That theme one, two, three four.

All right, good morning and welcome to the Rules Committee meeting of February eighteenth, twenty twenty-six.

So let me uh start out by apologizing to those of you in the audience that have been waiting uh waiting patiently.

And a special apology to those that have been part are participating remotely that have been wondering just what the heck's going on.

In simple fashion, um, we had some IT updates in the system yesterday that apparently were not actually double checked to make sure it worked.

Um we all know um I'm sure we've had personal experiences in that regard.

Um and we are unable to solve that problem this morning.

It may be fixed later this morning.

But we've consulted the fact that a lot of good people have worked very hard to be prepared for this committee.

This committee has important business to conduct.

Um, and so we are going to proceed with the meeting with several caveats.

If you are connecting remotely by Zoom, you will not see a presentation, you will not see a video.

Um, but we can hear you, and hopefully you can hear us.

If you call in remotely, we can hear you.

So listen in to the meeting.

For those of us here in chambers, the screens that we usually look at to display the slide deck presentations do not work.

So you will not see the slide deck presentations either on the four screens that we have here in chambers, nor will you see it on the live feed there in the back.

If anybody wants a copy of a slide presentation, please let us know, and we will endeavor to get you a hard copy that you can follow along.

Uh if you have a computer or a phone, of course, you can get into the city's website and look at the slide deck that way.

But we feel confident that both the committee can conduct its business, the public can weigh in, whether it's here in person or remotely, and we can do the business of the committee.

Um again, I want to thank everybody for their patience.

And we will now start.

So, Jo Lakava, Councilmember for District 1, Chair of the Committee.

So, special instructions, so please listen carefully, Sarah about how the public can participate in today's meeting.

Thank you, Chair Lakava.

I'm sorry.

Is that okay?

Okay, checking with the city attorney's office.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you, Chair Lakava.

And while members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person, this meeting is also being televised on City TV 24, and the council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide virtual testimony must enter the virtual queue by raising their hand before the virtual queue closes.

This 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 manage and conduct city business.

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair Lacava.

Thank you, Sarah.

And I may have forgotten to mention, but if you watch uh City TV, whether you do that on your computer or on your TV, you will be able to see the conduct of what is happening in chambers, but you will not see a slide deck appear during the presentation stages of the committee meeting.

So without objection uh from my colleagues, I will call the role for the rules committee meeting of Wednesday, February 18th, 2026 to order.

Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Raul Campillo.

Here.

Councilmember Vivian Moreno.

Present.

And Councilmember Sean Ilo Rivera.

I am present.

Can I uh go ahead and read the disclaimer?

Please.

All right.

I'm notifying the rules committee that I will be attending the meeting today remotely due to just cause related to contagious illness.

Pursuant to the Brown Act, I am disclosing that there are no individuals 18 years of age or older present in the room with me.

I will update this disclosure if it changes during the course of the meeting.

All right.

Thank you, sir.

Uh also attending the meeting today, Gillian Andalina with the office of the independent budget analyst, Hilda Mendoza with the Office of the City Attorney, Matt Yeagan with the Office of Mayor Tagloria, Abby Reuter, the committee consultant.

Sarah, please continue with public comment instructions.

Thank you, Chair.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the box indicated at the table at the front of the room.

Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management.

And in-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins.

And members of the public can also join by watching Channel TV, City TV 24, and or call in to the Zoom webinar by dialing 1 669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 160-439-9420 pound.

Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24, 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.

And again, the PowerPoints are available on the agenda by clicking on the agenda item link.

And 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're a calling participant by pressing star nine on your cell phone or landline.

And if you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered, Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Sarah.

A quorum is now present.

We will take up first non-agenda public comment.

Council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Sarah, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

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, and we will begin with in-person testimony.

Jan Bourjois, if you would please approach the electron, you will have two minutes, and you will be followed by Paul Krueger.

Thank you very much.

So I would like to say please don't count on the public to support ballot that measures that may raise taxes or possibly other grant type things.

Regardless of whether we're you know financially able or not.

So I I guess you can't change that without us trying to do something else.

But uh as I say, I live in the East Village.

Uh we don't like uh $10 parking for anything with the Padres, not just the baseball, but other items.

Uh we really really don't like uh Balbell parking being charged.

Um without looking at the consequences, you're gonna lose all your volunteers and everything else within Belleball Park.

So I'd like to see maybe the various uh departments take a look, try to get 10% off their budgets, and if they can't, let's see really why they cannot.

Um at some point the city, whether it's the pensions or other things, you gotta learn now, tighten the belt, whatever.

But uh unfortunately the public itself is not thrilled, and uh so please don't count on ballot matches in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Paul Krueger.

Um hello, good morning.

Um I just wanted to take my time to express my concern, and I think the concern I I see by what our polling shows us about Balboa Park parking.

Um it's disappointing that this committee uh and the council haven't put forth a resolution to uh reverse the parking charges in a way that we can see a vote uh first of this committee on that issue.

I know it failed in the last meeting, but I think that um the compromise that the mayor made that has apparently stalled any action by this committee and the council to have you all go on the record about uh your position on reversing paid parking is really unfortunate.

And uh you know as well as I do that there are two uh there are two people out there now who are putting forward signature efforts on this and two other parking related issues to put on the ballot in November.

And um I think it's unfortunate, and I believe others do too that uh will have to wait till November to vote on this, and that the 81% of people who who said they oppose parking um won't have a chance to uh see where the council stands on it, and if there is a majority, which I think we can count five votes to reverse the parking charges that were not able to see the council on the record on that.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin a five-minute timer here in chambers for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide virtual comment.

We do not have a slide to present through Zoom showing your two minutes.

So I will also be setting a two-minute timer here in chambers to alert the virtual speakers when their two minute time has lapsed.

We will begin testimony with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes to share your non-agenda public comment.

Uh hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Uh I wish I could have been second to get my uh stopwatch ready to go so I could uh start marking two minutes.

Okay, I'll try.

Hi, everyone.

Uh happy Wednesday.

Uh happy uh public meeting process again, the return.

Um I guess it's important to report uh I'm in Hawaii right now.

Um I was in San Diego for a short time in early February.

One of my public meetings, I was trying to speak on the airplane.

Zoom kind of worked, but I cut out a lot, and I'm sorry about that.

Uh so uh in being here on Maui, you know, once again, listening to whale sounds, diving under the water and just hanging out with the whales and hearing them speak to each other.

Um I've been considering that you're having trouble in understanding the future of uh how tech accountability can be uh manageable and responsible.

We're having trouble uh in wanting to address block and how we can be reducing technology to do the same amounts of public safety help.

And I'm understanding that now.

Uh different causes and different reasons of why that is happening.

I will be patient, but man, I'm I'm making very clear a very logical process that I hope can be considered.

And and maybe by this fall or early next year, we really can be working on it.

I would like to be working on it sooner.

I hope we can.

Um, but just know that I I feel I'm offering a really good logic.

I hope we there's other issues we can be working on with tech accountability, community can be working on.

I hope we're working on uh keep the stuff I'm working on in mind, really keep it in mind.

Um I I'm understanding uh our world issues uh are are trying to work out a dialogue of peace and not war, but we really have to prepare here at the local level that if we practice and offer our best practices, that addresses war.

That limits war.

Seriously and clearly.

So good luck on best practices here at the local level.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That does conclude your two minutes.

Our next speaker is Madison.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, good morning, rules committee.

Thank you.

And good job figuring out the technology so we can participate.

I appreciate it.

I'm here today because what happens at the federal level matters locally, of course, especially for cities like San Diego that are already navigating the impacts of widespread marijuana commercialization.

According to a recent marijuana moment report by Kyle Jager, former White House drug czar William Bennett is using caution on the federal proposal to reschedule marijuana from Schedule 1 to Schedule 3.

He called marijuana a gateway drug and warned it is massively destructive of attention and focus among young people.

He pointed to declining attendance and rising dropout concerns, noting that marijuana use clouds focus and interferes with learning.

Overall, he described it as a net negative for youth.

The rules committee here plays a critical role in shaping policy direction and oversight priorities.

As federal officials debate rescheduling, I urge you to ensure that any local policy discussions center youth protection, public health data, and accountability.

Rescheduling would not federally legalize marijuana, but it would normalize the industry further and also allow expanded tax benefits.

Before we move further down this path, like let's make sure we are not amplifying the harms to our children.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

I cannot display the timer slide.

So if you can please track your two minutes, we will set a two-minute timer here.

Please begin.

Good morning, rules committee.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'd like to thank you for the opportunity to speak this morning, especially with technical difficulties.

Rules matter and are fundamental to the success of our city.

And the enforcement of those rules has to be at this committee's um top priority.

The city, the city will continue to battle budget shortfalls.

And this budget crisis isn't gonna go away.

I urge you to focus first on ensuring that existing laws are followed and that existing revenues are fully collected.

Businesses that operate in our city have a responsibility to comply with state and local laws.

That includes paying the taxes they owe.

Marijuana businesses have struggled with paying their taxes.

And when these businesses ignore the rules, sometimes and often they they face little consequence.

It sends the wrong message and it penalizes every resident in San Diego.

Compliance does not happen automatically.

It requires inspections, audits, meaningful penalties, and a clear expectation that laws will be upheld.

We need to ask ourselves the question: are we fully enforcing the laws we already have in place for the marijuana industry?

And are we collecting every dollar owed under the current ordinance?

I ask this committee to please prioritize accountability and enforcement, starting with the marijuana industry as a step forward to budget stability.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer here in Chambers has concluded.

We have three hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We'll take no other callers beyond these remaining three hands up.

Terry and Skelly, please unmute and provide your comment.

We do not have a slide to present to you, so please keep your two minutes and we will keep two minutes here in chambers.

Please begin.

Good morning, rules committee, Chair Lacaba.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

I attend my planning group where we discuss the value of good rules and policies in our city, especially that they are enforced.

And as a parent of young adult sons and a community volunteer who work in youth programs for decades, I value the rules committee work plan that emphasizes customer service as one of its six goals.

Of personal and civic interest to me are two questions.

First, whether we were receiving law enforcement minor decoy operations for marijuana storefronts and their deliveries.

And second, is the code enforcement checks for the removal of all flavored inhaled marijuana products as required by the State Department of Cannabis Control.

An annual city code enforcement check at a minimum is important because Department of Cannabis Control does no enforcement at any of its permite.

Both would be very welcome to parents, educators, public health advocates, and others who work on behalf of our youth.

It is a beginning in recognizing that there are real costs of marijuana consumption to young adults, families, neighborhoods, and society in general.

Thank you, rules committee, for your consideration of these investigations into the rules and policies associated with the marijuana marketplace.

This is very important work.

Have a good day.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippitt.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you.

Good morning, rules committee.

My name is Kathleen Lippett.

I've worked on behalf of the residents of Pacific Beach for over 20 years.

And I'd like to thank Councilmember Locava for attending their recent town council meeting and for his candor and recognizing that this city council has figured out how to anger residents in every possible manner.

Such candor is appreciated.

But the bigger question is why don't San Diegans see him doing something about it?

We hear many of the nearly exclusive one-party criticisms of the current administration and anyone who doesn't support this political narrative of the Democratic Party.

But the only ones that we see stealing our democ democratic voices, this mayor and city council.

The one city council member who has dared to speak up on behalf of residents with an independent voice is Raul Campel.

The council should be thanking him for his suggested amendments to help move the council out of their echo chamber.

But your one-sided political and ideological narrative that demands consensus over consideration of reasonable amendments is in opposition to a representative form of government.

The city has disenfranchised residents and planning groups at every opportunity.

The city's changing of processes to ministerial projects eliminated the public's ability to have a say.

The raising of the fee for planning groups to appeal a project first to a thousand dollars and now to two thousand dollars ensures further disenfranchisement.

Raul Campillo was on the land use committee.

And however, it does seem like it is punishment that Stephen Whitburn requested he wanted to be on that committee.

He is much more development development friendly than Raoul Campeo.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

The final speaker in our queue is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, rules committee and Chair Lacava.

I appreciate the opportunity to address you this morning, and I appreciate that there's a rules committee to address.

Somewhere here in our city, we have the opportunity to review the policies and rules of our city and express our concerns and our opinions, and I highly value it since I'm at work today.

I'd like to mention to you that there's some optics going on.

Here in the county, 32 percent express a no party preference.

That's not quite as large in the city, it's 25%, particularly among District One and District Five.

Since you're an all-democratic party city council, you sort of represent to us as no party preference people what the party stands for.

So it becomes really important that you look like you care about the opinions of our planning group.

And sometimes we wonder.

But I came this morning because our family large meets on Sunday, and the topic of conversation has been the county, particularly the county leadership and its bad optics that we're seeing there from the present chair of the Board of Supervisors, suggests a non-inclusive civity, and disrespect for the county's unincorporated planning groups.

So I'm asking you, as members of the Democratic Party, to present that situation to your party and point out how many of us here in the city of San Diego, but particularly the county of San Diego, which I realize you're part of, but you're not representing this morning.

How much how many of us with no party preference are watching?

And how bad is the optics coming from the leadership within the county board of supervisors who's doing a grave disservice to your party.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

All right, thank you, Sarah, and thank you for those who participated remotely and their patience in how we're conducting the committee uh meeting this morning.

So with that, we'll move on.

Ums by committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, or independent budget analyst.

Not seeing any.

Do we have any requests for continuance?

Not seeing any.

We will move on to the consent agenda.

Sarah, please introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair.

The consent agenda includes item number one, approval of the committee minutes from January 28th, 2026.

All right, this item will remain on the consent agenda unless the committee member request to pull an item.

This item off any requests, no such request.

Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

I've not received any speaker slips here in chambers, so I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to raise their hand to indicate if they wish to provide comment on the consent agenda, which are the minutes of January 28th, 2026.

Each speaker will have one minute.

We will begin testimony with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Again, uh I to quickly uh comment.

Yeah, I'm also talking about flock issues.

Uh we're gonna have to possibly wait on flock things.

I hope we can do it sooner.

I'm prepared to wait.

And uh good luck we can work on the continue to work on block things as well, as long as uh with uh tech practices uh overall.

Um I wanted to comment um from the previous uh uh committee meeting.

Uh you had a person come in and ask about uh Sunday parking issues, the ways to develop the program.

Um council persons Campillo and Moreno.

I think they tried to take a soft yet creative approach to address uh what was really much work by the person to get uh Sunday parking ideas going, free parking days.

Uh I wish they were a bit more uh constructive and and well structured.

They were a bit casual, and I and I hope in the future they can just be a bit more structured in their own creative ideas uh to grow on initial ideas.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We are one minute has expired here in chambers and chair.

This concludes testimony on the consent agenda item number one.

All right, thank you.

Uh so with that, we'll turn it over to committee members uh in case there's any questions, but otherwise entertain a motion.

Council President Pro Tem Lee to move the motion.

I'll second the motion.

Councilmember Campillo.

And we will and we'll take a verbal um vote on this.

Uh Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tam Lee.

Yes.

Yes.

Uh Councilmember Campillo?

Yes.

Council Member Moreno.

Yes.

And Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

Yes.

All right, thank you.

And I vote yes, and so that passes unanimously.

Just one moment, please.

Yeah, we're still dancing around with the technology.

Okay.

Uh we will now take on up the discussion agenda.

Uh, at the request of Councilmember Campion in his office, we will have a joint presentation for items two and three.

And after hearing the joint presentation, we'll take up public comment for both items.

Of course, we will need separate motions on item two and item three.

So with that, Sarah, please introduce item two and three.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number two, amendments to council policy 000-21.

Item number three, establishing a new council policy regarding property related fees.

And as a reminder, if you're watching on City TV and you'd like to call in, please dial 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160 439 9420 pound.

And as a reminder, you can access the presentation by way of the agenda on the city's webpage, clicking on item number two and or item number three, and selecting the presentation titled Item 2 and 3 presentation to follow along as our presenters give the presentation.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Uh Councilmember Kimbian, and if you want to kick it off, otherwise I'll turn it over to your staff.

Thank you.

I'll happily turn it over to Deputy Director of Policy Carrie Shaw and Miles Noel from my staff.

All right, you've already introduced them, so how much time do you need for the presentation?

Thank you.

I would just need five minutes.

All right, when you're ready.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members.

Uh, thank you for this opportunity to present two important policy items.

I'm Carrie Shaw, Deputy Director of Policy for Councilmember Campillo, and accompanying me today is Miles Noel, community representative for Councilmember Campillo.

Uh, for those following whether it's printed or online versions, I will be sure to say next slide just in case people want to follow along.

Today's proposals aim to strengthen transparency and accessibility in how the city handles fees and ballot measures.

Next slide.

These policies share common goals, increasing accountability when fees are imposed on residents, providing clear consistent guidelines for Prop 218 public hearings, improving transparency and public engagement.

Why is this important?

In San Diego, property related fees, especially those governed by Prop 218 have been a source of frustration for residents.

Many feel the process is confusing and that decisions are made without enough clarity or opportunity for meaningful input.

These policies are designed to address that.

Next slide.

Thank you.

For background, council policy 000-21 establishes procedures for submitting ballot measure proposals to the city council for regularly scheduled elections.

It provides timelines and review steps, including committee hearings and legal review to ensure measures are properly vetted before council action.

Next slide, thank you.

Here's the challenge.

Ballot measures can remove restrictions or enable future fees, even if they do not directly impose a fee.

Voters often lack clear information about financial impact of these measures.

Current educational materials are limited in explaining future implications for the for property related fees.

This gap in information contributes to mistrust.

Residents want to know if I vote yes, what does this mean for my bill?

Right now, that clarity isn't always there.

This is where item two comes in.

Next slide.

Thank you.

To address this, we're proposing to add section six to council policy 000-21.

This section will require a cost of service study or economic impact analysis when council considers placing a measure on the ballot that could enable future fees.

This provides hard data on what it costs to provide a service and what a future fee might look like.

This ensures voters and council members have accurate substantive information before making decisions.

Now I will move on to item three.

Thank you.

Prop 218 sets strict requirements for imposing or increasing property related fees.

The cost of service study, mailed notice to property owners, a public hearing, a protest process.

These steps are designed to protect taxpayers and ensure transparency.

But in practice, notices can be confusing and residents often don't understand their rights.

That's where our second policy comes in.

Next slide.

We're not altering prop, we're not proposing to alter Prop 218.

We are establishing local best practices for clarity and public accountability.

What we're proposing is that the first paragraph must clearly state a fee is being proposed.

Notices must explain protest rights in the majority threshold, and the proposed notice will be reviewed publicly by city council in the city clerk before being mailed.

Why is this important?

When residents receive a notice, they should immediately understand what's being proposed and what their options are.

If we are asking residents to vote on something that could affect their bill or respond to a notice about a proposed fee, they deserve clarity and not confusion.

These policies aim to make clarity the standard.

Next slide, thank you.

And just to uh conclude, the recommended actions are today are to request the council district seven office work with the city attorneys and city clerk's office to draft amendments to council policy 000-21 and draft a new council policy that addresses property related fees and forward both to city council for consideration.

And with that, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for the good work and the presentation.

Uh I believe the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst has a few comments.

Jillian.

Yes, thank you so much.

I'm Gillian Andalina with the Office of the IBA.

I'd like to provide comments on the proposed amendments to Council Policy 000-21 regarding the ballot proposals that create or change fees or rates or could lead to changes in fees or rates and the requirement that the city perform a cost of service study, fiscal analysis, or economic impact analysis before the measure is placed on the ballot.

Our office is happy to provide fiscal analyses, and we also recognize that the intent of the proposed uh section is for more in-depth fiscal and economic impact analysis that is uh typically provided by an outside consultant.

I'll note that our office would continue to lead the preparation of the 500-word fiscal impact statements for voter pamphlets in collaboration with the city auditor and mayor's designee per the municipal code.

Regarding the Prop 218 costs of service studies, um, while the 2022 measure B removed a prohibition on trash fees that are otherwise governed by Proposition 218.

We are currently unaware of any other potential Prop 218 fees that would require a ballot measure to implement without already requiring a cost of service study.

Our understanding is that the intent of this requirement is to apply more broadly than only property-related fees, and would also apply to general and special taxes.

Additionally, the proposal has been adjusted from when it was previously agendized for discussion in November, and now requires an in-depth economic study as opposed to simply requiring council to consider requesting one.

We note that the requirement to conduct these studies for future revenue generating ballot measures creates potential timeline impacts required to one obtain policy direction from the council on an agreed upon proposal to be analyzed, to secure funding in the budget for a study, three to complete a request for proposal process to secure a contract, and four to conduct a desired study.

It could take over a year to go through those steps, which could end up delaying future impacted ballot measures.

Having additional information and economic analysis is always valuable, but we encourage the committee to consider potential trade-offs that could hinder the city's ability to pursue future revenue measures in a timely fashion or to respond more nimbly to future circumstances.

As council members are aware, the city's resources are currently relatively constrained in comparison to its needs.

So you should consider weighing these potential impacts against the potential benefits being discussed.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

I will we always appreciate uh the IBA's input on these conversations.

And with that, Sarah, please proceed with public comment for both items two and three.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for items two and three are now open.

Each speaker will have two minutes per item.

Please indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Paul Kruger, we will begin with your testimony.

You have indicated you wish to speak to both items, so I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you, and I'd like to thank council member Campio for bringing this forward and for his staff and for the IBA's work on this.

I don't really think there's anything more important for this council to do than to approve these proposals.

Um it's obvious that this crisis of confidence that faces our city council is grounded in and worsened by this um really regrettable lack of accurate information on uh the trash fee.

Uh when people found out that the actual fee that they would be paying is twice what was put in the notice, um, I think it had a tremendously negative impact on the city and the council's credibility, and I believe that anything that you can do to provide more accurate information is of crucial importance.

And that goes to the most basic uh issues that we're talking about here.

I remember when the Prop 218 notice was sent that people said looking at the envelope, they weren't even clear it was something they needed to read.

And I remember there was discussion about redesigning the envelope to say this letter contains information about a possible tax increase.

Um while I know that we may never have another Prop 218 ballot measure, or it could be years away, I would urge the council member and the uh the committee to take a quick look at those envelopes and look at a way to um change them to reflect the importance of the of the uh contents because as we saw with Balboa Park, people are really busy.

I I I know that your lives and our lives of those who are lucky enough to uh get involved in politics, um give us time and in some cases it uh payment in your case to understand all these issues.

But most people, as you know, don't have time to pay attention to what is going on in their city government.

And um with Balboa Park parking, you could see that for all the talk there was about fees, it wasn't until the day they started that people realized what was happening because they went to the park and all of a sudden they learned they had to pay for parking.

And um that's why this any effort to include the um most information, the most accurate information ahead of time is crucially important.

Um then I just wanted to end with this parable that somebody told me about.

Um it's somewhat off topic, but um I think it goes to the importance of clearly stating the cost of things, and in doing so, maybe educating your own staff to the danger of um making assumptions about human behavior, and that is uh, you know, you go you send your son around the whole community in your neighborhood with cookies, and he gives everybody a cookie for free.

And everybody says, Wow, that's so nice.

I love this cookie, I'll take this cookie.

He goes to 150 homes and he comes home and says, I'm gonna make 150 dollars tomorrow because I'm gonna go to all those people that that I gave a cookie to, and I'm gonna charge them a dollar, and they're all gonna buy my cookie.

And that is what happened with Balboa Park parking.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Our next speaker is Jeff Hoider.

You have indicated you wish to speak to both items two and three, so I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

And I won't use all that time.

I just wanted to say in favor of this that one of the important things is just to set clear expectations with the voters and with the public when we enact legislation or propositions.

And what that does is if people know what they're signing up for, there's a lot less contention and confusion when it comes time to implement the things that we enact.

So the more clarity we can provide to the public and in terms of what it is they're voting on, um, it's a positive thing, I think, uh, both for local government and for your constituents.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That concludes testimony here in chambers.

So I will begin a five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment to item two and or three.

We will begin with John Stump.

Please unmute and indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Uh thank you very much.

Good morning.

Uh I'll be speaking to both items.

All right, four minutes.

Four minutes, please.

Um, it's um interesting we're having this discussion on the first day of Lent.

Um, Lent is where uh Catholics begin to prepare themselves and give stuff up to prepare themselves for Easter.

Umbe some of that same constraint should be um echoed by the council.

You know, the people had to pass proposition 13 and then later proposition 218 to provide some protection and constraints on the appetite of government.

You know, in the comments made by the independent budget analyst.

Um the independent analyst indicated that uh they were constrained for the city's needs.

You know, the the philosophy isn't only too much is enough.

The philosophy's got to be we've got to live within, we've got to control our spending uh to meet the revenue.

We don't have a budget problem.

Mr.

Stump, I've paused your time.

I see that your microphone is going.

We cannot hear you.

Uh, and wish that the council will give some thought to why uh what the difference is between a tax and a fee.

Generally the difference between a tax and a fee is that tax is not voluntary.

You've got to pay that tax.

A fee is supposed to be something you can opt out in.

And what the problem is with um the fee for trash is but for a special um uh special uh action, it would really be a tax because there's no way to opt out for property owners of city collection.

A true fee would have us have alternatives to be able to select different vendors, but no, we're forced into we're forced into only picking the city of San Diego.

We cannot opt out a trash collection.

So as you're having this discussion, think about the fact that it's really a tax on properties, and it's not just a tax on property owners, it's a pro a tax on every renter, because the property owner passes it on to the renters.

Okay, well, uh I hope you have a good discussion and a good Lent, and I support this action.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Catherine Douglas.

Please unmute and indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Uh both.

All right, four minutes, please begin.

Great.

Um, I'm in total support of uh these two proposals.

Um, and my acronym is ACT, ACT.

Accountability, clarity, and transparency.

Three components that were clearly missing in the trash and Balboa Park debacles, and were perceived as a bait and switch.

Accountability, clarity, and transparency are paramount in anything to be considered.

Act now, please support this proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Blair Beekman.

Hi.

Blair Beekman, uh, both items.

Four minutes, please begin.

Thank you.

Uh hopefully my Zoom will be okay at this time.

Thanks a lot for this item.

Um thanks for the previous public comment.

Um, yeah, on the previous public comment, uh, accountability, clarity, and transparency really important words.

You're really trying to do a nice thing for this item, it sounds like.

And uh for the first uh non-agenda public comment person, um, it can really speak to uh how to address her concerns over future of uh taxes and fees in San Diego.

Uh it's really the way to do it.

I think other ways to be addressing this important issue that we're working on better clarity is um the overall process of of taxation and and fee structuring.

Um we have to pay for our revenues.

And and John Stump mentioned, you know, spending is a really important issue in San Diego.

We just want our services to take place, and that means spending.

And uh logically, that means we have to be taxing people in order to, you know, get revenue, basically, to a certain degree.

But it's from that we also have to be really considering uh we're at a time to start considering more different economic models that are not just, you know, we get a windfall of funding from the state and federal level.

That usually always ends up happening, what happens afterwards is that people get taxed for that in some way.

And we have to find ways to get out of that pattern.

And we're we're I I mean, basically we're money can flow a lot more freely.

And uh, you know, we want to be upright decent human beings in this life.

Um, but we I uh we have to realize that we have the ability to pay for our services and social services should always be available.

And I don't think we have to shoot ourselves in the foot and and put ourselves under austerity measures that harm ourselves in order to continue the concept of social services.

And I think we're trying to understand that concept at this time in history, and we don't know how to better do that.

In instead of we simply have to rely on on taxing people in order to pay for our social services.

So, in the importance of this item and and what the clarity that you're offering everybody, and that we're working towards a community whole with this.

Thank you.

Good luck that we're addressing our future economic models overall in ways that we don't have to tax people in order to pay for our social services.

It's a lot to work on.

Um, we have to be dealing with transportation issues coming up in 2027, uh Sandag and across the state actually.

So good luck that we are really uh addressing new economic models.

It's really important at this time.

Uh thanks for your time and patience and uh good luck in how you talk about this item.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And with the five-minute timer concluding here in chambers and no other hands in the virtual queue, this concludes testimony for items two and three.

All right.

Uh thank you again, Sarah, for pivoting and handling um in our current situation.

And again, thank you to those participating remotely for your patience and uh helping us get through this important conversation.

So with that, um, we will uh as a committee, we will actually take these two items separately.

Um so we'll start with item two.

Uh and I'll turn it over to committee members for questions, comments, and entertain a motion for item two, and we'll start with Councilmember Campia.

Thank you, Council President Lacava, and I will uh I know we're taking up the items separately, but I'm gonna uh address both items before making motions.

Uh and uh let's just start with what we're aiming at here.

At the heart of both of these proposals is a simple idea that if a decision could impact fees that residents pay, they deserve clarity and transparency and facts before they are asked to vote for it and before the final decision is made.

And too often my constituents and residents across the city have told us that they don't understand what a ballot measure means for their pocketbooks, or they receive a prop 218 notice that feels dense and hard to interpret uh or simply appears to not be a big deal when it comes in the mail.

I think the City Council can do better and we can improve our processes.

So that's what we have before us now.

Let's begin with item two, the amendment to Council Policy 000-21.

It ensures that we consider placing a measure on the ballot that could enable future fees only after we've required a cost of service study or economic impact analysis first.

That means that what a voter sees on the ballot about a potential fee, they are going to know the price.

They are going to know exactly what it is that they are voting on with no surprises with the data and the transparency.

For item number three, the second proposal that formalizes best practices for notices under Prop 218 that we send out to residents.

If a fee is being proposed and the city council is going to vote on it, the first paragraph and the front page should clearly state that.

Residents should understand their protest rights, and those notices should be publicly reviewed before they are mailed out.

This is not about limiting what the city council can do or their ability to act.

It's about strengthening the public's confidence in how we act.

Transparent processes don't weaken local government.

They strengthen the public's trust in the decisions we make.

So this is about rebuilding trust, and it's about making sure that when we ask residents to vote or to weigh in on a fee, they have the information they need in plain language, and that's just good governance.

So specifically on item number three for the notice that we send to the public.

Right now, in the proposal, item number three adds the requirement that the first paragraph of the notice must clearly state that a fee is being proposed.

And so this is obviously an important step towards improving the transparency.

At this point, I think it might not fully address all situations and really bring it to the forefront of a resident who opens their mail and sees that they have something from the city in their hand because where the first paragraph might not be immediately visible when the recipient is looking at the notice first.

Sometimes the city sends out a notice that's folded in half with a sticker.

Depends on where that first paragraph technically shows up and what is in a person's hand.

So because that notice is sometimes mailed that way, or there's inserts or there's other permutations, uh I want to make sure that residents uh don't throw the notice away without it being clear on the outside what's truly in front of them.

And we want them to know it's important and that it impacts their lives and that they have a role to play with that notice that's in their hand.

Uh so to provide consistency across all notice types and formats, I would like the CAO, uh excuse me, the um city attorney's office uh to work with our office in exploring options for language and standards that require this information to be very prominently displayed.

Um I'm just wondering as we as as I put those ideas forward um just as an example.

The notice is pup typically publicly read, notice of public hearing.

Uh, could it possibly read notice of public hearing regarding a fee or fee increase, just very, very specifically?

I notice that those are usually bolded all cap letters on the front of the Prop 218 notice.

Can it be adjusted so that it says even more?

Yes, there's no legal prohibition against adding the additional language.

Understood.

Well, thank you for that.

Um, thank you for that uh point.

Um I obviously want to make sure that the notice is completely uh legally compliant with state law as well.

That absolutely has to be followed, so I appreciate that there's no prohibition on that.

Uh finally, I would like to thank former city attorney Jan Goldsmith for his suggestion on the policies.

I appreciate his input, and I was glad to incorporate that input to strengthen the policy.

Uh so with that, uh Council President, I'll begin with item number two.

I'll make the motion uh to support staff's recommendation, which is request that the Council District 7 office work with the City Attorney's Office and the City Clerk to draft amendments to Council Policy 000-21 and forward the city forward it to city council for consideration.

And that will be my first motion.

All right, thank you, sir.

Um so we do have a motion to move the staff recommendation from Council Member Campillo.

We'll go next to Council President Pro TAM Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Um and thank you to Michelle and Mr.

Noel for your presentation.

Um I'll start by just noting.

Uh the process of bringing ballot measures forward to the public is certainly an important part of our democratic process, and as such, it's important to me that we ensure striking a balance between delivering as much transparency as possible while limiting the procedural hurdles that impact residents from weighing in at the ballot box.

Uh so I do appreciate bringing this item forward so that we can have this discussion uh, especially about how the city can be more transparent moving forward.

I uh I I really just had questions, I think maybe maybe more so for the IBA, uh, if anyone.

I I I really just had questions I think maybe maybe more so for the IBA if anyone and so Jolene since you're here um just to get a clarification for our current process which I believe is outlined both by state law and municipal code um for a measure to be placed on the ballot currently a fiscal analysis has to be completed is that correct yes that's correct the um city clerk puts together um some deadlines um for elections and ballot measures and included in that and also reflected in the municipal code is that the IBA work with the city auditor and the mayor's designee to create a fiscal impact statement for the voter pamphlet um and it can't exceed 500 words so it's in the process currently where when you're creating that fiscal impact statement because as you mentioned what wouldn't change is the IBA would continue to prepare that statement for any ballot measures and so the IBA's process to conduct prepare that statement typically is to conduct a fiscal analysis in-house that's correct um not every uh ballot measure kind of warrants its own um full blown report but we have done uh reports on um many measures as it comes through the legislative process and as council considers it um so understanding part of the proposal here is to propose the possibility of cost of service studies and and recognizing in other Prop 218 items that we've had um and I I imagine that may not be the limit of where um extensive economic studies could be done but typically a cost of service study goes through a a pretty lengthy process and so you had mentioned the timeline that would be anticipated um to need it be added to any ballot measures that are proposed um if the IB is not able to conduct that analysis in-house what would be the anticipated cost of going I think as you noted outside sure I guess our understanding is um that the intent of the council policy and and the um kind of more in depth uh economic analysis is for it to be uh conducted by an outside entity um I I think um there's kind of a there's uh some differences that I should probably be clear on um the cost of service study would be a would be uh respective to property related fees and under that circumstance we don't we don't know of any other property related fee that wouldn't already require a cost of service study prior to being placed on the ballot so that's one issue the other issue is for any other revenue generating ballot proposal that could be a a general sales tax increase or a special tax we also understand that this would also require an economic impact report um in terms of the timeline for that again what what I mentioned in my comments is that you know we would have to have a proposal um approved substantially approved by council so that the outside entity could analyze that proposal secure funding in the budget probably in the realm of you know low hundreds of thousands of dollars or under we would have to kind of in that magnitude um complete an RFP in order to secure a contract and then allow time to actually conduct the study thank you for pointing that out I I think one of the um components of this that made me wonder the most in how in terms of how we would operationally um enact it is the language that suggests that anything that could lead to the creation or change in fees or rates which seems extremely broad and I I look at any number of policy expansions which could arguably increase operational costs or affect rate structures indirectly or trigger future fees that that would all somehow be enveloped under that kind of language so maybe just referring to one example since it was on the ballot recently in 2024 the council placed a measure on the ballot to allow for the Office of the city auditor to engage independent legal counsel um and was something that was uh approved by multiple efforts by various councils but because of the timeline each time uh did not make it on the ballot necessarily and so I know that a a simple fiscal analysis for the impact statement was done by the office but what would it look like to have to actually bring on outside an outside consultant to actually analyze that cost for that particular ballot proposal ballot measure um I might defer to the city attorney on whether that would be applicable in this in this case um just because that would be uh a requirement to provide outside counsel which would have a cost but doesn't necessarily increase a fee rate or charge so um my you know my hunch is that it wouldn't be applicable but I would defer to the city attorney good morning I will go ahead and ask uh chief uh deputy city attorney

Um just because that would be uh a requirement to provide outside council, which would have a cost but doesn't necessarily increase a fee rate or charge.

So um my you know my hunch is that it wouldn't be applicable, but I would defer to the city attorney.

Good morning.

I will go ahead and ask uh Chief uh Deputy City Attorney Nicole Dino to please respond.

Um is this regard to the council policy on ballot measures uh 00021?

Um that is something that I think we would have to look into and get back to you on that.

Okay.

I I think that might actually maybe answer to my broader question of how we really would interpret um what what ultimately falls under the category of could lead to the creation or even change in fees or rates.

Um council president, do you do you want to hear comments and questions on item three as well at the same time?

Or since we're taking them separately to do this uh separately.

I'm only the chair, I'm not the boss.

Um I think both of them deserve their own conversation.

They're slightly different.

So then I'll conclude my questions on this item for now.

So thank you.

All right.

Um council member Moreno.

Thank you.

And just to clarify, we are on item number two.

Correct.

Thank you.

Um, first and foremost, thank you for the presentation, and I do want to thank uh council member Campillo for bringing forward this item to the rules committee.

Transparency in government is something I have always strived for.

Um however, today's discussion, in my opinion, is not about transparency.

Um for the record, I voted against paid parking at Balboa Park.

And while I still do not want parking at Balboa Park, we must acknowledge that there was transparency in the process.

Probably not enough meetings, in my opinion, but they definitely um there was transparency.

Um this item on the surface appears reasonable, but in practice it creates additional hurdles and more hurdles are not what our government needs.

Uh what we need is streamlining and efficiency.

Um government already moves slowly in responding to the needs of residents, and this proposal adds another administrative barrier to addressing those needs.

Uh beyond the delay, this policy would impose costs before voters have even determined whether they support the concept.

For example, it could significantly delay the city's ability to place a sales tax measure on the ballot to addressing um to address funding gaps for park and rec libraries and stormwater infrastructure.

These increased costs would go towards consultants and administrative expenses to complete cost of service study rather than towards front-facing city services that directly benefit our residents.

Recently at the audit committee, I asked the city attorney to explain the variables that determine how long a cost of study takes, specifically in that case, comparing the study related to the proposed trash fee with the study conducted uh for golf course leases.

Depending on the level of analysis required, a cost of service study could significantly delay voters from seeing a ballot measure.

This policy also limits the council's ability to govern.

It restricts it restricts our legislative authority, and that is not something that I'm willing to support, particularly within the strong mayor form, strong mayor, strong council form of government, which we operate.

So for these reasons, and with all due respect to the creator of the policy, I will not be supporting the item before us today.

Okay, thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

Um I have a few thoughts, but I'm gonna go back to council member are you back on the lights?

Yes, I am okay.

Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues.

I just want to be very, very clear that as it relates to item number two, uh their word tax does not come up anywhere in the policy.

This is about us putting fees and increasing rates before people, uh, before the voters.

Uh so uh it would respectfully not delay the city council from sales taxes being put on uh the ballot.

Uh and furthermore, I the question for the uh I guess the IBA isn't a cost of service study needed to be done in one way or another before we can increase a properly property related fee.

Yes, that's correct.

Okay.

So uh it it seems to me that the potential increase to the budget or uh whatever that could possibly be uh is going to be spent one way or another.

This policy says let's spend the money before we put anything before the voters, as opposed to after the fact.

Uh the last thing I would uh point out, um there was a comment about uh I think my previous comment uh addressed that already.

Um with that I'll uh I'll conclude my comments and see what my other colleagues have to say.

Thank you.

Councilmember, can I just make one one comment?

Um I think um potentially if the intent is to be a more narrow, we would just suggest potentially working with this city attorney's office, because I had asked for clarification on that um particular point.

So um potentially some clarifying language would be helpful just to clarify that it is narrow.

Narrow as it relates to as it relates to not applying to any revenue generating measure, um, including sales tax.

Um if it is just a property related um fee.

Correct me if I'm wrong, the city attorney could explain this, but uh state law governs what is considered a fee and what is considered a tax uh and what is considered a general tax versus a special tax.

Uh and those are very clearly outlined in the State Constitution.

Uh this proposal is very clear about what we don't have to do cost of service studies before a tax.

Uh so that my my understanding is if this wouldn't apply to taxes, the word tax isn't in the policy, but maybe you could correct me on that.

The um California Constitution does uh set forth uh the difference between a tax and what measures would need to take place in order to qualify as an exemption to that tax, um, which would be considered a fee.

I am not familiar with uh this uh the second item, so I'm not sure what the language says, so I can't speak to that aspect, but I can speak to um because I didn't work on that particular policy, but I can speak to the um differentiation in the California Constitution, and yes, that's correct.

Got it.

Okay.

Thank you very much.

Um right, thank you, Councilmember Campillo.

I'll offer a few thoughts.

Um I think I've established the reputation of really working on council policies over the years.

Um actually even before I got elected.

Uh so I pay particular attention to that.

And there's also the aspect that this uh language in front of us, if you don't, if you put aside uh paragraph Roman numeral six, that actually there are some good updates to the council policy that are probably long overdue.

Uh we don't go back and check our policies as they age over the years.

Uh so I want to thank you for the good work that was done in updating some of the language in the remainder of council policy zero-21.

Um I appreciate the comments both of Councilmember Campillo and his staff and the work that you have done on this as well as uh my colleagues.

Um a couple of things to kind of put it in context in my head, again, because I've spent so much time thinking about council policies and how important the wording is in our council policies, which I think is intention intended to take a council action to provide clarity to fellow council members, the public, as well as the operation side about how we conduct our business.

And so even though I'm just an engineer words, I've learned words are very important.

I'm a little concerned that in this umbrella of transparency that we had to once again rely on the IBA to talk about some of the implications of this that could have easily been covered uh in the staff report, including the section under fiscal considerations, which is listed as not applicable, uh when clearly how you fund a cost of service study could have pretty significant cost.

These are the kinds of things that a more complete staff report would have actually touched on, even though it was only a possibility, or even an economic impact analysis and whatever the cost of that might be.

And I've heard some of my colleagues refer to a cost of service study call costing upwards of half a million, um, and even more expansive one costing a million dollars.

Um I guess a couple of questions in whether District 7 wants to answer this or the count or or the City Attorney's Office.

Um section six, there is nothing that actually prevents council to require a cost of service study, a fiscal analysis, or an economic impact analysis today if a measure is brought forward.

So depending on the measure, there may be already state requirements regarding the fiscal analysis.

But other than that, yes, currently there would not be a requirement for the fiscal analysis.

But there would be nothing to prevent us from Correct.

Okay.

The other thing that I caught again because words are important, and it really was highlighted in some of the comments by the always eloquent Councilmember Campio.

The title of Section Six, the new edition, Section Six, is different than the text of Section Six.

And I find that particularly important.

So that was something that was caught my attention.

I think the text should build on the title going forward.

There's been a lot of good work in section and policies 021 and updating that.

I would hate to lose all that good work and but I don't see a second to the motion.

So under the rules of council, that motion fails.

Excuse me, a different motion.

So we'll go back to Councilmember Campillo.

No, I appreciate uh I appreciate your diligence in reading that uh council president.

Um the point at being of number six, the title versus the language is that the implic you're saying that the implication there is that if the council wanted to reduce a fee, we'd also have to do a cost of service study first.

That well, this is not mandatory.

This is a policy which can be waived.

We should be candid with the public.

Um, but what I didn't know was whether your intent was actually the title, which talks about a change, or your text, which narrows it to creating or increasing fees, and therefore excludes.

And that troubles me in terms of the construct of the policy.

It's not the only issue, but um again, trying to be with my wonkiness that I'm guilty of sometimes.

Um because we may have, and as was advertised, there may be one coming forward for the November election that would propose to eliminate or decrease the fee.

The public should be aware of what the implications are.

I think one of the problems we have since the public got pretty expansive in their comments, is that we often don't talk about the implications of not adopting a fee.

And there are fiscal impacts of not approving a fee, even if the public desperately wants us to do that.

But there are implications and ramifications of that.

So maybe it's a small thing and maybe it's something I'm lost in my wonkiness, but it is something that I think about.

So uh with that, um council member Campio, since you you and your office brought this forward, do you want to put an alternative motion on the on the floor?

No, I I appreciate uh the comments of my colleagues at this time.

Um to be clear, it seems that at the core argument of why uh there isn't support for this at this moment is that it slows us down in governing.

So I would simply ask my colleagues, shouldn't we be extremely thorough to know how the policies are going to impact people given what we've heard over the last two years of our constituents.

I don't think speed is more important than diligence.

So uh at this time I'll respect what my colleagues are uh putting forward and move on to item number three if that's uh the point we're at.

Well, the only thing I would I would mention uh, you know, we're all three of us are now, excuse me, two of us are three of us because Councilmember Eli Rivera are in a fifth year.

The council president Pro Dem is in third year.

Councilmember Moreno, sad to many folks, is unfortunately now in her eighth year in this.

Um I'll just take a little point of personal privilege.

One of the things that I've always talked about to the public, both when I was in the community world and now when I'm in council, is you make a decision when you see something you don't like.

You're at a fork in the road.

You can just say, I don't like this, I'm voting no.

I don't care what you do, I can never get to yes.

Or you say, maybe I can get the yes.

And you sit at the table and try to figure out how to get to yes.

Um I've always encouraged folks to stay at the table and try to get the yes.

So to the intent, I think, of this new paragraph six, that's still on the table.

If you see something coming that you think doesn't have the disclosure that it does, you can still fight for this.

You can still argue for this.

It does change the timeline.

An item brought forward at this point would have to be in place for 2028 ballot to do all the work that the IBA talked about.

But it's still on the table.

The policy doesn't actually add anything new.

It does put it in writing.

There is an importance to that, and I appreciate District 7 bringing that forward uh because words are important and things showing up in our policy, I believe are important.

Um but it's still on the table.

So with that, as suggested by Councilmember Campia, we'll now move on to item three.

Questions, comments, and Chair.

I'm sorry, I was on the lights.

A statement was made by my colleague uh uh Councilmember Campillo, and I want to make sure that um I rectify what was said.

Um it wasn't only because it slows us down that I voted against this.

Um it is also because um it uh limits the council's ability to govern.

Um it restricts our legislative authority, and that is not something um that I want to take away from future council district eight.

I want them to be have the ability uh to put forth um items.

So I just wanted to make that point of clarification.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Council Murmara.

Sorry that I missed you on the lights.

Uh but before we jump into item three, apparently things are working now.

So thank you for all of us uh for all of your patience in navigating that.

I don't know how they did that behind the scenes.

Uh but thank you to the IT team, the good folks at City TV uh and uh the uh committee staff that made that happen.

So okay, sir, uh when you're ready, um we can move to item three.

Very good.

I'll make a motion to uh support staff's recommendation on item three, which is request that the City Council District 7 office work with the city attorney's office to draft a new council policy as it addresses properly related fees to forward to the city council for consideration uh to in layman's terms to make sure that the uh visibility and language on the Prop 218 notice is more clear.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, sir.

Uh you were quite eloquent in your earlier comments.

Um so we will now go to colleagues.

We do have, excuse me, a motion by Councilmember Campan to move the staff recommendation.

Council President Pro Dem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh again, with this item, I I also appreciate the desire for greater transparency.

Um I I think when I look at the details of how the council policy is written out, what I'm really questioning is what's the intent of of how it's going to act and how it exceeds what we're what we're already complying complying with when it comes to the state constitution, our own um existing policies, uh, and that in the municipal code.

Um I am actually looking at our last Prop 218 uh process, which was for water rates, and in the um July meeting of uh last year when we heard as a council the item to set the hearing for that hearing uh for that rate increase that the draft notice was included as a part of that process.

So I I guess just to ask the District 17 is is part of this council policy's intent to have a separate approval of the notice itself, in addition to the hearing being set.

To my understanding that's not the intent of the policy.

The intent of the policy is that we are obviously gonna follow Prop 218 requirements.

It's to make sure that we have some sort of formal uh guidance as to how we should be conducting these public notices and how they should be written now.

So there are things that we do currently at in St.

It's because of this council.

But it's not required and it's not written down anywhere.

They are best practices, yes, but is not required.

We just wanted to have there be an actual formal uh guideline.

So I I saw that in the in the presentation, so I think that's why I'm trying to understand part of part of what was on I don't have the slide numbers here, but one of the slides noted that current practice there is no formal requirement for council review of a notice design for before mailing, and the new council policy would formalize practice for the council to review that proposed notice before mailing, um, which I think is uh that's why I'm trying to get clarity because one suggests that right now there is not a process by which we approve notices.

Um but the new policy, if I'm reading correctly, does not also require us to approve notices.

It only suggests that I'm just gonna quote from the policy itself to allow for transparency and review before mailing the proposed public notice will be provided to the council and city clerk with the agenda materials, which if I look back at our last Prop 218 hearing was done and appears to be part of our typical process, which is that we have that notice.

So again, is is there an intent here to require that the council actually approve the design, or is it just to review it, which I believe we already have the opportunity to do?

That's a very good point, uh, Council President Pro Tem.

I think as we would as the motion stands for us to adjust the policy to make it clear to the point you're making, that we would formalize that, make it so that the city council puts eyes on the notice, make sure that it is exactly what nine council members understand to be sending out to the public uh very explicitly.

Um I it's my understanding that when we look at the notice, uh I know that I've given feedback to city staff when I read a notice that's going out of public hearing to say this doesn't look clear, this doesn't look clear, but it's not necessarily the city council putting our stamp on it to say yes, this is this is exactly what we like, or or us adjusting it here as we review it as a body.

Uh but I guess I take your point, and that would be something I would want to clarify as we move this from rules to full counsel.

Uh well, Council Murray, I appreciate you uh explaining that.

I guess that's why I was sort of um that's why I was wondering because I I can tell you that in my run-up to putting uh an item on uh uh or scheduling a hearing, for example, if I'm gonna be voting on that, and the notice is part of the materials for that item, uh, and I would like to believe that all of us on this diet do so.

I review I every item that's included, including the notice as well.

And so again, that seems to be a part of our process.

Uh and somehow it I've gotten the impression here that it implies that we are not doing that as part of our Prop 218 process, and and that's why I wanted to go back and clarify that that is actually the case.

Um the other let's see.

Um the other note I have here is just that when I actually look at the notice that was provided, since that is seems to be an integral part of this, um, on the face of the notice as currently exists.

I I I know this says here that the new council policy would require that the first paragraph of the notice clearly state that a fee is being proposed.

Um maybe we can tweak language, I guess, to better clarify.

Um, but when I look at the notices as we released again for water rates um last fall, on that opening, before you even open up the package, it is a notice of the public hearing.

And in that very first per paragraph, notes that um if approved the that these are water rate changes that are being proposed.

And so the existing documents, I guess as we I looking at them seem to already meet the intent.

And so again, I'm just trying to understand how this differs and whether the council's creating a policy that would potentially just be us arguing over the semantics of the language that's in a notice going to the public.

I do understand what the public has indicated as part of their concern, which was that when a notice like this goes out, it was pretty lengthy, especially because I believe the city was trying to explain all of the context and background and all the rates uh that are related to that Prop 218 item.

But again, when I look at the notice itself on the very front page was both information about this being an increase, uh an adjustment to the rates, and two, in bold, the specific language stating that residents had the opportunity to submit a protest.

Um anyway, that I just want to again to get that clarification.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Temily.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Um once again, thank you to Council Member Campillo uh for bringing this forward.

I just want to um ask the city attorney um a question on the record.

Under current law, are we fully complying with Prop 218 noticing requirements when we impose or increase property related fees?

Yes, Councilmember Moreno, we are compliant with Proposition 218 noticing requirements.

Thank you for that response.

Now, based on the response the city is meeting, those legal obligations, and I'm not convinced that creating a new council policy is necessary when we're already complying with state constitutional requirements.

And for those reasons and respect to the author, I will not be supporting this item before us today.

And that concludes my comments.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

Um I will jump in as well.

One of the reasons that I wanted us to discuss the two separately.

This one is a brand new policy.

Um with carefully, I have no doubt carefully crafted language.

I think I will go just a half a step further than Councilmember Moreno comment.

I believe we actually exceed the requirements under Proposition 218 going forward.

And I only mentioned that because I want to acknowledge I don't want the public to think uh that we're doing this policy because we're not complying with Prop 218 and that we don't have very hard working staff uh and city attorney's office that make sure that we do.

Can we do better?

Absolutely.

To the public's comment about the confusion about getting something in the mail, yeah, it's a very real problem.

I don't know how many times I've gotten a service level um agreement language that says I can buy insurance for my sewer lateral, and I'm sure 99% of those that get mailed out get thrown in the trash without ever being read.

It's a problem.

We do with social media, we get criticized because not everybody has access or an email.

Um it is a very difficult thing.

And I appreciate some of the work that city planning is doing to try to create new methods of communicating.

Um I also appreciate the community-based organizations that have stepped up uh to try to reach out to a larger audience that normally ignore these kinds of things.

Um with that, um the primary department that puts out the 218 um as of recent is PUD public utilities.

So I was kind of curious in entertaining this conversation, which has certainly some merit, what conversations were had uh had with PUD because I don't believe the current language was ever voted on by council.

It's more of a practice vetted by the city attorney's office.

So what's PUD's input on this council president?

I'm not sure if I'm not sure if we have anyone from the public utilities department on the line currently.

I don't think so.

I was curious if District 7 had reached out to them.

Um I guess I have my my answer.

Um I guess um I appreciate um the council member having reached out in the past and and catching those things that often we don't do that.

Um I don't think there's any rather than the council policy of sitting down, rolling up our sleeves and sitting down with PUD and the city attorney's office and saying we're doing good, maybe we're doing better than what the state requires, but we can always do better.

Um and I would agree that um with uh the council member that the way we fashion the 218 meets the requirements or maybe even slightly exceeds the requirements, but we can do better.

Um and so while I don't necessarily think a policy is the way to do that, I think actually sitting down with the department and getting the work done is a better way to do that.

And I would be happy to join in that conversation as I've done on other things that are merely practice and not policy or law uh to do that.

And I think there would be an open invitation to sit down and have that conversation with uh PUD and I guess now waste management might fall into that category as well.

There may be another one that I'm not thinking of.

So I'll close there and we'll go back to Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

I appreciate the comments of my colleagues.

Uh whether it's the IBA, the city attorney's office, mayoral staff.

Have the residents of the city of San Diego ever submitted enough protests to reject a fee increase.

I I'm not aware that I would have to check and get back to you on that.

All right.

The answer is absolutely not.

Clearly, our notice system is not doing well because I don't think if if it was as conspicuous and as easy as the public would expect, that they would approve of some of the things that we've done.

I understand that the way the process works right now, it follows state law, and I appreciate Councilman President uh commenting on the fact that what we're trying to do here is to go above and beyond the limited requirements.

With that, I will conclude my comments.

Okay.

I will add, I think your point is an important one that there's never been under the 218 process, which is 30 years old, something, that there's never been that.

But to the point that the public made over and over again, we do hear from the public.

We don't need to see the the ballots are the formal process in a more cumbersome way for the public to reject.

But this council, and I think prior councils have changed or rejected the recent water rate was a very painful conversation.

Um we changed it from a four-year to a two-year, which is going to force us to go through this process all over again.

So the council still retains that power as the representatives of the public in the way they communicate to us to reject lower.

Um in fact, the um waste management was actually negotiated down by the council.

Not everybody agreed with that, but it was negotiated way down from where staff originally came to us on.

So we still retain a lot of power from what operations may put in front of us to how we act as the representatives of the public.

So there's multiple ways that we can really achieve, I think what this goal is.

Um I'll leave it at that.

So with no second to the motion, uh the motion fails.

Um I'm seeing the councilmember campio is not putting an alternative motion on that.

So with that, we will move on to item four, which is an information only item.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number four is the informational item and request for input regarding amendments to the rules of council pursuant to State Senate Bill 707.

If you're watching on City TV or the live stream online and you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252.

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right.

With that, um, before I introduce my um senior policy advisor, um I'm gonna make some opening comments and put a little context on this.

Uh when some people ask, gee, what does a council president do?

Uh, one of the things that we do along with our amazing city clerk is to monitor what happens in Sacramento and to see if there is anything in the business of council that is being changed by new legis state legislation.

Um the item we're talking about today is exactly one of those examples.

Um 707 made some important changes to the Brown Act.

Um I want to thank the city clerk who jumped on those elements that had to be in compliance by January 1st and did that in a timely way.

The items we're talking about today uh have a compliance date of July 1st.

And so um as has been advertised and and my staff will repeat, the goal was to have an information item today, bring um based on the input of the public, uh the council members to bring an action item at our March Rules Committee, and then get it scheduled for city council.

Uh as I think most of you know that it uh when we amend the municipal code, there's always a second reading, so we had to dovetail to make sure we got it done, and also being somewhat cognizant of the budget meetings, which take up a lot of time and energy uh by everybody uh to make sure we try to get this done before that happens.

Um the um I also want to mention before uh my team jumps in that as I kind of mentioned in the other one, um, I want to thank the office of the city clerk and specifically our city clerk Fuentes for really managing how we came out of the COVID era and how we brought in remote public participation that required some gymnastics.

I think I'm gonna put it on the table that I think we do better than any other jurisdiction in the state because we're so cognizant of how the public participates remotely.

Um Sacramento had some different ideas and changed the level pleading field.

So while we did a great great effort, they've changed the rules.

And while we manage in-person public comment in one way and remote, we don't get to do that anymore.

State law now says you have to treat remote participation and in-person exactly the same.

So that's some of the language and what we're my staff is gonna bring forward uh is talk about how we want to balance, and we have some options about how we do that balancing.

So that's uh where we're really looking for input.

Uh, and this is a joint effort between the office of the council president and the office of the city clerk.

So, with that, if I hopefully not stole your thunder, um, I will turn it over to my staff.

Um, please introduce yourselves real record and let us know how much time you need.

Good morning, Council President Lakava and members of the rules committee.

My name is Abby Reuter.

I am rules committee consultant and senior policy advisor to Council President Lakava.

I will need no more than eight minutes for this item.

This item is an informational item to make both the public and city council aware of changes to the Ralph M.

Brown Act, which governs local legislative bodies such as the City Council and dictates the right of the public to attend and participate in those meetings.

The changes proposed today are due to language shifts from State Bill 707, which was signed into law in 2025 and which has several provisions effective July 1st, 2026, as covered by the council president.

With the short time frame for implementation prior to July 1st, the Office of the City Clerk has reviewed potential options and identified significant technological or budgetary barriers, particularly with equalizing virtual and in-person public comment.

The Office of the Council President is preparing these updates to the rules of council in coordination with the city clerk, council administration, and the city attorney's office.

And the item today will cover three key areas of change and seek feedback from both the public and committee members.

SB 707's modifications have three key areas of impact to our current processes agenda translation, a policy on disruption to public access, and the equal treatment of in-person and virtual public commenters, which we'll focus on for the bulk of the presentation today.

The first area of change is modifications to the requirements for agenda translation.

The clerk currently translates the summary agenda into eight languages Arabic, Chinese, Spanish to Galag, Japanese, Korean, Laotian, and Vietnamese.

The translation to these eight languages for the summary agenda will remain.

However, the changes to the Brown Act would require additional translation of agenda material into Spanish.

To incorporate the impacts to the clerk's workload, City Council agendas will be updated to a new form while maintaining Brown Act compliance.

The second area of change is for the council to adopt on the discussion agenda of a public meeting a policy regarding disruption to telephone or internet service during council meetings.

Today's technological difficulties will inform the policy moving forward.

The rules of council are intended to be amended to require a recess for an hour or until public access is restored, whichever is faster.

And pursuant to the language in SB 707, the rule would also provide options for counsel if access is not restored after an hour.

The final change is to ensure virtual and in-person public commenters are provided the same time allotment.

Currently, there are some relevant differences in virtual and in-person public comments.

Virtual speakers do not fill out a slip.

They raise their hand in the Zoom meeting to indicate their desire to speak to an item, and they are unable to see time to each other.

They may raise their hand at any point during the item and have a five-minute timer from the start of virtual public comment to join the queue.

The differences between these two processes create inequality in time allotment.

Virtual speakers do not have the ability to get additional time via seated time compared to in-person speakers.

And conversely, the five-minute timer also creates a gap in treatment.

To maintain Brown Act compliance as modified by SB 707, there are a couple options.

The presentation today will focus on one proposal for how to formalize group presentations to ensure there are ways to participate using our current resources.

Another option is to introduce a temporary rule of counsel to suspend seating time until the city has the opportunity to further review the budgetary implications and assess available technology.

Given the amount of time to complete an RFP, as well as the city's current fiscal situation, it would not be possible to secure a technological solution prior to July 1st.

And finally, another option could be to simply end the practice of seating time.

To go into further detail on option one, the proposal for group presentations would involve modifying the flow of both council and committee meetings.

After the item presentation and any comments by the independent budget analyst or city attorney, the clerk or committee liaison would call all of the in-person group presentations if there were any in the virtual group presentations if there were any prior to proceeding with individual public comment.

While not required under the Brown Act, having different processes for both council and committee meetings would likely be confusing, which is why these updates would apply to both meeting types.

To sign up for a presentation, the group would need to fill out a form provided by the city clerk at least 48 hours prior to the start of a regularly scheduled meeting.

Presentation materials would need to be submitted to the city clerk or committee liaison at least two hours prior to the start of the meeting.

The group would need to be either all in person or all virtual to facilitate the flow of the meeting and avoid bouncing back and forth.

Anyone who missed the deadline for signing up for a group presentation would still be able to provide individual public comment.

If any members of the group are absent at the time of the presentation, the group's time would be reduced proportionally.

And recognizing the administrative burden of this process, only groups of five to ten people are proposed to be eligible.

Additionally, the proposal would modify the five-minute timer for virtual public commenters.

To ensure this same time allotment to speak, to sign up to speak, the virtual speaking queue would close at the conclusion of in-person public comment.

This means that when the last person in person finishes speaking, hands may no longer be raised in the virtual queue.

The city clerk or committee liaison would have additional prompts in the script to avoid informed the public throughout the meeting.

This informational item today is the first step with the committee hearing and action item at the March 18th rules committee meeting.

It is anticipated that council will consider the first reading in April in order to meet the timeline for implementation on July 1st.

However, the proposed changes would not affect public comment until July 1st.

Thank you.

And this concludes my presentation.

I'm available for any questions.

All right, thank you, Abby, for your good work on that.

Um, one additional thing I want to mention before I turn it over to public comment.

Uh we know that folks are not sitting around looking for SP.

Oh, actually, I'll go to the city clerk first.

I know you had some comments.

My apologies.

No, sorry.

Um, I just wanted to make some quick comments and thank you, Council President Lakava for the time.

I just wanted to briefly note that in addition to the proposed policy revisions being discussed today, and the agenda translation requirements for SB 707 that introduces several operational obligations that will affect my office in terms of staff time, workload, and resource allocation.

There are additional impacts as well, such as the restructuring of the workflow process for city council agendas and minutes, enhanced process and coordination for ADA and reasonable accommodation requests, enhanced process and coordination for interpretation services provided by the public, establishing and maintaining a physical location for public agenda translation submittals that would be outside of this building, city website updates and maintenance to ensure SB 707 compliant access to agendas and participation information, enhanced public outreach efforts to groups that do not traditionally participate in public meetings, as well as establishing a process and workflow for whichever option the council chooses to ensure same-time allotment between the person and virtual participants.

With these um, while these represent operational adjustments, they are ultimately grounded in the core intent of SB 707 to expand public access, strengthening transparency, and enhancing participation in city council meetings.

I am very much dedicated to ensure that I am able to collaborate with the city council, the public, and all stakeholders to establish implement and maintain compliance for the betterment of their meetings.

So thank you very much for that.

Thank you, City Clerk.

Um, and appreciate your partnership in trying to navigate SB 707.

Uh the one item that I want to uh talk about kind of relates to the public comment we heard last time.

We know that people are not sitting around watching what happens in Sacramento, what laws are being passed and how it might affect what we do here in City Council.

Uh so we did reach out to I reached out to the community planners committee, let them know about this hearing.

Uh we did reach out to a number of community-based organizations.

Um, and then on Sunday I found out there's actually a coalition of all these neighborhood groups uh that were together, and I notified them a little bit late notice on a Sunday of a long holiday weekend.

But nevertheless, we wanted to make sure that folks were aware again.

This is only an information item.

I'll withhold my comments until I hear from my colleagues.

But first, let's go to public comment.

Sarah.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received seven speaker slips here in chambers.

So we will begin with Jeffrey Hoyder.

You have been seated time by Yvonne if Yvonne can please raise your hand.

Thank you, and Laura.

Thank you.

Each speaker will have two minutes, so that will give you six minutes on the clock.

And you have provided a presentation, will we which we will pull up and you can let us know when to advance the slides.

Please begin.

I have a PowerPoint.

Um, first of all, I wish the state would be more mindful of how hard it is for the cities to implement these things.

Passing something that goes into effect the in November that goes effect into a July is just unrealistic for what cities have to do because we have a we actually are subject to the Brown Act and have a much more robust democratic process than the than the state has to do to this.

Um I'm just gonna focus my comments on the public comment rules.

Uh the first two parts I think are technocratic, and I think you've done a good job.

We actually got to practice what disruption of a uh technology would look like today.

So I hopefully that helps us with that.

If you go to the next slide, and basically, I think it was laid out in the presentation.

Um state law says it would we you have to be treated as if we're all in one big room, is really I think the way to look at that.

So if we go to the next slide, um the things that would be the same, individual participation would look the same.

Um if you're just gonna speak for yourself, um, you submit a slip, you raise your hand, you submit a written public comment.

Um, all that would uh basically be the same.

Um the other thing though is today uh a virtual speaker actually could submit a presentation to make um through the process.

That rarely happens just because of if you only get one minute, it's kind of hard to go through a PowerPoint like this.

But um, and that's something that would presumably get fixed if we go forward with this process.

Um the next slide.

Um the things that we're fine with that we think you know, the ending of the virtual queue at the end of a public testimony, that seems perfectly reasonable and something I would have proposed.

Um present submitting presentations two hours before.

Well, actually, we try and always give it to the clerk's office 24 hours in advance, and and I just like to take the opportunity that, and we saw it today even under these technical changes.

The the city's clerk office really makes this work for us as the public.

They've been very uh helpful to us, both in terms of coordinating our presentations, getting the speaker slips committed, and so um none of this would really work without them, and uh, they're kind of the young sung heroes in this.

And um, but what we would like to do is um, and and I think there was a proposal that um group presentations would go first when you do that.

I I think that would be certainly welcome to us who make those.

Um, and then the final thing was, and it wasn't sure um in the staff report it said that it's either all virtual queuing for a presentation or all in-person queueing for a presentation.

I don't think we have to have that um restriction, and we'll talk about that in a second.

Um of the things if you go to the next slide that we would like to be um somewhat different is um today we don't have a minimum number.

There's a lot of people that because you only get to speak for a minute and a minute is not very much time to speak.

A lot of people will bring one more person so that they at least get their two-minute presentation.

Um we think if we can find a way to make that work, technically, we'd like to preserve that.

Um on the upside today, we have a 15-minute restriction on presentations.

Whether I get you know 14 people to see time to me or 50 people to see time to me, um, we think that the maximum time limit should sort of function that way.

And basically it should be important that people can oversubscribe because sometimes people have to leave either virtually or in person.

So being able to sort of head bank a couple extra speakers in that case would be important to us.

Um the other thing is they the staff report said registering to do a presentation 48 hours in advance.

Um we would like to see is okay, we can have an agenda come out on a Friday for a Monday or Tuesday meeting, and now we have to coordinate a presentation on a Saturday, and it could be a Saturday on a holiday weekend or something like that.

So one of the things that we always thought would be a great change in policy, and and we it's generally okay, but as consistent policy is to have the agenda come out three business days before the meeting as opposed to just a 72-hour period over a weekend would be a big improvement for us.

Rather than go through, go through the next slide, but rather than go through sort of our guessing of how the city clerk's office work.

Let me just describe how neighbors participate in these.

So we actually, when we get people to see time to us, we actually send out an email to our supporters, and we actually have an online sign-up form that we use to collect those people, and whether that's something that could be translated into the clerk's office, um, and then they'd have it right away, or alternatively, even if we still did that practice and created a form and sent it to the clerk's office so that they'd have it in front of them that would function equivalently to the speaker slips.

You know, I think we're flexible on that, and we'd be happy to have a conversation about that because this is an important thing to us.

Um we hope that you don't pick the option to just get rid of uh being able to do presentations at time seeding.

If you do decide to go that route, please um take the option of uh maintaining the current process in committee, where and in some sense this would have a bigger effect anyway.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christine Martinez.

You will be followed by Paul Kruger and Victoria Labuzer.

I will place two minutes on the clock.

Hi, I'm Christine Martinez from Arts and Culture San Diego.

Um I'm grateful to be part of this process when I saw you all were talking about how this works.

Many of you have seen me in a lot of these meetings.

So I am familiar with the process and understand that there is the goal of having equity for everyone, including those folks who can't make it down to city council.

Um I would say that I would appreciate if you kept seeding time as an option because a lot of our folks may not necessarily feel comfortable in getting up in front, but they want to have their uh values heard.

They want to talk about the impact of budget decisions, impact of decisions made here at the rules committee.

They want all of those things heard, um, but would appreciate to be like a little behind the scenes on that.

I would also say group presentations could work, and I think it would be great, but limiting them to five to ten folks might be difficult as well, because as the previous gentleman mentioned, sometimes we just have one or two people who want to come along, and that could make things go quickly.

What we try to do with Arts and Culture San Diego, you know we're strong advocates, and we come out often.

We try not to crowd the room and have it be a filibuster of sorts.

So if we can make it efficient for you all and our folks, um, it would make the process all that much easier.

So thanks again for letting us be a part of this.

Thank you for your testimony.

Paul Kruger sorry for the delay.

Um whatever you do, please don't do away with time seeding.

Um the two most important examples of um the the power, the positive power for democracy of time seeding are the uh the bonus ADU program, where time seeding allowed the people who live in these areas that have been decimated by these um eight, twelve, seventeen unit ADUs on single properties to explain to the council the impact uh of this policy and for the council to hear uh what has happened and it changed it changed votes.

I mean for council member Elo Rivera to call one of the the worst defender of this ADU policy, a predator, was something we would not have heard unless those people from Linda Vista were able to tell you in no uncertain terms what's been done.

Um I like number two to stress this is not just time seating doesn't just benefit uh the groups that I and others are members of.

The the uh circulate, the BIA, uh RIDE San Diego, they all use time seating to argue their point of view.

So it's not a one-sided issue.

Number number three.

Unfortunately, we see staff reports that mirror exactly what the mayor's political agenda is.

That's fine.

He controls the process, but it is crucially important for you to hear fact-based uh rebuttals to uh presentations that are uh essentially biased.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And the final speaker here in chambers is Victoria Labuzo.

You have been seated time by felicity, so I will place four minutes on the clock.

Thank you very much.

I appreciate uh you all here today.

Good afternoon.

Uh it's not afternoon yet.

Good morning, uh, Council President Lacava and committee members.

Um I'm Victoria Labruzzo, Chair of the CPC or Community Planners Committee.

Um the Brown Act has always been grounded in a simple but powerful legislative intent, that public decision-making bodies such as you provide meaningful access to public, and that deliberations be conducted openly.

Over the decades, the legislature has reaffirmed this intent many times.

In fact, during the SB 707 legislature, they've re the uh the deliberations, um, sorry.

Uh they okay.

In fact, during the the hearings, the legislature stated SB 707 presents an opportunity to strengthen our governments and empower community members to be engaged.

Ultimately, we aim to create robust public meetings and increase participation across the state.

SB 707 modernizes the Brown Act by adding rules for virtual participation.

CPC has not taken a position on those amendments, so I cannot speak directly to those amendments.

But what I can say is that CPC's seat at the table proposal, which was sent to everyone, does not involve virtual participation.

Instead, it speaks directly to the legislator's broader intent, strengthening public engagement and improving the quality of deliberation.

Today, project applicants typically receive structured presentation period, often 10 minutes or more, to walk through their proposal, respond to questions, and remain available for follow-up.

In contrast, community planning groups and the CPC are limited to one to two to three-minute public comments, unless we can recruit large numbers of people to seed time.

And even then, council members are not provided the opportunity to ask questions or engage with CPC recommendations in real time.

Yet CPGs and CPC provide neighborhood scale analysis of land use and policy decisions.

That analysis is detailed, technical, and highly relevant to your decision making.

But under the current structure, that information is compressed into a format that does not allow for meaningful exchange.

Valuable insights are lost, and the deliberative process is weaker for it.

Seat at the table seeks to remedy this imbalance by creating a structured opportunity for CPGs and CPC to present their recommendations directly to the decision makers.

It is a modest, targeted reform that aligns with the legislators' intent to strengthen public participation and improve the quality of public meetings.

To be clear, see the table is not the same as and does not fit under the council president's option for group presentations.

Seat at the table is different.

It is an in-person structured presentation tailored to the specific action item before the body.

And CPGs and CPC are not informal coalitions.

We are elected bodies operating under city approved bylaws with defined roles in the city's planning framework.

See at the table is ensuring that the city's own advisory body bodies, which it created, which it regulates, and which you rely on, have a clear structured lane for fair and effective exchanges with council members as you deliberate on the issues impacting our neighborhoods.

I urge this body to consider CPC's seat at the table proposal and recommend its adoption as part of the rules of council amendments.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

That concludes comment here in chambers.

So I'll begin the five-minute timer.

So all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on item four.

We currently have nine hands raised.

Each speaker will have two minutes, and we will begin with Peggy Walker.

Please unmute and provide your comments.

The fair option for seating time for group presentations is option A, formalizing group presentations for both in-person and virtual participants.

The staff reported suggestions or suggested option of elimination of organized group presentations is not a valid consideration.

This would suppress the right to public speech and exchange.

And seating time in person during council meetings is a critical component of public engagement.

Extending this opportunity to virtual participants is even more inclusive and robust.

It invites greater diverse participation and enables all participants to be fully heard as a collective voice.

I urge that choice.

After that last in-person speaker finishes rather than the five minutes into virtual public comment, that presents some concern to me.

I believe this could be confusing for those participating virtually.

And as a virtual participant, often I wanted to thank Chair Lacava for the beginning IT update.

And I wonder if there would be a way to notify virtual audiences with some kind of a standby notification when there are problems.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Sally Small.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you.

Yeah, it is still good morning, I hope.

Looking at everything as a member of D4, uh Southeast San Diego area, Emerald Hills, to be specific.

I'm a former community planning group member, and I look at this and I go, oh my.

The 15-minute max for presentations, not the best, but uh I'll take it.

Uh having three business days rather than just three days from an agenda so that we can get our groups coordinated to speak, uh, whether it's neighborhood council or groundworks or uh urban collaborative or arts and culture, et cetera.

Um keep seating the time.

We want our values to be heard, our impacts of decisions.

Uh and we know that some of our group members do not want to speak publicly, but we want the diversity of voices.

So that is also why we need the virtual uh people to have their voices be heard in a group presentation or individuals if they want.

Um it is the chance to have the disabled and seniors and working people who don't normally participate.

If it's virtual, they can do it.

And if it's in the form of a presentation, yay.

Um, I have not seen the specific seat at the table by uh the CPC with the CPGs, but uh it sounds like exactly what we need.

They need to have their voice heard because the city has basically cut them off at the nose regarding having to pay for appeals, showing up to uh en masse if they can have enough people to show up in person, but being able to have a special uh presentation with um people that have those defined roles and uh have a fair and effective exchange.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Raff, and I want to just speak briefly about the importance of keeping virtual public comment strong and accessible as you update the rules of council.

Virtual access has opened the door for so many people who otherwise could not participate.

Parents with young children like myself, seniors, people with disabilities, and residents who can't take time off or travel.

And for many people, virtual comment is the only way they can be heard.

SB 707 requires equal time, and I support, I support that, and I support fairness.

But fairness fairness shouldn't mean reducing access.

So as you discuss, please make sure we protect the ability for people to participate remotely in a simple and meaningful way.

Virtual public comment has made our meetings more inclusive, and I hope we continue to protect that progress.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have six hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no other callers beyond these remaining six individuals.

Continuing testimony with Peter Komiski, please unmute and begin.

My name is Peter Kamiski representing the Belbo Park Cultural Partnership.

I'm here today to respectfully urge your support for the group presentation option number one for time allotment outlighted in this rule put with an amendment and to echo and support the comments made by Christine Martinez from Arts and Culture San Diego.

The proposed group's presentation module appears to be a thoughtful and balanced solution.

It preserves meaningful public engagement by allowing the residents to organize, pool their voices, and present a unified message, whether in person or virtually, while also creating a clear and manageable structure for the staff.

The advanced notice requirements, declining defined group size and standardized procedures, ensure fairness, transparency, and consistency.

All good stuff.

Importantly, this condition, this option strengthens engagement for community groups, including arts and culture, nonprofit organizations, and importantly, community coalitions who are often involved in budget discussions and are unable to attend council meetings scheduled during normal working hours.

Formalizing virtual group presentations creates a predictable and equitable pathway for working residents and community-based dogs to participate meaningfully, even when they cannot be present physically.

As Christine noted, our public process should be expanded, not narrowed.

The process does exactly that and complies with the law.

Please make sure to consider or please reconsider seating only option for groups of over five people, five people and above.

This in and of itself will negatively impact individuals seeking adequate time to speak and looking for time seeded simply from one or two people.

For this reason, I respectfully ask you to support for the group presentation option and maintain seating time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

Thank you for this opportunity.

It's ironic that I'm at work and that I left my laptop and said to a colleague, tell me when it's my turn for virtual speaking.

And the idea that we might lose that five-minute opportunity to run back down the hallway scares me.

So I I would definitely want to object to the idea that the virtual queue timing stock went in-person testimony and be nearly an impossible situation for many of us at work.

Sort of tangentially, one of the suggestions that I found really charming that neighborhoods for a better San Diego made in their three page declaration was on page two towards the bottom, where it said that the public should be given the same opportunity to meet with city council members as the lobbyists and special interest folks are.

And if a council member denies a reasonable meeting request from a given member of the public organizing or an organized group, that the city council person should not meet with any other member of the public lobbyists and special interest.

Now I realize the logistics of doing something like this might be impossible, but I think it's a marvelous point to make that those of us who are at work and can't come down to city to have meetings with city council people or staff, need to be recognized that special interest who are paid to come can.

And however we can work to increase the city's access to your staff would be a welcome, welcome change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With four hands remaining, we'll continue with Catherine Douglas.

Please unmute and provide your comment.

Thank you.

Um, I thought Jeff Hewder had uh some great input.

Please do not suspend the practice of seating time.

Seating time often results in more organized and in-depth presentations.

And I do not understand the five to ten people group thing.

Um would they own only be allowed for five to ten people?

I hope one of the council members will ask that question and we can get clarification on that.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and provide your comment.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Uh, thanks a lot for this item.

I think this is an amazing item.

And it's been a good uh public meeting today about talking about uh accountability issues, working with the public, government and and the public working together.

Uh, thank you.

Um, you know, after COVID has happened, there is a natural tendency to put away Zoom and for things like Zoom to be dismissed.

Um, that's what they did in San Jose.

Uh, not just because of uh, you know, to fight COVID and say we're ending, you know, pre pre-COVID uh or you know, COVID situations and returning to our regular selves and regular practices.

But there is a component that people who speak on Zoom meetings uh are uh of an ilk that can be uncomfortable and they don't have the same rules don't quite apply uh when speaking on Zoom.

So I I hope we're considering the concepts of decorum and that as important it is to have free speech and first amendment rights.

I hope we can be respecting the concepts of decorum and wanting to figure out what that is exactly.

Um I've been learning, you know, you can say swear words in the public process, but I it's just uncomfortable, I think, to offer such language.

And for us to have, you know, we're sharing a middle ground here for all of us to to understand what our basic, you know, ways of sharing our beliefs within that space.

I hope can be respected by all persons who participate in this future because it it's massively important uh to allow Zoom, I feel and what Becky Rapp has said.

Um thank you that you are doing this.

So thank you to everyone.

And I just hope we practice its rules really well and respectfully uh for all persons who participate.

A good look how we can work on decorum issues together and define good terms.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

John Stump, please unmute and provide your testimony for item four.

Um, council.

Um I'm glad you're having this discussion.

You know, my concern is that there be one rule for all.

It strikes me, having watched these presentations that there are a variety of rules, rules for the public, and then addition different rules for presentations by supporters of whatever policy the mayor or the uh council proposer wants to have.

It seems that um uh anyone who is the chair should not be able to arbitrarily or capriciously set the number of minutes the public has and then grant different periods for the like of the chamber of commerce or a business association supporting the uh proposal by council.

Um, the real problem at the city of San Diego is that lobbyists are not constrained by any rules, they can go into council and have more than one minute or two minutes uh with the council person, and we never find out, they're not constrained, and they're not disclosed.

So, as you think about this policy, think about one rule for all.

Everybody who is testifying before council must follow these rules.

So if you're a business group or a supporter group used by the mayor, they're constrained by the same one-minute and 45 48-hour rules that everybody in the public is.

Thank you very much.

Have a good lent.

Thank you for your comment.

And the final speaker in the queue is Madison.

Please unmute and be.

Hi, thank you.

I just want to say I agree with a lot of these public comments.

I think they've been very thoughtful and helpful.

Um, and I also wanted to respectfully ask you to reconsider the proposal to end the virtual cue when in-person testimony concludes.

I know administrative efficiency is very important, but if you automatically cut off virtual participation when the last in-person speaker finishes, it creates an unintended inequity.

Many of us who participate remotely are balancing work and family responsibilities.

We rely on the current five-minute timer after the last speaker to raise our hands and join the queue.

Eliminating that buffer would significantly reduce access, especially in meetings where there are few or even no in-person speakers.

Sometimes there's nobody there in person.

So you're heading straight to the virtual queue.

And we might only have 30 seconds or less while you announce that to raise our hand.

So in those cases, the virtual public could effectively use lose all the opportunity to comment at all.

San Diego has worked hard to ensure equal speaking time for in-person and virtual participants.

Maintaining the existing five-minute window for remote speakers would uphold that principle of equal access and align with the Brown Act's intent of open and inclusive participation.

So I would ask that you keep the five-minute virtual queue timer so that remote participants have a fair and predictable opportunity to be heard.

Thank you for the consideration.

Thank you for your comment.

And Chair, this concludes testimony on item four.

All right.

Thank you, Sarah.

Thank you for everyone that uh jumped into the conversation either here in person or remotely.

Um I'm really looking forward to hearing from my colleagues on the committee with any particular thoughts.

Um just one thing that has crossed my mind since I first became aware of this at the end of the day, however, we may uh change the rules of council.

It is really our city clerk and her team and Sarah and Natalie that actually have to implement this.

Um so I remain particularly sensitive to the good work they do.

Uh and they have done an amazing job up to date.

We now have 707, which changes the rules a little bit.

So that's what we're really trying to navigate.

So I don't know if my colleagues have any questions or comments.

Council President Prokemi.

So I'm gonna keep going first.

Thank you, Council President.

Um first off, I want to thank the city clerk for um taking up this item and trying to find avenues on how we actually uh adhere to um what state law has changed, because I would agree that there are times that we get proposals from the state that then we actually have to implement.

And um, as while the city has done a pretty good job of allowing virtual comment, um I can only imagine the challenge that's being faced by those municipalities that weren't even offering that to begin with.

Um and the timeline isn't never as long as we think.

Uh in terms of the options that have been provided, um, I do think that offering opportunities to continue seating time is uh important.

And so um of the three, something along the lines of option A uh would be something that I think I would be more supportive of.

Um the details of that certainly can be worked out.

I I too think we got questions about what it would look like if the limitations were that group presentations had to be between five and ten people, which seem like very particular numbers.

Um so I think something that's like up to a certain number would seem to make a little bit more sense.

Um I don't really have an opinion, frankly, on the time frame that's necessary uh for getting presentations and getting the forms submitted for those who might be seating time in advance.

Um my only question would be that those time limitations would be the same for whether they're in-person or virtual correct.

So meaning if if there's a group that's looking to have time seated and a group presentation in person, there would be a process by which they would submit that in advance moving forward.

Um I think just consistency would be helpful.

And I I sort of leave it up to the city clerk, perhaps working with our council administration team to understand logistically what would be feasible to ensure that we have materials in a manner that allows the public to actually see them.

Um I think that there is some advantage here, I think, to the process where it also means that groups that are coming in for a presentation will be able to have their materials available to other members of the public um in advance to be reviewed as opposed to just seeing them while they're actually here uh in a meeting.

Um the only other note I had was I I think there's some public commentary about when we're closing the queue for virtual speakers.

And uh to me, I think just as long as we have a clear time frame for when that ends, whether it is at the close of um in-person public comment or again with some kind of time, I think folks can adjust to that and something that again that is consistent with just be fine.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Council President Pro Temily.

We'll go next to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President, uh thanks to Abby uh for her work on this as well.

Uh thanks to Abby for her work on this as well.

Really appreciated the presentation.

I'll just kind of jump on or or kind of co-sign on the flag about that five to ten um person l uh requirement in terms of group presentations.

If there is a rationale for that number, um you know, all years there.

Um also want to make sure that we're not being um exclusive of exclusive to smaller groups that may struggle to you know have have that that five those five people in in person or on online at the same time.

Um so uh I I think having that kind of up to number would be would be good.

Um I also just want to stress, Council President, this is one of those uh um those uh duties as a sign for you um that you know I think you're want to recognize that you're you've been a consistent proponent of of public participation um well before your time on the council.

Um what we're seeing is uh an adaptation that flows from uh changes to state law.

Um so I just want to kind of recognize that you know you're doing the the job that was handed to you here, and and then you know how we how we navigate that obviously is is really important, but um you know as I've said before, as someone who worked really hard to try to get folks who had never participated in the political process or the policy making process to be able to do so, uh maintaining that access is incredibly important to me, uh, as is making sure that we can have um well-run meetings that actually allow the people's business to get done.

Um so uh appreciate that we're trying to balance um those efforts with new state laws.

Um and um happy to see you know this move into the next uh stage of configuration um with that one copy out of wanting to make sure that we're not um unnecessarily limiting the ability of smaller groups to work together to provide the the information to the council and the public that they feel is necessary.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Yala Rivera.

Well, I'll go next to Councilmember Kempio.

Thank you, Council President Pro Council President.

Um, and thank you for uh the staff for their work on this.

Uh obviously we have to uh follow through on state mandates uh by July.

Just to be very clear, what would be the most minimum change we would have to make to the council rules regarding public participation to be in compliance with state law?

We have a lot of suggestions as to how to adjust things.

Well what would be the least we would have to do to actually be following state law at this moment.

I would defer to the city attorney's office.

Good afternoon, good morning or afternoon now.

Um the main point would need to be the seating time.

Um that is only offered for those in person, not virtual.

Um that would be the main one.

I'm trying to think of what else must be changed, and off the top of my head, uh there's aren't coming to mind.

Understood.

All right, thank you for that.

Um, uh, I think that we're hearing from the public that they want more participation, not less.

And so uh the ability to seed time online obviously would uh allow uh uh more comment rather than less.

And we've been uh holding that line on pub on virtual public comment for a while uh with understandable reasons, but uh if if all we needed to do was allow folks online to cede their time, we would seem to me that creating a basic process to allow for that makes makes a lot of sense, wouldn't take too much effort, though I won't assume it won't take too much effort.

Uh I do have a question for the city attorney.

Is there any um based on a comment that many of the members of the public brought up, is there any constitutional or statutory reason that the city council couldn't provide the community planning groups with equal time to present on a project as an applicant who's bringing something forward in their um in their community planning area.

Um I think it's I I'm wondering if there is.

I I think it would be fair to have city sanctioned bodies give the same amount of time without having to rally residents to volunteers to drive here, park here, wait in line, spend entire days waiting to speak.

Um but I'm curious to know if there's a reason that I can't identify yet that would prevent that.

Not that I'm aware of at this moment, but we can certainly look into that.

Okay.

Um I think as we move this forward uh the I'm curious how we arrived at the or the suggestion came forward for a five-person minimum to be able to allow for a group presentation.

Um just wondering where that name number came from.

Um I would just say that that's one of the main things we're looking for feedback on today and and hearing the tone of where the committee is going.

The thought process is that essentially there is a new process that would come into place with this.

It's a new administrative burden for the clerk and council administration team thinking through what they would need to do to contact these groups to kind of steward them along the process, five to ten people.

Um felt like a reasonable number, but happy to take that feedback and adjust that moving forward.

Understood.

I I would appreciate if the city attorney did sort of the research on what the constitutional or statutory implications would be of telling four people that came forward that they wouldn't be able to be give a give a presentation, but five people who come forward would be able to.

There seems to be a bit of a uh uh uh failure of maybe equal protection on that uh to to allow uh to not allow a similar form of speech to be given uh simply be based on the number of people.

Um at this time I don't have many other suggestions.

Uh I do appreciate that this is uh it's not as simple as it looks on its face, and I do appreciate the members of the public for their suggestions that they've emailed in to city council.

Uh and I look forward to this coming back to rules committee uh in the next few months.

Thank you.

My apologies, may I provide additional comments?

Yes, please.

Just on the question about the where the five to ten came from, it is a logistical issue for not just my office but for council administration.

If you think about it, 48 hours before a meeting will be happening over the weekend, and my staff is MEA represented, so we'll not be able to contact, mind you, myself and my deputy director will be, but if you have it for less than five to ten people, it will be an increase of the amount of organized presentations that we have.

And so it was a thought about from logistically, if we really only have from 8 a.m.

to 10 a.m.

when the meeting starts and maybe into the afternoon to contact these individuals, organize them, especially when it's first being implemented to make sure we get all the king south people understand how they're supposed to participate.

We were trying to just make sure that we were able to do it appropriately.

With that being said, it completely is a hundred percent a policy decision, and my office will be sure to accommodate whatever number the council does provide.

But it is logistics because 48 hours is during the weekend, two hours before is that.

And the other thing that we need to take into account is if there's a special meeting that's being called, obviously, a special meeting can be called 24 hours in advance of a meeting, and so then my proposal would be that organized presentations be done 18 hours in advance if the organize if the special meeting is only posted 24 hours in advance.

Sometimes you post special meetings still on the Wednesday before because you're just changing it from a 2 p.m.

to a 1 p.m.

And so those would still have the 48 hours.

And so it is just because our meetings are Mondays and Tuesdays that that um time frame kind of cuts into the weekend.

If your meetings were to be Wednesdays and Thursdays or something else, then maybe there would be more um business hours in order to coordinate such things.

But in order to do it within this time frame within the hours that are currently scheduled for council, that uh you know, pesky weekend gets into the into the mix logistically.

Uh so that's why there was that um proposal.

But again, the office of the city clerk will make it happen either way.

Understood.

Well, what you call a pesky weekend is a well-deserved weekend for you and your team.

Um the I guess as you say all that, one of the potential uh and and serious and meaningful problems is supplemental information that gets uploaded after an item is noticed, after a staff report is put up there.

Sometimes presentations aren't put up until the very last moment, and then the public has a requirement that they upload their ideas, their presentations many hours in advance when city staff and council member staff, mayoral staff don't have that same requirement necessarily.

And so we've essentially put uh we've created a a limitation on what the public organized presentation might be able to say based on what's uploaded uh from the government.

Um it seems that if we're gonna be plainly plainly fair, and I understand logistics have to be uh well balanced in in how this works.

It seems to me that if city employees, whether it's mayor, council, IBA, city staff, whomever, offers up supplemental information, the public ought to be provided with the exact same ability to respond as they prepare their presentations.

So were you imagining, Madam City Clerk, that not imagining, but were you were you conceptualizing that uh 48 hours that business hours or simply just hours on a clock?

Calendar.

Okay, calendar, okay.

Um that if we have a a council item on Monday at 2 p.m.

that um organization or people in the public put something forward at 2 p.m.

on a Saturday, that's their 48 hours, and therefore that's that's the that's the that's the component that gets tricky.

As proposed, they only have to sign up 48 hours in advance.

The PowerPoint is two hours in advance.

If there were any updates to that PowerPoint, we are working with RIT to be able to be able to accept those updates here in real time.

We're just working through some cybersecurity concerns.

Yes.

Um, which we have found uh a solution and are just uh figuring out some funding right now.

Got it.

Um but the the presentation would be for a 10 o'clock meeting, 8 a.m.

And that's really just because of one cybersecurity and two making sure that we have it uploaded.

Sometimes people have audio and things of that nature to make sure that we can test it in advance of the meeting so that we can avoid some of the technical difficulties that sometimes we do have.

But we do try to receive the staff presentations and do um reach out to staff to get the staff presentations by Friday and upload those by Friday.

So more than the two hours.

Got it.

Understood.

Well, I appreciate your um really the excellent way you approach uh the public having their say in this.

Um I'll conclude by saying again, I'll look forward to um what this what this looks like as it comes forward as an action item in the future.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember uh Campio.

I'll offer some uh final thoughts.

Um Councilmember Kempi, I think you said it very well.

It's not as simple as it seems on the surface.

Uh a noble idea coming out of Sacramento, um, especially given how we've chosen to operate and uh uh I think about all those other cities that don't allow remote participation uh and operate in other ways and how much scrambling um they must be doing to try to do that, at least we have a league up going forward.

Um I you know, a couple of things I want to mention.

You know, we made that shift um, I think it was last year, where we decided from a cybersecurity point of view that we were not going to accept somebody walking in with a thumb drive and asking us to make that presentation.

So I think the two hours have been generally in place for a while now.

Um, and I appreciate the city clerk working very hard to try to accommodate people who are trying to operate in good faith uh going forward.

So I think the question that the public raised, and and Councilmember Campio, you reiterated uh for those supplemental items that come in on Friday um without any splash or fanfare.

Um and I know some people do spend their entire days staring uh at the council docket or the committee docket uh watching to see if anything new has shown up, but it does uh put a bit of a challenge, and I am not going to introduce moving council meetings to Thursdays and Fridays uh to make more work hours available, but it is something I think that we ought to think about.

Broadly speaking, you know in guiding how we presented today, my philosophy has always been to give people a bit of a framework to react to.

Uh we are open, as we've I think said at the onset on this, um, and to make it very clear about where I stand.

Uh certainly the simplest way to comply with 707 is to get rid of seating time.

I don't support that at all.

Um I've spent enough time on both sides of the diet to know how important it is, and especially on those issues to get particularly um large turnouts.

Um seating time allows for one, more efficiency.

15 one person speaking for 15 minutes is much more efficient uh than 15 people speaking for one minute.

Um more importantly, it's more robust.

Um the pressure of, and I've done it more times that we count uh care to remember of trying to come up in one minute trying to make something impactful and making it worth my time to sit through a very long um council hearing uh going forward.

I've always reminded people, don't say thank you.

Don't say good morning.

Just jump right into your presentation.

But one minute is just really painful, and just getting that extra minute can make a huge difference in the conversation.

Mr.

Stump made some accus what I will call accusations about people getting special time.

I've never seen it in the five years that I've been here.

The exception, of course, is quasi judicial where the applicant has their time.

But I've never seen a case where anybody got treated differently than the general members of the public.

Certainly, some organizations know the logistics a little bit better than others.

So turning in speaker slips an hour before rather than as you drift in to the meeting is certainly one exception that I got yelled at quite loudly at one particular controversial meeting.

Again, this is kind of a balance between the remote and the in-person.

And it's going to be a that's what we're trying to balance.

And there's not going to be a perfect balance.

Whatever the case might be something that we can pivot.

And I know I certainly would be open to learning in this case on the fly going forward.

But again, I I'm really particularly biased by our city clerk and council administration and how they navigate because they're the ones that actually have to make these happen.

And as I said, the onset, they do an incredibly good job.

Much better, I think, than a lot of other jurisdictions.

So we'll continue to navigate.

Yes, thank you, Council President.

Just I will realize I didn't say it explicitly.

I think that's one place that we're all on the same page on, except for one public comment that was submitted via email.

But with that, um I think we got good input from the um the community.

Um as to the um Victoria, your comments from the CPC.

We ran into a little bit of a problem when we were updating 600-24, so um we'll revisit that with the city attorney's office.

Uh Councilmember Campio weighed in as well on how that can be navigated or the current interpretations of the law.

Um I won't ask our city attorney to opine at this point, but we will circle back on that.

And so with that, not seeing anybody else in the lights.

Again, thank you for everybody's input.

This is very helpful.

Uh and with that, again, this was information only, no motion was required.

This brings us to the end of today's agenda.

I will now adjourn the this meeting of the rules committee until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held Wednesday, March 18th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

We are adjourned.