Community Neighborhood Services Committee Meeting - October 22, 2025
Community Neighborhood Services Committee Meeting - October 22, 2025
The Community Neighborhood Services Committee convened on October 22, 2025, to address public safety concerns and land use disputes regarding Surf Sports Parks (Pioneer Sports) and to approve funding for library infrastructure improvements in City Heights. The meeting featured extensive public testimony overwhelmingly opposing a request to remove deed restrictions on the Polo Fields, citing traffic, environmental, and safety risks, followed by the unanimous approval of a construction appropriation for the City Heights Branch Library Performance Annex.
Consent Calendar
- Approval of committee minutes from September 17, 2025, passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Surf Sports/Polo Fields Land Use:
- Polly Wheatley: Reported that Surf Sports expanded field usage to 52 days in 2024, violating the 25-day lease limit. Expressed that the city is in violation of lease terms.
- David Wakey: Expressed extreme concern for public safety due to single-road access and lack of evacuation plans. Stated that if a disaster occurs with 4,000 cars on the field, residents cannot evacuate, comparing the risk to the Palisades Fire.
- Rafike (Raf): Argued that Pioneer Sports is a for-profit firm seeking to strip deed protections. Stated that zero revenue from parking, travel agencies (Athletes Travel LLC), events (Del Mar Food and Wine), and unpermitted gyms (Performance Lab LLC) goes to the City of San Diego.
- Marty Ehrlich: Opposed removing Exhibit B of the lease, describing the move as a fraudulent land grab. Stated that removing protections invites unregulated commercial development and violates the original trust of the land.
- Ron Hansen: Highlighted legal and environmental risks, including CEQA violations and ongoing lawsuits from neighbors. Stated that neighbors have suffered property value declines and that the city should issue a new RFP rather than renegotiating the lease.
- Tracy Sherman: Contrasted the 2016 promise of no intensification with the reality of mismanagement. Recited a list of violations including failed audits, water quality issues, and blocking public trails. Stated that a "yes" vote does not eliminate lawsuits but rather legitimizes Surf Sports' behavior.
- Chloe Hugh (Student): Questioned who benefits from the removal of restrictions (private investors vs. citizens). Warned that removing protections abandons oversight and could lead to liabilities similar to the 101 Ash Street scandal.
- Abby Margolith: Urged the council not to vote for the plan, stating that allowing it could result in "blood on their hands" due to safety risks and trapped residents during evacuations.
- Tess Wheatley: Grieved the loss of the Polo Fields as a public commons, noting that unrestricted access has been removed and the space is now a private business focused on soccer events rather than community inclusion.
- Sarah Wardrip: Shared a personal account of a serious car accident between an out-of-state Surf parent and her daughter caused by traffic congestion. Stated that safety incidents are becoming commonplace.
- Madison: Addressed a separate issue regarding marijuana retail, citing a study showing a 67% reduction in adolescent psychotic disorders in communities prohibiting storefronts. Urged the committee to consider the impact of proximity to retail on youth mental health.
- Judy Strang: Expressed support for bans on smoking/vaping in parks and suggested looking into state laws for similar protections against nicotine addiction.
- Becky Rapp: Urged the committee to enforce AB8 regarding illegal hemp-derived intoxicating products. Stated that the current temporary ban is not being actively enforced and communities remain exposed.
- Other Speakers: Alan was cut off after reaching the time limit on the Surf Sports topic; Tracy Sherman and Abby were listed as followed by Tess Wheatley and Sarah Wardrip in the queue but spoke sequentially.
Discussion Items
-
Surf Sports/Polo Fields Restrictions:
- Committee members did not explicitly vote on the Surf Sports matter during this session as it appeared to be a public comment period preceding a future Council vote. The discussion focused entirely on whether the City Council should vote to remove Exhibit B and deed restrictions.
- Speaker Positions: Multiple speakers (Wakey, Rafike, Ehrlich, Hansen, Sherman, Hugh, Margolith, Wardrip) expressed full opposition to removing deed restrictions and intensifying use. They characterized the current usage as a violation of the 2016 lease (25-day limit vs. 52-day actual) and the 1983 Deed of Grant.
- Counter-Argument: No speakers in the transcript provided an argument in support of removing the restrictions; however, a speaker named R. Goudinho later presented on Item 2.
-
City Heights Branch Library Performance Annex (Item 2):
- Raul Goudinho & Oscar Gidemeyer: Proposed the approval of an $899,000 appropriation from the citywide library development impact fee (DIF) fund to fund Phase II construction. Explained that the funds cover ADA upgrades, landscaping, solar installation, and project closeout for the black box theater.
- Project Status: The facility has been in minimal improvement since 1998. Total project funding will reach $6.5 million (66% external grants, 34% city funds). Construction is scheduled from January 2026 to March 2026.
- Patrick Stewart (Library Foundation SD): Expressed full support for the appropriation, citing the importance of community and economic development investments.
- Committee Support: The Mayor/Chair and Councilmember Campillo supported the motion, with the Chair noting the efficient project timeline and the importance of the "Friends of the Library" volunteer groups.
- Raul Goudinho & Oscar Gidemeyer: Proposed the approval of an $899,000 appropriation from the citywide library development impact fee (DIF) fund to fund Phase II construction. Explained that the funds cover ADA upgrades, landscaping, solar installation, and project closeout for the black box theater.
Key Outcomes
- Consent Calendar: Approved unanimously (Item 1: September 17 minutes).
- Item 2 (Library Appropriation): Approved unanimously.
- Decision: Authorized the appropriation and expenditure of $899,000 from the Library Development Impact Fee Fund to Swinterton Builders for Phase II of the City Heights Branch Library Performance Annex Improvement Project.
- Project Scope: Funding covers soft costs, equipment, landscaping, ADA site access, and system testing to ensure full compliance with the California Building Code.
- Timeline: Construction anticipated to begin January 2026 and conclude March 2026.
- Adjournment: Meeting adjourned to the next scheduled session on November 19, 2025, at 2:00 PM. No motion was made during this session to approve or reject the Surf Sports lease amendment; public testimony was recorded for the full Council's consideration.
Note on Discrepancy: The transcript indicates a public comment period on Surf Sports where multiple speakers raised safety and legal violations, but no formal vote on the Surf Sports lease amendment occurred during this committee meeting; the discussion served as an informational record for the City Council.
Meeting Transcript
Read that because it will give you background and give you information about what has gone on. When Surf entered into the lease with the city, they said that the grant, they knew that the granteed already had preserved the land for open space and public use. Also, they knew that there was a restriction of only 25 days per year when they could use it for soccer. Um there are other terms in the lease which they've also violated, but I'm not going to get into that. From 2016 through 2024, Surf continues to expand the use of the fields past the 25-day limit. In fact, the calendar for 2024, which was submitted to the city, shows that they are going to be using 52 days of use, not even close to the 25. 52 days. Thank you. Polly Wheatley. And you'll be followed by David Wakey, Raf, Rafek, and Marty. Hi there. I don't have a speech. I'm from Pacific Palisades. My childhood home and my childhood elementary school, everywhere that I grew up is gone. I I am terrified now. I live in Rancho Santa Fe. There is one road in and out. There is no mandated evacuation plan for when Surf Cup has their myriad of events. I don't care if they're on the record or off the record. They that field is full all of the time. It's a state mandated evacuation plan that is needed. I have asked, I've emailed everybody on this board. I've emailed the mayor, I've emailed Joe Locava. Nobody can answer me why there isn't an evacuation plan. We have one road out. If and and furthermore, on the fields, they are all blocked in. So if there are 4,000 cars on the field and there is an emergency, you go look at it. How on earth are you going to get us out? The Palisades people were trying to get out. They had two roads out. So people had to get out of their cars and run. And there's there's no way that we're gonna get all these people out. So I I'm I'm now in front of you. I've given you my letter. You have my letter. You have it in writing. You cannot ignore it. Thank you. Thank you, David. Good afternoon. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak with you this afternoon. Um what we know to be true. Surf sports signed a lease with the city of San Diego in August of 2016, which remains legally valid and enforceable through December 31st, 2044. The current lease is not at risk of being canceled by the courts. The land was deeded to the city in 1983 with a specific purpose to be maintained as a recreational open space for San Diego residents, protected from overuse under the terms of the grant deed. So why are we here? We are here because the high-powered pioneer sports and entertainment attorneys believe they have found a loophole in the deed that runs with the city land. Pioneer Sports believes they have discovered a way to strip the land of the deed restrictions in its entirety, thereby opening the land up for unbridled use and development with no restrictions that protect the land or give rights to the citizens of San Diego. You are being asked to remove these important and promised deed restrictions. Though the courts have not determined if this is even legal.
openpublica.com