[0:21] , you
[1:30] and I and
[1:30] .
[1:30] >> All right.
[1:37] Good morning everyone.
[1:38] I will now call the city
[1:38] council meeting of Tuesday JULY
[1:39] 7th, 2026 to order the clerk
[1:43] please call the roll.
[1:44] Thank you.
[1:44] Council PRESIDENT Council
[1:45] member Campbell Council member
[1:49] Whitburn here Council Member
[1:50] Foster here Council Member Von
[1:50] Wilpert Council PRESIDENT Pro
[1:56] Tem Lee Council Member Campos
[1:57] here Council Member Moreno
[1:57] Present Council Member Eli
[2:01] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT
[2:02] LaCava present Also taking
[2:03] the meeting our Chief Deputy
[2:06] City Attorney Cory New for
[2:07] independent budget analyst
[2:08] Charles Monica and myself for
[2:08] City clerk Diana Fuentes Thank
[2:12] you Council PRESIDENT All right
[2:13] thank you MADAM City Clerk
[2:13] acquirements now present we
[2:14] will begin this morning with
[2:17] the land acknowledgment and
[2:17] the Pledge of Allegiance led by
[2:23] council member Campbell please
[2:29] stand if you're able.
[2:30] We respectfully acknowledge
[2:30] that the nation are
[2:35] the original inhabitants of
[2:36] the Unceded land now known as
[2:36] San Diego.
[2:41] Despite enduring the horrors of
[2:42] genocide and colonization,
[2:43] the community spirit remains
[2:43] unbroken.
[2:47] We honor the resilience of
[2:48] their ancestors who fought to
[2:48] protect their culture and land
[2:53] And today they carry their
[2:54] legacy forward ensuring that
[2:55] their traditions continue to
[2:59] thrive in gratitude and
[2:59] strength.
[3:00] We stand with the culmination
[3:05] connected to our past and
[3:06] committed to a thriving future.
[3:06] Please raise the flag and put
[3:10] your right hand over your
[3:10] heart.
[3:11] >> I pledge allegiance to
[3:16] the flag of the United States
[3:16] of America and to a republic
[3:17] for which it stands one nation
[3:21] under GOD, indivisible with
[3:26] liberty and justice for all.
[3:27] >> All right.
[3:33] So the clerk please go over how
[3:34] the public can offer their
[3:34] testimony.
[3:34] >> Thank you.
[3:35] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to
[3:36] highlight the slide on
[3:38] the screen that reviews how
[3:39] the public can offer their
[3:40] public testimony during today's
[3:40] meeting.
[3:41] Please note the time
[3:41] allocations for proclamations
[3:44] and consent items for meeting
[3:44] management purposes The order
[3:45] can be found at the agenda
[3:50] Summary online or at the table
[3:50] in the back of the room.
[3:51] If you are in person please
[3:52] complete the speakers live Look
[3:54] at the entrance of chambers and
[3:55] bring it to the front of
[3:55] the room.
[3:56] There have been no organized
[4:00] presentations submitted for
[4:00] this morning session and
[4:01] council ambassadors are
[4:02] available near the entrance of
[4:05] chambers and can assist with
[4:06] questions and speakers lips No
[4:07] further in-person testimony
[4:10] will be taken once the Council
[4:11] begins virtual testimony.
[4:12] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT
[4:12] All right.
[4:12] Thank you.
[4:16] City Clerk And as a reminder
[4:17] this is actually day two of our
[4:21] implementation of new public
[4:22] comment rules under state Bill
[4:22] 707 yesterday seem to have gone
[4:27] very well.
[4:27] There seems to be all
[4:28] indications that they will go
[4:29] well as well And as a friendly
[4:32] reminder when you're speaking
[4:33] to a docket item please focus
[4:33] your comments on that item not
[4:37] an agenda Public comment is
[4:38] your opportunity to speak more
[4:39] broadly about anything under
[4:42] the city of San Diego Purview.
[4:43] So with that we will now
[4:44] dispense with the approval of
[4:49] the proclamation item.
[4:50] >> Please proceed with public
[4:50] comment.
[4:50] Thank you.
[4:51] Council PRESIDENT.
[4:52] The public comment period for
[4:54] proclamation items is now open
[4:54] .
[4:54] Each speaker will have one
[4:55] minute per item per person.
[4:58] If you'd like to speak on three
[4:58] or more items there's only one
[4:59] item on the agenda You would
[5:00] have a maximum of three
[5:00] minutes.
[5:03] Those participating virtually
[5:03] that are part please be sure to
[5:08] submit to raise your hand now
[5:08] if you were wanting to speak on
[5:09] proclamations we did not
[5:10] receive any comments.
[5:14] Floyd Johnson If you can please
[5:15] come forward after that will be
[5:15] allegedly order You'll be
[5:18] speaking on item s5a1ta Turner
[5:42] Day Floyd Well I'm here on
[5:48] behalf of c Attorney.
[5:48] She's setting out some
[5:49] acknowledgments today and I
[5:53] just want to say that I'm very
[5:53] happy to be a part of her life
[5:54] and have her be a part of mine.
[5:58] I've known her for years when I
[5:58] first worked for the city when
[5:59] i was fresh out of high school
[6:02] she was my supervisor very
[6:07] energetic, very chatty, tactful
[6:07] .
[6:08] You know, she has a lot of
[6:08] gumption, you know, very
[6:09] encouraging.
[6:13] You know, she kind of like took
[6:13] me under her wing and like
[6:14] treated me like a little
[6:17] brother.
[6:18] So I'm just happy to be here.
[6:19] On behalf of her accepting her
[6:22] award which she earned very,
[6:22] very much.
[6:27] And that's all I got to say.
[6:28] >> Have a good day.
[6:28] Thank you.
[6:29] Allegedly I don't If you can
[6:39] please come forward actually
[6:40] thought it said Tina Turner
[6:42] first when I realized she's not
[6:48] here anymore.
[6:48] >> My problem is when you guys
[6:49] do proclamations and I'm always
[6:52] going to say this is that it's
[6:52] just sad that there's things
[6:53] that just get brushed under
[6:54] the rug that we don't talk
[6:57] about like different murders
[6:58] and rapes that are happening at
[7:02] the parks and recreations And
[7:03] you know we can appreciate
[7:07] these people but then it's like
[7:08] if we don't acknowledge
[7:08] the things that are taking
[7:12] place there at different parks
[7:13] throughout the city and you
[7:17] guys, you know, don't consent
[7:18] great on making them safer and
[7:19] putting lights and things like
[7:21] that that I feel like you know,
[7:22] we need to acknowledge those
[7:27] things and instead of, you
[7:27] know, pretending like they
[7:28] don't happen because we're you
[7:31] know, supporting somebody which
[7:32] is great But at the same time I
[7:36] just feel like like with Tent
[7:37] City, you know, all these
[7:37] things get brushed under
[7:40] the rug and it's very
[7:41] disturbing to me That does
[7:42] include proclamations here in
[7:46] council chambers going to those
[7:47] participating remotely starting
[7:47] with Francine Maxwell If you
[7:50] can please unmute Francine
[7:51] Maxwell Southeastern San Diego
[7:56] well deserved proclamation for
[8:00] City where she has exemplified
[8:00] black excellence working for
[8:01] the city of San Diego No matter
[8:05] how much she went to leadership
[8:06] and shared what was happening
[8:11] especially under the Chief Race
[8:11] Inequity office when we had it
[8:15] now with under the idea with
[8:15] the executive director none of
[8:16] the things that Tia brought
[8:19] forward has changed over
[8:20] the years.
[8:20] But she persevered.
[8:24] She continue to teach Her
[8:25] programing was second to none.
[8:29] This is such a great day for
[8:29] her to receive a proclamation
[8:30] in the city of San Diego.
[8:33] The eight largest city because
[8:38] of what she had to endure in
[8:39] the eighth largest city working
[8:39] with parking Rick and she was
[8:42] blessed to get a transfer and
[8:43] she went and finished what she
[8:43] needed to do.
[8:47] We are excited for her next
[8:48] chapter and it's been a
[8:52] privilege to watch and learn
[8:53] what things could be in this
[8:53] city.
[8:53] Thank you.
[8:54] Thank you.
[8:55] Next is Peggy Walker.
[9:00] >> If you can please unmute I'm
[9:01] sorry I didn't mean to raise my
[9:04] hand.
[9:05] >> Blair Beckman If you can
[9:10] please unmute by Blair Beckman.
[9:10] When I saw this proclamation it
[9:14] seemed kind of interesting.
[9:15] i was hoping someone like
[9:16] Francine Maxwell would approve
[9:18] public comment and she has now
[9:19] have a history and
[9:20] understanding of this person
[9:24] and it sounds like she's done
[9:25] good work a lot of good work
[9:25] over the years.
[9:26] So many years So
[9:29] congratulations to her work in
[9:29] life and what she'll be doing
[9:30] next.
[9:33] Thank you.
[9:34] >> Thank you.
[9:34] That concludes public comment
[9:35] on the proclamation items.
[9:35] All right.
[9:36] Thank you.
[9:38] City Clerk.
[9:38] And with that I'll turn over to
[9:39] council members for questions.
[9:43] Comments and entertain a motion
[9:44] and we'll start with Council
[9:48] member Foster Yes, Thank you
[9:52] Council PRESIDENT And I would
[9:53] like to provide comments for
[9:58] item as I'm sorry for item 32
[9:58] your Turner Day today I'm proud
[10:02] to join the mayor in
[10:03] recognizing Ted Turner for more
[10:06] than 38 years of dedicated
[10:07] service to the city of San
[10:08] Diego throughout her career to
[10:12] exemplify public service by
[10:13] showing up for residents
[10:13] building relationships and
[10:17] creating programs that brought
[10:18] families and communities
[10:19] together through parks and
[10:22] recreation to serve communities
[10:23] across every single council
[10:23] district and worked at
[10:26] recreation recreation centers
[10:27] throughout San Diego including
[10:31] Paradise Hills Skyline Hills,
[10:32] Martin Luther King Jr, Linda
[10:36] Vista, Scripps Ranch, Miramar
[10:37] Isa, La Hoya, Tierra Santa and
[10:41] many others to help bring
[10:42] meaningful programs and events
[10:45] to life including the first
[10:45] annual Juneteenth Festival at
[10:48] Skyline Hills Recreation Center
[10:49] the first Cackle Barry Festival
[10:50] nighttime egg hunt at Tears
[10:53] down a recreation center in
[10:54] summer meal programing for
[10:54] children and families.
[10:58] She also stepped up to critical
[10:59] moments including helping set
[10:59] up Scripps Ranch Recreation
[11:00] Center to support fema
[11:03] operations during the Cedar
[11:04] Fire some years ago.
[11:09] Tia's impact can be seen in
[11:09] the programs she helped lead
[11:10] and the community partnership
[11:10] she built among city
[11:13] departments, schools, community
[11:14] organizations, public officials
[11:18] and neighborhood stakeholders.
[11:19] While her service reached
[11:19] across San Diego, Tia has
[11:23] always remained rooted in
[11:24] Council District four as a
[11:24] lifelong resident and Lincoln
[11:28] Park homeowner a proud Lincoln
[11:28] High School graduate and
[11:32] the parent of two Lincoln
[11:32] graduates.
[11:33] Tia your legacy will live in
[11:37] the lasting difference you have
[11:37] made in the lives of San Diego
[11:41] residents especially
[11:42] the families and communities of
[11:43] District four.
[11:46] Thank you for all you have done
[11:47] for our community and I wish
[11:51] you the very best in retirement
[11:52] .
[11:52] >> Three If you would like to
[12:10] say a few words please.
[12:15] Well well first given that I
[12:20] could go and to you because you
[12:20] guys help I run Amazing city I
[12:24] in my heart is for I don't I
[12:25] don't know what to say I don't
[12:26] have the words to express how I
[12:30] feel I'm just grateful that I
[12:35] received a job with the city
[12:38] and I got to work 38 years and
[12:42] I'm thankful for everything and
[12:45] I don't have any words.
[12:46] >> I'm just grateful.
[12:55] Thank you so to you thank you
[12:56] for those words.
[13:00] >> And again just on behalf of
[13:01] District four, just thank you
[13:02] for everything that you have
[13:06] done for our community.
[13:06] I know as you retire you will
[13:07] not be going anywhere.
[13:10] We will see you actively
[13:11] throughout the district and
[13:11] the community.
[13:12] So thank you for everything
[13:15] that you have done And so with
[13:16] that council PRESIDENT I move
[13:20] our proclamations or
[13:25] proclamation sorry for we have
[13:25] a motion by Councilmember
[13:26] Foster to move the proclamation
[13:27] and will go to council member
[13:30] Ella Oh actually for the record
[13:33] that was item s501 but we have
[13:39] a motion by council member
[13:40] Foster to move as 5 or 1 and we
[13:41] will go next to council member
[13:43] Ella Rivera Thank you Council
[13:46] PRESIDENT I wanted to Second
[13:47] Councilmember Foster's motion
[13:51] and express my gratitude as
[13:52] well to MS. Turner for her
[13:52] service to the City
[13:56] Councilmember Foster said it
[14:00] very, very well but I just one
[14:01] wanted to say thank you for
[14:01] your service to the Mid-City
[14:02] Community City Heights Rec
[14:05] Center, Mid-City Gym and
[14:09] Mid-City Police Station and
[14:10] then you know I was listening
[14:15] to your comments here and you
[14:16] said you got to have a job for
[14:16] 38 years.
[14:20] You earned the job and you kept
[14:21] the job because you were doing
[14:24] incredible work and
[14:25] the gratitude that you
[14:25] expressed here just know that
[14:29] it's it's right back at you.
[14:30] 38 years is an incredible
[14:30] amount of time to dedicate to
[14:34] the city And I was thinking
[14:35] about some of the programs that
[14:38] were named that you helped
[14:39] support and those are you
[14:44] helped create lifelong memories
[14:44] for folks.
[14:45] And when our city staff pours
[14:48] love and our parks and rec
[14:49] centers it has such an
[14:53] incredible impact on
[14:53] communities.
[14:54] I know you know that But
[14:54] the young people who grow up
[14:58] there and will always remember
[14:58] fondly the experiences they had
[15:02] the seniors who felt by and by
[15:03] and connection there.
[15:03] It's just really, really
[15:07] important work And so thank you
[15:08] and just know that you are
[15:09] grateful and we are grateful
[15:13] for your service.
[15:13] >> Thank you.
[15:13] All right.
[15:14] Thank you, Council members.
[15:18] So again, we have a motion by
[15:19] Councilmember Foster and
[15:19] the second by council member
[15:20] Eli Rivera to move
[15:20] the proclamation item.
[15:23] We'll go next to council member
[15:23] Autumn Walbert.
[15:24] Thank you very much.
[15:27] And I would also want to thank
[15:27] you for your service to our
[15:28] community.
[15:28] I mean the Parks and Rec
[15:32] Department provided joy to our
[15:33] city which is such a huge part
[15:33] of a city.
[15:34] You know we can build roads, we
[15:36] can have public safety but if
[15:37] you can't provide community
[15:37] it's not a city.
[15:41] And so thank you for all you've
[15:41] done.
[15:42] I really appreciate you.
[15:43] And on behalf of the residents
[15:46] subscription and in particular
[15:46] you know my family went through
[15:47] the Cedar Fire and I know how
[15:51] hard you worked to keep the rec
[15:52] center to be a place of refuge,
[15:53] be a place where the community
[15:55] could get information.
[15:56] You know, I've been told many,
[15:56] many stories about people
[16:00] sitting down and being told to
[16:01] call their home voicemails to
[16:02] see if it picked up and if it
[16:05] didn't pick up that meant their
[16:06] house had burned.
[16:07] So I just just know that we so
[16:10] appreciate the over arching
[16:11] dedication you had to our
[16:11] community.
[16:12] Congratulations on your
[16:12] retirement.
[16:15] Thank you for your service on
[16:15] the Municipal Employees
[16:16] Association Board as well.
[16:17] You're not only helped our
[16:17] city, you've helped other
[16:20] people And so thank you for
[16:21] everything and congratulations
[16:21] on your retirement.
[16:25] Don't be a stranger any time.
[16:25] >> Thank you.
[16:26] All right.
[16:26] And Councilmember Yvonne
[16:29] Wolpert not see anybody else in
[16:29] the lights.
[16:30] I'll add my thanks.
[16:33] Thank you for taking a job with
[16:33] the city.
[16:34] Thank you for believing in
[16:35] the city and giving everything
[16:38] that is what a public servant
[16:39] is all about.
[16:42] So we are very blessed to have
[16:43] had you and this is a small
[16:48] token of our opportunity to say
[16:48] thank you with this
[16:49] proclamation And that's that's
[16:50] what we're talking about this
[16:50] morning.
[16:53] So thank you and wish you
[16:54] the very best on your
[16:54] retirement.
[16:55] So with that again we have a
[16:58] motion by Council member Foster
[16:58] a second by council member Eli
[16:59] Rivera.
[17:03] Please call the vote As far as
[17:04] voting system please cast your
[17:07] vote And that passes
[17:08] unanimously 9 to 0.
[17:09] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
[17:09] right.
[17:12] Thank you.
[17:13] With that we will now pause for
[17:13] a photo.
[17:15] This is the time to come on up
[19:25] into the pit and
[20:00] all right with that, we will
[20:04] now proceed with the approval
[20:05] of the consent item.
[20:06] So first, are there any
[20:06] requests to pull an item by
[20:09] the council Not seen any
[20:09] request Clerk Please proceed
[20:10] with public comment on
[20:14] the consent item.
[20:14] Thank you.
[20:15] Council PRESIDENT Please.
[20:15] Now each speaker will have one
[20:19] minute per item per person if
[20:19] you would like to speak on
[20:20] three or more items you'll have
[20:21] a maximum of three minutes.
[20:23] Those participating virtually
[20:24] Please be sure to raise your
[20:25] hand at this time if you would
[20:28] like to be in the virtual queue
[20:28] for consent items.
[20:29] We did receive one comment in
[20:34] opposition to item 100 v r e
[20:34] comment form which have been
[20:37] distributed to the Council also
[20:38] let me note for the record
[20:39] the potential re appointments
[20:40] that are on the agenda this
[20:40] morning.
[20:43] Item 103 is the potential
[20:43] reappointment of Antoinette
[20:47] Alioto, Gwen Marie Hillery,
[20:48] Jacqueline Jackson and William
[20:48] Pittman to the Seniors Affairs
[20:53] Advisory Board of Maximillian
[20:53] Schmidt And allegedly Audrey
[20:56] can please come forward to
[20:57] the other reserved seats.
[20:58] Maximilian you will be speaking
[21:01] on items 50 5152 and 104 You'll
[21:01] have three minutes.
[21:05] Please proceed when ready When
[21:15] you get up to the microphone.
[21:15] Hi.
[21:19] I've got some I've got some big
[21:20] ideas that I thought of that I
[21:24] think many people support and
[21:25] that I'm really excited to
[21:29] share as for cannabis delivery
[21:33] services item 50 I thought that
[21:37] we could all loosen cannabis
[21:38] zoning and restrictions and we
[21:42] could put a dispensary downtown
[21:48] maybe by like Petco Park or in
[21:48] the East Village or in Little
[21:49] Italy somewhere and have
[21:52] downtown full of cannabis
[21:53] Dispensary is kind of like Los
[21:54] Angeles downtown Los Angeles or
[21:58] New York City.
[21:58] And then I think that would be
[21:59] cool because the only cannabis
[22:02] shops we have are in Middletown
[22:03] and then one past Barrio Logan.
[22:07] So that's kind of I don't know
[22:07] what other cities on the West
[22:08] Coast don't even have a
[22:12] cannabis dispensary downtown.
[22:12] >> It's just kind of
[22:13] inconvenient And I have a
[22:14] really exciting idea for
[22:17] electric Bicycle safety
[22:17] regulations is a total which I
[22:22] think many people in city
[22:22] council maybe would support And
[22:26] buzz is considered radical but
[22:26] it's an exciting idea.
[22:27] A total citywide ban on
[22:31] electric bicycles to promote
[22:32] exercise And because an average
[22:36] bicycle can go 10 or 15mph that
[22:37] should be enough.
[22:38] And I say that because I'm a
[22:41] skateboarder and I have a story
[22:42] to tell This is going to sound
[22:46] crazy but I will never look at
[22:47] an e-bike the same because I
[22:48] was on a bike trail on this is
[22:51] actually non San Diego in Los
[22:51] Angeles but I was on my
[22:52] skateboard and I was
[22:55] skateboarding on the bike trail
[22:55] and there is the little white
[22:56] line that's on the bike trail
[23:00] and a bike went by me at like
[23:05] 35mph like inches away from me
[23:06] and my life flashed before my
[23:07] eyes And I think it was
[23:10] the closest experience I have
[23:11] had to death in my life and it
[23:12] was extremely dangerous.
[23:15] So yeah, total citywide ban on
[23:15] electric bicycles Just only can
[23:19] I say that as a skateboarder
[23:20] who rides a non-electric
[23:21] skateboard just a normal
[23:25] skateboard I think skateboard
[23:25] should be allowed I think
[23:26] normal bicycle should be
[23:29] allowed and then banned all
[23:30] electric everything electric
[23:33] and then just to finish up I
[23:39] just wanted to say as for
[23:39] the state of emergency for
[23:43] Taiwan and Mexico, I think we
[23:48] could have the state of
[23:48] emergencies for much more
[23:53] serious things like a Freemason
[23:53] Zeus.
[23:54] That song would be more
[23:57] appropriate And this is kind of
[23:58] a strange form of corruption
[23:59] that many people don't like to
[24:02] talk about but it's medical
[24:02] fraud and where people's
[24:07] Medicaid and Medi-Cal gets
[24:11] charged to get unnecessary
[24:12] hospital procedures and even
[24:12] ambulance procedures in
[24:16] the form of mobile crisis that
[24:17] they don't need because of you
[24:18] For that concluding comment
[24:21] allegedly addressed you'll be
[24:25] speaking on 5051 50 to 100 1 or
[24:26] 2 104 and s 500 You'll have
[24:26] three minutes.
[24:29] Please proceed.
[24:30] Guys might not like people but
[24:34] Max was you know right on that.
[24:35] I mean electric bikes don't
[24:35] promote health.
[24:39] I mean it actually keeps you
[24:40] from riding a bike.
[24:40] I mean you're not pedaling like
[24:43] my dad was all excited to ride
[24:44] 20 miles and it's like your
[24:48] bike did it whenever.
[24:48] Yes.
[24:49] So this cannabis stuff it's so
[24:53] interesting that you guys use
[24:54] the war on drugs as a reason to
[24:54] rob people from selling drugs
[24:58] or while they're selling them
[24:59] and then using that money You
[24:59] know, the billions of dollars
[25:03] that the governments taken And
[25:03] people still think it's a
[25:07] profitable business All you do
[25:08] is want to regulate it.
[25:08] It's crazy.
[25:09] It's like people can't come in
[25:13] here and you know, deliver this
[25:13] If we don't you know, make them
[25:14] get a permit.
[25:17] I mean who's going to know that
[25:17] anyway?
[25:18] You're just going to like But
[25:19] it's good because you have
[25:19] the enforcement that's that's
[25:22] where you guys come into And
[25:23] this electric bike stuff really
[25:27] it's thing is that you're going
[25:28] to make it so nobody can ride a
[25:28] bike until they have insurance
[25:29] get it registered just like a
[25:32] car get them out of their cars
[25:33] and then put them in on a bike
[25:36] and then treat it like a car.
[25:37] And he was also right about
[25:38] medical billing and things like
[25:41] that or just you know, fraud
[25:42] that happens in addition to
[25:45] the fall ambulance sexual
[25:45] assaults where women are you
[25:46] know, get to the hospital naked
[25:51] and having stuff injected into
[25:51] their necks.
[25:52] But we don't need to worry
[25:52] about that.
[25:55] That's just another business.
[25:56] And then I just find it
[25:56] interesting when it's like
[26:00] urban areas security initiative
[26:00] like we had a border invasion
[26:05] and we have all these things
[26:05] like I just don't think you
[26:06] guys can be trusted with that
[26:07] but it's another way to make
[26:09] money So good.
[26:09] Let's see.
[26:10] Yes And the homeless housing
[26:14] assistance and Prevention grant
[26:15] is your guys's way of
[26:18] preventing homelessness
[26:19] murdering people in Tent City
[26:24] wondering because people are
[26:24] being murdered, they're
[26:29] strangled black men are being
[26:30] strangled there.
[26:30] But it's cool.
[26:31] It's another business You can
[26:34] just get more money, you know
[26:34] what I mean?
[26:35] And then the t want to River
[26:38] Valley So the lady that came
[26:39] yesterday it's interesting
[26:39] she's talking about these leach
[26:43] fields of sewage that are
[26:43] potentially coming.
[26:44] I'm wondering how that's any
[26:45] better than it just going right
[26:48] where it is.
[26:49] Who knows And at least I mean
[26:49] it's going to come back in
[26:53] the form of pure water.
[26:53] Right?
[26:54] It might taste different a
[26:55] little bit spicy, who knows?
[26:57] And then just any surveillance
[26:57] that you guys need.
[26:58] I just you know, we can't even
[26:59] use the lpr, right?
[27:02] We chase cars to the mall when
[27:03] they're out shooting people at
[27:03] a mosque.
[27:07] But you know, it's good.
[27:08] Let's get more of them right
[27:11] and pay the police more for
[27:12] that.
[27:12] >> So I don't know.
[27:13] Just good job you guys doing
[27:16] good business racketeering and
[27:17] making sure that people are
[27:18] being murdered and don't care.
[27:20] But it's cool what happens in
[27:20] your parks.
[27:25] >> Homer Owl good job.
[27:26] That concludes public comment
[27:27] for consent hearing Council
[27:27] chamber is going to those
[27:30] participating online.
[27:31] Becky Rapp If you can please
[27:32] unmute This is for the consent
[27:35] agenda we currently have eight
[27:36] speakers in the queue.
[27:37] Figure applicant on for you.
[27:39] Yeah there you go.
[27:40] >> Good morning.
[27:41] My name is Becky Rapp and I'd
[27:43] like to speak to item number
[27:43] 50.
[27:44] I support strengthening
[27:45] enforcement against illegal
[27:48] marijuana delivery operations
[27:49] especially when out of town
[27:50] businesses are delivering into
[27:53] San Diego without complying
[27:54] with our local rules.
[27:54] Businesses that profit from
[27:58] the San Diego market should be
[27:59] held to the same standards as
[28:00] those that have invested in
[28:03] permits and comply with our
[28:04] regulations.
[28:04] Strong penalties are
[28:08] appropriate when operators
[28:09] choose to ignore those
[28:09] requirements.
[28:10] However, I encourage
[28:14] the council to go a step
[28:14] further.
[28:15] The same enforcement should
[28:16] apply to any business operating
[28:18] within San Diego that is
[28:19] selling illegal marijuana
[28:19] products not just delivery
[28:20] services.
[28:23] Whether the violation comes
[28:24] from and from outside the city
[28:28] or from a storefront or other
[28:29] business such as a smoke or
[28:29] vape shop inside our city
[28:32] limits, the harm is the same.
[28:33] It reduces consumer protections
[28:37] and weakens respect for
[28:37] the law.
[28:38] If we're going to create strong
[28:42] penalties and enforcement tools
[28:42] today then then they should be
[28:46] applied consistently to all
[28:47] illegal activity.
[28:47] >> Your time has concluded.
[28:51] Francine Maxwell If you can
[28:52] please I'm you and let me know
[28:53] which item or items you wish to
[28:53] speak to.
[28:55] >> 51 103.
[28:56] >> You have two minutes.
[28:57] Please proceed.
[29:00] Francine Maxwell Southeastern
[29:01] San Diego So excited for
[29:04] the bike safety ab 2 to 3 for
[29:08] really encouraged I would also
[29:09] like to make sure that if
[29:09] someone is throwing a free
[29:14] helmet giveaway that you look
[29:15] at our Encanto see our g two
[29:16] host we have a lot of children
[29:19] there Grandparent purchased but
[29:20] did not purchase a helmet and
[29:23] we want everyone safe.
[29:24] We want to change those numbers
[29:25] absolutely at Rabies Children's
[29:29] Hospital for the appointment I
[29:29] continue to stay excited for
[29:33] those individuals that serve on
[29:34] our boards and commissions
[29:34] which consistently continue to
[29:38] help our city of San Diego move
[29:39] and make decisions.
[29:43] I'm hoping that the diocese
[29:43] will consider every council
[29:44] office has a newsletter
[29:49] the same way We're asking you
[29:49] to maybe have a clerk's corner
[29:53] in your newsletter to educate
[29:53] the community as a whole on
[29:54] things that they can access in
[29:57] the clerk's office or even
[29:58] learn what is happening.
[29:59] We need to know what's going on
[30:02] in the boards and commission So
[30:03] maybe every quarter the city
[30:04] council can take out a picture
[30:07] of you handing out a resolution
[30:08] and put in what is happening
[30:09] with the boards and commissions
[30:13] that you've assigned to
[30:13] community members because
[30:14] the information and the things
[30:17] that they work on are just so
[30:17] important But it's not getting
[30:21] out to the entire community
[30:22] that they represent Or maybe
[30:23] there could be a conversation
[30:27] about boards and commissions
[30:27] newsletter that can be placed
[30:31] in all our libraries and all
[30:32] our colleagues because a lot of
[30:32] community members are still wi
[30:35] fi deficient.
[30:36] Again appreciative of
[30:37] the appointments and very
[30:41] appreciative of ab 2234.
[30:42] >> Thank you for allowing me to
[30:42] speak.
[30:42] Thank you.
[30:46] Next is 8700 If you can please
[30:47] unmute and let me know which
[30:48] item or items you wish to speak
[30:52] to.
[30:53] All of them except for 15.
[30:54] You'll have three minutes.
[31:01] Please proceed Joy Send to 51
[31:01] Yes to the Electric Bicycle
[31:06] Safety Regulation for under 12
[31:07] year old children Yes to
[31:10] guiding our children in
[31:11] the ways of safety I support
[31:16] tough love 52 No to
[31:20] the contract with many
[31:21] enterprises for emergency
[31:25] ambulance transport, billing
[31:25] and collection services until I
[31:30] know for certain they have a
[31:31] program to help low income
[31:35] people to what can be a very
[31:35] challenging time.
[31:36] I will not support this
[31:40] contract.
[31:40] Thank you.
[31:44] 100 Yes two grants I love
[31:45] grants.
[31:45] This is a large amount.
[31:50] I wasn't clear how the funds
[31:50] will be distributed, monitored
[31:51] and so forth.
[31:55] These oversee these precious
[32:00] funds stringently Thank you.
[32:04] 102a big yes to round six of
[32:04] half.
[32:08] I love Grant funds Blessings
[32:09] and thank you.
[32:13] Governor Newsom loves to you
[32:14] and your family.
[32:18] The magic word is prevention.
[32:18] Thank you.
[32:22] On 104 this is the raw sewage
[32:23] situation.
[32:27] PRESIDENT Harry Truman had a
[32:32] sign in the Oval Office It said
[32:32] the buck stops here in
[32:33] the United States.
[32:37] Mexico sewage pollution crisis
[32:37] Where does the buck stop?
[32:43] Thank you and been s500 Yes to
[32:46] can't kick under the trust
[32:47] ordinance I love the trust
[32:51] ordinance Thank you San Diego
[32:51] swat association for
[32:55] the donation of robotic
[32:56] platform that has situational
[33:01] awareness that would is so
[33:02] powerful We all know everything
[33:02] starts with awareness
[33:06] situational awareness and this
[33:07] protects our very very human
[33:11] police.
[33:11] Thank you for listening.
[33:12] It's really been a great start
[33:16] to the day to all Thank you.
[33:16] >> Next is Peggy Walker.
[33:20] If you can please unmute
[33:21] The five minute timer also
[33:24] concluded there were eight
[33:25] speakers in the queue.
[33:25] No additional speakers will be
[33:26] taken.
[33:29] Thank you.
[33:29] Thank you.
[33:30] Important support item 50
[33:34] registration fees are good but
[33:35] the fees seem low and it's not
[33:39] clear if there's a means for
[33:40] substantiating the seller's
[33:44] other city license.
[33:45] I think we need to recognize
[33:45] that wherever marijuana is
[33:49] permitted there will always be
[33:49] an illegal market undercutting
[33:50] prices.
[33:54] That's underscored by the fact
[33:55] that 40% of sales in our county
[33:59] currently are illegal.
[33:59] Illegal deliveries represent
[34:00] the bulk of those sales and
[34:04] black market products are
[34:05] selling at 40 to 50% of
[34:09] permitted sales prices that all
[34:10] means that ongoing enforcement
[34:10] will be crucial but challenging
[34:14] for the success of this
[34:15] especially when unlicensed
[34:16] operators have a history of
[34:20] popping up, shutting down and
[34:21] opening again.
[34:25] This breeds public confusion
[34:25] and those operators are often
[34:26] careful about fines.
[34:26] Thank you.
[34:31] And that let put this Thank you
[34:31] Madison If you can please
[34:35] unmute let me know which item
[34:36] or items you wish to speak to.
[34:39] I am speaking to item 50 and I
[34:40] appreciate the effort in item
[34:44] 50 to strengthen enforcement
[34:45] against illegal cannabis
[34:45] delivery operations.
[34:46] Unauthorized delivery
[34:46] businesses should not be
[34:49] allowed to operate outside
[34:50] the rules while neighborhoods
[34:50] bear the impacts At the same
[34:55] time I want to express concern
[34:55] about the portion of this item
[34:56] that creates a new cannabis
[34:59] delivery business permit for
[35:00] operators delivering into San
[35:00] Diego from other jurisdictions.
[35:05] The proposed registration fees
[35:05] appear very low and
[35:06] the ordinance does not appear
[35:06] to require meaningful
[35:09] verification of the originating
[35:10] city's authorization before
[35:11] allowing deliveries here I
[35:11] believe we should be moving
[35:15] towards stronger oversight and
[35:16] fewer marijuana businesses in
[35:17] our communities not creating
[35:20] pathways that could make
[35:21] expansion easier.
[35:21] High potency marijuana products
[35:26] are already heavily marketed
[35:27] and increasingly normalized to
[35:27] young people.
[35:28] I ask the Council to ensure
[35:31] that any delivery permitting
[35:32] system includes robust
[35:32] verification and safeguards
[35:37] that do not unintentionally
[35:37] increase marijuana business
[35:38] activity in San Diego.
[35:38] >> Thank you.
[35:39] Thank you.
[35:42] Security strain if you can
[35:43] please and let me know which
[35:44] item or items you wish to speak
[35:47] to.
[35:48] >> Julia Academy for you.
[35:48] There you go.
[35:52] Yes.
[35:53] Good morning, City Council.
[35:57] I came to speak on item 50 on
[35:57] consent.
[35:58] I support City Council person
[36:02] Carpio in his efforts to have
[36:03] some idea of who it is that's
[36:04] wandering around in our city
[36:08] delivering pot when it doesn't
[36:09] come from our own retail
[36:09] storefront.
[36:13] As we know the ordinance is
[36:13] three pronged.
[36:14] Most importantly it's to
[36:15] increase the penalties at least
[36:18] from my point of view regarding
[36:19] noncompliance.
[36:19] And second, it will give others
[36:24] the right to sue against this
[36:24] illegal cannabis activity
[36:25] occurring in our city.
[36:30] Three Probably the one that's a
[36:30] little problematic to me is
[36:35] what this permitting process
[36:36] might look for out of towners
[36:36] and out of town as they will
[36:37] be.
[36:37] And we have watched that
[36:41] process in Oceanside and no one
[36:42] ever registered.
[36:42] So reason to be concerned in
[36:47] San Diego we might see the same
[36:47] thing.
[36:48] They figured out how to do it
[36:48] illegally.
[36:52] They'll just continue that
[36:53] enforcement and those fines and
[36:53] penalties are going to be a of
[36:54] importance.
[36:57] Thank you.
[36:58] >> Thank you Terry and Skelly,
[37:03] if you can please unmute dance.
[37:09] Good morning San Diego City
[37:09] Council.
[37:10] My name is Terrence Kelly.
[37:13] I came to support consent item
[37:14] 15 regarding higher penalties
[37:15] for illegal pot deliveries into
[37:15] and around our city.
[37:20] I appreciate the city's effort
[37:21] to know who is selling pot in
[37:22] our city and where the pot is
[37:25] coming from since they don't
[37:26] have a physical location here
[37:27] within the city and they are in
[37:27] direct competition with
[37:31] the city's permitted retail
[37:32] storefronts that are already
[37:32] delivering.
[37:37] I realize that the first step
[37:37] is to require a registration
[37:38] process.
[37:38] However, our business tax
[37:42] certificate is a nominal fee
[37:43] and does nothing to contribute
[37:43] to the cost of enforcement.
[37:48] So I would be most interested
[37:49] to see what that fee two
[37:50] established by the city manager
[37:55] will be and I hope the system
[37:55] of fines and penalties will
[37:56] enable law enforcement to
[38:00] mitigate the dangers that
[38:01] unlawful pot delivery vehicles
[38:01] create.
[38:02] >> Thank you for hearing my
[38:06] concerns this morning.
[38:06] Thank you.
[38:07] Natalie Raskin if you can
[38:13] please on your right, Natalie.
[38:17] >> Actually I'll speak to one
[38:18] or 2 or 3 and one of.
[38:19] Listening to the marijuana
[38:23] stuff people are acting like
[38:24] this that this is not some
[38:29] plant that you can just grow in
[38:30] your pot in your balcony
[38:30] wherever you MAY be.
[38:35] It can be grown.
[38:36] It's not going to stop growing.
[38:36] People aren't going to stop
[38:37] smoking pot that it's become
[38:42] this every day They call and
[38:42] talk about how evil it is.
[38:47] Maybe they need to smoke a
[38:48] joint themselves but it's
[38:48] always going to grow and it's
[38:51] always going to be distributed
[38:52] 1 or 2 The housing Prevention
[38:53] Grant Yes.
[38:57] I hope this prevents all of
[38:57] the hb holders from becoming
[38:58] homeless on NOVEMBER 30th with
[39:03] the advisory board.
[39:04] I agree with one of the callers
[39:05] who said it needs to be stated
[39:06] or put maybe in libraries or
[39:09] other places when they're
[39:10] holding these advisory boards
[39:10] or committees to be on
[39:15] the board just like there's a
[39:16] homeless advisory board that I
[39:22] was unaware of and I couldn't
[39:23] even apply to get on it because
[39:23] it's locked on the screens and
[39:28] yes to the emergency sewage.
[39:29] I don't know how the federal
[39:30] government has stepped up and
[39:34] made this correct in the first
[39:34] place.
[39:34] Thank you.
[39:35] Thank you, Tony.
[39:39] If you can please Daniel and
[39:40] let me know which item or items
[39:46] you wish to speak to all of
[39:46] them please.
[39:47] Please proceed.
[39:47] Yes.
[39:51] I just wanted to start by
[39:52] saying go reach out to I
[39:52] believe his name is Matt.
[39:57] He was the first person who
[39:57] spoke in person but I just
[39:58] wanted to say I was very much
[40:02] in support of his comments and
[40:03] the way that he articulated his
[40:04] point this morning And I really
[40:04] appreciated that And I wanted
[40:10] to support Natalie Raskin's
[40:10] comments as well.
[40:11] Everyone is a it's been growing
[40:12] and being used as traditional
[40:14] medicine and Chinese culture
[40:15] for the last 5000 years People
[40:16] have been using it all over
[40:16] the planet as a medicine.
[40:21] I think we really need to get
[40:22] over the marijuana phobia that
[40:23] we are and we were exposed to
[40:23] when we come to the city
[40:26] council meetings every single
[40:27] day we hear a new song and
[40:32] dance about how this medicine
[40:33] that Jack Rare has a bunch of
[40:34] science and talked about how we
[40:35] could be using it for hemp
[40:38] fuels and fiber paper and
[40:39] clothes books as an alternative
[40:45] as a at the site free organic
[40:46] natural alternative You know we
[40:51] could cut away with our
[40:51] pharmaceutical use got away
[40:52] with so many industries but I
[40:57] don't support the proposal to
[40:57] increase the punishment and
[41:01] the tax I don't support item 50
[41:02] because I don't want to live in
[41:02] this super litigious society
[41:03] where the only ones that stand
[41:09] to benefit are the lawyers that
[41:09] know the law will come to you.
[41:10] We already live in a superstate
[41:13] stop or society or state
[41:14] borders already have enough
[41:19] time navigating through society
[41:20] ,having fun.
[41:20] I mean we've really put a
[41:21] paywall up for skateboarders
[41:22] where you now have to pay to go
[41:25] to a skate park and my point is
[41:26] that there shouldn't be these
[41:27] obsessive paywalls and these
[41:32] fees and these fines for
[41:32] the society that we're living
[41:33] in.
[41:37] Moving on to the e-bike policy
[41:38] ,I completely support
[41:38] the e-bike regulations because
[41:43] they're out of control and and
[41:44] kids using them are way too
[41:45] young to be going that fast.
[41:49] With regard to the trust
[41:49] ordinance and the policy
[41:55] regarding the fines the grant
[41:56] to be spent on homeland
[41:56] security to apply for more
[41:57] homeland security funds, I
[42:02] think it's absolutely absurd.
[42:02] We we've closed how many
[42:03] homeless shelters we've closed
[42:04] how many parks we've closed how
[42:08] many library hours and we're
[42:08] applying for grants for
[42:09] terrorism that doesn't exist in
[42:13] San Diego at a time when
[42:14] the federal government is
[42:14] calling activists terrorists,
[42:15] it's freaking ridiculous.
[42:18] When is enough enough?
[42:19] And this militarism and this
[42:25] police oversight with lack of
[42:25] accountability.
[42:26] I love what Francine was saying
[42:26] about we don't have enough
[42:31] councilmember members going to
[42:32] our commission meetings.
[42:32] I go to the cbp meetings.
[42:36] I don't see a single one of
[42:36] the council members who's
[42:37] willing to give all the cpd all
[42:38] the toys that they want in
[42:41] the world.
[42:42] I don't see a single one of you
[42:43] showing up to the cpd meetings.
[42:44] I don't see a single one.
[42:44] You're showing up to
[42:48] the privacy advisory Board
[42:49] meetings so I would love to see
[42:50] a lot more oversight from your
[42:54] website and concluded Blair
[42:54] Beckman if you can please and
[42:55] you and let me know which item
[42:59] or items you wish to speak to.
[43:06] I can't mute for you.
[43:07] I'm willing to move on if you
[43:12] can in yourself at this time.
[43:13] >> Hi Claire Beckman My zoom is
[43:16] cutting out This is life and
[43:17] tier one two for me.
[43:17] I'm sorry.
[43:18] Hopefully I can still be here.
[43:26] I wanted to speak on items 52
[43:31] 100 104 and 500.
[43:36] >> Please proceed.
[43:37] Is that okay?
[43:37] Thank you.
[43:38] Thanks That you can hear me
[43:41] first about the item 52
[43:42] the ambulance transport billing
[43:42] and collection services.
[43:47] >> I am really concerned about
[43:48] the situation with Andrea
[43:48] Ebbing.
[43:49] She's had to get a rape test
[43:53] kit after her ambulance ride
[43:54] and her, you know, police
[43:54] incident.
[44:00] I hope her situation can be
[44:01] really looked at with care and
[44:01] sensitivity and that we are
[44:07] pulling for sure and humanity
[44:07] and not for her to be
[44:08] institutionalized.
[44:12] I think that's a really serious
[44:13] problem with that And you guys
[44:13] know that And she deserves to
[44:19] be living freely and we have to
[44:20] talk more clearly on those
[44:20] concepts and and be more clear
[44:21] on that.
[44:21] I could look in all of our
[44:25] efforts to understand the city
[44:26] better and the ambulance roll
[44:27] and all of this What was it
[44:27] what were they doing with her
[44:28] situation?
[44:31] What were the police doing?
[44:31] Good luck in those efforts.
[44:36] Item 100 is our fiscal year
[44:37] Urban area Security Initiative
[44:38] grant program.
[44:42] You guys had this item at a
[44:43] committee meeting a few weeks
[44:43] ago.
[44:44] Quite possibly this item will
[44:50] be the San Diego you ask me.
[44:50] It was suggested that it could
[44:51] appear at public meetings a bit
[44:55] more often to describe what
[44:55] they're doing in their
[44:56] programs.
[44:56] They also are at the quarterly
[45:01] county San Diego County Office
[45:01] of Emergency Services.
[45:02] >> So those are two places that
[45:06] if we keep U.S. Open and
[45:07] accountable and transparent as
[45:08] part of the public process,
[45:13] we'll be in good shape and they
[45:14] need it.
[45:14] And if we do that we'll be
[45:15] practicing well.
[45:15] So really demand that of are
[45:19] you saying that we can attend
[45:19] their meetings?
[45:20] We don't have to be excluded.
[45:20] There are ways to attend their
[45:24] public meetings.
[45:25] I really invite everyone to
[45:25] check out what groups like you
[45:26] see are doing to our local
[45:30] cities and what their role is
[45:31] and how you can can contribute
[45:32] and make ask and demand.
[45:32] You have that ability We don't
[45:36] We don't exercise that very
[45:37] well.
[45:37] Good luck in those sort of
[45:42] efforts about the raw sewage
[45:43] issues, solid waste coming from
[45:48] Tijuana Councilperson from
[45:49] Tijuana is visiting Oceanside
[45:49] these days to check out pure
[45:54] water systems.
[45:55] That's an incredible concept.
[45:55] It MAY take 10 or 15 years to
[45:56] really work on better but in
[46:00] the very least we're
[46:00] communicating with each other
[46:01] Good luck and continuing that
[46:02] communication and it just
[46:07] stresses the incredible
[46:07] importance in working with
[46:08] Tijuana even them.
[46:12] When we disagree we can be just
[46:13] as snobby towards Tijuana as do
[46:13] you want to can be towards us
[46:14] So good luck and good
[46:18] communication is a really good
[46:19] skill to have for a great area,
[46:19] for a great region that we all
[46:24] share and about the issues you
[46:25] know we just have we've been in
[46:28] a state of war for the past two
[46:29] decades.
[46:29] Good luck that we're learning
[46:30] better and better practices of
[46:30] peace.
[46:35] We're talking about peace of
[46:35] our policy making and openness
[46:36] and accountability instead of
[46:36] war.
[46:37] >> That's what your time has
[46:41] concluded, Hector, as our final
[46:41] speaker, please let me know
[46:42] which item or items you wish to
[46:42] speak to.
[46:46] >> I'll speak to all of them.
[46:47] Yeah.
[46:47] Thanks for taking my call
[46:51] because my my my zoom has been
[46:52] going up 3 or 4 times but it
[46:53] keeps reloading.
[46:53] I'm trying to use it but thanks
[46:54] for taking my call.
[46:58] Well, on the dog thing it's
[46:59] going to be hard to go against
[46:59] the drug dealers.
[47:00] They're on the side.
[47:03] They've already got their
[47:04] customers but we've got some
[47:05] legitimate businesses trying to
[47:09] compete with them.
[47:10] But until Trump makes a move on
[47:10] the drug dealers big time,
[47:11] they're always going to win out
[47:15] in the they have cheaper prices
[47:16] but you guys are give it a try
[47:20] on the ebikes I think we should
[47:21] have more enforcement on
[47:21] the boardwalk.
[47:26] There's always guys flying by
[47:27] on the boardwalk in Mission Bay
[47:28] and on Mission Beach on
[47:32] the ocean side and Bayside
[47:33] summer tourist summer Just
[47:34] young kids going crazy but that
[47:39] could make tickets like $400
[47:39] and really stick it to them
[47:46] just for e-bike and on
[47:47] the sidewalks and the t sewer
[47:51] plant We need you to plan
[47:52] Forget all these this and that.
[47:52] We need a plan.
[47:56] We need like six Olympic sized
[47:57] swimming pools Basically what
[48:02] it is to hold the staff and
[48:02] create it Super plastic basic
[48:06] stuff I worked on one in
[48:06] Colorado for two years in
[48:07] the 80s.
[48:07] I know how they work for their
[48:12] basic stuff.
[48:13] It's nothing high tech about
[48:13] it.
[48:14] You know we can do a little bit
[48:18] better job of doing the water
[48:18] but we can use the water for
[48:24] irrigation and that should be a
[48:25] number one priority of our city
[48:25] even the county too.
[48:26] It's it's just it's just
[48:30] embarrassing, you know, that
[48:31] that that's happening and
[48:31] the kids are suffering.
[48:36] The poor people that live in
[48:36] the downwind from that stuff
[48:37] it's disgusting.
[48:41] And then the grants now I've
[48:42] been looking into those block
[48:48] cameras They can go super high
[48:49] tech.
[48:49] They get your license plate,
[48:50] they can get they can get
[48:53] access to your your bank
[48:54] account Everything you bought
[48:55] on eBay, everything you ever
[49:00] did is getting better for them.
[49:01] It's getting better and better
[49:06] information so they can just do
[49:07] it in a split second too.
[49:08] It doesn't take a long time.
[49:12] So I think what you pass
[49:13] the point of no return like
[49:14] five years ago in China they
[49:19] got your face if a guy would
[49:19] cross jaywalk on the street
[49:20] they get his face in the camera
[49:24] by the time you cross
[49:25] the street and not the other
[49:26] side they took the find out of
[49:30] his bank account.
[49:31] That's how quick it works.
[49:32] I'm sure they can do that here.
[49:33] They link it to our bank
[49:37] accounts and we break the law
[49:38] like jaywalking let alone drug.
[49:39] The illegal alien is going to
[49:42] help with a rapid deportation
[49:43] because if you have a face
[49:49] facial recognition, if you're
[49:50] not in the database you're
[49:50] illegal alien and you're time
[49:51] has concluded And that
[49:55] concludes public comment on
[49:55] consent.
[49:56] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
[49:56] right.
[49:57] Thank you to the Court.
[49:57] And with that I'll turn it to
[49:58] my council colleagues for any
[50:01] questions, comments and
[50:02] entertain a motion and we'll
[50:02] start with Council member
[50:03] Whitburn Thank you.
[50:05] Council PRESIDENT With item 1o2
[50:06] The City Council is getting
[50:07] approval to spend about six of
[50:07] the state's homeless Housing
[50:11] Assistance and Prevention grant
[50:12] .
[50:12] This is the hap funding that
[50:13] the city applied for.
[50:14] It was awarded last year.
[50:16] The city is receiving nearly
[50:17] two $6 million.
[50:18] It'll be used to help people
[50:23] prevent homelessness and also
[50:23] help people who have fallen
[50:24] into homelessness get back at
[50:25] the housing as quickly as
[50:25] possible.
[50:28] There's also an allocation to
[50:29] help homeless youth thanks to
[50:30] Sarah German at the staff for
[50:30] the Homeless Strategies and
[50:36] Solutions Department for
[50:36] successfully securing Round six
[50:37] hap grant funding from
[50:37] the state.
[50:38] I also want to thank the Mayor
[50:40] for going up to the Sacramento
[50:41] to ask for even more money for
[50:42] the program for this year and I
[50:48] think our local legislative
[50:48] delegation to the Governor for
[50:49] agreeing to do so and
[50:50] increasing that allocation I'll
[50:50] make the motion to approve
[50:53] the consent agenda.
[50:54] All right.
[50:54] Thank you, sir.
[50:55] So we have a motion by
[50:56] Councilmember Whitburn to move
[50:56] the consent item.
[50:57] This will be the next to
[50:59] Councilmember Campbell.
[51:00] >> Thank you, Council
[51:00] PRESIDENT.
[51:01] I am happy to second the motion
[51:05] I approve of all the consent
[51:05] items I would like to speak
[51:10] about item 51 about the e-bikes
[51:11] .
[51:11] I want to say a special thank
[51:12] you to our State Assembly
[51:17] member from San Diego and that
[51:17] is Tosha Berner for providing
[51:22] us with this new law in
[51:23] the state ab 2234 which is a
[51:28] compromise item And so we have
[51:29] the children 12 and up are able
[51:35] to ride e-bikes number one and
[51:36] number two class not number
[51:36] three class.
[51:37] Of course children always have
[51:42] to wear their helmets if
[51:42] they're on a bike or any bike
[51:43] they should on the skateboard.
[51:47] Anything they do they should
[51:47] wear a helmet.
[51:48] This law was necessary.
[51:53] It's kind of a pilot study to
[51:53] tell you the truth around
[51:54] the state.
[51:57] It does sunset JANUARY 1st,
[51:58] 2029 So we will have a couple
[51:59] of years of data from around
[52:03] the state.
[52:04] But so far in San Diego we have
[52:04] found a tremendous increase in
[52:09] emergency rooms in e-bike
[52:10] accidents and injuries since
[52:10] 2021 when they started to
[52:15] become very popular.
[52:16] Injuries include head trauma,
[52:21] drama, torso drama, fractures
[52:22] of the ribs, spine fractures
[52:23] and extremity fractures.
[52:28] So it hits the whole body and
[52:28] it's not good for anybody.
[52:29] And those of us who are old
[52:30] know that all these injuries
[52:33] stay with us and really crop up
[52:34] once we reach a certain age.
[52:34] So it's really important to
[52:39] prevent remember Ben Franklin
[52:40] of course I'm about as old as
[52:41] he was when he was alive but he
[52:45] said prevention of an ounce of
[52:46] prevention is worth a pound of
[52:51] cure And so I think that's what
[52:51] Assemblymember Berner was
[52:52] trying to help us with.
[52:53] Our local collection data
[52:57] reflects the growing prevalence
[52:58] of e-bike crashes crashes and
[53:03] it is a crisis in San Diego
[53:03] Police Department data.
[53:07] We see that since 2021 e-bike
[53:08] accidents that are reported
[53:13] have increased four times
[53:13] quadrupled.
[53:18] There were 23 incidents in 2021
[53:19] and now at least 84 incidents
[53:20] have been reported for 2025.
[53:25] So you can see that improving
[53:25] the safety of children is so
[53:26] important.
[53:31] I think the age restriction is
[53:31] too low but I think once we get
[53:32] the data from from this study
[53:37] or from around the state, we'll
[53:37] see that we probably should
[53:38] make it 16 and we probably
[53:38] should insist they have
[53:42] training and a license before
[53:43] they ride their e-bikes because
[53:48] I see these kids and I use my
[53:49] my heart leaps on.
[53:49] We're worried about them
[53:50] getting hurt And as a family
[53:54] doctor it I know better So I
[53:54] hope that it helps.
[53:55] I want to give a shout out to
[54:00] State Senator Catherine Blake
[54:00] Speer.
[54:01] She is also helping to make us
[54:05] safer by proposing Senate Bill
[54:11] 1167 that addresses emotions
[54:11] cycles and puts more
[54:12] responsibility on manufacturers
[54:13] to differentiate between
[54:17] the different classes of
[54:18] e-bikes which usually you don't
[54:18] even find in the store.
[54:19] They don't tell you Oh this
[54:23] class three your kid can't
[54:23] write it legally but we need to
[54:28] know all that and we need to
[54:28] have the manufacturers be
[54:29] responsible for what they're
[54:33] selling and hopefully her
[54:34] legislation will advance as
[54:34] well to continue to improve
[54:39] safety for the riders.
[54:40] And I just want to say thank
[54:45] you to my colleagues and for
[54:45] bringing all these consent
[54:50] items forward and to
[54:51] the council PRESIDENT And I am
[54:52] definitely in favor.
[54:57] So thank you so much.
[54:57] >> All right.
[54:58] Thank you.
[54:58] And with that we have a motion
[54:59] by council member Whipper in
[55:00] the second by Council member
[55:02] Campbell to move the consent
[55:03] items will go next to council
[55:04] member Von Wilbert.
[55:04] Thank you very much.
[55:05] I've spoken to many of these
[55:08] items previously so I will keep
[55:08] this short.
[55:09] But on item 51 electric bike
[55:10] all electric bicycle safety
[55:14] regulations I am pleased to
[55:15] support this item.
[55:15] As we've seen across San Diego
[55:16] there have been a troubling
[55:19] increase in serious crashes
[55:20] involving high powered electric
[55:21] bikes and electric motorcycles
[55:25] operated by minors recently in
[55:25] Black Mountain and Scripps
[55:26] Ranch where young people
[55:30] suffered serious injuries or
[55:31] injuries.
[55:31] We have seen the importance of
[55:32] taking a thoughtful look about
[55:33] whether our current state laws
[55:35] and enforcement tools are
[55:36] keeping pace with these
[55:36] emerging safety concerns And
[55:37] what happened at riding a
[55:40] regular bike.
[55:41] We can still use those two but
[55:47] I appreciate the work of a
[55:47] council working Pro assembly
[55:48] member Tasha Burner, Senator
[55:49] Blake Speer and our city staff
[55:52] and our partners on this on
[55:53] item one of three with
[55:53] the reappointment to the Senior
[55:58] Affairs Advisory Board I'm very
[55:58] pleased to appoint
[55:59] the reappointment Gwen or
[55:59] Hilary to the Senior Officers
[56:02] Advisory Board in their two
[56:03] year term with Hilary Brings
[56:04] dedicate a decade of health
[56:07] care leadership and operational
[56:07] experience.
[56:08] The proven track record of
[56:08] managing complex health care
[56:12] organizations throughout her
[56:12] career she's overseen large
[56:13] scale health care operations
[56:14] including administering a
[56:18] Medicare five star 192 bed long
[56:18] term care hospital with a
[56:22] budget of $36 million.
[56:23] A lot of work that you have
[56:23] done.
[56:24] You've also founded and led
[56:27] nonprofit organizations
[56:27] bringing valuable governing
[56:28] experience, financial oversight
[56:29] and organizational management
[56:32] to your role on this board.
[56:33] She's also worked to strengthen
[56:33] collaboration across the health
[56:37] care system by establishing
[56:37] eight post-acute care and
[56:38] hospital community forums
[56:39] demonstrating her commitment to
[56:39] improving coordination and
[56:42] patient care.
[56:43] We are grateful to have your
[56:44] experience on the board.
[56:44] Thank you for serving again for
[56:51] serving your city and with that
[56:51] I will support the content
[56:52] agenda.
[56:52] All right.
[56:53] Thank you Council Beaumont
[56:54] We'll go next to Council member
[56:54] Isla Rivera.
[56:55] >> Thank you.
[56:55] Also the PRESIDENT Wanted to
[56:59] start by just quickly saying
[56:59] that items 500 I appreciate
[57:00] the work done by the Privacy
[57:03] Advisory Board to approve
[57:08] the use of this technology.
[57:12] I see that that happened on
[57:13] APRIL 9th which is why I'll be
[57:13] supporting what's in front of
[57:17] us today.
[57:18] And then I did want to turn to
[57:21] item one of two.
[57:26] So I don't know if Sara or Kota
[57:26] .
[57:27] I do have a few questions here
[57:31] around our acceptance
[57:32] appropriation and expanding of
[57:41] round six of hap funding.
[57:42] >> So I spent some time going
[57:46] through the documents here And
[57:47] first Sara, as always, thanks
[57:47] for all of your work.
[57:51] You have a incredibly difficult
[57:51] job with not nearly enough
[57:55] resources and I want to
[57:56] acknowledge that before I get
[58:00] into my questions here at
[58:01] the table that I am looking at
[58:10] for the for the plan is pretty
[58:10] light on details.
[58:15] It's a simple table labeled Hub
[58:19] six funding plan.
[58:23] In that table there's a 2.2
[58:24] million for prevention and
[58:28] shelter diversion and almost 18
[58:28] million for operating subsidies
[58:29] for housing.
[58:32] Can you talk to us about ratio
[58:37] there and the choices that fed
[58:42] into this being the ratio?
[58:42] Sure.
[58:47] I will point that in
[58:47] the presentation that's
[58:48] attached to the item There is a
[58:51] little bit more detail on each
[58:52] of those So it'll be split
[58:52] between what sorts of
[58:53] prevention and diversion are
[58:56] funded along with what interim
[58:57] housing subsidies there are
[59:02] there which is mostly
[59:02] the shelter system.
[59:03] I will say that for just as is
[59:08] is that bullet points under
[59:09] each of those because I had a
[59:13] difficult time finding
[59:14] specifically which programs or
[59:19] shelters are being funded with
[59:20] um with these hap dollars sure
[59:23] would be helpful.
[59:24] I run through it really quickly
[59:24] sort of.
[59:25] So for prevention and shelter
[59:28] diversion the city is proposing
[59:28] to fund family reunification
[59:29] the housing instability
[59:33] prevention program and
[59:33] the Diversion Program.
[59:34] That's the new program that we
[59:35] discussed about when we brought
[59:37] this item before previously for
[59:38] operating subsidies, interim
[59:41] housing We're funding the 16th
[59:42] and Newton Bridge shelter
[59:43] the single adult and seniors
[59:46] interim shelter for women and
[59:47] family shelter the Salvation
[59:48] Army Interim Family Shelter and
[59:51] the Travelodge family shelter.
[59:51] In addition to that, under
[59:52] the youth set aside we are
[59:53] funding a significant portion
[59:56] of our youth shelters within
[59:57] the system And then we do have
[59:57] administrative costs for both
[59:58] the city, the housing
[1:00:01] commission and for each of my
[1:00:02] assets that will go to
[1:00:05] the continuum of care in terms
[1:00:06] of the ratio that you mentioned
[1:00:07] previously, I will say that as
[1:00:11] we do this application we do it
[1:00:12] as a collective unit between
[1:00:15] the city, the county and
[1:00:16] the regional task force for
[1:00:16] the cities.
[1:00:17] The city has proposed
[1:00:20] allocation.
[1:00:21] A large portion of that does
[1:00:21] come from the shelter system
[1:00:22] because it is an eligible
[1:00:25] expense.
[1:00:25] So if you recall at least 50%
[1:00:30] of our hap application needs to
[1:00:30] be for housing focused
[1:00:31] programs.
[1:00:34] Housing focused programs do
[1:00:35] include shelter.
[1:00:35] They do include prevention,
[1:00:36] they would include permanent
[1:00:36] housing.
[1:00:39] But as this fits into
[1:00:39] the larger puzzle piece of
[1:00:40] the budget system, this is this
[1:00:44] is the proposal that we came
[1:00:44] forward.
[1:00:45] It only differs very slightly
[1:00:45] from when you saw this
[1:00:49] previously in JANUARY.
[1:00:50] So I would like to touch on
[1:00:50] that for you.
[1:00:51] The one major change is within
[1:00:54] safe parking so safe parking
[1:00:55] was no longer considered a
[1:00:55] housing focused program So we
[1:00:59] did swap out safe parking to
[1:01:00] find additional shelter beds to
[1:01:04] kind of meet that match.
[1:01:04] And then also we did make one
[1:01:05] one slight change in funding
[1:01:08] the housing instability
[1:01:09] prevention program to offset
[1:01:10] some of the general fund that
[1:01:10] came out of the final budget
[1:01:14] Council action.
[1:01:14] Right.
[1:01:15] Thank you.
[1:01:18] Appreciate that detail.
[1:01:19] The shelters that are being
[1:01:24] funded, can you talk to us
[1:01:28] about how the success rate of
[1:01:29] placing folks into housing is
[1:01:33] factored into which shelters
[1:01:34] will be funded with that
[1:01:34] dollars?
[1:01:38] >> It's not necessary.
[1:01:38] Lee factored in Each of our
[1:01:39] shelter contracts have
[1:01:43] contracted kind of metrics to
[1:01:44] meet those success rates.
[1:01:44] I don't have those in front of
[1:01:48] me today but it's not
[1:01:49] necessarily a factor Generally
[1:01:53] across the board we see we see
[1:01:53] a similar kind of goal target
[1:01:54] for success rate within our
[1:01:58] shelter system, Right?
[1:01:58] And in that goal target is
[1:01:59] pretty similar.
[1:02:02] The actual rate though and
[1:02:03] obviously different populations
[1:02:06] are different challenges means
[1:02:12] that timeline might look
[1:02:14] different But I do think it's
[1:02:20] important for us to have that
[1:02:20] be the goal and thus to hold
[1:02:23] both the providers accountable
[1:02:28] to that goal and ourselves.
[1:02:31] To what extent if at all does
[1:02:36] what we are utilizing this
[1:02:41] round of funding account for
[1:02:42] emergency housing voucher
[1:02:42] program and what's happening
[1:02:46] there this funding other than
[1:02:51] really the diversion funding
[1:02:52] included here and the diversion
[1:02:52] collected with the Housing
[1:02:55] Commission In my opinion would
[1:02:56] be the largest kind of a step
[1:02:57] forward for folks under
[1:03:01] the emergency housing voucher
[1:03:01] program.
[1:03:02] If you'd like more information,
[1:03:02] I'd be happy to go back to
[1:03:03] the Housing commission and we
[1:03:06] can we can bring that
[1:03:07] information forward to you.
[1:03:10] >> I'm familiar with I mean I
[1:03:11] think I'm pretty well versed in
[1:03:12] what the Housing commission's
[1:03:14] doing.
[1:03:15] We have and I am glad the city
[1:03:20] invested in prevention and
[1:03:20] diversion in the budget that
[1:03:24] was just approved.
[1:03:25] At the same time we have a
[1:03:29] specific number of very
[1:03:34] vulnerable families that are
[1:03:35] going to be losing assistance
[1:03:39] that keeps them housed and it
[1:03:39] would seem important that we
[1:03:49] account for that in the in
[1:03:49] the housing and homelessness
[1:03:50] housing and prevention funding
[1:03:51] that we're receiving from
[1:04:01] the state attorney quickly to
[1:04:01] to round seven if I understand
[1:04:02] it, round seven is going to be
[1:04:07] allocated toward the to
[1:04:07] the same cities that received
[1:04:08] top six funding not necessarily
[1:04:11] the same amounts.
[1:04:11] That's to be determined in a
[1:04:12] couple of months.
[1:04:16] That's correct.
[1:04:17] So the state of California will
[1:04:17] release the notice of funding
[1:04:21] availability for the city along
[1:04:22] with the counties and the Cox
[1:04:25] Hap seven is at 900 million
[1:04:26] right now which is more apples
[1:04:30] to apples than Hap Six was
[1:04:30] funded four So back of
[1:04:31] the napkin math we could
[1:04:34] anticipate anywhere between 26
[1:04:35] and $30 million that however
[1:04:39] that is dependent upon various
[1:04:39] factors.
[1:04:40] A lot of it is of course block
[1:04:44] and formula based and will be
[1:04:44] based upon our point in time
[1:04:48] count across the state.
[1:04:48] Okay.
[1:04:53] The one of the things that I
[1:04:58] was unsure of is whether or not
[1:04:58] so maybe if I'm understanding
[1:05:02] correctly the purpose of
[1:05:03] providing funding to the same
[1:05:04] cities was to reduce
[1:05:04] administrative costs and
[1:05:07] administrative time and getting
[1:05:08] hap $7 out the door making
[1:05:12] the best use of those funds.
[1:05:13] But I didn't necessarily
[1:05:15] understand at least at first
[1:05:16] glance is whether or not we
[1:05:21] will be bound by the way we're
[1:05:21] spending have six funding in
[1:05:26] how we spend app seven No so
[1:05:27] have seven Will We'll still be
[1:05:29] able to allocate help seven
[1:05:30] separately and hap seven will
[1:05:31] still have to come before
[1:05:31] the City Council for us to
[1:05:34] accept appropriate and expended
[1:05:35] the process for the application
[1:05:39] As far as we understand today
[1:05:39] will be slightly
[1:05:40] administratively better where
[1:05:40] instead of an entirely kind of
[1:05:44] new application will be able to
[1:05:45] amend the application But that
[1:05:45] does not tie our hands to
[1:05:49] the allocations that you have
[1:05:50] in front of you today And it
[1:05:51] also would require council
[1:05:51] approval.
[1:05:53] Okay.
[1:05:54] I appreciate that.
[1:05:59] So one of the it feels like it
[1:06:03] there's a it's like a rite of
[1:06:04] seasonal right of me saying
[1:06:08] that I want to make sure that
[1:06:09] the city council not only has
[1:06:12] an opportunity to approve but
[1:06:13] to weigh in on the application
[1:06:14] and the way that we are going,
[1:06:15] what we are going to be
[1:06:17] pursuing funding for.
[1:06:19] So is there a plan to engage
[1:06:23] the council before
[1:06:23] the application is submitted
[1:06:24] Because at that point in front
[1:06:25] of us I'm not going to say no
[1:06:28] to receiving the funds but that
[1:06:28] doesn't necessarily mean that
[1:06:29] the funds that we're pursuing
[1:06:33] are being then that doesn't
[1:06:33] necessarily mean that it's
[1:06:37] the it's the best use of
[1:06:38] the funds in my mind or
[1:06:39] the mind of the council And
[1:06:39] maybe it MAY not be but we have
[1:06:42] not necessarily had
[1:06:42] the opportunity to weigh in if
[1:06:43] we don't have a chance to do
[1:06:44] that with the application
[1:06:47] before it's submitted.
[1:06:47] So what will that process look
[1:06:48] like?
[1:06:48] Councilmember my department is
[1:06:52] happy to bring forward our
[1:06:53] proposed allocations similarly
[1:06:53] to what we did with hap six
[1:06:56] prior to actually submitting
[1:06:57] our application and that seems
[1:06:58] agreeable ultimately, you know
[1:07:02] Council PRESIDENT And the Chair
[1:07:03] of the Land Use and Housing
[1:07:03] Committee But certainly my
[1:07:07] preference that we would have
[1:07:08] an opportunity to weigh in
[1:07:08] before that application and
[1:07:11] submitted And then the last
[1:07:12] question I don't see it listed
[1:07:12] here and I didn't hear you
[1:07:16] mention it save camping not
[1:07:17] funded with happens.
[1:07:17] That's correct.
[1:07:20] And is that because they're not
[1:07:21] eligible or just a different
[1:07:22] decision by the city Save
[1:07:26] sleeping is similarly to say
[1:07:26] parking is not considered
[1:07:27] shelter under hud's definitions
[1:07:30] and therefore doesn't qualify
[1:07:31] under the 50% necessary to be
[1:07:31] allocated towards housing
[1:07:35] focused solutions.
[1:07:35] So as the three jurisdictions
[1:07:36] collaborated for this
[1:07:40] application we did not include
[1:07:41] anything that would not be
[1:07:41] counted in that category.
[1:07:42] So safe sleeping does not count
[1:07:46] in that category so therefore
[1:07:47] it's not Ed thank you, sir.
[1:07:47] >> Thank you.
[1:07:48] PRESIDENT Sorry Before you
[1:07:51] leaving before I go to
[1:07:51] Councilmember Campo, the No fy
[1:07:52] hasn't been released.
[1:07:55] Do we know what the submittal
[1:07:55] deadline is?
[1:07:56] >> We do not.
[1:07:57] Not to my understanding.
[1:08:00] Okay.
[1:08:00] I'm just thinking about trying
[1:08:01] to respond to the request.
[1:08:05] So if you call my office now
[1:08:06] once that an offer comes out,
[1:08:06] council PRESIDENT Will pull all
[1:08:07] that information together and
[1:08:10] we'll get in touch with your
[1:08:10] office.
[1:08:10] Okay?
[1:08:11] Just determine whether we can
[1:08:12] actually schedule it for
[1:08:14] council or you'll have to have
[1:08:15] individual briefings coming to
[1:08:15] the council meetings.
[1:08:16] All right.
[1:08:19] Thank you very much, Sara.
[1:08:20] >> With that let's go to
[1:08:21] Councilmember Camp here.
[1:08:21] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.
[1:08:23] I'll keep it brief.
[1:08:24] I want to thank my colleagues
[1:08:25] for their support over
[1:08:27] the previous weeks on item
[1:08:27] 5051, the Cannabis Delivery
[1:08:28] Services Business permit and
[1:08:32] the electric bike safety
[1:08:32] regulations.
[1:08:33] But most of all I want to thank
[1:08:34] two staff members who put in
[1:08:37] months and months and even
[1:08:38] years of time into those
[1:08:38] policies.
[1:08:39] Carrie Shaw working on
[1:08:41] the Electric Bicycle Safety
[1:08:42] regulations and Summer Payton
[1:08:42] working on the cannabis
[1:08:46] delivery permit meeting with
[1:08:46] hundreds of stakeholders on
[1:08:47] that and dozens of meetings.
[1:08:48] So I just wanted to give them a
[1:08:48] shout out for their very, very
[1:08:51] good work on getting unanimous
[1:08:52] vote on those So thank you.
[1:08:52] Thank you.
[1:08:56] Council Member Campo Where are
[1:08:56] the pretty faces?
[1:08:57] They're the ones who do
[1:08:57] the hard work.
[1:09:00] They do acknowledge them And
[1:09:01] we'll go back to council member
[1:09:01] Lippert.
[1:09:02] >> Thank you.
[1:09:02] Council PRESIDENT Very briefly
[1:09:05] I just want to thank MR. Ahmed
[1:09:05] for answering the questions in
[1:09:06] regard to the allocations I
[1:09:10] fully support the Council have
[1:09:10] any opportunity to review
[1:09:11] the applications.
[1:09:14] The one thing I would say is
[1:09:15] that when we do that I think
[1:09:19] it'd be helpful to do that at
[1:09:20] the context of the overall city
[1:09:24] spending on homelessness
[1:09:24] services because if you just
[1:09:28] look at one slice it could look
[1:09:32] weighted very differently than
[1:09:33] it does when you look at
[1:09:34] the entirety of homelessness
[1:09:37] spending as a whole.
[1:09:38] So I just think that any time
[1:09:39] we're looking at homeless
[1:09:42] spending we should look at it
[1:09:43] in the context of what
[1:09:43] the city's spending is overall.
[1:09:44] That's all I would say.
[1:09:47] Thank you.
[1:09:47] All right.
[1:09:48] Thank you, Councilmember
[1:09:48] Whitburn.
[1:09:52] I think a point well taken.
[1:09:53] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee
[1:09:56] then council PRESIDENT I wanted
[1:09:57] to take a moment to
[1:09:57] congratulate MR. Putin for his
[1:10:00] continued service on the senior
[1:10:01] advisory board and certainly
[1:10:05] long history in terms of
[1:10:06] serving the Filipino-American
[1:10:07] community and your service on
[1:10:11] this board has been appreciated
[1:10:11] for quite some time so thank
[1:10:12] you for continuing that.
[1:10:16] And then similar follow up to
[1:10:16] their funding as well.
[1:10:17] I do think we should appreciate
[1:10:21] and acknowledge that the final
[1:10:21] movements on the budget at
[1:10:22] the state level ended up
[1:10:23] trending in a very positive
[1:10:26] direction and increasing those
[1:10:27] dollars because they've
[1:10:31] continued to be at risk.
[1:10:32] It seems like year after year i
[1:10:36] don't feel a strong of a need
[1:10:36] and that's just my feedback.
[1:10:37] Council PRESIDENT To have an
[1:10:38] entire hearing item to review
[1:10:41] the specifics of what we're
[1:10:41] submitting grant wise But
[1:10:42] the details would be helpful.
[1:10:45] So if there was a larger
[1:10:46] discussion around homelessness
[1:10:46] in terms of grant funding, how
[1:10:50] that ties to expenditure is
[1:10:51] does feel like we do some of
[1:10:54] that during the budget as well
[1:10:55] But just knowing that docketing
[1:10:56] can be difficult at times just
[1:10:59] want to appreciate how we can
[1:11:00] get information in the best way
[1:11:01] that would help us.
[1:11:01] So thank you.
[1:11:04] Sure Absolutely.
[1:11:05] Well all kind of way that in
[1:11:08] and work with Sara and her team
[1:11:09] and the mayor's office about
[1:11:14] how to navigate that So I don't
[1:11:15] see anybody else in my life
[1:11:19] clearly I don't want to was
[1:11:20] the popular one on the consent
[1:11:21] agenda and offer some closing
[1:11:23] thoughts And I'll start out by
[1:11:24] thanking Sara you and each
[1:11:27] other state team for your work
[1:11:28] in securing the Round six grant
[1:11:29] and your command of what you're
[1:11:32] doing and how you're doing it
[1:11:33] and every little detail about
[1:11:37] it was a good testimony and
[1:11:38] your answers to my colleague
[1:11:42] there.
[1:11:43] The allocated funding for
[1:11:44] the city as well as the county
[1:11:44] and the art efforts through
[1:11:47] the joint application
[1:11:48] demonstrates the previously
[1:11:48] ongoing efforts of this region
[1:11:52] to deliver on results and use
[1:11:52] the funding strategically and
[1:11:53] effectively in our city's
[1:11:54] ability to apply this funding.
[1:11:57] Over the past six years is also
[1:11:58] the reason the governor and
[1:11:58] the state legislator agreed on
[1:12:02] full funding for Hap seven in
[1:12:02] the current budget.
[1:12:06] That was certainly a moment to
[1:12:07] celebrate earlier in the state
[1:12:07] budget cycle I had
[1:12:11] the opportunity to join path
[1:12:12] and other housing leaders
[1:12:13] across the state in Sacramento
[1:12:13] to speak to the importance of
[1:12:16] hap and how cities like San
[1:12:17] Diego both use this grant to
[1:12:17] reduce homelessness and provide
[1:12:20] housing as well as leverage
[1:12:21] those dollars with local
[1:12:25] resources And this is what
[1:12:26] we're doing with hap around six
[1:12:29] and I appreciate every effort
[1:12:30] what efforts to maintain this
[1:12:34] grant We have a lot of work to
[1:12:35] do and this grant provides
[1:12:36] the annual funding and I think
[1:12:40] that it goes to speaks to what
[1:12:41] my colleagues refer to.
[1:12:41] The challenge of this is an
[1:12:45] ongoing issue.
[1:12:45] These are people's lives and
[1:12:49] we're trying to create
[1:12:50] sustainable sustainable
[1:12:51] solutions And every year we
[1:12:54] have to apply for those grants
[1:12:55] And even though we have a track
[1:12:59] record of getting those grants,
[1:13:00] the being on pins and needles
[1:13:00] when people's lives are at
[1:13:04] stake makes us so problematic
[1:13:05] For now we can be grateful for
[1:13:08] now we can be grateful that we
[1:13:09] have seven will be a bigger
[1:13:13] chunk than Hap six But there is
[1:13:14] a lot more work to do.
[1:13:15] Council member Eli Rivera
[1:13:15] mentioned the emergency housing
[1:13:18] vouchers which is a separate
[1:13:19] but important conversation
[1:13:22] about that vulnerability.
[1:13:23] Council member Whipper and I
[1:13:27] talked with Senator Shift about
[1:13:28] the 13,000 units that are
[1:13:28] currently housing units are
[1:13:32] currently under contract and
[1:13:32] whether they will remain under
[1:13:33] contract for the people who
[1:13:36] live there.
[1:13:37] There are so many things that
[1:13:38] require sustainable ongoing
[1:13:38] funding.
[1:13:41] We're not there yet but
[1:13:42] hopefully we can work together
[1:13:47] to get to a better solutions.
[1:13:48] >> And before I call for
[1:13:49] the vote we'll go back to
[1:13:52] Councilmember Eli Rivera one
[1:13:52] more time.
[1:13:52] Thank you.
[1:13:53] Council PRESIDENT.
[1:13:54] I just want to add some
[1:13:54] additional context here.
[1:13:57] I think one of the things that
[1:13:57] I just frankly struggled with
[1:14:01] over the last five and a half
[1:14:09] years is this this idea that
[1:14:10] it's important to recognize
[1:14:11] the work that is being done and
[1:14:18] also simultaneously not for a
[1:14:18] second pretend that I'm
[1:14:19] satisfied with the progress
[1:14:23] that's been made and we only
[1:14:27] get so many bites at the apple
[1:14:28] when it comes to the funding
[1:14:31] that we receive that we receive
[1:14:35] specifically for homelessness
[1:14:36] And I want to make sure that we
[1:14:37] are being as thoughtful as
[1:14:41] possible every single time we
[1:14:42] get that bite of the apple.
[1:14:42] And I'm going to be very frank
[1:14:46] that for those of us who joined
[1:14:50] the council in 2020 and those
[1:14:50] who were already here starting
[1:14:54] in 2018, the administration was
[1:14:55] not nearly open enough with our
[1:14:58] input not feedback but input
[1:15:03] about how we would spend our
[1:15:04] precious resources as it
[1:15:04] relates to homelessness And it
[1:15:09] was a tug of war to simply get
[1:15:13] the opportunity for the council
[1:15:14] to weigh in before the cake was
[1:15:14] baked And we were essentially
[1:15:19] told Do you want the money or
[1:15:19] not?
[1:15:20] Not how do you want to spend it
[1:15:23] which is the most important
[1:15:27] power that we hold as a council
[1:15:28] .
[1:15:28] But will you will we or won't
[1:15:29] we receive it which is
[1:15:32] obviously a choice that we
[1:15:33] would never say no to.
[1:15:37] So that is why I just want to
[1:15:38] provide some additional context
[1:15:39] for why I guard so jealously
[1:15:41] the council's ability to weigh
[1:15:42] in on the front end and if I
[1:15:47] had my way we would be having
[1:15:47] these conversations on a much
[1:15:48] more regular basis.
[1:15:49] But they I recognize they are
[1:15:52] exhausting and challenging But
[1:15:56] the reality is is that despite
[1:15:57] this being a priority for
[1:16:01] the Council, despite the amount
[1:16:02] of time we spent on it, despite
[1:16:02] the way that I know it keeps
[1:16:06] some of us up at night,
[1:16:07] tonight's meeting runs longer.
[1:16:08] We're going to walk out of this
[1:16:11] building and there's going to
[1:16:12] be people sleeping outside
[1:16:12] the doors of City Hall And we
[1:16:13] MAY not like the way that
[1:16:16] that's told to us as a council
[1:16:21] but it is a fact and so long as
[1:16:22] that is the case, I want to
[1:16:24] make sure that we are not
[1:16:24] sacrificing for a second and
[1:16:25] the opportunity we have to
[1:16:26] determine how those dollars are
[1:16:30] spent and whether or not
[1:16:31] they're being spent well And we
[1:16:31] can have that conversation
[1:16:34] without for a second dismissing
[1:16:35] or disrespecting or denying
[1:16:39] the incredible work that city
[1:16:40] staff does on an issue that is
[1:16:44] not their making and far beyond
[1:16:48] any one individual's ability or
[1:16:48] even one city's ability to
[1:16:49] solve for.
[1:16:49] So thank you for the additional
[1:16:53] time Councilor PRESIDENT I just
[1:16:54] wanted to add that context.
[1:16:55] >> No, I appreciate that and I
[1:16:58] think that without drifting too
[1:16:58] far off course that's
[1:17:02] the continuing challenge of
[1:17:02] incremental things that staff
[1:17:03] is responding to deadlines and
[1:17:07] different buckets of money in
[1:17:07] different red tape and
[1:17:08] different bureaucracy where
[1:17:12] it's difficult to grab hold of
[1:17:13] the totality of what we're
[1:17:14] trying to do and what our
[1:17:17] priorities are And then we
[1:17:18] scramble in JUNE to try to make
[1:17:21] sense of the overall budget
[1:17:22] when we've already
[1:17:22] predetermined so many decisions
[1:17:25] along the way.
[1:17:31] We can always, always do better
[1:17:31] .
[1:17:32] Okay with that we do have a
[1:17:33] motion by Councilmember Lipper
[1:17:33] and the second by council
[1:17:34] member Campbell Park.
[1:17:38] >> Please call the roll start
[1:17:38] of the voting system.
[1:17:43] Please cast your vote that
[1:17:51] passes eight to that passes
[1:17:51] unanimously 9 to 0.
[1:17:52] Thank you.
[1:17:55] Council PRESIDENT.
[1:17:56] All right.
[1:17:56] Thank you, Clark.
[1:17:56] Thank you.
[1:18:00] My colleagues.
[1:18:01] Thank you to staff for making
[1:18:02] yourselves available on
[1:18:05] the consent items.
[1:18:06] So before we go to non agenda
[1:18:10] or public comment, are there
[1:18:11] any comments from the mayor's
[1:18:11] office, Council members, City
[1:18:12] attorney Independent budget
[1:18:15] analyst or city clerk Not
[1:18:16] seeing anything from
[1:18:19] the mayor's office but we see
[1:18:20] the city clerk is on
[1:18:20] the lights.
[1:18:21] >> Thank you Council PRESIDENT
[1:18:24] I did just want to make an
[1:18:25] additional announcement due to
[1:18:29] the changes with organized
[1:18:29] presentations we have found
[1:18:30] capacity and new technology
[1:18:34] assets to be able to also allow
[1:18:35] any individual speakers to also
[1:18:39] be able to submit any organ to
[1:18:40] any type of PowerPoint video
[1:18:44] audio to wwe w dot San
[1:18:48] diego.Gov/materials two hours
[1:18:48] before the meeting whether they
[1:18:49] are presenting here in council
[1:18:52] chambers or virtually.
[1:18:53] So this is for individual
[1:18:54] speakers not just group
[1:18:57] presentations If they would
[1:18:57] like to share a PowerPoint or
[1:18:58] an audio video they can submit
[1:19:02] that again to San Diego to
[1:19:03] slash materials two hours
[1:19:06] before the meeting and if you'd
[1:19:07] like additional information
[1:19:08] please be sure to go to w w w
[1:19:12] dot San Diego dot gov slash
[1:19:12] participate.
[1:19:13] Thank you so much Council
[1:19:13] PRESIDENT All right thank you
[1:19:17] for that continuous effort will
[1:19:18] go to council member Yvonne
[1:19:21] Wolpert and thank you I just
[1:19:22] wanted to commemorate the three
[1:19:23] firefighters who were killed a
[1:19:26] few days ago battling
[1:19:27] the Sydney fire in the ward of
[1:19:31] Utah and Colorado.
[1:19:32] They were young Emily Barker,
[1:19:32] Nick Hutcherson and Sydney
[1:19:35] Watson were killed while
[1:19:36] battling the fire.
[1:19:36] The U.S. Forest Service says
[1:19:40] they were part of the rifle
[1:19:41] heat crew that jumped into
[1:19:42] the were smokejumpers that
[1:19:46] helped to try and prevent
[1:19:47] fires.
[1:19:47] And so we here in San Diego
[1:19:48] have just commemorated
[1:19:51] the Cedar Fire anniversary and
[1:19:51] the Witch Creek Fire
[1:19:52] anniversary recently.
[1:19:53] So thank you for your service
[1:19:55] to our country and we need to
[1:19:56] do better to protect our
[1:19:56] workers.
[1:19:56] So thank you.
[1:19:57] All right.
[1:19:57] Thank you.
[1:20:00] Council member Vaughn Wolpert
[1:20:01] not seen any other requests to
[1:20:01] speak.
[1:20:05] We will now take up non agenda
[1:20:06] public comment Council members
[1:20:07] respect and appreciate
[1:20:10] the public input and are fully
[1:20:11] committed to protecting every
[1:20:12] participant's free speech
[1:20:12] rights at council and committee
[1:20:15] meetings.
[1:20:16] Clerk Please proceed with
[1:20:16] public comment.
[1:20:17] Thank you.
[1:20:18] Council PRESIDENT Pearl 2.7 on
[1:20:19] the general public comment is
[1:20:20] an opportunity for members of
[1:20:21] the public to comment on items
[1:20:24] that are not on the agenda but
[1:20:24] within the subject matter
[1:20:25] jurisdiction of the City
[1:20:25] Council.
[1:20:29] Each speaker will have two
[1:20:29] minutes.
[1:20:30] Please note if there are eight
[1:20:30] or more speakers on a single
[1:20:31] topic the maximum time for
[1:20:33] the topic will be 16 minutes.
[1:20:33] If you're in chambers please
[1:20:34] submit your speaker slip If
[1:20:37] you're joining us virtually
[1:20:38] please raise your hand at this
[1:20:39] time by tapping the raise your
[1:20:39] hand icon or if you're calling
[1:20:43] participants two hour nine If I
[1:20:44] can have Damian Robertson
[1:20:44] please come up to
[1:20:48] the microphone after that if I
[1:20:48] can get Steven Gerrard to
[1:20:53] please come up to the yellow
[1:20:53] reserved seats Taylor Partridge
[1:20:57] and then we'll be Maximillian
[1:20:58] Schmidt and allegedly Audra
[1:20:59] Damian Please proceed.
[1:21:02] Hey, how are we doing?
[1:21:03] My name is Damian Robertson.
[1:21:03] I would ask for a little bit
[1:21:04] more than two minutes.
[1:21:05] I will come back an afternoon
[1:21:07] if I have to start now I am
[1:21:12] part of the circle of service.
[1:21:13] I'm got my eyes on you now, MR.
[1:21:16] Shawn Yellow Rivera Basically I
[1:21:16] have a plan that is about
[1:21:21] homeless outreach People,
[1:21:22] places and things I can see in
[1:21:23] all the budgets I've seen how
[1:21:23] it works.
[1:21:26] I created my own companies that
[1:21:27] are employee owned and then I
[1:21:27] created another resource that
[1:21:28] is Let us Empower which is a
[1:21:32] staff If you are an
[1:21:32] organization, if you're Joe
[1:21:36] LaCava, if you are my man Jeff
[1:21:37] over here who's a great male
[1:21:38] detail I know the city pretty
[1:21:38] well.
[1:21:41] I've been part of everything of
[1:21:42] it and I would like to be heard
[1:21:45] on ways to allocate these
[1:21:46] budget funding, maybe even put
[1:21:46] a partnership sponsorship
[1:21:50] apprenticeship for resources.
[1:21:51] It's a job source.
[1:21:51] I've created the companies
[1:21:56] myself They are they are they
[1:21:57] are part of a let us brand
[1:21:58] companies which is let us
[1:22:00] clean, cater entertain and
[1:22:01] build their inc And so that is
[1:22:01] the people and anybody who
[1:22:06] wants to be a part of that
[1:22:06] the people that we are an
[1:22:07] organization the city of San
[1:22:10] Diego is a great city.
[1:22:11] I can take us from number eight
[1:22:13] economy least minimum to number
[1:22:14] three in the world and that's
[1:22:14] just based off what I see and
[1:22:15] allocate from people, places
[1:22:19] and things And there is whimsy
[1:22:23] here So like this DR. Shabazz
[1:22:24] at City College he's a part of
[1:22:25] maybe being a apprenticeship
[1:22:29] for these services that is a
[1:22:29] catering or janitorial
[1:22:30] construction and even
[1:22:34] the entertainment sector EMTs,
[1:22:34] they do a great job.
[1:22:35] Father Joe's thing dignity,
[1:22:38] anthropology and these are in a
[1:22:43] circle of services I say places
[1:22:44] that I work with personally
[1:22:45] the homeless outreach I want to
[1:22:45] make a homeless outreach
[1:22:48] advisory board that might
[1:22:49] include some homeless or people
[1:22:49] that represent that I'm a voice
[1:22:54] of the city and each one of you
[1:22:55] guys even a city attorney from
[1:22:55] the da's attorney to the public
[1:22:59] defender I have had personal
[1:23:00] dealings with even
[1:23:00] the community Brittney
[1:23:01] Daniels's office where I shake
[1:23:04] hands and make thank you for
[1:23:04] that.
[1:23:05] And so that's what I'm working
[1:23:06] on Anybody wants to understand.
[1:23:07] And so you and your team has
[1:23:09] concluded But thank you for
[1:23:09] that concluding comment.
[1:23:11] Steven Gerrard I understand you
[1:23:16] have something for
[1:23:17] the something to put up so we
[1:23:22] will put that up right now.
[1:23:22] >> Thank you and you'll have
[1:23:23] two minutes.
[1:23:26] Please proceed.
[1:23:27] >> San Diego City Council and
[1:23:31] Citizens Steven Gerrard said
[1:23:32] Love Ski I'd like to open since
[1:23:36] we're celebrating 250 years and
[1:23:37] we're a Judeo Christian nation
[1:23:40] I like to open up with just a
[1:23:41] random holy Bible.
[1:23:45] Starting with Hebrews nine Then
[1:23:45] verily the first covenant had
[1:23:49] also ordinances of divine
[1:23:54] service and a worldly sanctuary
[1:23:55] for there was a tabernacle made
[1:23:55] the first wherein was
[1:24:00] the candlestick and the table
[1:24:00] and the show Bread which is
[1:24:05] called the Sanctuary And after
[1:24:05] the second will the tabernacle
[1:24:06] which is called the holiest of
[1:24:10] all which had the Golden censor
[1:24:11] and the Ark of the Covenant
[1:24:14] overlaid.
[1:24:15] Please read all of Hebrews nine
[1:24:19] I smile when you embrace
[1:24:20] the Holy Bible and read it
[1:24:25] daily as I try to do myself by
[1:24:25] frown If you don't I encourage
[1:24:26] that.
[1:24:30] Looking at the slide here, San
[1:24:30] Diego will be hosting another
[1:24:35] wonderful Walk for life coming
[1:24:35] JANUARY 23rd.
[1:24:40] I encourage you to put that on
[1:24:46] your schedule and attended next
[1:24:47] weekend Mission San Diego
[1:24:51] The Chocolate Festival
[1:24:52] The Bells will be occurring
[1:24:53] Also I encourage you to attend
[1:24:56] that I often play at
[1:24:56] the Blessing of the Animals
[1:24:57] events with my guitar.
[1:25:02] I continue to amplify new U.S.
[1:25:07] Preborn personhood cities as a
[1:25:08] pro-life speaker it's something
[1:25:08] that we can do now I hope you
[1:25:12] are already reading
[1:25:13] the correspondence that has
[1:25:13] been placed before you.
[1:25:18] Thank you for permitting me to
[1:25:18] speak and remember let
[1:25:19] the beating heart show you
[1:25:23] There is life in the.
[1:25:24] >> GOD bless you all.
[1:25:24] Thank you.
[1:25:25] Next is Taylor Partridge.
[1:25:28] If you can please come forward.
[1:25:34] >> Taylor, are you here?
[1:25:35] Taylor Partridge Boy once
[1:25:35] Right.
[1:25:38] Maximilian Schmidt, if you can
[1:25:43] please come forward.
[1:25:44] >> Hi.
[1:25:48] I just wanted to give a big
[1:25:49] thank you to Councilmember
[1:25:54] Campbell for saying that
[1:25:54] the e-bike the e-bikes are a
[1:26:00] crisis because they are And I
[1:26:01] think that we need to be super
[1:26:05] aggressive about a full out ban
[1:26:10] on electric scooters, bicycles
[1:26:15] and on skateboards completely
[1:26:16] ban them on their way to
[1:26:17] dangerous in my opinion they
[1:26:22] actually ruin the sidewalks
[1:26:22] completely.
[1:26:23] The sidewalks don't even feel
[1:26:27] safe to walk down And at all I
[1:26:28] could ban everything electric.
[1:26:32] We could be the first city on
[1:26:33] the West Coast to do it And I
[1:26:33] think if we took a vote of
[1:26:34] everyone San Diego everyone
[1:26:38] would support that And San
[1:26:39] Diego could be like big heroes
[1:26:43] and they could be said to be
[1:26:44] the first city to do in the us
[1:26:45] And I think we need to be
[1:26:49] supergrass about a full out ban
[1:26:50] on everything electric because
[1:26:51] Oh yeah I'd like for
[1:26:51] Councilmember Campbell saying
[1:26:54] it's also a helmet issue or
[1:26:55] maybe like teens don't want to
[1:26:56] wear helmets They go on
[1:27:00] the bike path where it's safer
[1:27:01] ,where a lot of skilled people
[1:27:02] live like the one wheeled
[1:27:02] skateboards.
[1:27:03] They'll wear helmets, they'll
[1:27:03] go on the road.
[1:27:06] So if you wanted to do
[1:27:07] something electric you have to
[1:27:08] ride in the road of a helmet
[1:27:08] and in the sidewalks.
[1:27:09] Nothing electric is allowed on
[1:27:12] the sidewalks Pretty basic.
[1:27:12] And then I also want to talk
[1:27:13] about Freemasons.
[1:27:14] There's a song we can help
[1:27:17] people across the planet but in
[1:27:17] every downtown urban center in
[1:27:23] the world there's someone who's
[1:27:23] lonely and isolated and going
[1:27:24] crazy because they can't grasp
[1:27:25] or wrap their mind around
[1:27:29] the fact that someone can read
[1:27:30] your mind and they're becoming
[1:27:30] mentally ill.
[1:27:31] >> And if we send a public
[1:27:35] service announcement across
[1:27:36] the world to let these people
[1:27:36] know that people can read your
[1:27:37] mind on badging and conquer
[1:27:41] rituals and Masonic lodges
[1:27:42] you're not crazy.
[1:27:43] >> In fact that person is evil
[1:27:43] trying to make you crazy.
[1:27:45] We can actually save lives
[1:27:46] allegedly.
[1:27:47] >> If you can please come
[1:28:03] forward first.
[1:28:03] Timothy 610 The love of money
[1:28:09] is the root of all evil And
[1:28:09] it's interesting to hear you
[1:28:14] guys talk about that being your
[1:28:15] favorite item about the funding
[1:28:20] And you know, talking about
[1:28:21] when people's lives are at
[1:28:21] stake.
[1:28:22] >> These are people's lives.
[1:28:26] You know, talk about money
[1:28:27] being at risk efforts to
[1:28:27] maintain grants, ongoing
[1:28:33] funding you know, do you want
[1:28:34] the money or not?
[1:28:34] And it's like you're using
[1:28:39] these people's lives And it's
[1:28:40] so sad because I wish you cared
[1:28:41] about those people just as much
[1:28:45] as you care about this money
[1:28:46] that you get because like
[1:28:46] you're talking about you walk
[1:28:51] over and you don't like how I
[1:28:52] talk to you about it.
[1:28:53] Well, I like watching that
[1:28:57] really hard.
[1:28:58] It's really hard to listen to
[1:28:59] you guys talk like this when I
[1:29:02] come to you year after year and
[1:29:03] tell you about people dying at
[1:29:09] Tent City and then you use them
[1:29:10] as a means to get money and
[1:29:19] it's like how sad is that?
[1:29:20] A man was strangled yesterday
[1:29:25] at Tent City and he's part of
[1:29:26] the lawsuit and people have
[1:29:27] been dying there from fentanyl
[1:29:32] overdoses that don't do
[1:29:32] fentanyl And I'm just like what
[1:29:37] the you guys?
[1:29:38] >> You're the ones that are
[1:29:43] supposed to like you have this
[1:29:44] opportunity to do something.
[1:29:49] >> You have the power to do it
[1:29:49] .
[1:29:50] Why do you just walk over them?
[1:29:55] I asked them if they've gotten
[1:29:56] help and they say no and they
[1:29:57] want it And it's like you have
[1:29:58] all these people that are set
[1:30:02] to lose housing and they are
[1:30:03] about to They could die if you
[1:30:03] send them to Tent City.
[1:30:04] >> Thank you for that
[1:30:09] Concluding comments are
[1:30:10] the five minute timer.
[1:30:10] We currently have 11 people in
[1:30:11] the queue starting with Laurie
[1:30:13] on if you can please email.
[1:30:14] Thank you.
[1:30:14] Good morning and thank you for
[1:30:15] instituting the way for people
[1:30:20] to submit documents and other
[1:30:21] things before the comment I
[1:30:21] want to address collapsing
[1:30:26] infrastructure and climate
[1:30:27] change in San Diego and also
[1:30:28] the cost of change orders that
[1:30:32] are red increasing that
[1:30:33] the cost for these projects by
[1:30:33] hundreds of billions of dollars
[1:30:39] in coastal areas and by start
[1:30:43] getting over bronchitis there's
[1:30:44] been a 35% increase in costs
[1:30:45] due to higher ground water
[1:30:45] levels around a pure water pump
[1:30:49] station along the river.
[1:30:50] This overall is $1 billion plus
[1:30:50] project which means hundreds of
[1:30:54] millions of dollars in change
[1:30:55] orders for specifically that
[1:30:59] one pump station along Friars
[1:31:00] Road very close to where you're
[1:31:01] proposing to build thousands of
[1:31:06] new homes in the Midway Project
[1:31:06] what I call the Midway Sinking
[1:31:07] project across the river
[1:31:11] adjacent to the San Diego River
[1:31:12] until and unless you
[1:31:12] investigate changes in
[1:31:13] groundwater in these
[1:31:13] communities, the citizens will
[1:31:18] continue to put more taxpayer
[1:31:18] money into addressing these
[1:31:19] change orders and they will
[1:31:23] also have to pay for emergency
[1:31:24] repairs.
[1:31:25] And one company in particular
[1:31:25] has received almost $100
[1:31:25] million.
[1:31:30] This is the Katz Construction.
[1:31:30] They have received these
[1:31:31] emergency change orders close
[1:31:35] to $100 million now because
[1:31:36] the city is simply not
[1:31:36] evaluating the risk of these
[1:31:42] coastal communities.
[1:31:42] High tides are routinely
[1:31:43] flooding Mission Bay and very
[1:31:44] soon we will have El Nino
[1:31:48] driven storms pushing those
[1:31:49] tides even more into
[1:31:49] the community.
[1:31:50] These the floodwaters are
[1:31:54] reaching the streets,
[1:31:55] the alleyways and soon
[1:31:56] the homes in this beach and any
[1:31:59] high tide you simply go down to
[1:32:00] those areas and you see
[1:32:01] the tides are going up through
[1:32:06] the storm drains that are
[1:32:06] supposed to drain water away
[1:32:07] from the land.
[1:32:07] Sea level is changing.
[1:32:12] Groundwater is changing.
[1:32:13] Our communities are sinking.
[1:32:13] Please investigate these
[1:32:14] changes before you spend more
[1:32:18] money on change orders.
[1:32:19] >> Thank you.
[1:32:19] Next is Becky Rapp.
[1:32:24] If you can please unmute.
[1:32:24] >> Good morning.
[1:32:30] My name is Becky Rapp and today
[1:32:30] I'd like to share data provided
[1:32:31] in San Diego County Cannabis
[1:32:32] Public Health Initiative
[1:32:32] Report.
[1:32:37] The data in the 2025 report
[1:32:37] makes one thing very clear.
[1:32:38] We're seeing increases in
[1:32:42] cannabis related emergency
[1:32:43] department visits, poison
[1:32:44] control calls, highly potent
[1:32:44] products, synthetic
[1:32:48] cannabinoids and new forms of
[1:32:49] access that simply did not
[1:32:50] exist a few years ago.
[1:32:54] Perhaps the most concerning is
[1:32:55] that many young people still
[1:32:55] don't recognize the risks.
[1:32:56] A significant percentage of
[1:33:01] students report believing that
[1:33:02] daily marijuana use is not
[1:33:02] harmful.
[1:33:03] While justice involved youth
[1:33:07] continued to report early
[1:33:07] initiation, frequent use and
[1:33:12] easy easy access that tells us
[1:33:13] education and prevention
[1:33:14] efforts are still desperately
[1:33:14] needed.
[1:33:18] We also need to be honest about
[1:33:19] what we're talking about today.
[1:33:20] This is not the marijuana many
[1:33:20] people remember from decades
[1:33:21] ago.
[1:33:25] This is not simply a plant
[1:33:25] growing in a pot on our
[1:33:26] balcony.
[1:33:26] Today's cannabis includes
[1:33:31] highly concentrated thc
[1:33:31] products, vapes edibles and
[1:33:32] other products designed to
[1:33:33] deliver much stronger doses
[1:33:37] than previous generations
[1:33:37] experienced.
[1:33:38] The potency and accessibility
[1:33:38] of these products have changed
[1:33:43] and our prevention efforts must
[1:33:44] change with them.
[1:33:44] We also cannot ignore
[1:33:45] the mental health impacts on
[1:33:46] young people.
[1:33:49] Adolescence is a critical
[1:33:50] period of brain development.
[1:33:51] And research continues to show
[1:33:51] that early and frequent
[1:33:56] marijuana use can affect
[1:33:56] attention, memory, learning,
[1:33:57] motivation and emotional
[1:33:58] well-being especially those who
[1:34:01] are already vulnerable.
[1:34:02] It can increase the risk of
[1:34:03] anxiety, depression, psychosis
[1:34:08] and other serious mental health
[1:34:08] challenges.
[1:34:09] At a time when youth mental
[1:34:09] health concerns are already at
[1:34:14] historic levels, we must take
[1:34:14] every opportunity to educate
[1:34:15] and protect our children.
[1:34:19] The data has been provided
[1:34:20] local current data impacting
[1:34:21] our communities and
[1:34:21] neighborhoods.
[1:34:26] We have an opportunity and a
[1:34:26] responsibility to act before
[1:34:27] these problems become even more
[1:34:31] difficult.
[1:34:32] Concluded Kathleen Lippert, if
[1:34:37] you can please and you.
[1:34:37] >> Thank you.
[1:34:38] Good morning Council.
[1:34:43] As a prevention policy advocate
[1:34:44] getting elected to support
[1:34:44] prevention strategies its
[1:34:49] challenges unnecessarily
[1:34:50] challenging with local
[1:34:50] government officials and
[1:34:51] sometimes with the public
[1:34:55] because their outcomes are not
[1:34:55] immediately seen.
[1:34:56] But no other strategy for
[1:34:57] addressing public health and
[1:35:02] safety challenges works better
[1:35:02] for their efficacy
[1:35:03] sustainability and economics.
[1:35:07] >> Having the failures of harm
[1:35:08] reduction policies and
[1:35:08] ineffective city policies
[1:35:13] influenced by addiction
[1:35:14] industries point out to city
[1:35:14] elected officials they're not
[1:35:19] appreciated.
[1:35:20] That's understandable.
[1:35:20] None of us enjoy being
[1:35:21] criticized But instead of
[1:35:25] ignoring the words of those
[1:35:26] whose heartfelt concerns prompt
[1:35:27] them to be repetitive, please
[1:35:28] consider what they have to say.
[1:35:33] Andre is one of those whose
[1:35:34] passion for the homeless
[1:35:34] motivates her intrepid,
[1:35:38] conscientious undaunted effort
[1:35:39] to shine a light on preventable
[1:35:39] deaths of those who end up in
[1:35:44] homeless shelters encampments,
[1:35:44] tents or on our street.
[1:35:48] Kelly Davis was a similar voice
[1:35:49] who spent three decades to
[1:35:50] prevent those in our prisons
[1:35:50] from dying unnecessarily.
[1:35:55] Although the jails should be
[1:35:56] one of the most controlled
[1:35:57] environments, it remains a
[1:36:01] mystery as to why they are not
[1:36:01] .
[1:36:02] There seems to be no good
[1:36:02] reason why drugs, weapons
[1:36:03] suicides take place in our
[1:36:08] jails and prisons.
[1:36:08] Davis spent three decades
[1:36:09] shining this light and she
[1:36:13] could bring attention to their
[1:36:14] plight.
[1:36:14] In a touching tribute to her
[1:36:15] efforts, the families of those
[1:36:20] whose loved ones passed away in
[1:36:21] jails attended her funeral to
[1:36:26] pay their respects.
[1:36:26] We lost a powerful and
[1:36:27] principled voice on behalf of
[1:36:28] those in prison and we need to
[1:36:33] remind ourselves that voices
[1:36:33] like Kelly and Andre deserve to
[1:36:34] be respected and listened to.
[1:36:39] Unlike many of the politically
[1:36:40] influenced voices we hear
[1:36:41] there, Clinton has concluded My
[1:36:45] apologies but we have nine
[1:36:46] speakers in the queue.
[1:36:46] The five minute timer has
[1:36:47] concluded no additional
[1:36:49] speakers will be taken.
[1:36:50] Madison if you can please
[1:36:55] unmute.
[1:36:56] >> Yes, hi.
[1:36:56] Thank you for the opportunity
[1:36:57] to speak again today.
[1:37:01] I wanted to focus on
[1:37:02] the important mental health
[1:37:03] consequences of drug impairment
[1:37:07] and impact on our young people
[1:37:07] .
[1:37:08] A new ucla Center for Health
[1:37:09] Policy Research study found
[1:37:13] that California adolescents who
[1:37:13] currently use substances
[1:37:14] experience significantly higher
[1:37:15] rates of psychological distress
[1:37:19] and suicidal thoughts or
[1:37:19] attempts than their peers.
[1:37:20] Nearly half of youth who used
[1:37:25] drugs, alcohol and tobacco
[1:37:25] reported serious psychological
[1:37:26] distress.
[1:37:26] Even more concerning
[1:37:31] adolescents who used both
[1:37:32] substances and experienced
[1:37:33] psychological distress were
[1:37:33] nearly six times more likely to
[1:37:38] report suicidal thoughts or
[1:37:39] suicide attempts than those who
[1:37:39] use substances without
[1:37:40] psychological distress.
[1:37:44] >> These findings remind us
[1:37:44] that substance use prevention
[1:37:45] is mental health prevention.
[1:37:50] Every effort we make to delay
[1:37:50] or reduce substance use has
[1:37:51] the potential to improve
[1:37:56] emotional well-being and reduce
[1:37:57] the risk of tragic outcomes.
[1:37:57] I encourage you to prioritize
[1:38:01] evidence based prevention
[1:38:02] programs alongside treatment
[1:38:02] services.
[1:38:03] Prevention is often the most
[1:38:08] effective behavioral health
[1:38:09] investment we can make because
[1:38:09] it keeps young people from ever
[1:38:15] needing more intensive services
[1:38:15] leaders.
[1:38:16] Thank you.
[1:38:16] Thank you, Terry.
[1:38:23] Terry is going to complete any
[1:38:23] .
[1:38:24] >> Good morning San Diego City
[1:38:24] Council.
[1:38:25] My name is Terrence Gilliam, a
[1:38:26] parent of three adult sons and
[1:38:29] a planning board member.
[1:38:30] My planning group had a
[1:38:31] presentation regarding fire
[1:38:34] safety from the county's fire
[1:38:35] Safe Council last week.
[1:38:36] My planning group is concerned
[1:38:36] about tobacco and marijuana
[1:38:42] smoking and vaping on
[1:38:43] the hiking trails on the small
[1:38:43] sidewalks that connect
[1:38:47] the neighborhoods in my area
[1:38:47] marijuana and tobacco products
[1:38:48] are discarded out on the trails
[1:38:49] and the sidewalks creating a
[1:38:53] hazard for fires and legally
[1:38:53] vaping products are considered
[1:38:54] a toxic waste.
[1:38:59] We need much better signage in
[1:39:00] those areas this summer
[1:39:01] indicating that they are that
[1:39:05] they are smoke free.
[1:39:06] I'm hoping the city departments
[1:39:07] that would be responsible for
[1:39:11] this type of signage could do
[1:39:12] so soon and now would be a
[1:39:13] great time to prohibit smoking
[1:39:18] and vaping in all public places
[1:39:19] in our city where our citizens
[1:39:19] live and play.
[1:39:23] The city could signal their
[1:39:24] understanding that the water we
[1:39:24] drink, the land we enjoy and
[1:39:30] especially the air that we
[1:39:31] breathe are all very precious.
[1:39:31] It would be great by bringing
[1:39:36] forward a smoke free and free
[1:39:36] public places ordinance.
[1:39:37] Like many other cities
[1:39:41] throughout our county, this
[1:39:42] would work towards creating a
[1:39:43] smoke free vape free generation
[1:39:47] of young Americans that reject
[1:39:48] reject tobacco marijuana use
[1:39:49] and the physical and health
[1:39:54] mental problems they create.
[1:39:54] Thank you for hearing my
[1:39:55] concerns this morning.
[1:39:55] Thank you.
[1:39:57] Judy Strang if you can please
[1:40:03] on you.
[1:40:03] >> Good morning.
[1:40:08] San Diego City Council.
[1:40:09] Thank you for letting me share
[1:40:10] some personal thoughts here.
[1:40:15] When I heard and I'm not being
[1:40:16] unkind here I hope the idea
[1:40:17] that people grow their
[1:40:22] marijuana in pot I wanted to
[1:40:23] say oh on only because my
[1:40:24] experience is that they are
[1:40:27] definitely using the products
[1:40:28] that they receive either for
[1:40:29] the illegal or legal market
[1:40:33] that are primarily engineering
[1:40:34] products now and our high
[1:40:39] concentrated thc in the circle
[1:40:40] of people that I care about I
[1:40:46] have visited one of them now
[1:40:47] three times as they've been
[1:40:47] hospitalized because of their
[1:40:52] psychotic and mental distress
[1:40:53] because of their marijuana use.
[1:40:59] I have received the phone calls
[1:40:59] from the corner of Bridge
[1:41:00] regarding their contemplation
[1:41:04] about killing themselves and
[1:41:05] got those phone calls every
[1:41:06] single day for several months
[1:41:11] until that person realized that
[1:41:11] 5% of those who survived and
[1:41:17] that scared them enough to let
[1:41:17] go of that idea And I made
[1:41:18] plans to travel when his he
[1:41:23] disappeared in his friends
[1:41:23] called me and I went to
[1:41:24] the cliff side where his truck
[1:41:28] was parked back.
[1:41:29] It didn't work out that badly
[1:41:29] this time I know what marijuana
[1:41:30] use looks like.
[1:41:36] I know what decades of use.
[1:41:36] I know what it looks like in
[1:41:37] the 20 to 30 the police in
[1:41:41] the 50s and it is scary and it
[1:41:42] causes whether it causes
[1:41:42] distress to the person smoking
[1:41:47] Well we'd have to have them
[1:41:48] come in and talk to you But
[1:41:48] I've seen some pretty agitated
[1:41:49] depressed state.
[1:41:52] But let me tell you for those
[1:41:53] of us around them and care them
[1:41:54] and try to protect them, it's a
[1:41:58] horrific experience.
[1:41:59] So if we speak about our
[1:41:59] concerns, I want you to
[1:42:00] understand it's a personal
[1:42:05] issue for many of us.
[1:42:05] >> Thank you.
[1:42:06] Thank you for being open.
[1:42:07] If you can please unmute I
[1:42:10] thank you.
[1:42:10] There was now that we're having
[1:42:15] the roll out of for the new
[1:42:21] public comment time period what
[1:42:22] speakers can do and working in
[1:42:27] groups think that it started.
[1:42:28] I'm interested how if needed
[1:42:33] the city clerk can know how to
[1:42:34] use the 130 time a bit more
[1:42:39] frequently and more flexibly as
[1:42:40] appropriate.
[1:42:40] I offered that yesterday and I
[1:42:44] realized the meeting went on to
[1:42:44] about 6 or 7.
[1:42:45] So you know she actually
[1:42:45] yourselves made a very wise
[1:42:50] decision in how to garner one
[1:42:51] minute for public comment But
[1:42:55] just sometimes some items
[1:42:56] deserve a bit longer time and
[1:43:00] to be flexible and open to
[1:43:00] the 130 time I think you guys
[1:43:01] do that really well and should
[1:43:02] know how to use it a little
[1:43:06] more regularly as needed.
[1:43:07] I thought I'd just mention to
[1:43:08] this time in this new public
[1:43:13] comment age we're entering I
[1:43:13] also want to comment on
[1:43:14] the words of Marie Sodano and I
[1:43:18] think did a really nice job to
[1:43:18] describe that.
[1:43:19] If nothing else we have to go
[1:43:24] with the Midway Rising project.
[1:43:24] We have to be aware of our
[1:43:30] options and choices and so long
[1:43:31] as has made it clear that I
[1:43:32] hope her words become a part of
[1:43:32] the regular conversation and
[1:43:36] how to address the future of
[1:43:36] Midway Rising, I think she's on
[1:43:37] a really important captain How
[1:43:41] to talk about it that needs
[1:43:42] respect and I hope it's just a
[1:43:46] regular part of the future
[1:43:47] conversations and not kept
[1:43:47] hidden and tucked away and not
[1:43:52] talked about And I'm really
[1:43:53] hopeful about the future of
[1:43:58] accountability with with public
[1:43:59] policies, with tech
[1:43:59] accountability.
[1:44:00] We've taken a bit of a break
[1:44:03] over the past few years.
[1:44:04] It's really time that when good
[1:44:05] policies present themselves we
[1:44:05] need to really move forward and
[1:44:10] work towards them on a number
[1:44:11] of issues.
[1:44:11] >> We can be working towards
[1:44:12] peace not war.
[1:44:12] That's a good thing both
[1:44:16] concluded Sorry Francine Maximo
[1:44:17] if you can please unmute.
[1:44:18] >> Good morning Francine Marcel
[1:44:21] Southeastern San Diego resident
[1:44:22] I want to make sure that you
[1:44:23] know how much we appreciate our
[1:44:26] cp commissioners.
[1:44:27] We appreciate the time that
[1:44:27] they spend away from their
[1:44:28] family.
[1:44:32] The extra meetings, the extra
[1:44:33] training But the community is a
[1:44:34] little concerned with 185 k
[1:44:38] that seems a little bit low
[1:44:39] ball for us to get our own
[1:44:39] attorney and so I see us
[1:44:42] because we are all in this
[1:44:43] together And so as a taxpayer
[1:44:44] knowing that you guys have some
[1:44:48] money that MAY not have been
[1:44:49] counted on for 2020 7fy maybe
[1:44:54] somebody can look and see if
[1:44:57] there's some scraps left to up
[1:44:58] the scale from the 185 k for
[1:44:59] independent attorney or
[1:45:04] independent c p r c p p works
[1:45:04] hard.
[1:45:05] They have absolutely got some
[1:45:08] things changed recently.
[1:45:09] The community has begun to
[1:45:10] receive letters again That
[1:45:15] tells you that there was no no
[1:45:20] misconduct for the officers and
[1:45:21] although you MAY not be happy
[1:45:21] with the letter you receive
[1:45:22] you're receiving them Again.
[1:45:26] We are moving towards better
[1:45:26] customer service with internal
[1:45:27] affairs.
[1:45:27] We leave a message and you
[1:45:31] sometimes get a return call
[1:45:32] within the same day And so we
[1:45:33] want to make sure that we
[1:45:37] continue to work in partnership
[1:45:38] But you need to help us get our
[1:45:42] independent arm a little bit
[1:45:42] stronger.
[1:45:43] And so an independent attorney
[1:45:47] to advise our commissioners
[1:45:47] although we do have some
[1:45:48] attorneys on the commission, we
[1:45:52] still need to have that seat
[1:45:53] filled along with a couple of
[1:45:53] them.
[1:45:57] So please consider holding some
[1:45:58] type of hearing added to
[1:45:58] the agenda last minute Like you
[1:46:02] guys do many things that you
[1:46:03] want to and let's get our
[1:46:04] oversight our independent
[1:46:08] oversight really going over
[1:46:08] the summer while you're on
[1:46:12] legislative break there are
[1:46:13] some things that can absolutely
[1:46:14] be done because they are city
[1:46:18] employees that are staffing
[1:46:18] the ctp.
[1:46:19] >> Thank you.
[1:46:19] Thank you.
[1:46:23] Peggy Walker if you can please
[1:46:23] unmute.
[1:46:24] >> Okay.
[1:46:28] Thank you Again to the last
[1:46:29] Social Wellness month a call to
[1:46:32] improve the health and mental
[1:46:33] well-being of our communities
[1:46:34] which is a call of those who
[1:46:38] work for safe marijuana and
[1:46:39] other drug policies to protect
[1:46:43] youth And that effort isn't
[1:46:44] about the marijuana plant by
[1:46:45] the way as I mentioned earlier,
[1:46:48] it's about an industry
[1:46:49] engineering thc content of
[1:46:49] those plants far beyond
[1:46:54] anything natural or about a
[1:46:55] highly potent synthesized
[1:46:59] products designed and packaged
[1:47:00] to attract young people while
[1:47:00] falsely presented as safe or
[1:47:04] even as a medicine with no
[1:47:05] scientific data backup and
[1:47:09] lacking pharmaceutical
[1:47:10] protocols Today highly potent
[1:47:14] products not visual output Prop
[1:47:14] 64 have introduced public
[1:47:18] health risks that local
[1:47:19] enforcement and health care
[1:47:20] infrastructure are proving ill
[1:47:24] equipped to absorb.
[1:47:25] This is demonstrated by item 50
[1:47:29] today regarding uncontrollable
[1:47:30] illegal marijuana delivery
[1:47:33] activities that present
[1:47:34] challenging enforcement issues
[1:47:38] especially regarding deliveries
[1:47:39] to use.
[1:47:40] It's challenged by the public
[1:47:40] health burdens of young
[1:47:44] addiction and increased demand
[1:47:45] for mental support services
[1:47:49] that offset Project to tax
[1:47:50] revenues by searching air
[1:47:54] visits highlighting
[1:47:55] the unanticipated medical costs
[1:47:59] of increased youth access to
[1:47:59] marijuana.
[1:48:00] It's about need for greater
[1:48:04] prevention efforts because
[1:48:04] allowing an industry to mess
[1:48:09] with a kid's mind before he
[1:48:09] even has a chance to comprehend
[1:48:14] the damage pot can do to young
[1:48:14] brains just isn't justified.
[1:48:18] Judging policies by how they
[1:48:19] work for the betterment of
[1:48:23] the community the marijuana
[1:48:24] industry practices currently
[1:48:28] allowed fail the test for use
[1:48:28] safety.
[1:48:29] Thank you Your time has
[1:48:29] concluded.
[1:48:30] Natalie Raskin If you can
[1:48:33] please on mute then we have
[1:48:33] Hector and 8700 or finals
[1:48:37] speakers Please proceed.
[1:48:38] Hi Natalie Raskin here.
[1:48:42] Just a couple of things My I
[1:48:43] want to talk about but I'm
[1:48:43] going to respond to the women
[1:48:46] that have responded to what I
[1:48:47] have said.
[1:48:47] I understand that marijuana is
[1:48:51] more potent.
[1:48:52] I have four children.
[1:48:53] I talk to them about what is
[1:48:56] out there and what is good and
[1:48:57] what is bad and that they have
[1:48:58] consequences when they make
[1:49:01] these choices.
[1:49:01] Some of these people have other
[1:49:02] mental issues that MAY be
[1:49:05] affected by marijuana.
[1:49:06] I understand that.
[1:49:10] But to make it that it's legal
[1:49:11] for everybody is not something
[1:49:11] I think about.
[1:49:15] Mk Ultra is a real thing though
[1:49:16] that was classified.
[1:49:19] Big Pharma is our biggest drug
[1:49:20] producing addictive.
[1:49:25] It's crazy and my whole riginal
[1:49:26] was coming on here and talking
[1:49:29] to the city of San Diego and
[1:49:30] how we're moving forward and
[1:49:31] looking at our future with
[1:49:35] innovation and protect ing
[1:49:35] the people against Big Pharma
[1:49:40] again M.K. Ultra that is real
[1:49:41] stuff and they do manipulate
[1:49:41] minds and it is out there and
[1:49:45] you can do the research Are we
[1:49:45] moving forward?
[1:49:49] I have four children and I want
[1:49:50] them to be contributing members
[1:49:50] to society.
[1:49:53] We need to start looking at
[1:49:54] innovation.
[1:49:55] I don't know how many of you on
[1:49:58] the dias are researching how
[1:49:59] A.I. Is moving and how all
[1:50:03] these technologies are moving
[1:50:03] forward.
[1:50:04] I think we need to start being
[1:50:07] more innovative.
[1:50:08] I just produced a book which
[1:50:11] received our first robot a
[1:50:12] teacher in the city of San
[1:50:16] Diego That is huge.
[1:50:17] I wrote a book on how to
[1:50:21] introduce A.I. To your teens.
[1:50:22] We need to start thinking in
[1:50:26] this fashion so that we are not
[1:50:27] at the end of the day and New
[1:50:31] World Order.
[1:50:31] That is serious to me and I
[1:50:32] hope it's serious to everyone
[1:50:36] on the dias especially young
[1:50:36] children.
[1:50:37] >> Thank you Hector.
[1:50:41] If you can please unmute I Hi
[1:50:41] guys.
[1:50:45] I want to remind you guys it's
[1:50:45] JULY and it's so Wide History
[1:50:50] Month and I was just thinking
[1:50:50] about I grew up in San Diego in
[1:50:53] the 50s 60s and 70s and
[1:50:54] the white history at that time
[1:50:58] San Diego was great man All
[1:50:59] the white guys are running
[1:51:03] the show mainly guys some white
[1:51:04] women, a couple of black guys
[1:51:05] out there.
[1:51:08] Archie Moore's house We used to
[1:51:12] drive over his freeway entrance
[1:51:13] going down to 32nd Street in
[1:51:14] the Navy.
[1:51:14] My parents were both in
[1:51:18] the Navy and he had a he
[1:51:19] probably still got it.
[1:51:23] He has a boxing glove for a
[1:51:24] swimming pool And Archie more
[1:51:27] or less famous the mongoose
[1:51:28] black guy in San Diego My dad
[1:51:29] would point them out to me and
[1:51:31] stuff is pretty cool but I
[1:51:32] don't remember it being that
[1:51:36] super racist like the one lady
[1:51:36] talking about racist racist
[1:51:39] racist kind of thing playing
[1:51:40] the race card all the time and
[1:51:45] not getting jobs or when I was
[1:51:46] growing up it was I don't think
[1:51:46] it was like that We had black
[1:51:50] guys in our neighborhood,
[1:51:50] Mexican kids, Jewish guys.
[1:51:55] It was like you know, there was
[1:51:55] nobody stealing stuff from
[1:51:56] the store.
[1:52:00] There was no guy getting shot.
[1:52:01] You'd have a fistfight with a
[1:52:04] kid It matter what color he was
[1:52:05] ,it wasn't Nobody was pulling
[1:52:05] out a knife.
[1:52:09] You can take the bus.
[1:52:10] Other neighbors could you kick
[1:52:13] your if you got out of line?
[1:52:14] The neighbor could tell your
[1:52:14] parents and they'd believe
[1:52:18] the neighbor.
[1:52:19] They wouldn't believe the kid
[1:52:19] who was lying.
[1:52:23] So it was a great man Growing
[1:52:24] up in San Diego was cheap.
[1:52:27] I had a 69 Camaro in high
[1:52:31] school on this set in 74 like
[1:52:32] $2,200 And I worked and I made
[1:52:36] the money myself.
[1:52:37] Man Bill is a nice grown up
[1:52:38] here man but I think put
[1:52:41] playing the race card only once
[1:52:42] a month play the race card
[1:52:45] because thank you.
[1:52:46] >> Our final speaker is 8700 If
[1:52:50] you can please unmute press
[1:52:50] star six.
[1:52:55] There you go Joy Joy Sonata
[1:53:04] Audra thank you for your tears
[1:53:04] .
[1:53:09] Tears are the sweetness Our
[1:53:14] voice they speak 10,000 words I
[1:53:19] love you think I'm saying this
[1:53:20] again because it's my big
[1:53:23] message.
[1:53:28] Thank you Audra for your tears
[1:53:28] .
[1:53:29] Tears are the sweetness of our
[1:53:33] voice.
[1:53:37] They speak 10,000 words.
[1:53:37] I love you, Audra.
[1:53:41] Now I want to tell you
[1:53:42] something beautiful.
[1:53:42] I feel this happening at city
[1:53:46] council and PRESIDENT LaCava
[1:53:47] started it.
[1:53:47] He started connecting with
[1:53:51] the public and I noticed it
[1:53:51] right on.
[1:53:56] I'm very aware I had to be a
[1:54:00] massage therapist and I noticed
[1:54:01] that council member DR.
[1:54:05] Campbell did it at her
[1:54:06] community a neighborhood
[1:54:09] services meeting last time she
[1:54:10] got she answered a question
[1:54:11] that was critical to be
[1:54:15] answered from a public and a
[1:54:15] police officer who had
[1:54:19] presented offered me a
[1:54:20] suggestion a how as to how I
[1:54:25] could be part of the patrol
[1:54:25] the senior patrol even though I
[1:54:26] can't drive anymore I'm not
[1:54:30] allowed I feel this And
[1:54:34] Campbell also addressed a
[1:54:34] comment that Andre said I
[1:54:35] believe but I feel this
[1:54:39] beautiful thing that is present
[1:54:40] and I want to encourage each
[1:54:44] and every one of you to fan
[1:54:45] the flames.
[1:54:49] It's so beautiful.
[1:54:49] It's tears.
[1:54:55] It's personal stories of that
[1:54:56] beautiful woman that spoke on
[1:54:57] the drug issue, the person
[1:54:59] personal part of it Your time
[1:54:59] has concluded.
[1:55:00] >> Thank you very much for
[1:55:01] the comments for non agenda
[1:55:04] public comment has concluded.
[1:55:04] >> All right thank you City
[1:55:09] clerk and terms of connecting
[1:55:10] with the public respectfully
[1:55:10] the job opening for
[1:55:13] the commission on Police
[1:55:14] Practices General counsel is
[1:55:17] listed at 185 to 210,000 So you
[1:55:18] don't want anybody to be scared
[1:55:20] off of the 185.
[1:55:21] So with that we will now
[1:55:25] adjourn for the noon recess and
[1:55:26] reconvene in open session at 2
[1:57:42] you And
[1:59:46] I
[2:01:42] enjoyed
[2:02:17] that
[2:03:52] And
[2:03:52] All right
[2:03:58] good afternoon.
[2:03:58] I will now reconvene the City
[2:03:59] Council meeting of Tuesday JULY
[2:04:02] 7th, 2026.
[2:04:03] Clerk Please call the roll.
[2:04:03] Thank you.
[2:04:04] Council PRESIDENT Council
[2:04:09] member Campbell here Council
[2:04:10] Member Whitburn here Council
[2:04:10] Member Foster here Council
[2:04:15] Member Von Wilbur Council
[2:04:16] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee You're
[2:04:16] Council Member Campos You're
[2:04:17] Council Member.
[2:04:22] Moreno Council member Eli
[2:04:23] Rivera and Council PRESIDENT
[2:04:23] LaCava.
[2:04:24] Also attending the meeting are
[2:04:26] Assistant City Attorney Leslie
[2:04:27] Fitzgerald, independent budget
[2:04:28] analyst Charles Mollica and
[2:04:33] myself your city clerk Diana
[2:04:33] Fuentes.
[2:04:34] >> Thank you.
[2:04:34] Council PRESIDENT.
[2:04:35] All right.
[2:04:35] Thank you.
[2:04:38] City Clerk Court is now present
[2:04:39] when we have a meeting to
[2:04:39] decide when we have folks that
[2:04:43] MAY be here for the first or
[2:04:44] maybe the only time they ever
[2:04:44] show up in council chambers.
[2:04:45] >> I like to provide a gentle
[2:04:49] reminder of how we conduct
[2:04:50] business in city council.
[2:04:51] I know a city clerk gave some
[2:04:54] suggestions already.
[2:04:55] Before we start today's meeting
[2:04:56] I want to remind everyone about
[2:04:56] the city's practices and
[2:05:01] procedures for public comment
[2:05:01] At city council meetings
[2:05:02] The city welcomes public
[2:05:02] participation at city council
[2:05:06] meetings.
[2:05:07] Speakers MAY address
[2:05:07] the Council during public
[2:05:08] comment also in connection with
[2:05:09] a specific line of business on
[2:05:12] the agenda.
[2:05:13] However, the city must make
[2:05:13] sure that no one person or
[2:05:14] group of people disrupt
[2:05:14] the meeting a way that
[2:05:15] prohibits other speakers from
[2:05:18] expressing their opinions and
[2:05:19] ideas.
[2:05:19] So to make sure that everyone
[2:05:20] has an opportunity to address
[2:05:25] the Council will alert an
[2:05:25] individual or individuals if I
[2:05:26] think their conduct becomes
[2:05:27] disruptive with the corruption
[2:05:32] continues I will rule
[2:05:32] the individual out of order and
[2:05:33] if the disruption continues
[2:05:34] further I will declare a recess
[2:05:37] all week of the restore order.
[2:05:37] At that point I will direct
[2:05:38] the individual to leave
[2:05:39] the room and if the individual
[2:05:39] refuses police will escort
[2:05:40] the individual out of
[2:05:42] the building.
[2:05:43] Now if we have to repeat this
[2:05:44] process of warning and
[2:05:45] recessing the meeting which we
[2:05:48] will not because you're all
[2:05:48] good people out there, all
[2:05:49] members of the public will be
[2:05:50] excluded from this council
[2:05:54] chambers credentialed media
[2:05:54] will be allowed to remain.
[2:05:55] Once again we have these
[2:05:56] practices and procedures to
[2:05:56] protect the rights of other
[2:06:00] speakers who wish to addressed
[2:06:00] the Council to allow
[2:06:01] the Council to conduct
[2:06:01] the public's business and to
[2:06:06] repeat the advice Given by our
[2:06:07] City Clerk.
[2:06:07] If you agree with someone
[2:06:08] saying thumbs up it's a very,
[2:06:11] very strong visual from up here
[2:06:12] And if you disagree thumbs down
[2:06:13] at the very strong visual as
[2:06:18] well.
[2:06:19] Although I see one sign here if
[2:06:19] you have a sign please extend
[2:06:20] the courtesy to people sitting
[2:06:24] behind you who MAY want to see
[2:06:24] our smiling faces during
[2:06:25] the course of chambers and
[2:06:30] don't restrict They'll find
[2:06:31] the vision I think for also for
[2:06:31] public safety there.
[2:06:32] So MAY I ask you to take that
[2:06:33] fine down If you want to go in
[2:06:35] the back and flash it and
[2:06:36] showed up you certainly are
[2:06:36] more than welcome to do that.
[2:06:41] So with that.
[2:06:42] >> Clerk please introduce item
[2:06:42] 331.
[2:06:43] Thank you.
[2:06:46] Council PRESIDENT Item 331 is
[2:06:46] the Appeal of Planning
[2:06:47] Commission process for decision
[2:06:52] of the Emerald Hills Project a
[2:06:53] 5702 old memory Lane project
[2:06:57] number p rj Dash 1107 880 This
[2:06:58] item is not subject to
[2:07:03] the mayor's veto.
[2:07:04] We do have several organized
[2:07:04] presentations on this item but
[2:07:09] all of them are here in person.
[2:07:09] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All
[2:07:10] right staff I see the sense
[2:07:14] you're out there all by
[2:07:15] yourself so please introduce
[2:07:15] yourself for the record and let
[2:07:16] us know how much time you need.
[2:07:21] Thank you.
[2:07:22] Council PRESIDENT LaCava Good
[2:07:22] afternoon esteemed Council
[2:07:23] PRESIDENT Carver and council
[2:07:23] members.
[2:07:26] My name is Martine Mendez.
[2:07:27] I am the Development Project
[2:07:28] Manager with Development
[2:07:28] Services and I will be
[2:07:32] presenting the Project Appeal
[2:07:33] for the Emerald Hills Project
[2:07:33] today.
[2:07:34] Before we move forward I would
[2:07:38] like to read into the record
[2:07:39] that prior to today's City
[2:07:40] Council hearing staff received
[2:07:44] a traffic analysis report for
[2:07:44] an all way stop analysis at
[2:07:45] the proposed intersection at
[2:07:45] 16th Street.
[2:07:49] That report has been
[2:07:50] distributed to the council
[2:07:50] members and copies are made
[2:07:51] available to the general
[2:07:51] public.
[2:07:55] Also I'd like to point out that
[2:07:56] the analysis was voluntarily
[2:07:57] provided, prepared and provided
[2:08:01] by the applicant in response to
[2:08:01] a comment raised during
[2:08:07] the Planning Commission hearing
[2:08:07] .
[2:08:08] And how much time do you think
[2:08:09] I will need?
[2:08:11] Approximately 30 minutes.
[2:08:12] >> Okay.
[2:08:12] The project just to give you
[2:08:18] some background with
[2:08:18] the project location
[2:08:19] the project is located at 5702
[2:08:23] old memory lane and in Council
[2:08:24] neighborhoods the zoned zoning
[2:08:28] designation for the site is rs
[2:08:29] one dash to residential single
[2:08:33] unit and the parcel size is
[2:08:34] 31.18 acres.
[2:08:34] The approvals for this project
[2:08:38] include a was intended about a
[2:08:39] site development permit for
[2:08:40] the subdivision of land
[2:08:44] containing an environmental
[2:08:45] sensitive lands and for
[2:08:46] encroachments within the public
[2:08:46] right of way a neighborhood
[2:08:51] development permit and a
[2:08:51] neighborhood use permit for a
[2:08:52] neighborhood identification
[2:08:57] sign.
[2:09:01] Okay This slide shows the 123
[2:09:02] residential lots that are being
[2:09:05] proposed.
[2:09:06] 110 of those units would be
[2:09:07] market rate units and 13 would
[2:09:07] be affordable rate units.
[2:09:12] The site also includes seven
[2:09:13] private open space lots four
[2:09:13] pocket parks, three stormwater
[2:09:21] basins and open space areas.
[2:09:21] The project as you can see on
[2:09:27] the map is located south of
[2:09:28] Highway 94 east of Interstate
[2:09:28] 85 and then southeast of
[2:09:33] the existing Emerald Hills
[2:09:33] neighborhood park within
[2:09:34] the Encanto neighborhoods
[2:09:39] Community planning area.
[2:09:40] >> This aerial photograph shows
[2:09:40] the aerial view of the project
[2:09:44] site as it exist today.
[2:09:51] The community plan land use or
[2:09:52] the community plan for
[2:09:52] the project site designates a
[2:09:57] site for residential very low
[2:09:57] land uses at zero two for
[2:09:58] dwelling units per acre.
[2:10:03] This land use designation
[2:10:04] allows 125 dwelling units and
[2:10:04] the existing zoning for
[2:10:05] the project site As previously
[2:10:09] mentioned as one two.
[2:10:13] And so just for clarification
[2:10:13] the 31.8 acre site multiplied
[2:10:18] by the 41 units per acre equals
[2:10:22] 124 and 72 where the project is
[2:10:23] proposed 123.9 units.
[2:10:27] The project is utilizing
[2:10:28] footnote seven This project was
[2:10:32] incomplete on DECEMBER 6th,
[2:10:32] 2023.
[2:10:33] The footnote seven was repealed
[2:10:38] by the City Council on APRIL
[2:10:38] 24th 2025.
[2:10:39] This project went before
[2:10:42] Planning Commission on NOVEMBER
[2:10:43] 20th, 2025 and we are here
[2:10:44] today to hear the appeal
[2:10:48] hearing JULY 7th 2026.
[2:10:54] The project currently has
[2:10:54] vested rights to continue to
[2:11:00] rely upon Footnote seven This
[2:11:01] is a proposed site plan again
[2:11:05] identifying the 23 residential
[2:11:06] building units and the common
[2:11:07] space areas including the parks
[2:11:11] All the common space areas will
[2:11:12] be maintained by the homeowners
[2:11:12] association.
[2:11:16] The project also includes a
[2:11:17] five foot wide trail within
[2:11:22] private property adjacent to
[2:11:22] the 16th Street right away and
[2:11:23] then as part of the 16th Street
[2:11:27] right away improvements to
[2:11:27] the project is proposing
[2:11:28] the replacement of sidewalks
[2:11:31] and providing additional
[2:11:37] landscaping.
[2:11:38] >> Okay.
[2:11:43] This project is requesting
[2:11:44] incentives and waivers.
[2:11:44] The incentive is to modify
[2:11:49] the street sites site and then
[2:11:50] waivers to modify the lot
[2:11:54] street frontage lot with lot
[2:11:54] with four corner lots lot depth
[2:12:00] and driveway curb openings.
[2:12:00] This project went before
[2:12:01] the Planning Commission on
[2:12:02] NOVEMBER 20th, 2025 and was
[2:12:06] approved with modifications on
[2:12:06] DECEMBER 1st, 2025.
[2:12:12] The choice Valley and Canton
[2:12:13] Neighborhoods Community
[2:12:13] Planning Group appealed to
[2:12:14] the Planning Commission's
[2:12:18] decision based on the following
[2:12:18] grounds factual error conflict
[2:12:22] with other matters findings not
[2:12:23] supporting new information and
[2:12:30] citywide significance.
[2:12:30] >> I would like to identify
[2:12:31] that in accordance with
[2:12:36] the central municipal Chapter
[2:12:36] 11 Article two Division three
[2:12:37] All notices for the project
[2:12:40] were distributed via United
[2:12:41] States Postal Service to all
[2:12:42] addresses within 300ft of
[2:12:42] the boundary of the project
[2:12:43] site including owners and
[2:12:47] occupants.
[2:12:47] It was also circulated to
[2:12:48] the officially recognized
[2:12:49] Community planning group and
[2:12:49] the applicant.
[2:12:53] The notice of application was
[2:12:53] distributed on MARCH 7th, 2024
[2:12:54] which identified that there
[2:12:59] would be a decision at a public
[2:12:59] hearing to approve or deny
[2:13:00] the project and identify that
[2:13:01] the project was undergoing
[2:13:04] environmental review.
[2:13:05] The notice of the application
[2:13:05] was also posted on the project
[2:13:06] site as a request as required
[2:13:10] by the municipal Code and
[2:13:10] verification of posting was
[2:13:11] submitted by the applicant to
[2:13:12] Development services on
[2:13:16] NOVEMBER six, 2025.
[2:13:16] The Planning Commission notice
[2:13:17] a public hearing for
[2:13:20] the NOVEMBER 20th, 2025 hearing
[2:13:20] was distributed to parties
[2:13:21] previously mentioned and
[2:13:24] interested parties who have
[2:13:25] requested noticing for
[2:13:26] the project That was over 200
[2:13:30] recipients and the notice was
[2:13:31] also published in San Diego.
[2:13:32] Transcript.
[2:13:36] San Diego Daily Transcript
[2:13:37] Staff visited the project site
[2:13:38] prior to the hearing to confirm
[2:13:38] the notice of application Post
[2:13:42] were still present on the site
[2:13:43] and the applicant also posted
[2:13:44] the Planning Commission notice
[2:13:44] of public hearing at
[2:13:48] the project site as a courtesy.
[2:13:48] The notice to the City Council
[2:13:49] appearing for today's hearing
[2:13:52] was distributed on JUNE 22nd
[2:13:53] 2026.
[2:13:53] The notice was mailed to
[2:13:54] interested parties and those
[2:13:58] previously mentioned.
[2:13:59] The notice was also published
[2:13:59] in the San Diego Daily
[2:14:00] transcript and posted on
[2:14:04] the City Council's website.
[2:14:04] And as of this morning I
[2:14:05] visited the project site to
[2:14:06] confirm that the notice of
[2:14:09] application and the notice of
[2:14:10] today's hearing was present and
[2:14:14] visible at the project site
[2:14:15] with three signs for today's
[2:14:15] hearing.
[2:14:16] Posted on 16th Street and one
[2:14:18] side for the driveway of Old
[2:14:23] Memory Lane.
[2:14:28] Summary of the Appellant's
[2:14:29] issues are as follows.
[2:14:32] The issues related to
[2:14:33] the utilization of Footnote
[2:14:34] seven for the project adequacy
[2:14:34] of the environmental analysis
[2:14:38] deficiencies in public
[2:14:39] facilities for the community
[2:14:40] including Parkland
[2:14:44] Environmental justice concerns
[2:14:44] including concentration of
[2:14:45] density in disadvantaged
[2:14:45] communities.
[2:14:46] Inadequate community
[2:14:49] involvement including
[2:14:50] inadequate notice of
[2:14:50] the project and
[2:14:54] the environmental determination
[2:14:54] .
[2:14:55] >> I will now move forward with
[2:15:00] the appeal issues as they were
[2:15:01] submitted.
[2:15:01] The Polish the first appeal
[2:15:02] issue was in relation to
[2:15:05] factual error.
[2:15:06] Issue number one stated that
[2:15:09] the project far exceeds the 0
[2:15:10] to 4 dwelling units per acre
[2:15:10] density for which the site is
[2:15:11] owned.
[2:15:14] Our response is that
[2:15:14] the project is in conformance
[2:15:15] with the residential very low
[2:15:18] designation from the community
[2:15:19] plan which allows 0 to 4
[2:15:20] dwelling units per acre.
[2:15:20] And as previously mentioned
[2:15:21] that would be in conformance
[2:15:23] with the requirements by
[2:15:28] proposing 123 units.
[2:15:29] The next issue raised was
[2:15:30] the project does not conform to
[2:15:30] the r.
[2:15:33] S1-2 zoning and far exceeds
[2:15:34] the number of lots allowed for
[2:15:37] the zone 67.
[2:15:38] And again the project is
[2:15:43] utilizing footnotes seven for
[2:15:44] the development and would be in
[2:15:48] conformance with the applicable
[2:15:49] regulations of the r.
[2:15:52] S one dash zone through
[2:15:53] the utilization of four.
[2:16:01] Utilization of footnote seven
[2:16:02] The 30 issue as the project
[2:16:02] does not appear to be
[2:16:03] consistent with the Choice
[2:16:06] Valley Community Plan and
[2:16:07] Canton Neighborhoods Community
[2:16:11] Plan Urban Design Policy p u d
[2:16:11] dash 26 states the following.
[2:16:12] Preserve the existing single
[2:16:16] family large lot development in
[2:16:17] areas where topographic
[2:16:17] conditions foster large lots
[2:16:21] and an area is located away
[2:16:22] from mass transit and transit
[2:16:22] corridors.
[2:16:23] Preserve large lot single
[2:16:27] family neighborhoods in order
[2:16:27] to retain the rural atmosphere
[2:16:28] which is characteristic of
[2:16:33] Encanto neighborhoods.
[2:16:34] >> The project site was
[2:16:35] previously developed as a radio
[2:16:38] transmitter facility without a
[2:16:39] residential subdivision.
[2:16:44] Therefore is not subject to
[2:16:45] the preservation of existing
[2:16:45] single family Large lot
[2:16:48] development.
[2:16:49] The proposed subdivision is
[2:16:49] consistent with the adjacent
[2:16:52] developments to the north south
[2:16:53] and west.
[2:16:54] By proposing one and two storey
[2:16:57] single dwelling units having
[2:16:58] minimum lot sizes of 5000ft
[2:16:58] and site design that follows
[2:17:05] the topography of the land.
[2:17:09] >> Issue number four
[2:17:10] the project appeals to be
[2:17:10] neither consistent with
[2:17:14] the community plan nor zoning.
[2:17:14] Residential Land Use Section
[2:17:15] 2.4 of the community plan
[2:17:15] states the following.
[2:17:18] The plan seeks to expand and
[2:17:19] preserve the supply of
[2:17:20] affordable housing through
[2:17:23] construction of new units as
[2:17:23] well as the preservation and
[2:17:24] restoration of older homes.
[2:17:25] The substantial amount of
[2:17:28] vacant and underutilized land
[2:17:29] and access to transit within
[2:17:29] the Encanto neighborhood
[2:17:33] provides an opportunity for
[2:17:34] well-located mixed use infill
[2:17:34] development.
[2:17:37] The community has an extensive
[2:17:38] stock of single family housing
[2:17:39] much of it on large lots.
[2:17:40] Although they have already been
[2:17:43] developed, these large lots
[2:17:44] provide an opportunity for
[2:17:45] infill development through
[2:17:45] the construction of accessory
[2:17:48] dwelling units on the lower
[2:17:49] density residential sites.
[2:17:49] Accessory dwelling units
[2:17:53] increase for housing stock,
[2:17:53] allow for multigenerational
[2:17:54] housing opportunity and can
[2:17:58] provide rental income for lower
[2:17:58] income residents.
[2:17:59] The project was found to be
[2:17:59] consistent with the past
[2:18:03] policies identified on
[2:18:03] the screen which include land
[2:18:08] use, noise mobility, urban
[2:18:08] design and conservation and
[2:18:11] sustainability as well as as
[2:18:12] goals and policies found in
[2:18:16] the general plan.
[2:18:17] >> Furthermore, regarding
[2:18:18] zoning consistency as
[2:18:22] previously described,
[2:18:22] the project is utilizing
[2:18:23] footnote seven and adheres to
[2:18:24] the year one seven regulations
[2:18:26] with allowed incentives and
[2:18:27] waivers for the provision of
[2:18:28] affordable housing in
[2:18:29] accordance with the applicable
[2:18:30] regulations of the Municipal
[2:18:35] Code.
[2:18:36] >> The next appeal issue is
[2:18:38] violation of the 2015
[2:18:39] Neighborhoods Community Plan
[2:18:40] which identified the proposed
[2:18:43] development site as a potential
[2:18:44] community park.
[2:18:44] Despite this designation
[2:18:45] the city made no attempt to
[2:18:48] purchase all or part of
[2:18:49] the land for the intended
[2:18:49] community purpose nor was a
[2:18:50] community plan amendment
[2:18:53] developed to mitigate the loss
[2:18:54] of potential future park space.
[2:18:55] This is not just a loss for
[2:18:58] the choice of communities but
[2:18:59] for all residents of San Diego
[2:19:00] which will forever lose access
[2:19:02] to one of the most remarkable
[2:19:06] vistas in the city.
[2:19:07] The recreation section of
[2:19:08] the community plan identified
[2:19:11] the project site as a potential
[2:19:12] park and clarifies that
[2:19:12] identification of private
[2:19:13] property as a potential park
[2:19:17] site does not preclude
[2:19:17] permitted development per
[2:19:18] the underlying land use or
[2:19:21] zoned.
[2:19:22] The acreage figures represented
[2:19:22] existing and plan sites
[2:19:25] anticipated at the time of
[2:19:26] adoption of the community plan.
[2:19:27] Acreage MAY further MAY be
[2:19:30] further refined over time
[2:19:31] without the need to amend
[2:19:32] the community plan in
[2:19:36] accordance once to
[2:19:37] the statement the community
[2:19:37] with the statement from
[2:19:38] the Community plan a change in
[2:19:41] proposed usable parking acreage
[2:19:41] is does not warrant an
[2:19:41] amendment.
[2:19:44] Table 7-2 identifies a project
[2:19:48] as a major park with 19.8 acres
[2:19:48] allocated for proposed usable
[2:19:52] acreage which would require
[2:19:53] acquisition of privately owned
[2:19:57] of the privately owned parcel.
[2:20:01] >> >> This is a figure 7.2 from
[2:20:02] the community plan that
[2:20:06] identifies again identifies
[2:20:06] the project site as a potential
[2:20:07] park but also has
[2:20:07] the statements that were
[2:20:11] previously read about
[2:20:11] identification of private
[2:20:15] property.
[2:20:16] Just further clarification To
[2:20:17] date the community plan has not
[2:20:17] been updated to remove
[2:20:20] the project site as a potential
[2:20:21] park from the recreation
[2:20:21] section of the community plan.
[2:20:25] Also I think just to address
[2:20:30] some additional questions that
[2:20:31] were brought up prior to
[2:20:31] today's hearing.
[2:20:32] City staff does not have
[2:20:34] records related to to
[2:20:35] contracting the property or
[2:20:36] contacting the property owner
[2:20:36] at that time for possible
[2:20:40] acquisition or purchase of
[2:20:41] the site for purpose of a park.
[2:20:41] And based on the information
[2:20:45] contained in the historic
[2:20:45] Resources report which
[2:20:46] identified property ownership
[2:20:48] dating back to 1956, the site
[2:20:49] has been in private ownership
[2:20:51] since then and the city has not
[2:20:56] had control of the property
[2:21:02] appeal issue six as factual
[2:21:02] error.
[2:21:03] This is a flawed assertion and
[2:21:06] the staff report that the site
[2:21:07] has walkable access to
[2:21:07] the Encanto trolley station and
[2:21:11] Euclid Avenue station which in
[2:21:12] fact the path to those transit
[2:21:16] stops requires traversing a
[2:21:16] very hilly, narrow, unlit and
[2:21:17] dangerous road without
[2:21:21] sidewalks in violation of
[2:21:21] recent revisions to the San
[2:21:22] Diego Municipal Code clarifying
[2:21:23] that the transit must be
[2:21:26] reachable via sidewalks.
[2:21:29] San Diego Municipal Code
[2:21:30] Section 1130103 sdr Definition.
[2:21:34] Failure to properly assess
[2:21:35] the difficulty of reaching
[2:21:36] transit leads to the staff
[2:21:38] report to vastly over estimate
[2:21:44] vmt reduction for the project.
[2:21:45] >> The staff report described
[2:21:48] the following Two regional
[2:21:48] transit hubs the Encanto
[2:21:49] Trolley Station and Euclid
[2:21:52] Avenue Station are located
[2:21:53] approximately one mile from
[2:21:54] the project site.
[2:21:54] Metropolitan Transit Service
[2:21:57] mts Bus Route 917 is located
[2:21:58] near the intersection of Kilton
[2:21:59] Road and Roswell Street.
[2:22:02] Approximate three one half
[2:22:03] miles southwest of the project
[2:22:03] site.
[2:22:06] The picture shows where
[2:22:07] the current bus stops are
[2:22:11] located and the image to
[2:22:12] the right shows the proximity
[2:22:13] of that bus stop to the site
[2:22:15] and then the proximity of
[2:22:16] the two trolley stations to
[2:22:20] the site.
[2:22:25] >> Appeal issue Factual Error.
[2:22:26] Issue number seven Failure to
[2:22:27] consider the potential impacts
[2:22:30] of the project including
[2:22:30] increased traffic and safety
[2:22:34] concerns on 16th Street both
[2:22:35] for daily neighborhood traffic
[2:22:36] and for fire evacuation.
[2:22:40] Cities responses City staff
[2:22:40] reviewed the project for
[2:22:41] potential impacts including
[2:22:42] transportation impacts, safety
[2:22:45] concerns on 16th Street and
[2:22:45] emergency access and emergency
[2:22:49] response.
[2:22:50] >> Factual error Number eight
[2:22:54] the project documentation does
[2:22:55] not include the Fire Marshal
[2:22:55] report nor an evacuation plan
[2:22:59] as required by state and local
[2:22:59] law.
[2:23:00] Even though the proposed site
[2:23:00] is within San Diego's very high
[2:23:04] fire hazard severity zone, our
[2:23:05] response is this The project
[2:23:06] did not trigger the requirement
[2:23:08] for a fire marshal report or a
[2:23:13] fire evacuation report.
[2:23:14] >> In this case the project is
[2:23:18] consistent with the plan
[2:23:18] density for the project site
[2:23:19] which as previously discussed
[2:23:21] would be up to four dwelling
[2:23:22] units per acre and the project
[2:23:23] is consistent with that
[2:23:23] density.
[2:23:27] Therefore again the project id
[2:23:28] not trigger the requirement for
[2:23:29] a fire marshal report or an
[2:23:36] evacuation plan conflict with
[2:23:37] other matters.
[2:23:40] >> Issue one All of the 234
[2:23:40] waivers being requested to
[2:23:44] permit this project including
[2:23:45] but not limited to street
[2:23:46] frontage waiver of the driveway
[2:23:47] with requirements waiver and
[2:23:50] the minimum lot dimensions.
[2:23:51] Rs one seven Waiver These
[2:23:54] waivers would defeat the intent
[2:23:55] of the city's recent repeal of
[2:23:56] footnote seven create a
[2:23:59] concentrated environmental
[2:24:00] justice and just justice burden
[2:24:01] in a historically redlined
[2:24:04] majority black Latino low
[2:24:05] resource neighborhood produce a
[2:24:08] starkly discriminatory outcome
[2:24:09] when compared to low density
[2:24:10] approvals in wealthy mature
[2:24:13] majority white neighborhoods
[2:24:14] such as Foxtail La Hoya and
[2:24:15] expose the city to legal policy
[2:24:18] and public health risk.
[2:24:19] Fair Housing Act Disparate
[2:24:24] impact exposure and sb 1000 and
[2:24:25] Sequoyah vulnerabilities and
[2:24:25] Section b in California
[2:24:28] Environmental Quality Act.
[2:24:33] >> >> sb as previously stated
[2:24:33] the project application was
[2:24:34] deemed complete while Footnote
[2:24:38] seven was still in effect.
[2:24:38] One incentive and five waivers
[2:24:39] are available to the project in
[2:24:40] accordance with the municipal
[2:24:42] code for the provision of 13
[2:24:43] affordable dwelling units made
[2:24:44] available to moderate income
[2:24:47] households.
[2:24:48] >> The project would comply
[2:24:52] with the rs one seven
[2:24:53] regulations with the allowed
[2:24:53] incentives and waivers and
[2:24:54] requested incentives and
[2:24:57] waivers are supported for
[2:24:58] the provision of onsite
[2:25:01] affordable housing.
[2:25:02] >> Furthermore, the project
[2:25:03] supports general planning
[2:25:07] policy E.G. Dash c one and E.J.
[2:25:11] Dash c3 E.J. Being
[2:25:12] environmental justice through
[2:25:13] the provision of publicly
[2:25:14] accessible pocket parks located
[2:25:16] on site, the project also
[2:25:17] enhances connectivity and
[2:25:21] accessibility for all residents
[2:25:22] via public accessible pathways
[2:25:23] parkways and open spaces
[2:25:34] available on the project site.
[2:25:34] The project supports
[2:25:35] the general plan commitment of
[2:25:35] creating and maintaining
[2:25:38] economically and socially
[2:25:39] diverse communities.
[2:25:39] The project would help the city
[2:25:43] meet the regional housing needs
[2:25:43] allocation targets and
[2:25:44] the project would provide safe
[2:25:47] and healthy homes for people of
[2:25:48] all groups allowing them to
[2:25:52] thrive in their communities.
[2:25:57] >> >> As to the differences
[2:25:58] between the Forks de La Hoya
[2:25:58] development and this
[2:26:02] development, I just like to
[2:26:03] identify that the difference
[2:26:03] between the two projects are
[2:26:04] driven by the development
[2:26:07] team's marking conditions and
[2:26:07] the applicable regulations for
[2:26:08] each project.
[2:26:11] Each project is evaluated
[2:26:11] independently and both projects
[2:26:12] as proposed were equitably
[2:26:15] reviewed for conformance with
[2:26:20] the applicable regulations.
[2:26:21] >> As to the issue of legal
[2:26:25] exposure, the City Council will
[2:26:26] consider the appeal issues and
[2:26:27] make a determination affirming
[2:26:30] or denying the appeal based on
[2:26:30] supporting information.
[2:26:33] Senate Bill sb 1000 adopted in
[2:26:34] 2016 promotes environmental
[2:26:39] justice through local land use
[2:26:39] planning.
[2:26:40] The law requires local
[2:26:40] governments with disadvantaged
[2:26:43] communities and or planning
[2:26:44] areas to develop environmental
[2:26:44] justice policies as part of
[2:26:47] the general plan's three
[2:26:48] general plan as required by sb
[2:26:48] 1000.
[2:26:52] Inclusion Environmental justice
[2:26:53] element and is cross-referenced
[2:26:54] with goals and policies of
[2:26:57] other elements in the general
[2:26:58] plan including the housing
[2:26:59] element, the safety element and
[2:27:00] the Climate Action Plan and
[2:27:01] the respective implementation
[2:27:05] plans.
[2:27:06] >> Regarding compliance with
[2:27:07] the California Environmental
[2:27:12] Quality Act, the city as lead
[2:27:12] agency performed a review of
[2:27:13] the project's impacts on
[2:27:16] the environment and prepared an
[2:27:16] addendum to the 2015 Community
[2:27:17] Plan Update program.
[2:27:20] Environmental Impact Report
[2:27:21] based upon the review Note
[2:27:25] Changes in circumstance since
[2:27:26] have occurred and no new
[2:27:26] information of substantial
[2:27:27] importance has manifested which
[2:27:30] would result in new,
[2:27:31] significant or substantially
[2:27:31] increased adverse impacts as a
[2:27:38] result of the proposed project
[2:27:38] .
[2:27:39] >> Therefore the addendum was
[2:27:42] prepared in accordance with
[2:27:42] section 15164 of the score
[2:27:43] guidelines and use of
[2:27:47] the addendum for the project
[2:27:48] complies with sequel guideline
[2:27:52] Section 15168 See the project
[2:27:52] is within the scope of the 2015
[2:27:53] Community Plan Update program
[2:27:56] for and in accordance with
[2:27:57] the mitigation framework from
[2:27:57] the program Air.
[2:27:58] The project was conditioned to
[2:28:01] include a mitigation monitoring
[2:28:02] and reporting program related
[2:28:03] to biological resources and
[2:28:09] paleontological resources
[2:28:10] conflict with other matters
[2:28:15] issued to the lot is in direct
[2:28:15] conflict with the San Diego
[2:28:16] General Plan from 2020 for
[2:28:19] the Parks Master Plan 2021
[2:28:22] the Climate Action Plan from
[2:28:23] 2022 as well as a 2023
[2:28:28] implementation plan Submit to a
[2:28:31] San Diego General Plan 2024
[2:28:36] policy l u h 0.1 affirm any
[2:28:36] further fair housing choice
[2:28:37] promote equal housing
[2:28:41] opportunity and promote
[2:28:42] the development of a balanced
[2:28:42] and equitable communities that
[2:28:44] take into account community
[2:28:45] wide involvement, participation
[2:28:50] and needs.
[2:28:55] >> a summary on a planned
[2:28:55] village development with
[2:28:56] the involvement of a broad
[2:28:56] range of neighborhood and
[2:29:00] business stakeholders including
[2:29:00] traditionally underserved
[2:29:01] communities and take into
[2:29:02] consideration the needs of
[2:29:04] individual neighborhoods.
[2:29:05] Available resources and willing
[2:29:05] partners.
[2:29:09] Invest strategically in public
[2:29:10] infrastructure and offer
[2:29:11] development incentives that are
[2:29:11] consistent with
[2:29:14] the neighborhood's vision and
[2:29:15] then plan for more homes and
[2:29:16] village areas that are located
[2:29:16] in communities with high
[2:29:22] economic opportunity.
[2:29:22] >> The proposed project
[2:29:27] supports the goal The goals of
[2:29:28] policy Lou 8.1 By proposing no
[2:29:32] dwelling units building
[2:29:33] formants with current building
[2:29:33] codes providing fair housing
[2:29:34] choice and promoting equal
[2:29:37] housing opportunity, providing
[2:29:38] balanced housing options within
[2:29:42] the development And just for
[2:29:46] reference 11.1 as found under
[2:29:46] section h of the General Plan
[2:29:47] under balanced communities and
[2:29:58] equitable Development a save
[2:29:58] appeal issue conflict with
[2:29:59] other matters also as far as
[2:30:03] community wide involvement and
[2:30:03] participation discretion Here
[2:30:07] applicants are encouraged to
[2:30:08] work with the community
[2:30:08] planning groups for this
[2:30:09] project.
[2:30:12] Applicant presented as an
[2:30:13] action item to the Choice
[2:30:18] Valley Community Planning Group
[2:30:18] on OCTOBER 28th, 2024 at a
[2:30:19] special meeting.
[2:30:22] The Community Planning Group
[2:30:23] voted to deny the project with
[2:30:26] a vote of zero yes to approve
[2:30:27] and 13 no to deny without
[2:30:30] conditions or recommendation
[2:30:31] and submitted the form to
[2:30:31] the Development Services
[2:30:35] Department.
[2:30:36] >> The project supports
[2:30:36] the following general plan
[2:30:41] goals Investing in public
[2:30:41] infrastructure by providing
[2:30:45] improvements on 60 streets
[2:30:46] which 60 street which include
[2:30:49] road widening and lighting
[2:30:50] public stormwater system
[2:30:50] improvements supports housing
[2:30:54] element goals and policies to
[2:30:55] support the development of
[2:30:56] residential dwelling units
[2:30:58] within our community citywide
[2:30:59] offering development incentives
[2:31:00] consistent with
[2:31:00] the neighborhoods vision
[2:31:03] the project uses utilizes
[2:31:04] incentives and waivers in
[2:31:05] exchange for new affordable
[2:31:08] housing.
[2:31:09] Page two Dash 21 of
[2:31:10] the Community plan states
[2:31:13] the plan seeks to expand and
[2:31:14] preserve the supply of
[2:31:14] affordable housing.
[2:31:15] >> The project will also be
[2:31:19] playing paint into
[2:31:20] the development impact fees and
[2:31:20] San Diego Municipal Court
[2:31:22] regular regulations incentivize
[2:31:27] additional dwelling units
[2:31:28] conflict with other matters.
[2:31:32] Issue b City of San Diego marks
[2:31:32] our City of San Diego Parks
[2:31:35] Master Plan of 2021.
[2:31:36] Equity is a central value of
[2:31:40] the city city's parks master
[2:31:40] plan.
[2:31:41] Park planning and investments
[2:31:42] should address long lasting
[2:31:44] inequities in the city's parks
[2:31:45] system experienced by people
[2:31:49] that live in traditionally
[2:31:50] underserved communities and
[2:31:50] areas with the greatest park
[2:31:51] deficiencies.
[2:31:54] Areas of the city where we know
[2:31:55] that the greatest need exist.
[2:31:55] By ensuring equal access to
[2:31:59] meaningful recreation
[2:32:00] opportunities, the city's park
[2:32:00] and recreation needs have
[2:32:05] evolved influenced by change in
[2:32:05] population and demographics and
[2:32:06] development patterns.
[2:32:10] Communities vary in the quality
[2:32:10] and availability of park space
[2:32:11] due to patterns of historical
[2:32:14] growth.
[2:32:15] >> Prior development patterns
[2:32:19] have also left parts of
[2:32:20] the city with fewer connections
[2:32:21] to parks and natural areas More
[2:32:24] growth located in existing
[2:32:24] neighborhoods.
[2:32:25] Increases demand for parks that
[2:32:26] meet the unique needs of these
[2:32:29] developed areas that contain
[2:32:30] limited land for new park
[2:32:30] spaces.
[2:32:34] Prioritizing parks in these
[2:32:34] neighborhoods that are
[2:32:35] experiencing the greatest rates
[2:32:39] of residential growth is
[2:32:39] critical.
[2:32:40] The project to address
[2:32:43] the current park inequities
[2:32:44] the city is prioritizing park
[2:32:45] deficient and underserved
[2:32:48] communities by allocating at a
[2:32:48] minimum 80% of the citywide
[2:32:52] park development impact to park
[2:32:53] deficient communities with at
[2:32:54] least 50% of that amount to be
[2:32:57] prioritized solely within
[2:32:58] traditionally underserved
[2:32:58] communities for at least five
[2:32:59] years.
[2:33:03] This project would meet that
[2:33:04] goal by paying their
[2:33:12] development impact fees.
[2:33:13] >> The project will support
[2:33:16] the city's Park Master plan by
[2:33:17] again paying the applicable
[2:33:17] impact fees.
[2:33:20] Public improvements to 60
[2:33:21] Street providing accessible
[2:33:22] paths throughout the project
[2:33:26] site that connect the existing
[2:33:26] that connect to the existing
[2:33:27] Encanto neighborhood park.
[2:33:29] And providing for onsite pocket
[2:33:30] parks that will be publicly
[2:33:35] accessible conflict with other
[2:33:39] matters Appeal issue See San
[2:33:42] Diego Climate Action Plan from
[2:33:43] 2022 states addressing
[2:33:47] inequality and systemic racism
[2:33:48] requires a thoughtful and
[2:33:48] intentional approach that
[2:33:49] empowers and includes our
[2:33:53] community.
[2:33:53] Communities experiencing
[2:33:54] structural exclusion.
[2:33:57] To create equitable outcomes we
[2:33:58] must prioritize action and
[2:33:58] invest where the need is
[2:34:02] greatest by involving impacted
[2:34:03] community members in the city's
[2:34:03] decision making process early
[2:34:04] and through continual
[2:34:07] partnerships.
[2:34:08] For this reason the concept of
[2:34:08] climate equity is critical
[2:34:11] throughout the climate Action
[2:34:11] Plan.
[2:34:16] Page 11.
[2:34:16] >> The project works against
[2:34:17] the City of San Diego's Climate
[2:34:21] Action Goals that came out
[2:34:22] today stating the city's
[2:34:25] climate objectives are exceeded
[2:34:25] by 2% carbon emissions.
[2:34:26] Creating a park instead of
[2:34:29] dense housing will help with
[2:34:30] this objective.
[2:34:30] California law requires
[2:34:34] jurisdictions to consider
[2:34:35] environmental justice and
[2:34:35] reduce concentrated
[2:34:36] environmental burdens and
[2:34:39] disadvantage communities.
[2:34:40] Epa and peer reviewed
[2:34:41] literature document Worse
[2:34:45] document Worse health outcomes
[2:34:49] where burdens concentrate.
[2:34:50] >> sb 1000 Environmental
[2:34:54] justice obligations require
[2:34:55] local governments identify
[2:34:55] disadvantaged communities and
[2:34:59] adopt policies to reduce
[2:35:00] disproportionate,
[2:35:00] disproportionate environmental
[2:35:01] and public health burdens.
[2:35:04] A decision that concentrates
[2:35:05] density and the and
[2:35:09] the discrete burdens that often
[2:35:10] accompany rapid infill
[2:35:10] construction vehicle emissions
[2:35:14] inadequate public facilities,
[2:35:14] loss of planned parkland in an
[2:35:15] environmental justice community
[2:35:19] without robust mitigation is
[2:35:19] inconsistent Inconsistent with
[2:35:23] the law sb 1000 mandate
[2:35:23] programs and approvals as
[2:35:27] systemic systematically locate
[2:35:28] greater housing burdens in
[2:35:28] communities of color and create
[2:35:32] a disparate impact claim under
[2:35:33] federal and state fair housing
[2:35:33] law.
[2:35:38] The clear difference between
[2:35:38] allowing dense approvals in
[2:35:39] historically black Latino
[2:35:42] neighborhoods creates a prima
[2:35:43] facie discriminatory pattern
[2:35:47] that the city must explicitly
[2:35:47] justify with legitimate
[2:35:48] nondiscriminatory reasons and
[2:35:53] evidence As stated in
[2:35:53] the asserted in appeal issues
[2:35:57] raised.
[2:35:58] To create equitable outcomes we
[2:35:58] must prioritize action and
[2:36:01] investment where the need is
[2:36:02] greatest by involving impacted
[2:36:03] community members in the city's
[2:36:07] decision making process early
[2:36:07] and through continual
[2:36:08] partnerships.
[2:36:11] The applicant for the project
[2:36:12] involved the community by
[2:36:12] presenting their project to
[2:36:13] the Community Planning group
[2:36:15] and through other outreach
[2:36:16] efforts that the applicant will
[2:36:17] describe during their
[2:36:21] presentation.
[2:36:21] >> The project supports
[2:36:25] investment in and prioritize
[2:36:26] the community by conforming to
[2:36:26] the requirements of the Climate
[2:36:30] Action Plan by paying
[2:36:31] the development impact fees in
[2:36:32] accordance with the city's Park
[2:36:35] Master Plan which fund public
[2:36:36] infrastructure and services
[2:36:36] like parks, mobility libraries
[2:36:37] and emergency services
[2:36:41] including fire.
[2:36:41] Improving existing
[2:36:42] infrastructure within public
[2:36:45] right of ways to improve
[2:36:46] accessibility and connectivity.
[2:36:47] And conformance with
[2:36:47] the entirety of the Climate
[2:36:49] Action Plan goals and policies
[2:36:50] related to the development of
[2:36:54] housing.
[2:36:55] >> The project supports
[2:36:56] environmental justice by
[2:36:59] providing improved and
[2:37:00] diversified opportunities for
[2:37:00] play in public spaces for all
[2:37:03] people.
[2:37:04] Homeownership opportunities
[2:37:05] including affordable housing
[2:37:08] housing for a variety of
[2:37:09] household sizes, encouraging
[2:37:10] location and resource efficient
[2:37:13] development near established
[2:37:14] community resources and safe
[2:37:14] and healthy homes Meeting
[2:37:18] current building codes Conflict
[2:37:23] with other matters issued 2023
[2:37:23] Implementation Plan States
[2:37:27] Prioritizing communities of
[2:37:28] concern while preparing
[2:37:28] the 2022 Climate Action Plan.
[2:37:32] City staff work closely closely
[2:37:33] with stakeholders to develop a
[2:37:34] method for scoring each cap
[2:37:37] action to understand its
[2:37:38] potential to prioritize and
[2:37:39] empower residents within
[2:37:39] communities that have been
[2:37:43] historically underinvested in
[2:37:43] and to address those
[2:37:44] disparities.
[2:37:48] To create equitable outcomes we
[2:37:49] must prioritize action and
[2:37:49] invest where the need is
[2:37:53] greatest by involving impacted
[2:37:54] community members in the city's
[2:37:54] decision making process.
[2:37:58] Early and through continued
[2:37:58] partnerships.
[2:37:59] For this reason the concept of
[2:38:03] climate equity is critical
[2:38:04] throughout the 2022 Climate
[2:38:04] Action Plan and the similar
[2:38:07] implementation plan.
[2:38:08] The city will continue to
[2:38:12] frequently consult with CBOs on
[2:38:13] climate equity policy on use of
[2:38:17] these tools specifically and on
[2:38:17] equitable cap implementation
[2:38:18] generally.
[2:38:22] Page six a new faq to wrap up
[2:38:25] We have a lot of conversation
[2:38:30] today on the funding sources
[2:38:30] Already one of the funding
[2:38:31] sources already used to invest
[2:38:34] in structurally excluded
[2:38:35] communities is the city's
[2:38:36] Climate Equity Fund which
[2:38:40] the city established in 2021
[2:38:40] and as a dedicated source of
[2:38:41] supplemental funding for
[2:38:45] infrastructure projects in
[2:38:45] communities of concern.
[2:38:46] The implementation plan also
[2:38:49] reference Council policy 800
[2:38:49] Dash 14 which prioritized
[2:38:50] capital improvement program
[2:38:54] projects and the goal of Parks
[2:38:55] Master plan to prioritize park
[2:38:55] dips to park deficient
[2:38:58] communities.
[2:38:59] The project supports
[2:39:03] the Climate Action Plan
[2:39:04] implementation plan by paying
[2:39:05] the required development impact
[2:39:08] fees Investing in improvement
[2:39:08] of existing infrastructure
[2:39:09] within the community through
[2:39:13] public through project related
[2:39:14] public improvements and by
[2:39:14] presenting the project to
[2:39:15] the Community Planning Group on
[2:39:20] OCTOBER 28th, 2024.
[2:39:21] Findings are supported.
[2:39:21] Issue one.
[2:39:25] Allowance of the subdivision
[2:39:26] map based on the interpretation
[2:39:26] that the project was deemed
[2:39:27] complete before repeal of
[2:39:30] footnote seven.
[2:39:31] This assertion assertion
[2:39:31] disregards that it is
[2:39:32] the approval of the project not
[2:39:35] the date of application that
[2:39:36] determines vesting rights under
[2:39:36] state law.
[2:39:39] As evidenced by
[2:39:40] the discriminant this sorry
[2:39:40] discretionary approval for
[2:39:45] the project that are being
[2:39:45] asked of the Planning
[2:39:46] Commission at the NOVEMBER
[2:39:49] 20th, 2025 hearing pursuant to
[2:39:49] state law development
[2:39:50] applications that have been
[2:39:54] deemed complete are entitled to
[2:39:54] proceed under the law and
[2:39:55] policies in effect at the time
[2:39:56] the application was deemed
[2:40:01] complete.
[2:40:02] >> Findings not Supported Issue
[2:40:02] two.
[2:40:06] This project creates a chronic
[2:40:07] concentrated environmental
[2:40:07] justice burden and a
[2:40:08] historically red line majority
[2:40:11] Black Latino low resource
[2:40:11] neighborhood.
[2:40:12] It will produce a starkly
[2:40:16] discriminatory outcome when
[2:40:16] compared to with low density
[2:40:17] approvals in wealthy majority
[2:40:21] white neighborhoods such as
[2:40:21] Foxtail La Hoya.
[2:40:25] This was previously addressed
[2:40:26] under complex with other
[2:40:29] matters New Information Appeal
[2:40:30] Issue one This project defeats
[2:40:31] the intent of the repeal of
[2:40:33] Footnote seven The City of San
[2:40:34] Diego Council agreed upon in
[2:40:37] APRIL of 2025.
[2:40:37] This was also previously
[2:40:38] discussed in the response in
[2:40:40] the same issue under findings
[2:40:45] not supported new information
[2:40:46] appeal issue to insufficient
[2:40:47] time to review hundreds of
[2:40:50] pages of project documents
[2:40:50] which were only provided to
[2:40:53] the public on public on
[2:40:54] NOVEMBER 14th, 2025 for less
[2:40:54] than one week before
[2:40:58] the hearing in accordance with
[2:40:58] the requirements of the Brown
[2:40:59] Act, a notice of public hearing
[2:41:00] was distributed and the agenda
[2:41:03] was posted a minimum of 72
[2:41:04] hours prior to today's City
[2:41:05] Council hearing and the same
[2:41:08] was done prior to planning
[2:41:09] Commission Oligo Requirements
[2:41:13] Format New information issue
[2:41:13] three.
[2:41:13] Failure to consult
[2:41:14] the Community The staff report
[2:41:19] cites vote by the Community
[2:41:19] Planning Group on OCTOBER 2024.
[2:41:20] However this vote was taken
[2:41:23] while Footnote seven was still
[2:41:24] in effect and in fact
[2:41:25] the project triggered
[2:41:25] the public discovery of
[2:41:28] footnote seven in the municipal
[2:41:29] Code and the legally disputable
[2:41:32] process by which footnote seven
[2:41:33] was adopted.
[2:41:34] Engagement with the community
[2:41:34] would allow the developer,
[2:41:35] the community and the city of
[2:41:37] San Diego to explore
[2:41:38] alternative uses of the site
[2:41:42] that would be acceptable to all
[2:41:42] parties.
[2:41:43] Again, the project was
[2:41:46] presented to the community
[2:41:47] Planning Group on OCTOBER 28th,
[2:41:48] 2024 and staff has been made
[2:41:52] available to respond to phone
[2:41:53] calls and correspondence.
[2:41:53] Development Services did not
[2:41:56] receive a request for
[2:41:57] additional coordination with
[2:41:57] the Community Planning Group
[2:41:58] and staff Acknowledge
[2:42:00] the receipt of the vote for
[2:42:01] denial from the Community
[2:42:05] Planning group City wide
[2:42:06] Implication Issue one.
[2:42:11] Residents neighboring a
[2:42:11] proposed development MAY have
[2:42:12] due process rights connected to
[2:42:13] their property interests if
[2:42:15] they believe it will decrease
[2:42:16] their tangible or intangible
[2:42:16] property value.
[2:42:19] Choice Valley Encanto Planning
[2:42:20] Group was not I was not
[2:42:21] notified of this project by
[2:42:22] the applicant or by the city of
[2:42:24] San Diego before the secret
[2:42:25] determination was made.
[2:42:26] The Community Planning Group is
[2:42:29] not aware of notice being given
[2:42:30] to the potentially affected
[2:42:34] neighbors by other substituted
[2:42:34] means.
[2:42:35] Thus the residents have not
[2:42:35] been have been deprived of
[2:42:39] procedural due process on this
[2:42:40] matter because they were not
[2:42:41] given a chance to voice their
[2:42:43] concerns at a community
[2:42:44] planning group meeting.
[2:42:45] The public hearing or other
[2:42:49] procedural mechanism after
[2:42:49] substantive notice with respect
[2:42:53] to content and time To
[2:42:54] the extent that this lack of
[2:42:55] notice of development
[2:42:58] applications or permits extends
[2:42:59] to other community plan areas.
[2:43:00] This matter has city wide
[2:43:03] implications.
[2:43:04] As stated earlier, the project
[2:43:05] was noticed in accordance with
[2:43:05] requirements of the municipal
[2:43:08] code in accordance with
[2:43:08] the California Environmental
[2:43:09] Quality Act Statutes and
[2:43:13] guidelines Section 15164 See an
[2:43:13] addendum need not be circulated
[2:43:18] for public review but can be
[2:43:19] included in or attached to
[2:43:19] the final environmental impact
[2:43:22] report.
[2:43:23] The addendum to the 2025
[2:43:24] Community Plan Update Program
[2:43:27] Environmental Impact Report was
[2:43:28] posted on the city's California
[2:43:29] Environmental Quality Act
[2:43:33] website for final environmental
[2:43:34] documents on NOVEMBER 14th,
[2:43:34] 2025 and a link to the docket a
[2:43:37] link to the document was
[2:43:38] included in the staff report to
[2:43:43] the Planning Commission.
[2:43:48] >> >> Citywide implication.
[2:43:49] Issue to expose as a city to
[2:43:49] legal policy and public health
[2:43:53] risk based on fair housing
[2:43:53] disparate impact exposure and
[2:43:57] sb 1000 sequel vulnerabilities.
[2:43:58] >> This was previously
[2:43:59] addressed under conflict with
[2:44:02] other matters of issue one.
[2:44:03] City wide Implication of Pill
[2:44:04] Issue three The 31 acres have
[2:44:07] been slated for park for many
[2:44:08] years a park not only for our
[2:44:09] communities of Choice Valley
[2:44:13] but for the entire city of San
[2:44:13] Diego.
[2:44:14] The views alone are worthy of
[2:44:15] upgrading quality of life for
[2:44:15] residents of our city.
[2:44:18] This was previously addressed
[2:44:19] under factual letter errors
[2:44:23] Appeal Issue Item five Staff's
[2:44:29] recommendation is City Council
[2:44:30] deny the appeal and affirmed
[2:44:30] the Planning Commission's
[2:44:31] decision to approve the basin
[2:44:34] Tentative map.
[2:44:35] >> The site development permit
[2:44:36] the Neighborhood Development
[2:44:36] permit and a neighborhood use
[2:44:39] permit that concludes staff's
[2:44:45] presentation.
[2:44:46] We have we have sorry we have
[2:44:50] the applicant and city staff to
[2:44:51] answer any questions.
[2:44:51] All right.
[2:44:51] Thank you for that.
[2:44:52] For first I'll turn it over to
[2:44:55] the office of the city attorney
[2:44:56] for comments.
[2:44:56] >> Thank you, Council
[2:44:56] PRESIDENT.
[2:45:00] Our office will outline some
[2:45:01] legal considerations for
[2:45:01] today's item when hearing and
[2:45:05] deciding upon a project appeal
[2:45:06] ,the Council MAY affirm,
[2:45:06] reverse or modify the Planning
[2:45:11] Commission's decision.
[2:45:11] A decision to reverse or modify
[2:45:12] the Planning Commission's
[2:45:15] decision must be based on one
[2:45:16] or more of the following one
[2:45:19] factual error two new
[2:45:20] information three findings that
[2:45:20] are not supported for conflict
[2:45:24] with the land Use plan Council
[2:45:25] policy or the municipal Code or
[2:45:25] five city wide significance In
[2:45:29] addition to approving
[2:45:30] the project, the Planning
[2:45:30] Commission considered and
[2:45:31] adopted an environmental
[2:45:35] addendum prepared by staff.
[2:45:35] An addendum is not an
[2:45:36] environmental determination
[2:45:40] that is subject to appeal under
[2:45:41] the municipal Code or sequa and
[2:45:42] therefore MAY not be appealed.
[2:45:46] That conclusion is supported by
[2:45:47] an appellate opinion from
[2:45:47] the fourth Appellate District
[2:45:48] in California.
[2:45:52] This project is subject to
[2:45:52] the State Housing
[2:45:53] Accountability Act because it
[2:45:57] meets the definition of a
[2:45:57] housing development project.
[2:45:58] Under this state law the city
[2:46:02] MAY not apply development
[2:46:03] standards that were not in
[2:46:03] effect at the time
[2:46:04] The application was deemed
[2:46:08] complete at the time
[2:46:09] the application for this
[2:46:09] project was deemed complete.
[2:46:12] Footnote seven was in effect if
[2:46:13] after hearing the evidence
[2:46:18] presented Council would like to
[2:46:18] deny the project or impose
[2:46:19] conditions that the project be
[2:46:24] developed a lower density.
[2:46:24] State law requires that council
[2:46:25] base that decision upon written
[2:46:30] findings supported by a
[2:46:31] preponderance of the evidence
[2:46:31] on the record that each of
[2:46:32] the following exist.
[2:46:35] One.
[2:46:36] The project would have a
[2:46:37] specific adverse impact upon
[2:46:41] the public health or safety.
[2:46:42] And two there is no feasible
[2:46:43] method to satisfactorily
[2:46:47] mitigate or avoid that adverse
[2:46:47] impact.
[2:46:48] >> That concludes my comments.
[2:46:48] All right.
[2:46:53] Thank you for that.
[2:46:54] So before we open it up to
[2:46:55] public comment, we'll have
[2:46:59] we'll hear from the appellant
[2:47:00] and then we'll hear from
[2:47:00] the applicant.
[2:47:04] So I invite the applicant
[2:47:05] excuse me the appellant to come
[2:47:05] up.
[2:47:17] My apologies.
[2:47:18] >> And how much time do you
[2:47:18] need for your presentation?
[2:47:22] So I get 35 minutes.
[2:47:23] If you need 35 minutes That's
[2:47:23] what they talk?
[2:47:24] Yes.
[2:47:28] I don't think you prefer.
[2:47:29] Can you tell me though how much
[2:47:30] time so I can put it on
[2:47:30] the table?
[2:47:33] Probably 15.
[2:47:34] Okay.
[2:47:35] I would like to thank all
[2:47:39] the community and community
[2:47:40] members who are here today from
[2:47:45] our beautiful city excuse me
[2:47:46] who have showed up today in
[2:47:51] person and online.
[2:47:52] I appreciate the time,
[2:47:52] the energy and the effort it
[2:47:53] took folks to have better
[2:47:58] support parks and Justice in
[2:47:58] our community.
[2:47:59] Honorable Council PRESIDENT
[2:48:03] LaCava.
[2:48:04] And honorable Council members.
[2:48:05] Today our neighborhood of
[2:48:09] AltaVista Broadway Heights,
[2:48:10] Troy a few Emerald Hills
[2:48:15] Encanto Lincoln Park, o'Farrell
[2:48:16] and Valencia Park are sending a
[2:48:21] signal to our leaders to
[2:48:21] envision the opportunity to
[2:48:22] create an urban sanctuary
[2:48:27] investing in our children,
[2:48:28] investing in our environment
[2:48:32] and investing in our health.
[2:48:33] I respectfully request if
[2:48:34] everyone on the dais would
[2:48:38] raise their hands if they've
[2:48:39] ever been to the Radio Tower
[2:48:44] site.
[2:48:50] Next slide please.
[2:48:51] Today we are sending a signal.
[2:48:55] Support the appeal and use your
[2:48:56] discretionary authority.
[2:48:57] The City Council have
[2:48:57] the choice to support our
[2:48:58] appeal and deny the Emerald
[2:49:02] Hills project.
[2:49:03] This discretionary review
[2:49:03] allows the Council to exercise
[2:49:08] your legal power and authority
[2:49:08] to consider whether this
[2:49:14] project follows the legally
[2:49:15] binding encanto community plan
[2:49:16] complying with zoning laws and
[2:49:16] variances.
[2:49:21] The deemed project complete
[2:49:22] with just the application
[2:49:22] triggering vesting rights.
[2:49:28] Properly qualifies for
[2:49:28] the city's fiscal
[2:49:29] determination.
[2:49:29] This project protects public
[2:49:34] safety and infrastructure in
[2:49:34] very high fire severity zones
[2:49:35] and evacuation routes and
[2:49:40] follows sb 1000 and
[2:49:40] environmental justice
[2:49:41] obligation and meets
[2:49:45] the requirements of
[2:49:46] the discretionary permit.
[2:49:46] Our appeal today argues that
[2:49:52] this project does not meet any
[2:49:52] of these standards and cdp g.
[2:49:57] And Neighborhood Council have
[2:49:57] rejected the project from
[2:49:58] the very first presentation.
[2:50:03] The Council should support this
[2:50:04] appeal and deny the project.
[2:50:04] Next slide please.
[2:50:09] This project conflicts with
[2:50:10] the Encanto Neighborhood
[2:50:10] Community plan.
[2:50:15] The Encanto Neighborhood
[2:50:16] Community Plan calls for
[2:50:16] preserving large lots and
[2:50:21] single family neighborhoods.
[2:50:22] Footnote seven Change the rules
[2:50:22] without due process by reducing
[2:50:30] minimum white fibers from
[2:50:31] 20,000ft to 5000ft in Encanto
[2:50:31] and Emerald Hills only.
[2:50:36] dft deems the project complete
[2:50:37] and engaged vesting rights for
[2:50:43] a mere application.
[2:50:44] Community members invested by
[2:50:44] pleased community members
[2:50:48] invested extensive volunteer
[2:50:49] time reviewing city records and
[2:50:49] public documents leading to
[2:50:50] the discovery that Footnote
[2:50:54] seven was adopted improperly
[2:50:55] and would never valid and must
[2:51:00] not be applied to any project.
[2:51:01] The process undermines due
[2:51:01] process.
[2:51:07] Transparency and meaningful
[2:51:07] community engagement.
[2:51:12] Our community is fed up with
[2:51:13] being undermined by the color
[2:51:13] of law.
[2:51:17] The project increases density
[2:51:22] by 75% and has to add 234
[2:51:23] variances.
[2:51:23] On top of that there are steep
[2:51:24] slopes on this parcel.
[2:51:29] Some waivers are three front
[2:51:30] waivers.
[2:51:30] Drive it driveway with
[2:51:31] requirement and minimum block
[2:51:35] dimension are one through seven
[2:51:35] waivers.
[2:51:36] Next I believe the Council
[2:51:41] should support this appeal and
[2:51:42] deny the project unequal land
[2:51:42] use outcome.
[2:51:47] The Council should not approve
[2:51:48] land use patterns that place
[2:51:52] greater density and concentrate
[2:51:53] environmental burdens in
[2:51:54] Emerald Hills while preserving
[2:51:59] lower density outcomes in
[2:52:00] wealthier communities.
[2:52:00] This appeal compares
[2:52:01] the Emerald Hill subdivision
[2:52:05] with the low density approval
[2:52:09] at Fox Farms in La Hoya of 18
[2:52:10] homes on the same 32 acre
[2:52:20] parcel compared to our 123.
[2:52:20] Your decision today will or
[2:52:21] will not perpetuate patterns of
[2:52:22] discrimination.
[2:52:26] Wealthier communities preserve
[2:52:26] lower density development
[2:52:27] producing a stark
[2:52:27] discriminatory outcome.
[2:52:32] Historically the underserved
[2:52:33] structurally neglected
[2:52:34] communities receive greater
[2:52:39] density without any
[2:52:40] infrastructure improvements.
[2:52:40] Removing the opportunity to
[2:52:45] right rightsize park inequity
[2:52:46] in community but concerned with
[2:52:46] scale environmental and
[2:52:51] infrastructural infrastructure
[2:52:52] burdens are concentrated in low
[2:52:52] resource communities and
[2:52:57] communities of color.
[2:52:58] Land use decisions either
[2:53:03] expand or reinforce existing
[2:53:04] inequities by defining
[2:53:04] environmental justice
[2:53:09] opportunities.
[2:53:10] Public health burdens like air
[2:53:11] quality and environmental
[2:53:15] justice obligations where local
[2:53:16] governments adopt policies
[2:53:16] reduce these burdens.
[2:53:17] The Council should support this
[2:53:19] appeal and deny the project.
[2:53:25] >> Next slide please.
[2:53:26] Park Equity and Environmental
[2:53:26] Justice Invest in our children.
[2:53:32] Invest in our health.
[2:53:32] Invest in our safety.
[2:53:33] The Council has an opportunity
[2:53:34] to set a precedent that our
[2:53:38] leaders will no longer tolerate
[2:53:39] Environmental injustices.
[2:53:39] Support advisable Park in
[2:53:44] Emerald Hills and San Diego
[2:53:45] neighborhoods of color have 64%
[2:53:50] less park space per person
[2:53:51] versus white neighborhoods.
[2:53:55] Low resource neighborhoods have
[2:53:56] neighborhoods have 71% less
[2:53:56] park space than high income
[2:54:00] neighborhoods per tpl or mixed
[2:54:05] light.
[2:54:06] >> San Diego County faces
[2:54:12] serious air quality burdens but
[2:54:12] we are the seventh worth
[2:54:16] nationally for ozone and
[2:54:17] the fifth worst year for year
[2:54:20] round particle pollution in
[2:54:21] the 2026 State of the Air
[2:54:21] report.
[2:54:27] A park could mitigate some of
[2:54:27] this fighting historic
[2:54:28] disinvestment and neglect in
[2:54:33] our underserved communities by
[2:54:33] investing in our children,
[2:54:34] enriching educational and
[2:54:39] economic opportunity through
[2:54:40] health, well-being and social
[2:54:40] impact.
[2:54:45] This is the medicine of our
[2:54:46] times and sizable park but also
[2:54:46] support park equity, climate
[2:54:51] equity, public health and
[2:54:51] community Quality of life.
[2:54:52] Next slide please.
[2:54:57] The Council should support
[2:54:58] the appeal and deny the project
[2:54:59] fp 1000 and Environmental
[2:55:03] Justice obligations.
[2:55:03] This project is an
[2:55:04] environmental burden because
[2:55:09] the community loses sizable
[2:55:09] parkland.
[2:55:10] A climate action goal.
[2:55:15] The city has an obligation to
[2:55:16] decrease the burden on
[2:55:16] environmental degradation
[2:55:17] right?
[2:55:21] Both neighborhoods
[2:55:22] disproportionately burdened by
[2:55:22] pollution or environmental
[2:55:23] hazards.
[2:55:26] Ensure residents are actively
[2:55:27] involved in municipal decision
[2:55:28] making and land use planning.
[2:55:33] Adopt tailored goals and policy
[2:55:34] to reduce pollution exposure,
[2:55:34] improve air quality and promote
[2:55:35] public health.
[2:55:39] Address systemic inequities
[2:55:40] that focus heavily on
[2:55:40] accessible parks.
[2:55:45] Equitable access to healthy
[2:55:46] food and safe housing.
[2:55:46] i believe the Council should
[2:55:51] support the appeal and deny
[2:55:52] the project.
[2:55:52] Fire evacuation risks and
[2:55:53] public safety issues.
[2:55:57] Poor evacuation routes can turn
[2:55:57] added density into a serious
[2:56:02] fire safety risk.
[2:56:03] This project is in a very high
[2:56:08] fire severity zone.
[2:56:09] Imagine 123 more homes or
[2:56:14] possibly 492 homes with a bonus
[2:56:14] adu law.
[2:56:19] The surrounding area also has
[2:56:20] limited nearby fire station
[2:56:20] coverage making safe evacuation
[2:56:25] routes an emergency access even
[2:56:26] more important in a wildfire
[2:56:26] emergency.
[2:56:31] Narrow or constrained roads can
[2:56:32] create traffic bottlenecks
[2:56:37] delayed evacuation slower
[2:56:38] emergency response.
[2:56:38] Public safety concerns during
[2:56:39] evacuations.
[2:56:44] The surrounding road network
[2:56:44] cannot safely handle
[2:56:45] evacuations under emergency
[2:56:49] conditions.
[2:56:50] Next slide please.
[2:56:51] The council should support
[2:56:54] the appeal and deny the project
[2:57:00] line.
[2:57:01] >> So but this would be a
[2:57:06] solution The land swap solution
[2:57:07] for a legacy park a community
[2:57:08] center solution that
[2:57:09] prioritizes public parkland and
[2:57:13] environmental protection and
[2:57:13] public safety a legacy park
[2:57:14] proposing a solution that would
[2:57:15] facilitate an alternative
[2:57:19] development for D.R. Horton in
[2:57:20] exchange for radio towers
[2:57:20] parcels and permanent park
[2:57:21] land.
[2:57:26] The framework for this is not
[2:57:27] an untested idea in California.
[2:57:31] The developer received a viable
[2:57:32] low risk alternative.
[2:57:32] The city advances housing
[2:57:33] production on a more suitable
[2:57:38] site while honoring
[2:57:39] the community plan.
[2:57:39] The residents of southeastern
[2:57:40] Diego received a once in a
[2:57:44] generation destination park.
[2:57:44] This is pragmatic equity
[2:57:50] centered problem solving
[2:57:50] solution.
[2:57:51] We are asking the City Council
[2:57:57] to champion a legacy The park
[2:57:57] could honor our veterans.
[2:57:58] Could honor our sports icons,
[2:57:59] put onto honor our cultural
[2:58:02] icons from our community.
[2:58:03] A place for the rest of
[2:58:08] the city to take in the vistas
[2:58:09] and the beauty of our amazing
[2:58:09] city.
[2:58:10] This Council should support
[2:58:14] this appeal and deny
[2:58:14] the project.
[2:58:15] Please.
[2:58:15] Today we are sending a signal
[2:58:20] to City Council to support our
[2:58:20] appeal and to exercise your
[2:58:21] legal power of discretionary
[2:58:26] review.
[2:58:27] This Council has the authority
[2:58:27] to support the appeal.
[2:58:28] This Council has an opportunity
[2:58:32] to right size historic
[2:58:33] disinvestment and neglect.
[2:58:38] Enjoy the Valley communities
[2:58:39] see the vision our community
[2:58:39] has.
[2:58:39] This is a discretionary
[2:58:40] project.
[2:58:44] This project conflicts with
[2:58:44] the neighborhood community
[2:58:45] the Encanto Neighborhood
[2:58:50] Community Plan and Footnote
[2:58:50] seven undermines due process
[2:58:51] transparency and meaningful
[2:58:56] community engagement.
[2:58:56] The project fails to comply
[2:58:57] with fha Park Equity
[2:59:02] Environmental justice
[2:59:02] Infrastructure and fire
[2:59:03] Evacuation safety.
[2:59:08] Invest in your children.
[2:59:08] Invest in our children.
[2:59:09] Invest in our health and invest
[2:59:14] in our safety.
[2:59:15] Together let's create an urban
[2:59:15] sanctuary for our beautiful
[2:59:20] city.
[2:59:20] You can't make more land.
[2:59:21] The Council should support
[2:59:22] the appeal and deny
[2:59:23] the project.
[2:59:37] >> Thank you.
[2:59:45] By this they have more to do.
[2:59:51] >> Can you play the next slide
[2:59:51] which is a new article from
[2:59:52] tpf.
[2:59:58] Is that allowable?
[3:00:05] Thank you.
[3:00:06] >> There's nothing on the slide
[3:00:10] but a white screen.
[3:00:11] I'm sorry but we could have
[3:00:16] only put it into the record.
[3:00:17] No, this is the last slide that
[3:00:27] we received.
[3:00:28] >> Okay.
[3:00:30] Now I invite the applicant on
[3:00:48] the project.
[3:00:49] >> Good afternoon, MR. Council
[3:00:49] PRESIDENT.
[3:00:55] We give equal time to
[3:00:56] the applicant and
[3:00:56] the appellant.
[3:00:57] They took 15.
[3:00:58] I'm sorry They took 15 minutes.
[3:01:03] So that is fine.
[3:01:03] Okay.
[3:01:04] And it was off the record.
[3:01:04] Thank you.
[3:01:05] I agree in this regard.
[3:01:05] Good afternoon.
[3:01:07] Council PRESIDENT Members of
[3:01:08] City Council My name is Daniel
[3:01:08] Boyd, vice PRESIDENT For
[3:01:09] attorneys for D.R. Horton.
[3:01:12] We're very pleased to present
[3:01:13] and defend our project
[3:01:13] proposal.
[3:01:14] Item number 331 for you today.
[3:01:18] First of all, we very much
[3:01:19] appreciate staff's dedication
[3:01:19] and time.
[3:01:20] Over the past several months if
[3:01:24] not years.
[3:01:24] We also appreciate
[3:01:25] the appellant's presentation
[3:01:26] and we appreciate the community
[3:01:26] standing behind me.
[3:01:30] We have been very involved with
[3:01:30] the community.
[3:01:31] I'll be short with our overall
[3:01:36] visual presentation.
[3:01:36] That was your first warning.
[3:01:37] I will be very brief as to our
[3:01:41] next slide please.
[3:01:42] I'll be very brief as the staff
[3:01:43] report was very thorough and I
[3:01:48] don't need to be redundant.
[3:01:49] Our project includes, as we
[3:01:49] heard 223 single family
[3:01:54] detached homes set on a minimum
[3:01:55] of 5000 square foot lots.
[3:01:59] These lots however near average
[3:02:00] nearly 6000 square foot lots.
[3:02:01] These lots also stretch into 7
[3:02:01] to 8in.
[3:02:05] The proposals also include open
[3:02:06] space areas designed for
[3:02:06] passive recreation for
[3:02:07] the community residences and
[3:02:11] open to the public for
[3:02:12] the general community to enjoy.
[3:02:12] These open spaces will include
[3:02:17] typical passive amenities such
[3:02:17] as park benches, fountains,
[3:02:18] accommodations for dogs but
[3:02:23] even more importantly provides
[3:02:23] an opportunity for
[3:02:24] the community to converse, meet
[3:02:25] and just discuss and of course
[3:02:28] enjoy the views.
[3:02:29] Next slide please.
[3:02:34] The project is access to Hopper
[3:02:34] 16th Street.
[3:02:35] It has one access object but
[3:02:38] emergency vehicle access after
[3:02:39] full memory lane.
[3:02:40] That was done by chance.
[3:02:41] That was done by design in
[3:02:44] conformance with all
[3:02:45] the ability requirements set
[3:02:46] forth under this project.
[3:02:50] We are very pleased that part
[3:02:51] of this project is going to
[3:02:51] include substantial public
[3:02:52] infrastructure improvements to
[3:02:58] the city namely 60 Street, 62
[3:03:01] Street and likely 63 and
[3:03:01] present condition looks like
[3:03:02] that And that's what we've been
[3:03:06] seeing for years with this
[3:03:06] community.
[3:03:07] This is a situation that right
[3:03:12] now and staff will confirm does
[3:03:13] not meet all the safety
[3:03:14] requirements of the city namely
[3:03:14] site distance.
[3:03:18] Next slide please.
[3:03:19] What we plan on doing with our
[3:03:22] proposal is to improve 60
[3:03:23] Street and widen 60th Street by
[3:03:23] 18ft.
[3:03:27] This will give us the ability
[3:03:28] to provide sidewalks, provide
[3:03:33] dog trails, provide curb
[3:03:34] separated landscaping and of
[3:03:39] course drainage facilities.
[3:03:40] This will be representative of
[3:03:40] what we believe is a great
[3:03:45] entry to this community and
[3:03:45] enjoyed by all of
[3:03:46] the community.
[3:03:50] Next slide please.
[3:03:51] This is a quick diagram that
[3:03:57] shows the tree section of 60
[3:03:57] Street.
[3:03:58] It's a little small so I'm not
[3:03:58] expecting you to look at that.
[3:04:02] But what we're trying to show
[3:04:03] here is that there is no
[3:04:03] question that the community has
[3:04:08] not have a great record for
[3:04:08] sidewalks there does not have a
[3:04:13] great planning from decades ago
[3:04:14] And we hear that loud and
[3:04:14] clear.
[3:04:15] What we're trying to represent
[3:04:18] here is what we are being
[3:04:19] required to provide in terms of
[3:04:19] what the city policies and
[3:04:24] guidelines require and we are
[3:04:25] providing that next slide and
[3:04:29] we should make a quick notation
[3:04:30] that we're very proud.
[3:04:30] The purpose of why we're here
[3:04:34] our proposal is to provide
[3:04:35] homeownership generational
[3:04:35] wealth.
[3:04:36] We're here to provide
[3:04:40] opportunities for all.
[3:04:41] And in doing that we're
[3:04:41] presenting four distinct
[3:04:42] architectural plans doing
[3:04:46] Craftsman traditional.
[3:04:47] It just goes to show that what
[3:04:48] we're trying to do here is
[3:04:51] bring homeownership that's
[3:04:52] compatible with the existing
[3:04:52] neighborhood.
[3:04:56] We're proud of those And we
[3:04:57] think that the city should be
[3:04:58] proud of this And we know
[3:04:58] the folks behind me won't
[3:05:02] support this.
[3:05:03] But home ownership shouldn't be
[3:05:03] a privilege.
[3:05:07] It should be a right and it
[3:05:08] should be something afforded to
[3:05:08] everyone.
[3:05:09] And we believe wholeheartedly
[3:05:13] that we're part of that
[3:05:14] objective in the city of San
[3:05:14] Diego.
[3:05:18] Next slide.
[3:05:19] >> The very beginning of this
[3:05:20] proposal and I will describe in
[3:05:23] very detail here in a moment we
[3:05:28] started our community outreach
[3:05:28] nearly four years ago a year in
[3:05:33] advance of technically a formal
[3:05:33] review by the city.
[3:05:34] We were introduced and we
[3:05:38] became very involved with a
[3:05:39] wide variety of interest groups
[3:05:39] and organizations.
[3:05:43] Aside from the pioneer Group
[3:05:44] and the local Emerald Hills
[3:05:45] neighborhood group, we became
[3:05:49] very close with the National
[3:05:49] Black Contractors Association
[3:05:53] and why we want to bring jobs
[3:05:54] to the community.
[3:05:55] We heard loud and clear from
[3:05:59] this association We want jobs
[3:06:00] in San Diego.
[3:06:03] Do not give our jobs away to
[3:06:04] outside counties.
[3:06:05] So we became members of this
[3:06:09] association and we're acting on
[3:06:09] that commitment.
[3:06:10] The National Association of
[3:06:10] Real Estate Brokers they're not
[3:06:14] just brokers.
[3:06:15] They're folks who have devoted
[3:06:15] themselves to this culture and
[3:06:20] to this community and to
[3:06:20] the betterment of fair housing
[3:06:21] for all.
[3:06:24] No, they're just not brokers.
[3:06:25] They're not just real estate
[3:06:25] agents.
[3:06:26] They're advocates.
[3:06:29] And I believe that we are very
[3:06:30] proud to be part of that
[3:06:31] organization and we work very
[3:06:35] closely with Nerad and we are
[3:06:36] going to continue our
[3:06:40] relationship beyond hopeful
[3:06:40] approval of this project.
[3:06:41] We believe and what their their
[3:06:45] objectives are And we stand
[3:06:46] firm with their commitment.
[3:06:49] We've made notation with San
[3:06:50] Diego County Urban League that
[3:06:51] most importantly is meeting
[3:06:55] with homeowners, meeting with
[3:06:56] individuals like Kenny Keys.
[3:06:59] I like Kenny Keys.
[3:07:00] He's invited me to his living
[3:07:00] room.
[3:07:01] I don't realize me now but we
[3:07:04] started out as friends but we
[3:07:05] started out opening up a
[3:07:05] dialog.
[3:07:09] Next slide please.
[3:07:10] We opened up a dialog
[3:07:10] represented by this diagram
[3:07:14] here.
[3:07:15] This is a process and a
[3:07:19] timeline and I'll briefly go
[3:07:19] through It is pretty amazing.
[3:07:23] As I said earlier, we spent
[3:07:24] the first 12 months working
[3:07:25] with the planning area group
[3:07:28] and the neighborhood council
[3:07:28] groups.
[3:07:29] We went to neighborhoods, we
[3:07:30] went to living rooms We had
[3:07:34] conducted meetings not required
[3:07:34] not required by the applicant.
[3:07:39] We volunteered to get ourselves
[3:07:43] out in front of the issues 12
[3:07:43] months in fact don't say we
[3:07:44] didn't do our best.
[3:07:48] The community outreach because
[3:07:48] the next steps included meeting
[3:07:52] with individual homeowners.
[3:07:53] We finally get to a point where
[3:07:54] the city blessed all of our
[3:07:58] paperwork, all of our reports
[3:07:58] and then we began.
[3:07:59] The next step was the formal
[3:08:03] review of the city staff.
[3:08:04] 24 months later we end up
[3:08:07] applying to Commission Planning
[3:08:08] Commission as we heard approved
[3:08:12] this project.
[3:08:12] Seven No unanimous
[3:08:16] recommendation or can you
[3:08:17] please of that That was not
[3:08:21] that's not an easy feat and
[3:08:21] that means they supported
[3:08:22] the technical aspects of
[3:08:22] everything that your staff
[3:08:26] worked very hard over a period
[3:08:27] of years to bring forth.
[3:08:31] They reviewed all the technical
[3:08:31] aspects and I don't need to be
[3:08:32] redundant that moving from that
[3:08:35] point did we stop our community
[3:08:36] outreach just because we got
[3:08:37] planning commission approval?
[3:08:40] No, we did not.
[3:08:40] We continued.
[3:08:44] We continue to meet with
[3:08:45] various individuals with also
[3:08:49] the plenary group and
[3:08:50] the environmental neighborhood
[3:08:50] group.
[3:08:54] We met at coffee shops.
[3:08:55] We met with folks pro and
[3:08:55] against.
[3:08:55] We stuck with it.
[3:08:59] We did not walk away from our
[3:09:00] passionate D.R. Horton which is
[3:09:04] to provide quality home
[3:09:04] ownership to the city of San
[3:09:05] Diego.
[3:09:08] We could have walked and many
[3:09:09] competitors would've said
[3:09:09] Forget this madness.
[3:09:10] We're out of here.
[3:09:13] We stuck by our guns and these
[3:09:14] people behind me, they know
[3:09:18] that.
[3:09:18] Do they like me?
[3:09:19] Probably not.
[3:09:22] But they can't say for a moment
[3:09:23] that we did not do our business
[3:09:27] in terms of community outreach
[3:09:27] .
[3:09:31] Now we're here actually.
[3:09:32] >> We're here not just to
[3:09:37] represent another home
[3:09:37] proposal.
[3:09:41] We are proud that we represent
[3:09:42] 18 over 18 land use policies
[3:09:43] established by this city.
[3:09:47] We're proud of that.
[3:09:47] We're proud of that.
[3:09:48] Next slide.
[3:09:48] We're proud that we were able
[3:09:51] to comply with a number of
[3:09:52] very, very technical policies.
[3:09:53] But I particularly proud of
[3:09:56] what I've highlighted here in
[3:09:56] yellow.
[3:09:57] The top one and I bring
[3:10:00] emphasis to it.
[3:10:01] We're helping the city of San
[3:10:04] Diego with their goal of
[3:10:05] reaching over 109,000
[3:10:06] residences of which you've
[3:10:09] achieved a lot over 36,000
[3:10:10] homes.
[3:10:10] Well, aren't 23 doesn't seem
[3:10:13] like a big number.
[3:10:14] Every home counts.
[3:10:18] And I'm going to quote one of
[3:10:18] your council members I can't
[3:10:19] remember who it was but it
[3:10:23] resonated with me.
[3:10:24] And you can raise your hand if
[3:10:24] you recognize this quote.
[3:10:27] Every new front door built in
[3:10:28] the city of San Diego affords
[3:10:32] an opportunity for a family to
[3:10:33] walk in and that is our
[3:10:34] passionate D.R. Horton and
[3:10:37] we're pleased to share that
[3:10:37] passion with that city that
[3:10:38] moving forward we have another
[3:10:42] land use policy It directs
[3:10:42] the city to efficiently use on
[3:10:47] Remain property for residential
[3:10:48] use at a minimum at densely
[3:10:52] stated and the code.
[3:10:52] We appreciate that that
[3:10:53] the last one I think has really
[3:10:56] good.
[3:10:57] Simply provide homeownership to
[3:11:01] all to young big families and
[3:11:02] small families bring
[3:11:04] homeownership to a wide variety
[3:11:04] of folks.
[3:11:09] >> Next slide please.
[3:11:10] >> Early on we were challenged
[3:11:11] with compatibility and this
[3:11:15] chart was produced by empirical
[3:11:17] data and it clearly shows west
[3:11:18] of 60th Street.
[3:11:23] 86% of the existing laws are
[3:11:24] under 10,000ft.
[3:11:27] 50% are between 5 and 6000ft.
[3:11:31] There is no question that our
[3:11:32] law sizes our architecture, our
[3:11:36] homes and our community are
[3:11:37] very much compatible with
[3:11:37] the existing community.
[3:11:40] And let me say this for
[3:11:41] the record building infill
[3:11:41] development is one of
[3:11:42] the toughest types of
[3:11:45] development any developer can
[3:11:46] experience because we have to
[3:11:51] listen to the community.
[3:11:52] We have to pay attention to
[3:11:52] the rules and regulations.
[3:11:53] We have to draw up our
[3:11:56] proposals to be compatible.
[3:11:57] That's not an easy feat But we
[3:12:01] started months in advance by
[3:12:02] photo documenting the existing
[3:12:03] neighborhoods so that we could
[3:12:05] produce a project compatible.
[3:12:10] Next slide please.
[3:12:11] >> One of the more prominent
[3:12:15] issues raised of this project
[3:12:16] has been drainage and I will
[3:12:20] not go into the level of
[3:12:20] technical levels But I will say
[3:12:21] this.
[3:12:25] Think of our project as a
[3:12:25] tabletop in your home.
[3:12:29] The existing condition which is
[3:12:34] uncontrolled drainage flowing
[3:12:35] off the north, the south and
[3:12:35] the west slopes.
[3:12:39] When I say uncontrolled there
[3:12:39] is no measures to collect
[3:12:40] drainage.
[3:12:44] Presently that's not what we're
[3:12:44] doing.
[3:12:45] >> Through the review of your
[3:12:48] city staff they have approved
[3:12:49] our drainage plan which reduces
[3:12:56] the flows by upwards of 86% on
[3:12:58] the south, 84% on the north and
[3:13:01] up to 84% to the west.
[3:13:02] How do we do that?
[3:13:06] It's real simple.
[3:13:07] The same tabletop we now have
[3:13:11] streets curb gutter and we have
[3:13:12] bio filter basins on site to
[3:13:16] collect the water.
[3:13:17] The water then is collected and
[3:13:21] disposed into city cisterns.
[3:13:22] We met the requirement that we
[3:13:25] stop at Midland.
[3:13:26] Just a requirement with this
[3:13:26] community.
[3:13:27] No we did not.
[3:13:31] We continued to say Let's go
[3:13:31] further.
[3:13:35] And by that I listened to Kenny
[3:13:35] Keyes.
[3:13:36] I listened in his neighborhood.
[3:13:37] I listened to his neighbors and
[3:13:41] they didn't like what was done
[3:13:41] years ago.
[3:13:45] They had a culvert installed in
[3:13:45] their private backyards not
[3:13:50] maintained and they were
[3:13:50] fearful that this project would
[3:13:51] inundate their project.
[3:13:51] Not true.
[3:13:55] We agreed that we would install
[3:13:56] yet another village so that
[3:14:00] whatever remnant water would
[3:14:01] come off that would be
[3:14:02] intercepted by that ditch.
[3:14:05] We weren't required to do that
[3:14:05] but we are doing that.
[3:14:06] And by the way, we're
[3:14:09] maintaining it.
[3:14:09] Not the city.
[3:14:10] Not the community.
[3:14:14] Our hoa The same holds true for
[3:14:15] the North.
[3:14:15] They have a little different
[3:14:16] situation.
[3:14:19] They actually have an inlet
[3:14:20] system that collects the water
[3:14:21] and disposed it into the system
[3:14:24] which good for the south.
[3:14:24] It's good for the north.
[3:14:25] We're doing the same there.
[3:14:28] My point is in conclusion on
[3:14:29] drainage we're improving
[3:14:29] substantially.
[3:14:33] The drainage conditions and
[3:14:34] we're proud of that.
[3:14:38] Next slide.
[3:14:42] In conclusion, I want to take a
[3:14:43] moment to talk a little bit
[3:14:46] about the company I worked for
[3:14:47] for 27 years and I'm proud of
[3:14:47] that.
[3:14:51] But I'm more proud of John
[3:14:52] Horton who founded our company
[3:14:56] with a few dollars in his
[3:14:57] pocket.
[3:14:57] He was raised in a home with no
[3:15:01] utilities, no water, no sewage
[3:15:01] .
[3:15:02] They were so poor that they
[3:15:03] had to live on top of a
[3:15:07] jailhouse county jailhouse with
[3:15:07] his siblings.
[3:15:08] His mother made $0.50 a meal.
[3:15:11] Do not tell me that anyone with
[3:15:15] a golden spoon at D.R. Horton.
[3:15:16] We work with some of
[3:15:17] the greatest team members of
[3:15:17] our company and he grew that
[3:15:21] company today under one thing
[3:15:21] and one thing only.
[3:15:26] He remodeled a small house in
[3:15:26] Arkansas and he felt so much
[3:15:27] pleasure.
[3:15:30] He would bring home ownership
[3:15:31] experiences to many that single
[3:15:36] man with not a couple of
[3:15:37] hundred bucks in his pocket and
[3:15:40] a cell phone the size of our
[3:15:40] shoe grew.
[3:15:41] A company to be the largest
[3:15:43] homebuilding company in
[3:15:48] the United States.
[3:15:49] >> I wish that man well And his
[3:15:53] dream today lives with all of
[3:15:53] our employees lives with me And
[3:15:57] I'm sharing that wonderful
[3:15:58] experience with you because I
[3:15:58] know this city to appreciate
[3:16:02] homeownership.
[3:16:03] It's a thrill And I'm not going
[3:16:07] to take anything away from
[3:16:07] the opposition.
[3:16:08] >> And in closing, everyone
[3:16:12] deserves homeownership in
[3:16:13] the city of San Diego.
[3:16:13] Thank you very much.
[3:16:14] I will be available for
[3:16:14] questions.
[3:16:15] All right.
[3:16:16] Thank you.
[3:16:17] So with that we've now heard
[3:16:18] from the appellant, we've heard
[3:16:21] from the applicant and we will
[3:16:22] proceed with public comment and
[3:16:26] I will extend a courtesy as
[3:16:27] council PRESIDENT And invite
[3:16:29] supervisor Monica Montgomery
[3:16:37] Step to start off.
[3:16:42] >> I believe you requested five
[3:16:42] minutes.
[3:16:42] Yes.
[3:16:43] And someone left their phone up
[3:16:47] here So if I okay.
[3:16:48] >> Thank you so much Council
[3:16:49] PRESIDENT And thank you for
[3:16:52] allowing me to speak.
[3:16:52] I am here to speak today in
[3:16:53] strong support of the project
[3:16:56] that we are discussing here
[3:16:57] today and I'm asking the City
[3:17:01] Council to deny the appeal.
[3:17:02] I support this project because
[3:17:05] it will enhance the community
[3:17:05] of District four and provide an
[3:17:06] opportunity for first time
[3:17:09] homebuyers throughout San Diego
[3:17:10] which is very rare these days.
[3:17:14] The project contains 123 single
[3:17:14] family homes and that means
[3:17:17] there will be 123 families that
[3:17:18] will be able to provide a home
[3:17:18] for their children.
[3:17:22] A family legacy and family
[3:17:23] stability like my grandmother
[3:17:27] did for her children albeit in
[3:17:27] the latter years of her life.
[3:17:28] And like my mom and dad did for
[3:17:29] their children.
[3:17:32] My motivation in supporting
[3:17:33] this project lies in
[3:17:33] the principle that I want
[3:17:34] others to have access to
[3:17:37] the same opportunity that I had
[3:17:38] in life a chance to grow up in
[3:17:42] a home that I knew would always
[3:17:43] be there for me to dwell in.
[3:17:43] The project also abuts
[3:17:47] the Emerald Hills Neighborhood
[3:17:47] park and includes four pocket
[3:17:48] parks on the property along
[3:17:51] with the widening of 50th
[3:17:52] Street which I've driven down
[3:17:52] almost my entire life And it
[3:17:56] has never changed.
[3:17:57] 500 trees beautiful landscaping
[3:18:00] 13 affordable rate homes on
[3:18:01] site water quality treatment
[3:18:02] facilities, public pedestrian
[3:18:06] circulation and trails and a
[3:18:06] secondary vehicle emergency
[3:18:07] access drive.
[3:18:10] Many of these amenities were
[3:18:10] added at the request of
[3:18:11] community members and the ideas
[3:18:16] came from community to discuss
[3:18:17] and that the District Court
[3:18:17] office insisted on and the D.R.
[3:18:20] Horton engaged in.
[3:18:21] When I ran for the city council
[3:18:22] office I knocked on a lot of
[3:18:25] doors in my community and
[3:18:26] the feedback was consistent.
[3:18:26] My neighbors wanted more
[3:18:30] economic opportunities.
[3:18:31] We know that a big part of
[3:18:31] economic and economic
[3:18:35] opportunities are homes
[3:18:36] especially these types of
[3:18:36] homes.
[3:18:40] They provide more customers for
[3:18:40] neighborhood businesses and
[3:18:41] increase their property tax
[3:18:41] base.
[3:18:45] I also distinctly remember
[3:18:45] hosting a forum and discussing
[3:18:46] Measure a an affordable housing
[3:18:50] bond measure that was on
[3:18:50] the ballot in 2020.
[3:18:51] One community member challenged
[3:18:54] me at that form and asked me
[3:18:55] why does the focus always stay
[3:18:56] on low income housing?
[3:19:00] What opportunity These are
[3:19:00] there for those of us who want
[3:19:01] to own a home one day.
[3:19:04] Those words stuck with me.
[3:19:05] And during my time as a city
[3:19:06] council member the District
[3:19:09] four office prioritized
[3:19:10] homeownership by way of first
[3:19:10] time homebuyer programs,
[3:19:14] downpayment assistance and
[3:19:15] credit repair programs through
[3:19:15] the Reinvestment Task Force
[3:19:16] which I co-chaired.
[3:19:19] We became one of only eight
[3:19:20] cities in the entire nation to
[3:19:23] receive a Wells Fargo Worth
[3:19:24] grant to supplement our
[3:19:25] downpayment assistance programs
[3:19:28] at the San Diego Housing
[3:19:29] Commission.
[3:19:29] This project puts that advocacy
[3:19:30] into action.
[3:19:34] It makes what we do real and
[3:19:34] tangible, not abstract.
[3:19:35] That's why I strongly support
[3:19:38] the project.
[3:19:39] Footnote seven is being used as
[3:19:41] a pretext for people who one
[3:19:42] wants to demean the current
[3:19:43] leadership and to don't want
[3:19:46] this project in their backyard
[3:19:47] .
[3:19:47] I understand that everyone has
[3:19:48] a right to feel the way that
[3:19:51] they feel and I acknowledge
[3:19:52] that.
[3:19:52] What has been disappointing is
[3:19:53] the lack of professionalism,
[3:19:57] harassment and lack of ability
[3:19:57] to hold a decent fact based
[3:20:01] conversation about this project
[3:20:01] and other issues in our
[3:20:02] community.
[3:20:03] That's why I thought it was
[3:20:03] important for me to come here
[3:20:04] today.
[3:20:06] I want to address my role
[3:20:07] community sentiment and images
[3:20:11] like this that are deeply
[3:20:16] rooted in racist history and
[3:20:17] use as a humiliation tactic
[3:20:17] that have been promoted by
[3:20:21] the opposition.
[3:20:21] I thank the Council for
[3:20:22] repealing Footnote seven.
[3:20:25] I sat in that seat and voted
[3:20:26] for the land use code updates
[3:20:27] that included Footnote seven.
[3:20:29] Back in 2019 At that time
[3:20:30] community feedback though
[3:20:34] limited supported the function
[3:20:34] of the footnote to reduce
[3:20:38] the minimum large lot size
[3:20:39] because they knew it would
[3:20:40] drive economic opportunity.
[3:20:44] They also understood the impact
[3:20:44] of large lot size minimums
[3:20:45] keeping hardworking people of
[3:20:50] color out of neighborhood aid.
[3:20:50] >> However, I do agree that
[3:20:51] minimum large sizes should be
[3:20:54] reduced in the additional seven
[3:20:55] San Diego neighborhoods out of
[3:20:59] over 100 that it still exists
[3:21:00] in so that there is no
[3:21:00] neighborhood in San Diego that
[3:21:04] have minimum lot sizes of
[3:21:04] 20,000ft.
[3:21:05] Because history tells us that
[3:21:09] lot sizes of that magnitude are
[3:21:09] wrapped up in inherent racist
[3:21:10] land use policies that have
[3:21:14] been used over our country's
[3:21:15] and our city's history to keep
[3:21:18] people of color out of certain
[3:21:19] neighborhoods.
[3:21:20] So the question becomes while I
[3:21:23] support a policy in any
[3:21:24] neighborhood especially my own
[3:21:24] that has been used against
[3:21:28] black people like me.
[3:21:29] And the answer is I wouldn't
[3:21:29] and I won't.
[3:21:29] Not now.
[3:21:30] Not ever.
[3:21:33] And why would anyone produce
[3:21:34] and promote demeaning images
[3:21:35] across the Internet Because of
[3:21:38] racist undertones The same
[3:21:39] process undertones that exist
[3:21:40] in large lot size minimums.
[3:21:43] So if you know your history it
[3:21:43] makes sense If you don't.
[3:21:46] I hope you learn it today to
[3:21:47] close this project is for
[3:21:47] the future.
[3:21:48] The future is now.
[3:21:49] We are charged to provide a
[3:21:52] vision for the city.
[3:21:53] I envision a city where every
[3:21:53] person have a roof over their
[3:21:57] head and provide for their
[3:21:57] families.
[3:21:58] This project is a part of that
[3:21:58] vision.
[3:21:59] Please vote no on the pill.
[3:22:03] Thank you for your time.
[3:22:09] >> All right.
[3:22:09] Thank you.
[3:22:10] Council Supervisor Molly
[3:22:13] Montgomery step for taking time
[3:22:14] out of your busy day.
[3:22:15] So with that we will now
[3:22:18] proceed with the rest of
[3:22:19] the public comment.
[3:22:20] And our city clerk will explain
[3:22:27] the steps going forward and you
[3:22:28] know, you've been pretty well
[3:22:28] behaved.
[3:22:29] We're going to conduct
[3:22:29] ourselves with civility.
[3:22:32] You're going to hear things you
[3:22:32] like.
[3:22:33] You're going to hear things you
[3:22:33] don't like, maybe even a.
[3:22:36] But I think everybody's had a
[3:22:37] we want to hear from everybody
[3:22:38] whatever your point of view is
[3:22:41] and I think we can conduct
[3:22:42] the rest of the hearing with
[3:22:43] civility going forward.
[3:22:49] I think that'll be I mean you
[3:22:53] throw that out there.
[3:22:54] >> Okay.
[3:22:54] Do you want to challenge
[3:22:58] the disruption of that I
[3:22:58] outlined at the beginning?
[3:22:59] Let's let people speak.
[3:23:02] You MAY agree you MAY disagree
[3:23:03] .
[3:23:03] It is disruption of the meeting
[3:23:04] that I am particularly focused
[3:23:07] on.
[3:23:08] That's been my credo for
[3:23:09] the year and a half that I've
[3:23:10] been honored to be council
[3:23:12] PRESIDENT.
[3:23:13] Let's get on with the meeting.
[3:23:14] We have a lot of talk in front
[3:23:14] of us.
[3:23:16] We have what six group
[3:23:20] presentations So that's a good
[3:23:20] 46 minutes right there plus any
[3:23:21] individual speakers We got a
[3:23:24] long way to go.
[3:23:25] All right, City clerk, please
[3:23:29] explain what happens next.
[3:23:29] Thank you.
[3:23:30] Council PRESIDENT For
[3:23:31] the record I would also like to
[3:23:31] note that this item received 28
[3:23:34] comments in favor and four
[3:23:35] comments in opposition b r e
[3:23:36] comment form which have been
[3:23:38] distributed to the Council.
[3:23:39] We will begin the public
[3:23:40] comment period with organized
[3:23:40] presentations that were
[3:23:43] submitted via the city's
[3:23:44] organized presentation web form
[3:23:45] An organized presentation
[3:23:48] requires all listed participant
[3:23:49] to be present and raise their
[3:23:50] hand if all participants are
[3:23:52] not present or do not raise
[3:23:53] their hand, the allotted time
[3:23:54] MAY be reduced accordingly we
[3:23:58] will begin with in-person
[3:23:58] organized presentations and as
[3:23:59] noted earlier we only received
[3:24:03] in-person requests.
[3:24:04] >> There are no virtual
[3:24:04] organized presentations today.
[3:24:08] You make sure that people who
[3:24:08] signed up stay number of
[3:24:09] people.
[3:24:12] Yes If you did sign up I will
[3:24:12] be calling your name when that
[3:24:13] organized lead presenter comes
[3:24:17] up and you need to raise your
[3:24:18] hand at that time If you are
[3:24:18] not here at that time the time
[3:24:22] of the lead presenter will be
[3:24:22] minimized.
[3:24:23] We will be starting with Hazel
[3:24:26] Higgins.
[3:24:27] Hazel Higgins If you can come
[3:24:31] up to the microphone you have
[3:24:32] Michael Sowers and Billy Carter
[3:24:36] that are on your participant
[3:24:36] list.
[3:24:37] Can they raise your hand?
[3:24:40] One is Michael Solis Are you
[3:24:41] Michael's?
[3:24:44] I was Billy Carter one of your
[3:24:45] speaker.
[3:24:54] I only see one hand raised.
[3:24:55] I'll ask Kenny he Victoria
[3:24:59] Brazeau, Andrea Head Tara, Mary
[3:25:03] Young and Thomas Melanie to
[3:25:04] please all come up to
[3:25:05] the yellow reserved seats at
[3:25:08] the front of the room for Hazel
[3:25:09] you have Michael and Billy
[3:25:09] Carter.
[3:25:12] I still only see those two
[3:25:17] Michael and Billy Okay you'll
[3:25:17] have three minutes.
[3:25:18] Please proceed before you
[3:25:18] start.
[3:25:21] I'm sorry you don't have to
[3:25:22] come up If you're seating your
[3:25:22] time to the organized
[3:25:23] presentation you can stay
[3:25:26] seated and stay comfortable If
[3:25:27] you want to come up and join
[3:25:28] the speakers you're welcome to
[3:25:28] do that.
[3:25:29] >> But you don't need to.
[3:25:31] I just need you to raise your
[3:25:32] hand And my apologies for
[3:25:39] jumping in but please proceed.
[3:25:39] You want me to begin?
[3:25:40] Yes, please.
[3:25:40] Thank you.
[3:25:43] My name is Hazel Higgins.
[3:25:44] It is ironic that some 47 years
[3:25:48] ago I stood in this council
[3:25:49] chambers to request that
[3:25:53] the designated adopted open
[3:25:54] space abutting this property
[3:25:59] not be allowed to take away our
[3:26:02] open space car out of use and a
[3:26:03] mobile home park was predicate
[3:26:07] was there that was designated
[3:26:08] for the designated adopted open
[3:26:09] space abutting this property
[3:26:13] and the 70s and 60s the Encanto
[3:26:14] task force petitioned the city
[3:26:18] to rezone certain Encanto
[3:26:22] properties r 110 r 115 r 120 We
[3:26:22] asked for that.
[3:26:26] >> That's where we lived.
[3:26:27] >> We wanted our lawyer.
[3:26:28] We wanted our Point Loma and
[3:26:31] our community.
[3:26:32] >> We asked for their I'm black
[3:26:36] is black can be I asked for
[3:26:40] that with the Encanto test
[3:26:41] force I'm 88 years old not dead
[3:26:46] yet Most of my friends are
[3:26:51] cannot speak against what
[3:26:52] the previous speaker said We
[3:26:52] asked for that.
[3:26:55] We asked for 120 an r 120 lots
[3:26:59] because we wanted big lots as
[3:26:59] open space CHAIRMAN When
[3:27:00] Proposition c was passed at
[3:27:04] Witness for p r these
[3:27:05] immediately submitted for our
[3:27:09] designated adopted open space
[3:27:10] like these fine people who want
[3:27:14] to help us I wish they would
[3:27:15] quit helping us in
[3:27:19] the Southeast community.
[3:27:23] My credibility is substantiated
[3:27:24] by MR. Jan Kosky and
[3:27:24] the Association of Government.
[3:27:29] He writes me a letter thanking
[3:27:30] me for my input as open space
[3:27:30] CHAIRMAN.
[3:27:34] He's tells me he could not have
[3:27:34] completed his projects without
[3:27:38] my input.
[3:27:39] >> Juan talk about Card not
[3:27:43] abuse which abuts this
[3:27:43] property.
[3:27:44] The site was an Indian burial
[3:27:48] burial ground.
[3:27:48] It was designated adopted open
[3:27:53] space through property agency
[3:27:58] It boasted 550 endangered Cox
[3:27:59] by our cactus that were birds
[3:28:02] of many species and when it was
[3:28:07] presented for open space two
[3:28:10] for purchase it appraised $2
[3:28:11] million 5.39 acres in southeast
[3:28:15] San Diego.
[3:28:20] My property was like 12 to
[3:28:20] $20,000 for an acre but this
[3:28:21] property so that we could not
[3:28:24] price ourselves out of this
[3:28:28] open space appraised at $1
[3:28:29] million So the city did not buy
[3:28:32] that land.
[3:28:36] That land was lost worth 5.39
[3:28:37] acres of designated adopted
[3:28:38] open space and the community
[3:28:42] plan if there is an
[3:28:43] environmental impact report.
[3:28:43] >> Thank you for that
[3:28:47] concluding comment that does
[3:28:47] include your time for
[3:28:48] the organization mutation.
[3:28:51] Next we have Kenny Key If
[3:28:52] the following individuals can
[3:28:53] please raise their hand Daryl
[3:28:56] Johnson.
[3:28:57] Daryl Johnson I don't see a
[3:29:01] Gerald Johnson raising his
[3:29:01] hand.
[3:29:05] Stephanie Overstreet.
[3:29:06] Stephanie Overstreet I don't
[3:29:11] see a Stephanie Overstreet
[3:29:11] raising her hand.
[3:29:14] Darlene Simmons thank you.
[3:29:20] Kathy Caraway Thank you.
[3:29:20] Carl Davis.
[3:29:25] Carl Davis I don't see a Carl
[3:29:29] Davis raising his hand.
[3:29:30] Cynthia Santos thank you.
[3:29:35] And Joseph step Thank you.
[3:29:38] That is five minutes and you
[3:29:39] have your presentation that
[3:29:39] will go up.
[3:29:44] >> Yeah, because you're going
[3:29:45] to start the time Once I start
[3:29:45] talking I wouldn't play that.
[3:29:47] Okay, we'll play it.
[3:29:48] But I just want to say well
[3:29:52] it's playing that I wish I had
[3:29:58] that much energy from Super
[3:29:59] card supervisor for us No
[3:30:02] communities I just don't
[3:30:03] understand how she's being so
[3:30:07] aggressive and for developer
[3:30:08] that blew me away People out
[3:30:08] there watch this video.
[3:30:14] This is the this is not just
[3:30:14] Kenny this is a bunch of us one
[3:30:15] representing as part of this
[3:30:17] organization It was founded
[3:30:18] because of pushback time for
[3:30:21] this crazy developer yelling
[3:30:22] please you guys I want you guys
[3:30:26] to weigh in with us and connect
[3:30:27] with us.
[3:30:27] This is an election year Today
[3:30:30] I stand before you not just as
[3:30:31] a resident, not just as a
[3:30:32] veteran, not just as a
[3:30:35] community advocate.
[3:30:35] I stand here as someone
[3:30:36] fighting for future generations
[3:30:40] because this land is more than
[3:30:40] dirt.
[3:30:41] It is more than real estate.
[3:30:42] It is a diamond in the heart of
[3:30:47] San Diego.
[3:30:48] Shame yourself.
[3:30:49] No it is Monica who is
[3:30:51] possessed conspiring with
[3:30:51] the horn ball questions Be
[3:30:52] transparent to push this
[3:30:56] through.
[3:30:57] It was asking us to put Node
[3:30:58] seven No no to change it only
[3:31:03] to get this project It was
[3:31:03] changed.
[3:31:04] We had no say in these
[3:31:04] questions.
[3:31:05] Okay hold on Wait Before you
[3:31:07] put t on a target five year to
[3:31:07] come up here Finally things
[3:31:08] that should concern every
[3:31:10] resident of San Diego.
[3:31:11] Now you got covered up.
[3:31:15] What political party Smith This
[3:31:16] is the last chance for us.
[3:31:18] I was gonna grab one.
[3:31:19] This was last week.
[3:31:25] We got this ridiculous that we
[3:31:26] now were told not time was far
[3:31:26] as you guys just keep
[3:31:27] dismissing or saying we've got
[3:31:30] to eliminate everything was
[3:31:30] repealed within 2000ft of this
[3:31:31] prize Footnote seven was how
[3:31:36] you got I don't say you care
[3:31:37] about our kids Our streets are
[3:31:38] safe to three one bending over
[3:31:38] backwards to make some kind
[3:31:41] fair questions.
[3:31:41] >> Those are reasonable
[3:31:42] questions Housing policy should
[3:31:43] not be dictated back to have
[3:31:47] answered promise Did this
[3:31:47] company accept The company
[3:31:52] didn't elect me.
[3:31:53] We elected You represent us.
[3:31:54] How dare you dismiss Mr.
[3:31:54] Forbes?
[3:31:55] What do you feel?
[3:31:56] Controversy.
[3:31:56] You don't need to be reelected.
[3:32:01] We got somebody else demanding
[3:32:01] that cares about us.
[3:32:02] >> The Are you proven Could
[3:32:02] have shown your hand.
[3:32:05] All of you got themselves
[3:32:06] caught every year And in
[3:32:06] NOVEMBER we're going to deal
[3:32:10] with Joe Land is gone.
[3:32:11] It is up for election.
[3:32:12] We're going to deal with Joe
[3:32:12] for dismissing us.
[3:32:15] This is ridiculous.
[3:32:15] We should not be fighting.
[3:32:16] You got money, money, money,
[3:32:20] money.
[3:32:21] >> What is this promise?
[3:32:21] Let's be honest.
[3:32:27] Do you Ivory Coast But San
[3:32:29] Diego That's what we want.
[3:32:30] >> Imagine bending over
[3:32:35] backwards for this developer
[3:32:36] for Park Imagine Observation
[3:32:39] Towers is our vision City
[3:32:40] Imagine museum You refuse to
[3:32:40] look at it.
[3:32:44] You refuse to show it on tv.
[3:32:44] Imagine you show your
[3:32:45] television audience for
[3:32:49] the last four years and
[3:32:50] community events We got to
[3:32:50] fight our COUNCILMAN That
[3:32:53] kicked me out of your office
[3:32:54] disrespect me publicly and my
[3:32:58] mother never apologized to
[3:32:59] the people of San Diego.
[3:32:59] Yeah.
[3:33:00] You apologize to me.
[3:33:00] Yes.
[3:33:03] That we deserve way better
[3:33:04] raise city's And I should not
[3:33:05] be arguing You should be
[3:33:08] focused on his because I love
[3:33:09] him Hills And this is a $100
[3:33:10] million property in revenues a
[3:33:13] year younger Watching your
[3:33:14] Hawks blueprint think getting
[3:33:18] your no money no return We need
[3:33:18] long term investment in South
[3:33:23] San Diego you know, minus my
[3:33:23] money.
[3:33:38] >> Oh Earth you guys this is a
[3:33:39] puppet show we watch on their
[3:33:39] screens.
[3:33:40] >> Think about We are tired.
[3:33:40] It's his puppet show Represent
[3:33:42] us Stand for the will of
[3:33:43] the people D.R. Horton So deep
[3:33:47] now we're told to watch as
[3:33:47] these applications were deemed
[3:33:48] complete stupidity was repeat
[3:33:53] of our answer like
[3:33:53] the footnotes Look at our
[3:33:54] vision Why was it repealed?
[3:33:58] >> Give us some Look at us what
[3:33:58] you see how long we've been
[3:33:59] coming in here And it's
[3:34:02] the same question now keep
[3:34:03] dismissing me those questions
[3:34:05] the years I've lived up to 50
[3:34:06] years simply because I'm
[3:34:11] retired county employee, I'm a
[3:34:12] community activist and I'm
[3:34:16] thinking about kids the future
[3:34:17] in that park, the juggernaut
[3:34:18] economic juggernaut If you guys
[3:34:24] you just open your every last
[3:34:25] one You all need to go out
[3:34:26] there and visit the work.
[3:34:26] Let them go up here.
[3:34:27] Don't they need to go up there
[3:34:28] and didn't have to do take that
[3:34:28] view it and you guys do see how
[3:34:32] you guys almost messed up and
[3:34:32] the diamond to get away from
[3:34:33] San Diego You control
[3:34:38] the permitting process you
[3:34:39] control How are you going to
[3:34:39] say you ain't got the power?
[3:34:42] We don't have developers coming
[3:34:43] in our city telling us what
[3:34:44] they're going to do.
[3:34:44] >> I'm gonna do this here.
[3:34:45] You know they're going to come
[3:34:48] to you for your stop bound over
[3:34:49] to them and we're begging you
[3:34:52] to stop it.
[3:34:53] >> Thank you for that
[3:34:54] concluding comment.
[3:34:57] Next is Victoria La Rosa
[3:34:58] Victoria you have Time City you
[3:34:59] have the participants.
[3:35:02] >> I'm going to get that out of
[3:35:03] my mouth.
[3:35:04] Participants listed are William
[3:35:08] Crookes and Paul Kruger.
[3:35:08] You'll have three minutes.
[3:35:09] Please proceed.
[3:35:09] Thank you.
[3:35:10] Good afternoon.
[3:35:14] Council members Council
[3:35:15] PRESIDENT My name is Victoria
[3:35:16] Lorusso and I'm with the cpc.
[3:35:19] We are commonly today because
[3:35:20] this appeal reveals something
[3:35:20] much larger than the project
[3:35:21] itself.
[3:35:24] It's about confidence in San
[3:35:25] Diego's planning process.
[3:35:25] >> By the time Choice Valley
[3:35:30] cpg began asking fundamental
[3:35:30] questions about Footnote seven
[3:35:35] why it existed, what planning
[3:35:36] purpose it served and why it
[3:35:36] applied to only two
[3:35:37] communities.
[3:35:40] It appears the process for this
[3:35:41] project had already moved too
[3:35:42] far forward to have any impact.
[3:35:46] That's a problem.
[3:35:47] >> Those questions should have
[3:35:48] been answered long before they
[3:35:48] reached this Council and
[3:35:51] demonstrates exactly why CPGs
[3:35:52] remain an essential part of San
[3:35:53] Diego's planning process.
[3:35:57] Footnote seven has become much
[3:35:58] more than a municipal code
[3:35:58] footnote.
[3:36:02] It's become a symbol of
[3:36:03] something many communities are
[3:36:03] increasingly mindful of that
[3:36:08] significant planning policies
[3:36:09] are being developed without
[3:36:09] transparency, without context
[3:36:10] and without making use of
[3:36:15] the industrial knowledge that
[3:36:15] exists within the cities and
[3:36:16] communities.
[3:36:16] If Trails Valley cpg had been
[3:36:21] invited into the process at
[3:36:21] the beginning Yes singled out
[3:36:22] during the Land Development
[3:36:26] Code update that specifically
[3:36:27] affected them.
[3:36:28] Had they been given their seat
[3:36:28] at the table we might not be
[3:36:32] here today.
[3:36:32] Instead the communities to
[3:36:33] the communities This is
[3:36:37] the appearance of a backroom
[3:36:38] deal rather than an open
[3:36:38] transparent process.
[3:36:43] If the policy reflected in
[3:36:43] the footnote seven had instead
[3:36:44] been considered through
[3:36:45] the normal Community plan
[3:36:49] amendment and rezoning process,
[3:36:50] it would have involved a more
[3:36:50] deliberate public discussion
[3:36:55] greater transparency and direct
[3:36:56] council review.
[3:36:56] Yes, this process takes more
[3:36:57] time.
[3:37:01] Yes it cost the applicant more
[3:37:01] money.
[3:37:02] >> But those processes exist
[3:37:02] for a reason.
[3:37:07] They allow communities,
[3:37:08] applicants and the city to work
[3:37:08] through difficult planning
[3:37:09] questions before anyone becomes
[3:37:12] locked into opposing positions.
[3:37:13] Instead we're here today trying
[3:37:18] to answer those questions that
[3:37:18] benefits no one.
[3:37:19] This appeal demonstrates
[3:37:20] the values of CPGs throughout
[3:37:24] this process, Toilet Valley had
[3:37:25] demonstrated thoughtful
[3:37:25] leadership a commitment to
[3:37:26] understanding a complex
[3:37:30] planning issue and a deep sense
[3:37:30] of responsibility to
[3:37:31] the neighbors they were elected
[3:37:31] to represent.
[3:37:36] Community planning groups are
[3:37:36] not simply another opportunity
[3:37:37] for public comment.
[3:37:38] They are the city's established
[3:37:42] community planning bodies.
[3:37:43] They understand the community
[3:37:43] plans.
[3:37:44] They understand their
[3:37:44] neighborhoods.
[3:37:48] A planning process should never
[3:37:48] leave communities asking
[3:37:49] fundamental questions about a
[3:37:50] significant policy only after
[3:37:54] it's too late.
[3:37:55] This is how trust is lost.
[3:37:56] Rebuilding that trust begins
[3:38:00] with giving planning groups a
[3:38:01] seat at the table to the policy
[3:38:02] conversations earlier sharing
[3:38:06] planning context openly and
[3:38:07] making better use of
[3:38:08] the institutional knowledge
[3:38:08] that they provide.
[3:38:09] >> When an appeal raises
[3:38:14] questions that reach beyond one
[3:38:15] project and into the integrity
[3:38:15] of the process that concludes
[3:38:16] those questions deserve our
[3:38:18] time concluded.
[3:38:18] Thank you.
[3:38:25] Andrea had ever Andrea you have
[3:38:25] several people on your
[3:38:26] participant's list.
[3:38:27] If they can please raise their
[3:38:27] hands.
[3:38:31] Can one please raise your hand?
[3:38:37] Maria Conrad Lorna Lucas Thank
[3:38:38] you.
[3:38:38] Alex.
[3:38:42] Don Houston.
[3:38:43] Peter Walden.
[3:38:45] Susan Baldwin.
[3:38:52] >> Paul Paolo.
[3:38:53] Connor Richter.
[3:38:58] Lisa Barron.
[3:38:58] >> Nigel Brooks.
[3:38:59] Margaret Brooks.
[3:39:04] And Scott.
[3:39:05] Dave Nicola.
[3:39:05] Yes.
[3:39:10] Scott Case.
[3:39:10] Mark Santos.
[3:39:17] Event Porter More.
[3:39:18] I do not see a hand for about
[3:39:22] Porter More.
[3:39:22] >> Yvonne Jones.
[3:39:29] Catalina Arena.
[3:39:29] >> Carson Escobar.
[3:39:36] Angel Phoebus or Phoebus.
[3:39:36] And Jeanette Clover.
[3:39:38] You'll have 15 minutes.
[3:39:44] Please proceed Before I begin
[3:39:45] my land use remarks I want to
[3:39:46] preserve one procedural matter
[3:39:46] for the record.
[3:39:50] >> I ask that the Declaration
[3:39:51] attach to all photos excerpted
[3:39:52] from video planning department
[3:39:57] email city clerks JULY six
[3:39:57] email with notice recipient
[3:39:58] lists and written notice and
[3:39:59] due process statement be
[3:39:59] distributed to Council and
[3:40:03] incorporated into the record.
[3:40:03] The underlying video footage
[3:40:04] was submitted into the record
[3:40:07] on Sunday JULY 5th at 8 A.M.
[3:40:08] Consistent with instructions
[3:40:08] provided at the time.
[3:40:13] I have submitted a declaration
[3:40:14] under penalty of perjury
[3:40:15] attesting that the attached
[3:40:15] images were taken from video
[3:40:19] footage recorded on JUNE 29th,
[3:40:19] 2026 after 2:30 P.M. Showing
[3:40:24] the absence of the required
[3:40:24] appeal hearing.
[3:40:25] Not signed at the project site
[3:40:26] at least one day too late by
[3:40:26] law.
[3:40:31] I have also submitted
[3:40:32] the Planning Department email
[3:40:32] stating that correct appeal
[3:40:33] hearing finds was not posted
[3:40:36] until JUNE 30.
[3:40:37] Although the hearing notice was
[3:40:41] publicly posted on JUNE 22nd at
[3:40:42] least two days later by law on
[3:40:46] JULY 6th at 2 P.M. Exactly 24
[3:40:47] hours before this hearing
[3:40:47] the city clerk produced
[3:40:52] the notice recipient list to me
[3:40:52] for the first time.
[3:40:53] The interested parties list
[3:40:53] included my physical mailing
[3:40:58] address yet I did not receive
[3:40:58] mailed notice.
[3:40:59] >> I understand counsel MAY
[3:41:00] also hear testimony today from
[3:41:04] other affected persons who did
[3:41:04] not receive mailed notice that
[3:41:05] raises unresolved compliance
[3:41:10] issues under San Diego
[3:41:11] Municipal Code sections 112
[3:41:15] 0301 and 112.0304 including
[3:41:15] the required posting mailing
[3:41:16] and verification of notice.
[3:41:21] These issues are not harmless
[3:41:27] if founded notice is what gives
[3:41:28] affected residents time to see,
[3:41:28] prepare, organize, submit
[3:41:33] evidence and participate that
[3:41:34] would matter in any district in
[3:41:34] San Diego and that includes
[3:41:35] District four.
[3:41:39] I ask Council to continue
[3:41:40] the hearing or take the matter
[3:41:40] off calendar until notice
[3:41:45] record is complete and legally
[3:41:45] meaningful participation has
[3:41:46] been provided.
[3:41:51] I also want to be clear that
[3:41:52] the community is not abandoning
[3:41:52] the footnote seven issue in
[3:41:53] the Klauber appeal.
[3:41:57] Council member Ken Peel called
[3:41:58] Footnote seven a poisoned tree.
[3:41:59] This proposed project grows
[3:42:02] from that same tree.
[3:42:03] With that preserved I will turn
[3:42:04] to issues of this project for
[3:42:08] particular record council
[3:42:08] members.
[3:42:13] This decision is about scale
[3:42:14] and scale determines
[3:42:14] trajectory.
[3:42:15] Scale determines whether
[3:42:20] the site functions as a
[3:42:21] generational infrastructure
[3:42:21] generational infrastructure or
[3:42:26] becomes another isolated
[3:42:26] subdivision placed into a
[3:42:27] community already disordered by
[3:42:28] generations of public and
[3:42:32] private disinvestment.
[3:42:33] District four is already one of
[3:42:33] the densest councils in San
[3:42:39] Diego and it has the worst
[3:42:39] resource density ratio in
[3:42:40] the city.
[3:42:44] That means district four is not
[3:42:45] simply under built.
[3:42:45] It is overburdened and
[3:42:46] under-resourced.
[3:42:50] It has carried more than its
[3:42:50] proportionate share of income
[3:42:51] restricted housing and because
[3:42:52] disinvestment suppressed
[3:42:56] surrounding value even market
[3:42:57] rate housing on this hill would
[3:42:57] be discounted by the very
[3:43:02] conditions the city has allowed
[3:43:02] to persist.
[3:43:03] That does not change trajectory
[3:43:08] scale can This hill is the only
[3:43:09] site in District four capable
[3:43:10] of operating at that level of
[3:43:14] scale and prominence its
[3:43:18] elevation acreage and 360
[3:43:19] degree vantage point make it
[3:43:20] uniquely suited to function as
[3:43:24] a regional destination not a
[3:43:25] pocket park, not a neighborhood
[3:43:25] amenity but a city wide draw.
[3:43:31] You have been told that you are
[3:43:32] constrained by state housing
[3:43:32] law.
[3:43:33] You are not.
[3:43:37] The Housing accountability Act
[3:43:38] applies only if the project
[3:43:39] complies with all objective
[3:43:43] standards In effect at the time
[3:43:43] the application was deemed
[3:43:44] complete.
[3:43:44] The idea that every project
[3:43:48] must be approved and that it
[3:43:49] creates an unmistakable health
[3:43:50] and safety hazard risk skips
[3:43:55] the very first step of
[3:43:55] the statute.
[3:43:56] Whether the project complies
[3:44:01] with objective standards.
[3:44:01] That step matters here.
[3:44:02] Staff says the community plan
[3:44:07] allows up to 125 units and this
[3:44:07] project proposes 123.
[3:44:13] Staff also says the applicant
[3:44:13] qualifies for a 5% density
[3:44:14] bonus but is not using that
[3:44:18] bonus density that bonus to
[3:44:19] increase density.
[3:44:23] So the question is narrow.
[3:44:24] Can the legally protected
[3:44:25] number of homes be physically
[3:44:30] built on this site?
[3:44:31] If objective standards in
[3:44:32] the community plan are applied
[3:44:36] or do the standards only
[3:44:37] interfere with this developer's
[3:44:38] preferred subdivision map
[3:44:43] the objective standards that
[3:44:44] issue are not big or mysterious
[3:44:44] In this proposed project
[3:44:45] the street frontage with corner
[3:44:48] lot with like depth and
[3:44:49] driveway curb opening limits a
[3:44:53] developer MAY prefer 123
[3:44:54] detached lot a particular
[3:44:54] street layout a particular
[3:44:59] pocket park placement a
[3:44:59] particular open space buffer
[3:45:00] particular driveway curb
[3:45:05] openings particular lot
[3:45:05] dimensions.
[3:45:06] But density bonus law does not
[3:45:07] protect every preferred design
[3:45:12] choice.
[3:45:12] It protects against objective
[3:45:13] standards that physically
[3:45:18] preclude the legally protected
[3:45:18] density.
[3:45:19] Staff's own report says strict
[3:45:23] compliance could reduce
[3:45:24] the project by 8 to 14 lots and
[3:45:24] could potentially reduce up to
[3:45:25] two affordable units.
[3:45:29] But the report frames that as a
[3:45:30] loss of maximization
[3:45:31] development potential and
[3:45:35] slightly out of preference.
[3:45:35] That is not the same as a
[3:45:36] finding that no compliant
[3:45:41] design can physically achieve
[3:45:42] the density protected by law.
[3:45:42] >> If the record does not prove
[3:45:47] that the standards physically
[3:45:48] preclude the legally protected
[3:45:52] number of units, 88 does not
[3:45:53] compel approval.
[3:45:58] Council is not bound to approve
[3:45:59] this project now because you
[3:46:04] retain discretion.
[3:46:05] The next question is how that
[3:46:06] discretion should be exercised.
[3:46:11] This is not simply another
[3:46:11] housing site.
[3:46:12] This is the only remaining site
[3:46:13] capable of changing the long
[3:46:17] term trajectory of District
[3:46:17] four.
[3:46:18] We have had many council
[3:46:23] members sit in that spot and we
[3:46:23] are still in the condition that
[3:46:24] we are in.
[3:46:24] Denying this project would not
[3:46:29] be arbitrary or unequal
[3:46:29] treatment.
[3:46:30] Equal protection protects
[3:46:30] similarly situated applicants
[3:46:35] from being treated differently
[3:46:35] under the law.
[3:46:36] But this is a discretionary
[3:46:41] land use decision and this site
[3:46:41] is not similarly situated to
[3:46:42] ordinary development sites.
[3:46:43] Council MAY evaluate this
[3:46:47] application on the record
[3:46:48] before it, including the site's
[3:46:53] singular public value.
[3:46:54] It is not merely the acreage it
[3:46:55] is the combination elevations
[3:46:56] sweeping views, regional
[3:47:00] visibility, symbolic promise
[3:47:00] and location and how much it
[3:47:01] would affirmatively further
[3:47:05] fair housing views of downtown
[3:47:06] The bay, the ocean and
[3:47:07] the surrounding mountains are
[3:47:07] not cosmetic.
[3:47:11] They are economic.
[3:47:12] Even the applicant's own
[3:47:17] presentation uses those views
[3:47:17] to establish value.
[3:47:18] >> That value should become
[3:47:22] public value for District four
[3:47:22] and the city at large.
[3:47:23] They create the kind of
[3:47:23] destination that could attract
[3:47:28] institutions that usually
[3:47:28] bypass resource communities,
[3:47:29] satellite college campuses,
[3:47:33] market rate, health care
[3:47:34] nationally recognized
[3:47:35] nonprofits, higher quality
[3:47:35] retail and middle income
[3:47:36] households.
[3:47:40] There is no second sight
[3:47:41] waiting in reserve if this hill
[3:47:46] is subdivided.
[3:47:46] The trajectory changing
[3:47:47] opportunity is gone and because
[3:47:48] this is a discretionary
[3:47:52] entitlement the developer could
[3:47:52] never guarantee that
[3:47:53] entitlements would be granted.
[3:47:58] Council's duty is not to
[3:47:59] protect the private development
[3:47:59] expectation.
[3:48:00] Council's duty is to make an
[3:48:03] independent lawful decision on
[3:48:04] the record before it.
[3:48:08] Now when I say District four
[3:48:09] has been disordered by
[3:48:10] generations of public and
[3:48:10] private disinvestment I mean
[3:48:15] previous I mean conditions like
[3:48:15] this.
[3:48:21] These are not side streets.
[3:48:21] These are Euclid and Imperial
[3:48:22] Avenues, the two most iconic
[3:48:27] thoroughfares in District four.
[3:48:27] One runs east west.
[3:48:28] The other runs north South.
[3:48:32] They shall warn commercial
[3:48:33] frontage abandoned and deface
[3:48:33] commercial properties.
[3:48:34] Harsh heat island
[3:48:39] infrastructure.
[3:48:40] A weak pedestrian environment.
[3:48:40] Corridor Conditions that
[3:48:41] suppress value rather than
[3:48:45] attract it.
[3:48:45] Ordinary subdivision ad units
[3:48:46] into that disordered landscape.
[3:48:51] It does not reverse it.
[3:48:51] Southeastern San Diego has
[3:48:57] carried a disproportionate and
[3:48:58] shameful share of the city's
[3:48:59] very low and extremely low
[3:48:59] restricted housing obligations
[3:49:03] That imbalance became serious
[3:49:04] enough that the city settled
[3:49:04] the Baker case.
[3:49:05] But lesson is not that
[3:49:10] affordable housing is bad.
[3:49:11] >> The lesson is that
[3:49:12] concentrating income restricted
[3:49:12] unit to low resource
[3:49:13] communities before building
[3:49:15] capacity around them does not
[3:49:15] produce opportunity.
[3:49:16] It does not affirmatively
[3:49:17] further fair housing.
[3:49:21] Matthew Desmond made that point
[3:49:22] plainly in his book Poverty by
[3:49:22] America.
[3:49:27] Concentrated poverty Choked
[3:49:27] opportunity from Children and
[3:49:28] Families.
[3:49:28] And District four is not
[3:49:29] experiencing that concentration
[3:49:33] by accident.
[3:49:34] District four has roughly two
[3:49:35] and a half times the citywide
[3:49:35] percentage of black residents.
[3:49:40] The disadvantage created by
[3:49:40] the concentration accrues to
[3:49:41] everyone who lives there across
[3:49:45] race and ethnicity even when
[3:49:46] their long term trajectory is
[3:49:47] different from that The black
[3:49:47] residents.
[3:49:51] Housing is not just rooftops.
[3:49:52] >> People do not live only
[3:49:52] inside four walls.
[3:49:58] People live in communities and
[3:49:58] opportunity is not abstract.
[3:49:59] It shows up in years of healthy
[3:50:03] life educational attainment,
[3:50:04] income of children matured into
[3:50:05] adulthood, institutional
[3:50:10] presence, quality retail and
[3:50:10] whether children grow up
[3:50:11] surrounded by signals of
[3:50:15] investment or abandonment.
[3:50:16] We have produced units.
[3:50:16] What we have not produced is
[3:50:17] capacity.
[3:50:22] Capacity before density is
[3:50:22] the principle here Capacity
[3:50:23] that signals stability to
[3:50:27] businesses and institutions and
[3:50:28] to attract a broader income
[3:50:28] mix.
[3:50:29] If density alone created
[3:50:33] resources, District four would
[3:50:34] already be one of the best
[3:50:39] served communities in San Diego
[3:50:39] .
[3:50:40] >> The data confirm what
[3:50:41] residents have lived for
[3:50:41] decades.
[3:50:46] District four carries high
[3:50:46] density with almost no resource
[3:50:47] capacity underneath it.
[3:50:48] Look at that bar graph.
[3:50:51] Among all nine council
[3:50:52] districts, District four has
[3:50:53] the lowest resource density
[3:50:53] ratio.
[3:50:58] This is why the answer cannot
[3:50:59] be more density on the one side
[3:51:00] capable of building capacity at
[3:51:07] scale.
[3:51:07] I expect you MAY hear about
[3:51:08] recent improvements that have
[3:51:08] been made.
[3:51:13] The mlk Pool Murray Whitman
[3:51:14] Park The Skate Park Community
[3:51:14] Stewardship.
[3:51:19] I welcome every one of those
[3:51:20] investments.
[3:51:20] But improvements are not
[3:51:21] the same as transformation.
[3:51:24] A renovated pool does not
[3:51:25] replace the 31 acres.
[3:51:25] A skate park does not.
[3:51:26] Resident Stewardship Grants and
[3:51:31] plans do not.
[3:51:32] Nor do frontage improvements or
[3:51:35] 60th street widening Replace
[3:51:36] these 31 acres.
[3:51:36] Those investments matter but
[3:51:37] they are incremental.
[3:51:46] This hill is structural.
[3:51:47] Residents have been asked to
[3:51:48] trust assurances before on
[3:51:52] Klauber counsel was assured
[3:51:52] that the required public notice
[3:51:53] had occurred.
[3:51:54] But the staff report did not
[3:51:59] contain the proof in its
[3:51:59] response of public records
[3:52:04] Later showed that the developer
[3:52:05] certification of proper public
[3:52:06] notice was blank and unsigned.
[3:52:11] That history matters today when
[3:52:12] staff now said it leaves no
[3:52:17] discretion.
[3:52:18] The record has to support that
[3:52:18] claim here.
[3:52:23] The record before you does not
[3:52:23] .
[3:52:23] >> Once residential
[3:52:24] stakeholders are introduced,
[3:52:25] scale is foreclosed.
[3:52:29] New homeowners gain standing to
[3:52:30] challenge grading programing
[3:52:30] lighting traffic Every future
[3:52:31] effort to assemble a regional
[3:52:36] park that is citywide and
[3:52:36] tourists draw the lay becomes
[3:52:37] attrition of land and will be
[3:52:37] energy.
[3:52:41] A working class volunteers in
[3:52:41] the community including those
[3:52:42] on community planning groups.
[3:52:43] Attrition becomes a permanent
[3:52:43] loss.
[3:52:47] The city can mitigate another
[3:52:47] facility.
[3:52:48] The city can fund another
[3:52:48] improvement project but
[3:52:52] the city cannot recreate or
[3:52:53] relocate Towers Hill once it is
[3:52:54] gone.
[3:52:54] Granting the appeal should be
[3:52:55] the beginning of
[3:52:58] the preservation pathway, not
[3:52:58] the end of it.
[3:52:59] Council should direct staff to
[3:53:00] return with options for
[3:53:04] acquisition conservation
[3:53:05] funding and a possible value
[3:53:05] exchange framework including
[3:53:06] work with other levels of
[3:53:06] government regional park
[3:53:10] partners, land trust
[3:53:11] conservancies philanthropic
[3:53:12] foundations and public private
[3:53:12] partners.
[3:53:16] Councilmember Foster You can
[3:53:17] bring this home for District
[3:53:17] four and when you make that
[3:53:22] move the beloved community DR.
[3:53:23] King called us toward will
[3:53:27] stand behind you.
[3:53:28] Each of your names will be
[3:53:29] entered into history as a
[3:53:30] result of the vote on this
[3:53:30] project.
[3:53:34] The question is how will this
[3:53:35] be The council that permanently
[3:53:35] locked District four into
[3:53:39] the continuing legacy of
[3:53:40] redlining?
[3:53:40] Or will it be the council that
[3:53:41] finally came to terms with that
[3:53:45] legacy and created a mechanism
[3:53:45] to save countless years of
[3:53:46] healthy life of the now living
[3:53:47] and dead unborn due to more
[3:53:50] than seven decades of
[3:53:51] disinvestment?
[3:53:51] The city has allowed to
[3:53:52] continue.
[3:53:56] Council members We ask you to
[3:54:01] grant this appeal.
[3:54:07] >> Our next organized
[3:54:07] presentation is Mary Young.
[3:54:08] Mary Young if you can please
[3:54:09] come forward to the lectern.
[3:54:13] You also have several speakers
[3:54:14] on your participant list or
[3:54:15] several people on your
[3:54:15] participant list.
[3:54:19] You can please raise your hand.
[3:54:19] Bunch McCray Thank you.
[3:54:23] Hondo Hamill you're here.
[3:54:29] Madison Campbell Kaye Thomas Oh
[3:54:29] yeah.
[3:54:34] Dorothy James if I can ask you
[3:54:35] just to put that down for one
[3:54:36] second so I can see the other
[3:54:39] vertically challenged.
[3:54:40] Dorothy James Thank you.
[3:54:45] Becca Battista.
[3:54:45] Bobbie Battista.
[3:54:46] Bobbie Battista okay.
[3:54:50] Thank you guys.
[3:54:50] Battista.
[3:54:55] Sean McHenry.
[3:54:55] Sean McHenry.
[3:55:00] Oh, okay.
[3:55:01] Maverick Garcia She fit.
[3:55:05] Maxwell in.
[3:55:06] Thank you.
[3:55:11] Hank Kerins Hank Cairns I did
[3:55:12] not see a Hank Aaron's.
[3:55:16] >> Danielle Cannon You're kind
[3:55:17] of here And Shania McPherson.
[3:55:21] No, she's not here.
[3:55:22] Okay, so that's one, two, three
[3:55:23] or 4 or 5.
[3:55:25] So you will have ten minutes.
[3:55:26] >> Thank you.
[3:55:30] Yeah.
[3:55:31] Please proceed already.
[3:55:31] Good afternoon.
[3:55:35] Um, I'm really disturbed about
[3:55:40] what happened earlier and
[3:55:40] probably the first time that I
[3:55:45] ever felt disconnected from my
[3:55:45] community.
[3:55:50] Official Good afternoon.
[3:55:51] My name is Mary Young.
[3:55:55] I come from a community of
[3:55:56] greatness.
[3:56:00] >> I am here to honor that
[3:56:01] legacy and to remind you that
[3:56:05] our history, our people, our
[3:56:06] neighborhood deserves respect
[3:56:11] for tection and a real voice in
[3:56:15] decisions that affect my
[3:56:15] family.
[3:56:20] Story begins in Concord,
[3:56:21] California where we lived in an
[3:56:26] integrated field housing and my
[3:56:31] brother attended and integrated
[3:56:31] d o d school.
[3:56:35] My father Worchester Duke Young
[3:56:36] served in the us Navy.
[3:56:41] My mother Sissako Young became
[3:56:44] American citizen on SEPTEMBER
[3:56:45] 8th, 1960.
[3:56:50] We had freedom, safety and
[3:56:50] opportunity there.
[3:56:54] But when my father was
[3:56:55] transferred to San Diego
[3:56:59] everything changed.
[3:57:00] >> D.O.D. Housing was closed to
[3:57:04] us Red lining shaped where
[3:57:05] families and colored live and
[3:57:09] racism followed us as we
[3:57:10] searched for our home.
[3:57:14] For a year every Sunday my
[3:57:15] family drove through
[3:57:15] neighborhoods looking for a
[3:57:16] house.
[3:57:16] Why?
[3:57:19] My mother reminded villagers
[3:57:20] that her husband had served in
[3:57:24] two wars and that she wasn't
[3:57:24] American citizen.
[3:57:29] Eventually we found Rancho Zero
[3:57:30] and Alta Vista a development
[3:57:34] built for military families and
[3:57:34] minorities.
[3:57:38] Walking through that front door
[3:57:39] felt like walking through
[3:57:40] the gates of heaven where those
[3:57:44] red lines we found a place of
[3:57:48] dignity, safety and greatness.
[3:57:49] So I want you to be sure that
[3:57:53] this issue here is not about
[3:57:54] housing.
[3:57:58] >> The greatness is everywhere
[3:57:59] in our community.
[3:58:03] It is in neighbors like MR.
[3:58:04] Robinson, a retired fire chief
[3:58:08] and master gardener who talked
[3:58:09] children about urban gardening
[3:58:09] and protecting the earth.
[3:58:13] It is in our Filipino Navy
[3:58:14] families who advocated for Nye
[3:58:18] Elementary School, one of
[3:58:23] California's top schools 20%
[3:58:24] that has 95%.
[3:58:28] Minority enrollment.
[3:58:32] >> It is about our Montford
[3:58:37] Point Marines Congressional
[3:58:37] Gold Medal recipients.
[3:58:42] >> We have the majority of them
[3:58:44] west of the Mississippi living
[3:58:45] in the fourth District, the one
[3:58:50] remaining it is about Maurice
[3:58:54] Rafael Portela, Navy Cross
[3:58:55] recipient who threw himself on
[3:59:00] a grenade Marine ship named
[3:59:00] after him.
[3:59:05] For Morath excellence it is
[3:59:05] about the graduates of Lincoln
[3:59:09] and Morath who went on to serve
[3:59:14] coach compete lead at
[3:59:14] the highest level.
[3:59:19] It is Willie Shaw's legacy.
[3:59:20] It is more than athletes who
[3:59:24] reach Major League Baseball's
[3:59:24] legacy.
[3:59:28] 30 of them went to Major
[3:59:28] league.
[3:59:33] It is about Lincoln's football
[3:59:33] legacy.
[3:59:34] Number four in the nation's
[3:59:38] produced professional players
[3:59:39] we produce four Heisman Trophy
[3:59:43] winner Jackie Thompson.
[3:59:48] Olympian Monique Henderson,
[3:59:53] Olympian and Ross King, a
[3:59:54] retired nurse from Encanto who
[3:59:57] began playing tennis at 40.
[4:00:01] She is now ranked number one in
[4:00:02] the world in doubles for her
[4:00:06] age group excellence.
[4:00:07] And even when our young people
[4:00:11] face neglect, they still rose
[4:00:12] to the occasion.
[4:00:12] Lincoln High School football
[4:00:16] players lost access to
[4:00:21] the field because of floods and
[4:00:22] had to practice outside their
[4:00:22] community.
[4:00:26] Yet they brought a championship
[4:00:27] in home to their community and
[4:00:27] their city.
[4:00:31] >> Our planning groups reflect
[4:00:31] greatness also.
[4:00:35] >> Members from our planning
[4:00:36] groups on their own secured a
[4:00:40] voucher program to reduce
[4:00:41] segregation and expand
[4:00:41] opportunities.
[4:00:46] Others have fought for the Fort
[4:00:46] Freeway encroachment through
[4:00:50] our community participated in
[4:00:55] the concentration of poverty
[4:00:59] lawsuit and continue to stay
[4:00:59] engaged.
[4:01:00] Even though we lost the power
[4:01:05] support and investment of ac
[4:01:10] dc, that's when the city just
[4:01:10] rolled over us.
[4:01:15] >> We listened to our community
[4:01:15] .
[4:01:15] We invite people in.
[4:01:16] We stay engaged.
[4:01:23] But too often the city ignores
[4:01:24] our community plan opens
[4:01:29] the doors to Predator investors
[4:01:34] and developers.
[4:01:38] They invite and write policies
[4:01:43] and then fails to correct them
[4:01:43] .
[4:01:46] We are the people who know our
[4:01:52] community the best.
[4:01:53] >> We are the people who live
[4:01:56] here.
[4:01:57] >> We are the people who fight
[4:02:01] here.
[4:02:05] We are the people who carry
[4:02:06] history forward.
[4:02:11] We are your people, not policy
[4:02:11] makers.
[4:02:16] We are your people.
[4:02:21] >> We are asking for a space to
[4:02:22] honor our legacy and to show
[4:02:26] our greatness the legacy that
[4:02:31] belongs to the people who have
[4:02:32] built it here.
[4:02:35] We want you to protect it.
[4:02:36] We want to continue to live it
[4:02:40] again.
[4:02:41] We are the people.
[4:02:45] Please respect our history.
[4:02:49] Protect our community and stand
[4:02:50] with us.
[4:02:52] Support the appeal.
[4:02:58] Thank you.
[4:02:58] Thank you.
[4:02:59] Our final organized
[4:03:00] presentation here in council
[4:03:03] chambers is Thomas.
[4:03:04] Melanie Thomas.
[4:03:04] Melanie.
[4:03:05] You have time.
[4:03:05] You have a participant on your
[4:03:09] list as Janet o'Dell.
[4:03:09] >> You'll have two minutes.
[4:03:13] Please proceed.
[4:03:13] Thank you.
[4:03:14] I'm Tom Delaney representing a
[4:03:18] group of San Diego.
[4:03:18] We support cpo by the planning
[4:03:19] group.
[4:03:19] I want to describe some of
[4:03:23] the reasons why that appeal
[4:03:23] should be upheld and
[4:03:24] the decision of the Planning
[4:03:27] Commission reversed.
[4:03:27] First is footnote seven.
[4:03:28] This fine print shows how far
[4:03:32] dsd in the Planning Department
[4:03:33] will go to fool the public.
[4:03:37] The staff report focused on
[4:03:37] the time three years ago when
[4:03:38] the application was made.
[4:03:42] They ignored a unique aspect of
[4:03:42] Footnote seven.
[4:03:43] It was inserted into the zoning
[4:03:47] code improperly and was invalid
[4:03:47] from the start.
[4:03:48] I've submitted an attorney's
[4:03:52] letter which explains that in
[4:03:52] detail.
[4:03:53] The lesson from footnote seven
[4:03:56] is the residents of this unit
[4:03:57] cannot trust the city staff who
[4:03:57] work at the direction of
[4:03:58] the mayor.
[4:04:02] We do not trust those council
[4:04:02] members who go along with every
[4:04:06] bad project and every up zoning
[4:04:06] program.
[4:04:07] The mayor can think of even
[4:04:10] after the city has provided
[4:04:11] enough allowable capacity for
[4:04:12] hundreds of thousands more
[4:04:16] units than the forecast calls
[4:04:16] for relying on a housing
[4:04:20] shortage for all decisions is
[4:04:21] becoming more absurd as vacancy
[4:04:21] rates climb and property
[4:04:25] managers offer rent discounts.
[4:04:26] The second reason why you
[4:04:27] should uphold the appeal is
[4:04:30] the discretion nature of
[4:04:31] the project.
[4:04:31] The conditions of
[4:04:34] the development permits have
[4:04:35] not been met.
[4:04:36] The findings cannot reasonably
[4:04:36] be supported.
[4:04:40] This does not require your
[4:04:41] legal expert.
[4:04:41] It requires common sense and
[4:04:42] good judgment.
[4:04:45] For one, it's apparent
[4:04:45] the community plan calls for a
[4:04:46] large locked development in a
[4:04:48] rural atmosphere covering
[4:04:49] the entire hilltop with this
[4:04:53] project and using the last
[4:04:54] sizable open space is not
[4:04:54] consistent with the community
[4:04:58] plan.
[4:04:58] So this appeal should be upheld
[4:04:59] and the project denied.
[4:05:02] This will allow an opportunity
[4:05:03] for city officials and
[4:05:04] the community to work together
[4:05:07] with the applicant for a
[4:05:08] project which meets the needs
[4:05:09] of the applicant and
[4:05:09] the community.
[4:05:10] Thank you.
[4:05:15] >> Thank you.
[4:05:16] >> This does include all
[4:05:17] organized presentations for
[4:05:18] item 331 that were submitted to
[4:05:20] the Office of the City Clerk.
[4:05:21] Will now move on to in-person
[4:05:21] public comment.
[4:05:24] We currently have 30 speakers
[4:05:28] with in-person and virtual so
[4:05:29] 20 in-person and ten virtual.
[4:05:33] If Zach DeFazio o'Farrell can
[4:05:34] please come up to the lectern
[4:05:35] to the microphone and if I can
[4:05:38] have the following individuals
[4:05:39] please come up to the yellow
[4:05:39] reserved seats in the front
[4:05:40] row.
[4:05:43] Allegedly Audra Mohammad Omar.
[4:05:44] Jesse Schmidt.
[4:05:48] Manny Rodriguez.
[4:05:48] Bruce Mabon.
[4:05:49] Erika Becerra.
[4:05:53] Andrew Hollingworth, Kathleen
[4:05:57] McGloin, Eric Lau and
[4:05:58] Maximilian Schmidt.
[4:05:58] If you can all please come up
[4:06:02] to the front row and then Zac
[4:06:02] are you here?
[4:06:03] Oh please come up to
[4:06:04] the microphone and you can
[4:06:04] begin.
[4:06:10] You'll have one minute.
[4:06:10] Yup.
[4:06:10] All right.
[4:06:15] Good afternoon, council
[4:06:15] members.
[4:06:16] My name is Zach DeFazio Farrell
[4:06:17] and I'm the treasurer of
[4:06:20] the Democrats of San Diego
[4:06:20] County.
[4:06:21] We urge you to deny the appeal
[4:06:24] and approve Admiral Hill's
[4:06:25] including his 13 affordable
[4:06:25] homes.
[4:06:26] First, the potential park
[4:06:30] designation is aspirational and
[4:06:30] not binding.
[4:06:31] The Encanto community plan
[4:06:32] itself states that identifying
[4:06:35] a private property as a
[4:06:36] potential park site does not
[4:06:36] preclude permitted development
[4:06:37] under the underlying land use
[4:06:40] rezone.
[4:06:40] The plan does not require
[4:06:41] denial and expressly allows
[4:06:41] this project.
[4:06:45] Secondly, there is no park to
[4:06:45] lose.
[4:06:46] This parcel is privately owned.
[4:06:49] The city never purchased it,
[4:06:50] never funded it and never
[4:06:51] offered to acquire it.
[4:06:51] Denying these homes does not
[4:06:54] produce a park.
[4:06:54] It only produces no homes.
[4:06:58] San Diego desperately needs
[4:06:59] housing, especially affordable
[4:06:59] housing.
[4:07:00] Please deny the appeal and
[4:07:04] approve Emerald Hills.
[4:07:04] >> Thank you.
[4:07:05] Allegedly.
[4:07:06] Audrey, if you can please come
[4:07:13] forward.
[4:07:14] >> I need to call a point of
[4:07:18] order because this hasn't been
[4:07:18] properly noticed.
[4:07:19] Like the item that you guys did
[4:07:22] yesterday with the Southwest
[4:07:23] Village.
[4:07:24] You can't continue when these
[4:07:28] are not properly notice to
[4:07:28] the public because you're
[4:07:29] circumventing the will of
[4:07:30] the people.
[4:07:32] When you don't do that and so
[4:07:33] you cannot continue legally by
[4:07:37] even accepting the appeal or
[4:07:37] not you have to properly
[4:07:42] notices So you're
[4:07:42] disenfranchizing all of these
[4:07:47] people by not following the law
[4:07:48] as far as what you need to do
[4:07:48] to bring these projects
[4:07:49] forward.
[4:07:52] So it's very concerning that
[4:07:52] you guys keep doing this and it
[4:07:57] seems like obviously if it's
[4:07:58] not something that people want
[4:07:58] then you don't properly notice
[4:07:59] it so that they don't have an
[4:08:02] opportunity to come in and make
[4:08:03] sure that things are done
[4:08:07] legally.
[4:08:08] >> I hear your point of order.
[4:08:09] The allegations are it wasn't
[4:08:12] properly noticed.
[4:08:12] The city believes that it was
[4:08:13] properly noticed.
[4:08:16] There are other avenues for
[4:08:17] people to pursue but there is
[4:08:17] every evidence that it was
[4:08:18] properly noticed.
[4:08:22] So we'll give you your minute
[4:08:22] back.
[4:08:23] Thank you.
[4:08:25] The project It's unfortunate
[4:08:26] that you know, people like
[4:08:27] Monica and Henry will be
[4:08:30] sitting here and using
[4:08:31] the black and brown community
[4:08:32] acting like you really care
[4:08:35] about them when you actually
[4:08:36] gaslight them in your pursuit
[4:08:40] to bring forward a project.
[4:08:41] So I would suggest that you
[4:08:42] quit doing that to your own
[4:08:45] community because it is a
[4:08:46] disservice to them And it's sad
[4:08:50] because it's like if you guys
[4:08:50] cannot comply with properly
[4:08:51] noticing things I mean I had to
[4:08:55] hold you guys accountable for
[4:08:56] having it being a quorum and
[4:08:56] now you do.
[4:08:58] But I was almost arrested three
[4:08:59] times for bringing that point
[4:08:59] of order.
[4:09:04] So you guys need to respect
[4:09:04] the people that come in here
[4:09:08] and this is their community.
[4:09:08] They have said no.
[4:09:09] You have developers that come
[4:09:12] in and people who are supposed
[4:09:13] to represent these communities
[4:09:18] and you guys are basically not
[4:09:19] giving a about what they have
[4:09:19] to say.
[4:09:20] You're not doing it legally And
[4:09:21] so I suggest that you guys take
[4:09:23] proper legal action to not even
[4:09:24] allow any of this to continue.
[4:09:25] >> Your time has concluded.
[4:09:36] >> Mohammed Omar.
[4:09:41] >> Hi, my name is Mohammed Omar
[4:09:41] and I'm speaking on behalf of
[4:09:42] Partnership for the Advancement
[4:09:43] of New Americans, a member of
[4:09:45] the coalition for Equitable
[4:09:46] Development in support of
[4:09:47] the Emerald Hills Housing
[4:09:51] Project San Diego cannot solve
[4:09:51] its housing crisis without
[4:09:52] building more homes and we
[4:09:55] believe this project represents
[4:09:56] an opportunity to add much
[4:09:56] needed housing to our city
[4:09:57] supply.
[4:10:01] This project also adds
[4:10:01] infrastructure street
[4:10:02] streetlights and storm water
[4:10:02] basins.
[4:10:05] We appreciate that the project
[4:10:05] includes deed restricted
[4:10:06] affordable homes which are an
[4:10:10] important part of ensuring that
[4:10:11] the new development benefits a
[4:10:11] range of San Diego.
[4:10:14] This is also adjacent to
[4:10:15] Emerald Hills Park and a school
[4:10:19] which has a potential joint use
[4:10:20] space to double as a park.
[4:10:21] At this time we strongly
[4:10:24] encourage city and
[4:10:24] the developer to continue
[4:10:25] exploring.
[4:10:25] At the same time we strongly
[4:10:29] encourage the city and
[4:10:29] the developer to continue
[4:10:30] exploring opportunities to
[4:10:30] strengthen their project
[4:10:34] Affordable City.
[4:10:35] While we while we understand
[4:10:36] today's hearing is focused on
[4:10:39] the appeal before the Council.
[4:10:39] >> Thank you.
[4:10:40] Thank you for those comments
[4:10:40] Jessie.
[4:10:48] Many.
[4:10:49] >> Good afternoon Council
[4:10:50] PRESIDENT Council Members My
[4:10:50] name is Jesse Schmidt and I'm
[4:10:53] speaking on behalf of
[4:10:54] the Coalition for Equitable
[4:10:54] Development today a coalition
[4:10:58] that represents nearly 20
[4:10:59] organizations across the city
[4:10:59] of San Diego.
[4:11:02] St Let's let's tether this
[4:11:03] conversation.
[4:11:03] >> In fact, San Diego cannot
[4:11:04] solve its housing crisis
[4:11:06] without building more homes And
[4:11:07] we believe that this project
[4:11:11] represents a rich opportunity
[4:11:12] to add much needed housing to
[4:11:13] our city's lacking supply.
[4:11:17] This project also adds
[4:11:17] infrastructure, street lights
[4:11:18] and stormwater basins all
[4:11:18] issues that we've heard
[4:11:22] the community asking for today.
[4:11:23] We appreciate that the project
[4:11:23] includes deed restricted
[4:11:24] affordable homes which are
[4:11:27] absolutely an important part of
[4:11:28] ensuring that new development
[4:11:28] benefits.
[4:11:32] A range of San Diegans At
[4:11:32] the same time we strongly
[4:11:33] encourage the city and
[4:11:34] developer to continue exploring
[4:11:37] opportunities to strengthen
[4:11:37] the project's affordability.
[4:11:38] What we understand today's
[4:11:39] hearing is focused on
[4:11:42] the appeal before Council.
[4:11:43] We hope that this project can
[4:11:43] serve as an example of how
[4:11:44] market rate development can
[4:11:46] also contribute more
[4:11:47] meaningfully to our city's
[4:11:47] affordable housing goals.
[4:11:48] >> Thank you.
[4:12:01] Manny Rodriguez You know good
[4:12:02] afternoon council members.
[4:12:03] My name is Manny.
[4:12:05] I lead at the nimby Democrats
[4:12:06] of San Diego County and as
[4:12:07] the progressive advocate before
[4:12:10] me had mentioned the city
[4:12:11] cannot solve its housing crisis
[4:12:11] without building more homes.
[4:12:15] I won't belabor that point but
[4:12:16] I will share that I looked at
[4:12:16] the us Census Bureau's website
[4:12:20] and I thought that it said
[4:12:20] approximately half of adults
[4:12:24] aged 18 to 34 in this zip code
[4:12:25] still live with their parents.
[4:12:25] I'm from the county.
[4:12:28] Most of the friends I grew up
[4:12:29] with still live with their
[4:12:29] parents or they moved out of
[4:12:30] state.
[4:12:33] These homes provide a great
[4:12:34] opportunity for people in
[4:12:34] the community, people in
[4:12:35] the city to move in and build
[4:12:38] that homeownership and build
[4:12:39] those roots in their community
[4:12:39] and to, you know, move out of
[4:12:43] their parents home which is a
[4:12:43] lot of people my age
[4:12:44] desperately want to do.
[4:12:45] So I urge you to approve these
[4:12:47] homes to approve new
[4:12:51] opportunities for people 18 to
[4:12:52] 34 to have their own
[4:12:52] homeownership, a place to build
[4:12:53] wealth and a place to grow a
[4:12:53] family.
[4:12:55] Thank you very much, Bruce
[4:13:04] Mayberry, Bruce Mayberry going
[4:13:05] once most Bruce Mayberry, Eric
[4:13:14] Becerra I don't see a Bruce So
[4:13:17] Eric you can come up.
[4:13:17] >> Hello guys.
[4:13:18] First of all I want to thank
[4:13:22] all my neighbors here,
[4:13:23] especially the neighbors with
[4:13:23] all the young kids.
[4:13:26] It is extremely hard for us to
[4:13:27] take time off and be here.
[4:13:31] So thank you guys.
[4:13:32] Now this footnote seven How did
[4:13:36] the developer know before we
[4:13:36] knew right?
[4:13:40] How did they know Remember
[4:13:41] guys, was this something that
[4:13:45] was put in there and we need to
[4:13:46] hold the law right?
[4:13:50] So how did they know what's
[4:13:51] good?
[4:13:51] What's going on?
[4:13:52] Are you guys going to prove
[4:13:55] something that later on when
[4:13:55] the truth comes out it's going
[4:13:56] to be like oh man, we made a
[4:13:56] mistake.
[4:13:59] Is that what's going to happen
[4:14:00] right now?
[4:14:00] You guys You guys have
[4:14:04] the power to make San Diego
[4:14:04] great.
[4:14:05] Make it better.
[4:14:09] You know, just imagine back in
[4:14:14] the days what if what if they
[4:14:15] voted to bow down by
[4:14:15] the ballpark and put home their
[4:14:18] right.
[4:14:23] >> Earlier Sage Oh thank you.
[4:14:29] Andrew Hollingworth I have
[4:14:29] Kathleen McLain after Andrew
[4:14:32] Hollingworth Andrew
[4:14:33] Hollingworth Are you here?
[4:14:38] Andrew Going once?
[4:14:38] Andrew Okay Kathleen if you can
[4:14:39] please come forward and if I
[4:14:42] can ask the following
[4:14:43] individuals to please come up
[4:14:44] to the front row.
[4:14:47] Eric Lor Maximilian Schmidt
[4:14:47] Alan Conrad Patricia
[4:14:48] Montgomery.
[4:14:53] Ellen Walsh DR. Ethel Sims and
[4:14:54] Ozzie Men's Manassas If you can
[4:14:57] please come up to the front row
[4:14:58] Please proceed when ready?
[4:14:58] Yes.
[4:14:58] Good afternoon.
[4:15:01] Council members.
[4:15:02] I'm a plaintiff in the Baker
[4:15:03] settlement opposed to
[4:15:06] concentrated poverty in low
[4:15:07] resource areas.
[4:15:11] Remedies focus on rebuilding
[4:15:12] infrastructure, housing equity
[4:15:12] and neighborhood wealth.
[4:15:16] I read the city on this side
[4:15:17] for 20 years then sold that
[4:15:21] decades ago as surplus property
[4:15:21] to meet budget needs.
[4:15:25] It was a paper park that dph
[4:15:26] would fund in future years.
[4:15:30] These fees didn't accrue
[4:15:31] because of lack of balanced
[4:15:34] income Housing couldn't sustain
[4:15:35] an economic hub and tax base
[4:15:40] choice Valley is owed this
[4:15:40] scarce land for the public
[4:15:41] good.
[4:15:44] Consider a park bonfire
[4:15:45] financed by the city different
[4:15:46] Unlike other resource areas we
[4:15:50] were denied the opportunity to
[4:15:50] generate this revenue over
[4:15:51] decades to pay for our
[4:15:55] infrastructure this year Please
[4:15:56] support the appeal to invest a
[4:15:59] new in Choice Valley.
[4:16:00] >> Thank you.
[4:16:04] Thank you Eric Long.
[4:16:05] >> Good afternoon.
[4:16:10] Council members Eric Lau from
[4:16:10] San Diego United Communities
[4:16:14] here in support of the appeal
[4:16:19] that's the bottom line.
[4:16:20] What we're here to support is
[4:16:25] writing the injustices that
[4:16:26] have gone on for this century
[4:16:30] of shame.
[4:16:31] This community of concern lies
[4:16:31] behind the traditional red
[4:16:34] lines.
[4:16:35] They have a shortage of
[4:16:35] resources.
[4:16:36] We know that they have a
[4:16:39] shortage of resources.
[4:16:40] The park is a resource They're
[4:16:44] supposed to get prioritized
[4:16:44] diff funds.
[4:16:45] That's why the mayor
[4:16:46] consolidated dip funds so they
[4:16:49] could fund parks especially in
[4:16:53] the communities of concern and
[4:16:54] yet we're seeing the opposite
[4:16:54] occur here.
[4:16:59] We're seeing gentrification for
[4:16:59] displacement here.
[4:17:04] This community he was promised
[4:17:08] in 2015 a park on the Hill It's
[4:17:09] a beautiful hill.
[4:17:09] If you haven't been there go
[4:17:10] see it.
[4:17:13] Thank you for that statement.
[4:17:13] Maximilian Schmidt Maximilian
[4:17:18] Schmidt I don't see him here.
[4:17:20] Alan Conrad if you can please
[4:17:26] come forward.
[4:17:26] >> I'm here in support of
[4:17:30] the appeal and I also want to
[4:17:31] just bring a little clarity
[4:17:31] about accountability.
[4:17:36] The people guys get to talk
[4:17:36] about Footnote seven was more
[4:17:40] than just not best practices It
[4:17:45] was illegally placed there by
[4:17:45] some of you and some of
[4:17:50] the lady that was here was a
[4:17:51] conspirator of this and those
[4:17:55] should have consequences.
[4:17:55] Those illegal acts should have
[4:17:59] consequences and the natural
[4:17:59] consequence of these illegal
[4:18:04] insertions of code is that
[4:18:04] the things that are passed
[4:18:05] under that code should not be
[4:18:09] allowed to continue.
[4:18:14] >> It's really simple.
[4:18:17] >> Patricia Montgomery Patricia
[4:18:22] Montgomery are you here?
[4:18:23] >> I am here I am Patricia
[4:18:27] Montgomery and I am here in
[4:18:28] support of the project because
[4:18:32] I live in the community and I
[4:18:36] like to see growth.
[4:18:37] I'm 70 years old and over that
[4:18:41] period of time change comes.
[4:18:42] It's come to me.
[4:18:46] Things change and I'm hoping
[4:18:47] that things will change for
[4:18:48] the better.
[4:18:51] >> I'm hoping that people in
[4:18:55] the community will have
[4:18:56] the opportunity to not just
[4:19:01] live in an apartment or a
[4:19:01] rented property but that's
[4:19:05] owned by someone else but be
[4:19:06] able to go and purchase their
[4:19:06] own home.
[4:19:10] >> Single family home We mean
[4:19:15] single family development and
[4:19:15] our area.
[4:19:16] It's nothing wrong with that.
[4:19:17] And Monica Montgomery Step
[4:19:20] loves the fourth District.
[4:19:25] >> The whole fourth district.
[4:19:26] >> She loves them all.
[4:19:27] For that concluding statement
[4:19:31] what is right for average eight
[4:19:32] When your time comes for this I
[4:19:33] need to be fair to everybody.
[4:19:35] Lisa Sorry Catalina, if you can
[4:19:36] please come forward.
[4:19:40] Catalina Arenas my staff is
[4:19:41] going to speak with you after
[4:19:41] that.
[4:19:44] Ellen Walsh if you can please
[4:19:45] come forward to the microphone.
[4:19:49] Ellen Walsh, are you here?
[4:19:54] >> Ellen Oh my apologies.
[4:19:54] Yes.
[4:19:59] Now you can speak.
[4:19:59] Hi, I'm Ellen Nash.
[4:20:00] I'm a lifetime resident of
[4:20:03] southeast San Diego.
[4:20:04] Also my family home where I was
[4:20:05] born and raised is enjoy this
[4:20:08] view.
[4:20:09] I want to say that that I have
[4:20:09] listened to all of
[4:20:13] the wonderful presentations by
[4:20:13] the residents of District four
[4:20:17] particularly of Emerald Hills
[4:20:18] which is one of the most
[4:20:19] pristine areas that growing up
[4:20:23] there enjoy this view that I
[4:20:24] look to Emerald Hills as one of
[4:20:27] the most beautiful areas that
[4:20:27] we've ever seen.
[4:20:28] We were always proud of that
[4:20:32] area and I want I do support
[4:20:32] proceeding with this project.
[4:20:36] It is necessary.
[4:20:37] I am a mother of three grown
[4:20:41] children who cannot afford to
[4:20:42] buy a house here in San Diego.
[4:20:46] We need housing.
[4:20:47] We I'm going to say that again
[4:20:52] We need housing in San Diego.
[4:20:52] We need housing in southeast
[4:20:56] San Diego particularly for
[4:20:57] those mothers like myself who
[4:21:02] want my kids to stay in.
[4:21:02] Thank you.
[4:21:03] And I think we need housing for
[4:21:04] your time.
[4:21:04] Please support this.
[4:21:04] Thank you.
[4:21:06] I must be fair with the time.
[4:21:07] DR. Ethel Sims, if you can
[4:21:11] please come to the microphone.
[4:21:11] Hello.
[4:21:16] Thank you everybody for having
[4:21:16] this forum.
[4:21:17] I do appreciate everybody and
[4:21:18] everything that's been said.
[4:21:22] I'm a native of well not really
[4:21:23] a native of San Diego.
[4:21:23] I've been here long enough.
[4:21:26] I'm a I'm a homeowner in a
[4:21:26] corner of you states which is
[4:21:27] right adjacent to the project
[4:21:30] And I'm in it's been there 46
[4:21:31] years In 1978 my mom back there
[4:21:32] that was her first time owning
[4:21:34] a brand new home.
[4:21:35] We need brand new homes in San
[4:21:35] Diego.
[4:21:36] It is going to actually
[4:21:39] increase and in in upgrade
[4:21:40] the community it's going to
[4:21:41] bring us housing So as a broker
[4:21:44] and a real estate and actually
[4:21:45] as a mother I also want to
[4:21:45] actually be able to see my
[4:21:46] children, my children's
[4:21:49] children be able to come to
[4:21:50] the community which has such
[4:21:50] diversity and rich history like
[4:21:54] Amber Hills 123 new homes and
[4:21:54] of trying to work together to
[4:21:59] make lemonade out of the out of
[4:21:59] the footnote seven is a great
[4:22:00] opportunity.
[4:22:03] We now have a chance to
[4:22:04] increase the things that we
[4:22:04] need in this community.
[4:22:05] So we're going to start with a
[4:22:08] coalition that's going to
[4:22:09] actually talk about why
[4:22:09] the housing not only bring in
[4:22:10] housing but why brings
[4:22:14] community benefits and
[4:22:15] beautification to this area.
[4:22:15] We're not going to be erased.
[4:22:16] Thank you for the upgrade.
[4:22:21] Thank you, Ozzie.
[4:22:26] We support housing so
[4:22:26] the previous speakers were in
[4:22:32] the right place.
[4:22:32] Good afternoon.
[4:22:33] When I start this my name is
[4:22:34] Housing Ministers and I'm here
[4:22:35] with our community to support
[4:22:36] this appeal.
[4:22:36] The hilltop has been designated
[4:22:39] for public parks since 2015.
[4:22:43] Southeastern San Diego has 64%
[4:22:43] less park space than wealthier
[4:22:44] parts of the city.
[4:22:48] That is not a coincidence.
[4:22:49] It is the result of repeated
[4:22:49] decisions Today this Council
[4:22:53] has the opportunity to make a
[4:22:53] difference.
[4:22:54] This boat is bigger than one
[4:22:57] hilltop in one neighborhood.
[4:22:58] Every San Diego community is
[4:23:02] watching how this council
[4:23:03] treats its public green spaces.
[4:23:08] Every resident wants to know
[4:23:08] that when a community plan
[4:23:09] designates land for a park,
[4:23:12] that promise will be honored.
[4:23:13] Today you have a chance to show
[4:23:14] all of San Diego that this
[4:23:18] council protects public land,
[4:23:18] listens to communities and we
[4:23:21] have alternate places for
[4:23:22] housing.
[4:23:22] >> We support housing.
[4:23:23] I can't afford a house either
[4:23:27] Make the right choices.
[4:23:28] >> Thank you for that
[4:23:29] concluding comment.
[4:23:33] Gregory Gregory Knell or Hill
[4:23:33] After that if I can have Johnny
[4:23:38] leading Jeffrey Shooter DR. For
[4:23:39] Cornwall Clarke and Kimberly
[4:23:42] Reals as well as Lisa and Sarah
[4:23:43] please come up to the front row
[4:23:44] Please begin when ready.
[4:23:47] >> Good afternoon Council
[4:23:48] PRESIDENT And members of
[4:23:48] the Council.
[4:23:49] My name is Greg Hill.
[4:23:50] I'm the local PRESIDENT
[4:23:53] National Association of Real
[4:23:53] Estate Brokers.
[4:23:54] Since 1947 Narev has championed
[4:23:58] the principle of democracy in
[4:23:59] housing, advocating for
[4:23:59] equitable access to housing and
[4:24:03] expanding opportunities for
[4:24:03] families to build stability and
[4:24:04] generational wealth through
[4:24:04] homeownership.
[4:24:08] That is why I'm here today in
[4:24:09] support of the animal health
[4:24:09] development.
[4:24:10] San Diego continues to face a
[4:24:14] critical housing shortage and
[4:24:14] increasing our housing supply
[4:24:15] is an essential part of
[4:24:16] addressing affordability.
[4:24:18] This project helps move in
[4:24:19] the right direction by adding
[4:24:23] much needed homes including
[4:24:24] affordable housing that will
[4:24:25] create opportunities for
[4:24:25] working families, seniors and
[4:24:29] essential workers to remain in
[4:24:29] the communities they serve.
[4:24:30] The annual Hills development is
[4:24:34] also an investment in
[4:24:35] the broader community.
[4:24:36] It includes improvements of
[4:24:36] 16th Street along the new parks
[4:24:37] and trails.
[4:24:40] It'll be open for public use.
[4:24:41] These enhancements improve
[4:24:45] connectivity, expand access to
[4:24:45] recreational space and create
[4:24:46] lasting benefits for both
[4:24:47] current and future.
[4:24:47] >> Thank you for that
[4:24:48] Concluding remark Johnny
[4:24:55] Leading John a leading reader
[4:24:59] going to Jeffrey Shooter.
[4:25:04] >> Thank you Council members.
[4:25:05] You know it's disappointing
[4:25:05] that we got here because
[4:25:09] the city never really tried to
[4:25:10] turn this into a park.
[4:25:10] I mean it's literally the most
[4:25:14] spectacular place in San Diego
[4:25:15] on par with Soledad Mountain.
[4:25:16] And if we were here discussing
[4:25:20] whether to declare Soledad
[4:25:20] mountain surplus land and turn
[4:25:21] it into housing, we would you
[4:25:25] know, we'd be outraged by that
[4:25:26] And we should also be outraged
[4:25:27] about this loss of a resource.
[4:25:30] But given that we're here, what
[4:25:31] this is really going to turn on
[4:25:34] is whether or not Footnote
[4:25:35] seven was legally adopted And
[4:25:36] the question for the city
[4:25:40] attorney is going to be in
[4:25:44] effect as the footnote seven
[4:25:45] only apply to the Choice Valley
[4:25:45] Community Planning Group.
[4:25:51] There are no rs one to what's
[4:25:52] in South Eastern so it really
[4:25:55] only applied to one community
[4:25:55] plan update.
[4:25:56] And if that's the case was it
[4:26:01] legally adopted as opposed to
[4:26:01] go into a community plan
[4:26:02] Update.
[4:26:02] >> Thank you.
[4:26:03] DR. Cornell Cornwell Clark.
[4:26:09] >> Apologies.
[4:26:15] Hello, City Council.
[4:26:16] I'm DR. Carmel Clark and I
[4:26:19] respectfully ask that you
[4:26:19] reject the footnote seven As
[4:26:20] many of us it feels like less
[4:26:21] responsible planning and more
[4:26:24] like a land grab sold to
[4:26:25] the highest bidder.
[4:26:25] As a sociologist I can't ignore
[4:26:30] the historic Eccles While
[4:26:31] people were once bought and
[4:26:32] sold in chattel slavery Today
[4:26:35] it feels as though the land our
[4:26:36] community have built is being
[4:26:37] sold with little regard to
[4:26:37] the people who have called it
[4:26:38] home for generations.
[4:26:42] My parents bought their home in
[4:26:42] 1975 and we still maintain and
[4:26:43] own that property.
[4:26:47] Communities are more than
[4:26:48] property value.
[4:26:49] They are history, relationships
[4:26:54] and legacy.
[4:26:55] Adding more than 100 homes is
[4:26:55] not in the best interest for
[4:26:56] imo.
[4:26:56] Hills It will increase traffic
[4:26:59] sustain our infrastructure and
[4:27:00] permanently change
[4:27:00] the character of the community
[4:27:01] that families like mine have
[4:27:05] invested in for decades.
[4:27:06] This is environmental racism.
[4:27:06] Please put our people before
[4:27:07] profit.
[4:27:14] Reject Footnote seven and
[4:27:14] protect the legacy of imo
[4:27:15] Hills.
[4:27:15] >> I'm from the hills and I'm
[4:27:16] standing on town business.
[4:27:17] I'm DR. Joshua Clark.
[4:27:18] >> Thank you for that
[4:27:18] concluding comment Kimberly
[4:27:24] Real's going there.
[4:27:24] Hello everyone.
[4:27:25] Okay.
[4:27:25] I wasn't really intending to
[4:27:28] speak today but after listening
[4:27:29] to you MR. Boyd I can't help
[4:27:29] myself.
[4:27:35] Unfortunately I just had
[4:27:36] cataract surgery on that thing
[4:27:37] that well so bear with me.
[4:27:41] Okay, so here's the thing I am
[4:27:41] MR. Boyd Horton.
[4:27:47] D.R. Horton began this project
[4:27:47] in 1997 when they bought
[4:27:48] the property.
[4:27:53] Don't I have the paperwork?
[4:27:53] Okay.
[4:27:54] So that So don't And anything I
[4:27:55] say up here.
[4:27:59] I have my receipt.
[4:28:00] I just want you to know that.
[4:28:00] Okay, So here we go.
[4:28:06] So and you you activated it.
[4:28:07] I'm assuming that what you
[4:28:07] waited to do is for council
[4:28:08] because you could have got it
[4:28:11] in through George Stevens.
[4:28:11] So you're waiting for
[4:28:12] representation that was more
[4:28:13] more palatable, more palatable
[4:28:17] to the idea of dense housing
[4:28:18] and less commercial things that
[4:28:18] might bring revenue to
[4:28:24] the community.
[4:28:25] >> But in any case.
[4:28:26] So you know I'm done.
[4:28:30] That is a minute.
[4:28:30] Yes.
[4:28:30] Well.
[4:28:31] You're more than welcome to
[4:28:38] email and any comments to make
[4:28:38] them a part of the record
[4:28:39] The city clerk at San
[4:28:39] diego.Gov.
[4:28:40] And they will be part of
[4:28:41] the But you were good So thank
[4:28:42] you.
[4:28:42] Thank you.
[4:28:48] And if anybody wants the baby I
[4:28:48] got it here.
[4:28:53] >> Our last speaker here and a
[4:28:54] person at least I better at
[4:28:58] least have a thorough your
[4:28:59] final speaker hearing council
[4:29:00] chambers and then we'll go to
[4:29:00] those participating online.
[4:29:05] >> I start I want my family up
[4:29:06] here with me.
[4:29:07] Sure they can come up you if
[4:29:16] you can come up here.
[4:29:18] >> Please note that we are not
[4:29:21] organization.
[4:29:22] This can be part of your
[4:29:23] comments.
[4:29:28] Please begin.
[4:29:28] >> We're talking about a
[4:29:29] project with D.R. Horton.
[4:29:30] Cities across the nation have
[4:29:34] come to city council chambers.
[4:29:34] Residents and city councils
[4:29:35] across the nation have denied
[4:29:39] D.R. Horton from building
[4:29:40] because it's bad business.
[4:29:41] D.R. Horton has lawsuits in
[4:29:45] multiple states for both having
[4:29:51] shoddy frickin shoddy off
[4:29:52] construction right there
[4:29:52] harming their residents After
[4:29:53] they're living in there,
[4:29:57] they're getting frickin sick
[4:29:58] And then they're also saying
[4:29:59] here, take this mortgage and
[4:30:03] then not having proper
[4:30:04] disclosure.
[4:30:04] So when the people are having
[4:30:05] to redo their mortgage after
[4:30:10] their lending arm is done with
[4:30:10] it, their frickin mortgage
[4:30:11] rates go up $1,000.
[4:30:12] You're talking about frickin
[4:30:15] affordable housing That's not
[4:30:16] affordable.
[4:30:16] >> That's not what we need and
[4:30:17] that's not going to help our
[4:30:18] frickin community.
[4:30:21] We need quality construction.
[4:30:21] We need places where I can
[4:30:22] gather my family over there for
[4:30:28] a frickin birthday party for a
[4:30:28] celebration about Thank you for
[4:30:34] not taking advantage and not
[4:30:35] that and I do need to be
[4:30:35] consistent but thank you so
[4:30:39] much for your comments.
[4:30:40] That does conclude public
[4:30:40] comment here in council
[4:30:41] chambers I'm sorry the five
[4:30:42] minute timer and I'm going to
[4:30:45] those participating remotely.
[4:30:46] We currently have 12 speakers
[4:30:46] in the queue.
[4:30:48] Okay I haven't started Please
[4:30:49] come up to the podium.
[4:30:56] >> I'll take your speakers up
[4:30:57] Please be on high.
[4:31:01] >> I think we should all
[4:31:02] consider that if something
[4:31:03] starts and ethically it
[4:31:08] shouldn't be because you
[4:31:09] started something unethical you
[4:31:10] can bury it.
[4:31:10] I'm working construction and
[4:31:11] having construction is also
[4:31:13] going to deteriorate our land
[4:31:14] All of the moving trucks.
[4:31:15] How does anyone actually done
[4:31:19] all of the civil from a third
[4:31:20] party and not from someone
[4:31:20] bought to make all of how are
[4:31:21] we putting all construction
[4:31:25] materials We also have a lot of
[4:31:26] industrial area which means we
[4:31:27] are required to have a land
[4:31:31] environment that is green so
[4:31:31] that we don't have lung issues
[4:31:32] everything else issues I
[4:31:36] understand people wanting
[4:31:37] affordable housing but do you
[4:31:38] want affordable housing where
[4:31:39] people have mold, have issues
[4:31:42] with lungs, have bigger issued
[4:31:43] later down the line where they
[4:31:44] die and then that is more
[4:31:44] costly to the city to go and
[4:31:49] send them to hospitals to have
[4:31:49] all the other issues.
[4:31:50] I don't think you should be
[4:31:50] having this construction
[4:31:55] feeling not just because I but
[4:31:55] like all of the way that it was
[4:31:56] built is not an ethical way as
[4:32:02] a community you want to build
[4:32:02] something on it.
[4:32:03] >> Thank you for that
[4:32:04] concluding remark for
[4:32:04] the record That was my Garcia
[4:32:07] Now I'm sorry the five minute
[4:32:08] timer and I'm going to those
[4:32:09] participating online.
[4:32:09] We have two speakers in
[4:32:11] the queue currently the city
[4:32:18] completes a new you are on
[4:32:24] the left Hello during There's
[4:32:24] one thing I want to make it
[4:32:29] very clear is I support this
[4:32:29] appeal.
[4:32:35] I support Emerald Hills right
[4:32:35] for justice and fight against
[4:32:36] racism And to all these people
[4:32:42] that say no, we need more help,
[4:32:43] we need more housing.
[4:32:43] Where were you the were you
[4:32:48] when projects in more you're
[4:32:49] the same size We're getting
[4:32:54] measly 24 homes and they wanted
[4:32:55] to put 123 here I also have a
[4:33:02] concern with the water main no
[4:33:02] and the on the water main
[4:33:04] report that support that two
[4:33:05] sources or a reservoir and this
[4:33:11] community needs this all these
[4:33:12] people with housing if you want
[4:33:12] to fight for housing you get
[4:33:17] this council to copy Habitat
[4:33:18] for Humanity and what cities in
[4:33:18] Massachusetts are doing with
[4:33:23] lottery system So an $800,000
[4:33:24] homes for 200,000 Your time has
[4:33:28] concluded our time to act
[4:33:35] please on unmute.
[4:33:36] >> Hello my name is Nicole Ali.
[4:33:36] I'm the executive director of
[4:33:37] our Time to Act and a member of
[4:33:38] the Coalition for Equitable
[4:33:41] Development.
[4:33:41] I would like to uplift
[4:33:42] the comments.
[4:33:42] Okay.
[4:33:42] I'm sorry.
[4:33:43] County Vice Chair Monica
[4:33:47] Montgomery Step.
[4:33:48] Large sprawling minimum lot
[4:33:48] sizes are a historically
[4:33:51] segregationist tool and while
[4:33:51] Footnote seven never should
[4:33:52] have targeted the reduction of
[4:33:53] minimum lot sizes in just one
[4:33:53] neighborhood, it does not
[4:33:57] negate the fact that minimizing
[4:33:58] minimum lot sizes reduces
[4:33:58] environmental impacts and
[4:33:59] housing exclusion not increases
[4:33:59] them.
[4:34:04] This project unfortunately
[4:34:05] reduces currently open space
[4:34:05] but with this area being zoned
[4:34:06] as entirely residential and
[4:34:09] without any actual city plans
[4:34:10] to create a park there,
[4:34:11] the inclusion of pocket parks
[4:34:12] and significant infrastructure
[4:34:12] improvements goes towards
[4:34:15] mitigating the impact of this
[4:34:16] new development.
[4:34:17] Ultimately this project will
[4:34:17] significantly increase
[4:34:18] homeownership opportunity in
[4:34:21] this neighborhood and
[4:34:22] additionally the development
[4:34:23] should also increase
[4:34:23] the percentage of and
[4:34:24] affordability of homes in this
[4:34:29] project as outlined by you I
[4:34:29] respectfully ask that you deny
[4:34:30] this appeal and continue to
[4:34:31] encourage greater density in
[4:34:33] every district especially high
[4:34:34] resource areas going forward.
[4:34:35] >> Thank you.
[4:34:35] Thank you.
[4:34:35] Next is John Stump.
[4:34:39] If you can please unmute.
[4:34:40] Thank you very much.
[4:34:45] My concern is that this is a
[4:34:46] quasi judicial hearing.
[4:34:51] Members of the council must be
[4:34:52] free of any apparent or known
[4:34:57] conflict of interest.
[4:34:58] Council PRESIDENT Joe LaCava
[4:35:03] made a very good affirmative
[4:35:04] statement on yesterday's appeal
[4:35:05] and I would expect that all
[4:35:10] current council members would
[4:35:11] make a similar disclosure.
[4:35:11] One of the things that I did
[4:35:16] come up in my mind was
[4:35:17] the employees of council
[4:35:23] members, their agents and
[4:35:23] employees and their conflicts.
[4:35:29] This transfer to the council
[4:35:35] member finally the name of
[4:35:36] the parties in this are
[4:35:36] appellant and Pelly not
[4:35:37] applicant.
[4:35:41] Thank you very much.
[4:35:41] >> Thank you.
[4:35:42] Next is Margaret.
[4:35:44] Margaret very similar if you
[4:35:50] can present you.
[4:35:51] >> Hi, my name is Margaret
[4:35:52] Aparicio, founder of San Diego
[4:35:52] United Communities.
[4:35:56] We don't need more density
[4:35:57] without proper infrastructure.
[4:35:57] What we need is more park
[4:35:58] spaces.
[4:35:58] We were in a major deficit.
[4:36:02] Quick question Where does
[4:36:02] the vp that spoke today
[4:36:03] representing D.R. Horton live?
[4:36:04] Who are they to say that this
[4:36:08] community needs this massive
[4:36:09] monstrous project built and
[4:36:09] the community of Emerald Hills?
[4:36:10] They don't even live there.
[4:36:14] The community is here today to
[4:36:14] say that they don't want this
[4:36:15] project.
[4:36:15] So listen, upstanding United
[4:36:16] Communities is watching all of
[4:36:19] you and your bad decisions.
[4:36:20] No one footnote seven to
[4:36:20] the people of San Diego
[4:36:21] Remember elections are coming
[4:36:21] up.
[4:36:25] Let's vote out these incumbents
[4:36:25] making the wrong decisions.
[4:36:26] The D.R. Horton applicant that
[4:36:27] spoke today was very
[4:36:31] disrespectful by calling up
[4:36:32] concerned neighbors from
[4:36:32] Emerald Hills.
[4:36:33] Why would this council support
[4:36:38] this disgusting disturbing
[4:36:38] behavior from the offices of
[4:36:39] the court?
[4:36:39] And also word on the street is
[4:36:43] that Monica montgomery's
[4:36:44] family's construction company
[4:36:45] will be retained for this
[4:36:45] project.
[4:36:46] It explains why she is so angry
[4:36:49] today.
[4:36:50] >> We have a park deficit in
[4:36:50] San Diego.
[4:36:51] Make the right decision.
[4:36:52] Your time has concluded.
[4:36:56] Jake Buchanan, if you can
[4:37:01] please and you can hear me.
[4:37:01] Yes.
[4:37:02] Please proceed.
[4:37:02] Good afternoon, everyone.
[4:37:03] My name is Jake Buchanan.
[4:37:07] I'm a San Diego resident.
[4:37:08] I'd like to express my support
[4:37:09] for the new housing
[4:37:09] development.
[4:37:13] Our city facing a severe
[4:37:13] housing shortage.
[4:37:14] As we all know, the state of
[4:37:15] California is mandating more
[4:37:18] housing specifically affordable
[4:37:19] housing And a new project like
[4:37:20] this are ones that are exactly
[4:37:25] what we need to provide relief
[4:37:26] for.
[4:37:30] So the addition of the 123 new
[4:37:30] homes including portable units
[4:37:31] is very helpful For first time
[4:37:36] homebuyers like myself that are
[4:37:36] stuck paying premiums on rent
[4:37:37] year after year and are looking
[4:37:42] to get their foot in the door
[4:37:43] and build equity within this
[4:37:43] city.
[4:37:47] So lastly, I believe creating
[4:37:48] more affordability here in a
[4:37:49] very supply constrained city is
[4:37:54] essential for San Diego future
[4:37:54] .
[4:37:55] >> And I thank you for your
[4:37:55] time.
[4:37:56] Thank you.
[4:37:58] The five minute timer did
[4:37:59] conclude that means that there
[4:38:00] are eight speakers in the queue
[4:38:00] and no additional speakers will
[4:38:01] be taken after that.
[4:38:02] Laurie Lipson If you can please
[4:38:08] unmute.
[4:38:08] >> Hello.
[4:38:09] Laurie Lipson Share District
[4:38:09] three.
[4:38:14] Yes we need housing and infill
[4:38:14] is essential to meeting our
[4:38:15] housing needs without sprawl.
[4:38:20] But removing valuable green
[4:38:20] spaces is irresponsible as we
[4:38:21] move into the future and made
[4:38:25] this human caused climate
[4:38:26] crisis.
[4:38:27] No study expert organization or
[4:38:31] government can predict
[4:38:32] the future which is why we need
[4:38:33] to pay attention to what we
[4:38:33] know.
[4:38:37] The climate crisis is real and
[4:38:38] we are a racist country.
[4:38:39] Green spaces are essential
[4:38:43] infrastructure for mental
[4:38:44] health, physical health for
[4:38:44] creating community and for
[4:38:45] helping heal the planet.
[4:38:50] Please grant the appeal and
[4:38:50] deny this project.
[4:38:51] John Elliot if you can please
[4:38:58] unmute.
[4:38:59] >> Good afternoon City Council.
[4:39:00] Your volume is a little low.
[4:39:04] Oh sorry about that.
[4:39:05] I will try to speak louder.
[4:39:05] Can you hear me now?
[4:39:06] Yes.
[4:39:06] We'll reset your time.
[4:39:07] Please proceed.
[4:39:09] Thank you.
[4:39:10] >> We're calling in in support
[4:39:11] of the development.
[4:39:11] However, we do have some
[4:39:16] concerns about community access
[4:39:17] specifically related to pocket
[4:39:17] parks.
[4:39:21] Do those parks include
[4:39:22] restrooms and will they be
[4:39:23] guaranteed the same access or
[4:39:23] will the homeowners association
[4:39:28] be able to restrict access to
[4:39:28] important trails and viewing
[4:39:29] areas in the neighborhood at
[4:39:33] their discretion?
[4:39:34] These pocket parks are
[4:39:34] problematic because generally
[4:39:35] they're managed by private
[4:39:39] security and are highly
[4:39:40] restrictive in who is allowed
[4:39:41] on or off that property.
[4:39:41] Thank you.
[4:39:45] Natalie Raskin If you can
[4:39:49] please unmute.
[4:39:50] >> Hi Natalie.
[4:39:51] My concern is that the project
[4:39:56] overwhelmed only benefits
[4:39:57] the developer not the city and
[4:39:58] certainly not the Encanto
[4:39:58] community.
[4:40:02] D.R. Horton is using the city's
[4:40:03] affordable housing bonus
[4:40:03] program to unlock multiple
[4:40:04] waivers.
[4:40:09] But just like with Depp's
[4:40:09] oversize driveways and other
[4:40:13] exceptions but they are only
[4:40:13] providing 13 units and those
[4:40:14] units are not low income.
[4:40:18] They are moderate income at
[4:40:19] 100%.
[4:40:19] Am I?
[4:40:20] That means the families most in
[4:40:20] need and Encanto will not
[4:40:24] benefit from these so-called
[4:40:24] affordable units.
[4:40:25] Yet those 13 units allow
[4:40:25] the developer to reshape
[4:40:29] the entire subdivision to
[4:40:30] maximize yield and profit.
[4:40:31] These waivers directly increase
[4:40:32] the number of blocks they can
[4:40:35] build which increases their
[4:40:35] revenue.
[4:40:36] Meanwhile, the community
[4:40:37] absorbs the impact loss of open
[4:40:42] space, increased traffic and
[4:40:42] project income and council's
[4:40:43] planning group unanimously
[4:40:44] unanimously opposed When a
[4:40:47] corporate developer uses
[4:40:48] Affordable affordability
[4:40:48] program to gain waivers that
[4:40:49] primarily benefit their bottom
[4:40:54] line while offering bare
[4:40:55] minimum affordability in
[4:40:55] return.
[4:40:56] Your time has converted Blair
[4:40:59] Beekman If you can please
[4:41:00] unmute by Blair Beekman.
[4:41:01] >> Just trying to learn about
[4:41:06] this process.
[4:41:06] >> I think this item was
[4:41:07] something this item was here a
[4:41:07] year ago.
[4:41:11] You know we were talking about
[4:41:11] similar issues and we reached a
[4:41:15] compromise solution instead of
[4:41:16] 120 units that we work on
[4:41:16] something like 40 units and
[4:41:21] work on park space as well and
[4:41:22] that there needs to really be a
[4:41:23] need that we grow into the idea
[4:41:27] more of inviting more community
[4:41:28] groups to the planning process.
[4:41:29] And we have to learn to do that
[4:41:29] better.
[4:41:33] And on top of all of that I'm
[4:41:34] learning the concepts that you
[4:41:34] know before footnote seven
[4:41:39] there was a real racial problem
[4:41:40] in history in this area that a
[4:41:41] lot of people all
[4:41:45] African-American people in
[4:41:46] the neighborhood feel that
[4:41:46] putting a park there
[4:41:47] memorializes a really bad
[4:41:51] racist tradition.
[4:41:52] We have to have those
[4:41:52] conversations more clearly
[4:41:53] openly and talking about
[4:41:54] the very interesting
[4:41:57] environmental ideas for
[4:41:58] the future of the area because
[4:41:59] look how that conversation can
[4:41:59] develop.
[4:42:00] >> Thank you.
[4:42:01] Thank you.
[4:42:07] >> Next is Angela Harris.
[4:42:13] Hi.
[4:42:13] We can hear you.
[4:42:14] Please proceed.
[4:42:14] Okay.
[4:42:15] Thank you.
[4:42:19] Let me just say for the record
[4:42:20] that what you see sitting in
[4:42:20] those seats and those yellow
[4:42:25] shirts, they don't necessarily
[4:42:26] represent district four.
[4:42:26] They are outliers.
[4:42:30] And I stand with over 30
[4:42:30] families who want to deny this
[4:42:31] appeal.
[4:42:31] You want the council to deny
[4:42:36] this appeal unanimously?
[4:42:37] All of my 30 families live in
[4:42:37] the District four not like many
[4:42:41] of the other paid carpetbaggers
[4:42:42] sitting in the council chamber.
[4:42:42] I have all my current home and
[4:42:46] skyline for more than 22 years
[4:42:47] and have lived with Council
[4:42:47] District four for over 40
[4:42:48] years.
[4:42:48] When I was looking to buy there
[4:42:52] was a a a strong push for
[4:42:53] single family detached homes.
[4:42:53] And I am grateful that those
[4:42:54] opportunities existed.
[4:42:58] I believe we need more single
[4:42:59] family detached housing in
[4:42:59] the area.
[4:43:00] Expanding those housing options
[4:43:04] is important and we want to
[4:43:05] attach resources and amenities
[4:43:05] to our communities like grocery
[4:43:09] stores and additional
[4:43:09] restaurants and border
[4:43:10] investments and support for
[4:43:11] the arts and cultural the Black
[4:43:16] arts and culture district.
[4:43:17] I am disappointed that many of
[4:43:18] my home owners seem ready to
[4:43:18] close the door to himself
[4:43:23] including my apologies Amanda
[4:43:23] if you can please On you Amanda
[4:43:28] if you can please On you.
[4:43:28] Okay.
[4:43:28] Sorry.
[4:43:29] Sorry I'm here.
[4:43:29] Please proceed.
[4:43:35] Just wanted to say I cannot get
[4:43:35] over the irony that in that
[4:43:39] very room yesterday city
[4:43:44] council debated approving a
[4:43:45] 5478 square foot single family
[4:43:46] home one home in La Hoya.
[4:43:49] >> And here we are today
[4:43:50] debating 5000 square foot lots
[4:43:51] and animal health at the moment
[4:43:51] with that community member I'm
[4:43:55] speaking in solidarity.
[4:43:55] I've seen firsthand the fact
[4:43:56] that council members like Raul
[4:44:01] Campo not protecting his
[4:44:02] community from overdevelopment.
[4:44:02] I urge you all today to help
[4:44:07] COUNCILMAN Foster protect his
[4:44:07] for him today.
[4:44:08] The transit density loophole up
[4:44:09] for 26 units to be built on a
[4:44:13] quiet residential street next
[4:44:13] door to my stepdad where two
[4:44:14] single family homes used to be
[4:44:17] with no parking requirements.
[4:44:18] 50 minutes on Google Maps to
[4:44:19] the nearest grocery store would
[4:44:23] be a public transit.
[4:44:24] They are sick and tired of our
[4:44:25] city council collecting impact
[4:44:25] fees that go to other
[4:44:26] neighborhoods and watching
[4:44:29] developers rake in profits
[4:44:30] while the taxpayers pay
[4:44:30] the permanent costs of
[4:44:31] rezoning.
[4:44:31] >> I have concluded my
[4:44:32] apologies Nina Sanchez if you
[4:44:36] can please unmute.
[4:44:43] Senior Sanchez There you go.
[4:44:44] >> You are And we did not hear
[4:44:45] you here in council chambers.
[4:44:48] I'm not sure if the device they
[4:44:49] are speaking into to maybe
[4:44:49] muted.
[4:44:49] >> Can you hear me now,
[4:44:50] COUNCILMAN?
[4:44:50] Yes we can.
[4:44:54] Please proceed.
[4:44:54] Thank you.
[4:44:55] For nearly a century our Bipoc
[4:44:56] families in San Diego being
[4:44:56] told where we can and cannot
[4:45:00] live be forced into communities
[4:45:00] like Logan and County Council
[4:45:01] on Emerald Hills.
[4:45:06] Then after generations of
[4:45:07] sacrifice and best for me and
[4:45:07] resilient after we built these
[4:45:08] communities and what's in what
[4:45:10] they are today the rule,
[4:45:11] the change once again.
[4:45:11] Now of course the declining
[4:45:12] high density development among
[4:45:15] transit corridors and less
[4:45:16] chance for homeownership more
[4:45:16] lifelong renters.
[4:45:17] This isn't about equity when
[4:45:17] the result is that working
[4:45:21] families lose their chance to
[4:45:22] build wealth while developers
[4:45:22] continue to profit 100%.
[4:45:23] Am I really?
[4:45:26] Most people in Southeast are at
[4:45:27] 30% or below.
[4:45:27] Our communities have already
[4:45:28] endured segregation,
[4:45:32] environmental racism,
[4:45:33] displacement in decades,
[4:45:34] the disinvestment and now we're
[4:45:34] expected to quietly accept
[4:45:39] policies that bear and push us
[4:45:40] out of the very neighborhoods
[4:45:41] our parents and grandparents
[4:45:41] fought to hold on to.
[4:45:42] If equity is truly our goal
[4:45:43] this naturally black and brown
[4:45:44] communities like where you're
[4:45:45] guinea pigs or lab rats, cattle
[4:45:48] servants or your property we
[4:45:49] deserve the same opportunity as
[4:45:50] everyone else not just to rent
[4:45:50] but to own to build
[4:45:51] generational wealth and to
[4:45:53] remain in the communities we
[4:45:54] created.
[4:45:54] Stop measuring success by how
[4:45:55] many?
[4:45:58] Your time has concluded.
[4:45:59] Christine Walbourne Your final
[4:46:03] speaker Christine Walbourne.
[4:46:03] Hi.
[4:46:04] Can you hear me?
[4:46:04] Yes.
[4:46:05] Please proceed.
[4:46:09] Hi, I'm in District one and I'm
[4:46:10] calling to ask you to please
[4:46:14] support the appeal.
[4:46:15] I attended the city council
[4:46:16] meeting I think it was in
[4:46:18] DECEMBER about footnote seven
[4:46:18] and I was so impressed with
[4:46:19] the community and how many
[4:46:23] people showed up.
[4:46:24] And so I just want to support
[4:46:25] the community and it's time to
[4:46:29] listen to these people and put
[4:46:29] them above developers.
[4:46:30] So I would appreciate you
[4:46:34] please supporting the appeal.
[4:46:35] >> Thank you.
[4:46:35] Thank you.
[4:46:36] I would like to note for
[4:46:39] the record that we did receive
[4:46:39] four people that submitted
[4:46:40] would like to register their
[4:46:41] position in favor but did not
[4:46:44] wish to speak and six submitted
[4:46:45] would like to register their
[4:46:45] position in opposition but did
[4:46:46] not wish to speak.
[4:46:49] That does conclude public
[4:46:50] comment for this item.
[4:46:50] Council PRESIDENT Thank you.
[4:46:51] All right.
[4:46:51] Thank you City Clerk As I like
[4:46:54] to do when we have these
[4:46:55] heavily attended meetings
[4:46:55] please join me in giving a
[4:46:56] round of applause to our city
[4:47:02] clerk and her entire team.
[4:47:07] >> It is not easy but you did a
[4:47:07] masterful job as you always do
[4:47:08] And as was emphasized, this is
[4:47:12] only the second day of
[4:47:12] implementing implementing
[4:47:15] Senate Bill 707 and it seems
[4:47:16] like it's working very well.
[4:47:21] So at least the early stages of
[4:47:21] that.
[4:47:22] Okay, let's get on.
[4:47:22] So this is now an opportunity
[4:47:26] for the council to weigh in for
[4:47:26] any questions, comments and
[4:47:27] entertain a motion and we will
[4:47:30] start with the council member
[4:47:31] from District four.
[4:47:35] Council Member Foster Yes,
[4:47:35] Thank you Council PRESIDENT And
[4:47:40] thank you to staff for your
[4:47:44] presentation and your work on
[4:47:49] this.
[4:47:50] Also I'd like to thank my
[4:47:54] colleague Supervisor Monica
[4:47:54] Montgomery Step for attending
[4:47:59] today's hearing and providing
[4:47:59] comment and having had
[4:48:04] the honor to serve as her chief
[4:48:05] of staff I can tell you that
[4:48:08] her comments were not
[4:48:09] supporting D.R. Horton,
[4:48:13] the company.
[4:48:14] Rather it was supporting
[4:48:14] opportunity.
[4:48:18] It was supporting generational
[4:48:19] wealth and allowing families
[4:48:20] access to a home They can feel
[4:48:27] safe in a okay, this is
[4:48:28] the second morning we sat here,
[4:48:31] listened to all the testimony
[4:48:32] both for and against mouth.
[4:48:36] The council members chant Give
[4:48:36] them an opportunity to speak.
[4:48:40] You can raise your probably
[4:48:41] lower your thumb.
[4:48:41] >> That's the way to
[4:48:45] communicate with us.
[4:48:45] My apologies.
[4:48:46] Council member foster Thank
[4:48:46] you.
[4:48:50] Council PRESIDENT Her comments
[4:48:54] were not supporting D.R. Horton
[4:48:55] .
[4:48:55] The company rather was
[4:48:56] supporting Opportunity
[4:48:59] generational wealth and
[4:49:00] allowing families access to a
[4:49:01] home they can feel safe in and
[4:49:04] have pride of ownership.
[4:49:05] I want to begin also by
[4:49:08] recognizing the Choice Valley
[4:49:09] Community Planning Group and
[4:49:10] the residents of Emerald Hills
[4:49:13] and their surrounding
[4:49:14] neighborhoods.
[4:49:15] I know you have spent a lot of
[4:49:18] time attending meetings,
[4:49:19] reviewing documents, submitting
[4:49:23] comments and raising concerns
[4:49:28] about the project and I do
[4:49:28] believe your concerns deserve
[4:49:31] direct answers.
[4:49:32] >> The appeal before us today
[4:49:33] and this is a question for
[4:49:37] staff is an appeal of
[4:49:38] the project and not an appeal
[4:49:41] of the addendum to the project
[4:49:42] program Environmental Impact
[4:49:42] Report prepared by the City of
[4:49:46] San Diego as a lead agency.
[4:49:47] >> Is that correct?
[4:49:47] That is correct.
[4:49:51] Councilmember Foster Thank you.
[4:49:52] >> I will say that the appeal
[4:49:55] highlights several concerns
[4:49:55] including traffic, fire safety
[4:49:56] and several other potential
[4:50:00] impacts.
[4:50:01] Those are not small issues.
[4:50:02] They involve the safety
[4:50:06] sustainable ity and future of
[4:50:06] this community.
[4:50:10] They are valid concerns and
[4:50:11] the city should perform as due
[4:50:11] diligence and address
[4:50:12] the concerns of the impacted
[4:50:17] community.
[4:50:18] >> Before getting into my
[4:50:19] questions we need to be honest
[4:50:19] about the history that shaped
[4:50:22] this community.
[4:50:23] District four like many
[4:50:24] communities across the country
[4:50:27] has dealt with discriminatory
[4:50:28] housing policies, disinvestment
[4:50:31] and bad planning decisions.
[4:50:32] These policies did not happen
[4:50:33] by accident.
[4:50:37] They determine where black
[4:50:37] families and non-whites could
[4:50:41] live.
[4:50:42] They determine who had access
[4:50:42] to homeownership.
[4:50:46] They protected wealth and
[4:50:46] opportunity in some communities
[4:50:51] while concentrating poverty and
[4:50:51] limiting opportunity in others.
[4:50:55] >> In the 19 40s and 1950s,
[4:50:56] black and brown families could
[4:51:00] not simply buy a home anywhere
[4:51:00] in San Diego and Emerald Hills
[4:51:05] was one of those communities a
[4:51:10] community that denied nonwhite
[4:51:10] families opportunities because
[4:51:11] of the color of their skin.
[4:51:15] Thanks to the work of
[4:51:16] individuals like Judge Alpha,
[4:51:16] Lavonne Montgomery and others,
[4:51:20] many of those families
[4:51:20] eventually found a pathway to
[4:51:21] homeownership in southeastern
[4:51:24] San Diego including Valencia
[4:51:28] Park Encanto Skyline and
[4:51:29] Emerald Hills.
[4:51:30] My own family was among
[4:51:30] the first generations of black
[4:51:34] families able to become
[4:51:35] homeowners in Valencia Park.
[4:51:39] That home provided stability.
[4:51:39] It gave my family an asset.
[4:51:40] It gave us something we could
[4:51:44] build on and pass down.
[4:51:45] It helped my parents put two
[4:51:48] children through college.
[4:51:49] That is generational wealth.
[4:51:49] Today the children and
[4:51:53] grandchildren of many of those
[4:51:54] same families cannot afford to
[4:51:55] buy a home in the community.
[4:51:58] Their families helped to build.
[4:52:02] District four has limited for
[4:52:03] sale housing while continued to
[4:52:04] receive hundreds of deed
[4:52:07] restricted rental units.
[4:52:08] I have stood with my community
[4:52:08] against the continued
[4:52:12] concentration of poverty in our
[4:52:12] district.
[4:52:13] >> The city recently settled a
[4:52:17] lawsuit Baker versus City of
[4:52:18] San Diego to further mitigate
[4:52:19] the concentration of poverty
[4:52:22] and saturation of deed
[4:52:23] restricted units in communities
[4:52:23] like District four.
[4:52:27] And I have been clear that we
[4:52:27] must have a balanced housing
[4:52:31] approach that includes real
[4:52:31] opportunities for
[4:52:32] homeownership.
[4:52:36] We need homes that working
[4:52:36] families can purchase.
[4:52:37] >> Our teachers, nurses,
[4:52:41] firefighters.
[4:52:41] Public safety professionals.
[4:52:42] Skilled workers.
[4:52:42] Parents.
[4:52:46] Young adults and working
[4:52:46] families deserve
[4:52:47] the opportunity to own a home,
[4:52:50] raise their families here and
[4:52:51] build something they can pass
[4:52:52] on to their children.
[4:52:55] That has been my position from
[4:52:56] the beginning.
[4:52:56] A balanced housing approach
[4:53:00] Stronger pathways to
[4:53:01] homeownership and an end to
[4:53:02] concentrating deed restricted
[4:53:05] units in communities like
[4:53:06] District four.
[4:53:10] Now let's also talk honestly
[4:53:11] about large minimum lots sizes.
[4:53:14] Large minimum lot requirements
[4:53:15] are often presented as if they
[4:53:19] are harmless and they are not.
[4:53:20] These policies were used to
[4:53:21] protect wealthy communities
[4:53:24] from change and keep black
[4:53:25] families brown families,
[4:53:26] immigrants and working class
[4:53:29] people out.
[4:53:30] They made land more expensive.
[4:53:34] They limited the number of
[4:53:35] homes that could be built.
[4:53:35] And they kept homeownership out
[4:53:39] of reach for people who were
[4:53:39] not already wealthy.
[4:53:40] As I pointed out last year,
[4:53:44] studies consistently show large
[4:53:44] minimum lot sizes limit
[4:53:45] opportunities for single family
[4:53:48] home ownership, increase
[4:53:49] housing costs, deepen
[4:53:49] inequality and encourage
[4:53:54] greater reliance on rental
[4:53:54] focused multifamily
[4:53:55] development.
[4:53:58] >> Let me be clear.
[4:53:59] >> Large minimum lot
[4:54:03] requirements are racist.
[4:54:04] >> >> They have discriminatory
[4:54:08] impacts and were used to
[4:54:09] exclude people of color.
[4:54:09] Some people MAY be
[4:54:13] uncomfortable hearing that.
[4:54:13] And I say good that history
[4:54:17] should not make us
[4:54:18] uncomfortable.
[4:54:19] What I am not going to do is to
[4:54:23] water down the truth to make
[4:54:24] people feel better about
[4:54:24] policies that were designed to
[4:54:27] keep families like mine out of
[4:54:28] certain neighborhoods.
[4:54:31] We must stop sanitizing history
[4:54:32] .
[4:54:32] These were not neutral planning
[4:54:33] decisions that somehow produced
[4:54:37] unequal outcomes.
[4:54:38] They were adopted and used to
[4:54:39] control who had access to land
[4:54:42] housing, good schools, public
[4:54:43] investment and wealth.
[4:54:46] When people defend those
[4:54:47] barriers without acknowledging
[4:54:47] who they were built to exclude,
[4:54:51] they are defending the result
[4:54:51] of the racist policy.
[4:54:56] They MAY not like hearing that
[4:54:56] but discovering the discomfort
[4:55:01] does not make the history
[4:55:01] untrue.
[4:55:02] And we cannot address inequity
[4:55:06] while refusing to name what and
[4:55:06] who created it.
[4:55:09] Which leads me to footnote
[4:55:09] seven.
[4:55:10] There seems to be individuals
[4:55:11] in District four that are
[4:55:14] intentionally misinforming our
[4:55:15] community about the origins of
[4:55:15] Footnote seven.
[4:55:19] I have said this publicly from
[4:55:20] this diocese and will again
[4:55:23] state for the record that no
[4:55:24] one and I mean no one in
[4:55:24] the district for office
[4:55:28] generated Footnote seven.
[4:55:29] But what we do know is that
[4:55:33] footnote seven was generated
[4:55:33] during former Mayor Kevin
[4:55:37] Faulkner's administration.
[4:55:38] This is not fake news.
[4:55:42] This is fact.
[4:55:43] So for those that stand with
[4:55:43] Kevin Faulkner and are
[4:55:47] supported by Kevin Faulkner,
[4:55:47] you want answers?
[4:55:51] >> You should start there with
[4:55:52] your friend to further
[4:55:52] illustrate the process
[4:55:56] surrounding Footnote seven.
[4:55:56] I would like to introduce a
[4:55:57] summary of the actions as part
[4:56:01] of the legislative record here
[4:56:01] today.
[4:56:02] If you can bring up
[4:56:08] correspondence number eight you
[4:56:09] can get one of those comments
[4:56:09] Five minutes.
[4:56:12] >> All right.
[4:56:12] Thank you.
[4:56:13] This I will not go through
[4:56:18] the entire record but I want to
[4:56:18] provide it so that everyone can
[4:56:21] see every step that took place
[4:56:22] with footnote seven.
[4:56:23] And I will say this The first
[4:56:26] time it was introduced to
[4:56:27] the Community Planners
[4:56:31] Committee, the chair of
[4:56:32] the Choice Valley Community
[4:56:36] Planning Group was present.
[4:56:37] And you can go back and look at
[4:56:37] the meeting minutes and pull
[4:56:41] the verification in.
[4:56:42] So I will leave that there for
[4:56:45] the public to see.
[4:56:46] >> Footnote seven Reduced
[4:56:50] minimum lot sizes in Encanto
[4:56:51] and southeastern San Diego
[4:56:52] without applying that same
[4:56:52] policy citywide.
[4:56:56] Irene I moved to repeal
[4:56:57] Footnote seven because
[4:57:00] the process was not transparent
[4:57:01] ,consistent or inclusive.
[4:57:01] The planning director
[4:57:05] acknowledged that it was not
[4:57:06] handled in accordance with city
[4:57:06] policies and best practices.
[4:57:09] Throughout this discussion
[4:57:10] there have been references to
[4:57:11] furthering fair housing.
[4:57:15] As noted per the staff report
[4:57:15] from the Planning Commission
[4:57:18] dated JANUARY 10th 2020 five
[4:57:19] reducing the discriminatory
[4:57:22] large loss minimums from 20,000
[4:57:23] square foot to 5000 square foot
[4:57:27] has led to affirmatively
[4:57:28] furthering fair housing.
[4:57:28] >> Footnote seven allowed
[4:57:32] market rate for sale single
[4:57:33] family homes in low resource
[4:57:37] communities Consistent with
[4:57:37] plan densities in the 2015
[4:57:42] Encanto Community plan and does
[4:57:42] not contradict fair housing
[4:57:43] policies.
[4:57:47] >> In addition, it's important
[4:57:48] important to point out that
[4:57:51] the surrounding parcels to
[4:57:52] the north, south and west of
[4:57:53] the Radio towers parcel are all
[4:57:56] zoned rs1-7.
[4:58:01] So to be clear all the homes on
[4:58:05] old memory lane are zoned
[4:58:05] rs1-7.
[4:58:06] Just like the proposed project
[4:58:10] before this council today.
[4:58:11] >> So it's clear we need zoning
[4:58:11] reforms that promote equitable
[4:58:15] home ownership.
[4:58:16] We must champion zoning reforms
[4:58:19] that prioritize for sale homes
[4:58:20] and promote equitable access to
[4:58:21] homeownership citywide making
[4:58:24] our city a place where more
[4:58:25] residents can thrive.
[4:58:29] It is ever so critical that we
[4:58:29] support balanced for sale
[4:58:30] housing options in District
[4:58:34] four to ensure our sustainable
[4:58:34] city while ensuring we preserve
[4:58:35] community character.
[4:58:38] Repealing Footnote seven was a
[4:58:39] difficult decision for me but
[4:58:43] the right decision at the time
[4:58:44] and it's also the right
[4:58:48] decision for the city to roll
[4:58:49] up their sleeves, engage
[4:58:49] the public and further vet up
[4:58:53] zoning r's 1-2 large law
[4:58:54] minimums citywide and expand
[4:58:58] for sale single family home
[4:58:59] opportunities.
[4:58:59] As I have said on several
[4:59:03] occasions, I want every family,
[4:59:07] every young person in District
[4:59:07] four to have the same
[4:59:08] opportunities that I have had
[4:59:08] in homeownership.
[4:59:12] The building of generational
[4:59:12] wealth is critical to long term
[4:59:17] sustainability and success.
[4:59:17] Before I start with my project
[4:59:21] specific question I do have a
[4:59:22] few questions for the city
[4:59:26] attorney.
[4:59:26] I see that the staff has
[4:59:27] provided a copy of the city
[4:59:30] attorney's report to Council
[4:59:31] regarding Senate Bill 330 also
[4:59:35] known as the Housing Crisis Act
[4:59:35] of 2019 which is a direct
[4:59:36] response to a statewide housing
[4:59:40] emergency.
[4:59:45] Sb 330 is still effective if
[4:59:46] you can confirm sb 330 is still
[4:59:46] in effect and this project is
[4:59:50] subject to sb 330.
[4:59:51] >> Is that correct?
[4:59:55] I would ask Chief Deputy City
[4:59:56] Attorney Karen New four to
[4:59:56] respond to your question
[4:59:57] please.
[4:59:59] Yes, Thank you.
[5:00:00] Thank you for that question.
[5:00:01] It is still in effect in this
[5:00:04] project is subject to that
[5:00:05] bill.
[5:00:05] >> Thank you for that.
[5:00:09] Per the report it indicates
[5:00:09] that the city MAY deny a
[5:00:10] housing development project or
[5:00:14] impose a condition that
[5:00:14] the project be developed at a
[5:00:15] lower density.
[5:00:16] After making written findings
[5:00:19] based on a preponderance of
[5:00:20] evidence in the administrative
[5:00:21] record that the project would
[5:00:24] have a specific adverse impact
[5:00:25] on public health or safety and
[5:00:28] there is no other feasible
[5:00:29] method to satisfactorily
[5:00:33] mitigate or avoid the adverse
[5:00:33] impact.
[5:00:34] Is that correct?
[5:00:34] That is correct.
[5:00:39] Question for you What does no
[5:00:39] other feasible method to
[5:00:43] satisfactorily mitigate or
[5:00:44] avoid the adverse impact mean?
[5:00:48] >> Well it would depend on what
[5:00:49] the impact is.
[5:00:53] So for instance, if there is an
[5:00:57] impact that would have been
[5:00:58] caused by traffic or fire, you
[5:01:02] would look at what was causing
[5:01:03] that impact and how to avoid it
[5:01:03] or to mitigate for it.
[5:01:07] But it really is very specific
[5:01:08] to what the impact is.
[5:01:12] So in short, just for further
[5:01:12] clarification, if an adverse
[5:01:17] impact does identify and there
[5:01:17] is an acceptable means to
[5:01:21] mitigate legally we should move
[5:01:27] forward with the project based
[5:01:27] on the mitigation if it needs
[5:01:31] to be about it That is what
[5:01:32] the Housing Accountability Act
[5:01:32] requires.
[5:01:41] >> Thank you for that.
[5:01:45] >> If mitigations are provided
[5:01:46] that address the alleged
[5:01:46] adverse impacts on public
[5:01:50] health or safety and the city
[5:01:51] denies the project, what are
[5:01:51] the potential legal
[5:01:54] consequences and trigger of
[5:01:59] the builder's remedy statutes
[5:01:59] if challenged?
[5:02:04] A court could find that
[5:02:04] the city is out of compliance
[5:02:05] with the act.
[5:02:09] There would be a mandatory
[5:02:09] order to go back and be in
[5:02:10] compliance with the Act which
[5:02:14] could include the city being
[5:02:15] required to approve
[5:02:15] the project.
[5:02:19] Mandatory attorneys fees and
[5:02:20] costs and possibly fines.
[5:02:24] >> Thank you for that
[5:02:24] clarification.
[5:02:25] >> Lastly, your office did
[5:02:28] prepare a memorandum regarding
[5:02:29] footnote seven.
[5:02:30] Can you confirm that has
[5:02:33] indicated further memorandum?
[5:02:34] No evidence has been provided
[5:02:35] to date indicating that
[5:02:38] Footnote seven violates federal
[5:02:39] and state equal protection, due
[5:02:39] process and fair housing laws.
[5:02:43] >> Yes, that is correct.
[5:02:44] >> That memo is in the backup
[5:02:45] materials for this item also.
[5:02:48] Thank you for that
[5:02:49] clarification.
[5:02:50] >> With that I'll move on to my
[5:02:53] questions regarding the appeal
[5:02:54] before us today.
[5:02:58] I will start with city staff.
[5:02:59] Some of this is noted in
[5:03:03] the staff report that I think
[5:03:04] was done that that is quite
[5:03:07] thorough but it is a proposed
[5:03:07] development site in the current
[5:03:08] adopted general plan indicated
[5:03:12] as being a park.
[5:03:13] It is not indicated as a park
[5:03:16] in the general plan.
[5:03:17] >> Thank you for that.
[5:03:21] Does the proposed project far
[5:03:22] exceed the 024 dwelling units
[5:03:26] per acre density for which
[5:03:26] the site is owned?
[5:03:31] A clarification on that
[5:03:31] The site is zoned different but
[5:03:32] it is within the density that
[5:03:36] is allowed within the community
[5:03:37] plan which allows up to four
[5:03:38] dwelling units per acre which
[5:03:38] would equal for this project
[5:03:41] site.
[5:03:42] 125 units and they're proposing
[5:03:42] 123.
[5:03:45] Thank you for that
[5:03:46] clarification.
[5:03:46] Is the proposed project
[5:03:50] inconsistent with the 2015
[5:03:51] Choice Valley Community Plan as
[5:03:55] shown in staff's presentation?
[5:03:56] The project is consistent with
[5:03:59] I would say a majority of
[5:04:00] the applicable regulations
[5:04:00] related to residential
[5:04:01] development.
[5:04:04] >> So it meets general
[5:04:04] conformance.
[5:04:05] It is in general conformance.
[5:04:05] Yes sir.
[5:04:09] Thank you.
[5:04:10] >> And I will ask this again Is
[5:04:11] the 0 to 4 dwelling units per
[5:04:14] acre density consistent with
[5:04:15] the density of the existing of
[5:04:19] the existing development around
[5:04:19] the proposed development site?
[5:04:24] It is consistent with
[5:04:25] the developments located to
[5:04:25] the north, south and west.
[5:04:28] It would differ from
[5:04:29] the development the existing
[5:04:30] residential dwelling units that
[5:04:33] are located to the east.
[5:04:33] >> Thank you for that.
[5:04:34] It has been alleged that
[5:04:38] the proposed project site is an
[5:04:39] indigenous Cuzmy burial site.
[5:04:43] Is this accurate?
[5:04:44] And can you elaborate on
[5:04:45] the city's environmental review
[5:04:48] and tribal consultation process
[5:04:49] and what has been done for this
[5:04:49] project to date and what will
[5:04:52] take place if the project moves
[5:04:53] forward?
[5:04:53] Today an archeological report
[5:04:57] was prepared for the project
[5:04:58] site and there was no evidence
[5:05:02] of any former burial sites
[5:05:03] located on the site and what
[5:05:07] will take place moving forward.
[5:05:08] If this site if this project
[5:05:12] moves forward in regards to
[5:05:17] archeological mitigation So
[5:05:17] the project per municipal code,
[5:05:21] the project per municipal code
[5:05:22] requirements would be required
[5:05:22] to have archeological
[5:05:25] monitoring on site during
[5:05:30] grading operations.
[5:05:30] Thank you for that.
[5:05:31] So there'll be onsite
[5:05:35] monitoring through the process.
[5:05:36] Can you explain what happens if
[5:05:38] there is a potentially a
[5:05:43] finding?
[5:05:44] If there is we would be city
[5:05:47] staff would be notified and
[5:05:48] then we would contact
[5:05:52] the applicable Native American
[5:05:53] tribes for continued inspection
[5:05:56] on the site.
[5:06:01] Thank you for that.
[5:06:02] >> My next question is in
[5:06:06] regards to the development
[5:06:07] impact fees.
[5:06:07] Do we know what the total
[5:06:08] estimated amount of development
[5:06:12] impact fees for this project?
[5:06:16] What they will be approximately
[5:06:17] The impact fees are calculated
[5:06:18] at the time of submittal for
[5:06:22] ministerial building permits.
[5:06:23] But at this at this time we
[5:06:23] have estimated that the impact
[5:06:27] fees would be roughly.
[5:06:31] Sorry to say it's 3.3.4.
[5:06:32] I'm sorry we've got some error
[5:06:37] here from planning that could
[5:06:37] answer that.
[5:06:38] Good afternoon everyone.
[5:06:38] I'm semi-rural with Stonebridge
[5:06:41] director with City Planning.
[5:06:42] The estimated development and
[5:06:42] practice with this project is
[5:06:43] around $3.5 million.
[5:06:45] About 3.5.
[5:06:46] And can you let me can you
[5:06:50] indicate what types of projects
[5:06:51] or infrastructure improvements
[5:06:55] can these funds be used
[5:06:55] towards?
[5:06:56] >> This project would be
[5:07:00] subject to citywide fees and
[5:07:01] under that it's for different
[5:07:01] asset types of mobility fire
[5:07:03] libraries and parks.
[5:07:08] Thank you for that.
[5:07:13] >> The and I think I just
[5:07:14] before I move on from the fees
[5:07:18] and I will I do don't see
[5:07:22] the mayor's representative here
[5:07:23] is quoting here or anyone here.
[5:07:25] I'll address it towards
[5:07:30] the latter part of my comments
[5:07:30] .
[5:07:31] Moving on I do also share our
[5:07:35] concerns about traffic and
[5:07:36] emergency access and
[5:07:36] evacuation.
[5:07:37] And I guess if we have a
[5:07:41] traffic engineer available,
[5:07:41] the 60 year street and
[5:07:42] the proposed developer
[5:07:44] improvements meet the city's
[5:07:45] requirements in the street
[5:07:45] design manual.
[5:07:49] We have a member of our
[5:07:49] transportation staff that can
[5:07:54] answer that question.
[5:07:55] >> Hi, my name is Megalith.
[5:07:55] I'm an associate traffic
[5:07:56] engineer with development
[5:07:59] services and yes Project Access
[5:08:00] in 60th Street meets Current
[5:08:06] City Requirements.
[5:08:06] Thank you for that.
[5:08:07] Also it's my understanding that
[5:08:11] the traffic report indicated
[5:08:12] that two point shy of meeting
[5:08:16] the traffic threshold for
[5:08:16] mitigation.
[5:08:17] Also I understand that
[5:08:17] the proposed development entry
[5:08:21] point will be under signalized
[5:08:22] and will only include a stop
[5:08:26] sign for the vehicles exiting
[5:08:26] the proposed development site.
[5:08:30] Can you let me know Can you
[5:08:31] explain how did the city make
[5:08:35] that determination?
[5:08:36] Sure.
[5:08:36] The project prepared both a
[5:08:37] local mobility analysis which
[5:08:40] is what our operational
[5:08:41] analysis is as well as a vmt
[5:08:45] analysis to evaluate
[5:08:45] the potential significant
[5:08:46] transportation impacts under
[5:08:50] Sequa.
[5:08:50] Under Sequa The project is
[5:08:53] located in Census tract 30.01
[5:08:54] and it would be expected that a
[5:08:57] vmt per capita of 16.9 miles
[5:08:58] per resident.
[5:09:01] Therefore the project would be
[5:09:02] expected to result in a
[5:09:03] significant transportation vmt
[5:09:03] impact.
[5:09:07] The project has selected three
[5:09:07] different mitigation measures
[5:09:08] worth five points and through a
[5:09:12] vmt analysis showed that it
[5:09:13] would be able to bring its
[5:09:13] significant impact down to a
[5:09:17] level of less than
[5:09:18] significance.
[5:09:18] That was the 5.1.
[5:09:19] Sorry Council member If I can
[5:09:21] ask to have to go to the other
[5:09:22] mic and speak a little bit more
[5:09:23] directly into the mic.
[5:09:23] People are having a hard time
[5:09:24] listening.
[5:09:26] I apologize.
[5:09:27] >> Councilmember Thank you.
[5:09:28] Thank you for that.
[5:09:31] And in just so I'm clear, this
[5:09:35] is one of those instances where
[5:09:35] an impact was identified
[5:09:40] mitigation was put in place.
[5:09:40] Correct.
[5:09:44] Therefore continuing to move
[5:09:45] forward in regards to that
[5:09:45] item.
[5:09:46] Correct.
[5:09:46] Yes.
[5:09:46] Thank you.
[5:09:49] That's correct.
[5:09:49] Also there is a minor street
[5:09:54] stop control at the exit of
[5:09:55] what's called Street a on
[5:09:58] the development plans and 60th
[5:09:58] Street.
[5:09:59] And that is an appropriate
[5:09:59] traffic control for this type
[5:10:03] of development.
[5:10:04] And that's why staff did not
[5:10:04] request an always stop analysis
[5:10:08] or a traffic signal to be
[5:10:09] further analyzed.
[5:10:13] >> Thank you for that.
[5:10:17] >> The I guess what I find
[5:10:18] interesting is that
[5:10:19] the representative from Doe
[5:10:22] Horton indicated that
[5:10:23] the current construction
[5:10:27] the current site conditions
[5:10:31] does not meet certain standards
[5:10:32] that it should meet.
[5:10:32] >> Is that correct?
[5:10:36] I guess that's correct.
[5:10:37] Can you explain in more detail
[5:10:42] what that means?
[5:10:43] Yeah, I can I can you can watch
[5:10:46] your staff or myself.
[5:10:47] Staff or the staff can take it.
[5:10:48] Okay.
[5:10:52] So the project is going to be
[5:10:52] Regrading 60th Street.
[5:10:56] And because of the new crates
[5:10:57] that are going to be on
[5:10:58] the road as well as the roadway
[5:11:02] widening as a fix But as MR.
[5:11:02] Boyd explained, the road is
[5:11:05] going to be widened by
[5:11:05] approximately 18ft and there's
[5:11:06] going to be additional Parkway
[5:11:09] as well as dg Granite and a
[5:11:10] trail easement.
[5:11:11] So when we look at project
[5:11:15] exits such as the Street Out
[5:11:15] and 16th Street we do a site
[5:11:19] distance analysis and that's to
[5:11:19] make sure there's adequate site
[5:11:20] distance both for vehicles
[5:11:21] turning left out of the project
[5:11:24] exit as well as turning right.
[5:11:25] Thank you for that.
[5:11:29] I will now move on to the fire
[5:11:29] marshal's fire marshal
[5:11:33] available.
[5:11:34] >> We do have a staff member
[5:11:35] from the fire department
[5:11:36] available to speak online.
[5:11:38] Okay.
[5:11:38] >> Very good.
[5:11:39] Good afternoon, everybody.
[5:11:43] My name is Tyler Larson,
[5:11:44] supervising deputy fire marshal
[5:11:44] for San Diego Fire Rescue.
[5:11:45] I oversee our new construction
[5:11:48] section and community risk
[5:11:48] reduction.
[5:11:53] So first what specific
[5:11:53] questions do you have as far as
[5:11:55] the emergency access?
[5:11:56] >> Yes.
[5:11:59] Thank you.
[5:12:04] >> So essentially we have for
[5:12:05] this proposed project we have
[5:12:09] the inclusion of a separate
[5:12:10] entrance to the west of
[5:12:10] the proposed development at Ode
[5:12:11] Memory Lane.
[5:12:14] Can you explain how you made
[5:12:15] your determination?
[5:12:18] Because it's my understanding
[5:12:23] that this is in a a very high
[5:12:24] fire hazard severity zone that
[5:12:28] requires two points of I'm
[5:12:32] going to say ingress and egress
[5:12:32] .
[5:12:33] Can you explain how you
[5:12:37] developed or mitigated this
[5:12:38] safety concern?
[5:12:38] >> Yes.
[5:12:42] So this project was proposed
[5:12:43] with two means of ingress and
[5:12:43] egress as shown.
[5:12:48] So per the California Fire Code
[5:12:49] and our local amendments, if if
[5:12:52] a project is located in
[5:12:52] the very high fire severity
[5:12:53] zone and they're proposing more
[5:12:57] than 30 single family dwellings
[5:12:58] to means of access and egress
[5:13:01] for evacuation are required and
[5:13:02] the separation distance is
[5:13:06] greater than half the diagonal
[5:13:07] length of the of property which
[5:13:12] this meets And so it does meet
[5:13:13] current current fire code for
[5:13:16] project see very high fire
[5:13:17] station.
[5:13:17] >> Thank you for that.
[5:13:21] And I guess in regards to
[5:13:21] the second point of ingress and
[5:13:26] egress, how will that be
[5:13:26] managed?
[5:13:27] I heard that the gate will be
[5:13:31] locked so we require four
[5:13:31] gates.
[5:13:35] >> Obviously we need 24 seven
[5:13:36] access to two developments that
[5:13:36] are gated For us
[5:13:41] the requirements are a Knox key
[5:13:41] switch which the Knox Keys
[5:13:42] carried on every fire engine
[5:13:45] truck and battalion chief
[5:13:45] apparatus.
[5:13:50] So coming into the property
[5:13:51] fire department will have
[5:13:51] access.
[5:13:54] However, the hoa or whoever
[5:13:55] buys this this property as far
[5:13:56] as however they want to
[5:14:00] maintain their their public or
[5:14:01] their I'm sorry the resident
[5:14:04] access whether it's a key FOBs
[5:14:05] keypad or anything like that we
[5:14:09] will still have a separate 24/7
[5:14:10] access for the fire department
[5:14:15] as far as egress in case of
[5:14:18] evacuation.
[5:14:19] This usually involves an
[5:14:20] underground sensor that
[5:14:24] automatically opens the gates.
[5:14:25] There's other technology out
[5:14:30] there but typically we see, you
[5:14:30] know, a sensor that that reads
[5:14:31] the vehicle and its weight and
[5:14:34] everything like that.
[5:14:35] So that will automatically open
[5:14:35] up the gates for for residents
[5:14:38] coming out.
[5:14:39] >> So the hoa will have access
[5:14:43] to how the gate will be
[5:14:44] operated for the residents in
[5:14:45] the development.
[5:14:49] Is that my is that my
[5:14:50] understanding that Yes.
[5:14:54] And once then we we will review
[5:14:55] in the ministerial the building
[5:14:55] construction permit phase as
[5:15:00] well so we can work out details
[5:15:00] as far as exactly where
[5:15:01] the sensor is going to be And
[5:15:04] in those that those those fine
[5:15:05] details But typically as they
[5:15:06] will decide on that but we were
[5:15:09] we will required because it's
[5:15:10] in a very high fire severity
[5:15:10] zone.
[5:15:14] Okay ease of fitness.
[5:15:14] >> Thank you for that.
[5:15:15] The other issue that has been
[5:15:19] brought up as we are as we are
[5:15:19] adding a 123 additional homes
[5:15:23] in the area, the concern about
[5:15:28] a fire station, what fire
[5:15:33] station will serve this area?
[5:15:34] This is really right on
[5:15:34] the border of engineer.
[5:15:39] I'm sorry Station 12 and
[5:15:43] Station 2626 is is closer and
[5:15:44] will probably respond first but
[5:15:47] it's right on right on
[5:15:48] the border of both districts
[5:15:49] And there's also to the south
[5:15:53] east of this project there is a
[5:15:53] station 51.
[5:15:58] So like with any any new
[5:15:59] development will absorb it as
[5:16:00] far as meeting the response
[5:16:03] times and there's also two
[5:16:07] planned fire stations one on
[5:16:08] Fairmont and one in Encanto I
[5:16:13] believe once it's 65th and
[5:16:14] Broadway that that's less than
[5:16:14] a mile away from
[5:16:18] the development.
[5:16:19] >> That's a that's a future
[5:16:19] fire station company as well.
[5:16:22] Question for you.
[5:16:23] I know at one point in time
[5:16:24] there were response time
[5:16:28] concerns and there I believe it
[5:16:29] was Squad 55, a two man squad
[5:16:34] that was put in place.
[5:16:35] I want to say that they were
[5:16:39] housed at the By Contractors
[5:16:40] Association.
[5:16:40] I want to say they moved from
[5:16:43] there, went to Station 51 but
[5:16:44] then I believe they were
[5:16:48] relocated to downtown.
[5:16:49] Is there any concern in regards
[5:16:54] to response times and the need
[5:16:54] to bring that I guess you
[5:16:55] termed it as a rapid response
[5:16:55] type unit.
[5:16:59] Has that been discussed or
[5:17:00] determined or would that be
[5:17:04] looked at as we continue to go
[5:17:05] through the permitting process
[5:17:06] that's ongoing analysis as far
[5:17:10] as response times in general?
[5:17:11] Typically what I've seen with
[5:17:16] those squads is they'll respond
[5:17:17] with an engine or a trucking
[5:17:21] incident So I just want to
[5:17:22] speak on a high level.
[5:17:27] You know, we will absorb, you
[5:17:28] know, project as proposed and
[5:17:36] still be response times
[5:17:36] obviously that you know, at a
[5:17:37] high level we're continually
[5:17:38] continuously looking at
[5:17:41] response times with increased
[5:17:42] populations in general But
[5:17:46] the simple answer is we'll be
[5:17:47] able to meet response times
[5:17:48] with the current resources we
[5:17:48] have.
[5:17:48] >> All right.
[5:17:53] Thank you for that Before you
[5:17:54] continue.
[5:17:54] >> COUNCILMAN Fox is going to
[5:17:58] need a little bit more time or
[5:17:59] some member of roster Excuse me
[5:17:59] Councilmember Random.
[5:18:04] Thank you for seeding time And
[5:18:09] I guess I'll move on down to
[5:18:14] the developer and I guess MR.
[5:18:20] Boyd if you can address your
[5:18:21] plan to mitigate any additional
[5:18:26] water runoff you've touched
[5:18:26] upon it during your
[5:18:27] presentation but can you just
[5:18:28] elaborate quickly on how you
[5:18:31] plan to do that?
[5:18:32] Yes, sir.
[5:18:32] During the course of
[5:18:33] construction will be installing
[5:18:37] the storm drain improvements on
[5:18:38] site that include three bio
[5:18:39] filter basins that collect
[5:18:44] water clean water to dissipate
[5:18:44] water.
[5:18:45] In addition to that, we're
[5:18:45] going to have your urban
[5:18:46] gathering permits which collect
[5:18:50] rainwater anticipate two city
[5:18:50] designated systems.
[5:18:51] From that standpoint, the extra
[5:18:56] measures that we're doing is
[5:18:56] are these viable dishes that
[5:18:57] are going to be placed on
[5:18:58] the south and the northern
[5:18:58] perimeters.
[5:19:02] So in the event we have
[5:19:02] landscaping water runoff we're
[5:19:03] going to be ditch and not
[5:19:07] impact the properties below.
[5:19:08] Thank you so much for that.
[5:19:08] Stay there.
[5:19:13] Also just wanted to touch upon
[5:19:19] the community engagement.
[5:19:19] You had a slide.
[5:19:24] You had a slide as part of your
[5:19:25] presentation and you mentioned
[5:19:30] that you did quite a bit of
[5:19:30] outreach.
[5:19:31] Can you elaborate a little more
[5:19:32] on just what that entailed?
[5:19:37] I myself have observed you at
[5:19:43] The Current Memorials park
[5:19:43] where certain events would be
[5:19:44] taking place.
[5:19:48] You were out there with your
[5:19:48] team.
[5:19:49] You would have a table.
[5:19:49] You would have your conceptual
[5:19:50] drawings.
[5:19:54] I know you were meeting with
[5:19:55] folks in their garages and
[5:19:55] having several conversations.
[5:20:00] I want to say over probably
[5:20:01] about four but about four years
[5:20:02] or so.
[5:20:02] Is that accurate?
[5:20:03] That's very accurate.
[5:20:03] Yes, sir.
[5:20:07] And can you and I guess just
[5:20:11] what I would like to do I have
[5:20:12] some correspondence here that I
[5:20:13] would like to also add to
[5:20:18] the record is title
[5:20:19] correspondence number nine.
[5:20:19] And it looks like it's an email
[5:20:23] that you sent to me that was
[5:20:28] included as part of a 20 4-6639
[5:20:28] that was actually submitted by
[5:20:33] MR. Rob Campbell.
[5:20:34] And I want to say that it looks
[5:20:35] like it says and I'll read it
[5:20:36] into the record Sunday we are
[5:20:40] meeting with a number of
[5:20:40] homeowners to discuss certain
[5:20:41] concerns namely drainage.
[5:20:46] We are confident we can address
[5:20:47] Kenneth Key who was the very
[5:20:52] vocal resident who has
[5:20:52] coordinated this effort.
[5:20:53] We have developed a very
[5:20:53] positive relationship.
[5:20:57] He seems to be better
[5:20:57] understanding of the project
[5:20:58] and need for housing.
[5:21:03] Next we two are meeting with
[5:21:04] DR. Sams and her folks to tour
[5:21:04] certain areas of
[5:21:05] the neighborhood to get our
[5:21:08] marketing interest with
[5:21:09] potential rehabilitation.
[5:21:09] She desires to prepare a
[5:21:15] positive written statement
[5:21:15] listing all the reasons to
[5:21:16] support the project.
[5:21:16] She also is asking for Horton
[5:21:20] to be a financial supporter of
[5:21:21] local charity events.
[5:21:22] Lastly, as previously noted we
[5:21:26] are open to provide a formal
[5:21:27] council update at any time.
[5:21:31] >> So can you just just quickly
[5:21:32] just how much outreach did you
[5:21:32] do?
[5:21:38] >> a whole lot over a period of
[5:21:38] 12 months.
[5:21:39] Over a period of four years.
[5:21:43] Our outreach never stopped.
[5:21:44] No matter what process stage we
[5:21:45] were at, we went into living
[5:21:45] rooms.
[5:21:50] We met with folks, we attended
[5:21:50] community affairs.
[5:21:51] We attended community events by
[5:21:56] nature and we felt it was
[5:21:56] important to meet with
[5:21:57] the opposition.
[5:21:57] We had coffees.
[5:21:58] We sat down with a few of
[5:22:02] the folks here that spoke
[5:22:02] against the project that we
[5:22:03] came to the coffee shops.
[5:22:04] We answer their questions
[5:22:08] the best of our ability.
[5:22:08] We never stopped.
[5:22:09] So we continued with that
[5:22:13] community outreach well past
[5:22:14] planning Commission approval
[5:22:15] and we felt that was what
[5:22:15] the community deserved and
[5:22:16] that's what we provided.
[5:22:20] And so we feel very good about
[5:22:20] that.
[5:22:20] Councilmember Foster.
[5:22:21] But I want to be explicitly
[5:22:25] clear there was not a phone
[5:22:26] call or an opportunity that I
[5:22:26] personally did not MISS.
[5:22:31] I have come down to San Diego
[5:22:31] from Orange County.
[5:22:37] Time after time after time on
[5:22:37] moment's notice we took
[5:22:38] advantage of every opportunity
[5:22:43] we could get Our project facts
[5:22:44] out on the street.
[5:22:48] And yes, the rhetoric of
[5:22:49] the note seven consumed all of
[5:22:49] us.
[5:22:50] And what I tried to do in my
[5:22:55] community outreach was let us
[5:22:55] divorce ourselves from reality.
[5:22:56] But note seven issue which is
[5:22:56] long gone.
[5:23:00] And let's focus on the merits
[5:23:01] of this project.
[5:23:01] I will be honest with you.
[5:23:02] That was a challenge.
[5:23:07] And frankly speaking we never
[5:23:07] gave up on that.
[5:23:08] >> Thank you for that.
[5:23:12] With that I'll go back to city
[5:23:12] staff.
[5:23:13] Thank you.
[5:23:19] Just want to touch base on
[5:23:19] the diff.
[5:23:20] I think we have the director of
[5:23:20] planning here.
[5:23:24] Can you elaborate on
[5:23:25] the potential fees that will
[5:23:26] come in from this project how
[5:23:31] those can be utilized?
[5:23:31] >> Yes.
[5:23:36] So citywide fees do go into
[5:23:36] citywide funds.
[5:23:37] They do go through this vip
[5:23:38] prioritization process that is
[5:23:42] spelled out in Council policy
[5:23:43] 814 for prioritization.
[5:23:47] But Councilmember certainly
[5:23:48] upon your request we're happy
[5:23:49] to work with your office and to
[5:23:49] see how we can prioritize
[5:23:54] funding for projects within
[5:23:54] your community.
[5:23:55] We don't tie specific funds to
[5:24:00] specific projects in this
[5:24:01] particular example.
[5:24:02] I would imagine that there
[5:24:06] would be a larger funding pool
[5:24:07] available for investments in
[5:24:08] your community rather than just
[5:24:13] simply identifying the specific
[5:24:13] funds to be paid from this
[5:24:14] particular project.
[5:24:18] I appreciate that and if this
[5:24:19] project does pass today then we
[5:24:20] will definitely have to have
[5:24:25] those conversations to make
[5:24:26] sure that the needs of
[5:24:26] the community are met.
[5:24:32] We can all agree that there is
[5:24:32] work to do infrastructure
[5:24:33] updates and that type of of
[5:24:38] work that needs to take place.
[5:24:39] >> Absolutely, Councilmember
[5:24:39] And we're happy to work with
[5:24:40] your office.
[5:24:40] I do want to note that in all
[5:24:43] impact fees are paid at
[5:24:44] the time of final inspection so
[5:24:45] there MAY be some lag before
[5:24:49] the revenue hits the city.
[5:24:49] But we're happy to have
[5:24:50] continued conversations to
[5:24:51] identify capital improvement
[5:24:55] projects in your community and
[5:24:56] beginning with the next
[5:24:57] upcoming city budget process.
[5:24:57] Thanks.
[5:24:57] All right.
[5:25:01] Thank you for that.
[5:25:02] I think I'm going to try and
[5:25:02] wrap up here.
[5:25:06] Looks like I have a minute and
[5:25:06] 35 seconds left.
[5:25:07] There there are several more
[5:25:13] questions that I did come with
[5:25:13] but I think one is my boss If
[5:25:19] you need additional time, I'm
[5:25:19] happy to do so because I do
[5:25:23] think I do think what I would
[5:25:30] like to do is I guess that
[5:25:31] okay.
[5:25:31] >> Do we have to do this again?
[5:25:35] This is routine business for
[5:25:36] the city council If you haven't
[5:25:37] been here each allotted eight
[5:25:42] minutes and if a council fellow
[5:25:43] council member needs more time
[5:25:43] we give them more time.
[5:25:47] COUNCILMAN Weprin gave up five
[5:25:48] minutes so he doesn't get those
[5:25:48] five minutes back.
[5:25:49] Gotham Arena Council member Von
[5:25:53] Wilpert gave up that time so
[5:25:53] that the lead councilmember for
[5:25:54] this district can have his
[5:25:58] opportunity.
[5:25:59] This is routine business.
[5:26:00] We do it all the time so please
[5:26:04] bear with us.
[5:26:05] Thank you.
[5:26:05] Council PRESIDENT I guess I'll
[5:26:10] try to end and wrap this up But
[5:26:16] I guess also as I look at
[5:26:17] the appeal it looks like
[5:26:22] the appellate I'm actually
[5:26:22] attached the complaint
[5:26:29] regarding a similar project,
[5:26:29] the Clover Project to
[5:26:30] the appeal.
[5:26:35] Is that correct?
[5:26:35] >> Yes.
[5:26:36] Yes.
[5:26:36] That is part of the appeal
[5:26:42] package And I would like to say
[5:26:42] or if I understand what was
[5:26:43] provided a lot of that had to
[5:26:48] do with footnote seven correct?
[5:26:54] That is accurate And then I
[5:26:54] received a recent update from
[5:26:55] the city Attorney's office.
[5:26:56] It's my understanding that
[5:26:59] the joint Valley Planning Group
[5:27:00] has determined that they wanted
[5:27:05] to dismiss and settle
[5:27:05] the litigation.
[5:27:06] Is that correct?
[5:27:06] Yes, that is correct.
[5:27:11] And has that agreement been
[5:27:11] finalized?
[5:27:12] My understanding is that it's
[5:27:13] all been signed.
[5:27:13] There MAY be some lingering
[5:27:18] signatures but it has been
[5:27:23] settled So essentially that
[5:27:31] complaint is basically done or
[5:27:32] null and void I guess I'll say
[5:27:33] or I don't know what the I
[5:27:33] don't know to turn
[5:27:36] the settlement side for
[5:27:37] the settlement and
[5:27:38] the plaintiff agrees to dismiss
[5:27:38] the lawsuit.
[5:27:43] The city will not pay any funds
[5:27:49] and agrees to waive seeking any
[5:27:49] attorney's fees and costs
[5:27:50] associated with that.
[5:27:50] >> Okay.
[5:27:55] Thank you for that.
[5:27:56] I guess my final question would
[5:27:56] be because they attach that to
[5:28:01] the appeal, does that impact
[5:28:01] the appeal at all?
[5:28:02] No, it doesn't impact
[5:28:05] the appeal.
[5:28:06] I think that my understanding
[5:28:07] is that it was included to
[5:28:12] support their arguments.
[5:28:12] >> Okay.
[5:28:13] Thank you for that.
[5:28:18] I guess in I don't know if this
[5:28:19] is proper but if we can make
[5:28:24] the settlement agreement part
[5:28:25] of the legislative record as
[5:28:26] backup for this item.
[5:28:31] >> Yes, it's the public record.
[5:28:31] >> Okay.
[5:28:34] We'll note that as
[5:28:35] correspondence number ten.
[5:28:35] >> Thank you.
[5:28:40] I'll conclude I'll conclude
[5:28:41] here.
[5:28:41] But based on the administrative
[5:28:47] record and the information
[5:28:48] provided today, the appellant
[5:28:53] has not met the required
[5:28:54] standards for sb 330 for this
[5:28:54] Council to grant the appeal
[5:28:59] before us today.
[5:29:00] The appellant did not provide
[5:29:01] the proper evidence indicating
[5:29:01] the project would have any
[5:29:06] specific adverse impact on
[5:29:07] public health or safety and
[5:29:07] that there was no other
[5:29:08] feasible method to
[5:29:12] satisfactorily mitigate or
[5:29:12] avoid the alleged adverse
[5:29:13] impacts.
[5:29:18] So essentially the impacts
[5:29:19] identified all have been
[5:29:24] appropriately appropriately
[5:29:24] mitigated.
[5:29:24] Correct?
[5:29:25] That is correct, sir.
[5:29:30] All right.
[5:29:31] >> Thank you for that.
[5:29:32] So with that I will move that
[5:29:37] recommendation to affirm
[5:29:37] the Planning Commission's
[5:29:38] approval of vesting tentative
[5:29:43] map the site development
[5:29:43] permit, the neighborhood
[5:29:44] development permit and
[5:29:47] neighborhood use permit and
[5:29:54] deny the appeal.
[5:29:54] Okay.
[5:29:55] Thanks, Councilmember Foster.
[5:29:56] So we have a motion to move
[5:29:56] the staff recommendation.
[5:29:59] So I'm going to jump in.
[5:30:00] I want to thank everybody that
[5:30:05] spoke today either here at
[5:30:05] Chambers or remotely.
[5:30:06] Thank you for working with
[5:30:07] the city clerk on the organized
[5:30:11] presentations.
[5:30:12] Now that MR. Stop has raised
[5:30:12] the bar for me I have not
[5:30:17] spoken to the developer.
[5:30:17] I did not speak to
[5:30:18] the appellant.
[5:30:23] I did not speak to staff either
[5:30:24] .
[5:30:25] I have reviewed the material
[5:30:25] attached to the docket as well
[5:30:26] as the public comments.
[5:30:29] But if I listen to
[5:30:29] the presentations and comments
[5:30:30] by the public and for those of
[5:30:31] you who know me and I know some
[5:30:34] out there that know me you know
[5:30:35] that I take a pretty deep dive
[5:30:35] when these land use issues come
[5:30:40] in front of us And what I see
[5:30:41] is a project that meets legal
[5:30:42] requirements but raises serious
[5:30:45] questions of city policy
[5:30:46] the questions of park space,
[5:30:47] environmental justice,
[5:30:47] concentration of poverty
[5:30:52] inequity, equitable investment
[5:30:52] in infrastructure, animal
[5:30:53] health community are very valid
[5:30:53] concerns.
[5:30:58] I have a senior council member
[5:30:59] on the dais fighting for these
[5:31:00] issues over and over again and
[5:31:00] I've been so impressed by his
[5:31:04] good fight that oftentimes our
[5:31:04] two council member from
[5:31:05] District one I often find
[5:31:08] myself fighting for District
[5:31:09] four on issues of equity.
[5:31:09] Further, as a former community
[5:31:10] planning group chair, I
[5:31:15] understand that our community
[5:31:16] plans are guiding documents,
[5:31:16] policy documents if you will
[5:31:20] And as residents we want to
[5:31:21] believe they create an
[5:31:21] agreement between the city and
[5:31:22] the community on what shape our
[5:31:27] community's future should take.
[5:31:27] But as I learned when I was
[5:31:28] the community plan chair that
[5:31:32] when I fought and lost and when
[5:31:33] I fought again and lost and
[5:31:34] when I fought again and lost on
[5:31:38] behalf of my community,
[5:31:39] the community plan is only
[5:31:39] policy and guidelines Our
[5:31:43] communities need and therefore
[5:31:44] nothing should be accepted as
[5:31:50] anything driving other than
[5:31:50] what you're willing to step up
[5:31:51] and fight for as you are today.
[5:31:55] Our communities need parks and
[5:31:56] we need advocates to fight for
[5:31:56] them.
[5:31:57] However, on the subject of
[5:32:02] the project we must apply
[5:32:02] the law.
[5:32:03] We must make findings
[5:32:03] the comments about the housing
[5:32:08] accountability Act which I
[5:32:09] appreciate and respect at a
[5:32:10] much higher threshold and we've
[5:32:14] seen that take place not only
[5:32:14] in our city but in cities
[5:32:15] across the county.
[5:32:16] This project has been seen
[5:32:16] right from the day
[5:32:20] the application was deemed
[5:32:21] complete and at that time
[5:32:21] footnote seven was in effect
[5:32:26] and we have since repealed that
[5:32:27] unfortunate addition to our
[5:32:27] municipal code.
[5:32:31] I MAY have policy concerns with
[5:32:32] 20,000 square foot lot so my
[5:32:33] colleagues have spoken out in
[5:32:33] the past about that history of
[5:32:37] large lots But I agree that a
[5:32:38] footnote is not the way it is
[5:32:38] on land.
[5:32:42] Our city attorney is thoroughly
[5:32:43] analyzed this issue in a public
[5:32:44] memo that has been available
[5:32:48] since JANUARY 2025 and which is
[5:32:48] included in the backup material
[5:32:49] based on that memo and based on
[5:32:54] existing case law regarding
[5:32:54] vested rights, I cannot set
[5:32:55] aside footnote seven for this
[5:32:59] project as many of you would
[5:33:00] think on the merits of
[5:33:01] the project itself as laid out
[5:33:05] compelling reasons for how this
[5:33:06] project complies with
[5:33:07] the general plan community plan
[5:33:07] and with the zoning regulations
[5:33:11] as they existed at the time of
[5:33:12] the application was deemed
[5:33:12] complete and I have not seen
[5:33:13] any compelling evidence that
[5:33:17] raises to that legal standard
[5:33:18] in the record that convinces me
[5:33:19] otherwise.
[5:33:23] The appellant's original appeal
[5:33:24] documents the claims,
[5:33:25] the waivers conflict with our
[5:33:25] state policies but I do not see
[5:33:30] sufficient evidence in
[5:33:31] the record to Lively's waivers
[5:33:31] as they center on
[5:33:32] the previously debated issues
[5:33:34] of Footnote seven and
[5:33:34] consistency with the general
[5:33:35] plan and community plan.
[5:33:39] So I have two quick questions
[5:33:40] that I want to make sure that I
[5:33:41] understand on this project and
[5:33:45] MR. Boyd or staff whoever wants
[5:33:45] to answer that let me give you
[5:33:46] the easy one.
[5:33:51] The secondary access does have
[5:33:51] gates as was clearly described
[5:33:52] by the fire marshal but
[5:33:57] pedestrian access is allowed
[5:33:57] That is correct or
[5:33:58] the secondary.
[5:33:58] That is correct.
[5:34:01] And then the other one we've
[5:34:02] talked a lot about it but I
[5:34:05] want some confirmation there
[5:34:06] are 13 deed restricted lots to
[5:34:06] be located.
[5:34:11] Where are they going to be
[5:34:12] located in the 423 unit project
[5:34:15] per your housing commission
[5:34:16] requirements Those 13 units
[5:34:17] must be equally distributed
[5:34:17] throughout the entire project.
[5:34:23] They will not be concentrated
[5:34:24] in certain places.
[5:34:24] They will not.
[5:34:24] Okay.
[5:34:25] Thank you for what I suspect
[5:34:25] of.
[5:34:27] I thank you for confirming
[5:34:28] that.
[5:34:28] So with that based on my
[5:34:29] independent analysis I believe
[5:34:30] the findings of the project are
[5:34:33] supported and I will second
[5:34:34] the motion for the staff
[5:34:34] recommendation.
[5:34:40] So with that we will go to
[5:34:40] Council Member Campo Thank you
[5:34:41] Council PRESIDENT Thank you to
[5:34:42] the members of the public for
[5:34:45] their participation today and
[5:34:46] for our city staff as well and
[5:34:47] the long effort that this took.
[5:34:47] I'll start with some brief
[5:34:51] questions.
[5:34:52] One of the first ones that
[5:34:53] seems pretty straightforward
[5:34:58] about the notice it had to be
[5:34:58] notice was JUNE 22nd, correct?
[5:34:59] That is correct.
[5:34:59] Okay.
[5:35:03] And were posters with or
[5:35:04] posters or PDFs on Internet
[5:35:08] sites or anything like that
[5:35:09] posted on JUNE 22nd Seeing this
[5:35:15] index of where it was posted at
[5:35:15] the site and all that seems to
[5:35:16] suggest it was later than that
[5:35:20] But I'm wondering what evidence
[5:35:20] you have.
[5:35:21] The project was properly
[5:35:21] noticed.
[5:35:22] Notices were mailed out as
[5:35:25] required.
[5:35:26] It was also posted on the City
[5:35:27] Council's website and then
[5:35:32] distributed to through the San
[5:35:33] Diego daily transcript.
[5:35:33] At the same time the applicant
[5:35:38] was also sent their notice
[5:35:41] which I confirm received on
[5:35:42] Friday JUNE 26th and then they
[5:35:43] followed up by posting
[5:35:47] the notice on the project site
[5:35:48] on JUNE 29th when they
[5:35:48] submitted their evidence of
[5:35:53] posting I noticed that
[5:35:54] the posting had the wrong
[5:35:54] header on it and immediately
[5:35:55] notified the applicant to
[5:35:59] correct the header and make it
[5:36:00] so that it was visible that it
[5:36:05] was a notice of public hearing
[5:36:06] for city council.
[5:36:07] i see so I can get my city
[5:36:10] clerk wants to read it.
[5:36:10] Sorry I did just want to
[5:36:11] confirm that my office did do
[5:36:12] the notice saying we have
[5:36:15] the mail certificate as well as
[5:36:16] the mail stands for everything
[5:36:16] that we know as well as I've
[5:36:17] seen on public postings such as
[5:36:20] Reddit that people did receive
[5:36:21] these postings and we also
[5:36:21] received that as well as
[5:36:22] the daily transcript.
[5:36:26] My office did do that as well.
[5:36:27] >> Thank you Council PRESIDENT.
[5:36:28] I know my time is running at
[5:36:31] the at the moment I understood
[5:36:32] So the city did its part.
[5:36:33] >> It sounds like a developer
[5:36:36] had to put their notice up on
[5:36:37] the fence as well.
[5:36:37] That is correct.
[5:36:38] Okay.
[5:36:39] If they are faulty but we're in
[5:36:42] compliance as a city, does that
[5:36:43] impact them process at all?
[5:36:44] >> It does not.
[5:36:46] The municipal code has a
[5:36:47] section that speaks to errant
[5:36:48] posting stating that
[5:36:52] the posting required by the by
[5:36:52] the section is intended only to
[5:36:53] supplement other noticing
[5:36:54] requirements of this division.
[5:36:58] Understood.
[5:36:59] So their problem is not a
[5:37:03] legally valid problem is what
[5:37:04] you're telling me that is
[5:37:04] correct.
[5:37:05] Okay.
[5:37:05] That that municipal code I take
[5:37:09] it is there's not a broader
[5:37:10] concern about that or it's just
[5:37:10] municipal code.
[5:37:14] Is that an adoption of state
[5:37:15] code or is that just our city
[5:37:16] law That is our city
[5:37:19] regulations.
[5:37:19] Okay, Very good.
[5:37:20] All right.
[5:37:20] Question for the city
[5:37:24] attorney's office.
[5:37:25] Footnote seven obviously
[5:37:25] applies as the law When this
[5:37:29] development was completed its
[5:37:32] application So the date it was
[5:37:38] vested on just because it's
[5:37:38] vested it's a complete
[5:37:41] application that doesn't mean
[5:37:42] that we can't deny the project
[5:37:47] right?
[5:37:48] >> Councilmember You can deny
[5:37:51] the project however it needs to
[5:37:52] You need to make those specific
[5:37:53] written findings in order
[5:38:00] Tonight I understood Okay.
[5:38:00] One of the aspects that came up
[5:38:01] was was some of the fire issues
[5:38:02] I know we had the response from
[5:38:07] the fire marshal and it was on
[5:38:08] one of the slides It said
[5:38:12] the appeal pointed out a lack
[5:38:13] of an analysis and then
[5:38:14] the slide said it did not
[5:38:14] trigger an analysis.
[5:38:18] Am I reading that correct?
[5:38:18] That is correct.
[5:38:19] That project did not trigger
[5:38:20] further analysis.
[5:38:22] Okay.
[5:38:23] Why didn't it trigger further
[5:38:23] analysis?
[5:38:24] Because the project is
[5:38:27] consistent with the community
[5:38:28] plan density that was
[5:38:32] prescribed from the 2015
[5:38:32] Community Plan update
[5:38:33] Furthermore, it was previously
[5:38:33] also identified as residential
[5:38:37] development in the prior 1987
[5:38:37] Community Plan.
[5:38:40] Okay then the 2015 Community
[5:38:41] Plan update not have
[5:38:44] the density is rs one seven it
[5:38:45] was rs12 at the time it had
[5:38:49] the prescribed density for
[5:38:50] affordable units per acre.
[5:38:50] The rs17 is a zoning
[5:38:55] designation not identified in
[5:38:55] the community plan.
[5:38:56] Okay so slightly different
[5:38:59] thing.
[5:39:00] Explain that a little further.
[5:39:04] So you're saying there's a
[5:39:05] sense you said that's very
[5:39:05] legally important.
[5:39:09] You said the development is in
[5:39:09] conformance with the 2015 plan
[5:39:13] community plan.
[5:39:14] >> That is correct.
[5:39:14] Okay.
[5:39:15] So the fact that they're taking
[5:39:19] advantage of deeper density as
[5:39:22] allowed under footnote seven is
[5:39:23] immaterial to a determination
[5:39:27] if it needs or triggers a
[5:39:27] public safety analysis.
[5:39:31] A report from the fire marshal
[5:39:32] That is correct because it has
[5:39:32] consistency with the prescribed
[5:39:37] community plan density.
[5:39:37] Okay.
[5:39:38] So the community plan density
[5:39:41] is what you set forth to all
[5:39:42] for polling units per acre.
[5:39:45] Footnote seven said the lot
[5:39:49] sizes are 5000 at rs one to as
[5:39:49] opposed to 20,000.
[5:39:50] That doesn't seem to line up
[5:39:50] very well.
[5:39:54] Can you explain it with with
[5:39:57] the calculation so 43,000ft
[5:40:01] per acre and 5000 foot lots
[5:40:02] that would make them match up
[5:40:06] so they would match up with
[5:40:07] each other at four dwelling
[5:40:07] units per acre?
[5:40:07] Okay.
[5:40:12] My understanding is that so
[5:40:13] this parcel of land is it not
[5:40:15] rs one two or it is it is
[5:40:15] currently zoned rs one two
[5:40:16] Correct.
[5:40:17] Okay.
[5:40:22] Understood.
[5:40:23] Let me ask you a question about
[5:40:26] the some of the variances that
[5:40:27] the applicant has asked for.
[5:40:28] It looks like the materials
[5:40:31] from Planning Commission show
[5:40:32] that there's 123 residential
[5:40:35] lots and 107 of them exceed
[5:40:35] the city's maximum driveway
[5:40:39] curb opening standard.
[5:40:40] >> Can you explain what that
[5:40:44] means That was proposed so that
[5:40:45] they would be able to have two
[5:40:48] vehicles parked in the driveway
[5:40:49] and our regulations would limit
[5:40:53] the driveway with opening to
[5:40:53] 20ft where they're requesting
[5:40:54] 22ft.
[5:40:58] >> Okay.
[5:40:59] Does that have any impact on
[5:40:59] fire safety?
[5:41:00] Does that have any impact on
[5:41:02] public safety?
[5:41:03] That would require a deeper
[5:41:03] analysis.
[5:41:07] It sounds to me like we're
[5:41:08] deviating from something that
[5:41:08] is required citywide and
[5:41:12] allowing a special adjustment
[5:41:12] here.
[5:41:13] >> It would actually
[5:41:13] the purpose of it would be
[5:41:17] actually to remove vehicles
[5:41:17] from city streets, right?
[5:41:22] So that would make more
[5:41:22] availability onto the streets
[5:41:23] and bring those vehicles onto
[5:41:24] private property.
[5:41:24] Okay.
[5:41:29] Understood.
[5:41:32] Let's really let's talk about
[5:41:33] the 2015 programatic year for a
[5:41:37] second.
[5:41:42] >> Is that the basis for which
[5:41:42] there wasn't the is that part
[5:41:43] of the answer to why there
[5:41:47] wasn't the additional public
[5:41:47] safety analysis that that
[5:41:51] that's the programmatic air was
[5:41:52] part of the community plan
[5:41:56] update that you talked about in
[5:41:56] 2015, correct?
[5:41:57] That is correct.
[5:41:57] And we do have environmental
[5:42:01] staff here that reviewed
[5:42:02] the project that would be
[5:42:02] answer that will be able to
[5:42:05] answer more detailed questions
[5:42:06] .
[5:42:10] Okay.
[5:42:11] Hi, this is Donna marshall with
[5:42:11] Environmental Analysis Section
[5:42:15] of dsd.
[5:42:16] >> Can you repeat your
[5:42:16] question?
[5:42:16] I'm sorry.
[5:42:20] Certainly So one of the reasons
[5:42:20] we're not seeing a deeper
[5:42:24] public safety analysis or
[5:42:25] report that wasn't triggered is
[5:42:25] because of the saying
[5:42:26] the application is in
[5:42:29] conformance with the 2015
[5:42:30] community plan And there's a
[5:42:34] programmatic air that went with
[5:42:35] that community plan, correct?
[5:42:35] Correct.
[5:42:35] Okay.
[5:42:39] So we're using that air at that
[5:42:43] time to set the environmental
[5:42:44] standards for this area.
[5:42:44] >> Correct.
[5:42:48] And this project was reviewed
[5:42:53] under that program air Correct
[5:42:53] .
[5:42:54] >> Okay.
[5:42:54] If the density that was creat
[5:42:58] that is being allowed under
[5:42:59] footnote seven had been
[5:43:02] included or actually been
[5:43:03] incorporated into the plan in
[5:43:03] 2015, would that programmatic
[5:43:07] air have had anything
[5:43:08] potentially different about it
[5:43:09] given how many more homes would
[5:43:14] have been allowed in the area?
[5:43:15] So this project is consistent
[5:43:19] with the land use designation
[5:43:20] for this site which is 0 to 4
[5:43:23] units per acre And so this
[5:43:24] project density was considered
[5:43:29] within that air and so there is
[5:43:29] no change.
[5:43:29] >> Okay.
[5:43:33] So what I'm hearing is that
[5:43:34] what's being proposed whether
[5:43:37] footnote seven was passed or
[5:43:38] not wouldn't be allowed or
[5:43:38] would be allowed.
[5:43:42] So footnote seven is immaterial
[5:43:43] to this in this entire
[5:43:43] discussion right now.
[5:43:45] >> Correct?
[5:44:03] Okay.
[5:44:04] And Councilmember Campo and I
[5:44:08] think probably the question is
[5:44:09] that were alluding to is would
[5:44:09] the project be able to move
[5:44:13] forward regardless of footnote
[5:44:13] seven Right.
[5:44:14] Okay.
[5:44:14] To address that question yes.
[5:44:18] The project is consistent with
[5:44:19] a community plan density
[5:44:22] the prescribed density at 0 to
[5:44:22] 4 dwelling units per acre.
[5:44:23] >> The project would be able to
[5:44:26] move forward but it would have
[5:44:27] to go through a different
[5:44:28] avenue allowed through
[5:44:31] the municipal code.
[5:44:32] >> What avenue would that be?
[5:44:32] So through the provision of
[5:44:36] density bonus the project would
[5:44:37] be able to be able to move
[5:44:37] forward.
[5:44:38] The difference being here is
[5:44:41] that if they moved forward that
[5:44:42] direction they would have to
[5:44:45] request additional incentives
[5:44:46] and waivers.
[5:44:46] >> Okay.
[5:44:50] So I guess there's this seems
[5:44:51] pretty confusing to me that a
[5:44:51] lot of what I understand this
[5:44:55] project to be utilizing is
[5:44:56] footnote seven to get where
[5:44:56] they're going.
[5:44:58] But you're saying they don't
[5:44:59] use footnote seven at all.
[5:45:02] They are using footnote seven
[5:45:03] for this project but there are
[5:45:04] other avenues to get to this
[5:45:07] project without the utilization
[5:45:08] of footnote seven.
[5:45:08] Okay.
[5:45:12] So I do Okay that's important
[5:45:13] because what I had just been
[5:45:17] hearing was that this would be
[5:45:18] allowed under footnote seven
[5:45:19] without footnote seven at all
[5:45:19] And you're saying they do use
[5:45:22] footnote seven So that's
[5:45:22] important.
[5:45:22] Okay.
[5:45:26] If footnote seven were never
[5:45:26] part of it and they use
[5:45:27] the alternative methods
[5:45:30] the bonus density issues would
[5:45:31] that have then through that
[5:45:32] process triggered public safety
[5:45:35] analysis that was not triggered
[5:45:35] in this situation or is that
[5:45:36] still immaterial?
[5:45:39] It's still immaterial because
[5:45:39] it's within the prescribed
[5:45:40] density allowed by
[5:45:40] the community plan and
[5:45:44] reflected in the program air
[5:45:45] for the community plan update
[5:45:49] Why would the applicant want to
[5:45:49] use footnote seven instead of
[5:45:50] the other avenue that you
[5:45:53] mentioned?
[5:45:54] >> I will defer to
[5:45:58] the applicant on that Sorry are
[5:46:03] you following my logic?
[5:46:04] And they used to think well I
[5:46:05] can answer that question.
[5:46:08] Thank you MR. Boyd When we file
[5:46:08] applications any application
[5:46:12] it's implied that we're going
[5:46:13] to follow the law, follow
[5:46:14] the rules, the standards and
[5:46:16] regulations of the city as
[5:46:17] the case here today.
[5:46:18] So when we provided our
[5:46:22] applications it was under then
[5:46:26] the footnote seven which
[5:46:29] allowed minimum lot sizes of
[5:46:30] 5000ft.
[5:46:30] But the overriding iteration
[5:46:34] under the program document is
[5:46:35] you're limited up to a maximum
[5:46:38] of four units per unit.
[5:46:39] So as long as we stayed within
[5:46:44] the approved density we went
[5:46:44] with what was on the zoning
[5:46:45] books we would not have
[5:46:49] considered a density bonus.
[5:46:50] We intended to satisfy our
[5:46:54] needs with what was being
[5:46:55] provided to us through your
[5:46:56] zoning at the time.
[5:47:01] >> Okay so we had two avenues
[5:47:02] to for this applicant to get
[5:47:06] their project through is what
[5:47:06] I'm hearing.
[5:47:07] That is correct but we do not
[5:47:11] give applicants alternatives to
[5:47:12] get to their end product.
[5:47:17] We review the projects as they
[5:47:17] are submitted So if the project
[5:47:20] came in utilizing footnote
[5:47:20] seven that is what staff based
[5:47:21] our review on.
[5:47:21] >> Okay.
[5:47:25] From your perspective what
[5:47:26] going through the other avenue
[5:47:26] have been more difficult
[5:47:27] triggered different types of
[5:47:30] laws the density bonus
[5:47:34] regulation in this particular
[5:47:34] case would not have triggered
[5:47:35] anything additional.
[5:47:39] The key point here is that
[5:47:40] the developer regardless of
[5:47:44] which avenue they went they
[5:47:44] chose not to take a density
[5:47:45] bonus for the project.
[5:47:49] Okay.
[5:47:49] All right.
[5:47:50] We still have a minute 45 I'll
[5:47:50] reserve my time.
[5:47:51] Thank you.
[5:47:54] Council PRESIDENT All right.
[5:47:54] Thank you.
[5:47:55] Council member Kim Peel.
[5:47:56] We'll go next to council member
[5:48:00] Eli Rivera.
[5:48:01] All right.
[5:48:02] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.
[5:48:02] Appreciate all the work from
[5:48:05] staff on this the engagement
[5:48:10] from and with community
[5:48:10] Councilor Foster thank you for
[5:48:11] your and your team's
[5:48:17] considerable work on this.
[5:48:18] I, I just wanted to speak to a
[5:48:18] couple of things that came up
[5:48:21] during the conversation here
[5:48:22] And the first is
[5:48:27] the acknowledgment that there
[5:48:32] are long term consequences for
[5:48:32] the disrespect and
[5:48:36] disinvestment from communities
[5:48:42] and that is valid and real And
[5:48:46] the city of San Diego suffers
[5:48:47] as a result of that in
[5:48:47] neighborhoods throughout this
[5:48:58] city And that is a tragedy that
[5:49:04] will take many, many years to
[5:49:05] even make amends for because it
[5:49:08] can't be undone And it makes
[5:49:09] conversations about the future
[5:49:14] more difficult because how are
[5:49:14] folks to trust that
[5:49:18] the commitments being made will
[5:49:19] actually follow through to
[5:49:19] follow through on if that's
[5:49:25] never been the case in the past
[5:49:26] .
[5:49:27] So I want to acknowledge all of
[5:49:30] that At the same time what we
[5:49:31] what we have in front of us I
[5:49:35] think is is is really important
[5:49:35] for where the city is trying to
[5:49:40] go and where when I hear
[5:49:47] Councilmember Foster speak to
[5:49:48] the way that housing was was
[5:49:51] provided the stability that it
[5:49:57] provided for your family I
[5:49:57] think I think about MS..
[5:49:58] Nash his comments and I don't
[5:50:02] think there is a single time I
[5:50:03] have spoken to MS..
[5:50:04] Nash where she hasn't talked to
[5:50:06] the district for Councilmember
[5:50:07] Foster before I even knew you
[5:50:09] or you knew me I was watching
[5:50:14] you stick up for District four
[5:50:15] and demand better for
[5:50:19] the community And it's it
[5:50:22] happens every single day.
[5:50:29] We're on this dais with an
[5:50:30] unwillingness to to compromise
[5:50:31] because of the way you love
[5:50:35] your community.
[5:50:36] And what I heard you say when I
[5:50:39] heard MS..
[5:50:40] Nash say and I heard others say
[5:50:41] is something that people are
[5:50:44] wrestling with in multiple
[5:50:44] parts of this city And it's
[5:50:45] the realization that without
[5:50:49] more housing the generations to
[5:50:53] come will not have an
[5:50:54] opportunity to stay in this
[5:50:55] city and they'll certainly not
[5:50:57] have an opportunity to stay in
[5:50:58] the neighborhoods that they
[5:51:10] grew up in And I that is that
[5:51:11] is incredibly compelling to me
[5:51:11] because I didn't have
[5:51:15] the opportunity to stay in one
[5:51:16] neighborhood for my entire
[5:51:20] childhood And I see what that
[5:51:21] means to folks who did And and
[5:51:25] it's special And to write off
[5:51:30] my generation and the next
[5:51:30] generation the generation after
[5:51:31] that from having
[5:51:34] the opportunity to go to to to
[5:51:35] raise their own kids in
[5:51:35] the communities where they grew
[5:51:40] up is is an injustice in its
[5:51:44] own in its own form.
[5:51:45] >> I think community character
[5:51:49] comes from people and people
[5:51:49] need homes and they will not
[5:51:50] have homes if more homes are
[5:51:53] not built.
[5:51:54] And to anyone who's questioning
[5:51:57] the affordability of these
[5:51:58] homes, I'm right there with
[5:51:58] you.
[5:52:02] Housing is too expensive.
[5:52:03] >> There is no cheap housing in
[5:52:07] San Diego.
[5:52:21] You can just I'm going to pause
[5:52:35] for a moment, take my time.
[5:52:40] Foster has been absolutely
[5:52:41] uncompromising in the in his
[5:52:45] expectation that what is built
[5:52:45] in his community is a quality
[5:52:50] and is not a replication of
[5:52:50] the past practice of allowing
[5:52:55] anything to be built anywhere
[5:52:56] to the point where we've
[5:52:56] actually disagreed at times
[5:53:00] about the need to create more
[5:53:00] opportunity.
[5:53:04] I see what's presented here and
[5:53:09] what I am very confident of is
[5:53:09] that if those homes are built
[5:53:13] and families move in them it
[5:53:14] will be the realization of a
[5:53:14] dream for those families and
[5:53:19] the opportunity to plant roots
[5:53:19] similar to what Councilmember
[5:53:24] Foster and others who love
[5:53:24] District four and love San
[5:53:28] Diego have been able to plan
[5:53:29] And I think that's a really
[5:53:29] good thing And I will
[5:53:33] acknowledge again that change
[5:53:34] is difficult.
[5:53:34] I will engage again that
[5:53:38] district for southeastern San
[5:53:43] Diego and other parts of
[5:53:43] the city have been done wrong
[5:53:44] by the city and by done wrong
[5:53:47] by others for far too long.
[5:53:48] But that doesn't change
[5:53:48] the merits of what's in front
[5:53:52] of us The legality of what's in
[5:53:52] front of us.
[5:53:53] And so for those reasons I'll
[5:53:53] be supporting the motion.
[5:53:56] Thank you.
[5:53:57] All right.
[5:53:57] Thank you.
[5:53:58] Council member Eli Rivera.
[5:53:59] We'll go next to Council
[5:54:02] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee Thank
[5:54:03] Council PRESIDENT And first off
[5:54:03] I want to thank Councilmember
[5:54:06] Foster for taking the time to
[5:54:07] walk through numerous aspects
[5:54:08] of the project and the proposed
[5:54:11] appeal and hitting on a lot of
[5:54:12] questions I'm sure folks want
[5:54:15] to ask as well that was
[5:54:16] appreciated and I will thank
[5:54:17] you also for taking on
[5:54:21] the repeal of Footnote seven
[5:54:21] and ultimately mapping out for
[5:54:25] us today the timeline of how
[5:54:26] that came about But also again
[5:54:26] speaking frankly about your
[5:54:31] approach when it comes to
[5:54:31] addressing minimum lot sizes
[5:54:35] because I think that's an issue
[5:54:36] that was easily lost in
[5:54:36] the footnote seven discussion
[5:54:40] but still important I think
[5:54:41] that Councilmember Foster's
[5:54:41] push back with this
[5:54:45] administration shown is also
[5:54:46] what sparked the effort to
[5:54:46] reevaluate the two density
[5:54:49] bonus program and whether folks
[5:54:50] like the result of that or not
[5:54:54] we certainly didn't even all
[5:54:55] agree here on this dais.
[5:54:59] He sparked that effort.
[5:55:00] Councilmember Foster and I
[5:55:00] don't always agree on every
[5:55:04] land use issue but what I'm
[5:55:04] always consistently confident
[5:55:08] of is that he's continuously
[5:55:09] prioritizing the needs of
[5:55:14] district for as council Mary
[5:55:14] Lou Rivera shared and nothing
[5:55:18] seems more consistent with that
[5:55:18] than his office's continual
[5:55:19] push not just for housing for
[5:55:23] the sake of housing but for
[5:55:23] economic opportunities
[5:55:24] specifically through
[5:55:27] homeownership opportunities.
[5:55:28] >> So we've we talked a lot
[5:55:32] today about footnote seven and
[5:55:33] I think we heard it from staff
[5:55:36] with some of the questions here
[5:55:37] that even if Footnote seven was
[5:55:41] not utilized, my understanding
[5:55:42] is that the property owner
[5:55:42] would still have the right to
[5:55:43] build housing and perhaps it
[5:55:46] would be fewer units of housing
[5:55:46] And I could understand that
[5:55:51] argument if that's why
[5:55:51] the focus on footnote seven is
[5:55:52] so significant.
[5:55:52] Yet the appeal we've heard
[5:55:56] today doesn't seem to suggest
[5:55:56] that less homes would somehow
[5:56:00] solve the concerns that have
[5:56:01] been brought about.
[5:56:04] Instead what I'm hearing is
[5:56:04] that even the idea of putting
[5:56:09] housing on land that is zoned
[5:56:09] specifically for this type of
[5:56:13] very low density housing is
[5:56:14] somehow unacceptable And I
[5:56:18] totally disagree.
[5:56:19] We are in a housing crisis
[5:56:20] again.
[5:56:20] Not everyone likes to
[5:56:23] acknowledge it but there
[5:56:23] remains a particular need for
[5:56:24] homeownership opportunities
[5:56:28] across the city and especially
[5:56:29] as we continue to discuss how
[5:56:30] much new housing across
[5:56:33] the city is rental units It
[5:56:34] feels like we used to talk
[5:56:38] about the American dream.
[5:56:39] I grew up certainly with this
[5:56:40] idea that if you get a good
[5:56:40] education you can find a good
[5:56:43] job, you can save up money, buy
[5:56:44] a home, eventually start a
[5:56:44] family.
[5:56:48] And for young people today I
[5:56:49] think it truly is nothing but
[5:56:49] just a dream.
[5:56:50] It's further away than ever
[5:56:53] before not just because of
[5:56:54] the high cost of living but
[5:56:54] because of our lack of housing
[5:56:58] availability and as a result of
[5:56:59] it the affordability of it.
[5:56:59] And so today we're hearing a
[5:57:02] project that proposes
[5:57:03] the lowest possible density
[5:57:06] threshold for housing 0 to 4
[5:57:07] dwelling units an acre that
[5:57:08] will provide for sale single
[5:57:11] family homeownership
[5:57:12] opportunities and that includes
[5:57:13] deed restricted affordable
[5:57:16] housing on site And we still
[5:57:21] have that opposition which is
[5:57:21] perplexing.
[5:57:22] i understand and hear
[5:57:26] the community is argument and
[5:57:27] why many residents would argue
[5:57:31] that this would have made an
[5:57:32] excellent public park And in
[5:57:32] fact I think you're right in
[5:57:36] noting that the city must have
[5:57:37] agreed with that in the 2015
[5:57:37] community plan when it threw
[5:57:39] out the possibility of for that
[5:57:44] even this is without a doubt
[5:57:45] from everything we've heard
[5:57:45] from each of you a community
[5:57:48] that legitimately needs
[5:57:49] additional infrastructure, it
[5:57:53] needs more park space.
[5:57:54] That deficiency for parks is
[5:57:54] not unique to you.
[5:57:58] It is across the entire city
[5:57:59] And in fact in my home
[5:58:00] community here, Mesa when that
[5:58:03] plan update was passed some
[5:58:03] years ago it was perhaps
[5:58:04] the biggest issue that was
[5:58:05] brought up and that was in a
[5:58:07] community where we were
[5:58:08] proposing to add up to 24,000
[5:58:13] housing units.
[5:58:14] >> So I agree that the city has
[5:58:15] to do better to acknowledge how
[5:58:18] challenging it is to map out
[5:58:18] updates to our existing
[5:58:19] communities and community plans
[5:58:23] and how we identify
[5:58:23] opportunities for new parks
[5:58:24] especially when we are now
[5:58:27] looking at mostly infill and
[5:58:28] redevelopment opportunities in
[5:58:29] a city that is in many ways
[5:58:32] built out.
[5:58:33] So an often used argument that
[5:58:34] I think we heard once again
[5:58:37] today is that we somehow need
[5:58:38] to meet our park deficiency or
[5:58:42] infrastructure needs and until
[5:58:42] then we should not build more
[5:58:43] housing.
[5:58:46] And again I just fundamentally
[5:58:46] disagree.
[5:58:47] We must work on both housing
[5:58:51] and infrastructure and in many
[5:58:52] cases the way the city is
[5:58:53] structured with development
[5:58:57] impact fees is that we will we
[5:58:58] literally rely on housing to
[5:59:01] deliver that infrastructure.
[5:59:02] I know I'm in a community where
[5:59:05] they waited nearly 20 years to
[5:59:06] get a park project online
[5:59:07] because they were waiting for
[5:59:09] those impact fees to be
[5:59:10] collected.
[5:59:11] So we often talk about putting
[5:59:11] more housing especially
[5:59:15] affordable housing in high
[5:59:16] resource areas and a
[5:59:16] significant amount of new
[5:59:20] housing has been north of
[5:59:20] the eight in many of our
[5:59:25] districts and we do so
[5:59:25] specifically with the objective
[5:59:26] of also avoiding a history of
[5:59:30] concentrate poverty in
[5:59:30] communities of concern.
[5:59:31] And what I heard today from
[5:59:34] some members of the public
[5:59:35] seemed to suggest that today's
[5:59:35] project under consideration is
[5:59:39] once again concentrating
[5:59:40] poverty and that argument is
[5:59:41] false and we need to call that
[5:59:44] out especially when we have an
[5:59:45] item that provides something
[5:59:49] that is quite the opposite of
[5:59:49] that low density single family
[5:59:50] residential homeownership
[5:59:54] opportunities is that many we
[5:59:55] have heard from in the past
[5:59:59] have often been portrayed as
[5:59:59] only being available in higher
[6:00:00] resourced communities
[6:00:03] Communities south of the eight
[6:00:04] also deserve to have the same
[6:00:05] access to quality housing
[6:00:08] opportunities and good jobs in
[6:00:09] schools and public services and
[6:00:13] infrastructure.
[6:00:13] So given everything we've heard
[6:00:14] today, I do not believe
[6:00:18] the necessary findings have
[6:00:19] been presented to support
[6:00:19] the appeal and so I will be
[6:00:20] supporting the motion on
[6:00:20] the table.
[6:00:26] Thank you.
[6:00:26] All right.
[6:00:27] Thank you.
[6:00:27] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee.
[6:00:28] We'll go back to Councilmember
[6:00:30] Campione Thank you, council
[6:00:31] PRESIDENT And thank you for
[6:00:32] that The time we have here a
[6:00:35] minute 45 Appreciate
[6:00:36] the comments of my colleagues
[6:00:39] and and a lot of the policy
[6:00:40] goals that they're pointing to
[6:00:41] homeownership absolutely
[6:00:44] important And there's I think
[6:00:45] that any application will show
[6:00:50] some good and some not so good.
[6:00:51] You know, I support building
[6:00:55] housing in San Diego and in my
[6:00:56] district and other districts
[6:00:59] across the city just yesterday
[6:01:00] voted to approve a plan that's
[6:01:00] going to bring thousands of
[6:01:01] homes to San Diego.
[6:01:04] But supporting housing does not
[6:01:05] require the council to approve
[6:01:09] any and every project on any
[6:01:10] and every site under any
[6:01:10] process.
[6:01:10] We have to make findings
[6:01:14] required by law.
[6:01:14] This project depends on
[6:01:15] footnote seven which is a rule
[6:01:18] that reduced the minimum lot
[6:01:22] size in this community from
[6:01:23] 20,000ft to 5000ft and
[6:01:24] the development has had its
[6:01:24] vesting rights Based on that
[6:01:27] footnote as was made absolutely
[6:01:28] clear as I've said before with
[6:01:31] the Klauber project Footnote
[6:01:32] seven I believe violated our
[6:01:33] duties under affirmatively
[6:01:36] furthering fair housing laws As
[6:01:37] someone mentioned earlier
[6:01:38] quoting me back to me it's
[6:01:41] poisonous tree which is to say
[6:01:41] i don't believe the city was in
[6:01:42] a position to grant any vesting
[6:01:46] rights to any applicant under
[6:01:46] that legal mechanism because
[6:01:47] how can a city grant property
[6:01:51] rights while similar
[6:01:52] simultaneously violating state
[6:01:52] or federal laws?
[6:01:56] I know that's a question that
[6:01:57] reasonable minds can differ on
[6:01:57] but I fall on the side of I
[6:02:00] think it violated fha if
[6:02:01] the applicant were to bring it
[6:02:02] forward under other mechanisms
[6:02:05] as staff explained I'd be
[6:02:06] interested to know if it still
[6:02:07] met all those standards under
[6:02:10] the process but ultimately I'm
[6:02:11] deeply skeptical that this
[6:02:11] process which is
[6:02:13] the utilization of footnote
[6:02:14] seven is legal which is to say
[6:02:15] I don't blame the development
[6:02:15] team for using it.
[6:02:19] I blame the city for allowing
[6:02:19] it to happen in the first
[6:02:19] place.
[6:02:23] >> I also want to be clear
[6:02:24] about the Housing
[6:02:27] Accountability Act that my five
[6:02:28] minutes plus three okay
[6:02:32] COUNCILMAN, thank you.
[6:02:33] >> I want to be clear about
[6:02:33] the Housing Accountability Act
[6:02:36] and as a person who's
[6:02:37] absolutely wide eyed about
[6:02:41] litigation risk, the act does
[6:02:42] not require the city to approve
[6:02:43] a project regardless of any
[6:02:46] potential defects and we heard
[6:02:47] today about issues of notice
[6:02:48] and secret compliance and
[6:02:51] public health and safety other
[6:02:52] findings for discretionary
[6:02:52] permits and waivers.
[6:02:56] But I would focus on the fair
[6:02:57] housing obligations.
[6:02:57] The objections from
[6:02:58] the community are not based on
[6:03:01] generalized opposition to
[6:03:02] housing or subjective
[6:03:03] neighborhood character or a
[6:03:03] desire to reduce density simply
[6:03:06] because they don't like
[6:03:07] the project they brought up
[6:03:11] consistently the legal findings
[6:03:11] that need to be required
[6:03:12] including whether that project
[6:03:15] complies with state and federal
[6:03:16] law.
[6:03:16] So I have consistency with my
[6:03:17] prior position on Footnote
[6:03:20] seven Questionable adoption I
[6:03:21] would support the granting of
[6:03:22] the appeal and reversing
[6:03:22] the Planning Commission's
[6:03:23] approval.
[6:03:28] >> Thank you.
[6:03:29] >> All right.
[6:03:29] Thank you.
[6:03:30] Council Member Camp Hill.
[6:03:30] So with that I don't see
[6:03:33] anybody else in the lights.
[6:03:34] We have a motion by council
[6:03:35] member Foster and a second by
[6:03:38] myself to move the staff
[6:03:39] recommendation which is up on
[6:03:39] the screen.
[6:03:42] Clerk Please call the roll.
[6:03:42] >> I'm sorry the voting system
[6:03:50] Please cast your vote That
[6:03:51] passes 8 to 1 with Council
[6:03:52] member Campo voting no Thank
[6:03:52] you.
[6:03:55] Council PRESIDENT Thank you.
[6:03:56] With that we are now adjourned.
[6:04:00] Council to the next regularly
[6:04:01] scheduled Council meeting on
[6:04:06] Monday JULY 13th, 2026 at 10