Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

May I have your attention, please? Out of respect for the proceedings and in consideration of others in the audience, please turn off or silence any sound emitting devices. If you wish to speak on an item or register your opinion for an item on today's agenda, please visit publiccomment.sandiegocounty.gov and select the Planning Commission hearing for August 7th, 2026. To register for today's hearing, if you are joining us in person, please check in with the clerk to let them know you've arrived and register if you have not already done so. If you're joining us via phone, dial in the conference line using the instructions in the email reminder. When it's your turn to speak, please begin your comments after the prompt. Requests to speak must be registered prior to the item being called on the agenda to the commission secretary at the front of the room. If you have questions about today's hearing process or need assistance with registering, staff is available to assist you. These hearings are recorded, so when your name is called, please approach the lectern and give your full name. Each speaker will have three minutes unless otherwise approved by the chair information on how to appeal. Any decision can be found on the last page of today's agenda and we will begin shortly.

Good morning and welcome to the county of San Diego planning commission hearing of August 7th, 2026. Madam secretary, will you please call the roll?

Commissioners, please answer for the record when your name is called. Commissioner Ashman?

Here.

Commissioner Calvo? Here. Chair Edwards? Commissioner Pallinger?

Here.

Commissioner Weber? Commissioner Sudbury? And Commissioner Sibelico?

Here.

Please note for the record that four commissioners are present and three are absent.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. Public communication provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not on any item on today's agenda. No specific action will be taken on any comments or queries that come from public communication. However, this could result in a referral to staff. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to discuss a topic not on today's agenda?

Chair Pallinger, there are requests to speak for public comment. We do have one in person and two on the phone.

Very good.

When your name is called, please come forward to the lectern and state your name for the record and begin your comment. You will have three minutes to speak. May I have Ms. Sandra Farrell, please?

Good morning members of the Planning Commission. My name is Sandra Farrell and I'm the current chair of the Twin Oaks Valley Community Sponsor Group. I thought I'd introduce myself here because it has been many years since I've come before the Planning Commission. In fact, this building wasn't built when the last time I participated, so... Anyway, it's a new process for me. I just wanted to let you know a little bit about Twin Oaks because I think other than Mr. Pallinger, I don't know if the others have visited our planning community. If you drive up I-15 and you go past Escondido and you get around Deer Springs Road and you look to the left, those steep hillsides, that's Twin Oaks. And so most of it is the SR and the rural designation. The valley floor itself typically is nurseries, equestrian uses. We have a Zen center. We're also home to the Golden Door, which is a world-renowned spa. We also have the Terry Campus of Life, which helps disadvantaged or mentally challenged kids develop skills for learning. We also have Casa de Ampara, which also gives children help and a place to live if their parents or caregivers can't care for them. The hillsides are pretty steep. We are mostly steep slopes. We also have challenges in terms of roadways because we are serviced by three two-lane roads, which is Buena Creek Road, Deer Springs Road, and Twin Oaks Valley Road. It's a unique community that's sandwiched between Vista, Escondido, and San Marcos, and I wanted to give you a little bit of background on it. The housing in Twin Oaks is pretty much single-family, rural residential that has to be, because of the constraints, has to be situated on steep slopes in various areas. So it tends to be very individualistic looking and conforms to the natural terrains of the area. Getting fire insurance in our area is tough if you can get it. that has been a big problem for myself and my neighbors. The fire plan, the California fair plan is very expensive and it's creating a challenge. Anyway, that is a little bit about our community. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chairman. We appreciate that. Thank you very much.

I will now proceed with our

Participants who are joining us via the phone line Good morning planning commissioners This is an riddle calling in from the very north part of our County Calling about concerns that we have in our planning groups up here regarding the Board of Supervisors movement to bring marijuana businesses, particularly agriculture, to our part of the world. We are concerned that it's based on flawed principles and that a tremendous amount of time and money has gone into it, money probably poorly spent. As you may know, the county already has five marijuana businesses all up here in the north, and they are good. social media users and deliverers, so access has never been a problem. We are concerned that you understand that marijuana is a plant that requires a lot of water and a lot of fertilizer to thrive, situations that do not bode well for our backcountry. But most importantly, all of our planning groups have unitedly been opposed to this project. It'll be heard at the next meeting in August at the Board of Supervisors, and again, the first meeting in September on Wednesdays, just for the viewing audience's information. And it is an opportunity for us to let the Board of Supervisors know. However, it's a real handicap, and this is probably part of what I would like to address regarding access. for us to provide information about how our land is used. I realize that you're more strictly involved with land use and those are the issues we care about as well up here, but it's really difficult to get down to Pacific Highway to go to Board of Supervisors where, if you want to address them in public comment, they only take five in-person speakers. Anybody more than five speakers, and there's always more if you have an issue and you're planning group comes, there's usually more than one of you, certainly way more sometimes than five. This makes any communication with the board of supervisors nearly impossible. I share this with you because it's not always easy for them and for you, the planning commission, to know about the things that we care about. I feel that some of you probably are well acquainted with our planning groups up here and the areas, but just in case you aren't, I wanted you to understand the handicaps we feel about communicating with the Board of Supervisors easier to get to you. So I just want to add my voice of concern about what we feel is a poorly constructed, unwise, and unnecessary proposition to bring more marijuana businesses, including agriculture, to the unincorporated areas of San Diego County. Thank you.

Thank you, Ms. Riddle.

Good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Kathleen Lippitt, and I'd like to address the county's social equity catalyst program. Such programs have been unsuccessful in every locality where they have been attempted to be implemented. The decision to offer programs that are preferential in nature undermine our Constitution's primary mission of treating all people equally. These programs have failed wherever they've been put in, And ultimately, no one benefits from a program that increases the potential for drug use and addiction. Moreover, they have invited corruption and cartels, which have already established themselves in this industry. San Diego's rural and unincorporated communities would now allow outdoor cultivation, labs, dispensaries, consumption lounges, which is another way of saying pot shop drive-thrus, and special events in areas represented by the only two supervisors who were elected to serve those residents, but who were also given no say in the Board of Supervisors majority who decided to co-opt that authority for themselves. Please consider that Orange County looks to the best needs of how to serve their unincorporated communities. They actually... prohibit projects in high-risk fire areas, and the county of San Diego should do the same thing. As has been mentioned, the high rate of fire insurance, etc., it is not worth it. Half a million residents and their priorities were suborned in favor of those influenced by the marijuana industry. The county's own CEQA analysis found that significant environmental harms would not be mitigated. The program would be prioritized above residents, county planning groups, and their duly elected representatives. And the potential and real environmental harms that will come from these programs, at least, will destroy these lands for decades, if not permanently. In every area where cultivation was allowed, water was diverted, polluted, and the air quality compromised. Habitat destruction and disruption was unprecedented noise, traffic, odor. The County Board of Supervisors had been given a laundry list of all of the problems that have come from this industry. Not one benefit. And they still myopically continue to head down this road without deterrence. The city's programs I'm sorry, not the cities. It's a misalignment with the community planning groups and residents. And they deserve a say. They have invested their lives and their finances in an area where they chose to live because it was more bucolic and it was open space and had nature. And now the county would like to destroy it and create high-density areas in there. One of the other issues, as has been stated, can this crop is very, very water-intensive usage. We do not need such projects when we are probably going to have a very significant drought in the very near future. We don't need crops for increasing psychoactive crops.

Arden? Your time is currently up. Please go ahead and summarize your comments.

I hope that the planning commissioners will reconsider. Please reconsider all the projects that are being foisted upon unincorporated communities. not just cameras, but the best facilities, solar facilities and the wind turbines. These are not renewable sources of energy. All right. Thank you very much. There cannot recycle. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Does that take care of all our speakers, Madam Secretary?

Yes, that concludes public testimony.

All right. Then we'll close public testimony on items not on today's agenda. Announcement of handout materials. Documents to be considered as evidence shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission not later than 4 o'clock p.m. on Wednesday, August 5th. The Planning Commission may, however, receive into evidence for a good cause shown or impose reasonable conditions on late filed documents. Please note that this does not apply to materials presented at the meeting as part of a visual presentation. A staff presentation for today's items was posted online for the public to view on Tuesday, August 4th, more than 24 hours in advance of the hearing, and the public was able to provide comments by submitting e-comments prior to the hearing. Madam Secretary, are there any handouts or e-comments related to today's agenda items?

Chair Pallinger, five correspondences have been received. All items were submitted to the Commission through email or hard copy. They have been made available to the public. on the Planning Commission website and also at the rear of the chambers.

Thank you. Director Nicoletti, do we have any requests for continuances from staff? There are no requests. Thank you, Director. We will now form the consent calendar. These are items to which no opposition has been expressed or received. Madam Secretary, are there any items for consent?

Chair Pallinger, there is one item available for the consent calendar. However, we do have one caller that was on the line.

For which item?

For item number one, which is the item available for the consent calendar. If you give me just a brief moment, I can verify if that caller is still on the line.

Thank you.

It is confirmed that item number one is available for the consent calendar.

Thank you, Madam Secretary. I'll entertain a motion if someone would like to make one to take item number one on consent.

I will move that we approve item one based on the recommendations of the planning department.

I have a motion. I will second. Thank you, Commissioner. Okay, we have a motion and a second on the floor. Madam Secretary, please call the roll.

Please wait until your name is called to vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Chair Pallinger?

Yes.

And Commissioner Sabelico?

Yes.

Let the record show that this item passes with a vote of four in favor, none opposed, and three absent.

Very good. That passes. We'll now move to item number two and we'll begin with the staff presentation.

Vice chair, as we pull up the presentation, just to make some opening comments on this item, this item is called housing unlocked. It is changes to our zoning ordinance that were identified in our board approved and directed housing element approved years ago. This item is not making changes to density in our general plan, but it is making changes to different zoning aspects to allow projects to move forward. Without some of the requirements that are in place right now, it is largely adding flexibility for projects to move forward. We have heard comments from community members about concerns about the project and look forward to having additional conversations before we bring the project forward to our Board of Supervisors. This is the first phase of this project with housing unlocked. We will bring an additional phase together to the board next year and back to the planning commission. So if there's any items that you would like to see changes, we have the opportunity to do them in phase two as well. I'd also just note that we've received a number of inquiries from the state of California, ensuring that we advance this project as it was in our board approved and directed housing element. This is something that many jurisdictions are seeing across California from the state as they're looking to ensure that housing elements are implemented. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Director.

I'm sorry, were there any questions from the Commission on the Director's introduction? All right. Start with the presentation, please.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Planning Commissioners. Today, staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Housing Unlocked Zoning Ordinance Amendment Phase 1. Today, staff will discuss the following. First, an introduction to the Housing Unlocked Project. Then, we'll review the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, including changes to the development designators to better align with the general plan and implement the housing element. We will wrap up by sharing considerations from stakeholder engagement, including next steps and staff recommendation. So what is the Housing Unlocked project? Housing Unlocked is an effort to better facilitate housing development as envisioned by the general plan. The main goal of Housing Unlocked is to provide flexibility to allow for types of housing to be built and ultimately create more housing opportunities. To do this, Housing Unlocked will make amendments to the zoning ordinance with a focus on achieving the housing goals of the existing general plan. We want to emphasize that this project is not a general plan amendment and that it will not change how many total homes are allowed to be built, meaning it will not increase the existing general plan densities. This also means we have prepared an addendum to tear off of the existing general plan EIR. Housing Unlocked was originally a longer, more complex project, but... As we use corrections... We understand.

We understand.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Planning Commissioners. Today, staff is requesting the Planning Commission provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors regarding the Housing Unlocked Zoning Ordinance Amendment Phase 1. Today, staff will discuss the following. First, an introduction to the Housing Unlocked Project. Then, we'll review the Zoning Ordinance Amendment, including changes to the development designators to better align with the general plan and implement the housing element. We will wrap up by sharing considerations from stakeholder engagement, including next steps and staff recommendation. So what is the Housing Unlocked project? Housing Unlocked is an effort to better facilitate housing development as envisioned by the general plan. The main goal of Housing Unlocked is to provide flexibility to allow for different types of housing to be built and ultimately create more housing opportunities. To do this, Housing Unlocked will make amendments to the zoning ordinance with a focus on achieving the housing goals of the existing general plan. We want to emphasize that this project is not a general plan amendment and that it will not change how many

for attached building types. This amendment would allow more flexible building types such as duplexes, triplexes, and other attached buildings in more areas. As an example, a one acre parcel may have a density that allows for three dwelling units per acre. Under current zoning regulations, this parcel would typically only be allowed to have single family homes built on it. However, With more flexible building types across multiple designators, different arrangements of the three units would allow for site plan layout and building design alternatives while keeping within the densities of the general plan. This amendment provides additional options that could produce a variety of housing types such as duplexes and triplexes. Reducing the development footprint could also preserve additional open space for the community. It could also help housing to be built on lots with constrained or limited building area, like parcels with sensitive lands or steep slopes, which we will walk through another example of later. Next is building height. The county currently regulates maximum building height in both feet and number of stories. This amendment makes the height regulations more flexible, by removing limits on the number of stories, but still keeping the maximum height limit in place. Removing the story limit from the zoning ordinance allows for more flexibility in the construction of different types of housing designs while maintaining health and safety through building and fire codes. For minimum setbacks, we have reviewed the various types of setbacks and anticipate changes in housing unlocked phase one and phase two. For phase one, this amendment would allow reduced building separation setbacks by removing requirements from the zoning ordinance and relying on existing building codes or approval by the applicable fire protection district. With this change, certain parcels could have increased options for where housing could be constructed on the site. It is important to note that housing developments will still be subject to other county regulations, such as the consolidated fire code and septic system requirements through the Local Agency Management Program, or LAMP, so it is important that applicants review all county regulations in addition to zoning. The minimum lot size is the smallest area that lots or building sites must meet before this topic in Phase 1, as requested by stakeholders, this amendment would change the zoning ordinance to allow for smaller minimum lot sizes than assigned in a parcel zone box through the permitting process. Smaller lot sizes are suitable for missing middle housing types, which will further be explored through the small lot program next year. The second to last designator is floor area ratio, or FAR. While FAR is not the most limiting of the designators, even a small adjustment could help projects pencil out. As proposed, this amendment exempts non-habitable accessory structures, such as residential garages, from FAR calculations with the intent of providing additional design options for small or restricted properties, especially in village areas. The last designator is minimum open space. which is the smallest allowed area of usable open space for residential developments with three or more units. This amendment looks to promote and expand existing allowances for additional types of open space, such as accessible rooftops, courtyards, or green pathways in setback areas. This added flexibility in how open space is defined can add design options for different types of housing projects while maintaining existing open space requirements. this change would also apply to plan development or P-designator open space requirements. Changing the zoning and development designators can better facilitate the existing densities of the general plan, but will not increase the total number of dwelling units allowed on a property. To illustrate this, we have prepared graphics of example densities where each square represents one acre. We simplified the buildings, then to make the math a little easier, we're going to use 10 units per acre as our example. In this example, the general plan would allow up to 10 dwelling units to be built on this acre. But let's say this lot has a constraint. In this example, a steep slope takes away some of the acre on which a flat parcel could be used to build out that 10 units. Allowing additional building types would provide an opportunity to unlock five of the other allowed units through the use of duplexes or attached building types. Or, by reducing minimum lot sizes through permitting, smaller lots could also help realize the total of 10 allowable units. In addition to the amendments to the development designators, Housing Unlocked Phase 1 will implement other housing element programs, This includes establishing minimum densities on housing element sites identified to support the County's regional housing needs allocation or RHNA. Developments proposed on RHNA sites would now have to build at least 70% of the maximum density specified by the general plan, unless infeasible. This ensures that higher density development is built where it is planned for. To support different building types, The county would clarify in the zoning ordinance that new construction technologies are allowed by defining new prefabricated and 3D printed building methods. Additionally, tiny homes on wheels board directive was initiated last year. This amendment would codify the existing director's determination that allows tiny homes on wheels as primary and accessory dwelling uses, provided that they meet building and safety codes. review exemption checklists. Projects that are currently eligible for a design review checklist except for an open code enforcement case would now still be able to apply for the site plan exemption while resolving their case with our codes team before any permits are issued. The final program in housing unlocked phase one addresses group homes by creating a development review form. The definitions for group homes can be broad and varies by municipality. In the County of San Diego, group homes can refer to group residential and group care facilities. State agencies have identified these types of housing as a priority for more objective project reviews. Reasonable accommodation efforts are legal protections designed to ensure individuals with disabilities have equal access to housing. This effort would formalize the County's existing reasonable accommodation approval process.

Now we'll discuss outreach and engagement conducted as part of the housing unlocked project. The county heard through the development feasibility analysis and the housing workshop that current development regulations can be better aligned with the general plan to achieve existing densities this input was incorporated into this project by focusing the scope and analysis on these development regulations. Staff presented these zoning updates at the quarterly Community Planning and Sponsor Group All-Chairs meetings twice and presented the draft amendments at eight CPG and CSG meetings. In addition, staff held three public webinars and multiple meetings with stakeholder and focus groups. Staff heard concerns from community groups regarding wildfire risk and infrastructure capacity to support realizing existing plan densities. Other stakeholder groups voiced that these changes are headed in the right direction to support housing where it is planned for, but that more comprehensive zoning updates are necessary. Housing Unlocked Phase 1 focused on simpler zoning changes that could balance community concerns and stakeholder priorities within state housing element implementation timelines. Actions that were originally in Phase 2, shown with an arrow, were advanced to phase one in response to stakeholder and state HCD priorities. Overall, the phase one zoning ordinance amendment will help more developments proposing different housing typologies on smaller, constrained, or infill lots, especially in village areas, be processed without needing a rezone. This saves time and costs for the developer while supporting more homes being built where they are currently planned for, achieving the county's existing general plan densities. Additional considerations and direction can be provided regarding larger policy changes that the team should consider returning with for Housing Unlocked Phase 2 next year. Here is the timeline for Phase 1 and 2 of the project. The discussion we have today will not only be used to inform phase one, but it will also factor into phase two, which will be brought forward to the board next year. We will conclude with staff recommendations. Staff recommends that the Commission, one, find that the project complies with CEQA through the attached addendum, and two, recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt the attached zoning ordinance amendment. staff are available to answer any questions.

Thank you very much. Any questions of the staff presentations?

The only question I had and I think that's just want to make sure that I understood correctly for Phase 2 then that's anticipated to move forward in 2027?

Correct. Phase 2 will come forward next calendar year.

And Mr. Director, can you clarify who this reference stakeholders and focus groups? Is it industry?

Who are they? It's all inclusive. So, I mean, when we do a project, we are going to building industry. We are going to planning and sponsor groups. We are going to environmental groups, labor, and a variety of other stakeholders that express interest. Who are the environmental groups? We meet with environmental groups on a monthly basis. It includes groups from the Sierra Club to Endangered Habitats League, among others. And we do a monthly meeting with them to walk through project status for both discretionary permits and then housing and long-range ordinance updates. Amazing. Thank you.

Madam Secretary, do we have any CPG groups?

Chair Pallinger, yes, we do have a member from the Twin Oaks CPG here to speak in person. Ms. Sandra Farrell, can you please approach the lectern?

Welcome back.

Oh, there we go. You know, we don't have a problem with some of the changes on the village areas, but we do when it impacts the semi-rural and rural areas. One of the principal objectives of the general plan is the preservation of the unique character of the county's unincorporated communities. Goal LU-2 calls for the conservation and enhancement of the county's rural setting and the distinct identities of its communities. Rural character is not solely defined by residential density, but it also reflects the development patterns, open space, natural landform, setbacks, lot configuration, vegetation, and relationship between the structures and the surrounding landscapes. Twin Oaks Valley exemplifies these planning principles, and our area has varied terrain with architectural styles that differ from parcel to parcel. Grading is generally minimized to preserve natural landforms, and the neighborhoods retain visual separation through open space and vegetation. We think the proposed changes to the zoning ordinance when applied to the rural and semi-rural areas will have significant impacts and we recommend a subsequent or supplemental EIR or study be done for the following reasons. In the duplexes, triplexes, and multiplex or dwelling unit types proposed for the C designator, these are not characteristics with the Twin Oaks community. The ordinance reference to dwelling units arranged side by side does not describe the development pattern that fits within our rural and semi-rural communities. nor is it supported by the general plan. Introducing these building types could change the character of an existing community, and this has a potential impact that was not evaluated in the 2011 general EIR. Getting rid of the minimum lot size also stands to have significantly changed the character of the Twin Oaks community and is not supported by policy LU 2.3, which directs the county to assign residential densities and minimum lot sizes in a matter compatible with the character of each incorporated community. This proposed zoning change is a conflict with this policy. Projects with very small lots are visually different from homes on one or two acre or larger parcels. Closely spaced housing creates visual mass that is different from rural residential, especially when it reduces the setbacks to leave less room for trees and vegetation. The rural and semi-rural communities with their larger vegetation areas does reduce noise and it softens the building lines, which helps structures blend into the natural setting. Removing the height limitation requirement for planned community when it is less than 100 feet from existing rural or agricultural land will increase negative visual impacts for existing single family home on a large lot that would be adjacent to the planned community. Policy LU 2.8 requires the county to minimize significant impacts associated with new development. The proposed changes in the dwelling style that allow a duplex, tripex, or multi-dwelling on rural land may not increase the maximum density of the general plan, but it could alter the residential yield. Please summarize your comments at this time. Okay. Anyway, Those changes will offer the actual yield, which is why table LU-2 was put into the general plan. Anyway, these changes to the zoning ordinance could permanently transform the communities that the general plan expressly identifies as important to preserve. Therefore, the impacts of the proposed changes should be studied in a subsequent or a supplemental EIR. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments. Uh, the commission of the speaker, excuse me, madam, my commissioner has a question for you.

I have a quick question for you. Your first referral to a section of the general plan uses the verbiage, uh, conserve and versus preserve. Do you recognize the difference between that?

Yes.

And then also you referenced another section that used the word compatible rather than making things identical. Do you recognize the difference there? Yes. Okay. And I'm not trying to put you on the spot. It's just that when we go through and we hear these things, a lot of times there's inference that somehow we created a static environment, which is I don't believe what the general plan does. I think it recognizes that land use is a dynamic and has been for a long time.

Yes, that's correct. And I think it went through a pretty good description in terms of looking at individual communities and wanting to retain their identity. And I think that's where we have to look at what is the identity of the area and will these changes impact that identity.

I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Mr. Director, I'm just following up on that. So this would be by right, so there's no finding for compatibility with the community. So the speaker was pointing out that you could start having duplexes and triplexes around Twin Oaks, which I know very well. So is there a community character, or does that go away because this is by right?

So if the permit is ministerial, it is by right. What we're doing here is allowing more topology to move forward within it. I would say to the comments, there are no density changes being proposed as part of this. And what we're doing is making changes to zoning so that the general plan that was approved can be built out to the density that was assigned within the general plan.

The community character doesn't really factor in. Because this is really an effort to provide housing kind of disregarding community character?

Chair Pallinger, I would say it may. It really depends on the type of application that's submitted. I could envision a lot of these would be subdivisions, which have to go through an environmental review process, has to comply with county standards, and we do evaluate those sorts of things. There may be properties, though, that are by right that wouldn't go through any sort of discretionary process and just would move right into construction. So it's really going to kind of depend on the the specifics of the project and the specifics of the property.

So what would trigger a TM, a discretionary project?

If they're going to be, oh, sorry. If the units are going to be sold, they'll have to go through a subdivision map process. There's no way of getting around that. So this would be potentially if someone wanted to build for rent units, they could do that. And it may not necessarily trigger a subdivision map, but there could be other permits and environmental review involved.

Oh, that's a nuance I didn't even understand. These are not for sale units.

It really depends on what the developer or the property owner wants to do. They would have the option to move forward with basically either they can move forward and do for rent units or they could move forward and do a subdivision map to actually sell the units.

But these changes are really promoting for rent units. Otherwise, you would just do a TM anyway.

I wouldn't necessarily frame it that way chair. I mean, they, they could do either one. I would say for the most part, we see mostly subdivisions. We do more of those than we do straightforward rental apartment units. So I would envision that would be pretty similar moving forward, but it would be hard to, hard to say at this point, it could really be either, or it would be up to the property owner, the developer. That's amazing. Okay.

Thank you. Madam secretary, do we have some speakers on this item?

Yes, so that completes the public commenting for the CPT groups, but we do have three members in person and one joining via phone for the remaining public comment. If you're joining us via phone, please join the line and wait until you hear the prompt. We are going to go ahead and proceed with the in-person speakers first. When your name is called, please approach the lectern, and as soon as the person before you is finished, state your name for the record and begin your comments. Please be aware that the actual timer notification is actually not going off. So if you can keep an eye on the actual timer in front of you and I will let you know to go ahead and summarize your comments when you're completed. The first speaker that we have is Ms. Alicia Morrison.

Mr. Director, you're very good at turning that microphone on.

Good morning. My name is Alicia Morrison, and I'm a resident of Lincoln Acres, which is an unincorporated, disadvantaged, unincorporated area in District 1. I appreciate the work that went into this presentation, but I strongly oppose both recommendations. My recommendation is each community is unique. and needs to be examined appropriately as one size does not fit all. And I will show you a real built out community and how this phase one of housing unlock does not meet the criteria of SB 99 or AB 747. So on the screen there, the red circle is a vegetation fire that is across the freeway from where the Lincoln Acres community is.

Next slide, please.

So this was a fire that was on this past Monday, and you could see how close it was. Next slide. And next slide again. And the next slide. So this is an aerial view taken from Google Maps of Lincoln Acres. You can see where the red circle is down at the bottom right corner where the fire was. And all the red lines that you see are dead-end roads in the community of Lincoln Acres. And the square is a gated community that is in the city of National City. So all of those areas lead to two main thoroughways that are an ingress and ingress to the community of Lincoln Acres. So next slide please. This is the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District map and the yellow lines show those dead end roads and the green lines show the two main thoroughways that Lincoln Acres has to exit. Next slide please. This is a list of all the dead end roads and the feet that they totaled together is 8,900 and over 8,900 feet. And it's a reminder that there's over 5,290 feet to one mile, so that's almost two miles of dead end roads. Next slide, please. Please hit the next, the movie. So this is the county airdrop to help extinguish that fire to keep it from jumping. This is taken from my backyard. Next slide, please. Next slide. Okay, so section one, section of government code 65302, as amended, the general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a diagram and diagrams and text sending forth objects, principles, standards, and plan proposals. The plan shall include the following elements. Next slide, please.

Maybe you could summarize, please.

Okay. Um, and just this last, uh, element of six five three zero two D five upon the next revision of the housing element or after January 1st, 2020, the safety element shall be reviewed and updated as necessary to identify residential developments in any hazard area identified in the safety element that do not have at least two emergency evacuation routes. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Madam Secretary.

Thank you. Up next, I have Doyle Morrison.

Hello, my name is Doyle Morrison. I also appreciate the work that has been done on Housing Unlocked. My background is I've done planning in the electrical industry for over 42 years. And when I'm doing my planning, like you guys are doing planning, when this planning, you have to have all of the things lined up and everything worked out. And in the electrical industry, it's very important to have a safety element. And when you have a safety element, if you get to the start date of construction or the project and you don't have the safety element in, then the project has to be postponed until that can happen or people will lose their lives. So that's just a preference. I actually worked on this campus before it was done, nice like it is now, and while it was renovated to what it is today. as well as down at the county operations center downtown so what i would like to say is that in lincoln acres and i'm sure in many other areas of the county of san diego these dead-end roadways have not been identified and that is a safety concern and an issue similar to what we had in 2003 and 2007 which actually um was a catalyst to do the safety element for evacuations in san diego county so um i think that if that has not been accomplished that should be an all-stop because if we move forward and you take a one acre property In my area, it's 4.3 per acre, and you allow me to make 14 3,000 square foot properties, and now I build houses on those properties, whether I rent them, sell them, or whatever, there are more people there, and it takes longer to evacuate those people. So saying that there's no density increase is technically correct when you look at one 3,000 foot property, but when you look at that acre, you've increased the amount of people that have to evacuate greatly. And I think that's something that's being overlooked. Um, also I'd like to just say that, you know, with all good planning, you can do everything possible and you still have issues that arise. I'm sure the AB department didn't plan on having stadium seating sounding in here at the beginning of the meeting or the presentation. So, um, please look at this and make a decision based on all things, including the safety of the residents of the County of San Diego. Thank you. Thank you, sir.

And lastly, but not least for our in-person speakers, I have Kurt warden.

Good morning, commissioners. My name is Kurt Warden, president of the Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District. Lower Sweetwater Fire Protection District serves Lincoln Acres, a built-out community with narrow streets, long dead ends as briefed, no alleyways, aging infrastructure, and any increase in achievable residential intensity directly affects fire and EMS services. So that's our evacuation performance. There are several issues that remain unresolved. Some of those have been briefed already, but we'll just review them. SB 99 mapping is incomplete in Lincoln Acres and likely elsewhere in the county. Multiple dead end roads qualify as single access areas, yet the county status set shows none. SB 99 requires accurate identification of single access evacuation areas before expanding developmental flexibility. Second, no AB 747 evacuation route analysis has been performed. Even though phase one increases achievable occupancy in constrained communities, achievable intensity, not theoretical density, determines evacuation performance. And third, reliance on the 2011 general plan EIR is not adequate. It predates SB 99. AB 747, AB 1407, ADUs, JADUs, tiny wheels on homes, and current roadway conditions. It does not account for maximum infill impacts on water supply, roadway capacity, or electrical infrastructure. Our most significant operational concern is that of ministerial approvals which eliminate discretionary fire review. Under Housing Unlocked, The district cannot verify firefighter access before construction. And can anchors full with construction building, building from property line to property line would eliminate side access entirely. And with no alleyways and narrow streets, side access is the only path to the rear of most parcels. The building code will allow for zero lot line construction. The fire code does not allow for zero access construction. But without discretionary review, there's no mechanism to achieve that. So while staff brief that fire departments do get a review with ministerial review, then there's no mechanism for that to happen. Additionally, housing unlocked allows a required open space to be placed on rooftops and podiums while setbacks have been eliminated for building placement and they remain open space locations. This means projects can satisfy open space requirements without providing any ground level firefighter access. For these reasons, the district requests that before moving forward, we correct the SB99 mapping, the AB747 route analysis, we get an updated CEQA, And we retain discretionary review. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

That completes the public testimony. We do, just for your awareness, have the county council on the line that will be joining the room virtually. So if you do have any questions or staff has any questions, we can address them online as well.

Did we have a speaker online?

We do not. We don't have any.

Okay, so that concludes all public testimony. So I'll close public testimony at this time. Do we have any questions of staff? Yes, Commissioner.

I'll just start with a housing element update, 2021. There was also a safety element update done at that point. And there was also a third one. It's like an environmental element of some sort.

Through the Vice Chair's Commission, I believe, yes, there was a safety element update at the same time, and I think you might be referring to the environmental justice element that was conducted.

And that update was good for eight years, and then we'll be looking at that again somewhere around 2029? That is correct. And so in the interim, as I remember, the county was allocated a target number of housing to look at providing or trying to induce provision of. And where are we at with that today? We're over halfway home. And do you have any numbers about where we're at on that?

Commissioner, I think you're referring to our regional housing needs assessment, which is an allocation each jurisdiction gets that they're to provide. We do report outs on that each year as part of our general plan annual progress report that went to our board in April or March, I believe, of this year. What we reported out is we are generally on track for the RHNA. The areas that we are not on track for is in the low and very low housing. That is usually requiring financing and subsidies through affordable housing within the county or another agency to achieve those. But we also did just approve our inclusionary housing ordinance this summer that will also help to contribute to that going forward that you heard as well.

And so where is the county status? I noticed in the staff report, a letter from the state of California. And looking through it, it listed a whole bunch of items that are not necessarily mandated, but need to be looked at. And how are we doing with all of that? It was unclear to me why that letter was in there. If it was something to inform us that you're in dialogue with the state, or if they have some immediate concerns, or what was that all about?

Thank you for the question, Commissioner. So what you are referring to is correspondence that we have had with California Housing and Community Development regarding status of our housing element implementation. And so the housing element consists of about 60 different initiatives that our board approved back in 2021, also went to the Planning Commission at the time, that is intended to address the housing needs within our jurisdiction. Other jurisdictions have a similar plan that they go forward with as well to get approved. We are generally doing well. We have implemented 50 of the 60 items and have several that are ongoing that need to be completed in the next three years. This is one of those items. And so that correspondence was included to just provide transparency on communication with the state that they are in fact asking jurisdictions like ours and others across California Where are you with implementation of your housing element? This is important for the state to achieve housing goals. These changes allow us to move forward with the density assigned in the general plan, which is what the state is looking for since the general plan sets the path forward for the housing that we're intended to provide for the region.

I appreciate that information. My perspective, and I've been in this industry for decades, And my perspective is that the county is working diligently towards addressing concerns that are handed down from the state because we, as a county or city, you get your ability to control land use from the state of California. And so these references to Senate bills and Assembly bills and all those sorts of things, some of those, as I understand it, are mandatory. Some of them are opt-in type things that can be added to or manipulated. And they lead to a lot of interesting coordination questions as things move forward. But as I mentioned earlier, this tends to be a dynamic rather than static circumstance. The county of San Diego, from my vantage point, does a tremendous job to reach out and communicate with people on all levels with these types of activities. That being said, reading through all of this, I was personally confused by some of it. However, I've come to understand it a little bit better and do appreciate some of the, I would describe them as baby steps that you're taking towards dealing with the idea of how do you actually capture the density that the general plan anticipated. And this is a general plan that was changed in 2011 after about eight years of back and forth dialogues and going in circles and reduced the overall density in the county significantly in my estimation. And even with that reduction they did try to create the village concept and realize that we do have an opportunity for density in those locales and then also these RHNA, the Regional Housing Needs Assessment Areas. And as I understand what's before us today, it's targeting mostly those areas more than anything else.

Through the Vice Chair, Commissioner, I would agree with your assessment. I think that the majority of what we're going to see resulting from this is not going to be changes in communities that are largely built out. I expect a lot of these changes to facilitate projects where we have more undeveloped land. There was a comment and let me also just say we will follow up with the folks in Lincoln Acres. I'd love to have a working meeting with them and a few of our folks more familiar with some of the bills to walk through questions about compliance with state and assembly bills. But for example, if there is a lot that is sized and has a density for one dwelling unit. And there's an SFD there. This project would not then facilitate three or four units to be placed where that one unit was if the density was for one unit. We can pull up a quick slide that just shows an example. It was in the presentation, but it might be helpful for what we largely expect this project to facilitate. There are going to be a number of lots within the county that have constraints from slope or bio or other aspects where good portions of the lot are hard to build on. And as a result, we might see applicants who want to start to cluster or use attached housing or different building topology This project will largely be benefiting projects like that. And here's just a great example where we see those constraints. Currently, if those lots are zoned for single family dwelling topology for a detached home, you couldn't do those duplexes or triplexes. And as Mark was noting earlier, if someone is ultimately going to do townhouses or something with for sale, they're still going through a subdivision process, and so that's still going through. um the the discretionary process as well for community input so um this is not necessarily a project that is making everything ministerial um there are some dynamics where it could be and there was a question earlier about if something's ministerial what does that mean but um just wanted to share this slide again um for an illustrative example of what we expect the project to do thank you thank you commissioner um real brought up um

Fire safety, in particular, and access. But the general plan in applying density to property included a safety element and access. Is that correct? I see Mr. Sivit here. Maybe he can address that.

That is correct, Vice Chair. And I think in terms of looking for evacuation and concerns within existing communities that are largely built out, I'd love to have conversations with the communities about how we can work that into other projects that we have upcoming. In 2027, we'll have a project going to our board called the Sustainable Land Use Framework. And that's going to be a policy discussion with our board that could direct a variety of things such as community plan updates among others. And we think that we'll see direction in that project to look at other changes for communities outside of what this project is proposing. Thank you, Mr. Director.

Commissioners, do we have any other questions? Yes, sir.

I would just like to briefly follow up on Commissioner Ashman's questions about the correspondence with the HCD. So I'm reading the letter from Nolan Communities and also from the BIA, and they are taking the position that our agency is late. that we were supposed to have been doing these as either in 2022 or 2023. It's a little unclear from their letter, but are we late?

Through the Vice Chair, Commissioner, what I would say is we adjust the sequencing of projects that we deliver. So when we had a housing element in 2021, we laid out a timeline of how we expect to implement that over the horizon of the housing element going up to 2029. Again, 50 of those 60 projects are done. But most jurisdictions, what we do is we do adjust some of the timing and sequencing of projects. We batch different projects together to try to make the best and efficient use of funding so that we can pair different projects with different funding when we're doing the environmental review. We also have requests that come up that were unanticipated. So an example of that would be, About two years ago, we had industry members asking for us to implement a optional assembly bill for the sale of accessory dwelling units. That wasn't anticipated in our housing element. We did move forward with it. It was implemented earlier this year and went to this commission. But that's something that we didn't anticipate when we had our original housing element. So when we do have new projects come up, we do adjust the sequencing. Um, and we just provided correspondence back to the state in terms of timing of that letter that you are referencing as well. It went back to them today.

Good. Thank you for that detailed explanation. Um, in terms of, you know, how we. how we move forward and how we complete what we're legally required to do here. Do you object or would you be amenable to the timeline that's being requested here for phase two, which is 180 days from now?

Uh, commissioner, I don't believe that would be attainable. We, we moved quickly to complete this phase in this calendar year, November of last year. Um, we had a housing workshop with our board and the building industry, environmental groups and our board, many stakeholders said, can you please bring housing a mock phase one? in 2027, 2026, which we are doing with this phase. The next phase, we are still expecting a lot of items to trail from this item. So it would not be something we can do in six months, but we will be advancing it within 2027. I would also say we have a number of other housing initiatives that we're moving forward to further implement the housing element that is also addressing many of those needs.

Okay, I appreciate that, and I certainly do appreciate wanting to do it right. I don't want to rush the planning department in bringing something that's, you know, half-baked or anything. I appreciate the diligence that's been done here, and all the advocates have complimented the staff on their diligence and their preparedness, so I appreciate that. I would like to ask if we could... ADDRESS SOME OF THEIR COMMENTS BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST THIS LETTER FROM NOLAN COMMUNITIES IS ASKING US TO CONSIDER GIVING DEVELOPERS OPTIONS TO EITHER HAVE 70% OF THEIR BASE DENSITY FOR ALL OF THE RENA SITES OR 8CD'S MINIMUM DENSITY FOR RENA PURPOSES, WHICHEVER IS LESSER, AND I UNDERSTAND very well why you would want 70% of base entities so we don't have to redo our housing element essentially. I certainly don't want to put our county in that position where we have to undo all of the planning that we do every eight years. But I do want to give them flexibility because if they can't, I mean the whole point of this proposal is to make it a little easier to get the units and I want to make sure that We don't, we're making the most of what we're doing right here. So could we do that recommendation about 70% of the base density or eight CDs, minimum density for Rena purposes.

Through the vice chair commissioner. Um, this letter just came in this week on August 4th. I love the opportunity to talk more with the author of the letter to, to get a bit more understanding in terms of what they're, they're seeking on a couple of these initiatives. I would say for that 70% goal, we did include a component of this that would say we can make an exception to go below the 70% at the department level should we see site conditions or other constraints that would indicate it could not be built out at that density. And we made that change in response to comments from the BIA.

I see, okay, I did not know that, thank you. I think the rest of their comments are mostly addressed. They're asking about building heights, but I'm not necessarily inclined to adjust those. I would like to ask about, well, based on this letter, it sounds like phase two will include the senior and starter home projects. Is that?

Commissioner through the chair the senior and small lot project will look at the subdivision Ordinance as well as the zoning ordinance to consider smaller lot sizes that the phase two of housing unlocked based on that Senior and small lot project may or may not look at lot size again We anticipate that the small lot project may cover the considerations that stakeholders have raised for small lots. I

So in short, what Jennifer is explaining is we have two different projects moving forward next year. One of them will address it. Okay. I appreciate that.

Okay. That's all I have. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner.

Yeah. Just one quick question regarding the exclusions for the FARs. So right now is it just the garage and that can be excluded from the FAR and also I guess, what are the other exclusions that are being proposed?

Commissioner, through the chair, Right now, phase one is proposing that we exempt accessory structures from the FAR requirement. One thing to note is the FAR requirement is very limited application across the unincorporated county. Our consultant's initial analysis showed that it affected 19 parcels. So our proposal right now would be that accessory structures with uninhabitable Floor area would not count or detract from the maximum far on those 19 parcels I guess does that include barns?

I guess correct. Okay. Got it. Okay.

Thank you All right any more questions, yes commissioner just to follow up the

The 70% build out, that's aimed at the arena properties specifically, not to generally all the rural areas and everything else.

You are correct.

Yeah. So I just wanted to calm that down. Over the years, having been involved with this sort of thing, a 70% yield from somebody who wants to take a vacant property and build homes on it is typical of what the end result is. And that's largely due to infrastructure requirements, roads. And these days, it's something else you might consider as you go forward with all this. It's not just roads and open space that, reduce density on properties. It's also what we're doing with stormwater facilities now. We're losing density even to those types of consideration. And so what you're doing with looking at lot size and building types and those sorts of things is very, very important in my estimation to having any notion of chasing the density allowed under the general plan that was adopted in 2011. And it's not a critique, but it's referred to in here as a long-term general plan goal and things like that. But it's not. There were decades and decades under the previous general plan, and it got reduced and contained very drastically. And so to try and take as much out of what was given us in 2011 is really important to reach any type of housing numbers that are gonna deal with the demands of the public. And the big concern is, and I'm interested to see where we end up in 2029. The numbers that you've indicated, I know we have, the state provided us with accessory dwelling units and things of that nature, which actually is helpful to providing that. And providing a basis for making up condominiums is also gonna be helpful. And it's not gonna apply to every neighborhood and every property. There's gonna be lots of limitations on it, but there are places where it can fit in and without any disruptive factors. Couple other things I would take that throw in there that maybe for future consideration Zoning ordinance 4011 split zoning requirements you might consider where you have properties with split zoning that That that particular Zoning ordinance section be amended to accept out village zones. Because those are usually smaller lot type areas and if they have split zoning, it's all gonna end up being lower density. And then take a look at zoning ordinance 4015 and think of it in terms of mitigating for the infrastructure, for the roads and the stormwater and open space and trails and all the other things that developments do provide to the public. And especially with stormwater, I don't have a position one way or other on that subject matter. It's what's been handed down to us. But everybody should start thinking of it in terms of what the burden it places on what's trying to be put together today versus all of the properties that were developed and ignored that particular aspect of what they were doing. And even the courts did because they ruled that that reasonable development was not required to detain water and filter water and all these other things. And the other one was, zoning ordinance 4222, and off the top of my head, I don't remember the details, but you might look at expanding that to mitigate for some of those effects of infrastructure and stormwater and everything that is taken from these properties as they go through this process.

Appreciate the thoughts. Very focused. And we will certainly include those in our review after this hearing to look at future zoning ordinance updates, be it housing unlocked phase two or other zoning changes in the next year.

Thank you, Commissioner. If there's no more questions, I would entertain a motion at this time.

I will move staff's recommendation.

Thank you, Commissioner.

Does Commissioner Ashman maybe want to second with an amendment with your recommendation?

I don't think an amendment would be necessary because I believe that they've been taking notes and they'll internally consider those types of things. They tend to be very comprehensive in what they're doing.

All right, we have a motion on the floor. Do I have a second?

I'll second.

Thank you, Commissioner. Madam Secretary, will you please call the vote?

Commissioners, when your name is called, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Chair Pallinger?

Yes.

And Commissioner Sabelico?

Yes.

Let the record show that Item 2 passes with a vote of 4 in favor, none opposed, and 3 absent.

With that, we will move on to the Director's Report.

very brief today just a quick reminder on august 19th we'll have two items going to the board that were previously heard by the commission it is the follow-up on the changes for accessory dwelling units these were initiatives to potentially improve um first-time home buyer options that the the commission voted on in recent months and then on the 819 we will have the socially equitable cannabis ordinance for consideration by the board that we have had many public comments on, and we tentatively have the Vice Chair as the Commission's speaker that will be at that hearing. I will be there. Thank you.

Anything else, Mr. Director? That is it, Vice Chair. Staff, thank you very much for your time. Public, thank you for coming down. We appreciate your attendance and your thoughts. With that, I will adjourn our meeting.