Residents contest 'nuisance' claim in Clark v. City and allege conflicts at National City meeting

Several residents used the council's one-minute public-comment slots to challenge allegations tied to agenda item 5.1, a litigation matter the city later discussed in closed session. Paulina Perez, who identified herself at the start of the comment period, said the staff report and planning division never adopted any nuisance findings and called the assertion in the claim false. "The project is not a nuisance," Perez said.

Other speakers expanded the challenge and raised allegations of conflicts of interest. Mikayla Polanco urged the council to treat the item as a potential conflict, asking "who all helped Josie's attorney to put this claim against the city to sue the city" and naming Luz Molina and connections to the mayor's attorney. Michael Aguirre told the council, "The eyes of the people of the city of National City are on you," and warned that approving disputed actions amid fiscal strain would send a troubling message about responsibility for the city's finances.

Alicia Morrison said she supplied documents she said contradict parts of the complaint in Clark v. City, noting a resignation letter dated 11/06/2024 and other materials she said undermine claims about her actions. Doyle Morrison questioned a citation in the complaint to a planning commission meeting months later and argued the planning division made no findings supporting denial; he said adding a future meeting citation raised concerns about the accuracy of the complaint.

Clerk-confirmed speaker order and the restricted one-minute time limit shaped the public-comment period; the clerk read the list of speakers and the mayor closed public comment before the council entered closed session later in the meeting. No council member debate or staff rebuttal of these specific allegations is recorded in the public transcript.