Seek San Diego County approval for the continued use of military-style equipment as defined in California State Assembly Bill 481.

To outline and explain the uses for current equipment being utilized by the San Diego Police Department and to outline the equipment described in the State Assembly Bill 481 currently utilized by the department is needed to maintain public safety and the highest quality of police service to all our communities.

Only 0.15% of the adopted fiscal year 2026 SDPD department budget is allocated for equipment listed in Assembly Bill 481.15% of the LK budget.

Budget comparison, the annual budget for military equipment costs decreased by approximately $8,000.

Therefore, the percentage of the annual budget for military equipment for 2024 was 0.16%, and in 2025 was 0.15%.

The number of SWAT PRT assist calls and the use of specialty munitions such as pepperballs and OC foggers increased from 2024.

This year is 2024 to versus 2025 use comparison of all of our SWAT call-outs.

In 2024, we had 19 COD 11s and 16 and so forth on the table here.

Our PRT assists increase from 53 in 2024 to 85 and 2025.

Our goal of the presentation is to emphasize that the San Diego Police Department does not participate in the 1033 program for procuring surplus military equipment.

The last piece of equipment the department received from this program was an unmanned robot, and that was returned in March of 2020.

The items listed in the SDPD annual military equipment report are all manufactured by civilian companies.

The acquisition and implementation of each tool stems from incidents where lives are lost, and an important equipment need was identified.

The overall purpose of their use is de-escalation, standoff distance, safety, and most importantly, the preservation of human life.

The majority of the equipment described in Assembly Bill 481 is utilized exclusively by the SDPD SWAT team.

The mission of the STPD SWAT team is to use training, sound tactical planning, and equipment to bring a safe resolution to critical incidents.

The SDPD SWAT team maintains the highest level of operational readiness through the development of sound tactical strategies and innovative training programs.

The STPD SWAT team is always used by the department as a de-escalation tool.

Only certain specific exigen circumstances will dictate early aggressive tactical action, a vast majority of all SWAT calls and with a peaceful resolution.

The primary response team or PRT officers is 365 days a year, 24 hours a day coverage in the field.

The PRT concept was adopted by the SDPD after the Crandall Street Tragedy in June of 1981.

The primary mission is emergency citizen and officer rescues.

Our special response team officers, SRT, is a minimum of a team leader and six officers on call at all times.

The SRT concept was adopted by the SDPD after the McDonald's restaurant tragedy in July of 1984.

The primary mission is hostage rescue and complex armed barricaded suspect response.

SWAT sniper team, we have two team leaders and 12 officers fully staffed, highly trained officers that provide overwatch protection at large events.

Snipers also provide the SWAT team a greater standoff distance and observation capability at critical incidents.

SWAT snipers are assigned to large events to protect citizens against an attack like what occurred at the Las Vegas Harvest Festival in October of 2017.

The primary goal is to protect citizens against a sniper base or active shooter type attack.

SCPD SWAT team complying with a surveillance ordinance.

Equipment utilized by the San Diego Police Department and exclusively by the STPD SWAT team complies with the transparent and reasonable use surveillance technology, the surveillance ordinance adopted by the city of San Diego on September 9, 2022.

I'll go over some of our equipment.

The armored rescue vehicles.

We have one two-door armor rescue vehicle and one four-door armor rescue vehicle.

Provides a high-level ballistic protection for rescue team when dealing with armed suspects.

Their armor rescue vehicles are not equipped with any of fixed weapons and are utilized by the SWAT team as a defensive tool, ballistic protection during citizen and officer rescues, etc.

The four-door armor rescue vehicle is equipped with viable chemical, radiological, and nuclear detection equipment and a fresh air breathing system.

This allows officers a safe access into a potentially hazardous environment to affect a citizen or officer rescue.

And this here is a picture of one of our barricades on our armored rescue vehicle.

The unmanned aircraft systems or UAS.

The UAS systems utilized by the department can assist at any incident where an aerial perspective would be beneficial.

UAS are only used during critical incidents and high risk operations with authorization from the chief of police.

ULAS allows SWAT officers to obtain a view of an area without sending an officer to an unclear, dangerous position where a robot has limited or no access.

UES are only used by officers that have completed certification course and have attended continuous training for safe operation.

All the UAS and SDP inventory can be legally purchased by civilians.

Picture of a couple of our EOS equipment.

SWAT officers only have down defense semi-automatic AR-15 rifles.

Our SWAT snipers only have the accuracy international 308 caliber bolt action rifle, and ammunition is listed in the report associated with each weapon system.

Pepper ball launchers.

Pepper ball launchers are used only by SWAT officers, used to deploy an extended range pepper ball in response to an assaultive or active resistant suspect.

SWAT officers must complete a pepper ball certification course and requalify with a pepper ball equipment annually.

Used as an attention getting or distraction device.

When deployed, the canister emits a loud noise and bright light after 1.5 second delay.

Only deployed in a cleared area with at least five feet of open space, and SWAT officers must complete a certification course and requalify with the equipment annually.

40 millimeter launchers.

The department has two types of 40 millimeter launchers, single launchers and multi-launchers, also exclusively used by SWAT only.

Used to launch 40 millimeter sponge rounds or chemical agent ferret round exclusively by SWAT.

The 40 millimeter sponge run is used only on assaultive suspects or suspects actively resisting with access to a weapon.

The 40 millimeter chemical agent ferret rounds are used to drive a suspect from a structure or to prevent a suspect from accurately firing out a location as citizens or officers in an emergency situation.

Example of our single and multi-launchers.

Chemical agents.

Chemical agents are deployed exclusively by SWAT officers.

Chemical agents are used to drive a suspect or suspects from a structure or location.

They are also used to prevent an armed suspect from accurately firing at officers and citizens during an emergency situation.

Chemical agents can be used on violent or assaulted persons, open air only with permission of the chief of police or his or her designee.

Delivery methods depend on proximity to the target type of agent being deployed and size of the structure.

Beamback shotguns are extended range impact weapons capable of firing a 12-gauge beamback round.

Beamback shotguns are affixed with a bright orange, orange stock and foreign for the easy identification.

Beamback shotguns can be deployed to impact suspects demonstrating assaultive or life-threatening behavior, and BMAC shotguns are not utilized by the department during civil unrest or crowd control situations.

Breaching equipment, explosive breaching, used during crisis situations when necessary for the SWAT team to quickly and effectively breach a door or port a wall.

Can be used to defeat a fortified door, wall, or barrier, and is considered a cutting tool.

Effective explosive breaching techniques allow SWAT officers immediate entry into a structure with minimal risk to victims, officers, and suspects.

Only used with approval of the SWAT commanding officer and incident commander when all safety considerations have been evaluated.

Example, it was used by Las Vegas SWAT officers to defeat door fortification while responding to the Harvest Music Festival Active Shooter in 2017.

I will now go over a couple of examples of SWAT calls where this equipment was used.

On October, currently Mesa of Code 11, on October 20, uh 16 and 2025, Eastern Division officers received the radio call of a subject involved in a prior domestic violence radio call who had potentially pointed a rifle at hotel staff.

Shortly after patrol officers arrived, a COVID SWAT response was called.

Once SWAT officers arrived on scene, the relief patrol officers who were set up inside the hotel and on the outer perimeter outside the hotel.

The armored rescue vehicle, the bear cat was deployed on the outer perimeter near the hotel room window of the subject to provide armor for SWAT officers.

SWAT quickly established a contact team in the hallway outside the hotel room where the suspect was located.

SWAT was given the admission to contain negotiate.

The emergency negotiations team or ENT arrived and made numerous attempts to contact the suspect.

Meanwhile, SWAT officers deployed two flash bank devices in front of the suspect's hotel room door to grab his attention.

SWAT officers on the outer perimeter deployed chemical agent fare rounds into the window of the hotel room via 40 minute 40 millimeter launchers.

A second volley of chemical agent ferret rounds was deployed into the room.

Following the additional volley of ferret rounds, EMT successfully convinced the suspect to exit the hotel room.

SWAT officers arrived on scene and replaced patrol officers on the perimeter of the target residence with SWAT personnel.

The armored rescue vehicle, the Barcat was deployed to the front of the residence to provide armor for SWAT officers.

UAS maintained drone overwatch for the duration of the incident.

The subject partially exited the residence multiple times.

The subject was holding a propane tank and attempted to light himself on fire.

The subject was holding a knife and would throw objects at units.

SWAT units impacted the subject with the 40 millimeter foam baton projectiles shortly after the subject exited the structure and threw items at officers.

The subject made multiple statements that he wants to suicide by COP.

SWAT officers deployed chemical agent fair rounds via a 40 millimeter launcher into the residence, which had no effect on the subject.

SWAT officers deployed a second volley of chemical agent ferrite rounds into the structure.

Shortly after the subject opened the front door of the residence, laid on his stomach and extended his hands forward.

SWAT officers advanced forward and took the subject into custody.

SWAT deployed UAS drone assets and mini track robots into the residence and cleared their interior prior to SWAT making entry.

SWAT officers then made entry to clear the residence.

Engineer with a low profile shatsis during and durable construction, the TACAC can be safely deployed into areas that are too dangerous, too small, or too unstable for personnel.

In closing, the summary goal of the presentation is for the San Diego Police Department respectfully asked city council to certify the continued use of the safety equipment outlined in this presentation.

Each piece of equipment is crucial for the department's ability to maintain public safety.

Thank you, and we'll open for any questions.

All right.

Thank you for the presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you.

As there will be one minute per person, we will have the timer up on the screen for today's meeting.

Maximilian Schmidt, if you can please come forward to the microphone after that will be allegedly our Audra.

And Lori Lipsman, if you can please come forward to the yellow reserve seats at the front.

Um hi.

I've um tried to think of a creative idea to help people with this 48 million dollar um worth of military equipment when there's only really about 40 high risk warrants per year.

And um that uh idea is to use public service announcements to help people on San Diego streets who are um dying of drug overdose and even committing suicide.

Um, and just having simple public service announcements, um, nothing too overbearing that say um I don't know how you would word it, but basically say, like you know what?

Um, since before the time of Christ, half a society has been pagans who've done uh cult group rituals to read people's minds, and the other half um hasn't, and that these people have been trying to drive these people crazy by reading their minds, and that you're not crazy.

Human beings can uh worship the devil and read minds, and it could help people.

Thank you.

Allegedly, Audrey.

My apologies.

Bad habit to just put the timer in here and you have the one up there.

So please go by the one that's uh this is interesting because you're saying necessary for the public safety.

I think it's more police safety.

And I'm wondering, you know, you're talking about active shooters.

I mean, we had a MOSP shot up when you guys had, you know, over two hours of time and information coming in, and yet people died, and uh, you know, ALPR was used to basically go on a goose hunt.

So I'm just wondering, it's like these things are used against the public, and it's concerning to me to have witnessed an invasion on our border, and to know how many tools could have been utilized to stop that.

In fact, our we have like every military in San Diego County, and everybody wanted to say that our borders were secure when in fact that's not what was happening, and so it's sad to see that these are weaponized against the public.

It's not being used to protect us, it's being used to protect you guys, while the public um has to you know pay for these things, and yet they are being used against us.

I just find it extremely negligent and nefarious.

Lori Lipsman.

Good afternoon, Lori Lipsman, she her, district three.

Are you kidding me?

Are you really going to use precious resource of the money to further militarize the police?

Mass policing is mass militarization and is not safety.

I hope you wake up and stop politicking and work for the people.

I'll be back tomorrow about the SWAT association bribe.

Thank you.

I'll start the five-minute timer and go to those participating remotely.

I would like to note that we did receive zero comments in favor and one comment in opposition via e-comment form, which have been distributed to the council.

Currently, have four speakers with their hands raised.

Tony, if you can please unmute.

Yes, can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Yes, I just wanted to uh touch upon the distinction that Audra made because I agree with her point wholeheartedly, and I don't support this project this uh uh this proposal.

I just want to make the distinction.

There's a difference between public safety versus police safety, right?

And I I found it very notable that they were saying they only use 308 rounds.

Uh, but 308 rounds, if you've ever fired anything that has a 308, 308s when they go through houses, they don't they don't absorb through one piece of drywall, they don't stay in one room, they affect the houses next door, the neighborhoods next door.

This is excessive.

Voting for this cat is excessive, and then justifying it by saying that it's a civilian company.

IBM was a civilian company, they made punch cards for the Nazis.

Boeing is a civilian company, they also make high grade military weapons uh along with planes.

So that's not a justification.

And I I just want to encourage everybody that's gonna vote for this to attend the CPP meetings to attend the uh uh the privacy advisory board meetings.

I know that.

Uh thank you, uh Joy Asunyata.

Uh I'll say these yeses first and then some additional comments.

Uh yes to the trust org, less yes to SWAT, yes to uh special operations of the SDPD, yes to real life time examples, yes to robots and so forth, and a big yes to police officer safety.

So in the backup, here's what was really phenomenal.

There is a San Diego police department procedures uh for military equipment special operations.

It's a hundred and three pages long.

I just quickly went through it.

It's huge.

These procedures apply to all members of the police department.

Now, question all all across every page of that was the word draft.

And I get worried about drafts because when they become final, they can change, and sometimes I don't know what's in the final draft and on the final thing, and maybe you don't have to.

Time has concluded.

Natalie Rashke, if you can please unmute.

Hi, Natalie Rashki.

Uh, this is concerning to me in the area of being homeless before and how um this may or may not be used moving forward.

Knowing what I know and what we may be looking at, I I feel that people are gonna start to get unrestly with what's going down in our government.

That's just what I'm feeling.

And these 50 caliber rifer rifles, they shoot through I think it said um a foot of steel.

I don't know how that is um protecting with all this money protecting its citizens.

Now, are they gonna be held to protocol and the police using uh what they're supposed to use with the from my research uh being accountable when they upload their data when it was used?

Are they gonna be audited on regular basis and how and when they used it?

Your time has concluded.

Amanda, if you can please unmute.

There you go.

Okay, I'm here.

Please proceed.

Um I echo um what the speaker before me said.

Um I'd also like to say, um, the people of San Diego have been showing up to meetings, and we've been clear.

We do not want a police state in San Diego.

We are one of the safest major cities in the country.

The only people who are advocating for increased police power are the ones who have spent the last 10 years being verbally terrorized by Fox News propaganda.

Military members don't want the constitutional rights they fought for trampled on.

Immigrants don't want it used to illegally surveil them, and our black and brown residents don't want it used to traumatize and extort them for bail.

Remind you that SCDPD arrests black San Diegans for only resisting arrested nine times more often and have violence used against them seven times more frequently.

Last night between 1 a.m.

and 1 45, I was awoken by an SCDPD helicopter that flew by my house.

Not once, not twice, nine different times.

I live right next to children's hospital, which means that the time has concluded.

Blair Beekman, if you can please unmute the five-minute timer.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um, there wasn't too many public speakers.

A minute 30 would have been helpful and appropriate for an item like this.

Um, I wanted to comment that you know, coming out of the era of 9-11 and continual war, this kind of item was not really on our agendas 15 20 years ago.

We've learned to bring it on our agendas.

We've learned to talk more about tech accountability and openness and its importance compared to 10 or 15 years ago.

Um, we've taken a bit of a break and how to better talk about tech accountability in the last five years here in San Diego.

I think we're now understanding that it is a continual learning process that we have to be considering our accountability and open public policies.

So for the good efforts that the police described with this item, we always have to be considering what is the future of better practices for for SWAT issues and for technology issues.

And that we have to learn to speak of the spoken and unspoken things and things like ALPR, uh real time issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That doesn't include public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

We'll turn it over to council members for questions, comments, and retained motion.

We'll start with council member Bon Wilbur.

Thank you.

Um, thank you for the presentation and for everyone who commented today.

Um, and the reason this was direct docketed this year and didn't go through public safety committees, because nothing has changed.

No new equipment was purchased between last year and this year.

So it's a very similar report.

Um, but I do I do have a couple of questions about some of the the PRT assists versus code 11.

Can you explain for the public the difference between a code 11 and a PRT assist?

Yes, the difference between a PRT assist and a co-11 is just the magnitude of how many SWAT officers respond to an incident.

If PRT assists is simply we have the PRT officers are always working 365 24 hour coverage on the fuel for patrol officers.

Their collateral duty is SWAT.

So whenever we need to supplement patrol officers with any critical incident or any radical call, patrol PRT officers can assist to respond.

A COT 11 is it's a full activation SWAT call from when it would deal with armed armed barricade suspects, active shooters, uh citizen rescues, officer rescues, and that sort.

So that's a full activation as opposed to PRT assists as more patrol level rate of calls where PRT officers working patrol can assist and supplement patrol officers.

If I can add to that, so by designing the primary response team, it's a collateral duty.

These are patrol officers in each and every district that works out there in every shift.

It bridges the gap from a response that requires specialty uh skills, tactical skills.

Now, for example, you know, we might have a mental um incident where a subject is threatening suicide or threatening harm to another person.

It doesn't rise to the level of a full swap call out when we have a code 11 or code 12, it means the cavalry's showing.

We have our special toys or robotics or bear cat or armored vehicle.

We have a lot of other resources to use in the context of complete response, and that depends it's dependent on the situation.

So the PRT officers are already on duty for the most part, and the swap officers would have to be called from home.

That is correct.

Okay.

Got it.

Um, and can I ask why we're having more PRT assist?

Is it because it's beginning a useful tool or people are getting more violent, or what do you think is happening?

I can't comment to why we're having more PRT assists, but definitely RB requested more on the field uh to assist patrol officers.

To add to that also is the mitigate risk.

Um again, um PRT officers are also SWAT.

We they attend monthly training in addition with a full-time SWAT team.

So in in a department, yeah that I can say it's fairly junior in terms of years' experience, it mitigates a lot of risk, a lot of liability uh as we resolve these incidents.

Okay, and and I also know that a lot of the equipment that we're talking about today also goes through review for the privacy advisory board.

Drones, attack cats, everything, and so those use policies are online for people to see the privacy advisory board has already advised on the use of these uh technologies as well.

Um, you know, I I got to see the the drones in action on a PRT assist that I was on a ride-along for, and a young woman had to be pulled out of her bedroom window because an adult naked male had broken into her living room in the early hours of the morning, and she was rescued out of her bedroom window.

She didn't have shoes or a shirt, so I gave her my jacket.

And he was in there completely wrecking our house, very clearly either on drugs or something, and for two hours we sat there doing call-outs, and finally the drone team came in because it was able to de-escalate.

They could actually send it in once the door was breached to see where he was in the room.

And I didn't realize that when you use chemical agents, the poor victim of that crime then couldn't go back to her apartment because she'd have to have it, all of the chemicals um taken out.

So I just I was very impressed with the way that it was done, and he was safely removed, they found her in a shower.

Um, but I've also seen incidents, at least one where in the city did settle a lawsuit for excessive force on a PRT response.

And so I don't want to talk about that particular case, but I do want to ask does the department engage in continual training after every PRT response or SWAT response to say what went right, what went wrong, and how can we do better in the next time?

Yeah, so we we like uh my partner explained, we have monthly mandatory monthly SWAT training.

And a lot of these equipment, like we explained, we do annual requalification, recertification for all its equipment, whether it's the comical agents, the breaching equipment.

Uh so we do have annual certifications, and after every incident we do debrief amongst a team to talk about what went right, what went wrong, what could have done better, and what was uh one will.

So we do debrief every incident as well.

Okay.

Um, if you need us to push for more funding for continual training, I think the command trainings are fantastic, and I participated in one.

Let us know what we can do to help.

Because you are making life in death decisions out there, and so the more support we can get you to do all that hard work that you're doing, I'd be happy to help with that.

Um, and for you know, we went over a long explanation last year about what the bear cat is, so I'm not gonna get into it again.

Uh, this is all on public record, but you know, the bear cat, if you haven't seen it, it is completely a defensive vehicle.

There's no external ability to fire from it, and it does protect the public because it's used in mass shootings.

We actually got the bear cat because of the Siena Cedro McDonald's shooting, in which police had no way to approach the McDonald's.

I mean, if you see a picture of the storefront, it just riddled with bullet holes.

Twenty-two people were killed, nineteen were injured, and every time police went up, they were shot at.

And in 1981, when you talk about the Crandall Street tragedy, that's when police actually uh uh gentleman got very gentlemen.

A murderer got very mad at his neighbor, started uh physically assaulting her over a garden plant in 1981, and the two police officers responded, and he shot them both in the driveway.

And every time an ambulance tried to come to the officers, he started shooting at the ambulance drivers from the window.

And the police officers bled out, and then he started shooting at his neighbors, and people walking by, and so the police couldn't stop the active shooter because he killed two officers trying to get to him, and could nobody could approach that.

That's what the bear cat is for.

It's so that you can't approach an active shooter and disarm them while not being shot and killed.

And so it's it looks like a tank, but it's not a tank.

It took me a while to learn that.

Um, and so I do understand what it's for now.

And so anyway, thank you for bringing this forward.

Um, and I'll make the motion to approve test recommendation.

All right, thank you, Councilmember.

So we have a motion by Council Member Bon Wolpert to move the staff recommendation.

Uh council member Campbell will second.

And council member E.

Lower Vera has comments.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, thank you for the presentation here.

Um I did have, let me start with one question.

The staff report references, make sure I get the language right here.

New equipment described in the updated procedure includes drones and pepper ball launchers.

So those are new equipments.

It's a newer model of equipment that we already have.

So we already have drones.

These are just different models, neural models that we have in our inventory now.

Same thing with our pepperball launchers.

We already have those launchers, is it just different models, neural models that are more accurate?

Okay.

So there's new equipment though.

Yes, in the inventory, yes.

Okay.

Um of the things that caught my attention was a slight difference in language in the flashbang section in comparison to the sting ball munitions section.

Flashbangs references that there's a reference to being used in quote, some mobile field force operations, whereas sting ball ammunitions can be used in quote limited instances during mobile field force instances.

Can you explain the difference between some and limited instance instances?

Or sorry, repeat the question again?

What was that?

Are we repeat the question again, please?

Yeah, so the flashbang section, uh, let me just pull it up so I get it exactly right, but I think I did pull that language specifically from the report.

Flashbangs can be used in some mobile field force operations and stingball munitions.

In that section, it says that they can be used in quote limited instances during mobile field force instances.

So there's one section where it says some, another section where it says limited instances.

What's the difference between some instances and limited instances?

So the flashbangs are attention gain device or distraction device during civil unrest or protests.

Can be used with their approval of the incident commander.

The pepper baton rounds, the rubber, the stingballs, those require assistant chief assistant chief of approval to be used during civil unrest situation.

So limited instances means there's more specific guidelines around when they can be used.

Yes.

Okay.

That's what I thought.

I think I brought this up last year.

I continue to have concerns about our policies around flashbangs.

This is a technology that's um uh been cited in multiple reports as um causing significant injuries, maiming or killing um people.

I understand that um our police department needs to have the equipment necessary to de-escalate uh to respond in um significant crises, and to do that in a society where there are way too many guns on the street and way too many high powered weapons on the street.

I recognize all that, uh, but be uh because of concerns I raised in the past um and that I continue to have uh around the flashbangs in particular and around some of the looseness in the language there, I'll be uh voting no.

Council President, thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Uh not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Uh we have a motion by council member von Wolpert, second by council member Campbell to move a staff recommendation.

Oh, before we go there, Councilmember Foster.

I'm sorry, yes.

Um thank you for the presentation.

Um, and I um appreciate the questioning thus far.

My colleague, I believe, asked a question regarding the privacy advisory board and going through the surveillance technology um ordinance.

I didn't hear a verbal a direct response to the to the question, but for the items that are that are on here, I guess the new new items all of these have gone through that process and have been approved in accordance with the uh trust ordinance.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, um the other question that I have is in in the staff report it says the military equipment use procedure must be posted on the website at least 30 days prior to any public meeting regarding military equipment.

How did you guys meet that um requirement?

I do see the information um specific for the item on the council agenda, but I believe we post that I want to say typically seven days prior to this meeting.

So, how are you guys meeting that 30-day requirement in accordance with um assembly bill 481?

We had our committee meeting, and we just look at the staff report here.

If I could just if I could assist with that answer, Councilmember Foster.

Um, if you can if you can announce or or announce yourself what office you're with.

I'm sure.

Um I'm Jill Christian, deputy city attorney with the city attorney's office.

So if I just before you get started, I guess I just want to ask, I would assume the police department is responsible for this action.

I'm a little curious as to why you're responding.

Oh I just have a uh timeline and I wasn't sure if it if you had the exact dates.

So I was gonna add this, but I'll go ahead and let's do that.

No, please.

I just curious, as they're the asset owning department and the responsible department.

So I'm just trying to understand why you're injecting into the conversation at this point.

Okay.

My apologies.

I'm gonna go ahead and have staff, I'm gonna defer to staff if you have the dates, and if you don't, I have the dates.

Yes, we have the date for the uh community meeting was held on June 3rd of 2026.

Uh if Joe Christian has more of detailed timeline, if you're okay with that, she can answer that for us.

So you said your community meeting was when?

It was uh on June 3rd, 2026.

Okay, so that's a community meeting, but I believe in the staff report it says that the equipment use procedure must be posted on the website at least 30 days prior to any public meeting.

So I would assume that if you had a public meeting on June the third, that you would have also had to post it on your website 30 days prior to.

So I'm trying to understand your process and how you met that requirement as the item is before us today.

So I guess you're up now.

I'm ready to be listening to you.

Yes, good afternoon, Councilmember Foster.

Um if I could assist with some additional dates to help clarify, the annual military equipment report was actually posted on the website on March 2nd, and the updated procedure uh was posted to the website on May 30th.

And the 30 days would be required prior to the public meeting, which would be um today's meeting because it was direct docketed, usually we would do that before the pub uh the public safety committee meeting.

So I guess I'm a little confused because it's the way this and maybe you can clarify the assembly bill 41.

What's written in the staff report says any public meeting?

So if you posted on May 30th, and then you had a meeting on June 3rd.

I don't know if we have met said requirement of assembly bill 481.

Would you agree?

So I so I believe the 30 days would be the public hearing concerning the military equipment use, which would be subsection B of government code 7071.

And I do recognize that it does say any public hearing concerning the military equipment.

Um therefore I would our interpretation would be that the use policy would actually have to be up before the public safety committee meeting.

We um at this time we did not interpret it to mean the community engagement meeting, who drafted this report uh the standing out of the department.

Code, I'm gonna turn to you, sir.

It's it feels as if we have a procedural issue.

I think where the confusion may be is that the uh state law requires for the for the use policies to be posted before the public hearing, not the public engagement meeting, which is that June 3rd meeting that's referenced.

This would count as the hearing, which if the use policies were posted, the revised use policies were posted on May 30th, then we would be uh within that 30-day period or beyond that 30-day period.

So I think with our interpretation that counting this as the first hearing under state law, we would be in compliance understanding and seeing the the concern there that um it wasn't posted by the community meeting, which was on June 3rd.

So am I to understand that we're going to a community meeting?

I guess the expectation is we don't give the community time to be prepared with any questions, comments, concerns, and and I'm a little concerned because this report indicates the staff report says 30 days prior to any public meeting.

That's what's in the staff report.

I hear you, council member.

Uh, I think, yes, you're right that there was that piece of confusion there.

I think as we look ahead for next year to have this posted 30 days prior to any public meeting, regardless of if it's a hearing or community engagement effort, is a commitment we can make.

So am I to understand you're indicating you did not meet the requirements of AB 481, but yet you are still asking this council to move this item forward today.

We interpret it as the community meeting is not a public meeting.

And that was our interpretation of the procedural process, and therefore we we are in accordance with AB 481, based on our interpretation that a community meeting is not a public meeting in accordance with this uh legislative body for approval.

Okay, um, I'd have to go through the statute in more detail.

A little concerned that we are qualifying our interpretation today as we're here.

Council president, I will pause there, but unfortunately, I can't support the item that's before us today.

Um seems like it would be in the best interest of uh the police department and the community to uh properly notice and bring the item back and continue to move forward.

So um but I'll I'll end there and turn it back over to you, Council President.

Thank you.

All right.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Foster.

I always appreciate your comments observations.

We'll go back to Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Thank you, and thank you to Councilmember Foster for raising procedural issues because it is important for the public to be able to see to use policy, and I'm reading on California Legislature CA.gov that section 7071, subsection B of the law states that it needs to be placed on the enforcement agency's internet website at least 30 days prior to any public hearing.

So I could see why you'd be the difference between a hearing in front of the city council versus a meeting.

It says the word hearing, regardless in the future.

Can we just do it before 30 days before the public meeting too?

Yes, councilmember.

Okay.

All right, thank you.

I mean, if we have it done, you might as well post it on the on the website early.

So okay, thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember von Wolpert.

Uh, not seeing Councilmember Foster.

And just to clarify, and and I know the the police department has a whole, they basically have all of their policies and procedures in one location.

That's a pretty um extensive um document.

So I hope when you are um taking this type of action that you don't just rely on it being in that section but um posted in a manner in which it is easily identifiable and folks understand um the document that they should be um reviewing or or looking at.

So just um if you can do that, I think that would improve our process.

So thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Uh, not seeing anybody else on the lights to speak.

We have a motion by council member von Wolpert and a second by council member Campbell to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the rule.

As for the voting system, please cast your vote and council member campio.

If I can have your vote for the record, yes.

This passes seven to two with council member Ila Rivera and Councilmember Foster voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

So the clerk with that, please introduce item 200.

Thank you very much for your work.

Thank you.

Item 200 is the master lease agreement to finance general fund vehicles and equipment.

Six votes are required pursuant to charter section 99.

There are no organized presentations for this item today.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, as you settle yourselves in, introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need for the presentation.

Good afternoon, Council President and members of the council.

Joti Pantalu, Assistant Director with the Department of Finance and presenting with me today is Marusul Valdevinos, also from the Department of Finance.

We'll need about seven minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon again.

The item for your consideration this afternoon is the authorization of a master lease agreement with JP Morgan Chase to finance general fund fleet and equipment in an amount not to exceed 48.3 million.

This item was presented and approved by the budget and government finance committee meeting last month.

I will now turn it over to Marasul to go through the details.

Thank you.

The proposed financing of 48.3 million is anticipated to be used for 213 general fund fleet vehicles and equipment that have been ordered and are anticipated to be delivered over a 15-month period following execution.

Associated sales tax and outfitting costs for the vehicle and equipment will be cash funded and are budgeted in the vehicle replacement fund.

The purchase contracts for these vehicles and equipment were approved by City Council in July of 2022, with the understanding that they would be financed through EVFP with a master lease agreement brought forth closer to the time of the vehicle or equipment delivery.

Based on current market conditions, estimated interest rates range from 3.91% to 4.1%, depending on the repayment terms.

Actual rates will be determined at closing.

Lease payments will be made semi-annually from the vehicle replacement fund.

The projected debt service for this financing was incorporated into the city's five-year financial outlook and remains within the debt ratio limits established by the city's debt policy.

As shown in the schedule, annual payments are expected to peak in the early years and then gradually decline as obligations are repaid.

Assuming a full draw of the 48.3 million, total debt service is anticipated at $56.8 million over the life of the agreement.

The proposed agreement establishes a financing agreement between the city as a lessee and JP Morgan as a lessor.

The bank was selected through a competitive procurement process.

The agreement provides funding availability over a 15-month acquisition period that is expected to span from approximately September of 2026 through December of 2027.

The city may draw only the funds it needs and is under no obligation to utilize the full authorized amount.

Any unused capacity may also be available to finance additional eligible equipment and vehicles if needed.

The city commits to budgeting and appropriating annual lease payments through the term.

An additional feature of this agreement is the optional escrow.

This allows the city to draw down all or a portion of the financing proceeds before vehicle before vehicles or equipment are actually delivered.

The escrow feature gives the city additional flexibility if there are delivery delays or if market conditions make it financially beneficial to fund earlier as we wait for assets to arrive.

Since it's anticipated that the city will be paid will pay the vendors upon asset delivery, then reimburse itself through the lease funding.

The city is required by treasury regulations to declare its official intent to reimburse itself during the master lease agreement.

The ordinance contains a language that satisfies this requirement.

As Jothi mentioned, this item uh went to budget and government efficiency committee in June 17th.

After City Council today, the first reading of the ordinance, the second reading will be after the summer recess in August 25th, 2026, with the execution of the agreement in early September.

Thank you for your time and we welcome any questions.

This concludes our presentation.

Alright, thank you for the work.

Thank you for the presentation.

And with that, Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

If I can have Maximilian Schmidt and then allegedly Audra, you'll have one minute.

The timer will be on the screen.

Hi.

That will actually try to make me crazy and even suicidal or turn to drugs by um saying my thoughts out loud.

And my creative idea is to have a public service announcement with these one of these 214 vehicles saying to people that if you think that you're crazy because people are saying your thoughts out loud, um that pagan rituals have actually existed before the time of Christ, giving people the ability to be telepathic and to even drive other members of their community insane by saying their thoughts out loud.

You are not crazy, you're being targeted.

Point of order really quick regarding the last item and whether or not that uh community meeting was um something where they were bringing forward this item for the first time, it would require uh the notice, so I think you guys need to see if that was a community meeting where they were bringing it forward for the first time as information, then it technically would need to be noticed uh 30 days prior.

So I think there's maybe a technicality here that you guys need to review to make sure that you're doing this abiding by the law because I don't believe that you are, and I think that you were right, um, but that you need to look a little bit deeper.

Um, anyway, so as far as this equipment and these vehicles goes, I mean JP Morgan and Chase, I mean, has connections to BlackRock.

I don't understand why, you know, some billionaires were concerned about and others were not.

And when we're spending this amount of money, I mean, when you guys are uh getting all of these electric vehicles and this new type of infrastructure, it's gonna cost the people more money.

Um, and it doesn't really save us money over time, and nor is it.

Oh, what happened with the clock?

That's weird.

I'll keep taking and keep going.

Okay.

Thanks.

Anyway, um, it was like I got more time all of a sudden.

I was like, I'm going back in time.

This is so weird, you guys are bummed.

Um, but that we need to be mindful of like how much it's actually costing, whether these things are beneficial to the environment, because if you really do your research, you can find that they are actually detrimental not only to uh the environment but also to uh public health and safety, and we should be concerned about giving money to these entities that are engaged in very nefarious things like Black Rock and Vanguard, which is involved with Chase and JP Morgan.

Thank you.

Sorry, the five-minute timer going to those participating remotely.

And you raised a point of order, and that's where your time was.

And when you finished your point of order, then we started your clock so you could speak to the item itself.

Amanda, if you can please unmute.

Hello.

We can hear you, please proceed.

Okay, perfect.

Um, so I'm sitting here looking at a slide from last year's budget.

Um, year where we had a I think it was a hundred and fifty-eight million dollar deficit.

Looks like we budgeted 95 million for medium heavy duty and 40 million for light duty.

Um, sitting here listening that we're gonna finance another 48 million to lease more city vehicles.

Our roads have potholes, our streets are flooding.

If the foundation of my house is leaking, I'm not gonna go out and finance a brand new Camaro.

The people of the city are sick to death of the financial mismanagement this city council has displayed.

I promise you that we will be auditing the hell out of each and every single contract.

We trust you with our money, like we trust Bill Cosby to pour us drinks.

Please vote no to add to our deficit.

Please use the resources we have already given you responsibly and allocate our taxes responsibly.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lair Beekman, if you can please unmute.

Hi, player Bigman.

I didn't see anything in this item about electrical vehicle use.

Good luck in that pursuit and how we are addressing uh the future of electric battery use, what that what a good safe electric battery means for our future.

We made good early steps to make that conversation more clear.

Good luck in those continued efforts for our fleet service and for our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Tony.

If you can please unmute.

Yes, I wanted to agree with the sentiments that were spoken earlier by a couple of the constituents, namely with Amanda and namely with Audra.

And I want to say any time that Audra tells a member of City Council that you're doing something right, that should really tell you something.

And Henry Foster, you are definitely doing something right, as well as Sean Eli Rivera.

Thank you both for routinely being some of the only two courageous enough to take a bold stance when it comes a principled stance when it comes to doing things the right way and the wrong way.

Can you speak to the item?

Audra had a point of order, which is why we gave her that time, but speak to the item, please.

Sure.

I don't understand why we're necessarily going with JP Morgan as the ones that are financing this project.

I would love to see us actually financing with someone differently if we can do like an independent credit union or someone local.

And have all kinds of uh lawsuits against them for nefarious reasons.

Thank you.

And Natalie Rashke, your final speaker with her hand raised at the moment.

Please unmute.

Natal, very good.

Hi.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

So from my understanding, they want uh 48.3 million uh for the city to go into debt for these vehicles, which would be including SDPD.

Meaning, so we're just adding on to that and going into debt.

Also, if this does pass, uh the ordinance gives the mayor or the CE, the COO and the CFO authority to change the list of financed assets without returning to council for approval.

I think that's uh an issue.

I don't understand how we're taking all of this money and investing in military police infrastructure.

I just can't understand it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That does conclude public comment on this item.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Well, I'll turn it over to council members for questions, comments, and retain the motion.

We'll start with council member Moreno.

Thank you, and thank you for your uh presentation.

Uh I've become uneasy with the structure by which the city purchases and then leases vehicles.

Uh the city will initially fund the cost of the vehicles and equipment purchases and then reimburse itself through lease financing.

Uh, this is similar to buying a washer with cash and then taking out a loan afterwards to reimburse yourself.

In essence, replacing an upfront cash payment with a debt that must be paid over time with interest.

Now, consistent with those concerns, I do not I did not support last year's cooperative procurement contract for the purchase of various vehicles and equipment.

Um, I also didn't support last year's master lease agreement to finance general fund vehicles and equipment.

Now, um I do understand that this is the way the city has purchased vehicles in recent years, and I'm simply uncomfortable with how the city is perpetually issuing debt to fund vehicles and equipment for our fleet.

So I will not be supporting this item before us today.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

Um does our Council Member Von Wilbert?

Thank you for the presentation and I wish that we had done this with the companion presentation that was heard at budget and government efficiency committee on the cost-benefit analysis of whether to rent versus buy different equipment.

And I've poured through it with my staff, but I think it was would have been very helpful to see this side by side.

So when I have a couple of questions about, you know, the question that the Blair asked about clean emissions vehicles, you know, is there a requirement in here that we purchase or utilize certain clean emissions vehicles?

Is that is this just the financing and the list of vehicles as separate?

This item is just the financing.

Okay.

So then how are we going to track who buys what and what it's used for because the HERC rental contract got completely out of control and I'm nervous for this one now too.

Okay.

I believe we have Gina Davis from General Services available to answer this question.

Good afternoon, council member von Wilbert.

This is Gina Doulet from the General Services Department.

The list of vehicles that we produced to put together the financing agreement, these were vehicles that were purchased prior to the CBA.

So these are vehicles that were maybe purchased in the last two or three years that will be arriving and eligible for financing.

We do have 20 EVs on order that are set to arise in the next year or two.

But we are carefully watching the financial constraints that EVs bring.

They tend to be more expensive than combustible engine vehicles, and their market availability is also recently constrained.

I hope that answers your question.

Okay, so is the list of vehicles in the backup materials?

The list of vehicles I can produce for you the list of vehicles that we think will come in during this financing period.

Again, these were purchased, and we believe that they will arrive during this financing period.

They they could arrive later, in which case we'll, you know, they would get on to the next master lease agreement, but I'm happy to produce what we believe will arrive during this financing period.

Yeah, I think that would have been helpful when we voted on the financing to have a list of what we're buying next to.

Um I know that these the purchases were made a while ago because we don't pay for them till the vehicles arrive, correct?

Right.

But it would have been helpful to have that list matching up with this item so we don't have to go digging for it.

Okay, thank you for that feedback, Councilmember.

We did make an attempt to summarize it just in terms of the types of vehicles and also the way this um agreement is set up, we do have the flexibility to, as Gina alluded, if uh these specific vehicles don't come in within the acquisition period, we have the ability if there's some other fire truck, for instance, that comes in within that 15-month period.

We have the ability to finance that.

So uh I but I would take the feedback, but also we want to be careful not to uh indicate that this action is not authorizing the vehicles specifically that are being financed.

This is just a financing agreement in a certain amount not to exceed a certain amount.

Okay, then what was the point of the study showing which vehicles were cheaper to rent versus which one would be cheaper to buy?

Are we comparing the vehicles coming in to that study, which was very helpful, which is not being heard today?

It was heard the budget and efficiency committee.

Sorry, I if I if I could if I could try and answer that question, Councilmember Von Wilpert.

So the CBA that you heard at budget uh committee recently, um, those were uh that's a practice that we are going to embark upon for our purchases in the future.

Um, but again, as Josie noted, these the vehicles that are being uh financed as part of the 48.3 million are vehicles that we already ordered.

So we didn't have an opportunity to take a look at the cost-benefit analysis for these specific vehicles, but we will moving forward.

Okay, um, I mean, that's unfortunate, but I'm glad we are having a study to see which is cheaper to rent or buy for individual vehicle.

Um, I have a finance question and I have a contract in question.

So, with the interest rate, isn't the current Fed interest rate right now around 3.5, 3.75%.

Um, yes, council member, these rates are uh these interest rates are uh derived from the Fed interest rate, so they speak to the different um terms of the financing for these vehicles, so it's not exactly the same as the Fed interest rate, it's not exactly the same as the federal funds rate.

Yeah, understood, but seven percent is double the Fed interest rate right now.

So it says we this wouldn't go through, but I mean, even 6.9%.

I mean, that's ridiculous.

I wouldn't take a loan out for that given the interest rate in the threes.

Uh council member, that is a not to exceed that we have included in the ordinance.

Um it's yes, it's unlikely.

Uh currently, as shown in the staff report, the interest rates are ranging in between 3.5 and 4% is what we are seeing currently.

And I don't expect it to go up in the next 15 month period up to the 7%, but that's just the uh the legal not to exceed per California state law is 12%.

So we wanted to at least rein it in and not just leave that default uh rate, maximum rate, um, but the current expectation you're right is not expected to be seven percent.

So why didn't you just put in the contract that it wouldn't be above a point above the interest rate, the Fed interest rate?

Council member, as in the past six months with all the market volatility, the interest rates have moved significantly.

And if we cap the interest rate at say four percent, that could prevent us from the financing when the vehicles come in.

So it would be my recommendation to give at least some uh buffer in case interest rates move up to say five percent.

Uh we do have the ability under this contract, um, say after a year to refund it at a lower interest rate, but it would still give us the flexibility to finance the vehicles as they come in.

Because the alternative to not financing the vehicles when they come in is to pay cash as noted, the vehicles have already been ordered.

Um, and when they come, we have to pay for them.

So if we are constrained, severely constrained under this financing agreement, the alternative would be to just pay cash.

I'm sorry, my question wasn't to set the value at 4%.

My question was why.

It's okay, put it in the because I I hear you on the interest rates are all over the place because Washington DC is totally nuts right now.

But why I just I feel like this bank could be taking advantage of us.

7% is too much.

Why couldn't the contract say the interest rate will be set within one percent of whatever the Fed interest rate is?

That's what I'm saying.

That will give you the flexibility.

I can't believe that California state law is 12%.

That is insane.

Like we shouldn't be spending that tax-free money on interest.

Um, so council member, maybe I can clarify how the interest rate is calculated.

The 7% is not provided to us by the bank.

Uh what is provided to us in the bank's response to our RFP is an index.

Uh, in this case, it's the what's called the SOFAR, which is the secured overnight financing rate.

Uh so for uh as shown in the staff report, for example, uh, so the they give us uh an index, in this case the SOFOR, and um it's pegged to that index.

So as of today or as of last month, when we wrote the staff report, based on the index, it was this 3.5%.

Um, so fast forward six months, if there's some movement in the index, we may have an effective interest rate of even as low as three percent, or it could be four percent.

Uh it's staff recommendation to uh to uh provide some uh uh some uh uh safety net for our fiscal planning, that we if the interest rates, and again it's not at once we execute this, it's not really what the bank would say or do, right?

If the market interest rates, if the sofa index goes up significantly, we could have an effective interest rate of six percent or six point five percent.

And so it's staff's recommendation that if interest rates go up that significantly that we would not be using this financing tool and would try to find alternatives effectively.

So the 7% is not the bank's proposal.

Got it.

Okay, I I still think we could we should cap it a lot lower than that.

Um, but I I under thank you for clarifying that.

Um, my last question is the Herc rental contract was absolutely out of control and inappropriate in a model of how the city shouldn't be spending money unauthorized.

So, what are we doing to prevent that from happening again?

So, uh I'll turn it over to Gina again, you are muted.

Oh, apologies.

Thank you for your question, Councilmember Von Wilpert.

Um, general services, um, along with the purchasing and contract student department are reviewing um every single purchase requisition and PO that is coming through to request uh rentals through HERC.

Um I believed that a little bit of that was talked about during uh budget committee when the CBA was presented to the committee.

Um so we are monitoring that very closely in partnership with purchasing and contracting.

Um but I would defer to uh Claudia Barca for more details on um on monitoring that contract overall.

Is Claudia here?

Uh I don't believe she's here today.

All right, thank you.

Those are all my questions.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Baum.

Well, we'll go next.

Council member Foster.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the presentation.

I do understand that you know, this is I'm gonna say pre-HERP in the discussion we're having.

These were already in the in the queue, already ordered fabrication moving forward, and now we're just expecting I guess delivery of said vehicles.

Um I do share in the concern I'm actually even a little more troubled um in regards to staff coming up with a 7%.

Um, I guess I'll call it um contingency.

Um because you are the ones who make that determination as to what is acceptable and what's not.

And so I think it's signaling that a seven percent increase is acceptable, which I think is creating somewhat of the discomfort.

Um, so I guess um I would ask um the city attorneys, in regards to, if I can find in regards to the interest rates, where it says the ordinance authorization permits rates up to seven percent.

Can we pull that back in and um bring that number back down to the um 4.14% or to do um and I don't know what it gets us if if we say one percent over the feds um deal to move this forward, and then if there's anything that happens, you can um provide us with a written you know provide counsel present or or in the members a written memorandum if there's some type of immediate um action that we need to do is as a counsel or get something docketed or direct document if it's going to impede um said authorization.

I would ask deputy city attorney Marguerite Minna if she has an answer to that question as she sits here today, or if that's something that we wouldn't need to look into further.

Thank you for the question, council member.

Um, yes, I can definitely look into that further and get back to you.

But um the if you if you're just asking about changing the capping the interest rate in the ordinance, that can be done.

That can be done today, or do we need to bring the item back?

I don't see any legal issues with doing that today, but I would um want to defer to staff about other issues that that might bring up with the contract.

Councilmember, if I could jump in a little bit there.

Um I think it's probably within this council's right.

I'll defer to the city attorney, obviously, on whether or not it is, but to set a cap at the interest rate for this.

Um that said, I do think that it's worth having some additional flexibility beyond just that four percent, as you've heard from Josie.

Um the secured overnight rates, they can vary.

They can go up and down pretty significantly.

The seven percent kind of cap that you have right now is the point at which your debt management staff is I think appropriately telling you that's a point where we will try to find another mechanism for financing these vehicle purchases, those payments are coming deal when the vehicles are delivered, period.

Um the seven percent is really more for our own internal planning, then I think it is signaling a bank the interest rates that they can charge if our standard overnight rate is thinking it's three and a half percent, and the bank is saying we're gonna charge you six and a half percent.

I suspect that you would also hear the city saying, No, you're not our contract is actually tied to looking at the standard overnight financing rate.

Um, but honestly, I'm happy to pitch that back over to the Department of Finance and Josie if you wanted to add anything more.

I'm sorry, and I appreciate that, um, Charles, but I think the the conversation that's that's being had at the dice is just making sure we have some fiscal responsibility.

And I think any sign uh a car note at seven percent, I'll take the trolley.

Um so I'm uh I I think that's the I think that's the um concern that you're having now.

How do we make sure we have accountability and control?

Not so much, hey, the bank understands this, but it's a double-edged sword.

We're giving staff the ability to go as high as seven percent, which you know, water follows the least the path of least resistance.

With the caveat that those vehicles are already ordered and pending delivery, right?

So what does it have to do with the interest rate?

Vehicles need to be paid for when the but what does it have to do with the interest rate?

Well, first of all, dollars need to go out the door when the vehicles are delivered, so paying cash up front.

We haven't budgeted on an ongoing basis to be paying for for paying for vehicles in cash on an ongoing basis, which means we're out that money, we cannot reimburse ourselves for that money, which means that there are other vehicle purchases or other services that would have to be pulled back at that point.

So I'm not I'm not disputing that.

I'm just simply asking the question, what does the purchase price have to do with the interest rate?

If you already know your fire engines are already going to be at seven percent, is that what we're saying?

Or are our fancy GT Mustangs are going to be at 7%?

What are we?

I'm lost.

Cost of the vehicles, cost of the vehicle.

We're talking about an interest rate.

Councilmember, if I may clarify logistically, since say an example of one fire truck that's say five million, if it was supposed to be financed, we have because it's going to be financed, we have not budgeted the five million to be paid out to the vendor.

We have only budgeted the interest cost of say two hundred and fifty thousand.

And uh as an example, I'm I'm just this may not these are not hard numbers.

Say if the 250,000 was based on a three and a half percent interest rate and the interest rate goes up to seven percent, the interest cost will go up, but we if this master lease was capped at four percent, we would not have the ability we would have to come up with the t uh five million to pay in this fiscal year, which is not in the budget.

So that's the practical consequence and um just as staff in terms of the recommendation, it was it is a balancing act.

Um if we have this interest capped at 12 percent, we we understand that that's you know, we are uh we are communicating that we would finance this even if the interest rate rates were 11.9.

Um, but on the other side, we are also trying to uh protect a uh this situation of having to pay cash and not have a financing in place.

So it's the balancing between the two.

I understand.

So my two, what you are indicating you have seven percent in the budget across the board then?

Uh at this point they're all projections because this is all subject to appropriations.

Currently, based on this timeline, these uh lease payments will uh most likely, or I'm I'm pretty sure it it's uh scheduled to trigger only from fiscal year 28.

If these would not have an impact on fiscal twenty-seven, is that right?

Yeah, so that that is so I I also as I indicated before, that really just gives us time to try to find another mechanism, or if we are forced to pay if the market is so um crazy on one day you know and that we are forced to lock in at say 6.9 percent.

We may be uh we may be forced to pay that lease payment in fiscal 28, but that'll give us time to refinance, find other mechanisms, so that that's not we're not locked in for the remaining lease.

So it this gives us that option.

Okay.

Um I appreciate that.

I was trying to get you there.

I'll pause and turn it over to uh the next council member.

Thank you.

All right, I think council member foster will go to next to council member Ila Rivera.

Uh no, no, no, I was I was um we still don't have a motion, right?

No motion, yeah.

Okay, so I uh I want to say thank you to my colleagues for raising the questions that were asked.

I think it's a bunch of things going on here at once.

Um we have concerns about the way that the city is approached leasing versus purchasing and the lack of a strategy there.

Um the additional cost, big picture that that is meant for the city, and I I'll just say that in my mind, it's a classic example of the superficial way that the city approached fiscal conservatism or responsibility in previous eras, uh saving a dollar now, and that will end up costing us ten dollars or twenty dollars or even more down the road.

I also understand that you know these are vehicles that have been purchased.

I I do I and Charles, maybe you can speak to this, and this is more of a a forward looking question.

This comes comes in as piecemeal, and as a result, I think as it's like as the council, by the end of that process, it it's it's like it's more difficult to make the the decision, and that's not good for anyone involved.

And so I I'm wondering if you can if you have ideas about ways where the these sort of items are or or actions, I should say, are brought to us more holistically.

Is that feasible in your mind?

In some ways, potentially, yes, moving forward.

I do want to acknowledge the headwinds that both stamp management and fleet have been facing over the last several years.

First, you go back four or five years and sorry, maybe a few more years than that.

And the city did actually switch its approach from cash funding the purchase of vehicles to essentially debt funding the purchase of vehicles.

So I while this is a master lease agreement, I want to be clear, this is the financing for vehicles that are being purchased.

Right.

So that moves things to kind of the financing being in arrears.

Uh we do have, or we should also recognize that over the last three years, the time difference between when an order was put in and when a vehicle was delivered grew pretty significantly and now it's starting to shrink again.

So we are dealing with some larger um kind of contextual headwinds that would have made that more difficult over the last several years.

That said, is there an opportunity to look at vehicle purchases at the same time that we're looking at financing?

I guess potentially.

Usually we'll be looking at the needs for additional vehicles when we are going through the budget process.

They can also come in on an ad hoc basis as well.

Um tying that to a financing mechanism, I suppose is fine, but at some point you are still going to have to have in all likelihood an annual master lease agreement.

If we're going to continue debt financing vehicle purchases, it's going to come for you and essentially loop all of those together.

Um there is both value in being able to say these are the exact vehicles that we want to purchase, so that you can say this is what this debt will fund.

Then there's also real value in what you heard through Department of Finance say we want some additional flexibility because delivery dates change needs change or order dates change as well.

Um so I is there a way to consolidate these and have a more holistic discussion tentatively, yes, but I don't know if you are able to ever do everything in just one day or in one action.

For sure.

And and then theoretically the flexibility is still regulated by the budget and what we've budgeted for, but this is where it gets a little bit squishy, even in my mind.

We can budget for amounts, total amounts, but there's still a lot of flexibility for the mayor within those amounts, and and so the constraints within an action like this do become a little bit more important.

Or I think that that may be kind of bringing in a separate line of conversation for the execution of the budget where there are there's maybe more flexibility on the mayor's side than there should be, and then there's just the actual financing of vehicles.

What's being presented to you in my mind is really just the financing side.

So, totally.

I think where what I'm going with that is language that speaks to the mayor's authority or the COO's authority, the flexibility that's there, the some of the guardrails that we would like to think are applied through the budget.

They're there in terms of totals, but not necessarily some of the specifics.

I think what I'm what I'm getting at is I think all these things are running together, and what we have is um a mess for DOF to navigate right now.

So, kind of building off the questions that my colleagues asked, there's is there a sweet spot here that doesn't feel like you'd be having like your your hands would be tied in a way that would be um impractical, but also address the the council's concerns about this being not a blank check, but uh a check with with more with much more latitude than it feels like we're prepared to give.

Council member, thank you for the question.

If I could just um reframe the discussion a little bit.

When we're looking at the interest rate that uh staff is providing in terms of the whether you be the 4% or 7%, not to oversimplify, but the interest rate is really the price of money, right?

And it depends on how the economy's doing.

If, for example, during COVID, uh interest rates went up significantly, really significantly, but normally they'll be hovering around that four percent that we've been talking about.

If there's high inflation, interest rates will go up, but we will also benefit from that when we invest in our pool.

So this is all economically, you know, driven by the economics.

So it's not, I mean, the 7% is just a guardrail to make sure that to the extent things really go out of whack, that there is an opportunity for us to basically pull out from from this agreement.

Right, right.

So, but I I guess if from listening to my colleagues, we would want a guardrail, and that it seems to be that the feeling is that the guardrails are too wide and should be brought in a bit because seven percent is uh not a number that we're comfortable with.

Recognizing again that this has been budgeted for, these per vehicles have been purchased.

All of those things remain a fact, and I think what I'm hearing my colleagues say is there's a certain point at which the interest rate would be so high, then it'd be worth us stepping back for a second and saying, is do we just want to pay cash and and deal with the consequences that come with that?

That may not be realistic and a decision that we would wrestle with and ultimately come to the conclusion that seven percent's not something that we like, but it's better than the alternatives, but it doesn't sound like seven percent is a place where the council's comfortable going today.

So where's the sweet spot again between where we think it's going to be the anticipated 3.91 to 4.14, if I'm reading that correctly, and the 7%, which sounds like it's too high in the eyes of my colleagues, and I completely understand why.

Understood, and and maybe one way to look at this would be historically for these types of interest rates, we could provide you with what that has looked like because I would assume that for the most part they've been around that 4%, 5%.

Jothy, I don't know if you have that off the top of your head if or if um I would say that is correct.

Um, in my recollection, I don't think under this equipment and vehicle financing programs we have executed a lease that has had an interest rate of more than five percent, uh, is my recollection asset recommendation.

Um I think it if we dial back a few years, I think this cap was six percent.

Um in the past two years when we saw the interest rate move in the upward direction, we bumped this up.

Um, sitting here today, I would say I think I would be reasonably comfortable if we push this down back to six percent.

Um, okay.

And just for the record, that previous speaker was Rolanda Charvel, the chief financial officer.

Um I appreciate that.

That's that's helpful.

Because nothing would prevent you if we if if we got to a place where 6% was no longer realistic for whatever reason.

You could come back and ask for authority uh above that or no.

It would, yes, we could.

It's uh it's approved this item because of the length of the financing, it is an ordinance.

So we any amendment would be I should let the city attorney speak to this, sorry.

Um yes, that's true.

You could come back and ask the council to approve a higher interest rate, but it would be an ordinance.

Okay, so you need and all the time that is associated with that.

It's not a it's not as easy as flipping a switch.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um, just to get us started in terms of a motion, council president.

Um, if I could we'll just kind of again as a starting point, staff recommendation with the reduction of the interest rate from the 7% that it's currently uh capped at to six percent, and open to amendments from from my colleagues, but just so we have a motion to work from.

The last thing I'll say is I I don't particularly like doing business with big banks.

I use a credit union, it's 48.3 million dollars, and there's a certain like we're only we only have so many competitive options, right?

Um, and the city has a process that requires us to choose the best option from an interest rate perspective, right?

This was what was that that is correct.

Uh and until we get to a place where you know we're we've got a a public bank uh or something along those lines, um, we're gonna continue to have limited options for financing at this amount.

Um that concludes my motion, Council President.

Hopefully, that doesn't create more havoc.

All right, and just uh as clarification, that is amending the seven percent that is listed in paragraph two point one of the master lease agreement form.

So uh council president pro temli.

So we do have a motion by council member Ilo Rivera, and we'll go to you, Council President Pro Tem.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you to the Department of Finance for giving this presentation to our CFO, Mr.

Chevelle for coming up here to answer a couple questions as well.

Um I I appreciate my colleagues' commentary in terms of process.

We we certainly had the full discussion or at least the informational item at committee talking about the benefits of leasing versus um buying.

Um I think for me, to be frank, I I think where we stand today is this is really a financing mechanism that is part of uh our need to conduct business as a city for vehicles that we've already purchased as well, and have an impact on this fiscal year based on what we've heard.

Um and so I I I feel like we're getting into the weeds on where that the cap of an interest rate percentage is, knowing that that's not where it stands at the moment, but that the flexibility is needed for us to conduct this business, and if we were ever to exceed one of the guardrails, you know, whether six percent or seven percent is the appropriate level, it just feels like we're get we're getting a little far into that.

If it rises above six percent, it's gonna be because interest rates across the country have risen that heavily, and we're we're gonna be dealing with a bigger problem at that point, which is what do we do with vehicles that have been ordered, and whether we have the financing capacity to complete those uh purchases as intended.

Um I think one of the big differences of ensuring that we at least have the master lease agreement in place is that we know we're gonna be leasing based on the vehicles that we have already ordered, and the change ends up being much smaller when you're talking of percent over a long scale of time for leasing vehicles, versus if tomorrow we say we're not gonna be leasing, we're now needing to purchase these vehicles.

The exact problem comes where next year we're not gonna have the ability to appropriate those funds to make those purchases, given we already know what financial position we're going to be in next year.

So I think this lease versus buy conversation is gonna be really important as we look to the future and what the city can choose to do when we have more financial capacity to make those choices, but it does feel like we're a little bit constrained uh as we stand right now.

So I'm fully comfortable with leaving it where the guardrail was at seven percent.

If the Department of Finance feels like six percent as a as a guardrail is sufficient as well, also comfortable with that.

I also just don't want to see us coming back here in a year because let's just say the federal administration does something crazy and interest rates go up significantly, and now the city cannot conduct its business and paying for the vehicles that we've already committed to.

I'm not just I'm just not sure what benefit that gives us all other than the chance to complain that that's happened, and yet we're still gonna have to prove either that higher interest rate capacity or choose a completely different way to pay for vehicles, which doesn't seem to do us any favors.

So I will second the motion again.

If there's any openness to pushing that back up to the staff's recommendation, I'm fully comfortable with that as well.

Uh, but again, look to the look to our colleagues to figure out what to do next.

Thank you.

All right, so with that, uh we have a motion by council member Ilo Rivera and second count by by council president pro Tim Lee, with the staff recommendation, except to amend the um they're gonna put it up on the screen, but the um maximum rate from seven down to six, and they'll put that language up much better than I said that.

So before we go back to Council Member and Wolpert, I do want to ask the question directly.

This is a two-party agreement, the city and the lessor.

Is there any issue with changing that number?

I hope not.

I don't believe there'll be an issue, but that is something I would need to circle back with the bank.

Okay.

Um, because it is actually a limit both ways, right?

The less C is not permitted and the last sort is not required.

Okay to exceed that seven percent.

Correct.

Okay.

Um you might be back here a little bit sooner.

Is that what you're suggesting?

If the lessor is not happy with that.

Yeah, we would need to provide clarification at the second reading.

Okay, yeah, I'll have to revisit what the process would be.

Okay.

And then just real quickly, because we've spent a lot of time on this.

You said if the interest rates do go up, sort of approaching that guardrail, whatever that guardrail is, you have alternatives.

Are those given all the things the city's engaged in?

Realistic alternatives if this if we can't use this mechanism, um, we would have to reissue an RFP.

Some of the alternatives would be, frankly, bond finance, these vehicles.

Um, I I appreciate you're willing to introduce that, but I think I also realize that they're actually very limited alternatives.

So all right.

So we do have a motion and a second by council president pro Tim Lee that is now up on the screen, and we'll go back to council member von Welpert.

Thank you, and thank you for engaging in this discussion.

Um, I think it's actually very important because I'm sick and tired of the city getting ripped off.

A lot of public callers called in here asking us to use tax tariff money wisely.

Are we not purchasing fire trucks?

Possibly with this financing.

Or any other large equipment vehicle trucks.

I know that we are.

So on April 16th of 2026, our very own city attorney, Heather Ferbert released a press release saying City of San Diego sues fire truck manufacturers for antitrust violations and overcharging the taxpayers.

The price of these vehicles was going up because they saw the city with the customer and they overcharge us every time.

And the difference between three percent in interest and seven percent in interest could be millions of taxpayer dollars.

And so what I'm asking for is not a set interest rate.

What I'm asking for is making sure the city is paying an interest rate that any other market buyer would pay, and we're not getting ripped off.

That is simply what I'm asking for.

And so in the contract, I want to know that the city is going to pay the standard overnight financing rate at the time.

And is that in the contract or not?

I see why you would say over seven percent we would no longer finance it because it's in the city's best interest and then to use cash or other mechanisms.

That is a fiscal decisions we're making.

In the contract, I want to know we're not being ripped off.

Even five percent if the in if the sofa is 3.5% is a ripoff.

So what contractual obligation do we have to make sure we are paying the interest rate any other person would pay?

That is my question.

I'm not yelling at you, I'm so sorry, so it's not your fault.

I just the city gets ripped off all the time, and we need to protect ourselves.

So what is in the contract saying we will pay the standard overnight rate at the time of the issuance.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember.

So we we issued a request for proposal, so this was a competitive bid that we received.

There are very limited banks that are in this business.

Uh we received two proposals, and this was the more competitive proposal and which we picked.

Uh the interest rate is not pegged to the federal funds rate directly.

It is pegged as explained earlier to the security overnight financing rate, which is based on the Fed rate, which is based on the Fed rate.

So that is the rate that banks use for this particular mechanism.

So both the banks that offered um that was the uh index that this gets pegged to.

And uh for each of the financing, so some of the smaller vehicles are financed to a shorter term, so there's a different index, so it's based on the term of the vehicles.

And um I believe that these are competitive rates if we compare our recently uh price bonds for 30 years.

So these are shorter term financing, so they're slightly lower.

And based on where the yield curve is, I believe these are competitive rates.

I agree with why what guarantees we get them.

You're saying we could go up to seven percent.

I I'm ha I can get stop now.

The answer is I don't think there is something in the contract protecting the city, so I'm not gonna vote for this.

But this is a conversation we need to be having because we're seeing that we're suing the companies we're buying these trucks from for overcharging us because we're a city.

They people rip us off all the time, and tax per money shouldn't be used to paying the pockets of companies who would overcharge us just because of our government.

So thank you.

I'm happy to have these conversations offline, but I do think we should have better conversations about how we lock our contractual protections in when we purchase things.

Councilmember, if I can just add there are terms on the contract that refer to an equipment lease race that is tied to what is defined as an index rate.

The index rate is actually defined as a percentage of that standard overnight rate plus a spread percentage.

So there are terms in the contract associated with that.

I saw that in the definitions portion.

I didn't say that that we get that rate.

I think there's like an attachment that says like within 10 days of a vehicle purchase, but it should be in there.

Alright, thank you, Councilmember Von Wolper.

We'll go next to council member Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

So leaving it at 7% or reducing it to 6%.

There's no difference in terms of a competitive advantage or disadvantage for the city in terms of negotiating with the bank because there's negoti no negotiation with the bank going forward at all.

It's all formulaic going forward at this point.

Am I correct about that?

That is correct.

Once the agreement is executed, it's just purely based on a formula and the interest rate that is in the market-based interest rate.

So whether we set this at 6% or whether we set it at 7%, or whether we use the state's 12%, it's all based on a formula based on the federal rates at the time.

That is correct.

In which case, as I'm understanding it, reducing it to six percent, simply complicates the city's position in the event that the federal rate goes higher.

That is correct.

We would have to come back to city council for an amendment.

Charles, uh our independent budget analyst, Mr.

Monica.

Um it seems to me like the simpler thing to do would be to leave it at seven percent, since there's not really a discretionary element to it going forward.

Um, well, I won't I won't burden you with that.

Um I will ask the maker of the motion, because I would I'm comfortable with seven percent at this point, I guess.

Would it be your preference that I make a substitute motion, or would you prefer to leave your motion?

Let your motion stand and I vote some of us would vote no on it.

How would you prefer what would you be your preference on that?

Or do you have a preference?

Yeah, I mean the preference is to keep the business of the city moving in a way that the council's comfortable with.

We need six votes.

We need six votes on this?

Six votes.

So I'm I'm okay.

Yeah, I'll make a substitute motion, and if it let's see just what happens.

I'll make a substitute.

I will say though, Councilor Woodburn.

I think you're you're 100% right, it would be simpler.

And what I was trying to account for is the the trade-off in the simplicity with the the council at least six members of the council being comfortable that if it if the interest rates started to creep higher and higher and higher, that the council would have a an opportunity to reflect on what that means before it jumped to seven percent.

So there is an additional step that that would require staff to make if we ended up in that situation, but again, it's it's with an eye on the six votes necessary in order to get us uh the six votes that we need in order for us to move forward with it with this, which I do think we need to do.

Yeah, um, and and trying to to uh find a place of con of consensus here.

Okay, I appreciate your driving towards consensus um and um I don't know exactly where this will land, but I'll go ahead and make a substitute motion to stick with the original staff recommendation.

If we get the six votes, great.

If not, obviously, we'll probably come back to what you're suggesting.

So I'll make a substitute motion to uh stick with the original staff recommendation, all right.

So we have a substitute motion to refer back to the staff recommendation.

Um, Council President Pro Tem Lee will second that motion, and I'm gonna go to Council Member Campio, who has not yet spoken on this item.

Sir, thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you to my colleagues for their in-depth questions, uh, I sympathize with what they're going on this.

Um for staff.

We put out a request for proposals for this type of financing vehicle, and we got two responses you said.

Yes, that is correct.

Okay, when we put out that request for proposals, do we set the ceiling in that request or do they come or do we leave that open-ended?

We do not put a ceiling in the request for proposals, because we we suggest an index that is uh the market-based accepted index.

We put that in our request for proposals.

Okay, so what was the um non-accepted proposals cap?

If this one was at seven, was the other one at the council member.

Again, the the cap is not coming from the banks.

The banks and their responses uh propose a an index and a spread to an index based on which the interest rate is set.

Uh that is staff's recommendation, because if there was no cap, it would default to the cap under interest rate cap under state law, which I believe is twelve percent.

So, okay.

I was confused about what you were saying there.

Okay, um, well, it seems that there's a desire that we would um put a little more attention into that component so that or at least have some attention paid to that particular component of the overall deal, because we have many council members, myself included, wondering what is the right level to place, and uh it seems that even if if seven percent by by the logic you've all put forward earlier, if something really strange happened, seven percent might not even be enough, and we need to come back to council to ask for something even higher than that.

Correct.

That is correct.

Okay, so um sounds like in the future we need better guardrails.

I think at this moment that it it seems moving forward with what we have is the substitute motion from council member Woodburn is the right way to go and to be able to um make sure that the tools we need as a city are uh tamed, paid for, and onward.

Um so I appreciate the conversation we're going here.

It seems like there's more of an upstream problem or upstream concern, I should say, rather than the item that's directly in front of us.

Um, and so I really hope that we um focus on how to make the overall process meet the needs of the council members in the city as a whole.

Um, so I'll support the motion in front of us, but also knowing that we need to drive down the cost of borrowing or at least get the lowest rates we possibly can to save every dollar possible.

Um thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campia.

We'll go back to Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, I uh did offer the second thank you, Councilmember Whitburn for moving forward.

This is uh the other way I look at this is is really just like any other adjustable rate loan, frankly.

I mean, if if we're gonna compare this from our personal standpoint, which most of them are based off of the federal reserve rate, uh the indexed rate plus uh an amount that is set, and as I think Charles confirmed, the terms of the agreement do set that rate.

So we are literally just going to be moving up and down along with what the federal rate ends up being set at, plus whatever that spread is.

So uh again, I do think it is it is standardized to some degree.

The guardrail is that if it moves significantly uh for any particular reason that we have some chance to rethink how to act upon that.

And I mean, we'd also be in a very difficult position if rates moved that heavily and upwards.

Um, so I just would note that.

So that's why I'm comfortable with where we are landing at and look forward to seeing where the colleagues are.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

We'll go back to council member Foster.

Uh yes, thank you.

Um, and I do understand the need um and the flexibility.

I think it's just a manner of um ensuring that we have city staff that is um getting uh essentially this is a policy call.

What is that amount before you say, hey, no, which right now it's seven percent.

That's the authority you're asking for.

Um I think I would ask, um, I will be supportive, um, but just I think maybe if there's a way as we start to you say the highest we probably paid is five percent, if you look historically through this process, that's right.

So maybe if it's something where you see things moving up to that five percent tile range, or or or you just send a memo across so we can understand what's in front of us, where the rate is at, what your plan is moving forward, because that may impact you know, just say 200 X vehicles to where now you gotta make a decision on.

Are you going to come back to council, ask for more authority over seven percent or whatever the case may be, but at least we kind of have a heads up and understanding if you just fire off a memorandum and let us know.

Fair enough.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Yes, yes, all right.

Thank Council Member Foster.

Uh, Mr.

Modica, you have some closing comments.

Thank you, Council President.

Um, been kind of debate whether or not to bring this up, but actually, Councilmember Foster, I think your recommendation of uh memo and notice is a good one just because in the unfortunate event that we get to someplace where this rate would end up exceeding seven percent, you hear staff talk about we will reevaluate if there's another approach to take.

It's not just going to be this master lease agreement and this debt financing of vehicles, it's gonna be more expensive.

Every other form of debt the city could take out at that point is also going to be more expensive as well.

So I think the earlier there was kind of a question: are there really any other significant options if we're looking at other forms of debt?

Probably not.

Um, but let's see, our CRC I see our CFOs up as well.

So, CFO around the Chairville.

Just wanted to add one more point.

The city has a very strong credit rating, and the interest rates that we are getting, depending on what type of competitive process we go through, whether it be a bond sale, the trend that we just issued, now these rates, they're low because the credit rating of the city is low.

If interest rates go up, we'll still have a low rate compared to everyone else, but it will be a higher interest rate.

So when we're talking about this seven percent, if we are we need to pay seven percent, other cities that have a lower rating than the city will probably pay more than that, and other corporations would probably pay more than that.

So it all depends on what the market does, and that this just wanted to reframe that a little bit.

Um the interest that we're getting around four percent, that's what we're getting now.

It all depends on the economy, it all depends on the price of money that is currently out there, right?

The more inflation there is, the higher of an interest rate we'll have.

I just wanted to make that point.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

There's nobody else on the lights.

We have a motion by council member Woodburn, the second by Council President Pro Tem Lee to move the staff recommendation.

Clerk, please call the roll.

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

Councilmember Campio.

Yes.

Thank you.

That passes seven to two with Council Member Moreno and Council Member Von Wilbert voting now.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Thank you to staff for a robust conversation.

Thank you, Mr.

Charvel, for showing up and adding them, Mr.

Matica for adding your perspectives to the council.

And I appreciate my colleagues digging in.

So with that, Clerk, please introduce item two oh three.

Item two oh three is the Southwest Village Specific Plan project number PRJ 0614791 in District 8.

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

The expected public comment time is one minute per person, and we did receive a organized presentation for this item.

Thank you, Council President.

That organized presentation is in person.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

Staff a chance to settle.

Councilmember Moreno, did you want to make a statement?

Yes, um, I'm recusing myself from agenda item two oh three, Southwest Village Specific Plan.

Project number PRJ-061479.

Um I have a conflict of interest because the project will have a material financial interest on residential property I own.

Um and I will leave the dais and not participate in the discussion or in the vote.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmore Moreno.

So I'll give you a minute to leave the chambers.

All right, and with that, I'll ask staff to introduce yourselves and let us know how much time you need for your presentation.

Fifteen minutes, please.

All right.

When you're ready.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm Oscar Galvez, development project manager with the development services department.

And joining me is Sean McGee, principal planner with the city planning department, and Michael Prince, assistant deputy director.

The item before you is the Southwest Village specific specific plan project.

The 490 project acre project site is generally bounded north of the U.S.

Mexico International border, east of Interstate 805, south of State Route 905, and west of the Central Village Specific Plan Area within the Otai Mesa Community Plan Area.

The required approvals include a subsequent environmental impact report, amendments to the General Plan and Otai Mesa Community Plan, the Southwest Village Specific Plan, a rezone, besting tentative map, site development permit, MHPA boundary line adjustment, road improvement ordinance, and road improvement resolution.

The project proposes 5,130 homes, 175,000 square feet of commercial uses, approximately 35 acres of parks, approximately 16 acres for potential future school uses, 190 acres of surrounding natural open space, connection of Calienta Avenue offering north-south access, and the connection of Bayer Boulevard offering east-west access.

Tri-Point Homes, shown in blue owns approximately 239 acres.

Otay Mesa LLC, shown in orange, owns 55 acres.

The Handler Trust, shown in tan, owns 20 acres.

The City of San Diego, shown in red, owns 12 acres.

San Isidro Industrial Park LLC, shown in green, owns 68 acres, and other property owners shown in purple own approximately 95 acres.

Since 2017, more than 30 many meetings with landowners have occurred.

On September 13, 2018, a notice of application was mailed to all property owners, tenants, and community planning group within 300 feet of the development.

On March 4, 2020, a publicly noticed EIR scoping meeting was held at San Isidro High School.

Public review of the draft EIR occurred between May 1st, 2025 and June 23rd, 2025.

The March Historical Resources Board hearing, May Planning Commission hearing, and today's City Council hearing have been publicly noticed per the San Diego Municipal Code.

The Southwest Village Specific Plan is being prepared in accordance with the Otai Mesa Community Plan.

Adopted in 2014, the Otai Mesa Community Plan requires a specific plan for the Southwest District of Otai Mesa to implement the general plan city of villages strategy.

The community plan requires that the Southwest Village be planned comprehensively through a single contiguous specific plan.

The plan must be privately sponsored and developed collaboratively with the city.

The Otai Mesa community plan envisions Southwest Village as a compact, walkable, transit-oriented village with sustainable and efficient land use.

The specific plan would address design details for the village core, public spaces, and provide a complete multimodal circulation system connected to the broader Otai Mesa network.

Tri-Point Homes has prepared the Southwest Village specific plan to implement the community plan's vision and policy direction within the Southwest Village specific plan area.

The specific plan creates a mixed-use village that implements the Otai Mesa Community Plan and the City of Villages strategy.

It lays out a balanced framework for new homes, shops, parks, schools, and open space to support a complete connected community.

It allows up to 5,130 new homes in a variety of housing types consistent with community plan policies.

A village core near the Bayer Boulevard and Caliente Avenue would focus a higher density mixed use development to support transit and walkability.

The plan also refines land use designations to reflect site constraints while protecting about 200 acres of sensitive habitat.

The specific plan would provide the detailed policy and regulatory framework to guide cohesive development throughout Southwest Village.

The specific plan creates a connected multimodal mobility network with a grid street pattern, a potential transit hub, and safe walking and biking routes.

Complete streets, trails, and bike paths linked neighborhoods to the village core, parks, schools, and future transit, reducing reliance on driving and supporting the city's climate and mobility goals.

The plan refines street types, upgrades, bicycle routes, and coordinates with city and sandag's regional plans to improve access along Caliente Avenue, Bayer Boulevard, and throughout the village.

The specific plan provides up to 35 acres of parks and recreation areas, including two neighborhood parks supported by smaller parks, plazas, paseos, and trails.

A value-based recreation standard ensures each planning area delivers high quality amenities as it develops.

Larger parks would be public, while smaller spaces would be privately maintained with public access.

Parks and trails connect homes, schools, open space, and the village core, including a nine-acre park near the core and a seven-acre park in the north.

A future school next to a neighborhood park creates a community hub, and updated trail connections link the village to the broader Otai Mesa system.

The specific plan preserves about 200 acres, or roughly 41% of the area as permanent open space, protecting sensitive habitats, steep slopes, and landslide-prone areas.

To support needed infrastructure like the Bayer Boulevard extension, the plan includes coordinated habitat conservation adjustments developed with state and federal wildlife agencies.

These changes would replace affected lands with higher value habitat, resulting in a net gain of about 14 acres of MHPA.

The conserved areas form a contiguous open system that supports regional habitat linkages, scenic views, trails, and natural buffers while ensuring development avoids sensitive biological resources.

The specific plan also outlines the water, wastewater, drainage, stormwater, and utility systems needed to support development, including extension of off-site infrastructure, upgrades to existing pump stations, and two new wastewater lift stations.

Infrastructure would be installed with appropriate setbacks from street trees and designed to align with the village's complete street network.

The specific plan phasing ensures that essential public facilities such as parks and key roadway segments like the Bayer Boulevard connection to San Isidro are delivered in step with new homes.

Schools are recognized as vital community facilities with two potential school sites included: a primary site and planting area 16 and an optional secondary site in planning area 7, subject to San Isidro school district needs.

The plan provides clear phasing thresholds for school site acquisition and requires future development to pay school impact fees to support new educational facilities.

Joint use park opportunities are encouraged so that school recreation areas can serve the broader community during non-school hours, helping integrate schools into the village's public space and recreation network.

Finally, the closest fire stations serving the specific plan area include fire stations 29 and fire station 43.

Additionally, Fire Station 49 is planned approximately three-quarters of a mile north of the specific plan area, just west of Caliente Avenue along Otai Mesa Road.

The specific plan establishes supplemental development regulations that refine the municipal code to guide future development.

These standards address setbacks, height, mixed-use design, grading, walls, and fences, brush management, trails, transportation facilities, and wildlife crossings.

They also define recreation requirements and allowable alternative land uses, providing flexibility while maintaining the plan's overall vision.

Together, these regulations form the implementation framework that ensures all future projects align with the plan's land use, mobility, environmental, and design goals.

The specific plan also includes a comprehensive rezone of approximately 747 acres for both properties within and partially within the plan area to apply new base zones that directly implement the land uses within the specific plan's land use framework.

As part of the specific plan, properties would be rezoned from the AR11 to the RMX 1, RM37, RM25, RM13, OR12, OP 11, and the OC 11 zones.

The rezones introduce opportunities for a mix of residential densities, mixed-use areas, schools, parks, and open space.

The Southwest Village specific plan includes a coordinated phasing program to ensure that infrastructure, utilities, drainage systems, and circulation improvements are delivered in step with new development.

Improvements to roads, water and sewer systems, stormwater facilities, and other essential infrastructure would be constructed as each planning area moves forward, aligning upgrades with actual growth.

Can you pause?

You came back.

Okay.

Gotta make sure we got at least five.

Sorry for the interruption.

A phasing summary outlines the anticipated sequence of land uses over time while still allowing flexibility in how individual development projects proceed.

The first phase includes a vesting tenanted map for 920 homes, including 92 affordable homes, setting the foundation for early infrastructure and community facilities.

The phase one roads are shown in this slide.

As a requirement for VTM1, or resting tenative map, buyer Boulevard West, shown in purple, so it'll be constructed constructed prior to the 7th hundred dwelling unit in phase one.

Per the specific plan, other planning areas will be subject to future project level analysis, including as it relates to buyer Boulevard West for necessary infrastructure, public facilities, and emergency access required at each phase of development.

A subsequent EIR and a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program were prepared in accordance with CECA.

In addition, in addition, CECLA findings of fact and a statement of overriding considerations have been prepared.

There are significant and unavoidable impacts to land use, air quality, historical resources, human health, noise, traffic, utilities, and tribal cultural resources.

The Otai Mesa Community Planning Group voted to recommend approval of the project.

The planning commission voted to recommend approval of the project.

Staff recommends approval of the Southwest Village specific plan project.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for the presentation.

We'll now hear from the applicant on the project.

I've been told that staff told you 15 minutes, so I guess I'll honor the 15 minutes.

So introduce yourself for the record.

And as I said, you will have up to 15 minutes for your presentation.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, City Council members.

Uh, my name is Alan Kashani.

I'm with Tri-Point Homes.

Uh, my title is Director of Land Entitlements.

And uh wanted to say thank you to staff for getting us to this significant milestone.

I've been involved with this project for a little over 20 years.

Uh if we could go to the next slide, please.

Just a little bit about Tri-Point Homes.

We're formerly Part D homes.

We've built in many of your districts, and uh the point we're trying to make with this slide is we do more than just building homes, we build facilities, we build fire stations, we've provided fire trucks, we've built parks, etc.

Uh next slide.

And uh we can move on from this slide.

I'm gonna try and move through this presentation quickly.

And Oscar covered this one, so we can go to the next slide.

A little bit about this slide is that uh we had a lot to contend with in regards to ownership.

Um, all the the purple squares are one-acre parcels that were created in 1910, and I'm gonna get into that a little bit more, but the blue is what Tri-Point owns.

And of that, we're about 1,500 to 2100 units.

Um, so there'll be some discussion, I think about 700 units and buyer being triggered at that, but I wanted to mention we have a lot of skin in the game to see buyer done and see the project through.

Um next slide, please.

Our planning effort was most recently in the well, as a city submittal made in 2016 when we initiated a plan amendment.

Um we've been doing uh a subcommittee that's an offshoot of the OTI Mesa Planning Board to review the land use plan and and work through the project.

And then after that, we worked with the wildlife agencies.

Um we also uh went to the uh OTI Mesa Enhanced Infrastructure Infrastructure Financing District to talk about 6 million at the time for design and construction of buyer.

And then also we went to the OTI Mesa Planning Board and we received unanimous support.

And something else I wanted to say about this slide is that we had a project website, Southwest Village Plan.com, and we're particularly proud of that outreach because we responded to every single email acquire inquiry during the life of our planning effort.

And then we went to Historical Resource Board and Planning Commission, got the project approved.

Next slide, please.

Thanks, Kevin.

Some constraints in Southwest Village.

We had a landslide area to reconcile from the general plan, which there was a lot of area lost to the yellow, and then a vernal pool habitat conservation plan went forward in around 2018, and all the orange area was lost.

Then there's some parcels in bright green where the city acquired some land for conservation that also affected the land plan as we see it.

Let's go to the next slide.

It's been in the community plan since 1981, but somehow these areas in yellow and light fluorescent green became conserved, and wildlife conservation banks were done over those areas.

And the dash line represents where buyer is going to go, and we had to thread the needle and could not locate buyer anywhere else because to the south was landslide to the north was Moody Canyon, which was sensitive.

So this caused a lot of negotiation with the wildlife agencies.

Next slide.

Next slide, with basically we necked the road down from four lanes to two lanes through open space, and then the wildlife agencies required some Mesa top replacement.

There was about four acres of vernal pool habitat that we're impacting, and they required 75% conservation in Planning Area 23, which may come up today.

So I have another slide to go over that.

And then Tri-Point had to kick in about 100 acres of our land for conservation as part of the negotiation.

And while we're at it, we incorporated an emergency vehicle access route and baked that into the plan as part of the negotiation with them.

Next slide.

So they required the 9.8 acres of 75% conservation in a particular area called PA23, and it's shown in Dashed.

And we just wanted to explain why they were interested in that area.

And there were three things.

Basically, the city acquired two parcels for vernal pool conservation.

Planning area 23 has vernal pools on it, and then also to the north and around it is uh is vernal pool conservation and conservation plan.

So the green is actually a city mitigation site that was done for I think it was the La Media Interchange.

Next slide.

Oilander is a subdivision that was done in 1910, and we thought we'd show you a slide about the land use that came out the other end of the specific plan.

So there's 120 lots that were subdivided back then.

And the city incorporated the area in 1984, and the current zoning is AR1 1, which is one unit per 10 acres.

Um what's what's so City and Tri-Point owns 31 of those 120 lots.

So that leaves 89 lots.

And of those 60 of the 89 lots are in red and yellow with significantly enhanced value, where the red is 30 to 62 homes per acre in the village core area.

And then the yellow is 15 to 29 homes per acre.

And then the areas that are hatched green with a hatching were designated 75% conservation by the Vernal Pool Conservation Plan.

I think there was a letter from a party today that actually owns a parcel there that was designated 75% conservation by a plan that preceded us.

I thought that was important to share.

Next slide.

And one more, please.

Phase phase one is TriPoints ownership, and we incorporated an impact area delineated red, which includes buyer boulevard and our emergency vehicle access route.

And then we included an area to borrow material from in areas outside the colored area.

And our buyer boulevard is triggered at the 700th, it needs to be completed by the 700th unit in this graphic.

Next slide.

Just a little depiction is 420 homes are shown in the north and 500 homes in the south with a mix of detached paired homes and town homes.

Next slide, please.

What is being contributed with phase one, which is Tri-Point Homes ownership, is our intention is to, after the project's approved, EIR certified, go to the EIFD board and seek funding for the road.

And we have monthly meetings with planning staff to talk about financing opportunities in that spirit and move that forward.

There's also local mobility fees that are potential funding source.

These are all existing fee mechanisms in place.

But we did want to share we're contributing over 100 acres of our land.

Buyers important because it provides gravity sewer to the Mesa.

So not only, not only is it triggered at 700, it kind of activates Southwest Village.

And all the property owners, the various ownerships there, you know, instead of having 70 pump stations, you know, there's a there would be a gravity system.

And then also it's a million cubic yards of cut that is really not practical practical to dispose of elsewhere.

It would most conveniently be disposed of at like a $3 per cubic yard price as opposed to a $30 per cubic yard price.

And our plan is to build it.

We also kicked in six and a half million for over 300 acres of open space that Tri-Point would be turning over to the city.

The $6.5 million is for long-term funding.

We're not required to do that.

The current MSCP doesn't require us to do that, but we've recognized that's a practical way to move Southwest Village forward.

And we're contributing over 30 million in community improvements that benefit others, including backbone roads and utilities, and then contributing 50 million in fees.

That's just in our first tentative map.

Oscar, if we can, I'm sorry, Kevin, if we can go to the next slide.

We're also, I mentioned the 340 acres of open space.

We're doing a 33 acre vernal pool restoration project to move the specific plan forward.

And then we've cited a 10 and a half acre park on our property, and then both schools.

Once the first school is entirely on TriPoints property, and then the second school, which is optional for the school district, is on the on most of Tri-Point's second property.

So we feel like we've open space, schools, parks, we've kicked in a lot to get this community going.

Next slide.

This is just a graphic that gives you a flavor for the types of elevations of homes.

Next slide.

And then just to wrap up, I think I've shared all this, but I did want to say the proposal includes 10% affordable housing in our project.

We're planning on doing that on site.

And that's the end of my presentation.

All right.

So we have a presentation by staff.

We had a presentation by the applicant.

So with that, Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

We will start with our first organized presentation.

Not first because we have multiples, first because it's the first ever organized presentation for the city.

Congratulations.

Marcella Escobar is our lead presenter.

And if I can have the following participants, please raise their hands.

Michael Schumacher, William Spurgeon, Denny Dennis Handler, Stephen Shoemaker, Tom Noel Rufo, Ben Handler, Antonio Le Zaraga, and Calvin Shaw.

You can all raise your hands at the same time.

Thank you so much.

You'll have nine minutes.

He can come up and you can manage your own times.

Okay, thank you so much.

Um good evening.

If he is gonna be you said who?

Michael Schumacher.

He'll be sharing your time, so he should just come up because then it's gonna take all that time for him to run out.

Thank you.

Thank you so much.

Please proceed.

Yeah, yeah, just stay there.

Just either.

Good evening, uh Council President Lacava, members of the city council.

My name is Marcella Escobar.

I'm the president CEO of Atlantis Group.

Um, I'm here first of all to respectfully request a continuance of this item.

Um I think I've been doing this for 39 years now, and I don't oppose projects.

This is only the second time that we are in the uncomfortable position of having major concerns over a project.

Um, and we feel that this particular specific plan that's moving forward has a flawed roadway infrastructure plan associated with it.

What basically is going to be happening is you've been told today that you're approving over 5,000 units, but what you're gonna get is 700 units over the next probably 15 years by approving uh sub-item CNF, it will be a de facto moratorium in that area because nothing else in the specific plan is going to be able to move forward.

We believe the way that the analysis was done was not appropriate, and it basically defers what needs to happen for all of the traffic analysis for the rest of the specific plan to a later date.

Um our clients were actually shut out of the process.

You got some very you know pretty slides talking about all the public outreach during all of those 20 some odd meetings that were had with the wildlife agencies, the two primary uh other primary landowners, the Bachmans and the handlers.

I'm here representing the handlers, were not included in that process, despite the fact that we asked the city multiple times to please include us in that process.

The plan put forward to you before you today is not the one that was shared during the initial outreach meetings.

Um the first time that everybody saw the new plan was when it came out for public review.

We think that there are some things we the plan does need to go forward, we understand that, but we think that it can be done in a more equitable fashion.

Now I'll turn it over to Mr.

Schumacher.

Thank you, Marcella.

Is there a time clock that I can read?

Seven minutes we can't share.

Sorry, yeah.

I'm pausing your time.

We can't share the timer and the and the visual at the same time because we are having problems.

But I'll give you a 30-second or a one-minute um wrap-up time so you're aware.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

You have seven minutes and one second.

Thank you, Marcella.

Thank you, Marcella.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Council President Locava and San Diego City Council members.

My name is Michael Handler Shoemaker, and I'm speaking on behalf of BDM20 LLC listed as Houndler Trust on this.

The Handler family is the third largest property owner in the Southwest Village.

My family has been an active property owner in Ota Mesa since the 1960s.

My grandfather donated 37 acres for Bayer Park 25 years ago.

As evidenced by subitem H of this agenda item, our family's donation is critical to the Bayer West Roadway extension.

In conjunction with the Bachman family, we, as the two largest property owners after Tri-Point, submitted a letter to all of you last week that we hope you had time to read.

As stated, we are simply asking you to delay adoption to allow city staff time to address several fatal flaws and inadequacies so that all the property owners have a reliable planning document with which to move forward.

We also followed up that letter with a more detailed analysis that lists all we believe must be corrected before adoption.

One of the biggest flaws in the specific plan is that it requires the extension of Byer West to be operational prior to the occupancy of the 700th unit.

Bio West is approximately one mile of expensive roadway, estimated to cost at least 60 million dollars for two lanes, just one each way.

This aspect of the phasing plan effectively prevents other owners from even beginning to process entitlement applications until Bio West is built.

Please be aware that the applicant takes the initial allocation of 700 units and requires everyone to wait.

Nobody knows the answer to the questions of what happens if Byer West is never built or unreasonably delayed.

Here are a few areas that we want to resolve with city staff and the applicant.

We think it is a mistake to allow the applicant to proceed with 699 units.

The CEQA findings list 14 entitlements, some of which are not before the council today.

So BioR West cannot be legally built until these are also approved.

The EIR never analyzed what happens if the critical right-of-way acquisitions fail.

Nobody knows when Bayer West will be built or how it will be paid for.

We think it was also a mistake to not evaluate first building the extension of Caliente Avenue before Bayer West, as shown on the presentation screen.

We think this will cost only 15% of Bayer West and would produce far more housing that would be built not only by the applicant but others as well.

The specific plan fails to provide you with information needed to make an informed decision today.

Of particular importance is the complete lack of any infrastructure financing plan, fair share contribution formula, or cost information.

The recent and nearby Otay Mesa Central Village specific plan include a roadway trigger analysis with fair share percentages that the central village would pay.

Most of the cities that my team has worked in require a separate chapter in all specific plans and precise plans that outline the financing plan, the estimated cost, and the fair share contributions.

We believe you should consider this as a requirement before adoption of the Southwest Village Specific Plan, not after.

More importantly, we asked the sit both the city and the applicant how the immense costs would be financed, when and how fair share contributions would be determined.

The response we received was that after the EIR was certified and the specific plan adopted, these issues would be addressed.

We believe that this is critical information that you need to know before you decide whether to adopt what is proposed or not.

With all of this in mind, please delay your vote today and instruct staff as the lead agency to work with us, the applicant, and the other property owners to find equitable solutions.

With the facts in hand, the matter will come back to you so that you can make an informed decision on what you know rather than what you or someone else might think.

This will ensure that San Diego benefits from greater housing production and infrastructure in the entire Southwest Village.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

That concludes your presentation then.

You still have three minutes.

But you're good.

All right.

All right.

Continue on with the rest of uh public comment here.

City clerk.

Thank you, Council President.

Going to individual speakers, starting with Raul Alcantar.

If you can please come up to the podium after that, if I can have the following individuals, please come up to the yellow reserve seats.

Um, Chrisara Abrams, Jim Whelan, Rob Hickson, Michael King, Maximilian Schmidt, Antonio Blas, and Manuel Garcia.

And then last is allegedly Audra.

Please come up to that front row for better meeting management.

Raul, you'll have one minute.

You'll see the timer up on the screens.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, City Council Raul Al-Kantar with Cross Border Express.

Uh CBX supports this project generally and also continued growth in Old Time Mesa.

As proud members of the community, we recently celebrated 10 years having served over 31 million travelers and generated approximately 1.5 billion in annual economic impact for the regional and by national economy.

This growth, however, should be matched with the pending completion of essential roadway infrastructure.

Most urgently, the unfinished segment of Siempre Viva Road between La Media and Britannia continues to force passenger vehicles and heavy logistics traffic into a single constrained access point through the Britannia Airway intersection, frequently impacting emergency vehicle access to the community during peak traffic.

With additional housing development underway, including thousands of approved housing units at Cactus and Epoca, this is not merely a traffic and convenience, but a matter of public safety.

Going forward, we respect respectfully urge the city council and the city to prioritize funding for the build out of a broader core roadway network in Old Time SNP.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Chrisara Abrams.

Please proceed.

Hello, my name is Chrisara Abrams.

My address is 3268 Governor Drive in San Diego.

My family owns the South Wind property, which is adjacent to the Southwest Village.

I just want to say that we have found Tri-Point great to work with, and I'm here in full support of the project.

Thank you, Jim Whelan.

This working?

Yes.

Good evening, Council President La Cava and members of the Planning Commission.

No, it's not.

City Council.

Memories goal.

Um Jim Whalen and J.

Well and Associates.

We're here for the Abrams family, but in support of Southwest Villages.

I have a long history in Otay Mesa.

We have probably four or five different families we've worked for, and I know the area well.

Tri-Point Pardee knows what they're doing.

I've worked with them for 35 years, let's say, and uh they have a long track record of success with master plan communities.

This is uh probably the last one in San Diego.

The overall plan is a good balance between development and very, very high value open space, especially the vernal pools.

I worked on the vernal pool, have that conservation plan in the 2017, and the concurrence from the wildlife agencies is hard won.

That's a big deal if they pulled this together after all these years.

This multi-year effort with many stakeholders is always going to have somebody who's not completely happy with the situation.

But there is a funding mechanism for the roads in Ota Mesa, and I urge your support.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, late afternoon, City Council members.

Council President, my name is Rob Hicks and I've been serving uh in O-Time Mesa as your uh chair of the planning group for the last 16 years.

Nobody wants my job.

I've been trying to get rid of it.

But um, anyway, um, city staff has done an outstanding job in this whole project.

We've been working on the Southwest Village Plan, and we did the whole community plan update in 2014, and Michael is a big part of that.

So they've done an outstanding job.

This will help solve our housing issues in San Diego.

We've asked a lot of tri-point, and they've delivered no one has ever been excluded.

Michael King.

Good afternoon, Councilman Lacada and uh council members.

My name is Michael King, and I am a conservation organizer with the Sierra Club of San Diego and live in District 3.

Um, while the Sierra Club supports building more housing, um, it really matters where we put it.

Um, this project, according to the city's own Blueprint SD, uh identifies the site as one of the least appropriate places for dense village development.

It is a high driving area with no existing transit and no planned transit improvements.

Yet the environmental review still concludes that this project is consistent with the city's climate action plan.

Just as concerning, the environmental review did not complete the transportation modeling required by the city's own transportation study manual for a project expected to generate more than 57,000 daily vehicle trips.

Without that analysis, neither you nor the public has a complete understanding of the project's true climate and transportation impacts.

San Diego deserves housing that is consistent with our general plan, our climate action plan, and our environmental laws.

Thank you for that concluding comment.

Maximilian Schmidt.

Is San Diego City Council going to give us some guarantee that we're not going to get targeted in our home?

Because I've been targeted in one home in over 10 apartments in liberal cities across America.

And the living situation in America for some people like myself is completely untenable.

There are literal people who have done an occult group ritual on a checkered board floor inside a Masonic Lodge who have the ability to look through your eyes and read your mind, who will literally mentally torment you inside your home.

So there needs to be some guarantee or something that you're not going to get targeted inside your home or for me to ever support.

After Antonio Blas is Manuel Garcia, and then allegedly Audra, please come forward to the microphone.

Before my time starts, I'd like to know if you were given a copy of that because I know I'm not going to have time within one minute.

Yes, you can go to the other microphone over there, too.

Uh-huh.

Okay.

Dear mayor and honorable city council members, my reading is representing all of the other property owners on the Southwest Village.

Excuse me, on the only under track subdivision.

Unless any changes are made for the protection of us the owners, we will not change our position.

We're not opposing to development, but you need to find out that the definition of undeveloped subdivision banking lot and undeveloped property is very different.

The average price of unavailable undeveloped accurate is roughly $674.665.

The Senate Bill, 330 housing crisis.

Because Elton Mesh has been aggressively master plan for high density community, the city is legally allowed to change zoning.

Not the law restricts the cities from downzoning our properties, and that's because that's what is being happening on our properties.

I'm giving you just a little bit of the highlights.

Your time has concluded though.

They do have the letter though.

Manuel Garcia.

Yes.

Please proceed.

Hi, this is Manolo Garcia, property owner Oleander Trek.

In California, local agencies must provide adjacent property owners and residents with formal public notice before approving most new development proposals and zoning changes.

These requirements are designed to guarantee due process and allow the public to review and weigh in on projects that may alter their community.

According to Oscar Galvest, the third from the city of San Diego, I quote, unless you require to uh be notified, we formally we normally we are not required to send public notices.

Was this tailored for this project only?

Negative consequences.

Southwest Village representative Jimmy Ayala along with uh city officials were questioned by their subdivision property owners as why many of our vacant lots were marked as open space.

Uh the city official and uh Jimmy always responds, I don't have an answer, we'll get back to you.

Um, thank you.

They do have the letter as well, allegedly, Audra.

This is extremely concerning.

I'm sure it's gonna pass, unfortunately, but why is there not equity with all of the landowners?

Uh there seems to be something extremely nefarious going on here.

Um, and with there being no transit, flawed roadways that are deferred to a later day to talk about emergency vehicle access, but someone was just talking about traffic impeding an emergency evacuation.

And I feel like you guys sit here and you build densely and you want to do all these walkable villages, multimodal mixed use stuff.

But it's like if people are not going to be able to use their cars, how do you expect people to evacuate when you put everybody densely in an extremely high fire zone?

I'm just wondering, do you think about that when we're when you want to push us out of our vehicles?

What is that route to leave?

Public transit that everybody has to go get on a bus, that you hope that they have a bike that they can get out in time.

I'm just wondering why you guys don't bring this kind of uh you know protection in.

You care more about doing business and making sure people can build, but you're putting people in danger.

Thank you.

I'll go.

I started the five-minute time recording of those participating remotely.

I would like to note that we did have one speaker in favor that wanted to register their position but did not wish to speak here in Council Chambers, Paul Benton.

We also receive zero comments in favor and four comments in opposition via our e-comment form, which have been distributed to the council.

Currently have four speakers in the queue with their hands raised, starting with Victoria.

If you can please unmute, Victoria Yun.

Good afternoon.

My name is Victoria from the Zoe Jury.

I'm here on behalf of supporters alliance for environmental responsibility or Safer.

Safer is concerned that approval of the project and certification of the subsequent EIR will violate CEQA.

By one, failing to adequately disclose and mitigate the project's significant air quality, health risk, biological resources, noise and BMT impacts, and two, failing to require all feasible mitigation measures for the project's significant unavoidable impacts.

Specifically, Safer and its air quality biological resources and noise experts found that the project would have significant air quality and health risk impacts from diesel particulate matter emissions, significant impacts to special status species, significant construction and operational noise impacts, and significant BMT impacts that the SEIR failed to adequately analyze and mitigate.

Safer and its experts also found that the SER failed to include several mitigation measures to reduce these impacts.

Therefore, Safer requests that the city council deny approval of the project and and the SEIR.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute.

Blair Beekman, I there you go.

Thank you.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Thanks for this item.

I nicely heard.

I nicely heard that um from the first uh public comment presentation.

You know, that this doesn't necessarily have to be built so large.

Um, if you can think of reduction size, that's important.

Building individual homes, um, you you're building kind of a town home double home model, I guess offers some flexibility.

It's a really nice land area to just build individual homes or to work with the landscape more instead of just swapping down tons of concrete and houses, another suggestion.

And of course, um, boy, you coming up with new ideas of mixed income can be really helpful for this area.

We got to start somewhere uh to really be more experimental and creative with mixed income.

Um, is this the place to do it?

Uh we can do some really nice things with it.

It offers a lot of flexibility and choices towards a democratic future and not just a selfish me as a future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Clarissa Falcon, if you can please unmute.

Thank you.

Uh good afternoon, Council President Lacava, Council members and staff, Clarissa Reyes Falcon.

Um I wear many hats, but I am speaking as a South County resident of over 45 years and a former member of the Otai Mesa community planning group.

In that capacity, serving on the planning group, I had the opportunity to participate in the Southwest Village subcommittee that included a thorough engagement process of each element of the specific plan.

I'm here today in support of the Tri-Point homes and this project.

Like all meaningful large-scale projects, this one has taken some time to do it right, and um they have done their uh use their time well.

They have worked um to incorporate community input, and we are particularly um excited to see the extension of Bayer Boulevard that will help connect Ottawa Mesa and San Isidro.

And so with that, I want to respectfully request uh your approval of this item before you today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker with their hand raised is 8700.

If you can please unmute.

Please follow Marcella, Escabar, and partners to equity.

And uh I believe rather than the continuance, they said uh a return to staff.

I totally am for that.

And uh I am focusing for me, follow me on sub item G.

No to that ordinance of a street over to and across OTI Mesa in open space.

And if I'm right on the other item, I don't remember the figures, but the affordable housing is extremely low, and that's not fair, uh, especially for that area.

Uh so uh it's a big project, great talking on all ends.

Let's follow Marcella Escobar and her partner.

Thank you, love to all.

Thank you.

And that does conclude a public comment on this item.

All right.

Excuse me.

Um, thank you, City Clerk, and congratulations on the first implementation of SB 707.

Off to a good start.

Uh we would normally go to the council member who represents the district, uh, but as you heard, she has recused herself.

Uh so we'll start out with the chair of our land use and housing committee, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

And um uh I know our colleague representing this district's out, but look forward to having this conversation uh about this item.

Uh we spent a lot of time on this council talking about the need for more housing, especially not just affordable housing, but also market rate.

Uh we've also seen the impact of that in uh the last year or two, especially with rents having gone down with additional housing units that have been brought uh forward, and so that that is something that I think we continue to face a challenge of across the entire city.

Um this has been an interesting discussion um hearing from both the uh project applicants, well, from all the work that's been done from a city standpoint on the specific plan, but also from those who uh may have different perspectives and how it could move forward.

And I think one thing I I've really taken into account here is that this is all part of the OTI Mesa community plan that was previously updated and approved in 2014, as I understand it, that specifically designates this area for urban village development, and that community plan when passed also included a requirement for a site-specific plan for Southwest Village, and that's what's before us today.

Correct, which is the implementation of what was originally outlined in the original Otameesa community plan, the update in 2014.

Yes, that's correct.

Um I also noted the uh the community engagement and the majority support, the nearly unanimous support I believe that came out of the Otame So Planning Group, um, and then the support that came out of the planning commission.

Um based on some of the correspondence that we've received.

I I did note that it appears that some of the concerns that we're hearing are directed toward the broader policy decision of planning Southwest Village as a residential village within the Otai Mesa community plan.

Uh that decision itself was made back in 2014 when the plan again was updated.

Um I think from what we're hearing, there's different camps today uh coming out on this item, and there's one that specifically would suggest that the specific plan itself doesn't match up with where the general plan is today in blueprint.

Um, and then others who simply believe that there should be a different implementation of it.

Is that how you're seeing the feedback that the city's been receiving?

Uh councilmember, I think we've heard a number of comments today related.

I think that was one of the ones raised in fairness to the opposition.

There's questions related to some of the implementation aspects.

Staff is here to recommend approval of the specific plan, the associated actions, and has identified uh findings appropriate to support implementation consistent with the goals and policies of the OTI Mesa community plan, the general plan, and all of the requirements of the land development code.

Okay, thank you.

Um for me, when I when I see an item that has over 70 landowners that are in the area, uh, the community plan also call for schools, parks, other infrastructure that was going to be built out within this space.

I I can see clearly why the city would and the community practically um sought a site-specific plan so that there would be something that it would help to guide how this community would come together so that it wasn't done just parcel by parcel.

Um I appreciate the fact that the plan does call for 5,000 uh plus homes, commercial space, again, the additional infrastructure that's needed.

And I think what I'm hearing also is that the real question that often comes before us at this council and in land use discussions is how do we ensure and see the infrastructure that is also asked for come to fruition?

Um so let me ask you a couple questions, I guess, on on that front.

Um a lot of the focus of the discussion seems to have been specifically on buyer boulevard, and could you explain to us the necessity of why buyer boulevard needs to come first in phase one?

Like to ask Mary Rose, uh transport with transportation to speak to that item.

Hi, good afternoon.

There Rose Vanierwitz with transportation development.

In regards to the requirement for um buyer boulevard was to be constructed prior to the 700 dwelling unit, was based on the sandaged regional travel demand model project distribution for the proposed phase development.

So, based on that analysis, we analyze up to 699 dwelling units along Calliente and then the remaining 221 along buyer boulevard west.

So, Mary, specific to that, can you explain how the 700 sort of unit threshold was determined?

It's not just an arbitrary number, right?

It is it is because of that infrastructure analysis, the sand analysis.

Yes, that's correct.

That's based on the sand um regional model.

Why is this plan any more viable than, for example, the alternative alternative plan that's been presented by some landowners that talk about phase one with Caliente instead of buyer?

And can I ask you to speak a little closer to the mics and make sure that everyone can hear in the recording?

Thank you.

So this is specific to the proposed development and their proposed phase um development, and based on that, um it did analyze the 699 dwelling units along Caliente Avenue and then the remainder on Buyer Boulevard West.

Let me try and sort of uh step back for a second.

So one of the reasons why the specific plan identifies both buyer boulevard and caliente is two major circulation element roadways is one, it's implementation of the overall circulation element that was identified in the 2014 Otay Mesa community plan, providing sort of regional access to a village that will provide up to 5,130 homes.

Additionally, there's uh other just mobility access requirements, fire access requirements for build out of those 5,000 plus homes.

So what the applicant proposed, the Tri-Point Homes is the largest landowner and the applicant for the specific plan, which was required in accordance with the community plan, as you stated, was to provide a mobility network that identified build-out conditions as well as phased implementation consistent with their actual vesting tentative map or their project that they also were proposing concurrently.

And that analysis was accepted by staff and determined to be appropriate as to when buyer boulevard should come online.

The alternative analysis that was provided uh to the council um earlier prior to the hearing was not submitted for staff's formal review.

It could be considered as part of another uh discretionary permit application uh for implementation should other property owners choose to submit an application.

So, so for example, east of Buyer Boulevard and and wish to proceed in advance of or concurrent with the vesting tentative map that the applicant has proposed.

Yeah, that was actually something that sort of stuck out when I was hearing from um some of the opposition as well about the potential of Caliente, for example, being considered in phase one, um, is what if there's a contention about the funding mechanisms to construct buyer, would that be any different with Caliente?

We would defer to city planning staff to just sort of uh Samira Rowe, who's he who is in here too can speak to those financing uh deliberations.

Good evening, everyone, this is Amira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with City Planning.

Uh, in terms of buyer board award, we have uh presented to uh the EAFD board and have around two million dollars allocated to buy a boulevard.

We're also working with the AFD board to allocate additional funds through bonds, which is yet to happen, but that's something that is being worked on.

Also, there is opportunities for credits if the applicant is going to build the projects.

Um they are uh required to pay development impact fees, um, and specifically Otamesa Local Mobility DIF around 12 million dollars for the first phase of the development, and that can be issued in the form of credits towards BioBullevard.

Um, so that's what we are working on in terms of um financing mechanisms from Bay Budabar.

But I want to understand if this is the question or if you have a different question.

Well, actually, thank you for for walking through all that because I I remember as serving on the AFD uh as well voting on allocating funding um towards Bio Boulevard's extension, and so I I think what we've heard is a an alternative proposal, for example, as to why we don't consider building out caliente um to unlock other housing opportunities, and I'm I'm wondering if there's been any discussion about financing for that separate of buyer.

Um, in terms of caliente, uh we are in discussions for reimbursement agreements for that as well, but different portions of it.

I will need to look into the specific details exactly which location to be able to better answer that question.

Did you want to come up and sorry and French Gonzalez, Senior Traffic Engineer Development Services Department?

I think uh, like Mr.

Prince mentioned, what's presented today as the alternative plan was never submitted to staff, and as he said, it could be submitted with a future development application.

But I think the essence of your question is a little bit um towards why did the applicant tripoint homes choose to construct Central Avenue to access phase one rather than to construct caliente, because as Mr.

Prince noted, both caliente and buyer boulevard connection will ultimately be needed to support this level of development that's proposed through this specific plan.

So if you want to address why the applicant tripoint homes chose to present Central Avenue instead of Caliente Avenue to serve their first phase, um I'm sure they would be happy to answer that question, sure.

Uh the importance of buyer is really to get a secondary permanent vehicular access, but we've s we've the six seven hundred units, basically we access through our property, Central Avenue.

We there's a on that Oilander map, there's a number of one-acre parcels where we don't have right-of-way for caliente.

So we obviously wanted to provide access into our property through our property that we control, and we focused on on buyer instead of caliente because we don't trigger caliente with our because we have access through Central Avenue.

We don't trigger caliente anything further for ourselves.

And we wanted to focus on buyer, which is a permanent, like fire access, secondary access.

If you're just focusing on Calienta, you only have one way in to Southwest Village and one one way out.

So buyer, we focus on buyer, which provides a secondary access.

So uh as as part of this initial phase, even with the 700 units or so, um Tri-Point would be building out central as an access point on the northern side, as well as a portion of buyer buyer's extension.

That's that's correct.

Uh the the port the buyer west would be done at by 700.

Buyer Boulevard West.

There's a portion of buyer east that would be done during the 700.

Got it, okay.

Thank you.

Um, I noticed there's a section under section 7.12 that seems to suggest that property owners can go through with other phases or phasing of the project um could be swapped if there was an ability to access um property without going through buyer.

Can you talk through 7.12 and whether that does offer some flexibility for other property owners?

I would just sort of point to actually it's technically section 7.13 phasing in the specific plan, subsection G refers to um sort of the phasing of some of the public facilities.

Uh other planning areas will be subject to future project level analysis, including as it relates to buyer Boulevard West for necessary infrastructure, public facilities, and emergency access required at each phase of development.

So that's the language that is in the draft specific plan before you today.

Essentially what that means is what I stated earlier, which is other property owners within the Southwest Village specific plan area may choose to come forward with a specific development project proposal, and if they can demonstrate that they meet access requirements, fire safety requirements in all of our uh regulations of the code, uh, that they could proceed with development uh without the necessary without necessarily requiring the construction of buyer boulevard.

So essentially it's like if they can present an analysis that that staff can support, staff could permit those developments without the the need to construct buyer.

But we have not seen that analysis, we have not seen any other development application proposals, so staff cannot speak to uh to those specifically or reach an affirmative conclusion.

Okay, thank you for sharing that.

Um based on what I know so far, I I I I feel like this reminds me a little bit of um different, but in my own district where we've had some projects that have come forward and there's larger infrastructure needs that frankly are connected because of what's in the community plan, and some of the challenge that we always face is how do we ensure that the infrastructure that's planned for actually gets completed?

And and so I do hear that argument because I look at a portion of my district, large development that has come in, and I also know that for it to be successful long term, the remaining connection points need to actually happen, and that some of the discussion about whether there's financing available for it, how that happens, it always gets left up to question.

But I will also say at the end of the day, the housing that we've built, despite those questions not being answered, has still been needed.

And I think part of the the reason you're hearing from folks today is really this question of how do we ensure that the site-specific plans infrastructure um that's drawn out actually gets completed.

And so what what gives us confidence from the city standpoint that, for example, that it won't end at 700 units.

Um I'm gonna argue that 700 units is also still needed from a housing perspective, but I think going beyond that, how do we how do we actually ensure that we get the five thousand plus units, the completion of buyer going west, and the additional infrastructure improvements that are necessary?

So staff has presented a specific plan and environmental analysis that details all of the actions necessary to approve up to 5,100 130 homes.

Sorry, I keep saying that number uh specifically, but that's sort of what's before you today.

The uh the project includes a vesting tentative map by the project applicant for up to 920 homes, and additionally, the property owner can build up to 2,100 homes.

So that represents a significant portion of the overall specific plan's development capacity, and there has been significant investment in the processing of the entitlements to bring forward today to ensure that there is uh development potential within the area.

Currently, it is designated for neighborhood village use as in the community plan, but it is zoned for agricultural use.

So there is no the ability for a property owner to build today.

This provides a more detailed environmental analysis, entitles specific development uh for to come in at in at specific phases and allows other property owners to proceed uh with their own projects.

Um I guess the last question I will ask then is that if if another property owner did want to move forward with a project and could make a proposal to consider building out, for example, a portion of Caliente to allow for that phasing to happen, that is what would be possible if it was submitted and analyzed from a city standpoint.

That's correct.

The staff would staff is uh would review and analyze that in accordance with if the specific plan were to be adopted, it would review it in accordance with the allowances of the specific plan, the regulations of the land development code, uh, and would ensure that uh it follows the process similar to what the vesting tentative map process was followed for uh concurrent with the specific plan.

Got it.

Um I guess the last question I would ask, and this might be really more so a tri-point question, but aside from the first 700 units that have been discussed, how many total what's the total capacity of homes that Tri-Point is able to build?

It's it's somewhere between 1500 to 2100.

Is TriPoint's intent to complete that full proposed?

We have we have to work through our land position before we go buying other projects.

We're and and we're out of work, we really need to keep building homes.

So this is our future, basically.

Thank you for answering that.

Mr.

Cashadi, why don't you stay a little closer just in case?

Oh, okay.

I suspect others will call you up.

Um thank you to staff again for the presentation.

Thank you for those answering the questions.

I I hear the concerns about the need for infrastructure and how we're actually gonna plan and guarantee that the housing that's needed actually happens across the board.

But I also believe that there's gonna be a vested interest across the board to see that happen.

Um, I believe that there's gonna be a need to build out whatever tripoint has available within their capacity, but also to ensure that the other infrastructure that's necessary also moves forward so that we see other portions of the site-specific plan come to life.

Um the argument that we've heard from some folks in opposition today that would suggest that none of this should be considered probably flies in the face against most folks who are still remaining in the room, and that's not one that I uh adhere to based on the analysis and the work that the city has done to to plan to have the community plan updated and um to align what we can with our general plan and blueprint as well.

So given where we stand at the moment, I'm gonna make a motion for staff's recommendation from beforeward, and I'll look forward to hearing from my colleagues for their feedback.

Thank you.

All right, uh Council President Pro Tem, so we have a motion to move the staff recommendation.

I'm gonna jump in.

Again, would prefer to refer to my council district representative, but that's where we are.

So thank you for the good work.

Um there's a lot of questions that are being raised here that I'm not sure we're vetted at earlier stages of the hearing, but we are where we are.

Um part of my perspective is uh going deep into my career uh baby engineer for East Elliott piece of property that was subdivided in a very bizarre way and remains undeveloped, because the only way that it was going to be developed is if the property owners actually agreed and they could never come to an agreement about how to collaborate and uh a little bit of experience with the old Arroyo Sorrento area uh that looks to be the same as when I was looking at it way more years than I would care to admit right now.

So it it troubles me in terms of these kinds of complexities and how we can try to navigate um when we go and um plan somebody else's property.

So a couple of questions one did, and I'll do this to staff, a did anybody else submit an application.

No other applications have been submitted.

Were uh any properties prevented from submitting an application?

No.

Would the city have been willing to accept tentative map submittals to be done concurrently?

Yes.

Okay.

Now, just to clarify though, those could not be approved in advance of the specific plan, but no property owners were precluded from submitting in advance.

They could have been bundled with multiple actions.

The same they the yeah, they they wouldn't necessarily be processed concurrently exactly because the applicant is preparing the specific plan, but they could be processed at sort of at the same time.

Uh they just would not be able to be approved prior to adoption of the specific plan.

Okay, I think the city ought to think differently when we get to these bizarre areas, and hopefully, this is the last one, so you don't have to come up with a new protocol because I think it's a little troubling.

Um of the observations I made that has actually not been raised here is why we're even here, because the Otai Mesa community plan talks about this area as a neighborhood village, and so that was one of the things that I was curious about, and I noticed that the slide deck of the applicant shows a very pretty pictures for the mixed use area.

Uh slide four speaks to a village core, the community plan calls for a neighborhood village, and yet the specific plan assigned village core to areas 24 through 27, which is split among numerous underlying property owners.

So, how do we expect this neighborhood village, which is supposedly the driving element of the whole Southwest village to ever happen, notwithstanding the issues that were raised by some of those in opposition tonight?

But it seems like if you wanted to thwart the village core from ever happening, you would do it exactly the way the specific plan is doing it.

Does that question make sense?

Can you kind of clarify that?

Well, the village core is targeted, which the village core to me is the most important thing about Southwest Village.

It appeared to be the most important thing in the Otai Mesa community plan.

We wanted a neighborhood village here.

We wanted this mixed-use, pedestrian friendly, and yet where the village core is located is in that segment of this crazy ownership that has the most property owners.

And it's almost like it's intended to sabotage it, and we will never see that actually ever manifest itself.

So why did we pop it there when we could have popped it someplace else that maybe had a singular ownership that made it more likely that it would happen and happen perhaps sooner?

It's a tough question for you, but I think it's important.

I do think it is a difficult question to answer.

Let me start by saying that the obviously ownership challenges are important and do need to be considered, but the ultimate long-term geographic uh makeup of the area is is a contributing factor.

So where the major roadways are expected to intersect, where you have sort of a central area geographically, and sort of what that can look like in terms of creating public facilities in and around it.

So there is no easy solution to an area that is identified, you know, and that you that you're planning out long term, uh, but I think that the what the the staff's proposal today uh provides for um implementation of housing within the area, opportunities for commercial and mixed use development, and public facilities that can access internally within the area and to uh throughout the community and to our regional areas, and I get that.

It seems that such a discretionary action that is so important to the Otai Mesa community plan could have navigated that conversation and got to a place that's more likely because again, this is what really why we're even talking about this going forward.

Um the um so let me get to the probably the bigger, the more foundational issue.

One the up the I don't want to call it the the other property owners who either were included and didn't speak up or were not included and prevented from speaking up.

I'm not gonna arbitrate that, um, but the idea that caliente would seem like a better candidate for the primary access to the north, that we kind of deferred to the developer and say, Well, I have central, I'd rather do central rather than caliente.

But if we're looking at the specific plan, maybe we as a city should have insisted saying caliente is where we need to open this up so that we can remove any constraints to the rest of the development area, and we chose not to.

Is there actually a technical reason why we chose not to, other than clearly Tri-Point did not want to because they didn't control that?

We don't control buyer either, but we're making buyer happen.

So, has been as has been mentioned before, caliente is one access point.

So ultimately we need two main access points.

Um Tri-Point Homes needs a secondary access at 200 dwelling units for fire access.

And I don't know for sure if they had negotiated the what's shown as the emergency access to the south to rail court in San Isidro at the time that they were planning what they were going to do.

So that may have had something to do with it.

I think also if you I don't know if we have a map that shows the ownerships uh caliente avenue alignment overlaid on the ownerships, but I believe that's part of the issue with caliente too.

Is a large portion of the of caliente north of Bayer is in that area with multiple property owners.

So was that a technical reason?

Was that a the preference of the applicant?

I mean, we can debate that, but but yes, I think that's some of the answer to that.

I don't know, Oscar, if we're pulling up the slide.

Thank you.

Does that start to address the question?

It's a difficult question for you to answer in a question of we are the city giving discretionary approval, so we have some say in the matter.

Did dry point say we're gonna walk away and never come back?

If we did that, that's a rhetorical question.

You don't have to answer that.

Uh, and I don't even want to talk about the secondary evacuation route once I figured out where it was.

Um I'm assuming if the fire uh department is okay with that secondary access over dirt roads all the way to the border.

Um I'm not gonna question that.

So um let me get to the larger issue.

So I don't know if Staff has had a chance.

Um there was a letter from Chatham Brown that came in today that raised pretty foundational issues.

Um a lot of the presentation says this is all about the OTI Mesa community plan.

And the Channel Brown, I shouldn't speak on behalf of other people, said you're not even consistent with your general plan.

And given how much work that the city has done to build the general plan and directing development where we think it's best from a climate action point of view, vehicle myestrabo, greenhouse gases, our famous or infamous village propensity map.

There's a little bit of a problem there.

Do they have a good case in their argument?

So the general plan or Blueprint SD anticipates that lower propensity areas will generally accommodate less growth than higher propensity areas.

However, neither the general plan nor its programmatic EIR prohibits residential development or land use changes in lower propensity areas.

So the village climate goal propensity map really serves as a planning guide for future plan updates or specific plans rather than a regulatory threshold or mandatory limit on residential development.

In some it the anticipated less density in lower propensity areas, but does not prohibit.

Okay, there were some questions raised, I think both in that letter and I think some of the public speakers that raise questions about whether we did all the traffic studies and all the vehicle most travel studies that we're supposed to do for a project of this size.

How do you respond to those accusations?

Transportation staff can respond to that.

So the sorry, so VMT analysis was prepared for the project, and the project is located in a VMT inefficient area, which is in mobility zone four, and the project will pay the required active transportation and loan fee consistent with the mobility choices regulations and rely on the findings and SOCs of the mobility choices program as mitigation to the extent feasible.

So it was addressed.

Okay, so you rebut those accusations.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

What else I wanted to ask you while I have the moment.

So I'm not going to be supporting the motion.

I don't want to deny the project.

I think there's more work that can be done.

In a lot of different levels, because I think, despite your answers, there are some serious concerns that are raised in some of the questions that I raised.

And with all due respect to Tri-Point, who I think is a fine developer.

I I've known Alan for a number of years, but I think we could have taken a different and better approach with this project that I think would have had a potentially better outcome.

Hindsight's wonderful.

But I would be supporting it being returned to staff to work out some of these issues so that we have a tighter project, we have more of the influence of the other property owners, and we actually set this up for success, which I'm not entirely convinced of going forward.

Oh, let me ask one last one last question, because this was raised in some place.

Do we actually does the applicant or Alan, do you actually have the permits in hand, the regulatory and wildlife permits?

No, we need the project approved to start that process.

Okay.

Can I address a few other things that you brought up earlier?

You don't need to.

Okay, thank you, though.

With all due respect, I know developers have different positions about whether to accept have a permit in hand or not.

That's your call.

Um, but I won't I won't be supporting, I would be supporting returning this to staff to work out some of these issues that I think are actually start outstanding uh outstanding, despite the very good work that staff has taken to bring this item forward.

I think the city ought to assert its authority a little bit stronger and drive what is arguably the very last big master plan community that's going to happen in this town.

I'd like to see it go off to be the very best that it can be.

So I'll close there and I will go to Councilmember Von Wilbur.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the work on this.

I do have a question about fire evacuation.

Can you please bring up the slide that says fire access in the presentation?

And I have a couple of questions related to the plan public facilities and the phasing of their delivery.

While you're looking for the slide, I do agree we need more housing in the city.

I want to thank this era club for being here though, because I also have concerns about if it's 100% conserved land, maybe we should build the roadway elevated.

But I'll let that leave that to the wildlife agencies to discover or to discuss.

But what we're experiencing up in my council district is we're taking on increased density and we're not getting the infrastructure we were promised, including fire stations.

Fire station 48s was supposed to be uh built and done by 2024, and I don't think we've even gotten construction out of the ground yet.

And we took on 2500 homes in that area.

Um same thing with fire access roads.

I just I don't see us holding the city, I don't see us holding ourselves, I don't see us holding developers or our partners to building the infrastructure we need as we take on increased density.

And so when I looked at this map, I was very concerned that there's not even going to be a secondary access road until after 200 units are built.

But what's not on this map is that Sandy San Yasito High School is right there, right in Caliente.

So can you imagine trying to evacuate not only an entire high school but the community around it?

But what if the fire is in the canyon near the high school?

Then you can't direct an evacuation route that way.

So why wouldn't we require that secondary orange line to be built when the first unit is built?

Why would we put 200 homes there and 200 families there and not build a secondary access road from day one?

Can I ask uh Tyler Larson from Fire Rescue Department to speak on that question, please?

Yes, apologies for uh leaving the chamber early.

Um my name is Tyler Lawson.

I'm the supervising deputy fire marshal for San Diego Fire Rescue Department.

Um we had uh numerous discussions about about this plan over over multiple years.

So the code, the base code reads that um projects that are all sprinklered, up to 200 units are allowed to be on one access road.

Um then the amendments came out in 2023.

By then we had already looked at the fire protection plan, the evacuation plan.

We'd agreed upon all the all the way up to the fire marshal that the phase plan is acceptable.

There's a code.

Sorry, one second.

It's one of D106.1, and the exception two is that no uh dwellings are to be added to a single fire access road unless connected with feature development as a as approved by the fire code official.

So we had a lot of internal discussions uh regarding uh the phase plan, and given our operational um experience and you know robust resources over the last you know couple decades, um we're comfortable with the plans in in place.

Got it.

Well, I I have a feeling that it's not gonna work out the way we think it is.

33s is the most constrained station in the city of San Diego, and we were promised another fire station years ago.

So I have a feeling that folks at station six and twenty-nines are gonna get completely overrun by this.

43s is so far out that they're not gonna be that get to be there in time.

And then what is the plan for building Fire Station 49, which is supposed to be right at Caliente Road?

Diff fees, enhanced infrastructure, um, EFID.

Sorry, it's late in the day, EFID tax, you know, I just our fire department is so under resourced, and we just had an entire conversation about this in our city budget, and our firefighters came in here en masse begging us to have more fire stations, and we're putting housing in a high fire several zone.

I mean, we have this, it was my district, it's now Kent Lee's district in Stonebridge Estates.

And our joint planning groups are up in arms at us about not having a second fire station there now.

So the future council members for district eight will have to live with this.

And so I just I don't I don't believe that this is the appropriate way to plan for our fire department overall, because it won't get built.

Um I also have a question about why we I mean I actually Councilmember Cava asked all my questions about why not Caliente Road, why isn't Bayer Boulevard being done?

I hadn't even thought about the village plan, and Councilmember, I understood your question.

So I also won't be supporting this today because I can't make the findings, and I would support sending it back to staff because I do want housing.

Um I just I'm sick and tired of seeing the city and our residents hold the bag when folks are supposed to build the fire stations in the road and they don't.

So that's all I've got.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Von Wilbert.

We'll go back to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I appreciate the feedback from colleagues and being able to look and discuss this further.

Um this has been an interesting conversation because I I feel like part of the question we're asking, which is not the one that's on here today from folks, is whether this entire site-specific plan should happen, period, um, which in my opinion has been determined uh from a city and community standpoint from the moment we passed the OTI community uh plan update back in 2014.

Um and so we could sit here and argue over the implementation of it, which road goes first, how it goes.

Uh, but even if Caliente was built out tomorrow and not buyer, we'd still only have one egress point from the community, which would present the same is challenge and issue, I think, in terms of um evacuation, et cetera.

And I I understand there are different opinions in the room here today.

I'd be curious as to whether this continues if it gets sent back, but it sounds like there needs to be some conversation about whether we actually desire to see the housing that we say that we need and that we have planned for and um approved over a decade ago.

Uh and now when we're sitting staring at the implementation, uh we can nitpick all the little pieces of it or revisit the entire discussion as to whether uh we'd like to move forward at all.

So I again I I understand the frustration of the need for building out infrastructure and the financing challenges that we have.

I did hear just enough from the planning department about how we anticipate buyer moving forward, especially with the EIFT support that has already been uh anticipated, and I can understand from the explanations why Twitter point would choose that path because it's the one that they have the greatest control here, and we're asking them to basically build the road.

Um so I uh look forward to any additional feedback and one way or another, I appreciate Council President for the suggestion that if if this isn't ready for some reason, um that we at least uh continue the conversation.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Council President of Pro Temily.

Um, not seeing anybody else on the lights.

Uh this is a little tricky.

Um, and I think after five years of being a council member, um, one of the the challenges we have is how much work?

What 10 years, 20 years to get to this point um for this plan, and then it gets dropped in front of us.

I think even planning commission gets kind of an opportunity to weigh in.

Uh council doesn't quasi judicial.

So it's a package deal, and it's um, and I don't want, you know, to for my point to be clear, this is not take it or leave it kind of thing.

Because it's all set up that way.

Either you approve it or you don't.

Um, and I'm not personally interested in that.

Um, and I know that making a comment like it send it back to staff to do more work.

It's not like a couple of weeks.

Uh, there's a whole lot of conversation.

There's a whole lot of documentation for whatever if any changes have to be done.

So it's a little bit problematic, right?

The system that we have in place um makes it pretty difficult.

I think the question is goes back to it's this is not about housing, even though I have a little bit of heartburn about some of the elements of this.

It is how we deal with multiple property owners, how we deal with a single entity coming in and getting the authority to do that.

They put the money on the table that gives them certain rights.

Some of the questions that have been raised that I think to me are serious enough that I'd like to get resolved rather than saying, let's just approve it and see if somebody sues us.

I hope we've learned from the past.

But I again, you know, where I landed was sending it back to see if some of these issues, both from a um technical analysis as well as embody this to make sure that this is as successful as everybody wants it to be going forward.

So um we'll throw it over to Councilmember Whitman.

Thank you, Council President.

Interesting discussion here.

Um if this were to go back to staff, do you perceive what do you perceive transpiring if this were to go back to staff?

So staff would need to take the feedback provided from the council members today, coordinate with the applicant, and determine if there is a change in the project before the council, so that could include modifications to the specific plan uh further evaluation.

I see the attorneys on the white, so I'll defer to her.

Sorry, I misread a cue.

So uh so yeah, so the it we understand that the council uh several council members have raised uh a couple of issues related to other mobility analysis that would potentially be looked at in coordination with the applicant.

Ms.

Lowe.

Hi, thank you.

My name is Eli Slow, I'm the development services director, and um I just want to thank the council for their questions today.

If in fact this item were to go back to staff, there definitely needs to be specific direction.

We do have the questions that you said before you, but um it's it's my observation that there's really not enough specifics here as to exactly what you want to see.

You had questions about um the uh the the neighborhood um areas, you had questions about the fire access, uh you had questions about facilities financing.

Um it would really be who's staff as well as the applicant if we could get some further specifics because we don't want to run into this again and come back to you with something that um you felt like we we weren't able to answer it.

So um thank you.

Thank you.

Fair enough.

Um let me ask the applicant um if you would like to respond to the variety of different concerns that have been expressed either by uh my colleagues or by those uh who have expressed property order concerns about the proposal in front of us, yes.

Thank you.

Regarding the the village core, that was a very deliberate location geographically where the village core is in the center of Southwest Village and the densities fan out radially.

That was the guiding principle for the specific plan you're seeing.

So I did want to clarify that it that's where it happens to be.

And typically, from a developer standpoint, the optimal time to build the village core is when you've got a lot of rooftops, and that's when the value increases, and some of these one-acre parcels will recognize the value and sell, and someone could come in and build that area, build that area out.

So I I did want to give some some color to that because that seemed to be one of the things that we heard.

In regards to Caliente, we I I've we've spent 15 million dollars on this specific plan.

Lately, I'm getting 20 to 30,000 invoices just from the city every two weeks, and I can't continue to do that.

And to ask us to go back and look at buying more right-of-way to develop caliente when we already have access into our project.

And we're just trying to get some houses going so we can go after buyer boulevard and and keep going.

I honestly I don't know, like what between caliente and and the core, I don't know what else we can go back and do.

I I do want to respond to there was one thing I meant to share.

There's a correction memo that was done just before planning commission in regards to the 700 unit threshold that lets uh other property owners propose something different.

The the 700 trigger that appears to be the sticky issue for them, the door has been opened, enhanced a little bit further with specific plan language that lets them propose a project and propose something different.

And in regards to council member Von Wolpert's concerns about fire, pushing out buyer doesn't help fire.

We think we're trying to do the right thing by advancing roads, which is what we do, and help activate uh the community so it moves forward.

So one of the concerns that has been raised is that you know you could do the 699 without building buyer boulevard, um and once you build a 699, you would no longer have an incentive, a financial incentive to build buyer boulevard because the cost associated with building buyer boulevard would be greater than your proceeds for building the rest of the housing that is proposed.

What's your response to that?

What is the risk that you're gonna do 699 units and then say, okay, we're done here?

The incentive is all the permits that we hold after that.

If we hold up to 2100, that leaves 19.

That leaves 1,800 permits that we can't pull because buyer isn't come complete.

So the permits are the incentive for us to keep going, and that's our intention is to get the EIR certified so we can be one step closer to perfecting the project, starting final engineering drawings, and moving forward into getting funding secured with with drawings and getting a vernal pool major amendment done.

And by the way, that vernal pool major amendment, in order for us to start grading, we we have to do a habitat conservation plan for a butterfly, and that the intention is to bundle that together with a major amendment and go after buyer and our first phase together with the wildlife agencies.

So before we turn dirt, you know, that's moving in the step towards uh getting buyer started for construction.

Thank you.

Um questions for staff.

Um are the other landowners are they legally precluded from entitling their properties until buyer boulevard is built?

No.

The there is the there has not been a determination made on any other specific development projects because there have been no other projects submitted, so staff cannot confirm uh whether or not a project could be approved.

Uh the specific plan needs to be adopted first.

The specific plan, if adopted as presented today, includes language that would allow for other project applicants to proceed with an application prior to the implementation of buyer.

If their analysis confirms that they can meet requirements, then they could be approved without the need to construct buyer.

I know it's a conditional answer, but that's sort of we cannot give you a definitive answer, yes or no, because there is no nothing before us today to make that conclusion.

Thank you.

The EIFD conversation has come up a couple of times.

What are the prospects at this point as you see them for Tri-Point to recover its costs?

Um in constructing Bayer Boulevard either through development Impact fee credits or through the EIFD?

Regarding Bio Buddha, just to give a little context, I think currently the project is estimated at around 59 million dollars.

Around 2 million dollars have been allocated to the project using EIFD funds.

We're also working with the AFD board to allocate additional funds to this project through bonds.

And the first phase of this project includes around 900 units, and the credits for that for local mobility uh development impact fees would be around 12 million dollars, which can go towards bio boulevard.

If the entire development was built, there would be additional credits.

We could uh work with the applicant for credit sharing across various other developments.

Uh so there are opportunities, but this is what we have currently.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Well, it's uh challenging issue here.

My default position is to build more housing.

At the end of the day, people are struggling with the cost of living, and that is most significantly the cost of housing, and the biggest opportunity that we have to um address the cost of housing is by building more of it.

Short of a really compelling obvious straightforward reason to hold up this project.

Um I don't want to do that.

Uh so I think you need a second to your motion still.

Am I correct?

I'll second the motion.

All right.

So we have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee uh to move the staff recommendation and a second by council member Whitburn.

We'll go now.

Uh do you mind if I go to Councilmember Campbell first since she hasn't spoken yet?

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Council President.

Thank you.

Ken, I was just wondering if that motion had been seconded or not.

Um I agree with my colleague, Councilmember Whitburn.

This has been going on for 20 years.

Uh it's here.

Let's make a decision.

Uh we've got a motion and a second, let's vote, and let's see what how it turns out.

Alright, thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

We'll now go to Councilmember Von Wolford.

Thank you.

Um, it was brought up that buyer boulevard construction wouldn't help the fire department, but I categorically disagree with that.

Do you know where the closest fire station is?

Is fire station 29s?

And to get up to Caliente, they'd have to get on the freeway and then on the 905 and then go over it.

Buyer roads four minutes from that station.

It's much easier.

And I know that I am a unique position here because I grew up in Scripps Ranch and I watched my high school friends' homes burn down in the cedar fire.

So, yeah, the cost of housing is rough, but guess what?

The cost of rebuilding is really awful too.

And the people in Altadino are really feeling that right now.

So if we're gonna build things, let's build the fire stations around them.

And I I think it's awful that we ask our fire department personnel to come in here and be on the hook for development project where they're promised things.

Well, the fire marshal signed off.

It's not fair to that fire marshal.

Their promise that these things will happen and they don't, and so I think it's quite rude that we put our fire personnel in that position when they come in later to City Hall saying, hey, our working conditions are terrible because we haven't built out the fire stations.

So please don't put the fire station in that position anymore.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Um I don't see anybody else on the light.

So we have a motion by council president pro Tim Lee, and a second by Council Member Campbell to move the staff recommendation, which in that tiny tiny font is up there on the screen.

Oh, my apologies.

She just wanted the vote.

Uh so let me correct that.

Council President Pro Tem Lee made the motion, and council member Whitburn uh seconded the motion.

So my apologies for that.

So with nobody else in the lights, please call the roll.

Sorry, the voting system, please cast your vote.

Councilmember Campio, if I can get your vote for the record.

Yes.

And that passes six to do with count six to two.

With Council President LaCava and Council Member Von Wolver voting no.

Thank you, Council President.

And Councilmember Moreno's.

So thank everybody for a very long day and I think a very productive conversation.

I think the opposition has some work to do given today's action by the council.

So with that, we're not done yet, folks.

You guys can go.

Thank you, Council President.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Please don't know if there are eight or more speakers on a single topic, either in person or virtually.

The maximum time for the topic will be 16 minutes.

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

If you're joining us virtually, now's the time to raise your hand by pressing the raise your hand icon, or if you're a call-in participant, star nine.

If I can start with Barbara Pinder.

And Barbara Pinder, I did note that you did submit two uh non-agenda public comment speaker slips.

You only get one uh two-minute allocation, so you can speak to both topics in those two minutes.

Thank you.

Um, this is my first time ever here in my first full council meeting.

What an experience.

Um I ended up here by accident last Friday because I had a very unpleasant encounter with a dog walker who left a big mess on the sidewalk.

And I can tell you I walk this, I walk San Diego a lot, and I have never ever walked without running into dog poop.

And she didn't clean up her mess, and it was a hard mess.

The dog was sick and it was not solid.

And I looked at her, said you left your mess, and she says, I'm not cleaning up that liquid.

And I said, Well, then you need to go walk home and come back with something to clean this mess up, and she didn't.

So it's not the city's responsibility to clean up everybody's dog poop, and there have to be tougher measures.

I came down here to talk to somebody.

There is some county ordinance that um they're responsible, and I don't know how we can enforce that.

I don't know.

Take their pictures of her, take her picture and post it on the walk of shame somewhere.

But please think of something.

That's my one topic, and the real reason I I took a tour of uh the Tijuana Rivu Valley, we could go Saturday, and it's absolutely pathetic and appalling.

And then I learned that the city of San Diego owns property in San Isidro, and they're planning on putting drying fields and pumping sewage into these fields and letting them dry next to San Isidro neighborhoods, and um that's just not acceptable.

So I don't know who's aware of that and who's not.

And if any of you are not familiar, I mean everybody's familiar with the beach closures and the toxic problem, and something it's taken way too long to deal with this mess.

But if you haven't seen the big dump documentary, I recommend you watch it, it's 37 minutes.

It won a prize at the Cornado Film Festival in 2023.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Maximilian Schmidt.

If you can please come up to the.

I was trying to educate people, but everyone left.

I wish I'd been able to speak last Friday when the city attorney retired.

But there are people online, and we do have city TV.

So there's people watching.

Maximilian Schmidt and then allegedly Audra.

Please proceed.

Hi, I have caught the city of San Diego and liberal cities across America red-handed and guilty, guilty, guilty for an underground genocide.

And that's what I'm going to do.

Since before the time of Christ, people have been able to worship pagan gods to be able to have the ability to look through people's eyes and read people's minds.

And they will um try to get someone isolated and crazy by doing this.

And the person, when they talk about it, get um labeled mentally ill.

And it's um BS, the person's not mentally ill.

And if you search targeted individual on Amazon, hundreds of books will come up in um every in in every single language, and in every country in the world, people are turning to drugs and suicide because they're driven crazy by Freemasons who are um saying their thoughts out loud.

And what we need to do is we need to um these books on Amazon, every single one says that it's technology that is how these people are reading your mind, or and these books are actually written by the people who are trying to depopulate them to make them more paranoid and more confused.

And if the people um who are feel all alone, they need to know that you are not alone.

You are not the only person who feels like you're going crazy because people are um saying your thoughts out loud constantly, um, mentally torturing you, and we know you're not mentally ill and you're not alone.

And um, shame on San Diego City Hall for uh screwing with my head.

You guys are guilty.

Shame on you.

You know what you're doing.

You're also saying my thoughts out loud.

I never thought in a million years that the stalkers who say my thoughts out loud on public streets that you guys would do it too, and you know you're guilty.

Shame on all of you and screw everyone.

Oh, very interesting.

So, like I told you guys this morning.

Tim Allen passed away.

I should bother you as he is a light-skinned African-American man at 10 City who was sitting in his tent dead for roughly five hours before anybody came and got him, and he is part of the lawsuit.

Um, there were a couple of people in his tent.

In fact, his attorneys spoke to him last night.

Um I'm very concerned that I keep coming to you guys.

Two people died just last week, or within the last two weeks, whatever, and now another one today.

And I keep asking you how many need to die before you guys do something because there's a lot of people that are dying that have overdosed on fentanyl that don't do fentanyl.

And I'm concerned that this man, Tim Allen, um, had a very strong testimony that he was going to be giving in the lawsuit that would be beneficial um to winning.

And so, as Steven Whitburn likes to laugh in my face, I'm very concerned because then it makes me question does he have something to do with the deaths if you don't care?

Because it's your friend who runs that place, and it's just I just very difficult to come and talk to people time and again that profess to care about the public, and I come and tell you about people dying, and it falls upon deaf ears, and it's like I wouldn't want to be reaping what you guys are sowing, because now you're you're like complicit, you don't even care.

I mean, I've been coming in for years talking about people dying and being raped, and it's like, yeah, we can talk about rat rats and all these things, but when are these lives gonna matter to you guys?

That place needs to be shut down.

I'm sorry, the five-minute timers aren't going to those participating online.

We have nine speakers in the queue.

Hector, if you can please unmute, all right.

All right, thanks.

A few days a lot.

And on the 15th of July, we're gonna be celebrating uh, it's called uh fuck Joe Biden Day, the Joe Biden president who led all the illegal aliens in and facilitated the invasion, like two million people, and which you guys helped facilitate and spent the money on.

So we're gonna start cracking down on getting rid of all these guys.

We don't need to build more housing.

There's thousands of units in Mission Valley that aren't rented for 3,500 a month.

There's hundreds of them that are vacant.

We got plenty of housing.

We just got to get rid of the illegal aliens that are occupying the other housing.

Probably a million guys in California at least, maybe a hundred thousand in San Diego that are here illegally, just blatantly ignoring our laws.

And the criminal part is you guys are facilitating them and kind of cutting them some slack, man.

Time's for they gotta go.

Plus, in a brighter side, or not a good side, but we're losing three to one to Belgium right now with about 20 minutes to play in the soccer game.

So it's up in Seattle, but we really got to get all these people out of San Diego, that even the supporters of like the guys that uh start firing guys that work in the city that celebrated Charlie Kirk's death.

These guys gotta go.

They're abomination to our city and send them down and start smelling that sewer gas in Tijuana.

We better not be putting it in a field, let it dry out, have some mercy on the little Mexican kids down there.

Come on, come on, before we deport them, don't make them smell sewer gas.

That'd be great.

That'd be that's brutal, man.

Come on.

Your time has concluded.

I'm going to John Stump.

If you can please unmute.

Well, thank you very much for uh working this long day.

I want to compliment uh Vivian Moreno for uh abstaining or absenting herself because of conflict of interest on the last matters, and particularly I want to compliment uh council president Joe Locava on the way he handled his disclosures or lack of dis uh conflicts on the appeal matter.

Joe Locava did the right thing.

He stated that he had no contacts, he hasn't uh participated with them and demonstrated that he was an unbiased uh judicial quasi-judicial figure.

You know, in Goldberg versus Kelly, the Supreme Court established the due process protections and minimum procedural safeguards that include the right to timely and adequate notice of the basis uh for the action, opportunity to defend again against the reasons for the action, opportunity to confront and cross-examine any adverse witnesses, opportunity to present arguments and evidence orally, right to disclose opposing evidence, assistance of retained counsel at party's expense, decision based on legal rules and evidence produced at the hearing, decision stating the evidence relied on, and the reasons for the determination, and most importantly, an impartial decision maker.

Council members, if you've got an appeal that's in your district and you've had a lot of contact and you've gone back and forth, please abstain from participating in that decision because it's obvious that you may have been a biased figure.

Thank you very much.

Next is Terry Anskelly.

If you can please unmute.

Good evening, San Diego City Council Chair La Cava.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly, and I attend my planning group.

I work in public health and youth mentor and tutoring programs.

My youth mentoring and tutoring programs in this city includes teens from very diverse backgrounds.

On their behalf, I came today to report that this is the very teens from these diverse backgrounds who experience health inequities, you strive to mitigate, especially as these teens have been targeted by tobacco and marijuana companies.

The African American Tobacco Control Leadership Council released more excellent research regarding how, and I quote, big tobacco strategically targeted blacks and the deadly consequences, end quote.

Now we are taking a close look at the role of big marijuana as well in creating health inequities through their promotion of smoking and vaping of marijuana products, most often containing high THC levels of marijuana.

Research continues to grow regarding the role of these products in creating cancer and chronic disease related health inequities among minority populations.

I respectfully suggest that the city's enforcement efforts to eliminate intoxicating products, sometimes nicotine, sometimes marijuana, sometimes CBD, be increased, and that no new business permits be allowed for tobacco and marijuana businesses in the city's neighborhoods.

They only harm those populations that you most strive to serve.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this evening.

Thank you, Judy Strang.

If you can please unmute Judy String, I can't.

There you go.

There you go.

Hi, and good evening, and thank you all for staying.

As always, I appreciate that you're as exhausted as your audience out here is and want to thank City Council person Van Wilper for sharing her cancer journey with us.

I think it's extremely important that it gets as much attention as possible and having high visibility, elected officials speak to it helps a great deal.

Because it doesn't necessarily end in this incident, it can be taken out into the neighborhood as well.

The thought that occurred to me as a public health educator is that's the end result of public health decisions made that could have perhaps changed the course.

And I've just like to remind us that a recent media release came out regarding a highly visible incident with a psychotic episode due to a marijuana use that occurred when a gal named I'm sorry, Brianna.

She has a very interesting last name, Spectre stabbed a roommate and friend and her dog when she experienced a cannabis-induced psychosis after just taking two hits of off her roommate's bong.

And help us to remind ourselves that when we see the psychotic episodes that were presented to us today in S400, as well as this recent media release regarding a court decision.

Let's take a really good look at what we do when we make decisions about marijuana.

We don't need more of it in our neighborhoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer had concluded there's six speakers in the queue.

No additional speakers will be taken.

Francine Maxwell, if you can please unmute.

So it's very interesting that the IBA shared with some constituents and some of my neighbors that yes, there is a legislative branch, but the operational branch is really controlled by the legislative branch.

And so that's why this land that used to be shovel-ready, it's not shovel-ready anymore, but the person in charge of it, Demetrius, he doesn't have the same love for making sure that people in San Diego are employed.

His developers are from out of town.

His right hand, so the city should be looking at that because it's going to be the council that um gets this reverted, and the state is may force us to sell because it's going to be classified as surplus land.

So again, with all of that being misconstrued, it would be nice to either the IBA or DSD would hold an educational opportunity so the community can be educated on why for 20 plus years something that was shovel ready is now having fires on it and illegal dumping, and it's just very interesting because there's no communication.

And we deserve better.

And so I'm hoping that during the legislative break, the city can take it upon themselves to do some educational opportunities for constituents.

Thank you for allowing me to speak.

Thank you.

Next is Madison, if you can please unmute.

Hello, good afternoon, Council members.

I'm here to encourage the city of San Diego to take seriously the public health and safety impacts of today's high potency marijuana.

Over the past decade, marijuana has become far more potent than in previous generations.

Many people still view it as harmless, but emergency physicians, addiction specialists, and mental health professionals are seeing increasing cases of cannabis dependence, cannabis-induced psychosis, impaired driving, and accidental ingestion by children.

Just this week, a coalition of major transportation and safety organizations led by the American Trucking Associations, warns the federal government that weakening marijuana testing requirements could have serious consequences for truck drivers, airline pilots, transit operators, and other safety-sensitive workers.

They emphasize that there is currently no scientifically validated roadside or workplace test that measures real-time marijuana impairment.

Because of that, drug testing remains one of the few tools available to reduce the risk of impaired individuals, operating vehicles, and equipment that the public depends on.

Here in San Diego, I hope the city carefully considers the public health impacts of future marijuana-related policies.

Normalization causes harm, especially with products that carry real risks for developing brands, mental health, workplace safety, and impaired driving.

Thank you.

Next is Becky Rapp, if you can please unmute.

Good evening.

My name is Becky Rack, and I wanted to bring to your attention some encouraging news from the DEA.

The agency has announced their plan to classify the drug 7-0 as a Schedule 1 controlled substance.

Many people know 70H as a highly intoxicating psychoactive compound found in Kratom, which is being sold in products found in smoke and vape shops.

This federal action is important because the city of San Diego has already prohibited the sale of Kratom products due to the public health risks they present.

Yet residents continue to report seeing Kratom products openly displayed and sold despite the city's ordinance.

The DEA's decision provides another enforcement tool and creates an opportunity for the city to work alongside state and federal agencies to enforce the laws that are already on the books.

I also want to point out another concern.

Many smoke shops and vape stores continue to sell products that don't comply with local or state laws, including intoxicating hemp products that are often advertised or labeled as CBD plus.

Some of these products are marketed as wellness products, even though many contain C THC or other psychoactive ingredients.

This is why education and enforcement are both so important.

I'd like to ask the council and the city attorney's office to use this opportunity to strengthen enforcement San Diego's existing ordinances, increase inspections of smoke and vape shops, educate retailers, and hold repeat violators accountable.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next is 8700.

If you can please unmute.

Condolences to Tim Allen's family and friends on his death.

Like all of us, he was and is on a sacred journey.

Peace be with you, Tim.

Next, Councilmember Von Wilfer.

Thank you for sharing your words.

And then on to the next.

I noticed today that all of the agenda items were missing any reference to committee happening at a committee, and there was no name for presenters and attorney and so forth.

So is that going to be permanent?

Because all of the agenda items were like that, and it didn't feel good.

Next, um, is one minute allowed on going to be a stringent rule now.

And if so, is it based on group presentations?

Because the group presentations are only allowed one minute each.

So one minute feels very uh stringent, and if you could just clarify that, I don't remember reading that on the uh 707 uh presentations.

So lastly, President Rakaba, I want to congratulate you on something and also uh council member Campbell, but it started with you.

You tend to really engage the public when it's appropriate, and I just want you to know how much I appreciate that.

Uh, you corrected me, or not correct it, but clarified me on the FDGNE care program item, and that meant a lot to me.

And I noticed that you do it in various ways with the public.

And so I I mentioned it at Councilmember Dr.

Campbell's community.

I'm sorry, your time has concluded.

Blair Beekman and then Barbara Gordon, your final speaker.

Blair Beekman, please proceed.

Hi, the zoom timer isn't working.

Um, my zoom may cut out.

Sorry if it does.

We simply should be continuing ongoing community dialogue and conversations and how to formally leave the ALPR vendor flock and to look for a better principled uh LPR vendor.

Can we also simply give up the ALPR vendor process altogether at this time?

And for the SD community to work out new data collection arrangements with ubiquitous, the official owners of the most recent large AOPR placement in San Diego neighborhoods.

I've been describing for months now how both the City of Oakland and Kansas County of Alameda are currently developing an 18-month process of full community input to discuss best practices and leaving flock and for a new better principled AOPR vendor.

This is simply a good beginning model San Diego should refer to at this time.

And as we are learning to better question how data companies like Flock seem to be overly developing its data within the context of supporting international policies of continual war, and more openly addressing FLOC over the next few months, San Diego should also be working towards a yearly review process and a small reduction of unnecessary or redundant surveillance technology and AOPR use within local San Diego neighborhoods.

In theory, this will not overly limit or take much away from the use of surveillance technology within current San Diego neighborhood public safety concerns, and yet continue the efforts towards more clear, consistent ideas of better principled tech practices and oversight.

I'm trying to develop this public comment towards consensus building, compromise, and good logic for everyone of San Diego.

A final reminder that is my understanding that former San Diego council person Monica Montgomery Step has always felt that the numbers of new ALPR purchases for San Diego, the recent ALPR purchases for San Diego neighborhoods a few years ago could eventually be reduced.

And to conclude, I beg of yourselves to have more open, accountable, full community conversations about both the current spoken and unspoken procedures and guidelines within the future of AOPR use in real time in San Diego.

Thanks for your time and meeting today, guys.

Talk to you tomorrow.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Barbara Gordon, our final speaker.

Good evening.

As a public health advocate, I'm here today to encourage the city to send a letter of support for Senator Blake Spears, Senate Bill 926, which addresses the growing misuse of nitric oxide while preserving the access for legitimate medical, dental, and culinary uses across California.

The recreational misuse of nitric oxide has become an increasingly public health issue.

The widespread availability of these large capacity canisters and products marketed for inhalation has contributed to the rising rate of misuse, particularly among our adolescents and young adults.

Repeated exposure to this gas can cause serious neurological injury and cognitive impairments.

The bill helps prevent avoidable harms while supporting responsible retail use and protecting the health care providers, food service professionals, and other legitimate uses.

Preventing substance misuse requires a proactive balanced policy that prioritizes health and safety.

This bill will address the emerging public health concerns before its results even greater harm to our community.

I respectfully urge your support for SB 926.

This legislation represents a meaningful opportunity to protect vulnerable populations and the potential misuse.

Again, thank you for your leadership in advancing these policies that improve the health and well-being of all San Diegoans and Californians.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

That does conclude non-agenda public comment for today's meeting.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, City Clerk.

We will now adjourn council to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Tuesday.

Shalom.

But before we're adjourned, does the city attorney have anything to report out from closed session?

Thank you, Council President.

There's nothing to report out from closed session.

All right.

It's important to make that statement, though.

We will now adjourn council to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Tuesday, July 7th, 2026 at 10 a.m.