Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Developer Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press National City for records tied to Sweetwater/Orange project and developer communications
Summary
Multiple residents demanded the release of records, calendar entries and correspondence they say are missing for meetings and communications involving the Sweetwater and Orange project, the mayor's assistant and planning staff; commenters alleged undue influence and one-way communications between developers and city staff.
Residents and project opponents told the council they have been unable to locate public records tied to developer meetings and planning communications for the Sweetwater and Orange project and related submittals.
Several speakers said a meeting on April 24, 2024, involving the mayor, the mayor's assistant and the city manager produced no calendar entries or notes in response to public-records requests. "On 04/24/2024, the mayor, the mayor's assistant, and the city manager met with the proponents of the project. Yet not a single record was produced from that meeting," said one speaker during public comment.
Multiple commenters also pointed to repeated instances in which planning staff sent an "incomplete" letter to the developer and the developer forwarded that same incomplete letter to the mayor's assistant the following day. At least two commenters asked why the mayor's assistant received planning correspondence and why responses or calendar entries were not produced. One commenter cited an email from David Welch, the city planner, referencing the need for variances and guidance on justifications for variance findings, and asked where those records were.
Speakers asked whether planning staff had been absent from certain developer meetings and whether the city manager had met with developers without planning staff present. They also raised procedural questions about a planning item that was pulled from a planning-commission agenda and later listed on a council meeting date, with commenters saying people who attended to be heard were not given the opportunity to speak before the item was deferred.
Council members did not answer substantive questions during the public-comment period; the council entered closed session after public comment and the agenda included multiple litigation items connected by commenters to the same project and process.
