Residents urge National City Council to return Sweetwater-area parcels to residential zoning

At a special meeting of the National City Council, multiple residents urged the council to return properties at Sweetwater and Orange from mixed‑use zoning to residential, saying the parcels had been homes for decades and should not be rezoned for a new project.

The speakers focused on agenda item 5.1. Doyle Morrison, a resident, told the council he was “requesting that you guys look into and research to, change that back from the spot zoning of mixed use down to residential like it was for years.” Alex Goodrude, a resident, said the site “has historically been residential” and added that the planning commission had deemed the proposed project a “public health and safety nuisance,” raising CEQA and traffic questions.

The petition to revert the zoning drew follow‑up comments from other residents. Mika Polanco asked the council to “please return these properties, 5 properties to residential.” Louisa McCarthy called the project “a complete injustice” and criticized city leaders by name in unsparing terms; her remarks were made during the public‑comment portion of the meeting.

Several speakers raised procedural and records concerns tied to the project. Louisa McCarthy and others said a ground lease for the site remains active. Michael Aguirre, a commenter, said attendees had learned from the city’s IT testimony that the city “does not preserve text messages,” and he asked the council to place a litigation hold on documents within the scope of public‑records requests. Another commenter said the city received a formal request for production listing more than two dozen items and asked for those records to be released.

Speakers repeatedly urged the council to restore the parcels to a low‑density residential designation, citing houses that were torn down “and it's been empty for over 40 years.” Several asked the council to reverse what they called “spot zoning” that benefits a particular development interest and to provide transparency about lease and offer documents.

The remarks occurred during the public‑comment period; no council votes or formal actions on item 5.1 were taken on the record at the meeting. After public comment the council recessed into closed session; the city attorney later listed several pending lawsuits and labor negotiations on the closed‑session agenda.

Less critical details: meeting organizers limited each public commenter to one minute because the session included a closed session, and several speakers said they would continue pursuing public‑records and legal options outside the meeting.