[0:01] meeting.
[0:02] I will now call the special
[0:02] City Council meeting of
[0:05] Thursday, MAY 7th, 2026 to
[0:06] order Assistant clerk please
[0:06] call the Roll Councilmember
[0:10] Campbell Councilmember Whipper
[0:10] here.
[0:15] Councilmember Foster Council
[0:16] Von Wilpert Council PRESIDENT
[0:19] Pro Tem Lee Councilmember Campo
[0:20] here Council Moreno Present
[0:24] Council Member ilo Rivera and
[0:25] Council PRESIDENT LaCava
[0:29] PRESIDENT.
[0:30] >> Also attending the meeting
[0:30] are Assistant City Attorney
[0:31] Leslie Fitzgerald, Senior
[0:34] Fiscal and policy Analyst in
[0:34] the aba Office.
[0:35] Amy Lee Senior Policy Advisor
[0:38] in the Mayor's office
[0:39] Christopher Ackerman Avila and
[0:39] myself your Assistant City
[0:43] Clerk dg Pentel Pantaleon.
[0:44] >> All right, Thank you for
[0:48] that And I noticed that there
[0:49] was a little if it was
[0:49] sweetness leaving the room so
[0:56] it was So with that a quorum is
[0:57] now present since this is a
[1:00] special council meeting under
[1:01] the unlike the brc meeting
[1:01] earlier today.
[1:02] Before we start today's meeting
[1:05] I want to remind everyone about
[1:06] the city's practices and
[1:06] procedures for public comment
[1:10] at city Council meetings City
[1:10] welcomes public participation
[1:11] at our City Council meeting.
[1:12] Speakers MAY address
[1:12] the Council during public
[1:15] comment and also in connection
[1:16] with a specific item of
[1:16] business on the agenda.
[1:20] However, the city must make
[1:20] sure that no one person or
[1:21] group of people disrupt
[1:22] the meeting in a way that
[1:25] prohibits other speakers from
[1:25] expressing their ideas and
[1:26] opinions.
[1:26] So to make sure that everyone
[1:29] here has an opportunity to
[1:30] address the Council I will
[1:30] alert an individual or
[1:31] individuals if I think their
[1:33] conduct becomes disruptive.
[1:34] If the disruption continues I
[1:35] will rule the individual out of
[1:38] order and if the disruption
[1:39] continues further I will
[1:39] declare a recess.
[1:43] We can restore order at that
[1:44] point we will direct
[1:44] the individual leave the room
[1:45] and if the individual refuses
[1:46] police will escort
[1:49] the individual out of
[1:50] the building.
[1:50] If we have to repeat
[1:51] the process of warning as
[1:51] recessing the meeting all
[1:53] members of the public will be
[1:54] excused from chambers.
[1:54] Credentialed media will be
[1:58] allowed to remain.
[1:58] Once again we have these
[1:59] practices and procedures to
[2:00] protect the rights of other
[2:02] speakers who wish to address
[2:03] the Council and to allow
[2:04] the Council to conduct
[2:04] the public's business and
[2:07] frankly to show respect to
[2:08] the members of the public who
[2:09] chose to spend their Thursday
[2:12] evening here in chambers Unlike
[2:13] other fun things I could have
[2:13] been doing.
[2:17] So I respect their time when
[2:18] you think about when you offer
[2:18] your testimony.
[2:22] So with that assistant clerk
[2:23] please go over how the public
[2:23] can after their testimony I
[2:26] will now highlight the slide on
[2:27] the screen that reviews how
[2:28] the public can offer their
[2:28] public testimony during this
[2:32] evening's meeting.
[2:32] The order can be found on
[2:33] the agenda summary found online
[2:34] or at the table in the back of
[2:37] the room If you are in person
[2:37] please complete a speaker slip
[2:38] located at the entrance of
[2:42] chambers and bring it to
[2:42] the front of the room.
[2:43] Council ambassadors are
[2:44] available near the entrance of
[2:46] chambers and can assist with
[2:47] questions and speaker slips.
[2:47] No further in-person testimony
[2:51] will be taken once the council
[2:51] begins Virtual testimony.
[2:52] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
[2:52] right.
[2:55] Thank you.
[2:56] >> So with that please
[3:00] introduce item 600 item 600 as
[3:00] Senate Bill 79 phased
[3:01] implementation and exempting
[3:05] non transit oriented
[3:05] development areas.
[3:05] >> Right.
[3:09] I see staff is seated.
[3:10] When you're ready introduce
[3:10] yourselves for the record and
[3:11] let us know how much time you
[3:22] need for the presentation.
[3:23] Good in the council members My
[3:26] name is Grant Rody.
[3:27] I'm a senior planner with
[3:28] the City Planning Department.
[3:28] I'm here with Seth Luciani,
[3:31] deputy Director of housing
[3:32] policy and Environmental
[3:33] Analysis and City Planning and
[3:33] Heidi Bloom, City planning
[3:36] Director.
[3:37] I am presenting the City Plan
[3:38] Department's proposed Senate
[3:40] Bill 79 phase of a mentation
[3:41] plan with exemptions and it
[3:41] will be about 15 minutes.
[3:42] All right.
[3:44] When you're ready.
[3:45] >> Pursuant to the requirements
[3:50] of the bill, the city Council
[3:51] needs to adopt an ordinance to
[3:51] phase in sb seven an
[3:52] implementation in low resource
[3:55] areas very high fire severity
[3:56] zones sites with designated
[3:59] historic resources and outside
[4:00] to deter one foot sea level
[4:02] rise and to exempt areas
[4:03] outside of a one mile walk in
[4:04] distance from sb seven nine
[4:07] applicability Today the city
[4:08] Planning Department is
[4:08] proposing an ordinance
[4:09] the phase the implementation of
[4:11] sb 79 and exempt certain areas
[4:15] from sb 79 implementation sb
[4:15] seven nine was signed by
[4:19] Governor Andrew some on OCTOBER
[4:20] 10th 2025 and seeks to address
[4:21] the state's housing shortage
[4:24] create homeownership
[4:25] opportunities and to build more
[4:28] homes near transit.
[4:28] Sb seven as requirements are
[4:29] generally consistent with
[4:30] the policies included in
[4:33] the city's general plan
[4:33] including the housing element
[4:34] which calls for more housing
[4:35] options throughout the city and
[4:36] the city's climate Action plan
[4:37] calling for more homes and jobs
[4:42] located near transit.
[4:42] >> sb seven nine requires
[4:43] the city to approve certain
[4:44] housing developments within a
[4:47] half mile radius of qualifying
[4:48] and transit stops which I call
[4:49] transit oriented development or
[4:52] towed stops and sites that are
[4:53] zoned for residential mixed use
[4:53] or commercial development.
[4:57] The half mile areas are
[4:57] calculated as a straight line
[4:58] distance or as the crow flies
[5:02] and are referred to as tod
[5:02] zones.
[5:03] The bill requires that sandag
[5:07] create a map of today's stops
[5:07] and zones within the city while
[5:08] the city plans that is created
[5:11] several sb 79 maps dog stops
[5:11] are subject to confirmation
[5:12] from sandbags maps of
[5:19] designated toad stops The bill
[5:20] spotlighted zones in the two
[5:20] areas.
[5:21] >> The first is within a
[5:23] quarter mile of a toad stop and
[5:24] the second is between a quarter
[5:25] and a half mile of a tide stop.
[5:28] It requires greater density and
[5:28] larger buildings.
[5:29] The closer a site is to a
[5:29] qualifying train to start with
[5:31] the greatest density and
[5:32] the largest buildings and sites
[5:36] that are within 200ft.
[5:37] Sb seven nine provides the city
[5:37] with several implementation
[5:41] options including the phasing
[5:42] in and exemption of certain
[5:42] areas of the city along with a
[5:43] total alternative plan that can
[5:46] comprehensively implement a
[5:47] phased implementation approach.
[5:47] Such a plan would allow
[5:51] the city to determine optimal
[5:52] locations for future
[5:53] development around D.O.T. Stops
[5:53] and incorporate the feedback
[5:56] from community members into
[5:57] the city's sb 79 implementation
[6:01] Thoughtfully planning for new
[6:02] growth through a two tiered
[6:04] alternative plan can help
[6:05] the implementation of sb 79
[6:06] benefit San Diego addressing
[6:10] fire risk and sea level rise
[6:10] will help to improve public
[6:11] safety and phase in
[6:13] the implementation of sb 79 in
[6:14] low resource areas allows
[6:15] the city additional time to
[6:15] address infrastructure needs
[6:18] while furthering fair housing
[6:19] by allowing more homes a
[6:19] moderate, high and highest
[6:24] resource areas that MAY not
[6:24] have similarly needs.
[6:25] First, it's important to note
[6:25] that this type of more
[6:28] thoughtful planning was
[6:29] specifically anticipated in sb
[6:30] 79 which provides for this
[6:33] planning and the development of
[6:33] alternative plans.
[6:34] This process also allows
[6:38] the city to mark responsibly
[6:38] plan and anticipate for growth
[6:39] in a manner that can be most
[6:42] efficiently served with
[6:43] municipal services such as fire
[6:47] police and trash collection.
[6:48] >> sb seven nine allows
[6:49] the city to exempt areas where
[6:52] a walking path of less than one
[6:53] mile from eligible size city
[6:53] stops does not exist.
[6:57] While all tod zones are located
[6:58] within a half mile of tio d
[6:59] stops or as the crow flies non
[7:01] toddy sites do not have a
[7:02] walking path of one mile or
[7:03] less from these stops due to
[7:03] physical barriers such as
[7:06] canyons and freeways.
[7:07] Allowing development further
[7:07] from D.O.T. Stops would not
[7:10] lead to actual transit oriented
[7:11] development to ensure
[7:12] the development allowed under
[7:16] sb 79 provides opportunities
[7:16] for future community members to
[7:17] access study stops.
[7:17] The City Plan Department
[7:20] proposed ordinance would exempt
[7:21] those areas from sb 79
[7:21] implementation.
[7:25] These areas would not be
[7:26] affected by the implementation
[7:27] of the bill or be included in
[7:30] an alternative plan.
[7:30] It's important to remember that
[7:31] the intent of sb 79 is to spur
[7:34] transit oriented development
[7:35] and areas outside of a one mile
[7:36] walking distance from these
[7:39] stops are not transit oriented.
[7:40] The city plan department also
[7:43] calculated the areas without a
[7:44] walking path of one mile or
[7:44] less taking into account areas
[7:48] lacking sidewalks as the path
[7:49] of travel should include safe
[7:50] publicly accessible sidewalks
[7:53] to qualify for sb seven and an
[7:56] implementation sb seven nine
[7:57] permits a phased implementation
[7:58] in lower resource areas as
[8:01] identified by the California
[8:02] Tax Credit Allocation Committee
[8:02] until one year after
[8:03] the adoption of the Seventh
[8:06] Housing Limited, the city and
[8:07] 2031 the City Plan department
[8:10] can also implement sb 79
[8:11] through community plan updates
[8:13] and low resource areas prior to
[8:14] 2031 to ensure that at the sb
[8:17] 79 densities are addressed
[8:18] phasing the implementation as
[8:19] desired primarily to focus
[8:19] housing development in areas
[8:23] with access to opportunity
[8:24] prior to being implemented in
[8:28] low resource areas.
[8:29] >> Portions of the Toddies
[8:32] alternate arterial tiered zones
[8:33] are in very high fire severity
[8:33] zones adopted by the City
[8:36] Council on AUGUST 2025 because
[8:37] a significant portion of
[8:40] the total zones are in these
[8:41] very high fire severity zones
[8:41] the Department recommends a
[8:42] phased implementation through a
[8:46] total turn up plan to address
[8:46] fire safety.
[8:47] The top alternative plan allows
[8:50] the city to ensure
[8:50] the development required by sb
[8:51] 79 is not located in places
[8:54] with the most fire risk in
[8:55] those areas that only have a
[8:59] single evacuation route.
[9:00] Sb seven nine also permits a
[9:01] phased implementation on sites
[9:04] containing historic resource
[9:05] that are designated as of
[9:09] JANUARY 1st 2025 sb seven nine
[9:10] implementation would occur on
[9:10] these sites with a total
[9:11] alternative plan to ensure
[9:13] the city's newly adopted
[9:13] historic preservation
[9:14] regulations can be taken into
[9:18] account.
[9:19] Phase implementation is also
[9:19] allowed on sites that are
[9:23] identified as vulnerable to a
[9:24] one foot sea level rise as
[9:24] shown on the map attached to
[9:25] the staff report.
[9:28] The areas affected by a one
[9:28] foot sea level rise are on
[9:29] the western side of Mission
[9:29] Valley.
[9:32] The phase of limitation of
[9:33] these areas would occur as part
[9:34] of a tod alternative plan to
[9:37] address climate resiliency.
[9:41] Starting on JULY 1st sb 79 will
[9:42] take effect on all qualifying
[9:42] sites.
[9:43] This means the default
[9:44] densities will apply in all
[9:47] commercial mixed use and
[9:47] residential zones.
[9:48] If the proposed ordinance is
[9:51] approved, only areas outside of
[9:52] low resource areas that do not
[9:53] include designated historic
[9:56] resources are not subject to
[9:57] sea level rise and not in very
[9:58] high fire severity zones would
[10:00] take effect on JULY 1st.
[10:00] These areas are marked in
[10:01] yellow on the map and
[10:04] constitute approximately 22% of
[10:05] the areas within Todd Zoned
[10:09] citywide.
[10:10] After approval of the proposed
[10:10] ordinance phase in
[10:14] the implementation of sb 79 and
[10:14] exempting specified areas must
[10:15] be 70 an implementation by
[10:18] the City Council.
[10:19] City planning will transmit
[10:19] the ordinance to hb asked for
[10:23] review and comment.
[10:24] Under sb 79 it has 90 to 120
[10:25] days to evaluate whether
[10:28] the city's actions comply with
[10:28] sb 79.
[10:29] If hpd determines that
[10:33] revisions are necessary,
[10:33] the city MAY amend
[10:34] the ordinance to address these
[10:35] comments or adopt
[10:37] the resolution affirming
[10:38] the ordinance and explaining
[10:39] the city's rationale for why
[10:41] its actions comply with sb 79.
[10:42] To preliminary conversations
[10:46] hpd staff has indicated that a
[10:46] locally adopted ordinance would
[10:47] take effect upon city adoption
[10:50] and hpd is review is not
[10:51] required to be completed for
[10:52] the ordinance to take effect.
[10:55] The city plan department also
[10:56] plan to prepare a tldr
[10:56] alternative plan to implement
[11:00] sb 79 which will include
[11:01] amendments to the Miscible
[11:01] Code, zoning community plans
[11:02] and the general plan.
[11:05] The total alternative plan
[11:06] would be provided for public
[11:07] review and comment before being
[11:10] submitted for consideration to
[11:11] the Planning Commission.
[11:11] The Land Use and Housing
[11:12] Committee and the City Council.
[11:13] The Department anticipates that
[11:14] it can bring this item forward
[11:18] later this year.
[11:19] >> The Planning Commission
[11:20] voted to recommend to the City
[11:20] Council the approval of an
[11:24] ordinance exempting areas and
[11:24] phasing implementation of sb 79
[11:25] within Todd zoned citywide
[11:29] inclusive of low resource
[11:29] areas.
[11:30] The motion further recommends
[11:30] that should the Todd
[11:33] alternative plan not be
[11:34] approved as of APRIL 2027 staff
[11:35] shall return to the Planning
[11:36] Commission by MAY 2027 for
[11:41] consideration.
[11:42] City Planning Staff recommends
[11:43] the approval of an orange to
[11:45] phase the implementation of sb
[11:46] 79 as proposed by city planning
[11:50] staff and to exempt areas not
[11:51] located near transit from sb
[11:51] seven nine implementation as
[11:53] provided for in sb 79.
[11:54] >> This includes staff
[11:55] presentation and where
[11:56] available for any questions you
[11:56] have.
[12:01] >> Thank you.
[12:01] All right.
[12:02] Thank you very much for
[12:03] the presentation.
[12:06] Clerk Please proceed with
[12:06] public comment.
[12:07] >> Thank you.
[12:07] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to
[12:09] note that this item received
[12:10] 281 comments in favor and 19
[12:14] comments in opposition via our
[12:15] comment form which had been
[12:15] distributed to City Council.
[12:19] The public comment period is
[12:19] now open.
[12:20] We received 43 speaker slips
[12:23] from individuals in chambers
[12:24] and currently have six hands up
[12:28] from those attending virtually
[12:29] We will go to one minute per
[12:30] person just friendly reminder
[12:34] to individual seating.
[12:34] Time to please raise your hand
[12:35] when I call your name so we're
[12:36] able to account for the slips
[12:39] that you submitted.
[12:39] We will begin with Doreen Diaz
[12:40] pastor.
[12:43] You have time ceded to you by
[12:47] Terri Fowler.
[12:52] >> Kimberly Roberts surely use
[12:52] Thank you.
[12:56] You have four minutes.
[12:57] Please don't stop my cow.
[13:01] Thank you.
[13:02] Who is going to control my
[13:02] projector?
[13:06] Don't start my time.
[13:06] Okay.
[13:07] Can I go like this?
[13:07] Just a slide.
[13:07] Okay.
[13:08] Okay.
[13:10] Before you I don't want to
[13:11] waste time waiting for my
[13:11] slide.
[13:12] Thank you so much.
[13:17] So we can scroll this one.
[13:18] Okay.
[13:18] Okay.
[13:23] The most important thing for
[13:27] him is here right now Is that
[13:28] we have a low resource area
[13:29] with naturally occurring
[13:32] affordable homes.
[13:33] We still have some three
[13:33] bedroom homes, two baths,
[13:37] garage front yard backyard
[13:40] renting at 2300 which is
[13:41] the same rate of those horrible
[13:45] 80 bonus.
[13:50] We need what you had on You
[13:54] have FEBRUARY 3rd 13th 2026
[13:55] Memo spoke about Lemon Grove
[13:58] and I didn't see it during this
[13:59] presentation or updated.
[14:03] But because Lemon Grove is 35 k
[14:04] the one you acquired to go half
[14:07] a mile and going oh sorry a
[14:08] quarter of a mile going a
[14:11] quarter of a mile affects 70
[14:16] homes in Hamakua and going a
[14:21] half a mile affects 307 low
[14:21] resource homes.
[14:29] So different 1717 versus 307.
[14:30] I took a photo That blue dot is
[14:34] the Lemon Grove station And you
[14:35] look there they are all single
[14:37] family homes exclusively.
[14:42] >> There's no vacant lot.
[14:43] >> So if you check we are ctca
[14:47] is the resort area 17 streets
[14:52] are affected that tamisha skip
[14:56] that I don't have much time.
[15:00] >> All of our streets are two
[15:01] Main street lined on both sides
[15:05] with cars.
[15:06] >> We do not have any four lane
[15:06] streets.
[15:09] They are narrow street and of
[15:14] the 17 streets we have 15 of
[15:15] those street have most of
[15:20] the homes in very high fire
[15:20] zone.
[15:20] >> The majority of those
[15:25] streets are 100% of the homes
[15:25] and only a few streets have
[15:28] partial of the homes.
[15:29] And in these two sectors which
[15:34] is also uploaded let's go to
[15:34] the next one.
[15:39] So over here to verify
[15:39] everything I'm saying you can
[15:40] check this char.
[15:43] You can count the homes.
[15:44] We are going to be severely
[15:47] impacted in less.
[15:48] You lobby that the city of San
[15:52] Diego will end up being
[15:53] equitable with the city of
[15:58] Lemon grow so that we can go
[15:59] one fourth of a mile.
[16:03] There is no other neighborhood
[16:04] affected by the master to
[16:09] the trolley station except for
[16:09] the Hamsher neighborhood.
[16:10] It doesn't affect Encanto,
[16:13] doesn't affect Broadway.
[16:14] It is exclusively ours and we
[16:15] are low income and we have a
[16:18] lot of steep hills.
[16:19] I sent you all an email that I
[16:20] would give you our personal
[16:23] tour and my car to show you and
[16:24] let you walk up these hills
[16:27] yourself If you wanted to see
[16:28] how steep they are All of us we
[16:33] either drive to the trolley
[16:33] station or we get dropped off
[16:38] on a trolley station very few
[16:38] or younger healthy or people
[16:42] walk to the Massachusetts
[16:43] trolley station.
[16:44] The majority of our people if
[16:48] you look at the census and I'm
[16:48] talking this this sector we
[16:52] have three centers because we
[16:56] have 413 acres But in this
[16:56] slanted 14202 it is a majority
[17:00] of the homeowners are over 65.
[17:01] So we are if you look at how
[17:06] many seniors we have a lot of
[17:07] senior homes and of course
[17:11] the kids and their grandkids
[17:11] and sometimes the great
[17:12] grandkids because we have
[17:16] multigenerational homes.
[17:16] >> Thank you.
[17:17] Thank you for your comment.
[17:18] Our next speaker is Andrea had
[17:21] the roof you have please please
[17:21] come up.
[17:22] Thank you.
[17:25] You have as you're coming up
[17:26] for those who have been in
[17:26] chambers for the very first
[17:30] time we have speakers in
[17:30] the back So if they're in
[17:31] the hallway or the bathroom
[17:34] they can hear the testimony
[17:34] going forward.
[17:35] So I just want to be assured
[17:36] that everybody is listening to
[17:38] every comment irrespective of
[17:39] whether they're in a seat or
[17:43] they're just standing up.
[17:43] Thank you.
[17:44] Council PRESIDENT You have time
[17:45] ceded to you by Susan Baldwin
[17:48] Thank you.
[17:49] Please comment I am in favor of
[17:52] staff's recommendation to phase
[17:53] in implementation of sb 79
[17:57] particularly as it regards low
[17:57] resource areas additional
[18:02] amenities should be in place
[18:03] before up zoning low resource
[18:07] areas because amenities
[18:07] determine who is willing to
[18:12] move into a community Low
[18:13] resource areas need an increase
[18:16] in that capacity before adding
[18:21] more people investments in them
[18:22] must be of sufficient scale and
[18:25] prominence to signal
[18:26] the stability that changes
[18:26] the avoidance loop of higher
[18:30] income residents.
[18:31] This does not happen by
[18:32] changing who lives there
[18:36] immediately but by changing
[18:40] what the place means as a
[18:41] residential address so that
[18:45] over time it can attract a
[18:46] broader income mix and
[18:50] the resources that come with
[18:50] it.
[18:54] Sb 79 confronts us with
[18:54] generations of inequitable
[18:59] planning in our land use system
[19:03] The full five year phase in is
[19:08] likely necessary to get this
[19:08] right.
[19:08] Thank you.
[19:13] Thank you for your comment.
[19:14] Our next speaker is Ethan Paul.
[19:19] Please come up and following
[19:20] Ethan follows Paul Is Zach
[19:25] positive Carol if you can
[19:25] please come up as well just
[19:26] take a seat on the front row
[19:30] Reserved seat You'll have one
[19:35] minute.
[19:35] >> Good evening.
[19:36] Honorable Council PRESIDENT
[19:40] LaCava and City Council members
[19:40] .
[19:41] My name is Ethan Paul and I'm
[19:42] here on behalf of Build a City
[19:45] a grassroots organization
[19:45] focused on documenting
[19:46] construction and development
[19:49] here in our community.
[19:50] San Diego has invested in fast,
[19:54] frequent and reliable bus
[19:54] routes but so many of my
[19:58] friends and family can't afford
[19:59] and don't have the opportunity
[20:00] to live in the communities that
[20:03] these routes have been built
[20:03] in.
[20:04] If we want more clean, safe and
[20:08] affordable places for our
[20:09] friends and family to live,
[20:13] this city should take this
[20:14] opportunity and recognize that
[20:14] the busses and stops on El
[20:18] Cajon Boulevard and University
[20:19] Avenue qualify as Tier two
[20:19] transit stops.
[20:23] We have built a city.
[20:24] Hope your decision today helps
[20:24] make that future a more
[20:25] affordable one.
[20:29] Thank you for your time.
[20:30] Thank you for your comment.
[20:32] Zach DeFazio Pharrell, please
[20:32] come up.
[20:33] You have time ceded to you by
[20:34] Daniel castelli.
[20:36] Please raise your hand.
[20:42] Keith Gupta Thank you, Tony.
[20:42] Thank you.
[20:46] Jason Vance.
[20:47] Thank you.
[20:47] Manny Rodriguez.
[20:47] Thank you.
[20:53] Jeffrey Crow.
[20:53] >> Paul Jamison.
[20:54] Thank you.
[20:59] Carlisle Dockery.
[20:59] >> No Carlos.
[21:00] Okay.
[21:04] Christina Hammond.
[21:04] >> Hammond Thank you.
[21:08] Chloe La.
[21:09] Thank you.
[21:09] Stephanie Palacio Thank you.
[21:13] Guthrie Leonard.
[21:14] >> Thank you.
[21:18] Lucy Laugher.
[21:18] Thank you.
[21:19] Maxwell Gergen.
[21:19] Thank you.
[21:24] Thank you, MR. Blaine Wagner.
[21:24] Thank you.
[21:25] Paul Cortez.
[21:28] Thank you.
[21:33] Hunter Parker.
[21:33] Thank you.
[21:37] You have 15 minutes.
[21:37] Please.
[21:41] Please proceed to your comment
[21:41] .
[21:41] Thank you.
[21:42] Thank you very much To
[21:42] the council.
[21:43] My name is Zach DeFazio.
[21:46] Ferrell and the treasurer of
[21:47] the Democrats of San Diego
[21:48] County And I'm a member of
[21:49] the Law and Policy team.
[21:50] Next slide, please.
[21:55] Next slide, please.
[21:55] Thank you.
[21:56] This is good.
[22:00] So kind of a rhetorical
[22:01] question but why are we here
[22:01] today?
[22:02] We have an ordinance in front
[22:02] of us this evening regarding
[22:04] how we're going to be phasing
[22:05] sb 79.
[22:10] And the issue for us is that
[22:10] the city's current
[22:11] interpretation of how this will
[22:14] be phased only recognizes for
[22:15] transit oriented development or
[22:20] tod qualifying bus stops.
[22:20] Yet we believe that there are
[22:21] actually 48 bus stops and
[22:24] they've left out of their
[22:25] interpretation.
[22:26] And so there should be a total
[22:26] of 52.
[22:30] We sent a formal letter to
[22:31] the council asking for you to
[22:31] reconsider particularly recital
[22:34] e and the ordinance.
[22:35] So we'll explain why all these
[22:38] stops qualify and what you
[22:39] councilmembers can do about it.
[22:39] Next slide please.
[22:43] Okay.
[22:47] So the text of sd 79 requires a
[22:47] full time dedicated bus lane or
[22:52] up to the separate right of way
[22:52] dedicated for public
[22:53] transportation for a bus stop
[22:57] to qualify for Tier two or
[22:57] transit oriented development or
[23:01] tod up zoning.
[23:02] As I mentioned we disagree with
[23:02] the city staff's
[23:03] interpretation.
[23:06] We don't think it's consistent
[23:07] with California law nor is it
[23:08] supported by the city's own
[23:11] stated goals to increase
[23:11] housing production.
[23:12] And as we have come to
[23:16] understand of the staff's
[23:17] argument that these bus lanes
[23:18] allow bikes and write turns
[23:20] from other vehicles like
[23:21] private vehicles at
[23:21] intersections and thus they do
[23:25] not qualify as dedicated bus
[23:25] lanes.
[23:26] Next slide please.
[23:30] So there are three disputed
[23:31] corridors in question.
[23:35] The first is the El Cajon
[23:36] Boulevard bus way that goes
[23:39] from Elkhorn Boulevard or Park
[23:40] Boulevard all the way to
[23:43] roughly Fairmont the second
[23:44] University Avenue from Florida
[23:45] Street to Boundary Street and
[23:45] Park Boulevard going from
[23:49] upstream to City College
[23:49] approximately.
[23:53] Next slide please.
[23:54] So how do these disputed
[23:55] quarters qualify as full time
[23:59] dedicated bus lanes?
[23:59] Let's break this one down.
[24:00] Next slide.
[24:02] Argument number one
[24:03] the disputed bus lanes are
[24:03] factually full time.
[24:09] Next slide, please.
[24:10] So the disputed quarters
[24:14] feature full time bus lanes
[24:14] because they exist 24 hours of
[24:15] the day.
[24:19] They are not only to be used
[24:19] during peak hours.
[24:20] So this is a clear distinction
[24:21] from bus lanes that might be
[24:24] used during rush hour traffic
[24:25] or something to that effect.
[24:26] And there's a sign there in
[24:29] that photo that's of the bus
[24:30] lane on Park Boulevard south of
[24:31] Upper Street, one of the ones I
[24:31] mentioned.
[24:33] Notice that sign says busses
[24:34] only 24 hours.
[24:35] It is a full time bus lane.
[24:38] Next slide please.
[24:39] Argument number two Existing
[24:43] state law permits bikes and
[24:44] other vehicles in dedicated bus
[24:44] lanes when authorized.
[24:48] >> Next slide please.
[24:49] So the staff says the disputed
[24:49] quarters don't qualify because
[24:52] they'll outright turns and
[24:53] bikes as I mentioned.
[24:53] However, the California vehicle
[24:57] code explicitly states that
[24:57] lanes with these features still
[24:58] qualify as transit only which
[25:02] includes bus only.
[25:03] And there are various
[25:03] subdivisions of the vehicle
[25:07] code that allow cities relevant
[25:11] jurisdictions and relevant
[25:12] transit agencies to establish
[25:13] transit lanes together and to
[25:17] authorize different kinds of
[25:17] vehicles to use those lanes.
[25:22] And it does not it does not
[25:22] remove their qualifying nature
[25:23] as some kind of bus or transit
[25:27] lane.
[25:27] And so three of the lanes
[25:28] through the corridors we're
[25:31] talking about all of them allow
[25:32] private vehicles to pass
[25:33] through them to make a right
[25:33] turn at an intersection.
[25:37] And a home boulevard bus way
[25:37] and the University Avenue bus
[25:41] lanes allow bicyclists to use
[25:42] those bus lanes as well as
[25:42] busses.
[25:46] However, this does not mean
[25:47] that they are not full time
[25:50] dedicated bus lanes.
[25:51] Next slide please.
[25:54] Arguing number three Sandbags
[25:55] Dedicated lanes Definition
[25:55] allows non bus vehicles and
[25:56] modes.
[25:59] Next slide please.
[26:00] So sandag has their own
[26:04] definition of what?
[26:05] And what they say are that
[26:05] dedicated lanes are for
[26:08] preferential or exclusive use
[26:09] of transit services permitting
[26:10] limited use by other vehicles
[26:13] services and modes.
[26:13] Right.
[26:14] And all of these lanes do
[26:19] permit again some kind of code
[26:19] use.
[26:20] >> Next slide, please.
[26:23] And argument number four that
[26:23] the statutes within sb 79 do
[26:24] not require explicit
[26:26] exclusivity for bus lanes.
[26:27] Next slide please.
[26:32] So sb 79 itself specifically
[26:35] when it comes to the tier two
[26:36] sort of tier tier of bus lane
[26:40] standards doesn't say anything
[26:41] about these bus lanes having to
[26:42] physically exclude other kinds
[26:45] of vehicles or bicycles or
[26:46] anything of that nature from
[26:46] using them.
[26:50] In order to qualify it does do
[26:50] so for Tier one.
[26:51] None of which which does not
[26:54] apply to any of these corridors
[26:55] here.
[26:55] But notice that for Tier one
[26:59] what's required are separate
[27:00] rights of way from which all
[27:01] vehicular and foot traffic are
[27:01] excluded.
[27:04] Yet for the Tier two standard
[27:05] they admit that language.
[27:09] And we believe that it's it's
[27:13] incorrect essentially to to
[27:14] read into a meaning that
[27:15] the legislature chose not to
[27:19] include.
[27:19] Next slide please.
[27:20] Thus we can make a very strong
[27:23] case here that the disputed
[27:24] quarters qualify as full time
[27:28] dedicated bus lanes.
[27:29] They're full time.
[27:29] They are dedicated according to
[27:30] state law and according to
[27:33] the city's own definition.
[27:33] And they are bus lanes.
[27:34] Next slide, please.
[27:39] And we'll go into some
[27:39] supporting evidence.
[27:40] Next slide, please.
[27:40] Okay.
[27:43] So we've got city documents
[27:44] that state that they are
[27:44] dedicated and they are bus
[27:45] only.
[27:45] And there's a number of them.
[27:49] This is a non-exhaustive list.
[27:52] The city Transportation
[27:52] Department of MAY 2019 which
[27:53] studied the El Cajon it was a
[27:54] pilot project for the Oklahoma
[27:58] Boulevard bus lanes before they
[27:59] were implemented the following
[27:59] year.
[28:02] We have mts website saying it
[28:03] was a joint project between
[28:03] mta, sandag and the city of San
[28:04] Diego.
[28:07] And for a University Avenue
[28:08] mobility project which is
[28:09] the what the University Avenue
[28:12] bus lanes were called as part
[28:13] of a larger project.
[28:13] Those documents from the city's
[28:17] engineering department call
[28:18] them transit lanes along
[28:19] University Avenue.
[28:22] And they were marked as bus
[28:22] only.
[28:27] Next slide please.
[28:28] And for Park Boulevard again,
[28:29] the city's own documents call
[28:33] them bus lanes.
[28:33] And this is the it's called
[28:38] Capital Improvement Project.
[28:39] Was when they had to redo a
[28:39] pipeline that's when they
[28:42] created a class four buffered
[28:42] bike bike lane next to the bus
[28:43] lane.
[28:43] And you could see the pictures
[28:46] of them that I took myself
[28:47] here.
[28:48] And so we have various city
[28:52] documents calling them what
[28:53] they are dedicated bus lanes.
[28:56] And so we essentially we're
[28:57] the city is using its own logic
[28:58] here to call them bus lanes.
[29:01] But when it comes to promoting
[29:02] sb 79, they're not designated
[29:03] designating them as dedicated
[29:06] bus lanes.
[29:06] Next slide, please.
[29:07] And then we've got oecd
[29:07] guidance.
[29:11] Next slide please.
[29:12] And so it's really a memo
[29:16] recently where they sort of
[29:17] provided some guidance as to
[29:18] how to interpret sb 79 and
[29:21] the various tiers and what they
[29:21] see here on the left
[29:22] essentially is the bus service
[29:24] meeting the standards of
[29:25] paragraph one subdivision a of
[29:26] section 21060.2 of the Public
[29:30] Resources Code.
[29:30] >> Full time dedicated bus
[29:31] lanes or operation a separate
[29:32] right of way dedicated for
[29:34] public transportation.
[29:35] Right.
[29:35] Nothing about any kind of
[29:36] physical exclusivity preventing
[29:41] private vehicles from making
[29:41] write turns or bicyclist from
[29:42] using them.
[29:42] And you see on the right we
[29:45] highlight a small section there
[29:46] qualifying bus service transit
[29:46] oriented development stop at a
[29:50] location with the bus stop is
[29:51] adjacent to a full time
[29:51] dedicated transit lane.
[29:55] Next slide please.
[29:56] And then we'll get into some
[29:57] more supporting documents.
[29:57] Next slide please.
[30:01] This is from the Housing
[30:01] Defense Fund letter.
[30:02] They sent us this letter today
[30:02] saying they agree with our
[30:03] position.
[30:06] They do know they do not want
[30:06] the city to exempt any
[30:10] qualifying sb 79 Tier two tier
[30:11] two stops.
[30:11] This would undermine
[30:14] the purpose of sb 79.
[30:15] It would frustrate the city's
[30:16] housing goals.
[30:20] And it would contravene state
[30:20] law.
[30:20] Next slide please.
[30:24] So what can you do now?
[30:25] Let's resolve this together.
[30:25] Next slide please.
[30:30] So our proposed solution is to
[30:30] amend recital e of tonight's
[30:31] ordinance.
[30:35] We would like you to strike out
[30:36] the current language as drafted
[30:40] and replace it with something
[30:40] very similar to what we've
[30:41] proposed here or perhaps
[30:41] exactly that which would
[30:46] include corridor as mentioned
[30:46] tonight.
[30:47] And then this is a map here by
[30:51] a group called Building Three
[30:55] which includes the all of
[30:56] the 52 stops along the three
[30:56] corridors.
[31:02] And that's sort of the blob in
[31:02] the middle there.
[31:03] Next slide, please.
[31:07] And then the risk of doing this
[31:07] wrong, right?
[31:11] >> I mean essentially we've got
[31:12] a lot of back and forth between
[31:13] San Diego and the governor,
[31:13] the current governor of
[31:16] California starting JANUARY 1st
[31:19] of of the following 27 to 9
[31:20] qualifying projects and high
[31:21] resource areas is presumed to
[31:21] violate the Housing
[31:25] Accountability Act triggering
[31:25] immediate financial penalties
[31:26] which is a situation I don't
[31:27] think any of us want the city
[31:30] of San Diego to be in.
[31:31] And so our our take on this is
[31:32] that correct Correcting this
[31:36] interpretation tonight can
[31:36] prevent problems, number one.
[31:37] And we certainly don't want to
[31:38] be in a position where
[31:41] the governor attempts to pull
[31:42] funding because we're not
[31:42] complying with state law.
[31:50] Next slide please.
[31:50] So we do want to ask you again
[31:54] to please consider amending
[31:55] recital e of tonight's
[31:56] ordinance so that it's
[32:00] consistent with state law and
[32:00] that it's consistent with San
[32:01] Diego's housing goals.
[32:08] Thank you very much.
[32:09] >> Thank you for your comment.
[32:14] Just to just for the record, we
[32:15] did receive a speaker slip
[32:16] ceding time or to sacrifice
[32:20] referral from an.
[32:21] Thank you.
[32:25] And next speakers Jeff Uter.
[32:26] >> Please please make your way
[32:27] up to the lectern You have time
[32:31] ceded to you by Dean to give
[32:31] it.
[32:32] Thank you.
[32:36] Can enrich Marie Yovanovitch.
[32:36] Thank you Yvonne Jones.
[32:41] Thank you, Pamela Biegel.
[32:46] Thank you Kelly Trembling.
[32:46] Thank you.
[32:51] Gail Villa Monti.
[32:52] I see you.
[32:52] Thank you.
[32:57] Winner.
[32:57] Thank you, Angela.
[32:57] Grazie.
[33:02] Thank you, Luis So Heather.
[33:03] Thank you, Corey Farris.
[33:07] Thank you, Lori Heller.
[33:08] >> Thank you.
[33:08] You'll have 13 minutes.
[33:12] Great.
[33:12] >> Thank you, Council members.
[33:18] And I appreciate you bringing
[33:19] this forward this evening.
[33:19] I know you're working on
[33:23] the budget and we need to get
[33:24] this done basically in order to
[33:24] meet the JULY 1st deadline.
[33:28] And by doing that it retains
[33:29] the flexibility that the city
[33:34] needs to continue to analyze
[33:34] the capacity that we have with
[33:35] our existing zoning and our
[33:40] existing overlay programs and
[33:41] then develop a further transit
[33:45] alternative plan and do other
[33:45] actions.
[33:46] One of the things that I think
[33:51] is important is that we you
[33:51] know, with deference to
[33:56] the reference to the previous
[33:57] presentation, we don't have a
[34:00] final map from sandag yet.
[34:01] And I think one of the things
[34:02] we've done with the resolution
[34:06] and the ordinance is it it is
[34:07] flexible as to it being an
[34:08] overlay on whatever final
[34:12] determination of the map is.
[34:13] We think that the city's map is
[34:17] generally accurate.
[34:18] There will be some adjustment
[34:18] because you have to get
[34:19] the exact positions of
[34:23] the stations and their extents
[34:27] identified in order to draw
[34:27] the 200ft areas around it,
[34:28] the half mile areas around it.
[34:32] But in general we think that
[34:33] what was presented in the in
[34:38] the staff memo is is fairly
[34:38] close to what we're going to
[34:39] see with with the final map.
[34:44] But one of the questions are
[34:45] that because we're waiting for
[34:50] this final map, what have
[34:50] developers do in the interim?
[34:51] I mean as soon as the ordinance
[34:55] goes into effect and people
[34:56] start applying for projects and
[35:01] that will be an issue.
[35:01] You know, I think it's written
[35:02] that way.
[35:02] One of the things we are
[35:06] unclear about is when we talk
[35:07] about the effective date being
[35:12] 30 days from the final adoption
[35:12] of the ordinance.
[35:13] Does that mean that project
[35:18] still aren't allowed to be
[35:19] submitted until JULY 1st or
[35:20] projects will be submitted even
[35:24] before the JULY 1st?
[35:25] And so we we'd like some
[35:26] clarity to that question just
[35:27] to know exactly what we're
[35:31] doing there.
[35:37] If you go to the next slide I
[35:38] think I cover that once you go
[35:39] to the next slide.
[35:43] >> So in this day and look what
[35:44] the what the Planning
[35:44] Department is proposing is a
[35:48] fairly conservative approach to
[35:49] this, a measured approach to
[35:50] this And I think a lot of noise
[35:54] has been made about how either
[35:54] the city is shirking its
[35:55] responsibility or delaying or
[36:01] exempting state law was written
[36:06] to allow cities to take a very
[36:06] complicated law and implement a
[36:07] phased approach And that's
[36:08] exactly what the city is
[36:12] proposing here.
[36:13] So you know, again, we think
[36:13] that's the right approach.
[36:18] One of the key issues and there
[36:19] was insufficient time to do
[36:20] the full calculation Is there a
[36:24] calculation that you do in
[36:25] order to determine how much
[36:29] additional density you need to
[36:30] create through your transit
[36:35] alternative plan?
[36:36] And the calculation that's in
[36:37] the staff report just shows you
[36:41] underlined zone capacity.
[36:42] So that's the 494,000 units
[36:47] that are already zoned within
[36:48] sb 79 areas versus
[36:52] the calculated target that 180
[36:57] 861,000 while that remaining
[36:57] 367,000 when we get done with
[36:58] the with the complete community
[37:04] calculation that alone will
[37:05] probably exceed that 361,000.
[37:05] And so what are the things that
[37:09] will come out of this is in a
[37:10] lot of these transit zones we
[37:11] will have already satisfied
[37:16] the requirement that sb 79 and
[37:17] I think this comes up a lot
[37:17] where we say well but we
[37:21] haven't built all this but this
[37:22] is a zoning process, not a
[37:22] building process.
[37:23] And so even though it looks
[37:27] like we haven't built all this
[37:28] capacity that we've created, we
[37:29] have created this capacity and
[37:33] with all deference to
[37:34] the governor, San Diego is way
[37:34] ahead of the rest of the state
[37:39] When it came to creating a
[37:39] transit oriented capacity.
[37:50] If you go to the next slide so
[37:51] sb 79 and a lot of ways is like
[37:51] complete communities.
[37:52] But if you really look at
[37:56] the difference complete
[37:57] communities even in the coastal
[37:57] zone exceeds the minimum
[38:02] requirements of sb 79.
[38:03] And if you go anywhere else in
[38:04] the in the city you can look at
[38:09] that and then you know that
[38:14] area you know Claremont
[38:15] University City Mission Valley
[38:20] and those areas we already
[38:21] allow under sb under complete
[38:22] communities we already allow
[38:27] for a ratio of 4.0 which is
[38:31] actually what the maximum would
[38:32] be 200ft from a station under
[38:33] sb 79 And we allow if you do a
[38:38] rough calculation of assuming
[38:38] 800 square foot units which is
[38:42] fairly generous 160 units per
[38:43] acre and in a major area where
[38:48] this is going to be impacted
[38:48] and that exceeds 140 200ft
[38:49] away.
[38:54] So there's not something where
[38:55] we're preventing housing to be
[38:56] built near transit.
[39:00] We have something in place to
[39:01] complete communities which
[39:01] satisfies a lot of these
[39:06] requirements And so the one
[39:07] thing that the sb 79 does
[39:12] the complete community does not
[39:13] do is that it allows this
[39:14] development not just to go into
[39:18] minimum density area.
[39:19] So complete communities is a
[39:20] minimum of 20 units per acre
[39:25] and sb 79 doesn't have any
[39:25] threshold.
[39:29] So where sb 79 developments are
[39:30] going to leak out and this was
[39:31] a big reason for excluding
[39:35] the low resource areas here
[39:36] it's going to leak out to
[39:41] the areas that are low density
[39:42] residential So it's going to
[39:48] leak out to your low density
[39:49] townhomes that are say low
[39:49] three and it's going to go to
[39:54] where our duplex homes are and
[39:55] are go to our single family
[39:55] homes.
[39:59] And ironically it won't go
[40:00] right next to the transit
[40:05] because that will be areas that
[40:06] you know be harder to do land
[40:11] acquisition and generally have
[40:12] higher requirements for other
[40:18] other aspects of this If you
[40:18] get to mid city not only is
[40:19] the area that was shown by
[40:24] the previous speaker generally
[40:24] in low resource areas but it's
[40:25] also areas that are already
[40:30] covered at a six and a half for
[40:31] by complete communities.
[40:35] So we're actually asking in
[40:36] some ways this 379 as a down
[40:37] zoning from complete
[40:42] communities in the mid-city
[40:43] area And certainly when you get
[40:46] downtown you know that we're
[40:47] going to use sb 79 to build a
[40:47] building downtown.
[40:48] They don't even use complete
[40:49] communities because of
[40:53] the significant density that
[40:53] we've already created in these
[40:54] places.
[40:58] So we really done pretty much
[40:59] all the work.
[41:00] The only thing I have to say
[41:00] about the transit stops and we
[41:04] actually met with Scott
[41:05] Weiner's staff when they were
[41:06] going through the bill to get
[41:06] clarification of this And they
[41:10] were clear that they didn't
[41:11] consider shared bus bike lanes
[41:17] to be eligible for sb 79.
[41:17] In their mind it was dedicated
[41:18] bus lanes.
[41:19] The way to think about these
[41:23] dedicated bus lanes it's a
[41:23] train on tires right is
[41:28] the idea is that you create
[41:29] this capacity bus capacity so
[41:30] that people can quickly move
[41:35] along these dedicated bus ways
[41:36] not just to get to the next
[41:36] block on their street but to
[41:41] get to where Jobcentres are And
[41:42] just in the same way that we do
[41:43] not let bikes on train tracks
[41:46] on the trolley tracks the idea
[41:47] is that they wouldn't be
[41:47] allowed on bus rapid transit
[41:48] routes either.
[41:52] So again we'll wait to see what
[41:53] the final determination is from
[41:54] sandag but I think it's still
[41:58] going to line closely with
[41:58] this.
[41:59] >> If you go to the next slide,
[42:04] I'm not going to say a lot
[42:05] about what the Planning
[42:06] Commission proposed but I think
[42:06] one of the things that's key is
[42:10] they again they disregarded
[42:11] the capacity that we're already
[42:16] able to create in these areas
[42:16] of complete communities already
[42:17] covers all of the transit stops
[42:22] that are in and districts
[42:22] eight, nine and four.
[42:28] And so you know, we think they
[42:29] were kind of pushing for
[42:29] something that we can already
[42:30] accommodate in the interim
[42:34] until we have the transit
[42:34] oriented alternative plan
[42:40] completed.
[42:45] If you go to the next slide and
[42:45] I'll just make one other
[42:46] comment.
[42:46] You know, again this
[42:47] characterization that we're
[42:50] that we're sort of slacking off
[42:51] with this proposal, you know,
[42:52] it just it doesn't hold against
[42:56] the fact that we've already
[42:57] done this years ahead of
[42:57] the rest of the state and
[43:03] therefore that gives us I think
[43:04] the leeway to proceed with this
[43:04] in a in a measured and sensible
[43:09] way.
[43:09] Again, just some
[43:10] recommendations and again we
[43:15] support the ordinance as it's
[43:15] being presented to you today.
[43:16] We hope that the council will
[43:17] move that forward.
[43:21] We would like clarification as
[43:22] to what the real effective date
[43:27] for project is and maybe maybe
[43:27] it's already baked into
[43:28] the ordinance but it sounded to
[43:29] us as if you know you get done
[43:34] with this now and in two weeks
[43:34] you know that it MAY be, you
[43:35] know, middle of JUNE before we
[43:36] in place Now we're only talking
[43:39] a couple of weeks at that point
[43:39] so maybe it's not super
[43:39] material.
[43:40] The other thing though to
[43:45] consider is what happens if
[43:45] the state legislature decides
[43:51] to postpone the go live date
[43:51] for sb 79?
[43:52] There is a bill in
[43:53] the legislature that's asking
[43:56] that this be extended to
[44:01] JANUARY 1st of 2027 And I think
[44:02] a lot of that is really just a
[44:02] recognition of just how hard it
[44:06] is to do it and I commend
[44:07] the Planning Department for
[44:08] being able to get all this work
[44:13] done so quickly and putting us
[44:14] in a position where we can work
[44:14] through the rest of the details
[44:19] afterwards.
[44:20] There were some I just wanted
[44:20] to call out also today or just
[44:25] approving the memo and we need
[44:25] to get that done.
[44:26] I mean they have the ordinance
[44:30] and we need to get that done
[44:31] And I do think it's worth
[44:31] looking back now after we get
[44:35] this done at the FEBRUARY 13th
[44:36] memo.
[44:36] I think there are a lot of good
[44:37] suggestions that the Planning
[44:40] Department had because we've
[44:41] been through the technical
[44:42] details of what it means to do
[44:42] a one mile walking path to
[44:47] transit The staff recommended
[44:53] effects that I think addresses
[44:53] situation not just during
[44:54] the period when we're
[44:59] restricting the resource areas
[44:59] but beyond that.
[45:00] So I just think there's a lot
[45:05] of thoughtful material in there
[45:06] that we think would be good to
[45:11] to send forward and you know
[45:12] with all things you know we
[45:17] there's you you know, kind of
[45:18] the concept of of good planning
[45:23] and good design and the set up
[45:23] input requirements for
[45:24] objective design standards in
[45:28] these in these in these laws
[45:29] And hopefully at some point
[45:29] we'll look at those as well.
[45:35] Again, I thank you for your
[45:36] time tonight.
[45:36] Maybe you get more people here
[45:37] If you had bobbleheads for
[45:40] the council members that might
[45:41] be something to consider going
[45:41] forward.
[45:42] But otherwise thank you for
[45:46] your time.
[45:47] >> At least you didn't call us
[45:48] bobbleheads so I'm grateful for
[45:52] that.
[45:53] For the fall we have four
[45:54] speakers and in-person speakers
[45:54] remaining in chambers with
[45:58] the following individuals make
[45:59] their way to the front seat of
[45:59] the chambers that is Paul
[46:00] cookin.
[46:03] We have allegedly Audra Paul
[46:09] Kruger and Mary Soriano Paul
[46:10] Cook and you have time ceded to
[46:11] you by Christian Anderson Thank
[46:16] you.
[46:17] Please make your way up to
[46:17] the lectern and you MAY proceed
[46:18] with your comment.
[46:22] You'll have two minutes.
[46:23] >> Thank you.
[46:23] Good evening.
[46:24] My name is Paul Colgan.
[46:27] I'm secretary at the City
[46:28] Charter Community Planners
[46:28] Committee.
[46:29] The cpc supports the Planning
[46:33] Department's original phased
[46:34] implementation approach and
[46:34] urges the City council to adopt
[46:35] it without the Planning
[46:36] Commission's amendments which
[46:40] would undermine the city's
[46:41] ability to face implementation
[46:42] responsibly and measured fees
[46:46] in particularly in low resource
[46:46] communities and high fire
[46:47] severity zones allows the city
[46:51] to align infrastructure, safety
[46:52] planning and community impacts
[46:53] before increasing density.
[46:59] San Diego has seen what happens
[46:59] when density policies are
[47:00] implemented too quickly without
[47:00] sufficient planning.
[47:04] Whether through a bonus
[47:04] outcomes or neighborhood level
[47:05] parking infrastructure strength
[47:10] these are lessons learned not
[47:11] obstacles to progress.
[47:11] The path is to use
[47:12] the flexibility provided to
[47:16] implement what state law
[47:17] requires and allows including
[47:17] the alternate Tommy cpc
[47:22] respectfully urges you to adopt
[47:23] the staff recommendations as
[47:24] proposed without amendment and
[47:24] to adjust implementation if
[47:28] the State modifies or delays
[47:28] the law.
[47:29] >> Thank you.
[47:29] Thank you for your comment.
[47:33] We have our next speaker
[47:33] allegedly.
[47:39] You'll have one minute.
[47:46] >> The other significant You
[47:47] guys have four people on
[47:47] the dais right now.
[47:47] In the back.
[47:51] They're in the back.
[47:52] >> Again, you don't have a
[47:53] quorum or anything about that
[47:57] So it is so you can do business
[47:58] without a quorum all the time
[48:02] on a regular basis.
[48:03] >> So you guys continue to do
[48:08] business illegally when you
[48:09] don't have a quorum.
[48:10] I called this out several
[48:10] times.
[48:11] You've escorted me out by
[48:14] the police.
[48:15] How are you guys doing business
[48:15] like this when you do not have
[48:16] a quorum?
[48:21] I'd like to use my time
[48:21] elsewhere but it's like I don't
[48:22] know how many times I need to
[48:27] see this happen And have you
[48:28] continue business When I've
[48:32] invoked Robert's Rules of Order
[48:33] .
[48:34] The police have witnessed this
[48:34] and you guys continue business.
[48:35] This is why you can't be
[48:39] trusted especially when you're
[48:40] We're talking about a bill from
[48:40] Scott Wiener who's a pedophile.
[48:41] That's a problem.
[48:45] And the fact that you guys have
[48:45] done this time and again
[48:46] without a quorum thank you for
[48:50] your time.
[48:51] Your time has elapsed.
[48:52] You can't address it and say
[48:52] that we don't have a quorum and
[48:53] we can continue business.
[48:56] You literally have to stop
[48:57] the meeting.
[48:57] >> Please can you please
[48:58] address this because this
[49:02] continues to happen and it's
[49:03] illegal for you to continue to
[49:03] do business Joe without a
[49:08] quorum present at the die is
[49:08] not in the back Not going to
[49:13] the bathroom at right up here.
[49:14] >> I'm serious.
[49:14] This is very concerning when
[49:19] this is the third time not only
[49:20] yesterday you did it three
[49:20] times.
[49:21] >> Okay, You're going to make
[49:21] me do this.
[49:22] This is your first, right?
[49:25] Because I'm addressing
[49:26] the rules of conduct and your
[49:31] ability to do business without
[49:32] a quorum.
[49:32] >> Okay?
[49:33] All these people out here are
[49:34] patiently spending their
[49:37] Thursday night There Can't do
[49:38] business like this That is
[49:38] illegal.
[49:39] >> They have to have by people
[49:39] up there.
[49:40] Don't make me do this.
[49:43] You've made your point.
[49:44] >> We're moving on So So are
[49:49] you not going to address
[49:50] Vivian?
[49:51] >> You just left her order out
[49:51] a quorum.
[49:54] Turn the mike off.
[49:55] >> Do you want to be escorted
[49:55] out again like Molina?
[50:00] You got to keep it And you're
[50:06] making me a criminal.
[50:07] I told you to not do business
[50:07] with four people.
[50:09] You've made your point.
[50:10] I'm going to conduct your
[50:20] business in legal detail.
[50:29] Yeah, I can get if you want to
[50:31] have Like I said, I don't say
[50:32] that you're disruptive because
[50:38] you work for $17 million.
[50:39] Okay?
[50:44] You can kick me out of your
[50:51] business and you can not be
[50:51] detained without parole.
[50:52] Why are you going to continuing
[50:58] to buy you go through for
[51:17] the gentlemen you think you can
[51:17] .
[51:18] Okay, we're going to leave
[51:19] the dais right now and please
[53:19] work
[54:52] on that number
[55:10] and
[55:46] the anticipation and okay, five
[55:46] minutes is up again.
[55:52] My apologies to those of you
[55:52] who are spending your personal
[55:53] time here in chambers.
[55:53] >> The recess is over.
[55:56] Clerk Please call the roll
[55:56] again.
[56:04] Councilmember Campbell Campbell
[56:04] you're here.
[56:09] Councilmember Whitburn
[56:10] Councilmember Foster
[56:10] Councilmember one Wilpert
[56:15] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee
[56:15] Councilmember Campo
[56:16] Councilmember Moreno Present
[56:18] Councilmember Abel Rivera and
[56:19] Council PRESIDENT MacArthur
[56:25] PRESIDENT All right with that I
[56:25] think we were still in
[56:26] the middle of public comment,
[56:26] correct?
[56:31] >> We have two speakers left in
[56:31] chambers starting with Paul
[56:32] Kruger.
[56:36] Please come up to the lectern
[56:37] You have time ceded to you by
[56:40] Sage Gonzales Walden Thank you
[56:47] Dorothy James and Mary Young.
[56:47] You'll have four minutes.
[56:52] Please proceed.
[56:52] Thank you.
[56:53] Well, first I just wanted to
[56:58] make a clarification on
[56:59] the write in comments that
[57:00] you've received As a clerk
[57:04] noted earlier received 219
[57:05] comments in favor of the staff
[57:11] proposed phasing and 19
[57:11] opposed.
[57:17] But if you look at the 19, only
[57:17] five of them actually oppose
[57:18] the phase in and support
[57:22] the full and immediate
[57:26] implementation of sb 79 At
[57:27] least ten of those in fact are
[57:28] writing to say they oppose any
[57:33] implementation of sb 79.
[57:34] So just to clarify that, I just
[57:39] want to make a couple of
[57:40] general points based on lessons
[57:40] learned from the six years
[57:44] we've been trying to talk about
[57:45] how to sanely grow San Diego.
[57:46] The first is any time we hear
[57:51] about a half mile or anything
[57:52] that the crow flies we should
[57:57] not be talking that way.
[57:58] We know that from our
[57:58] experience in Claremont and
[58:03] Granville where I live in San
[58:04] Diego Talmage that a half mile
[58:05] as the crow flies can mean a
[58:10] mile and a half as anybody
[58:10] could get from one place to
[58:11] the other.
[58:15] And I just think it's important
[58:16] that we acknowledge that
[58:21] Problem number two, it took us
[58:22] six years to persuade
[58:27] the council about the problems
[58:28] of the overzealous
[58:29] implementation of the bonus
[58:33] radio program And we all know
[58:37] that it wasn't until
[58:38] the District four homeowners
[58:44] and renters faced the reality
[58:48] of ten, 12, 14, 1735, 103
[58:49] backyard units and these people
[58:50] of color and these people of
[58:55] moderate to low income came
[58:55] forward and said not in our
[59:00] backyard.
[59:01] And Councilmember Foster took
[59:05] up their cry and persuaded five
[59:06] of you that this voluntary
[59:07] program was wrong and it needed
[59:11] to be reined in.
[59:12] And I think the lesson learned
[59:13] from that is that we have to
[59:17] give very, very much thought
[59:18] and deliberation to what we're
[59:23] doing when we make rules or
[59:24] incentives for builders that
[59:29] allow them to build
[59:30] developments of this size and
[59:35] mass this sb 79 which I opposed
[59:41] would allow within a half a
[59:41] mile of a transit stop someone
[59:46] to build a 5 or 6 story
[59:46] apartment building on a block
[59:47] of single family homes that
[59:52] already don't have enough
[59:53] parking in cul de sacs And this
[59:58] has a devastating impact on
[59:59] these neighborhoods And you
[1:00:00] have heard firsthand in such
[1:00:04] persuasive language that
[1:00:05] the most ardent supporter of
[1:00:05] high density COUNCILMAN Eli
[1:00:11] Rivera referred to these
[1:00:11] builders as predators.
[1:00:16] Lastly, I'd like to thank
[1:00:17] the Planning Department for its
[1:00:17] deliberate review and its
[1:00:23] recommendations and I'd like to
[1:00:23] thank all of you for listening
[1:00:24] to what the community has to
[1:00:28] say.
[1:00:29] And I'd like just in my closing
[1:00:34] words to remind you that
[1:00:34] building near transit in San
[1:00:35] Diego does not mean you don't
[1:00:40] have a car.
[1:00:41] It's just common sense.
[1:00:46] 3 to 5% of people can do
[1:00:47] without a car here or forced to
[1:00:48] do without a car.
[1:00:48] If you want to build big, build
[1:00:53] big but don't say people don't
[1:00:54] need a car.
[1:00:55] >> Thank you for your comment
[1:00:55] And our final speaker in
[1:01:02] chambers is Mary Soriano.
[1:01:03] Mary, you'll have one minute.
[1:01:04] Please proceed.
[1:01:08] Mary three on El Presidente
[1:01:09] your town council San Diego a
[1:01:10] very critical crossroads.
[1:01:15] Sb 79 at least 65ft high 120
[1:01:19] unit times that by nine city
[1:01:19] council members equals 1080
[1:01:23] units for one transit oriented
[1:01:24] development per district.
[1:01:29] Super conservative numbers Our
[1:01:30] city faces an $8 billion five
[1:01:31] year capital improvement
[1:01:35] project funding deficit.
[1:01:36] And every day we delay that gap
[1:01:41] grows wider while our streets,
[1:01:42] our roads, pipes and public
[1:01:43] infrastructure continue to
[1:01:43] deteriorate.
[1:01:47] This is your moment.
[1:01:48] You have the responsibility to
[1:01:49] make recommendations that are
[1:01:50] thoughtful, safe and fiscally
[1:01:54] honest with the residents who
[1:01:55] trust you.
[1:01:55] San Diegans deserve
[1:01:56] infrastructure that works.
[1:02:00] They deserve streets they can
[1:02:01] drive safely Water systems that
[1:02:01] don't fail, electric grids that
[1:02:06] don't become overloaded and
[1:02:07] public spaces that reflect
[1:02:08] the city with fire to be.
[1:02:12] Thank you for your comment.
[1:02:13] This concludes in-person public
[1:02:13] testimony.
[1:02:14] I will now start the five
[1:02:15] minute timer for the virtual
[1:02:19] queue going to those
[1:02:19] participating remotely.
[1:02:20] Currently there are 13
[1:02:21] individuals with their hands up
[1:02:23] wishing to speak starting with
[1:02:30] Adrian Chowdhry.
[1:02:31] I've asked you to unmute We'll
[1:02:35] have one minute from now.
[1:02:35] Good evening.
[1:02:46] I would like to.
[1:02:46] Good evening.
[1:02:52] I think this this is becoming
[1:02:53] an implementation by the city
[1:02:58] is very is a bit disappointing
[1:02:58] that it doesn't include the bus
[1:03:04] stops that are on clearly
[1:03:05] obvious bus lanes on Elkhorn
[1:03:06] Boulevard and University Avenue
[1:03:06] that should be included from
[1:03:10] the get go and we should not
[1:03:11] have to wait for the state to
[1:03:14] come back and say that we're
[1:03:14] violating sb 39 because
[1:03:15] the city is refusing to look at
[1:03:21] it properly although that 70%
[1:03:25] of zone zones having to wait
[1:03:26] until 2031 to be considered.
[1:03:27] It's kind of pathetic.
[1:03:32] I hope the I hope that
[1:03:33] the board and the council would
[1:03:34] reconsider the implementation
[1:03:34] plan.
[1:03:37] Thank you.
[1:03:38] Thank you for your comment.
[1:03:39] Our next speaker up is Leaf
[1:03:39] concert.
[1:03:47] You have one minute for
[1:03:47] concert.
[1:03:54] I've allowed you to talk.
[1:03:55] >> I cannot move for you.
[1:03:58] Star six five Accept.
[1:03:59] Yeah.
[1:03:59] Good evening.
[1:04:00] My name is my friends.
[1:04:00] I'm the vice PRESIDENT All
[1:04:06] the right as the I'm right at
[1:04:06] the policy function that was
[1:04:07] sent out to city council
[1:04:13] beforehand and all the groups
[1:04:13] else I thought I'm just going
[1:04:16] to take some all kinds of
[1:04:16] backgrounds And we all urged
[1:04:17] the City council to adopt a
[1:04:18] proper interpretation of
[1:04:24] the bus lanes which is done
[1:04:25] full time.
[1:04:26] Boston's not just one of our
[1:04:29] extended sample of all have
[1:04:29] alcohol and University Avenue
[1:04:30] and the proper bus lanes we
[1:04:35] need housing desperately need
[1:04:35] housing everywhere and
[1:04:36] the transit system can get
[1:04:41] people to willing to go there.
[1:04:42] There's enough capital and
[1:04:43] capacity and it's not enough to
[1:04:48] be public transport.
[1:04:48] I also asked people and you on
[1:04:49] this topic and you don't want
[1:04:50] to get into lots some of
[1:04:52] the states it's going to be
[1:04:53] costly and we're trusting
[1:04:54] efficient cities implement
[1:05:00] the best the best bus route
[1:05:01] information best possible Also
[1:05:01] on the commission we took
[1:05:03] center at the time I'm going to
[1:05:08] be 79 city wide until 22 set up
[1:05:08] .
[1:05:09] Our next speaker is Victoria
[1:05:09] Brousseau.
[1:05:13] You'll have one minute.
[1:05:14] >> Please proceed with your
[1:05:14] comment.
[1:05:14] Good evening.
[1:05:20] This is Victoria Brazeau, chair
[1:05:20] of the cbc still looking for a
[1:05:21] seat at the table.
[1:05:22] I would have come in person but
[1:05:26] has told me it would take an
[1:05:27] hour so the bottle heads must
[1:05:27] be popular, Bill ponders Paul
[1:05:30] Coogan provided cbc
[1:05:31] the official comment Thank you
[1:05:31] Paul.
[1:05:32] But I want to emphasize
[1:05:33] the main issue tonight is
[1:05:36] whether implementation of sb 79
[1:05:37] will be done responsibly.
[1:05:38] Communities across San Diego
[1:05:38] have already experienced
[1:05:42] the unintended consequences of
[1:05:43] land use changes being
[1:05:44] implemented faster than
[1:05:44] infrastructure and community
[1:05:49] planning could keep pace.
[1:05:50] For example, the impacts
[1:05:51] associated with Footnote seven
[1:05:54] and the city's 8080 bonus
[1:05:55] program.
[1:05:55] That is why the Planning
[1:05:56] Department's phased
[1:06:01] implementation approach matters
[1:06:01] especially in very high fire
[1:06:02] severity zones and low resource
[1:06:03] resource communities.
[1:06:07] I respectfully urge the City
[1:06:07] Council to support the staff
[1:06:08] recommendation without
[1:06:08] the Planning Commission's
[1:06:13] requested amendments.
[1:06:13] Thank you very much.
[1:06:14] Have a great evening.
[1:06:14] Thank you for your comment.
[1:06:18] Our next speakers Blair Bateman
[1:06:19] You'll have one minute.
[1:06:19] Please proceed with your
[1:06:25] comment.
[1:06:25] >> All right.
[1:06:25] Where?
[1:06:26] Bateman I'm just more listening
[1:06:30] on this item.
[1:06:31] I wanted to say that I'm here
[1:06:31] participating and listening and
[1:06:37] interesting public comment.
[1:06:38] I'd be interested to hear what
[1:06:38] City Council will have to say
[1:06:42] on this item.
[1:06:43] I really good luck in working
[1:06:44] on truly affordable housing
[1:06:44] with this item and for
[1:06:49] the Claremont and College areas
[1:06:54] and upcoming needs here and I'm
[1:06:55] really a big fan of mixed
[1:06:55] income housing that can bring
[1:06:56] all levels of income into a
[1:07:01] building.
[1:07:01] I don't think we've quite
[1:07:02] explored that concept enough.
[1:07:03] Hopefully we can start thinking
[1:07:03] of that more.
[1:07:06] I think it can offer a lot
[1:07:07] better future flexible choices
[1:07:07] and good choices for ourselves.
[1:07:12] So good luck with that and I
[1:07:13] think we do have to work on
[1:07:13] the quorum issues a bit.
[1:07:16] I think there has to be at
[1:07:17] least five people even if
[1:07:18] you're going in the back to do
[1:07:24] things right there has to be
[1:07:24] five on the dias.
[1:07:25] I can write you a letter.
[1:07:25] We can talk more about this.
[1:07:26] Let's hope we work on it.
[1:07:29] Thank you.
[1:07:29] Thank you for your comment
[1:07:30] before me.
[1:07:30] Next before we go to the next
[1:07:33] speaker, I'd like to know that
[1:07:33] the five minute timer has
[1:07:34] expired and we have 11
[1:07:34] individuals in the queue.
[1:07:38] No other speakers will be taken
[1:07:39] for this item The next the next
[1:07:44] individual Spring Springs.
[1:07:45] You'll have one minute Please
[1:07:50] proceed to your comment.
[1:07:51] Heather My name is Tim
[1:07:51] Bernstein.
[1:07:52] I'm glad that we are addressing
[1:07:53] Gaspe 79 in the city and I want
[1:07:56] to say a few things.
[1:07:56] First we should accelerate all
[1:07:57] of the delays.
[1:07:57] We should not be delaying sb
[1:07:58] 79.
[1:08:02] We need the housing capacity to
[1:08:02] be unlocked as soon as
[1:08:03] possible.
[1:08:03] That means the low resource
[1:08:04] areas need to be accelerated.
[1:08:07] Additionally, as you do,
[1:08:08] Democrats did a great job of
[1:08:08] explaining.
[1:08:09] We also need to include
[1:08:09] the University Avenue Park
[1:08:15] Boulevard and Oklahoma
[1:08:15] Boulevard bus lanes as well.
[1:08:16] They are included in
[1:08:17] the definition actually called
[1:08:17] Star witness.
[1:08:20] I was myself and they told me
[1:08:21] it should be included in their
[1:08:21] clean bill.
[1:08:22] They would have an amended that
[1:08:22] would include explicitly it
[1:08:23] goes with the spirit of
[1:08:23] the law.
[1:08:26] This is not a loophole is
[1:08:26] absolutely what was intended by
[1:08:27] the lawmakers when they were
[1:08:28] legislating.
[1:08:31] Additionally the infrastructure
[1:08:32] is already up to par.
[1:08:33] This area was down zoned in 80s
[1:08:33] and the infrastructure was
[1:08:37] built up with the intention of
[1:08:38] high density housing from
[1:08:38] the get go.
[1:08:39] So any arguments that
[1:08:39] the infrastructure wouldn't
[1:08:44] support this is probably false
[1:08:44] .
[1:08:45] We also need to unlock this
[1:08:45] housing capacity because it's
[1:08:46] free money for the city from
[1:08:47] taxes because it's closer to
[1:08:50] the city and denser it's more
[1:08:50] tax efficient and therefore
[1:08:51] better for the city and more
[1:08:52] for you for your comment.
[1:08:55] Your time has elapsed Going to
[1:08:56] the next speaker Sharon Gill
[1:08:56] you'll have one minute.
[1:09:02] Please proceed.
[1:09:02] My name is Sharing Dale.
[1:09:08] I went after the city council
[1:09:09] pass this ordinance When they
[1:09:10] start to look at high fliers of
[1:09:14] the historic resources we need
[1:09:14] to put public safety first
[1:09:20] The safest buildings in a park
[1:09:21] or the newest ones because
[1:09:21] they're built to strict new
[1:09:25] fire codes The most dangerous
[1:09:26] buildings are the oldest ones
[1:09:27] go to old codes old craftsman
[1:09:32] homes where the most likely to
[1:09:33] burn in the fire because they
[1:09:33] have flammable wood siding,
[1:09:37] single pane windows shattered
[1:09:38] And why these They caught
[1:09:38] the flames.
[1:09:39] We need to allow owners of
[1:09:43] historic resources to replace
[1:09:44] single pane windows and
[1:09:44] flammable wood siding or
[1:09:49] replace the whole building with
[1:09:50] a safer new building.
[1:09:51] The larger the percentage of
[1:09:55] new buildings in
[1:09:56] the neighborhood, the safer
[1:09:56] the neighborhood will be in
[1:09:57] fire.
[1:09:57] It's another form of herd
[1:10:01] immunity.
[1:10:02] The city needs to put public
[1:10:02] safety first by allowing safer
[1:10:07] housing for public transit.
[1:10:08] Thank you for your comment.
[1:10:08] Your time has elapsed.
[1:10:13] Our next speaker is Shaquille.
[1:10:13] You'll have one minute.
[1:10:14] Please proceed with your
[1:10:18] comment.
[1:10:26] Shaquille have allowed you to
[1:10:26] talk.
[1:10:27] I cannot me for you Please
[1:10:28] press star six if you are on
[1:10:31] the phone I'm sorry to hear me
[1:10:32] now.
[1:10:32] Yes.
[1:10:32] Please proceed.
[1:10:38] I am a 30 year resident of San
[1:10:43] Diego and I support the we
[1:10:43] change the wording around
[1:10:44] the bus stations around
[1:10:45] University Oklahoma to maximize
[1:10:49] the amount of housing there.
[1:10:50] San Diego is currently losing
[1:10:50] population and middle class
[1:10:55] That's a middle class Schools
[1:10:56] are losing children They can't
[1:10:56] really without really no
[1:11:01] children support the current
[1:11:02] budgets turned budget step by
[1:11:08] money to get to the schools
[1:11:08] allowing more more people a lot
[1:11:09] more houses around more trains
[1:11:13] and a lot more families to send
[1:11:14] each other to school by
[1:11:14] bathrooms, by trolley routes.
[1:11:15] And there are a lot of schools
[1:11:19] for not that far from trolley
[1:11:19] routes.
[1:11:25] I have a a for which the reward
[1:11:31] for the rewarding of certain
[1:11:31] the certain language in
[1:11:32] the bill.
[1:11:32] Thank you thank you for your
[1:11:37] comment going to our speaker
[1:11:41] crypto Bradley 200 you'll have
[1:11:42] one minute please proceed.
[1:11:43] >> Thanks for taking my call.
[1:11:48] I think you guys got to slow
[1:11:49] the roll down and implement
[1:11:53] this in my neighborhood they
[1:11:54] put in those 15 a to use and
[1:11:55] they're just starting to read
[1:11:59] It's a nightmare man Slow roll
[1:12:00] down And then also in soccer
[1:12:04] game if you mess up with a game
[1:12:05] they give you a yellow card and
[1:12:06] they give you another yellow
[1:12:07] card And then if you're acting
[1:12:12] weird that you do the red card,
[1:12:13] maybe next time you have to get
[1:12:14] a person out of their regular
[1:12:18] Rick you got the yellow card
[1:12:18] one but another yellow card
[1:12:19] interface and then get the red
[1:12:23] card and then get a wheelchair
[1:12:24] Those things and they roll them
[1:12:29] out and strap them in and just
[1:12:30] walk out and give her like
[1:12:31] about a week off or something.
[1:12:32] That's a lot because it's just
[1:12:35] you know, steady yelling at her
[1:12:38] And the Padres are tied game
[1:12:39] bottom of the first man You
[1:12:40] guys should have the padre game
[1:12:40] on tv up there to make it
[1:12:45] lighter but to slow the roll
[1:12:45] down on implementing this
[1:12:46] program man it's not good Your
[1:12:46] time lapse.
[1:12:51] Thank you for that.
[1:12:51] We have Tom White on Natural.
[1:12:52] You'll have one minute.
[1:12:56] Please proceed.
[1:12:57] Thank you.
[1:12:57] Hi, my name is Tom Michael
[1:12:58] Nagle and I call on the city
[1:13:03] council to implement sb 79 on
[1:13:04] the university our bus lanes
[1:13:09] and Oklahoma Boulevard And I
[1:13:09] call on the City Council to
[1:13:10] implement sb seven nine in low
[1:13:11] resource areas as soon as
[1:13:15] possible to create even greater
[1:13:15] economic opportunities for our
[1:13:16] citizens and businesses and
[1:13:21] bolster our communities.
[1:13:21] Building greater density in
[1:13:22] these areas will contribute
[1:13:27] even further the great strides
[1:13:28] San Diego has made in
[1:13:28] increasing our housing supply
[1:13:29] and increasing it further will
[1:13:30] greatly improve
[1:13:33] the affordability of housing
[1:13:34] for all in the community.
[1:13:35] High middle low income and
[1:13:39] those without housing will all
[1:13:40] benefit from these
[1:13:40] improvements.
[1:13:45] This rising San Diego tide will
[1:13:46] lift all of its citizens and
[1:13:46] businesses ships.
[1:13:51] >> Thank you for your time.
[1:13:52] Thank you for your comment.
[1:13:53] Our next speaker virtual
[1:13:53] speakers Tracy Thompson.
[1:13:57] Tracy Thompson.
[1:13:57] You'll have one minute.
[1:13:58] Please proceed with your
[1:13:58] comment.
[1:13:58] Yes.
[1:14:04] Please proceed.
[1:14:04] My name is Tracy Thompson.
[1:14:05] I just want to urge the city to
[1:14:06] implement sb something on as
[1:14:09] quickly as possible with as few
[1:14:10] as possible and to push towards
[1:14:11] the bus lanes being properly
[1:14:15] handled on university.
[1:14:16] Have another Bloomberg I just
[1:14:17] find it that I find it strange
[1:14:17] that for a large major
[1:14:20] metropolitan area like San
[1:14:21] Diego we don't have a high
[1:14:22] focus on increasing density in
[1:14:28] our urban areas and by proxy
[1:14:28] increasing transit access to
[1:14:29] that theme.
[1:14:33] My comment does I conclude your
[1:14:39] comment Yes thank you very
[1:14:39] much.
[1:14:40] The next speakers d m you'll
[1:14:45] have one minute Please proceed
[1:14:45] .
[1:14:46] >> Thank you Counsel My name is
[1:14:46] Daniel Mollett.
[1:14:47] I live in San Diego.
[1:14:50] I'm better for normal heights.
[1:14:51] I just wanted to comment about
[1:14:52] the implementation of 79.
[1:14:56] I'm calling in strong support
[1:14:57] of correctly implementing it
[1:14:58] according to state law.
[1:15:01] As you know our cities and
[1:15:02] housing crisis I think building
[1:15:03] more homes in high frequency
[1:15:03] transit areas like Oklahoma
[1:15:08] Boulevard University Avenue and
[1:15:09] Park Boulevard is exactly what
[1:15:09] we need.
[1:15:13] You know, California's actually
[1:15:14] losing residents And if we
[1:15:15] continue down this path
[1:15:21] the electoral College is going
[1:15:21] to make it impossible for
[1:15:22] Democrats to even have a chance
[1:15:23] of winning the presidency even
[1:15:25] with the blue wall.
[1:15:26] So this is this is a microcosm
[1:15:33] of that And we should be
[1:15:34] pushing forward to let as many
[1:15:35] people live where they want to
[1:15:35] live.
[1:15:36] It's possible to live the kind
[1:15:38] of life they want to live, put
[1:15:39] them in a place where they're
[1:15:40] going to get to work as easily
[1:15:40] as possible.
[1:15:44] This is the obvious policy I
[1:15:45] hope you guys don't delay it.
[1:15:46] Thank you very much for your
[1:15:46] time.
[1:15:47] Thank you for your comment.
[1:15:50] Our next speaker saw that
[1:15:50] thought you'll have one minute.
[1:15:51] Please proceed with your
[1:15:55] comment.
[1:15:56] Council members Thank you to
[1:15:57] the Planning Department for
[1:15:57] their hard work on this
[1:16:04] important plan.
[1:16:04] Sb 79 will allow more homes
[1:16:05] near transit and I think that
[1:16:09] being more quickly phased in
[1:16:10] those that agree with that can
[1:16:14] be done so that we should also
[1:16:15] include these high capacity
[1:16:15] bike lanes.
[1:16:16] One of the biggest mistake when
[1:16:21] it comes to housing is
[1:16:21] infrastructure.
[1:16:22] The best way to build housing
[1:16:23] therefore is allowing the high
[1:16:26] frequency transit by about 50
[1:16:26] minutes which is large amount
[1:16:27] of people already living in
[1:16:31] these areas just grocery stores
[1:16:31] .
[1:16:32] The library is the perfect
[1:16:33] place to add more housing
[1:16:37] housing fundamentally is good.
[1:16:38] I think some people get it
[1:16:38] wrong and believe that adding
[1:16:39] more housing is a bad that
[1:16:45] they're harmed by existence.
[1:16:46] Expensive housing housing is
[1:16:46] more neighbors in need, more
[1:16:47] affordability.
[1:16:49] It means that we all get to
[1:16:49] live here, our children get to
[1:16:50] live here and we get to build a
[1:16:51] society together.
[1:16:54] I want to emphasize housing is
[1:16:55] good.
[1:16:55] >> Thank you.
[1:17:00] Thank you for your comment.
[1:17:00] Moira Tan you'll have one
[1:17:01] minute Please start your
[1:17:05] comment.
[1:17:13] Moira Martin I've asked you to
[1:17:14] mute I cannot unmute for you if
[1:17:23] you're on a phone Star six by
[1:17:23] three will be able to hear me.
[1:17:24] >> Yes.
[1:17:24] Please proceed.
[1:17:25] Thank you.
[1:17:28] Thank you.
[1:17:29] Good evening.
[1:17:29] Council PRESIDENT LaCava and
[1:17:30] Council members Thank you.
[1:17:34] The City Planning Department
[1:17:35] for your thought partnership
[1:17:35] here too.
[1:17:36] >> My name is Mary Tan and I'm
[1:17:37] a District five a San Diego
[1:17:40] resident calling in strong
[1:17:40] support of the correct
[1:17:41] implementation of Senate Bill
[1:17:41] 79.
[1:17:47] >> San Diego is in a housing
[1:17:48] crisis building homes near high
[1:17:48] frequency transit corridors
[1:17:51] pick up the fungo Harvard
[1:17:52] University Avenue in Park
[1:17:52] Boulevard is exactly what our
[1:17:57] city needs more affordable
[1:17:58] options, less traffic, cleaner
[1:18:03] air and stronger neighborhoods
[1:18:03] .
[1:18:04] Tonight you have a simple
[1:18:08] opportunity to unlock up to 48
[1:18:08] additional bus stops for
[1:18:09] transit oriented housing at no
[1:18:14] cost to the city simply by
[1:18:14] adopting a legally sound
[1:18:15] reading of the law.
[1:18:15] The California's own vehicle
[1:18:20] code already supports Governor
[1:18:20] Newsom is watching.
[1:18:21] Our residents are watching.
[1:18:26] We believe this council can
[1:18:27] rise to the moment.
[1:18:27] Please adopt the new Democrat
[1:18:28] proposed amendments and
[1:18:32] recognize these before we
[1:18:32] comment.
[1:18:33] >> Qualifying Corridor c are
[1:18:34] second to the last speaker is
[1:18:37] phone number ending in two
[1:18:38] eight 700 You'll have one
[1:18:39] minute Please proceed with your
[1:18:48] comment.
[1:18:49] >> Phone number ending in 28
[1:18:56] 700 I've ask you to unmute if
[1:18:57] you are that phone oh we could
[1:19:01] hear you now you'll have Yes
[1:19:02] You didn't say my phone number
[1:19:06] correct.
[1:19:10] >> Do we have a phone number
[1:19:10] ending in 28700?
[1:19:17] >> That's not me.
[1:19:18] This is what we have on a kill
[1:19:19] I feel I speak This is joy that
[1:19:21] it is me Yes please please
[1:19:22] proceed.
[1:19:22] Okay.
[1:19:23] But are you just starting my
[1:19:24] time now?
[1:19:30] Please.
[1:19:30] >> You have one minute.
[1:19:31] We've started the timer.
[1:19:31] Okay.
[1:19:36] Thank you, Joy.
[1:19:37] Senator, this is only from
[1:19:37] the staff report.
[1:19:41] I didn't understand the city
[1:19:42] most minister approved.
[1:19:47] I'm concerned about public
[1:19:48] hearings and also opting to
[1:19:51] implement sb 79 on Marketplace
[1:19:56] and Fordable homes First and
[1:20:01] high highest and moderate
[1:20:02] resource areas will support
[1:20:02] fair housing.
[1:20:03] I didn't understand that with
[1:20:07] regard to low resource areas
[1:20:08] anticipating come in to ongoing
[1:20:15] community plan Page I at City
[1:20:16] and Otay Mesa next door I
[1:20:18] didn't understand in that I
[1:20:19] would really like all of us to
[1:20:23] think about clarifying what
[1:20:24] affordable housing is
[1:20:25] affordable housing work.
[1:20:29] I don't think we still
[1:20:29] understand it fully So cpc
[1:20:30] thank you for your vote of
[1:20:35] equal 28 in support.
[1:20:35] Thank you for your comment.
[1:20:39] Your time is up to our In our
[1:20:40] final speaker on the virtual
[1:20:45] queue is Bruce Coombs.
[1:20:45] >> You'll have one minute
[1:20:46] Please proceed.
[1:20:51] Thank you Briskin Secretary
[1:20:51] Director Saber Heritage
[1:20:52] Organization.
[1:20:52] We support the staff
[1:20:56] recommendation without
[1:20:56] the recommendations from
[1:20:57] the Planning Commission we
[1:20:58] believe staff did a very good
[1:21:01] job of explaining the ordinance
[1:21:06] which allows for the exactly
[1:21:07] what they proposed including
[1:21:12] phasing out the low resource
[1:21:17] areas and the fire impacted
[1:21:18] areas.
[1:21:19] So we think it's very important
[1:21:19] to do this right, particularly
[1:21:24] with the low end or low
[1:21:24] resource areas.
[1:21:25] They do not have the amenities
[1:21:28] and the infrastructure to
[1:21:29] properly support this year and
[1:21:34] plus in those areas we have to
[1:21:35] be very careful that we don't
[1:21:39] eliminate the actual affordable
[1:21:39] housing, the naturally
[1:21:40] occurring affordable housing.
[1:21:40] So we have to plan this
[1:21:44] correctly and I think the staff
[1:21:45] did a very good job of
[1:21:49] explaining why it seems
[1:21:50] the Planning Commission chose
[1:21:50] to ignore it.
[1:21:50] >> Thank you.
[1:21:55] Thank you for your comment and
[1:21:55] that concludes the public
[1:21:56] testimony and item 600.
[1:22:00] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
[1:22:00] right.
[1:22:01] Thank you for that.
[1:22:02] Thank you everybody that took
[1:22:02] the time to show up in person.
[1:22:03] Thank you.
[1:22:05] Those who call in and a special
[1:22:06] shout out for those of you that
[1:22:07] showed up just to give your
[1:22:10] time to somebody else longer
[1:22:11] presentations are much more
[1:22:12] effective than the one minute
[1:22:16] speeches that we sometimes
[1:22:17] force you to do And it's good
[1:22:22] to see you all have friends
[1:22:23] even Paul and Jeff to drag
[1:22:26] individuals out here Late night
[1:22:26] to do that.
[1:22:27] So anyway, this is coming
[1:22:31] direct to city council
[1:22:32] Otherwise I normally would have
[1:22:33] gone to the chair of our land
[1:22:37] use and housing but council
[1:22:38] member council PRESIDENT Pro
[1:22:39] Tem is not here so I will take
[1:22:43] the lead on this So I'll start
[1:22:43] out with one of the callers
[1:22:44] that housing is good.
[1:22:45] You know what else is good
[1:22:47] Planning is good and I am so
[1:22:48] impressed by the city as
[1:22:52] someone who actually came out
[1:22:53] of the industry who understands
[1:22:57] what city planning is all about
[1:22:58] And I don't think there is any
[1:22:59] city up and down the state of
[1:23:00] California that has been more
[1:23:03] aggressive in being a pro
[1:23:04] housing in increasing density
[1:23:05] and doing every community plan
[1:23:09] Update and creating more
[1:23:09] opportunities for housing to be
[1:23:10] built whether it gets built,
[1:23:14] whether a developer can make a
[1:23:15] project and solve something
[1:23:15] else.
[1:23:19] But and a lot of the density
[1:23:19] that we've increased was just
[1:23:20] sitting fallow for a few years
[1:23:20] now.
[1:23:24] A lot of the actions we took in
[1:23:24] certain areas nothing's moved
[1:23:29] in that area But I appreciate
[1:23:30] Heidi and your team at City
[1:23:34] Planning dropping the work that
[1:23:35] you should be doing to respond
[1:23:35] to a state mandate.
[1:23:39] That's where we live right now.
[1:23:40] So this is the law We have to
[1:23:41] comply And I'm glad that nobody
[1:23:45] actually was challenging sb 79.
[1:23:45] It's the law.
[1:23:46] We're trying to figure out how
[1:23:50] to do that And I believe city
[1:23:50] planning is in fact acting
[1:23:51] within the specific areas
[1:23:54] allowed for phasing under state
[1:23:55] law.
[1:23:56] >> And again I'm going to one
[1:24:00] of the things that everybody
[1:24:01] got nervous about sb 79 I
[1:24:01] appreciated that unlike most
[1:24:05] language coming out of
[1:24:06] Sacramento, that is just a
[1:24:07] blunt tool being applied
[1:24:11] statewide that is really
[1:24:12] intended for those cities that
[1:24:13] aren't building housing, that
[1:24:16] aren't doing the zoning that
[1:24:17] needs to be done.
[1:24:21] Sb 79 in its final form came in
[1:24:22] a way that allowed a local
[1:24:22] tailoring to make it fit with
[1:24:27] where we're at to recognize
[1:24:27] the community plan updates that
[1:24:28] we're doing that we've done and
[1:24:31] we're doing and tailor it more
[1:24:32] surgically rather than more
[1:24:37] bluntly So for the folks
[1:24:37] there's a lot of you here and
[1:24:38] called in stating that the city
[1:24:39] is not going far enough
[1:24:42] including by including eligible
[1:24:42] bus stops.
[1:24:43] City Planning has done a
[1:24:47] thorough analysis with
[1:24:51] the caveat that the sb 79 did
[1:24:52] require the MPOs sandag in our
[1:24:56] case to release their maps and
[1:24:57] they have not done that yet.
[1:25:02] And if those map if the map
[1:25:02] released by sandag is different
[1:25:03] than what we're talking about
[1:25:07] today, the sandag map will
[1:25:07] prevail.
[1:25:08] >> Is that correct, sir?
[1:25:08] Yes.
[1:25:11] Council PRESIDENT The recital
[1:25:12] in the ordinance specifically
[1:25:16] recital f specifically notes
[1:25:17] that the city will implement
[1:25:17] the coyote stops identified by
[1:25:21] sandag when they released
[1:25:21] the map.
[1:25:22] I do want to note that since sb
[1:25:26] 79 was put into law our staff
[1:25:27] has coordinated closely with
[1:25:28] staff at sandag and our
[1:25:31] interpretation to our knowledge
[1:25:32] as of today has remained
[1:25:36] consistent with the stops
[1:25:37] Again, if they do put out a map
[1:25:41] that is different this
[1:25:42] ordinance takes that into
[1:25:43] account by specifically stating
[1:25:45] that the city will implement
[1:25:46] the three stops identified in
[1:25:49] the sandag map the statute
[1:25:50] under sb 79 is very clear that
[1:25:51] the map that is produced by
[1:25:52] the Regional Planning
[1:25:55] organization is the map that
[1:25:56] will control.
[1:25:56] >> Okay.
[1:26:00] Thank you for that.
[1:26:01] So I want to give you Heidi or
[1:26:04] whoever the opportunity because
[1:26:05] a number of public commenters
[1:26:09] have said we got that wasn't
[1:26:14] interpreted correctly that some
[1:26:15] of those other areas besides
[1:26:16] what you do and actually what I
[1:26:16] wanted I remember you gave a
[1:26:19] memo about 79 that gave us all
[1:26:20] a heads up if I remember
[1:26:24] correctly You got some guidance
[1:26:24] from cd and you revised your
[1:26:29] memo to where this action today
[1:26:29] is consistent with.
[1:26:33] >> So can you speak about a
[1:26:34] little more of your
[1:26:34] interpretation of why what's in
[1:26:37] front of us today actually
[1:26:38] meets 79 Yes So as soon as sb
[1:26:42] 79 went into law we have been
[1:26:42] meeting with staff and
[1:26:43] coordinating with staff from
[1:26:43] other jurisdictions that are
[1:26:47] subject to the requirements as
[1:26:48] well as staff from our regional
[1:26:48] planning organization so that
[1:26:49] we could ensure that we would
[1:26:52] have a consistent
[1:26:52] interpretation.
[1:26:53] Each city did issue guidance.
[1:26:56] They do not specify specific
[1:26:57] stops within each of
[1:26:57] the jurisdictions so it is
[1:27:01] still up for interpretation But
[1:27:01] their guidance was largely
[1:27:02] consistent although provided a
[1:27:06] little bit more clarity with
[1:27:06] respect to a bus rapid transit
[1:27:10] It is very clear to me that all
[1:27:11] of City of San Diego's existing
[1:27:12] trolley stops are qualifying
[1:27:15] transit stops under the bill
[1:27:15] With respect to bus rapid
[1:27:16] transit stops The statute
[1:27:20] refers to another section which
[1:27:21] identifies the requirement for
[1:27:25] full time dedicated bus lanes
[1:27:26] or operation and a separate
[1:27:27] right of way dedicated for
[1:27:30] public transportation.
[1:27:31] And then there's frequency
[1:27:35] requirements The bus rapid
[1:27:35] transit stations meet the 15
[1:27:39] minute frequency requirements
[1:27:40] but our staff reviewed them.
[1:27:40] We did identify four stops
[1:27:44] based off of that additional
[1:27:45] eight city guidance and
[1:27:45] additional discussions with
[1:27:46] sandag staff and identified
[1:27:50] those additional four stops
[1:27:50] which was released in
[1:27:51] the second memo to the Council
[1:27:54] and the other stops and we
[1:27:55] determined were not full time
[1:27:56] dedicated lanes.
[1:27:59] We have sent staff out and
[1:28:00] observed bikes in their
[1:28:04] vehicles turning into the lanes
[1:28:05] but you will see that the four
[1:28:05] stops that have been included
[1:28:09] on the maps are full time
[1:28:13] dedicated bus lanes or in a
[1:28:14] separate right of way dedicated
[1:28:14] for the public transportation.
[1:28:18] I do want to note that there
[1:28:19] was not very much time
[1:28:19] relatively speaking under
[1:28:23] the state law for staff to do
[1:28:23] this.
[1:28:24] I do want to commend my staff
[1:28:28] That was able to not only do a
[1:28:29] full analysis of the bill but
[1:28:32] coordinate with our city
[1:28:33] attorney's office who has been
[1:28:33] very helpful in its
[1:28:38] interpretation as well as with
[1:28:38] our regional planning partners
[1:28:39] at sandag.
[1:28:39] >> Okay, I appreciate that And
[1:28:43] it's times like this that
[1:28:43] always reminded how
[1:28:44] uncomfortable how unhelpful
[1:28:47] the English language is because
[1:28:48] language that is actually
[1:28:52] legally binding is used just as
[1:28:53] much in a staff report or a
[1:28:53] reference, right?
[1:28:57] >> And it confuses us all.
[1:28:58] So the arguments were very
[1:29:01] compelling with the exception
[1:29:02] that the definitions I think
[1:29:06] are more compelling than
[1:29:07] the reference in a memo or a
[1:29:08] staff report and how people
[1:29:12] speak including myself too
[1:29:13] casually at times.
[1:29:13] >> Council PRESIDENT If you
[1:29:17] don't mind I would also defer
[1:29:17] to the city attorney to provide
[1:29:18] additional thoughts.
[1:29:18] There was some reference
[1:29:22] material provided that we
[1:29:23] received today that cites other
[1:29:27] statutory provisions and defer
[1:29:28] to the city attorney if they
[1:29:28] have anything to add.
[1:29:29] Thank you.
[1:29:31] Okay.
[1:29:32] I would ask Deputy City
[1:29:33] Attorney Shannon Meyer please
[1:29:39] to respond.
[1:29:39] Thank you.
[1:29:40] As you as Heidi said, this is
[1:29:44] not legally defined but staff's
[1:29:45] interpretation is reasonable
[1:29:49] based on the three use Courtney
[1:29:49] shared with state the state
[1:29:53] agencies Cdw's guidance memo
[1:29:53] and the practical application
[1:29:54] of the language As the City
[1:29:58] Planning Department stated if
[1:29:59] the it does release a map that
[1:30:00] includes any teary stops that
[1:30:02] the city did not include,
[1:30:03] the city is required to amend
[1:30:07] it so that it is consistent
[1:30:08] with sandbags map I did want to
[1:30:09] state that the vehicle code
[1:30:12] cited regulates this evening.
[1:30:13] It regulates parking and
[1:30:17] citation procedures and right
[1:30:17] side of the road driving
[1:30:18] procedures and is a different
[1:30:21] legal statute that's not
[1:30:21] applicable to sb 79.
[1:30:22] >> Okay.
[1:30:26] Thank you for scrambling and
[1:30:27] doing that analysis and taking
[1:30:28] the input seriously enough to
[1:30:31] to review that.
[1:30:32] >> So continuing.
[1:30:32] So again City Planning is doing
[1:30:36] thoughtful work that takes into
[1:30:37] account context context that
[1:30:38] state legislators themselves
[1:30:40] thought was important.
[1:30:41] Sea level rise historic
[1:30:41] resources very high fire
[1:30:45] severity zones and low resource
[1:30:46] communities.
[1:30:47] And so they've done this same
[1:30:51] thoughtful work when we did
[1:30:52] the general plan community plan
[1:30:52] updates and numerous housing
[1:30:56] production programs, numerous
[1:30:57] housing production programs
[1:31:01] that have made us a statewide
[1:31:01] example.
[1:31:02] And it's good policy to
[1:31:02] carefully consider the impacts
[1:31:03] on each of those areas and
[1:31:06] particularly the low resource
[1:31:07] areas.
[1:31:07] As we heard in some of
[1:31:11] the opening comments, I think
[1:31:12] the comments made by the group
[1:31:14] from Hampshire aligns with what
[1:31:15] we are doing here tonight.
[1:31:19] Is that right?
[1:31:20] >> Yeah, the city planning
[1:31:21] department is recommending and
[1:31:24] I want to be clear the city
[1:31:25] planning department is not
[1:31:25] recommending exemption of
[1:31:26] the areas The city planning
[1:31:29] department is recommending that
[1:31:30] we take the additional time to
[1:31:34] do the thoughtful planning to
[1:31:35] be able to engage with a low
[1:31:38] resource community that has
[1:31:39] experienced injustices from
[1:31:44] past zoning actions and any
[1:31:44] opportunity to identify how
[1:31:49] this new development can best
[1:31:49] improve those communities.
[1:31:50] I think it's very important
[1:31:53] especially as part of our
[1:31:54] obligations to affirmatively
[1:31:55] further for housing not just in
[1:31:58] terms of the housing outcomes
[1:31:58] but in terms of the inclusive
[1:31:59] engagement process that that
[1:31:59] takes.
[1:32:03] >> Okay.
[1:32:03] Thank you for that.
[1:32:04] Yeah, I think that is
[1:32:05] particularly important.
[1:32:05] I think we're learning some
[1:32:08] valuable lessons over the past
[1:32:09] few years and your leadership
[1:32:13] and the mayor's leadership in
[1:32:13] finally beginning to address
[1:32:14] some of those historic issues.
[1:32:17] I suspect Councilmember Foster,
[1:32:18] if he was here would speak
[1:32:22] eloquently about that much
[1:32:22] better than I can.
[1:32:23] And the context is we're just
[1:32:27] slowing it down and planning be
[1:32:28] thinking more carefully And if
[1:32:31] I remember your and your
[1:32:32] explanations we're going to hit
[1:32:37] the same dance or the same unit
[1:32:37] count that sb 79 calls for.
[1:32:38] We're just going to be more
[1:32:42] thoughtful about where those
[1:32:42] units actually could happen.
[1:32:43] >> Yes, that is correct.
[1:32:47] So staff's proposal is in line
[1:32:48] with sb 79 which specifically
[1:32:51] set forth the tod alternative
[1:32:52] plan process as well as
[1:32:53] specifically identified low
[1:32:57] resource areas to be phased as
[1:33:00] long as it occurs within one
[1:33:00] year of the city's housing
[1:33:01] element.
[1:33:01] The city's housing element
[1:33:04] needs to be updated in 2031.
[1:33:05] We anticipate that we will
[1:33:06] address it during that time.
[1:33:10] I do want to note that the 2031
[1:33:10] or 2032 date because you have
[1:33:13] one year after 2031 does not
[1:33:14] mean that it won't be phased in
[1:33:18] in other areas in a lot of
[1:33:18] instances the densities
[1:33:19] required under sb 79 already
[1:33:19] exist.
[1:33:22] The City Planning Department
[1:33:23] and the City Council have
[1:33:24] adopted many community plans
[1:33:27] and up zoning over the past
[1:33:28] just several years that far
[1:33:28] exceed the sb 79 densities.
[1:33:33] So it is not a it is not a full
[1:33:34] delay because some are already
[1:33:37] in place.
[1:33:38] In addition to that,
[1:33:39] the Mid-City communities as
[1:33:42] well as Otay Mesa Nester have
[1:33:43] large low resource area
[1:33:47] populations and census tracts.
[1:33:48] We are currently updating a
[1:33:48] three thoughtful planning
[1:33:49] process the Mid-City
[1:33:52] Communities Plan update which
[1:33:53] we anticipate bringing forward
[1:33:54] to this Council within a year
[1:33:57] and we will address sb 79
[1:33:58] through that thoughtful
[1:33:58] planning process.
[1:34:03] In addition, we've received
[1:34:03] grant funding for Otay Mesa
[1:34:04] Necessary Community Plan
[1:34:04] Update.
[1:34:06] This is very exciting.
[1:34:07] We plan we have a signed grant
[1:34:10] agreement and we will have
[1:34:11] the opportunity to engage with
[1:34:12] the community with respect to
[1:34:13] the implementation in that
[1:34:16] community prior to 2032.
[1:34:21] >> Okay, more density than
[1:34:22] actually would be required
[1:34:22] under sb 17.
[1:34:23] I heard that correctly.
[1:34:23] That is correct.
[1:34:26] In many instances.
[1:34:26] >> Many instances.
[1:34:27] Okay.
[1:34:31] So I'm going to wrap up if I
[1:34:32] can take my three minutes with
[1:34:32] a couple of things.
[1:34:36] >> One, the question that I
[1:34:37] think Jeff asked about when can
[1:34:37] you actually submit a project
[1:34:41] under sb 79 sb 79 goes into
[1:34:42] effect on JULY 1st.
[1:34:46] >> So regardless of
[1:34:46] the effective date of
[1:34:47] the city's ordinance then
[1:34:47] application will not be
[1:34:51] eligible for it until that
[1:34:51] time.
[1:34:52] >> Okay.
[1:34:52] All right.
[1:34:53] I hope that answers your
[1:34:55] questions.
[1:34:56] I'm going to comment and we'll
[1:34:56] follow up later.
[1:34:59] Sb 79 has provisions for
[1:35:03] affordability components as
[1:35:04] much as 13%.
[1:35:05] As we actually developed this
[1:35:09] out, what I want to know is can
[1:35:12] we exempt sb 79 projects from
[1:35:13] in lieu fees?
[1:35:17] Because I'm really frustrated
[1:35:17] that we don't get
[1:35:18] the affordable for truly
[1:35:22] affordable units When we get
[1:35:23] these higher density projects
[1:35:26] we get an accumulation of
[1:35:27] dollars that hopefully someday
[1:35:28] will produce a truly affordable
[1:35:32] someplace.
[1:35:33] But is that that's not an item
[1:35:36] that's not up for tonight but
[1:35:37] is that a conversation we can
[1:35:37] have?
[1:35:38] Yeah, I appreciate
[1:35:41] the thoughtful question and I
[1:35:41] look forward to more
[1:35:46] conversations about these very
[1:35:46] nuanced and important issues
[1:35:47] that do affect outcomes in
[1:35:47] the community.
[1:35:51] The opportunity to address that
[1:35:52] is through the tod alternative
[1:35:52] plan process.
[1:35:52] Okay.
[1:35:55] I appreciate your careful
[1:35:55] answer to that question.
[1:35:55] Okay.
[1:35:56] With that I think I've gone
[1:36:00] through all my points and
[1:36:01] questions but with all that I
[1:36:01] will move the staff
[1:36:05] recommendation and we will now
[1:36:05] go to Council member Campbell.
[1:36:06] >> Thank you so much.
[1:36:10] Council PRESIDENT And thank you
[1:36:10] staff.
[1:36:11] Thank you so much.
[1:36:14] You've worked so hard on this I
[1:36:15] know and have been dealing with
[1:36:19] Sacramento quite a bit to get
[1:36:24] everything ironed out and
[1:36:24] explained as much as possible
[1:36:25] without the sandag maps
[1:36:28] available.
[1:36:29] And so I am happy to second
[1:36:33] the motion and move this item
[1:36:34] forward.
[1:36:34] It gives the city maximum
[1:36:39] flexibility ity as this new
[1:36:40] state law comes into effect and
[1:36:44] really appreciate all your hard
[1:36:44] work on it.
[1:36:45] So I'm very much in support of
[1:36:49] staff's recommendation and
[1:36:49] thank you.
[1:36:50] >> All right.
[1:36:50] Thank you Councilmember
[1:36:51] Campbell.
[1:36:54] So you have a motion by myself
[1:36:54] and a second by Councilmember
[1:36:55] Campbell to move the staff
[1:36:56] recommendation.
[1:36:58] We will go next to Council
[1:36:59] member Whitburn.
[1:36:59] Thank you.
[1:37:00] Council PRESIDENT I very much
[1:37:00] want to thank the Planning
[1:37:03] Department.
[1:37:04] Sb 70 died was an unexpected
[1:37:07] and significant lift for a
[1:37:08] department already working
[1:37:09] through a full work plan.
[1:37:12] I also want to thank everybody
[1:37:13] who took the time to come to
[1:37:13] tonight's meeting and share
[1:37:17] your perspectives on the matter
[1:37:18] before us this evening as
[1:37:22] the presentation described must
[1:37:22] be submitted.
[1:37:23] It requires cities to approve
[1:37:24] certain housing projects worth
[1:37:27] at a quarter or a half mile of
[1:37:28] major transit oriented
[1:37:28] development stops outside
[1:37:32] the zone for residential mixed
[1:37:32] or commercial development.
[1:37:33] It's a Diego that meets our
[1:37:36] trolley stops and a small
[1:37:37] number of dedicated bus lane
[1:37:41] sites that is targeted transit
[1:37:41] focused growth.
[1:37:46] That is exactly where we should
[1:37:47] be building housing.
[1:37:47] I have listened carefully to
[1:37:50] the comments about how we
[1:37:51] defined full time dedicated bus
[1:37:55] lanes which corridors should
[1:37:59] qualify as transit oriented
[1:38:00] development stops.
[1:38:01] I appreciate the thoughtfulness
[1:38:05] of the argument put forward by
[1:38:06] the Democrats and I find them
[1:38:09] persuasive.
[1:38:10] I do understand how reasonable
[1:38:11] people could reach different
[1:38:14] conclusions about which
[1:38:15] corridors should qualify.
[1:38:19] As tod stops but the change
[1:38:20] being requested
[1:38:20] the presentation by the b
[1:38:24] Democrats is specific to three
[1:38:24] corridors that are either
[1:38:29] entirely within my district or
[1:38:30] which extends from District
[1:38:31] three to Councilmember Isla
[1:38:34] Rivera's district District
[1:38:34] nine.
[1:38:35] When I look at those bus lanes
[1:38:39] on Park Boulevard University
[1:38:43] Avenue at El Codelco Boulevard
[1:38:44] ,I have always thought of them
[1:38:44] as designated transit only
[1:38:48] lanes.
[1:38:49] I think most District three
[1:38:50] residents see that as
[1:38:53] designated transit only late
[1:38:54] from the day they were
[1:38:55] installed to today and this is
[1:38:58] certainly where we want to be
[1:38:58] building housing.
[1:38:59] It is exactly where we need to
[1:39:05] be building additional housing
[1:39:05] .
[1:39:06] I'm not going to get to
[1:39:07] the question about low resource
[1:39:07] areas.
[1:39:08] I will defer to
[1:39:10] the councilmembers whose
[1:39:11] districts are most impacted by
[1:39:11] that.
[1:39:15] But my district is most
[1:39:16] impacted by facilitating
[1:39:16] density along Alcohol Boulevard
[1:39:20] University Avenue and Park
[1:39:20] Boulevard.
[1:39:21] We heard from a lot of people
[1:39:22] for District three this
[1:39:22] evening.
[1:39:27] We want this a big ride to ask
[1:39:28] for it a bit bit but I want to
[1:39:30] ask the planning Department
[1:39:30] first.
[1:39:35] I would like to propose making
[1:39:36] the what a bit better was
[1:39:36] suggested a better dig recital
[1:39:39] e and replacing it with
[1:39:40] the language that would include
[1:39:43] all bus stops served by full
[1:39:44] time dedicated bus lanes at
[1:39:45] Alcohol Boulevard University
[1:39:49] Avenue and Park Boulevard.
[1:39:50] With bus service operating at a
[1:39:50] frequency of 15 minutes or less
[1:39:53] during weekday peak commute
[1:39:54] hours And I want to ask if
[1:39:59] there is any downside to doing
[1:39:59] that.
[1:40:00] And here's part of the reason
[1:40:03] why Ultimately whether we use
[1:40:04] the original language or
[1:40:05] whether we use the amended
[1:40:09] language that I'm suggesting
[1:40:10] we're going to do whatever said
[1:40:10] that decides.
[1:40:15] So what would be the harm?
[1:40:15] It amended this to reflect and
[1:40:18] to communicate to say I'd like
[1:40:19] what we want with
[1:40:20] the understanding that we will
[1:40:20] be about to say a dags decision
[1:40:25] Either way.
[1:40:26] >> So I will in a minute defer
[1:40:30] to the city attorney on this
[1:40:30] specific language including
[1:40:31] the references to the vehicle
[1:40:31] code.
[1:40:35] Which the city attorney has
[1:40:36] advised are not applicable to
[1:40:40] the sb 79 interpretation.
[1:40:40] With respect to identification,
[1:40:45] we do clearly state in Recital
[1:40:46] f that we will use the standing
[1:40:46] map.
[1:40:49] It has been our understanding
[1:40:50] that the language that we have
[1:40:51] included in Recital e is
[1:40:54] consistent with the sandag
[1:40:55] interpretation although we do
[1:40:59] not have the final maps.
[1:41:00] I don't I haven't had an
[1:41:04] opportunity to play out
[1:41:04] the potential consequences of
[1:41:05] that.
[1:41:08] The map that is attached to
[1:41:09] the ordinance that exempts
[1:41:12] areas outside of the one mile
[1:41:13] walk does not incorporate
[1:41:13] those.
[1:41:14] So I would say that that could
[1:41:16] be a potential in consistency
[1:41:17] that we do not have available
[1:41:18] tonight for this council.
[1:41:22] But I also defer to the city
[1:41:22] attorney for their thoughts as
[1:41:31] well as the City Planning
[1:41:32] Department said ultimately if
[1:41:36] we did amend the recital and
[1:41:37] wait on sand bags
[1:41:40] interpretation if they
[1:41:41] disagreed or agreed considering
[1:41:45] the maps are not being amended
[1:41:46] tonight, it's very likely we
[1:41:47] would have to bring it back to
[1:41:51] clean it up with the map adding
[1:41:51] all of those additional tmd
[1:41:52] stops.
[1:41:56] I also want to point out that
[1:41:56] sb 79 requires the city to
[1:42:01] submit the ordinance to cd for
[1:42:02] review and approval and they
[1:42:05] have not seen the addition of
[1:42:06] this language.
[1:42:06] If each city disagrees with
[1:42:10] the addition of the vehicle
[1:42:10] code that will have to come
[1:42:11] back to city council no matter
[1:42:15] what to be amended.
[1:42:16] >> So that's just something to
[1:42:16] consider.
[1:42:17] So it would just have to go
[1:42:20] back to city council if they
[1:42:20] disagree?
[1:42:24] >> Correct.
[1:42:29] >> Well, I'm willing to propose
[1:42:30] the amendment because I think
[1:42:33] there is value in communicating
[1:42:40] what we want And if there is
[1:42:40] one thing that say Diego is a
[1:42:44] bit clear about it is that
[1:42:44] the cost of living is too high
[1:42:48] and that the cost of housing
[1:42:53] needs to be moderated and
[1:42:54] the way we could do that is by
[1:42:55] building more housing and
[1:42:57] particularly in the places that
[1:42:58] could accommodate more density
[1:43:02] and particularly a log transit
[1:43:03] corridors and Alcohol Boulevard
[1:43:04] University Avenue and Park
[1:43:08] Boulevard are perfect examples
[1:43:08] of where we should be building
[1:43:12] more housing and I hope that
[1:43:17] said Dag and the oecd will see
[1:43:22] it the same way.
[1:43:23] So I will ask the maker of
[1:43:27] the motion understanding that
[1:43:28] said Dag is going to make
[1:43:31] the determination either way
[1:43:32] whether you would incorporate
[1:43:37] into the motion the abatement
[1:43:37] to include San Diego trolley
[1:43:42] stops at all bus stops served
[1:43:43] by a full time dedicated bus
[1:43:43] lane Side Boulevard University
[1:43:46] Avenue Park Boulevard with bus
[1:43:47] service operating at a
[1:43:48] frequency of 15 minutes or less
[1:43:51] during weekday peak commute
[1:43:51] hours.
[1:43:54] >> Councilmember Whitburn This
[1:43:55] is going to be the second
[1:43:56] hardest thing I did tonight.
[1:43:56] I'm going to respectfully
[1:43:57] decline.
[1:44:00] I appreciate what city planning
[1:44:01] has brought forth.
[1:44:05] Somebody raised the question
[1:44:05] Why are we here?
[1:44:06] We don't do meetings on
[1:44:07] Thursday nights and make
[1:44:10] everybody come back.
[1:44:11] I'm concerned about not getting
[1:44:15] this locked in before JULY 1st
[1:44:16] so that the totality of what
[1:44:19] we're bringing forward if we
[1:44:20] want to come back and amendment
[1:44:24] amend this later if we want San
[1:44:25] that goes in that direction.
[1:44:29] You'll have my full support but
[1:44:29] I want to maintain
[1:44:30] the integrity of this with and
[1:44:34] not risk the very narrow
[1:44:34] timeline we have to actually
[1:44:39] get this ordinance adopted at
[1:44:39] its second reading before JULY
[1:44:40] 1st and get it into h City's
[1:44:40] hands.
[1:44:44] So I appreciate you MAY not
[1:44:44] like that.
[1:44:45] I know the crowd is not going
[1:44:48] like that but that's really
[1:44:48] the reason I'm going to stand
[1:44:49] behind City Planning's
[1:44:53] recommendation and I understand
[1:44:53] that.
[1:44:54] I appreciate that and I respect
[1:44:54] your rationale for that.
[1:44:58] I certainly we respect our
[1:45:03] planning department and if
[1:45:03] there's one thing that our
[1:45:04] planning department has
[1:45:06] consistently said it's proposal
[1:45:12] and I appreciate that
[1:45:12] understanding that this will
[1:45:13] not be incorporated into
[1:45:16] the motion tonight.
[1:45:22] Let me just say to say that as
[1:45:22] the council member for District
[1:45:23] three it on behalf of Betty
[1:45:26] Berry of Bike constituents we
[1:45:27] would very much appreciate your
[1:45:31] consideration of incorporating
[1:45:36] the changes that have been
[1:45:36] discussed here to your ultimate
[1:45:37] decision.
[1:45:41] We think it is the right thing
[1:45:41] to do.
[1:45:42] We think it is the right thing
[1:45:42] to do for housing.
[1:45:43] We think it is the right thing
[1:45:45] to do for transit and we think
[1:45:46] it is the right thing to do for
[1:45:47] San Diego's.
[1:45:47] >> Thank you.
[1:45:49] Council PRESIDENT.
[1:45:53] >> I think Councilmember Weprin
[1:45:54] I'll give him a bigger round of
[1:45:55] applause.
[1:46:05] He deserves more.
[1:46:06] A fearless and a tireless
[1:46:11] advocate for a housing as we
[1:46:12] can see in many, many parts of
[1:46:12] District three.
[1:46:16] With that we will go next to
[1:46:17] Councilmember Yvonne Wolford.
[1:46:20] >> Thank you very much and
[1:46:21] thank you to our planning
[1:46:25] department for doing this work
[1:46:25] .
[1:46:26] Thank you to everybody who's
[1:46:26] come in to weigh in on this and
[1:46:27] the very thorough analysis
[1:46:30] which you gave.
[1:46:31] I mean I also tend to agree
[1:46:32] with Councilmember Whitburn
[1:46:35] that these are dedicated bus
[1:46:36] lanes and I do see how they
[1:46:40] would be included in
[1:46:40] the statute.
[1:46:44] However, the recitals simply
[1:46:45] says they're not anticipated to
[1:46:46] be and so that doesn't lock up
[1:46:50] in stone.
[1:46:50] It just says at this time we
[1:46:51] don't believe that they are.
[1:46:54] But you could change your mind.
[1:46:55] And so I think what we're
[1:46:56] hearing on the dais is that if
[1:46:59] especially if sandag decides
[1:46:59] that they should be, then we
[1:47:00] should.
[1:47:01] But to me it does seem to be a
[1:47:04] dedicated bus lane.
[1:47:05] I mean I don't drive in them
[1:47:05] because of it.
[1:47:09] So I understand you're going
[1:47:09] back.
[1:47:10] So I would I would support
[1:47:10] Councilor Woodburn's idea to
[1:47:14] communicate this.
[1:47:15] But I also understand council
[1:47:15] presidents too.
[1:47:16] You know, we're on a strict
[1:47:16] timeline and if we don't get
[1:47:17] something done then the whole
[1:47:21] thing will fall apart.
[1:47:26] I also have questions about
[1:47:27] the impact of increased
[1:47:27] development.
[1:47:28] So you know here in my district
[1:47:32] we don't have any transit to be
[1:47:32] honest, you know, So we don't
[1:47:33] we don't really this is not
[1:47:34] going to affect District five.
[1:47:36] We are trying to do our part
[1:47:37] for the environment by
[1:47:38] switching to clean emissions
[1:47:38] vehicles and putting in ev
[1:47:39] chargers.
[1:47:41] We have one great bus that goes
[1:47:42] up and down the 15 freeway
[1:47:43] Would that's about it.
[1:47:46] So I agree with MR. Krieger
[1:47:46] that we do need cars still in
[1:47:47] the city.
[1:47:51] However, when we do have
[1:47:52] increased development which we
[1:47:58] do we've taken thousands of
[1:47:59] units of housing in d five in
[1:47:59] essentially Skeeters crime out
[1:48:00] in area.
[1:48:01] I actually just had a town hall
[1:48:01] meeting in a cul de sac a few
[1:48:05] weeks ago because it was
[1:48:06] the new fire evacuation route
[1:48:07] and we figured why not just
[1:48:07] have it there?
[1:48:08] I was the one we conditioned in
[1:48:11] junipers and we brought
[1:48:12] the fire department, the police
[1:48:12] department Hundreds of
[1:48:13] residents came out standing in.
[1:48:15] It's cold in fact to talk about
[1:48:16] what happened to the tail
[1:48:16] lights on fire And it got a
[1:48:20] little heated because we had
[1:48:21] the Wood Creek fire came
[1:48:21] through there and you know,
[1:48:25] burned many of these people's
[1:48:25] houses.
[1:48:26] So it's not theoretical to
[1:48:26] them.
[1:48:29] They've already rebuilt But so
[1:48:30] one of my questions is you know
[1:48:33] our diff is regardless of
[1:48:34] whether we have sb 79 or
[1:48:39] the more inclusive programs
[1:48:39] we've already done, our deficit
[1:48:40] seem to not be keeping up with
[1:48:43] the infrastructure we need to
[1:48:44] support this density.
[1:48:45] We've had a couple of projects
[1:48:45] in d five where the parks are
[1:48:47] not being built because the if
[1:48:48] these wildly were under
[1:48:49] calculated how much it would
[1:48:49] cost.
[1:48:53] So I'm wondering what we're
[1:48:53] going to do about Diffuse if we
[1:48:57] take on more development.
[1:48:58] The city does have citywide
[1:49:02] development impact fees that
[1:49:03] are in place and have been for
[1:49:03] several years.
[1:49:06] Those replace communities
[1:49:07] specific development impact
[1:49:07] fees.
[1:49:10] Part of the benefit of having
[1:49:11] four dedicated asset base
[1:49:11] development impact fees is that
[1:49:15] it enables city staff to update
[1:49:16] the next two studies for them
[1:49:20] at a much more frequent rate
[1:49:24] than we were to when we had
[1:49:24] over 40 different fees based on
[1:49:25] four communities.
[1:49:28] City Planning Department does
[1:49:29] have it in its work program
[1:49:29] right now to be updating those
[1:49:33] studies and we anticipate being
[1:49:34] able to reach out to council
[1:49:34] offices in the coming months to
[1:49:38] discuss those more for future
[1:49:39] action at council.
[1:49:43] This particular item as you are
[1:49:43] aware does not include that
[1:49:44] discussion but citywide
[1:49:48] department impact fees do apply
[1:49:49] to all new development unless
[1:49:49] certain exemptions are
[1:49:52] specified in the ordinance.
[1:49:53] I do want to take and I
[1:49:53] apologize for taking your time
[1:49:54] on this.
[1:49:57] I do think it's important to
[1:50:01] note that sb 79 you know to
[1:50:01] everybody here that's in
[1:50:05] supportive housing we are to
[1:50:06] and it is a little bit of a
[1:50:09] false narrative to say it's sb
[1:50:10] 79 or no housing.
[1:50:10] We have lots of other housing
[1:50:11] programs in place and in many
[1:50:15] instances a lot of these places
[1:50:16] have exceeded the densities
[1:50:19] that are called for by sb 79.
[1:50:20] And we are also rapidly you
[1:50:24] know with the urgency updating
[1:50:24] our capacity for new homes
[1:50:29] without needing to implement sb
[1:50:29] 79.
[1:50:30] So you know for everybody
[1:50:30] that's you know kind of I
[1:50:33] because I hear it right And I
[1:50:34] think it's important for us to
[1:50:35] acknowledge the importance of
[1:50:38] housing in these locations.
[1:50:39] These are areas that we agree
[1:50:43] are good for housing and our
[1:50:44] housing our community plans
[1:50:47] have shown that by adding
[1:50:48] the densities there and we do
[1:50:49] continue to do that as a good
[1:50:56] actor city in the housing space
[1:50:56] .
[1:50:56] Yes.
[1:50:57] No, completely agreed And I
[1:50:58] also think there's a huge value
[1:51:00] in local planning.
[1:51:01] I don't think that Sacramento
[1:51:02] should plan everything for us
[1:51:05] because like I said, we know
[1:51:05] where some of the evacuation
[1:51:06] routes are.
[1:51:06] Colorado is only going to be a
[1:51:10] two lane road and Scripps Ranch
[1:51:10] for a very long time.
[1:51:11] And so if we take 500 houses
[1:51:12] moored there, how are we going
[1:51:12] to evacuate people?
[1:51:15] So I do understand that we need
[1:51:15] local planning.
[1:51:16] But you're right, we have been
[1:51:18] more permissive than many other
[1:51:19] cities and we do need housing.
[1:51:20] I understand that too,
[1:51:21] especially senior housing.
[1:51:24] If we can build more of that we
[1:51:25] need dedicated senior housing
[1:51:25] especially up in my district.
[1:51:26] That would be great.
[1:51:27] I'd like to move into it now
[1:51:28] but I've been told them too
[1:51:28] young.
[1:51:33] So what I really wanted to hear
[1:51:33] what we're going to do with
[1:51:37] with tiff is coming up soon.
[1:51:38] i guess there we're not going
[1:51:39] to have our diffuse updated
[1:51:39] before JULY 1st.
[1:51:42] We will not.
[1:51:42] Okay.
[1:51:43] Um I'm especially concerned
[1:51:48] about parks and fire stations
[1:51:52] so I have somewhat good news
[1:51:53] for you Council member We will
[1:51:56] be bringing the dif annual
[1:51:57] report to this council probably
[1:51:58] in a matter of a couple of
[1:52:02] weeks and so we can have a much
[1:52:03] more robust conversation about
[1:52:06] the available funding and any
[1:52:06] potential changes going
[1:52:07] forward.
[1:52:07] >> Okay.
[1:52:07] Okay.
[1:52:08] Thank you.
[1:52:11] I appreciate it.
[1:52:11] I appreciate all the work and
[1:52:12] the questions my colleagues
[1:52:13] asked and I'll support those.
[1:52:19] >> Thank you.
[1:52:19] >> Thank you.
[1:52:20] Councilmember Van Walbert.
[1:52:21] We'll go next to Councilmember
[1:52:21] Campo.
[1:52:21] Thank you.
[1:52:23] Council PRESIDENT.
[1:52:24] Thank you to members of
[1:52:25] the public who came in and
[1:52:25] spoke today and the members of
[1:52:26] the public who came in
[1:52:28] virtually as well for this late
[1:52:28] night meeting.
[1:52:29] I want to thank the Planning
[1:52:30] Department for their quick work
[1:52:32] given the timelines that we
[1:52:33] have in front of us.
[1:52:34] I know that this was on top of
[1:52:37] all their extra work.
[1:52:38] I think that as as we see
[1:52:39] the approach in front of us a
[1:52:42] measured one one that we know
[1:52:43] is not entirely within our
[1:52:43] control.
[1:52:47] And hearing from the public and
[1:52:48] we've learned from things like
[1:52:51] the edu bonus program and other
[1:52:52] policies that well-intentioned
[1:52:53] policies can still have
[1:52:56] unintended consequences.
[1:52:57] And so whether that's
[1:52:58] speculation in a low resource
[1:53:01] area or projects that do not
[1:53:06] take into account the necessary
[1:53:07] infrastructure for emergencies
[1:53:08] as Councilmember von Wilbur
[1:53:11] pointed out, we have to be very
[1:53:12] deliberate.
[1:53:13] And I think what Blum has put
[1:53:16] in front of us and your team is
[1:53:16] very, very deliberate.
[1:53:17] The alternative plan that
[1:53:21] you've got here it buys us time
[1:53:22] so that we can be precise at
[1:53:25] the neighborhood level which is
[1:53:26] what we hear from our
[1:53:27] neighborhoods.
[1:53:27] It's what we hear from our
[1:53:30] community planning groups and
[1:53:31] you know, the state will tell
[1:53:32] us to build more near transit.
[1:53:35] I've supported many projects
[1:53:36] near transit and we can grow
[1:53:36] those thoughtfully and with
[1:53:40] the neighbors at the center of
[1:53:41] those changes And I absolutely
[1:53:42] admire Councilmember Whitburn
[1:53:42] for advocating for his
[1:53:45] neighbors and the people his
[1:53:46] constituents.
[1:53:49] If there's if there's one
[1:53:50] person who has close to as much
[1:53:50] transit in his district as him,
[1:53:54] it might be me with the green
[1:53:54] Line.
[1:53:55] And I love seeing transit
[1:53:55] oriented housing going up.
[1:53:59] We've cut ribbons together and
[1:53:59] right now a lot of neighbors
[1:54:03] throughout San Diego are
[1:54:03] rightfully concerned a process
[1:54:07] that they had a lot more say in
[1:54:08] for for a long time now
[1:54:09] Sacramento is is making
[1:54:13] decisions there.
[1:54:13] We're seeing neighbors that are
[1:54:14] concerned with how they'll
[1:54:17] evacuate or in an emergency and
[1:54:18] if maybe their neighbors are
[1:54:19] going to take a property that
[1:54:22] is worth a lot more Now and
[1:54:23] sell it to an investor if
[1:54:24] the sidewalk and pipes will
[1:54:27] hold up for new development.
[1:54:28] They're concerned about losing
[1:54:29] the life that they've worked
[1:54:29] hard for and save for and
[1:54:32] invested in and maintained and
[1:54:33] want to pass on to their family
[1:54:34] members.
[1:54:34] And you can be concerned about
[1:54:37] those real possibilities.
[1:54:37] But we have to acknowledge
[1:54:38] the sheer number of people that
[1:54:41] don't have that safe space yet
[1:54:42] for them, that home for them
[1:54:43] that can barely afford to live
[1:54:44] here let alone own a home.
[1:54:47] Those individuals and families
[1:54:48] are rightfully concerned that
[1:54:48] the opportunity to live in this
[1:54:52] city will be unattainable.
[1:54:52] I think our planning department
[1:54:53] does a good job of trying to
[1:54:56] create those attainable
[1:54:57] opportunities.
[1:54:58] And I would just point to
[1:55:02] the fact that the State of
[1:55:02] California could really get rid
[1:55:06] of some serious laws that are
[1:55:07] in the way of building new
[1:55:11] condos, of building purchasable
[1:55:11] properties and whether it's
[1:55:16] people who want to use
[1:55:17] litigation to delay all that,
[1:55:17] whether it's attorneys who have
[1:55:22] big fees to make Well after
[1:55:22] buildings are built.
[1:55:23] There's lots of things that are
[1:55:24] in the way of homeownership and
[1:55:26] I certainly don't think that
[1:55:27] the city planning department is
[1:55:27] in the way of homeownership at
[1:55:30] this point.
[1:55:31] This item simply put gives us
[1:55:31] the time.
[1:55:32] i like the way that the council
[1:55:35] PRESIDENT Put it.
[1:55:36] We're going to get everyone to
[1:55:37] the table, give input to
[1:55:40] the neighbors in these
[1:55:41] neighborhoods who are just
[1:55:41] asking to be heard throughout
[1:55:45] the process and that those who
[1:55:46] are still not aware that
[1:55:46] changes MAY be coming down
[1:55:47] the line to get get their
[1:55:50] voices heard.
[1:55:51] I have one question.
[1:55:54] If we did nothing today, what
[1:55:54] would happen on JULY 1st if
[1:55:55] the council does not take
[1:55:59] action today?
[1:56:00] On JULY 1st sb 79 will phase in
[1:56:03] in all areas across the city
[1:56:04] and so the city will be
[1:56:05] required to issue permits for
[1:56:05] the densities identified in
[1:56:09] the staff materials and that
[1:56:10] would be regardless of whatever
[1:56:10] the sandag map is that's
[1:56:14] eventually published that we've
[1:56:14] been discussing.
[1:56:15] It would still be contingent
[1:56:15] upon the sandag maps.
[1:56:18] It would phase in in the areas
[1:56:19] where the sandag map
[1:56:19] identifies.
[1:56:23] We don't have that map yet but
[1:56:23] we do anticipate that it will
[1:56:24] come out before JULY 1st.
[1:56:24] Okay.
[1:56:25] Understood.
[1:56:27] One of the things that I was
[1:56:28] seeing is that there might be
[1:56:31] spots on the map that would be
[1:56:32] essentially included in our
[1:56:33] implementation And then if
[1:56:36] the sandag map changes and it
[1:56:37] doesn't doesn't like map shows
[1:56:38] areas that are not included, we
[1:56:41] might be in a process where we
[1:56:41] see applications for
[1:56:42] development that we would then
[1:56:46] have to pull the permit back or
[1:56:47] we wouldn't be able to pull
[1:56:47] the permit back.
[1:56:48] Given what sandag does correct,
[1:56:51] we anticipate having this
[1:56:51] ending map prior to
[1:56:52] the implementation.
[1:56:52] Okay.
[1:56:56] And so that's and should not
[1:56:57] occur.
[1:56:57] You're not going to speculate
[1:56:58] on whether that might happen
[1:56:58] but I could foresee that it
[1:57:00] might happen And then we'd be
[1:57:05] in a pickle significantly.
[1:57:06] I appreciate that The Planning
[1:57:07] Department has committed to
[1:57:07] including cpc and planning
[1:57:10] groups in the process and has
[1:57:10] worked with them.
[1:57:11] We heard many of them speaking
[1:57:12] today virtually and in person
[1:57:14] and that really matters to me
[1:57:14] as well.
[1:57:15] So thank you very much for that
[1:57:16] and thank you.
[1:57:19] I will support the motion.
[1:57:20] All right.
[1:57:21] Thank you, Councilmember Campo.
[1:57:21] We'll go next to Councilmember
[1:57:22] Moreno.
[1:57:24] Thank you And thank you for
[1:57:24] the presentation and thank you
[1:57:25] to all the members of
[1:57:28] the public who came today to
[1:57:29] speak before this body.
[1:57:33] It's been stated already but I
[1:57:34] would like to reiterate I think
[1:57:38] the city of San Diego has been
[1:57:39] pro housing pro density.
[1:57:43] We've been updating all of our
[1:57:44] plan updates as quickly as we
[1:57:47] possibly can.
[1:57:48] In essence changing the zones
[1:57:53] policy, it's clear to me that
[1:57:54] sb 79 was created for cities
[1:57:57] that are anti-growth growth
[1:57:58] which obviously does not
[1:58:02] represent the city of San Diego
[1:58:03] And I've seen it firsthand
[1:58:03] during the Coastal Commission
[1:58:07] just hearing folks talk.
[1:58:07] It's been pretty shocking to be
[1:58:12] honest how just pro housing
[1:58:12] the city.
[1:58:18] It's not shocking but it's a
[1:58:19] delight to make sure that that
[1:58:20] it goes unnoticed, that
[1:58:21] the city of San Diego is pro
[1:58:22] housing.
[1:58:26] And I say that because it is
[1:58:26] the number one issue.
[1:58:27] When you go out into
[1:58:28] the community and you have town
[1:58:30] halls and you go and you knock
[1:58:31] on doors or even when we're
[1:58:31] having community cleanups
[1:58:35] the number one issue is my rent
[1:58:36] is too high.
[1:58:40] So although I do recognize that
[1:58:40] action is needed today, what
[1:58:45] action we take is what I want
[1:58:49] to really hone in on.
[1:58:50] >> I thought that Councilmember
[1:58:54] weapons request for
[1:58:54] the amendment was very
[1:58:58] reasonable and it's one that I
[1:59:03] am fully in support of And how
[1:59:03] it was mentioned If sandag
[1:59:08] decides to include those three
[1:59:09] corridors good.
[1:59:09] And if they don't will the city
[1:59:13] of San Diego would have done it
[1:59:14] already.
[1:59:18] So that's where I stand on
[1:59:18] that.
[1:59:23] I understand a little bit more
[1:59:23] the reasoning behind and I'm
[1:59:28] just if you could walk me
[1:59:28] through this.
[1:59:32] In regards to low resources or
[1:59:33] low resourced areas you
[1:59:35] mentioned let me just get to
[1:59:40] this You mentioned low resource
[1:59:45] areas The department
[1:59:46] anticipates implementing
[1:59:47] through ongoing community plan
[1:59:50] updates including Mid-City
[1:59:51] Canyon, Otay Mesa with
[1:59:51] additional future planning
[1:59:56] process sources in
[1:59:56] the remaining low resource
[2:00:00] areas Prior to the state law
[2:00:01] requirements going into effect
[2:00:01] in 2030.
[2:00:04] So in essence what you are
[2:00:05] saying is that these low
[2:00:10] resource areas will not have a
[2:00:15] ministerial like process until
[2:00:19] 2032 unless we get to the Otay
[2:00:20] Mesa in mid-city ahead of 2032.
[2:00:24] Or if the council takes an
[2:00:25] action with a two year deal to
[2:00:29] kind of plan prior to that time
[2:00:30] which is 2032 is is the last
[2:00:34] date possible?
[2:00:35] But it could happen sooner but
[2:00:35] it could happen soon.
[2:00:36] Correct?
[2:00:36] Okay.
[2:00:39] And how Because the Otay Mesa
[2:00:44] Nester Community plan update if
[2:00:45] I do you know a quick map in my
[2:00:49] brain that's the last planned
[2:00:49] update for District eight We
[2:00:50] pretty much we've done San
[2:00:54] Isidro Otay Mesa, Southeastern
[2:00:54] Barrio Logan and Otay Mesa
[2:00:59] Nestor's the only 1 A.M. I
[2:00:59] missing another one?
[2:01:00] >> It is the last one for a
[2:01:03] comprehensive plan update.
[2:01:04] There's a variety of ways that
[2:01:08] we can address sb 79 in low
[2:01:09] resource communities including
[2:01:12] specifically any federal and
[2:01:12] Barrio Logan that have more
[2:01:13] recently adopted community
[2:01:17] plans that will require
[2:01:20] additional actions to meet
[2:01:21] the requirements of sb 79.
[2:01:22] I, I don't want to commit to
[2:01:25] what that planning process will
[2:01:26] look like that because that is
[2:01:27] it is quite a few years out
[2:01:30] from now but that could look
[2:01:31] like a specific plan update or
[2:01:35] focus plan amendment.
[2:01:36] Just because we have updated a
[2:01:37] community plan doesn't mean we
[2:01:40] can't go back and revisit it As
[2:01:40] we saw with Uptown Community
[2:01:41] Plan that was adopted in
[2:01:45] the semi recent past and then a
[2:01:46] focused plan amendment was
[2:01:47] brought back that increased
[2:01:50] density significantly in that
[2:01:50] area as well.
[2:01:51] So in my district your you just
[2:01:52] stated that Barrio Logan and
[2:01:54] San Ysidro can potentially see
[2:01:55] higher density through
[2:01:58] ministerial process of sb 79
[2:02:03] but they they would not be able
[2:02:03] to utilize the ministerial
[2:02:07] process unless they come
[2:02:08] forward and do a zone change in
[2:02:13] less in less.
[2:02:13] This Council takes action prior
[2:02:14] to that time.
[2:02:18] So prior to that time the city
[2:02:19] planning to partment will be
[2:02:22] working on what you said.
[2:02:23] >> Sorry to interrupt you but
[2:02:24] you just said you can't promise
[2:02:27] You can't promise how quick you
[2:02:28] will update correct?
[2:02:28] Correct.
[2:02:29] Correct.
[2:02:29] Okay.
[2:02:32] 2032 is the latest date before
[2:02:33] sb 79 requires that all areas
[2:02:36] be phased in.
[2:02:40] >> Okay that's 20 32 is six
[2:02:40] years from now.
[2:02:45] >> Yes.
[2:02:46] >> 20, 32 and six years from
[2:02:53] now which in our world seems
[2:02:54] like two weeks but in
[2:02:54] the development world seems
[2:02:58] like 200 years.
[2:02:59] So and I am of the belief that
[2:03:04] time kills all project x I am a
[2:03:04] little bit more comfortable I
[2:03:08] am because we've had so many
[2:03:09] plan updates and because of
[2:03:10] the commitment not only of this
[2:03:10] I.
[2:03:13] >> I always say this the mayor
[2:03:14] and I do not get along and we
[2:03:16] don't see eye to eye on 99% of
[2:03:20] the things housing we are 100%
[2:03:21] lockstep.
[2:03:21] So I do trust and obviously I
[2:03:26] trust you Heidi I do trust that
[2:03:27] we would get out of the way if
[2:03:31] you will, in when it comes to
[2:03:31] housing.
[2:03:32] I don't know what the next
[2:03:34] administration is going to look
[2:03:35] like and that's what I'm always
[2:03:36] looking towards.
[2:03:40] And so because I am very much
[2:03:44] pro housing and I do want
[2:03:45] the city to get out of the way,
[2:03:45] I do want my daughter to be
[2:03:49] able to live in the city of San
[2:03:49] Diego when she is ready to
[2:03:50] purchase a home if that is what
[2:03:54] she wants And just given what
[2:03:58] we have before us, I'm going to
[2:04:02] be a no vote on this particular
[2:04:03] item and I'm going to hope and
[2:04:07] pray that that tag adds
[2:04:07] the four corridors and that
[2:04:08] that administration updates our
[2:04:12] tod policies.
[2:04:12] So just standing on principle
[2:04:16] with this and knowing that my
[2:04:17] my vote means something, I'm
[2:04:20] going to be respectfully voting
[2:04:20] no on this.
[2:04:25] Thank you.
[2:04:26] Thank you.
[2:04:30] Councilmember Moreno I'm going
[2:04:31] to try something that is a
[2:04:35] little bit unorthodox because
[2:04:36] it's 815.
[2:04:40] Are you a no vote?
[2:04:40] Okay.
[2:04:41] So we don't have the votes to
[2:04:45] pass the motion so I'm not
[2:04:48] going to call for the vote.
[2:04:54] It takes five right, even
[2:04:54] though it's a majority of who's
[2:04:55] here.
[2:04:58] So I'm going to call for a 15
[2:05:02] minute recess to figure out
[2:05:07] whether there is a path forward
[2:06:51] so
[2:06:58] so city attorney the kind of
[2:06:59] talking it out So I'm not going
[2:07:02] to get a final bit I know we're
[2:07:03] all motivated to see if we can
[2:07:09] get someplace but I will be
[2:07:10] asking you I need to explain
[2:07:15] whatever the new approaches and
[2:07:53] then if I agree
[2:09:03] with
[2:11:15] that I
[2:24:22] know it's
[2:26:22] not
[2:32:19] I
[2:42:08] know going
[2:44:09] back
[2:47:37] to
[2:49:00] and and
[2:51:01] you
[2:52:35] and
[2:53:18] me
[2:54:22] and them and you know
[2:54:41] I've never I've I've never.
[2:54:45] All right folks And one hour
[2:54:49] and 1528 25 minute.
[2:54:50] Longest recess of my council
[2:54:53] presidency and we're ready to
[2:54:54] come back.
[2:54:54] This is important stuff.
[2:54:57] So first.
[2:54:58] >> Clerk please call the roll.
[2:54:58] Thank you.
[2:55:01] Council PRESIDENT Council
[2:55:02] member Campbell here Council
[2:55:02] Member Whitburn here.
[2:55:06] Council member Foster Council
[2:55:07] Member Yvonne Wolpert Council
[2:55:11] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Council
[2:55:12] Member You hear Council Member
[2:55:16] Moreno Resident Council member
[2:55:16] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT
[2:55:21] LaCava present.
[2:55:21] All right so we have a quorum
[2:55:25] and everybody is sitting there
[2:55:26] chairs So having made
[2:55:27] the motion that did not seem to
[2:55:30] have the votes.
[2:55:35] Staff and attorneys you heard
[2:55:36] the comments comments from
[2:55:36] the public.
[2:55:39] You heard the comments from
[2:55:40] the council members.
[2:55:41] I have deferred to you in
[2:55:45] the original motion and so I
[2:55:46] will once again to defer to you
[2:55:49] to come up with and
[2:55:49] alternatives that you think
[2:55:50] might be more palatable from
[2:55:54] the comments that you heard an
[2:55:54] hour or two ago.
[2:55:59] >> So Heidi, what what can you
[2:56:00] offer us?
[2:56:00] >> Okay.
[2:56:01] Yes, Thank you, Council
[2:56:01] PRESIDENT.
[2:56:04] Thank you for the deference.
[2:56:05] Very honored by that based off
[2:56:08] of the comments that we've
[2:56:09] heard from the council and
[2:56:10] the members of the public, I
[2:56:13] believe we have a solution.
[2:56:13] >> Okay.
[2:56:14] So that solution would be to
[2:56:18] remove recital e which
[2:56:18] references the specific toddy
[2:56:22] qualifying transit stops and
[2:56:23] then moves recital f into
[2:56:28] the new recital e which just
[2:56:28] says the two d qualifying
[2:56:29] transit stops will be the stops
[2:56:33] as identified by stand in by
[2:56:33] sandag in the map.
[2:56:38] Now in that action of
[2:56:38] the ordinance we have also
[2:56:39] proposed some additional
[2:56:42] changes.
[2:56:42] The original ordinance that was
[2:56:43] before the Council made
[2:56:47] reference to maps that included
[2:56:51] stops that staff had
[2:56:51] identified.
[2:56:52] But given that sandag MAY
[2:56:57] identify other stops, we have
[2:56:58] removed reference to each of
[2:57:01] the attachments and instead
[2:57:02] referred to the definitions and
[2:57:07] our department and after sandag
[2:57:07] does release the map will
[2:57:11] prepare the maps accordingly
[2:57:12] based off of this Council's
[2:57:12] direction.
[2:57:16] >> Okay, I'm comfortable with
[2:57:16] that.
[2:57:21] That language is now up on
[2:57:22] the screen and I believe hard
[2:57:26] copies are being passed out So
[2:57:27] people can look at the ads that
[2:57:30] are being made So I will move
[2:57:36] this recommendation as amended.
[2:57:36] COUNCILMAN Campbell, can I get
[2:57:37] a second?
[2:57:40] I'll be happy to second that.
[2:57:40] >> All right.
[2:57:41] Any comments, Councilmember
[2:57:44] Whitburn Thank you.
[2:57:45] Council PRESIDENT Just so that
[2:57:50] I cared for the record confirm
[2:57:54] what this does We're going to
[2:57:55] strike recital e all together.
[2:57:58] Tonight's action will not
[2:57:59] identify the transit oriented
[2:58:03] development stops in the city
[2:58:04] of San Diego.
[2:58:04] We're going to leave that to
[2:58:07] back that is essentially what
[2:58:08] that says.
[2:58:08] >> That is correct.
[2:58:10] You are much more succinct than
[2:58:10] I was.
[2:58:15] Thank you.
[2:58:15] Thank you.
[2:58:20] I also want to say that along
[2:58:24] with this change my office is
[2:58:25] going to take the lead on
[2:58:26] writing a letter to said Dag
[2:58:29] requesting that the transit
[2:58:30] oriented development stops
[2:58:34] include San Diego trolley stops
[2:58:35] and all bus stops served by
[2:58:38] full time dedicated bus slides
[2:58:39] and alcohol Boulevard
[2:58:40] University Avenue and Park
[2:58:43] Boulevard with bus service
[2:58:44] operating at a frequency of 15
[2:58:48] minutes or less during weekday
[2:58:49] peak commute hours by office
[2:58:50] will take the lead on writing
[2:58:53] that letter.
[2:58:54] I anticipate that there will be
[2:58:55] other council members who will
[2:58:58] sign Add to that letter and I
[2:58:58] really want to thank
[2:59:03] the Council PRESIDENT And my
[2:59:03] colleagues for their patience
[2:59:04] as we worked out a path forward
[2:59:04] on this.
[2:59:08] I want to take the Be Democrats
[2:59:08] and other pro housing advocates
[2:59:12] for their input on this.
[2:59:13] I want to thank the mayor's
[2:59:17] office, our housing planning
[2:59:17] department and our city
[2:59:21] attorney's office for walking
[2:59:22] us through this approach.
[2:59:26] I think this is a path forward
[2:59:26] that makes sense that we can
[2:59:27] get behind tonight.
[2:59:27] So thank you.
[2:59:31] Council PRESIDENT All right.
[2:59:31] Thank you.
[2:59:32] Council Member Whitburn Council
[2:59:32] Member Campo Thank you.
[2:59:38] Council PRESIDENT Staff Well
[2:59:40] I'd say use as many words but
[2:59:40] it's functionally different
[2:59:41] than the staff's recommendation
[2:59:42] And what we have in front of us
[2:59:44] right now what is functionally
[2:59:45] different is that there is no
[2:59:49] reference to specific stops and
[2:59:50] there is full deference to
[2:59:54] the sandag maps program So
[2:59:55] there is no reference in this
[2:59:59] Council adopted action to
[2:59:59] the qualifying stops.
[3:00:00] The reason why staff had
[3:00:04] prepared the maps is because it
[3:00:05] is informative for the council
[3:00:05] to be able to see
[3:00:08] the applicability of the areas
[3:00:13] But given the challenging
[3:00:14] situation of the timing of
[3:00:15] the release of the maps we were
[3:00:18] not in a position to be able to
[3:00:18] wait until the release of
[3:00:19] the sandag maps to bring this
[3:00:20] item forward to the Council.
[3:00:27] Certainly So for people who are
[3:00:27] online at 820 and now are
[3:00:31] looking at 940 there I think
[3:00:32] functionally functionally would
[3:00:36] you say that or staff's
[3:00:37] recommendation is here other
[3:00:37] than the informative ness of
[3:00:41] what some of the recitals said
[3:00:42] ?
[3:00:42] But functionally it's the same
[3:00:43] thing.
[3:00:43] I would agree with that
[3:00:44] characterization.
[3:00:44] Okay.
[3:00:44] Thank you.
[3:00:46] Happy to be in support Figure
[3:00:47] Councilmember Campo I rush to
[3:00:51] make the motion I did want to
[3:00:52] check with the city attorney to
[3:00:52] make sure that you have
[3:00:56] carefully thought this through
[3:00:56] from a legal perspective.
[3:00:57] Yes, Our office has no legal
[3:01:01] concerns.
[3:01:01] Thank you.
[3:01:01] Okay.
[3:01:02] My apologies for not asking
[3:01:03] that question before I made my
[3:01:06] motion.
[3:01:07] Councilmember Whitman, you're
[3:01:08] back on the line.
[3:01:08] Thank you.
[3:01:09] Council PRESIDENT To elaborate
[3:01:10] a little bit the question that
[3:01:14] Councilmember Campo brought up
[3:01:15] just to highlight what we've
[3:01:19] done here.
[3:01:25] Recital e originally said that
[3:01:25] the only toad stops at the city
[3:01:26] of San Diego are San Diego
[3:01:30] Trolley stops at four bus stops
[3:01:31] located at a few different
[3:01:31] locations.
[3:01:34] It was restrictive at limiting
[3:01:40] And what this does is remove
[3:01:40] that limiting nature.
[3:01:44] It defers to say a dig at
[3:01:45] the with the letter that my
[3:01:46] office will take the lead on we
[3:01:49] will indicate what certainly my
[3:01:50] preference would be to see at
[3:01:54] it at any other council members
[3:01:55] who wish to join it on that
[3:01:56] Perfectly good just as a matter
[3:01:58] of functional ity I think
[3:01:59] that's right But I, I get
[3:02:00] the purpose of wanting to
[3:02:03] remove the specific enumeration
[3:02:04] or listing of what you were
[3:02:07] talking about Totally good and
[3:02:08] thank you.
[3:02:08] Happy to vote yes.
[3:02:09] Okay.
[3:02:09] All right.
[3:02:13] So with that we do have
[3:02:16] the motion that's actually two
[3:02:17] pages I think that's the front
[3:02:17] page.
[3:02:21] There's hard copies and I think
[3:02:22] there's hard copies in the back
[3:02:22] or something like that.
[3:02:23] Yeah.
[3:02:26] So with that.
[3:02:31] >> Clerk please call the roll.
[3:02:32] I have sir I have started
[3:02:32] the voting system.
[3:02:39] Please cast your vote.
[3:02:52] Oh you okay And that passes
[3:02:57] five, 5444 people absent but
[3:02:58] that does not sound right Want
[3:03:02] to do it again?
[3:03:03] Yes We'll start The voting
[3:03:03] system will start again.
[3:03:04] I've started the voting system
[3:03:09] once more.
[3:03:14] Okay.
[3:03:15] Can Council member Campbell
[3:03:18] would you like to vote orally?
[3:03:18] Okay.
[3:03:23] I vote yes.
[3:03:24] Oh, there it is.
[3:03:24] Okay.
[3:03:25] Okay.
[3:03:30] Okay.
[3:03:34] And that passes 6360 with three
[3:03:35] Council members absent Council
[3:03:35] member Foster Council PRESIDENT
[3:03:36] Pro Tem Lee and Council member
[3:03:39] Yellow Rivera All right.
[3:03:42] >> We have approval of
[3:03:43] the first reading of
[3:03:43] the ordinance So thank you
[3:03:47] everybody that stuck around.
[3:03:48] Thank you for your initial
[3:03:48] input.
[3:03:52] Thank you to staff navigating
[3:03:53] this little thorny question
[3:03:56] because sandag had not yet done
[3:03:57] its work which would have made
[3:03:58] it a little bit easier and more
[3:04:01] straightforward.
[3:04:02] With that we will now adjourn
[3:04:03] Council to the regularly
[3:04:06] scheduled council meeting on
[3:04:09] Monday MAY 11th, 2026 at 10