From: Alexander Gutterud
To: Public Comment; Clerk
Cc: Maria Severson; Michael Aguirre
Subject: Written Comment - Special City Council Meeting 2025-09-09 Agenda Item 5.1 Date: Tuesday, September 9, 2025 10:18:10 AM
Attachments: 2025-09-09 Written Public Comment.pdf
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Greetings,
Please find attached Public Written Comment for September 9, 2025, Special City Council Meeting Agenda Item 5.1. Please let me know if you have any trouble accessing the pdf attached. Thank you.
Best regards,
Alexander Gutterud, Esq.
Associate Attorney
AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 W Broadway, Ste. 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Office (619) 876-5364, Ext. 3
[email protected]
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
28 1
Issue: the threat of litigation is made by a National City employee (“claimant”) who used her position to advance commercial development at the dangerous corner of Orange and Sweetwater roads in National City, which was disapproved because it was found to be a public nuisance. Citizens seek public records in a Public Records Act enforcement case pending in San Diego Superior Court. The Mayor and Council members Bush and Molina appear to be sponsoring the claimant’s “claim” against the City of National City, in apparent violation of their fiduciary duty to protect National City, to draw attention away from the Public Records Act case.
Undressed by the Mayor and City Council members Bush and Molina are the following:
#1: No Records Relating to an In-Person Meeting for the Brikhos’ Projects An e-mail dated April 22, 2024, reveals the Brikhos [The nuisance project developers, including Robert Zakar] transmitted the Nuisance Project’s architectural plans to Mayor Ron Morrison and mayoral assistant Josie Flores-Clark via attachments thereto, then met with them “this Wednesday” on April 24, 2024, regarding “our upcoming projects that we will be discussing with you guys.” Yet, no calendar entry for the meeting was produced, no notes from the meeting were produced, and no other documents related to the Project were produced. #2: No Records Relating to Discussions Between City Staff and the Brikhos On May 29, 2024, the City Planning staff sent an “incomplete” letter to the Project applicant itemizing Project deficiencies, such as “a traffic analysis” and other information relating to “the level of environmental clearance under [CEQA].” The next day, on May 30, 2024, the Project applicant forwarded the May 29, 2024, incomplete letter to Mayor Morrison and his assistant, Flores-Clark.
On August 6, 2024, City Planning staff sent a second “incomplete” letter detailing the Project’s remaining deficiencies. Nine days later, on August 15, 2024, the Brikhos again sent the Planning Department’s letter to Mayor Morrison and Flores-Clark.
On October 9, 2024, City Planning staff consulted the Brikhos to help invent “justifications” for three variances identified by City staff for the Nuisance Project to proceed. On the same day, the Brikhos forwarded the email to Mayor Morrison and Flores-Clark. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
28 2
Again, no records were produced related to meetings or communications regarding the communications about the Nuisance Project’s failure to comply with CEQA sent by Planning Dept. staff to the Brikhos and, inexplicably, to the Mayor and his assistant. #3: Missing Phone Records from Martinez as to Brikho Meetings A few months later, mayoral assistant Josie Flores-Clark set up a group text message to discuss the Nuisance Project in which the Brikhos, then-City Manager Martinez, and Mayor Morrison were included. The group text message chain reveals the occurrence of a 2:00 PM meeting between these key individuals on Wednesday, October 23, 2024. Joey Brikho’s request for “anyone from planning” to “sit[] in on our meeting” and mention of the “city traffic engineer… sitting in with us” indicate the meeting was held to discuss how the Brikhos could obtain a Planning Department recommendation. Again, no writings, notes, emails, or text messages of any kind were produced by the City relating to the October 23, 2024, meeting.
On December 5, 2024, shortly after the December 2, 2024, Planning Commission meeting declaring the project to be a public nuisance, the Brikhos told the Mayor and the City Manager that “we need to do whatever we can to renew [the existing CUP].” The Brikhos claimed they “allowed it to expire because we thought our proposed project was going to replace it because we put so much work and had support from the City…”
Citizens expected to receive substantially similar records for the same conversations from the City Manager’s phone, in addition to other records of communication therefrom. However, The City claims both the cell phone on which the City Manager’s related text messages are stored and the records within have vanished.
Martinez became the interim City Manager in August 2023. Martinez “had two cell phones during the time I was city manager” but lost possession of a City-issued phone “around November or early December of ‘24” by “trad[ing] that in for another work cell phone with IT… because he “got a lot of spam calls…” Martinez testified he traded in his work phone “before the PRA lawsuit, before any of this happened.” To summarize: Martinez claims he did not conduct a search of the City-issued cell phone he possessed at the time of the Brikho-Mayor-Manager group text messages because he had already given the phone to the City’s IT department. 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
28 3
According to City Network Administrator Damon Dong, Martinez turned in his cell phone “the week before we went on furlough.” The furlough began Friday, December 20, 2024, 11 days after Request 24-688 was filed. Dong testified that when Martinez handed over his City cell phone, he did so as part of “the process of moving from Verizon to AT&T, whole city.” Dong then asked Martinez if “we need to move stuff from this phone to your new phone”; Martinez “declined.”
Dong testified Martinez’s phone “was erased before I got it; because I don’t recall seeing anything on the phone.” Dong further admitted he did not “log in the receipt” of the phone, “like a paper trail.” In fact, Dong claims he does not know the whereabouts of the Martinez phone and even speculated “it may be in a pile someplace.” The City has yet to provide an explanation for why Martinez’s cell phone records are missing, why it has not attempted to locate Martinez’s former cell phone, or why no records have been disclosed after eight months. #4: Missing Phone Records from Morrison as to Brikho Meetings The Mayor was one of the members of a text group named “Team”; the Team members included the Mayor, his assistant, and two of the Brikhos. The City’s records reveal Morrison has used at least three phone numbers for official business: a (1) “city cell phone”; (2) “landline at my house”; and (3) “personal cell phone.”
Morrison testified he did not need to submit his City cell phone for IT to locate responsive text messages on his phone “because they have electronic access to all of that. I don’t have to actually hand them the phone itself.” He further claimed the messages are stored on the “city computer system… They have all that. That’s what they’ve informed me…” When questioned further, he claimed he thought IT was searching for records "because I was informed by our legal counsel.”
However, City’s IT Department head Ron Williams denied searching for text messages and testified he did not search “any cell phones”; the City’s IT Department was only equipped to “just search the e-mails” within employee e-mail accounts. When asked if the Mayor’s “text messages [are] stored on the City’s server,” Williams testified “No.” When asked if any of the 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
28 4
City’s computer systems had those text messages, Williams again answered, “No.” When asked if that would “be true of all of National City” employees, Williams confirmed: “Correct.” Morrison’s testimony that he conducted a search and turned over responsive text messages is contrary to the fact that no records are produced and admissions by City staff that the City has still not conducted a search of Morrison’s cellular devices or disclosed those records in over eight months.
#5: Missing Phone Records from Flores-Clark as to Brikho Meetings In addition to the Nuisance Project “Team” group text messages, Flores-Clark is identified by other City staff in various communications in which the Brikhos sought to meet with City officials regarding the Nuisance Project. For instance, Planning Department head Martin Reeder admitted Flores-Clark told him: "The Brikhos need help. We need to meet with them.” Indeed, Flores-Clark admitted attending a January 2024 meeting with the Mayor, the Brikhos, and former City Manager Martinez.
Flores-Clark has in fact admitted her handwriting appears on the original production of the Nuisance Project group text messages. The group Team text message was obtained from her “personal cell phone.” She admitted to arranging the April 22, 2024, meeting with the Brikhos in the “mayor and council office”, yet, when asked if she found any responsive records on her Cityissued cell phone, she claims no recollection. Indeed, the City has not met its burden as to why it has not produced responsive records from Flores-Clark’s City cell phone. #6: Missing Records of Calendar Entries for Meetings with the Brikhos Citizens have not received any records of calendar entries from the City. Ron Williams, City IT Department head, disclosed that while the Department had the capability to search for calendars, “the users are the ones that usually provide their actual calendars.” Flores-Clark nonetheless claimed the IT Department searches for calendar entries when responding to record requests.
When confronted with Williams’ contrary testimony, Flores-Clark admitted she “found calendars for [her] meetings related to the Brikhos and [she] turned those in…,” but could not 1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
19 20
21 22
23 24
25 26
28 5
remember how many such meetings with the Brikhos she turned in or if she gave her calendared meeting records to the City Attorney or City Clerk.
In contradiction of Flores-Clark’s testimony under oath that she provided printed copies of responsive records to the City Attorney or City Clerk. City Clerk Shelley Chapel testified that Flores-Clark did not deliver hard copies of records responsive to Citizens’ records requests. In fact, Chapel did not remember receiving any calendar entries for Mayor Morrison responsive to Citizens’ records requests that were in a paper format. Nor could she remember producing “any copies of Outlook calendared meetings…” in response to Citizens’ records request.
Please do not use the claimant’s claim to divert attention from the Public Records Act case filed to force production of the records specified above.
Submitted by Michael J. Aguirre, Esq. on behalf of Micaela Polanco