Public Safety Committee Meeting - June 28, 2017: SMART Program Expansion, Card Room Appeal, Grand Jury Update
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Public Safety and Local Neighborhoods Committee Meeting - June 28, 2017
The Public Safety and Local Neighborhoods Committee met on June 28, 2017, with a quorum of Chair Kate, Vice Chair Bree, Councilmember Zapf, and Councilmember Ward. The meeting addressed non-agenda public comments, a major proposal to acquire a motel for the SMART program (a diversion program for low-level drug offenders), annual maintenance assessment district reports, an appeal regarding denial of a card room permit, and an update on responses to a grand jury report on police oversight.
Consent Calendar
- The record of action items from June 7, 2017, was approved unanimously.
- Two items on the consent agenda were adopted by unanimous consent.
Public Comments & Testimony
-
Non-Agenda Public Comments:
- Carol Green expressed concern about the proliferation of marijuana signage throughout San Diego, stating that assurances given years ago about regulated, discreet facilities had not been kept.
- Kathleen Lippitz noted that operators and landlords of illegal dispensaries are now allowed to apply for permits, and the city has not addressed a deficiency in the ordinance acknowledged two years prior.
- Judy Strang (resident of District One) stated that the Torrey Pines Planning Group is dealing with a flurry of marijuana storefront applications in Sorrento Valley, and one proposed location is within 1,000 feet of a San Diego Youth Orchestra facility; she argued the definition of "facility" should not require a standalone building.
-
Public Comments on SMART Program (Item 4):
- Opposition speakers (majority):
- Alice De La Torre (retired school administrator, Sunny Cedar community) stated that 30% of children in the Sunny Cedar School District are homeless and that bringing homeless from outside is not in the community's best interest.
- Grace Kojima and others expressed concern that the community is already inundated with homeless and at-risk families, and that the location is inappropriate.
- Bobby Hicks (Nestor Committee member) cited high police calls at the site, concern that only 1 out of 20-25 participants stayed in the program, and that the facility would not be locked.
- Leon Benham (citizen and businessman) argued the placement is disproportionate for the small South Bay population, as participants could come from downtown.
- Shirley Nakawatase (Imperial Beach business owner) cited transitional housing utilization rates (81.7% nationally, lowest since 2007) and opposed the project.
- Cindy Gomper Graves (South County Economic Development Council) said the location is a gateway to South County beaches, will discourage investment, and is inconsistent with the Palm Avenue revitalization plan; she also noted loss of tourist tax revenue.
- Johnny Swanson (40-year Nestor resident) argued you cannot help people who do not want to get clean and called for placing such programs in Point Loma or Rancho Bernardo.
- Several speakers (including Walt Zumstain, Lorraine Delore, Raleigh Sanders, Barbara Elliott Sanders, Sam Mendoza, Maria Mendoza, Estela Corona, Alberto Velasquez, Dan Malcolm, Alicia Jimenez, Gary Brown, Omar Sanchez, Christian Ramirez) raised concerns about safety, proximity to schools and mobile home parks with 527 units, lack of community notification, inadequate staffing (1 caseworker per 25 participants), and the potential for participants to relapse in an area with drug activity.
- Alberto Velasquez (Chair, Otay Mesa Nestor Planning Group) stated that at a June 14 meeting, near universal opposition was expressed; the facility would not be locked; there were concerns about participants from other areas and whether other city properties were considered.
- Dan Malcolm quoted the California Coastal Commission letter stating the conversion is not consistent with the community plan and would require a coastal development permit.
- Support speakers:
- Jonathan Castillo (PATH) endorsed the expansion, noting successful integration of similar facilities with neighborhood advisory committees.
- Michael Ruiz (Supervising Attorney, County Public Defender's Office) argued that current hotels are already drug houses, SMART saves taxpayer money, and it is the smart thing to do.
- Tim Fraser (Family Health Centers of San Diego) reported that the pilot program currently serves 10 clients, one graduated in June, and three more are scheduled to graduate.
- Andre Simpson (Veterans Village of San Diego) supported the program based on expertise and proven track record.
- Thomas Barb (Talmadge Community Council) expressed support, citing the need for temporary housing and support services.
- Vicky Granowitz (Consolidated Plan Advisory Board) acknowledged community fears but said these are not realized because of stringent moderation; she recommended forming an ad hoc committee like the one for the Rescue Mission.
- Steve Dush (City of Imperial Beach) raised land use and economic health concerns, but acknowledged support for addressing homelessness.
- Robert Coleman (Second Challenge) noted he provides housing for SMART and said a well-run program can mitigate issues; he drives past the facility without knowing it is there.
- Opposition speakers (majority):
-
Public Comments on Card Room Appeal (Item 7):
- (See discussion section for detailed positions; all public speakers urged the committee to hear the appeal, citing impact on employees, business, and community.)
Discussion Items
-
Item 4: SMART Program Acquisition of 1788 Palm Avenue
- Presenters: Laura Easton (Chief Deputy City Attorney), Chief Zimmerman (Police), Stephen Medula Williams (Economic Development).
- The SMART (Serial Inebriate, Mentally Altered, Drug-Addicted) program began as a pilot in December 2016 with 10 beds, funded by Prop 47. Due to Prop 47, misdemeanor drug/theft cases nearly tripled. The program offers bridge housing, substance abuse treatment, job training, and housing navigation.
- The city received a $3 million Prop 47 grant (ranked #1 out of 58 statewide) to expand from 10 to 70 beds.
- The proposed site is 1788 Palm Avenue, currently a Super 8 motel with 61 rooms. Purchase price: $6.65 million (appraisal at $5.9M). Total development cost: $11.15 million (including $4.5M in upgrades: security, ADA, curb appeal).
- After rehab, it will have 42 double-occupancy rooms (84 beds). Only 20% of current motel use is tourist; the rest is associated with crime and drug activity (73 police calls from Jan 2015 to June 2017).
- The use is permitted with a Conditional Use Permit; staff believes a Coastal Development Permit is not required because parking intensity does not increase.
- Timeline: Council approval July 17-18, close escrow by October, start construction January 2018, open June 2018.
- Committee discussion: Councilmember Ward praised the pilot's success (26 offers made, currently full, 4 participants graduating) and asked about per-unit cost ($265,000 vs. $335,000 for new affordable housing). He noted that similar fears were raised about the Aspire VA facility, which became a good neighbor. He moved approval with a recommendation for a community advisory board. Vice Chair Bree seconded. Councilmember Zapf expressed support but asked about grant sustainability (3-year renewable) and noted the pilot's success.
- The committee voted unanimously to recommend Council approval.
-
Items 5 & 6: Maintenance Assessment Districts Annual Reports
- Paul Saroyce (Park and Recreation) and Luisa Ojeda (Economic Development) presented the annual reports for 64 MADs. The reports note that assessments may adjust based on inflation, and only special benefits may be assessed. No public comments. The committee voted unanimously to approve both items.
-
Item 7: Appeal Request – Lucky Lady Card Room Permit Denial
- Background: Stanley Penn (dba Lucky Lady Card Room) applied for renewal of his police permit. The San Diego Police Department denied renewal based on: (1) failure to disclose a federal indictment on the application, (2) failure to disclose a services agreement with JB Gaming Solutions, and (3) transfer of control. A hearing officer upheld the denial on March 24, 2017, solely on the failure to disclose the services agreement. The permittee requested the committee hear an appeal. Under Municipal Code, the committee may hear an appeal if five grounds are met; appellant asserted four.
- The city attorney explained the committee's role is limited to deciding whether to hear the appeal, not the merits. Public comment is allowed, but no questions to parties.
- Public speakers in favor of hearing the appeal:
- William R. Winship (attorney) called the denial the "death penalty" for a 43-year-old business with 115 employees.
- James Perinello (attorney) argued the hearing officer based his decision on an issue never raised (failure to obtain a work permit), that it is a citywide issue affecting at-risk workers (minorities, women, over 50), and that the penalty is disproportionate (the city code provides graduated discipline).
- 14 individual speakers (employees, patrons, business owner) spoke tearfully about the impact on their lives, including Stanley Penn (79-year-old owner with stage 4 cancer), who said he missed a sentence on a newly revised form by accident.
- Gretchen von Helms (attorney) argued the police used a "gotcha" technicality; the federal indictment involves betting on sports, not drugs or violence; the state gaming commission renewed the license; and closing the business would cause blight and homelessness.
- Committee discussion: Councilmember Ward noted that the grounds for hearing an appeal are specific; he did not see evidence that appellant was denied a full presentation, that the decision was arbitrary, or that it conflicted with policy. Vice Chair Bree agreed. Councilmember Zapf expressed regret but said she could not support the appeal because the questions of why the indictment was not listed and why a legal advisor was not used. The committee voted unanimously to deny the request for an appeal hearing.
-
Item 3: Update on Response to Grand Jury Report – Citizen Oversight Boards of Police Behavior
- Marshall Anderson (Mayor's Office) and Charmaine Mosley (Executive Director, Citizens Review Board on Police Practices) presented.
- Two recommendations initially left for further analysis:
- Recommendation 16-27 (provide CRB with independent legal counsel): The city is seeking qualified outside counsel via RFP; selection expected July 2017.
- Recommendation 16-28 (provide modest compensation for board members): After analysis, the city decided not to implement this, as no other city board members receive compensation; it would depart from practice and carry significant budget impacts. The CRB discussed it and supports volunteer service.
- Public comment: Robert McNamara agreed with no compensation but said the grand jury intended independent counsel full-time, which may require a charter amendment.
- The item was informational; no vote taken.
Key Outcomes
- Item 4 (SMART Program): Committee voted unanimously to recommend City Council approval of the acquisition and related actions. Motion by Councilmember Ward, second by Vice Chair Bree.
- Items 5 & 6 (Maintenance Assessment Districts): Each passed unanimously. Motion by Vice Chair Bree, second by Councilmember Zapf for item 5; motion by Councilmember Zapf, second by Vice Chair Bree for item 6.
- Item 7 (Lucky Lady Appeal): Committee voted unanimously (3-0) to deny the request for an appeal hearing, meaning the denial of the card room permit stands. Motion by Councilmember Ward, second by Vice Chair Bree. Speakers included over 20 people in support of hearing the appeal.
- Item 3 (Grand Jury Update): Informational; no action taken. The committee acknowledged the update.
Note: The meeting was adjourned; the next meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, July 19, 2017, at 2 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
Ladies and gentlemen, we're gonna begin. This is the June twenty-eighth, twenty seventeen meeting of the public safety and local neighborhoods committee. We have a quorum consisting of myself, Vice Chair Bree, Councilmember Zaff, and Councilmember Ward. Our uh first uh matter is gonna be non-agenda public comments. Each of the uh speakers will have two minutes. We have Carol Green, followed by Kathleen Lippitz, and then Judy Strang. Hi, my name's Carol Green, and I'm here to bring to your attention um something that I think has gone um possibly unnoticed by the um safety committee, and it's the proliferation of um marijuana signage throughout the city of San Diego. Um unfortunately I've been following this um situation for a long time. I started out here just as a PTA president because I was concerned about this going on, and what I found was that um the city council and this committee um many years ago assured me and others that um there wouldn't be any impact on our children because the facilities that were going to go in in the city of San Diego were going to be regulated and they were going to be private and they were not going to be commercial and advertising. And um so I tried to believe and hope for the best. Flags that are temporarily put up and taken down, sign twirlers on the side of the road, and I have many pictures which I'll be happy to send you in an email. You can't see them on my phone, but I I promise you that this has been this has gone way overboard, and the people that assured us all that they would be discreet and um helping medical patients are are advertising and out there where our kids and all of us can see. Thank you very much. Thank you. Kathleen Lippett, followed by Judy Strang. Committee members. As a community member who attends the Mission Valley Planning Group, one of the issues that has come up there is that of operators and landlords of illegal dispensary operations that are now free to apply for and be granted a city permit to operate. Previous attempts to close these unlawful operations are at considerable exp considerable expense to the city. Two years have gone by since this committee acknowledged this rather significant deficiency in the city's ordinance and proposed to address it. However, we have not seen that happen. We look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you. And our last speaker will be Judy Strain. Hello, Judy Strang. I reside in District One. And the planning group that I've been attending, the Tarma Tory Pines Planning Group, who has responsibility over Sorrento Valley, has been dealing with an issue that I wanted to bring to your attention. It's regarding the flurry of applications for marijuana storefronts that are going to be all gathered there in the Sorrento Valley area, and one in particular that's begun the process is right in within a thousand feet of a very well-known San Diego Youth Orchestra facility. That's a place where those of us with children and grandchildren attend both the orchestra, the ensemble, and personal lessons. It's a very, very busy location. Unfortunately, it's not being considered a minor youth's youth facility as it should be and be within a thousand feet of this applicant because the facility is located in a larger building. And because the larger building doesn't have other youth minor oriented facilities within it, uh, it's not qualifying. Our concern is that the definition of facility usually means space or place. It does not refer to a building and to be jeopardized this youth orchestra because it's not in a standalone building, which would be a very expensive proposition for them, really seems unfortunate. So I guess what I'm asking if we can look at that terminology regarding facility, which is what the regulations say, and why does it have to be a building? We think that's a staff determination that ought to be reconsidered. Thank you. Thank you very much. We're now going to move on to any comments by IBA, mayoral staff, city attorney's office. Perfect. Any committee member comments at all? Just some housekeeping. We are going to move item three, which are information item to the very last item of the day. And for our other items, public comment, we're going to limit to one minute per person because of the length of time that we have on here. We're going to lose a quorum. So just make all the adjustments necessary now. If you're speaking on items, we're going to do one minute per public speaker. So our adoption agenda today is the record of action items for June 7th, 2017, which will be adopted by unanimous consents unless pulled otherwise. Not see anything. We have two items on our consent agenda.
openpublica.com