Good afternoon.

I know some folks are still grabbing a seat.

We'll go ahead and get started and uh welcome everyone to the land use and housing committee meeting of January 14th, 2026.

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

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.

Also attending the meeting today is Coda Zeizer with Mayor Todd Gloria's office.

Chief Deputy City Attorney Gren Newfer with the City Attorney's Office.

Amy Lee with the Independent Budget Analyst Office, and Angeli Hoyos, committee consultant.

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

Please submit these slips 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 the accessing the link listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

To join the Zoom webinar by phone, please dial 1669-2545252.

The webinar ID is 161751933 pound.

This information is also available on the agenda.

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

Please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak.

And if you wish to speak on a particular item, wait for that item to be called and then raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon.

Or if you're a calling participant, press star nine on your phone.

If you raise your hand during a non-comment period, your hand will be lowered.

Chair.

Thank you, Natalie, for reviewing those instructions for the benefit of the public.

A quorum is now present, and we will take up non-agenda public comment.

The council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Natalie, will you please proceed with any non-agenda public comment?

Perule 2.7 non-agenda public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but within the subject matter jurisdiction of the committee.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

And we have received three speaker slips from three individuals in chambers.

We will begin with those in chambers before we move to the virtual queue.

Mike Tukey, please approach the lectern.

You'll be followed by Jennifer James and Manny Rodriguez.

Jennifer James, would you like to Okay?

Okay.

Thank you and good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer James.

I am a Greater Golden Hill resident and a member of the Preserve Greater Golden Hill nonprofit.

As neighbors, we have watched development accelerate rapidly, well beyond our RHA planning area goals.

Yet the city's 2025 annual report on homes presented to this committee in October reported that Greater Golden Hill had produced only 576 of its 1,401 units for this housing cycle.

That did not match what we were seeing on the ground.

So a citizen research team reviewed the city's public DSD permitting dashboard and conducted site visits to verify issued active and completed or in pipeline projects since 2021.

We found that as of November, Greater Golden Hill has 1,504 units exceeding its sixth housing cycle goal by more than 100 units three years early.

That's a 1,000 unit difference from the city's monitoring.

Municipal Code 143.1030 states the complete communities program applies only until a community of concern planning area reaches 80% of its area's adequate sites inventory.

However, because the annual report on homes relies on data that is already a year behind, we saw no evidence that this monitoring is occurring.

Programs such as Complete Communities and the ADU bonus program are designed to accelerate growth.

But without timely data, transparency, and accountability, their unintended consequence is a disproportionate and irreversible burden on vulnerable neighborhoods that those strains are infrastructure and does not produce housing attainable for existing residents, thereby accelerating gentrification.

My neighbor Mike Tukey is going to talk about the implications of overdevelopment in our neighborhood.

Thank you.

Mike Tukey My name is Mike Tukey.

I'm a greater Golden Hill resident and a member of a preserved Greater Golden Hill.

My neighbor Jennifer James has shared evidence showing that our planning area is being overdeveloped.

I want to speak with you about what that means for our community.

As a designated community of the concern, our neighborhood already faces barriers and heightened vulnerability to climate impacts.

Rapid, unbalanced development only deepens the vulnerability, creating real risk to liveability, safety, and well-being.

The most urgent concern is fire and evacuation safety.

The north and east ends of Greater Golden Hill are in a high fire severity zone with no direct access routes.

Meanwhile, the south and west where highway access exist are also where complete community towers and other high-density projects are concentrated.

In the event of a major wildfire, evacuation routes in the south and west already congested during daily commute and school pickup times will gridlock, making evacuation from the north and east effectively impossible.

We formed a fire council to address this, but there's only so much that we can do.

Only the city and this committee can influence housing and density decisions.

Beyond fire risk, high density development is straining aging infrastructure.

While project sites may see upgrades, complete communities, developers are weighed from requirements to contribute directly to the neighborhood wide improvements.

Roads, sidewalks, and tillage systems are already under stress and falling further behind.

And finally, affordability.

This is not a housing supply problem.

It's an affordable housing problem.

Complete communities and ADU bonus projects are not producing homes attainable for the middle and lower income residents.

Instead, they displace our mixed income housing and accelerate gentrification.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez, please approach the lector.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My message today is to Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee.

This past year, affordable housing advocates, public transit supporters and climate activists worked really hard to pass Senate Bill 79, which will allow more homes near transit centers.

However, I'm willing to bet my lunch that the conservative politicians at Sandag and at the NCTD Board of Directors are already working about how they can exempt the coaster stations and the Sprinter stations from Senate Bill 79th.

There are potential leap uh loop loopholes that they can try to argue.

Um, and I'm happy to follow up with your office, Council President Potem Lee.

But since given that you are the City of San Diego representative on both NCTD and SANDAG, I would encourage you to ensure that the conservative elected officials and those boards don't try to exempt their cities and their affluent uh coaster and sprinter stations from more housing.

So that would be my request.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you, Council members.

Thank you.

Dana Gibbett, please approach the electorate, and you'll be followed by Jeff Hoyder.

Thank you.

I'm here today to ask you to please give community planning groups and other city boards time to speak at land use and housing and council meetings.

Community planning groups are official elected bodies representing their planning areas.

When they speak to the planning commission, land use and housing committee, or city council regarding community plan updates in their communities, they deserve time to present their community's position on the plan.

These official representatives should not have to struggle to get the public to cede time to them, often only 60 seconds apiece for the privilege of presenting the official CPG position on their updates.

The job they were elected to do.

That's simply wrong.

In the past, planning groups were given 15 minutes to present their official responses to community plan updates.

Excuse me.

This would also free up the public and give them the luxury of speaking on their own behalf.

It is time to revert back to the respectful past norm of giving every community planning group 15 minutes to respond to community plan updates.

The same respect should be shown to the community planners committee and other board members, such as the Parks and Rec Board, who come before you to comment on community plan updates.

These boards were created and their members appointed to advise the city on projects within their areas of expertise.

Please consider amending city council land use and housing and planning commission policy to respect the volunteer boards and their members and afford them time to speak and represent their boards and committees, which they were appointed or elected to do.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

And the final speaker in chambers for non-agenda public comment, Jeff, please begin.

Yeah, thank you, Council Members.

Just to clarify comments were made earlier by the residents of Greater Golden Hill.

Um, the real issue here is that the Midisper Code for Complete Communities prohibits complete communities and communities that have areas of communities of concern, which Greater Golden Hill has, and when you get above 80% of your arena allocation, you are no longer eligible for complete communities, and the city not doing its homework on counting the number of actual current units in Greater Golden Hill cause them to allow a permit that actually should not been allowed, and therefore we have a legal issue here that really needs to be resolved.

And this points to something.

We we put things in the municipal code that say that have these stipulations.

We need to follow up on these.

Every permit issue for complete communities in an area of community of concern should have had this calculation as part of the permitting process, and this did not.

The second thing I'd like to address is this question of SB 79 and the implementation in San Diego.

What SB 79 is really exposed, particularly with regard to Sandeg and our major transit stop map, as there are a lot of stops in these maps that don't meet the state regulations for major transit stops, in particular.

Um bus rapid transit has a very stringent set of requirements.

And in San Diego, we only meet those requirements on Polk Park Boulevard.

We don't meet them on Elcombe Boulevard, we don't meet them on I-15, we don't meet them on local buses going through North Park.

And it turns out that the city, this the sand egg hasn't really paid attention to the regulations because before SB 79, they didn't have to, and now they are in the map, should get screwed up.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our final speaker in chambers for non-agenda public comment, Paul Scalin.

Paul, please approach the lecture.

Um my name is Paul Scal, and I'm here on behalf of the participants at lot B of Dreams for Change.

I'm here to ask for your help because there's some disturbing things that are going on lately where they're just where they're there with exiting people for either for petty circumstances or for circumstances that is not their fault.

Uh, for instance, to today they're exiting a late young lady named Cynthia Hernandez.

She's been trying to figure out how to how to talk to somebody.

Uh there's no appeal, and she had a dog, and the dog didn't bite anybody, but it was aggressive.

But she's been out recycling every day for the last week to so that she can afford obedience classes.

The care coordinator Daniel over there, he he's still exiting her, even though the dog didn't bite anybody, he hadn't caused a problem, and she's had no other write-ups or anything like that, and she's being exited for that.

And and it's wrong, and we need your help.

And there's a lot of other things that that I could go into, but I don't have enough time to hear that that are deeply just disturbing, and there we don't know who to talk to because the Miss Teresa, she might get she might come around once every two weeks for about 30 minutes.

And I mean, and we don't even know when she's gonna be there.

So I mean, when she's there, but we might find out after the fact.

There's no one for us to talk to.

We need some help.

There's some disturbing things going on there, and and and it needs to be righted.

And for ladies like this, Miss Cynthia, she needs somebody to today because she's gonna be put out in the cold today for something she didn't do.

It's not she didn't commit any wrong.

And then there's Suzanne and Justin that when the flood when the rains this last week happened, their tents flooded a bunch of tents in the back corner.

There's developed mold, and for for complaining about the mold and trying to get it cleaned up, they're being exited also behind some petty stuff that that's really trivial.

Um, and I'm here today to ask somebody to to please step in and and look at the situation and and and because we need some help because we don't know who to go to.

I mean, we we follow it, we file a grievance, the grievances don't even get to to Miss Teresa or or or Miss Samara.

They're the top one and two.

I mean, what do I thank you?

This concludes your time, and this concludes in-person public testimony for non-agenda public comment.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I'll begin the five-minute timer.

If you wanted to speak as well, we can take a speaker slip from you afterwards.

And I was just about to ask the mayor's office to if they would follow up.

Okay.

Thank you.

We will now move to the virtual queue for non-agenda public comment.

I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to raise their hand.

We currently have two hands raised.

Terry Ann Skelly, please unmute and begin.

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

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

I'm a planning group member and an advocate for youth.

I applaud your thoughtful considerations regarding handicaps to creating more housing.

Because of my work with teens and schools, I particularly sympathize with the plight of unsheltered young adults.

And I wish we could understand and mitigate the many life decisions that led them to this situation.

So I care the land use decisions that affect their health and their safety.

They especially need their housing to be located in neighborhoods where they aren't bombarded by messages regarding the quick fixes of drugs.

And neighborhoods with a preponderance of liquor stores, vape shops, or marijuana storefronts, do not indicate safety for them in their neighborhood.

Perhaps an aspect of increasing housing should be improving neighborhoods by asking what we can do to reduce the number of liquor stores, vape shops, or marijuana storefronts, and how to best remove billboards and window advertisings that promote them and their products.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you.

Our next speaker with their hand raised, Becky Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the land distance housing committee.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm a public health educator and member of my planning group.

And I'm speaking on the proposed updates to the land development code.

Item 20 rightly prohibits the marijuana leaf symbol on on-site signage.

That restriction acknowledges an important public health concern, limiting the visibility and normalization of marijuana, particularly to children and youth.

However, this creates a clear contradiction in our code.

While marijuana imagery is deemed inappropriate on the building itself, the same imagery is still permitted on large off-site billboards, often directly across the street for marijuana businesses using bright colors and eye-catching graphics that draw attention far beyond the site.

From a land use perspective, this does not make sense.

If the city has determined that marijuana imagery poses concerns at the parcel level, allowing it at a larger, more visible scale in the public right of way undermines the intent of the original regulation.

Land use regulations should be consistent and aligned with uh stated policy goals.

I urge this committee to address this contradiction and ensure that marijuana signage standards are applied consistently, both on site and off-site.

So the land development code reflects the city's stated public health and community protection goals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you.

Do we have any committee members, Meryl Staff, City Attorney, or independent budget analyst comments?

Seeing none, uh, I do want to take a moment just to acknowledge this is our first land use and housing committee meeting of the new year, uh, and wanted to share that it's an honor to again be serving as the chair of this committee, uh, which um we all understand is integral to ensuring that the city continues to make progress towards addressing our housing affordability crises, as well as reviewing and exploring changes that the city continues to make uh when it comes to land use and building processes uh in order to advance our housing efforts.

Um, and I'm looking forward to continuing that work with my land use and housing committee colleagues uh as well as the council as a whole, um, especially following last year's uh many discussions, uh, recognizing that the impacts of housing today have one of the greatest uh impacts on our overall cost of living.

Um, they are uh a significant impact towards working families, and when we talk about other issues like child care and the quality of life, um that cost of housing uh continues to make a significant difference uh in all of those other areas that we touch as a city.

So um, thank you again to my colleagues for continuing your service uh on this committee.

Welcome back, as well as the committee member uh Whitburn and uh look forward to the year ahead.

Uh, with that, do we have any requests for continuance?

Hearing none, uh, we'll go ahead and take up our consent agenda.

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

Hearing none, we'll move forward with public comment on that consent agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open, and the consent agenda includes item one approval of the committee minutes of November 21st, 2025.

Each speaker will have one minute, and we have not received any speaker slips in chambers on item one, and we don't have any hands raised in the virtual queue, so that will conclude public comment.

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to committee members if they have any questions and comments.

Um, we've got a motion by council member Woodburn.

I'll go ahead and offer a second.

Uh and seeing no other comments, uh Ellie, we please call the rule.

And the pass is three to one, and uh we'll move next to our discussion agenda.

Now we please introduce item two.

Thank you, Chair Item Two, First Amendment to a contract from an invitation to bid between the city of San Diego and Ace Parking 3 LLC, a Delaware Delaware limited liability company.

And if you'd like to call in to speak to item two, the phone number is one six six nine two five four five two five two, and the webinar ID is one six one seven nine five one nine three three pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll let our team from the economic development department uh get situated.

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

Good afternoon, Council President, Council members.

My name is Terrell Brown.

I'm with the supervising property agent with the Economic Development Department.

To my right is Karen Johnson, the asset manager with Economic Development Department.

And also in attendance is our deputy director, Lucy Conthrayas.

Thank you.

Today I ask about three minutes for my presentation.

Okay.

What I bring forth today is the first amendment to the contract from an invitation to bid between the City of San Diego and Ace Parking.

The parquade is located at 1265 First Avenue, which is in Council District 3.

Just a little background on this management agreement.

On January 15th, 2021, the issue the city issued an ITB, an invitation to bid to prospective bidders on goods to be provided to the city.

The city had determined that the contractor, ACE parking, had the expertise and experience and personnel necessary to provide the services.

Therefore, the city retained ACE parking to provide parking management services for the EVJ park aid.

The initial management agreement agreement signed in 2021, which was five for five years, is set to expire this year, February 10th, 2026.

Moreover, due to the complexities of the defining and scope of services to meet the city's long-term needs for the parquet and ensuring the most effective delivery model.

Additional time is required to complete the procurement process and select a provider.

Approval of this first amendment extending the contract will provide the staff with time needed to complete and advance the appropriate procurement process while ensuring the continued professional management of the parquet.

Just a first recap of the first amendment.

The monthly contract amount for 21,685 dollars per month will continue throughout this year and it will not increase for the city.

In closing, what we're asking of you with the land use and housing committee is to approve this item to move forward to council and an ordinance authorizing a mayor or design to enter into the first amendment to the contract between the city and the San Diego Ace parking and authorize the chief financial officer to appropriate and expand an amount not to exceed 260,000 dollars and 2002,220 dollars over the first term amendment from the concourse.

That concludes my briefing.

I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item two is now open, and we have not received any speaker slips in chambers for item two, and there are no hands raised in the virtual queue, so that will conclude public comment.

Thank you.

We'll go ahead and turn it over to committee members and we'll start with uh Council Member Woodburn.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, as mentioned, this is a one-year extension of a competitively bid contract.

I appreciate the economic development department uh taking a thoughtful approach to the parquade.

It is smack in the heart of uh our downtown civic center area, which is the heart of downtown.

We got um quite a bit of work to do uh to uh ensure that this part of downtown achieves its potential, but there is a lot of ongoing progress.

Um anybody who stops by uh this part of town, the civic center area on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday will see a new lunchtime activation uh at Civic Center Plaza called uh Plaza Central.

Uh people can get a bite to eat, challenge a friend, a pickleball of all things.

Um, enjoy live music uh or simply enjoy America's outdoor downtown.

So there's a lot going on, a lot to come.

I'll make the motion to support the staff recommendation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Council Member Woodburn turning next to Councilmember Moreno.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

Um, I do want to state that the following comments are not gonna be reflective of uh the management services of the parquade.

Um, I we have extremely well uh well-managed parquade, um, very friendly folks, and so what I am confused here is we knew that this uh contract was coming to an end.

And yet we waited or economic development waited one month before the contract ended to present this to the council.

Thank you for the question, Councilmember Moreno.

We actually have been working quite diligently with purchasing and contracting over quite a few months this past year, trying to determine the exact scope of services that would be required.

We want to uh make sure that we procure the best product, the best service at the best economics that we possibly can.

Unfortunately, that is just a bit more time consuming than what we had thought, and that's why we're asking for the extension so that we have the time to move forward and make sure that we do get the best value for the city and the best scope of services over the long term.

But we had five years, essentially.

Yes, ma'am.

This council, you've heard several council members express their concern with this administration bringing contracts last minute to us and basically pigeon holding the council.

Um if we don't continue this contract today, then we're gonna be in a pickle.

Um and that's not fair.

That's not fair to this council.

Um, and also the other concern that I have and that I've had with a lot of our real estate um holdings is are we getting the best amount of money for the actual contract?

The price is not gonna change, right?

It was 21,000 and some change, uh, which those numbers that are being used are figures from 2021, because this is a five-year contract.

So that's the other concern is the city getting its rightful due.

Um so when are you proposing to bring forward this contract?

Because I don't think I read anywhere in the um backup material of you proposing an actual time to bring back.

What we're going to do is we're going to continue working on the RFP, and that will the numbers as you run uh asked about, make sure that we are getting the best value, and that will be part or is been part of the discussion that we've been having.

Okay.

So we will release that recourse for proposal, the RFP, hopefully within the next couple of months.

I don't want to guarantee and say that's exactly within that time frame, but that is we're working forward to procure the best um RFP, get it released, choose the service provider, and then move forward with it.

And how long will it be an RFP?

That is a question for purchasing and contracting.

I believe that the director, Claudia Barca, is on the line and might be best able to answer that question.

Good afternoon, uh, Councilmember Moreno.

The question was how long it will be out as an RFP or how long it will take to get the RFP out.

Well, that's it's kind of a two-fold question because I wasn't given an exact date as to when the RFP will be released.

Now I can tell you when we have a park in uh a park being built in the city of San Diego, usually the RFP is about six months.

So let me put it this way I'm not comfortable moving forward with this with the responses that I've gotten just this far.

I think it needs to be you've we've had five years now with this contract, so I think we need a certain date as to when we're gonna get the RFP out and how long that RFP is going to take.

And I don't see any of that information on the backup.

So I would like to get that those dates on the record.

Good afternoon, Councilmember Marino.

Um, to your point about making sure that we are getting the best value for the city.

I think over time, um, what we do need to do is ensure that the numbers are gonna work.

So we are in that process of evaluating.

From our perspective, in terms of the RFP evaluating procurement process would be, I think what we're looking to do is to have a final decision, preferably before the end of the month and be in a position that if an RFP is going to be issued, that it would be issue early February, if not sooner.

If an RFP is issued, Chris.

Isn't it when the RFP is issued?

Well, we're looking at the scope of work for the proposed parking garage and looking what the best approach would be for the facility.

An RFP is already been drafted and ready to release.

So we're in a position where we need to finalize just a few buttons on the scope of work, and if the RP is issued, it would be issued very soon.

I don't know about my colleagues, but I am confused about that.

If an RFP is issued, so we're not, we're not we're we potentially will not go out to bid.

I I want to clarify that we are in a position to where we will be issuing an RFP, and that RFP has already been drafted, and if it gets released or when it gets released, it would be no later than early February.

Okay.

So there's an RFP.

Yes.

And I would like a date here that stipulates when it will go out to bid.

Okay, we can get that for you.

So what is that date?

Well, we need to work with procurement to finalize the scope.

Okay.

And they had a number of other documents and RFPs that are in the process, and we want to make sure that we do give you a precise day.

So I don't want to just make up a date for you.

Got you.

So I don't just want to willy-nilly vote on this because I don't have all the information in front of me.

Okay.

So I'm not gonna be um supportive of the motion until I get a date.

If we can get a date today, I'm be happy to vote for this.

I believe our purchasing and contracting directors online with our hand raised if I correct.

Yes, thank you.

I I did raise my hand.

I just wanted to caution with the date.

There was recent less legislation that was passed and is is currently in place as of January 1st, which is under Assembly Bill 339, which um increases the noticing time to our REOs when we have service contracts to a minimum of 45 days.

So I want to make sure that you know, I just heard um economic development say potentially February, that may not be correct.

We would have to work with them to get a better timeline, and I want to make sure that that is um stated now.

Thank you.

Um of the day, first time of the year.

Yeah.

Um let's just start with this.

I think Council Member Moranda has a fair question here to be to be asked.

Um, and and I think it we all recognize that the contract is necessary.

Uh I agree with your comments that the management has been we are very appreciative of the management of the uh of the parking site, and that has been something that is that's not what's at stake here.

Um but this is a five-year contract.

We know when the deadline of the contract is.

And um you're coming to council asking for an extension, and I'm sorry, but my colleague has asked some fairly reasonable questions in terms of the time frame for when it takes place and what to expect, and the answer has been uncertain at best.

Um and I think with any expiring contract, no one here has been surprised how often an item goes to council, and colleagues have made it clear their frustrations with last-minute contracts, renewals, expired contracts.

So I appreciate this one's not expired already.

It's expiring in a month.

Um I'm just gonna, yeah, I'll turn to see if there's another answer to it because I look, I know it's necessary.

I I I believe it does need to move forward.

I just I'm uh I'm appalled here by our inability um to answer that.

Yes, Councilmember Lee.

Um, I mean, this extension obviously is for continuity of operations, as you stated.

We have had this contract for a period of five years.

Um, as you know, our division has a number of different priorities.

It's not an excuse.

However, um we have been coordinating with the procurement team to ensure that at the end of the day that we're getting the best service and the best approach for this garage.

The garage obviously needs a number of improvements, and we want to ensure that when we do put this out that we are um putting out the appropriate scope of work so that we get the maximum benefit for the city and its operation and the rates that are charged and the ability to keep the employees um parking and the ability to continue to operate the parking structure in the best way possible.

So I I agree it has taken some time, um, but we did uh do best efforts to bring this forward before its expiration, um, as well as we've completed um the full draft of the RFP.

There are a few things that we're working out with procurement as Ms.

Abarca did state.

Um there have been some wrinkles in terms of this legislation, um, and I'm sorry for not having captured that.

Um, but we are moving forward as quickly and expeditiously as we possibly can to get this out.

Um, and it is something on our radar to ensure um that our contracts are coming forward in a timely manner.

I think all I can say um just from watching this conversation go back and forth is that uh I we appreciate the work that our city staff does every day.

We understand that there are challenges with timelines.

Um I I hear you in terms of the the desire to ensure that an RFP goes out is um what we need.

Very frankly, and I'm just staring at members of the public here, because I think we should all land in the same place.

I think sometimes all we want to hear is an acknowledgement that there's some responsibility, and the city has for whatever reason screwed up in terms of the timeline.

It's anticipation of when something takes place.

I don't asking you to take that responsibility because clearly between the departments, there's some difference in opinion on timing and everything else.

But maybe someone could just acknowledge that.

Um, given where we are with the three members that we have in the council, um, Councilmember Woodburn, I would ask if um you would consider moving the item forward without a recommendation, since that is the only option available to us uh given where we stand with uh with votes.

Move it forward to council without a recommendation.

Happy to do that.

With that, I'll go ahead and second that item so that this item can be considered when it goes to the full council for consideration.

Because again, I it is important.

I think we all acknowledge that.

Councilmember's acknowledged that as well.

Um, Councilmember Lee.

We look forward to the discussion happening at the council.

Yes, thank you.

And and we'll continue to work with the procurement department to establish a date.

As I said, I don't want to put a date forward committing them.

However, I can tell you that we are in a position to where we can move forward very quickly, and um that is really um where we are today, and I do appreciate the comments and uh and acknowledge um that we can improve our uh timing.

Um, but we are working very, very hard with all our internal departments to make sure that we're in alignment and without making a uh a quick rush decision.

Um, want to make sure that we're evaluating the scopes properly uh to ensure that we get the best value for the city at the end of the day.

I hear you, and I'm gonna stand by believing.

I don't think the the acknowledgement is necessary from you necessarily uh at the end of the day, but someone from this administration needs to take the responsibility.

So councilmember on the lights.

Yeah, I'm happy once we get a date.

Um, I'm happy to support this item.

Like I said, this is in no reflection um to our management and the work that they do at our parkade.

Um, but it is concerning to me that I'm being asked to move something based on history, based on the history that we have here in San Diego.

You very well can come back February 9th, 2027 and ask for the same thing over again.

And I would not be doing my job as an elected official in supporting this today.

So um I'm not gonna be supportive of the motion, but look forward in council to B.

Thank you.

See no other speakers.

We have a motion uh to move the item to the full council with no recommendation by councilmember Whitburn.

I've offered a second uh see no other speakers, let's call the role.

And the motion passes to one with committee member Marino voting no, and Vice Chair Ila Rivera absent.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh and Ali, will we please introduce item number three?

Item number three, preservation and progress package A.

And if you're listening online to the Zoom and wish to call in to provide a comment on item three, please call 16692545252.

When prompted, the webinar ID is 1617951933 pound.

Chair.

We'll let staff get situated.

And just feel free to introduce yourself for the record and let us know the name.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, Chair Personally and members of the land use and housing committee.

I am Kelly Stonko, Deputy Director of the Climate Preservation and Public Spaces Division in the City Planning Department.

I'm pleased to present to you today package A of preservation and progress, the comprehensive update to the city's heritage preservation program, and I'll need about 15 minutes for my presentation today.

As stated during the information item presented to this body in March of last year, the goals of preservation and progress are to advance equity and preservation, ensure our MILS Act program is equitable and fiscally responsible, identify and protect historical properties and districts, reform permit processes to better encourage adaptive reuse of buildings on their original site, adopt adjective design standards for historic properties and districts, and remove regulations that unnecessarily impact properties that lack historical or cultural significance.

Staff has grouped the updates into package A and package B.

Package A, which is before you today includes items that are not significantly complex and that do not involve amendments to the historical resources regulations or historical resources guidelines.

Package B, which we aim to bring forward later this year includes updates that are more complex in nature that do include amendments to the historical resources regulations or guidelines, or that require more extensive environmental analysis.

The items included today in package A include amendments to the historic preservation element and appendix F of the city's general plan, amendments to the land development code of the city's municipal code, including amendments to the appeal process for historic designations, clarifying amendments to the applicability of complete communities housing solutions within our emerging and thematic historic districts, and other minor cleanup items.

And lastly, we have updates to the city's historic preservation fund to focus on the advancement of equity and historic preservation.

Looking first at the amendments to the general plan, staff is proposing updates to the narrative sections of the historic preservation element that include an updated discussion of regarding Native American resources and consultation to incorporate new laws that have been passed since the general plan preservation element was last updated in 2008.

An updated discussion of the San Diego Municipal Code requirements to remove detailed discussion of regulatory requirements and permit processing consistent with general other general plan elements.

Removal of references to conservation areas, which was a failed concept that was explored with the 2008 general plan, and the addition of language regarding the identification, interpretation, and celebration of buildings and areas ineligible for designation, but nevertheless of importance to the community, as well as minor updates to outdated language, terminology, and the number of resources on the city's register.

Policy updates within the historic preservation element include incorporating policies regarding tribal cultural resources and consultation with the Kumiai Nation that have been included in recent community plan updates, removal of the concept of conservation areas and replacement with language regarding celebration and interpretation of properties that do not meet the criteria for designation, ensuring that preservation efforts recognize and celebrate the histories of all communities, including groups traditionally underrepresented in historic preservation work, encouraging the use of objective design standards for development on sites with historic resources, and promoting the use of sustainable materials and practices and his restoring historic resources and developing mitigation strategies to address climate change impacts.

The city has kicked off preparation of a citywide historic context statement, which identifies the historical events, themes, individuals that have shaped the city's built environment in a significant way.

That effort is expected to take about two to three years, and once that is complete, this appendix F will be comprehensively updated.

But in the meantime, we wanted to incorporate targeted interim updates to better address tribal cultural history and prehistory, as well as the impact of past zoning and lending practices on segregation and lack of infrastructure investment, including a reference to appendix A of our housing element, which provides a more detailed discussion of that history.

Preservation and progress package A includes several amendments to the land development code of the city's municipal code.

In regard to historical resources board appointments and terms, the deadline for the mayor to appoint a chair for the HRB will be extended from April 15th to April 30th to better align with historical resources board docketing timelines.

Additionally, staff is proposing to incorporate a degree of flexibility to the appointment of technical professionals to the board.

Five of the 11 board seats are required to be filled by technical experts in the field of architecture, landscape architecture, architectural history, and archaeology.

If one of those seats is vacant, the board is unable to carry out its duties under the code.

The proposed amendments add that if a qualified volunteer cannot be found to fill one of the five professional seats, then that seat can be filled by a second technical expert from one of the other five professions, with no more than two professional seats held by the same historic preservation professional.

While the city will always endeavor to have each of the five professional seats filled by the respective technical experts, this amendment will provide much needed flexibility in the event that a qualified volunteer cannot be found when a vacancy arises.

Amendments are proposed related to noticing and the time limit for review by the historical resources board.

The amendments to noticing are cleanup items needed to align with other city noticing requirements.

A clarifying amendment is also included to clearly state that the 90-day time limit for the board's consideration of a designation action starts with the first HRB meeting in which the designation is considered.

That has always been how that code language has been implemented, but this will provide the needed clarity.

Amendments are also proposed related to appeals of historic designations by the Historical Resources Board.

A decision by the Historical Resources Board to designate a resource can be appealed to the City Council.

When the current appeal process was developed, the City Council at that time opted to defer the question of significance to the Historical Resources Board and retain more limited oversight over designation actions.

As a result, the City Council may only grant an appeal and overturn a designation if there are factual errors in materials or information presented to the board, violations of bylaws or hearing procedures by the board or individual member, or the presentation of new information that speaks to why the property does not meet the criteria for designation.

In recent years, the current city council has expressed interest in expanding their oversight of the appeal process to include reconsideration of the historic designation itself.

The amendments will add a fourth finding of findings not supported, consistent with the appeal processes for development permits.

This would allow the city council to reconsider the designation itself by looking at the information presented to the historical resources board and determining whether the findings that were made by the board when they designated the property is significant under one or more of the city's designation criteria are supported by the information in the record.

Before moving on from this amendment, I did want to note that when the proposed amendments were first presented at public hearings, the amendments included adding the ability to appeal when the historical resources board does not designate a property, which cannot be appealed under our current regulations.

The policy subcommittee of the Historical Resources Board recommended that the new ability to appeal when a property is not designated be limited to the property owner, which was what was presented to the historical resources board.

This raised concerns related to related to due process and consistency with other appeal processes, and so ultimately adding the ability to appeal when a property is not designated, has been removed from preservation in progress package A, which will retain the status quo in regard to board decisions to not designate.

Additional more minor amendment minor amendments related to appeals of historic designations include aligning appeal filing requirements with other city appeal processes, as well as adding adding a deadline to dock at the appeal within 180 days of the appeal filing.

Currently, there is no deadline and appeals remain pending for years when the property owner does not wish to proceed to the appeal hearing.

This amendment would require the issue of significance and designation to be settled and finalized within a reasonable time frame.

Amendments are proposed to San Diego Municipal Code Section 123.0206 that will clarify the role of the board and the city council in reviewing national register nominations consistent with the National Historic Preservation Act and the City's responsibilities as a certified local government.

The last land development code amendment is a clarifying amendment to the Complete Communities Housing Solutions Regulations, which will clarify that complete communities is allowed within a thematic and emerging historic districts if the property is not a contributing resource.

There's currently one thematic historic district, the Chinese Asian Thematic Historic District downtown, and one emerging historical district, the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District in the city.

This change does not alter how thematic and emerging historical districts have always been regulated by the city and is consistent with the city's historical district procedures, which clearly state that only contributing resources are regulated.

A traditional historical district has a more compact geographic boundary with a high concentration of contributing resources that embody why the district is significant, and a low concentration of non-contributing resources which do not embody the district's significance.

All properties within a traditional historic district boundary are therefore regulated to different degrees to preserve the sense of place and significance of the historic district.

Thematic and emerging historical districts are different from traditional historic districts.

Their boundaries can be much larger, and they only have contributing resources that meet the theme and convey the significance of the historic district.

If a property is not designated as a contributing resource to a thematic or emerging historical district, it is not regulated.

This is explicitly stated in the Historical Resources Board procedure on establishing historic districts, which states that in regard to Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District, only those properties identified and designated as contributors are currently regulated.

Additionally, to be designated as a contributing resource to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District, a property must be volunteered by the property owner for designation.

Looking at the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District specifically, the boundary shown here in orange encompasses the original Ocean Beach subdivision and represents the area in which eligible beach cottages constructed between 1887 and 1931 can be found.

The area encompasses approximately 3,000 parcels.

Only 7272 of those parcels, about 2.4%, are designated as contributing resources to the district.

The remaining 2900 plus parcels have never been regulated as part of the district, and the proposed amendments would clarify that complete communities housing solutions can be utilized on these parcels.

The last item in preservation and progress package A is a change to the city's historic preservation fund, which primarily receives revenue from civil penalties and enforcement fees from unpermitted alterations and modifications to historic resources.

There's present presently approximately 100,000 in the fund.

The proposed changes would focus fund expenditures on work that advances equity in historic preservation, such as funding efforts that support the identification and preservation of resources significant for their association with cultural groups and communities that are underrepresented in historic preservation, as well as direct financial assistance to very low and low-income owners of historic properties to assist with maintenance and restoration of their historic resource.

Preservation and progress package A was presented at three public meetings of the Historical Resources Board's policy subcommittee in July, August, and October of 2025.

Staff also held a virtual public workshop on October 8th, where all items were presented and staff responded to questions and feedback.

On October 23rd, the historical resources board considered the item.

A motion to recommend adoption of package A as presented, which at that time included the added ability for a property owner to appeal when a property is not designated by the board, failed with a vote of four in favor and six opposed.

A follow-up motion to recommend adoption of package A subject to the removal of the added ability to appeal when a property is not designated, and to request a discussion regarding the number of votes required to designate a property to be included in package B failed with a vote of five in favor, four opposed, and one abstention.

There were no additional motions, and the board's consideration of preservation and progress package A concluded without a recommendation.

On October 28th, the community planners committee voted 28 to 0 to zero to oppose preservation and progress package A and recommend that the proposed findings not supported appeal finding be removed, that the voting requirements for the historical resources board be changed to a simple majority of board members present to designate, and that the ability to appeal historical resources board decisions to not designate a property be added back into package A.

Lastly, on November 6th, the planning commission voted unanimously to recommend approval of preservation and progress package A as presented.

The City of San Diego joins the other largest jurisdictions in the nation in being a certified local government, meaning that the city's historic preservation program has been certified by the California Office of Historic Preservation and the National Park Service pursuant to the National Historic Preservation Act.

As a certified local government, we are required to submit changes to our historic preservation ordinance to the California Office of Historic Preservation.

On October 23rd, the state office confirmed that they have no objection to the proposed changes in package A and supports the city's efforts.

Therefore, staff is recommending that the land use and housing committee recommend to the City Council adoption of preservation in progress package A, including the amendments to the land development code of the municipal code, amendments to the historic preservation element and appendix F of the general plan, and amendments to the purpose and intended use of the historic preservation fund.

With the committee's recommendation, we anticipate bringing preservation in progress package A to the full city council next month.

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

Thank you.

Thank you.

Natalie, let's proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item three is now open, and we have we currently have 49 speakers lips submitted from individuals here in chambers.

When I call your name, please come up to the front of the row at the reserve seats.

And if you are seating time as a reminder, please be present in the room when I call your name and raise your hand if you are seating time to another speaker.

Each speaker will have one minute.

We will begin with Stephanie Benvenuto, followed by Wesley Morgan, Kathleen Lavitt, and then a group presentation by Bruce Coons.

I didn't expect this.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name's Stephanie Benvenuto.

I'm here on behalf of the Building Industry Association of San Diego, the trade group that represents home builders, their employees, and affiliated subcontractors.

In short, we're here to urge your support.

Staff has been hard at work for a lengthy period of time to create this very balanced package A.

As explained, this package is largely administrative good governance items.

Industries grateful grateful for this and for all their work, but we must acknowledge that our hope is for a more robust, impactful package or impactful policy package in package B that is forthcoming.

You're all intimately aware of the far reach of our housing crisis and how it drives up costs.

Please help provide certainty by passing package A and help us move forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Wesley Morgan.

Good afternoon, and thank you, City staff, for the recommendations and package A.

I'm here to strongly support package A.

De Nova Review will ensure that historic designation decisions with real land use consequences can be reviewed in full by our elected officials, just like every other land use decision by the city.

Limiting appeals of non-designation will prevent repeated procedural appeals after a property has already been designated not to be historic.

Updating HRP voting mechanics will prevent procedural deadlock and ensures the board can function predictively and fairly.

Package A does not remove protection from the Ocean Beach cottages.

They remain fully protected.

Complete communities will not be applied to historical resources or cottages, only to non-historic parcels, exactly as intended.

Thank you.

Kathleen Blavett, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by William Riley.

Can you raise your hand, William?

Thank you.

Lynn Miller and Stephen Menchessy.

Stephen, so you'll have four minutes total.

Thank you.

Um our community plan went to council a dozen years ago.

And Todd Gloria and Atkins and the whole council voted for our community plan.

That's only a dozen years ago.

It took longer than a dozen years ago to put that plan together.

And it's a slap in the face to Ocean Beach to do this after all the effort that went through to do that.

And it's ironic that now these people who voted for it, and it was everyone on council voted for our plan.

And now they want to change it.

Ocean Beach is a very, very special place.

I've written four books on Ocean Beach.

This is the Bible to Ocean Beach, how much history it has.

The biggest uh amusement park in the United States at that time was in Ocean Beach.

It goes on and on.

We have writers, we have musicians, we have church row, which a lot of that is historical, sorry.

Anyhow, um, so the cottages.

Yes, there were 300, but there were a lot, there's a lot more down there because families go back five generations owning their cottages.

A lot of these are precious, beautiful cottages.

It shouldn't be that only the rich can get their houses and their neighborhoods protected, and yet this beautiful place where people come from all over to see because of the hippies because of the beach town feel fill feel of it, they don't want to see high rises, they don't want to see Miami, they want to see Ocean Beach.

There's also flooding problems.

You want to avoid all these uh what just happened at the sports arena where you don't have environmentals.

We have had flooding.

1816.

I'm sorry, 1916.

We had a flood.

A hundred years later, we had another flood, the same one that the underground parking with the Lamborghinis got flooded twice.

We have generations of families there.

The bus routes, our streets are not wide enough.

They cannot ever be able to do what they talked about earlier on how these bus routes go.

It's a farce.

We have very thin streets there.

Um the history here is so important, and the people we uh there's already not enough parking down there, and yet they're talking about putting in parking meters.

It's just gonna be a mess.

It can't work.

The putting high-rise or mid-rise houses in there is not gonna work.

It there's too much, like I say, flooding and other problems down there.

We're already getting too full with people.

These lots are subdivided, some of them into eight lots in a normal size lot.

This the state trying to put through where on a lot you can have so many units and you can do this.

It doesn't work.

We have more substandard lots than anywhere in San Diego, and quite a bit of a and on it are cottages.

These cottages that you need to protect.

It's very important.

Um Bruce Coons and Saber Hair Storage Organization.

You've had uh 16 speakers submitting their slips to CDU time.

The maximum time for a group presentation is 15 minutes, but I'll go ahead and read the names and they can raise their hand in that audience.

Alana Coons, Alana?

Yes, and I'll be part of Bruce's presentation.

Okay, William Anair, William, David Roth, Jennifer McDonald, Karen or Crean Howard.

Thank you.

Lorna Theo, Lorna, and Laura Convoy, Laura, David Swarens, David Goldberg, John Eisenhart.

Okay.

Eva Thorne, Eva or Eva Thorne, Terry McCoy, Lily Rosa, Mike Tukey, Jennifer James, and Paul Johnson.

Okay.

Do you have 15 minutes?

Please be in.

Okay, uh, thank you.

Thank you, Chairman Lee, uh, members of the uh committee, uh, Bruce Koons, Decity Director of Saber Heritage Organization.

Um, let me start with you know, a little bit about what historic designation actually is.

It's a baseline determination, simply whether or not a project is historic.

Think of it like other environmental decisions.

If you're asking the site is a vernal pool or doesn't have a vernal pool on it, that's a factual question, not a political one, as it is in this case.

And this is critical.

The land use decision has always remained with the council, the ultimate disposition of the historic resource, the trade-offs between the project and uh whether the uh resources preserved, moved, or demolished.

It was always been in your hands.

The council left it in their hands when they created the current process 25 years ago.

Uh designation is just an identifying an important place in our cultural heritage.

It's not a tool to stop development.

Look at the city council itself when it set up the current condition.

So only the subject matter experts, not city council would make the factual these factual determinations because a council person doesn't have the time to sift through the lengthy appeal hearing review hundreds of pages of technical reports and visit the sites.

Um the HRB does.

The idea of de novo hearing seems to come up every few years.

And over 20 years, no HRB and no citizen city council has ever said, yeah, let's change this, because everyone knows these proposals would turn the fact current fact-baked process into a political free-for-all.

The thing that should really concern you and the developers is these proposals will actually create more delays, not less.

If you adopt these new grounds for the de novo hearing, anyone can appeal for any reasons creating more uncertainty for developers, not less, more litigations, more project delays.

We can all we would probably be forced to bypass local decision making altogether and invalidate uh elevate it to the state level, as we had to with historic districts because of the delay in processing them.

This is also what occurred if you remember the Coronado Railroad case.

It took nearly 10 years and three lawsuits before it was resolved in our favor.

That's what can happen here.

But then, if you look at the current process and how it's done right, look at the sports arena project.

The building was recognized as historic, determined and designated, went through the normal process.

Then they made the case that the project required its removal for the project.

A legitimate case.

The HRB and other bodies agreed, smooth, efficient and process, no drama.

It's the denial of the historic status, not the designation that creates conflicts and delay.

Under this proposal, anyone could appeal a designation, and boom, you've just set back the project six months right away and more, and you might kill any historic tax credits if the project was looking for it due to the competitive nature of those tax credits.

None of this can happen under the current position process because HRB decisions are final.

The preservation blocks housing claim is absolutely false.

Let's talk about this unfolded this unfounded narrative that preservation is blocking housing.

The data just doesn't support it.

SOA has never stopped the project.

Excuse me, it skipped a page.

Stuck together.

Did you know that around one percent of the built environment could ever be designated, even if we processed every single eligible property?

Just one percent work.

This is a red herring.

That's not even a statistic that matters.

And we get, and getting designated is really hard.

It must meet a rigorous set of criteria, documented in a report of more than a hundred pages, reviewed at public meetings, and has to pass the supermajority vote by the HRB.

We have fewer than one conflict per year, and you know that.

We've had less than one conflict in the last four years.

Also uh confirmed that historic review does not delay projects.

Other required processes are much longer.

The city's own analysis says the process is reasonable and doesn't delay permits.

So the claim that preservation creates bottlenecks is just not true.

We've already lost too many historic places.

Every year, fewer survive.

We should not make their removal easier.

These resources are fundamental.

They define San Diego's character, desirability, its economic vitality, and preserve naturally occurring and affordable housing.

You lack the authority to act today.

That is the bottom line.

The record before you does not contain the information required by law to support a decision.

The city has failed to complete the required CEQA environmental review, and it is also failed required mitigation.

As it is unlawfully segmented package A and the general plan in package B and all related actions contrary to CEQA's requirement that evaluate the whole of the project.

Absolutely this analysis, any approval of package A would be legally indefensible.

You are obligated to reject it until the required studies are completed.

Please do not advance this proposal until the re those reviews are complete.

Thank you.

The presentations you'll hear today from SOHO and the preservation community are grounded in documented evidence.

Under CEQA, environmental review applies to all discretionary projects approved by the city that may result in adverse impacts.

The CEQA guidelines, Section 15378, define a project broadly to include any activity undertaken by a public agency that may cause a physical change in the environment.

Ordinances adopted by a city clearly fall within this scope.

The courts have repeatedly confirmed that ordinances may constitute projects under CECO.

As the California Supreme Court has explained, changes to a historic preservation ordinance can require environmental review where they may result in indirect physical changes to the environment.

Consistent with this, the 2015 decision held that a code revision that could reduce protections for historic or natural resources is not exempt from CEQA review.

Segmenting parts A and B violate CEQA, which requires that a lead agency consider the whole of the action together.

Any prior ERAs require revision and additional CEQA review, as the impacts of these proposed changes have not yet been adequately studied.

The Court of Appeal recently ruled against the city and Save Our Access versus City of San Diego for failing to conduct sufficient sequel review, underscoring the legal risk of the city proceeding here without proper analysis.

The proposed changes would weaken existing historic protections and increase environmental impacts, resulting in the loss or degradation of historic and cultural resources.

Package A erodes historic district protections, stripping safeguards from districts such as Ocean Beaches Cottage Emerging District and the Asian Thematic District, while leaving pending districts vulnerable.

These are precisely the types of impacts CECWA is designed to analyze and mitigate.

An EIR is needed to evaluate the full range of effects, identify feasible mitigations, and ensure that the city's preservation goals and environmental obligations are met.

The historical resources board rejected package A.

The community planning committee, who are all elected positions representing a citywide constituency, unanimously rejected it.

As of today, or as of a couple hours ago, almost 100 written comments into you show an eight to one in opposition of package A.

It may be useful to factor this level of public and advisory committees input into your deliberations, as this level of engagement provides a meaningful indication of your constituents' concerns.

Moving ahead without full SQL review and in disregard of the HRB, the CPC, and massive community opposition would be premature.

We urge you not to vote on an item today for which you are unable to make the legally informed decision.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Mercy Barron, please approach the lectern.

And you'll be followed by Sharon Gale, Jennifer Ayala, and Tyler Martin.

Hello, City Council.

My name is Mercy Barron.

I'm a resident of Ocean Beach, and I'm on the board of the Ocean Beach Historical Society.

I am a retired archaeologist, so I have a lot of emotions and feelings about this package and why it shouldn't pass.

This fast track proposal would weaken San Diego's historic preservation program by allowing the city council to override expert historic designations.

I find that incredibly insulting that you would just disregard people in my profession who are well trained and are giving you advice on what to do, which would be the right thing to preserve these beautiful historic cottages.

There are so many reasons why we should preserve that, but it all just boils down to we need to hold on to our history.

I'm not against progress.

Progress is inevitable.

We have to have it.

I understand that.

But I don't understand why we can't have that and also preserve.

Thank you.

Sharon.

My name is Sharon Gale.

The city needs a de novo appeal process to ensure that all aspects of a historic designation are considered, because historic designation is a land use decision, and the city council are the experts on land use decisions.

The HRB, an appointed board is not allowed to consider anything other than the historic aspects of a decision.

If a decision is appealed to the city council, the council is currently limited to considering only whether the HRB made a mistake.

When city regulations do not allow the city council to consider all aspects of an HRB decision, such as the need for more housing, the added financial cost designation of public safety.

That means that the historic city's historic program has higher priority than anything else in the city of San Diego.

To consider all that, Jennifer Ayala.

You'll be followed by Tyler Martin, Manny Rodriguez, and Barbara Holton.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jennifer Ayala.

I'm an architect and I co-league Nexus Planning and Research.

I'd like to address the public comments submitted on this item.

Unfortunately, much of the community input reflects misinformation about the scope of package A.

Package A does not remove historic protections, change designation criteria, eliminate oversight, or streamline permits.

Package A is a target administrative update.

Package A clarifies the grounds for appeal by adding findings not supported.

This is consistent with standard administrative practice throughout California.

This is not politicized designation.

I urge you to recommend approval of package A as noticed.

Preservation of significant historical resources and continued growth are both essential to the city's long-term success.

I look forward to working with staff and the HRB on package B, which will have the substantive regulatory discussion.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Tyler Barton.

Hello, Tyler Martin, Ocean Beach.

I'm here today to I wrote a letter to the board to support package A.

My letter exemplifies at 4921 Voltaire Avenue.

There was a 1925 Craftsman Cottage that fit the description of the district.

The community planning group and Save Our Heritage Organization supported the demolition of that cottage, and it is in the letter screenshotted.

It's a voluntary district.

It's always been limited to and that one simply failed just because the owner said I don't want to be a part of the district.

They supported it.

They're here today to misrepresent it to stop apartment buildings from being built in Ocean Beach when that is exactly what Newport needs.

Our commercial district has more vacant retail than any other beach community in San Diego.

I regularly count 10 to 20.

If you want to keep mom and pop around, you'll keep them fat and happy.

And you gotta give them customers.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez.

Good afternoon, Council.

Uh Council President.

I'm here to support the uh package in front of you today, but I also want to invite the council to have a bigger discussion on just historic.

What is historic as a whole?

The city is about 250 years old.

There are cities, or there are towns in Europe that are multiple times older than that.

And there are towns in Europe that have been around since BCE.

And you know, for I think we need to start thinking about like, you know, we are still in an infancy in some ways as a city.

And you know, if um you know 12-year-old was saying that they want to stay the same height and stay the same, keep the same outfit size for the rest of their life, you know, we'd be thinking, well, wait, hold on, you're still gonna be growing very much, you won't be able to keep on that nice shirt forever, or those shoes won't always fit you.

And so I want this council to think that you know this city 250 years old, but we will probably be around for millennia, and just has many towns and cities across the world have been around for millennia, so start thinking about what is actually historic things.

Thank you.

Barbara Holton, please approach the election, and you'll be followed by Arya Grossman and Jeff Widerstand.

Good afternoon.

I'm here representing coastal caretakers.

We don't speak the historical language.

It seems a special way of viewing things, but we're here to object to removing the protection that Ocean Beach has.

You have a situation in package A where they change the rules and they go, hey, Ocean Beach doesn't meet the rules.

Formed in 1988, it's not just cottages.

I wanted to say it's for 25 years, it's been on the list of historic districts, and it has been recognized by the city and by all agencies as a full historic district until it pops up as a change to the municipal code.

The city is gone.

We didn't do it right.

There have been changes since 1988 and 2011.

The city voted.

But no future districts will be formed under those rules.

Thank you.

You've got problems.

Thank you.

Arya Grossman.

Good afternoon, Chairley, members of the committee.

My name is Arya Grossman.

I'm the policy manager at Circulate San Diego.

Historic preservation regulations can be well-intentioned and can serve an important function.

However, too often, these regulations create an unintended barrier to the development of new homes, as is the case in San Diego.

In a city with such an extreme housing shortage, it is important that policymakers work to identify and modernize regulations that may contribute to the unaffordability that San Diego residents experience daily.

I applaud you for recognizing that these historic preservation regulations can and are in fact contributing to the housing crisis and bringing forward this package today.

This package is a positive first step towards reforming the heritage preservation program, and I urge the committee to advance these reforms and continue to prioritize affordability and creating new homes as it considers future reforms.

And I look forward to working with you all and advancing package B.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff, please approach the election, and you've been seated time by 10 individuals in chambers.

If they can please raise their hand.

Leslie Bruce?

Dan I give it?

Yvonne Jones.

Laura Henson.

Diana Carnahan, Diana?

Okay.

Cameron.

Okay.

Dolores Cadena.

Jim Holton.

Okay.

And Diane Kane.

Okay.

So you will have 11 minutes.

Great.

Thank you, Council Members again.

What I'd like to talk about today is maybe take a step back and ask why historic preservation is important to the city of San Diego, how it fits into the broader context of our city planning, which I think is very important.

And part of it is we talk a lot about the history of San Diego, but I think it's also important to look at the context, the historic context of historic preservation itself, because if you look in the next slide, next slide, you know, this all got started when we started doing redevelopment of urban areas in the 1960s.

The sort of the icon of this bite between developers and preservation started with the destruction of Penn Station and the erection of Madison Square Gardens.

So we went from something that was a spectacular architectural example to something that frankly looks like our sports arena, and that's not necessarily a good thing.

And what we really did is we left primarily our south of eight communities, you know, where they were.

Most of our new economic engines.

So if you think of Serrano Mesa, you think of Kearney Mesa, you think of UTC, Rancher Bernardo, our economic center of San Diego moved north with deference to the downtown area, which you know was the center of San Diego up until the 40s, but no longer.

It's not even the primary job center in San Diego.

And one of the things that happened is we historic preservation was a critical part, our historic neighborhoods, even though they were residential only, even though they weren't job centers, is what provided the stabilization in our communities.

And until we've gotten to where we are today, which is because of debatable goals of a building housing around transit, but not making them accessible to jobs.

We focused a lot of our infield development on south of eight communities, and we've created this pressure where now all of a sudden these areas which were kept stable by the residents who live there, now we want to take all those areas, tear them down and rebuild them in in the name of progress.

And so what I'd like to do with the rest of my talk is kind of put some of this into perspective with actual data.

We have a tendency to think of historic preservation as creating enclaves of you know wealthy white homeowners and nothing ever changes.

In fact, the data tells a much different story.

If we go uh forward a couple of slides, so the first thing to understand is these aren't frozen areas.

So historic districts are growing faster, more than twice as fast as the rest of the city in terms of adding new residents.

Um if you look at even the diversification of the population, and certainly it's true that historic districts have traditionally been wider than the rest of the city, but they're actually catching up in terms of representing all of San Diego at a much faster rate than the rest of the city.

So that's a very positive uh aspect of historic districts, and we'll see other reasons why that's true as we go through this.

The next slide.

The other uh Ms.

Briggs conception that people have is that you know, historic preservation freezes development and nothing can happen.

We've heard about some of the commercial properties, but this is also true in residential neighborhoods.

So on uh even though the land mass of residential uh neighborhoods uh is only 1.8 percent of San Diego or the um the actual production of ADUs is 2.6 percent.

So historic districts actually produce more on a property by property basis in terms of ADUs and infill housing than the rest of San Diego, and that should be treated as a good thing, not a negative next slide.

Um the other part of it, if we spent a lot of time here trying to figure out to do with middle income housing.

So we have deeds and and specific programs for people at the lowest end of the economic scale.

Obviously, the people at the upper end of the scale are doing fine.

Where we really struggle is in that middle, and you can see that historic districts actually have a uh serve a higher percentage of residents with incomes between 25,000 and 100,000 than the rest of the city.

So these are actually where people are finding more affordable options to live in San Diego, both as homeowners and as renters, and the as homeowners typically of historic homes in historic districts are actually smaller than the average San Diego size.

Uh we don't have 2,000 square foot homes typically, and our residential are historic districts, whereas we have them in the northern part of the city.

So people are able to find starter homes, or at least they used to be before we targeted them for all kinds of overdevelopment in and renters as well.

And if you go forward, so this is I just want to emphasize that the homeownership is in historic districts, is not just bending white homeowners, but uh people of color as well, and you can see that uh we are growing in our historic districts at a much higher rate than the rest of the San Diego towards that diversification of home ownership.

Next slide.

Um you'll hear a lot about the Mills Act and how that just uh protects the property value of wealthy people.

But that the one thing that's key about the Mills Act is it's a means by which we can make housing more affordable for lower income residents as well, um, because it uh maintaining an historic home as a you know requires some things that are more expensive, and the Mills Act is actually a way to support the homeowner in being able to live in their house and maintain it over time.

And if anything, as we go through this process, we should be trying to find ways to make the Mills Act more equitable and more accessible to people up throughout San Diego, and not just the people that can afford to spend thousands of dollars to go to HRB, get their home designated, and historic districts provide away from that because contributors in historic districts are eligible for the Mills Act.

If you were to provide lower uh application fees or other incentives, that would help the people at lower incomes also access the program.

Go to the next slide, and here's the other thing.

So this is the distribution of San Diego's historic districts by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee opportunity level, which is the standard we use in San Diego to assess uh where people are in terms of uh opportunities in San Diego, and you can see that actually historic districts are overweighted in low and moderate opportunity areas as opposed to high and highest, and that's one of the things that if we promote historic preservation and protect our current protections, that this is something that we're doing that's furthering equity in San Diego, not undoing it.

So, next thing the and the the idea that this isn't just that historic districts are more affordable places.

This is something that applies in general to all housing, and so you can look here is if you look at uh the blue areas, those are the areas that are 45 years or older, and we have this concept of filtering that often gets talked about where housing stock depreciates and it becomes more affordable.

Well, that's true, and it's more, and it's true for historic districts.

This is our uh opportunity, our means by which we would create naturally occurring affordable housing, and as we try and say, well, let's just open up development, let people tear down anything in San Diego.

We're actually primarily removing historic um naturally occurring affordable housing and building new premium housing.

And you know, I've said it before with regard to the report on housing.

Um, the report on housing doesn't report things like demolition, so we're invisible to what we're doing with this depreciated affordable housing stock.

Next slide.

Um just want to say something about climate action.

So we spent a lot of time on organic waste recycling, but an equal amount, over three a third of all the waste in our landfill is construction and demolition waste.

And this isn't even counted in our climate action plan.

So it's a complete blind spot that we have, and what it does is if you go to the next slide, um it it means that we miscount the value of reusing and readapting historic buildings.

There was a very good study done on the Granger building downtown, which was a one time a bank and then an office, and now is a hotel.

And if you look at the next slide, um what they did is they analyzed the option of doing a remodel of the anterior with uh certain um energy efficient things, and then gutting the whole inside and then tearing the whole thing down.

Well, it turns out that actually lightly adapted or using this was by far the best option in terms of a sustainability strategy and something that we need for more and more and isn't really being considered in our regulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Barry Hager, please approach the electron and we will pull up the slides that you've provided, and you'll be followed by our final speaker in chambers, Gail Fried.

And Barry, you've been seated time by six speakers of or six others, if they can please raise their hand.

Susan Dean, Sharon Leader, Sharon, Jordan, Robert, Robert Jesuit, thank you.

Kelly Tremling, Kelly.

I don't see Kelly's hand.

Lauren Carter.

Okay, so you will have six minutes to give your presentation.

Okay, thank you.

Uh good afternoon, council members.

Uh, my name is Barry Hager, and I'm speaking for Mission Hills Heritage.

I'd like to start by saying that we support the goals of preservation and progress and the majority of the amendments proposed in package A.

However, some of the proposed amendments are very troubling and will result in a setback for historic preservation in San Diego without necessarily advancing the goals of the initiative.

We submitted a detailed letter uh earlier, and I'm not just going to go over that letter, but I do want to focus on the new findings not supported or de novo grounds for appeal.

To propose new grounds for appeal would allow the city council to review the information provided to the HRB and make different findings and reach a contrary conclusion.

Here's the problem.

Next slide, please.

The current historic designation and appeals process has worked well for decades.

The process is rigorous.

The decision-making board includes experts in various fields.

Council members are capable of reviewing HRB decisions based on the current more limited grounds for appeal.

But council members lack the expertise, training, and accumulated knowledge of the HRB.

Council members.

We have positive time.

Can you please speak into the microphone?

Oh, I'm sorry.

Thank you.

Council members are not schooled in the criteria for designation.

And unlike the HRB, council members will not be required to conduct site visits before the hearing, the appeal hearing, with an eye towards applying the designation criteria.

The broader grounds for appeal will invite more appeals for a second bite at the apple.

The consequences will be unpredictable, uneven decisions with more potential for appealable error, error, and litigation.

Adding the de novo grounds will only decrease the authority of the HRB and add an element of politics into appeals.

So what is driving the uh this amendment to add the de novo ground?

Next slide, please.

The staff presentation implies that the reason for the new grounds, which allows city council to reconsider the designation itself, is to make the process, quote, consistent with appeals of development permits, unquote, being the process two and process three appeals.

However, the comments of staff during the planning commission last uh last November point to a different reason.

Responding to a question about the genesis of the de novo amendment, Deputy Director Stanco stated, quote, it has come up occasionally over the years.

I've been working with the city and with historic preservation for over 20 years, and every now and again the issue comes up.

We have a discussion, and to date, there's been no interest in ultimately in changing or adding the finding.

But we've heard new renewed interest in this council in expanding that ability, and so we've included that in package A.

So it appears that political pressure is driving this amendment, not a desire to for consistency between unrelated types of appeals.

What did the HRB have to say about the de novo issue?

Next slide, please.

Again, the staff presentation indicates that the HRB policy subcommittee was generally supportive of all other aspects of package A, including the de novo ground.

But HRB member Carla Farley, one of four members of the policy subcommittee, voted against package A, specifically citing the de novo issue.

Her comment at the October 23rd HRB meeting was quote, de novo, I'm not on with I'm not on de novo.

That's the short of it.

And when you can hear that nobody has put this thing forward, obviously for some really great reasons.

I don't know if we really want to be the ones to stand out, unquote.

The HRB did not pass a motion to support package A largely due to the inclusion of the de novo ground.

The proposed amendment is moving us towards a system where historic designations will only uh occur if the owner wants it to be.

While that may be the goal of some, that is not the best practice for historic preservation, and all San Diegans will suffer under that system.

Next slide.

A final quote for you.

Here's what the San Diego Yimby group said about these reforms in their October E newsletter, quote.

The city wants to make it easier to override historic preservation rules.

Proposed changes would let city council overrule expert board decisions on historic buildings, potentially clearing the way for more housing, unquote.

From this headline, it's clear that the Yemby group and the building industry allies are trying to set up the false choice of historic preservation or more housing.

But we can have both.

But what that statement does underscore is that the de novo appeal ground will scale back historic designations, which will result in the loss of more historic resources going forward.

And the city has not analyzed the impacts of the proposed reforms.

Next slide.

In closing, we urge this committee to not recommend adoption of package A until the findings not supported, or de novo appeal ground has been removed, and the city completes an environmental analysis of the impacts of the proposed amendment.

Let's not blow up a system that works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Gail Fried, and you'll be followed by Michelle Jeannett.

Hi.

Thank you.

Gail Freed, co-founder, Vibrant Uptown.

I walked here today from Kilcrest.

I passed many historic homes.

They're lovely, but unfortunately, many were law offices, not homes.

We can all support historic preservation, but the system needs to be overhauled.

Package A clarifies where preservation applies and streamlines review elsewhere.

The city protects historic resources while enabling housing where it is appropriate.

We do not need San Diego frozen in time.

We need housing.

I ask you to vote yes today on this package.

Thank you.

Thank you, Michelle.

Good afternoon.

City Council, thank you for your difficult job.

I was born in Valboa Park Navy at Navy Hospital in 1951 while my father was in Korea.

Um I wanted to travel, and a teacher friend said of my parents said, I don't know if you could stomach India where you have to walk over dead bodies in the street, which was not my experience coming down to the concourse at 13 to see the Rolling Stones.

Recently it has been.

And what you're doing is not helping.

It's not it's you need to provide a shelter, and I think thank you.

Taking people's communities is not gonna do anything.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time, and this concludes in-person public testimony for item three.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate that they have comments for item three.

Each speaker will have one minute, and we have six hands raised.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Council members.

My name is Evan Strawn, and I'm speaking on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce, whose mission is to make the San Diego region the best place to live and work.

One of the biggest challenges facing our member businesses as they seek to attract and retain talent is a lack of available and affordable housing for their employees.

There are many common sense reforms that can help address this issue and make housing easier to build, and preservation and progress is part of this.

The reforms in this package modernize the historic review process, protecting actual historic properties while preventing abuse of historic designation.

The reforms also give additional oversight to the elected city council instead of the unelected historic resources board.

For these reasons, we encourage the committees to support the package today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker in the queue is Meredith.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello.

So far today, it hasn't been discussed by anybody much that the Historical Resources Board was somewhat rushed in its decision when package A went before it.

This was mentioned a bit more than it was today at the planning commission meeting in November.

It had been a long day, and there may have been some things missed by the board.

Ocean Beach already has flooding problems, erosion problems, and resiliency issues.

And now with package A, you would be adding high-density housing into the mix, reminding you this is the primary coastal zone.

Reminding you the California Coastal Commission is usually involved in all decisions in the primary coastal zone.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Janet.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

I urge the committee to pause the package A and dismiss the notion that historic preservation contributes to our affordability crisis.

The real drivers are economic upzoning, land value inflation, and speculative development, not preservation.

When land values rise, builders develop for profit, not affordability.

That's why we get more units, but not housing people can afford.

Research shows density alone does not lower prices in high demand markets.

When older buildings are demolished, we lose naturally affording housing and the character that defines our neighborhoods.

That's not progress.

Adaptive reuse offers a better path, supporting affordability, sustainability, and community stability.

I support the concerns raised by SOHO, Mission Hills Heritage, and Obi, and ask that you first review the upcoming place economic study and ensure meaningful community input and postpone a vote on package A.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Renee Mezzo.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Council members and staff.

My name's Renee Mezzo.

I work with the Atlantis Group, a land use consulting firm here in San Diego.

We respectfully ask you to support your support of staff's recommendation and the planning commission's unanimous approval of package A.

We look forward to working closely with staff on package B.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Jay Goldberg.

Please unmute and begin.

I see that you've unmuted, but we cannot hear you.

Jay Goldberg, nice neighbors, San Diego Citizen Airbnb compliance.

Good afternoon, Chair and Committee members.

Ocean Beach has a culture worth preserving.

I support historic designation of specific properties.

However, the largest blocker to measured infill development in Ocean Beach is and continues to be the allowance of 7% of all housing being permitted as full-time investor short-term rentals.

Much of it was naturally occurring affordable housing.

Why would anyone redevelop any parcel in OB if you can instead fence it on Airbnb for the same return?

I support voting yes on this item.

Thanks.

Thank you.

The next speaker is Saad Assad.

Please unmute and begin.

Saad Asad, I have asked you to unmute.

Good afternoon, Council members.

I strongly support package A.

And I just kind of want to underlie like this concept of historic districts and things like that.

Part of this issue is that we're kind of our freezing together the history of redlining, racial covenants, and class exclusion.

And our focus on history often just is about homeowners and architects.

But you know, what does it speak to the indigenous people forced in the labor black and Mexican American communities pushed aside by freeways and low-wage workers whose homes were never quaint enough to landmark?

So I want to kind of understand why we need to focus on this way of framing historic preservation while really unpacking the history that is important to understand for San Diego.

With that, I support package A.

It's important to provide that funding for LGBTQ and uh black and uh Chicano histories in San Diego, and also allowing housing in one of our most segregated communities, including Ocean Beach.

Thank you.

The five minute timer has concluded.

We have three hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these three.

Tristan Beerie, please unmute and begin.

Hello, my name is Tristan Beerie.

I'm the youth organizer over at Youth Will, and I am here to speak in support of uh package A.

Uh, I like to think of myself as someone who has a affinity for history, as someone who majored in political science and minored in humanities.

But I can't in good conscience as someone who also works with youth experiencing homelessness and someone who was a homeless youth himself, uh, choose to favor preserving the history over building towards our future.

And the reality of the future is these kids need housing.

We all need housing.

Uh we we can't we can't put a pause on developing for the future just so that way we can have all these little cottages everywhere.

We need to we need to expand the access for these houses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And we have one final speaker in the queue.

Will Moore, please unmute and begin.

Hello.

Um, my name is William Moore.

I am a resident of Bulltown, calling you from the birthplace of California, our beautiful old town neighborhood.

I am an attorney and active here in the community.

Our need here is to balance uh growth and uh the future versus uh preservation of the past.

Package A does that.

It is a small step in that direction.

I thank the staff for their work on this.

I look forward to package B.

Um, we need to spend uh much more effort being aggressive with uh getting out of our own way to make sure that our group has a future as well.

Uh the path.

We create our history new every day, and we need to make sure we have space to do so.

Thank you very much, and please support package A.

Thank you.

And as a reminder, the five-minute timer has concluded.

Our final speaker is Craig Klein.

Please unmute and begin.

Craig, I've asked you to unmute.

Can you hear me now?

Yes.

Something went wrong.

Please try again.

Hello.

I am uh former member of the Ocean Beach Planning Board.

I spoke at the at the uh planning commission on this subject.

I just want you to consider what it means to the Ocean Beach neighborhood.

If you have a historic cottage that is protected, and then on the parcels directly adjacent on both sides as well as across the street, you're gonna have high density multi-unit ADUs with no parking on streets that already have insufficient parking.

And what the proposed changes to the historical district in uh parcel in A would do is destroy the character of the community.

And if you don't care about community character of your unique community which brings tourists to San Diego, then go ahead and support this.

But it's a bad idea and it will destroy a community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Enter this concludes public comment on item three.

Thank you.

And thank you to all the members of the public for their comments on this item.

Uh, we'll turn next to committee members to see if we've got any questions, comments, uh, and to seek if uh there's a motion.

We'll start with Council Member Woodburn.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Um thank you to Ms.

Stonko and the planning department for the presentation and all of your work on this.

Um also want to thank the historic preservation groups and all of the other community members who are here today.

Uh I appreciate the time uh that a number of you have taken to meet with me uh and with my team, and I certainly appreciate uh the passion in this room uh by many of you for protecting San Diego's history.

I share the goal of having a historic preservation program that is credible, that is accurate, and that is worthy of public trust.

Um I also appreciate uh that many people here today, including advocates for historic preservation, recognize the housing affordability challenges that our city faces.

Um I think Mr.

Hager was uh exactly correct when he said that it's a false choice uh uh to say that um historic preservation and housing affordability uh are necessarily at odds with one another.

Um every San Diegan who supports both housing affordability and housing preservation or historic preservation knows that we can achieve both.

Uh there are a lot of strong elements in this package.

Uh I think a number of people have acknowledged that.

I want to briefly share a recent example uh that my office worked through that I think helps to illustrate why some of these updates matter.

Uh in October of last year, uh we were contacted by a resident of Mission Hills who was trying to get building permits for new windows, and those building permits were being delayed and in some cases effectively denied, and they couldn't quite understand the reason and what the holdup was and and and what was going on.

Uh our office worked to try to sort that out, and it became clear that the delays stemmed from their property being designated as a contributing resource, and they weren't even aware that their property was designated as a contributing resource.

Um as it turned out, uh that designation appeared to be based on some documentation errors.

Uh they had really tried to resolve the issue.

Uh they had months of confusion, administrative hurdles and trying to sort it all out.

Uh it was pretty unclear about how to uh move forward.

I'm glad that our office was able to um help to facilitate that.

But I think that you know, at the end of the day it worked out okay, but I think that that is why updates like several of those in package A are important.

Uh much of what is done in this package is to strengthen noticing requirements, uh clarify the appeals processes, uh, improve alignment between state and local review, uh, all while maintaining strong protections for truly historic resources, uh, and help to prov uh ensure that these decisions are transparent and fair uh and defensible.

There are several elements of the package that I think should be highlighted.

Uh the city's historic preservation fund reforms will focus on grants for low-income property owners and the preservation of underrepresented cultural resources, including BIPOC and LGBTQ plus history.

Uh this package also introduces fair housing and equity accountability into our historic practices.

It acknowledges past harms in zoning and preservation and ensuring that future decisions are made with a clear understanding of their broader impacts.

Uh District 3 offers many examples of historic preservation done right.

I am proud of a number of the uh historic resources uh in the district that I have the privilege of representing.

The Western Metal Supply Company building at Petco Park is a great example of adaptive reuse.

I think it's something that people treasure.

Uh the chicken pie shop in North Park uh shows how historic preservation and new housing can coexist very successfully.

Uh more recently we had the establishment of the city's first LGBTQ plus cultural historic district in Hillcrest.

Uh, that demonstrates how preservation uh can evolve to better reflect our diverse uh history.

Within my district, uh we've had some historic uh appeals.

We haven't had a lot of historic of appeals in the five years that I've been here.

We've had a handful.

Um have been in our business corridors, uh, where in many cases the buildings have sat vacant for long periods of time or have experienced alterations over the years.

Uh the designation of the old Mission Hills Library was appealed to the city council.

And we upheld the designation of the old Mission Hills Library as historic.

And the outcome has been terrific.

If you hadn't, if you haven't visited the old Mission Hills Library to see what it has become, you should.

I mean, it's really uh a nice addition to the neighborhood uh that moves the use of that space forward while uh treasuring the history that it had uh in the Mission Hills business district there.

This city council at the end of the day is accountable for the decisions that it makes.

Lord knows you hold us accountable for the decisions that we make.

Uh so I think it is reasonable for the city council to be able to make the decisions uh that it considers to be proper.

Uh I think the proposed findings not supported standard uh helps to advance the ability of the city council to make decisions that it genuinely believes are the right ones, but I also want to acknowledge the concerns uh raised about how it could be applied.

Um I hear the concerns.

Uh and I do think that there are misconceptions on both sides of uh the conversation here.

I think there are folks who want to develop properties uh who believe that historic preservation is more of an impediment than it actually has to be.

I think that there are some fears uh that aren't necessarily uh grounded in the way the process necessarily needs to play out.

I also think that there are folks in uh the historic preservation community who are wrongly suspicious that there's a desire to bulldoze anything that is historic in our communities.

I think there's a tremendous amount of value in our uh historic elements.

Um but in light of the con uh the the concerns, um I've spoken to Mr.

Hager.

I have a tremendous amount of respect for him, and I want to uh I I have a different perspective on how this is going to play out, but I want to acknowledge that we haven't done this before.

Uh so I think we should monitor how this plays out.

And so I would like to um see if my colleagues would entertain a slight edit to the motion uh, which is supporting the staff recommendation with the direction uh to staff uh to monitor the implementation of the findings not supported appeal standard uh and include in the annual historic resources board report to the council uh the um results uh of that findings not supported appeal standard uh uh within the next year.

Is that something that uh you would be able to accommodate?

Yes, we're happy to do that, Councilmember.

Um we'll see if my colleagues would be supportive of that.

That would allow us to track the true effects of the proposal.

I really don't think it's going to change much in terms of uh the appeals that come, but we'll see.

We'll find out.

And I think it's reasonable to want to uh identify the effects of it.

Um at the end of the day, I believe that preserving San Diego's history and advancing equitable and inclusive growth are not mutually exclusive goals.

I think this represents a measured step, package A toward a system that does both better, uh, and I look forward to continuing the conversation as we uh continue the approach together.

Um, in addition to the findings not supported question, which um we will monitor, uh, there were also some concerns raised about the degree to which uh this complies with CEQA, and if I could, I'm not sure who to direct the question, but are there any concerns about the CEQA ramifications of moving this package in front of us today forward?

I would defer that staff to um that question to city staff to analyze and address what CQL analysis has occurred.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes, uh environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act was completed for preservation and progress package A.

The review concluded that implementation of package A would not result in new significant uh direct, indirect or cumulative impacts over and above those that we have previously uh uh disclosed in other certified environmental documents.

And so we prepared a consistency memo in accordance with CEQA guidelines section 15162.2.

Uh I'm sorry, one five one six two, and we've included that in the uh backup materials to council.

Incremental progress is permissible to address big issues.

CEQA does not require agencies to resolve all issues that are associated with large and complex matters all at once.

Package B has not been drafted yet, and once it is drafted, it will also receive a thorough environmental review.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I'll wrap up my comments there again with the motion to support the staff recommendation with the request that staff come back with the results of the findings not supported appeal standards so that we can hear the true effects of that addition.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

We have a motion by Councilmember Woodburn.

And I'll I'll go ahead and kick in here as well.

And I want to thank Councilmember Woodburn for actually answering uh asking some of the questions and speaking to some of the areas that I think I also had in mind.

Um and I'll I'll start perhaps just by offering a second to that motion with the change that has been suggested.

Um I I actually agree with some members of the audience who have who have talked about how some of this discussion has been portrayed by folks as a choice between historic preservation and housing.

And I I'm not an individual who believes that that is the choice that we are making, nor that that should be the choice that we're making.

I do believe that historic preservation is important uh and and that is something that we should be able to continue to update and um and act as a city, uh, but that housing is also an initiative that we have, and in many cases those two things don't collide, frankly.

Um, but in the rare cases that we have, you know, we've we've had hearty discussions about that.

Um I did want to ask staff to maybe talk a little bit again about the emerging district uh component.

I understand the thematic district, and and we only have that one thematic district in the city, it's from my understanding fairly limited as well.

Um, but of course, there are there are a number of um uh contributing resources, I think was the um tech the terminology uh for the ocean beach cottages.

And so I just wanted to can understand how that was formed, and because we're hearing some different levels of feedback, how that's been enforced in terms of our planning and you know development up to this point.

Sure, happy to um ocean beach is actually our only emerging historical district.

Um the emerging historic district was type was actually created back in 1999-2000 in response to an interest in establishing a historic district in Ocean Beach.

Um at that time we didn't have a detailed survey.

We the there was interest that came primarily from the Ocean Beach Historical Society, and they worked with staff in wanting to designate a district that included beach cottages, um, but they wanted that to be voluntary.

They didn't want property owners to be compelled to um designate their property, um, and there also weren't the resources to go out and survey the entire area at that time.

So this emerging historic district type was created where properties that met the theme that were a beach cottage constructed between 1887 and 1931 could be brought forward by the property owner and nominated to be designated as part of this district, and only those properties that met that theme and were nominated by the property owner were then regulated.

As I mentioned, it's different from a traditional district in that there are no non-contributing resources.

We are not regulating anything else.

Um, and that is the way the district has been regulated since its establishment in 2000.

Um we have only regulated the contributing resources.

We have added contributing resources over time at the request of those property owners, and as I said, now we have about 72, but those are spread out across the roughly 3,000 parcels within the boundary.

So it's a small percentage of the overall properties within the district.

And from my from my understanding from what was shared earlier, additional resources could be added to the historic district.

Yeah, at any time if there is a beach cottage that that meets that definition and and still retains enough integrity to that period, hasn't been altered too much.

A property owner can bring that forward to staff to have it brought forward to the historical resources board and designated as part of the district.

Um, but that as I said, um, unique to this district is a voluntary process, and we respond to those nominations when they come forward.

Okay, thank you for explaining that as well.

Um I think I recalled that there was a 2023 IBA report as well that analyzed historic preservation and in it had they had identified that there are benefits to making updates to the program to create greater transparency and clarity, not just for preservationists but also for developers as well, and that seemed to be something that folks agreed was a necessity at that time.

You had mentioned that this uh package A has also been taken to the state office uh as well for evaluation and um and they've provided their feedback in terms of whether that meets sort of their their review.

Correct.

We are required to submit um changes to our ordinance to the California State Office of Historic Preservation, their certified local government coordinator has reviewed that package.

Um I've discussed it with her, and they provided feedback that they do not have any issues with any of the changes proposed in package A, and they support our efforts.

And I imagine it, I mean, if there was a CEQA concern that they were aware of based on past experience as well, they would have brought that up.

Their purview doesn't extend to the CECOA analysis.

They are looking at whether or not it complies with the National Historic Preservation Act and the city's obligations as a certified local government.

Um but um as I said, our staff has completed the um environmental review under CEQA, and that has been reviewed by the city attorney's office as well.

Understood.

Um I think the last major item that uh has come up in discussion today is the findings not supported recommendation that's added here as well.

And I and I will note I think to Councilmember Whitburn's point, uh, even in my time here in this council, there have only been a number of items that have been brought to appeal to the full council.

Um, and if I recall that a lot of those took place at a time when uh planning had not updated fees relating to the appeals, if I remember correctly.

Because I I too will just note I think there were a couple appeals that we heard that we would all agree were somewhat frivolous, um, and that folks were bringing them forward more so to make a point than to actually have findings that that would determine a change, and in each time the council had helped to uphold uh the decision that had been made.

And so am I am I correct to remember that the fees were updated specific appeals?

I mean it's creating a higher bar than they were.

Most of the appeals that we bring forward to the city council are instances where the property owner does not wish for the property to be designated and is appealing the board's decision to designate.

When we did update the fees, we did exempt property owners from needing to pay that appeal fee.

Um there were a number of appeals that were filed in the last couple of years from by a member of the public who appealed designations where the property owner wanted designation, um, and a handful of those came before you typically in batches.

Um the new uh appeal fee does apply to appeals submitted by someone who is not the property owner.

Um so, yes, we have not seen as many, if any, appeals from folks who are not the property owner since the the $1,000 appeal fee went into place.

I I mean generally I think in some in some rare conversations there have been moments where I have as a council member have asked myself why we are in such a limited position in terms of the considerations that we have looking at what's um in front of us.

Uh and to be frank, uh you know, public may not always agree, but we're also the body that's been trusted to make land use decisions uh for the city of San Diego as the final determinant uh in almost well in every other case for the city.

Um and so this to me seems like a consistent move that would actually align us with where the city already has uh vested its authority in the council.

Um and I think as I understand in our briefing and discussions uh as we look at many other municipalities, that is a common uh commonality that in many cases the um the legislature retains that authority uh and in a few cases of course it has delegated it to a board like the HRB.

Yes, we did look at the preservation programs of other major jurisdictions across the country as well as other um jurisdictions with um preservation programs and MILSAC programs in the state.

Um and many of them the city council or board of supervisors actually retains the final decision in any designation action, and the preservation border commission provides a recommendation to the city council.

Um but there are others who like um City of San Diego rest that decision with their preservation border commission and retain uh oversight on appeal.

Um New York and Philadelphia are both examples in the case of New York.

Um they do not reconsider the merits of the designation, but Philadelphia does.

So different jurisdictions can approach those appeal findings different ways.

Well, thank you for walking us um through all of this again.

I and I would agree that um I think the change that Councilmember Whitburn offered here is helpful because it it would be new for us, and I think looking even in a year to see how often it's actually come up and is utilized, um, gives us a chance to also look back and if if it's being abused in some way that we can actually address that as well.

So with that, I again I'm happy to offer a second uh to the motion and amendment that Councilmember Woodburn has made.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for the presentation.

Um as I mentioned when this program was discussed in March 2025, that the effort to update the city's heritage uh preservation framework is both timely and necessary.

We must continue to advocate for strong protections for San Diego's historic and cultural resources.

However, it's been 20 years since the last update and conditions throughout San Diego have changed drastically.

Our policies on historic designations need to change too, in order to ensure the best outcome for the public.

When designated the pro when designating the property as a historic resource.

Over the years, I have seen several historic designation appeals where I did question whether the designation criteria were fully met.

Yet the council's ability to make any specific finding on appeal has been limited.

I believe this additional finding will allow for a better process overall when appeals do come forward to the council.

As this process does move forward over the next few months, I highly encourage staff to continue and even increase stakeholder outreach efforts on any policy changes being considered.

I understand this is package A, and this is the easy one.

So the more input we have prior to package B being discussed by the Planning Commission, City Council, the better outcome I think we'll have on the final product.

On January 7th, Soho submitted a letter outlining concerns about structures, staffing, and procedures as it relates to the historic resources board.

And I will take a little bit of time and ask if staff has a response to the issues raised in the letter.

In regard to staffing, we are at some of the highest staffing levels we've had for this program.

We currently have four associate planners and three senior planners assigned to the heritage preservation section.

That being said, um we do spend a lot of time and a lot of those resources on our current over 45 review process where we're evaluating every project that comes in on every property that's 45 years old or older.

Um as I mentioned in our informational presentation last year, um, you know, 85 to 90 percent of those are determined not historic, so we're spending a tremendous amount of time identifying what is not historic.

Um and so part of what we want to accomplish at package B is looking at how we can better utilize our resources that we have to proactively identify what is significant and protect it rather than reactively identify what is not significant.

Thank you for that.

Um, with that, I will be supporting the motion on the floor.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn, a second by myself.

Uh, seeing no other speakers, we'll go ahead and call the roll.

And the motion passes unanimously, 3-0 with Vice Chair Ila Rivera absent.

Thank you.

That does conclude item three, and it also brings us to the end of today's agenda.

I will now adjourn the meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on Thursday, February 5th, 2026 at 1 o'clock p.m.

Thank you.