All right, good morning.

Happy New Year and welcome to 2026.

I will now call the City Council meeting of Monday, January 12th, 2026 to order.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilpert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee?

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting our city attorney Heather Ferber, independent budget analyst Charles Monica, and myself, your city clerk, Diana Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, City Clerk.

A quorum is now present.

Before we begin, I want to remind everyone about the city's practices and procedures for public comment at City Council meetings.

Speakers may address the council during public comment, and also in connection with a specific item of business on the agenda.

However, the city must make sure that no one person or group of people disrupt the meeting in a way that prohibits other speakers from expressing their ideas and opinions.

That includes excessive yelling, screaming, or speaking beyond one's allotted time or examples, a behavior that disrupts the meeting.

So to make sure that everyone here has an opportunity to address the council, I will alert an individual if I think their conduct becomes disruptive.

The disruption continues, I'll roll the individual out of order, and if the disruption continues further, I'll declare a recess so we can restore order.

If you'll join me in facing the flag.

All right, thank you for that.

And please read the closed session item into the record or items.

Conference with labor negotiators pursuant to California Government Code Section 54957.

Is CS1, City Designated Management Team Representatives.

Conference with legal council existing litigation pursuant to California Government Code Section 54956.91 is CS2 holder Evan M holder versus City of San Diego.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

With that, please proceed with public comment.

I have no public comment speakers here in Council Chambers, starting the five-minute timer and going to those participating remotely.

There is nobody in the queue with their hand raised for any of these closed session items.

So that does conclude public comment on the closed session.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

We will now recess into closed session and reconvene council today at 2 p.m.

or shortly thereafter.

All right.

Good afternoon.

We will now reconvene the city council meeting of Monday, January 12th, 2026.

Clerk, please call the role.

Thank you, Council President.

Councilmember Campbell.

Here.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Moreno.

President.

Councilmember Sean Ela Rivera.

Sorry for the full name, don't know why.

Council President Lakava.

President.

Also attending the meeting, our assistant city attorney, Leslie Fitzgerald, Principal Fiscal and Policy Analyst Jordan Jordan Moore for the IBA's office, Council Affairs Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Coda Zeiser, and myself, your city clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

With that, we'll start out with are there any comments from the mayor's office, city council members, city attorney, independent budget analyst, or city clerk.

Not seeing any.

I see nobody up here on the dais that needs a comment.

Thank you, Council President.

Capture Brath.

Yeah, I I have two comments to make.

Over the weekend, in a place where I used to live and practice civil rights law in Jackson, Mississippi, the largest and only synagogue, Beth Israel, was burned overnight by a self-proclaimed white supremacist.

And I reached out to them and I called my friends, Mississippi who attend that synagogue, and they're all devastated.

Luckily, nobody was hurt.

The one silver lining is almost every single other faith community in Jackson, Mississippi has offered them space.

Every Catholic church, every Christian church, every um UCC, all of them, which is very beautiful.

But uh hate continues to permeate our communities, and we have to stand up against it at every turn.

Um I also want to comment on the shooting and killing of Renee Good over the weekend in Minneapolis.

Uh it was horrific.

Um it was only a matter of time before this kind of escalation of Trump's direction of ICE agents was going to lead to an outcome like this.

We've seen the escalation in our city streets here.

Uh, it's been awful.

Uh, and then they rely on our resources on SDPD to come and cover them when they cause havoc in our streets.

And if you looked at the front page of the Standing O Union Tribune this morning, you can see a picture of ICE agents using a battering ram to ram down the front door of a home and go inside and pull somebody out.

Our police officers cannot do that without a court ordered warrant under the Fourth Amendment of the United States Constitution.

And it is very unclear that ICE has that authority.

This presidential administration has been lawless since he was reinaugurated, but it is getting extremely scary.

And so I just my heart goes out to the folks in Minneapolis right now and everybody, and um I just didn't want that to go unnoticed today.

So thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Walbert.

City Clerk, please go over how the public can offer their testimony.

Thank you, Council President.

I would like to now highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during this afternoon's meeting.

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 complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room and place it in the clear box.

Council ambassadors are available near the entrance of chambers and can assist with questions and speaker slips.

No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you for that.

And with that, please introduce item 200.

Item 200 is an informational item.

It is the public utilities fiscal year 2027 to 2031, five-year financial outlook.

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 if you're hearing council chambers to submit your speaker slip to the clear box at the front of the room.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Staff as you're settling yourself in, please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Good afternoon, Lisa Salaya, executive assistant director from the public utilities department, and with me is Adam Jones, Deputy Director of Finance at Public Utilities.

And we'll need 10 minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you.

Today's item is an information item on the public utility department's five-year financial outlook for our enterprise funds for water and wastewater.

I'm again just gonna give you a quick overview, and then on my next slide, I'll do some key takeaways.

And then Adam is going to get into some more details of our five-year financial outlooks.

The five-year financial outlook for the water and sewer funds.

Um, just to let you know and remind you, we've spent the last couple months talking about water and wastewater financial status.

Our prior five-year financial outlook from 2026 to 2030 served as the basis for our recently adopted rate case.

This five-year financial outlook updates the forecast for any actual results that occurred in FY 2025, any updated estimates for the current fiscal year, and any new forecasts for 27 through 3031, 2031.

We do utilize similar methodology for baseline assumptions as the general fund.

We do have one difference, and that is we do a slightly higher salary and wage adjustment, a little over three percent, and that is in consultation with the Department of Finance and also with the IBA's office, and we are all in agreement of utilizing that higher value.

In addition, we do incorporate the San Diego County Water Authority's recently released long-range financial plan and in its impacts on our forecast.

We also identify any caveats in regards to a lot of the information we are provided, does do high level.

Um, so as each year's rate setting at the water authority commences, we'll get additional detail, and we can provide that updates when that is available.

Our key takeaways from our five-year financial outlook.

As a reminder, the council adopted two-year rate increases for the water fund commencing on January 1st, 2026, and then another one on January 1st of 2027.

And a four-year rate increase went into effect for the wastewater funds.

We know what our allotment is in regards to that revenue that is allocated from the rates authorized by council, and our five-year outlook ensures that we stay within that authority.

As such, forecasts have been identified that our costs continue to rise to provide critical health service of water and wastewater.

What that means is that we may have to take additional strategic one-time reductions, primarily deferrals, in order to stay within the allotment identified from our rate authority.

I would like to note that our two-year rate, two year when we proposed our rate increase, we had identified a two-year delay in our CIP.

That was when we were proposing a four-year rate increase.

Because we only got a two-year rate increase, we are extending our CIP deferral from two years to three years.

And that is primarily because we can't put anything into construction without having a full knowledge of what our upcoming rate increases would be.

And that is, as we previously discussed, any deferrals, um projects, or programs that we deferred as part of our rate case are identified to come back on in fiscal year 2020 beginning in 2028.

With that, I'll turn it over to Adam to go through further details.

Thank you, Lisa.

Adam Jones, Deputy Director of Finance for the Public Utilities Department.

So what we have here is the estimates of what was assumed in our rate case from our wholesale provider, the County Water Authority, as well as the latest updates that Lisa mentioned that were including in their long-range financing plan.

One note we would have on the slide is that the while the county authority water authorities uh projections are in a larger document.

There's very uh limited information about the specific charges that are changing in any given year.

This is the only one that shows uh the volumetric rates.

This is the treated rates.

So city staff has used this to extrapolate what we uh, the city would likely pay for our mostly untreated water supplies from the water authority.

But generally, as you can see, the long-range financing plans assumes higher growth than what was uh assumed in the cost of service study.

Um, as mentioned by Lisa, there was a big push in the cost of service study, and afterwards looking at project prioritization, as this council is aware, we want we run one of the largest wastewater and water systems in the entire state of California as well as the nation.

Um we had initially proposed 138 projects that were going to be delayed as part of the cost of service project, and as part of this outlook, an additional 62 projects were considered for delay.

Um, we would note, of course, this outlook is not a budget, so the budget the council will be getting new information as we go through the budgetary process and as we continue to look at our uh expenses and our cash flows moving forward.

But generally, as you can see, we looked at prioritization, making sure that we maintained the health and safety, regulatory compliance, and then looked at the risk of failure as well as the construction readiness of projects.

Um, in this situation, you're going to see more things like pump stations and treatment plants and less neighborhood pipelines because the investments that have been made in the last 20 years have pushed us above industry standards as it relates to breaks in those types of communities.

This shows the sort of two largest scales of projects in the water and wastewater system, which is our dam safety program across our nine dams and reservoirs, as well as the modernization efforts at pump stations one and two, which date back to the late 1960s and are in desperate need of a of a facelift, as well as making sure that they're operating at the continued high volumes that we see during wet weather events.

Under the wastewater system, as Lisa mentioned, four years worth of rate increases were passed and have been assumed in this cost of 30 costs of this five-year outlook.

Um, in addition, the metrics that were associated with the wastewater system are generally in line with those that we were presented to you in October for the cost of service study.

Generally, we have, as Lisa mentioned, when we've seen increases, we're seeing uh momentary delays that allow us to stay within the revenue parameters that council has authorized for us.

Um, as Lisa mentioned, no strategic initiatives were included, no new ones, but it does include funding to finally have operational of pure water phase one expected in the next fiscal year, as well as those dollars needed for the planning as well as the study at the central area facility at the Point Loma Wastewater Treatment Plant.

Um, additional regulatory compliance and customer support investments to make sure that this is a public utility is moving forward and not backward as it comes to our major customers, including the uh the people we serve as well as the uh the highly regulatory environment we work in.

And so with that, I'll turn to Lisa to close out the presentation.

So, just a recap in regards to some key dates.

Obviously, we released our five-year financial outlook in December, had the discussion at budget committee on December 10th.

The IBA has a review of our um five-year financial outlook, um, and then today's council discussion.

And we're happy to answer any questions, but I do believe the IBA's office has a presentation also.

All right, thank you very much for your presentation.

Yes, and I'll turn it over to Jordan Moore of the Office of the IBA for a presentation.

How much time do you need?

Ten minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you, Jordan.

Jordan Moore with the office of the IBA.

As Lisa mentioned, our office released our report that's a review of this financial outlook.

We released it last Wednesday, and this presentation will give you a brief overview of some of the takeaways that we have in our report.

Next slide.

So this report, as Lisa mentioned, it is in type is intended to be a provide similar guidance to what the general fund outlook does as far as assumptions going into the future.

Our report also notes that this basically serves as a draft financial plan for potential future cost of service studies as well.

If you go in depth in our report, we provide an analysis on the various factors that are driving increased costs and then subsequently increased rates.

But we one thing that we want to make sure is a takeaway for council members in our report is that unless there are significant expenditure or revenue assumption changes that happen in the next year, this outlook and the rates included in it are the rates that council will be asked to approve in the next cost of service study.

Next slide.

What these rates are are shown on this table as well.

Uh, just for a reminder, the rates through FY 2027 have been approved through both systems, and then wastewater has also been approved for 28 and 29.

Um the rates that you're seeing here are similar to what was in last year's outlook and as well as the cost of service study, so there have been no significant changes in any of the rate increases assumed in any of these years.

Although I will note the rate increase for FY2031 for water is significantly lower than the increases that come in the years preceding, going down to 5%.

Next slide.

Even with these rate increases, the financial metrics that sort of judge the health of the system are showing where the system is going to go through significant strain.

In particular, I would note if you look under the water system for FY 2027, even with the rate increases that were approved by this council, the debt service coverage ratio is going to go down to about as lower than you would even advise.

You're going to have significant use of the rate stabilization fund.

I'll note that this study basically assumes using almost all of the rate stabilization fund for water during this time, and your days of cash on hand remain below target.

Again, this is with the rate increases that are there.

This really does show that the system is under financial strain and that the rate increases are needed unless other changes are made.

Next slide.

Our report does try to provide you a comparison between the last outlook and the newest one, just to give you an idea of where costs are changing.

This table in particular is to the water system.

One of the things you'll note is that the operating expenditures for the water system are forecasted to be relatively the same, with the exception of that bump up in FY 2028.

But overall, their operating expenditures are what they have anticipated them to be.

The biggest change for the water system from the last outlook to this outlook is the assumed changes in water purchases costs, which has to do with the changes in the long-range financial plan that CWA has put out.

Next slide.

With water purchase expenditure changes, there's two things that basically happen in this update.

First, the assumed use of local water, particularly from reservoirs and storage has declined from the previous outlook to the numbers you see here.

This is based through the system constraints as well as new reservoir use assumptions.

PUD for the last couple years has been extremely aggressive in basically getting as much water out of the reservoirs as they can.

However, during this aggression, they've basically seen what it is that they can do versus what it is that they can do on paper, which is why in FY 2027, you see a significant drop-off in the amount of water that comes from storage.

Luckily, or coincidentally, pure water phase one does begin to come on at this time.

So you will start to see more local water being produced by the city, which offsets the amount of water that you have to buy from the water authority.

However, in all of these years, even in years where we assume that we need to buy less water, the overall cost to buy that water keeps increasing.

And that is due to the fact that there are anticipated increases from the county water authority, which increase the cost per acre foot by 47.7% over this time period.

Next slide.

Why this is, and just worth noting, increased cost from the water authority still account for the majority of the rate increase needs.

I don't think I need to remind this council of the long discussions we've had, but just to give you a summary, CWA's biggest problem right now is that they are contractually obligated to buy more water than what it is that they are forecasting they're going to sell.

And this is going to start soon.

Even their long-range financing plan notes that beginning next year, they're going to drop below this number, and they're never forecasted to come back over it.

Even that long-range financing plan that graph that BUD showed in their previous forecast, the rates for CWA's water over the next 10 years are projected to increase by either 100% or 150%.

With that in mind, our office has once again reiterated recommendations that we have for the City 10 focused on updating the business plan for CWA in the next year, as well as right sizing CWA supplies, and we are recommending that major progress happen on this within the next year before those fiscal clips come.

I'll note a key takeaway from our report.

A reliable supply that no one can afford is not actually reliable or in the public's interest.

Next slide.

This is a similar table to what you saw before the wastewater system.

Once again, operating expenditures are slightly higher, but the biggest change in the wastewater system has to do with projected debt service costs.

However, PUD is still well within the forecast that they have and the rate and the rate authorities that they need in order to cover their costs over this time period.

Next slide.

So that's the big reason why you're seeing the water CIP go down.

Wastewater CIP is going up mostly due to updated cost projections on their projects as well.

Next slide.

This table provides you an overview of how there is anticipated funding for the CIP.

One of the things that we noted when we reviewed this table is if you look at the water system, the use of debt is fairly typically even in each given year.

And so you're not seeing wild swings in, for instance, cash having to come into the system or debt issuances or those kinds of things.

We did note that there are larger swings in the wastewater system, however, which is changing things such as revenue assumptions, rate increases when debt's gonna come, et cetera.

Most of this is because the water system does have a short-term borrowing program, so they are less reliant on getting debt when they do issuan issuances, whereas the wastewater system does not.

So we note in our report that this volatility could signal the need for additional debt smoothing options for wastewater, such as potentially starting a commercial program for the wastewater CIP, which could hopefully smooth out some of the swings that we're seeing in the wastewater system and its financial metrics.

Next slide.

So in conclusion, the PUD outlook does provide the initial basis for the expenditure and revenues that a future cost of service study for a future cost of service study that will be brought before this council and anticipated rate increases that will require council approval.

And since the water system only has one additional year, this council should anticipate another cost of service study that be introduced in roughly 12 months and probably having to approve another one in the next 18.

Well one of the big takeaways from our report is that increasing costs combined with sales assumptions that are basically flat are leading to the need for higher rates because as your costs go up, if you're but your sales are staying flat, basically that increased expenditure needs to be covered with increased revenue, and the lever for that is rates.

And so the final takeaway that we have if there are mitigation options that the council wishes to explore, and we put there all throughout our report, things such as looking at reservoir assumptions, asking the mayor to produce operating expenditure reduction options similar to the general fund.

I know there was discussion of doing you know additional non-rate revenues.

If the council wishes to explore any of these options, now is the time to make those desires known because we do have time before the next cost of service study to make some headway on some changes that could lessen the rate increases that this council may be asked to approve in the future.

And that concludes my presentation.

We're also available for any questions.

Thank you.

Okay, again, thank you to the staff from PUD for the presentation as well, Mr.

Jordan Jordan for the or Mr.

Moore, excuse me, uh, from the IBA's office for your good work.

So, with that, City Clerk, please proceed with public comments.

Thank you, Council President.

I have no um I have no public commenters here in Council Chambers going to those participating remotely.

We currently have three speakers in the queue, starting with Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute.

I'm sorry, the five-minute timer here in chambers.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Um happy 2026 to everyone.

We've had a tough beginning.

Uh, thanks a lot for the words of Council Person Bon Wilpert.

Uh she helped out a lot.

Um I wanted to uh thank you uh for this item, and um I wish more people from the public were here to talk about this item and to ask questions.

I don't know how to better ask questions.

Um thank you for the reporting uh and what you can be working on.

It was mentioned that we can have choices besides raising uh fees continuously and going for price and that price increases have to happen.

The the choices sound a bit difficult, but I hope we can work on them.

I know that um our transit agencies and like Sandag, they're working uh on plans that by 2027, not just Sandag, but transit agencies across the state are really having to work on uh their future uh economic forecasts and models.

I mean, they they possibly are going through some major changes, and this kind of reflects what you're talking about a bit.

I think more than just talking about you know how to cut services and and raise rates on people more.

We have to really be considering new economic models and new ways to uh develop our our our practices as a community.

I'm really hopeful that you can the the community can be acknowledging the importance of a slight uh some sort of uh property tax that can help with city services in the future.

We're all suffering from the parking issues, but overall that we can also be looking, besides taxing and and cutting of services, we really can be looking at new economic models.

I feel that um that don't that don't uh that can promote our practices without hurting ourselves, and we gotta figure out how to do that in the upcoming years, more than just uh taxing taxing.

Good luck in your efforts, thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Andrea Ebbing, if you can please unmute hello, um, this is Andrea Ebbing.

I wanted to um just also actually echo Blair Beekman's uh comments as well.

Driving revenue into the city will be a game changer for all these increases if we can kind of get back to, I don't know, back in the day was like I felt like we had this kind of community vibe that there were events and feeder market um promotions and different ways to work with um the major hotel brands like Starwood Hotels and Marriott to kind of do cross market promotions.

If we can drive revenue, that will help.

I also think somebody should really for sure for sure look do some kind of a study on the amount of water um used in poor day for uh for concrete.

Um so when they're doing like mid-to-high-rise buildings or any any any poor day for concrete really just requires so much water.

Maybe instead of uh putting the full uh tax onto the community, maybe there's a way to um do like a water, like literally charge for water for four days, or maybe go to like a hollow core or a pre-cast model versus um versus that.

But driving revenue would be kind of like uh an answer to so many of our issues, but the challenge we face in driving revenue is attracting people to a really kind of broken down city that we are right now.

So it's it there is a catch 22 there.

Um is it challenge, but it's still San Diego.

Like, yes, we might be under extremely corrupt and poor leadership at the moment um under Todd Gloria, but we still are San Diego.

So um I do think that uh a little effort and and more kind of like community engagement and and like fun, happy good stuff versus like super doom and gloom and taxing um might help offset these costs.

Thanks so much.

Thank you.

And our final speaker is Kathleen Lippett, if you can please unmute Kathleen Lippett, I can unmute for you.

There you go.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for letting me speak, and thank you to the Office of Independent Budget and Analysis for their for their assessment.

It's all they're always appreciated.

They're not always listened to by the city, but they are appreciated.

There seems to be two factors, both of which impact the owner are impacting onerous increases and exorbitant fees, whether it's uh energy from S T G and E or whether it's water.

One is the city's pension for obligating itself to multi-year programs into the future.

You cannot anticipate for very many years in the future because you don't know what the factors are going to be changed, how they're going to change.

And one of them right now seems to be we have obviously the city has obligated itself to buy more water than it is going to be selling.

The other factor is how much money is being spent on debt financing for multi-year projects, because the city cannot get its fiscal house in order, and it needs to stop spending beyond what it what it takes in.

And the other is look at your programs.

How much corruption is in there?

If you've got large programs with no oversight, no independent office that is looking at them to ensure that they are they are being handled properly, that they are the city is not continuing to throw money at programs that continue to have bad outcomes and increase bad endcomes.

You need to change that.

So thank you for letting me speak.

It's frustrating.

Thank you.

That does include a public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

Remember, this is an information item, no motions required.

And we'll start with council member Foster.

Oh, yes, thank you.

Um, Council President, thank you, um, staff for the presentation.

And um we did hear this item just recently before our recess um at the budget um committee.

Um and I think it's you know, as we talk about water rates is something that or or the outlook, something that's been in an issue for quite some time.

And I guess as I look at the IBA's report and appreciate all the work and attention that goes into it.

But I guess I'm just a little lost because I know we keep focused on the City 10, we keep focused on the County Water Authority.

In your report as you close, it says if there's any if in the IBA's report, if there are any mitigation actions that the council wishes for PUD and our office of research, such as operating expenditure reductions or alternative revenue sources.

I feel like we're re reiterating the same direction or concept.

And I guess my question would be to the mayor and maybe the the mayor's office and maybe the IBA and PUD is when will we get something to where we can have a conversation about efficiencies and internal things that PUD has direct control over to start looking at those mitigations to start looking at internal structures?

The same thing I would assume we are asking county water authority to do.

Why are we not sitting down taking that step to understand what we can do, what type of relief we can bring in?

Um perfect example, just what we're doing going through audit for Herc and understanding how we're renting cars and how certain things are happening.

When are we going to see more of that to where we can have those types of conversations about what we can't control at the same time working concurrently as we do with our external partners in those direct impacts?

And I can start off in regards to that, and I'm happy to anybody else add into that.

I would say that is what we have been spending the last um year on in regards to as we went forward with rate setting, and we continue to look at that in regards to how to reduce cost.

Um that's whether or not, and that's why some of the things spending money on like a condition assessment does make sense because if we identify condition assessment that tells us instead of just replacing an asset at the end of its useful life, you spend a little bit of time and you can save.

We had an example where we saved 80 million dollars.

We look at the HERC stuff in regards to reviewing our specific um utilization and how we can actually control that cost.

So all these things we are doing, we're happy to put forth additional information in regards to communicating that.

So I guess I'll go back to my question.

When will when will council have an opportunity to to have to see a document that indicates some potential paths to achieve what we need to achieve internally?

I think as Lisa said, the the rate setting process showed other additional revenue options, non-rate revenue that could um mitigate the cost that's passed on to our uh ratepayers.

But I think as you go through the budget development process over the next few months, that's really the true opportunity to lift the hood and see what's really going on within the department to find other pathways that you think would be more beneficial to mitigating costs that we pass on to our ratepayers.

Um and I think you've heard uh comments and commitments in the past year that we've had these conversations around water rates from Chair Serrano that he's doing the same exercise at the CWA as well.

Um and I think we've tried to, I think we've talked about it as a body about bringing forward um the City 10 to the council prior to rate settings at the CWA, so they have a clearer idea of what we uh what our limits are as we go through a rate setting vote.

Um but again, I think the next few months of the budget development process will allow us to you know lift the hood and see what other pathways are possible.

But I think PUD has done quite a bit over the last year to try to decrease the um impact of our ratepayers.

I think it's like 300 million dollars and other mitigating factors that helped that they cut essentially to help reduce the cost.

So well, like just I'm sorry, just I'll give you a moment to respond.

But I guess I take issue again, a majority of what you pointed out were external factors, which I appreciate and I think we still need to stay focused on.

But I'm looking for very specific internal controls, internal changes that can be made within the organization that we control, the decisions that you drive, what is your personnel look like, right?

In various departments and divisions.

That I don't feel that we have had those types of detailed conversations.

Not saying it has to be done here just yet, but somewhere you would think we would have that type of detailed analysis, and that is what I am struggling with to better understand and to look at the changes that we can make from an operational and efficiency perspective, right?

And that's what I'm driving at, and and we can have more conversations.

The other thing that I would like to point out just very quickly, and as we talk about mitigations right now, our mitigations, in my humble opinion, have all been centered around say I'm going to say cuts, and I'll use the CIP.

We go in and say we are going to delay certain construction projects, right?

Which in my mind, you know, impact different communities differently based on the um I'm going to say the assets life term.

I don't know what was the term that they use, the the the term of life for the asset, whatever it is.

You would think a community such as district four, we are one of the older communities, therefore we have some deficient, you know, some inherent deficiencies, right?

Um, or some upgrades that are needed.

I guess my concern is based on what we have seen, we have identified certain projects to um delay.

I think there's about a two-year period.

Um, but also we are also looking at the next phase of the pure water program.

And so I just want to make sure we're not losing sight of the the the if we are taking things offline at the same time we are looking at bringing things back online when we are doing phase two to where we don't end up in a very compromised situation.

So I just want to throw that out there to make sure we're looking at things concurrently and understanding everything that's on the table as we are continuing to move forward.

Because I'd like to think we understand what we do as we make those intentional decisions to defer maintenance and so forth and what we're faced with, right?

But I just can't stress enough I would like to see and and to to hear things brought forward or or brought before the council that really address those internal um efficiency issues because I do feel like we are continuing to spin our wheel on how we are dealing with CWA and just looking at external factors, if I can leave that there.

So no, I will just say I hear you loud and clear.

I will reiterate what I've what I've seen that PUD's done.

They have been taking those steps, the CIP delays, delaying projects, doing those things to basically get out of the way of the CWA thing.

The reason why our office has been so focused on CWA, I would say for the last three years, is not just because they're a convenient boogeyman because they're in an external factor, it's because the quickest way and most efficient way to getting affordable water rates, not just for the city of San Diego, but for the region, is for CWA to fix their problems because it's their problems coming down the pike that then PUD is having to get out of the way to do.

They have been doing things where I'm coming from, where saying, you know, operating expenditures, other things, is PUDs in starting to be in a very similar position in my opinion as to where the general fund is, right?

Where there are some efficiencies that can be done when you talk about things like fleet, like labor costs, those kinds of things, everything that impacts the general fund is also impacting PUD.

So if you fix one, you can start to fix multiple problems at the same time.

That said, it's also an indication of you know, if these rate numbers are not amenable to the council, and I don't think I will remember the conversations of a couple months ago, and they were not.

So now the next step then becomes are you actually going, do you we need to look into PUD's budget and really start to do, like you said, those significant service cuts.

I will say on the CIP deferral, I see the exact same problem that you bring up.

It's part of the it was in both of the reports, whereas if you keep deferring CIP projects to avoid a rate increase, those CIP projects are going to run into some other big projects that are on the horizon, and your capacity to be able to do all that stuff at once is going to be extremely limited.

So your spot on there.

I will say I've taken note of your concerns.

There will be more, there can be and should be more discussions about this when we get to the budget itself because PUD is one of the budgets you consider during that budget cycle.

Um, and so duly noted.

Um thank you.

This is informational, Council President.

I won't request any more time.

I'll like to hear from my colleagues.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Uh, we'll go next to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

All right, thank you, Council President.

Uh, thank you for the presentation, thank you, Jordan, for your work.

Um, I definitely appreciate Councilmember Foster's questions.

I um I appreciated seeing the reference to revenue from use of property.

How are the efforts going right now to this is not a small amount of leases that are in holdover status?

We have an item tomorrow.

We're bringing not a PUD item, but uh a lease from the city.

We're bringing um the lease to current terms is gonna result in hundreds of thousands of dollars per year for the city.

PUD has dozens of leases in holdover status.

Uh I'm not expecting all of them to yield hundreds of thousands more per year, but to the point of us needing to make sure we're getting as much as we as we are owed and deserve and as possible from non-rate revenue.

Um that seems incredibly important, seeing that zero percent is built in.

I understand why how are those efforts going.

What do you need in order to accelerate those efforts?

This definitely feels like a sp uh a a the type of work where investment would be worthwhile because it results in real dollars.

I agree.

We've um had really good productive um discussions with economic development working through in regards to first off some process improvements that we needed to do between the two departments.

But um we are very fortunate that you have city council approved um um a contract for them that they can utilize and they're gonna utilize it with us that we're gonna identify our priority project so we can give it to the we're working on the scope of work right now with those priority projects, priority leases, so we can move those forward.

They're gonna be used off of the contract that um economic development did get approved through council.

So that's great because sometimes resources are the constraint.

So them having that resource available for us, we're gonna be moving forward with that.

Um so we'd expect to have we're working on the prioritization in the actual scopes of work right now.

Um so I think we'll have more updates in regards to kind of better timeline within the next month or so.

But those are going really successfully, I would say.

Is there a ballpark either from you or the IBA on the sort of the gap between some of these leases that are in holdover status and what market rate would be?

No, and I mean our total leases were about seven million dollars, you know, for the entire portfolio beforehand, so I don't think we have any estimate right now.

Okay.

Um we'll continue to keep our eyes on that.

Um please do keep us in the loop about how that is progressing.

Um I'll do a quick follow-up.

I know this has been discussed before.

Conversations with San Diego Community Power, those are happening.

Any thing for the council to know on that end?

Um actually I have a meeting this week.

So yes, those are occurring and moving forward in regards to that.

Okay, thank you.

And then the la I think the last question, no guarantees.

Um so we have we have non-rate revenue.

Um I think that that's an important part of the equation here.

Everything that council member foster said as well.

Um there were conversations with the county about the use of of uh the lake and a willingness to pay for that access.

What's going on in that front?

Yeah, so we are continuing conversations.

They have passed a resolution through their county board on that authorizes six hundred thousand dollars for the next four years.

Um so we're working through in regards to a list of items that that would be funding for, um, and we're waiting to hear back from them.

We've given them some ideas, so we have another meeting upcoming with them to talk about what those would look like.

Got it.

Okay.

Um well thank you again for the work here.

Uh I I'm glad to see that some of this is is moving along, but um as has been noted multiple times, we know what is what is looming if um there aren't results of the efforts, and so uh it's just incredibly important that the communication be clear and constant with us, um, and then that we know what resources are necessary in order to ensure that the city has done everything that it can head off any unnecessary rate increases and ensure that the the system is the dependable high quality system that we we need it to be.

Um this is not an area where we can sacrifice quality for you know for cost, but there it there it is an area where we need to do everything we can to um resource as well as possible in ways that don't solely look to uh uh hardworking San Diegans.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Yellow Rivera.

We'll go next to Councilmember Von Wolberg.

Uh thank you uh very much for the presentation.

Um is there anyone from CWB here today?

No.

Okay.

We keep having these conversations in siloed manners, and it would be very helpful if we could get folks from CWA to be here.

I mean we have 10 of the representatives.

I'm not asking, you know, Councilor Whitburn, because he's here in his council capacity, but Coda, do you think in the future you could get some CWA folks to be here?

City 10 folks or staff from CWA?

Anyone?

Anybody, just a body, yes, council member, we can.

Okay.

Um it's so hard to have these discussions siloed when we have to approve all of their rates at once, and it's they should be here in this room in this conversations.

Um I'm also seeing uh notes that when it comes to our Metropolitan Wastewater system, we know that East County Joint Powers Authority is building their own uh pure water system, and so they may not be utilizing our wastewater system as much, which means we're losing fees that go from that system.

And so does this outlook account for the East County JPA project.

I'll answer that one.

So the projections uh do not assume the roll off because there's currently an agreement routing between the city and the 12 participating agencies that changes how the billing is going to be structured.

Generally, we expect that there is some revenue that will fall off, but while that's one of the reasons why to the IBA's point, we have left some funds in the rate stabilization reserve for the uh shortfall there.

We do expect after this new agreement is done that the city's contributions will increase slightly.

Uh but knowing that the city is already 66% of the metropolitan system, that change is gonna be relatively small compared to the uh the push-off of Padre Dam, El Cajon, and the county of San Diego.

So we have uh made sure that there's mitigating measures available to uh to react to what the new revised billing will look like.

Right.

Do you think I'll just add the revised billing um module that is currently being through negotiation?

We've negotiated on it.

We've had four agencies approve it.

We're slighted to come before council in March in regards to it.

Um but the other thing is is that there's everyday average roll-off that that'll impact, but during peak events like the January 1st storm, that they'll still need the system.

So there's gonna be fixed charges that they still have to pay because of their need of that system.

So they're gonna have some roll-off, but also some other new fixed charges.

Okay.

Do we know when that's gonna be ready?

When it's gonna be when the how all this will be decided, they'll made the decisions to let you know.

Everybody will have to approve it.

We will probably by the time that we come before, we'll have 11 of the 12 agencies approve it.

So our goal is to try to get it for July 1st.

Of this year.

Yes.

Okay.

And then you'll have to build this into the outlook once it's approved.

Yes.

Okay.

Um got it.

I'm also uh seeing most of the dam safety program expenses being delayed until FY28 uh due to revenue constraints.

Um one of the concerns I have is about Lake Hodges, and another question I would like to ask CWA if they were here, is whether or not they're going to be investing in the Lake Hodges Dam anymore.

We've been formally notified that they are not going to be paying the 50% for dam replacement.

So that is so we're still working through and what does that look like and what are we going to be doing about that?

But I will tell you in regards to dam safety and any projects that we're delaying.

Um we have the highest priority in regards to Hodges, um Murray, LCAP, all those like we still in regards to meeting our highest priority projects.

And I would add uh Lisa and the executive team are in regular communication with the division of drinking water dam safety program, the regulators on this one and making sure that all of our steps are in lockstep with the regulators to ensure the safety of the public.

Okay.

Uh good, because that's my next question.

Uh, one.

I mean, that is disappointing.

I'd like to, I'd like to know obviously not for this conversation, but offline, what our response is gonna be.

If our partner who's gonna pay half of the dam reconstruction cost of a potentially billion dollar dam is no longer going to participate, what are we gonna do?

Um, and also since that that to me, in my mind, puts off the reconstruction of this dam even further.

And currently uh Sacramento has ordered us to lower the water level to 280 feet, and that has had some pretty severe consequences for our communities.

Uh I know that the hydropower plant is offline um at this level, and it has resulted in explosion of brush growth in the Ranch Bernardo and Escondido areas, which creates such a wildfire hazard.

And this is the community that burned down in 2007, the Witch Creek Fire.

So we already know that this community is amped to burn.

And so I was just with our assembly member Darcia Patel, who pulled down 1.5 million dollars from the state's coffers to do uh emergency brush management in the Lake Hodges area because of this.

And so I I can I'm happy to put this in writing and write a letter to PUD, but I would like for you to ask the Department of Safety of Dams to reevaluate the safety of keeping this water level so low since they have now increased the fire risk.

So I do understand why they lowered it, thinking that if there was a catastrophic set 4.0 whatever earthquake and it could demolish, well, now there's another risk that they have to take into account, which is burning people's homes.

And we are now spending money doing brush management because the water level is so low, and since we are a new dam is not in the picture anytime soon, I would like them to reevaluate the water level.

So we'll put that in writing for you to ask them.

Um but and there's there's many reasons.

We don't have to be leaking it off the back of the dam anymore.

Um I think my only other I was gonna ask this a similar question about um you know the county, we've been pushing for the county to also be involved in paying for some of the recreational amenities at the reservoirs, which is wonderful.

So let us know if you need us to call them and urge them to continue to do that.

Um when I was working with the county on dispersion or opioid settlement funds together, it was quite a process, and so every now and then we had to make a phone call to say, hey, just get this off your desk.

Uh and I'm glad we're bringing that revenue in.

Um, and I'm interested in seeing what we're doing with other city leases and all of that.

Uh, I will say though, that in the future uh I will be pushing hard on any closures of our lakes in the future, um, as we did in the last budget cycle, and um I do not agree with any charging of parking at our recreation lakes.

Uh it would be charging high school students to use this for trek and field every day.

And our police academy uses it and our firefighters use it every day to train.

Um, and our senior citizens are most often using it to walk.

Uh it's the one place that you can go that's not doesn't have a gym fee.

And so uh, but people do pay to use our lakes when they go on the lakes.

They have boating fees, they have fishing fees, so people are paying to be there.

I just don't agree with uh nickel and diming them by paying for parking in these particular areas, and I'm gonna push hard on that if that ever comes up.

Uh and I know I'm not the only one.

So uh I appreciate you and thank you for for this.

But please, in the future, let's have CWA here.

I would like the opportunity to ask them questions about how they're going to affect this and what they're gonna do.

Um, because it shouldn't be up to you guys to just have to be the go-between between them and us.

So thank you very much.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Wolpert.

We'll go next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Um I don't know that I qualify as a representative of CWA, but I am the City Council's appointed representative to uh the City 10, and uh I do serve on the board of uh the uh County Water Authority, so I also accept the responsibility that comes with the assignment that you have given me.

Uh so uh one thing that I obviously could do is relay uh some of the comments and concerns that uh Councilmember von Wilbert and Councilmember Foster and Councilmember Ilo Rivera have expressed.

Um I will say that um uh many of these conversations are conversations that are actively being had by the City 10 in conversations with um well PUD and with the water authority.

Um I couldn't agree more that uh when we are talking about the rate increases that we've seen in recent years and the rate increases that we're concerned about in the future, uh, we need to look at every dollar that we can save through efficiencies.

Um efficiencies at PUD efficiencies at the water authority, uh, lease negotiations.

I think all of that needs to be considered.

I will also say that the efficiencies there as necessary as they are, they pale in comparison with the cost of the water.

The cost of the water is far in away where the money is in this conversation.

Um I think that the cost of water is perhaps the number one expense in the city of San Diego as a whole, it's certainly up there.

Um, and the same is true for the San Diego County Water Authority.

Um, it's what these agencies are paying for water that is really driving uh the conversation, and that is why uh the independent uh budget analyst and so many others are um interested in seeing the San Diego County Water Authority sell excess water because that is where uh as much as the cost associated uh with water is coming, that is where a lot of the reduction in cost could occur if we're successful in doing that.

The City 10 has certainly been pushing for that.

The San Diego County Water Authority Board as a whole has been pushing for that.

And staff has been very actively working on that.

That conversation has been facilitated to a large degree by the settlement of litigation between the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District in Los Angeles.

That opens up a lot of avenues for the sale of water.

So those negotiations do take time.

And we will be getting the results of that.

And that also looks into some of these same concerns that we have been discussing.

So all of which is to say there are a lot of eyes on this problem.

There is a lot of energy around solving it.

I do think the ball is moving in the right direction.

But I absolutely will be communicating the concerns that have been shared today to the water authority and continuing to advocate on this council's behalf.

So thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

We've given you some tough assignments there, haven't we?

Not seeing anybody else in the lines, I'll join in with a couple of things.

One, I appreciate the comments of my colleagues reminding me of a number of things.

I'm glad to hear the East County issue is moving along, and uh we'll see that in the next few months and hopefully successfully completed and resolved.

Um the um when you mentioned the CIP projects, one of the things I remember is presentation on a kind of a holistic look at all of our dams.

Uh will that be one of the things that'll be delayed um pending.

Um, the condition assessments and ensuring the programmatic approach is not going to be delayed.

Okay.

Um to the points that my colleagues were mentioned um in my spare time, I read council policy 400-15, uh, which does call for the City 10 to come before council, and even if they come separately, I think before you come back with your cost of service study, uh, that it would be helpful.

Um, Councilmember Whitburn uh kind of dipped his toes into the strategy.

But I think for the council to hear uh and for the council to be able to communicate um whether we think that the city 10 is being aggressive enough, but to hear about that.

So uh perhaps Cody, you can figure out when we can dock it, something like that.

Yes, Council President Al Cornet with your office.

All right.

Um to an issue that was raised during the last uh rate conversation was IROC, the rates oversight committee.

Um, have we made any progress in terms of trying to convene that and actually have them hold meetings and get that outside expertise into the conversation?

You want to jump in with that?

Sure, only to say that um our office, I believe, is going to take the lead on an IROC reform.

I know IROC recently met, but it was not on anything having to do specifically with this.

Um it's on it's literally the next thing on my to-do list is to start getting going on an IROC reform to bring something forward to this council to address the concerns of that committee and to make sure that you have an oversight body that is doing the work that you want them to be doing.

All right.

Um, you know, I think having that independent voice, which is the whole idea of an oversight um committee can be very helpful to both I think PUD as well as the full council.

Um of the things I noted that I didn't hear anybody ask about was the rate stabilization on the water side.

Um you did note how much lower it is than what we would target for that.

Um, how does that affect credit rating or operational side of the conversation?

That's a very good question.

So uh just a refresher in the report, we expect to completely utilize all of the rate stabilization funds, I believe, by fiscal year 2027.

So just a refresher in the report we expect to completely utilize all of the rate stabilization funds I believe by fiscal year 2027 per the reserve policy we are we did include getting back up to targeted levels through the the longer cost of service but generally to the largeness of your question absent these reserves we have to be much more uh cautious on our uh operating expenses to make sure that we have a list of things that would be examples of instead of starting uh a large uh contract um in uh july 1st doing it instead of December on the end of the year I think the really big thing that that has the impact is we are we are an organization very much dependent on the weather so we have seen a lot of rain come in through this last couple of weeks we're projecting that that's not going to continue through the rest of the winter but if we do see several more large rainstorms come in over the next couple of months we would expect to continue to need to cut operating expenses so what it really does make us uh have to do is to look at every dollar work with the IBA work with the Department of Finance making sure that we are not uh authorizing expenses that if things continue to to go in a negative direction that we don't have the authority to pay so it makes my job uh very active and uh happy to to do that on behalf of our of this council and the mayor and the ratepayers but uh I it a lot less uh sleep uh good sleeps for me in the next couple of months in the RSF is that was a plan and that was a forecast that we did use when we went before the rating agencies so our credit agencies know that we're doing this we did not get downgraded um obviously we are being watched in regards to it but it was our way of how to address affordability um so we really took a balancing um approach on that um but couldn't see how to have um it would cost additional rate increases so we thought this was the prudent approach to do it okay and one could argue rate stabilization to stabilize rates stabilize rates right yes uh even though it is also uh kind of functions as a reserve as well so dual purpose there so uh I think the council would agree that uh in a difficult conversation the right decision was uh was made so uh I'm gonna conclude there again this was an information item only no motion was required and I'll thank both uh the staff from PUD as well as the Office of the IBA for your good work if I can just note for the record that we did receive one um request to speak in opposition with no need to speak but just wanted to register their position from Imany Robinson.

Thank you.

All right with that um clerk please introduce item 201 item 201 is amendments to chapter two article seven divisions one two three four six seven eight and nine of the San Diego municipal code all related to elections if you'd like to speak on this item please be sure to submit your speakership to the front of the room to the clear box or if you are participating remotely now's the time to raise your hand by pricing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you.

All right thank you city clerk uh as you will note it's uh this is a second reading of an item uh this item is being presented for its second reading for it was first heard at the rules committee in April 2025 and then first introduced at council in this past December where the council uh voted eight zero to approve the amendments uh so unless any of my colleagues wish a formal presentation uh I will be waiving it I'm not seeing agreement there uh but I want to offer uh city clerk fuentes an opportunity to make a statement uh on this item thank you council president as you noted uh this item does reflect an in-depth review and reorganization that required careful and deliberate development as such while we went to committee twice in early 2025 as you noted and the first reading occurred on December 9th 2025 nothing has changed from that first reading the second reading was requested for today by my office and myself to ensure the matter was fully reviewed and considered for approval in time to be enacted prior to the nomination period deadlines for this election cycle I appreciate um I appreciate that being done thank you.

Well and I appreciate you pulling out the calendar and counting those days because uh days are important so uh with the waiver of the presentation because we actually already heard this item and it was passed 80 where we had public an opportunity for public comment uh city clerk please proceed with public comment at this time thank you council president I do not see any public comment here in council chambers for this item starting the five minute timer and going to those participating remotely currently have two speakers in the queue starting with Zoom user if you can please proceed you'll have two minutes Zoom user you are unmuted but we do not hear you here in council chambers not sure if the device you're speaking into may be muted if you have any comments please send them to City Clerk at Sandieago.gov we will need to move on to the next user blair beekman if you can please unmute all right thank you uh Blair Beekman um thank you for this item uh in the spirit of uh good uh public participation you know just a good luck that we uh continue uh best practices in public participation and that uh uh participation and oversight is really important uh to our process and that uh it can

If you have any comments, please send them to City Clerk at San Diego.gov.

We will need to move on to the next user.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um thank you for this item.

Uh, in the spirit of uh good uh public participation, you know, just the good luck that we uh continue uh best practices and public participation and not uh uh participation and oversight's really important uh to our process and that uh it could be really helpful on the previous item that I forgot to mention.

And uh so thank you for this item and and uh good luck in our full public process that that uh we live in and work in.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment on this item.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Uh I'll turn it back over to my council colleagues.

They entertain a motion and a second, Councilmember Whitburn.

And uh we'll make the motion and we'll get Councilmember Elo Rivera on the second.

He was up a little bit faster, not seeing any questions or comments.

So we have a motion by councilmember Whitburn to move the item, a second by council member uh Elo Rivera to second.

Please call the vote.

Thank you, Council President.

I've started the voting system.

Please cast your vote.

Oh, it started.

Councilmember Campbell, may I get your vote for the record?

Thank you.

We will look at your system that does pass unanimously eight to zero with council member Campillo absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, and thank you to City Clerk and your team for both bringing the amendments forward and to, as I said, count of the days and make sure we got it done in an appropriate amount of time.

So with that, uh please introduce item 2020 item 2022 is the calling of municipal primary election and a municipal special election in the city of San Diego to be held on Tuesday, June 2nd, 2026, and consolidating elections with the statewide primary election.

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

If you are here in council chambers, now's the time to submit a speaker sip to the front of the room in the clear box.

Or if you're participating remotely, please raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, staff.

I see you're already seated.

Uh introduce yourselves for the record and then let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, honorable council president and city council members.

Uh we need three minutes for the presentation.

All right, when you're ready.

Hey, my name is Christina Hernandez, and I am the deputy director of elections and city connections with the Office of the City Clerk.

Today we are asking for approval of the ordinance to call the June 2nd, 2026 municipal primary election for the City of San Diego and consolidate with the statewide primary election.

The primary election is for the Office of Council members to represent districts two, four, six, and eight.

The city's charter requires city ballot measures to be submitted at a special election.

In the instance, a ballot measure is placed on the primary ballot.

We are also presenting the ordinance calling a special election to be consolidated with the primary ballot.

The approved budgeted amount for citywide elections within the fiscal year 2026 citywide program expenditures is 1.67 million dollars.

The cost will be borne by the city's general fund.

The actual costs will vary depending on how many jurisdictions participate.

The number of participating jurisdictions and number of contests will be known after the 75th day before the respective election, which for the June 20 June 2nd, 2026 election is March 19th, 2026.

Costs to each jurisdiction are based on the number of contents, the number of registered voters, and the number of sample ballot pages.

The City of San Diego has 835,438 registered voters as of January 5th, as of the January 5th, 2026 report provided by the registrar of voters.

The budgeted amount includes one measure based on the actuals from the primary prior primary elections calculated by the Department of Finance who manages the citywide elections fund.

The estimated ballot measure costs provided by the registrar range from 950,000 to 1.2 million.

Additionally, our office has contracted with the registrar to once again host a ballot drop box at our city hall.

The ballot drop box will open on May 5th and remain available until 8 p.m.

on election day.

For candidates that would like to run for office to be members of the city council representing districts two, four, six, and eight, the candidate nomination period will commence on Wednesday, February 4th.

Candidates must obtain nomination papers in person at the office of the city clerk located here in the lobby of the city administration building.

For any members of the public, please reach out to our office if interested via email at cityclerk at Sandiego.gov or by phone at 619533 4000.

This concludes my presentation, and the city clerk and I are happy to answer any questions.

And sorry, just one uh clarification.

The current fiscal year 2026 citywide program expenditures amount is actually $1,760,000.

So 1.76.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Thank you both for the presentation.

Please proceed with public comment.

City Clerk.

There is no public comment here in Council Chambers for this item going to those participating remotely.

I see nobody with their hand raised, so that concludes public comment for this item.

All right, terrific.

Uh with that, we will turn it over to our council colleagues for questions and comments, entertain a motion, and we'll start with Council Member Campbell.

Thank you.

I would just like to make the motion to approve the city clerk's department recommendations for elections.

All right.

We have a motion to move the recommendation.

A second.

I'm happy to second.

And um I just want one comment.

The map on the screen must have been an old map because it wasn't can't would have had half my council district on that map.

So my apologies it was taken from uh city council office, so we'll talk to them.

And it was just supposed to outline the um council districts that are actually going forward.

But I will make corrective for the record.

So for the record, we're not taking an action to move the council boundaries.

Again, if you'd like, you know, to become my representative.

All right.

Um, not seeing anybody else on the lights.

We have a motion by council member Campbell and a second by Council Member Von Wolpert to move uh the staff recommendation.

Please call the vote.

Sorry, at the voting system, please cast your vote.

Oh, sorry.

Councilmember Foster.

Sorry.

And that passes unanimously 8 to 0 with Council Member Campillo absent.

Thank you.

All right, again, thank you, City Clerk and your team for the good work that you do to make sure all that I's are dotted and T's are crossing.

Gotta do better with mapping.

Don't use AI.

Uh all right.

Uh moving right along.

Uh clerk, please introduce item 203.

Item 203 is San Diego City Council hearing on the removal of Alec Bayer from the District 2C on the City of San Diego Commission on Police Practices.

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

If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit a speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear box, or if you are participating remotely, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh so um staff is sitting there.

Ms.

Joe's introduce yourself for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Good afternoon, Council President and Council members.

I am Vicky Joes uh and approximately five minutes.

All right.

I'm Vicky Joe's with the Council President's Office to present today's item to consider the removal of Commissioner on Police Practices, Commissioner Alec Bayer.

I am joined by Aaron Houston, Equal Employment Investigations Manager and Personnel Director David Dallagar is in chambers this afternoon.

In July 2025, a formal complaint was made against Commissioner Bayer alleging discriminary conduct.

A formal investigation was conducted by the city's Equal Employment Investigations Office.

That investigation found sufficient evidence to support violation of the equal employment opportunity policy.

Then interim executive director, Miesfailed, briefed the council president and requested that Commissioner Bayer be suspended in line with the municipal code.

Upon confirmation from the EEIO that formal communication was sent to Commissioner Bayer, the council president emailed notice of suspension suspension pending a public hearing as per the municipal code, and a certified letter was sent to the contact information on file file for Commissioner Bayer.

There are several governing documents to consider this afternoon.

The first is our municipal code, which provides that the council president may suspend a member's participation on the commission by written notice to the member pending a public council hearing on removal.

The second is the city's equal employment opportunity policy, which includes that discrimination, harassment, and retaliation in any form will not be tolerated.

And further, that harassment includes any unwelcome, unsolicited, or unwanted conduct because of a protected classification that is offensive, demeaning, derogatory, humiliating, embarrassing, intimidating, or otherwise causes a person distress.

The third governing document is the Commission on Police Practices adopted bylaws, Article 2, Section 2F, which states members are expected to adhere to the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement's, otherwise known as NACOL's code of ethics, which includes respectful and unbiased treatment and treat all individuals with dignity and respect.

The final governing document is the city's threat management policy, which includes quote the city will not tolerate any threat or bullying toward anyone in the workplace at any time, unquote.

And it applies to all city employees, officers, elected officials, volunteers, interns, provisional employees, and contractors of the city.

Per municipal code section 261109.

This hearing is to consider the removal of Bayer as the District 2 representative on the commission for cause on the following grounds.

Commissioner Bayers' conduct violated the city's EEO policy, violated the CPP's adopted bylaws, and NACOL's code of ethics, impacted the Commission's effective operations, standing or independence, and impedes his ability to serve on the commission impartially and independently.

Potential actions for your consideration today are to remove the commissioner for cause or lift the suspension.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Aaron and I are available to answer your questions.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

Now we have an opportunity to hear from Commissioner Beyer.

So if you could approach the mic and as you approach, before you start, I want to confirm that you've had adequate time to prepare and are ready to proceed with the hearing this afternoon.

No, I have not had adequate time to prepare.

I have I've been one of the issues here is I have been denied the opportunity to uh defend myself.

I have been obstructed from having access to the information I need to rebut the allegations.

The allegations have not been provided to me, despite numerous requests.

So uh no, it is not this hearing is premature.

Uh there needs to be an exchange of information between the parties so I can mount a fair and honorable, honest uh defense.

All right, we did have an obligation to bring this hearing within 60 days.

Um that's what the time period is, so you're waiving the 60 days.

We will then reschedule probably in the two weeks when the next time we will meet on that.

Will that be sufficient time, sir?

No, sir.

Uh what happened is when you on November 17th, you sent me a notice of suspension.

So I was isolated and uh separated from the commission.

In addition, immediately thereafter, I don't know if you did it or who did it, but somebody notified, excuse me, somebody notified IT to cut off uh to lock me out of the system.

So I cannot go on to my laptop to retrieve emails, uh, calendars, uh, notes.

I can't retrieve any information I need to uh to uh dispute uh to have a uh voice against these allegations, which are which you know I dispute entirely.

So I need to have regain access to my uh to my uh laptop so I can get the emails and all that other stuff.

This this matter should in fact be sent to mediation or something.

It's been handled abominably since the start.

I've been deprived of due process all along the way.

I've made numerous requests.

Uh I made requests of Ms.

Houston's office to provide me with the allegations and the materials they use to reach their conclusions.

I never got a response to that email.

Yeah, it it's uh it's been a uh a deprivation of due process all along the way, and uh it should be handled differently.

I would I would uh suggest it'd be referred to mediation or whatever form of uh dispute resolution you deem appropriate.

Okay, I just want to confirm that you did get a copy of the report with the names redacted.

Yeah.

Uh after months of requests this past Monday, January 5, I got the report, but it's not the names redacted.

I'm gonna hold it up so you can see it.

There is a lot of information exacted from every page.

Redaction after redaction.

Information I have information has not been provided to me.

Uh you know, it the whole thing has been uh conducted in inappropriate fashion.

All right, I would respectfully disagree, I believe they've acted appropriately uh to our city attorney uh given the gentleman's request.

Uh is it appropriate to have any counsel comments or just to move and reschedule?

I would defer to Deputy City Attorney Tom Brady, please.

I'm a bit unclear.

Is is the commission are you re it seems like you're not requesting a recess or a resetting of the hearing.

A resetting of the hearing does not uh provide any benefit because I'm locked out of the system, I cannot get the information I need to defend myself.

With no request from the commissioner to reschedule, I my advice is to proceed with the hearing.

Okay.

Uh suspension goes with it to be locked out.

So both physically and within the computer.

So you do have upwards of 10 minutes if you wanted to offer any response or defense or explanation.

Sure.

Uh with regard to the allegations against me, I deny them utterly and completely.

There are so many flaws with this process.

Uh it has put me at such a disadvantage and it's unjustified.

I have the EEO policy here.

The EO policy states that uh manager managers or supervisors who receive a report or complaint, observe or otherwise become aware of possible discrimination, must immediately report and take prompt corrective action.

That did not happen here.

I am one of the original members of this commission.

Uh I've been on the commission for more than two years.

No one has ever, up to this point included, has ever come to me from the commission, commission staff to even suggest there's any impropriety or any violation of policy.

Not once.

This uh I got notice of this that there was an allegation of gender discrimination against me by an email from the EEOI's office on August 7th.

That email only said that there's been a complaint of gender discrimination filed against me, no other information.

I uh was in contact, uh, Calvin Brown is the name of the investigator.

I was in contact with him a few weeks later.

He wanted to set up an interview.

I was agreed.

I'm fully cooperative, I have nothing to hide.

I asked that he provide me with the allegations and the information to support the allegations so I could give complete and accurate responses to the questions at the interview.

He refused.

He said they have a policy, but they don't provide that information.

I've requested that information three times from their office.

It was never provided.

I submitted to the interview.

Two months go by and it's silence, and then November 17th, as the information indicated.

I get a letter from uh Ms.

Houston, an email from Ms.

Houston saying they've concluded their investigation, they found some support.

I have the email here.

November 17th, 25.

They've completed their investigation and they've found evidence to support a violation of the EEOC policy.

It doesn't have any details about what the violation was or could be.

It doesn't share the information that they relied upon.

I immediately sent her an email saying, hey, provide me with the allegations, provide me with whatever material material you relied upon.

No response.

Uh and uh moving uh on from that words, you suspend me.

I'm cut off the you know, I cannot do any research, I cannot talk to anyone, I can't communicate with anyone, I can't develop a defense because I don't know what the allegations are.

December 30th, I got an email from uh your office, your your chief of staff, uh uh telling me about this hearing.

I immediately respond saying, Hey, what are the allegations against me?

What are what material are you relying on to take these personnel actions against me?

I get an out-of-office response.

The this report wasn't furnished to me until last Monday.

And I since I'm locked out, I cannot verify what's going on with it.

I have looked at it though, and there are so many flaws and discrepancies in this report.

It it is really unreliable to make any determinations on.

And I'll give you an example.

All uh many of the complaints relate to my conduct during commission meetings are Brown Act compliant meetings.

All those meetings are videotaped and recorded.

The investigator could have looked at the allegations and then looked at those videos and recordings to determine whether or not there was a violation.

He didn't do that.

That's a pretty glaring omission.

It's in our commission, we reviewed body uh warrant camera videos on our police officers.

When someone alleges a police officer's committed misconduct and the officer denies it, we go to the body on camera videos to see what really happened.

That's what should have happened here.

The investigator did not do that.

I'll give you another example.

The primary complainant here is the chief investigator of the commission.

She report she complained in the report that uh that I addressed her by her title was somehow discriminatory or constituted harassment.

The investigator, oops, excuse me.

The investigator didn't ask me about that.

The uh complainants certainly didn't ask me about that.

Nobody asked me about it.

If anyone had asked, I would have explained that it is a matter of it is a matter of courtesy and etiquette during a recorded session to use titles so that when the pub the public is listening, so they know who I'm referring to.

If there's a legal question, I say, well, general counsel, do you have an opinion?

I don't say Bart do you have an opinion because someone listening uh doesn't know what that is, know who that is.

It's a matter of courtesy and etiquette, etiquette.

Uh this is uh another that you know that's an example of how deficient this report is.

They didn't follow up, they didn't use objective evidence to reach their conclusions.

They didn't ask basic questions uh uh uh about uh the allegations that are being made.

They did not ask questions about the timing of the allegations.

Uh the policy that we just looked at says that you can't you you must immediately report, must immediately report and take remedial action when there's an allegation of harassment.

Well, that didn't happen.

Some of the allegations in the in the uh in the EU report go back 12 months, 14 months.

There was no inquiry as to why there's a delay and the effect of that delay on calculation of the veracity of these complaints.

Those are just some examples.

So my uh request to you is to vote no on removal at this time, send the matter out to mediation or arbitration, because I'll be glad to participate in that so I can have a full and fair hearing with a full exposition exposition of all the facts so I can present a defense, which I cannot do now because I've been deprived of that information and that opportunity.

All right, does that conclude your comments?

Yes.

Okay, thank you very much.

I appreciate you taking the time to walk through that.

Uh so with that, uh clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, President.

We have Imani T.

Robinson here.

If you can please come forward to the microphone, you'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon.

This is very, very difficult to listen to because everything with integrity and everything to hold on to the independence of the CPP.

That is not what we get.

Every procedure and every process that is created takes away our independence.

I'm frustrated.

Commissioner Bayer is frustrated.

I have read the report.

I believe those are feelings, not facts.

Um a buyer taking sex over uh proper procedure.

I think uh the staff of the CPP wants the commissioners to work for them and not the other way around.

I serve on another commission to where the staff listens to us.

I serve on a commission to where we have we have created changes, which is the point of why we're there.

Since I've been on a different commission, we have made uh first time ever changes that has ever happened in this city, and that is what we want for the CPP, and the only way we can do that is to have independence.

I have only seen Bayer fight for our independence.

He has he has the he has fought with me.

He has fought with other staff members, and I do not believe it's based on sex.

It's based on independence.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

I start the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely, starting with Zoom user.

If you can please unmute.

Thanks for taking my call.

I think I got my speakers working again.

Yes, we can hear you.

Oh, cool.

I think you should cut this guy major slack.

He deserves his constitutional rights to be brought and get the evidence on his case.

And confront his accusers, get it out in the open, put it on TV.

But looking at him, he just looks like a cracker to me.

Sometimes in black people, I'm a white guy, no like this guy.

So if you look at a black person, a woman sometimes, they have this look, but they got a lot of hate in them.

A lot of black people hate white people.

They can be bigots, man.

Just like look at the WNBA of black girls or little white girl comes around and starts hitting from the logo.

They hate her.

They hit her in the face.

They poke her eye out.

They're just full of some hate, man.

Some of those black chicks got hate in them, man.

I don't know if they hate the black guys, but they definitely hate some white guys like us.

They call me ISICle before, man.

I think it's when I was an all-black club like in the 80s.

It was great on Market Street.

It was incredible place, all the black guys.

And two of my buddies were all white.

They're calling us icles.

Because we were we were a white guy like this guy.

He's an eyesickle to a lot of black guys, which is cool.

I took it as a badge of courage, man.

I wasn't calling him the N-word or nothing.

I wanted to live, man.

So you gotta take a step back.

This guy's doing the best interest for our city, man.

Even that thank God that other lady stood up for him.

You know, come on, man.

Quit being afraid of the big bad wolf.

Another thing with the cops.

The kid that shot got shot.

He had a gun on him.

He's 16 years old with a gun at the trolley.

Who where are the kids that shot at him?

Are they in jail?

The two other kids had a gun.

Come on, man.

Your time has concluded.

Next is Lupe.

Lupa, if you can please unmute.

There you go.

Hi.

Um, I'm speaking on behalf as a citizen of District 4.

Um, I have the document in front of me.

I don't want to read it word by word.

Uh there is a policy, or I should say the bylaws for the CPP, and in which it says that this case should have been presented.

It is in Article 3, Section 3b, if you'd like to look it up later on.

Um, I also sent a comment to city council members.

Uh it simply says that it should have been uh the cabinet or the executive committee should have presented this case to the full commission, either closed meeting, mostly I I believe it should have been in closed session.

They had a meeting last Wednesday, and I believe that most of the commissioners did not know about this the case, and I believe that it the policy was not being followed, or the bylaws were not being followed as written.

And uh let me catch my breath a little bit.

I believe that this is sort of like a um to silence commissioners who are very vocal about independence and about being critical of certain procedures.

I believe that this case should have been brought to the full commission for a two-thirds vote as it states on the bylaws.

Again, I'm saying it's Article 3, Section 3B.

Um, all the members, council members should read that and uh communicate to the commission, the chair of the commission and commissioners, and let them know that this was done improperly, and that commissioner byer um is due is uh should receive due process, um, and also you know, by his peers, and I know I have, and I think that's it, and the community can't trust us because of this.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Nexus Kathleen Lippett.

If you can please unmute after that, his phone number ending in 7499, and then Francine Maxwell.

Please, percentage.

Yes, thank you for letting me speak.

It is increasingly being noted that commissioners are often expected to do the bidding of those who appointed them, and that is not what they are there for.

They are supposed to be an independent voice.

And the problem, the issue of due process here seems to have been flavorantly violated.

This gentleman, Mr.

Beyer, deserves to have his day in court.

He deserves to have all of the charges suspicious or validated or not validated, presented, and they should be transparent, and he should be able to be respond.

And they should be transparent, and he should be able to be respond.

And the fact that this is happening seems to be happening behind closed doors.

And you want to quickly go through this and then decide today that he is going to continue to be locked out, is very troubling.

And right, this the former speaker is absolutely correct.

This is this is an example of why the public has begun to increasingly not trust the city or the staff.

So thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Next is phone number ending in 7499.

If you can please unmute the five-minute timer has also concluded here in Council Chambers, there were three speakers with their hands raised.

No additional speakers will be taken after that.

7499, please proceed.

Bob Kazuski here.

I don't have any more information on this item than has been presented here today, so I cannot comment on the specifics of this case.

But I can say that these kinds of administrative quote unquote trials are too often conducted without due process of the accused.

The presumption of innocence must be maintained, and the accused must be given full access to all of the records and information needed to provide a fair defense.

Denial of access to records and related information is obviously improper, and this council must not pass judgment on this matter without giving Mr.

Beyer full access to records and appropriate time to defend himself.

I therefore echo the comments of the previous speakers.

And again, I have no knowledge of the details of this case, but I urge the city of San Diego to provide fairness and due process to Mr.

Beyer.

Thank you.

Next is Francine Maxwell, if you can please unmute.

Francine Maxwell, I can't unmute for you.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Thank you so much.

Happy New Year.

Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego.

The um the guilty party is Marnie Von Wolfort, who was so busy about um running for her next uh seat in Congress that she paid little to no attention of our CPP to for BART to send a memo dated November 6th.

When was BART gonna tell everybody how he was resigning from being our counsel from being the interim executive director and doing all of the atrocious things that he did in his short time?

Marnie knew about all of these things that were occurring.

Marnie received all the phone calls about the complaints about the way that our commissioners could not do their jobs.

But did Marney hold a hearing like the community has been asking?

Is Marnie gonna hold a hearing about the 30 million dollar settlement that's coming out of our general fund and our liability insurance?

No.

CPP was overwhelmingly supported by the City of San Diego residents.

Somebody please stand up and make sure that we can get back to what oversight is supposed to be.

We are so excited and looking forward to the next executive director because we have a reputation now about oversight nationwide.

We need this commissioner.

He needs his due process, he needs to stay put.

He has been handling the people's business, and we need him to continue.

We can stand for anything that you're gonna throw at him because he has the facts.

This isn't feelings, he has the facts, he has the oversight background that we need in the city of San Diego, especially given all the recent excessive force complaints.

We need him big time to read to watch the videos because we trust him.

That's something that we need to build upon with this city council.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Next, and our final speaker is ending in 1384.

If you can please unmute 1384, I can't unmute for you.

It is star six to unmute.

There you go.

Hello, Ernie Casco, senior resident pilot, Tory Pine's Glad Report.

It's the 12th of January.

Your lead soldier has me curvedly blocked out of Tory Pine's Glad Report, completely understood violence for this is not not agenda public comment yet.

That's next.

We're still on item 203.

So when we go to non-agenda public comment, we'll be happy to hear your comments.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment for item 203.

All right.

Uh thank you, City Clerk, for managing that.

Uh, before we go to my colleagues, uh, would the city attorney's office try to differentiate between due process.

We heard from the public a lot, as opposed to how we handle uh these kinds of issues.

Well, I I could say generally here in in this type of hearing, the the commissioners entitled to procedural due process, right?

Notice of the hearing and an opportunity to be heard.

I'm sorry, can you speak into the microphone and make sure it's on green?

Procedural due process is what the commissioners do.

Um advance notice of the hearing and of the charges against him and an opportunity to be heard.

That's it.

This is not a full-blown evidentiary hearing like you would have in a in a court or a mediation or an arbitration.

So we've we've complied with that, right?

He's he's had notice of the charges against him and an opportunity to speak.

Okay, and that's embedded in all our policies, administrative regulations, which even volunteers who are really uncompensated employees are here too.

All right.

So with that, I'll turn it over to my colleagues' questions, comments, and entertain a motion, and we'll start with Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you very much, Council President.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

Uh, based on the documentary evidence before the council, I move to remove Alec Byer from his district two seat on the Commission on Police Practices for good cause under the removal provisions described in San Diego Municipal Code Section 26.1106.

This motion is based on a determination that Mr.

Bayers' conduct towards staff members in the office of the commission on police practices violated the code of ethics of the National Association for Civilian Oversight of Law Enforcement and impacted the Commission's effective operations standing or independence.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

So we have a motion by Councilmember uh Campbell for removal.

We go to Councilmember Whitburn.

Uh thank you very much.

Uh Councilbember Campbell.

This is the District 2 seat, District 2, which you represent.

Yes.

Okay.

I will second the motion.

All right.

So we have a second by Council Member Whitburn, and we'll go next to Councilmember Von Wolpert.

Uh thank you very much.

And I want to thank our uh personnel department and EEO staff, your professionalism and the work that you have done on this.

Um I also want to thank uh in particular the the staff at the CPP.

Um they work hard and they have to work under constant changing conditions because of our bargaining obligations and the Brown Act and interim standard procedures and executive directors who keep leaving and all of that.

And so um I just want to read the last paragraph of the uh staff report, the EEO report investigation that is on the record, but has been provided to uh Mr.

Bayer, and uh it states that um buyer's behavior has created an intimidating and oppressive work environment for the O for the Office of Commission on Police Practices staff.

While only certain staff made direct allegations against Bayer, all of the female staff members stated that they were weary of working with him and were careful not to draw attention to themselves for fear of becoming his target.

Well, the only male staff member has also expressed experiences of unprofessional behavior from Bayer.

He said, quote, Bayer is much more willing to question or diminish women and their ability to do their jobs, end quote.

The hostile work environment Bayer has created has also impacted staff's ability to perform her job as usual.

She has resorted to allowing a male commissioner to present their work because she is worried about Bayer's reaction to her ideas and his dismissive nature.

Additionally, Bayers' behavior has been so hostile that it has direct disrupted staff's emotional tranquility and brought both staff to tears.

And this was written after many interviews with staff, interviews with Mr.

Bayer himself, uh interviews with former commissioners.

And I would just like to stick up for the women who are brave enough to come forward and do their job.

And uh, you know, folks may not know this from the public who call in, but under the C under the statute that we implemented for the CPP, oversight is not done by me as a chair of public safety, it's actually done by the council president.

So, no, I was not aware or had inside knowledge of any of this.

I found out just as everybody else did.

And as an elected official, I am used to criticism, and I accept it.

I learn from it.

I understand that when you serve the public, you're often blamed for things that aren't in your control, and that comes with the job.

But I will say it is a new low to be blamed as a woman for the unprofessional conduct of a man who I don't even know or have any responsibility for.

Holding women responsible for the actions of men is an old and damaging pattern that I thought we were past.

And in my opinion, it has no place in public discourse.

But again, thank you for being here today.

Thank you for your work.

Thank you to the CPP staff and commissioners, and I hope we can all move on and continue the work of the CPP.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Vaughn Wolpert.

Uh, we'll go next to Council Member Ilo Rivera.

Uh thank you, Council President.

Uh, thanks for the work to bring this uh here.

Um I I think that the the statements that we just heard, what's in the documentation um it's it does speak volumes.

I also want to take a moment to understand how we can in the unfortunate scenario where we're in a similar situation again, um, what opportunities there might be for communication with commissioners, um not just those being um being challenged or accused of of violations of of codes of conduct, but I am concerned about the the disruption and in trust between other commissioners, and uh and uh my assumption is there's context missing from the from the conversation, and so I don't know that there's an answer to that question.

I just um to the extent that any of us can be helpful on that front.

I I I want to make sure we're doing that because I think that what's documented is extremely concerning.

Uh, Councilman Wolper, your comments are um extremely powerful.

And um, while just about everything we do will be attacked by someone as being a reason to not trust us, I I also want to be wary of situations where those who are who are part of a commission um are left feeling like they're not seeing the full picture, and so um I just I don't really have a fine point to put on that.

It's just something that I'm wrestling with as I'm hearing this conversation.

Um it is it is a challenging situation because the the desire, the importance, and the legal requirement to maintain an arm's length for in for reasons of independence, also leaves us in a situation where we sometimes don't have as much information as soon as we would like it in order to address issues.

Um so um again, I I don't have a super fine point to put on that.

I just wanted to share kind of these two things that I'm wrestling with.

One is very, very concerning facts that I understand why it need to be acted upon, and what I will take is good faith concerns um expressed by another commissioner about um what this means for the independence of the commission uh and the or I should say the commissioners, especially as relates to to um the staff.

So um thank you, Council President, for letting me kind of think that out loud.

Um, and uh the that concludes my comments.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Yelo Rivera.

We'll go next to Council Member Foster.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um, Council President, and thank you to your team for the um presentation.

Um I did um review the reports.

Um I I guess I have a question um for personnel.

Um EEIO is still um under personnel, correct?

Still housed in personnel to take care of those investigations, or did it move?

I don't know.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Steve Dalgo, personal director.

Correct, it's still under personnel and it's still an independent office.

Okay, and then um my next question is um I'm in my past life have been familiar with the dimensions in in discipline and and certain things that meet city standards, and I think as we looked at this, we did ask a question that this did follow the formal city process, correct?

So what we did in personnel is we followed the formalized city process of K2 and the EEO policy.

So that's our investigation and making sure it's independent, and then just following exactly what's in K2 or the EEO policy and investigating that.

After that, what we do is we we let the person in charge, who in this case was Bart Mansfield from the CPP know, as well as the person we investigated.

That's where our job stops.

At that point, if it's a city employee, then it works for the HR process, or in this case, the person as a person not being a city employee, it then works through the city attorney's office and what the Muni code is for the CPP.

That's interesting.

So let me ask you this.

Is there a clear difference between a classified?

I don't know if I want to use the term classified.

But is there a difference in the way a paid city employee and their associated rights versus a volunteer commissioner and the process?

As far as our regulation, they're held to the same standard for the people listed in K2, which are very specific individuals.

Okay, I think it may behoove, and one thing I do want to stress the importance of this commission, right?

We I think we sh I'd like to think this council, we all understand how important how important this commission is.

Um and and maybe we need to fall back and make sure that the commission is truly informed and have a item docketed on their agenda so they could really understand the nuances of the the standards and what's set out in the municipal code or the charter is then being a city employee and what that means.

I think there's some disconnect in regards to exactly what that means, and just as we talk about due process, understanding once an invest investigation is done, there are findings.

What path is there for you as an option, and also if there are no findings, what does that mean, right?

And so I think it just might be a good thing to fall back and establish that so we can make sure one, we are truly following process, and two, we're consistent in our process.

Um the other thing I will say um in putting this together, because there also seems to be some confusion in the municipal code.

And I want to say that we tried our best as we were putting this um implementation ordinance together to make sure that the commission could take care of their business, which is why there is a um statutory um item that indicates if they would like to remove someone, there's reasons in which they could remove someone, and also indicates a standard or threshold in which they need to meet in order to have that person removed.

Um with that, there is also a clause that gives the council president authority to move an item forward.

And I think we tried to make sure we had something in place for the circumstance that we find ourselves in right now today.

We have no independent attorney.

We have no director that is there that is working with us to close this out.

And so I think at this point, based on the information that is provided, um, I can appreciate us moving forward, but I think we need to fall back because this is not the first circumstance or a complaint matter that has come about with the commission, and so I think we need to fall back and uh make sure we understand all the um requirements, all the different options pass and make sure that they are informed as they are considered employees and what that means.

Um, if we can do that if you are open to that.

Um, I think that would be a good uh training um process that we need to um go through.

Absolutely always open to making our processes better and more transparent.

Okay, I appreciate that.

That um concludes uh my comments at this time, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Um, not seeing anybody else on the lights.

We do have a motion by council member Campbell for dismissal and the second by council member Whitburn.

Uh please call the roll.

Sorry, at the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously eight to zero with council member campio absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Um and thank you to uh the folks that are involved.

These are not easy conversations to have.

Um I wanted to respond some of the things that I heard um once we got past the vote.

Um as council member Von Molpert alluded to uh in the absence of an executive director, uh, the office of the council president is absolutely exactly the right place uh to folks um reach out to and express any concern about the commission on police practices.

Um, and we will do our best to address recognizing their um independence.

Um certainly I don't think it's a surprise to anyone that the surprise departure of the previous executive director, the surprise departure of the interim executive director, uh, has not been good for anyone.

Uh the good news is I learned today that um a candidate that um the ad hoc committee, including council member Foster uh has identified did pass background check uh just literally today, uh, and we will be bringing um the individual for the council's consideration in two weeks.

Uh so hopefully we'll have an executive director on board uh that should help us deal with some of these a little more smoothly.

Um the other thing I'll mention is Councilmember Foster alluded to.

Um some of these things were a little more awkward than they needed to be because of the language of the implementing ordinance.

Uh we've reached out to the city attorney's office.

We are bound by the city charter, which was put in place by the vote of the people about how much flexibility we have to try to provide some clarification in the municipal code.

It did not hurt uh this particular hearing.

It did make it a little more complicated to connect uh the dots.

Uh, but I'm fully confident that we did what the municipal code and all the other city documents uh that intersect this conversation came together inappropriately.

So I want to thank um personnel, um, the investigator uh and the city attorney's office for their help in in navigating this uh, as I said, difficult conversation.

So thank you for that.

We will now take up non-agenda public comment.

The council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Clerk, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

Peru 2.7 non-agenda public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Please note if there are eight or more speakers on a single topic.

The maximum time for the topic will be 16 minutes.

If you are in chambers, please submit your speaker slip.

If you're joining us virtually, please raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you are a call-in participant, star nine.

If I can have the following individuals, please come forward to the yellow reserve seats at the front of the room.

With Tim Arnous, please coming up to the microphone after that.

Um Ramses L, Anthony Ralphs, and Roger Ralphs.

If you can all please come forward to the front of the room.

Tim, you can come up to the microphone, and you'll be our first speaker.

You'll have two minutes.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Uh, my name is Tim Arnas.

I'm a San Diego resident.

I live in La Jolla.

Um, I care deeply about our beaches and our shores and uh beach walks.

Uh I know you all do your best.

Thank you for your public service and everything you do.

Um I just wanted to shed some light on this issue.

There is, for the lack of a better term, garbage everywhere.

I know there are probably some programs that are there to target the issue.

Um, our garbage cans are overflowing all the time.

It doesn't take much, just take a minute or to walk down the beach, and you can see that.

So, if anything we can do about that, that would be fantastic.

Just wanted to shed some light on this issue just because I love our beaches, big part of San Diego.

Um, I'm launching cleanup efforts next weekend.

Uh, we have a lot of passionate volunteers uh excited to actually do this.

So we're getting permits as we speak to start that.

So I'm trying to help.

So I just want to shed some light on this issue.

So thank you for your service, and uh, I'm sure you all do your best.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Ramses.

Hello, everyone.

Uh this one's gonna be a little more chill this time.

So first of all, I want to thank Ms.

Wilpert.

Uh, thank you for uh giving the condemnation of the murder that happened and giving your respect to the victim.

And in that vein, I think we really need to look at this year in terms of police reform and what we can do for the city and for the entire country.

Qualified immunity.

The first thing that the federal government did was call this woman a domestic terrorist for being in front of her own home.

She got murdered, and uh odds are that officer is gonna skate.

We know this is how it happens because it happens here.

Officer Dan Gold is still on SDPD.

He's a detective, which means he makes more than 100,000 a year after he's already cost the city 30 million.

So I just want an explanation as to why we have someone that works for the city that costed the city 30 million dollars and is taking a hundred thousand dollars every year.

Why do we need that guy there?

Like that's what that's what I want to ask.

So, first of all, there.

Second of all, completely unrelated on also on the topic of police.

We need to be prosecuting AI porn.

Because I don't know if you guys have been paying attention, but the GROK AI on Twitter has exploded in these last couple weeks.

Pretty much any woman that's ever posted any image on on the on the internet is subject to have revenge porn made of her from nothing.

And this is uncharted territory.

We don't know how to prosecute this, but we need to start getting on it as soon as possible.

Because I don't know about you guys, but I was part of the generation that grew up on Instagram.

So when I was in middle school, I was the first wave of this.

There were there were girls in my class that were in the sixth and seventh grade that had photos and videos of them shared around, and this was real.

And now to think that that can happen to anyone.

Like it's not gonna be a problem for me, but there are children, girls, boys, everyone.

Everyone has a possibility to be a victim of police violence and violence that needs to be protected from police, but without the reform, we have nothing.

We have nothing without reform.

After that, Anthony Ralphs.

Good afternoon, City Council.

My brother Roger Ralphs will be ceding his minutes to me.

I'm sorry for non-agenda public comment.

You cannot see time.

Everyone has to speak for themselves.

Thank you for clarifying.

Good evening, City Council.

I want to start by uh introducing myself.

My name is Anthony Ralphs.

I'm the vice chair of the Boulevard Planning Group.

And I want to thank Sean Eli Rivera.

I want to thank Vivian Moreno, and I want to thank Henry Foster for voting against Flock in the meeting that took place here in December.

That really meant a lot to me for y'all to look at the institutional roots of crime and not be willing to vote in favor of casting a dragnet over the entire rest of the city.

I don't appreciate being turned into a suspect for any and every crime that's committed in this city.

And quite frankly, I'm very disappointed in Stephen Whitburn, in Council President Joe Lacava, and in Kent Lee for being at our workers versus billionaires rally that we had at Waterfront Park a couple months ago.

Y'all took the mic, y'all spoke at our event, y'all posed yourselves in public as being against billionaires, and then you turned around and voted in favor of Peter Thiel's, the billionaire Peter Thiel's uh flock surveillance system.

Um you know very well that Peter Thiel is uh right-wing, ultra-conservative, MAGA supporting uh fascist who has openly stated that he is against democracy and he does not believe in democracy.

And for y'all to be naive into thinking that the technology that this man created and supported will somehow not be turned around and used against us as a public surveillance measure is very naive.

And again, I want to thank Vivian Moreno, I want to thank Sean Elo Rivera, and I want to thank Henry Foster for doing your part in protecting all of us citizens here in San Diego County.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Roger Ralphs would you like to speak?

Okay.

Thank you very much.

I'll start.

I'll start with those that are online.

I'm sorry at the five-minute timer, starting with Blair Beekman.

We currently have nine speakers in the queue.

Blair Beekman, after that, Becky Rapp, and then Francine Maxwell.

Please proceed.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Thanks for the meeting today.

Thank you for uh the words of uh Councilperson El Overa and um uh can't council person Foster, who very much uh on the previous item they did a very nice thing in in questioning the process.

They want to continue uh a good standards.

How do we talk about that?

Good luck in those efforts.

So we can work on it.

Um I uh very much of a thank you to the previous uh public comment person who uh spoke to exactly kind of what I wanted to be addressing as well today.

Um the city of Oakland, they've worked hard and they have accomplished uh leaving Flock.

They've created a compromise to continue Flock for the next two years, and then in two years' time uh in that time period be looking for a new ALPR vendor, which I think is an interesting form of compromise.

Um, the Flock issue will be coming back to uh the whole surveillance issues of San Diego will be coming back in February for uh some sort of uh review process, my like a more full review of the of the uh policy ordinance uh issue ideas, uh the safety ordinance uh uh trust ordinance, excuse me.

So um it's in that time period that um you know we can start to be more fully questioning uh, you know, new ALPR vendors.

And and quite what I've been really asking is how much tech do we actually need in our neighborhoods for public safety that can do the same job.

You know, I've been saying for months, smaller amounts of tech can actually be doing the same amounts of public safety work.

And uh we can really be talking a lot more.

The the main focus is that we're talking more openly and frequently about the subject matter.

Good luck in those efforts, and good luck that we're addressing addressing demilitarization of the ICE officials in in San Diego area.

I've been we can be working on that easily and really demanding that.

Uh, let's make that first and foremost and asked an end to war.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Becky Rapp, if you can please unmute.

After that, Francie Maxwell and Terry Ann Skelly.

Please proceed.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm a public health educator.

Speaking to the city's proposed updates to the land development code.

Item 20 of the proposed changes emphasizes that the marijuana leaf symbol is prohibited on all signage.

This is a great reminder that when Prop 64 was originally written, it primarily its primary intent was to protect children and youth against the predatory industry.

I appreciate the city recognizing this need and ask that it strengthen all signage regulations surrounding marijuana in our city.

Today, large billboards across the street for marijuana shops are permitted to display not only the marijuana leaf, but they're permitted to do it with bright colors and caricature imagery that clearly draws attention to all residents, but especially children and youth who are curious.

While storefront signs are tightly regulated, off site advertising is not held to the same standard.

If marijuana images are considered inappropriate on a building because of public health concerns, it should not be permitted on a billboard in the same neighborhood.

This is not simply about land use, it's about public health.

Youth exposure to substance marketing increases normalization and early use.

And San Diego has committed to prevention and youth protection, and our regulations should reflect that consistently across the city.

As the city updates the land development codes, I urge you to reconsider marijuana advertising citywide, including billboards and off-site marketing.

So our policies align with our public health goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Francine Maxwell.

If you can please unmute after that, Terri Ann Skelly, and then Peggy Walker, please proceed.

Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego resident.

I want to thank our captain of Southeastern San Diego Substation.

He sent out a message to the community to let us know that the police department is aware of a video where a man was handcuffed, had his hands on his knees and was punched in the face, subsequently had a knee on his neck.

Although we cannot talk about it, we know that it was a domestic violence call.

We know that that was excessive force by our eyes, and so we're hoping and we're gonna let the process play out.

But the fact that our captain shared that we are aware was a lot.

Why isn't the city council pushing hard to make the chief of police admit that he is aware?

You and I both know that everybody goes down to the gas lamp is an entertainment district.

And yes, the bike patrol have to deal with people that are intoxicated, and they deserve to make it home safely every day.

But there needs to be a conf uh conversation.

Why isn't somebody pushing hard that there's a town hall meeting with the bike patrol?

Why isn't someone pushing hard to make sure that our chief of police tells us the new policies and procedures?

I'll tell you why, because a new cop, he told me why.

Why would the chief of police stand in front of anybody at a town hall when he has more than half this city back in him?

That spoke volumes to me as to why nobody is having bold leadership on this city council and making the chief of police come in front of the community.

He said he would be transparent.

He said he would build trust.

Kent Lee, you know that it was me and you standing there that night when it was going to be confirmation night, and we said that we was gonna wait for the proof.

I'm not calling you out, can't leave because you meant a lot to me that night when you asked, was this just rhetoric?

So again, ask that we get a town hall on 30 million.

Next is Terry Ann Skelly, if you can please unmute after that.

Peggy Walker, then Madison, please proceed.

Good afternoon, San Diego City Council and Chair Lakava.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

I work with children and youth, and I receive a great deal of public health information regarding environmental issues.

Lately, one of the environmental issues that seems to be in the public health news is environmental secondhand smoke and vape, especially along the sidewalk, shopping areas, and in neighborhoods gathering areas where youth congregate to eat and sometimes see events.

I recently received a fact sheet from Americans for non-smokers' rights entitled Facts About Secondhand Marijuana Smoke.

Americans for Non Smokers' Rights, the 40-year-old premier nonprofit organization promotes prevention and education about smoking, vaping, and secondhand smoke and vape.

It has been their role for decades to expose the tobacco industry's interference with public health policies.

Ultimately, their intent is to create a smoke-free, vape-free generation of Americans that rejects tobacco use and its savvy to tobacco industry tactics.

Over the last five years, Americans for Nonsmokers' Rights has added marijuana to all of its educational prevention efforts.

Their fact sheets state that, and I quote, secondhand marijuana smoke and vape contains many of the same cancer-causing substances that's and toxic chemicals as secondhand tobacco smoke.

Now could be a great time for the city to consider an ordinance that prohibits public marijuana and tobacco smoking and vaping in our public areas.

Seven other cities in San Diego County have already done these, already have these ordinances.

And San Diego would be a very welcome addition.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you.

After that is Madison, then 1384.

Good afternoon and happy New Year to you all.

As a public health educator, I am here to share that January is substance use disorder treatment month.

In line with that, a new 2026 drug impact report from Smart Approaches to Marijuana, which is a leading authority on marijuana's impact on the nation and consequently on us at San Diegans, was just released.

It reports disturbingly negative statistics, including a steep increase in marijuana use treatment needs.

The report associates daily use of high potency cannabis with a four-fold increase in the risk of psychosis, to higher rates of psychosis hospitalizations, a 25% higher risk of heart attack for users, a 42% higher risk of stroke, and sharply elevated risks for head and neck cancers.

Further cannabis use during pregnancy is associated with a two plus times higher risk of infant mortality.

And the report shows pediatric edible marijuana exposures for children under age six increased 1,375% over five years.

That underscores ongoing risks to young children where POT is legalized.

Those are just a few findings.

One of the most important is that in response to adverse outcomes, seven out of ten marijuana legalization ballot measures have failed since 2022.

And 54% of Americans now report believing marijuana has a negative impact on society and 51% on users.

The data suggests it may be time to rethink our marijuana policies, especially related to potency.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Madison, if you can please unmute.

After that is 1384 and then 7499.

Please proceed, Madison.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Decisions around marijuana policy have real consequences for families, youth, and public safety.

And those consequences deserve an honest assessment.

A recent Wall Street Journal article by Dr.

Bertha Madras of Harvard Medical School offers such an honest assessment.

Her conclusion is clear.

Commercializing a high potency intoxicant has not delivered the public health benefits that were promised.

Instead, it has led to rising addiction, poisonings, emergency room visits, cardiovascular harms, traffic fatalities, and serious psychiatric effects, especially among young people.

We're often told that marijuana policies don't increase teen use.

The reality is that youth access remains high.

In 2024, more than one in four 12th graders reported marijuana use in the past year.

5% of high school seniors use it daily, putting them at high risk for addiction.

And about 25 to 30 percent of users develop cannabis use disorder, with adolescents doing so at roughly twice the adult rate.

If teens can't purchase marijuana themselves, how do they get it?

Mostly through diversion from adults who can.

Commercializing a high potency intoxicant has created new harms, not solved old ones.

I urge you to approach marijuana policy with caution, prioritize youth prevention, and consider the long-term public costs, not just the short-term appeal.

Thank you for your time.

1384, if you can please unmute.

If you're raising your hand at this time, the five-minute timer had already concluded these are our final two speakers.

Please proceed.

Hello, Ernie Casco, senior resident pilot, Tory Pines Gliderport, former La Jolla trustee.

It's the 12th of January.

Your leaseholder currently has me blocked out of Tory Pines Gliderport, completely under threat of violence, forcing residents to sign an illegal contract to use the glider port.

And you know all about it.

It's illegal to turn our freedom into privilege for a license and fee under any terms, circumstances, or conditions.

This needs to end today.

Your leaseholder claims to be doing his job that nobody has complained or stopped them.

It's your job, Joe LaCava, to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms.

Failing to do so is a violation of the earth of office.

It's time to stop the crime or step out of office.

I want this crime stop immediately.

Like today, your leaseholder is dangerous.

I reported serious allegations to your office in the San Diego of the police.

Where is due process?

You would not let me speak a few minutes ago on the topic.

I've been paying them under threat of violence for years now.

Your leaseholder refuses to provide a copy of the acts as passed and waiver in question.

Where are the police reports for the victims who have been damaged?

I expect an immediate reply from your office.

Do I call the police again, Joe LaCava?

It's time to stop the crime, implement the proposed San Diego recreational waiver as he proved as a proven solution that ends the dispute.

This could end today with a phone call.

An immediate halt.

The San Diego recreational waiver is a legal solution, resolving this the dispute, giving the people what we want, and responsible city management.

This January the 15th, I will be presenting the solution at a university community planning group.

It is a win for city liabilities, a win for public rights and freedoms, and the best choice you could make, Joe Cava.

Thank you, Ernie Casco.

Our final speaker, 7499, please proceed.

Bob Kazuski here.

Near the end of last year, the La Jolla Shores Association heard an agenda item presented by Ernie Casco, Joe Faust, and myself regarding the Tory Pine City Park, also known as the Glider Port.

After the item was heard, the board voted on a motion to write a letter regarding that city park.

The vote was unanimous with one member abstaining.

I recently received a copy of that letter, and I'd like to read it into the record of today's meeting.

Quote, to whom it may concern the La Jolla Shores Association respectfully submits this letter in support of establishing the Tory Pine City Park Advisory Board and its role in overseeing operations at the Tory Pines Glider Port.

Our association believes this matter is vital to the safety of park users, visitors, and the surrounding community.

We encourage the City of San Diego to carefully evaluate whether solo flyer pilots should be required to pay annual membership fees and or maintain appropriate, I would say inappropriate, insurance coverage to fly at the glider port.

These measures would help ensure accountable and responsible use of this unique coastal resource while preserving safe and equitable access to a valued city park.

Thank you for your attention to this issue and your continued stewardship of the Tory Pine City Park.

Sincerely, John Pierce, President La Jolla Shores Association.

End quote.

I would like to note that this letter from La Jolla Shores Association echoes a similar letter to Joe LaCava by the La Jolla Town Council dated April 9th, 2021.

That 2021 letter also recommended one reconvening the advisory board and two eliminating the burdens of insurance and fees for use by the general public.

Joe LaCava, Mayor Gloria, and this entire city council all continue to ignore the import of these important local organizations which represent the will of the people.