Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Thank you.

Good morning and welcome to the Planning Commission hearing for March 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 via a hybrid format. this meeting will be live streamed on the city's website members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the zoom zoom webinar platform members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes the virtual queue will close five minutes after in-person testimony ends all Also per section 2.6.2 A 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 present in chambers. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony. Thank you, Vice Chair Boomhauer.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip if you wish to speak. In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins. Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the Planning Commission's webpage. Or you may dial 1-669-254-5252. The webinar ID is 160-407-5570. Please note that if you are watching online, there may be a 30-second delay. Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak. Thank you.

Thank you. I'll now take the roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Marlborough. Present. Commissioner Miyahara. Present. Commissioner Reeves. Present. Commissioner Renger. Present. Commissioner Mazzari. Present. Why I took you out of order, I will never know. Vice Chair Boomhauer is present and Chair Modane is absent, which is why you're stuck with me today. Staff members present with us today are Michael Prins, Assistant Deputy Director from Development Services, Shannon Eckmeyer, Deputy City Attorney, Tate Galloway, Deputy Director for City Planning, Eric Musselgoe, senior civil engineer for the engineering division and our phenomenal legislative staff. We'll now begin our agenda with public comment for non-agenda items. This portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda. Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony. If you'd like to speak virtually, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. David Modi will be our first speaker. You'll have three minutes.

My thanks to staff for providing water.

We have one online speaker.

Yes, that concludes our in-person non-agenda comment. We do have one online speaker, Doreen Diaz-Pesta. Please unmute yourself. You will have three minutes.

Good morning. This is Doreen Diaz-Pesta speaking on behalf of the Hammershaw Neighborhood Council. We have a concern with the 1441 woodrow ave project which submitted an application and my mind has fraud on it because the application clearly states empty lot this lot is not empty this lot has a house therefore that should constitute fraud i've been talking about this since march of 2025 The other issue is now this so-called empty lot with the vacant house has now done a demolition permit on that same project. This is a project with 13 new homes. It has existing homes. say they're going to now demo and then they're going to replace the 1299 square foot home with a single family home that is 448 square feet and I said single family I did not say ADU bonus plus 12 ADU bonus And how can this city approve a demolition permit on a empty lot, E-M-P-T-Y, empty lot, separate from a vacant home? The home is vacant. The home has had embatement letters. The application had fraud and said no fraud. abatement letters on file when they've had numerous for over five years both before they bought and when they bought they have get it done complaint that this property is not fenced off for safety it's violating that abatement letter that was sent in 2021 and i want to know why developers are not required to comply with ethics and why they have not been charged with perjury i've done public request forms and i have not received any with a wet signature to see if it has that clause that they are signing on the penalty and perjury and if they are then this definitely should have this application be cleared inaccurate since it states empty lot, since they falsely said that it had no steep grades when it has three or four steep grades over 25%. When they said that all buildings will occur in 2025, yet the ground has not been broken. when there's a whole list I've sent you of all the fraud just in this application. And then after being notified by the San Diego Museum of Natural History, signed by the senior paleontologist, that this lot has very high sensitive paleontology. Thank you.

Your time is concluded.

Okay. Uh, that concludes non-agenda public comment. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn?

No.

Okay. Uh, we, uh, there are any items that are requests to place any items on consent. Commissioner Marlboro.

Yes, chair. I'd like to place item number two on consent.

Um, Is there? Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on item two? I have one slip but it says just not seeing anybody moving. Okay. Is there a motion to approve the items on the consent agenda? so move second second okay all right we have a motion and a second second was by commissioner mazzari i stepped on her sorry oh we can call for a vote And that passes unanimously 6-0 with Chair Modane absent. Do I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the February 19th, 2026 Planning Commission hearing? So moved.

Second.

So we have a motion. Is there a second? Okay, perfect. We can call for a vote. Okay, and that passes unanimously 6-0 with Chair Modane absent. Are there any director's reports?

Yes, thank you, Chair. The last Planning Commission meeting was held on February 19th. At the meeting, the Planning Commission heard three items. The first item was the 2026 Land Development Code Update, which included a recommendation to the City Council of approval of the Land Development Code Update, including amendments to multiple planned district ordinances, including the Downtown Community Plan. as well as 139 items separated into five categories of regulatory reform, compliance with state law, corrections, clarifications and amendments to align with policy to align policy with the city's climate equity and housing goals. The project, the recommendation to the city council was by a vote of five to zero with commissioners Mazzari and Marlboro absent and included recommended modifications and removal of a couple of items for the council's consideration. Item two approved by the Planning Commission on Consent was the Barrio Logan Community Plan amendment and rezone for approximately three acres to be designated from right of way to park, excuse me, rezone from right of way to park, as well as a rezone of 1.8 acres of land from CC23 to OP11. The rezone would align all of the zoning in the Barrio Logan Community Plan with the land uses adopted as part of the most recent update. And finally, item three was approved by Planning Commission by a vote of five to zero with commissioners Mazzari and Marlboro absent. And that involved a report to the standardized report of the city's boards and commissions and recommendations from the Planning Commission for the boards and commissions in terms of the city's operations.

And that concludes my report. I don't have a director's report today.

Okay. Thank you both. Uh, with that, we'll move on to the regular agenda and we will start with item number one staff. You may begin when you are ready.

Good morning. Phone-in testimony is now open. Please follow the instructions on the screen if you wish to participate. Good morning planning commissioners and members of the public. My name is Robin McCarty and I am the project manager for item number one on today's docket. The project is located at 2906, 2912, and 2920 University Avenue in the North Park community area. The 0.34 acre site is in the community commercial CC3-9 zone intended to provide a range of development patterns including commercial and residential uses. The project is seeking approval of a process for site development permit as well as adopting addendum number 1105210 and a mitigation monitoring and reporting program. The project site is located approximately two and a half miles north of Interstate 94, a half mile east of Interstate 805, one and a half miles west of State Route 163, and one and a half miles south of Interstate 8. The Community Plan Land Use Map identifies the project site as community commercial, which allows for 0 to 109 dwelling units per acre, meaning the 0.34 acre site's residential density would allow up to 37 units. The project is proposing 92 dwelling units. The project is allowed to exceed the density ratios of the Community plan by designated designating 16 of the units as affordable which qualifies it for the density bonus bonus incentive program within the complete complete communities housing solutions regulations. The project proposes demolition that will substantially alter a designated historic resource and construction of a new seven-story mixed-use structure. The proposed demolition to substantially alter a designated historic resource is located at 2906 University Avenue. The historic resource is known as the Edward and Emma Newman Building, designated as Historic Resources Board number 1482. The substantial alterations to the designated historic resource consists of the proposed removal of the existing roof and North facade. And the addition of six stories of new construction who's proposed massing size scale and proportion in relation to the historic resource is not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior standards. The proposed demolition to the historic resource will substantially alter the resource and are considered deviations from the historic resources regulations. Those deviations from the historic resources regulations require a discretionary site development permit. The project's new construction will utilize the complete community's housing solutions regulations, which will later be processed through a ministerial review in the building permit phase, but are incorporated into the discretionary review as project features. The Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations provide a floor area ratio-based incentive program for the project development within sustainable development areas that provide housing for very low-income, low-income, or moderate-income households. Qualifying projects are entitled to increases in floor area ratio, structure height, maximum lot area, street frontage requirements, lot coverage, permitted residential density, and additional specific entitled waivers that allow deviation from certain developmental standards. The project is requesting two incentives to deviate from open space and common open space requirements, as well as two waivers for street wall transparency and street tree counts. The project elevation shows the new construction of six stories built over the west and south facades of the historic resource. The retained facades will incorporate a commercial space within a one story double height mezzanine structure over a one story subterranean garage. The completed 108,000 square foot mixed use structure will have 92 residential dwelling units with 16 of the units designated as affordable. The project was designed to incorporate several design features that either provide a distinction between the historic facade and the new construction or minimize the visual impacts of the residential tower. The exterior of the new construction will use a combination of stucco, glazing and fiber cement panels that reference the architectural vocabulary of the historic building, while providing a juxtaposition between the historic resource and the new residential tower. The new second level will feature spandrel glass and a six foot setback to provide a visual distinction between the old and new construction. At the corner of Kansas Street and University Avenue, the historic tower will be highlighted with no new construction above. Lastly, the project will include restoration of historic features to minimize impacts. On February 20th, 2024, the North Park Community Planning Group voted 13 to nothing to recommend approval. The project was then taken to the Historic Resources Board on February 26th, 2026 and received a unanimous vote of seven to nothing to recommend approval. Staff has reviewed the proposed project and determined that it is in conformance with the policies and regulations of the Land Development Code, General Plan, and the Community Plan. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the site development permit and adopt the addendum and MMRP. This concludes the presentation. Subject matter experts and representatives of the applicant team are available for questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. McCarty. Are there any Commission clarifying questions? Seeing none, we'll open for public comment. Do we have any speakers present in chamber or online? Okay. There are no speakers in chamber or online. So we will now close public comment on this matter and move on to commission comment. Are there any commissioners who wish to speak on this item or make a motion? You can make a motion. Go for it.

I make a motion to approve.

A second. We have a motion and a second. The motion was to approve staff's recommendations, I believe. Yes. Okay. See what I did there? Okay. We'll call the question. so the motion was by commissioner ringer second was by commissioner miyahara it was so fascinating And that passes unanimously six zero with chair Modane absent, uh, because I was so excited by the way that all the technology issues had been working so well. Uh, Mr. Commissioner Reeves, I missed commission comment, uh, for non-agenda items. Was there any commission comment in general before we move on to the next item? Okay. All right. Thank you. That concludes that portion of the agenda as well. We will now move on to item number three. Okay. In advance of item number three, I have been advised by ethics commission staff that because I own property in the community planning area that is being updated. I need to recuse myself on this item because Chair Modane is absent and I am acting as chair in my role as vice chair. We need to appoint an acting chair to conduct the rest of this hearing. I'm not springing this on him, I promise, but I hereby make a motion to have Commissioner Malbrough assume the role of acting chair. Is there a second? Commissioner Reeves is like, yes. Cause I was terrified.

I was going to have to do it.

Okay. Uh, we can vote on this motion by vice chairman, our second by commissioner Reeves. And while staff is doing that, just so everybody in the, uh, attendance knows I'm allowed to vote on this as a procedural matter, even though I'm recused on the actual item itself. So just do a voice vote? Okay. We're just going to do a voice vote. Commissioner Mazzari?

Yeah.

Commissioner Marlborough? Aye. Commissioner Reeves? Aye. Commissioner Renger?

Aye.

Commissioner Miyahara? Aye. Uh, and vice chair Bumar is an eye. Okay. We're going to take a second to shift some seats around and for me to get out of here. And I bid you all a deal.

That would.

Good morning, how are you? Yeah, you have to share with me.

Huh? I know. I took a shower too, I don't know. They all left me.

Hmm.

Phone-in testimony period is now open for item three, Miss City Communities Plan Update workshop.

So just before we get started, I just want to open and make a few remarks. Tate Galloway, Deputy Director of City Planning Department. We're pleased to be here today and present our second workshop to the planning commissioners. We today will be providing you with the information that we've received during the first phase of our public outreach and engagement. That includes issues and ideas that have been presented, including different concepts for the potential land use plan. We certainly would encourage your comments and suggestions that you may have on any of those concepts or any other things that are presented in today's meeting. um we certainly at this point haven't made any uh recommendation in terms of uh where we're going with the plan update but again we want to present this information to you and the public to be able to get comments and feedback we next steps will be as staff will talk about having additional engagement outreach as we prepare the draft plan and we'll be coming back to planning commission for another workshop before coming back to you for a recommendation on the draft community plan. So with that, I turn it over to Alex Frost, principal planner, and Morgan Ruby, senior planner, who will be giving the presentation for today's workshop.

Thank you. Staff, before you start, I just want to give a game plan real quick because we have like 36 public comments and so we're going to go ahead and pull the one minute per comment. Also, we have a long, a very long presentation. I think it's 64 slides. So after the presentation and clarifying questions, we'll go ahead and take a quick break. And then that will allow some of you, if you need to seek more people to give you more time, you can do it at that point. I think that's pretty much it. So ready to go.

All right. We'll be beginning our presentation.

Alex Frost, No. Alex Frost, You have to reshare.

Alex Frost, Good morning Commissioners, my name is Alex frost and with me today is Morgan Ruby. The purpose of today's meeting is to seek input on plan update process and draft documents. No action is required on the part of the Planning Commission at this time. I'll briefly go over the introduction, the proposed concepts, and public feedback on six key themes and next steps. For those new to the plan update process, Miss City is a large planning area made up of four communities, City Heights, Eastern Area, Kensington-Talmadge, and Normal Heights. And within these communities, there are 24 neighborhoods. About 10% of city population resides in Miss City. The city is updating the community plan to help shape the future of Miss City for the next 20 to 30 years. The current plan was last adopted in 1998 and a lot has changed since then. The primary goals for the plan update are to address regional growth and housing needs, understand community needs and enhance quality of life, evaluate infrastructure demand and reduce environmental impact. The City officially launched the Mid-City Plan update in 2024. We are now in the third phase of the plan update process, and the first draft of the Mid-City Communities Plan is anticipated for late spring 2026. Overall, the plan update is scheduled to be a three-year process. This diagram shows how community feedback and analysis help inform the draft community plan. The phase one public engagement and existing conditions analysis guided the development of the Miss City Ideas Report, which provides the draft visions, frameworks, and preliminary concepts. Phase two engagement summary highlights the public input received on the ideas report and other planning documents. These community inputs and additional analysis will help shape the upcoming draft community plan. As part of the inclusive engagement process, the city conducted an open application process to form the working group representing Miss City's four communities. The working group role is to be involved from start to finish, review materials, suggest ideas, and provide feedback. So far, the working group has met seven times publicly. In addition, over 3,000 people have provided 9,300-plus comments through 102 events and two online surveys so far. Some of the in-person activities include five community forums, seven workshops, 11 office hours, 11 community interviews, 17 planning group meetings, 17 pop-up stations, and 27 youth engagement sessions with middle and high school students in Miss City. Community feedback has been summarized in phase one and phase two engagement summaries, complementing the technical reports released so far. Miss City Atlas existing conditions report and mobility assessment, historic context statement and survey and draft ideas report. In addition, several technical analysis are being prepared related to environmental, parks and public facilities, economic, land use, urban design and mobility networks and corridors. The primary focus of today's presentation will be on the draft ideas report, phase two engagement summary, historic survey, and draft plan mobility networks. The Mid-City Ideas Report highlights draft visions and principles developed through inclusive community engagement. Mid-City residents envision clean, safe, thriving communities, safer green streets for all, park in every neighborhood, vibrant walkable mixed-use corridors and centers, celebrating and honoring diversity of cultures and places, new affordable homes in every neighborhood, investment in community infrastructure, places designed for people, restoration of creeks and protection of canyons, innovative business districts supporting community life, beautiful, charming, and welcoming neighborhoods, and preservation of historical neighborhoods. Now moving on to historic preservation. As part of technical studies for the plan update, two historic preservation reports were prepared, a historic context statement and focus reconnaissance survey. City staff received and responded to 135 comments on the draft historic context statement and survey. Residents emphasized protecting historic buildings and districts and expressed concern regarding the boundaries of possible local historic districts in relation to a designated National Register historic district. The historic context statement and survey was updated to address community feedback. Some community members suggested building design requirements for historic districts and the city is exploring objective design standards through the Preservation in Progress Initiative. The reconnaissance survey identified three primary areas that may be eligible as historic districts, identified as Tier 1 and shown in teal. Areas that do not appear eligible as historic districts but have a mixed development history that may warrant future research is identified as Tier 2 and shown in blue. And lastly, master plan communities that were evaluated in some level of detail and found to be ineligible as historic districts and unlikely to have significance is identified as tier three and shown in pink. Consistent with the approach to other recent community plan updates, including Mira Mesa and University, the master plan areas found ineligible for designation will be considered for exemption from the potential historic review, also known as 45-year review process. Looking more closely, the potential historic districts include the Carteri Center in Normal Heights, Talmadge Park and Talmadge Park Estates in Talmadge, which will be evaluated together as part of any future intensive level survey. And Kensington, including Kensington Park Historic District, as well as Kensington Manor and Heights Historic District. The two potential districts will be evaluated together as part of any future level intensive survey. Now moving on to sustainability, equity, and climate resilience. This map highlights concepts identified in the ideas report. Building the Purple Line, a proposed light rail route, will help achieve transportation justice, while Ocean Discovery Institute, a lead platinum education center, serves as a local case study in sustainable and regenerative design. Reconnecting communities. The IDEA report proposes an expansion of Taralto Park, which was originally envisioned in the 1984 community plan, to reconnect communities divided by freeways. ideas report highlights recent and proposed affordable homes in this city some community members continue to emphasize housing affordability and concerns about displacement updates to inclusionary housing regulations are best considered through a city-wide initiatives that balances the need for affordable housing with overall housing production while advancing fair housing goals and avoiding unintended impacts on the supply of needed homes The city is working to minimize displacement through the enforcement of existing tenant protection, condominium conversion and dwelling unit protection ordinances. The ideas report highlights potential location to support local food system, urban forestry and blue green infrastructure, which many residents support. City staff will continue to refine these ideas for the draft community plan. In addition, some community members emphasize mitigating air quality and noise pollution and concerns over emergency preparedness flood mitigation and fire risk the city is considering policies focused on resilience emergency preparedness and other sustainability measures now moving on to land use and economic prosperity. The draft ideas report presented five land use concepts based on community feedback and existing conditions analysis for further community discussion. In October 2025, working group members ranked their top three concepts, with concept two receiving the highest ranking, followed by concepts four and five, which tied for second place. Due to time constraints, I will highlight the top three concepts today, but we are seeking additional feedback from the Planning Commission on their preferred approach for all five land use concepts highlighted in IDEA's report. Land use concept two focuses growth along activity hubs, transit corridors, and neighborhoods to support existing and planned transit routes, while exploring additional land use changes within the high and moderate resource areas to further fair housing goals. Land use concept one is very similar to this option, but without the expanded changes in the high and moderate resource area. Land use concept for focuses growth or less overall density along activity hubs transit corridors and neighborhoods while distributing potential for new homes equally to everyone by proposing land use changes to majority of this city. Land Use Concept 5 only focuses growth along activity hubs and transit corridors, with no change to most of the multifamily and single-family areas. Community members provided mixed feedback on proposing land use changes within single family neighborhoods. And the city received more than 220 postcards in support of land use concept five, which would focus all planned growth along the corridors. There were additional comments related to site specific areas and the city's working on more detailed land use map with additional analysis that will be released with the draft community plan. In addition, the city received comments emphasizing promotional economic opportunity and protection of small businesses and discouraging undesirable uses like self storage and parking lots for cars, especially along the corridors. Now moving on to urban design. This map from the IDEAS report highlights the grid, superblocks, and commercial centers in this city area, overlaid with existing and proposed transit routes and cultural hubs. The IDEAS report recommends enhancing existing cultural hubs, such as Little Saigon, and identifies a potential new cultural district called Somalitown, near the proposed refugee and immigrant cultural hub on University Avenue at Truist Triangle, pictured in the bottom right. A more in-depth urban design analysis was conducted in eight study areas to illustrate high-level concepts related to land use, urban design, mobility, and public space. Here's an example of a high level concept for Federal Boulevard and Euclid Avenue for discussion purposes that explores potential new development and connections, urban greening in public spaces. We receive extensive feedback calling for expanding study areas, refining concepts, and a stronger vision for the Choias Triangle. The city is evaluating the Choias Triangle area with particular attention to safety concerns related to the Leah Street extension and has added five additional study areas, including West Miss City, Euclid Avenue, and Home Avenue. We also heard strong public support for enhanced placemaking and are actively exploring strategies for implementation. I am now passing it on to Morgan Ruby to discuss mobility and the rest of the presentation.

Thanks Alex beginning in 2006 the city developed a pedestrian master plan to proactively identify pedestrian improvements as part of that effort. A city wide framework to identify pedestrian improvements was developed, which included the definitions for various pedestrian route types shown here. A pedestrian priority model and a menu of pedestrian treatments that may be appropriate on the various pedestrian routes these routes describe corridor context and help indicate appropriate amenities and treatments. District routes in red and corridor routes in blue are shown along Adams Avenue, El Cajon Boulevard, and University Avenue. Ancillary routes in orange are shown along multi-use paths such as the State Route 15 commuter bikeway. Connector sidewalks are shown in green and neighborhood sidewalks on primarily local residential streets are shown in gray. Bicycle facilities range from off-street multi-use paths to shared streets. There are four primary bicycle classifications with the addition of the shared bus bike lane that currently exists along Elkhorn Boulevard. This map shows the draft planned bicycle network. Solid lines show existing facilities, and the dashed lines show proposed facilities. Class IV separated bikeways are proposed to largely expand, including on Fairmont Avenue, 54th Street, Federal Boulevard, and College Grove Drive, as well as parts of University Avenue. Shared bus bike lanes already exist on Elkhorn Boulevard from Park Boulevard to 43rd Street. An extension of the shared bus bike lane is being considered to East City limits. As part of the mobility planning process, 10 corridors were selected for further analysis, more detailed recommendations, and conceptual drawings. Existing conditions imagery, conceptual design, and 3D cross-section renderings will be prepared for each of the 10 priority corridors. Here is a sample of El Cajon Boulevard's existing conditions aerial imagery and cross-sections at two locations. It shows how the right-of-way varies throughout the corridor and how some segments are more constrained than others. Community members provided extensive feedback on the mobility section. Residents wanted safer streets with traffic calming measures, protected bikeways, and improved pedestrian amenities. The city is exploring policies and routes that will improve and expand walking and bicycling within the community. community feedback also focused on parking including concerns over limited supply neighborhood impacts and concerns for small businesses the city is evaluating curb management and parking strategies as well as a potential public private partnership with shared parking arrangements to balance growth with parking supply Residents expressed support for new transit options like the Purple Line, along with questions about timing and feasibility. The city is coordinating with SANDAG and other agencies to advance long-term transit improvements, and we do include these projects in the community plan to ensure that they remain part of the city's planned network and stay eligible for future funding as opportunities arise. Comments were also submitted regarding the planning, routing, frequency, and placement of bus stops. The city will continue working with transit agencies to optimize bus operations and improve rider experience. Community members support bike and scooter shares and safer connections to transit. The city is considering policies to support infrastructure to strengthen first last mile connectivity. Community members also highlighted connectivity barriers and bicycle and pedestrian safety concerns caused by freeways. The city is coordinating with Caltrans to ensure bicycle and pedestrian enhancements are explored during project design and planning efforts. We are also exploring policies to encourage pedestrian bridges and improved crossing designs. City staff presented to the Mobility Board on March 4th. Key themes heard from board members and members of the public include recommended Class 4 separated bikeway on Adams Avenue and evaluate removing on-street parking in constrained areas. On to parks, public facilities, and open space. The ideas report outlines several park ideas. These concepts range from small pocket parks to large regional parks. Park opportunities one through six focus on expanding and improving existing park spaces, such as the Teralta Park expansion. In addition to identifying park opportunities across the community plan update area, City planning staff is currently working on the Choice Creek Regional Park Master Plan. The Choice Creek Watershed Area was designated as a regional park as part of the Parks for All of Us package. Several of the park opportunities identified through the community plan update could eventually become part of the Choice Creek Regional Park, helping to create a well-connected regional park that provides recreational opportunities for community members of all age groups and abilities. Park opportunities seven through 12 show new potential park space. These sites identified in the ideas report intend to provide recreational opportunities for community members of all ages and abilities. The list represents preliminary park opportunities identified through the planning process. Staff has continued to refine and vet these ideas and will present a more developed list of projects as part of the discussion draft. A large portion of mid city is defined by the canyons and missus that the Community is built around and on top of these canyons and missus offer ideal places for outdoor recreation, including hiking trail running nature walks and wildlife observation. These trail opportunities focus on improving connections between neighborhoods parks and Canyon open space areas, while expanding opportunities for walking hiking and nature based recreation. To create safe routes to parks and increase the connections between parks, a series of green corridors is being proposed. These corridors would feature increased street trees for shade, protected bike lanes, wider sidewalks, and designated rest areas. To highlight a few, idea one, the North Choice Creek Regional Park Loop, will be nearly parallel with the Oak Park Trails, except that the green corridor would run on the south side of the creek. This corridor could feature protected bike lanes and a multi-use path with additional shade. Ideas 3 and 4 would run parallel with a proposed Geralto Community Park expansion project to provide safe access to the entire length of the park. I would like to note, there was a revision to this slide to correct a typo in the Green Corridor text. The revised version of the presentation will be uploaded to the website. To highlight a few more of the Green Corridors, Idea 8, the 43rd Street Green Corridor would connect Normal Heights, Kensington, and Talmadge to the Choice Creek Regional Park. And Idea 10, the Federal Boulevard Green Corridor will help connect the Choice Creek Regional Park and the Mid-City communities to the Bayshore Bikeway. And on to public facilities. The report emphasizes the need for additional public facilities, including recreation centers and aquatic complexes. To highlight a few, idea one, the Normal Heights Recreation Center, could potentially be in the western portion of Normal Heights. And idea four, the South Choice Aquatic Complex could bring a much-needed aquatic complex to eastern area. Idea six, a Kensington Normal Heights library could potentially be located west of the 15 freeway on Adams Avenue. And for idea nine, the Sunshine Borodini Aquatic Complex. In addition to the ball fields at Sunshine Borodini Park, staff proposes a compact aquatic complex on the portion of Sunshine Borodini Park north of Fairmont outside of any sensitive habitats. Residents expressed support for the new parks, trails, and public facilities like a larger library in Kensington-Telmidge. There was also concerns about the proposed aquatic center in Sunshine-Buradini Park and feasibility concerns over the South Choice Recreation Center. Future aquatic centers are being evaluated at South Choice and Sunshine-Buradini Parks. The city is exploring a new recreation center at South Choice Park, along with additional park amenities. More refined park concepts will be explored in the draft community plan. Residents also expressed mixed support for the flexibility of joint use parks. There are sites identified as future joint use parks, and the city is evaluating their visibility with the San Diego Unified School District. Community members also supported more green corridors that run north-south and increased connections to parks and open spaces like Choias Creek. The city is evaluating park access through green corridors and reassessing the whole network to better expand throughout Mid-City. Residents raised concerns about park maintenance, lighting, and safety. The plan will consider policies related to park needs. Onto next steps. are moving into phase three public engagement which will focus on collecting feedback on the refined proposals and concepts as well as the draft community plan which is scheduled for release in spring 2026. the feedback received in this workshop today will help city staff finalize this discussion draft Our upcoming events in support of this phase of the project are a series of open houses focused on mobility concept analysis in various locations throughout Mid-City. There are a series of focus groups and pop-ups from April to June, and we'll also be at the Park and Recreation Board for a workshop on April 16th. The release of the draft Mid-City Community Plan is anticipated spring 2026, as is the next working group meeting. We look forward to returning for another workshop later this year, and this concludes our presentation. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the Commission? No. Well, let me ask, do you need a break? Or do you want to move on?

Okay.

I just wanted to make sure. So we'll go ahead and go with public comment. And before we start, I heard some move on. I heard you. But I would ask you, after each comment, you can wave your hands and move your fingers, but let's keep it down on the noise, okay? Thank you. uh first person is uh jeff huter and you have several people who are giving you time i'll i have to identify them and let me and forgive me because i'm terrible at pronouncing names so i'll apologize right now ahead of time uh leslie bruce okay got you darcia during i hope i pronounced that right see you thank you lori humor I can't I can't read it Miller got it looked like an H sorry Christina Anderson Christina Christian I told you Uh, Gail, uh, I'm just going to spell it. V I a M the Monte got it. Okay. Neil winner. Got it. Cindy Moore. Get out of your way. Thank you, Jeff. Oh, thank you. Uh, Karen Howard, Dave, uh, Nicole. I think I've heard you before. Dana Gibbett. Janet O'Dear. Got it. Kenny McClellan, McClellan. Kathy McClellan, sorry. Jennifer Boren. Got it. Mike Baldwin. Yvonne Jones. These are easy. Francis Pritchett. See ya. Okay, sir, you have 15 minutes total.

Okay, and there is a presentation. Yep. And I apologize for that outburst. We do thank you for doing this now because a lot of people make time to come down here. So we appreciate that. All right. So what I would like to do is give our person. Are you going to put up a timer someplace? Or should I set my own timer?

We'll give you a cue.

Sorry. Hang on. Okay, that'll work. All right. So, uh, thank you commissioners. I just like to give our perspective on this plan. Um, if you go to the next slide. Um, the things that I'd like to cover today are specifically sort of the net outbound migration pattern of mid city and how that reflects into our land use planning. Um, how, you know, the economic development possibilities. um one of the things that happens with these plans is we ignore any sense of what bonus programs add to the development that's already there and i think it's important to consider that because that often outweighs the entire plan and then in particular how this relates to this is the staff presented this land use to versus land use five as a major concern that we're going to have today. Land use five looks like it doesn't allow any development in the surrounding neighborhoods of the transit corridors when in fact that's just not the case in terms of factoring in bonus programs. And that will show in the statistics of that that that's a profound impact on what people should be receiving as possible in mid-city. So if you go to the next slide. So one of the things in the existing conditions report is it showed how many people commute into Mid-City to work, how many people commute out of Mid-City to work. Well, there's over three times as many people commute out. If you live in Mid-City, you realize that all the traffic flows west and north in the morning, south and east in the afternoon. Um, so as we talk about, should we be, um, massively changing land use within mid city? The question is, this isn't where people work. And primarily so, um, you know, we really need valid data that says that justifies why we should be putting massive changes into mid city. If that's what we're proposing to do under the staff's preferred option of, of, of concept to this is further confirmed also in the next slide in the existing conditions report. This is your. village climate propensity map, you can see really where people are taking transit are those dark purple, dark blue. Once you get to the lighter green, the green areas, those are all really automobile focused communities. So dispersing density away from those transit corridors is really diminishing any possibility that you're going to add to transit use within those communities. Um, and the other part of it is those, if you look at where the job centers are for that, those, those communities really people are commuting north. They're going to Kearney Mesa. They're going to Serrano Mesa, UTC, Rancho Bernardo. It was back in 1940 that people in Mid-City worked downtown, but that condition doesn't exist anymore. If you go to the next slide, this is reflected also in the existing conditions report that shows that the population of Mid-City is declining as... despite the fact that we've added some housing. But what's happening is Mid-City is getting older as younger people are moving out of Mid-City to go to places where there's more opportunity in San Diego. And that's evident in the jobs and overall district changes within the city. Now one of the things, if you go to the next slide, one of the things that the city is trying to do is Say what can we do to revitalize mid city and there's I think they had these if you go to the next slide it shows he studied areas where they've looked at Okay, how can we create density that. and revitalize these areas to make it either attract people within the community to stay and shop here or bring other people from other parts of the city. These are the concepts that we encourage the city to continue to develop as they go through this. And if you look at the next slide and say, okay, where the land use concepts align with the ideas report, you can see that land concept five aligns most closely with these study areas. And this is the important thing that we should be emphasizing. If you if you want to create activity around these designated community villages, that's where you need to put development and that's where you need to put people. If you want to have greater use of transit, then you need to make it so that people can go to more activities along these transit corridors so that those are successful. And that's what concept five really promotes. Now the criticism of concept, well actually go to the next slide. If you even look at the draft ideas report, and I apologize for the small print, but they even say that concept five does the best job of focusing development on the transit corridors. It supports our climate goals by encouraging development near transit so that people take transit and achieves those goals. And then the other things that are in here is there is an argument, and we'll talk about it, that changing your zoning makes things more consistent across San Diego. That's a valid argument. And the other thing is, and we'll talk about it next, is there's still the possibility to infill development within the surrounding neighborhoods that isn't explicitly stated in plan concept five, because it doesn't use a zoning change to accomplish that. But we have a lot of bonus programs that do do that. So in any single family lot in mid city, you can put three, add three units under SB nine, You can add three units using the state's ADU, JADU laws. If you're on an eligible property, you can add up to six units under the city's ADU bonus regulations. And a couple of weeks ago, and it's moving forward, there's something called the Small Homes Revitalization Act, which you approved as part of... the land development code update, and when that goes into effect after the city adopts it, that allows up to 10 units on empty, vacant, single-family lots, and so there's a lot of capability here, and I mean, talked about SB 79, because we don't know the final implementation. We think mid-city is generally excluded because it applies to the trolley, but if those regulations change, that would go up from there as well. So what's that add up to? If you go to the next slide, when you look at the capacity that we have without making any changes to the zoning in mid-city you can see that the bottom line is we have existing 53 000 housing units and that's everything multi-family single family in mid-city today just with the programs that are eligible at the minimum level within single family zoning, we could have 49,000 more homes. That's a 93% possible increase in housing without making any zoning changes to mid-city single family neighborhoods. And those are spread all over. You can see here, it's not just a Normal Heights, Kensington, Tallmadge issue. It's also a you know, Southeastern, Rolando, Oak Park, you know, there's lots of places in Mid-City that are single-family neighborhoods that have this capacity and need to be left as is. So one of the questions that will arise is, well, if these are already de facto, and go to the next slide. Actually, I'll get back to that. If If these are already de facto multi-family, Parcels then why not do the episode of the problem is if you up zone it then all the bonus programs that I talked about add on to that so a little bit of up zoning is going to have a Amplifying effect as we go through it and our argument is we should leave things the way they are Because the state and the city already did your community plan for you when they added these density overlays And we shouldn't be and if we're not going to take these into account. We just need to leave them where they are and The other thing that gets missed just in that concept too is that almost everything's in fire hazard zones, but we'll move on from that. The next thing is there is a good reason to be doing focusing on the the the commercial mixed use and multifamily zoning. Because today we have, you know, what I've drawn here is a zoning discontinuity between what you're allowed to do in North Park and what you're allowed to do in mid city. That's because of the central urbanized planning district regulations. And one of the things that that presumably we'll get out of this is a normalization Uh, those zoning regulations across particularly Elkhorn Boulevard, university Avenue. Um, so that, um, the development that can happen will be consistent with the project people do elsewhere in the city. So what I'd like to do is just, so in summary, it's an, a net out, but right now we're, we're proposing to adopt a land use. We haven't seen any estimates of need. We haven't seen any estimates of housing capacity that exists already. And the idea that we're just going to say, okay, let's move on, take, you know, uh, plan two and move forward with that and have that go into the ER. It's way too premature to do that. Uh, and that's one of the things we don't want to see happen. The other thing is we, we, we keep doing this bit where we say we need more housing. We need more housing. We need more housing. We never bring jobs to the places where we say we need more housing. Again, most of our employment for south of eight communities is north of eight. And we need to figure out either we're bringing jobs to mid-city, bringing jobs to south of eight communities, or You know, we need to be moving the housing north, I guess is the way it is, but it's inconsistent in this idea that somebody in Mid-City is going to take a bus to a job in Serrano Valley. That's that's a one to two hour proposition. There was an article that was just published in and that noted that it takes an hour just to get from Mid-City to downtown on the 215. That's a bus you don't even have to get off of. I mean, we're thinking that we have all this mobility that's not really existing in the Mid-City. And again, I'll just make a couple of comments as I have time on the historic preservation context. Yes, there's districts that are in there. Some of the facts of that are not quite accurate, but that's been recognized. But one of the things that's not really recognized in this, and we talk about placemaking, one of the things that's missing, and we talked about it when we talked about preservation and progress, one of the things that's missing is any sort of encouragement of adaptive reuse in this area. So you revert this project. as item one that showed an actual adaptive reuse project and what possibilities might be. And you can see that going through these things allows you to both create place, minimize environmental damage, and further, you know, make our neighborhoods more attractive to the people that live there. I think I'm done early today, but again, the most important thing is we're not ready to adopt a plan and just move forward at this point. There's more work that needs to be done and there needs to be a thorough analytical basis for whatever land use plan we move forward. I'm not gonna go into the details of it, The voting process said, you know, bland concept two was better than four and five. Well, there's not a statistically significant result there. There was a marginal difference between those three plans and that doesn't justify just, um, throwing the other ones out and only moving forward with one plan. I think there's a lot more work to be done. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, next up is, uh, David Modi. And you have some time seated to you, so I'll go ahead and recognize those folks. Cindy Seabloon. Got it. Debbie Sanders. Got it. Pam Wilson. Got it. Ron Anderson. Got it. Priscilla Burge. Got it. Bill Adair. Got it. David Roth. Got it. Susan Baldwin. Got it. Hey, I did pretty good on that one. Okay.

You have 10 minutes, sir. Go ahead. Do you have my presentation ready? If you have to search for it, we could. Maybe the best idea is to go to the next speaker while I speak with staff.

Uh, next up is, I think that's, uh, Jen, Jen Hintzman. Okay. You have some time seated to as well. Uh, Sue grant.

We're speaking together.

Okay. Rob grant. Got you. Susan Ward? Got you. Paul Coogan? Got you. Okay, you have, is it four? You have four minutes.

Thank you, thank you all. My name is Susan Grant, and as you can see, I am a partner with the College Rolando Library, Vice President of the Friends. let's talk libraries we haven't spoken about libraries and unfortunately they are not mentioned very often in city plans so i'm representing libraries in general but specific the college rolando library it's important to us and it's important to the mid-city community we need to realize and understand that that library is right on the boundary of rolando and it's in a You have the diagram there. It is a library deficit region, the northern part toward the 8 in Mid-City. We have a full service branch library, parking, all the amenities that you would possibly want. Thank you. And plenty of parking, which is critical for the success of this large branch. Now you have examined or will you examine the map closely? You will see that half of this library service area is in the mid city district and it serves 30 000 residents of mid city so while it's not specifically in mid city it's serving the community of mid city uh what we have uh are facing in the mid in the college rolando uh library is a serious problem it's actually a parking potential parking deficit we stand in jeopardy of losing 80% of the parking when it was built. We had a joint use agreement with the owner of the property. We paid for the parking. We paid to build the access, we landscaped the area, but it was a joint use area that was used by the previous owner. Now that has all disappeared. The property now is in the process of going up for sale and that's gonna include the sale or basically free sale of all the investment the city has made in that aspect of the parking near the library and the land that we so desperately need. and can use within the city for other amenities. So, you know, we really need to look at this as an important feature in mid-city planning. To date, we have three libraries, two of which have been waiting for upgrades or rebuilds for 30 years, one of which, the City Heights Library, which is fully funded and beautiful, but as it stands today, if we don't take action and include the Rolando College Area Library within the Mid-City Region as an asset to that region, we honestly will probably never see an opportunity to expand the library and the service of the libraries throughout. It's just too expensive. Finding dollars to build new libraries is far more difficult than it is to find money to pay for a parcel of land that will maintain parking within a very upstream, upstaged facility that's used already by Mid-City. So we really need you guys to have a look at the College Rolando Library and put some energy into acquiring property for that. Thank you.

Really quick. This map does not show a dot up here where the College Rolando Library exists. The College Rolando Library has a problem. It's an equity issue. We need you to support us to get a dot up here in that top corner. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I'm going to call the next one until Mr. Modi's thing is ready to go. Okay. Okay. okay we'll we'll just keep going and see what happens right thank you okay the next one is uh victoria labruso you have some people some time seated to you as well robin uh baker oh there you are uh ken horley i think got you carl Binska? Gotcha. Thank you. You have four minutes.

Thank you very much. Good morning, commissioners. My name is Victoria Labruzzo. I am the serving chair of the CPC, Community Planners Committee. The Mid-Cities Plan update may not ultimately come before CPC, as our review has typically initiated the request of planning groups when there is an issue that potentially affects all communities throughout San Diego. That may or may not occur in this situation, depending on how those groups proceed. However, in my role as the CPC chair, as I reviewed the staff report for this update, I identified a broader concern regarding consistency with the city's adopted policy and the process of public input the staff decided on. The city's general plan and council policies identify CPGs as the primary structured and elected bodies for public input on land use and community plan updates, as well as other citywide issues. In this case, city staff established a 16-member working group described as part of an inclusive engagement process. Yet only four seats are allocated to CPG reps. The remaining members were appointed through a separate application process. While additional outreach is valuable and certainly warranted, this structure effectively reduces the role of CPGs by placing them in a limited position relative to a city appointed group, raising concerns about consistency with the city's own policies. In prior community updates, advisory committees were structured under and through the recognized CPC itself. The approach used here differs in that it places the CPGs in a secondary role within a separately appointed body. This distinction is important as it shifts the balance away from a community-based, democratically selected structure toward one that is not directly accountable to the communities it represents. additionally i'm aware that one of one or more of the affected cpgs previously requested that this process align with council policy 600-24 the use of an alternate structure that limits cpg representation underscores the need for consistency in how community input is organized community planning groups provide more than individual perspectives they provide structured accountable and community sanctioned input As recognized advisory bodies operating under city policy and the Brown Act, they also bring transparency, institutional knowledge, and collective decision making that reflects the broader community. Their role strengthens outcomes and supports more effective implementation of city policies. That process should be the priority as it is fundamentally different from individual appointed participation. When the city creates a new process that places its own democratically elected planning groups in the minority, it raises real questions about how community input is being prioritized. Planning decisions should be guided by adopted policy, not by shifting structures. If we move away from that framework, we risk undermining both consistency and public trust. Finally, today, I encourage the commissioners to prioritize the majority vote of the four CPGs, which I believe is plan five. Thank you very much for your time.

Okay, next speaker is Don Anderson. Don Anderson, excuse me.

Good morning, my name is Dawn Anderson, a Talmadge resident. You'll hear a lot of reasons for and against concept plan two, so I don't need to repeat it. I oppose the concept plan two for those reasons and also want to bring attention to an issue with the selection process of how community feedback is handled. The issue brings into question whether the city has actually listened to the people they work for, us, the residents. At the February 25th presentation of the Mid-City Communities Plan Update Working Group, a statement on slide 32 read, the city received more than 220 unsolicited postcards in support of land use, land use concept five unsolicited. I am appalled and offended that any comment a resident submits is considered unsolicited, which comes across as unwanted. The city is always asking constituents for their participation. So why now are their comments not being considered? The concept plan selected should reflect what the people want in their communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Next up is Doreen Dial. Yes, excuse me.

Doreen Dias-Pesta from Hammershaw. And I oppose number two vehemently. I think it violates equity forward. Where's my time? I support number five. There's inequity, troubling inequity, south of eight versus north of eight in these reports. On November 10th, 2021, demographic report has three different maps. D2 has white population shifting from 49% to 67. Population is 60. third and eighth depending on which map you're currently violating the skyline paradise hills community plan on page 126 page 84 page 98 transportation element open space bicycle element neighborhood element there is no neighborhood called hammershaw hyphen lamita you are violating page four so why are you approving new plans when you don't comply

Thank you.

Next person is Susan Richardson.

I have a couple of extra people too. I have at least one other one.

I believe there was at least one other one. Don't have it, ma'am.

I'm sorry. Okay. Were you able to get another one? I thought you had a second. Okay. Well, I guess I'll have to make it faster. They had told me that they had a second one for me. Okay. I'm going to go super fast then. Hi, I'm Sue Richardson. I'm the chair of the Kalina del Sol Community Recreation Group and retired recreation director from the City of La Mesa with a career of over 40 years in the park and recreation field. I want to note that during this planning process, there was no outreach on parks and facility made to Kalina del Sol Recreation Group. which is the advisory group for a large percentage of the mid-city parks. I'd urge you to include the College Rolando Library in the eastern portion of the plan since the library serves the communities on both sides of both college and the eastern area. create solutions to create a park adjacent to the library to serve both of those neighborhoods the northern and western portions of the eastern area planning area are park deserts there's no parks within a 10-minute walk in addition the bordering of the city of la mesa on western la mesa has no parks either so we can't even rely on our neighbors to provide parks the joint use facilities have limited amenities to provide quality recreation such as playgrounds courts and are only available outside of school use areas at school use time

Sorry, ma'am. You did good.

Thank you. Well.

Okay, next is Paul. We'll give you a minute. Next is Paul Kruger. And you have Deborah Sharpe. Got you. You have two minutes, sir.

Oh, thank you very much. I'm Paul Kruger, Talmadge resident. The first comment I wanted to make was to urge you to address and acknowledge the reality of where these plans come from. Having studied closely the mayor's comments over the past four years, it's indisputable that he has built, and I mean this in no way as a criticism, his political career by boasting about numbers. Everything for our mayor is the number of possible units that can be built or the number of permits that have been issued. We need to go beyond numbers. We need to look at the impact that these zoning changes would have on neighborhoods. To drill down on that, please acknowledge or think about what we saw with the bonus ADU program. Everybody said it's going to be moderate, it's not going to affect neighborhoods. In fact, what happened was these developers cherry picked properties where they put up 8, 12, 15 in Canto 34 units. It ministerially approved in a way the devastated neighborhoods and finally led the city council to amend that program and to cause Shawnee Lower Vera to call the predator, to call those who built these quote unquote predators. You may say that as you often do. These are just numbers and they aren't going to result in the kind of density that people think and rightly fear. But please remember, if your house is two blocks south of El Cajon Boulevard and you wake up one day to see a construction fence with no idea of what is going there and learn the next day that there's going to be 21 units, it has a devastating effect.

Thank you. Thank you, sir.

Is that good?

Oh, next is David Moon. Oh, and we already did this. You're all set. You have 10 minutes.

Thank you. So I did have a presentation. You won't see it. So in a couple of places, you'll have to use your imagination. First, yeah, first of all, I'd like I am David Modi, chair of the Kensington Talmadge Planning Group, and I want to thank Jeff Huter for giving the big picture analysis of the development trends and things that you should be considering as part of this plan update, including the fact that we are a residential area where people commute outwards for jobs and not inwards for jobs. So his doing that big picture allows me to focus in on issues specific to the Kensington and Talmadge planning area. There's certain facts you should know about our area. Of the four levels of California community opportunity zones, Kensington and Talmadge only have moderate and low resource census tracts. The bottom two, that's what is inside Kensington and Talmadge. We are average income, within 1% of the city average. If we're leveling income in the city by geography as a fundamental goal, Kensington-Talmadge is the goal that you are seeking, not the departure point. We are pulling our weight on affordable housing and then some, and we are underserved and underinvested. And we have two and a half tracks of moderate resource communities and one and a half tracks of low resource communities in Kensington and Talmadge. On parks, Northern Mid-City is a great park desert. From University Avenue north to the Canyon Rim, from the 805 to La Mesa, park points are only at 20% of the standard. That's 97,000 people living with 20% of the park standard. Inside that desert, Kensington-Talmadge is at 7%. The bottom of Mid-City, and of the 41 planning areas that qualify for parks, Kensington-Talmadge is ranked 40th. Normal Heights has four times more park points per person. City Heights has six times more. Eastern Area has 10 times more per person. With parks, location and proximity matter. Throughout this process, staff have minimized our deficiency by lumping us into mid-city generally. Have you seen on any of your reports a 93% deficit for Kensington and Talmadge? You may have seen we're at 53% of the standard for all of mid-city, but Kensington and Talmadge is at 7%. Under Plan 2, the city puts most of the added parks capacity in the southern area of mid-city, while the most intensive up-zoning is in the north. And for the 9,000 people of Talmadge, the proposal is for a park bench. Now, this is where the pictures would have come in helpful. Aldine Drive, not the part that's down in the canyon, but on Monroe between Euclid and Aldine is a 600 linear stretch of road design failure. The issues with this road have been brought up several times at the working group meetings, but I've not seen any concentrated effort or look at this stretch of road. It's been an issue for decades. Even the people outside the neighborhood complain about it. In the past 10 years, it has been closed twice for landslides and once for flooding. It has poor sight lines, wacky curves, blind entry points. The traffic is approaching arterial levels, but the design is a 1920s country road. Battles have transpired over adding a bicycle path. There isn't room. Fixing it with a roundabout. The traffic volume is too high. We've suggested fixes, but have been told by the city, that they can't because it's not in the community plan. I've asked for it to be discussed, and the staff have not done anything. The city appears to have a strategy of avoidance, that if they see no evil, hear no evil, you won't actually have to do anything about it. But the problem is there. And we were told that the community plan update process is the time to address this, and time's running out. I had several nice pictures of the landslide, of the flooding, of a car crash that had just happened next week, all on this one stretch of road. In 2011, Gary Pence came to the Kensington-Talmadge Planning Group to talk about the stretch of Aldine Drive. And then he said, this road has 18,000 trips a day. and he would be hard pressed to find any road in all of San Diego that was more under designed for these 18,000 trips a day. The current traffic volume is 20 and a half thousand ADTs. This road is approaching a complete failure point. Fire. You've seen the maps. Kensington and Talmadge are built out on a lot of finger canyon ridges. The roads are narrow. The hydrants are at single family level of the 1920s, not multifamily density. That's why we believe the density belongs on the main corridors. I mean, my question is, when the fire comes, do the fire trucks come in first and then the people walk out on foot, or do the people leave the area first in their cars and then the fire trucks can enter? Because these don't function as two-way roads. Council Policy 800-14. The idea may be, well, as your needs are great, you will get projects through the CIP prioritization process. Well, I now know that if your project need is so expensive that there isn't money in it in that budget year, you don't even get sent to engineering and capital projects for scoring. So if the money isn't in there, so if you don't get a score, then you don't get a priority. And if you don't get a priority, you're never seen and they never say, we need to actually save money because the need has become so great. Every community should have an even shot, not get excluded at the starting line by simply having a need that's so great that you don't have it in this month, in this year's budget. Affordable housing. Over the years of this process, I've seen a lot of false assumptions about the Kensington and Talmadge planning area. We're one of the top 15 community planning areas who have built so much affordable housing that the inclusionary regulations no longer apply to avoid concentration of poverty. This has included housing for the formerly homeless with special needs. When measured in units per thousand people, we're number eight in this city, right below North Park and above City Heights and Encanto. I really appreciate Victoria Labruzzo for commenting about the process for the selection of the working group. This process was singularly unfair. No other planning group have been squeezed out of the process in this way. I know that acting chair Marlboro will remember his time as chair of the Encanto planning group during the plan update process. Was your planning group not the working group that the city worked with? That's why Concept 5 has the support of the planning groups. It puts people closest to transit, closest to park space. There is so much underused capacity on our main corridors. It's the equivalent of the old city of villages program, which had popular support. It didn't work because the financial crisis happened immediately after it was enacted. Let's go back to that concept and let's find out what makes that work. Because I think there are ideas that can cause roads like Elkhorn Boulevard to be the grand boulevard that it should be. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Do we have any online? Go ahead.

We currently have two online speakers. We will begin with Tom Mullaney. Please unmute yourself. You will have one minute.

Yes. I'm Tom Mullaney. I represent Livable San Diego. About the year 2000, San Diego created the one million person forecast. That didn't happen and it won't happen according to the experts. The sand egg forecast calls for a growth rate of about one third of 1% per year. Now the previous community plan updates have already provided enough capacity for the forecast growth. Kearney Mesa, University City, Uptown College Area, each community by itself now has enough capacity to hold the expected growth. I would like to hear from the planning commissioners why they think that tens of thousands of units are needed in each of these plan updates when the total for the city is a limited amount. Consider a fair share for mid-city. It's only about 2,600 units. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Paul Jamieson. Please unmute yourself. You will have one minute.

Great. Thanks for unmuting me. Yeah, I'm Paul Jamison. I live in Kensington. I'm a single family homeowner. I'd like to express my support for option two. This would allow for new housing in both wealthier communities like mine and disadvantaged neighborhoods, which is consistent with affirmatively furthering fair housing goals. A speaker said Kensington is an average income neighborhood, but many homes sell for over $2 million here, and there are no affordable housing projects in Kensington that I'm personally aware of. option two would also correct the down zoning that occurred in the 1998 plan update since then less than 100 new units have been built in kensington or less than five per year which is partly why we're in a housing crisis and regarding option five um it would only up zone one street in all of kensington and talmadge the fact that local development overlays would preempt the need for rezoning that's just not true sv9 adus sp79 were all opposed by neighbors for a better san diego please support option two thank you

Thank you. That concludes our online speakers.

Okay, thank you. All right, Commission, you want to start your input? Right. Okay. We'll take a quick you want to take? Yeah, let's take. Let's take a quick 10 minute break and we'll get back. But sorry, my boss told me five minutes.

I know.

I have a louder voice than that. Okay. We're going to go ahead and get started. Uh, we did find, uh, Mr. Paul Coogan. So Susan Richardson, you have another minute.

Okay. Hi, we're going to start at page two, whenever she's ready. So, like other plans we've seen lately, there's a vast deficit in existing park facilities for existing residents. And this plan does not address the gaps for existing facility needs for future or existing residents, even if we chose the 100% open space options and the ideal proposals, which we know is unrealistic. so goals to offer parks with meaningful recreation amenities not just little pocket pocket parks with benches need to be addressed within 10 minute walks of areas without parks to be looked at even closer especially with increased before increasing populations including community centers and pools as they we have park standard deficits Um, and then I quickly, oh, I'm gonna run out of plans, uh, at a time. Um, one comment I have though, with the, um, Elkhorn Boulevard concept study, you offered, um, in the high level concept, a park on college Avenue. Let's put the park in the middle of the Paseo and not out on college Avenue. So some of those park options need to be looked at closer in all those study areas. Thank you.

Okay. Next we'll go to, uh, commissioner comments. It's open. I just have one so far, Commissioner Reeves.

Oh, nope, sorry.

Springer. It's first.

Mine says granted. Oh, okay, too late.

My bad.

Which moved her into first on deck.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you, acting chair. Appreciate it. Acting is right. Okay. As always, I want to thank the community for coming out, making your voices heard. It's always important to hear from you. We got, what was it, almost 700 written comments as well. Very well understood where people stand on these, I think, as far as the comments that were submitted. Staff, thank you for all your time on this. I know these things are a beast. So looking forward to seeing where this heads next and all your work that has gone into it to date. I have a handful of questions, and then I will get to just a couple of comments. We heard from a couple of women on libraries. I just wanted to ask, is there, from a planning perspective, a technical reason why we wouldn't include a DOT in this community plan for a facility or an amenity that is technically outside the bounds of this? Could it be added? I don't know the answer to that.

Yeah, Alex Frost, principal planner. I can answer that question. So we did include the Rolando College Library in the existing conditions report based on community feedback. So we could add neighboring facilities.

I THINK A DOT WOULD GO A LONG WAY, IT SOUNDS LIKE. THE ISSUE OF PARKING IN THIS LOCATION OBVIOUSLY DOES NOT FALL WITHIN OUR PURVIEW AS A BOARD, DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I WOULD JUST USE MY OPPORTUNITY HERE TO SPEAK TO ENCOURAGE REAL ESTATE ASSETS TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND TRY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME WE'VE HEARD THIS CONCERN FROM COMMUNITY MEMBERS ON THIS LIBRARY LOCATION. I hope that can be figured out and resolved. On process, I'd love to just get a little more perspective on the formation of the working group and why from staff.

uh i think it's alex frost principal planner the formation of working group was a more logistical issue with the four community planning areas and for planning community planning groups we felt that having a miss city working group would help make the plan update process more efficient and streamlined, but also providing opportunity for everyone to apply for the working group. So that was one of the reasons. And we have been consistently going to the four planning groups, and we've had 17 meetings with all four planning groups as well in addition to the working group. So I think it's worked well where we have kind of more of the sub-regional conversation at the working group level and then more community and neighborhood level conversation at the planning group. So that's kind of how it's been going.

Yeah, that makes sense. And are there members on the working group from each of the community planning groups?

Yes, there's one representative from each of the four planning groups. Yeah, okay.

On parks, this is something that comes up in this plan updates that are in built out older communities. How do we square the challenge of adding resources to a community that's more or less built out with the reality of very limited land on which to build those parks, especially at current market cost to acquire land if you're not going to condemn land or eminent domain. So can you just speak to how we're going to provide sufficient park amenities in these more dense urban neighborhoods without the ability to build out actual park space?

Good morning. Thank you for the question. This is Samira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with City Planning. So with largely built out communities, we look at opportunities both on any vacant land, any public agency land, or city-owned land. But at the same time, we're also looking at adding additional recreational opportunities in existing parks. So the ideas report kind of provided an example list of projects. Jonathan the principal planner with the park planning team and his team have been looking through a lot of other sites as part of preparing the draft of the discussion draft and there are opportunities but again it is a combination of not just identifying park opportunities on any available vacant land or other public agency land or city owned land and then also constantly looking to add more recreational opportunities in full compliance with the park's master plan.

Thank you for that. Yeah. And I think just for the record, it's important to note that these are really, really tricky to find places to put new parks to add to the park resources. Not to say it's not important, but just it's a difficult challenge. So there was a comment made that there were 90 or a statement from the staff that there are 9,300 comments from over 3,000 people. Can we, I mean, do you have a feel for what the general breakdown was amongst those comments for the different alternatives? Did it skew as heavily for one as the written public comment did that we received?

Yes, the short answer.

So it's skewed heavily towards Alternative 5.

Yes, the overwhelming majority of public feedback we've received so far on the land use concepts, it's been land use concept 5 has been the largest.

But nonetheless, the working group was voted to support 2 over 4 and 5.

That is correct. And we see some public comment related to concept four as well. So yeah, it's a mix.

Just a couple more questions. I promise I'm going to make this fast. Presumably, with regard to historic designation, any newly designated communities, that would preclude the density that's proposed in the plan from being realized. Is that correct? If like a single family neighborhood is district wide historically designated, we wouldn't see that additional density.

Kelly Stonko, Deputy Director of the Climate Preservation and Public Spaces Division in City Planning. No, not necessarily. There is new development that's allowed within historic districts and designated historic properties. We can look at within single family, ADUs are approved all the time. If you're looking at multifamily or mixed-use development, we've approved projects both consistent with the standards that have added additional density, and then as you saw earlier today in the item, higher-density projects that have a more significant impact to historic resources through a permit review process. So there still remain options for additional housing opportunities within designated sites and districts.

Okay. Thanks, Kelly. Appreciate it. I'm debating whether or not to continue down that path. I think that in commercial areas or denser areas where you can convert, like we saw in item number one today, you can add density to an existing historic resource. When it's a single-family home that's designated historic or a district that's all single-family homes, it's really hard to add density to that neighborhood. I live in one in South Park, and presumably there will be no new density in my South Park neighborhood for the foreseeable future because you can't tear down a resource to build, even to do a lot split under SB 9. I think it's fair to make that statement. So if the historic designation goes forward, and let's say item number two prevails, or I mean alternative number two prevails, we still may not see those densities in Talmadge, Kensington, and those areas. I mean, I guess I could pose that as a question, but it just seems like that would be the case. I'd love to hear your thoughts, Kelly, if that's not.

In terms of doing a higher density multifamily development within a designated historic district, it depends on the density levels that are proposed in terms of whether that would be fully built out in a manner that's consistent with the standards versus going through the discretionary permit process for a larger project.

Thanks, I'll leave it there. I mean, I think that makes sense and answers my question. I didn't hear really any comments on the mobility or the sustainability sections of the plan. Was that generally well supported across the board?

We have received quite a few comments on mobility and the plan and the mobility study that we're undertaking now or attempting to address them.

yeah i know so you guys received a bunch of comments through the process we didn't get a whole lot during um in the written public comment or in the in the testimony we heard today on those issues but there i know that you went to the mobility board and got comments there um on the sustainability it just seems like those elements of this plan are not really there's not a lot of pushback there There may be tweaks around the edges, but generally well received. Is that right or not?

Generally well received. There are some concerns that we are trying to balance the needs on these corridors, especially for parking demand. But yes, our mobility element that we're drafting and the mobility study we're doing are attempting to balance those things that come up with a draft plan that the community supports.

Alex Ross, I also want to add that we did add Aldine Drive as one of the top 10 priority corridors as requested, and we are looking in more details to study some of the concerns that was raised today. Good to hear.

Yeah, we're on that. Okay, thank you. And then getting into sort of more of the meat of what we're hearing, in option five, what would the scale of the density along corridors and hubs have to be to achieve the same level of new homes as option two i mean are we talking residential towers are we talking mid-rise but if you don't have any new growth anywhere other than along the in the hubs and along the corridors it seems logically that you would see less new homes in in this community planning area because you couldn't achieve the same density is that

so ideas report you know highlights for land use concept five that if it was to be just focused on corridors and activity hubs that it would be a very high and high density so basically the highest uh density and you know as outlined in our general plan um and we're saying i mean we're seeing if you're maxing out fars along those corridors as they're

you know, what we're possibly considering in alternative five. We're seeing 10-story towers. I mean, I know you can't say, and I understand that, but I just want, does the community recognize that we're going to see, like, really tall buildings along these corridors and in these hubs if you don't do anything as far as, you know, lower mid-scale density in the communities around them?

mean the highest density does allow for potential high rises yes and that's outlined in the in the ideas report um but there is economic feasibility and you know a lot of consolidation all those other challenges understood right um thank you for for all those answers i i'm gonna just jump into a couple comments and i'll i'll uh

ALLOW MY COLLEAGUES THEIR DUE TIME. THE ARGUMENT THAT WE'RE HEARING THAT STATE LAW, THAT'S THE LOT SPLITTING SB 9, DENSITY BONUSES, ADUS, ARE THE REASON WE SHOULDN'T SEE ANY ADDED DENSITY TO SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IN AND AROUND THIS COMMUNITY PLANNING AREA. That is so such a peculiar argument to me because I know that those are not popular statewide regulations especially amongst like neighbors for a better San Diego were To use that, something that you fight and don't support as the reason not to do density in our own community plans that we actually control is interesting to me. What happens if the makeup of the state legislature is such that SB 9 is overturned or these density bonuses get taken away or the ADU laws change? um and we were relying on those to increase density in mid-city Suddenly we have no density Because we didn't plan for it in the community plan as opposed to controlling our own destiny at the community planning level Saying this is the density we propose and support, you know Irrespective of what the state is doing I just don't like I'm really having a hard time squaring those that argument I would say I do generally agree um that high scale density needs to occur in these hubs and corridors in this community plan i do agree with that that is because we need we want commercial to survive we want retail to survive and you build the density within walking distance of those Those commercial hubs so it makes sense and I do agree with that. So I don't think that I'm also able to go as far as to say that that Leads me to believe that no other density belongs anywhere else in the community plan I think that there needs to be some sort of a compromise or a happy medium for I mean if not for several reasons at least for the reason that if you're allowing high density on these corridors. And then a block away, we're in a single family neighborhood. You don't have that step down in density that I know a lot of people have advocated for. You do need a block, two blocks, three blocks to provide for a step down in density into these single family zones. Otherwise we're gonna hear from Advocacy organizations coming out and saying I oppose this tower on El Cajon Boulevard because right next door and behind it behind the alley Is a single-family neighborhood and they're gonna be you know in the shadow. That's why you need that step down in plan density I think that if I'm looking at would it be possible to bring up the five versus two on the screen because I think it'd be helpful to be able to see. And this is, I think, getting to my main point. Maybe alternative two goes too deep into the single family neighborhoods with increased density. Is there a way to bring that back to along the corridors and the hubs like alternative five and then Stepping down in density two to three blocks away from each of those corridors Leaving more of the single-family neighborhoods Without change then is proposed in alternative to It would be sort of a melding of two and five together where you see a little bit less peach and orange In between the purple Just something to consider. I think that you're generally on target here. I think there's pretty broad consensus that the hubs and corridors are the place for density. Where the middle and low density increases exist is the question mark, and I would propose that maybe that's brought back in line a little bit more along, a little tighter into the corridors. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Commissioner Ringer, you're up.

It's always interesting going after Commissioner Reeves because he makes a lot of the same points that I might have. It's on.

I don't know what I'll just give a little thought.

I just said it's interesting going after Commissioner Reeves because he makes a lot of the comments or questions that I have or might have made. So thank you for that. I am curious. So to go one step further about the working group, just because that's been mentioned, how many members are in the working group?

Alex Frost 1616.

And of the 16. How many members are from each of the districts?

It's representative by population. So I believe on top of my head, there's three representatives from Kensington, Talmadge, three from Normal Heights, and the rest Eastern and City Heights.

And of the 16, you said four are from the community planning groups?

Correct.

each representing their respective planning group. So it seems relatively diverse. It's not just representative of one district or another.

That is correct.

Thank you. I'm actually curious about the infrastructure. We didn't really see any diagrams that that diagram the existing infrastructure, that is to say, police stations and schools and everything. the one that I think the Friends of San Diego Libraries, whatever, presented was a little more comprehensive as far as what exists in the area. I think it would be helpful in the next iteration to kind of see that. I am curious, how does the existing infrastructure support the proposed densities?

John John novel up principal planner playing department. So when it comes to parks throughout the entire community, the 4 communities, we're taking a look at all of our existing parts to see where we can improve them to add additional recreational value and amenities for the populations that are coming online. And we're also looking at additional park opportunities on joint use. or on school property that we can do joint use agreements with. Also, we're looking at something unique that we've we looked at in the college areas. We're also looking at churches that we can partner with something that we did in the college area as well.

Outside of recreational facilities, I guess I'm talking about elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, fire stations.

Yes, so I can answer that, Alex Frost, principal planner. Miss City, there's about 30 schools in Miss City, 19 elementary schools. And the existing conditions report highlighted that the school enrollment has decreased by 37% from year 2000 to 2023 or 2024 school year. So, in voice of San Diego recently released a study of capacity of all the schools and we're finding that elementary schools, a lot of the elementary schools in this city is now enrollment is below 50% of available capacity. So, there is excess capacity of schools in this city, at least for elementary school And what we're trying to do with the plan update is to encourage more families and more children and more people to be able to live in this city. So that facility is available for schools.

That's an interesting data set that you just mentioned, because then it leads me to kind of make my next comment, which has to do with analysis of need and housing capacity or demographic. Does this point to the fact that people are moving out of those areas and therefore the schools are not occupied by students? Or does that mean that the demographic is changing such that the families with children are not moving into those areas because there aren't those opportunities for housing? Do you know which way that goes?

Yeah, I think it's combination of things and existing conditions report highlight this challenge. The population in miss city has decreased by 8%. So the population city peaked in year 2000 and 146,000 people and now we're at around 135,000 people. even though Miss City has added a little over 3,000 units. And what we're seeing is that there's just a lot less children, people under 18 now living in Miss City compared to year 2000. And it's the high housing costs is, you know, one reason, but also people aren't getting married as frequently. And then when people have children, it's just one or two. So smaller family sizes and a lot of Larger families, and this is through our public education, we heard that, you know, have left to our neighboring states, which is much more affordable. So the cost of living is definitely a huge contributor to that.

hmm that's interesting and you know one could say that um by provide providing more housing it allows for more opportunities for families to move into more affordable housing but in the same spirit people are not necessarily living in these communities so it's it's kind of this weird like dichotomy, right? Like we can't predict what it's gonna do, but we could provide the opportunities for growth and provide more opportunities for housing. So yeah, that's interesting. I was curious, Way in the beginning, Mr. Galloway stated that the city does not have a preferred or recommended concept plan at this time. And yet we've heard from the public that the preferred from staff or city is concept two. Where's that coming from?

Or do you- Since I made that statement, let me address that. Please take Galloway, Deputy Director. So at this point, what we're reporting out is just the feedback that we've been hearing from the public, the working group on the various concepts, including the land use concepts. What staff has presented is what the working group has reported out in terms of their preferred selection. But at this point, we're still taking comments back from the public. And today we want to hear your comments, which will help us as we draft the plan.

Okay.

And as far as that goes, I want to echo what Commissioner Reeves has already said about I think the reality of what concept five is proposing does not allow for a step down, it would be kind of a cliff, if you will, versus concept to which, you know, again, to use Commissioner Reeves words, maybe the peach and the orange are are skinnier narrower um i think there's a medium you know between having a cliff which is what i feel like you know concept five is proposing versus a more gentle kind of distribution like a stepping down um is more advisable i guess um And then, nobody really asked this question, but do you have a timeline for when the Purple Line would be implemented?

It's an aspirational project, and it's very expensive at current technology, but the tunneling technology is improving quite significantly. But the 2025 SANDAG's regional plan, it says 2050. 2050? 2050, yes.

unless I'm gonna add program manager.

Yeah, thanks for the question. Phil Tron, Program Manager, City Planning Department. So that's correct. The SANDAG in the most recent regional plan, the 2025 regional plan, has it as a 2050 project. Technically, that would be 2036 to 2050, sometime in that time frame. But underneath that and in advance of that, they're planning a rapid bus route that would mimic that corridor. And that's currently under study with environmental review, I think, expected next summer. So those are those being your best. The north south. So I think for a long time, it's been thought of as sort of an inland equivalent of the blue line. So that would be going from South Bay all the way through through through to Mission Valley. Previously, it went north of that now it's truncated at Mission Valley. But a rapid line could be considered all the way up to to use TC and Sereno Sereno Valley. And connections to Mid-City would be approximately where the rapid bus stops are today at University and I-15.

And would it have a dedicated rapid bus lane?

Yeah, that's the feature of Rapids is like whether it's there's a number of criteria that makes them faster, right? The whole goal is auto equivalency for these routes. So yeah, like we see on the 215 route, and that's part of this plan is considering more bus prioritization on Elkhorn Boulevard, but something like that. On the freeways, obviously, those are running in managed lanes and then in the community on potentially dedicated transit lanes.

Okay, thank you. Okay, one last question, or one last comment from me is, so somewhere when we were talking about historic designations and historic districts, you had mentioned having design standards and guidelines. I would sometimes these guidelines become somewhat contrived as seen in some of the other neighborhoods and cities where they have these design guidelines, so I would just kind of caution against. Having. sort of strict sort of applique roles in these historic districts. I've seen things done poorly and sometimes it's done better. And so that would just be my caution. Thank you. That's it.

I can just note Kelly Stonko, Deputy Director. We are looking at objective design standards as part of preservation and progress. A lot of the state housing legislation that has come down has required that any requirements placed on housing development be objective in nature in terms of the design requirements. The traditional standards that are applied to historic property to determine what is an appropriate addition is the U.S. Secretary of the Interior standards. And so because those are not prescriptive objective standards, what we are looking at in preservation and progress is how can we take the principles that are within the standards, look at districts that have shared characteristics and come up with objective design standards, working with a consultant and the design professionals on the historical resources board to come up with a solution that will balance the the preservation of the unique and significant features in the district with new development and how to incorporate new development in a sensitive manner that's consistent with the standards but compliant with objective requirements.

Great presentation, as always. Thank you, Mr. Frost. Thank you, staff. So much work goes into these plan updates. Commissioner Reeves covered a lot of the questions and general comments that I had as well, so thank you for that. I'm not going to restate them. I do think the Planning Commission is really looking for some guidance here on the different concepts, and I can appreciate some of the feedback and the hybrid blend that uh commissioner reeves um kind of stated you know a blend between concept two and five but i i do agree with um some of the comments around um transition and i think that the transit neighborhood residential medium is a good step down from some of the more intense uses and density on the main corridors. I do personally believe that concept two provides the strongest alignment between transit access, actual redevelopment opportunity and some of the city's climate-focused planning efforts. I also think that concept two is balance smart growth strategy. Intensity in terms of the area impacted, yes, it's more than concept one, but less than concept three and four. So I think that concept two really aligns uh future housing growth with the areas that already have some of the strongest urban infrastructure in place where i think growth is actually going to occur the corridor analysis was pretty telling if you ask me redevelopment opportunity and feasibility all point to the major commercial corridors it's the most realistic locations for mixed-use housing growth we're talking about larger parcels many of which have aging retail centers. These are areas that are prime for redevelopment and most suitable for redevelopment. And I think we're going to see investment trends follow where people want to live, work, and play. And if we can look at some other communities here, in the city, I think that's a trend and a forecast for what we might see in these particular areas. Sometimes I feel like I'm a broken record when I say things like change doesn't happen overnight. Development is often years in the making, sometimes decades. So concerns over concept two and proposed land use changes on the outskirts of the transit corridor, I feel are somewhat overstated because that change will take place over time. A lot of these areas and parcels are already developed, some of which are worth, you know, a lot of money. And to just scrape a site and redevelopment, you have to assemble parcels. And oftentimes it's just cost prohibitive. So I do think that some of the fears or concerns stated are are overstated um i think uh you know introducing residential low residential medium allows for different building and housing types housing that i think is much needed housing that i think there's a strong demand for and the long-term success of some of these major corridors is going to be closely tied to a diverse mix of different housing folks walking to these major corridors because oftentimes it's mixed use where they're, you know, working, perhaps playing, going, you know, walking to the grocery store, the market, going out to dinner. So I do think that looking at the outskirts of the main corridors is, uh, and, uh, You know, the changes that we're seeing through the ADU program, things we're going to see from recent legislation like 684 and 1123 are going to introduce, in addition to this plan, different housing types or at least opportunities for that. So I am in favor of concept two because it clusters housing and we're going to see different housing types around walkable centers. rather than just along the linear corridors. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Mazzari.

Actually, I had my hand up, but I took it away because most of the concerns were already discussed over there. So I don't want to take additional time. Thank you.

Okay, I just have a few things. I agree with just about everything that was said. I want to thank you staff. This is hard work and you're doing a great job. You actually did a very good job getting through those 64 slides. I was impressed by that. Uh, couple of questions. Uh, oh, Aldine drive. I'm glad that you did put that in. I was thinking when it was brought up, I mean, we, we actually recommended an aerial tram and a pass, uh, uh, community plan. How can we could not add a street to look at that? That didn't make a lot of sense to me, but I'm glad you, you did do that. Thank you very much. Um, I would be a hypocrite, uh, the CBG working group. You said there's what's four for each group. Two, one, oh, oh, well, that makes it even tougher. I guess Mr. Mody was right. I would go nuts if that was me because I'll tell you these folks that sit on these boards, they can sit up to eight years and they put a lot of their personal times in that. And I understand it's difficult. You have four planning groups that you're doing it at one time. But one, I think that's something that needs to be rethought on that because it's kind of a disrespect for those who put their time into that and stuff. So that's on that. One thing I have, oh, is there any business involvement in the working groups at all? Participation, I should say.

Yes, there is a representative from Boulevard Business Improvement District Association on the working group.

Just one.

Just one.

Oh, that's interesting. Wow. Okay. Not your fault.

Can we also add that we're planning a focus group with all the business district. Oh, good. Yeah. We have the draft plan because they wanted to see the proposals. Okay.

Perfect. This is kind of outside the box because I hadn't thought about the state and local density overlays that were mentioned. And it would be interesting to see if you could simulate something like that to see what that would look like in some of these plans. to see how that would impact. Because I'm really not sure on, I'm really pro growth, but I'm concerned. And one of those areas is displacement. And that's real big to me. I know that area pretty well. I worked it as a fire captain for almost eight years. and i'm concerned about that and i know you do mention a lot about displacement and i appreciate that especially uh the rights for for protecting that and i hope you carry that on to the final uh plan you can continue to keep that on there because it's a good uh reference for people as they see that because that will happen at some point in time you have a lot of these units that have been around for 20, 20, 30, 20, 30 to 20, 40, you're going to see some of those, um, uh, affordable that their time is going to be ending. Who knows what's going to happen at that point in time, uh, with some of that, that development. And that could be a concern for me. Um, Lastly, I'll put on my fire hat because everybody's covered mostly the other things. In the college upgrade, fire did a really fantastic job. I've never seen input in that community plan like I have for all the other ones that I've been on and seen. And I thought it was an excellent job. I'm hoping they're going to do the same. for this. I realize they probably haven't done it yet. We'll probably see it with the drafts. But I just wanted to bring a couple of things. There's about six canyons. I know these canyons well. Trust me, I've lost sleep over these canyons. I've been in a few of them. And i know kensington does have a fire uh fire safe council but i hope that that gets more advocated because these canyons are really dangerous and uh in this particular planning area because most of them uh there's homes on the rims of almost all these canyons and it's very dangerous so that's an important factor that i would like to see that they talk more about that so i'm not going to go more but again i'm not ready to to make a suggestion on the land use yet. I hope you can do something. I would really like to see that overlay to see what that would look like, because that really goes a lot to help you make decisions. I don't have the skill sets that some of my other commissioners do on that. So it would be very helpful for me. Other than that, I want to thank you all for being here. Sorry about the mess ups on the names. And hope to see you back. Well, I'm sure you will be back. So I think with that.

If I could just say one thing, I just want to thank the commissioners for your very thoughtful comments and suggestions. We're certainly going to take a look at all that and come back to you at a later workshop with the draft. And likewise, I want to thank all the members of the community that were with us and provided comments as well as the working group. We appreciate their participation and their time today making comments with that. We thank you.

Thank you.