Land Use and Housing Committee Meeting - January 23, 2020

The Land Use and Housing Committee of the San Diego City Council met on January 23, 2020, at 9:00 AM (scheduled; meeting began at approximately 20:45 UTC). Chair Ward presided, with Councilmembers Campbell, Sherman, and Vice Chair Kersey present. The committee approved minutes from December 5, 2019, and heard public comment on non‑agenda items and two major agenda items: the 12th Code Update Phase Three (cannabis regulations) and a discussion of the committee’s 2020 priorities. Key decisions included forwarding the cannabis code update to full Council without a recommendation, subject to staff revisions, and directing the Chair to develop a 2020 work plan.

Consent Calendar

• Approved minutes of December 5, 2019 (unanimous).
• Accepted recreational trail easements from Carmel Valley Neighborhood 10 North Homeowners Association (Item 1).
• Authorized a 20‑year nonprofit lease with Educational Enrichment Systems, Inc. at 6960 Linda Vista Road, with waiver of certain Council Policy requirements (Item 2). Both items passed unanimously.

Public Comments & Testimony

Non‑Agenda Public Comment

• Martha Welch spoke about alleged corruption in housing and bribery, and expressed anger about reduced meeting time.
• Terry Ann Skelly (mother of three, attends three planning groups) expressed two concerns about the municipal code update: (1) the 19‑page, 102‑item document is too voluminous for public review; (2) proposed changes to marijuana regulations originate from attorneys and businesses with financial interest in the marijuana industry, not from planning groups or community members focused on public health.
• Clovis Honore (Office of the President, San Diego NAACP) called attention to single‑family zoning and covenants that perpetuate racial segregation and redlining, urging the council to eliminate discriminatory zoning laws.
• Ricardo Flores (Executive Director, [organization]) noted that minimum lot sizes historically excluded people of color and poor whites from certain communities. He proposed amending the 2015 Small Lot Subdivision Ordinance to allow four‑unit subdivisions on single‑family lots citywide (not just in multifamily zones), arguing this would create middle‑class housing and address segregation.
• Rachel Stevens (California YIMBY) announced amendments to SB 50 (More Homes Act) that allow local communities to create alternative housing plans. She supported amending San Diego’s small‑lot subdivision ordinance to apply citywide.
• Marissa Tucker (renter in North Park) shared personal canvassing experience highlighting that small, incremental development (garden apartments) previously allowed workers and teachers to live in the community. She noted that 60–65% of San Diego is zoned single‑family only, which restricts opportunity.

Public Comment on Item 3 (Cannabis Regulations)

• William Perno (Central Region Prevention Coalition) provided detailed historical context: the 2013 city council increased sensitive‑use buffer from 600 to 1,000 feet and added a 100‑foot residential zone buffer. He argued the city has been incorrectly measuring distances (using property lines instead of zone boundaries), citing two Cycle Reports that recommended denial of marijuana outlets within 60 feet of a residential zone. He criticized a December 12, 2019, planning department memo that changed language from “100 feet from a residential zone” to “100 feet from the property line of a residentially zoned property” without public notice. He also opposed the proposed “legal path of travel” measurement, stating it removes all barriers and could allow closer proximity to sensitive uses. He urged the committee to reject the changes.
• Carrie Jacquis (Hope United Methodist Church, Rancho Bernardo) opposed the code changes, stating the church runs a state‑licensed preschool and minors use the campus year‑round. She said the current applicant argued churches are not sensitive uses, and that changing to path‑of‑travel measurement could allow dishonest interpretations (e.g., an unpermitted wall built by the applicant). She urged retention of the 1,000‑foot property‑line‑to‑property‑line measurement, as recommended unanimously by the Planning Commission.
• Ricky Brown (property manager, Hollywood Palms Apartments) described challenges with a nightclub near their property (Pearl Laundry) and expressed concern about a proposed cannabis outlet. The city attorney reminded the speaker to avoid commenting on specific pending projects; the speaker then discussed general community safety.
• Lisa Bridges (North City Prevention Coalition) argued that the shortest distance between two points is a straight line, and that path‑of‑travel measurements would increase allowable distances, potentially placing marijuana businesses nearer to children’s frequented locations.
• Kathleen Lippett (community advocate) stated changes were influenced by five marijuana attorneys working together, and that a last‑minute memo from industry advocates likely violated the Brown Act (not seen by the public). She supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to keep current language.
• Rob Rienza (District 5 resident) opposed the changes, saying the ordinance was only enacted in 2017 and amendments so soon favor the industry. He cited health impacts from Colorado (e.g., quadrupled marijuana charges, tripled hospitalization rates). His wife and children would be neighboring a proposed outlet.
• Kelly McCormick (parent and youth mentoring program director) said families feel railroaded, with city staff accommodating marijuana industry requests behind closed doors. She said an unpermitted fence should not be used to manipulate distance. She supported retaining the 1,000‑foot property‑line measurement.
• Becky Rapp (parent and public health advocate) supported the Planning Commission’s recommendation to keep current language, citing examples where a functional walkway was blocked by a wall from a marijuana applicant, and where a drainage ditch was argued to block a direct path.
• Phil Rath (United Medical Marijuana Coalition, trade association) supported the three proposed changes, particularly the renewal process (Item 3c). He argued that path‑of‑travel would reduce confusion and that renewals need clarity on crime statistics and code violations. He suggested focusing on tax compliance and resolved code violations rather than attributing crime to businesses. He requested more specificity on standards for renewals.

Discussion Items

Item 3: 12th Code Update Phase Three – Amendments to Cannabis Regulations Staff (Renee Mezzo and Edith Guterres) presented three proposed amendments:

1. Path of travel for sensitive receptors: Change from 1,000‑foot straight‑line property‑line measurement (with barriers) to “legal pedestrian pathway” at street corners and crosswalks.
2. Residential zone distance: Change from 100‑foot straight‑line measurement (with barriers) to a pure straight‑line property‑line measurement (no barriers).
3. Expiration of existing MMCC permits: Change from an extension‑of‑time (Process 2) to an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit (Process 2, appealable to Planning Commission), maintaining previously conforming rights and allowing expansion within the same premises. Applicants would provide police criminal activity and code enforcement data; staff promised revisions on language before Council.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of items 2 and 3, but for item 1 recommended retaining the existing 1,000‑foot straight‑line measurement and clarifying barriers, rejecting the path‑of‑travel approach. The Deputy City Attorney noted the ordinances are still under legal review and wording may change before Council.

Committee Discussion:

• Vice Chair Kersey raised concerns about path‑of‑travel: two dispensaries across the street would be allowed if pedestrian path exceeded 1,000 feet. Staff confirmed that state 600‑foot straight‑line requirement still applies for state‑defined receptors (schools, daycare, youth centers). For locally defined receptors (e.g., churches, parks), the change could allow closer proximity if path‑of‑travel exceeds 1,000 feet.
• Councilmember Sherman questioned the renewal process and requested clarity on crime statistics and code violations; he cautioned against weaponizing code enforcement. Councilmember Campbell suggested adding “resolved” to code violations to avoid holding unresolved issues against applicants.
• Chair Ward suggested considering a 600‑foot straight‑line or 1,000‑foot path‑of‑travel alternative for cases with vertical relief or freeways. Staff agreed to develop improved language.
• Councilmember Sherman moved to send the item to full City Council without recommendation, subject to staff incorporation of committee comments and city attorney review. Councilmember Campbell seconded. The motion passed unanimously.

Item 4: Committee Priorities for 2020 Chair Ward began the discussion, seeking public and member input. Public speakers offered suggestions:

• Matthew Vasilakis (Climate Action Campaign) asked the committee to consider climate‑conscious land use, community plan updates that align with Climate Action Plan targets for mode shift, and coordination with the forthcoming Mobility Action Plan.
• Molly Kirkland (Southern California Rental Housing Association) cautioned against piling additional regulation on rental housing, noting new state rent control and just‑cause requirements (AB 1482) and source‑of‑income ordinance. She warned that adding complexity could drive mom‑and‑pop landlords out of the market.
• Andrew Malik (small‑scale developer) noted that the average multifamily lot in San Diego yields only eight units, and urged the committee to consider impacts on small developers when crafting policy.
• Rami Cortez (small‑scale infill developer) recommended prorating development impact fees by square footage rather than flat fees, arguing flat fees are regressive and hinder small projects. He also mentioned that the double‑density bonus for micro‑units has not been used due to high impact fees.

Committee Member Comments:

• Councilmember Sherman listed his priorities: housing production goals; ADU ordinance for movable tiny homes; biennial updates to housing inventory; middle‑income density bonus; Huffman six‑pack rezoning; restructuring development impact fees (per square foot); certification of architects/engineers to expedite permitting; and hiring an economist for the Planning Department.
• Councilmember Campbell moved that the Chair develop a 2020 work plan based on member and public input. She added priorities: ensuring Claremont community plan update benefits residents; recalculating development impact fees by square footage; conducting a housing vacancy study; passing a comprehensive short‑term vacation rental ordinance; and setting housing goals (the state requires 13,000 units/year).
• Vice Chair Kersey supported dif recalculations, tiny homes on wheels, middle‑income density bonus, Huffman six‑pack concept, and renewed efforts on short‑term rentals.
• Chair Ward added priorities: preserving affordable housing; routine reporting on housing goals; vacancy study (already underway by Housing Commission); incentivizing housing in transit‑rich areas; age‑friendly living for seniors; and smart use of city‑owned land (updating Council Policy 700‑10).

The motion passed unanimously. The Chair will present a finalized 2020 work plan at the February 27 meeting.

Key Outcomes

• Item 3 (Cannabis Regulations): Moved to full City Council without recommendation (8‑0). Staff will incorporate committee comments on: (a) alternative distance measurement for sensitive receptors (600‑foot straight‑line or 1,000‑foot path‑of‑travel based on barriers/vertical relief); (b) clarifying crime statistics and code violation standards for permit renewals. Final language subject to city attorney review. The Planning Commission’s recommendation to keep existing 1,000‑foot property‑line measurement for sensitive receptors was not adopted; the committee left the resolution to Council.
• Item 4 (2020 Priorities): Chair Ward directed to develop a work plan incorporating all member and public input; work plan to be presented for adoption at the February 27 committee meeting.
• Schedule: Next meeting rescheduled to February 27, 2020 at 9:00 AM.