Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Records Litigation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge National City to restore 0.8‑acre parcel to residential zoning, criticize mayor’s mediation absence
Summary
Public commenters at a National City special meeting pushed the council to restore a 0.8‑acre Sweetwater parcel to low–medium density residential designation and accused Mayor Morrison of missing a mediation tied to the Public Records Act case Polanco v. City of National City; the council moved into closed session to discuss the litigation.
Residents and community members pressed the National City Council to reverse land‑use decisions affecting a 0.8‑acre parcel in the Sweetwater/Orange Street area and to restore its general plan designation and zoning to residential, saying that remedy would resolve the dispute now in litigation.
The demand came during the public‑comment period of a special meeting called to address a Public Records Act matter related to Polanco v. City of National City (Case No. 25CU004193C). In remarks delivered to the dais, multiple speakers said the plaintiff’s proposed solution is to “restore the 0.8 acre parcel to RS‑2 and the corresponding general plan to low–medium density residential.” Mika Planko, who opened the sequence of public comments, summarized the plaintiffs’ requested remedy as a zoning and general‑plan restoration.
Speakers told the council they had obtained documents under the Public Records Act that, they said, showed the city had encouraged the developer to allow an existing Conditional Use Permit (CUP) to expire while awaiting adoption of a new CUP. Louisa McCarthy told the council, “Because you were the city that told the applicant that they could allow their existing CUP to expire because you told them that the city would adopt the new CUP,” and argued that the city’s conduct warranted restoring residential zoning.
Another commenter announced litigation steps and scheduling details tied to the case. A public commenter said mediation had been scheduled for April 29 and that a deposition for at least one city official was set for May 28; the speaker also said they planned to file a claim against the city. The mayor declined to answer procedural questions from the commenter and suggested they consult their attorney.
Michael Aguirre and other residents described the parcel’s history as residential and urged the council to “change it back,” arguing the area historically had homes before demolition and redevelopment proposals. Several speakers reiterated that restoring the general plan and zoning would be the simplest way to resolve the conflict without additional court steps.
The city attorney interjected during public comment to clarify the agenda item: the meeting was called to address existing litigation under the Public Records Act rather than a separate new lawsuit. The attorney identified the closed‑session authority the council would use to meet privately on the matter.
The council moved into closed session to discuss the litigation and a personnel matter tied to the city manager. Speakers at the special meeting called for transparency and asked the council to consider the commenters’ suggested remedy of restoring the 0.8‑acre parcel to residential designations.
Next steps announced on the record were limited to the litigation timing mentioned by commenters: the mediation date referenced by the public was April 29 and a deposition date mentioned was May 28. The council took no on‑the‑record vote on zoning or plan changes during the meeting.
