Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the planning commission meeting of February 19th, 2026. Until further notice, planning commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code section 54953A as amended by Assembly Bill 2249, which allows the public to participate in person as well as a hybrid format. This meeting will be livereamed on the city of San Diego's public hearing YouTube channel and on City TV. 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 5 minutes after in-person testimony ends. Also, per section 2.6.2A and B of the rules of council, 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 Modí. 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 web page. or you may dial 1669-254-5252. The webinar ID is 160-47-5570. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a 30- secondond 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 would now like to take roll call. If I as I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Uh, Commissioner Mahara present. Commissioner Reeves present. Commissioner Wanger present. Vice Chair Boomhower present.

Chair Modí is present and Commissioner Mazzari is absent as well as Commissioner Malro. The staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, assistant deputy director from development services, Seth Lichnney, deputy director, city planning, Karen Newfer, senior chief deputy city attorney, Eric Msalgo, senior civil engineer, and our legislative staff. We will now start our agenda with public comment for non-aggenda 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. David Modi. Thank you, commissioners. You've been meeting here six months. It would be good in a location that where there's public speaking that there is water available for the public. Thank you. Philip Merin, can you please turn on your mic? There's a button right on there. You go. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm here to respectfully request that you reconsider your erroneous decision to approve the project at 8303 La Hoya Shores Drive. Your erroneous decision was made on December on December 4th. It was based on erroneous information and false statements provided by city staff and in accordance and I'm asking that you please schedule this project again for reconsideration so that you can make a decision in accordance with the San Diego Land Development Code. And I think that's important because one of the items on your agenda today is an update to the code. So, I would ask, why would you update a land development code if you're not going to enforce the one out that you already have? So, I'm asking you to please reconsider this project at a future meeting. If you have any questions, I'd be more than happy to answer them. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? Oh, I'm sorry. Dorin Diaz, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Hi, I am here once again to speak about the inaccurate maps that you guys are using which are violating the Skyline Paradise Hills community plan. and you are violating the neighborhood element figure 21 on page 20 on page 126. You are violating figure 24 on page 147 and you're violating the transportation element bicycle figure 14 on page 80. You're violating the open space element on page 94. You are violating the residential element. Figure four on page 29. You're violating the commercial area. Figure 8 on page 39. You're violating the urban element on page 119. And I'm sure there's other sections which I have not mentioned. This plan is June 30th, 1987. majority hasn't been implemented and you've consistently disrespected Hammersha and the Skyline Paradise Hills Community Plan. On December 17th, 2025, all of you as well as the city council received a memo of the community planners committee supporting the Hammershaw neighborhood as well as others as well as Marilyn

Pangalini and the city attorney and Heather Ferbert. I'm not sure with your budget crisis, you know, if this has to go to another grand jury to try to get the city to actually enforce the community plan that you approved. You are also working off a invalid and inaccurate information on the Lisbon Vista Heights project that you approved in 2021 with a 16 foot deviation on retaining wall on a flat property which has a photo of a steep cliffside and DSD court had gross inaccuracies and now this is the discretionary level five project unwanted and you have now allowed 1180 use to be added in this very high fire zone with only one entrance and one exit. Thank you.

Thank you. We have one additional speaker. Madison, please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes. Hi, thank you. Good morning. Um, this morning I just wanted to talk about marijuana advertising because it has become a growing public safety issue for our youth today. Marijuana marketing is everywhere. Billboards, storefronts, websites, and social media. These ads often send the message that marijuana is harmless, healthy, or even good for you. But research shows these messages are misleading and they disproportionately reach teens and young adults. A recent review found that nearly half of teens in states where recreational marijuana is permitted report seeing marijuana marketing often. And these ads are not neutral. Discounts and deals used by about 90% of retailers online make marijuana more appealing to young people. Inside the stores, between 35% and 74% of retailers in California were found to have advertising that appealed to youth, using cartoons, flavors, younger looking models, and messaging tied to popularity or coolness. Even more concerning is the health and wellness spin. Over half of ads used medical symbols, and many made unsupported claims about anxiety, sleep, pain, or depression, often without any warning about risks or side effects. This lowers the perceived harm and creates the false impression that marijuana is a safe solution rather than a mind-altering substance with real risks for developing brains. When youth exposure increases, use increases, and that affects mental health, school outcomes, impaired driving, and long-term well-being. I urge this commission to treat youth exposure to

marijuana advertising as a public safety issue, and to strengthen enforcement and safeguards that truly protect our children. Thank you. Thank you, Becky. Rap, you will have three minutes. You may begin. Oh, I'm I'm sorry. I'm actually going to be speaking to item number one. Okay. Well, you can raise your hand when the when the public comment period opens then. Thank you. Thank you.

That concludes uh uh public comment for non-aggenda items. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? No. Okay. Is there a request to place any items on consent? I'd propose to put item two on consent agenda. Item two. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item number two? Any commission discussion on the consent item? I need I've been informed I may have a financial conflict of interest through a previous client. So, out of abundance of caution, I'm going to need to recuse myself for item two.

Okay. Is there a motion to approve the um items on consent? So, move. And do I have a second? Second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote. Okay, that passes. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from January 15, 2026?

So moved. Do I have a second? Okay, we have a motion and a second to approve the meeting minutes from January 15, 2026. Go to a vote. Commissioner Reeves. Second. And that passes. Do we have any director's reports?

Yes, thank you, chair. The last planning commission hearing was held on January 15th. At the hearing, the commission voted to approve two projects, both wireless communication facilities. The first wireless communication facility will be placed in Mission Valley and the second involves upgrades to an existing facility in Linda Vista. Both were approved by a vote of 6 to 0 to1 with chair modain absent. That concludes my report for today. No report from the city planning department. Thank you. Okay. Is there any uh non-aggenda commission comment?

No. Okay. Then we can move forward with item number one. Staff, whenever you're ready. Good morning, chair and planning commissioners. My name is Megan Kurubius, senior planner with the city of San Diego City Planning Department, and today I'll be providing an overview of the 2026 land development code update. Joining me today is city planning director Heidi von Bloom, deputy director Seth Ledge, and principal planner Courtney Pash. Also joining me from the DSD urban division is deputy director Brian Shonfish, and senior planner Jacob Bassinger. Components. Components of the land development code. Chapters 11 through 15 of the San Diego Municipal Code are known collectively as the land development code. These chapters cover land development procedures, the land development review process, zoning, and general regulations, and plan districts. The land development code team evaluated roughly 242 submissions from a variety of different groups. These groups include members of the public, planning groups, and industry professionals and advocacy groups. For the 2026 LDC major milestones, in August of 2025, city staff released the discussion draft list for the LDC citywide and downtown items. In November of 2025, city staff released a revised discussion draft list with draft code language. In December of 2025, city staff released the LDC overview video. In 20 December 2025 and January 2026, city staff also presented specific land development code items to impacted community planning groups and an advisory board. Also in January, two

virtual workshops were hosted. Um and also in concluded in January, city staff presented to the community planners committee for evolve recommendation on the land development code update for the 2026 LDC update approval timeline. We are here today presenting to the planning commission and hope to present to the land use and housing committee in March and city c city council in April this year. There are 139 proposed amendments, 108 citywide amendments, and 31 downtown amendments. In addition, the city council will be voting on four citywide resolutions and an amendment to land development manual, appendix T. A squa consistency review is prepared for the 2026 LDC update, evaluating 139 proposed amendments to land development code, plan district ordinances, and minor amendments to the downtown community plan. All of which were determined to be consistent with SQL guidelines section 15162. Updates to the code are grouped into five categories. Amendments that align policy with the city's climate equity or housing goals. Clarifications, compliance with state law, corrections, and regulatory reforms. In parentheses, the number of proposed amendments are included in each category. First, I will review changes proposed to align the code with the city's climate equity or housing goals. Certain code amendment items in this category that elected questions during the public outreach were further evaluated by city staff during the review period or generally received public interest are highlighted and detailed in this section. Before I begin presenting on the citywide items, I would like to point out that the category that the proposed item is associated with can be found at the bottom right hand corner of the screen. Item three changes the floor area ratio bonus in commercial base zones to encourage more mixed income

development by allowing an additional.5 floor area ratio bonus for residential mixeduse developments that provide all required deed restricted affordable homes on site. This amendment only applies in commercialbased zones that are located in mobility zones 2 and three within high and highest resource areas as defined by the California tax credit allocation committee. This would incentivize affordable homes to be constructed on site in high and highest resource communities in the city. Item five amends the inclusionary and affordable housing regulations to allow off-site affordable housing to be built in sustainable development areas and high and highest resource areas with greater than 5% deed restricted affordable housing. This change allows for more affordable homes in high and highest resource areas with access to transit. Item six, currently the complete communities housing solutions only permits rental homes. This amendment allows the development for sale homes within complete communities, thus providing additional home ownership opportunities across various income levels. Item seven, the clean communities housing solutions currently allows a development impact fee waiver known as diff for homes under 500 square ft. At the time it was adopted, all new homes paid the same diff regardless of size. With the adoption of citywide diff, fees are now scaled by home size, meaning that smaller homes pay less than larger homes in diff. A complete waiver of DIFF is not recommended for smaller homes since the people that live within these homes will require infrastructure investments, which is intend which is the intended purpose of diff. Item nine, in order to be consistent with the mid city communities plan, which calls for medium high to high density residential development and commercial uses along transit corridors. The central urbanized plan district

needs to be updated. The amendment proposal would prohibit new moving and storage facilities in specific central urbanized commercial zones which include CU2-3 to CU2-5 zones to be consistent with the existing or future mid city communities plan. Now we move on to our next category which are clarification items that comprise of 24 items within the code update. Item 11 amends the noise regulations to clarify that in certain cases, noise levels may temporary exceed limits if the activity or use is authorized by a special event permit, development permit, or other permits or agreement approved by the city manager. This amendment codifies current code implementation practices. Item 17 clarifies that the California Fire Code may require a fire separation distance for fire safety and emergency access that is greater than the setback in all base zones. Including this language in the code is meant to inform development applicants. That space in addition to the required setback may be required. Nothing in this section increases the authority of the fire marshall but simply provides notice to an applicant that other requirements may be applicable. Item 18. In the employment mixuse zone, at least 50% of projects floor areas required to be a non-residential use and the remainder area may be used for either non-residential or residential uses. Live work quarters are considered non-residential uses even though they provide a residential component. To provide additional flexibility, this amendment proposal clarifies that up to 50% of live work quarters floor area can be counted toward the minimum non-residential requirement of the EMX zone. Item 25 along aligns the affordable housing complete community's housing solutions and dwelling unit protection regulations with government code section 66300.5

by clarifying that equivalent size means that the replacement dwelling units must include the same number of bedrooms as the units being replaced. Item 34. The amendment clarifies that the purpose of the landscape regulations is to protect existing trees and shrubs pursuant to the requirements in the landscape standards in the land development manual. The amendment does not change the landscape requirements, but was requested by the community forest advisory board for consistency between the existing requirements and the purpose of the regulations. Now we focus on code amendments that bring the San Diego Municipal Code into compliance with state law, which includes a total of 29 items. Item 40 allows for ministerial approval of a subdivision up to 10 dwelling units on lots done for multiple dwelling units that are 5 acres or less to be compliant with Senate Bill 684. This Senate bill establishes a streamline approval process for such subdivision exempting them from the California Environmental Quality Act and other requirements. However, the applicant of this amendment would be excluded in very high fire hazard severity zones, wetlands development with existing deed restricted affordable homes and rental homes. Item 41, Senate Bill 1123 expands on Senate Bill 684 to allow for streamlined subdivisions in single dwelling unit zones. The same site eligibility restrictions for Senate Bill 684 and multifamily zones apply to single dwelling unit zones. However, this bill includes additional location criteria. This includes the site must be no more than 1.5 acres and located adjacent to existing development. In addition, Senate Bill 1123 allows for the creation of a remainder lot and requires lots to be sewed with a dwelling unit unless they are reserved for open space, common

area, or a remainder parcel. Item 47 implements Assembly Bill 1308, which prohibits a local agency from opposing minimum parking requirements for single dwelling units that are expanded through remodel or addition. There are two instances where the municipal code would apply an increased parking ratio to an existing home. First, when previously conforming homes are expanded and two, in the campus impact area lo located outside of a transit priority area. This amendment only applies if the home is existing and if it is a single detached dwelling on its own lot and the project cannot exceed the base zone regulations for high lot coverage and floor area ratio. The law does not apply when more than one detached drilling unit exists on a single lot. The land development code includes 20 items that fall in the corrections category, but they are relatively straightforward and more information can be found in attachments two and four of the staff report materials. Now moving on to the last category, regulatory forms, which is comprised of 24 items in the land development code update. Item one, the administrative citations have not been revised since 2007. The amendment increases existing penalties which range from $100 to up to $10,000 per violation. This is due to your code violations. Item 81. The administrative abatement penalties have not been revised since 2007. This amendment increases penalties for causing or maintaining a public nuisance from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation. and increases the cap per parcel or structure from $200,000 to $500,000 in a calendar year. This is to better reflect current administrative and investigation costs. Item 82 and administrative civil

penalties for code violations have not been updated since 2017. This amendment proposal raises administrative civil penalties for code violations to better reflect current code enforcement costs and reserve as a strong deterrent against non-compliance. Item 87. This amendment to the previously conforming premises and risk use regulations would provide more flexibility for lots with commercial or in or industrial uses that were reszoned through a community plan update by allowing additional but similar previously conforming uses in some circumstances. provided the law is outside of environmental justice communities with requirements to provide street frontage requirements such as wider sidewalks, public spaces, street trees, and other improvements. Alternatively, in lie of providing street frontage improvements, an applicant may pay an enloo fee as established by city council resolution. It also requires a neighborhood use permit with an appeal to the planning commission for any other change in uses and includes a sunset date until December 31st of 2040 and can be extended by additional 5 years through a condition use permit. This is particularly revalent for areas such as Kernney Mesa and Mir Mesa community planning areas. Item 91. The item amends the building transitions between higher intensity zones up but lower density residential zones or open space zones reducing potential bulk and scale impacts. It requires new development to meet in an angled transition plane measured from any shared property line shared with lower density residential zones or open space zones. In addition, developments adjacent to freeways must provide a landscape buffer and setback for common outdoor areas away from the freeway. This is consistent with regulations that apply in other recently adopted land use

plans such as the Hillrest focus plan amendment and university community plan. Item 93. This item allows child care centers in the Marine Corps Air Station Myiramar Airport influence area transition zone as limited as a limited use and establishes a maximum floor area ratio of42 for the use which is consistent with all other small assembly uses. It also removes the expansion limit for child care centers under previously conforming regulations that no longer apply as a result of this amendment. Because the MCS Myimar Airport land use compatibility plan prohibits childc care centers in the transition zone. Adopting this item would require city council override of the airport land use commission as provided for under state law. Wireless communication facilities item 94 streamlines the review process by reducing the approval process level for certain wireless communication facility applications from a process 4 to a process 3 and from a process 3 to a process two. This would allow timely approval and avoid requiring planning commission approval while maintaining a discretionary process with the appeal rights for the public and applicants. Item 102 proposes how to calculate the vehicle miles travel reduction measure buyout fee for development applications in mobilities 2 mobility zones 2 and three that choose to pay the buyout fee if they are unable to implement the reduction measures. Now I'll hand off the PowerPoint to Jacob Bassinger to discuss the proposed amendments for downtown.

Thank you Megan. There are 30 proposed items affecting the center city and gas lamp quarter plan district ordinances which regulate land use and development in the downtown community plan area. One additional item proposes minor amendments to the downtown community plan through a resolution. Like the citywide amendments, the downtown items are organized into the same five categories. Most of these amendments are minor clarifications or refinements to existing programs. Over the next slides, I'll highlight a handful of the more substantive items. These first slides focus on amendments that align downtown regulations with climate equity or housing goals. Downtown zoning code includes several incentive programs designed to encourage development within the downtown area and most of the items within this category fall within those programs. Item number one expands the existing eco- roof density bonus by adding an additional incentive for projects that provide a rooftop community garden that is accessible to building occupants. It also encourages rooftop landscaping to meet mechanical screening requirements, giving projects more flexibility and supporting greener rooftops. Item two streamlines development in the downtown coastal zone overlay. This overlay is a small area primarily located between the railroad tracks and Pacific Highway outside of the coastal commission's appealable area. For projects in this overlay that provide public benefits or development amenities through existing downtown floor area ratio bonus programs, this amendment would reduce the approval process from process 2 to process one, provided the project is consistent with the local coastal program and satisfies the required coastal findings. Item number three would clarify and expand eligibility for the downtown urban open space bonus. Under this amendment, projects could earn a bonus by providing or replacing amenities at any existing downtown public park or public space, whether on-site or off-site. This creates greater

opportunities to enhance public spaces throughout the downtown area. Item six encourages development on small, underutilized downtown lots. It establishes a new density bonus and provides limited regulatory exemptions that address challenges associated with tower development on smaller parcels. Item number eight supports revitalization along Sea Street by offering an additional density bonus for projects on this transit corridor that also use at least one other downtown bonus program. This strengthens incentives for higher density transit supportive development along Sea Street in the downtown area. Item number nine promotes preservation of existing mature trees downtown. This concept originated from the 2025 city council environment committee which found that downtown has lost more tree canopy than any other community. Because mature trees provide greater ecological benefits than newly planted trees, this item would grant a 0.2 F bonus for each mature tree preserved. It would also provide options for two to one replacement of removed trees either on-site or off-site within the downtown area or an option for payment to the downtown floor area ratio bonus fund to pay for public improvements within downtown in addition to existing urban tree canopy fund requirements. The next category, clarifications. There are 12 proposed downtown amendments in the clarifications category to make downtown regulations easier to understand and apply. These items are fairly straightforward and more information is available in attachments three and five of the staff report. The downtown amendments also include one item to ensure compliance with state law. Item 21 provides minor amendments to the downtown community plan to align it with the current center city and gas lamp quarter plan district ordinances. These are minor updates that remove outdated

references, text, graphics, and images so the plan reflects existing regulations and remains internally consistent. This would also amend the city's general plan due to the community plan being a component of the general plan. The downtown items also include three proposed corrections. Item 24 updates the gas lamp quarter land use table so that its use categories align with the citywide use tables. This removes outdated terminology and improves code consistency, making it easier to identify permitted uses within the gas lamp quarter. Finally, the downtown items include seven regulatory reforms. Item 27. Um, currently temporary community focused uses on private property, which are referred to as outdoor activities in the center city plan district ordinance, require a discretionary permit, which can discourage activation of underutilized spaces within the downtown area. Item 27 would make these activities a permitted use, encouraging more community serving uses such as farmers or artisan markets. And I'll hand it off back to Megan. Thank you.

Thank you, Jacob. Outreach for the LDC update included a public comment portal, two virtual public workshops, an overview video of the LDC update, two community planner committee meetings, three LDC update subcommittee meetings, and meetings with three community planning groups, and one advisory board to discuss specific LDC items impacting their community areas. On January 27th, the Community Planners Committee passed a motion to approve the LDC subcommittee's recommendation on the LDC and directed staff to accelerate the release of the draft code language for public review. The group voted the group approved 86 items opposed 11 items and tabled 10 items. Staff's recommendation is to recommend to the city council approval of the proposed 2026 LDC update and local coastal program and minor amendments to the downtown community plan and general plan. Thank you very much for your time today and this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission? I I do. Commissioner Ringer,

um, could you give us a couple of um examples of what the div fees are for you indicated for um the complete communities housing solutions. Uh we talked about removing the div fee waivers and um you indicated that there is now a structure that is not just one fee fits all. What does that structure look like now?

Um I can answer that question commissioner. Um at the time that complete communities was brought forward in 2020 um we still had uh community based development impact fees. So they varied widely across all of the communities, but uh one feature uh that was prominent was that regardless of the size of the unit that was being built, the fee was the same. So for example, if a community's diff was 20,000 or $50,000 per unit, that was charged at the same rate whether that unit was 400 ft or whether that unit was 3,000 square ft. Since that time, um we have moved to citywide fees that are scaled based off of unit size. Um and so the uh amount of the fee is scaled so that smaller units pay a smaller fee and larger pe uh larger units uh pay a larger fee. At the time that complete communities originally came forward, even a small unit was going to be paying the same larger fee as a larger unit was. And so at that time there was um some scaling identified for those including a complete waiver of units that were under 500 square f feet. So the proposal before the commission today is whether to uh charge the development impact fees for complete communities in the same manner that other projects are charged development impact fees.

Can I ask a followup on that? Yes, go ahead. Has city planning evaluated the number of units that have been produced under complete communities versus under the standard codes to see just kind of proportionally how many units have been taking advantage of the small unit waiverss. And I I'm just trying to get a feel for how many housing units were potentially putting at risk from being developed if the waiver goes away. I'm I'm just not sure what the scale is.

So, we do track in our annual report on homes um the housing units produced through the various programs including through regular density bonus as well as complete communities. Um complete communities does have that diff waiver. We have complete communities projects that have units that do pay development impact fees because they're greater than 500 square f feet. And then we do have ones that do not because the units are less than 500 square f feet. Um we can get back to um after the public comment and provide some additional detail um with the numbers of the units less than 500 square ft um that have not paid. As you are very likely familiar, um the economics um are largely dependent on the individual projects perform um and so it is difficult to say that every project that received a diff waiver would not have happened, you know, but for that diff waiver.

Yeah, totally understand that. I and I don't even necessarily need exact numbers as much as just percentages. I'm just I'm just trying to get a feel. Yeah, we can provide that. Thank you,

Commissioner Reapses. Thank you. Uh, chair. Just a couple really quick clarifications um on the um item. No, I lost it. But the item the the transition between high density and low density residential or open space. What? I don't I'm missing the number here, but 91. Thank you, Commissioner. Um, how would that I read through the code language and it's not clear how that's treated if the open space is across the street from the highdensity parcels. So if for I'm just thinking like for example on 6th Avenue in Bankers Hill where you've got high density zoned residential or mixed use there directly across from BBO Park. Does that require a 65 degree angle transition or or would that not be treated that way?

The intent is to have the uh transition plane apply to lower density zones that are next to it. Um that would not apply to an open also to open space, right? So the language applies at open space as well, right?

Uh we can clarify that in the language. Um but the the transition plan would would generally be done between development and there is potential for development to to have already occurred on land that's zoned for open space. So it would be based on the existing use that's on the zone. But if there's e even in between two different density densely zoned parcels, if there's a street in between, how does that impact the transition? Is is there still a required transition if there's a road that separates the two parcels? The intent would be direct adjacency to the use.

Yeah, presuming the open space situation applies, that would be the case there as well, right? if it's across the street from a park. Correct. I also um Thank you, Seth. Uh I looked through the I apologize. It was getting late last night. Item 109. Um I could not find the the description for energy efficient pool and spa heating systems. Can you just give a quick synopsis of what that item is? Um, Deputy Director Kelly Stono can answer the question. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner. I'm actually going to turn it over to our subject matter expert, John Klopp, to walk you through the pool and spa heater. Good morning. Um, so the specific question was what it relates to or what it incorporates. Just give us a quick summary of of that item because I couldn't find it in the in the documentation

of course. So the pool and spa heating is related to time of replacement uh for non-residential and multif family pools. Um it requires uh three different options. It would require one of three different options uh when replacing that pool heater. um either they switch from a gas to an electric um other otherwise they have options to use uh waste heat, waste energy or solar heating.

I'd also like to just add that those uh uh new requirements are within our climate action plan consistency regulations. So a project would need to trigger those regulations to trigger the pool requirements. So it's additional square footage, additional units as specified in the regulations. Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Those are all the clarifications I have. Thanks. I've got one. I was going to save it, but I might as well ask it now. Go ahead.

For item number nine, the central urbanized plan district moving and storage facilities. Am I correct in understanding that that literally applies along two streets, Oklahoma Boulevard and University Avenue? Yes, that's correct. I was looking over here and they're like, thank you.

No more clarifying questions. Okay, we can move on to um public comment. We'll start with uh John Allen. Looks like you have a presentation and I will need to verify everybody is present in the hearing room. Uh Amy Faucet, Jen Morales, Nicole Wong, Brett Montgomery, Matt Aubrey, Tyler Martin, James Lawson, Gina Austin, Stephanie Benudo, Evan Strong. Got it. Yes. Got it. Okay.

We good. Good. Um, so there's 11 total. We're taking the time down to two minutes due to the quantity of speakers, but you're capped at 15 minutes for your presentation. So, go ahead.

Great. Thank you very much. Good morning, planning commissioners. My name is Amy Faucet and I'm pleased to be here today before you as the CEO of the San Diego Building Industry Association. We represent the industry that permits and builds homes and employs tens of thousands of workers to do everything from landscaping to lighting to architectural drawings and everything in between. It is our great honor to serve San Diego's families, and we're grateful for your time today. Before I hand it over to John Allen, the chair of our urban council, I want to thank staff and each of you for your time working on this important matter and want to reiterate our commitment to working productively with you to ensure San Diego is a place that continues to create opportunities for home building. Thank you.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is John Allen. I'm with Streamline Development Group and I'm here on behalf of the Urban Council for the Building Industry Association. Urban Council is a policy advisory group um focused specifically on city of San Diego land use and housing regulations. Our members work directly on projects within the city, mostly urban infill development professionals and land use professionals. Um, so we evaluate policy not only from a legislative perspective, but also based on how it is implemented in real time in the built environment. Our goal today is to provide practical feedback to help ensure these updates function as intended. To echo Amy, we would really like to thank staff. These updates require significant effort, sifting through hundreds of suggestions and dedicating substantial time to refining the code. We support the vast majority of the items in this update. Um, next slide, please. As you can see, some of the ones we strongly suggest up on top. There are a couple that we'd like to highlight where we support the direction, but recommend some clarification or alignment. Item number 39, the tenative map waiver. This item is at the center of some substantial confusion and some complications with the pertaining to the EMX zones. We're just simply seeking confirmation that EMX sites are zoned for commercial development and eligible for a tenative map exemption which is intended by state law. We ask that the commission prioritize obtaining that confirmation from staff today. Item number six is the complete communities plan for sale. We strongly support expanding the for sale component of this program. Our recommendation is really focused on alignment. We've provided some specific red lines uh for your review. First, the proposed

moderate income level for four units is set at 110% AMI, while moderate income elsewhere in complete communities is at 120% AMI. We recommend consistent treatment throughout the program at 120 AMI. Second, the proposed debt to income ratios for moderate is 28 to 35% but 30% for low and very low income. Um, and these don't reflect how buyers actually qualify for these mortgages. Most mortgage underwriting, including CalHFA programs and, you know, first-time home buyer programs, they operate at a 35% debt to income standard. Standardizing the for sale methodology at 35% for all AMI levels and removing the 28% floor would simply would simplify administration and better align the code with realworld lending standards. Our red lines reflect these adjustments. This does not change the AMI level or weaken affordability. It simply aligns the underwriting assumptions with how buyers would actually qualify for these units so that the program can work as intended. Next slide, please. We have a few items of concern which we've broken into two separate buckets. This first bucket we consider to be feasibility risk. Next slide, please. Number seven is the diff waiver item for complete communities. Now, we understand that the policy goal is to encourage more multi-bedroom units, but you small units play a critical role in the feasibility of these projects. And if the economics don't work, the results won't be more family units. It will likely just be more fewer units. The diff waiver supports the feasibility that makes complete communities plan projects pencil. Eliminating this now

will stifle feasibility and therefore production. The city's fiscal benefit from this program comes from projects getting built, including diff, but also the neighborhood enhancement fee, property taxes, and ongoing economic activity. If projects don't pencil, the city doesn't just receive slightly less revenue from these projects. It receives none from the projects that don't get built. We submitted in partnership with many other organizations a compromise solution with red lines that you were provided. This compromise makes sense. It reflects the actual demographics of the city. Understanding that we still have to build for single occupants that call San Diego home. Our suggested modification is to implement a compromise capping the waiver at 30% of total units in a project. Next slide, please. Item number next slide please if we can. Thank you. Item number 17 is the fire separation distance. Uh we understand um how staff was presenting this, but after reviewing all of the red lines and the suggested municipal code changes, we're still very unclear about how the what the actual setback requirements are or are going to be. Uh we may have missed it, but we didn't see any objective design standards provided or uh or referenced in this code section. The applicability of a setback revision is if it's unclear, it'll cause confusion or staff may default to a conservative interpretation on smaller infill parcels primarily that are going to be utilizing an F density. Even minor setback shifts can materially reduce unit yield. These objective design standards really should be known well in in advance and upfront. Our recommended path forward would be to

hold this item for a future update and work with the industry and fire marshall office to develop objective zone specific standards. Next slide, please. Item number 91 is the transition plane item that planning commissioner Reeves was asking about. This item directly impacts achievable density in a meaningful way by extending transition planes and height stepback requirements citywide. It really reduces the effective building envelope in many zones. It also expands the existing transition plan requirements in complete communities beyond the current application to single family zones to include certain multifamily and mixed use zones. Without modeling or a real yield analysis, this change may unintentionally reduce unit capacity in areas that were recently planned for increased density, including transit corridors in College area and the Claremont community plan area. Those community plan updates were just approved and it took years of work and were designed to support housing growth. Before advancing this change, we recommend confirming that it aligns with the adoptive community plans and the city's housing production and regional housing needs assessment targets. Next slide, please. Our second bucket are items that present uncertainty and increased discretion. Next slide, please. Item number 30, the dwelling unit protection regulations recorded covenant. We believe recorded covenant uh the covenant obligations should attach but upon development approval rather than at the point of demolition. Recording at demolition may create unintended consequences if the project changes or is ultimately not approved. Uh, additionally, we've identified potential sequencing conflicts between

the demolition permits, the vacancy requirements, and utility processes from SDG&. We recommend postponing this item to a later date to and addressing these issues comprehensively with the San Diego Housing Commission for potential inclusion in the next LDC update. Next slide, please. Item 34, the landscape regulations. In addition to relying on objective replacement standards, we believe this language should be coordinated with adopted community plans and the updated street design manual updates. The upcoming street design manual updates. In some cases, the existing street tree may not align with the species, spacing, or rideway configuration specified in those plans. For example, a community plan may call for a specific canopy tree species along a corridor. Preserving an existing tree that does not match that pallet or conflicts with the updated sidewalk or bike lane requirements or design could actually undermine the long-term vision of the streetscape. replacement when done under objective design standards and approved species lists can actually improve canopy consistency and compliance with our adopted rideway design. The code should allow that flexibility. Our recommendation here would simply be to strike the language that states to preserve and protect existing trees and shrubs. Next slide, please. In closing, we're grateful for the time to present. So, thank you. We'd ask that the commission pull items 17, 91, and 30 for additional study as there are still too many unknowns in the proposals and request the adjustments to items 7 and 34 as discussed. We support the city's housing goals and the complete communities program. Our comments today are simply about making sure these

updates don't unintentionally reduce housing production or create uncertainty in its implementation. We look forward to continuing to work with staff to refine these items. Thank you. Thank you. David Modi, looks like you also have a presentation and you have people seating time to you. Chris Nielsen, Victoria Labuzo, is Victoria in the hearing room. Okay. And Dana Gibbit. Okay. You'll have eight minutes. Thank you very much.

Uh David Modi and Chris Nielson will be speaking on behalf of the community planners committee as my presentation ready. It's not that complicated of a presentation. First off, CPC is switching its opposition from item 25 to item 29. CPC's objection is to the idea that a rehabbed affordable unit is the same as a new affordable unit. Unlike new, rehabbing doesn't grow the unit count of affordable housing. It just transfers it from one column to another. And no, a 55-year deed restriction is not an equivalent trade-off. The existing unit could have continued for decades as a naturally occurring affordable housing. So the actual extension of affordability might be only 10 or 20 years, not 55. Item 38, for shared parking, we continue to support adopting a standard for path of pedestrian travel. State law left that undefined, but there are very steep hills in San Diego. The bicycle design standard is a good guideline for real accessibility to these shared parking spaces, particularly for older and disabled individuals, and it exists now and is in place now. Item 54. We continue to support creation of a simple searchable field listing the incentives a project uses. The public and in particular future city staff members tasked to draft reports on housing incentives will thank you for setting this up early as possible. Items 89 and 94. So what we heard verbally today is a little bit different from what we understood to be proposed. So we're a little bit at sea right now. We had asked for pictures to help clarify what we were working with, but we didn't get those. But our overall our

recommendation still holds. Our recommendation simply allows the public and CBGs to continue to comment on the appropriate locations for large utility boxes. And no, the threshold for large is not 48 in. It is probably 36 or 24 in. Slide. 10 years ago, the city council formed a utility undergrounding advisory committee to ensure that utility boxes were mindful of other users of the public right of way because not all utilities were being considerate of other users of the public right of way. Process 2 aligns policy on wireless more closely with the city adopted recommendations from 2015 that allow for public input about using the public right of way. And Chris Nielson will continue. Okay, good morning. Um, I'll comment on three items. Uh item number 21 or number 91. Uh the proposed code change would set the transition plane angle to 65 degrees between commercial developments and abuing um uh adjacent uh residences of 15 of 15 du per acre or fewer and or or an open space zone. CPC recommends uh a 45deree transition angle uh particularly to minimize development impacts to adjacent parks and open space. Next for items 92 and 93, the transition zone adjacent to Myiramar's accident potential zone one one recognizes that this area still has a high accident potential. The existing code permits housing up to 60 DU an acre with an STP and child care facilities are

prohibited. CPC rea recommends that the STP still be required for housing up to 60 DU an acre and that an STP be required for child care facilities in the transition zone rather than be prohibited. Thank you very much. Thank you, Evan Strong.

You'll have two minutes.

Great. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Mod and Commissioners. My name is Evan Stron. I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce. I want to start by thanking city staff for their hard work on this update. We submitted a coalition letter with other business organizations uh with our full comments and recommendations on the 2026 LDC update. So, I won't dive fully into all those as are in the letter, but wanted to highlight a few specific items. Um, we're supportive of many items in the update, including positive reforms for wireless communications facilities, um, improvements for forale housing, um, changes for outdoor dining establishments and housing in downtown, as well as a lot of that downtown specific code amendments. However, in our letter, we also respectfully requested the removal of several items, including the angle transition plane item, a stealth storage ban on specific streets, and the removal of diff waiverss that have helped create homes in our city. Additionally, we respectfully request uh in the future for future code updates, additional time for the commission to review and workshop as LDC updates move forward. Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Thank you, Ramy Cortez. You'll have two minutes.

Good morning, Planning Commissioner Chair and uh commissioners as well as uh planning staff. Um, I'd like to, you know, thank everyone here for all of the work that's been done over the last years and creating more than double the housing production that's, uh, typically been, uh, created here in San Diego to provide more housing in addition to in the last 15 years actually create an environment where rents have been dropping. Um, I attribute that to all the hard work that's been done in providing zoning per permissions versus zoning restrictions. And a lot of what this package does creates more support and clarity for infill smallcale infill developers like me. Um however there are two items that uh do provide zoning restrictions and that's item number 17 setbacks for uh fire review that may exceed base zones. Um this is just creates uncertainty um when looking at a property or a site already have restrictions or excuse me already have unknowns with the engineering department and parkway dedications. So now when looking at a site can't figure out how much parkway has to be given to engineering in the city and also don't know the actual zoning. So, how do I access the feasibility and what I could actually do without going through a costly and burdensome time-consuming preliminary review process, which isn't the intent of certainty of providing housing and a ministerial byite process. Um, the additional item is item number 91, transition plans. Transition plans already exist for complete communities, which are dense projects adjacent to lower density type of zoning and uses. to apply this to now missing middle lower density type of infill housing puts a restriction on uh on what's on on housing production. In addition, this is

a Thank you. Your time is up. Thank you, Jeffrey Hooter.

Thank you, commissioners. Um, so we work with staff to address most of our issues and we're supportive of what CPC has said. So no big presentation today. But what I did want to comment is on a couple issues that have come up today. One is this um far-based um diff that's u issue. Um look, we don't think small units in San Diego need any more incentive. We overproduce these. We underproduce family housing. But the bigger part of it is more and more our code should be evolving towards firebased standards as opposed to sort of just singular units because and having a diff structure that scales up and down with the size of the units makes a lot of sense in that regard. We should even look at things like whether our affordable requirements should be far-based as opposed to unitbased to give developers additional flexibility in that regard. So, I'm highly supportive of what staff's recommending there. Um, with regard to the angle plane thing, 65 degrees is is pretty steep. If you put a street there, you have to build a building that's hundreds of feet tall in order to bump into that. So, we don't think that's an an honors constraint. The other aspect of it is angle planes and and we heard talk about from the BIA about this affecting um the the pending neighborhood homes for all but having stepbacks having angle planes is particularly when you've eliminated most of the setbacks between buildings is a very important component to making these visually and and compatible with the neighborhoods in which we're going. So, we're very supportive of of of that uh proposal as well. Um the only thing we'd like to see in the future is revisiting the uh minimum um density for

complete communities because as we do our community plan updates, we have flexibility to tighten those regulations. Thank you.

Thank you, Ted Shaw. Good morning, Chair Monain and members of the planning commission. Ted Shaw with the Atlantis Group here today on behalf of IDS Real Estate. We are supportive of all of the code updates that are being proposed by staff. Would like to also thank staff past and present for their hard work on these updates. They are important parts of the code and need to be valued more. Would like to ask that the commission uh recommend to land use and housing that they modify item number 68, which is the land use table for the noise compatibility with MCS Marramar. The code update that's included to that table 13215D uh allows a couple of uses, but it doesn't include all of the uses that are allowed in the 75 to 80 noise contour. Yes, that's loud, but there are certain uses that are appropriate for that um area. We would ask that you include that as part of the update going forward. Um, it affects a very small portion of properties at the west end of the runway that have limited uses otherwise. Thank you. Thank you, Monica Montano. Here, good morning, honorable chair, members of the San Diego Planning Commission. My name is Monica Montano and I am the director of government and community relations for Scripps Health. Last week, Scripps became aware of the proposed amendments to the Carmel Valley

Employment Center, which are before you in item number 103. As a long-standing property owner in the Carmel Valley Employment Center, we respectfully request a brief 30-day continuation on item 103 to give us time to review the amendment and potential implications for properties in the employment center. At this time, Scripps is not taking a position for or against the proposal. Rather, we would appreciate an opportunity to analyze the proposal and participate in discussions. We also submitted a letter to this topic to staff yesterday. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Uh we will move to the online speakers. We will begin the 5minut uh public comment period for those wishing to speak. Uh we have currently six speakers who have raised their hands. Uh Dorin Diaz, you are first. You have two minutes.

Hello. I really wish this board will begin a legacy of complying with the American with Disabilities Act and pull items 38 and 47. I had mentioned this at the public meeting that the ADA committee should be looking at this and um these are potential future lawsuits. Also, please do not pull item number seven. And if you look at resolution 316122 for the discrimination that has already happened in district 4 that the federal judge had signed off for sweeping affordable housing deals. Um, you'll get an answer. Also the on I do not pull please item 17 or 30 because the fire marshall was here and you didn't get an opposition letter from them. So go with the fire marshall versus developer profit and number 34. Please do not hold that. You have a forestry advisory void. Do not go by developers who want to save money and the and potentially decrease sidewalks, decrease trees, and destroy native habitat. Please do not go with developers. Go with the fire marshall, the forery forest advisory. go with ADA and ignore some of the testimony that you have heard heard today which is harmful to communities of of concern and especially because developers with 1441 would have lied in the application stating the land was vacant when there's

a house in the

Thank you. Your time is up. Madison, you will have two minutes. Okay, thank you. I wanted to express my support of update on number 20 to prohibit the cannabis leaf symbol in signage for cannabis outlets. As a mom of three children and someone who works in youth drug prevention, I've seen firsthand how recognizable that green leaf has become. It's no longer subtle. It's a widely understood symbol for a mind-altering substance. When that symbol is displayed prominently along our streets, near restaurants, schools, and parks, it normalizes cannabis use in a way that directly impacts kids and teens. Your existing regulations already limit signage to the business name, alphabetic characters, and two colors. Prohibiting the cannabis leaf symbol is simply a logical extension of that approach. It ensures these outlets operate with a lower visual profile and are not advertising through imagery that is especially appealing or easily identifiable to youth. We regulate signage for other age restricted products carefully. Cannabis should be treated with the same level of caution. This update does not shut the businesses down. It simply sets reasonable guardrails to reduce youth exposure and community impacts. So, please support this common sense amendment. Thank you,

Peggy Walker. You will have two minutes.

Good morning and thank you. I to support item number 20, the cannabis leaf symbol and signage. But two other things I want to add. First, the marijuana issue is it's not simply about a symbol. It's about land use, community character, public health, and the public message our city sends. I urge a further step in the next code update eliminating cannabis billboard advertising. Currently, marijuana billboards are prominently displayed in high visibility corridors. One glaring marijuana billboard just off Laurel Street near the airport is unavoidable for passing residents and arriving visitors. It's an embarrassment to the city, dominating the landscape. but communicates cannabis commerce as a defining feature of our city. I don't believe that reflects San Diego's true aspirations. Second, planning decisions are about more than compliance. They're about city standards. We've determined that tobacco poses sufficient public health risk to warrant billboard bans. The debate is no longer ideological. Science-based evidence now shows today's high potency pot carries even greater welldocumented risks than tobacco. Even the New York Times admits pot is a problem. So I suggest we have higher values for our city's visual landscape than serving as a marketing platform for a highly intoxicating substance that prevents high public health costs. Please consider banning marijuana billboards. Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Becky Rap. You will have two minutes.

Good morning, planning commission. My name is Becky Rap. I'm a public health educator and member of my local planning group. And I appreciate the previous two callers and their concerns for marijuana advertising. Um, I too support item number 20. The proposed changes emphasize the marijuana leaf symbol is prohibited on all signage, which I strongly support. This is a great reminder that when Prop 64 was originally written, its intent was to protect children and youth against a predatory industry. So, I appreciate the city recognizing this need and ask that it take a step further in strengthening all signage regulations surrounding marijuana in our city. Today, large billboards across our city are permitted to display not only the marijuana leaf, but also bright colors and caricature imagery that clearly draws attention to all residents, especially children and youth who are curious. While storefront signs are tightly regulated, off-site advertising is not held to the same standard. If marijuana images are considered inappropriate on a building because of public health concerns, it should not be permitted on a billboard in the same neighborhood. This is not simply about land use. It's also about public health and youth exposure to substance marketing increases normalization and early use. San Diego has committed to prevention and youth protection and our regul regulations should reflect that consistently across the city. As the city updates the land development code, I urge this commission to support regulating marijuana advertising citywide, including billboards and other off-site marketing. Marijuana imagery should be strictly regulated and consistent across the city. Thank you.

Sally Small, please unmute yourself. You have two minutes.

There we go. Hello. Hi, I'm Sally Small, a D4 resident. I wanted to first say uh thank you very much for all your efforts. I know land development code updates are nasty giant beasts and require a lot of background work for you. I think unfortunately not enough is being done at the community planning group level information as well as getting out to neighborhood council. So, I would love to see that uh more outreach happens at the community planning group level, perhaps one for every council district in future years and to split up the land development code uh sections. Keep downtown separate and then the ones that are citywide maybe have it down to to uh two different meetings so that people can really look at things and uh make their decisions. I agree with all of the CPC changes that were uh made especially regarding the uh plane angle. 45 degrees is just fine. Thank you. I also agree with the uh three speakers regarding uh marijuana the uh emblem as well as in the future for billboards and all uh outside sources. We do need to consider our children and the safety of the public. Thank you.

Craig Benadetto, you will have two minutes.

Good morning. Craig Benadetto speaking on behalf of NAOP San Diego. Our specific comments reflecting input from our members were submitted in the coalition letter referenced by Mr. Strong. We'd like to thank staff for a largely thankless task and for attempting to address the many items submitted for consideration. For today, we'd like to encourage the planning commission and the city to take the time to get this right. We understand this has been long delayed, but making sure the update reflects the goals of clarity and certainty to help with housing creation and economic development is critical. For the ma vast majority of the items today, NAOP generally supports. There are others though that we'd respectfully request specific clarification, amendment, or removal. Those specific comments were included in the aforementioned coalition letter. I'd like to bring specific attention to item number nine on storage units which given its limited applicability seems unnecessary and we are opposed. Item number 29 on off-site inclusionary housing requirements where we support clarity on the length of time it is allowed. Item number n item number 39 regarding tenative map waivers and commercial zones. Again, seeking clarity on making sure that the EMX zone still qualifies for the tenative map waiver given it is a commercial zone. Item number 68 regarding allowed uses in the MCAS Myiramar area and seeking to ensure the use table from the city code is consistent with the uses allowed under the Myiar ALUCP as as was referred to by a previous speaker. And lastly, item number 87 regarding flexibility for previously conforming uses in certain zones, which is primarily driven in the city's mixeduse zones. for a variety of reasons, including economic conditions and keeping buildings occupied. We'd ask that staff consider extending the time frame for this allowed continued use. We encourage you to focus on our comments on these and the other items in the coalition letter and ask staff to please address these issues, clarifications, and changes. Thank you for your time and consideration. And again, thanks to staff for their efforts.

Our last speaker is Judy Strang. You have two minutes. Please unmute yourself. Judy, you may unmute yourself. You will have two minutes. Give her just a couple more seconds. That concludes our public testimony today.

We're going to take a uh 10-minute break. We'll come back at um 10:35 and resume.

If everybody could please be quiet. Thank you. We're going to resume our hearing. We have a comment from senior deputy chief city attorney. Thank you. Uh due to the volume of the materials and the time constraints on which the materials for today's item were received, our office has not conducted a comprehensive legal review. As such, there may be changes as this item proceeds forward to city council. We will continue to work with uh city staff on this item.

Thank you. Um we'll move on to commission comment. Vice Chair Boomhower.

Uh thank you, Chair Modin. Um and staff, thanks. Sorry, I got to move things. Uh staff, thanks. This is these are always a ton of work and you guys have put a ton of effort into this and it's clear um I do I I'm not dovetailing off uh city deputy city attorney new first comment but uh 725 pages of supporting documents is a lot and I know I and chair Mod had both asked for this to be workshopped um prior to now I know that this has been a long road but um it's So you you guys keep saying, "Yeah, we know you're volunteers. You're like the hardest working, you know, city employees that don't get paid." Uh, and then you give us this with a week to review it. That's that's a lot. It just is. Um, there are a lot of things like most of the things in this update I really like. Um, item number 94 I got to give a shout out on because this wireless communication process reduction. I've been working with Simon uh C and his team in the wireless communication facility section for two years to get this through. I'm so excited we're here. Uh, I'm going to get to make a lot less motions to put things on consent. That's awesome. Um, and it just makes sense. It's good policy. Um, item number six, the having complete communities housing solutions apply to for sale units. Um, I I think it's a great change. I don't think it's going to particularly be meaningful without comprehensive construction defect litigation reforms, but I'm glad we're we're getting that out there and and putting our code uh in line with that so that when the legislature finally makes those changes, which I think is inevitable, um we're we're going to be well positioned to take advantage of that. I also really like uh item 18 with

uh the clarifications for live work in the EMX zones and item 87 uh the previously conforming use changes. I I think that it it it threads the needle. I still would love it to be a little bit more aggressive with with letting existing businesses stay, but this provides some needed clarity and and um and support for that. I do have an a number of items um that I've got some concerns on. So, I'm kind of I'm going to take these in order um of item numbers and I I have questions. So, item seven, the diff waiverss and complete community housing solutions. Were you able to find that number?

I have some numbers that may be helpful to you. Um in the last calendar year, um our staff reviewed 21,000 units. um for uh development impact fees. 6,500 of those were under complete communities housing solutions and of those 61 total were eligible for the diff waiver for units less than 500 square ft.

That is actually super helpful. Um, I do think that I I know it's popular and and not all that difficult to say greedy developers. They just don't want to pay their share. Um, but I know how hard developers work and how thin the margins are for trying to get projects to cross the line from being infeasible to feasible. Um, so I'm always going to have some pretty strong concerns when when industry is saying, "Hey, we're we're fine with some of this, but we have some proposed compromised language." Um, is would staff get behind the proposed compromised language that was put out there by industry?

We're happy to take this um commission's recommendation. And just for context, um the the balance um that is sought to be struck here um is in addition to um providing incentives for uh different types a diversity of housing unit sizes um it is also to generate the necessary revenue to provide public infrastructure needed to accommodate the new development. Um and in the vast majority of instances based off of the information that I shared with you um they are paying the development impact fees. We have brought forward significant reforms to our development impact fees over the recent years. Um, and in many instances, the development impact fees are significantly less uh than they were um, prior to that time.

Okay. Thank you. And I'm glad I was able to start with one where like I think there's a way to work together on it because the next one I'm just absolutely opposed to. Um I item number nine, the central urbanized plan district self- storage ban. I I mean this seems like it's the definition of spot zoning. Uh I don't even know if it's legally enforceable. I was going to ask the city attorney about that, but they Well, actually, I'll ask, but I don't know that they've reviewed it yet. Um we'll have to look into it.

That's what I thought you'd say. Um but also, there's a community plan update going for this neighborhood. It literally applies in one neighborhood on two streets. I'm not a huge fan of self- storage. I I mean, I I absolutely get that that's not the highest well, it may be the highest and best use for individual property owners from a public policy standpoint. I totally understand the opposition to it. Um I just don't think this is the way to achieve it. I no matter what motion comes out of this, I'm not going to be able to support item 9. Um, for item 17, the fire separation zones. I just need a little clarity on this. Does this First of all, I don't understand why we can't align our setback requirements with the fire code. But I'm also very confused about whether or not this meets the state law or exceeds state law or like I I just don't understand where this is coming from and what we're trying to accomplish. So, uh, we did attempt to, uh, amend setback language as part of our ADU amendments last year to say that the setbacks may be greater if there are, uh, additional requirements under the fire code. We reminded by HCD that the fire code does not actually include setbacks. What it includes is defensible space. And so, we needed to clarify that that we are setting a setback that is required, but there are al also fire code requirements uh, for defensible space. The intent of this item is so that an applicant that comes forward understands that while the base zone may say there is a a setback that's allowed, there could also be fire uh protection areas that need to be included that could exceed those setbacks. It is consistent with state law because the fire setbacks would be set by the fire code. Um so it's not adding any additional requirements to the code. What it is is informing an applicant that there could be additional uh space

that is needed uh to comply with the fire code in addition to what is uh listed in the zone setback. Okay. I'm also going to add commissioner that there is no intention for this to exceed any authority that does not currently exist for our fire marshall to enforce the fire code. It is simply intended to be able to provide additional information to an applicant ahead of time so that there are no surprises when they get into the fire review that there are additional requirements.

There are always surprises. Um, okay. That is helpful. And that was also helpful. I'm not 100% sure that the language that's in there right now actually does that because I read setback. I like hearing seeing that it has to do with defensible space actually makes way more sense and I think that that would actually be more helpful to put in because setbacks are setbacks. Like we understand what those are and this very much looks like we're sitting here and saying we don't know what we're doing. We we have one setback in the code but we might actually make you have a bigger setback. And actually what we're saying is we have one setback in the code, but the fire code actually requires a certain amount of defensible space and you need to make sure that you comply with both. I I I just think there's a better way to say that that is going to meet your intent more effectively. Um I don't know if I know exactly how to do that right now, but we can come back to that. Uh, item number 34, protection of existing trees and shrubs. I read this at least 20 times. Um, and I jumped out to the landscape rags and I looked at other stuff and I looked in the definitions. So, first of all, fun fact, trees and shrubs are not defined terms in the land development code in case you didn't know that. Um, I think this just adds ambiguity to the process. Um, I think that could be taken I could I think it could be cleaned up with the proposed strikeout language that industry put out there, which I was actually going to also suggest to to take out the language specifically saying that we're trying to push for preservation of existing trees and shrubs on property. I just I I don't

know how I would even advise my clients on how to conform with this. If I have a site that has vegetation on it, I think we're just open this up for the neighbors to be able to point at it and say, "Hey, you got to protect that." Or for review staff to be sitting there and saying, "Well, there's a tree or shrub and this says we're supposed to protect trees and shrubs." And you know, even though I think we have solutions in the land development code, I think this just is is creating a problem that doesn't currently exist. But you seem like you want to say something. I don't know if you have a question.

Well, I So, I guess the I guess my question is am do I is an applicant still allowed to say we're going to be clearing existing vegetation on on the site or is are we basically sitting here and saying no if there's existing vegetation on the site we're as a matter of policy we want that preserved. So this is ch a change to the uh purpose language for the landscape regulations and again what it's in intended to uh uh assert is that there are requirements in uh the landscape design manual about the preservation of trees and of plants. Um therefore the the purpose of these regulations is to comply with all of the other regulations. That's why this section was added to ensure that uh the pre those sections where uh uh the preservation of trees are required um will be again it it's pointing it out in the purpose of the regulations at the at the outset rather than um a later hit or being pointed out at a later time. Again, it's not changing the regulations or the requirements. It's simply stating that part of the purpose is to preserve existing trees and shrubs as according to uh the landscape design manual. Yeah, but I think the landscape regulations already require that. So, I don't know that we're adding I I think this just again I I'm just not convinced this doesn't add ambiguity, but that's fine. Um for item number 34, is the intent for the tenative map waiver to apply to the EMX zones?

Um yes, it is. Um when it complies with the subdivision map act, uh the subdivision map act language specifically refers um to commercial industrial zones. In context of an EMX zone allowing for commercial or industrial use, uh we would consider that to be a commercial or industrial zone. We are just trying to match the language with what the subdivision map act currently says. But to answer your question, yes. As much as I disagree with the the intent clarification in item 34, I kind of actually wish there was some intent clarification language here to to specifically say because I again I I could totally see review staff looking at this and saying, "No, I don't I don't think this applies in the MX zone because it's not specifically it's it's it's not just commercial." So, I I think this is one where it would benefit from having some some intent clarity language if you would consider that. Um, item 84 I'm actually conceptually supportive of. This has to do with changes to the appeal fees, but I don't know how we're supposed to actually make a recommendation on this since we were not provided the resolution language. um be because there's nothing in the code that says the only thing this is going to have to change is through a council resolution. Usually we would get a draft language of that because I know council's going to ask for it. I'm just not sure why we weren't provided that. But again, I have a hard time being able to say, "Yeah, I support and recommend council approve this without actually knowing what the language is going to propose." So, was there a reason we weren't given that language? Um mainly it's that the the recommendation from planning commission is on the uh

the amendments to the code. Um not usually the uh resolutions that are along with it. Yeah. And normally I like there's five other items in here I think that have a resolution component but there's also a code component. This is the only one where it's like this is just just going to change through resolution. So I that's why it's a little difficult. So, okay, cool. Uh, okay. So, then item number 91 with transition planes. I have so many questions. Um, I'm I'm really very very concerned about this. I think that it like I we spent a ton of time you city planning department spent a ton of time doing like the Claremont Mesa community plan update that we just got done. And now I think this intentionally or unintentionally is going to gut a lot of the plan density that that could be available in that community plan because of how these transition planes are going to work. The clarity that if you're across the street from an from a lower dense use or from open space is hopeful. But I'm I I just I got real heartburn with this one. I I think it is really we we are with giving the ability to build out the increased density that we need with one hand and taking it away with the other with these transition planes. And I have real concerns with that. Although I'm kind of curious to hear what my fellow commissioners have to say about that. Commissioner, if I can just provide a little bit of clarification on that one to address your concern about the areas across the street. Sure. The transition plan requirement specifically applies to abuing properties which are defined in the land development code to mean a lot or parcel of land that it shares all or a part of a common lot line with another lot or parcel of land.

So to the extent that there could be additional clarification um that if that existing lot line goes to the center line of the street and then it abuts the adjacent property, I think that that's a clarification that could be included.

Well, I think that's that would be help that clarification language would be helpful because we do know of plenty of examples where the lot line does extend to the center line of the rightway. Um I so I think that would be something that would need to get cleaned up. But I've got I've got a similar concern in situations and I'm also thinking ahead to future community plan updates where you know if we're trying to densify along like like I'll give you a great example in the mid city community plan update. I know that one of the things staff is looking at is densification along say Adams Avenue and in that densification because it makes sense on that corridor. It's not going like like it's not going to be a full block densification. So, it's it's not going to be the entire block adjacent to atoms that's going to get upzzoned. It's going to be a partial block and then you're immediately going to have a much lower density behind that. And the the the transition plane is just going to essentially negate any increased density that we put in in in that scenario. And so I think I think this one just needs more cook time. I I I I don't I I think there's too many opportunities for there to be unintended consequences where we're not going to be able to build the housing that we truly need and and take advantage of the density that we're putting into these community plans because I think there's just going to become some operative problems. Uh, okay. Final thing I got a specific concern on is item 109. This is this pool and spa heater thing. And this is a real inside baseball question. So, I'm expecting a technical expert to have to come up. Um, if you'd like to start moving, uh, does this technology even exist? Because I did a little research

on my own, not a ton, and it doesn't look like it does. Yes, I will defer to our technical expert for that question. Yes. So, in terms of the electric pool heating, that's uh heat pump water heaters. Uh so, those are on the market. Um there's numerous brands that make them, makes models. Uh there's also surface covering, solar covering uh for the pools. Uh there's various options available for those. I don't know if it would help to possibly send additional resources later on. I would hope to have had the additional resources before we were considering the item, but I might have a solution to that, too.

Sorry, I meant by additional resources, I just meant um like market examples or something like that.

Yeah, that would be helpful because in my research, I wasn't finding any electric heat pumps that were sized sufficient to actually heat a pool. Um at least I I not readily available via my Google search. So, I that that's my concern is I and and this is always my concern with reach codes. Um I get what we're trying to accomplish and I get that climate change is real and we got to be taking actions to to try to make buildings more efficient. Um but also we need to make sure that we're actually not forcing people to adopt the technology that isn't commercially viable or available. So, I I just I'm not convinced that we're we're actually I'm not convinced that an applicant would be able to actually meet this requirement. Understood. Thank you for your comments. Um, so I have two different motions written out over here. Um, I think I'm actually going to defer putting a motion on the floor just yet. Well, let me tell my fellow commissioners what I'm thinking and then I might defer making actually making a motion. I really feel like we should continue this item uh only because like again I've got no problem with north of 90% of it. But we're not allowed to cherrypick things out um necessarily and I'm not sure how effective it is to make a motion and say that we're recommending council adopt everything except a list. I've got that as an alternate motion. Um I think if we were to continue this item to a date certain um it would allow for some of this language to get clarified before it comes back here. It would effectively let today function as uh the workshop that I wish

we would have had um on this. It would allow the city attorney to have a full review on their stuff. It would add the added benefit of uh allowing some of our other commissioners who are out for health reasons today um to to participate because I think getting seven opinions as opposed to five is always going to benefit both staff and city council. Um, I'm not sure that there's an appetite among my fellow commissioners to actually continue this, but if I were to make my alternate motion, then I've got two, four, six, seven items that I'm going to say we would not support. Um, so I think I am going to defer and just let you guys know I have that motion in my pocket. Um, and then ask my fellow commissioners to kind of weigh in and see what their thoughts are. Thank you, chair. Thank you, Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you, Chair. Um, first of all, I am always amazed at the uh professionalism and work that goes into these things. Congratulations on doing this year after year after year because it's a huge amount of work and um just the prospect of continuing to the next meeting I'm sure was like a you know a gut punch because you're like well we're at the finish or on one of the finish lines here and um maybe we continue and cause more work for you. So want to acknowledge that. But I also want to uh recognize the community for always coming out. Um and I'm always amazed at how much um due diligence is done and how much attention to detail there is. These comment letters and and the speakers bring up issues that you know nine times out of 10 I'm looking at going like, "Oh, I didn't see that. Good good point." And and then obviously that's why you're doing it. So I appreciate that. Um, overall I'm in agreement with my colleague that 95 maybe% of this is great. I think it's overall a huge improvement to the code and and a lot of common sense stuff in here. Um, of course there's always just the things that are controversial or create additional questions or ambiguity that we need to address. So, uh, I have a list of questions here. I'm going to make them quick because I Commissioner Bumau really addressed a lot of this stuff. Um and maybe we can do a fire, you know, a quick fire round here. Um so item number 39, the tenative maps item. Um will this apply in the EMX zones? Is that can that be clarified?

Yes.

Perfect. Okay. um the omission of the land uses from the Myiar ALUCP table. Is that the the comment that there were certain land uses that should have been included in that table that were excluded? Was that erroneous or was that on purpose? Um we receive as you're aware um comments from members of the public in an open portal and the um one of the suggestions that is included in this update included the land uses specifically that are identified in the materials before you to come to our attention uh rather recently that additional land uses were desired to be included. Uh we did not include those uh because those were not evaluated um as part of our overall process. we'd be happy to include them um as a future code update or if this commission feels strongly to include in the recommendation, that's certainly something that we can consider as we move the item to uh city council hearings.

Okay. But they the answer is they were not intentionally excluded. It was just they weren't brought up in the comment that you reviewed. Okay. Thank you. um on uh fire setbacks. Uh I actually I contrary to uh Commissioner Boomhower, I the way I read it was exactly I think as it was intended, which this is just notifying and clarifying that there may be other requirements included. So I don't actually have a real problem with that. It's we're talking about, you know, state law and and and dealing with um codes that we don't as a city have control over. So, making sure that applicants are able to look at that and know that the setbacks that are stated in the code may not be the only thing they have to think about. I I think that that makes sense to me. Um Um I have a a question on I think this is a downtown one. um the private property for community focused events. Um so I'm sorry I don't have the item number. I'm not as prepared as as uh Commissioner Boomhower here with all his item numbers and well thoughtout comments. So, um there's an item and I can pull it up because I do have it. Um rec regarding um I'm sorry. Just a moment. Oh, I'm not finding it. Darn it. Okay. Oh, here it is. Um item 27, the use of private property for temporary community focused uses in downtown. Um how does this we have a placemaking permit or placemaking ordinance that effectively does this? So

would this replace that or does it how does that work hand in hand with the placemaking ordinance? So placem is a separate use identified in the downtown use table and that is also permitted use within the downtown area. Um, outdoor activities are more focused on temporary uses on private property. So, this fills a gap that the placem doesn't cover in the downtown area because the placemaking is for five years, I believe, right? Is it's a 5-year permit with a five-year extension. I'm getting a nod from uh Mr. Shfish. That That's okay. The five years. Five years. Okay. Thumbs up. Um, and this would be for events or uses that are less than five years and fill that. Okay. Yeah.

Yes, that's correct. Thank you for that clarification. Um I do want to so on the moving on on the airport landing compatibility plan for downtown for the for um San Diego International Airport. Those um updating our code to reflect what is in the um the airport adopted code um is obviously um expected. But has this has there been outreach to the downtown community on these changes? I am aware that the airport authority didn't do a ton of outreach before making these changes and so I don't know how aware property owners in Bankers Hill and downtown are as to the impacts from changing the threshold sighting surfaces and the one engine inoperable um surfaces. Those actually will have a negative impact on developable the development possibilities in like Little Italy, Bangers Hill, and Cortez Hill.

Yeah, I think this was a part of the uh city-wide items. Um, no, this was not specifically uh shared with uh the downtown community.

Okay. Um, I would just encourage between now and city council that there be conversations around that because just adopting what the airport did doesn't necessarily mean the airport did the right thing in their outreach and I have concerns with regard to how those changes actually do impact land use. Um, so just comment there. Um, okay. Let's see. I'm going to skip a few of these. They're not of major concern. And I know we're tight on time. Um, okay. So, for the the VMT buyout fee, how are those can those be earmarked for for specific neighborhoods where the impacts are really felt or are they city-wide?

They are citywide. They would go into the active transportation in Luffy fund. Um, those are allocated specifically in the city's most BMT efficient communities for active transportation improvements. We really try to stay away from allocating funds for particular communities or particular projects due to us uh accumulating small dollar amounts in multiple different funds and not being able to expend the infrastructure dollars anywhere

and I totally get that. I I understand that that was sort of the the status quo before and it was a problem. Um the communities uh the letter from Rancho Bernado I believe called this out and and I do recognize that if a developer is paying fees because they're not going to meet the VMT requirements yet on a development up there um and then those fees go into citywide fund and aren't necessarily spent to you know bring infrastructure or improvements to that area that's affected. that can create a problem where people you know those there's sort of a siphoning off of resources to other areas and then that negatively impacts. Yeah. So I think I can provide a little bit of clarification on the scope of this particular amendment. This particular amendment only applies to buying out of the requirement to provide on-site VMT reducing measures. Those requirements only apply in the city's most VMT efficient uh mobility zones. The act transportation fee um applies in mobility zone 4 which are the least efficient areas of the city. Um and by design when mobility choices was adopted in 2020, it was intended to shift the dollars to fund the improvements in the more VMT efficient zones because you get more uh VMT and therefore greenhouse gas emissions reductions per every dollar that you spend when you're spending it in more densely populated areas. Um so from a climate perspective that's the most efficient way um to achieve that. Um I will say the overall revenue that comes into this particular fund is relatively small compared to the overall infrastructure dollars that come in um for other improvements. This is in addition to the mobility impact fee that is charged to all new development as well. Okay, that's help. That last piece is is super helpful, too. Um because while I recognize there are efficiencies in, you know, pushing those dollars to the most efficient, you know, areas of

town where you can make the dollars go further, it does still leave um a gap where there are less, you know, transit resources and other ways for people to get around other than their vehicles. and then um you know it it exacerbates the problem when they're not paying into something right. So if there's a way to just make sure that there are uh resources being deployed um in other ways to make sure that you know those um you know those impacts that are felt by those communities are reduced or lessened that would be important. Um one question on the previous use conforming or pre previously conforming use the uh item how is that enforced? So, um I guess the question is it's a through is it through a neighborhood use permit and then what are the um grounds for denying such a permit if if somebody were to oppose?

They are the standard findings that are required for all neighborhood development. It's just the blanket and you things. Okay.

Okay. Um, that's all I had for questions. Um, I will just reiterate um some of what I've heard and and and um uh share my concerns with, for example, the diff waiverss for small units. I know that when this brought was brought forward, it was under a different paradigm and these um the diff fees being at a fixed dollar amount for any size unit basically made those the smaller projects and not pencil and micro units. When this was brought forward, I remember there was a concerted effort. We wanted more micro units to be built because that's for, you know, to to use a cliche, naturally occurring um affordable units, right? Those are units we want built. Even though they don't work for families and they don't work for other things that are also the goals of the city, those are important units. And if we're going to start reintroducing diff fees to um these really small units, we're probably going to see a a diminishing effect on how many of those units get built. Um I want to be aware of that. I recognize that there's a scaling um you know we're seeing now diffs being scaled so it won't be as detrimental as the basically blanket um you know impossibility that used to exist but it'll still we're we should be aware that that'll have a negative impact. I myself am concerned that we will be um creating a situation where we're not going to see micro units built anymore and that that workforce housing production will be hurt by this.

One thing I do want to highlight is in complete communities there uh does currently exist and there is no proposed change uh for a diff waiver for the affordable units. So most of the complete communities projects uh while that 61 number that I had provided to Commissioner Boomhower um there are other micro units uh that are being um waved their development impact fees um due to the um recordation of the deed restriction

and that's great and right but I'm I'm concerned about the the you know naturally occurring stuff the the workforce housing that's being built that people can afford to use without going to the housing commission and getting a voucher Right. Um, so I I I'm not uh I would like to see a compromise. I know there's one been one proposed, so I think that it's important to maybe uh table this item and for further discussion. I know we can't pull it out and do that, but um we'll see where where this motion leads. Um transition planes, thank you for the clarification. Um, I think putting something in there that helps to define, you know, that across the street from a park, across the street from lower density zoning. Um, you don't need to see that transition plane because it could be confusing. Um, 65 degrees isn't super I I'm not a builder, but I don't think it's super impactful. um when you know in most neighborhoods we're not seeing street wall you know towers go up that don't have stepbacks or setbacks from the property line but I do want to be cognizant that this will potentially reduce the density that we can achieve in neighborhoods where we're trying to put density. Um the trees and shrubs issue I agree it introduc introduces ambiguity. Um, keep in mind that, you know, hundreds of reviewers are looking at these things and sort of taking their own interpretation of them and that slows down the process when they say, "Looks like this code says, you know, we need to protect trees and shrubs." And then you get three review cycles later and you're still arguing what the code really meant. So while I don't I agree that it doesn't change what's in the code, it does create a slowdown or a

bottleneck opportunity for um for development when we're dealing with, you know, people who are just doing their best, you know, trying trying their best to understand what the code says. Um and then last thing I'll say is on the downtown specific amendments, um well done. I think the a lot of really common sense stuff. I I I like almost all of it. Um and I, you know, the use of density bonuses I think is great. I I'll say where we're seeing um projects not achieve the existing density that's allowed. Density bonuses don't have an impact, but it doesn't hurt, right? Is it is a a net benefit to have that there and I I agree with it. I just I would love to see us look for other ways to encourage density and maximizing density rather than um you know in addition to the density bonus tool in the toolbox. Um the es especially like the tower the changes to small lots and the tower um the requirements to the I'm sorry the the elimination of requirements to like for tower lot coverage and setbacks and stepbacks. I'm sorry. Um I think that makes a lot of sense. Um we Commissioner Bumau mentioned it, but we really need to tackle the 10-year um building defects issue if we're going to see for sale units go up in downtown. Period. I don't think Density Bonus is going to achieve much here. It's great. It's another tool, but I it's it's a litigation that's causing nobody to want to take on the task of building condos in downtown. Um, so that is all I will say for now. I'm gonna um also defer. I think that um I

am open to uh tableabling to the next uh meeting or to a special meeting if we need to move on this. I again say that with all recognition that that's not what you want to hear and um it is creates more work for everyone. But I think that we're not fully there on a number of these items and unless we're going to make a motion with um pulling out specific items and it gets really messy, it might be worth all of us coming back with something that we're comfortable with in a couple of weeks. Uh Commissioner Mahara,

thank you for the presentation. Uh I also want to acknowledge um the amount of work that goes into the code updates. Um refining our um land development code is so necessary. It's no small undertaking. Uh and these uh changes are incredibly important. Uh it helps maintain transparency. Uh it reduces ambiguity and uh I can't overemphasize um the need for predictability. Uh we're making it easier and faster to build housing and also encouraging housing in more places. Uh some of the changes that I really appreciated included um exempting uh projects from a bond uh with completion costs less than $100,000, requiring uh on-site supportive services and permanent supportive housing developments. I think that was a really good addition. um inclusionary housing methods of compliance, removing the the 5% um safeguard. Uh I think the intent to really just have um inclusionary housing in high and highest was a a good change. Uh I also support the change in allowing uh a developer to to sell uh affordable housing units to a nonprofit. Um markets are tough right now, so that was a a great change. Um, I was also glad to see moderate income increased from 110% up to 120% AMI. I think expanding eligibility recognizes the the growing number of people that are really struggling uh and cost burdened by housing. Uh, I also like that um we're creating housing for artists or at least the opportunity to do that as well as recognizing um that we might start to see some shared housing developments.

Uh, and I also really liked that we included the streamlined small lot uh subdivision regulations. I know we had to do that, but I also think uh that we're going to see some more of this type of housing, especially with uh what I think the mayor's office um suggested was a new initiatives, the homes for all initiative. I think we're going to start to see some small lot development going on here in the city. Uh so with that, I'm going to keep my questions uh and concerns short. I think they were covered pretty well by um the commissioner so far. I did have a question on um whether or not there are differences in moderate income targets for rental versus for sale. I think the answer to that is yes, but can staff confirm that?

I can I can take a look into that?

I think for for sale it it it's keyed off of 100% 110% AMI. So, I'm curious if that's driven by state law or what, but why why can't um for sale and and rental be the same? I think that they should be if the law allows for that. Um on item 17, um fire separation, distance, and setback requirements. Um, you know, I think that the the question was answered, but um that there's any way to make it more explicit. Uh that it's based on specific adopted regulations such as the CBC or Title 24. Uh I I think that would be welcomed by the development community. So I I would love for staff to look at that. Um, I also thought that item 34, the landscape regulations, um, tree and shrubs, it's still unclear to me, um, whether or not there are still circumstances where an applicant might might still need to interpret um, multiple standards in order to determine compliance. So, cleaning that up or making it more certain would be helpful in my mind. I haven't had time to fully digest the building transition planes. Uh I think I do need more time to really understand what this means uh and potential impacts it could create uh especially when um there could be unintended consequences that could potentially constrain housing production. So I too am open to uh delaying this to a date certain meeting so that we can address some of the concerns that commissioners have raised as well as uh public comment that we have received from uh the community

and and that's all. Thanks Commissioner Ranger.

What more is there to say? I think um I think it's very important that we do continue to take a look at our land development code and update it to provide greater clarity and um to make sure that you know there there's um clarity really right clarity and and um updates based on what's going on today and what the goals are for the city. Um so so thank you all for uh working on these very important things. I I have far fewer um items that I'm you know questioning at this point or or wanting clarity on. Um but there are about three or four that um as Boomhower says give me heartburn if you will. uh and um I started to write that you know I I am seeking clarity on what we're what we would actually be voting on and given that we can't necessarily amend the language right now to provide that clarity on some of these items um I'm in support of uh a continuation um to a later time just so that we have greater clarity on what the language is, that the intent is clear, and that um we feel um I guess more um clear on the the full impact this will have on future land use. Um so

I I would support a continuation. That's what I would say.

Thank you. Um probably going to echo some of the things that uh my fellow commissioners have said. Um want to go through the ones that obviously I'm supportive of. Um number five, removing that 5% uh requirement. It was very difficult to find out what the percentage was. Um that information is not very easy to find. So, I'm glad that that is um removed from the code. Um supportive of the for sale units for complete communities. Of course, the 10-year tale on construction defect law is a challenge that is not under your control. Um number 14, uh the the calculating the gross floor area for multiple zonings. that that can be very confusing and so I think this clears it up and I think this is a good good one to add. Um I also support the uh removal of the cannabis leaf symbol. I think I think we don't need that anywhere. So thank you for doing that. Um, okay. That's that's my uh yays. Um, I am in agreement um about the uh development um impact fee waiver for the the small units. I I I understand that the concern is that we are incentivizing only small units. We have an abundance of these etc. Um but I still think that they are important to development. Um but at the same token I'd like to see larger units but they're very difficult to make quote unquote pencil. People don't like to hear that phrase but that's really that's a challenge to make

larger units um financially feasible. What I would recommend is to incentivize that diff waiver. So you can get the diff waiver if you um include a certain percentage of the units as two-bedroom or a certain percentage of the units as threebedroom. That way then developers can you know weigh that and see if that helps the financials of a project to get more larger units in in each project. So that's how I would address it. Um we need incentives. We don't need, you know, punitive measures to try to do the best that we can. Um, number 17, the fire separation. The intent of this land development code is to eliminate um ambiguity. And this to me is actually increasing ambiguity. Um, maybe I I didn't go and read that fire code that it's referencing, so I don't really know, but developers need certainty. Um, and they need to know what that is. The way I read this is that it's at the fire marshall's whim what that setback could be. And to me, I don't think that that's appropriate. So if there's some kind of um parameters or limitations or something on what that reach could be, I think that needs to be addressed in the code. Um the landscape regulations number 34. Um I really don't like this. What is the definition of shrubs? Weeds. I'm this is a legitimate question. What is the definition of shrubs?

Um, so, um, as the commissioner pointed out, that's not included. Um, this item was a request, um, from that we received through the public portal. Um, so again, staff is happy to take your recommendation um, including a recommendation to remove that item. And then just going back one item on the fire setbacks. Um, I'm hearing, you know, some this provides clar clarification, some it doesn't, which means that it's confusing. Um and so uh we would also welcome your recommendation. Um there's a couple of uh possibilities that I see. One would be to remove the language completely um and remove that item and then uh focus on sharing information through an information bulletin. Uh the other one would be to further refine the language that is proposed in the land development code and we're open to your recommendations on that as well.

I mean I would like to see it further refined. Um, but I know that it's really a case- by case basis. So, I know that this is a difficult one. Um, but to me, there's got to be like no more than 50% of the existing setback or something like that to be included.

Yeah. And the the complication with that is it depends on the circumstances of each particular parcel and the application of the fire code. and we can't through the land development code regulations override public health and safety requirements that that come from there. I think what we could do is, you know, clearly identify that it's um, you know, not in the full discretion of the the fire marshall, but in the discretion of the fire marshall to apply the requirements of the fire code. Um, and as Seth had recommended before, focus on the defensible space rather than using the terminology for the setback. Yeah, I think the defensible space is more appropriate um for people to understand because they'll generally know what that should be on their site, but without that language, it's like what what could be determined here? People just don't understand.

Yeah, that's helpful. Thank you.

Okay. Um I think the shrub thing and the tree thing needs to be removed. To me, this is um a very naive uh code amendment, and I don't mean to be offensive, but it it's as though the people who put this in have no experience in construction whatsoever. When you go and have to develop a site, you clear and grub. You have to get everything out of there. You can't just leave a shrub or a tree. Like, it doesn't work. So, to me, this is um very strange and I I think it needs to be removed completely. Um, can you answer uh a n number 99 the fee increases? How are the fee increases established now for the the diff fees?

They're established by I'm sorry, for development impact fees or for appeal fees. uh public facility regulations automatic annual increases based on the construction cost index um for development impact that is that is how they are determined at this time the CPI uh no they're based on the construction cost index okay okay so this is just clarifying it just putting it in

that's correct yes it's just a cleanup got um the transition zones. This is complicated. This isn't an easy one for us to go through and just understand the impacts. I think this needs to be this item particularly needs to be workshopped. Um cuz with reading all of this in in a week, I couldn't really sit down and understand how this could impact projects. That's that's my own personal opinion. It's it's a little overwhelming for me. Um and amidst hundreds of these things that you know that we're going through, that one really needed a lot of time.

Yeah. So on that one as well, the intent was to carry over the regulations that had been applied in universities hill in Hillrest over to other areas uh where there is um the transition from a higher density to a lower density. I think based off of the feedback that we've heard um from you today that that uh does require additional information. So, we'd be happy again to take your recommendation um on any changes to it. Um although I understand that it's been complicated and so you're not ready to provide that. So, we would also be ready to receive your recommendation to remove the item before it moves to city council. Okay. And the last one, which is the Myiramar, I I do think that those things need to align um so it's not pick and choose on certain things and it to me that kind of creates a conflict. So I'd like to see um that aligned.

Yeah, that's a great recommendation as well. Um and again happy to receive that recommendation from this commission. Um that's something that we can more fully fully evaluate. As I had mentioned, we received that quest request after we had been preparing the materials. Um but we did take a look at it more recently and it does appear that those land uses are also consistent with the airport land use compatibility plan. Um so that's something that we can um confirm um and uh work to include as the item proceeds. Thank you. Um so my perspective is you know largely unsupportive of this document. Um and there are a few things that I think just need a little tweaking or need need more time like the transition planes I think needs needs more time. Um I personally would like to um appro you know recommend approval of this with the modifications of the items that we would like to modify versus continuing it. Um but I'm I'm open to continuing it. Um if if you don't think that that's enough. Um so I'd like to understand each of the commissioners kind of perspectives on that. Chair Modane, I'm sorry. I also have some additional information regarding Commissioner Boomhower's question on the um pool heater. I'm and able to provide that whenever you would like.

Yeah, go ahead. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, so while we don't have a list of all of the the um heaters that would meet the the requirements, we did develop the regulations in concert with the California building uh or energy codes and standards team and um based the regulations on a cost effectiveness study that was prepared that looked at the products that are available on the market and demonstrated their cost effectiveness in um providing uh electric and solar thermal pool heating. So our regulations are consistent with that. Additionally, the state already has these requirements in place for new construction um which indicates that these products are um available readily available on the market. So, our proposed regulations would be expanding that not only to new construction, but to existing construction that triggers the climate action plan consistency regulations, which is new development that results in um three or more total dwelling units or non-residential development that adds more than 1,000 square feet and results in 5,000 ft or more of total area. Uh my perspective on that is the retrofit is very difficult to go from gas to electric heat pump. It's not just a swap. It's all new infrastructure. Sometimes you might have to uh upsize your transformer and that is not a fun process. Um I'm talking you know specifically retrofit for existing existing product but um that's my opinion on the on the pool. Um if we could uh Commissioner Reeves.

Um thank you chair. I I actually am I'm glad you were I didn't mean to interrupt you because I think you were going here, but um the I have a question for staff in a way regarding um timing. So my understanding is this is going to committee next month, right? So like that's early March.

The next line use and housing committee hearing is March 5th. So my question, I'm sort of rethinking this and I'm in agreement with the chair that maybe it makes more sense, but I wanted to ask how this would work. Makes more sense to make a recommendation of approval of the vast majority of these and then pull out the ones that think we think either need to be struck or re-evaluated. Um, and then for those that need to be re-evaluated, would we wait until the next LDC update and do that next year?

Um, as you may be aware, uh, we do have limited staffing resources available in our department. We have a variety of other um, high priority um, initiatives that we're working on. Um, we are happy to come back um, you know, and whatever it takes. This is an important item as well and we want you guys to be able to have the time to get it right. Um my request uh would be to get a recommendation from this planning commission on the items um of support as well as an items to recommend to pull um and items requesting further clarification before it moving to hearings. um for the items, you know, recommended to pull, um we would most likely fold those into the next um comprehensive land development code update because they would be too small of an item to efficiently work into our work program.

That and that's kind of what I thought makes sense to me. So, I'm comfortable with that approach, but I I'm I will defer because I see other people on the on the lights here. Vice Chair Boom Mau,

here's my concern. Um, at at the risk of sounding petulant, we made recommendations on the Claremont community plan update uh with staff's assurance that that would be considered and those recommendations would be presented to council and you did consider it as city planning and then you said we don't think it's feasible and we recommend going with our original plan despite what planning commission said. So, I'm you'll have to apologize. You You'll have to forgive me if I'm not willing to just say, "Sure, we'll make recommendations and trust that you guys are going to do what we recommend." Um cuz I just don't I've been seeing that lately. Um so, I am still of the opinion that continuing this makes sense. Um, not just for that reason, but because I think some of these things could be resolved with a little bit of staff work. I know you have other competing priorities. Um, and we could pack move most of this package forward. I think there are probably a few things that could come out. I'm certainly prepared to um I I don't have it all here in front of me, but I am certainly prepared to provide um some some feedback language to staff for consideration on on some of these to try to clear it up. But I'm I I I'm just not comfortable trying to do a bifurcated here's here's what we're good with, here's here's what we think needs more study and and whatnot before it moves forward. I'd like to hear from uh the other commissioners on their take of whether or not we can approve recommendation with the modification of certain and removal of certain items or if you would prefer a continuence.

Well, Boomhower just uh Commissioner Boomhower just addressed one of my concerns, right? Um but if we can get staff to commit to what we discussed today, I could get comfortable moving this forward. I mean, I think if we're going to strike certain things like, and I know there's probably some mixed thoughts on, you know, the the fire setback separation, whether or not we clarify it or just remove it in its entirety, the um transition planes, and then item 34, the landscape regulations. If we remove that, I could get comfortable real quick. Um, and then the one question that I did have uh on the 110 versus 120, I'd like that to be clarified and, you know, to the extent legally permissible because it's not driven by state requirements uh to have that revised so that we're treating rental and for sale the same. But I I could get comfortable moving this forward um based on, you know, staff committing to um certain things in in terms of what commissioners might like to see today.

Commissioner Ranger, I'm flexible um to a certain extent. Um my only reservation is that some commissioners had a much longer list than mine. And so what would we remove? What would we make um revisions to? Um I think if we can find that alignment, I'm fine moving it forward. But I don't I don't know if the items that give me heartache, heartburn, um align with the other four commissioners. So again, I'm flexible. I think it's just a matter of defining which ones we remove, which ones we revise, which ones we leave. Uh mine if if mine are um and and this one's difficult because uh you know we talked a lot about the div fees to say div fees. We're saying feif fees anyway but it just feels right to say div fees right. Um

go with what feels right.

Thank you. We'll do. Um so I I like what Commissioner um Modí said about incentivizing as opposed to penalizing. And um again it's it's so different than what is being proposed in the language currently that I don't know how to revise that or how to amend it so that you know we're we're all comfortable with it with the direction um that we're proposing on that. Um yeah I for the fire separation that was one of my items if we define it in a way that it's not a setback because setback has a certain connotation rather than defensible space. So if we either um can come up with language to agree on that or just remove it for now I would be okay with that. Um and the building building building transition buffers. That's another heartburn of mine. Um and I think uh other commissioners have indicated that it does seem um in contradiction to some of our community plan updates and and the goals for you know densification. So those three are are hard for me. So those are my heartburns. Um, I don't know if others have a a longer list, but if if I were to be su succinct and and the landscape one, I mean, I could take it or leave it, like take it out or, you know, or or revise the language. Those were really my three or four that I have heartburn over.

Um if I chair mod um with respect to the transition zone and the landscape items um we uh staff can withdraw those from consideration at this time if that's helpful to this commission. Yes, I think 3491. Um I also think 17 needs needs to be removed the fire one until we can come up with more defined unless we can modify it to the defensible space. My suggestion with that one would be to get a recommendation from the commission to request that staff address that issue to provide that clarification. Okay. I'm taking lots of notes here because this is getting a little complicated. Um

me too. which which is why I was saying continuation as opposed to trying and amend the language for every I think that's just going to be hard.

Sorry, I didn't mean to step on you. That that's my concern and that's really frankly one of my bigger reasons for suggesting that we do this is cuz I think I think council relies on this planning commission and our recommendations because they expect us and we are the subject matter experts and I'm concerned that if we're trying it's we we all know it's a lot. I mean, it took us as subject matter experts a lot of effort to get through this and to think about it. If we're trying to make changes on the fly and then council's getting uh a muddy motion, you know, with some things, then I that that really I think starts to become problematic and I think it would I think we would be better served by continuing this. Um, and just for those of you keeping score at home, I would actually be thinking uh continue to a date certain of April 16th only because um we've already got a bunch on the agenda for the March meeting um and there's currently nothing on the schedule for the 7 or for the 16th that keeps us within the 60 days um for us to be able to rehear the item um without it being going through without our recommendation. Um, that that's my thing. I'm just afraid that we're going to try to keep this moving and not be able to give staff and council the clarity that that they might prefer.

Chair, are you done? Commissioner, sorry, we're sort of jumping on top of each other here. So, I just want to um be respectful of Commissioner Boomer. You finished, correct? Okay. Um, I understand the comp the problems that come along with some we want you to pull all together. Some we want to recommend some change in language that we're going to draft on the fly here at the dis. Um, I don't think that's great. I would suggest if we do want to keep the ball rolling on this, make a recommendation that pulls out the items that we have concerns with altogether. Just pull them out. let those come forward next year in the LDC update. Um giving us ample time to really think through it and um offer like really thoughtful recommendations on how to approach those stickier issues. Um and then let the rest of these go through and and keep the ball rolling. um if there's something that just needs to be in this LDC update, maybe the fire setback one. It sounded like um the director was concerned with removing that. Okay, maybe we can consider that. But I I would be if we're going to vote to make a recommendation today, I would say let's just do it in the column yes and the column not for now. I'm leaning towards trying to get this uh recommendation done today. Um this has been a long time coming. I know it was derailed from other initiatives. Um but this is truly the 2025 land development code update and we're now in 2026 and it probably will not get approved till halfway through the year. So I'm inclined to try to push this forward. My question to staff is um I I also agree that we don't really want to

be drafting language on the dis that is where mistakes and stuff can happen. So um I agree to an extent about removing um some of the items that are in question. Um I've got that as the shrub one um in the transition planes. That those are the two big ones that I think need to be paused. Well, the shrub one I think should go away entirely forever, but um the transition planes, we need time to really digest that. Um the diff waiverss on the small units, that's a tough one to, you know, kind of craft language or recommendation um language on the dis. However, um I've got a question for staff. Would you be willing to remove that one at this time or would you prefer that we come up with some language? So, I do want to clarify and I I I I don't mean this in any kind of disrespectful way, but this commission's recommendation is a recommendation to the decision-making body. So even when staff has presented in the past items that do not precisely conform with the planning commission recommendation, we do include the planning commission's recommendations in the materials and as well as the briefings to the council members. So I I want to provide that clarification. Um so with respect to the diff waiver item, um there could be a recommendation from this commission to remove the item. um or there could be a recommendation to make modifications to the item that will then uh be developed into a proposal that advances to the hearing stage with the planning commission's recommendation included in that. So again, your recommendation definitely informs what is brought forward. Um but I cannot make a commitment at this time um that the precise language that this commission includes is what will be presented to

the decision makers. What I can commit to you because uh we have withdrawn for consideration is the two items with respect to the transition plan as well as the landscape regulation that that would not proceed um because that would be that that is no longer being considered part of this package. Okay. So those two will be removed from Yes, we are removing that from this package. Okay. At this time.

Okay. Um, so in terms of the ones that we're recommending modifications to, I'm going to go through the the items that I have on my list and just confirm that this commission is also in agreement with those. Um number seven which is the diff waiverss. I would say um you can get the the small unit uh waiver should you add 10% of your overall units either at two or threebedroom. I think that that's something that incentivizes developers to put larger units to kind of counterbalance those small units. Um number 17 which is the fire separation and um crafting the language around defensible space number 92 which is aligning the table with the LU L A L UCP. So that is consistent. That's what I have on my list. I don't know if if I missed something from other commissioners that also needs to be addressed.

Item 39 was the tenative map labor uh clarifying language to get it to clarify that it applies to EMX. Um, for that one, what I could offer up there is, uh, that, um, we add language, the some sort of purpose and intent language to that item in the code. The other one that still really bothers me, chair, is item nine, which is the spot zoning prohibition on self storage in mid cities. But that doesn't have to be a hill I die on.

Do any other commissioners uh have heartburn like uh uh vice chair on this item? Okay. Are there any other items on your list that should be addressed? The only thing I'd say about the 10% you threw out there for two bedrooms. I'd like to see it as a higher bedroom type like three bedroom. I

Yeah, that we're seeing one bedrooms at 5, six, 700 ft². So, um yeah, I'd like to see this is an exchange of benefits, right? And I rely on staff that they're making the right recommendations to this body. And if they're saying we want to remove the exemption altogether, I I think that that's meaningful to me. To clarify though, it's just on the complete communities, right? Does that exemption still remain in uh the inclusionary housing section? um inclusionary housing um is there is no def applied to the required inclusionary housing units already, right?

And then outside of inclusionary housing and outside of complete communities housing solutions, there is no currently a diff waiver for the small units, there is a lower fee for units that are 500 ft or less. That's right. Okay. Thanks for clarifying that. But yeah, if if we could get that to maybe like a three-bedroom typology at 10%, I could get on board with that. Okay. Three bedrooms are difficult just because of egress and you have to have all those extra windows and so when you do 10% let's say on a 100 unit project that means 10 units are typically we have five stories of wood. So that means two end end caps have to be the three bedrooms.

I get it. But there's also an exemption on the fee for threebedroom, right? There is. So it would be stocking of an incentive for the threebedroom. Okay, I can get behind that. Can the other commissioners get behind that? Yes. Okay. So, um, we have a motion. No motion. Did you make a motion? Okay. Nobody's made a motion yet. Can I make one more comment before we get to a motive part?

Um, again, not to beat a dead horse, a lot of this could have been avoided if we workshopped this. Just saying. I'm going to go ahead and say it. My terms up at the end of the year. Um, okay. I'm going to make a motion that we recommend council adoption of all of the items in uh the 2026 land development code with the exceptions of item 34 and item 91 which we asked to be removed. Item 17, which we asked to have clarified with language stating its defensible space versus setbacks. Item number seven, the diff waiverss in which we recommend incentive language, which um I don't fully understand. 10% of the overall units would be three bedrooms to unlock the diff waiver for the units uh 500 ft or less.

That's my motion. Sabrina, we'll we we'll get with you. Was it two and threebedroom units or just threebedroom units? Did we get a three? I think we modified it the threebedroom 10% overall at three bedrooms to unlock the the diff waiver. What about item number 92, the Mariramar? I'm sorry. And item number 92 in which we have to clarify the language on the use table for the Miramar and number 39, the tenative map to apply to EMX also that this is why it's got to be a team effort. So that's my comprehensive list that I've

I had it here. I just was jumping around trying to be clear and I screwed it up. Okay. Do you need to include clarification in the motion or is that something separate? I do have the question on the 110% versus 120 for rental versus for sale. Want staff to look at that? I think that's a good good one. Yes, it is to the extent they can lift that up to 120 for the for sale. I'd ask them having an alignment on that I think is important. What number is that? We're looking for it. Please don't ask me to repeat all of it. I believe it's item 76.

I'm not going to ask you to repeat all of it. Um, but did you want to include anything on item number nine because you mentioned it earlier? I'm afraid that that doesn't have the support of the rest of the commission. So, I'm willing to keep this as a clean motion. Claire is mud. Sabrina. Okay. Um, okay. We have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. I have a second. We can go to a vote unless there's any other comments. Okay.

And that passes unanimously. Thank you. We can go on to item number three when staff is ready. Uh thank you, chair. Uh so we uh item three is as stated in the memo for this item. Uh the city's office of boards and commissions was created to support operations for the city's 49 boards and commissions. The annual reporting requirement of the standardized report of city boards and commissions documents the meetings, actions, volunteer hours, and vacancies of a city board or commission within a calendar year time frame. The report also provides an opportunity to provide input to the city council. Uh the report includes the planning commission's report um the which is due to the office of boards and commissions by May 1st of each year and the request before you today is uh on today's agenda fulfills our requirements to the office of boards and commissions. Most of the content in the report is data driven and includes the number of hearings, number of meetings canled, actions taken and board vacancies. There are two items in the report of which uh required specific feedback from the planning commission members. concerns or suggestions to bring to the city council and volunteer hours. Staff requested commissioner feedback regarding these two items and has provided that information in the draft form. Any additional comments you may have today will be incorporated into the final report and presented to the office of boards and commissions. And I'd just like to state a a moment of appreciation of all the time and effort that each of you put into this effort as exhibited here today. That concludes uh the summary of the item and uh we're requesting a motion of approval of the report. So moved.

I'll second. Sorry. Do we need public comment? Yeah. Thank you. We have no public speakers on this. The And there are no uh comment speakers as well. So does that close public comment? Are there any commission comment? Okay, we have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote and that passes unanimously. And that concludes our hearing for today.