Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good morning and welcome to the Planning Commission meeting of April 16, 2026. Until further notice, Planning Commission meetings will be conducted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section 549.53 as amended by Assembly Bill 2249 which allows the public to participate in person as well as a hybrid format. This meeting is being recorded and will be available for viewing on the City's YouTube channel. Members of the public using the hybrid format will be able to provide comments using the Zoom webinar platform. Members of the public who wish to provide testimony remotely must enter the virtual queue by clicking on the raised hand icon before the queue closes. The virtual queue will close five minutes after in-person testimony ends. Also, per Section 2.6.2 of the Rules of Counsel, speakers participating virtually may not allocate their time to other speakers. Time can only be ceded by speakers who are present in the hearing room. Michael Prince will now go over the specifics of how the public can participate and give their public testimony.

Thank you, Chair Modane. 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.

I would now like to take a roll call. As I call your name, please indicate if you are present. Commissioner Mazzari. Present. Commissioner Miyahara.

Present.

Commissioner Reeves.

Present.

Commissioner Renger. Present. Vice Chair Boomhauer.

Present.

And Commissioner Marlboro is absent and Chair Modane is present. The staff members present with us today are Michael Prince, Assistant Deputy Director from Development Services, Marlin Pangilinan, Program Coordinator, City Planning, Lauren Hendrickson, Deputy City Attorney, Eric Misalko, Senior Civil Engineer, Engineering Division, and our legislative staff. We will now start our agenda with public comment for non agenda items. This portion of the agenda is an opportunity for the public to make comments on planning related items that are not on today's agenda. Any person wishing to speak will have three minutes maximum to provide testimony. If you would like to speak, please click on the raised hand icon on your screen. Jeffrey Hooter You'll have three minutes. Please turn on the mic.

Thank you. So what I'd like to do is address some of the questions that came up at the last planning commission meeting related to the mid city plan and the, this overlay issue. And the first is one of the things that was not clear from the presentation is the idea that there would be some sort of transitional zone between the lower density neighborhoods and the transit corridors. The existing zoning actually already contains that transitional zoning. It just wasn't brought out in the presentation itself because it was talking about changes, not the existing conditions. The other thing, though, I'd like to talk about is the question that you had, which was One minute we're talking about opposing overlays, one minute we're talking about that we have to use them. And there's not a contradiction there. We're forced to do that, right? What happens is we have existing zoning and then we create an overlay on that existing zoning. And then we talk about saying, well, we've got the existing zoning and the overlay, so why not just zone to what the overlay would be? But the problem is, is once you've zoned for what the overlay would be, the overlay, the new zoning comes with a whole new set of overlays. So just as an example, take single family zoning. So single family zoning, we allow, at the state level, we allow you to put two ADUs with the house on every property. So that turns RS-17 zoning, seven units per acre into 21 units per acre. And with our bonus program, you can add two more, which gets you to 35. And if you said, well, if we're already at 35 units per acre, why not make it low four? Well, low four now has a formal designation that turns those unit that designation into complete community. So now you've taken something that was a single family plot said, well, what's the difference? Let's make it zone four. Now you can put up a 12 story building on that, on that property. And why that's one of the reasons every time we come here and we talk about a community plan update and the community plan update is supposed to say, here's the zoning for the housing. We think we need the development. We think we need. And when we do that, we should get rid of the overlay when we can, right? If we've zoned for what we want, we should need to say, and we'll do complete communities on top of it. Because the reason to do complete communities is because we haven't created enough capacity. If we're planning, we're by definition creating that capacity and we should say, we should be restricting these other programs because basically we're planning in quicksand. right wherever you try and zone for more intensity the overlay actually pushes it somewhere else because the incentives that come with those overlays push it to those places so it's super complicated we wish we would just go back to base zoning and get rid of all these overlays thank you david modey

Thank you, commissioners. I'm David Modi. I'm chair of the Kensington Talmadge Planning Group. And I, too, am here to revisit last month's meeting with the discussion about parks and park space in the mid-city area. And the question that was asked was, well, can you put amenities onto existing parks to reach your park percentages? Well, if you can see your screens, you never tell how big something is going to be. But in the four planning areas of the Mid-City Community Plan program, Eastern Area is at 88% of the standard, City Heights is at 48% of the standard, Normal Heights is at 34% of the standard, and Kensington and Talmadge is at 7% of the standard. And that's the area where the greatest park deficit is. In fact, it's the second worst in the entire city. So if you're going to add amenities to the existing parks, you're working with a base of 7% of the standard. The existing park in Kensington is so small that you would be hard pressed to add one more amenity to it. And as for the existing park in Talmadge, It doesn't exist. You can't add an amenity to a park that doesn't exist. So it's very important to understand that there are four planning areas here. There are four places you need to meet a standard or you need to grow what is there. And parks that are at some other area don't count towards the standard of the area that is Kensington and Talmadge. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Victoria Labruzzo.

Good morning, commissioners. I just wanted to bring up. We were CPC. I'm Victoria LaBruz. I'm with CPC, but I'm also the chair of Scripps Ranch Planning Group. I'll be speaking to another subject later. But what I wanted to bring up is two days ago we were at the city council and CPC presented a seat at the table. And I'd like to encourage you guys to view that video to find it very easily rather than going through agendas on the What do they call it down there? City Hall. CPC has a website called cpcsd.org. And we have the video there with timestamps, including your video from a couple weeks ago. But it basically is asking for a seat at the table when it comes to planning land landed land use and planning in this environment and also with City Council. I that the what is it the presentation was a little bit over 10 minutes. So obviously, I don't have the time to do that today. But I'd like to encourage you to go there and just see what CPC is saying about CP G's and CPC and your community planning groups and their representation and their voices to be heard at sessions like this. Thank you very much.

Thank you. I believe we have a couple online speakers.

Doreen Diaz, please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Hi, Doreen Diaz speaking as a resident in the city of San Diego. I would like to bring attention that this board was required as appointed people to receive a copy of the updated Ralph Brown Act, January 1st, 2026, all appointed and elected were supposed to receive copies. And I hope you have received the update so you can learn about some of the new accommodations and the technological changes which will make these meetings more accessible and easier for everybody unfortunately is not enough time to speak about all of those changes but i hope you do not rely on your attorney department that you actually read the document and i suggest that you go to la's document which has been not addressing the new changes but it is ralph brown act almost for dummies there interpretation of even the old Ralph Brown Act is extremely clear and easy to understand, something that the city of San Diego has never had. Plus, the city of San Diego still has the 2007 Ralph Brown Act, which is very outdated, and I've requested more than once to get that off the agenda. But a lot of what you do is to provide open and transparent meetings so we can participate. And there's a new clause about including communities that do not traditionally participate, which leads me to speaking once again about horrific community planning groups like Skyline Paradise Hills Community Planning Group. that consistently violates Policy 624. And you, on the analysis of 2021, received a paragraph that community organizations, including neighborhood councils, were supposed to have the same rights as far as representation and speaking as community planning groups. if you read that analysis you will clearly see that that is something that your legal department wrote and you had the two updates the other part of that is groups that should not have been recognized have been recognized so that that is a big a big problem when these groups are not complying with the law and you all are aware of this and that policy needs to be updated because it says the group can decide whether they violated 624 themselves without any oversight so that definitely needs to be modified thank you thank you Michael you have three minutes please unmute yourself

Hi, Michael Livingston, San Diego resident. I would like to see if there has been an update on the transition plane workshop requested by the commission. And the planning director indicated that that would be something coming forward at an uncertain time if that's been scheduled or if there's going to be notice, a list to get on, that type of thing. I would be interested. I'm sure others would also. I would also argue that item number 18 from the 2024 update should also be revisited along with the current transition plane item in that update. I pointed out to the city council in December of 2024 that the clarification of transition plan for development of budding low density single family dwelling was a huge change to the code and not a clarification as was stated in their information provided. Homeowners should be given the same consideration as development professionals in the discussion of unintended consequences. I would note that the benefits of, for example, SB 9 and ADU programs would be affected negatively by the current transition plane rules. Please move to include this 2024 change in the workshop topic so that homeowners can have some more clarity and avoid the unintended consequences in the same manner as development professionals. Thank you.

Thank you. That concludes our non-agenda public comment. Are there any items to be continued or withdrawn? Is there a request to place any items on consent? Vice chair.

Uh, yes, chair. I'd look to place item one, item two, inclusive of the updated staff memo and item three on the consent agenda.

Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to speak on items one, two, or three? Is there any commission discussion on items one, two, or three? Okay. Is there a motion to approve the items on consent?

So moved.

Is there a second? Second. Okay. We have a motion and a second. We can go to a vote. And the consent agenda passes. Is there a motion to approve the meeting minutes of March 16, 2026? So moved. And do I have a second?

Second.

Okay. We can go to a vote. Approval of the meeting minutes.

Do I do?

Okay. Is there any public comment on the meeting minutes from March 16th, 2026? Okay. Then we can go to a vote. and the meeting minutes have been approved. Do we have any director's reports?

Yes, thank you, Chair. The last Planning Commission hearing was held on March 19th. The Commission heard three items at that hearing. 2906 University Avenue in North Park is a site development permit to substantially alter a designated historic resource and construct a new seven-story mixed-use structure. The completed structure would include commercial space, 92 multiple dwelling units with 16 designated affordable over a one-story subterranean parking garage utilizing the complete communities housing solutions regulations. The commission approved the action by a vote of six to zero with chair Modane absent. The Verizon Oaks North and Rancho Bernardo is a neighborhood use permit, neighborhood development permit, and a planned development permit for the modification of an existing Verizon wireless communication facility. The commission approved the action by a vote of six to zero with Chair Modane absent. And finally, the Commission heard the mid city communities plan update workshop to provide input on the mid city communities plan update draft ideas report. draft plan pedestrian and bicycle networks corridor concept analysis and a phase two public engagement summary no action was taken, as this was an informational workshop and that concludes my report.

Good morning, Madam chair and members of the planning Commission, no report from the city planning department.

Thank you, is there any Commission comment. Okay, then we can move forward with item number four when staff is ready.

We're getting a message Microsoft is updating something.

Thank you for your patience. Phone-in testimony is now open. Please review the instructions provided on the screen. Good morning Planning Commissioners and those in attendance from the public. I am Sarah Hattenen, Development Project Manager for the fourth item on today's agenda, Collection at Cactus. Before I begin the presentation, I would like to acknowledge the memorandums dated April 14, 2026 and April 15, 2026, which have been posted to the Planning Commission website. The first memorandum requests the addition of local enforcement agency conditions regarding the required procedure in the event that solid waste is encountered while performing work on the site. The second memorandum clarifies information found in the planning commission report, draft permit and conditions, draft permit resolution with findings, and draft map resolution with findings. The report has been updated to clarify leasing office and amenity space information, dwelling unit allocation, and Waiver 1 that it indicates Planning Area 10 will be entirely residential. The draft permit with conditions has been updated to identify the accurate square footage of leasing offices and amenity spaces. Conditions were renumbered as the previous version included a duplicate number 15 condition and the renumbered condition 57 removes the final sentence regarding intent. The draft permit resolution finding 1A was updated to reflect the change in units in planning areas 10 and 12. and clarifies the location of the leasing offices within the development. It also provides additional language supporting the proposed project. The draft map resolution with findings includes an update to the project information and recitals to be consistent with changes to the staff report and permit. Tentative map finding 1 was also updated to be consistent with permit resolution finding 1A. updated documents are attached to the memorandums and these memorandums have been posted to the Planning Commission website. And we have our environmental reviewer who would like to add a correction to the addendum.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Kelly Rasmus and I'm the environmental planner for the project before you. I would like to read into the record correction to the addendum regarding the base density and density bonus. The base density of each PA is 228 units for PA10, 281 units for PA11, 272 units for PA12, and 285, I'm sorry, 200 units for PA13. pursuant to state density bonus law in exchange for reserving nine percent of the PA 12 base dwelling units or 25 units for very low income households the project is entitled to 30 percent density bonus or 82 units two incentives and unlimited waivers this correction has no impact on the conclusions of this addendum In addition, I would also like to make a statement regarding the late letter that the city received yesterday at the end of the workday regarding the addendum. In light of the letter received, city staff has reviewed and determined that no new issues were raised. CEQA is clear in its preference to use previously prepared environmental documents when impacts have been clearly assessed. Sections 15162, 15164, and 15186 of the CEQA guidelines provide criteria for where a previously adopted environmental document can be used and when a new document should be prepared. Through the project-specific analysis, staff determined that the project is within the scope of the program EIR. Furthermore, the project would not result in new or more severe significant impacts than those previously identified. Through the staff's independent analysis and judgment, it was determined that the addendum is an appropriate document.

Thank you. The project proposes subdividing one lot into five new lots, four for residential development and one for a future park. It includes a construction of 985 multi-dwelling units, including 88 affordable units, 17,452 square feet in leasing and amenity spaces, two detention basins, associated utilities and public improvements, and a future 3.62-acre public park. The park will be designed through a general development plan in coordination with the Parks and Recreation Department. The collection at Cactus project is bordered by Cactus Road to the west, State Route 905 to the north, Airway Road to the south, and Continental Street to the east. The project site contains one existing lot within the Otay Mesa Community Plan area. The project site is vacant, has relatively flat terrain with managed brush, and two notable topographic features, a constructed drainage channel at the northwest corner and an uphill rise at the northeast corner. There are no significant areas of artificial fill on the property, and the property generally slopes downward to the north and west. The 38.8-acre project site is located at 7020 Airway Road in the residential multiple RM 2-5, residential multiple RM 3-7, commercial community CC 3-6, and agricultural residential AR 1-1 base zones. Notable overlay zones include airport land use compatibility overlay zone for Brownfield, sustainable development area, transit priority area, and very high fire severity zone, among several other applicable overlays as listed in the staff report. The general plan designates the site as multiple use park open space recreation. The Otay Mesa Community Plan designates the site as Parks and Community Village. The Community Plan also illustrates that the site is within the Central Village specific plan area. The Central Village specific plan divides the project site into five planning areas which are designated as medium high density mixed use, medium density multifamily, medium high multifamily, and park. The Central Village is envisioned as a walkable mixed use village that integrates residential, commercial, civic, and recreational uses in ways that create a vibrant living experience. The project requires a vesting tentative map for the subdivision of land, a site development permit for the subdivision of a premise that contains environmentally sensitive lands in the form of wetlands, and a neighborhood development permit for the construction of any buildings or for the grading of any site within the central village. Per the inclusionary housing regulations, projects proposing a density bonus shall be entitled to waivers to either waive or reduce development standards that physically preclude construction of the development. The project includes 10 waivers addressing parking, storage, structure height, setbacks, transparency, and private exterior open space. Additional details regarding each waiver are contained in the staff report. Planning Area 10 will consist of two to four bedroom, two and a half bath townhome buildings with a total of 139 units on approximately 5.49 acres. Planning Area 11 will consist of 324 one to three bedroom apartment units, 44 of which are affordable on approximately 8.41 acres. Planning Area 11 also includes wetlands along the northwest corner. The project has been designed to avoid impacts to these wetlands by providing a 30-foot wide buffer area. The first 20 feet from the channel would be the Environmental Sensitive Lands buffer. The additional 10-foot wide buffer outside the ESL buffer would be planted with a coastal sage scrub seed mix that meets brush management requirements. Additionally, a water retention basin would be constructed adjacent to the buffer that would further protect the disturbed wetland through the treatment of storm water runoff from the project site before it enters the channel. The project's proposed undergrounding of existing power lines at the western border of the project site has been designed to maintain full avoidance of the disturbed wetland. Specifically, the power line would transition to above ground at the drainage crossing to eliminate the need for trenching or grading within or adjacent to the wetland, therefore avoiding direct or indirect impacts to the disturbed wetland. Planning area 12 will consist of 348 one to three bedroom apartment units 44 of which are affordable on approximately 8.89 acres. Planning area 13 will consist of two to four bedroom two and a half bath townhome buildings, with a total of 174 units on approximately 6.46 acres. The project site was previously analyzed within the Certified Program Environmental Impact Report, PEIR, for the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update. In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act, CEQA, Guideline Section 15164, Addendum to an EIR or Negative Declaration, proposed site development impacts were compared to the use and development pattern anticipated in the impact. The evaluation determined that an addendum to the 2014 final PEIR will need to be prepared to address environmental issues and comply with CEQA guidelines. It was determined that impacts to air quality, biological resources, transportation, and historical resources would occur with project implementation and are consistent with the impacts anticipated in the Otay Mesa Community Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report. As such, appropriate mitigation measures have been incorporated in the project. Specific Otay Mesa community plan update final PEIR addendum. On January 21st, 2026, the Otay Mesa planning group voted 801 to recommend approval of the project without conditions. Staff has reviewed the proposed project. All issues identified through the review process have been resolved in conformance with adopted City Council policies and regulations of the General Plan, Otay Mesa Community Plan, Central Village Specific Plan, and Land Development Code. With approval of the requested waivers, staff supports the determination that the development project is consistent with the goals and policies and development regulations in effect for this site. Draft findings, permit and vesting tentative map conditions are contained in the staff report to support approval of the project. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning Commission adopt the Addendum and Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program and approve the project, inclusive of the changes included in the memorandums dated April 14 and 15, 2026, and the note from our environmental reviewer. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff, the applicant's team, and I are available to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions from the commission? No. Okay, we can move on to public comment. Jason Shepard. Looks like you have a few people sitting time to you. You have a maximum of 15 minutes for a presentation. So but I need to make sure that everybody's in the hearing room. Emily didek Delaney I have tax talks. Okay. Ted Shaw, Brita Mahoney, Shane Larimer, Kim Katrand. Okay, you'll have a maximum of 15 minutes.

Thank you. Uh, good morning. My name is Jason shepherd. I'm here with. Next slide please brings over 35 years of experience, delivering more than 400 communities nationwide locally. We've developed over 1500 homes in city of San Diego and more than 2300 homes across San Diego county as a local San Diego based team. We understand the city's priority and are committed to implementing the vision of the central village specific plan. with our thoughtful high quality development our team has actually been working on the central village specific plan since the beginning we're excited to present the collection cactus to planning commission our project does exactly what the specific plan was intended to do deliver much needed housing provide a public park and enhance infrastructure for the entire community next slide please Our site emphasized connectivity, walkability, providing pedestrian linkage that completes the missing connections within the existing portion of the central village. The internal street network is consistent with the central village specific plan and is designed to function as a part of the larger village framework. Next slide please. project will deliver 3.5 net acre public park in planning area 17 over 17 000 square feet of thoughtfully distributed amenity spaces across the project in 88 deed restricted affordable units A key component of this project is a commitment to the much-needed regional infrastructure for the community that includes roadway improvements along Airway Road, Cactus Road, and Continental Road. The project will be widening roads, installing new sidewalks, bike lanes, and medians. The project will also be providing regional water, stormwater, and sewer infrastructure. The infrastructure has not only been sized for our project, but will support the growing Otay Mesa community. Next slide, please. Architecturally, the project is designed to complement the surrounding neighborhoods and comply with the urban design standards of the CDSP, creating a cohesive and seamless community. This is a rendering of Planning Area 11. Next slide, please. Planning Area 12. Next slide, please. And Planning Area 13. Next slide, please. And many of these include resort-style pools, fitness center, co-working spaces. Our homes are designed to function well over time and integrate with the surrounding community. Next slide, please. Once approved, we'll proceed with our final engineering and our final map, as well as the park GDP process. Hopefully, we'll get that done in 2027, where we anticipate starting grading and all the backbone infrastructure. Collection and Cactus is a well-planned, policy-consistent project that advances the goals of the Central Village-specific plan by delivering housing, affordability, infrastructure, and public open space. We appreciate your time and respectfully request Planning Commission's approval, and we're happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a bunch of other attendees that have submitted in favor. If you would like to speak, please let me know, but it says that you do not, so I'll hold this aside. Do we have any online speakers? Okay. Excuse me.

May I please read something into the record? Sure. Thank you. Before public comment, I would like to read into the record a correction to permit condition 16. Instead of a maximum density bonus of 32.5%, it should read a maximum 30% density bonus. And instead of 166 units, it should read up to 260 units.

Okay, we can move on to Commission comment through the chair, yes, can staff just clarify that was clarification to condition which.

This is condition 16 would you like me to read the entire condition no okay.

Okay, are there any Commission comments. Vice chair.

Um, I think this is a thoughtfully designed project. It does a lot of stuff that we on this planning commission and the city of San Diego has been pushing for for housing. I like that you're taking advantage of the density bonuses and still making it work pretty thoughtfully within both the specific plan and the community plan. we go i can make the findings and feel that the waivers requested are reasonable and therefore i move adoption of staff's recommendations inclusive of the memos correction to condition 16 and environmental review section notes thank you chair thank you isn't there also a correction to the addendum the base density correction and the correction to the addendum

Okay. Are there any other commissioners who would like to speak? Do I have a second on that motion?

I'll second.

Okay. We have a motion and a second. I think we can go to a vote. And that item passes unanimously. We can move on to item number five. Give staff a few minutes to set up.

But.

All right.

Phone and testimony is now open. Please review instructions provided on the screen. Good morning members of the Planning Commission. I am Matthew Nasralla, Associate Planner with the City Planning Department. Item number five before you is a request to initiate an amendment to both the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan and the General Plan. The requested amendment initiation to the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan and the General Plan seeks to redesignate the approximately seven acre site from industrial park to high medium residential density and from a general plan land use designation of industrial employment to residential. The proposed amendment would also remove the prime industrial designation from the General Plan. The location of the proposed community plan amendment initiation for the seven acre subject site is outlined in red. The subject site is that mainly drive within the Scripps Miramar Ranch community plan. The subject site is currently comprises of two occupied commercial office buildings. As for adjacent uses, the Scripps Miramar Ranch branch library and open space are north of the project site. An undeveloped lot is west of the project site. light industrial uses are east of the project site, and two undeveloped lots are south of the project site. The proposed amendment would meet the initiation criteria in the general plan in terms of consistency with goals and policies within the general plan and community plan. The proposed amendment would help to provide infill housing and to promote a variety of housing types and prices throughout the community. The proposed amendment would provide opportunities for affordable homes in a high resource area to support affirmatively furthering fair housing and consistent with the general plan housing amendment. The amendment would also provide additional public benefit by providing more affordable homes within the high resource community that has existing amenities. The amendment would also create the opportunity for additional onsite public amenities. In Scripps Miramar Ranch, all necessary public services appear available to accommodate the increase in density. If the initiation is approved, the provision and availability of public facilities will be further analyzed. On March 5th of this year, the Scripps Ranch Planning Group voted 10-9 to approve the initiation. Should the initiation be approved, issues that would be addressed would include evaluating the appropriate land use and zoning for the site, analyzing the economic impact of removing the prime industrial land designation, conducting a collocation study to demonstrate no impacts on surrounding industrial land, and evaluating parks and public spaces for new residents at the site. Other issues to be addressed would include a demonstration of efforts towards affirmatively furthering fair housing, connectivity of pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and vehicular circulation, and design consideration for the proposed land use designation. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission initiate the plan amendment process to the Scripps Miramar Ranch Community Plan. This initiation request, if approved by the Planning Commission, would not constitute an endorsement of the plan amendment or project proposal. This concludes staff's presentation, and we are available for questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions? Okay, we'll move on to public comment. Victoria Labruzzo, looks like you have a presentation. People ceding time to you. David Mody, Jeff Huter, Marianne Maram, Dave Nicolai, Dana Gibbett, Yvonne Jones, you have a max of 15 minutes.

Okay. I don't actually have a presentation. It's really just comments. So good morning again, commissioners. I'm Victoria Labruzzo. So I am the chair of Scripps Ranch Planning Group, also the chair of the CPC. And I wanted to talk a little bit about the proposed initiation request for Meritage Homes. I wanna begin by acknowledging that the planning group did vote to support the initiation, as you know. However, the vote was extremely close. It was nine in favor and 10 opposed. And that margin reflects significant and growing concern within the community about this particular area being prime industrial. I wanna be clear that the concern is not about the Meritage project alone. We actually appreciate what Meritage has done. They've been very communicative with the planning group as well as Shea Homes has too. So currently the projects that are in this area have been working with us and we really do appreciate that. However, the concern is about what's happening collectively in the area. Within less than a mile proximity to Scripps Ranch High School, there are now three discretionary projects seeking to convert prime industrial land to residential and two ministerial developments across the street that are already moving forward with 139 units between the two. And of course, you know, we have no say in the ministerial projects. If all these projects proceed, this is close to 1,000 new housing units concentrated in a very small area, potentially over 700 units through the three discretionary projects. As a planning group, we understand and expect that both CEQA and infrastructure analyses will be done to discover the cumulative impacts of all projects in the area, given their scale, proximity, and timing, and importantly, including those ministerial projects. That's our hope, but we don't know how that works. We would like the Planning Commission to understand our primary concerns about the amount of density in this very small area. First is the loss of prime industrial land. This area was designated for prime industrial use to support jobs and the longstanding planning principle of living near where you work, with Scripps Ranch primarily being a mostly residential area already. The cumulative effect of these proposals would result in the loss of a substantial portion of the industrial base. Second, the traffic and infrastructure in the area. Adding hundreds of additional units potentially approaching 1,000 onto the same collector streets raises serious concerns about traffic circulation, emergency access, and infrastructure capacity. Anyone familiar with this area knows that the traffic is already severely constrained, particularly around Scripps Ranch High School during pickup and drop off. Again, the issue is not one project. It is the combined impact on a constrained system that already exists. Third is the fire safety and evacuation. This is the community's most serious concern. This entire area is located within a very high fire hazard severity zone. 20 years ago, this community experienced a devastating wildfire that destroyed over 300 of our homes. Evacuation occurred on these same streets and the congestion of the evacuation was a significant issue at that time. To introduce substantially higher residential density into the same evacuation network is a major concern. The question that the community will be seeking is whether this level of added density has been fully evaluated from a public safety and evacuation standpoint, given these known constraints. To be clear, the Scripps Ranch community by no means is asking you to deny any request today. We have approved the initiation. We are asking that as you consider this initiation, you recognize that what is occurring in this area is not a single project decision. It is a cumulative land use shift with long term implications. And we ask that those implications, particularly related to infrastructure, safety and policy consistency, are fully understood as this process moves forward. I would like to also just raise one item in clarification from my morning public comment. I think I got the website wrong for CPC. It's SDCPC.org. But what I wanted to mention was one item I'd like to raise is that I learned from our CPC presentation at city council this past week is that the hearing bodies, including the planning commissioners, You're allowed to have dialogue with anyone, including any public commenters or groups that are speaking to an agenda item. I didn't realize that because I've never seen that happen at any of the meetings that I've attended. Mostly the dialogue is between the board and city staff. And I'll mention right now, city staff and I appreciate Matthew's presentation, but the only thing he said on planning groups was our vote. And there was no explanation of why our vote was 10 to nine. So this is why I encourage you to speak to the community to find out I'll also note that none of you asked why it was a 10 to nine vote as well. So I wanted to make sure that I'm clear that you guys, we really want you to hear the communities and we hope that you will listen and ask those questions when you have a close vote like that, especially on an initiation. So I'd like to encourage you to engage with the community presenters. Having said that, if you have any questions for the Scripps Ranch community or clarifications, I'd be happy to answer those questions. And that's it. I appreciate your time today. Thank you so much. Thank you.

Josh Vassbinder.

Thank you, Chair, Commissioners. Josh Fassbinder with the property. Real quick, I just want to clarify a couple things. First, the property is vacant. It has been vacant for a number of years. It is currently designed and built as approximately 100,000 square feet of two-story R&D buildings. So it's not really, it's more office. It's not industrial per se. So again, I just want to make sure that that's understood and taken into consideration in this conversation. I also want to make sure that it's understood that this project as being proposed, we believe actually is designed to help support the industrial users and employees in the market. This is really focused on middle, moderate income housing opportunities for sale, which again are lacking in the Scripps Ranch area. I also want to make sure I point out that the Miramar industrial area, which is incorporated within this, that occupancy has declined for three consecutive years. The Miramar vacancy significantly on the industrial side exceeds the central county average. There has been zero private capital built or delivered industrial projects in Miramar in 2025 and no plan for 26. The county industrial rents have declined by 6.5% year over year. Manufacturing employment has contracted by 2,600 jobs. The active industrial demand has moved to Otay, Mesa, North County, and Vista. This property in the 70s, when the Scripps Ranch Community Plan actually was formed, was residential. It was rezoned to industrial in the mid- 80s so again initially this was looked at as a residential project an area again the vacancy in uh the office vacancy is higher in miramar than in other surrounding uh sub markets and again the overall office vacancy again this property has been vacant for a number of years had a an insurance company that was attended in here prior they vacated excuse me it was purchased by a biotech company that thought that they could turn this into a biomed pharmaceutical area. They didn't have success there, ended up selling the property to us and we're now looking to again find a better use for the property that hopefully again will allow those businesses in the area to have additional housing options for their employees that are currently again kind of priced out of the Scripps Ranch area. So thank you for your consideration today on this initiation.

Thank you. I'm guessing this is Kara, right?

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Kara Wright. I am the project manager with Meritage Homes. I wanted to say thank you to Matthew for his work on the initiation request. Quickly, I just wanted to mention that at Meritage, we focus on what we like to call the missing middle housing, which is a lot of that homes that are duplexes, townhomes, small lots, single family that kind of fall between your larger lot, single family homes, and your high density apartments. We find that having this slightly denser product type helps us to spread the cost out over more homes and keeps our homes affordable for young professionals, young families, people who may not have home ownership opportunities in California. And we are very excited at the opportunity to be able to bring more home ownership opportunities to this area. And I'm available if you have any questions on Meritage or our intention for the site. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have any online speakers? Okay, we can move on to Commission comment. Vice Chair Boomhauer.

Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Mr. Nasrallo, for your very concise staff report. I think the initiation is appropriate. It's a highest resource area with proximity to Scripps Ranch High libraries and parks. I hear what the community planning group is saying, but I think we all know that most of the prime industrial areas in this immediate vicinity haven't been developed for industrial uses. That's why we're looking at repositioning them and it does make economic and planning sense. Just a reminder for the planning group and the public generally. uh an initiation is not an approval Mr Nasrallah said that in the staff report and I am confident that the concerns with added density related to public safety and infrastructure should be and will be studied so with that I will uh make a motion that we approve the initiation per staff's recommendation thank you okay we have a motion uh commissioner Reeves

thank you chair um I will second the motion um I will just also uh Vice Chair pretty much said everything so I won't uh belabor the point I I will address I I just want to thank you for your comments from um the community planning group chair um I've seen this body engage with speakers and I I feel like we do a pretty good job of that I know I I know that that's less common at Council but I do know that we do that here so uh You know, well done pointing that out. I think we should continue to engage and have those conversations, but I know we do do that at this body. And it's great to hear. Thank you for sharing the comments from the CPG perspective. We haven't had an opportunity to ask those questions, so that's why you haven't heard them from us yet. I think it's worth noting and you beat us to it. So thank you for sharing those. I think it's important to have that perspective. I share the concerns around eliminating prime industrial, but vacant land is vacant for a reason. We see evolution in how employers make decisions and they want to be elsewhere right now. So that we need to evolve our planning alongside of that. So my comments, I'll leave for them there and second the motion.

Any other Commission comment? I have mixed emotions about this one, because I think we need to preserve our prime industrial lands coming from a housing advocate. But I think that's also a very, very important use. So I don't know how I feel about this. I also hear the concerns about the concentration of how many projects are being proposed in one location and Scripps Ranch history of fires in those areas. We have a motion and we have a second. And it's up to the applicant to go through the whole discretionary process to disclose what those impacts are. And that's on them. So I'm supportive of the motion. I think we can go to a vote.

That passes unanimously.

We'll go on to item number six, but I'd like to take a 10 minute break. So let's return at 10, 10, 11, and we can resume. um the hearing um i do want to state for the record for the meeting minutes that seth lichney deputy director of city planning has replaced marlon pangolinan for this item number six staff whenever you are ready you may begin

Sorry, just a moment. Thank you. Bonin testimony is now open, please view the instructions on the screen to participate. Good morning Commissioners, my name is grant roadie i'm a senior planner with the city plan department. i'm here with seth litchney deputy director of housing policy and environmental analysis and city planning and how the bomb boom city planning director. i'm presenting the city plan departments proposed SP 79 phase of implementation plan with exemptions. Pursuant to the requirements of the bill, the City Council would need to adopt an ordinance to phase in SB 79 implementation in low resource areas, very high fire severity zones, sites with designated historic resources, and on sites that are subject to a one foot sea level rise, as well as to exempt areas outside of a one mile walking distance from SB 79 applicability. Today, the City Plan Department is proposing an ordinance to phase the implementation of SB 79 and to exempt certain areas from SB 79 implementation. SB 79 was signed into law by Governor Gavin Newsom on October 10th, 2025, and it seeks to address the state's housing shortage, create home ownership opportunities, and to build more homes near transit. SB 79's requirements are generally consistent with the city's general plan, including its housing element, calling for more housing options throughout the city, and its climate action plan, calling for more homes and jobs located near transit. SB 79 requires the City to approve certain housing developments within a half-mile radius of qualifying transit stops, which are called transit-oriented development or TOD stops, on sites that are zoned for commercial, residential, and mixed-use development. The half-mile areas are calculated at a straight-line distance, or as the crow flies, and are referred to as TOD zones. The bill requires that SANDAG create a map of TOD zones and stops within the city. While city planning staff has created several SB 79 maps, TOD stops are subject to confirmation from SANDAG's maps of designated TOD stops. The bill splits the TOD zones into two different areas. The first area is within a quarter mile of a TOD stop, and the second is between a quarter and a half mile of a TOD stop. It requires greater density in larger buildings the closer a site is to qualifying transit, with the greatest density in the largest buildings on sites that are within 200 feet. SB 79 provides the city with several implementation options, including the phasing and an exemption of certain areas of the city, along with a TOD alternative plan that can comprehensively implement a phased implementation approach. Such a plan would allow the city to determine optimal locations for future development around TOD stops and incorporate the feedback from community members into the city's SB 79 implementation. Thoroughly planning for new growth through a TOD alternative plan can help the implementation of SB 79 benefit San Diego. Addressing fire risk and sea level rise will help to improve public safety and phasing the implementation of SB 79 and low resource areas allows the city additional time to address infrastructure needs while furthering fair housing by allowing more homes in moderate, high and highest resource areas that may not have similar needs first. It is important to note that this type of more thoughtful planning was specifically anticipated in SB 79, which provides for this phasing and the development of TOD alternative plans. This process also allows for the city to more responsibly plan and anticipate growth in a manner that can be more efficiently served with municipal services such as fire, police, and trash collection. SB 79 allows the city to exempt areas where a walking path of less than one mile from SB 79 eligible sites to a TOD stop does not exist. While all sites in TOD zones are located within a half mile of a TOD stop, some of these areas do not have a walking path of one mile or less from these stops due to physical barriers such as canyons and freeways. Allowing development further from TOD stops would not lead to actual transit oriented development. To ensure the development allowed under SB 79 provides opportunities for future community members to access TOD stops, the city plan department's proposed ordinance would exempt these areas from SB 79 implementation. These areas would not be affected by the implementation of the bill or be included in the TOD alternative plan. It is important to remember that the intent of SP 79 is to spur transit oriented development and areas outside of a one mile walking distance from the stops would not be transit oriented. The city plan department also calculated the areas within a walking path of one mile or less taken into account site areas that lack sidewalks. As the path of travel should include safe publicly accessible sidewalks to qualify for SP 79 implementation. The bill permits a phase of implementation in low-resource opportunity areas that are identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee until one year after the adoption of the seventh housing element, which will occur in 2031. The City Planning Department can also implement SB 79 through community plans updates in low-resource areas prior to 2031 to ensure the required SB 79 densities are addressed. Phasing the implementation is desired primarily to focus housing development in areas with access to opportunity prior to the implementation in low resource areas. Portions of the city's TOD zones are in very high fire severity zones, adopted by the city council in August 2025. Because a significant portion of the TOD zones are in these very high fire severity zones, the department recommends a phased implementation through a TOD alternative plan to address fire safety. The TOD Alternative Plan allows the City to ensure the development required by SB 79 is not located in places with the most fire risk, like the areas that only have a single evacuation route. SB 79 also permits a phase of implementation on sites containing historic resources that were designated as of January 1, 2025. SB 79 implementation would occur on these sites with a TOD alternative plan to ensure that the City's newly adopted historic preservation regulations can be taken into account. Phase implementation is also allowed in the bill on sites that are identified as vulnerable to a one foot sea level rise. As shown on the map attached to the Planning Commission report, the areas affected most by a one foot sea level rise are in the western side of Mission Valley. The phased implementation of these areas would occur as part of the TOD alternative plan to address climate resiliency. Starting on July 1st, SB 79 will take effect in all qualifying areas. This means that default densities would apply in all commercial mixed use and residential zones. If the proposed ordinance is approved, only the areas outside of low resource areas that do not include designated historic resources are not subject to a sea level rise and not in a very high fire severity zone would take effect on July 1st. These are the areas marked in yellow in the map and constitute approximately 22% of the areas within TOD zone citywide. The City Plan Department will take the proposed ordinance to the City Council for approval in May. If the ordinance is approved, City Planning will transmit the ordinance to HCD for review and comment. Under SB 79, HCD has 90 to 120 days to evaluate whether the City's actions comply with SB 79. If HCD determines that revisions are necessary, the City may amend the ordinance to address HCD's comments or adopt a resolution affirming the ordinance and explaining the City's rationale for why its actions comply with SB 79. Through preliminary conversations, HED staff has indicated that a locally adopted ordinance would take effect upon city adoption, and HED's review is not required to be completed for the ordinance to take effect. The city plan department also plans to prepare a TOD alternative plan to implement SB 79, which will include the amendments to the municipal code, zoning, community plans, and the general plan. The TOD alternative plan would be provided for public review and comment before being submitted for consideration to the Planning Commission, the Land Use and Housing Committee, and the City Council. The department anticipates they could bring this item forward later this year. As far as city plans recommendation, we recommend to the city council approval of an ordinance phasing the implementation of SB 79 and exempting areas not located near transit from SB 79 implementation as provided for in SB 79. This concludes staff's presentation. We're available for any comments you have. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any clarifying questions? Vice Chair?

Thank you, Chair, and thank you, staff, for that presentation. Two clarifying questions. Do we know what the timing is for SANDAG releasing their SB79 maps?

As of today, we do not know a specific estimated date for release of CINDYG's map. We have been in close coordination with CINDYG staff, but as of today, we do not have an estimated date.

And when those maps are released, is that a staff-level release, or does that have to go to the board to then be approved before it gets implemented?

I actually don't know the answer to that question. Seth, do you know off the top of your head? nothing in the bill that says it's required to be adopted by the metropolitan planning organization it just says that the metropolitan planning organization needs to prepare a map it may go to their board they may choose to take it to the board but we can get back to you on their their plans for that we have been in coordination with sendag at this time we anticipate that the maps that you have before you today will be consistent with what sendag releases in their maps okay thank you one more question

I think I heard this in the staff report, but in the presentation, I'm not sure I saw it in the staff report. What is the expected timing for the implementation of SB 79 in the 78% of areas that are excluded from immediate implementation?

And so what is specifically proposed is for low resources to be delayed in implementation until the next housing element cycle, which occurs in 2031. With respect to the other sites, the very high fire hazard severity zones, the historic sites, and the sea level rise, those would only be delayed until the city has the opportunity to adopt a TOD alternative plan, which we anticipate that we could bring forward and back to this commission and to council later this year.

Okay, so that's part of your work plan. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Those are my questions.

Any other clarifying questions? Commissioner Miyahara?

What are the mechanics or what does the steps necessary to bring forward the alternative plan look like, you know, over the next seven, eight months? I know there's general plan updates. You're probably going to do community outreach, but can you walk me through what that looks like to try to get to end of year?

Yeah, it is a very ambitious timeline. And we do want to be able to have the opportunity if this commission would like to provide any feedback to us in terms of workshops that you would like to see as we develop that we're happy to accept that here today as well. But we do need to put together. So we anticipate that there would be amendments for our community plans, or zoning ordinances, as well as our land development regulations that we'd be bringing forward.

And did I hear staff correctly in that keeping the low resource areas off the table until the next implementation of the next housing element is is going to be till 20 2030.

Yeah, that is what is currently proposed in the proposed ordinance before this commission today. I will say that there are exceptions to that in that we are currently updating community plans in mid city. And we will also be kicking off an update in Otay Mesa Nester, which do include resource areas. And we do anticipate that we would account for the SP 79 densities for those plan updates.

Did I understand correctly that the bill only allows 10% of the historic resources to be allocated for this or set aside or exempt from SB 79?

uh there is a provision related to historic sites um I think we're gonna have to get back to you on this specific provision because I don't have it memorized off the top of my head but we can get back to uh to you that on question uh and answers okay okay are there any other clarifying questions okay oh Commissioner Renger

And maybe I missed it. Can you clarify why the low resource areas would be particularly exempt from the TOD alternative plan?

Yeah, that's a great question. So I do want to point out that everything that is proposed before this commission today is allowed by 79 and I do have to presume that the legislature provided for these for a specific reason with respect to the low resource areas. It is to for the city to be able to thoughtfully ensure our OUR COMMITMENT TO AFFIRMATIVELY FURTHERING FOR HOUSING. AS YOU ARE AWARE, LOW RESOURCE AREAS TEND TO HAVE LOWER ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY, FEWER AVAILABLE UP TO STANDARD INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS IN THE COMMUNITY. SO PHASING AND IMPLEMENTATION IN MODERATE HIGH AND HIGHEST RESOURCE AREAS GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE AND THOUGHTFULLY PLANNED PLAN FOR THESE INCREASED DENSITIES TO PHASE IN IN THE LOW RESOURCE AREAS.

Anything else? Okay. We can move on to public comment. Jeff Huter. Looks like you have a bunch of people seating time to you. Just know that the max is 15 minutes. Kathy McClellan. David Mody. Susan Baldwin. Dana Gibbett. Yvonne Jones. Dave Nicolai. David Roth. Bill Adair. Priscilla Birch. Victoria Labruzzo, Laurie Freitas, Cindy Moore, and Priscilla Burge. Can I see her? Okay, you'll have 15 minutes.

Okay, and I have a presentation. And then... And you'll put the timer up too and quickly just to answer the question that was just raised about the historic resources. It's historic sites can't constitute more than 10% of a transit oriented development zone. So around any 1 of those circles, you can't exclude more than 10% of those sites based on being historic resources. That condition doesn't really arise anywhere in this, what the city's initial study of this. So it's an consideration, but not one that overrides anything. So what I would like to talk about today is just to kind of provide an additional perspective on what the city's proposal is. We're actually in favor of the city's proposal. We think taking a phase, gradual approach makes the most sense, and I'll show why. One is that We actually already allow SB 79 density around most of the areas that are covered by SB 79. So we're not actually creating a capacity that we lack today in San Diego. The other thing is already the legislature is considering revisions to SB 79, and we think it's better that the city maintain its flexibility and implementation given that the regulations themselves may change significantly either in this legislative session or a future legislative session. So if you go to the next slide. So in the staff memo, they noted that then this is just the zone capacity in these transit in the SP-79 designated areas. Just with our underlying zoning, we're at 57% of SB-79's target. And that actually would qualify, and that's one of the reasons we're able to exclude the low resource areas because we're above that target. But the one thing it doesn't include is it doesn't include any of our bonus capacity. In particular, it doesn't include either complete communities or the bonus ADU program, which actually we'll show takes this well above the SB 79 target. And if you go to the next slide, here's where that is. So the next slide Do I get my time back? So the next slide shows you our complete communities map. And what we've done with this map is they've calculated the equivalent densities that are allowed in housing units per acre. And you can see from this that the density allowed by complete communities is actually very high, and particularly as high relative to SB 79. For example, in tier two areas, which will be covered strictly by San Diego, because we don't have tier one transit, you know, that the densities are a hundred units per acre within a quarter mile. 80 units per acre within a half a mile there's an intensifier that brings you up to 140 with 200 feet but you can see here that everywhere except in the coastal region we already exceed SB 79 in the areas that SB 79 is eligible for and And this map here with complete communities, this also reflects that it's based on the sustainable development area, so it already captures the one mile walking distance to transit. So if we go to the next slide. And just to kind of, um, emphasize that comparison, um, on the left, we have complete communities in here for a different measure are the four hours that are allowed by complete communities for each of these tiers. And you can see that it goes from two and a half on the coast, but in most places it's four to eight. And then downtown is actually unlimited. even in the most intensified version of SB 79 for San Diego we get to 140 or a 4.0 far and we're meeting or exceeding that everywhere else in the city so and this is when we talk about the 78 percent of areas that aren't being covered um by SB 79, well, they're actually covered by complete communities. And so, it's not that we're leaving out all this potential capacity, it's that it's covering certain areas that aren't covered by complete communities. The next slide, just to kind of put that in perspective. Here what you can see is the numbers there for complete communities and one of the things in addition to what I already showed on the map to say that our capacities under complete communities already exceed SB 79. There is a different requirement that is different and that is your affordability requirements for SB 79 are much different than we have under existing city programs. Today, depending on underlying density the number of percentage of units is based on the underlying zoning that can be less than what SB 79's requirements are and SB 79 requirements are seven percent if you're extremely low up to thirteen percent if you're at deeded moderate income these are comparable or exceed the requirements of the city's inclusionary housing ordinance. And these would be the requirements you would have to do on these parcels. So I think this is an important consideration that people really haven't thought of, that not only is this replacing complete communities, but it's imposing actually a much higher affordable housing requirement. And these can't, there's no in lieu fee and there's no off-siting allowed by this. So again, being conservative, we think, is a prudent choice given the disruption that could come from SB 79. Next slide. So our recommendations, again, the things that have already been proposed, the areas included, including up to a mile, and the others, we agree with those restrictions. Maintaining the flexibility for an alternative plan, our specific recommendations on top of what's already been proposed in the ordinance, it's written in a way that confuses the possibility that We're changing the definition of a major transit stop. It's not making a change to that code. It's not really germane to SB 79, but it does potentially create confusion over the sustainable development area of major transit stops. And therefore, we're recommending that that phrase just be stricken out of there. It's not functionally important. There was an old artifact that didn't need to go to the Planning Commission. We're here today, so I think that point is moot. Next slide. We think that there's a possibility that SB 79's implementation could get delayed by the legislature. So what we're recommending is that not just when we adopt the ordinance locally in San Diego, but whenever it actually truly comes into effect, which could be July 1st, or it could be later if the legislature so elects. So we would just say that we should do it the latest of those possible options. Again, maintaining flexibility. The other thing is this could be radically changed. There could be lawsuits, there could be any number of actions that would revoke SB 79 and go back to the planning that we've already done, which frankly already achieves all the ends of SB 79 anyway. If that happens, we would like the SB 79 ordinance to similarly be either delayed if it's delayed or revoked if it's revoked. And so that's basically otherwise. We're in support of what the provisions are. And let me be clear. Do we like SB 79? No, we were very much against SB 79. One, because it created a whole new set of regulations. But also, there are places where SB 79 applies, where complete communities doesn't apply, and that would be in single family neighborhoods. So in particular, you've heard something about including low resource areas. Well, most of the low resource areas that would be eligible for SB 79 are actually single family neighborhoods in Southeast San Diego. Those aren't heavily developed commercial areas. And so this would have a significant negative impact on those communities. And in general, as indicated by this slide, Getting to where you actually have transit adoption and real transit-oriented development requires putting a lot of people in a localized place. This slide, I admit it's kind of an eyesore, but basically you need to have at least three to five times the density, population density, that San Diego has today in order to get to where there's enough jobs, people, and other activities where people are really gonna use transit and not maintain their car use. And particularly if you already have suburban neighborhoods that are separated by uses where people are taking cars, dumping a seven story building in the middle of that community isn't gonna change those transit conditions. And so one of the things you really need to do to further transit-oriented development is concentrated as much as you can, rather than trying to maximize the footprint of that development and produce these kind of results. And I think that's something we don't often think about. We keep trying to use future transit plans out to 2050 to justify development. Really, the transit we have here and now is what we need to be optimizing. In particular, the areas that are the most important, and that's what's really the predominant part of our implementation plan, are the areas around the trolley. And if you think about the trolley backbone of San Diego, it goes through Mission Valley, and you can take the trolley from there. You can go south into downtown where there's high concentration of jobs. You can go north. to UTC where there's a high concentration of jobs, and the trolley connects three major universities, UCSD with the introduction of the Mid-City Trolley, the blue line, USD and SDSU, and so we've got that backbone that would allow a concentration of development, you know, sort of smearing it around the remaining areas of the city, made you know, produce some sort of localized density, but those people are just going to use cars just like the existing residents are. In closing, I think there's another, if you go to the last slide, So the important thing here is we've already created the capacity required by SB 79 under our existing regulations. Honestly, we asked that the legislature actually apply some criteria to exclude cities altogether from this because we've gone from what the planning that we're doing already to now having to come and do an SB 79 implementation that basically creates a whole new confusing and conflicting set of regulations. Um, There again, I think there's a lot of uncertainty about where this is go. SB 79 was revised 13 times as it made its way through the legislature, which is why there's a lot of loose ends and ambiguous clauses in it that need to be cleaned up. I think as people start to really understand what it's doing, I think we're going to say, we didn't think it was going to go here and there or have this level. And so we think there's going to be changes there. And again, we just want to, what the city's doing is they're saying, look, here's what we're required. And there's nothing that's outside of the law here. SB 79 says you're allowed to do this phased implementation, and San Diego's doing this phased implementation. And the reason is, this was very rushed. we're having to get to where we're already implementing this, and we don't even have the sand egg map, and so it'd be much, so that's why it's better to just be conservative in this. Um, and then take the time to figure out what we really want to do with the alternative plan. And that's what the city has done with this. And I don't like all the places. Again, I'm not a big proponent of SP 79. I think just sort of sprawling out, um, in different places is something that we should try and move beyond. And because we're very intentional on our community plans and saying, here's where we really think density should go. And it's always considerate of where our transit is. And we should be proceeding on that basis. And I think that's about it. So I'm just going to make one more comment. We hear a lot about a lot of this is driven by, you know, our housing affordability challenges here in San Diego, particularly for lower income residences. And one of the things that never gets talked about, first of all, there isn't a land capacity problem here. If you look at what San Diego built, our building of housing is based on what the market can absorb, and we're fairly in track with that. If you really look at what's driving rising rents is that San Diego's incomes, median incomes have risen 30% since 2019, and our rents have risen 30% since 2019. And I think one of the things that's important is to start thinking about how do we manage that income divergence? And it's gonna take more than an SB 79 or even a complete communities or any of the other things. We just need to start having a discussion about how do we get, how do we really house the people that need the housing? It's expensive to build affordable housing today. How do we make that more efficient and more cost-effective for the public? And I think you guys would really understand that. And I'll leave it at that. Thank you.

Thank you. Zach DeFazio, Farrell. You have Manny Rodriguez seating time. Okay. You'll have six minutes.

Wonderful.

All right.

Good morning. My name is Zach DeFazio-Farrell. I'm an attorney and a member of the law and policy team of the YIMBY Democrats of San Diego County. The city's revised SB 79 analysis acknowledges only a handful of bus stops, ambiguously marked on attachments three through eight of today's agenda packet without route labels. SB 79 requires only a dedicated lane and peak frequency service of 15 minutes or less. to qualify as a Tier 2 TOD stop. The California Department of Housing and Community Development's March 20th advisory confirms that standard explicitly. As detailed in the UME Democrats letter included in today's written public comments, we've identified 52 stops that satisfy every criterion in the statute across five routes. Routes 1, 7, 10, Rapid 215, and Rapid 235. the city should implement sp79 because the law requires it not because litigation compels it proactive compliance based on the statute is written is both a legally sound and fiscally responsible path forward this matters because under a government code section 65912.160f sandag's tod stop map carries a rebuttable presumption of validity it is the map that project applicants and local governments are legally entitled to rely on Getting it right is not a technical detail. It determines the scope of SB 79 throughout the region. We urge the commission to ensure the city's implementation accounts for all 52 qualifying stops when Sandag releases its map. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Sharon Gell.

Hello, my name is Sharon Gale. I'm also a member of UMADEMS, and I support this ordinance. But after we, after the City Council passed... Could you please... Okay, thank you. After the city council passes this ordinance, when we start to look at the high fire zones and historic resources in detail, we need to put public safety first. Remember that the safest buildings in a fire are the newest ones because they have to be built to strict new fire codes. The most dangerous buildings are the older ones. The craftsmen homes were the most likely to burn the Altadena Fire because they have flammable wood siding, single pane windows that shatter in a fire, and wide eaves that catch flames. We need to allow owners of historic resources to replace single pane windows and flammable wood siding, or replace the whole building with a safer new building. The more new buildings that are built, The safer a neighborhood will be in a fire. It's another form of herd immunity. The city needs to put public safety first If the city continues to prohibit owners of historic resources from replacing single pane windows or safer double pane windows with safer double pane doors and wooden siding with non-flammable materials, they leave the city open to possible class action lawsuits. All the problems with historic preservation go away if we make it voluntary only. The city needs to put public safety first. Thank you.

Thank you. Doreen Diaz.

Can you turn on the lower mic?

OK.

Hi, Doreen Diaz, and I'm speaking on behalf of Hammershaw Neighborhood Council. We have a big concern with SB 79. We're happy with your proposed phase on three and four, but what is missing is one, your sandbag map, which I spoke about and emailed Heidi Von Blum and the mayor at least a dozen times. is in violation of the skyline paradise hills community plan on page 126 i've even sent them photos we have a neighborhood called hammershaw if you look in your analysis it is not even included on their proposed legislation though they talk about the massachusetts trolley stop the massachusetts trolley stop with homes in city of san diego every single home and every single street is in the hammershaw neighborhood if you look at sb 79 everyone's talking about the homes near transit but that is not what it says it also talks about jobs i am not hearing anyone talk about creating jobs and homes near transit. It is all just about increasing density. I'm not hearing anyone talking about the infrastructure. We are decades, we're not even the two be done soon on the undergrounding and 80% of Hampshire, we only have one of our eight sectors that's on the list right now and we have seven sectors that are not even for undergrounding we have narrow streets and 90 percent of hamishaw is in a high very high fire zone and i can't say your name but the third gentleman over there um spoke about, you know, community input. I want you to please all of you read your neighborhood, your neighborhood input policy citywide and make sure you read it because it does not talk about community planning groups. It talks about community planning groups, community organizations, neighborhood councils, all the groups. My planning group has two neighborhoods being represented of the six people. there's six geographical areas and only two skyline paris hills are represented they could never speak on behalf of our community because they didn't even know our homes flooded they didn't even know choice creek was in their own planning group and some of them have been on that community plan 10 to 15 years so i really hope you will do a vigorous community input and not just go to community planning groups and not just go to the CPC, but go to neighborhood councils who actually know the area. You don't even know how many people actually participate in from these groups. But the other big missing thing is ADA. What about grades? There's a grade on Canton from that Massachusetts that almost 40% grade. There's no mention of ADA. So I wish you would consider that too. Thank you.

Thank you. I believe we have a couple online speakers.

Yes, we have two online speakers. Andrea Heatheroo, please unmute yourself.

I'm Andrea Hedgley, founder of Hold the Hill. We support the staff recommendation to delay implementation of SB 79 in the low resource districts of D4, D8, and D9. That delay should be used actively and constructively. Major amenities and infrastructure of a scale sufficient to attract regional use and materially shift economic conditions need to be in place before any increase in residential density. So that as density does increase, the conditions support a broader economic mix so that there is no further divergence from compliance with affirmatively furthering fair housing law and so that further degradation of the quality of life in our communities is not the result. Thank you.

Thank you. Our final speaker is Paul Jamison. Please unmute yourself. You have three minutes.

Hi there. I'm Paul Jamison. I live in Kensington. I wanted to second Zach's comments from earlier about the rapid bus stops. I have an email from Mr. Rurode, the planner, from March 30th. saying that based on the hcd guidance for rapid bus stops and in coordination with sandag we are in the process of adding several bus stops within the city to our list of sb 79 eligible sites i'm only seeing four stops um and it sounds like from zach's comments it should be 52 so maybe if you could give some time after we're done here to just explain why we have four stops instead of 52 the guidance is explicit that anything along a rapid bus route any of those stops should qualify for SB 79. So we'd love some clarification on that. I want to express my support for SB 79. I think given the magnitude of our housing crisis, really urge you to consider some of the negative impacts on housing for many of these proposed exemptions that you're talking about for SB 79. Just from my perspective, I've owned a single family home in South Kensington since about 2000. I've watched our neighborhood become extremely unaffordable. I'd love to see SB 79 applied to the areas around all the rapid bus stops on El Cajon Boulevard. I often walk or bike to them so that more people can be allowed to live in our community and your transit. um you know unfortunately we need these state level zoning overrides because in Kensington since the 1998 Community plan update that down zoned our neighborhood we've built less than 100 units that's less than five per year that's part of why we're in a housing crisis and despite this our Cantal planning group voted for option two in the upcoming Mid-City plan update which would really prevent new multi-family housing in most of our neighborhood and mostly just along alcohol Boulevard so Sadly, local control by single-family homeowners, and I'm one of them, is a major reason why we're in a housing crisis. All SB 79 implementation is really needed to overcome the outsized influence that housing opponents, which you've seen today, continue to have in our local planning group process. Thanks so much.

Okay, that concludes our public testimony. We can move on to Commission comment. Vice Chair Boomhauer?

uh thank you chair thank you staff for the presentation and answering the questions before i've got more um but a couple comments first i i'm just going to go on the record and um please take this in the spirit that it is being offered um i i really miss the good old days which didn't seem like they were that long ago when san diego was a maximalist housing jurisdiction and the city planning department was well then listen harder i'm talking into the mic really miss the time when the san diego was a maximalist housing jurisdiction and the city planning department pushed for the most expansive interpretation of what state law allowed i understand why staff wants time to thoughtfully address the high fire severity historic sea level rise areas i fully support excluding out the areas that have longer than a mile walking distance Um, and I get the understanding with, with trying to make sure that we're focusing this development in high and highest resource areas first. But I really, really wish we were being more expansive in adopting this. Uh, I've said this before, it's been a minute, so I'm going to say it again. I'm still taking the position that we need more housing at all price points and every neighborhood in San Diego. Uh, the housing affordability crisis is a housing supply problem. Uh, it's not, it is actually also a capacity problem. We need to be building more housing. That's what's causing rent rates to come down or at least stabilize. That is what is going to allow everyone who deserves to be able to live in San Diego, the people who care for our elderly and our kids, the teachers and all nurses, all of those people who are currently having to drive from Baja, California or Riverside to be able to live here. And I'm actually glad, thank you, Mr. Heuter, for Neighbors for a Better San Diego recognizing that we actually need much higher concentrated density to increase transit adoption. Let's go for it, man. Let's... I want to see that absolutely everywhere. We have transit invested and I appreciate that you guys are joining with us in pushing for that. So I have questions for staff. Can we actually talk about why there aren't more bus stops than the four that have been added into this plan?

Yeah, I'll start off and then I'll turn it over to our deputy city attorney as well. We have reviewed the statute quite extensively, both at the staff level and in coordination with SANDAG and our city attorney's office. The definition for the bus rapid transit, so it's very clear that all of the trolley stations are included. And then as far as the bus rapid transit, what the statute says is it says fully dedicated bus lanes. So the bus stops that we've identified in the materials before you include the areas on the I-15, which are fully dedicated, as well as Park Boulevard, which are fully dedicated. The other bus rapid lanes that go along El Cajon Boulevard and University are not fully dedicated bus lanes because they allow for turnpockets, turning vehicles, as well as bicycles within them. So I don't know if, Shannon, you have anything else to add?

Deputy City Attorney Shannon Eckmeyer. I agree with our planning director and that is what the statute states and the HCD advisory memo restates the statute full-time dedicated bus lane. And I know staff has been in coordination with both HCD and SANDAG. Ultimately, if SANDAG releases maps that have more bus stops um we will the city will be required to amend the ordinance to match sandag but that is the what what the statute says full-time dedicated are we prohibited from voluntarily adding more bus stops

So we could, but it wouldn't be within the scope of implementation of SB 79. So for example, we are updating the Mid-City Community Plan update right now, as you're aware. And so through that, we can certainly exceed the densities or include the densities of SB 79 along those areas. And I anticipate that some of those areas will include significantly increased densities. It just wouldn't be through the guise of the implementation of SB 79.

That segues nicely to my next point. If SB79 requires these bus lanes to be exclusive and including turnpockets and allowing for them to be joint used with bike lanes, which is quite a bit of the 215 corridor, if that's tripping us up is city planning going to then be pushing for more the incorporation of more dedicated protected bikeways separated from the dedicated transit lanes as part of current and future community plan updates

Yeah, so as part of all of our community plan updates, as this commission is aware, we do a full mobility analysis and we do provide provide for complete streets, which do include full time dedicated bus rapid lanes, where appropriate. We don't have that item before us today, but happy to continue that conversation as we update our community plans. We do also work in coordination with sand egg and MTS on those as well.

Okay. Thank you. Um, so my final comment is that I just really hope that city council pushes city planning and is cooperative. Cause I know you're somewhat at the dictation dictated to by their hearing schedule, but, um, that you city planning try very, very hard to hit your year end target for implementation and that city council pushes you to make sure that we hit that. I know at least I for this body will continue to push for that as well. And if we need to do workshops or things on that, then I think we should get those scheduled so that we can look at that. Something's better than nothing. So I'm willing to grudgingly make a motion to support staff's recommendation for adoption so that this can go to city council and and go to hcd and we can get some more clarity i re i just want to reiterate i really wish we were pushing uh the envelope harder but um i'll take what we have in front of us uh it is better than the status quo thank you those are my comments thank you commissioner miehara

Thank you staff for the presentation. Excuse me. I think that SB 79 gives us an opportunity to build more housing near transit. It's another tool in the toolbox. However, phasing implementation or exempting specific areas reduces the potential for more housing. As the report showed, only 22% of the applicable SB 79 areas are activated. And I have an issue with that. The two key areas that I think are really reducing potential capacity include the low resource areas and the very high fire hazard severity zones. So can we pull up the map for the low resource? I think it's important to take a look at that. So my position really is that low resource areas should not be excluded from the current policy proposal. If I heard staff right, we'd be delaying until the next housing element, which is 2030. Is that right?

Our next housing element cycle is in 2031, and that is the proposal that is about five years from now, and that gives an opportunity to phase in and moderate high and highest resource areas, which has been a challenge. In many instances, in order to get more housing and particularly affordable housing in our city's high resource areas first.

So, I'm personally not sure what the concern is here. I think restricting areas reduces housing potential. It doesn't redirect it. Excluding low resource areas is not going to result in an increase in. In the higher resource areas, there's really no correlation between. These 2 things, that's my, my personal opinion. I don't think that. Housing production is a fixed quantity. Housing production is elastic and it's not a zero sum game. In reality, development is really, concentrated in high resource areas um due to the the market conditions you can rent these places for more developers are pursuing these types of areas and i think that if you were to look at the map of low resource areas i'm not aware of any higher density MARKET RATE HOUSING, AT LEAST OF SIZE AND SCALE, OCCURRING IN A LOT OF THESE AREAS SOUTH OF THE 94. MOST MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT IS HAPPENING WEST OF THE 805, NORTH OF THE 94 AND DOWNTOWN. SO IF YOU WERE TO CARVE THAT OUT ON THIS MAP, THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE'RE SEEING MARKET RATE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY. SO REMOVING LOW RESOURCE AREAS FROM CONSIDERATION isn't going to result in relocating projects that would otherwise be developed in these areas. It is just going to eliminate them. Most developments and the development patterns are driven by economics. You know, we conduct financial feasibility on a project by project basis. part of the reason why we're not seeing development in some of the lower resource areas is they just don't pencil. So by removing a tool that might otherwise allow for higher density, more units, it's gonna result in these projects just not being built. I'd make an argument also that limiting low resource areas undermines fair housing goals. We're not expanding access. We're not increasing housing choice if housing isn't built. Fair housing does not require limiting housing supply in certain areas. What we're doing here is reducing housing options because housing won't get built. We're limiting access to transit and connecting transit to higher opportunity areas if we don't build this housing. I'd also argue that transit-oriented housing is an equity benefit. We're focusing on housing near transit with SB 79, and by providing housing in lower resource areas, this provides folks with better access to jobs, gives them improved mobility. So I do have concerns around completely delaying implementation for low resource areas. The other area I have concern about is in the fire, the high fire hazard zones. I think we could take a more tactical approach and not just a blanket delay. I understand that maybe we're gonna roll out some of the proposed implementation later this year. What I'd like to see is, you know, is if we can maybe put in some date certain timelines for the highest fire zone areas. I mean, how do we do that? Is that even possible?

This commission is welcome to make any recommendations for the ordinance right now, because there is a fairly onerous process for the development of a TOD alternative plan in that we do go through the process that we would for any typical zoning or community plan ordinance, as well as an HCD review process, which is where we have tied the delay to the approval by HCD of that TOD alternative plan. This commission is certainly welcome to provide a recommendation on a sooner date. I do want to point out that the proposal is not to exclude very high fire hazard severity zones, but simply to allow the planning department additional time to be able to identify the most appropriate areas or, in some cases, areas that it would be preferred to shift density away from. I do want to point out that there is another state bill, SB99, that requires the city to update its safety element and identify areas that lack sufficient evacuation access in the event of certain risks, including fire. And so as we've been working behind the scenes to develop those maps, we want to ensure consistency between the areas that we're allowing for increased densities with fire safety. We do not anticipate that the TOD alternative plan will eliminate applicability within these areas at all. There is a requirement that we shift any density. That means shift. It doesn't mean eliminate. But we do anticipate that we would be proposing to eliminate from areas that are the most constrained in terms of safe evacuation routes. uh with respect to the um lower resource areas i also do want to point out that the proposal is not to exempt them from implementation but simply to provide additional time our department is also working on an action plan to affirmatively further for housing which is a priority for our department as well as for the city and that gives us an opportunity to look at for housing not just from the standpoint of planning for increased densities and intensities, but also looking at other ways to improve communities through infrastructure improvements. This just gives our city a little bit more time to thoughtfully plan for the new development that I agree with you would benefit from additional housing within their communities. We do see development occurring in low resource areas at a pretty good clip. Most of those are affordable housing projects and they're not market rate housing projects. Our goal is for there to be affordable housing in all communities and phasing in the lower resource areas allows us to more thoughtfully look into that so that we don't result in an over concentration of affordable housing in certain areas. Thank you.

thanks for that um i guess the concern over the the low resource just to respond to that is that housing potential housing deals that are on the verge of being feasible you know could really benefit from sp79 uh and by not rolling this out or rolling it out in 2031 you know those those deals are staying on the shelf and so I also think that and acknowledge, yes, a lot of the affordable housing developments in San Diego, city of San Diego are in some of these lower resource areas. But having said that, I also think that in order for a lot of these deals to move forward, it requires local public subsidy in the form of a city loan, a housing commission loan. And so that's the cities or the housing commissions RECOGNITION OF THE PROJECTS THEY WANT TO SEE AND WHERE THOSE PROJECTS ARE LOCATED. SO IN THE CURRENT STATE OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS. I WOULD PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT one and i'm curious if you know other members here would be interested in supporting that but i i do think that low resource areas need to be removed from phased implementation i'd also like to see a date certain uh for recommendations to come back uh for phased implementation of very high uh hazard severity zones you know including evacuation analysis, fire-resistant construction requirements, and infrastructure adequacy standards. That would be what I would propose.

Thank you. Commissioner Renger?

Thanks for the presentation and thanks to the public for coming to express your concern and or support. for SB 79. It's interesting. I have more questions than I have answers or statements, if you will. I'm curious, we did hear from Mr. Hooter, and I thank you, Mr. Hooter, for providing a map. Because one of the things that I was actually going to ask for or ask if we had done was, um compare the map of complete communities and what sb 79 proposes and how that overlap how it overlaps and it looks like there is quite a bit of overlap um so the question is um with the adoption of sb 79 does that supersede the um complete housing complete communities housing

So there are significant overlaps between where Complete Communities currently applies in the SB 79 areas. Although Complete Communities only applies to housing developments at minimum density for multifamily and they do not include single family. So that is the main difference and there are additional areas. The areas that we identified, I think it was about 370,000 capacity for new units is what is remaining if you just straight look at the zone versus the densities, but that does not account for the applicability of complete communities. When we bring forward the TOD Alternative Plan, and I appreciate that this is quite complicated, trust me, we on our end feel that as well, is that we will be looking at that. What typically happens when we up zone certain areas is that complete communities can become less less helpful in that the affordable housing requirement is based on the base density of the zone so when the zone base density increases we do see less use of the complete communities program not necessarily that it's not an option or that it's superseded just that it becomes to the market less attractive and okay so then that brings me to the next question which is um

That. Part of option for says you know to the alternative plan right. So. You said that we'll study the implementation of SB 79 to future community plan updates, right? It's city, etc. But what about, how will that be then applied to the community plan updates that we just implemented and adopted?

Yeah, great question. So the community plan updates that we just adopted will require amendments. And that is what will come forward as part of the package for the TOD alternative plan.

Okay. And this is just a question. Is there an option five? Meaning, like, is there an option where we don't adopt anything, you know, that has to do with SB 79? Just to say, hey, you know, as a city, we're already very much pushing for housing and, you know, the density. Like, is there an option? I'm just asking.

There is, yes. And I believe that was laid out as option one. um in the memo which is the city take no action and allow it to phase in what what our department has proposed is that there are some very real planning considerations that we would strongly recommend be taken into account as we plan for development across our city and where that takes you know a little bit more time to thoughtfully develop the tod alternative plan that is what the department is recommending okay thank you

Commissioner Reeves. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Stella. I know this is really... It's difficult, complex stuff, and you do a good job making it as simple as possible for us. I appreciate that. Thanks to the communities for coming out and speaking. This question, and I apologize ahead of time if this has been addressed, it's just sort of something that keeps sticking in my mind. But to the extent that SB 79 conflicts with complete communities or other local code, Does SB 79 prevail in the way that you've proposed rolling it out? Or could someone opt to use complete communities rules instead of those of SB 79 for inclusionary housing, as long as the densities meet SB 79 requirements?

This is a really great question. I'll answer in two parts. The first one is that assuming that a TOD alternative plan is adopted with new zoning and new community plan designations, If complete communities is still applicable, which I anticipate it will be, it would be at the developer's choice to utilize the provisions of it or not. It may be that complete communities is desired for other benefits, including increased density or whatever other deviations may be desired for that. But it may become less attractive, as I stated, because of the increased base density. You raise an interesting question and I think that I'll have to confer with our city attorney's office and just get back to this commission generally on the areas that will be going into effect immediately. Does that zoning override the base zoning and how do we calculate the base zoning for purpose of complete communities? I think we will have to do a more thorough analysis on that so that I am not determining that on the spot today.

Thank you, I understand. There's another sort of technical question, but the applicability of other rules, let's say for preservation of historic resources and things like that. I saw that the government relations team is looking at lobbying for different changes to SB 79 as it goes through the legislation. that was called out that among others um was allowing the city to enforce other rules um like rules around uh preservation of historic resources the way it reads now am i to understand that the fact that we want to push for that in the future means that that doesn't exist now so could somebody tear down a historic resource um and in the name of SB 79 saying that the city's protections of that resource don't actually apply here because SB 79 is silent to that.

Right. SB 79 is silent to that. I think that we would read that the other regulations applicable to the development would continue to apply except for the density and height that SB 79 essentially preempts at the state level. We did write in our memo that we would like some legislative clarity on that just to provide because it would be helpful. But take for example environmentally sensitive lands, I don't anticipate that there would be an expectation that environmentally sensitive lands regulations would no longer apply.

Is that something the ordinance could address?

We plan to do that and address this more comprehensively through that TOD alternative plan process because this is a not insignificant workload in terms of implementation and we do really want to be able to have the opportunity to address all of these very important questions comprehensively and our recommendation is to achieve that through the TOD alternative plan.

Understood. Great segue then to my next question, which is, does the development of the TOD alternative plan take resources away from community plan updates and other things that are in your work plan for this year?

Every additional item that our department receives takes away resources from other items on our work program.

Okay. Yeah. And that's to be expected. Does that mean we're going to see other things that were on the work plan that were priorities taken off this year?

As this commission may be aware, the city is experiencing a budget deficit, and we do have additional reductions proposed for our department. As I say, every single year our department will do its best with the resources and staffing that it has to be able to keep the work program on track. We will be releasing a new work program for FY27 prior to the end of this fiscal year. We're happy to come back to this commission and provide a briefing on that. I do expect some items to trail, but not necessarily be removed from the work program. There's kind of a combination of factors that go into how we can prioritize it. We do prioritize our resources on grant funded work because we have grant funding for that. That includes all of the community plan updates. So what I can tell you is I do not anticipate that those schedules will be impacted.

Okay. Got it. Thank you. That's all the questions I have. I'm curious to hear my colleagues' position on Commissioner Miyahara's thoughts on the delay of the low resource areas. I see his point. I think that it's complicated and as is economics, like sort of macro economics of real estate are complicated. So I know there's a lot of uh well-educated people on this commission on that topic so i'd love to hear other other people's thoughts on that um i am generally supportive of putting in a date certain for the tod alternative plan adoption i know that staff has said there's a target of the end of the year which great if that is achieved i know that that's ambitious but if we could say like you know it has to be done i think within a year or whatever uh that means that we're not There's not a risk of it happening five years from now, which I know is unlikely. I have full faith in your team that you'll bring it forward as soon as possible, but just some safeguard to make sure that it doesn't get delayed further and further. I'll leave it at that. I know we have a motion on the table, but I am curious other thoughts on the delay.

You didn't provide a motion?

I said I was willing to make a motion, but I did not make a motion. So that being the case, I would fully support Commissioner Miyahara's language as a motion if he wanted to make such a motion.

Commissioner, can you repeat the amendments to the staff's recommendation?

So the first would be removing low resource areas from phased implementation in this entirety. The second would be implementation of very high fire hazard zones with a conditional work plan to be brought back in front of this body within one year.

If I can, I think Deputy City Attorney Shannon Eckmeyer might have some clarification questions.

Yes, I do. So I understand the removing the low resource implementation. So we would just be taking out the phased implementation and making that SB 79 implemented in that area, those areas as well. Right now I have a question on the very high severity zone part of the motion. So right now it's stated that we're phasing implementation until the adoption of the alternative plan, the seventh revision of the housing element or whichever occurs first. So I believe planning's intent is to bring the TOD alternative plan prior to a year from now, but my recommendation would be the adoption of a TOD alternative plan or did you want it returned to you for consideration or just have these areas implement SB 79 within a year from now if the alternative plan is not in effect?

I think this body would benefit from seeing what the proposed implementation plan would be. I think what I want to see is performance-based standards that establishes clear criteria around SB 79 as it relates to being eligible in very high fire risk areas. I think the concerns right now is about evacuation routes, public safety. and having the right criteria around fire resistant construction requirements. Is that fair to say?

I'm still not understanding what exactly you want to go into effect. So I'm assuming if we leave it as is today, then SB 79 will be phased in those areas until the TOD alternative plan is effect, let's say at the end of this year or the housing element in 2031. I would recommend as part of this action in motion, you state not amending the ordinances written and saying the Planning Commission requests the city planning return the high fire severity zone maps and implementation of SB 79 by end of April 2027 if the TOD alternative plan is not in effect.

That would work. Yes. Okay.

I have a request for clarification. You had said to remove the low resource areas from the phasing. Is that completely removed or does that put it in the categories with the development of the TOD alternative plan?

Completely removed. I don't want it as part of the implementation plan. I want those areas to be eligible today or with adoption of this ordinance.

Commissioner, can I recommend that we pair the low resource area with the high fire severity zone so that there is some opportunity to evaluate that and have it as a date certain?

Let me ask a question. Does this conflict with the city's efforts, including low resource? And this is my understanding is you're trying to address the affirmatively furthering fair housing um efforts for the city of san diego is that is that right is that part of the background as to why you're uh so what is the concern there i guess is what i'm not fully understanding because i don't think that i think by removing low resource areas from this for the time being i don't see that having any correlation with development occurring in high, highest, or moderate resource areas.

Yeah, thank you. It's not just that. It's an and statement, I would say. So low resource areas in our city tend to have less access to fresh and healthy food, less access to high quality parks, less access to better performing schools, high paying jobs, et cetera. So those are the areas that do require the most thoughtful planning when we are planning to add people to the areas. So these areas are very important for us to be able to plan for lots of things before the growth occurs. So it is an issue of yes, we do want to see development in high resource areas and we want to see housing for community members in low resource areas, but we have to get it right. We have to be able to look at real factors that affect community members that are currently living in the communities with respect to everyday amenities that some of us can take for granted, but that do not currently exist in those communities.

I think we actively acknowledge that infrastructure and amenities aren't aren't where we might otherwise want them to be in some of our actions to adopt community plan updates. So I don't know what the concern is here. I mean, I'm leaning towards not making that date certain. I want low resource areas to be in effect with adoption of this ordinance.

I understand what Ms. VanBloem is talking about and just having an extra layer of review. But at the same time, the reason they, you know, aside from the city's infrastructure challenges in the low resource areas, access to fresh healthy food, businesses, working, all of that comes from catalytic projects that bring housing and market rate housing. And right now the low resource area is concentrated with affordable housing. Market rate developers are not incentivized to go into those areas and we need them to go into those areas so that the other amenities will naturally follow. And I don't think it's fair to wait five years and kick the can down the road to address this. So my proposal is, yes, I think you need some time to really dig in and identify the appropriate areas. But at the same time, it can't go on forever. So can we come up with some date certain for that exercise to occur?

I'm open to a year.

OK. Would the other commissioners agree to that?

i'm willing to second the motion so yes by extension i'm open to them i i have a clarifying question for commissioner mirahara just in terms of you had said that you gave an example right you gave an example of projects that could benefit from sb79 that might otherwise be shelved um If it is not implemented immediately, can you tell me, so what are the nuances of a deal like that where they wouldn't? That would be the thing that, you know, takes it over the threshold as opposed to any of the provisions that are in the complete communities housing.

I think there's a lot of nuance to that. So, you know, assuming like complete communities isn't in play or the use of the city's great density bonus program that goes beyond state law requirements. I think this is just another tool in a developer's toolbox that they could utilize to get more height, which would translate to more units, things of that nature. The 10% requirement to access this particular program is a pretty low threshold. And I just think that this is a tool to offer incentives to developers. And it's really site-specific. So it's not to dodge your question. I think it's just too nuanced. But this is additive to... to a developer's use when analyzing any given site.

Through the chair, before you vote, I want to clarify this motion again for the low resource areas. Do you want this to come back to you in a year certain or do you want implementation of SB 79 to be in effect if there is not a TOD alternative plan in a year or like April 31st, 2027? I think this coming

You recommended that it doesn't, that the high fire hazard zones don't come back to this body. Is that right? That part of the...

The action was, your motion was that those masks will come back to you for consider, that area will come back to you for consideration a year from now if the alternative plan is not in effect.

Then I would say same thing. Same thing. It's not in effect. I'd like to come back.

Come back here. Okay.

could we maybe modify that there's a workshop opportunity between now and that time and that time is when it's supposed to be like actually heard for approval to city council or recommendation.

We can add that. I think other commissioners would like the idea of that.

Vice chair. Just I just want to echo and and make sure Heidi, that you and your team are hearing part of what's coming from from this group, which is that with these low resource areas, I very much echo what, what Chair Modane was saying that we've part part of our strategy has to be designed, like I totally get that. And you have to have the policy in place and, and make sure we're we're adequately addressing some of the shortcomings that exist in these lower resource areas. But city government only has so much power design and policy only has so much power and having market rate developers working in those areas and doing things that aren't just 100 affordable projects are going to bring a lot of those other amenities that i mean unless unless the city of san diego is going to start opening city-owned grocery stores which we're not then we need the public sector to or the private sector to come in and be willing to do that and retail follows rooftops you know jobs follow rooftops and so i think i think the hesitation you're hearing from at least some of the commissioners up here maybe all of us is that by excising those areas out by delaying certainly five years is way too long But But I think any delay is just simply exacerbating an existing problem and not allowing the market to try to come in and, and correct some of this chronic underinvestment. And so I just, at least from my standpoint, I want to make sure city planning's hearing why we're pushing so hard on this. And hopefully, when when you're reporting back to council committee into council, you can you can help give that context to them as well.

Okay, so it sounds like we have a motion. Ms. Eckmeyer, do you want to read it?

The commission recommends adopting staff's or recommending to city council approval of staff's recommendation if a TOD alternative plan is not in effect by or adopted by city council by April 31 2027. Then the high fire severity zone, resource maps, and the low resource areas will come back to city planning City Planning Commission for considering consideration and review. That sound good. April 31, April 30. Sorry. Yes. Thank you.

fictitious date. Can we also add that we would like a workshop? I don't know if that's appropriate to put in in the motion. But I think regardless, we should have a workshop for some of these excluded areas today.

I think you can request not the planning department do a workshop.

Does it need to be in the motion?

We're going to come and do a workshop, so I don't necessarily think it needs to be in the motion.

I do want to clarify the historic thing, though.

Sure, absolutely.

So there are two places in SB 79 that reference historic resources. The first is related to phasing implementation that says that we are allowed to phase sites that have designated historic resources as of 2025. The second is related to the development of a TOD alternative plan where we're able to shift the densities and the housing capacity. What the bill says is that you are allowed to shift all of the required SB 79 housing capacity off of those historic resources sites. as long as those historic resources sites don't take up more than 10% of a TOD area. So it's just a limitation on what we can do with a TOD alternative plan, not necessarily related to the phased implementation before you today.

Got it. Do we have any concerns with that and wanting to include that in the, well, you're going to put that in the TOD plan? Okay.

We'll be required to comply with that state regulation when we're developing our TOD alternative plan.

Okay. Got it. Commissioner Reeves.

Thank you. Sorry, everyone. This is getting a little confusing, but What I'm hearing is that now we're bifurcating this process where we've got what's going to be adopted in July of this year, and then we're going to have a TOD alternative plan come forward that should now include all of those areas plus the low resource areas. But if those don't happen to come forward and be adopted by this time next year, we're going to hear something different which is just the high fire hazard areas and the low resource areas but leaving off the sea level rise and the historic resources for another time and that gets i don't know that that was the intent so what if we just have the tod alternative plan including low resource areas if they're not adopted by this time next year need to come before the planning commission for adopt for recommendation to council by this time next year

Yeah, I think you guys specifically called out the high fire hazard severity zones and the low resource areas, but our staff recommendation already included the historic sites and sea level rise to be included within the TOD alternative plan. And I believe that the way that Ms. Eckmeyer has it written down here is that it's staff recommendation with the amendments. So it's adding in specifically high fire and low resource to come back within a year i think maybe a more simple way to say this is just that the tod alternative plan include all areas within a year right yeah i agree i don't think we need to start picking out different

different areas that are excluded currently. I think we just say the TOD alternative plan inclusive of the low resource areas will be adopted by either this time next year or come before us by this time next year for a recommendation to council, meaning come before us but not wait another year after that to be adopted by council, right? With the intent of council adopting something by this time next year.

Yeah. And I agree that low resource was omitted from that. So I think that's the intent is to put that back in.

Okay. We're all on the same page now. Okay. Thanks.

Ms. Eckmeyer, would you like?

Okay. Adopt staff's recommendation. And in the event a TOD alternative plan is not approved by city council by April 30th, 2027, the TOT alternative plan, including low resource implementation areas. I think we should include that. We'll come to the commission for consideration.

The only thing I would say is it's staff's recommendation, but inclusive of the low resource area at the beginning.

Well, that's back to you all. So I don't want to speak for you. But that's what was my clarification. So the low resource areas are proposed not to go into effect. And so your recommend that they won't be I'm sorry, they will not be included in the TOD alternative plan.

The Planning Commission's recommendation as I understand it is to include the low resource areas in the TOD alternative plan. Correct.

Okay.

The clarification I have is is that April 30 date City Council adoption? Or is it Planning Commission hearing?

I think it's, I think it's, if it's not adopted by city council by that April 30th date, that it would then come back to this body. So this body can make a recommendation to council. We're, we're sort of trying, I think I'm speaking for the motion maker, but I think what we're trying to do is sort of force the issue to make sure that this stays on track and doesn't keep dragging on.

That's right. Just to have a date. Certain.

Does that workable?

City Attorney yes and to not make things more complicated the motion as you described it just says it will come back to this body do we need to have date certain when it will come back to this body if it isn't approved by City Council in April so that we're not hanging out there in terms of when it needs to come back by I think the intent is that push this forward sooner rather than later or when do you want to add the date certain May May May 2027.

Do you want me to try to do this again? Or Commissioner Boomhauer, do you want to? I mean, I can do it.

What you said was correct, except staff, we're not necessarily approving staff's recommendation because the low resources are needed. Right.

including so approving staff, okay. Recommending to city council inclusion of the low resource areas as part of the TOT alternative plan. If the city council does not have a TOD alternative plan approved by April 30, 2027,

and we'll come back to city planning commission by may end of may what is that 31st 2027 for consideration that sounds good yes okay is that commissioner miyahara's motion or is it vice chair boomhowers commissioner miyahara okay and do i have a second

I'd already second.

Okay, we got a second. I think we can go to a vote unless anybody else has any other comments.

Okay, we can go to a vote.

And that passes unanimously and concludes our hearing for today. Thank you, everyone.