[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.
[2:07:33] 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.
[2:19:25] >> 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.
[2:48:44] 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.
[3:40:57] 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.
[3:52:24] 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.
[4:21:29] 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.
[5:03:16] 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] 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.
[5:15:00] 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.
[6:33:44] 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.
[7:10:37] 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.
[7:29:14] 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.
[7:31:24] 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.