Order, assistant clerk, please call the roll.

Councilmember Campbell.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilpert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Councilmember Campio.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

And Council President Lakava.

Present.

Also attending the meeting are Assistant City Attorney Leslie Fitzgerald, Senior Fiscal and Policy Analyst in the IBA office, Amy Lee, Senior Policy Advisor in the Mayor's Office, Christopher Ackerman of Vila, and myself, your assistant city clerk, DG Pantaleon.

Alright, thank you for that.

And I didn't notice that there was a little hiss.

It was sweetness living the room.

So it was.

So with that, a quorum is now present.

Since it's a special council meeting under the unlike the BRC meeting earlier today.

Before we start today's meeting, I want to remind everyone about the city's practices and procedures for public comment at City Council meetings.

City welcomes public participation at our city council meetings.

Speakers may address the council during public comment and also in connection with a specific item of business on the agenda.

However, the city must make sure that no one person or group of people disrupt the meeting in a way that prohibits other speakers from expressing their ideas and opinions.

So to make sure that everyone here has an opportunity to address the council, I will alert an individual or individuals if I think their conduct becomes disruptive.

If the disruption continues, I will roll the individual out of order, and if the disruption continues further, I will declare a recess, we can restore order.

At that point, we will direct the individual to leave the room, and if the individual refuses, police will escort the individual out of the building.

If we have to repeat the process of warning and assessing the meeting, all members of the public will be excused from chambers.

Credential media will be allowed to remain.

Once again, we have these practices and procedures to protect the rights of other speakers who wish to address the council and to allow the council to conduct the public's business.

And frankly, to show respect to the members of the public who chose to spend their Thursday evening here in chambers, unlike other fun things they could have been doing.

So respect their time when you think about when you offer your testimony.

So with that, assistant clerk, please go over how the public can offer their testimony.

I will now highlight the slide on the screen that reviews how the public can offer their public testimony during this evening's meeting.

The order can be found on the agenda summary found online or at the table in the back of the room.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and bring it to the front of the room.

Council ambassadors are available near the entrance of chambers and can assist with questions and speaker slips.

No further in-person testimony will be taken once the council begins virtual testimony.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you.

So with that, please introduce item 600.

Item 600 is Senate Bill 79 phased implementation in exempting non-transit oriented development areas.

Alright, I see staff is seated.

When you're ready, introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you need for the presentation.

Good evening, Council members.

My name is Grant Rodi.

I'm a senior planner with the city plan department.

I'm here with Seth Lichney, Deputy Director of Housing Policy and Environmental Analysis and City Planning, and Heidi Baumblum, City Plan Director.

I am presenting the City Plan Department's proposed Senate Bill 79 phase implementation plan with exemptions, and it'll be about 15 minutes.

Alright, when you're ready.

Pursuant to the requirements of the bill, the city council needs 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 I've decided to put to a one-foot sea level rise, and to exempt areas outside of a one-mile walk-in distance from SB 79 applicability.

Today, the city plan department is proposing an ordinance to phase the implementation of SB 79 and exempt certain areas from SB 79 implementation.

SB 79 was signed by Governor Newsom on October 10th, 2025, and seeks to address the state's housing shortage, create homeownership opportunities, and to build more homes near transit.

SB79's requirements are generally consistent with the policies included in the city's general plan, including the housing element, which calls for more housing options throughout the city, and the city's 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 trend of stops, which are called transit oriented development or TOD stops on sites that are zoned for residential, mixed use, or commercial development.

The half mile areas are calculated as a straight line distance or as the crow flies and are referred to as TOD zones.

The bill requires that SANDEC create a map of TOD stops and zones within the city.

While the city plan staff has created several SB 79 maps, TOD stops are subject to confirmation from SANDAG's maps of designated TOD stops.

The bill split the TOD zones into two areas.

The first 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 a qualifying transit stop 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 in and 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.

Thoughtfully 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's important to note that this type of more thoughtful planning was specifically anticipated in SB 79, which provides for this planning and the development of TOD alternative plans.

This process also allows the city to more responsibly plan and anticipate for growth in a matter that can be most 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 eligible sites to TOD stops does not exist.

While all TOD zones are located within a half mile of TOD stops or as a crow flies, non-TOD sites 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 DOD 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 proposed ordinance would exempt those areas from SB 79 implementation.

These areas would not be affected by the implementation of the bill or be included in a TOD alternative plan.

It's important to remember that the intent of SB 79 is to spur transit-oriented development and areas outside of a one-mile walking distance from these stops are not transit oriented.

The city plan department also calculated the areas without a walking path of one mile or less, taking into account areas lacking sidewalks, as the path of travel should include safe, publicly accessible sidewalks to qualify for SB 79 implementation.

SB 79 permits a phased implementation in low resource areas as identified by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee until one year after the adoption of the seventh housing element of the city in 2031.

The city plan department can also implement SB 79 through community plan updates in low resource areas prior to 2031 to ensure that at the SB 79 densities are addressed.

Phasing the implementation is desired primarily to focus housing development in areas with access to opportunity prior to being implemented in low resource areas.

Portions of the TOD's alternative 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 phase 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 those areas that only have a single evacuation route.

SB 79 also permits the phase implementation on sites containing historic resources that were designated as of January 1st, 2025.

SB 79 implementation would occur on these sites with a TOD alternative plan to ensure the city's newly adopted historic preservation regulations can be taken into account.

Phase implementation is also allowed on sites that are identified as vulnerable to a one-foot sea level rise.

As shown on the map attached to the staff report, the areas affected by a one-foot sea level rise are on the western side of Mission Valley.

The phase implementation of these areas would occur as part of a TOD alternative plan to address climate resiliency.

Starting on July 1st, SB 79 will take effect on all qualifying sites.

This means the default densities would apply in all commercial, mixed use, and residential zones.

If the proposed ordinance is approved, only areas outside of low resource areas that do not include designated historic resources are not subject to sea level rise and not in very high fire severity zones would take effect on July 1st.

These areas are marked in yellow on the map and constitute approximately 22% of the areas within TOD zones citywide.

After approval of the proposed ordinance phasing the implementation of SB 79 and exempting specified areas from SB 79 implementation by the city council, city planning will transmit the ordinance to H V 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 HED'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, HCD staff has indicated that a locally adopted ordinance would take effect upon city adoption.

The city plan department also planned to prepare a TLD alternative plan to implement SB 79, which will include amendments to the municipal code, zoning, community plans, and the general plan.

The TOD alternative plan will 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 that it can bring this item forward later this year.

The planning commission voted to recommend to the city council the approval of an ordinance exempting areas and phasing implementation of SB 79 within TOD zone citywide, inclusive of low resource areas.

The motion further recommends that should a TOD alternative plan not be approved as of April 2027, staff shall return to the planning commission by May 2027 for consideration.

City Planning staff recommends the approval of an ordinance to phase the implementation of SB 79 as proposed by city planning staff and to exempt areas not located near transit from SB 79 implementation as provided for in SB 79.

This concludes staff's presentation, and we're available for any questions you have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you very much for the presentation.

Clerk, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

I'd like to note that this item received 281 comments in favor and 19 comments in opposition via our e-comment form, which have been distributed to city council.

The public comment period is now open.

We receive 43 speaker slips from individuals in chambers, and currently have six hands up from those attending virtually.

We will go to one minute per person.

Just a friendly reminder to individual seating time to please raise your hand when I call your name so we're able to account for the slips that you submitted.

We will begin with Doreen D.

S.

Pesta.

You have time ceded to you by Terry Fowler.

Kimberly Roberts.

Shirley Hughes.

Thank you.

You have four minutes.

Oh, thank you.

Um, who is gonna control my projector?

Don't stop my time.

Okay, can I go like this?

Just to slide, okay.

I don't want to waste time waiting for my slides.

Thank you so much.

So we can scroll this one.

Okay, the most important thing for Hamishia right now is that we have a low resource area with naturally occurring affordable homes.

We still have some three-bedroom homes, two bath, garage, front yard, backyard, renting at 2,300, which is the same rate of those horrible ADU bonus.

We need what you had on your February 3rd, 13th, 2026 memo spoke about Lemon Grove, and I didn't see it during this presentation or your updated.

But because Lemon Grove is 35K, they're only required you go a half a mile.

And going, oh, sorry, quarter of a mile.

Going a quarter of a mile affects 17 homes in Hamershire.

And going a half a mile affects 307 low resource homes.

So different 1717 versus 307.

I took a photo that blue dot is the Lemon Grove station.

As you look there, they are all single-family homes exclusively.

There's no vacant lot.

So if you check, we are CTCAC low resource area.

17 streets are affected.

That's Hammershaw, I'll skip that, I don't have much time.

All of our streets are two lane streets lined on both sides with cars.

We do not have any four-lane streets.

They are narrow streets, and of the 17 streets, we have 15 of those streets have most of the homes in very high fire zone.

The majority of those streets are 100% of the homes, and only a few streets have partial of the homes.

And then these two sectors, which is also uploaded.

I'll go to the next one.

So over here to verify everything I'm saying, you can check this chart, you can count the homes.

We're going to be severely impacted unless you lobby that the City of San Diego will end up being equitable with the city of Lemon Grove so that we can go one fourth of a mile.

There is no other neighborhood affected by the Massachusetts trolley station except for the Hammershaw neighborhood.

It doesn't affect in Canto, it doesn't affect Broadway, it is exclusively us, and we are low income, and we have a lot of steep hills.

I sent you all an email that I would give you all a personal tour in my car to show you and let you walk up these hills yourself if you wanted to to see how steep they are.

We either drive to the trolley station or we get dropped off on the trolley station.

Very few, separate younger, healthy people walk to the Massachusetts trolley station.

The majority of our people, if you look at the census, and I'm talking this sector, we have three census because we are 413 acres, but in this census, 14202, it is majority of the homeowners are over 65.

So we if you look at how many seniors we have a lot of senior homes, of course, the kids and their grandkids, and sometimes their great-grandkids, because we have multi-generational homes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Andrea Hetheroo.

You have please please come up.

Thank you.

That's right.

As you're coming up, for those who've been in the chambers for the very first time, we have speakers in the back.

So if they're in the hallway or the bathroom, they can hear the testimony going forward.

So I just want to be assured that everybody is listening to every comment, irrespective of whether they're in a seat or they're just standing up.

Thank you, Council President.

You have time seated to you by Susan Baldwin.

Thank you.

Please start your comment.

I am in favor of staff's recommendation to phase in implementation of SB 79, particularly as it regards low resource areas.

Additional amenities should be in place before upzoning low resource areas because amenities determine who is willing to move into a community.

Low resource areas need an increase in that capacity before adding more people.

Investments in them must be of sufficient scale and prominence to signal the stability that changes the avoidance loop of higher income residents.

This does not happen by changing who lives there immediately, but by changing what the place means as a residential address, so that over time it can attract a broader income mix and the resources that come with it.

SB 79 confronts us with generations of inequitable planning in our land use system.

The full five-year phase in is likely necessary to get this right.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Ethan Paul.

Please come up.

And following Ethan Falls Paul is Zach DeFazio Farrell.

If you can please come up as well, just take a seat on the front row reserve seat.

Yes, you'll have one minute.

Good evening, honorable council president Lacava and City Council members.

My name is Ethan Paul, and I'm here on behalf of Build SD, a grassroots organization focused on documenting construction and development here in our community.

San Diego has invested in fast, frequent, and reliable bus routes, but so many of my friends and family can't afford and don't have the opportunity to live in the communities that these routes have been built in.

If we want more clean, safe, and affordable places for our friends and family to live, the city should take this opportunity and recognize that the buses and stops on El Cajon Boulevard in University Avenue qualify as tier two transit stops.

We have build a stee.

Hope your decision today helps make that future a more affordable one.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Zach DeFasio Farrow, please come up.

You have time seated to you by Daniel Castelli.

Please raise your hand.

Kisav Gupta, thank you.

Von Tooney, thank you.

Jason Vance, thank you.

Manu Rodriguez, thank you.

Jeffrey Crow.

Paul Jameson.

Thank you.

Carlisle Dockery.

No Carlisle.

Okay.

Krishna Hamont Hammond.

Thank you.

Chloe Laure.

Thank you.

Stephanie Palayo.

Thank you.

Guthrie Leonard.

Thank you.

Lucy Lower.

Thank you.

Maxwell Gergen.

Thank you.

Can I go there?

Blaine Wagner.

Thank you.

Paul Cortez.

Thank you.

Hunter Bashaw.

Thank you.

You'll have 15 minutes.

Please, please proceed with your comment.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, member of the council.

My name is Zach Defazio Farrell.

I'm the treasurer of the UMI Democrats of San Diego County, and I'm a member of the law and policy team.

Next slide, please.

Next slide, please.

Thank you.

This is good.

So kind of a rhetorical question, but why are we here today?

We have an ordinance in front of us this evening regarding how we're going to be phasing SB 79.

So the issue for us is that the city's current interpretation of how this will be phased only recognizes for transit oriented development or TOD qualifying bus stops.

Yet we believe that there are actually 48 bus stops they have left out of their interpretation, and so there should be a total of 52.

We've sent a formal letter to the council asking for you to reconsider, particularly uh recital E in the ordinance.

So we'll explain why all these stops qualify and what you, Council members can do about it.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

So the text of SP 79 requires a full-time dedicated bus lane or operation in a separate right of way dedicated for public transportation.

For a bus stop to qualify for tier two or uh transit oriented development or TOD upzoting.

Um as I mentioned, we disagree with the city staff's interpretation.

We don't think it's consistent with California law, nor is it supported by the city's own stated goals to increase housing production.

And as we have come to understand it, the staff's argument is that these bus lanes allow bikes and right turns from other vehicles, like private vehicles at intersections, and thus they do not qualify as dedicated bus lanes.

Next slide, please.

So there are three disputed corridors in question.

The first is the El Cahon Boulevard busway that goes from Elkahon Boulevard and Park Boulevard all the way to roughly Fairmont, the second University Avenue from Florida Street to Boundary Street, and Park Boulevard going from Upus Street to City College approximately.

Next slide, please.

So how do these disputed corridors qualify as full-time dedicated bus lanes?

Let's break this one down.

Next slide.

Argument number one.

The disputed bus lanes are factually full time.

Next slide, please.

So the disputed corridors feature full-time bus lanes because they exist at 24 hours of the day.

They are not only to be used during peak hours.

So this is a clear distinction from bus lanes that might be used during rush hour traffic or something to that effect.

And there's a sign there in that photo.

That's of the bus lane on Park Boulevard south of Upa Street, one of the ones I mentioned.

Notice that sign says buses only 24 hours.

It is a full-time bus lane.

Next slide, please.

Argument number two.

Existing state law permits bikes and other vehicles in dedicated bus lanes when authorized.

Next slide, please.

So the staff says the disputed corridors don't qualify because they allow right turns and bikes, as I mentioned.

However, the California Vehicle Code explicitly states that lanes with these features still qualify as transit only, which includes bus only.

And there are various sort of subdivisions of the vehicle code that allow cities, you know, relevant jurisdictions and relevant transit agencies to establish transit lanes together and to authorize different kinds of vehicles to use those lanes.

And it does not um it does not remove their qualifying nature as some kind of bus or transit lane.

And so uh three of the lanes, three of the corridors we're talking about, all of them allow private vehicles to pass through them to make a right turn at an intersection, and the Alcajon Boulevard busway and the University Avenue bus lanes allow bicyclists to use those bus lanes as well as buses.

However, this does not mean that they are not full-time dedicated bus lanes.

Next slide, please.

Argument number three.

Sandag's dedicated lanes definition allows non-bus vehicles and modes.

Next slide, please.

Um Sandek has their own definition of what uh and what they say are that uh dedicated lanes are for preferential or exclusive use of transit services, permitting limited use by other vehicles, services, and modes, right?

And all of these lanes do permit, again, some kind of co-use.

Next slide, please.

And argument number four, that the statutes uh within SP 79 do not require explicit exclusivity for bus lanes.

Next slide, please.

Um SP 79 itself, uh, specifically when it comes to the tier two sort of tier uh tier of bus lane standards, um, doesn't say anything about these bus lanes having to physically exclude other kinds of vehicles or bicycles or anything of that nature from using them in order to qualify.

Um it does do so for tier one, none of which apply which does not apply to any of these corridors here.

But notice that for tier one, uh what's required are separate rights of way from which all vehicular and foot traffic are excluded.

Yet, for all for the tier two standard, they omit that language, and we believe that it's uh it's incorrect, essentially, to um to read into a meaning that the legislature chose not to include.

Uh next slide, please.

Thus, we can make a very strong case here that the disputed corridors qualify as full-time dedicated bus lanes.

They are full-time, they are dedicated according to state law and according to the city's own definition, and they are bus lanes.

Next slide, please.

And we'll go into some supporting evidence.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

So we've got city documents that state that they are dedicated and they are bus only.

And there's a there's a number of them.

This is a non-exhaustive list.

Uh we've got the city's city transportation department memo from May 2019, which studied the Elkahone, it was a pilot project for the Elkahone Boulevard bus lanes before they were implemented the following year.

We have MTS's website saying it was a joint project between MTS Sandag and the City of San Diego, and for University Avenue Mobility Project, which is the what the University Avenue bus lanes were called as part of a larger project.

Um, those documents, this is from the city's engineering department, um, call them transit-only lanes along University Avenue, um, and they were marked as bus only.

Next slide, please.

And for Park Boulevard, again, the city's own documents call them bus lanes.

Uh, this is the it was it's called a capital improvement project.

Um, it was when they had to redo a pipeline.

Um that's when they created a class four buffered bike bike lane next to the bus lane, and you can see the pictures of them that I took myself here.

Um we have various city documents calling them what they are dedicated bus lanes.

Um, and we're so we're essentially we're we're the city is using its own logic here to call them bus lanes, but when it comes to implementing SB 79, they are not designating them as dedicated bus lanes.

Next slide, please.

And then we've got HCD's guidance.

Next slide, please.

Um, so HCD uh released a memo recently uh where they sort of provided some guidance as to how to interpret SB 79's various tiers, and what they see here on the left essentially is the bus service meeting the standards of paragraph one of subdivision A of Section 21060.2 of the public resources code.

Full-time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right of way dedicated for public transportation, right?

Nothing about any kind of physical exclusivity preventing private vehicles from making right turns or bicyclists from using them.

And we see on the right, we highlighted a small section there qualifying bus service, transit oriented development stop is a location where the bus stop is adjacent to a full-time dedicated transit lane.

Next slide, please.

And then we'll get into some more supporting documents.

Next slide, please.

This is from the housing defense fund letter.

They sent us this letter today saying they agree with our position.

Uh, they do not they do not want the city to exempt any qualifying SB 79 tier two TOD stops.

Uh this would undermine the purpose of SB 79.

It would frustrate the city's housing goals, and it would contravene state law.

Next slide, please.

So what can you do now?

Let's resolve this together.

Next slide, please.

Um, so our proposed solution is to amend recital E of tonight's ordinance.

Um we'd we'd like you to strike out the current language as drafted and replace it with something very similar to what we've proposed here, or perhaps exactly that, uh, which would include the uh the corridors mentioned tonight.

Um, and then this is a map here by a group called BILB SD, which includes the all of the 52 stops uh along the three corridors.

Um that's sort of the blob in the middle there.

Next slide, please.

And then the risk of getting this wrong, right?

I mean, essentially, uh we've had a little bit of back and forth between San Diego and the governor, the current governor of California.

Um, starting January 1st of the of the uh following or of 2027, denying qualifying projects in high resource areas is presumed to violate the housing accountability act, triggering immediate financial penalties, which is a situation I don't think any of us want the city of San Diego to be in.

Um so our our take on this is that correct correcting this interpretation tonight can prevent problems down the line.

And we certainly would not want to be in a position where the governor attempts to pull funding because we're not complying with state law.

Next slide, please.

So we we do want to ask you again to please um consider uh amending um recital E of tonight's ordinance so that it's it's consistent with state law and that it's consistent with San Diego's housing goals.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comment.

Just to just for the record, we did receive a speaker slip seating time to Zach Defasio Farrell from Anar Salayev.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jeff Huter.

Please make your way up to the lectern.

You have time seated to you by Dana Givitt.

Thank you.

Ken Hunrich.

Marie Heinrich, thank you.

Yvonne Jones.

Thank you.

Pamela Beagle.

Thank you.

Kelly Tremling.

Thank you.

Gail Viamonte.

I see you.

Thank you.

Neil Winter.

Thank you.

Angela Guzzi.

Thank you.

Luis Ojeda?

Thank you.

Corey Ferris.

Thank you.

Lori Heller.

Thank you.

You'll have 13 minutes.

Great.

Thank you, Council Members.

And I appreciate you bringing this forward this evening.

I know you're working on the budget, and we need to get this done basically in order to meet the July 1st deadline.

And by doing that, it retains the flexibility that the city needs to continue to annualize the capacity that we have with our existing zoning and our existing overlay programs, and then develop a further transit alternative plan and do other actions.

One of the questions, though, that because we're waiting for this final map, what do developers do in the interim?

I mean, as soon as the ordinance goes into effect and people start applying for projects, and that'll be an issue, you know.

I think it's written that way.

One of the things we are unclear about is when we talk about the effective bait being 30 days from the final adoption of the ordinance.

Does that mean that projects still aren't allowed to be submitted until July 1st, or projects will be submitted be even before the July 1st?

And so we we'd like some clarity to that question just to know exactly what we're doing there.

Um I think I covered that.

Why don't you go to the next slide?

So in the state, and look, what the planning department is proposing is a fairly uh conservative approach to this, a measured approach to this, and I think a lot of noise has been made about how either the city is shirking its responsibility or delaying or exempting.

The state law was written to allow cities to take a very complicated law and implement a phased approach, and that's exactly what the city is proposing here.

So, you know, again, we think that's the right approach.

One of the key issues, and there wasn't sufficient time to do the full calculation, is there's a calculation that you do in order to determine how much additional density you need to create through your transit um alternative plan.

And the calculation that's in the staff report just shows the underlying zone capacity.

So that's the 494,000 units that are already zoned within SB 79 areas versus the calculated target of 180 861,000.

Well, that remaining 367,000 when we get done with the with the complete communities calculation alone will probably exceed that 361,000.

And so one of the things that'll come out of this is in a lot of these transit zones, we will have already satisfied the requirements of SB 79.

And I think this comes up a lot where we say, well, but we haven't built all this, but this is a zoning process, not a building process.

And so even though it looks like we haven't built all this capacity that we've created, we have created this capacity, and with all deference to the governor, San Diego was way ahead of the rest of the state when it came to creating transit oriented capacity.

If you go to the next slide, though, SB 79 in a lot of ways is like complete communities.

But if you really look at the difference, complete communities, even in the coastal zone, exceeds the minimum requirements of SB 79.

And if you go anywhere else in this in the city, you can look at that in the, you know, that area, you know, Claremont, University City, Mission Valley, and those areas we already allow under SB under complete communities, we already allow a floor area ratio of 4.0, which is actually what the maximum would be 200 feet from a station under SB 79, and we allow, if you do a rough calculation of assuming 800 square foot units, which is fairly generous, 160 units per acre, in the major area where this is going to be impacted, and that exceeds the 140, 200 feet away.

So there's not something where we're preventing housing to be built near transit.

We have something in place through complete communities, which satisfies a lot of these requirements, and so the one thing that SB 79 does that complete communities doesn't do is that it allows this development not just to go into minimum density areas, so complete communities is a minimum of 20 units per acre, and SB 79 doesn't have any threshold, so where SB 79 developments are going to leak out, and this was a big reason for excluding low resource areas, is it's going to leak out to the areas that are low density residential.

So it's going to leak out to your low density townhomes that are say low three.

Not only is the area that was shown by the previous speaker generally low resource areas, but it's also areas that are already covered at a six and a half far by complete communities.

So we're actually asking in some ways SB 79 is a downzoning from complete communities in the mid-city area.

And certainly when you get downtown, you know, nobody's going to use SB 79 to build a building downtown.

They don't even use complete communities because of the significant density that we've already created in these places.

So we've really done pretty much all the work.

The only thing I'm going to say about the transit stops, and we actually met with Scott Weiner's staff when they were going through the bill to get clarification of this, and they were clear that they didn't consider shared bus bike lanes to be eligible for SB 79.

In their mind, it was dedicated bus lanes.

The way to think about these dedicated bus lanes, it's a train on tires, right?

It's the idea is that you create this capacity bus capacity so that people can quickly move along these dedicated busways, not just to get to the next block on their street, but to get to where job centers are.

And just in the same way that we don't let bikes on train tracks on the trolley tracks, the idea is that they wouldn't be allowed on bus rapid transit routes either.

So again, we'll wait to see what the final determination is from Sandag, but I think it's still going to align closely with this.

If you go to the next slide, I'm not going to say a lot about what the planning commission proposed, but I think one of the things that's key is they again they disregarded the capacity that were already able to create in these areas.

And so, you know, we think they were kind of pushing for something that we can already accommodate in the interim until we get the transit oriented alternative plan completed.

If you go to the next slide, and I'll just make one other comment.

You know, again, this characterization that we're that we're sort of slacking off is with this proposal.

You know, it just it doesn't hold against the fact that we've already done this years ahead of the rest of the state, and therefore that gives us I think the leeway to proceed with this in a in a measured and sensible way.

Um, again, uh just some recommendations.

Um, and again, we support uh the ordinance as it's being presented to you today.

We hope that the council will move that forward.

We would like clarification as to what the real effective date for projects is, and maybe maybe it's already baked into the ordinance, but it sounded to us as if you know you get done with this now, and in two weeks, you know, that it might be you know, middle of June before one place.

Now we're only talking a couple of weeks at that point, um, so maybe it's not super material.

The other thing though to consider is what happens if the state legislature decides to postpone uh the go live date for SB 79.

There is a bill in the legislature that's asking that this be extended to uh January 1st of 2027, and I think a lot of that's a really just a recognition of just how hard it is to do it.

I commend the planning department for being able to get all this work done so quickly and you know putting us in a position where we can work through the rest of the details uh afterwards.

Um there was some, I just wanted to call out also today.

You're just approving the memo, and we need to get that done.

I mean, the uh the ordinance, and we need to get that done.

Um, I do think it's worth looking back now after we get this done at the February 13th memo.

I think there were a lot of good suggestions that the planning department had because we've been through the technical details of what it means to do a one-mile walking path to transit.

Um, the the staff recommended a fix that I think addresses the the Hammershaw situation, not just during the period when we're restricting low resource areas, but um beyond that.

So I I just think there's a lot of uh thoughtful material in there that we think would be good to send forward.

And um, you know, it with all things, you know, we there's you know, kind of the concept of of good planning and good design, and and the state often puts uh requirements for objective design standards in these, and these uh in these laws, and uh hopefully at some point we'll look at those as well.

Um, again, I I thank you for your time tonight.

Uh, maybe you get more people here if you had bobbleheads for the council members.

That might be something to consider going forward.

But uh otherwise, thank you for your time.

At least you didn't call us bobbleheads, so I'm grateful for that.

Well, the following we have four uh speakers in uh in-person speakers remaining in chambers.

Will the following individuals make their way to the front seat of the chambers?

That is Paul Coogan.

We have allegedly Audra, Paul Kruger, and Mary Soriano.

Paul Coogan, you have time seated to you by Christian Anderson.

Thank you.

Please make your way up to the lecture, and you may proceed with your comment.

You'll have two minutes.

Yeah, thank you.

Um, good evening.

My name is Paul Coogan.

I'm secretary of the city chartered community planners committee.

The CPC supports the planning department's original phased implementation approach and urges the city council to adopt it without the Planning Commission's amendments, which would undermine the city's ability to phase implementation responsibly.

A measured phase in, particularly in low resource communities and high fire severity zones, allows the city to align infrastructure, safety planning, and community impacts before increasing density.

San Diego has seen what happens when density policies are implemented too quickly without sufficient planning, whether through ADU bonus outcomes or neighborhood level parking and infrastructure strain.

These are lessons learned, not obstacles to progress.

The prudent path is to use the flexibility provided to implement what state law requires and allows, including the alternate TOD.

CPC respectfully urges you to adopt the staff recommendations as proposed without amendment and to adjust implementation if the state modifies or delays the law.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

We have our next speaker, allegedly Audra.

You'll have one minute.

Yeah, there's significant.

You guys have four people on the dias right now.

They're in the back.

They're in the back.

Again, you don't have a quorum.

I already made a statement about that, so it's basically what you're talking about.

So you can do business without a quorum all the time on a regular basis.

So you guys continue to do business illegally when you don't have a quorum.

I've called this out several times.

You've escorted me out by the police.

How are you guys doing business like this when you do not have a quorum?

I'd like to use my time elsewhere, but it's like I don't know how many times I need to see this happen and have you continue business.

When I've invoked Robert's rules of order, the police have witnessed this, and you guys continue business.

This is why you can't be trusted.

Especially when you're you're we're talking about a bill from Scott Weiner, who's a pedophile.

That's a problem.

And the fact that you guys have done this time and again without a quorum.

Thank you for your time.

Your time has elapsed.

You can't address it and say that we don't have a quorum and we can continue business.

You literally have to stop the meeting.

Audra, please.

Can you please address this?

Because this continues to happen, and it's illegal for you to continue to do business, Joe, without a quorum present at the dais, not in the back, not going to the bathroom at right up here.

I'm serious, this is very concerning when this is the third time.

Not only yesterday, you did it three times.

Okay, you're gonna make me do this.

This is your first for your second.

Because I'm addressing the rules of conduct and your ability to do business without a quorum.

Okay, all these people out here are patiently spending their Thursday night there.

They have to have five people up there.

Don't make me do this.

You've made your point.

We're moving on.

So, are you not going to address Vivian?

You just left everything without a quorum.

Turn the mic off.

Do you want to be escorted out again like Monday night?

Because you might be continuing to do business illegally, and yet we're making me criminal.

Because I'm going to addressing it up.

I didn't say that.

You're disrupting you.

I don't know what you're talking about.

Okay, uh, we're going to leave the dias right now and do the police work.

Okay, five minutes is up.

Again, my apologies to those of you who are spending your personal time here in chambers.

The recess is over.

Clerk, please call the roll again.

Councilmember Campbell.

Campbell?

Councilmember Whitburn.

Council Member Foster.

Council Member Von Wilpert.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Council Member Campillo.

Council Member Moreno.

Present.

Council Member Ilo Rivera.

And Council President La Coffa.

Present.

All right.

With that, I think we were still in the middle of public comment.

Correct.

We have two speakers left in chambers, starting with Paul Krueger.

Please come up to the lectern.

You have time seated to you by Sage Gonzalez Walding.

Thank you.

Dorothy James.

And Mary Young.

You'll have four minutes.

Please proceed.

First, I just wanted to make a clarification on the um write-in comments that you've received.

As a clerk noted earlier, received two hundred and nineteen comments in favor of the staff proposed phase in.

At least ten of those, in fact, are writing to say they oppose any implementation of SB 79.

So just to clarify that.

District for homeowners and renters faced the reality of 10, 12, 14, 17, 35, 103 backyard units.

And these people of color and these people of moderate to low income came forward and said not in our backyard.

And council member Foster took up their cry and persuaded five of you that this bonus ADU program was wrong and it needed to be reined in.

I think the lesson learned from that is that we have to give very much thought and deliberation to what we're doing when we make rules or incentives for builders that allow them to build developments of this size and mass.

Um would allow within a half a mile of a transit stop, someone to build a five or six-story apartment building on a block of single family homes that already don't have enough parking in cul-de-sacks, and this has a devastating impact on these neighborhoods, and you have heard firsthand in such persuasive language that the most ardent supporter of high density, councilman Ilo Rivera, referred to these builders as predators.

Um lastly, I'd like to thank the planning department for its deliberate review and its recommendations, and I'd like to thank all of you for listening to what the community has to say.

Um, and I'd like just in my closing words to remind you that building near transit in San Diego does not mean you don't have a car, it's just common sense.

Three to five percent of people can do without a car here or are forced to do without a cart.

If you want to build big, build big, but don't say people don't need a car.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And our final speaker in chambers is Mary Soriano.

Mary, you'll have one minute.

Please proceed.

Mary Sorriano, President La Jolla Town Council.

San Diego is at a critical crossroads.

SB 79, at least 65 feet high, 120 units, times that by nine city council members equals 1,080 units for one transit-oriented development per district.

Super conservative numbers.

While our streets, our roads, pipes, and public infrastructure continue to deteriorate.

This is your moment.

You have the responsibility to make recommendations that are thoughtful, safe, and fiscally honest with the residents who trust you.

San Diegans deserve infrastructure that works, they deserve streets, they can drive safely, water systems that don't fail, electric grids that don't become overloaded, and public spaces that reflect the city we aspire to be.

Thank you for your comment.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

I will now start the five-minute timer for the virtual queue, going to those participating remotely.

Currently, there are 13 individuals with their hands up wishing to speak, starting with eight AD and Chowdry.

I'll have one minute.

Um good evening.

Clearly obvious bus lanes on Alcohol and Boulevard and University Avenue.

That should be included from the get-go, and we should not have to wait for the state to come back and say that we're violating SB 79 because the city just is refusing to look at it properly.

Also, that 78% of TOD zones having to wait till 2031 to be considered is kind of pathetic.

I hope the I hope that the board the council would reconsider this implementation plan.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker up is Leif Gensert.

You'll have one minute.

I've allowed you to talk.

I cannot unmute for you.

Okay.

Sorry about that.

Um yeah.

Uh good evening.

My name is Life Gansat.

I'm the vice president of Right as D.

Um I am right as C is part of a coalition letter that was sent out to City Council beforehand.

It includes bicycle groups, it includes all the groups, it includes transportation groups, youth groups from all kinds of uh backgrounds.

And we all urge the city council to adopt the proper interpretation of the bus lanes, which is the full-time bus lanes, not just the one uh the two and park boulevard, extended south on Park Boulevard, have Alcajon and University Avenue as the proper implementation of these bus lanes.

We need housing um desperately.

We need housing everywhere, and these uh the transit system can get the people to where they need to go.

There is enough capital capacity, and if the capacity is not enough, we should spawn public transport.

Um, I also asked you to all know you uh on this topic.

You don't want to get into lawsuits from the states.

This can be costly and we'll trust in our public officials, so please implement the best the best bus broad implementation as possible.

Also honor the bank commission's request to accelerate the timeline and apply SP 79 citywide until 2027.

Our next speaker is Victoria Labrusso.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed with your comment.

Good evening.

This is Victoria Labruzzo, chair of the CPC.

Still looking for our seat at the table.

I would have come in person, but GPS told me it would take an hour, so the bottle heads must be popular.

Go pod raise.

Paul Coogan provided CPC's official comment.

Thank you, Paul.

But I want to emphasize the main issue tonight is whether implementation of SB 79 will be done responsibly.

Communities across San Diego have already experienced the unintended consequences of land use changes being implemented faster than infrastructure, and community planning could keep pace.

For example, the impacts associated with footnote 7 and the city's ADU ADU bonus program.

That is why the planning department's phased implementation approach matters, especially in very high fire severity zones and low resource resource communities.

I respectfully urge the city council to support the staff recommendation without the planning commission's requested amendments.

Thank you very much.

Have a great evening.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed with your comment.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Uh I'm just uh more listening on this item.

I wanted to say that I'm here um participating and uh listening.

And uh interesting public comment.

Uh I'll be interested to hear what uh city council will have further to say on this item.

Um I really good luck in working on truly affordable housing with this item and and for the Claremont and um uh college areas and your upcoming uh needs there.

And um, I'm really a big fan of mixed income housing that can bring all levels of income into a building.

Uh I don't think we've quite explored that concept enough.

Hopefully, we can be start thinking of that more.

I think it can offer a lot uh better future flexible choices, uh, good choices for ourselves.

So good luck with that.

And I think we do have to work on the quorum issues a bit.

I think there has to be at least five people.

Uh, even if you're going in the back to do things, uh, there has to be five on the dais.

Um I can write you a letter, we can talk more about this.

Let's hope we work on it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Before we next before we go to the next speaker, I'd like to note that the five-minute timer has expired, and we have 11 individuals in the queue.

No other speakers will be taken for this item.

The next, the next individual, Sporink Sparinx.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed with your comment.

Hi there.

My name is Sam Barinski.

I'm glad that we are addressing SP 79 in the city, and I want to say a few things.

First, we should accelerate all of the delays.

We should not be delaying SB 79.

We need the housing capacity to be unlocked as soon as possible.

That means the low resource areas need to be accelerated.

Additionally, as Yimbi Democrats did a great job of explaining, we also need to include the University Avenue, Park Boulevard, and Oklahoma Boulevard bus lanes as well.

They are included in the definition.

I actually called Scott Wiener's office myself, and they told me it should be included in their cleanup bill, they would have an amendment that would include it explicitly.

It goes with the spirit of the law.

This is not a loophole, it is absolutely what was intended by the lawmakers when they were legislating.

Additionally, the infrastructure is already up to par.

This area was downzoned in the 80s, and the infrastructure was built out with the intention of high density housing from the get-go.

So any arguments that the infrastructure wouldn't support this upzoning is completely false.

We also need to unlock this housing capacity because it's free money for the city from taxes.

Because it's closer to the city in denser, it's more tax efficient, and therefore better for the city, and more free money.

Going to the next speaker, Sharon Gill, you'll have one minute.

Please proceed.

Hello, my name is Sharon Gale.

After the city council passes this ordinance, when we start to look at high fire zones and historic resources, we need to put public safety first.

The safest buildings in a fire are the newest ones because they're built to strict new fire codes.

The most dangerous buildings are the oldest ones built to old codes.

Old craftsman homes were the most likely to burn in the Altadina fire because they had flammable wood sidings, single pane windows, the shattered and wide eaves that caused the 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 larger the percentage of new buildings in the neighborhood, the safer a neighborhood will be in a fire.

It's another form of herd immunity.

The city needs to put public safety first by allowing safer housing near public transit.

Thank you.

For your comment, your time has elapsed.

Our next speaker is Shaquille.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed with your comment.

Shaquille, I've allowed you to talk.

I cannot unmute for you.

Please press star six if you were on a phone.

I'm sorry, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Thank you.

Please proceed.

I uh I'm a 30-year resident of San Diego, and I support the we changed the wording around the bus stations around University and Alcohol to maximize the amount of housing there.

Uh San Diego's currently losing population and middle class and middle class child uh schools are losing children.

They can't really there's not really enough children to support the current budgets, current budgets to money to get to the schools, uh allowing more more pe a lot more houses around more transit, allows more families to send those children to school by throughs by trolley routes, and there are a lot of schools.

Uh not that far from trolley routes.

I uh I uh approve I wish to reword uh I approve the rewarding of certain the certain language in the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Going to our speaker, Crypto Bradley 200.

You'll have one minute, please proceed.

Thanks for taking my call.

I think you guys gotta slow the roll down and implement this.

In my neighborhood, they put in those 15 ADUs, and they're just starting to rent them.

It's a nightmare, man.

Slow the roll down.

And then also in the soccer game, if you mess up with the game, they give you a yellow card and they give you another yellow card, and then if you're acting weird, they give you the red card.

Maybe uh next time you have to get a person out of there, break out, break out the yellow card one, put another yellow card in her face, and then get the red card, and then uh get a wheelchair, those things, and they roll them out and strap them in, and just roll her out and give her like about a week off or something.

You know, pass the law because it's just you know, instead of yelling at her, and the pod raiser uh is tie game, bottom of the first, man.

You guys should have the pod ray game on the TV up there to make it lighter, but to slow the roll down on implementing this program, man.

It's not good.

Your time has elapsed.

Thank you for the comment.

We have Tom White O'Nigel.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Tom My Hill Nigel, and I call on the City Council to implement SB 79 on the University of Buslanes in El Cahon Boulevard.

And I call on the city council to implement SB 79 in low resource areas as soon as possible to create even greater economic opportunities for our citizens and businesses and bolster our communities.

Building greater density in these areas will contribute even further the great strides San Diego has made in increasing our housing supply.

And increasing it further will greatly improve the affordability of housing for all in the community.

High, middle, low income, and those without housing will all benefit from these improvements.

This rising San Diego tide will lift all of its citizens and businesseships.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker, virtual speakers, Trace Thompson, Trace Thompson.

You'll have one minute, please proceed with your comment.

Can you hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Well, my name is Trace Thompson.

I just wanted to urge the city to implement SP 79 as quickly as possible with as few delays as possible, and to push towards the bus lanes being uh properly handled on university having an outcome boulevard.

I just find it that find it strange that for a large major metropolitan area like San Diego, we don't have a high focus on increasing density in our urban areas and by proxy increasing transit access to that.

That's the end of my comment.

Does that conclude your comment?

Yes.

Thank you very much.

The next speaker is DJM.

You'll have one minute, please proceed.

Thank you, Council.

Uh, my name's Daniel Molator.

I live in San Diego.

I'm a voter from Normal Heights.

I just wanted to comment about the uh implementation of 79.

Um, I'm calling in strong support of correctly implementing it uh according to state law.

Um, as you know, uh our city's in a housing crisis.

I think building more homes in high frequency transit areas like El Cajone Boulevard uh uh University Avenue and Park Boulevard is exactly what we need.

Um, you know, California's actually losing residence, and if we continue down this path, um, the electoral college is gonna make it impossible for Democrats to even uh have a chance at winning the presidency, even with the blue wall.

So um this is this is uh microcosm of that, and uh we should be pushing forward to let as many people live where they want to live as possible, to live the kind of lifestyle they want to live, to put them in a place where they're gonna be able to get to work as easily as possible.

This is the obvious policy.

I hope you guys don't delay it.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Sad.

You'll have one minute, please proceed with your comment.

Oh, council members, thank you to the planning department for their hard work on this important plan.

SB 79 will allow more homes near transit, and and so that we more quickly phase in the solution.

I agree with the GDM San Diego that we should also include these high capacity buck lines.

One of the biggest arguments that when it comes to housing is the infrastructure.

The best place to build housing, therefore, is a long leap high frequency transit line that run 15 minutes with this large amounts of people already living in these areas, just grocery stores, there's amenities, there's libraries, it's the perfect place to add more housing.

Housing fundamentally is good.

I think some people get it wrong and believe that adding more housing is a bad.

They're harmed by these systems of housing.

Housing eats more neighbors, it needs more affordability.

It means that we all get to live here.

Our children get to live here, and we get to build the society together.

I want to emphasize housing is good.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Moira Tan.

You'll have one minute.

Please start your comment.

Moira, Moiratan, I've asked you to unmute.

I cannot unmute for you.

If you're on a phone, Star 6.

Hi.

Hi, are you are you able to hear me?

Yes, please proceed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good evening, Council President Lacava and Council members.

Thank you, the city's planning department for your thought partnership here too.

My name is Moira Tan, and I'm a district five of San Diego resident calling in strong support of the correct implementation of Senate Bill 79.

San Diego is in a housing crisis.

Building homes near high-frequency transit corridors like Alcajon Boulevard, University Avenue, Park Boulevard is exactly what our city needs.

More affordable options, less traffic, cleaner air, and stronger neighborhoods.

Tonight you have a simple opportunity to unlock up to 48 additional bus stops for transit oriented housing at no cost to the city, simply by adopting a legally sound reading of the law that California's own vehicle code already supports.

Governor Newsom is watching, our residents are watching.

We believe this council can rise to the moment.

Please adopt the YMB Democrats proposed amendment.

Our second to the last speaker is phone number ending in 2870.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed with your comment.

Phone number ending in 2870.

I've asked you to unmute if you are on the phone.

Daiti.

We get to hear you now.

If you'll have one minute.

Yes.

You didn't say my phone number correct.

We have a phone number ending in 2870.

That's not me.

This is what we have on uh on Zoom.

Shall I shall I speak?

This is Joy.

Daiki, shall I speak?

Yes, please.

Please uh proceed.

Okay, but just are you just starting my time now, please?

You'll have one minute.

We've started the timer.

Okay, thank you.

Uh Joy Sanyata.

This is only from the staff report.

Uh I didn't understand the city must ministerially approved.

I'm concerned about public hearings.

And also opting to implement FB 79 on market rates and affordable homes first and high highest and moderate um resource areas with support fair housing.

I didn't understand that.

With regard to low resource areas, anticipating implementing to ongoing community plan updates, uh i.e.

mid-city and old time semester.

I didn't understand that.

Uh I would really like us all of us to think about clarifying what affordable housing is.

Affordable housing word.

I don't think we still understand it fully.

So uh CPC, thank you for your vote of April 28th.

The voting in support.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time has elapsed.

And our final speaker on the virtual queue is Bruce Koons.

You'll have one minute.

Please proceed.

Uh, thank you.

Uh Bruce Koons, Secretary Director, Saver Heritage Organization.

We support the staff recommendation without the uh recommendations from the Planning Commission.

Uh, we believe staff did a very good job of explaining the ordinance, which allows for uh exactly what they uh proposed, including uh phasing uh the low uh resource areas and the fire impacted areas.

We think it's very important to do this right, uh, particularly with the low-end uh low resource areas.

They do not have the amenities and the infrastructure uh to properly support this yet.

And plus, and plus uh in those areas we have to be very careful that we don't eliminate the actual affordable housing, the naturally occurring affordable housing.

So we have to plan this correctly, and I think the staff did a very good job of explaining why.

It seems the planning commission chose to ignore it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And that concludes the public testimony in item 600.

Thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you for that.

Thank you, everybody that took the time to show up in person.

Thank you, those who called in, and a special shout out for those of you that showed up just to give your time to somebody because those longer presentations are much more effective than the one-minute speeches that we sometimes force you to do.

Um, and it's good to see you all have friends.

Even Paul and Jeff to dragged individuals out here a little late night to do that.

So anyway, uh this is coming direct to city council.

Otherwise, I normally would have gone to chair of our uh land use and housing.

Uh but uh council member uh council president Pro Demoli is not here, so I will take the lead on this.

So I'll start out with uh one of the callers said housing is good.

You know what else is good?

Planning is good, and I am so impressed by this city as someone who actually came out of the industry who understands what city planning is all about.

And I don't think there is any city up and down the state of California that has been more aggressive in being a pro housing in increasing density and doing every community plan update and creating more opportunities for housing to be built, whether it gets built, whether a developer can make a project pencil, something else.

But um, and a lot of the density that we've increased was just sitting fallow for a few years now.

Uh a lot of the um actions we took in certain areas, nothing's moved uh in that area.

Uh but I appreciate uh Heidi and your team at city planning dropping the work that you should be doing to respond to a state mandate.

That's where we live right now.

So this is the law, we have to comply.

And I'm glad that nobody actually was challenging SB 79.

They said that it's the law.

We're trying to figure out how to do that.

And I believe city planning is in fact acting within the specific areas allowed for phasing under state law.

And again, I'm going one of the things that everybody got nervous about SB 79.

I appreciated that unlike most language coming out of Sacramento, that is just a blunt tool being applied statewide that is really intended for those cities that aren't building housing, that aren't doing the zoning that needs to be done.

SB 79 in its final form came in a way that allowed a local tailoring to make it fit with where we're at, to recognize the community plan updates that we're doing that we've done and we doing and tailor it more surgically rather than more bluntly.

So for the folks, there's a lot of you here and called in stating that the city's not going far enough, including by including eligible bus stops.

City planning has done a thorough analysis with the caveat that the SB 79 did require the MPOs, sandag in our case, to release their maps, and they have not done that yet.

And if those map, if the map released by sandag is different than what we're talking about today, the sandak map will prevail.

Is that correct, staff?

Uh yes, Council President.

The recital uh in the ordinance, specifically recital F specifically notes uh that the city will implement the TOD stops identified by Sandeg when they release the map.

I do want to note that since SB 79 uh was put into law.

Our staff has coordinated closely with staff at Sandag, and our interpretation uh to our knowledge as of today has uh remained consistent with the the stops.

Um again, if they do put out a map that is different, this ordinance takes that into account by specifically stating that the city will implement the TOD stops identified in the Sandeg map.

The statute under SB 79 is very clear that the map that is produced by the regional planning organization is the map that will control.

Okay, thank you for that.

Uh so uh I want to give you Heidi or whoever uh the opportunity because a number of public commenters have said we got that wasn't interpreted correctly that's some of those other areas besides what you do and actually what I wanted I remember you gave a memo about 79 that gave us all a heads up if I remember correctly you got some guidance from HCD and you revised your memo to where this action today is consistent with so can you speak about a little more of your interpretation of why what's in front of us today actually meets 79.

Yes so as soon as SB 79 went into law we have been meeting with staff and coordinating with staff from other jurisdictions that are subject to the requirements as well as staff from our regional planning organization so that we could ensure that we would have a consistent interpretation.

HCD did issue guidance they do not specify specific stops within each of the jurisdictions so it is still up for interpretation but their guidance was largely consistent, although provided a little bit more clarity with respect to a bus rapid transit.

It is very clear to me that all of city of San Diego's existing trolley stops are qualifying transit stops under the bill with respect to bus rapid transit stops the statute refers uh to another section which identifies the requirement for full time dedicated bus lanes or operation in a separate right of way dedicated for public transportation.

And then there's frequency requirements the um bus rapid transit uh stations meet the 15 minute frequency requirements but our staff uh reviewed them we did identify four stops um based off of that additional eight cd guidance and additional discussions with sandag staff and identify those additional four stops which was released in the second memo to the council um the other stops and we determined were not um full time dedicated lanes uh we have um sent staff out and observed uh bikes in there uh vehicles um turning into the lanes um but you will see that the four stops that have been included on the maps are full time dedicated bus lanes um or uh in a separate right of way uh dedicated uh for the public transportation I do want to note uh that there um was not very much time relatively speaking um under the state law for staff um to do this I do want to commend my staff um that was able um to not only do a full analysis of the bill but coordinate with our city attorney's office who has been very helpful in its interpretation um as well as uh with our regional planning partners at Sandeg.

Okay I appreciate that and it's times like this it always reminded how uncomfortable how unhelpful the English language is because language that is actually legally binding is used just as much in a staff report or a reference right and it it confuses us all so the arguments were very compelling with the exception that the definitions um I think are more compelling than the reference in a memo or a staff report and how people speak including myself too casually at times.

Council president um if you don't mind I would also uh defer to the city attorney um to provide additional thoughts um there was some reference material provided that we received today that cites other um uh statutory provisions um and defer to the city attorney if they have anything to add thank you okay I would ask deputy city attorney Shannon Eckmeyer please to respond thank you um as you as uh Heidi said this is not legally defined but staff's interpretation is reasonable based on the city's coordination with state the state agencies HCD's guidance memo and the practical application of the language is the city planning department stated if sandag does release a map that includes an ETOD stops that the city did not include um the city is required to amend it so that it is consistent with SANDAG's map.

I did want to state that the vehicle code cited regulates this evening, it regulates parking citation procedures and right side of the road driving procedures, and is a different legal statute that's not applicable to SB 79.

Okay.

Thank you for scrambling and doing that analysis and taking the input seriously enough to to review that.

So continuing, uh, so um again, city planning is doing thoughtful work that takes into account context, context that state legislators themselves thought was important.

Sea level rise, historic resources, very high fires, severity zones, and low resource communities.

And so they've done this same thoughtful work when we did the general plan, community plan updates, and numerous housing production programs, numerous housing production programs, that have made us a statewide example.

And it's good policy to carefully consider the impacts in each of those areas and particularly low resource areas, as we heard in some of the opening comments.

I assume the comments that made by the group from Hammershaw aligns with what we're doing here tonight.

Is that right?

Yeah, the city planning department is recommending, and I want to be clear the city planning department is not recommending exemption of the areas.

The city planning department is recommending that we take the additional time to do the thoughtful planning to be able to engage with a low resource community that has experienced injustices from past zoning actions, and taking the opportunity to identify how this new development can best improve those communities.

We think it's very important, especially as part of our obligations to affirmatively further housing, not just in terms of the housing outcomes, but in terms of the inclusive engagement process that that takes.

Okay, thank you for that.

Yeah, I think that is particularly important.

I think we're learning some valuable lessons over the past few years and your leadership and the mayor's leadership in finally beginning to address some of those historic issues.

I suspect Councilmember Foster, if he was here, would speak eloquently about that much better than I can.

And the context is we're just slowing it down and planning, being thinking more carefully.

And if I remember your explanations, we're gonna hit the same dense or the same unit count that SB 79 calls for.

We're just gonna be more thoughtful about where those units actually could happen.

Yes, that is correct.

So staff's proposal is in line with SB 79, which specifically set forth the TOD alternative plan process as well as specifically identified low resource areas to be phased as long as it occurs within one year of the city's housing element.

The city's housing element needs to be updated in 2031.

We anticipate that we will address it during that time.

I do want to note that the 2031 or 2032 date, because you have one year after 2031, does not mean that it won't be phased in in other areas.

In a lot of instances, the densities required under SB 79 already exist.

The city planning department and this city council have adopted many community plans and upzonings over the past just several years that far exceed the SB 79 densities.

So it is not a it is not a full delay because some are already in place.

In addition to that, the mid-city communities as well as OTI Mesa Nestor have large low resource area populations and census tracts.

We are currently updating through a thoughtful planning process, the mid-city communities plan update, which we anticipate bringing forward to this council within a year, and we will address SB 79 through that thoughtful planning process.

In addition, we've received grant funding for OTI Mesa Nestor community plan update, which is very exciting.

Um we plan we have a signed grant agreement, and we will have the opportunity to engage with the community uh with respect to the implementation in that community prior to 2032.

Okay.

More density than actually would be required under SB 79.

I heard that correctly.

That is correct in many instances.

Many instances.

Okay.

So I'm going to uh wrap up, if I can take my three minutes, uh, with a couple of things.

One, the question that I think Jeff asked about when can you actually submit a project under SB 79?

SB 79 goes into effect on July 1st, so regardless of the effective date of the city's ordinance and application will not be eligible for it until that time.

Okay, all right.

I hope that answers your questions.

Um, I'm gonna make a comment and we'll follow up later.

SB 79 has provisions for affordability components as much as 13 percent.

As we actually develop this out, what I want to know is can we exempt SB 79 projects from in lieu fees?

Because I'm really frustrated that we don't get the affordable, the truly affordable units when we get these higher density projects.

Uh we get an accumulation of dollars that hopefully someday will produce a truly affordable someplace.

Um is that that's not an I that's not up for tonight, but is that a conversation we can have?

Yeah, I appreciate the thoughtful question and uh look forward to more conversations about these very nuanced and important issues that do affect outcomes in the community.

The opportunity to address that is through the TOD alternative plan process.

Okay, I appreciate your careful answer to that question.

Okay, with that, um I think I've gone through all my points and questions, but with all that, I will move the staff recommendation.

And we will now go to council member Campbell.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Um, and thank you, staff.

Thank you so much.

Uh, you've worked so hard on this, I know, and have been uh dealing with Sacramento quite a bit to get everything ironed out and uh explained as much as possible without the sandag maps available.

And so uh I am happy to second the motion, um, and move this item forward.

It gives the city maximum flexibility as this new state law comes into effect, and uh really appreciate all your hard work on it.

Uh so I'm very much in support of staff's recommendation.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

So you have a motion by myself and a second by Council Member Campbell to move the staff recommendation.

We will go next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

I very much want to thank the planning department.

Uh SB 79 was an unexpected and significant lift for a department uh already working through a full work plan.

I also want to thank everybody who took the time to come to tonight's meeting uh and share your perspectives on the matter before us this evening.

As the presentation described, SB 79 requires cities to approve certain housing projects within a quarter or a half mile of major transit oriented development stops outside zoned for residential mixed or commercial development.

In San Diego, that means our trolley stops and a small number of dedicated bus late sites.

Uh, that is targeted transit focused growth, and that is exactly where we should be building housing.

I have listened carefully to the comments about how we define full-time dedicated bus lanes and which corridors should qualify as transit-oriented development stops.

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the argument put forward by the UB Democrats, and I find them persuasive.

I do understand how reasonable people could reach different conclusions about which corridors should qualify as TOD stops.

But the change being requested in the presentation by the UB Democrats is specific to three corridors that are either entirely within my district, or which extend from district three to Council Member Ila Rivera's district, district nine.

When I look at those bus lanes on Park Boulevard, University Avenue, at Elcohoe Boulevard, I have always thought of them as designated transit only lanes.

I think most district three residents see them as designated transit only lanes from the day they were installed to today, and this is certainly where we want to be building housing.

It is exactly where we need to be building additional housing.

I'm not going to get into the question around low resource areas.

I will defer to the council members whose districts are most impacted by that.

But my district is most impacted by facilitating deaf city along Elcohood Boulevard, University Avenue, and Park Boulevard.

We heard from a lot of people from District three this evening.

We want this.

I'm inclined to ask for an amendment, but I want to ask the planning department first.

I would like to propose making the one amendment that was suggested, amending recital E and replacing it with the language that would include all bus stops served by full time dedicated bus lanes on Alcohol Boulevard, University Avenue, and Park Boulevard, with bus service operating at a frequency of 15 minutes or less during weekday peak commute hours.

And I want to ask if there is any downside to doing that.

And here's part of the reason why.

Ultimately, whether we use the original language or whether we use the amended language that I'm suggesting, we're going to do whatever SANDAG decides.

So what would be the harm in amending this to reflect and to communicate to SANDAG what we want with the understanding that we will be bound to SANDAG's decision either way?

Um I will in a minute defer to the city attorney on the specific language, including the references to the vehicle code, which the city attorney has advised are not applicable to the SB 79 interpretation.

With respect to identification, we do clearly state in recital F that we will use the Sandag map.

Um it has been our understanding that the language that we have included in recital E is consistent uh with the Sandag interpretation, although we do not have the final maps.

I don't I haven't had an opportunity to play out, you know, the potential consequences of that.

Um the map that is attached to the ordinance that exempts areas outside of the one mile walk does not incorporate those.

So I would say that that could be a potential inconsistency that we do not have available tonight for this council, but I'll also defer to the city attorney uh for their thoughts as well.

Um as the city planning department said ultimately if we did amend the recital and wait on SANDAG's interpretation, if they disagreed or agreed, considering the maps are not being amended tonight.

It's very likely we would have to bring it back to clean it up with the map adding all of those additional TOD stops.

I also want to point out that SB 79 requires the city to submit the ordinance to HCD for review and approval, and they have not seen the addition of this language.

If HCD disagrees with the addition of the vehicle code, that will have to come back to city council no matter what to be amended.

So that's just something to consider.

So it would just have to come back to city council if they disagree.

Correct.

Well, I'm willing to propose the amendment because I think there is value in communicating what we want.

And if there is one thing that San Diegans have been clear about, it is that the cost of living is too high, and that the cost of housing needs to be moderated.

And the way we could do that is by building more housing, and particularly in the places that can accommodate more density, and particularly along transit corridors at Alcohol Boulevard, University Avenue, and Park Boulevard are perfect examples of where we should be building more housing.

Um I hope that SANDAG and the uh HCD, uh, will see it the same way.

So I will ask the maker of the motion, understanding that SANDAG is going to make the determination either way, whether uh you would incorporate into the uh motion the amendment to include San Diego trolley stops at all bus stops served by full-time dedicated bus lanes at Elcohood Boulevard, University Avenue, Park Boulevard, with bus service operating at a frequency of 15 minutes or less during weekday peak commute hours.

Uh, Councilmember Whitburn, uh, this is gonna be the second hardest thing I did tonight.

Um I'm gonna respectfully decline.

I appreciate what sit city planning has brought forth.

Somebody raised a question why are we here?

We don't do meetings on Thursday nights and make everybody come back.

I'm concerned about not getting this locked in before July 1st so that the totality of what we're bringing forward.

If we want to come back in amendment, like amend this later if we will sandag goes in that direction, you'll have my full support.

But I I want to maintain the integrity of this with and not risk uh the very narrow timeline we have to actually get this ordinance adopted at its second reading before July 1st and get it into HCD's hands.

So I appreciate you may not like that.

I know the crowd's not gonna like that, but that's really the reason I'm gonna stand behind city planning's recommendation.

But I understand that I appreciate that.

Uh and I respect your rationale for that.

I certainly um respect our planning department and uh if there's one thing that our planning department is consistently bid, it's pro-housing.

Uh and and I appreciate that.

Um understanding that this will not be incorporated into the boat tonight.

Let me just say to Santa as the council member for district three, and on behalf of many, many of my constituents, uh, we would very much appreciate your consideration of uh incorporating the changes that have been discussed here uh into your ultimate decision.

Uh we think it is the right thing to do, we think it is the right thing to do for housing, we think it is the right thing to do for transit, and we think it is the right thing to do for San Diego's.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

Give him a bigger round of applause, he deserves more.

A fearless and a tireless advocate for a housing uh as we can see in many, many parts of district three.

Um, with that, we will go next to Councilmember Von Wilford.

Uh thank you very much.

Um, and thank you to our our planning department for doing this work.

Thank you to everybody who's come in to weigh in on this and the very thorough analysis which you gave.

I mean, I also uh tend to agree with Councilmember Whitburn that these are dedicated bus lanes, and that I do see how they would be included in the statute.

However, the recital simply says they are not anticipated to be.

And so that doesn't lock us in stone.

You it just says we uh uh at this time we don't believe that they are, but you could change your mind.

And so I think what we're hearing on the dais is that if especially if sandag decides that they should be, um, then we should.

But it to me it does seem to be a dedicated bus lane.

I mean, I don't drive in them because of it, so uh, but I understand um going back, so I would I would support Councilmember Whitburn's idea to communicate this, but I also understand Council Presidents, you know, we we're on a strict timeline, and if we don't get something done, then the whole thing will fall apart.

Um I also have questions about you know the the impact of increased development.

So, you know, here in my district we don't have any transit, to be honest, you know.

So we don't we don't really this is not gonna affect district five.

Um we are trying to do our part for the environment by switching to clean emissions vehicles and putting in EV chargers.

We have one great bus that goes up and down the fifteen freeway, but that's about it.

Um so I agree with Mr.

Kruger that we do need cars still in the city.

However, when we do have increased development, which we do, we've taken a thousands of units of housing in D5, um, in especially in Pennisquito's Carl Mountain area.

I actually just had a town hall meeting in a cul-de-sac a few weeks ago because it was the new fire evacuation route.

And we figured why not just have it there.

It was the one we conditioned in Juniper's and we brought the fire department, the police department, you know, hundreds of residents came out standing in its cul-de-sac to talk about what happened if this hill lights on fire.

And it got a little heated.

Um because we had the Witch Creek fire came through there and you know burned many of these people's houses, so it's not theoretical to them.

They've already rebuilt.

Uh but so one of my questions is, you know, our DIF fees, regardless of whether we have SB 79 or you know, the more inclusive um programs we've already done, our DIF fees seem to not be keeping up with the infrastructure we need to support this density.

We've had a couple of projects in D5 where the parks are not being built because the DIF fees wildly were undercalculated how much it would cost.

So I'm wondering what we're gonna do about DIF fees if we take on more development.

The city does have citywide development impact fees that are in place and have been for several years, those replaced community-specific development impact fees.

Part of the benefit of having four dedicated asset-based development impact fees is that it enables city staff uh to update the nexus studies for them at a much uh more frequent rate than we were when we had over 40 different fees based off of communities.

Um the city planning department does have it on its work program right now to be updating those studies, um, and we anticipate um being able to uh reach out uh to council offices in the coming months uh to discuss those more uh for future action at council.

This particular item, as you are aware, does not include um that discussion, but citywide development impact fees do apply to all new development unless certain exemptions are specified in the ordinance.

I do want to take uh, and I apologize for taking your time on this, um, I do think it's important to note that uh SB 79, um, you know, to everybody here that's in support of housing, we are too.

Um, and it is a little bit of a false narrative to say it's SB 79 or no housing.

We have lots of other housing programs in place, and in many instances, a lot of these places have exceeded the densities that are called for by SB 79.

Um, and we are also rapidly um, you know, with with urgency updating um our capacity for new homes without needing to implement SB 79.

So, you know, for everybody that's you know, kind of I because I I hear it right, and and I I think it's important for us to acknowledge the importance of housing in these locations.

Um these are areas that we agree are good for housing, and our housing, our community plans have shown that um by adding the densities there, and we do continue to do that as a good actor city in the housing space.

Yes, no, completely agreed.

And I also think there's a huge value in local planning.

Um, I don't think that Sacramento should plan everything for us because, like I said, we know where some of the evacuation routes are.

Palmerado is only gonna be a two-lane road in Scripps Ranch for a very long time.

And so if we take 500 houses more there, how are we gonna evacuate people?

So I do understand that we need local planning.

But you're right, we have been more permissive than many other cities, and we do need housing.

I understand that too, especially senior housing.

If we can build more of that, um we need dedicated senior housing, especially up in my district, that would be great.

Um, I'd like to move into it now, but I've been told I'm too young.

So uh well, I I really wanted to hear what we're going to do with with diff fees coming up soon.

I'm guessing we're not gonna have our DIF fees updated before July 1st.

We will not.

Okay.

Um I'm especially concerned about parks and um fire stations.

So, I have somewhat good news for you, council member.

Uh, we will be bringing the diff annual report to this council probably in a matter of a couple of weeks.

Um, and so we can have a much more robust conversation about the available funding and any potential uh changes going forward.

Okay.

Okay, um, thank you.

I appreciate it.

I appreciate all the work and the questions my colleagues asked.

Um, and uh I'll support the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Bon Wolpert.

We'll go next to Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you to members of the public who came in and spoke today, and the members of the public who came in virtually as well for this late night meeting.

Uh, I want to thank the planning department for their quick work, uh, given the timelines that we have in front of us.

Uh, I know that this was uh on top of all their extra work.

Um I think that as as we see the approach in front of us, uh a measured one, one that we know is not entirely within our control, um, and hearing from the public, um, we've learned from things like the ADU bonus program uh and other policies that uh well-intentioned policies can still have unintended consequences, and so um whether that's speculation in a low resource area or projects that uh do not take into account the necessary infrastructure for emergencies, as Councilmember Von Wilper pointed out.

Uh we have to be very deliberate, and I think what um Ms.

Von Bloom has put in front of us and your team is very, very deliberate.

Uh the alternative uh plan that you've got here it buys us time so that we can be precise at the neighborhood level, uh, which is what we hear from our neighborhoods, it's what we hear from our community planning groups, and um, you know, the state will tell us to build more near transit.

I've supported many projects near transit uh and we can grow those thoughtfully and with the neighbors at the center of those changes.

And I absolutely admire Councilmember Whitburn for advocating for his neighbors and the people his constituents.

Um, if there's one person who has uh close to as much transit in his district as him, it might be me with the green line.

And I love seeing uh transit oriented housing going up.

We've cut ribbons together.

Um and right now, uh a lot of neighbors throughout San Diego are rightfully concerned.

Uh a process that they had a lot more say in for a long time.

Now Sacramento is uh is making decisions.

Um we're seeing neighbors that are concerned with how they'll evacuate during an emergency, and if uh maybe their neighbors are gonna take a property that is worth a lot more now and sell it to an investor.

If the sidewalk and pipes will hold up for new development, um they're concerned about losing the life that they've worked hard for and saved for and invested in and maintained and want to pass on to their family members.

And you can be concerned about those real possibilities, but we have to acknowledge the sheer number of people that don't have that safe space yet for them, that home for them that can barely afford to live here, let alone own a home.

Uh those individuals and families are rightfully concerned that the opportunity to leave live in this city will be unattainable.

I think our planning department does a good job of trying to create those attainable opportunities.

Um and I always just point to the fact that uh the state of California could really get rid of some serious laws that are in the way of building new condos, of building uh uh purchasable properties, um, and uh whether it's uh people who want to use litigation to delay all that, whether it's uh attorneys who have big fees to make well after buildings are built.

There's lots of things that are in the way uh of homeownership, and I certainly don't think that uh the city planning department is in the way of homeownership at this point.

Um this item simply put gives us the time.

I like the way that uh the council president put it.

Uh we're gonna get everyone to the table, give the input to the neighbors uh in these neighborhoods uh who are just asking to be heard throughout the process uh and that those who are still not aware the changes may be coming down the line to get uh get their voices heard.

I have one question.

If we did nothing today, what would happen on July first?

Um if the council doesn't not take action today um on July 1st, um SB 79 will phase in in all areas across the city.

Um and so the city will be required to issue permits uh for the densities identified in the staff materials.

And that would be regardless of whatever the sandag map is that's eventually published that we've been discussing.

It would still uh be contingent upon the sandag map.

So it would phase in in the areas where the sandag map identifies.

We don't have that map yet, uh, but we do anticipate that it will come out before July 1st.

Okay, understood.

One of the things that I was seeing is that there might be spots on the map that would be essentially included in our implementation, and then if the sandag map changes and it doesn't, the sandag map shows areas that are not included, we might be in a process where we receive applications for development that we would then have to pull the permit back, or we wouldn't be able to pull the permit back given what Sandag does, correct?

We anticipate having the Sandeg map prior to the implementation date, and so that scenario should not occur.

You're not gonna speculate on whether that might happen, but I could foresee that it might happen, and then we'd be in a pickle uh significantly.

Um I appreciate that the planning department has committed to including CPC and planning groups in the process and has worked with them.

We heard many of them speaking today virtually and in person, and that really matters to me as well.

So uh thank you very much for that, and thank you.

I will support the I uh motion.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campio.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

Um, and thank you to all the members of the public who came today uh to speak before this body.

Um it's been stated already, but I would like to reiterate I think the city of San Diego has been pro-housing, pro-density.

We've been updating all of our plan updates as quickly as we possibly can, in essence, changing the zones, policy.

It's clear to me that SB 79 was created for cities that are anti-growth, which obviously does not represent the city of San Diego.

And I've seen it firsthand during the Coastal Commission, just hearing folks talk.

It's been pretty shocking, to be honest.

How just pro-housing uh the city of it's not shocking, but it's it's a delight to make sure that um that it goes unnoticed that the city of San Diego is pro-housing.

Um, and I say that because it is the number one issue when you go out into the community and you have town halls and you go and you knock on doors, or even when we're having community cleanups, the number one issue is my rent is too damn high.

Um, so although I do recognize that action is needed today, what action we take is what I want to really hone in on.

Um, I thought that council member Whitburn's request for the amendment was very reasonable, and it's one um that I am fully in support of and how it was mentioned.

If Sandag decides to include those three corridors, good, and if they don't, well, the city of San Diego would have done it already.

So that's where I stand on that.

Um I understand a little bit more.

Uh the reasoning behind, and I I'm just if you could walk me through this.

Um, in regards to low resources area uh low resourced areas, um, you mentioned let me just get to this.

You mentioned low resource areas, the department anticipates implementing through ongoing community plan updates, uh including um mid-city can and otai mesa with additional future planning processes in the remaining low resource areas prior to the state law requirements going into effect in 2030.

So, in essence, what you are saying is that these low resource areas will not have a ministerial-like process until 2032, unless we get to the OTI Mesa and mid-city ahead of 2032.

Or if the council takes an action with a TOD alternative plan prior to that time.

So 2032 is the last date possible, but it could happen sooner.

But it could happen sooner.

Correct.

Okay, and how um because the O Time Sinester community plan update, if I do, you know, a quick map in my brain, that's the last plan update for district eight.

We've pretty much we've done San Isidro, Ota Mesa, Southeastern, Barrio Logan, and Otai Mesa Nester is the only one.

Am I missing another one?

Um it is the last one for a comprehensive um plan update.

There's a variety of ways that we can address SB 79 in low resource communities, including specifically San Isidro and Barrio Logan, that have more recently adopted community plans that will require additional actions to meet the requirements of SB 79.

Um, I I don't want to commit to what that planning process will look like that because that is it is quite a few years out from now.

Um, but that could look like um a specific plan update or focus plan amendment.

Um just because we have updated a community plan, doesn't mean we can't go back and revisit it, as we saw with Uptown Community Plan that was adopted in the semi-recent past, and then a focus plan amendment was brought back that increased density significantly in that area as well.

So in my district, your state you just stated that Barrio Logan and San Isidro can potentially see higher density through ministerial process of SB 79, but they they would not be able to utilize the ministerial process unless they come forward and do a zone change.

So prior to that time, the city planning department will be working on.

But you said, sorry to interrupt you, but you just said you can't promise.

You can't promise how quick you will update COD.

2032 is the latest date.

Before SB 79 requires that all areas be phased in.

Yes.

So and I am of the belief that time kills all projects.

Um I am a little bit more comfortable.

I am because we've had so many plan updates, and because of the commitment.

I I always say this, the mayor and I don't get along, and we don't see Ida.

So I do trust, and obviously I trust you, Heidi.

Um, I do trust that we would get out of the way, if you will, uh, and when it comes to housing, um, I don't know what the next administration is going to look like, and that's what I'm always looking uh towards.

Um, and so uh I am very much pro-housing, and I do want the city to get out of the way.

Um, I do want my daughter to be able to live in the city of San Diego when she is ready to purchase a home, if that is what she wants, um, and um just given what we have before us, um, I'm gonna be a no vote on this particular item, and I'm gonna hope and pray that SANTAG adds the four corridors and that that administration updates our TOD policies.

So just standing on principle with this and knowing that my um my vote means something, I'm gonna be respectfully voting no on this.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

Um I'm gonna try something that is a little bit unorthodox, um, because it's 815.

Are you a no vote?

Okay, so we don't have the votes to pass uh the motion, so I'm not gonna call for the vote.

Um it takes five, right?

Even though it's a majority of who's here.

So I'm gonna call for a 15-minute recess uh to figure out whether there is a path um forward.

So, or a bus lane forward, and then we have a lot of people, and I think that's a good one.

So I'm not going to put it in.

All right, folks.

One hour and twenty twenty-five minutes of the longest recess with my council presidency.

And we're ready to come back.

This is important stuff.

So first uh clerk, please call the roll.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh Councilmember Campbell?

Here.

Council Member Whitburn.

Here.

Councilmember Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilper.

Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Councilmember Campillo.

Councilmember Marino.

Present.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

And Council President Lakava.

So we have a quorum and everybody is sitting in their chairs.

So having made the motion that did not seem to have the votes.

You heard the comments, comments from the public.

You heard the comments from the council members.

I have deferred to you in the original motion.

And so I will once again to defer to you to come up with an alternative that you think might be more palatable from the comments that you heard an hour or two ago.

So Heidi, what what can you offer us?

Yes, yes.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you for the deference.

Uh, very honored by that.

Based off of the comments that we've heard from the council and the members of the public, um, I believe we have a solution.

Okay.

So that solution would be to remove recital E, which references the specific TOD uh qualifying transit stops, and then moves recital F into the new recital E, which just says the TOD qualifying transit stops will be the stops as identified by Sandeg in the map.

Now, in the actions of the ordinance, uh, we have also proposed some additional changes.

The original ordinance that was before the council uh made reference to maps that included um this the stops um that staff had identified.

Um, but given that sand egg may identify other stops, um, we have removed reference to each of the attachments and instead referred to the definitions, and our department after sand egg does release the map will prepare the maps accordingly uh based off of this council's direction.

Okay.

Um I'm comfortable with that.

That language is now up on the screen.

Um, and I believe hard copies are being passed out so people can look at the edits that are being made.

So I will move this recommendation uh as amended.

Uh Councilmember Campbell, uh, can I get a second?

I'd be happy to second that.

All right.

Um any comments, Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh just so that I uh could for the record confirm what this does, uh, we're gonna strike recital E all together.

Uh tonight's action will not identify the transit oriented development stops uh in the city of San Diego.

We're going to leave that to SANDAG.

That is essentially what that says.

That is correct.

You are much more succinct than I was.

Thank you.

Um thank you.

I uh also want to say uh that along with this uh change, uh my office is going to take the lead on writing a letter to SAD DAG requesting that the transit oriented development stops include say Diego Trolley stops and all bus stops served by full-time dedicated bus slides on Elcohot Boulevard, University Avenue at Park Boulevard with bus service operating at a frequency of 15 minutes or less during weekday peak commute hours.

Uh by office will take the lead on writing that letter.

I anticipate that there will be other council members who will cite on to that letter.

Uh and I really want to thank the council president uh and my colleagues for their patience as we worked out a path forward on this.

Uh I want to thank the Yippy Democrats and other pro housing advocates for their input uh on this.

I want to thank the mayor's office, uh, our pro housing planning department uh and our city attorney's office for uh walking us through this approach.

I think this is a path forward uh that makes sense uh that we can get behind today.

So thank you, Council President.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

Uh Council Member Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

Staff, well, succinctly, I'm not saying it uses many words.

What is functionally different than the staff's recommendation and what we have in front of us right now?

Uh what is functionally different is that there is no reference to specific stops, and there is full deference to the sand egg maps.

Okay.

So there is no reference in this council adopted action to the qualifying stops.

The reason why staff had prepared the maps is because it is informative for the council to be able to see the applicability of the areas.

Um but given uh the challenging situation of the timing of the release of the maps, uh, we were not in a position to be able to wait until the release of the sandag maps to bring this item forward to the council.

Certainly.

So uh for people who are online at 8 20 and now are looking at 9 40.

There, they're I think functionally, functionally, would you say that the staff's recommendation is here, other than the informativeness of what some of the recitals said, but functionally it's the same thing.

I would agree with that characterization.

Okay, thank you.

Happy to be in support.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Campio.

Um, I rushed to make the motion.

I did want to check with the city attorney to make sure that you've carefully thought this through from a legal perspective.

Yes, our office has no legal concerns.

Thank you.

Okay, thank uh my apologies for not asking that question before I made my motion.

Uh Councilmember Whitman, you're back on the lights.

Thank you, Council President, to elaborate a little bit on the question that uh Councilmember Capillo uh brought up.

Um just to highlight what we've done here.

Recital E originally said uh that the only TOD stops of the City of San Diego are San Diego trolley stops at four bus stops located at a few different locations.

It was restrictive and limited.

Uh and what this does is uh remove that limiting nature.

It defers to Sayadag.

It did with the letter that my office will take the lead on, we will indicate what certainly my preference would be to see it at at any other council members who wish to join it on that.

Perfectly good.

Just as a matter of functionality, I think that's right, but I I get the purpose of wanting to remove the specific enumeration or uh listing of what you were talking about.

Totally good and thank you.

Happy to vote yes.

Uh all right.

So with that, we do have the motion that's actually um two pages.

Uh I think that's the front page.

Uh, there's hard copies, and I think there's hard copies in the back or something like that.

Yeah.

So with that, um clerk, please call the roll.

I have to start.

I have started the voting system.

Please cast your vote.

Oh, you'll.

And that passes five uh five four with four people absent.

That doesn't sound right.

That does not sound right.

You want to do it again?

Yes, we'll start the voting system.

We'll start.

The vote again.

Okay, I've started the voting system once more.

Okay.

Councilmember Campbell, would you like to vote uh orally?

Yes.

Okay.

I vote yes.

There it is.

Okay.

Okay.

And that passes 6-3, 6-0, with three council members absent.

Councilmember Foster, Council President Pro Temble, and Councilmember Eloh Rivera.

All right, we have approval of the first reading of the ordinance.

So thank you for everybody that stuck around.

Uh, thank you for your initial input.

Uh, thank you to staff uh navigating this a little thorny question because Sandag had not yet done its work, which would have made it a little bit easier and more straightforward.

Um with that, we will now adjourn council to the regularly scheduled council meeting on Monday, May 11th, 2026 at 10 a.m.

Drive safely.