San Diego Smart Growth and Land Use Committee Meeting - June 15, 2018
STREAMING COPY IN PREPARATION — RECORDING AVAILABLE FROM THE ORIGINAL SOURCE
San Diego Smart Growth and Land Use Committee Meeting - June 15, 2018
The Smart Growth and Land Use Committee met on June 15, 2018, to consider four agenda items: a consent calendar item, a non-agenda public comment, and three discussion items involving property sales and a lease. The committee approved the consent calendar, heard public testimony on marijuana businesses, and voted on actions related to affordable housing development, an airport lease, and a park-and-ride sale.
Consent Calendar
- Item 1: Silk Tree Terrace property – The committee approved the sale of the property after a brief discussion about vegetation and fencing. Staff confirmed the property is fenced and brush is trimmed as needed. The motion passed unanimously.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Scott Chipman, San Diegans for Safe Neighborhoods – Expressed concerns about marijuana businesses, alleging inadequate regulation, illegal advertising, and preferential treatment. He stated that businesses operating with tax certificates are frustrating adjoining businesses, and that proximity distances to child-oriented facilities are being ignored by the Development Services Department. He asked the city attorney to investigate.
Discussion Items
- Item 2: Sale of city-owned properties in City Heights (Oklahoma Boulevard, Central Avenue, University Avenue, 40th Street, and 41st Street) – Staff presented three parcels acquired from Caltrans. Two affordable housing developers responded: National Community Renaissance (one property) and Wakeland Housing (all three). The city is negotiating with Wakeland, which proposes 100% affordable units at 60% area median income (AMI) or less, with affordability for 55 years. Councilmember Alvarez (chair) moved to forward the sale to the full council with the recommendation that future development require 100% of units be restricted to affordable housing at 60% AMI or less (excluding the manager's unit). The developer confirmed willingness. The motion passed unanimously.
- Item 3: 40-year lease with Coast Air Center at Montgomery Gibbs Airport – Staff recommended a lease for redevelopment of a 9.4-acre parcel with a minimum $5.8 million investment. Annual rent is $214,000 in year one. The lease includes CPI adjustments based on the LA-Riverside-Orange County index (not San Diego) and market value adjustments every 10 years. Councilmember Alvarez questioned the CPI index and lack of annual adjustments. The motion to authorize the lease passed unanimously.
- Item 4: Sale of former park-and-ride on Rancho Carmel Drive – Staff presented two offers: Buyer 1 at $350,500 with five deed-restricted affordable units (12 total units), and Buyer 2 at $600,000 with two deed-restricted affordable units (10 total units). Discussion centered on whether to accept the lower offer with more units or the higher offer with fewer units, and whether the city could negotiate. Councilmember Alvarez initially proposed moving forward with Buyer 1, but after debate, the committee voted to direct staff to request best and final offers from both buyers and bring the results to the full council. The motion passed unanimously.
Key Outcomes
- Consent calendar (Item 1) approved unanimously.
- Item 2: Approved to forward to city council with recommendation for 100% affordable units at 60% AMI or less.
- Item 3: Approved to authorize the lease with Coast Air Center.
- Item 4: Directed staff to obtain best and final offers from both buyers and report to council.
- The next regular Smart Growth and Land Use Committee meeting is scheduled for June 27, 2018, at 2:00 p.m.
Meeting Transcript
For discussion, and I see no none, no requests. They stand approved. We'll move to non-agenda public comments. And we have one uh comment request. You will have two minutes. Okay, Scott Chipman, you have two minutes. Thank you. Scott Chipman, Sandy Agans for Safe Neighborhoods. There continues to be reasons for concern about pot businesses. For example, the advertising on billboards of Ease, which is the Uber of Pot is advertising for illegal delivery services. They got to skip over the process, three procedures. And then, of course, the actual regulations are not adequate. They're not being properly enforced. Marijuana businesses already operating because they have a business tax certificate. They are aggravating to the adjoining businesses. These adjoining businesses feel they are treated disrespectfully by by the city because they weren't allowed to provide any input, as would have been the case if those manufacturing businesses had gone through the process three procedure that allows input from planning groups and eventually sequa notification, hearing officer and planning commission. This preferential treatment for a group of business types is frustrating those other businesses. Regulations are written so that multiple business types are located on the same site. That is not as uh required by state law. So you can have manufacturing delivery, production all occurring in one site uh growing. Uh that's basically not adding 40 uh pot businesses, that's adding 120 pot businesses. And the pot proximity distances to child-oriented operations are being dismissed by DSD if the pot business is located in a multi-use building. So if the pot business with it when it was it within its own individual building, it would have to have thousand-foot separation. If it's in a building of five or six other businesses, and the majority of those businesses are not youth serving, those youth serving businesses, their uses are being completely ignored. And ask the city attorney, please to check on why Willie Sin. Excuse me, I'll come back on that issue. Thank you very much. Thank you. Uh moving on to committee member comments. Are there any committee members wishing to make any comments? And I see none. Ums from the city attorney, IBA or mayors. Yeah. See none. We are moving on. Um I have no comments either. Are there any requests for continuance? I see not. Uh here are no requests or continuance. We'll move on to our consent agenda. We have item one. Uh is there any request to pull item one? Thank you, Mr. Sherman. Second. Yes. Um, I I believe uh my question is I guess more in the comment is in the interim before the sale. What's being done with this cord? It's a corridor that um some people still utilize. I think probably council member uh chairwoman knows more because it's in her district, but um from it was previously in district eight, so I remember it.
openpublica.com