[0:00] Good morning I will now call

[0:03] the City council meeting of

[0:04] Monday JUNE 16th 2025 to order

[0:04] Deputy Clerk please call

[0:08] the Roll Councilmember

[0:08] Campbell.

[0:09] Council Member Whitburn here.

[0:10] Council Member Foster here.

[0:14] Council Member Von will present

[0:15] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[0:18] Council Member Can you hear

[0:19] Council Member Moreno Present

[0:20] Council Member Ella Rivera in

[0:23] Council PRESIDENT LaCava

[0:24] present.

[0:24] >> Also attending the meeting

[0:25] are City Attorney Heather

[0:25] Ferber.

[0:28] Independent Budget analyst

[0:29] Charles Monica and myself your

[0:30] deputy city Clerk Jennifer

[0:33] Berry.

[0:33] All right, thank you.

[0:34] A quorum is now present.

[0:35] We will begin this morning with

[0:38] an invocation by Deputy clerk

[0:38] Barry followed with the land

[0:39] acknowledgment and the Pledge

[0:40] of Allegiance led by council

[0:45] member Whitburn Grant.

[0:50] Those who hold office in this

[0:51] city the spirit of wisdom,

[0:52] charity and justice that was

[0:54] steadfast purpose.

[0:55] They MAY faithfully serve in

[0:56] their offices or to promote

[0:59] the well-being of all people.

[1:00] >> We respectfully acknowledge

[1:04] that the committee should are

[1:05] the original inhabitants of

[1:06] the Unceded land now known as

[1:06] San Diego.

[1:10] Despite enduring the horrors of

[1:10] genocide and colonization,

[1:11] the Kumi spirit remains

[1:14] unbroken.

[1:15] We are the resilience of their

[1:15] ancestors who fought to protect

[1:18] their culture and land Today

[1:19] they carry their legacy forward

[1:20] ensuring that their traditions

[1:20] continue to thrive and

[1:24] gratitude and strength We stand

[1:25] with a combination connected to

[1:25] our past and committed to a

[1:29] thriving future.

[1:29] Please place the flag Place

[1:33] your hand over your heart Ready

[1:34] ?

[1:34] Begin.

[1:35] I pledge allegiance to the flag

[1:38] of the United States of America

[1:39] and to the Republic for which

[1:42] it stands One nation under GOD

[1:43] ,indivisible with liberty and

[1:48] justice for all.

[1:53] Deputy Clerk Please go over how

[1:53] the public can offer their

[1:54] public testimony.

[1:57] >> I will now highlight

[1:58] the slide on the screen that

[1:58] reviews how the public can

[1:59] offer their public testimony

[1:59] during today's meeting.

[2:03] If you are in person please

[2:03] complete a speaker slip located

[2:04] at the entrance of chambers and

[2:07] bring it up to the front of

[2:07] the room.

[2:08] No further in-person testimony

[2:09] will be taken once the council

[2:14] begins Virtual testimony for

[2:15] better meeting management

[2:16] purposes each speaker will have

[2:19] one minute per item per person

[2:19] .

[2:24] Okay.

[2:25] >> Deputy Clerk Please read

[2:26] the closed session items into

[2:26] the record.

[2:29] Conference with legal Counsel

[2:30] Existing Litigation pursuant to

[2:33] California Government Code

[2:34] Section 5495 6.90 161 Susan

[2:38] Baker versus City of San Diego

[2:39] See us to Kate Mara versity of

[2:40] San Diego.

[2:43] Conference with Legal Counsel

[2:44] Existing litigation pursuant to

[2:45] California Government Code

[2:48] Section 5495 6.90 163 Cameron

[2:49] Adams at all the City of San

[2:53] Diego at all Eric Bana at all

[2:53] or City of San Diego at all.

[2:58] Louis Guerrero versus City of

[2:58] San Diego at all lawn rose

[2:59] the third versity of San Diego

[3:04] at all c for City of San Diego

[3:07] b 101 Ash llc at all conference

[3:07] with real property negotiator

[3:11] pursuant to California

[3:11] Government Code Section

[3:15] 54956.865 Property one on one

[3:15] Ash Street San Diego,

[3:16] California.

[3:16] The Council will meet with its

[3:17] negotiator, discuss the price

[3:19] and payment terms for

[3:20] the potential disposition of an

[3:21] interest or estate and real

[3:24] property located at 101 Ash

[3:25] Street, San Diego, California.

[3:26] Conference with Legal Counsel

[3:28] Existing Litigation pursuant to

[3:29] California Government Code

[3:33] Section 5495 6.91 ca6 Marcus

[3:33] Evans versus City of San Diego

[3:37] at all.

[3:38] Conference with Legal counsel

[3:39] Significant exposure to

[3:39] litigation pursuant to

[3:40] California Government Code

[3:43] Section 5495 6.92 ca7 Number of

[3:47] cases Multiple.

[3:48] All right.

[3:48] Thank you Deputy Clerk Please

[3:51] proceed with public comment.

[3:52] >> We have no public comment in

[3:53] chambers today so I'm going to

[3:57] go ahead and start our five

[3:58] minute timer and go into our

[4:02] virtual queue our we have one

[4:02] hand up the original if you

[4:03] will.

[4:07] Go ahead and unmute and let me

[4:08] know which item or items you

[4:08] would like to speak to.

[4:12] >> I all of them Okay you will

[4:13] have three minutes.

[4:16] >> Please proceed.

[4:17] All right so you guys and these

[4:18] trip and falls I mean it's like

[4:21] there's no end in sight for you

[4:22] know continued litigation due

[4:25] to the conditions of

[4:26] the sidewalks and roads that

[4:26] are in the city.

[4:30] They're not, you know, getting

[4:31] any better as we proceed.

[4:35] And so it's just kind of

[4:36] ridiculous that this is

[4:37] something that happens and

[4:40] there's it's going to continue

[4:40] .

[4:41] And then as far as litigation

[4:46] goes for this one on our street

[4:47] property, this is like a

[4:50] succubus as well.

[4:51] >> I mean I don't know how long

[4:52] you guys want to stay in

[4:54] litigation about this and then

[4:55] you're trying to also sell it

[5:00] or get rid of it.

[5:01] >> But this is, you know, just

[5:01] proof in the way that you guys

[5:05] work and how you know, this is

[5:06] supposed to be something for

[5:06] the homeless And all it's been

[5:09] as a blood money you know pit

[5:15] for the entire time that it's

[5:15] you know been here Scott

[5:19] asbestos in it I mean those are

[5:20] things that should have been

[5:20] done before you even dealt with

[5:21] it but that's not the way you

[5:23] guys work.

[5:24] You love to, you know,

[5:28] basically work backwards and

[5:29] it's ridiculous because it

[5:29] costs the people money.

[5:30] The money doesn't come from you

[5:33] guys.

[5:34] It comes from people who work

[5:35] really hard who you continue to

[5:37] tax and you know, raise fees

[5:38] and all of the things and

[5:42] pretty much put people out so

[5:43] that we can make up for your

[5:43] mistakes.

[5:44] And that's why with these

[5:48] multiple cases that are coming

[5:48] forward I mean that could be a

[5:53] number of things But you know,

[5:53] you've already had cases

[5:57] litigation come forward from

[5:58] employees at Tent City because

[6:02] of the conditions that they've

[6:03] been asked to work in

[6:04] the treatment that they get

[6:07] from Dreams for Change And

[6:07] you're paying settlements out

[6:08] to these employees.

[6:12] But there's going to be more

[6:13] and more suits that are coming

[6:13] forward, especially class

[6:17] action.

[6:18] And Stephen Whitburn, you

[6:18] should actually resign as soon

[6:21] as possible because you're

[6:22] actually giving your friends

[6:22] contracts.

[6:26] Theresa Smith is a friend of

[6:27] yours.

[6:27] You're contracting with her

[6:28] with Dreams for Change refusing

[6:32] to actually mitigate not only

[6:32] the deaths, the sexual

[6:36] assaults, the breach of

[6:37] contract many things but you're

[6:38] unwilling to do that because

[6:41] that's your friend.

[6:42] So you sit and you laugh when

[6:46] people are dying and city like

[6:47] Tammy Jackson last week a week

[6:52] ago today and you know you're

[6:53] you're refusing to actually go

[6:53] and you actually want to extend

[6:56] their contracts you want to

[6:56] give them more money which is

[6:57] going to be happening here

[7:01] pretty soon.

[7:01] But you are facing litigation

[7:02] because of the fact that you

[7:06] refuse to do anything not only

[7:06] Steven but the city.

[7:07] And so you're going to have to

[7:10] be paying more money out to a

[7:11] whole lot of homeless people

[7:11] because of the actions that you

[7:15] refuse to take.

[7:16] So good on you guys for you

[7:17] know, just costing the city

[7:21] more money instead of actually

[7:21] doing something in your time.

[7:22] Thank you for that concluding

[7:22] comment.

[7:25] Our next caller is caller

[7:26] ending in 8700.

[7:27] If you'll go ahead and unmute

[7:30] and let me know which item or

[7:36] items you were speaking to.

[7:36] Thank you.

[7:37] A deputy city clerk Mary Joyce

[7:40] in your district three I'll be

[7:44] speaking on one, three, four,

[7:44] five and six please.

[7:45] >> You will have three minutes.

[7:49] Please proceed.

[7:50] >> Thank you so much and see us

[7:53] for one another trip and I'll

[7:53] say this to the people that are

[7:54] listening that love to walk and

[7:58] I'm talking about downtown.

[7:59] If you love downtown you have

[8:03] to love safety And for me that

[8:08] safety downtown is so safety be

[8:09] ever vigilant in walking on

[8:13] sidewalks history is this this

[8:18] exposure to street and of

[8:19] course three four and five are

[8:23] all related to ash Street So

[8:23] I'll combine and also speak a

[8:26] little bit specific.

[8:27] So I'm looking at the beginning

[8:32] of this whole debacle and

[8:33] thinking about the contract

[8:33] with the people that we're

[8:37] going to do the work in

[8:38] the building and deal with

[8:41] the delicate notes as best as

[8:42] and I don't know what

[8:42] the contract said and I don't

[8:46] know if the bids came from

[8:47] really good reputable people.

[8:48] I didn't have a chance to look

[8:52] at who was the original person

[8:52] that got the bid and did

[8:56] the work but I hope we were on

[9:01] top of things and really had a

[9:02] strict contract in regards to

[9:06] dealing with the asbestos in

[9:06] the building.

[9:11] So that concerns me as to where

[9:11] we dropped the ball if

[9:12] anywhere.

[9:13] But of course I'm for the these

[9:16] incidents the contractors if

[9:17] there was a negligent in

[9:24] disrupting of the scuse me on

[9:28] the patio side of the street so

[9:33] to the people with that

[9:34] exposure to the asbestos you

[9:37] know it's breathing it's long

[9:38] you know air is really

[9:38] the first thing of life.

[9:43] So sending a healing energy out

[9:46] to them and you sell a street

[9:46] sell 101 please.

[9:50] We need to get out from under

[9:51] it, please.

[9:55] MR. Cushman Stephen Cushman

[9:56] from the Board of Commissioners

[10:00] at County San Diego Housing

[10:01] Commission.

[10:01] You're so great at all this

[10:02] stuff.

[10:06] Please help them sell this

[10:06] building if you can get

[10:07] involved.

[10:10] And then the last one csx, spv,

[10:10] I love you so much.

[10:14] Your work is unbelievable

[10:15] difficult and you have to make

[10:18] less in a split second

[10:19] Decisions Who can Any human

[10:20] being on the planet always make

[10:23] the perfect decision in a in

[10:24] less than a split second place

[10:28] And so I just send you all

[10:29] the kind of value in

[10:29] appreciation.

[10:33] It's excessive force domestic

[10:34] violence issue involving a gun.

[10:38] I mean it doesn't seem like it

[10:39] could happen in real life.

[10:40] So thank you for everything you

[10:43] do and thanks for listening

[10:44] everybody.

[10:45] Love to have a beautiful day.

[10:48] Thank you.

[10:49] And we have no more callers in

[10:50] our virtual queue So that

[10:52] concludes the public comment on

[10:53] the closed session agenda.

[10:53] All right.

[10:54] To get started And long

[11:00] afternoon.

[11:01] So with that Good afternoon.

[11:05] All right.

[11:06] Good afternoon.

[11:06] I will now reconvene the city

[11:08] council meeting of Monday, JUNE

[11:09] 16th, 2025.

[11:09] Clerk Please call the roll and

[11:13] get the statement for DR.

[11:14] Campbell who's participating

[11:14] remotely.

[11:15] Thank you.

[11:15] Council PRESIDENT Council

[11:19] member Campbell Yes, ma'am.

[11:20] >> I'm here and I would like to

[11:24] read the statement if you can

[11:24] hear me.

[11:24] >> Yes.

[11:25] And hear you Please proceed.

[11:29] I will be attending the meeting

[11:30] today remotely pursuant to

[11:30] the Brown Act.

[11:34] >> I am disclosing that there

[11:35] are two individuals 18 years or

[11:38] older present in the room with

[11:38] me.

[11:39] They are members of my staff.

[11:43] I will update this disclosure

[11:44] if it changes during the course

[11:44] of the meeting.

[11:45] >> Thank you.

[11:49] Thank Member Campbell Council

[11:50] Member Whitburn here Council

[11:53] Member Foster your Council

[11:53] Member Von Wilbur Present

[11:57] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[11:58] Council Member Can you hear

[11:59] Council Member Moreno Present

[12:03] Council Member Yellow Rivera

[12:03] and Council PRESIDENT LaCava

[12:07] present also chairing

[12:07] the meeting or Assistant City

[12:08] Attorney Michelle Garland

[12:09] Independent Budget Analyst

[12:13] Charles Mollica Counsel Affairs

[12:14] Advisor in the Mayor's office

[12:15] Kota Sizer and myself your city

[12:15] clerk Diana Fuentes.

[12:17] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[12:18] right.

[12:18] >> Thank you City Clerk a

[12:22] quorum is now present.

[12:23] A lot of you have been here

[12:24] before but I suspect there are

[12:25] some new folks here for

[12:26] the very first time Make sure

[12:27] this meeting runs smoothly if

[12:30] you can given the high emotions

[12:31] and controversies that we've

[12:36] all been expecting and waiting

[12:36] for for this meeting, I want to

[12:37] remind everyone about

[12:40] the city's practices and

[12:40] procedures for public comment

[12:41] at city council meetings

[12:42] the city welcomes public

[12:45] participation at city council

[12:45] meetings.

[12:46] Speakers MAY address

[12:47] the Council during public

[12:50] comment and also in connection

[12:51] with a specific item of

[12:52] business on the agenda.

[12:52] However, the city must make

[12:56] sure that no one person or

[12:56] group of individuals disrupt

[12:57] the meeting in a way that

[13:01] prohibits other speakers from

[13:01] expressing their ideas and

[13:02] opinions.

[13:02] So to make sure that everyone

[13:05] here has the opportunity to

[13:06] address the Council Iowa alert

[13:07] an individual or individuals if

[13:11] I think their conduct becomes

[13:11] disruptive If the disruption

[13:12] continues I will roll

[13:13] the individual out of order And

[13:16] if the disruption continues

[13:17] further I will declare a recess

[13:17] so we can restore order.

[13:20] At that point I will direct

[13:21] the individual to leave

[13:21] the chambers.

[13:22] If the individual refuses to

[13:25] leave police will escort

[13:26] the individual out of

[13:26] the building.

[13:27] We have to repeat this process

[13:30] of warning and recess in

[13:31] the meeting all members of

[13:31] the public will be excused from

[13:32] chambers.

[13:32] Credentialed media would be

[13:34] allowed to remain once again We

[13:35] have these practices and

[13:36] procedures to protect

[13:36] the rights of others who wish

[13:40] to address the Council and to

[13:40] allow the Council to conduct

[13:41] the public's business so not so

[13:45] much on the first item but on

[13:46] the next item that most of you

[13:46] if not all of you are here for.

[13:49] You're going to hear things you

[13:49] like.

[13:50] You're going to hear things you

[13:51] don't like or don't don't agree

[13:54] with the most effective way to

[13:54] communicate to us here at

[13:55] the council without disrupting

[13:59] the meeting is if you see or

[13:59] hear something you like thumbs

[14:00] up, wave your hands.

[14:03] It's a very powerful signal.

[14:04] We see it very obvious If you

[14:05] hear something you don't like

[14:08] thumbs down is probably

[14:09] the easiest way to communicate

[14:09] that with us and that way we'll

[14:13] be able to run the meeting

[14:14] especially when we start with

[14:14] the public comment portion.

[14:19] So a couple of things that we

[14:20] need to do before we get on to

[14:20] the 18th conversation.

[14:24] First, are there any mayoral

[14:24] council, city attorney,

[14:25] independent budget analysts or

[14:26] a city clerk comment Council

[14:31] member Von Wolford And thank

[14:31] you very much.

[14:32] Council PRESIDENT I wanted to

[14:35] take a moment before we started

[14:36] today to remember two people

[14:39] who were one was shot and

[14:40] killed over the weekend.

[14:40] Another lawmaker and his wife

[14:44] are recovering from multiple

[14:45] gunshot wounds in the hospital.

[14:45] Still Representative Melissa

[14:49] Hortman is seen here at her

[14:49] swearing in ceremony as House

[14:50] speaker in the Minnesota state

[14:54] Capitol And safe home as a

[14:54] soldier in 2019.

[14:55] And on the right is Senator

[14:59] John Hoffman who was first

[14:59] elected to the Senate in

[15:00] NOVEMBER 2012.

[15:01] He's now serving his fourth

[15:02] term in the Minnesota State

[15:03] Senate representing residents

[15:07] of Minnesota Senate District

[15:07] four which includes Brooklyn

[15:08] Park, Rapids, Dayton and

[15:08] Rogers.

[15:09] He had been a long time

[15:12] advocate and leader on issues

[15:13] related to disability services

[15:14] in need of children before

[15:17] holding elected office he

[15:18] worked with children families

[15:19] and was a parent in training

[15:21] for information centers at

[15:22] Pacer, one of the nation's

[15:23] oldest and respected training

[15:27] centers.

[15:27] MS. Hoffman was only 55 at

[15:28] the time of her assassination

[15:29] over the weekend by a

[15:31] politically motivated attack at

[15:32] her home, a gunman showed up

[15:33] wearing what looked like a

[15:37] police officer's uniform in a

[15:37] police car which induced her to

[15:38] open the home before he shot

[15:42] and killed her and her husband

[15:42] .

[15:43] She represented the northern

[15:43] part of the Twin Cities

[15:44] metropolitan area in

[15:44] the Minnesota House of

[15:48] Representatives from 2005 until

[15:48] her assassination just over

[15:49] the weekend.

[15:49] Can you go back to the last

[15:51] slide please?

[15:52] She serves she campaigned door

[15:57] to door often less I know

[15:58] the previous one.

[16:01] The picture.

[16:02] Yeah.

[16:03] Every single one of us up here

[16:04] on this dais has been in that

[16:08] photo.

[16:09] All of us have done that And

[16:13] it's very scary to think that

[16:14] just because we want to be

[16:15] involved in public office we

[16:15] are subjecting ourselves to

[16:19] danger.

[16:19] She's not the only one And we

[16:20] just I didn't want to let this

[16:24] moment pass because we have to

[16:25] stop violence in our country no

[16:28] matter what we agree on don't

[16:29] agree on We need to stop

[16:29] violence.

[16:30] We are a peaceful democracy and

[16:33] we need to lean in to being a

[16:33] peaceful democracy.

[16:34] And so I'm very, very sad to

[16:37] see these two folks one we're

[16:38] going to lose forever and

[16:39] the other one hopefully won't.

[16:41] Luckily person who did this was

[16:41] apprehended.

[16:42] He had a list of over 40 other

[16:43] elected officials He was going

[16:46] to attack that day.

[16:47] So thank you all for being here

[16:48] for being part of your

[16:52] democracy today.

[16:53] And if we could take just a

[16:53] moment to remember Speaker

[17:01] Hartman now Thank you, Council

[17:01] PRESIDENT.

[17:07] That concludes my comments.

[17:07] >> Thank you.

[17:08] Council Member Von Wolpert With

[17:10] that City Clerk Please go over

[17:11] how the public can offer their

[17:11] public testimony.

[17:12] >> Thank you.

[17:15] Council PRESIDENT I'd like to

[17:16] highlight a screen that was up

[17:17] previously and we'll put it

[17:20] back up again.

[17:21] That does go over how

[17:22] the public can offer their

[17:22] public testimony during this

[17:25] afternoon's meeting and what

[17:26] numbers they can call in which

[17:27] is found on the agenda cover

[17:27] page.

[17:31] The order can also be found on

[17:32] the agenda Summary found online

[17:35] or at the table in the back of

[17:36] the room.

[17:36] If you are in person please

[17:37] complete a speaker slip located

[17:39] at the entrance of chambers and

[17:40] bring it to the front of

[17:41] the room and place it in

[17:41] the clear box.

[17:42] Council ambassadors are

[17:45] available near the entrance of

[17:46] chambers and can assist with

[17:46] questions and speaker slips

[17:47] Again if you are submitting

[17:49] speakers up to today and your

[17:50] seating time to somebody please

[17:51] be sure that you submit

[17:54] The speaker slips all together

[17:54] in one group.

[17:55] No further in-person testimony

[17:59] will be taken once the council

[18:00] begins Virtual testimony.

[18:00] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT

[18:01] All right.

[18:01] Thank you.

[18:05] City Clerk With that we have

[18:05] two items to take care of

[18:06] before we go to the ada.

[18:09] So please introduce items 200

[18:12] and 201 Item 200 is a fiscal

[18:13] year 2026 Maintenance

[18:14] Assessment District Annual

[18:14] reports for Parks and

[18:17] Recreation Department and item

[18:18] 2a1 is the fiscal year 2026

[18:19] Main Assessment District annual

[18:22] reports for the Economic

[18:23] Development Department.

[18:24] If you'd like to speak on this

[18:24] item now's the time to submit

[18:25] your speaker's slip or to raise

[18:28] your hand by pressing Star nine

[18:29] or the raise your hand icon.

[18:29] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[18:33] Thank you City Clerk for these

[18:33] two items.

[18:34] The staff presentations will be

[18:38] taken together public testimony

[18:38] and council comments will also

[18:39] be taken together for both

[18:40] items and the Council will vote

[18:43] on each item separately.

[18:44] So with that staff please

[18:44] introduce yourselves for

[18:45] the record and let us know how

[18:47] much time you need.

[18:48] Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[18:48] Good afternoon Council members

[18:52] Thank you for your time today.

[18:53] My name is Michael Jones,

[18:54] Assistant Deputy Director with

[18:54] the Parks and Recreation

[18:57] Department.

[18:58] With me is Rhea again Aldo with

[18:59] the Economic Development

[18:59] Department Small Business

[19:01] Engagement specialist.

[19:02] We will require approximately

[19:03] seven minutes for our

[19:03] presentation today.

[19:04] All right.

[19:06] When you're ready.

[19:11] >> a maintenance assessment

[19:12] district or med is a legal

[19:13] mechanism to allow property

[19:13] owners the ability to

[19:17] self-assess for

[19:17] the implementation of

[19:18] improvements and activities

[19:19] within a defined boundary based

[19:22] upon a predetermined

[19:22] methodology.

[19:23] These districts occur

[19:27] throughout the city and take on

[19:27] many different scopes of

[19:28] service.

[19:28] Landscaping is the most common

[19:29] type of improvement across

[19:32] the program here in San Diego

[19:33] and generally occurring in

[19:34] medians, parks and rights of

[19:37] way.

[19:38] However, there are many various

[19:38] services that can take place

[19:39] within districts.

[19:45] Several which are shown here

[19:46] Methods operate with the legal

[19:46] authority to engage in

[19:47] improvements and activities

[19:49] under the guidance of

[19:50] legislation at both the state

[19:51] and local levels.

[19:54] State law, the Municipal Code

[19:55] and City Council policy are

[19:56] each written to allow districts

[20:00] flexibility to operate in a

[20:00] wide variety of ways.

[20:01] As previously indicated, a

[20:05] primary goal of these policies

[20:05] is to give communities

[20:06] the ability to offer virtually

[20:09] any type of feasible

[20:10] improvement or activity above

[20:10] the city standard via

[20:15] the assessment mechanism.

[20:16] And next I'd like to introduce

[20:16] my colleague Rhea DiNardo to

[20:19] cover the next section.

[20:19] >> Rhea.

[20:20] Thank you Mike.

[20:20] Good afternoon Council members.

[20:25] The city of San Diego currently

[20:28] has 64 mats down one from 65

[20:29] and fiscal year 2024 after

[20:29] the formation of the Greater

[20:33] Hillcrest method which replaced

[20:34] two smaller districts.

[20:38] 54 miles receive oversight from

[20:39] the Parks and Recreation

[20:39] Department while ten receive

[20:40] oversight from the Economic

[20:44] Development Department.

[20:45] MADtv exist in every council

[20:45] district from the border to

[20:48] the northernmost parts of

[20:49] the city providing special

[20:49] benefits over and above city

[20:52] baseline services.

[20:53] >> This slide shows

[20:57] the geographic boundaries in

[20:58] yellow shading for parks and

[20:59] recreation methods and economic

[21:02] development methods in blue.

[21:03] While parks and recreation

[21:04] methods are primarily located

[21:07] in residential neighborhoods,

[21:08] economic development methods

[21:09] are concentrated in commercial

[21:13] areas and offer a variety of

[21:13] related improvements in

[21:14] activities such as retail

[21:17] retention and recruitment,

[21:17] marketing and district branding

[21:22] through seasonal banners.

[21:22] The city holds various types of

[21:26] contracts to administer mad

[21:27] improvements and activities for

[21:27] parks and Recreation.

[21:31] Methods are managed by city

[21:32] staff through contracts with

[21:32] for profit vendors for service

[21:36] delivery with the exception of

[21:37] bird rock and Savita managed by

[21:41] nonprofits.

[21:41] Most economic development

[21:42] methods are managed by

[21:45] nonprofits with service

[21:45] delivery provided directly by

[21:46] staff or through subcontracted

[21:50] vendors.

[21:51] Two exceptions Barrio Logan and

[21:52] Central Commercial are managed

[21:56] by city staff in coordination

[21:56] with assessment payers and

[21:59] community leaders.

[22:00] Seven of the ten economic

[22:01] development Mad managers are

[22:04] local business associations

[22:05] that also manage a business

[22:06] improvement district.

[22:10] This allows for coordination of

[22:10] resources and opportunities to

[22:14] leverage method assessments for

[22:15] grants and private fundraising

[22:16] to bring additional services to

[22:19] their communities.

[22:20] >> We're proud to showcase

[22:21] photos on this slide of

[22:25] the visible impact of mouths

[22:25] across the city.

[22:26] As you can see through a wide

[22:30] variety of services such as

[22:30] sidewalk cleaning, graffiti

[22:34] removal, beautification and

[22:35] landscape maintenance mad's

[22:39] create cleaner and more

[22:39] welcoming public spaces.

[22:40] Now I'll turn it back over to

[22:44] Michael.

[22:45] >> Each district is formed with

[22:45] an accompanying assessment

[22:46] engineer's report.

[22:49] This is effectively

[22:50] the governing document that

[22:50] specifies which improvements

[22:53] can occur and at what

[22:53] frequencies.

[22:54] This report is created upon

[22:54] information of the district and

[22:58] its implemented upon a

[22:59] successful vote of affected

[22:59] property owners.

[23:02] The difference between general

[23:03] and special benefit is an

[23:04] important point of distinction.

[23:08] Ads MAY only fund those

[23:08] services which are above city

[23:12] standard.

[23:13] The engineers report is updated

[23:14] annually to include new parcel

[23:16] data.

[23:17] >> Changes in land use and an

[23:18] updated budget for each

[23:21] district.

[23:22] It is important to note that

[23:23] assessments MAY increase or

[23:26] decrease or remain the same

[23:27] based upon the needs of

[23:27] the district and fiscal

[23:28] considerations.

[23:31] Some elements of the report

[23:32] codified upon information such

[23:33] as boundaries assessment,

[23:36] methodology, location and

[23:37] frequency of such service MAY

[23:38] not be updated through

[23:38] the annual process.

[23:41] These changes in assessment

[23:42] levies are shared with

[23:42] the community members,

[23:46] stakeholders or others who MAY

[23:46] serve on advisory committees

[23:47] associated with one or multiple

[23:51] districts.

[23:51] The proposed actions before

[23:55] the Council today for item 200

[23:55] include the approval of

[23:58] the fiscal year 2026 annual

[23:58] reports.

[23:59] In addition, the Department

[24:03] seeks authorization to allow

[24:03] the cfo to expend funds and

[24:04] collect revenues that will

[24:08] sustain the operations of all

[24:08] 54 districts under Parks and

[24:09] Recreation oversight.

[24:13] Additionally, the Council will

[24:14] allow would allow the cfo via

[24:14] the department to execute

[24:18] the manual billing of property

[24:19] owners who do not receive a

[24:22] property tax bill.

[24:27] The proposed actions for item

[24:28] 201 for the Economic

[24:31] Development Department approve

[24:32] the fiscal year 2026 annual

[24:32] reports.

[24:33] Authorize the cfo to

[24:37] appropriate and expend mad

[24:37] funds and manually bill

[24:38] property owners not billed by

[24:41] the county.

[24:42] An additional action this year

[24:43] is number four approve

[24:46] the waiver of mad council

[24:47] policy to allow Little Italy

[24:48] mad's operating reserve to fall

[24:52] below the required 10% of

[24:52] operating expenditures with

[24:53] the plan to bring it into

[24:57] compliance with Council policy

[24:57] in fiscal year 2027.

[25:02] The proposed actions ensure our

[25:03] Department's ability to submit

[25:07] the assessments to the county

[25:08] by the AUGUST 10th deadline for

[25:08] inclusion on the on the owner's

[25:11] property tax bill.

[25:12] All of this ensures a seamless

[25:16] continuity of service.

[25:17] For more information, members

[25:17] of the public can visit each

[25:18] department's web page.

[25:21] Also available online is an

[25:21] interactive map outlining

[25:22] district boundaries and general

[25:25] service areas.

[25:26] These are all useful resources

[25:27] for learning more about our

[25:27] Maintenance Assessment District

[25:33] program here in San Diego.

[25:34] >> This concludes our

[25:35] presentation and thank you all

[25:38] for your time today.

[25:39] All right.

[25:40] Thank you for the presentation.

[25:40] City Clerk.

[25:45] Let's turn to public comment.

[25:46] Thank you.

[25:46] Council PRESIDENT We will be

[25:47] taking public comment together

[25:48] for these items.

[25:51] So if you can please come

[25:52] forward to the yellow reserved

[25:52] seats We have Cesar Javier

[26:00] Joyce, Senator Andrus ebbing

[26:00] and then that's it.

[26:01] >> That's the duplicates for

[26:01] those people.

[26:05] So Cesar Javier we are giving

[26:06] one minute for each item you

[26:10] have time ceded to you for

[26:11] both.

[26:11] So you will have four minutes.

[26:15] Please proceed.

[26:20] So sir, thank you Once again we

[26:21] will be facing you discussing

[26:24] with you our predicaments, our

[26:29] concern.

[26:30] The city leadership is

[26:34] destroying San Diego's

[26:40] psychologically And what's

[26:40] the other two Socially,

[26:43] Economically it's a failure.

[26:48] I will cite one look at

[26:49] the organizational chart

[26:50] morning chart of the Parks and

[26:53] Recreation.

[26:54] We have been looking for money

[26:59] where we could use to sustain

[27:04] the priority needs of San

[27:07] Diegans like the library, like

[27:08] sanitation and hygiene programs

[27:13] like the health and Human

[27:14] Services.

[27:14] >> Cesar could you focus on

[27:15] the maintenance assessment

[27:20] district where 200 200 and it

[27:23] is from the parks and

[27:24] Recreation Real Estate and

[27:26] Operation Share Look over four

[27:31] example We need money for those

[27:32] I have mentioned which your cut

[27:33] of money is right there Real

[27:38] estate public golf course there

[27:41] are two and we can source money

[27:42] from there Sell it for the sake

[27:47] of the sick dying homeless.

[27:47] That's what I mean.

[27:52] MR. Local Butcher Money that is

[27:52] related to what we are

[27:57] discussing now Maintenance op

[28:01] does milking cow by golly

[28:03] Listen hear us I could only say

[28:06] corruption.

[28:07] Why do you have to insist

[28:07] maintaining those those

[28:11] resource real estate If only

[28:16] that we could sell it now and

[28:17] sustain the life health and

[28:26] services of San Diego's logic

[28:27] logical reasoning algorithm

[28:27] What is our top priority in

[28:29] this Parks and Recreation

[28:29] Maintenance?

[28:35] >> Sure Anyone and the answer

[28:39] Attorney please.

[28:44] >> We were here listening and

[28:49] we see the scars of cholera we

[28:49] call corruption equals monopoly

[28:53] trust discretion minus

[28:54] accountability.

[28:54] They are accountable for this.

[28:58] Yes, but you can just wash

[28:59] their hands like you guys share

[29:03] with Burn.

[29:04] >> That is your territory.

[29:08] For example Balboa Park What is

[29:09] your priority to for

[29:12] maintenance ensuring that

[29:18] the home of the lowest form of

[29:18] animals like lions and tigers

[29:23] and these are given priority

[29:24] than humans than San Diego Am I

[29:27] right?

[29:28] Am I wrong?

[29:29] That's our observation from a

[29:33] regular citizen San Diego's

[29:36] Remember sir, this is not just

[29:37] a home of San Diegans but

[29:42] the brave and brave soldiers

[29:42] and their families.

[29:47] Cheryl Acaba use has a great

[29:51] role in this maintenance and

[29:52] development.

[29:56] >> Tell us where are we

[29:57] suitable land for humans, Parks

[30:02] and recreation is a respiratory

[30:02] system of the city where we

[30:07] could breath the clean air when

[30:08] we could date the clean food

[30:11] water we drink the clean water

[30:11] What are we doing?

[30:12] >> Is that the maintenance that

[30:16] we are trying to project?

[30:17] >> No you are just projecting

[30:21] to make the milking cow fattier

[30:22] and more toss up Your time has

[30:30] concluded Joyce Sonata Thank

[30:35] you City Clerk Fuentes Joyce

[30:36] any other district three I do

[30:40] approve both of these and yet I

[30:41] just wanted to tell you my

[30:46] experience with the methods

[30:47] the bids, the p bids I know

[30:50] this is mad but they're all

[30:55] linked in a lot of ways and I

[30:55] heard you say in the press

[30:56] thank you for the presentation.

[30:59] It's always very good.

[31:00] I heard you say, you know,

[31:00] legal regulations, state

[31:04] regulations, local regulations

[31:09] And as I put myself into these

[31:10] the mad bids and p bids, I find

[31:14] that oh and by the way city

[31:15] besides all those other bodies

[31:18] we've got city involved

[31:19] nonprofits involved

[31:22] subcontractors involved vendors

[31:28] involved in my opinion how do

[31:32] we coordinate and collaborate

[31:33] this tremendous amount of work?

[31:38] I just don't see it.

[31:39] It just seems the staff report

[31:42] was eight pages with I think

[31:42] six attachments or more If you

[31:47] conclude the both of them and

[31:48] because of the debacle we had

[31:48] with the promenade downtown and

[31:53] that's a bid I started looking

[31:57] at this and it's tricky

[31:58] The collaboration is is really

[32:01] touchy and I'm not sure that

[32:02] it's happening at the level

[32:03] that we need to make these

[32:06] really work effectively with

[32:07] monitoring, implementing and

[32:07] oversight and transparency and

[32:08] all of that.

[32:12] So okay so I was going to say

[32:17] other things but you know

[32:18] Parker and Rick I love you

[32:21] Economic development I love you

[32:22] 54 Mad for the Park and Rec and

[32:22] ten for the Economic

[32:26] Development Department.

[32:27] So it's all good.

[32:27] We all need it.

[32:30] But I'm just saying that I'm

[32:31] getting a little scared at how

[32:32] complicated this stuff is and I

[32:36] think that's why we're in

[32:36] trouble often.

[32:37] >> Thank you so much.

[32:37] Love to all.

[32:40] Thank you, Andrea Ebbing you'll

[32:41] have two minutes And that is

[32:44] our last speaker in person for

[32:45] these items.

[32:45] Please proceed.

[32:46] Hi, my name is Andrea Ebbing

[32:50] and I wanted to present a

[32:50] solution to Parks and Rec,

[32:51] the city, the county all my

[32:55] districts.

[32:56] This is a trim light.

[32:57] It's an led lighting solution

[33:00] that will promote continuity,

[33:01] celebration and security.

[33:05] Also cost savings throughout

[33:06] San Diego.

[33:06] This is an aluminum channel a

[33:10] patented aluminum channel that

[33:11] includes in it our trim

[33:14] lighting system In each light

[33:15] is three LEDs which are

[33:15] directional.

[33:19] This product can give us a

[33:20] chance to celebrate beyond

[33:21] Christmas, celebrate beyond

[33:25] pride, Valentine's Day, St

[33:26] Patrick's Day Basically any

[33:30] occasion at any any time with

[33:34] ease it attaches to an app

[33:34] which you control and you can

[33:35] easily make this security

[33:36] lighting system perimeter

[33:39] lighting system and instantly

[33:40] any building or any district

[33:43] can be lit up and I'm talking

[33:44] about lit up at the touch of a

[33:48] you know your app.

[33:49] >> So this is a product that

[33:53] could really help the community

[33:58] build a new holiday theme So

[33:58] thank you.

[33:59] >> Thank you.

[33:59] I'm sorry the five minute timer

[34:03] going to those participating

[34:04] remotely starting with Blair

[34:05] Beckman If you can please

[34:05] unmute and please let me know

[34:08] if you're speaking to one or

[34:09] both of the items Both items

[34:09] please.

[34:10] >> You'll have two minutes.

[34:13] Please proceed.

[34:13] >> Hi.

[34:14] Thank you.

[34:15] With that previous item even

[34:19] more than just holiday time it

[34:19] could be good lighting up a

[34:23] building You know if there is

[34:24] an intruder or somebody

[34:25] uncomfortable or it can help

[34:27] with that process all

[34:28] throughout the year.

[34:29] >> So thank you for the item.

[34:33] I wanted to thank our city

[34:33] government staff.

[34:34] It seems really appropriate

[34:35] time to again thank them for

[34:37] their work of suspending

[34:37] certain parts of Memorial Park

[34:43] construction at this time And

[34:43] this surveillance tech is what

[34:44] my feeling is that spending of

[34:47] this time they want to take a

[34:48] bit of a break And with that I

[34:52] mean reason good thinking, you

[34:53] know, to address this new Trump

[34:53] administration at this time We

[34:57] can work better together.

[34:57] I think so.

[34:58] Thank you incredibly that I

[34:58] hope they're going to I want to

[35:01] do that with many projects and

[35:02] listen a little bit more to

[35:03] community and we can get a good

[35:07] dialog going With that all

[35:07] said, I'm just learning that

[35:12] these are projects that concern

[35:12] maintenance assessment

[35:13] districts.

[35:13] It's a new concept to me kind

[35:16] of So I'm learning.

[35:16] I'm learning how equity plays

[35:21] an important role in this

[35:21] process how certain

[35:22] neighborhoods and districts can

[35:26] easily get much more funding

[35:26] and money than other districts

[35:30] and all the different ins and

[35:31] outs that goes with that.

[35:31] So good luck.

[35:36] How how this issue can be

[35:37] worked on.

[35:37] I'm just learning Joyce Tonight

[35:40] I had really good words about

[35:40] it.

[35:41] It does seem really complicated

[35:45] and to offer explanations to

[35:45] the public on this subject.

[35:46] Good luck in that effort.

[35:47] I suppose that could have

[35:49] something to do with

[35:50] the parking districts how

[35:51] parking districts can have

[35:55] better forms of communication

[35:55] with each other in the future.

[35:56] City government staff learning

[36:00] to facilitate that can be about

[36:00] helping with environmental

[36:01] concerns within each

[36:04] neighborhood developing

[36:05] environmental facilitation

[36:11] packages and NGOs And you know

[36:11] for the Harvey year that could

[36:12] be helpful.

[36:15] So thank you for this item.

[36:16] >> Good luck with your work.

[36:17] Thank you.

[36:17] Next is the original If you can

[36:18] please unmute will you be

[36:21] speaking on both items?

[36:21] What do you think?

[36:22] Yes of course.

[36:24] Please keep them so 20 $6

[36:25] million ish that you guys are

[36:30] going to be able to you know,

[36:30] racket with.

[36:31] It's so interesting to see when

[36:31] we you know, talk about

[36:35] maintenance and things and then

[36:35] look at the world around us and

[36:36] see what's really being

[36:39] accomplished or not just people

[36:40] getting richer, which is

[36:41] interesting And that's the name

[36:41] of the game.

[36:42] I mean when we're in a

[36:45] corporation is in the point to

[36:45] make money.

[36:46] Yes.

[36:46] And off the backs of people

[36:47] suffering.

[36:47] Right.

[36:49] And you guys are doing a very

[36:49] good job of that.

[36:50] So what I was wondering since

[36:54] Balboa Park is in this district

[36:55] in the maintenance district,

[36:59] you know that spot that's you

[37:00] know, kind of like a prison.

[37:01] It's like imprisoned people in

[37:01] there.

[37:05] You guys like to call it Tent

[37:05] City and you've, you know,

[37:09] contracted with NGOs downtown

[37:10] Partnership and Dreams for

[37:10] Change And you know, they

[37:14] probably are ones that you

[37:15] would be spending this money

[37:16] with as well.

[37:19] So when you see that the things

[37:20] that they're doing is not

[37:21] really up to their contract and

[37:24] that people are dying and

[37:25] people are being raped Right.

[37:26] By the employees, I mean but

[37:28] that's okay.

[37:29] >> I'm just wondering if

[37:30] the maintenance is going to go

[37:33] into those areas of the park

[37:34] like the code enforcement that

[37:35] needs to take place with

[37:39] the electrical outlets that are

[37:39] right by water.

[37:40] So it's a very good little

[37:41] cesspool for an electrical

[37:44] shock of somebody.

[37:45] But I guess if the idea is to

[37:46] kill the homeless then you guys

[37:49] are doing a good job.

[37:49] There's also food poisoning

[37:50] that happens there.

[37:54] So there's many avenues to kill

[37:54] the homeless.

[37:55] But I'm just wondering, you

[37:58] know, are these the types of

[37:59] things that you would want to

[38:00] look into or is it because it's

[38:00] the homeless?

[38:03] It's like when you know there's

[38:04] an event we just kind of move

[38:05] them down the way and say just

[38:09] kind of like don't look at it.

[38:09] It's an eyesore.

[38:10] Are we going to kind of treat

[38:11] this the same So like they're

[38:13] not going to be able to have

[38:14] any maintenance in there.

[38:15] Oh, but you know, good job,

[38:18] Stephen, for laughing and

[38:22] mocking Tammy Jackson for dying

[38:23] a week ago today.

[38:24] You guys are doing really good

[38:28] killing people there.

[38:29] Rosa Unless Cora if you can

[38:32] please unmute will you be

[38:33] speaking to both items?

[38:36] No to a one to a one.

[38:37] You'll have one minute.

[38:37] Please proceed.

[38:41] Hi my name is Rosanna Squire,

[38:42] the Vice PRESIDENT Of Community

[38:43] Development and Policy for City

[38:43] Heights Clean Development.

[38:46] >> I'm here to express strong

[38:47] support for item 2a1

[38:47] particularly the continued

[38:50] investment in the City Heights

[38:51] Maintenance Assessment

[38:51] District.

[38:52] The City Heights Matter plays a

[38:55] vital role in keeping our

[38:56] community corridors clean, safe

[38:57] and welcoming especially in a

[39:00] historically underserved

[39:01] neighborhood.

[39:01] Over the past year, City

[39:02] Heights cdc has proudly

[39:05] overseen the maintenance

[39:05] assessment district for City

[39:06] Heights, creating opportunities

[39:07] for residents to take pride in

[39:10] our neighborhood supporting

[39:11] local city heights jobs and

[39:11] help build a safer, greener and

[39:15] more connected public space.

[39:15] We urge your continued support

[39:16] for this critical resource and

[39:19] thank you for the time and

[39:20] commitment for our community.

[39:20] >> Thank you.

[39:21] Thank you.

[39:23] And that does conclude public

[39:24] comment on items 200 and 2a1

[39:25] Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[39:25] >> All right.

[39:28] Thank you City Clerk So we're

[39:29] going to turn it over to my

[39:30] council colleagues for

[39:30] questions, comments and we'll

[39:33] be needing two motions but

[39:34] we'll start out with item 204

[39:38] the motion I see Council member

[39:38] Campo who is the chair of our

[39:39] Economic Development and

[39:42] Intergovernmental Governmental

[39:43] Relations Committee to kick us

[39:43] off.

[39:44] Thank thank you Council

[39:44] PRESIDENT Thank you staff for

[39:48] the presentation and it's

[39:48] approved unanimously at our

[39:49] idea And your committee has a

[39:52] really important role

[39:53] throughout our city.

[39:53] I'll move approval of staff's

[39:56] recommendation for item 200 and

[39:57] await your call for 2a1.

[39:57] >> All right.

[39:58] Thank you, sir.

[39:59] So we have a motion.

[40:01] We'll go next to council member

[40:02] Whitburn.

[40:02] Thank you.

[40:03] Council PRESIDENT What I think

[40:06] chair can appeal and you and I

[40:07] are for the review of this and

[40:07] I really want to thank

[40:08] the Parks and recreation and

[40:10] economic development

[40:11] departments for all your work

[40:11] in support of our maintenance

[40:12] assessment districts.

[40:15] District three is fortunate to

[40:15] have several bads that improve

[40:19] the cleanliness and safety of

[40:20] our communities including Adams

[40:21] Avenue and First San Diego

[40:21] River Improvement Project,

[40:24] Greater Hillcrest, Little Italy

[40:25] Mission Hills Historic Street

[40:26] Lighting, North Park University

[40:29] Heights and Washington Street.

[40:30] Everybody who resides or visits

[40:35] or operates a business in these

[40:35] districts benefits from

[40:36] the enhanced services that our

[40:39] bads provide and especially

[40:40] want to acknowledge all

[40:41] the people on the ground who

[40:41] perform the particularly

[40:45] demanding work at times to

[40:45] perform these functions

[40:50] Oftentimes without recognition

[40:50] or praise.

[40:51] They help to keep our sidewalks

[40:55] clean, our trees trimmed and

[40:56] watered and parkways maintained

[40:56] among all the other services

[40:59] that they provide in our city

[41:00] every day Our neighborhoods are

[41:01] better off because of their

[41:04] dedicated efforts and I want

[41:05] them to know that they are

[41:06] appreciated.

[41:06] So thank you.

[41:07] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT

[41:07] All right.

[41:09] Thank you.

[41:10] So we have a motion by

[41:11] Councilmember Campo, the second

[41:11] by Councilmember Whitburn with

[41:14] the staff recommendation item

[41:14] 200.

[41:15] Not see anyone else.

[41:19] I will thank you both for

[41:20] the presentation, both

[41:20] departments and the good work

[41:21] you do.

[41:25] Honored to help form two of

[41:25] those districts one in

[41:26] the parking rack and once under

[41:29] Eddie and the good work that

[41:29] the volunteers do whether

[41:30] they're actually managing or

[41:34] they're just simply advisory to

[41:34] the city and the operational

[41:35] demands we certainly appreciate

[41:36] their commitment of their

[41:39] personal time going forward.

[41:40] So with that we do have

[41:42] the motion by Councilmember

[41:43] Campos second by Council member

[41:44] Whitburn.

[41:46] Clerk Please call the roll on

[41:47] item 200 I started the voting

[41:47] system.

[41:51] >> Please cast your vote And

[41:52] Council Councilmember Campbell

[41:52] if I MAY have your vote for

[42:01] the record please I vote yes.

[42:02] Thank you.

[42:05] That person that vote passes

[42:06] unanimously 8 to 0 with council

[42:06] member Ella Rivera absent.

[42:07] Thank you Council PRESIDENT And

[42:10] Councilmember Kemp you can we

[42:11] have your motion again for 2a1

[42:11] Yes I move staff's approval of

[42:15] staff's recommendation of item

[42:16] 2a1 and just to give credit

[42:16] where credit's due this was

[42:17] that cns of which I'm also a

[42:18] member but cns was

[42:20] the committee that you went

[42:20] through so thank you.

[42:21] Good clarification.

[42:21] Thank you for that

[42:23] Councilmember Woodburn We'll

[42:24] have the second.

[42:25] So again we have a motion by

[42:28] Councilmember Campos, second by

[42:29] Councilmember Whitburn to move

[42:29] the staff recommendation And

[42:30] item 2 to 1 clerk please call

[42:32] the roll.

[42:33] I started the voting system.

[42:34] Please cast your vote.

[42:34] Councilmember Campbell, if I

[42:37] MAY get your vote for

[42:38] the record, thank you.

[42:42] >> As chair of cns I am happy

[42:43] to say yes.

[42:43] >> Thank you.

[42:47] Council member That does passed

[42:48] unanimously 8 to 0 with

[42:49] Councilmember Eli Rivera absent

[42:52] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[42:52] right.

[42:53] Thank you City Clerk Again

[42:57] thank you to Staff All right.

[42:58] >> What you all been waiting

[42:58] for?

[43:01] Clerk Please introduce item 202

[43:06] Item 2o2 is the accessory

[43:06] dwelling unit 82 and Junior

[43:07] accessory dwelling unit.

[43:11] Jt you regulation amendments to

[43:12] the San Diego Municipal Code

[43:12] and Local Coastal Program

[43:15] amendment If you'd like to

[43:16] speak to this item please be

[43:17] sure to submit your speaker

[43:20] slip to the front of the room

[43:20] in the clear box.

[43:21] And if you are participating

[43:22] remotely now's the time to

[43:25] raise your hand by pressing

[43:26] Star nine or the raise your

[43:26] hand icon.

[43:30] Thank you Council PRESIDENT All

[43:31] right.

[43:31] >> If you want to hold the sign

[43:32] up, remember you're blocking

[43:36] somebody's view back row is a

[43:36] great place for the big signs

[43:37] that I see out there.

[43:38] But be considerate for

[43:40] the folks that are sitting

[43:41] behind you.

[43:41] So with that staff please

[43:45] introduce yourselves for

[43:45] the record and let us know how

[43:46] much time you need for your

[43:50] presentation.

[43:51] >> Good afternoon.

[43:52] My name is Liz, said Condon and

[43:52] with the City Planning

[43:54] department we need about 25

[43:54] minutes.

[43:59] All right, you're ready.

[44:00] >> Good afternoon.

[44:01] My name is Liz, said Kania and

[44:04] I'm a principal planner with

[44:05] the City Planning Department.

[44:05] Joining me today are city

[44:06] planning director Heidi Von

[44:07] Blum, Deputy Director Tate

[44:09] Galloway and program manager.

[44:10] Separately we're here today to

[44:10] present the Accessory dwelling

[44:14] unit and junior accessory

[44:14] dwelling unit regulation

[44:15] amendments the San Diego

[44:16] Municipal Code and Local

[44:19] Coastal Program.

[44:20] Since 2017 the city has taken

[44:24] proactive steps to align edu

[44:25] and jd regulations with

[44:25] evolving state laws.

[44:28] These updates aim to increase

[44:29] housing production, streamline

[44:30] permitting processes and reduce

[44:33] regulatory barriers Each

[44:34] amendment has built upon

[44:34] the last incorporating

[44:35] priorities such as

[44:38] affordability, accessibility

[44:39] and neighborhood compatibility

[44:40] to better address India's

[44:43] ongoing housing shortage.

[44:44] On MARCH 4th, 2025, the City

[44:49] Council directed Swift

[44:49] Amendments the ada Home Density

[44:50] Bonus program to address

[44:51] implementation concerns.

[44:54] These comprehensive amendments

[44:54] presented as a single package

[44:55] allow for focused discussions

[44:59] on key issues such as public

[44:59] safety, development scale and

[45:00] neighborhood funding.

[45:03] Adopting these amendments

[45:04] together promotes regulatory

[45:05] clarity and helps prevent

[45:05] confusion or delays.

[45:08] The city will also coordinate

[45:09] closely with the California

[45:10] Department of Housing and

[45:10] Community Development to

[45:11] support timely and effective

[45:15] implementation.

[45:16] In the next few slides that

[45:18] analyze 80 homes permitted

[45:22] between 2021 and 2024, the city

[45:23] permitted fourth thousand 388

[45:23] 80 home projects resulting in a

[45:28] total of 5720 80 homes During

[45:31] this time approximately 90% of

[45:32] the projects result in

[45:34] the development of 123 82 homes

[45:35] and the r's residential single

[45:39] unit base owns the city

[45:43] permitted 410 80 homes through

[45:44] 7080 home density bonus program

[45:44] projects when 91% of

[45:46] the projects located in the rs

[45:52] one seven zone the 80 home

[45:52] density bonus program

[45:54] facilitated the permitting of

[45:55] 368 affordable 82 homes in 507

[45:56] market rate 80 homes for a

[46:00] total of 875 permanent adu

[46:04] homes representing 14% of

[46:05] the total 80 homes permitted in

[46:05] the city of San Diego.

[46:08] This represented 5% of all

[46:12] housing projects permitted

[46:13] between 2021 and 2024 including

[46:15] 8% of the portable homes, 2% of

[46:16] the market rate homes and just

[46:17] 3% of the total housing stocks

[46:20] permitted During this time

[46:24] the city permitted 3009 State

[46:25] allowed 80 homes in the outer

[46:25] space zone.

[46:29] Of these 84% were located in

[46:29] the rs one seven zone which

[46:33] represents 42% of the total

[46:33] acreage of residential single

[46:34] family zoned citywide.

[46:37] These 80 homes were required to

[46:37] be permitted under state law.

[46:42] Lastly, the vast majority of 82

[46:43] home projects in the rs one

[46:46] seven zone approximately 99% or

[46:50] 2501 projects included between

[46:50] 1 and 382 homes.

[46:51] Collectively these projects

[46:53] have contributed 2809 new 82

[46:54] homes to the city's housing

[46:58] supply.

[46:59] >> The proposed amendments were

[46:59] presented to the Planning

[47:01] Commission on MAY 1st and

[47:02] the Land Use and Housing

[47:02] Committee on MAY 15th.

[47:06] Robust discussion took place at

[47:07] both meetings resulting in

[47:08] several amendments based on

[47:08] the recommendations from each

[47:11] body.

[47:12] These changes are outlined in

[47:16] detail in the staff report.

[47:17] The single issue Code Amendment

[47:20] package includes 25 proposed

[47:21] amendments 15 related to

[47:21] general regulations and ten

[47:22] specific to the e2 home density

[47:25] bonus program.

[47:26] Revisions were made following

[47:27] the Land Use and Housing

[47:27] Committee hearing based on

[47:30] committee recommendations.

[47:30] Correspondence from

[47:31] the California Department of

[47:32] Housing and Community

[47:35] Development dated MAY 30th and

[47:35] JUNE 13th.

[47:36] Community feedback and a

[47:39] memorandum issued by City

[47:40] Planning director Heidi von

[47:40] Blum on JUNE 14th.

[47:41] Each item revised since

[47:44] the committee meeting is

[47:45] labeled was revised in

[47:45] the presentation.

[47:49] Item 180 Home minimum maximum

[47:49] size.

[47:52] The proposed amendment removes

[47:53] the 1200 square foot size limit

[47:54] from the area definition and

[47:58] applies it only to attached and

[47:58] detached 82 homes.

[48:00] It also clarifies that

[48:01] converted 80 homes with

[48:02] existing structures are not

[48:05] subject to a size limit and

[48:05] converted 80 homes with

[48:06] the necessary structure MAY

[48:09] construct an additional 150ft

[48:09] for ingress and egress.

[48:13] Item 281 jd Zoning.

[48:14] This item updates the use

[48:14] tables for agricultural general

[48:19] zones to permit permit 81 jd

[48:19] homes consistent with allowance

[48:20] for single dwelling units in

[48:22] these zones.

[48:22] Item three Fire Sprinkler

[48:23] Requirements.

[48:27] This proposed amendment

[48:28] clarifies that the construction

[48:28] of new homes shall not trigger

[48:29] a requirement to install fire

[48:32] sprinkler systems for an

[48:33] existing primary dwelling unit

[48:33] or multiple dwelling unit

[48:34] unless required under

[48:37] the California Building

[48:38] Standards Code.

[48:38] Item four Converted 80 and jd

[48:41] Homes within the Coastal

[48:41] overlay zone.

[48:42] This amendment clarifies that

[48:43] certain development regulations

[48:47] related to wetlands sensitive

[48:48] coastal blocks, coastal beaches

[48:48] and supplemental coastal

[48:53] regulations apply only to

[48:53] converted 80 and jd Homes

[48:54] within that coastal overlay

[48:56] zone.

[48:57] Item five jd Rental Terms.

[48:57] This removes the 31 day minimum

[49:01] rental term requirement for jd

[49:01] Homes.

[49:02] This requirement remains in

[49:05] place for all other 82 homes.

[49:06] Item six.

[49:06] The number of permitted areas

[49:10] in jd Homes with an existing or

[49:11] proposed single dwelling unit.

[49:14] This proposed amendment

[49:15] clarifies that one jd home one

[49:16] converted 80 home and one

[49:18] detached home MAY be permitted

[49:19] on a lot with an existing or

[49:23] proposed single family home.

[49:24] Item seven Tree Requirements.

[49:25] This proposed amendment removes

[49:29] the tree landscaping

[49:30] requirement for state allowed

[49:31] area and jd Homes.

[49:34] 80 bonus projects would

[49:34] continue to be required to

[49:35] provide two trees for every

[49:39] 5000ft of lot area.

[49:40] Item eight Number of permitted

[49:43] a2 and jd homes on existing or

[49:44] proposed multiple dwelling unit

[49:44] on lots with an existing

[49:45] existing multiple dwelling unit

[49:49] structure Up to 82 homes MAY be

[49:51] permitted but the number of

[49:52] detached 80 homes cannot exceed

[49:52] the number of existing dwelling

[49:53] units.

[49:57] Non livable spaces MAY also be

[49:57] converted into 80 homes up to

[49:58] 25% of the existing units with

[50:01] Amendment of one.

[50:02] Item nine.

[50:07] Floor Area ratio maximums state

[50:07] allowed a2 and jd homes located

[50:10] within or the proposed space an

[50:11] existing single dwelling unit

[50:12] structure single dwelling unit

[50:17] are not subject to the floor

[50:18] area ratio maximums or

[50:18] the underlying base zone.

[50:20] Additionally one state allowed

[50:21] Edo home that is 800ft or less

[50:22] is not subject to the floor

[50:25] area ratio limitation provided

[50:26] that is only attached or

[50:30] detached on the lot.

[50:31] This item was revised after

[50:31] the Land Use and Housing

[50:33] Committee to clarify that only

[50:34] converted 80 homes allowed

[50:37] under Government Code section

[50:38] 66323 are not subject to

[50:38] the floor area ratio

[50:39] limitation.

[50:42] Item ten Side Yard setbacks for

[50:43] a2 Structure.

[50:43] This proposed amendment

[50:45] specifies that 80 home

[50:45] structures must have a minimum

[50:46] street side yard of four feet

[50:50] or the based on street side

[50:50] yard setback whichever is less

[50:51] to be consistent with state

[50:51] law.

[50:55] Item 11 Fire Safety Setback.

[50:58] This proposed amendment

[50:58] requires 80 homes located

[50:59] within high or very high fire

[51:02] severity zones to maintain a

[51:03] minimum four foot setback from

[51:04] interior and rear yard property

[51:07] lines to insert defensible

[51:08] space.

[51:08] It also clarifies that the fire

[51:09] code officials existing

[51:12] authority to require a greater

[51:12] setbacks when warranted

[51:13] providing clear guidance and

[51:17] greater developmental certainty

[51:17] .

[51:18] In response to the Department

[51:18] of Housing new developments.

[51:19] Memorandum.

[51:22] The originally proposed five

[51:22] yard setback was reduced to

[51:23] four feet and specific code

[51:24] citations have been added to

[51:27] support the fire code officials

[51:27] discretion.

[51:28] Item 12 Replacement Parking.

[51:32] This proposed amendment

[51:33] initially added uncovered

[51:33] parking space the list of

[51:34] parking types that do not

[51:36] require replacement parking

[51:37] when removed to accommodate

[51:38] ideal homes except in the case

[51:41] where the properties located

[51:42] with a beach impact area

[51:43] the parking impact overlay zone

[51:43] and outside a transit party

[51:46] area.

[51:47] This approach was consistent

[51:48] with the replacement parking

[51:48] requirements previously applied

[51:52] Applied by the California

[51:52] Coastal Commission for Garages,

[51:53] carports and covered parking

[51:57] structures removed or converted

[51:57] to accommodate in 82 home.

[51:58] However, in response to

[52:01] concerns raised by

[52:01] the Department of Housing New

[52:02] Development in their JUNE 13th

[52:03] correspondence, this amendment

[52:06] has been revised to clarify

[52:07] that replacement parking is not

[52:07] required when an uncovered

[52:10] parking space is removed and

[52:10] accommodate and at home

[52:11] regardless of location.

[52:12] We anticipate that the Coastal

[52:15] Commission MAY desire changes

[52:16] here but nonetheless recommend

[52:17] including these changes but do

[52:20] not include including these

[52:21] changes at this time.

[52:21] Item 13 jd Home Occupancy

[52:25] Requirement Exemption This

[52:26] exempts governmental agencies

[52:27] Land trust and housing

[52:31] organizations from jd Homeowner

[52:31] Occupancy Requirements.

[52:35] Item 2380 homes separate sale

[52:36] or convenient conveyance.

[52:36] This proposed amendment

[52:39] implements A.B. 1033 by

[52:40] allowing eligible 80 homes to

[52:44] be converted into individual

[52:44] condominium units and sold

[52:45] separately from the primary

[52:45] residence.

[52:46] It applies the city of

[52:49] Condominium conversion

[52:50] regulations including the first

[52:50] right of refusal for existing

[52:54] tenants to ensure tenant

[52:55] protections are maintained.

[52:56] 80 homes that receive financing

[52:58] or assistance from the senior

[52:59] Housing Commission or otherwise

[52:59] deemed restricted are not

[53:00] eligible for conversion or

[53:03] separate sale during the term

[53:04] of this restriction.

[53:05] As additional coordination with

[53:05] the Housing Commission is still

[53:09] required at the MAY 15th, 2025

[53:09] Lenders and Housing Committee

[53:13] meeting the committee discussed

[53:14] a preference for for sale 80

[53:14] homes to be offered to buyers

[53:18] who intend to occupy the ideal

[53:18] home first.

[53:19] The City Planning Department

[53:21] has amended this proposal to

[53:22] require that 82 homes conveyed

[53:23] separately from the primary

[53:26] residence must be listed on at

[53:27] least two publicly accessible

[53:27] real estate websites or

[53:29] databases for at least 30 days.

[53:30] This listing must also include

[53:34] a disclosure indicating a

[53:35] preference for the 80 home to

[53:36] be offered to buyers intending

[53:36] to use the adi home as their

[53:39] primary residence.

[53:40] >> Item 25 two story height

[53:40] limit.

[53:44] This proposed amendment was

[53:44] added after the Planning

[53:45] Commission hearing in response

[53:48] to the recommendation to limit

[53:49] the height of an 80 home

[53:50] structure to two stories.

[53:50] Based on feedback from

[53:54] the lands and Housing Committee

[53:55] meeting, this proposal has been

[53:55] further amended to clarify that

[53:56] the two storey height

[53:58] limitation would only apply to

[53:59] detached 80 home structures and

[54:00] 80 homes attached to an

[54:03] existing accessory structure on

[54:03] single family zoned lots.

[54:04] This limitation is also

[54:08] consistent with state law and

[54:08] based on height limitations

[54:09] would continue to apply.

[54:13] The following amendments are

[54:14] specific to the Home Density

[54:14] bonus program.

[54:16] Item 14 Applicability.

[54:17] The program currently applies

[54:18] in all zones that allow

[54:21] residential uses.

[54:22] This proposed amendment

[54:22] previously removed eligibility

[54:26] for 80 home density bonus

[54:27] projects in the rs one one rs

[54:29] one to rs one three rs one for

[54:30] rs when eight rs one nine rs

[54:35] 110 and rs 111 zones based on

[54:35] feedback from Councilmember

[54:36] Kent Lee and the California

[54:37] Department of Housing New

[54:37] Development.

[54:40] City Planning Director Heidi

[54:41] von Blum issued a memorandum on

[54:41] JUNE 14th revising

[54:42] the amendment to restore

[54:45] eligibility for the 80 home

[54:46] density bonus program on

[54:46] parcels within these zones.

[54:50] Under the revised language all

[54:51] of eligibility is permitted if

[54:51] the portion of the premises

[54:55] proposed for development is

[54:55] located in a high or high

[54:56] resourced opportunity area as

[54:59] designated by the California

[54:59] Tax Credit Allocation

[55:00] Committee.

[55:00] At the time the development

[55:01] application is deemed complete

[55:04] and the parcel is identified as

[55:05] residential and the applicable

[55:06] land use plan.

[55:06] This revision advances

[55:09] the goals of expanding

[55:10] affordable housing

[55:10] opportunities in high resource

[55:11] areas while ensuring

[55:14] consistency with state housing

[55:15] parties including

[55:16] the requirement to formally

[55:18] further fair housing.

[55:23] The rs 1112131418191 ten and

[55:26] 111 basins previously accounted

[55:27] for approximately 24% of

[55:28] the land eligible for the ada

[55:28] Home Density Bonus program.

[55:31] Under the revised criteria

[55:31] approximately 75% of

[55:36] residential parcels located

[55:36] within hina highest California

[55:37] tax credit allocation Committee

[55:38] Opportunity areas remain

[55:41] eligible.

[55:42] These zones produce 116 82

[55:45] homes representing 3.4% of

[55:46] the 80 s permitted in the rs

[55:49] zone and just 2% of all eight

[55:50] homes permitted citywide

[55:50] between 2021 and 2022.

[55:53] Item 15 evacuation rounds.

[55:54] This proposed amendment would

[55:58] require lots and high or very

[55:59] high fire severity zones to be

[56:00] on an improved public street

[56:00] with at least two evacuation

[56:03] evacuation routes to qualify

[56:04] for the 80 home density bonus

[56:04] program.

[56:05] It also prohibits the program

[56:09] in lots anchored in cul de sacs

[56:10] or streets with only one point

[56:11] of ingress and egress in a high

[56:13] or very high fire hazard

[56:14] severity zones.

[56:17] Item 16 Developmental scale at

[56:18] both the Planning Commission

[56:18] and the Land Use and Housing

[56:22] Committee meetings discussions

[56:22] focused on limiting

[56:23] the development scale projects

[56:24] on the ada Home Density Bonus

[56:24] program.

[56:27] This proposed amendment is

[56:27] intended to promote 80 homes

[56:28] that are scaled to

[56:29] the surrounding area,

[56:29] especially on larger and

[56:32] environmentally sensitive lots

[56:33] for multiple families zones

[56:33] with environmentally sensitive

[56:34] lands.

[56:36] The floor area ratio would be

[56:37] calculated based only on

[56:37] the portion lot that does not

[56:38] contain environmentally

[56:41] sensitive lands.

[56:42] To limit the development scale

[56:43] on single family lots the lot

[56:46] area used to calculate

[56:46] the floor ratio is proposed to

[56:47] be capped at 8000ft.

[56:51] This area MAY be further

[56:51] reduced by excluding portions

[56:52] of the lot that contain

[56:55] environmentally sensitive lands

[56:55] .

[56:56] In response to the Planning

[56:57] Commission's direction,

[56:57] the Language and Housing

[56:58] Committee was presented with

[57:00] additional strategies to

[57:01] further limit development

[57:01] scale.

[57:04] These included establishing a

[57:05] minimum 80 home size capping

[57:05] the number of adu homes

[57:06] permitted per lot and reducing

[57:09] the lawyer ratio calculation.

[57:09] The City Planning Department

[57:10] Development presented these

[57:11] options for the committee's

[57:14] consideration and ultimately

[57:14] the committee recommended

[57:15] limiting development scale by

[57:18] applying a cap on the total

[57:19] number of adu homes allowed

[57:20] under the medium density bonus

[57:24] program.

[57:24] In response to

[57:25] the recommendation from

[57:25] the Land Use and Housing

[57:26] Committee, the City Planning

[57:28] Department has further revised

[57:29] the proposed amendments to

[57:29] include in addition to using an

[57:30] adjusted lot area to calculate

[57:34] the floor area ratio a cap on

[57:35] the number of 80 and 80 homes

[57:38] on single family zone lots.

[57:39] A new option has been created

[57:42] incorporating a maximum cap of

[57:43] 4 to 7 Adu and jd Homes based

[57:43] on the lot area for single

[57:47] family zone Lot.

[57:48] As shown in this table.

[57:48] Please note that

[57:51] the clarification was made and

[57:51] the JUNE 13th crux Remember to

[57:52] ensure that if a lot contains

[57:53] environmentally sensitive lands

[57:56] the lot area shall be

[57:57] determined based on

[57:57] the developable area.

[57:58] As an alternative the City

[57:58] Council could also adopt a

[58:03] different unit cap.

[58:04] The City Planning Department

[58:05] would also like to provide an

[58:05] additional enhancement to

[58:06] the program.

[58:08] The medium density bonus

[58:09] program currently requires one

[58:10] deed restricted adu home for

[58:14] each bonus Adu home deed

[58:14] restrictions must last at least

[58:15] ten years for those restricted

[58:18] to very low income or low

[58:19] income households and 15 years

[58:20] for those restricted to

[58:20] moderate income households.

[58:24] Based on the Senior Housing

[58:25] Commission's income and rate

[58:25] calculations, rents for

[58:28] moderate moderate income

[58:29] restricted areas at 100 per 10%

[58:31] area mirrored in median income

[58:32] MAY closely aligned with market

[58:37] rents.

[58:38] Revising the area home density

[58:39] bonus program to require all 82

[58:39] homes to be restricted at

[58:41] moderate incomes strengthens

[58:42] the city's efforts to meet its

[58:42] regional housing needs

[58:46] Assessment goals by increasing

[58:47] the supplies of research to

[58:47] moderate income affordable

[58:48] housing while still allowing

[58:52] this option to district at very

[58:52] low or very low income for

[58:53] market rate Adus.

[58:55] This option would further

[58:56] ensure that all adu homes

[58:57] developed under the program are

[58:57] aligned with the city's

[59:00] affordable housing objectives

[59:01] incentivize them production of

[59:01] very low low and moderate

[59:05] income adu homes and maximizing

[59:06] the program's overall

[59:06] effectiveness.

[59:10] Item 17 required automatic fire

[59:10] sprinkler systems require

[59:14] automatic fire sprinkler

[59:14] systems for all detached

[59:15] affordable adu and bonus adu

[59:15] homes.

[59:18] Similar to the requirements for

[59:19] multiple dwelling unit

[59:19] buildings.

[59:23] Item 18 parking This proposed

[59:24] amendment require one off

[59:25] street parking fees for each

[59:25] affordable and bonus Adu home

[59:29] located outside of the transit

[59:29] party area.

[59:30] State law prohibits local

[59:32] agencies from requiring parking

[59:33] within a transit priority area.

[59:34] Item 19 Deed Restriction

[59:38] Agreements for Affordable adu

[59:38] Homes.

[59:39] This proposal clarifies that

[59:39] the necessary written agreement

[59:43] between the applicant and

[59:44] the San Diego Housing

[59:44] Commission along with the deed

[59:45] of trust for each affordable

[59:48] adu must be fully executed

[59:49] prior to the issuance of

[59:52] the first building permit.

[59:53] Item 20 clarifies that

[59:54] affordable ada homes and

[59:54] accessible ada homes

[59:57] constructed to the program must

[59:58] be in comparable in size and

[59:59] include at least the same

[1:00:02] number of bedrooms as the bonus

[1:00:02] adu homes.

[1:00:03] Item 21 A.D. Home Density Bonus

[1:00:07] Program Compliance increases

[1:00:08] penalties for violations of

[1:00:08] affordability requirements

[1:00:12] under the program by imposing a

[1:00:13] minimum fine of $10,000 per 80

[1:00:14] home per month.

[1:00:16] If an ideal home is not rented

[1:00:17] to a qualified household this

[1:00:17] is this.

[1:00:18] This is to help ensure long

[1:00:21] term compliance and preserve

[1:00:22] affordable housing.

[1:00:26] Item 22 establishes a community

[1:00:26] enhancement fee for all

[1:00:27] affordable and bonus adu homes

[1:00:29] under 750ft.

[1:00:30] Developed the 80 home density

[1:00:34] bonus program while state law

[1:00:34] prohibits development impact

[1:00:35] fees for areas under 750ft.

[1:00:39] This ensures that all it's

[1:00:40] usable in the program

[1:00:40] contribute to the neighborhood

[1:00:41] infrastructure needs.

[1:00:44] This would be calculated based

[1:00:44] on the square footage and mere

[1:00:45] existing development impact

[1:00:48] fees for multifamily units.

[1:00:49] In response, the Land Use and

[1:00:49] Housing Commission's motion

[1:00:50] this proposed fee has been

[1:00:53] revised to incentivize

[1:00:53] affordable homes and

[1:00:54] affirmatively further for

[1:00:54] housing.

[1:00:58] Deed restrictive very low

[1:00:58] income and low income

[1:00:59] affordable ada homes that are

[1:01:02] located within areas identified

[1:01:03] as moderate, high or very high.

[1:01:04] Tax Court Allocation Committee

[1:01:07] Opportunity areas would be

[1:01:08] exempt from paying

[1:01:09] the Affordable Community

[1:01:11] Enhancement fee.

[1:01:12] In addition, an amendment was

[1:01:13] included in the Correction memo

[1:01:15] dated JUNE 13th to specify that

[1:01:16] these funds would be allocated

[1:01:17] for neighborhood enhancing

[1:01:20] improvements and services

[1:01:21] solely in communities of

[1:01:21] concern to ensure these

[1:01:22] communities directly benefit

[1:01:25] from the development of at home

[1:01:26] density bonus program projects.

[1:01:30] Item 24 is a clarification to

[1:01:31] the Sustainable Development

[1:01:31] Area definition.

[1:01:32] The 80 Home Density Bonus

[1:01:35] program allows for additional

[1:01:36] 80 homes within the sustainable

[1:01:36] development area.

[1:01:39] Missile Code defines a

[1:01:39] sustainable development area

[1:01:40] based on a defined walking

[1:01:41] distance along a pedestrian

[1:01:44] path a travel to a major

[1:01:44] transit stop.

[1:01:45] This proposed amendment further

[1:01:46] clarifies the City Planning

[1:01:47] Department's interpretation

[1:01:48] that the pedestrian path of

[1:01:53] travel must include a sidewalk

[1:01:53] .

[1:01:53] Information was shared a

[1:01:54] memorandum from the City

[1:01:55] Planning Department to

[1:01:56] the Community Planners

[1:01:57] Committee on MARCH 21st 2025 to

[1:01:58] facilitate discussions related

[1:02:02] to the recommendation from

[1:02:02] the committee.

[1:02:03] Additionally, the City Planning

[1:02:03] Department accepted feedback

[1:02:06] from community members and

[1:02:06] stakeholders throughout

[1:02:07] the hearing process.

[1:02:10] On APRIL 22nd, 2025

[1:02:11] the Community Planners

[1:02:11] Committee approved

[1:02:12] the following two motions.

[1:02:15] Motion one.

[1:02:16] Approve changes to all rc zones

[1:02:17] and there are a submission

[1:02:17] matrix.

[1:02:20] This motion was approved 21

[1:02:21] 220.

[1:02:24] Motion to approve their

[1:02:25] proposal Number three for armed

[1:02:26] zones to allow two city bonus

[1:02:29] affordable adas on every r r m

[1:02:29] lot if allowed by the f r.

[1:02:30] Excluded from the city bonus

[1:02:33] Affordable adu program would be

[1:02:34] lots that have maxed out or

[1:02:35] even overbuilt their unit

[1:02:35] density allowance.

[1:02:39] These lots among all others

[1:02:39] would still allow city to use

[1:02:40] up to eight approval including

[1:02:44] recommendation in the arms own

[1:02:44] matrix.

[1:02:46] This motion was approved 21

[1:02:47] 2022.

[1:02:47] The City Planning Department

[1:02:52] submitted the draft amendments

[1:02:52] The California Department of

[1:02:53] Housing Community Development

[1:02:56] for review on APRIL 25th, 2025

[1:02:57] in response to the housing

[1:03:01] the city's initial comments

[1:03:01] were received on MAY 30th,

[1:03:02] 2025.

[1:03:02] The proposed regulations were

[1:03:06] revised to address concerns

[1:03:07] related to fire safety and

[1:03:07] setbacks.

[1:03:11] Although hpd did not inform

[1:03:11] city planning that they had

[1:03:12] further comments, a subsequent

[1:03:13] response from each city was

[1:03:16] received on JUNE 13, 2025.

[1:03:17] Staff has since provided a

[1:03:20] followup response which was

[1:03:21] the distribute to the City

[1:03:21] Council on JUNE 14th, 2025.

[1:03:25] The final ordinance will be

[1:03:26] submitted to each city for

[1:03:27] formal review and the City

[1:03:27] Planning Department will submit

[1:03:31] a formal response to it by

[1:03:31] the requested deadline.

[1:03:32] City planning will continue to

[1:03:36] coordinate with each city to

[1:03:36] ensure consistency with housing

[1:03:37] element requirements and

[1:03:38] maintain compliance moving

[1:03:40] forward.

[1:03:40] Staff's recommendation is to

[1:03:41] adopt a resolution determining

[1:03:45] that the approval of the 80 and

[1:03:46] 80 regular amendments the City

[1:03:46] Municipal Code and Local

[1:03:50] Coastal Program Amendment are

[1:03:50] category exempt from

[1:03:51] the California Environmental

[1:03:51] Quality Act under article

[1:03:55] guideline sections 15282 each

[1:03:55] and 15332.

[1:03:59] Number two is to adopt an

[1:03:59] ordinance amending the ada and

[1:04:00] jd Regulations in the City

[1:04:03] Municipal Code and local

[1:04:03] coastal program Number three

[1:04:04] adopt a resolution approving

[1:04:05] the 80 Home density program

[1:04:08] Community Enhancement Fee.

[1:04:09] >> Thank you very much for your

[1:04:09] time today.

[1:04:10] This concludes Stat's

[1:04:13] presentation.

[1:04:13] Thank you.

[1:04:14] There's a pretty intense

[1:04:15] presentation there but you did

[1:04:17] a great job so thank you very

[1:04:18] much for walking through every

[1:04:19] element of the ordinance in

[1:04:19] front of us.

[1:04:23] So with that city clerk let us

[1:04:23] know how many public comments

[1:04:27] we have and then please

[1:04:27] proceed.

[1:04:27] >> Thank you.

[1:04:28] Council PRESIDENT.

[1:04:31] We currently have 196 speakers

[1:04:32] here in council chambers and we

[1:04:36] have about eight people with

[1:04:36] their hands raised in

[1:04:37] the virtual queue at

[1:04:37] the moment.

[1:04:40] That of course can increase

[1:04:41] when I call your name if you

[1:04:42] can please come up to the front

[1:04:43] yellow reserved seats at

[1:04:46] the front of the room.

[1:04:47] I'd really appreciate it Help

[1:04:47] with meeting management.

[1:04:48] And just as a reminder of

[1:04:51] course the council PRESIDENT

[1:04:52] Said you know, wave your hands

[1:04:52] or do your thumbs down.

[1:04:55] I'll call the first five

[1:04:55] people.

[1:04:56] The first person can come up to

[1:04:57] the microphone.

[1:05:00] Lisa Jang.

[1:05:01] Janet, if you can please come

[1:05:02] up to the microphone.

[1:05:05] After that will be Bruce, Judy

[1:05:06] Mitchell, Larry Webb, Dennis

[1:05:10] Lynch, Nina Smullen and Shane

[1:05:11] Harris.

[1:05:12] If you can all please come up

[1:05:16] to the yellow reserved seats at

[1:05:16] the front.

[1:05:17] And Lisa, you'll be our first

[1:05:17] speaker due to the amount of

[1:05:21] speakers It will be a minute

[1:05:21] each.

[1:05:24] >> Please proceed when ready.

[1:05:29] Good afternoon.

[1:05:30] Good afternoon.

[1:05:35] My neighbor burnt up alive in

[1:05:36] the San Diego wildfires.

[1:05:40] Yet b via bonus edu programs

[1:05:44] allow dance develop at mit in

[1:05:49] very high fire hazard zones and

[1:05:50] cul de sac with no secondary

[1:05:54] access.

[1:05:55] Recent L.A. Fires devastation

[1:05:58] with the flames swirling around

[1:05:59] and everywhere and residents

[1:05:59] can't evacuate and first

[1:06:03] responders can't get in.

[1:06:05] There's no time to get us out

[1:06:09] safe.

[1:06:12] At 2925 through 2939 Cowley Way

[1:06:17] we're checking Canyon is a

[1:06:17] ticking time bomb of overgrowth

[1:06:22] reform and safety before

[1:06:22] developers profit.

[1:06:27] >> Please, please council

[1:06:28] members, I beg you to help

[1:06:28] protect us.

[1:06:30] >> Thank you.

[1:06:31] >> Thank you.

[1:06:35] Bruce Coombs.

[1:06:39] Good afternoon.

[1:06:40] Good afternoon.

[1:06:41] Members of the council staff

[1:06:45] and the city Attorney.

[1:06:50] Bruce, Executive Director.

[1:06:51] Save our Heritage organization

[1:06:52] and remain supportive of And

[1:06:55] they are as 1-7 zone of a

[1:07:01] single junior aid to you and a

[1:07:02] single regular aide to you And

[1:07:06] we could support a possible

[1:07:07] bonus 80 you if it is deed

[1:07:09] restricted for 55 years.

[1:07:10] The rents were below market

[1:07:15] much lower than what we've

[1:07:15] talked about in the past here

[1:07:20] And rent control But that is

[1:07:20] all we should think we could

[1:07:24] support in this and historic

[1:07:24] districts.

[1:07:28] So that's a total of four units

[1:07:28] where the existing unit.

[1:07:30] Thank you.

[1:07:35] >> Thank you, Judy.

[1:07:35] >> Good afternoon.

[1:07:40] My name is Judy Mitchell and

[1:07:41] I'm a board member of the Sara

[1:07:41] mesa Community Council.

[1:07:45] I'm here representing other

[1:07:46] members of the community to

[1:07:49] please ask the council to

[1:07:50] consider some restrictions on

[1:07:50] the development that has grown

[1:07:55] out of the original idea of 80

[1:07:56] use that we thought would be

[1:07:56] something good for the city.

[1:08:00] i'm wearing my City Connect

[1:08:01] Padre shirt like I did at

[1:08:01] the planning group because I

[1:08:05] want everyone to remember we're

[1:08:05] all in this together.

[1:08:06] We need to connect.

[1:08:10] We need to come to something in

[1:08:10] terms of agreement that will

[1:08:11] help the city.

[1:08:12] We all know we need housing but

[1:08:15] apartment buildings in our

[1:08:16] backyards not being able to get

[1:08:17] out of our driveways can't put

[1:08:20] our trash cans down.

[1:08:21] It's gotten completely out of

[1:08:21] control.

[1:08:25] There are things that we cannot

[1:08:26] control in our lives like

[1:08:26] Dodger fans slithering into our

[1:08:29] stadiums.

[1:08:30] >> But the city council does

[1:08:31] have the ability to help us

[1:08:34] vote to get some restrictions

[1:08:35] like height and number of unit

[1:08:36] limits on these 80 years.

[1:08:38] >> Thank you, Larry.

[1:08:44] >> We're Larry Webb Other year

[1:08:45] you have Time City to you by

[1:08:46] Catherine Douglass Please raise

[1:08:48] your hand and the thank you

[1:08:49] You'll have three minutes

[1:08:51] Please raise some pictures can

[1:08:52] be distributed to come My staff

[1:08:56] will come and get it right now

[1:08:57] .

[1:08:57] Thank you.

[1:08:58] Council members Larry Webb with

[1:08:58] Mission Beach Precise Planning

[1:09:02] board in our APRIL meeting

[1:09:02] the board voted to recommend

[1:09:03] the city not allow a use of

[1:09:06] Mission Beach.

[1:09:06] A letter substantiating that

[1:09:07] recommendation was sent to each

[1:09:11] of your offices and we have met

[1:09:12] with staff from several council

[1:09:12] officers State Adu law allows

[1:09:17] been anthropologie's to exclude

[1:09:17] ideas from certain areas.

[1:09:20] Findings can be made that not

[1:09:21] enforcing the mission beach

[1:09:21] Plan district ordinance

[1:09:22] requirements will have a

[1:09:25] substantial negative impact on

[1:09:26] Mission Beach Since Mission

[1:09:27] Beach is heavily used by

[1:09:30] constituents from each of your

[1:09:31] districts a negative impact on

[1:09:35] the city as a whole.

[1:09:36] Those pictures will show what

[1:09:37] traffic is like for your people

[1:09:40] to get in mission Beach Now

[1:09:41] Mission Beach does not

[1:09:41] currently meet emergency

[1:09:46] ingress egress standards.

[1:09:46] Public safety will further be

[1:09:50] compromised by the addition of

[1:09:51] 80 use Findings can also be

[1:09:51] made that not allowing aid to

[1:09:55] use in mission Beach will have

[1:09:56] no negative impact on

[1:09:56] the city's ability to meet its

[1:09:59] share of specified housing

[1:09:59] needs.

[1:10:03] Mission Beach's existing

[1:10:04] density of 36 units per acre is

[1:10:04] already higher than

[1:10:08] the densities being achieved by

[1:10:09] the density bonus program

[1:10:10] allowing it to use in Mission

[1:10:14] Beach will result in structures

[1:10:14] that are out of compliance with

[1:10:17] both Mission Beach precise plan

[1:10:18] and Plan District ordinance An

[1:10:19] important strategy of

[1:10:22] the city's coastal resilience

[1:10:23] Master plan is to realign or

[1:10:28] relocate assets out of hazard

[1:10:28] areas and limit new development

[1:10:29] in vulnerable areas.

[1:10:33] Given this topography, Mission

[1:10:34] Beach is most vulnerable to sea

[1:10:37] level rise in the city Sea

[1:10:38] level rise policy guidance is

[1:10:38] to be proactive and minimize

[1:10:42] future risk.

[1:10:43] Preventing use will intensify

[1:10:44] not minimize the risk.

[1:10:48] Why add 80 use to an area

[1:10:48] required to have a retreat

[1:10:52] relocation plan This past

[1:10:53] Thursday the Coastal

[1:10:54] Commission, based on the most

[1:10:58] recent local coastal plan ruled

[1:10:59] that a proposed project on

[1:10:59] Ocean Front walk will be have

[1:11:02] to be placed on six foot

[1:11:02] pillars because of future sea

[1:11:07] level rise that reduces

[1:11:07] the maximum possible density of

[1:11:11] that lot from three units to

[1:11:12] two units The Coastal Act

[1:11:15] section 30213 states that lower

[1:11:16] cost visitor and recreation

[1:11:17] developments should be

[1:11:21] protected and encouraged They

[1:11:21] use is the lowest cost access

[1:11:26] to the beach for all of your

[1:11:26] constituents.

[1:11:27] The mission beach is

[1:11:27] the highest demand They use

[1:11:31] beach in San Diego is also most

[1:11:31] parking constrained beach

[1:11:36] making street parking in public

[1:11:36] parking lots an important low

[1:11:41] cost resource for coastal

[1:11:41] access permitting aid use

[1:11:45] reduced or no parking reduces

[1:11:45] ignores the needs of

[1:11:46] the people.

[1:11:46] Section 3o213 is designed to

[1:11:50] protect but not protecting

[1:11:51] public parking.

[1:11:52] There is no evidence that Adu

[1:11:56] residents do not have cars

[1:11:56] Beach Consider our

[1:11:59] recommendation.

[1:12:00] >> Dennis Lynch Dennis you have

[1:12:04] time to buy Gloria Hanser

[1:12:05] Gloria please raise your hand.

[1:12:06] Thank you And Steve Great Thank

[1:12:09] you very much.

[1:12:10] Dennis Thank you for

[1:12:11] the opportunity to speak today.

[1:12:15] Dennis Lynch a native of

[1:12:15] Mission Beach on the Mission

[1:12:16] Beach Precise Planning Board

[1:12:17] which I am speaking for member

[1:12:23] for 45 years minus two.

[1:12:23] Let me say at the beginning

[1:12:24] that we're requesting that we

[1:12:28] be excluded for density

[1:12:28] purposes.

[1:12:29] I want to give you

[1:12:33] the beginning and the end of my

[1:12:34] speech and then fill in

[1:12:34] the middle because I'm sure I'm

[1:12:37] going to run out of time at

[1:12:37] the outset.

[1:12:38] You all know I'm sure that

[1:12:39] Mission Beach has the highest

[1:12:42] density of all the communities

[1:12:43] in San Diego.

[1:12:47] Are you also aware that it has

[1:12:47] the highest density of any

[1:12:48] beach community on the coast of

[1:12:51] California?

[1:12:52] Are you also aware that it has

[1:12:57] a higher density than the 17

[1:12:57] unit project at the end of

[1:12:58] the cul de sac than a mile

[1:13:02] Avenue So we're there without

[1:13:07] Addus mission Beach is a

[1:13:07] playground for much of San

[1:13:08] Diego.

[1:13:12] I would guess everybody in

[1:13:12] the council has people who

[1:13:13] visit Mission Beach on a

[1:13:17] regular basis.

[1:13:18] The draw is both local with

[1:13:22] Belmont Park and just the fact

[1:13:23] that it's got ocean on

[1:13:23] the front and bays on the back

[1:13:26] were an integral part of

[1:13:26] mission.

[1:13:31] Bay Park which is the largest

[1:13:31] aquatic park in the nation.

[1:13:36] We also have national venues

[1:13:37] and international venues for

[1:13:41] recreational and athletic

[1:13:42] events were on the map for

[1:13:46] people were a place to go.

[1:13:47] We've always had crowd in

[1:13:48] getting into development.

[1:13:48] We've always had crowding and

[1:13:51] parking problems in Mission

[1:13:51] Beach ever since I was a kid

[1:13:56] and we in 1979 developed

[1:13:56] the first Plan District

[1:14:00] coordinates in San Diego that

[1:14:01] went into effect with parking

[1:14:06] requirements for every unit but

[1:14:06] least two.

[1:14:11] We have two basic lot sizes in

[1:14:12] Mission Beach we have a 1200

[1:14:15] and 50ft in residential north

[1:14:16] which is Santa Clara up to pb

[1:14:16] Drive.

[1:14:19] We have 20 400 square foot lots

[1:14:20] from Santa Clara drive down to

[1:14:24] the jetty in South Mission in

[1:14:25] comparison a lot and Pacific

[1:14:29] Beach is basically 5 or 6000ft

[1:14:30] with these small lots we put on

[1:14:35] to units under 24 by 80s from

[1:14:38] Santa Clara and a mandatory

[1:14:39] four parking spaces are set

[1:14:43] setbacks or most normally three

[1:14:44] feet so the distance between

[1:14:47] houses are six feet If they go

[1:14:50] up 20ft and they have to have a

[1:14:51] five foot setback, we have no

[1:14:56] room for additional units in

[1:14:56] Mission Beach.

[1:14:57] We're already maxed out.

[1:15:01] We're doing the best that we

[1:15:01] can And even though we

[1:15:02] developed a redevelopment

[1:15:05] program that required a lot of

[1:15:06] parking, we're losing

[1:15:06] constantly the parking battle

[1:15:10] at night people park on San

[1:15:15] Diego Point Santa Clara Point

[1:15:16] and your time has concluded,

[1:15:16] sir.

[1:15:21] >> Thank you, Minister.

[1:15:21] >> Niceness melon okay.

[1:15:25] You've been doing pretty good

[1:15:26] but allow us to kind of get

[1:15:29] through these 200 speakers that

[1:15:29] are going to come up.

[1:15:30] So the waving the hands is very

[1:15:34] effective from up here.

[1:15:34] >> Thank you.

[1:15:35] Good afternoon.

[1:15:39] Council PRESIDENT LaCava and

[1:15:39] council members.

[1:15:40] My name is Nicholas Milan.

[1:15:43] I'm a commercial real estate

[1:15:44] broker with Majesty Real Estate

[1:15:45] and I come before you today not

[1:15:48] just as a professional but as

[1:15:48] someone deeply invested in

[1:15:53] the future livability and

[1:15:53] affordability of our city.

[1:15:54] >> San Diego is facing a

[1:15:58] serious housing crisis.

[1:15:59] We're consistently ranked among

[1:16:03] the most expensive cities in

[1:16:04] the nation to live in.

[1:16:07] Families are being priced out.

[1:16:08] Workers are commuting longer

[1:16:09] distances and young people

[1:16:12] can't afford to stay.

[1:16:13] Limiting housing options right

[1:16:14] now especially ones as

[1:16:18] efficient and community

[1:16:18] friendly as they use would be a

[1:16:23] step in the wrong direction.

[1:16:26] The 80 bonus program has

[1:16:27] already proven to be one of

[1:16:28] the most effective tools we

[1:16:32] have for adding rental housing

[1:16:32] quickly and affordably.

[1:16:33] >> Programs like this increase

[1:16:37] competition in the rental

[1:16:37] market.

[1:16:38] >> Thank you for that

[1:16:38] concluding remarks.

[1:16:39] Got it.

[1:16:42] Yep.

[1:16:43] One minute.

[1:16:43] Thank you.

[1:16:43] Shane Harris.

[1:16:46] You have time ceded to you by

[1:16:46] Donna Regalado.

[1:16:47] Donna, please raise your hand.

[1:16:47] Thank you.

[1:16:51] And then Marty Grimm, thank you

[1:16:52] so much.

[1:16:52] >> You'll have three minutes.

[1:16:56] Please proceed.

[1:16:57] >> Good afternoon, Council.

[1:16:57] My name is Shane Harris and I'm

[1:17:00] a resident of District three.

[1:17:01] The founder of the People's

[1:17:01] Association of Justice

[1:17:05] Advocates and ceo of Harris

[1:17:06] Communications.

[1:17:09] I'm here to speak in support of

[1:17:10] item 2 or 2 before you today

[1:17:11] with a few requested amendments

[1:17:14] on the Edu property cap.

[1:17:15] I would like to thank first and

[1:17:19] foremost Councilmember Foster

[1:17:20] and more importantly

[1:17:20] the communities of Encanto and

[1:17:24] Beyond who garnered support and

[1:17:25] brought together collaborative

[1:17:26] efforts to champion needed

[1:17:30] reforms to this adu bonus

[1:17:30] program.

[1:17:34] This critical item today seeks

[1:17:35] to provide long needed

[1:17:36] amendments to the unintended

[1:17:40] consequences of the city's

[1:17:40] Bonus to You program.

[1:17:41] Now let's be clear The city

[1:17:42] needs housing.

[1:17:45] There's no way around that No

[1:17:46] ifs, ands or buts about that.

[1:17:49] The city and our state is

[1:17:50] losing people more and more and

[1:17:50] more.

[1:17:54] The millennial generation my

[1:17:54] generation Generation y cannot

[1:17:59] afford to live in San Diego.

[1:18:00] But let's also be clear about

[1:18:01] another fact Just because you

[1:18:04] have a housing crisis doesn't

[1:18:05] mean that you cannot just

[1:18:09] continue to allow developers to

[1:18:10] ransack neighborhoods by

[1:18:10] stripping their character

[1:18:14] killing generational wealth

[1:18:15] while not providing parking and

[1:18:16] not providing the needed

[1:18:20] resources pertaining to

[1:18:20] affordable housing.

[1:18:21] The Bonus 80 You program MAY

[1:18:24] have started with good

[1:18:25] intentions of needing to build

[1:18:25] more housing but it didn't.

[1:18:28] But it did end up benefiting a

[1:18:29] few developers who MAY look at

[1:18:30] it as a money grab not a

[1:18:33] community partnership.

[1:18:34] They argued that it provides

[1:18:35] more opportunities for public

[1:18:38] transit yet many of these

[1:18:39] properties ended up a mile and

[1:18:43] more away from public transit.

[1:18:43] They argued amenities yet 80

[1:18:44] use have been farther away from

[1:18:48] coffee shops and grocery stores

[1:18:49] and the main amenity of

[1:18:49] parking.

[1:18:53] >> Many of them have not

[1:18:53] provided.

[1:18:54] My friends that is not

[1:18:54] affordable housing for my

[1:18:55] generation.

[1:18:57] It's not strategic by any

[1:18:57] stretch.

[1:18:58] Today's item needs to do a few

[1:19:02] things but of all things it

[1:19:03] allows a cap of up to seven

[1:19:04] eight to use on any given

[1:19:07] property.

[1:19:08] That is just ridiculous and too

[1:19:08] many.

[1:19:12] We can't give We can't give.

[1:19:17] We can't give these folks any

[1:19:17] more room.

[1:19:18] >> The neighborhoods of Emerald

[1:19:21] Hills and in Council mission

[1:19:22] Beach and Claremont Barrio

[1:19:22] Logan have had enough.

[1:19:26] So we've heard the concerns and

[1:19:27] I've also raised them Lack of

[1:19:28] parking, the impact of

[1:19:32] handicapped accessible,

[1:19:32] the congestion of

[1:19:33] neighborhoods, the stocking

[1:19:34] stacking, the multiple any use

[1:19:36] on any given property like

[1:19:36] roadblocks.

[1:19:37] I would like to request an

[1:19:37] amendment on the floor today.

[1:19:41] I'd like to request that you

[1:19:44] bring forth a cap of up to four

[1:19:45] a to use on any given property

[1:19:50] which still goes above state's

[1:19:51] to 80 you cap that is already

[1:19:54] required by state law.

[1:19:55] This program MAY have started

[1:19:55] with good intentions but it

[1:19:58] needs massive reform.

[1:19:59] >> Thank you for that

[1:20:03] concluding comment.

[1:20:04] If I can have the following

[1:20:04] individuals please come up to

[1:20:05] the yellow reserved seats and

[1:20:09] Mohammed Omar please come up to

[1:20:09] the microphone.

[1:20:10] Mohammed Omar Jesse Schmidt.

[1:20:14] Manny Ramirez Pamela Vigil and

[1:20:17] tennis by chair of Chris

[1:20:18] Jackson and Cesar Hevia as well

[1:20:22] as Rafael Perez.

[1:20:23] If you can all please come up

[1:20:24] to the yellow reserved seats

[1:20:25] and Muhammad, you MAY come up

[1:20:32] to the microphone.

[1:20:33] Good afternoon, council

[1:20:33] members.

[1:20:37] Good afternoon, council

[1:20:37] members.

[1:20:38] My name is Muhammad Omar.

[1:20:39] I'm with the Partnership for

[1:20:42] the Advancement of New

[1:20:42] Americans.

[1:20:43] I'm also I'm also part of

[1:20:47] the coalition for Equitable

[1:20:47] Development.

[1:20:48] I'm here to urge you to

[1:20:48] reconsider the proposed

[1:20:52] amendments and avoid further

[1:20:53] disfranchize in low and

[1:20:57] moderate income San Diego's San

[1:20:58] Diego is not even evenly split

[1:21:02] between renters and home owners

[1:21:02] and we need policymakers to

[1:21:03] equitably represent the unique

[1:21:06] needs of renters not just those

[1:21:07] of existing home owners.

[1:21:11] Our letter to the City Council

[1:21:12] urges the city to analyze how

[1:21:12] the cumulative impact of

[1:21:13] the amendments including

[1:21:17] community enhancement fees

[1:21:17] could inhibit the production of

[1:21:21] affordable homes and home owner

[1:21:22] ownership opportunities in ways

[1:21:22] that fail to affirmatively

[1:21:25] further fair housing.

[1:21:29] Our specific concerns include

[1:21:30] losing 24% of the developable

[1:21:31] area from the program

[1:21:34] Artificially artificially

[1:21:35] capping the development lot

[1:21:36] size setting a two story high

[1:21:38] limit.

[1:21:38] >> Thank you for that

[1:21:39] concluding comment.

[1:21:42] Jesse Schmieding.

[1:21:49] Good afternoon.

[1:21:49] >> Council PRESIDENT Council

[1:21:50] Members My name is Jesse

[1:21:50] Schmidt.

[1:21:51] State policy Manager for San

[1:21:53] Diego and a steering committee

[1:21:54] member on the Coalition for

[1:21:54] Equitable Development.

[1:21:57] We appreciate the conversations

[1:21:58] had with many of your offices

[1:21:59] over the last couple of days,

[1:22:00] including the mayor's office, a

[1:22:00] number of community

[1:22:03] organizations and from our

[1:22:04] coalition coalition had sent

[1:22:05] all of your offices a letter

[1:22:08] last week highlighting our

[1:22:08] concerns with the proposed

[1:22:09] amendments to the very

[1:22:12] successful ag Bonus program.

[1:22:13] While we recognize a balanced

[1:22:13] approach must be achieved, we

[1:22:17] don't believe this policy

[1:22:18] before us makes that clear.

[1:22:18] We would like to express our

[1:22:19] gratitude for each side's

[1:22:21] letter over the weekend

[1:22:22] reiterating many of the same

[1:22:23] concerns that our members

[1:22:25] brought up when this issue was

[1:22:26] first discussed.

[1:22:27] We are asking the city to

[1:22:27] ensure that there are robust

[1:22:30] options for all prospective

[1:22:31] residents and specifically

[1:22:32] implementing the following

[1:22:35] waiving community enhancement

[1:22:36] fees for projects offering

[1:22:36] deeper affordability.

[1:22:37] Creating a publicly accessible

[1:22:39] database for prospective

[1:22:40] renters and buyers can locate

[1:22:41] deed restricted units and

[1:22:45] exempt nonprofits and churches

[1:22:45] from additional burdensome

[1:22:46] regulations that prevents

[1:22:47] the acceleration of affordable

[1:22:50] housing and fails to

[1:22:51] affirmatively furthering fair

[1:22:51] housing.

[1:22:59] >> Comment Manny Ramirez Thank

[1:22:59] you.

[1:23:00] Manny Rodriguez also here with

[1:23:01] the Coalition for Equitable

[1:23:04] Development or a coalition of

[1:23:05] community based organizations

[1:23:06] working to bring more diverse

[1:23:09] voices into the housing policy

[1:23:09] space.

[1:23:10] You know, we're hearing a lot

[1:23:11] today from people who already

[1:23:14] own homes and who already are,

[1:23:15] you know, well established.

[1:23:16] But we also want to bring in

[1:23:16] more people who are struggling

[1:23:20] to find rent or are struggling

[1:23:20] to make rent.

[1:23:21] This community is struggling to

[1:23:22] find homes.

[1:23:24] You know, I want to make a

[1:23:25] quick comment about the bonus

[1:23:25] program.

[1:23:29] You know, it builds to youth

[1:23:30] with a rent cap of $2,300 If

[1:23:33] that's the cap.

[1:23:34] Not everyone is going to rent

[1:23:34] that high.

[1:23:35] But keep in mind that to live

[1:23:38] in the single family home,

[1:23:39] the median rent to rent out a

[1:23:42] whole home is $4,500 and

[1:23:43] the median mortgage is $6,000.

[1:23:43] The other program here that's

[1:23:47] producing rent thousands of

[1:23:48] dollars cheaper than what is

[1:23:48] out there in single family

[1:23:48] homes.

[1:23:49] So I don't think it's a stretch

[1:23:52] to say that if you eliminate

[1:23:53] the bonus program today or

[1:23:54] severely restricted you're

[1:23:58] eliminating cheaper rents from

[1:23:58] the city.

[1:23:59] So I really want you to think

[1:23:59] about that and I hope you can

[1:24:01] consider the voices of everyone

[1:24:02] not in this room today.

[1:24:07] >> Thank you, Pamela.

[1:24:08] Pamela Gill my apologies.

[1:24:11] Several people seated you times

[1:24:12] if they can please raise their

[1:24:12] hand.

[1:24:16] Larry Erdman, Andrew Hodges,

[1:24:21] Jake Masters, Lexi Neri, Karen

[1:24:22] Good Jessica Thank you.

[1:24:26] Earl Chang.

[1:24:26] Chris Ellison.

[1:24:31] Leandro Cooper Lynch and Rick

[1:24:32] Masters.

[1:24:36] That'll be 11 minutes.

[1:24:36] Please proceed.

[1:24:37] Okay.

[1:24:41] I have slides also and she's I

[1:24:42] know she's getting them.

[1:24:42] Good afternoon.

[1:24:46] My name is Pamela Biegel.

[1:24:46] It really is.

[1:24:50] And I'm just here representing

[1:24:51] myself and my friends here and

[1:24:56] I hope I have some friends.

[1:24:57] I realize that trying to run a

[1:25:00] city as large as San Diego is

[1:25:05] pretty much a thankless job and

[1:25:06] you probably get a little tired

[1:25:06] of people coming up here and

[1:25:07] yelling at you.

[1:25:10] So that's not what I'm going to

[1:25:10] do today.

[1:25:10] I applaud the city and

[1:25:14] the state's effort to loosen

[1:25:15] the eu regulations so

[1:25:15] homeowners can build a addus in

[1:25:19] their backyards for their

[1:25:20] elderly parents, for their

[1:25:24] children coming home, starting

[1:25:24] a family or even for extra

[1:25:25] income.

[1:25:29] However, what is the saying No

[1:25:33] good deed ever goes unpunished

[1:25:34] .

[1:25:39] First slide please.

[1:25:43] >> The 18 units on Elmira and

[1:25:44] Claremont has become a news

[1:25:48] darling because of the fact

[1:25:49] that it's on a cul de sac with

[1:25:49] no parking.

[1:25:53] Some consider it an outlier.

[1:25:54] It's not.

[1:25:58] I believe this is

[1:25:59] the unintended consequences.

[1:26:02] >> David Fisher of

[1:26:03] the California Housing

[1:26:04] Community Development of hdb

[1:26:08] was referring to in his last

[1:26:08] minute letter to MISS Heidi von

[1:26:12] Blum of our planning director

[1:26:13] saying In San Diego I cannot

[1:26:14] decide if the letter was

[1:26:17] threatening to you or if they

[1:26:18] were trying to provide you with

[1:26:18] cover.

[1:26:22] I don't know.

[1:26:22] Next slide please.

[1:26:23] From what I have seen and

[1:26:27] understand most of these more

[1:26:28] egregious massive 82 apartment

[1:26:33] complex cities are being built

[1:26:33] by just a handful of developers

[1:26:37] Just a handful.

[1:26:38] Like MR. Daniel Skolnick of

[1:26:43] Atlas West Group and MR.

[1:26:47] Christian Spicer of sd three

[1:26:48] Pro Kal Vertical mvm

[1:26:52] Construction along with MR.

[1:26:53] Tommy Hinson of the investor

[1:26:57] group Fletcher Cove Capital in

[1:26:57] partnership with MR. Josh Steck

[1:27:02] of Sun Inc.

[1:27:03] MR. Spicer even says on page 50

[1:27:07] of his advertising brochures

[1:27:08] and I quote We are the largest

[1:27:11] company doing this type of

[1:27:12] development in San Diego.

[1:27:17] Next slide please.

[1:27:17] In reference to MR. Christian

[1:27:18] Spicer and his partners,

[1:27:22] the pattern goes like this.

[1:27:22] Sun Inc, owned by MR. Justice

[1:27:27] heavily advertises to

[1:27:27] the residents of our city

[1:27:28] stating I will buy your home.

[1:27:32] No closing cost.

[1:27:33] You even can get a $20,000

[1:27:33] advance.

[1:27:37] Then if the property has what

[1:27:42] MR. Spicer calls the golden

[1:27:42] ticket meaning a large backyard

[1:27:47] no pool, no elaborate planning,

[1:27:48] just grass or dirt, he snaps

[1:27:48] that up.

[1:27:52] MR. Spicer is quoted in his

[1:27:52] advertising brochure on page 44

[1:27:57] saying We have new technology

[1:27:57] to expedite processing of

[1:28:02] pertinent data to stay ahead of

[1:28:02] competition.

[1:28:03] We actively and aggressively

[1:28:07] pursue deals.

[1:28:07] I'm not exactly sure how he's

[1:28:11] partnered with Sun since it's

[1:28:11] supposed to be a bidding

[1:28:12] process to get the highest

[1:28:16] bidder for the homeowner.

[1:28:17] MR. Spicer and MR. Hinson

[1:28:18] purchased the house and if it

[1:28:21] is a three bedroom, two bath or

[1:28:21] more they split it into two

[1:28:22] rental units.

[1:28:26] Then they take their already

[1:28:29] approved plans of the 441ft

[1:28:30] two story boxes and they'll jam

[1:28:34] as many of those into

[1:28:35] the backyard as they can get in

[1:28:36] there within the four foot

[1:28:40] limit Most of the properties

[1:28:41] are fixer uppers and they would

[1:28:44] make a great first time

[1:28:45] homebuyer property but they're

[1:28:48] being snatched up by MR. Spicer

[1:28:49] and MR. Hinson and investors

[1:28:53] started as far back as 2021.

[1:28:58] MR. Spicer further says on page

[1:28:59] 46 to investors we have a

[1:29:03] unique opportunity to acquire

[1:29:04] these properties now before

[1:29:09] homeowner awareness and prices

[1:29:13] jump.

[1:29:14] On page 23 MR. Spicer is quoted

[1:29:18] in saying more prospective home

[1:29:18] buyers are turning to

[1:29:23] indefinite renting indefinite

[1:29:23] renting.

[1:29:28] Let me repeat that.

[1:29:29] More prospective home buyers

[1:29:29] are turning to indefinite

[1:29:33] renting and he's probably

[1:29:34] right.

[1:29:34] We don't have rent control here

[1:29:38] like Los Angeles or Orange

[1:29:39] County.

[1:29:39] Next slide.

[1:29:40] Next slide please.

[1:29:43] Another thing is happening to

[1:29:44] our city and that is when MR.

[1:29:48] Spicer's group buys a property

[1:29:48] There's no notice to neighbors.

[1:29:49] They start building these huge

[1:29:53] multi-use unit apartment

[1:29:53] complexes and the neighbors

[1:29:54] living on either side or on

[1:29:58] limited parking streets that

[1:29:59] are cul de sacs See

[1:30:03] the disaster headed their way

[1:30:03] and they sell and leave.

[1:30:08] How would you like it if a

[1:30:12] massive unit ended up right

[1:30:13] next to your face?

[1:30:13] You wouldn't like it.

[1:30:17] MR. Spicer is selling the 4675

[1:30:22] Firestone Street that he built

[1:30:22] with 14 units.

[1:30:26] He is selling it for $5.2

[1:30:30] million again $5.2 million.

[1:30:31] It is listed right now on

[1:30:35] the mls on the realtor site

[1:30:36] Markus and Millichap.

[1:30:39] I don't know what he's going to

[1:30:40] sell the second property for

[1:30:41] because the person on the side

[1:30:44] of his first project they got

[1:30:48] out, they couldn't take it.

[1:30:49] MR. Spicer has been telling all

[1:30:49] of his investors that every

[1:30:53] unit will be rent market or

[1:30:54] higher.

[1:30:58] He did not put any as

[1:30:58] affordable.

[1:30:59] Look at his rent rolls.

[1:31:03] I will show you how to do that

[1:31:03] .

[1:31:04] >> My wonderful assistants have

[1:31:07] been showing you many examples

[1:31:08] of what you call outliers.

[1:31:13] They're not These are just

[1:31:13] the ones the builders have

[1:31:18] started Started.

[1:31:18] This is just the tip of

[1:31:19] the iceberg.

[1:31:22] This tsunami is coming our way.

[1:31:27] As you see from this slide, MR.

[1:31:28] Spicer says in his advertising

[1:31:32] brochure he has 1803 housing

[1:31:37] starts And just this past

[1:31:42] Thursday he put that up.

[1:31:43] Just this past Thursday he put

[1:31:47] that up.

[1:31:48] One of my questions to you is

[1:31:49] who's going to manage these

[1:31:53] apartments complexes of ten,

[1:31:53] 12, 20, 24, 28.

[1:31:58] There's no leasing agent there.

[1:31:58] Who's going to manage them?

[1:31:59] MR..

[1:32:03] Spicer has listed on page 38

[1:32:04] through 42 of his 50 page

[1:32:08] advertising brochure that he

[1:32:11] put out last year on APRIL 4th.

[1:32:16] 44 units on Tarbox Street.

[1:32:17] 77 units on Leghorn Avenue.

[1:32:21] 107 units on Benson Avenue.

[1:32:26] 129 units on Chelsea, Sidney

[1:32:29] and Pacific Drive.

[1:32:34] 151 units on Greenly and 32nd.

[1:32:38] And last but not least 750

[1:32:42] units on z Street in South

[1:32:43] Crest.

[1:32:48] Next slide please.

[1:32:48] So you don't think I'm making

[1:32:49] all this up?

[1:32:55] I came with the receipts today

[1:32:55] .

[1:32:56] These are the websites where I

[1:33:00] was able to publicly get every

[1:33:01] piece of information I just

[1:33:01] gave you.

[1:33:04] You can do it to.

[1:33:07] It took my 77 year old husband

[1:33:08] two minutes on his iPhone to

[1:33:10] find them.

[1:33:16] Sorry, dear.

[1:33:20] It's I assume come back slash

[1:33:26] sd r e official and I assume

[1:33:29] dot com backsplash t w h 1031

[1:33:29] Now they're up there for now

[1:33:34] but I want anyone to know if he

[1:33:35] decides to take them off.

[1:33:35] I have downloaded the pertinent

[1:33:39] information in and if he tries

[1:33:40] to alternate anything on there

[1:33:42] I've got the downloaded

[1:33:47] information.

[1:33:48] >> My husband obtained his

[1:33:52] general contracting license in

[1:33:52] 1976.

[1:33:53] That's how old we are.

[1:33:56] I joined him in 1983.

[1:33:57] He has done commercial

[1:33:57] government custom home

[1:34:00] remodeling and even yacht

[1:34:01] remodeling.

[1:34:01] We are both retired now but we

[1:34:05] are very familiar with proper

[1:34:06] building codes And even though

[1:34:10] you guys were kind of a pain in

[1:34:11] the neck to us it's because of

[1:34:15] you that these properties have

[1:34:16] made the occupants safe and

[1:34:20] the people in San Diego safe.

[1:34:25] We appreciate that by loosening

[1:34:26] so many of these restrictions

[1:34:27] with this 80 you brain bonus

[1:34:30] program I see major issues

[1:34:34] headed your way.

[1:34:35] A very odd thing happened while

[1:34:36] I was driving around these

[1:34:40] sites when I went because as

[1:34:40] you can tell I've taken a

[1:34:41] couple of pictures.

[1:34:45] Can't you?

[1:34:49] I came to 6821 Newbold Court

[1:34:49] and I saw the Fox five kusi

[1:34:54] News there and I was listening

[1:34:55] to their broadcast.

[1:34:59] It was my understanding that

[1:35:00] the neighbors all came to that

[1:35:00] cul de sac and they were going

[1:35:04] to meet with MR. Campos aide

[1:35:04] Correct.

[1:35:09] And when the developer showed

[1:35:10] up and saw your cameras boom,

[1:35:15] he was gone And in within a few

[1:35:16] minutes so was this whole

[1:35:19] entire construction crew.

[1:35:20] As I said, we've been in

[1:35:23] construction many years.

[1:35:24] We've never run away like that

[1:35:25] and we've never had our crew

[1:35:25] leave.

[1:35:28] Why would you do that Unless

[1:35:29] you're doing something you know

[1:35:38] you shouldn't be doing who's

[1:35:42] going to be liable to the city

[1:35:43] in these already dense

[1:35:43] neighborhoods?

[1:35:46] Well, thank you.

[1:35:51] Thank you.

[1:35:52] A-10s, a-10s, vhf you have

[1:35:56] times needed to you if you

[1:35:57] could please raise your hand by

[1:35:57] Fred Bigley.

[1:36:01] Fred.

[1:36:01] Oh, sorry.

[1:36:02] Thank you.

[1:36:06] Tom o'Neil and Brigitte Poizner

[1:36:06] .

[1:36:07] Brigitte Oh, sorry.

[1:36:10] Thank you.

[1:36:11] >> You'll have four minutes.

[1:36:11] Please proceed.

[1:36:16] So many of the proposed changes

[1:36:17] to a bonus edu program are very

[1:36:17] controversial.

[1:36:21] We can tell that by all

[1:36:21] the people who have spoken

[1:36:22] about it since the amendment

[1:36:25] process began and all

[1:36:26] the people who are here today.

[1:36:27] I want to talk about one that

[1:36:30] is controversial and hopefully

[1:36:30] shouldn't be controversial to

[1:36:31] anybody who's at all familiar

[1:36:35] with Southern California and

[1:36:35] the fire risk that we face

[1:36:35] here.

[1:36:39] Item 15.

[1:36:40] The proposed changes would make

[1:36:40] the bonus edu program

[1:36:44] unavailable to homes fronting

[1:36:45] cul de sacs and those with less

[1:36:48] than two evacuation routes in

[1:36:49] high fire and very high fire

[1:36:53] severity zones.

[1:36:54] This is an item that is clearly

[1:36:54] borne out of the ever present

[1:36:58] threat of wildfire of wildfire

[1:36:59] that we all know is part of

[1:36:59] the price of living in Southern

[1:37:02] California.

[1:37:03] Now I know there are some there

[1:37:04] are some issues raised by

[1:37:07] the State Department of Housing

[1:37:07] and Community Development and

[1:37:08] they've been addressed.

[1:37:12] Maybe but this is one item that

[1:37:17] wasn't flagged by them and it

[1:37:18] should pass today regardless.

[1:37:22] >> But in addition, before this

[1:37:27] gets passed, I think you have

[1:37:28] the opportunity to make it very

[1:37:32] clear that it needs to apply to

[1:37:33] projects that are currently

[1:37:36] pending and projects that have

[1:37:37] applications that have gone

[1:37:37] through and not even been

[1:37:38] approved yet.

[1:37:42] The mere fact that a project

[1:37:42] permit was filed before these

[1:37:43] amendments passed if they do

[1:37:47] pass or the fact that

[1:37:47] construction started does not

[1:37:51] make it any less dangerous and

[1:37:52] does not take care of any of

[1:37:57] the issues that made this

[1:37:57] amendment come to in the first

[1:37:58] place.

[1:38:01] What's more, California is

[1:38:02] explicit in that you are

[1:38:06] allowed to enforce code changes

[1:38:07] after applications are

[1:38:11] submitted to currently ongoing

[1:38:11] projects.

[1:38:15] Section 65589.5 Subsection 2ob

[1:38:16] of the California Government

[1:38:20] Code allows housing development

[1:38:21] projects to be subject to

[1:38:25] ordinances, policies, standards

[1:38:26] or any other measures that went

[1:38:26] into effect after a permit

[1:38:30] application was filed.

[1:38:31] If the record establishes that

[1:38:32] doing so is necessary to avoid

[1:38:35] specific adverse impacts on

[1:38:36] health or safety and there is

[1:38:39] no alternative feasible method

[1:38:40] to mitigate or avoid

[1:38:44] the adverse impact.

[1:38:45] This is clearly the case here.

[1:38:46] There is no way to create a

[1:38:50] secondary evacuation route on a

[1:38:50] cul de sac.

[1:38:54] Now I was a kid living in San

[1:38:55] Diego during the Cedar Fire but

[1:38:55] I still remember the horrors

[1:38:58] that we faced in watching

[1:38:59] the fires get closer and closer

[1:39:00] to our houses.

[1:39:04] And recently the Palisades and

[1:39:05] fires in Los Angeles remind us

[1:39:08] all that it's not a matter of

[1:39:09] if the next tragedy will happen

[1:39:13] but when and the council

[1:39:14] chooses not to act now.

[1:39:14] You are consciously choosing to

[1:39:18] put lives at risk.

[1:39:19] We could have done something

[1:39:19] today.

[1:39:24] In fact, those of you that have

[1:39:24] the Watch Duty app we've all

[1:39:25] been getting notifications of

[1:39:26] our fire that's ongoing right

[1:39:26] now.

[1:39:28] Hopefully it's not the next big

[1:39:29] one but it could be.

[1:39:33] So don't let the next fire

[1:39:33] prove what could have been

[1:39:34] prevented.

[1:39:37] Amend item 15 to make sure that

[1:39:38] applies to current ongoing

[1:39:42] projects and go past today.

[1:39:43] >> Thank you very much.

[1:39:43] Thank you.

[1:39:44] If we can have the following

[1:39:47] individuals well Chris Jackson

[1:39:48] is the next speaker.

[1:39:48] Please come to the microphone

[1:39:49] then after that.

[1:39:52] So these are heavier Rafael

[1:39:53] Perez, Trudy Greenlane, Suzanne

[1:39:57] Retellings, Lucy Margaret

[1:39:58] Price, Madeline Gennaro and

[1:40:02] Karen Venn to Amelia If you can

[1:40:02] all please come up to

[1:40:04] the yellow reserved seats And

[1:40:10] Chris please proceed when ready

[1:40:10] .

[1:40:10] All right.

[1:40:11] I won't take much of your time

[1:40:12] today.

[1:40:12] It's a long day.

[1:40:15] Summary is I commend

[1:40:15] the efforts in the single

[1:40:16] family lots.

[1:40:16] I think that's something that

[1:40:19] we're needing to limit to be

[1:40:20] able to help individuals that

[1:40:20] live in communities, stay in a

[1:40:21] community, feel as developer

[1:40:24] and multifamily lots.

[1:40:25] That is the area that we have

[1:40:26] and need to be able to develop

[1:40:29] and help further need

[1:40:30] the housing shortage.

[1:40:30] Currently about 73% of

[1:40:31] the nation in multifamily

[1:40:34] housing developments has shrunk

[1:40:35] in comparison to 2023 figures

[1:40:36] simply because the numbers just

[1:40:39] don't make sense anymore.

[1:40:40] So there's got to be some kind

[1:40:41] of hybrid.

[1:40:41] And so my recommendation today

[1:40:44] is to keep the bonds that you

[1:40:44] program in play for multifamily

[1:40:45] zones and find some letting

[1:40:48] many factors to help out those

[1:40:49] within the community here.

[1:40:49] >> Thank you.

[1:40:50] Thank you.

[1:40:53] Cesar Xavier.

[1:41:02] You'll have two minutes.

[1:41:07] Sister of the Year You need not

[1:41:11] to think you're just to

[1:41:11] implement the mandate of

[1:41:16] the state of California

[1:41:16] the Environmental Quality Act.

[1:41:21] What have you done since 2020

[1:41:26] with this new administration?

[1:41:29] Cheryl Farber What is my

[1:41:29] district nine?

[1:41:30] What was the reason why he's

[1:41:30] absent?

[1:41:34] He must be in the front line

[1:41:35] particularly in solving our

[1:41:38] dense neighborhood.

[1:41:43] This is the problem.

[1:41:44] You got your position, you got

[1:41:48] your authority but you are not

[1:41:49] responsibly creating that

[1:41:54] justification that you are

[1:41:54] there.

[1:41:55] You have your ten fingers.

[1:41:59] You're not using it.

[1:41:59] You're covering up all

[1:42:00] the solution makings.

[1:42:03] If this is the kind of

[1:42:08] discussion we are the losers.

[1:42:08] You are the losers.

[1:42:13] We lost trust on you like this

[1:42:14] in home suitable surroundings.

[1:42:19] Is this your solution?

[1:42:20] Keeping that property vanish

[1:42:23] and theirs and theirs without

[1:42:23] preparing for the population

[1:42:28] explosion or growth which is

[1:42:29] natural for Christians Go here

[1:42:29] and multiply.

[1:42:33] We have to prepare for that for

[1:42:34] the nation Home of San Diego.

[1:42:38] What did you do today and have

[1:42:39] more years and you say bye bye.

[1:42:42] >> We are not affordable

[1:42:47] housing but fancy mansions.

[1:42:48] Cheryl Acaba, Sheryl Ribera and

[1:42:52] the rest of you let's sacrifice

[1:42:53] a little bit Let's think

[1:42:57] research because the solution

[1:42:57] is there.

[1:42:58] Let's copy other countries to

[1:43:02] resolve this housing crisis.

[1:43:03] >> We have 10,000 homeless per

[1:43:06] day included.

[1:43:11] >> Thank you, Rafael Perez

[1:43:11] Hello.

[1:43:16] >> My name is Rafael Perez and

[1:43:17] I'm the board chair of

[1:43:17] the Casita Coalition.

[1:43:18] We all know that there's a

[1:43:21] shortage of starter homes and

[1:43:22] that's why we cosponsored ab

[1:43:25] 1033 to allow these 80 use to

[1:43:26] become starter homes.

[1:43:26] Now let me be clear

[1:43:30] Implementing this state bill

[1:43:31] does not allow anything to be

[1:43:31] built.

[1:43:32] They can already be built under

[1:43:35] current law.

[1:43:36] What it does do is allow

[1:43:36] the opportunity for a homeowner

[1:43:40] to decide whether to rent,

[1:43:41] occupy or sell their adu.

[1:43:43] I want to thank city staff for

[1:43:44] adding the 30 day priority

[1:43:45] period for owner occupants to

[1:43:45] ensure there's a fair

[1:43:50] opportunity for homebuyers to

[1:43:50] have a fair shot at these

[1:43:51] starter homes.

[1:43:51] We have seen what this has done

[1:43:54] in other cities where these

[1:43:54] homes sell for 40 to 60% of

[1:43:55] what other homes in

[1:43:56] the neighborhood sell for.

[1:43:59] This will help many San Diegans

[1:44:00] hold on to the hope that

[1:44:00] someday they can own their own

[1:44:03] starter home so they can avoid

[1:44:04] displacement and secure their

[1:44:04] own financial futures.

[1:44:07] >> Thank you.

[1:44:07] Thank you.

[1:44:12] Next is Trudy.

[1:44:17] >> I am Trudy Granlund.

[1:44:18] I am a we are San Diego.

[1:44:21] I also said you have noticed

[1:44:22] that I have my website up with

[1:44:23] all this on there for everybody

[1:44:26] to find out.

[1:44:27] >> I know that we need housing

[1:44:32] but the ad use Has there been a

[1:44:33] study by the city on how much

[1:44:36] the rents are on them Because

[1:44:36] to my understanding most of

[1:44:40] them are renting 450ft for

[1:44:41] over 2500 a month and that

[1:44:45] takes an income of over 72,000

[1:44:46] a year for one person.

[1:44:50] These are not starter homes

[1:44:51] because you can't fit two

[1:44:51] people and a baby in them.

[1:44:55] So of affordable housing that

[1:44:56] we're trying to achieve we need

[1:45:00] to do that And this is not

[1:45:00] going to prevent us or cause us

[1:45:04] to get in trouble with the oecd

[1:45:05] in the state housing laws.

[1:45:06] We're on the track.

[1:45:09] We have over 173% over

[1:45:09] affordable over luxury.

[1:45:14] The high level homes already

[1:45:14] have been put into production.

[1:45:15] We're at way over We have so

[1:45:18] many high level homes,

[1:45:19] expensive homes in this.

[1:45:19] >> We're way over.

[1:45:20] Thank you.

[1:45:21] Thank you, Susan.

[1:45:26] Readily Susan Rowlings and

[1:45:31] Norman Heights fire Steve

[1:45:32] Counsel thank you for taking my

[1:45:32] comments.

[1:45:33] Enhancement of the Adu and Adu

[1:45:36] permits in single family

[1:45:37] residential zones encourages

[1:45:38] the gaming of the bonus edu

[1:45:42] program One granny flat used to

[1:45:43] mean one granny flat.

[1:45:46] Abusive numbers of bonus to use

[1:45:46] due to use triggers commercial

[1:45:47] trash pickup.

[1:45:47] Is there a correlation between

[1:45:51] that and the new trash fees?

[1:45:52] Is this the city cutting costs

[1:45:55] while increasing profits to pay

[1:45:56] for deficits?

[1:45:56] Bonus to you.

[1:46:00] Do you programs do nothing to

[1:46:01] alleviate housing shortage?

[1:46:01] Build them to the sky adjacent

[1:46:05] to the transit hubs.

[1:46:06] Infrastructure is inadequate

[1:46:06] for increasing population

[1:46:10] sometimes nine times with

[1:46:10] abusive numbers of 80 use

[1:46:11] allowed for one property As a

[1:46:15] city invented water.

[1:46:15] Or have they even finished a

[1:46:16] project like Undergrounding

[1:46:20] Power in our neighborhoods?

[1:46:20] What capacity for growth in

[1:46:21] that long overdue

[1:46:23] undergrounding of these nine

[1:46:24] adus are going to be built with

[1:46:29] all electric appliances older

[1:46:30] homes being retrofitted, etc..

[1:46:31] Thank you for that very high

[1:46:31] hazard severity zones.

[1:46:32] >> Thank you, Lucy.

[1:46:36] Thank you.

[1:46:41] Thank you very much.

[1:46:42] I am Lucy Price.

[1:46:46] My family has lived in the same

[1:46:47] place in Encanto since 1907.

[1:46:50] I'm the last one.

[1:46:51] >> And yet you want to take

[1:46:55] away my car?

[1:46:55] You want to make my

[1:46:56] disabilities more difficult by

[1:47:00] not providing timely and

[1:47:00] accessible public

[1:47:05] transportation in Encanto.

[1:47:05] You are making emergency

[1:47:10] response more difficult and

[1:47:10] trash pickup confusing.

[1:47:15] I live in Arias one six where

[1:47:16] you're going to throw us under

[1:47:21] the bus and you want us to pay

[1:47:21] for trash pickup.

[1:47:22] That's going to be hard to do

[1:47:25] with all the cars parked down

[1:47:26] the street from other people.

[1:47:29] I believe many of you have a

[1:47:30] conflict of interest with

[1:47:31] developers and I believe it is

[1:47:35] just absolutely unconscionable

[1:47:40] because when I die and two

[1:47:40] pieces of land get sold,

[1:47:41] Encanto is destroyed.

[1:47:43] >> Thank you.

[1:47:48] >> Madeline Gennaro.

[1:47:48] Hello.

[1:47:49] My name is Madeline De Niro.

[1:47:53] I'm one of the few millennial

[1:47:54] homeowners and I'm coming from

[1:47:54] Claremont.

[1:47:55] As a homeowner we are deeply

[1:47:59] impacted by the city's current

[1:47:59] 80 new policies.

[1:48:00] In 2019 we invested in solar

[1:48:04] panels as something the city

[1:48:04] encouraged.

[1:48:05] Now we are facing a multi

[1:48:08] multi-story next door that will

[1:48:09] block that sunlight rendering

[1:48:09] our panels less effective and

[1:48:13] slashing our return on

[1:48:13] investment.

[1:48:14] Who is going to reimburse

[1:48:14] the homeowners for all of those

[1:48:15] losses?

[1:48:18] Developers get grants, loans

[1:48:19] and fast track permits while we

[1:48:20] the rule following homeowners

[1:48:23] are left footing the bill to

[1:48:24] move panels, install privacy

[1:48:25] hedges and undo this damage.

[1:48:28] This isn't just inconvenient

[1:48:29] it's financially punishing.

[1:48:29] And for what?

[1:48:32] To squeeze in rental units like

[1:48:33] sardines when San Diego already

[1:48:34] has tons of vacancies because

[1:48:37] they are overpriced.

[1:48:38] The burden of this policy is

[1:48:39] falling on those who did

[1:48:39] everything right.

[1:48:42] It's time we stop favoring

[1:48:43] the developer profits over

[1:48:44] homeowner protections.

[1:48:44] We need accountability and

[1:48:48] balance before more of us are

[1:48:49] forced to pay for mistakes we

[1:48:49] did not make.

[1:49:00] >> Thank you, Karen.

[1:49:00] >> Good afternoon.

[1:49:01] Excuse me.

[1:49:01] Good afternoon, Council

[1:49:01] members.

[1:49:04] I'm Karen Ventimiglia.

[1:49:05] I represent neighbors for a

[1:49:05] better California.

[1:49:06] I figure once you get to

[1:49:09] deliberations you're probably

[1:49:10] going to talk about the letter

[1:49:11] that was sent last Friday

[1:49:15] afternoon to MISS Von Blum.

[1:49:16] And I wanted to kind of just

[1:49:16] bring a little bit about that

[1:49:19] into this conversation.

[1:49:20] It's kind of a coincidence,

[1:49:20] right?

[1:49:24] This letter was sent Friday

[1:49:25] afternoon just less than one

[1:49:25] business day before this

[1:49:28] meeting.

[1:49:29] And it's full of words like meh

[1:49:33] and could which were legal

[1:49:34] speak for We're not actually

[1:49:35] saying you're breaking the law

[1:49:39] but we want you to feel like

[1:49:39] you are.

[1:49:40] There's no ruling.

[1:49:44] Excuse me My notes just went

[1:49:44] away.

[1:49:45] Oh my gosh.

[1:49:45] Well anyway, there's no ruling

[1:49:49] that says you have to do what

[1:49:49] the letter says.

[1:49:50] I think you need to think about

[1:49:53] the homeowners and act

[1:49:53] accordingly and let MS..

[1:49:54] Von Blum's suggestions actually

[1:49:55] go forward.

[1:49:58] Thank you very much.

[1:50:03] >> Marcello Marcella Bothwell

[1:50:04] You have time ceded to you by

[1:50:05] Barbara Williams If you can

[1:50:08] please raise your hand.

[1:50:09] >> Can a Horsley please raise

[1:50:13] your hand?

[1:50:14] >> Ken Horsley I see him coming

[1:50:15] from the committee room.

[1:50:17] Thank you.

[1:50:22] >> And Robin, back.

[1:50:23] Baker Thank you so much.

[1:50:24] You'll have four minutes.

[1:50:24] Please proceed.

[1:50:28] Thank you.

[1:50:28] Good afternoon, Council

[1:50:29] members.

[1:50:29] Last week I met a young couple

[1:50:32] together made a $150,000.

[1:50:33] Yet they are still priced out

[1:50:37] of the San Diego housing market

[1:50:41] and Ada could be their lifeline

[1:50:42] to build an equity and stay in

[1:50:43] San Diego.

[1:50:46] Neighbors for a better

[1:50:47] California supports 80 years

[1:50:50] under the state rules and

[1:50:50] the four means four from

[1:50:55] the cpc planning group.

[1:50:56] These ideas are crucial for

[1:50:56] young people chasing

[1:51:00] homeownership in today's brutal

[1:51:01] housing market.

[1:51:05] But the 2008 crash still haunts

[1:51:06] us.

[1:51:10] Wall Street's financialization

[1:51:11] and credit default swaps

[1:51:14] reckless speculation turned

[1:51:15] homes into casino chips

[1:51:19] inflating a bubble that

[1:51:20] shattered families and

[1:51:20] communities.

[1:51:25] Still today we can't let that

[1:51:25] happen again.

[1:51:29] Smart regulation is our defense

[1:51:30] against the market spiraling

[1:51:30] out of control?

[1:51:35] >> Jim Bass, why do you

[1:51:36] disagree with this balanced

[1:51:37] regulation that's been put

[1:51:40] forward?

[1:51:40] It's not perfect.

[1:51:44] We'd prefer the 55 year cap.

[1:51:48] >> It just targets the 2%

[1:51:49] outlier projects massive 1216

[1:51:52] or in our case 116.

[1:51:55] Or today I heard 750 unit

[1:52:00] complexes disrupting single

[1:52:01] family zoning while

[1:52:06] greenlighting 98% of ados.

[1:52:06] This isn't anti housing.

[1:52:11] This is responsible regulation.

[1:52:14] Oppose it and you risk

[1:52:15] dismantling single family home

[1:52:20] dreams which 55% of young

[1:52:21] people dream if they can afford

[1:52:24] it.

[1:52:25] Let's stop the blame game.

[1:52:30] Support this regulation Make it

[1:52:30] better to protect our

[1:52:34] communities from

[1:52:35] the financialization devouring

[1:52:39] our housing market.

[1:52:39] Together we can build a San

[1:52:40] Diego where young families,

[1:52:44] seniors and renters thrive safe

[1:52:48] from the greed that fueled

[1:52:48] the 2008 collapse.

[1:52:49] Please be responsible and make

[1:52:53] good policy.

[1:52:54] >> Thank you.

[1:52:54] Thank you.

[1:52:55] If you have already spoken

[1:52:58] please if you can return to

[1:52:58] your seat to let the yellow

[1:52:59] reserved seats be there for

[1:52:59] other people.

[1:53:03] Next is James Raney, Judy

[1:53:03] Murphy, Britta Lindstrom, Evan

[1:53:08] Strong and Kate Kaitlyn tamboli

[1:53:13] Friedman and Maya Vander

[1:53:13] Schuldt.

[1:53:14] If you can all please come up

[1:53:17] to the yellow reserved seats

[1:53:18] And James you can come up to

[1:53:22] the microphone microphone.

[1:53:22] >> I almost said microwave

[1:53:27] James that you have time seated

[1:53:28] to you by Sandra if you can

[1:53:29] please raise your hand And then

[1:53:32] you have one additional slip

[1:53:33] that has no name on it.

[1:53:34] >> Do you know who seated you

[1:53:37] time as Linda MAY get your

[1:53:37] name?

[1:53:38] >> Thank you.

[1:53:38] You'll have three minutes.

[1:53:39] Please proceed.

[1:53:42] Thank you.

[1:53:43] My name is James Rainey.

[1:53:43] I've lived in San Diego my

[1:53:44] entire life.

[1:53:46] We purchased our home and

[1:53:47] the How much our community of

[1:53:48] District 424 years ago.

[1:53:52] I've seen neighbors come and go

[1:53:52] homes rebuilt and added onto.

[1:53:53] But my neighbors and I have

[1:53:56] never been threatened by a

[1:53:57] proposal to transform our quiet

[1:54:01] single family mostly single

[1:54:02] story neighborhood into

[1:54:02] the possibility of unlimited

[1:54:06] two storey apartment buildings

[1:54:07] with a proposed project at 1441

[1:54:07] Wood Jo Avenue.

[1:54:11] This proposal consists of

[1:54:14] the construction of six two

[1:54:15] storey 80 new buildings which

[1:54:16] is 1280 use in the backyard of

[1:54:19] an existing 1290 nine square

[1:54:19] foot lot single storey house

[1:54:23] which the city currently allows

[1:54:24] by San Diego.

[1:54:24] Bonus 80 You program.

[1:54:28] There are more than 80

[1:54:28] properties on Woodrow.

[1:54:32] Of which 40 are 10,000ft or

[1:54:32] larger most of which could

[1:54:33] potentially be overbuilt with

[1:54:37] bonus program Two story ideas.

[1:54:38] I've come to realize that

[1:54:41] the city has no plans to

[1:54:41] eliminate or at least restrict

[1:54:45] the bonus edu incentives for rs

[1:54:46] one seven Zone's properties.

[1:54:46] We asked that the Council and

[1:54:50] committee members visit Woodrow

[1:54:51] Avenue and see for yourself

[1:54:52] what this proposal would do to

[1:54:54] this neighborhood.

[1:54:55] We are respectfully asking

[1:54:55] the city of San Diego to reject

[1:55:00] any just deny the proposed two

[1:55:00] story bonus any new project on

[1:55:01] Wonder Avenue before it breaks

[1:55:04] ground.

[1:55:05] Those developers will live in

[1:55:05] our community.

[1:55:06] They don't see that.

[1:55:08] They only see profits.

[1:55:09] They don't see the beauty in

[1:55:09] our community.

[1:55:10] They don't see unity.

[1:55:14] They just see math.

[1:55:14] They see additions to their

[1:55:15] bottom lines while they use

[1:55:16] their vision to destroy our

[1:55:18] communities.

[1:55:19] Older neighborhoods aren't

[1:55:20] equipped to handle the strain

[1:55:23] on infrastructure.

[1:55:24] There's plenty yellow signs out

[1:55:25] here in opposition.

[1:55:28] Just remember we elected you

[1:55:29] guys to have our best interests

[1:55:30] at heart.

[1:55:30] Please follow through with

[1:55:31] the campaign promises.

[1:55:34] >> Thank you.

[1:55:39] Judy Murphy.

[1:55:40] Good afternoon.

[1:55:45] We need your help Us the people

[1:55:50] that voted for you to be our

[1:55:50] representatives.

[1:55:54] >> Represent us, not

[1:55:54] the developers and not

[1:55:55] the mayor.

[1:55:58] >> We need some common sense

[1:55:59] and logic when it comes to city

[1:56:00] planning.

[1:56:04] We don't want another Altadena

[1:56:04] or Palisades.

[1:56:05] We need an avenue to escape an

[1:56:09] overcrowded neighborhoods that

[1:56:09] have narrow streets and minimal

[1:56:14] arteries aren't conducive to

[1:56:15] quick egress in the event of an

[1:56:15] emergency.

[1:56:15] They can't accommodate

[1:56:19] emergency vehicles adding large

[1:56:23] scale adu complexes, apartment

[1:56:24] buildings turns our

[1:56:28] neighborhoods into death traps

[1:56:28] .

[1:56:29] If nothing else, think about

[1:56:29] the lawsuits you could be

[1:56:30] avoiding.

[1:56:33] You can stop this.

[1:56:34] Show us your courage to stand

[1:56:38] up against the mayor and

[1:56:39] developers.

[1:56:39] Show us that you represent us.

[1:56:49] No more than four police Britta

[1:56:49] .

[1:56:50] >> Hello.

[1:56:54] I'm asking you to remove

[1:56:55] outliers from the bonus Edu

[1:56:58] program Specifically projects

[1:56:59] with five or more units.

[1:57:00] One extreme example that we've

[1:57:03] heard of is the Pacifica City

[1:57:07] Project a 116 micro units just

[1:57:11] 450ft each with minimal

[1:57:12] parking and only one way in and

[1:57:12] out.

[1:57:12] That's not infill.

[1:57:13] That's loophole.

[1:57:16] It's bypasses planning, fire

[1:57:17] safety and infrastructure

[1:57:17] standards.

[1:57:21] These so-called affordable

[1:57:24] units rent for 2600 to $3000 a

[1:57:25] month and the developer avoids

[1:57:26] around 5 million in fees.

[1:57:29] Is this affordable housing?

[1:57:30] No, it's developer windfall.

[1:57:35] City Council must place a hold

[1:57:35] on all current applications and

[1:57:39] prevent these outlier abuses

[1:57:40] from becoming a reality.

[1:57:40] You've seen the devastating

[1:57:41] effects of the outliers.

[1:57:45] Don't let it keep happening.

[1:57:46] And as you heard today you can

[1:57:46] stop it.

[1:57:48] Please represent us.

[1:57:49] >> Thank you.

[1:57:53] Evan Strawn.

[1:57:54] >> Good afternoon.

[1:57:55] Council PRESIDENT LaCava

[1:57:59] Council members My name is Evan

[1:58:00] Strawn speaking on behalf of

[1:58:00] the San Diego Regional Chamber

[1:58:01] of Commerce.

[1:58:04] Our mission is to make the San

[1:58:04] Diego region the best place to

[1:58:05] live and work.

[1:58:06] At the end of the day our

[1:58:09] workforce needs housing.

[1:58:10] This has been a program that's

[1:58:10] been successful at creating

[1:58:11] that housing.

[1:58:14] We've had a lot of changes.

[1:58:15] We've had a lot of hearings.

[1:58:15] We're all tired but there's

[1:58:19] still an opportunity today for

[1:58:20] council to even after

[1:58:20] the program eliminated certain

[1:58:24] hours zones can be enhanced

[1:58:25] with larger setbacks cul de sac

[1:58:25] provision fire sprinkler

[1:58:28] requirements, height limit unit

[1:58:28] cap.

[1:58:29] All of those things means less

[1:58:29] homes.

[1:58:30] That's the bottom line.

[1:58:31] We all know that.

[1:58:33] I think everyone in this room

[1:58:34] today would not disagree with

[1:58:34] that.

[1:58:35] Regardless of what side of

[1:58:37] the debate you're on at the end

[1:58:38] of the day we need homes for

[1:58:39] our workforce and there's still

[1:58:40] an opportunity for council to

[1:58:43] move forward to salvage parts

[1:58:43] of the program.

[1:58:44] And then let's move past this

[1:58:45] Let's move on to how is this

[1:58:47] going to continue to be a pro

[1:58:48] housing council, a pro housing

[1:58:49] city through other policies

[1:58:52] other than this program that we

[1:58:53] can hopefully agree on and

[1:58:53] coalesce around?

[1:58:54] >> So that's our ask today.

[1:58:54] Thank you.

[1:58:58] Thank you, Kate Kelly.

[1:58:59] >> You have time to go to by

[1:59:01] Karen Howard if you can please

[1:59:02] raise your hand or cutting

[1:59:02] Howard.

[1:59:03] I'm sorry if I missed.

[1:59:06] Thank you so much and vice

[1:59:07] versa.

[1:59:07] Gross.

[1:59:07] Thank you so much.

[1:59:11] You'll have three minutes

[1:59:12] before you proceed.

[1:59:12] If I can just ask Tamboli

[1:59:17] Friedman Maya Vander Shultz,

[1:59:17] Hap Manning, Adrian Luna now

[1:59:22] with MS..

[1:59:22] MR. Tobey and Daniel Scott.

[1:59:23] Nick to please come up to

[1:59:26] the Yellow Reserves seat at

[1:59:27] the front.

[1:59:27] Have three minutes please.

[1:59:28] Please proceed.

[1:59:31] Good afternoon.

[1:59:32] As you know, community leaders

[1:59:33] in every district are fighting

[1:59:37] the city's efforts to cram more

[1:59:37] and more housing into our

[1:59:38] neighborhoods.

[1:59:40] Housing that is excessive in

[1:59:41] scale and expensive in price.

[1:59:42] We have gotten to know one

[1:59:46] another at meetings like this

[1:59:46] and we've talked about joining

[1:59:47] forces.

[1:59:47] Massive public outrage over

[1:59:52] monstrous bonus use has finally

[1:59:52] united us as members of the new

[1:59:56] San Diego community Coalition.

[1:59:57] >> It is sad but true that

[2:00:00] local politicians only seem to

[2:00:01] care about three groups

[2:00:01] the Chamber of Commerce,

[2:00:05] the building industry and labor

[2:00:06] unions.

[2:00:06] Going forward the Community

[2:00:07] Coalition will expect your

[2:00:11] equal time and attention.

[2:00:11] This citywide alliance is three

[2:00:12] months old.

[2:00:16] It includes 26 communities and

[2:00:16] it is growing.

[2:00:17] >> Neighbors for a better San

[2:00:21] Diego helped launch us Save Our

[2:00:22] Heritage organization has

[2:00:22] joined us.

[2:00:26] Our geographic reach extends

[2:00:26] from Encanto in the South to

[2:00:30] University City in the north

[2:00:31] from El Sereno in the east to

[2:00:32] Ocean Beach in the West.

[2:00:36] Together we will be relentless

[2:00:37] in fighting predatory

[2:00:40] development wherever it occurs

[2:00:40] .

[2:00:41] Together we will demand that

[2:00:41] elected officials give us

[2:00:45] the respect you owe us.

[2:00:46] Today we speak for tens of

[2:00:47] thousands of San Diego and San

[2:00:50] Diegans who believe four is

[2:00:51] fair everywhere.

[2:00:56] They know for a fact that bonus

[2:00:56] ideas will not solve

[2:01:00] the affordable housing crisis.

[2:01:01] And they know bonus IOUs will

[2:01:01] never solved the homelessness

[2:01:02] crisis.

[2:01:05] You insult your constituents

[2:01:06] when you pretend otherwise.

[2:01:10] It is even more offensive to

[2:01:10] say that opposition to bonus

[2:01:11] use is rooted in rich racial

[2:01:15] prejudice and socioeconomic

[2:01:15] bias.

[2:01:16] And I'm sorry MR. Ello Rivera

[2:01:19] isn't here.

[2:01:20] He's been missing from this

[2:01:20] meeting for quite some time.

[2:01:21] If that's the story you're

[2:01:24] pushing coalition members in

[2:01:25] underserved communities like

[2:01:29] Encanto and Hamsher and Choice

[2:01:30] Valley would like a word with

[2:01:34] you when you cast your vote

[2:01:35] today.

[2:01:35] Remember that our coalition

[2:01:39] communities are fighting

[2:01:40] predatory development together

[2:01:41] and we will never stop fighting

[2:01:44] it together.

[2:01:44] Thank you.

[2:01:45] Thank you.

[2:01:51] Next is timbre Friedman.

[2:01:52] >> You have time to two by

[2:01:53] Mauricio Juarez Please raise

[2:01:57] your hand.

[2:01:57] >> Hi there.

[2:01:58] I just have one favor to ask.

[2:01:58] I'm sorry, ma'am.

[2:02:02] I can't really tambourine.

[2:02:02] Wait one second.

[2:02:03] I'm just trying to get

[2:02:03] the other people to raise their

[2:02:04] hand.

[2:02:04] Adam King.

[2:02:10] Adam King for his daughter

[2:02:11] outside.

[2:02:19] >> And then Mauricio Juarez.

[2:02:20] They do need to be present in

[2:02:20] order to see time And I'm not

[2:02:21] having any of these people

[2:02:27] raise their hands right now.

[2:02:27] So you'll have one minute.

[2:02:28] He's coming.

[2:02:28] Okay.

[2:02:28] All right.

[2:02:32] So you'll have two minutes.

[2:02:33] >> Hi, my name is Campbell.

[2:02:36] I would like to ask each one of

[2:02:37] you to please look me in

[2:02:38] the eye when I'm talking to you

[2:02:38] and not look at your computers.

[2:02:41] >> The edu complex that are

[2:02:45] going up in our area we only

[2:02:46] have one main road to evacuate

[2:02:46] for a fire event.

[2:02:49] We are surrounded by extreme

[2:02:50] fire zone in the canyons.

[2:02:54] >> I'm asking you to implement

[2:02:55] policies that enable you to

[2:02:55] look at.

[2:02:56] Michelle, please look at me.

[2:03:00] I'm asking you to implement

[2:03:00] policies that enable you to

[2:03:04] make decisions on individual

[2:03:05] neighborhoods based on their

[2:03:06] configuration and their

[2:03:06] evacuation routes.

[2:03:09] We have 500 homes which means a

[2:03:13] thousand cars that only have

[2:03:14] one way to get out of our

[2:03:14] neighborhood in the event of a

[2:03:15] fire.

[2:03:18] So I'm asking you to implement

[2:03:18] policies that will look at

[2:03:19] these neighborhoods and base

[2:03:23] solid decisions on making sure

[2:03:26] you keep our safety and fire

[2:03:27] prevention as a number one

[2:03:28] priority so that everyone stays

[2:03:28] safe.

[2:03:32] Thank you, Mayor.

[2:03:37] You have time to lead by rise

[2:03:38] Marques rise If you can please

[2:03:38] raise your hand.

[2:03:39] >> He had to leave.

[2:03:39] Okay.

[2:03:40] And you'll have one minute.

[2:03:46] Please proceed.

[2:03:46] Right now?

[2:03:46] Yeah.

[2:03:47] Okay.

[2:03:47] Hi everyone.

[2:03:48] My name is Maya Vander Shute.

[2:03:50] My partner and I moved to Pike

[2:03:51] Place in FEBRUARY of this year.

[2:03:52] Our neighborhood sits between

[2:03:55] the tri canyons and urban

[2:03:56] canyon system that Cal Fire has

[2:04:00] assessed as high fire risk.

[2:04:01] Under current policy the city

[2:04:02] and state allow 80 use to be

[2:04:05] approved Ministerial ignoring

[2:04:06] secure protections meant to

[2:04:09] reduce wildfire danger.

[2:04:10] This puts our communities at

[2:04:11] risk.

[2:04:11] I believe in building more

[2:04:15] affordable housing but let's be

[2:04:16] honest about what affordable

[2:04:16] means.

[2:04:19] Right now it's based on a 110%

[2:04:20] of the area median income

[2:04:20] That's a six figure sag salary.

[2:04:25] If you need to make over six

[2:04:25] figures to qualify that's not

[2:04:29] affordable to most San Diego's

[2:04:29] .

[2:04:30] I've worked multiple jobs

[2:04:31] simultaneously and received fbt

[2:04:35] benefits just as they housed in

[2:04:35] San Diego.

[2:04:36] ADAs have their place but

[2:04:39] responsibly cramming

[2:04:40] innumerable studio style 80

[2:04:45] into backyards especially in

[2:04:45] high fire risk areas isn't

[2:04:46] the answer.

[2:04:47] In North Claremont some of my

[2:04:52] neighbors rent whole homes for

[2:04:52] leisure time Half the clients a

[2:04:53] single bedroom if you like to

[2:04:55] email any of those comments we

[2:04:56] can definitely distribute them

[2:04:56] as well.

[2:04:59] You think you have many You

[2:05:00] have time seated by Cheyenne

[2:05:01] Bullock over here.

[2:05:05] Thank you so much.

[2:05:05] >> You have two minutes.

[2:05:06] Please proceed.

[2:05:09] Thank you for the opportunity

[2:05:10] to speak to you.

[2:05:10] I'm Hap Manning.

[2:05:11] I live on Pine Place.

[2:05:12] It's a small quaint street in a

[2:05:14] legacy neighborhood in North

[2:05:14] Claremont.

[2:05:15] Here it expresses my shock and

[2:05:16] outrage for the predatory bills

[2:05:19] that are being proposed and

[2:05:19] will destroy the street I grew

[2:05:20] up on.

[2:05:20] Proposed bills that will

[2:05:21] negatively alter my

[2:05:24] neighborhood forever.

[2:05:25] To me I see it as a rip off my

[2:05:26] entire block.

[2:05:29] I'm asking you to immediately

[2:05:30] pause all bills that are being

[2:05:30] considered.

[2:05:31] I'm asking for an immediate

[2:05:31] review The secret requirements

[2:05:34] as they pertain to these vulgar

[2:05:34] permits.

[2:05:35] The state mandate is for

[2:05:39] proposed predatory built for

[2:05:43] 4511 Paiute is 12 for 44 2010.

[2:05:43] These bills are fire hazard.

[2:05:44] We live in a canyon rim where

[2:05:47] fire is always at risk.

[2:05:48] Cars will fill up our street

[2:05:49] making it very difficult for a

[2:05:52] fire engine to negotiate

[2:05:53] the squeeze.

[2:05:53] Please stop telling us there's

[2:05:54] nothing you can do.

[2:05:58] Please help us stop this

[2:05:59] madness And don't let the bonus

[2:06:03] aid program be your legacy.

[2:06:03] When your kids and grandkids

[2:06:04] ask what you accomplished on

[2:06:08] the San Diego City Council, you

[2:06:09] need to tell them the truth and

[2:06:10] say Well, I was complicit in

[2:06:13] destroying the character of

[2:06:14] some of San Diego's

[2:06:16] neighborhoods hurting so many

[2:06:17] San Diegans along the way.

[2:06:20] >> I'm done.

[2:06:25] Thank you, Adrian.

[2:06:26] >> Adrian Luna after that is

[2:06:27] now with most notably Daniel

[2:06:31] Schleicher Schnucks Slotnick.

[2:06:35] Slotnick Thank you Joy Sonata

[2:06:36] and Dave Nicholai.

[2:06:36] If you can start making your

[2:06:40] way up.

[2:06:40] >> Please proceed.

[2:06:41] Good afternoon Council members.

[2:06:42] My name is Adrian Luna.

[2:06:46] I'm here today on behalf of

[2:06:46] the Building Industry

[2:06:47] Association of San Diego

[2:06:47] County.

[2:06:50] As homebuilders ranging from

[2:06:51] large planned developments to

[2:06:52] small infill or even a2 use we

[2:06:55] know as do you that today's

[2:06:55] housing crisis calls on a

[2:06:59] diversity of housing and that

[2:07:00] more homes is a good thing for

[2:07:00] our city.

[2:07:04] Like others who have experience

[2:07:04] in this industry creating

[2:07:05] housing for our workforce, we

[2:07:06] ask that the city increase

[2:07:09] the lot sizes and corresponding

[2:07:09] unit caps to allow this program

[2:07:10] to continue to provide

[2:07:14] meaningful unit counts.

[2:07:14] >> This Council has been strong

[2:07:15] housing advocates and we are

[2:07:18] grateful to you for that.

[2:07:18] And for the pro housing

[2:07:19] policies recently created.

[2:07:23] Please allow this program to

[2:07:24] continue to help develop

[2:07:24] housing where it's most needed

[2:07:28] near transit, near economic

[2:07:29] opportunities and educational

[2:07:29] institutions.

[2:07:33] Thank you.

[2:07:34] Maybe you have time ceded to

[2:07:37] you by Christine Nelson.

[2:07:38] Thank you.

[2:07:38] Leah Taylor.

[2:07:42] Adam.

[2:07:43] Allan Navarro.

[2:07:47] Kathy Hirsch Hirsch.

[2:07:47] Thank you.

[2:07:48] Randy lit up.

[2:07:52] Thank you Patricia for having

[2:07:52] or for me Patricia.

[2:07:56] Thank you, Colleen.

[2:08:01] Mike Don Mel and Lou Farrell.

[2:08:01] Okay.

[2:08:05] You will have 11 minutes.

[2:08:05] >> Please proceed.

[2:08:10] We have a slide.

[2:08:10] Hold on one second.

[2:08:20] We have an individual okay.

[2:08:21] >> We'll send someone out to

[2:08:22] talk to you If you can put up

[2:08:23] the slide four and have it

[2:08:24] please.

[2:08:27] I think it's David or you, but

[2:08:28] it's not me That's your name,

[2:08:41] right?

[2:09:08] Thank you for your patience.

[2:09:09] >> Good afternoon, Council

[2:09:09] PRESIDENT And council members.

[2:09:12] And to my fellow angry

[2:09:13] citizens.

[2:09:13] My name is Naveed.

[2:09:18] Most of Tavi and I'm speaking

[2:09:19] on behalf of the residents of

[2:09:19] Pike Place in North Claremont.

[2:09:23] Such as Hap who just spoke who

[2:09:24] has 12 units being proposed

[2:09:27] right next door to him.

[2:09:28] We're here because the San

[2:09:28] Diego Bonus Adu program is

[2:09:32] being abused and the result is

[2:09:32] public safety risk,

[2:09:33] environmental neglect and a

[2:09:37] complete disregard for zoning

[2:09:37] intent.

[2:09:38] Next slide please.

[2:09:42] I'm here to represent

[2:09:43] the residents of Pike Place

[2:09:43] first and foremost.

[2:09:46] But it's not just about one

[2:09:47] street.

[2:09:47] I'm representing San Diego's

[2:09:51] San Diegans living in zones

[2:09:52] being overrun by speculative

[2:09:56] development homeowners who fear

[2:09:57] a 2 to 3 storey apartment

[2:09:58] building being built next to

[2:10:00] their single family home.

[2:10:01] Young families who are being

[2:10:02] priced out of single family

[2:10:05] homes by investors and

[2:10:06] the taxpayers who will foot

[2:10:07] the bill for poor planning

[2:10:11] decisions made by our elected

[2:10:11] leaders.

[2:10:16] >> Next slide please.

[2:10:17] Today we have a highly placed

[2:10:19] are asking for three immediate

[2:10:20] specific actions a moratorium

[2:10:24] on the bonus edu program for

[2:10:25] projects exceeding four units

[2:10:29] so we can return to be in

[2:10:30] alignment with the state law to

[2:10:34] a pause in progress reviews

[2:10:34] until California Department of

[2:10:35] Housing and Community

[2:10:39] Development can clarify San

[2:10:40] Diego's unlimited nature of

[2:10:43] the program.

[2:10:44] >> Legal under state law is

[2:10:48] illegal under secure exemptions

[2:10:48] .

[2:10:49] Does it qualify for ministerial

[2:10:49] reviews?

[2:10:53] Four is different than

[2:10:53] unlimited.

[2:10:54] Three and a restoration of

[2:10:58] secret reviews for the larger

[2:10:58] projects that are currently

[2:10:59] under review.

[2:11:02] Next slide please.

[2:11:07] >> The codes are clear and

[2:11:07] definitions matter rc zones

[2:11:12] must avoid adverse impacts to

[2:11:12] adjacent properties.

[2:11:13] A2 use must be subordinate not

[2:11:17] dominant.

[2:11:18] Fire roads need 20ft of

[2:11:18] clearance for two lanes.

[2:11:22] Secret exemption tions do not

[2:11:23] apply when there's unusual

[2:11:24] circumstances and cumulative

[2:11:24] impacts.

[2:11:27] San Diego's bypassing all of

[2:11:28] this.

[2:11:28] Next slide.

[2:11:32] Rc Zoning is meant for single

[2:11:32] family homes 5000 square foot

[2:11:37] or larger allowing 22 units on

[2:11:40] Piatt Place across two

[2:11:41] different parcels is

[2:11:41] incompatible with the scale,

[2:11:45] character and livability that

[2:11:46] our zoning was designed to

[2:11:46] preserve.

[2:11:49] Reasonable use of property

[2:11:50] while minimizing adverse impact

[2:11:54] impacts to adjacent properties

[2:11:55] .

[2:11:55] >> Next slide.

[2:12:00] The word accessory matters It

[2:12:00] means secondary incidental

[2:12:01] supportive.

[2:12:01] It does not mean 12 units.

[2:12:05] It does not mean ten units.

[2:12:06] >> It does not mean 100 units.

[2:12:09] These bonus eight use fail even

[2:12:10] the basic legal definition of

[2:12:10] the word accessory.

[2:12:16] Next slide please.

[2:12:21] Let's talk safety.

[2:12:21] State fire code requires 20ft

[2:12:22] of clear access.

[2:12:26] Piatt Place only has 15ft When

[2:12:27] cars are parked on both sides

[2:12:27] of the road.

[2:12:31] >> There's no known evacuation

[2:12:31] plan.

[2:12:32] We don't know of what the fire

[2:12:32] department review was.

[2:12:36] We don't know if there's any

[2:12:37] infrastructure improvements

[2:12:37] that are going to happen.

[2:12:41] This project and others put

[2:12:41] lives at risk.

[2:12:42] >> Next slide please.

[2:12:46] Ceqa is not optional when

[2:12:46] impacts are cumulative.

[2:12:51] State law says air is required

[2:12:51] when projects combine to

[2:12:52] degrade the environment.

[2:12:56] The city cannot claim exemption

[2:13:00] under section 1533 if it fails

[2:13:01] to evaluate the other nearby

[2:13:05] adu developments and how they

[2:13:05] have a compound effect on one

[2:13:06] another.

[2:13:07] That's what's happening in San

[2:13:07] Diego right now.

[2:13:10] Let me summarize Next slide

[2:13:10] please.

[2:13:15] Let me summarize specifically

[2:13:17] what's wrong with Pai Place.

[2:13:17] >> Next slide please.

[2:13:22] We have two developments 12

[2:13:26] proposed on one lot ten on

[2:13:27] another lot.

[2:13:27] We're located in a very high

[2:13:30] fire severity zone.

[2:13:34] Access is limited through a 30

[2:13:35] foot street curb to curb which

[2:13:35] allows 15 foot of passage.

[2:13:39] We put this diagram to show

[2:13:40] where if every single car is

[2:13:43] parked on the street two cars

[2:13:44] can't pass for long stretches

[2:13:47] up to 250ft.

[2:13:51] Our driveways are only one car

[2:13:52] wide 13 foot aprons.

[2:13:56] Most houses can only fit one

[2:13:57] car So street parking is not an

[2:13:57] option.

[2:14:01] It's mandatory three for

[2:14:02] the majority of the residents

[2:14:02] as is.

[2:14:03] And now we're talking about

[2:14:09] adding most likely 30 plus cars

[2:14:09] .

[2:14:10] There's been no sequence

[2:14:10] analysis.

[2:14:11] There's been no notice of right

[2:14:11] to appeal.

[2:14:14] We had no public input.

[2:14:15] All of this is ministerial

[2:14:16] approved as if it's just a

[2:14:18] backyard cottage and it's not.

[2:14:23] >> Next slide please.

[2:14:28] >> >> I started going around to

[2:14:29] different neighborhoods after I

[2:14:30] learned about this because I

[2:14:34] was like this This has to be in

[2:14:34] this has to be unique.

[2:14:35] There's no way that this could

[2:14:36] be happening in other

[2:14:39] neighborhoods Like it's you

[2:14:39] know, this is an issue.

[2:14:44] >> This isn't Shoshoni That was

[2:14:44] that was just like on a cul de

[2:14:45] sac And this is an all male

[2:14:47] that was on a cul de sac and

[2:14:48] those were just one.

[2:14:48] >> This is two.

[2:14:52] And then I was fortunate to be

[2:14:53] invited to Linda Vista by our

[2:14:54] friends here now and I learned

[2:14:57] what's going on.

[2:14:58] So this is systemic and this is

[2:14:58] not isolated.

[2:15:02] So let me just take you on a

[2:15:03] quick tour of what's going on

[2:15:04] and show you how these

[2:15:07] cumulative impacts are

[2:15:07] compounding day by day As long

[2:15:10] as this program stays active.

[2:15:10] Next slide, please.

[2:15:15] Firestone Street, which some

[2:15:19] have touched on there's 11

[2:15:20] units and I kept driving by

[2:15:20] there just to check it out

[2:15:23] because it's fully built out

[2:15:24] And that's one of the few ones

[2:15:24] that's actually been built And

[2:15:25] you can go see what it looks

[2:15:25] like.

[2:15:28] I was curious what's the street

[2:15:29] look like?

[2:15:29] How is parking?

[2:15:30] How are they dealing with

[2:15:30] trash?

[2:15:32] And then I go on the permit

[2:15:33] finder website and I find out

[2:15:36] next door 11 more units are are

[2:15:37] going up.

[2:15:41] >> And I had been watching this

[2:15:42] other property on Rennick place

[2:15:45] to the right there and seven

[2:15:46] units were proposed and this

[2:15:49] was a couple of months ago And

[2:15:50] then I said let me check it

[2:15:50] again.

[2:15:51] Now there's eight next door

[2:15:54] adjacent.

[2:15:55] Next slide please.

[2:16:00] And then I in North Claremont I

[2:16:00] look at this one Appleton

[2:16:01] Aberdeen Diane I call it

[2:16:05] the doom triangle.

[2:16:05] You you've got four, four and

[2:16:06] three creating a triangle.

[2:16:10] What's going to happen to those

[2:16:10] people in the middle?

[2:16:11] >> I don't know.

[2:16:15] And then Linda Vista is the one

[2:16:16] that really hit home for me.

[2:16:19] 18 units currently under

[2:16:20] construction, seven currently

[2:16:20] under construction.

[2:16:23] And then our friend said well

[2:16:23] there's another one.

[2:16:24] It's nine units.

[2:16:25] And then I went home and then I

[2:16:28] looked at the map and I'm like

[2:16:32] Hey, there's another 438 units

[2:16:33] on a 30 foot wide street just

[2:16:34] like Piute zero access on a

[2:16:36] canyon.

[2:16:37] >> This is systemic.

[2:16:41] The outliers from a few months

[2:16:42] ago have now become the new

[2:16:43] norm and it's compounding day

[2:16:43] by day.

[2:16:43] Next slide, please.

[2:16:49] >> This slide kind of shows

[2:16:49] shows it all from our

[2:16:50] perspective.

[2:16:54] >> The state allowed up to four

[2:16:57] units per lot under this four

[2:16:58] unit umbrella.

[2:16:59] The state said no parking

[2:17:03] requirements areas are

[2:17:03] categorically exempt from

[2:17:07] secure ministerial reviews.

[2:17:08] This is for four units.

[2:17:09] I don't know if the state had

[2:17:12] unlimited in mind when they

[2:17:12] created this.

[2:17:13] San Diego allows unlimited

[2:17:17] units and they thought they

[2:17:18] could piggyback on the state

[2:17:18] say oh well unlimited parking,

[2:17:22] no parking, no secure.

[2:17:22] No ministerial reviews.

[2:17:23] But I'm sorry the state did not

[2:17:27] say unlimited unlimited equals

[2:17:28] unusual circumstances and

[2:17:28] cumulative impacts.

[2:17:29] Next slide please.

[2:17:35] To start to wrap it up for

[2:17:36] the four the hdd letter that

[2:17:40] was dated JUNE 13th the hdd is

[2:17:40] already questioning

[2:17:43] the legality of the bonus edu

[2:17:44] program amendments while

[2:17:45] the City of San Diego edu

[2:17:49] program MAY have appeared alike

[2:17:49] to be aligned with state law

[2:17:53] and mandates upon its inception

[2:17:54] .

[2:17:54] It scale and all these

[2:17:55] compounding impacts are

[2:17:59] creating unusual circumstance

[2:17:59] and cumulative impacts that

[2:18:00] should disqualify it from

[2:18:04] ministerial approvals and

[2:18:04] secure exemptions.

[2:18:08] Upon further review by the city

[2:18:08] it's clear that putting forth

[2:18:09] amendments that satisfy

[2:18:13] the Council the public and

[2:18:14] the hdd is going to be a very

[2:18:14] long process.

[2:18:18] So we're recommending in

[2:18:19] the meantime our our message is

[2:18:19] simple.

[2:18:23] Place a moratorium on bonus edu

[2:18:23] program for any project

[2:18:27] submitted over four units.

[2:18:28] >> Pause reviews on projects

[2:18:29] that have already been

[2:18:33] submitted until we get clarity

[2:18:33] from the state for legal

[2:18:34] compliance with ceqa and

[2:18:37] ministerial reviews related to

[2:18:37] unlimited.

[2:18:42] >> Anything over four requires

[2:18:43] secure review when harm is

[2:18:46] compounded because four means

[2:18:47] for not unlimited.

[2:18:53] Next slide This.

[2:18:54] We do not need to cancel to

[2:18:54] use.

[2:18:55] We need to build them

[2:18:58] responsibility responsibly not

[2:18:59] hide apartment buildings and

[2:18:59] backyards.

[2:19:00] We need to respect zoning

[2:19:04] followed fire code, obey secure

[2:19:04] and include the public.

[2:19:07] And no more unlimited.

[2:19:08] >> Thank you for your time and

[2:19:10] please help us to pay you

[2:19:15] serious?

[2:19:20] >> Doris Doris Cintron if you

[2:19:20] can please come up.

[2:19:25] >> Doris.

[2:19:26] Coming up from the back

[2:19:29] committee room.

[2:19:29] >> No, Doris.

[2:19:44] Oh, hold me.

[2:19:45] >> You know, just you can just

[2:19:48] speak your comments into

[2:19:49] the microphone.

[2:19:49] Are you Doris Cintron?

[2:19:50] Yes, I am.

[2:19:50] Yes.

[2:19:51] Proceed with your comments.

[2:19:53] Thank you.

[2:19:54] Um, I'm not related to any of

[2:19:54] the issues concerning

[2:19:57] the public here.

[2:19:58] I would like to be able to

[2:19:59] speak to someone about

[2:20:03] the problems I am having on a 1

[2:20:04] to 1 with someone if it's

[2:20:05] possible If it's not related to

[2:20:08] the aids.

[2:20:09] If you can wait in the back

[2:20:09] then I'll send somebody to

[2:20:13] speak to you to try to provide

[2:20:13] further guidance.

[2:20:14] Thank you.

[2:20:14] Thank you, Daniel.

[2:20:18] Daniel, you'll have time ceded

[2:20:19] to you by James Lawson.

[2:20:24] Please raise your hand.

[2:20:24] And Stephanie, thank you so

[2:20:25] much.

[2:20:25] You'll have three minutes.

[2:20:26] Please proceed.

[2:20:28] Good afternoon.

[2:20:29] Council PRESIDENT LaCava, City

[2:20:30] Attorney ipa and Council

[2:20:30] members.

[2:20:33] My name is Daniel Skolnik and

[2:20:34] I'm ceo of Atlas Waste Group.

[2:20:38] We are San Diego based

[2:20:38] development company that has

[2:20:42] successfully used the city's 82

[2:20:42] density bonus program to bring

[2:20:43] online hundreds of homes.

[2:20:47] You are in receipt of our

[2:20:48] letter submitted to your

[2:20:48] offices this morning containing

[2:20:52] our suggested amendments to

[2:20:52] the staff recommendations.

[2:20:53] My comments today though are

[2:20:56] focused on a broader picture.

[2:20:57] This program was put in place

[2:20:57] during a time when the city was

[2:21:01] focused what we all deemed as a

[2:21:01] housing emergency.

[2:21:02] It feels like we're now losing

[2:21:06] that urgency.

[2:21:07] Reforms to this program started

[2:21:10] as a way to deal with outliers

[2:21:11] who are proposing projects that

[2:21:11] were significantly out of scale

[2:21:15] with surrounding communities.

[2:21:16] I agree with these goals but

[2:21:19] now we're talking today about

[2:21:20] the evisceration of an award

[2:21:25] winning program.

[2:21:25] To be to be clear.

[2:21:26] My company has never built a

[2:21:30] project larger than 12 units.

[2:21:33] Our projects range in size from

[2:21:34] 6 to 12 units.

[2:21:35] And that's because we found a

[2:21:36] niche that serves a dire need

[2:21:39] for workforce housing.

[2:21:40] Your dealership a unit without

[2:21:43] any public subsidy.

[2:21:44] I've heard it several times in

[2:21:45] other hearings and I'm sure

[2:21:48] we'll hear it today that these

[2:21:49] aren't homes.

[2:21:49] I take issue with that

[2:21:50] statement.

[2:21:53] I think it's ridiculous and

[2:21:53] demeaning.

[2:21:54] This program has provided homes

[2:21:58] for military families, for

[2:21:58] teachers, for single parents

[2:21:59] and homes for hundreds of other

[2:21:59] San Diegans.

[2:22:03] This is an amazing partnership

[2:22:04] that we've had and I hope it

[2:22:04] can continue.

[2:22:08] Please make sure you focus on

[2:22:09] creating homes for all of us

[2:22:12] and so people can afford to

[2:22:13] stay in San Diego.

[2:22:13] >> Thank you.

[2:22:17] Joy Sonata.

[2:22:18] After that it will be Dave

[2:22:18] Nicholai.

[2:22:19] Dana Give it.

[2:22:22] Colin Parent and Sean Duffy

[2:22:23] Polanco If you can all please

[2:22:24] make your way up to the yellow

[2:22:27] reserved seats and you MAY

[2:22:27] proceed.

[2:22:28] City Clerk Fuentes before you

[2:22:32] start my time this is very

[2:22:32] important and it's a technical

[2:22:37] protocol problem or question in

[2:22:37] the late arrivals notebook

[2:22:41] wouldn't I normally find

[2:22:42] Heidi's memo from late last

[2:22:46] Friday afternoon?

[2:22:47] So I'm just I'm just putting

[2:22:47] that out there for you If you

[2:22:51] want to answer it, fine.

[2:22:52] But I really wanted to find out

[2:22:53] if it was legally appropriate

[2:22:56] for it to be that Well make

[2:22:57] sure to make an extra copy but

[2:22:58] we do have it posted.

[2:23:01] Please proceed.

[2:23:01] Thank you.

[2:23:04] City Clerk Fuentes Joyce

[2:23:05] Initiative District three.

[2:23:05] Hey everybody listen up.

[2:23:10] I and I know you are but maybe

[2:23:15] you know I mean I am between a

[2:23:15] rock and a hard place.

[2:23:16] I live downtown.

[2:23:20] We accept housing density.

[2:23:25] I want other neighborhoods to

[2:23:25] accept more housing density.

[2:23:30] Yet something seems very odd a

[2:23:31] balance about the adu program.

[2:23:35] Please listen to the voices

[2:23:39] today Do city council They have

[2:23:40] heartfelt things to say.

[2:23:44] There is a balance.

[2:23:45] There is an answer.

[2:23:50] Let's find it together.

[2:23:51] >> Thank you everybody for

[2:23:51] listening up to All Thank you

[2:23:55] Dave Nicola you have time

[2:23:56] seated by Leslie Bruce please

[2:23:56] raise your hand.

[2:24:00] Leslie Thank you Clint.

[2:24:01] >> Bruce Thank you.

[2:24:02] Barbara Burdette Barbara

[2:24:08] Burdette I do not see a Barbara

[2:24:11] Burdette raising her hand.

[2:24:16] Okay, Thank you Mel Meckler

[2:24:17] Thank you.

[2:24:17] That gives you four minutes

[2:24:22] just making sure Barbara Ward

[2:24:23] isn't one of the people walking

[2:24:23] in.

[2:24:26] No, Barbara, four minutes.

[2:24:26] Please proceed.

[2:24:27] Hello, council members.

[2:24:31] Here we go again.

[2:24:32] We have Oh, please put up

[2:24:36] the slides.

[2:24:37] >> Here we go again.

[2:24:38] Another victim of the bonus You

[2:24:41] program.

[2:24:42] First they found out a

[2:24:43] developer bought to the north

[2:24:44] of them stuck three units

[2:24:44] there.

[2:24:50] >> Daniel Skolnick They get all

[2:24:50] the construction noise and

[2:24:52] disrespect and then two years

[2:24:53] later guess what?

[2:24:54] The same developer buys

[2:24:58] the property to the south of

[2:24:58] him.

[2:24:58] Isn't that nice?

[2:25:02] This one owner now does that

[2:25:02] person who's on that house for

[2:25:07] 20 years deserve deserve it?

[2:25:07] No.

[2:25:08] He bought a house in a

[2:25:12] residential neighborhood as in

[2:25:13] are seven the bonus 80 you

[2:25:13] projects are destroying this

[2:25:14] neighborhood like an invasive

[2:25:17] disease.

[2:25:18] >> Next slide please.

[2:25:18] Sorry.

[2:25:19] I'm going to pause your time.

[2:25:22] I don't have a PowerPoint from

[2:25:22] you.

[2:25:23] >> I'm not sure When you

[2:25:24] submitted it I submitted it a

[2:25:30] while ago and I sent it to Jen

[2:25:31] Barry probably She just went

[2:25:32] out to the back to assist

[2:25:32] the customer.

[2:25:36] What I can do is I'll save your

[2:25:37] time and call you back as soon

[2:25:40] as she's back in the building.

[2:25:41] My apologies are back in from

[2:25:42] the room because she had to go

[2:25:42] assist.

[2:25:43] It's okay.

[2:25:45] I'll just I'll just I'll just

[2:25:46] It was distributed to everybody

[2:25:46] if it was submitted.

[2:25:47] All right.

[2:25:50] Meanwhile we have another

[2:25:50] instance where a developer

[2:25:51] bought two parcels right next

[2:25:52] to each other in Redwood

[2:25:55] Village on Bourn Street, a one

[2:25:56] quarter acre and a one third

[2:25:59] acre plot with a slight drop

[2:26:04] of 6% a total of 28 units and a

[2:26:05] approved by the dsd getting

[2:26:05] plopped at the end of yet

[2:26:06] another cul de sac in a very

[2:26:10] high severity zone It's down to

[2:26:11] 6% empty yes to a bus stop.

[2:26:14] You think people are going to

[2:26:15] right transit?

[2:26:16] Really through my experience in

[2:26:19] dealing with such a project

[2:26:20] directly behind my house and

[2:26:21] affecting my neighborhood, I

[2:26:25] have determined the following

[2:26:26] My council rep in District nine

[2:26:26] Seanie Lou Rivera does not have

[2:26:27] my back.

[2:26:29] Raul would you dsd protects

[2:26:33] the developer by not allowing

[2:26:34] us to take notes and pictures

[2:26:35] of the plans that we directly

[2:26:39] cannot safely mitigate privacy

[2:26:39] issues that are going to come

[2:26:40] up?

[2:26:40] These projects are all

[2:26:44] ministerial.

[2:26:45] That means unless you have nosy

[2:26:46] neighbors or renters getting

[2:26:46] evicted you only find out

[2:26:47] what's happening when

[2:26:48] the property is surrounded by a

[2:26:49] construction fence.

[2:26:50] Lucky me I dug and I found out

[2:26:53] early and told everybody to get

[2:26:53] ready for disaster.

[2:26:54] Daniel That's coming to our

[2:26:55] quiet little neighborhood.

[2:26:58] The developer?

[2:26:59] Yeah, I did meet him once.

[2:27:00] I asked him to please bring

[2:27:01] the plants in share with me but

[2:27:03] he didn't.

[2:27:04] It was a waste of my time.

[2:27:05] The construction company I'm

[2:27:05] dealing with is a no name

[2:27:09] building company who doesn't

[2:27:09] display their contact

[2:27:10] information at their job site.

[2:27:13] The way I found out it was on

[2:27:13] one of their shirts I googled

[2:27:14] the rest.

[2:27:15] >> Then the construction begins

[2:27:18] Hammers, saws, loud music, loud

[2:27:19] talking double parking, use a

[2:27:23] forklift to move your materials

[2:27:24] working on Sundays and outside

[2:27:28] hours leaving the site a pigsty

[2:27:29] creating hazards for our car

[2:27:29] tires using our trash cans for

[2:27:30] our garbage.

[2:27:33] You think they were on a

[2:27:34] commercial job site?

[2:27:34] Since the city doesn't have my

[2:27:35] back I end up talking to

[2:27:38] the construction company owner

[2:27:38] .

[2:27:39] It helped nothing whatsoever.

[2:27:39] I called.

[2:27:42] I got an attitude like I was

[2:27:43] dealing with a nine year old

[2:27:43] child.

[2:27:44] That's what everyone's going to

[2:27:47] be dealing with if more these

[2:27:47] projects go up these no name

[2:27:52] companies I had talks with

[2:27:52] the lead inspector, his

[2:27:53] supervisor and Gary Geiger.

[2:27:53] I was very clear on what to

[2:27:56] report to them if there was an

[2:27:57] issue And by golly if you're

[2:27:57] going to add more density then

[2:27:58] they're going to follow

[2:28:01] the rules just like anyone

[2:28:02] else.

[2:28:02] That leaves the city's citizens

[2:28:03] free to police the builders on

[2:28:06] the job site.

[2:28:07] It's really not our job

[2:28:07] Reporting it to such employees

[2:28:11] resulted in either little slow

[2:28:12] or no enforcement nor is there

[2:28:12] much they can do other than a

[2:28:16] slap on the wrist.

[2:28:17] After a while I got two

[2:28:17] superiors to get a response for

[2:28:18] them to do their job.

[2:28:21] The city brought this extra

[2:28:22] work on themselves by coming up

[2:28:23] with this flawed bonus radio

[2:28:30] program for is fair everywhere

[2:28:31] These guardrails do not go far

[2:28:31] enough to create the spacious

[2:28:35] appetites of greedy developers

[2:28:36] who want to densify bomb single

[2:28:40] family neighborhoods over and

[2:28:41] over and over and over again.

[2:28:42] It needs to go to state

[2:28:45] mandated levels protecting

[2:28:46] the character of

[2:28:46] the neighborhood as a mayor

[2:28:47] says he wants to this would be

[2:28:51] state high limit state high

[2:28:52] limit setbacks limited to one

[2:28:52] detached edu and one converted

[2:28:55] from the existing space.

[2:28:55] What's so hard about that?

[2:28:56] Safe user frustrations don't

[2:29:00] put anybody else to it And

[2:29:01] the bonus 80 program Thank you

[2:29:02] for that concluding comment

[2:29:05] Dana Give it Dana you have

[2:29:10] Rodrigo Gonzalez Thank you

[2:29:11] Terrell and Tanya thank you.

[2:29:15] Yvonne Jones Yvonne Jones if

[2:29:16] you can please raise your hand

[2:29:20] if you're here please come in.

[2:29:21] Oh, there she is.

[2:29:21] Okay.

[2:29:26] Thank you, Claire Mount Thank

[2:29:26] you.

[2:29:26] Manuel Gonzalez.

[2:29:30] Thank you, Alessio Hadad, Thank

[2:29:30] you.

[2:29:35] And Faith Fenton, you'll have

[2:29:35] eight minutes.

[2:29:35] Please proceed.

[2:29:38] Thank you.

[2:29:43] Could I have my slides, please

[2:29:44] ?

[2:29:44] I haven't started your time.

[2:29:45] Okay.

[2:30:02] Thanks.

[2:30:03] >> Please proceed already.

[2:30:07] Thank you.

[2:30:08] Next slide, please.

[2:30:08] I'm Dana.

[2:30:09] Give it a representing

[2:30:12] neighbors for better San Diego.

[2:30:13] Thank you to the Planning

[2:30:14] Department for some code

[2:30:17] improvements.

[2:30:18] It remains obvious that public

[2:30:18] workshops would have improved

[2:30:22] this process and the product We

[2:30:23] propose further amendments to

[2:30:27] several items and changes to

[2:30:28] language for clarity and

[2:30:29] consistency with existing code.

[2:30:33] As noted on the list there we

[2:30:33] support remaining proposed

[2:30:38] amendments without comment

[2:30:38] except as Jeff Tudor will note

[2:30:43] after after me when he gets his

[2:30:43] opportunity.

[2:30:44] We also disagree with allowing

[2:30:48] short term rental of jd use

[2:30:49] which the state is proposing to

[2:30:51] eliminate with ab 1154 It's

[2:30:51] under consideration now.

[2:30:56] Next slide please.

[2:30:56] >> We support four foot side

[2:30:57] and rear yard setbacks for all

[2:31:01] ag use regardless of height and

[2:31:01] fire or fire hazard.

[2:31:05] We recommend eliminating

[2:31:09] the zero foot setbacks for one

[2:31:09] story 80 use less than 16ft.

[2:31:14] This would address the planning

[2:31:14] Commission's concerns regarding

[2:31:15] the zero foot setbacks that

[2:31:19] were stated on MAY 1st.

[2:31:20] It simplifies the code and

[2:31:24] removes development uncertainty

[2:31:25] and it creates a single set of

[2:31:25] regulations as the state allows

[2:31:29] property lines abutting non

[2:31:30] residentially zoned parcels

[2:31:32] would still be allowed the zero

[2:31:33] foot setbacks.

[2:31:33] >> Next slide please.

[2:31:38] We recommend making parcels

[2:31:38] ineligible for the bonus they

[2:31:42] do you program if either they

[2:31:43] are in a high or very high fire

[2:31:47] hazard severity zone or they

[2:31:48] are on a cul de sac or a single

[2:31:52] ingress egress road.

[2:31:53] The current proposed amendment

[2:31:54] requires both conditions in

[2:31:58] order for a project to be

[2:31:59] ineligible for the bonus edu

[2:31:59] program.

[2:32:02] Earthquakes create fires

[2:32:03] unrelated to fire zones Single

[2:32:08] exit roads are always

[2:32:08] evacuation choke necks.

[2:32:09] Without the bonus radio program

[2:32:13] and the current state codes

[2:32:13] already allow for units which

[2:32:17] would be an increase of 300%

[2:32:18] and the existing density on

[2:32:22] these roads fire safety and

[2:32:27] evacuation routes We recommend

[2:32:27] enforcing and clarifying

[2:32:28] the fire lane requirements

[2:32:31] which Naveed mentioned just a

[2:32:31] few moments ago.

[2:32:32] They prohibit new development

[2:32:36] on streets that do not have at

[2:32:37] least a 20 foot fire lane and a

[2:32:41] 50 foot turning radius as

[2:32:42] required by the California Fire

[2:32:45] Code Section five o 3.2 that

[2:32:46] we've proposed some code

[2:32:50] language below there and that

[2:32:51] means fire officials would

[2:32:54] actually have to look at and

[2:32:54] review the projects.

[2:32:59] Next slide please.

[2:33:00] We support community

[2:33:00] enhancement fees but we

[2:33:05] recommend only waiving them for

[2:33:05] the low and the very low.

[2:33:09] Did restricted ada use in

[2:33:09] the high and highest sea tax

[2:33:10] zones not the moderate zones.

[2:33:14] If you'll vote next slide

[2:33:14] please.

[2:33:18] Sorry my bad.

[2:33:19] >> If you look at the chart

[2:33:22] the moderate opportunity zones

[2:33:23] are already absorbing 260% of

[2:33:28] their fair share of bonus ideas

[2:33:29] while higher opportunity zones

[2:33:32] are only at 49%.

[2:33:32] >> The moderate opportunity

[2:33:37] zones don't need incentives for

[2:33:37] adu development.

[2:33:42] It is happening organically.

[2:33:42] >> Next slide please.

[2:33:46] We support the two story adu

[2:33:47] height limit but code only

[2:33:51] refers to detached studios and

[2:33:52] it risks two storey adus being

[2:33:56] built atop garage office or

[2:33:57] beneath or atop guest houses

[2:34:00] creating three storey buildings

[2:34:01] which is already happening.

[2:34:02] We recommend adding a height

[2:34:05] limit of 25ft as the state

[2:34:06] allows and we reiterate our

[2:34:10] support for detached 80 use

[2:34:11] following state code which

[2:34:15] allows them to only be 16 to

[2:34:15] 18ft tall.

[2:34:19] Next slide please.

[2:34:20] We support parking for Adus but

[2:34:25] the state doesn't use the tppa

[2:34:25] in its adu code parking code.

[2:34:30] We shouldn't be using it

[2:34:30] either.

[2:34:33] California adu code 66322 Uses

[2:34:37] one half of one mile walking

[2:34:37] distance from public transit.

[2:34:42] We recommend replacing the tppa

[2:34:46] with language used in

[2:34:46] California 66322.

[2:34:47] And the next slide will make it

[2:34:51] perfectly clear why next.

[2:34:52] Okay.

[2:34:52] Thank you.

[2:34:56] This example is in Del Sierra

[2:34:57] on Linfield Avenue.

[2:34:59] >> It is 816ft as the crow

[2:35:04] flies but people cannot fly as

[2:35:05] crows can And and the walk

[2:35:09] which would be perfectly

[2:35:12] acceptable under the tpa is a

[2:35:13] two mile walk.

[2:35:13] That is not acceptable for

[2:35:17] parking.

[2:35:18] So that is why the tpa does not

[2:35:20] work for parking requirements.

[2:35:21] Next slide please.

[2:35:26] We recommend adding

[2:35:26] the environmentally sensitive

[2:35:31] land code reference to the adu

[2:35:31] floor area ratio code.

[2:35:35] There are 53 pages of esl code.

[2:35:39] For a reason you reference it

[2:35:40] for the adu tree requirements

[2:35:44] but omit it for the very

[2:35:45] important fa calculation code.

[2:35:48] Please insert chapter 14

[2:35:49] Article three Division one in

[2:35:53] the adu fa code and don't leave

[2:35:54] it to dsd to evaluate and

[2:35:58] calculate environmentally

[2:35:59] sensitive land subjectively.

[2:35:59] Next slide please.

[2:36:04] This one is a simple code

[2:36:04] correction.

[2:36:05] Remove rs.

[2:36:09] 1-1 from the code below because

[2:36:14] it has a fixed fa and it is not

[2:36:14] in table 131 04j.

[2:36:18] And then reference table 131

[2:36:23] 04d for the other rs zones

[2:36:23] please.

[2:36:24] And the last recommendation.

[2:36:28] Next slide please.

[2:36:31] The edu Cap Table 141 03a lot

[2:36:36] ranges don't align with the fa

[2:36:37] table lot ranges in 131 over j.

[2:36:41] And if you look at the table

[2:36:42] the edu cap table ranges are on

[2:36:46] the left and the fa table

[2:36:47] ranges are on the right.

[2:36:51] Those should line up.

[2:36:52] And fortunately I have just

[2:36:56] over a minute left I would like

[2:36:57] to point out that for some

[2:37:00] reason the Planning Department

[2:37:05] continues in the in the report

[2:37:06] and in the presentation today

[2:37:07] to reference San Diego Edu

[2:37:14] rents at 110% for 2024 but this

[2:37:15] is 2025 so that the rent for a

[2:37:20] studio is no longer $2,300

[2:37:24] The rent for a studio at 110%

[2:37:28] am I is now $2,519 a month.

[2:37:32] A one bedroom is no longer

[2:37:32] $2,629.

[2:37:36] It is now $2,878 and for a two

[2:37:39] bedroom the rent is no longer

[2:37:40] $2,958.

[2:37:43] The current rent is $3,238 a

[2:37:44] month.

[2:37:48] So those are the numbers you

[2:37:48] should keep in your mind when

[2:37:49] you're considering current

[2:37:51] rents for the 110%.

[2:37:52] Am I?

[2:37:52] Adios.

[2:37:55] Thank you very much for your

[2:38:00] time and attention.

[2:38:00] >> Colin Parent If you come

[2:38:01] please come up to

[2:38:05] the microphone Call in parent

[2:38:05] after call calling parent We

[2:38:10] have Sean Duffy Polanco and

[2:38:15] Ballinger, Kenny Key, Rick Rush

[2:38:15] ,Mike Bertolli and Dennis

[2:38:16] Lynch.

[2:38:17] If you can all please come

[2:38:21] forward to the yellow reserved

[2:38:22] seats.

[2:38:22] >> Colin Sean I don't think

[2:38:25] Colin's here okay?

[2:38:26] I don't see him either.

[2:38:27] You'll have one minute.

[2:38:27] Please proceed, Sean.

[2:38:29] Cool.

[2:38:30] Good afternoon, Council

[2:38:30] members.

[2:38:31] My name is Sean Duffy Polanco.

[2:38:35] I live in Carlsbad.

[2:38:35] I'm a legal intern at Circulate

[2:38:36] San Diego.

[2:38:39] I'm going into my second year

[2:38:40] of law school at Cal Western's

[2:38:40] School of Law to which I

[2:38:44] commute to for over an hour on

[2:38:44] the coaster every weekday.

[2:38:45] I'm here to ask the City

[2:38:45] Council specifically to please

[2:38:49] continue to consider allowing

[2:38:50] it used to be available for

[2:38:50] sale.

[2:38:51] There's a stark lack of starter

[2:38:54] level housing for younger

[2:38:55] couples like myself and my wife

[2:38:55] here in San Diego where we both

[2:38:58] want to work and live.

[2:38:59] Increased access to the option

[2:39:03] to own live in and invest in a

[2:39:04] much more local property that

[2:39:04] fits our needs Now would be a

[2:39:05] game changer for more than just

[2:39:07] ourselves.

[2:39:08] >> Thank you.

[2:39:08] Thank you, Hannah.

[2:39:18] Hi, my name is Hannah Bolinger

[2:39:19] and I am a student intern at

[2:39:22] Circulate San Diego.

[2:39:23] In my neighborhood the median

[2:39:26] home price is over $1 million.

[2:39:27] I love living in San Diego and

[2:39:31] I would love to live here but I

[2:39:31] worry whether rising home

[2:39:32] prices will prevent me from

[2:39:35] becoming a first time homebuyer

[2:39:36] and the same for many of my

[2:39:36] classmates.

[2:39:37] This is why I would support a

[2:39:40] separate sale of Adus to help

[2:39:41] lower income and first time

[2:39:42] homebuyers in San Diego so we

[2:39:45] can all enjoy this great place

[2:39:45] .

[2:39:46] Thank you.

[2:39:46] Thank you, Kenny.

[2:39:48] Kenny, you have people sitting

[2:39:49] in your time If they can please

[2:39:50] raise their hand.

[2:39:54] Um.

[2:39:55] Newland Thank you.

[2:39:59] Uh, Sachi Ingleton.

[2:39:59] Thank you.

[2:40:03] Preston Smith and Anthony

[2:40:03] Butkus.

[2:40:04] You'll have five minutes.

[2:40:08] Please proceed.

[2:40:08] >> Hello.

[2:40:09] Thank you for your time.

[2:40:13] i guess my name is Kenny here

[2:40:13] and I'm here representing a lot

[2:40:18] of people in southeastern Kanto

[2:40:19] that can't make it here today.

[2:40:23] Basically all the people who

[2:40:28] are outside of you guys bubble

[2:40:29] because you go around town in

[2:40:30] your bubble with people in

[2:40:34] constituencies that are like

[2:40:34] groupies.

[2:40:35] Okay.

[2:40:38] We represent new people like

[2:40:39] the ones that you want to give

[2:40:39] $2 grants to.

[2:40:44] You know and happy about it.

[2:40:45] Now we now represent them.

[2:40:45] I'm here representing

[2:40:46] the people the people I'm

[2:40:48] representing is the ones you

[2:40:49] guys refuse to listen to.

[2:40:54] The ones that put you in

[2:40:54] office.

[2:40:54] Okay.

[2:40:58] Each one of you guys represent

[2:40:59] a collective body of

[2:41:04] incompetence and the policies

[2:41:04] coming out of this office.

[2:41:05] You guys got to remember y'all

[2:41:08] got a black flag right now.

[2:41:09] You got a $250 million deficit

[2:41:13] probably more than that.

[2:41:13] Okay?

[2:41:14] Because the goalposts keep

[2:41:18] moving for the developers not

[2:41:18] collecting fees from them.

[2:41:22] It's ridiculous.

[2:41:22] Okay.

[2:41:23] There's a large body of people

[2:41:23] in this city.

[2:41:28] They feel like we need to gut

[2:41:28] the council and start from

[2:41:31] scratch because you refuse to

[2:41:32] listen to us.

[2:41:37] >> What kind of leaders are you

[2:41:37] guys that refuse to listen to

[2:41:38] your constituents?

[2:41:41] How can you go?

[2:41:42] Y'all need to go home and look

[2:41:47] in the mirror and decide who

[2:41:47] you want to represent these

[2:41:52] developers and come up here in

[2:41:52] line.

[2:41:53] Because they they invested They

[2:41:53] got this money on the line.

[2:41:54] Yeah.

[2:41:56] They want Jared to go in their

[2:41:57] favor.

[2:42:01] But you guys seem to cool with

[2:42:02] having constituents sue y'all.

[2:42:05] That's ridiculous.

[2:42:10] Okay, We deserve better.

[2:42:10] Okay.

[2:42:11] And in these areas that are

[2:42:15] overly condensed, we need you

[2:42:16] to listen to us if you can.

[2:42:17] >> Why you ain't hold no town

[2:42:20] halls.

[2:42:21] >> Really Don't, MR. Foster.

[2:42:24] Why you won't come talk to

[2:42:25] the people that are against

[2:42:26] your policies.

[2:42:30] Why you won't come talk to you

[2:42:30] represent all of us in District

[2:42:31] four And right now we can't

[2:42:34] even talk to you.

[2:42:34] That's just unacceptable.

[2:42:35] You should not be walking

[2:42:40] around town acting like you

[2:42:40] represent in a community man

[2:42:44] because you not And we here

[2:42:45] telling you that all this push

[2:42:49] back represent us Speak on

[2:42:50] footnote seven debacles

[2:42:50] the Clay Clybourne the Emerald

[2:42:54] Hills Tower speak on that MR.

[2:42:54] Foster we are here talking

[2:42:55] about 80 use but y'all got

[2:42:59] policies coming out of here.

[2:43:00] It ain't just the 80 use.

[2:43:01] It's just coming at us like

[2:43:01] bombshells.

[2:43:04] Yeah, like they said.

[2:43:05] >> And it's like you guys are

[2:43:08] responsible for what you gonna

[2:43:08] do about it?

[2:43:09] >> Nothing.

[2:43:09] Just eat chips and watch me.

[2:43:13] MR. Kapilow.

[2:43:14] >> And we need a good this

[2:43:17] council if you're not going to

[2:43:22] represent us get out the way

[2:43:22] and stop representing

[2:43:26] the developers.

[2:43:27] How many times we got to come

[2:43:32] down here say this?

[2:43:32] >> Put on yellow shirts and

[2:43:33] stuff.

[2:43:37] Y'all representing us What you

[2:43:38] to do today What you what you

[2:43:42] vote on today is just a start

[2:43:43] because there's a lot of

[2:43:49] projects coming down the pipe

[2:43:50] which are how do y'all sleep at

[2:43:54] night and just look down at

[2:43:55] your papers and stuff?

[2:43:59] Well look at you know know

[2:44:00] little I pad I'm MR. Foster I

[2:44:01] want representation That's why

[2:44:05] I'm passionate and we're not

[2:44:08] getting I I conclude next is

[2:44:14] Rick fresh Rick you have time

[2:44:15] ceded to you by Barbara Shrek

[2:44:15] Thank you.

[2:44:16] >> You have two minutes.

[2:44:20] Please proceed.

[2:44:21] And the main problem with

[2:44:26] the proposal that is currently

[2:44:27] advocated allowing a maximum of

[2:44:30] seven days to use plus an

[2:44:31] existing dwelling for eight

[2:44:36] units on a single family lot

[2:44:36] zone.

[2:44:40] I've done a detailed analysis

[2:44:40] of the lot sizes in

[2:44:41] the University City Claremont

[2:44:49] Linda Vista areas west of 163

[2:44:50] and 805I identified 684 lots

[2:44:54] greater than 5000ft in just

[2:44:54] the Claremont and Linda Vista

[2:45:03] rc 1-7 zones almost all of

[2:45:04] these are in canyons and would

[2:45:05] have at least 8000 foot even

[2:45:08] after the adjustment for

[2:45:08] environmental environmentally

[2:45:13] sensitive lands.

[2:45:13] Therefore most of these lots

[2:45:16] would have eight units on them

[2:45:17] .

[2:45:17] This is simply too many.

[2:45:22] Most of the slots have a front

[2:45:23] footage of less than 70ft a

[2:45:27] driveway usually takes up at

[2:45:28] least 12 of those feet and this

[2:45:32] will result in cars parked on

[2:45:33] both sides not just in the cul

[2:45:37] de sacs but also in the narrow

[2:45:38] two way streets which will

[2:45:41] severely limit the access to

[2:45:42] emergency vehicles by emergency

[2:45:46] vehicles.

[2:45:47] I wonder why the city council

[2:45:48] is not listening to

[2:45:52] the recommendation of

[2:45:52] the Community Planning

[2:45:53] Commission and the neighborhood

[2:45:56] for a better San Diego.

[2:45:57] These organizations have spent

[2:46:01] hundreds of volunteer hours

[2:46:02] doing research and many of them

[2:46:07] are actually hooked up to speed

[2:46:07] on all the codes and

[2:46:08] regulations.

[2:46:12] So to ignore their

[2:46:12] recommendations, you know it's

[2:46:13] just not right.

[2:46:16] It's very discouraging to these

[2:46:17] organizations to be part of

[2:46:17] your community planning and not

[2:46:21] get listened to.

[2:46:22] >> I support their basis.

[2:46:25] They will report for unit for

[2:46:25] that concluding remark.

[2:46:34] >> Mike Good evening Mike for

[2:46:35] Italian City Thanks very much

[2:46:36] for taking time to hear a sell

[2:46:40] out.

[2:46:40] I'd like to start by focusing

[2:46:41] on public safety.

[2:46:42] It is are being built in high

[2:46:44] risk fire zones in cul de sacs.

[2:46:45] This flies in the face of

[2:46:45] the San Diego Fire Department

[2:46:49] and Cal fire schools protecting

[2:46:49] evacuation quarters and they

[2:46:54] violate fire fire codes you do

[2:46:54] really great job and we very

[2:46:55] much appreciate you restoring

[2:46:56] funding for brush management

[2:46:59] and the and the fire

[2:47:00] department's budget just just a

[2:47:00] week ago.

[2:47:03] Please follow this up by making

[2:47:03] fire safety the top priority in

[2:47:08] this discussion.

[2:47:09] In addition to posing a fire

[2:47:13] risk, it isn't going to help

[2:47:14] flooding because are going to

[2:47:15] be paving over a whole lot of

[2:47:15] permeable land.

[2:47:16] So let's you know, let's kind

[2:47:17] of told two birds with one

[2:47:18] stone and make this a safer

[2:47:18] city.

[2:47:22] With that in mind, please

[2:47:23] mandate a four foot fire safety

[2:47:23] setbacks to neighboring

[2:47:24] properties and prohibit bonus

[2:47:28] areas from being built in very

[2:47:28] high fire safety hazard zones

[2:47:33] or in cul de sacs or streets

[2:47:33] with limited access.

[2:47:34] Thank you very much.

[2:47:34] Please have a good day And

[2:47:37] again I do appreciate your time

[2:47:37] and your efforts.

[2:47:38] >> Thank you.

[2:47:42] Dennis Lynch.

[2:47:42] You have time to buy Steve

[2:47:43] Henson.

[2:47:43] Yes.

[2:47:47] Thank you.

[2:47:48] He needs to raise his hand.

[2:47:48] Thank you.

[2:47:49] Now that's Steve Henson.

[2:47:52] Thank you very much, sir.

[2:47:52] Just give me one second.

[2:47:53] I just need these people to

[2:47:54] raise their hands so that they

[2:47:56] can seed their time to you.

[2:47:56] Steve Henson, are you here?

[2:48:02] How about Gloria Henson?

[2:48:04] Are you here Gloria or Steve

[2:48:08] Henson?

[2:48:09] They're not here to see your

[2:48:09] time So then you will get one

[2:48:10] minute.

[2:48:13] Thank you very much.

[2:48:13] Everybody can hear me.

[2:48:14] I would like to talk about

[2:48:18] the dimensions of Mission Beach

[2:48:18] .

[2:48:19] We are two miles long.

[2:48:19] We are 700ft wide.

[2:48:23] We are surrounded by water

[2:48:24] ocean on one side of course and

[2:48:27] mission bay on the other.

[2:48:28] And if we have a coastal tidal

[2:48:29] event we won't get out.

[2:48:33] There's no sir.

[2:48:33] I'm sorry I have to pause your

[2:48:34] time.

[2:48:34] You did already speak.

[2:48:35] I did.

[2:48:36] You did.

[2:48:37] You can only speak once on a

[2:48:38] night.

[2:48:38] I thought somebody might have

[2:48:39] showed up and give me extra

[2:48:39] time.

[2:48:42] No, sorry.

[2:48:43] And they're not here yet.

[2:48:44] Thank you.

[2:48:46] Do Iris do you Good to be true

[2:48:47] .

[2:48:47] I have the good man.

[2:48:48] Thank you, counsel.

[2:48:51] Thank you, Susan Give you a

[2:48:52] bonus points for time It was

[2:48:56] just to do it takes it takes

[2:49:01] everyone to get this Susan

[2:49:02] Susan Ruby and then Karen

[2:49:06] Cordeiro Kaplan Karen Avner

[2:49:11] Alva Rapp Angela Goosey Charles

[2:49:15] Tester Joycelyn and lovelies

[2:49:16] Jeff Huber If you can all

[2:49:20] please come up to the front row

[2:49:21] I'll say the names one more

[2:49:25] time Susan Dart Derby.

[2:49:29] Karen Kadir Joe Kaplan Karen

[2:49:34] Abner Alva Rapp.

[2:49:38] Angela Gazi Joycelyn Now Susan

[2:49:39] I thought you had ceded your

[2:49:44] time to somebody No.

[2:49:44] Yeah, I'll look for your

[2:49:45] client.

[2:49:45] Well, let's start with Karen,

[2:49:51] dear Kaplan Good afternoon.

[2:49:51] Karen Good or Kaplan.

[2:49:56] I just wanted to come up to

[2:49:56] everyone has said a lot and I

[2:50:00] think it's important that you

[2:50:01] know, for this many community

[2:50:05] members to show up is pretty

[2:50:06] impressive over and over again.

[2:50:09] And I really think that you've

[2:50:10] had members of the public as

[2:50:11] well as organizations present

[2:50:15] some critical data critical

[2:50:15] code that you really should

[2:50:20] look at because what's

[2:50:24] happening is affecting everyone

[2:50:25] from all these communities.

[2:50:30] So I just really want to just

[2:50:30] support or encourage you to

[2:50:31] look out Neighbors for a Barry

[2:50:35] San Diego recommendations and

[2:50:35] recommendations that have been

[2:50:36] presented by community members

[2:50:40] who have done more research

[2:50:41] than I have at this point.

[2:50:44] But you know basically you know

[2:50:45] for for ada use I'm a property

[2:50:46] owner.

[2:50:49] I as a single family I don't

[2:50:50] think I could afford more than

[2:50:50] that.

[2:50:50] >> Right.

[2:50:51] So who's affording to be able

[2:50:54] to put six, eight, ten So I

[2:50:55] just want to put that out there

[2:50:56] and thank you for your Thank

[2:50:59] you, Karen Abner Okay.

[2:51:04] Karen Abner, are you here in my

[2:51:05] time?

[2:51:09] You're Karen Abner Yes.

[2:51:09] Okay.

[2:51:10] And then Roger Kaplan had

[2:51:10] seated his time to you Roger

[2:51:13] are you sitting your time?

[2:51:14] Yes.

[2:51:14] Okay.

[2:51:17] To Paul Krueger.

[2:51:18] Yes, I'm seeing my time to

[2:51:19] Paul.

[2:51:23] Okay, Paul, you reach your max

[2:51:24] of 15 minutes with those two

[2:51:24] sitting time.

[2:51:28] >> I'm not.

[2:51:28] But you're not up yet.

[2:51:29] Oh, okay.

[2:51:29] Yeah.

[2:51:32] Just when it is your turn,

[2:51:33] those two will go to you.

[2:51:37] So next is Alva wrap.

[2:51:38] >> Alva, you have several

[2:51:38] people that have ceded time to

[2:51:39] you.

[2:51:42] If they can raise their hand.

[2:51:46] Gerald Rapp, Theresa Beatty.

[2:51:46] Thank you sir.

[2:51:51] Each year category Thank you

[2:51:51] Mary Jean Del Campo.

[2:51:59] Betsy Smith, Christy Christa

[2:51:59] Fischman.

[2:52:03] >> Thank you Michelle Schroeder

[2:52:04] and Jacqueline Harris.

[2:52:07] Thank you so much.

[2:52:08] You'll have nine minutes.

[2:52:08] Please proceed.

[2:52:12] I thank you for listening to my

[2:52:13] small speech that has gotten

[2:52:14] very much smaller because of

[2:52:18] all the great points that have

[2:52:18] been brought up today.

[2:52:19] I did find it a little

[2:52:20] confusing though You ask us not

[2:52:23] to cheer and not to clap but I

[2:52:23] counted over half of you Have

[2:52:28] your eyes down so if you could

[2:52:28] please pay attention to

[2:52:29] the crowd when they do their

[2:52:32] their their nonverbal cheering

[2:52:37] and all that So I'd like to

[2:52:38] also start off with a quote

[2:52:41] from the Bible It's from Luke

[2:52:41] 1428 Which of you wishing to

[2:52:46] build a tower does not first

[2:52:47] sit down and count the cost to

[2:52:51] see if he has the resources to

[2:52:51] complete it?

[2:52:52] That's the end of the verse.

[2:52:56] The cost of this bonus edu

[2:52:56] program is too high and we do

[2:53:00] not have the resources to

[2:53:00] complete it.

[2:53:01] There is no limit on

[2:53:01] the growth.

[2:53:05] You are not following the city

[2:53:06] recommendations.

[2:53:06] There's a very clear chart.

[2:53:10] It's not hard to read.

[2:53:11] I did it in just probably about

[2:53:15] 20 minutes.

[2:53:16] I would like to take you back

[2:53:20] in time to the 1900s as our

[2:53:20] grandkids call them.

[2:53:21] That time wasn't so long ago.

[2:53:24] This is my husband Jerry.

[2:53:25] We live on Shoshone Avenue in a

[2:53:29] cul de sac in Claremont.

[2:53:29] Ours was one of the first

[2:53:30] places that got hit hard with

[2:53:34] the unexpected growth and

[2:53:34] development without any of us

[2:53:35] knowing anything And as many of

[2:53:39] the other people have said it

[2:53:39] was a secretive thing which

[2:53:41] secrets are usually done in

[2:53:47] secret because they are wrong.

[2:53:48] I've been asked by people my

[2:53:52] friends why try to change this

[2:53:52] bonus to you?

[2:53:53] It's the law.

[2:53:56] Well guess what You guys are

[2:53:57] the lawmakers change the bonus

[2:53:58] to you so it's not unreasonable

[2:54:02] and so we can accept it.

[2:54:02] Most of the people in this room

[2:54:03] are not against 80 use.

[2:54:07] I am not I don't know of

[2:54:07] anybody who would be If you

[2:54:08] want to earn extra money you

[2:54:11] want your grandma to live

[2:54:11] there.

[2:54:12] >> You want your children to

[2:54:12] live there, fine.

[2:54:16] That's not my business.

[2:54:16] But if you bring in these

[2:54:17] bonuses to use is going to

[2:54:18] cause nothing but calamity to

[2:54:20] our little quiet neighborhoods

[2:54:21] .

[2:54:22] We are single family homeowners

[2:54:22] who have worked hard to earn

[2:54:26] and achieve our American dream.

[2:54:27] We are the endangered species

[2:54:31] If we have an endangered plant

[2:54:32] or animal on a property say a

[2:54:32] bird or lizard they would stop

[2:54:35] cramming these bonus ideas on

[2:54:36] that site and protect that

[2:54:40] fragile life on and around that

[2:54:41] property As endangered single

[2:54:45] home owner neighbors we think

[2:54:46] that we also should receive

[2:54:46] the same awareness of damage

[2:54:50] and the protection of our

[2:54:51] existence as we are just asking

[2:54:55] to follow the state regulations

[2:54:55] .

[2:54:56] >> Are these numbers that you

[2:54:57] and the Planning committee are

[2:54:59] coming up with Are colliding

[2:55:00] with the state regulations?

[2:55:01] I don't even think they're

[2:55:01] legal.

[2:55:05] The state regulations were not

[2:55:05] made on a whim.

[2:55:06] They had research.

[2:55:10] They did an environmental

[2:55:10] impacts.

[2:55:11] They realized the plight of

[2:55:12] having more to use on a

[2:55:15] property than it can tolerate

[2:55:15] in a single family resident

[2:55:16] home area or a little

[2:55:20] neighborhoods are zoned to as

[2:55:20] such to give neighborhood

[2:55:21] function and balance.

[2:55:24] We have other zoned areas for

[2:55:24] the same reason commercial

[2:55:29] multifamily to name a couple

[2:55:29] and we cannot build our new

[2:55:34] family home in an area that is

[2:55:38] not zoned for my adorable 4000

[2:55:39] square foot home right in

[2:55:42] the smack of downtown La Hoya

[2:55:43] because it's not zoned for

[2:55:43] that.

[2:55:44] >> It's zoned for business and

[2:55:47] it's not zoned for residential

[2:55:48] at all.

[2:55:52] >> All of the all of you that

[2:55:53] think this bonus to you program

[2:55:54] has merit and we're addressing

[2:55:54] the need for the affordable

[2:55:57] housing that you're that you're

[2:55:58] drinking the Kool-Aid on that

[2:56:02] let me just tell you that

[2:56:02] the ones that lived here for

[2:56:03] decades don't agree.

[2:56:07] Why not?

[2:56:07] All of you take matters into

[2:56:08] your own hands.

[2:56:09] Why don't you put your money

[2:56:11] where your mouth is?

[2:56:12] Pam has some great numbers for

[2:56:16] you of the developers and since

[2:56:17] you're so strongly intent on

[2:56:17] building these granny towers

[2:56:18] why don't we just go ahead and

[2:56:21] arrange them to build not just

[2:56:22] in your neighbor's backyards

[2:56:25] but yes your backyard to that

[2:56:26] three year old playing in

[2:56:30] the backyard, that three year

[2:56:30] old playing in the backyard?

[2:56:31] Well that's a thing of

[2:56:31] the past.

[2:56:33] So if it's okay to build Bonnie

[2:56:34] say to use to use it the cost

[2:56:35] of decreased value of our homes

[2:56:38] that we've worked hard for

[2:56:39] years to establish and keep and

[2:56:40] hold on to working multiple

[2:56:44] jobs if necessary for

[2:56:45] sabotaging our way of life then

[2:56:45] you should be good enough for

[2:56:46] you.

[2:56:48] >> And it turns out it's really

[2:56:49] easy to play with another man's

[2:56:53] deck until you have skin in

[2:56:54] the game.

[2:56:58] I don't think you can really

[2:56:58] have empathy for these

[2:56:59] neighborhoods and the new

[2:57:03] mistakes that you're making and

[2:57:04] you don't have the power to

[2:57:04] rectify the problems when they

[2:57:08] do come there are many lots all

[2:57:08] over the city.

[2:57:09] They're not in single family

[2:57:12] home areas Use These abandoned

[2:57:13] stores also can be used as

[2:57:14] building sites.

[2:57:18] Please call them what they are

[2:57:19] These bonuses to use our

[2:57:19] apartment buildings calling

[2:57:22] them to use is like

[2:57:23] the Emperor's New Clothes a

[2:57:23] children's story that is well

[2:57:27] known.

[2:57:27] Everyone can see the problem

[2:57:28] but no one has the guts to

[2:57:28] speak the truth.

[2:57:31] Well, these people behind me

[2:57:32] myself and my husband we do

[2:57:36] have the guts and we will go

[2:57:37] down on the carpet on the mat

[2:57:41] and fight against these bonuses

[2:57:41] to use.

[2:57:42] Where are the studies to prove

[2:57:46] that these bonuses to use would

[2:57:47] work in residential areas?

[2:57:51] What There weren't any done.

[2:57:51] >> What happened?

[2:57:52] The city is just going off on a

[2:57:56] lark and going rogue to quote

[2:57:57] my husband This is an

[2:58:01] experiment gone wrong.

[2:58:01] Insanity is doing the same

[2:58:02] thing over and over and

[2:58:05] expecting different results.

[2:58:09] Bonuses to use will cause only

[2:58:09] one result calamities to once

[2:58:14] quiet San Diego neighborhoods.

[2:58:15] This is persecution of single

[2:58:15] family home owners at its

[2:58:18] finest.

[2:58:19] It is discriminatory and if we

[2:58:20] were a minority group

[2:58:24] the outcry would be so loud and

[2:58:24] the injustice would be so great

[2:58:25] that the program would be

[2:58:25] halted and completely

[2:58:29] annihilated As far as getting

[2:58:29] homeless people off

[2:58:30] the streets, most of them don't

[2:58:32] even live in shelters because

[2:58:33] of the rules.

[2:58:34] >> There will be rules for

[2:58:34] these units, right?

[2:58:38] I mean they're not just going

[2:58:39] to be able to have anybody in

[2:58:39] there be able to do anything

[2:58:43] that they want any time day or

[2:58:44] night, trash day If there's an

[2:58:44] ambulance coming down the road,

[2:58:45] they don't have to pay any

[2:58:48] attention to them.

[2:58:49] Also there's something else

[2:58:49] that I don't think it's been

[2:58:53] really brought up and that is

[2:58:54] that once you allow these 80

[2:58:57] used to be bought and to be

[2:59:01] family owned as forever homes

[2:59:07] at 450ft these these 450ft

[2:59:07] family homes as you're calling

[2:59:11] them will be under

[2:59:11] the jurisdiction of that

[2:59:12] homeowner and they will have

[2:59:16] the right and privilege to be

[2:59:17] able to rent out their 82 new

[2:59:21] home as an Airbnb.

[2:59:26] And we all know what calamities

[2:59:27] are brings on to

[2:59:27] the neighborhood.

[2:59:28] It's impossible to manage these

[2:59:28] people.

[2:59:31] They're here for vacation.

[2:59:32] They're not here to clean up

[2:59:32] our city.

[2:59:34] Take care of the neighborhood's

[2:59:34] reputation.

[2:59:39] >> None of that.

[2:59:40] >> I just want to remind you

[2:59:45] all that this is not Monopoly.

[2:59:45] The board cannot handle any

[2:59:50] more houses and none should be

[2:59:51] given out As far as rights I

[2:59:54] would plead with you Please

[2:59:55] stop immediately.

[2:59:55] Any building that's going on

[2:59:59] right now stop immediately any

[3:00:00] permits these are all

[3:00:00] unreasonable and they should

[3:00:02] have never gotten approved

[3:00:07] before.

[3:00:08] A quick question to everybody

[3:00:09] that's been arguing this If

[3:00:13] it's too expensive to live here

[3:00:13] and we have plenty of

[3:00:14] resources, why do we have water

[3:00:18] restriction and why do we have

[3:00:19] emergency shutdown of the power

[3:00:19] grid and gridlock on our

[3:00:23] freeways and side streets from

[3:00:24] two a 2 P.M. To 7 P.M. Every

[3:00:28] single workday?

[3:00:28] Also a question for

[3:00:33] the Planning board How do these

[3:00:34] bonus to use serve neighborhood

[3:00:38] compatibility not sure on that

[3:00:39] one what that even means and

[3:00:43] anyway why is our neighborhood

[3:00:47] which is rs 1.7 why are we not

[3:00:48] being considered as exempt from

[3:00:52] that bonus?

[3:00:52] Do you program what happened?

[3:00:53] How do we get off the list?

[3:00:54] Do we make somebody mad?

[3:01:00] >> What happened In conclusion

[3:01:01] I just like to say that from

[3:01:04] the bottom of my heart as a

[3:01:05] professional friend of over 30

[3:01:09] years the most important things

[3:01:10] that I can give my patients are

[3:01:13] hope and control.

[3:01:14] >> These are your patients.

[3:01:14] Thank you.

[3:01:15] Thank you for your concluding

[3:01:19] remarks Susan Jury d you are

[3:01:24] what Susan No.

[3:01:29] Susan Oh Oh, You are seeing

[3:01:30] your time.

[3:01:30] I just saw a Tribeca Batiste.

[3:01:31] This is why we put our lips

[3:01:34] together.

[3:01:34] Next I'll find her and reunite

[3:01:35] you with her.

[3:01:39] Angela Grooving Angela your

[3:01:40] seeding time with Sorry People

[3:01:44] are seeding time to you Bill

[3:01:48] Cousy Bill There you go Louis

[3:01:53] So hey that Jackie Hernandez

[3:01:53] Sharon Kramer Jennifer Gold

[3:01:59] Kyle Can Lee and that seven

[3:02:03] minutes Please proceed Now you

[3:02:03] have a PowerPoint presentation

[3:02:04] We'll be putting that up.

[3:02:06] I won't start your time until

[3:02:53] the PowerPoint is up

[3:02:53] .

[3:02:54] >> Good afternoon everyone.

[3:02:54] Please proceed.

[3:02:59] My name is Angela Goosey.

[3:03:00] I'm here representing Linda

[3:03:00] Vista.

[3:03:03] It's a place where I grew up,

[3:03:04] where I was born and raised and

[3:03:05] I live next door to my mom who

[3:03:07] owns the same house that I was

[3:03:12] born and raised in.

[3:03:12] Thank you for your time today

[3:03:13] And we really ask that you

[3:03:17] listen and understand where all

[3:03:18] of us who are taking time out

[3:03:18] of our lives today and the last

[3:03:22] few months have come from.

[3:03:23] Thank you to Miles Noel Overall

[3:03:27] Campos office for joining us

[3:03:28] last week and visiting a few of

[3:03:29] these egregious properties in

[3:03:32] Linda Vista flight.

[3:03:37] >> >> It's not new news that

[3:03:38] San Diego is one of the most

[3:03:39] expensive cities to live in.

[3:03:39] Whether it is renting or

[3:03:42] ownership, we know that many

[3:03:42] residents are paycheck to

[3:03:43] paycheck.

[3:03:46] In fact I've been there in

[3:03:47] the past and maybe you have

[3:03:47] been as well.

[3:03:51] We have a large homeless

[3:03:52] population.

[3:03:52] Some have jobs, maybe multiple

[3:03:57] jobs but they fell behind on

[3:03:57] their rent or mortgage and are

[3:03:58] now living out of their cars

[3:04:02] trying to save up enough money

[3:04:02] for a first class and current

[3:04:03] month's rent.

[3:04:07] Next slide.

[3:04:11] For a $2,500 apartment that's

[3:04:12] $7,500 that they have to come

[3:04:12] up with.

[3:04:13] It's a lot of money especially

[3:04:16] if you're making less than

[3:04:17] the average medium income

[3:04:21] currently in Linda Vista.

[3:04:22] There are five homes for sale

[3:04:25] and the last one two years 93

[3:04:26] have sold.

[3:04:29] Do you want to take on guess

[3:04:30] how many were sold to

[3:04:30] developers?

[3:04:31] Here are just a handful.

[3:04:34] Next slide.

[3:04:39] Can you go one more?

[3:04:43] >> Sorry.

[3:04:44] Flip through.

[3:04:46] Next go back to the last slide

[3:04:51] please.

[3:04:51] >> Next one.

[3:04:52] Back to my other apartments

[3:04:56] Once.

[3:04:57] Go back One more.

[3:05:00] One more.

[3:05:00] >> Sorry.

[3:05:04] So I did a Google search 142

[3:05:05] apartments for rent in the 9211

[3:05:05] zip code.

[3:05:09] That was out of yesterday.

[3:05:10] Apartment.Com listed sites

[3:05:10] showing that these various unit

[3:05:15] options of a one bedroom a

[3:05:18] studio or two bedroom there are

[3:05:19] 230 in Linda Vista right now.

[3:05:20] So don't tell me there's a

[3:05:22] housing shortage.

[3:05:23] There's an affordable housing

[3:05:23] shortage.

[3:05:27] Yes, but not a housing shortage

[3:05:27] .

[3:05:28] >> Out of those there's 18

[3:05:32] studios 200 and 12 one bedrooms

[3:05:36] and 148 to 2 bedrooms.

[3:05:40] 34 of those rent for 15 to

[3:05:40] $2500.

[3:05:43] 50 for rent for 25 to 30,000.

[3:05:43] Again, these are numbers right

[3:05:48] off of Google.

[3:05:48] We don't have a housing

[3:05:49] shortage.

[3:05:53] And Linda, MR..

[3:05:54] We have too many.

[3:05:54] If you can fast forward to a

[3:05:58] couple of slides we've that's

[3:06:00] where all they're listed right

[3:06:05] now.

[3:06:06] >> So it's not like they're all

[3:06:06] in one spot.

[3:06:07] They're all throughout Linda

[3:06:07] Vista.

[3:06:10] Next slide.

[3:06:11] >> Developers are seeking out

[3:06:11] by soliciting our vulnerable

[3:06:15] elderly population by offering

[3:06:16] them over market value for

[3:06:16] their property.

[3:06:20] By doing this it removes an

[3:06:21] opportunity for a family to

[3:06:22] purchase even if it would need

[3:06:24] repairs.

[3:06:25] >> An entry level home at a

[3:06:27] lower price point for our

[3:06:32] younger families.

[3:06:33] >> They can put in some sweat

[3:06:37] equity and still have a great

[3:06:38] starter home.

[3:06:38] However, the developers are not

[3:06:39] only removing a single family

[3:06:43] home that is a desirable for a

[3:06:44] family by adding backyard

[3:06:44] apartments but they're also

[3:06:48] making the surrounding single

[3:06:49] family homes less desirable

[3:06:49] with fair property values.

[3:06:52] The developer can continue to

[3:06:53] purchase.

[3:06:53] This is happening here in Linda

[3:06:57] Vista up on Albion Burrows

[3:06:58] where there are two single

[3:06:58] homes that were purchased by

[3:07:02] folks who have spent their hard

[3:07:03] earned money and have

[3:07:04] the American dream of being a

[3:07:07] homeowner.

[3:07:08] The developers purchased three

[3:07:08] adjacent properties and you

[3:07:12] along with the mayor and

[3:07:13] the decisions you've all made

[3:07:13] will cause these families and

[3:07:17] others around the city where

[3:07:18] the same thing is happening

[3:07:22] Heartache, anguish disappoint

[3:07:22] and frustration.

[3:07:23] And I could go on and on.

[3:07:27] Think about the lack of

[3:07:27] privacy.

[3:07:27] Think about trash day.

[3:07:28] Everyone's got three bins,

[3:07:28] right?

[3:07:29] You guys just all voted on

[3:07:30] this.

[3:07:34] >> Three bins.

[3:07:35] >> So you're going to put out

[3:07:40] three bins for oh say 1618

[3:07:45] units Right.

[3:07:45] That's 34 bins on a street.

[3:07:49] That is ridiculous.

[3:07:49] Think about the parking.

[3:07:54] Do you honestly think that

[3:07:55] Mayor Gloria does that like

[3:07:55] Mayor Gloria does that

[3:07:59] the residents of these ads are

[3:08:00] honestly working at home and

[3:08:00] taking Ubers or bike everywhere

[3:08:03] they go to the store out of

[3:08:08] friends school work to

[3:08:08] the laundromat.

[3:08:09] How are you going to carry

[3:08:10] laundry on a bicycle?

[3:08:10] Come on.

[3:08:14] Next slide.

[3:08:15] >> So these are slides of where

[3:08:17] all the 80 have been going in.

[3:08:18] And these are the proposed log

[3:08:23] just for Linda Vista.

[3:08:23] That's a lot.

[3:08:24] Next slide.

[3:08:32] So this is Abby and Burrows.

[3:08:33] The ones in the boxes are

[3:08:37] the ones that were purchased by

[3:08:38] the developers.

[3:08:39] And the ones in the middle are

[3:08:41] the two outstanding single

[3:08:42] family homes that are going to

[3:08:48] be sandwiched by 3680s.

[3:08:48] Okay.

[3:08:48] Next slide.

[3:08:53] This is what it looks like up

[3:08:58] top and down below.

[3:08:58] There was no retaining wall put

[3:09:02] in to hold these houses up.

[3:09:02] You're going to put all these

[3:09:03] houses people their belongings

[3:09:07] possibly cars that are fall

[3:09:07] down.

[3:09:08] Then you're going to have a

[3:09:10] lawsuit.

[3:09:15] >> Next slide.

[3:09:16] >> These are just a couple of

[3:09:20] streets here in Linda Vista,

[3:09:21] Westinghouse, Abby and Burrows.

[3:09:25] There are six proposed the 18

[3:09:28] under construction, 12 more

[3:09:29] that are under construction on

[3:09:29] Westinghouse.

[3:09:33] Six more on Westinghouse down

[3:09:36] the street and in our cul de

[3:09:36] sac 16.

[3:09:37] Now I get that the cul de sacs

[3:09:38] are kind of off limits now

[3:09:41] right?

[3:09:42] But can you think about what

[3:09:43] that's going to do if it were

[3:09:46] on a regular street?

[3:09:50] So now we're talking 58 on two

[3:09:50] streets alone.

[3:09:55] Next slide because I'm out of

[3:09:55] time.

[3:09:56] Fire, water, Sewer.

[3:10:00] Multiply all of those units by

[3:10:04] tubs, toilets, all of that and

[3:10:08] including comment Charles.

[3:10:13] Thank you, Joycelyn.

[3:10:16] I'm sorry if you can come for

[3:10:21] your side.

[3:10:22] >> Thank you so much, Jeff.

[3:10:22] Please proceed.

[3:10:25] Hi guys.

[3:10:26] So everybody seems to

[3:10:26] acknowledge that this whole edu

[3:10:32] is bad and it needs to be

[3:10:32] fixed.

[3:10:36] >> So why are the projects keep

[3:10:39] continue to go up?

[3:10:44] >> So you know it's all

[3:10:45] the same parking problems far

[3:10:50] away busses for the elderly and

[3:10:51] people with disability get to

[3:10:55] and all these things are.

[3:10:55] You guys can fix it.

[3:10:56] So put a pass on the new

[3:11:00] applications and then fix

[3:11:00] the problem.

[3:11:01] I'm sure there's like laws in

[3:11:01] there that you guys can use

[3:11:04] just like PRESIDENT Trump.

[3:11:05] He looks for laws at existing

[3:11:06] and indeed he does fix things.

[3:11:09] So let's just get it done, put

[3:11:10] a pass on it and then do it

[3:11:14] right.

[3:11:14] Make San Diego great to live

[3:11:15] again.

[3:11:15] Thank you.

[3:11:16] Thank you.

[3:11:21] >> And good afternoon.

[3:11:26] San Diego is not a transit rich

[3:11:26] city.

[3:11:27] Most people still need a car to

[3:11:30] get to work to drop off kids or

[3:11:31] to buy their groceries.

[3:11:31] But the bonus edu program wipes

[3:11:35] out parking regulations or

[3:11:36] requirements even in

[3:11:36] neighborhoods with little or no

[3:11:37] transit access.

[3:11:40] That's not progressive.

[3:11:41] It's just irresponsible.

[3:11:42] If you want to keep

[3:11:45] neighborhoods livable and safe

[3:11:46] especially outside transit

[3:11:49] transit priority areas require

[3:11:50] a one off street parking space

[3:11:50] per edu.

[3:11:55] Common sense shouldn't be

[3:11:55] controversial.

[3:11:56] Thank you.

[3:12:00] Thank you Jeff Tutor.

[3:12:01] Jeff you have several people

[3:12:01] sitting in your time If they

[3:12:02] can please raise their hand.

[3:12:04] Maria Bird It.

[3:12:05] Maria Bird it.

[3:12:09] I don't see a hand raised.

[3:12:14] Maria Michael Kuzma Thank you.

[3:12:15] Maria Hendrix Ken Hendrix.

[3:12:23] Laura Ribot David Mary Jane

[3:12:24] Manders.

[3:12:29] >> Thank you Michel Salinas.

[3:12:33] John Alexander Eddy Meyer Halls

[3:12:34] Betty Schumacher and Michele

[3:12:37] Aguirre.

[3:12:43] >> They'll be 12 minutes.

[3:12:43] >> Please proceed.

[3:12:44] We're ready.

[3:12:44] Great.

[3:12:45] Thank you, Council members.

[3:12:48] And I also want to take five of

[3:12:48] the officers who were able to

[3:12:49] meet with us before today's

[3:12:53] meeting.

[3:12:53] We always appreciate that if

[3:12:54] you go to the first slide.

[3:12:57] And first of all, I think one

[3:12:57] of the things to recognize

[3:12:58] what's coming out of this

[3:13:02] package is we focused on

[3:13:03] the bonus edu part of it But

[3:13:03] there's actually things in here

[3:13:07] that even when there are non

[3:13:07] bonus projects that are in very

[3:13:12] definite benefits to developers

[3:13:13] and the first is that prior to

[3:13:19] today you only were allowed to

[3:13:19] house an area and a j you

[3:13:21] according to San Diego's code

[3:13:22] we've added the allowance to

[3:13:25] add a second 80 to you.

[3:13:29] And as it turns out this was an

[3:13:34] administrative decision by hpd

[3:13:35] Housing and Community

[3:13:39] Development and we're now sort

[3:13:40] of memorializing that into law.

[3:13:41] I think just to put that in

[3:13:45] perspective.

[3:13:46] So we talk about single family

[3:13:46] zoning but single family zoning

[3:13:50] is for units on any single

[3:13:50] family parcel.

[3:13:54] If you look at what the actual

[3:13:55] property sizes are, you know

[3:13:59] that's equivalent to our m to

[3:14:00] six on smaller lots.

[3:14:00] That's our m37.

[3:14:03] So this idea that we're just

[3:14:04] talking about single families

[3:14:05] owns down you know, forbid

[3:14:08] housing or something like that

[3:14:09] just obviously is contradicted

[3:14:09] by the circumstances.

[3:14:13] The other way to look at this

[3:14:14] is three units on every single

[3:14:18] family parcel without

[3:14:19] the bonus.

[3:14:19] This is anywhere in San Diego.

[3:14:22] We have over 200,000 single

[3:14:25] family homes at 600,000 units

[3:14:26] that are basically being

[3:14:30] allowed in zone four through

[3:14:31] our regulations And that's even

[3:14:36] with our recent community plan

[3:14:36] updates that twice as many

[3:14:37] units as we have on our

[3:14:43] adequate sites inventory and

[3:14:43] that's three time in our

[3:14:44] adequate sites in average out

[3:14:46] on the 100,000 units.

[3:14:47] So we're we're we're worrying

[3:14:51] about creating the program that

[3:14:52] already without the bonus

[3:14:55] program is going creating

[3:14:56] thousands of units per year.

[3:15:00] And we can we can curtail this

[3:15:01] program and put it in a place

[3:15:05] where it makes more sense.

[3:15:06] The only other thing I'll point

[3:15:10] out is four units is also

[3:15:10] the cutoff from the Federal

[3:15:15] Housing and Urban Development

[3:15:15] as a definition of single

[3:15:16] family zoning as well.

[3:15:19] Once you get above four units

[3:15:20] you're really talking about

[3:15:24] multifamily regulations that

[3:15:24] kick in and that was something

[3:15:29] that wasn't considered when

[3:15:30] the Bonus to you program was

[3:15:30] put in place and still hasn't

[3:15:31] been fully absorbed in

[3:15:34] the regulations today.

[3:15:35] The other thing I'll just point

[3:15:36] out is you know we've even

[3:15:39] added this benefit to have for

[3:15:39] sale to use and we'll see how

[3:15:40] that works.

[3:15:43] It's basically a new

[3:15:44] complexity.

[3:15:45] It's five pages in the code

[3:15:45] update.

[3:15:49] It's outside of my skill set

[3:15:49] but I know this is something

[3:15:50] that people will probably take

[3:15:54] advantage of and it addresses

[3:15:55] some concerns in a completely

[3:15:55] different way as I'll note

[3:15:56] later.

[3:15:59] So next slide.

[3:15:59] So what we're recommending is

[3:16:04] staying within that concept of

[3:16:08] four units on any parcel that

[3:16:08] instead of having this

[3:16:09] distinction based on

[3:16:09] the sustainable development

[3:16:13] area if you look at our

[3:16:14] regulations today outside this

[3:16:18] this animal development area

[3:16:19] you're allowed four units And

[3:16:19] basically what we're saying is

[3:16:23] make those regulations

[3:16:24] consistent across the city

[3:16:27] where this would be different

[3:16:28] is in addition to if you go to

[3:16:33] the next slide in addition to

[3:16:37] the constraints that the state

[3:16:38] would put on it, we're saying

[3:16:39] you're allowed a more flexible

[3:16:42] combination of those three

[3:16:43] additional accessory units

[3:16:47] including having one bonus adu

[3:16:48] which could either be deeded

[3:16:52] restricted at 110% moderate as

[3:16:53] it is today and or it could be

[3:16:58] an ada compliant adu and

[3:16:58] accessible to you.

[3:17:02] One of the things that needs

[3:17:03] letter pointed out is that

[3:17:06] the accessibility requirement

[3:17:07] for ada use doesn't kick in

[3:17:08] until you get to the third pair

[3:17:12] of ada Use under our current

[3:17:13] law and this would be a way to

[3:17:17] bring that allowance forward in

[3:17:18] that would address a key

[3:17:18] concern that was in the ac

[3:17:21] letter that was sent to you on

[3:17:21] the weekend.

[3:17:26] If you go to the next slide.

[3:17:27] >> So one of the things that we

[3:17:31] look for in code is how can we

[3:17:32] make development simpler?

[3:17:32] Right?

[3:17:36] And as we've added in fire

[3:17:37] requirements excluding certain

[3:17:41] zones you know, California tax

[3:17:42] credit allocation Committee

[3:17:45] sustainable development areas

[3:17:46] and environmentally sensitive

[3:17:51] lands we've ended up with and

[3:17:51] this is taking the current

[3:17:52] regulation proposal that's in

[3:17:56] front of you today.

[3:17:57] We translated that into a

[3:18:01] flowchart that frankly dsd will

[3:18:02] probably end up using to try

[3:18:03] and figure out what to do with

[3:18:06] these regulations.

[3:18:07] And we just look at this and we

[3:18:08] say this is way too complicated

[3:18:10] If you take what we're talking

[3:18:11] about, what we're saying is for

[3:18:15] units under more flexible

[3:18:16] conditions, apply it everywhere

[3:18:19] and you get a much simpler

[3:18:20] allowance for us to use in San

[3:18:25] Diego just to go to the next

[3:18:25] slide to emphasize this here's

[3:18:30] all these decision points now

[3:18:31] that have been put into

[3:18:34] the code and each one of these

[3:18:35] decision points is actually a

[3:18:38] point of uncertainty not just

[3:18:39] for the homeowner who lives

[3:18:40] next to a project per se for a

[3:18:40] developer.

[3:18:43] And one of the things that's

[3:18:43] happened is because our

[3:18:47] regulations are so ephemeral

[3:18:48] because a lot of these things

[3:18:49] change every day

[3:18:53] the opportunities zones change

[3:18:53] on a yearly basis.

[3:18:54] The usda changes every time San

[3:18:58] Diego updated transit plan

[3:18:58] because of all these

[3:18:59] complexities.

[3:19:03] If I want to buy land today and

[3:19:04] develop two years from now, I

[3:19:04] don't know whether I'm going to

[3:19:05] be in the usda or meet these

[3:19:07] other requirements We should

[3:19:08] just get rid of that complexity

[3:19:09] and go to a much simpler

[3:19:12] standard.

[3:19:13] Next slide.

[3:19:13] And the other thing is it's

[3:19:18] been pointed out in the staff

[3:19:18] report that going down to four

[3:19:19] units total is already

[3:19:23] consistent with 98% of 82

[3:19:23] projects in San Diego.

[3:19:28] So this isn't going to deter

[3:19:28] San Diego from continuing on

[3:19:30] the path to create more to use

[3:19:30] .

[3:19:36] If you go to the next slide,

[3:19:37] we'll go to the next slide

[3:19:37] first and I'm going to come

[3:19:38] back.

[3:19:39] So the other part of it is

[3:19:41] we're only talking today about

[3:19:42] restrictions on single family

[3:19:46] zones.

[3:19:47] Over half of all the bonus 80

[3:19:47] years have been built in

[3:19:51] multifamily housing which will

[3:19:52] continue under the regulations

[3:19:56] if not expand because one of

[3:19:57] the things that was added as a

[3:20:00] matter of state law is an

[3:20:01] increase in the number of ada

[3:20:02] use that can be added to

[3:20:02] multifamily zones.

[3:20:06] So we're already in a good

[3:20:06] place with multifamily

[3:20:09] production and we're only going

[3:20:10] to go up from there going back.

[3:20:15] >> The other thing about

[3:20:15] reducing the number of areas

[3:20:20] that can be built on a property

[3:20:20] means that the incentive now

[3:20:25] will be to make bigger units so

[3:20:25] what happens today is

[3:20:26] the average ada use size is

[3:20:30] somewhere in the range of 450

[3:20:34] to 500ft and that's optimized

[3:20:35] for rent return.

[3:20:35] You can build a one bedroom or

[3:20:40] a studio for that but you're

[3:20:40] not going to get family housing

[3:20:45] out of it If we reduce

[3:20:46] the number of to use But you

[3:20:46] still have that floor area

[3:20:49] ratio to work with then it's

[3:20:49] more likely a developer is

[3:20:50] going to build a family sized

[3:20:54] home a 2 or 3 bedroom.

[3:20:55] Adu We heard earlier about

[3:20:59] the idea of providing a ranch

[3:21:04] and houses in.

[3:21:05] You're not going to get that

[3:21:05] comparable to living in a house

[3:21:09] in a single family neighborhood

[3:21:10] if you don't make, you know, at

[3:21:11] least 1000 or so square foot

[3:21:15] unit And this will also come

[3:21:15] into play if we are starting to

[3:21:19] condo wise to use you need to

[3:21:19] have some parity between

[3:21:20] the primary unit and these

[3:21:23] accessory units.

[3:21:24] So and then finally I just like

[3:21:28] to emphasize this comes from

[3:21:29] London Matter who the city

[3:21:30] hires to do studies for our

[3:21:33] community plan updates by no

[3:21:33] means an anti housing outfit

[3:21:37] but they really have emphasized

[3:21:38] is that the thing we're missing

[3:21:43] in our planning is the creation

[3:21:44] of family size and use.

[3:21:45] I mean not just here to use but

[3:21:48] housing and that's what's

[3:21:48] driving families out of San

[3:21:49] Diego When it comes time to

[3:21:53] move out of that studio

[3:21:54] apartment and now there's no

[3:21:54] place to move to.

[3:21:54] Next slide.

[3:22:01] I cover that Next slide.

[3:22:02] No, no, no.

[3:22:02] Go back.

[3:22:03] So the last thing I would like

[3:22:07] to talk about is this threat of

[3:22:07] decertification.

[3:22:11] One of and there was a memo

[3:22:11] that came out, you know, at

[3:22:16] the last minute on Friday, of

[3:22:16] course being neighbors for a

[3:22:17] better San Diego.

[3:22:20] We spent all weekend analyzing

[3:22:21] that letter, comparing it with

[3:22:21] the code.

[3:22:25] And one of the things that I

[3:22:26] think is important to look at

[3:22:30] is what were the conditions of

[3:22:30] that letter and what were

[3:22:31] the concerns that they had and

[3:22:32] were they addressed Right.

[3:22:35] And so the primary concern that

[3:22:39] I had was that the exclusion of

[3:22:39] the zones are greater than

[3:22:40] 10,000ft.

[3:22:44] You know, I think in a short

[3:22:45] amount of time development

[3:22:49] service I mean sorry

[3:22:50] the planning department was

[3:22:51] able to look at that and they

[3:22:54] have proposed an amendment to

[3:22:55] that to allow those zones or

[3:22:59] previously excluded in high and

[3:23:00] highest opportunity zones that

[3:23:04] actually provides a certain

[3:23:05] benefit that wasn't there

[3:23:10] before And it addresses

[3:23:10] the primary concern that we had

[3:23:15] in this letter and and I think

[3:23:15] sort of set that aside

[3:23:16] completely.

[3:23:18] But more importantly

[3:23:19] the commitment that San Diego

[3:23:24] made And it's housing element

[3:23:24] certification was to build 40

[3:23:29] deed restricted areas per year.

[3:23:29] Okay.

[3:23:30] We in the four years we've had

[3:23:34] this program in has risen year

[3:23:35] by year So the average is below

[3:23:35] what we're currently doing.

[3:23:39] We've built up 364 affordable

[3:23:44] to use with this program this

[3:23:45] 92 a year that's over twice

[3:23:49] what our commitment to exceed

[3:23:49] was.

[3:23:50] Furthermore we're meeting that

[3:23:53] commitment just with

[3:23:54] multifamily affordable 80 years

[3:23:59] We could have no single family

[3:24:00] affordable way to use and we

[3:24:00] would still be meeting

[3:24:03] the commitment we made to hpd

[3:24:04] under our housing element.

[3:24:08] So this threat of

[3:24:09] decertification is not

[3:24:09] credible.

[3:24:14] Of course when we send you a

[3:24:14] letter and says if it was found

[3:24:15] we would, you know, go through

[3:24:16] all this.

[3:24:18] But that's that's

[3:24:19] the boilerplate statement of

[3:24:20] consequence, not a real

[3:24:24] assertion and that the law has

[3:24:24] been violated or that

[3:24:28] the housing element is not

[3:24:32] being applied to Furthermore

[3:24:33] larger units is a particular

[3:24:38] concern about overcrowding

[3:24:38] The building accessible to use

[3:24:39] is also a thing that was

[3:24:42] addressed in our proposal I

[3:24:43] think makes us better not worse

[3:24:43] than where we were before.

[3:24:52] >> Thank you John Moll If I can

[3:24:53] have the following individuals

[3:24:54] please come up to the yellow

[3:24:55] reserved seats and John you can

[3:24:56] come up to the microphone.

[3:24:57] John Bonnie Kutch, Paul Kruger.

[3:25:01] Merv Thompson.

[3:25:02] Maria Conrad Charlie Our

[3:25:06] Christopher Public and Gail

[3:25:07] Vermont.

[3:25:07] If you can all please come

[3:25:11] forward to the yellow reserved

[3:25:12] seats And John, you MAY come

[3:25:13] forward Ali excuse me on

[3:25:16] the last muesli is that Yeah

[3:25:21] that's what it is really?

[3:25:21] >> Oh, Mulet My apologies.

[3:25:22] Good afternoon everyone.

[3:25:22] My name is John.

[3:25:26] You and I 20 years ago moved

[3:25:27] into a unique pocket in Linda

[3:25:30] Vista because of the diversity

[3:25:31] and the sense of community as a

[3:25:32] single family dwelling

[3:25:32] neighborhood.

[3:25:35] I was looking for all of

[3:25:36] the unique things that that

[3:25:36] would offer it.

[3:25:40] Well, I'm the byproduct of

[3:25:40] Pamela who did a really great

[3:25:44] job presenting her story of

[3:25:44] 6821 new ball court which is

[3:25:45] going to have 1082 units which

[3:25:49] my backyard will be adjacent to

[3:25:50] it and I'll have three tower

[3:25:51] three two stories looking back

[3:25:53] into my backyard eliminating

[3:25:54] all the privacy I've had.

[3:25:54] >> Everybody's talked about

[3:25:58] the key points on the cul de

[3:25:59] sac, the egress, the garbage

[3:26:03] collection and then also

[3:26:04] the parking which is going to

[3:26:04] be just so much more complex

[3:26:07] especially they're not thinking

[3:26:08] about we have a lot of delivery

[3:26:08] drivers Amazon DoorDash coming

[3:26:12] in with lots of kids playing.

[3:26:13] They speed through our

[3:26:13] neighborhood.

[3:26:17] It's creating another dynamic

[3:26:18] that people aren't thinking

[3:26:18] about.

[3:26:19] I ask you all please, we're not

[3:26:23] against the development but

[3:26:23] let's please take the closet

[3:26:24] with Christian Spicer out of

[3:26:28] Linda MR. Neighborhood by

[3:26:28] relaxing his comment giving him

[3:26:29] a money grab.

[3:26:33] >> Next is Bonnie.

[3:26:34] >> Bonnie you have people

[3:26:34] setting your time if they can

[3:26:35] please raise their hand.

[3:26:37] Lisa Clark, Kevin Gibson, Karen

[3:26:42] Sellers.

[3:26:43] And then you have one more

[3:26:43] person that seated you time but

[3:26:44] did not put a name.

[3:26:47] Do you know who that is?

[3:26:48] No, there's no name on this.

[3:26:51] That's why I can't guess so no.

[3:26:55] Okay then it's four minutes.

[3:26:55] Please proceed.

[3:26:56] Okay.

[3:26:56] Good afternoon.

[3:26:59] Council members.

[3:27:00] I'm Bonnie Koch.

[3:27:00] I am the founding member of

[3:27:04] U.S. Peeps and a member of

[3:27:05] the Coordinating committee for

[3:27:09] the new San Diego community

[3:27:09] Coalition.

[3:27:10] >> My background includes 40

[3:27:14] years in the building industry

[3:27:15] working with Party Corbridge,

[3:27:18] Sudbury Properties and many

[3:27:19] reputable developers.

[3:27:23] >> As you MAY know, the San

[3:27:24] Diego Community Coalition now

[3:27:25] includes 26 communities across

[3:27:29] San Diego that have come

[3:27:29] together mostly because of

[3:27:33] the devastating bonus edu

[3:27:34] program which has allowed

[3:27:34] unrestricted apartments

[3:27:37] buildings to be built in

[3:27:38] backyards everywhere.

[3:27:39] It is the most out of control

[3:27:43] asinine housing program a city

[3:27:43] could possibly devise.

[3:27:47] >> This being a hearing I am

[3:27:48] asking that you listen and hear

[3:27:53] us Council members can appeal

[3:27:54] Foster Campbell and often

[3:27:57] Wilbert do and I thank you for

[3:27:57] that.

[3:27:58] So please listen to the advice

[3:28:02] of experts like Neighbors for a

[3:28:03] Better San Diego and the cpc

[3:28:07] whose members have spent years

[3:28:07] analyzing the adu bonus

[3:28:08] program.

[3:28:11] The Planning department has a

[3:28:12] lot to learn from them.

[3:28:16] You already know they are

[3:28:17] providing affordable homes.

[3:28:21] >> Average rents are about 700

[3:28:22] above market rate apartments.

[3:28:25] They are too small for two

[3:28:26] house families.

[3:28:26] Building more isn't bringing

[3:28:29] rents down.

[3:28:30] They're violating Santiago's

[3:28:30] fire codes and the need to

[3:28:34] protect evacuation corridors.

[3:28:35] And they're not paying for

[3:28:39] the infrastructure needed to

[3:28:40] support them.

[3:28:41] I should probably add most of

[3:28:45] them are guilty And because

[3:28:46] they're causing blight in our

[3:28:48] neighborhoods.

[3:28:49] >> In South University City

[3:28:53] we've just learned about two

[3:28:53] planned nine unit bonus 80

[3:28:54] property projects on properties

[3:28:58] that abut one another.

[3:28:58] That means 18 units

[3:29:03] concentrated together right

[3:29:03] next door to Curie Elementary

[3:29:07] School in a very high risk fire

[3:29:08] zone with one of them in a cul

[3:29:12] de sac full of families with

[3:29:13] young kids.

[3:29:13] >> It's a disaster in

[3:29:17] the making.

[3:29:18] >> COUNCILMAN Lee, you are a

[3:29:20] homeowner and you have two

[3:29:21] children with that now concern

[3:29:25] you I would think.

[3:29:26] >> Now the Planning Department

[3:29:27] has then made some revisions to

[3:29:30] the bonus edu program but they

[3:29:31] haven't gone nearly far enough.

[3:29:36] >> So we're asking you to allow

[3:29:37] one bonus Edu did restricted

[3:29:39] free income for each lot in

[3:29:40] single family zones and no more

[3:29:41] than four units total which

[3:29:45] would include the main house

[3:29:46] for is fair everywhere require

[3:29:50] unsafe parking for all to use

[3:29:51] farther than one half mile

[3:29:52] walking distance from public

[3:29:55] transit place 16 to 18 foot

[3:30:00] height limits on detached two

[3:30:00] storey adus use in line with

[3:30:05] state law prohibit bonus 80 use

[3:30:06] from being built in very high

[3:30:09] fire hazard severity zones or

[3:30:10] cul de sacs Limit the square

[3:30:13] footage to 8000ft for

[3:30:14] calculating the number of adus

[3:30:15] allowed regardless of the size

[3:30:17] of the lot.

[3:30:18] And mandate minimum four foot

[3:30:22] setbacks from neighboring

[3:30:22] properties.

[3:30:23] San Diego has suffered enough

[3:30:28] under Mayor Gloria and its

[3:30:28] mismanagement of a once great

[3:30:29] city.

[3:30:32] >> Wasteful spending in

[3:30:33] competent real estate dealings,

[3:30:34] horrific road conditions,

[3:30:37] expensive and little used bike

[3:30:38] lanes trash collection bait and

[3:30:42] switch switch You're complicity

[3:30:43] with his bonus adu program

[3:30:47] makes you culpable for San

[3:30:47] Diego's continued ruin.

[3:30:51] My question to you is is this

[3:30:52] really the sort of legacy you

[3:30:56] want to leave the integrity,

[3:30:57] decency and honesty of

[3:30:57] the people in elected office

[3:30:58] matter?

[3:31:02] >> Thank you for that

[3:31:02] concluding comment.

[3:31:03] >> Paul Krueger The following

[3:31:06] people are sitting in your

[3:31:06] time.

[3:31:07] David Schwartz Please raise

[3:31:07] your hand.

[3:31:10] Thank you Jacob.

[3:31:15] R o t I think it is Jacob.

[3:31:20] Jay Yeah, that's Jacob.

[3:31:25] Jacob Cindy Jurkovich.

[3:31:25] >> Corey.

[3:31:27] Corey Juarez.

[3:31:33] Corey Going twice.

[3:31:33] Corey.

[3:31:34] Courtney Boatman.

[3:31:38] Lisa Mortenson.

[3:31:38] Laura Hanson.

[3:31:39] She's gone.

[3:31:43] Ron Anderson.

[3:31:43] Gone.

[3:31:44] Don Anderson Gone.

[3:31:45] Ramona.

[3:31:50] Greg Adams.

[3:31:51] Kathy Adams.

[3:31:56] Karen Ebinger.

[3:31:56] And Roger Kaplan.

[3:32:00] Roger Kaplan.

[3:32:01] No.

[3:32:01] Roger Kaplan.

[3:32:05] We just can't really quite nine

[3:32:05] minutes.

[3:32:09] Please proceed.

[3:32:10] Thank you very much and thank

[3:32:11] you for your attention to this

[3:32:15] important issue.

[3:32:15] I want to recap some things to

[3:32:16] begin with in case I run out of

[3:32:17] time.

[3:32:19] Number one, the message is loud

[3:32:24] and clear, sensible and what we

[3:32:24] need to do for units is

[3:32:25] the maximum we should allow on

[3:32:29] single family lots.

[3:32:30] You've heard it emotionally and

[3:32:34] you've heard it in really,

[3:32:34] really impressive detail by my

[3:32:38] colleagues Jeff Utah and Dana,

[3:32:39] given that they have spent

[3:32:43] years studying this code and

[3:32:44] they know it inside and out and

[3:32:48] they know what's wrong and they

[3:32:48] know what needs to be changed

[3:32:49] And it's really important that

[3:32:53] you please pay attention to

[3:32:57] what they're saying.

[3:32:58] Number two, please let's stop

[3:33:02] with this charade about

[3:33:02] affordable housing.

[3:33:07] I'm not going to belabor

[3:33:07] the point because these people

[3:33:12] it is it is in insanity for any

[3:33:17] of you to fall for the idea

[3:33:17] that this is affordable

[3:33:18] housing.

[3:33:18] It is not.

[3:33:22] Also it's so important to

[3:33:23] understand is not being built

[3:33:27] in high or very high resource

[3:33:28] areas.

[3:33:32] These people here today are

[3:33:33] from Barrio Logan Troilus and

[3:33:38] Canto City Heights Linda Vista,

[3:33:38] Sierra mesa, South Claremont.

[3:33:39] Let me ask how many people are

[3:33:42] here today because their lives

[3:33:42] have been negatively impacted

[3:33:51] by 12 1517 Unit 37 Unit 750

[3:33:51] Unit adus.

[3:33:56] How many are you?

[3:33:57] Thank you.

[3:33:58] Sit down because that wasn't my

[3:34:01] punch line.

[3:34:02] My punch line is how many of

[3:34:05] you are from Carmel Valley?

[3:34:06] How many of you are from Del

[3:34:07] Mar mesa?

[3:34:07] How many of you are from

[3:34:11] Fairbanks Ranch Country Club?

[3:34:11] How many of you are from Rancho

[3:34:12] Bernardo?

[3:34:16] Scripps Ranch?

[3:34:16] >> Nobody Because they won't

[3:34:17] build there because they cannot

[3:34:21] number one buy a lot for

[3:34:21] $750,000.

[3:34:26] And number two, because they're

[3:34:30] outside of the usda which which

[3:34:31] I cannot take an opportunity I

[3:34:31] cannot MISS An opportunity to

[3:34:35] tell you the frustration that

[3:34:36] people feel and that I know you

[3:34:40] are told about about this myth

[3:34:41] that we don't have to put

[3:34:41] parking in because people are

[3:34:49] going to ride the bus.

[3:34:49] You know what we need?

[3:34:50] What we need is for you to

[3:34:53] spare us the insult of saying

[3:34:53] that people are going to ride

[3:34:58] the bus and that they don't

[3:34:59] need a car and just be honest

[3:35:03] and say for us it's more

[3:35:03] important that we build housing

[3:35:04] and that you are going to have

[3:35:08] to live without a parking

[3:35:08] place.

[3:35:09] Personally I don't have that

[3:35:10] big an issue with that because

[3:35:14] I'm one of the lucky ones that

[3:35:14] owns a home that has a garage

[3:35:15] and a driveway.

[3:35:18] And the fact is that the people

[3:35:19] who are penalized most by this

[3:35:23] in assistance on a myth of use

[3:35:28] of transit at 3% and a bike

[3:35:29] lane that I go into on Fairmont

[3:35:33] have not seen one bike on this

[3:35:34] week are those who are hurt are

[3:35:38] working people who rent and who

[3:35:39] have trucks and vans that they

[3:35:43] put on streets that are open to

[3:35:44] theft.

[3:35:44] Big families that have kids to

[3:35:47] take to school.

[3:35:48] So let's just be honest about

[3:35:48] that.

[3:35:52] Let me give just a little bit

[3:35:53] of background about how we got

[3:35:54] here because I think it's

[3:35:58] important for everyone to know.

[3:35:58] I cannot thank you people

[3:35:59] enough.

[3:36:02] You know, four years ago there

[3:36:02] were five of us here.

[3:36:06] There were five people.

[3:36:09] Four years ago when a six unit

[3:36:10] adu project was put in in my

[3:36:11] neighborhood which doesn't have

[3:36:15] a park, has a library two two

[3:36:15] miles away, has some of

[3:36:19] the very worst schools in

[3:36:20] the city.

[3:36:20] We asked questions about what

[3:36:23] was happening and nobody knew

[3:36:24] because a bonus edu program was

[3:36:25] passed during the pandemic and

[3:36:28] nobody had any idea about what

[3:36:29] it was.

[3:36:33] >> We learned over time about

[3:36:34] what we're seeing today.

[3:36:35] But the word didn't spread and

[3:36:39] we were dismissed on the most

[3:36:39] scurrilous terms for raising

[3:36:43] the very issues that these

[3:36:44] people here are raising today.

[3:36:47] Three years ago the mayor's

[3:36:52] press secretary continually

[3:36:53] posted on then called Twitter

[3:36:56] that that our bonus edu program

[3:36:57] was a success because it

[3:37:01] allowed gentle development by

[3:37:02] homeowners creating low income

[3:37:06] housing in high resource areas.

[3:37:10] It took me probably seven

[3:37:11] rounds of tweeting back

[3:37:12] the reality for Rachel Lang to

[3:37:16] abandon that.

[3:37:17] That's not what it is and maybe

[3:37:20] that's what they thought it was

[3:37:21] but it has never been that.

[3:37:25] >> Again, the speaker know you

[3:37:26] guys have been great listening.

[3:37:27] >> I really appreciate it.

[3:37:31] And I want to say COUNCILMAN

[3:37:31] Foster, I cannot thank you

[3:37:36] enough for being here today and

[3:37:37] for taking ball on this issue

[3:37:40] because the fact is that if it

[3:37:41] wasn't for these Encanto people

[3:37:45] and these choice people and for

[3:37:46] us to champion them, we would

[3:37:46] not be here.

[3:37:49] It is only because and I say

[3:37:49] this with no animosity

[3:37:54] whatsoever it is only because

[3:37:59] the these predatory developers

[3:38:00] moved into an area where they

[3:38:00] found and what they do is they

[3:38:04] sit a Christian Spicer sits in

[3:38:04] his conference room with Google

[3:38:09] Maps on a screen and identifies

[3:38:13] big lots and identifies areas

[3:38:14] where he can go and essentially

[3:38:15] cheat people out of their

[3:38:19] property.

[3:38:19] Will you look at this?

[3:38:20] You saw this from Pamela.

[3:38:23] I put it up again for you to

[3:38:24] read.

[3:38:24] Traditional homeowners assess

[3:38:28] their properties based on

[3:38:29] values from websites Redfin and

[3:38:33] Zillow not realizing

[3:38:33] the development potential.

[3:38:34] They go in there and they

[3:38:38] essentially steal these homes

[3:38:39] from people.

[3:38:39] Look at the last one.

[3:38:43] We have a unique opportunity to

[3:38:44] acquire these properties now

[3:38:48] before homeowner awareness.

[3:38:49] That is despicable.

[3:38:52] That is absolutely

[3:38:53] unacceptable.

[3:39:10] And prices jump the Oh, okay.

[3:39:11] I am sorry but a really

[3:39:11] important thing here.

[3:39:14] Let me make two points.

[3:39:15] One is yes, we need housing.

[3:39:19] The issue is what kind of

[3:39:20] housing do we need?

[3:39:20] Where do we need it?

[3:39:21] What do we need and how much

[3:39:24] does it cost?

[3:39:25] When you balance what you've

[3:39:28] heard today about the lack of

[3:39:29] affordability of these units

[3:39:33] and the harm that these units

[3:39:34] are doing to people who have

[3:39:34] spent their life and their

[3:39:38] livelihood to buy their

[3:39:39] property and keep it up?

[3:39:40] It is indefensible to allow

[3:39:44] more than four units on a

[3:39:44] single family parcel.

[3:39:49] We are all so sick of this

[3:39:53] confabulation of affordable

[3:39:54] rents and apartments and houses

[3:39:58] and starter homes.

[3:39:59] This is the bottom line and

[3:39:59] it's irrefutable every time

[3:40:03] Christine Spicer and Daniel

[3:40:04] Skolnick buy one of these

[3:40:08] properties they are removing

[3:40:09] forever a starter home for a

[3:40:09] family.

[3:40:13] >> Our mayor our mayor has said

[3:40:14] our mayor has said and you

[3:40:18] agree that Middle income

[3:40:19] housing is a very big deal Now

[3:40:20] we're turning a lot of

[3:40:23] attention towards allowing

[3:40:24] helping people to buy homes.

[3:40:29] We cannot overstate

[3:40:29] the importance of the loss of

[3:40:34] these homes.

[3:40:34] When these developers come in

[3:40:38] and buy them and turn them for

[3:40:38] ever into what our apartment

[3:40:43] houses and as you see it

[3:40:43] happens once.

[3:40:44] It's just like a virus.

[3:40:47] Christian Spicer comes in and

[3:40:48] buys one and puts 12 units on

[3:40:48] it.

[3:40:49] The people next to it say

[3:40:52] they're going to sell and leave

[3:40:52] because they can't live there

[3:40:53] anymore.

[3:40:53] There's another one gone.

[3:40:57] There's another one gone.

[3:40:58] This adds up to hundreds of

[3:41:02] starter homes for the very

[3:41:02] people that the city now says

[3:41:03] is trying to help.

[3:41:07] In conclusion, just let me say

[3:41:08] please listen to these people

[3:41:10] and please listen to the genius

[3:41:16] of my colleagues in next days.

[3:41:16] Thank you.

[3:41:21] Next is Merv Thompson.

[3:41:22] Merv Thompson You have several

[3:41:22] people that are ceding your

[3:41:23] time.

[3:41:25] Frank Mirabelli, George Amore,

[3:41:36] Christine Mirabelli, pac Palko.

[3:41:40] This one's hard.

[3:41:40] Class packets.

[3:41:41] Now I'll come back to that one.

[3:41:45] Christine Thompson.

[3:41:45] Brian Nichols.

[3:41:49] Macallan in Melby.

[3:41:49] Teresa Benevides.

[3:41:59] Martha Covey to Kelly de cv.

[3:42:03] She left very cramped Ligaya

[3:42:04] Ligaya Martinez Much.

[3:42:04] Thank you.

[3:42:07] Okay so the only one I think

[3:42:13] it's Kelly is plus Paul on

[3:42:13] there.

[3:42:17] Oh okay.

[3:42:17] Thank you.

[3:42:18] You'll have 11 minutes Please

[3:42:22] proceed.

[3:42:22] >> Fine.

[3:42:23] Thank you.

[3:42:23] Ladies audio.

[3:42:26] Thank you.

[3:42:27] Thank you Chamber for listening

[3:42:28] to us this afternoon at length

[3:42:33] at great length.

[3:42:34] >> Much of what I was going to

[3:42:44] say I can hear me.

[3:42:45] Let me go ahead You hear me

[3:42:45] now?

[3:42:46] Okay.

[3:42:48] Sorry about that.

[3:42:49] >> I was going to say that much

[3:42:52] of what I was going to say this

[3:42:53] afternoon has already been said

[3:42:53] much more eloquently than I

[3:42:58] ever could And I don't want to

[3:42:59] be boring you with repetitious

[3:43:03] information.

[3:43:04] If I could if I can avoid it.

[3:43:07] But let me just say something

[3:43:08] that's been on my mind

[3:43:08] listening to all of this as

[3:43:16] much as ideas are accessory to

[3:43:17] main homes.

[3:43:21] The bonus program is accessory

[3:43:21] to the 80 program.

[3:43:26] It's voluntary.

[3:43:27] There's no consequence for not

[3:43:31] not adopting it whatsoever.

[3:43:32] It's in page four of

[3:43:35] the handbook the Bible,

[3:43:39] the 2025 Bible that governs all

[3:43:40] 80 u.

[3:43:40] Law regulations and all of

[3:43:44] the cities in the state.

[3:43:45] And because it's accessory

[3:43:49] accessory to the 80 use almost

[3:43:49] by definition it suggests that

[3:43:53] it's not necessary.

[3:43:54] Okay.

[3:43:54] It's only necessary because you

[3:43:58] made it so.

[3:43:59] So the problem that we're

[3:44:04] facing today is a problem that

[3:44:04] you created that the mayor

[3:44:05] created.

[3:44:07] That's why we're here to solve

[3:44:12] your problem.

[3:44:17] >> I just can't understand

[3:44:17] that.

[3:44:18] I can't understand a lot of

[3:44:21] what's going on.

[3:44:22] For example, I'm digressing now

[3:44:22] frankly.

[3:44:26] But when I hear that

[3:44:27] the solution to this is to come

[3:44:34] out with four, five, six, seven

[3:44:35] more units as an answer as a

[3:44:35] reform to this open ended

[3:44:39] process that we've had All

[3:44:40] you're doing it's just making

[3:44:44] them a little bit smaller but

[3:44:44] you're perpetuating

[3:44:45] the problem.

[3:44:48] Okay.

[3:44:49] >> I heard a lot about

[3:44:50] the housing crisis and oh my

[3:44:53] goodness, the bonuses necessary

[3:44:54] for to solve the housing

[3:44:54] crisis.

[3:44:58] Well, if it were necessary

[3:44:59] the oecd would tell you it's

[3:45:00] necessary and put it in its

[3:45:00] literature And they're not

[3:45:04] doing that.

[3:45:04] It's a problem because you made

[3:45:05] it a problem.

[3:45:09] No other city in the state has

[3:45:14] an edu bonus program and

[3:45:14] certainly none the likes of

[3:45:15] which we have here.

[3:45:18] So none of the forums in

[3:45:19] the state none of the council

[3:45:26] meetings in the state mimic

[3:45:26] what's going on here today.

[3:45:27] None of them.

[3:45:31] Because they don't have

[3:45:31] the problem.

[3:45:32] The problem that you created

[3:45:35] because they avoided it they

[3:45:36] never adopted it to begin with.

[3:45:36] Okay.

[3:45:43] That's why we're here.

[3:45:48] You know, I've lived in my

[3:45:48] neighborhood for 55 years,

[3:45:55] raised my children there, went

[3:45:58] to school there, remodeled

[3:46:03] about 40 times >> And now at

[3:46:04] the bottom of our hill right

[3:46:08] now a project is going in that

[3:46:08] was reported in

[3:46:09] the Union-Tribune this morning.

[3:46:10] I'm going to have the next

[3:46:13] slide courtesy of Christian

[3:46:18] Spicer courtesy of Christian

[3:46:18] Spicer.

[3:46:23] This unit is going in at

[3:46:24] the bottom of the hill

[3:46:31] surrounded by houses two blocks

[3:46:31] away from my house.

[3:46:35] You've got six three story

[3:46:40] buildings housing 116 80 use

[3:46:44] with a portion where you see

[3:46:45] all those cars being park

[3:46:49] the hotspot attached to that is

[3:46:49] that is heritage land.

[3:46:55] The last remaining portion of

[3:46:55] the Cuzmy village called Lucky

[3:46:58] When Nada La Rincon Nada.

[3:46:59] And those cars are parked right

[3:47:03] on top of it.

[3:47:04] >> That roadway that leads into

[3:47:08] this project is not even a

[3:47:09] public street.

[3:47:10] It's called Charles Sidney But

[3:47:10] it's not a street.

[3:47:12] It's not even paved.

[3:47:13] It's a roadway.

[3:47:13] It's dirt.

[3:47:17] If you take a look at it you

[3:47:18] will see the following

[3:47:19] Considering that this is in a

[3:47:23] very high fire hazard severity

[3:47:23] zone.

[3:47:27] That roadway is provides only

[3:47:28] one ingress and egress.

[3:47:33] There is no adequate turnaround

[3:47:37] at the end of it.

[3:47:37] No adequate turnaround.

[3:47:38] There are no two evacuation

[3:47:42] points.

[3:47:43] And if a fire ever starts there

[3:47:43] you're going to have a mini

[3:47:46] Palisades because all that

[3:47:47] vegetation on these slopes to

[3:47:51] work upwards is going to ignite

[3:47:52] and the neighborhoods around it

[3:47:56] are going to be devastated.

[3:47:57] And you best consult your risk

[3:48:01] desk today if this project goes

[3:48:02] in because it's going to come

[3:48:05] down like thunder on the city

[3:48:06] and the neighborhoods will be

[3:48:06] destroyed in the process.

[3:48:10] Look what's happening to

[3:48:11] the Admiral Hartman community

[3:48:11] down below it.

[3:48:12] Never mind the fire.

[3:48:15] Look what's happening there.

[3:48:16] And the neighborhood that's

[3:48:19] occupied with our servicemen.

[3:48:20] You see all those little red

[3:48:20] dots?

[3:48:21] Those are the extra cars are

[3:48:24] going to be placed there.

[3:48:25] That particular intersection is

[3:48:26] only one of two intersections

[3:48:30] that provide add at access to

[3:48:30] northbound Highway five out of

[3:48:35] Pacific Beach every morning.

[3:48:36] I invite you to come down there

[3:48:40] and witness the logjam that we

[3:48:40] already have during rush hours

[3:48:45] and imagine if this structure

[3:48:45] goes in the catastrophe that

[3:48:49] will occur thereafter.

[3:48:49] It's unseemly.

[3:48:50] It's just totally unseemly.

[3:48:54] It's not acceptable that a city

[3:48:55] would tolerate this kind of

[3:48:57] development with ministerial

[3:49:02] approval.

[3:49:07] >> It makes no sense whatsoever

[3:49:07] .

[3:49:08] One of the things I was trying

[3:49:09] to point out are going to be

[3:49:12] pointing out was this

[3:49:16] particular this particular

[3:49:16] little exhibit.

[3:49:20] This is I think it's one of

[3:49:23] the ones that that we had as a

[3:49:28] part of the Housing and Urban

[3:49:29] Development Program.

[3:49:34] What it really identify is

[3:49:34] you've seen this all before is

[3:49:39] an proves our point in

[3:49:40] advocating what neighbors and

[3:49:40] others have advocated there

[3:49:44] that for is fair we want for is

[3:49:48] fair and Pacific Beach.

[3:49:48] Absolutely.

[3:49:53] What we see here is proof that

[3:49:58] forest fair works because it's

[3:50:01] five thousand 180 to 1 two

[3:50:06] three homes dominate the 5000

[3:50:07] 720 homes that included

[3:50:11] the bonus.

[3:50:11] One, two, three.

[3:50:12] 123.

[3:50:18] 91% of all homes including

[3:50:19] bonus 80 homes including bonus

[3:50:24] are caught up in this figure.

[3:50:24] And get this.

[3:50:25] And as you think about

[3:50:29] advocating for four, six and

[3:50:29] seven based upon square footage

[3:50:32] of lots that the one, two,

[3:50:37] three cut across all of

[3:50:38] the lots so all of the loss

[3:50:42] we're talking about that are

[3:50:42] part of the reform that you're

[3:50:47] advocating are already subsumed

[3:50:53] in one, two three.

[3:50:54] So if you were to ask me and

[3:50:58] I'm no land use guy what works?

[3:51:02] What works is one, two, three

[3:51:03] with a maximum of four

[3:51:03] including the main house.

[3:51:06] That's what works.

[3:51:06] Okay.

[3:51:11] No.

[3:51:12] >> With all of the devastation

[3:51:13] that your program is causing to

[3:51:17] these neighborhoods and to

[3:51:17] assert that your houses have a

[3:51:21] housing crisis that justifies

[3:51:22] it, you don't solve a crisis by

[3:51:26] creating another crisis.

[3:51:26] >> Okay.

[3:51:31] You just don't do that.

[3:51:31] >> I'm going to conclude early

[3:51:32] Instead of taking you through a

[3:51:36] lot of the exhibits that I was

[3:51:37] going to be showing you about

[3:51:41] why seven six, 654 are not to

[3:51:45] scale because they're not

[3:51:46] they're not to scale at all And

[3:51:51] yet that is what one of your

[3:51:52] amendments proposes to do.

[3:51:55] It's just simply wrong.

[3:51:55] It's wrong in some of the data

[3:51:56] that you've used to calculate

[3:52:00] calculate the five, six, seven,

[3:52:04] eight the 1000 square foot main

[3:52:05] house that doesn't exist.

[3:52:05] It's a fiction.

[3:52:06] The average house of the city

[3:52:09] of San Diego is 1500 square

[3:52:09] feet.

[3:52:10] And besides that, to calculate

[3:52:14] the way you did if maximum home

[3:52:15] sizes were placed on these

[3:52:18] lots, guess how many to use You

[3:52:19] could build none except for

[3:52:23] the state required to.

[3:52:23] Okay.

[3:52:24] That's a fact.

[3:52:29] So the calculation in measure

[3:52:29] measures that you have taken

[3:52:33] that cover four, five, six and

[3:52:33] seven just don't work.

[3:52:34] They don't even take into

[3:52:38] consideration what or

[3:52:39] the nuances that exist in every

[3:52:43] lot.

[3:52:43] It's a failure of analysis.

[3:52:48] What works is for four spare

[3:52:49] including the base residence.

[3:52:59] Thank you Maria Conrad.

[3:53:00] >> After Mayor Conrad, it's

[3:53:00] Charlie.

[3:53:04] Our Christopher Pablo, Gail

[3:53:04] Vimont and Robert Campbell.

[3:53:05] If you could start making your

[3:53:09] way up to the other reserved

[3:53:09] seats as well as Mandy Havlik,

[3:53:13] please proceed.

[3:53:18] >> So I know that you all know

[3:53:19] and they all know especially

[3:53:20] since the last speaker spoke

[3:53:24] that the bonus edu program is

[3:53:25] not necessary in any way to

[3:53:28] meet any state mandated housing

[3:53:28] mandates.

[3:53:33] Nothing is needed from

[3:53:33] the bonus edu program it is

[3:53:34] known.

[3:53:34] How do we know that?

[3:53:38] Because San Diego is the only

[3:53:39] place in the entire state that

[3:53:42] has it every other area has

[3:53:43] figured it out in a way that is

[3:53:47] not allowing corporate takeover

[3:53:48] of our neighborhoods and

[3:53:52] destroying the very fabric of

[3:53:53] our city.

[3:53:54] I am calling on you to dissolve

[3:53:58] the bonus Edu program.

[3:53:58] It is divisive.

[3:54:03] It is dangerous and it is

[3:54:03] disrespectful.

[3:54:08] It is disrespectful to all of

[3:54:08] your constituents.

[3:54:09] It is disrespectful to

[3:54:13] everybody who wants to live in

[3:54:14] a city that feels heard by

[3:54:19] the people.

[3:54:19] >> Thank you for comment.

[3:54:20] Okay.

[3:54:20] Thank you, Charlie.

[3:54:26] Charlie Our aup are Charlie are

[3:54:32] you here?

[3:54:33] >> Oh, Christopher, that is you

[3:54:35] And you have a PowerPoint

[3:54:40] presentation.

[3:54:41] >> You have time ceded to you

[3:54:42] If the following individuals

[3:54:45] can please raise their hand and

[3:54:49] have their public please raise

[3:54:50] your hand.

[3:54:50] Oh okay.

[3:54:54] Leela or Lila?

[3:54:55] >> Thank you.

[3:54:55] And Ezra.

[3:54:59] Oh, there is no age requirement

[3:55:03] here.

[3:55:04] >> You have four minutes.

[3:55:04] Please proceed.

[3:55:09] Hi, my name is Christopher

[3:55:10] Pope.

[3:55:11] I took time off of work to be

[3:55:11] here.

[3:55:13] I've never been to a council

[3:55:13] meeting.

[3:55:14] I actually wouldn't be.

[3:55:14] No.

[3:55:15] Most of the wonderful people

[3:55:18] here if it wasn't for this

[3:55:19] issue that I found out about it

[3:55:19] affecting me five weeks ago.

[3:55:24] And let me be clear.

[3:55:25] >> I am an edu builder.

[3:55:28] I've built eight views on two

[3:55:29] of my properties 2 to 80 years

[3:55:29] on each.

[3:55:32] Each of you has to park with

[3:55:33] each owner to use a below

[3:55:33] market rent.

[3:55:33] >> It's possible.

[3:55:37] I encourage all my my fellow

[3:55:38] colleagues at work to do

[3:55:41] the same thing by building a

[3:55:41] you help housing crisis.

[3:55:42] You don't have to be greedy

[3:55:42] about it.

[3:55:46] So this issue is affecting my

[3:55:51] cold tech.

[3:55:52] It's a safety concern because

[3:55:52] there's no parking.

[3:55:57] Kristen Spicer Siri it's

[3:55:58] building ten units on a single

[3:56:00] family lot.

[3:56:01] >> It's disturbing because I

[3:56:05] didn't know about this until

[3:56:06] four weeks ago when

[3:56:07] the excavators came up and

[3:56:07] showed up Start digging for

[3:56:11] the construction And I went

[3:56:12] down to the theater.

[3:56:12] I heard from my neighbors it

[3:56:13] was going to be a ten unit lot

[3:56:15] and I was shocked.

[3:56:16] And it's a safety concern

[3:56:20] because we have a narrow cul de

[3:56:21] sac and there's no room for 20

[3:56:21] cars.

[3:56:25] I'm fighting for my family.

[3:56:26] >> It's a fire hazard.

[3:56:31] There was no transparency when

[3:56:32] I built a to use on my lot.

[3:56:35] I let my community know I

[3:56:36] provide parking.

[3:56:36] I provide all the monies that I

[3:56:37] would want if I lived there.

[3:56:40] It's possible I'm asking to

[3:56:45] stop this project in my cul de

[3:56:46] sac project.

[3:56:49] Prj1124433 now.

[3:56:50] At the developer we work it.

[3:56:54] Thank you for sending mild and

[3:56:55] summer to my house to meet with

[3:56:56] our community to try to set up

[3:56:59] a meeting with the developer.

[3:56:59] Unfortunately the developer

[3:57:00] didn't show up.

[3:57:03] I'm.

[3:57:04] >> Next slide please.

[3:57:08] Next time you missed that one.

[3:57:09] Talk about that.

[3:57:10] This is an analysis of all

[3:57:14] the cars that could fit in in

[3:57:14] our cul de sac.

[3:57:15] There's nine single family

[3:57:15] locked in our call.

[3:57:17] The fact there there's nine car

[3:57:18] nine nine parking spots.

[3:57:21] Assuming you could you could

[3:57:22] fit two cars on the narrow,

[3:57:26] narrow spot right there.

[3:57:27] It's not possible to have an

[3:57:28] emergency vehicle come up that

[3:57:28] hill.

[3:57:31] Garbage has been missed in our

[3:57:31] cul de sac because cars were

[3:57:32] parked in that manner.

[3:57:33] But that's the only way to

[3:57:36] legally park nine cars in our

[3:57:36] cul de sac.

[3:57:37] How would we fit 20?

[3:57:39] On an average night there's

[3:57:41] only 2 or 3 open spots.

[3:57:47] Next slide.

[3:57:48] >> This is just And look at our

[3:57:48] cul de sac at night.

[3:57:51] There's no open spot on Burton

[3:57:51] Street.

[3:57:56] Next slide.

[3:57:57] >> The developer if this rules

[3:57:58] the proletariat is pro

[3:58:01] developer anti middle class.

[3:58:02] >> This house with a run down

[3:58:05] two storey 2a2 bedroom, one

[3:58:06] bathroom house.

[3:58:09] The estimate 800,000 on

[3:58:10] the market for 995 because

[3:58:15] the sellers were already

[3:58:15] getting calls before they put

[3:58:16] it on the market.

[3:58:17] >> Christian Spicer bought it

[3:58:22] for 1.25 $1.22225 million

[3:58:23] beating any competitor who

[3:58:24] would buy this rundown house

[3:58:27] for that much.

[3:58:28] >> Long Behold we didn't know

[3:58:28] about its plans.

[3:58:32] Explain Christian Spicer owner

[3:58:32] theory.

[3:58:33] This is all from his website.

[3:58:37] Read it.

[3:58:38] Read it.

[3:58:43] He started a theory.

[3:58:44] He started pro how he started

[3:58:45] Brooklyn moving.

[3:58:45] He owns the real estate.

[3:58:47] He owns the He owns

[3:58:48] the construction company.

[3:58:48] >> He's making bank.

[3:58:52] Most people who are homeowners

[3:58:53] and who care about

[3:58:53] the community would not do

[3:58:54] that.

[3:58:57] >> I finally get to meet a

[3:58:58] developer within here on

[3:58:58] the blue blazer who came up.

[3:58:59] I went out to talk to him and

[3:59:02] politely asked him Why are you

[3:59:02] provide, you know, parking?

[3:59:03] What's up with that?

[3:59:06] Why?

[3:59:07] >> I want to understand if I'm

[3:59:10] in the wrong side wrong mindset

[3:59:11] please stop this pr game

[3:59:20] project Now reworking.

[3:59:21] >> We still have about an hour

[3:59:21] left of public comment.

[3:59:26] The hand-waving does help get

[3:59:26] people up here.

[3:59:30] Gail Vermont Do you have time

[3:59:30] city to buy Neal Weiner Winner.

[3:59:35] Oh thank you City council

[3:59:36] members for your difficult work

[3:59:36] and great effort on this

[3:59:37] matter.

[3:59:39] Please focus on this fact.

[3:59:44] As you've heard this is not

[3:59:44] affordable housing.

[3:59:49] It is property capture.

[3:59:50] >> There are many reasons to

[3:59:51] rein in the bonus adu program.

[3:59:51] You've heard them.

[3:59:54] It allows multiple unit

[3:59:54] buildings to go up without a

[3:59:55] next door neighbor, much less a

[3:59:59] community say to bypass parking

[3:59:59] requirements and contributions

[4:00:00] to schools, park and

[4:00:04] infrastructure.

[4:00:04] Archer Fire codes aren't being

[4:00:05] monitored, observed or

[4:00:05] enforced.

[4:00:09] Affordable housing is not being

[4:00:09] created.

[4:00:13] >> Instead, as we've just

[4:00:14] heard, commercial interests are

[4:00:15] out bidding on single family

[4:00:15] homes.

[4:00:18] They take them off the market

[4:00:19] building and then renting what

[4:00:23] would be otherwise called

[4:00:23] apartment buildings at prices

[4:00:24] they see fit.

[4:00:28] And so they control these rents

[4:00:29] and properties for the future.

[4:00:33] Our children are our friends,

[4:00:34] our families.

[4:00:34] >> Our neighbors lose.

[4:00:38] And this is a social justice

[4:00:39] issue.

[4:00:39] And I know that my particular

[4:00:43] COUNCILMAN Member Seanie Lo

[4:00:44] Rivera is very concerned about

[4:00:48] social justice and people from

[4:00:49] the middle class and those who

[4:00:50] need homes to have affordable

[4:00:53] housing.

[4:00:54] And this is not doing it.

[4:00:55] It's taking those houses away

[4:01:01] and locking them up forever.

[4:01:02] >> Please accept the full

[4:01:02] amendments submitted by

[4:01:03] neighbors for a better San

[4:01:07] Diego and make all of San Diego

[4:01:08] accessible and livable for its

[4:01:11] residents now and in

[4:01:11] the future.

[4:01:16] >> Thank you.

[4:01:17] >> Thank you, Rob Campbell.

[4:01:17] You have several people sitting

[4:01:21] in your chime.

[4:01:22] Charles Douglass, please raise

[4:01:22] your hand.

[4:01:29] Marge Werfel, Irwin Fowler.

[4:01:30] Fowler.

[4:01:30] I don't see anyone there.

[4:01:34] Hendricks Terry Winn, thank

[4:01:34] you.

[4:01:39] >> Mary Young Michael with

[4:01:43] Marlin Edward Walton.

[4:01:48] No idea how easy.

[4:01:52] Judith McElwee Judith I don't

[4:01:56] see a Judith that takes you to

[4:01:57] eight minutes.

[4:01:57] >> Please proceed on.

[4:01:58] Ready?

[4:01:58] Thank you.

[4:02:01] I only have one slide.

[4:02:02] It will remain up the entire

[4:02:02] time and I feel free to read

[4:02:03] it.

[4:02:05] I am.

[4:02:06] So we heard from the planning

[4:02:07] department when they presented

[4:02:07] today that there was

[4:02:10] significant public outreach

[4:02:11] when this was passed.

[4:02:11] Um oh.

[4:02:16] I also want to say feel free if

[4:02:16] you're in the audience if you

[4:02:17] want to stand up or clap.

[4:02:18] Uh, I'm fine with that During

[4:02:20] my time.

[4:02:21] Um, so so the significant

[4:02:25] public outreach But yet today

[4:02:26] if you've watched the director

[4:02:26] of planning the entire time

[4:02:27] she's been on the phone or on

[4:02:30] the computer listening to none

[4:02:31] of what we've had to say.

[4:02:31] Same with the assistant

[4:02:32] director here.

[4:02:35] So or they're out of the out of

[4:02:35] the room completely.

[4:02:39] So you know and some of

[4:02:40] the first comments I hear from

[4:02:44] the council are thanking

[4:02:45] the director and the planning

[4:02:48] department after their comments

[4:02:48] .

[4:02:49] Uh, as another gentleman

[4:02:50] reminded us, the reason we're

[4:02:53] here today is because they

[4:02:54] implemented these requirements.

[4:02:58] Um, so please do not thank them

[4:02:58] .

[4:02:59] Uh, when when your time comes

[4:03:03] to speak um, and I'm generally

[4:03:04] pretty curious how these guys

[4:03:04] still have a job with

[4:03:08] the public backlash that we've

[4:03:09] got.

[4:03:09] So we're facing a housing

[4:03:10] crisis.

[4:03:13] And accessory dwelling units

[4:03:14] ready to use are often

[4:03:14] presented as a solution.

[4:03:17] The current bonus edu program

[4:03:18] if left unchecked risks

[4:03:19] creating more problems than it

[4:03:19] solves.

[4:03:23] Undermining the very idea of

[4:03:23] dignified housing for all and

[4:03:27] violating the spirit of

[4:03:27] California's affirmatively

[4:03:28] furthering fair housing

[4:03:28] mandate.

[4:03:32] fh I want to start by thanking

[4:03:33] the San Diego City Attorney for

[4:03:37] recognizing the importance and

[4:03:38] legal requirement to fh and

[4:03:42] incorporating specific f h

[4:03:42] standards into legal framework

[4:03:43] that we saw today.

[4:03:47] Ensuring that high and highest

[4:03:47] opportunity areas receive

[4:03:48] income restricted affordable

[4:03:49] housing moving forward.

[4:03:53] This is a critical step towards

[4:03:53] dismantling concentrated

[4:03:56] poverty and providing real

[4:03:57] opportunity something that our

[4:03:57] own planning department has not

[4:04:01] been interested in addressing

[4:04:01] until last Friday.

[4:04:02] From the letter from the State

[4:04:07] to truly fulfill the fh mandate

[4:04:07] we must acknowledge that all

[4:04:08] land within the city of San

[4:04:11] Diego must be viewed through

[4:04:11] the lens of fh.

[4:04:12] This means that all zoning

[4:04:16] designations including r x r m

[4:04:21] r s must be considered when

[4:04:21] crafting and implementing fh

[4:04:22] centric policies.

[4:04:26] We cannot cherry pick as we've

[4:04:27] done today for fha compliance

[4:04:30] like the Planning Department

[4:04:31] has done.

[4:04:32] We must have a comprehensive

[4:04:35] approach across the entire city

[4:04:36] .

[4:04:36] Please take note of

[4:04:37] the document that I've got on

[4:04:38] the on the screen there.

[4:04:41] It says This is from sdr

[4:04:42] Investment Profile.

[4:04:45] So this is for their investors

[4:04:46] future investors Traditional

[4:04:46] homeowners assess their

[4:04:47] properties based on values from

[4:04:50] websites such as Redfin or

[4:04:51] Zillow.

[4:04:51] Not realizing development

[4:04:56] potential after this edu craze

[4:04:56] fully catches on.

[4:04:57] Prices will dramatically

[4:05:00] increase as awareness and

[4:05:01] development potential

[4:05:01] increases.

[4:05:02] We have a unique opportunity to

[4:05:05] acquire these properties now

[4:05:06] before homeowner awareness and

[4:05:10] prices jump.

[4:05:11] Well ideas can increase housing

[4:05:11] supply.

[4:05:15] The current bonus program

[4:05:16] designed to incentivize

[4:05:17] affordable units is being

[4:05:21] exploited Working exactly as

[4:05:21] the Planning department

[4:05:22] intended.

[4:05:22] This is not an unintended

[4:05:25] consequence This is intended

[4:05:25] consequence impacting

[4:05:26] neighborhoods

[4:05:29] disproportionately.

[4:05:30] Developers are building

[4:05:31] substandard cheaply constructed

[4:05:35] units often maximizing density

[4:05:35] on single lots straining

[4:05:36] infrastructure like public

[4:05:40] safety, parking, water and

[4:05:40] sewage.

[4:05:41] This unchecked intended

[4:05:45] development is not just

[4:05:45] changing the character of our

[4:05:46] neighborhoods it's creating

[4:05:46] housing that lacks basic

[4:05:49] dignity, cramped spaces, poor

[4:05:50] construction and inadequate

[4:05:54] infrastructure are not

[4:05:55] the building blocks of thriving

[4:05:56] communities Even worse.

[4:05:59] These quote affordable unquote

[4:06:00] bonus adu units are often

[4:06:00] affordable only in name.

[4:06:04] They're constantly adding new

[4:06:05] residents in low resource

[4:06:06] areas, perpetuating cycles of

[4:06:09] poverty and denying

[4:06:10] the opportunity for dignified

[4:06:10] living conditions.

[4:06:11] This concentration directly

[4:06:15] contradicts California's ffo

[4:06:15] mandate which requires us to

[4:06:16] actively dismantle patterns of

[4:06:19] segregation and promote

[4:06:20] equitable access to

[4:06:20] opportunity.

[4:06:24] Concentrated poverty leads to

[4:06:24] poor performing public schools,

[4:06:25] limited access to resources and

[4:06:29] increased crime.

[4:06:29] It creates communities that are

[4:06:30] isolated and lack

[4:06:31] the opportunity needed to

[4:06:31] thrive.

[4:06:34] Dignify right Housing is more

[4:06:35] than just shelter.

[4:06:35] It's a foundation for

[4:06:39] opportunity and a key element

[4:06:40] of filling our obligations.

[4:06:40] The fundamental flaw in

[4:06:44] the Planning Department

[4:06:44] approach has been the disregard

[4:06:45] of the public input.

[4:06:49] Fh Mandate and lack of land

[4:06:50] value capture When raising

[4:06:54] the value of land the bonus edu

[4:06:55] program without mechanisms to

[4:06:56] recoup the increased land

[4:06:56] value.

[4:06:59] As this slide illustrates, is

[4:07:00] driving up prices across San

[4:07:00] Diego.

[4:07:05] This creates a perverse

[4:07:05] incentive or the most

[4:07:06] affordable homes the very homes

[4:07:10] families rely on to build their

[4:07:10] futures are being snatched up

[4:07:14] by for profit investors under

[4:07:14] the bonus edu program.

[4:07:15] The planning department knew

[4:07:15] this would happen.

[4:07:19] This is their design.

[4:07:19] This is a significant

[4:07:20] contributing factor to

[4:07:24] the rising cost of

[4:07:24] homeownership in San Diego.

[4:07:28] The stark reality is this As of

[4:07:29] today there is only one

[4:07:29] thousand 145 single family

[4:07:33] homes listed for sale in San

[4:07:37] Diego on Zillow while

[4:07:37] additional 1666 single family

[4:07:38] homes are listed for rent.

[4:07:39] There are more single family

[4:07:42] homes for rent today than for

[4:07:43] sale.

[4:07:46] Alongside that there's an

[4:07:47] additional 8679 apartments for

[4:07:47] rent.

[4:07:52] This imbalance of ten rentals

[4:07:52] per one home ownership

[4:07:53] opportunity demonstrates that

[4:07:56] the bonus edu program as it

[4:07:57] currently operates is a major

[4:07:58] if not the single greatest

[4:08:01] pressure on increasing in

[4:08:02] single family home prices in

[4:08:03] San Diego today.

[4:08:06] By placing companies like sdr

[4:08:07] again on the screen in direct

[4:08:08] competition with individual

[4:08:11] families seeking to own a home,

[4:08:12] take out a mortgage we cannot

[4:08:16] simply build our way out of

[4:08:17] the housing crisis without

[4:08:17] considering the consequences.

[4:08:21] We need reasonable development

[4:08:22] that prioritizes quality over

[4:08:22] quantity ensuring that every

[4:08:26] San Diego and has access to

[4:08:27] dignified housing and that we

[4:08:27] are actively working to

[4:08:30] dismantle segregation as

[4:08:31] required by fha.

[4:08:31] We need to reform the Bonus to

[4:08:35] You program demanding higher

[4:08:36] standards for construction

[4:08:36] space and access to essential

[4:08:37] services.

[4:08:40] We need to invest in

[4:08:41] infrastructure and resources to

[4:08:42] support all communities

[4:08:44] ensuring equitable access to

[4:08:45] opportunity across our city.

[4:08:46] And we must ensure that

[4:08:50] the city's attorneys fha

[4:08:51] efforts are fully implemented,

[4:08:51] supported and expanded to all

[4:08:55] zoning in the city as we

[4:08:56] recognize that fha implications

[4:08:59] exist across all zoning

[4:09:00] categories.

[4:09:00] Today the city attorney has

[4:09:05] effectively stepped up in place

[4:09:05] of the planning department

[4:09:06] doing the director's job

[4:09:09] recommending to this council a

[4:09:10] plan that leverages the city

[4:09:14] chc and City's research based

[4:09:15] data driven map to incorporate

[4:09:19] efforts affo language into

[4:09:19] legal framework.

[4:09:20] Let's all advocate for

[4:09:21] responsible planning that truly

[4:09:23] benefits all San Diegans not

[4:09:24] just developers, investors and

[4:09:24] politicians.

[4:09:29] Actively promote fair housing

[4:09:29] as mandated by California law.

[4:09:30] Let's commit to building a city

[4:09:34] where everyone has

[4:09:34] the opportunity to live with

[4:09:35] dignity, thrive and to and has

[4:09:39] access for opportunity not just

[4:09:39] survive.

[4:09:49] Please repeal the program page

[4:09:50] .

[4:09:51] >> Well I think I had 20s left

[4:09:51] ten 20s left.

[4:09:53] You can proceed.

[4:09:54] Thank you guys And keep

[4:09:54] clapping.

[4:09:59] And notice that Sean Rivera has

[4:09:59] been absent for about half of

[4:10:00] the meeting.

[4:10:03] Won't make eye contact with me

[4:10:04] .

[4:10:05] I Vivian I see you there too.

[4:10:05] It's nice when the council

[4:10:08] participates in the public

[4:10:09] input.

[4:10:10] It takes a lot out of our time

[4:10:10] and effort to get here.

[4:10:11] All right.

[4:10:13] A lot of us have to leave work

[4:10:14] early, take days off.

[4:10:14] Right.

[4:10:15] And to be here and be

[4:10:18] disrespected in that regard.

[4:10:19] >> Just shows why we are where

[4:10:19] we are.

[4:10:23] Thanks.

[4:10:31] Sage Gonzalez Walden.

[4:10:31] Mandi Havoc.

[4:10:32] I can also ask Eric Becerra.

[4:10:36] Andrea Ebbing Susan Ward Lewis

[4:10:36] Stewart or Louise Stewart.

[4:10:41] Sharon Gill and Tiago Battista

[4:10:42] to please come up to the front

[4:10:45] row.

[4:10:45] Mandy.

[4:10:46] Oh you're.

[4:10:50] Sorry.

[4:10:51] You have people sitting in your

[4:10:51] time.

[4:10:52] Angela Better if you can please

[4:10:52] raise your hand.

[4:10:52] Thank you.

[4:10:55] Michael Gilliam.

[4:10:56] Yep.

[4:10:59] And Bob Daniel.

[4:10:59] Thank you.

[4:11:00] You'll have.

[4:11:05] Oh Oh and Angela better areas

[4:11:05] of the.

[4:11:05] All right.

[4:11:08] That's four minutes.

[4:11:09] Please proceed.

[4:11:09] Thank you.

[4:11:10] Good evening.

[4:11:10] Council PRESIDENT And council

[4:11:11] members.

[4:11:13] Thank you for your service.

[4:11:14] My name is Mandy Harb.

[4:11:15] Like I'm the first vice chair

[4:11:15] of the Peninsula Community

[4:11:18] planning Board.

[4:11:19] And I speak on behalf on behalf

[4:11:20] of our board and our community

[4:11:23] to express our strong

[4:11:24] opposition to the abuse of

[4:11:25] the adu bonus density program

[4:11:29] and to voice their support for

[4:11:30] the reform proposals as brought

[4:11:33] forward by the community

[4:11:34] Planners Committee cpc.

[4:11:35] First, we urge the Council to

[4:11:38] process the majority of

[4:11:39] the proposed adu and Bonus adu

[4:11:39] program revisions through a

[4:11:43] full code update and process to

[4:11:44] ensure meaningful public input.

[4:11:48] While we understand that some

[4:11:49] urgent changes MAY require a

[4:11:50] shorter timeline, most should

[4:11:53] not bypass proper community

[4:11:54] review.

[4:11:54] We report we support sunsetting

[4:12:00] the bonus edu program in our as

[4:12:02] one hour and one at our m two

[4:12:02] zones by the end of the current

[4:12:03] housing element cycle in 2029.

[4:12:07] This provides a reasonable time

[4:12:08] frame that protects the city's

[4:12:11] housing element Compliance

[4:12:12] while allowing a structured

[4:12:13] rollback of a harmful program

[4:12:13] that was implemented without

[4:12:16] adequate community engagement.

[4:12:17] >> We support prohibiting

[4:12:21] the short term vacation rentals

[4:12:22] on any parcel that was built a

[4:12:22] part of the bonus or state

[4:12:27] allowed edu and in the 92107

[4:12:30] zip code my neighborhood almost

[4:12:31] 10% of those units are for

[4:12:31] vacation rentals.

[4:12:32] Do we have an affordable

[4:12:36] housing crisis or do we not?

[4:12:37] >> These units should be part

[4:12:41] of the long term housing plan

[4:12:41] and not fueling the tourism

[4:12:42] market.

[4:12:45] So we also want to support

[4:12:46] restoring the setbacks and

[4:12:48] the height limits to the state

[4:12:49] Standard zero setbacks and

[4:12:50] backyard adu towers destroy

[4:12:54] the privacy and disrupt

[4:12:54] the character of established

[4:12:55] neighborhoods.

[4:12:55] Another thing is the urban

[4:12:59] forestry is in the setbacks and

[4:13:00] the backyards of our community.

[4:13:04] This will greatly impact

[4:13:04] the tree canopy of our

[4:13:05] community.

[4:13:05] >> We strongly oppose

[4:13:06] the city's proposal to allow

[4:13:10] joint ideas to be rented for

[4:13:10] less than 31 days.

[4:13:11] That undermines the very

[4:13:14] justification for the program

[4:13:15] Expanding Housing affordability

[4:13:20] California law does not prevent

[4:13:20] the city from requiring a 31

[4:13:24] day minimum rental return and

[4:13:24] the city should maintain that

[4:13:25] standard.

[4:13:29] >> We also oppose allowing

[4:13:29] the adu to exceed the floor

[4:13:30] area ratio limits up to 1200

[4:13:31] square feet.

[4:13:34] This undermines zoning

[4:13:35] integrity and contributes to

[4:13:35] overbuilding.

[4:13:39] We are especially concerned

[4:13:39] about how the sustainable

[4:13:40] development area is being

[4:13:40] defined.

[4:13:44] The current definition is based

[4:13:45] on a one mile future transit

[4:13:48] watershed much of which is

[4:13:49] unfunded.

[4:13:49] It's unfunded and it MAY never

[4:13:50] be built.

[4:13:54] We urge the City Council to

[4:13:58] revise the sga to a one half

[4:13:58] mile walking distance and to

[4:13:59] only include transit stops that

[4:14:03] are either currently in

[4:14:03] operation or fully funded for

[4:14:07] completion within five years.

[4:14:08] The Peninsula community we do

[4:14:12] support affordable housing but

[4:14:13] this program as it stands is

[4:14:13] overreaching and is harming our

[4:14:14] infrastructure.

[4:14:18] Our neighbors roads and our

[4:14:18] quality of life.

[4:14:19] We can see a stress on our our

[4:14:22] streets, our water mains, our

[4:14:23] sewer lines and our electrical

[4:14:24] systems that were never

[4:14:28] designed for this type of

[4:14:28] growth.

[4:14:29] We're putting our neighborhoods

[4:14:29] at real risk by pushing them

[4:14:32] beyond their capacity.

[4:14:33] >> We respectfully ask you just

[4:14:37] to listen to us.

[4:14:38] We're all here on our own time.

[4:14:38] We are frustrated by

[4:14:39] the current development

[4:14:42] strategy and we ask that you

[4:14:43] listen to your constituents and

[4:14:47] to adopt the cpc recommendation

[4:14:48] and protect our neighborhoods

[4:14:49] from overdevelopment and ensure

[4:14:51] that major changes go through a

[4:14:52] full public code update in

[4:14:52] the future.

[4:14:53] >> Thank you.

[4:14:55] Thank you.

[4:15:01] Next we have Erika Bezerra.

[4:15:02] Erick, you have people sitting

[4:15:02] in your time if they can please

[4:15:03] raise their hand.

[4:15:05] Catalina, etc..

[4:15:10] Zephaniah Brandon Kenya and

[4:15:10] Epiphany.

[4:15:11] Thank you.

[4:15:15] You'll have six minutes.

[4:15:16] Please proceed.

[4:15:17] I came oh one of my minutes is

[4:15:19] going to be in Spanish so can I

[4:15:20] translate for myself and get

[4:15:21] that additional minute?

[4:15:24] >> I'm going to translate for

[4:15:25] myself.

[4:15:25] >> If you can translate for

[4:15:29] yourself then it's not a

[4:15:30] translation.

[4:15:30] It's a translation.

[4:15:31] Can you translate for a minute

[4:15:33] for me please?

[4:15:34] >> We will start your timer

[4:15:39] please proceed.

[4:15:40] >> My name is Eric Sarah and

[4:15:41] I'm from district four.

[4:15:44] Now I came straight from work

[4:15:45] so I don't have my shirts but I

[4:15:45] do have my Superman cape,

[4:15:46] right?

[4:15:48] I want I want to thank our

[4:15:49] neighbors for a better San

[4:15:49] Diego.

[4:15:53] I feel very, very sorry that

[4:15:54] nobody listened to them for

[4:15:54] four years.

[4:15:58] I want to thank them for

[4:15:59] telling Encanto Thank you for

[4:16:03] us rising for for them to be

[4:16:03] heard for years.

[4:16:04] That is unacceptable, guys.

[4:16:08] Thank you, MR. Henry Foster.

[4:16:09] He made the motion right.

[4:16:10] Where were the other motions?

[4:16:12] Where were the other motions,

[4:16:12] guys?

[4:16:13] It was something that that

[4:16:14] should have been done a long

[4:16:17] time ago before MR. Foster did

[4:16:18] that motion And and there was a

[4:16:21] lot of pressure on Father's Day

[4:16:22] my wife and I walked

[4:16:23] the neighborhood once again.

[4:16:27] We are expanding from Encanto.

[4:16:28] We were in the Skyline area

[4:16:32] informing other people of of

[4:16:33] the 80 use that are coming.

[4:16:34] MR. Foster I know you're aware

[4:16:36] but there already building We

[4:16:37] took pictures and and people

[4:16:41] still don't know what's going

[4:16:42] on So this is just the tip of

[4:16:43] the iceberg of what's going to

[4:16:46] happen with the with

[4:16:46] the coalition with the San

[4:16:47] Diego Coalition of Voters.

[4:16:47] Right.

[4:16:48] When you look at the slips for

[4:16:52] and against, look who's going

[4:16:52] to vote for you Look look for

[4:16:53] who's going to vote for you.

[4:16:53] Right?

[4:16:58] So it's something that we feel

[4:16:58] like we have to do.

[4:16:59] Why do we have to do it?

[4:17:00] They wish for a better San

[4:17:02] Diego look at how much work

[4:17:03] they put into it And other

[4:17:03] neighbors like MS..

[4:17:05] Pam all the all the information

[4:17:06] that they give you guys you

[4:17:07] guys have staffers that are

[4:17:07] doing this information because

[4:17:11] we're finding all this

[4:17:11] information out.

[4:17:12] >> I've only known about this

[4:17:16] stuff since the month

[4:17:16] the beginning of the year

[4:17:17] thanks to my neighbor Tiago

[4:17:17] back here.

[4:17:20] So it is sad when we start

[4:17:21] digging and going Don't don't

[4:17:25] they know Don't you guys know

[4:17:26] the owner Council members know

[4:17:26] now you guys when you guys

[4:17:31] decided to run, what were you

[4:17:31] guys thinking?

[4:17:32] I'm going to run because I'm

[4:17:32] going to make San Diego better.

[4:17:34] I'm going to run because I'm

[4:17:35] going to listen to my voters.

[4:17:36] I'm going to run because I'm

[4:17:37] going to take care of my

[4:17:39] constituency.

[4:17:39] Right?

[4:17:40] I mean that's what I would

[4:17:41] assume, right?

[4:17:41] I mean I would you know,

[4:17:45] anybody running that's what I

[4:17:46] think probably goes to you guys

[4:17:46] is mine.

[4:17:47] I can make a change.

[4:17:50] But this is tarnishing Diego

[4:17:51] just like they should All

[4:17:51] the dots of all these new use

[4:17:55] It's like the plague, right?

[4:17:55] So we have to push back.

[4:17:56] We have to push back.

[4:17:57] We are the medicine.

[4:18:00] We are going to push back right

[4:18:00] ?

[4:18:01] So we are we are going to

[4:18:01] continue.

[4:18:02] I started going to Vivian

[4:18:05] Moreno's district and I'm going

[4:18:06] to start in that district.

[4:18:10] I remember dancing to Aztec

[4:18:11] dancing right there at Barrio

[4:18:15] Logan Right Chunky such as this

[4:18:15] house is still flooded.

[4:18:16] It's still got it.

[4:18:16] I spoke to the community

[4:18:19] planning there It is

[4:18:20] embarrassed.

[4:18:20] What's going on guys?

[4:18:21] Come on.

[4:18:21] Neighbors for a better San

[4:18:24] Diego has done all this

[4:18:25] homework.

[4:18:25] Are you guys listening Now

[4:18:26] the other thing I want to say

[4:18:30] congratulation to the planning

[4:18:30] department for being on plan.

[4:18:34] Congrats.

[4:18:34] Congratulations.

[4:18:35] I was during the planning

[4:18:39] department there argue you keep

[4:18:40] the planning department was

[4:18:40] arguing about the hype How

[4:18:43] about if the house is one story

[4:18:44] then be 80 use or one story in

[4:18:46] the houses two stories then

[4:18:47] maybe the 80 user two stories

[4:18:48] because they fit in

[4:18:48] the landscape right Trees

[4:18:51] everything that's going on

[4:18:51] guys.

[4:18:52] The planning department were

[4:18:56] arguing about the silliest

[4:18:56] things they were supposed to be

[4:19:02] our planning department.

[4:19:02] Well the things the plan I

[4:19:03] don't see things that look very

[4:19:06] planned at all And the lawsuits

[4:19:07] are probably going to start

[4:19:07] with the sewers problems going

[4:19:10] on.

[4:19:11] I mean this is just the tip of

[4:19:12] the iceberg of what's going to

[4:19:15] happen once some of these users

[4:19:16] are going to go for sale and

[4:19:17] the problems that are going to

[4:19:20] happen.

[4:19:21] When I was on the phone when

[4:19:22] you guys were talking about

[4:19:22] the cuts Right and talking

[4:19:25] about the police and they were

[4:19:26] arguing about oh, you know

[4:19:29] what, if you call police

[4:19:30] they'll be there in 50 minutes

[4:19:30] and then cancel.

[4:19:31] When my wife called for

[4:19:33] the police they put on hold and

[4:19:34] it was 45 minutes.

[4:19:37] So just imagine with all these

[4:19:38] 80 use the response time What's

[4:19:39] going to happen guys?

[4:19:42] What's going to happen now It

[4:19:43] is super sad.

[4:19:46] My wife is not here but she is

[4:19:47] lady Four words matter right?

[4:19:52] Words do matter And we are

[4:19:52] these are my kids right here

[4:19:53] And I commend them for even

[4:19:57] saying guys, it's Father's Day.

[4:19:58] We went out to eat.

[4:19:58] But you know what?

[4:19:59] Your mom and I have to go and

[4:20:02] knock on doors.

[4:20:02] They've gone to knock on doors

[4:20:03] with us.

[4:20:04] They've gone out there to knock

[4:20:06] on doors with us so they can

[4:20:07] know what it is to fight for

[4:20:07] your community.

[4:20:08] Right?

[4:20:11] So so I commend my kids I

[4:20:12] commend neighbors for a better

[4:20:13] San Diego Right.

[4:20:13] If you guys want to know what

[4:20:18] political suicide just look at

[4:20:18] the mayor's website.

[4:20:21] Look who's supporting him.

[4:20:22] Right?

[4:20:22] Look, I support him.

[4:20:23] It is devastating.

[4:20:27] You know, I wish I could I

[4:20:27] could I could have had a great

[4:20:28] Father's Day with my family but

[4:20:31] no, we're knocking on doors.

[4:20:32] Let me know when my minute is

[4:20:32] for Spanish.

[4:20:36] So you're going to have four

[4:20:36] seconds.

[4:20:37] >> You get one minute for

[4:20:37] Spanish and one in English and

[4:20:43] I'll translate to empathize to

[4:20:44] get ask.

[4:20:44] >> Yes.

[4:20:45] You know these are immigrants.

[4:20:48] This is this is for you see

[4:20:49] they have a lot of an Francisco

[4:20:50] That's what I requirement But

[4:20:54] Viviana moreno this is for you

[4:20:55] please start I was very

[4:20:56] disappointed in the way you

[4:21:01] voted or you want me to trim.

[4:21:05] >> I could do it to Estavam We

[4:21:06] listen to another the Como

[4:21:10] voters This is very

[4:21:11] disappointed in how you voted.

[4:21:12] >> Oh I thought I You speak

[4:21:15] Spanish I translate to English.

[4:21:15] Okay.

[4:21:19] Because if you're going to talk

[4:21:20] to her in English she knows

[4:21:20] English.

[4:21:21] >> I don't need to translate it

[4:21:21] to her in Spanish.

[4:21:24] Well, sometimes I don't think

[4:21:25] she could tell.

[4:21:25] >> I'm sorry.

[4:21:26] Here goes.

[4:21:29] I apologize.

[4:21:30] I apologize.

[4:21:31] I'm going to do Spanish And you

[4:21:35] do English.

[4:21:35] >> Please proceed.

[4:21:36] Okay.

[4:21:39] Do do MRS. La Unica care.

[4:21:39] What's this?

[4:21:40] You were the only one that

[4:21:45] voted in Obviously is not

[4:21:45] normal or not anything wrong

[4:21:50] Call those use with the 80 you

[4:21:50] do The cases can also trust

[4:21:52] behemoth Las Casas Viviendo

[4:21:53] vendors You said that

[4:21:54] the houses weren't homes or

[4:21:58] weren't livable Safe way to

[4:21:59] escape but not and there is a

[4:22:03] response I believe that they

[4:22:04] would come over to us That was

[4:22:05] your escape in order to not

[4:22:10] have a reason for how you

[4:22:10] voted.

[4:22:11] >> See two of us own over

[4:22:13] quarter near the prison Your

[4:22:14] skinny He's this good

[4:22:14] The recall, huh?

[4:22:15] >> If you call for an Uber for

[4:22:17] your daughter of three years

[4:22:18] old to pick you up you're going

[4:22:22] to rock on consumers Una siento

[4:22:23] And it comes with a car with

[4:22:28] only one seat it to these this

[4:22:29] pair opened with opener me in i

[4:22:30] stick roll but I can't put my

[4:22:34] daughter in this car working on

[4:22:35] espacio and my own local

[4:22:37] presence so as you enter ninos

[4:22:38] because there is room for a car

[4:22:38] seat El manager Autoris\ and

[4:22:41] the driver says Bibiana Moreno

[4:22:42] says transportation is

[4:22:47] transportation Maybe Viviane

[4:22:47] Moreno says transportation is

[4:22:51] transportation Get three person

[4:22:52] Beatriz There's a sadness

[4:22:54] Michael Or the people My color

[4:22:55] of my skin is called Moreno is

[4:23:00] called Moreno And your last

[4:23:00] name is Moreno and your last

[4:23:05] name is Moreno.

[4:23:06] >> You're speaking in English.

[4:23:07] You MAY not be aware.

[4:23:08] Yes or MADAM Whichever one side

[4:23:09] And that that makes me

[4:23:09] embarrassed.

[4:23:13] Where when Sun embers or Hello

[4:23:18] Ocala voters different e

[4:23:19] commerce Commerce town

[4:23:22] Hopefully you change your vote

[4:23:23] and you change how you're

[4:23:25] voting That concludes your time

[4:23:25] .

[4:23:31] I'm now going to educate I

[4:23:32] appreciate that he apologize.

[4:23:32] Let's stay classy.

[4:23:35] Keep your eye on the ball and

[4:23:36] the goal you're trying to

[4:23:37] achieve here You much be much

[4:23:40] better off Andrea ebbing if you

[4:23:41] can please come forward after

[4:23:45] that is Susan Ward Luis Luis

[4:23:46] Stuart Sharon Gil Thiago

[4:23:50] Battista Josh and Collins,

[4:23:55] Martha Abraham, Rami Cortez and

[4:23:55] Lauren Bamber.

[4:23:56] If you can all please start

[4:23:57] coming up to the first row.

[4:23:58] Andrea you'll have one minute.

[4:23:59] Please proceed.

[4:23:59] Thank you.

[4:24:00] My name is Andrea Ebbing and I

[4:24:03] just wanted to stress

[4:24:04] the importance of listening to

[4:24:08] this group of people the really

[4:24:09] impassioned and the well

[4:24:13] explain that as a cautionary

[4:24:14] tale of corruption and

[4:24:14] kickbacks from the county of

[4:24:17] San Diego.

[4:24:18] So when these strange things

[4:24:19] happen in the county and in

[4:24:22] the city and they're in

[4:24:23] explicable and we don't

[4:24:24] understand why for example

[4:24:24] the homeless crisis that we

[4:24:27] have the addiction crisis we

[4:24:28] have the opioid crisis we have

[4:24:29] these are usually permitted by

[4:24:32] extreme kickbacks.

[4:24:33] So I would just caution

[4:24:37] everybody to really make

[4:24:37] the appropriate vote here

[4:24:41] because I had reported the same

[4:24:42] group of people that were

[4:24:43] driving the opioid crisis

[4:24:43] homeless crisis addiction

[4:24:47] crisis importing people from

[4:24:47] Oklahoma to California for

[4:24:51] treatment And nobody listened

[4:24:52] to me for four years.

[4:24:52] But you know who was really

[4:24:53] happy to hear from me?

[4:24:55] Blue Cross Blue Shield who now

[4:24:56] knows that the county of San

[4:24:57] Diego ignored every single one

[4:24:58] of my reports and that will

[4:25:02] happen with these people here

[4:25:09] next is Susan Ward.

[4:25:10] Susan Ward it's people sitting

[4:25:10] your time if they can please

[4:25:11] raise their hand.

[4:25:12] Nate Faries, Rosie Shands,

[4:25:17] Karen Gun Cicero, Jesse

[4:25:21] Gallegos, Maria Landis, Juan

[4:25:22] Carlos Flores.

[4:25:27] Kim Sharpe I think.

[4:25:28] Thank you Laurie Frieda Joan

[4:25:36] Dowd and Michael Jackson.

[4:25:36] >> Michael Jackson had to

[4:25:37] leave.

[4:25:37] Okay.

[4:25:40] You'll have nine minutes.

[4:25:40] >> Excuse me.

[4:25:46] Can we just have a minute to

[4:25:46] set up some large boards?

[4:25:47] >> I'm going to just go move on

[4:25:49] to the next speaker to give you

[4:25:50] some time to set up and then

[4:25:50] we'll go forward with you.

[4:25:55] >> Luis Stuart or Luis Stuart l

[4:26:03] o u I s Stuart No sharing Go

[4:26:08] after Sharon will be Diego You

[4:26:09] can come to the if you can just

[4:26:10] make room for her to get to

[4:26:10] the speaker.

[4:26:10] Thank you.

[4:26:11] I'll have a minute please

[4:26:20] proceed.

[4:26:21] >> Despite what some people MAY

[4:26:24] think the majority of voters

[4:26:25] want more housing in the last

[4:26:29] election the pro housing

[4:26:30] candidates were elected.

[4:26:30] The candidates many of

[4:26:35] the people in this room were

[4:26:35] supported, laughed And despite

[4:26:40] what some people might say, we

[4:26:40] should not blame developers for

[4:26:41] building housing.

[4:26:44] No one would build anything if

[4:26:48] there weren't customers who

[4:26:48] wanted to rent those houses.

[4:26:53] Yes, brand new housing is

[4:26:54] always more expensive than old

[4:26:58] but there are still people who

[4:26:58] want to rent them because

[4:26:59] people need housing In San

[4:27:03] Diego This is about the nurses,

[4:27:08] teachers and secretaries and

[4:27:09] others who are struggling to

[4:27:09] live in San Diego.

[4:27:13] Those are the people who rent

[4:27:13] these units.

[4:27:14] I urge you to support

[4:27:17] the people who elected you and

[4:27:18] want housing.

[4:27:23] I urge you to support

[4:27:23] the people in San Diego who are

[4:27:24] struggling to live here.

[4:27:24] Thank you.

[4:27:28] Thank you.

[4:27:29] Next is Tiago and you have time

[4:27:32] to buy Rebecca about Theaster

[4:27:37] Thank you And Susan Drury Susan

[4:27:38] d are you are way No no not

[4:27:47] sitting or not here Oh you're

[4:27:48] sitting at the back of what you

[4:27:49] say So Tiago Oh Tiago you have

[4:27:52] time ceded to you by back

[4:27:53] artist and Susan Drury seated

[4:27:54] her time to think about these

[4:27:54] two.

[4:27:56] So are you ceding it?

[4:27:57] Yeah I know So I'm trying to

[4:27:58] get Susan since she's not

[4:28:01] speaking are you ceding it to

[4:28:01] Tiago?

[4:28:01] Okay.

[4:28:02] Thank you.

[4:28:05] You'll have three minutes.

[4:28:05] >> Please proceed.

[4:28:06] Thank you so much for listening

[4:28:06] to me.

[4:28:10] Each of us.

[4:28:10] I'm here to speak on behalf of

[4:28:15] these amazing people that I

[4:28:15] consider to be part of my

[4:28:16] family.

[4:28:20] We've been long ways here since

[4:28:24] JANUARY and the team from

[4:28:24] the better San Diego has been

[4:28:28] fighting for these for about

[4:28:28] four years.

[4:28:29] But when it's your show, share

[4:28:30] a little bit about my story but

[4:28:33] it's not about me.

[4:28:34] This is about everyone here And

[4:28:37] I bet that each one of you guys

[4:28:42] can relate to this.

[4:28:43] But I migrated to United States

[4:28:46] 22 years ago with 300 bucks in

[4:28:51] my pocket left behind a third

[4:28:53] world country that I love I

[4:28:59] adore so much always being

[4:28:59] super vocal about how Unites

[4:29:04] States California and specific

[4:29:09] is a place of things that you

[4:29:10] guys do things well planned

[4:29:14] fairly.

[4:29:19] That's why United States and

[4:29:20] California is consider first

[4:29:23] our first world country.

[4:29:24] I worked very hard three jobs

[4:29:29] No we stop working here while I

[4:29:29] am listening to each of these

[4:29:33] amazing people sharing these

[4:29:38] stories and their numbers here

[4:29:39] did all my homework before I

[4:29:39] bought a property in Canton

[4:29:44] which I love my community I is

[4:29:44] 30.

[4:29:49] What could be build what I

[4:29:49] could not what my neighbor next

[4:29:53] door could do so or not had two

[4:29:54] beautiful kids with my

[4:29:58] beautiful wife Rebecca and

[4:29:59] finally we thought we were

[4:30:00] getting somewhere We're doing

[4:30:04] we're crushing, We're getting

[4:30:04] there almost achieving

[4:30:05] the American dream.

[4:30:11] Guess what Just joking.

[4:30:11] >> Then the first step came.

[4:30:15] We found out an apartment

[4:30:16] complex JANUARY 4th right next

[4:30:19] to my door 43 units

[4:30:24] unreasonable Second step We

[4:30:25] learned that everything was

[4:30:29] fast closed doors during covid

[4:30:33] during the pandemic We had no

[4:30:34] choice no no way to fight for

[4:30:39] it to speak about it or

[4:30:39] anything like that.

[4:30:44] >> Bono's radio sdk equals

[4:30:44] third world country.

[4:30:49] Are you guys ready to take

[4:30:50] the city This country?

[4:30:53] Darrell Vivian Moreno I know

[4:30:58] you very well Spoken about this

[4:30:59] and that this is true.

[4:31:03] You also a lot of people damage

[4:31:04] jumping on these phone calls

[4:31:04] here that they're not here They

[4:31:09] are against us.

[4:31:10] >> They are all you to thank

[4:31:11] you for that concluding

[4:31:11] comment.

[4:31:14] Gotcha YouTube I'll go back and

[4:31:15] search Bono's word Bono's San

[4:31:18] Diego Bono's in San Diego.

[4:31:23] >> You'll have nine minutes.

[4:31:23] >> Hi, my name is Susan Ward.

[4:31:28] This is going to be a little

[4:31:28] different presentation just a

[4:31:29] little more personal.

[4:31:33] So I've been a resident here

[4:31:34] for nine years and Linda Vista

[4:31:37] I love Linda Vista.

[4:31:38] It has a very what would you

[4:31:42] call um kind of one of those

[4:31:43] looks that's relaxed in my

[4:31:47] opinion which I prefer.

[4:31:48] So that's why I chose to move

[4:31:52] to Linda Vista plus take a lot

[4:31:53] to Canyon.

[4:31:53] It's beautiful.

[4:31:57] I love the people.

[4:31:57] I love the diversity.

[4:31:58] I love that there's a mixture

[4:32:02] of people Asian, Hispanic,

[4:32:07] black, white and others.

[4:32:08] So I love it.

[4:32:11] A lot of people don't know how

[4:32:12] wonderful Linda Vista is and a

[4:32:13] lot of people thought these old

[4:32:16] homes that you're going to see

[4:32:19] that are happened to be 750ft

[4:32:20] which is interesting.

[4:32:25] >> These houses were created to

[4:32:26] house the people that made

[4:32:30] the planes for World War Two.

[4:32:31] So that being said, there

[4:32:35] should be some kind of respect

[4:32:36] to me for these historical

[4:32:39] homes, this historical

[4:32:39] community.

[4:32:40] Not only that Eleanor Roosevelt

[4:32:44] she actually put a shovel to

[4:32:45] the ground.

[4:32:48] >> There was a mall one of

[4:32:49] the first malls was created in

[4:32:53] Linda Vista and it was Eleanor

[4:32:54] Roosevelt that put that shovel

[4:32:54] to the ground Historical

[4:32:57] community.

[4:32:58] So we're going to look into

[4:32:59] this and see if we can

[4:33:02] designate it a historical

[4:33:03] community.

[4:33:03] >> That being said, I just want

[4:33:08] to start with let's see we're

[4:33:09] going to go ahead and get into

[4:33:12] the houses in Linda Vista.

[4:33:22] So there's a home And when you

[4:33:22] see this home this is one of

[4:33:23] those houses we were talking

[4:33:27] about And it reminds me you've

[4:33:28] heard this before some of you

[4:33:29] of sand lot I just thought

[4:33:32] super cute house I'd love to

[4:33:33] live here or here in this

[4:33:41] location And so yes thank you.

[4:33:47] And then what you will see in

[4:33:48] the backyard when you go to

[4:33:56] the backyard is this that's

[4:33:56] what you used to see.

[4:33:57] Now you're going to see

[4:34:00] something different And you

[4:34:11] that this is what you see there

[4:34:14] now And it's 18 units in this

[4:34:15] cute little house backyard That

[4:34:20] is unacceptable.

[4:34:21] Well, I actually had somebody

[4:34:25] come in to the back and they

[4:34:25] said I saw photograph.

[4:34:30] But when I stood in that space

[4:34:30] I couldn't believe it.

[4:34:34] It's totally different from

[4:34:34] the photograph.

[4:34:35] It almost I swear you're going

[4:34:39] to cry And that's why we wanted

[4:34:40] MR. Camper.

[4:34:41] We wanted you to come And that

[4:34:44] was the reason Miles came.

[4:34:45] And I'm just curious.

[4:34:46] I was wondering what he told

[4:34:48] you And I don't know if you can

[4:34:49] answer back or not, but okay.

[4:34:54] But yes, we would love to hear

[4:34:55] Miles at some point tell us

[4:34:55] what his experience was and

[4:34:59] share that with all of you so

[4:35:00] that you have an understanding

[4:35:04] of how this hurts people.

[4:35:05] >> That home is is totally

[4:35:09] changed The rest of their life.

[4:35:10] They're going to live at this

[4:35:13] home that was arranged if you

[4:35:14] look at what they did in

[4:35:14] the backyard, they have a they

[4:35:18] have this little hammock.

[4:35:19] They have a fire pit.

[4:35:23] They even have what is it

[4:35:24] the tree house.

[4:35:24] A tree house.

[4:35:28] Super cute for this to happen

[4:35:29] is just so sad.

[4:35:30] So that being said I would like

[4:35:34] the owner to come up and speak

[4:35:34] on his behalf about this

[4:35:36] situation.

[4:35:41] Thank you, Jessie.

[4:35:42] Hello.

[4:35:46] My name is Juan Carlos Flores.

[4:35:47] As she mentioned, this is my

[4:35:51] home and I still struggle to

[4:35:55] see how this massive three

[4:35:55] story 18 unit apartment complex

[4:36:00] is called or qualifies as an

[4:36:00] adu.

[4:36:01] It's five feet from my property

[4:36:04] line.

[4:36:05] It's got 18 windows looking

[4:36:05] into my backyard.

[4:36:10] My privacy you know my family

[4:36:14] has lost all privacy is causing

[4:36:15] severe stress over the cost to

[4:36:16] regain our privacy And I don't

[4:36:21] even know if it's possible

[4:36:22] Besides all the concerns being

[4:36:23] brought up by the community,

[4:36:27] there is also an emotional and

[4:36:28] social impact to families that

[4:36:32] to be considered.

[4:36:33] When my wife and I bought our

[4:36:34] home in in the Vista 22 years

[4:36:37] ago we chose it because it was

[4:36:38] in a quiet street, a one way

[4:36:39] street on the Takealot Canyon

[4:36:42] Rim.

[4:36:42] Our peaceful street of 21

[4:36:43] single family homes will soon

[4:36:47] be crowded with 62 homes with

[4:36:52] nothing preventing further over

[4:36:53] a developing right.

[4:36:54] Relocating is not an option My

[4:36:58] family has built a community

[4:36:58] here.

[4:36:59] My 12 year old son attends

[4:37:02] school nearby moving would

[4:37:03] disrupt their life and our

[4:37:06] financial goals.

[4:37:07] Miles from computers as soon as

[4:37:08] he mentioned came out to see

[4:37:12] this Right.

[4:37:12] And he came out to see

[4:37:13] the neighborhood and saw

[4:37:14] firsthand the damage that's

[4:37:17] being done to our communities.

[4:37:18] I hope MR. Compiler that those

[4:37:22] concerns got back to you And I

[4:37:23] do want to extend an offer to

[4:37:26] all of you to come to my house

[4:37:27] and see the damage that

[4:37:31] unchecked development is doing

[4:37:32] to our communities.

[4:37:36] It's open invitation and I will

[4:37:36] email all of you guys

[4:37:37] the address and you're welcome

[4:37:41] to come and see because

[4:37:41] the pictures as they said they

[4:37:46] don't do justice When you stand

[4:37:47] there a lot of people mention I

[4:37:51] would cry and my family has

[4:37:52] cried because it's impacting.

[4:37:54] So please consider what you're

[4:38:09] doing to our community.

[4:38:10] Does that conclude your

[4:38:10] comments?

[4:38:14] Do I still have some time?

[4:38:15] Two minutes and 11 seconds.

[4:38:19] The timer is right there.

[4:38:24] We can turn that with you.

[4:38:24] >> Okay.

[4:38:25] Okay.

[4:38:25] We're going to talk a little

[4:38:29] bit about fire and why we're

[4:38:29] concerned about that situation.

[4:38:34] Not only that situation.

[4:38:39] We have cars lined street and

[4:38:43] it's narrow 1952 roads We have

[4:38:43] a canyon.

[4:38:44] This is a gentleman that is

[4:38:45] homeless.

[4:38:48] He's been in this site about

[4:38:48] five times.

[4:38:49] We've had him to leave.

[4:38:53] He's come back.

[4:38:54] We're worried about what

[4:38:57] happened with Fryer's fires So

[4:38:58] you can see the property is up

[4:38:58] there at the top.

[4:39:02] >> We're also concerned about

[4:39:03] those people in that on that

[4:39:03] property.

[4:39:08] How are the ambulances going to

[4:39:08] get in If there's a fire in

[4:39:09] particular to canyon?

[4:39:10] You can see how close that is

[4:39:12] to the canyon.

[4:39:13] >> How are we getting out?

[4:39:16] If you notice two hundred and

[4:39:17] 20 mobile homes that are

[4:39:18] surrounded by a lot of canyon.

[4:39:21] They only have one way in and

[4:39:22] one way out into our little

[4:39:22] community.

[4:39:25] If you notice 91 Casa Bella

[4:39:26] townhomes surrounded by tequila

[4:39:30] today only have one way and one

[4:39:31] way out and they're going to

[4:39:32] feed into our little tiny

[4:39:35] neighborhood That's a thousand

[4:39:36] cars bottlenecking at hostler

[4:39:40] to get out to Comstock and on

[4:39:41] hostler there's a new to you

[4:39:44] happening on hostler and it's

[4:39:45] already crowded So we've got a

[4:39:50] safety issue here.

[4:39:51] We keep saying we've got a

[4:39:52] safety issue That means stop

[4:39:54] the ados Now we have done more

[4:39:55] than enough.

[4:39:56] There's no way we should

[4:39:59] continue with this.

[4:40:00] You're adding to the safety

[4:40:04] issue.

[4:40:05] >> Here's our dream home.

[4:40:06] We probably don't have time.

[4:40:08] How much can we get?

[4:40:09] 15 seconds.

[4:40:09] Okay, let's go ahead.

[4:40:13] These are homes that people

[4:40:14] other homes that are within

[4:40:15] their backyard.

[4:40:15] There's about four other ones.

[4:40:18] Laurie, you want to come up and

[4:40:19] say something real quick or

[4:40:23] something like Lori's home is

[4:40:23] here.

[4:40:28] >> That's okay.

[4:40:29] Thank you for that concluding

[4:40:29] comment.

[4:40:32] We only have six speakers left

[4:40:32] in chambers and we'll go to

[4:40:33] those participating remotely

[4:40:37] Josh and Collins if you can

[4:40:38] please come up Collins, Josh

[4:40:41] and Collins after that Martha

[4:40:46] Abraham Ramy or Remy Cortez,

[4:40:47] Lorena Bembry and Ramsay's

[4:40:52] Laura MISS Fantastic I have a

[4:40:53] minute that was donated to me.

[4:40:56] You are Martha Yeah.

[4:40:57] Okay.

[4:40:57] Just leave it right there in

[4:40:58] the clear box.

[4:40:59] Someone will come up and get it

[4:40:59] .

[4:41:00] >> Anything to get the name off

[4:41:04] of it.

[4:41:05] Can you raise your hand if you

[4:41:08] seated your time?

[4:41:09] Susan Baldwin Susan Baldwin are

[4:41:13] you here?

[4:41:14] Oh, thank you so much.

[4:41:15] You'll have two minutes.

[4:41:15] Please proceed.

[4:41:16] Thank you.

[4:41:18] My name is Martha Abraham.

[4:41:19] I'm from district four Speaking

[4:41:22] on the record I would like to

[4:41:23] start by asking you all a

[4:41:24] question How many of you have

[4:41:26] been born?

[4:41:31] >> Just raise your hand.

[4:41:34] That's hard to believe when

[4:41:35] there's over a thousand

[4:41:36] comments saying that they don't

[4:41:36] want something and you all vote

[4:41:40] against it.

[4:41:40] Let's not dance around

[4:41:41] the truth because when it comes

[4:41:44] to the bonus radio program in

[4:41:45] San Diego it's clear somebody

[4:41:49] is getting rich and it's not

[4:41:50] us.

[4:41:50] When I think about the bonus

[4:41:54] Edu program I always see

[4:41:55] the monopoly men similar to

[4:41:56] the men sitting in that

[4:41:58] boardroom back there men

[4:41:59] dressed in business suits

[4:42:04] running away with bags of money

[4:42:08] grinning as a chick as they're

[4:42:09] cashing in on a system rigged

[4:42:10] in their favor.

[4:42:13] That's what this is a game

[4:42:14] where developers win big and

[4:42:18] our communities pay the price.

[4:42:18] They see some bonus aid

[4:42:19] developers developments are

[4:42:23] outliers but if that was true,

[4:42:24] why do they keep showing up in

[4:42:28] under-resourced neighborhoods

[4:42:29] Wire our communities in ones

[4:42:33] already struggling with

[4:42:33] infrastructure strain and

[4:42:34] historical disinvestment

[4:42:38] the ones absorbing the brunt of

[4:42:39] the so called housing solution?

[4:42:43] >> They say some developers are

[4:42:44] taking advantage of the program

[4:42:44] But that's But let's be honest

[4:42:47] Do you really believe people

[4:42:48] saying that aren't in bed with

[4:42:49] the same developers cashing in?

[4:42:52] This isn't a loophole being

[4:42:52] exploited.

[4:42:53] It's a pipeline engineered with

[4:42:57] intent backed by insiders and

[4:42:58] paved with taxpayer subsidies

[4:43:02] And who pays the price?

[4:43:03] We do.

[4:43:03] Communities are being left to

[4:43:06] deal with overcrowded streets,

[4:43:07] dwindling resources and

[4:43:11] unaffordable rents while

[4:43:12] developers walk away with 200

[4:43:13] to 400 a return on investment.

[4:43:16] We're left with

[4:43:17] the catastrophic repercussions.

[4:43:17] >> Thank you.

[4:43:20] Thank you.

[4:43:30] >> Rami Cortez Good evening.

[4:43:30] Council PRESIDENT Lacob and

[4:43:35] Council members.

[4:43:36] My name is Rami Cortez and I

[4:43:37] was born and raised in San

[4:43:37] Diego.

[4:43:40] We find ourselves not only in a

[4:43:40] housing crisis but a

[4:43:41] humanitarian crisis as

[4:43:42] the number of our unhoused

[4:43:45] neighbors continues to rise due

[4:43:46] to our inability to provide

[4:43:50] housing supply at all income

[4:43:50] levels.

[4:43:51] In our last housing cycle there

[4:43:54] were only 37 moderate homes

[4:43:54] built.

[4:43:58] Of the 15,462 targeted.

[4:43:59] This is less than one quarter

[4:44:02] of 1% of the Rina goal In just

[4:44:02] a few years the number of deed

[4:44:03] restricted moderate income

[4:44:07] homes has increased by 1,000%

[4:44:11] as a result of the adu bonus

[4:44:12] program.

[4:44:12] The program is working so well

[4:44:13] it's supported by a diverse

[4:44:16] coalition of transit market

[4:44:17] rate, affordable housing

[4:44:17] business and environmental

[4:44:18] advocate groups whose

[4:44:22] membership makes up thousands

[4:44:22] of San Diegans supporting

[4:44:23] the 80 bonus program amendments

[4:44:27] which enhance safety and remove

[4:44:27] outlier projects support middle

[4:44:31] income housing where we need it

[4:44:31] most along transit corridors

[4:44:32] and job centers.

[4:44:32] >> Thank you.

[4:44:33] Thank you.

[4:44:40] Lorena Bambury You were seated

[4:44:40] on time by Keenan Bambury

[4:44:41] Please raise your hand.

[4:44:42] You'll have two minutes.

[4:44:43] Please proceed.

[4:44:43] >> Good evening.

[4:44:44] Today we're here so that

[4:44:45] the City Council can vote on

[4:44:48] whether or not to accept

[4:44:49] the amendments proposed

[4:44:49] regardless of how it's voted

[4:44:53] today it's not enough.

[4:44:54] Following the vote, the city

[4:44:54] needs to do a moratorium on

[4:44:59] the buildings and permits that

[4:45:00] fall under the bonus 80 You and

[4:45:02] the sga.

[4:45:03] The Council has that authority

[4:45:04] evidenced by the moratoriums

[4:45:04] that were implemented during

[4:45:08] covid and in the 1970s the City

[4:45:08] Council did the same thing when

[4:45:12] there was a huge development

[4:45:13] without infrastructure taken

[4:45:13] into consideration following

[4:45:18] said moratorium the city should

[4:45:18] repeal the bonus edu and sga

[4:45:21] state laws are sufficient

[4:45:22] enough to accomplish what

[4:45:23] the city is seeking which is

[4:45:23] more housing.

[4:45:27] The moratorium would also help

[4:45:27] the City Council current issue

[4:45:28] that they are facing with

[4:45:32] the state which is if you vote

[4:45:33] in favor of the amendments you

[4:45:37] might be violating state laws.

[4:45:38] If you don't, who knows what

[4:45:42] that letter As a real estate

[4:45:42] attorney the bonus edu and aca

[4:45:46] were poorly written and

[4:45:47] actually violate other city

[4:45:47] municipal codes.

[4:45:48] Fire codes among others

[4:45:52] contradict three laws lead to a

[4:45:53] floodgate of litigation and

[4:45:54] the city paying out millions of

[4:45:56] settlements for negligence

[4:45:57] claims that are inevitable

[4:45:57] given the fire, emergency and

[4:46:02] safety concerns that your

[4:46:02] constituents have repeatedly

[4:46:03] reeser.

[4:46:03] And who's going to pay for

[4:46:04] those claims?

[4:46:09] The citizens not the developers

[4:46:09] Further stating that

[4:46:10] the removal of the bonus

[4:46:10] program would prevent low

[4:46:15] income people from living in

[4:46:15] the wealthiest neighborhoods is

[4:46:16] not a good faith argument.

[4:46:17] The 80 used in those areas are

[4:46:19] not actually going to low

[4:46:20] income people.

[4:46:20] So in summary vote for

[4:46:21] the amendments however you

[4:46:24] choose But the main thing is do

[4:46:25] a moratorium then repeal

[4:46:26] the laws.

[4:46:30] >> Thank you.

[4:46:36] Ramsay's Laura.

[4:46:36] All right.

[4:46:37] Are ready to go.

[4:46:37] Hmm.

[4:46:41] I believe that aliens do in

[4:46:42] fact have a future in

[4:46:42] the development of low income

[4:46:43] housing in San Diego.

[4:46:46] However, we all know that there

[4:46:47] are Band-Aid fixes to

[4:46:48] the systemic issue of predatory

[4:46:51] landlords and excessive rental

[4:46:51] prices.

[4:46:52] Yes, we have a supply supply

[4:46:55] shortage but there is no way

[4:46:55] that within the next five and

[4:46:56] ten years that we're going to

[4:46:57] be able to out build that

[4:47:00] housing shortage.

[4:47:01] Additional housing has no

[4:47:05] utilitarian benefit.

[4:47:06] If low income renters and

[4:47:06] families can't even afford to

[4:47:10] live in a shack in someone's

[4:47:11] backyard, what we need to be

[4:47:12] doing is taking power away from

[4:47:12] the landlords who own the city

[4:47:16] and redistribute it back to low

[4:47:16] income families.

[4:47:17] If we can now implement

[4:47:17] traditional rent control to

[4:47:20] keep these landlords in check

[4:47:21] then at the very least we need

[4:47:21] to increase landlord income

[4:47:24] taxes on properties that are

[4:47:25] going to be high luxury tax or

[4:47:30] high rent luxury properties and

[4:47:34] increase in taxes to this

[4:47:35] economic class would encourage

[4:47:38] lowering of rental prices.

[4:47:39] >> If and only if this Council

[4:47:43] is willing to enforce that.

[4:47:44] Thank you for that concluding

[4:47:44] comment.

[4:47:48] Sage Gonzalez Spalding.

[4:47:49] And then Julie Garson if you

[4:47:50] can please come up to

[4:47:52] the yellow reserved seats.

[4:47:53] Please proceed.

[4:47:53] Hi.

[4:47:54] Thank you, Counsel.

[4:47:58] I just wanted to say thank you

[4:48:03] because without this program

[4:48:03] that you all have implemented I

[4:48:04] wouldn't have gotten to know

[4:48:10] all of my neighbors and all of

[4:48:11] these people who have stood up

[4:48:14] with me and me with them to to

[4:48:15] fight against this thing.

[4:48:19] I really hope that you

[4:48:20] implement the community

[4:48:24] planning groups again because I

[4:48:25] think that as a city we are so

[4:48:28] large and so big that you

[4:48:29] really need the communities to

[4:48:39] be consistently together and

[4:48:39] working to help all the things

[4:48:40] And the unhoused for example,

[4:48:44] you know we in Encanto we have

[4:48:44] a lot of space.

[4:48:45] Maybe we maybe we do something

[4:48:48] interesting, right, to help

[4:48:49] those people be able to live in

[4:48:53] our communities anyway.

[4:49:00] >> Julie Hello.

[4:49:01] >> Please don't destroy San

[4:49:05] Diego forever with this bad

[4:49:05] experiment.

[4:49:06] I urge you to vote no on

[4:49:10] the bonus Adu program Max it

[4:49:11] out at four four foot setback

[4:49:15] one parking for Adu.

[4:49:16] We need height limits.

[4:49:16] But please, please.

[4:49:17] San Diego is a beautiful place.

[4:49:20] If you vote on this it will

[4:49:21] destroy San Diego forever.

[4:49:22] We'll never be able to take it

[4:49:22] back.

[4:49:28] Thank you for that concludes

[4:49:29] public comment here in council

[4:49:30] chambers I'm now going to

[4:49:33] the remote participation.

[4:49:34] We currently have 1819 speakers

[4:49:38] with their hands raised.

[4:49:39] Starting with Ryan o'Connell

[4:49:42] you will have one minute.

[4:49:42] >> Please proceed.

[4:49:47] My name is Ryan o'Connell and

[4:49:47] I'm calling in support of

[4:49:48] the 15 proposed amendments to

[4:49:51] implement state law especially

[4:49:52] allowing aids to be sold to

[4:49:53] starter homes in opposition

[4:49:55] Under the amendments 14 through

[4:49:55] 22 and 24.

[4:49:56] And I agree with everybody is

[4:49:57] urge you to represent

[4:50:01] the people who live in these

[4:50:01] neighborhoods above special

[4:50:02] interest like people like me.

[4:50:04] How do you.

[4:50:05] And to that end, when you build

[4:50:06] 17 units on a cul de sac,

[4:50:10] the majority of the residents

[4:50:11] of that cul de sac now live in

[4:50:11] ag use.

[4:50:14] These are real homes.

[4:50:14] They're not monstrous.

[4:50:15] They're modest duplexes.

[4:50:19] And I have been able to visit

[4:50:19] them and see some of that even

[4:50:20] though I've never worked on a

[4:50:24] project that size And I'm sure

[4:50:25] the tpi example and other

[4:50:25] speaker brought up earlier gave

[4:50:26] some of y'all flashbacks

[4:50:29] The process matters or this

[4:50:29] stuff and you keep bringing it

[4:50:30] back to council because of

[4:50:31] procedural issues like that

[4:50:34] Brown Act violation.

[4:50:34] And the more time goes by

[4:50:35] the more your voters are going

[4:50:36] to be living in those

[4:50:39] affordable bonus ads.

[4:50:40] So consider directing staff to

[4:50:40] find ways to improve

[4:50:41] the infrastructure and transit

[4:50:44] in those areas where they're

[4:50:45] being entitled.

[4:50:45] And thanks for all the hard

[4:50:46] work on doing all this stuff

[4:50:47] and weighing the important

[4:50:49] things your time has concluded.

[4:50:49] >> Patti if you can please

[4:50:54] unmute Pat I can unmute for

[4:50:54] you.

[4:50:54] There you are.

[4:50:56] You did unmute and then muted

[4:51:01] again.

[4:51:02] >> I'm sorry I can't limit for

[4:51:05] you if you can I one have to

[4:51:06] hold it down the whole time or

[4:51:07] we can hear you now Please

[4:51:10] proceed.

[4:51:11] Well I just want to say I'm

[4:51:12] distraught at facing the future

[4:51:15] for my little cul de sac

[4:51:16] community in Claremont.

[4:51:17] Already our peace and quiet and

[4:51:20] safety has been permanently

[4:51:20] compromised by a 12 unit

[4:51:25] apartment building being built

[4:51:26] two doors from me where once a

[4:51:29] single one storey family owned

[4:51:29] home existed.

[4:51:30] I tried to understand

[4:51:33] the amendments but that was

[4:51:34] like a water spout of acronym

[4:51:35] acronyms and enormous detail.

[4:51:38] So I'm unsure what exactly will

[4:51:39] be allowed or disallowed in my

[4:51:43] cul de sac.

[4:51:44] Well the 12 unit apartments

[4:51:47] going up be required to provide

[4:51:48] 12 off street parking spaces.

[4:51:49] We are nowhere near a transit

[4:51:52] center.

[4:51:53] Well we have to face more use

[4:51:57] on our already congested street

[4:51:57] .

[4:51:58] I believe bonus use should not

[4:51:59] be allowed on cul de sacs and

[4:52:02] accessory restricted

[4:52:02] communities because of safety

[4:52:03] concerns.

[4:52:07] How do we know what are

[4:52:08] the final decisions regarding

[4:52:08] use on our specific addresses?

[4:52:12] Well we have a way to find out.

[4:52:12] One last comment The so-called

[4:52:16] rent restrictions for

[4:52:17] affordable housing are over

[4:52:21] market rates $2,300 for a

[4:52:21] studio.

[4:52:22] Time has concluded.

[4:52:27] My apologies, Sallie Small

[4:52:28] Sallie Small?

[4:52:33] >> Yep.

[4:52:33] Finally showed up.

[4:52:34] Thank you.

[4:52:34] All righty.

[4:52:37] Four means for pretty basic.

[4:52:38] As it stands now, you know what

[4:52:43] the people are thinking Granny

[4:52:44] Flats and Casitas for our

[4:52:44] family members.

[4:52:48] Fine apartment buildings on cul

[4:52:48] de sacs and fire zones not

[4:52:52] close to transit.

[4:52:52] Transit that's not currently

[4:52:53] existing doesn't work without

[4:52:57] parking available now No trees

[4:52:58] needed, no need to notify or

[4:52:59] consult your neighbors.

[4:53:02] >> Consider community planning

[4:53:07] groups if even your your

[4:53:08] PRESIDENT Is not helping in

[4:53:12] that area that he was part of

[4:53:13] for eight new apartment

[4:53:14] complexes and low income older

[4:53:17] and bipoc communities by greedy

[4:53:18] investors who have no cares

[4:53:19] about the local situation for

[4:53:21] the people the infrastructure,

[4:53:22] the distance to jobs let alone

[4:53:27] that they are in fires zones,

[4:53:32] single lane access roads, cul

[4:53:32] de sacs.

[4:53:33] What more do you want?

[4:53:33] Oh money.

[4:53:37] That's all it is.

[4:53:38] >> It's money.

[4:53:38] Forget the communities.

[4:53:40] Your time has concluded.

[4:53:41] >> Dante, if you can please

[4:53:46] unmute.

[4:53:46] Good evening, Council members.

[4:53:47] My name is Dante Goldman with

[4:53:49] the San Diego Housing

[4:53:49] Federation.

[4:53:50] Since 1990 we have been

[4:53:51] the voice for affordable

[4:53:51] housing solutions and those who

[4:53:54] develop affordable homes across

[4:53:55] our region.

[4:53:55] We support policies that

[4:53:56] reverse our housing crisis

[4:53:57] especially for our most

[4:54:00] vulnerable community members.

[4:54:00] The new homeowners program has

[4:54:01] been a nationally recognized

[4:54:02] success creating affordable

[4:54:05] homes without dwindling public

[4:54:05] subsidies.

[4:54:06] We're in a housing emergency.

[4:54:06] Now is not the time to

[4:54:10] backpedal on what works.

[4:54:11] Decades ago, missing little

[4:54:11] housing like duplexes, areas

[4:54:12] and courtyard apartments

[4:54:14] provided naturally a core

[4:54:15] naturally occurring form of

[4:54:15] homes at moderate density.

[4:54:18] But by the 1960s inclusionary

[4:54:19] zoning took over pushing out

[4:54:20] working families, banning

[4:54:24] multi-unit housing and locking

[4:54:25] in sprawl across much of San

[4:54:25] Diego.

[4:54:26] The A.D. Homebuyers program is

[4:54:28] undoing that harm, allowing

[4:54:29] modest low cost homes without

[4:54:30] doing any public subsidies in

[4:54:30] neighborhoods that once shut

[4:54:31] them out.

[4:54:33] They represent smart infill

[4:54:34] growth that meets our climate

[4:54:35] and mobility goals.

[4:54:35] Any reforms amendments should

[4:54:39] strengthen not weaken.

[4:54:40] The real bonds program in this

[4:54:40] crisis Need more solutions, not

[4:54:41] fewer.

[4:54:42] Thank you for your time.

[4:54:43] >> Thank you.

[4:54:44] The five minute timer has

[4:54:44] included hearing council

[4:54:48] chambers.

[4:54:48] We have 19 speakers with their

[4:54:49] hands up.

[4:54:49] No additional speakers will be

[4:54:50] taken after that.

[4:54:52] Newell Boothe If you can please

[4:54:57] unmute.

[4:54:58] >> My name is Newell Booth.

[4:54:59] i live in Elsa Brito.

[4:55:01] Something that has not been

[4:55:02] mentioned before I support

[4:55:06] the fair is fair everywhere.

[4:55:07] I do this because it changes

[4:55:11] the incentives from large

[4:55:12] numbers of ideas to larger

[4:55:16] heads issues.

[4:55:17] This will allow us to bring

[4:55:21] families back in to the single

[4:55:22] family neighborhood.

[4:55:22] Thank you for your

[4:55:23] consideration.

[4:55:24] Please support for us Fair

[4:55:29] everywhere.

[4:55:30] Thank you Julie If you can

[4:55:30] please unmute.

[4:55:34] Julie Gilbert.

[4:55:35] >> There you go.

[4:55:35] Good afternoon Council members.

[4:55:38] I'm Julie Gilbert Carley I'm a

[4:55:39] fifth generation native San

[4:55:40] Diego and and I'm asking you to

[4:55:44] fully repeal the Adu home

[4:55:44] density bonus program.

[4:55:45] This program is turned single

[4:55:48] family neighborhoods into

[4:55:48] construction zones.

[4:55:49] Developers are cramming in

[4:55:53] multiple units on small lots

[4:55:53] with no concern for parking

[4:55:54] traffic.

[4:55:58] And most of all community

[4:55:58] impact.

[4:55:59] The streets are overcrowded,

[4:55:59] emergency access is compromised

[4:56:03] and residents are being pushed

[4:56:04] out by overdevelopment in their

[4:56:04] own backyards.

[4:56:08] This isn't smart growth It's a

[4:56:09] giveaway to builders at

[4:56:09] the expense of livability,

[4:56:10] safety and neighborhood

[4:56:13] integrity.

[4:56:14] I support reasonable housing

[4:56:14] solutions but this program is

[4:56:18] not it.

[4:56:19] Please repeal the Bonus adu

[4:56:20] program and restore balance to

[4:56:20] our communities.

[4:56:23] Thank you.

[4:56:24] >> Thank you.

[4:56:27] Next is phone number ending.

[4:56:28] Sorry.

[4:56:32] Phone number ending in 69326932

[4:56:35] If you can please unmute star

[4:56:39] six.

[4:56:43] I can on mute for you.

[4:56:47] >> It is star six to unmute.

[4:56:49] >> I will have to move on to

[4:57:01] the next caller.

[4:57:02] The original if you can please

[4:57:06] unmute.

[4:57:11] >> Isn't it great when page

[4:57:12] shills like call in or even are

[4:57:13] there and like you know put

[4:57:16] their $0.02 in.

[4:57:17] So interesting because you guys

[4:57:18] should be taking this back to

[4:57:21] the drawing board as opposed to

[4:57:22] continuing down this path

[4:57:22] making sure that you're are you

[4:57:25] trying to give reasons for

[4:57:26] people to actually leave San

[4:57:27] Diego Because that seems to be

[4:57:30] what you're doing if you guys

[4:57:31] actually when you start hearing

[4:57:32] you talk about you want to have

[4:57:32] community input.

[4:57:36] This probably would have been a

[4:57:36] good idea to go to

[4:57:37] the communities that you wanted

[4:57:40] to put this in to make sure

[4:57:40] that it was even something that

[4:57:41] is feasible to happen because

[4:57:44] what's happening is complete

[4:57:45] chaos and you are literally

[4:57:49] incentivizing by continuing

[4:57:50] this for people to leave their

[4:57:51] communities because as you've

[4:57:51] heard the people talk about

[4:57:56] it's actually ruining what they

[4:57:56] moved into their communities

[4:58:00] for And all it's doing is

[4:58:00] creating a fire hazard and all

[4:58:05] of this stuff like wouldn't it

[4:58:05] be more logical if you guys

[4:58:06] wanted to, you know, have

[4:58:10] better air quality if you were

[4:58:11] spread out?

[4:58:11] >> Not densely populated but

[4:58:12] whatever good timing is

[4:58:14] concluded Nexus six 1672.

[4:58:19] If you can please unmute.

[4:58:24] Well I would like so many other

[4:58:24] unpopular policies that this

[4:58:25] board have passed regardless of

[4:58:26] what the people want.

[4:58:29] This to will pass.

[4:58:30] Wake up.

[4:58:30] This isn't about housing.

[4:58:31] It's about control.

[4:58:33] It's about stripping away

[4:58:34] property rights under the guise

[4:58:35] of progress and sustainability

[4:58:38] all in lockstep with the U.N.

[4:58:39] Agenda 21.

[4:58:40] And for those who joined the No

[4:58:43] Kings protest, you protest

[4:58:44] the PRESIDENT While supporting

[4:58:48] local politicians who truly

[4:58:49] rule like King.

[4:58:49] You keep defending a system

[4:58:50] that does not defend you.

[4:58:54] The proof is everywhere in this

[4:58:54] county.

[4:58:55] Anything the government touches

[4:58:58] and claims to help becomes

[4:58:59] worse all by design.

[4:58:59] The vision destruction it's all

[4:59:00] orchestrated to manufacture

[4:59:03] chaos.

[4:59:04] Then they offer solutions that

[4:59:05] give them even more control

[4:59:09] order through chaos.

[4:59:09] That's how they operate.

[4:59:10] Wake up again.

[4:59:10] Their system is done.

[4:59:11] It's corrupt, fraudulent and

[4:59:14] beyond abusive.

[4:59:14] I do not understand.

[4:59:15] Neither should you.

[4:59:15] I do not consent.

[4:59:19] Neither should you.

[4:59:19] And if you're wondering how

[4:59:20] they sleep at night very

[4:59:24] comfortably very compensated.

[4:59:25] >> They've sold out.

[4:59:26] Your time has concluded.

[4:59:26] Blair Beckman, if you can

[4:59:31] please unmute.

[4:59:32] >> Blair Beckman I can mute for

[4:59:35] you.

[4:59:36] I will need to move on to

[4:59:37] the next caller if you can

[4:59:45] unmute.

[4:59:45] >> Margaret.

[4:59:46] Very similar If you can please

[4:59:50] unmute.

[4:59:50] >> Hi.

[4:59:51] Good afternoon.

[4:59:55] I am Margaret Verismo, former

[4:59:56] planning board member,

[4:59:57] community activist representing

[4:59:57] San Diego.

[4:59:59] Look around this room today

[5:00:00] Almost every neighborhood from

[5:00:01] San Diego is in this room.

[5:00:01] Do you all forget you were once

[5:00:05] voted in to your city rolls by

[5:00:06] all these people to protect our

[5:00:06] communities and be the voices

[5:00:10] on the city council.

[5:00:11] At one point these residents

[5:00:11] trusted you.

[5:00:12] Do your job and listen to us to

[5:00:14] protect our communities.

[5:00:15] You are all living or you're

[5:00:16] all lying to San Diego at this

[5:00:19] point because you're all not

[5:00:20] listening to community

[5:00:20] concerns.

[5:00:21] Do the right thing for want to

[5:00:23] listen to all of these people.

[5:00:24] San Diego was once a beautiful

[5:00:25] coastal skyline and now turning

[5:00:28] into Skid Row because of all of

[5:00:29] you and your bad decisions.

[5:00:30] Let's protect what's left of

[5:00:33] the nago, protect what's left

[5:00:34] of our quality of life.

[5:00:34] This whole housing crisis is a

[5:00:35] big lie and we all know it.

[5:00:38] It seems more and more like a

[5:00:39] money grab developer scheme.

[5:00:40] Plenty of high rises are empty

[5:00:42] in San Diego because affordable

[5:00:43] housing doesn't exist and won't

[5:00:44] ever exist for anyone ever.

[5:00:48] If a person wants affordable

[5:00:48] housing you will need to move

[5:00:49] to Texas, Nevada and Arizona.

[5:00:50] Just like many San Diego have

[5:00:54] done, you are all going to make

[5:00:54] cost of living and your taxes

[5:00:58] included during if you can

[5:00:58] please on mute.

[5:00:59] >> During the years during

[5:01:03] the years tamisha I would

[5:01:04] really hope and pray that we

[5:01:08] could get five ethical people

[5:01:08] of the council members that

[5:01:12] would vote no and make

[5:01:12] the Planning department do

[5:01:17] their job and lose In 2000 of

[5:01:18] these comments that we have

[5:01:21] said we do not need to story

[5:01:22] buildings beside one story It's

[5:01:22] going to ruin our guard and

[5:01:26] ruining our neighborhood.

[5:01:27] >> Bonus 80 You is targeting

[5:01:31] community These are concerns

[5:01:32] that lack infrastructure, that

[5:01:36] lack neighborhood pot and

[5:01:40] someday if there is a fire in

[5:01:41] one of these neighborhoods I

[5:01:45] hope you all hold yourself

[5:01:46] accountable for passing this

[5:01:51] measure for is fair But we

[5:01:55] would prefer that state law we

[5:01:56] buy homes to live in single

[5:02:00] family neighborhoods and you

[5:02:01] without secret know about

[5:02:04] the need of your time has

[5:02:05] concluded.

[5:02:06] >> Sorry Nicole if you can

[5:02:14] please unmute Nicole Hello.

[5:02:15] Hello my name is Nicole and I'm

[5:02:16] the executive director of our

[5:02:19] Time to Act Youth led

[5:02:19] Nonprofit.

[5:02:20] We're also in partnership with

[5:02:23] the Coalition for Equitable

[5:02:24] Development and I am a 22 year

[5:02:24] old renter in District three.

[5:02:25] I'm calling in today because

[5:02:27] while some of these reforms

[5:02:28] will meaningfully help better

[5:02:29] the Bonus adu program, there

[5:02:32] are several especially items

[5:02:33] restricting the program's

[5:02:34] efficacy either unit or if they

[5:02:34] are caps that will

[5:02:37] significantly harm San Diego's

[5:02:37] renters.

[5:02:38] The majority of comments given

[5:02:39] today were given by privileged,

[5:02:42] entitled and out of touch

[5:02:43] homeowners.

[5:02:43] These folks do not represent

[5:02:47] the majority of us.

[5:02:47] 53% of San Diego are renters

[5:02:50] and 57% of us are rent burdened

[5:02:51] .

[5:02:51] Youth are encouraged by

[5:02:52] the reforms that increase

[5:02:53] the number of rent restricted

[5:02:53] units and introduce

[5:02:56] homeownership opportunity.

[5:02:56] But we are deeply concerned

[5:02:57] with the items that will limit

[5:02:58] the number of these units and

[5:03:01] opportunities.

[5:03:02] Single family zoning was

[5:03:02] created to segregate info like

[5:03:06] ideas help combat

[5:03:06] the preservation of that

[5:03:07] segregation.

[5:03:07] I urge you to amend

[5:03:08] the proposed reforms as

[5:03:11] recommended by the letter sent

[5:03:11] by the Coalition for Equitable

[5:03:12] Development and do not accept

[5:03:15] their proposed reforms as

[5:03:16] presented to you today.

[5:03:16] Thank you.

[5:03:20] Next is Jeff If you can please

[5:03:20] unmute.

[5:03:21] Again as a reminder if you

[5:03:22] raise your hand after the five

[5:03:24] minute timer concluded we won't

[5:03:25] be able to take your comments

[5:03:26] but you can definitely email

[5:03:28] them in the city Clerk at San

[5:03:29] diego.Gov and they will get

[5:03:29] distributed.

[5:03:33] >> Please proceed to.

[5:03:34] >> Yeah hi.

[5:03:35] The real name of this mess is

[5:03:39] the developer bonus or how do

[5:03:39] they rule on San Diego County

[5:03:42] Council member in favor of this

[5:03:43] is obviously being influenced

[5:03:44] by developer money.

[5:03:48] That's how the game is playing

[5:03:48] .

[5:03:49] Can't you tell you're not being

[5:03:50] right you're not representing

[5:03:50] us?

[5:03:53] Also how can council ignore it

[5:03:54] is being built at the top of a

[5:03:58] virgin steep canyon.

[5:03:59] This so-called bonus mess is

[5:03:59] bad for all communities not

[5:04:02] just don't put neighbors

[5:04:03] against neighbors please.

[5:04:07] Developers will build where

[5:04:08] they can make a profit.

[5:04:12] That's simple Save San Diego,

[5:04:12] please.

[5:04:13] We can't go on like this.

[5:04:16] Obviously this isn't working.

[5:04:17] You've heard enough today.

[5:04:18] Please vote your heart.

[5:04:22] Vote for us here in San Diego

[5:04:23] that are your petty neighbors

[5:04:26] against neighbors And it's just

[5:04:27] shouldn't be that way.

[5:04:28] >> It's bad for all of us.

[5:04:33] Please.

[5:04:33] Thank you.

[5:04:34] Next slide.

[5:04:36] So if you can please unmute.

[5:04:42] So there you go.

[5:04:42] >> Please stand and council

[5:04:45] members I'm Saad Assad and I'm

[5:04:46] a neighbor who is happy to

[5:04:46] welcome more neighbors.

[5:04:49] I first want to thank city

[5:04:50] staff for tackling one of our

[5:04:50] toughest challenges bouncing

[5:04:51] our obvious housing needs with

[5:04:54] longtime homeowner concerns.

[5:04:55] The reality we're facing

[5:04:56] Sobering meaning home prices

[5:04:59] have jumped past few years from

[5:05:00] $630,000 to a million while

[5:05:02] the average rent exceeds

[5:05:03] $3,000.

[5:05:03] That means you need something

[5:05:04] like four times the city's

[5:05:07] minimum wage just to afford

[5:05:08] rent And you can't have a real

[5:05:09] quality of life when housing

[5:05:13] consumes half your income or

[5:05:13] forces our long commutes.

[5:05:14] The Bonus aew program has

[5:05:17] created nearly 900 homes which

[5:05:17] reduces competition for

[5:05:18] existing homes And it adds

[5:05:21] these homes in neighborhoods

[5:05:22] where the admission price enter

[5:05:26] is $180,000 downpayment.

[5:05:27] Unlike other housing program,

[5:05:27] this one specifically focuses

[5:05:31] on bringing smaller affordable

[5:05:32] homes There is dominated by

[5:05:32] large expensive houses.

[5:05:36] Thousands of San Diegans simply

[5:05:37] need a place to live near their

[5:05:38] jobs and the pros program

[5:05:40] delivers exactly that.

[5:05:41] I urge you to preserve it.

[5:05:44] Thank you James If you can

[5:05:49] please unmute James.

[5:05:54] There you go.

[5:05:55] >> You are in muted but we do

[5:05:56] not hear you here in council

[5:05:56] chambers.

[5:05:57] I'm not sure of the device that

[5:05:57] you're speaking in to maybe

[5:06:02] muted.

[5:06:04] James Black I'll give you a

[5:06:05] second to deal with any

[5:06:06] technical difficulties.

[5:06:10] We did not hear you here in

[5:06:14] council chambers.

[5:06:15] I will need to move on to

[5:06:18] the next caller Norton if you

[5:06:28] can please unmute Katherine

[5:06:29] Douglas or is fair everywhere

[5:06:30] throughout the city except

[5:06:34] mission Beach which is have

[5:06:35] zero additional ada use

[5:06:38] unbridled built.

[5:06:39] >> She ceded her time earlier

[5:06:40] today thank you council

[5:06:40] PRESIDENT For catching that you

[5:06:43] had ceded your time earlier

[5:06:44] today Billy if you can please

[5:06:47] unmute.

[5:06:53] >> Okay I, I just want to tell

[5:06:53] the city council that you know,

[5:06:54] just stick with your plan.

[5:06:57] I know it's really hard working

[5:06:58] with you know, these people

[5:06:59] like the neighborhood planning

[5:07:04] Committee who get voted in by a

[5:07:07] few dozen votes not by 10,000

[5:07:07] people.

[5:07:08] I never thought about that

[5:07:08] except the Downtown Planning

[5:07:12] Commission downtown planning

[5:07:12] group which is quote unquote

[5:07:17] owned by the developers.

[5:07:18] You know, that's the only group

[5:07:18] that actually follows

[5:07:19] the rules.

[5:07:19] So it's really hard for you

[5:07:20] guys to work.

[5:07:21] But you know, I hope you do

[5:07:22] your best And you know, it's

[5:07:23] just really hard to talk about.

[5:07:27] It's just really hard for me to

[5:07:28] believe that you got to talk

[5:07:28] about community character when

[5:07:31] groups like Encanto Community

[5:07:32] Planning Group are, you know,

[5:07:35] bought to 57% of their homes

[5:07:36] and there are as one two zones

[5:07:39] not comply with zoning

[5:07:40] restrictions by opposing

[5:07:45] the footnote I just find it

[5:07:46] really hard for me for people

[5:07:46] to trust them and I hope

[5:07:47] the city council does do their

[5:07:52] best.

[5:07:53] >> Next there's one number

[5:07:55] ending in 3856 if you can

[5:08:01] please unmute 3856 Carol this

[5:08:06] is Carol and I'm with Julie.

[5:08:06] I request that you fully repeal

[5:08:07] the adu program and start over

[5:08:11] Zoning matters It creates

[5:08:11] orderly development of

[5:08:12] neighborhoods.

[5:08:13] Public input is essential.

[5:08:15] There are two slides housing

[5:08:16] crisis and climate change and

[5:08:18] the Rob people their private

[5:08:19] property owner separate things

[5:08:20] to be what the goal is.

[5:08:21] I'm in favor of photography

[5:08:24] entities That means I do not

[5:08:25] agree with forth there When you

[5:08:27] buy a home and a single family

[5:08:28] residential neighborhood that

[5:08:29] buyer pays more to live in that

[5:08:29] area.

[5:08:29] Why?

[5:08:33] Because it's more desirable You

[5:08:33] typically have more space, more

[5:08:34] sunlight, more privacy and less

[5:08:35] parking issues and lower

[5:08:38] density.

[5:08:39] They pay more for this.

[5:08:39] This is a taking Without

[5:08:40] compensation The community

[5:08:43] input should be required.

[5:08:44] >> Thank you, Melanie Kahn If

[5:08:49] you can please unmute.

[5:08:50] >> Milliken Yeah, This is

[5:08:53] Melanie Cohen with Viacom,

[5:08:54] California.

[5:08:54] The 80 new program is producing

[5:08:55] needed units for the city's

[5:08:58] life science workforce units

[5:08:59] that are attainable for middle

[5:09:00] income workers who make a good

[5:09:02] wage but can't afford luxury

[5:09:03] apartments or to purchase a

[5:09:04] single family home.

[5:09:08] We know the amendments proposed

[5:09:08] will lower the rate of housing

[5:09:09] that's built and similar to

[5:09:10] the Chambers comments we want

[5:09:13] to know what next steps

[5:09:14] the city is going to take to

[5:09:18] house our workforce to attract

[5:09:18] and retain live science

[5:09:19] employees.

[5:09:19] Contrary to some comments, San

[5:09:22] Diego is actually producing 80

[5:09:23] use at a lower rate per capita

[5:09:24] than other markets such as Los

[5:09:28] Angeles, Long Beach and most

[5:09:28] other cities in this region.

[5:09:32] We support building homes for

[5:09:33] the city's workforce and this

[5:09:34] is one of the only programs

[5:09:38] the city has to restrict units

[5:09:38] to moderate income in order to

[5:09:39] do that.

[5:09:42] So we support building those

[5:09:43] homes for the life science

[5:09:43] community.

[5:09:44] Thank you.

[5:09:48] Next is Rob.

[5:09:49] If you can please mute Rob clap

[5:09:50] us.

[5:09:56] Hello, my name is Robert

[5:09:57] Clubhouse and I am a homeowner

[5:10:00] in Rolando Park in San Diego.

[5:10:01] I moved to San Diego 25 years

[5:10:04] ago and I rented I rented

[5:10:05] apartments throughout the city

[5:10:06] and I know the rents have gone

[5:10:10] up significantly And I heard

[5:10:10] somebody comment earlier that

[5:10:11] I'm a privileged homeowner.

[5:10:12] I am not a privilege homeowner.

[5:10:15] I saved my money, I worked hard

[5:10:16] and I did what I had to do to

[5:10:19] own a home.

[5:10:20] Right now this bonus program is

[5:10:20] taking all of these entry level

[5:10:24] homes off the market.

[5:10:25] It was such a struggle for us

[5:10:26] to find this house but we found

[5:10:29] it and me and my partner bought

[5:10:30] this house with our hard earned

[5:10:30] money And you guys are taking

[5:10:31] all these homes away from

[5:10:34] people that are working hard to

[5:10:35] try to save up and buy a house

[5:10:36] but they can't buy it because

[5:10:39] the developers are buying

[5:10:40] the rest of our affordable

[5:10:41] houses left in San Diego that

[5:10:45] people can buy to build these

[5:10:45] massive adu structures.

[5:10:49] I am opposed to all the 80

[5:10:49] years in the city and I hope

[5:10:50] you guys will do something to

[5:10:53] make this more reasonable so

[5:10:53] that we can have some more

[5:10:54] responsible development in our

[5:10:58] city and not this Your time has

[5:10:59] concluded 4580 If you can

[5:11:06] please unmute 4580 I can unmute

[5:11:12] for you If you can't unmute

[5:11:12] then I'll have to move on to

[5:11:18] our next speaker.

[5:11:24] Hello.

[5:11:24] Yes, please proceed.

[5:11:25] This is Peggy Pink.

[5:11:28] Oh thank you.

[5:11:29] I am interested in the comments

[5:11:32] that we're told While this 80

[5:11:32] thing was passed during covid,

[5:11:38] I was living in Shanghai during

[5:11:38] the shutdown.

[5:11:39] We have a home here in our

[5:11:42] house and the proposal of those

[5:11:43] people that are saying I get

[5:11:44] life science problems here are

[5:11:45] in the life science business.

[5:11:48] I get that you need housing.

[5:11:48] The problem is to mandate that

[5:11:49] what you're looking for is a

[5:11:52] city a city with highrises,

[5:11:53] with tiny apartments.

[5:11:57] So you have people that live

[5:11:58] there.

[5:11:58] It's not a solution.

[5:12:02] It's not a good solution.

[5:12:02] San Diego has single family

[5:12:09] home Poor reason.

[5:12:09] It's to let our community pride

[5:12:10] let families try.

[5:12:12] Yes.

[5:12:13] Well, they'll be young.

[5:12:13] Single, Yes.

[5:12:14] But they can move up the chain

[5:12:17] just like the rest of us did or

[5:12:17] entire life to be able to

[5:12:18] afford one.

[5:12:21] Please repeal the you.

[5:12:22] Please make that change.

[5:12:25] Stop the 15 minute city,

[5:12:26] please.

[5:12:26] Thank you.

[5:12:29] Your time is concluded 6932 If

[5:12:34] you can please unmute.

[5:12:37] Hello.

[5:12:43] >> Please proceed.

[5:12:43] >> Yeah.

[5:12:44] This is Scott, a homeowner in

[5:12:46] Amityville Almeida 90 114 is

[5:12:46] the area code.

[5:12:50] I'm calling to say that the 30

[5:12:51] plus unit so called 82 project

[5:12:54] that I just recently literally

[5:12:55] found out about yesterday when

[5:12:56] somebody was walking through

[5:12:59] knocking on doors and talking

[5:13:00] to neighbors let us know that

[5:13:01] they were building this absurd

[5:13:05] structure right down the street

[5:13:06] from our house and they're not

[5:13:06] building housing.

[5:13:07] >> It looks like they're

[5:13:09] cramming in low income

[5:13:10] micro-sized dorms or hotel

[5:13:14] rooms in somebody's backyard.

[5:13:15] It's pretending that it's

[5:13:15] progress.

[5:13:16] It's definitely not It's pretty

[5:13:18] clear it's not.

[5:13:19] It's a back door apartment

[5:13:20] complex with zero input from

[5:13:24] the people that actually live

[5:13:24] here the single family

[5:13:25] neighborhood and not a test

[5:13:28] site for woke urban planning

[5:13:29] experiments.

[5:13:29] We didn't sign up to have

[5:13:30] transient tenants walking past

[5:13:34] their homes every day because

[5:13:35] some developer found a loophole

[5:13:35] to make money.

[5:13:39] Man you're taking our property

[5:13:39] values.

[5:13:40] You're going to overwhelm our

[5:13:44] infrastructure here and you're

[5:13:45] basically telling all of

[5:13:45] the long term homeowners here

[5:13:48] that we don't matter anymore.

[5:13:49] >> Your time has concluded.

[5:13:53] Gabriel Weaver Or if you can

[5:13:54] please unmute.

[5:13:58] >> Hi my name is Gabriel and

[5:13:59] I'm a renter.

[5:13:59] I'm also car free.

[5:14:01] I oppose these reforms to

[5:14:02] the 80 bonus program.

[5:14:03] However I do support allowing

[5:14:07] separate sales to completely

[5:14:07] eliminate this program from

[5:14:08] neighborhoods zoned for low

[5:14:11] density which just so happens

[5:14:12] to be some of the most

[5:14:12] desirable neighborhoods that

[5:14:13] have a history of racial

[5:14:15] exclusion would be a complete

[5:14:16] pivot back toward classist and

[5:14:16] racist covenants.

[5:14:17] The community, by the way,

[5:14:21] enforce those old covenants.

[5:14:21] So the coded language that was

[5:14:22] used to deny people access to

[5:14:26] housing has changed But

[5:14:26] the tactics certainly remain.

[5:14:30] To be honest, as much as I as

[5:14:31] community input is an important

[5:14:32] democratic principle you can

[5:14:32] look at history to see where

[5:14:36] politically popular movements

[5:14:37] need it to happen In spite of

[5:14:37] the outrage sparked by people

[5:14:38] who fear change.

[5:14:40] This past weekend we saw 60,000

[5:14:41] plus people MARCH in

[5:14:41] the streets to fight for their

[5:14:45] neighbors right to be here.

[5:14:46] Well, that also means fighting

[5:14:46] for the right to have stable

[5:14:49] high quality housing areas

[5:14:49] where they work, housing in

[5:14:50] areas where there is work

[5:14:54] housing and high resource areas

[5:14:54] near transit.

[5:14:55] And I encourage you to continue

[5:14:59] supporting a new development in

[5:15:00] San Diego.

[5:15:00] Thank you.

[5:15:03] 1672.

[5:15:04] Your last speaker 1672.

[5:15:12] Please unmute.

[5:15:17] Are we on an agenda?

[5:15:18] >> No this is still item 2o2.

[5:15:19] If you'd like to speak for an

[5:15:21] on agenda you can raise your

[5:15:21] hand after.

[5:15:22] Thank you.

[5:15:23] Just for the record we did

[5:15:27] receive 20 web comment forms in

[5:15:32] favor and 699 in opposition and

[5:15:32] those were distributed to

[5:15:33] the council.

[5:15:33] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[5:15:37] That concludes public comment

[5:15:37] on item 202.

[5:15:38] >> All right.

[5:15:38] Thank you.

[5:15:41] City Clerk.

[5:15:41] >> Let's give her a round of

[5:15:42] applause.

[5:15:55] She did a great job at and all

[5:15:56] her staff as well of course as

[5:16:00] include all that So okay.

[5:16:04] And please don't tell anybody

[5:16:05] that I allowed all that

[5:16:05] clapping all afternoon.

[5:16:06] I'm not supposed to do that.

[5:16:09] But you were respectful in

[5:16:10] the way you did it and it

[5:16:11] didn't interrupt people having

[5:16:11] to speak.

[5:16:15] I'm going to make a couple of

[5:16:15] comments at the beginning but

[5:16:16] I'm going to turn over to

[5:16:19] the chair of our land Use and

[5:16:20] Housing Committee.

[5:16:21] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee.

[5:16:24] So one one of the things that I

[5:16:24] heard from the public and I've

[5:16:28] heard from others and so I'm

[5:16:29] going to ask our city

[5:16:30] attorney's office I think

[5:16:33] the council would be benefit

[5:16:34] from a legal opinion whether or

[5:16:38] not in fact we have any options

[5:16:39] to shut down a and an

[5:16:44] application that's on file that

[5:16:45] has been deemed complete or

[5:16:45] even a permit that's been

[5:16:48] issued.

[5:16:48] I'm very skeptical that we can

[5:16:53] but clearly what we're hearing

[5:16:54] from a lot of folks is not

[5:16:58] necessarily the focus on what

[5:16:58] the ordinance in front of us

[5:16:59] today is but what they've seen

[5:17:02] happening in their neighborhood

[5:17:02] or what is currently being

[5:17:03] allowed under the existing

[5:17:03] ordinance.

[5:17:08] So I don't want to put you on

[5:17:08] the spot and ask you to opine

[5:17:09] on that but if you could get

[5:17:12] back to the council I think it

[5:17:13] would be benefit Again, I'm a

[5:17:16] little skeptical on that.

[5:17:17] >> At the risk of freaking you

[5:17:18] out if I've heard the number

[5:17:19] for a lot I want to talk about

[5:17:24] the number five or just wait.

[5:17:28] It takes five votes to actually

[5:17:28] take some action tonight.

[5:17:32] There's nine of us.

[5:17:33] Five is what the majority is If

[5:17:37] folks don't like what's on

[5:17:40] the table and we get five no's,

[5:17:41] we're stuck with the ordinance

[5:17:44] as it exists today and it gives

[5:17:45] more opportunity for developers

[5:17:46] to take advantage of the way

[5:17:49] the ordinance is written.

[5:17:50] So I would ask my colleagues to

[5:17:51] think carefully about that.

[5:17:55] In contrast, just five that

[5:17:59] goes out actually limit or

[5:17:59] interject.

[5:18:00] For those of you who thought

[5:18:00] the oecd letter that came out

[5:18:04] on Friday morning was to your

[5:18:05] advantage, I want to disabuse

[5:18:05] you of that idea.

[5:18:09] It was not it is the single

[5:18:10] biggest challenge we have to

[5:18:14] rightsize things for San Diego.

[5:18:15] I want to think someone's going

[5:18:20] to get mad at me because they

[5:18:20] said this was a terrible thing

[5:18:21] to say But I want to thank

[5:18:22] the mayor's office and

[5:18:23] the planning department who

[5:18:24] spent a lot of time with each

[5:18:25] city before things actually got

[5:18:29] brought forward And then out of

[5:18:29] the blue this letter comes out

[5:18:30] on Friday morning coffee on

[5:18:33] the side of shift.

[5:18:34] But what hd said works against

[5:18:38] what you claim or what you say

[5:18:39] you want.

[5:18:43] So I'm also going to highlight

[5:18:44] that five votes that push this

[5:18:48] ordinance too far the other way

[5:18:49] might make you feel good

[5:18:50] tonight but hd is going to come

[5:18:54] and slap us down and make us do

[5:18:54] this all over again.

[5:18:55] I have lost too many battles

[5:18:58] with the Coastal Commission

[5:18:59] that has come back to bite us.

[5:19:03] So there is that sweet spot.

[5:19:03] I don't know where that sweet

[5:19:04] spot is looking to my

[5:19:05] colleagues to bring that

[5:19:08] forward but that's

[5:19:09] the challenge How do we get to

[5:19:13] five that supports in ordinance

[5:19:13] language that still complies

[5:19:16] with eight CCDs mandates and

[5:19:17] interpretation?

[5:19:22] So anyway okay get off my my

[5:19:26] teacher mode and turn it over

[5:19:27] to again the chair of our land

[5:19:30] Use and Housing Committee.

[5:19:31] >> Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem

[5:19:35] Lee Thank you Council PRESIDENT

[5:19:36] An eye to whether folks might

[5:19:37] be upset about it will take a

[5:19:40] moment to thank our city

[5:19:41] planning department for their

[5:19:45] work on this item because again

[5:19:46] we're here today because of

[5:19:46] the amendments that need to be

[5:19:47] made to the program and it's

[5:19:49] taking a significant amount of

[5:19:50] work to bring this forward but

[5:19:54] also to do it in the timeline

[5:19:55] that this council had asked

[5:19:55] for.

[5:19:56] We don't talk about it a little

[5:20:00] bit later each time we have

[5:20:00] these discussions.

[5:20:01] I think it's critical to state

[5:20:02] the fact that we continue to

[5:20:05] face a housing crisis and if

[5:20:05] anyone follows these

[5:20:06] discussions that same notion is

[5:20:10] reflected in every major city

[5:20:10] in this country as the cost of

[5:20:14] housing has far outpaced

[5:20:15] the rise of incomes in most of

[5:20:19] this country including in San

[5:20:19] Diego.

[5:20:20] And that's the that's a simple

[5:20:24] fact People cannot afford

[5:20:25] the housing that they would

[5:20:25] like to live in.

[5:20:29] Of course San Diego

[5:20:30] unfortunately is already well

[5:20:30] known to be one of the most

[5:20:31] unaffordable cities in

[5:20:31] the nation.

[5:20:33] I know some individuals today

[5:20:34] have remarked how incredulous

[5:20:38] they believe that the moderate

[5:20:39] income option at a deed

[5:20:42] restriction at 110% of

[5:20:43] the average median income in

[5:20:44] San Diego means that rent would

[5:20:47] be set at $2,300 or more.

[5:20:49] I'm not sure how to break it to

[5:20:52] folks but if you look at any

[5:20:52] recent report that shows rental

[5:20:56] rates in San Diego, the average

[5:20:57] rental rate for an apartment in

[5:20:58] this region is $3,000 if not

[5:20:58] more.

[5:21:01] And in in many high resource

[5:21:02] areas it is far higher than

[5:21:07] that and that is again also a

[5:21:10] reality We used to talk about

[5:21:11] housing being a challenge for

[5:21:12] low income employees, students

[5:21:16] or fixed income seniors.

[5:21:17] That is all still true but

[5:21:17] the reality now is that housing

[5:21:18] has become a challenge for

[5:21:21] everyone who doesn't already

[5:21:21] own a home.

[5:21:22] The fact that it requires an

[5:21:26] average income of $250,000 a

[5:21:27] year to purchase a home in

[5:21:27] the city means that it's

[5:21:31] impossible for the vast

[5:21:32] majority of those people who

[5:21:32] want to work in San Diego to

[5:21:36] buy a home in San Diego.

[5:21:37] Look, I think the council

[5:21:37] PRESIDENT Noted this for a

[5:21:41] moment but many folks today and

[5:21:42] i hear you you have expressed

[5:21:46] an opposition to the item that

[5:21:47] here today And I too reflect

[5:21:48] that the opposition that you're

[5:21:50] sharing is not necessarily to

[5:21:51] this item and what it's being

[5:21:55] presented but to the program as

[5:21:55] a whole.

[5:21:56] But I think it's okay to

[5:21:57] recognize that.

[5:22:00] But I do think that there is a

[5:22:00] stark difference because as

[5:22:01] the council PRESIDENT Noted,

[5:22:04] the item today is a set of

[5:22:05] reforms to bring much needed

[5:22:10] restrictions to the Bonus to

[5:22:10] You program as it currently

[5:22:13] exists which as of today is

[5:22:14] still unlimited with no caps

[5:22:19] whatsoever and open to many of

[5:22:20] the projects that folks have

[5:22:24] come to us and complained about

[5:22:24] here in the past And

[5:22:25] unfortunately still projects

[5:22:29] that are underway at

[5:22:29] the moment.

[5:22:30] The reason why we pushed so

[5:22:33] heavily for this 90 day window

[5:22:34] for an item to come back is

[5:22:37] because every single day this

[5:22:38] item and a lack of any action

[5:22:42] sits out in the public means

[5:22:43] another day that additional

[5:22:47] permits will be submitted.

[5:22:47] And so yes, an individual like

[5:22:48] many of you pointed out from

[5:22:52] crt would probably take

[5:22:52] the opportunity to rush every

[5:22:53] possible permit in at this

[5:22:57] juncture.

[5:22:57] That's why the timeline has

[5:22:58] been as tight as it is.

[5:23:01] So for those who have suggested

[5:23:02] that we vote no today or that

[5:23:03] we delay it for another future

[5:23:07] time, I think that would be a

[5:23:08] severe mistake.

[5:23:08] We MAY not agree on

[5:23:12] the ultimate resolution here

[5:23:13] today And frankly I'm just as

[5:23:13] curious as you all are as to

[5:23:14] where all of my colleagues

[5:23:17] might land.

[5:23:18] I said from the very beginning

[5:23:19] when this item first came up in

[5:23:22] JANUARY that there are going to

[5:23:22] be folks in the room who are

[5:23:25] single edu at a house next door

[5:23:26] to them That's two stories is

[5:23:26] already too much Already heard

[5:23:27] that plenty of times in my own

[5:23:31] community I think we have all

[5:23:31] agreed that many of

[5:23:32] the projects that we have seen

[5:23:36] that have become the example of

[5:23:36] the problem of the unlimited

[5:23:41] nature of this program are

[5:23:41] problems Now where that number

[5:23:45] is set I think is literally

[5:23:46] what's going to be different

[5:23:50] for every single person If I

[5:23:51] thought in working with

[5:23:51] planning to try to bring

[5:23:55] reforms to the table to come up

[5:23:55] with a way to scale based on

[5:23:56] lot size because of that very

[5:24:00] problem because the unlimited

[5:24:01] nature I think is too much.

[5:24:02] There are going to be folks

[5:24:02] from an industry standpoint

[5:24:06] that we heard from today that

[5:24:06] are going to say that this

[5:24:07] program is now way too

[5:24:10] restrictive and that it should

[5:24:10] be opened up significantly

[5:24:11] more.

[5:24:11] But we've had a lengthy

[5:24:12] discussion at the land use and

[5:24:14] housing Committee that's

[5:24:15] brought us to this point and

[5:24:16] the changes I believe are

[5:24:17] necessary and they're going to

[5:24:22] happen.

[5:24:22] The 80 density bonus program is

[5:24:23] not the only item and I'll take

[5:24:27] my three minutes now and hope I

[5:24:27] don't need more but we'll see.

[5:24:28] The 80 density bonus program is

[5:24:31] not the only item that's on

[5:24:32] discussion for today.

[5:24:32] There are a number of items

[5:24:33] that are presented as part of

[5:24:35] this package that are an

[5:24:36] implementation of state law

[5:24:40] relating to it to use

[5:24:41] the existing as they are

[5:24:41] already.

[5:24:42] There's also an item in this

[5:24:46] package that I think has been

[5:24:46] overlooked I mentioned this

[5:24:47] that the Land Use and Housing

[5:24:48] Committee but item 23 is

[5:24:49] the local implementation of

[5:24:52] Assembly Bill 1033 which passed

[5:24:53] in 2023 And I do believe that

[5:24:54] that is actually one positive

[5:24:58] item that we have been hopeful

[5:24:59] to see come to fruition because

[5:25:03] it is the opportunity that

[5:25:03] allows for more home ownership

[5:25:07] by taking adus that are not

[5:25:08] part of the density bonus

[5:25:09] program and allowing them for

[5:25:10] convenience or for sale as

[5:25:15] homeownership opportunities.

[5:25:16] I do believe that 1033 does

[5:25:16] make it easier for working

[5:25:20] class folks to consider a

[5:25:21] starter home by taking some of

[5:25:22] the individual ideas that have

[5:25:22] been built over time and

[5:25:28] allowing those for sale.

[5:25:29] I do also want to thank staff

[5:25:30] for making a couple of

[5:25:33] additional amendments.

[5:25:34] One of the ones that we had

[5:25:34] discussed that was in put it

[5:25:35] especially after the letter

[5:25:38] from cd was recognizing that

[5:25:39] the elimination of low density

[5:25:43] residential zones that we had

[5:25:44] put in place from the first

[5:25:44] time the second time this was

[5:25:47] heard at Council that's

[5:25:51] the s1-1 through 1-4 and 1-8

[5:25:52] through 11 zones that that

[5:25:56] limitation as media and others

[5:25:57] have pointed out had other

[5:25:58] implications that eliminated

[5:26:02] significant numbers of high

[5:26:02] resource areas within

[5:26:03] the community.

[5:26:03] And so I do appreciate that

[5:26:07] amendment.

[5:26:07] I actually think in my opinion

[5:26:08] goes a long ways to address

[5:26:12] some of the concerns that hcc

[5:26:13] has brought up but we won't

[5:26:13] know until it's actually passed

[5:26:17] and put forward to them.

[5:26:18] I will also note that that

[5:26:18] amendment I still very much

[5:26:22] stand by especially when it

[5:26:23] comes to low resource

[5:26:23] communities because a lot of

[5:26:24] this conversation started with

[5:26:27] members of the cancer community

[5:26:27] coming out and the objective of

[5:26:28] that portion of the amendment

[5:26:31] is to eliminate it's used in

[5:26:32] almost all of Encanto and to

[5:26:37] eliminate the possibility that

[5:26:37] that concentrates this kind of

[5:26:39] development in lower resource

[5:26:44] neighborhoods.

[5:26:44] My intent with reforming this

[5:26:45] program has always been to

[5:26:49] ensure that we close

[5:26:50] the existing loopholes and that

[5:26:50] we put other common sense

[5:26:54] measures into place And that is

[5:26:55] where I think the long list of

[5:26:58] recommendations that city

[5:26:59] planning put together initially

[5:27:03] we're all glad to see here

[5:27:04] the addition of considerations

[5:27:05] for fire high fire severity

[5:27:09] zones, the elimination of cul

[5:27:10] de sacs which I will note I

[5:27:14] walked a couple of streets with

[5:27:15] my own neighbors in University

[5:27:15] City looking at two projects

[5:27:19] that had already been in

[5:27:19] the pipeline one which would

[5:27:20] not be possible with any of

[5:27:23] these amendments

[5:27:24] The development scale to limit

[5:27:28] and eliminate the unlimited

[5:27:29] nature of the program as it

[5:27:34] exists today Because even if we

[5:27:35] can disagree it where there's a

[5:27:36] PRESIDENT I'm happy to

[5:27:37] contribute my three minutes to

[5:27:38] council PRESIDENT Pro tem even

[5:27:38] we can disagree as to where

[5:27:41] the limitations are for what's

[5:27:42] acceptable.

[5:27:43] I think everyone in this room

[5:27:45] seems to agree that a 20 a 50

[5:27:49] or 150 or a 750 unit project is

[5:27:49] not what was ever intended.

[5:27:54] So at the end of the day I do

[5:27:55] believe that ideas are not part

[5:27:58] of the silver bullet of solving

[5:27:58] housing but they have been

[5:27:59] proven to add additional

[5:28:03] housing and we are still in an

[5:28:04] environment where that housing

[5:28:05] is desperately needed.

[5:28:07] I look every day in our

[5:28:08] community where we hear and we

[5:28:09] get pleas from residents who

[5:28:12] are desperate to find anything

[5:28:13] that allows them to stay in San

[5:28:14] Diego and their kids to stay in

[5:28:17] school.

[5:28:18] And in many of those cases they

[5:28:23] ask for a backyard apartment if

[5:28:23] that's what's necessary or room

[5:28:24] to share.

[5:28:24] Those are the limits that

[5:28:27] they've got within

[5:28:28] the expensive housing that we

[5:28:29] have in San Diego.

[5:28:32] So all that is to say I'm sure

[5:28:33] there's going to be a lot more

[5:28:34] to this conversation today but

[5:28:37] I'm going to start today by

[5:28:38] thanking again City planning

[5:28:38] for putting together all

[5:28:39] the recommendations that you

[5:28:39] have listed.

[5:28:42] I'm going to make a motion to

[5:28:43] adopt the staff's

[5:28:43] recommendation as presented

[5:28:46] with all of these additional

[5:28:47] restrictions in place to again

[5:28:48] rein in this program further.

[5:28:51] And I look forward to hearing

[5:28:52] from my colleagues on

[5:28:52] the conversation.

[5:28:55] >> Thank you.

[5:28:56] All right.

[5:28:56] Thank you.

[5:28:57] Council PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee

[5:29:00] We have a motion to move

[5:29:01] the staff recommendation and

[5:29:05] I'm going to jump in here and

[5:29:11] see if I can reach to a second

[5:29:11] with being open to other

[5:29:16] amendments by Council members.

[5:29:19] I'm actually one that I think

[5:29:20] it's I hope there's some

[5:29:24] agreement actually forget all

[5:29:25] that.

[5:29:25] I'm sorry.

[5:29:25] I'm getting tired.

[5:29:28] Thank you for the public Four

[5:29:29] hours of testimony here.

[5:29:30] We'll see if I can keep my my

[5:29:33] head together.

[5:29:34] I want to start out by thanking

[5:29:35] Council member Foster We would

[5:29:39] not be here if he didn't take

[5:29:40] what were at the time what's

[5:29:43] kind of an outrageous statement

[5:29:44] that kind of kicked off this

[5:29:45] conversation And the biggest

[5:29:48] thing we struggle is as you've

[5:29:49] heard and you will continue to

[5:29:52] hear when we trigger these

[5:29:53] kinds of changes it sends a red

[5:29:58] flag up and developers just say

[5:29:59] I've got a window to do

[5:30:02] something Under the old rules

[5:30:03] and it's just an unfortunate

[5:30:03] part of the transition.

[5:30:04] So thank you to Councilmember

[5:30:07] Foster and his office.

[5:30:08] As others have said, attitude

[5:30:12] is part of our housing

[5:30:13] solution.

[5:30:14] It is not the only part of our

[5:30:17] solutions but it doesn't mean

[5:30:17] that it shouldn't be right size

[5:30:21] And I think we've seen very,

[5:30:22] very ugly and unfortunate

[5:30:27] examples of where what could

[5:30:27] have been and a good program

[5:30:31] gone horribly, horribly awry.

[5:30:31] And again that's that's why

[5:30:36] we're here And to the media

[5:30:36] these aren't the mayor's

[5:30:36] reforms.

[5:30:37] These are the reforms that we

[5:30:41] are pushing forward are in

[5:30:42] concert with city planning.

[5:30:42] So stop yelling at the mayor,

[5:30:46] yell at us because we're taking

[5:30:47] ownership of this now And if

[5:30:48] you don't like it you can blame

[5:30:53] us for it.

[5:30:54] So I'm going to introduce some

[5:30:55] amendments and then certainly

[5:30:59] as we see if my colleagues

[5:31:02] agree actually the council

[5:31:03] PRESIDENT Pro tem will start

[5:31:04] that off And I think there's

[5:31:08] some things that we're going to

[5:31:15] distribute maybe So in

[5:31:16] listening I'm a little bit

[5:31:20] wonky so I'm going to apologize

[5:31:21] in advance listening to both

[5:31:24] sides those that are absolutely

[5:31:25] against it and those are

[5:31:25] absolutely for it.

[5:31:29] I actually found some middle

[5:31:30] ground in all of that and so

[5:31:34] that's where I'm going to make

[5:31:35] a couple of amendments.

[5:31:36] One of the things that I cannot

[5:31:39] stand is the possibility that

[5:31:40] we provide affordability based

[5:31:44] on the square footage because

[5:31:45] that income restriction is

[5:31:50] based on bedrooms, not on

[5:31:50] square footage.

[5:31:51] So you get to charge as much

[5:31:53] for a one bedroom, 150 square

[5:31:53] foot as you do for a 450 square

[5:31:57] foot, one bedroom.

[5:31:58] I think it makes sense in some

[5:32:01] world But the idea that we

[5:32:02] would encourage 150 square foot

[5:32:02] micro units doesn't make any

[5:32:05] sense especially if we're going

[5:32:06] to be allowing them to sell.

[5:32:07] So what I heard is consistency

[5:32:11] about the right sizing of

[5:32:15] the units And so my First

[5:32:16] Amendment is to actually impose

[5:32:20] a minimum gross floor area And

[5:32:21] as council PRESIDENT I'm going

[5:32:22] to give myself more time.

[5:32:24] So to make sure that we

[5:32:25] actually get units and

[5:32:26] hopefully more bedrooms to suit

[5:32:29] families that are looking for

[5:32:35] actually good sized with that

[5:32:39] there's lots of places to

[5:32:40] councilmembers Well that I

[5:32:46] think just okay okay The second

[5:32:47] proposal was introduced in

[5:32:48] the staff report on page 12.

[5:32:51] It's an additional option was

[5:32:56] also referred to as a proposed

[5:32:56] enhancement on Slide 28 which

[5:32:57] is called a moderate income.

[5:33:00] Adu If you want to use a

[5:33:01] moderate income for your bonus,

[5:33:05] the bonus one has to be a

[5:33:06] moderate income.

[5:33:06] And what I have heard again

[5:33:10] from pro housing folks I think

[5:33:11] Viacom talked about it

[5:33:11] circulate talked about it and

[5:33:15] some of you talked about it

[5:33:16] let's actually make this

[5:33:20] affordable for moderate income

[5:33:21] folks even though 110% is kind

[5:33:25] of a crazy number these days.

[5:33:26] So taking advantage of the work

[5:33:27] that the city Planning

[5:33:31] department did the next two are

[5:33:31] a little bit wonky.

[5:33:38] One is to modify 141 0302d1b to

[5:33:38] make sure that people

[5:33:39] understand that if you're in

[5:33:40] the sustainable development

[5:33:43] area that there actually is a

[5:33:44] max because you have to go

[5:33:47] through 20 pages to find out

[5:33:48] that there is a max, we'd like

[5:33:49] to bring it up front going

[5:33:52] forward.

[5:33:52] By the way, four of us voted

[5:33:53] against sustainable development

[5:33:57] areas back in the day.

[5:33:58] Just want to throw that in And

[5:34:02] the last one is given

[5:34:02] the city's trash fee which I

[5:34:03] know a lot of people hate,

[5:34:06] the city is cracking down If

[5:34:06] you have five units you're not

[5:34:07] going to get city services.

[5:34:11] I want to put that actually

[5:34:12] into the U.S. So people are

[5:34:16] aware that if you go to five

[5:34:17] units or more you're not

[5:34:17] getting city services.

[5:34:20] You have to go to a private

[5:34:20] hauler.

[5:34:21] I think it's just good practice

[5:34:25] to actually highlight that

[5:34:25] upfront.

[5:34:29] So to my colleague who made

[5:34:30] the motion to adopt the city's

[5:34:34] the staff recommendation, I put

[5:34:35] four amendments in front of

[5:34:35] you.

[5:34:36] I think they're good strong

[5:34:36] amendments.

[5:34:40] I heard from both sides

[5:34:40] the importance of the minimum

[5:34:44] gross floor area as well as

[5:34:44] the moderate income to really

[5:34:49] ratchet up our moderate income

[5:34:49] and meet our arena numbers.

[5:34:50] I'm going to put you on

[5:34:54] the spot for sure.

[5:34:54] >> I will address these each

[5:34:55] individually if you don't mind

[5:34:59] just looking at them.

[5:35:00] One is that we actually had a

[5:35:00] pretty significant amount of

[5:35:01] discussion in the Land Use and

[5:35:02] Housing Committee about

[5:35:04] the minimum unit size and one

[5:35:05] of the parts of that discussion

[5:35:09] was recognizing that the moment

[5:35:10] we put an actual cap on

[5:35:10] the number of units that that

[5:35:13] would de facto basically limit

[5:35:14] or encourage maximizing the use

[5:35:18] of the square footage that is

[5:35:19] available and therefore

[5:35:23] the minimum unit size was not

[5:35:23] necessary.

[5:35:24] I agree with you that frankly

[5:35:25] it's not it doesn't make sense

[5:35:27] to build smaller units.

[5:35:28] But I also don't think that

[5:35:31] someone building a 200 square

[5:35:32] foot unit would get rent

[5:35:32] the same way that they would

[5:35:33] get building a 700 square foot

[5:35:36] unit And so to that I think

[5:35:37] frankly my hope is that by

[5:35:41] limiting the number of units we

[5:35:41] do actually get more units that

[5:35:42] meet the 2 or 3 bedroom

[5:35:46] category that the city has long

[5:35:46] been missing and that would be

[5:35:47] an opportunity to do that.

[5:35:50] I just don't think the extra

[5:35:51] complexity that is added in

[5:35:51] here stipulating all

[5:35:52] the different sizes is a

[5:35:55] necessary amendment given

[5:35:56] the effort that we went through

[5:35:59] to move through that As

[5:36:00] regarding to the moderate

[5:36:05] income density bonus again this

[5:36:05] is one where to be frank I

[5:36:06] think we all just heard from

[5:36:10] the audience moderate income at

[5:36:11] the at the 101 is at $30,000

[5:36:11] right now That's the median

[5:36:15] income for a family of four in

[5:36:15] San Diego.

[5:36:16] That means that the moderate

[5:36:19] income for a unit is extremely

[5:36:20] high.

[5:36:21] And so I don't know that adding

[5:36:21] an additional restriction on

[5:36:25] that will actually accomplish

[5:36:25] anything when in reality

[5:36:26] the units are already going to

[5:36:30] be above what people deemed to

[5:36:30] be affordable.

[5:36:31] Number three I'm actually not

[5:36:35] quite familiar with the this

[5:36:36] section here so I might have to

[5:36:39] look into this further and can

[5:36:40] consider it But it's in it's in

[5:36:44] the same area section of

[5:36:45] the policy And so I would

[5:36:46] presume that if it's already

[5:36:49] limited in Section d four that

[5:36:49] it doesn't need to be outlined

[5:36:53] in section d1b And then finally

[5:36:54] my hesitation for the adding

[5:36:54] the additional language

[5:36:58] regarding the waste collection

[5:36:59] is that that is already what is

[5:37:04] written in our updated charter

[5:37:04] language as a result of metric

[5:37:09] b and also outlined as a result

[5:37:10] of the policy that we passed

[5:37:10] last week.

[5:37:11] I mean from a frank practical

[5:37:14] standpoint I think adding

[5:37:14] repetitive language in

[5:37:15] different areas within city

[5:37:15] code only makes it more

[5:37:18] complicated if any one item

[5:37:19] needs to be changed.

[5:37:23] So I have to point out I'll

[5:37:23] certainly be open to hearing

[5:37:24] from my colleagues but at

[5:37:24] the moment I'm going to

[5:37:25] respectfully decline all four

[5:37:30] amendments.

[5:37:31] >> That's not a nice thing to

[5:37:31] do to your council PRESIDENT.

[5:37:35] I know it MAY not fly but

[5:37:35] perhaps we'll see what other

[5:37:39] language my colleagues come up

[5:37:39] with.

[5:37:40] I still feel pretty strongly

[5:37:42] about number one and number two

[5:37:43] what I heard but I'm not going

[5:37:47] to belabor that argument here

[5:37:48] So we'll go next to

[5:37:48] Councilmember Ella Rivera.

[5:37:52] All right.

[5:37:53] Thank you, Council PRESIDENT.

[5:37:54] I'll start by thanking all

[5:37:57] the members of the public who

[5:37:57] participated in

[5:37:58] the conversation not just today

[5:38:05] but over time.

[5:38:05] >> I say there's some things

[5:38:09] that I think we all many of us

[5:38:09] share I won't say all because

[5:38:10] it's a big city with many

[5:38:12] opinions.

[5:38:13] Certainly the frustration

[5:38:18] around affordability is housing

[5:38:18] too expensive in San Diego,

[5:38:19] it's too expensive in

[5:38:22] California and increasingly

[5:38:23] it's too expensive across

[5:38:23] the country.

[5:38:24] What I will continue to say

[5:38:27] though is I don't think that

[5:38:28] folks who have owned a home for

[5:38:32] a very long time understand

[5:38:32] what it's been like to be a

[5:38:33] renter and what is not

[5:38:37] affordable might still be more

[5:38:38] affordable than what other

[5:38:43] options exist now.

[5:38:43] All right.

[5:38:48] You've been really good.

[5:38:48] Let's kind of keep it up Thumbs

[5:38:49] down if you don't like what

[5:38:49] you're hearing.

[5:38:52] But so to that point I don't

[5:38:52] think there's anyone who's been

[5:38:56] more vocal about expanding

[5:38:57] tenant protections and pushing

[5:38:57] back on landlords And I'll be

[5:39:01] quite frank a lot of the folks

[5:39:02] that I see here we're not

[5:39:03] they're engaged in those

[5:39:03] conversations.

[5:39:06] We can do much more to protect

[5:39:06] renters.

[5:39:07] We can do much more to

[5:39:07] strengthen tenant protections

[5:39:11] And I hope to see your

[5:39:11] solidarity when we bring those

[5:39:12] efforts forward again in

[5:39:15] the future If we do, there also

[5:39:16] is an agreement that change

[5:39:16] needs to be made.

[5:39:17] We've seen exploitation of this

[5:39:20] program egregious examples that

[5:39:20] failure to agree egregious

[5:39:21] examples of people exploiting

[5:39:25] the program, disrespecting

[5:39:25] neighbors and neighborhoods I

[5:39:26] don't think any of us are okay

[5:39:30] with that And clearly there was

[5:39:30] a failure to account for

[5:39:31] the impacts on neighborhoods

[5:39:35] that have been long neglected

[5:39:35] by the city like Encanto who

[5:39:39] never had decent infrastructure

[5:39:39] to begin with, let alone

[5:39:40] the infrastructure to support

[5:39:44] additional density.

[5:39:45] That being said, there's a lot

[5:39:45] today that I have heard that

[5:39:46] has been concerning.

[5:39:49] I saw people oppose the simple

[5:39:50] request to make 80 use

[5:39:50] available for sale so that

[5:39:54] hardworking students we had two

[5:39:54] law students who stood in this

[5:39:57] in these chambers and said that

[5:39:58] I would one day like to own a

[5:39:59] home in the city of San Diego

[5:40:03] and asked to see a future to do

[5:40:03] that.

[5:40:04] And I saw those same thumbs go

[5:40:07] down and those same heads shake

[5:40:07] And that is extremely

[5:40:11] unfortunate because what that's

[5:40:12] telling me is that folks are

[5:40:12] pulling up the ladder after

[5:40:16] they've made it out from from

[5:40:17] the bottom and I will never

[5:40:22] support that.

[5:40:23] >> I've also heard folks refer

[5:40:26] to Shawn just I'm just keep it

[5:40:26] down.

[5:40:27] You don't like it thumbs down

[5:40:32] That conveys the message.

[5:40:32] >> Thank you.

[5:40:33] I appreciate it.

[5:40:34] Can support it Also say this is

[5:40:36] nothing new.

[5:40:36] This is generally the response

[5:40:37] that we get when we support

[5:40:40] more housing and I won't be

[5:40:41] deterred from advocating for

[5:40:42] that in these chambers just

[5:40:42] like I won't in

[5:40:43] the neighborhoods.

[5:40:45] I did that during my reelection

[5:40:46] and I did quite well.

[5:40:46] So I'm very competent to stand

[5:40:50] on that in this room.

[5:40:51] I also heard attacks on our

[5:40:55] planning department hardworking

[5:40:56] staff who have an incredibly

[5:40:59] difficult job of creating more

[5:41:00] housing and one of the most

[5:41:01] strict and challenging

[5:41:05] regulatory environments in

[5:41:05] the country if not the most.

[5:41:06] And so you MAY not like

[5:41:09] the product that they produce

[5:41:10] but questioning the motives or

[5:41:11] the work ethic I think is

[5:41:15] unacceptable.

[5:41:15] And I apologize that you all

[5:41:16] had to hear that because you

[5:41:17] are good public servants who

[5:41:17] show up every day to do your

[5:41:20] jobs And I know you have a

[5:41:21] whole team that supports that

[5:41:21] work and I appreciate you for

[5:41:22] doing that.

[5:41:25] I also heard Holmes once

[5:41:25] referred to as a plague and

[5:41:26] another time referred to as

[5:41:29] viruses 80 user homes.

[5:41:30] You MAY not like that style of

[5:41:34] housing but they are homes And

[5:41:35] in those homes with people

[5:41:38] people who are trying to get by

[5:41:38] .

[5:41:39] So words like plagues and

[5:41:39] viruses to describe housing

[5:41:43] that people are living in I

[5:41:44] will not you will never

[5:41:45] persuade me with language like

[5:41:49] that Folks deserve a place to

[5:41:53] live.

[5:41:54] It's the basic foundation for

[5:41:59] life, for opportunity And there

[5:42:00] is no future in this city if

[5:42:03] people do not believe that

[5:42:04] they'll be able to afford to

[5:42:04] live here so we can oppose

[5:42:08] the exploitation of the program

[5:42:08] and still not refer to housing

[5:42:13] as a plague or as a virus.

[5:42:14] Apartments and condos, our

[5:42:18] homes and I will just share a

[5:42:18] personal anecdote anecdote here

[5:42:23] My step up from my family was a

[5:42:24] step up into an apartment a

[5:42:28] bigger apartment that was in a

[5:42:31] single family neighborhood And

[5:42:32] then our first homeowner show

[5:42:33] Opportunity was is a condo

[5:42:34] again in what is largely a

[5:42:37] single family neighborhood.

[5:42:38] Those opportunities were life

[5:42:38] changing for me and my wife and

[5:42:42] my son And I am deeply, deeply

[5:42:43] appreciative that they exist

[5:42:46] And I know that there are tens

[5:42:47] of thousands hundreds of

[5:42:47] thousands of San Diegans who

[5:42:51] are looking for opportunities

[5:42:51] like that as well.

[5:42:56] So with that in mind I see what

[5:42:57] staff has worked on is a

[5:42:58] compromise that will no longer

[5:42:58] be legal.

[5:43:02] The worst examples that you

[5:43:02] showed will no longer be legal

[5:43:05] legal and that is why I support

[5:43:06] the staff recommendation On

[5:43:10] the second day of the motion.

[5:43:10] All right.

[5:43:11] We have a motion by Council

[5:43:12] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee and a

[5:43:14] second by council member Eli

[5:43:14] Rivera to move the staff

[5:43:20] recommendation And we'll go

[5:43:21] next to Councilmember Bond.

[5:43:24] Wolpert Thank you everyone.

[5:43:25] Thanks for your work.

[5:43:30] I appreciate you for working

[5:43:30] for the City of Public Services

[5:43:31] and I appreciate that

[5:43:32] the public here thank you for

[5:43:34] coming in today.

[5:43:35] There's a reason that many of

[5:43:35] us marched in the streets to

[5:43:39] protect this kind of dialog

[5:43:39] The year the council PRESIDENT

[5:43:40] For trying to run these

[5:43:44] meetings and you've been doing

[5:43:45] this for a couple of days

[5:43:45] straight now so I appreciate

[5:43:49] you as well.

[5:43:53] I also do I know the folks in

[5:43:54] the planning department had

[5:43:54] the intent to try and provide,

[5:43:55] you know, more housing that's

[5:43:58] accessible for folks And what

[5:43:59] we're seeing and all these

[5:44:03] pictures is not what was

[5:44:04] intended and is completely

[5:44:06] egregious And I cannot believe

[5:44:11] it happened.

[5:44:12] I mean I grew up here and I

[5:44:17] understand that there are tiny,

[5:44:17] tiny, tiny streets where you

[5:44:18] can barely fit cars through And

[5:44:21] now we're going to have people

[5:44:22] parking there anywhere in my

[5:44:22] district and d five if you go

[5:44:23] to any multifamily housing

[5:44:26] which I live in you'll see cars

[5:44:27] parked up along the streets

[5:44:31] because people are now parking

[5:44:32] in to our apartments, to our

[5:44:32] houses for sharing houses

[5:44:36] because they're so expensive

[5:44:37] And so we need the street

[5:44:37] parking.

[5:44:38] The residents who already live

[5:44:38] there are already using

[5:44:40] the street parking which made

[5:44:41] it very awkward when a bike

[5:44:42] lane came in overnight and took

[5:44:45] away parking from my residence

[5:44:46] .

[5:44:47] We need bike lanes just not in

[5:44:50] the wrong places so I'm

[5:44:55] supportive of the reforms in

[5:44:56] this package to bring it back.

[5:44:57] I do have some questions though

[5:45:00] especially when it comes to

[5:45:01] the high fire severity zones.

[5:45:02] I mean that's something we've

[5:45:06] spoken about quite a bit And

[5:45:07] this letter from hpd to be

[5:45:11] honest a wild I mean I've been

[5:45:11] a practicing lawyer for over a

[5:45:12] decade.

[5:45:15] I have never seen this.

[5:45:16] It's not even final.

[5:45:21] It doesn't really contain a lot

[5:45:21] of legal analysis.

[5:45:22] I assumed it would have.

[5:45:23] And also isn't the bonus

[5:45:26] program a voluntary program

[5:45:26] that we opted into?

[5:45:27] So how are they now threatening

[5:45:28] that we're not going to meet

[5:45:30] our housing element if it's

[5:45:31] something we opted into

[5:45:32] voluntarily, why can't we

[5:45:32] voluntarily repeal it?

[5:45:41] Yeah, you guys don't work for

[5:45:42] hpd but I'm just wondering why

[5:45:45] this has come down this way.

[5:46:00] Well, good evening.

[5:46:00] I don't want to speculate on

[5:46:00] the motivations from a State

[5:46:00] Department.

[5:46:01] Our staff has met with each

[5:46:01] city a couple of times.

[5:46:01] We had received some

[5:46:01] preliminary feedback from each

[5:46:04] city that we had incorporated

[5:46:05] into staff's proposal.

[5:46:06] We were not aware that an

[5:46:09] additional letter would be sent

[5:46:10] to us.

[5:46:11] We nonetheless received that on

[5:46:11] Friday.

[5:46:11] So we have worked very

[5:46:15] diligently since that time to

[5:46:15] provide the response that we

[5:46:16] provided to Council on Saturday

[5:46:20] evening with our responses to

[5:46:20] the City letter.

[5:46:21] But if you have any more

[5:46:24] specific questions we're happy

[5:46:25] to answer them as best we can

[5:46:26] understanding that we are not

[5:46:29] hpd and we will have to have

[5:46:30] further many further

[5:46:34] conversations with the agency

[5:46:35] as we move forward to ensure

[5:46:35] that the city remains with a

[5:46:40] housing element that's in

[5:46:40] compliance as determined by

[5:46:41] each city.

[5:46:41] >> Understood.

[5:46:45] And I want us to be in

[5:46:45] compliance.

[5:46:46] I'm just quite shocked that

[5:46:46] something that wasn't required

[5:46:50] of us that we voluntarily chose

[5:46:50] Why would we be out of

[5:46:51] compliance?

[5:46:51] Okay.

[5:46:52] I do have a question about

[5:46:53] the fire setback.

[5:46:54] So the proposal that your

[5:46:55] department had brought forward

[5:46:58] which I agreed with was that in

[5:46:59] high a very high fire severity

[5:47:00] zones we would be maintaining a

[5:47:04] minimum setback of five feet

[5:47:05] which aligns with and with

[5:47:08] state law.

[5:47:09] It's ab 307 forward for zone

[5:47:10] zero law that a lot of my

[5:47:13] residents have been putting a

[5:47:14] lot of money into cutting down

[5:47:18] trees pergolas moving things

[5:47:19] off of their property so they

[5:47:20] can have the five feet of

[5:47:20] clearance.

[5:47:24] They didn't want to do these

[5:47:24] things but they knew when their

[5:47:25] insurance companies were coming

[5:47:26] and they were getting discounts

[5:47:28] for this so why would we then

[5:47:29] thwart all those efforts and

[5:47:33] allow for fee for you to use?

[5:47:34] >> So as you're aware, when we

[5:47:34] originally proposed these

[5:47:38] amendments at the Planning

[5:47:39] Commission as well as the Land

[5:47:39] Use and Housing Committee, we

[5:47:43] had proposed those with five

[5:47:43] foot setbacks.

[5:47:44] Those were proposed to be

[5:47:45] consistent with what you've

[5:47:48] mentioned regarding the five

[5:47:49] feet of defensible space.

[5:47:52] The challenge for us is that

[5:47:53] the planning and zoning law in

[5:47:53] the Government code specifies a

[5:47:58] maximum of four foot setbacks

[5:47:58] that the city can require based

[5:48:03] off of the previous letter that

[5:48:04] we had from eight cd That was

[5:48:06] before last Friday's letter

[5:48:07] They had told us in what I

[5:48:11] believed to be more firm terms

[5:48:12] than a lot of the statements

[5:48:13] they made in their Friday

[5:48:17] letter that we would be out of

[5:48:18] compliance with a new law if we

[5:48:18] had that five foot setback in

[5:48:21] their Our clarifications do

[5:48:22] still allow for the fire

[5:48:26] official to require five feet

[5:48:27] or greater to ensure compliance

[5:48:31] with the fire code So that's

[5:48:32] the language that has been

[5:48:34] proposed here is that it's four

[5:48:35] feet or greater as determined

[5:48:39] by the fire official.

[5:48:40] I do anticipate that during

[5:48:40] the fire reviews the fire

[5:48:41] officials will be determining

[5:48:43] that additional setbacks are

[5:48:44] required to meet that

[5:48:45] defensible space requirement.

[5:48:49] But the feedback that we had

[5:48:50] received with from each cda was

[5:48:54] to remove that from our land

[5:48:54] development code.

[5:48:59] So in my opinion it makes it

[5:49:00] more complicated.

[5:49:00] It would be nice to be able to

[5:49:01] have our land development could

[5:49:04] be up front and provide

[5:49:05] certainty on what those

[5:49:05] setbacks look like rather than

[5:49:09] having to wait to go into a

[5:49:10] fire review process.

[5:49:10] However, I did not feel that it

[5:49:13] was worth the risk to submit

[5:49:14] the ordinance to each city

[5:49:17] given that they had in writing

[5:49:18] provided us with that feedback

[5:49:28] that got it within Why don't we

[5:49:29] write back to hpd and ask them

[5:49:29] if they're going to pay our

[5:49:35] increased insurance premiums?

[5:49:36] >> Um, I mean and that we would

[5:49:43] be in violation of state law.

[5:49:43] My residents have invested a

[5:49:44] lot of money preparing their

[5:49:46] houses for Zone zero and it's

[5:49:47] just kind of a slap in the face

[5:49:51] to them that we you know and I

[5:49:52] understand that it's not your

[5:49:56] fault but we why if we have to

[5:49:57] comply with a state law, why

[5:49:58] don't we comply with the fire

[5:50:00] state law?

[5:50:01] So I'd prefer we put that back

[5:50:02] in here to be honest.

[5:50:05] So proposal is not to not

[5:50:06] comply with the fire state law.

[5:50:10] It's to identify the setback

[5:50:15] requirement that is set forth

[5:50:16] in the government code while

[5:50:17] allowing for the fire official

[5:50:20] to comply with state law that

[5:50:21] requires for defensible space.

[5:50:22] I understand that it is

[5:50:25] frustrating and overly

[5:50:26] bureaucratic but that is what

[5:50:27] we have to work with from

[5:50:30] the state.

[5:50:40] Okay I if I would prefer they

[5:50:41] came down consistent as well

[5:50:45] For what it's worth all right.

[5:50:46] We have more questions about

[5:50:46] parking.

[5:50:47] We're going to require

[5:50:48] developers to provide parking

[5:50:53] now right?

[5:50:53] That is correct.

[5:50:54] Under the proposal outside of

[5:50:58] the transit priority area we

[5:50:59] are proposing in these

[5:50:59] regulations that additional

[5:51:03] parking be required.

[5:51:04] We are prohibited under state

[5:51:09] law which is referred to as ab

[5:51:09] 2097 from imposing parking

[5:51:13] requirements on a wide variety

[5:51:13] of development projects that

[5:51:14] are located within a transit

[5:51:17] priority area.

[5:51:18] >> So are these amendments

[5:51:23] going as far as we can and

[5:51:24] requiring off street parking

[5:51:27] and under law in terms of

[5:51:28] the areas that we're applying

[5:51:32] into we did propose them to

[5:51:32] apply on all areas that are not

[5:51:37] otherwise prohibited by

[5:51:37] the state law under ab 2097.

[5:51:38] Okay.

[5:51:42] So what if there's a cold

[5:51:43] attacked by neighbors for

[5:51:46] better San Diego showed but you

[5:51:46] can't actually get to

[5:51:47] the transit unless you walk

[5:51:51] around the freeway.

[5:51:52] So we we did have this

[5:51:53] discussion because the city

[5:51:56] council did adopt what was

[5:51:57] brought forward for the count

[5:52:01] for the city's adoption of ab

[5:52:02] nine 2097 And there was

[5:52:03] the discussion of the walking

[5:52:07] distance versus as the crow

[5:52:07] flies.

[5:52:08] The challenge that we have is

[5:52:10] that where the state

[5:52:11] legislature has identified in

[5:52:12] other portions of

[5:52:12] the government code where they

[5:52:16] have intended to it for it to

[5:52:17] be limited to walking distance

[5:52:17] they have so stated that

[5:52:21] whereas in ab 2097 the language

[5:52:25] has just specified the half

[5:52:26] mile distance which we haven't

[5:52:31] felt like we can interpret to

[5:52:31] be a walking distance given

[5:52:32] that the legislature has

[5:52:33] specified otherwise in other

[5:52:36] sections such as sb nine I will

[5:52:37] defer to the city Attorney's

[5:52:39] office for any additional

[5:52:44] opinions on that matter.

[5:52:49] >> Okay then um it sounds like

[5:52:50] we're kind of confined by a lot

[5:52:50] of the things the state is

[5:52:55] bringing down on us And I mean

[5:52:58] I think having an edu or 2 or 3

[5:52:58] a four is it?

[5:52:59] Hey did your private property

[5:53:03] if you want to have a couple of

[5:53:04] to use that's fine but if you

[5:53:04] want to have an apartment

[5:53:05] building then you should have

[5:53:06] been zoned for an apartment

[5:53:12] building So I know I appreciate

[5:53:12] we're trying to manage

[5:53:13] the meeting.

[5:53:13] >> I'm trying to support my

[5:53:16] council PRESIDENT Here so why

[5:53:21] don't we do I'd like to put an

[5:53:22] amendment out and I have no

[5:53:26] idea how to do this but the for

[5:53:26] for everyone I think it should

[5:53:31] be for everywhere.

[5:53:31] That's what the cpc recommended

[5:53:32] as well in their letter and

[5:53:38] congratulation is by the way

[5:53:38] the descriptions platting

[5:53:39] chairs the new chair the cpc

[5:53:40] Victoria approves the way we

[5:53:41] appreciate her service so I

[5:53:42] would rather do that because

[5:53:42] that might limit some of

[5:53:45] the parking issues and other

[5:53:45] things that we can't deal with

[5:53:46] because of state law.

[5:53:47] So I would put forth an

[5:53:50] amendment to my colleagues to

[5:53:51] make it for everywhere.

[5:53:55] >> Thank you.

[5:53:56] >> I don't know where in

[5:54:00] the code to do that exactly.

[5:54:00] >> So City Tree might have to

[5:54:01] help me craft that amendment.

[5:54:01] Okay.

[5:54:05] As it stands I believe that's a

[5:54:05] friendly amendment amendment

[5:54:10] that's been offered to the I'm

[5:54:10] pretty friendly so well so

[5:54:15] the maker of the motion in a

[5:54:16] second since we do make sense

[5:54:19] with the four because I don't

[5:54:20] have language for it I just I

[5:54:20] know that that's would be

[5:54:24] requested of folks Yeah I don't

[5:54:24] know that that's necessarily

[5:54:25] drafted up in any way because I

[5:54:26] feel like everyone has

[5:54:28] different numbers that have

[5:54:29] been tossed around.

[5:54:29] I've continued to stick with

[5:54:30] the developing skill that has

[5:54:32] been presented by staff that

[5:54:38] does range based on size and so

[5:54:39] if a customer would like to

[5:54:39] pursue that I'm sure you can

[5:54:45] continue that in the typical

[5:54:46] amendment fashion Maybe

[5:54:50] the city attorney can help with

[5:54:51] Table 140 1.-03a The maximum

[5:54:56] number of permitted to use and

[5:54:57] to use on single dwelling lots

[5:54:57] So no matter the square footage

[5:54:58] it would be for across

[5:55:02] the board.

[5:55:03] >> Okay I mean I can work on

[5:55:07] putting that together and then

[5:55:08] run it by your staff.

[5:55:12] Is that would you would like I

[5:55:13] would be has to be in writing

[5:55:14] So yes I just feel bad if

[5:55:17] you're going to do all that

[5:55:18] work if you could we take a

[5:55:18] vote or I don't know it's up to

[5:55:19] you but that's what I'd prefer

[5:55:22] to do Exactly right.

[5:55:22] >> I think if it's a friendly

[5:55:27] amendment I think the maker of

[5:55:27] the motion understands it

[5:55:28] enough We could figure out

[5:55:31] where we'd go.

[5:55:31] >> But if it's a friendly

[5:55:32] amendment I didn't think it was

[5:55:33] a friendly amendment.

[5:55:36] So if if you'd like to move it

[5:55:37] forward as a separate amendment

[5:55:40] that's fine.

[5:55:41] >> Sure.

[5:55:41] I would put forward a

[5:55:45] substitute motion then for

[5:55:46] staff recommendation but make

[5:55:47] that amendment that it's for

[5:55:51] everywhere.

[5:55:51] All right.

[5:55:52] Get a second.

[5:55:52] Great.

[5:55:53] If I don't and I'll go down.

[5:55:58] >> So again so that's a

[5:56:03] substitute motion.

[5:56:03] >> You just want to vote on

[5:56:07] the amendment or do you want to

[5:56:08] I think you just want a vote on

[5:56:14] the amendment that would then

[5:56:14] we could do that to the staff.

[5:56:15] Yeah because it's basically

[5:56:17] the same as Council Pro tem

[5:56:18] Just I would add just that say

[5:56:19] I favor nation plus my

[5:56:22] amendment So okay do we need to

[5:56:22] pause and can I get a

[5:56:23] clarification?

[5:56:26] >> Yes And this is just for

[5:56:27] single family, not multifamily,

[5:56:28] correct?

[5:56:28] >> Yes.

[5:56:29] For single family Do we not

[5:56:35] have So we would need a second

[5:56:36] if we're going to move forward

[5:56:39] on this.

[5:56:40] >> Okay.

[5:56:41] I'll second it.

[5:56:58] >> Thank you.

[5:56:59] See what I'm what you're voting

[5:56:59] on with a new motion.

[5:57:01] Okay.

[5:57:02] Do we need to have that in

[5:57:06] writing before voting or we

[5:57:07] will need to craft an amendment

[5:57:08] in writing And if we could just

[5:57:11] take a quick break to determine

[5:57:12] how best to do that and where

[5:57:12] it would go in the code.

[5:57:15] >> Okay.

[5:57:19] >> And 510 Okay.

[5:57:38] >> We only need five minutes so

[5:57:51] we All right?

[6:00:00] Yeah I

[6:03:03] yeah I know And I'm I'm

[6:03:56] I'm I'm

[6:05:00] okay

[6:07:00] And

[6:12:28] I just

[6:13:50] I have four you have on.

[6:13:51] All right.

[6:13:52] We're going to get resume on

[6:13:56] this again remember the golden

[6:13:56] rule five minutes for recess is

[6:13:58] never five minutes So city

[6:14:04] clerk please call the roll.

[6:14:04] Thank you.

[6:14:08] Council council member Campbell

[6:14:08] I do see you, Councilmember

[6:14:09] Campbell.

[6:14:13] >> I do see you But you need to

[6:14:14] unmute.

[6:14:14] I'm here.

[6:14:14] Thank you so much.

[6:14:17] Thank you.

[6:14:22] Council member whitburn Council

[6:14:23] Member Foster here Council

[6:14:26] Member Von Wilpert and Council

[6:14:31] PRESIDENT Pro Tem Lee here Some

[6:14:32] member Can you hear Council

[6:14:35] member Moreno present Council

[6:14:40] member Ellen Rivera

[6:14:41] The PRESIDENT Look LaCava

[6:14:42] present All right we do have a

[6:14:44] quorum through the very

[6:14:49] attentive city attorney and

[6:14:50] the city clerk we have

[6:14:54] clarified that In fact

[6:14:54] COUNCILMAN Van Wolpert has made

[6:14:59] a substitute motion which is to

[6:14:59] move the staff recommendation

[6:15:04] but make the change for only

[6:15:04] for 80 use And I think there's

[6:15:09] language up on the screen a

[6:15:09] little bit tiny but perhaps you

[6:15:10] can see it.

[6:15:13] So I think the city attorney

[6:15:14] wanted to make a comment before

[6:15:15] we go back to council members

[6:15:19] for discussion.

[6:15:19] Thank you.

[6:15:20] Council PRESIDENT.

[6:15:20] I will ask Senior Chief Deputy

[6:15:21] City Attorney Karen New for to

[6:15:23] comment on the motion.

[6:15:23] Thank you.

[6:15:24] I wanted to just clarify for

[6:15:28] the record that under state law

[6:15:29] the city is required to have an

[6:15:33] incentive program incentivizing

[6:15:33] incentivizing the affordable

[6:15:38] adus this proposed motion would

[6:15:43] allow for one extra area beyond

[6:15:44] what is required under state

[6:15:44] law.

[6:15:47] There is a possibility that cd

[6:15:48] MAY not find that to

[6:15:48] incentivize enough given

[6:15:52] the current program.

[6:15:53] >> And so I just wanted you to

[6:15:57] be aware of that.

[6:15:58] Okay, Thank you.

[6:15:59] And then the remedy if it were

[6:16:02] to be if this were to pass and

[6:16:03] the remedy would be what would

[6:16:06] be mad at us now what we do So

[6:16:07] after something is adopted

[6:16:12] the city is required to submit

[6:16:12] that ordinance to each city.

[6:16:16] They then make a determination

[6:16:17] as to whether it complies with

[6:16:21] the state housing laws If they

[6:16:22] do not think it complies with

[6:16:23] the state housing laws they

[6:16:26] will let us know they present

[6:16:26] findings letting us know that

[6:16:30] they don't think it complies

[6:16:31] and then the city can take an

[6:16:32] opportunity to amend

[6:16:36] the ordinance at that time.

[6:16:36] >> Okay.

[6:16:37] All right.

[6:16:37] Thank you.

[6:16:42] Do this all over again.

[6:16:42] All right.

[6:16:43] So we have the motion by a

[6:16:44] councilmember a substitute

[6:16:45] motion by COUNCILMAN Bond for

[6:16:46] second by Council member Campo.

[6:16:50] Now there's an opportunity for

[6:16:50] council members to discuss

[6:16:51] the motion that is now on

[6:16:53] the floor and we'll go to

[6:16:58] Councilmember Foster.

[6:16:59] >> Oh, yes.

[6:17:00] I just want to go back to your

[6:17:04] comment regarding the cd and

[6:17:08] I'm confused because we said

[6:17:09] that there is no other

[6:17:13] municipality that has a bonus

[6:17:15] edu program.

[6:17:21] Is that accurate?

[6:17:22] I do not know if that is

[6:17:26] accurate.

[6:17:27] Oh I can comment on I believe

[6:17:30] that that is accurate To my

[6:17:31] knowledge our housing element

[6:17:35] which was certified and is

[6:17:36] currently certified does

[6:17:36] reference the adu bonus

[6:17:37] program.

[6:17:40] It does not reference

[6:17:41] the specifics of what that

[6:17:41] looks like.

[6:17:44] It does identify what I would

[6:17:45] refer to is a performance

[6:17:50] standard of achieving 40

[6:17:55] affordable 80 use per year.

[6:17:56] Okay And thank you for that And

[6:18:00] I guess I would have to ask

[6:18:01] based on the information that i

[6:18:05] think was discussed or was

[6:18:05] brought to light during public

[6:18:10] comment, it sounds like we have

[6:18:14] exceeded those performance

[6:18:15] numbers as a requirement.

[6:18:20] Is that accurate or is that not

[6:18:20] accurate?

[6:18:24] >> The performance standard was

[6:18:24] 40 accessory affordable

[6:18:25] accessory dwelling units per

[6:18:29] year.

[6:18:32] We have permitted between 2021

[6:18:33] and 2024 over 300 so we would

[6:18:34] be exceeding that number.

[6:18:38] So we have exceeded the So

[6:18:38] that's a good thing.

[6:18:41] >> Would you agree that meeting

[6:18:42] our targets is a good thing?

[6:18:42] Yes.

[6:18:46] Okay.

[6:18:47] Okay.

[6:18:51] I think I will I think I will

[6:18:56] leave that There is I'm curious

[6:18:57] to say curious to call for

[6:19:01] the question and see how this

[6:19:02] vote turns out.

[6:19:02] All right.

[6:19:07] Are there to conclude my

[6:19:07] comments for now.

[6:19:07] All right.

[6:19:08] I'm going to take it as a

[6:19:11] friendly call for Councilmember

[6:19:12] Campeon Thank you, council

[6:19:12] PRESIDENT.

[6:19:15] >> Thank you to the members of

[6:19:20] the public for 810 meetings Now

[6:19:21] that you've shown out to give

[6:19:25] us your feedback and all

[6:19:26] the other meetings you have

[6:19:29] that are not at the Council I

[6:19:30] have prepared remarks but I was

[6:19:34] writing down a few as I was

[6:19:35] eating my goldfish.

[6:19:36] A few of the comments that

[6:19:36] people have pointed out and

[6:19:40] phrases that really just

[6:19:41] reverberated with me and that I

[6:19:41] know reverberate with my

[6:19:43] neighbors and my constituents

[6:19:44] in District seven out of

[6:19:49] control very apropos

[6:19:50] the program has been out of

[6:19:53] control and it seemed like from

[6:19:54] what was presented 97 to 98% of

[6:19:58] all the projects are not out of

[6:19:59] control.

[6:19:59] Three or so percent of

[6:20:00] the projects are out of control

[6:20:04] and those are really ruining

[6:20:07] the sense of community.

[6:20:08] I know people say neighborhood

[6:20:09] character sense of community is

[6:20:13] what I hear coming through and

[6:20:13] my neighbors in Linda Vista, I

[6:20:14] want to thank you in particular

[6:20:15] for being out here for working

[6:20:18] with Miles and Summer Miles.

[6:20:19] Let me know just how angering

[6:20:23] it was and how disappointed you

[6:20:24] were that there was that

[6:20:26] the complete destruction of

[6:20:31] privacy that came about near

[6:20:32] transit Some some folks said

[6:20:36] oh, this is we need to keep

[6:20:37] building near transit.

[6:20:37] It's not bearing out that this

[6:20:40] is really near transit.

[6:20:41] Someone called it community

[6:20:45] friendly developments.

[6:20:46] I don't hear any community

[6:20:48] who's saying that they want

[6:20:49] the 3% of the developments

[6:20:54] coming through Puti place Who

[6:20:55] are the folks from Peabody

[6:20:59] Place?

[6:21:00] I think they might not be here

[6:21:00] anymore but it seems like a lot

[6:21:01] There you are.

[6:21:04] It seems like a lot of these

[6:21:05] particularly the 3% of very big

[6:21:09] developments are tucked away in

[6:21:10] a place that most of San Diego

[6:21:13] can't see but that those

[6:21:14] particular pockets are being

[6:21:19] undermined, that that's that's

[6:21:19] disappointing.

[6:21:23] And then the quote that was

[6:21:23] underlined from folks we have a

[6:21:26] unique there was it was from

[6:21:27] one of the investment materials

[6:21:28] We have a unique opportunity to

[6:21:31] acquire these properties now

[6:21:32] before homeowner awareness and

[6:21:37] prices jump up it says

[6:21:38] everything you need to know

[6:21:41] They're hoping you're not aware

[6:21:41] .

[6:21:42] They're hoping no one's aware

[6:21:46] And in that on slide they even

[6:21:47] called it the edu craze.

[6:21:48] They described their own

[6:21:48] projects as a craze.

[6:21:51] I, I just want to say I've

[6:21:55] really been listening a lot to

[6:21:56] what what you all were saying

[6:21:57] today And let's be honest

[6:22:00] the reason you're here

[6:22:01] the reason we're here is

[6:22:02] because of the people sitting

[6:22:02] out there that have been

[6:22:05] advocating for this for so

[6:22:05] long.

[6:22:06] >> Show up, speak out, stay

[6:22:10] engaged, gave frankly excellent

[6:22:11] suggestions over and over and

[6:22:11] over again And I want to thank

[6:22:15] you for that.

[6:22:16] And when this issue came before

[6:22:16] council in MARCH to proceed

[6:22:20] forward with several ideas that

[6:22:20] were not yet concrete at that

[6:22:21] moment I voted no.

[6:22:22] I was concerned that the motion

[6:22:25] on the table was not only cut

[6:22:25] out large parts of the program

[6:22:26] without regard to what my

[6:22:30] neighbors had in rs1 seven

[6:22:31] zones but I was also concerned

[6:22:35] that the idea did risk putting

[6:22:35] the city out of compliance with

[6:22:39] our housing element and that we

[6:22:40] this weekend the concerns were

[6:22:41] echoed significantly when

[6:22:44] receive that letter from hcd

[6:22:44] about the legal risks and I

[6:22:45] know there's some dispute over

[6:22:46] whether or not that's a true

[6:22:46] threat or not but I don't think

[6:22:49] they sent us a letter without

[6:22:50] serious reasons And I'm very

[6:22:51] i'm going to be listening to

[6:22:53] what our city attorney tells us

[6:22:54] when that comes forward later

[6:22:58] similar to what the coastal

[6:22:59] Commission Council PRESIDENT

[6:22:59] Brought up coastal commission

[6:23:00] you said there you wait to hear

[6:23:03] what they say back because you

[6:23:04] have to comply with the state

[6:23:05] regulators And so I'll be

[6:23:09] waiting diligently for that

[6:23:09] answer Right now as an elected

[6:23:14] representative it's our jobs to

[6:23:14] represent the needs of our

[6:23:15] neighbors As a public servant

[6:23:16] it's our also responsibility to

[6:23:18] abide by state law and work in

[6:23:19] good faith to meet our state

[6:23:23] requirements.

[6:23:24] I don't want us to lose

[6:23:24] control.

[6:23:24] I don't want to see

[6:23:28] the builders remedy whatsoever

[6:23:28] .

[6:23:29] And so while I did second

[6:23:32] the motion for the four unit

[6:23:32] cap the councilmember

[6:23:33] vulnerable for I am going to be

[6:23:36] watching very closely because I

[6:23:37] do not want us to be risking

[6:23:41] the problems that might come if

[6:23:42] the state tells us it's just

[6:23:45] not feasible as much as I'm

[6:23:46] worried about that though it's

[6:23:47] important to be reasonable and

[6:23:47] open minded to integrating as

[6:23:51] many ideas from the public as

[6:23:51] possible because unchecked

[6:23:56] density has created real risk.

[6:23:56] The projects I've seen as part

[6:23:57] of this program have violated

[6:23:58] the spirit of what the program

[6:24:00] was supposed to be about

[6:24:01] Investors that don't have to

[6:24:05] live with the end result And

[6:24:06] thank you to the District seven

[6:24:06] folks particularly from Linda

[6:24:10] Vista.

[6:24:11] If I could have those three

[6:24:12] ready in my district there are

[6:24:15] several numerous 82 projects

[6:24:15] including Newbold Court and

[6:24:16] Linda Vista and Twain Avenue

[6:24:19] and Allied Gardens that have

[6:24:20] generated a great deal of

[6:24:21] concern And I've gone past

[6:24:23] those locations personally I've

[6:24:24] asked my staff to visit and

[6:24:25] meet the people who live there

[6:24:25] and those neighbors are

[6:24:29] rightfully concerned because

[6:24:29] they care about their

[6:24:30] neighborhoods and they care

[6:24:34] about their neighbors and I

[6:24:34] think it's very, very obvious

[6:24:35] that the people sitting out

[6:24:39] there are open to change but

[6:24:40] wanted to be part of

[6:24:40] the process from the very

[6:24:44] beginning rules that made sense

[6:24:45] not just to protect their

[6:24:45] families but also to protect

[6:24:48] the families of the people who

[6:24:49] were going to move in.

[6:24:49] It's not just the folks who

[6:24:50] already live there that are

[6:24:54] saying this is a risk to me and

[6:24:54] my family.

[6:24:55] It's the people when they come

[6:24:55] in that's going to be

[6:24:56] troubling.

[6:24:59] So these changes that been

[6:24:59] brought forward numerous thank

[6:25:00] you to our city staff for

[6:25:04] putting together many of these

[6:25:04] common sense reforms.

[6:25:05] Now I think the state prevents

[6:25:09] us from creating what I think

[6:25:10] is an ideal program based on

[6:25:11] what we saw in the city letter

[6:25:13] and and other issues there.

[6:25:14] But let's just take a quick

[6:25:18] look at the wins for San Diego

[6:25:19] The real successes We got many

[6:25:19] fire safety setbacks

[6:25:23] prohibiting projects in very

[6:25:24] dangerous zones excluding

[6:25:29] environmentally sensitive lands

[6:25:30] and canyons because Technology

[6:25:30] Canyon and Ruffin Canyon and

[6:25:32] Short Canyon and Sand Rock

[6:25:33] Canyon and Rueda Canyon and

[6:25:34] Shepherd Canyon and L.A. Canyon

[6:25:34] Navajo Canyon.

[6:25:35] Mission Trails.

[6:25:38] Rim you get the picture about

[6:25:39] what District seven is worried

[6:25:39] about.

[6:25:40] That's very important to

[6:25:43] anybody whose district is along

[6:25:43] a watershed which I think is

[6:25:47] practically everybody requiring

[6:25:47] the off street parking outside

[6:25:48] the tpa.

[6:25:48] That's really important because

[6:25:52] it does put in more of a

[6:25:53] requirement somewhere.

[6:25:53] I just simply want to reiterate

[6:25:57] that and Council PRESIDENT

[6:25:58] Pointed this out Four of us

[6:25:58] voted against this year.

[6:25:59] I voted against the idea that

[6:26:01] impracticality was problematic

[6:26:02] on the community enhancement

[6:26:06] fee.

[6:26:07] Did staff receive any

[6:26:10] confirmation from h about that

[6:26:15] Creating legal problems?

[6:26:16] We did not receive confirmation

[6:26:17] from each city in

[6:26:17] the affirmative but in

[6:26:20] the correspondence and

[6:26:21] discussions that we have had we

[6:26:22] have not received a notice from

[6:26:25] the agency of

[6:26:26] the identification of any

[6:26:27] issues with the community

[6:26:31] enhancement fee Understood I

[6:26:36] think from an from an

[6:26:36] affirmatively furthering fair

[6:26:37] housing component I mentioned

[6:26:41] this at committee that making

[6:26:42] sure we still charged that

[6:26:45] community enhancement fee in

[6:26:46] moderate zones is an important

[6:26:50] component of that.

[6:26:51] Part of it is to try to

[6:26:52] incentivize building the it use

[6:26:55] in areas with more resources.

[6:26:56] I know that we're on a

[6:26:56] substitute motion at this

[6:26:57] point.

[6:27:00] I do think it's important that

[6:27:01] we put that back on council

[6:27:05] PRESIDENT In offering a

[6:27:05] friendly amendment to add that

[6:27:10] requirement back in now that

[6:27:10] this is a motion that is

[6:27:11] carried by Councilmember Yvonne

[6:27:15] Wolpert, it's not Is she in

[6:27:16] charge of accepting friendly

[6:27:17] amendments at this moment?

[6:27:17] >> Yes.

[6:27:20] Okay.

[6:27:21] I would like to see us not just

[6:27:25] waive right now we're waiving

[6:27:29] the ecf and the Community

[6:27:29] Enhancement cef in high

[6:27:34] resource and very high resource

[6:27:34] .

[6:27:35] >> I think we should also not

[6:27:39] waive it in moderate We should

[6:27:40] require in moderate that will

[6:27:41] ensure that places like Linda

[6:27:41] Vista don't get left out if

[6:27:45] there's any use being built

[6:27:45] there.

[6:27:46] And so I would ask that we make

[6:27:49] that that's I don't have it in

[6:27:50] writing but it's a very, very

[6:27:51] literal addition of one word.

[6:27:55] I think Yeah, I would accept

[6:27:55] that.

[6:27:59] Okay.

[6:27:59] >> Thank you.

[6:28:00] City Attorney Is that clear

[6:28:01] what I was suggesting there Is

[6:28:04] it in the fee resolution or is

[6:28:05] it in the ordinance?

[6:28:05] Sorry I believe it's in

[6:28:09] the ordinance.

[6:28:09] Okay.

[6:28:14] For clarification I think this

[6:28:15] only applies to the amendment

[6:28:18] that was made at lnh to waive

[6:28:19] the fee for low income units

[6:28:24] because it's not there's no fee

[6:28:24] waiver for high and highest

[6:28:27] resource areas in general that

[6:28:28] was the incentive that was

[6:28:28] the incentive to try to make

[6:28:32] sure that folks would build

[6:28:33] this in higher resource areas.

[6:28:33] Right?

[6:28:38] Only if using the low income

[6:28:39] all that stuff, correct?

[6:28:39] That's correct.

[6:28:41] So the direction from land use

[6:28:42] and Housing Committee was to

[6:28:47] exempt payment of the fee for

[6:28:47] affordable 80 use deed

[6:28:51] restricted at low or very low

[6:28:52] in moderate high or highest

[6:28:52] resource areas.

[6:28:57] Right So and you're proposal as

[6:28:58] I understand it is this strike

[6:28:58] moderate strike Moderate Yes

[6:29:02] please And I believe that's

[6:29:03] also in the ordinance So we

[6:29:07] will probably need to take

[6:29:12] another quick recess to draft

[6:29:13] that language and distribute

[6:29:13] it.

[6:29:13] Okay.

[6:29:14] I will conclude my comments so

[6:29:16] that we can just get through

[6:29:21] this a little bit more quickly

[6:29:21] .

[6:29:27] >> I want to just touch base on

[6:29:27] the separate sale of ada use if

[6:29:28] I could.

[6:29:28] >> You're going to need a

[6:29:32] little bit more time.

[6:29:33] >> Is there anyone who can give

[6:29:33] me two more minutes please?

[6:29:34] Do I have any time?

[6:29:37] No thank you.

[6:29:37] >> Councilmember Weber and I

[6:29:38] expressed hesitation around

[6:29:42] the separate sale of 80 use and

[6:29:43] I'm there intended to be first

[6:29:46] time home buying opportunities

[6:29:47] that don't exist in our market.

[6:29:48] I'm glad to see the 30 day

[6:29:50] priority for home owner

[6:29:51] occupant to ensure that we're

[6:29:52] supporting families, seniors

[6:29:52] and young people who want to

[6:29:56] enter the housing market and

[6:29:56] not inadvertently create more

[6:29:57] opportunities for investors.

[6:29:58] But I have to say that I have

[6:30:01] significant doubts that

[6:30:02] divisible sellable use will end

[6:30:05] up as lower priced owner

[6:30:05] occupied properties And here's

[6:30:06] why we aren't changing

[6:30:10] the market Reality that we see

[6:30:11] right now already which is

[6:30:12] investors with more cash out

[6:30:15] compete Ordinary people who

[6:30:16] have less cash.

[6:30:17] So I'm worried about this too.

[6:30:20] Today 82 developers often play

[6:30:20] the long game.

[6:30:21] They wait 15 years to recoup

[6:30:23] costs through rent if they

[6:30:24] maintain it and rent it out

[6:30:24] themselves.

[6:30:25] But if if they can sell units

[6:30:29] outright that profit comes

[6:30:29] faster and easier and that

[6:30:30] shift could drive up land

[6:30:33] prices and shut families out

[6:30:33] right now.

[6:30:34] So if they are sellable they

[6:30:37] could investors could recover

[6:30:38] their profits far quicker with

[6:30:39] less effort.

[6:30:39] Doesn't that cause land prices

[6:30:43] to spike, not settle?

[6:30:44] So I'm not convinced about this

[6:30:45] idea And though it's in this

[6:30:48] package with a lot of good

[6:30:49] ideas, I just want to state on

[6:30:50] the record I'm not in support

[6:30:50] of that particular idea.

[6:30:53] I think it will backfire.

[6:30:54] The last point here what

[6:30:57] the 40s I have whatever rules

[6:30:58] that are put in place today we

[6:31:02] have to enforce them very

[6:31:02] strictly.

[6:31:03] When I learned that 80 use were

[6:31:04] being built without

[6:31:07] the required sidewalks leading

[6:31:08] all the way to them, I couldn't

[6:31:08] think of anything more

[6:31:09] upsetting because

[6:31:09] the neighborhood is deprived

[6:31:12] and soon the new residents

[6:31:13] would be deprived of something

[6:31:14] so basic that the city says is

[6:31:14] necessary.

[6:31:17] So we should not let that

[6:31:18] happen again.

[6:31:18] And last thing to the crowd I

[6:31:21] don't want anyone here to think

[6:31:22] I don't think us passing this

[6:31:26] is doing you a favor.

[6:31:27] >> We should have done this

[6:31:28] from the beginning.

[6:31:28] Thank you.

[6:31:32] And all right.

[6:31:32] Thank you, Councilmember Campo

[6:31:33] while they're still Are you

[6:31:36] still working?

[6:31:42] >> Before I go to council

[6:31:42] member Whitburn, I have

[6:31:46] the motion to take it down to

[6:31:46] four.

[6:31:47] Are there any deed restricted

[6:31:47] units that will actually come

[6:31:49] out of this any more?

[6:31:55] So the way that the language is

[6:31:56] written is that there's one

[6:31:58] additional market rate to you

[6:31:59] per affordable 80 You we would

[6:32:04] interpret that to mean that if

[6:32:04] you're adding more than

[6:32:09] the state required that that

[6:32:09] one would be deed restricted.

[6:32:12] Okay so out of the four one

[6:32:13] would still be deed restricted

[6:32:17] that would be the effect of

[6:32:18] the program With the amendment

[6:32:18] With the amendment.

[6:32:19] >> Okay, great.

[6:32:22] Thank you for that.

[6:32:23] Councilmember Whitburn Thank

[6:32:23] you.

[6:32:24] Council PRESIDENT And you sort

[6:32:27] of touched on the question that

[6:32:28] I was going to ask.

[6:32:29] I'll I guess ask for a little

[6:32:31] bit more on that because it's

[6:32:32] one of the consistent themes

[6:32:36] that we've heard is a lot of

[6:32:37] interest in the truly deed

[6:32:41] restricted rent kept affordable

[6:32:42] to use.

[6:32:42] I think you mentioned that over

[6:32:45] the last three years we've seen

[6:32:46] something like 90 or 100 a year

[6:32:47] is I am I remember what you

[6:32:48] said there correctly How many

[6:32:51] have we done in the last few

[6:32:51] years?

[6:32:52] We have permanent over 300 in

[6:32:52] the last four years.

[6:32:55] That's 2021 through 2024.

[6:33:00] >> Okay, 92.

[6:33:01] Thank you.

[6:33:05] All right, good.

[6:33:05] It's late.

[6:33:06] My bath wasn't quite that fast.

[6:33:07] Okay, so we we did about 92 a

[6:33:09] year so if we go with

[6:33:10] the motion that's on the floor

[6:33:14] which is a cap of four across

[6:33:14] the board, what would be

[6:33:19] the impact on the production of

[6:33:19] deed restricted rent capped

[6:33:23] affordable to use The answer to

[6:33:24] that is a little complicated.

[6:33:28] We don't know the data that

[6:33:29] we've shared with you is data

[6:33:29] that's based off of the program

[6:33:33] that's been effect in effect

[6:33:34] with additional amendments.

[6:33:37] We don't know the way that we

[6:33:38] would know is that we would

[6:33:38] monitor the program and that

[6:33:39] information would be shared

[6:33:43] publicly through what we call

[6:33:43] our annual report on homes.

[6:33:44] >> Okay.

[6:33:44] Thank you.

[6:33:45] Thank you.

[6:33:47] Council PRESIDENT.

[6:33:48] Thank you for that question.

[6:33:52] Council member Whitburn

[6:33:53] Councilmember Moreno Thank you

[6:33:53] and thank you for

[6:33:58] the presentation and thank you

[6:33:58] to staff for your hard work on

[6:34:03] this item and also thank you to

[6:34:03] the public that came out to

[6:34:04] express your opinions on

[6:34:07] the matter before us today.

[6:34:08] I've long expressed strong

[6:34:12] support for finding ways to

[6:34:13] build more housing throughout

[6:34:14] the city that is accessible and

[6:34:17] affordable to all San Diegans.

[6:34:17] Not everybody could afford to

[6:34:18] buy a house or were fortunate

[6:34:22] enough to buy one in the 1980s

[6:34:27] Rental rate rental rates remain

[6:34:27] very high which put many San

[6:34:28] Diegans in a tough spot where

[6:34:32] they're focused they're forced

[6:34:33] to pay high rent for homes that

[6:34:37] might not fit the need

[6:34:37] the needs of their family.

[6:34:38] This is why since I was elected

[6:34:41] in 2018 I've looked at every

[6:34:42] avenue possible to build more

[6:34:46] homes across the city because

[6:34:47] it is the only way we're going

[6:34:51] to address our housing crisis.

[6:34:52] We spent a lot of time

[6:34:53] developing 80 new regulations

[6:34:56] in the Housing Legisla ation

[6:34:57] Code Update in 2020 the Housing

[6:35:01] Action package in 2021 and 2022

[6:35:05] as well as other policies meant

[6:35:06] to generally increase housing

[6:35:10] opportunities for San Diegans

[6:35:11] such as multiple land

[6:35:11] development code updates and

[6:35:15] affordable housing preservation

[6:35:16] ordinance.

[6:35:16] These have all helped increase

[6:35:21] housing supply in 2021 over

[6:35:24] 5000 since 2021 over 5780 use

[6:35:29] have been built that families

[6:35:29] live in today.

[6:35:33] That's incredibly meaningful to

[6:35:34] the people who live in those

[6:35:35] homes now And I'm glad that

[6:35:36] they have been built But it's

[6:35:38] not enough.

[6:35:39] We still need more housing for

[6:35:39] families particularly

[6:35:43] affordable housing and middle

[6:35:43] income housing.

[6:35:44] Some of the proposed amendments

[6:35:48] have been called into question

[6:35:49] In the JUNE 13th letter from

[6:35:53] the State Department of Housing

[6:35:53] and Community Development And I

[6:35:54] do agree with some of these

[6:35:54] points.

[6:35:57] I was glad to see some

[6:35:58] revisions in response to these

[6:36:02] letter especially adjusting

[6:36:03] the amendment to allow the age

[6:36:07] edu home density bonus program

[6:36:08] to apply in high and highest

[6:36:12] resource areas within the zones

[6:36:12] being removed from the program.

[6:36:13] I was also glad to see

[6:36:17] the changes clarifying that

[6:36:17] replacement parking is not

[6:36:22] required in any addition in any

[6:36:22] situation where an uncovered

[6:36:23] parking space is removed to

[6:36:26] build an adu However, I do

[6:36:27] agree on the point by age cd

[6:36:31] that the Home Density Bonus

[6:36:32] program is an important part of

[6:36:36] our housing element and that

[6:36:36] the city relied in part on

[6:36:40] the program to satisfy the four

[6:36:41] admittedly further fair housing

[6:36:41] requirement of the housing

[6:36:45] element and that the adu bonus

[6:36:46] program is a meaningful action

[6:36:50] to address multiple fair

[6:36:50] housing issues.

[6:36:51] I was particularly concerned

[6:36:55] with the section titled General

[6:36:56] affo Obligation in the letter

[6:37:00] that states the changes raised

[6:37:01] concern about whether

[6:37:04] the amended provisions are

[6:37:05] materially inconsistent with

[6:37:05] the city's obligation to

[6:37:10] affirmatively furthering fair

[6:37:10] housing.

[6:37:11] It's a valid point because at

[6:37:14] the end of the day these

[6:37:15] amendments, these amendments

[6:37:16] make it harder to build more

[6:37:19] adu homes in many areas of San

[6:37:20] Diego to address our housing

[6:37:24] crises and to make sure there

[6:37:25] are homes to live in For all

[6:37:26] San Diegans it is my job to

[6:37:29] make it easier to build more

[6:37:29] housing.

[6:37:30] I do not want to reduce

[6:37:34] the tools at our disposal that

[6:37:35] help us build more housing.

[6:37:39] The adu density bonus program

[6:37:40] is one tool that created more

[6:37:43] housing and these changes make

[6:37:44] it less effective and limits

[6:37:44] our ability to affirmatively

[6:37:48] affirmatively further fair

[6:37:49] housing.

[6:37:49] The Staff report and the letter

[6:37:54] from hcd mentioned that since

[6:37:55] the city adopted the adu home

[6:37:59] density bonus program it's

[6:37:59] resulted in 875 adus permitted

[6:38:04] with 365 of those having

[6:38:05] affordability restrictions That

[6:38:09] is significant and I don't want

[6:38:14] to lose that momentum according

[6:38:14] to the Planning Department's

[6:38:15] 2024 report on homes the city

[6:38:19] has permitted 23.8% of homes

[6:38:23] allocated through the regional

[6:38:27] housing needs assessment

[6:38:28] between 2020 and 2023 of

[6:38:32] the 25,692 new homes permitted

[6:38:33] between 2020 and 2023 the city

[6:38:37] has permitted 4879 low income

[6:38:42] and moderate income homes.

[6:38:44] Meanwhile there have been

[6:38:45] 20,814 above moderate income

[6:38:50] homes built and I will need my

[6:38:51] extra 33 minutes please.

[6:38:51] I think everybody can

[6:38:55] acknowledge that the city needs

[6:38:56] more homes that are affordable

[6:38:56] to everyday working people and

[6:38:59] less luxury homes built for

[6:39:00] the wealthy.

[6:39:04] 80 Use help fill that gap

[6:39:08] The city would will need to

[6:39:09] permit 82,344 more homes to

[6:39:13] meet the rent allocation by

[6:39:14] 2029.

[6:39:14] If these amendments are passed

[6:39:18] we will likely fall further

[6:39:19] behind in our goals to reach

[6:39:23] those numbers.

[6:39:24] >> Now when my three year old

[6:39:24] daughter is an adult I want her

[6:39:28] and everyone in her generation

[6:39:28] to have the opportunity to live

[6:39:29] in San Diego.

[6:39:33] That means we need to do all we

[6:39:34] can now to increase housing

[6:39:38] supply If we move backwards

[6:39:39] today in allowing more homes to

[6:39:43] be built.

[6:39:44] I very much fear that in 20 or

[6:39:47] 30 years our housing crisis

[6:39:48] will be even worse than it is

[6:39:52] today And people who were born

[6:39:53] and raised here in San Diego

[6:39:54] will have to leave in order to

[6:39:55] live in a home they could

[6:39:58] afford.

[6:39:58] >> Ultimately my goal is to

[6:39:59] encourage building more

[6:40:03] affordable housing while

[6:40:04] preventing abuse of the city's

[6:40:08] optional adu density program.

[6:40:09] These changes go far beyond

[6:40:13] addressing these bad actors.

[6:40:17] Finally in Cdw's discussion of

[6:40:18] item 14 which removes

[6:40:18] the program from various

[6:40:22] residential zones, they say

[6:40:26] that the amendment to

[6:40:27] eligibility criteria appear to

[6:40:32] go much further than addressing

[6:40:32] those concerns by removing

[6:40:36] eligibility from 20% of

[6:40:36] the area where fewer units

[6:40:41] would be allowed in the first

[6:40:41] place and by imposing prohibit

[6:40:46] prohibitive restrictions on

[6:40:46] the remainder of all eligible

[6:40:47] sites.

[6:40:50] >> I very much agree with that

[6:40:51] statement and as such I will

[6:40:52] not be voting in favor of

[6:40:55] the motion before us today.

[6:40:56] >> Thank you.

[6:40:57] That concludes my comments.

[6:40:57] All right.

[6:40:57] Thank you.

[6:41:00] Council member Moreno.

[6:41:01] Are we still working on

[6:41:02] the language or do we have

[6:41:05] something we can put up on

[6:41:06] the screen that it was sent?

[6:41:10] Okay.

[6:41:10] >> If the city attorney could

[6:41:11] clarify what the changes would

[6:41:15] be for the Councilmember and

[6:41:15] see if he accepts.

[6:41:20] >> Absolutely within

[6:41:20] the ordinance it would be a

[6:41:24] change to section 141.0302

[6:41:28] subsection d subsection nine be

[6:41:29] to strike out moderate.

[6:41:33] In addition, in the fee

[6:41:33] resolution it would also strike

[6:41:38] out moderate to recital j and

[6:41:38] then action item number three

[6:41:42] That sounds correct to me So

[6:41:47] it's nine b Yes so it'll say

[6:41:47] the premises is located in an

[6:41:48] area identified as a high or

[6:41:51] very high moderate district.

[6:41:51] >> Yes, very good.

[6:41:52] That's what I was looking for.

[6:41:56] Thank you so much.

[6:42:02] They're going to put that up on

[6:42:02] the screen.

[6:42:05] So that only applies to income

[6:42:06] restricted units in those

[6:42:06] areas.

[6:42:11] Yes.

[6:42:11] Okay.

[6:42:11] Not well.

[6:42:12] So just for clarification,

[6:42:15] income restricted at the low or

[6:42:15] very low levels.

[6:42:16] >> Low.

[6:42:16] Very low.

[6:42:20] Right.

[6:42:23] I'll wait for that to go up on

[6:42:29] the screen I will add I

[6:42:29] appreciate it.

[6:42:33] Councilmember Temple's comments

[6:42:34] about how he's going to react.

[6:42:35] I appreciate the huge numbers

[6:42:39] that were generated over

[6:42:39] the past four years.

[6:42:40] We can be proud about

[6:42:43] the numbers.

[6:42:44] i don't think anybody should be

[6:42:45] proud about how we got to

[6:42:45] the numbers.

[6:42:48] I think the abuse of projects

[6:42:49] that we everybody articulated

[6:42:53] and described contributed a lot

[6:42:57] to those not the one The three

[6:42:57] unit 80 used That seemed to be

[6:42:58] the vast majority of projects

[6:43:02] going forward I remain a little

[6:43:07] bit concerned that we MAY have

[6:43:08] rolled this back a little bit

[6:43:08] too much.

[6:43:09] I think there might be a middle

[6:43:12] ground from between what staff

[6:43:18] offered and this subsidy motion

[6:43:21] by Councilmember von Wolpert

[6:43:22] 5.5 hours I don't want to go

[6:43:23] through 5.5 hours again when it

[6:43:27] comes back and says you went

[6:43:27] too far.

[6:43:32] I think the city Planning

[6:43:36] Department carefully crafted

[6:43:37] new language over the weekend

[6:43:37] that tried to strike a balance

[6:43:41] with what each side said.

[6:43:42] You know, I mentioned this I

[6:43:46] hear a lot of grumbling.

[6:43:47] There was testimony at a

[6:43:48] different agency that said you

[6:43:51] have a culture to do x, y, z

[6:43:51] And I had to respond saying we

[6:43:52] don't have a culture.

[6:43:55] We have Sacramento that

[6:43:56] dictates what we do and how we

[6:43:56] do it.

[6:44:00] Clearly we went too far from

[6:44:01] where Sacramento was and having

[6:44:02] put that out there we have

[6:44:06] reset the bar.

[6:44:06] The bar is no longer what

[6:44:07] the state mandate is.

[6:44:11] This is my interpretation but

[6:44:12] we raised the bar so high that

[6:44:12] hpd says Don't you dare come

[6:44:16] down too much to what the state

[6:44:16] law says.

[6:44:17] And I think that's where

[6:44:17] the pushback gets why they

[6:44:20] didn't say this in the multiple

[6:44:21] conversations you had before.

[6:44:24] Remains a mystery that we'll

[6:44:24] never understand.

[6:44:29] But I think there's a middle

[6:44:30] ground here that MAY identify

[6:44:34] what the concern is by

[6:44:35] the public that came out and

[6:44:39] gets us a little bit closer and

[6:44:39] a little more hopefully closer

[6:44:43] to what acb is interested in.

[6:44:44] So we do have the motion on

[6:44:47] the screen and if I didn't have

[6:44:48] cataracts I could actually read

[6:44:48] it But nevertheless I

[6:44:53] understand what it was So we

[6:44:53] not seen anybody else in

[6:44:54] the lights.

[6:44:58] We do have a motion by a

[6:44:59] substitute motion by council

[6:45:00] member Von Wolpert and second

[6:45:03] by Council member Campo Oh I'm

[6:45:03] sorry.

[6:45:08] City Attorney in the fee

[6:45:09] resolution it's also an action

[6:45:11] item number three we strike

[6:45:17] moderate also we're going to go

[6:45:18] to two pages so we'll just go

[6:45:18] okay, Thank you.

[6:45:18] >> Okay.

[6:45:21] That's a good point that there

[6:45:22] is a separate resolution for

[6:45:23] how we deal with the fee that's

[6:45:23] still in there.

[6:45:25] >> But I guess it's two

[6:46:12] sections

[6:46:36] and the cost sorry we

[6:46:37] thought the second email

[6:46:44] replace the first email so it

[6:46:44] was going on the screen but it

[6:46:45] will be two and we'll print it

[6:46:46] out so that people can take it

[6:46:48] home in the back as well.

[6:46:54] Souvenir So we're wired while

[6:46:58] we're waiting for that to come

[6:46:58] up I do want to highlight

[6:46:59] number of people spoke about

[6:47:00] affirmatively furthering fair

[6:47:02] housing.

[6:47:03] Look at the language that was

[6:47:04] actually crafted over

[6:47:07] the weekend that took a real

[6:47:08] substantial step towards

[6:47:12] affirmatively furthering fair

[6:47:13] housing.

[6:47:14] The original ordinance that was

[6:47:14] published last weekend didn't

[6:47:18] really go that far but the new

[6:47:23] language in front of us goes

[6:47:23] pretty far.

[6:47:28] >> We up there and then go back

[6:47:28] okay, those are all the emails

[6:47:32] that were sent then I think we

[6:47:36] need to take a five minute

[6:47:37] break.

[6:47:41] >> The city attorney's office

[6:47:41] isn't saying that this is what

[6:47:45] isn't So I MAY add my apologies

[6:47:46] but I will need to take a five

[6:47:47] minute break to make sure we're

[6:47:48] getting the accurate language

[6:47:50] from the city attorney's office

[6:47:51] .

[6:47:52] Yeah, that doesn't look like

[6:47:58] resolution language.

[6:47:58] >> Okay.

[6:47:58] Okay.

[6:47:59] We're going to take another

[6:47:59] five minute break.

[6:48:02] Anybody's guess how long it

[6:50:02] will take

[6:53:22] .

[6:53:22] We're printing it out to give

[6:53:28] everybody because now what do

[6:53:28] you think?

[6:53:28] I bet.

[6:53:30] Oh my GOD.

[6:53:55] I All right.

[6:53:56] We're going to bring council

[6:53:59] together again.

[6:54:00] So city clerk, please call

[6:54:00] the roll.

[6:54:00] Thank you.

[6:54:04] Council PRESIDENT Council

[6:54:05] member Campbell here Council

[6:54:09] member Whitburn here Council

[6:54:10] Member Foster here Member Von

[6:54:14] Wilpert Council PRESIDENT Pro

[6:54:15] Tem Lee here Council Member

[6:54:20] Campion here Council Member

[6:54:20] Moreno Present Council Member

[6:54:24] Ella Rivera and Council

[6:54:29] PRESIDENT LaCava Resident Okay

[6:54:30] I'm going to do a little down

[6:54:30] thing.

[6:54:31] We're going to we're going to

[6:54:34] print out a hard copy because I

[6:54:35] don't think anybody can read

[6:54:39] that on the screen but I think

[6:54:40] we've heard the good work

[6:54:42] the city clerk and our city

[6:54:43] attorneys, the court every

[6:54:48] place council member Campos

[6:54:48] friendly amendment and

[6:54:52] the original substitute motion

[6:54:53] by council member Yvonne

[6:55:16] Gilbert The council

[6:55:39] transmitting All right I think

[6:55:40] no one is in the reading mode

[6:55:44] anymore So we have our quorum.

[6:55:50] We have the substitute motion

[6:55:50] by council member Von Wilpert

[6:55:51] and again seconded by

[6:55:52] Councilmember Campos.

[6:55:55] So City Clerk please call

[6:55:55] the vote.

[6:55:55] >> Thank you.

[6:55:56] Council PRESIDENT I'm sorry

[6:56:00] The voting system Please cast

[6:56:00] your vote.

[6:56:01] Councilmember Campbell MAY get

[6:56:01] your vote for the record

[6:56:03] Council member Campbell votes

[6:56:12] yes and I failed for yays five

[6:56:13] nays.

[6:56:17] The substitute motion fails.

[6:56:22] Took an hour couple of hours.

[6:56:23] I don't want to do this again.

[6:56:24] I want to try to nail what a cd

[6:56:26] would actually accept and I

[6:56:31] don't think that was it.

[6:56:32] >> Council member Campos up on

[6:56:36] the light since the alternative

[6:56:37] failed.

[6:56:38] We're now back to the actual

[6:56:38] original which is Council

[6:56:39] member Lee Council present Pro

[6:56:41] Tem Lee I would offer as a

[6:56:41] friendly amendment the moderate

[6:56:45] amendment now that that's

[6:56:46] wasn't in the original motion

[6:56:50] as a friendly amendment to

[6:56:51] remove all what I stated

[6:56:54] earlier get rid of the moderate

[6:56:55] striking the word moderate from

[6:57:00] those two components So since

[6:57:00] Councilmember Foster's on

[6:57:01] the lights I'm going to

[6:57:01] politely declined here But

[6:57:04] presuming that there might be

[6:57:05] more discussion because I don't

[6:57:09] know if mine is going to be

[6:57:10] the discussion point stop.

[6:57:11] >> All right, We'll go to

[6:57:14] Council member Foster who

[6:57:15] started off on this journey

[6:57:18] about four months ago or so.

[6:57:19] Thank you.

[6:57:23] Council PRESIDENT.

[6:57:24] Thank you.

[6:57:29] And I'll say this Thank you,

[6:57:29] Heidi.

[6:57:34] Um, and to your team I think

[6:57:38] Council PRESIDENT Kind of

[6:57:38] mentioned we're here based on

[6:57:41] some things that I did a few

[6:57:46] months back but I stand by what

[6:57:53] I did and I think it was and is

[6:57:58] the right thing to do in my

[6:58:03] team made gave me some very

[6:58:04] good talking points But see

[6:58:08] it's 9:00 and I think I have

[6:58:12] spoken on all of my concerns

[6:58:17] around housing whether it be my

[6:58:22] issues with large lots and

[6:58:23] the discriminatory practices

[6:58:29] behind them or the 80 years in

[6:58:34] which I feel the conversation

[6:58:35] that should have been had on

[6:58:39] the front end was a true zoning

[6:58:40] conversation.

[6:58:43] I think that would have brought

[6:58:44] the appropriate transparency to

[6:58:45] the table and I don't think we

[6:58:49] would be in the position where

[6:58:50] we have as we want to say a bad

[6:58:56] actor where I think this bad

[6:59:01] actor was intentional in his

[6:59:01] efforts.

[6:59:05] If I recall when I first went

[6:59:06] down a road sdr he is a member

[6:59:15] of the Casita group and how we

[6:59:20] want to per say include folks

[6:59:21] in our stakeholder groups that

[6:59:24] conduct themselves as such

[6:59:25] Shame on us.

[6:59:29] I'd like to think that our job

[6:59:34] is to support our business

[6:59:39] community but I also think it's

[6:59:40] important that we support our

[6:59:42] neighborhoods and especially

[6:59:50] when it comes to district for I

[6:59:55] made the decision to occupy

[7:00:00] this seat because of the years

[7:00:01] of disinvestment and the years

[7:00:06] where I felt District four was

[7:00:06] ignored.

[7:00:11] Now having said, I also would

[7:00:12] like to say that I truly do

[7:00:14] feel and believe that District

[7:00:15] four is the best district in

[7:00:16] the city of San Diego And I say

[7:00:19] that would confidence and I say

[7:00:20] that because I love my people

[7:00:24] and I love my community And so

[7:00:25] forgive me if as I went down

[7:00:29] this road I was a little

[7:00:30] selfish but I will always be

[7:00:31] selfish when it comes to

[7:00:35] the district four because it is

[7:00:39] just that important to me with

[7:00:44] that as you can see we did I

[7:00:45] guess I did get my up or down

[7:00:49] vote in regards to trying to

[7:00:50] rein in the numbers that were

[7:00:53] presented and in front of us.

[7:00:58] But as you can see we still

[7:01:04] continue to have challenges.

[7:01:04] And so with that as I

[7:01:08] understand and I just want to

[7:01:13] make sure I understand process

[7:01:18] as the was was it did we demand

[7:01:19] a substitute motion So as a

[7:01:22] substitute motion has failed we

[7:01:23] refer back to the original

[7:01:27] motion that was on the table.

[7:01:28] Correct.

[7:01:37] And with what took place and I

[7:01:37] just want to say this too

[7:01:41] because I'm just perplexed and

[7:01:42] excuse me because as I look at

[7:01:46] the production, if I understand

[7:01:46] everything that you have

[7:01:51] provided to us and between I

[7:01:58] guess is it 90 what is between

[7:01:59] 2021 and 2024 when you look at

[7:02:07] what was permitted we've had

[7:02:12] 5182 permits for 123 80 new

[7:02:12] homes And I believe in your

[7:02:15] response to you noted I mean I

[7:02:16] kind of alluded to this in my

[7:02:21] questions earlier is that we

[7:02:21] are having these conversations,

[7:02:25] these contentious conversations

[7:02:28] on a program that has produced

[7:02:29] about 2% of the production that

[7:02:34] we are discussing If I

[7:02:35] understand these numbers is in

[7:02:35] my understanding the numbers

[7:02:39] correctly that the state

[7:02:40] program is what is actually

[7:02:44] producing I believe instead of

[7:02:44] little numbers It is in my memo

[7:02:48] that I did state and I

[7:02:49] apologize off the top of my

[7:02:49] head I don't remember

[7:02:50] the precise number but overall

[7:02:53] the numbers produced through

[7:02:54] the affordable home bonus

[7:02:59] program for a use is a very

[7:02:59] small percentage of course of

[7:03:00] the overall total housing

[7:03:04] production across the city.

[7:03:05] It is it is one of many, you

[7:03:08] know, pathway I get you and

[7:03:08] thank you.

[7:03:09] I'm just a little perplexed

[7:03:10] We're having this level of

[7:03:12] conversation over program that

[7:03:13] is not producing the units as

[7:03:18] intended And so I just other

[7:03:19] than our bad actors who want to

[7:03:21] do 780 use right but also and

[7:03:26] just before I move forward I

[7:03:31] think I gave the clerk a vote a

[7:03:32] clerk and I think I had given

[7:03:37] the clerk a photo that I would

[7:03:37] like to show of a project

[7:03:41] that's currently taking place

[7:03:46] in my district and this is

[7:03:46] within walking distance of my

[7:03:54] home And as much as we can make

[7:03:59] that any larger essentially

[7:04:03] this is a six but is 60 200

[7:04:08] square foot lot that has one

[7:04:12] two, three, four dwelling two

[7:04:13] story units as such.

[7:04:16] So that's what eight units And

[7:04:20] as you can see the lower unit

[7:04:25] is below street level And I am

[7:04:26] just amazed as I drive down my

[7:04:31] block to see something like

[7:04:32] this to where without looking

[7:04:32] at the plans I don't know how

[7:04:35] folks are going to get in and

[7:04:35] out.

[7:04:36] Clearly there's no clearly

[7:04:40] there's no parking I don't know

[7:04:40] what folks are going to do with

[7:04:41] their garbage because based on

[7:04:45] our trash program they are

[7:04:49] excluded from our program So

[7:04:50] they have to go to a private

[7:04:50] hauler.

[7:04:54] But I don't see where a bin is

[7:04:55] going to be located.

[7:04:59] So this those types of things

[7:04:59] where I just don't understand

[7:05:04] how we cannot rein in and have

[7:05:05] certain and I believe the term

[7:05:09] is objective design standards

[7:05:14] or something to that effect.

[7:05:18] I just feel as if we are really

[7:05:19] have our hands tied behind our

[7:05:19] back.

[7:05:20] And I'll also say this and I

[7:05:23] think the public needs to know

[7:05:24] this and I appreciate your

[7:05:24] passion and I appreciate your

[7:05:28] engagement but as you can see a

[7:05:29] lot of the um we do have

[7:05:33] certain control here but a lot

[7:05:34] of the things that we are

[7:05:35] struggling with or or that that

[7:05:38] presents certain challenges all

[7:05:39] take place at the state level.

[7:05:40] So I would encourage you to

[7:05:43] engage with your state

[7:05:48] representatives as well even to

[7:05:48] address letters that come out

[7:05:52] from ac that make no sense

[7:05:53] right where where we have to go

[7:05:54] back and say make it make sense

[7:05:58] Our attorneys can't make heads

[7:05:58] or tails of what oecd's

[7:06:02] providing at this point.

[7:06:02] So I think there just needs to

[7:06:06] be as we talk about engagement

[7:06:07] ,we need to make sure we're

[7:06:08] addressing all of the levels

[7:06:12] consistently so that we can

[7:06:13] have some continuity as as we

[7:06:16] look at what we can do here

[7:06:16] locally.

[7:06:21] But with that and with my

[7:06:26] issues I do have I also think I

[7:06:27] gave the clerk a put an

[7:06:33] amendment that I would like to

[7:06:33] bring forward as a substitute

[7:06:37] motion as well if we can get

[7:06:47] that brought up I thought there

[7:06:52] should be more now Well I guess

[7:06:57] is at the top to move staff's

[7:06:57] recommendation.

[7:06:58] It's not as I don't know city

[7:06:59] Attorney if we need to go back

[7:07:02] and have him plop in all

[7:07:03] the true legal issues but it's

[7:07:03] essentially to move staff's

[7:07:06] recommendation with

[7:07:06] the following modification and

[7:07:10] that's to amend table 141-03a

[7:07:17] in section 141-0302I think

[7:07:18] that's a d I can't see that

[7:07:21] part and a four as follows And

[7:07:22] that essentially is taking lot

[7:07:29] areas 8000 or less to a maximum

[7:07:33] of four units 8001 to 10,000 to

[7:07:37] five units and 10,001 or

[7:07:41] greater to six units And that's

[7:07:42] what I would like to propose as

[7:07:49] a substitute route motion

[7:07:50] Unless you want to do a

[7:07:55] friendly amendment put up or

[7:07:55] have you do a substitute motion

[7:07:56] council PRESIDENT You might as

[7:07:58] the maker of the original

[7:07:59] motion Could I have a request?

[7:08:03] Clearly I think item 16 is

[7:08:03] the most popular item of

[7:08:04] the day.

[7:08:04] It's the one where we're

[7:08:07] fiddling with the scale and

[7:08:08] where that scale makes sense

[7:08:09] And I understand that we all

[7:08:09] MAY have a different

[7:08:10] perspective.

[7:08:11] And so if I could ask my

[7:08:16] colleague if we could actually

[7:08:17] bifurcate item 16 because I

[7:08:18] think many of us had have had

[7:08:18] significant discussions on

[7:08:21] the value of the entire package

[7:08:22] as a whole.

[7:08:23] There are other amendments

[7:08:23] related to state components or

[7:08:26] amendments to this program that

[7:08:27] I think we all find that are

[7:08:28] valuable because they rein in

[7:08:31] other problematic areas.

[7:08:31] But this particular section on

[7:08:35] development scale seems to be

[7:08:36] the one piece that we all have

[7:08:36] slightly different opinions on.

[7:08:37] So I would certainly appreciate

[7:08:41] an opportunity to I mean if I

[7:08:42] could still move and I don't

[7:08:42] know if Councilmember regular

[7:08:45] Rivera would select a second

[7:08:46] package without item 16 whether

[7:08:46] this could be considered

[7:08:54] separately.

[7:08:55] I think as a courtesy to

[7:08:58] Councilmember Foster, I'm going

[7:08:59] to second his motion since he's

[7:09:02] accepting everything else in

[7:09:08] there and I, I think well, if I

[7:09:12] do a substitute well that's

[7:09:17] what I'm asking Work with my

[7:09:18] good friend MR. Campo in his

[7:09:23] because he deferred to me

[7:09:23] Right.

[7:09:26] 2 to 2 before you two can talk

[7:09:30] on his So can we add his into

[7:09:31] Yeah into mine.

[7:09:32] I don't know if it's in

[7:09:33] the same section so that might

[7:09:39] be a moderate strike and

[7:09:39] moderate.

[7:09:43] Okay so we should be able to

[7:09:49] put that up pretty quickly.

[7:09:49] >> Does that make sense?

[7:09:50] We gave a courtesy to council

[7:09:51] my Ben Wolpert to entertain her

[7:09:56] substitute motion.

[7:09:57] I would think we should

[7:09:57] entertain the same thing for

[7:10:01] Councilmember Foster and if you

[7:10:02] don't like the amendments to

[7:10:02] the table then we can vote that

[7:10:07] down and see where we go with

[7:10:07] You're the second.

[7:10:08] That's fine.

[7:10:08] I'm fine with that.

[7:10:11] If you're the second of

[7:10:11] the motion.

[7:10:12] Just a brief.

[7:10:22] This is just the council

[7:10:23] PRESIDENT So the alternative

[7:10:24] motion has been made and you've

[7:10:28] seconded your substitute

[7:10:28] substitute motion So therefore

[7:10:32] Councilmember Foster is now in

[7:10:33] control.

[7:10:33] >> The motion Correct.

[7:10:34] You would accept my friendly

[7:10:37] amendment to strike moderate?

[7:10:37] Yeah.

[7:10:38] Okay.

[7:10:38] They're doing that Right.

[7:10:39] Very good.

[7:10:42] Incorporate that in since they

[7:10:42] have that language from

[7:10:46] the previous action So does

[7:10:46] that mean Yes.

[7:10:56] Oh yeah And I'm not going to

[7:10:56] try to bring back my other

[7:11:04] amendment So Oh Councilmember

[7:11:05] Campbell I'm sorry The clerk

[7:11:06] stepped away so I missed it.

[7:11:09] Did you want to speak?

[7:11:10] >> Yes, no problem.

[7:11:14] It's only been about 20s I

[7:11:18] would just like to add to my

[7:11:19] colleague Henry Foster who just

[7:11:24] reminded us that what is in

[7:11:28] the recommendations as written

[7:11:29] by our planning department

[7:11:33] staff is so much better than

[7:11:34] what we have been living with

[7:11:38] and I just want to let everyone

[7:11:43] know that it is to me you know

[7:11:44] I'm one of those people who

[7:11:48] didn't didn't like going beyond

[7:11:49] the state What the state wanted

[7:11:53] however, this is such a better

[7:11:57] change from what we would be

[7:11:58] living with prior to this that

[7:12:02] I am in favor of it And I

[7:12:03] appreciate Councilmember Foster

[7:12:07] making the substitute motion

[7:12:07] and our council PRESIDENT

[7:12:08] Seconding it.

[7:12:12] I just want to remind people

[7:12:13] that what this does is it it

[7:12:17] limits ideas and fires zones

[7:12:18] both high and very high.

[7:12:22] It causes ingress and egress

[7:12:23] requirements for fire safety

[7:12:25] and other safety.

[7:12:31] It is this consistent with unit

[7:12:35] size and and the caps that are

[7:12:36] in here and in what

[7:12:36] Councilmember Foster put I

[7:12:41] think our excellent and I think

[7:12:41] we have found a middle ground

[7:12:42] that we can agree on at this

[7:12:43] time.

[7:12:48] I I particularly want to

[7:12:49] mention the parking requirement

[7:12:53] that's back in I was the only

[7:12:54] person many years ago who voted

[7:12:58] that we should not deny parking

[7:12:58] requirements to builders.

[7:13:03] I was the only no vote on that

[7:13:03] years ago and I'm glad to see

[7:13:07] that some repair of that is

[7:13:08] included in this And I think

[7:13:12] that this is is really quite an

[7:13:17] excellent beginning though

[7:13:18] These these changes are not

[7:13:22] perfect.

[7:13:23] I think they're a good step, a

[7:13:24] big step toward a much more

[7:13:27] rational measure in terms of

[7:13:28] aid to use for our city than we

[7:13:32] have had prior to now.

[7:13:33] And I also just want to mention

[7:13:37] so the public knows it is

[7:13:37] illegal for a short term

[7:13:42] vacation rental to occur in an

[7:13:43] ad you So I just want to

[7:13:46] mention that there are 117 to

[7:13:50] use built before 2017 that are

[7:13:51] allowed but most of

[7:13:55] the thousands of them are not

[7:13:56] ever allowed to be used as

[7:14:00] short term rentals.

[7:14:01] So if you know of one that is

[7:14:04] please let the city know

[7:14:05] because we will clamp down on

[7:14:05] that.

[7:14:09] That is already a law and that

[7:14:10] continues to be a law in this

[7:14:11] new plan.

[7:14:14] So I I'm very much in favor of

[7:14:15] Councilmember Foster's motion

[7:14:20] and I again I want to thank him

[7:14:20] for bringing this up in MARCH

[7:14:25] and making it possible that we

[7:14:25] can do something about this and

[7:14:26] also for the public.

[7:14:29] I just want you to know that in

[7:14:30] 2017 before any of us were here

[7:14:35] before the mayor was talked

[7:14:36] Gloria, that is when the ball

[7:14:38] and say do you program was

[7:14:39] passed And I got to tell you

[7:14:44] that most people did not know

[7:14:44] about it at that time.

[7:14:48] It has taken us this many years

[7:14:49] to catch up.

[7:14:49] But this what we have presented

[7:14:53] to us tonight is a great

[7:14:54] improvement.

[7:14:55] So I want to thank you and I

[7:14:57] will vote yes.

[7:14:58] >> Thank you.

[7:15:03] Council PRESIDENT Thank you,

[7:15:04] Councilmember Campbell And

[7:15:04] thank you for sharing with us

[7:15:07] in this very long meeting as

[7:15:07] you continue your successful

[7:15:12] recovery Council PRESIDENT Pro

[7:15:13] Tem Lee I'm sorry I think we

[7:15:17] kicked you out the lights from

[7:15:18] some additional comments.

[7:15:18] >> I don't think I was coming

[7:15:19] off clearly for that.

[7:15:22] I guess I'm going to make a

[7:15:23] request of the motion maker if

[7:15:24] they'd be willing to bifurcate

[7:15:25] the item to separate out item

[7:15:34] 16 from the rest of the package

[7:15:35] .

[7:15:40] Is it item 16 looking to

[7:15:40] planning stuff?

[7:15:41] Um yeah.

[7:15:42] And I'll turn to our city

[7:15:45] attorneys to confirm whether

[7:15:46] that is item 16 on the slide

[7:15:46] deck.

[7:15:47] Basically I'm asking to

[7:15:50] separate out and take two

[7:15:51] separate motions of votes,

[7:15:55] correct One on the remainder of

[7:15:56] the package one ordinance And I

[7:15:59] think I don't think that we can

[7:15:59] bifurcate the ordinance given

[7:16:04] how it's presented and various

[7:16:08] strikeouts for it.

[7:16:09] Okay.

[7:16:09] If it's not possible that's

[7:16:14] where I'm looking to the city

[7:16:14] attorney for city attorney's

[7:16:15] office.

[7:16:15] >> I appreciate you following

[7:16:18] up.

[7:16:19] So I think we're getting a hard

[7:16:27] copy printed again just oh it's

[7:16:32] double file the other day Page

[7:17:16] over

[7:17:21] to public.

[7:17:27] I think we're ready by

[7:17:27] the looks on my colleague's

[7:17:28] faces so no one else is on

[7:17:28] the right.

[7:17:29] We have a motion by council

[7:17:32] member Foster and a second by

[7:17:32] myself for the substitute

[7:17:36] motion shown on the screen or

[7:17:37] in two steps on the screen.

[7:17:41] So City Clerk please call

[7:17:41] the roll.

[7:17:42] >> I have started the voting

[7:17:42] system.

[7:17:43] Please cast your vote.

[7:17:45] Councilmember Campbell I vote

[7:17:55] yes and that passes 5 to 4 with

[7:17:59] Councilmember Whip Burn Lee

[7:18:00] Moreno and Ella Rivera voting

[7:18:01] no Thank you Council PRESIDENT.

[7:18:01] >> All right.

[7:18:04] Thank you City Clerk Believe it

[7:18:05] or not, we actually still have

[7:18:06] a little more business to

[7:18:09] conduct.

[7:18:10] So with that we will now take

[7:18:14] up non agenda public comment.

[7:18:15] The council members respect and

[7:18:15] appreciate the public's input

[7:18:19] and are fully committed to

[7:18:20] protecting every participant's

[7:18:20] free speech rights at council

[7:18:21] and committee meetings.

[7:18:24] Clerk Please proceed with

[7:18:25] public comment.

[7:18:25] >> Thank you.

[7:18:27] Council PRESIDENT Pearl 2.7 on

[7:18:28] Agenda Public comment is an

[7:18:28] opportunity for members of

[7:18:29] the public to comment on items

[7:18:32] that are not on the agenda but

[7:18:33] within the subject matter

[7:18:34] jurisdiction of the City

[7:18:34] Council.

[7:18:37] Each speaker will have two

[7:18:37] minutes.

[7:18:38] Please note if there are eight

[7:18:38] or more speakers on a single

[7:18:39] topic the maximum time for

[7:18:42] the topic will be 16 minutes.

[7:18:42] If you are in chambers please

[7:18:43] submit your speaker slip If

[7:18:45] you're joining us virtually

[7:18:46] please raise your hand to speak

[7:18:47] by tapping the raise your hand

[7:18:48] icon or if you are calling

[7:18:51] participant star nine If I can

[7:18:52] please ask everyone to speak

[7:18:56] Yeah if you could please exit

[7:18:57] quietly Continue your

[7:18:57] conversations outside of

[7:19:01] chambers.

[7:19:02] We do have some we do have some

[7:19:05] folks signed up for non agenda

[7:19:06] public comment We'd like to

[7:19:11] wrap up with Cesar Javier

[7:19:12] Burrito Javier I don't think I

[7:19:16] see them Joyce and yada if you

[7:19:20] can please come forward after

[7:19:21] Joy it will be Andrea Ebbing

[7:19:24] Although I don't think I see

[7:19:25] her either.

[7:19:26] >> Joy Please proceed.

[7:19:26] Thank you.

[7:19:30] City Clerk Fuentes great job.

[7:19:30] Love you so much.

[7:19:35] You're just fabulous.

[7:19:36] And everybody everybody okay,

[7:19:39] Joyce And now to district three

[7:19:39] PRESIDENT LaCava.

[7:19:44] This is for you.

[7:19:44] Okay.

[7:19:49] I apologize to Congress man

[7:19:50] Peters for not including him in

[7:19:54] my committee comments last

[7:19:55] week.

[7:19:56] Here is what I want to say now

[7:20:00] Congress and Scott Peters

[7:20:04] reintroduced the ocean

[7:20:09] Pollution Reduction Act to also

[7:20:10] known as Now Not Now also known

[7:20:15] as o p r a number two.

[7:20:19] I'll say that as opera Opera

[7:20:19] two which simplifies the city

[7:20:24] of San Diego's required

[7:20:25] permitting process to operate

[7:20:29] the point Loma Water treatment

[7:20:34] plant which will allow the city

[7:20:35] to move forward with its

[7:20:39] groundbreaking water recycling

[7:20:40] project Pure Water Congressman

[7:20:44] Peters said this and I quote I

[7:20:49] am working with San Diego's

[7:20:49] congressional delegation

[7:20:54] the city of San Diego and other

[7:20:59] regional partners to make opera

[7:21:03] opera a number two law this

[7:21:04] Congress.

[7:21:08] He wants the law to be made

[7:21:11] this Congress That's 2025 end

[7:21:12] of quote from me.

[7:21:16] I am in the process of getting

[7:21:17] more info on the secondary

[7:21:21] treatment standards and their

[7:21:21] impact on drinking water and

[7:21:22] the ocean environment.

[7:21:26] I look forward to sharing more

[7:21:27] with all of you Love to Thank

[7:21:31] you.

[7:21:32] >> This was an amazing day for

[7:21:32] Andrea.

[7:21:36] Everything Andrea everything.

[7:21:36] Moving on.

[7:21:37] Five minute timer has started

[7:21:38] here in council chambers.

[7:21:40] We have seven speakers in

[7:21:41] the queue.

[7:21:41] Francine Maxwell If you can

[7:21:45] please unmute please proceed.

[7:21:46] >> Good evening Francine

[7:21:49] Maxwell District four Let's be

[7:21:50] clear this isn't about

[7:21:54] homeowners versus renters

[7:21:58] debate it's about fairness.

[7:21:59] Homeowners pay into the general

[7:22:00] fund through property taxes

[7:22:04] covering parks, libraries and

[7:22:04] public safety services.

[7:22:09] Renters benefit without

[7:22:10] shouldering the same burden

[7:22:13] calling it equity is

[7:22:14] the political theater.

[7:22:18] What occurred today when a

[7:22:19] sitting council person

[7:22:23] continually disrespected

[7:22:23] the ordinance is

[7:22:24] unconscionable.

[7:22:28] It shows you the immaturity in

[7:22:29] this progressive diocese that

[7:22:33] continues so that someone won

[7:22:33] reelection.

[7:22:38] It doesn't negate the fact for

[7:22:38] you to be disrespectful to

[7:22:39] the public.

[7:22:43] Let's remember civility.

[7:22:47] Let's remember to agree to

[7:22:48] disagree respectfully.

[7:22:49] But because you get longer than

[7:22:53] everybody and we get 1 minute

[7:22:54] or 2 minute you're continual

[7:22:57] grandstanding.

[7:22:58] It's going to continue for your

[7:23:02] future to turn you around.

[7:23:03] Let's remember not everybody

[7:23:06] can afford a condo that works

[7:23:07] for the city of San Diego

[7:23:07] The Frontliners.

[7:23:11] So let's be more mindful when

[7:23:12] you want to continue to pit

[7:23:16] each other against their

[7:23:17] neighbors.

[7:23:21] Do better San Diego.

[7:23:22] >> That concludes your

[7:23:22] comments.

[7:23:23] The original If you can please

[7:23:26] unmute.

[7:23:27] >> What a circus.

[7:23:32] It's so sad to see the way you

[7:23:33] guys work and then you're like

[7:23:33] telling the people to leave

[7:23:34] because you want to get out of

[7:23:34] here.

[7:23:37] Well you guys sit up there on

[7:23:38] your Dyess and go off on these

[7:23:38] diatribes speaking half a mile

[7:23:42] a minute, you know just

[7:23:43] determining all these things

[7:23:43] for the people And it's sad

[7:23:46] because you do your

[7:23:47] grandstanding and you bring all

[7:23:51] of these things to act like you

[7:23:52] really want people to get in

[7:23:52] and own a home.

[7:23:56] That's not the idea of what's

[7:23:57] going on.

[7:23:57] And then you're complaining

[7:23:58] about no parking.

[7:24:00] It's because you guys are

[7:24:01] getting rid of parking.

[7:24:02] It's like you literally impede

[7:24:05] your own ability of providing

[7:24:06] what needs to be provided for

[7:24:06] the public.

[7:24:11] But you act like you don't know

[7:24:11] where that came from.

[7:24:12] I can't believe that there's

[7:24:14] not this in this because that's

[7:24:15] what you guys do.

[7:24:16] You implement all of these

[7:24:17] things and then it gets in your

[7:24:20] way and you act like I don't

[7:24:21] know how that happened.

[7:24:22] Who are we going to talk to

[7:24:22] about this?

[7:24:25] It's sad because like then you

[7:24:25] also think that if you provide

[7:24:26] more housing it's going to get

[7:24:26] cheaper?

[7:24:30] No, it actually gets more

[7:24:30] expensive.

[7:24:31] And the more that you put

[7:24:35] towards like people in in

[7:24:35] certain areas that are more

[7:24:36] near public transit and

[7:24:37] everything, all of the values

[7:24:37] go up.

[7:24:40] It's like sandag sitting here

[7:24:41] saying we're going to go and do

[7:24:41] value.

[7:24:45] Land value captures by going to

[7:24:46] places that don't have any

[7:24:46] public transit, putting it

[7:24:49] there, capturing the value in

[7:24:50] the land and pocketing that all

[7:24:51] while it makes the people in

[7:24:54] that community suffer because

[7:24:55] all of a sudden there's things

[7:24:58] that are in that community that

[7:24:59] weren't there before and were

[7:24:59] the exact reasons why they

[7:25:00] wanted to be there.

[7:25:04] Just like all of these homes

[7:25:04] that these people have bought

[7:25:05] that thought I want to be in a

[7:25:08] nice little family

[7:25:09] neighborhood.

[7:25:10] And now that's being destroyed

[7:25:13] And you guys wonder why people

[7:25:13] are leaving in astronomical

[7:25:14] numbers.

[7:25:14] It's because of what you're

[7:25:18] doing and not even providing

[7:25:19] what needs to be provided.

[7:25:23] People can't afford to live and

[7:25:23] buy a home.

[7:25:24] They can barely provide what

[7:25:25] they need to for their family

[7:25:28] just to make it.

[7:25:29] And it all has to do with

[7:25:30] the increases that you guys

[7:25:30] continually put out.

[7:25:32] Your time has concluded.

[7:25:33] >> Terence Kelley if you can

[7:25:37] please unmute.

[7:25:38] >> Good evening San Diego City

[7:25:38] Council.

[7:25:42] My name is Terry and Skilling

[7:25:43] and I attend my planning group

[7:25:43] and I'm a community volunteer

[7:25:46] who has worked in youth

[7:25:47] programs for decades.

[7:25:50] Several sources of research

[7:25:51] over the last five years has

[7:25:51] increasingly suggested a strong

[7:25:55] correlation between mental

[7:25:56] health issues and adolescent

[7:25:56] use of marijuana.

[7:26:00] A recent analysis of

[7:26:01] the medical records of over

[7:26:05] 95,000 Northern California

[7:26:06] adolescents in the Kaiser

[7:26:10] Permanente Permanente Medical

[7:26:11] care system indicated a

[7:26:11] correlation between having

[7:26:15] marijuana storefronts in town

[7:26:16] and the presence of medical

[7:26:17] diagnosis of psychotic anxiety

[7:26:20] and depressive disorders.

[7:26:20] Specifically this research

[7:26:24] found that banning storefront

[7:26:25] cannabis shops was linked to

[7:26:26] about half the rate of

[7:26:30] psychotic disorders in teens

[7:26:30] 52% lower compared to areas

[7:26:35] without bans.

[7:26:36] >> Another way to put it is

[7:26:39] teens who live 20 plus minutes

[7:26:40] away from the nearest cannabis

[7:26:44] store had about half the rate

[7:26:44] of psychotic disorders 47%

[7:26:48] lower since we had 25 marijuana

[7:26:49] storefronts throughout our

[7:26:49] city.

[7:26:50] Perhaps we need to recognize

[7:26:53] the association between their

[7:26:54] presence and teen mental health

[7:26:54] issues.

[7:26:58] The journey into adulthood and

[7:26:59] adulthood with its education

[7:26:59] and economic demands is

[7:27:04] difficult at best to be

[7:27:04] burdened with intellectual and

[7:27:05] emotional challenges brought on

[7:27:09] by the sale of and promotion of

[7:27:09] marijuana products is just

[7:27:13] plain cool.

[7:27:14] >> Now is the time to decrease

[7:27:15] their their influence in our

[7:27:19] city and seek more enforcement

[7:27:19] against illegal marijuana

[7:27:23] delivery services in the city.

[7:27:23] Thank you for hearing my

[7:27:24] concerns this evening.

[7:27:29] Thank you Medicine If you can

[7:27:30] please unmute the phone And a

[7:27:32] timer has also concluded there

[7:27:32] for speakers in the queue.

[7:27:33] No additional speakers will be

[7:27:37] taken after that.

[7:27:37] Please rise.

[7:27:38] Good evening.

[7:27:39] Thanks Council members.

[7:27:42] I'm here tonight to raise a

[7:27:43] growing concern about

[7:27:43] the dramatic rise in nicotine

[7:27:44] patch use among teens

[7:27:47] especially here in San Diego.

[7:27:48] A new national study led by

[7:27:51] the Keck School of Medicine at

[7:27:52] usc found that teen use of

[7:27:52] nicotine patches like

[7:27:57] the popular brand is in nearly

[7:28:00] doubled from 2023 to 2024.

[7:28:01] These discreet flavored pouches

[7:28:04] are being aggressively marketed

[7:28:05] on social media, especially by

[7:28:09] so-called influencers promoting

[7:28:10] them as symbols of confidence

[7:28:10] and focus.

[7:28:11] But there's a dangerous

[7:28:14] disconnect.

[7:28:15] While less than 1% of adults

[7:28:19] report using these pouches over

[7:28:20] 5% of teens have already tried

[7:28:20] them.

[7:28:21] Even more troubling is

[7:28:24] the growing number of teens

[7:28:25] using both nicotine pouches and

[7:28:26] e-cigarettes.

[7:28:30] These products are not

[7:28:30] harmless.

[7:28:31] Nicotine in any form can damage

[7:28:34] adolescent brain development

[7:28:34] impacting memory learning and

[7:28:35] attention.

[7:28:39] Some users already report gum

[7:28:40] damage and mouth sores.

[7:28:44] Yet flavored varieties like

[7:28:44] cinnamon and fruit remain

[7:28:45] widely available and appealing

[7:28:49] to youth.

[7:28:50] As local leaders you have a

[7:28:50] responsibility to act.

[7:28:54] I urge this Council to consider

[7:28:55] local education efforts in our

[7:28:55] schools.

[7:28:59] Restrictions on flavored pouch

[7:29:00] sales and outreach to parents

[7:29:03] and health care providers.

[7:29:04] Let's not wait for this to

[7:29:04] become a crisis.

[7:29:05] We've already seen what's

[7:29:08] happened with vaping.

[7:29:09] So let's use that lesson to

[7:29:10] protect San Diego's youth now.

[7:29:14] Thank you.

[7:29:15] Next is Blair Pigman.

[7:29:17] If he can please unmute.

[7:29:18] >> Hi.

[7:29:23] We're big band.

[7:29:23] I fell asleep during my public

[7:29:24] comment time.

[7:29:24] I'm really sorry.

[7:29:27] I wanted to speak.

[7:29:28] I don't know if I can speak

[7:29:29] now.

[7:29:31] I'll probably have to wait

[7:29:32] until later but I think a lot

[7:29:37] of good work was done here

[7:29:37] tonight.

[7:29:38] I think a lot of good attempts

[7:29:42] and a reminder every major city

[7:29:43] in California is having serious

[7:29:47] issues the same as yourself.

[7:29:48] We're incredibly unorganized

[7:29:49] and don't know what to do.

[7:29:52] And you guys are trying to

[7:29:53] define that more than any other

[7:29:53] California city.

[7:29:57] You're setting the example.

[7:29:58] Thank you immensely.

[7:30:02] I mean you can make me cry and

[7:30:03] thinking that we hit we missed.

[7:30:03] We keep on working.

[7:30:06] I want to keep on working on

[7:30:06] these things and talking about

[7:30:07] these things.

[7:30:08] Good luck in your efforts so I

[7:30:11] can better learn and understand

[7:30:11] these things.

[7:30:12] What we do did as a community

[7:30:17] practice I hope we can apply to

[7:30:17] the trash issues.

[7:30:18] You're doing some beginning

[7:30:21] good work to to invite

[7:30:22] community to a process.

[7:30:23] I think we have to continue

[7:30:25] the effort.

[7:30:26] Then we are talking about a

[7:30:26] community democracy.

[7:30:30] We're talking about all parts

[7:30:31] of the community adding their

[7:30:32] voice and ideas to a process

[7:30:36] and I think we're starting

[7:30:36] something really interesting in

[7:30:41] San Diego that I hope we can

[7:30:41] continue.

[7:30:42] And I hope that eventually ends

[7:30:42] up with the technology issues

[7:30:45] and we can be more open and

[7:30:46] clear and interesting that we

[7:30:46] can have that conversation

[7:30:50] openly And it doesn't have to

[7:30:51] be feared that it's some

[7:30:51] national security drama and we

[7:30:55] can't talk about it.

[7:30:56] We can talk about it and we

[7:30:57] could talk about it.

[7:31:00] That's building our responsible

[7:31:00] future.

[7:31:01] We're trying to do that.

[7:31:02] Keep up the good work, guys.

[7:31:04] It's really hard work and

[7:31:04] you're doing it really well.

[7:31:05] Thank you.

[7:31:10] And with my remaining time, I

[7:31:10] want to build the future of San

[7:31:11] Diego where we have I do not do

[7:31:14] those paramilitary tactics.

[7:31:15] They can't do that anymore.

[7:31:19] They can do their ai things but

[7:31:19] not paramilitary.

[7:31:20] Let's work on that.

[7:31:24] Thank you.

[7:31:25] Next is phone number ending in

[7:31:26] 1672 If you can please unmute

[7:31:30] 1672.

[7:31:31] >> Okay.

[7:31:32] Oh Blair Anyways every single

[7:31:36] person sitting on the dais no

[7:31:37] matter how smug or detached you

[7:31:41] MAY appear you too will

[7:31:41] eventually be victims of

[7:31:44] the very policies that you push

[7:31:45] whether it's inflation,

[7:31:46] surveillance, overreach,

[7:31:50] housing chaos or suicide social

[7:31:51] decay It's just a matter of

[7:31:51] time.

[7:31:55] You are not protected.

[7:31:55] You are not above

[7:31:56] the consequences.

[7:32:00] So ask yourselves what will be

[7:32:00] your legacy?

[7:32:01] What do you want to be

[7:32:02] remembered for?

[7:32:05] Obedience to a corrupt system

[7:32:06] or courage to stand with

[7:32:10] the people and to the public

[7:32:11] Watching the few still putting

[7:32:14] blind faith in this machine

[7:32:15] that continues to fail them

[7:32:19] Wake up the system is not

[7:32:20] broken.

[7:32:20] It's functioning exactly as it

[7:32:24] was designed to exploit, to

[7:32:25] exhaust you, to pacify you and

[7:32:28] keep you just comfortable

[7:32:29] enough to obey.

[7:32:29] You've gotten used to

[7:32:33] the trauma you've normalized

[7:32:34] the abuse.

[7:32:34] This is evident homeless

[7:32:35] veterans on every corner

[7:32:39] families choosing between food

[7:32:39] and rent, mental illness,

[7:32:40] addiction, despair.

[7:32:44] This is not bad luck.

[7:32:45] It's policy And you push it on

[7:32:49] the diet, you push it and still

[7:32:49] most people don't care until it

[7:32:50] hits their own doorstep Then it

[7:32:54] will eventually the government

[7:32:54] will come knocking on their

[7:32:58] door and by then it MAY be too

[7:32:58] late.

[7:32:59] This is not normal.

[7:32:59] This is not freedom.

[7:33:03] This is an Orwellian dystopia

[7:33:03] dressed up as civic progress

[7:33:08] and far too many have learned

[7:33:09] to love their servitude for

[7:33:09] the right price politicians

[7:33:14] will sell out the people for

[7:33:14] the right illusion of safety or

[7:33:15] stability.

[7:33:17] The people will sell out their

[7:33:18] souls but no more.

[7:33:22] The time is now.

[7:33:23] It's time to make a shift.

[7:33:24] It's time to reclaim our lives

[7:33:28] because this isn't living.

[7:33:28] It's surviving And a controlled

[7:33:32] collapse is not.

[7:33:33] Your time is up Maria your

[7:33:33] final speaker If you can please

[7:33:40] unmute you.

[7:33:45] >> Hi, this is Maria's husband

[7:33:46] But anyway anyway I'm calling

[7:33:50] I'm we're what's going on with

[7:33:51] this thing?

[7:33:54] We can hear you.

[7:33:55] >> Please proceed.

[7:33:55] Okay.

[7:33:59] Hey, I just wanted to say about

[7:34:03] the footnote seven we want to

[7:34:04] just put in our word that those

[7:34:05] two projects that were passed

[7:34:09] under the existence of footnote

[7:34:10] seven should be rejected or any

[7:34:14] permitting that is on the table

[7:34:15] about those two projects.

[7:34:18] The memory Lane project and

[7:34:23] the Clabber three project.

[7:34:24] It seems to me that it was not

[7:34:25] best practices and that it was

[7:34:25] actually illegal.

[7:34:28] The insertion of that footnote

[7:34:29] and that any building or

[7:34:33] construction that is using put

[7:34:34] that footnote is also illegal.

[7:34:39] So I want to urge the City

[7:34:40] council and air who I still

[7:34:43] don't know if if he signed off

[7:34:48] on that whether or not he

[7:34:53] didn't sign off on it anyway.

[7:34:54] >> I just feel like you guys

[7:34:54] are kicking the can down

[7:34:57] the road and you're just it's a

[7:34:58] big waiting game And meanwhile

[7:35:02] I hear people on on that board

[7:35:03] saying oh yeah and we really

[7:35:06] need to change your as one

[7:35:07] zoning and blah blah blah Oh

[7:35:08] and how all the footnote was a

[7:35:12] good thing or you know but I

[7:35:13] just wanted to put in my my

[7:35:16] rejection in my of those two

[7:35:16] projects that were inserted

[7:35:21] illegally and do not have

[7:35:25] the correct zoning for our area

[7:35:26] .

[7:35:26] That concludes your comments.

[7:35:27] Yes.

[7:35:31] And that concludes on agenda

[7:35:32] public comment for today's

[7:35:32] meeting.

[7:35:33] >> The Council PRESIDENT All

[7:35:33] right.

[7:35:33] Thank you.

[7:35:35] City Clerk.

[7:35:36] There's not really a protocol

[7:35:37] COUNCILMAN Rivera Just would if

[7:35:41] I could record a yes vote on

[7:35:41] item 200 and he has voted item

[7:35:42] to a one, please.

[7:35:42] Oh, okay.

[7:35:45] You got that?

[7:35:46] All right with that, does

[7:35:47] the city attorney have anything

[7:35:47] to report out from closed

[7:35:50] session?

[7:35:51] >> There is nothing to report

[7:35:51] from closed session today.

[7:35:52] All right.

[7:35:52] Thank you for that.

[7:35:56] So given the hour, I do want to

[7:35:57] thank City 24 for keeping us

[7:36:01] online in our executive detail

[7:36:02] for keeping us safe And to my

[7:36:06] council colleagues and all

[7:36:06] the members of the public that

[7:36:07] showed up very, very much

[7:36:09] appreciate your attention to

[7:36:10] something that was clearly

[7:36:11] important to our city.

[7:36:11] We will now adjourn Council to

[7:36:15] the next regularly regular

[7:36:15] council meeting on Tuesday JUNE

[7:36:19] 17th, 2025 at 10 A.M..

[7:36:22] That is 12 hours and 25 minutes

[7:36:22] from now.

City Council Meetings — Monday Agenda

Transcript