Good morning.

Thank you everyone for joining us this morning.

Welcome to the special land use and housing committee meeting of November 21st, 2025.

Our committee lays on 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 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.

I will now call the special land use and housing committee meeting of Friday, November 21st, 2025 to order.

Natalie, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Elo Rivera.

Councilmember Kempio.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

And Chair Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

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

Deputy City Attorney Corinne Newfer with the City Attorney's Office.

Amy Lee with the independent budget analysts office, and Anjali 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 microphone.

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

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins.

Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing accessing the link listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage to join the Zoom webinar by phone, dial 1669, 2545252.

The webinar ID is 160630623 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.

Um, so you know the comments.

Now please call the role.

And that passes three to one.

Uh we'll go ahead and hear our discussion agenda.

Uh please introduce item two.

Item item two, college area community plan update and associated zoning actions.

And if you wish to speak to item two, please be sure to have your speaker slip submitted, and you may raise your hand in the virtual queue.

Chair.

Uh we'll turn to staff.

Um, if you'll introduce yourselves with the record and let us know how much time you'll need for the presentation.

Good afternoon, uh, Council uh President.

I'm Nathan Cosman.

I'm a senior planner with City Planning.

Um I'll be presenting for around 20 minutes.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

Uh thank you again.

Um, as I said, I'm Nathan Cosman, I'm a senior planner with city planning.

We do have the uh full project team here today to discuss the college area community plan update.

Uh staff is here today to seek a recommendation uh to the city council from the land use and housing committee to approve the college area community plan update.

I will provide a brief presentation that includes an overview of why the community plan is being updated, the process thus far, the main changes that are being proposed, and key feedback received to inform the draft plan for your consideration today.

So we'll start with why the community plan is being updated.

Uh the college area community plan was last updated in 1989.

Since then, the city has experienced a growing growing housing crisis and a change in climate, requiring additional planning to increase housing opportunities and enhance access and use of transit to help the city meet our housing and our climate goals.

The community plan update is part of a citywide program to update community plans in locations that are served by high frequency transit, including two trolley stations and rapid bus routes in the college area, consistent with our city of villages land use strategy.

And it shows that the college area has higher propensities for mixed-use residential development near SDSU and along transit corridors that would help the city meet our climate action plan goals.

The community plan is being updated to better align with the general plan and the climate action plan and will provide additional opportunities for new homes, jobs, and infrastructure near the new uh the two trolley stations and corridors served by existing and planned bus rapid transit service.

State law requires all cities to affirmatively further fair housing, meaning that the city needs to take proactive steps to expand access to opportunity and overcome historic patterns of segregation.

The goal is to ensure that people of all incomes and backgrounds have access to quality housing near jobs and schools and services, and that poverty and wealth are not concentrated in separate parts of the city.

The state prepares and updates opportunity area maps that measure access to schools, employment, transit, and environmental health.

And these designations are one of the many factors that the city considers when planning for additional housing opportunities.

Others are access to transit and services, environmental factors, uh, and economic feasibility.

It's important to note that some areas, such as those with large student populations, may show lower resource scores, even though they're well served by transit and public facilities and community amenities.

Furthering fair housing also includes providing access to transit, which is abundant in the college area, and there are plans for more.

Planning for fair housing is approached citywide, where each community plan update contributes to a collective effort to distribute housing capacity equitably across all communities.

This ensures San Diego's long-range plans meet both state law and local goals for equitable sustainable growth.

Each community plan update and citywide initiative contributes to distributing housing opportunities more equitably across San Diego, ensuring that every community plays a role meeting our citywide housing goals.

Recent planning efforts, including university, Mira Mesa, Kearney Mesa, Mission Valley, Uptown, and now college area are collectively increasing housing capacity in many areas across the city.

This helps meet both state law requirements and local goals for equitable sustainable growth.

Upcoming plan updates such as Claremont and Rancho Bernardo will continue this approach and apply housing in high and highest resource areas.

Citywide initiatives are also looking beyond community plans to further fair housing in single family areas, expanding opportunities and affordability across all neighborhoods.

The college area's planned housing capacity is consistent with other recently adopted plans citywide, roughly doubling its previous capacity, similar to university and mission valley and uptown, which were in high and highest resource areas.

It's important to note that the existing 1989 plan already includes about 8,000 homes of unrealized capacity of development potential that has not been realized.

The update takes a more strategic approach by concentrating new capacity and areas that can support redevelopment near transit and services and SDSU.

The college area introduces a range of residential densities to expand housing choices, including diverse home types, sizes, and price points across all opportunity areas with strong access to services and jobs and transit.

This approach aligns with the general plan's goals for sustainable and equitable growth by ensuring that housing opportunities are distributed across all neighborhoods.

Within the college area, the plan creates a campus town center and a high resource area and establishes transit-oriented corridors that accommodate mixed use and mixed income housing.

In developing the plan, we balance a range of factors, including fair housing, access to transit and services, and environmental constraints to ensure that growth occurs in the most suitable locations.

However, as shown on the map, a large share of the community lies in single family neighborhoods, which are largely within the high and moderate resource areas.

And while the community plan is not proposing to amend a large amount of the single family areas and college area, the city will look at this comprehensively and address it citywide.

Together, these efforts, both at the community and citywide level, support affirmatively furthering fair housing by enabling new homes for people of all income levels near essential services, schools, and transit.

So that's the background on why the city updates community plans in the college area.

Before city planning kicked off this initiative, the community planning board and community council worked with San Diego State University students on a report that included seven visions for the future of the community that they wanted us to consider for the updated plan.

These visions include more housing on the corridors and at activity centers, improved local mobility and a campus town at SDSU, and a linear park along Montezuma Road that facilitates better connections to SDSU and a greater sense of community identity.

We've worked to reflect these seven visions throughout the plan update process and in this draft plan.

One of the first meetings that we had with the community was to establish a vision and guiding principles for the community plan.

And you can see from the beginning, we made sure that the seven visions were reflected in these guiding principles.

In short, the plan seeks to promote vibrant mixed-use corridors, more housing near jobs and transit in SDSU, safe and convenient active mobility and transit, preserved and expanded parks and open open spaces, new public spaces that encourage cultural exchange, and there are more.

So we know why we're updating the plan.

We developed a good framework for the plan with the guiding principles.

I'll talk a little bit now about the process.

The plan updates been underway for just over five years.

We launched the plan update in 2020, and there have been several different milestones along the way.

To summarize some of the key points in the process, the College Area Community Plan Update Committee has held over 20 public meetings to discuss the plan update.

The committee includes residents and business owners as well as representatives from SDSU.

Staff has conducted two non-scientific community surveys to gauge preferences and generate interest in the plan update.

We've had three planning commission workshops.

Comments have been collected on various drafts of the plan, including the first draft released in January and the second draft released in July of this year.

The College Area Planning Board provided two letters, one for each draft of the community plan, which we've responded to and addressed in a range of comments, and I'll go into further detail throughout the presentation on how we've responded to this feedback.

And of course, ongoing public comments and input will continue to be collected throughout the public hearing process.

So now that we've discussed the reason for the plan update, the process, and some of the milestones so far, the following slides address the different community plan elements.

We've come up with an urban design framework that informed every variation of the proposed land use plan based upon community feedback and the plan guiding principles.

And here's that framework.

Since the seven vision seven visions report was developed, and throughout the community plan update process, we've consistently heard from the community that the corridors should allow a mix of uses and more capacity for more homes.

The community plan identifies the highest densities at major activity centers and community gateways to further highlight the importance of these gateways and help create that sense of community identity in place, which was one of the seven visions.

Because there's strong demand for student housing near SDSU, the community plan includes a higher density mixed use village that's intended to be the campus town center, which was also one of the original seven visions.

Parks and public spaces are two priorities for the future of the community, reflected heavily in both the seven visions and plan guiding principles.

So the framework for land use ensures that new parks and public spaces will serve all residents to be provided with new development.

So the land use map in the community plan is based upon that framework and all of the feedback that we've heard.

And you can see the framework reflected in the land use pattern here.

Again, the greatest opportunity for new homes is near SDSU along College Avenue and Montezuma Road.

This is the campus town that was one of the seven visions.

The plan also provides opportunities for homes at the important intersections and gateways into the community and near transit, including the trolley station on Avarado Road and the bus rapid routes on the main corridors in the community.

The plan provides moderate to lower density transitions away from the community corridors to further encourage a variety of home types that are suitable for families and students and seniors.

The plan also includes supporting policies to encourage a mix of housing types to support all residents.

The areas shown in yellow on the map are single family and are proposed to remain the same as the 1989 community plan.

The updated land use plan creates capacity for almost 18,000 more homes in the community than what the currently adopted plan allows, primarily located along the transit corridors.

Again, this is just a bit more than double what the 1989 plan allows, around 104% more.

Currently, the college area has just over 8,000 homes built today, and the plan would allow for an additional 26,000 to be built over the horizon.

This update accommodates a variety of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community.

And by acknowledging the demand for housing, the plan provides a comprehensive framework for the development in the college area.

I do want to note that the plan does not mandate new construction.

For example, as I've noted, the 1989 plan has significant unrealized capacity.

Development only occurs as demand and economic conditions allow.

As the college area grows, the corridors can be repurposed to support more users to do this.

The mobility framework for the college area promotes the concept of complete streets, which is to say that all modes of transportation feel dignified and safe.

However, accommodating more users also means accommodating varying needs.

The corridors can be multifunctional in that respect.

In addition to providing mobility connections, the corridors themselves must evolve to improve the pedestrian experience by integrating shade, landscaping, and places to gather that promote social exchange and sustainability.

Looking at the pedestrian route types, the community plan focuses pedestrian activities along the main corridors with districts that are planned at the major intersections and activity centers and corridor route types that connect the districts together.

Connector pedestrian route types serve lighter pedestrian traffic and they provide additional pedestrian connections throughout the community.

The community plan also identifies new bicycle facilities throughout the college area.

Where streets can be repurposed, the community plan proposes separated bikeways.

In other places, the community plan proposes buffered bike lanes and low stress traffic stress bicycle routes to facilitate abundant bicycle connections into and throughout the community.

Sandag is planning for additional transit to the community, including expanded rapid bus service with 10-minute headways at peak times.

To complement those transit investments, the community plan proposes to repurpose some right of way for dedicated transit and additional transit priority measures and amenities to improve the transit experience.

Combined, all of these networks together work together to promote that complete streets concept in the college area so that all road users, pedestrians, cyclists, transit riders, and drivers are treated with dignity and feel safe.

So we know where we want future homes to go in the community.

We know how we want to connect these homes.

Of course, with new residents comes the need for additional parks and public spaces.

The college area is largely built out.

New development in the college area will be in fill development within existing neighborhoods.

The lack of parks and these communities today reflect previous growth and development patterns, and providing new parks and existing neighborhoods requires purchasing private property and construction.

The community plan provides a framework for new parks and public spaces in the community, which is to say that the plan establishes a need and a community desire.

The capital improvements program works complementary with the community plan to provide new parks and public spaces as resources become available.

Community plans cannot mandate the priorities of the citywide capital improvements program budget, but they can set future projects up for success by identifying the need or desire for them in the community plan.

So community plans provide a framework, and the capital improvements program implements the framework over time.

So that framework is very important.

But new parks through the capital improvements program process is only one of the strategies for new parks in the college area.

The framework for parks and college area has five key strategies.

Firstly, maintaining and improving the parks that already exist in the community is a key goal of the plan.

The plan also explores the possibility of new parks on land that the city already owns, as well as on excess rights of way in order to create opportunities for green networks and that new linear public space along Montezuma Road, which was one of the community's seven visions.

This community plan also supports new public spaces in the community by including regulations that will bring new recreation features such as small playgrounds, fitness stations, and places for people to gather as part of new infill development.

And I'll talk about how the plan implements this soon.

As part of the strategy to look at possible parks on city owned land, the community plan includes a concept for a new recreation center on College Avenue.

Access rights of way were also considered for public spaces, including this concept for an overlook park on Brockbank Place.

The community plan also envisions a linear public space with enhanced landscaping, shade trees, wider sidewalks, and recreational amenities on both sides of Montezuma Road.

And we'll talk about this more when we talk about implementation as well.

This element provides policies and land use guidance that addresses natural resource conservation, climate resiliency, and sustainable development and the reduction in the use of non-renewable resources.

The conservation element identifies the multi-habitat planning area, which balances the preservation and protection of natural resources with the allowance of compatible public recreation.

Most of the community's open space areas, inclusive of natural canyons and natural slopes, are privately owned and located in the multi-habitat planning area.

As part of the college area community plan update, we are rezoning over 300 acres of protected private open space.

Only limited development can occur within the multi-habitat planning area to ensure the long-term habitat conservation plan for the covered species and preserve the natural vegetation communities.

A variety of city departments and partner agencies provide public, semi-public, and community facilities.

In particular, the city provides police protection and fire rescue services and has multiple facilities nearby to serve the community.

As the community grows, new opportunities include construction of new fire stations and schools, alongside associated staffing and operational strategies depending on the amount of future redevelopment that occurs, which would require future technical analysis.

We've been working with and will continue to coordinate with other city departments and outside agencies, including the fire department, San Diego Unified School District, and of course San Diego State University to address the need for public facilities as development occurs over the life of this community plan.

Historic preservation is guided by the general plan for the preservation, protection, restoration, and rehabilitation of historical and cultural resources throughout the city.

The historic preservation element of the college area community plan provides a summary of the prehistory and history of the community and establishes policies to support the identification and preservation of its historical, archaeological, and tribal cultural resources.

More detailed historical narratives are also provided within a historic context statement and cultural resources report, which were prepared to assist property owners, developers, consultants, community members, and city staff in the identification and preservation of historical archaeological and tribal cultural resources within the college area.

So community plans are implemented a few ways.

They are themselves implementation policy documents that are designed to be referenced whenever questions arise about the future of the community, including questions related to the capital improvements program.

Community plans also include land use designations with implementing base zones that regulate density, intensity, and allowed uses.

And community plans are implemented through supplemental development regulations.

As part of this plan update and another item, we're creating a new section in the municipal code with regulations that supplement the base zones to help implement the community's vision and ensure that new development brings broad community benefits.

Here's the rezone map proposed for the college area.

The draft rezone map, if adopted, would comprehensively rezone the college area community planning area, and the rezone map would align citywide base zones with the community plan land use designations.

The community enhancement overlay zone is being proposed as a new overlay zone in the municipal code with regulations to supplement the base zones as part of the community plan update to help implement the community's vision and ensure that new development brings broad community benefits.

As part of the college area community plan update, the city proposes to amend the San Diego Municipal Code to include a new overlay zone called the Community Enhancement Overlay Zone to establish supplemental development regulations for locations that have increased opportunities for residential and mixed use developments.

Previously, supplemental development regulations for community plans have been contained within the community plan itself as part of a community plan implementation overlay zone.

But moving forward, these regulations will be within the uh the municipal code itself to provide more certainty for the application.

Uh college area community plan will be the first to utilize this new overlay zone, but the intention is for uh future community plan updates to utilize this overlay zone as well.

Um the community enhancement overlay zone will require in college area, new public spaces with recreational value as part of new development, uh, greenways along the community corridors to make walking a more pleasant experience, and additional parkway improvements along Montezuma Road to further implement the linear public space concept on both sides that is one of the community's seven visions.

And we'll discuss uh this in greater detail as part of staff's presentation for item four.

So we've received a lot of good feedback on the first and second draft plans.

Uh, the college area community planning board has provided feedback that has been pretty consistent with what we've heard at other public meetings and received in public comment.

And that feedback has primarily been focused on a few key themes.

We've received a lot of mixed feedback on proposed residential densities.

Uh we've received a lot of feedback on public facility needs, including new parks and public spaces, police and fire facilities, and library parking needs.

Uh, and we've heard a lot about public safety and evacuation planning.

On September 8th, the college community planning board voted to provide comments to the city regarding the draft community plan.

The college area community planning board also sent a letter with recommendations on the first draft of the plan on February 10th.

City planning has addressed the two planning board letters as much as possible while still meeting the city's goals around climate action and affirmatively furthering fair housing.

And this includes scaling back a significant portion of the change area adjacent to canyons and reallocating that capacity for homes at the major community gateways and activity centers in the community.

The following boards have provided a recommendation.

On September 25th, the park and recreation board voted to oppose the parks element of the plan.

Also on September 25th, the Historic Resources Board voted unanimously to recommend approval of the plan on the consent agenda.

And October 1st, the Mobility Board recommended to approve the plan with one abstention.

On October 9th, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of the college area community plan update.

Pending the decision of this committee, the next steps would be to present the college area community plan update to the full city council for their consideration to adopt the college area community plan in December.

City staff recommends that the land use and housing committee recommend approval of the community plan update and the associated actions listed on this slide.

This concludes staff presentation.

We appreciate your time today and would be happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and turn to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item two is now open.

We have received 63 speaker slips here in chambers.

There are currently four hands raised in the virtual queue.

We will take those in person before we move to the virtual queue.

If you have seated time, um you must be present in the room, and I'll call your name.

We will begin with Robert Montana, if you can please approach the elector, and you've been seated time by nine individuals.

You'll be followed by Lindsay Riggs Rodriguez and Julie Hamilton.

Robert, we know you have a um presentation that we'll pull up.

And you've been seated time by the following nine individuals.

If you could please raise your hand, Karen Austin, Eric Rosenweig, excuse me, Sylvia Hernandez, Joe Newsome, Rudy Orozco, Helen Geo, Helen, Rob Grant, Don Anderson, and Ron Anderson.

So you will have a total of 10 minutes.

I'll put that on the clock and please begin.

First, I'd like to thank members of the council.

For volunteering or pursuing an act of public interest or the a life of public interest.

And I'd like to thank the members of the uh community who have come to speak and express their interests.

I think it's it's it's very important and we appreciate the fact that fair and affordable housing is one of the major goals here.

It's very important to note that we are a community of concern.

We are also a community with very low resources.

And if you could go to the first slide.

We always have the power to increase density at any time in the future.

We don't need to wait for another plan update cycle.

We can amend the seven visions plan to have a trigger that said as soon as the necessary infrastructure is delivered, the densities projected or requested by the current proposal can then be implemented.

I'd also like to go to the next slide.

And here's the real issue that we see is being overlooked.

And it's fire safety.

I think all of us argue that placing additional density in high fire zone areas without adequate fire protection is irresponsible and inappropriate.

We're placing young families and young children at risk if we make the same mistakes that prior generations have made by locating housing in high fire zones.

The bare minimum we'd need is a fire station in the community, not only to reduce response times, but to provide equipment and personnel for the increased requests for service that will occur if the plan, either one of the plans, is adopted.

The question is do you want to respond to 137% increase in calls for service, or what we project, what the chief projects in his letter a 400% increase.

I take that back, a 300% increase from 10,000 calls a year to 40,000 calls a year.

Doesn't propose any increased density, well in the high fire zone.

Okay.

It took that into account when we did the plan.

Our plan, because we're members of the city, the proposal, basically disregards the high fire zone and places much of the density increases in the zone.

And we think that's a mistake.

It is at least a mistake until after we can build and populate and equip one fire station in the community.

There's another slide, if you could.

And so it's not just the density on the lands away from the intersections, it's the fact that much of the density is being requested at the intersections, the evacuation routes.

It makes it much more difficult to organize an evacuation in the in the event of an emergency.

There's next slide, please.

A little bit of a history.

Next slide, please.

The last slide.

That's fine.

Another slide.

There you go.

So that's the seven visions plan.

We urge you to adopt the seven visions plan as a proposed project and direct staff to either either figure out a trigger that can be implemented when we have the infrastructure completed, or that holds the plans in abeyance at some point in the future, five years, ten years, fifteen years, when we have all the infrastructure completed, then come back for a plan uh for a density increase.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Lindsay Riggs Rodriguez, please approach the electron, and you'll be followed by Julie Hamilton and David Modi.

If you could please make your way to the reserve seats.

And Lindsay, you've been seated time by five individuals.

If you could please raise your hand.

Sarah Sweet.

Cheryl Crittenden.

Cheryl, thank you.

Karen.

Sorry, cannot read your last name.

Sectman.

Karen.

Oh, thank you.

Paul Smith and Leslie Burton.

Okay, so we'll have six minutes to manage, and please begin.

Okay, thank you.

Oh, there's my time.

Okay.

Um, well, first of all, thank you for having us today.

Um I live in the mid-city area.

My children go to school in the college area, so I'm I'm there every single day.

Um, and I want to first acknowledge that in the plan, it did seem like there was some new additions that are acknowledging some of our concerns as residents of the community, and so I appreciate that, and I'm encouraged that there'll be more of that in the future with uh additional conversations.

Um, but I want to get to the part about quality of life.

I think um density, it has to happen.

I I get that.

That's probably very um an unpopular opinion, but I see I imagine something like a community that rivals that of Paris or Barcelona as examples dense, vibrant, full of life, yet beautiful, functional, and inviting.

Everything you need is within reach, things to do, things to see, reliable transportation, and everyday necessities.

People are dining outdoors in neighborhood cafes, families, students, and seniors walking along lively, well-lit streets.

Residents are chatting from open windows on second and third floor apartments along the boulevard.

SDSU students and neighborhood residents alike using dedicated transit between the campus and Alcohol and Boulevard.

This is a place where people are proud to live.

It's a destination, not just a residential area.

Kids of all ages enjoy parks, small playgrounds, and even a community space for performances and events.

There's a skate park, there's frequent small green spaces scattered throughout the area where people can come together.

The environment feels safe because people are out and about, you're never walking alone.

Boundaries blur, college area, El Cerrito, Rolando, City Heights, shared connected communities.

This is the future we imagine, yet the current plan, and I I will acknowledge I did see some changes in it today.

It doesn't clearly communicate how the quality of life will be insured.

I don't think it's the intention to make it somewhere that people don't actually want to live.

Um, but I don't see in the language that there's enforcement and mechanisms to ensure that quality of life is achieved.

Families who represent a large portion of the community do not appear well represented in the plan.

And so I'm here today to be part of the record that we do want to work together.

We want seniors, we want kids, students, working adults, everybody to feel connected, included, and invested in this community.

Between now and the final council vote, we're looking for a commitment to a 30-year vision where the college area is thriving.

Businesses choose to be here.

People want to live here, they don't just have to.

Families feel safe raising children, seniors can move around comfortably with reliable accessible transit, maybe even writing alongside SDSU students.

I think the people speaking here today before you're passionate because they do love their community.

They've brought data and policy analysis because they want to get this right together.

Give us another chance to collaborate.

Make this a vision, many fears slipping away, but still believe is possible.

Bring the pellet, bring all the people.

We welcome growth, but make it safe.

Let's secure this fire station.

Let's secure the parks.

Let's secure infrastructure like lighting and other essentials.

Because right now it is scary to walk the streets of the college area.

We just don't do it.

These are the elements that make density work.

These make a thriving, humane urban neighborhood work.

Everyone deserves a beautiful place to live.

We stand ready to work with you guys to find the best solution.

One we can all stand behind and be proud of together.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Julie Hamilton, please approach the lectern.

And you've been seated time by five individuals.

Daphne Diaz.

Or I'm sorry, Doreen Diaz.

Doreen, please raise your hands.

Sue Richardson.

Dino Richardson, Laura Rebau.

And Mary Young.

Okay, great.

So you'll have six minutes to manage, please begin.

Thank you.

Again, thank you to everybody for the time and effort that's been put into this plan.

Thank you, Nathan.

Thank you, planning department.

You went to extraordinary lengths in working with us.

My name is Julie Hamilton, and I'm the chair of the College Area Community Council.

For those of you that don't know, Robert Montana is the chair of the planning group.

And I want to start by saying that first of all, it's a lot harder to represent your own community than it is to represent your clients.

This community came into this knowing that we were transit rich.

We knew we were transit rich, and we knew that we needed to do our share to assist in the housing crisis.

So we came in and we came up with a plan that increased density and placed the density in locations that we thought were most suitable for the community.

And the density increases that we proposed were 137% increase.

Our current plan talks about build out of 8,750 units, which by the way, we are very close to.

We want it to be vibrant, we want it to be active, we want generations interacting together.

But we're scared.

We're really scared because we don't have a fire station.

And this lack of a fire station, it's dangerous.

It was dangerous on October 31st, 2024, when the Montezuma fire broke out.

We were fortunate.

The fire response was amazing.

We didn't have any wind, but there were issues.

And all of a sudden, we're very aware of the fire danger in our community.

82% of the community is in the very high fire hazard severity zone, and we don't have a fire station.

And that's a problem.

And the parks, the park deficit is dramatic.

It is just dramatic.

I don't know if it's the worst in the city, but it's very close.

We have 1.5 acres, it's about 1.8 acres of park, and about half of that, half an acre is unusable.

It's a drainage soil for the existing population.

If you include the on-campus students, about 30,000.

That's inadequate, and that's an unhealthy living situation.

We need parks.

We desperately need parks, whether it's park points or park space.

We can't just go on park points.

We need park space, but we need community resources.

We have one community room that we can meet at, and it's at the library, and the library has about half the parking that it needs.

So we need library parking to enhance that.

So when we keep saying the seven visions plan, the visions are great, and I do think the planning department has done a good job of trying to incorporate the visions.

The problem is that the seven visions plan envisioned a density where we could survive if we didn't get all these things that we desperately need.

But what happens when you go too big is we can't survive.

People are at risk.

People are in danger, and the environment is not healthy.

So we keep saying, go back to the seven visions plan.

Mainly our interest is the density, going back to adding 10,000 units instead of 24,000 units.

Add density, definitely.

We're in.

Then get us a fire station, some parks, and fix the library, go to the next level.

My suggestion is that you do an infrastructure overlay zone, be that which would allow the development of 10,000 units, and then if you can get the fire station and some parks and fix the library, then you can go up in density without having to come back and amend the plan.

But somehow we need to get the ability to get those facilities that we desperately need before we allow density to go so extreme that we've created an unsafe, unhealthy living environment.

We have been blessed with a great community, a diverse community.

The students bring in a level of dynamic that's wonderful that we enjoy, but we need to increase density in a logical manner.

And I really appreciate all the work that is everybody has done.

I would really appreciate it if you sent this back to the planning department to collaborate on resolving this issue.

Thank you for your time.

Take care.

Thank you.

David Modi, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Ian White.

If you could please raise your hand, Ian White, thank you.

And you'll be followed by Tom Molini and Dana Givot.

You'll have two minutes.

Thank you, Council members.

My name is David Modi.

I'm chair of the Kensington Talmadge Planning Group.

And I'm here to uh thank staff for what the work they did on the community boundary change.

I want to give you a little bit about uh boundary change between college area and Kensington Talmadge, give you a little bit of background on that.

Um there were three presentations at the college area between 2016 and 2019, and then two joint letters in 2021 and 2024 where we asked for a boundary change.

Didn't get all of what we wanted, but we did get the most critical part at the last minute.

So that is the part of the plan that we support.

But I want to caution you that as written, this plan is not going to work.

The CIAs and complete communities are in direct opposition to each other.

As Marcella Escobar X said, developers are afraid to build on locations where you have a public liability where the public has access and they have private liability over that space.

So where will they go?

Well, they can get nearly equal density in complete community areas.

And on top of getting comparable density, they can avoid half percent, half of the mandatory inclusionary housing.

So they get a cherry on top from the city to move off of the corridors and into the community with their higher density projects.

The CIAs also relies on also relies on the way Council Policy 800-14 functions in prioritizing projects.

800-14 is structurally tilted against communities like the college area because it's a high need area, and need only represents 25% of the points in 800-14.

It is not going to work.

It's not going to work because complete communities draws development away, and you can't rely on city resources to fund infrastructure because 800-14 is tilted against them.

Thank you.

Tom Mulaney, please approach the lecture and you've been seated time by Janet O'Day, Janet and Anita Anderson.

Still have three minutes to manage.

Thank you.

Looking at the college area plan, it's it's not the city of villages.

It's becoming the city of mindless upzoning.

It's not urban planning.

It's more like density cramming without the needed public facilities.

I'll explain why I call it uh upzoning madness.

In the latest forecast, the city is expected to gain 66,000 people between now and 2050.

That's an increase of only 4.7% overall.

Divided by 25 years, it's one-fifth the one percent per year.

So the the million person forecast the way I got 25 years ago was unrealistic at the time.

Now Sandeg recognizes its its the growth is much less.

Within 15 years from now, the population of California is expected to go down.

So vast upzoning is just not needed.

Let's look at what's happened at recent plan updates.

Mira Mesa plan added enough new units for 67,000 people.

The university plan, 65,000.

The Hillcrest plan, 70,000 more people.

Today with this college area plan, the staff seeks to add enough housing units for 56,000 more people.

Each one of these four upzone communities could accommodate the forecast growth for the whole year, the whole city.

What this will do is suck the energy out of downtown, Mission Valley, any other place that we expect to have growth.

That's why I call it upzoning madness.

It's unnecessary, harmful.

It has nothing to do with affordability.

So the college area plan should be cut back to a reasonable level.

The seven visions plan from the community, I think is a reasonable plan.

Project should be sent back to the planning department to work with the community to create a more reasonable plan based on the seven visions plan.

How did we get to this excessive situation?

I don't think any of the councilman woke up in the morning and said, I think I like to have three or four times as many homes and people in my in my community.

I like to do it without parks and without a fire station.

So where does this come from?

I think the mayor and his advisors have set a record on upzoning to increase the number of allowable units, with no indication that will actually add to homes being built.

Regarding parks, the lack of parks in the college area is a serious matter.

I believe it would go beyond bad planning to ignore the need for more parks.

Who wants to be responsible for a community without baseball and soccer fields, without a basketball and pickleball courts, without picnic areas, without even trees to sit under and read a book.

It would be immoral, in my view, to approve an increase in housing units so large that adequate parks cannot be provided.

So in conclusion, I ask that the plan be sent back to the planning department to work with the community on a reasonable plan.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Dan I Gabot, if you could please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by 14 individuals.

If you could please raise your hand, Dave Nicolai, Ralph.

In human form.

Thank you.

Robin Baker.

Ken Horsley.

Michelle Rako.

Michelle, thank you.

Vivian Collins, Lorna Zukis, Alex and Alex Zugas, thank you.

Julie Parrish.

Amy Mobile, Amy, Rob Campbell, Mickey Melby, and Pam Big Al.

Thank you.

Kelly Tremling.

Thank you.

So you'll have 15 minutes on the clock.

And please begin.

Thank you, guys.

And thank you, Time Cedars and Nathan, as always, nothing personal.

Dana Givitt, resident of the college area, and vice chair of Neighbors for a Better San Diego, San Diego resident for 35 years.

Next slide, please.

Per the 2024 San Diego General Plan, community plans are supposed to protect quality of life, provide essential community character to be respected, and to make sure that public facilities are provided.

Next slide, please.

Robert Montana already went over the current recommended community plan, the Seven Visions Plan, its primary goals, but it proposes a 137% increase in housing as compared to the city's proposal, which was just increased from 316 percent to a 320 percent increase in housing units.

My plan in this presentation is to show you that this increase is out of line with other community plans.

Next slide, please.

For perspective, the college area covers less than one percent of San Diego's San Diego's land with 1,970 acres.

It is the smallest of the recent community plan updates.

Next slide, please.

Of the six-cycle community plan updates, which is most like the college area.

It's not the Hillcrest FPA or uptown, which is very urban, already dense with many jobs, and right next door to downtown.

What about uh Kearny Mesa, Mira Mesa with its Sorrento Mesa and the University?

No, these are all sub-regional employment centers, very different from what we have in the college area.

Next slide, please.

The only recent community plan update area that is comparable to the college area is actually Claremont, which you'll be hearing as the next agenda item.

It's primarily residential, has a small employment center, and includes a college campus, albeit smaller than states.

However, it is being upzoned by 59%, while the college area is being upzoned to add 320 percent more housing units.

Quite a stark comparison.

Next slide, please.

The city's proposed plan update assigns a horizon density to the college area of 17 dwelling units per acre.

Yet the college area is primarily a single-family community with a university on a fifth of its acreage.

As noted, it is much like Claremont.

Still, the community seven visions plan voluntarily accepts a density of 10 dwelling units per acre, more than any other recent plan update.

So the college area is being asked to absorb two to three times the horizon density of similar recent plan updates.

Next slide, please.

The city's plan for the college area is out of line with other recent plan updates, with its 2032 percent increase versus the dwelling units that exist there today.

Only Kearney Mesa is greater, and that's an aberration because it started with less than 4500 housing units because it was exclusively or almost exclusively a job center.

The Seven Visions Plan voluntarily accepts a higher percentage increase at 137% than other recent community plan updates.

We are being asked to absorb almost three times the percentage increase in housing units, more than five times Claremont.

The question is why?

Next slide, please.

Now this will seem out of order, but it's important to note that 71% of our the college area's building permits over the last four years came from bonus programs, from ADUs, from the complete communities projects, and from affordable density bonus programs.

Those numbers are not reflected in the 320% increase in housing units in this plan in this plan proposal.

They are on top of that.

So the 320% is just the tip of the iceberg.

Those units and the people living in them are not considered in these bonus plans.

And the college area, as you can see, I compared it to the city.

We are higher than the city in these bonus programs.

Next slide, please.

So what could possibly justify the college area's drastic upzoning?

Could it be the huge anticipated employment growth, exceptional transit access to job centers, and ongoing demand for state student housing or great local infrastructure?

Let's explore possibilities.

Next slide, please.

The college area is not an employment center.

Mira Mesa and University account for 8% of regional jobs.

Kearney Mesa accounts for 6%, and the college area accounts for less than 1%, most coming from SDSU.

And there's no plan for any economic development.

Next slide, please.

The college area has no plan to become a job center.

There is stagnant non-residential square footage in this plan.

There is not an increase of one square foot.

Still, the city plans to quadruple density and increase population by almost 30%, sorry, 300%.

Jobs and housing should go hand in hand to minimize vehicle miles traveled.

But that is not happening here.

What about our transit?

Next slide, please.

We're told we're transit rich, but it is not neither easy nor efficient for transit commute to the biggest job centers in the region.

Next slide, please.

The only direct transit we have is to downtown, where less than 5% of the region's jobs are.

They're good, but they provide zero parking.

Most buses require a three to four hour round trip ride to get you to any job center besides downtown.

But there's no problem if you want to go to the Lemong Grove SWAT meet.

That's an easy commute.

Next slide, please.

Ultimately, state expects to have 50,000 students with 15,000 at SDSU Mission Valley, where they will have 4600 residential units housing 8,500 residents.

Meanwhile, most of us underclassmen are required to live on campus if they live beyond a certain zone.

And state says they have ample space and are renting to upperclassmen and grad students now to live on campus.

So is it the phenomenal college area infrastructure that justifies the massive upzoning the city's planning for our community?

Next slide, please.

I realize you can't see this, but I did send you all a copy of this chart.

There's not a chance that it's our infrastructure that is going to support the population because we don't have adequate infrastructure for our current population.

We have a 1.6 acre park, one quarter mile sewer easement trail, and a library with 28 parking spaces that should have 80.

That's it.

No rec center for almost 30,000 people, no dedicated police or fire station.

And the residents who are not students cannot use SDSU facilities.

Compared to other communities with recent plan updates, we are infrastructure deficient with a plan that doesn't commit to solving that problem now or in the future.

We are an underserved community south of I 8.

You can refuse review the chart later to confirm that.

Next slide, please.

Okay.

So these are 2025 CTAC opportunity maps that show the resource opportunity zones for communities with recent plan updates.

In the upper left, you can see the college area with green two and three zones.

Those are the low opportunity zones.

Now, if you look at the other areas, which are Claremont, Mira Mesa, and University, you note in two cases, there's one small green portion, which is low opportunity, and everything else are blue.

Those are high and highest opportunity zones.

So compared to these other communities with recent plan updates, the college area has significantly more low resource neighborhoods and less blue high and highest resource neighborhoods.

Concentrating almost three times more density in our neighborhoods violates affirmatively furthering fair housing.

More housing opportunities should be made available in highest and high resource communities, not low resource neighborhoods like the college area.

Next slide, please.

We have absorbed, we, the college area, 9% of the city's affordable housing between 2021 and 2024.

That was 27% of our building permits being deed restricted.

As a result, you can see in the map on the right that we are slipping to be an even lower resourced community in 2026.

So there we are offering the new residents and our current residents minimal infrastructure as a low resource community.

Next slide, please.

In sum, the city's housing and population targets for the college area are not justified by economic development, efficient transit access to job centers, SDSU housing needs, or existing or planned infrastructure.

The proposed concentration of density in our lower resource community violates fair housing law.

The city has made no firm commitment to resolve our current infrastructure deficit, let alone provide for the needs of 54,000 future residents.

Next slide, please.

So much for single family.

We want the city to invest in infrastructure for our underserved community, the fire station we were told we needed 15 years ago, real parks with fields for kids to play in, a rec center that meets the 17,000 square foot standard, not a 4,000 square foot repurposed museum, and adequate parking for our library, which is our only public building.

We would also like an economic development plan for jobs and businesses to support our current and future residents.

Finally, please know that we are not advocating for increased density elsewhere in San Diego, but rather reasonable density for our own community.

Next and final slide, please.

If the college area infrastructure needs are met, and the seven visions plan capacity approaches build out, only then should the cons the city consider more upzoning via a community plan amendment.

Thank you very much for your time and consideration.

Thank you to the time seeders, and thank you, Nathan, for working with us.

Thank you.

If the following individuals can please come up to the lectern, Guthrie Leonard, you'll be next, and you'll be followed by Saad, Assad, Jan Hensman, and Jeffrey Hoider.

Hello.

There we go.

Um, honorable council members.

My name is Guthrie Leonard.

I'm here on behalf of Ride SD.

We want to express our heartfelt support for this plan.

The inclusion of bus lanes on El Cajon Boulevard and College Avenue will help make major buses like Route 15 really competitive with cars.

And when combined with some of the denser housing near these corridors, this plan will give your constituents a more affordable and accessible life.

Furthermore, the protected bike lanes on Montezuma Road and on College Avenue will ensure that residents and students, no matter if they're driving or walking or taking a skateboard, will be able to safely get to work in school.

We're grateful to city staff for their outreach and for making a plan that to the best of its ability provides housing, transportation options, and safety to all current and future residents in the college area.

We urge you to approve this plan and move it forward to the full council.

Thank you.

Thank you, Saad Asan.

Good morning, Council members.

I support the community plan update.

You'll hear a little from SDSU students today.

They're in class or commuting 40 minutes from Escondido, but nearly a third of SDC SDSU students face housing insecurity.

One student told me his friends live three to a garage because that's the only affordable option.

With SCSU's new R1 research status, bringing more researchers and faculty, we need far more homes to meet the demand.

This gradual 25-year plan allows more housing near trolley stations and along Rapid 215, reducing the competition for housing while keeping residents near transit.

This reduces the need to use cars, lowering delivering costs for students and long-time residents.

Some worry about infrastructure fairly, but new housing generates property tax revenue to fund parks and rec.

That's what happened when Mira Mesa added new homes and allowed it to fund a new community center.

The college area plan can work for everyone.

Let's make it happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jan Hensman, please approach the lecture.

You've been seated time by five individuals.

Carol Hankins, Maria Gomez, Maria.

Patricia Mahara, Patricia, Susan Grant.

Thank you.

Carol Dennenberg.

Carol here.

Okay, thank you.

Sorry.

So you'll have six minutes to manage.

Please begin.

Thank you.

I'm Jan Hinzman, president of the Friends of the College Rolando Library.

Our library serves 20,000 plus people in the college area and an additional 30,000 south of college.

It's the only city-provided building in the college area and one of the city's busiest branches.

It has a diverse population in which 67% are minority.

Our median household income has a has 53,000 people.

Start again.

Our median household income figure of 53,000 falls $3,000 short of that of the city as a whole.

A lack of parking for our patrons is our challenge.

Why is this a challenge?

Briefly, because in 2016, the city lost control of all but 28 of the 130 parking spots it built for the library.

With its full complement of parking, our library circulates 70,000 books per year.

In 2017, without full parking access, that number dropped to 23,000.

That's a big drop.

Without parking, this lone city structure is a wasted resource.

It's just not accept as accessible.

We believe that this update document has the potential to focus appropriate attention to our library's future, and we have but two suggestions to offer.

Don't panic.

We're not asking for a big rewrite.

Maybe we'd like to.

We're being practical and seeking only the addition of a few words to strengthen and focus the concepts and the words that are already there.

Why are those words important?

We know that you're struggling to address very many issues and are strapped for resources, and we'd like to help to get our problem resolved.

And you're now looking outward to the public for assistance in meeting your many challenges.

To raise money privately, we need to be able to point to a city document to show potential donors that the city really values this library.

So let's dig quickly into our suggestions.

And if you please refer to the suggested changes document that I provided earlier.

Let's look at the new at the new words in blue for our first suggestion.

That wording is modeled after the updates treatment of parks and would help us a lot to describe our library's situation.

The blue text begins the community plan aims to expand accessibility to the library to maximize its values to the community.

The um the green following text is the introduction for parks and rec.

That description begins.

The community plan aims to enhance the recreational value of parks and public spaces by expanding and reimagining them on and on.

But those we are suggesting the blue changes.

On to our second suggestion.

Something we've heard about a lot today.

And that appears as prioritize investment in essential public services and infrastructure to address the most critical needs and make efficient use of available resources.

That could be easily adapted and placed in the description of libraries as prioritize investment in the library to make efficient use of this valuable resource.

Thank you very much.

Appreciate your work.

Thank you.

Jeff Poider, please approach the lecture and we will pull up the presentation you sent us.

You've been seated time by nine individuals.

Laura Henson, Gina Pearson, Evon Jones, Connie Brewer, Connie, thank you.

Judy Harrington.

Pat Valenta, Pat, and then Susan Baldwin.

Thank you.

Susan Ward.

Thank you.

So you'll have 10 minutes to manage.

Thank you, Council Members.

And also I would like to thank Nathan and the planning staff.

I think if you look at the beginning of this process, both the city's plan kind of got smaller and the seven visions plan got bigger.

So I think there has been some movement to try and reconcile a lot of these plans.

There's still obviously disagreement on some key areas, and uh those are worth further consideration.

What I would like to talk about today, though, is regardless of where the plan ends up, how our existing complete communities regulations interact with uh the community plan and undermine some of its intentions.

So in a pretty fairly significant way.

So next slide.

So just to people all remember what complete communities is, is there's a minimum threshold of 20 housing units per acre.

So complete communities can go on to any parcel in San Diego that exceeds that density threshold.

That's a very low threshold.

It's basically one two-story, excuse me, townhomes.

Um, and yet the allowance for what can be built is is determined by a farm map, which I'll show shortly.

And what happens then is because the affordable housing component of the project is only determined by the underlying zoning, which could be as low as 20 units per acre, which is you know basically you know, eight units per acre on a project, uh the allowed and of what gets developed is could be hundreds more units than that.

And so the uh what happens is that complete communities ends up being a very attractive workaround to the city's inclusionary affordable housing ordinance, and uh what developers are doing is seeking out those properties that really have the lowest density but the highest far allowance.

So to give you a visualize that on the next slide, so there's these different far tiers.

So if you look all the way over on the right, that's the type of housing that's intended in the zone where a complete communities project can go.

And as you go up the ladder and the different far tiers across the city, you're allowed.

Okay.

You're allowed more and more development, and in particular in the college area, primarily falls into that tier three, uh, which is six and a half far, which when you do the the math on this and assume uh a normal size uh unit size of 450 to 800 square feet, uh 25 percent uh of shared space, well, that equates to on that parcel that was designated for 20 units per acre, you're allowed 270 to 480 dwelling units per acre, and that's that's quite a discrepancy.

And what that also means is because the affordable housing requirement is only imposed on the 20 units, you get effective net um affordable housing percentages of just a couple percent in the in what would be in the college area.

So as you can see, our inclusionary requirement is now at 10 percent.

Um you're seeing something where we're getting many times less affordable housing out of uh for-profit community communities projects than we would just get out of things that are built to the underlying zoning.

So to go to the next slide, why and this just kind of shows you the map.

I mean, one way you can think about is complete communities with really a general plan amendment to the entire city, um, and it's substantially added to the sea city's housing capacity we've calculated and presented in the past that up to 1.2 million homes could be built in San Diego on this map, which exceeds all the community plan updates and all the other work we've done to increase housing, so that's a pretty substantial yet hidden factor in all of our city's development.

If you go to the next slide, um and um I'll illustrate these, but it makes it hard to do transition zones.

We've already talked about the deficit in affordable housing, but then there's an also part, and and it's a significant part of what Nathan presented today, is even where you intend to have transition areas or where you intend to have things like townhomes to satisfy specific missing middle requirements in our housing stock, complete communities comes in and um you know sabotages a lot of that work.

So if you go to the next slide, so how does that work?

So if you look at the seven division plan or with the city's proposed plan, we have high density along corridors, um stepping down to lower density into residential areas.

However, if if the if the zone density is 100 units per acre and the transitional areas are 20 units per acre as a developer, and they're both allowed the same height due to complete communities.

I'm not going to build where the transit is, I'm gonna build away from that into the neighborhood where it's at 20 units per acre.

So that's the first problem is it undermines our climate action plans, our transit support, and other things.

The second thing is, um yeah, you can go to the next slide, sorry.

Um here, there's proposed areas where the plan um changes zoning to introduce what's called low four um residential, which is you know, two three-story townhomes, um, up to 29 units per acre.

So that those areas have been now would be triggered to be ineligible for or to be eligible for complete communities, and because they would be complete communities, and instead of getting the again the a two or three story townhouse, um, you what you would get is you know a 10, 11, 12 story complete communities project, and that's not the intention of these.

We're trying to create areas that are in between single family housing and um just dense high-rise development, particularly to to be more supportive of of space for families in a healthier environment, and allowing complete community to be put on these spaces instead, you know, just um again blows that up.

So the next thing, next slide.

And this is basically what it is.

So if you look in the community plan, the picture on the left is what was intended to go into those spaces that I circled, and what you're gonna get over is what's on the right, which is you know a 12-story building or more.

So we want to be able to plan, and when we do these plans, we want what's realized to be what's intended, and then and and the part of the goal is that um complete communities was a very temporary measure.

Um, we had a very aggressive arena cycle, the six arena cycle.

So we introduced complete communities as a way of supercharging where people could add development.

While we went through our community plan updates, well, we're going through our community plan updates, and so as we go through that process, it's important that we address that we adjust what we're doing with complete communities to allow the community plan to do its work as opposed to this this um sort of broad overlay that we put on our our areas.

If you go to the next slide, um that's the next uh item.

So, what our recommendation is there's a very precise fix that would that would implement and address all the issues that I have brought up today, and that is to include to increase the the density threshold for complete communities from 20 dwelling units per acre to 45 units per acre.

And the reason for 45 is there's a lot of um planning uh zone changes, um both in this plan and the one we'll see next, um, that it go up to 44 units that are intended as either low or medium density uh housing areas, and it's setting that at 45, you know, pushes that it it means that the transition areas are no longer eligible, so that developers have to put their housing closer to transit corridors by doubling the the minimum density, you're actually doubling the number of affordable housing units that you'll get from it, and then um it'll just allow that plan to function.

If you go to the next slide, just to kind of set a context for how significant complete communities is in the college area under complete communities, we've calculated that you could build 40,000 43,000 units in the college area.

Even this the plan that's been proposed by the city is um just 26,000.

So, in some ways, whatever gets done in the plan is dwarfed by what would be possible under complete communities, and we shouldn't do that, right?

We did the community, the the community plan is an estimate of what matters, and we should be allowing that to be what gets built.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have five speakers remaining in chambers before we move to the virtual queue.

Lori File, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Stephanie.

So you'll have two minutes.

And you'll be followed by Manny Rodriguez, Idri DeMarque or Edie DeMarcus and Sharon Gell.

Good morning.

Uh Chair and Committee members, my name is Lori Holt Feiler, and I am the president and CEO of the San Diego building industry for at least another month.

The BIA recognizes that the college area community plan has not been updated since 1989.

We strongly support the city's commitment to modernizing the plan to reflect current realities and future needs.

And we are particularly encouraged by the plan's proposal to accommodate approximately 18,000 new homes.

Expanding housing opportunities in existing urbanized areas is essential to meeting our region's critical housing demand, and we support the city's leadership in making this possible.

Please support this plan.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez.

Good morning, Honorable Chair Lee and Council members.

I'm here on behalf of the YMB Democrats of San Diego County.

Our hundreds of supporters are driven to lower the cost for working families in the city.

And the facts are the facts are that new housing mitigates rent increases.

Cities that have built a lot of new housing have seen rents decline, and California has a severe housing shortage, as identified by our academic institutions and universities.

We trust that you care about making San Diego an apport an affordable place for working people, and you can do that by approving this community plan update and creating more homes and doing what we know brings down the cost of housing, which is building more homes.

Thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Edie DeMarcus.

Good morning.

I support this plan because it allows for over 17,000 additional homes, and it offers real solutions to real problems.

Having grown up in San Diego, I've seen too many people leave due to the rising cost of living.

This plan directly addresses that by increasing access to transit, helping students and families who spend over half their income on rent be able to access education and jobs without car costs, all while reducing pollution near the freeway.

Overall, this plan will allow for a more livable and accessible city, and that's why I support it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in chambers, Sharon Geld.

Hello, my name is Sharon Gale, and I'm pro-housing because the majority of people in San Diego are struggling financially.

Mainly because of the high cost of housing.

That's why in the last election, the majority of voters voted for the mayoral and the council candidates who support building enough housing to meet our needs.

The candidates who had advocated limiting housing lost.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony on item two.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've sorted the five-minute timer for all those in the queue to indicate that they wish to speak to item two.

There are 18 hands raised.

We'll begin with Krishna Hammond.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, my name is Christian Hammond.

I'm a lifelong San Diego resident.

Uh the college area plan.

We this plan adds up to 17,750 new homes, as well as reducing trips by over 35%.

And this is critical because we have a regional housing needs assessment that tells us we need 180,000 new homes.

And that's not just an ethical obligation, it's a legal one.

And there's always an opportunity an opportunity and a reason to say no.

We always say that we need more parks and more stations, we need more parking.

But the reality is that people are paying over 50% of their rent of their income on the rent right now.

We have a crisis right now, and this is not the time to say we need some density or comparable density or smart density.

We need to do what people voted for and build more housing.

And that's why I'm asking you to strongly support this new college area plan.

And I would like to thank you for your time.

Have a good rest of your day.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Kate Callan.

Please unmute and begin.

I would like to acquaint the committee with the lead editorial in today's union tribune.

The headline is city needs to answer, not duck, hard questions on land use decisions.

It includes this section on the agenda item.

In a recent op-ed, local activist Danic and Vaughn made a strong case that the city's plans for explosive growth growth in the college area, 262% more residents, 316% more housing units.

Those plans were unaccompanied by meaningful proposals to improve infrastructure to deal with this transformational increase in density.

It's not NIMBYism to point this out.

When you look at this plan update, you have to wonder why did the college area land in the crosshairs at City Hall?

Why is this community being singled out for unfair treatment?

Staff use words like sustainable and equitable to describe it.

It's not sustainable, it's not equitable, it's unconscionable, it needs more work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Circulate San Diego.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Aria Grossman, and I'm the policy manager at Circulate San Diego.

I'm speaking today in favor of the College Pond Area update.

The proposed update would provide a housing capacity increase supported by land use designations to enable higher density and mixed use transit oriented development, specifically around San Diego State University, which would have the net effect of making housing more affordable to students.

Additionally, the plan would integrate pedestrian and cyclist facility uses within and between these transit oriented development areas, improving safety and mobility for everyone who lives in and visits the area.

Circulate also strongly supports the proposed transit priority lines and transit priority features outlined in the plan.

Overall, the plan update provides an opportunity to create a more vibrant and affordable communities for families, students, and all residents of the college area.

And I urge you to support its passage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is David.

Yes, good morning.

I thank the planning staff for taking all the time to collect community input and work with all residents in the community.

I am in support of the update.

I believe every San Diego should have access to nearby regional amenities without having to commute for 20 plus miles and spend you know 45 minutes each way just to get to their either that class, uh that retail center or their job.

Um, I think there should be more housing and opportunity should be spread out equally.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Stephen Greenwood.

Stephen, please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Steven, and I'm a resident of the college area.

I and many others walk along Montezuma every day and take the bus often.

And I'm in favor of the plan update.

It was previously said in this meeting that complete streets are a goal of the city where many different forms of transportation feel equal.

But right now, I feel like a second-class citizen behind drivers whenever I bike, walk, or take transit.

All of the transportation changes in the plan are a vast improvement.

I also really appreciate the increase in allowance for housing density along the major corridors.

With the college area being so in demand, we desperately need more housing.

More housing would lower the cost of living and allow more people to live in this great community.

However, I do think that the residential neighborhoods aren't upzoned enough as we need all of the housing that we can get.

And it's crazy to me that 55th Street from Montezuma to Remington, where thousands of students walk every day, is still planned to be a whole, four lanes wide.

That said, I still strongly support the plan.

It has the opportunity to vastly improve the college area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have 12 hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these 12.

Maxwell, I've asked you to unmute.

Please begin.

Hi, my name is Maxwell.

Um, I am a former resident of the college area, and I am speaking in support of this plan.

The college area is a neighborhood that I grew up in.

It's a neighborhood that I still love, and it's a neighborhood that desperately needs more housing, needs more bike infrastructure, more pedestrian infrastructure, and more walkability.

And the current development around SDSU has been great.

The whole neighborhood needs that style of development, mixed use, walkable, bikeable, and the neighborhood is incredible transit infrastructure that should be used.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Wesley Morgan.

Please begin.

Good morning.

My name is Wes Morgan.

Thank you to the city planning for the transparent work and the clear, consistent public engagement that brought this plan forward.

I strongly support the plan.

For decades, students have been treated as second-tier residents.

And the idea of SDSU as a computer school has been used to justify inadequate housing.

Students deserve to live near where they study.

And this plan finally makes that possible.

It adds housing in one of the most opportunity rich and transit rich parts of the city, right next to STSU, the East Campus Medical Center, and high frequency transit corridors that already support sustainable growth.

The plan creates room for thousands of new homes and walkable mixed-use areas while keeping the car-dependent single-family neighborhoods intact.

It strengthens the link between the community and STSU, reduces overcrowding that already exists, and puts new homes where people can walk, bike, or take transit for daily trips.

I urge you to adopt it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Zoom user.

Please unmute and begin.

Yeah, I do not support this plan until the city or the developers build the fire station.

State of the art fire station down there.

You all know what happens in a fire.

A fire breaks out in Alpine.

Everybody runs over there.

Then a fire breaks up on TechLodi Road when the Santa Anna winds are blowing east to west.

And then a fire is going to break out in your neighborhood.

All the fire trucks are gone.

They're at Tech Lodies.

I live up above that fire in Mission Valley.

Homeless guy said that fire didn't happen in 10 minutes, man.

The flames were 60 feet high, 30 feet high above our condos.

And the firefighters there's like 10 firefighters on the bottom, trucks, five on the top.

They fought it bravely.

They put it out before it burned the whole place down.

It happened in a matter of minutes.

Everyone's got a plan until you get hit in the face.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker is Gail Gilfried.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you, Council members and planning committee.

I support the College era community plan because it allows for thousands of additional new homes near not one, but three top three trolley stations over 30 years.

It also adds protected bike lanes and priority bus lanes, which helps our climate.

Please vote yes on this community plan for the students and families who've had to move away because housing was not available for them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Laurie Saldania.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

Um, thank you.

My name is Laurie Saldania.

I'm a lifelong San Diegan and served as the assembly chair of housing and community development.

And I encourage this council not to make the mistakes we have seen in communities such as Mira Mesa in the past, where housing was put in first and community amenities like parks, schools, and libraries followed in some cases decades later.

I support the residents who are asking for those development features, not growth, but development features, fire safety, libraries.

Put those in concurrent with the additional density.

Otherwise, we end up, as I did when I was in high school, with students that were bust from Mira Mesa to my high school in Claremont and other impacts that negatively affect our air quality and transportation.

So please develop, not just grow and listen to the residents who spoke very articulately about the need to take into account public safety and other issues before you simply add thousands of more people to the college area.

Thank you.

The next speaker is phone number ending in 5868.

Please press star six and begin.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Thank you.

Yes, I would like to um thank the uh city staff for their presentations and also the community for their wonderful and highly uh research presentations.

And I am in support of the community's presentations.

They point out some uh very serious issues as far as fire safety, and I would ask that the land use and housing committee absolutely commit to a fire station as soon as possible before the density is increased, and also getting real parks in there rather than like overlooks and like large sidewalks.

So yeah, I would say please go back and work with the community again and get the infrastructure and support that they need.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Andrew Hong, please begin.

Hi, first of all, thank you to all the staff that's been working on this plan.

I'm here to express my full support for the updated college area plan.

No one can deny the fact that San Diego is facing a severe housing shortage, which is directly causing San Diego to become one of the most expensive cities in the country.

It should not be controversial to say that building more housing, especially near commercial areas, transit, and one of the best universities in California is a good thing for the whole city and part of a real solution to the housing shortage and affordability crisis.

Thank you for fighting for a greener and more affordable San Diego.

Thank you.

There are six hands remaining in the queue.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

You had a uh council item earlier this week going over uh possible ballot items for uh next June.

One of the items was the future of housing issues and how there can be um affordable housing uh on site in future development.

Uh I thought that was a really good idea.

Uh it really speaks to the concept.

Um, you know, we talk about mixed income, you know, between ourselves, but we don't know how to talk about mixed income and actually bringing people from income levels into the same neighborhood.

And that and that can be an okay thing.

We're like frightened of that concept overall.

And I I hope this can be a time with this sort of item that we can start talking about people from uh from a higher range of income can live in the same neighborhood as the people from income uh areas and the same building.

I mean, that's that shouldn't have to be a far-fetched idea, but it is unfortunately.

And we certainly can't talk that directly about it.

Uh good luck on how to work on such things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lawrence.

Lawrence, please begin.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Perfect.

Um everyone, I'm a resident of Bankers Hill.

Um I work in the uh much uh maligned uh property insurance industry.

Um and moving housing to safer, less wildfire prone areas is uh a mandate.

It it is a necessity of the of the city council to make sure that lower fire risk areas are developed.

This plan helps do that.

It puts high density housing along Elkahood Boulevard, it puts access to the to the green line.

Uh, there are already existing fire stations.

Um, if people are truly concerned about fire risk, they need to look into wild uh and to um managed retreat, right?

Although I think that many of the people who talk about wildfire safety are not interested um in in the serious action that it takes uh to do that.

Um, of course, these comments represent my own um my own views.

Um, and I fully support the uh community plan going forward as is.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Evan Strawn, please unmute and begin.

Good morning, chairly and council members.

My name is Evan Strawn, and I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

We're asking you to support the college area community plan update today.

One of the biggest challenges facing our member businesses is attracting and retaining talent in the region.

And this community plan update adds the opportunity for more new homes, including allowing students and recent graduates to stay in San Diego.

This will allow our region to be more economically competitive while also reducing the cost of living for residents.

It's truly a win-win.

We encourage your support of the community plan update today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker has the name Web Surf.

Please unmute and begin.

Okay.

Jessica Manning, please unmute and begin.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Um, I just want to reiterate the fact that um we're not in the college area uh disagreeing that more housing is needed.

More housing is needed.

It's the plan in which is put in place.

And um, a plan does need to be enacted on, but it needs to be um revised.

We need to have certain things in place first, uh, not just thinking about the SCSU students, although they're a very important part of this community, me being an alumni to SESU myself.

Um you can't start building without a plan.

Otherwise, you're gonna go backwards and rip out everything you've done, or you're just gonna keep a badly built plan because there wasn't something comprehensive in the first place.

I think everybody cited well and researched well that um there needs to be amendments to this improvements before it is signed off on.

And yes, we do all agree that we can house more and need more housing, but a better plan is needed.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Pearson, please begin.

Well, I'd like to speak in favor of the college area plan.

Uh we are in a housing crisis right now as a city, a housing crisis that acutely affects students and young professionals, which we prioritizing building as much of it as possible, especially in your transit, which is good for cost of living.

Yeah, that's all I have to say about that.

Thank you.

Webster, if I see you've raised your hand again, I've given you permission to unmute and speak.

Say no to the city's egregious plan to increase dwelling units 316% with a 262% increase in population on top of what was already in the college area in 2020.

Why is the city targeted the college area, a high fire zone for such egregious increase?

Yes, targeted as other recent community plants had about one third as much upzoning as for all the people already here.

We have one 1.68 six acre park with no playground equipment, no rec center, inadequate parking for our library, no police station, and we haven't received our promised 2010 fire station for our high fire danger area.

We don't have the infrastructure for density.

Density in a high fire danger area will increase our overall risk in a fire, particularly death.

Did any of you learn anything from the LA or a 2024 college area fires?

Keep density on transit corridors, corridors open, remove the RM2-5 zoning that will allow complete communities and single family neighborhoods.

Thank you.

This concludes your time.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item two.

Thank you.

And thank you to all the members of the public for participating.

We will go ahead and turn it over to committee members for questions, comments, as well as a motion on item two, starting with Vice Chair Ula Rivera.

All right.

Thank you, uh Council President Pro Tem.

Um thank you, Nathan.

Thank you, Heidi.

Thank you, the uh planning team.

Um big thank you to the members of the community who uh not just participated here today, but have been participating um in this process for for years.

Um and I want to say a special thank you to everyone who um showed up today and and shared vision.

Um I think that was the it's just it's critically important.

Um it is wildly unlikely that we will have a city of our size, um a community of college area size agree on the fine print of any policy or plan.

It is much more likely that we can unite around a shared vision.

And for everyone who showed up with vision and shared that, I want to thank you.

Because um, in both the um supporters and opponents of the plan that's been being presented to us, there was actually some agreement about what the college area should be.

It should be a safe community, it should be a community with a high quality of life where people of all ages feel um safe, like they have opportunity, there should be a sense of belonging, a sense of neighborhood.

And there certainly should be um the infrastructure and resources to support that quality of life.

Um I wanted to point that part out because um in the last few weeks, I would say I've heard um a real important uptick in folks engaging in this process focused on vision and outcome.

And that has allowed for the the um parts of this conversation to move forward in a productive way in a in a manner that was very, very difficult previously.

Um speaking of vision, I I want to make sure that I I think um the folks who um worked so hard for a very long time on the Seven Visions Plan.

Um I know that the people who participated in that process did that in good faith.

Um this is the college area to no one's surprise who lives there or has worked there or has visited there, um, has needed an update to this plan for a long time.

Uh what's um the the consequence of not having a plan that that is adequate for a community that has a major, major university in it.

Um it bears itself out on a daily basis in the college area.

Um the stories of students living in garages and the impacts on their lives and their neighbors' lives.

The many, many frustrations that come from people living where they have to live rather than where they should live.

And I think we're able to take a step forward with the plan that's in front of us in large part because of the work that was put in by those of you who engaged in the Seven Visions planning process.

So I want to kind of specifically mention some of the components of that.

Meeting the community's future housing needs by adding residential and mixed use density along the community's major corridors and at the three major uh intersections, reducing traffic congestion and improving local mobility, encouraging the development of a campus town on Montezuma Road on the southern edge of San Diego University, converting Montezuma Road east of College Avenue into a linear park and an extension of the comp of the campus town, creating a sense of identity in place, establishing connections between the community and San Diego State University and protecting the integrity of single family neighborhoods.

So thank you again for those of you who worked on that.

I want to thank the planning department for taking a step back to incorporate the recommendations of the Seven Visions Plan of those community members of our office to incorporate those.

We do see much more of that incorporated now than had been incorporated previously.

And and I I want to make sure I mention this part as well.

There was, I think we learned a lot in this process in terms of like what engagement with the community should look like about why it's important to stay engaged with the community, to not have them invest time and effort into something that is unlikely to come to fruition.

I've expressed my frustrations with how that part of the process went of why I I understood why those community members felt as frustrated as they did and not having their voices heard because of the amount of time that they'd spent.

There is a commitment between the city and San Diego State to identify a site for a new fire station in the college area.

I'm gonna come back to that in a moment.

The expansion of bike lanes uh within the college area, um, especially class class three and class four bike paths, which will not only make the community safer to uh to cycle, but safer to walk and reduce traffic.

Uh advocacy within the sandag regional transportation plan for um for public transit improvements.

And um this helps satisfy our vision for the city as a whole, um, but is also an uh uh important part of the seven visions plan.

Um we also see points one and three within the seven visions plan respected uh within this community plan with the node court or development focus on uh Montezuma College and Elkahon Boulevard.

Um so thank you for including that, and thank you for um hearing the community's fire risk concern and and pulling back the uh some of the density along the most fire prone canyons in the college area.

Uh the linear park along Montezuma, which has a long ask from the community is also part of the plan, and I think that that could do an amazing job of giving the college area a sense of identity, slowing down vehicle speeds, and providing much needed green space and a tree canopy in the community.

Finally, the inclusion of uh of uh pursuing land acquisition for 29 acres of park space and a 17,000 square foot recreation center.

So I'm excited to see how outside this plan update we can work to make those recommendations a reality for the community.

I also recognize why community members don't just take it for granted that the inclusion of of those components means that those resources, those um that infrastructure will actually show up.

And so uh it while it's not necessarily appropriate for the motion in front of us, um, we will stay engaged in conversations with the mayor's office and with planning.

Um, but some of this stuff is actually outside the planning department and um will require more conversation between our office and the mayor's office, and um Chris, I look forward to staying engaged um with you all between now and council so that we can be a little bit more concrete with the community about how it is that we intend to support actually making um what's visioned here become a reality.

Um and community, you have my commitment.

I have met with some community members earlier this week.

We we are going to stay engaged in that conversation.

Um there's an item in front of us, and there's an additional conversation that needs to happen in in order to make sure that you all uh can um have more firm commitment and commitment that is um uh easier to hold me, the mayor, and all of us at the city accountable for to deliver the infrastructure that you should have had, you should have, and definitely will need in the future.

Uh, one thing that I I have shared before, and I will uh reiterate in terms of a major concern about the plan in front of us is that it does not discuss tenants or reference the protections we we need to limit speculative housing investors, avoiding displacement of longtime community members by such investment, and protect the rights of tenants that live in the community.

Um so to protect renters in the college area and ahead of any future development of the community, I'd like to see anti-displacement and tenant protection added into the plan update.

Um, if I could ask planning uh how and what you may be able to add to the plan on that front.

Sure.

Um there is uh very strong language in the Barrio Logan community plan uh related to anti-displacement and to some extent tenant protections since the time that that was plan was adopted.

Um many of those anti-displacement regulations have been moved into citywide regulations that are applicable across the city today.

In addition to that, this council has also passed tenant protection regulations as well.

And we're happy to work with your office to incorporate um language or policies as appropriate into the community plan as it moves forward.

All right, thank you, Heidi.

I appreciate that.

Um obviously our homeowners in the college area uh are incredibly important.

Um but um both in the in the in the conversations I've had with um homeowners and the conversations I've had with college students.

Um what I what I know is is that there is real frustration when speculation um leads to displacement, when it leads to disrespect of the community, and when it leads to um unnecessary turnover.

Um my experience, most of the college area residents are not oppositional to to renters in um, but they also don't want to see uh the tenants turn over um unnecessarily.

Uh they want to get to know their neighbors, they want to build community with their neighbors, and it's important that we have provisions in place to encourage that.

Uh I'd also like to address the vacant storefronts that are um throughout our district and and too much of our city um, but um in this in the in this area um specifically.

So um I I want to add language that excuse me, I'll um rewind a little bit.

So I want to address that uh by asking that the following language be included.

Um be section 5.8, which would encourage encourage incentives that activate vacant and abandoned properties uh and for the families in the college area who walk their children to school or who would like to walk their children to school but don't feel safe doing that now.

I would like to also see the district pedestrian route classification on Montezuma extend further west to 54th Street, where Hardy Elementary is.

Um I will uh wrap up before my motion just by saying thank you again to everyone who's participated in the process.

Um again, thank you for everyone who's sharing your vision, the shared goals of a um community with a high quality of life, where um everyone from the children attending preschool um to seniors who've lived in the community for 60 years to the college students who attend San Diego State and um would love to not only live near school but continue to live in that neighborhood when um when they graduate.

Um I think that there is an incredible opportunity um to turn this plan into a better place to live for for people of multiple generations and multiple income levels, and I appreciate that very much.

So, with that, um my motion is to move staff recommendation and request that city planning department add appropriate additional policies or language supporting anti-displacement and anti-speculation strategies, reflecting the language and existing HAP 2.0 general plan housing element and tenant protections in the draft that comes before city council.

I would like to also see the district pedestrian route classification on Montezuma extend further west to 54th Street where Hardy Elementary is.

Uh, thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Vice Chair Ilo Rivera.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Moreno.

Uh thank you for the presentation and thank you to all the community members who spoke today.

Um thank you to staff from the planning department for bringing this item forward.

And I also want to recognize Councilmember Ilo Rivera for your leadership in seeing this community plan update come to fruition.

It's a very exciting time.

I know OTI May Semester has been waiting waiting patiently.

Umester um update, uh, this update is long overdue.

Uh the last plan was written 36 years ago.

Uh, but since then, the city of San Diego has changed dramatically, and all of our community plans need to reflect those changes and priorities.

Uh, this plan adds more than 17,000 homes, which is absolutely vital.

And we need to ensure that San Diegans have the housing options that they need.

A new unit built in the college area doesn't just benefit this neighbor neighborhood.

It its impact has a ripple effect across the city and ensuring there are enough homes.

What we built in the what we build in this area or any other area affects communities like mine in San Isidro and Ota Mesa, uh, because the supply of available housing is that much greater.

Uh with SDSU continuing to grow, this plan is especially important.

Just a couple years ago in 2023, SDSU admitted 28,344 first-time first-year students.

And in fall of 2024, the number increased to 32,556.

Enrollment will continue to rise, and we need to account for that.

This plan also provides a pathway to increasing public space via new plazas, greenways, parks, and recreation areas through the implementation of the community enhancement overlay zone.

Uh, this helps support the climate action plan, as does the increased mobility choice for every for everyone, uh, whether you're a pedestrian, uh, a biker, or a transit user.

Additionally, this plan update addresses public safety by considering two potential fire stations.

And this item moves to the full um as this item moves to the full city council.

I would like to ensure we continue um including park space and more transit improvements.

Uh, but thank you again to staff for your hard work and your transparency in managing uh this community plan update.

Um I don't think I've ever heard a uh staffer get um recognized the way that you have today, so I congratulate speaks volumes to the work that the commitment that you put in to this plan update.

So uh with that, I'm happy to second the motion on the floor, and that concludes my comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Vice Chair Ila Rivera, a second by Council Member Reno.

We'll turn to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our planning staff, uh, and thank you for the map to the members of the public who've taken their time out of their day to come down here and at the planning commission and and uh through many of the multiple outreach avenues.

Uh seems like this has been worked on with the community for about 10 years at this point, uh, a little under that perhaps, maybe more than that perhaps.

Uh, but I do want to say thank you for all the points of view you've put out there.

Um as I reviewed the plan for discussion today.

I had many questions relating to the magnitude of the density that's part of this plan, uh, the traffic and infrastructure impacts uh that we are seeing from increased density.

Um and as we review community plan updates, uh, I keep coming back to the concern that we need to meaningfully address fair housing through all the tools at our disposal.

Uh the community planning updates are one of the core ways we do that.

Funding from our budget, uh housing programs, uh speeding up permitting processes so that we can keep uh developments uh cost down, all these sorts of things, land development code, we could go on and on.

Um but as we look at this specific plan, I I would like to understand better how the community plans as a whole.

I think this I think this is my first community plan as a member of this committee uh that has come before me.

And so the AFFH goals are something I bring up over and over and over.

I've brought it up in economic development when we talk about uh affordable housing uh and and all sorts of other programs.

But um, my first question for staff as it relates to that.

Let's talk about the community plan update process and how that plays a role in trying to create affordable housing in high resource areas.

I I continually bring up the Baker settlement, which requires the demon the city demonstrates substantial progress towards showing that 70% of affordable housing projects permitted by the city are located in moderate high and high resource areas.

I this plan update long preceded that settlement uh as it as it began.

Um I'd like to know very specifically how this plan is actually getting us closer to that 70% goal that we have legally agreed to go after.

I'm gonna ask Deputy Director Seth Litchney to answer your question.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Thank you, Councilmember Seth Lichney, uh, deputy director for housing policy.

Uh the Essentially, there are a number of factors that need to be considered uh when doing community plan updates, uh, including uh addressing a further further furthering fair housing, um, which includes providing access to transit and to amenities uh like the like the university.

Quick question the university itself is an amenity for the public?

It would be an amenity potentially for people who are living uh nearby and attending the school.

Understood.

Is that is that an amenity that's included as part of our state's methodology for determining low, medium, high resource?

Not necessarily.

That's more based on economic factors like uh the uh income of residents and the um environmental impacts and the performance of schools.

Okay, so it very good.

So I just point that out because you brought up the university being a many for the community, but it's not really an amenity that is part of the methodology for determining resource designations from the state.

But let's refocus back on how are we getting closer to 70 percent affordable housing based on this plan.

So the essentially maybe could use some assistance here from our director.

Sure.

So um the settlement agreement that you're referencing does call for 70 percent production in moderate, high and highest resource areas.

Um the uh goal there is to increase the capacity for new housing in high, highest and moderate resource areas.

That does not mean prohibiting uh the production of housing in other areas as well.

So it's kind of a a two-part uh test, which is that ideally we are able to invest in infrastructure and uplift communities in a manner that moves those communities that are currently at the low level into the moderate and then into the high levels.

Um and while we are doing that, we are simultaneously working to increase um housing capacity as well as housing production through various incentives in the high and highest and moderate resource areas.

Um in the college area, um there are uh parts that are designated um as low resource areas, there are also um significant areas that are designated as moderate and high, and most of the density increases are concentrated in those areas within this plan.

I'm sorry, did you say you said most of the density is low is located in areas that are high resource, correct?

You just said that moderate and high.

Moderate and high.

Okay.

We'll get to that when we talk about low four.

Um so is it the determination of the city attorney's office in helping guide and craft our planning department's uh analyses that this is that we are ostensibly you advise the planning department that policies we put forward ought to aim for 70 percent at least of affordable housing units going into high, moderate and highest resource, correct?

Uh yes, we are working with the planning department to ensure that we are able to meet those requirements that we set forth in the settlement agreement.

Got it.

Okay.

If I can just offer additional clarification, so there are different areas located throughout the community and the densities are spread throughout the different resource areas in the community.

One of the requirements or the requirement of affirmatively furthering for housing does not prohibit increasing densities within low resource areas.

So I want to make that clear that that yes, I don't want my statement to be misconstrued to say that we did not increase densities in low resource areas of the community as well.

We had a balanced approach to try and spread the densities across the areas of the community.

This is all in furtherance of implementing the general plan, which calls for increased densities, primarily located near transit.

And so that plan is consistent with that framework set forth in the community plan.

When we update community plans, we don't do them on a one-off basis.

So we don't look at each and in every individual community plan and see if we have achieved a citywide goal because that is gonna vary depending on that.

We also don't wait until we get to the last community plan that we're updating to kind of you know put all of the density in there.

This is part of a coordinated approach to being consistent with the framework that was adopted in the recently adopted 2024 general plan that identifies appropriate areas to meet the city's climate goals through locating density near transit across all communities with a particular emphasis on increasing housing capacity in high highest and moderate resource areas.

So if we don't plan, if we don't look plan by plan at moving towards the 70% goal, if we don't hit 70% of affordable of hopefully affordable, right, because we can't mandate that housing be built, depends on market factors.

If we're not able to satisfactory say satisfactorily say that we believe this current plan will put 70% of new affordable homes in high resource areas in moderate resource areas, the three categories that we're required to, doesn't that mean that the next plan that comes up we have to go over 70 to percent to make sure that the ratio is correct?

I also don't believe I stated that I certainly didn't misconstrue your statement as to thinking we are not allowed to build affordable housing in lower income areas, but it seems that the 70 to 30 ratio means that we gotta aim for that.

So if we don't go plan by plan, how are we actually making sure we're on track for a 70-30 ratio?

Great question.

So the way that we make sure that we're on track is through our annual reporting and monitoring, and we do that through uh what an item that we recently presented to you is the annual report on homes, which gives us an opportunity to track progress and gives this council the opportunity to identify where potential policy changes may be needed if we are off track in meeting those targets.

Okay.

So I'll return to the base question here.

Do we think that this plan is going to deliver the the affordable housing that it will deliver?

70% of it will go in the three resource categories that we're legally bound to try to get it into.

So I also just want to remind this council that the density doesn't necessarily amount to uh a density for affordable housing.

We don't zone for affordable housing.

We zone for increased densities, and it is true that increased densities can produce more affordable housing than low density, but we don't have zones for affordable housing.

So the 70% you're referring to is permitting of affordable housing, and increasing densities doesn't actually correlate directly to the amount of affordable housing that would be produced.

The way that we realize that is based off of various economic conditions and interest rates and financing and state incentive programs and all of these other these other variables.

The way that we get a sense of how we are doing in that is through that reporting of the permitting data that we see.

So to answer your question of are we able to question was do we think that we're that this plan is going to put 70 percent of the affordable housing that could come from it into those three categories that we're legally supposed to put it into?

So at this time today, because we do not control the individual decisions of uh property owners throughout that we're not able to provide a guarantee of where each and every affordable housing unit would be located within the resources across the community.

Um in any event, we would not just be looking at a community-by-community basis.

For example, some community plans where we have updated recently have only had high and highest resource areas.

This community plan has a mix of resource areas, other community plans have predominantly low resource areas.

Uh we we wouldn't in a plan that has predominantly low resource areas or a mix of low and moderate resource areas not increase density at all just because 70 percent is supposed to be on a citywide basis in moderate, high, and highest.

Okay.

I appreciate that answer.

Do we think that the pl that this plan is designed in good faith to put the affordable housing that could come from it, 70% of it, into those three highest resource areas?

So I apologize, but I cannot provide an answer of what I think will happen in the particular numbers that may play out today.

It could be that they are proportionally spread out uh between those areas.

It could be that uh slightly more affordable housing units would result um in the low resource areas, it could result in there being all of the affordable units in the high resource areas.

That would not be the test that we would be looking at to look at it just from the college area community planning process.

We would be looking at that in concert with looking at our numbers across all of the resource areas across the entirety of the city.

I I hear you.

That so what I'm gathering from that last little point you made there, Ms.

Von Bloom, is that it's not necessarily the case that we will hit the 70% target with this plan, and that we're analyzing all the plans in totality to try to hit the 70% plan.

That is correct.

Okay.

So on this particular plan, do we think we're gonna be above the ratio of 70 percent or slightly below the ratio of 70 percent?

We don't know the answer to that question now, um, but that would be the purpose of the reporting, which we'd report back to this council, giving us the opportunity to tailor any changes necessary to the plan or any citywide regulations.

Understood.

Okay.

Uh question about the parks uh aspect of this um plan, I know that that was one of the biggest uh components of of what the public asked for.

Councilmember Ilo Vere well stated very very well how important the parks are for the community plan.

Um one of the things that we've seen in multiple different um land use decisions that's come before us uh as a council is the aspect of parks uh as in its totality.

Uh in this plan before us, does it are there parks?

Is the amount of parkland, the acreage determined based on both privately owned land and city land, or just city-owned land that should be popping up as more development comes about.

Sorry, council member.

Could you repeat the question quickly?

Certainly, the parks, the the parks that we anticipate coming about.

Are those on privately owned land that we anticipate as potential parks or on city-owned land that we control that we could turn into parks?

Thank you.

Uh the answer is both.

Uh the framework for new parks in the college area uh uh involves doubling down on what exists already and improving the parks that exist in the community.

Uh we're looking at city-owned land.

Uh, for example, we have a concept for a recreation center on city owned land.

There's uh where is that?

Uh it's on the corner of uh College Avenue and um uh near Alcoholm Boulevard at Adams, I believe.

Got it.

Okay.

Uh-huh.

Uh and in addition to that, uh item four today, uh we'll go over community enhancement overlay zone regulations, which intend to uh pull back some uh uh public space from uh uh private land as as in-filled development comes forward uh such that along the community corridors we have an enhanced and increased pedestrian realm uh and also uh public space with recreational amenities like playgrounds, circuit equipment, places to gather, plazas, things of that nature.

So uh both on city-owned land and private land.

Can you tell me the proportion of that park space that is does supposed to come up on city land versus private land?

Um just even a rough estimate.

Uh well, I uh uh we'll uh we can look into this more certainly for understood.

I understand where you're going with this.

I think one of the one of the key issues and and it's it's um it's a problem of city governance to set up plans that includes amenities that we can't possibly control.

Uh park space that is on private land uh sends a signal that this this would be something that's good.

It goes to helping meet our recreation element.

There's all sorts of components to that.

Um but it but it feels it feels that it's it feels opaque and non-transparent that we would suggest that parks are gonna go where private landowners might have it.

Of course, we can incentivize, and we do have incentives in our city law that private development put park space within their developments.

I've seen that in Linda Vista, I've seen that all over my district.

Uh so I think that something I would want to see uh adjusted over time is how we actually point to pieces of land that we control that intend to become park space instead of saying this is all the park space that could potentially happen, because we've seen in other districts park space that was set aside that was parkland that is not materializing as parkland.

Um the bike lane uh issue, just I'm I'm glad to see we got uh category uh four or class four bike lanes going in.

I'm a huge supporter of safe and protected and properly placed bike lanes, especially in places where we expect to see a lot of bicycle use, where there's workers who will take their bicycles to work.

This this makes sense.

It's a good part of the plan.

But my question is as we create and try to amplify our multiple multimodal transportation, uh is there a plan to set aside funding to maintain those bike lanes?

The reason I ask is because we have no longer a gentleman who was sitting in the second row.

Uh literally, as I walk in says I like class four bike lanes, but oftentimes the city doesn't clear the debris out of them, so it's uh class four bike lane ends up being uh more dangerous to ride in than on the street because we don't maintain our assets.

Um if they're not cleaned out, they're they're effectively not very safe.

Um so what's our how do when we come up with these concepts and we say, hey, we're gonna put these in, I know this is a budget item, but is the planning program correlated with our budgeting program to make sure that these assets that we want to see built actually end up becoming coming to fruition and being what we expect them to be.

Council member, uh, we do coordinate with uh all of the asset managing departments as we develop the plans, we additionally coordinate with the departments after plans are adopted to ensure that the asset managing departments are aware of the plans.

Um but as you did mention appropriately, the issue of uh funding for maintenance and construction of the facilities is appropriately handled through the capital improvement program budgeting process for the construction of new facilities as well as the overall citywide budget uh for maintenance.

Understood.

Let me turn my attention to just very briefly because I know people brought this up with the college library.

Um we've talked a lot about libraries.

I'm glad that our the city council was able to keep many, many libraries open uh extra day this year through our our focus uh and the budgeting program uh process.

Uh the college library has the third highest percentage of children focused programming in the city based on our data from last year.

Only Linda Vista and Pacific Highlands Ranch have higher.

So I just want to say that people who um funny enough have come to my community coffees in in San Carlos to bring this up maybe two or three years ago.

I just want to say I absolutely sympathize with you, and I know that there's there's a lot we can do there, uh, or that at least emphasizing that there's access to the libraries, particularly where children focused programming is improved.

Um I definitely would want to see that over the course of time.

I know that the property issue, there's the nearby property that uh was developed and there was an issue over the number of parking spaces.

I understand that's a little more complicated than just saying there needs to be more parking.

Um but I just want to acknowledge the people from the public who've brought that up with me before.

Um my last issue here is the the map itself and lot by lot.

Um it's important to recognize this plan preserves single family neighborhoods.

Uh well over half the plan maintains single family neighborhoods, tries to focus on added density along major corridors.

Uh but I want to talk about where those density increases are and about the potential for unintended consequences.

When you really dig into the map, there's a part of the map from 67th Street to 73rd Street between Saranac Street and Mohawk Street.

Uh it's about 110 lots that are set at low four designation, uh, which is 16 to 29 uh dwelling units per acre.

And then there's another uh component um there's another component that has low four over on 63rd street.

Um I'm noticing that there's really only eight or so, well, uh maybe on a canyon spot, there's a couple giant parcels, but in terms of what looks to be close to where people actually operate and live and work, there only seems to be about eight low three, which is ten to fifteen dwelling units per acre.

Why is there so much more low four than low three?

It seems you would want to if we're trying to create graduated transition zones, you'd want to go from low one, low two, low three, low four, and some it seems like there's a lot more low two to low four.

Can we explain why that is?

Certainly, council member, thank you for the question.

Um early on in the process, we conducted economic feasibility analysis to determine appropriate um land use designations and densities if if we're looking to encourage uh more housing to be built in the city and the college area, which we are.

Uh low three, the low three designation is a carryover from the previous plan, and these are areas that aren't changing.

Uh but the low four designation was studied and determined would be sufficient uh to encourage uh properties uh that uh owners wanted to uh redevelop uh could do so with that designation, and and we've heard pretty consistently uh from property owners indeed that the low four designation uh uh works well for them.

Understood.

Um if you go to low four and it goes over the 20 uh 20 dwelling units per acre, um won't that trigger complete communities and therefore the 15 to 29 dwelling units per acre that's listed on the map essentially go far higher.

Uh it it would allow complete communities uh housing solutions program to be utilized, but uh it's also important to note that the increase in density uh increases the affordability requirement for to utilize the uh complete communities housing solutions.

Um effect uh you know we're we're updating this plan and choosing these designations and these zones uh with the assumption and the belief that uh property owners will utilize them, but they could still utilize complete communities, uh but doing so, you know, their affordability requirement goes up, so it's um okay.

Well, if it's at low three, my my follow-up question to that is if it's low three and it goes up to 15 units, let's just go to the maximum 15 dwelling units per acre, and someone builds a 15-unit um uh complex.

Uh the in the inclusionary rates 10 percent.

So it'd be 1.5 dwelling units that are rent restricted, right?

I I think we we round it to two.

Rounded up to two, okay.

And so if you go to low four and it's 29 dwelling units per acre, if it's 2.9, it would round up to three.

So go from two to three, right?

Correct.

Okay.

And the inclusionary aspect only applies to the base level and not what complete communities would allow to go beyond the base level, correct?

Correct.

So you'd get one more dwelling unit that's rent restricted, but you on all the extra essentially bonus, you wouldn't have any rent restricted or affordability built into it required.

Uh not required, but those new market rate units uh would uh use pressure on existing naturally afforded affordable units in the community and in the city, so it is still a net positive uh answer your point earlier uh those market rate units could end up changing the opportunity area status of the college area as well.

Uh so we think uh that this is a valuable trade-off.

Understood.

I also do just want to note, Council member.

I appreciate you being very transparent about that, saying this is a trade-off that we think is valuable, because as you point out, the resource area is determined by percent of population over 200 percent of the poverty level, which is what it seems to be your implying is that the population that will move into those market rate units uh with a bunch of other of the components that are the eight components of the resource area calculation.

So I appreciate you saying that.

Sorry to cut you off.

Yeah, I did just want to uh also um just make the point that um regardless of the city's local incentive programs, there is still the applicability of state density bonus law, um, which the city does not have control over.

Understood.

It's a lot of things we don't have control over.

Um I hear you loud and clear.

Um just to be very clear, low three was just a leftover from the previous plan, and it it it's low three was not utilized in our planning uh essentially any more new stuff, right?

Low three uh indicates no change from the previous plan.

Got it.

Okay.

Understood.

I'm gonna reanalyze some of your answers, and if I have more questions, I'll get back on the lights.

Thank you very much for your knowledge, knowledgeability on this.

Thank you, and thank you, Miss Bloom.

Thank you, Councilmember Campio.

I'll acknowledge that we um give you the liberty of quite a bit of time.

Um Thank you.

For the committee joining back to No comments by Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Um I'll go ahead and chime in here.

We do again have a motion and a second in place.

Um I wanted to just take a moment to uh address some of the uh discussions that we've had, especially around plan updates, um, typically over time.

Um one of the key components I think I I tend to bring up, especially when we've discussed uh university community plan update um in my district most recently is really just the difference between capacity and production.

Um I think that's something that it's important to address with this a crowd and and and any discussion as we have these plan updates, and I think it's a challenge we continue to have as we try to communicate with our residents, which is that the total number of units uh that are proposed in this plan update, as with any other plan update, um, is only possible if I understand it, if every single parcel that has been upzoned achieves the full residential capacity of that upzoning.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

Um I asked a question about this at the university community plan update, which is when we look at um at that time, the last 10 years within the city of plan updates that have been conducted by the city and the additional capacity that was created, about how much of that capacity has actually been realized in terms of actual housing production.

Um I will just note that at that time, this was about a year ago, uh, the answer is about 10%.

Um meaning someone in the audience asked earlier, why do we have uh a plan update here that's adding for an additional 10 plus thousand, uh 20,000 uh potential units of housing when other plan updates recently have added tens of thousands of units of housing as well.

Uh and the answer to that is simply that the housing capacity the city adds does not get realized into actual production.

I could say that because I have the district that has three of the most recent, three of the four most recent updates for community plans uh in the Kernemesa area, the Mira Mesa area, and University City.

And when you look at all three of those areas combined, it is a significant amount of housing production, far beyond what we're seeing here in the college area.

I think the total there is probably 80,000 plus units or so, uh, of which we have seen a very small percentage come to any fruition uh even in the first five years.

Kernamesa is a great example of an area that is ripe for um the city's future as a employment and residential hub.

And even along the convoy and Claremont Mesa corridors, the center of that.

In the last five years since the plan has been updated, we have now still yet to see the first resident move in in that corridor.

Um and that is part of the challenge that the city continues to have.

Meaning every single affordable unit in those communities, again, at a much higher number of units than we're seeing here in either of the today's plans is going to be in a moderate, high or highest resource area.

So I do want to acknowledge Heidi, your comment that just because we we zone differently in different plan areas doesn't mean that we suddenly do not allow for housing development in low and lowest resource areas because that does still take place, but it is being balanced out by significant numb numbers of affordable housing that we're expecting in higher and highest resource areas.

And I think anyone who's watched these council meetings know that several of us have argued quite heavily to ensure that more affordable housing is focused on high and highest resource areas.

And uh to that note, I would just um comment that uh even in low and lower lowest resource areas, people deserve to have a place to live.

Um and what I cannot imagine is suggesting that because we're trying to achieve these goals as a city, that we build no affordable units or fewer of them in lowest and lowest low and lowest resource areas.

Because that would that would seem to run counter to the actual goal that we have as a city.

Um so I think these are just things that I I continue to point out because again, I think the the numbers that we tend to see reported in the media, um this community ex-community is doubling, tripling their population size, I don't think is actually rooted in the same reality.

And we have talked many times about how we struggle with this communication to the public.

Um, because again, with even with the housing plans that we've had in place, we have not actually had the realization uh of those units in production.

As a result, the city continues to not meet its RENA goals uh for the state when it comes to housing production, especially when it comes to affordable housing.

So I I appreciate my colleague, Vice Chair Ilo Rivera, uh, for his engagement with the community uh on these discussions.

And I know what many of the community members are fighting for are the same discussions that we have had when it comes to other plan areas, because we are all trying to ensure that the infrastructure that is needed to support the communities that we have is actually going to be built.

Um and that does take um careful planning, especially when we're in an age where we don't have the public parcels to simply convert to the city's use.

Um so with that, I am happy to support uh today's um motion for this plan update.

Uh I'm gonna turn back to you, Councilman Kimpio.

I might keep it quick.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I appreciate your point, and certainly um the component that you uh the notion that you just pointed out is that we should still continue to build affordable housing in areas that have low resource uh uh for various reasons.

Uh I think that um as I've been uh a dog who won't let go of this bone on AFFH, uh I I I I've I'm I'm dissatisfied with the uh notion that step by step, plan by plan, uh we're gonna not be able to actually have staff say that they don't well they they underst I I I accept the answer that we don't know what will happen, but I don't accept the answer that because we don't know what will happen, we can't say with good faith that we are actually uh aiming towards that 70% goal.

Uh your calculation figure as it relates to the communities in your district uh chair are are very well taken.

Um but I think that uh given the legal requirements and and the sort of uh re in reality the the social justice and desegregation goals of what AFFH is trying to aim for, I need a better answer than that.

But thank you very much.

And and with that said, I I I will uh go ahead and just note I mean, based on the math, even when we look at our last homes report, which we just heard uh recently in this committee and at council, that the large proportion of affordable units that we have had built in the city are in moderate, high and highest resource areas.

And so I I do think the the data there is actually very helpful to ensure that we are meeting our goals.

Heidi, you're looking at so uh the information that we presented is that um we do have a good uh trend towards achieving the goal of 70 percent uh in moderate high and highest resource.

Uh we're not as close when we look at just high and highest, and so we'll continue um to work um towards bringing forward additional policies in our plans to ultimately um address that.

But as I said, it is also important to remember um that uh our goal is not to stop the production of needed housing in any resource area across the city.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Uh just a couple things um real quick here.

Um thank you, Heidi, for um your work on this.

I didn't have a chance to acknowledge um or I I made a mistake by not acknowledging the work that Jeffrey for my team has done uh in coordination with city staff and with the community um spending um an enormous amount of time with community members on this.

There's a a part about part of the conversation around affirmatively affirmatively furthering fair housing that I I want to point to here.

The goal is incredibly important, the the settlement is super important, and multiple things can be true at the same time.

The college area is an under-resourced community.

That is true.

And the college area is not southeastern San Diego, and it has not been subjected to the same sort of impacts of racism and segregation that other parts of the city have.

And I have real concerns that if we try to conflate every conversation about affirmatively further fair housing, we will deprioritize the communities that absolutely need to be prioritized in terms of desegregation.

We will deprioritize the communities that were most targeted by banks for for redlining, and that will be a grave injustice.

So, Heidi, I appreciate you pointing out that density and affordable housing are not one in the same.

We have tools at our disposal as a council to increase affordability in high resource communities.

We can fund affordable housing projects in those communities, we can increase the inclusionary requirement in those communities.

Those would be far more effective tools than trying to plan for it here.

And uh if anyone from city staff can correct me on this, in my time on the council, I don't remember a deed restricted affordable housing project in the college area coming before this council.

Any deed restricted affordable housing would have come via um the bonus program, if I'm correct.

I might be wrong.

We'll need to get back and verify that um before I I can am able to confirm that.

The last thing I will say from this uh uh say on this front is um the categorization of the college area's status in terms of need is nuanced.

It is again simultaneously true that it was not invested in appropriately in terms of infrastructure.

That is 100% true.

Um more parks should have been built, fire stations should have been provided as they were promised to the community, all of that.

And some of the reasons for the categorization cannot be separated from the fact that tens of thousands of college students with no or very little income live in the area, and that suppresses some of the the ability of the of the uh community to hit income levels and and other um data points that might lift it up in terms of scoring.

So when we try to conflate really important points to oppose, we have the the we run the real risk of not actually achieving the goals that we want to achieve, which is making making a commun a community that is more inclusive, that has a higher quality of life for everyone, and we also run the risk of not allowing those communities that really like literally were subjected to redlining to receive the benefits of the efforts to affirmatively further fair housing.

Uh and and final point on this, um the diversity of the college area cannot be separated from the college students in the college area.

It's a vibrancy of the community, the diversity of income of race, ethnicity, religion, San Diego State University is a huge reason why that exists.

And if we do don't give those students a place to live, by zoning for more appropriate density, we will lose the thing that many in this in this room have said that they most appreciate about their community.

So thank you again, Heidi, for you and your team's work on this.

I appreciate your effort to answer the questions that were posed.

I am 100% for the council taking aggressive action to make more affordable housing opportunities abundant in high resource communities.

We've, as chair mentioned, we engaged in a pretty hard fight to do just that and receive opposition for doing so.

I sounds like our coalition is growing in our desire to do that, and I look forward to being able to get the job done to make those housing opportunities uh abundant in the future.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh one last time because I did forget about this, but I think a lot of conversation about complete communities came up today as well.

And I will say that both in my plan areas and I believe in this one, one advantage of these plans moving through and seeing some of this upzoning is that naturally we're actually we're actually going to see less utilization of other density bonus programs like complete communities because the base zone uh base density for these zones is going to be higher, and therefore the affordable housing requirement is going to be much higher as well.

Um, I know in the university community area there's at least one project that's been proposed where we certainly wish the plan area the plan update had been completed in advance of someone using complete communities.

Um, and just because I I don't want to just miss space misspeak when we look at a plan update um and how the impacts will be, especially if we see the 10% inclusion area that we expect.

When I look at the last homes report from 21 2021 to 2024, um, all over 70 percent, 78 percent of the units that were produced as affordable through inclusionary were um in moderate high and highest resource areas.

So I think that is a helpful sign uh as to where we've been moving um across the city.

Um seeing no other speakers, uh, we'll go ahead and call the role.

We again have a motion by council member vice chair Ila Rivera and a second by Councilmember Reno.

And the motion passes three to one with committee member Campio voting no.

Thank you.

That concludes item number two.

We'll move to item number three.

Item number three, Claremont Community Plan Udate and Associated Zoning Active.

And if you'd like to call in to item three, please call.

If you'd like to call in to make comment on item three, please call one six six nine two five four five two five two when prompted the webinar ID is one six zero six eight three zero six two three pound to raise your hand to speak, select the raise your hand button or press star nine.

Chair looks like you're just switching seats.

We'll give you a moment, but once you're ready, if you'll uh just reintroduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time we need for this uh presentation.

Um morning, everyone, council members.

I'm Sean McGee, principal planner and project manager for the Claremont Community Plan Update.

I'm joined today by several representatives of the city planning department.

Today we'll provide an overview of the hearing's draft for the Claremont Community Plan Update and describe the project schedule moving forward.

I will require approximately 15 minutes for my presentation.

Today, staff is seeking a recommendation from the land use and housing committee to approve the Claremont Community Plan update.

I will provide a brief presentation that includes an overview of the draft community plan, why it is being updated, the process thus far, key feedback received in the project schedule moving forward.

We will begin with why the community plan is being updated.

The Claremont Community Plan was last updated in 1989.

Since then, the city has experienced a growing housing crisis and a changing climate, requiring additional planning to increase housing opportunities and enhance access and use of transit to help meet city housing and climate goals.

The community plan update is part of a citywide program to update community plans and locations served by high frequency transit, including three trolley stations that serve Claremont, consistent with the general plans city of villages strategy.

The general plans village climate goal propensity map identifies where additional homes and jobs could have the best opportunity to increase the number of trips taken by transit, bicycling, or walking.

It shows that Claremont has a higher propensities for mixed-use residential development within identified villages and along transit corridors.

The Claremont community plan has been revised to align with the village climate goal propensity map.

The draft community plan increases residential densities around the three trolley stations and along existing and planned bus rapid transit corridors and cycle tracks.

The strategy of providing more homes and jobs in mixed-use villages and along transit served corridors is consistent with both the city of villages land use strategy and the climate action plan.

By allowing for both home and job growth opportunities within mixed-use villages and along corridors served by existing in-planned transit, as identified in the Sandag Regional Plan, the community plan update aims to shift people away from single occupancy vehicles toward walking, biking, and transit, which in turn helps the city achieves its goals of reducing citywide per capita vehicle miles traveled in greenhouse gas emissions.

State law requires all cities to affirmatively further fair housing, meaning that the city needs to take proactive steps to expand access to opportunity and overcome historic patterns of segregation.

Planning for fair housing is approached citywide where each community plan update contributes to a collective effort to distribute housing capacity equitably across all neighborhoods.

This ensures San Diego's long-range plan meets both state law and local goals for equitable and sustainable growth.

Each community plan update and citywide initiative contributes to distributing housing opportunities more equitably across San Diego.

Recent planning efforts are collectively increasing housing capacity in areas across the city.

It's important to note that the existing 1989 community plan already includes about 6,000 homes of unrealized capacity.

The updated community plan takes a strategic approach by concentrating new capacity in areas that can support redevelopment near transit and services, which in Claremont is in high and highest resource areas.

The Claremont Community Plan Update aims to increase opportunities for homes for people of all incomes and family types, particularly within the community's high and highest resource areas.

Claremont includes a range of residential densities to expand housing choices, including diverse home types, sizes, and price points across all opportunity areas with strong access to services, jobs, and transit.

This approach aligns with the general plan's goals for sustainable and equitable growth.

According to the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee's 2025 opportunity area map, approximately 73% of the Claremont plan area is considered high or highest resource, compared to 62% citywide.

The updated land use plan provides for density in predominantly high and highest resource areas.

Now that we know why we are updating the plan, I'll move on to the process.

From February to March of 2019, the planning department utilized both an online engagement tool and an in-person workshop to collect feedback from the community on potential land use scenarios.

Along the way, an existing conditions atlas was published.

From January to March of 2020, the planning department developed a discussion draft of the community plan to solicit input on the draft plan policies.

Comments received from the discussion draft later informed the development of the first draft community plan, which was released in May of 2021, along with the proposed land use map.

Between 2017 and 2021, three planning commission workshops were held.

Following the adoption of Blueprint SD in the summer of 2024, the City Planning Department developed the second draft community plan, which was released this past July, and public feedback was received on the second draft plan until mid-September.

The second draft was also presented at a fourth planning commission workshop at the end of this past August.

Incorporating feedback received on the second draft, the hearings draft of the community plan was released and presented to the Planning Commission last month.

The draft community plan is guided by principles which envision Claremont as focused on protecting its natural spaces such as canyons and creeks, while also enhancing parks, recreation facilities, and public infrastructure to meet current and future needs.

The community also prioritized development that complements neighborhood scale, improves safety through environmental design, and enhances connectivity for all modes of transportation.

Ultimately, these efforts aim to foster a sustainable community that celebrates its unique identity, history, and diversity.

So, what were the key pieces of feedback we heard during the engagement process?

We received a mix of positive comments and concerns, some of which conflicted with one another.

Regardless, several clear themes emerged.

The planning commission recommended significantly increasing the proposed density and raising height limits, noting how well connected Claremont is to regional transit, particularly access to the trolley.

We heard that the community generally supported the proposed land use pattern, but not the level of density increases that came with it in all areas.

There was also support for the targeted approach to increase building height in selecting areas and encouragement to expand where supplemental development regulations would apply.

There were concerns raised about wildfire risk, parks and recreation facilities, and the need to protect open space and canyon areas.

The updated plan works to respond to many of these concerns and reflects much of the feedback.

I'll view how we have addressed key feedback throughout the presentation.

Now that we've discussed the reason for the plan update process, milestones, and key themes of feedback received so far, the following slides address the community plan's elements.

We will begin with land use.

The location of villages, corridors, and nodes illustrated on this figure are largely consistent with the previous drafts.

The draft community plan continues to strike a balance between feedback received and aligning with Blueprint SD's recommended framework for growth, planning for additional homes and jobs within villages and corridors.

The draft community plan focuses new home opportunities in village areas and along corridors.

Specifically, the community plan now provides for approximately 14,000 new homes over the adopted land use plan.

The land use framework for the draft plan provides an opportunity for an additional 14,000 homes beyond the current adopted plan, primarily located within identified village areas and along transit corridors, primarily outside of very high fire severity zones.

Currently, Claremont has approximately 33,000 homes, and the plan would allow for an additional 19,800 to be built over its horizon.

This update accommodates a variety of housing types to meet the diverse needs of the community.

By acknowledging the demand for housing, the plan provides a comprehensive framework for development in Claremont and across the city.

It's important to note that the plan does not mandate new construction.

Development will only occur as demand and economic conditions allow.

In response to feedback and to better align with the proposed density increases, the height limit has accordingly been increased and now aligns with the values shown here.

These height increases are necessary to achieve the plan's vision for new home opportunities and commercial development.

The height limits in the overlay zone would supersede those of the base zone, meaning the overlay specified limit would apply regardless of the base zone's height restriction.

It's important to note that if a base zone's height limit is less than 30 feet, that the lower height limit would still prevail.

Moving to urban design, the proposed urban design framework provides a comprehensive vision for the community by establishing the design relationships among villages, nodes, and corridors through an integrated circulation system.

Key features include the identification of community gateways to enhance a sense of place and pride, and the consideration of the SDGE utility easement as a potential open space connection, requiring future coordination.

The framework aligns with the revised land use figure and incorporates policies for public viewsheds and corridors, sensitive interfaces between neighborhoods and canyons, and sustainable building design.

Moving next to economic prosperity.

The community plan establishes policies to support opportunities for retail, office, and commercial uses that contribute to the well-being of the community, providing job opportunities as well as places to buy goods and services.

The element aims to support a diversity of businesses and job opportunities.

A large portion of the Rose Creek Canyon Industrial Corridor is designated as prime industrial land, which supports export-oriented base sector activities.

Moving next to mobility.

The draft plan envisions an accessible, balanced, and efficient mobility system that connects peoples to job, schools, shops, and homes.

Streets are the foundation of this transportation network, and by making them safer and more inclusive for everyone, whether walking, rolling, biking, taking transit, or driving, the draft plan supports sustainable and convenient travel options.

The draft plan also envisions Claremont as a more walkable and connected community, centered on mixed-use villages and vibrant pedestrian-friendly corridors that make walking safe and enjoyable.

In response to community input, the draft plan now incorporates into plan maps and mobility element policies, areas to evaluate for shared use connections, such as multi-use paths, active transportation bridges, and aerial skyways to strengthen links between Claremont, Pacific Beach, and Mission Bay.

Key changes based on feedback received include adding potential shared use connections over Interstate 5 to Mission Bay, new bicycle facilities along Claremont Drive, extending the Morena Boulevard bike route from Knoxville Street to Techelode Road, potential future aerial skyway connections, and strengthened pedestrian connections to transit stations.

The draft plan also envisions Claremont as a more walkable and connected community centered on mixed use villages and vibrant pedestrian friendly corridors that make walking safe and enjoyable.

In response to community input, the draft plan now incorporates into planned maps and mobility element policies, areas to evaluate for shared use connections such as multi-use paths, active transportation bridges, and aerial skyways, strengthen links between Claremont and adjacent communities.

Biking is a sustainable, healthy, and affordable way to get around, and the draft plan expands access to low stress bikeways like multi-use paths and cycle tracks that separate cyclists from fast moving vehicles and connect directly to shopping centers, parks, and transit.

To enhance safety and comfort, the draft plan also recommends traffic calming measures, bike signals, and brightly painted conflict zones.

With regional investments like the Midcoast Trolley and Rapid Bus services, the draft plan builds on such infrastructure to improve transit access, reliability, service, and convenience.

Based on recent community feedback, more detail has been added on coordination with Sandag, MTS, and future development to expand and improve transit service and access in key areas of the community, including exploring options like a potential light rail station at Jutland Drive and Morena Boulevard.

Overall, the investments in transit and implementation of supporting multimodal infrastructure will help expand transit options and improve connectivity within the community and beyond in a manner that strengthens Claremont's land use and mobility vision.

Moving now to recreation.

The updated community plan addresses the needs of current and future residents with new planned parks and recreation facilities.

The newly planned parks range from traditional neighborhood parks to trailhead pocket parks that enhance access to open spaces and trails.

Additionally, to meet the park's master plan standards, there's a goal of approximately one additional aquatic complex at full plan build-out and three additional recreation centers, each sized at 17,000 square feet or greater, which is proposed to be met by the draft plan.

Next is open space.

Prioritizing sustainable development and resource conservation, the draft plan establishes policies to enhance climate resiliency, reduce the ecological footprint, and minimize greenhouse gas emissions while supporting sustainable growth for homes and jobs.

The plan specifically contributes to the city's conservation goals by identifying 78 acres of open space in Claremont to be added to the multi-habitat planning area preserve.

Additionally, in response to community feedback, the plan identifies approximately 231 acres of privately designated open space, which will help preserve Claremont's Finger Canyon land system.

We are also planning for additional public facilities to serve the community.

A variety of city departments and partner agencies provide semi-public and community facilities.

In particular, the city provides police protection and fire rescue services and has multiple facilities nearby to serve the community.

As the community grows, new opportunities include the construction of new fire stations and schools alongside associated staffing and operational strategies, depending on the amount of future development that would occur, which would require future technical analysis.

We've been working with other city departments, including the fire rescue department and the San Diego Unified School District to address the need for the public facilities as development occurs over the life of the community plan.

Historic preservation is guided by the general plan for the preservation, protection, and restoration and rehabilitation of historical and cultural resources throughout the city.

The historic preservation element of the draft plan provides a summary of the pre-history and history of the community and establishes policies to support the identification and preservation of its historical, archaeological, tribal, and cultural resources.

Moving to noise.

The noise element of the draft community plan identifies sources of noise in Claremont and includes policies related to noise attenuation measures and reducing noise generation.

Next is implementation.

Methods of implementation include the rezone map, which applies community-wide, the community enhancement overlay zone, and the Claremont Height Limit Overlay Zone.

The draft rezone map, if adopted, would comprehensively rezone the Claremont Community Planning Area.

The rezone map would align citywide base zones with the community plan land use designations.

As part of the Claremont Community Plan update, the community enhancement overlay zone will be applied, adding supplemental development regulations to village areas within Claremont as shown here.

The community enhancement overlay zone will be described in greater detail during item four on today's meeting agenda.

These regulations apply specifically to village areas in Claremont where increased density is proposed.

In addition to the public space requirements, certain community specific requirements are provided in the plan to ensure the plan's vision is realized, including larger sidewalks and connections along Claremont Drive, Balboa Arms Drive, Mount Allophone Drive, Ingulf Street, and the Tennis and Racket Club Center along Tecoloti Creek.

The provision of these public spaces count towards the overall public space requirements for development.

Moving on to next steps and timeline.

The following boards have provided a recommendation on the Claremont Community Plan update.

On September 25th, the Parks and Recreation Board did not provide a motion on the proposed community plan update.

Also on September 25th, the Historic Resources Board voted to recommend approval of the plan on the consent agenda with one abstention.

On October 1st, the Mobility Board recommended to approve the plan with one opposed and one abstention.

On October 16th, the planning commission recommended approval of the Claremont Community Plan update with the condition that heights be raised within the Bayview Village and Techelode Gateway Villages.

265 feet.

We anticipate appearing before City Council for this item in December.

City staff recommends that the land use and housing committee recommend approval of the community plan update and the associated actions listed on the slide.

This concludes staff's presentation and we're available for questions.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

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

Yes, thank you.

Our office is continuing to work on completing our legal review of the ordinances that are part of this item.

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

We will continue to work with staff and we'll notify staff and council if there are any legal issues as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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 a little over 23 speaker slips from individuals in chambers.

We'll begin with those in chambers, starting with Matthew Wang or Wong, if you can please approach the electoran.

You have been seated time by Eric.

Is Eric here?

Thank you.

So you'll have two minutes, and you'll be followed by Connie Brewer and Guthrie Leonard.

So please begin.

Good afternoon, uh Land Use and Housing Commission, Chair Lee, Ms.

Newfer.

My name is Matthew Wang, and I am the chair for the Claremont Community Planning Group.

I want to first thank Glenn Schmidt, he's the vice chair, uh, for his tireless work on reviewing.

He deserves to be recognized publicly, as well as Sean McGee and Kobe Tom Kobe Kobe Tomlins.

They have been very professional, responsive, and helpful.

Um, I want to just briefly summarize our correspondence we sent in to your council.

Um we are generally in approval of the proposed planning update with a few uh further revisions.

Uh we think that the Rose Canyon Gateway, which is currently presented at RMX-2 should be rezoned or properly categorized as RMX1, the way it was in a previous version of the draft plan.

And the reason for that it currently lacks vehicular access, it overlays an earthquake fault, the Rose Canyon, Rose Canyon Earthquake Fault.

And it's not that we oppose density.

In fact, we propose additional density and development along Jutland near the Morena Jutland near Morena, and we have proposed adding a bus lane and mixed use development in that area.

And also we understand that this plan is aspirational, and it's an opportunity to be bold and visionary.

However, uh the recreational aspect, I believe it sets the city up for failure because at full build out, uh, I think the total recreational value points required for the number of uh Claremont residents is around 12,000.

However, less than one-third of those points are actually attainable.

Thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Connie, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Julie.

Is Julie here?

Oh, okay.

Thank you.

So you'll have two minutes to manage, and I'll put that on the timer.

Bay Park residents bought their Bayview homes in the 70s, the 80s, and on through 2000, with a 30-foot height restriction in mind.

We paid higher than normal prices for our homes, and we continue to pay higher property taxes.

It's now 2025, and the Claremont plan update gives our Bay views to developers.

Bayview Village now carries the second highest density in Claremont per the plan.

The more low income housing packed into ground floors, the more floors and units developers can add for expensive luxury bay view condos.

The development I was told could be as high as nine feet, depending on the low income.

So I'd appreciate some clarification on that.

For those of us living on the hill above Bayview Village, most of the single family homes will lose the enjoyment and the peace derived from a Bay View.

My Bayview is worth about a million in today's market.

This is an economic disaster for me and every one of my neighbors on the hill.

I welcome the economic diversity and the influx of people into my neighborhood.

Low income housing can be achieved with a 30-foot to 45 foot height limit.

It can be accomplished without giving away the bay views of residents and voters on the hill.

What is being proposed in the plan is permanent and cannot be undone.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Guthrie Leonard.

Go back.

Don Krupp.

Don, are you here?

And you've been seated time by Rudy Orosco.

Okay, great.

So you'll have two minutes, and you'll be followed by Saad Asad and Lori Feiler.

Great.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

My name is Don Krupp.

I live in the Claremont area.

And I volunteer on the board of directors for the Claremont Town Council.

Along with our town council president, Nicole Crosby and our president elect Carrie Munson.

I am here to share our qualified endorsement of the hearings draft version of the Claremont Community Plan update.

I also want to offer our support for the recommendations presented by the Claremont Community Planning Group.

I say qualified endorsement simply because I and the Claremont Town Council are asking for one specific change to the plan as it's presented in the hearing scrap.

We are asking that the Rose Canyon Gateway Village Area centered at the interchange of Balboa and Marina Boulevard be classified as community village zero to 109 dwelling units per acre and zoned RMX one rather than the RMX two.

We think the higher density that's allowed under RMX two is an odd fit for this location and not central to the heart of our community where schools, parks, and retail businesses are readily accessible.

RMX one would be a better and more realistic fit.

Beyond that important change, we believe the proposed plan update is in alignment with the historical values and the future aspirations of our community, while at the same time furthering citywide objectives for providing housing and economic opportunities for the people of San Diego.

Let me just finish by offering a special thanks to the city planning staff who we believe have listened and responded to our community concerns and interests.

We're fortunate uh to be served by such a capable and knowledgeable team of professionals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Saada Sad, you'll be followed by Flori File, Stephanie Benvenuto, and Manny Rodriguez.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I support the community plan update, but wish it went further.

As you know, Camille Mount is a 92% higher opportunity area, good schools, access to jobs and UTC journey mesa, but middle-class San Diegans are getting priced out, built in the 1950s through FHAA-backed mortgages that uh restricted different uh ethnicities and had tons of racial covenants.

Claremont is much more diverse, but home prices of $800,000 floor more, create barriers.

Rules from 1989 that lock housing at three stories near Charlie stations are necessary.

We should allow more housing near the transit station that expand the radius of those uh new height limits.

Um I also support converting the city-owned Rose Canyon Industrial Land for more affordable housing, but without more housing opportunities, we um uh risk just creating some of the more exclusionary barriers that once existed in this suburb that used to have racial covenants and restrictive red lighting through FHA mortgages.

Vote yes for more housing so San Diegans can live near jobs in transit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Lori Feyler.

She has a Stephanie, please approach the lectoring.

Thank you.

My name's Stephanie Benvenuto.

I'm here on behalf of the Building Industry Association of San Diego.

Uh we want to express our gratitude to the staff to the community and all of you for all the time that's gone into this plan.

We are supportive and recognize the growth that has occurred in this plan and the improved capacity.

Uh, we really want to point out that the homes that are proposed here will result in more infrastructure because they will pay the fees that fund those projects that make those sidewalks and streets happen.

But we do have two requests of the council or of the committee as they consider this plan.

First, we would request that you use the planning principles guiding other plans, including college, to improve the opportunities along the transit corridors of Claremont and Claremont Mesa.

As a currently written, it preserves single family and duplex zoning on these valuable thoroughfares and is a departure from the planning principles that the city has been using in support of more housing.

Specifically, we'd propose a moderate density increase on these corridors to a base zone of RM3-7 to improve opportunities.

Secondly, we would request some additional information on the procedure for Rose Canyons conversion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez, and you'll be followed by Ian Grooms and Edie DeMarcus.

Thank you, Chair Lee.

And Council members, I'm here on behalf of the YMB Democrats of San Diego County.

Our hundreds of supporters are driven to lower the cost of living for working people, and that starts with lowering the cost of housing.

The facts are that new housing mitigates rent increases.

Cities that build a lot more housing have seen rent decreases, and California is facing a severe housing shortage as identified by our academic institutions and universities.

So we respectfully request that you support this plan update.

And we'd also like to voice our support for the Claremont Community Planning Group's recommendation to preserve some of those private open spaces.

Canyons are important in a very natural part of our city.

And you know, I very much enjoy the opportunity to play in the canyons growing up, and I hope that you know future generations can also have those canyons for themselves.

So thank you all very much.

Thank you.

Ian Grooms, and you've been seated time by Sharon Gail.

Thank you.

So you'll have two minutes to manage, and you'll be followed by Edie DeMarcus, Jeff Hooder, and Carrie Munson.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, committee members.

Uh, my name is Ian Grooms, and I'm a resident of Claremont.

I am also a Yemen Democrats member, and I would encourage this committee to support the Claremont Community Plan update.

This plan update provides home opportunities to those in need and it enhances the character of our community.

Right now, over 5,000 people are experiencing homelessness in San Diego.

Over 300,000 people are experiencing poverty.

However, Claremont only added 138 affordable homes last year because the existing community plan prevent places arbitrary restrictions on home development.

By passing this new community plan today, we'll remove systemic barriers to housing access, alleviate our home shortage, and ensure that struggling San Diegans do not have to live outside in the rain.

The Claremont plan update not only expands our supply of affordable housing, but it also enhances our community.

The plan seeks to add a new fire station and 14 new parks, providing the necessary infrastructure to accommodate new residents.

The plan also seeks to upgrade the Moraina Boulevard trolley trolley corridor, turning abandoned parking lots into vibrant transit-oriented community hubs.

New homes do not destroy our community.

They transform ISORs into award-winning pieces of architecture.

They ensure that homeless people have a roof over their heads.

At a time when thousands of people are struggling to access housing, we must pass the Claremont plan update so that everyone has a safe place to call home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Edie.

Good afternoon.

My name's Edie.

I'm a resident of Claremont, and I support this update because it allows for more housing.

I especially support increased density near the trolley stations and across from Mission Bay.

As someone who often goes there, I see many unhoused people living there.

It's a clear sign that the cost of housing is too expensive in the area because when the cost of living is too high, more people become unhoused.

Building more housing makes it more affordable.

This plan is a step towards building a better community for all, and that's why I'm in support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff, please approach the lector.

And you've been seated time by three individuals that they could please raise their hand.

David Modi, David, you're still here.

Yvonne Jones and oh, Dana, so you'll have four minutes to manage.

Any of you could start on slide three, please.

So thank you, Council members again.

What are you actually?

Yes.

What I wanted to hit first is we keep hearing this bid about how the affordable housing requirement on complete communities is higher than the inclusionary housing ordinance.

And that's when you really pencil out these projects, that just isn't true.

So the threshold for complete communities is on the far right there.

It's 20 units per acre.

So if you say 40% of the units, that's eight units.

If I go to, and in this case, what's in Claremont, Tier 4, you're looking at uh somewhere around 160 to 290 units that could be built under complete communities instead of just 20.

And when you say, okay, what would be the inclusionary housing requirement for that?

10 percent, that would be 16 to 29 units.

And even though 40 and 40 percent of 20 is a lot less than 10 percent of 290, and that's just the way this works, and that's why developers have tried more and more to do complete communities versus using the inclusionary housing ordinance.

We see it in the report on homes on a year-by-year basis that as uh things are going, we're ramping up complete communities, but the average affordable housing component of for-profit developments goes down year by year by year.

And this is what we're the problem that we're trying to address.

And if you go to the next slide, uh again, we're just saying this is Claremont, so it's uh the 4.0 far, it's not as bad as the six and a half or the eight point oh that we have in some places.

But if you go then to slide um, let's just go forward to slide nine.

How do how do we want to how do we want to use this?

And one of the things that's actually really good as an opportunity in the Claremont plan is we have uh big flat underdeveloped spaces in Claremont Square and at the intersection of Balboa and Genesee, where these proposals are to create these walkable community villages.

And again, the and this explains why in our proposal we're saying the minimum density should be 45, because what has been structured here is that the core village goes up to 73 dwelling units per acre, whereas the surrounding areas would transition down to 44 dwelling units per acre.

Well, again, with complete communities, I I'm gonna push it to the edge, not to the middle.

We've destroyed the walkability and the other climate friendly bits of that.

So again, this allows the very sensible things that have been put into the plan to be actually be the shape of what happens in the future.

And if you just go forward, another again.

This is our proposal, just create go from 20 units to 45 units, would address many of the problems we have at complete communities.

The next slide.

And this is where I think there's a tendency to say, well, we're not going to build all this, so it's not as bad, but but if you're not going to build it out, and if we're putting in all its density, but it doesn't actually get used, then first of all, it tells us that we're using the wrong tools to produce housing.

These plans aren't housing plans, they're zoning plans.

And if we're not using that zoning, then what are the other effects we have?

And the thing is is even if I don't build out every single parcel, if I've zoned a parcel for a 20-story building as opposed to a five-story building, the land is going to be priced for a 20-story building, even if we don't build it everywhere.

And so we put this premium on all of our real estate that we don't intend to realize.

And so it it it values to zone for what you want as opposed to uh upzoning everything.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joe, so for Joe?

Maybe three.

Three, April Denny, Nicole Crosby.

No, no, no, no, no.

Nicole Crosby is one of the speakers.

And she has Miles Munson speaking seating time for her.

Okay, okay.

Still have three minutes.

Okay, thank you.

Hello, Chair Lee and fellow council committee members.

I'm Carrie Munson.

I'm the incoming president for the Claremont Town Council.

We are honored to be here today in support of the Claremont plan update with one recommended modification, as my colleague Don Krupp mentioned, that the rezoning from RMX two to RMX one on the Rose Canyon Village.

This plan has been a long time in planning, almost a decade, and it looks very different than it did at the first time.

After years as a stalled project, it's recently been reprioritized.

And I want to acknowledge Heidi Von Bloom, our director of planning, and her staff for their transparency.

They're listening to the community and to implementing several of the recommendations from the public.

They have truly presented a plan that is a balance between adding desperately desperately needed housing in high resource areas, as well as preserving the development scale of the neighborhoods and preserving the many canyons that make Claremont what it is.

I also want to thank the mayor's office and council member Campbell's office for their support of this plan as well.

Claremont is the oldest.

We just celebrated our 75th birthday and largest, 1.3 square miles, and most populated, 82,000 residents in the city of San Diego.

We welcome the new residents in this plan and welcome the required infrastructure, including parks, libraries, streets, water and sewer improvements that will come along with the new development.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Crosby.

And you've been seated time by Miles.

Thank you.

Still have two minutes, please begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, members of the committee, City Attorney's Office, and IBA.

I'm Nicole Crosby, the current president of the Claremont Town Council and Claremont resident, here with members of the Claremont Town Council to support.

I rise today in support of the 2025 Claremont Community Plan Update that applies an RMX one designation to the Rose Canyon Gateway Village.

Please invest in our communities.

The Claremont Town Council acknowledges and thanks the City Planning Department and our community planning group for their hard work.

This was 10 years in the making, and it was not an easy feat.

This is going to improve the quality of life and neighborhood from the core out.

We are excited about the plan's focus to grow its share of citywide housing intentionally with community villages, comprised of residential, office, commercial uses together in the heart of Claremont, where development should be.

As the largest community in the city of San Diego, we must invest and plan for the growth that will keep kids in our schools, seniors in their homes, working families in their neighborhood.

By growing over time from our village centers, not the perimeter.

The city can plan for and deliver improved infrastructure, transportation, enhanced libraries, recreational opportunities for us, the residents in the area that already possess a good foundation for sustainable development in line with our action, our climate action plan.

So let's renew the confidence of San Diegans in government process.

Let's demonstrate our community collaboration with an RMX-1 designation at the Rose Canyon Gateway Village to the updated community plan before advancing it to the city council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Susan Baldwin, please approach the election.

You'll be followed by Tom Mullini and Lori Saldania, and these are our final speakers in chambers before we move to the virtual queue.

Good afternoon.

My name is Susan Baldwin.

And I'm here to speak on the Claremont Plan.

I truly do not understand why the city is proposing an increase in housing capacity of only 59% for the Claremont Community Plan update.

It is a community with far superior infrastructure, three libraries, 11 parks with 70 acres with four recreation centers, three fire stations, and three trolley stations, in contrast with the college area that you just heard about.

I call for more housing capacity consistent with the Mira Mesa community plan update, the University Community Plan update, the Hillcrest and Kearney Mesa Plan updates.

The plan as proposed makes no sense when compared to the other recently adopted plans that I just mentioned.

More housing capacity should be added in this mostly moderate, high, and highest resource area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Tom Mullini, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Rob Campbell.

Mr.

Campbell left, so I'll just I'll just take one minute.

Regarding parks, many of us are park advocates, and we oppose the parkmaster plan.

We saw it as a way for the city to ignore park needs.

And uh I think that's that's playing out.

This plan has a 4,000-point deficit.

The city uses a ratio of 10 to 1.

That means that that it's a plan to not provide any parks for equivalent to the needs of 40,000 people.

Um it's a plan to fail.

Uh it's the result of an excessive number of housing units being added to this plan and insufficient attention to parks.

So um I think it indicates a lack of commitment on part of the city staff about parks.

I would ask this committee to recognize the need for adequate parks.

Uh, secondly, uh, was surprised this morning to find out that I had an old copy of the community plan.

Why?

Apparently, uh revised plan was put out Wednesday night, only one working day.

So the community planning group did not have time, neither neither did I to review the current plan.

Thank you.

Our final speaker in chambers is Lori Saldagna.

Good morning, and thank you for a very substantive discussion on the previous plan.

As I stated uh virtually, I'm a lifelong San Diego residence, and I've spent much of that time in Claremont.

I oppose this without changes to the short-term vacation rental ordinance because that is having unregulated impacts on the Bay Park, Bayhoe, Claremont communities.

We are becoming increasingly uh temporary housing for the tourism industry.

So when you add houses today or you propose it, you're not taking into account how many houses we are losing to those short-term rentals.

Likewise, ADUs are proliferating.

And the reason is really obvious.

I realize you can't see this.

Uh, but if people look online and look up the short-term vacation rental occupancy maps, we are becoming ground zero simply because we are the last place close to the coast that people can buy housing, and that puts pressure on the housing prices.

They are coming into our neighborhoods, buying homes and turning them into short-term rentals, not full-time permanent residential units.

That's not being taken into account.

I encourage you to do that before you approve any community plan.

Thank you.

This concludes in person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue, and I've started the five minute timer.

There are 13 hands raised in the virtual queue.

Melanie Cohn, please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

I'm Melanie Cohn, and I'm speaking today as a resident of Claremont, not related to any official capacity.

Claremont is the ideal neighborhood for additional housing density.

It's centrally located and attractive to young families as many homes are going through generational transitions.

It's proximity to UC San Diego and the area's biotech industry, makes it a good place for reach recent graduates and young professionals.

I purchased my home in 2020, and since then it has increased 41% in value.

I would not be able to afford to purchase my home today.

I want Claremont to be attainable for people of all backgrounds to realize the dream of home ownership.

I would be happy to welcome additional neighbors to my street and neighborhood.

We all know the city is in a housing crisis.

We've been doing good things to build housing for middle income residents by updating the ADU policy and taking advantage of density bonuses, but we can do more through community plan updates.

I encourage the side to support additional density in Claremont, especially around transit corridors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Krishna Hammond.

Please unmute and beginning.

Hi.

I'd like to support the uh community plan update.

Uh we are going to add uh 14,000 more homes, but I think we could do even more.

Uh the Claremont Community Plan and is situated to potentially do so much for this community.

And I think that raising height limits uh spreads costs, but also makes the area more beautiful.

I live on Elkahome Boulevard, and I think that the height increases and changes to the strip along Elkham Boulevard has made it a great place to be.

I see people come here all the time, and I think that building new community hubs is critical to making our community livable.

And I think accomplishing our goals for lower income housing.

I think we can't accomplish that with bold without bold action.

And I think that that helps us heal our history of redlining and addresses our housing crisis.

So I support this plan and uh thank you for your time.

Have a good rest of your day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Robert, excuse me, Robert Turnier or Turner, please unmute and begin.

Hello, I appreciate your time and thank you for all you do for our community.

I did attach one slide, and I won't need much time.

Um I really appreciate uh all you're doing to strengthen our community.

Um, we live in Bayhoe area of Claremont.

Um of course that area is home to more than 13,000 residents.

While we're not fortunate to have Well, we are fortunate to have trolley stations at Claremont Drive, Balboa Avenue, and um and one other one.

We remain dangerously inaccessible for anyone traveling by wheelchair, bicycle, or on foot.

For those biking towards Pacific Beach, the only option is the perilous route down Moraga and Balboa Avenue roads that have already claimed lives, and this is unacceptable.

In a recent planning meeting, we learned that the Pure Water Project and its promised pedestrian and bike overlays will not extend to Marina Boulevard north of Balboa to Jutland Drive, nor to Balboa Avenue itself, and it leaves our community exposed to continued risks.

We strongly urge that the Balboa Avenue from Claremont.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Suzanne Smith.

Please unmute and begin.

Suzanne, I've asked you to unmute.

I see you're unmuted.

We cannot hear you.

Glenn Schmidt, please unmute and begin.

Hi, I'm Glenn Smith, Vice Chair of the Community Planning Group for Claremont.

Our planning group and subcommittee have been working closely with staff for nearly four months to provide constructive feedback.

We appreciate the staff as you guys are recommendations to shape our community plan in a positive way.

And this has included a number of significant changes from adding protection for private canyon lands to increasing fire safety.

I'd like to point out that our planning group has also suggested adding density to certain villages, which has influenced revisions of the plan, such as density increases at the Tech Clodi Gateway Village, the community core village.

And we've been a strong advocate for proponents of additional density at the fourth trolley station north end of Marina.

Our participation in this process has clearly helped to expand housing opportunities in our community plan.

As noted, we're only asking for one land use concession, which is to modify the zoning at the Rose County Gateway Village from RMX2 to RMX One.

This is more closely comply with guiding principle number four of the community plan, which we're going to do.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has also concluded.

We have 10 hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these 10.

Circulate San Diego, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, members of the committee.

My name is Arya Greshman, and I'm the policy manager at Circulate San Diego.

I'm speaking today in favor of this community fund update.

Circulate strongly supports the proposed increase in allowable building heights near commercial and transconnected areas.

In certain areas, this would more than double what is currently allowed and support significant density increases near transit.

The update also includes plans for cyclist facilities between plan villages, connecting future housing to transit by way of active transportation and improving safety for all.

I urge you to support this plan and passage.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Doreen Diaz.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello.

Um, I want to say I worked at Claremont High School for several years.

I know the community well.

And it's a big coincidence how this group is supportive of the planning group is actually listening to them when the community is 67.68% white.

I urge you to make them increase their density at least to 75%.

And council district two is the third largest district.

District 7 and District 4 have higher population per the Centus and per your own data.

But this is a slap in the face to college district and other districts that are having massive density in the whitest district of the nine issues.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker.

Our next speaker is Harry Bobbins.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

I'm Harry Bubins.

I strongly support the Claremont plan's focus on transit oriented housing near trolley stops and canyon preservation.

But we must address the bigger picture.

Just across from this area is the arbitrary 30-foot height limit.

The I-5 divide continues to block housing in more high opportunity areas.

We keep talking about.

Even making Rose Creek Veteran Housing project over two miles from the coast rely on state law.

Passing the Claremont plan is an important step, but let it be just the beginning.

Take on the Nixon era draconian height limit and remove barriers to housing and opportunity so everyone in our city has a place to call home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is David.

David, please unmute and begin.

Yes, thank you for bringing this forward.

And I'm in strong support as a former Claremont resident.

Um living here afforded my young family and I access to uh the major job center, UTC.

It was a quick drive on Genesee, and it was wonderful being able to commute and be so close to work.

Uh so uh for that reason and strong support.

Uh the one thing I I urge council and staff to keep an eye on our uh speed reduction mitigation efforts along Genesee to prevent uh any further injuries uh to residents, kids, just residents in general, just to keep an eye on that as we talk infrastructure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Maxwell.

Please unmute and beginning.

Hi, my name is Maxwell, and I am advocating for more housing in this neighborhood, and I believe that this plan update is something that should happen.

We need to build housing near our trolley stations.

The blue line extension is very new.

It costs around $2 billion.

That's a significant investment.

We need to build housing around it.

I believe we should build more housing around it than this plan, but we need more housing.

I think this is a good plan to start out with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Paul Jamison.

Paul, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

My name is Paul Jameson.

I wanted to express my support for the Claremont plan update and thank the planning department for its work on this and the college area update.

I sometimes uh commute by bike to my job at UCSD through this area, and there's no safe north-south route through there.

Uh there was a class four cycle track in the Marina Corridor update, but I believe the council member had it removed.

So that was a real missed opportunity to increase safety.

So I'm glad to see it's being addressed now in this plan.

I also support the increased density and height limits in the plan, especially near the very expensive trolley line.

Uh, we invested a lot of money in that line, and we need to build abundant uh new housing near it to really get uh return on our investment.

Uh, this is also an SP 79 area.

I missed the discussion about that, but I look forward to uh its implementation in the future.

And finally, I just want to second uh Mr.

Bovin's comments about addressing the really outdated uh coastal height limit.

I look forward to more discussions about that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Morgan.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi there, good afternoon.

Uh, my name is Morgan.

I've been a Bajo resident for 13 years and served on both the Claremont Community Plan Update Subcommittee and now the project review subcommittee.

I'd like to thank the city for collaborating with the community on plan changes.

I support the increased density proposed, but I would like to focus on the lack of recreational infrastructure presented in the plan.

Uh Claremont currently is home to 80,000 residents, and projected growth will bring the population to roughly the size of Escondido.

The plan doesn't go far enough to provide recreational amenities for existing populations.

Reliance on joint use parks with San Diego Unified provides a narrowly defined list of acceptable uses with limited hours of operation.

Encourage the city to be more direct on funding these recreational amenities for future and current residents, especially those in multifamily developments that'll have limited outdoor space.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have three three hands remaining in the queue.

Victor, please unmute and begin.

Yes, uh good morning.

My name is Victor Cribs, and I'm calling in support of the uh Claremont Community Plan.

Uh, with two exceptions, I think that are noteworthy.

Uh, first, I would ask uh staff uh for you today to consider uh requesting staff revisit the density that is currently shown on the plan on the transit corridors of Claremont Mesa Boulevard and Claremont Drive.

Currently, the majority of the properties along Claremont Drive and in Claremont Mesa in the plan are shown as single family home density or town home density.

Whereas the previous plan you saw today for Claremont uh was on their transit quarters was taking density of 75 to 100 units an acre.

Claremont is getting a hall pass here and being allowed to retain single family and town home density.

Yeah, I'm very puzzled, and I think there should be um staff.

I would so I think I've echoed the sentiments that were uh stated earlier up zoning.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

RM RM37.

As a reminder, the five-minute timer has concluded.

We have two hands remaining in the queue.

Lawrence, please unmute and begin.

Uh hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Yeah, perfect.

Uh hi, my name is Lawrence Willis.

I'm a um resident of uh Bankers Hill.

I'm uh I go shopping regularly in um in the Claremont district um to a number of different stores.

There's been new apartments that are opening up, and I continue uh to look forward to see new apartments open up.

I want to second some of the comments that have come before me.

Uh I'm speaking in favor of the plan.

Sorry.

And I want to second some of the comments that have come before me.

Um why is Claremont getting a hall pass?

Looking at this, this is a very light rezoning.

Um, new expected regional uh uh BRT bus rapid transit plans that are specified in the 2025 RTP from Sandag are not getting a full rezoning, right?

Here in Bankersil, we're getting full rezoning.

The college area is getting a full rezoning.

Um, and Claremont should as well focusing on those high um uh transit uh corner areas.

So uh thank you for your time and I look forward to seeing this plan uh approved and uh further density coming to the area.

Thank you.

Suzanne Smith, I'll give you another opportunity.

Hi, can you hear me now?

Yes.

Great.

Uh hello.

As a member of the current Claremont Community Planning Group, I support the new plan.

In Claremont, we appreciate the conversation with the city and with city planner Sean McGee as our community plan was updated.

Councilman Elo Rivera, I ask that you and the other council members do what you said you would do for the college area, also for Claremont.

Please continue to talk to us.

As we welcome new neighbors, let us know that infrastructure and the things that make a neighborhood livable are planned and funded.

Be transparent with us about the actual ramifications of city controlled programs, like complete communities and bonus ADUs.

The tremendous amount of work that goes into updating community plans should not be a feudal exercise that takes place every 30 years.

For San Diego to remain America's finest city, it has to have the finest neighborhoods.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item three.

Thank you to the public for your comments and for participating.

We'll turn it over to committee members and I will go ahead and kick it off.

I want to thank our city planning staff as well as the district two team.

Uh and I know they're not represented up here on this size today, uh, but for their uh hard work on bringing this community plan update to um to us.

Uh similar to the last uh plan that we had just heard.

This is an up uh document that has not been updated since 1989.

Um and as we know, much has changed in these neighborhoods over the past 36 years.

Um and as such, the city is continuing to move forward in terms of how we plan for housing and job growth.

Um we had a long discussion already in the last item, so I'm not gonna uh repeat all of that for this, um, other than to acknowledge that some of what we're seeing here is are changes that I think will also again ensure that that um as folks look at land use here, that other programs may not be the incentive at this point, knowing that an a rezoned um Claremont community plan offers them um different opportunities than have existed previously.

Um I do also want to just take uh a moment to thank city planning and staff for working significantly with the community, um, considering how much we've heard today from the town council, the Claremont Planning Group, and others um indicating their support as well.

Um I know there's additional feedback, and I'll uh certainly let my colleagues um add any additional comment to that if they like.

So, with that, I will go ahead and move the staff's recommendation um for this item and turn next to council member Moreno.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

Um, also thank you again to community community members who've been engaged in the community plan update process and for everybody who spoke today.

Uh, there's there's been um there is a very great need to build more homes in San Diego.

I think I've stressed this on several occasions.

Um in this update, we see the total capacity of the amount of homes that could be built grow from 38,800 to 52,800, a difference of about 14,000.

I think it's critical.

Um, I've been very vocal about the need to upzone all of our community plans and to do it in a way that as we increase housing opportunities for San Diego for San Diegans.

We're focused on building those units in highest and high resource areas.

Um, I very much appreciate that this has been accomplished in this community plan update by ensuring that higher densities are concentrated near the trolley station, uh, which are predominantly located within the highest resource areas.

In fact, of the nine plan villages, seven are located within high and highest resource area.

Um I'm also glad to see the proposed Claremont Height Limit Overlay Zone be included in this update because we simply cannot continue to be constrained by height limits uh that are too low.

If we want to make sure that future generations of San Diegans have access to the housing, that allows them to continue to live where they were raised.

Um, regarding the issue raised by the Claremont Town Council and the BIA on changing the land use designation on two specific areas.

I would offer an amendment to the motion to request staff provide a written analysis uh analysis on the issue and suggestions contained in the letter submitted by the Building Industry Association on November 20th, 2025, and the Claremont Town Council on November 4 17th, 2025, and have that information provided to the city council prior to the plan update being heard by the full council.

That way we can have more information and the council members who represent the council member who represents that area can provide their perspective as well.

Um and with that, um I'm happy to second the motion uh with the inclusion of those amendments.

Happy to accept the amendment to that as well.

Um with that, we have a motion by myself, a second by council member Moreno.

Turning us to the council member Campio.

All right, thank you, Chair.

We have the motion posted just because there was an amendment thrown there at the last second.

Very good, understood.

All right, thank you.

Uh appreciate uh staff's work on this and the public's comment on this.

Uh I uh an analysis of the map seems like it's almost a guaranteed certainty that the housing and the affordable housing that could come from this will be uh built uh almost almost entirely within highest high and moderate resource areas.

I feel comfortable that it will help us reach our AFFH goals, and I look forward to uh hearing from the council member uh whose district this is in uh about other issues raised by the town council.

Uh I know that they're they're offering some good points at this point.

I'm prepared to support to move it forward to full council and have the debate at that point on those potential changes uh and hear the virtues or drawbacks of them.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Seeing no other speakers again, we have a motion by myself, a second by councilmember Moreno.

Uh will you please call the roll.

And the motion passes unanimously 4-0.

Thank you.

Uh with that, I will note for the public that um due to several scheduling conflicts, um, we will not be able to hear item four.

And so um I'm gonna take the opportunity now to thank my colleagues uh for their collaboration and support throughout this year.

Uh we've had a robust number of items heard, uh, including establishing um the housing preservation fund, multiple community plan updates, and more.

Um and so uh look forward to working with everyone in the new year.

With that, I will adjourn this meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next noticed meeting, which is on Wednesday, January 14th, 2026 at 2 o'clock p.m.

We are adjourned.