meeting.
I will now call the special
City Council meeting of
Thursday, MAY 7th, 2026 to
order Assistant clerk please
call the Roll Councilmember
Campbell Councilmember Whipper
here.
Councilmember Foster Council
Von Wilpert Council PRESIDENT
Pro Tem Lee Councilmember Campo
here Council Moreno Present
Council Member ilo Rivera and
Council PRESIDENT LaCava
PRESIDENT.
>> Also attending the meeting
are Assistant City Attorney
Leslie Fitzgerald, Senior
Fiscal and policy Analyst in
the aba Office.
Amy Lee Senior Policy Advisor
in the Mayor's office
Christopher Ackerman Avila and
myself your Assistant City
Clerk dg Pentel Pantaleon.
>> All right, Thank you for
that And I noticed that there
was a little if it was
sweetness leaving the room so
it was So with that a quorum is
now present since this is a
special council meeting under
the unlike the brc meeting
earlier today.
Before we start today's meeting
I want to remind everyone about
the city's practices and
procedures for public comment
at city Council meetings City
welcomes public participation
at our City Council meeting.
Speakers MAY address
the Council during public
comment and also in connection
with a specific item of
business on the agenda.
However, the city must make
sure that no one person or
group of people disrupt
the meeting in a way that
prohibits other speakers from
expressing their ideas and
opinions.
So to make sure that everyone
here has an opportunity to
address the Council I will
alert an individual or
individuals if I think their
conduct becomes disruptive.
If the disruption continues I
will rule the individual out of
order and if the disruption
continues further I will
declare a recess.
We can restore order at that
point we will direct
the individual leave the room
and if the individual refuses
police will escort
the individual out of
the building.
If we have to repeat
the process of warning as
recessing the meeting all
members of the public will be
excused from chambers.
Credentialed media will be
allowed to remain.
Once again we have these
practices and procedures to
protect the rights of other
speakers who wish to address
the Council and to allow
the Council to conduct
the public's business and
frankly to show respect to
the members of the public who
chose to spend their Thursday
evening here in chambers Unlike
other fun things I could have
been doing.
So I respect their time when
you think about when you offer
your testimony.
So with that assistant clerk
please go over how the public
can after their testimony I
will now highlight the slide on
the screen that reviews how
the public can offer their
public testimony during this
evening's meeting.
The order can be found on
the agenda summary found online
or at the table in the back of
the room If you are in person
please complete a speaker slip
located at the entrance of
chambers and bring it to
the front of the room.
Council ambassadors are
available near the entrance of
chambers and can assist with
questions and speaker slips.
No further in-person testimony
will be taken once the council
begins Virtual testimony.
Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
right.
Thank you.
>> So with that please
introduce item 600 item 600 as
Senate Bill 79 phased
implementation and exempting
non transit oriented
development areas.
>> Right.
I see staff is seated.
When you're ready introduce
yourselves for the record and
let us know how much time you
need for the presentation.
Good in the council members My
name is Grant Rody.
I'm a senior planner with
the City Planning Department.
I'm here with Seth Luciani,
deputy Director of housing
policy and Environmental
Analysis and City Planning and
Heidi Bloom, City planning
Director.
I am presenting the City Plan
Department's proposed Senate
Bill 79 phase of a mentation
plan with exemptions and it
will be about 15 minutes.
All right.
When you're ready.
>> Pursuant to the requirements
of the bill, the city Council
needs to adopt an ordinance to
phase in sb seven an
implementation in low resource
areas very high fire severity
zones sites with designated
historic resources and outside
to deter one foot sea level
rise and to exempt areas
outside of a one mile walk in
distance from sb seven nine
applicability Today the city
Planning Department is
proposing an ordinance
the phase the implementation of
sb 79 and exempt certain areas
from sb 79 implementation sb
seven nine was signed by
Governor Andrew some on OCTOBER
10th 2025 and seeks to address
the state's housing shortage
create homeownership
opportunities and to build more
homes near transit.
Sb seven as requirements are
generally consistent with
the policies included in
the city's general plan
including the housing element
which calls for more housing
options throughout the city and
the city's climate Action plan
calling for more homes and jobs
located near transit.
>> sb seven nine requires
the city to approve certain
housing developments within a
half mile radius of qualifying
and transit stops which I call
transit oriented development or
towed stops and sites that are
zoned for residential mixed use
or commercial development.
The half mile areas are
calculated as a straight line
distance or as the crow flies
and are referred to as tod
zones.
The bill requires that sandag
create a map of today's stops
and zones within the city while
the city plans that is created
several sb 79 maps dog stops
are subject to confirmation
from sandbags maps of
designated toad stops The bill
spotlighted zones in the two
areas.
>> The first is within a
quarter mile of a toad stop and
the second is between a quarter
and a half mile of a tide stop.
It requires greater density and
larger buildings.
The closer a site is to a
qualifying train to start with
the greatest density and
the largest buildings and sites
that are within 200ft.
Sb seven nine provides the city
with several implementation
options including the phasing
in and exemption of certain
areas of the city along with a
total alternative plan that can
comprehensively implement a
phased implementation approach.
Such a plan would allow
the city to determine optimal
locations for future
development around D.O.T. Stops
and incorporate the feedback
from community members into
the city's sb 79 implementation
Thoughtfully planning for new
growth through a two tiered
alternative plan can help
the implementation of sb 79
benefit San Diego addressing
fire risk and sea level rise
will help to improve public
safety and phase in
the implementation of sb 79 in
low resource areas allows
the city additional time to
address infrastructure needs
while furthering fair housing
by allowing more homes a
moderate, high and highest
resource areas that MAY not
have similarly needs.
First, it's important to note
that this type of more
thoughtful planning was
specifically anticipated in sb
79 which provides for this
planning and the development of
alternative plans.
This process also allows
the city to mark responsibly
plan and anticipate for growth
in a manner that can be most
efficiently served with
municipal services such as fire
police and trash collection.
>> sb seven nine allows
the city to exempt areas where
a walking path of less than one
mile from eligible size city
stops does not exist.
While all tod zones are located
within a half mile of tio d
stops or as the crow flies non
toddy sites do not have a
walking path of one mile or
less from these stops due to
physical barriers such as
canyons and freeways.
Allowing development further
from D.O.T. Stops would not
lead to actual transit oriented
development to ensure
the development allowed under
sb 79 provides opportunities
for future community members to
access study stops.
The City Plan Department
proposed ordinance would exempt
those areas from sb 79
implementation.
These areas would not be
affected by the implementation
of the bill or be included in
an alternative plan.
It's important to remember that
the intent of sb 79 is to spur
transit oriented development
and areas outside of a one mile
walking distance from these
stops are not transit oriented.
The city plan department also
calculated the areas without a
walking path of one mile or
less taking into account areas
lacking sidewalks as the path
of travel should include safe
publicly accessible sidewalks
to qualify for sb seven and an
implementation sb seven nine
permits a phased implementation
in lower resource areas as
identified by the California
Tax Credit Allocation Committee
until one year after
the adoption of the Seventh
Housing Limited, the city and
2031 the City Plan department
can also implement sb 79
through community plan updates
and low resource areas prior to
2031 to ensure that at the sb
79 densities are addressed
phasing the implementation as
desired primarily to focus
housing development in areas
with access to opportunity
prior to being implemented in
low resource areas.
>> Portions of the Toddies
alternate arterial tiered zones
are in very high fire severity
zones adopted by the City
Council on AUGUST 2025 because
a significant portion of
the total zones are in these
very high fire severity zones
the Department recommends a
phased implementation through a
total turn up plan to address
fire safety.
The top alternative plan allows
the city to ensure
the development required by sb
79 is not located in places
with the most fire risk in
those areas that only have a
single evacuation route.
Sb seven nine also permits a
phased implementation on sites
containing historic resource
that are designated as of
JANUARY 1st 2025 sb seven nine
implementation would occur on
these sites with a total
alternative plan to ensure
the city's newly adopted
historic preservation
regulations can be taken into
account.
Phase implementation is also
allowed on sites that are
identified as vulnerable to a
one foot sea level rise as
shown on the map attached to
the staff report.
The areas affected by a one
foot sea level rise are on
the western side of Mission
Valley.
The phase of limitation of
these areas would occur as part
of a tod alternative plan to
address climate resiliency.
Starting on JULY 1st sb 79 will
take effect on all qualifying
sites.
This means the default
densities will apply in all
commercial mixed use and
residential zones.
If the proposed ordinance is
approved, only areas outside of
low resource areas that do not
include designated historic
resources are not subject to
sea level rise and not in very
high fire severity zones would
take effect on JULY 1st.
These areas are marked in
yellow on the map and
constitute approximately 22% of
the areas within Todd Zoned
citywide.
After approval of the proposed
ordinance phase in
the implementation of sb 79 and
exempting specified areas must
be 70 an implementation by
the City Council.
City planning will transmit
the ordinance to hb asked for
review and comment.
Under sb 79 it has 90 to 120
days to evaluate whether
the city's actions comply with
sb 79.
If hpd determines that
revisions are necessary,
the city MAY amend
the ordinance to address these
comments or adopt
the resolution affirming
the ordinance and explaining
the city's rationale for why
its actions comply with sb 79.
To preliminary conversations
hpd staff has indicated that a
locally adopted ordinance would
take effect upon city adoption
and hpd is review is not
required to be completed for
the ordinance to take effect.
The city plan department also
plan to prepare a tldr
alternative plan to implement
sb 79 which will include
amendments to the Miscible
Code, zoning community plans
and the general plan.
The total alternative plan
would be provided for public
review and comment before being
submitted for consideration to
the Planning Commission.
The Land Use and Housing
Committee and the City Council.
The Department anticipates that
it can bring this item forward
later this year.
>> The Planning Commission
voted to recommend to the City
Council the approval of an
ordinance exempting areas and
phasing implementation of sb 79
within Todd zoned citywide
inclusive of low resource
areas.
The motion further recommends
that should the Todd
alternative plan not be
approved as of APRIL 2027 staff
shall return to the Planning
Commission by MAY 2027 for
consideration.
City Planning Staff recommends
the approval of an orange to
phase the implementation of sb
79 as proposed by city planning
staff and to exempt areas not
located near transit from sb
seven nine implementation as
provided for in sb 79.
>> This includes staff
presentation and where
available for any questions you
have.
>> Thank you.
All right.
Thank you very much for
the presentation.
Clerk Please proceed with
public comment.
>> Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT I'd like to
note that this item received
281 comments in favor and 19
comments in opposition via our
comment form which had been
distributed to City Council.
The public comment period is
now open.
We received 43 speaker slips
from individuals in chambers
and currently have six hands up
from those attending virtually
We will go to one minute per
person just friendly reminder
to individual seating.
Time to please raise your hand
when I call your name so we're
able to account for the slips
that you submitted.
We will begin with Doreen Diaz
pastor.
You have time ceded to you by
Terri Fowler.
>> Kimberly Roberts surely use
Thank you.
You have four minutes.
Please don't stop my cow.
Thank you.
Who is going to control my
projector?
Don't start my time.
Okay.
Can I go like this?
Just a slide.
Okay.
Before you I don't want to
waste time waiting for my
slide.
Thank you so much.
So we can scroll this one.
Okay.
The most important thing for
him is here right now Is that
we have a low resource area
with naturally occurring
affordable homes.
We still have some three
bedroom homes, two baths,
garage front yard backyard
renting at 2300 which is
the same rate of those horrible
80 bonus.
We need what you had on You
have FEBRUARY 3rd 13th 2026
Memo spoke about Lemon Grove
and I didn't see it during this
presentation or updated.
But because Lemon Grove is 35 k
the one you acquired to go half
a mile and going oh sorry a
quarter of a mile going a
quarter of a mile affects 70
homes in Hamakua and going a
half a mile affects 307 low
resource homes.
So different 1717 versus 307.
I took a photo That blue dot is
the Lemon Grove station And you
look there they are all single
family homes exclusively.
>> There's no vacant lot.
>> So if you check we are ctca
is the resort area 17 streets
are affected that tamisha skip
that I don't have much time.
>> All of our streets are two
Main street lined on both sides
with cars.
>> We do not have any four lane
streets.
They are narrow street and of
the 17 streets we have 15 of
those street have most of
the homes in very high fire
zone.
>> The majority of those
streets are 100% of the homes
and only a few streets have
partial of the homes.
And in these two sectors which
is also uploaded let's go to
the next one.
So over here to verify
everything I'm saying you can
check this char.
You can count the homes.
We are going to be severely
impacted in less.
You lobby that the city of San
Diego will end up being
equitable with the city of
Lemon grow so that we can go
one fourth of a mile.
There is no other neighborhood
affected by the master to
the trolley station except for
the Hamsher neighborhood.
It doesn't affect Encanto,
doesn't affect Broadway.
It is exclusively ours and we
are low income and we have a
lot of steep hills.
I sent you all an email that I
would give you our personal
tour and my car to show you and
let you walk up these hills
yourself If you wanted to see
how steep they are All of us we
either drive to the trolley
station or we get dropped off
on a trolley station very few
or younger healthy or people
walk to the Massachusetts
trolley station.
The majority of our people if
you look at the census and I'm
talking this this sector we
have three centers because we
have 413 acres But in this
slanted 14202 it is a majority
of the homeowners are over 65.
So we are if you look at how
many seniors we have a lot of
senior homes and of course
the kids and their grandkids
and sometimes the great
grandkids because we have
multigenerational homes.
>> Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speaker is Andrea had
the roof you have please please
come up.
Thank you.
You have as you're coming up
for those who have been in
chambers for the very first
time we have speakers in
the back So if they're in
the hallway or the bathroom
they can hear the testimony
going forward.
So I just want to be assured
that everybody is listening to
every comment irrespective of
whether they're in a seat or
they're just standing up.
Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT You have time
ceded to you by Susan Baldwin
Thank you.
Please comment I am in favor of
staff's recommendation to phase
in implementation of sb 79
particularly as it regards low
resource areas additional
amenities should be in place
before up zoning low resource
areas because amenities
determine who is willing to
move into a community Low
resource areas need an increase
in that capacity before adding
more people investments in them
must be of sufficient scale and
prominence to signal
the stability that changes
the avoidance loop of higher
income residents.
This does not happen by
changing who lives there
immediately but by changing
what the place means as a
residential address so that
over time it can attract a
broader income mix and
the resources that come with
it.
Sb 79 confronts us with
generations of inequitable
planning in our land use system
The full five year phase in is
likely necessary to get this
right.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speaker is Ethan Paul.
Please come up and following
Ethan follows Paul Is Zach
positive Carol if you can
please come up as well just
take a seat on the front row
Reserved seat You'll have one
minute.
>> Good evening.
Honorable Council PRESIDENT
LaCava and City Council members
.
My name is Ethan Paul and I'm
here on behalf of Build a City
a grassroots organization
focused on documenting
construction and development
here in our community.
San Diego has invested in fast,
frequent and reliable bus
routes but so many of my
friends and family can't afford
and don't have the opportunity
to live in the communities that
these routes have been built
in.
If we want more clean, safe and
affordable places for our
friends and family to live,
this city should take this
opportunity and recognize that
the busses and stops on El
Cajon Boulevard and University
Avenue qualify as Tier two
transit stops.
We have built a city.
Hope your decision today helps
make that future a more
affordable one.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comment.
Zach DeFazio Pharrell, please
come up.
You have time ceded to you by
Daniel castelli.
Please raise your hand.
Keith Gupta Thank you, Tony.
Thank you.
Jason Vance.
Thank you.
Manny Rodriguez.
Thank you.
Jeffrey Crow.
>> Paul Jamison.
Thank you.
Carlisle Dockery.
>> No Carlos.
Okay.
Christina Hammond.
>> Hammond Thank you.
Chloe La.
Thank you.
Stephanie Palacio Thank you.
Guthrie Leonard.
>> Thank you.
Lucy Laugher.
Thank you.
Maxwell Gergen.
Thank you.
Thank you, MR. Blaine Wagner.
Thank you.
Paul Cortez.
Thank you.
Hunter Parker.
Thank you.
You have 15 minutes.
Please.
Please proceed to your comment
.
Thank you.
Thank you very much To
the council.
My name is Zach DeFazio.
Ferrell and the treasurer of
the Democrats of San Diego
County And I'm a member of
the Law and Policy team.
Next slide, please.
Thank you.
This is good.
So kind of a rhetorical
question but why are we here
today?
We have an ordinance in front
of us this evening regarding
how we're going to be phasing
sb 79.
And the issue for us is that
the city's current
interpretation of how this will
be phased only recognizes for
transit oriented development or
tod qualifying bus stops.
Yet we believe that there are
actually 48 bus stops and
they've left out of their
interpretation.
And so there should be a total
of 52.
We sent a formal letter to
the council asking for you to
reconsider particularly recital
e and the ordinance.
So we'll explain why all these
stops qualify and what you
councilmembers can do about it.
Next slide please.
Okay.
So the text of sd 79 requires a
full time dedicated bus lane or
up to the separate right of way
dedicated for public
transportation for a bus stop
to qualify for Tier two or
transit oriented development or
tod up zoning.
As I mentioned we disagree with
the city staff's
interpretation.
We don't think it's consistent
with California law nor is it
supported by the city's own
stated goals to increase
housing production.
And as we have come to
understand of the staff's
argument that these bus lanes
allow bikes and write turns
from other vehicles like
private vehicles at
intersections and thus they do
not qualify as dedicated bus
lanes.
Next slide please.
So there are three disputed
corridors in question.
The first is the El Cajon
Boulevard bus way that goes
from Elkhorn Boulevard or Park
Boulevard all the way to
roughly Fairmont the second
University Avenue from Florida
Street to Boundary Street and
Park Boulevard going from
upstream to City College
approximately.
Next slide please.
So how do these disputed
quarters qualify as full time
dedicated bus lanes?
Let's break this one down.
Next slide.
Argument number one
the disputed bus lanes are
factually full time.
Next slide, please.
So the disputed quarters
feature full time bus lanes
because they exist 24 hours of
the day.
They are not only to be used
during peak hours.
So this is a clear distinction
from bus lanes that might be
used during rush hour traffic
or something to that effect.
And there's a sign there in
that photo that's of the bus
lane on Park Boulevard south of
Upper Street, one of the ones I
mentioned.
Notice that sign says busses
only 24 hours.
It is a full time bus lane.
Next slide please.
Argument number two Existing
state law permits bikes and
other vehicles in dedicated bus
lanes when authorized.
>> Next slide please.
So the staff says the disputed
quarters don't qualify because
they'll outright turns and
bikes as I mentioned.
However, the California vehicle
code explicitly states that
lanes with these features still
qualify as transit only which
includes bus only.
And there are various
subdivisions of the vehicle
code that allow cities relevant
jurisdictions and relevant
transit agencies to establish
transit lanes together and to
authorize different kinds of
vehicles to use those lanes.
And it does not it does not
remove their qualifying nature
as some kind of bus or transit
lane.
And so three of the lanes
through the corridors we're
talking about all of them allow
private vehicles to pass
through them to make a right
turn at an intersection.
And a home boulevard bus way
and the University Avenue bus
lanes allow bicyclists to use
those bus lanes as well as
busses.
However, this does not mean
that they are not full time
dedicated bus lanes.
Next slide please.
Arguing number three Sandbags
Dedicated lanes Definition
allows non bus vehicles and
modes.
Next slide please.
So sandag has their own
definition of what?
And what they say are that
dedicated lanes are for
preferential or exclusive use
of transit services permitting
limited use by other vehicles
services and modes.
Right.
And all of these lanes do
permit again some kind of code
use.
>> Next slide, please.
And argument number four that
the statutes within sb 79 do
not require explicit
exclusivity for bus lanes.
Next slide please.
So sb 79 itself specifically
when it comes to the tier two
sort of tier tier of bus lane
standards doesn't say anything
about these bus lanes having to
physically exclude other kinds
of vehicles or bicycles or
anything of that nature from
using them.
In order to qualify it does do
so for Tier one.
None of which which does not
apply to any of these corridors
here.
But notice that for Tier one
what's required are separate
rights of way from which all
vehicular and foot traffic are
excluded.
Yet for the Tier two standard
they admit that language.
And we believe that it's it's
incorrect essentially to to
read into a meaning that
the legislature chose not to
include.
Next slide please.
Thus we can make a very strong
case here that the disputed
quarters qualify as full time
dedicated bus lanes.
They're full time.
They are dedicated according to
state law and according to
the city's own definition.
And they are bus lanes.
Next slide, please.
And we'll go into some
supporting evidence.
Next slide, please.
Okay.
So we've got city documents
that state that they are
dedicated and they are bus
only.
And there's a number of them.
This is a non-exhaustive list.
The city Transportation
Department of MAY 2019 which
studied the El Cajon it was a
pilot project for the Oklahoma
Boulevard bus lanes before they
were implemented the following
year.
We have mts website saying it
was a joint project between
mta, sandag and the city of San
Diego.
And for a University Avenue
mobility project which is
the what the University Avenue
bus lanes were called as part
of a larger project.
Those documents from the city's
engineering department call
them transit lanes along
University Avenue.
And they were marked as bus
only.
Next slide please.
And for Park Boulevard again,
the city's own documents call
them bus lanes.
And this is the it's called
Capital Improvement Project.
Was when they had to redo a
pipeline that's when they
created a class four buffered
bike bike lane next to the bus
lane.
And you could see the pictures
of them that I took myself
here.
And so we have various city
documents calling them what
they are dedicated bus lanes.
And so we essentially we're
the city is using its own logic
here to call them bus lanes.
But when it comes to promoting
sb 79, they're not designated
designating them as dedicated
bus lanes.
Next slide, please.
And then we've got oecd
guidance.
Next slide please.
And so it's really a memo
recently where they sort of
provided some guidance as to
how to interpret sb 79 and
the various tiers and what they
see here on the left
essentially is the bus service
meeting the standards of
paragraph one subdivision a of
section 21060.2 of the Public
Resources Code.
>> Full time dedicated bus
lanes or operation a separate
right of way dedicated for
public transportation.
Right.
Nothing about any kind of
physical exclusivity preventing
private vehicles from making
write turns or bicyclist from
using them.
And you see on the right we
highlight a small section there
qualifying bus service transit
oriented development stop at a
location with the bus stop is
adjacent to a full time
dedicated transit lane.
Next slide please.
And then we'll get into some
more supporting documents.
Next slide please.
This is from the Housing
Defense Fund letter.
They sent us this letter today
saying they agree with our
position.
They do know they do not want
the city to exempt any
qualifying sb 79 Tier two tier
two stops.
This would undermine
the purpose of sb 79.
It would frustrate the city's
housing goals.
And it would contravene state
law.
Next slide please.
So what can you do now?
Let's resolve this together.
Next slide please.
So our proposed solution is to
amend recital e of tonight's
ordinance.
We would like you to strike out
the current language as drafted
and replace it with something
very similar to what we've
proposed here or perhaps
exactly that which would
include corridor as mentioned
tonight.
And then this is a map here by
a group called Building Three
which includes the all of
the 52 stops along the three
corridors.
And that's sort of the blob in
the middle there.
Next slide, please.
And then the risk of doing this
wrong, right?
>> I mean essentially we've got
a lot of back and forth between
San Diego and the governor,
the current governor of
California starting JANUARY 1st
of of the following 27 to 9
qualifying projects and high
resource areas is presumed to
violate the Housing
Accountability Act triggering
immediate financial penalties
which is a situation I don't
think any of us want the city
of San Diego to be in.
And so our our take on this is
that correct Correcting this
interpretation tonight can
prevent problems, number one.
And we certainly don't want to
be in a position where
the governor attempts to pull
funding because we're not
complying with state law.
Next slide please.
So we do want to ask you again
to please consider amending
recital e of tonight's
ordinance so that it's
consistent with state law and
that it's consistent with San
Diego's housing goals.
Thank you very much.
>> Thank you for your comment.
Just to just for the record, we
did receive a speaker slip
ceding time or to sacrifice
referral from an.
Thank you.
And next speakers Jeff Uter.
>> Please please make your way
up to the lectern You have time
ceded to you by Dean to give
it.
Thank you.
Can enrich Marie Yovanovitch.
Thank you Yvonne Jones.
Thank you, Pamela Biegel.
Thank you Kelly Trembling.
Thank you.
Gail Villa Monti.
I see you.
Thank you.
Winner.
Thank you, Angela.
Grazie.
Thank you, Luis So Heather.
Thank you, Corey Farris.
Thank you, Lori Heller.
>> Thank you.
You'll have 13 minutes.
Great.
>> Thank you, Council members.
And I appreciate you bringing
this forward this evening.
I know you're working on
the budget and we need to get
this done basically in order to
meet the JULY 1st deadline.
And by doing that it retains
the flexibility that the city
needs to continue to analyze
the capacity that we have with
our existing zoning and our
existing overlay programs and
then develop a further transit
alternative plan and do other
actions.
One of the things that I think
is important is that we you
know, with deference to
the reference to the previous
presentation, we don't have a
final map from sandag yet.
And I think one of the things
we've done with the resolution
and the ordinance is it it is
flexible as to it being an
overlay on whatever final
determination of the map is.
We think that the city's map is
generally accurate.
There will be some adjustment
because you have to get
the exact positions of
the stations and their extents
identified in order to draw
the 200ft areas around it,
the half mile areas around it.
But in general we think that
what was presented in the in
the staff memo is is fairly
close to what we're going to
see with with the final map.
But one of the questions are
that because we're waiting for
this final map, what have
developers do in the interim?
I mean as soon as the ordinance
goes into effect and people
start applying for projects and
that will be an issue.
You know, I think it's written
that way.
One of the things we are
unclear about is when we talk
about the effective date being
30 days from the final adoption
of the ordinance.
Does that mean that project
still aren't allowed to be
submitted until JULY 1st or
projects will be submitted even
before the JULY 1st?
And so we we'd like some
clarity to that question just
to know exactly what we're
doing there.
If you go to the next slide I
think I cover that once you go
to the next slide.
>> So in this day and look what
the what the Planning
Department is proposing is a
fairly conservative approach to
this, a measured approach to
this And I think a lot of noise
has been made about how either
the city is shirking its
responsibility or delaying or
exempting state law was written
to allow cities to take a very
complicated law and implement a
phased approach And that's
exactly what the city is
proposing here.
So you know, again, we think
that's the right approach.
One of the key issues and there
was insufficient time to do
the full calculation Is there a
calculation that you do in
order to determine how much
additional density you need to
create through your transit
alternative plan?
And the calculation that's in
the staff report just shows you
underlined zone capacity.
So that's the 494,000 units
that are already zoned within
sb 79 areas versus
the calculated target that 180
861,000 while that remaining
367,000 when we get done with
the with the complete community
calculation that alone will
probably exceed that 361,000.
And so what are the things that
will come out of this is in a
lot of these transit zones we
will have already satisfied
the requirement that sb 79 and
I think this comes up a lot
where we say well but we
haven't built all this but this
is a zoning process, not a
building process.
And so even though it looks
like we haven't built all this
capacity that we've created, we
have created this capacity and
with all deference to
the governor, San Diego is way
ahead of the rest of the state
When it came to creating a
transit oriented capacity.
If you go to the next slide so
sb 79 and a lot of ways is like
complete communities.
But if you really look at
the difference complete
communities even in the coastal
zone exceeds the minimum
requirements of sb 79.
And if you go anywhere else in
the in the city you can look at
that and then you know that
area you know Claremont
University City Mission Valley
and those areas we already
allow under sb under complete
communities we already allow
for a ratio of 4.0 which is
actually what the maximum would
be 200ft from a station under
sb 79 And we allow if you do a
rough calculation of assuming
800 square foot units which is
fairly generous 160 units per
acre and in a major area where
this is going to be impacted
and that exceeds 140 200ft
away.
So there's not something where
we're preventing housing to be
built near transit.
We have something in place to
complete communities which
satisfies a lot of these
requirements And so the one
thing that the sb 79 does
the complete community does not
do is that it allows this
development not just to go into
minimum density area.
So complete communities is a
minimum of 20 units per acre
and sb 79 doesn't have any
threshold.
So where sb 79 developments are
going to leak out and this was
a big reason for excluding
the low resource areas here
it's going to leak out to
the areas that are low density
residential So it's going to
leak out to your low density
townhomes that are say low
three and it's going to go to
where our duplex homes are and
are go to our single family
homes.
And ironically it won't go
right next to the transit
because that will be areas that
you know be harder to do land
acquisition and generally have
higher requirements for other
other aspects of this If you
get to mid city not only is
the area that was shown by
the previous speaker generally
in low resource areas but it's
also areas that are already
covered at a six and a half for
by complete communities.
So we're actually asking in
some ways this 379 as a down
zoning from complete
communities in the mid-city
area And certainly when you get
downtown you know that we're
going to use sb 79 to build a
building downtown.
They don't even use complete
communities because of
the significant density that
we've already created in these
places.
So we really done pretty much
all the work.
The only thing I have to say
about the transit stops and we
actually met with Scott
Weiner's staff when they were
going through the bill to get
clarification of this And they
were clear that they didn't
consider shared bus bike lanes
to be eligible for sb 79.
In their mind it was dedicated
bus lanes.
The way to think about these
dedicated bus lanes it's a
train on tires right is
the idea is that you create
this capacity bus capacity so
that people can quickly move
along these dedicated bus ways
not just to get to the next
block on their street but to
get to where Jobcentres are And
just in the same way that we do
not let bikes on train tracks
on the trolley tracks the idea
is that they wouldn't be
allowed on bus rapid transit
routes either.
So again we'll wait to see what
the final determination is from
sandag but I think it's still
going to line closely with
this.
>> If you go to the next slide,
I'm not going to say a lot
about what the Planning
Commission proposed but I think
one of the things that's key is
they again they disregarded
the capacity that we're already
able to create in these areas
of complete communities already
covers all of the transit stops
that are in and districts
eight, nine and four.
And so you know, we think they
were kind of pushing for
something that we can already
accommodate in the interim
until we have the transit
oriented alternative plan
completed.
If you go to the next slide and
I'll just make one other
comment.
You know, again this
characterization that we're
that we're sort of slacking off
with this proposal, you know,
it just it doesn't hold against
the fact that we've already
done this years ahead of
the rest of the state and
therefore that gives us I think
the leeway to proceed with this
in a in a measured and sensible
way.
Again, just some
recommendations and again we
support the ordinance as it's
being presented to you today.
We hope that the council will
move that forward.
We would like clarification as
to what the real effective date
for project is and maybe maybe
it's already baked into
the ordinance but it sounded to
us as if you know you get done
with this now and in two weeks
you know that it MAY be, you
know, middle of JUNE before we
in place Now we're only talking
a couple of weeks at that point
so maybe it's not super
material.
The other thing though to
consider is what happens if
the state legislature decides
to postpone the go live date
for sb 79?
There is a bill in
the legislature that's asking
that this be extended to
JANUARY 1st of 2027 And I think
a lot of that is really just a
recognition of just how hard it
is to do it and I commend
the Planning Department for
being able to get all this work
done so quickly and putting us
in a position where we can work
through the rest of the details
afterwards.
There were some I just wanted
to call out also today or just
approving the memo and we need
to get that done.
I mean they have the ordinance
and we need to get that done
And I do think it's worth
looking back now after we get
this done at the FEBRUARY 13th
memo.
I think there are a lot of good
suggestions that the Planning
Department had because we've
been through the technical
details of what it means to do
a one mile walking path to
transit The staff recommended
effects that I think addresses
situation not just during
the period when we're
restricting the resource areas
but beyond that.
So I just think there's a lot
of thoughtful material in there
that we think would be good to
to send forward and you know
with all things you know we
there's you you know, kind of
the concept of of good planning
and good design and the set up
input requirements for
objective design standards in
these in these in these laws
And hopefully at some point
we'll look at those as well.
Again, I thank you for your
time tonight.
Maybe you get more people here
If you had bobbleheads for
the council members that might
be something to consider going
forward.
But otherwise thank you for
your time.
>> At least you didn't call us
bobbleheads so I'm grateful for
that.
For the fall we have four
speakers and in-person speakers
remaining in chambers with
the following individuals make
their way to the front seat of
the chambers that is Paul
cookin.
We have allegedly Audra Paul
Kruger and Mary Soriano Paul
Cook and you have time ceded to
you by Christian Anderson Thank
you.
Please make your way up to
the lectern and you MAY proceed
with your comment.
You'll have two minutes.
>> Thank you.
Good evening.
My name is Paul Colgan.
I'm secretary at the City
Charter Community Planners
Committee.
The cpc supports the Planning
Department's original phased
implementation approach and
urges the City council to adopt
it without the Planning
Commission's amendments which
would undermine the city's
ability to face implementation
responsibly and measured fees
in particularly in low resource
communities and high fire
severity zones allows the city
to align infrastructure, safety
planning and community impacts
before increasing density.
San Diego has seen what happens
when density policies are
implemented too quickly without
sufficient planning.
Whether through a bonus
outcomes or neighborhood level
parking infrastructure strength
these are lessons learned not
obstacles to progress.
The path is to use
the flexibility provided to
implement what state law
requires and allows including
the alternate Tommy cpc
respectfully urges you to adopt
the staff recommendations as
proposed without amendment and
to adjust implementation if
the State modifies or delays
the law.
>> Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
We have our next speaker
allegedly.
You'll have one minute.
>> The other significant You
guys have four people on
the dais right now.
In the back.
They're in the back.
>> Again, you don't have a
quorum or anything about that
So it is so you can do business
without a quorum all the time
on a regular basis.
>> So you guys continue to do
business illegally when you
don't have a quorum.
I called this out several
times.
You've escorted me out by
the police.
How are you guys doing business
like this when you do not have
a quorum?
I'd like to use my time
elsewhere but it's like I don't
know how many times I need to
see this happen And have you
continue business When I've
invoked Robert's Rules of Order
.
The police have witnessed this
and you guys continue business.
This is why you can't be
trusted especially when you're
We're talking about a bill from
Scott Wiener who's a pedophile.
That's a problem.
And the fact that you guys have
done this time and again
without a quorum thank you for
your time.
Your time has elapsed.
You can't address it and say
that we don't have a quorum and
we can continue business.
You literally have to stop
the meeting.
>> Please can you please
address this because this
continues to happen and it's
illegal for you to continue to
do business Joe without a
quorum present at the die is
not in the back Not going to
the bathroom at right up here.
>> I'm serious.
This is very concerning when
this is the third time not only
yesterday you did it three
times.
>> Okay, You're going to make
me do this.
This is your first, right?
Because I'm addressing
the rules of conduct and your
ability to do business without
a quorum.
>> Okay?
All these people out here are
patiently spending their
Thursday night There Can't do
business like this That is
illegal.
>> They have to have by people
up there.
Don't make me do this.
You've made your point.
>> We're moving on So So are
you not going to address
Vivian?
>> You just left her order out
a quorum.
Turn the mike off.
>> Do you want to be escorted
out again like Molina?
You got to keep it And you're
making me a criminal.
I told you to not do business
with four people.
You've made your point.
I'm going to conduct your
business in legal detail.
Yeah, I can get if you want to
have Like I said, I don't say
that you're disruptive because
you work for $17 million.
Okay?
You can kick me out of your
business and you can not be
detained without parole.
Why are you going to continuing
to buy you go through for
the gentlemen you think you can
.
Okay, we're going to leave
the dais right now and please
work
on that number
and
the anticipation and okay, five
minutes is up again.
My apologies to those of you
who are spending your personal
time here in chambers.
>> The recess is over.
Clerk Please call the roll
again.
Councilmember Campbell Campbell
you're here.
Councilmember Whitburn
Councilmember Foster
Councilmember one Wilpert
Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee
Councilmember Campo
Councilmember Moreno Present
Councilmember Abel Rivera and
Council PRESIDENT MacArthur
PRESIDENT All right with that I
think we were still in
the middle of public comment,
correct?
>> We have two speakers left in
chambers starting with Paul
Kruger.
Please come up to the lectern
You have time ceded to you by
Sage Gonzales Walden Thank you
Dorothy James and Mary Young.
You'll have four minutes.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Well, first I just wanted to
make a clarification on
the write in comments that
you've received As a clerk
noted earlier received 219
comments in favor of the staff
proposed phasing and 19
opposed.
But if you look at the 19, only
five of them actually oppose
the phase in and support
the full and immediate
implementation of sb 79 At
least ten of those in fact are
writing to say they oppose any
implementation of sb 79.
So just to clarify that, I just
want to make a couple of
general points based on lessons
learned from the six years
we've been trying to talk about
how to sanely grow San Diego.
The first is any time we hear
about a half mile or anything
that the crow flies we should
not be talking that way.
We know that from our
experience in Claremont and
Granville where I live in San
Diego Talmage that a half mile
as the crow flies can mean a
mile and a half as anybody
could get from one place to
the other.
And I just think it's important
that we acknowledge that
Problem number two, it took us
six years to persuade
the council about the problems
of the overzealous
implementation of the bonus
radio program And we all know
that it wasn't until
the District four homeowners
and renters faced the reality
of ten, 12, 14, 1735, 103
backyard units and these people
of color and these people of
moderate to low income came
forward and said not in our
backyard.
And Councilmember Foster took
up their cry and persuaded five
of you that this voluntary
program was wrong and it needed
to be reined in.
And I think the lesson learned
from that is that we have to
give very, very much thought
and deliberation to what we're
doing when we make rules or
incentives for builders that
allow them to build
developments of this size and
mass this sb 79 which I opposed
would allow within a half a
mile of a transit stop someone
to build a 5 or 6 story
apartment building on a block
of single family homes that
already don't have enough
parking in cul de sacs And this
has a devastating impact on
these neighborhoods And you
have heard firsthand in such
persuasive language that
the most ardent supporter of
high density COUNCILMAN Eli
Rivera referred to these
builders as predators.
Lastly, I'd like to thank
the Planning Department for its
deliberate review and its
recommendations and I'd like to
thank all of you for listening
to what the community has to
say.
And I'd like just in my closing
words to remind you that
building near transit in San
Diego does not mean you don't
have a car.
It's just common sense.
3 to 5% of people can do
without a car here or forced to
do without a car.
If you want to build big, build
big but don't say people don't
need a car.
>> Thank you for your comment
And our final speaker in
chambers is Mary Soriano.
Mary, you'll have one minute.
Please proceed.
Mary three on El Presidente
your town council San Diego a
very critical crossroads.
Sb 79 at least 65ft high 120
unit times that by nine city
council members equals 1080
units for one transit oriented
development per district.
Super conservative numbers Our
city faces an $8 billion five
year capital improvement
project funding deficit.
And every day we delay that gap
grows wider while our streets,
our roads, pipes and public
infrastructure continue to
deteriorate.
This is your moment.
You have the responsibility to
make recommendations that are
thoughtful, safe and fiscally
honest with the residents who
trust you.
San Diegans deserve
infrastructure that works.
They deserve streets they can
drive safely Water systems that
don't fail, electric grids that
don't become overloaded and
public spaces that reflect
the city with fire to be.
Thank you for your comment.
This concludes in-person public
testimony.
I will now start the five
minute timer for the virtual
queue going to those
participating remotely.
Currently there are 13
individuals with their hands up
wishing to speak starting with
Adrian Chowdhry.
I've asked you to unmute We'll
have one minute from now.
Good evening.
I would like to.
Good evening.
I think this this is becoming
an implementation by the city
is very is a bit disappointing
that it doesn't include the bus
stops that are on clearly
obvious bus lanes on Elkhorn
Boulevard and University Avenue
that should be included from
the get go and we should not
have to wait for the state to
come back and say that we're
violating sb 39 because
the city is refusing to look at
it properly although that 70%
of zone zones having to wait
until 2031 to be considered.
It's kind of pathetic.
I hope the I hope that
the board and the council would
reconsider the implementation
plan.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speaker up is Leaf
concert.
You have one minute for
concert.
I've allowed you to talk.
>> I cannot move for you.
Star six five Accept.
Yeah.
Good evening.
My name is my friends.
I'm the vice PRESIDENT All
the right as the I'm right at
the policy function that was
sent out to city council
beforehand and all the groups
else I thought I'm just going
to take some all kinds of
backgrounds And we all urged
the City council to adopt a
proper interpretation of
the bus lanes which is done
full time.
Boston's not just one of our
extended sample of all have
alcohol and University Avenue
and the proper bus lanes we
need housing desperately need
housing everywhere and
the transit system can get
people to willing to go there.
There's enough capital and
capacity and it's not enough to
be public transport.
I also asked people and you on
this topic and you don't want
to get into lots some of
the states it's going to be
costly and we're trusting
efficient cities implement
the best the best bus route
information best possible Also
on the commission we took
center at the time I'm going to
be 79 city wide until 22 set up
.
Our next speaker is Victoria
Brousseau.
You'll have one minute.
>> Please proceed with your
comment.
Good evening.
This is Victoria Brazeau, chair
of the cbc still looking for a
seat at the table.
I would have come in person but
has told me it would take an
hour so the bottle heads must
be popular, Bill ponders Paul
Coogan provided cbc
the official comment Thank you
Paul.
But I want to emphasize
the main issue tonight is
whether implementation of sb 79
will be done responsibly.
Communities across San Diego
have already experienced
the unintended consequences of
land use changes being
implemented faster than
infrastructure and community
planning could keep pace.
For example, the impacts
associated with Footnote seven
and the city's 8080 bonus
program.
That is why the Planning
Department's phased
implementation approach matters
especially in very high fire
severity zones and low resource
resource communities.
I respectfully urge the City
Council to support the staff
recommendation without
the Planning Commission's
requested amendments.
Thank you very much.
Have a great evening.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speakers Blair Bateman
You'll have one minute.
Please proceed with your
comment.
>> All right.
Where?
Bateman I'm just more listening
on this item.
I wanted to say that I'm here
participating and listening and
interesting public comment.
I'd be interested to hear what
City Council will have to say
on this item.
I really good luck in working
on truly affordable housing
with this item and for
the Claremont and College areas
and upcoming needs here and I'm
really a big fan of mixed
income housing that can bring
all levels of income into a
building.
I don't think we've quite
explored that concept enough.
Hopefully we can start thinking
of that more.
I think it can offer a lot
better future flexible choices
and good choices for ourselves.
So good luck with that and I
think we do have to work on
the quorum issues a bit.
I think there has to be at
least five people even if
you're going in the back to do
things right there has to be
five on the dias.
I can write you a letter.
We can talk more about this.
Let's hope we work on it.
Thank you.
Thank you for your comment
before me.
Next before we go to the next
speaker, I'd like to know that
the five minute timer has
expired and we have 11
individuals in the queue.
No other speakers will be taken
for this item The next the next
individual Spring Springs.
You'll have one minute Please
proceed to your comment.
Heather My name is Tim
Bernstein.
I'm glad that we are addressing
Gaspe 79 in the city and I want
to say a few things.
First we should accelerate all
of the delays.
We should not be delaying sb
79.
We need the housing capacity to
be unlocked as soon as
possible.
That means the low resource
areas need to be accelerated.
Additionally, as you do,
Democrats did a great job of
explaining.
We also need to include
the University Avenue Park
Boulevard and Oklahoma
Boulevard bus lanes as well.
They are included in
the definition actually called
Star witness.
I was myself and they told me
it should be included in their
clean bill.
They would have an amended that
would include explicitly it
goes with the spirit of
the law.
This is not a loophole is
absolutely what was intended by
the lawmakers when they were
legislating.
Additionally the infrastructure
is already up to par.
This area was down zoned in 80s
and the infrastructure was
built up with the intention of
high density housing from
the get go.
So any arguments that
the infrastructure wouldn't
support this is probably false
.
We also need to unlock this
housing capacity because it's
free money for the city from
taxes because it's closer to
the city and denser it's more
tax efficient and therefore
better for the city and more
for you for your comment.
Your time has elapsed Going to
the next speaker Sharon Gill
you'll have one minute.
Please proceed.
My name is Sharing Dale.
I went after the city council
pass this ordinance When they
start to look at high fliers of
the historic resources we need
to put public safety first
The safest buildings in a park
or the newest ones because
they're built to strict new
fire codes The most dangerous
buildings are the oldest ones
go to old codes old craftsman
homes where the most likely to
burn in the fire because they
have flammable wood siding,
single pane windows shattered
And why these They caught
the flames.
We need to allow owners of
historic resources to replace
single pane windows and
flammable wood siding or
replace the whole building with
a safer new building.
The larger the percentage of
new buildings in
the neighborhood, the safer
the neighborhood will be in
fire.
It's another form of herd
immunity.
The city needs to put public
safety first by allowing safer
housing for public transit.
Thank you for your comment.
Your time has elapsed.
Our next speaker is Shaquille.
You'll have one minute.
Please proceed with your
comment.
Shaquille have allowed you to
talk.
I cannot me for you Please
press star six if you are on
the phone I'm sorry to hear me
now.
Yes.
Please proceed.
I am a 30 year resident of San
Diego and I support the we
change the wording around
the bus stations around
University Oklahoma to maximize
the amount of housing there.
San Diego is currently losing
population and middle class
That's a middle class Schools
are losing children They can't
really without really no
children support the current
budgets turned budget step by
money to get to the schools
allowing more more people a lot
more houses around more trains
and a lot more families to send
each other to school by
bathrooms, by trolley routes.
And there are a lot of schools
for not that far from trolley
routes.
I have a a for which the reward
for the rewarding of certain
the certain language in
the bill.
Thank you thank you for your
comment going to our speaker
crypto Bradley 200 you'll have
one minute please proceed.
>> Thanks for taking my call.
I think you guys got to slow
the roll down and implement
this in my neighborhood they
put in those 15 a to use and
they're just starting to read
It's a nightmare man Slow roll
down And then also in soccer
game if you mess up with a game
they give you a yellow card and
they give you another yellow
card And then if you're acting
weird that you do the red card,
maybe next time you have to get
a person out of their regular
Rick you got the yellow card
one but another yellow card
interface and then get the red
card and then get a wheelchair
Those things and they roll them
out and strap them in and just
walk out and give her like
about a week off or something.
That's a lot because it's just
you know, steady yelling at her
And the Padres are tied game
bottom of the first man You
guys should have the padre game
on tv up there to make it
lighter but to slow the roll
down on implementing this
program man it's not good Your
time lapse.
Thank you for that.
We have Tom White on Natural.
You'll have one minute.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Hi, my name is Tom Michael
Nagle and I call on the city
council to implement sb 79 on
the university our bus lanes
and Oklahoma Boulevard And I
call on the City Council to
implement sb seven nine in low
resource areas as soon as
possible to create even greater
economic opportunities for our
citizens and businesses and
bolster our communities.
Building greater density in
these areas will contribute
even further the great strides
San Diego has made in
increasing our housing supply
and increasing it further will
greatly improve
the affordability of housing
for all in the community.
High middle low income and
those without housing will all
benefit from these
improvements.
This rising San Diego tide will
lift all of its citizens and
businesses ships.
>> Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speaker virtual
speakers Tracy Thompson.
Tracy Thompson.
You'll have one minute.
Please proceed with your
comment.
Yes.
Please proceed.
My name is Tracy Thompson.
I just want to urge the city to
implement sb something on as
quickly as possible with as few
as possible and to push towards
the bus lanes being properly
handled on university.
Have another Bloomberg I just
find it that I find it strange
that for a large major
metropolitan area like San
Diego we don't have a high
focus on increasing density in
our urban areas and by proxy
increasing transit access to
that theme.
My comment does I conclude your
comment Yes thank you very
much.
The next speakers d m you'll
have one minute Please proceed
.
>> Thank you Counsel My name is
Daniel Mollett.
I live in San Diego.
I'm better for normal heights.
I just wanted to comment about
the implementation of 79.
I'm calling in strong support
of correctly implementing it
according to state law.
As you know our cities and
housing crisis I think building
more homes in high frequency
transit areas like Oklahoma
Boulevard University Avenue and
Park Boulevard is exactly what
we need.
You know, California's actually
losing residents And if we
continue down this path
the electoral College is going
to make it impossible for
Democrats to even have a chance
of winning the presidency even
with the blue wall.
So this is this is a microcosm
of that And we should be
pushing forward to let as many
people live where they want to
live.
It's possible to live the kind
of life they want to live, put
them in a place where they're
going to get to work as easily
as possible.
This is the obvious policy I
hope you guys don't delay it.
Thank you very much for your
time.
Thank you for your comment.
Our next speaker saw that
thought you'll have one minute.
Please proceed with your
comment.
Council members Thank you to
the Planning Department for
their hard work on this
important plan.
Sb 79 will allow more homes
near transit and I think that
being more quickly phased in
those that agree with that can
be done so that we should also
include these high capacity
bike lanes.
One of the biggest mistake when
it comes to housing is
infrastructure.
The best way to build housing
therefore is allowing the high
frequency transit by about 50
minutes which is large amount
of people already living in
these areas just grocery stores
.
The library is the perfect
place to add more housing
housing fundamentally is good.
I think some people get it
wrong and believe that adding
more housing is a bad that
they're harmed by existence.
Expensive housing housing is
more neighbors in need, more
affordability.
It means that we all get to
live here, our children get to
live here and we get to build a
society together.
I want to emphasize housing is
good.
>> Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
Moira Tan you'll have one
minute Please start your
comment.
Moira Martin I've asked you to
mute I cannot unmute for you if
you're on a phone Star six by
three will be able to hear me.
>> Yes.
Please proceed.
Thank you.
Good evening.
Council PRESIDENT LaCava and
Council members Thank you.
The City Planning Department
for your thought partnership
here too.
>> My name is Mary Tan and I'm
a District five a San Diego
resident calling in strong
support of the correct
implementation of Senate Bill
79.
>> San Diego is in a housing
crisis building homes near high
frequency transit corridors
pick up the fungo Harvard
University Avenue in Park
Boulevard is exactly what our
city needs more affordable
options, less traffic, cleaner
air and stronger neighborhoods
.
Tonight you have a simple
opportunity to unlock up to 48
additional bus stops for
transit oriented housing at no
cost to the city simply by
adopting a legally sound
reading of the law.
The California's own vehicle
code already supports Governor
Newsom is watching.
Our residents are watching.
We believe this council can
rise to the moment.
Please adopt the new Democrat
proposed amendments and
recognize these before we
comment.
>> Qualifying Corridor c are
second to the last speaker is
phone number ending in two
eight 700 You'll have one
minute Please proceed with your
comment.
>> Phone number ending in 28
700 I've ask you to unmute if
you are that phone oh we could
hear you now you'll have Yes
You didn't say my phone number
correct.
>> Do we have a phone number
ending in 28700?
>> That's not me.
This is what we have on a kill
I feel I speak This is joy that
it is me Yes please please
proceed.
Okay.
But are you just starting my
time now?
Please.
>> You have one minute.
We've started the timer.
Okay.
Thank you, Joy.
Senator, this is only from
the staff report.
I didn't understand the city
most minister approved.
I'm concerned about public
hearings and also opting to
implement sb 79 on Marketplace
and Fordable homes First and
high highest and moderate
resource areas will support
fair housing.
I didn't understand that with
regard to low resource areas
anticipating come in to ongoing
community plan Page I at City
and Otay Mesa next door I
didn't understand in that I
would really like all of us to
think about clarifying what
affordable housing is
affordable housing work.
I don't think we still
understand it fully So cpc
thank you for your vote of
equal 28 in support.
Thank you for your comment.
Your time is up to our In our
final speaker on the virtual
queue is Bruce Coombs.
>> You'll have one minute
Please proceed.
Thank you Briskin Secretary
Director Saber Heritage
Organization.
We support the staff
recommendation without
the recommendations from
the Planning Commission we
believe staff did a very good
job of explaining the ordinance
which allows for the exactly
what they proposed including
phasing out the low resource
areas and the fire impacted
areas.
So we think it's very important
to do this right, particularly
with the low end or low
resource areas.
They do not have the amenities
and the infrastructure to
properly support this year and
plus in those areas we have to
be very careful that we don't
eliminate the actual affordable
housing, the naturally
occurring affordable housing.
So we have to plan this
correctly and I think the staff
did a very good job of
explaining why it seems
the Planning Commission chose
to ignore it.
>> Thank you.
Thank you for your comment and
that concludes the public
testimony and item 600.
Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
right.
Thank you for that.
Thank you everybody that took
the time to show up in person.
Thank you.
Those who call in and a special
shout out for those of you that
showed up just to give your
time to somebody else longer
presentations are much more
effective than the one minute
speeches that we sometimes
force you to do And it's good
to see you all have friends
even Paul and Jeff to drag
individuals out here Late night
to do that.
So anyway, this is coming
direct to city council
Otherwise I normally would have
gone to the chair of our land
use and housing but council
member council PRESIDENT Pro
Tem is not here so I will take
the lead on this So I'll start
out with one of the callers
that housing is good.
You know what else is good
Planning is good and I am so
impressed by the city as
someone who actually came out
of the industry who understands
what city planning is all about
And I don't think there is any
city up and down the state of
California that has been more
aggressive in being a pro
housing in increasing density
and doing every community plan
Update and creating more
opportunities for housing to be
built whether it gets built,
whether a developer can make a
project and solve something
else.
But and a lot of the density
that we've increased was just
sitting fallow for a few years
now.
A lot of the actions we took in
certain areas nothing's moved
in that area But I appreciate
Heidi and your team at City
Planning dropping the work that
you should be doing to respond
to a state mandate.
That's where we live right now.
So this is the law We have to
comply And I'm glad that nobody
actually was challenging sb 79.
It's the law.
We're trying to figure out how
to do that And I believe city
planning is in fact acting
within the specific areas
allowed for phasing under state
law.
>> And again I'm going to one
of the things that everybody
got nervous about sb 79 I
appreciated that unlike most
language coming out of
Sacramento, that is just a
blunt tool being applied
statewide that is really
intended for those cities that
aren't building housing, that
aren't doing the zoning that
needs to be done.
Sb 79 in its final form came in
a way that allowed a local
tailoring to make it fit with
where we're at to recognize
the community plan updates that
we're doing that we've done and
we're doing and tailor it more
surgically rather than more
bluntly So for the folks
there's a lot of you here and
called in stating that the city
is not going far enough
including by including eligible
bus stops.
City Planning has done a
thorough analysis with
the caveat that the sb 79 did
require the MPOs sandag in our
case to release their maps and
they have not done that yet.
And if those map if the map
released by sandag is different
than what we're talking about
today, the sandag map will
prevail.
>> Is that correct, sir?
Yes.
Council PRESIDENT The recital
in the ordinance specifically
recital f specifically notes
that the city will implement
the coyote stops identified by
sandag when they released
the map.
I do want to note that since sb
79 was put into law our staff
has coordinated closely with
staff at sandag and our
interpretation to our knowledge
as of today has remained
consistent with the stops
Again, if they do put out a map
that is different this
ordinance takes that into
account by specifically stating
that the city will implement
the three stops identified in
the sandag map the statute
under sb 79 is very clear that
the map that is produced by
the Regional Planning
organization is the map that
will control.
>> Okay.
Thank you for that.
So I want to give you Heidi or
whoever the opportunity because
a number of public commenters
have said we got that wasn't
interpreted correctly that some
of those other areas besides
what you do and actually what I
wanted I remember you gave a
memo about 79 that gave us all
a heads up if I remember
correctly You got some guidance
from cd and you revised your
memo to where this action today
is consistent with.
>> So can you speak about a
little more of your
interpretation of why what's in
front of us today actually
meets 79 Yes So as soon as sb
79 went into law we have been
meeting with staff and
coordinating with staff from
other jurisdictions that are
subject to the requirements as
well as staff from our regional
planning organization so that
we could ensure that we would
have a consistent
interpretation.
Each city did issue guidance.
They do not specify specific
stops within each of
the jurisdictions so it is
still up for interpretation But
their guidance was largely
consistent although provided a
little bit more clarity with
respect to a bus rapid transit
It is very clear to me that all
of City of San Diego's existing
trolley stops are qualifying
transit stops under the bill
With respect to bus rapid
transit stops The statute
refers to another section which
identifies the requirement for
full time dedicated bus lanes
or operation and a separate
right of way dedicated for
public transportation.
And then there's frequency
requirements The bus rapid
transit stations meet the 15
minute frequency requirements
but our staff reviewed them.
We did identify four stops
based off of that additional
eight city guidance and
additional discussions with
sandag staff and identified
those additional four stops
which was released in
the second memo to the Council
and the other stops and we
determined were not full time
dedicated lanes.
We have sent staff out and
observed bikes in their
vehicles turning into the lanes
but you will see that the four
stops that have been included
on the maps are full time
dedicated bus lanes or in a
separate right of way dedicated
for the public transportation.
I do want to note that there
was not very much time
relatively speaking under
the state law for staff to do
this.
I do want to commend my staff
That was able to not only do a
full analysis of the bill but
coordinate with our city
attorney's office who has been
very helpful in its
interpretation as well as with
our regional planning partners
at sandag.
>> Okay, I appreciate that And
it's times like this that
always reminded how
uncomfortable how unhelpful
the English language is because
language that is actually
legally binding is used just as
much in a staff report or a
reference, right?
>> And it confuses us all.
So the arguments were very
compelling with the exception
that the definitions I think
are more compelling than
the reference in a memo or a
staff report and how people
speak including myself too
casually at times.
>> Council PRESIDENT If you
don't mind I would also defer
to the city attorney to provide
additional thoughts.
There was some reference
material provided that we
received today that cites other
statutory provisions and defer
to the city attorney if they
have anything to add.
Thank you.
Okay.
I would ask Deputy City
Attorney Shannon Meyer please
to respond.
Thank you.
As you as Heidi said, this is
not legally defined but staff's
interpretation is reasonable
based on the three use Courtney
shared with state the state
agencies Cdw's guidance memo
and the practical application
of the language As the City
Planning Department stated if
the it does release a map that
includes any teary stops that
the city did not include,
the city is required to amend
it so that it is consistent
with sandbags map I did want to
state that the vehicle code
cited regulates this evening.
It regulates parking and
citation procedures and right
side of the road driving
procedures and is a different
legal statute that's not
applicable to sb 79.
>> Okay.
Thank you for scrambling and
doing that analysis and taking
the input seriously enough to
to review that.
>> So continuing.
So again City Planning is doing
thoughtful work that takes into
account context context that
state legislators themselves
thought was important.
Sea level rise historic
resources very high fire
severity zones and low resource
communities.
And so they've done this same
thoughtful work when we did
the general plan community plan
updates and numerous housing
production programs, numerous
housing production programs
that have made us a statewide
example.
And it's good policy to
carefully consider the impacts
on each of those areas and
particularly the low resource
areas.
As we heard in some of
the opening comments, I think
the comments made by the group
from Hampshire aligns with what
we are doing here tonight.
Is that right?
>> Yeah, the city planning
department is recommending and
I want to be clear the city
planning department is not
recommending exemption of
the areas The city planning
department is recommending that
we take the additional time to
do the thoughtful planning to
be able to engage with a low
resource community that has
experienced injustices from
past zoning actions and any
opportunity to identify how
this new development can best
improve those communities.
I think it's very important
especially as part of our
obligations to affirmatively
further for housing not just in
terms of the housing outcomes
but in terms of the inclusive
engagement process that that
takes.
>> Okay.
Thank you for that.
Yeah, I think that is
particularly important.
I think we're learning some
valuable lessons over the past
few years and your leadership
and the mayor's leadership in
finally beginning to address
some of those historic issues.
I suspect Councilmember Foster,
if he was here would speak
eloquently about that much
better than I can.
And the context is we're just
slowing it down and planning be
thinking more carefully And if
I remember your and your
explanations we're going to hit
the same dance or the same unit
count that sb 79 calls for.
We're just going to be more
thoughtful about where those
units actually could happen.
>> Yes, that is correct.
So staff's proposal is in line
with sb 79 which specifically
set forth the tod alternative
plan process as well as
specifically identified low
resource areas to be phased as
long as it occurs within one
year of the city's housing
element.
The city's housing element
needs to be updated in 2031.
We anticipate that we will
address it during that time.
I do want to note that the 2031
or 2032 date because you have
one year after 2031 does not
mean that it won't be phased in
in other areas in a lot of
instances the densities
required under sb 79 already
exist.
The City Planning Department
and the City Council have
adopted many community plans
and up zoning over the past
just several years that far
exceed the sb 79 densities.
So it is not a it is not a full
delay because some are already
in place.
In addition to that,
the Mid-City communities as
well as Otay Mesa Nester have
large low resource area
populations and census tracts.
We are currently updating a
three thoughtful planning
process the Mid-City
Communities Plan update which
we anticipate bringing forward
to this Council within a year
and we will address sb 79
through that thoughtful
planning process.
In addition, we've received
grant funding for Otay Mesa
Necessary Community Plan
Update.
This is very exciting.
We plan we have a signed grant
agreement and we will have
the opportunity to engage with
the community with respect to
the implementation in that
community prior to 2032.
>> Okay, more density than
actually would be required
under sb 17.
I heard that correctly.
That is correct.
In many instances.
>> Many instances.
Okay.
So I'm going to wrap up if I
can take my three minutes with
a couple of things.
>> One, the question that I
think Jeff asked about when can
you actually submit a project
under sb 79 sb 79 goes into
effect on JULY 1st.
>> So regardless of
the effective date of
the city's ordinance then
application will not be
eligible for it until that
time.
>> Okay.
All right.
I hope that answers your
questions.
I'm going to comment and we'll
follow up later.
Sb 79 has provisions for
affordability components as
much as 13%.
As we actually developed this
out, what I want to know is can
we exempt sb 79 projects from
in lieu fees?
Because I'm really frustrated
that we don't get
the affordable for truly
affordable units When we get
these higher density projects
we get an accumulation of
dollars that hopefully someday
will produce a truly affordable
someplace.
But is that that's not an item
that's not up for tonight but
is that a conversation we can
have?
Yeah, I appreciate
the thoughtful question and I
look forward to more
conversations about these very
nuanced and important issues
that do affect outcomes in
the community.
The opportunity to address that
is through the tod alternative
plan process.
Okay.
I appreciate your careful
answer to that question.
Okay.
With that I think I've gone
through all my points and
questions but with all that I
will move the staff
recommendation and we will now
go to Council member Campbell.
>> Thank you so much.
Council PRESIDENT And thank you
staff.
Thank you so much.
You've worked so hard on this I
know and have been dealing with
Sacramento quite a bit to get
everything ironed out and
explained as much as possible
without the sandag maps
available.
And so I am happy to second
the motion and move this item
forward.
It gives the city maximum
flexibility ity as this new
state law comes into effect and
really appreciate all your hard
work on it.
So I'm very much in support of
staff's recommendation and
thank you.
>> All right.
Thank you Councilmember
Campbell.
So you have a motion by myself
and a second by Councilmember
Campbell to move the staff
recommendation.
We will go next to Council
member Whitburn.
Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT I very much
want to thank the Planning
Department.
Sb 70 died was an unexpected
and significant lift for a
department already working
through a full work plan.
I also want to thank everybody
who took the time to come to
tonight's meeting and share
your perspectives on the matter
before us this evening as
the presentation described must
be submitted.
It requires cities to approve
certain housing projects worth
at a quarter or a half mile of
major transit oriented
development stops outside
the zone for residential mixed
or commercial development.
It's a Diego that meets our
trolley stops and a small
number of dedicated bus lane
sites that is targeted transit
focused growth.
That is exactly where we should
be building housing.
I have listened carefully to
the comments about how we
defined full time dedicated bus
lanes which corridors should
qualify as transit oriented
development stops.
I appreciate the thoughtfulness
of the argument put forward by
the Democrats and I find them
persuasive.
I do understand how reasonable
people could reach different
conclusions about which
corridors should qualify.
As tod stops but the change
being requested
the presentation by the b
Democrats is specific to three
corridors that are either
entirely within my district or
which extends from District
three to Councilmember Isla
Rivera's district District
nine.
When I look at those bus lanes
on Park Boulevard University
Avenue at El Codelco Boulevard
,I have always thought of them
as designated transit only
lanes.
I think most District three
residents see that as
designated transit only late
from the day they were
installed to today and this is
certainly where we want to be
building housing.
It is exactly where we need to
be building additional housing
.
I'm not going to get to
the question about low resource
areas.
I will defer to
the councilmembers whose
districts are most impacted by
that.
But my district is most
impacted by facilitating
density along Alcohol Boulevard
University Avenue and Park
Boulevard.
We heard from a lot of people
for District three this
evening.
We want this a big ride to ask
for it a bit bit but I want to
ask the planning Department
first.
I would like to propose making
the what a bit better was
suggested a better dig recital
e and replacing it with
the language that would include
all bus stops served by full
time dedicated bus lanes at
Alcohol Boulevard University
Avenue and Park Boulevard.
With bus service operating at a
frequency of 15 minutes or less
during weekday peak commute
hours And I want to ask if
there is any downside to doing
that.
And here's part of the reason
why Ultimately whether we use
the original language or
whether we use the amended
language that I'm suggesting
we're going to do whatever said
that decides.
So what would be the harm?
It amended this to reflect and
to communicate to say I'd like
what we want with
the understanding that we will
be about to say a dags decision
Either way.
>> So I will in a minute defer
to the city attorney on this
specific language including
the references to the vehicle
code.
Which the city attorney has
advised are not applicable to
the sb 79 interpretation.
With respect to identification,
we do clearly state in Recital
f that we will use the standing
map.
It has been our understanding
that the language that we have
included in Recital e is
consistent with the sandag
interpretation although we do
not have the final maps.
I don't I haven't had an
opportunity to play out
the potential consequences of
that.
The map that is attached to
the ordinance that exempts
areas outside of the one mile
walk does not incorporate
those.
So I would say that that could
be a potential in consistency
that we do not have available
tonight for this council.
But I also defer to the city
attorney for their thoughts as
well as the City Planning
Department said ultimately if
we did amend the recital and
wait on sand bags
interpretation if they
disagreed or agreed considering
the maps are not being amended
tonight, it's very likely we
would have to bring it back to
clean it up with the map adding
all of those additional tmd
stops.
I also want to point out that
sb 79 requires the city to
submit the ordinance to cd for
review and approval and they
have not seen the addition of
this language.
If each city disagrees with
the addition of the vehicle
code that will have to come
back to city council no matter
what to be amended.
>> So that's just something to
consider.
So it would just have to go
back to city council if they
disagree?
>> Correct.
>> Well, I'm willing to propose
the amendment because I think
there is value in communicating
what we want And if there is
one thing that say Diego is a
bit clear about it is that
the cost of living is too high
and that the cost of housing
needs to be moderated and
the way we could do that is by
building more housing and
particularly in the places that
could accommodate more density
and particularly a log transit
corridors and Alcohol Boulevard
University Avenue and Park
Boulevard are perfect examples
of where we should be building
more housing and I hope that
said Dag and the oecd will see
it the same way.
So I will ask the maker of
the motion understanding that
said Dag is going to make
the determination either way
whether you would incorporate
into the motion the abatement
to include San Diego trolley
stops at all bus stops served
by a full time dedicated bus
lane Side Boulevard University
Avenue Park Boulevard with bus
service operating at a
frequency of 15 minutes or less
during weekday peak commute
hours.
>> Councilmember Whitburn This
is going to be the second
hardest thing I did tonight.
I'm going to respectfully
decline.
I appreciate what city planning
has brought forth.
Somebody raised the question
Why are we here?
We don't do meetings on
Thursday nights and make
everybody come back.
I'm concerned about not getting
this locked in before JULY 1st
so that the totality of what
we're bringing forward if we
want to come back and amendment
amend this later if we want San
that goes in that direction.
You'll have my full support but
I want to maintain
the integrity of this with and
not risk the very narrow
timeline we have to actually
get this ordinance adopted at
its second reading before JULY
1st and get it into h City's
hands.
So I appreciate you MAY not
like that.
I know the crowd is not going
like that but that's really
the reason I'm going to stand
behind City Planning's
recommendation and I understand
that.
I appreciate that and I respect
your rationale for that.
I certainly we respect our
planning department and if
there's one thing that our
planning department has
consistently said it's proposal
and I appreciate that
understanding that this will
not be incorporated into
the motion tonight.
Let me just say to say that as
the council member for District
three it on behalf of Betty
Berry of Bike constituents we
would very much appreciate your
consideration of incorporating
the changes that have been
discussed here to your ultimate
decision.
We think it is the right thing
to do.
We think it is the right thing
to do for housing.
We think it is the right thing
to do for transit and we think
it is the right thing to do for
San Diego's.
>> Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT.
>> I think Councilmember Weprin
I'll give him a bigger round of
applause.
He deserves more.
A fearless and a tireless
advocate for a housing as we
can see in many, many parts of
District three.
With that we will go next to
Councilmember Yvonne Wolford.
>> Thank you very much and
thank you to our planning
department for doing this work
.
Thank you to everybody who's
come in to weigh in on this and
the very thorough analysis
which you gave.
I mean I also tend to agree
with Councilmember Whitburn
that these are dedicated bus
lanes and I do see how they
would be included in
the statute.
However, the recitals simply
says they're not anticipated to
be and so that doesn't lock up
in stone.
It just says at this time we
don't believe that they are.
But you could change your mind.
And so I think what we're
hearing on the dais is that if
especially if sandag decides
that they should be, then we
should.
But to me it does seem to be a
dedicated bus lane.
I mean I don't drive in them
because of it.
So I understand you're going
back.
So I would I would support
Councilor Woodburn's idea to
communicate this.
But I also understand council
presidents too.
You know, we're on a strict
timeline and if we don't get
something done then the whole
thing will fall apart.
I also have questions about
the impact of increased
development.
So you know here in my district
we don't have any transit to be
honest, you know, So we don't
we don't really this is not
going to affect District five.
We are trying to do our part
for the environment by
switching to clean emissions
vehicles and putting in ev
chargers.
We have one great bus that goes
up and down the 15 freeway
Would that's about it.
So I agree with MR. Krieger
that we do need cars still in
the city.
However, when we do have
increased development which we
do we've taken thousands of
units of housing in d five in
essentially Skeeters crime out
in area.
I actually just had a town hall
meeting in a cul de sac a few
weeks ago because it was
the new fire evacuation route
and we figured why not just
have it there?
I was the one we conditioned in
junipers and we brought
the fire department, the police
department Hundreds of
residents came out standing in.
It's cold in fact to talk about
what happened to the tail
lights on fire And it got a
little heated because we had
the Wood Creek fire came
through there and you know,
burned many of these people's
houses.
So it's not theoretical to
them.
They've already rebuilt But so
one of my questions is you know
our diff is regardless of
whether we have sb 79 or
the more inclusive programs
we've already done, our deficit
seem to not be keeping up with
the infrastructure we need to
support this density.
We've had a couple of projects
in d five where the parks are
not being built because the if
these wildly were under
calculated how much it would
cost.
So I'm wondering what we're
going to do about Diffuse if we
take on more development.
The city does have citywide
development impact fees that
are in place and have been for
several years.
Those replace communities
specific development impact
fees.
Part of the benefit of having
four dedicated asset base
development impact fees is that
it enables city staff to update
the next two studies for them
at a much more frequent rate
than we were to when we had
over 40 different fees based on
four communities.
City Planning Department does
have it in its work program
right now to be updating those
studies and we anticipate being
able to reach out to council
offices in the coming months to
discuss those more for future
action at council.
This particular item as you are
aware does not include that
discussion but citywide
department impact fees do apply
to all new development unless
certain exemptions are
specified in the ordinance.
I do want to take and I
apologize for taking your time
on this.
I do think it's important to
note that sb 79 you know to
everybody here that's in
supportive housing we are to
and it is a little bit of a
false narrative to say it's sb
79 or no housing.
We have lots of other housing
programs in place and in many
instances a lot of these places
have exceeded the densities
that are called for by sb 79.
And we are also rapidly you
know with the urgency updating
our capacity for new homes
without needing to implement sb
79.
So you know for everybody
that's you know kind of I
because I hear it right And I
think it's important for us to
acknowledge the importance of
housing in these locations.
These are areas that we agree
are good for housing and our
housing our community plans
have shown that by adding
the densities there and we do
continue to do that as a good
actor city in the housing space
.
Yes.
No, completely agreed And I
also think there's a huge value
in local planning.
I don't think that Sacramento
should plan everything for us
because like I said, we know
where some of the evacuation
routes are.
Colorado is only going to be a
two lane road and Scripps Ranch
for a very long time.
And so if we take 500 houses
moored there, how are we going
to evacuate people?
So I do understand that we need
local planning.
But you're right, we have been
more permissive than many other
cities and we do need housing.
I understand that too,
especially senior housing.
If we can build more of that we
need dedicated senior housing
especially up in my district.
That would be great.
I'd like to move into it now
but I've been told them too
young.
So what I really wanted to hear
what we're going to do with
with tiff is coming up soon.
i guess there we're not going
to have our diffuse updated
before JULY 1st.
We will not.
Okay.
Um I'm especially concerned
about parks and fire stations
so I have somewhat good news
for you Council member We will
be bringing the dif annual
report to this council probably
in a matter of a couple of
weeks and so we can have a much
more robust conversation about
the available funding and any
potential changes going
forward.
>> Okay.
Okay.
Thank you.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate all the work and
the questions my colleagues
asked and I'll support those.
>> Thank you.
Councilmember Van Walbert.
We'll go next to Councilmember
Campo.
Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT.
Thank you to members of
the public who came in and
spoke today and the members of
the public who came in
virtually as well for this late
night meeting.
I want to thank the Planning
Department for their quick work
given the timelines that we
have in front of us.
I know that this was on top of
all their extra work.
I think that as as we see
the approach in front of us a
measured one one that we know
is not entirely within our
control.
And hearing from the public and
we've learned from things like
the edu bonus program and other
policies that well-intentioned
policies can still have
unintended consequences.
And so whether that's
speculation in a low resource
area or projects that do not
take into account the necessary
infrastructure for emergencies
as Councilmember von Wilbur
pointed out, we have to be very
deliberate.
And I think what Blum has put
in front of us and your team is
very, very deliberate.
The alternative plan that
you've got here it buys us time
so that we can be precise at
the neighborhood level which is
what we hear from our
neighborhoods.
It's what we hear from our
community planning groups and
you know, the state will tell
us to build more near transit.
I've supported many projects
near transit and we can grow
those thoughtfully and with
the neighbors at the center of
those changes And I absolutely
admire Councilmember Whitburn
for advocating for his
neighbors and the people his
constituents.
If there's if there's one
person who has close to as much
transit in his district as him,
it might be me with the green
Line.
And I love seeing transit
oriented housing going up.
We've cut ribbons together and
right now a lot of neighbors
throughout San Diego are
rightfully concerned a process
that they had a lot more say in
for for a long time now
Sacramento is is making
decisions there.
We're seeing neighbors that are
concerned with how they'll
evacuate or in an emergency and
if maybe their neighbors are
going to take a property that
is worth a lot more Now and
sell it to an investor if
the sidewalk and pipes will
hold up for new development.
They're concerned about losing
the life that they've worked
hard for and save for and
invested in and maintained and
want to pass on to their family
members.
And you can be concerned about
those real possibilities.
But we have to acknowledge
the sheer number of people that
don't have that safe space yet
for them, that home for them
that can barely afford to live
here let alone own a home.
Those individuals and families
are rightfully concerned that
the opportunity to live in this
city will be unattainable.
I think our planning department
does a good job of trying to
create those attainable
opportunities.
And I would just point to
the fact that the State of
California could really get rid
of some serious laws that are
in the way of building new
condos, of building purchasable
properties and whether it's
people who want to use
litigation to delay all that,
whether it's attorneys who have
big fees to make Well after
buildings are built.
There's lots of things that are
in the way of homeownership and
I certainly don't think that
the city planning department is
in the way of homeownership at
this point.
This item simply put gives us
the time.
i like the way that the council
PRESIDENT Put it.
We're going to get everyone to
the table, give input to
the neighbors in these
neighborhoods who are just
asking to be heard throughout
the process and that those who
are still not aware that
changes MAY be coming down
the line to get get their
voices heard.
I have one question.
If we did nothing today, what
would happen on JULY 1st if
the council does not take
action today?
On JULY 1st sb 79 will phase in
in all areas across the city
and so the city will be
required to issue permits for
the densities identified in
the staff materials and that
would be regardless of whatever
the sandag map is that's
eventually published that we've
been discussing.
It would still be contingent
upon the sandag maps.
It would phase in in the areas
where the sandag map
identifies.
We don't have that map yet but
we do anticipate that it will
come out before JULY 1st.
Okay.
Understood.
One of the things that I was
seeing is that there might be
spots on the map that would be
essentially included in our
implementation And then if
the sandag map changes and it
doesn't doesn't like map shows
areas that are not included, we
might be in a process where we
see applications for
development that we would then
have to pull the permit back or
we wouldn't be able to pull
the permit back.
Given what sandag does correct,
we anticipate having this
ending map prior to
the implementation.
Okay.
And so that's and should not
occur.
You're not going to speculate
on whether that might happen
but I could foresee that it
might happen And then we'd be
in a pickle significantly.
I appreciate that The Planning
Department has committed to
including cpc and planning
groups in the process and has
worked with them.
We heard many of them speaking
today virtually and in person
and that really matters to me
as well.
So thank you very much for that
and thank you.
I will support the motion.
All right.
Thank you, Councilmember Campo.
We'll go next to Councilmember
Moreno.
Thank you And thank you for
the presentation and thank you
to all the members of
the public who came today to
speak before this body.
It's been stated already but I
would like to reiterate I think
the city of San Diego has been
pro housing pro density.
We've been updating all of our
plan updates as quickly as we
possibly can.
In essence changing the zones
policy, it's clear to me that
sb 79 was created for cities
that are anti-growth growth
which obviously does not
represent the city of San Diego
And I've seen it firsthand
during the Coastal Commission
just hearing folks talk.
It's been pretty shocking to be
honest how just pro housing
the city.
It's not shocking but it's a
delight to make sure that that
it goes unnoticed, that
the city of San Diego is pro
housing.
And I say that because it is
the number one issue.
When you go out into
the community and you have town
halls and you go and you knock
on doors or even when we're
having community cleanups
the number one issue is my rent
is too high.
So although I do recognize that
action is needed today, what
action we take is what I want
to really hone in on.
>> I thought that Councilmember
weapons request for
the amendment was very
reasonable and it's one that I
am fully in support of And how
it was mentioned If sandag
decides to include those three
corridors good.
And if they don't will the city
of San Diego would have done it
already.
So that's where I stand on
that.
I understand a little bit more
the reasoning behind and I'm
just if you could walk me
through this.
In regards to low resources or
low resourced areas you
mentioned let me just get to
this You mentioned low resource
areas The department
anticipates implementing
through ongoing community plan
updates including Mid-City
Canyon, Otay Mesa with
additional future planning
process sources in
the remaining low resource
areas Prior to the state law
requirements going into effect
in 2030.
So in essence what you are
saying is that these low
resource areas will not have a
ministerial like process until
2032 unless we get to the Otay
Mesa in mid-city ahead of 2032.
Or if the council takes an
action with a two year deal to
kind of plan prior to that time
which is 2032 is is the last
date possible?
But it could happen sooner but
it could happen soon.
Correct?
Okay.
And how Because the Otay Mesa
Nester Community plan update if
I do you know a quick map in my
brain that's the last planned
update for District eight We
pretty much we've done San
Isidro Otay Mesa, Southeastern
Barrio Logan and Otay Mesa
Nestor's the only 1 A.M. I
missing another one?
>> It is the last one for a
comprehensive plan update.
There's a variety of ways that
we can address sb 79 in low
resource communities including
specifically any federal and
Barrio Logan that have more
recently adopted community
plans that will require
additional actions to meet
the requirements of sb 79.
I, I don't want to commit to
what that planning process will
look like that because that is
it is quite a few years out
from now but that could look
like a specific plan update or
focus plan amendment.
Just because we have updated a
community plan doesn't mean we
can't go back and revisit it As
we saw with Uptown Community
Plan that was adopted in
the semi recent past and then a
focused plan amendment was
brought back that increased
density significantly in that
area as well.
So in my district your you just
stated that Barrio Logan and
San Ysidro can potentially see
higher density through
ministerial process of sb 79
but they they would not be able
to utilize the ministerial
process unless they come
forward and do a zone change in
less in less.
This Council takes action prior
to that time.
So prior to that time the city
planning to partment will be
working on what you said.
>> Sorry to interrupt you but
you just said you can't promise
You can't promise how quick you
will update correct?
Correct.
Okay.
2032 is the latest date before
sb 79 requires that all areas
be phased in.
>> Okay that's 20 32 is six
years from now.
>> Yes.
>> 20, 32 and six years from
now which in our world seems
like two weeks but in
the development world seems
like 200 years.
So and I am of the belief that
time kills all project x I am a
little bit more comfortable I
am because we've had so many
plan updates and because of
the commitment not only of this
I.
>> I always say this the mayor
and I do not get along and we
don't see eye to eye on 99% of
the things housing we are 100%
lockstep.
So I do trust and obviously I
trust you Heidi I do trust that
we would get out of the way if
you will, in when it comes to
housing.
I don't know what the next
administration is going to look
like and that's what I'm always
looking towards.
And so because I am very much
pro housing and I do want
the city to get out of the way,
I do want my daughter to be
able to live in the city of San
Diego when she is ready to
purchase a home if that is what
she wants And just given what
we have before us, I'm going to
be a no vote on this particular
item and I'm going to hope and
pray that that tag adds
the four corridors and that
that administration updates our
tod policies.
So just standing on principle
with this and knowing that my
my vote means something, I'm
going to be respectfully voting
no on this.
Thank you.
Councilmember Moreno I'm going
to try something that is a
little bit unorthodox because
it's 815.
Are you a no vote?
Okay.
So we don't have the votes to
pass the motion so I'm not
going to call for the vote.
It takes five right, even
though it's a majority of who's
here.
So I'm going to call for a 15
minute recess to figure out
whether there is a path forward
so
so city attorney the kind of
talking it out So I'm not going
to get a final bit I know we're
all motivated to see if we can
get someplace but I will be
asking you I need to explain
whatever the new approaches and
then if I agree
with
that I
know it's
not
I
know going
back
to
and and
you
and
me
and them and you know
I've never I've I've never.
All right folks And one hour
and 1528 25 minute.
Longest recess of my council
presidency and we're ready to
come back.
This is important stuff.
So first.
>> Clerk please call the roll.
Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT Council
member Campbell here Council
Member Whitburn here.
Council member Foster Council
Member Yvonne Wolpert Council
PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Council
Member You hear Council Member
Moreno Resident Council member
Rivera and Council PRESIDENT
LaCava present.
All right so we have a quorum
and everybody is sitting there
chairs So having made
the motion that did not seem to
have the votes.
Staff and attorneys you heard
the comments comments from
the public.
You heard the comments from
the council members.
I have deferred to you in
the original motion and so I
will once again to defer to you
to come up with and
alternatives that you think
might be more palatable from
the comments that you heard an
hour or two ago.
>> So Heidi, what what can you
offer us?
>> Okay.
Yes, Thank you, Council
PRESIDENT.
Thank you for the deference.
Very honored by that based off
of the comments that we've
heard from the council and
the members of the public, I
believe we have a solution.
>> Okay.
So that solution would be to
remove recital e which
references the specific toddy
qualifying transit stops and
then moves recital f into
the new recital e which just
says the two d qualifying
transit stops will be the stops
as identified by stand in by
sandag in the map.
Now in that action of
the ordinance we have also
proposed some additional
changes.
The original ordinance that was
before the Council made
reference to maps that included
stops that staff had
identified.
But given that sandag MAY
identify other stops, we have
removed reference to each of
the attachments and instead
referred to the definitions and
our department and after sandag
does release the map will
prepare the maps accordingly
based off of this Council's
direction.
>> Okay, I'm comfortable with
that.
That language is now up on
the screen and I believe hard
copies are being passed out So
people can look at the ads that
are being made So I will move
this recommendation as amended.
COUNCILMAN Campbell, can I get
a second?
I'll be happy to second that.
>> All right.
Any comments, Councilmember
Whitburn Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT Just so that
I cared for the record confirm
what this does We're going to
strike recital e all together.
Tonight's action will not
identify the transit oriented
development stops in the city
of San Diego.
We're going to leave that to
back that is essentially what
that says.
>> That is correct.
You are much more succinct than
I was.
Thank you.
I also want to say that along
with this change my office is
going to take the lead on
writing a letter to said Dag
requesting that the transit
oriented development stops
include San Diego trolley stops
and all bus stops served by
full time dedicated bus slides
and alcohol Boulevard
University Avenue and Park
Boulevard with bus service
operating at a frequency of 15
minutes or less during weekday
peak commute hours by office
will take the lead on writing
that letter.
I anticipate that there will be
other council members who will
sign Add to that letter and I
really want to thank
the Council PRESIDENT And my
colleagues for their patience
as we worked out a path forward
on this.
I want to take the Be Democrats
and other pro housing advocates
for their input on this.
I want to thank the mayor's
office, our housing planning
department and our city
attorney's office for walking
us through this approach.
I think this is a path forward
that makes sense that we can
get behind tonight.
So thank you.
Council PRESIDENT All right.
Thank you.
Council Member Whitburn Council
Member Campo Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT Staff Well
I'd say use as many words but
it's functionally different
than the staff's recommendation
And what we have in front of us
right now what is functionally
different is that there is no
reference to specific stops and
there is full deference to
the sandag maps program So
there is no reference in this
Council adopted action to
the qualifying stops.
The reason why staff had
prepared the maps is because it
is informative for the council
to be able to see
the applicability of the areas
But given the challenging
situation of the timing of
the release of the maps we were
not in a position to be able to
wait until the release of
the sandag maps to bring this
item forward to the Council.
Certainly So for people who are
online at 820 and now are
looking at 940 there I think
functionally functionally would
you say that or staff's
recommendation is here other
than the informative ness of
what some of the recitals said
?
But functionally it's the same
thing.
I would agree with that
characterization.
Okay.
Thank you.
Happy to be in support Figure
Councilmember Campo I rush to
make the motion I did want to
check with the city attorney to
make sure that you have
carefully thought this through
from a legal perspective.
Yes, Our office has no legal
concerns.
Thank you.
Okay.
My apologies for not asking
that question before I made my
motion.
Councilmember Whitman, you're
back on the line.
Thank you.
Council PRESIDENT To elaborate
a little bit the question that
Councilmember Campo brought up
just to highlight what we've
done here.
Recital e originally said that
the only toad stops at the city
of San Diego are San Diego
Trolley stops at four bus stops
located at a few different
locations.
It was restrictive at limiting
And what this does is remove
that limiting nature.
It defers to say a dig at
the with the letter that my
office will take the lead on we
will indicate what certainly my
preference would be to see at
it at any other council members
who wish to join it on that
Perfectly good just as a matter
of functional ity I think
that's right But I, I get
the purpose of wanting to
remove the specific enumeration
or listing of what you were
talking about Totally good and
thank you.
Happy to vote yes.
Okay.
All right.
So with that we do have
the motion that's actually two
pages I think that's the front
page.
There's hard copies and I think
there's hard copies in the back
or something like that.
Yeah.
So with that.
>> Clerk please call the roll.
I have sir I have started
the voting system.
Please cast your vote.
Oh you okay And that passes
five, 5444 people absent but
that does not sound right Want
to do it again?
Yes We'll start The voting
system will start again.
I've started the voting system
once more.
Okay.
Can Council member Campbell
would you like to vote orally?
Okay.
I vote yes.
Oh, there it is.
Okay.
And that passes 6360 with three
Council members absent Council
member Foster Council PRESIDENT
Pro Tem Lee and Council member
Yellow Rivera All right.
>> We have approval of
the first reading of
the ordinance So thank you
everybody that stuck around.
Thank you for your initial
input.
Thank you to staff navigating
this little thorny question
because sandag had not yet done
its work which would have made
it a little bit easier and more
straightforward.
With that we will now adjourn
Council to the regularly
scheduled council meeting on
Monday MAY 11th, 2026 at 10