 years, half of the radioactive plutonium will be gone.

And you know, could be the whole earth will be gone by then at the rate we're going.

So it's that's why nuclear power plants are not really in our best interest.

Fusion is a production of energy the same way the sun does it, and it doesn't produce bad side effects.

The problem is it's hot.

So we humans have to figure out how to produce it, but keep the heat inside so it doesn't hurt us.

And we are working on that.

Scientists are working on that very um uh rapidly.

ASAP, I hope this administration hasn't stopped that scientific work.

In the meantime, however, um we will do our best to make sure it comes about as soon as we can, and so I'm very much in support of our support of fusion energy.

It makes great sense.

So I'm I'm happy about this federal legislative platform.

I thank you for your deep dive and your hard work, and I hope that uh we will continue to have local control over as many issues as we can get.

And I thank you for your work, and I'm happy to second the motion.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Uh as uh you all note that they did provide that clarification that you were seeking Councilmember Campio to strike the current language and replace it with this new language.

Yes, sir.

So we do have a motion by Councilmember Campio to move the staff recommendation as amended and second by Councilmember Campbell.

We'll go next to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

All right.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Walt, for your work on this.

I imagine this is um requires a ton of work.

Um and trying to put together a single document that accurately reflects the city's values and translating that into the policy positions um seems very challenging.

I appreciate your effort.

Um I there and there's a lot of I want to just say there's a a lot of that I support in here.

There is one uh issue that I I do want to make sure I specifically uh address.

And uh that is automated vehicle automated uh driverless vehicles.

Um we've seen um that Waymo intends to begin operating in San Diego next year.

I've spoken out about this in a couple different um uh forums because I have real concerns about what that will mean for San Diego, and that it will have very negative impacts on San Diegans.

It's bad for San Diego workers who are going to lose their livelihoods or a portion of the income that they rely on to pay their bills.

It's um potentially harmful for the rest of San Diego since these autonomous vehicles have been documented to drive through literal police standoffs, to block emergency vehicles, um, to um create a number of other public safety risks, including driving around school buses while they're letting children out, and even running over a beloved cat in San Francisco.

Um there's an attempt to stand behind a low number of crashes with other vehicles as evidence of safety and safety is defined far more than simply not crashing into other cars.

We also know that the greedy tech companies that are behind this technology are not going to stop with Waymo.

They will keep pushing uh AI into our lives, whether the technology is ready or safe for us or not.

And with complete disregard for the impact on the human beings that depend on the income that they derive from their hard work that could be replaced with these technologies.

So with all of that in mind, um I very much support the platform's policy that would oppose legislative and regulatory measures that preempt local control over the implementation and utilization of autonomous vehicle technology.

And I hope we can actually take some action to increase our local options to regulate this technology.

What I can't do though is support the platform with policy seven, which is on page 22 under focus 3.1, uh the quote unquote innovation economy, which reads support legislative and regulatory actions that provide for the increase increased utilization of autonomous vehicles and prioritize the city as a hub for autonomous vehicle technology.

I am simply too concerned about the impact on workers and the impact on public safety.

So I'd like to propose an amendment uh to uh Councilmember Campillo to simply strike policy seven under focus 3.1 and remove it from the platform.

Thank you, Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Uh appreciate you bringing up the public safety concerns, certainly at the top of my mind on these uh it seems that the the data shows there's less crasses, but as you pointed out, there's many, many examples where there's uh they still have to get the technology right before they can truly say this is they're one of the safer companies around.

So I appreciate you uh reflecting those uh in your comments.

Um it's Mr.

Bishop, to my knowledge, there's really no well, is there legislation?

Was there legislation last cycle that tried to address this at at the state legislature?

Yeah, there's been a a few consecutive years of state legislation.

Currently that authority falls under the CPUC, but there's been uh numerous legislative efforts over the last couple legislative years that unfortunately the legislation hasn't um been signed into law, but it's been offered consistently.

Um but that's that authority still lies within the C UPC unless the state changes the law.

Understood.

How much I'm just wondering how much work you and your team actually put into that number seven or uh in the last several cycles.

Very minimal.

Okay, understood.

Focusing on housing and environmental and public safety issues as opposed to that, yeah.

Uh no, I appreciate the the offer for an amendment, uh, Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

I think that um striking number seven um really allows the council to take that issue up directly when the time is appropriate.

Uh go to, I think uh I'm just wondering if the mayor has an opinion about this.

I think the opinion would be reflected in the proposed legislative platform.

Um we really have not been engaged too much on this issue.

Um, and there's been really minimal engagement from the state now, or sorry, from the company down uh to us.

And so I think we would support um whatever the outcome of the legislative platform would be.

Understood.

I like that last sentence there.

You'll support whatever the council puts forward as your platform.

Uh I will I will accept the amendment, uh, Council President, to strike Section 3 item 7, correct?

Uh 3.1.

Policy 7 3.1.

Got it.

Understood.

Uh, about supporting legislative and regulatory actions that provide for increased utilization of autonomous vehicles and prioritize the city as a hub for autonomous vehicle technology.

Uh, the public safety concerns are really important to me.

Um, you know, and we'll we can have that debate here at council when the time arises.

Um I think that given that it's uh seemingly uh small priority of of our team overall, deleting it uh is a-okay with me.

So I'll accept the amendment.

All right.

And councilmember Campbell, are you willing to second?

I am so glad that uh councilmember Campillo made uh made an agreement for this amendment.

I am so happy that our colleague uh councilmember Ilo Rivera found this and and brought it to our attention.

It is absolutely necessary that we protect the public.

Waymo is not ready for public use.

It is too dangerous, it has too many bad records of failing to operate in a correct manner in regard to human safety and actually the safety of property.

Just like the FDA puts drugs through many clinical trials before they allow the general public to use them, which still even sometimes are not enough clinical trials.

But in the meantime, until Waymo does enough trials with its technology that we know this is absolutely safe, I say no Waymo, we need local control, and I agree with this amendment.

I say, no, Waymo, we need local control, and I agree with this amendment.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh so um I don't know if that's the end of yours, but we'll get that up on the screen and uh we'll just get your confirmation that we got it right.

Council Member.

Yeah, I just was going to add uh appreciate the accommodation um by um Council Member Capillo.

Thank you, uh Councilmember Campbell.

Um, you know, to the point about testing, and this is why I'm I'm there's the worker part of this, which I'm truly concerned about.

Um the people who use who drive as a primary source of income, and then the the many, many people who are hustling with additional work after after they finish their full shift of work to drive to make ends meet, huge concerns there.

And then this other part about them basically running a lab experiment in like live cities.

And the I I just want to go back to the to the bus example and and I and uh the the amendment was adopted, so I I don't want to go too too long about this, but I think it's just such a great example of Councilmember Camp uh Campbell's point of them not testing this first.

Driving around school buses where kids are being let out.

There's no going back from the harm that can be caused in if that goes wrong.

And Waymo initially denied that they were doing it, and it wasn't until video evidence was brought forward that they then said there was a glitch and that they were going to recall the vehicles and and and make those changes.

Our kids are not lab rats, and these tech companies are 100% willing to run lab experiments in our cities with our people unless we rein them in.

And um we can innovate, we can make progress, and we can demand that billionaires be responsible before they run their experiments in our cities on our people.

So thank you for um for the uh accommodation for the amendment here.

I'm glad we've removed this, and I think this is gonna be an incredibly important conversation next year.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Yelavera, and I think we'll get that uh that additional amendment up on the screen again.

Pretty straightforward Council President, thank I just want to note that because that was item seven and there's 11 items, the platform would need to be renumbered such that former eight is now new seven and onward, just as a scribbener's issue.

I'm sure hopefully they can figure it out and word doesn't bellow them too much on that.

So um all right, thank you, Councilmember Ila Rivera, thank you uh to my colleagues for supporting that.

Uh, we'll go next to Councilmember Foster.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um, Council President.

Um I do um I believe at committee um I did indicate that um I did have concerns um with language um and indicated that I would um support moving the item to full counseling, um hopefully take care of some things in between um time.

So um thank you, Walt, and and thank you for all the um conversations you have had um with my office.

I do think there are some um items that I think we still need to um go through.

Um and I'll try to touch on these quickly, Walton.

Let me know um what's actually in here and what hasn't.

Um so I think um one item under focus um uh point one under the federal section item number 40 um would like to add support legislation that attains funding for community development block grant disaster recovery program to rebuild disaster impacted areas and provide crucial seed money to start the long-term recovery process.

Um I think that's something that I would like to see um added um if the maker of the motion um so it would be um focus one homelessness housing affordability and community services, federal section number 40, like to revise it to read as such.

I believe we have um documents to bring up.

There you go.

Understood, uh Councilmember Foster.

That would that would be a there's no 40 now, so there would be this would be a new total item.

No, that that looks uh I can absolutely support that.

Um any anything to grab more funding for any sort of uh support for folks in our communities that have been impacted by disaster, absolutely necessary.

So I think that's something I would uh I will accept.

Thank you.

All right, and council member Campbell.

Uh I agree, and I thank you for catching that.

All right, thank you so much.

All right.

Uh and thank you for providing the language, and the city clerk will add that uh to the rapidly growing motion in front of us.

So I think I have sure more items to to continue to go through.

Um also have um add language to focus 2.1 transportation infrastructure mobility and vision zero, state section number 34 to revise to say support legislation of funding that convert key underutilized highways in the state into multimodal corridors to reconnect communities divided by transportation infrastructure.

So I think there's kind of just uh the intent there is to capture the things that we are working with Caltrans on uh for highways that have separated um communities like district four to to look at modes of transportation to reconnect and have that access.

Understood.

Just as a clarifying question, underutilized highways.

Does that mean uh a state highway?

Like there's a lot of key roads that are considered highway.

Do you mean freeways or do you mean state highways?

And and I think that's where we get technical.

I like to encompass so many different names that maybe we just I don't know a better way to do do it versus highways versus state roads and in the the technical classifications, but the intent is any um I would support both and we direct our government affairs staff to go after both.

Yes, very good.

Thank you.

I'll accept that.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

All righty.

The next one is uh sorry.

Um Council Member Campbell?

Uh yeah, I I'm not sure about the the word highways.

Could we say highways and roads?

Or because I'm sure there's other other roads that are could we find that?

I think that's what we kind of unutilize roadways.

Yes, highways and roads.

Yeah very good.

I accept.

Thank you.

I I approve.

Thank you.

Okay.

All right.

We'll get that added as well.

Next one, Councilmember Foster.

And then have um add language to focus 3.2 economic development.

The federal section number five, um, to instead read uh support funding and measures to maximize resources and incentives available to benefit low and moderate income communities as well as opportunity zones, promise zones, and the San Diego Promise Zone Alliance.

Thank you, Councilmember.

That sounds economic development, federal section number five.

Oh, under federal.

Yeah, it's under federal.

Okay, because there's this seems to be very similar to what was under the state number three that was struck.

So member, if I can just clarify since these are federal programs, yeah.

It really was square peg roundhole issue, so just making it clear that this is a federal issue.

Correct.

Oh, it's just simply adding the last eight words, the San Diego Promise Zone Alliance.

Very good.

I accept Councilmember Campbell.

I'm happy to accept.

I hope it works out.

Giving City Clerk a good workout here this morning, but that's what we're here for.

So anything else, Councilmember Foster?

Yes.

Um also um like to add language to focus 3.2 economic development state section number 23, which would be I guess a new um section, a new item support legislation that requires financial institutions to have a continuing and affirmative obligation to meet the financial service services needs of the communities, including low and moderate income communities and communities of color in which the covered financial institution conducts substantial business as specified.

And this is to cover certain gaps that we are seeing in regards to RTF, which is the reinvestment um task force and the issues we are having.

Um I guess I'll say with the new administration and certain things that are taking place to to try and make sure our banks are still engaged in um doing the good work that they should be doing.

Understood.

I'm just contemplating is it this I I mean accept this.

This I think this is already this is a federal law that already exists, but the federal the current administration is undermining it through rules, cuts, and different things like that, correct?

Yes, sir.

Okay.

Yeah, absolutely.

Let's accept it.

Okay.

And then and just to kind of let this body understand what we're facing there, is in RTF, the banks have actually approached this, and and right now they are um the way the bylaws and certain things are written, they are at the table, actual voting members where they are really pushing to take a back seat be advisory in nature and not have any true accountability.

So those are the things that we are struggling with with that body.

Um also are we good?

We're good there, Councilmember Campbell.

I want to make sure council uh member um Campbell.

Yes, I just have one question uh as specified at the end of the of the uh amendment.

Um where is the is the specification already in in our platform?

I believe this is an added item for further clarification to handle the CRF type things that we are running into.

I don't know if the as specified is technically required.

I'll look to the attorneys, but I think our intent you could put a period and not say as specified, but you could put a period there and that captures what we need.

After substantial business, or as required by law, maybe at the end.

I'm certainly in favor of this, but I just I think we could just period right there.

I I think we could just put a period that to have substantial business.

So for example, as we have is I'll turn to the attorneys.

Uh good morning, Hilda Mendoza, Deputy City Attorney.

Uh it probably does make sense to just put the period um at the end instead of as specified.

That's that's fine with me, and um I certainly agree with it.

Okay, we got that.

Okay, got it?

All right.

Um the um language um regarding um the ALPRs, um, I actually have in my um my motion to actually remove it.

I do appreciate the conversation um by my colleague, Councilmember Um Campillo.

Um I think um with the with the technology being here and and what we're faced with, I think I will um not address that here um based on what has already been done.

I think my only ask or clarification, Walt, if you can help me.

This was just in the state section, but I don't believe there's anything in the federal section.

Can we also make sure we have this in the Fed?

I don't know how your communication works, but if we can make sure we put this in the federal section as well, uh, because I don't know what the what's coming from that side.

Yeah.

And I would turn to Hilda.

I don't know if there needs to be an additional motion to add something in the federal section.

Add the Councilmember Campia's current motion into the federal section as well.

It would be best to add it in both if that is the desire of the council.

Maybe if the maker of the motion would also say, hey, we can add a new item to the federal side under this section.

Certainly good point, Councilmember Foster.

So what is in section five number 30, the new language as amended should also be reflected in the federal side as a new item number 26 to mirror each other exactly.

Yeah.

I get I agree.

Yeah.

All right.

Thank you for that.

And then lastly, can you sorry?

Does the city clerk understand?

Okay.

Thank you, Council President.

Um lastly, and and I believe this is my last one, Council President.

Um revised language, um, I think it says here focus five, state section number 32 to rewrite and and indicate support funding of programs and agencies that provide public safety, mental health, or legal services for those charged with treatment, mandated felonies under the new Prop 36 statute.

And I think that's just to um kind of add some some other things in there as we deal with Prop 36 and the things that we run into.

Clearly, there's a public safety component as we deal with folks in certain um circumstances.

Um just make sure we have an opportunity to try and the state of what I call kind of kind of deal with the state mandated type things that they push down to is to kind of say, hey, let's keep uh make sure we have a broad conversation, a robust conversation to cover all our gaps, I'll say from a financial aspect.

Understood, I think this is appropriate.

So this would be a a rewording of item 32, which addresses Prop 36, but gets into more of the into the um nitty-gritty of of exactly how we're gonna help people through that funding.

So yes, I'll accept that.

Very good.

Okay.

Um and so I think oh, I'm sorry.

Oh, it's okay.

I have I have one question quickly.

Um it's among the general public, it's thought that there is a law in the state that when the legislature mandates something, they have to pay for it.

Is that incorrect?

I'm sorry, can you repeat that, Councilmember?

The general citizenry has the belief that in the legislature, when they make these programs, they need to fund them, that it's in the law that they fund what they make and not put it on everybody else.

Is that correct?

Uh I wish the general general citizency were right, unfortunately that is not.

Um Prop 36 is a perfect example of that statement.

Could we could we somewhere add something about that?

But to for others to think about on the day aside.

Um, I think it's an excellent idea.

If the state adds a law that is expensive, that costs money, they need to provide the money to carry out that law.

I'm not sure how to word it, and I'm not sure where it would fit in.

But it's state, not federal, although the feds should do that too.

Um, but to put it on everybody else is wrong.

Um can we add that?

I I would have no objection from my end if you wanted to offer amendments saying saying that, Councilmember.

I would I would like to offer that amendment.

Can we kind of kind of get this back in control?

And we'll but on this on this particular one, I would agree to second it.

Okay.

And we can circle back after all the other council members have had a chance to weigh in so that we can give council member campio a timely basis.

All good.

No, I appreciate you, Councilmember Campbell.

I'll just say that in the uh I guess it's the preamble uh support fiscal stability and funding opportunities.

It does say that we will oppose measures that make the city more dependent on other governments for financial stability, such as unfunded mandates.

So it's it's right there saying we are against that as a overall policy.

So I think I think you've your your desire is reflected and is ready to go already.

Great.

If we can carry that forward into a specific law, that would be wonderful.

Thank you so much.

Um we'll go next to um Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Um if we could put the uh ALPR language uh item 30 back up on the screen.

Um I think that the work done by Councilmember Campillo and Mr.

Bishop to update that language from what was originally uh in the platform uh is an improvement.

I think what is currently there is better than the original.

Uh but was wondering if we could put the current status back up on the screen.

Yeah.

Give us a second.

There we go.

Okay.

Um so my preference, and uh I would uh respectfully offer this amendment, um, which would simply be to uh remove the word regulation and replace it with deployment, such that it said support legislation that preserves local control over the deployment of ALPR technology.

I'll explain why I would prefer that.

Um I certainly think that uh cities should be able to make their own decisions about the deployment of ALPRs.

Um but I do think that the state can have an important role in regulation, and in fact uh they already do.

Uh and specifically, the City of San Diego, uh I have supported some of the limitations that we have put on ALPRs, particularly regarding how long the data is shared and with whom the city shares the data.

And if the State of California were to say, you know what, the City of San Diego is doing things right, and we should pass a law that requires that uh all cities limit how long their data is shared and uh limit with whom they share it.

I would not want our city to be in the position of automatically um opposing uh that kind of regulation.

And if the state, for whatever reason, were to come forward with a regulation that we did oppose, uh, we could oppose it at that time.

So this would more truly reflect what I believe if it said local control over the deployment rather than regulation.

I wanted to see what the maker of the motion would think about that.

I appreciate that uh level of nuance.

Uh I appreciate that you're making it let's make it as simple as possible, but no simpler.

I appreciate that, Councilmember Whitburn.

Yes, let's do that.

I think the point that you make about regulation versus deployment is is a valid one, so I accept.

Okay.

Thank you, Councilmember.

I am happy to take out regulation, put in deployment, and I thank you for your insight on this issue.

Okay.

Thank you.

Does that conclude your remarks?

That's simple.

Thank you.

Yes.

Uh we'll go next to Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Uh, thank you very much, and thank you to my colleagues for all of this um robust discussion.

Thank you all as well for bringing this up.

Um we uh Jeff was actually asking us all to disagree earlier today, and I actually do want to politely disagree with my dear friend and colleague, Council Whitburn.

I do not agree that the state should ever be regulating how we as the City of San Diego deploy or utilize or have control of our technology.

Gavin Newsom just vetoed a bill last year that would take down how many days we could uh folk ha hold sensitive data on crimes for people to uh people don't report crimes right away and they wanted to take down how many days we'd establish the city of San Diego, it's 30 days, and we should keep it to 30 days.

I would oppose state control telling us how long we can keep our investigatory data and who knows what else they could do.

And so I just I don't like state control of our land use decisions either.

I'm very appreciative that Councilmember Campillo put in taking out mission bay and other sensitive park lands, for example, from the surplus lands act.

Um so I would be okay if we said preserves local control over the deployment and regulation of automated license plate readers, but I I'm not gonna support that change to item 30.

So if the maker of the motion would be okay with the deployment and regulation, if not, I'm gonna have to vote no on the whole legislative platform.

So I will leave that up to you to reimend to add regulation back into the language.

Can I jump in real quick?

Well, can you one of the things we didn't talk about is how the platform works.

Um to Councilmember Whitburn's concern.

Um I would assume that you would use some discretion that says, for the example, if we love what San Diego's doing, we want everybody to do it, that you wouldn't go up there and pound on the table and say no.

Correct.

And I think a little bit of trust factor here, but 100%.

Um in regards to I would view like the the previous language pertaining to regulatory, like as broad in regards to deployment, that would mean deployment, that would mean time.

Uh, for example, as Councilmember Von Wilbert mentioned regards to the time clock uh bill, SB 274 specifically.

That would so I would view the regulatory aspect to be broad in that uh which would include deployment and other things.

So member Campbell, you have a something to say before, right?

Yeah, deployment as I look at it and think about it further, the word deployment may be interpreted by others as meaning the placement, and that's it of the camera of the ALPRs.

And so I think maybe um regulation is right.

I know we we have uh only 30 days and may um but the the governor wanted 60.

So he was wrong for us.

Um so you know, I think maybe we better go back to regulation.

Like to hear what my comments are.

I'm open to hearing what my colleagues have to think about this one.

I I uh the nuances of the words are are are important.

Um I appreciate what Councilmember Von Wilpert is saying.

We do things in a better way than the state might ask us to do or demand of us to do, I should say.

Uh uh, I think the the original amendment I made to transfer it away from opposing certain types of legislation and going to supporting legislation.

I I I don't I think the concern you're pointing out, Councilmember Von Wilbert is legitimate.

I think that the sentence as written doesn't go as far as you're pointing out.

And the reason I say that is because if there's legislation that changes the regulation, we're not going to therefore oppose it or support it.

The way it's focused right now is local control over the deployment, right?

So do you have any last thoughts, Councilmember Von Wilbert?

Um I just I don't want the state dictating to us how we have control over our surveillance technology at all.

Can I offer a suggestion?

Um what if we changed local control to support legislation that preserves San Diego's control over its deployment so that this is focused on preserving what we do?

Um I don't support the way some municipalities use ALPRs.

I do support the way San Diego does.

So I don't want to preclude the legislature from narrowing the scope of what's possible, but I want to preserve our rights.

So what if we said support legislation to preserve San Diego's control over its deployment?

How about we split the baby and say local San Diego's control over the deployment and regulation?

I don't approve of splitting babies, but I will go with that language.

Okay.

So if we made the motion to say support legislation that preserves San Diego's control over the deployment and regulation of automated license plate reader technology to ensure robust oversight, transparency and private protections, I'd be okay with that.

It's automated because we're talking about a road, but of its automated license plate reader technology.

Yeah, I would be fine with that.

Okay.

Does that work for Councilmember Capio?

We're having a committee meeting of the public safety.

Right in this made up.

Yes, I will accept that.

Councilmember Campbell.

Let's do what we can to get folks clear as to what we're aiming at.

So I will support.

Oh sorry.

Sorry, Councilmember Campbell.

I always love uh quoting King Solomon.

Uh so thank you.

I agree.

Let's support it.

Okay.

Does City Clerk have that?

And I do prefer the term sausage making rather than even if it is in the in the Bible.

So all right.

Is there anything else, Councilman Woodburner?

Or I'm sorry, Councilman Wolpert, you have the floor.

Yes, thank you very much.

Okay, I appreciate it.

And you're right, that is just a term of art.

I I also agree without not splitting babies.

Um thank you.

I appreciate and also uh you know, folks called in this morning to our office from the trust coalition and others and express my staff expressed to me your sentiments, so know that they do get to me.

And I I realize we're all on the same page.

This was about having local control over our technology, we made that happen.

Um thank you to uh my colleagues for bringing up other important priorities.

I also agree with uh Councilman Ilo Vera and not having uh Waymo use our city as a laboratory, and I'm glad you pointed that out.

Um I'm also glad that we're still supporting uh the legislation ensuring the proper disposal of lithium-ion batteries over the holidays.

Parents, when you get buy presents that include lithium-ion batteries, please be very careful.

We're going to have we last year we had many house fires and trash truck fires because of improper disposal of lithium ion batteries.

So please do be careful with those.

My last question is in line um on page 33, line five about federal funding.

Why are we striking out support federal legislation and funding to address wildfire prevention, preparedness and recovery, including home hardening, enhancing defensible space, and brush management.

Why would we take that out?

I see we have that in the state level priorities, but why can't we argue to the federal government, Councilmember?

So it was in earlier in the document.

So that's that it was repeated earlier on in the section.

So I thought it was redundant, so hence the removal.

Okay.

Can you just show us where it was already stated?

So you're on page 33, correct?

So uh item number two on the state side, I'm sorry.

Um, and then I think that was my my point was it's in the state side, why not at keep it in the federal side?

And councilmember, I'm sorry, this uh I I believe this was in an earlier section um on while uh pertaining to wildfire.

So in regards to having the authority um to advocate on behalf of that, um believe this document already gave us that authority.

So um you'll see in a certain sections throughout the same topic being discussed.

Um that was the rationale for just cutting in there.

We're still gonna be continuing to engage on wildfire legislation, funding opportunities, et cetera.

So at the federal level.

Correct.

That's in here already.

Yep.

Okay, all right.

Thank you.

Then otherwise um I will support the motion.

Thank you to my colleagues for working through the language.

I appreciate it.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Uh we'll go next to Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Do we have the updated language with all the additional discussions available?

Uh good.

Okay.

Maybe I'll speak to it uh while we're at it.

Thank you to the public for their feedback and I appreciate my colleagues for uh their efforts to to further update the legislative platform in a number of ways.

Um I too, I think was looking at item 30 um for the item about ALPRs, and um while I appreciate your explanation for why you had that in there and then the recommended language to change that.

I think if I see the language, I'm gonna note that at this point it basically says to support legislation that preserves San Diego's policy, which seems extremely specific.

I mean it just means it would never get used, I presume, unless it was a legislative item that specifically preserves San Diego's policy.

Um you bring this up because I think there was some discussion about the possibility of removing the language altogether, in part because I I I don't see the necessity of it, other than that if there was an effort that came by at the state level to completely eliminate the technology, that that would probably be the result of a pretty robust conversation about potential issues that I think we would talk all take heed to.

I I certainly agree that it's the regulation of it that I am most concerned with.

Um I agree with Councilmember Von Wilpert that what we have in San Diego, uh well, and Councilmember Whitburn as well, that what we have in San Diego is very different than what we have elsewhere in the state.

We actually have arguably the most um heavily regulated use when it comes to ALPR technology.

Um and that's what I think we would want to preserve at the minimum.

And so for me, shifting from um opposing some or shifting away from trying to prevent something to supporting the regulation of the technology is I think more in line with where this council stands.

But again, I think the updated language has become just so specific.

I'm just questioning it's it's yeah, it's effort to actually achieve anything that we're aiming for.

Sorry, go back to the first page.

There we go.

I hope that makes sense to the motion maker, but support legislation that preserves San Diego's control over its deployment regulation.

I I would still agree with Councilmember von Wolpricker that the I I think the best way to have worded this, if we wanted to keep the language at all, would be to simply support legislation that allows the regulation of LPR technology.

Again, knowing that we do so at an extent larger than others.

Um curious for feedback from colleagues.

The one other suggestion I would make here is to also, if possible, add uh one section at the end about um uh about protecting us from federal intervention uh when it comes to the use of the technology.

And that's what we added.

No, I think uh the language to the federal section means that we're simply taking this language and copying it to the federal section.

I think unique to the state level.

If there's legislation at the state level that specifically addresses the potential for federal intervention to uh with ALPR technology and the data uh with that, that's something I think the city should support.

I don't have a sentence for it at the moment because uh the way the language is I again I would I would almost prefer that we actually just remove it and if there's an item that comes to the state, a bill that we are concerned about specifically because of what it might do to the technology that we just bring that forward to the council and have a discussion around it as opposed to uh I mean this seems to pigeonhole us into a pretty specific um case.

So that's a motion to strike the entire item or an amendment to motion to strike.

Yeah, I'll I'll move to strike the language here as or that section about supporting legislation moving forward.

Understood.

As it relates to paratech.

I appreciate I appreciate the notion that you're pointing at.

I think we've done a lot of sausage making on this particular sentence and um respectfully decline to strike.

I think at this point we have uh we've done a lot of input and I don't uh respect what you're putting out there.

I think we're being very clear about what it is we're trying to protect here.

I think that if it was changed back to local control, that would encompass San Diego, and if anything was to overcome local control, that would be against our policy priority here.

So it I think the interchangeability there is still clear as to what we're aiming at and gives the government affairs team um direction as to what to try to protect versus what not to.

So your point's well taken.

I think I'm gonna decline at this point.

I I understand that.

And and this is where I think Councilmember Woodburn had a good point as well, because local control, if we simply just support legislation that preserves that at the state level, then it would also allow for the municipalities who pr choose to use their technology in a very um in a very different way than the city of San Diego, that we're actually defending them as well, which I think is significant discomfort.

So or I have significant discomfort with that as well.

So both of those things make sense.

I mean, I'm curious to others' feedback on it.

I I'd almost suggest it it's worth a further discussion if we choose to keep this language, we'd at least be purposeful about what we're trying to achieve.

Um sausage making is difficult in trying to follow our general uh protocols.

Um Councilmember Moreno has not spoken yet, so I want to give her an opportunity.

So thank you.

I think in my 15 years at City Hall, this is the most robust conversation we've had about our legislative platform.

So kudos to you, Mr.

Bishop.

Uh I know this is uh a really difficult effort, and um I am always very gracious to you and the work that you and your team does.

Um, this legislative platform includes priority areas that are hugely important for the residents of D8.

Uh I am pleased to uh see support on community land trust to enhance the viability of housing.

Uh District 8 is um incubating two community land trust case studies, one in Barrio Logan and one in San Isidro, which were highlighted, I think two or three L UNH meetings ago.

Um, supporting these land trust um supporting this land use strategy, I think holds promise for the city of San Diego, and I am looking forward to seeing progress um on streamlining those efforts for um future land trusts.

I also appreciate the clarification on the surplus land act made by EDN by the EDNI IR committee.

Um I agree that the surplus land act is a good tool in our toolbox, but also that certain public land um like parks and open spaces are not suitable for housing.

Um housing in section one item 48.

I do appreciate the support for affordable and middle income housing, including a push for SB uh 1462 as it relates to condominium projects.

Um also in section one, the platform reiterates the need for support on middle income housing.

Uh this is a major um there's a major gap in the current housing stock, and something that I have spoken about at length here for the past seven years.

Um I am an advocate for creating programs that can help middle income home buyers access home ownership and subsequently be able to tap into all the benefits that home ownership does bring.

Um, in fact, I work closely with the San Diego Housing Commission to explore the structure of a middle-income first-time home buyer program, which uh would really only need seed funding to move forward.

So I do want to put that on the record.

Um, but having language in this platform that is meant to support legislation uh that can increase middle income housing and home buying opportunity, is something that I strongly support.

Uh moving on to section two on sustainability, environmental quality and infrastructure.

Uh, this past January we saw fires in Otai Mesa and also in Eastern Chula Vista.

Um in January 2024, Shelltown and Southcrest, amongst other areas of the community, experience catastrophic flooding.

Um, but both those communities are examples in district eight of the um realities of our communities confronting climate change.

So now more than ever, residents um need the support to stay insured or pursue insurance to protect themselves.

Um it is critical that the city advocate for state legislation that reforms the um insurance market and also aims to tackle the insurance affordability crisis, which is just has gone bananas in the state of California.

Um so support for climate resilience through pre-disaster mitigation activities, is also uh essentially a special uh uh is important in our disadvantaged communities.

Uh continued advocacy for federal funding that prioritizes stormwater infrastructure in historically disadvantaged communities, can ensure projects like the Beta Street Channel and storm drain improvement projects, can be brought to fruition.

Um it is in our best interest to monitor and advocate for sustainable funding and oppose any cuts to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Uh Development, also known as HUD.

HUD funding supports a range of programs within the city of San Diego, and it also is the funding agency behind the community block uh development grant disaster recovery program.

This funding gives storm-affected communities a chance to access financial assistance to start to recover through the reconstruction.

And also has the first-time home buyer uh assistance.

Uh this grant funding, much like other federal grant funding must be championed, even I would say, and you know, I've also been I've had my pulse on the city of San Diego's state and federal grant funding, and um although the audit this past year showed that we're doing just so much better than we have in previous years.

Um I will ask for my extra three minutes.

Um I I will still continue to push us to um apply to work together with our uh state legislators, also with um the different agencies that do provide funding.

We just we need to do a better job at that.

Um so moving on to section 2.3 item 20, water quality and uh reliability.

I've been very clear on my concern about the increased cost of living in the city of San Diego, so I appreciate seeing advocacy for low-income water assistance programs to alleviate the cost of water and um wastewater rates, something that seniors and low income families confront in my district every day, and it's very badly needed.

Um, um, I found the language in section five related to legislation on the issue of automated license plate readers to be problematic.

Uh just last week, I think it feels like last year, but just last week I voted against the continued use of ALPRs in the city of San Diego.

Uh the privacy breaches and legal violations discussed at the council hearing on um ALPRs clearly um signaled to me that these systems have the potential to introduce more risk than harm.

And when it comes to the use of ALPR technology, um I think me and my community have been very clear on our position.

Uh, we do not feel confident that these uh systems, even with updated policies, adequately protecting um their privacy or civ civil liberties.

Um it's just it's still my concern remains with the use of uh ALPRs in general.

Um so uh given that this document guides the city of San Diego's lobbying efforts in Sacramento and Washington DC, I simply cannot approve it.

Um I don't want to put my name to anything that um lobbies for the use of ALPRs.

And so for this reason, um, with all due respect to my colleagues and also to you, Walt, um, I will not be supporting the motion on the floor.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilman Moreno.

So I'm gonna jump here so uh just real quickly, uh, since we're not going to a second round of comments by uh council colleagues.

Uh one, just a heads up it is noon.

Um I've been informed that some individuals uh may wish to depart at 1230 because of a special event uh down the lobby.

I don't know how many are going to possibly leave.

Um we have a whole housing authority agenda still uh before us.

Uh fortunately, we do not have any non-agenda public comment periods coming up, so we don't have to navigate that.

Uh, all of the housing authority items are information items.

Uh, and while we kick them to the very last, oh no, even past the last council meetings, uh, they're going forward, we'll figure out what happens if in fact we do lose uh quorum.

We want to be respectful and give them the appropriate amount of time uh if we do bring them forward.

Nevertheless, um council uh deserves its time as Councilman Moreno said, the for the most robust conversation about the legislative platform.

Uh I don't intend to bring any amendments as the language is currently going.

Uh, a couple of observations that I'll make at the end before we vote.

Uh I'm comfortable with the original language for amending item 30.

I'm equally comfortable with how it has evolved in its current language to the degree that influences any of my colleagues.

So with that, uh we will go to council member Campbell.

Thank you.

I'm glad we're continuing for a few minutes at least.

I um I'm a little confused about the process here.

Um my colleague Kent Lee made a motion uh to amend, and the maker of the motion declined to accept it.

I was not called upon.

I don't know if I need to be called upon.

No.

Uh so long as he uh objects to it, then you don't need the second person involved.

Um I I would like to ask a question about this amendment, though, that's up on the screen.

And uh first of all, Walt, do cities uh often in the state legislature bring uh legislation to the floor that involves only their own city.

Uh sometimes, council member, uh usually it's very narrowly tailored to name your name your topic.

Excuse me.

Um and then in some instances it's broad and has a statewide nature.

So that it under certain circumstances you can do narrow, narrowly tailored legislation to a specific community.

Okay.

So that does happen sometimes.

So what I'd like to suggest is that instead of saying San Diego's control, which could be assumed to be the county rather than the city, I think we should add preserves the city of San Diego's control over its deployment regulation of automated license plate readers.

Perfectly good.

I'm fine with it.

You're fine with that?

Oh, maybe say.

Well, it's up to the maker of the motion, but I'm fine with that personally.

I thought I said in the microphone perfectly good.

Yeah.

Okay, so I'll make that.

Okay.

Thank you.

No, we don't want you to be doing anybody else's business, Walt.

So I am going to bring a motion to change the name of the county of San Diego.

There's too much to confusion.

We'll do the city seal first and then we'll do uh get rid of this confusion between San Diego declared anyway.

I'm sorry.

Uh council member uh excuse me, Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

After hearing everyone go back and forth, because we all are are trying to iron out a word or two and and the meaning of them just for this one small segment.

I think to me that reaffirms how complex adding this line has become.

And and I don't see the necessity of why it needs to be in this document when any bill that's brought forward uh can immediately be brought to this council for a discussion to actually address.

And that might be the easiest way to actually address anything that um tackles the technology versus here we are trying to discern between the City of San Diego and other entities what it means to be local control if we're preserving or regulating deployment or regulation.

Um so I am once again going to make uh a motion and understanding that the maker of the original motion uh is not gonna accept it as a friendly amendment.

I'm gonna make a motion that we strike the language regarding the ALPR technology, that's Section 30, um, and ask that it be uh considered for a um an up and down vote if there's a second.

Councilmember Foster.

If I may, um I would second the motion, and I just want to just be clear, and and and I agree this is the more we discuss it, the more language we put in.

I think there's more of a concern, and I just want to be forthright.

And as we talk about different municipalities, I am very concerned about OCON and what they have publicly indicated.

I am also concerned when we have folks such as a sheriff who take certain positions when it comes to certain things.

So as we have had this conversation, I do think right now the best thing to do is to remove it in its entirety and we can handle things as a um as the discussions are warranted.

Um so I would second the motion.

We have a motion on the floor that was originally made by Councilmember Campillo seconded by me.

Uh so can we finish with that first, please?

Actually, this would be a motion to be appropriate.

Right.

So I think Council President Protam initially offered a friendly amendment, which was rejected by the maker of the motion.

This would be um uh it I think it's entirely appropriate under Robert's rules if I can possibly remember them correctly, uh, to call for an individual vote on a specific proposal um to simply strike Sir.

Just name this a substitute motion.

Then you can proceed with it first.

Yeah, yeah, I think from a Roberts Rule's standpoint, this would be to propose an amendment to the motion run to allow for an up and down vote on the amendment.

So it is still within the same motion.

That's still within the case.

Because I'm not we're not changing anything else within the motion.

Okay, we're taking control of the motion.

So and we have a second.

I will just add very quickly, I don't know anybody else has any comments.

Um I think we absolutely have to have this in our platform because everybody else is talking about it and taking strong positions on one side or another.

Um the original amendment by Walt was a little cleaner, and I was supportive of that, but I'm okay with the way the language is, but I think we absolutely have to take a position.

Um we had a very difficult vote the other day, in which, with all due respect to some of the comments that I've heard was all about Flock and actually very little about ALPR.

The trust coalition told me about FLOC.

They didn't talk to me about ALPR.

So I think for us to take a position on something that is a hot topic across the state in light of what the federal government is doing is entirely appropriate.

That's my two cents.

Uh Councilmember Campia, did you want to speak?

Yeah, just to be very clear.

So a yes vote at this point on what you're about to call would be to remove Section 5 public safety number 330 and the potential federal section item number 26.

A no vote preserves the language in the platform as is.

Okay.

Thank you for that clarification.

That's your intent, Pro Tem.

Correct.

Thank you.

Okay.

And Councilmember Campbell, did you add want to add anything?

I'm sorry, I had a little interruption.

I didn't hear the whole thing.

I was just simply saying a yes vote gets rid of any mention of ALPRs of no vote at this moment, keeps it in the platform before we move on to the full package.

Is that everyone's understanding?

Yeah, I think so.

I see a lot of notes.

If you want to keep what we're all made the motion on, you vote no.

Correct.

Okay, thank you so much.

All right.

With everybody agreeing, and that we understand what the proposed amendment is by Council President Pro Tem Lee and second by Council Member Foster.

Uh please call the vote.

I have sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

And the vote is four or five with council President Lacava, Council President Campillo, Councilmember Von Wilper, Councilmember Whitburn, and Councilmember Campbell voting no.

Thank you.

So the motion stays as it was displayed on the screen.

Um I think I got through Councilmember Campbell and Campillo.

Council President Podem Lee.

Well, given that that is the result of that, I will make one last uh hopefully friendly amendment that we add the language to the end of that section.

Um as well as to prevent federal intervention.

Um I would agree to us supporting legislation that prevents federal intervention as it relates to our ALPR system that the system that well we've been discussing for the last 20 minutes, right?

Okay.

Nothing else.

All right, good.

Uh I think they're gonna need the literal words for us to be able to codify that.

Okay.

Thank you.

So we're not gonna have another friendly amendment.

Council President, while they're working on that, I just wanted to bring up one issue with Mr.

Bishop if I'd be recognized.

Yes, please.

Uh I I did a thorough search related to an issue that Councilmember Von Wolpert brought up earlier about the striking of I believe it's public safety federal section number five, uh, and that you're you had pointed out that there was redundant language.

I wasn't able to find that redundant language.

So I there's obviously this um platform has been gone through multiple reiterations uh over and over.

So I I will make the additional amendment to the motion to reinstate number uh section five, federal area number five to get rid of the strikeout so that that language is in there.

I think that um good job for Councilmember Von Wolpert to see that.

Um looked up wildfire throughout the entire thing, and I can see where it would have been confusing, but I think it's important appropriate that we unstrike out number five.

And Councilmember, that's my mistake.

I apologize on that.

No problem.

Thank you.

Okay, I think they were still trying to catch up on the last one, but uh we'll get there.

Uh I'll be happy to second that.

Okay.

Uh is there gonna be any other comments or are we close to wrapping?

Okay.

Uh well, I'm gonna make uh just a few comments as I promised.

I don't have any amendments myself.

Um I do appreciate inclusion of uh items that were driven by resolutions that my office brought forward in the council supported the Make Polluters Pay Act to hold fossil fuel companies accountable on the resolution to support state legislation to lower investor-owned utility rates.

And actually let me stop here, because I know we had some comments by the public callers.

So when you talk about lowering investor-owned rates, there's dozens of ways that we could do that.

Um I appreciate maintaining those as legislative priorities.

Um I especially want to thank my colleagues for the previous work that they did coming into this at EDIR, uh, especially Councilmember Campillo on the surplus lands act.

Uh I think that was incredibly important.

I know the mayor's office was working on that, but to really make it very articulate so that the outside uh world understands what our goals are to try to eliminate some of the confusion we saw earlier this year, uh, as well as greater enforcement of products sold at smoke shops.

Um I also appreciate that we're actually putting language in there that uh may also help some of our sister organizations, uh Housing Commission, um, housing voucher recipients, San Diego Community Power, MTS Sandad County Water Authority to name a few.

I appreciate that we see these things as being holistic efforts going forward.

Uh what I'll close with uh as the city clerk is finalizing things is uh we did see some confusion earlier this year about SB 79.

Um I think we got that clarified over the course of the year.

Uh and a lot of these platforms support this, support that, have very broad discretion in there.

Uh and so I would like uh to request through CODA and while some closer collaboration with the city council uh when there's very specific items.

Um I think as the council president knowing state legislation can continuously evolve, it's like when do you jump in?

Um taking a position on a very early version of the bill may be mute, moot, excuse me, uh, by the time a bill actually evolves.

And so it gets a little bit tricky, but I think closer collaboration with council uh as very specific measures um uh come forward.

So uh with that I'll be supportive of the motion.

Uh we'll wait for the clerk to actually be able to put all that good work uh sausage making in front of uh for final review and vote.

Wow, really?

Yeah, it's your reading glasses on, so we can go to the first slide as well.

The first slide, uh nothing change.

No, the I think there was one small change.

Um, I'm just going first slide.

Uh there was no language, and we did add the additionally support legislation that is opposed to federal intervention of ALPR systems.

Is that capture support state legislation that is opposed to federal intervention of ALPR systems?

Yeah, it might be missing a word then.

Yeah, I'm missing the of ALPR systems.

Sure.

And we can add the state.

I don't know if that's going to be interpreted differently written that way.

Can you flip back to the first page?

Yeah.

No, I think what we want to do is we want to support legislation that prevents federal intervention.

That prevents federal intervention.

So that prevents instead of opposes, correct?

Yeah, that prevents federal intervention.

Yeah, I think that's why prevents was it's giving up.

Taking a few moments.

No idea it is to kind of get a sense that I think there's only one person that's gone for that.

All right.

So the language is up there, just a little bit of tweaking to how item thirty is being modified.

Looks good to me, Council President.

Okay.

As soon as Council Member Marina gets back.

And Council Member Campbell, we'll take the vote.

And then we'll talk about what we're doing next.

And then I'll just uh if you can show the second slide.

And I know it's really teeny tiny, but we did add the restore the strikeout language focus five federal section number five at the bottom and put the language there.

All right, we have the final language up on the screen.

Good job, everyone coming together and figuring out how to amend it in the most robust conversation we have had, or perhaps will ever will have.

So uh with a motion by council member Campillo moving the staff recommendation as amended, and a second by council member Campbell.

Please call the roll.

I sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

The motion?

Sure.

Mary, can you bring up the motion again?

The second page.

First or second.

We added roads and took out as specified.

Go back to the first slide.

From the printouts that you have the second slide, we just added the number five and the first slide.

A lot of language changed.

That passes six to three with council member Ilo Rivero, Councilmember Moreno, and Councilmember Foster voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, everyone.

Thank you, Walt.

Thank you, Mayor's office as well.

Okay.

Twelve twenty-five.

Um I've been informed that four individuals are going to leave for an event at twelve thirty.

Uh another individual is probably gonna leave.

That means we'll lose quorum.

Uh this item was actually or this special meeting was booked until two o'clock, so I'm gonna suggest we recess until one thirty, uh, and then we'll have the housing authority matters come forward at one thirty.

Uh they shouldn't say things like this out loud, but are expected to go pretty fast.

We're only gonna have one presentation.

They're all information item.

Uh so unless there's any extensive questions or comments.

I know there's some folks in the audience that may be coming here for the housing authority items.

Uh, but do I have five people coming or four plus me?

I'm sorry, Council President.

Uh um, is item seven oh one on the legislative flavor?

Yeah, we'll bring back seven oh one as well.

Okay.

Uh yeah, good catch.

My apologies I rushed it too much.

Do we will they wait downstairs?

Yeah.

Half hour is enough for the event downstairs.

Okay.

Okay, we'll based on council member Campbell's cultural understanding.

I guess we can come back at one o'clock and finish off the rest of the work.

If is it okay, well?

Thank you.

I'm always leery about expanding the amount of time, but uh so we're going to trail uh seven oh one and the housing authority items uh when we reconvene at one o'clock.

And again, my apologies to the members of the public that have sat patiently through this period.

Steady as the stars in the wood.

So happy high in the war.

Rancher inside these boats.

Steady as stars in the woods.

So happy hard in the world.

Ranch please.

Steady as the morning here we go.

Oldest steel how we grow.

Happy as a new door we grow.

Steady as the flowers here we grow.

Happy as a new dawn we go.

Yes, the merriest.

Happiness and friendliness for all.

May your heart be filled with cheerfulness.

Happiness and cheerfulness and friendliness for all.

We wish you the happiest, the happiest.

The happiest, yes, the happiest.

The merriest.

Yes, the happiest.

We wish you the merriest, the merriest, the merriest, you'll cheer.

And the happiest, the friendliest, the merriest.

With that, City Clerk, please introduce item seven oh one.

Item seven oh one is the approval of First Amendment to federal legislative and executive branch lobbying contract, consent to assignment agreement, and conflict of interest waiver with Holland and Knight LLP and Manat Phelps and Phillips LLC.

Uh thank you, City Clerk.

Do we need a presentation on this?

I'm not seeing that we need anyone, so thank you for returning, Walt.

Uh clerk, please go to public comment.

I have no public comment here in Council Chambers on this item going to those participating remotely.

Nobody has their hand raised.

That concludes public comment on this item.

All right, I'll turn it over to my council colleagues for any questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

Council Member Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll move approval of the item.

Essentially, sometimes lawyers and lobbyists at one law firm move law firms, and so getting this documentation is how we make sure we preserve uh privileges and confidentiality and other important components of the contract.

Uh Mr.

Uh Bishop, just real quickly.

How many years before the RFP goes out uh for uh rebidd of this type of contract?

Yes, so the current contract's uh up uh February first, twenty twenty-seven, so we'll be working through twenty twenty-six on a update RFP for uh before that contract term expires.

Very good.

Well, I'm pleased that we're gonna be maintaining the same representation as they move over to Manette Phelps and Phillips that does have a local office uh for uh good representation.

Holland and night, obviously a great place, but does not have a local, so glad to keep the same people in place, and that concludes my motion.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Member Campbell.

All right, thank you.

So we now have a motion by Councilmember Campbell.

Uh excuse me.

Uh, motion by Councilmember Campillo, second by Councilmember Campbell to move the staff recommendation, not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Clerk, please call the roll.

I sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

Sorry, just because I saw Council Member Moreno come in.

Thank you.

So we will adjourn as the City Council to convene as the special housing authority meeting.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

The public comment period for the housing authority minutes is now open.

Please note each speaker will have one minute per item per person.

The items being approved are for the meeting of Tuesday, October 21st, 2025.

I have no speakers here in Council Chambers going to those attending remotely, starting with the original I wanted to say the audio was cut um for the last item.

And so you know you couldn't hear anything when you guys started the meeting.

I had to like disconnect the audio and bring it back.

So I don't know.

I mean, and I was on the whole time, nothing changed, but all of a sudden it had an X with audio, and there was no way to hear anything or even give any input on the last item.

So I just that's a problem, but continue with your meeting.

Well, I mean, you know, I wanted to be able to comment on the last item, but you there was when you can't hear anything in the meeting.

I'm sorry, you were having technical difficulties.

You can speak on the minutes.

We have nothing, no technical difficulties on our end.

No, it said the audio was cut, so I didn't do that, but there was no audio coming in.

We will look into it further.

Would you like to speak on the minutes?

No, go ahead.

Blair Beekman, if you'd like to speak on the minutes.

Yeah, hi.

Uh just a quick um I think the um was there uh yeah, the executive uh director gave one of her formal reports.

Um I really like her reports uh that she offers.

Um she's trying to address uh how we need to balance uh state and federal issues uh with ourselves at the local level in San Diego.

The local San Diego level is that words that can be applicable and helpful to you guys.

Um she does a really nice job with that.

And um Yeah, so I just wanted to thank that work, that balance we're trying to understand and work out.

We can't agree with Trump all the time.

Good luck in ways that we can uh make agreements.

And if we work towards our good principles and get goals, hopefully he'll listen to that.

And good luck in those efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment on the minutes.

All right, thank you.

To the uh my colleagues, unless there's any corrections.

Can I get a motion to approve the minutes?

I'll move the council president.

Councilmember Campio.

And a second by the Pro Tem Lee.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Campbell.

God, a motion by council member Campillo.

Uh a second by Council President Pro Tim Lee, the agency members uh of the housing authority.

Um not seeing anybody else, please call the roll, clerk.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

With that, Clerk, please introduce Housing Authority item one.

Housing Authority Item One is an informational item.

HA1 informational report from the Housing Authority interim executive director.

If you'd like to speak to this item, please be sure to submit a speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box, or raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you.

Well, Miss Jones, if you could introduce yourselves for the record and then let us know how much time you need for the presentation.

Uh good afternoon, Council President.

Um, about eight minutes.

I'm going to skip the first few updates in the slides that you have and go straight to the main item just in um consideration of your time, if that's okay.

All right, and for the record, this is Lisa Jones, the executive director of CEO.

Please proceed.

As we continue each day to work toward positive outcomes for our community, like groundbreakings and grand openings.

We are mindful that the past year has been one of significant change, particularly in federal policy and funding priorities.

We are experiencing diminishing resources and greater budget uncertainty as costs have increased and the need for our assistance continues to grow.

I have briefed all of you in the past couple of months about one particular initiative out of many that we have developed to address our fiscal challenges.

This change is in our largest voucher program where we are experiencing a significant deficit, and where we serve approximately 14,005 500 families with needed rental assistance.

We know how important that rental assistance is to the families we serve, and we must be transparent about the challenges we're facing.

Right now, SDHC isn't receiving enough federal funding to fully support all the families in our Section 8 housing choice voucher program.

At the same time, the cost of providing rental assistance has continued to rise, making it harder to stretch our resources as far as we need to.

To help close this funding gap and avoid the untenable possibility of ending assistance completely for some families, we've had to make some difficult decisions.

Last Thursday, our Board of Commissioners approved the changes we've shared with you during in-depth briefings.

These updates will adjust how we calculate each family's contribution towards the monthly contract rent.

We understand these updates will be a significant change, and we're committed to working with families to support them through this transition.

By increasing contributions across the program, we're aiming to address the deficit in the voucher program and avoid having to end assistance for over 1,700 families.

I want to be clear though that we are not just looking to our voucher program to mitigate fiscal challenges.

We are in the midst of a robust process of conducting assessments across our agency focused on containing costs and exploring options to generate revenue.

We have been going through an ongoing analysis that has and will result in reductions in SDHC staff, including leadership positions.

Multiple leadership positions have been left vacant through attrition going back the last two years.

Since July, additional staff positions have become vacant and will not be filled.

Other positions became vacant before the current fiscal year from January through June of this year and also were not filled.

This was not apparent in our budget for this fiscal year because we brought some property management positions in house, so staffing in the budget was flat, but we really reduced costs.

The reality is we're reducing staff through attrition.

We are also being very thoughtful and reorganizing so we can continue to support all of our programs and so our frontline staff can continue to do their work with the resources they need.

Additionally, in July, we did not provide performance incentive payments to our senior leadership teams.

We also did not provide performance incentive or cost of living adjustments to our senior vice presidents and executive leadership team.

We are trying to do everything we can for our senior staff to absorb some of the financial impact because we want to provide everything we can to our base and the families we serve.

Cost containment and revenue generation are also major areas of focus in our strategic plan, which was approved in October.

About 50 to 60% of the plan is focused on those areas specifically.

We are looking at what our core functions are and what our ancillary functions are that we can still support and ones that we cannot.

And we're trying to make sure we're focused on the main activities of our rental assistance program, our real estate development, all of our 4300 units we own and manage, and the people we serve within them, and our homelessness programs.

As we move forward, our next immediate step in this update process is to forward the proposed changes to the U.S.

Department of Housing and Urban Development for review.

We anticipate hearing from HUD in February or March of 2026 about their proposed voucher changes.

If HUD approves, we will start a thoughtful, thorough noticing process to impacted families in our rental assistance program.

Our notices would include information about the continued changes taking place, why they are necessary, as well as resources available to households to prepare for the changes.

Families will have many months to prepare as we expect to roll out the updates to all households in the last quarter of calendar year 2026.

We will also collaborate with community-based organizations to hold resource fairs at a variety of locations, reaching directly into the community to engage with our voucher families.

And we will offer job readiness, financial literacy, and referrals to community-based resources through our achievement academy.

At the heart of everything we do is our commitment to the people.

We received 45 written comments from the public, 33 of which were relevant to the plan, including a few from Sims from some seniors.

The comments demonstrated a need for additional information specific to their household and the impacts they may experience, which underpins how important our outreach into community will continue to be.

This is to ensure we effectively reach affected families to share important information about the proposed changes and to connect families to both SDHC resources and community resources to help them successfully transition through the program changes.

We also want to foster a collaborative effort with policymakers, advocacy, industry, and community groups.

We've conducted nearly 40 briefings so far.

We're also working with community-based organizations to leverage their community connections and to host resource fairs at various locations to bring resources directly to our voucher families.

We've identified a number of potential resources to assist families with preparing for the proposed changes to the voucher program.

In addition to the resource fairs we will bring into the community through our collaborative partnerships, we've created a community resource page on our website at www.sdhc.org.

And includes links to information about the changes in nine languages: English, Spanish, Vietnamese, Chinese, Arabic, Tagalog, Farsi, Somali, and Amaric.

As part of our next steps, we are following up with our community partners to assist us with that further building out our resources page.

We are asking them to help us make sure it is easy to navigate and to suggest any additional resources families may need.

And this will be an ongoing effort.

As I conclude my update today, I have to share that throughout this process, we have experienced an overwhelming desire and commitment from our community partners to collaborate with us and assist the families we all serve through this program change.

They have offered support, community space, and suggestions of resources to bring forward.

It has provided a lot of assurance that the strong system of care in our community can and will come together to make sure housing choice voucher families remain stably housed.

In a time where we are seeing challenges at many levels across our community, their kindness and dedication gives us hope.

And I am truly filled with gratitude for their kinship.

That concludes my report.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you, Ms.

Jones.

This was a particularly tough one, which you've gone through the past few months.

So with that, clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Natalie Rashke, if you can please come forward.

Hi, Natalie Rashki with Lived Experience Advisors.

I know this was informative, but I have information that I would like to produce as well.

We've been gaslighted and scapegoated as if we've failed it as a community or a city or a county.

HUD has created this problem that I'm currently living in.

We have the Urban Renewal Renewal Act.

It was called the Negro Removement Act, 1950 to 1970.

HUD used federal housing money to bulldoze black neighborhoods, highways, and industrial corridors, and downtown development.

One million people were displaced nationally.

James Baldwin famously called it the Negro Removal Act.

HUD funded projects like this in cities such as San Diego, St.

Louis, LA, and New York.

We have the high-rise warehousing, 1960 to 1990.

HUD pushed cities to build massive high-density towers.

HUD underfunded maintenance for decades, causing buildings to fall apart.

HUD's own inspector reported catastrophic management and public housing oversight.

It goes on and on.

HUD created this problem, and now we're being forced to deal with the problem that they created.

And nothing's going to change unless HUD is called out and held accountable.

How we go about doing that, I don't know, but I have some ideas.

But I am letting you know that I'm going to continue to push this issue.

I'm directly affected.

I have an EHV, and I was told it was last till 2030.

It's being cut by August of 2026.

So I have about nine months to figure out where I'm going to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sorry at the five minute timer here in Council Chambers.

And we'll go to those participating remotely.

Starting with the original, we currently have four people in the queue.

If you can please unmute.

When you pull back the layers, but it's interesting because you know there's so many people that have been waiting on this list.

It doesn't work the way that it, you know, should or you know, is professed to.

But when you guys are, you know, choosing to give housing to people who have come here illegally, like the people that were at Cesar Chavez Park in tents, you immediately took them off the street.

And it's sad because there's people that have been on the street that have been suffering that don't get that same kind of treatment.

And so there is a reason why the funding should be cut when it's not being utilized the way that it needs to be, when it's not helping people.

It needs to be either reformed, audited, whatever.

But it's sad because people will wait for decades just to even get on the list.

And how many of the people that are using these vouchers are actually illegal immigrants who had gotten here over the last few years.

And how many people have you turned away saying that they're not, you know, important enough to get this kind of help?

So they have to go to places like Dreams for Change and die there.

And be laced with fentanyl.

Things like that.

I mean, it is so sad.

The way that you guys, you know, want to blame and and you know, blame shift and and and put the the accountability on someone else when you guys aren't taking accountability because those people at that park should not have gotten first dibs at things that people who were already at that park that weren't an illegal immigrant because it wasn't such a sensitive thing.

It's almost as if you wanted to get them off the streets so that you can't see that.

But then all the rest of the people that sit down there at City Hall at night just wanting help, but then you're told, oh no, they don't want help.

Yet when you ask them that, they say they do.

And there'll be people like 80-year-old women sitting there and waiting, just waiting for help.

Thank you for that concluding comment, Julie Porter.

If you can please unmute.

Hello, this is Julie Porter with lived experienced advisors.

Hey, the good news is I got a cost of living increase from Social Security.

That amounts to about 30 bucks a month.

Yes, it's a little, but come on, 30 dollars a month.

And now I'm being informed that my share of rent will go up instead of 30% of my income.

I'm going to be paying 32% of my income.

I know that doesn't sound like much to a lot of people, but to me that is.

Thank you very much for hearing me today.

That's all I have to say.

Thank you.

Thank you, John.

If you can please unmute.

John, I can unmute for you.

There should be a pop-up.

I will have to.

Good afternoon.

Uh good afternoon.

Can you hear me now?

Yes, please present.

Yeah.

Good afternoon, City Council.

Uh this has been a tragedy on top of a tragedy.

I I just I think that people do not understand it that as we continue to see jobs disappear because of AI, the need for social support and safety net will increase, not decrease.

And instead, we are ripping out the shreds of what was left of a social safety net uh over decades.

I can't imagine having to make these kinds of decisions.

You can hear from the voices of our members, members who know that they're losing vouchers that were supposed to be in place for 10 years, uh members that are challenged financially every month to scrape by and put food on the table and make ends meet and and maybe have a little bit of money left over for some joys here and there.

I um I don't know what it's gonna take to turn people around to understand how traumatic these changes are for people that are living in the systems.

The trauma is real.

Uh people on their streets now really understand that there's no hope for housing.

People that are in housing are terrified about losing their housing, that what was considered to be permanent and supportive and stable is no longer seen that way.

Uh and yet we can we seem to be headed even further down this path given the latest had no foam.

Um this is inhumane, what's happening?

I don't care what you think about the people that it's affecting.

Uh and I can say for most of those who are paying attention that AI is coming from your job too, and you're gonna need the very same system that you're cheering on decimating currently.

Thank you very much.

And our final speaker is Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman, thanks a lot for the presentation, and um, I'm very sorry for what the uh director is having to go through.

Um I'm really I guess understanding that losing this voucher program is uh it's a really good important program.

And when these types of programs are cut, um it really takes away our humanity.

And um we've been really trying to work to not do that to ourselves.

So this is surprising.

This is happening.

Um I think from the previous Trump administration, uh, when was that, 2017 to 21.

Was there HUD practices doing these things this severe?

I don't think they were.

I'm surprised to hear that I've always trusted HUD has been working towards really best practices.

So there may be a serious problem here, and um a real breach of humanity may be happening.

I'm very sorry.

Um what the DRA uh really nice public comment.

Uh the person offered a good history lesson.

Thank you.

Uh and DRA then offered what I think is an important subject.

Um the Republicans have taken something of a slash and burn approach, it sounds like with this item.

When it's it is more specific in the asks of what problems may be.

And boy, they really gotta learn at the national level how to work more specifically with this issue, it sounds like.

And we are bearing the brunt of it.

Good luck how we can present that to federal agencies in the future and make clear um what what are important ways to be working.

Um man, I'm really sorry.

I mean, I it just hurts when uh programs get cut for no reason.

I mean, when they just take the humanity away from things.

That's not good practices.

Good luck and good reasoning.

I I I forgot to add that previously.

Good luck we can give good reasoning and and good practices uh with this item to federal agencies.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Comment on this item.

All right, I'll turn it over to the agency members for any questions, comments.

This is an information item, so no emotions required.

Uh Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

At least I just want to say thank you for not just the presentation, but the work that you and your team have done um all year.

This has been an incredibly challenging year to do this work.

The work starts with huge huge hurdles and um it's it wasn't easy before and it's only gotten more difficult.

Um the federal changes obviously are are massive and and very, very painful.

Um the city's budget situation makes gives you almost no wiggle room to work with.

Um I also know that you were transparent about about seeing some of the potential um issues when we brought you on when we hired you.

Um and I know you've been working um to think about the best way to um cause harm to the fewest, the least harm possible, and to cause the fewest number of families possible to feel that harm.

And so I am very appreciative of that.

And and the last thing I just want to say is thank you for caring as much as you do.

Um that is not a given in these roles.

And it matters, and so I just want to say I'm very appreciative that it matters to you as much as it does.

Um, that the imp the decisions you make that we make um will have an impact on families.

I know that's not lost on you, and it I truly do appreciate that you care as much as you do.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, council, thank you, Councilmember Yelore Barrett.

Not seeing me up, Councilmember Foster.

Thank you.

Um, Council President, and thank you, um Lisa, for the presentation and and also to your team.

Um we are in tough times.

Um and I just want you to know that I do appreciate your efforts um in uh how you are um doing the best that you can do with um the current environment that we find ourselves in.

I know the decision that has been made in the circumstances we find ourselves in.

It was very difficult for you.

I mean, I think everyone really needs to understand that, or I hope everyone understands that.

Oftentimes, you know, as we are here performing our duties and responsibilities, I I truly do believe we can come up with any legislation or any type of policy.

But I think as we look at the individuals who are called to execute, I think hearts and minds are very important in regards to the work we do when we talk about public service.

So I just want to thank you for all your efforts and your continued communication with my office as we proceed and look at how we continue to house not only our most vulnerable, um, but just making sure that our folks are as a whole able to live in with dignity and pride.

I mean, so I do appreciate those efforts.

Um one um thing I would like to just quickly touch on in your presentation, slide seven, where we have community engagement.

Um I see that you um if we can make sure as we move forward to include the monitor, the San Diego monitor, um, as they do have a readership and um want to make sure that we are touching all um making sure we're just communication and grabbing as many folks as we know so uh communities are informed that we'd appreciate that.

All right.

So again, thank you.

Um and thank you to your team and uh as well.

Um that concludes my comments.

Um thank you, Councilmember Foster.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campbell.

I just want to say thank you also.

I remember when you came and briefed us on what was coming, and I cried at that time.

And I I see you're still you're still grieving, and of course we're all we're all really upset about this, and I think that we're going to um need to really step up our uh our charity contributions.

And uh if you can help help guide us as to those organizations that are helping, we'd really appreciate it.

I would, I know, and I think my colleagues would as well.

Um this is just heartbreaking.

Um so we will pray that there will be change that the American system will work, and that we will again be can't become humane.

But I must say you have had problems from the very beginning with a federal government that gives 16,000 vouchers to a county that has three and a half million people.

That is ridiculous.

And that is why there's a 12-year waiting list.

And uh we we really need to step this up and um someday, let's hope uh soon, very soon, we're able to do that.

In the meantime, I can't thank you, your board, your staff enough.

As I've said in the past, I don't know how you guys do it, but you squeeze every bit you can out of every penny, and you really do a lot with hardly anything, and I so appreciate it.

And uh I just wanted to do that, let you know how much we love you and how much you mean to us and your whole organization, and please help us to know where we can go so that we can help in this situation.

Thanks so much.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Uh, not seeing anybody that lies.

Um, I can't say it better than Councilmember Campbell did.

So uh the work that you all do, you and everybody at the housing commission to get up every day and just go to work and do the best you can with this changing dynamic landscape is very much appreciated, and your willingness to share and be candid and give us a heads up about what's coming um is very much appreciated.

Um, and we see as others have said, we have seem to have so little options at our disposal unless we can tap into the philanthropic.

Um but um we'll keep at it.

Thank you for your good work.

Yes.

If I if I can just say thank you to all of you.

Um Saturday was two years that I've been in this role because um you gave me the privilege to lead on your behalf, and I just want to thank all of you for the support, um, the time and your just sort of unflagging leadership and being committed to creating more affordable housing for our community.

Our jobs aren't easy, you're right, but having your support and your strong commitment from every one of you to this work makes it a whole lot easier.

And I'm just grateful to all of you and to our staff who um continue to stick with us and do the important work through all these difficult times.

Thank you.

Well, we don't have a two-year pin, but we have our love and support, so um all right, thank you very much.

Um, and thank you for making this report.

So with that, uh clerk, please introduce item housing authority item two.

Housing authority item two is also an informational item.

San Diego Housing Commission semi-annual grant report, January 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2025.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please be sure to submit your speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box, or if you're participating remotely, remotely, please raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh City Clerk.

Um I'm gonna offer the opportunity to waive this presentation as well.

We do want to recognize the very hard work that staff uh has done to do the work of the grants and make this annual report.

So uh, with no disrespect intended, we'll waive the presentation.

Uh and clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

There's nobody here in Council Chambers for this item.

We will move to those that are participating remotely.

I'm sorry at the five minute timer, starting with the original.

If you can please unmute.

Yes, it is very sad to see all of this grant money when it's going to entities that are supposed to be providing help for homeless individuals.

And you know, when there's so many reports coming from Dreams for Change and the Safe Sleeping Sites, in addition to downtown partnership.

But instead of you know making sure that people are getting into housing, much of the time their caseworkers are flipped from person to person so that they can never get out of there.

In fact, Teresa Smith herself said that she wants people to stay as long as possible.

The goal should be that you want people to get out of there and get into housing.

And obviously, with their no being no avenues for people to take to get to that, you know, possibly that's why she would want them to stay there as long as possible, especially because she's gonna get funding if there is a need for it.

But when you have people that are told that if they file any kind of complaint, they'll be written up by Jody Waters, who actually said there were no rapes, even though there is a text message from her talking about a rape, um, and the encouragement to not actually report these to law enforcement or do anything like that and obfuscate.

And instead of making sure that people aren't dying from fentanyl, in fact, now that Trump has w labeled that as a weapon of mass destruction that is being distributed through Tent City.

So this is where our money is going.

It's not going to help these people like you wanted to help the people that were at Cesar Chavez Park immediately.

These people will die before they get out of there or be raped.

And they're hiring individuals that are on parole that have ankle monitors, that are dealing the drugs, even the security there is doing some kind of trafficking by bringing women to his apartment so they can be drugged and given alcohol so that they can have sex with him and his friends, and then be brought back so that they could get nice little perks just you know, for being there.

And the food that is provided isn't even food.

So this is what our money is going towards, and that is the problem that is occurring on a regular basis.

Thank you.

Next is John, if you can please unmute.

I just wanted to say thank you to the staff of the housing commission and uh and particularly the leadership of Leader Jones, Lisa Jones, uh, during this very difficult time.

I don't think that uh there was no good answer to what needed to be done.

This was the best solution possible.

And I know that they took time to reach out to all the communities infected affected and uh including our own, and we deeply appreciate that.

Thank you.

Thank you, next is Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Thank you uh for this item.

Uh in the sadness from the previous item.

Uh I was hoping for a presentation on this just to get a sense of uh how grant things can work for our housing issues.

I think it would have been helpful to our local community process.

What we need to hear at this time a bit of positivity and hope and and just best practices and uh sorry that couldn't happen, but uh good luck in how this item can move forward into the future.

Thank you.

Thank you, and that concludes public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Uh, again, this is an information item, no motions required.

We have any questions or comments by my colleagues.

Not seeing any.

Uh well, thank you both for the very good work that you do every day.

Uh, and your aggressive approach to getting grants and trying to figure out how we can fund the need.

So thank you very much.

So, Clerk, please introduce housing authority item three.

Housing authority item three is an informational item as well.

And it's the status of the loan portfolio fiscal year 2025 fourth quarter.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit your speakers up to the front of the room in the clear box and press star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you.

Uh, again, with respect for all the good work that it takes to bring these items forward and to manage the portfolio, waive the presentation.

Everybody's good with that.

Thanks to for showing up in case there's any questions.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment on item three.

Thank you.

We have Martin Horson here to speak on this item.

And you did have a time ceded to you by Brendan.

Not sure if he's here anymore.

Yeah.

We just won't be able to cede his time to you, but you'll have two minutes.

First of all, it's privileged to be here.

I'm sorry, can you go to the lar the higher mic and speak into it to those?

First of all, it's a privilege to be here.

Um I live in uh on Broadway in one of the buildings there.

And through the prior uh speaker, Miss Lisa Jones, I was actually introduced to the housing issue.

I've spent the last four months working on it.

And just by way of background, I'm worked at New York Life, JP Morgan.

Um and other large organizations.

Um I was inspired to look at the entire problem of homelessness and affordable housing in the in uh San Diego.

And I'd like to make a bold claim that I believe it is solvable today, over the course of the next few years, and I've developed models and strategies to uh demonstrate that.

Um, ask here is that um I be given the uh privilege of talking to either um um the director of housing association for 60 to 90 minutes, and um often she assuming she does not throw me out of her office in the next five in the first five to ten minutes, then follow her guide as to what the most appropriate step is.

But I'm standing here looking at all of you and telling you that I know there are ways in which on a on a city and countywide scale, this can be addressed today.

I am what I used to call a yellow dog democrat or a uh limousine liberal, but I know I believe I know how to do it or uh in a fiscally responsible way.

Um I'm lucky I started from first principles, and I'm not uh bound to any particular.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

I'm sorry your time has come.

Um so that's my ask, and I'm gonna leave some thoughts up here.

Thank you.

If anyone wants to reach out, going to those participating remotely, starting with the original, if you can please unmute.

It is absolutely disrespectful for you guys to go to your little you know celebration down in the lobby and have a desire to be out by two o'clock and disenfranchise the people by not showing them through your presentations what you guys are talking about, especially when we're talking about such significant and important items about the money that you guys are you know handling.

So I just, you know, it's like you guys, you know, don't really care about the public being able to go on to CCTV and have that be a means as to figure out what's going on in the city, because if you guys don't present that to them, they would have to then go back into the agenda to be able to figure out what you guys are doing with our money.

And it's just very negligent because you know, you obviously made it more important to go to a celebration, all while you are, you know, basically being completely rude to the people that have showed up to engage in public discourse and um you know governmental things, and it's just you know, we're paying you to basically come in then and you know, not give people an opportunity to really see what you're doing.

And I just find that more fraud, waste, and abuse can be hidden in that way, and you can further obfuscate things from the people's view so that they don't know, and you keep them in the dark, all while you sit and say that you want people to be, you know, informed or participate.

So, you know, it would I just it's just ridiculous the way that you guys make those choices because you know it's the holidays and you get to go spend time with your families.

You know, I mean, think about the homeless people right now that all of this money that you guys are engaging with is being wasted, and they don't have a family to go home to.

But you know what dreams for change does?

We'll tell them, hey, what do you guys want for Christmas?

Ask them, have them.

I did not do anything.

Um that does conclude public comment.

All right.

Um, thank you, City Clerk.

Again, we'll turn it over to agency members for any questions or comments.

Not seeing any.

Um, on behalf of them, I'll thank you for the very good work.

Um, and appearing today, uh, all the backup material is available on the uh agenda as always.

So thank you very much for showing up.

And this was an informational item, so no motion was required.

So we will now adjourn as the housing authority and reconvene as the city council.

Um, I'm gonna have a couple of comments as we wrap up our last council meeting of the year.

I want to thank my colleagues for a challenging yet productive year.

Appreciate the trust you've placed in me as we continue to deliver services for San Diego's, whether it's public safety, parks, or libraries, these city services are provided by the hardworking employees of the city of San Diego, employees who fill our potholes, patrol our beaches, and build the water, sewer, and stormwater systems that we rely on.

And all too often they're stretched thin, yet demonstrate each day their dedication to San Diegans.

Thank you for leading by example, and this council will continue to support you.

These council meetings would not be possible with a lot of people preparing the docket, organizing public comment, and broadcasting these meetings on Zoom and City TV, and in an emerging situation, at least we forget, with a moment's notice, creating a publicly accessible meeting over at Civic Theater.

So, with that, let's give a round of applause to Clerk Fuentes and your entire team.

Also, our friends on City TV deserve a round of applause for always being here with us.

And thank you to the mayor's docket office, Megan and Haley, and my Docket team, Louise and Heidi, for keeping these meetings organized and accessible.

Thank you to the executive detail that are here with us early and always stay light.

And finally, thank you to the members of the public, whether you were here for one item or every meeting, your contributions help shape our decisions, and we value the input and contributions.

So with that, happy holidays, happy new year.

And with that, we will now adjourn council to the next regularly scheduled council meeting on Monday, January 12th, 2026 at 10 a.m.

Everyone be safe.

And leave you cold in the time.