Good afternoon, welcome to the Land News and Housing Committee meeting of November 6th, 2025.

Our committee liaison, Natalie Kessler will go over instructions for today's meeting.

Thank you, Chair.

While members of the public are able to attend the meetings in person, this meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and the council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide virtual testimony must enter the virtual queue by raising their hand before the virtual queue closes.

The queue will close when the last virtual speaker finishes speaking or five minutes after in-person testimony ends, whichever occurs first.

This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to manage and conduct city business.

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair.

Natalie, please call the role.

Vice Chair Ilo Rivera.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Council Member Kempio.

Here.

And Chair Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Also attending the meeting today is Chris Ackermanadilla with Mayor Todd Gloria's office.

Deputy City Attorney Noah Brazier with the City Attorney's Office.

Amy Lee with the independent budget analyst office, and Angeli Hoyos, committee consultant.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it on top of the box indicated at the front of the room next to the public comment microphones.

Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management.

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins.

And members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link, which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

The webinar ID is 160683-0623 pound.

This information is also available on the agenda and will appear on the screen during the public comment period for each agenda item.

Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay.

And this concludes in-person public testimony for non-agenda public comment.

We will move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate that they have non-agenda public comment.

We have five hands raised in the queue.

Madison Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I'm going to speak about the serious risks tied to cannabis cultivation here in San Diego.

Just last month, Governor Gavin Newsom's office reported that state officials removed 21,000 illicit cannabis plants from growth sites across California, including in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, San Mateo, Santa Cruz, and Sahama counties.

These were not small backyard operations.

They were large hidden groves that devastated sensitive habitats and watersheds.

According to the Department of Fish and Wildlife, those 21,000 plants would have consumed up to 9.5 million gallons of water over their growing cycles.

Water stolen from streams and ecosystems already under stress from drought.

Officials also found banned pesticides and fertilizers, some so toxic they're illegal in the United States.

These chemicals poison the soil, contaminate groundwater, and threaten both wildlife and public health.

At one site in San Bernardino, officers found plants growing among western Joshua trees with rodenticides and illegal water diversion hoses running through a protected desert ecosystem.

State officials had to restore water flow that had been cut off to supply these grows.

This is what happens when cannabis cultivation is poorly controlled, and these environmental harms can occur here in San Diego's backcountry, canyons and watersheds if we allow cultivation without strong enforcement and environmental safeguards.

As the Fish and Wildlife Director Charlton Bonham said, nearby communities and fish and wildlife depend on clean water from these watersheds.

We all pay the price if water supply is affected.

It is great that cannabis cultivation is highly regulated in San Diego, but we also need to make sure there is some enforcement happening.

So our land is protected.

Let's learn from what's happening statewide and protect San Diego's water, wildlife, and communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker in the queue is phone number ending in 4592.

Please press star six and begin.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Um as someone who has worked on behalf of policies that will contribute to the well-being and capacity of children to reach their maximum potential.

I would like to reiterate that one of the most successful projects downtown, the children's park, is on the radar for Nair Gloria to close to eliminate the security for that park.

It's always full of kids.

Now Mayor Gloria wants to cut the overnight security.

Our leaders are trying to balance the budget by raising fees on everything that they can imagine.

But please do not do this on the backs of children.

Imagine that at night the homeless will gravitate to a park because it's a vacuum.

There's nothing there to stop that.

And it could become a haven for drug users.

It is not the right thing to do.

It is unsanitary, and we would have to clean up the park every morning.

And who knows what's going to happen.

So please use some common sense and please help him recognize that his duty is to protect the children of San Diego.

Thank you very much for letting me speak.

Thank you.

The next speaker in the queue is Blair Bakeman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi.

Thank you.

Blair Beakman.

Happy Thursday.

Um I wanted to report out today.

Um I guess I guess to first go off to mention on um, I hope we can be working on you know, uh, over militarization issues here in San Diego, Southern California.

Um, I think the work we do, I uh we can be moving forward uh in how to talk to the federal agencies to lessen their militarization use.

And when we do that, we're talking about peace, not war, that I think can translate to international dialogue.

Basically, based on just offering good reasoning here at the local level and best practices.

And I think that can really transmit around the world, basically.

So I'm really hopeful about that.

With that all said, um the city of Oakland, um, and uh November 18th, Tuesday, they're going to have a uh public meeting, uh committee meeting on the future of flock for Oakland.

Um, that meeting was almost canceled, and um the process was uh almost eliminated, and and they were just gonna vote the process through.

But it was decided that there needs to be community dialogue about the subject.

So they brought it back to the committee process.

Man, they're gonna really work on it.

I mean, we have our smart streetlight issues that have been reintroduced now and going to be redeveloping and rolled out.

So all our efforts of the past six months that we're really counting on uh having more conversations on flock and uh uh to limit ALPR use, they've been cut off a bit.

And we have to be patient and polite to all this new smart streetlight text come that's supposed to be coming in.

And that's it's frustrating that that's happening here in San Diego when we have a real urge to want to look into this matter more and understand it better, and that we can have choices and uh to make better choices.

I hope we can keep that door open at this time and we can have those conversations still.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have three hands remaining in the queue.

We will take no additional callers after these three.

Terry Ann Skelly, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, good afternoon, land use and housing committee, Chair Lee.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

As a longtime community member and planning group member who cares about how our land is utilized.

I'd like to share some information from a recent report.

It's entitled The Impact of Tobacco Product Waste in Pacific Beach on the Wetlands of Northern Mission Bay.

The research group and uh San Diego State University have been investigating how tobacco product waste on the streets of Pacific Beach affects the wetlands of northern mission bay.

So they can understand the amount of tobacco waste near the stormwater inlets, how fast it collects again, and how rain and cleanup efforts influence the waste levels.

The findings show that approximately 1,400 cigarette butts can be found consistently near just 29 stormwater inlets of the drainage area, and after complete cleanup, cigarette butts reaccumulate to 50% of the previous level in less than two weeks to keep the number of butts consistent consistently at 10% of the previous level, complete cleanups would have to happen every two days.

Clearly, cleanups are an impractical and costly solution to tobacco product waste with only temporary effects.

An upstream solution could address the source of tobacco product waste directly and is needed to see long-term improvements.

Perhaps now is the time to consider a smoke-free, vape-free public places policy here for San Diego.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you.

The next caller with their hand up has joined with the name Zoom user, Zoom user.

Can you please unmute and begin?

All right, thanks.

Thanks for your time.

I don't think we should uh model our scissors city over Oakland.

Oakland's a shithole, man.

They the Raiders left Oakland and the A's left Oakland.

They had to get out of there.

But anyway, another land use for San Diego.

During the Biden regime, under the invasion of all these 30 million illegal aliens, you guys utilize the Crown Plaza Hotel to process them.

And we should get a forensic accountant and find out where the money went, who profited from that, and then hire the Plaza Crown Hotel for the rapid deportation of all these guys that came through there.

We got their pictures, we got their fingerprints.

Hopefully, they got the DNA on them.

So they know where to go back.

We just say, hey, man, come back to the Crown Plaza and then head on home and do a thousand dollars or your 2500 bucks for your kids and just have a happy life in your other city, or we'll just support them and we'll charge them a thousand dollars a day that they owe us for occupying our land.

That's the fine man.

If you you're running around and they can hide, we're gonna get those cameras now on every streetlight.

I'd say we have those cameras on the streetlights on the bridges on the freeways, and we'll get the license plate.

They can run around for a while, but eventually Trump's got 50 billion dollars, secured the border.

We're gonna fight a drug war now.

They threatened to shoot the uh border patrol agents for 10 grand.

They put a bounty on them.

And we also want to get Nora Vargas up there.

She was threatened by the drug dealers and she quit.

She cost us two million dollars for another election.

Let's talk to Nora and find out what her situation is.

She might have been tied to the drug.

Thank you.

This concludes your time.

Our final speaker is Judy Strang.

Sorry.

And thank you for letting me share some more information regarding the impact of tobacco product waste in Pacific Beach on the wetlands of Northern Mission Bay.

Boy, this is my growing up and stopping grounds, and I really care about the quality of our land and how we use it.

I'd like to let you know that this research at San Diego State University was on was done by the policy research center for tobacco in the environment.

It's funded by the California Department of Public Health.

It's unique across the state, and its research findings are being used across the United States.

We are very lucky to have them in our midst.

And their research is impeccable.

One of the things they point out on the report on their website that anyone can see is that tobacco product waste is the discarded material from commercial tobacco consumption, and it includes, beside the obvious cigarette butts, also cigar butts, cigarillas, tobacco tobacco packaging, e-cigarette parts, and nicotine pouches.

Littered across our land, they end up in this case the Northern Mission Bay.

It's important to remember that a single butt has the potential to come to contaminate a thousand liters of water with pollutants.

One recent study showed one butt and a liter of water was lethal for half of the fish exposed.

Certainly a time to reconsider how much we want to protect our land, our how you will valuable wetlands here in San Diego, and consider a policy that would do that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you.

Do we have any committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, or IBA comments?

Hearing none, do we have any requests for continuance?

Seeing none, we'll take up our consent agenda.

Uh, do we have any requests to pull an item from the consent agenda?

Seeing none, we will go ahead and move forward with any public comment on the consent agenda agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open and the consent agenda includes item one, approval of the committee minutes of October 9th, 2025.

We have one hand raised in the virtual queue.

We will move to the virtual queue now.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and provide your comments.

You'll have one minute.

Do I have one minute for each item?

Or it's just the one item, huh?

Correct.

Okay, sorry about that.

It's the beating minutes of October 9th.

And so it was a really interesting uh committee meeting, by the way.

So I wanted to mention you talked about um uh uh community land trust issues, state of California housing land uh use agreements, uh legislature, and annual report on homes for 2025.

Man, that was a really good meeting.

Uh so I I have to review that.

I was actually there.

And I man, just awesome hearing it.

Um, uh I've been talking about responsibility uh that we need to practice with housing land trust issues.

Uh it invites responsible practices instead of speculation, which is an awesome concept.

Um, good luck in those efforts.

Uh state legislation issues, really good luck with uh mixed income ideas.

I was a little strong last week, uh last council meeting about mixed income.

I just really hope that we can better talk to ourselves about bringing all people from different income levels into a neighborhood, and that is okay.

Good luck how we can work on that.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on the consent agenda.

Thank you.

Um, I'll go ahead and start us off by motioning to approve the consent agenda.

Can we get a second?

We have a second by Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Um, seeing no other speakers, we'll just go with a voice vote here.

Uh so for all those in favor, um, please say aye.

Any opposed?

Hearing none, uh, that passes unanimously.

Uh we'll now hear our discussion agenda.

Natalie, please introduce item two.

Item two, declare multiple parcels of city-owned real property located throughout the city of San Diego exempt surplus land pursuant to California Government Code Section 54221 F1B.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and turn it to staff once they're ready.

And if you could just please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you'll need.

Sorry, I'm Mark Frederick, program manager for real estate dispositions at the Economic Development Department.

And I'm Tyler Garland, the property agent for the dispositions human economic development.

We'll need approximately six minutes.

Great.

Good to go.

Uh good afternoon, Chair Lee and Council members.

Again, my name is Tyler Garland, and I'm the property agent for real estate dispositions within the Economic Development Department.

With me today is Mark Frederick, who is the program manager for just the dispositions team.

Also with us is Andrew Alfonso from the City Attorney's Office.

The subject of the presentation are five city owned properties located in Council Districts 1 and 3 in the proposed exempt surplus declaration.

On this slide, you'll see a summary of what staff is proposing.

The committee recommend for council.

Declare the city owned real properties exempt surplus land pursuant to California government code 54221 F1B.

The next this next slide shows the subject properties under a California government code and exemption of the surplus lands act can come in a few forms.

For these particular sites, we are seeking an exemption under subsection F1B for small properties described as under one half acre, with each of these properties being under that size.

Per council policy 700-10.

The properties have been circulated through the city departments, and no department responded with the current or future municipal need for any of the sites.

Additionally, the properties are not suitable for affordable housing or multifamily housing and are zoned for single family residential development, consistent with the neighborhoods they are located.

The surplus land act does have one exception to the small property exemption that applies to the property on Torrey Pines Road.

The SLA states that any city owned property located within the California coastal zone and no longer needed for municipal use must be made available for possible use as open space prior to being placed on the market for sale.

Therefore, California Parks and Rec agencies at the city, county, and state level will be notified of the property's availability prior to it being made available to the public.

The city owns a number of small fragmented parcels that no longer serve an active public purpose.

These parcels are often look are often a result from historic acquisitions, right of way remnants, or boundary adjustments.

By strategically selling these lots, the city can convert dormant land into value, both physically and operationally.

In terms of physical benefits, these sales generate one-time revenue that can be reinvested into key city priorities like housing, infrastructure, or community projects.

Once sold, the parcels return to the tax rolls, generating ongoing revenue.

It is a physically responsible way to unlock value from inactive assets.

From an operational perspective, this reduces the maintenance cost and liability exposure to the city.

We spend less time managing brush clearing, dumping, or other inactive site issues.

There are also community and policy benefits.

This supports neighborhood investment and demonstrates that the city is managing assets responsibly and efficiently.

Therefore, selling small underutilized parcels strengthens the city's fiscal position, reduces risk, and enhances neighborhood value.

I will now hand things over to Mark to provide more details on the properties and the proposed next steps.

Thanks, Tyler.

This next slide provides an aerial view of the four properties located in North Park in District 3.

All four properties are on boundary street near the intersection of Redwood Street.

They're all vacant lots with no existing homes or structures.

They are not contiguous, meaning that none of them are touching each other.

They all have either private property or right-of-way property in between them.

The properties were originally acquired by the city in 1953 for a public purpose and were at one time envisioned for a Redwood Street extension.

The lots range in size from just under 5,000 square feet to just over 17,000 square feet.

The city will retain easements for a future sewer upgrade on the two southernmost parcels, and the economic development department has been in contact with the development services department to facilitate that process.

But there are no other city needs or encumbrances for the properties.

This next slide shows an aerial view of the last property.

This one is in District 1 in La Jolla.

It is also vacant land consisting of just under 10,000 square feet.

The property was acquired by the city in 1960 to provide residential access to Boulevard Place during the construction of Torrey Pines Road.

There is an existing sewer easement on the lower west corner of the property and a right-of-way easement on the south boundary of the property, which is a remnant from the property's past use as an access road to Boulevard Place.

But there are no other city needs for the property.

This next slide summarizes our planned next steps per the municipal code if the item is approved.

First, we will contract with appraisers to obtain appraisal reports for each property and identify any potential site constraints.

Second, we will complete the open space notice of availability or NOAA for the property on Torrey Pines Road.

Once those first two steps are complete, we will return to this committee and council to request approval to market and sell the properties at or above the appraised value.

On this slide, uh you'll just see a summary of the one requested action, which is to declare these uh selected city-owned properties exempt surplus land pursuant to California government code.

That concludes the briefing, subject to any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Natalie, do we have any public comment?

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item two is now open, and we have not received any speaker slips in chambers for item two.

There are two hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Zoom user, please unmute and begin.

You'll have two minutes.

All right, thanks for taking my call.

Hey, I know these guys are pretty sophisticated guys.

There's a process called yank the land.

Never sell any land in San Diego.

Lease it, put a 40-year lease on these properties, let the guy build it.

He'll pay property tax.

So there's still a way to get property tax.

In 40 years, who knows what land's gonna be worth.

It's gonna be a worth a fortune.

It's called yank the land.

They can build on top of it.

The city owns the land, the other guy owns the property, the building.

He leases it out, rents it out, and gets money, and he pays taxes.

So I say in San Diego, never sell another inch of land.

It's it's not the mayor just looking for money.

He's looking for it.

He could probably sell the paneling in your room over there.

He needs the money.

He's looking to sell the chairs.

It's a money grab.

Never come on, guys.

Yank the land.

You know that.

If you're if your kid belonged to this, you're gonna give it to your kids.

You'd be leasing it out and let the kids worry about it 40 years or your grandkids.

Come on, man.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Paul Krueger.

Please unmute and begin.

Oh, hi.

Um, thank you very much for taking my call.

And I'm I'm calling in mostly to thank you for paying closer attention to any issue that involves uh surplus land.

As you know, we've had some important discussions about some of the consequences of surplus land um dedication uh or classification in this process seems to be um an example of uh how the the uh process can work correctly in exempt these parcels, which I understand are not uh suitable for multifamily housing to begin with.

Um so again, I'm just urging all the members of this committee and others with the city who may be listening to please um give extra scrutiny to any um properties that come up and may be subject to surplus lands or to an exemption.

And then number two, I am familiar with this area.

There is housing.

Uh, I think you can see it on either side of one or more of these parcels.

It's my understanding, it's uh low low-income, low rent housing.

So I would just like to put on your radar the importance of tracking what becomes of these parcels and what it would be the benefit and consequence of any sale of these uh parcels on boundary and redwood um following their exemption.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the queue with their hand raised is Blair Beekman.

Please begin.

Hi, thank you, uh Blair Beekman.

I have to learn moderation sometimes when I speak on items like this, and I don't fully understand it, but what the first speaker said was I mean exactly how I feel.

Um, in being from San Jose and the county of Santa Clara, they had some serious issues with selling off pieces of their land.

And they they had to keep coming up to council meetings with with the items to how to best deal with the problems arising from it.

And um it's limited to themselves a lot.

And uh so I I'm just instantly uncomfortable with the idea.

And I think the ideas you're working on for the future of the mission Bay area around such things are are questionable.

I'm not really uh digging it and uh not enjoying the process of what you're going through with that.

And then Paul Krueger brought some very sober cautionary words in how to address this issue.

So it was nice to hear him speak about um being cautious.

Um so I don't quite know the right situation from the first speaker.

I mean, that should just be a basic premise of our lives that you don't sell off your land.

And um, so I hope you can talk about this item in those terms that you want to move forward cautiously in how you're gonna do these things and uh uh prepare ourselves in what to expect.

Uh it's it's important, I think that city governments keep their uh initial land.

And uh so good luck how you can talk about this and and have a clear good conversation uh following.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item two.

Thank you.

I'll go ahead and turn it over to committee members for any questions, comments, and a motion.

We'll start with Councilmember Campio.

Thank you very much.

Uh, thank you, staff, for your presentation.

Uh knowing that some of these properties were on agenda uh I believe it was last month, and now we're at a different step at this point.

Um I'm noticing the uh the radio drive uh Burrian Street that was removed from this item.

Is is there something going on with that particular parcel that's not complete yet?

After further review with Radio Drive, we realized it had been um designated uh parkland in the in the 80s.

And once we found that in the property file, we we pulled it.

Is that regular park land or designated park land?

Um council member, I'm not sure.

Right, yeah.

We had a question about whether those two things are distinguishable yesterday at committee.

So uh so it would take a vote of the uh popular of our city to actually dispose of it, right?

We'd have to redesignate it.

Yes.

Got it.

Um some of these other components uh they're what what are we anticipating might be the market for these who who's gonna be looking at these parcels to actually build on them?

We would be builders of single family homes for the most part.

Okay.

Uh is there are these parcels maybe too small to build pocket parks or do other things to achieve our recreation element for a general plan.

Um, you know, they are relatively small, there's not suitable for I mean, they're so small they're they're qualified to be exempted uh if we declare it.

So were there other aspects of this?

Obviously, budget deficit, we're always looking for money, but there's other goals we're trying to meet too.

Was the process thought through of maybe these would be suitable for other city ideas rather than just sale for potential single family homes?

Yes, I think is is the answer, but but in these locations, for example, in North Park, you are probably half a mile away from Balboa Park.

So hypothetically, yes, but you have four properties there that are not contiguous.

So I would say they're just not suited.

A lot of it has to do with topography, too.

They're all on hillsides, so not exactly uh well suited for a park per se.

All right.

Sounds like you've thought it through then.

I see Christina Biddler's coming to the microphone.

Councilmember, if I may, Christina Bibler, Director of Economic Development.

As part of the council policy for dispositions, it needs to go through all the city departments in order to be considered exactly what you were looking for.

Is could this fit within our greater plan?

Is there another department that could use this for another purpose?

Because no departments took us up on the properties, therefore it didn't meet any of those operational needs.

Understood.

All right.

Thank you.

Thanks for elucidating that process.

Uh and I'll make the motion to support staff's recommendation on the item.

Thank you, Council uh President Potem.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Councilmember Kipio.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Iler Rivera.

Uh thank you, Chair Lee.

Um appreciate Councilmember Campillo's questions.

Similar just to drill down on that last point, um, Christina, a little bit more.

Helping us understand.

There's a difference between meeting needs and potentially being a value.

Um, having to have it and it being a good thing to have are not necessarily um, you know, 100% the same thing.

So can whether it's you or or um Chris help us understand that second piece of the analysis beyond do you need this land?

And the second question is what could what might what might you be able to use this for?

Yeah, uh thank you for the question, Councilmember.

So ultimately, you know, the department is going through an exercise of all of its portfolio remnant parcels, and to be fair, not all of them will come to you, and so they're being categorized at a certain level for those that have not been identified by another department as within that area of operational use.

In some cases, they're still being evaluated and or haven't gone through that process.

Um and so what you see is a very small fraction of all of those within our portfolio.

So some of those you'll never see as part of an action today, which would be exempt surplus.

But these are ones that we feel are fully vetted enough to say we'd like to see what the market can bear, and that's what we're asking for today is the opportunity to declare exempt surplus, and then really see what our options are.

And this council will have that opportunity should we have anything that is determined as the next step, be it by sale or potentially uh another type of disposition, a long-term lease, etc.

Got it.

Thank you for that.

And um just to be a hundred percent clear with us in terms of pro of process and the public, these would not be disposed of until the council had a chance to make an additional decision, correct?

Absolutely.

That is with the council's purview.

So what we're doing today is just declaring surplus and taking it through the exploration process in the private sector.

Thank you, Christina.

And then last question.

Um we've had conversations on previous um in previous properties about the expectations about what um labor standards, for example, might might apply if work is to be done.

Um is that important to uh put into place now?

It's is that part of the um the way the the uh property is made available to the public?

Uh not necessary for this action.

I would say if the council wants to entertain the opportunities when we come back and say we have some interest, that's the opportunity to talk about what that next step would be.

It is also very um probable that we might not get interest as well.

Understood.

All right, I just want to make sure we're checking all the boxes here.

Uh I I'm happy to uh second Councilmember Campio's motion.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Councilmember Campio, a second by Vice Chair Elo Rivera.

Turning next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you uh for the presentation.

Um although I do understand the surplus act, I don't necessarily agree with the terms.

Um I do understand that it's a way for uh smaller cities to push their um housing development, and I don't think this is an issue that we have here in the city of San Diego.

Um now, in regards to this particular item, uh my understanding is that the parcels are small.

However, can staff speak to how many housing units in theory could be built on each site.

So the the parcels are our zone single uh family residential.

Uh in terms of the bonuses that they might receive, it would have to be basically reviewed by development services to see if they could you know put a ADU or some version of that on there, but they are the base zoning is single family home homes, excuse me.

Thank you.

And one of your slides uh said that it uh these um parcels were unsuitable for affordable housing or multi-unit housing.

You made that assertion.

Did you um offer the parcels to the housing commission?

We haven't offered them to anyone at this time.

We're just at this point simply trying to make them declare them surplus and make them available um at some point.

Okay.

And I I though I understand the housing commission isn't necessarily part of the city of San Diego, but still um I think that's a missed opportunity, especially given the track record that the housing uh commission has.

Um I feel uncomfortable with this item.

I feel uncomfortable of even declaring uh these parcels um surplus, so I will not be supporting the motion before us on the floor, but I do thank you for the presentation and for the work that you've done.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um thank you to the EDD team for your um presentation here and also for just being proactive in terms of your review of our real estate portfolio.

Um I think as Councilmember Ilo Rivera uh noted, my understanding is today um you'd be uh declaring it as exempt surplus, um, but the discussion of whether we keep, sell, move up forward with the properties is going to be following an appraisal process and coming back to committee and council at a later date.

Um one question, you you briefly mentioned brush management on the properties as well, but I did want to ask what the um if you've calculated out what the fiscal and operational cost is when it comes to maintaining the properties today.

Uh I don't have the exact numbers of brush management.

We can get that information to you.

I I have dealt with it on a number of different occasions.

It's not it is money, but it's also the time involved because we have to contract for it, we have to stop what we're doing.

It becomes um, you know, if if it needs to be brushed or whether it's trash that needs to be removed, it's something that we have to stop and and do for what is essentially a very small property, a remnant property, but it's something that we you know our our time goes into it as much as the money as well.

Um understood.

And I think if we have any sense of that uh for when these parcels come back, that certainly wouldn't hurt because I think the city understanding what the cost of maintaining the property is part of our uh analysis for how to move forward.

So uh with that said, I I'll be supporting the item.

Um seeing no other speakers, um Natalie, please call the roll.

And that item passes three one with committee member Moreno voting no.

Thank you.

Uh that concludes item two.

Natalie, please introduce item three.

Item three is adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code and associated municipal code amendments.

And if you're watching on City TV and would like to call in to speak to item three, please call 1669 2545252.

When prompted, the webinar ID is 160630623 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll uh we'll let the staff introduce themselves for the record and uh just let us know how much time you'd like.

Uh yes, uh good afternoon, uh uh Chairman Lee and members of Landingston Housing Committee.

My name is Ali Fatam of the City uh Development Services Department, sorry.

I'm an assistant deputy director, and I had a lead role in developing these standards.

And joining me is Jonathan Klough from the planning department and both departments partnered on the uh green code item.

Thank you.

So we're before you uh uh uh uh requesting a recommendation uh to the city council for approval of our local amendments.

We go through this process once every three years uh in concurrence with the um actions of the state.

And uh the the city of San Diego adopts portions, what's called the California Building Standards Code.

There are 12 parts to it.

We adopt nine of them uh because we propose local amendments to those nine codes.

You'll notice in the list there to the left um that we enumerate the uh portions of the um the code.

I would like to point out that there's a new part seven, which is the California Wildland Urban Interface Code.

That's a new code that's adopted by the state fire marshal in California, and that would regulate uh buildings constructed in the wildland urban interface.

Uh the fire code is being processed separately as well through the fire rescue department.

And then part 11, uh the green code, there's some requirements there that uh we collaborated with planning on uh the state publishes a new code every three years as part of the regular maintenance process.

Uh and the uh 25 edition will be effective on January the 1st of 2026.

And then uh California state law requires that local amendments be approved by the local decision makers, and our case would be the city council, filed with the state and adopt uh with adopted local findings, and I'll go over those in a minute.

And uh shall not be in effect until local amendments are approved and filed with the California Building Standard Commission.

Uh the general uh uh findings that we need to uh make for our local amendments is that we have to have something that's a significant local climatic, geological, or topographic condition, and that would authorize us to consider more uh restrictive requirements, and that's what we have before you.

Uh a new new uh bill was uh uh approved in August, AB 130 that required uh further justification for standards are effective to residential construction, and we've uh applied these uh these criteria generally to all standards.

Um and there's no doubt that the California Building Code will be effective on January the first uh 2026.

There were some um uh applicants that were telling us that they felt that would not be in effect because uh it was actually published after the uh the date that the um uh AB 130 uh went into effect.

And uh in our uh package, both in the attachment one and attachment two, you'll notice that we flagged uh uh four subsections uh that are part of our justification for AP 130.

And the reason for the changes are mainly just uh regular uh updates to the codes and also making them compatible and consistent with uh the codes that the state publishes.

Um noteworthy code change or two of them that I wanted to point out here in our under our construction permit rules.

Um, fences are generally uh exempt from a building permit when the fence height is up to seven feet.

However, uh the California Building Code and Residential Code now modifies that to make sure that if the fence is part of a swimming pool safety barrier, uh an enclosure, then that fence would not be exempt.

And then we're also um uh proposing to amend the municipal code to add authority to charge additional fees for projects that are code enforcement violation projects for both the review and the inspection process due to additional costs that were incurring in processing those uh reviews and inspections.

Uh another item that to point out is that because we adopted the um uh or we're adopting the part seven California World Wildland Urban Interface Code, uh we have to remove requirements from Chapter 7A of the building code and R 337.

Those are uh the ignition resistant material construction standards, but we are carrying forward three existing amendments.

One is reinforcing vinyl windows, uh, the second one is uh uh uh uh restricting the use of uh combustible uh drip edge flashing underneath roof coverings, and then also uh requirements for roof uh sorry for uh spark arresters.

Uh in the building regulations, I'd like to identify a couple of items that would be of interest.

Um what we're trying to do now is update requirements that may have existed, as in the case of our geotechnical investigation requirements since the 1982 edition of the uniform building code, so quite a while ago.

And uh, this requirement is actually uh we're modifying the existing exemptions uh so that they're more reflective of the type of projects that we're seeing now, and also to modernize them for consistency with state law and whether their uh jurisdictions are uh doing.

Um we're also gonna be adopting exceptions to the earthquake recording instrumentation uh appendix L.

So we have had this requirement since the 2013 edition of the code.

Uh we're adding three exceptions there.

Um we were informed by our applicants that uh Los Angeles has exceptions such as these, and we thought they were reasonable and we're gonna follow them.

Um we're also adopting appendix P.

So appendix chapters are uh optional appendix chapters, and we're uh proposing to opt the sleeping loss section.

And that chat that appendix chapter um addresses a case where that's very common in student housing where you can create a living space that's equivalent to, let's say, a large bunk bed if you want to call that uh that is less restrictive than what the mezzanine requirements are.

And then finally, we're making updates to the emergency housing uh requirements and appendix Q at the request of the fire rescue department.

Uh under the residential building regulations, again, we're doing a bit of cleanup because of the um uh California Wildland Urban Interface Code.

But I do want to point out that we're adopting uh some additional uh swimming pool safety regulations.

Uh the state publishes the swimming pool safety act, and in the swimming pool safety act, uh it uh the the uh the the act uh codifies requirements in the health and safety code that uh seek to protect uh swimming pools from the intrusion of children that may be uh of a drowning risk.

Uh there was a second iteration to it that was not codified in both the building code and the residential code, so we're actually uh uh adding those through the municipal code, and then we're also adding an additional clarification because of a gap in the regulations.

And the existing building regulations, uh, we're just carrying forward existing amendments uh for unreinforced macery buildings uh that trigger the tying of walls and uh bracing of parapets.

And uh we're also proposing to adopt appendix chapter 4.

Uh appendix chapter 4 provides standards for the retrofitting of soft story buildings, so soft store buildings are common in San Diego and Los Angeles, built up till 1980 with tuck under parking, and they're known to be a hazard during an earthquake.

Uh, we have been informed that property owners are being asked by their lenders and by their insurers to retrofit these buildings, and it felt that we should have a uniform standard for that, and that's why we're adopting this as an optional uh voluntary measure.

And then in terms of the green building regulations, before I toss over to Jonathan, uh we're basically uh retaining existing amendments that cross-reference to the clean energy vehicle parking uh signage requirements and outdoor lighting regulations, and then we're also uh maintaining an existing requirement that requires uh uh graywater reuse system.

At this point, I'd like to turn it over to Jonathan for the next slide.

Thank you, good afternoon.

Again, my name is Jonathan Kalapa, program coordinator with the city planning department.

So, in addition to the adoption of the base code that applies statewide, we have two um local supplemental items for the 2025 building code adoption.

All these supplemental measures have been evaluated by the state codes and standards team and are proven to be cost effective.

So essentially the energy savings is greater than the additional or the incremental cost involved.

So onto the measures.

One proposed supplemental measure requires cool roofs.

When businesses or hotels with low slope roofs replace repair, recode the roofs, and the work covers more than half the roof or more than 2,000 square feet, whichever is less, then they would install a cool roof that reflects at least 70% of the sunlight and would have good heat releasing properties on the section being altered.

Another supplemental measure is high-rise hot water performance, which sets stronger efficiency standards for new construction, high-rise apartments with central hot water systems.

The proposed building design must use 95% or less of the base case energy budget as defined under the Title 24 codes using the performance approach.

Essentially, these buildings would need to exceed the minimum efficiency requirements by 5%.

And if the building is otherwise pursuing the prescriptive approach and they're also installing a natural gas or misfuel system for central hot water heating, they would then be required to have a 15% higher solar savings fraction than the base code, which comes from solar thermal systems, which reduce energy consumption from water heating.

And then all of that systems under the prescriptive approach can just be designed per the base code.

And that concludes my information.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this concludes our presentation.

We're happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to the city attorney's office for comments.

Good afternoon.

Our office is continued to work on completing our legal review for this item.

Therefore, the proposed language may change between committee today and city council.

We will notify staff and the council about any legal concerns as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Natalie, do we have any public comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item three is now open, and we have received two speaker slips from individuals here in chambers.

Serena Pelka, please approach the lecture, and you'll be followed by Lucy Terry, and you'll have two minutes to speak to item three.

Thank you.

Hi, good afternoon.

This is Serena Pelka from Climate Action Campaign, where we're working for an affordable pollution-free future.

Firstly, we are in full support of these measures moving forward today.

We really appreciate the thorough work from staff, especially amidst department shuffles and reduced staff.

Thank you for your dedication to this work.

Secondly, we want to highlight that today's updates are an important foundational step on the path to implement more robust and impactful policies that can make good on the city's climate action plan commitments.

In the CAP and as identified by the IBA's office, existing building decarbonization is the most consequential strategy for reducing pollution, but we still have a pretty long way to go.

We hope that today is a step in the direction of some really exciting opportunities for building decarbonization that the city can take advantage of in 2026.

This includes AC to heat pump policy that supports residents to choose highly efficient heat pump air conditioners that provide both heating and cooling in one appliance when replacing old ones.

I will say and want to acknowledge that on the surface, building codes and policies may not sound like the most exciting strategy out there, but they are truly one of the most impactful, efficient, and practical solutions that we have to improve quality of life and importantly public health for our communities.

Most buildings in San Diego that exist now are going to are going to be around for a pretty long time.

And we need intentional policies that make sure these spaces are healthy, safe, and have access to efficient, affordable heating and cooling.

We're grateful that there is agreement across council and throughout the city that everyone deserves clean air in the spaces we live, work, learn, and play.

Now we have meaningful policy options to get us closer to that reality.

These exciting opportunities like AC to heat pump policy and a flex path policy enable flexibility and tailoring for the city to address specific community needs while slashing emissions.

So please support the measures.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lucy Terry.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Apologies for the mix-up earlier.

Again, my name is Lucy Terry, and I'm speaking on behalf of the Sierra Club San Diego chapter with our mission to advance bold, enforceable, equitable, and science-based solutions to the climate crisis in San Diego County.

And we are here to support the expansion of breach codes and comment on the adoption of the 2025 California Building Standards Code.

We'd like to thank the staff for their thoughtful work on this code update and for continuing to prioritize sustainability in our building standards.

We especially appreciate that staff added information about voluntary air conditioning for heat pumps, which makes the ship to all electric climate-ready homes more practical and accessible.

We are also glad to see that the city used A B 130 exception to move forward with a new residential reach code, which is a meaningful step in advancing local progress towards San Diego's climate action plan.

The CAP calls for a decarbonizing buildings and achieving a 90% reduction in natural gas use from existing buildings by 2030.

Reaching that goal will require strong forward-looking policies that not only support electrification, new construction, but also accelerate upgrades across our existing building stock.

While we are supportive, we see this as progress and we hope it's just the beginning.

We're looking forward to more substantive reach codes in the next cycle that will move us decisively towards the CAPS vision of a clean, healthy, and carbon free built environment.

Thank you again to the staff and the committee for your leadership and commitment to San Diego's climate goals.

Thanks.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimonies.

So we will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five minute timer.

We have one hand raised in the virtual queue.

Blair Beekman, please begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

I'm doing work here at home right now, just typing away, doing stuff.

And so I'm kind of listening.

Um I heard some nice things here for this item.

I just wanted to try to add my two cents for this item.

Is there talk about community energy?

Uh, where does that fit into all these good plans for this item?

Um just to mention its name and what it can be doing in San Diego this time and uh with these with this process.

Uh good luck.

And um thanks for your time.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item three.

Thank you to all the members of the public for participating.

We'll turn it over to committee members, starting with Vice Chair Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thank you for the work on this.

Thank you to CR Club and Climate Action Campaign for being out uh out here and for your comments.

As um was mentioned, uh decarbonizing the built environment is the most important part of the climate action plan.

And quite frankly, I think the part of the climate action plan that we've made the least progress on thus far.

Um, so anything that we can do to help make meaningful progress in this direction, I think is is useful.

Uh my understanding is that this is um a step that also has not is not receiving at least any opposition today in this room from those folks who are um are in the building community.

So um glad to see this moving forward and I'm happy to move approval.

Thank you.

We have a motion by council member Ilo Rivera.

Seeing no other speakers, uh, I'll go ahead and uh chime in here and thank both DSC and City Planning for working together on this item.

Um last year we had uh an update, Ali, that you you helped to provide uh talking about how code updates um sort of work and today's fact sheets have been pretty helpful.

Um I do understand and want to thank the city attorney's office for reviewing these amendments, um, especially considering through the lens of AB 130 and SP 131 coming later in the game this year, and certainly we'll look forward to see if that um has any impact as we move this towards council.

Um the only question I I might have uh might really have is just about stakeholder outreach and if you can share a little bit about um who this was sent out to and the outreach efforts.

Uh yes, uh Chairman Lee.

So we reached out to the Building Industry Association in early October, and also we uh provide a presentation to the Technical Advisory Committee.

We're in the process of forming the Board of Building Appeals and Advisors to get input through them.

And we'll be posting also the uh proposed changes on our website.

And uh whatever we gather along the way will be reflected once we get to City Council.

Thank you.

Um and then similar to what uh Vice Chair Rivera noted, I think the green building amendments um that are reflected seem to show some progress towards reaching our sustainability goals.

Um, and certainly we have our part to do here in the city of San Diego as well.

So um I want to thank you for your response and uh we'll be happy to second this item.

Um, seeing no other speakers, let's go ahead and call the rule.

And the motion passes unanimously for zero.

Thank you.

Well, that brings us to the end of today's agenda.

So I will now adjourn this meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next notice meeting, which is a special committee meeting that is taking place on Friday, November 21st, 2025 at 9 o'clock a.m.

We are adjourned