Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Well as a hybrid format. This meeting will be live streamed on the city of San Diego's public hearing YouTube channel. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes. The virtual queue will close five minutes after in person testimony ends. Also per Section 2.6.2 of the Rules of Counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be seated by speakers who are in the hearing room. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, chair Modaine. If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip if you wish to speak. In person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link, which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the Planning Commission's webpage. Or you may dial +1 (669) 254-5252. The webinar ID is 1609440367. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a thirty second delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak. Thank you.

I will now like to take roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Mazari. Present. Commissioner Malborough?

Present.

Commissioner Miyahara?

Present.

Commissioner Reeves?

Present.

Commissioner Venger? Present. Chair Modena is present and Vice Chair Boomhauer is absent today. The staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, Assistant Deputy Director from Development Services Seth Lichtney, Deputy Director, City Planning Shannon Eckmeyer, Deputy City Attorney Eric Masalgo, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Division and our legislative staff. We will now start our agenda with public comment for non agenda items.

This portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda. Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony. If you would like to speak, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. Okay, it looks like we do not have any non agenda public speakers today. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? Okay. Is there a request to place any items on consent? Commissioner Marlborough?

Yes. I'd like to place item number three on consent.

Item number three. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number three? Is there any commissioner discussion on the potential consent item? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the items on consent?

So move.

Second. K. We have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote. And that passes unanimously.

Moving on to meeting minutes. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the October 9 and the 10/16/2025 hearings?

So moved.

A motion. Do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner Reeves and a second by Commissioner Marlborough. Go to a vote. Okay. And those passed unanimously. Do we have any director's reports today?

Yes. Thank you, chair. The last Pawnee Commission hearing was held on October 16. At the commission hearing, there was one item heard. The commission recommended approval of the Claremont Community Plan update to replace the 1989 Claremont community plan for the approximately 8,500 acre community.

The community plan update provides a comprehensive policy framework for future growth and development over the next twenty to thirty years, and the commission voted seven to zero to recommend approval to the city council. As a reminder, the development services department has recently been made aware of imposter emails being sent to city building permit customers as part of a phishing scam, requesting either a response back of some kind or submitted payment related projects. Despite using language commonly found in city documents, these are not official city communications, and customers are advised not to follow their directions. Please note that the city never asks for a wire transfer. Thank you.

No report from the planning department. Thank you.

Okay. Is there any non agenda commission comment today? Okay. And we can move on to item number one when staff is ready.

Phone in testimony is now open. Please review the instructions provided on the screen. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Ben Hefferteppe, and I'm the development project manager for the first item on today's agenda, which is the 40th And C Street project. The 40th And C Street project is located East of undeveloped 40th Street, South of undeveloped B Street, and north of both developed and undeveloped C Street.

The project site contains 16 existing parcels and an undeveloped alley within the Southeastern San Diego community plan area. The project site is vacant and consists of hilly terrain with grass, brush, and scattered trees. There are no significant areas of artificial fill on the property. The property generally slopes downward to the north and west. There are no existing structures that would adversely affect any proposed development on the project site.

The development project site is 2.12 acres and is in the RS 17 zone, which is a residential zone that can accommodate a variety of residential dwelling types that promote neighborhood, quality, character, and livability. The project site's overlay zones include the airport land use compatibility overlay zone, San Diego International Airport, airport influence area San Diego International Airport Review Area 1, environmentally sensitive lands or ESL, sensitive vegetation, brush management, native naturalized vegetation, and the very high fire hazard severity zone. The general plan designates the project site as residential, and the Southeastern San Diego Community Plan designates the project site as residential low density with five to nine dwelling units per net acre. The land use designation is characterized by detached single dwelling units on individual lots. The project proposes to consolidate and subdivide the 16 existing vacant lots into 10 new lots, construct 11 single dwelling units and 18 new accessory dwelling units, and to vacate portions of undeveloped 40th Street, B Street, C Street, and an unnamed alley.

Lots one through nine on each lot will contain one new single dwelling unit with an attached two car garage and one new detached structure with one accessory dwelling unit and one bonus affordable accessory dwelling unit. The proposed 11 single dwelling units would be consistent with the density range of the land use designation, and the proposed project's ADUs are not subject to the density limitations for the site pursuant to the San Diego municipal code. Although parking is not required for the ADUs, each lot has been designed with additional space to accommodate on-site additional parking. The project requires a neighborhood development permit since the development is requesting four deviations from the land development code regulations yet providing sustainable buildings as identified in the San Diego Municipal Code and incorporating voluntary tier two measures of title 24 part 11 California green building standards. A tentative map is required for the subdivision of land, and a public right of way vacation approval is required since the development proposes to vacate portions of 40th Street, B Street, C Street, and an unnamed alley.

All the single dwelling units are two stories and will include three bedrooms, three bathrooms, a living room, a dining room, and a two car garage. They'll range from 1,925 square feet to 2,268 square feet. Nine lots will also contain their own separate detached two story building with one market rate ADU and one bonus ADU, which is deed restricted to moderate income households for a period of fifteen years. All ADUs will include two bedrooms, two bathrooms, and average approximately 800 square feet in size. Each unit will also include private exterior open space, either a balcony or a patio, in addition to yard space to the rear of each lot.

This slide shows the elevations for the two single dwelling units on Lot 10. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for the construction of the second dwelling unit on Lot 10, a signed declaration of eligibility and acknowledgment of restrictions related to senate bill nine shall be submitted, which will allow up to two single dwelling units on Lot 10 without per performing an urban lot split in the R S 17 zone. The proposed development is requesting four deviations. The first deviation is to reduce the required street frontage on Lots 123. The second deviation is to reduce the minimum distance from a curb cut to the side property line from three feet to zero feet on Lot 3.

The third deviation is to increase retaining wall height within the side yard setback from six feet to up to 14 feet on Lots 8 Through 9. And the fourth deviation is to reduce the minimum distance between an off street parking space and a sidewalk or curb opening on Lot 9. Deviations three and four are designed to accommodate a fire apparatus turnaround for life safety, and the staff report contains additional details justifying each requested deviation. The proposed project will vacate an unimproved portion of 40th Street, B Street, C Street, and an unnamed alley. In accordance with the subdivision map back, the project proposes to vacate approximately 5,635 square feet of 40th Street, 12060 square feet of B Street, 3,560 square feet of C Street, and 2,408 square feet of an unnamed alley within the boundaries of the tentative map.

The project also proposes to vacate 6,329 square feet of 40th Street, 8,915 square feet of B Street, and 3,227 square feet of C Street in accordance with the streets and highways code outside of the tentative map boundary. The proposed right of way vacation will revert the vacated areas to the abutting parcels. The land is no longer needed as public right of way and is not needed for circulation access and public services, yet the portions of the right of way to be vacated were never constructed constructed for the purposes they were originally dedicated for. The neighborhood and community have several existing improved public rights of way that provide the public circulation necessary to the community, and the portions of 40th Street, B Street, C Street, and the unnamed alley are not needed to provide circulation. The project site was previous previously analyzed within the certified program environmental impact report or PEIR for the Southeastern San Diego and Encanto Neighborhoods Community Plan update.

An evaluation was prepared to determine if conditions specified in the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines section one five one eight three, projects consistent with a community plan, general plan, or zoning would additional would require additional CEQUA review. The evaluation identified that the project would be consistent with the development density established by the Southeast San Diego Community Plan and Encanto Neighborhoods Community Plan update, and it did not result in any project specific significant effects that are peculiar to the project site or beyond those identified in the certified PEIR. Based on the CEQUA guidelines section one five one eight three evaluation, the project is exempt from further environmental review. A mitigation monitoring and reporting program for biological resources will be implemented consistent with the PEIR mitigation framework. The project will directly impact 1.33 acres of non native grassland tier three b habitat, and mitigation for the 1.33 acres will be achieved through payment into the city's habitat mitigation fund in accordance with the city's biology guidelines.

Consistent with the city's ESL regulations, a covenant of easement will also be recorded as part of the development to ensure the preservation of the remaining 0.03 acres of nonnative grassland that are outside the allowable development area. On 05/09/2024, the Southeastern San Diego Community Planning Group voted seven zero zero to recommend approval of the project. Staff has reviewed the proposed project, and all issues identified through the review process have been resolved in conformance with the adopted council policies and regulations of the general plan South Of Eastern San Diego community plan and land development code. With approval of the requested deviations, staff supports determination that the project development is consistent with the goals and policies and development regulations in effect for this site for the San Diego Municipal Code general plan and the community plan. Draft findings, permit, public right of way vacation, and tentative map conditions are contained in the staff report to support approval of the project.

Therefore, staff recommends that the city council approve the project. This concludes staff presentation. Staff, the applicant's team, I are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission? No? Okay. We can go on to public comment. Sean Rodriguez? You'll have three minutes.

Okay. Hello, everyone. I just recently moved into the neighborhood, and, this new project would severely deteriorate my quality of living. I understand that, there's a necessity for more housing in San Diego, but there are plenty other places within that corridor that could work. Right on Market Street, right next to the transportation line is a perfectly same size, acre lot, probably a little bit bigger.

I think it's 2.5 acres, and it's on, I wanna say, Market and in between 41st And 40th. That would work perfectly well for this exact development. Over there is, like, a canyon and has a great wildlife. There's a bunch of coyotes. There's a bunch of insects, bugs, and other, you know, San Diego native wildlife that live there in Rome, and they'd be severely also taken out of that.

You know? You talked about, the necessary requirements that you or the the things you want them to skip over, which was the, like, roundabout and moving the curb and stuff like that, which would just affect the parking in the area. And as if you've been over there, it's very much a family community. People who will live there have lived there for generations. They have multiple family members living there, and the parking would become atrocious.

I understand you said there would be extra parking acclimated, but, it wasn't really made I couldn't really tell from the planning that you had up whether that was actually going to be working for that area. I guess that's all my time. I don't have much more to say.

Thank you. Christian Bettarsay?

Hello.

I am a homeowner at right next to the proposed development. I received notice of the proposed development, a short two weeks ago. After consulting with all of my neighbors and the other residents in the area, we all expressed mutual both shock and anger at the proposed development that would completely reshape the community that we live in. Unfortunately, a lot of people were unable to make it today because of, a, the very short notice that we were given to participate, and, b, the fact that this was planned right during a workday where I had to take my time off of work to come and present here and others were not able to. We live in a very close knit community, and this would radically change the nature of our area.

There are 30 dwelling units that are being proposed to be placed on a two acre lot, and that is radically different than the current density, map of where we live. Not only would it massively increase the number of people that are living in our small, little, corridor, The fact that there is no, commitment to, building adequate parking for the ADU, I understand maybe that's not part of a a requirement in terms of the city regulations, but those 30 proposed, dwellings, we're we're looking at easily a hundred, hundred fifty plus people that are gonna be living in that area with absolutely no plans to, have the adequate parking for those people. I understand there were some wildlife reports done. I have not been able to access or see those. I didn't see any mention of a a flood impact report, which is, would be a very important thing to see.

Also, reiterating something that someone else said in terms of environmental and wildlife concerns, we do have an abundance of wildlife that lives in the proposed two acre development. I have not heard or seen any reports on whether or not this is going to impact endangered species or any types of wildlife that we're trying to preserve, along with plant life as well while we're at it. Another thing that was said is that there's a Market Street corridor right around the corner, with plenty of vacant property, which would be much more in line with a development like this, especially putting people closer to grocery stores, public transportation, areas. The other reality is that this is public land, we're losing it when it could have opportunities for other uses of public land. There's noise constructions, public safety concerns.

And the reality of it is, I think, that this is, unfortunately, a project that has not been done in conjunction with the community. And I think that's abhorrent. And we will make sure that we will continue to make our voices known in this matter.

Thank you. Gerardo Chagola?

Good morning, everyone. And the reason why I'm here today is to voice my opinion against the construction of this project. The reason being is because being a resident from this community for, well, over thirty years, I could tell you many things that you you probably don't see on a report. One of them I do wanna voice is that this is a low income working class community. And as mentioned before from the previous speakers, many of these individuals couldn't come here today for one, the short notice, which actually wasn't even a full two weeks for us. It was a little bit less than that. And then for two, they're working. They can't come here. They're working. They're they're trying to make their their their they're trying to earn their paycheck.

Some points I do wanna mention, and one that my family's really concerned about, is if there is any lead studies. A few months ago not months ago, I take that back. A few years ago, the shooting range across the freeway from the 94 Freeway was closed. And with that, it closed because of the not the pollution, but the lead exposure the offices were going through. And that's one of the concerns that I have.

Will that affect us if any of this is constructing? Yes. There's reports, but that's one thing I really wanna make sure that we take our time to go over because, again, it's it's a big issue right there for for families who had nothing to do with the shooting range to be exposed to the lead. And that's one thing that we we should consider and we should take our time to explore that. We're doing our proper research that the reports are there and that if this project does go forward, it goes forward with that in mind.

The other item is, as I as I mentioned, as being a resident here and having seen so many things throughout so many things throughout the years, one thing I do wanna mention is that our community has a lot of issues, and adding a 150 people to this community will only add to it. One, for example, there's a house, this individual right across the corner who has been living there, standing in the corner for over six years now since the pandemic happened. We've been unable to give her resources, and she's been standing there in the corner for six years almost. It's one of many examples I can give you. There's no parking.

We're living on top of each other. We can't even take out our trash cans. Many issues that go on. A lot more serious than that, but it's one of many issues I do wanna bring forward that as we think about the community and as we think about developments, we think about the other side too, how it all connects because everything is connected. And we need to consider all that as we think about how we could move forward as a community. Thank you.

Thank you. Looks like we do not have any online speakers. We can move on to commission comment. Commissioner Marlborough?

Yes. Thank you, chair. I just have a couple questions and then a comment. Let me pull it up. This project is the will the city of San Diego handle the trash pickup for this project?

Yes.

Okay. I figured that was the answer. So there's going to be 87 I mean, about it's gonna require, like, 87 trash receptacles for this project. And what I didn't see on the drawing and what I'm getting at 11 houses and then 18 ADUs. And so when you look at that, each unit will require three of them, so that's where I get the 87 number. I did not see I cannot tell on the plans if there was room to store those receptacles there. Is the applicant there here to answer that question?

Yes. We have the applicant, and then we should have environmental services department as well on the on the call. Let me double check if environmental services is on the call.

I'm more interested from hearing from the applicant as far as how would they store all those reset those trash receptacles since they're very small lots.

Okay. We also do have the applicant on the call. His name is John Allen.

Hello. Can you guys hear me?

Yes.

Good morning. Yes. I'd I'd like to address that and also allow my architect who was the lead in design and planning for the particular projects. There is space that was planned along the the walkway and also in the garage, but I'd like to I'd like to make sure that we I pass it over to Colin Lowry, if you can unmute Colin Lowry as well, who is the project architect to expand upon it a bit further.

Hello?

We can hear you.

Okay. Please continue.

Sure. Yes. Like John said, there's some some space along the walkway. For most of the lots, it's along the west side of the garage. And for this location for a couple of cans there. And then as you go down the stairs, there's an additional space in between the units for more cans. And there there's plenty of space in the garage as well for the main residence.

Jacob. Yeah. Yeah. Jacob. Okay. Thank you. So what you're saying because I think there's a a law where these cans cannot be in public view. And I believe it's it's a city rig, though the city doesn't really apply it unless you complain about that. And so when he says it, I just wanna make sure that they're not in view, they're they're put away so they're not just sitting out in the front of the building or what have you. Is that

I do I do I do know that there are some restrictions. I know that, you there's only a time limit where you can leave your trash cans out. I know that it's twenty four hours prior to trash pickup and up to twenty four hours after trash pickup. As far as enforcement on that, I'm not entirely too sure.

Yeah. So listen. Only reason I'm asking that question because I actually like the project, and I and it's it's really unique where someone's buying a home and the ADUs will already be there. That's a great investment and what have you. And I just don't want anything to make this harder for the next projects that might come down the pipeline like this. And so, you you answered my question. I'm okay with that, and I'm in support of the project. And I'm happy to make a motion to, accept staff's recommendations.

K. Thank you. Commissioner Ranger?

I had a couple of questions. One being I think I understand that there are 29 dwelling units that are being proposed here. 11 plus 18. Right?

Correct.

And what are the total number of parking spaces that you're providing here?

K.

I'd like to bring Megan Lithgow with DSD Transportation

into

the call.

This is Megan Lithgow with Transportation Development. Each each dwelling unit is going to have a one two car garage, which meets the minimum requirement for on-site parking spaces. So it's a total of 22 parking spaces. There are no parking requirements for the ADUs per the current municipal code.

Right. And and that that's what I was gonna ask is that there really isn't a requirement for the ADUs. Right?

Correct. There's no parking requirements for the ADUs.

So in in a sense, the developer is trying to be mindful, you know, and and providing more parking than is, quote, required.

That is correct.

I am curious, though. What is the closest transit route to this location?

I would again defer to Megan Liskow Lithgow with transportation.

Please give me a moment to answer that question. I need to locate it in the staff report.

And and then a third question that I have is, can you describe why there is a 14 foot retaining wall being proposed.

Yes.

I'm just I mean, six feet, you know, is tall, but 14 feet, like, that's

It it's to accommodate a fire apparatus. There's a there's a turnaround on Lots 8 Through 9. So it it's designed for life safety for a fire apparatus for a turnaround.

And it's because the grade is grade goes up. I I can't really tell from the aerial map.

I believe I believe it slightly slopes downward from the south to the north.

Commissioner, this is John Allen. If I if I could expand a little bit about on that as well. The the concept of the plan was specifically to try as best as possible to work with the grades. There is a as as Ben mentioned, there is a slope from south to north towards the 94 Freeway and a slope from east to west towards the Paper 40th Street. And so the the design intent was to utilize those slopes, work with the slopes rather than fight the slopes and reduce retaining wall and grading as much as possible.

However, with the access constraints of the, to be constructed alley that will be used for access for all of these homes. There we do have to provide a fire access turnaround, to allow for fire life safety apparatus to locate or to I'm sorry, to approach all units. And so the the height of an elevation of that leeway, we we have less flexibility on because of the limitations on the slope of that of that access for the fire life safety apparatus. So we had to maintain as best as possible that elevation of turnaround. And so that is the only location for which a larger retaining wall is required to make sure that that turnaround can still be provided.

Okay. I'll wait for the response for how far the nearest transit stop is.

Hi. Thank you. This is Megan Lithgow again. The nearest transit stop is approximately half a mile from the site. It is located south of the site on Market Street.

K. Thank you.

Commissioner Mazari?

I just have a couple of question. One was a comment about noticing. So was the public notice done correctly, or is it how is it that they didn't receive common notices?

Yeah. The public noticing was done correctly. The the app when the project was first created in late twenty twenty two, public noticing went out within all owners and occupants within a 300 foot radius. There was a scope change a couple years later as well. Public noticing was, distributed again to owners, occupants, and in interested parties.

Okay.

And as well as a notice of public hearing, which is two weeks prior.

Okay. And then overall, you said how many lots are here?

There are 16 lots, and the subdivision will go to 10 lots. Okay.

But, actually, 16 homes could have been built here.

Good morning, commissioners. George Kasike, planning with development services. So as it lies today, yes, you could have built, technically, one per lot in in addition the ADUs that they're proposing. So without the subdivision, this could have actually resulted in a larger density than what's actually being proposed. Mhmm. The applicant realized that that probably was infeasible from an engineering perspective, so their project reduces that a little bit to something that can actually be built out.

Okay. Thanks. And my other question is, the deviations for making the street frontages smaller or the driveways closer to the property line, all of that, is does that that's gonna affect on street parking. Right? You're gonna have not enough space between driveways for somebody to actually park on the street.

I would defer to DSD Transportation. Megan Lithgow or Lithgow?

Megan Lithgow, Transportation Development. Yes. That is correct. Where the lots are located, which is up on the screen, the width of the private drive and the width of the alley are 20 feet. Because these driveways require a minimum of 21 foot backup distance, there would be no on street parking. That is correct.

So the entire bulb of that cul de sac will have no parking?

Correct. Okay.

Okay. That that's all. Thank you.

Commissioner Reeves?

Thank you, chair. I I think I'm I I just have to express that I am in agreement with my colleague, commissioner Marlborough, on this. I I like the project. I I believe it's something that is different from what the community often is getting in terms of development. It's single family for the most part.

It's, for sale product. At the same time, you know, I hear you, the community members who came out to speak today, and I recognize that you, you know, are a couple of probably many who share this opinion and appreciate you being able to be here to represent your neighbors and and friends, you know, considering the fact that they probably aren't able to make it as you as you recognize. So, with that in mind, I was looking through this, and I see that the community planning group supports the project, unanimously. But there was a a nonbinding request in their motion to support. And I'm curious, if the, developer could respond to that, and it's regarding I it not maybe not using these words, but I'll use them for first right of refusal or something like that for the purchase of homes in this area to neighbors or people in the immediate vicinity.

Could the developer respond to that?

Yes. John Allen. Plea please respond.

Thank you. Yeah. Beth, Ben, would you be able to also read the what was the nonbinding comment specifically? Could you you have that available?

Yes. Give me one moment. Okay. The recommendation is to continue discussion with the immediate community and consider how they might be able to have first purchase options to remain within their community.

Thank you. So during the, community plan group meeting, we we appreciated the feedback and comments that we received, including the, that particular item, which seems to be, it was a great intent. And we the the intent of this development is to, to provide these home opportunities for the community at large to, provide for, a a single family home with some you know, with a a couple of ADUs in the back for extended family and to maybe rent one out to help with their mortgage. And so the intent for exactly that is there. How we would be able to incorporate that into, you know, some kind of a binding agreement.

I don't know how that would work, but the intent is to to follow that non binding recommendation and offer them to the market and and and work with the neighborhood and the community to be able to acquire them, whether it's for them to acquire the lots and build out the homes themselves, which was also brought up during the community plan group or to buy the completed product. We haven't formally decided on any particular method, whether it's one way or the other, but we do believe that that is, the intent is there to accommodate that nonbinding recommendation.

Understood. Thank you. You know, the ability to purchase a home in this neighborhood, it's not multifamily. It's not apartment. It's not, for rent. It does include some affordable deed restricted units, and it also provides, income producing opportunities for homeowners in the area. I think that generally speaking, it's a good thing. Again, recognizing the impacts that new neighbors will have on the existing community and the people who have lived here for a long time, am I in support of this project, and I'll second the motion.

K. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Ranger?

I think I'll just finish by saying this. I I think, some of the community members who came expressed concern about the the increase in density and number of dwelling units. But looking at the project, I think the architect has actually done a pretty good job in terms of breaking down the mass and scale so that the impact the view impact to from the community looking in is minimal, and it doesn't seem like a project that is out of scale necessarily even though there are some two, story components to it. But and, you know, we got clarification that there really isn't a requirement for parking, and yet the the developer is providing more parking than is required of the project. You know, half a mile, it's not, you know, it's not really that far.

But I guess the question is, you know, the habits of the neighborhood. Right? Yeah. Habits, that's what I'm saying. Habits of the neighborhood are not necessarily to walk half a mile, but it's not like, you know, there is no stopness. But all all that to say, I think this project is done sensitively and adds a much needed density and housing to the neighborhood. So I I am in support of the project.

Okay. It's rare that we get for sale product in front of Planning Commission. It's very difficult to do. And it's something that I'm highly supportive of. I'm supportive of all housing, obviously.

But we largely see a lot of apartment buildings. So I'm supportive of single family homes, especially in this community, especially with the ADUs attached to it, which do help people in terms of affording their mortgage. I want to ask one question regarding the parking for ADUs. I believe that it's state law that you don't have to require parking, and the city has implemented that in their municipal code. Can you confirm that?

Yes. This is Megan Lithgow, Transportation Development. There is zero parking for ADU per the San Diego municipal code.

But is that in aligned with state law?

Yes. I believe that is in line with state law.

Okay. So as the city, we must adopt what state law is. And so the state law is what says that there's no parking for ADUs. And we're just merely implementing what what the state requires. So this is in conformance, obviously, with that. So I believe we have a motion and a second to support staff's recommendation. I think we can go to a vote.

Commissioner Marlborough?

Thank you. And that passes unanimously. We can go on to item number two. Staff, whenever you're ready.

Good morning, commissioners. I'm Sarah Osborne, the development project manager for the Ingram Street project. For members of the public who are viewing the hearing, the tone in testimony period for item two is now open. To call in for public comment, please follow the directions presented on the screen here or in the preamble to the meeting agenda. Before you today is project number 1059329 at 3823 Ingram Street.

The site is in the Crown Point neighborhood of the Pacific Beach community. The project is a 12.96 acre site zoned for multi residential RM3-seven along Ingram Street. The project is a process five city council decision and includes a land use amendment to the Pacific Beach community plan, a rezone, a coastal development permit, and a public sewer easement vacation. An environmental impact report was prepared for the project and includes findings and statement of overriding considerations and a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program. This project amends the local coastal plan, and therefore, will require Coastal Commission approval following City Council.

The 12.96 acre site is currently developed with five sixty four multi dwelling units, 4.35 acres, shown in orange, contain surface parking and underutilized private recreational space proposed for redevelopment. This area is proposed to include an additional 138 units with parking. This picture shows the existing condition along Fortuna Avenue. This site is along Jewell Street. And this is a site looking from the corner of Jewell in La Playa.

There are a few pictures of the surrounding area and uses. There is an elementary school to the north, single and multi dwelling unit housing surrounding the site ranging from one to three stories, and neighborhood commercial on the corner of Ingram Street and LaPlaya Avenue. The current land use is medium high residential, 29 to 43 dwelling units per acre, which is implemented through the RM three-seven zone. The project is located in a transit priority area with bus service along Ingram Street with future bike route improvements along Ingram And Jewell Street. The land use amendment would redesignate the entire 12.96 acre site from medium high residential, 29 to 43 dwelling units per acre, to high residential, which is 15 to 54 dwelling units per acre, and rezone the site from RM37 to RM38.

The project includes an additional 138 units in three buildings, and this includes seven affordable units, Two new parking structures and a surface parking lot on the 4.35 acre site, and the number of units on the entire 12.96 acre site will total seven zero two units. New residential amenities would be provided in the form of two outdoor courtyards, a dog wash, a linear park, which is adjacent to Building 3 along Jewell Street, which will include an enhanced public pathway with pedestrian resting area and a bike repair station. The buildings will be two and three stories, which is compatible with the surrounding development. Additionally, the design and materials will complement the existing structures on-site. Here are a few examples of the elevations and building frontages.

The seven affordable dwelling units on-site will be very low income with rents of no more than 30% of 50% of area median income. This allows for one incentive and three requested waivers. This includes waiving the plant requirement for the parking structure, loading space requirements, reducing setbacks, and allowing private exterior space to encroach into setbacks. The Planning Commission initiated the land use amendment and rezone on 05/05/2022, and identified the following issues to be analyzed as part of the project. The project analyzed the appropriate land use designation and zone and supports the increase in density at the project site due to its location within a transit priority area and because of its within a moderate high village propensity area as identified in the general plan.

The project also considered site and urban design element policies, including Vulcan scale and compatibility with the existing built environment. The initiation issues also analyze mobility improvements to the multimodal circulation network, and the project provides enhancements for pedestrians and bikers. And additionally, the project is providing seven on-site affordable units. City staff determined that based on the environmental analysis and the information provided, an EIR was the appropriate environmental document to be prepared for the project. The project would result in significant but mitigated environmental impacts to historical resources, tribal cultural resources, and transportation.

The project includes a mitigation, monitoring, and reporting program. And although there are multimodal improvements, transportation VMT impacts would remain significant and unmitigated. And therefore, the project has also prepared CEQA findings and statement of overriding considerations. Earlier this year, the Pacific Beach Planning Group voted unanimously to recommend approval of the project without condition. And staff's recommendation is to recommend to the city council to approve the environmental impact report and supporting material, the Pacific Beach Community Plan Amendment, the rezone, the coastal development permit, and easement vacation.

And this completes staff's presentation, and staff and the applicant are here and available for questions. Thank you. Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the Commission? No? Okay.

We can go on to public comment. Looks like there's an organized presentation. Mark Janda and Brittany Ruggles. I'm gonna read off the people that are ceding time to you. Jeff Forrest, Marshall Anderson, Karen Ruggles, Tammy Moreno, Frank.

Okay. Thank you. Amy Rustelli and Selmo Perez. You'll have a max of fifteen minutes.

Okay. Great.

Thank you.

If you could put up our first site, please. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Good morning, commissioners. I'm Mark Yonda from AvalonBay Communities. We're the applicant for this project here today. As noted by staff, we're planning to add a 138 new apartments to an existing community that we own that contains 564 apartment units. Next slide. Just by way of introduction to AvalonBay Communities, if if you're not familiar with us, we're a public multifamily REIT investing in most major markets across The US.

We've been a longtime investor in San Diego and San Diego County. We currently have about 1,800 apartments in San Diego County in eight different communities, and we have an additional 800 apartments currently under construction in two communities here in in San Diego. AvalonBay is known for not only investing in multifamily apartments, but also investing in the communities where we do business. We've been a long supporter of Homemade San Diego and supporting the unhoused here in San Diego County. The next slide, please.

For this project, we've assembled a top tier group of consultants, to help us with this project, including Shepherd Mullen, our land use attorney, KLR planning, our our planning consultant, California Strategies, who's been involved with community outreach, Lowney Architects, Kimley Horn, civil engineers, and Topia Landscape Architects. This project was really born out of the realization that we had a significant amount of underutilized parking on-site. We did two different parking studies over the course of four years and determined that there was about 75% parking utilization for our existing on-site parking stalls, and that is how we identified the ability to add these additional units that we're proposing here today. So at this point, I'm going to hand it off to Brittany Ruggles Wallace from KLR Planning to walk you through some of the details of the project.

Thank you, Chair Modine and members of the Planning Commission. Next slide, please. Sarah, you did a fantastic job. So you took half my presentation. So I'll go through some of these slides pretty quickly.

Again, just to orient you, we have Building 1 on along the northern portion of the site, which is on Fortuna Avenue. Building 2 in the middle is just west of Jewell Street, and then Building 3 is on the corner of LaPlaya Avenue and Jewell Street. And as as Mark said, as we began designing and conceptualizing this project, we were looking to not only how to utilize that underutilized parking, but also looking to allow the mayor's mandates and really having this be a pilot project for being able to do infill housing on an already developed site and really try to utilize that while making it as minimally invasive to everyone as possible. Next slide. This slide just kind of more clearly shows you where the buildings are in relation to the site and what we're highlighting here is also not only the building footprints, but what we're adding as a new open space for the residents.

There's a little bit of blue in Building 1 and Building 3, which is new outdoor amenity space for the residents. And that big blue rectangle in the middle is the existing outdoor amenity space, which includes things like a pool and spa and, a beach volleyball court among other outdoor recreational amenities. Next slide. Now just taking a moment to walk you through the buildings. This is Building 1, which fronts on Fortuna Avenue. This would be a three story building situated around a wrapped parking garage, and we would have 69 units in this building. This building includes an outdoor amenity space as well as a dog wash. Next slide. And this is just a rendering of the building on on Building 1 looking west on Fortuna Avenue. Next slide.

Thank you. Building 2 is our two story component of the project. It would be 21 units just west of Jewell Street. This would be, would include a surface parking area. Next slide.

And this is the rendering facing the Building 1 or Building 2 looking Southwest from Jewell Street. Building 3 would be 400 or 48, my apologies, 48 residential units units in a three story configuration again around a wrapped parking garage. This would include the interior residential courtyard outdoor space and would also front on the proposed linear park at Jewel Street and LaPlaya Avenue. And this is a rendering looking Northwest, from Jewell and La Playa. As Sarah mentioned, we wanted when we looked at our conceptual materials, we wanted things that not only spoke to the existing buildings on-site, but also the surrounding community and the beach like character of the neighborhood.

So we looked at a lot of beach tones and natural materials. And specifically, because we are adding parking garages and because we know that public art is important not only to San Diego but to the PB community as a whole, we really want to have an opportunity to incorporate public art as murals on our wrapped parking garages. And we do look forward to working with groups like Beautiful PB and other artist organizations to try to find local artists and muralists to help us to enhance our buildings with some public art. Accompanying the proposed development would be enhanced landscaping both internally and external to the site. Notably shown here is that throughout our development proposal, although our redevelopment areas are only in pockets of the site, we are planning to do landscape and pedestrian improvements around the entire perimeter of the site.

Most notably is the linear park that we're proposing along Jewell Street. We're planning for opportunities for neighborhood enhancement that really invites the neighborhood in. And as we're looking for ways that we can enhance this, Jewell Street really stood out to us as a PB community corridor, a safe route to schools for the the Crown Point Junior Music Academy, and also a chance to really merge our new plant palette with the existing plant palette on-site. As Sarah mentioned, this linear park is intended to have things like a bicycle repair station as well as a pedestrian resting node, really inviting folks to walk not only to the site, but through the site to the rest of PB. You would know just, north of us is Garnett And Grand Street, and it gives people a little spot to rest if they're walking into PB proper.

And this is just a rendering of how that linear park, the public park element on Jewell Street, would correspond with our interior private resident courtyard along Jewell Street. Additionally, we would carry that enhanced scape along the entirety of Jewell Street. We're planning to install a new noncontiguous sidewalk along the entire length of Jewell Street fronting our project, which would include a noncontiguous sidewalk and canopy trees, which really creates just a more pleasant pedestrian environment for not just our residents, but for everyone within the Crown Point community walking past the project site. Fortuna Avenue does currently have a noncontiguous sidewalk. We plan to enhance that with new street plantings as well as repairing the sidewalk as necessary.

And then along Jewell Street, although we don't have or sorry, Ingram Street. Although we don't have any improvements along Ingram Street, we are doing our best to try to improve the pedestrian environment here as well. And south of the entry, we would be adding a new non contiguous sidewalk. We would also be adding some ADA improvements at the entry and a new concrete bus pad. We're really excited to bring to the community a net increase of about 100 trees.

And what's notable here about this slide, the top is the existing tree canopy. The bottom is the proposed tree canopy. And we're doing a couple of things. Right now, of the trees that would be removed from the site are interior to the site, mostly in parking areas, and mostly of a fairly low quality. What we're doing is adding those trees and infilling along the perimeter of the site, which really enhances the neighborhood as a whole and not just the project, while also in doing some increased tree canopy within the project site as well.

We looked for opportunities to improve safety and transportation, both as a result of our community plan amendment initiation and just to be good neighbors to the community. And what we're doing, as I mentioned, we have a lot of pedestrian and bicycle facilities. One of the things that we're also doing is we're consolidating driveways. And so there's less vehicle and pedestrian interaction points. We're creating non contiguous sidewalks around most of the perimeter of the site, as well as providing for ADA improvements, as I mentioned, the concrete bus pad.

And this is really important because we are located, as Sarah mentioned, along a transit stop. We want it to be easy for people to get to the transit and to utilize the transit. Additionally, lot of our bicycle improvements are focused on the fact that, as Sarah mentioned, we are within some planned regional bikeways. So in addition to having the bicycle repair station, we also have bike storage and e bike charging. Additional sustainable features include electric vehicle charging, some drought tolerant and native friendly landscaping and practices in our irrigation, as well as low flow and low use appliances within the residences.

And finally, as Mark mentioned, AvalonBay is really proud to be a member of the community, particularly this community. AvalonBay takes an active role in community events. They have been a title sponsor of Step Up, the Walk to End Homelessness at De Anza Cove for the last five years. They've also been involved in the PB Town Council installation dinner and the graffiti cleanup day, and they're very proud to have anonymous support or unanimous support for this project at the planning group. And so in conclusion, we ask today that you recommend support of this project to the city council.

We're really excited to bring forward, some of the mayor's initiatives and just some of what San Diego has been trying so hard for to have new residential units in a beach community as well as new affordable units in a beach community in a manner that is respectful of the coastal height limit and the existing density. We chose a density that already exists within the community plan, and so we really tried to incorporate all these new units within the confines and the character of the community and the regulations. We have our team here to answer your questions, and thank you for your time.

Thank you. Marcella Bothwell.

Hello. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Marcella Bothwell, chair of the Pacific Beach Planning Group. Unfortunately, certain developments developments in PB had made headlines for all the wrong reasons. This project before you today is a perfect example of how much needed housing can be added responsibly.

It reflects the kind of growth we need in Pacific Beach, livable for future generations. As chair, I can tell you the planning group reviews each and every project on its individual merits. AvalonBay has worked closely with us, listening to our feedback, making changes to ensure this is a project great for Pacific Beach, conforming to our character while preserving our parking. AvalonBay has shown a true commitment to the neighborhood, serving as a frequent partner in various events over the years, so we encourage your support. Thank

you. Thank

you. Charlie Nieto. You'll have three minutes.

Good morning, honorable chair, commissioners, and community. My name is Charlie Nieto. I'm the president of the Pacific Beach Town Council and vice chair of the Pacific Beach Planning Group. Today, I am speaking as an individual in support of item two and perhaps more specifically as a young resident of Pacific Beach who has seen firsthand the scourge of our cost of living crisis. This type of project is exactly what we need.

It adds a 138 housing units to our housing stock and with, believe it or not, additional parking. But beyond the merits of this project, of which there are many, I also would like to speak to the character of the AvalonBay team. They have demonstrated in a time where they are in where developers are in no way required to engage with community planning groups. They have been transparent, responsive, and communicative every step of the way, demonstrating the utmost respect to their neighbors, their existing tenants, the community, and all while upholding community character and identity. We want more neighbors, and I couldn't think of a better neighbor than Ava Pacific Beach.

I was proud to be a part of the unanimous support of this project from the Pacific Beach Planning Group, and I hope that you will as well. Thank you.

Thank you. Ron Noble, you'll have three minutes.

Morning, everyone. As a multigenerational San Diegan, I am here to express my strong opposition to the proposed 138 unit housing development in our neighborhood. While I recognize the importance of addressing San Diego's housing needs, this particular proposal raises serious concerns about overcrowding, infrastructure strain, and the erosion of community character. The scale of the development is incompatible with the existing layout and density of Pacific Beach. Our streets, utilities, and emergency services are not equipped to absorb such a dramatic increase of population without the significant upgrades and planning.

Moreover, the project appears to exploit provisions of state density bonus law without delivering meaningful pun pub excuse me, public benefit. Similar concerns are raised, to the city regarding the project Vela at 970 Turquoise Street, where, density both excuse me. Where density bonuses were used to justify hotel like accommodations rather than affordable housing. We must ensure that such loopholes are not used to bypass community input and zoning standards. I urge the planning commission to require a full traffic environmental impact study, limit the scale of development to align with neighborhood capacity, ensure that any density bonuses are tied to genuine affordability and public benefit.

Thank you for your attention to this matter, and I'm welcome any dialogue. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Victor Diaz? You don't wanna speak? Okay. Jesus Camargo?

Hello. My name is Jesus Camargo. I'm a member of the Western State Regional Council of Carpenters. I live in the local area and live, work, and recreate in the vicinity of the project. I believe that I will be impacted by the environmental impacts of the project.

The city should require the project to be built with contractors that will hire locally, pay prevailing wages, and utilize apprentices from the state certified apprenticeship training program. Workforce workforce requirements reduce construction related environmental impacts while benefiting the local economy and workforce development. In recent 2020, report titled Putting California on the High Road, a jobs and climate action plan for 2030, California workforce development work, board concluded that investment in growing, diversifying, and upskilling California workforce can positively affect returns and climate mitigation efforts. The South Coast Air Quality Management District recently found that local higher requirements can result in air pollutant reductions. Recently, the state California retire reiterated its commitments towards encouraging workforce development and housing affordability through the affordable housing and high road jobs act of 2022, otherwise known as assembly bill number twenty eleven, which requires projects assembly which requires projects to workers, prevailing wages, and hire from state certified apprenticeship programs for projects meeting certain settings, affordability, and development standards.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Bab Speyer. You'll have three minutes.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Babs Beyer, and I am the resident manager at the Villa La Playa Apartments next door to Eva on Jewel And La Playa. I am a longstanding resident. I've lived in the community for ten years at this complex. My son goes to Crown Point Junior Music Academy on Fortuna.

I am here today to strongly oppose the expansion of Ava, which would add an additional 138 units to an already dense development. My residents weren't able to attend today, and my owners are out of town. So, I would like to speak for everyone regarding this issue. My concerns are based on real ongoing issues that I've had directly, affected that have directly affected our community's health, safety, and quality of life. For years, more than half the time that I lived at the property, residents in the area, not just in my property, but in the neighborhood, we've experienced persistent sewage odors around Jewel and La Playa.

I've dealt with city employees, civil engineers. I've dealt with air quality control, the air quality inspector, the night shift manager. I don't know who these people are. My one of my residents threatened to sue due to the air quality because of the sewage, so she, was dealing with a woman at the city. Anyways, my point is is that they the city employees have confirmed that the sewage flow from the Eva Complex and other surrounding businesses on Ingram travel through our local system before reaching the nearby pump station at the Crown Point Bay.

It passes directly under and around our neighborhood, and the system is already overburdened with such a large complex. In addition to more than a 100 new units, this would increase the wastewater output substantially, putting even more pressure on aging pipes and infrastructure that are already struggling to handle the current load. This is not speculation. It's recurring documented problem. Approving this project without addressing these existing deficiencies would be negligent and would exacerbate a long standing public health and environmental concern.

So I just wanna see the staff report to see if this easement will fix the existing issues or if it just addresses the new units, that you plan on building. And then I also wanted to bring up the parking in our neighborhood. It's already a daily challenge for residents. Even with the parking structure that's proposed, we all know that real world usage doesn't match paper calculations, especially in beachside communities like ours where visitors, deliveries, and overflow vehicles routinely spill into the surrounding streets. Eva currently charges for parking, so I understand why it's only 75% occupied instead of a 100%. Adding a 138 units means that more vehicles are competing for limited street parking, further straining, and already

Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you. Jeff Hueter?

Yeah. Just to make a quick comment on the specs for this project. So you've seen in there that this is being done under inclusionary housing at 4%. And what that means is today, the the requirement is 10%. And what and just so people don't have this expectation of 4% in the coastal area, it's because this project was applied for several years back when inclusionary was only at four percent.

That's also why you hear references to transit priority areas, which actually don't apply to development in the coastal zone at this point because we've had the sustainable development area and the regulations based on sustainable development areas updated either last year or the year before. So going forward, we should hear about 10%, and we should hear about sustainable development areas, hopefully. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes our in person speakers, and we have on online speakers.

We have one online speaker, Sunny Lee. You may unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Sunny Lee, and I am the executive director of Discover Pacific Beach, our local business improvement district. Discover PV stands in support of the AIVA Pacific Beach project because it represents smart community oriented growth. The addition of a 138 units also represents a new customer base for our local businesses, encourages more activity for our restaurants and retailers, and more vibrancy for our neighborhood as a whole. We urge you to support we urge your support of item number two. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes our public comment. Moving on to commission comment. Commissioner Mazari?

One of the speakers mentioned that the they charge for parking, so I just wanted to check with the developer or whoever is in charge to see if their parking is

Good morning. Yes. Parking is unbundled per the cap, and there is a charge for parking if residents wish to park on-site. Okay.

That's it. Thank you. Commissioner Mopro?

Thank you, chair. And thank thanks to everyone for all the public comments. I appreciate that. I do have one question about one of the public comments regarding the sewage. Is there anybody online that can address that?

Yes. We have, PUD. Merrill Jimenez, are you available?

Yes. Good morning. I'm Merrill Jimenez with DSD water and sewer. The applicant did submit a sewer study, and the capacity will the the exist the proposed sewer line will be realigned for the new development and a increase in size as well. So the existing size is eight inch, and then in some portions, it will be increased to 10 inch.

Thank you. Okay.

To a problem.

Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to

Oh, sorry. Sorry about that.

She's done? Oh, okay. And thanks, for I I was kinda confused about the affordable housing number, and I I appreciate, our comment from, mister Hueter on that because I I didn't quite understand that, so I won't ask that question. I really like this project. I think it's, it's it's, done real well. I like the fact that it's in the highest resource area. Again, there is some affordable housing. I wish there was more. And the fact that I think you gay actually gained more parking. You didn't lose parking.

You you gained parking, so that was great. And plus plus all the amenities. So I think it's gonna be a great project, and I'm very much in support. And so I'll I'll go ahead and make the motion to accept staff's recommendations.

Okay. We have a motion. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, chair. I'm gonna have to stop going after, commissioner Marbrooke because he keeps taking my talking points. So that that'll actually shorten what I have to say. So thank you. Less time on the mic for me.

I I I'll just, make one note here. Looks like the complete community's mobility choices and the VMT reduction, measures are, adequate. I think that especially for a project that's on, a class three bike route, planned bike boulevard, bicycle facilities are great, especially in an apartment community where people might not have the ability to work on their bikes in their in their apartment or in their on their balcony or whatever. So it's fantastic. I applaud that.

I would just encourage applicants to think outside the box when it comes to encouraging alternative modes of transportation beyond pedestrian bicycles, getting people to transit, that sort of thing. But, I do applaud that effort, here, and and I appreciate the amenities that are proposed, especially, you know, allowing pedestrians resting their ice along along the way. Do I have this right? The for parking, there are none required. However, they're providing seven hundred and fifty six six hundred thirty four new, but seven fifty six units to serve the new units, or or or is that a combination of existing parking and new parking?

I'm gonna defer to transportation.

Good morning, commissioner Almar Sorry. Sorry about that. Almar Jabbour, transportation development. Yes. There are 756 parking spaces to accommodate the existing parking spaces and zero parking spaces per since the project site is within the DPA for the new development, one thirty eight hundred units.

So, I mean, that's hundreds of parking spots that aren't required that are being provided for this new project. I mean, that's unheard of. So, you know, I think that probably satisfies the the admittedly difficult parking situation at Crown Point. And then to see this, we'll see in the next agenda item that we need to see more housing built in the highest high and highest resource areas. So the fact that this achieves that is is huge.

And so I'm fully in support of this. Appreciate the the applicant coming out and providing comments and and hearing from the community is always great. So, also, good job on the community outreach on this. Everybody seems to, be really happy with the applicant's work over the years to hear the community and respond to community concerns. So, I you know, that's not an easy task, especially in development in urbanized areas. So well done there. I'm in support, and I'll, second the motion.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Ranger?

I just had a question about, could you explain why the trees are being removed from the parking area?

The trees are being removed from the parking area because that's where the development is going. So it's the underutilized parking areas that will be the garage and the buildings will be on.

So so you are creating new a new garage where the existing There'll

be two new garages. Yes. In the North and in the, Southeast, those will be wrapped garages. And so that's where the buildings are going. So those trees are going away. They'll be redistributed or they'll be replanted on the perimeter.

Okay.

I think that's a pretty good trade off. Right? You're you're losing some trees in the parking the existing parking. You're getting increased parking. The trees are being displaced on the right of way where the community will likely, you know, enjoy it more than over a parking.

I I appreciate the fact that there is kind of an an awareness that they're they're creating this linear park along Jewell Street. I think there's a lot of things that this project is doing that favors the community, and and I just wanted to say that I appreciate that aspect of it. I also appreciate that with a parking structure, you know, sometimes it's it's like a blank wall, and and there's efforts to beautify it with artwork, and there's opportunities for public art here. We already talked about the infrastructure upgrades. So I I'm in full support of this project.

K. Thank you. I do have a

couple

questions. In regards to the affordable units, I I believe I heard seven. What is the size of those affordable units?

Per the Housing Commission, they will be the same size as on aggregate with what's happening in the new construction. So the new building will be one and two bedrooms. And so it'll be a combination of one and two bedroom units.

Okay. Are they at 50% AMI, 60% AMI? Okay. And what is the parking ratio per bedroom? Is does anybody have that information?

Just a moment.

I believe staff can answer that. Okay.

I can answer. It's one point o eight.

And is that for the entire development or just the new? The entire development. One point o eight per bedroom or per unit?

Per unit. Okay. I don't believe we have the per bedroom number. We can do the math if you want.

I think that's Okay. The intent of asking that question is obviously this is it has more than one parking space per unit, which is generally more generous than what we see in a lot of projects. I understand it is beach community, and parking is more impacted in those communities. But I think this is a substantial amount of parking that we typically don't see. I'm supportive of the project.

I know we have a motion and a second to approve staff's recommendation. I think we can go to a vote if there's no more comments. And that passes unanimously. Thank you, Steph. Good Thank you. Presentation. Can move on to item number four.

Bowman testimony is now open. Please review the instructions provided on screen. Good, good morning, commissioners. My name is Samuel Solis. I am a senior planner in the city planning department in the city planning department, and joining me today, is Seth Lichtney, housing policy and environmental analysis, deputy director.

Today, I will be presenting an informational item on the 2025, annual report on homes. The present, the presentation will be an informational item on the 2025 annual report on homes. The presentation will be provide an overview of relevant data points and key takeaways. Staff will be available to answer any questions, and take feedback from the commission for the development of future annual report on homes. The 2025 annual report on homes is a comprehensive review of housing permitting data of the city during calendar year 2024, which includes data reported in the housing element annual progress report.

The annual progress report details information on home development proposals and permitting data, the progress made on meeting the city's regional housing needs assessment targets, and overall, the progress made on the implementation of the general plan's housing element. The annual progress report is required to be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which occurred in March 2025. The annual report on HOME also includes an analysis of the city's density bonus program, a city, a summary of the home permitting trends, an analysis of home development on sites and the housing element adequate sites inventory, and an assessment on the city's progress to affirmatively further fair housing. Moving on to the 2024 housing data. In calendar year 2024, 8,782 new homes were permitted.

Of those new homes permitted, 12% or 1,061 homes were deed restricted affordable for very low, low, and moderate income households. The city of San Diego not only showed substantial progress on home issuances, but we also outperformed our peer cities on a per capita basis in 2024. The city issued about 64 home permits per 10,000 San Diegans in 2024. In comparison, Los Angeles and San Francisco issued about forty five and thirteen home permits per 10,000 residents in their cities in 2024, respectively. Home issuances were widely dispersed throughout the city.

Most new homes permitted in 2024 are concentrated in the communities of Uptown and Navajo, each exceeding 1,000 homes. Other areas with strong permitting activity include Kearny Mesa, Downtown, and North Park ranging from five to 700 homes. In 2024, affordable home permitting is led by City Heights, Uptown, Claremont Mesa, and Southeastern San Diego with one to 200 affordable homes each. The city's accessory dwelling unit home permitting continues to accelerate. In total, 2,285 accessory dwelling unit homes were permitted in 2024, a sharp increase over previous years.

2,285 ADU homes represent approximately 26% of the total permitted homes in 2024. And as shown on this map, ADU homes were permitted throughout the city. However, Claremont Mesa, North Park, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU home building permit approvals in 2024. Providing a diversity of home types ensures, more people have opportunities to live in San Diego throughout different stages of their life. About 59% of new homes were either studio homes or one bedroom homes.

Approximately 41% of new homes contain two or more bedrooms, which meet the needs of families of various sizes. Sizes. Carmel Mountain Ranch, Uptown, and Downtown were the most common areas for homes with two or more bedroom bedrooms for building permit approvals in 2024. Moving on to the city's density bonus programs. In 2024, under the ADU home density bonus program, 653 homes were permitted, which 39% were affordable.

Clermont Mesa, Linda Vista, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU homes. The number of new homes approved through the ADU home density bonus program substantially increased from 2021 to 2024 from 20 new homes in 2021 to 653 new homes in 2024. Approximately 64% of homes permitted through the program in 2024 were affordable. The top 10 community planning areas utilizing the ADU home density bonus program from 2021 to 2024 are listed here on screen. In 2024, under the Complete Communities Housing Solutions program, 1,917 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Uptown, North Park, and Greater Golden Hill were the most common areas for new Complete Communities Housing Solutions homes. This program saw a substantial increase in utilization from 2021 to 2024, an increase from 150 a 154 new approved homes in 2021 to 1,917 new homes in 2024. Additionally, 302 new affordable homes were permitted through the program in 2024, more than double from calendar year 2023. Here on screen are the six, community planning areas where the complete communities housing solutions program was used from 2021 through 2024. In 2024, under the affordable home density bonus program, 2,619 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Navajo, Kearny Mesa, and Uptown were the most common areas for new affordable home density program homes. Similar to the previous programs, the city's affordable home density bonus program saw a substantial increase in utilization, particularly regarding affordable homes. The number of new affordable homes permitted through the affordable home density bonus program increased by about 175 from 2021 to 2023. However, in 2024, it saw a decrease of approximately 80%. Here on screen are the top 10 communities of affordable home density bonus program between 2021 and 2024.

The city's inclusionary affordable housing regulations encourage, diverse and balanced neighborhoods with homes available for households of all income levels. The inclusionary affordable housing regulations have resulted in 235 new affordable homes in this RENA cycle. Here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas for newly permitted homes. The affordable housing permit now program expedites reviews for 100% affordable homes and shelter projects. The program was created to implement mayor Gloria's executive order twenty twenty three dash one.

The program was used to approve 3,094 new homes from 2023 to 2024, and here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas with the most common areas for affordable housing permit now usage. Moving on to trends and implementations. The city has continued to permit on average 5,000 new homes from 2014 to 2022. The city has been averaging 9,200 permanent homes between 2023 and 2024. The city is on track to meet its above moderate income housing goals with more than 28,000 homes permitted so far.

Affordable home production remains behind RINA targets, underscoring the need for continued focus on lower income housing programs and incentives. Since the start of the six RINA cycle, the city has permitted about 34,240 homes, roughly one third of our total 108,000 home target. To meet our RINA goals by 2029, we'll need to permit approximately 74,000 additional homes over the next five years. Since 2021, 86 of all new homes and nearly nine in 10 affordable homes were located within mobility zones one and two. Mobility zones one and two are areas that have the greatest access to transit.

By permitting more homes near transit, the city is implementing the goals of a climate action plan. The city is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing. A key component to furthering fair housing is providing opportunities for all community members to live in a neighborhood of their choice. To do this, the city is encouraging more affordable homes in high and highest resource areas where they are currently limited. The city has updated its inclusionary and affordable housing regulations to allow off-site affordable homes in higher resource areas.

In addition, the affordable housing in all communities ordinance now allows affordable multihome developments in base zones that previously did not permit them when located in high resource areas. Recent community plan updates have also increased housing capacities in these areas. Although 68% of the city is classified as a high or highest resource area, only 31% of affordable homes have been permitted here. Increasing affordable home production in these areas remain essential to furthering fair housing and expanding housing choice for all. Almost all of the affordable housing almost all of the affordable home permitted in the city are within multiple home developments.

However, only 12% of the highest resource area and 21% of high resource area permit multiple home developments. For the city to reach its very low, low, and moderate, RINA allocation, more affordable homes must be permitted high and highest resource areas of the city. In closing, I want to note some key takeaways and the next steps. In 2024, we permitted 8,782 new homes. We continued our permitting trend of permitting above 5,100 new homes.

1,061 affordable homes were permitted in 2024. And while this is a positive development, the city will need to permit 73,796 homes by 2029 to meet our RENA goals. Affordable homes were primarily approved through multiple home developments. Additionally, low resource areas are producing the most affordable homes, and more affordable homes need to bill be built in high and highest resource area. The annual report on homes will be presented as an informational item to the city council next week. This concludes staff's presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission? No? Okay. We can go into public comment. Susan Baldwin?

She's sitting tight.

Oh, I see. I see. Jeff Heuter, you'll have six minutes.

And I had a presentation too. Do you have that? You don't have it? Oh, okay. Sorry.

And I'm sorry that everybody left for this. I I this is one of the most important things we do as a city planning thing, and so we appreciate the the presentation. There you go. And if you could just go ahead in the interest of time, if you go ahead and skip to the next slide. So one of the things just to point out is that as in previous years, we're running ahead of what our prorated share is for above moderate income houses.

We're lagging well behind for our low and very low income housing. And the moderate housing is a bit of a conundrum because a lot of moderate housing is actually built on the market, but we only record deed restricted units in our housing reports and other areas in San Diego County actually try and bring in what the market is doing in those areas as well. Next slide. And, you know, one of the things that that I will like to to point out as the planning department has added more and more data into the report every year, which I think is really really good. But underlying these reports is our requirements to housing and community development.

And one of the things that housing and community development really focuses on with its housing element and regional needs housing allocation is permits and new permits. And so we've seen a lot of data about building. But when we just look at the permits and we don't look at other aspects of the housing market, there's some things that I think we have blind spots in terms forming policy in the future. The first one is we don't really track demolitions and so either demolitions to create new housing or for other uses. And one of the things that that we don't know often is are we getting to how do we calculate our net new housing that's produced when we tear down housing and build new housing?

And that's that's but with a variety of projects, particularly with complete communities which tends to have a a sometimes barely breaks even on its replacement units, you know, it'd be good to know that. The other aspect to that that would be important is if we had some information on how rents are changing at different income levels because we we make the assumption that if we just produce more units, that housing will become cheaper at all income levels, and we we just don't know that without trying to measure it. And whether, you know, we start looking at CoStar data or other forms of of market data and feed it in to where these permits are going, I think we'd have better visibility. And again, where that's really important is in two ways. One is that's how you're gonna know how much moderate income housing you have and how much the need really exists there.

And the other thing is, you know, we often talk about this concept of filtering. Well, if we're demolishing our naturally occurring affordable housing, we don't know whether, you know, we're destroying the bottom of the chain and actually making rents more expensive or less expensive and that would be good to know. And then finally, we make an assumption even at the premium rate on the the reallocation and when we measure things that that those are accurate in terms of a forecast. But we know and you know as builders that the most that that the most accurate prediction of what the market need is for new housing is what builders pencil out to build and they acquire land and build projects. And the way we look at that is we look at things like vacancy rates and we've seen vacancy rates already rising in San Diego and and frankly across the state and country.

And that suggests that we're getting to a saturation point for market housing. And that's one of the things that's that's difficult about this is where the market is always gonna pause on above market rate housing when the market can't absorb it. And since our biggest need is at lower income levels, there's no mechanism for what we have today to actually getting to meeting the lower end of our reader needs. And if you go to the next slide, one of the reasons that's really important is 61 of California's affordable units are actually affordable at the market. They aren't subsidized units.

And when we don't concentrate on preserving those homes, we're actually taking away the inventory of affordable housing rather than adding to it. I know we like to keep track of the things that that we did record and so on, but the the market is actually where most people get their housing not only at at moderate income levels but at lower income levels as well. So skip the next slide. Skip the next slide. But I will say that, you know, thanks for putting that benchmark with other cities in there.

If you go back one slide, I will just point out that we put in a table that compares it to other cities in San Diego. We're not that much different other than a lot of other jurisdictions have moderate income recording, but we think that's just because they do it. If you would just go to next slide and then next slide. The one thing that we've done is we've added a lot of moderate income

Thirty second.

Incentives into our affordable housing programs where there's complete communities or bonus density. We expected when that happened that it would mostly cannibalize units that would be provided at low and very low. And the 2024 data suggests that that's true, and that could be the case. And then the only other thing I'll say is the ADU program has been very successful. It's growing every day, and I hope that we'll just kinda let that settle for the next year or two as opposed to keep pushing more regulations on single family homes. Thank you.

Okay. That concludes our, public comment. Do we have commission comment? Commissioner Miyahara.

Thank you, staff. Really appreciate, the thought, and the data that went into, the report, in the PowerPoint. There's some really good KPIs and metrics reported out. And I think it's it's great that San Diego is building more housing. I think that's a result of thoughtful and coordinated planning.

This was one of the one of the highest years of housing production in the past decade, I think second to to last year. And when when we compare this to some of our peers, we're experiencing great success. I read somewhere, I think the San Jose Mercury News reported this out, that San Jose had zero new market rate multifamily developments with 20 plus units in 2024. So that's just a benchmark. Right?

San Diego is is producing housing. I also think it's worth highlighting that the majority of all homes were permitted in the city's most transit accessible area. I think this reflects a coordinated effort across several city initiatives to make it easier, faster, and smarter to build homes where they're needed most. And I attribute this to city policies that are driving the progress, housing package two point o, Blueprint San Diego, Complete Communities, City of Villages strategy, and our density bonus program. These are all examples of policy that's really moving the needle.

I also think it's worth noting that some smart improvements to the housing approval process helps to accelerate housing production, moving a lot of the environmental review to the plan level, approving conforming projects ministerially and taking away discretion is a great thing, and streamlining permitting processes and adding staff. Policies like permit now, which I've gone through, are are all great additions. I personally believe that housing is infrastructure. A thriving economy depends on residents being able to live where they work, next to transit and amenities. Housing creates jobs.

It supports local service industry, and it strengthens neighborhood businesses through consumer spending. I believe that San Diego policies prioritize housing, and to me, that signals a core economic strategy, and that's the strategy that I support. Housing plus transit plus jobs equals opportunity and growth for the city. Despite all the success, we're still not keeping pace with our arena allocation. This body hears a lot of criticism around how new housing is created.

An example of that is upzoning that takes place during community plan updates. We're just not meeting our housing goals. And as a result, the state of California is going to continue to step in by reducing local control. Examples of this are s b 35, s b three thirty, s b 79, s b nine. The state is going to continue to impose policies that folks living here in the city are not going to like.

So I think some members of the public, and I say this respectfully, need to recognize that more housing is essential and that the city is being thoughtful. They're being deliberate about how we address this challenge. Just wanna say thank you again to staff. I think we're making progress. I hope that this trend continues, and I look forward to what's to come in future years.

Thank you. Nice comments. Commissioner Reeves?

Thank you, chair. Echoing commissioner Mihara's comments, no notes. Honestly, well said. I I, agree wholeheartedly with everything you just said, commissioner. So rather than duplicate efforts here, I just wanted to also point out that, our public speaker, mister Hooter, made a really good point regarding the undercounting of moderate income units.

We all know moderate income housing isn't just the dedistricted moderate income housing. A lot of market rate housing serves moderate income residents. And so if we could figure out a way to better capture that in the data and reflect, you you know, whether that's in rent surveys or or whatever, reflect how many units are being built that are being offered to the market at certain income levels. I think that would really capture a better look at at what we're offering. There's still certainly, a doughnut hole in what is being built.

We're not building enough moderate income housing, but it would be better it would be nice to know how, you know, how, what lack of housing we're building in that, in that space rather than sort of a guess at, what's being provided based on the deed restriction. Also, just for future, you know, consideration, I'd really love to know and I think I probably have a good guess, but I'd love to know based on the data what the for sale versus for rent housing construction looks like. It's it's a there's a dearth of it, you know, and we've already noted that previously, but it would be really nice to take a look at that. We homeownership is unattainable in San Diego, and building more for rent product does help in the for sale world, sort of, but it really nothing compares to building more for sale product. And if we're not building it, we should look at ways to incentivize it.

We're a leader in San Diego in terms of, creating policy that brings housing to market. The state has replicated a lot of things we've done locally first, and there have been bills brought forward at the state level that mimic what we've already done locally. I think that's that that is a testament to some you know, what the city has been able to do over the last ten years, but we're still not building enough for sale product. And that's a a reflection of, you know, the marketplace and and a lot of things like nobody's building condos anymore because of the, you know, the the, you know, legal, burden of trying to defend the ten year statute of limitations on builder defects. So things like that are a problem, but knowing the data and looking at the data is the first step at looking at ways to address those deficiencies in the in our market.

But other than that, I wanna really, applaud staff, leadership of the city, and others who are bringing this to light now, and we're really getting a better, more transparent look at what's being built, what's being applied for, and and what year over year we're doing differently. So I I I think it's fantastic. And the more data we have, the more transparency there is, the better we can make decisions in the future to improve our housing outlook in San Diego.

Thank you. Commissioner Malbro?

Thank you, chair. Thank you for your report, and I appreciate all the hard work that was done and also the public comments that we had today. I just and I echo what it what's been said already. I was just curious. It I I saw what how many homes have been put in mobility one and and per minute permitted rather in mobility one and mobility two. Is there a way to get data to see how that has impacted ridership transit ridership?

Thank you, commissioner. We can certainly take a look at year over year, statistics from, the Metropolitan Transit Service Yeah. And see if there's a

you

know, I would I would it would be interesting to see, exactly which direction they were headed on ridership versus the the homes that are built in those areas.

Yeah. I I looked at that. They they do provide information, but it's citywide. And I would like to see it would be great if we could get it for planning areas just to see how that work is having an impact on people actually using, transit. But, anyway, other other than that, I'm very happy with that, and I appreciate it very much.

Commissioner Venger?

Thanks, commissioner Marlborough, for mentioning that because I think that's one of my biggest concerns or or comments is recognizing that there is a need for increased housing. And we you know, your data shows and supports that, housing is being, more focused in transit oriented, areas in development. What is the ridership, and how are we promoting ridership as opposed to saying, oh, transit exists, and therefore, we should densify in these areas. Are they actually taking it? And and the more we talk about density, I think it's gonna be absolutely necessary to change the behavior of people so that the ridership increases.

Right? And that, and I'm wondering, like, what is your dialogue with SANDAG as as compared as it compares to, you know, opportunity zones or providing greater density and high resource areas and things like that. Like, what what is your dialogue currently with

Thank you, commissioner. We do work closely with SANDAG on the development of its regional transportation plan, both assisting with the forecasts that are used to determine where transit would be needed and also reviewing the plan itself to ensure that it's reflecting the, the the plans that are being put forward. So for for example, if we're updating a community plan, we wanna make sure that Sandag is aware that there could be increased capacity in those, communities that currently doesn't exist.

Okay. And then the other thing that I think is a bit out of alignment with sort of the the existing areas where they have transit is that the the downtown area just it seems like it's underutilized. Like, there's great infrastructure within the downtown area, but people don't really live there anymore or don't necessarily want to live there. Or or even I mean, if you look at developments like Grad, like or, or even the campus at Horton, all this opportunity for commerce and businesses exist in those areas. And yet they're having a really difficult time attracting tenants.

They're saying, oh, people don't live downtown anymore. And yet all of our transit goes to downtown. Right? It's downtown focused. And and now I'm seeing this trend where the urban core is kind of decentralized.

You look at 1 Paseo and the things that are happening at Mission Valley. They're creating these decentralized urban areas instead of focusing on downtown. Right? And so when we see developments like Juan Paseo, where they're not having as hard a time, you know, getting tenants in, I wonder about how those areas then now get served. Right?

Because if people are not living downtown and they're not necessarily working downtown, but these urban cores are now becoming decentralized, what's happening with transit? Like, are people getting into their cars more and more because that's not where they were getting more? So I think those are the things that concern me, I guess, moving forward is is that I think we really have to be very cognizant of the kinds of development that we're promoting with zoning, and we need to make sure that zoning for commercial and housing are supported within areas and that there is an infrastructure that's interconnected. Right? And it it's gonna take years and billions of dollars to try and and create trolleys, trolley lines to connect it all.

But are are there other opportunities where we prioritize people moving via the streets? You know, are there high volume vehicles that that move people from, you know, North Coastal or, I mean, outside of the the coaster, but on the streets that people can utilize. I mean, there are cases like in Brazil, cur Curatiba, Brazil. I mean, there are there are case studies that we could be looking at that, instead of saying, no, we can't walk half a mile. No, we don't get on, you know, transit.

We don't do this. Like, how can we support what our plan updates are doing, and how can we support that with infrastructure and transit so that people are electing other modes of transportation. So it's it's a lot. I mean, this goes beyond just housing, but I I think it is absolutely necessary to think beyond just housing. Right? And and when we talk about this, so that's why I bring it up. But, anyway, that was diatribe. Sorry. Thanks.

Thank you. Commissioner Raves, I'll circle back to you in just a second. I do have some questions. The 16% affordable in comparison to the total units generated, how does that compare to past data? Are we increasing that percentage, or is that percentage coming down?

So I mean, year over year from last year, it's come down in a significant way. But I think 2023 was a bit of an outlier in the higher range of what we've seen. It was the most affordable homes that were permitted in the city in the last decade. So I think this was a bit of a return to, the numbers that we normally see. What you do see as a difference in, from the past decade is the increase in, moderate restricted homes. But generally, we still see a similar lag to what we've seen over the last decade in low and very low income.

Yeah. I would agree. I think, I mean, I did some research on middle income units historically prior to some of the policies that were put in place to help promote middle income. And I think we had like 100 units out of tens of thousands, right? So I am happy to see that number rise, because it is a growing need within our city.

I also agree with if there is a way we can quantify for sale product versus for rent product in these reports, We will also see abysmal ratios tied to that. And I know a lot of that stems from the complexity of doing single family homes in relation to state law, the Subdivision Map Act, the ten year tail on construction defect law. And those are things that I'd love to combat, but that's at a state level, not on a local level. I also want to kind of touch on the rents that was brought up. I think that's probably difficult information for you guys to have.

You don't have at your fingertips. You'd have to probably outsource some of that to get that. But what I can say anecdotally is with the amount of homes that came online in 'twenty three and 'twenty four, we've had very, very, very slow rent growth. So what that says is we kind of stabilized ourself for a short period of time, especially when we look at 2022, where our rents increased 22%. Part of that was due to inflation, but it was also due to a lack of supply and a lot of people relocating to San Diego, and it was just driving up rents.

And so we've kind of stabilized it since then. And that's a result of seeing 8,700 homes permitted versus what we traditionally see, which is around the 5,000 unit mark. So I'm happy to see that, because we need some stabilization when it comes to our rents. That's pretty much the comments that I have. I appreciate the work that has gone into this. I also think we should look at how ridership has been impacted in community plans, where we've seen an influx in permits for those community plans, especially higher density areas, and if that has correlation to increased ridership. I think that's an important metric. Commissioner Reeves, you can have your second round now.

My second bite. You. I I was feeling a little greedy at at the moment, so I'm glad you went before me. Thank you. I I just wanted to circle back. There are a couple things that were brought up by my colleagues here that I thought, they just triggered some additional perspective in me, and I wanted to bring it up. One thing, just respectfully, to commissioner Inger, I I think that there there is, you know, downtown is one of the most densely populated communities in San Diego. There's some, like, 40,000 residents downtown currently. Granted, you know, the build out is the the community plan calls for, I think, 90,000. Correct me if I'm wrong.

But so it's a long way to go, but it's still one of the most densely populated communities in San Diego and, you know, is served by transit. So, ideally, we see these, you know, these highly educated residents that are moving into the very expensive apartments being built downtown and and then riding transit. That's the ideal scenario, but we're not seeing that mode shift quite yet. It's encouraging to see in the report that both downtown and uptown are two of the, communities building the most two unit or two bedroom, and three bedroom units in the whole region, which is a big change. We used to see only micro units and one bedrooms and studios being built downtown, so to see, units that, you know, conceivably families can occupy and, live in urban lifestyle and walk their kids to school downtown and and what have you.

I think that's a great change. We wanna see that shift happening, so it's I'm I'm encouraged to see that. I just wanted to, you know, recognize that we we do have a a pretty, populated in terms of resident population in downtown, urban core. We're not seeing the businesses move there yet, and I'm hopeful that we will see that coming. I know this is a report on homes, but it's all interconnected.

And, you know, as yeah. I you know, as highly educated people choose that urban lifestyle because they're able to, you know, pick up a multi know, two, three bedroom unit downtown and, put their kids in school at Urban Discovery Academy or whatever. We're gonna see those businesses wanna come downtown too. We're seeing Torrey Pines built out, and we're seeing businesses looking at downtown and just waiting for the opportunity. I can't imagine it's gonna, be forever that they're not, you know, choosing to locate downtown.

So, that actually actually isn't why I got on the lights. I wanted to just talk about transit briefly. The, really good points by my colleagues here, that we're not seeing the data necessarily on transit ridership as it comes you know, as as it relates to the increase in housing development in and around transit. In my experience, and I could be wrong. Correct me if I am wrong.

MTS doesn't love to share publicly their per route ridership. You know, regional ridership, obviously, is is, public knowledge, but I haven't it's hard to get your hands on the per route ridership and the shifts year to year on per route ridership. And I think that would be really important to look at if we can manage to have a more open book on that and be able to compare year to year what, certain routes are doing and and how they're increasing or decreasing based on, the density of population moving into these areas. The I also don't think we can expect the general public in Southern California to, you know, choose willingly to decide to get out of their single occupancy vehicle and ride transit just because they live near a transit station. Mode shift doesn't happen that way.

People have to be either incentivized to ride transit or disincentivized to use their vehicle. It's the only way it works. So we can, you know, look at which one you know, which which of those, the carrot or the stick, this region wants to use to to make mode shift happen, but mode shift is going to have to happen if we're a region that's focusing on transit ridership versus single occupancy vehicle ridership. Being creative about how we, in using the carrot side of the equation, get people out of their cars. And to transit, we need to make it easier to get to the transit stop.

Half a mile, I I'm willing to walk half a mile. Not everyone is, especially on a busy day when you're trying to hurry and get out the door and or for your in a suit or a dress and heels, you know, you're not you gotta be able to get to the transit stop more easily. And I do believe that half a mile is a reasonable distance from a transit stop to build dense housing, but we also need to be able to get people quickly and easily on demand to the transit that is built. And, I know the city's been getting creative previous years on doing that. We're in a fiscally, financially, precarious moment, but, hopefully, as things get brighter in the future, we can reinvest in those, in those ways of getting to and from.

I mean, the the fixed route trolleys that we used to have in the early twentieth century are great. People would use that. People would do that. It's expensive to build, so we got to get creative on how to do it in a more at least less expensive way. That's all I have to say. I promise this is my last time. I'm done.

Thank you. It looks like we don't have any other further comments, and we're not voting on this because it's a workshop workshop item. So we are adjourned. Thank you, staff. Appreciate it.