From: Marissa Cuevas
To: Public Comment; Clerk
Cc: Maria Severson; Michael Aguirre; Alexander Gutterud Subject: Written Comment - Regular City Council Meeting 6/16/2026 Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 1:40:28 PM
Attachments: 2026-06-16 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 June 16, 2026, Regular City Council Meeting at 6pm.
Please confirm receipt of documents. If you have any trouble accessing the pdf attached, please let me know. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Marissa E. Cuevas, Paralegal
AGUIRRE & SEVERSON, LLP
501 West Broadway, Ste. 1050
San Diego, CA 92101
Office 619.876.5364
[email protected]
General Comment
Tuesday, June 16, 2026
Micaela Polanco’s public comment
We are here before you this evening to correct the record.
First, restoring the 0.78 parcel at Sweetwater and Orange Street is not a “taking.” It is a “taking” only if there is no productive or economically beneficial use of the land.
Here, a profit would still be obtained from the .78-acre parcel if it was a residential development. So let me be clear, a change in the zoning of the .78-acre parcel to residential isn’t a “taking.”
Yet, at the June 17, 2025, meeting, Mayor, you falsely said it would be a “taking.” Even after you were told by the City Attorney and staff that more analysis was needed. Yet there was no research; there was no written report by City staff or the City attorney. You closed the door because you did not want to hear the truth.
Second, we now have text messages and emails showing that Councilmember Luz Molina was working with and helping the Mayor and the Mayor’s assistant’s personal attorney prepare a claim against National City.
Let me repeat that.
Councilmember Molina helped the personal attorney for the Mayor and the Mayor’s assistant prepare a claim against National City. Councilmember Molina emailed the attorney on four different occasions: August 22nd, August 26th, September 2nd, and September 5th, 2025. And you weren’t only emailing him, Councilmember Molina, you texted and called him, too.
Mayor, Councilmember Molina, you both owe a fiduciary duty to the City of National City. National City residents put their trust and confidence in you to represent them, to represent the community, not your own personal agendas.
Be warned: the circle of justice is closing in on those who are destroying the city government in National City. As Justice Brandeis said, “sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.” The more information brought to the public, the more we can expose this deep corruption in National City.
Tuesday, June 16, 2026
Luisa McCarthy’s public comment
Mayor and City Councilmembers. We have come to these City Council meetings for years now, to confront the lies and evasions that have clouded National City for too long. The stakes are too high for silence, and the people of National City deserve nothing less than full transparency and accountability.
So let’s address the facts:
There is no basis for declaring the 0.78-acre property at Sweetwater and Orange Street a “taking” if changed to residential zoning. Despite this, and despite City staff and the City Attorney saying more analysis was needed, you shut it down to avoid the uncomfortable facts.
Equally disturbing is that while we at La Vista have repeatedly extended respect and goodwill to you, Councilmember Molina, behind the scenes, you were texting and emailing the Mayor and the Mayor’s Assistant’s personal attorney to bring a claim against the very city you were supposed to represent.
I have your secret texts right here.
To those entrusted with leadership: your duty is to the people, not to any private interests. That trust, both to us at La Vista and to the public, has been seriously undermined by members of this dais.
Let me be clear: the tide is turning, and you will be held accountable.
Attachment
CITY OF NATIONAL CITY
AFFIDAVIT OF CITY EMPLOYEE / PUBLIC OFFICIAL
REGARDING SEARCH OF PERSONAL DEVICES / ACCOUNTS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC RECORDS ACT
INSTRUCTIONS: This form is to be completed by any City of National City (City) employee / public official who searches their personal device(s) and account(s) for public records in response to a request submitted to the City under the California Public Records Act (CPRA).
NextRequest #: PRA 25-658 (CPRA Request)
I, Luz Molina , certify that I am a City employee or public official. In response to the above-referenced CPRA Request, I further certify and declare the following:
1. I have been properly trained on what constitutes a public record under the CPRA.
2. I have personal knowledge of all communications on my personal device(s) and account(s).
3. I have conducted a search for public records on these personal device(s) and account(s) owned by me (check all that apply):
☒ Personal email account(s)
☒ Personal device(s) – text messages
☒ Personal device(s) – call logs
☒ Personal social media account(s) – messages
☐ Other (please describe):
Date range for records search: 8/20/2025-9/10/2025
Search terms used (if any): per the following request
Jose Flores Clark that appeared as Item 5.3 on the September 2, 2025 special meeting agenda, writings showing:
1. how the August 26, 2025 letter from Dan Gilleon was provided to the City, including to whom it was provided, the date, the manner provided (whether hand-carried, by mail (and if by mail, whether by USPS, Fedex, UPS and the postmark date on the envelope if mailed). please also produce any envelope in which the letter was enclosed
My response: I did receive the letter referenced via email on 8/26/2025. See the email attached, from Daniel Gilleon, received on Tue 8/26, 7:38 PM, with subject line “Gov. Code 910 Claim; Clark v. City of National City”.
2. the name of the staff member who documented the claim My response: I do not have knowledge of this information.
3. communications within the City staff or officials one the one hand and Dan Gilleon or persons from Gilleon Law Firm, regarding the August 26 letter My response: I receive text messages from Dan Gilleon on 8/22/2025. See attached text messages.
I receive a phone call from Dan Gilleon on 8/22/2025. He inquired about the comments I stated during the city council meeting on 6/17/2025. He inquired about a news article and a Memorial Day flyer.
I provided Dan Gilleon via my City email account the notes that I prepared for that statement. See City email from Daniel Gilleon, received on Fri 8/22, 9:53 PM, with subject line “Re: Fw: Notes - Sweetwater”.
I sent emails from my City email account to Scott and Barry with my questions regarding the letter. See City emails:
from Scott Huth, received on Wed 8/27, 9:48 PM, with subject line “Re: Gov. Code 910 Claim; Clark v.
City of National City”.
from Scott Huth, received on Wed 8/27, 9:50 PM, with subject line “Re: Gov. Code 910 Claim; Clark v.
City of National City”.
from Scott Huth, received on Thu 8/28, 8:44 AM, with subject line “Re: Gov. Code 910 Claim; Clark v.
City of National City”.
from Barry Schultz, received on Thu 8/28, 9:50 AM, with subject line “Re: Gov. Code 910 Claim; Clark v.
City of National City”.
from Daniel Gilleon <[email protected]>, received on Tue 9/2, 2:27 PM, with subject line “Fwd: Public Comment”.
from Daniel Gilleon <[email protected]>, received on Fri 9/5, 10:26 AM, with subject line “Response to Alicia Hicks' and the City's Ongoing Civil Rights Violations Against Josie Clark”.
4. communications within the City, including but not limited to the Mayor, Mayor’s assistant, City Clerk, City Manager, Councilmembers Molina and Bush, IT personnel or others regarding (1) setting a special meeting for Sept 2, 2025, (2) uploading the August 26 letter and its hyperlinks, (3) City Clerk communications regarding the same.
My response: I do not have corresponding information.
4. I attest to the following:
☐ I have NO public records responsive to the CPRA Request on my personal device(s) or account(s)
☒ I have provided ALL public records responsive to the CPRA Request to the City
I hereby declare the above is true and correct under penalty of perjury.
Signed: Date: 11/21/2025
From: David Garcia
To: Public Comment
Cc: Ron Morrison; Marcus Bush; Councilmember Ditas Yamane; Luz Molina; Jose Rodriguez; Clerk; CMO Subject: URGENT: Public Safety & Neighborhood Impacts Surrounding Union Tower Development (2312 F Ave) Date: Thursday, June 4, 2026 3:40:09 PM
Attachments: IMG 9925.png
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council,
I am writing to formally address the growing neighborhood impacts surrounding the new Union Tower development at 2312 F Avenue.
As a development economist who manages residential and commercial property portfolios, I understand the complexities of urban development and the acute need for affordable housing. However, my background also dictates that a project of this scale must be integrated responsibly, without compromising public safety or the economic vitality of the surrounding neighborhood.
I am submitting photographic documentation — taken within one block of the Union Tower site — showing the current conditions residents and local business patrons are experiencing daily:
• Individuals sleeping and slumped against active business entrances (7-Eleven) • Groups gathering on public sidewalks with encampment materials, blocking pedestrian access near an ATM
• Apparent street-level activity in commercial corridors near the ARCO Mart What makes this situation especially urgent is the proximity of these conditions to both an elementary school and a high school. Children and families traveling to and from school are exposed to these circumstances every day. This is not acceptable, and the city has a heightened duty of care when vulnerable populations — particularly minors — are directly impacted.
While Wakeland Housing Development Corporation has promised on-site, wraparound supportive services for the 24 units dedicated to formerly unhoused individuals, the spillover effects into the neighborhood are already apparent and documented. We cannot rely on a reactive approach where residents are forced to continuously log SeeClickFix reports to manage the fallout of poor municipal planning.
I am formally requesting:
1. A written response outlining proactive enforcement mechanisms and dedicated policing strategies for this corridor
General Comment
2. Clarification on what developer accountability measures are in place if neighborhood conditions deteriorate
3. A plan specifically addressing the safety of students traveling near this development
There is growing concern from residents of the Olivewood neighborhood and visitors to the city who share these concerns about the deteriorating conditions in this corridor.
Sincerely,
David Garcia Ozua, PhD
Development Economist
| garciaozua.com
From: H. Bradley Bang
To: Public Comment; Monserrat Hernandez; Jasmin Vargas
Subject: Skycharger Project
Date: Monday, June 15, 2026 3:51:50 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
To Mayor Morrision and National City Council
I am writing to you in support of the Skycharger Project that is on your agenda today. As many people know, National City is suffering from an extremely high level of air pollution which exceeds our health standards. This pollution includes diesel exhaust which contributes to the poor health of all residents. One of the primary causes of this diesel pollution is the high number of diesel trucks servicing the port and the numerous warehouses in the area. As one of the primary sources of this type of pollution in our community we need to be as aggressive as possible to reduce the level of pollution that we are subjecting ourselves to. I don't need to remind you how many other government agencies have failed in protecting National City residents in curtailing this pollution. This is one solution we can do ourselves. By building the Skycharger project we are providing the first part of the necessary infrastructure to support an alternative to the diesel trucks which are polluting our air. We still have a long way to go but it will be clear that National City is serious about finding better solutions to this problem. I understand that some naysayers question the reliability and toxic pollution that an accident could cause, however the chances of an accident are decreasing as the technology matures and numerous prevention strategies are developed. Meanwhile, we don't concern ourselves with the numerous fossil fuel accidents which we accept casually while we continue to poison ourselves. Please vote for the Skycharger project and provide a solution that reduces the toxic pollution we subject ourselves to everyday.
Thank you,
Bradley Bang
Item 7.1
From: Iltze Flores
To: Public Comment
Subject: Public Comment- Residential Permit Parking
Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 1:54:08 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Hi,
My name is Iltze Flores, and I reside at I am writing to formally express my opposition to the proposed establishment of residential permit parking "0" on the 2000 Block of "E."
I would like to point out that many homeowners in this area possess driveways capable of accommodating more than one vehicle, and numerous properties have garages located in the alleyway. Currently, several residents are placing their trash and recycling bins, as well as safety cones, on the street to reserve parking spaces in front of their homes. This behavior is observable among homeowners not only on "E" Street but also on "C" Street and 21st Street, where some individuals continue to block parking after the permit-required hours.
Furthermore, I am concerned about the recent construction of new apartments by the City of National City on F Street and 24th, which only include 45 parking spaces for a building containing 95 units. This raises significant questions regarding where the residents of these new apartments will park. Even in the context of permit requirements, it is evident that homeowners are taking advantage of street parking availability. Therefore, I firmly oppose the implementation of permit-required areas on public streets.
Thank you for considering my perspective on this matter.
Sincerely,
Iltze Flores
Item 10.1
Current Parking Policy Framework
A. Residential Parking Districts (RPDs)
National City uses Residential Parking Districts
In RPD areas, on-street parking is prohibited without a valid permit Permits:
o Issued to qualifying residents
o Linked to license plates (digital system)
Authority:
o Based on California Vehicle Code and Title 11 of the municipal code This is the City’s primary tool for managing neighborhood spillover today.
B. General on-street regulation and enforcement
The City operates active parking enforcement:
o Citations must be paid or contested within days
o Vehicles with multiple violations can be impounded
There is a low-income payment plan option for citations Enforcement exists, but it is primarily reactive (violations) rather than demand-management.
C. Time limits and potential expansion tools
The city has considered/implemented:
o 2-hour parking limits in business areas
o Rules preventing vehicles from staying in the same space all day There has been discussion of:
o More parking meters (not now used citywide)
These tools are partial and targeted, not systemwide.
D. Zoning and off-street parking requirements
Off-street parking is governed by Title 18 (Zoning / Land Use Code) The code:
o Requires parking spaces for developments
o Includes standards for off-street parking and loading Planning framework:
o Parking requirements are embedded in zoning regulations and tied to land use review
This is where new development parking supply is regulated, but rules may be changing due to state laws.
E. Transit-Oriented Development (TOD) policies
The city has a Transit-Oriented Development Overlay (TODO):
o Designed to support growth near transit
o Includes goals to develop housing and parking policies for higher density areas
This signals a shift toward less car dependence, but does not itself resolve current spillover conflicts.
F. Absence or limited use of tools
Based on available sources, National City:
Historically has not widely used parking meters
Has no widely implemented dynamic pricing system (not documented) Relies heavily on:
o Permits
o Time limits
o Enforcement
Gaps Risking Increased Friction
From what’s documented, a few structural gaps stand out:
1) RPDs are binary (permit / no permit)
Either you can park (permit) or you cannot
Limited or no application of:
o Permit caps
o Tiered pricing
o Allocation mechanisms
This can favor incumbents but exclude renters or overflow groups completely 2) Limited price signals
Parking appears largely free or low-cost on streets (except citations) No evidence of:
o Demand-based pricing
o Paid residential permits with strong price differentiation This tends to encourage maximum vehicle ownership and usage 3) Weak integration between development policy and curb policy Zoning handles off‑street parking
RPDs handle on‑street parking
No clear mechanism ties them together
Result:
New buildings with little parking → spillover into neighborhoods Neighborhoods → demand stricter RPDs
4) Limited use of shared or alternative supply
No clear program for:
•Shared parking agreements
•Leasing private lots
•Structured interim supply
This leaves curb parking as the default pressure valve. 5) TOD policy exists, but transition tools are thin
TOD overlay promotes reduced car use and higher density, but there are no documented interim “bridge” strategies. Residents feel the impacts before behavior changes Highest‑priority policies to review
These are the specific policies worth revisiting first. 1) Residential Parking District (RPD) design itself
Why critical: This is where most resident conflict is happening.
Aspects to review:
•Number of permits per household
•Eligibility rules (renters vs. owners vs. new developments) •Visitor permits
•Whether permits are capped or unlimited
Current system ensures access, but does not manage scarcity explicitly 2) Permit pricing and structure
Why critical: Right now, there is no clear demand signal.
Review options:
•Tiered pricing (e.g., second/third vehicle higher cost) •Market-rate pricing in high-demand areas
•Revenue allocation back to neighborhoods
Without pricing, demand continues to exceed supply.
3) Coordination with new development approvals
Why critical: Spillover originates here.
Policies to revisit:
• Whether new developments can access RPD permits
• Conditions for approving low- or no-parking housing
• Mitigation requirements (e.g., TDM, shared parking)
This is where California law and local politics intersect most directly. 4) Shared parking and off‑street access programs
Why critical: Adds supply without construction.
Policies to review:
•Allowing and encouraging shared parking agreements
•Incentives for private lot leasing
•Partnerships with churches, schools, businesses
This is one of the most feasible short-term pressure relief tools 5) Expansion of time limits and managed zones
Why critical: Helps turnover where demand is mixed (retail + residential).
Policies to revisit:
• 2‑hour parking zones
• Hybrid permit + time-limit areas
• Preventing long-term curb storage
Currently used in limited areas; could be expanded systematically. 6) Introduction of pricing / meters in high-demand areas Why critical: Already under discussion locally.
Policy area:
•Meter zones
•Paid parking districts
•Dynamic pricing (future option)
This converts unmanaged curb demand into actively managed supply 7) Enforcement strategy and tools
Why critical: Rules only work if enforced consistently.
Potential updates:
• Technology (e.g., license plate recognition)
• Enforcement focus (hotspots vs. citywide)
• Equity adjustments
Enforcement was already identified as needing upgrades
8) TOD / planning integration (“bridge policies”)
Why critical: Addresses the root cause of conflict.
Important to Review: How TOD policy connects to:
• Parking supply
• Permit access
•Transportation alternatives
Need a clear transition path between today’s car dependence and future goals Bottom line
The biggest takeaway from the current system:
National City already has the basic tools (permits, zoning, enforcement), but they are mostly static, binary, and disconnected
The policies most worth revisiting now are:
1. How permits are allocated and priced
2. How new development interacts with street parking
3. How off-street/shared supply is (or might be) unlocked
4. Whether curb space can be more actively managed (time + price), not just regulated From: Craig Benedetto
To: Public Comment
Cc: Clerk; Ron Morrison; Marcus Bush; Councilmember Ditas Yamane; Jose Rodriguez; Luz Molina Subject: Item 11.1 - Gross Receipts Tax - Coalition Opposition Letter (Attached) Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 11:32:26 AM
Attachments: FINAL NC GRT Coalition Opposition Ltr - Item 11.1 - June 15, 2026.docx CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Good morning. Attached, please find a letter for distribution to the National City City Council on behalf of the coalition of signers in opposition to the gross receipts tax proposal pending before the City Council. It’s our understanding that this item may have been pulled back by staff, but the opposition letter is being submitted for the Council’s consideration. Please let me know if you need anything else. Thank you for your time and attention to these important comments.
Sent by:
Craig Benedetto
California Strategies
530 B Street, Suite 920
San Diego, CA 92101
O: (619) 546-7451
E: [email protected]
www.calstrat.com
Item 11.1
Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter Building Industry Association San Diego County
California Apartment Association - San Diego
California Restaurant Association - San Diego County Chapter NAIOP San Diego
New Car Dealers Association San Diego County
San Diego County Lodging Association
San Diego County Taxpayers Association
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
San Diego Working Waterfront
Southern California Rental Housing Association
The Mile of Cars Association
June 15, 2026
Honorable Ron Morrison, Mayor
National City
1243 National City Blvd
National City, CA 91950
TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY
RE: Item 11.1 - Gross Receipts Tax Increase
Dear Mayor Morrison and Members of the City Council:
On behalf of the undersigned coalition, we are writing to oppose the proposed imposition of a new “gross receipts tax” on the November 2026 ballot. It’s our understanding this item is being pulled from the agenda for future consideration, but whether it’s heard today or in the future, we remain opposed. Our reasons for opposing this tax increase are myriad, but suffice it to say that a tax on gross receipts is one of the worst taxes on employers and residents alike. It’s anticompetitive, raises the prices on all goods and services sold in the city, and, specific to the National City scheme, raises rents on your constituents.
This proposed tax increase would hit nearly all businesses, small and large, as well as consumers of nearly all goods within the City. What’s worse, residents renting homes in the city, which represents 70% of the city’s population, would be hit with the highest tax rate. This is not fair, equitable or responsible.
The city’s narrative has focused on “modernizing” this tax, claiming that it hasn’t been updated in years. The facts are that this type of tax is NOT favored by residents, businesses or local and state governments. These often get adopted as a business license tax and efforts to tie them to gross receipts fail because of the additive impact on consumers as the tax applies to the entire supply chain. And let’s be clear, the City has successfully looked at other more equitable, less impactful ways to raise revenue, as an alternative, with previous councils recognizing the benefit of that approach versus a gross receipts tax.
In summary:
• Since it’s a tax on gross receipts, it applies to virtually EVERY business regardless of profitability
• The highest tax rates fall on your most important taxpayers, those businesses who employ your residents, including important union households • The biggest impact is on your constituents who can afford it the least, including the highest tax rate being applied to rental housing
• The tax applies across the entire supply chain, with little exception, meaning it could and likely would apply MULTIPLE times compounding the impact before the final product or service ends up in the consumers, your constituent's, hands • High business and consumer tax rates make the city ultimately uncompetitive with your neighboring cities, as consumers look to buy goods and services that meet their financial ability
At a time when concerns over cost of living are exceedingly high, this is neither the time or type of tax to propose for your city. Hitting working families, whether they work at a business within the city or buy from a business in the city, is simply wrong. This is why we are asking you to vote no on the placing the proposed gross receipts tax on the ballot.
Sincerely,
Shandon Harbour, President & CEO
Associated Builders and Contractors - San Diego Chapter Aimee Faucett, President & CEO
Building Industry Association San Diego County
Melanie Woods, Vice President
California Apartment Association
Chris Duggan, Director, Local Government Affairs
California Restaurant Association - San Diego County Chapter Craig Benedetto, Legislative Advocate
NAIOP San Diego
Scott Webb, President
New Car Dealers Association San Diego County
Fred Tayco, Executive Director
San Diego County Lodging Association
Mark Kersey, President & CEO
San Diego County Taxpayers Association
Chris Cate, President & CEO
San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce
Sharon Cloward, President & CEO
San Diego Working Waterfront
Molly Kirkland, Director of Public Affairs
Southern California Rental Housing Association
Jennifer Ball, President
The Mile of Cars Association
From: Cynthia Fuller Quinonez
To: Public Comment
Subject: City Council Agenda for 6/16/2026, Appointment of City Manager Date: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 2:01:12 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
DATE: June 16, 2026
TO: Mayor and City Council Members, City of National City SUBJECT: Public Comment, Appointment of City Manager
This is a comment opposed to City Council approval of the proposed appointment of Doug Shulze as our new City Manager. Recommended instead: extending the appointment of interim City Manager, Steve Manganiello, for the duration of time needed to identify additional resources that would support his appointment to City Manager, as needed for his and the city's success long-term
National City is at a pivotal moment.
Our city is facing real pressures: fiscal constraints, staffing challenges, and rising expectations from residents. We are dealing with a nearly $13 million budget deficit within roughly an $89 million budget, which requires disciplined, thoughtful leadership.
At the same time, across California, local governments are experiencing staffing shortages as high as 30%, creating real impacts—delays in services, increased workloads, and strain on employees.
This is not business as usual.This is a moment where leadership decisions will shape not just operations—but the future direction of our city.
What We Need Right Now: Stability and Continuity
When leadership changes abruptly, cities pay a price.
Item 11.2
Experienced practitioners note that leadership turnover leads to stalled projects, lost institutional knowledge, and declining staff morale.
These impacts ripple outward:
Slower service delivery
Delayed community improvements
Reduced confidence from residents
That is why this moment calls for stability—not disruption.
Take A Proven Path: Promote From Within
Promoting from within is not just the safer choice—it is the smarter one, benefiting from an internal leader who:
Understands the city’s systems and challenges immediately Maintains continuity of operations
Preserves institutional knowledge
Builds trust across departments
Such action also strengthens the workforce itself.When employees see opportunity for advancement, morale improves, retention increases, and organizations remain more resilient in times of stress.
In a tight labor market, that matters.
A Personal Perspective
This idea of a proven path is not abstract.
From direct experience working on city issues—including in a Traffic Safety Commissioner role—I have seen the clear value in leadership that already understands the system, as clearly demonstrated by Mr. Manganiello He is a leader who:
Knows the people
Understands the dynamics
And can move projects forward without a learning curve
These important capabilities, already here, should be recognized.
The Opportunity in Front of Us: Smarter, More Efficient Government
But this moment is not only about stability. It is also about modernization.
Cities across the country are beginning to use artificial intelligence to:
Speed up permitting by as much as 60–70%
Automate routine administrative work
Improve service response times
Enable better, data-driven decision-making
These tools help cities do more with less—exactly the challenge National City faces today.
Importantly, AI is not about replacing people.
It is about freeing staff to focus on higher-value work that directly serves residents.
A Second Imperative: Environmental Justice Can’t Wait
But there is another reality we cannot ignore:Not all communities experience the city the same way.
Environmental justice exists because pollution, environmental hazards, and health risks are not distributed equally.Low-income communities and communities of color have historically carried a disproportionate burden.
That burden shows up as:
Higher exposure to polluted air and water
Greater vulnerability to climate impacts
Higher rates of asthma, heart disease, and other health issues Environmental justice is about correcting that.It means:
Ensuring no community bears a disproportionate share of environmental harm Giving residents a meaningful voice in decisions affecting their neighborhoods Ensuring equitable access to healthy, safe, and sustainable environments And in California, this is not optional.State law requires cities to integrate environmental justice into planning—to reduce pollution burdens, improve health outcomes, and expand access to community resources. 8
Why This Moment Matters
This is where all of these threads come together.National City has a chance to:
Maintain stability through experienced internal leadership Modernize operations through thoughtful use of AI
Finally make meaningful progress on environmental justice Because environmental justice is not a side issue.It is central to:
Public health
Economic opportunity
Quality of life
And trust in government
And real progress requires:
Leadership that understands local conditions
Commitment to equity in decision-making
And the ability to implement change effectively
A Smarter, More Just Path Forward
The right path forward is not choosing between priorities.It is aligning them.
Promote from within—and:
Preserve continuity
Strengthen the workforce
Maintain momentum
While also:
Investing in smarter, more efficient systems
Leveraging AI to improve services
Advancing environmental justice with urgency and intention What Residents Deserve
Residents of National City deserve:
Reliable services
Responsive government
Fair and equitable treatment
And a healthier environment
They deserve a city that:
Works better
Works smarter
And works for everyone
The decision to be made tonight is about more than selecting a City Manager.It is about choosing the kind of city National City will be -- a city that:
Values stability
Embraces innovation
And commits to justice
Not someday—but now.