[0:01] meeting.

[0:02] I will now call the special

[0:02] City Council meeting of

[0:05] Thursday, MAY 7th, 2026 to

[0:06] order Assistant clerk please

[0:06] call the Roll Councilmember

[0:10] Campbell Councilmember Whipper

[0:10] here.

[0:15] Councilmember Foster Council

[0:16] Von Wilpert Council PRESIDENT

[0:19] Pro Tem Lee Councilmember Campo

[0:20] here Council Moreno Present

[0:24] Council Member ilo Rivera and

[0:25] Council PRESIDENT LaCava

[0:29] PRESIDENT.

[0:30] >> Also attending the meeting

[0:30] are Assistant City Attorney

[0:31] Leslie Fitzgerald, Senior

[0:34] Fiscal and policy Analyst in

[0:34] the aba Office.

[0:35] Amy Lee Senior Policy Advisor

[0:38] in the Mayor's office

[0:39] Christopher Ackerman Avila and

[0:39] myself your Assistant City

[0:43] Clerk dg Pentel Pantaleon.

[0:44] >> All right, Thank you for

[0:48] that And I noticed that there

[0:49] was a little if it was

[0:49] sweetness leaving the room so

[0:56] it was So with that a quorum is

[0:57] now present since this is a

[1:00] special council meeting under

[1:01] the unlike the brc meeting

[1:01] earlier today.

[1:02] Before we start today's meeting

[1:05] I want to remind everyone about

[1:06] the city's practices and

[1:06] procedures for public comment

[1:10] at city Council meetings City

[1:10] welcomes public participation

[1:11] at our City Council meeting.

[1:12] Speakers MAY address

[1:12] the Council during public

[1:15] comment and also in connection

[1:16] with a specific item of

[1:16] business on the agenda.

[1:20] However, the city must make

[1:20] sure that no one person or

[1:21] group of people disrupt

[1:22] the meeting in a way that

[1:25] prohibits other speakers from

[1:25] expressing their ideas and

[1:26] opinions.

[1:26] So to make sure that everyone

[1:29] here has an opportunity to

[1:30] address the Council I will

[1:30] alert an individual or

[1:31] individuals if I think their

[1:33] conduct becomes disruptive.

[1:34] If the disruption continues I

[1:35] will rule the individual out of

[1:38] order and if the disruption

[1:39] continues further I will

[1:39] declare a recess.

[1:43] We can restore order at that

[1:44] point we will direct

[1:44] the individual leave the room

[1:45] and if the individual refuses

[1:46] police will escort

[1:49] the individual out of

[1:50] the building.

[1:50] If we have to repeat

[1:51] the process of warning as

[1:51] recessing the meeting all

[1:53] members of the public will be

[1:54] excused from chambers.

[1:54] Credentialed media will be

[1:58] allowed to remain.

[1:58] Once again we have these

[1:59] practices and procedures to

[2:00] protect the rights of other

[2:02] speakers who wish to address

[2:03] the Council and to allow

[2:04] the Council to conduct

[2:04] the public's business and

[2:07] frankly to show respect to

[2:08] the members of the public who

[2:09] chose to spend their Thursday

[2:12] evening here in chambers Unlike

[2:13] other fun things I could have

[2:13] been doing.

[2:17] So I respect their time when

[2:18] you think about when you offer

[2:18] your testimony.

[2:22] So with that assistant clerk

[2:23] please go over how the public

[2:23] can after their testimony I

[2:26] will now highlight the slide on

[2:27] the screen that reviews how

[2:28] the public can offer their

[2:28] public testimony during this

[2:32] evening's meeting.

[2:32] The order can be found on

[2:33] the agenda summary found online

[2:34] or at the table in the back of

[2:37] the room If you are in person

[2:37] please complete a speaker slip

[2:38] located at the entrance of

[2:42] chambers and bring it to

[2:42] the front of the room.

[2:43] Council ambassadors are

[2:44] available near the entrance of

[2:46] chambers and can assist with

[2:47] questions and speaker slips.

[2:47] No further in-person testimony

[2:51] will be taken once the council

[2:51] begins Virtual testimony.

[2:52] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[2:52] right.

[2:55] Thank you.

[2:56] >> So with that please

[3:00] introduce item 600 item 600 as

[3:00] Senate Bill 79 phased

[3:01] implementation and exempting

[3:05] non transit oriented

[3:05] development areas.

[3:05] >> Right.

[3:09] I see staff is seated.

[3:10] When you're ready introduce

[3:10] yourselves for the record and

[3:11] let us know how much time you

[3:22] need for the presentation.

[3:23] Good in the council members My

[3:26] name is Grant Rody.

[3:27] I'm a senior planner with

[3:28] the City Planning Department.

[3:28] I'm here with Seth Luciani,

[3:31] deputy Director of housing

[3:32] policy and Environmental

[3:33] Analysis and City Planning and

[3:33] Heidi Bloom, City planning

[3:36] Director.

[3:37] I am presenting the City Plan

[3:38] Department's proposed Senate

[3:40] Bill 79 phase of a mentation

[3:41] plan with exemptions and it

[3:41] will be about 15 minutes.

[3:42] All right.

[3:44] When you're ready.

[3:45] >> Pursuant to the requirements

[3:50] of the bill, the city Council

[3:51] needs to adopt an ordinance to

[3:51] phase in sb seven an

[3:52] implementation in low resource

[3:55] areas very high fire severity

[3:56] zones sites with designated

[3:59] historic resources and outside

[4:00] to deter one foot sea level

[4:02] rise and to exempt areas

[4:03] outside of a one mile walk in

[4:04] distance from sb seven nine

[4:07] applicability Today the city

[4:08] Planning Department is

[4:08] proposing an ordinance

[4:09] the phase the implementation of

[4:11] sb 79 and exempt certain areas

[4:15] from sb 79 implementation sb

[4:15] seven nine was signed by

[4:19] Governor Andrew some on OCTOBER

[4:20] 10th 2025 and seeks to address

[4:21] the state's housing shortage

[4:24] create homeownership

[4:25] opportunities and to build more

[4:28] homes near transit.

[4:28] Sb seven as requirements are

[4:29] generally consistent with

[4:30] the policies included in

[4:33] the city's general plan

[4:33] including the housing element

[4:34] which calls for more housing

[4:35] options throughout the city and

[4:36] the city's climate Action plan

[4:37] calling for more homes and jobs

[4:42] located near transit.

[4:42] >> sb seven nine requires

[4:43] the city to approve certain

[4:44] housing developments within a

[4:47] half mile radius of qualifying

[4:48] and transit stops which I call

[4:49] transit oriented development or

[4:52] towed stops and sites that are

[4:53] zoned for residential mixed use

[4:53] or commercial development.

[4:57] The half mile areas are

[4:57] calculated as a straight line

[4:58] distance or as the crow flies

[5:02] and are referred to as tod

[5:02] zones.

[5:03] The bill requires that sandag

[5:07] create a map of today's stops

[5:07] and zones within the city while

[5:08] the city plans that is created

[5:11] several sb 79 maps dog stops

[5:11] are subject to confirmation

[5:12] from sandbags maps of

[5:19] designated toad stops The bill

[5:20] spotlighted zones in the two

[5:20] areas.

[5:21] >> The first is within a

[5:23] quarter mile of a toad stop and

[5:24] the second is between a quarter

[5:25] and a half mile of a tide stop.

[5:28] It requires greater density and

[5:28] larger buildings.

[5:29] The closer a site is to a

[5:29] qualifying train to start with

[5:31] the greatest density and

[5:32] the largest buildings and sites

[5:36] that are within 200ft.

[5:37] Sb seven nine provides the city

[5:37] with several implementation

[5:41] options including the phasing

[5:42] in and exemption of certain

[5:42] areas of the city along with a

[5:43] total alternative plan that can

[5:46] comprehensively implement a

[5:47] phased implementation approach.

[5:47] Such a plan would allow

[5:51] the city to determine optimal

[5:52] locations for future

[5:53] development around D.O.T. Stops

[5:53] and incorporate the feedback

[5:56] from community members into

[5:57] the city's sb 79 implementation

[6:01] Thoughtfully planning for new

[6:02] growth through a two tiered

[6:04] alternative plan can help

[6:05] the implementation of sb 79

[6:06] benefit San Diego addressing

[6:10] fire risk and sea level rise

[6:10] will help to improve public

[6:11] safety and phase in

[6:13] the implementation of sb 79 in

[6:14] low resource areas allows

[6:15] the city additional time to

[6:15] address infrastructure needs

[6:18] while furthering fair housing

[6:19] by allowing more homes a

[6:19] moderate, high and highest

[6:24] resource areas that MAY not

[6:24] have similarly needs.

[6:25] First, it's important to note

[6:25] that this type of more

[6:28] thoughtful planning was

[6:29] specifically anticipated in sb

[6:30] 79 which provides for this

[6:33] planning and the development of

[6:33] alternative plans.

[6:34] This process also allows

[6:38] the city to mark responsibly

[6:38] plan and anticipate for growth

[6:39] in a manner that can be most

[6:42] efficiently served with

[6:43] municipal services such as fire

[6:47] police and trash collection.

[6:48] >> sb seven nine allows

[6:49] the city to exempt areas where

[6:52] a walking path of less than one

[6:53] mile from eligible size city

[6:53] stops does not exist.

[6:57] While all tod zones are located

[6:58] within a half mile of tio d

[6:59] stops or as the crow flies non

[7:01] toddy sites do not have a

[7:02] walking path of one mile or

[7:03] less from these stops due to

[7:03] physical barriers such as

[7:06] canyons and freeways.

[7:07] Allowing development further

[7:07] from D.O.T. Stops would not

[7:10] lead to actual transit oriented

[7:11] development to ensure

[7:12] the development allowed under

[7:16] sb 79 provides opportunities

[7:16] for future community members to

[7:17] access study stops.

[7:17] The City Plan Department

[7:20] proposed ordinance would exempt

[7:21] those areas from sb 79

[7:21] implementation.

[7:25] These areas would not be

[7:26] affected by the implementation

[7:27] of the bill or be included in

[7:30] an alternative plan.

[7:30] It's important to remember that

[7:31] the intent of sb 79 is to spur

[7:34] transit oriented development

[7:35] and areas outside of a one mile

[7:36] walking distance from these

[7:39] stops are not transit oriented.

[7:40] The city plan department also

[7:43] calculated the areas without a

[7:44] walking path of one mile or

[7:44] less taking into account areas

[7:48] lacking sidewalks as the path

[7:49] of travel should include safe

[7:50] publicly accessible sidewalks

[7:53] to qualify for sb seven and an

[7:56] implementation sb seven nine

[7:57] permits a phased implementation

[7:58] in lower resource areas as

[8:01] identified by the California

[8:02] Tax Credit Allocation Committee

[8:02] until one year after

[8:03] the adoption of the Seventh

[8:06] Housing Limited, the city and

[8:07] 2031 the City Plan department

[8:10] can also implement sb 79

[8:11] through community plan updates

[8:13] and low resource areas prior to

[8:14] 2031 to ensure that at the sb

[8:17] 79 densities are addressed

[8:18] phasing the implementation as

[8:19] desired primarily to focus

[8:19] housing development in areas

[8:23] with access to opportunity

[8:24] prior to being implemented in

[8:28] low resource areas.

[8:29] >> Portions of the Toddies

[8:32] alternate arterial tiered zones

[8:33] are in very high fire severity

[8:33] zones adopted by the City

[8:36] Council on AUGUST 2025 because

[8:37] a significant portion of

[8:40] the total zones are in these

[8:41] very high fire severity zones

[8:41] the Department recommends a

[8:42] phased implementation through a

[8:46] total turn up plan to address

[8:46] fire safety.

[8:47] The top alternative plan allows

[8:50] the city to ensure

[8:50] the development required by sb

[8:51] 79 is not located in places

[8:54] with the most fire risk in

[8:55] those areas that only have a

[8:59] single evacuation route.

[9:00] Sb seven nine also permits a

[9:01] phased implementation on sites

[9:04] containing historic resource

[9:05] that are designated as of

[9:09] JANUARY 1st 2025 sb seven nine

[9:10] implementation would occur on

[9:10] these sites with a total

[9:11] alternative plan to ensure

[9:13] the city's newly adopted

[9:13] historic preservation

[9:14] regulations can be taken into

[9:18] account.

[9:19] Phase implementation is also

[9:19] allowed on sites that are

[9:23] identified as vulnerable to a

[9:24] one foot sea level rise as

[9:24] shown on the map attached to

[9:25] the staff report.

[9:28] The areas affected by a one

[9:28] foot sea level rise are on

[9:29] the western side of Mission

[9:29] Valley.

[9:32] The phase of limitation of

[9:33] these areas would occur as part

[9:34] of a tod alternative plan to

[9:37] address climate resiliency.

[9:41] Starting on JULY 1st sb 79 will

[9:42] take effect on all qualifying

[9:42] sites.

[9:43] This means the default

[9:44] densities will apply in all

[9:47] commercial mixed use and

[9:47] residential zones.

[9:48] If the proposed ordinance is

[9:51] approved, only areas outside of

[9:52] low resource areas that do not

[9:53] include designated historic

[9:56] resources are not subject to

[9:57] sea level rise and not in very

[9:58] high fire severity zones would

[10:00] take effect on JULY 1st.

[10:00] These areas are marked in

[10:01] yellow on the map and

[10:04] constitute approximately 22% of

[10:05] the areas within Todd Zoned

[10:09] citywide.

[10:10] After approval of the proposed

[10:10] ordinance phase in

[10:14] the implementation of sb 79 and

[10:14] exempting specified areas must

[10:15] be 70 an implementation by

[10:18] the City Council.

[10:19] City planning will transmit

[10:19] the ordinance to hb asked for

[10:23] review and comment.

[10:24] Under sb 79 it has 90 to 120

[10:25] days to evaluate whether

[10:28] the city's actions comply with

[10:28] sb 79.

[10:29] If hpd determines that

[10:33] revisions are necessary,

[10:33] the city MAY amend

[10:34] the ordinance to address these

[10:35] comments or adopt

[10:37] the resolution affirming

[10:38] the ordinance and explaining

[10:39] the city's rationale for why

[10:41] its actions comply with sb 79.

[10:42] To preliminary conversations

[10:46] hpd staff has indicated that a

[10:46] locally adopted ordinance would

[10:47] take effect upon city adoption

[10:50] and hpd is review is not

[10:51] required to be completed for

[10:52] the ordinance to take effect.

[10:55] The city plan department also

[10:56] plan to prepare a tldr

[10:56] alternative plan to implement

[11:00] sb 79 which will include

[11:01] amendments to the Miscible

[11:01] Code, zoning community plans

[11:02] and the general plan.

[11:05] The total alternative plan

[11:06] would be provided for public

[11:07] review and comment before being

[11:10] submitted for consideration to

[11:11] the Planning Commission.

[11:11] The Land Use and Housing

[11:12] Committee and the City Council.

[11:13] The Department anticipates that

[11:14] it can bring this item forward

[11:18] later this year.

[11:19] >> The Planning Commission

[11:20] voted to recommend to the City

[11:20] Council the approval of an

[11:24] ordinance exempting areas and

[11:24] phasing implementation of sb 79

[11:25] within Todd zoned citywide

[11:29] inclusive of low resource

[11:29] areas.

[11:30] The motion further recommends

[11:30] that should the Todd

[11:33] alternative plan not be

[11:34] approved as of APRIL 2027 staff

[11:35] shall return to the Planning

[11:36] Commission by MAY 2027 for

[11:41] consideration.

[11:42] City Planning Staff recommends

[11:43] the approval of an orange to

[11:45] phase the implementation of sb

[11:46] 79 as proposed by city planning

[11:50] staff and to exempt areas not

[11:51] located near transit from sb

[11:51] seven nine implementation as

[11:53] provided for in sb 79.

[11:54] >> This includes staff

[11:55] presentation and where

[11:56] available for any questions you

[11:56] have.

[12:01] >> Thank you.

[12:01] All right.

[12:02] Thank you very much for

[12:03] the presentation.

[12:06] Clerk Please proceed with

[12:06] public comment.

[12:07] >> Thank you.

[12:07] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to

[12:09] note that this item received

[12:10] 281 comments in favor and 19

[12:14] comments in opposition via our

[12:15] comment form which had been

[12:15] distributed to City Council.

[12:19] The public comment period is

[12:19] now open.

[12:20] We received 43 speaker slips

[12:23] from individuals in chambers

[12:24] and currently have six hands up

[12:28] from those attending virtually

[12:29] We will go to one minute per

[12:30] person just friendly reminder

[12:34] to individual seating.

[12:34] Time to please raise your hand

[12:35] when I call your name so we're

[12:36] able to account for the slips

[12:39] that you submitted.

[12:39] We will begin with Doreen Diaz

[12:40] pastor.

[12:43] You have time ceded to you by

[12:47] Terri Fowler.

[12:52] >> Kimberly Roberts surely use

[12:52] Thank you.

[12:56] You have four minutes.

[12:57] Please don't stop my cow.

[13:01] Thank you.

[13:02] Who is going to control my

[13:02] projector?

[13:06] Don't start my time.

[13:06] Okay.

[13:07] Can I go like this?

[13:07] Just a slide.

[13:07] Okay.

[13:08] Okay.

[13:10] Before you I don't want to

[13:11] waste time waiting for my

[13:11] slide.

[13:12] Thank you so much.

[13:17] So we can scroll this one.

[13:18] Okay.

[13:23] The most important thing for

[13:27] him is here right now Is that

[13:28] we have a low resource area

[13:29] with naturally occurring

[13:32] affordable homes.

[13:33] We still have some three

[13:33] bedroom homes, two baths,

[13:37] garage front yard backyard

[13:40] renting at 2300 which is

[13:41] the same rate of those horrible

[13:45] 80 bonus.

[13:50] We need what you had on You

[13:54] have FEBRUARY 3rd 13th 2026

[13:55] Memo spoke about Lemon Grove

[13:58] and I didn't see it during this

[13:59] presentation or updated.

[14:03] But because Lemon Grove is 35 k

[14:04] the one you acquired to go half

[14:07] a mile and going oh sorry a

[14:08] quarter of a mile going a

[14:11] quarter of a mile affects 70

[14:16] homes in Hamakua and going a

[14:21] half a mile affects 307 low

[14:21] resource homes.

[14:29] So different 1717 versus 307.

[14:30] I took a photo That blue dot is

[14:34] the Lemon Grove station And you

[14:35] look there they are all single

[14:37] family homes exclusively.

[14:42] >> There's no vacant lot.

[14:43] >> So if you check we are ctca

[14:47] is the resort area 17 streets

[14:52] are affected that tamisha skip

[14:56] that I don't have much time.

[15:00] >> All of our streets are two

[15:01] Main street lined on both sides

[15:05] with cars.

[15:06] >> We do not have any four lane

[15:06] streets.

[15:09] They are narrow street and of

[15:14] the 17 streets we have 15 of

[15:15] those street have most of

[15:20] the homes in very high fire

[15:20] zone.

[15:20] >> The majority of those

[15:25] streets are 100% of the homes

[15:25] and only a few streets have

[15:28] partial of the homes.

[15:29] And in these two sectors which

[15:34] is also uploaded let's go to

[15:34] the next one.

[15:39] So over here to verify

[15:39] everything I'm saying you can

[15:40] check this char.

[15:43] You can count the homes.

[15:44] We are going to be severely

[15:47] impacted in less.

[15:48] You lobby that the city of San

[15:52] Diego will end up being

[15:53] equitable with the city of

[15:58] Lemon grow so that we can go

[15:59] one fourth of a mile.

[16:03] There is no other neighborhood

[16:04] affected by the master to

[16:09] the trolley station except for

[16:09] the Hamsher neighborhood.

[16:10] It doesn't affect Encanto,

[16:13] doesn't affect Broadway.

[16:14] It is exclusively ours and we

[16:15] are low income and we have a

[16:18] lot of steep hills.

[16:19] I sent you all an email that I

[16:20] would give you our personal

[16:23] tour and my car to show you and

[16:24] let you walk up these hills

[16:27] yourself If you wanted to see

[16:28] how steep they are All of us we

[16:33] either drive to the trolley

[16:33] station or we get dropped off

[16:38] on a trolley station very few

[16:38] or younger healthy or people

[16:42] walk to the Massachusetts

[16:43] trolley station.

[16:44] The majority of our people if

[16:48] you look at the census and I'm

[16:48] talking this this sector we

[16:52] have three centers because we

[16:56] have 413 acres But in this

[16:56] slanted 14202 it is a majority

[17:00] of the homeowners are over 65.

[17:01] So we are if you look at how

[17:06] many seniors we have a lot of

[17:07] senior homes and of course

[17:11] the kids and their grandkids

[17:11] and sometimes the great

[17:12] grandkids because we have

[17:16] multigenerational homes.

[17:16] >> Thank you.

[17:17] Thank you for your comment.

[17:18] Our next speaker is Andrea had

[17:21] the roof you have please please

[17:21] come up.

[17:22] Thank you.

[17:25] You have as you're coming up

[17:26] for those who have been in

[17:26] chambers for the very first

[17:30] time we have speakers in

[17:30] the back So if they're in

[17:31] the hallway or the bathroom

[17:34] they can hear the testimony

[17:34] going forward.

[17:35] So I just want to be assured

[17:36] that everybody is listening to

[17:38] every comment irrespective of

[17:39] whether they're in a seat or

[17:43] they're just standing up.

[17:43] Thank you.

[17:44] Council PRESIDENT You have time

[17:45] ceded to you by Susan Baldwin

[17:48] Thank you.

[17:49] Please comment I am in favor of

[17:52] staff's recommendation to phase

[17:53] in implementation of sb 79

[17:57] particularly as it regards low

[17:57] resource areas additional

[18:02] amenities should be in place

[18:03] before up zoning low resource

[18:07] areas because amenities

[18:07] determine who is willing to

[18:12] move into a community Low

[18:13] resource areas need an increase

[18:16] in that capacity before adding

[18:21] more people investments in them

[18:22] must be of sufficient scale and

[18:25] prominence to signal

[18:26] the stability that changes

[18:26] the avoidance loop of higher

[18:30] income residents.

[18:31] This does not happen by

[18:32] changing who lives there

[18:36] immediately but by changing

[18:40] what the place means as a

[18:41] residential address so that

[18:45] over time it can attract a

[18:46] broader income mix and

[18:50] the resources that come with

[18:50] it.

[18:54] Sb 79 confronts us with

[18:54] generations of inequitable

[18:59] planning in our land use system

[19:03] The full five year phase in is

[19:08] likely necessary to get this

[19:08] right.

[19:08] Thank you.

[19:13] Thank you for your comment.

[19:14] Our next speaker is Ethan Paul.

[19:19] Please come up and following

[19:20] Ethan follows Paul Is Zach

[19:25] positive Carol if you can

[19:25] please come up as well just

[19:26] take a seat on the front row

[19:30] Reserved seat You'll have one

[19:35] minute.

[19:35] >> Good evening.

[19:36] Honorable Council PRESIDENT

[19:40] LaCava and City Council members

[19:40] .

[19:41] My name is Ethan Paul and I'm

[19:42] here on behalf of Build a City

[19:45] a grassroots organization

[19:45] focused on documenting

[19:46] construction and development

[19:49] here in our community.

[19:50] San Diego has invested in fast,

[19:54] frequent and reliable bus

[19:54] routes but so many of my

[19:58] friends and family can't afford

[19:59] and don't have the opportunity

[20:00] to live in the communities that

[20:03] these routes have been built

[20:03] in.

[20:04] If we want more clean, safe and

[20:08] affordable places for our

[20:09] friends and family to live,

[20:13] this city should take this

[20:14] opportunity and recognize that

[20:14] the busses and stops on El

[20:18] Cajon Boulevard and University

[20:19] Avenue qualify as Tier two

[20:19] transit stops.

[20:23] We have built a city.

[20:24] Hope your decision today helps

[20:24] make that future a more

[20:25] affordable one.

[20:29] Thank you for your time.

[20:30] Thank you for your comment.

[20:32] Zach DeFazio Pharrell, please

[20:32] come up.

[20:33] You have time ceded to you by

[20:34] Daniel castelli.

[20:36] Please raise your hand.

[20:42] Keith Gupta Thank you, Tony.

[20:42] Thank you.

[20:46] Jason Vance.

[20:47] Thank you.

[20:47] Manny Rodriguez.

[20:47] Thank you.

[20:53] Jeffrey Crow.

[20:53] >> Paul Jamison.

[20:54] Thank you.

[20:59] Carlisle Dockery.

[20:59] >> No Carlos.

[21:00] Okay.

[21:04] Christina Hammond.

[21:04] >> Hammond Thank you.

[21:08] Chloe La.

[21:09] Thank you.

[21:09] Stephanie Palacio Thank you.

[21:13] Guthrie Leonard.

[21:14] >> Thank you.

[21:18] Lucy Laugher.

[21:18] Thank you.

[21:19] Maxwell Gergen.

[21:19] Thank you.

[21:24] Thank you, MR. Blaine Wagner.

[21:24] Thank you.

[21:25] Paul Cortez.

[21:28] Thank you.

[21:33] Hunter Parker.

[21:33] Thank you.

[21:37] You have 15 minutes.

[21:37] Please.

[21:41] Please proceed to your comment

[21:41] .

[21:41] Thank you.

[21:42] Thank you very much To

[21:42] the council.

[21:43] My name is Zach DeFazio.

[21:46] Ferrell and the treasurer of

[21:47] the Democrats of San Diego

[21:48] County And I'm a member of

[21:49] the Law and Policy team.

[21:50] Next slide, please.

[21:55] Next slide, please.

[21:55] Thank you.

[21:56] This is good.

[22:00] So kind of a rhetorical

[22:01] question but why are we here

[22:01] today?

[22:02] We have an ordinance in front

[22:02] of us this evening regarding

[22:04] how we're going to be phasing

[22:05] sb 79.

[22:10] And the issue for us is that

[22:10] the city's current

[22:11] interpretation of how this will

[22:14] be phased only recognizes for

[22:15] transit oriented development or

[22:20] tod qualifying bus stops.

[22:20] Yet we believe that there are

[22:21] actually 48 bus stops and

[22:24] they've left out of their

[22:25] interpretation.

[22:26] And so there should be a total

[22:26] of 52.

[22:30] We sent a formal letter to

[22:31] the council asking for you to

[22:31] reconsider particularly recital

[22:34] e and the ordinance.

[22:35] So we'll explain why all these

[22:38] stops qualify and what you

[22:39] councilmembers can do about it.

[22:39] Next slide please.

[22:43] Okay.

[22:47] So the text of sd 79 requires a

[22:47] full time dedicated bus lane or

[22:52] up to the separate right of way

[22:52] dedicated for public

[22:53] transportation for a bus stop

[22:57] to qualify for Tier two or

[22:57] transit oriented development or

[23:01] tod up zoning.

[23:02] As I mentioned we disagree with

[23:02] the city staff's

[23:03] interpretation.

[23:06] We don't think it's consistent

[23:07] with California law nor is it

[23:08] supported by the city's own

[23:11] stated goals to increase

[23:11] housing production.

[23:12] And as we have come to

[23:16] understand of the staff's

[23:17] argument that these bus lanes

[23:18] allow bikes and write turns

[23:20] from other vehicles like

[23:21] private vehicles at

[23:21] intersections and thus they do

[23:25] not qualify as dedicated bus

[23:25] lanes.

[23:26] Next slide please.

[23:30] So there are three disputed

[23:31] corridors in question.

[23:35] The first is the El Cajon

[23:36] Boulevard bus way that goes

[23:39] from Elkhorn Boulevard or Park

[23:40] Boulevard all the way to

[23:43] roughly Fairmont the second

[23:44] University Avenue from Florida

[23:45] Street to Boundary Street and

[23:45] Park Boulevard going from

[23:49] upstream to City College

[23:49] approximately.

[23:53] Next slide please.

[23:54] So how do these disputed

[23:55] quarters qualify as full time

[23:59] dedicated bus lanes?

[23:59] Let's break this one down.

[24:00] Next slide.

[24:02] Argument number one

[24:03] the disputed bus lanes are

[24:03] factually full time.

[24:09] Next slide, please.

[24:10] So the disputed quarters

[24:14] feature full time bus lanes

[24:14] because they exist 24 hours of

[24:15] the day.

[24:19] They are not only to be used

[24:19] during peak hours.

[24:20] So this is a clear distinction

[24:21] from bus lanes that might be

[24:24] used during rush hour traffic

[24:25] or something to that effect.

[24:26] And there's a sign there in

[24:29] that photo that's of the bus

[24:30] lane on Park Boulevard south of

[24:31] Upper Street, one of the ones I

[24:31] mentioned.

[24:33] Notice that sign says busses

[24:34] only 24 hours.

[24:35] It is a full time bus lane.

[24:38] Next slide please.

[24:39] Argument number two Existing

[24:43] state law permits bikes and

[24:44] other vehicles in dedicated bus

[24:44] lanes when authorized.

[24:48] >> Next slide please.

[24:49] So the staff says the disputed

[24:49] quarters don't qualify because

[24:52] they'll outright turns and

[24:53] bikes as I mentioned.

[24:53] However, the California vehicle

[24:57] code explicitly states that

[24:57] lanes with these features still

[24:58] qualify as transit only which

[25:02] includes bus only.

[25:03] And there are various

[25:03] subdivisions of the vehicle

[25:07] code that allow cities relevant

[25:11] jurisdictions and relevant

[25:12] transit agencies to establish

[25:13] transit lanes together and to

[25:17] authorize different kinds of

[25:17] vehicles to use those lanes.

[25:22] And it does not it does not

[25:22] remove their qualifying nature

[25:23] as some kind of bus or transit

[25:27] lane.

[25:27] And so three of the lanes

[25:28] through the corridors we're

[25:31] talking about all of them allow

[25:32] private vehicles to pass

[25:33] through them to make a right

[25:33] turn at an intersection.

[25:37] And a home boulevard bus way

[25:37] and the University Avenue bus

[25:41] lanes allow bicyclists to use

[25:42] those bus lanes as well as

[25:42] busses.

[25:46] However, this does not mean

[25:47] that they are not full time

[25:50] dedicated bus lanes.

[25:51] Next slide please.

[25:54] Arguing number three Sandbags

[25:55] Dedicated lanes Definition

[25:55] allows non bus vehicles and

[25:56] modes.

[25:59] Next slide please.

[26:00] So sandag has their own

[26:04] definition of what?

[26:05] And what they say are that

[26:05] dedicated lanes are for

[26:08] preferential or exclusive use

[26:09] of transit services permitting

[26:10] limited use by other vehicles

[26:13] services and modes.

[26:13] Right.

[26:14] And all of these lanes do

[26:19] permit again some kind of code

[26:19] use.

[26:20] >> Next slide, please.

[26:23] And argument number four that

[26:23] the statutes within sb 79 do

[26:24] not require explicit

[26:26] exclusivity for bus lanes.

[26:27] Next slide please.

[26:32] So sb 79 itself specifically

[26:35] when it comes to the tier two

[26:36] sort of tier tier of bus lane

[26:40] standards doesn't say anything

[26:41] about these bus lanes having to

[26:42] physically exclude other kinds

[26:45] of vehicles or bicycles or

[26:46] anything of that nature from

[26:46] using them.

[26:50] In order to qualify it does do

[26:50] so for Tier one.

[26:51] None of which which does not

[26:54] apply to any of these corridors

[26:55] here.

[26:55] But notice that for Tier one

[26:59] what's required are separate

[27:00] rights of way from which all

[27:01] vehicular and foot traffic are

[27:01] excluded.

[27:04] Yet for the Tier two standard

[27:05] they admit that language.

[27:09] And we believe that it's it's

[27:13] incorrect essentially to to

[27:14] read into a meaning that

[27:15] the legislature chose not to

[27:19] include.

[27:19] Next slide please.

[27:20] Thus we can make a very strong

[27:23] case here that the disputed

[27:24] quarters qualify as full time

[27:28] dedicated bus lanes.

[27:29] They're full time.

[27:29] They are dedicated according to

[27:30] state law and according to

[27:33] the city's own definition.

[27:33] And they are bus lanes.

[27:34] Next slide, please.

[27:39] And we'll go into some

[27:39] supporting evidence.

[27:40] Next slide, please.

[27:40] Okay.

[27:43] So we've got city documents

[27:44] that state that they are

[27:44] dedicated and they are bus

[27:45] only.

[27:45] And there's a number of them.

[27:49] This is a non-exhaustive list.

[27:52] The city Transportation

[27:52] Department of MAY 2019 which

[27:53] studied the El Cajon it was a

[27:54] pilot project for the Oklahoma

[27:58] Boulevard bus lanes before they

[27:59] were implemented the following

[27:59] year.

[28:02] We have mts website saying it

[28:03] was a joint project between

[28:03] mta, sandag and the city of San

[28:04] Diego.

[28:07] And for a University Avenue

[28:08] mobility project which is

[28:09] the what the University Avenue

[28:12] bus lanes were called as part

[28:13] of a larger project.

[28:13] Those documents from the city's

[28:17] engineering department call

[28:18] them transit lanes along

[28:19] University Avenue.

[28:22] And they were marked as bus

[28:22] only.

[28:27] Next slide please.

[28:28] And for Park Boulevard again,

[28:29] the city's own documents call

[28:33] them bus lanes.

[28:33] And this is the it's called

[28:38] Capital Improvement Project.

[28:39] Was when they had to redo a

[28:39] pipeline that's when they

[28:42] created a class four buffered

[28:42] bike bike lane next to the bus

[28:43] lane.

[28:43] And you could see the pictures

[28:46] of them that I took myself

[28:47] here.

[28:48] And so we have various city

[28:52] documents calling them what

[28:53] they are dedicated bus lanes.

[28:56] And so we essentially we're

[28:57] the city is using its own logic

[28:58] here to call them bus lanes.

[29:01] But when it comes to promoting

[29:02] sb 79, they're not designated

[29:03] designating them as dedicated

[29:06] bus lanes.

[29:06] Next slide, please.

[29:07] And then we've got oecd

[29:07] guidance.

[29:11] Next slide please.

[29:12] And so it's really a memo

[29:16] recently where they sort of

[29:17] provided some guidance as to

[29:18] how to interpret sb 79 and

[29:21] the various tiers and what they

[29:21] see here on the left

[29:22] essentially is the bus service

[29:24] meeting the standards of

[29:25] paragraph one subdivision a of

[29:26] section 21060.2 of the Public

[29:30] Resources Code.

[29:30] >> Full time dedicated bus

[29:31] lanes or operation a separate

[29:32] right of way dedicated for

[29:34] public transportation.

[29:35] Right.

[29:35] Nothing about any kind of

[29:36] physical exclusivity preventing

[29:41] private vehicles from making

[29:41] write turns or bicyclist from

[29:42] using them.

[29:42] And you see on the right we

[29:45] highlight a small section there

[29:46] qualifying bus service transit

[29:46] oriented development stop at a

[29:50] location with the bus stop is

[29:51] adjacent to a full time

[29:51] dedicated transit lane.

[29:55] Next slide please.

[29:56] And then we'll get into some

[29:57] more supporting documents.

[29:57] Next slide please.

[30:01] This is from the Housing

[30:01] Defense Fund letter.

[30:02] They sent us this letter today

[30:02] saying they agree with our

[30:03] position.

[30:06] They do know they do not want

[30:06] the city to exempt any

[30:10] qualifying sb 79 Tier two tier

[30:11] two stops.

[30:11] This would undermine

[30:14] the purpose of sb 79.

[30:15] It would frustrate the city's

[30:16] housing goals.

[30:20] And it would contravene state

[30:20] law.

[30:20] Next slide please.

[30:24] So what can you do now?

[30:25] Let's resolve this together.

[30:25] Next slide please.

[30:30] So our proposed solution is to

[30:30] amend recital e of tonight's

[30:31] ordinance.

[30:35] We would like you to strike out

[30:36] the current language as drafted

[30:40] and replace it with something

[30:40] very similar to what we've

[30:41] proposed here or perhaps

[30:41] exactly that which would

[30:46] include corridor as mentioned

[30:46] tonight.

[30:47] And then this is a map here by

[30:51] a group called Building Three

[30:55] which includes the all of

[30:56] the 52 stops along the three

[30:56] corridors.

[31:02] And that's sort of the blob in

[31:02] the middle there.

[31:03] Next slide, please.

[31:07] And then the risk of doing this

[31:07] wrong, right?

[31:11] >> I mean essentially we've got

[31:12] a lot of back and forth between

[31:13] San Diego and the governor,

[31:13] the current governor of

[31:16] California starting JANUARY 1st

[31:19] of of the following 27 to 9

[31:20] qualifying projects and high

[31:21] resource areas is presumed to

[31:21] violate the Housing

[31:25] Accountability Act triggering

[31:25] immediate financial penalties

[31:26] which is a situation I don't

[31:27] think any of us want the city

[31:30] of San Diego to be in.

[31:31] And so our our take on this is

[31:32] that correct Correcting this

[31:36] interpretation tonight can

[31:36] prevent problems, number one.

[31:37] And we certainly don't want to

[31:38] be in a position where

[31:41] the governor attempts to pull

[31:42] funding because we're not

[31:42] complying with state law.

[31:50] Next slide please.

[31:50] So we do want to ask you again

[31:54] to please consider amending

[31:55] recital e of tonight's

[31:56] ordinance so that it's

[32:00] consistent with state law and

[32:00] that it's consistent with San

[32:01] Diego's housing goals.

[32:08] Thank you very much.

[32:09] >> Thank you for your comment.

[32:14] Just to just for the record, we

[32:15] did receive a speaker slip

[32:16] ceding time or to sacrifice

[32:20] referral from an.

[32:21] Thank you.

[32:25] And next speakers Jeff Uter.

[32:26] >> Please please make your way

[32:27] up to the lectern You have time

[32:31] ceded to you by Dean to give

[32:31] it.

[32:32] Thank you.

[32:36] Can enrich Marie Yovanovitch.

[32:36] Thank you Yvonne Jones.

[32:41] Thank you, Pamela Biegel.

[32:46] Thank you Kelly Trembling.

[32:46] Thank you.

[32:51] Gail Villa Monti.

[32:52] I see you.

[32:52] Thank you.

[32:57] Winner.

[32:57] Thank you, Angela.

[32:57] Grazie.

[33:02] Thank you, Luis So Heather.

[33:03] Thank you, Corey Farris.

[33:07] Thank you, Lori Heller.

[33:08] >> Thank you.

[33:08] You'll have 13 minutes.

[33:12] Great.

[33:12] >> Thank you, Council members.

[33:18] And I appreciate you bringing

[33:19] this forward this evening.

[33:19] I know you're working on

[33:23] the budget and we need to get

[33:24] this done basically in order to

[33:24] meet the JULY 1st deadline.

[33:28] And by doing that it retains

[33:29] the flexibility that the city

[33:34] needs to continue to analyze

[33:34] the capacity that we have with

[33:35] our existing zoning and our

[33:40] existing overlay programs and

[33:41] then develop a further transit

[33:45] alternative plan and do other

[33:45] actions.

[33:46] One of the things that I think

[33:51] is important is that we you

[33:51] know, with deference to

[33:56] the reference to the previous

[33:57] presentation, we don't have a

[34:00] final map from sandag yet.

[34:01] And I think one of the things

[34:02] we've done with the resolution

[34:06] and the ordinance is it it is

[34:07] flexible as to it being an

[34:08] overlay on whatever final

[34:12] determination of the map is.

[34:13] We think that the city's map is

[34:17] generally accurate.

[34:18] There will be some adjustment

[34:18] because you have to get

[34:19] the exact positions of

[34:23] the stations and their extents

[34:27] identified in order to draw

[34:27] the 200ft areas around it,

[34:28] the half mile areas around it.

[34:32] But in general we think that

[34:33] what was presented in the in

[34:38] the staff memo is is fairly

[34:38] close to what we're going to

[34:39] see with with the final map.

[34:44] But one of the questions are

[34:45] that because we're waiting for

[34:50] this final map, what have

[34:50] developers do in the interim?

[34:51] I mean as soon as the ordinance

[34:55] goes into effect and people

[34:56] start applying for projects and

[35:01] that will be an issue.

[35:01] You know, I think it's written

[35:02] that way.

[35:02] One of the things we are

[35:06] unclear about is when we talk

[35:07] about the effective date being

[35:12] 30 days from the final adoption

[35:12] of the ordinance.

[35:13] Does that mean that project

[35:18] still aren't allowed to be

[35:19] submitted until JULY 1st or

[35:20] projects will be submitted even

[35:24] before the JULY 1st?

[35:25] And so we we'd like some

[35:26] clarity to that question just

[35:27] to know exactly what we're

[35:31] doing there.

[35:37] If you go to the next slide I

[35:38] think I cover that once you go

[35:39] to the next slide.

[35:43] >> So in this day and look what

[35:44] the what the Planning

[35:44] Department is proposing is a

[35:48] fairly conservative approach to

[35:49] this, a measured approach to

[35:50] this And I think a lot of noise

[35:54] has been made about how either

[35:54] the city is shirking its

[35:55] responsibility or delaying or

[36:01] exempting state law was written

[36:06] to allow cities to take a very

[36:06] complicated law and implement a

[36:07] phased approach And that's

[36:08] exactly what the city is

[36:12] proposing here.

[36:13] So you know, again, we think

[36:13] that's the right approach.

[36:18] One of the key issues and there

[36:19] was insufficient time to do

[36:20] the full calculation Is there a

[36:24] calculation that you do in

[36:25] order to determine how much

[36:29] additional density you need to

[36:30] create through your transit

[36:35] alternative plan?

[36:36] And the calculation that's in

[36:37] the staff report just shows you

[36:41] underlined zone capacity.

[36:42] So that's the 494,000 units

[36:47] that are already zoned within

[36:48] sb 79 areas versus

[36:52] the calculated target that 180

[36:57] 861,000 while that remaining

[36:57] 367,000 when we get done with

[36:58] the with the complete community

[37:04] calculation that alone will

[37:05] probably exceed that 361,000.

[37:05] And so what are the things that

[37:09] will come out of this is in a

[37:10] lot of these transit zones we

[37:11] will have already satisfied

[37:16] the requirement that sb 79 and

[37:17] I think this comes up a lot

[37:17] where we say well but we

[37:21] haven't built all this but this

[37:22] is a zoning process, not a

[37:22] building process.

[37:23] And so even though it looks

[37:27] like we haven't built all this

[37:28] capacity that we've created, we

[37:29] have created this capacity and

[37:33] with all deference to

[37:34] the governor, San Diego is way

[37:34] ahead of the rest of the state

[37:39] When it came to creating a

[37:39] transit oriented capacity.

[37:50] If you go to the next slide so

[37:51] sb 79 and a lot of ways is like

[37:51] complete communities.

[37:52] But if you really look at

[37:56] the difference complete

[37:57] communities even in the coastal

[37:57] zone exceeds the minimum

[38:02] requirements of sb 79.

[38:03] And if you go anywhere else in

[38:04] the in the city you can look at

[38:09] that and then you know that

[38:14] area you know Claremont

[38:15] University City Mission Valley

[38:20] and those areas we already

[38:21] allow under sb under complete

[38:22] communities we already allow

[38:27] for a ratio of 4.0 which is

[38:31] actually what the maximum would

[38:32] be 200ft from a station under

[38:33] sb 79 And we allow if you do a

[38:38] rough calculation of assuming

[38:38] 800 square foot units which is

[38:42] fairly generous 160 units per

[38:43] acre and in a major area where

[38:48] this is going to be impacted

[38:48] and that exceeds 140 200ft

[38:49] away.

[38:54] So there's not something where

[38:55] we're preventing housing to be

[38:56] built near transit.

[39:00] We have something in place to

[39:01] complete communities which

[39:01] satisfies a lot of these

[39:06] requirements And so the one

[39:07] thing that the sb 79 does

[39:12] the complete community does not

[39:13] do is that it allows this

[39:14] development not just to go into

[39:18] minimum density area.

[39:19] So complete communities is a

[39:20] minimum of 20 units per acre

[39:25] and sb 79 doesn't have any

[39:25] threshold.

[39:29] So where sb 79 developments are

[39:30] going to leak out and this was

[39:31] a big reason for excluding

[39:35] the low resource areas here

[39:36] it's going to leak out to

[39:41] the areas that are low density

[39:42] residential So it's going to

[39:48] leak out to your low density

[39:49] townhomes that are say low

[39:49] three and it's going to go to

[39:54] where our duplex homes are and

[39:55] are go to our single family

[39:55] homes.

[39:59] And ironically it won't go

[40:00] right next to the transit

[40:05] because that will be areas that

[40:06] you know be harder to do land

[40:11] acquisition and generally have

[40:12] higher requirements for other

[40:18] other aspects of this If you

[40:18] get to mid city not only is

[40:19] the area that was shown by

[40:24] the previous speaker generally

[40:24] in low resource areas but it's

[40:25] also areas that are already

[40:30] covered at a six and a half for

[40:31] by complete communities.

[40:35] So we're actually asking in

[40:36] some ways this 379 as a down

[40:37] zoning from complete

[40:42] communities in the mid-city

[40:43] area And certainly when you get

[40:46] downtown you know that we're

[40:47] going to use sb 79 to build a

[40:47] building downtown.

[40:48] They don't even use complete

[40:49] communities because of

[40:53] the significant density that

[40:53] we've already created in these

[40:54] places.

[40:58] So we really done pretty much

[40:59] all the work.

[41:00] The only thing I have to say

[41:00] about the transit stops and we

[41:04] actually met with Scott

[41:05] Weiner's staff when they were

[41:06] going through the bill to get

[41:06] clarification of this And they

[41:10] were clear that they didn't

[41:11] consider shared bus bike lanes

[41:17] to be eligible for sb 79.

[41:17] In their mind it was dedicated

[41:18] bus lanes.

[41:19] The way to think about these

[41:23] dedicated bus lanes it's a

[41:23] train on tires right is

[41:28] the idea is that you create

[41:29] this capacity bus capacity so

[41:30] that people can quickly move

[41:35] along these dedicated bus ways

[41:36] not just to get to the next

[41:36] block on their street but to

[41:41] get to where Jobcentres are And

[41:42] just in the same way that we do

[41:43] not let bikes on train tracks

[41:46] on the trolley tracks the idea

[41:47] is that they wouldn't be

[41:47] allowed on bus rapid transit

[41:48] routes either.

[41:52] So again we'll wait to see what

[41:53] the final determination is from

[41:54] sandag but I think it's still

[41:58] going to line closely with

[41:58] this.

[41:59] >> If you go to the next slide,

[42:04] I'm not going to say a lot

[42:05] about what the Planning

[42:06] Commission proposed but I think

[42:06] one of the things that's key is

[42:10] they again they disregarded

[42:11] the capacity that we're already

[42:16] able to create in these areas

[42:16] of complete communities already

[42:17] covers all of the transit stops

[42:22] that are in and districts

[42:22] eight, nine and four.

[42:28] And so you know, we think they

[42:29] were kind of pushing for

[42:29] something that we can already

[42:30] accommodate in the interim

[42:34] until we have the transit

[42:34] oriented alternative plan

[42:40] completed.

[42:45] If you go to the next slide and

[42:45] I'll just make one other

[42:46] comment.

[42:46] You know, again this

[42:47] characterization that we're

[42:50] that we're sort of slacking off

[42:51] with this proposal, you know,

[42:52] it just it doesn't hold against

[42:56] the fact that we've already

[42:57] done this years ahead of

[42:57] the rest of the state and

[43:03] therefore that gives us I think

[43:04] the leeway to proceed with this

[43:04] in a in a measured and sensible

[43:09] way.

[43:09] Again, just some

[43:10] recommendations and again we

[43:15] support the ordinance as it's

[43:15] being presented to you today.

[43:16] We hope that the council will

[43:17] move that forward.

[43:21] We would like clarification as

[43:22] to what the real effective date

[43:27] for project is and maybe maybe

[43:27] it's already baked into

[43:28] the ordinance but it sounded to

[43:29] us as if you know you get done

[43:34] with this now and in two weeks

[43:34] you know that it MAY be, you

[43:35] know, middle of JUNE before we

[43:36] in place Now we're only talking

[43:39] a couple of weeks at that point

[43:39] so maybe it's not super

[43:39] material.

[43:40] The other thing though to

[43:45] consider is what happens if

[43:45] the state legislature decides

[43:51] to postpone the go live date

[43:51] for sb 79?

[43:52] There is a bill in

[43:53] the legislature that's asking

[43:56] that this be extended to

[44:01] JANUARY 1st of 2027 And I think

[44:02] a lot of that is really just a

[44:02] recognition of just how hard it

[44:06] is to do it and I commend

[44:07] the Planning Department for

[44:08] being able to get all this work

[44:13] done so quickly and putting us

[44:14] in a position where we can work

[44:14] through the rest of the details

[44:19] afterwards.

[44:20] There were some I just wanted

[44:20] to call out also today or just

[44:25] approving the memo and we need

[44:25] to get that done.

[44:26] I mean they have the ordinance

[44:30] and we need to get that done

[44:31] And I do think it's worth

[44:31] looking back now after we get

[44:35] this done at the FEBRUARY 13th

[44:36] memo.

[44:36] I think there are a lot of good

[44:37] suggestions that the Planning

[44:40] Department had because we've

[44:41] been through the technical

[44:42] details of what it means to do

[44:42] a one mile walking path to

[44:47] transit The staff recommended

[44:53] effects that I think addresses

[44:53] situation not just during

[44:54] the period when we're

[44:59] restricting the resource areas

[44:59] but beyond that.

[45:00] So I just think there's a lot

[45:05] of thoughtful material in there

[45:06] that we think would be good to

[45:11] to send forward and you know

[45:12] with all things you know we

[45:17] there's you you know, kind of

[45:18] the concept of of good planning

[45:23] and good design and the set up

[45:23] input requirements for

[45:24] objective design standards in

[45:28] these in these in these laws

[45:29] And hopefully at some point

[45:29] we'll look at those as well.

[45:35] Again, I thank you for your

[45:36] time tonight.

[45:36] Maybe you get more people here

[45:37] If you had bobbleheads for

[45:40] the council members that might

[45:41] be something to consider going

[45:41] forward.

[45:42] But otherwise thank you for

[45:46] your time.

[45:47] >> At least you didn't call us

[45:48] bobbleheads so I'm grateful for

[45:52] that.

[45:53] For the fall we have four

[45:54] speakers and in-person speakers

[45:54] remaining in chambers with

[45:58] the following individuals make

[45:59] their way to the front seat of

[45:59] the chambers that is Paul

[46:00] cookin.

[46:03] We have allegedly Audra Paul

[46:09] Kruger and Mary Soriano Paul

[46:10] Cook and you have time ceded to

[46:11] you by Christian Anderson Thank

[46:16] you.

[46:17] Please make your way up to

[46:17] the lectern and you MAY proceed

[46:18] with your comment.

[46:22] You'll have two minutes.

[46:23] >> Thank you.

[46:23] Good evening.

[46:24] My name is Paul Colgan.

[46:27] I'm secretary at the City

[46:28] Charter Community Planners

[46:28] Committee.

[46:29] The cpc supports the Planning

[46:33] Department's original phased

[46:34] implementation approach and

[46:34] urges the City council to adopt

[46:35] it without the Planning

[46:36] Commission's amendments which

[46:40] would undermine the city's

[46:41] ability to face implementation

[46:42] responsibly and measured fees

[46:46] in particularly in low resource

[46:46] communities and high fire

[46:47] severity zones allows the city

[46:51] to align infrastructure, safety

[46:52] planning and community impacts

[46:53] before increasing density.

[46:59] San Diego has seen what happens

[46:59] when density policies are

[47:00] implemented too quickly without

[47:00] sufficient planning.

[47:04] Whether through a bonus

[47:04] outcomes or neighborhood level

[47:05] parking infrastructure strength

[47:10] these are lessons learned not

[47:11] obstacles to progress.

[47:11] The path is to use

[47:12] the flexibility provided to

[47:16] implement what state law

[47:17] requires and allows including

[47:17] the alternate Tommy cpc

[47:22] respectfully urges you to adopt

[47:23] the staff recommendations as

[47:24] proposed without amendment and

[47:24] to adjust implementation if

[47:28] the State modifies or delays

[47:28] the law.

[47:29] >> Thank you.

[47:29] Thank you for your comment.

[47:33] We have our next speaker

[47:33] allegedly.

[47:39] You'll have one minute.

[47:46] >> The other significant You

[47:47] guys have four people on

[47:47] the dais right now.

[47:47] In the back.

[47:51] They're in the back.

[47:52] >> Again, you don't have a

[47:53] quorum or anything about that

[47:57] So it is so you can do business

[47:58] without a quorum all the time

[48:02] on a regular basis.

[48:03] >> So you guys continue to do

[48:08] business illegally when you

[48:09] don't have a quorum.

[48:10] I called this out several

[48:10] times.

[48:11] You've escorted me out by

[48:14] the police.

[48:15] How are you guys doing business

[48:15] like this when you do not have

[48:16] a quorum?

[48:21] I'd like to use my time

[48:21] elsewhere but it's like I don't

[48:22] know how many times I need to

[48:27] see this happen And have you

[48:28] continue business When I've

[48:32] invoked Robert's Rules of Order

[48:33] .

[48:34] The police have witnessed this

[48:34] and you guys continue business.

[48:35] This is why you can't be

[48:39] trusted especially when you're

[48:40] We're talking about a bill from

[48:40] Scott Wiener who's a pedophile.

[48:41] That's a problem.

[48:45] And the fact that you guys have

[48:45] done this time and again

[48:46] without a quorum thank you for

[48:50] your time.

[48:51] Your time has elapsed.

[48:52] You can't address it and say

[48:52] that we don't have a quorum and

[48:53] we can continue business.

[48:56] You literally have to stop

[48:57] the meeting.

[48:57] >> Please can you please

[48:58] address this because this

[49:02] continues to happen and it's

[49:03] illegal for you to continue to

[49:03] do business Joe without a

[49:08] quorum present at the die is

[49:08] not in the back Not going to

[49:13] the bathroom at right up here.

[49:14] >> I'm serious.

[49:14] This is very concerning when

[49:19] this is the third time not only

[49:20] yesterday you did it three

[49:20] times.

[49:21] >> Okay, You're going to make

[49:21] me do this.

[49:22] This is your first, right?

[49:25] Because I'm addressing

[49:26] the rules of conduct and your

[49:31] ability to do business without

[49:32] a quorum.

[49:32] >> Okay?

[49:33] All these people out here are

[49:34] patiently spending their

[49:37] Thursday night There Can't do

[49:38] business like this That is

[49:38] illegal.

[49:39] >> They have to have by people

[49:39] up there.

[49:40] Don't make me do this.

[49:43] You've made your point.

[49:44] >> We're moving on So So are

[49:49] you not going to address

[49:50] Vivian?

[49:51] >> You just left her order out

[49:51] a quorum.

[49:54] Turn the mike off.

[49:55] >> Do you want to be escorted

[49:55] out again like Molina?

[50:00] You got to keep it And you're

[50:06] making me a criminal.

[50:07] I told you to not do business

[50:07] with four people.

[50:09] You've made your point.

[50:10] I'm going to conduct your

[50:20] business in legal detail.

[50:29] Yeah, I can get if you want to

[50:31] have Like I said, I don't say

[50:32] that you're disruptive because

[50:38] you work for $17 million.

[50:39] Okay?

[50:44] You can kick me out of your

[50:51] business and you can not be

[50:51] detained without parole.

[50:52] Why are you going to continuing

[50:58] to buy you go through for

[51:17] the gentlemen you think you can

[51:17] .

[51:18] Okay, we're going to leave

[51:19] the dais right now and please

[53:19] work

[54:52] on that number

[55:10] and

[55:46] the anticipation and okay, five

[55:46] minutes is up again.

[55:52] My apologies to those of you

[55:52] who are spending your personal

[55:53] time here in chambers.

[55:53] >> The recess is over.

[55:56] Clerk Please call the roll

[55:56] again.

[56:04] Councilmember Campbell Campbell

[56:04] you're here.

[56:09] Councilmember Whitburn

[56:10] Councilmember Foster

[56:10] Councilmember one Wilpert

[56:15] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[56:15] Councilmember Campo

[56:16] Councilmember Moreno Present

[56:18] Councilmember Abel Rivera and

[56:19] Council PRESIDENT MacArthur

[56:25] PRESIDENT All right with that I

[56:25] think we were still in

[56:26] the middle of public comment,

[56:26] correct?

[56:31] >> We have two speakers left in

[56:31] chambers starting with Paul

[56:32] Kruger.

[56:36] Please come up to the lectern

[56:37] You have time ceded to you by

[56:40] Sage Gonzales Walden Thank you

[56:47] Dorothy James and Mary Young.

[56:47] You'll have four minutes.

[56:52] Please proceed.

[56:52] Thank you.

[56:53] Well, first I just wanted to

[56:58] make a clarification on

[56:59] the write in comments that

[57:00] you've received As a clerk

[57:04] noted earlier received 219

[57:05] comments in favor of the staff

[57:11] proposed phasing and 19

[57:11] opposed.

[57:17] But if you look at the 19, only

[57:17] five of them actually oppose

[57:18] the phase in and support

[57:22] the full and immediate

[57:26] implementation of sb 79 At

[57:27] least ten of those in fact are

[57:28] writing to say they oppose any

[57:33] implementation of sb 79.

[57:34] So just to clarify that, I just

[57:39] want to make a couple of

[57:40] general points based on lessons

[57:40] learned from the six years

[57:44] we've been trying to talk about

[57:45] how to sanely grow San Diego.

[57:46] The first is any time we hear

[57:51] about a half mile or anything

[57:52] that the crow flies we should

[57:57] not be talking that way.

[57:58] We know that from our

[57:58] experience in Claremont and

[58:03] Granville where I live in San

[58:04] Diego Talmage that a half mile

[58:05] as the crow flies can mean a

[58:10] mile and a half as anybody

[58:10] could get from one place to

[58:11] the other.

[58:15] And I just think it's important

[58:16] that we acknowledge that

[58:21] Problem number two, it took us

[58:22] six years to persuade

[58:27] the council about the problems

[58:28] of the overzealous

[58:29] implementation of the bonus

[58:33] radio program And we all know

[58:37] that it wasn't until

[58:38] the District four homeowners

[58:44] and renters faced the reality

[58:48] of ten, 12, 14, 1735, 103

[58:49] backyard units and these people

[58:50] of color and these people of

[58:55] moderate to low income came

[58:55] forward and said not in our

[59:00] backyard.

[59:01] And Councilmember Foster took

[59:05] up their cry and persuaded five

[59:06] of you that this voluntary

[59:07] program was wrong and it needed

[59:11] to be reined in.

[59:12] And I think the lesson learned

[59:13] from that is that we have to

[59:17] give very, very much thought

[59:18] and deliberation to what we're

[59:23] doing when we make rules or

[59:24] incentives for builders that

[59:29] allow them to build

[59:30] developments of this size and

[59:35] mass this sb 79 which I opposed

[59:41] would allow within a half a

[59:41] mile of a transit stop someone

[59:46] to build a 5 or 6 story

[59:46] apartment building on a block

[59:47] of single family homes that

[59:52] already don't have enough

[59:53] parking in cul de sacs And this

[59:58] has a devastating impact on

[59:59] these neighborhoods And you

[1:00:00] have heard firsthand in such

[1:00:04] persuasive language that

[1:00:05] the most ardent supporter of

[1:00:05] high density COUNCILMAN Eli

[1:00:11] Rivera referred to these

[1:00:11] builders as predators.

[1:00:16] Lastly, I'd like to thank

[1:00:17] the Planning Department for its

[1:00:17] deliberate review and its

[1:00:23] recommendations and I'd like to

[1:00:23] thank all of you for listening

[1:00:24] to what the community has to

[1:00:28] say.

[1:00:29] And I'd like just in my closing

[1:00:34] words to remind you that

[1:00:34] building near transit in San

[1:00:35] Diego does not mean you don't

[1:00:40] have a car.

[1:00:41] It's just common sense.

[1:00:46] 3 to 5% of people can do

[1:00:47] without a car here or forced to

[1:00:48] do without a car.

[1:00:48] If you want to build big, build

[1:00:53] big but don't say people don't

[1:00:54] need a car.

[1:00:55] >> Thank you for your comment

[1:00:55] And our final speaker in

[1:01:02] chambers is Mary Soriano.

[1:01:03] Mary, you'll have one minute.

[1:01:04] Please proceed.

[1:01:08] Mary three on El Presidente

[1:01:09] your town council San Diego a

[1:01:10] very critical crossroads.

[1:01:15] Sb 79 at least 65ft high 120

[1:01:19] unit times that by nine city

[1:01:19] council members equals 1080

[1:01:23] units for one transit oriented

[1:01:24] development per district.

[1:01:29] Super conservative numbers Our

[1:01:30] city faces an $8 billion five

[1:01:31] year capital improvement

[1:01:35] project funding deficit.

[1:01:36] And every day we delay that gap

[1:01:41] grows wider while our streets,

[1:01:42] our roads, pipes and public

[1:01:43] infrastructure continue to

[1:01:43] deteriorate.

[1:01:47] This is your moment.

[1:01:48] You have the responsibility to

[1:01:49] make recommendations that are

[1:01:50] thoughtful, safe and fiscally

[1:01:54] honest with the residents who

[1:01:55] trust you.

[1:01:55] San Diegans deserve

[1:01:56] infrastructure that works.

[1:02:00] They deserve streets they can

[1:02:01] drive safely Water systems that

[1:02:01] don't fail, electric grids that

[1:02:06] don't become overloaded and

[1:02:07] public spaces that reflect

[1:02:08] the city with fire to be.

[1:02:12] Thank you for your comment.

[1:02:13] This concludes in-person public

[1:02:13] testimony.

[1:02:14] I will now start the five

[1:02:15] minute timer for the virtual

[1:02:19] queue going to those

[1:02:19] participating remotely.

[1:02:20] Currently there are 13

[1:02:21] individuals with their hands up

[1:02:23] wishing to speak starting with

[1:02:30] Adrian Chowdhry.

[1:02:31] I've asked you to unmute We'll

[1:02:35] have one minute from now.

[1:02:35] Good evening.

[1:02:46] I would like to.

[1:02:46] Good evening.

[1:02:52] I think this this is becoming

[1:02:53] an implementation by the city

[1:02:58] is very is a bit disappointing

[1:02:58] that it doesn't include the bus

[1:03:04] stops that are on clearly

[1:03:05] obvious bus lanes on Elkhorn

[1:03:06] Boulevard and University Avenue

[1:03:06] that should be included from

[1:03:10] the get go and we should not

[1:03:11] have to wait for the state to

[1:03:14] come back and say that we're

[1:03:14] violating sb 39 because

[1:03:15] the city is refusing to look at

[1:03:21] it properly although that 70%

[1:03:25] of zone zones having to wait

[1:03:26] until 2031 to be considered.

[1:03:27] It's kind of pathetic.

[1:03:32] I hope the I hope that

[1:03:33] the board and the council would

[1:03:34] reconsider the implementation

[1:03:34] plan.

[1:03:37] Thank you.

[1:03:38] Thank you for your comment.

[1:03:39] Our next speaker up is Leaf

[1:03:39] concert.

[1:03:47] You have one minute for

[1:03:47] concert.

[1:03:54] I've allowed you to talk.

[1:03:55] >> I cannot move for you.

[1:03:58] Star six five Accept.

[1:03:59] Yeah.

[1:03:59] Good evening.

[1:04:00] My name is my friends.

[1:04:00] I'm the vice PRESIDENT All

[1:04:06] the right as the I'm right at

[1:04:06] the policy function that was

[1:04:07] sent out to city council

[1:04:13] beforehand and all the groups

[1:04:13] else I thought I'm just going

[1:04:16] to take some all kinds of

[1:04:16] backgrounds And we all urged

[1:04:17] the City council to adopt a

[1:04:18] proper interpretation of

[1:04:24] the bus lanes which is done

[1:04:25] full time.

[1:04:26] Boston's not just one of our

[1:04:29] extended sample of all have

[1:04:29] alcohol and University Avenue

[1:04:30] and the proper bus lanes we

[1:04:35] need housing desperately need

[1:04:35] housing everywhere and

[1:04:36] the transit system can get

[1:04:41] people to willing to go there.

[1:04:42] There's enough capital and

[1:04:43] capacity and it's not enough to

[1:04:48] be public transport.

[1:04:48] I also asked people and you on

[1:04:49] this topic and you don't want

[1:04:50] to get into lots some of

[1:04:52] the states it's going to be

[1:04:53] costly and we're trusting

[1:04:54] efficient cities implement

[1:05:00] the best the best bus route

[1:05:01] information best possible Also

[1:05:01] on the commission we took

[1:05:03] center at the time I'm going to

[1:05:08] be 79 city wide until 22 set up

[1:05:08] .

[1:05:09] Our next speaker is Victoria

[1:05:09] Brousseau.

[1:05:13] You'll have one minute.

[1:05:14] >> Please proceed with your

[1:05:14] comment.

[1:05:14] Good evening.

[1:05:20] This is Victoria Brazeau, chair

[1:05:20] of the cbc still looking for a

[1:05:21] seat at the table.

[1:05:22] I would have come in person but

[1:05:26] has told me it would take an

[1:05:27] hour so the bottle heads must

[1:05:27] be popular, Bill ponders Paul

[1:05:30] Coogan provided cbc

[1:05:31] the official comment Thank you

[1:05:31] Paul.

[1:05:32] But I want to emphasize

[1:05:33] the main issue tonight is

[1:05:36] whether implementation of sb 79

[1:05:37] will be done responsibly.

[1:05:38] Communities across San Diego

[1:05:38] have already experienced

[1:05:42] the unintended consequences of

[1:05:43] land use changes being

[1:05:44] implemented faster than

[1:05:44] infrastructure and community

[1:05:49] planning could keep pace.

[1:05:50] For example, the impacts

[1:05:51] associated with Footnote seven

[1:05:54] and the city's 8080 bonus

[1:05:55] program.

[1:05:55] That is why the Planning

[1:05:56] Department's phased

[1:06:01] implementation approach matters

[1:06:01] especially in very high fire

[1:06:02] severity zones and low resource

[1:06:03] resource communities.

[1:06:07] I respectfully urge the City

[1:06:07] Council to support the staff

[1:06:08] recommendation without

[1:06:08] the Planning Commission's

[1:06:13] requested amendments.

[1:06:13] Thank you very much.

[1:06:14] Have a great evening.

[1:06:14] Thank you for your comment.

[1:06:18] Our next speakers Blair Bateman

[1:06:19] You'll have one minute.

[1:06:19] Please proceed with your

[1:06:25] comment.

[1:06:25] >> All right.

[1:06:25] Where?

[1:06:26] Bateman I'm just more listening

[1:06:30] on this item.

[1:06:31] I wanted to say that I'm here

[1:06:31] participating and listening and

[1:06:37] interesting public comment.

[1:06:38] I'd be interested to hear what

[1:06:38] City Council will have to say

[1:06:42] on this item.

[1:06:43] I really good luck in working

[1:06:44] on truly affordable housing

[1:06:44] with this item and for

[1:06:49] the Claremont and College areas

[1:06:54] and upcoming needs here and I'm

[1:06:55] really a big fan of mixed

[1:06:55] income housing that can bring

[1:06:56] all levels of income into a

[1:07:01] building.

[1:07:01] I don't think we've quite

[1:07:02] explored that concept enough.

[1:07:03] Hopefully we can start thinking

[1:07:03] of that more.

[1:07:06] I think it can offer a lot

[1:07:07] better future flexible choices

[1:07:07] and good choices for ourselves.

[1:07:12] So good luck with that and I

[1:07:13] think we do have to work on

[1:07:13] the quorum issues a bit.

[1:07:16] I think there has to be at

[1:07:17] least five people even if

[1:07:18] you're going in the back to do

[1:07:24] things right there has to be

[1:07:24] five on the dias.

[1:07:25] I can write you a letter.

[1:07:25] We can talk more about this.

[1:07:26] Let's hope we work on it.

[1:07:29] Thank you.

[1:07:29] Thank you for your comment

[1:07:30] before me.

[1:07:30] Next before we go to the next

[1:07:33] speaker, I'd like to know that

[1:07:33] the five minute timer has

[1:07:34] expired and we have 11

[1:07:34] individuals in the queue.

[1:07:38] No other speakers will be taken

[1:07:39] for this item The next the next

[1:07:44] individual Spring Springs.

[1:07:45] You'll have one minute Please

[1:07:50] proceed to your comment.

[1:07:51] Heather My name is Tim

[1:07:51] Bernstein.

[1:07:52] I'm glad that we are addressing

[1:07:53] Gaspe 79 in the city and I want

[1:07:56] to say a few things.

[1:07:56] First we should accelerate all

[1:07:57] of the delays.

[1:07:57] We should not be delaying sb

[1:07:58] 79.

[1:08:02] We need the housing capacity to

[1:08:02] be unlocked as soon as

[1:08:03] possible.

[1:08:03] That means the low resource

[1:08:04] areas need to be accelerated.

[1:08:07] Additionally, as you do,

[1:08:08] Democrats did a great job of

[1:08:08] explaining.

[1:08:09] We also need to include

[1:08:09] the University Avenue Park

[1:08:15] Boulevard and Oklahoma

[1:08:15] Boulevard bus lanes as well.

[1:08:16] They are included in

[1:08:17] the definition actually called

[1:08:17] Star witness.

[1:08:20] I was myself and they told me

[1:08:21] it should be included in their

[1:08:21] clean bill.

[1:08:22] They would have an amended that

[1:08:22] would include explicitly it

[1:08:23] goes with the spirit of

[1:08:23] the law.

[1:08:26] This is not a loophole is

[1:08:26] absolutely what was intended by

[1:08:27] the lawmakers when they were

[1:08:28] legislating.

[1:08:31] Additionally the infrastructure

[1:08:32] is already up to par.

[1:08:33] This area was down zoned in 80s

[1:08:33] and the infrastructure was

[1:08:37] built up with the intention of

[1:08:38] high density housing from

[1:08:38] the get go.

[1:08:39] So any arguments that

[1:08:39] the infrastructure wouldn't

[1:08:44] support this is probably false

[1:08:44] .

[1:08:45] We also need to unlock this

[1:08:45] housing capacity because it's

[1:08:46] free money for the city from

[1:08:47] taxes because it's closer to

[1:08:50] the city and denser it's more

[1:08:50] tax efficient and therefore

[1:08:51] better for the city and more

[1:08:52] for you for your comment.

[1:08:55] Your time has elapsed Going to

[1:08:56] the next speaker Sharon Gill

[1:08:56] you'll have one minute.

[1:09:02] Please proceed.

[1:09:02] My name is Sharing Dale.

[1:09:08] I went after the city council

[1:09:09] pass this ordinance When they

[1:09:10] start to look at high fliers of

[1:09:14] the historic resources we need

[1:09:14] to put public safety first

[1:09:20] The safest buildings in a park

[1:09:21] or the newest ones because

[1:09:21] they're built to strict new

[1:09:25] fire codes The most dangerous

[1:09:26] buildings are the oldest ones

[1:09:27] go to old codes old craftsman

[1:09:32] homes where the most likely to

[1:09:33] burn in the fire because they

[1:09:33] have flammable wood siding,

[1:09:37] single pane windows shattered

[1:09:38] And why these They caught

[1:09:38] the flames.

[1:09:39] We need to allow owners of

[1:09:43] historic resources to replace

[1:09:44] single pane windows and

[1:09:44] flammable wood siding or

[1:09:49] replace the whole building with

[1:09:50] a safer new building.

[1:09:51] The larger the percentage of

[1:09:55] new buildings in

[1:09:56] the neighborhood, the safer

[1:09:56] the neighborhood will be in

[1:09:57] fire.

[1:09:57] It's another form of herd

[1:10:01] immunity.

[1:10:02] The city needs to put public

[1:10:02] safety first by allowing safer

[1:10:07] housing for public transit.

[1:10:08] Thank you for your comment.

[1:10:08] Your time has elapsed.

[1:10:13] Our next speaker is Shaquille.

[1:10:13] You'll have one minute.

[1:10:14] Please proceed with your

[1:10:18] comment.

[1:10:26] Shaquille have allowed you to

[1:10:26] talk.

[1:10:27] I cannot me for you Please

[1:10:28] press star six if you are on

[1:10:31] the phone I'm sorry to hear me

[1:10:32] now.

[1:10:32] Yes.

[1:10:32] Please proceed.

[1:10:38] I am a 30 year resident of San

[1:10:43] Diego and I support the we

[1:10:43] change the wording around

[1:10:44] the bus stations around

[1:10:45] University Oklahoma to maximize

[1:10:49] the amount of housing there.

[1:10:50] San Diego is currently losing

[1:10:50] population and middle class

[1:10:55] That's a middle class Schools

[1:10:56] are losing children They can't

[1:10:56] really without really no

[1:11:01] children support the current

[1:11:02] budgets turned budget step by

[1:11:08] money to get to the schools

[1:11:08] allowing more more people a lot

[1:11:09] more houses around more trains

[1:11:13] and a lot more families to send

[1:11:14] each other to school by

[1:11:14] bathrooms, by trolley routes.

[1:11:15] And there are a lot of schools

[1:11:19] for not that far from trolley

[1:11:19] routes.

[1:11:25] I have a a for which the reward

[1:11:31] for the rewarding of certain

[1:11:31] the certain language in

[1:11:32] the bill.

[1:11:32] Thank you thank you for your

[1:11:37] comment going to our speaker

[1:11:41] crypto Bradley 200 you'll have

[1:11:42] one minute please proceed.

[1:11:43] >> Thanks for taking my call.

[1:11:48] I think you guys got to slow

[1:11:49] the roll down and implement

[1:11:53] this in my neighborhood they

[1:11:54] put in those 15 a to use and

[1:11:55] they're just starting to read

[1:11:59] It's a nightmare man Slow roll

[1:12:00] down And then also in soccer

[1:12:04] game if you mess up with a game

[1:12:05] they give you a yellow card and

[1:12:06] they give you another yellow

[1:12:07] card And then if you're acting

[1:12:12] weird that you do the red card,

[1:12:13] maybe next time you have to get

[1:12:14] a person out of their regular

[1:12:18] Rick you got the yellow card

[1:12:18] one but another yellow card

[1:12:19] interface and then get the red

[1:12:23] card and then get a wheelchair

[1:12:24] Those things and they roll them

[1:12:29] out and strap them in and just

[1:12:30] walk out and give her like

[1:12:31] about a week off or something.

[1:12:32] That's a lot because it's just

[1:12:35] you know, steady yelling at her

[1:12:38] And the Padres are tied game

[1:12:39] bottom of the first man You

[1:12:40] guys should have the padre game

[1:12:40] on tv up there to make it

[1:12:45] lighter but to slow the roll

[1:12:45] down on implementing this

[1:12:46] program man it's not good Your

[1:12:46] time lapse.

[1:12:51] Thank you for that.

[1:12:51] We have Tom White on Natural.

[1:12:52] You'll have one minute.

[1:12:56] Please proceed.

[1:12:57] Thank you.

[1:12:57] Hi, my name is Tom Michael

[1:12:58] Nagle and I call on the city

[1:13:03] council to implement sb 79 on

[1:13:04] the university our bus lanes

[1:13:09] and Oklahoma Boulevard And I

[1:13:09] call on the City Council to

[1:13:10] implement sb seven nine in low

[1:13:11] resource areas as soon as

[1:13:15] possible to create even greater

[1:13:15] economic opportunities for our

[1:13:16] citizens and businesses and

[1:13:21] bolster our communities.

[1:13:21] Building greater density in

[1:13:22] these areas will contribute

[1:13:27] even further the great strides

[1:13:28] San Diego has made in

[1:13:28] increasing our housing supply

[1:13:29] and increasing it further will

[1:13:30] greatly improve

[1:13:33] the affordability of housing

[1:13:34] for all in the community.

[1:13:35] High middle low income and

[1:13:39] those without housing will all

[1:13:40] benefit from these

[1:13:40] improvements.

[1:13:45] This rising San Diego tide will

[1:13:46] lift all of its citizens and

[1:13:46] businesses ships.

[1:13:51] >> Thank you for your time.

[1:13:52] Thank you for your comment.

[1:13:53] Our next speaker virtual

[1:13:53] speakers Tracy Thompson.

[1:13:57] Tracy Thompson.

[1:13:57] You'll have one minute.

[1:13:58] Please proceed with your

[1:13:58] comment.

[1:13:58] Yes.

[1:14:04] Please proceed.

[1:14:04] My name is Tracy Thompson.

[1:14:05] I just want to urge the city to

[1:14:06] implement sb something on as

[1:14:09] quickly as possible with as few

[1:14:10] as possible and to push towards

[1:14:11] the bus lanes being properly

[1:14:15] handled on university.

[1:14:16] Have another Bloomberg I just

[1:14:17] find it that I find it strange

[1:14:17] that for a large major

[1:14:20] metropolitan area like San

[1:14:21] Diego we don't have a high

[1:14:22] focus on increasing density in

[1:14:28] our urban areas and by proxy

[1:14:28] increasing transit access to

[1:14:29] that theme.

[1:14:33] My comment does I conclude your

[1:14:39] comment Yes thank you very

[1:14:39] much.

[1:14:40] The next speakers d m you'll

[1:14:45] have one minute Please proceed

[1:14:45] .

[1:14:46] >> Thank you Counsel My name is

[1:14:46] Daniel Mollett.

[1:14:47] I live in San Diego.

[1:14:50] I'm better for normal heights.

[1:14:51] I just wanted to comment about

[1:14:52] the implementation of 79.

[1:14:56] I'm calling in strong support

[1:14:57] of correctly implementing it

[1:14:58] according to state law.

[1:15:01] As you know our cities and

[1:15:02] housing crisis I think building

[1:15:03] more homes in high frequency

[1:15:03] transit areas like Oklahoma

[1:15:08] Boulevard University Avenue and

[1:15:09] Park Boulevard is exactly what

[1:15:09] we need.

[1:15:13] You know, California's actually

[1:15:14] losing residents And if we

[1:15:15] continue down this path

[1:15:21] the electoral College is going

[1:15:21] to make it impossible for

[1:15:22] Democrats to even have a chance

[1:15:23] of winning the presidency even

[1:15:25] with the blue wall.

[1:15:26] So this is this is a microcosm

[1:15:33] of that And we should be

[1:15:34] pushing forward to let as many

[1:15:35] people live where they want to

[1:15:35] live.

[1:15:36] It's possible to live the kind

[1:15:38] of life they want to live, put

[1:15:39] them in a place where they're

[1:15:40] going to get to work as easily

[1:15:40] as possible.

[1:15:44] This is the obvious policy I

[1:15:45] hope you guys don't delay it.

[1:15:46] Thank you very much for your

[1:15:46] time.

[1:15:47] Thank you for your comment.

[1:15:50] Our next speaker saw that

[1:15:50] thought you'll have one minute.

[1:15:51] Please proceed with your

[1:15:55] comment.

[1:15:56] Council members Thank you to

[1:15:57] the Planning Department for

[1:15:57] their hard work on this

[1:16:04] important plan.

[1:16:04] Sb 79 will allow more homes

[1:16:05] near transit and I think that

[1:16:09] being more quickly phased in

[1:16:10] those that agree with that can

[1:16:14] be done so that we should also

[1:16:15] include these high capacity

[1:16:15] bike lanes.

[1:16:16] One of the biggest mistake when

[1:16:21] it comes to housing is

[1:16:21] infrastructure.

[1:16:22] The best way to build housing

[1:16:23] therefore is allowing the high

[1:16:26] frequency transit by about 50

[1:16:26] minutes which is large amount

[1:16:27] of people already living in

[1:16:31] these areas just grocery stores

[1:16:31] .

[1:16:32] The library is the perfect

[1:16:33] place to add more housing

[1:16:37] housing fundamentally is good.

[1:16:38] I think some people get it

[1:16:38] wrong and believe that adding

[1:16:39] more housing is a bad that

[1:16:45] they're harmed by existence.

[1:16:46] Expensive housing housing is

[1:16:46] more neighbors in need, more

[1:16:47] affordability.

[1:16:49] It means that we all get to

[1:16:49] live here, our children get to

[1:16:50] live here and we get to build a

[1:16:51] society together.

[1:16:54] I want to emphasize housing is

[1:16:55] good.

[1:16:55] >> Thank you.

[1:17:00] Thank you for your comment.

[1:17:00] Moira Tan you'll have one

[1:17:01] minute Please start your

[1:17:05] comment.

[1:17:13] Moira Martin I've asked you to

[1:17:14] mute I cannot unmute for you if

[1:17:23] you're on a phone Star six by

[1:17:23] three will be able to hear me.

[1:17:24] >> Yes.

[1:17:24] Please proceed.

[1:17:25] Thank you.

[1:17:28] Thank you.

[1:17:29] Good evening.

[1:17:29] Council PRESIDENT LaCava and

[1:17:30] Council members Thank you.

[1:17:34] The City Planning Department

[1:17:35] for your thought partnership

[1:17:35] here too.

[1:17:36] >> My name is Mary Tan and I'm

[1:17:37] a District five a San Diego

[1:17:40] resident calling in strong

[1:17:40] support of the correct

[1:17:41] implementation of Senate Bill

[1:17:41] 79.

[1:17:47] >> San Diego is in a housing

[1:17:48] crisis building homes near high

[1:17:48] frequency transit corridors

[1:17:51] pick up the fungo Harvard

[1:17:52] University Avenue in Park

[1:17:52] Boulevard is exactly what our

[1:17:57] city needs more affordable

[1:17:58] options, less traffic, cleaner

[1:18:03] air and stronger neighborhoods

[1:18:03] .

[1:18:04] Tonight you have a simple

[1:18:08] opportunity to unlock up to 48

[1:18:08] additional bus stops for

[1:18:09] transit oriented housing at no

[1:18:14] cost to the city simply by

[1:18:14] adopting a legally sound

[1:18:15] reading of the law.

[1:18:15] The California's own vehicle

[1:18:20] code already supports Governor

[1:18:20] Newsom is watching.

[1:18:21] Our residents are watching.

[1:18:26] We believe this council can

[1:18:27] rise to the moment.

[1:18:27] Please adopt the new Democrat

[1:18:28] proposed amendments and

[1:18:32] recognize these before we

[1:18:32] comment.

[1:18:33] >> Qualifying Corridor c are

[1:18:34] second to the last speaker is

[1:18:37] phone number ending in two

[1:18:38] eight 700 You'll have one

[1:18:39] minute Please proceed with your

[1:18:48] comment.

[1:18:49] >> Phone number ending in 28

[1:18:56] 700 I've ask you to unmute if

[1:18:57] you are that phone oh we could

[1:19:01] hear you now you'll have Yes

[1:19:02] You didn't say my phone number

[1:19:06] correct.

[1:19:10] >> Do we have a phone number

[1:19:10] ending in 28700?

[1:19:17] >> That's not me.

[1:19:18] This is what we have on a kill

[1:19:19] I feel I speak This is joy that

[1:19:21] it is me Yes please please

[1:19:22] proceed.

[1:19:22] Okay.

[1:19:23] But are you just starting my

[1:19:24] time now?

[1:19:30] Please.

[1:19:30] >> You have one minute.

[1:19:31] We've started the timer.

[1:19:31] Okay.

[1:19:36] Thank you, Joy.

[1:19:37] Senator, this is only from

[1:19:37] the staff report.

[1:19:41] I didn't understand the city

[1:19:42] most minister approved.

[1:19:47] I'm concerned about public

[1:19:48] hearings and also opting to

[1:19:51] implement sb 79 on Marketplace

[1:19:56] and Fordable homes First and

[1:20:01] high highest and moderate

[1:20:02] resource areas will support

[1:20:02] fair housing.

[1:20:03] I didn't understand that with

[1:20:07] regard to low resource areas

[1:20:08] anticipating come in to ongoing

[1:20:15] community plan Page I at City

[1:20:16] and Otay Mesa next door I

[1:20:18] didn't understand in that I

[1:20:19] would really like all of us to

[1:20:23] think about clarifying what

[1:20:24] affordable housing is

[1:20:25] affordable housing work.

[1:20:29] I don't think we still

[1:20:29] understand it fully So cpc

[1:20:30] thank you for your vote of

[1:20:35] equal 28 in support.

[1:20:35] Thank you for your comment.

[1:20:39] Your time is up to our In our

[1:20:40] final speaker on the virtual

[1:20:45] queue is Bruce Coombs.

[1:20:45] >> You'll have one minute

[1:20:46] Please proceed.

[1:20:51] Thank you Briskin Secretary

[1:20:51] Director Saber Heritage

[1:20:52] Organization.

[1:20:52] We support the staff

[1:20:56] recommendation without

[1:20:56] the recommendations from

[1:20:57] the Planning Commission we

[1:20:58] believe staff did a very good

[1:21:01] job of explaining the ordinance

[1:21:06] which allows for the exactly

[1:21:07] what they proposed including

[1:21:12] phasing out the low resource

[1:21:17] areas and the fire impacted

[1:21:18] areas.

[1:21:19] So we think it's very important

[1:21:19] to do this right, particularly

[1:21:24] with the low end or low

[1:21:24] resource areas.

[1:21:25] They do not have the amenities

[1:21:28] and the infrastructure to

[1:21:29] properly support this year and

[1:21:34] plus in those areas we have to

[1:21:35] be very careful that we don't

[1:21:39] eliminate the actual affordable

[1:21:39] housing, the naturally

[1:21:40] occurring affordable housing.

[1:21:40] So we have to plan this

[1:21:44] correctly and I think the staff

[1:21:45] did a very good job of

[1:21:49] explaining why it seems

[1:21:50] the Planning Commission chose

[1:21:50] to ignore it.

[1:21:50] >> Thank you.

[1:21:55] Thank you for your comment and

[1:21:55] that concludes the public

[1:21:56] testimony and item 600.

[1:22:00] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[1:22:00] right.

[1:22:01] Thank you for that.

[1:22:02] Thank you everybody that took

[1:22:02] the time to show up in person.

[1:22:03] Thank you.

[1:22:05] Those who call in and a special

[1:22:06] shout out for those of you that

[1:22:07] showed up just to give your

[1:22:10] time to somebody else longer

[1:22:11] presentations are much more

[1:22:12] effective than the one minute

[1:22:16] speeches that we sometimes

[1:22:17] force you to do And it's good

[1:22:22] to see you all have friends

[1:22:23] even Paul and Jeff to drag

[1:22:26] individuals out here Late night

[1:22:26] to do that.

[1:22:27] So anyway, this is coming

[1:22:31] direct to city council

[1:22:32] Otherwise I normally would have

[1:22:33] gone to the chair of our land

[1:22:37] use and housing but council

[1:22:38] member council PRESIDENT Pro

[1:22:39] Tem is not here so I will take

[1:22:43] the lead on this So I'll start

[1:22:43] out with one of the callers

[1:22:44] that housing is good.

[1:22:45] You know what else is good

[1:22:47] Planning is good and I am so

[1:22:48] impressed by the city as

[1:22:52] someone who actually came out

[1:22:53] of the industry who understands

[1:22:57] what city planning is all about

[1:22:58] And I don't think there is any

[1:22:59] city up and down the state of

[1:23:00] California that has been more

[1:23:03] aggressive in being a pro

[1:23:04] housing in increasing density

[1:23:05] and doing every community plan

[1:23:09] Update and creating more

[1:23:09] opportunities for housing to be

[1:23:10] built whether it gets built,

[1:23:14] whether a developer can make a

[1:23:15] project and solve something

[1:23:15] else.

[1:23:19] But and a lot of the density

[1:23:19] that we've increased was just

[1:23:20] sitting fallow for a few years

[1:23:20] now.

[1:23:24] A lot of the actions we took in

[1:23:24] certain areas nothing's moved

[1:23:29] in that area But I appreciate

[1:23:30] Heidi and your team at City

[1:23:34] Planning dropping the work that

[1:23:35] you should be doing to respond

[1:23:35] to a state mandate.

[1:23:39] That's where we live right now.

[1:23:40] So this is the law We have to

[1:23:41] comply And I'm glad that nobody

[1:23:45] actually was challenging sb 79.

[1:23:45] It's the law.

[1:23:46] We're trying to figure out how

[1:23:50] to do that And I believe city

[1:23:50] planning is in fact acting

[1:23:51] within the specific areas

[1:23:54] allowed for phasing under state

[1:23:55] law.

[1:23:56] >> And again I'm going to one

[1:24:00] of the things that everybody

[1:24:01] got nervous about sb 79 I

[1:24:01] appreciated that unlike most

[1:24:05] language coming out of

[1:24:06] Sacramento, that is just a

[1:24:07] blunt tool being applied

[1:24:11] statewide that is really

[1:24:12] intended for those cities that

[1:24:13] aren't building housing, that

[1:24:16] aren't doing the zoning that

[1:24:17] needs to be done.

[1:24:21] Sb 79 in its final form came in

[1:24:22] a way that allowed a local

[1:24:22] tailoring to make it fit with

[1:24:27] where we're at to recognize

[1:24:27] the community plan updates that

[1:24:28] we're doing that we've done and

[1:24:31] we're doing and tailor it more

[1:24:32] surgically rather than more

[1:24:37] bluntly So for the folks

[1:24:37] there's a lot of you here and

[1:24:38] called in stating that the city

[1:24:39] is not going far enough

[1:24:42] including by including eligible

[1:24:42] bus stops.

[1:24:43] City Planning has done a

[1:24:47] thorough analysis with

[1:24:51] the caveat that the sb 79 did

[1:24:52] require the MPOs sandag in our

[1:24:56] case to release their maps and

[1:24:57] they have not done that yet.

[1:25:02] And if those map if the map

[1:25:02] released by sandag is different

[1:25:03] than what we're talking about

[1:25:07] today, the sandag map will

[1:25:07] prevail.

[1:25:08] >> Is that correct, sir?

[1:25:08] Yes.

[1:25:11] Council PRESIDENT The recital

[1:25:12] in the ordinance specifically

[1:25:16] recital f specifically notes

[1:25:17] that the city will implement

[1:25:17] the coyote stops identified by

[1:25:21] sandag when they released

[1:25:21] the map.

[1:25:22] I do want to note that since sb

[1:25:26] 79 was put into law our staff

[1:25:27] has coordinated closely with

[1:25:28] staff at sandag and our

[1:25:31] interpretation to our knowledge

[1:25:32] as of today has remained

[1:25:36] consistent with the stops

[1:25:37] Again, if they do put out a map

[1:25:41] that is different this

[1:25:42] ordinance takes that into

[1:25:43] account by specifically stating

[1:25:45] that the city will implement

[1:25:46] the three stops identified in

[1:25:49] the sandag map the statute

[1:25:50] under sb 79 is very clear that

[1:25:51] the map that is produced by

[1:25:52] the Regional Planning

[1:25:55] organization is the map that

[1:25:56] will control.

[1:25:56] >> Okay.

[1:26:00] Thank you for that.

[1:26:01] So I want to give you Heidi or

[1:26:04] whoever the opportunity because

[1:26:05] a number of public commenters

[1:26:09] have said we got that wasn't

[1:26:14] interpreted correctly that some

[1:26:15] of those other areas besides

[1:26:16] what you do and actually what I

[1:26:16] wanted I remember you gave a

[1:26:19] memo about 79 that gave us all

[1:26:20] a heads up if I remember

[1:26:24] correctly You got some guidance

[1:26:24] from cd and you revised your

[1:26:29] memo to where this action today

[1:26:29] is consistent with.

[1:26:33] >> So can you speak about a

[1:26:34] little more of your

[1:26:34] interpretation of why what's in

[1:26:37] front of us today actually

[1:26:38] meets 79 Yes So as soon as sb

[1:26:42] 79 went into law we have been

[1:26:42] meeting with staff and

[1:26:43] coordinating with staff from

[1:26:43] other jurisdictions that are

[1:26:47] subject to the requirements as

[1:26:48] well as staff from our regional

[1:26:48] planning organization so that

[1:26:49] we could ensure that we would

[1:26:52] have a consistent

[1:26:52] interpretation.

[1:26:53] Each city did issue guidance.

[1:26:56] They do not specify specific

[1:26:57] stops within each of

[1:26:57] the jurisdictions so it is

[1:27:01] still up for interpretation But

[1:27:01] their guidance was largely

[1:27:02] consistent although provided a

[1:27:06] little bit more clarity with

[1:27:06] respect to a bus rapid transit

[1:27:10] It is very clear to me that all

[1:27:11] of City of San Diego's existing

[1:27:12] trolley stops are qualifying

[1:27:15] transit stops under the bill

[1:27:15] With respect to bus rapid

[1:27:16] transit stops The statute

[1:27:20] refers to another section which

[1:27:21] identifies the requirement for

[1:27:25] full time dedicated bus lanes

[1:27:26] or operation and a separate

[1:27:27] right of way dedicated for

[1:27:30] public transportation.

[1:27:31] And then there's frequency

[1:27:35] requirements The bus rapid

[1:27:35] transit stations meet the 15

[1:27:39] minute frequency requirements

[1:27:40] but our staff reviewed them.

[1:27:40] We did identify four stops

[1:27:44] based off of that additional

[1:27:45] eight city guidance and

[1:27:45] additional discussions with

[1:27:46] sandag staff and identified

[1:27:50] those additional four stops

[1:27:50] which was released in

[1:27:51] the second memo to the Council

[1:27:54] and the other stops and we

[1:27:55] determined were not full time

[1:27:56] dedicated lanes.

[1:27:59] We have sent staff out and

[1:28:00] observed bikes in their

[1:28:04] vehicles turning into the lanes

[1:28:05] but you will see that the four

[1:28:05] stops that have been included

[1:28:09] on the maps are full time

[1:28:13] dedicated bus lanes or in a

[1:28:14] separate right of way dedicated

[1:28:14] for the public transportation.

[1:28:18] I do want to note that there

[1:28:19] was not very much time

[1:28:19] relatively speaking under

[1:28:23] the state law for staff to do

[1:28:23] this.

[1:28:24] I do want to commend my staff

[1:28:28] That was able to not only do a

[1:28:29] full analysis of the bill but

[1:28:32] coordinate with our city

[1:28:33] attorney's office who has been

[1:28:33] very helpful in its

[1:28:38] interpretation as well as with

[1:28:38] our regional planning partners

[1:28:39] at sandag.

[1:28:39] >> Okay, I appreciate that And

[1:28:43] it's times like this that

[1:28:43] always reminded how

[1:28:44] uncomfortable how unhelpful

[1:28:47] the English language is because

[1:28:48] language that is actually

[1:28:52] legally binding is used just as

[1:28:53] much in a staff report or a

[1:28:53] reference, right?

[1:28:57] >> And it confuses us all.

[1:28:58] So the arguments were very

[1:29:01] compelling with the exception

[1:29:02] that the definitions I think

[1:29:06] are more compelling than

[1:29:07] the reference in a memo or a

[1:29:08] staff report and how people

[1:29:12] speak including myself too

[1:29:13] casually at times.

[1:29:13] >> Council PRESIDENT If you

[1:29:17] don't mind I would also defer

[1:29:17] to the city attorney to provide

[1:29:18] additional thoughts.

[1:29:18] There was some reference

[1:29:22] material provided that we

[1:29:23] received today that cites other

[1:29:27] statutory provisions and defer

[1:29:28] to the city attorney if they

[1:29:28] have anything to add.

[1:29:29] Thank you.

[1:29:31] Okay.

[1:29:32] I would ask Deputy City

[1:29:33] Attorney Shannon Meyer please

[1:29:39] to respond.

[1:29:39] Thank you.

[1:29:40] As you as Heidi said, this is

[1:29:44] not legally defined but staff's

[1:29:45] interpretation is reasonable

[1:29:49] based on the three use Courtney

[1:29:49] shared with state the state

[1:29:53] agencies Cdw's guidance memo

[1:29:53] and the practical application

[1:29:54] of the language As the City

[1:29:58] Planning Department stated if

[1:29:59] the it does release a map that

[1:30:00] includes any teary stops that

[1:30:02] the city did not include,

[1:30:03] the city is required to amend

[1:30:07] it so that it is consistent

[1:30:08] with sandbags map I did want to

[1:30:09] state that the vehicle code

[1:30:12] cited regulates this evening.

[1:30:13] It regulates parking and

[1:30:17] citation procedures and right

[1:30:17] side of the road driving

[1:30:18] procedures and is a different

[1:30:21] legal statute that's not

[1:30:21] applicable to sb 79.

[1:30:22] >> Okay.

[1:30:26] Thank you for scrambling and

[1:30:27] doing that analysis and taking

[1:30:28] the input seriously enough to

[1:30:31] to review that.

[1:30:32] >> So continuing.

[1:30:32] So again City Planning is doing

[1:30:36] thoughtful work that takes into

[1:30:37] account context context that

[1:30:38] state legislators themselves

[1:30:40] thought was important.

[1:30:41] Sea level rise historic

[1:30:41] resources very high fire

[1:30:45] severity zones and low resource

[1:30:46] communities.

[1:30:47] And so they've done this same

[1:30:51] thoughtful work when we did

[1:30:52] the general plan community plan

[1:30:52] updates and numerous housing

[1:30:56] production programs, numerous

[1:30:57] housing production programs

[1:31:01] that have made us a statewide

[1:31:01] example.

[1:31:02] And it's good policy to

[1:31:02] carefully consider the impacts

[1:31:03] on each of those areas and

[1:31:06] particularly the low resource

[1:31:07] areas.

[1:31:07] As we heard in some of

[1:31:11] the opening comments, I think

[1:31:12] the comments made by the group

[1:31:14] from Hampshire aligns with what

[1:31:15] we are doing here tonight.

[1:31:19] Is that right?

[1:31:20] >> Yeah, the city planning

[1:31:21] department is recommending and

[1:31:24] I want to be clear the city

[1:31:25] planning department is not

[1:31:25] recommending exemption of

[1:31:26] the areas The city planning

[1:31:29] department is recommending that

[1:31:30] we take the additional time to

[1:31:34] do the thoughtful planning to

[1:31:35] be able to engage with a low

[1:31:38] resource community that has

[1:31:39] experienced injustices from

[1:31:44] past zoning actions and any

[1:31:44] opportunity to identify how

[1:31:49] this new development can best

[1:31:49] improve those communities.

[1:31:50] I think it's very important

[1:31:53] especially as part of our

[1:31:54] obligations to affirmatively

[1:31:55] further for housing not just in

[1:31:58] terms of the housing outcomes

[1:31:58] but in terms of the inclusive

[1:31:59] engagement process that that

[1:31:59] takes.

[1:32:03] >> Okay.

[1:32:03] Thank you for that.

[1:32:04] Yeah, I think that is

[1:32:05] particularly important.

[1:32:05] I think we're learning some

[1:32:08] valuable lessons over the past

[1:32:09] few years and your leadership

[1:32:13] and the mayor's leadership in

[1:32:13] finally beginning to address

[1:32:14] some of those historic issues.

[1:32:17] I suspect Councilmember Foster,

[1:32:18] if he was here would speak

[1:32:22] eloquently about that much

[1:32:22] better than I can.

[1:32:23] And the context is we're just

[1:32:27] slowing it down and planning be

[1:32:28] thinking more carefully And if

[1:32:31] I remember your and your

[1:32:32] explanations we're going to hit

[1:32:37] the same dance or the same unit

[1:32:37] count that sb 79 calls for.

[1:32:38] We're just going to be more

[1:32:42] thoughtful about where those

[1:32:42] units actually could happen.

[1:32:43] >> Yes, that is correct.

[1:32:47] So staff's proposal is in line

[1:32:48] with sb 79 which specifically

[1:32:51] set forth the tod alternative

[1:32:52] plan process as well as

[1:32:53] specifically identified low

[1:32:57] resource areas to be phased as

[1:33:00] long as it occurs within one

[1:33:00] year of the city's housing

[1:33:01] element.

[1:33:01] The city's housing element

[1:33:04] needs to be updated in 2031.

[1:33:05] We anticipate that we will

[1:33:06] address it during that time.

[1:33:10] I do want to note that the 2031

[1:33:10] or 2032 date because you have

[1:33:13] one year after 2031 does not

[1:33:14] mean that it won't be phased in

[1:33:18] in other areas in a lot of

[1:33:18] instances the densities

[1:33:19] required under sb 79 already

[1:33:19] exist.

[1:33:22] The City Planning Department

[1:33:23] and the City Council have

[1:33:24] adopted many community plans

[1:33:27] and up zoning over the past

[1:33:28] just several years that far

[1:33:28] exceed the sb 79 densities.

[1:33:33] So it is not a it is not a full

[1:33:34] delay because some are already

[1:33:37] in place.

[1:33:38] In addition to that,

[1:33:39] the Mid-City communities as

[1:33:42] well as Otay Mesa Nester have

[1:33:43] large low resource area

[1:33:47] populations and census tracts.

[1:33:48] We are currently updating a

[1:33:48] three thoughtful planning

[1:33:49] process the Mid-City

[1:33:52] Communities Plan update which

[1:33:53] we anticipate bringing forward

[1:33:54] to this Council within a year

[1:33:57] and we will address sb 79

[1:33:58] through that thoughtful

[1:33:58] planning process.

[1:34:03] In addition, we've received

[1:34:03] grant funding for Otay Mesa

[1:34:04] Necessary Community Plan

[1:34:04] Update.

[1:34:06] This is very exciting.

[1:34:07] We plan we have a signed grant

[1:34:10] agreement and we will have

[1:34:11] the opportunity to engage with

[1:34:12] the community with respect to

[1:34:13] the implementation in that

[1:34:16] community prior to 2032.

[1:34:21] >> Okay, more density than

[1:34:22] actually would be required

[1:34:22] under sb 17.

[1:34:23] I heard that correctly.

[1:34:23] That is correct.

[1:34:26] In many instances.

[1:34:26] >> Many instances.

[1:34:27] Okay.

[1:34:31] So I'm going to wrap up if I

[1:34:32] can take my three minutes with

[1:34:32] a couple of things.

[1:34:36] >> One, the question that I

[1:34:37] think Jeff asked about when can

[1:34:37] you actually submit a project

[1:34:41] under sb 79 sb 79 goes into

[1:34:42] effect on JULY 1st.

[1:34:46] >> So regardless of

[1:34:46] the effective date of

[1:34:47] the city's ordinance then

[1:34:47] application will not be

[1:34:51] eligible for it until that

[1:34:51] time.

[1:34:52] >> Okay.

[1:34:52] All right.

[1:34:53] I hope that answers your

[1:34:55] questions.

[1:34:56] I'm going to comment and we'll

[1:34:56] follow up later.

[1:34:59] Sb 79 has provisions for

[1:35:03] affordability components as

[1:35:04] much as 13%.

[1:35:05] As we actually developed this

[1:35:09] out, what I want to know is can

[1:35:12] we exempt sb 79 projects from

[1:35:13] in lieu fees?

[1:35:17] Because I'm really frustrated

[1:35:17] that we don't get

[1:35:18] the affordable for truly

[1:35:22] affordable units When we get

[1:35:23] these higher density projects

[1:35:26] we get an accumulation of

[1:35:27] dollars that hopefully someday

[1:35:28] will produce a truly affordable

[1:35:32] someplace.

[1:35:33] But is that that's not an item

[1:35:36] that's not up for tonight but

[1:35:37] is that a conversation we can

[1:35:37] have?

[1:35:38] Yeah, I appreciate

[1:35:41] the thoughtful question and I

[1:35:41] look forward to more

[1:35:46] conversations about these very

[1:35:46] nuanced and important issues

[1:35:47] that do affect outcomes in

[1:35:47] the community.

[1:35:51] The opportunity to address that

[1:35:52] is through the tod alternative

[1:35:52] plan process.

[1:35:52] Okay.

[1:35:55] I appreciate your careful

[1:35:55] answer to that question.

[1:35:55] Okay.

[1:35:56] With that I think I've gone

[1:36:00] through all my points and

[1:36:01] questions but with all that I

[1:36:01] will move the staff

[1:36:05] recommendation and we will now

[1:36:05] go to Council member Campbell.

[1:36:06] >> Thank you so much.

[1:36:10] Council PRESIDENT And thank you

[1:36:10] staff.

[1:36:11] Thank you so much.

[1:36:14] You've worked so hard on this I

[1:36:15] know and have been dealing with

[1:36:19] Sacramento quite a bit to get

[1:36:24] everything ironed out and

[1:36:24] explained as much as possible

[1:36:25] without the sandag maps

[1:36:28] available.

[1:36:29] And so I am happy to second

[1:36:33] the motion and move this item

[1:36:34] forward.

[1:36:34] It gives the city maximum

[1:36:39] flexibility ity as this new

[1:36:40] state law comes into effect and

[1:36:44] really appreciate all your hard

[1:36:44] work on it.

[1:36:45] So I'm very much in support of

[1:36:49] staff's recommendation and

[1:36:49] thank you.

[1:36:50] >> All right.

[1:36:50] Thank you Councilmember

[1:36:51] Campbell.

[1:36:54] So you have a motion by myself

[1:36:54] and a second by Councilmember

[1:36:55] Campbell to move the staff

[1:36:56] recommendation.

[1:36:58] We will go next to Council

[1:36:59] member Whitburn.

[1:36:59] Thank you.

[1:37:00] Council PRESIDENT I very much

[1:37:00] want to thank the Planning

[1:37:03] Department.

[1:37:04] Sb 70 died was an unexpected

[1:37:07] and significant lift for a

[1:37:08] department already working

[1:37:09] through a full work plan.

[1:37:12] I also want to thank everybody

[1:37:13] who took the time to come to

[1:37:13] tonight's meeting and share

[1:37:17] your perspectives on the matter

[1:37:18] before us this evening as

[1:37:22] the presentation described must

[1:37:22] be submitted.

[1:37:23] It requires cities to approve

[1:37:24] certain housing projects worth

[1:37:27] at a quarter or a half mile of

[1:37:28] major transit oriented

[1:37:28] development stops outside

[1:37:32] the zone for residential mixed

[1:37:32] or commercial development.

[1:37:33] It's a Diego that meets our

[1:37:36] trolley stops and a small

[1:37:37] number of dedicated bus lane

[1:37:41] sites that is targeted transit

[1:37:41] focused growth.

[1:37:46] That is exactly where we should

[1:37:47] be building housing.

[1:37:47] I have listened carefully to

[1:37:50] the comments about how we

[1:37:51] defined full time dedicated bus

[1:37:55] lanes which corridors should

[1:37:59] qualify as transit oriented

[1:38:00] development stops.

[1:38:01] I appreciate the thoughtfulness

[1:38:05] of the argument put forward by

[1:38:06] the Democrats and I find them

[1:38:09] persuasive.

[1:38:10] I do understand how reasonable

[1:38:11] people could reach different

[1:38:14] conclusions about which

[1:38:15] corridors should qualify.

[1:38:19] As tod stops but the change

[1:38:20] being requested

[1:38:20] the presentation by the b

[1:38:24] Democrats is specific to three

[1:38:24] corridors that are either

[1:38:29] entirely within my district or

[1:38:30] which extends from District

[1:38:31] three to Councilmember Isla

[1:38:34] Rivera's district District

[1:38:34] nine.

[1:38:35] When I look at those bus lanes

[1:38:39] on Park Boulevard University

[1:38:43] Avenue at El Codelco Boulevard

[1:38:44] ,I have always thought of them

[1:38:44] as designated transit only

[1:38:48] lanes.

[1:38:49] I think most District three

[1:38:50] residents see that as

[1:38:53] designated transit only late

[1:38:54] from the day they were

[1:38:55] installed to today and this is

[1:38:58] certainly where we want to be

[1:38:58] building housing.

[1:38:59] It is exactly where we need to

[1:39:05] be building additional housing

[1:39:05] .

[1:39:06] I'm not going to get to

[1:39:07] the question about low resource

[1:39:07] areas.

[1:39:08] I will defer to

[1:39:10] the councilmembers whose

[1:39:11] districts are most impacted by

[1:39:11] that.

[1:39:15] But my district is most

[1:39:16] impacted by facilitating

[1:39:16] density along Alcohol Boulevard

[1:39:20] University Avenue and Park

[1:39:20] Boulevard.

[1:39:21] We heard from a lot of people

[1:39:22] for District three this

[1:39:22] evening.

[1:39:27] We want this a big ride to ask

[1:39:28] for it a bit bit but I want to

[1:39:30] ask the planning Department

[1:39:30] first.

[1:39:35] I would like to propose making

[1:39:36] the what a bit better was

[1:39:36] suggested a better dig recital

[1:39:39] e and replacing it with

[1:39:40] the language that would include

[1:39:43] all bus stops served by full

[1:39:44] time dedicated bus lanes at

[1:39:45] Alcohol Boulevard University

[1:39:49] Avenue and Park Boulevard.

[1:39:50] With bus service operating at a

[1:39:50] frequency of 15 minutes or less

[1:39:53] during weekday peak commute

[1:39:54] hours And I want to ask if

[1:39:59] there is any downside to doing

[1:39:59] that.

[1:40:00] And here's part of the reason

[1:40:03] why Ultimately whether we use

[1:40:04] the original language or

[1:40:05] whether we use the amended

[1:40:09] language that I'm suggesting

[1:40:10] we're going to do whatever said

[1:40:10] that decides.

[1:40:15] So what would be the harm?

[1:40:15] It amended this to reflect and

[1:40:18] to communicate to say I'd like

[1:40:19] what we want with

[1:40:20] the understanding that we will

[1:40:20] be about to say a dags decision

[1:40:25] Either way.

[1:40:26] >> So I will in a minute defer

[1:40:30] to the city attorney on this

[1:40:30] specific language including

[1:40:31] the references to the vehicle

[1:40:31] code.

[1:40:35] Which the city attorney has

[1:40:36] advised are not applicable to

[1:40:40] the sb 79 interpretation.

[1:40:40] With respect to identification,

[1:40:45] we do clearly state in Recital

[1:40:46] f that we will use the standing

[1:40:46] map.

[1:40:49] It has been our understanding

[1:40:50] that the language that we have

[1:40:51] included in Recital e is

[1:40:54] consistent with the sandag

[1:40:55] interpretation although we do

[1:40:59] not have the final maps.

[1:41:00] I don't I haven't had an

[1:41:04] opportunity to play out

[1:41:04] the potential consequences of

[1:41:05] that.

[1:41:08] The map that is attached to

[1:41:09] the ordinance that exempts

[1:41:12] areas outside of the one mile

[1:41:13] walk does not incorporate

[1:41:13] those.

[1:41:14] So I would say that that could

[1:41:16] be a potential in consistency

[1:41:17] that we do not have available

[1:41:18] tonight for this council.

[1:41:22] But I also defer to the city

[1:41:22] attorney for their thoughts as

[1:41:31] well as the City Planning

[1:41:32] Department said ultimately if

[1:41:36] we did amend the recital and

[1:41:37] wait on sand bags

[1:41:40] interpretation if they

[1:41:41] disagreed or agreed considering

[1:41:45] the maps are not being amended

[1:41:46] tonight, it's very likely we

[1:41:47] would have to bring it back to

[1:41:51] clean it up with the map adding

[1:41:51] all of those additional tmd

[1:41:52] stops.

[1:41:56] I also want to point out that

[1:41:56] sb 79 requires the city to

[1:42:01] submit the ordinance to cd for

[1:42:02] review and approval and they

[1:42:05] have not seen the addition of

[1:42:06] this language.

[1:42:06] If each city disagrees with

[1:42:10] the addition of the vehicle

[1:42:10] code that will have to come

[1:42:11] back to city council no matter

[1:42:15] what to be amended.

[1:42:16] >> So that's just something to

[1:42:16] consider.

[1:42:17] So it would just have to go

[1:42:20] back to city council if they

[1:42:20] disagree?

[1:42:24] >> Correct.

[1:42:29] >> Well, I'm willing to propose

[1:42:30] the amendment because I think

[1:42:33] there is value in communicating

[1:42:40] what we want And if there is

[1:42:40] one thing that say Diego is a

[1:42:44] bit clear about it is that

[1:42:44] the cost of living is too high

[1:42:48] and that the cost of housing

[1:42:53] needs to be moderated and

[1:42:54] the way we could do that is by

[1:42:55] building more housing and

[1:42:57] particularly in the places that

[1:42:58] could accommodate more density

[1:43:02] and particularly a log transit

[1:43:03] corridors and Alcohol Boulevard

[1:43:04] University Avenue and Park

[1:43:08] Boulevard are perfect examples

[1:43:08] of where we should be building

[1:43:12] more housing and I hope that

[1:43:17] said Dag and the oecd will see

[1:43:22] it the same way.

[1:43:23] So I will ask the maker of

[1:43:27] the motion understanding that

[1:43:28] said Dag is going to make

[1:43:31] the determination either way

[1:43:32] whether you would incorporate

[1:43:37] into the motion the abatement

[1:43:37] to include San Diego trolley

[1:43:42] stops at all bus stops served

[1:43:43] by a full time dedicated bus

[1:43:43] lane Side Boulevard University

[1:43:46] Avenue Park Boulevard with bus

[1:43:47] service operating at a

[1:43:48] frequency of 15 minutes or less

[1:43:51] during weekday peak commute

[1:43:51] hours.

[1:43:54] >> Councilmember Whitburn This

[1:43:55] is going to be the second

[1:43:56] hardest thing I did tonight.

[1:43:56] I'm going to respectfully

[1:43:57] decline.

[1:44:00] I appreciate what city planning

[1:44:01] has brought forth.

[1:44:05] Somebody raised the question

[1:44:05] Why are we here?

[1:44:06] We don't do meetings on

[1:44:07] Thursday nights and make

[1:44:10] everybody come back.

[1:44:11] I'm concerned about not getting

[1:44:15] this locked in before JULY 1st

[1:44:16] so that the totality of what

[1:44:19] we're bringing forward if we

[1:44:20] want to come back and amendment

[1:44:24] amend this later if we want San

[1:44:25] that goes in that direction.

[1:44:29] You'll have my full support but

[1:44:29] I want to maintain

[1:44:30] the integrity of this with and

[1:44:34] not risk the very narrow

[1:44:34] timeline we have to actually

[1:44:39] get this ordinance adopted at

[1:44:39] its second reading before JULY

[1:44:40] 1st and get it into h City's

[1:44:40] hands.

[1:44:44] So I appreciate you MAY not

[1:44:44] like that.

[1:44:45] I know the crowd is not going

[1:44:48] like that but that's really

[1:44:48] the reason I'm going to stand

[1:44:49] behind City Planning's

[1:44:53] recommendation and I understand

[1:44:53] that.

[1:44:54] I appreciate that and I respect

[1:44:54] your rationale for that.

[1:44:58] I certainly we respect our

[1:45:03] planning department and if

[1:45:03] there's one thing that our

[1:45:04] planning department has

[1:45:06] consistently said it's proposal

[1:45:12] and I appreciate that

[1:45:12] understanding that this will

[1:45:13] not be incorporated into

[1:45:16] the motion tonight.

[1:45:22] Let me just say to say that as

[1:45:22] the council member for District

[1:45:23] three it on behalf of Betty

[1:45:26] Berry of Bike constituents we

[1:45:27] would very much appreciate your

[1:45:31] consideration of incorporating

[1:45:36] the changes that have been

[1:45:36] discussed here to your ultimate

[1:45:37] decision.

[1:45:41] We think it is the right thing

[1:45:41] to do.

[1:45:42] We think it is the right thing

[1:45:42] to do for housing.

[1:45:43] We think it is the right thing

[1:45:45] to do for transit and we think

[1:45:46] it is the right thing to do for

[1:45:47] San Diego's.

[1:45:47] >> Thank you.

[1:45:49] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:45:53] >> I think Councilmember Weprin

[1:45:54] I'll give him a bigger round of

[1:45:55] applause.

[1:46:05] He deserves more.

[1:46:06] A fearless and a tireless

[1:46:11] advocate for a housing as we

[1:46:12] can see in many, many parts of

[1:46:12] District three.

[1:46:16] With that we will go next to

[1:46:17] Councilmember Yvonne Wolford.

[1:46:20] >> Thank you very much and

[1:46:21] thank you to our planning

[1:46:25] department for doing this work

[1:46:25] .

[1:46:26] Thank you to everybody who's

[1:46:26] come in to weigh in on this and

[1:46:27] the very thorough analysis

[1:46:30] which you gave.

[1:46:31] I mean I also tend to agree

[1:46:32] with Councilmember Whitburn

[1:46:35] that these are dedicated bus

[1:46:36] lanes and I do see how they

[1:46:40] would be included in

[1:46:40] the statute.

[1:46:44] However, the recitals simply

[1:46:45] says they're not anticipated to

[1:46:46] be and so that doesn't lock up

[1:46:50] in stone.

[1:46:50] It just says at this time we

[1:46:51] don't believe that they are.

[1:46:54] But you could change your mind.

[1:46:55] And so I think what we're

[1:46:56] hearing on the dais is that if

[1:46:59] especially if sandag decides

[1:46:59] that they should be, then we

[1:47:00] should.

[1:47:01] But to me it does seem to be a

[1:47:04] dedicated bus lane.

[1:47:05] I mean I don't drive in them

[1:47:05] because of it.

[1:47:09] So I understand you're going

[1:47:09] back.

[1:47:10] So I would I would support

[1:47:10] Councilor Woodburn's idea to

[1:47:14] communicate this.

[1:47:15] But I also understand council

[1:47:15] presidents too.

[1:47:16] You know, we're on a strict

[1:47:16] timeline and if we don't get

[1:47:17] something done then the whole

[1:47:21] thing will fall apart.

[1:47:26] I also have questions about

[1:47:27] the impact of increased

[1:47:27] development.

[1:47:28] So you know here in my district

[1:47:32] we don't have any transit to be

[1:47:32] honest, you know, So we don't

[1:47:33] we don't really this is not

[1:47:34] going to affect District five.

[1:47:36] We are trying to do our part

[1:47:37] for the environment by

[1:47:38] switching to clean emissions

[1:47:38] vehicles and putting in ev

[1:47:39] chargers.

[1:47:41] We have one great bus that goes

[1:47:42] up and down the 15 freeway

[1:47:43] Would that's about it.

[1:47:46] So I agree with MR. Krieger

[1:47:46] that we do need cars still in

[1:47:47] the city.

[1:47:51] However, when we do have

[1:47:52] increased development which we

[1:47:58] do we've taken thousands of

[1:47:59] units of housing in d five in

[1:47:59] essentially Skeeters crime out

[1:48:00] in area.

[1:48:01] I actually just had a town hall

[1:48:01] meeting in a cul de sac a few

[1:48:05] weeks ago because it was

[1:48:06] the new fire evacuation route

[1:48:07] and we figured why not just

[1:48:07] have it there?

[1:48:08] I was the one we conditioned in

[1:48:11] junipers and we brought

[1:48:12] the fire department, the police

[1:48:12] department Hundreds of

[1:48:13] residents came out standing in.

[1:48:15] It's cold in fact to talk about

[1:48:16] what happened to the tail

[1:48:16] lights on fire And it got a

[1:48:20] little heated because we had

[1:48:21] the Wood Creek fire came

[1:48:21] through there and you know,

[1:48:25] burned many of these people's

[1:48:25] houses.

[1:48:26] So it's not theoretical to

[1:48:26] them.

[1:48:29] They've already rebuilt But so

[1:48:30] one of my questions is you know

[1:48:33] our diff is regardless of

[1:48:34] whether we have sb 79 or

[1:48:39] the more inclusive programs

[1:48:39] we've already done, our deficit

[1:48:40] seem to not be keeping up with

[1:48:43] the infrastructure we need to

[1:48:44] support this density.

[1:48:45] We've had a couple of projects

[1:48:45] in d five where the parks are

[1:48:47] not being built because the if

[1:48:48] these wildly were under

[1:48:49] calculated how much it would

[1:48:49] cost.

[1:48:53] So I'm wondering what we're

[1:48:53] going to do about Diffuse if we

[1:48:57] take on more development.

[1:48:58] The city does have citywide

[1:49:02] development impact fees that

[1:49:03] are in place and have been for

[1:49:03] several years.

[1:49:06] Those replace communities

[1:49:07] specific development impact

[1:49:07] fees.

[1:49:10] Part of the benefit of having

[1:49:11] four dedicated asset base

[1:49:11] development impact fees is that

[1:49:15] it enables city staff to update

[1:49:16] the next two studies for them

[1:49:20] at a much more frequent rate

[1:49:24] than we were to when we had

[1:49:24] over 40 different fees based on

[1:49:25] four communities.

[1:49:28] City Planning Department does

[1:49:29] have it in its work program

[1:49:29] right now to be updating those

[1:49:33] studies and we anticipate being

[1:49:34] able to reach out to council

[1:49:34] offices in the coming months to

[1:49:38] discuss those more for future

[1:49:39] action at council.

[1:49:43] This particular item as you are

[1:49:43] aware does not include that

[1:49:44] discussion but citywide

[1:49:48] department impact fees do apply

[1:49:49] to all new development unless

[1:49:49] certain exemptions are

[1:49:52] specified in the ordinance.

[1:49:53] I do want to take and I

[1:49:53] apologize for taking your time

[1:49:54] on this.

[1:49:57] I do think it's important to

[1:50:01] note that sb 79 you know to

[1:50:01] everybody here that's in

[1:50:05] supportive housing we are to

[1:50:06] and it is a little bit of a

[1:50:09] false narrative to say it's sb

[1:50:10] 79 or no housing.

[1:50:10] We have lots of other housing

[1:50:11] programs in place and in many

[1:50:15] instances a lot of these places

[1:50:16] have exceeded the densities

[1:50:19] that are called for by sb 79.

[1:50:20] And we are also rapidly you

[1:50:24] know with the urgency updating

[1:50:24] our capacity for new homes

[1:50:29] without needing to implement sb

[1:50:29] 79.

[1:50:30] So you know for everybody

[1:50:30] that's you know kind of I

[1:50:33] because I hear it right And I

[1:50:34] think it's important for us to

[1:50:35] acknowledge the importance of

[1:50:38] housing in these locations.

[1:50:39] These are areas that we agree

[1:50:43] are good for housing and our

[1:50:44] housing our community plans

[1:50:47] have shown that by adding

[1:50:48] the densities there and we do

[1:50:49] continue to do that as a good

[1:50:56] actor city in the housing space

[1:50:56] .

[1:50:56] Yes.

[1:50:57] No, completely agreed And I

[1:50:58] also think there's a huge value

[1:51:00] in local planning.

[1:51:01] I don't think that Sacramento

[1:51:02] should plan everything for us

[1:51:05] because like I said, we know

[1:51:05] where some of the evacuation

[1:51:06] routes are.

[1:51:06] Colorado is only going to be a

[1:51:10] two lane road and Scripps Ranch

[1:51:10] for a very long time.

[1:51:11] And so if we take 500 houses

[1:51:12] moored there, how are we going

[1:51:12] to evacuate people?

[1:51:15] So I do understand that we need

[1:51:15] local planning.

[1:51:16] But you're right, we have been

[1:51:18] more permissive than many other

[1:51:19] cities and we do need housing.

[1:51:20] I understand that too,

[1:51:21] especially senior housing.

[1:51:24] If we can build more of that we

[1:51:25] need dedicated senior housing

[1:51:25] especially up in my district.

[1:51:26] That would be great.

[1:51:27] I'd like to move into it now

[1:51:28] but I've been told them too

[1:51:28] young.

[1:51:33] So what I really wanted to hear

[1:51:33] what we're going to do with

[1:51:37] with tiff is coming up soon.

[1:51:38] i guess there we're not going

[1:51:39] to have our diffuse updated

[1:51:39] before JULY 1st.

[1:51:42] We will not.

[1:51:42] Okay.

[1:51:43] Um I'm especially concerned

[1:51:48] about parks and fire stations

[1:51:52] so I have somewhat good news

[1:51:53] for you Council member We will

[1:51:56] be bringing the dif annual

[1:51:57] report to this council probably

[1:51:58] in a matter of a couple of

[1:52:02] weeks and so we can have a much

[1:52:03] more robust conversation about

[1:52:06] the available funding and any

[1:52:06] potential changes going

[1:52:07] forward.

[1:52:07] >> Okay.

[1:52:07] Okay.

[1:52:08] Thank you.

[1:52:11] I appreciate it.

[1:52:11] I appreciate all the work and

[1:52:12] the questions my colleagues

[1:52:13] asked and I'll support those.

[1:52:19] >> Thank you.

[1:52:20] Councilmember Van Walbert.

[1:52:21] We'll go next to Councilmember

[1:52:21] Campo.

[1:52:21] Thank you.

[1:52:23] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:52:24] Thank you to members of

[1:52:25] the public who came in and

[1:52:25] spoke today and the members of

[1:52:26] the public who came in

[1:52:28] virtually as well for this late

[1:52:28] night meeting.

[1:52:29] I want to thank the Planning

[1:52:30] Department for their quick work

[1:52:32] given the timelines that we

[1:52:33] have in front of us.

[1:52:34] I know that this was on top of

[1:52:37] all their extra work.

[1:52:38] I think that as as we see

[1:52:39] the approach in front of us a

[1:52:42] measured one one that we know

[1:52:43] is not entirely within our

[1:52:43] control.

[1:52:47] And hearing from the public and

[1:52:48] we've learned from things like

[1:52:51] the edu bonus program and other

[1:52:52] policies that well-intentioned

[1:52:53] policies can still have

[1:52:56] unintended consequences.

[1:52:57] And so whether that's

[1:52:58] speculation in a low resource

[1:53:01] area or projects that do not

[1:53:06] take into account the necessary

[1:53:07] infrastructure for emergencies

[1:53:08] as Councilmember von Wilbur

[1:53:11] pointed out, we have to be very

[1:53:12] deliberate.

[1:53:13] And I think what Blum has put

[1:53:16] in front of us and your team is

[1:53:16] very, very deliberate.

[1:53:17] The alternative plan that

[1:53:21] you've got here it buys us time

[1:53:22] so that we can be precise at

[1:53:25] the neighborhood level which is

[1:53:26] what we hear from our

[1:53:27] neighborhoods.

[1:53:27] It's what we hear from our

[1:53:30] community planning groups and

[1:53:31] you know, the state will tell

[1:53:32] us to build more near transit.

[1:53:35] I've supported many projects

[1:53:36] near transit and we can grow

[1:53:36] those thoughtfully and with

[1:53:40] the neighbors at the center of

[1:53:41] those changes And I absolutely

[1:53:42] admire Councilmember Whitburn

[1:53:42] for advocating for his

[1:53:45] neighbors and the people his

[1:53:46] constituents.

[1:53:49] If there's if there's one

[1:53:50] person who has close to as much

[1:53:50] transit in his district as him,

[1:53:54] it might be me with the green

[1:53:54] Line.

[1:53:55] And I love seeing transit

[1:53:55] oriented housing going up.

[1:53:59] We've cut ribbons together and

[1:53:59] right now a lot of neighbors

[1:54:03] throughout San Diego are

[1:54:03] rightfully concerned a process

[1:54:07] that they had a lot more say in

[1:54:08] for for a long time now

[1:54:09] Sacramento is is making

[1:54:13] decisions there.

[1:54:13] We're seeing neighbors that are

[1:54:14] concerned with how they'll

[1:54:17] evacuate or in an emergency and

[1:54:18] if maybe their neighbors are

[1:54:19] going to take a property that

[1:54:22] is worth a lot more Now and

[1:54:23] sell it to an investor if

[1:54:24] the sidewalk and pipes will

[1:54:27] hold up for new development.

[1:54:28] They're concerned about losing

[1:54:29] the life that they've worked

[1:54:29] hard for and save for and

[1:54:32] invested in and maintained and

[1:54:33] want to pass on to their family

[1:54:34] members.

[1:54:34] And you can be concerned about

[1:54:37] those real possibilities.

[1:54:37] But we have to acknowledge

[1:54:38] the sheer number of people that

[1:54:41] don't have that safe space yet

[1:54:42] for them, that home for them

[1:54:43] that can barely afford to live

[1:54:44] here let alone own a home.

[1:54:47] Those individuals and families

[1:54:48] are rightfully concerned that

[1:54:48] the opportunity to live in this

[1:54:52] city will be unattainable.

[1:54:52] I think our planning department

[1:54:53] does a good job of trying to

[1:54:56] create those attainable

[1:54:57] opportunities.

[1:54:58] And I would just point to

[1:55:02] the fact that the State of

[1:55:02] California could really get rid

[1:55:06] of some serious laws that are

[1:55:07] in the way of building new

[1:55:11] condos, of building purchasable

[1:55:11] properties and whether it's

[1:55:16] people who want to use

[1:55:17] litigation to delay all that,

[1:55:17] whether it's attorneys who have

[1:55:22] big fees to make Well after

[1:55:22] buildings are built.

[1:55:23] There's lots of things that are

[1:55:24] in the way of homeownership and

[1:55:26] I certainly don't think that

[1:55:27] the city planning department is

[1:55:27] in the way of homeownership at

[1:55:30] this point.

[1:55:31] This item simply put gives us

[1:55:31] the time.

[1:55:32] i like the way that the council

[1:55:35] PRESIDENT Put it.

[1:55:36] We're going to get everyone to

[1:55:37] the table, give input to

[1:55:40] the neighbors in these

[1:55:41] neighborhoods who are just

[1:55:41] asking to be heard throughout

[1:55:45] the process and that those who

[1:55:46] are still not aware that

[1:55:46] changes MAY be coming down

[1:55:47] the line to get get their

[1:55:50] voices heard.

[1:55:51] I have one question.

[1:55:54] If we did nothing today, what

[1:55:54] would happen on JULY 1st if

[1:55:55] the council does not take

[1:55:59] action today?

[1:56:00] On JULY 1st sb 79 will phase in

[1:56:03] in all areas across the city

[1:56:04] and so the city will be

[1:56:05] required to issue permits for

[1:56:05] the densities identified in

[1:56:09] the staff materials and that

[1:56:10] would be regardless of whatever

[1:56:10] the sandag map is that's

[1:56:14] eventually published that we've

[1:56:14] been discussing.

[1:56:15] It would still be contingent

[1:56:15] upon the sandag maps.

[1:56:18] It would phase in in the areas

[1:56:19] where the sandag map

[1:56:19] identifies.

[1:56:23] We don't have that map yet but

[1:56:23] we do anticipate that it will

[1:56:24] come out before JULY 1st.

[1:56:24] Okay.

[1:56:25] Understood.

[1:56:27] One of the things that I was

[1:56:28] seeing is that there might be

[1:56:31] spots on the map that would be

[1:56:32] essentially included in our

[1:56:33] implementation And then if

[1:56:36] the sandag map changes and it

[1:56:37] doesn't doesn't like map shows

[1:56:38] areas that are not included, we

[1:56:41] might be in a process where we

[1:56:41] see applications for

[1:56:42] development that we would then

[1:56:46] have to pull the permit back or

[1:56:47] we wouldn't be able to pull

[1:56:47] the permit back.

[1:56:48] Given what sandag does correct,

[1:56:51] we anticipate having this

[1:56:51] ending map prior to

[1:56:52] the implementation.

[1:56:52] Okay.

[1:56:56] And so that's and should not

[1:56:57] occur.

[1:56:57] You're not going to speculate

[1:56:58] on whether that might happen

[1:56:58] but I could foresee that it

[1:57:00] might happen And then we'd be

[1:57:05] in a pickle significantly.

[1:57:06] I appreciate that The Planning

[1:57:07] Department has committed to

[1:57:07] including cpc and planning

[1:57:10] groups in the process and has

[1:57:10] worked with them.

[1:57:11] We heard many of them speaking

[1:57:12] today virtually and in person

[1:57:14] and that really matters to me

[1:57:14] as well.

[1:57:15] So thank you very much for that

[1:57:16] and thank you.

[1:57:19] I will support the motion.

[1:57:20] All right.

[1:57:21] Thank you, Councilmember Campo.

[1:57:21] We'll go next to Councilmember

[1:57:22] Moreno.

[1:57:24] Thank you And thank you for

[1:57:24] the presentation and thank you

[1:57:25] to all the members of

[1:57:28] the public who came today to

[1:57:29] speak before this body.

[1:57:33] It's been stated already but I

[1:57:34] would like to reiterate I think

[1:57:38] the city of San Diego has been

[1:57:39] pro housing pro density.

[1:57:43] We've been updating all of our

[1:57:44] plan updates as quickly as we

[1:57:47] possibly can.

[1:57:48] In essence changing the zones

[1:57:53] policy, it's clear to me that

[1:57:54] sb 79 was created for cities

[1:57:57] that are anti-growth growth

[1:57:58] which obviously does not

[1:58:02] represent the city of San Diego

[1:58:03] And I've seen it firsthand

[1:58:03] during the Coastal Commission

[1:58:07] just hearing folks talk.

[1:58:07] It's been pretty shocking to be

[1:58:12] honest how just pro housing

[1:58:12] the city.

[1:58:18] It's not shocking but it's a

[1:58:19] delight to make sure that that

[1:58:20] it goes unnoticed, that

[1:58:21] the city of San Diego is pro

[1:58:22] housing.

[1:58:26] And I say that because it is

[1:58:26] the number one issue.

[1:58:27] When you go out into

[1:58:28] the community and you have town

[1:58:30] halls and you go and you knock

[1:58:31] on doors or even when we're

[1:58:31] having community cleanups

[1:58:35] the number one issue is my rent

[1:58:36] is too high.

[1:58:40] So although I do recognize that

[1:58:40] action is needed today, what

[1:58:45] action we take is what I want

[1:58:49] to really hone in on.

[1:58:50] >> I thought that Councilmember

[1:58:54] weapons request for

[1:58:54] the amendment was very

[1:58:58] reasonable and it's one that I

[1:59:03] am fully in support of And how

[1:59:03] it was mentioned If sandag

[1:59:08] decides to include those three

[1:59:09] corridors good.

[1:59:09] And if they don't will the city

[1:59:13] of San Diego would have done it

[1:59:14] already.

[1:59:18] So that's where I stand on

[1:59:18] that.

[1:59:23] I understand a little bit more

[1:59:23] the reasoning behind and I'm

[1:59:28] just if you could walk me

[1:59:28] through this.

[1:59:32] In regards to low resources or

[1:59:33] low resourced areas you

[1:59:35] mentioned let me just get to

[1:59:40] this You mentioned low resource

[1:59:45] areas The department

[1:59:46] anticipates implementing

[1:59:47] through ongoing community plan

[1:59:50] updates including Mid-City

[1:59:51] Canyon, Otay Mesa with

[1:59:51] additional future planning

[1:59:56] process sources in

[1:59:56] the remaining low resource

[2:00:00] areas Prior to the state law

[2:00:01] requirements going into effect

[2:00:01] in 2030.

[2:00:04] So in essence what you are

[2:00:05] saying is that these low

[2:00:10] resource areas will not have a

[2:00:15] ministerial like process until

[2:00:19] 2032 unless we get to the Otay

[2:00:20] Mesa in mid-city ahead of 2032.

[2:00:24] Or if the council takes an

[2:00:25] action with a two year deal to

[2:00:29] kind of plan prior to that time

[2:00:30] which is 2032 is is the last

[2:00:34] date possible?

[2:00:35] But it could happen sooner but

[2:00:35] it could happen soon.

[2:00:36] Correct?

[2:00:36] Okay.

[2:00:39] And how Because the Otay Mesa

[2:00:44] Nester Community plan update if

[2:00:45] I do you know a quick map in my

[2:00:49] brain that's the last planned

[2:00:49] update for District eight We

[2:00:50] pretty much we've done San

[2:00:54] Isidro Otay Mesa, Southeastern

[2:00:54] Barrio Logan and Otay Mesa

[2:00:59] Nestor's the only 1 A.M. I

[2:00:59] missing another one?

[2:01:00] >> It is the last one for a

[2:01:03] comprehensive plan update.

[2:01:04] There's a variety of ways that

[2:01:08] we can address sb 79 in low

[2:01:09] resource communities including

[2:01:12] specifically any federal and

[2:01:12] Barrio Logan that have more

[2:01:13] recently adopted community

[2:01:17] plans that will require

[2:01:20] additional actions to meet

[2:01:21] the requirements of sb 79.

[2:01:22] I, I don't want to commit to

[2:01:25] what that planning process will

[2:01:26] look like that because that is

[2:01:27] it is quite a few years out

[2:01:30] from now but that could look

[2:01:31] like a specific plan update or

[2:01:35] focus plan amendment.

[2:01:36] Just because we have updated a

[2:01:37] community plan doesn't mean we

[2:01:40] can't go back and revisit it As

[2:01:40] we saw with Uptown Community

[2:01:41] Plan that was adopted in

[2:01:45] the semi recent past and then a

[2:01:46] focused plan amendment was

[2:01:47] brought back that increased

[2:01:50] density significantly in that

[2:01:50] area as well.

[2:01:51] So in my district your you just

[2:01:52] stated that Barrio Logan and

[2:01:54] San Ysidro can potentially see

[2:01:55] higher density through

[2:01:58] ministerial process of sb 79

[2:02:03] but they they would not be able

[2:02:03] to utilize the ministerial

[2:02:07] process unless they come

[2:02:08] forward and do a zone change in

[2:02:13] less in less.

[2:02:13] This Council takes action prior

[2:02:14] to that time.

[2:02:18] So prior to that time the city

[2:02:19] planning to partment will be

[2:02:22] working on what you said.

[2:02:23] >> Sorry to interrupt you but

[2:02:24] you just said you can't promise

[2:02:27] You can't promise how quick you

[2:02:28] will update correct?

[2:02:28] Correct.

[2:02:29] Correct.

[2:02:29] Okay.

[2:02:32] 2032 is the latest date before

[2:02:33] sb 79 requires that all areas

[2:02:36] be phased in.

[2:02:40] >> Okay that's 20 32 is six

[2:02:40] years from now.

[2:02:45] >> Yes.

[2:02:46] >> 20, 32 and six years from

[2:02:53] now which in our world seems

[2:02:54] like two weeks but in

[2:02:54] the development world seems

[2:02:58] like 200 years.

[2:02:59] So and I am of the belief that

[2:03:04] time kills all project x I am a

[2:03:04] little bit more comfortable I

[2:03:08] am because we've had so many

[2:03:09] plan updates and because of

[2:03:10] the commitment not only of this

[2:03:10] I.

[2:03:13] >> I always say this the mayor

[2:03:14] and I do not get along and we

[2:03:16] don't see eye to eye on 99% of

[2:03:20] the things housing we are 100%

[2:03:21] lockstep.

[2:03:21] So I do trust and obviously I

[2:03:26] trust you Heidi I do trust that

[2:03:27] we would get out of the way if

[2:03:31] you will, in when it comes to

[2:03:31] housing.

[2:03:32] I don't know what the next

[2:03:34] administration is going to look

[2:03:35] like and that's what I'm always

[2:03:36] looking towards.

[2:03:40] And so because I am very much

[2:03:44] pro housing and I do want

[2:03:45] the city to get out of the way,

[2:03:45] I do want my daughter to be

[2:03:49] able to live in the city of San

[2:03:49] Diego when she is ready to

[2:03:50] purchase a home if that is what

[2:03:54] she wants And just given what

[2:03:58] we have before us, I'm going to

[2:04:02] be a no vote on this particular

[2:04:03] item and I'm going to hope and

[2:04:07] pray that that tag adds

[2:04:07] the four corridors and that

[2:04:08] that administration updates our

[2:04:12] tod policies.

[2:04:12] So just standing on principle

[2:04:16] with this and knowing that my

[2:04:17] my vote means something, I'm

[2:04:20] going to be respectfully voting

[2:04:20] no on this.

[2:04:25] Thank you.

[2:04:26] Thank you.

[2:04:30] Councilmember Moreno I'm going

[2:04:31] to try something that is a

[2:04:35] little bit unorthodox because

[2:04:36] it's 815.

[2:04:40] Are you a no vote?

[2:04:40] Okay.

[2:04:41] So we don't have the votes to

[2:04:45] pass the motion so I'm not

[2:04:48] going to call for the vote.

[2:04:54] It takes five right, even

[2:04:54] though it's a majority of who's

[2:04:55] here.

[2:04:58] So I'm going to call for a 15

[2:05:02] minute recess to figure out

[2:05:07] whether there is a path forward

[2:06:51] so

[2:06:58] so city attorney the kind of

[2:06:59] talking it out So I'm not going

[2:07:02] to get a final bit I know we're

[2:07:03] all motivated to see if we can

[2:07:09] get someplace but I will be

[2:07:10] asking you I need to explain

[2:07:15] whatever the new approaches and

[2:07:53] then if I agree

[2:09:03] with

[2:11:15] that I

[2:24:22] know it's

[2:26:22] not

[2:32:19] I

[2:42:08] know going

[2:44:09] back

[2:47:37] to

[2:49:00] and and

[2:51:01] you

[2:52:35] and

[2:53:18] me

[2:54:22] and them and you know

[2:54:41] I've never I've I've never.

[2:54:45] All right folks And one hour

[2:54:49] and 1528 25 minute.

[2:54:50] Longest recess of my council

[2:54:53] presidency and we're ready to

[2:54:54] come back.

[2:54:54] This is important stuff.

[2:54:57] So first.

[2:54:58] >> Clerk please call the roll.

[2:54:58] Thank you.

[2:55:01] Council PRESIDENT Council

[2:55:02] member Campbell here Council

[2:55:02] Member Whitburn here.

[2:55:06] Council member Foster Council

[2:55:07] Member Yvonne Wolpert Council

[2:55:11] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Council

[2:55:12] Member You hear Council Member

[2:55:16] Moreno Resident Council member

[2:55:16] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT

[2:55:21] LaCava present.

[2:55:21] All right so we have a quorum

[2:55:25] and everybody is sitting there

[2:55:26] chairs So having made

[2:55:27] the motion that did not seem to

[2:55:30] have the votes.

[2:55:35] Staff and attorneys you heard

[2:55:36] the comments comments from

[2:55:36] the public.

[2:55:39] You heard the comments from

[2:55:40] the council members.

[2:55:41] I have deferred to you in

[2:55:45] the original motion and so I

[2:55:46] will once again to defer to you

[2:55:49] to come up with and

[2:55:49] alternatives that you think

[2:55:50] might be more palatable from

[2:55:54] the comments that you heard an

[2:55:54] hour or two ago.

[2:55:59] >> So Heidi, what what can you

[2:56:00] offer us?

[2:56:00] >> Okay.

[2:56:01] Yes, Thank you, Council

[2:56:01] PRESIDENT.

[2:56:04] Thank you for the deference.

[2:56:05] Very honored by that based off

[2:56:08] of the comments that we've

[2:56:09] heard from the council and

[2:56:10] the members of the public, I

[2:56:13] believe we have a solution.

[2:56:13] >> Okay.

[2:56:14] So that solution would be to

[2:56:18] remove recital e which

[2:56:18] references the specific toddy

[2:56:22] qualifying transit stops and

[2:56:23] then moves recital f into

[2:56:28] the new recital e which just

[2:56:28] says the two d qualifying

[2:56:29] transit stops will be the stops

[2:56:33] as identified by stand in by

[2:56:33] sandag in the map.

[2:56:38] Now in that action of

[2:56:38] the ordinance we have also

[2:56:39] proposed some additional

[2:56:42] changes.

[2:56:42] The original ordinance that was

[2:56:43] before the Council made

[2:56:47] reference to maps that included

[2:56:51] stops that staff had

[2:56:51] identified.

[2:56:52] But given that sandag MAY

[2:56:57] identify other stops, we have

[2:56:58] removed reference to each of

[2:57:01] the attachments and instead

[2:57:02] referred to the definitions and

[2:57:07] our department and after sandag

[2:57:07] does release the map will

[2:57:11] prepare the maps accordingly

[2:57:12] based off of this Council's

[2:57:12] direction.

[2:57:16] >> Okay, I'm comfortable with

[2:57:16] that.

[2:57:21] That language is now up on

[2:57:22] the screen and I believe hard

[2:57:26] copies are being passed out So

[2:57:27] people can look at the ads that

[2:57:30] are being made So I will move

[2:57:36] this recommendation as amended.

[2:57:36] COUNCILMAN Campbell, can I get

[2:57:37] a second?

[2:57:40] I'll be happy to second that.

[2:57:40] >> All right.

[2:57:41] Any comments, Councilmember

[2:57:44] Whitburn Thank you.

[2:57:45] Council PRESIDENT Just so that

[2:57:50] I cared for the record confirm

[2:57:54] what this does We're going to

[2:57:55] strike recital e all together.

[2:57:58] Tonight's action will not

[2:57:59] identify the transit oriented

[2:58:03] development stops in the city

[2:58:04] of San Diego.

[2:58:04] We're going to leave that to

[2:58:07] back that is essentially what

[2:58:08] that says.

[2:58:08] >> That is correct.

[2:58:10] You are much more succinct than

[2:58:10] I was.

[2:58:15] Thank you.

[2:58:20] I also want to say that along

[2:58:24] with this change my office is

[2:58:25] going to take the lead on

[2:58:26] writing a letter to said Dag

[2:58:29] requesting that the transit

[2:58:30] oriented development stops

[2:58:34] include San Diego trolley stops

[2:58:35] and all bus stops served by

[2:58:38] full time dedicated bus slides

[2:58:39] and alcohol Boulevard

[2:58:40] University Avenue and Park

[2:58:43] Boulevard with bus service

[2:58:44] operating at a frequency of 15

[2:58:48] minutes or less during weekday

[2:58:49] peak commute hours by office

[2:58:50] will take the lead on writing

[2:58:53] that letter.

[2:58:54] I anticipate that there will be

[2:58:55] other council members who will

[2:58:58] sign Add to that letter and I

[2:58:58] really want to thank

[2:59:03] the Council PRESIDENT And my

[2:59:03] colleagues for their patience

[2:59:04] as we worked out a path forward

[2:59:04] on this.

[2:59:08] I want to take the Be Democrats

[2:59:08] and other pro housing advocates

[2:59:12] for their input on this.

[2:59:13] I want to thank the mayor's

[2:59:17] office, our housing planning

[2:59:17] department and our city

[2:59:21] attorney's office for walking

[2:59:22] us through this approach.

[2:59:26] I think this is a path forward

[2:59:26] that makes sense that we can

[2:59:27] get behind tonight.

[2:59:27] So thank you.

[2:59:31] Council PRESIDENT All right.

[2:59:31] Thank you.

[2:59:32] Council Member Whitburn Council

[2:59:32] Member Campo Thank you.

[2:59:38] Council PRESIDENT Staff Well

[2:59:40] I'd say use as many words but

[2:59:40] it's functionally different

[2:59:41] than the staff's recommendation

[2:59:42] And what we have in front of us

[2:59:44] right now what is functionally

[2:59:45] different is that there is no

[2:59:49] reference to specific stops and

[2:59:50] there is full deference to

[2:59:54] the sandag maps program So

[2:59:55] there is no reference in this

[2:59:59] Council adopted action to

[2:59:59] the qualifying stops.

[3:00:00] The reason why staff had

[3:00:04] prepared the maps is because it

[3:00:05] is informative for the council

[3:00:05] to be able to see

[3:00:08] the applicability of the areas

[3:00:13] But given the challenging

[3:00:14] situation of the timing of

[3:00:15] the release of the maps we were

[3:00:18] not in a position to be able to

[3:00:18] wait until the release of

[3:00:19] the sandag maps to bring this

[3:00:20] item forward to the Council.

[3:00:27] Certainly So for people who are

[3:00:27] online at 820 and now are

[3:00:31] looking at 940 there I think

[3:00:32] functionally functionally would

[3:00:36] you say that or staff's

[3:00:37] recommendation is here other

[3:00:37] than the informative ness of

[3:00:41] what some of the recitals said

[3:00:42] ?

[3:00:42] But functionally it's the same

[3:00:43] thing.

[3:00:43] I would agree with that

[3:00:44] characterization.

[3:00:44] Okay.

[3:00:44] Thank you.

[3:00:46] Happy to be in support Figure

[3:00:47] Councilmember Campo I rush to

[3:00:51] make the motion I did want to

[3:00:52] check with the city attorney to

[3:00:52] make sure that you have

[3:00:56] carefully thought this through

[3:00:56] from a legal perspective.

[3:00:57] Yes, Our office has no legal

[3:01:01] concerns.

[3:01:01] Thank you.

[3:01:01] Okay.

[3:01:02] My apologies for not asking

[3:01:03] that question before I made my

[3:01:06] motion.

[3:01:07] Councilmember Whitman, you're

[3:01:08] back on the line.

[3:01:08] Thank you.

[3:01:09] Council PRESIDENT To elaborate

[3:01:10] a little bit the question that

[3:01:14] Councilmember Campo brought up

[3:01:15] just to highlight what we've

[3:01:19] done here.

[3:01:25] Recital e originally said that

[3:01:25] the only toad stops at the city

[3:01:26] of San Diego are San Diego

[3:01:30] Trolley stops at four bus stops

[3:01:31] located at a few different

[3:01:31] locations.

[3:01:34] It was restrictive at limiting

[3:01:40] And what this does is remove

[3:01:40] that limiting nature.

[3:01:44] It defers to say a dig at

[3:01:45] the with the letter that my

[3:01:46] office will take the lead on we

[3:01:49] will indicate what certainly my

[3:01:50] preference would be to see at

[3:01:54] it at any other council members

[3:01:55] who wish to join it on that

[3:01:56] Perfectly good just as a matter

[3:01:58] of functional ity I think

[3:01:59] that's right But I, I get

[3:02:00] the purpose of wanting to

[3:02:03] remove the specific enumeration

[3:02:04] or listing of what you were

[3:02:07] talking about Totally good and

[3:02:08] thank you.

[3:02:08] Happy to vote yes.

[3:02:09] Okay.

[3:02:09] All right.

[3:02:13] So with that we do have

[3:02:16] the motion that's actually two

[3:02:17] pages I think that's the front

[3:02:17] page.

[3:02:21] There's hard copies and I think

[3:02:22] there's hard copies in the back

[3:02:22] or something like that.

[3:02:23] Yeah.

[3:02:26] So with that.

[3:02:31] >> Clerk please call the roll.

[3:02:32] I have sir I have started

[3:02:32] the voting system.

[3:02:39] Please cast your vote.

[3:02:52] Oh you okay And that passes

[3:02:57] five, 5444 people absent but

[3:02:58] that does not sound right Want

[3:03:02] to do it again?

[3:03:03] Yes We'll start The voting

[3:03:03] system will start again.

[3:03:04] I've started the voting system

[3:03:09] once more.

[3:03:14] Okay.

[3:03:15] Can Council member Campbell

[3:03:18] would you like to vote orally?

[3:03:18] Okay.

[3:03:23] I vote yes.

[3:03:24] Oh, there it is.

[3:03:24] Okay.

[3:03:25] Okay.

[3:03:30] Okay.

[3:03:34] And that passes 6360 with three

[3:03:35] Council members absent Council

[3:03:35] member Foster Council PRESIDENT

[3:03:36] Pro Tem Lee and Council member

[3:03:39] Yellow Rivera All right.

[3:03:42] >> We have approval of

[3:03:43] the first reading of

[3:03:43] the ordinance So thank you

[3:03:47] everybody that stuck around.

[3:03:48] Thank you for your initial

[3:03:48] input.

[3:03:52] Thank you to staff navigating

[3:03:53] this little thorny question

[3:03:56] because sandag had not yet done

[3:03:57] its work which would have made

[3:03:58] it a little bit easier and more

[3:04:01] straightforward.

[3:04:02] With that we will now adjourn

[3:04:03] Council to the regularly

[3:04:06] scheduled council meeting on

[3:04:09] Monday MAY 11th, 2026 at 10

City Council Meetings — Special Agenda

Transcript