To mitigate the division of the neighborhood that the 15 freeway brought.

And before this freeway was here, there were homes here, right?

And the freeway had a huge impact on the community.

We're standing above a fruit on a park that's above a freeway.

And that's not common.

It's one of the first places in California that that happened, and it was a direct result of community voice.

Having you all here to help with these kinds of tasks and to help make this park better by you all being here creates ownership.

And when you all feel like you own this park, you'll want to come back again and again and again.

You're gonna plant a seed, a seed today, a tree today, and you're gonna watch that grow over time, and your younger siblings are gonna be able to take shade under those trees.

Your kids one day will be able to have a picnic under those trees.

How beautiful is that.

So know that the work that you're doing today, it's not just about today and the way that the park will look better when you leave.

It's about the the what we're we're planning for future generations.

So currently here at the Marimar Greenery, we separate any contaminants from our organic waste materials and compost through a screening process.

That removes most of the contamination and our end compost has less than one percent contamination by weight.

This process that we're piloting right now removes contaminants on the front end of that process, which then will result in a lower amount of contaminants at the end, which is a better compost product to put out in our community.

Organic materials when they go to the landfill create both methane and leachate, though which then we have to control through environmental containment systems and can create air pollution as well as water pollution if not managed appropriately.

When we divert organic materials through composting programs like this and other programs around our region, we're able to reduce that amount of methane, capture a viable reusable resource, and get it back out into the community.

Compost can replace chemical fertilizers, which then improve the overall environment that we all live in.

Well, the green bin it's meant for all of your organic waste material.

That would be all of your yard trimming, so maybe your grass cuttings, maybe your trimming bushes, um plants, flowers.

It also includes all of your food scraps.

So any any vegetable, fruit, even your meat and bones, your bread, as well as food soiled paper products.

And when I say that, I mean think of a coffee filter with coffee grounds in it, or napkins or paper towels that have been used and soiled, all of that can go in your green bin.

The city is educating all of our residents, people who live and work in the city in San Diego about their green bin and what they are allowed to put in it and what they're not allowed to put in it.

So we do not allow plastic bags or compostable bags at our greenery composting processing facility.

Alright, let's do it.

Today is really about the future.

Uh, the future of the college area, the future of our city.

There we go.

And the future of the tens and thousands of students who call SDSU home during one of the most important chapters of their lives.

This is the first comprehensive plan update uh in more than 30 years.

And for me, the best thing about it is more options for future STSU students to stay close to the campus.

What I heard was a community that wanted to elevate their community.

A safe community, a community with a high quality of life, a place filled with belonging where everyone has the opportunity to be where they want to be.

And a community that's it for everyone.

I also want to thank the residents, the students, the educators, the business owners, and the city staff who contributed countless hours to creating this uh college area community plan update.

The plan lays the groundwork for up to 17,750 new housing opportunities for students like me.

That means a real chance to live closer to school, reduce our long commutes, and spend more time learning, working, and being a part of the campus and community that we care about.

A road diet and a usable park will not only activate the corridor, but connect the various neighborhoods and communities of permanent residents and students that tend to be isolated.

From housing affordability to transit access, safe streets, welcoming public spaces, all directly affect whether or not students can focus on their learning, graduate on time, and build their futures right here in America's finest city.

The goal was and is to make the college area a destination and a place people want to live in.

This is smart growth.

So switching from gas furnaces and kitchens to electric systems, which allows us to remove uh greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.

The financing agreement is cash flow neutral.

We're essentially shifting our operating costs from energy bills over to loan repayment across a 25-year term and with no upfront cost to the city.

So from July all the way to November, they were out here trying to get people into some type of shelter option.

So by the time that we came out here, there had already been months of outreach occurring.

So when we came, that was the day where we were actually going to be getting all the trash, all the people, everything out of here, so it could go back to being what's supposed to be part of the river.

Since then, uh park rangers have been out here daily.

78 tons of trash, over 1300 pounds of uh hazardous and biohazardous remit waste on these islands.

So getting all that, but when I see the wildlife that's out here, you see ducks, you see cranes, you see things that we didn't see a year, year and a half ago.

That's one of the ways I know that we did good out here is seeing the wildlife returning.

This work isn't done.

We're still here in the riverbed.

We're still engaging individuals.

I think something that's the larger celebration is that 59 are currently in permanent housing right now, whether it be through diversion efforts all the way to permanent supportive housing, and we have 42 that are continuing to work on identifying next steps in their journey.

I'm proud of the work that our teams did.

We put tax dollars to work, and people are just used to, you know, when you throw tax dollars at something, the problem doesn't necessarily go away.

So I'm happy to see that this area has maintained and that we are putting that money that we use for this to good use.

All right, I want to thank everybody in chambers or watching online for your patience.

We now have forum.

So I will now call the City Council meeting of Tuesday, February twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six to order.

Clerk, please call the role.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wolper.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Councilmember Campillo.

Council Member Moreno.

Councilmember Eli Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting, our City Attorney Heather Ferber, independent budget analyst Charles Monica, Council Affairs Advisor and the Mayor's Office Co decisor, and myself, your City Clerk, Deanna Fuentes.

We respectfully acknowledge that the Cummiai Day are the original inhabitants of the unceded land, now known as San Diego.

Despite enduring the horrors of genocide and colonization, the Cumiae spirit remains unbroken.

We honor the resilience of their ancestors who fought to protect their culture and land.

Today they carry their legacy forward, ensuring that their traditions continue to thrive in gratitude and strength.

We stand with the Kumiyai Nation, connected to our past and committed to a thriving future.

Please face the flag.

Put your hand over your heart.

Ready, begin.

I pledge to the flag of the United States of America.

And to the Republic for which it stands.

One nation.

Under God and indivisible with liberty and justice for all.

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

Thank you, Council President.

I'd like to highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during today's meeting.

Please note the time allocations for proclamations and consent items for meeting management purposes.

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

You can also use 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 into the clear box.

Council ambassadors are available near the entrance 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, City Clerk.

Uh before we move to hear public comment on the proclamation items, we have a title change for item 31, which will now be Mira Mesa Little League 50th anniversary opening.

Is that correct, Council President?

Thank you for confirming.

Now that it's been read into the record, I will note that the agenda will be updated to reflect the new title and the proclamation will be swapped with the revised copy.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

I'd like to take um if I can take one second.

My apologies.

We are going to those participating remotely, starting with 8700, if you can please unmute and let me know what is the item or items that you wish to speak to.

Number 30 only.

Thank you.

You'll have one minute, please proceed.

Thank you, uh Joy Sunyata, CD3.

Uh first of all, a quick thank you to Council President Pro Cham for wearing his uh red jacket for the last presentation.

Wasn't that a fabulous uh moment for us?

Just terrific.

So on this one, uh, thank you, City Attorney Ferbert, and Council President Pro Tem Lee uh for teen dating violence awareness and prevention month.

Yes, uh, the two keys are intervention and prevention.

In my opinion, the most important way to help our teens is to teaching them to be more self-aware.

Uh thank you to all involved and the family justice center, your safe place.

That's terrific.

Um keep up the great work and love to all.

Thank you.

Next is the original.

If you can please unmute and let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

Number 30 as well, the teen violence dating.

Please proceed.

You know, it's really sad to see you guys when you do things like this.

I mean, of course, this is extremely important, but you ignore all of the abuse of children that takes place in the county that you guys are involved in, that the city attorney is involved in, the child trafficking that is taking place.

Your safe place is not a safe place.

It's engaged in the same child trafficking, engaged with foster care, things like CPS, child protective services, which does anything but protect children.

It promotes and engages in child trafficking, child abuse, covering up of sexual abuse.

So as you guys sit here in virtue signal as though you're doing something right, at the same time, you ignore those types of atrocities that you are engaged in that the people pay for.

And so it's just really sad to see that you will do things like this, engage with the people that um you know, and prop them up like your safe place when they should be shut down and defunded.

Your time has concluded.

Um, this is Andrea Ebbing.

Uh, your safe place is a money laundering facility that was uh launched by Casey Gwynn, which used to be a family justice center, but uh then it was taken over by SDPD, then it was taken over by Mara Elliott, and now it's run by our county uh Rico Mob boss summer Stefan.

It is not a safe place at all.

It's a money laundering facility.

The union tribune caught on to that.

Uh in public records, if you look in public records for your safe place and those records are um, you know, they they call it all these different things now.

It's like one safe place, your safe place because it's not following guidelines.

Teen violence.

How about my teen, who's 17 years old and is now in violent relationships because she was abducted when she was 12 years old and her maternal bond was severed after I was her loving mother her entire life and her county contracted rehab owner, dope dealer, murderer father abducted her, and Summer Stefan sold her for kickbacks.

Now she has a lifetime of issues, and so do I, and so do her sisters, because you guys have done nothing.

Has concluded.

Next is Becky Rapp.

If you can please unmute and let me know what item or items you wish to speak to.

Uh I'd like to speak to item 30.

Thank you.

Um, and thank you for my name is Becky Rap, and as um I'd like to thank you for recognizing teen uh dating violence awareness and prevention month, and for the leadership of uh city attorney's office and your safe place.

But as we talk about prevention, we must also talk about the developing adolescent brain.

And the teen brain is still forming.

And um it governs the prefrontal cortex, governs impulse control, decision making, and emotional regulation.

Regular marijuana use during adolescence has been associated with impaired judgment, increased impulsivity, heightened anxiety, and in some cases and many cases for youth, paranoia and aggression.

Uh, when judgment is impaired and emotions are intensified, conflicts escalate more quickly.

Um, it is imperative that we combine preventing um, we combine prevention with teen dating violence.

Prevention must be included in your time.

Next is Ernie Casco, if you can please unmute.

Yes, Ernie Casco.

What item or items do you wish to speak to on the proclamations?

I'm speaking on all the items, but particularly on uh uh bad choices Joe Lakov is making.

Is that a proclamation and 30 to 32?

All of them.

You'll have two.

I reported.

I okay, give me my minutes.

I reported a direct violation of Joe Lacava's office.

I reported negligent homicide, attempted murder as assistant flight director of Ernie.

We're gonna cut you off.

You can do that at non-agenda public comment later this morning.

This is proclamations.

Kathleen Lippett, if you can please unmute and let us know which item or items you'd like to speak to on the proclamation agenda.

Thank you.

Um, I'd like to address item 30.

I'd like to point out that the policies that the city continues to support also continue to contribute to problems that you have with teens, and especially where drug abuse is evolved.

You're increasing availability, access, etc.

And then you wonder why you've got this collateral damage that increases in parallel to those policies.

I'd like to share Robert Malone, he was the inventor of the MRNA vaccine platform, and his recommendation for the most valuable things that we can teach children, and it's regulating their emotions.

That prevents that is crime prevention.

It's addiction prevention, it's suicide prevention, and it's generational healing.

It's how we stop raising adults who explode, implode, or shut down at the first sign of discomfort.

Emotional regulation is not just a soft skill.

Your time concluded.

And the five-minute timer had concluded uh before her speaking.

So no additional speakers will be taken on the proclamations.

That does conclude public comment.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Uh, we will now turn it over to council members for any questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And we'll start with council president pro tem lead.

Thank you, Council President.

I'll be speaking to items 30 and 31, and I'll start by making a motion to move the proclamation's agenda with the update of the title of item 31 as Mare Mesa Little League 50th anniversary opening day.

For item 31, I am proud to bring forward a proclamation declaring February 28th as Mare Mesa Little League's 50th anniversary opening day.

For 50 years, Mayor Mesa Little League has been a cornerstone of the community, bringing generations of families together and providing young people opportunities to grow both on and off the field.

As many know, Little League is much more than about baseball.

It's about teamwork, discipline, resilience, and sportsmanship, while also creating a supportive space when it comes to youth.

Today the league involves over a thousand families within the community, and I like to always recognize that it is entirely run by volunteers.

That means the parents, the coaches, uh community members who are often giving their time, uh, whether it's during games or in between and after long work days.

Um, they help make possible this opportunity for the next generation within our community.

Uh so the proclamation is not just a milestone, but it is five decades of dedication, leadership, and community involvement.

And I'll be excited to join them this Saturday for opening day to celebrate this achievement.

For item 30, um, I want to thank City Attorney Heather Ferbert for leading this proclamation on National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month, which is commemorated annually each February.

At City Hall, the City Attorney's Office has been a leader in providing community resources and supportive services at no cost for those experiencing domestic violence, dating abuse, elder abuse, trafficking, and much more at the resource center called Your Safe Place.

Um, our team has had the opportunity to visit and support your safe place in their work.

Um, and it is one small part of what the city attorney's office does uh that really benefits the community in a significant way.

Um I know several of our St.

Unified uh Board Trustees are here with us today to raise uh awareness on this issue, and it's my pleasure now to hand this over to City Attorney Ferbert to share um her words.

Thank you so much.

It's an honor to join Council President Pro Tem Cantley this morning in sponsoring this proclamation, recognizing February as Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.

Recognizing this month is important to raise awareness, support survivors, and acknowledge the dedicated people and organizations working to present prevent cycles of violence for our youth.

Teen dating violence is a serious public health issue that affects young people across all communities.

Statistics tell us that one in three teenagers have experienced dating abuse, and about the same number report having committed dating abuse themselves.

These numbers are alarming and underscore the need for comprehensive prevention efforts.

Teen dating violence is often linked to other harmful behaviors, including bullying, sexual harassment, and physical violence.

Teen survivors face increased risk of truancy, dropout, teen pregnancy, suicide, eating disorders, and other harmful behaviors.

Without intervention, these patterns can persist into adult heart hood, preventing sorry perpetuating cycles of abuse.

The city attorney's office operates your safe place, the San Diego Family Justice Center, which provides teens with a confidential, safe environment to learn about healthy relationships, receive safety planning, and access comprehensive services.

Throughout its 24 years of serving San Diego, the Family Justice Center has helped break cycles of dating violence and now serves over a thousand clients a month.

Your safe place partners with schools and community organizations to teach boundary setting, consent practices, and online safety.

This year to recognize Teen Violence Awareness and Prevention Month.

Your safe place changed its former youth poster contest to a social media reels contest, and San Diego Unified School District has been one of our partners on this.

We hope you'll look for the winning reel on social media soon.

I want to thank San Diego Unified School District Board members, Sharon Whitehurst Payne, Sabrina Bazo, and student board member Alina Wynne.

Thanks for coming to show your support this morning.

We appreciate your partnership in this important work.

Together, we can create protective environments, engage influential adults and peers, and support teen survivors to increase safety and reduce harm.

Thank you so much.

All right.

Thank you both for your comments.

So we do have a motion by Councilmember Lee with uh excuse me, Council President Pro Tem Lee with the correction uh for the title on item 31.

And we'll go next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

I am happy to second the motion.

Uh and I want to thank uh Council President Pro Tem Lee and City Attorney Ferber for bringing forward those two proclamations that we just heard.

I am pleased to bring forward a proclamation this morning declaring Cecilia Moreno Day in the City of San Diego.

Cecilia's legacy and commitment to the neighborhood of Hillcrest cannot be overstated.

Many know Cecilia is the longtime owner of the Crest Cafe, a Hillcrest landmark, maybe a Hillcrest institution.

But much of what she does for the community takes place behind the scenes.

For decades, she has been one of these steady hands and strong voices that has moved Hillcrest forward.

She has continuously served on the Hillcrest Business Association Board of Directors since 1989.

That's 37 years, always with thoughtfulness and integrity and a deep love for the neighborhood.

She was the first dotor to the Hillcrest Pride Flag, but she was also the first dotor to the renovation of the iconic Hillcrest side.

Personally investing in the initiatives that keep Hillcrest vibrant and inclusive and unique.

Cecilia Moreto is in chambers with us this morning, along with Riot Bedrosian, the president of the Hillcrest Business Association, and Ben Nichols, the executive director.

And I would like to invite them to come out up to the microphone.

Hello, everybody.

I um I'm just good morning.

I um I have a few words.

I have a few words.

I know Cecilia is not a uh a big fan of public speaking, but I um so excited to be here today to recognize Cecilia's leadership over the last 37 years.

Uh when she joined the board of the HBA, Chris Kehoe was our new fresh-faced executive director.

Um I want to tell one story that is illustrative of Cecilia's leadership over the years.

Um we were working on deciding to create the Hillcrest Pride flag that we all know at Normal Street there.

Um we were taking a vote in our executive committee meeting, and we were discussing it and debating it, and eventually the committee decided, yes, we're gonna build this pride flag.

And I said, Well, it's gonna cost some money, and we have to privately raise that money.

You have to get it in the door.

And um, so we voted, the group voted, and it was approved, obviously, and then the very next thing that happened was Cecilia reached into her bag and she opened her checkbook and she wrote a chick.

And then she looked around the table at everyone that was there, the leaders of our business community, and she said, Who will match me?

And so that day, before we adjourned that meeting, we had raised a quarter of the amount that we needed for the pride flag.

And it's that kind of strong leadership, putting skin in the game.

It's one thing to vote, it's another thing to support and get involved.

And so um there that is an example of Cecilia's behind the scenes leadership, but also um many, many years of tastes of Hillcrest and neighborhood committee meetings and approving minutes and budget reviews and neighborhood scheming, so much uh to celebrate.

And I can say with confidence, you are going to enjoy retirement less than all of that good stuff.

So thank you for your many years.

Appreciate it.

Um thank you very much, Ben.

Uh, congratulations, Cecilia.

Uh and uh thank you very much, Ryan.

Uh anybody who has been to Hillcrest lately knows that it is a happening place these days, and the three of you have been instrumental in its progress, and we very much appreciate it.

So thank you again.

Thank you, Council President, and again I will second the motion to approve the proclamations.

All right, thank you.

Uh so we do have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee, uh, which includes the correction for the title on item 31, and a second by Councilmember Whitburn.

Uh Council President Pro Tem Lee, do you have additional comments?

Yeah, if if you didn't mind, I thought I'd invite our um guests from City Unified uh to come on up and share a couple remarks since they're uh here in support of um proclamation 30.

Thank you, Councilmember Lee, and thank you to the city council and our city attorney Heather Ferbert.

Uh, we're really happy to partner with you on this very important proclamation.

Um, of course, San Diego Unified is anything where we can you know support our students and teen dating is something that 10% of teens um suffer from, so that they're impacted by so it's uh it's a really serious, it's you know, um it's something that I think a lot of people are not aware of, and uh anything we can do to create more awareness around this issue is extremely, extremely important.

And I also have with me here our student member, Alina Nguyen, who's uh goes to Hoover High, and uh my uh colleague Dr.

Whitehurst Payne, who serves with me on the Sandy Unified School District.

Did you want to say I just wanted to say thank you so much for being with us in support of this proclamation?

Thank you.

And thank you.

Also I've challenged several several of you to get involved uh with our students.

And I think last week, a week before last with you, last week with you at uh NAN Middle School.

And the students bring forth things because they serve on the dais with us.

And I felt that we need to be here today to show them support that we are with them, and this is a very important issue.

So thank you for bringing it forth, City Attorney.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Um we have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee with the correction to the title of item 31, and a second by Councilmember Whitburn.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously six to zero with Councilmember Morando, Councilmember Campio, and Councilmember Von Wilford absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Uh, we will now take a quick pause for photos, and we will start with item thirty teen dating violence awareness and prevention month.

You know, I think we missed a moment.

I think we uh ought to give a big round of applause for Cecilia Moreno for the good work she's done over the years.

All right.

Listen carefully.

We will now move on to the approval of the consent items, but first we have some housekeeping to do.

First, I will be pulling items 103 and S500 from the consent agenda to be heard for discussion later this morning.

And that will happen after we conclude with the remainder of the consent agenda.

Again, I am pulling items 103 and S500, and we will hear them after we dispense with the consent agenda.

Second, I believe city staff has corrective statements to make for items 51 and 102.

Do we have somebody here from Engineering Capital Projects why don't you come up to the microphone?

Um introduce yourself for the record and make your statement.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Um this is I'm Catherine Duncan, I'm assistant deputy director with engineering capital projects, and I'm here to uh provide you know update to item 51, which is the item to extend the construction contract for um sewer on water group 763 project with TC construction.

So subsequent to docketing um this item, our city attorney's office has uh discovered a minor um concern, and she recommended that we update the environmental language because um the they the city attorney's office didn't want to use a past CIQA exemption, so we had to make the minor change as requested by a city attorney's office, which doesn't affect the intent of the action.

So that's basically it.

Is that sufficient, city attorney?

Okay.

Thank you for that.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh and then for item 102.

Do we have somebody from the planning department?

I see we do, so please introduce yourself for the record and make your statement.

Good morning, council members.

I'm Samira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with the City Planning.

Uh this revision clarifies that in the event that any funds are returned to City Pursuant to Section 2.4 or the contribution agreement with City of Chula Vista, those funds would be deposited back into the OTI Mesa enhanced infrastructure infrastructure financing district, public festive fund 2008.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you for that.

Again, that's sufficient.

Okay.

All right.

So I have pulled items 103 and S500.

Uh, are there any other requests to pull an item off the consent agenda?

Not seeing any.

With that, clerk, please proceed with public comment on the balance of the consent agenda.

Thank you, Council President.

Please note each speaker will have one minute per item per person.

If you would like to speak on three or more items, you will have a maximum of three minutes.

The consent agenda includes items 10, 50 through 62, 100 through 102, 104, 105, and S501, with items 103 and S500 pulled from the consent agenda as noted by the council president.

Also let me note for the record the potential reappointments that are on the agenda this morning.

Item 105 is the potential reappointments of Farah Mazari and Ted Miahara to the planning commission.

If you'd like to speak on any of the consent items, please be sure to submit your speakers up to the front of the room in the clear box.

Going to those participating remotely, we'll start with Blair Beekman.

If you can please let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

Hi.

Uh Blair Beekman.

I wanted to speak to item SO S501, item 52, and items uh 54 through 60.

You'll have three minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Uh first to speak to item 52, the agreement to extend the contract with Lexi poll.

Um there's a lot that Lexipoll does in terms of uh data collection for our police and fire departments.

Um their role and job, uh they've been doing this for quite a while now for at least five to ten years.

Um we've gotten used to their working style, but they were really uncomfortable to work with at first.

And I think we have to be noting that in this time that we're addressing clock uh issues that uh lexipols they're a little tough.

They they tend to work with police more than community.

And um, so I I I hope uh like what was spoken very nicely yesterday by Council Personal.

I hope we're really uh considering how to move forward with our with our good thinking and best practices, and we don't let them languish.

Uh it's okay to move forward with our best practices.

And if we want to question lexicol, their use, if we want to question flock, that can be okay.

And that should be an okay conversation to have publicly.

Good luck how we can have it, have those conversations.

Um for items 54 through 60, um uh pure water things and also sewer issues, uh which are right next to each other.

You have about you know, four or five items on pure water, and then you have two items following on sewer construction issues.

I try to bring sewer issues and pure water issues together when I speak uh when they're together on uh other times that other committee agendas.

I hope that can be okay in the future, and I'm not politely shut to not do that.

I I think there's a and a really important connection in the future of pure water and sewer, whatever the subject matter is, and I hope I can be allowed to connect make those connections.

And uh good luck that we can be allowed overall as public to make those connections at public comment time.

That it can be a little uncomfortable to uh counsel, but we're we're trying for good.

We're trying to offer uh a good sense of uh how to view our issues.

Good luck how to work that out between us.

With that said, pure water.

Um good luck that uh it's three years now that I think it's supposed to be fully operational, is what I'm learning recently.

And good luck we we do that well, and and and that we're honest and clear with each other how the process is going.

I know we're trying to do that.

Good luck in the continued efforts that we do that and make it a clear public process for all of us and accountable.

To conclude, uh item S uh 501 is um that is about uh encampment resolution funding round two uh things.

Uh I'm assuming this is uh, yeah.

I I know Oakland has been working on uh on their own homeless issues, um, and they've taken kind of a stringent approach sometimes and it's done something uncomfortable.

They backed off a bit and instead started working on cleaning items for the city.

How do you how do you do uh cleanup best practices?

If that can be a part of this process of best cleanup practices using Cal State money, good luck how to do that.

Thank you.

8700 after that, Andrea Ebbing, 8700.

If you can please let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

I will be speaking to 51, 54, 257, and S501.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I have three minutes, please proceed.

Uh Joyce and Yata, CD3.

Uh heads up on the uh 51 that the uh staff just spoke on, pulled it out for a minute and spoke on it.

I I really as a public, I really may need more information.

Is that is that in the backup on the CEQA exemption and what's involved there?

Because you know, I'm really interested in in SEQA and how the new uh changes are are coming uh into play.

So I need more information on that.

I hope that's available.

Thank you.

Um 54 through 57, uh, they are all pure water items.

And I want to go on the record again that this historic San Diego Water Project has my strong support.

And then on F501, the uh homelessness uh item.

Uh new agreement with HCD uh allows for admin updates to the grant program.

The new agreement will end in April, April 30th uh this year.

So uh, but what happened was good.

And the encampment, which is my old central library across from the uh United States Postal Service.

Big, big, big, big thank you to all those involved on this uh encampment uh homeless issue.

Uh as I have spoken many, many times on that.

I got to know the people around the post office there.

I talked with them.

We had dicey conversations at time.

It was a little scary at times, but I supported the encampment ordinance, and I think the cleanup and the help that's been done is really really terrific.

Now I will say this this is the truth.

Some of it is coming back around the post office again.

And I'm concerned about that.

So uh love to all and and great work, and we're all involved in this listen to all the voices, please.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Andrea Ebbing, if you can please unmute and let me know which item or items you wish to speak to.

Hi, Andrea Ebbing, I'd like to speak to 5351 and the pure water as well.

You'll have three minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Um so the NeoGov applicant tracking, I think it's important we uh really look into what um the capabilities are and looking at people's backgrounds and histories.

If we haven't learned from the Amy Knox arm reduction case where uh background checks were pulled, but yet somehow her uh four year prison sentence for massive fraud went undetected, and then we continued to award them millions of dollars uh for harm reduction.

So um that was you know, after multiple reports of what was actually going on, and then continue to award them.

That's the same exact thing that happened with um the rehab contract that is basically uncovering everything that's taking place in the county and city in the malfeasance side of things.

So our just must have been updated or uh our just must have been altered to allow these criminal convictions, huge felonies to be removed.

So if we have a good tracking system for applicants with the county and city, that would be good.

Um the 58th, so if I think we need to look at this um this big case with uh El Mento, the the drug kingpin um that was caught.

You know, we have obviously there's ties in San Diego.

I mean, we're the border, right?

So we need to look at what's going on here.

Um we need to pay attention to the sewage crisis, not making freight trucks more accessible and easier to pass through the border at Otai.

I have deep concerns about um the like the fact that the Tijuana Tijuana sewage crisis isn't more of priority.

So I like to see that we have uh items on here that look to address it, but we might want to look at the CEO of Sandag who is appointed, and then suddenly Nora Vargas resigns out of safety concerns, and his primary concern is Otai and 130 million dollars to replace conduit and billions of dollars to allow trucks to pass through quickly.

I don't know, it doesn't seem really um legit to me.

It seems actually very concerning.

So um, so yeah, let's let's clean up the uh the sewage crisis and and not think for one hot second that air purifiers are gonna do it.

Um and that's about it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five minute timer did conclude.

There's two speakers in the Q.

No additional speakers will be taken.

The original and then 7499.

The original, please let me know which items are items you wish to speak to.

Yes, um, 54 through 60, 100 and 101, and then S501.

Thank you.

You'll have three minutes, please proceed.

All right.

Well, you know, the problem with the Tijuana River Valley is that you guys are gonna start wanting to put that into the pure water system.

And anything you're doing with pure water and sewer is super egregious because you guys are not only taking billions of dollars from people who are working really hard trying to just survive, but we are using our fresh water for AI data centers and lithium mining.

So when we're sitting here talking about giving people back their own sewage, that's why sewage and pure water actually have to do with each other.

They're they're not separate issues because you're putting giving us sewer water back, acting like that is going to be beneficial for the people, and then you toxify that water with a bunch of chemicals, and I mean, let alone the fluoride, which is runoff from fertilizer that goes into the water that people claim is good for your teeth and all of those things.

You guys need to put together how much money you've spent on this and really start to think if you're doing what's best for the people when our fresh water is being not only controlled and diverted, but it is being used for things that is not of human consumption.

So it is ridiculous how much money we've been spending on that.

And you guys need to quit doing your soul source procurements.

It is another way that you guys engage in fraud.

And uh including with the emergency um single soil source uh procurements that you guys are doing.

Um, you guys wait till the last minute to take care of things, and it's absolutely ridiculous that um, you know, we have to keep, you know, spending more money and doing things that you should be upkeeping at a regular basis, just like the homeless stuff.

You guys sit here and act like you should not be doing and or engaging in any more contracts until you actually do something that is helping the homeless, that encampment that you guys are talking about by the post office every night, people are there sleeping because they have nowhere to go.

And there is no bathroom down there.

So people are going to the bathroom in the street.

Where do you expect them to go if the bathroom is closed at night?

And those people are just outside your building at night, all over downtown while you guys sit here and you profess, just like the mayor, that everything is cleaned up.

That's bullshit.

It is crap.

People are dying.

You guys give people testing strips for their drugs.

You give them pipes and needles and Nartan just in case they overdose.

You're not doing anything.

You put them in a tent city where dreams for change and downtown partnership are killing these people and having them raped and then denying it.

There's no fire extinguishers.

Like you guys need to really go in and audit everything needs to be audited that you are doing with the homeless.

Because you are taking advantage of them and you act like you're cleaning it up when all you do is have downtown partnership go at them at six o'clock in the morning and tell them delete so nobody sees it.

So people don't go to work and see what you guys are failing at fixing.

Get your shit together.

7499, if you can please unmute.

I'd like to speak on uh items, all the contract items 50 through 62, 100, 101, and 103.

Bob Kazuski here.

Items 50 through 59, 61, 62, 100, 101, and 103 are all contracts with private businesses.

Let's review a few case studies relating to private business contracts with the city.

Does anyone remember the red light camera deal that Mayor Sanders made with a private business?

That business got a cut of the money from those tickets.

And what did we find?

Well, of course, we found that there was a conflict of interest between the business profit and justice for citizens.

Fortunately, Mayor Fellner stopped that scam.

What do we see with constant contract in Highland Cloud?

We see that citizens have to go to a private website to obtain city documents.

The documents and other materials are created by the city, but rather than publish those documents on the city's own website, the city is paying an outside business to host those items.

So citizens have to visit or be registered with private for-profit businesses to get city documents and notices.

That's crazy.

What do we see with a business managing our own Jones parkade parking structure?

We see that the business decided it was inconvenient to accept cash, so they forced citizens to have some other form of private business relationship, such as a credit card to park in our parking structure.

As I mentioned before, I personally resisted that practice, and Darnell has been gracious enough to accept my cash payments so far.

But this shows how business interest cannot be trusted to manage public resources without some form of oversight.

And the granddaddy of them all is the Torrey Pines glider port.

That's a tricky one because it's a two steps removed.

The city leases our park to the business known as Air California Adventure, and then Air California Adventure requires citizens to be members of another business called USPA to use the site.

So Air California Adventure simply goes to Yushpa and asks them to expel anyone they don't like.

Yushba does their bidding so that Air California Adventure can say, sorry, it's not our fault, but you can't use the park because you're not a member of Yushpa.

Joe LaCava and Todd Gloria both know about this little game, but they both look the other way.

And the relationship between real estate assets and the business is far too chummy to provide any effective oversight.

If you doubt me, file a freedom of information request for the email between cities Rosita Rosuita Sanchez and Air California Adventure.

You'll be surprised.

And of course, as you all know, there's no advisory board to advise the city on this corrupt situation.

So it continues to this day under all of your noses.

In all of these cases, the abuses result from a dirty mixture of our government monopoly and private business greed without appropriate oversight.

So with regard to all of the contracts in these 15 items, I am demanding that this council ensure that there is proper oversight to guarantee the T that citizens' rights are not abused.

And with regard to the water issues, I'd like to remind us council.

Your time has concluded.

If you raise your hand after the five-minute timer, you can definitely call, uh send an email through City Clerk and Sandiego.gov that that does conclude public comment on the consent agenda.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

So we'll now turn it over to council members' questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And not seeing anybody in the lights, I'll move the consent items.

Uh turn next to council member.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

I'll offer a second to the motion.

All right.

And then we also have Councilmember Foster on the lights now.

Um, yes.

Um I just want to speak briefly to item 104.

Um appears this item addresses a settlement of some insurance subrogation claims related to the January 2020 uh to the January 22nd, 2024 floods.

Um just while we're resolving this litigation, um, I just can't say enough um that we need to make sure that we are continuing um to uh remain focused on our impacted families.

Um still navigating repairs and during financial strain and uncertainty, and uh some impacted did not have adequate insurance coverage at all.

Um so I just want to um let my community know that I remain committed to ensuring that the city continues working towards keeping our channels and waterways clear of debris and implementing long-term solutions so that our most vulnerable communities are not left uh behind.

So just want to make sure that we are continuing to do um the good work and meet our commitments.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster, for your comments.

We'll go next to Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

I just want to say thank you to uh Councilmember Foster for um making sure that that part's explicit.

Um obviously the folks who were impacted continue to be impacted regardless of whether or not they've been able to turn uh return back to their homes, um, whether that's um from still picking up pieces, um living somewhere else, or the trauma that comes with every time it rains.

Um I just very much appreciate Councilmember Foster letting folks know that we haven't forgotten about what happened or about the responsibilities that we have moving forward.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Gila Rivera.

And I will add that when you have these complex litigation measures, it can be difficult for the public to understand what we're doing, how we're doing it.

Uh so that was a good reminder, Councilmember Foster.

So with that, uh, we have a motion by myself to move the consent items uh with the removal of 103 and S500 that we'll hear next.

And a second by council president pro Tem Lee.

Clerk, please call the roll.

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

That passes unanimously six to zero with council member Moreno, Councilmember Campio, and Councilmember Von Wilbert absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Clerk.

Uh as I describe, we will now hear the two items that I pulled from consent.

Clerk, please introduce item 103.

Item 103 is the second amendment to agreement for legal services with Schwartz Surmergian collie um Shetna M.

Bush, LLP to provide continuing legal services as a panel outside council.

If you'd like to speak to this item, please be sure to submit a speaker slip to the front of the room in the clear desk in the clear box, or if you're participating remotely, star nine or the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Uh, do any of my colleagues need to hear a presentation on this?

Not hearing anyone, so we will wave the presentation, but I appreciate you being here, Mr.

O'Neill.

So with that, clerk, please proceed with public comment on item 103.

There are no public there are no public speakers here in council chambers going to those participating remotely.

The original, you'll have two minutes.

Please unmute.

Two minutes.

Look at that, you guys are bound that you did this.

Um, yeah, it's interesting because you know, we are always paying for you guys to have legal services.

You know, you've got your city attorney, you know, it's got county council, we got the district, you know, all of these people in play to really protect the organized crime that you guys are.

Um it is sad because then you know the people need to get justice somehow.

We've got to find our own way, but you guys use our money, the money that people work really hard to cover your butts and the things that you do that are so egregious, like not taking care of infrastructure, like harming the homeless, like harming children.

I mean, it's pretty ridiculous how much money we have to spend to do that.

I feel like because you guys are engaged in it, you're choosing to do that that on a personal capacity, you should be responsible.

Because even the money that comes out of settlements due to your guys' negligence comes from the people.

We have to pay that off.

And it's like you guys sit here and you act like what you're doing is is beneficial to the community.

I'm just wondering when that's actually gonna happen when you're not gonna need all of these attorneys to you know protect you and to make sure that I mean, because they don't sit here and make sure that you're not violating people's civil rights, that you're not you know, wasting people's money engaging in fraud, waste and abuse.

Stuff like that's exposed all the time, but you guys have the protection behind you, and you also should be held personally liable for that.

So it's it's ridiculous the kinds of the things that we have to spend money on when again people are out on the streets just wanting to get into some kind of shelter.

When again, people are out on the streets just wanting to get into some kind of shelter because they see all these homes go up around them and think, oh, is that going to be for us?

And it's like, no, that's not for you guys.

But here, take some Narcan and some needles and pipes, go do some drugs.

Here you want to test it.

Here's a test strip.

I mean, gosh, it's so sad to just see what you guys do.

That does never mind.

Uh Andrea Ebbing, if you can please unmute.

Hi, this is Andrea Abing.

I'm just asking if we contract with this uh law firm, if we look at every single individual in the law firm and whose 460 forms they appear on, I guarantee you they're all over Summer Stephens.

Um, and if they are, I I'm asking that the board um does take a look at the relationship between this firm and her office and her family, since her family makes every single decision in every single court in San Diego and has done so for years, decades, right?

Um, so I think that's an important one for the people.

So if this law firm is the one selected to uh, I guess represent the city against the people or the county, I'm not quite sure what it is.

Seems like it's probably for white collar crime, right?

To cover up all that stuff.

So if we can just kind of track those campaign donations, um, it's on stvote.com, look up the 460 forms, and we should look at every single attorney in this firm uh and who they're paying off.

Um, it's really unfortunate that we have so much malfeasance going on that's gone unchecked.

So if we do go with this firm, firm, I'm asking you to please see how we, as residents, as a community, can hold the people accountable.

That the uh organizations like the bar, the state bar, and the FPPC and the Judicial Commission, the Commission on Police Practices refuse to hold people accountable.

Um we have a district attorney, I know this is city, okay.

But when we have somebody going up and saying, Oh my gosh, Amanda Knox or whatever this Amy Knox spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on plastic surgery and credit card payments, yet she herself has paid hundreds of thousands of dollars very openly in credit card payments with taxpayer dollars campaign funds, but we can't hold her accountable.

She has two million and identical campaign transactions to Nathan Fletcher.

We can't hold her accountable.

Maybe these attorneys can, but only if they're not paying her off, and I guarantee you they're in her system.

Thank you.

Next is 7499.

If you can please unmute.

Thank you.

Next is Ernie Casco, and then 8700.

Ernie Casco, I can't unmute.

There you go.

Ernie Casco here, one second.

I'm speaking on item 30.

A few minutes ago, you would not let me speak concerning violence and prevention and your poor decisions.

It's time to stop the crime within your own administration.

Tory Pine's Glad Report complaint is well documented on your desk.

I should not three.

We're out we're talking about item 103.

So if you want to speak to that, we're happy to hear your comments.

Non-agenda public comment will follow.

I have asked you to unmute if you'd like to speak on item 103 legal services.

This is on legal services.

Okay.

Let me go back to what I was saying.

I should not be forced to sign any legal waiver or city liabilities while you're already covered by California recreational statute laws.

This is misappropriation of public funding going into private accounts and do and demands a full transparent city audit that would end the corruption.

Time to stop the crime within in your own or administration.

Tory Pine's Glad Report complaint is well documented on your desk.

It's illegal for anyone to turn our freedom into a privilege for a license and a fee under any terms, circumstances, or condition.

Allowing this crime and violence to continue is a violation of your oath and automatic forfeiture of your chair of office.

We have a petition, black speech recreational scandal to stop the illegal commercialization and privatization of San Diego Parks with hundreds of signatures demanding authorities take action.

Why we have unanimous uh letters of support from La Jolla Town Council, La Hoy Shores Association to reconvene the Tory Pines Advisory Board as needed for public safe safety and oversight.

City Council has a beautiful proven solution known as the San Diego Recreational Waiver that would end the dispute.

The San Diego recreational waiver stop city internal corruption by separating the business from free public access.

The San Diego recreational waiver isolates safety concerns that you won't address.

Secures city liabilities, restores the recreational freedoms, and addresses the victim and witnesses who have been damaged and assaulted in a timely fashion.

It's a win for the city liabilities, restores our recreational rights and freedoms for years to come.

It's the best decision city council could make, Joe Lakaba.

You want me to walk away while you blatantly rob America.

City Council is liable and needs to address victims and witnesses who have been damaged.

Your time has concluded.

Thank you.

I I wasn't planning on speaking on this, but something came up that encouraged me to do it.

Because you certainly qualified to know about who the vote, you know, if this is the quality of what we want uh for our uh attorneys.

Uh, but I do want to say this that I think it was about three years ago or so when I had a real big opening on attorneys in law, and I realized it was really a difficult thing for me to accept that our legal obligations permeate absolutely every step we take along the way in government.

And I don't think I'm wrong on that.

I don't think I'm exaggerating.

And I I was just blown away by that.

I knew we needed their help, and they were not just needed their help, they were vital the attorneys in law.

But at the same time, the fact that it just permeates everything was just shocking to me.

And and and I really felt sad about it.

But I'm on board now.

And um, so uh we we just must have that that strength there, that that part of our our workings.

Now uh we can look at the federal level and see the rule of law, which is you know the gem, the heart of our country, and how it's being diminished lately, and yet it was so exciting when the Supreme Court, and I guess it's not through yet, came forward with that decision on the tariffs, and that does affect our community big time.

And and that was a positive thing, but it's it's very complicated.

But just the threatening of the Fed the law of the rule of the law in our country, the fact that that's coming forward big time now.

It just hard to not be disheartened by it.

So I'm I'm for this item, and I thank you for listening to the case.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Thank you.

8813, if you can please unmute.

Okay, close all of here.

So um, yeah, so I'll start off by saying um, you know, when the city count council is transparent and lawful, uh, you don't need lawyers or you know, for legal shielding, you know, you need uh accountability, quite frankly, and um if the city was behaving without fraud and corruption, its attorneys wouldn't be working over time to be protecting it.

And and it is worth asking um why the San Diego City Council relies so heavily on legal representation when addressing the public's concerns.

Um again, if the city for operating free from fraud and corruption, uh then there wouldn't be any need for any of this.

But here we are and uh more waste, and I too agree with um the previous speakers who are concerned.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment on this item.

All right, we'll turn it over to council member questions and comments.

I'll go ahead and move uh the staff recommendation.

Can I get a second?

Yeah, we have a second by council president prove.

Not in anybody else in lights again.

We have a voice by myself and a second by council president pro Tam Lee to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the roll.

Started the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes uh unanimously five to zero with Council Member Moreno, Councilmember Campillo, Councilmember Von Wilburt, and Councilmember Whitburn absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

And thank you to the team that put this together.

With that, please introduce item S500.

Item S500 is settlement of City of San Diego versus San Diego County Local Agency Formation Commission at all San Diego Superior Court number two five C U 03103C.

Claim number NA.

If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit a speaker slip to the front of the room or star nine of the raise your hand icon.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

Thank you to staff for showing up.

Uh, do my colleagues need a presentation on this?

Not seeing anyone requesting.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

There's no public comment here in Council Chambers.

I'm sorry at the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely.

The original, if you can please unmute, you'll have two minutes.

Yeah, this is interesting because you guys this has to do with uh anti-slap motions, um, you know, which are used to prevent lawsuits designed to punish or intimidate, you know, people like defendants from exercising First Amendment rights and being able to, you know, talk about these things.

And in that, they'll get their um attorneys fees and whatnot when it's granted.

So it's just interesting to continue to see because you guys still like you're transparent enough so that like we know what you're engaged in, but then it doesn't go beyond that.

You don't go in and fix the issues as to why these types of things are happening, and now we have to pay, you know, 116 or whatever thousand dollars um out of the public liability fund.

And again, the public liability fund is funded by the people that you're you know wasting their money with.

And this is another waste because and it just shows how much you guys try to silence people and try to, you know, and you do it here in these meetings, you you guys do it wherever when you don't like what someone's saying, it's that there's any kind of dissent, but there's only dissent because of the fraud, waste and abuse that you guys engage in.

Like if you weren't engaged in those types of things and you were actually using our money wisely and spending it on stuff that the world around us would be changing, not getting worse.

I mean, it's just it's sad because people do thank you, but they don't really pay attention, they don't listen and really look into what you guys are doing and seeing how much you know money that they are throwing at you guys that you're basically using as toilet paper.

And so it's just you know, the hope is that one day you guys will honestly have to change your heart's correct and actually do things for the veteran of people, but not just your pockets and your friends' pockets.

Because like people are suffering.

I mean, they really are, and you guys don't give a shit, and it's just it's a reflection of the world around us.

Time has concluded.

Next is 8813, then Andrea Ebbing, then 8700.

Please unmute 8813.

There you go.

Okay, thank you.

No, I just wanted to make a comment regarding the protocol and you guys not wanting to have a presentation.

Well, if you have public engagement and the public understand what it is that you guys will be voting on, uh that's that's an issue, that's a problem.

As it is, people are turned off by these meetings because they don't know what the hell is going on.

And instantly you say you're you know you're talking about politics and uh the subject just gets shut down, but it's because of how you guys um how you guys do things here.

It's like, gosh, you should have a presentation for the people who don't know what's happening, at least because you know, you guys want to get to your day.

I mean, shit, you have probably people absent today.

Like it's pretty disappointing, but they're the way they are because of how you guys how you guys work or don't work.

Okay, that's all I gotta say.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Andrea Ebbing, if you can please unmute.

I this is Andrea Ebbing.

I'm so glad to see that we have First Amendment rights.

I wouldn't know that.

You know what I mean?

Like I had no idea we had First Amendment rights in San Diego because I used my first amendment rights to report really violent crimes and the abduction of my children, the drugging of my children.

And instead of anybody helping me, they removed charges and they omitted my children from reports, and they prosecuted me for almost six years uh for reporting the crimes that took place.

So I didn't even know we were allowed to speak freely.

Um I didn't know we were allowed to report crimes or opioid distribution or insurance fraud or the malfeasance taking place from our local government leaders who are actually working in a RICO enterprise, but doesn't want anyone to know that that's what's taking place.

But unfortunately for everybody, the local feds who aren't doing their jobs are being watched by the real feds who are watching them not do their jobs at this point because it has gone so far.

So we can carry on pretending that people have First Amendment rights in San Diego.

They don't come on.

Say one wrong word, you're cut off, you're shut down, you can't get on, you've, you know, it it's but the the good thing is the good news is there are so many of us now, and everybody's coming together, all these community coalitions.

The the whatever's been happening here in San Diego is definitely coming to an end.

And I really hope that the people who participated at that level are go to prison because that's what they deserve.

Their children deserve everything our children have suffered.

But I pray to God that they don't ever experience that.

But their parents should.

Their parents should experience prison time.

Thank you.

Five minutes timer concluded.

There are three speakers in the queue.

No additional speakers will be taken.

8700, please unmute.

Uh thank you.

Uh Joyce and Yala C D three.

Again, I wasn't planning on speaking on this, but here we go.

Um excuse me, uh, President Lakava.

Uh, I do agree that I would excuse me, kick it drink.

Oh, coffee helps.

President Lakava.

I do agree that we we just a mini presentation.

You know, even three minutes of five minutes would be so great.

Consider that, would you?

Um, so again, I'm not prepared, but I am prepared.

Uh, I love the First Amendment rights, and and we need to fight this and fight this and keep it and keep it.

Hey, we have First Amendment rights right in council right now.

We can say anything practically you want to say, it'll be on record.

You know, get it out, say it, feel better because you said it, people will hear it.

It's on City TV.

Uh, you know, I mean, this is our gym.

We need more people coming forward and doing their First Amendment rights in this way.

So the only concern I have is I recently learned about qualified immunity when I was researching uh closed session items, and that was new to me.

So I just I don't know how qualified immunity is handled nationally or locally.

Uh, but I would say that um I I hope that there's a real balance in there that that we don't because the proponents, you know, really love it.

It it keeps lawsuits, you know, the overabundance of lawsuits coming forward.

And the proponents, if I can say the opponents, if I can say this right, think that it it you know it allows uh officials uh perhaps a little too much leeway to not have to come forward in litigation.

So I don't know the full truth of all the facts in that, but I do know that I love First Amendment rights.

And thank you for that concluding comment.

Sorry, your time has concluded.

7499 and then Ernie Casco, 7499, please unmute.

Bob Krasowski here.

Again, I don't have any prepared comments on this item, but I do want to add my voice to the concerns expressed by many of the previous speakers.

I also want to thank each of those speakers for researching these items and voicing their concerns for the rest of us.

Thank you to all speakers who take their time to address this council.

However, I do want to correct uh Joy Sanyata's comments regarding our freedom to speak at this council.

As many of you know, I was sued by the city's contractor, Air California Adventure for my speeches, exposing their actions at the Tory Pines glider port.

Um the the court erroneously determined that that business somehow is a private citizen, that those are private citizens, and I cannot show what they're doing at our glider port without defaming them.

And I was not protected by the fact that they were public figures.

In fact, they were determined somehow not to be public figures, even though they're operating our own city park.

The city should have stepped in to help and correct that, but the city did not.

So we do not have the free speech that Joy Sanyata has expressed, and I hope the city will take action to correct that in the future.

Thank you.

Next is and our final speaker is Ernie Casco, if you can please unmute.

Yes, uh speaking on item S500, and the crimes are reported to your office, Joe Lacava in San Diego police department.

I just heard some serious violations.

Your lease soldier tried to end my life.

He killed a pilot, assaulted me the following day, breaking my back, was sued for 50,000, came back and switched my wing where I landed, crash landed on a building.

After that, he poisoned me.

Where is my police report, Joe Lakava?

Why haven't you taken action when there's a legal solution on your desk?

I want to know.

I've asked many a time uh for you to take action.

We have a black speech recreational scandal petition uh to stop the illegal commercialization and privatization of San Diego Parks with La Jolla Town Council, La Hoy Shores Association, uh unanimous letter of supports to reconvene the Tory Pines advisory board and implement the San Diego recreational waiver that would end the dispute.

It's a win for city liabilities, restores our recreational rights and freedoms for years to come.

It's the best decision you can make, Jolicava.

If you want me to walk away while you blatantly rob America, City Council is still liable and needs to address victims and witnesses who have been damaged.

I'm dying of stage four cancer because your leaseholder poisoned me with a biohazard.

You need to take action.

Implement the San Diego recreational waiver immediately.

Not send me down another rabbit hole that ends nowhere.

Your time has concluded, and that concludes public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

With that, we'll take it over to council members' questions, comments, and our motion, and I'll go ahead and move item S 500.

And a second by Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Again, we have a motion by myself and a second by Council President Pro Tem Lee to move the recommendation on S500.

Clerk, please call the rules.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously.

Five to zero with Council Moreno, Councilmember Campio, Councilmember Von Wilbert, and Councilmember Whitburn absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

With that, we will now take up non-agenda public comment.

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 public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

If you're in chambers, please submit a speaker slip.

If you are virtual, please press star nine or the raise your hand participant.

There are no speakers here in chambers starting the five-minute timer.

Going to those participating remotely.

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

If you can please unmute.

Blair Beekman, I can't unmute for you.

There you go.

There I go.

I got it.

Uh hi, Blair Beekman.

Uh, thanks for the morning meeting today.

I come from the San Francisco Bay Area.

They take the Brown Act public meeting process really seriously, and they play it by the book.

And it's, I mean, you have to practice the protocols and decorum of the public meeting process to the letter.

And um, it's really nice to be in San Diego that you guys are just a bit more loose about it.

Thank you.

Um, I will do my best to practice public meeting decorum and and that I feel it's important to practice it.

Um but uh thank you that that you can listen and the First Amendment rights are really important here in San Diego, and that we respect him and and and and what Joyce Sanan has said that we're allowed to talk about issues as a public uh thank you for allowing that.

And uh good luck uh how we address that together as community.

Um sounded like an interesting item previously to allow public comment.

I wanted to comment um also from yesterday.

Uh yeah, that um I was really impressed by council personalero's words on um uh what are we actually going to be working on as a as a city in these tough budget times?

Um I I really believe that uh but what's happened with the Trump issues, um, it's not to necessarily fight Trump or conservative right wingism.

It's just that we see a better way.

I think a better way is presenting ourselves to to us, what is possible and what to work towards.

I mean, truly best practices and best goals.

And I don't think we should shy away from those things.

I really hope we make the efforts to talk about the future of tech accountability and how we can do things smarter and better principles.

And that that is no crime to work on, and that's not a partisan issue.

That should be a consensus community sharing issue that we need to really talk about this year and and not feel afraid to talk about it in this election year.

So good luck how we can be doing that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Terry Ann Skelly, then the original.

Good morning, Sandy Goodis, excuse me, San Diego City Council Chair Lacaba.

My name is Terry Ann Scelly, and I'm here as a planning group attendee and a community volunteer.

Yesterday I described one of the teen and parent programs at our high schools that are important to me and the safety to all of us here in the city.

It's called the Start Smart Program.

It's a program to reduce drunk, drugged, and distracted driving by teens.

The conversation yesterday regarding budget mid-year report and the proposed 2027 budget should be an opportunity to reflect on the cost of drunk, drugged and distracted driving by teens and others in the city.

Marijuana and other drug impaired driving imposes significant budgetary operational and financial strains on first responders, police, fire, emergency, and hospital personnel.

These costs include specialized training, extended incident response times, forensic toxicology, and prosecution, often totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars per incident.

And if caught, and of course, the cost to families and to neighborhoods are incalculable.

Recognizing the enormous budget impact of marijuana use and impaired driving should prompt us to ask what could our city do to interpretate the cost to use marijuana than drive.

We should ask what do the huge imposing marijuana billboard suggest.

Is the answer, is it time to revisit our billboard policies?

If only from a budget perspective, the commercializing and promotion of marijuana use is a cost intensive, unnecessary expense.

Thank you for allowing me to speak today.

Thank you.

Next is the original, then 8700, and thank you, Rep.

Original, please unmute.

There you go.

So interesting to see all of the cover-ups that take place in the city.

And it's also interesting to know that we live in a world where children are being sacrificed, actually being eaten.

It's called jerky, or they have different names for it, you know, and they drain their blood and stuff.

But they gotta scare them first because you know you gotta get adrenaline in that blood, so then they can drain it.

See they gotta be tortured.

Yeah, and it's interesting that you know things like this can come out and to see who it doesn't bother, you know, who you know, children being sexually abused doesn't bother, where they have their teeth taken out so that yeah when they are you know doing sexual favors for people, it's better.

Um you know, and we live in a world where many of these children come from foster care and CPS, they're ripped from their families.

And it's interesting because you guys, you know, also incentivized a bunch of children and accompanying minors to come across the border, right?

You had a few thousand in the uh convention center where you were surely vaccinating them doing pregnancy tests and different things.

And then like a month later, they just disappear because they got their sponsor, right?

And then, you know, hundreds of thousands of those children have not been found.

But that's not a problem, right?

Let's worry about what ICE is doing now.

Let's worry about you know, making sure you guys, you know, sue people and are protected.

Why don't you guys care about those things?

Are you complicit in that?

That's why I think everybody should be asking if people are pedophiles, because if you don't care about the things that are going on with children, then you must be engaged in the abuse of them.

And even just sitting there silent is complicity, too.

And the battle versus good is evil is on and strong.

Your time is concluded after 8700, then back Becky Rep.

8700, please unmute Star Six.

First of all, a couple of things before I speak on budget.

I'm gonna do the budget today.

And then a council president pro chem.

I hope I said that right yesterday.

Uh about uh I'll say it again, but I know it's edited.

Uh you said something that's close to this, I think what to do on a daily basis to remove the structural budget deficit.

And then what I forgot to say yesterday is that um from an operational standpoint.

So um I just hope I'm I'm I'm saying that right about you.

I love your work, you're very good.

Thank you.

Uh so uh the budget.

Okay, last night.

It was easy for me to say what I want for the FY27 budget.

Yet I did find it a bit uncomfortable to speak of my cuts.

I need to do much better on clutch at the upcoming budget hearings.

Now, council member Elo Rivera, as Blair related to.

I loved what you said, and this I think is absolutely verbatim.

What city are we trying to be?

Excuse me.

What city are we trying to be?

Those that have the most share.

What city are we trying to be?

I know you said that, and I added this, those that have the most share.

So uh, but I think I'm right on that that question, and that's terrific.

And let's put that on the top of all of our budget uh deliberations.

So I'll expand on a little bit.

You're gonna probably have to cut me off, City Court Pointes.

Um, on the uh I'm gonna expand on our, you know, one people, one San Diego.

I want to broaden uh one people.

I'm sorry, your time has concluded.

We'll hear from you again next week.

Becky Rapp, if you can unmute good morning, Council President and Council members.

My name is Becky Rapp, and again, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

And I want to acknowledge that vision zero was recently discussed at the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee.

And I appreciate the city's continued commitment to eliminating traffic fatalities and serious injuries.

Vision zero is an important public health goal, and it reflects our responsibility to make San Diego Street safer for everyone.

We know that lowering speed limits and redesigning streets are critical strategies.

Speed directly impacts crash severity, and when drivers are attentive and sober, reducing speeds absolutely saves lives.

However, if vision zero is going to be truly effective, we must also address one of the most significant contributors to severe and fatal crashes, and that's drug and alcohol impairment.

Nationally, about one in three traffic fatalities involves an impaired driver.

A posted sign alone will not change the behavior of someone who is under the influence.

Impaired drivers have slower reaction time, reduced judgment, and are more likely to speed or ignore traffic signals altogether.

If we're serious about achieving zero traffic deaths, prevention must be part of the process, and that includes incorporating drug and alcohol prevention efforts, public education campaigns, and meaningful visible enforcement.

A simple but very impactful suggestion would be to remove all billboards promoting and advertising marijuana products in our city.

I urge the council to ensure that as vision zero policies move forward, impaired driving prevention is not treated as a separate issue, but as a core piece of the city's traffic safety strategy.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Next is Andrea Ebbing.

The five-minute timer did conclude.

There's six speakers in the Q.

No additional speakers will be taken.

Andrea Ebbing, then 8813, then 7499.

Hi, this is Andrea Ebbing.

Uh I am a victim of a horrific violent crime here in San Diego.

My children were abducted, driven across the country on a permanently suspended license by a felony charge strangler.

Our county and city have abandoned all of us completely.

I didn't forget about my children in the filthy pig, bottom feeding alcoholic pig drug uh court judge who was at one point a family court judge.

Her name is Paula Rosenstein.

You might find her on the uh bar of the night owl at 6 a.m.

being sloughed off so she can go into her courtroom and body broker.

That pig sold my children for rehab kickbacks.

That's not a past tense thing.

It's never gonna go away.

And our mob boss DA better be on alert that the real feds are watching her and her husband.

That's why he had a step down four years early.

We need to look at the RGI system.

Ernie, the guy who was talking earlier, are you kidding me?

Are you guys kidding me?

Seriously, this many cover-ups, this many removals of police reports.

Everybody's in really, really deep trouble right now.

And I hope everyone sees it coming to them in slow motion because it won't be stopped.

I can assure you one thing.

This was a uh started off as a case where, you know, anybody could have done their job, and then, yeah, law enforcement would have helped us, victim services would have helped us, but no.

Family courts didn't help us, no.

Everybody's a pig and a bottom feeder, everybody wants a little bit of blood money, but guess what?

Now it's a RICO case, and firms from all over the country are salivating for this case.

And Ernie and anyone who's experienced the alteration of Argus, removal of records, alteration of court records.

Let's collaborate.

Let's make it a RICO case for all.

Thank you so much.

Your time is concluded.

8813, then 7499.

A one three, please unmute.

You already, yeah, can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Okay, come fell here.

Amen.

Uh to Andrea Ebbing.

Thank you so much for that.

And uh, so first off, uh the concerned citizen with stage four cancer, uh, Ernie, I believe that's your name.

Thank you so much.

I felt that fire.

And I do hope that um justice is served.

Uh it is crucial that more of the public participate in these government agency meetings from the county to the city council to this city council.

They continue to get away with so much, and it's all by design.

They need the public disengaged and distracted with other things, especially just trying to get by.

A county full of people barely surviving when they should be thriving, especially here in San Diego.

The programming and indoctrination run deep.

Many government employees under the illusion that they're simply doing their job and contributing to progress.

Biggest delusion ever.

I'd like to take the rest of my time to speak on the United Nations agenda for the 21st century.

It's real, it's here.

They've moved incrementally and intentionally, doing things right under our noses, then convincing us it's for our safety, our benefit.

Such a thick, twisted, inverted system.

It has the people rooting for their own enslavement.

I urge the public to at least acknowledge that these local government agencies are failing the people.

They've only been effective in getting more people dependent on them.

Again, all by design, all for control.

That includes your comments.

Yes, it does.

Thank you.

Thank you.

7499, if you can please unmute.

Bob Kazuski here.

As I've mentioned yesterday, the city government, including Todd Gloria, Joe Lacava, and this entire council has been allowing a private business to abuse its role in managing one of our most iconic city parks at the Tory Pines glider port.

As I also mentioned yesterday, it's certainly reasonable for the city to purchase products from outside vendors.

It's even reasonable for the city to purchase outside services.

But it is unreasonable and inappropriate for the city to force citizens into business and membership relationships with private businesses in order to access city services and resources, including access to our city parks.

That's where you've crossed the line.

There is no reason why this city can't manage the Tory Pines glider port, just as the city manages our beaches and parks and tennis courts and volleyball courts and dog parks and streets and sidewalks and even this building itself.

Imagine if the city turned over control of this building to a private business who decided that anyone who testified against them would not be allowed in this building or allowed to call into this council.

Yet that's exactly what's happening at our Tory Pine City Park.

Let's remember all of these abuses from red light cameras to forced relationships with private businesses for city communication to not accepting cash for parking in our structures to force memberships with private businesses to use our city parks.

These are all abuses that arise when the city hires outside businesses and then shirks its duty to ensure that citizens are treated fairly by those businesses.

What's ironic is that all of you left-wing council members and mayor would very quickly accuse conservatives of putting business interests above the public if you observed any of these actions by conservatives.

But here you are doing exactly the same thing every single day.

Reactivate the Tory Pines City Park Advisory Board and implement the Tory Pines waiver now.

Thank you.

Next is Madison, if you can please unmute then Ernie Casco and Michael Schmidt's our final speaker.

Hi, thank you.

Good morning, Council members.

Last week, the Public Health Institute announced findings from a major longitudinal study published in GM Health Forum.

The study followed 463,000 adolescents and young adults.

It found that teens who reported past year cannabis use had double the risk of developing psychotic disorders and doubled the risk of developing bipolar disorder in young adulthood.

They also face significantly higher risks of depression and anxiety.

Importantly, the cannabis use came first.

On average, the use preceded psychiatric diagnoses by nearly two years.

This strengthens the evidence that adolescent cannabis exposure is not just correlated with but may contribute to serious mental illness.

Adolescent cannabis use remains common.

The risks are rising while the perception of harm is falling.

The study also found higher rates of cannabis use among youth enrolled in Medicaid and those living in more socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods.

That means commercialization may be widening mental health disparities.

Something our city cannot ignore.

I urge the city council to strengthen local restrictions on youth-targeted cannabis marketing.

Support funding for school and community-based prevention programs.

Require clear, prominent warnings about high potency THC products, and partner with pediatric providers to expand screening and early intervention for cannabis use.

The mental health of our young people is worth fighting for.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Ernie Casco.

Yes, uh, hello, Ernie Casco, senior resident pilot, Torrey Pines glider port.

Yeah, my home was invaded.

And I reported it to you, and you did nothing about it, and it was invaded again.

Tory Pines glider port is well documented on your desk.

Your leaseholder is breaking the law.

I should not be forced to sign a leaseholder waiver when city liabilities are already covered by California recreational statutes law.

This is misappropriation of public funding going into private accounts and demands a full transparent city audit that would end the dispute by exposing it.

This is unacceptable under any terms, conditions, or circumstances.

Allowing this crime to continue is a violation of your oath of office, Joe Locava.

Time for you to step out of office.

We have a petition black speech recreational scandal to stop the illegal commercialization of Tory Pines Glider Port and San Diego Parks with hundreds of signatures demanding authorities take action.

We have a unanimous letter of support from town council Lahoy Shores Association to reconvene the Tory Pines Advisory Board permanently as needed for public safety and oversight at Tory Pines Glider Port.

City Council has a beautiful solution known as the San Diego Recreational Waiver that would end the dispute.

The San Diego Recreational Waiver stops city leaseholder internal corruption by separating your screwed-up business with free public access and rights.

San Diego Recreational Waiver isolates safety concerns, secures those city liabilities, restores our recreational rights and freedoms, and addresses the victim and witnesses that have been damaged by your administration poor decisions.

It's time for city council to make good decisions and restore reparational rights and freedoms for years to come by implementing the San Diego recreational waiver.

It's the best decision you can make, Joe Locava.

If you want me to walk away while you blatantly rob America.

Your time has concluded.

Michael Schmidt, your final speaker, please unmute.

Hi.

I was gonna post that um I just got out today.

Um drive is created in peak and their um topic city aside um legally placement as soon as possible.

Um everything from yesterday.

Yes, thank you.

That concludes on agenda public comment for today's meeting.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

With that, we will now adjourn for the noon recess and reconvene open session at 2 p.m.

or shortly thereafter.

Thank you.

And face a misdemeanor, not a felony.

This law changes that.

And this bill uh is going to be instrumental at not only being able to take enforcement on the demand side, but also have the funding that's necessary for the supportive programs to help our youth, our young ladies that are involved in this trade uh in really an interesting bad position in life.

This law will be a game changer and will allow police and prosecutors to do our jobs of protecting the most vulnerable.

San Diego is not a place to traffic in children.

And if you do it, you're gonna have a police department that's gonna arrest you, and you're gonna have a DA that's gonna prosecute you.

Don't do it here.

We're planting eight trees and giving the park a fresh look by painting our park furniture and the playground, and this event's part of our ready set grow San Diego effort to bring more shade and more beauty and more green space to neighborhoods like City Heights.

Teralta Park is a special place and a product of community members coming together to provide a central gathering place to mitigate the division of the neighborhood that the 15 freeway brought.

And before this freeway was here, there were homes here, right?

And the freeway would had a huge impact on the community.

We're standing above a fruit on a park that's above a freeway.

And that's not common.

It's one of the first places in California that that happened, and it was a direct result of community voice.

Having you all here to help with these kinds of tasks and to help make this park better by you all being here, creates ownership.

And when you all feel like you own this park, you'll want to come back again and again and again.

You're gonna plant a seed a seed today, a tree today, and you're gonna watch that grow over time, and your younger siblings are gonna be able to take shade under those trees.

Your kids one day will be able to have a picnic under those trees.

How beautiful is that.

So know that the work that you're doing today, it's not just about today and the way that the park will look better when you leave, it's about the the the what we're we're planning for future generations.

So currently here at the Miramar Greenery, we separate any contaminants from our organic waste materials and compost through a screening process that removes most of the contamination, and our end compost has less than one percent contamination by weight.

This process that we're piloting right now removes contaminants on the front end of that process, which then will result in a lower amount of contaminants at the end, which is a better compost product to put out in our community.

Organic materials when they go to the landfill create both methane and leachate, though which then we have to control through environmental containment systems and can create air pollution as well as water pollution if not managed appropriately.

When we divert organic materials through composting programs like this and other programs around our region, we're able to reduce that amount of methane, capture a viable, reusable resource, and could and get it back out into the community.

Compost can replace chemical fertilizers, which then improve the overall environment that we all live in.

Well, the green bin it's meant for all of your organic waste material.

That would be all of your yard trimmings, so maybe your grass cuttings, maybe your trimming bushes, um plants, flowers.

It also includes all of your food scraps.

So any vegetable fruit, even your meat and bones, your bread, as well as food soiled paper products.

And when I say that, I mean think of a coffee filter with coffee grounds in it, or napkins or paper towels that have been used and soiled, all of that can go in your green bed.

The city is educating all of our residents, people who live and work in the city of San Diego about their green bin and what they are allowed to put in it and what they're not allowed to put in it.

So we do not allow plastic bags or compostable bags at our greenery composting processing facility.

The future of the college area, the future of our city.

There we go.

And the future of the tens of thousands of students who call SDSU home during one of the most important chapters of their lives.

This is the first comprehensive plan update in more than 30 years.

And for me, the best thing about it is more options for future SDSU students to stay close to the campus.

What I heard was a community that wanted to elevate their community.

A safe community, a community with a high quality of life, a place filled with belonging where everyone has the opportunity to be where they want to be.

And a community that's up for everyone.

I also want to thank the residents, the students, the educators, the business owners, and the city staff who contributed countless hours to creating this college area community plan update.

The plan lays the groundwork for up to 17,750 new housing opportunities for students like me.

That means a real chance to live closer to school, reduce our lawn commutes, and spend more time learning, working, and being a part of the campus and community that we care about.

A road diet and a usable park will not only activate the corridor, but connect the various neighborhoods and communities of permanent residents and students that tend to be isolated.

From housing affordability to transit access, safe streets, welcoming public spaces, all directly affect whether or not students can focus on their learning, graduate on time, and build their futures right here in America's finest city.

The goal was and is to make the college area a destination and a place people want to live in.

This is smart growth.

It's growth that supports our city's climate goals, it supports our local small businesses, creates safer and more vibrant streets, and growth that reflects the reality of a major American university inside a top 10 American city.

Electrification of a building is removal of natural gas burning systems.

So switching from gas furnaces and kitchens to electric systems, which allows us to remove uh greenhouse gas emissions from the environment.

The financing agreement is cash flow neutral.

We're essentially shifting our operating costs from energy bills over to loan repayment across a 25-year term and with no upfront cost to the city.

Exactly a year ago, you would have seen anywhere from about 75 to 100 people living in this island area.

It's important to remember is the outreach that we launched in July was four months earlier, so that we could take the time to engage individuals and actually better understand what someone wanted and what someone needed instead of just coming in and saying, okay, we're cleaning it up, you gotta go.

So from July all the way to November, they were out here trying to get people into some type of shelter option.

So by the time that we came out here, there's already been months of outreach occurring.

So when we came, that was the day where we were actually gonna be getting all the trash, all the people, everything out of here, so it could go back to being what's supposed to be part of the river.

Since then, uh park rangers have been out here daily, and that's been a very big group effort.

So park rangers from all units, department wide have been coming out here to patrol.

This area right here, it floods.

It goes straight into the ocean.

We don't want people in this area because when the rains come, the tide goes up.

Not only for them, but for our employees.

So getting all that, but when I see the wildlife that's out here, you see ducks, you see cranes, you see things that we didn't see a year, year and a half ago.

That's one of the ways I know that we did good out here is seeing the wildlife returning.

We're still engaging individuals.

I think something that's the larger celebration is that fifty-nine are currently in permanent housing right now, whether it be through diversion efforts all the way to permanent supportive housing.

So I'm happy to see that this area has maintained and that we are putting that money that we use for this to good use.

All right.

Good afternoon.

I will now reconvene the city council meeting of Tuesday, February twenty-fourth, twenty twenty-six.

Clerk, please call the role.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilbur.

Council President Pro Tim Lee.

Council Member Campillo.

Council Member Moreno.

Present.

Council Member Elo Rivera.

And Council President Lacava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting are Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald, independent budget analyst Charles Monica, Council of 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 Quorum is now present.

With that, Clerk, please introduce item 332.

Item 332 is the preservation and progress package A.

If you would like to speak to this item, please be sure to submit your speaker slips to the front of the room in the clear box.

If you are seeding time, please be sure that you're submitting your speaker slip with the person that you are ceding time to.

They should be coming up together.

And if you are virtual, 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.

With that.

As you settle in, uh please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon.

I'm Kelly Stonko, Deputy Director of the Climate Preservation and Public Spaces Division in the City Planning Department.

I'll need about 20 minutes for my presentation today.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you so much.

Good afternoon, Council President Lacava, members of the City Council.

I am pleased to present to you today package A of Preservation and Progress, a comprehensive update to the city's heritage preservation program.

The goals of preservation and progress are to advance equity and preservation, ensure the Mills Act program is equitable and fiscally responsible in its implementation.

Identify and protect historical properties and districts, reform permit processes to better encourage adaptive reuse of historic buildings on their original site, adopt objective design standards for historic properties and districts, and remove regulations that unnecessarily impact properties that lack significance.

Staff has grouped the updates into package A and package B.

Package A, which is before you today includes items that are not significantly complex and that do not involve amendments to the historical resources regulations or historical resources guidelines.

Package B, which we'll be developing this year, includes updates that are more complex in nature that do include updates to the historical resources regulations and guidelines or that require more extensive environmental analysis.

The items included today in package A include amendments to the historic preservation element and appendix F of the city's general plan, amendments to the land development code of the city's municipal code, including amendments to the appeal process for historic designations, clarifying amendments to the applicability of complete communities housing solutions in emerging and thematic historic districts and other cleanup items, and updates to the city's historic preservation fund to focus on the advancement of equity and historic preservation.

Looking first at the amendments to the general plan, staff is proposing updates to the narrative sections of the historic preservation element that include an updated discussion regarding Native American resources and consultation to incorporate new laws that have gone into effect since 2008.

An updated discussion of the San Diego Municipal Code requirements to remove detailed discussion of regulatory requirements and permit processing consistent with other general plan elements, removal of references to conservation areas, a failed concept that was explored with the 2008 general plan, and the addition of language regarding the identification, interpretation, and celebration of buildings and areas that are ineligible for designation but nevertheless important to the community, as well as minor updates to outdated language, terminology, and the number of resources on the city's register.

Policy updates within the historic preservation element include incorporating policies regarding tribal cultural resources and consultation with the Kumeyay Nation to that have been included in recent community plan updates, removal of the concept of conservation areas and replacement with language regarding celebration and interpretation of properties that do not meet the criteria for historic designation, ensuring that preservation efforts recognize and celebrate the histories of all communities, including groups that have been traditionally underrepresented in the city's historic preservation work.

Encouraging the use of objective design standards for development on sites with historic resources, and promoting the use of sustainable materials and practices in restoring resources and developing mitigation strategies to address climate change impacts.

The uh context statement will be completed in approximately two to three years, and appendix F will be comprehensively updated when that work is complete.

In the interim, staff is proposing updates to better address tribal cultural history as well as the impact of past zoning and lending practices on segregation and lack of infrastructure investment, including reference to appendix A of the housing element, which provides a detailed discussion of these topics.

Preservation and progress package A includes several amendments to the land development code of the city's municipal code.

In regard to the historical resources board appointments and terms, the deadline for the mayor to appoint a chair to the HRB will be extended from April 15th to April 3030 to better align with Historical Resources Board docketing timelines.

Additionally, staff is proposing to incorporate a degree of flexibility to the appointment of technical experts and professionals to the historical resources board.

Five of the 11 board seats are required to be filled by technical experts in the field of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, history, and archaeology.

If one of those seats is vacant, the board is unable to carry out its duties under the code.

The proposed amendments add that if a qualified volunteer cannot be found to fill one of the five professional seats, that seat may be filled by a second professional from one of the other preservation related disciplines with no more than two professionals from the same field on the board in those professional seats.

While the city will always endeavor to have each of the five professional seats filled by their respective technical experts, this amendment will provide much needed flexibility in the event that a qualified volunteer cannot be found when a vacancy arises.

Amendments are proposed related to noticing and the time limit for review by the historical resources board.

The amendments to noticing are cleanup items to align with other city noticing requirements.

A clarifying amendment is also included to clearly state that the 90-day time limit for the board's consideration of a designation action starts with the first HRB meeting in which the designation is considered.

Amendments are also proposed related to appeals of historic designations by the Historical Resources Board.

A decision by the Historical Resources Board to designate a historical resource can be appealed to the City Council.

When the current appeal process was developed, the City Council at that time opted to defer the question of significance to the Historical Resources Board and retained more limited oversight over designation actions.

As a result, the City Council currently may only grant an appeal and overturn a designation if there are factual errors in materials or information presented to the board, violations of bylaws or hearing procedures, or new information that speaks to why the resource is not significant.

In recent years, the current city council has expressed interest in expanding their oversight of the appeal process to include reconsideration of the historic designation itself.

The amendments will add a fourth finding of findings not supported consistent with the appeal process for development permits.

This would allow the city council to reconsider the designation itself by looking at the information that was presented to the Historical Resources Board when they considered designation and adopted findings to designate the property and determine whether the board's findings are supported by the information in the record.

Before moving on from this amendment, I did want to note that when the proposed amendments were first presented at public meetings, the amendments included adding the ability to peel appeal when the historical resources board does not designate a property, which cannot be appealed under the current regulations.

The policy subcommittee of the Historical Resources Board recommended that the new ability to appeal when a property is not designated be limited to the property owner, which was what was presented to the Historical Resources Board.

This raised concerns related to due process and consistency with other appeal processes, and so ultimately adding the ability to appeal when a property is not designated has been removed from preservation in progress package A, which will retain the status quo in regard to board decisions to not designate.

Additional more minor amendments related to appeals of historic designations include aligning appeal filing requirements with other city appeal processes, as well as adding a deadline to docket the appeal within 180 days of the appeal filing.

Currently, there is no deadline, and appeals remain pending for years when the property owner does not wish to proceed to an appeal hearing.

This amendment would require the issue of significance and designation to be settled and finalized within a reasonable time frame.

Amendments are proposed to San Diego Municipal Code Section 123.0206 that will clarify the role of the board and the city council in reviewing national register nominations consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act and the City's responsibilities as a certified local government.

The last land development code amendment is a clarifying amendment to the Complete Communities Housing Solutions regulations, which will clarify that complete communities is allowed within thematic and emerging historic districts if the property is not a designated contributing resource.

There's currently one thematic historic district, the Chinese Chinese Asian Thematic Historic District downtown, and one emerging historical district, the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District in the city.

This does not change how thematic and historic, I'm sorry, thematic and emerging historical districts have always been regulated by the city and is consistent with the city's historical district procedures, which clearly state that only contributing resources are regulated.

A traditional historic district has a more compact geographic boundary with a high concentration of contributing resources that embody why the district is significant, and a low concentration of resource non-contributing resources which do not embody the district's significance.

All properties within a traditional historic district boundary are therefore regulated to different degrees to preserve the sense of place and significance of the historic district.

The two maps on the screen show two of the city's traditional historical districts.

Sherman Heights in the southeastern community planning area is shown on the left, and South Park in the Greater Golden Hill Planning Area is shown on the right.

Both of these districts have tightly defined geographic boundaries and a high concentration of contributing resources, indicated on the map with pink dots.

In Sherman Heights, 7074% of the 529 properties within the district boundary are contributing, and in South Park, 73% of the 407 properties within the district boundary are contributing.

All properties within the boundaries of these districts are regulated to different degrees to preserve the historic nature of the district and the distinct sense of place.

Thematic and emerging historic districts are different from traditional historic districts.

Their boundaries can be much larger, and they only have contributing resources that meet the theme and convey the significance of the district.

If a property within the boundary of a thematic or emerging historical district is not designated as a contributing resource to the district, it is not regulated.

Looking at the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District specifically, the boundary shown here in orange encompasses the original Ocean Beach subdivision and represents the area in which eligible beach cottages constructed between 1887 and 1931 can be found.

The area encompasses approximately 3,000 parcels.

Only 72 of those parcels, about 2.4%, are designated as contributing resources to the district.

The remaining 2,900 plus parcels have never been regulated as part of the district since its designation in 2000, and the proposed amendments would clarify that complete communities housing solutions can be utilized on those parcels.

The historic district will remain in place, and the designated contributing resources will continue to be regulated as they always have been.

Looking at the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District, which is thematically based, compared to a traditional historical district like South Park, you can see the vastly different concentrations of contributing resources, and why only contributing resources are regulated as part of a thematically based district, such as the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District.

This is explicitly stated in the Historical Resources Board procedure on establishing historic districts, which states in regards to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historic District quote: only those properties identified and designated as contributors are currently regulated, end quote.

Additionally, to be designated as a contributing resource to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District, a property must be volunteered by the property owner for designation.

The proposed amendment to the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations, which cannot be used within designated historical districts in order to preserve the concentrated collective significance of a traditional historic district, is a clarifying amendment.

The prohibition was never intended to entire apply to the entire boundary of a thematic or emerging historical district where the district is just the contributing resources and nothing else.

This does not impact how the contributing resources within these districts are regulated or how staff has always applied the regulations.

Complete communities housing solutions will continue to be prohibited on contributing properties within emerging and historic thematic historic districts and permitted on properties that are not designated as contributing resources.

The last item in preservation and progress package A is a change to the city's historic preservation fund, which primarily receives revenue from civil penalties and enforcement fees from unpermitted alteration of historical resources.

There's presently approximately 100,000 in the fund.

The proposed changes would focus fund expenditures on work that advances equity in historic preservation, such as funding efforts that support the identification and preservation of resources significant for their association with cultural groups and communities that are underrepresented in historic preservation, as well as direct financial assistance to very low and low-income owners of historic properties to assist with maintenance and restoration.

Preservation and progress package A was presented at three public meetings of the Historical Resources Board's policy subcommittee in July, August, and October of 2025.

Staff also held virtual public workshop on October 8th, 2025, where all items were presented and staff responded to questions and feedback.

On October 23rd, the Historical Resources Board considered the item.

A motion to recommend adoption of package A as presented, which at that time included the added ability for property owner to appeal when a property is not designated by the board, failed with a vote of four in favor and six opposed.

A follow-up motion to recommend adoption of package A, subject to removal of the added ability to appeal when a property is not designated, and a request that a discussion regarding the number of votes required to designate a resource be included in preservation and progress package B also failed with a with a vote of five in favor, four opposed, and one abstention.

There were no additional motions, and the board's consideration of preservation and progress package A concluded without a recommendation.

The two primary areas of discussion for the historical resources board were the added ability to appeal when a property is not designated, and the fourth appeal finding being added to the appeal process.

In the first case, there was disagreement over who should be able to appeal when a property is not designated.

And as to the added appeal finding, there was concern from some board members that adding that finding would dilute the subject matter expertise that the historical resources board provides on considering historic designations of those two items.

The first item, the ability to add when a property be able to appeal when a property is not designated, has been removed from the package, so that is no longer included.

And adding the fourth appeal finding is still before the council and is a policy decision as to which the council would prefer the current appeal process or the proposed fourth finding as well.

On October 28th, the community ponders committee voted 28 to 0 to 0 to oppose preservation and progress package A and recommend that the proposed findings not supported appeal finding be removed, that the voting requirements for the historical resources board be changed to a simple majority of board members present to designate, and that the ability to appeal historical resources board decisions to not designate a property be added back into package A.

Lastly, on November 6th, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of preservation and progress package A as presented.

The land use and housing committee reviewed preservation and progress package A on January 15th and unanimously unanimously recommended approval with a recommendation to report on the use of the new appeal finding as part of the board's annual written report to the council.

The City of San Diego joins the other largest cities in the nation in being a certified local government, meaning that the city's historic preservation program has been certified by the California State Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

As a certified local government, we are required to submit changes to the city's historic preservation ordinance to the California State Office of Historic Preservation.

On October 23rd, the state office confirmed that they have no objections to the proposed changes and supports the city's efforts.

Therefore, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the resolutions and ordinances for preservation and progress package A, including the resolution adopting the amendments to the historic preservation element and appendix F of the general plan, the ordinance adopting amendments to the land development code or the municipal code, and the resolution adopting amendments to the purpose and intended use of the historic preservation fund.

This concludes my presentation today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

And with that, clerk, please introduce item three, excuse me.

With that, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you.

I will proceed with public comment.

We have quite a number of speakers here in chambers as well as online, so we will be going to a minute a piece.

If we can start with the following individuals, and if they can please come up to the yellow reserve seats and the front seats, Jennifer Ayala, Ione Stiegler, Mandy Havlik, Wesley Morgan, David Swarrens, Stephanie Benavuto, and Jeff Hudder.

If you can all please come up to the front row.

And Jennifer Ayala, if you can please come up to the microphone.

Is this on?

Yes, it is.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh, Council President and Council members.

My name is Jennifer Ayala.

I co-lead Nexus Planning and Research where I head our historical resources practice.

I want to briefly respond to any claims that might be made today.

I do not believe that the clarification should be necessary, but given the testimony that's been given in the past, it's important to clearly state what package A does and does not do and support the work staff has presented.

Package A does not change designation criteria.

It does not reduce protections for designated resources.

It does not reduce protections for designated resources, it does not eliminate expert review, it does not alter the 45-year review process, and it does not speed up development.

The added findings not supported appeal ground does not create an open-ended political override.

The council would remain bound by the city's adopted designation criteria and would determine whether HRB findings are supported by the substantial evidence in the record.

This clarification is aligned with many other California cities and counties where the elected governing body makes the final designation decisions.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for that concluding statement.

Aon Stiegler?

Yeah.

Hi, I'm Ion Stiegler, FAIA, a preservation architect who has worked inside San Diego's policy framework for more than four decades.

I'm here as your memory.

Under Republican Mayor Susan Golding and City Manager Jack Magory, we spent over five years hammering out today's status quo on historic designation appeals.

This is about that Fourth Amendment that they're trying to put in.

I did this together with the Preservation Ordnance Rewrite Committee, a carefully orchestrated bipartisan committee on which we're placed two very pro-property owner attorneys, Carl Zobell and Marie Leah Burke.

As a lifelong Democrat, I'm frankly embarrassed that a Democratic-led city is now attacking the long-standing historic preservation appeals process over a handful of designations a year and shifting a technical, evidence-based process into a political one.

What is before you today is not new.

It's a return to the de novo model that the Council of the United States.

Thank you for that conclusion after experience with its flaws.

Thank you.

You have something thank you, Mandy.

Um you did real great with the thumbs up or thumbs down, uh, the clapping.

We get a lot of people will want to hear from that, just kind of slows it down.

So thumbs up or thumbs down, it's a very strong, and the little cards you got are very strong visuals up here.

Thank you.

Uh Angela Vetter is seating time.

So you'll have two minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Good after good afternoon, Council President and Council members.

My name is Dandy Havlet.

I am a longtime district two community leader and advocate, and someone who spent years working alongside residents and planners to protect the character and livability of Ocean Beach.

My children attended Ocean Beach Elementary, and like many families, this isn't just a neighborhood neighborhood I visit.

It's a neighborhood that I have roots in, and I'm going to raise my family.

I'm here because I'm deeply committed to protecting the place we call home.

Today's decision on preservation and progress package is not just about policy language.

It's about whether we respect the intent behind historic preservation and community planning, or whether we allow technical changes to weaken protections residents have relied on for decades.

Ocean Beach's cottage emergency emerging historical district exists because generations of community members have recognized that these small cottages and the surrounding neighborhood fabric define our historic coastal identity.

The emergent the emerging designation is reflecting the unfinished work.

Specifically the city's responsibility to complete a comprehensive survey, not an invitation to limit protections before that work is done.

Reducing the district to only 72 cottages ignores the broader historic context and the reality that many more structures may qualify.

And before altering policies in a way that could permanently shape ocean beach, the city must complete the survey process and meaningful and meaningfully engage the community.

Package A raises serious concerns because it could open the door to increased density through programs like complete communities without adequate infrastructure planning.

We already struggle with parking availability, lacking infrastructure, and coastal climate issues.

We understand the need to address home and affordability issues, and we just ask that again to not to pause our men package A for the community.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Wesley Morgan.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Wes Morgan, and I want to thank city staff for the two years of public input and engagement on this.

Package A is a modest but important step forward, and I look forward to more complex work through package B.

On the topic of ocean beach, the existence of 72 historic cottages and a context statement do not default an entire community into a historic district.

There is no state, national, or local criteria under which the full Ocean Beach community would qualify as a geographic historic district.

And if there was, the integrity requirement simply is not met.

Roughly 2% of the parcels are contributing, while recognized districts require well over 50% and demonstrated continuity of character as well.

Historic designation is not governed by rules, it is governed by rules, not sentiment.

It's troubling to see respected preservation groups shift from those standards to broad claims that the entire OB community is historic without documented integrity.

It clarifies that complete communities does not apply to historic cottages and never will.

It applies only to non-historic parcels.

Thank you very much.

Stevens, David Swarrens, my apologies.

David Swarens from Golden Hill.

I'm uh owner of properties in the two districts highlighted by staff and was involved with their adoption.

Um I mainly wish to address a lack of good faith by changing the rules midstream on long-term pipeline projects, specifically the proposed historic districts and from community plan updates from 1920, including the the original commitment was to process these uh by uh in Golden Hill by 2018, which was you'll note some time back.

Uh each year we've been told next year, this past week, we were told after this project because of staff of commitments to the preservation in progress.

Um that's that's just that's disingenuous uh and not it's not nobody ever told me life was fair, but it's supposed to at least pretend to be fair.

Um I intend I still have uh um concerns about project splitting under CEQA, both packages A and B, as well as recent related changes to the general plan, which uh rely on and uh um reference.

Stephanie Benaveto Benvenuto, my apologies.

That was great.

Uh my name is Stephanie Benvenuta.

I'm here on the San Diego here on behalf of the San Diego Building Industry Association.

We want to express our sincere thank you to staff for putting in so much work to create this balanced starting policy package.

We are very eager to see package B move forward, but for today's consideration, we again want to reiterate that what our industry looks for is certainty, predictability, and clarity.

This is a very modest but very important step forward in that process and will help enhance all of the pro-housing work that this council and this administration has already done to ensure that things are not inappropriately sidelined because of some confusion around what policies mean with regard to historicity.

So we appreciate your time today.

Thank you very much and urge your vote and support.

Jeff Shooter.

Jeff Huder, you have several people seating you time.

If they can please raise their hands, and I know you have a presentation, we'll get that up as well.

David Modi.

If I haven't called your hand, don't uh don't raise it yet.

Thank you.

David Modi, Dana Gibbett.

Thank you.

Yvonne Jones, Laura Henson, Paul Krueger, Leslie Bruce, Rick Roche.

Thank you.

Priscilla Burger, B E R G.

Priscilla.

Oh, sorry.

Elizabeth Kelly.

Thank you.

William McCullin.

Brooke Empey.

And Deidra Lee.

Thank you.

You'll have 13 minutes.

I'll set the timer for you.

Great.

Thank you, Council members.

Um.

One of the things I'd like to do today is before we go through something as substantial as what we're going to do today.

There should have been some more coherent analysis of what the conditions are in San Diego, how historic preservation relates to us.

And you know, we're sort of jumping to the de novo process without asking why historic preservation itself is important to us.

One of the things that what I'm going to show today is there's a lot of misconceptions about historic preservation, and one of the things is that historic neighborhoods and older neighborhoods in general are more affordable for San Diegans, both homeowners and renters.

They aren't freezing population or diversity, they're diversifying faster than the rest of San Diego.

And finally, that rehabilitation and reuse of historic resources is a much more uh sustainable strategy than just tearing buildings to the ground and starting over.

So if you go to the next slide, one of the things that we did, um I'd just like to um summarize the the the historic context of the historic context, I guess, and that is if you look at the next slide.

Um, how do we get here?

Well, what happened was is there's a lot of statements about San Diego being frozen in time.

The reality is that when uh we uh moved to an uh fully to an automobile culture and the city expanded north of I8 to the you know to first Claremont Mesa, Kearney Mesa, Sorrano Mesa, uh etc.

Um, we really just left behind those existing neighborhoods.

You know, when we look at community plan updates for South of Eight communities, there's never any economic development plan, no idea to bring jobs to these areas.

Um, there's always a lack of infrastructure, and one of the things that's sustained our south of eight communities, and this is districts you know, two, uh, three, eight, and nine, is really been the fact that we have these stabilizing neighborhoods that are valued by people despite the other conditions that don't exist.

Um what happened then is we expanded out, and then for purposes of urban containment, we said we're not going to keep going any further.

We've reflected that development back, and now that we've decided that we want to that we care about you know, mid-city again, we're at this contention of uh should we allow people to just mow down our neighborhoods and start over, or should we take what we have today and enhance it further?

So next slide.

Um, you know, first I just like to so we actually, as the preservation um community, we actually commissioned a study by place economics, which is a national firm that specializes in uh economic analysis of historic uh districts.

They're actually typically hired by planning departments, you know, like um Dallas, Philadelphia, San Antonio, states hire them.

So they're a very uh reputable thing.

So you don't have to take my word for it, you can actually take another firms for it.

So one of the things we did, and this report is still in preparation when it's done, we'll share it with you.

But to kind of get to it first, I think the first thing is believe it or not, historic districts are growing faster than the rest of the city.

So the not only are we not stopping development, we're actually adding more people to historic districts in San Diego than the rest of the city at large.

Um if you go to the next slide.

Um how is that happening?

Well, a lot of in field development is small scale development, and it doesn't look like we're adding all this housing when in fact we are, and a perfect example of that is ADU development.

There's twice as many ADUs being added in historic districts.

That's not just south of eight communities, these are actually designated historic districts.

So we say that we're making it illegal to add housing or that historic preservation is freezing things in time.

This data clearly shows the opposite is true.

We're adding twice as many, almost twice as many, well, one and a half times as many ADUs to historic districts as we're adding to the rest of the city.

Um, and how let's give an example to put a picture on it in the next slide.

So, this is an example of a win-win situation.

So, this was a dilapidated fourplex and hill crest.

Um, the owners bought this property, they rehabilitated it, um, taking advantage of the Mills Act.

So, you can see it's a it's in you know it's got all its original windows, it's a very beautiful building, but on top of that, they added two ADUs to this property.

So we we we did the best of historic preservation and we did the best of infill housing with this project, and these things are possible.

So, going to the next slide.

Um, the other thing is about diversity.

So, because historic properties, older properties tend to be smaller in San Diego, and they tend to be in more diversified areas anyway.

We're finding that the diversification of historic districts is actually a very rapid process.

We're not freezing things a place again, and this is not only true true for people who who live and rent in these areas, but that's also true for home ownerships, and so this is an important part of that.

Going to the next slide, and again, this gets back to the different types of housing topies that we have in historic districts, and the fact that we have smaller homes.

Uh in some ways, our historic districts are our missing middle already.

And if you look at when we get a planning department presentation on the kinds of things that we want to do is missing middle, typically they just come to our historic districts and take pictures.

It's bungalow courts, it's quadplexes, eight plexus, duplexes, and as can be seen here, this is where people with incomes between 50 and 100,000 people are uh disproportionately finding that that those housing options in our historic districts.

Next slide.

Um a lot gets said about the Mills Act.

It is somebody who's trying a young family who's trying to buy into the market today, and the Mills Act provides a mechanism for that, lowering not just lowering the monthly cost of housing, but also helping to subsidize maintenance of those historic properties as well.

So I think that's that's important.

Next slide.

And this is really important.

So we're talking if we go beyond just historic districts, and we just say, look, how old is our housing stock and how does that affect affordability?

We often hear this term that's called filtering, which says that we go over to the right side of this graph and we build premium rate, brand new housing, and you know, in 40 years it filters down, and then we have affordable housing.

Well, this graph in some sense confirms that.

You know, you start over here on the right, and you get down to 1980, 40 years ago, and sure enough, we're at a more affordable level, but unfortunately we should be what we don't do at that point is we don't preserve this housing.

So we say we're going to filter down to something, and then we demolish it all in order to build the brand new things on the right, and we've destroyed that filtering chain.

More importantly, if you see here, this is our naturally occurring affordable housing.

You know, one of the things that gets overlooked is 61% of all the housing available to people in lower incomes, is it's just rented on the market.

They don't go through the housing commission, it's not deeded.

Those are just market rentals, and this is where those market rentals are coming from, and it's it should be the the linchpin of our preservation uh policies that we protect this NOAA housing.

Next slide.

So the last thing I just like to talk about, and you can skip forward one more, is how does this factor, how does preservation factor into our preservation, our climate goals?

And if you look at the the city's study of what goes into our landfills, well, 34% of everything on our landfill is construction and demolition waste, which is to say buildings, and 34% is in organic materials.

Well, we know from all the debates that are happening here over trash fees and whatnot that organics are getting a lot of attention, but we don't even have construction and demolition in our climate action plan.

It's not even considered as a climate factor.

So if you go to the next slide, uh, you know, it's I think important to get to where you have real data.

And so here's a case study that was done by a group called LPA Design Studios, and they were uh contracted to renovate this Granger building that was downtown San Diego, and the way that they they considered it, if you go to the next slide, is they considered multiple options.

They considered whether just leave the building where it is, do nothing, um, do a light renovation of this, mainly preserving the inside, but not necessarily gutting it.

Then they said, well, let's just leave the facade, gut it, and finally they said, well, what if we just tear the whole building down?

Well, we often say, well, new construction, you know, we have modern lead technology, we can decarbonize and things like that.

But what the study analysis shows is that the equivalent carbon production from destroying that building outweighs any of the new benefits of decarbonization in that operation of the new building.

And in fact, the best strategy you have is to take your existing buildings, do a renovation of those buildings and put them back into production, and that's taken this what was uh a rundown former office building and turned it into a nice boutique hotel in downtown San Diego.

Um, going to the next slide.

The other thing is, you know, we often look at grand buildings, but sometimes it's good to just look at at humbler places, you know, in mid-city.

Um, this is a project that's going in if you're familiar on Elkham Boulevard where the YMCA is, this is across from the YMCA.

This was a thrift store, um, you know, two-story building, and what they did with this is they uh preserved that sort of entry facade and very coolly kept the Tiralta sign and kept the that front mezzanine, and then they built up behind it.

You know, there's a step back to give that separation with the existing historic building, but there's quite a lot of housing here.

This is almost a whole block of new affordable housing in in mid-city, and and again, we think this is a win win.

How did this happen?

Well, the historic resources staff worked with the developer of this project, Wakeland Development, and they were able to come up with this uh accommodation of the historic structure and the new construction, and this is more of what we'd like to see rather than just saying, well, we need a de novo process, so we can just scrape our buildings rather than come up with um consistent creative solutions for our historic preservation.

So I'll just say if you go to the next slide.

Um our findings aren't really that much different than what the IBA did.

Um we had a study that was commissioned for the IBA a couple of years ago that largely found that that historic preservation was a benefit to CN San Diego, not a negative, and something that we should continue to encourage.

And I I guess just to summarize what these things show is that first of all, the most affordable home is the one that's already there, so preservation is very important.

Um we have areas that are you know densifying is about adding um units here and there, hitting singles and doubles, not about hitting home runs.

And um, we hope that you'll delay package A and consider everything together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is uh Shane Harris, Public Advocate Shane Harris.

You have time ceded to you by Keith Fuch.

Keith, if you can please raise your hand.

Thank you, William Corwin.

Thank you, and Sandra Strong.

Thank you.

You'll have four minutes before you begin, though.

If I can ask for the following individuals to please come forward, Eric Duvall, William Riley, Lynn Miller, and Kathleen Blavati.

If you can all please come forward to the yellow reserve seats.

And please begin when ready.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Good afternoon, Council President and members of the City Council.

My name is Shane Harris, and I serve as the San Diego Public Advocate.

Over the past year, my office has stood with homeowners, historians, architects, neighborhood planning groups, SOHO, and stakeholders citywide to defend the integrity of the Mills Act and San Diego's historic preservation process.

When concerns grew about weakening preservation protections, I didn't stay silent.

I launched the Hands Off the Mills Act initiative.

I met with residents who invested their savings, restoring historic homes under city guidelines.

I spoke with historians who have spent decades documenting San Diego's story, and I worked with community leaders who understood preservation isn't nostalgia, it's stewardship, accountability, and fairness.

What I heard across San Diego was simple and clear.

People want preservation done transparently, professionally, and equitably.

Today we're discussing item 332, preservation and progress.

But key parts of this package move us away from preservation, not toward it.

Let me say clearly, the folks standing behind me or sitting behind me are not NIMBEs.

They are not anti-housing.

You can be pro-housing and still demand a fair process.

You can support development and still expect developers to engage neighborhoods in good faith and build trust.

Many developers do that.

But too often, this conversation has been driven by talking points that treat communities and neighborhoods like obstacles instead of partners, and that's not how you get housing done or trust built.

The debate is not housing versus history.

It's about balance, integrity, and trust.

One of the most concerning elements is the proposed de novo appeal process, which would allow the city council to substitute political judgment for expert determinations of the historic resources board.

For more than 20 years, the historic resources board, nor this council has supported a de novo process because historic designation requires specialized expertise, training, and consistent application of adopted criteria.

The HRB is made up of architects, historians, and qualified citizen experts appointed specifically to evaluate historical significance.

Respectfully, none of you, none of the city council has that specialized experience, nor a long-standing history serving as the body that conducts historical assessments.

Council's role is legislative solely.

The HRB's role is technical, technical and evaluative.

Those roles were intentionally separated, like church and state.

And when those lines blur, confidence in the system erodes.

Limiting citizen appeal rights for non-designations also raises serious equity and participation concerns.

If we are serious about inclusion, my friends, we should not narrow the public's ability to engage decisions that shape their community.

Now my office is not here to simply oppose.

We are here to propose with the proposed amendments that strengthen this package.

Remove the de novo appeal and keep appellate structure focused on procedural compliance, not political rehearing.

Two, re retain parity and appeal rights so fairness runs in both directions.

Three, pause final action until the independent economic equity and climate analysis is fully reviewed publicly.

Four, before altering protections in emerging historic areas, complete comprehensive surveys so decisions are informed and accurate.

These amendments don't stop progress, they improve it.

San Diego is already losing historic resources every year.

From La Jolla to Pacific Beach, Kensington to Mission Hills, Bankers Hill, Golden Hill, Sherman Heights.

This item is called preservation and progress.

Let's ensure preservation actually remains in it.

Real progress going forward.

Thank you.

Eric Duvall.

Good afternoon, Eric Duval from Ocean Beach Historical Society.

If I was with it, I would have my remarks on a phone.

I can see that right now.

I would encourage you folks to uh reject uh package A.

I would encourage you to actually represent your communities as opposed to greed groups uh not supporting the communities.

This is a historic resources board, as you know, did not support uh this package.

The Ocean Beach Historic District needs the full comprehensive survey to be completed.

Ocean Beach is already built out, it is already densely populated.

Narrow streets, tiny lots, and on street parking has been at a premium for decades, plural at this point.

Please vote to support the community over the special interests and reject package A.

Thank you.

William Riley.

William Riley, you have time to see it to you by Lorna Thiel.

Thank you so much for the time.

My name is William Riley.

Uh I came to San Diego uh just shy of 50 years ago when I joined the Navy, and I was stationed in Coronado.

I went to boot camp here.

I lived for two years in Imperial Beach, 28 years in Pacific Beach, and 18 years in Ocean Beach.

In six months, we made more connections than we did in Pacific Beach in 28 years, because OB is a community and they care about their people.

And when I got here, all the places seemed, all the towns seemed like small separate communities in and of themselves, which have all been built in in between ever since.

But uh I believe that if the council votes to put this package forward, we are going to lose community.

Community in my sense is common unity.

That's all of us working together toward community.

And I believe that if this goes forward, um the city council is going to hand outside developers and outside uh investors.

San Diego's heart and soul on a platter.

And I would just like to say that complete communities is a complete misnomer.

If this goes forward, it should be called complete annihilation of communities.

Thank you.

William, oh sorry, that was William Riley.

Uh Lynn Miller.

Lynn, you have several people seeding you time.

If I can have the following individuals, please raise their hand.

Barbara Holton.

Chris Baca, I see.

Al Baca.

Umanda Bacca.

Rosemary Sutter.

Arlene Fink.

Evelyn Viora.

Corey Miller.

James Miller.

I don't see a James Miller raising their hand.

Oh, sorry, thank you.

Meredith Halton.

Tim Halton.

Bill Wilson.

Janet Griffith.

Griffin.

Thank you.

And Colleen Dietzel.

That is 15.

Please proceed when ready.

Thank you.

Hello, I'm Lynn Miller.

I'm with coastal caretakers.

We are opposed to the modification known as package A.

I'm a native Obesian.

My family has been there for four generations.

We attended the elementary schools there, graduated from Point Lima High School.

I'm here because I care about Ocean Beach, which is one of the treasures of San Diego.

But what I say to you about Ocean Beach can be applied to homes in all of our communities.

What has remained the same are the people who choose to live in Ocean Beach.

OB attracts outliers, mavericks, iconoclasts.

The faces of the people change, but there is a rebellious nature that runs through time.

These outliers did not choose to have more controls and regulations on their personal property by certifying them historic.

I'm sure they asked what are the benefits as opposed to what are the downsides.

The City of San Diego targeted Ocean Beach as the only historic district that would be excluded from the exemption.

That means OB would receive no protection from complete communities building.

Package A is intended to give complete community legal rights to build in OB.

I have a question for you.

Have you already decided how you're going to vote?

Are we wasting our time here?

It feels that way from this side.

Doesn't mean it's true, but it feels that way from this side.

From over here, it seems like your focus is meeting benchmarks mandated by the state rather than serving your constituents.

You were not hearing us, and you are silencing our voices in so many ways.

You no longer honor the recommendations of planning boards, which are the voices of the people.

You delete documents from websites that support our arguments.

We are asking you to listen to our voices.

You have a misconception of Ocean Beach.

There is a bumper sticker that says Ocean Beach is beside the point.

Ocean Beach is on the other side of the hill facing the ocean.

Point Lomans historically were the wealthier side of the hill.

Obecians were on the other side of the hill with low to income, with low to moderate incomes, smaller homes, and many, many, many apartments.

In fact, Ocean Beach, according to current 2026 data, has approximately 63% of houses renter-occupied, while 37% are owner-occupied.

We are not trying to stand in the way of positive change.

We welcome it.

We are asking you to listen to us.

Are you listening?

Look at the conditions of the roadways.

The city in their rush to build has not built an infrastructure that will comment that will accommodate more people.

Come to Ocean Beach now during peak traffic.

It takes 20 minutes to get to the freeway.

And then when you get to the freeway, it's like you've been transported to Los Angeles.

Midway rising will feed into that same freeway.

Pretending that Ocean Beach has rapid transit is dishonest.

We have a bus line and no plans or money to build rapid transit.

If the city does not have money to replace light bulbs in street lights, where will they find the money to build the necessary infrastructure?

OB is the last so-caled beach town to maintain its authentic scale and feel.

Protesters who opposed the Vietnam War.

These colorful artists and activists earned Ocean Beach the title of Southern California's Hate Ashbury.

What is now becomes the past.

And then it becomes part of history.

The 50s, 60s, and 70s should be included in OB history.

In 1999, the city decided to reframe the district as I'll try to say this right, the ocean beach cottage emerging historic district, and make it a volunteer process.

How do you think those outliers felt about volunteering to be historic?

Our ocean, our ocean beach history should not be limited to trolley car cottages.

Our history is more than that.

Churches, church road, the library, the elementary school, uh the surfing culture, and the activist subculture, as well as the cottages.

We suggest that Ocean Beach Historic District becomes the official name.

With over 3,000 parcels, the Ocean Beach Historic District is geographically the largest historic district in San Diego.

Its massive size is why it is being targeted for deregulation.

The developers projected rents and profits explained the rush to build.

Beyond the historic designation lies greater concerns.

Proposition D, the coastal height limit, was voted on and passed in 1972.

It's law.

It prohibits the construction of any building taller than 30 feet in the coastal zone.

That is the area between Pacific Ocean and Interstate 5.

That means Ocean Beach, Point Loma, and Sunset Cliffs are west of I-5.

Therefore, even if you choose to vote for package A and it passes, complete communities cannot build legally above the 30-foot height limit.

Water runs downhill onto the cliffs and into the ocean.

Ocean Beach is a sensitive geologic zone and flood zone.

The city should require California Coastal Zone, SECA and EIR evaluations on every structure.

Instead, they waive these requirements.

Remember that song.

I promised my family I would not.

But we feel like this.

Next is Kathleen.

After that, if I can have Meckley Barron, Dan Soderberg, Dean Glass, Sharon Gell, and Barry Hager.

Please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Kathleen, you have time seated to you, Scott Francis.

Thank you.

And Mary Ann Callham.

Thank you so much.

You'll have three minutes, please proceed.

Thank you.

If you guys can look forward here and instead of your computers for a few minutes, I want to take you back in time.

This is a historic 1887 subdivision map of Ocean Beach, which a longtime friend of mine had in his works.

We have substandard size lots.

We already have great density.

Some of these lots are the eighth of a size of a normal lot.

You can see them here when they first did these subdivisions.

Okay.

Also, we had sand dunes there, and they lie under some of this.

We have flooding.

And in here, it shows where the natural springs are.

Remember the Lamborghini's that flooded in the garages twice, which I'm sure our taxes help pay for.

Wow!

And other ones.

There's also more that are not marked on this map.

Up the hill, up in cottages I've found, where there are pumps, historic pumps outside in the yards showing where these are.

Two houses up from me.

They had a well.

We need to do the history.

We have buildings down there that have history of people.

One of the buildings down by the beach.

It was the police station.

It was the library before it moved to the current library.

It had a Ferris wheel across the street from it.

It is still there.

And we have artisans in that building now.

Some that have been there since the 60s.

We have people that are inspired by Ocean Beach as far as artists, musicians, writers.

By the way, I'm a writer.

I've done three ocean beach books, and I've done one on Sunset Cliff.

And believe me, I will write down history.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Look towards the history.

I'm sorry if I'm saying your name wrong.

Baron?

We'll get you.

Just hold on one second, someone will come in, help you.

Yeah, Baron, please come up to the mic.

Hi there.

My name is Mercy Barron.

I'm on the board of the Ocean Beach Historical Society.

I gotta tell you, I spent 52 years of my life in Los Angeles.

I didn't know anything that was going on there because I barely even knew my neighbors, no less what was going on with construction and development and all those things because there was really just no community.

But I really fought to move here 18 years ago.

I even have a jacket.

I want you guys to see it.

It says OB girl, because that's how I feel now.

I'm an OB girl.

I'm a retired archaeologist.

I try very hard to preserve things, to keep things the way they are.

Again, not against progress, but we need to learn from our history.

And I was in here 13 years ago taking pictures of people here fighting for the 30-foot height limit when I wrote for the San Diego Reader.

And here I am again.

Thank you, Diane Soderbergh.

I'm thinking of uh two neighborhood voices that are no longer with us, but I wish they were here today to speak on these issues.

One is Ernie Bond of University Heights.

She won three times three times Soho Preservation honorees, honor honorary awards, including the highest designation of preservationist of the year.

Another that comes to mind is Ian Trowbridge, a stellar civic leader.

He passed away some 13 years ago.

I was here the day when he stood at this microphone and he looked at the dais and he said, What happens to you people when you get in public office?

The hubris that overcomes you.

Have things changed?

Well, we'll see.

We'll see.

But the so-called package A and De Nova Review is nothing but a power grab.

And it brings politics in the process.

In San Diego, let's keep our historic resources decisions using established criterions.

And thank you for that.

Not bringing politics into it.

Dean Glass.

Hi, I'm going to read in part a letter from Susan Brant Hawley, a lawyer whose practice focuses on SEQA's application to the built environment, who has consulted with and represented SOHO for many years to assist in their efforts to protect and adaptably reuse historic resources.

Her work focuses on historic resources statewide, many reflected in 50 published legal opinions.

Good afternoon.

It is my considered legal opinion and concern that this council's consideration of package A and in particular its section updates to the designation appeal process, including addition of de novo finding, has not received essential sequel review.

Package A will again allow de novo appeals related to the historic designations to this council against the recommendations of its historical resources board, the community planning committee, and the neighborhood historic preservation coalition.

These groups' concerns are well founded.

I recall efforts to expand de novo appeals to this council years ago that were smartly defeated.

Historic status as Soho notes is an adaptive.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon Gill.

Sharon, you have time seated to you by Mike Gell.

You'll have two minutes.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

We all agree that owners should be allowed to voluntarily turn their properties into historic museums.

But we don't agree.

What we don't agree on is the question of whether we should use government regulations to force historic designation on properties.

Most people don't really care about his historic preservation.

That's why designation lowers property values when we restrict what is done, what can be done with property, and that means less property tax income for the city.

We have buildings like two at La Jolla Cove.

We have buildings all of the city like two at La Jolla Cove that are boarded up and rotted only because we designated them historic.

A property owner wanted to replace those buildings 17 45 years ago with a 17-unit apartment building.

But they're still there because they're historic.

The California Theater next to the city hall has been vacant for over 30 years, only because it was designated historic.

An owner wanted to build over 200 units of housing, but preservation sued them, so nothing happened.

Historic designation doesn't just reduce property tax income for city on buildings that are designated.

The mere threat of designation reduces property values.

The city wants to sell the city administration complex that we're in, but there's little interest.

Developers know that if they tried to get building permits to do anything with this property, the HRB would designate it historic.

All our problems will go away if we just make historic designation voluntary only.

The city will get a huge increase in property tax.

We'll have new housing all over all over the city, and we'll be able to sell this building for a ton of money.

Thank you.

Thank you, Barry Hager.

I understand you have several people seating in your time.

If they can please raise their hand, Anne Kilrain.

Thank you, Joseph Kilreen.

Gabrielle Coco Kaiser.

Kirk's Bergamy.

Thank you.

Susan Dean.

Jordan Persky.

Paul Engler.

Christina Fogarty.

Rajan Argarwall.

Thank you.

Robert Gohart.

And Victoria Carter.

Thank you.

You'll have 12 minutes, but if I can just ask the following individuals to also come up.

Tyler Martin, Bruce Coons, Craig Sherman, Kristen Harms, and Alyssa Stewart.

If you can all please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

You may proceed when ready, and your PowerPoint is up.

Please just say next slide.

Thank you.

And when I'm done with my comments, I'll ask for folks to hold up their blue cards, please.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Barry Hager, and I'm speaking for Mission Hills Heritage today.

I'd like to start by saying that we support the goals of preservation in progress and most of the amendments proposed in package A.

However, some of the proposed amendments are very troubling and will set back historic preservation in San Diego without advancing the goals of the initiative, which include equity and a more effective preservation program.

The most troubling aspect is the proposed new findings not supported or de novo grounds for appeal.

The new grounds will for appeal will allow the city council to review the information provided to the HRB and make different findings and reach a contrary conclusion.

Next slide, please.

Here are the problems with the de novo review ground.

First of all, the current historic designation and appeals process has worked well for decades.

The process is rigorous, and the decision making board is composed of volunteer citizens with expertise in various fields.

Council members are capable of reviewing HRB decisions based on the current limited grounds for appeals, but council members lack the expertise, training, and accumulated knowledge of the HRB.

Council members are not schooled in the criteria for designation.

And unlike the HRB, council members will not be required to conduct site visits before voting, with an eye towards applying the designation criteria.

The broader appeals, grounds for appeal will also invite more appeals for a second bite at the apple.

The consequences will be unpredictable, uneven decisions, with more potential for appealable error and litigation.

Adding the de novo ground will only decrease the authority of the HRB and add an element of politics into appeals.

To make matters worse, staff stripped out of package A the right to appeal decisions to not designate properties.

The current appeals process only allows appeal of decisions to designate a property, not decisions to not designate.

In response to criticism over the years, staff initially proposed to remedy the one-sided appeals process by including in package A the right to appeal decisions the not designate, with grounds similar to those for appealing decisions to designate.

However, lobbying by the development by lobbying development development industry consultants convinced staff to limit the right to appeal non-designations to property owners only.

Legitimate concerns were then raised about the fairness of only allowing property owners to file appeals, but not other interested parties.

But rather than restoring the right of all interested parties to appeal designation decisions to not designate, staff instead stripped the entire section from package A after the October 23rd HRB meeting.

With proposed expansion of appeals to include the de novo grounds, but no right to appeal decisions to not designate.

Package A is even more skewed in favor of overturning designations of historic resources.

Package A should not be adopted without a right to appeal HRB decisions to not designate property.

Next slide.

Whoops, we should be on number four now.

You can skip to four.

Yeah, here we go.

Okay, sorry.

Again, the staff presentation indicates that the HRB policy subcommittee was generally supportive of all other aspects of package A, including the de novo ground.

But HRB member Carla Farley, one of the four members of the policy subcommittee, voted against package A, specifically citing the de novo issue.

Her comment at the HRB meeting on October 23rd was quote, de novo, I'm no on de novo.

That's the short of it.

And when you can hear that nobody has put this thing forward, obviously for some very good reasons.

I don't know if we want to be the ones to stand out, end quote.

The HRB voted down two motions to support package A, largely due to the inclusion of the De novo ground.

Next slide, please.

Let's discuss the recommendations made by the community planners committee.

As a reminder, the community planners committee consists of the chairpersons of all the official community planning groups in the city of San Diego, who are volunteer residents elected by residents to represent their communities to make recommendations to the city on planning matters.

It is truly the people's planning committee.

Here is an excerpt from staff's report to the Planning Commission on Package A.

The Community Planners Committee voted 28 to 0 to 0 to oppose preservation and progress package A and recommend that the proposed de novo findings not supported, appeal finding be removed, that the voting requirements for the historical resources board be changed to a simple majority to designate, and that the ability to appeal historic historic resources board decisions to not designate a property be added back into package A.

When was last time you saw 28 organizations agree on one position?

Next slide, please.

When you compare the recommendations by the community planners committee and the planning commission, a stark contrast comes into view.

The seven appointees of the mayor who sit on the planning commission voted to recommend package A.

That represents the voice of the development industry.

The 28 volunteer residents who sit on the community planners committee rejected package A.

That is the voice of the people.

We ask that you please heed the voice of the people when you vote on this matter today.

Next slide, please.

I have one more quote for you.

Here's what the San Diego Yimby group said about these reforms in their October E newsletter.

Quote the city wants to make it easier to override historic preservation rules.

Proposed changes would let City Council overrule expert board decisions on historic buildings, potentially clearing the way for more housing.

Close quote.

From this headline, it's clear that the YMBe group and their building industry allies are trying to set up a false choice of historic preservation or more housing.

We can have both.

What the statement does underscore is that the de novo appeal ground will scale back historic designations, which will result in the loss of more historic resources going forward.

And the city has not analyzed the impacts of the proposed reforms.

Next slide, please.

The proposed novo amendment is moving us towards a system where historic resources will only be designated if the owner wants it to be.

While that may be the goal of some in this room, that is not the best practice for historic preservation, and all San Diegans will suffer under that system.

In closing, we urge you to reject package A until one findings not supported, uh appeal ground has been removed, two, the right to appeal non-designations has been added back in, and three, the city has completed an environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendments.

Let's not blow up blow up a system that works well.

And now let's see those no on de novo cards out there.

Yet there's a sea of people out there.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Tyler Martin.

Hello, Council.

Good afternoon.

Tyler Martin Ocean Beach.

I wrote a letter to Councilmember Campbell's office last December, which exemplifies multiple historic cottages that met the definition of the district.

Multiple community planning groups have actually supported the demolition of cottages simply because the property owner did not volunteer their property into the district.

That's happened four times for contributing resources and up to six other times for non-contributing resources.

And what one of the reasons why I'm most supportive of complete communities is not only the housing supply, but it's the activation that this is going to bring to Newport Avenue.

I have witnessed several revolving door businesses on Newport Avenue in 10 years.

Right aid, our largest footprint is now dead and for sale just in time.

Union Bank has sat empty for years, and there are multiple boarded up retail places.

They need customers.

Keep mom and pop in business, so big box retail like Target doesn't come into town.

We need customers on new.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Bruce Coons.

Bruce Coons, you have several people seating you time.

Alana Coons.

Paul Johnson, and I understand that there'll be several speakers.

You guys can manage your own time.

Jessica McGee.

David Roth.

Bill Adale Adale.

Oh, Jeanette O'Daya.

Ginder Weatherford.

Jennifer McDonald.

Marine Robert.

Eva Thorne.

Eva Thorne.

Oh, thank you.

Diane Cain.

David Goldberg.

John Eisenhart.

Nicholas Wilson.

Virginia Wilson.

There were 16 people that seated your time.

It is a maximum of 15-minute presentation.

You'll have the 15 minutes.

Okay.

And it's Alana will speak first and then Bruce.

However, you guys want to enter your time.

Thank you.

Hello.

The presentations you will you are hearing today from SOHO and the preservation community are grounded in documented evidence and in the law.

Package A is not a minor administrative update.

It makes sweeping structural changes to how historic resources are evaluated, designated, appealed, and protected in the city of San Diego.

These changes directly affect historic properties, historic districts, and the integrity of the city's preservation framework.

Under CECOA, any discretionary action that may cause a physical change to the environment requires environmental review.

The CECA guidelines define a project broadly, and city ordinances clearly fall within that definition.

When you weaken historic protections, you increase the likelihood of demolition, alteration, and loss.

That is a physical environmental impact.

The staff's reliance on prior environmental documents is legally insufficient.

Key provisions in package A, including the de novo appeal process, and other substantive changes were never analyzed in prior EIRs.

You cannot rely on old environmental documents to approve new policy changes that reduce protections.

CEQA requires informed decision making based on current analysis.

The courts have been clear.

Changes to preservation ordinances can constitute CEQA projects when they may result in direct physical changes to historic resources.

Code revisions that reduce protections are not exempt.

Proceeding today without environmental review exposes the city to significant legal risk.

The staff report itself acknowledges this proposal as part of a broader comprehensive update.

Segmenting parts A and B avoids analyzing the whole of the action, and CECA prohibits this piecemealing.

The law requires you to evaluate the full scope and cumulative impact of what you are doing, and the impacts are real.

With this, we will lose historic resources.

Package A erodes historic district protections and strips safe strips safeguards from existing and pending districts, including Ocean Beaches, Cottage District, and the Asian thematic district.

These changes would make it easier to alter or eliminate historic resources that contribute to neighborhood character and cultural identity.

An environmental impact report is the legally required mechanism to identify impacts, consider alternatives, and develop mitigation measures.

The HRB rejected PACAGA.

The CPC 28 communities across the city rejected it.

Over 500 written comments have been submitted with opposition outweighing support by roughly 12 to 1.

That level of engagement is not incidental.

It reflects widespread concern across the city.

You were recently reminded in Save Our Access versus City of San Diego that inadequate CEQA review carries consequences.

That is not abstract.

It is recent history.

Moving forward today, without full CEQA review and in disregard of all of the advisory bodies and overwhelming public opposition would be premature and legally vulnerable.

Historic resources are not obstacles to progress.

They are a part of San Diego's environmental fabric, just as surely as air, water, and trees, preservation and growth are not mutually exclusive.

But growth must proceed lawfully, transparently, and with full environmental accountability.

You are being asked to approve sweeping structural changes without environmental review that CEQA requires.

For these reasons, we respectfully urge you to pause package A and require comprehensive environmental review before proceeding.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Bruce Goods, Executive Director of Saver Heritage Organization.

The historic decision whether a property is historic or not is not the end all.

You still retain the land use decision you always have about whether the resource stays or demolished or incorporated into the development or moved even.

It's a simply a baseline determination about whether a property is historic or not.

Just like in other environmental determinations, it's whether the site, like is the site a vernal pool or is it not a vernal pool?

So it's just to identify it so it's properly treated in the process that moves forward.

It uh is a factual, not political question.

The land use decision, like I said, still remains in the uh council's hands.

There's been some complaints that you can't do the trade-offs of the new project against the resource.

Well, that's not true.

You always retain that in the discussion, but you have to have the baseline discussion about whether that uh the resource is historic or not before you can even get there.

Uh and so it's a very important.

Um it's not a tool to stop development, never has been.

Even if there are some people that would like it to be, it's not possible.

It's a fact based uh process.

Uh people come to us sometimes and say, can you stop this development?

He said, No, we can't.

Um, but uh we can determine whether the property there uh is historic or not and should be considered in the development process.

It uh it's actually extremely difficult for a property to qualify for designation.

It must meet a rigorous set of criteria, documented in a report of a hundred, a hundred and sixty pages or longer, review at public meetings in a supermajority vote by the HRB.

Designation uh does not dictate what the property can be used for or whether it can be modified, moved, or even demolished.

It simply ensures that its fate is fairly considered along with community and environmental factors and the final land use decision.

This is a red herring.

If all the properties that were potentially eligible for designation in the city of San Diego, it represent around one percent of the built environment.

This is not an issue.

Um as in the IBA report, it says we we only have conflicts of less than one a year.

In the last four years, I think maybe we have had two, but they've all been resolved.

Uh this is just not worth all the time and effort and money the city's spending on this.

Um has never stopped the development.

That may come as a surprise to some people with all the rhetoric out there, but we never have.

Um we've delayed some developments to get when you don't follow the process, but we've never stopped the development.

Well, we get into real problems is when the city denies whether the property is historic or not.

That's already been deemed by experts as historic.

It doesn't work real well in the law.

This approach opens doors to multiple legal challenges and delays.

The right approach is what we saw uh with the sports arena project.

The the building was recognized as historic, a report was done, it was went through the process, was designated, and then the developer came back with the right argument, the one that's legally defensible.

Well, we know it's historic, but we can't use it in the new development.

Uh and um we think the development's more important, and they made the case to get it removed.

That went through smoothly, no delays, uh, and was approved.

That's the way it should be done.

If you deny it's historic, we have all kinds of challenges to that.

Uh, if you say it's historic and I don't want it, it's a different argument.

Um the HRB and reviewing body bodies supported the decision on this on the sports arena.

In contrast, when we're trying to deny something is historic, it's almost always creates unnecessary conflicts and delay.

The city council itself established the current process, so subject matter experts, not politicians, would make the designation decisions.

The structure was designed to save council time, avoiding legal lengthy appeal hearings, and you know, everybody that has an ax to drive come up here and appeal to the council for for no reason.

This idea of de novo hearing comes up every few years, has uh multiple times, but no uh HRB is approved it, no city council has approved it.

And uh that's because these proposals would turn change the fact-based current process to a political free-for-all.

If the proposed new appeal grounds for de novo hearings were adapted, anybody could appeal for any reason.

That would create more certainty for developers, not less, and would evidently and inevitably increase both litigation and project delays.

Instead, we could move remove it entirely from your hands, like we had to do with the uh historic districts, as you haven't processed one in almost eight years, like we had to do with them.

Um we could go to the state or the national register or any other body and get it designated, and you still have to deal with CEQA.

Um remember the Coronado Railroad took almost 10 years to resolve and three lawsuits uh before it was a resolve each time the lawsuits were resolved in our favor.

And we just got back to where we were at the beginning.

We weren't trying to stop the project.

We wanted as much of the resource preserved as part of the project as possible and and it fairly treated, not denying that it was historic, just causes you know, like I said, the delays.

It's it's you hear me laughing a little bit.

It just doesn't make any sense uh to do that.

It's um anyhow, it could delay projects, it could cost projects, it's it's to store your tax credits as trying to use them because uh they're time sensitive in applying for tax credits.

None of this is possible in the current process because the HRB decisions currently are final.

We have lost so many resources to decay, fire, demolition, neglect, and redevelopment.

Each year the number of surviving sites declines.

With the proposed changes, even more of these irreplaceable resources would be lost.

The whole reason this is being proposed is to demolish more historic structures than you do today.

We should not make it easier to remove them.

These are the sites that make San Diego beautiful, economically prosperable, help help preserve naturally occurring affordable housing.

They are what make our city unique, the place places that set San Diego apart and make it one of the most desirable places to live and visit.

A few years ago, Los Angeles checked uh to see what heritage tourism uh visitors who actually spend twice as much, spend twice as long as other tourists were looking at in Southern California, and so they studied San Diego too.

You think we would have studied it, but is the neighborhoods.

It's the uh the being in a place different from where they were from, they want to experience being there, sitting in a cafe on the street and enjoying the ambience.

Uh but once these resources are gone, they're gone forever.

You may wonder why we fight so hard.

Well, we don't get a second chance.

The quality of life is irreparably diminished when we lose these resources.

Finally, well, not finally, you do you don't have the information required by law to make the decision today.

The city has not completed a necessary environmental review analysis or provided the mitigation, some people forget that, that's required to support such a uh decision.

Without that work, you cannot legally process this proposal, and you are legally obligated to reject it outright until the required studies are completed.

The thing I mean here about a little disingenuous on the ocean beach district, saying it's just a few cottages.

Well, staff doesn't know what the resources are in Ocean Beach if they haven't done the survey.

It's commercial, it's recreational.

There was a whole part called Wonderland, part of that is still there.

Um it's social, it's community activism, it's national activism.

There are the churches, the businesses.

A full survey has to be done before you know what there is to be lost, and you can't do that without moving a uh district nomination forward.

You're seeking to remove a current protection that's currently in place without doing the work.

That is also not legally enforceable.

So it's extremely important that you take the time, do this right, strip out the de novo hearing, strip out the ocean beach one, and move forward.

Please do not forward the current proposal as it is now.

Craig Sherman, Craig Sherman.

Kristen Harms.

Good afternoon.

I'm Kristen Harms with the University Heights Historical Society.

And I'm here speaking on behalf of the neighborhood preserv neighborhood historic preservation coalition in strong opposition to package A.

The coalition represents 12 neighborhood-based preservation organizations.

I think many of which are here today.

Raise your hands.

Um, that have decades of experience working collaboratively with the city on preservation policy and implementation.

Yet package A was advanced without meaningful community input and prioritizes development efficiency over the protection of our irreplaceable historic resources.

Package A weakens protections, makes it easier to overturn historic designations, allows de novo review that politicizes decisions, and separates environmental review in ways that avoid a full evaluation of impacts.

It will also accelerate the loss of historic resources in the ocean beach historic district.

Please reject package A.

You're our final speaker here in Council Chambers.

Thank you.

My name is Alyssa.

I'm a longtime Ocean Beach resident here to oppose the approval of preservation and package progress package A.

What is being presented under the guise of preservation is actually doing the opposite of that for our beloved town of Ocean Beach.

This package claims to align with the strategic plan to protect and enrich our neighborhoods via opportunities for new homes, which in itself is a paradox because you can't protect and enrich anything when you're infilling our already small lots with new development.

It also claims to champion sustainability by permitting new homes located near transit, but there is no sufficient transit in Ocean Beach that will compensate for the strain that this will put on the already difficult parking situation in our town.

Your number one job as city council members is to represent the interests of your constituents, and I promise that none of your constituents in any district support this.

Elections are coming up this summer for half of you, and they'll be for the other half soon.

And we will not forget how you voted under that package when we vote at the ballot box.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

That is the last speaker, but there's gonna be a lot of people online.

Just try to hold it down.

I think we're we're getting a clue about who's out there and what your feelings are.

I started the five-minute time.

We're going to those participating online.

It is one minute each.

We currently have nine speakers in the queue, starting with Kevin Hastings.

If you can please unmute the question, hi, I'm Kevin Hastings.

Um I'm on the OB planning group.

Uh they did not support this uh package A.

The CPC did not support it.

The historic resources board is not support it.

So I'd like to know for anyone voting for this, what qualifications you guys have to vote contrary to these experts.

Um Stanco said the purpose of package A, one of them is to quote, identify and protect historical properties and districts.

So I suggest instead of staff spending time to erase the OB cottage district from their website and erase it from the municipal code, spend that time surveying our district for contributing resources.

Staff is doing this in 12 other neighborhoods.

Ms.

Stanco showed a map of OB's concentration compared to other historic districts.

The difference there is those districts have all those dots because they've actually been surveyed.

OB deserves a survey before being wiped off the map.

Thank you.

Next is Craig Benedetto, if you can please unmute.

Good afternoon, Craig Benedetto speaking today on behalf of NAOP San Diego.

We are here today to speak in support of the staff recommendation.

We'd like to recognize the planning department for their efforts to try and balance all the inputs through this thorough engagement process.

We believe this is a balanced, very modest package of changes that reflects the city's commitment to historic preservation of important resources as well as its commitment to stakeholder engagement and input.

It also commits to an appropriate process for peels.

The concerns being expressed that the council can't weigh the technical merits in a de novo hearing is just incorrect.

You handle these kinds of issues every day, and you are elected to listen to the voices of all of your constituents, and you do.

Please keep in mind that San Diego is the outlier.

Most other jurisdictions reserve historic designation and appeals to the highest elected body.

Ultimately, we believe that changes can be made to the city's historic review process that protects important resources, allows for all voices to be heard while also reducing inappropriate impediments to the creation of much needed new housing.

Thank you for your consideration and your support of the staff recommendation.

Peter, if you can please unmute Peter Kemson.

Hello.

Um hi.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

My name is Peter Kimson.

I oppose package A as written.

I encourage the council to have package A revised to remove the de novo appeal for historic designations and leave the appeals process as is.

Prior to 97, the historic side board was only advisory, and the council did could and did relitigate almost every case.

The council deliberately shifted to the current model for reasons of expertise, efficiency, and consistency.

The uncertainty that others have complained about comes from decades of underfunding city surveys and not implementing historic districts.

Recreating a process that did not work will not fix the issue.

I also asked the city council on package A revised to ensure that all historic districts are treated the same and not single out a single community.

When establishing boundaries, all properties must have a relationship contributing or not.

To ensure that package A achieves its goal of advancing equity preservation, it cannot single out a single community such as Ocean Beach.

Thank you.

Next is Daniel, if you can please unmute.

Hello, my name is Daniel Gantt.

I believe that package A weakens protections for historic resources and allows political override of expert decisions through de novo appeals.

I asked the city council to stand with the community and reject package A as currently written.

This proposal will result in the permanent loss of historic resources, and it should be sent back to be made better with meaningful community input.

I care deeply about the neighborhoods and historic homes in San Diego.

I believe there is way too much focus on increasing new housing at any cost to the character of our city.

Already, even in my non-historic neighborhood of Miramesa, most of the ADUs allowed are too large, and the architecture clashes with the homes built here by and large in the 1970s and 1980s.

The ADUs stand out like a sore thumb and are positioned in ridiculous locations and front yards, looming over residents' backyards, ruining the views of neighbors and impacting communities with more vehicles and crowded parking in a neighborhood already notorious for too many cars.

Please reject package A.

Next is Catherine Rhodes, if you can please unmute.

Hello, this is Catherine Rhodes from La Playa Heritage.

It was great to see community activist Mandy Havlick, who's running for Council District 2, oppose package A.

The Ocean Beach community does not want these changes put forth by developers.

Um and I'm just going to talk about some OBREG talking points.

Um the historic nature of OB is indisputed.

The entire community is historic, not just single lots.

Applications for historic district was filed with the state in 1999.

Residents and property owners has relied on this designation for over a quarter of a century.

OB needs protection.

It's already one of the densest communities with smaller lot size, rear yard homes, and multiple apartments.

70 to 80 percent of OB residents are renters.

OB is not some all-rich white exclusive neighborhood made up of entirely single-family homes.

Um opposed it, the community planning committee opposed it, the ocean beach planning board opposed it.

Umluddle, the five-minute timer has also concluded there are five people in the queue.

No additional people will be taking the original.

If you can please unmute.

You use these gaslighting words that do the complete opposite.

And you guys are going to pass this.

That's what's so sad is that you we hear you, Locaba.

Do you?

And are you gonna do the right thing?

Because your actions will speak very loud.

More than your words, and it's like you guys sit here, and just the fact that you use other means to go above and beyond the people when you sit here and say you represent them, you want to do the best for them, and then you go around them.

So it's just people need to really pay attention and see that this government that is in place that you didn't install that has been installed because they need them there to do these things that they don't care about you, and they will never do what's in your best interest, as you can see time and time again.

Next is Renee Mezzo, if you can please unmute the hi, good afternoon, Chair and Council members.

My name is Renee Mezzo with the Atlantis Group, and we wanted to thank staff for their thoughtful and comprehensive work on package A.

We support the general plan amendments, the targeted land development code updates, and the refocusing of the historic preservation fund to advance equity and support historically underrepresented communities.

The clarifications regarding complete communities housing solutions with within emerging and thematic historic districts, provide important regulatory clarity while maintaining protections for designated contributing resources.

We look forward to package B, and we respectfully encourage your approval.

Thank you.

Next is Jeffrey Anson, if you can please unmute.

Hello, this is Jeffrey Anson for Craig Sherman APC.

You received a letter now on behalf of uh coastal caretakers.

Received a letter commenting on CECA issues, and I know that you've heard a lot about that today.

Um if you could please review that letter as well as the coastal caretakers letter and vote no on item 332.

I would add one additional piece.

Um, there's case cited protection of Oakland's architectural and historic resources v City of Oakland.

Um that case is cited in the letter, and I just want to quote to you that um that court quote declined to adopt the position that nothing less than official designation of a building as a historic re uh resource is suffices to trigger CEQA requirements, and in fact, it's a determination of whether uh a property may be eligible for listing.

So when you review the letter, uh please keep that in mind um on that CECA issue.

And with that, thank you.

Next is Patricia Fallet.

Again, if you raise your hand after the five-minute timer, you can definitely send in your comments to City Clerk at Sandiego.gov and they will be distributed.

Patricia, please proceed.

Hi, yes.

Uh dear council members.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Okay, I'm sorry.

Okay.

Protect our historic districts, reject package A.

Old Town stands as another clear example of long-term disinvestment in historic and cultural resources.

Presidio already identified on Soho's most endangered list, along with El Camposanto and the Adobe Chapel represent some of the last remaining historic structures outside of the core historic district, the new tribal park and state historic park.

And let us remember Old Town is part of the most visited state historic park in California.

More importantly, over 200 tribal members and descendants remain buried at Presidio.

Yet the neglect continues, fires and camps, biohazard hazardous waste, human impacts, broken chain link fencing, debris invisible burn areas.

This is a national historic landmark.

Would this level of deterioration be tolerated at Cabrillo National Monument or at any other historic cemetery in San Diego?

Your time has concluded.

My apologies, your time has concluded.

Hobbes is our final speaker.

If you can please unmute.

Sorry, thank you for including me.

Um I'm here to speak that I'd like to see the proposal denied for the many reasons that people have spoken today, including that removing these protections would erode the character of Ocean Beach, and it would not create affordable housing.

Um the taller out-of-scale incompatible developments, uh, once they're introduced, the damage will be permanent and the unique charm and the historic fabric of ocean beach will be replaced by structures that will be severing the connection between the community's past and its future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And that does conclude public comment on this item.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Uh thank you, City Clerk.

Thank you for everybody who showed up in chambers to speak.

Thank you for those who seated time because it's so much more efficient.

And we actually get a better story for those who put their words together over 10, 15 minutes.

Uh, but I appreciate those who actually speak for one minute and try to pack a lot in in that 60 seconds.

Uh thank you, City Clerk, for once again handling it very professionally and courtesily with uh all the folks, many who showed up for the first time.

So with that, we'll now turn it over to our council members for questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

So we'll start with council member Campbell.

Thank you so much, Council President, and thank you for the presentation.

And thank you for everyone who came in to speak.

Uh this is citywide, not just OB, but I love my obesions, and that's my district.

So I'm I'm so happy to see you all.

Uh I want you to remember that I voted against complete communities.

I was the only one who voted against taking away parking from multifamily structures, etc.

etc.

So I gotta tell you I'm your friend.

And I just I just want to say that um I'm gonna have a few questions here that I think will help you to understand uh what it is that is the real meat of what this is today.

And so the first thing I'd like to ask staff, could you please explain the three types of historic designations?

And this has to do with houses.

This doesn't have to do with the wonderful fact that OB is a historic area.

It has a great history, it's a fun place.

I think everyone in San Diego loves it who's ever visited it, and I know all our tourists love it as well.

But that is not the same thing as a historic designation of a property.

So if you could please explain it, happy to.

And I think in in providing the information, it might be helpful too, just to share a little bit about my history with the program.

I've been working with the city for 24 years, um, almost all of that in historic preservation.

I worked on bringing forward additional properties for designation as part of the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District.

I wrote our current historic district policy.

I wrote the historic preservation element of the Ocean Beach Community Plan, which calls for intensively surveying the community and bringing converting the district from a district to a multiple property listing, which just like a emerging district only regulates the contributing resources.

Um I also wrote the current language that's incomplete communities that we are clarifying today.

So I'm I'm very familiar with the program with the history of the district.

Um that being said, um the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District was designated in uh 2000 after the Ocean Beach Historical Society approached the city in around 1998 with a desire to designate beach cottages in their community.

Um, they wanted that any potential designation to be voluntary.

They did not want to force property owners to designate as part of the the designation of the the district.

Staff in the historical resources board looked at the information that the Ocean Beach Historical Society pulled together and found that the properties did not qualify for designation as a traditional historic district.

And I'll pull back up on the slide uh on the screen here, um, the comparison on slide 15 between a traditional historic district and the Ocean Beach Cottage emerging historic district.

Um the Ocean Beach Cottage District is thematically based, meaning it uh applies only to beach cottages constructed between 1887 and 1931 that have been volunteered by the property owner for designation.

The boundary that is drawn on the map simply shows where those resources can be located because you're not going to find you know an ocean beach cottage in um you know North Park or Lahoya or wherever.

We have to draw a boundary on a map to show you where they are.

Um but within that, um, if we can advance one more slide, please.

Thank you.

Within that, um, only the the designated pink contributing resources are regulated.

Um, and that's because those resources are scattered so um far throughout the district and lack um a concentration that creates a sense of place.

Contrasting that with a traditional historic district on the left, such as South Park and most of our historic districts in the city.

In those cases, the vast majority of properties contribute to why this the district is significant.

It creates a sense of place that you are trying to protect a collective significance that you are trying to protect, and that is why we regulate all properties within those traditional historic districts.

Ocean Beach is our only emerging historic district.

That district type was created for Ocean Beach in response to what the Ocean Beach Historical Society was bringing forward at that time.

We no longer have an emerging historic district type in our historic district policy because it's not consistent with historic preservation practices, so it is the one and only district, and it's why we have recommended that it be converted to a multiple property listing in the future.

Thank you.

So in other words, there are three designations.

OB is not a historic district, it has an emerging district quality about it from the year 2000.

There was a time limit on the number on the number of years that it could take to become a historic district, and that was 27 years ago.

And that uh the consideration of which properties belong, that is not the city's job.

Can you please explain how is it that a household that wishes to be a historic designation gets to be that way?

Sure.

So the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historic District is a designated historic district.

It's just a different type of district.

It is an emerging district, and it is voluntary in nature.

So in order for a property to be designated as part of that district, the property owner would need to approach heritage preservation staff and request that designation.

We would require some minimal documentation from them about their building and how it meets the theme and the significance of the district.

And then we would take that forward to the historical resources board for designation.

We have not had any requests since 2008.

There were seven updates to the district after it was originally designated that resulted in the current 72 properties, but we have not had any new requests since 2008.

If we did receive one, we would bring it forward.

If you were interested, and we provide the information, but we ultimately cannot compel them to participate in the district.

Thank you.

So you have to ask for it.

Okay, and you have to fit the requirements of being built between 1887 and 1931.

And the Ocean Beach Historical Society, which asked for the emerging uh idea was to complete a comprehensive survey of the community over the past 27 years, and evidently that has not been done.

But it doesn't matter because still, when a property comes up to the city like that, we still ask the historic board to review it.

Does this uh change?

Well, let me just say why we're having this change.

Over my seven years on this council, I have seen the historic resource board decisions that come to the council are sometimes confounding, particularly given the strict limitations on what the council is allowed to discuss by law about these things.

And so this fourth option will give the council more ability to articulate the points that we find pertinent and provide guidance moving forward.

We certainly do not want to lose our historicness in San Diego.

Now, importantly, this policy clarifies that complete communities is still allowed in thematic and emerging districts.

So there's no change there.

Does this have anything to do with CEQA or ADUs?

No.

Uh it doesn't have anything to do with ADUs.

Um we um do review and approve ADUs on designated parcels and in designated historical districts all the time, so it's not related to accessory dwelling units.

Um, in terms of CECWA, our environmental analysis staff in the city planning department has reviewed package A and has prepared prepared a consistency memo, finding that the package is consistent with the analysis and other uh environmental impact reports prepared for other initiatives and that there are no new impacts, and if there's any additional detail that's needed on that, I'm happy to invite our uh environmental staff up to clarify.

Well, I I don't think that's necessary.

You don't have to worry, it doesn't involve that, and it doesn't involve ADUs.

And I'm afraid you you've been misled as to how huge it is.

It's not huge.

It's just to help the council so that when there's a strange request that we don't quite agree with, we can ask other questions and make decisions based on other things besides the limited amount that the law says we can at this point.

So what I'd like to say is uh that this is for the whole city, that we're on your side, and that this will help us to make better decisions.

So for that reason, I would like to move staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

All right, we have a motion by Councilmember Campbell to move the staff recommendation, and we'll go next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, thank you, Bistenko, uh, and to the planning department for the presentation and your work on this package.

I also want to thank the historic preservation groups and all the community members who turned out this afternoon for this conversation.

I uh appreciate the time that many of you have taken to meet with me uh and my staff and your passion for uh protecting San Diego's history.

Uh it's good to see longtime friends in this chamber who have different perspectives uh on this issue.

I share the goal of having a historic preservation program that is credible, uh, that is accurate, and that is worthy of public trust.

I also appreciate uh that many of the advocates for historic preservation here today recognize the housing affordability challenges that our city faces.

Every San Diegan who supports both historic preservation and housing affordability knows that we can achieve both.

That's why I believe that updates like those proposed in package A are important.

These reforms strengthen noticing requirements, they clarify appeal processes, and they improve alignment between state and local review, all while maintaining strong protections for truly historic resources.

They help to ensure that preservation decisions are transparent, are fair, and are defensible.

District three, the district that I represent, the urban core of the city, downtown, all the historic neighborhoods around Balboa Park, offers many examples of historic preservation done right.

The Western Metal Supply Company building at Petco Park, that is a great classic example of adaptive reuse.

The chicken pie shop in North Park shows how historic preservation and new housing can coexist successfully.

And more recently, the establishment of the city's first LGBTQ cultural historic district in Hillcrest demonstrates how preservation can evolve to better reflect our full and diverse history.

Within my district, I've seen historic appeals almost entirely in our business corridors, where buildings have often sat vacant for long periods or experienced substantial alterations.

The designation of the old Mission Hills Library was appealed to the City Council.

And we upheld that designation as historic.

And the outcome has been terrific.

You could not ask for a better contribution to the neighborhood than the old Mission Hills Library and the bookstore that is there today.

I want to address a concern that I know a number of you have.

Several people who spoke today expressed concern about the proposed change to the historic designation appeals process that gives this City Council the ability to determine that the findings are not supported.

The argument against that is that the HRB is made up of experts in the field, and that we should respect their expertise and accept their decision.

I respect their expertise.

I care what the HRB has to say.

And I understand the argument that we should defer to their expertise.

But that cuts both ways.

You know who else has a lot of expertise?

Our city's planning director, Heidi von Blum, who is sitting right over here.

She got her degree in city and regional planning.

And on top of that, she has a law degree.

She has years of professional experience in the field.

Urban planning is an academic field, and this city's planning department is chock full of people with advanced degrees in urban planning.

They are subject matter experts.

Given all that expertise, should the City Council just approve everything that the City Planning Department determines is urban planning best practice?

After all, they're the subject matter experts.

A lot of what we do up here is we try to figure out what to do when really smart people disagree, when experts in their fields disagree.

Experts disagree all the time.

The experts on the HRB frequently disagree with one another.

If you look at the most recent minutes posted online, the HRB had split votes of seven to three, eight to two, four to six, and five to four.

So which of those experts were right and which were wrong?

You know who is ultimately held accountable for the decisions?

The City Council.

This City Council is held accountable for the decisions that it makes.

So I think that it is reasonable for the City Council to be able to make the decisions that it thinks are proper.

I understand the fear about adding findings not supported.

The fear is that it will result in a flood of appeals of designations, and that this council will overturn many more historic designations.

At this point, we don't know.

But I hear the fear.

But I think we should monitor that because we don't know.

At last month's land use and housing committee meeting, I asked staff to monitor the implementation of the findings not supported appeal standard and include an update on its usage in the annual historic resources board report to the council.

We will see what, if any, impact this change actually has.

And I appreciate the planning staff agreeing to this.

That will allow us to track the true effects of the proposal.

If your worst fears come true, then we need to do something about that.

If nothing happens, then it's probably okay.

At the end of the day, I am confident that preserving San Diego's history and advancing equitable inclusive growth are not mutually exclusive goals.

In my view, in my view, package A represents a careful, measured step toward a system that does both of those things better.

And I look forward to continuing this conversation as we continue to refine this approach together.

So I will second Councilmember Campbell's motion.

Thank you again to all of you for your advocacy on these issues, and thank you, Council President.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

So we have a motion by Councilmember Campbell and a second by Council Member Whitburn to move the staff recommendation.

I don't see anybody else on the lights.

I'm going to ask a few questions then.

One, uh, one of the public speakers talk about grandfathering.

I assume there's some folks in progress.

How does that affect applications that might be in progress?

In regard to the appeal findings?

To the whole package.

Or they may, yeah, the whole package, but more specifically to the appeal.

Um I'm trying to think of where grandfathering would be relevant.

I mean, in regards to the appeals, we do have appeals that are currently on file.

Um, these proposed amendments would apply to appeals going forward, but not to the ones that are currently pending.

Um in terms of um complete communities housing solutions, I believe um projects are able to opt into new regulations, they're grandfathered into existing, but can opt into new if they choose to.

Okay.

I think part of your point is that there isn't a lot of dramatic change.

The appeal is obviously the most important one going forward.

So I wanted to build on the uh uh questions and comments that my colleague, Councilmember Campbell said, the emerging district.

There are 72 that have voluntarily.

Is there a threshold by which it would change from an emerging district to a historic district if there were X number of identified cottages in the current criteria for that district?

So when the emerging historic district type was created, the policy stated that when you had enough contributing resources as part of the district, you would look at converting it either to a traditional district or a thematic district.

Um this district, the contributing resources are so scattered, they would never have that concentration of typically about 65 percent contributing that we would look for in a traditional district where we regulate everything within the boundary.

So if it were ever converted to anything, it would be a thematic type district, but our current district policy doesn't reference thematic districts because preservation as a whole, as a field moved away from thematic districts and towards multiple property listings, which is why the Ocean Beach Community Plan Historic Preservation element recommends converting the district to a multiple property listing, which would have the same type of regulation that the district currently has, just in a modern preservation format.

Okay, I wanted to ask because I think I heard 3,000 properties and some representation.

There are hundreds of these cottages, so even if every single one of them converted, it wouldn't meet a threshold.

I don't foresee that.

They are so scattered in the existing boundary.

I don't see how you would hit that concentration, and just anecdotally, in terms of what we've seen in the over 45 review, we are not coming across eligible cottages on a regular basis.

Okay.

And I know I put you on the spot.

I didn't mean to hold you there, but I think that was kind of what I thought you would probably go.

In terms of us making changes, I've been here five years and I have a hard time remembering how many times an appeal came to us.

Do you have any data in 2025, 2024 about how many appeals actually made it to city council?

I apologize.

I don't have numbers in front of me.

I will say in most instances, um appeals come before the city council when the property owner does not want designation and the property has been designated as part of a project review process.

Um that happens maybe once or twice a year.

Um if that we did have a little um kind of flurry of appeals a couple of years back where a member of the community was appealing designation where the property owner wanted designation.

Um and so we saw kind of a little uptick then.

Um those were all appeals where staff did not support the appeal, and the council upheld the designation.

We have not seen appeals of properties where the owner wanted designation since the appeal fee went into effect.

So not very often just kind of checking my notes.

So the other question that I had, and you know how I look at these things.

So the findings not supported.

So when we get a discretionary review project, and we're told this is a quasi-judicial Nova hearing, and we want to deny the project.

We get advise that you better dig deep and you better tell us which findings you're not making or what the findings are that you're going to overturn this.

Is it simply a council member saying, hey, I can't make the findings?

So the three current findings that are are available to you would continue to be available to you.

We'd be adding this fourth finding of findings not supported, and what that would require the council to do in making that finding is to look at all of the information that was presented to the board regarding the building's history and how it meets the city's criteria for designation, and determine whether the findings that the board made when they designated be designated it, because they do have to adopt findings specifying which designation criteria the property meets and why, whether that finding that the board made is supported by the record by all of the information that was presented to the board.

And if you find that it is not supported, then you can overturn the designation on that ground.

Okay.

Thank you for clarifying that.

I didn't think it was as simple as those three words.

Um reflecting on the comments uh by the public, um I will tell you that any time anybody uses the words NIMI or YMBI, I pretty much toss out their arguments.

Uh, the argument that you're politicizing or you're putting in the hands of politicians, I will be can and say it doesn't resonate with me because we do de novo hearings all the time.

We're asked to be experts on biologies, soils engineering, traffic engineering, um, even interpretation of CEQA, um, and that is a requirement we do all the time.

And it's a big ask of asking us as council members.

Sometimes we support the appeal and sometimes we don't, based on our best efforts.

So I don't see that the one change that seems to occupy most folks' um mind uh as in itself a compelling.

However, what is compelling to me is that appeals are few and far between.

Um I've seen appeals, if I my memory serves me, which it doesn't often, to actually support an appeal, and we've rejected appeals.

Everybody, some people walked away happy, some people walked away unhappy.

But nobody felt like, as far as I could tell, that wow, if I just had one more tool here.

And so I'm not going to support the package for the inclusion of the findings not supported.

Um I'm not going to ask for an amendment, but I would ask my colleagues to think twice about it.

Um I would ask that that be reevaluated as to what are we really doing with this, because a few people thought that was a good idea, just as in very compelling to me.

And I don't see any evidence that it actually is an important tool that we're dramatically missing that is causing disruption, interference, what have you.

But clearly in the public's eyes, the fear of what it could mean is disruptive.

And I'm just exhausted in terms of pissing people off for no apparent value.

I'll be very honest.

Um for package A.

I don't even want to begin to think about what you're going to throw into package B.

And the other thing somebody mentioned quite passionately about the protection of the coastal height limit.

You want to come see a five-story building in Pacific Beach.

You want to see a 23-story application of Pacific Beach.

Yeah.

That's my thoughts exactly.

A lot of what we do is not what we do, it's what Sacramento tells us to do.

It doesn't make me happy as a council member who wants to listen to the public and do what I think are good things, but simply implement and convert our municipal code into what Sacramento tells us to do.

So with that, um I'd oh okay.

Yeah, I'm not ready to call it yet, but thank you, Charles.

Um but I think that concludes my comments.

Otherwise, I'll thank staff for the good work to thank all of you for coming out.

And we'll go to Councilmember Campbell.

Thank you so much for letting me speak again.

I'm sorry, you're exhausted.

So are we.

But I just wanted to say that OB has 2.4% properties of its parcels.

Uh whereas Sherman Heights has 74% in the historic area, and South Park 73% in the historic area.

So it gives you some idea of the criteria by which a historic district is is chosen and is able to become one.

So I'm sorry about that, but we do have the 30-foot height limit, and I'm fighting all the time for that.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

Um you said it much better than the point I was trying to make.

Uh Council uh Council President Program Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh I won't repeat all of my comments from um the land use hearing, uh, but I think many of them reflect uh a mix of what some of my colleagues have already shared, which is I think the council president himself, as he noted, um this council already is expected to have de novo hearings on a variety of subjects, uh, even if there was another body to determine that.

And and then I would note to council member Woodburn's point, um, many of the land use matters for the city fall uh to this body as it currently stands, and I'm pretty sure this is a group that would not appreciate it if those decisions were simply made by the body of experts, which are the planning commission, uh aside from city staff.

So um it's again a bit of a double-edged sword.

So I I appreciate the same arguments that the council president had.

Uh I just had the opposite view of it, which is that I I don't believe this is going to add a significant number of opportunities for this council to hear items that were actually gonna be overturning, especially since fees have been uh put in place to deter frivolous uh appeals from taking place.

Um I absolutely support the idea of uh some review in a year or so to understand if this has changed the number of appeals we get and what happens with the findings not supported uh component being an option.

Um that'll give us a chance to sort of move forward from there.

Uh and that's why I'm happy to support the packages currently is thank you.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Cam Lee.

Um I don't see anybody else in the lights, so we have a motion by council member Campbell and a second by Council Member Whitburn to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the rule.

I started the voting system, please cast your vote that passes five to one with council member Lacava, Council President Lakava voting no, and Councilmember Ila Rivera, Councilmember Campillo, and Council Mr Von Wilbur absent.

Thank you, Council President.

All right.

Again, thank you to everybody that showed up and so with that clerk, please introduce item 331.

Excuse me.

Item 331 is a dedication of city-owned land for the Fenton Parkway bridge.

If you are here and like to speak to this item, please submit your speakers up to the front of the room.

In the clear box, 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.

Good afternoon, Council President.

We're gonna give a little chance for the crowd.

I'll wait for your okay.

Okay, that's probably close enough.

So introduce yourself for the record and let us know how much time you need.

Uh thank you.

Uh good afternoon again, Council President, uh, Council members.

I'm Mark Frederick.

I'm the program manager for real estate dispositions in the economic development department.

I'm gonna erupt suddenly by all means.

Would you mind taking your conversations out into the foyer?

There.

Please.

Please move along.

Okay.

The gentleman from Mission Heritage.

So your constituent, Councilmember Whitburn.

Mr.

There we go.

Okay.

I'm sorry for the interruption.

Uh please start from the beginning.

No problem at all.

Um, Mark Frederick, I'm the program manager for real estate dispositions in the economic development department.

With me today is Tyler Garland.

He's a property agent on the dispositions team.

Also with us today is uh Lucy Contreras, who's the deputy director of uh economic development department, and Kevin Reich, who is with the city attorney's office.

This presentation will take approximately four minutes.

The subject of the presentation is the dedication of city owned land for uh the construction of the Fenton Parkway bridge.

If approved, the dedication will allow San Diego State University to move forward with the construction of the bridge, which is part of the continued development of San Diego State Mission Valley.

This slide shows the first two of three requested actions that staff is proposing today for council approval.

Adopt a resolution authorizing the mayor or his designee to take all actions necessary to facilitate the dedication of just over two acres of land on city owned property for public street purposes, specifically for construction of the bridge.

Number two, authorize the chief financial officer to move just under $93,000 from the appropriate transportation fund to the public utility department's water fund to encumber the land with the bridge.

This is based on the appraised value of the land and reimbursement costs from transportation to PUD for improvements made to the land.

This next slide shows the last of three requested actions that staff is proposing.

Adopt a resolution stating that the City Council, as a responsible agency under the California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, has reviewed and considered the final environmental impact report for the Fenton Parkway Bridge project, which was certified by the Board of Trustees of the California State University in 2024, and and further adopts the mitigation, monitoring and reporting program, findings of fact, and statement of overriding considerations that are associated with the final environmental impact report.

At this time, I'd like to hand things over to Tyler to provide some additional background and information on the project.

Thank you, Mark.

This next slide provides a brief recap and timeline of San Diego State's redevelopment of the stadium site.

In 2018, Measure D passed authorizing the sale of the city site to SDSU, to which in 2020 the property was then transferred.

In 2022, Snapdragon Stadium was completed, and the city and SDSU entered into a memorandum of understanding or MOU to construct the Friend Park Rate Bridge.

In 2026, the city seeks to dedicate the land and transfer the property rights from the public utilities department or PUD to the Transportation Department to allow for the construction of the bridge.

This slide shows the property location and describes the project.

The bridge will be located southwest of Snapdragon Stadium and Domission Valley River Park.

It will connect Fenton Parkway on the north side of the river to Camino del Rio North on the south side of the river.

The dedication area will encompass approximately two acres.

Once completed, the bridge will be approximately 400 in feet long and will provide vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian access access across the San Diego River.

The combined costs of the dedication, PUD incurred mitigation and appraisal is approximately $93,000 and will be paid by the Transportation Department to PUD.

Under the MOU, SDSU design will design and construct the bridge to meet the Transportation Department's design standards.

After construction has been completed, SDSU will undertake all maintenance responsibility of the bridge for five years.

Upon expiration of SDSU's five-year maintenance obligation, the transportation department will take over maintenance responsibility for the bridge.

To recap, these next two slides state the staff's three requested actions for council approval.

This concludes our presentation, subject to any questions you may have.

All right, thank you for the presentation and the work to bring us forward.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

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

We have currently two speakers.

I'm sorry at the five minute timer.

The original, if you can please unmute after that will be 8700.

You guys are so good at bullshitting people.

It's really interesting.

You're just like saying you'll offer people have an and they'll end up in hell, like the world around us, right?

Oh my gosh, you're like, we're gonna it's gonna be this entity, like the transportation department, then it's the the public utilities that's gonna have their hand in it.

So is this it?

Like it's just it's funny how things, you know, kind of go from hand to hand and who's really gonna be responsible, and this isn't gonna adversely affect the you know public utility funds and stuff like that.

You guys paint a good picture.

I mean, you really do.

Like you're good at really just you know, with poker faces, you know, trying to tell people that like you want to hear from them.

So you give them a minute, and then you're like, you know what?

It's really nice to be able to have 15 minutes to have you really just explain everything that's going on.

And then you know, like I just oh my gosh, it just it's it's really actually comical to see the things that you guys do and how you spend our money and when you're doing this busy work and you really you want people to believe that it's not gonna adversely affect, but like any time you guys have money and you do something with it, it adversely affects the people in the community.

Oh well, you're like we want to hear from you, we represent you.

And then what do they say?

No, we don't want this, or other people say no, we don't, and you're like, you know what?

In order to get the answer we want, we're gonna have to go above them.

But we're gonna make them believe that we actually care about them and that we're doing this for them.

Oh my gosh, it's crazy really saying what you guys do.

And all government.

I mean, you know, all while you know, our governments are filled with pedophiles who you know, sacrifice babies and you know, make sure to starve them right before they give you a glow job.

Have a good idea.

8700, if you can please unmute.

Uh thank you, uh Joyce and Yata C D three.

Very quickly.

Uh SDSU is a great asset.

Snapdragon uh is a great asset, and I'm really excited about this bridge.

Uh I haven't been to Snap Snap Dragon, but once the bridge is done, I definitely plan on going there and walking across the bridge.

So I know you'll be approving this, and I support you and thank you.

Love to all.

Thank you.

That concludes public comment for this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

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

We'll start.

We won't start.

We'll start with council member Campbell.

What happened there?

Um, I just want to ask you guys about traffic lights.

It I don't see in this drawing, which is lovely, any traffic lights at either end of this bridge, and I think both ends are gonna need it.

Is that gonna be included?

Uh thanks for the question, Councilmember.

Um I'm actually gonna defer that to um engineering and capital projects because I don't know the answer to that.

I believe they're here virtually.

Um Miriam, can you answer that question?

Good afternoon.

This is Miriam Chuaro, associate engineer with the engineering and capital projects department.

Would it be okay if I defer this to Everett?

Everett is with the transportation department.

So Everett, if you're on the line, uh can you please unmute and answer the council members' question?

Yes.

Good afternoon.

There will be traffic signals at both ends.

Thank you.

In that case, I am all in favor, and I move staff's recommendation.

All right, so we have a motion by council member Campbell to move the staff recommendation.

Okay.

I'm which councilmember Foster will second the motion, the staff recommendation.

And apparently because just in a mood.

I'm going to ask a couple of questions.

I hadn't really thought about it.

I have a little bit of heartburn about the design of the bridge, but that's not in front of us today.

So I'll leave it at that.

The 92,000 reimbursing PUD.

I understand that PUD is an enterprise, and so they have to be made whole.

Where is the $92,000 coming from?

It's coming from the transportation department.

So 80,000 of that is from an appraisal, third-party outside appraisal to encumber the land.

I'm yes, it's the land of you know area above the riverbed.

The balance is uh reimbursement of funds from transportation to PUD for mitigation cost to that land that was the work that was done uh prior to this.

Right, yeah.

Why is transportation doing that as opposed to San Diego State?

Well, I guess what I maybe one way to answer is the the cost of the bridge is over 50 million, 53 million.

The city has contributed a little over 8 million.

That was came from the proceeds, carve out from the proceeds of of the sale of the stadium site.

Um the balance then over close to 45 million is coming from STSU and the developers out of impact fees for SDSU Mission Valley.

So this particular um 93,000, ultimately the transportation department will be the managing department for the asset.

They're making the payment for that.

These days, 93,000 is a lot of money.

Yes, sir.

Uh maybe at the 2022 MOU probably talked about cost sharing between the two entities.

I'm gonna allow the SDUC to go forward.

I think I'd like to defer if I can to the um city attorney.

Do you know if that the MOU contains that senior deputy city attorney Kevin Rush?

The 2022 MIU did not specifically address um the issue that you're asking about the uh payment from the general fund to the water utility fund.

Okay.

And then I really didn't want to make a big thing about this, but uh so was there a policy decision that we should that transportation should dig into its minimal coffers and pay for this?

I mean, it's 93 out of like you said, a $50 million bridge.

I'm sorry, I don't have a good answer for you for that.

Councilmember, I can look at the historical context here, work with Department of Finance uh and transportation interim director Naomi Chavez and DOF to come back with uh response on the reasoning.

Okay, I didn't bring it up earlier, so um I'll be in otherwise in support of this, but I think an answer about how that decision was made, and maybe there is a actually a very good context that um uh with this.

Anyway, so nobody else in the lights.

We have a motion by Councilmember Campbell, second by Councilmember Foster.

Uh clerk, please call the roll.

I set up the supporters and please cast your vote.

That passes unanimously.

With a council member uh Ila Rivera, Councilmember Campio, and Councilmember Von Wilbert absent.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the good work.

We'll get back to you.

Okay, I appreciate that.

All right.

Uh we have two items coming up.

Um partnership with the City Council and the Facilities Finance Authority.

So clerk, please introduce this uh City Council Pacific Facilities Financing Authority related items.

Thank you, Council President.

Item 330 is the authorization for the public facilities financing authority of the City of San Diego water revenue bonds.

Subitem A does require six votes pursuant to Charter Section 99.

Item FA1 is the authorization of the public facilities financing authority of the City of San Diego water revenue bonds.

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

If you'd like to speak on this item, now is the time to raise your hand.

Star 9 or the raise your hand icon, or is the mayor speakers up to the front.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

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

And um actually before I'll you start.

Uh this item does recall require six votes.

So don't anybody go anywhere.

Um I'm not telling you how to vote, but it does require six yes votes.

Uh with that, staff, please introduce yourselves record and let us know how much time you need.

Good afternoon, Council President and members of the Council.

Joti Pantlou, Assistant Director with the Department of Finance and presenting with me today are Alison Falkenstein, Financing Coordinator, Gabriela Montmontano Torres, finance analyst, and uh Brett Bartalata, Chief Deputy City Attorney.

You'll need about 10 minutes.

All right.

When you're ready.

Thank you.

Today we are seeking authorization for the issuance of the public facilities financing authority of City of San Diego water revenue bonds.

As background, the water utility issues revenue bonds periodically to finance its CIP program.

At this time, the Department of Finance has determined that there is an opportunity to capture savings by refunding or refinancing certain outstanding water revenue bonds.

Currently, two series that were issued 10 years ago in 2016 are eligible for a current refunding and meet the city's debt policy guidelines.

For ongoing water CIP, the city issues commercial paper to finance expenses on an interim basis in between bond issuances.

Since we will be in the bond market with the refunding, we are planning to take out any outstanding commercial paper at the same time.

We expect we may reach up to 150 million in expenses covered by commercial paper by June 2026.

About 98% of the funds will go towards pipeline projects.

The proposed 2026 bonds will pay down the outstanding commercial paper and reset the program capacity.

With that, I'll turn it to Alison.

Thank you.

This slide highlights the key financing elements of the bond issuance.

The issuer of the bonds will be the public facilities financing authority of the City of San Diego.

The structure will be the same legal structure as the prior water revenue bonds.

The repayment sources for these bonds will be net system revenues of the water utility fund.

These bonds will be issued on a tax exempt basis.

The final maturity of the new money portion will be the usual 30 years.

And for the refunding component, we will match the same existing maturities.

The ordinance will authorize either senior or subordinate liens, and currently we are anticipating these bonds to be issued on the senior lien.

And these bonds will be issued publicly via a negotiated sale.

This slide describes the financing team that was selected to support this transaction.

The municipal advisor is public resources advisory group, which was selected via competitive process.

The bond and disclosure council will be Hawkins Delafield and Wood, which was also selected via competitive process.

The trustee, an escrow agent is a U.S.

bank trust company.

They were also selected via competitive process, and they serve as the bond council.

Sorry, the bond trustee for all other bonds issued under the same legal framework.

For the underwriters, the Department of Finance issued an RFP in December, and we received numerous proposals.

The selection and award process is underway, and we will seek council approval of the selection in conjunction with approval of the preliminary official statement in May.

For fiscal considerations of the refunding component, depending on market conditions, we are aiming to fully refund the 2016 A and 2016 B water revenue bonds in their entirety.

There is 307 million outstanding between these two bonds.

The following are estimates as of January 21 and are subject to change.

We estimate we will save over 46 million dollars for the water utility fund, and the amount varies year to year.

There will be more upfront savings at 5 million per year between 2027 to 2029.

Then it goes down to 2.7 million annually and then 0.3 million thereafter.

We estimate this will provide 13% net present value savings overall.

For the new money component, it is anticipated to provide 150 million in bond proceeds to pay down outstanding commercial paper that we will issue for water utility CIP projects.