Rules Committee Meeting Summary - January 29, 2025
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
Rules Committee Meeting Summary - January 29, 2025
The Rules Committee of the San Diego City Council met on Wednesday, January 29, 2025, at 9:00 AM (local time) to consider a consent agenda, a committee work plan, an informational presentation on elections code, and two council policy amendments. All five committee members were present. The committee took public testimony on all items and unanimously approved all actions.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1 – Approval of committee minutes from October 30, 2024. Approved unanimously (5-0).
- Item 2 – Amendments to the Rules of Council. Approved unanimously (5-0), with a note from the City Attorney that the draft is subject to legal review and the final version may differ.
Public Comments & Testimony
Non-Agenda Public Comment (before agenda items):
- Caller ending in 7968 (Joy from District 3) expressed confusion about a “Footnote 7” issue from the previous day’s Encanto item, criticized a lack of noticing, and referenced the Brown Act as a potential tool for public lawsuits.
- Blair Beekman commended the council’s commitment to CEQA and affordable housing, and raised concerns about “smart tech placement and removal programs” by police, urging public review processes for exigent circumstances.
- Judy Strang argued that a billboard advertising a cannabis product (“Cake House”) with child‑appealing imagery violates state law (prohibiting marketing attractive to minors) and urged enforcement.
- Lori Saldaña cited two recent fatal hit‑and‑run accidents in Claremont, linking them to increased traffic and ADU development. She noted that many ADUs are used as short‑term rentals rather than permanent housing, and encouraged the council to review ADU and bonus density programs.
- Devin Rapp discussed state cannabis advertising laws (Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act, etc.), supporting stricter regulations on unlicensed operators and alignment of hemp marketing rules, and emphasized protecting youth.
Public Comment on Consent Agenda (Items 1 & 2):
- Caller 7968 thanked the City Attorney for clarity on Item 2 and praised the placement of proclamations early in meetings.
- Lori Saldaña seconded a request for evening committee meetings to increase public participation, and noted that the council has been sued over closed‑session issues related to ceremonial items; she urged compliance with the Brown Act.
- Blair Beekman inquired why the memo on proclamations listed the item as fourth on the agenda instead of first, and thanked for the change.
Public Comment on Item 3 (2025 Work Plan):
- Caller 7968 asked for flexibility in the final work plan, supported KPI and customer service discussions, and suggested reviewing board/commission recruitment.
- Peggy Walker strongly supported early consideration of ballot measures, requesting clearer pro/con language and a review of who writes ballot measure summaries.
- Blair Beekman emphasized the importance of boards and commissions, tech accountability, and community participation processes.
- Lori Saldaña urged the council to consider a “mentoring” or “shadowing” program similar to the mayor’s “Mayor for a Day,” targeting underrepresented groups to foster civic education.
Public Comment on Item 6 (Elections Code Workshop):
- Aaron Sorimoto Grassi (Alliance San Diego) – testified in person. He expressed general support but opposed several proposed charter amendments: 1) Concern about write‑in candidates if primary is canceled; 2) Opposed appointments over special elections (voters should decide); 3) Strongly opposed allowing council to fill vacancies (as it takes power from the district); 4) Concern that with three candidates in a general election, a candidate could win without a majority.
- Lori Saldaña asked about ranked‑choice voting and suggested a “caretaker” role for vacant seats when a member is incapacitated.
- Caller 7968 thanked the clerks for proactive outreach, requested translation into Persian and Somali (as the County does), and asked for clearer ballot measure language.
- Blair Beekman praised the City Clerk’s dedication to community involvement and urged a “shared cooperative process” rather than internal government practices.
Public Comment on Item 4 (CP 000-17 Backup Materials):
- Caller 7968 appreciated the City Attorney’s note on drafts and hopes backup materials remain available online without reduction due to cost.
- Blair Beekman thanked staff for smooth community process.
Public Comment on Item 5 (Repeal of CP 000-19):
- Caller 7968 supported the repeal, agreeing that the policy is outdated and that the municipal code and annual legislative platform work well.
Discussion Items
-
Item 3 – 2025 Rules Committee Work Plan: Abby Reuter (policy advisor to Council President LaCava) presented the proposed work plan, which includes six priorities: council policy review, customer service improvements (311/Get It Done), early consideration of ballot measures, open government (clerk’s presentation), possible charter revisions, and board/commission oversight. Councilmember Lee noted the need for standardized public outreach for construction projects; Council President LaCava clarified that customer service was addressed last year and is being handled via administrative regulations. The work plan was approved unanimously (5-0) after a motion by Vice Chair Lee and second by Councilmember Rivera.
-
Item 6 – Presentation and Discussion of San Diego Elections Code with Possible Charter Amendments: City Clerk Deanna Fuentes, Deputy Director Christina Hernandez, and Elections Analyst Mark Moreno presented a workshop covering proposed updates to the municipal election code. Key proposals included: codifying pre‑election notices with translation; clarifying candidate residency requirements (30 days prior to nomination); extending the filing period by five days if an incumbent does not file; moving form regulations to administrative guidelines; randomizing the order of arguments in ballot measures; and flagging four potential charter amendments (cancel primary if two or fewer candidates, extend 30‑day appointment window, adjust special election timeline when term nearly expired, and update tie‑vote procedures). The committee discussed each proposal. Councilmember Campio asked about setting a fixed residency date; Clerk Fuentes noted legal constraints and said the proposal aims for a single uniform deadline. Councilmember Rivera emphasized flexibility and simplicity; he supported aligning with the county and addressing tie‑votes by lot via alternative methods. Vice Chair Lee raised concerns about charter amendment four (three candidates in general) and suggested a city‑funded recount before lot. Council President LaCava noted the need to separate code changes (returning in March) from charter amendments (more research needed). No vote was taken; the item was for information and direction.
-
Item 4 – Amendments to Council Policy 000-17 (Furnishing Backup Materials for Council Docket): Abby Reuter explained that the policy, last updated in 2016, is being updated to reflect current digital access options, including email, website, printed copies in chambers, and mail/pickup. The fee remains 25 cents per page as set by the user fee schedule. The City Attorney again noted the draft is subject to legal review. Council President LaCava moved to recommend his office work with the City Attorney to draft a resolution for council consideration. Seconded by Vice Chair Lee, passed unanimously (5-0).
-
Item 5 – Repeal of Council Policy 000-19 (Legislative Policy Guidelines 2000-2001): Abby Reuter presented that the policy is outdated (last updated in 2000) and its function is now served by Municipal Code Section 22.1901, which requires an annual legislative platform. The City Attorney noted that the 30‑page policy is still being evaluated for full repeal vs. amendment; the final version may differ. The Mayor’s representative expressed support. Council President LaCava moved to recommend his office work with the City Attorney to draft a repeal resolution. Seconded by Councilmember Rivera, passed unanimously (5-0).
Key Outcomes
- The consent agenda (Items 1 and 2) was approved 5-0.
- The 2025 Rules Committee Work Plan (Item 3) was approved 5-0.
- The committee received the elections code presentation (Item 6) for information and provided direction; the City Clerk will return in March with a clean draft of municipal code changes and further research on charter amendments.
- Proposed amendments to Council Policy 000-17 (Item 4) were recommended 5-0 for a resolution to the full City Council.
- The repeal of Council Policy 000-19 (Item 5) was recommended 5-0 for a resolution to the full City Council.
- The meeting adjourned at approximately 11:10 AM local time. The next regularly scheduled Rules Committee meeting is Wednesday, February 19, 2025, at 9:00 AM.
Meeting Transcript
All right, I'll kind of call the rules committee meeting of Wednesday, January 29th, 2025 to order and call the role. Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee. Here. Councilmember Raul Campio. Here. Councilmember Vivian Moreno. Present. Councilmember Sean Ilo Rivera. And I am present as well. Councilmember Moreno, can you provide your virtual declaration? Thank you. I am disclosing that there are no individuals 18 years of age or older present in the room with me. But I will update this disclosure if it changes during the course of the meeting. Thank you. All right, thank you. Also attending the meeting today is Amy Lee with the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst, Lead Deputy City Attorney Kathy Steinman, Coda Seizer with the Office of Mayor Todd Gloria and Abby Reuter, committee consultant. Sarah, please continue with public comment instructions. Thank you, Chair. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of the committee room and place it on the top of the box indicated at the front of the room. Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management in-person testimony. We'll conclude the first virtual testimony begins. Members of the public who wish to provide virtual testimony must send to the virtual queue by raising their hand before the queue closes. The queue will close when the last virtual speaker finishes speaking or five minutes after in-person testimony ends, whichever occurs first. This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to conduct and manage city business. Members of the public can also join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage. If you need to participate by telephone, you may dial 1669-2545252, entering webinar ID 161-232-7007 pound. This information is also available on the agenda and it will appear on the screen during the public comment period for each agenda item. Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak. If you wish to speak to a particular item, please wait for that item to be called and then raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you are a calling participant by pressing star nine on your cell phone or landline. If you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered. Chair. Thank you, Chair Lakava. 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 are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee. Each speaker will have two minutes. If you need to participate by telephone, you can dial 1669-2545252. Entering webinar ID 161-232-7007 pound. Chair, we have not received any speaker slips here in the committee room, so I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to speak to non-agenda public comment beginning with caller phone number ending in 7968. You can unmute yourself by pressing star six, and you will have two minutes to share your non-agenda public comment. And and yet at the same time, what was involved, let's go back to the beginning. So with the with the footnote seven, uh, there was some sort of a glitch in there. We we don't know factually what happened to hurt the public, and they're knowing what was going on. But anyway, there was a lack of noticing, a lack of communication or something. I'm that's my opinion. So fast forward now to the meeting and the end of the meeting. So you know, we we wanted to do a leap of faith. I think we did a leap of faith. I still don't fully understand it, but at the same time, what I want to say about the rules of law. So um the Brown Act, that's a rule of law, and and I mean I'd be saying these legal terms correct, but it's it supports the public. And and yet at the same time, at the end, it could be something that the public could use to sue us to hurt us on that item last night, the Encanto item.
openpublica.com