Good afternoon.

Welcome to the Lane Houston Housing Committee meeting of March 5th, 2026.

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair?

I'll now call the Land Houston Housing Committee meeting of Thursday, March 5th, 2026 to order.

Natalie, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Ila Rivera.

Councilmember Whitburn.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

And Chair, Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

Also attending the meeting today, Chris Ackermann Avila with the mayor with Mayor Todd Gloria's office, Chief Deputy City Attorney Corinne Newfer with the City Attorney's Office.

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

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins, and members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's web page.

To join the Zoom webinar by phone, please dial 16692545252.

The webinar ID is 161 7951933 Pound.

This information is also available on the agenda.

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

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

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 call in participant, press star none on your phone.

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

Chair.

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

A quorum is now present for the public's awareness.

We will be hearing items out of order today.

After the consent agenda, we will hear item six, which is an informational item.

Then we'll be hearing items four and five on our discussion agenda, followed then by item seven, which is also an information item last.

Uh the order then will be items one, two, three, followed by six, four, five, ending with seven.

We will now take up the non-agenda public comment period.

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, please proceed with any non-agenda public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

And Chair, we have received one speaker slip from an individual for non-agenda public comment here in chambers.

Blair Beakman, please approach the lecture, and you'll have two minutes.

Blair, I'm going to start your time.

Thank you.

Sorry that I took I had to find my words.

Thank you.

Thank you for the meeting today.

Hopefully, you can have patience with my words.

Speaking about the local level, um, I'm trying to work through issues.

Um, hopefully, this can be helpful.

In the past three months, uh, three important world leaders have been toppled.

Uh, the U.S.

is deeply opposed.

We're trying to understand these acts of violence as tough but good practices of U.S.

democracy and American exceptionalism, but on closer view.

Is this simply the continued march towards a new world order under some very questionable conservative right-wing values of this country over the past 30 years?

And with the grim reminder that these events uh uh the events of of 9-1101 was was quite possibly a staged event that is now being used as a lighthouse beacon in the direction of a more conservative U.S.

vision of this conservative new world order.

Where does multilateralism and equality and sovereignty of all nations fit into this new conservative world order?

Uh, the organization, clarity, and safety in the process of continual dialogue negotiation uh as how to reach consensus decision making for all sides must simply be noted and respected at this time.

And in comparison to these current U.S.

swings of violence, war, chaos, and the deaths of many innocent people, as how to create current dialogue and understandings between nation states and all other people and its entities.

We're practicing open democracy.

We're practicing sustainability, positiveness.

We it is a real call that we have to continue those good things right now, as we do not really know where we're going to be headed in the next year.

Good luck in our efforts here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony for non-agenda public comment.

I've started the five-minute timer.

We have five hands raised in the virtual queue.

We will begin with Doreen.

Please unmute and provide your comments.

Hello.

I am speaking on behalf of the Hamish Neighborhood Council based on an ADU bonus outlier project on one four four-one Woodrow Air, project number one, two, eight nine three three.

You have my document.

The issue here is not whether this undecid project goes forward or not.

Right now, I'm speaking on the fact that there is clear and blatant fraud in this application by Godvari and ProCal permitting.

And I would like you to investigate.

This property from 2001, all the way to 2025 has had code violations, it's had mandatory abatement.

People wanted to buy it and did not, because they truly believe they could not come up with the money to restore this vacant home by the deadline.

But now these developers bought it in 2024, and they haven't done anything with abatement.

They haven't been fine.

This is clear.

And how do you have a demolition permit on a vacant and emptied lot?

Not vacant home, empty lot.

So please consider that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Madison, please unmute and begin.

Hi, good afternoon, Chair and Council members of the Landes and Housing Committee.

I'm here today as a public health advocate and a parent to urge you to make smoke-free multi-unit housing a priority in the city of San Diego.

People living in poverty are more than twice as likely to smoke.

And those with less education are more likely to be exposed to secondhand smoke.

Often because they live in multi-unit housing where smoke travels through walls, vents, hallways, and shared spaces.

For many renters, there is simply no way to control the air inside their own homes.

Tobacco remains the leading cause of preventable death in our county and across the country, claiming nearly 490,000 lives every year.

While we've made real progress in reducing smoking, secondhand smoke continues to harm people who did not choose to be exposed, especially children, seniors, and families living in apartments.

We're also seeing a troubling rise in vaping and cannabis use among young people.

As a parent, I'm deeply concerned about what our children are breathing inside their own homes.

Smoke-free multi-unit housing is a proven and equitable policy.

It protects health, reduces fire risk, lowers health care costs, and helps close health disparities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is the original.

Please unmute and begin.

Well, what's the interesting thing to do is to call into the city and hear talk about the new world order.

Um, so it's not a left or right versus thing.

It is a just world takeover type of thing.

But it's interesting when people start to wake up to seeing what's really going on in the world around us, how everything, you know, has turned into a business.

I mean, children are being, you know, the things that are happening to children for money by our government and people and world leaders.

Um, and again, it's not left or right, and that's the sad thing is they want us to be continually fighting each other to pick aside so that we don't pay attention to the atrocities that are going on around us and how they exploit every you know human being that they possibly can or every living thing, um, even animals, uh, to make money and profit and all at the detriment of those, you know, souls.

And um, you know, the more we start to understand that it it's not Republican versus Democrat, that those are two wings of the same bird doing the same, pushing the same agenda for a new world order.

In fact, they've all talked about it.

Um, and 9-11 was done to ourselves, and we are occupied by Israel.

These are all things that we should be talking about so that the world around us can change because you know, I was going to talk to you guys about homeless because that's a business, and you know, sometimes we get taken off on you know what you're gonna say, but I just think it's important to if you guys really do care about you know the world around us and wanting to, you know, provide housing and things like that, start right outside of the city chambers where the homeless are every night that you guys ask to leave every morning so that nobody sees why would you do that?

Why wouldn't we just help them instead of thank you?

Our next speaker is phone number ending at 870.

Please press star six and begin.

Uh thank you, Natalie.

Uh Joy Sanyata C D3 infrastructure from Google.

Cloud-based systems act as a modern digital infrastructure in a city functioning as the backbone, the backbone for smart city initiatives, data storage, and public service management.

End of quote.

Can you imagine our bodies without a backbone?

Starting in 2030, IT will flip the on switch for our new ERP, SAP SAP, cloud-based system infrastructure, equal to water, sewage, transportation, and so forth.

Dear public.

If you get a chance, take a look at the AI PowerPoint from yesterday's EDNIR meeting.

And you will more clearly understand the tremendous impact of modern digital infrastructure on our city and our lives.

Thank you, dear public, for your consideration on my suggestion.

Love to all.

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.

Judy Strang, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

Excuse me, land use and housing committee.

Thank you for this opportunity to share some observations that have to do with housing.

And I suppose by extension land use.

AB 1695 has been presented by assembly personaltega.

He has recognized the role that the lack of smoke-free and vape-free environments has played in the Latino population and other communities of concern.

I support this movement to make our air around us and where we live and where we play and where we work smoke free.

And I appreciate his work.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippett.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon for letting me share some of my concerns.

As an advocate on behalf of community residents, their safety, health, and quality of life.

The policies that a city adopts has the ability to destroy all of those, especially where there is an absence of policy where there should be a policy, and where there is a presence of a policy, which is a bad policy.

So one of the bad policies you have actually increases the normalization of drinking and drug use, etc.

At the same time, you don't have enough money to pay law enforcement officers to oversee some of the issues that you create by these bad policies.

So parks is a perfect example.

Many of the public parks have lost their security paid for by the city because the city is trying to save money.

And what happens is those public parks now are become unsafe places for the public to be able to take their families or to visit.

The other pol one of the other policies or failures because we don't have enough law enforcement, is the lack of oversight over smoking shops.

So you've got city permitted smoking shops that do not that desperately need oversight.

They are selling illegal prop illegal products, high THC products that they bring out from underneath the counters, and there is no oversight on them.

It's a complaint-driven prop.

And many people do not feel comfortable going into smoke shops.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

And chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you to the members of the public for their comments.

We will now turn to see if any committee members, mural staff, city attorney, or the IBA has any comments.

Hearing none, do we have any requests for continuance?

Seeing none, we will now take up our consent agenda.

Do we have any requests to pull an item from the consent agenda?

With none, we will now move forward with public comment on the consent agenda.

Uh Nelly, do we have any public comment?

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open.

The consent agenda includes item one approval of the committee minutes of January 14th, 2026.

Item two, authorize the mayor to enter into a purchase and sale agreement with Padre Dam Municipal Water District for the sale of a segment of the El Capitan pipeline consisting of approximately 11,444 linear feet.

And item three, declare three city-owned properties with their respective assessor parcel numbers, exempt surplus land pursuant to California government code section 54221 F1B.

Each speaker will have one minute per item for a maximum time of three minutes, and please indicate which item or items you'll be speaking on.

We do have one speaker slip submitted in chambers.

Blair Beekman, please approach the elector, and you've indicated that you wish to speak to item one, so you'll have one minute.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um to ask um to speak on the procedural uh approval of meeting minutes.

Uh if I if I can ask to speak uh procedurally on uh on the um public meeting process overall very quickly with the idea that uh the uh meeting yesterday, uh the afternoon committee meeting was ended uh too soon.

Um people had to leave.

I hope that meeting can be uh rebrought back to uh committee the public process soon, and there can be public comment towards items.

I just wanted to mention it uh here at this time.

Thanks for your um patents to hear.

Thanks.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony on the consent agenda.

We will now go to the virtual queue.

There's one hand raised in the virtual queue.

The original, please unmute and indicate which item or items you wish to speak to.

All of them.

Okay, three minutes to manage, please begin.

Wonderful.

So with these minutes and um what you guys were talking about last time was engaging in the contract for parking and everything that you guys are doing.

You always put it in some kind of package where you wrap it up and you tell the people that this is gonna benefit us.

But as Blair was mentioning the new world order, it's like that's not what's really happening.

That the idea is to control our movements.

This is coming down from the United Nations.

It's an agenda 21, 2030, 2050 that you've always have all been implementing.

And it is not about sustainability or you know, saving the planet, it's actually about um you know, controlling the populace and people.

That's why they are going to start using and wanting to put brain chips in people so that they can control people even more, which is terrifying to think about.

But you guys are taking away our ability to be able to, you know, park and be able to just get around to all the people guys making it easier.

Um, and you guys do a profit, get a profit in the process.

So I just would encourage you guys to start telling people the truth.

Um, and when you have things on consent like this um sale of a pipeline and things like that, and then even declaring, you know, uh selling land and declaring it surplus property.

Um, you know, I feel like what you guys are doing is you'll put those things under that type of uh so that we don't even talk about it.

So nobody really knows, you know, why are we even selling this pipeline like that?

That what is the benefit going to be for the people besides money making opportunities?

Um, we can't trust what you guys are doing with the water and all those things because that's another resource.

The idea is to control the resources so that the people have to become dependent and we're slaves.

And so you guys are doing a very good job of that.

As you can see, everybody in the city is becoming dependent upon you guys for your socialist services that you know we have to pay for that are are severely lacking in their ability to provide what needs to be provided for people.

And when you guys are doing things like surplus land, it's like, I mean, don't we need to be building on top of any opportunity that that can be taken place and say we'll we'll take this land and be like, oh, we don't need it.

And again, what was happening with the city before with this and the state when they declared, you know, um 4902 um oh my gosh, Pacific Highway, or shoo all of a sudden I just oh my gosh, my brain just looked late, but it's where the old CHP office was, and you guys um put allowed Jewish family services to take that over and traffic children and individuals across the board that you always call asylum seekers.

That land should have been used for the homeless.

Um, but because it wasn't going to be for affordable housing, which it still could have been, it got used for this purpose, and that is land that that should be used for the people of our community, not to invade our community, use all our resources so that then the people that need them that have been here waiting for them can even get them.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I'll turn it over now to committee members for any questions, comments, and a motion on the consent agenda.

We have a motion by council member Whitburn and a second by Council Member Elo Rivera.

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

And the motion of the motion is approved unanimously four zero.

Thank you.

As mentioned previously, we will now hear item six, which is an informational item.

Uh Natalie, will you please introduce item six?

Item six, development services department online permitting procurement strategy update.

If you have comments on item six and you're in the queue, please raise your hand at this time.

Chair.

Thank you.

While they're getting settled, let me um just start off really quickly by thanking um Elise Lowe and the entire development services uh department team for making them settles available for this presentation.

Um, our office, including many of my colleagues uh on this committee have expressed in our past in the past our desire to receive uh continuous updates from the departments that interact with the building environment the most uh to learn about not only what can be improved, but the progress that they are continuing to make when it comes to empowering our city workforce, uh delivering world-class customer service, and in streamlining various processes.

So, with that, I'll turn it over to you, Elise, and just let us know uh how much time you'll need for the presentation.

Thank you.

I think I can get through it in eight minutes, maybe leave two minutes for questions.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thanks very much.

Um good afternoon, Elie Slow, Development Services Department Director.

Today I'm joined um by Kent Morris, the deputy director of business operations support services, and two of our assistant directors, JC Thomas and Rima Cory Village.

We wanted to provide to the land use and housing committee current status of our procurement strategy for online permitting platform software and the associated contracts with it.

Give you a little bit of a background.

Department utilizes Excela.

It was a sole source contract awarded in 2015.

10.5 million dollar contract for five years that included the software, the licensing, the maintenance, as well as a consultant to help us work on it.

As you may recall, it was a massive undertaking for us to introduce a new software.

And it really came out of an audit review of our project tracking system, which was an older system that we built in house that was essentially vulnerable because it was built by city employees.

We didn't really have backup in case those city employees quit their jobs, moved away.

And so the audit recommended that we buy an off-the-shelf system, and that's what uh the department did.

It did take five years to implement, it was a very complicated, um, elongated process.

However, some great things came out of it.

We did it in a phased implementation.

We started off with uh the code enforcement module for building in land use.

That was reporting complaints and responding to them.

No plan review involved in that, but it helped us get familiar with the Excela system.

Our first permits that we launched were again no plan review, simple permits, mechanical electrical plumbing that happened in 2019.

And then as you know, in uh 2020, we had to deal with COVID.

And I became the director of the department in um early 2019.

And when we started the process with Exella, uh my predecessors had designed it so that we would utilize the platform, but still process paper permits.

Prior to COVID, uh, when I realized that was really the direction going forward, I said, halt, stop, we got to get digital.

So it did take us a little bit longer, but it was the best thing because of COVID.

So we launched 100% digital permits in Excela in 2021, but because the length of time, we had another five-year contract extension for Exella from 2020 to 2025.

So we came back before the council 2025 for another Excela sole source contract, but this time we put Excela on notice with a one-year contract renewal and two one-year extensions with the pathway of saying we are gonna do an RFP and we're going to look at all the technology that's been developed over the last decade since we've been implementing Exella.

In 2024, we issued a request for information where software developers came to us.

We had um 17 different proposals about what was out there for us to evaluate, and our goal was to issue an RFP in 2025.

However, we had some budgetary setbacks, um, and we are mitigating those now, and we are committed to going out to an RFP this summer for a new online permitting platform, August of 2026.

Along with Exella, in order to do electronic plan review, we have uh existing contracts that you're going to see come before you later this year that also need to be renewed.

Um the reason why I point that out is yeah, we're going ahead to look at new systems, but we've got to keep our contracts going so that we can keep business running smoothly.

So our plan review is done with a separate contract.

It's an Excela companion called ePlanSoft.

Um that's how we review plans digitally and send corrections.

That will be expiring in September of this year.

Additionally, our support and maintenance contract is a company called Kerasoft, and they've reorganized as a company called GovPath.

So you'll see different names for those.

That actually expires um rather quickly in April 2026.

So that will be coming back soon.

Um there is a uh contractual timeline here that shows you where we are and when our expirations are, as well as the contract amounts.

I wanted to go over our RFP tentative timeline with you.

As I stated, it would be going out in August.

That depends on us making sure we can get through IT governance in July of 2026.

We have the launch planned.

We propose to evaluate um the proposals when they're due in November and go through those from November to March.

Um and then once we are ready to award a new contract for our permitting platform, that will take some time.

We go back through IT governance, we come to budget committee, and then we go to council for two um hearings.

Once that contract is awarded, we then have to go through the creation, updating, testing all of the pieces towards implementation and our transition.

If we select Excela, our existing vendor, we anticipate it will take less time, and it would start in 2027 and we'd be able to fully launch in 2020 and continue our transition in 2029.

If we don't choose Excel at we choose someone else, although all of the vendors had said we'll get you up and running in three months.

We have a lot more complexity because we are a one-stop shop, so we don't think it would take three months, but um we did anticipate it would take uh over a year to do that.

So all said and done, if we start this year, we're fully up and running and transitioned in 2029.

So we wanted to put that timeline before you.

Um quickly, um, making sure you know, as a part of our strategy, we took that year of delay and we utilized it in order to do market research.

We actually had presentations by 15 different companies so we could see all of the different platforms, what they look like.

Um, we're really interested in what other cities are using, how well it's doing for them.

So we did a benchmarking, just internal survey.

Um we also will uh make sure all of our technology uh procurement adheres to the administrative regulations for IT governance and security review.

Additionally, industries let us know they would really like to collaborate.

So two things happening.

One, we're establishing a new technology working group where industry can tell us what they're doing.

Um private companies can move a lot faster than us.

They can hire AI right now to do plan review before they submit to development services for quality control.

We want to hear about that.

We want to know what they're doing.

We also want to share with them details about our strategy, what we're looking at and what we hope to achieve.

So using that to solicit feedback, and then we also committed to um reviewing with our attorneys the possibility of having an industry member of the development industry on our selection panel so that we get that um feedback as well.

Um we'll be working to leverage artificial intelligence in as many ways as possible, but really to help automate question responses and use it as a tool for staff to do their work.

It's very complicated work, it can look up things faster, it can make reports faster, and so utilizing AI for assisting with plan review, um, assisting with the pre-submittal intakes, and then helping increase the speed of our deliveries of public records act requests.

Um lastly, we want to make sure you're um aware that we know we need to simplify the system, and we're trying hard to do that as best we can.

Less clicks, more intuitive features, um, obviously data governance is super important for reporting capabilities and transparency.

And then we've heard loud and clear our customers would like a fee estimator tool.

It's a high demand from industry.

Um, and we should be able to easily provide that.

Lastly, integration with the city's other systems, um, fiscal, we don't have that right now.

Exella does not interface with SAP in a way that um we want, and so we get delayed um bills for our customers.

We hear a lot of complaints about that.

We want to fix that, as well as make sure that it integrates with other city technology, GIS, our field inspections.

Um that's it for our overview, and we're happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

We'll turn to see if there's any public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item six is now open, and we have received three speaker slips here in chambers, and there are currently three hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute and 30 seconds.

Jeff Quitter, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Dana, can you raise your hand?

So you'll have three minutes on the clock, and I will pull up your slides.

And I have a present.

All right, well, thank you, uh Council members.

Um, what I'd like to do is talk about uh this RFP and what we're expecting from this.

Um, this came up for an extension last year.

We submitted a letter to the council asking that certain things that have interest to the public be included in the RFP process.

Um, and that really hasn't happened, and I'll go through some of those requests in the subsequent slides.

So if you go to the next slide.

So look, this system is mostly for people to develop their projects, but it's also something that provides the public with information about projects, and the public has a right to that information in order to make sure that the projects that are affecting them are in conformance with the municipal code.

Um yet when you talk about industry collaboration and who are the stakeholders, the public isn't a stakeholder in this in this process at all.

So the next slide.

And through a plexiglass window.

Now you're not even allowed to take notes, even though that's legally permitted.

And a lot of the information, such as fire marshal reports, you're told to do a public records request, and those public records requests are either not timely or never produced.

And so the whole thing is built around this idea that this is confidential information to the project owner, and therefore the public has to pry it out of DSD to get this information, and that's not really true.

Before we go into that in more detail, if you go to the next slide.

A lot of times we have to dissect individual permits.

Going to the next slide, though.

I think most of the issue around this is this perception that this information is protected or confidential information of the project application.

That's not entirely true.

The only thing that is protected by federal copyright law are the architectural drawings.

And that was due to a 1990 law.

What the state did they found a workaround for that, which is if you provide massing diagrams and site plans, those are publicly accessible information because they relate to what's visible from the outside of the building as opposed to what's inside of it.

And this is the kind of thing that could be implemented as part of a program.

So just to summarize, we'd like to be brought into this discussion and part of the RFP process.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker in chambers is Blair Beekman.

Please approach the lecture, and you'll have one minute and 30 seconds to manage.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

That was a really nice public presentation.

I like to hear his words when he speaks on things, and that was that was a good one.

I don't have the best understanding or knowledge of this item, but I do know the work I do with tech accountability.

It's good reasoning, it's good idealism.

Really, when you focus on it, works towards ideas of peace and peace before war.

And uh it works towards community participation.

Uh, how that addresses concepts of peace before war.

And our previous public speaker was asking how can there be a more of a public part in this process?

And the tech accountability in the procurement process really has an important role in our future.

If we create uh an example that we're working towards such best practices and ideas of peace, people want to respond to that in kind, basically.

That that's the procurement process.

We're asking for peace as how to solve our issues and not this world new world order thing that that um DRA has mentioned that's seems incredibly violent.

We can find ways to better address that and this.

And that's through you know, good reasoning, idealism.

That's how we make shifts in in thinking and philosophy.

Um it involves community participation that's been asked by the previous public comment.

Good luck in working on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony on item six.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer.

There are three hands raised in the virtual queue.

And as a reminder, each speaker will have one minute 30 seconds.

Phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six at begin.

Thank you, Natalie.

Joyce in out of CD3.

Ali slow and the rest of the team.

As always, I give you a five-star award.

Thank you for what you do.

And I loved what you said.

I hope I quote you right on this.

Paul, stop.

We've got to go digital.

I love that.

Uh let's see, a new online permitting process, 2026, that's this year.

From me, I want to say this.

I I was really uh when I heard you say uh something related to that, that really gave me chills.

Uh yes, on your success on mitigating uh regarding the budget for this uh launch, uh the entire uh process uh that you referred to in 2029, a great partner in IT.

And let's see what's this.

Oh, the new tech working group.

That's phenomenal.

And would you be a leader and collaborate with the other department heads and employees?

I would like to see that uh tech working group in all departments.

Thank you for listening.

A great, great presentation, great work.

Love to everybody and love to all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Doreen Diaz, please unmute and begin.

Hello, yes, and everything that I am everything I'm speaking about has been uploaded.

But at least Lowe is grade F if with her practice and the fact that she received information in March of 2025 that there is a dilapidated house on this property, and this application has been moving forward with the blatant with the blatant fraud that the that they uh stating that there is an emptied lot when there's an existing house.

And regardless of over a dozen letters, now in February 2026, this unethical department has now worked on a demolition permit, which says empty lot, but yet also says we are going to demolish the existing house and the garage and the patio and the shed.

Well, you cannot have a demolition permit on an empty lot, and that is totally separate from the vacant dilapidated house.

But the code enforcement is just as bad because they've had over nine pages, which you now have again of all of these notices of abatement.

And where are the fines to developers?

Nowhere.

Stop the fraud, please.

Thank you.

Our final speaker in the queue with their hand raised is the original.

Please unmute and begin.

With all this digital technology, it's really a digital prison that is being set up around us when AI is flawed.

It's actually take gonna be taking jobs.

It takes fresh water, it takes all of the energy, you know, that we're we can't even, you know, run our own AC or whatever because we have all these data centers.

That's and that's why the data has been collected over so long because it's been feeding into this AI structure that is going to be taking over.

And it's interesting because once you put all this data up there, it's like people are concerned about the ALPR data.

This is data that's going in and it that has to do with permits and and all of the land use and things that's being you know done at the city, which would seem pretty dangerous if that got into some nefarious hands, but you know, it's like it's not on the political theater uh aspect right now, so it's not gonna be um you know highlighted.

But I mean, all of this data, this is something that um I mean, all we have to do is look at Skynet.

Okay, this is something that I mean in the Terminator.

They give us movies like this to predictively program things that are going to happen so it seems normal and benign when it takes place.

You guys act like it's gonna be more transparency and more this, more that.

Well, when like the previous year, you you guys are engaged in fraud, waste and abuse.

And so now we're gonna have this technology that's not only gonna be taking jobs, but you know, basically having the control of a lot of data that is just not um ready to be used yet, but whatever.

Thank you.

Chair, this concludes public comment on item six.

Thank you to the members of the public for participating.

We'll turn it over to committee members for any questions and comments, starting with Council Member Moreno.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you for the presentation.

Um, if there was anyone in the city I would trust to take on such a huge and important um change, it would definitely be a lease low.

Uh, thank you for bringing this um forward.

Uh it is uh much needed update, and it is encouraging to see a vision for the future of online permitting in the city of San Diego.

Uh the recommendations we receive through the RFI, the request for information process are very important, and also should help guide the next steps uh moving forward.

As the RFP is developed, I think it should focus on key differentiators, such as emerging technologies, scalability, and also strong integration capabilities rather than focus solely on standardized features.

The city should also ensure that any new permitting platform is obviously compatible with SAP modernization currently underway by the Department of IT.

Ensuring that data can seamlessly integrate and also translate across systems will be critical to creating a more streamlined and efficient digital ecosystem.

I think this effort represents an important opportunity to modernize how the city delivers services to residents, businesses also, and also the developing community.

Said that the front runner in this space are those that integrate seamlessly and provide an excellent user experience for both staff and the public.

And I would ask, you know, one, I would encourage that uh member of the public to be in the fold.

Uh we can't have that without having a member of the public very much integrated into the stakeholder group.

So I would encourage you to bring in or how can you address that?

Is that something that you guys have given thought to?

Um thank you, Councilmember Moreno, for that question.

Um the technology stakeholder working group would be an ad hoc subcommittee of our existing um tech uh technical um assistance, our TAC technical advisory committee.

That is an open public meeting where stakeholders are invited.

We've had the um community planners committee chair, the CPC chair invited to that meeting.

We've got so that all of the information presented there can be presented to all of the planning groups.

So we have openly welcomed the public to all of our meetings over the past several years, as well as putting the recordings of them on our website every day.

We take public feedback from every stakeholder who criticizes our system, so we definitely take note of that.

Um, and I'm sure that we can um continue that practice in our tech in our stakeholder working group.

Is there um a member of the public in the stakeholder working group, or is that not?

We haven't formulated it yet.

We're asking for um volunteers to come to it.

So uh there'll be a press release going out about that next week.

Wonderful.

I'm glad to hear that that is something you guys are looking into because I do think it is an important component of the system overall.

Uh, but um thank you for the update, and I look forward to uh to more good news coming forward for our system.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

All right, uh, thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Elise, for uh the update here.

Um all the work that you you do.

I um appreciate the comments from my colleague.

I'm gonna dig in a little bit on the AI um on what was mentioned with respect to AI and how um you all are thinking about that.

What would be included in the um RFP?

Um especially because I don't think we have a at least I'm not aware of a really coherent comprehensive AI policy at the city, um, and um as this is an incredibly fast moving um technology that has the potential to have you know huge benefits or um tremendous, tremendous uh could cause tremendous damage.

It feels important to make sure we're asking um the right questions.

So um a couple things.

Um what are you all intending to do to ensure that there will be someone accountable when the AI is wrong in whatever task it's performing?

Um thank you so much.

That is pretty much the number one question, right?

And we have made assurances to our staff and to everyone.

Any artificial intelligence incorporated in the software that we buy is simply a resource for our staff.

It's not intended to replace anyone.

We need to have human interaction.

Um the review that a planner does could be done electronically.

I mean, we have templates, we have lots of things that are very um simple to review but take time because of the number of them.

And then once an AI component comes in to help do the review, um our human factor is still there to check it again and and move it along.

But it just took something that normally took them six hours, and now they could do it in a half an hour.

So they're still um uh a part of it.

We really um will be looking at AI to help us with um automating processes like that that take um time for staff or maybe they're just arduous, and but things that we need to know, especially when it comes to reporting overall.

There's a lot of reports that um the public wants, that the policymakers want, that the media want, that um we used to have to do by hand, you know, and now we could do it more with the technology that we have, but we want to be able to automate it, put them on our website so that we have more people have access to information a lot faster.

Got it.

I mean all of those potential benefits make a lot of sense.

I but I'm gonna I'm focusing on you know, if things go wrong.

So uh again ensuring that we are creating a process where there is accountability built in on the front end um is going to be super important to me.

Um this will ultimately result in a contract that comes to us, and if the contract doesn't include proper accountability for if and when um the system makes mistakes and what those mistakes cost the city in terms of time um money uh reputation um all have real concerns.

Um I'm I'm glad the the the stakeholder list was was mentioned.

Um that seems as seems especially it seems important for many reasons, but one of them um is that including a more holistic and inclusive group of of stakeholders I think becomes actually increasingly important when AI becomes incorporated in into our practices.

Um there should be an equity impact assessment of the code enforcement features if there would be any included in the the AI work.

Um it would pardon me, it would assist them with um the research and the reports that they have to do after a code violation has been um reported.

So that is definitely a way that code enforcement will use it.

Got it.

So and and to that end, the systems and information that the model is trained on become incredibly important because we know that AI systems have um have often incorporated very biased information, and so um if it's being trained on on information and data that's biased, then the system will be operating in a biased way, and we don't want that, and again, making sure that we have the stakeholder group to help flag those sort of concerns, I think uh could be super important.

Um just a couple more points on on this in terms of um data governance and privacy.

Um I I'll be looking to see what sort of data governance requirements would be included.

I'm curious, do you have any ideas about what sort of requirements would be included in the RFP?

I'm sorry, I just want to make sure I understand specifically what you're talking about, date data governance in general.

The draft RFD, the draft RFPs, pardon me, I apologize for interrupting you.

The draft RFP is 65, 70 pages.

How many pages is it?

And absolutely um through our work with Department of IT and partnership includes a lot of um responsibility on data governance.

We continue to develop that as we go within our existing procedures and systems, but it's it's super important on our agenda.

So here's an example vendors being prohibited from using city data to train their models for other commercial purposes.

I've asked this question on other contracts as well, right?

So are I have to follow up with you on that?

I don't know the answer to that right now.

Thank you for that question.

Yep.

Um then the last piece, I hear you that this is meant to be a tool rather than a replacement for for city workers.

Um I think I've heard some very lazy analysis that that makes the insinuates that the city's budget problems could be solved if we just swapped out some of our city workers for AI.

And that is short-sighted, that is wrong, um, and could leave the city incredibly vulnerable.

And so I I just I appreciate that we're looking at this as much more of a tool and as a resource.

Um I I just want to say that it will be really important to me that we continue to see it as a tool and something that can make work more efficient, but not as a replacement for people.

Um people are irreplaceable in a variety of ways.

Um, and that doesn't mean that we can't do our work more efficiently and effectively with certain tools, but those tools are not um are not and and should not be thought of as replacements for the very important human element that only humans can provide.

So um thank you again for all the work that's been done here.

Um I I again I I know that there's a lot that goes into this.

Um, this particular issue of um artificial intelligence and how the city uh uses it and how it's being used after the city uses it is incredibly important to me.

Um, and I will continue to ask questions on that on that front.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Couldn't agree more on the human element piece of it, especially as it relates to our customer service, field inspection, all of these different things.

So absolutely agree.

Next up, we have Councilmember Woodburn.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Ms.

Lowe.

Uh appreciate the thoughtful approach that you're taking to the RFP.

Uh, you will of course be hearing from and comparing uh the various companies that are competing for the city's contract.

I was pleased to hear you mention benchmarking um and understanding what is working or isn't working elsewhere.

Um is that benchmarking going on already, or is that a future part of this process, or what can you tell me about the benchmarking process?

Um our IT team has been in contact with um other cities, peer cities to find out what programs they're using, um, what is working, what is not working, getting copies of their contracts so that we can see where um what they required and what they paid for and all of those different things.

So it's definitely an ongoing process.

Okay, and they are uh probably uh focusing their communication with the development services departments or equivalent in those other cities.

In some cases, it's the chief um information officer from other cities uh department of IT.

We just met with the chief information officer from the city of Cleveland who is responsible for implementing their development services IT program.

So it's a mix of it, but yes, it's all about the permitting.

I should ask who who's going to be ultimately making the decision, the choice on the permitting software.

Is that going to be a DSD decision?

Is that going to be an IT decision, or what's that gonna look like?

We have a panel that will review it made up of um city employees, DSD, department of IT.

Um, ideally we have um uh a member of uh industry, a utilizer of our um permit software.

Um we just got feedback from council member Marino, she'd like to see a member of the public on there as well.

Um and then once uh we make a selection, then that goes through Department of IT to go through IT governance, and then that would get approved, and then that would go before you for ultimate um contract award.

But yes, it would be our it panel.

Thank you.

One of the things that I think is going to be important uh, particularly when we start to narrow down the field of finalists of uh software vendors is going to be to do some benchmarking, more robust, in-depth benchmarking of those finalists.

Uh I would be interested in understanding you know what customers in those other cities uh have to say, both on the municipal side, you know, the the city workers uh that have been working with those that software in those cities, but also the end users in those cities.

I think it's gonna be really important to understand what the experience has been of the builders, of the contractors.

Uh my guess is that in many of these places they'll have associations that will have a pretty good familiarity uh with how that has worked on that side.

Is that something that that we can do when we narrow down the field to a few finalists is really do some benchmarking again in those cities or places where those softwares are used to find out both what those what the experience of the cities has been and the experience of the end users in those cities has been.

Yeah, I mean, I see that as akin to due diligence as well as like a reference check.

So um absolutely the vendors are always happy to put us in contact with the other cities that um have bought their software.

So we have a lot of those contacts as it is now.

And I know we need to wrap this up, but the I would just say that um the RFI helped us discover that there are software vendors, and then there's other vendors who choose different pieces of software to put them all together who will be responding to our RFP as well.

So we have seen um different vendors say, I'm gonna use this brand of permit review, I'm gonna use it with Excel, and then I'm gonna do this, or different variations of it all.

So it'll be really interesting to see um ultimately who responds and how many different variations of similar software models that we get.

Okay.

I appreciate the fact that you're gonna be doing a robust reference check.

Um of the things I will be interested in seeing and hearing when we do have an ultimate uh contract up for consideration is has this thing worked great somewhere else?

That'll be important to me.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

I'm gonna turn next back to Councilmember.

Sorry, Chair.

Um I um the the other question that I I think I I didn't ask and will be important is understanding what processes are in place to understand uh under what circumstances data might be shared with the federal government and what the city would um when the city would be notified if those uh notifications were to occur.

I think our due safety or due process and safety ordinance provides a framework for the eventual contract and and the RFP reflecting what the council has set in terms of expectations for how data is protected from the federal government is really important.

If our cannabis licenses are one of the things that would be processed or um processed with AI or any sort of any sort of platform, I think that's an especially important um area to make sure that we're we are very well aware of any information sharing that would occur.

Um so just wanted to put that out there as well uh in terms of our our protecting of our information, not just from private parties, but from the federal government as well, um, given the immense harm that they're doing in our communities.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh Council President Proteff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh with that, um, Lise, just thank you again for sharing ahead of time the department status when it comes to contracts and explaining why they're important.

Um I I hope that the new technology working group is going to be helpful as you're seeking to really get feedback on how you further refine processes and also as you seek this RFP.

Um I think one thing that I I keep on my mind often is just how you are faced with this unique challenge as an enterprise structured department where development cycles ultimately impact how you are staffed up or down at any given time.

Um and I think that means that every effort that you make to continually refine processes you're also facing this challenge of how you ensure that things remain consistent and that you're also being responsive to the changing environment.

Um with that, I'm I'm appreciative of all the comments and questions and recommendations I think my colleagues have shared as you're considering how to move forward.

I I think there's a significant amount of discussion, not just here, but almost in every facet of what we do and what we're seeing in the public relating to the rapidly changing environment of technology.

Um we're certainly eager to understand how tools that you identify are going to be there to support staff, not to replace them, um, and to help ultimately expand upon your ability to reduce the backlogs that we've all known we continue to face, um, respond to stakeholders, um, but also ultimately to also provide the public with better information.

And I think those are all worthwhile objectives to accomplish at the end of the day, all while also trying to traverse all the potential shortfalls or risk factors that might be there as well.

I thought about yes yesterday we had a conversation about the city's ERP system, for example, and I think some of what we see out there is is not going to just be replaced by AI.

So this idea that AI is going to come in and replace these systems that we have isn't quite feasible.

I like to think of them as likely providing another layer of interface and engagement that our staff will have the ability to have with the information that is there, and hopefully in new updates to the systems that that allows that interface to actually be productively used.

How that ultimately looks, I I think is even for me, it's just hard to imagine at the moment.

So I think additional updates that you'll be providing in the future will be really helpful for us to really understand and to be able to provide the feedback and oversight that is important to us.

Thank you for answering some of the questions that Councilmember Moreno had in terms of public engagement.

I I was going to share some of those as well.

I think that's it.

Can I just share a quick summary?

I think it relates to some of what you're saying.

Oh, I'm sorry, Kent Morris, Deputy Director, um, DSD.

Um, one area in particular, I think that you guys have all touched on is project submittal.

So one of the areas that we see is that people submit um applications that are just wrong.

They're very common mistakes across the board, and we have to give them back to the customer who has to resubmit.

AI can really help us.

It's not taking away any jobs, it's just helping us identify the most common mistakes by applications.

It could be caught with AI, flagged for the customer so they can quickly uh correct their applications and resubmit them faster so it helps everybody around without taking away a job.

It just makes everything more efficient.

So I think I heard a few things uh from you guys that I think that's a great base case of how AI could be used in a very productive way, but not takeaway from any uh positions.

So in fact, I've made recommendations to the industry that they should start utilizing that now instead of waiting for us to launch it in 2029.

They can do that on the front end that's actually before they come to us.

I'm sure that's good feedback for them as well.

Um and I will just conclude by noting, Lisa, that um as much as you had some addulation from folks about the work that the department has done, that feedback we have also heard uh in my time here uh on the council um just within the last couple of years.

Uh it's it's always been great to hear back from various stakeholders that they are getting a department that is responsive, that they're seeing things move, and that um at the end of the day, uh many folks are proud of the work that the city of San Diego is doing uh on this front.

So thank you.

That concludes item six.

And with that, Natalie, will you please introduce item four?

Item four, 2026 update to the San Diego Municipal Code, land development code and plan district ordinances, and local coastal program, minor amendments to the downtown community plan and general plan, and associated implementing actions.

And if you're watching on City TV or the live stream and would like to comment on item four, please call one six, six, nine two five four five two five two.

Webinar ID is one six one seven nine five one nine three three pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

And just a reminder that item four is uh now part of our discussion agenda.

And for staff, will you please um take a moment to introduce yourselves for the record?

Like us, let us know how much time you'll need.

Heidi, I think I'll turn it to you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Megan Cabrubius, city senior planner with the city planning department.

I will need roughly 28 minutes for the presentation.

Go ahead.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Megan Kabrubius, senior planner with the City of San Diego City Planning Department, and today I'll be providing an overview on the 2026 Land Development Code update.

Joining me today is City Planning Director Heidi Von Bloom, Deputy Director Seth Lidchney and Principal Planner Courtney Pash.

Also joining me from DSD Urban Division is Deputy Director Brian Schoenfish and senior planner Jacob Bassinger.

Components of the land development code, chapters 11 through 15 of the San Diego Municipal Code are known collectively as the LDC.

These chapters cover land development procedures, the land development review process, zoning, general regulations, and the plan districts.

The 2026 LDC is made up of 136 proposed amendments, 105 specifically citywide amendments, and 31 downtown amendments.

The LDC team evaluated roughly 242 submissions from a variety of different groups.

These groups include members of the public, planning groups, industry professionals, and advocacy groups.

In addition, staff researched and reviewed state legislation for inclusion in this code update package.

On February 19th, the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend to the City Council approval of the proposed 2026 update to the San Diego Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program and minor amendments to the downtown community plan and general plan.

This also includes a recommendation to the City Council removal of the following items.

Item 34, landscape regulations, and item 91, building transitions and buffers from adjacent freeways.

This also included amendments to the following items.

Item 7, complete communities housing solutions development impact fee waiver for homes less than 500 square feet, fire item 17, fire separation distance, item 39, tenative map exemption provisions, item 7 item 76 affordable housing regulations, moderate income, and item 92, residential development in the MCS Miramar Airport Influence Area.

Please note that for item 76, staff has deleted this item for further review in a future code update.

Updates to the code are grouped into five categories: amendments that align with the city's climate equity or housing goals, clarifications, compliance with state law, corrections, and regulatory reforms.

In parentheses, the number of proposed amendments are included in each category.

First, I will review the changes proposed to align the code with the city's climate equity or housing goals.

Certain code amendment items in this category that licited questions during public outreach were further evaluated by city staff during the review period or generally received public interests, are highlighted and detailed in this section.

Note that we will review some of these items, but that more detail on items are contained in the backup materials.

Before I begin the presenting on the citywide items, I would like to point out that the category that the proposed items associate with can be found at the bottom right-hand corner of the screen.

Item 3 includes changes to the floor area ratio bonus and commercial base zones to encourage more mixed income development by allowing an additional 0.5 area ratio bonus for residential mixed use developments that provide all required deed restricted affordable homes on site.

This amendment only applies in commercial-based zones that are located in mobility zones two or three within high and higher resources areas as defined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee.

This would incentivize affordable homes to be constructed on site in high and highest resource communities in the city.

Item 6 currently the complete communities housing solutions only permits rental homes.

This amendment allows the development of four-cell homes within complete communities, thus providing additional home ownership opportunities across various income levels.

Item 7, the proposed amendment to the complete communities housing solutions requires certain conditions to be met to receive a diff waiver for homes less than 500 square feet.

At the time the full waiver was fully adopted, with the adoption of citywide diff, all new homes were required to pay the same diff amount regardless of the size of the home.

With the adoption of citywide diff, all diff are scaled based on home size, meaning that smaller homes pay less than larger homes.

A complete waiver of diff is not recommended for smaller homes since infrastructure investments are needed to ensure adequate public facilities are provided, which is the intended purpose of DIF.

All staff and staff estimates it must be may result in the continual loss of revenue for infrastructure in the amount of about 11 million annually.

The city planning department initially proposed removing the diff waiver from the complete community's regulations.

However, the planning commission recommended that a deaf waiver for homes less than 500 square feet continue to be applied so long as certain percentage of the total homes in the development have three or more bedrooms.

Based on that feedback, staff has recommended continuing the incentive for homes less than 500 square feet while encouraging larger homes, while also taking into account revenue implications, and also revised this item to continue the diff waiver for homes that are less than 500 square feet.

The development would require be required to meet certain conditions.

That includes the development contain at least 10% of two or more bedroom homes and an additional 10% of three or more bedroom homes, and lastly, a cap of a diff waiver for 30% of the total homes in the development that are less than 500 square feet.

It is important to note that the city currently still provides a full diff waiver for any deed restricted affordable home, meaning that these smaller units would still be eligible for a waiver if a deed restricted was placed on the home.

Item 9, in order to be consistent with the mid-city communities plan, which calls for medium high to high density residential development and commercial uses along transit corridors, the central urbanized plan district needs to be updated.

This amendment proposal would prohibit new moving and storage facilities in specific central urbanized commercial zones that include CU2-3, C2 4, and CU2-5 zones to be consistent with the existing mid-city communities plan.

This would not impact existing storage facilities.

This amendment is also consistent with the city's climate goals of encouraging active pedestrian communities, encouraging new housings to be built near transit.

Now we move on to our next category, which are clarification items that comprise of 23 items within the code update.

Note that we will review some of these items, but that more detail on all items are contained in the backup materials.

Item 11, noise regulations amends the noise regulations to clarify that in certain cases, noise levels may temporarily exceed limits if the activity or use is authorized by a special event permit, development permit, or other permits or agreement approved by the city manager.

This amendment codifies current code implementation practices.

Item 17.

The amendment is meant to inform development applicants that the fire setback required to provide adequate defensible space may be greater than the required base zone setback.

Nothing in this section increases the authority of the fire marshal, but simply provides notice to an applicant that other requirements may be applicable.

The planning commission recommended that staff insert the defensible space qualifier to the fire setback language to differentiate between the two different requirements in the base zones.

City staff changed the amendment from fire setback to fire defensible space buffer to address planning commission's concerns and increase clarity of the amendment.

Item 18 in the appointment makes use zone, at least 50% of a project's floor area is required to be non-residential use, and the remainder area may be used for either non-residential or residential uses.

Live work quarters are consistent, are considered non-residential uses even though they provide a residential component.

To provide additional flexibility, this amendment proposal clarifies that up to 50% of live work quarters floor area can be counted toward the minimum non-residential requirement of the EMX zone.

Item 25 aligns the affordable housing, complete communities housing solutions and development unit protection regulations with government code section 66300.5 by clarifying the equivalent size size means that the replacement dwelling units must include the same total number of bedrooms as the units being replaced.

This is to ensure that families occupying the protected units can still qualify for the replacement units since bedroom count determines the affordability of the replacement unit.

Next, we focus on code amendments that bring the San Diego Municipal Code into compliance with state law, which includes a total of 29 items.

Again, we will review some of these items, but that more detail on all items are contained in the backup materials.

Please note that the proposed amendments simply implements state law and do not go beyond what is otherwise required.

Item 39 aligns the tentative map regulations with the subdivision map act for land zone industrial or commercial development.

Clarifying when a tentative map is not required pursuant to government code section 66426.

The planning commission was concerned that mixed-use zones were not explicitly included and therefore would not be eligible for a tentative map waiver.

City staff added language to clarify that the tentative map waiver would be allowed in mixed use zones for development that is consistent with the subdivision map act.

Item 40 allows for ministerial approval of a subdivision of up to 10 dwelling units on lots zoned for multifamily dwellings that are five acres or less to be compliant with Senate Bill 684.

SB 684 establishes a streamlined approval process for such subdivision, exempting them from the California Environmental Quality Act and other requirements.

However, the application of this amendment would be excluded in very high fire hazard severity zones, wetlands, development with existing deed restricted affordable homes and rental homes.

Item 41, Senate Bill 1123 expands on Senate Bill 684 to allow for streamlined subdivisions and single dwelling unit zones.

The same site eligibility restrictions for SB 684 and multifamily zones apply to single family to single dwelling unit zones.

However, this bill includes additional location criteria that includes the site must be no more than 1.5 acres and located adjacent to existing development.

In addition, SB 1123 allows for the creation of a remainder lot and requires lots to be sewed with a dwelling unit unless they are reserved for open space, common area, or a remainder parcel.

The land development code includes 20 items that fall in the corrections category, some of which are highlighted on the next slides.

Again, we will review some of these items, but that more detail on all items are contained in the backup materials.

Planning Commission motion clarification for items 68 and 92.

We understand the planning commission's intent was to amend item number 68 regarding noise compatibility and permitted uses to ensure consistency with the Marine Corps Air Station Miramar ALUCP.

This also aligns with the feedback received during the public comment period for the LDC.

Although the Planning Commission took action on item 92, which is similar in that it relates to MCAS Miramar, this item removes the requirement for a site development permit for residential development at a density of up to 60 dwelling units per acre within MCS Miramar Airport Influence Area Transition Zone.

The clarification before you confirms that the intended focus was for item 68 to address public comment and not on item 92.

There are no proposed changes to item 92.

Item 68, the amendment to the airport land use compatibility overlay zone regulations would align the municipal code with the MCAS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan by permitting moving and storage facilities, wholesale and distribution and storage uses in areas with noise levels up to 80 decibels community noise equivalent level, provided that any associated office or retail indoor spaces are mitigated to achieve an interior noise level of 50 decibels.

Based on the recommendation from the Planning Commission, vehicle and vehicular equipment sales and services were added as a permitted use, but only within the MCS Myanmar Airport Influence Area since it is only allowed in this area that currently identifies the use.

Now moving on to the last category, regulatory forms, which is comprised of 23 items in the LDC.

Again, we will review some of these items, but that more detail on all items are contained in the backup materials.

Item one, the administrative citations have not been revised since 2007.

The amendment increases existing penalties, which are range from 100 to 1,000 to up to 10,000 per violation.

This is to deter code violations.

Item 81, the administrative abatement penalties have not been revised since 2007.

This amendment increases penalties for causing or maintaining a public nuisance from $2,500 to $10,000 per violation and increases the cap per parcel or structure from $200,000 to $500,000 in a calendar year to better reflect current administrative and investigation costs and to better deter violations.

Item 82, administrative civil penalties for code violations have not been updated since 2017.

This amendment proposal raises administrative civil penalties for code violations to better reflect current enforcement costs and saw and serve as a stronger deterrent against noncompliance.

Item 87, this amendment to the previously conforming premises and use regulations will provide more flexibility for lots within commercial or industrial uses that were rezoned through a community plan update by allowing additional but similar previously conforming uses in some circumstances, provided the lot is outside of the environmental justice communities, with requirements to provide street frontage requirements such as wider sidewalks, street trees, public spaces, and other improvements.

Alternatively, in lieu of providing street frontage improvements, an applicant may pay an in LU fee as established by a city council resolution.

The City Planning Department drafted a resolution setting the NLU fee at approximately $3,000 per linear foot of street frontage.

This amount is based on a previously established NLU fee in Kearney Mesa that was determined by an analysis of construction cost estimates for similar public right-of-way improvements.

This rate is attended to ensure that either the street improvements are constructed on site or the city receives a fee that is similar to the cost of providing the improvements.

The city planning department is open to the committee's feedback on other options for calculating the in loop fee.

Other requirements for previously conforming use flexibility includes an approval of a neighborhood use permit with an appeal to the planning commission for any other changes in use and includes a sunset date until December 31st, 2040, and can be extended by an additional five years through a conditional use permit.

The 15-year allowance ensures that the city maintains the overall vision of the community plans in which these new zones were applied, but not encouraging the new uses in the long term.

This is particularly relevant for areas such as Kearney Mesa and Mira Mesa community planning areas.

Item 93 allows child care centers in the Marine Corps Air Station, Miramar, Airport Influence Area Transition Zone as a limited use and establishes a maximum for area ratio of 0.42 for the use, which is consistent with other small assembly uses.

It also removes the expansion limit for child care centers under previously conforming regulations that no longer apply as a result of this amendment.

Because the MCS Miramar Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prohibits child care centers in the transition zone.

Adopting this item would require a city council override of the airport land use commission as provided for under state law.

Item 94 wireless communication facilities regulation streamlines the review process by reducing the approval process level for certain wireless communication facility applications from a process 4 to a process 3 and from a process 3 to a process 2.

This would allow timely approval and avoid requiring planning commission approval while maintaining a discretionary process with appeal rights for the public and applicants.

Item 102 proposes how to calculate the vehicle miles traveled reduction measure buyout fee for development applicants, applications, and mobility zones two and three that choose to pay the buy-out fee if they are unable to implement the reduction measures.

Now I will hand off the presentation to Jacob Bassinger to discuss the proposed downtown amendments.

Thank you, Megan.

There are 30 proposed items affecting the center city and gas lamp quarter plan district ordinances, which regulate land use and development in the downtown community plan area.

One additional item proposes minor amendments to the downtown community plan.

The downtown items are organized into the same five categories as the citywide amendments.

Most are minor clarifications or refinements to existing programs.

Over the next slides, I'll highlight some of the more substantive items.

More information on all proposed downtown amendments is available in the backup materials.

These first slides focus on amendments that align downtown regulations with climate equity or housing goals.

Downtown zoning code includes several incentive programs designed to encourage development in return for the provision of public benefits or development amenities.

Most of the items within this category fall within those programs.

Item one expands the existing downtown eco-roof density bonus by adding an additional incentive for projects that provide a rooftop community garden that is accessible to building occupants.

It also encourages rooftop landscaping to meet existing mechanical screening requirements, giving projects more flexibility and supporting greener rooftops.

Item two would streamline development in the downtown coastal zone overlay.

This overlay is a small area primarily located between the railroad tracks and Pacific Highway outside of the Coastal Commission's appealable area.

For projects in this overlay that provide public benefits or development amenities through existing downtown floor area ratio bonus programs.

This amendment would reduce the approval level from process two to process one, provided that the project is consistent with the local coastal program and satisfies required coastal findings.

Item six encourages development on small underutilized downtown lots.

It establishes a new density bonus and provides limited regulatory exemptions that address challenges associated with tower development on smaller parcels downtown.

Item eight supports revitalization along C Street by offering an additional density bonus for projects on the transit corridor that also use at least one other downtown bonus program.

This strengthens incentives for higher density transit supportive development along C Street.

Item 9 promotes preservation of existing mature trees downtown.

This concept originated from the 2025 City Council Environment Committee, which found that downtown has lost more tree canopy than any other community.

Because mature trees provide greater ecological benefits than newly planted trees, this item would grant a small 0.2 floor area ratio bonus for each mature mature tree preserved on site.

It would also provide options for two to one replacement on site or off-site within downtown, or a payment to the downtown FAR bonus fund to fund public improvements in the downtown area.

These requirements would be in addition to existing urban tree canopy fund requirements.

There are 12 proposed downtown amendments in the clarification category to make downtown regulations easier to understand and apply.

These items are fairly straightforward with more information available in the downtown update list and draft code language materials.

The downtown amendments also include one item to ensure compliance with state law.

Item 22 provides minor amendments to the downtown community plan to align it with the current center city and gas lamp quarter plan district ordinances.

These are minor updates that remove outdated references, text, graphics, and images so that the plan reflects existing regulations and remains internally consistent.

This would amend the city's general plan due to the downtown community plan being a component of the general plan.

The downtown items also include three proposed corrections.

Item 24 updates the gas lamp quarter land use table so that its use categories align with the citywide use tables.

This removes outdated terminology, improves code consistency, and makes it easier to identify permitted uses in the gas lamp quarter.

Finally, the downtown items include seven regulatory reforms.

Currently, temporary community focused uses on private property, referred to as outdoor activities, require a discretionary permit which can discourage activation of underutilized outdoor spaces.

Item 27 would make these activities a permitted use downtown, encouraging more temporary community serving uses such as farmers or artisan markets on private property.

Outreach for the LDC update included a public comment portal, two virtual public workshops, an overview video of the LDC update, two community planner committee meetings, three LDC update subcommittee meetings, and meetings with three community planning groups and one advisory board to discuss specific LDC items impacting their community areas.

On January 27th, the plan the community planners committee passed the motion to approve the LDC subcommittee's recommendation on the LDC and directed staff to accelerate the release of the draft code language for a public review.

The group approved 86 items, opposed 11 items, and table 10 items as detailed in the backup materials.

In February, the CPC voted to oppose two additional items bringing the total number of opposed items to 13.

Of the 13 items, they oppose five amendments that are required to comply with state law, and the remaining six are as follows: two related to the complete community's off-site affordable housing requirements, increased appeal fees, fiber optic and wireless communication facilities, building transitions, two related to changes to the MCS Miramar influence area safety compatibility zone and the setting of the vehicle mile travel buyout fee.

This is our 2026 LDC update timeline.

We concluded planning commission in February.

We're here at LANUS and we are proposing city council in April.

Staff recommends the city council approval of the proposed 2026 update to the San Diego Municipal Code and Local Coastal Program and minor amendments to the downtown community plan and general plan.

In addition to the ordinance and resolutions adopting these changes, there are three resolutions and one ordinance that includes amendments to the ADU density bonus program, community enhancement fee, adopting a new inloop fee for the required street improvements in the previously conforming use regulations, adopt minor amendments to vehicle miles travel reduction measure buyout fee and an amendment to the land development code, the land development manual appendix T, and lastly, an ordinance increasing the appeal fees for projects.

And lastly, an ordinance increasing the appeal fees for projects.

Thank you very much for your time today.

And this concludes staff's presentation.

Thank you.

Let's go ahead and turn next to the public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item four is now open.

And Chair, we have received eight speakers list from individuals in chambers, and there are currently nine hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute and 30 seconds.

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

Randy LeChans, if you could please approach the lectoring, you'll be first, and you'll be followed by Stephanie, Ben Venudo, and Blair Beekman.

All good.

Good afternoon.

Um Mr.

Chair and members of the committee.

Thank you for taking the time to hear me today.

My name is Randy Lechance, and I'm speaking specifically uh to item number 87 regarding the previously conforming use.

Uh I want to thank the planning department and the mayor's staff for their efforts to try to balance the changes that were made during with the uh currently with the general plans that have been approved and the previous zones and the tenants that were in those uses and still want to remain in business.

Um we're supportive of this item as proposed by the staff with a request for one change and one clarification that will better reflect the economic conditions impacting the property owners uh that the property owners are facing.

Uh the clarification has to do with the neighborhood use permit.

Um there's a real concern regarding the time it will take to get a neighborhood use permit approved and a tenant sitting around waiting to lease a space that's vacant, ready for a business to open.

And so we'd like to get a real good clarification on how long that can take.

Is there any way to speed up the approval process or a different type of permit that maybe could be had in order to get those approvals?

Um and then we'd also appreciate the removal of section 1270110, subsection C and D.

Uh the reason for this is these are the improvements that will need to be completed uh and are required to be completed when the site is redeveloped for the purpose it was meant to be redeveloped.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This doesn't read quick enough.

Our next speaker is Stephanie, and you'll be followed by Blair Beekman, Jeff Hoyder, and Fred Taiko.

Good afternoon.

I'm Stephanie Bevanito here on behalf of the Building Industry Association of San Diego.

We'd like to start by thanking the staff for their hard work to analyze and produce this code update.

The BIA's Urban Council has reviewed the package and is generally very supportive of what is before you today.

We're also proud to join our coalition partners like the Chamber of Commerce and NAP in their priorities, which we share, which were shared via letter earlier this week.

Following a productive planning commission hearing, there were amendments that were made that we believe are very valuable and pragmatic improvements.

They did cover those, so we want to just acknowledge the collaborative discussion that happened at Planning Commission and thank everybody for their time there.

There are there remain a limited number of items that we have raised some questions about or suggested some minor amendments.

And those are number six complete communities with regard to the um with for sale for the debt to income ratio.

Number seven, um, further clarifying the diff waiver for small units and potentially removing that 10% uh or the 10% for two bedroom and the 30% cap, and then number 31 further reviewing the cadence and timing requirements around the additional covenant that's covered there.

Um again, we appreciate all the work that's taken us to get to this point in general.

You are very supportive and thank staff for their time talking with us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Blair Beekman.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

Thank you that you're offering one minute 30 for this item.

I think that's a fair exchange at this time.

Uh we'd all prefer two minutes, but um, thank you for the one thirty.

Um I wanted to quickly comment that um I want to be working on issues uh coastline issues and coastline development that uh in how we talk about our our sea level rise issues, that it can be uh an honest discussion.

Uh city government can come in with really important facts and numbers, and um the community in return uh can be somewhat upset about how to talk about uh sea level rise issues.

Learning to find that middle space, I think is really important, and making that a part of our public conversation can be really important if we if it's honest dialogue from the public, honest concerns.

Uh I hope we were working towards a good middle ground of to really address sea level rise issues.

Coastal development issues.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff, please approach the lecture, and you've been seated time by Dana, so you'll have three minutes to manage.

There's uh just one slide.

Um this was a fairly um uncontroversial land development code update, so you don't get the full uh treatment today.

Um we did have some issues that we worked through with staff, so we did want to thank staff for uh working with us to answer some of our questions and make some of the changes that we suggested.

Um if you go to the next slide, the only thing that was taken out of, and this was at the urging of the planning commission.

Um the transition plan item was removed.

This was really to kind of keep the package moving forward.

Um, this is something that we would like to see come back in a in a future uh land development code update.

Um there's a couple of good things about this.

One is um the planning department has been trying to create a uniform set of regulations across the city, and this would have helped with that.

We've already adopted transition planes as part of the um university and hillcrest uh plan updates, and this would have just generalized those same regulations.

Um the other thing, and I think the reason the the planning commission um struggled somewhat with this is just sort of visualizing what the real consequence of this and and the transition planes aren't on every building, they're on buildings that are adjacent to lower density uses.

So if you're surrounded by other similarly zoned properties, this is not a non-issue for you.

It's only at this transition boundaries between say uh uh a high, you know, RM you know 410 where it abuts up to say an RS or even uh 17 or even an RM11, it'd be in those areas where you have a low density transition to a higher density area, and um this would address that.

I think a couple other things that are that are that are um considerate of the challenges that developers face are first of all it's only within the first 25 feet.

Once you get above that um you can exceed uh the height to whatever the zone is, so it's it's not um totally capping development in many cases.

Um the other issue is and there can be disagreement about what the ideal angle plane is, and this is a big thing that's um debated within urban planning circles.

Um, but 65 degrees is a fairly steep angle.

The way to think about it is you basically have two feet of rise for every one feet of run.

So um if you're next to somebody within that first 25 feet, you're you're at 54.

Um there was a concern about what would happen across from Ball Ball Park.

Well, if that's 150 feet away, that's a 300-foot building restriction, which is not typically what we see.

So again, I hope this comes back.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Fred, please approach the election, and you've been seated time by Marshall Anderson if you could raise your hand, so you'll have three minutes to manage, and you'll be followed by Elizabeth Burstein.

Thank you very much.

Good afternoon, uh Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

Uh Fred Takeo is speaking on behalf of the San Diego County Lodging Association.

We respectfully request uh that amendment 109 regarding pool and spa heating systems be tabled for to allow for further discussion.

First, we'd like to appreciate uh thank and appreciate the mayor's office as well as the planning department for engaging the association back in November shortly thereafter, after the outreach, we submitted a letter of input uh that staff had requested.

While we did receive feedback uh earlier this week, uh unfortunately it's not adequate enough time for us to uh fully uh vet the operational liability and the liability impacts of the proposed policies to hotels.

Now, I don't want to discount the difficulty of writing a policy that would cover uh a hotel with 30 rooms to a hotel with 300 rooms, nor for a policy to completely encompass uh the uh greenhouse gas uh strategies that a hotel is currently implementing.

However, the lodging industry supports the efforts to reduce uh emissions and is committed to sustainability.

Um we believe uh that more flexible pathways are warranted in this case.

For these reasons, we respectfully um request that the item um 109 be separated uh for additional discussion.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in chambers, Elizabeth Berstein, please approach the lectern.

Hi, thank you for um taking the time to listen to me.

I'm worried about item seven of the update to the land development code because I'm concerned that it might disincentivize the building of smaller affordable homes.

Um I recently graduated from college, and I'm really struggling to find a job and a home that where the math works so that I can afford to live in San Diego.

And um, I know many of my friends from college and many of our neighbors also struggle to do that math.

I'm gratified to hear that this potential disincentive for smaller homes is being addressed, but I urge the council to please continue to encourage the building of lots of smaller homes because increasing supply to meet the demand is really the best way to decrease housing costs.

I understand that there's a concern about the budget shortfall and um needing money for infrastructure, and I encourage the city to consider taxing those who already have enough more rather than reducing support and services for lower income neighbors who need them.

Um thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

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 on item four.

We have 10 hands raised in the queue.

And as a reminder, each speaker will have one minute and 30 seconds.

We will begin with phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six and begin.

Thank you, Natalie.

Uh Joy Sunyata C D three.

Planning department.

Thank you so much.

This is excellent work.

Every time you bring it forward, I just love setting it.

So I'm just gonna look at downtown.

And I have 15 favorites, and just so that you know on that, I have one disappointment, and that is number four.

Uh it was deleted.

It's child care facilities.

So we gotta take that under our umbrella and and do what we can to make that happen uh the best we can.

Thank you, thank you.

I'll focus on six items of the 15.

Here we go.

Uh, number eight, uh, yes on developing C Street.

Number nine, yes on the tree canopy, number 18, yes on live entertainment.

I'll just put this in for me.

The petty cab uh drivers really want a little music.

Can you help them with that?

Number 19, yes, on activities for the promenade.

Please, please, please.

Number 20, yes on the gas lamp district regulations.

Number 21, yes on Fed Sidewalk Cafes.

I think that is my sixth favorites.

Yes, a lot of them were on the gas lamp district.

I loved every single one of them on the gas lamp district.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker, the original, please unmute and begin.

Yeah, it's interesting how people want to rob Peter to pay Paul.

But um, you know, you guys put all these items together as a like case.

This is you should be, you know, potentially separating them between the um, you know, municipal codes, plans, and programs so that people could actually digest and be able to talk about all of the things.

But I mean you know, you guys do your things the way you do them on purpose.

So that is very obvious.

Um, and people should just really pay attention to the things that you guys are bringing in and how many regulations you guys have to tap into everything that we're doing.

Um, you know, and and you can do this, but you can't do that.

And at one point you could do something, and then all of a sudden you couldn't for a specific reason that would be to, you know, protect people's public health and safety, and then you go back on it, and because you claim that you're trying to, you know, implement something more like housing or whatever, but like putting anything near the airport when you know or where there are planes flying, it's like you know that there are toxic chemicals that are being, you know, falling down on the people where they're at, different things like that.

But because you guys fail at doing other things, you try and push in onto what everybody else is doing and bring in fees and different things so that they can fix the problems that you don't, like the streets.

If somebody doesn't fix the street like they are supposed to, you give them a fee.

Well, what happens when you don't?

Nothing.

You just come back to the people for more money, and you can ever get the people enough time to talk.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker, Luisana Gonzalez, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Council members.

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

I want to start by thanking city staff for their hard work on this update.

We submitted a coalition letter with other business organizations with our full comments and recommendations on the 2026 LDC.

We are supportive of many items in the update, including positive reforms for wireless communication facilities, for sale housing, outdoor dining establishments, and housing downtown.

We also appreciate the planning commission's recommendation and staff's removal of two items that would have hindered new housing in the city.

We do have several items that our coalition would like to see refined.

We would also ask this committee to accept the planning commission's recommendation on item number seven to allow for important small homes to be built.

We also would like to uh clarity about when item uh number 109 applies.

Thank you for your consideration of our comments, and we look forward to the implementation of many positive changes from the update.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Victoria Labrusso, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and committee members.

This is Victoria Labruzzo, Chair of CPC.

First, I'd like to thank the planning department and in particular Courtney and Megan for the time they took to work with the CPC subcommittee on our review of the update.

As Megan mentioned, the January 27th CPC comments were updated after the planning commission met on the 19th.

And I attached them using the web form for this meeting.

We should have Chris Nielsen from university speaking to a few comments, hopefully later on.

Uh, and I'd like to highlight a few more.

Uh, first, items 108 and 109 were just introduced at the planning commission meeting on February 19th.

Therefore, the CPC will make no comment due to the lack of notice, the absence of draft code language, and no opportunity for public review prior to CPC consideration.

CPC requests these items follow the standard public notice and review process before adoption.

Um, number 85, CPC continues to take issue with appeals fee for the CPGs.

And it looks like they may be doubling, making this even more difficult for your advisory bodies to have their voices heard.

We continue to stand behind waiving fees for CPGs as an equitable solution for our communities in San Diego.

We hope you will consider this continued request in the near future.

Lastly, I just want to thank the CPC subcommittee members for the number of hours they've spent a ton of time on these code updates and their evaluation and all of it's been volunteer time.

I want to thank them for that.

And thank you, committee members, for your time.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have six hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these six.

Chris Nielsen, please unmute and begin.

Chris, I have asked you to unmute the question.

Okay.

Um good afternoon.

My name's Chris Nielsen.

I'm the chair of the 2026 LDC Update Subcommittee for CPC.

And we have uploaded our revised comments, post planning commission.

I'll comment on a few items in this update.

Uh number 54, affordable bonus and incentives report.

CPC continues to recommend that the form proposed to report bonus incentives be made electronically searchable to assist both city staff and members of the public in determining which incentive bonuses are used for a particular development project.

On wireless uh for number 89, wireless control facilities, cabinets, and the public right-of-way.

The 2026 LDC update recommends approval with a ministerial decision.

CPC recommends a process too to permit public comment, but would not increase the workload of the planning commission.

Finally, on numbers 92 and 93, housing and child care in the mirror bar transition zone.

Current code provides up to 60 D you an acre in the transition zone with a site development permit and does not permit child care as a use due to higher accident potential in transition zone.

CPC recommends a site development uh permits still be continued, uh required, and that an SDP similarly be required for child care.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Peggy Walker, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

I strongly support uh an item 20, clarifying that cannabis outlets are not permitted to use cannabis leaf symbols on any signage.

This is important because the marijuana leaf often carries misunderstood or falsely conveyed symbolism.

Some consumers, for example, wrongly perceive the marijuana leaf as a pharmaceutical or medical symbol, which is irrefutably false.

Marijuana signage shouldn't convey the idea of endorsed medical or safe use.

So let's be clear.

Science-based evidence shows no proven medical benefits to smoked or ingested weed.

Data show products sold by retailers are nothing more than a vehicle for getting high.

The cannabis sleeves shouldn't be normalized as representing anything otherwise.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kathleen Lippitt, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for letting me speak.

Once again, the city's land use code updates rolls far too many updates into a single 2026 code update.

Streamlining also seems to be a euphemism for codes that will deter public input and ability to oppose.

A number of these codes do not ameliorate or mitigate existing problems that were created by problematic codes or the absence of a code in the first place, but make them exponentially worse.

Code number 45 regarding parking, reduce parking requirements, and as well as the infrastructure, lack of infrastructure requirements will cause community problems for decades to come.

85 is the appeal code that would go up dramatically, probably two time two-fold.

That's enormously disrespectful for planning groups who who don't excuse me, donate their time freely to provide the best input that they can.

Also, there is a on the 710 Club.

It's on Garnet, and it is one of the problematic nuisance uh streeteries that's been there for decades, and it's been a public nuisance for the community members.

What this code update does is all apparently allows them to continue their nonsense.

This does conclude your time.

You can submit a comment to council committee at Sandiego.gov.

We have three hands remaining in the queue.

Aria Grossman, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee, Council members.

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

Um, I'm commenting on the citywide updates.

We support many of these efforts, but I want to speak on a couple specifically.

Item number seven proposes to scale back development impact fee waivers so that builders may only receive them for homes less than 500 square feet if the building contains a certain percentage of homes with higher bedroom counts.

Um, this proposed amendment presented today is preferred over the initial proposal, which would have eliminated fees altogether.

However, the reduction of D waivers is contrary to the goal of increasing homes.

San Diego needs more housing, period.

This means more homes of all sizes, and disincentivizing small home development will have a net negative effect on our city's housing stock.

We got into this position of having such a deficit by not taking seriously the financial realities of building and regulating ourselves out of creating new homes.

Policies like eliminating fee waivers or conditioning them on certain development conditions like bedroom counts, push us back into that direction.

Regarding item 54, implementing AB 1287, circulate is in strong support of this item.

Circulate was the lead sponsor of AB 1287, which adds um up to 50% development capacity for developments that build a certain amount of affordable housing.

And we strongly encourage and support the city's implementation of this effort.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Madison, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

I wanted to express my support of the update on number 20 to prohibit the cannabis leaf symbol in signage for cannabis outlets.

As a mom of three children and someone who works in youth drug prevention, I've seen firsthand how recognizable that green leaf has become.

And it's no longer subtle.

It's a widely understood symbol for a mind-altering substance.

When that symbol is displayed prominently along our streets, near restaurants, schools, and parks, it normalizes cannabis use in a way that directly impacts kids and teens.

Your existing regulations already limit signage to the business name, alphabetic characters, and two colors.

So prohibiting the cannabis leaf symbol is a logical extension of that approach.

It ensures these outlets operate with a lower visual profile and are not advertising through imagery that is especially appealing or easily identifiable to youth.

We regulate signage for other age-restricted products carefully, and cannabis should be treated with the same level of caution.

This update helps set reasonable guardrails to reduce youth exposure and community impacts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the queue with their hand raised phone number ending in 8813.

Please press star six and begin.

Okay, follow here.

Okay.

Um first off, sea levels are not rising.

Uh we have the same coastal levels we've had for decades here in our county, and there are many photos that show the evidence from pictures taken over like a half century ago.

So this is just more fear, propaganda use to further control the behavior of the people through government narratives.

Okay, so I'm speaking on all items.

Uh, it is unbelievable how many people are still unaware of the United Nations agenda for the 21st century.

This is it.

Everything being presented is in lockstep with the rollout of the new world order.

It's full speed ahead.

Our future generations may never know what it means to own property.

Single family homes could become a thing of the past if people don't wake up and start paying attention to what is happening.

These policies reshape how people live, where they live, how far they travel, and ultimately how much freedom they have in their daily lives.

And I don't mean to sound doing doom and gloom here, but it is time for the um the time is of the essence.

And the younger generations have no clue just how badly they're being screwed by the very systems that claim to serve them.

And uh, you know, transparency matters, man.

Honest conversations matter, and the public deserves to know exactly where these policies are leading before they are permanently locked in the place.

This does conclude your time and sure.

This concludes public comment on item four.

Thank you to the public for your comments.

And uh, I'll go ahead and kick us off on this discussion.

I want to thank the uh city planning department for the tremendous amount of time uh that you've dedicated in delivering this land development code update, um, which I I think was uh sidelined a little bit with many of the conversations that we had last year.

Um, but that hasn't stopped you from working for with a number of uh stakeholders and in communicating with each of our offices as well.

Um, I also want to acknowledge um the members of the planning commission because I think they had a very thorough discussion uh when it related to numerous items in this update and helped to make some of the recommendations that I think help to form what we see here today at committee for consideration.

Um, before I focus on on several of the key items, I want to thank staff for the efforts that you've made in streamlining wireless communication facilities regulations, uh, as well as allowing child care centers in the uh Miramar area in my district, uh, along with um other items that help to make further clarifications and corrections when it comes to complete communities uh as a program.

Um, so the first major item that I think has come up, uh both in public comment, also was a bit of a planning commission discussion uh was item seven relating to microunit um diff waivers.

Um, the Complete Communities Um Housing Solutions program has been an important program, and we've seen a number of housing units produced as a result of it.

Um, in many of the discussions we've had, I've often encouraged um all types of housing, including microunits.

And I think we all recall that something like two years ago, this council decided uh to maintain waivers for microunits as a way to continue to incentivize those moving forward.

Um, at the same time, I understand in many of our discussions that we've discussed the need to collect uh development impact fees and that we need to ensure that we tailor any waivers to incentivize what we want to see or what we think we need in communities.

So that's one of the items that I actually appreciate that the planning commission sought to find a mechanism that they could do just that, um, specifically by requesting that microunit waivers continue to be offered, but offered as an incentive for the ever elusive larger three-bedroom units.

Um, city planning has further refined that as well.

And as I understand it, you sought to align that mechanism for the incentive to match our FAR bonus, requiring both 10% of two bedroom units as well as 10% of three bedroom units, correct?

Yeah, yes, that's correct.

And at a level, whether that would actually be met so that microunit waivers would still even be considered and whether that would still be the incentive that I think is intended.

And so I think we'll we'll share all of our amendments at the tail end.

But with that in mind, I will just note from my colleagues that I would like to amend what is proposed for microunit diff waivers to only keep the 10% of three bedroom units, since that is the target.

I think that that has been expressed, especially by the planning commission to incentivize with up to the 30% of waivers that are provided for microunits.

And I hope that that is a balance that would at least still allow for an opportunity for that to be used.

And perhaps we'll have a chance to visit that further if needed.

Regarding item 87 for previously conforming use flexibility, uh I want to acknowledge that there's been a lot of back and forth discussion about how to address previously conforming uses, and that has especially been relevant in the curning Mesa area where we recently passed that plan update in 2020.

Um then most recently with the passage of the university community plan in my district.

Uh I also recognize the importance that when we plan out these visions for a community plan update, that they do actually have a chance to be realized.

Um in doing so, we also have to find a way to balance uh a recognition that sometimes we're gonna be transitioning away from existing uses.

And I appreciate the many discussions that staff and stakeholders have had to try to find a balanced effort, um, expanding the uses so that we're not limiting um the options for tenants, but also trying to determine a timeline within the plan's life cycle that pushes ultimately for that transition.

And I will note that it's important to me that we not only lay out these plan updates, but that we do see a vision that we have a chance to realize in the time frame that those plan updates are intended for.

Um example of this kind of balance, while unique is the Grantville focused plan.

Um that area provides density and housing along transit and has allowed for industrial areas there to still thrive.

And so one of the questions that I think we've heard from members of the public is there concern about whether uh this amendment for 87 would also affect the Grantville area.

And I just want to see if you can further clarify that.

Yes, so there are special exemptions that are set forth in the Grantville focused plan amendment area that are not intended to be affected by the regulations before you, and we're happy to make additional clarifications as we bring the item to council.

Yeah, my request would just be for your commitment to update the language to clarify that that language uh for grant uh that Grantville is still Grantville in terms of how the Yes, happy to.

Thank you.

Um the other area I think we've identified um in this item is the requirement for frontage improvements.

And uh I think for me, I think trying to think through what the potential impacts are.

One of the main uh challenges that I I question whether we're addressing is the difference between what are smaller tenant improvement projects versus something that is much larger.

Um ultimately recognizing that requiring a significant number of frontage improvements for what might be a small tenant improvement project, even if it's changing uses, might be a pretty large obstacle to re tenant.

And so to that end, I I would note that I believe we should consider an exemption when it comes to smaller tenant improvement projects.

Um then I know there's been additional discussion about ultimately how we determine the fee uh for tenant improvements.

I hear the discussions coming from the public about the long-term objective is that with redevelopment we would see these frontage improvements.

Um I also approve department that in the time frame that we've laid out, if we don't put something in place, we're not gonna see updates until a much longer time horizon.

Um with that, I think we need some additional discussion when it comes to fees on how they're gonna be structured for these frontage improvements.

And so I'm gonna again add an amendment that asks that as we move this forward to council that we engage in further discussion uh to refine that component to try to see if we can come up with something that I think addresses the smaller TIs while also ensuring that we see um the opportunity for frontage improvements to be completed.

So, with all that said, I will um go ahead and move to approve the 2026 citywide uh land development code package and the downtown land amendment code package.

And um I'm gonna ask that we put the changes that we're proposing on screen.

And the two here would be to amend item seven, uh specifically to strike the language requiring uh 10% two or more bedroom homes as a part of those diff waivers.

And then for item 87 to uh specifically direct the city planning department to work with my office, Council District 6 to refine the INLU options for frontage improvements as it relates to previously conforming uses.

And that concludes, I believe, my motion.

So we will turn next to Councilmember Whitburn.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh and I too want to thank the planning department and DSD's downtown urban division for the great amount of work that has gone into this update.

Uh want to thank the community members and business groups for thoroughly reviewing this update and providing their comments.

I'll start off with a few comments about the citywide amendments.

Most of my comments uh will focus though on the downtown update.

I think it's good to see that the complete communities program will now apply to four-sale units, giving San Diego's more opportunities to own a home, and it will include for sale affordable housing.

Uh, this means that more affordable housing will be available for purchase near transit and schools and other community amenities.

Another item that I'm looking forward to implementing citywide is item 50, the shared housing density bonus.

Uh, this is going to encourage and make it easier to build shared housing uh downtown is a great place to explore implementing shared housing in some of our vacant office buildings.

Uh shared housing is critical for improving affordability by facilitating the splitting of rent and utility costs, making it an important solution to rising housing expenses and shortages.

It fosters social connection, it reduces loneliness, provides companionship and security, uh, particularly for our senior community.

Many of the changes within the uh land development code may seem small but can make a significant difference.

One of those instances is item 90, and that regards emergency shelters.

Uh, it streamlines the permitting process for emergency shelters, making it easier to get them up and running without a lot of regulatory burdens.

One of the items we heard concerns about today is item 109.

Uh that is the item that is focused on energy efficient pool and spa heating systems.

I appreciate the value of this item from a climate standpoint.

Uh, at the same time, I do want to make sure that everybody is clear on how to best implement the regulations.

I know there have been some questions uh recently about this.

We uh heard that uh today.

Uh I would ask that we pull this out of the land development code for now uh and return item 109 to staff so that we can make sure that there is that important clarity.

Uh, Chair, would you accept my amendment of returning item 109 to staff?

I would.

And and I'll note with that too that the language clarity on the language in terms of end of service life that had sort of triggered on our end as well.

So thank you, Council.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, I want to focus most of my time on downtown.

Uh every great city has a great downtown, and we've seen a record number of people moving downtown.

We've seen an abundance of green space and growth in our cultural resources, a renewed commitment to making our streets safe and vibrant and welcoming for everybody.

And this did not happen by accident.

Uh, this has happened in part because of the thoughtful planning by DSD's urban division.

Downtown is evolving into a place that feels greener, that feels more connected, more reflective of the people that work and live and spend time here.

Each of these updates moves us toward a downtown that is easier to live in, easier to invest in, and easier for everybody to enjoy.

Uh with the code updates in front of us today, we're opening the door to more rooftop gardens and preserving mature trees that give our neighborhoods shade and character and comfort.

Uh, these changes help to cool our streets, improve our air quality, and bring nature into the heart of the city.

A greener downtown is a healthier downtown, and these updates make that possible on rooftops and sidewalks and on every block in between.

By encouraging more for sale condos, we're creating ownership opportunities for people who want to make downtown their long-term home.

Uh digital opportunities for people to live downtown, strengthens our neighborhoods, supports local businesses, and builds a sense of stability and pride.

These tools help to ensure that downtown isn't just a place to visit, it is a place to belong.

Many small parcels in the urban core have sat underdeveloped or have been parking lots for many years because the rules make it difficult to build on them.

Uh the new incentives for small lots that are in this uh land development update, uh, and the revitalization bonus along C Street help to unlock these sites, bring new housing, new activity, and new life to blocks that have been waiting for the next chapter.

Clearer rules for programming promenades and simpler pathways for outdoor community uses, make it easier to bring people together, whether it's a fitness class or a farmer's market, a cultural event or a pop-up activation.

These changes also help to create the kind of street life that makes downtown feel uh vibrant and inviting.

I do want to address two items that I have heard concerns about in downtown, just uh ask for a couple of clarifications on these on item 30, uh, which uh regards traffic calming at garage entrances.

Uh does this traffic calming requirement apply to all garages or only to new projects?

Thank you for your question, Councilmember.

Um, this item, item 30 would only apply to new projects.

And I would also like to take this opportunity, if I may, to address some confusion that was raised during the planning commission process related to the new proposed standard.

Um the item originally only included the technical traffic engineering language for what would need to be installed on these driveways.

Um and we have since added language that clarifies that the standard may be met with simple and expensive devices such as speed bumps.

Thank you.

That's helpful.

All right.

Um then uh my second one was on item 31, which limits reductions in the sidewalk area for vehicle loading.

Some have assumed that curb line movements moving the curb uh inward prevents traffic from blocking roads and leads to less backup.

Is that actually true?

Thank you for that question.

Um the the short answer is no.

Um analysis of curb utilization typically shows that it causes more of a backup as vehicles pull in and out of these areas.

Um and I also have additional clarification on this one, if I may.

Um, in addition to easing traffic and improving pedestrian flow on sidewalks, um maintaining the curb line for these uh passenger loading areas also accommodates more total vehicles to use those spaces.

Um and it would also this proposed amendment in no way limits loading in valet zones downtown.

It only limits the movement of the curb.

Okay, thank you.

Uh well, with those uh clarifications, I think that both of uh those uh elements of the code update make sense as well.

Uh together, these updates support a downtown that is greener, more attainable, more dynamic, and more complete.

They help us grow in a way that honors our character and supports our residents and strengthens the economic and cultural heart of our city.

Uh this is the downtown that we're building, uh, one that feels alive and connected and full of possibility.

And with that, I will second council member or Chair Lee's motion uh including the amendment to return citywide item 109 to staff.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Whitburn.

Uh, we do have a first uh and a second before we move to the next speaker.

I'm gonna uh turn to the city attorney's office for a note.

Thank you.

Our office is continuing to work on completing our legal review on this matter.

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

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

Thank you.

With that, let's turn next to Councilmember Iler Rivera.

Uh thank you, Chair.

So, real quick follow-up question.

When we say language would change, language that wouldn't affect substance, I would assume.

Not without us telling you about that.

Well, I appreciate that.

Um just wanting to understand procedurally because in the past, it's one thing to make amendments where we've you know deleted a item from the land development code update or made um slight modifications as uh Chair Lee did.

Um, but we've also found at times you know somewhat difficult actually for the council to make modifications without resetting the entire process for that item.

So I'm I'm just wanting to kind of make sure that there's consistency between what the council is able to do in our legislative role and what the city attorney is able to do in a cle what I'm hearing is a cleanup role.

Whatever we would be doing would be hopefully clarifying, um avoiding any legal issues, um, but also with in the confines of whatever the notifing provisions are under not only our code, the government code, and the Brown Act.

Okay, thank you.

Uh appreciate that clarification.

Um thank you, um Heidi, for you and your team's work on this.

Um it's obviously a huge, huge undertaking, and I appreciate all the effort that goes into it.

Um a lot in here that um I'm supportive of and appreciative of.

Um appreciate Councilman Whitburn calling attention to some of the language in here around shared housing, um, shortly after the shared housing um item, item 52 on senior housing um density bonuses.

Obviously, some of this is to implement state law, but um that doesn't mean that it's not good and it won't have a positive impact.

Um I also want to say thank you for uh your inclusion of item nine on the um the moving and storage facilities.

The area that's impacted here is um in my district.

This is an area that is um where housing is being built, where the community um wants housing to be built.

Um the community does not want to be a um place where other parts of the city store their belongings um rather than um allow folks an opportunity um to live.

Um so I definitely appreciate this.

I know we've been having conversations about this for a while.

Um I actually would like to see um a similar approach to a broader part of our district um as the community plan update moves moves forward, and I know we've we've discussed that.

Um it's just not a good use of space in this part of the city.

And I'm gonna be frank, I'm super disappointed that industry made a point to lobby against this.

Um if any of you who lobbied against this action want storage facilities in your neighborhood, um please let us know where those are.

Um because we you know, by all means, um we'll we can put those there.

But I have an uh a community that wants housing for them and their neighbors and their families, and we've seen multiple lots purchased and turned into storage facilities instead of housing.

And that's not a good use of space.

It doesn't help with affordability.

Um it is a classic example of um of NIMBYism, quite frankly, because I know you don't want these facilities in your neighborhood, um, but you have no problem putting them in city heights.

So I'm glad that we're taking this action.

I think it's important, and I am very much looking forward to what will be built instead of um warehouses for other people's belongings um in the mid-city area.

Um I also want to say thank you for some of the updates that came via the housing commission because it is important to ensure that builders aren't taking advantage of regulations and not providing the high quality equivalent affordable housing units that they are supposed to be required to build.

Um so again, lots of good um stuff in here that I very much appreciate and uh I'm happy to support the motion in front of us.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Councilmember.

And we'll turn next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you, and uh thank you also for the presentation.

Uh the land development code serves as a foundation for how growth is regulated in the city of San Diego.

Um annual updates are essential to ensure that the city complies with state housing mandates, uh, removes unnecessary uh permitting barriers, aligns with adopted community plans, and advances climate and equity goals.

Uh the 2026 update, as was mentioned, includes uh 136 proposed amendments.

Um I think it's 135 as the motion stands, and their intention is to simplify regulation and and improve implementation.

Uh failure to adopt these updates would place the city out of compliance with state law.

So um after um reviewing this update, which was very arduous, right?

There's a a lot of good changes.

Um I believe it does strengthen our housing tools by increasing supply, uh protecting existing units and ensuring affordability incentive results.

Um that would result in real housing.

Um I'm gonna move uh move into the administrative fees.

It's my understanding that they haven't been updated in 20 years.

Um fee structures that are not aligned with actual costs undermine compliance, in my opinion, and staff indicated that the city's losing more than 11 million dollars annually.

Uh and I would like to know for the record how much additional revenue is projected to be generated through the proposed fee updates.

Um so, in reference, um, I think the 11 million dollars that you referenced was with respect to the uh development impact fee waivers under complete communities.

Um, but then you also referenced the appeal fees um and certain administrative uh penalties and fines.

Those have not been updated in a very long time.

They have not kept pace uh with the costs of inflation.

Um and so we think it's very important to increase those um, not necessarily for the sake of increasing revenue to the city, but uh to incentivize or deter non-compliance.

Got you.

Um can you repeat that you said of the 11 million that I referenced was to complete communities and the additional revenue will be to the outdated 20-year 20-year outdated fees?

No, the 11 million dollars is unrelated to the outdated administrative um penalties and fines.

Um that 11 million dollars was only related to a snapshot in time of one year of amount of diff waivers granted under a complete communities.

I got you.

Um the 2026 land development code update demonstrates that the city is responding to state mandates, um, addressing climate realities, uh, strengthening housing production and improving public safety.

Um, we didn't do a plan, we didn't do one last year, right?

A land development code update.

We did not have one in 2025.

This originally started in 2025.

Um, but due to workload constraints, we have not been able to get it to hearings until the beginning of this year.

Got you.

Because if I'm if I'm if my memory serves me, we used to have two updates per year.

Is that um moving forward?

Are we planning to do these updates every year or every two years?

Um we typically have not done twice a year in my recollection.

There was one year where uh they were divided into two separate updates due to the volume and to manage the staffing workload.

Um it does largely depend on our um uh um capacity um with our staffing and resources and what we can bring forward.

Um, in addition to the comprehensive land development code updates, we did have many other updates that came to the council um last year as well as many community plans that were adopted.

Um, and so that is why 2025 was a missed year.

Um, but we do do our best um with the resources that we have available and to bring all the items forward as as quickly as we can.

Wonderful.

Um, are we planning to do an update next year?

Or what is the plan for this year?

Because we do have a few communities.

Yeah, we will not have another um update in this calendar year 2026.

Um, and then we'll evaluate um later um with the next fiscal year uh what we may bring forward.

Okay, wonderful.

I only care up until December, so no I'm kidding.

Uh with that, um, I support moving uh this um uh motion forward and just thank you for um all the briefings and all the questions that um I know me and my staff had.

So we appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we do have a motion by myself, a second by Councilmember Whitburn, um, and I think we have a slide up with all of the uh amendments as part of that.

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

And the motion passes unanimously 40.

Thank you.

That concludes item four.

Natalie, will you please introduce item five?

Item five, 10-year lease between the City of San Diego and Harlan Brewing Company, LLC, a California limited liability company for a city-owned property located at 2702 North Mission Bay Drive, San Diego, 92109 at the Mission Bay Golf Course.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll let the team get up here and get settled.

If you can uh please introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you'll be needing.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and Council members.

My name is Jim Manler.

I'm the program manager over the real estate division's leasing team.

We will need about four minutes today to present this 10-year lease with Harlan Brewing Company at Mission Bay Golf Course.

Thank you.

For your consideration is a lease signed by Harlan Brewing Company to provide food and beverage operations for the benefit of the city's golf patrons and for families and members of the non-golfing public who are equally welcome to come enjoy quality food, drink, and a vibrant atmosphere.

Mission Bay Golf Course is located at 2702 North Mission Bay Drive in Council District One.

It is an 18-hole PAR 58 course that serves golfers of all ability levels, contains a popular driving range that is open until 9 30 p.m.

The golf division has completed a capital improvements project that delivered a new clubhouse and pro shop along with this turnkey restaurant facility about which we're speaking today.

The interior space of the restaurant is approximately 2,000 square feet, designed and built by an ECP-led project team.

The building features operable glass doors that you see in this photo, which open to create an exciting indoor outdoor dining experience.

The adjacent hardscaped and landscaped area is also part of the project, serve as the front door to the property, and the goal is to activate as a community family-friendly destination.

The golf division engaged EDD's real estate leasing team to market the opportunity and find a first class operator to provide breakfast, lunch, dinner, and cart service while turning the vision of a vibrant community gathering space into reality.

Through a competitive process with several very strong candidates, Harlan stood out as the best overall fit.

Harland has a deep operating experience and a strong regional brand with full service dining locations, counter service locations, and a brand new full service location for us ranch.

Rooted in the spirit of hospitality, Harlan's concept and values aligned very well with the city's popular public golf course at Mission Bay.

The 10-year lease is structured with a starting annual base rent of 102,000, 3.5% annual escalations, and a percentage rent at 7% of gross revenue over a threshold of approximately 1.4 million.

Maintenance and repairs of the building are the responsibility of the of the tenant.

The lease will commence upon the city's signature, and we are targeting occupancy by Harlan in April.

In the spirit of partnership, the city and Harlan will meet quarterly each year, if not more frequently, to review operating performance and objectives.

The proposed actions are one to authorize the city's execution of this lease with Harlan, two, authorize the CFO to deposit the rental revenue from the lease into the Golf Enterprise Fund.

And three, to declare that this is CEQA exempt under Section 15301 for existing facilities.

Thank you for your time.

We welcome your questions and comments.

Thank you.

We'll turn to any public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item five is open, and we have received one speaker slip in chambers.

Blair Beekman, please approach the elector, and you'll have one minute 30 seconds to speak to item five.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

I've noticed you guys have been having uh more golf issues here here in the public meeting process.

I don't know if it was auditing that I first heard this uh public uh golf issues at.

Um nice thank you for the mention that there are three uh public golf courses uh but run by the parks department here in San Diego.

Um I think that was the same, uh is the same in San Jose, it's about the same number.

Um, you know, I I grew up in San Jose uh, you know, working within city government practices there with tech accountability stuff, and uh a few years ago the golf was a really important issue there.

They're at kind of a uh uh in-between period, kind of where you guys seem to be at uh right now.

Um, really refer to them uh in how to address golf issues.

So I think that can be a really important uh uh source for yourselves.

The main reason why I'm here today uh for this item is to question uh a 10-year contract.

I've been seeing these really large numbers of years for your contracts recently.

It in a sense it does something kind of nice and decent and and uh helpful, uh safe, but in other ways, is it a bit unrealistic to offer these large numbers of years for these contracts?

I thought I'd just bring that out of the public process at this time.

Good luck.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue, and I've started the five-minute timer.

There are two hands raised in the virtual queue.

Andrea Ebbing, please unmute and begin.

Hi, this Andrea Ebbing.

Um, I actually the words right out of my mouth.

The unrealistic part of it is um it doesn't, I don't know, 10 years does seem like a kind of a long lease, and it's also uh I grew up on the Pembroke Country Club on the ninth hole, so you know, I understand the um importance of golf courses and what it does to the community and all that.

And I I appreciate that we have so much focus on golf, but it is a really narrow um, it's a narrow audience, and I obviously they need food and beverage, and that makes sense.

I just think we're leaving so much money on the table for not addressing leases that can drive revenue in a much broader scale, like the Starlight uh amphitheater, things like that.

Um, there's so many entertainment opportunities and so many other really great things that our city could invest in or offer leases for.

Um that's really it.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is the original.

Please unmute and begin.

Let's question everything.

So it's interesting.

It's like who is this benefiting really?

I mean, when you guys are kind of going.

You know, we had a few others.

Who are the others that you're looking at?

And it's interesting to see like a brewery serving breakfast.

Okay.

But as long as you guys get the people drunk, they won't even pay attention to what's going on around the world around, right?

And then you guys can give them like a ticket if they drink and drive.

How cool is that?

And you guys can bring in revenue since the police are underfunded, right?

Because they know you guys got rid of them like you did.

But the people will always make up for those things.

But it's just, yeah, you got to question everything, but 10 years.

You know, what a lot can happen in 10 years.

I mean, shoot.

You know, look what's happening with COVID and where it's leading it.

So we're going into the you know 2030 era of all of these implementations that are coming in.

That's a 10-year time span.

It's interesting.

So yeah, I just question, you know, I mean, we should always question the things that you guys do.

And you should always be willing to, you know, provide more information.

It's when you know that information gets stopped, like Stephen Whitburn, you know, trying to not explain that you know illegals were being, you know, harbored over at you know, central elementary school when I was asking about it.

It's like, why not just be up front with information so that people can be like you're totally transparent?

It's when you don't want to be and which you guys most of the time pretty much never are.

You you you know, virtue signal as though you and you pretend to, but that's where you should actually see more.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item five.

Thank you.

We'll turn now to committee members for any comments, questions and take a motion.

We'll start with Councilmember Ilu Rivera.

All right.

Uh thank you, Chair Lee.

Uh, thank you for the the work on this.

Obviously, it's important to make sure we're getting um fair market value for the city's uh for any any lease that the city enters into.

Um I'll just ask that we've taken the necessary steps to ensure that this is fair market value.

Absolutely.

Can you speak a little bit to what that process looks like?

Sure.

That process uh was uh combined process.

We used our internal valuations team, um, had a third-party uh appraisal done.

They then updated it with our own internal expertise.

And we also used a third-party consultant to val who's a specialist in retail leasing and restaurant leasing to validate the um current market conditions.

Appreciate that.

Thank you.

Um it looks beautiful.

Um I love a Harland Japanese lager.

Um so I'm happy to move this forward.

However, I do have one slight change to the to the um requested actions, if I may, Chair.

Um the there's three actions that are requested here.

The second one is to authorize the CFO to accept and deposit all-based rent and percentage rent revenue into the golf enterprise fund.

I would like to ask that um rather than that being included as an action today, instead um the um the department of finance work with the IBA to provide council with guidance for what would be necessary to allow revenue from this lease and other golf division leases to be utilized by the whole parks and rec department rather than just the golf fund.

Um my understanding is that the golf fund was established to protect the general fund from expenses related to golf.

Um which is smart and important thing to do.

At the same time, um we have a budget situation right now where we're gonna have some extremely difficult conversations about limiting hours or potentially even closing rec centers, um, limiting uh access to parks.

And it would seem important for us to at least understand uh to what extent uh revenue generated not from the um not from greens fees or um golf itself, but from um things like this lease uh could be used to um improve access to recreational uh opportunities for people across the city.

Um so um I'll repeat the motion, which would be to approve staff recommendation for action one and action three, and request um that the Department of Finance work with the IBA to provide council with guidance for what would be necessary to allow revenue from this lease and other golf division leases to be utilized by the whole parks and rec department rather than just the golf fund.

Councilmember would you be willing to consider also incorporating the city attorney's office into that?

We just want to make sure that Gulf Enterprise Fund is of course okay.

Yeah, thank you.

Okay, we have a motion by Councilmember Ila Rivera with the amends that he mentioned.

We'll turn next to the council member Moreno.

Thank you for the presentation.

And as was referenced, I think by one of our speakers, this is a worlds away from the audit that we just had last month.

So kudos to you guys for doing having an open competitive marketing process is what my understanding is to see the market value of this area.

The only questions I had were if I'm not mistaken, this land sits right next to the De Anza Cove and the City of San Diego has a proposal or an environmental assessment that they're gonna do on the walled wildest alternative and the Deanza National Plan.

I just want to make sure that this doesn't impede any of the work.

I know it's a ways away, but um just wanting to make sure that this doesn't impede with that uh work that needs to be done by the city.

Right, thank you for the question.

The golf course sits within the active recreation area for both plans, so it it does not impede.

Okay, wonderful.

And then also I have been told that this um golf course floods often.

Is that just something somebody told me, or is this something that really does happen?

I know that for this leasehold and this where where this sits on the golf course that for the 10-year term of this lease, there is no flooding concern from parks and recreation.

Wonderful.

Thank you for that.

Well, kudos to you guys for the work done on on this uh particular um project.

Um I will be supportive and I am supportive of my colleagues' um motion uh to look at other ways to utilize um the golf funds for the park and rec.

So I'll second the motion before us.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We have a motion uh by Councilmember Ila Rivera, a second by Vice Chair Moreno.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Whippurn.

Thank you, Chair Lee.

I too support the motion, appreciate uh Councilmember Ila Rivera's um interest in exploring how we can use uh the revenue from this lease to help some of the other needs that the city faces.

I do want interest in the Department of Unintended Consequences.

Uh, just want to check to make sure that nothing about the alteration of the second proposed action creates a problem because we're passing a motion that does not actually authorize the CFO to accept and deposit the funds.

We'll circle back to that later, and that's fine.

I'll I'll defer to um Parks and Rack Deputy Director uh John Howard of the Gulf Division in case he has any concerns to share, but that should be okay to move forward with this action as is.

With the proposed amendment, sorry.

Okay.

Well, as long as as long as that doesn't uh throw a red shit to anything, then that's fine.

Then okay, good.

I'll be supportive of the motion.

Thank you.

Uh I'm going to be supporting the motion as well.

And um just then I want to thank the team for their work uh on this.

I think um in some of our recent budget memos, we've often talked about um the city taking opportunities for revenue generation based on some concessions, um, noting that the deal structure here is similar to another deal for Superbloom, which has been very successful.

Um, and I think certainly this is an opportunity to support the city and especially appreciate the amendment that allows us to explore how can this can be um utilized in a way that is not simply tied to the golf enterprise fund.

So uh with that said, we have a motion by council member Ilo Rivera, a second by Vice Chair Moreno, seeing other speakers will call a roll.

And that motion passes unanimously 4-0.

Thank you.

That concludes item five.

Uh with that, we'll turn back to our information agenda and hear item number seven.

Natalie, will you please introduce the item?

Item seven, adaptive reuse practices.

Chair.

Thank you.

Simple intro.

Uh, before we turn it over to our presenter, I want to start off by thanking Kelly Farrell for making uh yourself available for this presentation.

Uh, as expressed in previous years land use and housing work plans, this committee is interested in learning more about reforms that focus on sustainable housing.

Uh, this relates to building code updates, streamlining infill development, and with what we're going to be hearing about in a moment, adaptive reuse solutions.

Uh so with that, I'm gonna turn it over to Kelly Farrell.

If you'll take a moment to introduce yourself for the record and uh let us know how much time you'll need for the presentation.

Hi, Kelly Farrell.

I'm a principal at Gensler and I run our residential practice around the firm.

And I'll need about 10 minutes today to take you through the item.

Thank you.

Um Council President Lee, I want to thank you for inviting me and giving you the opportunity to share what we've been doing at the firm for those not familiar with Gensler.

We are a large architectural design firm.

We have an office about 600 feet away.

We're very proud to be in San Diego.

And we've been studying office to res office to residential conversions for about 10 years.

When we started, we were really looking at the building.

Does the building work?

Does the forum work?

What does it take to get that conversion to really make a great living experience?

To date, we've looked at just over 1,500 individual buildings.

We've worked in 130 cities, and we've got about 10,000 converted units in our portfolio.

Do I have to keep holding this or no?

Oh, good.

Okay, just checking.

Where we've shifted our focus is really around what supports conversion.

Design can do a lot, but it takes a great policy infrastructure to actually take advantage of the oversupply of office to answer the call of the housing shortage.

For cities, we know it's about stabilizing property values, stabilizing a tax base, and keeping our cities vibrant and engaged.

For developers, we know that they're not only looking to tap value that's not recognized in assets, but they're also looking to work in an environment that's stable, that they can understand the challenge that's in front of them to really deliver a project well.

And for communities, we know it's about having neighborhoods that hum, that are busy, that have great foot traffic and footfall.

So we often tell people design can make it desirable, but policy makes it feasible.

So I have three case studies I'm going to share with you today, and they all look at kind of four main categories zoning, permitting, incentives, and codes.

We're probably going to focus most on the incentives and code side of the equation.

When we talk about zoning, and I understand you all have this as well, it's really about flexible mixed use zoning so that buildings that convert don't have to go through an initial entitlement process, but they can be converted by right.

Permitting.

Office to residential conversions represent an opportunity to introduce fresh housing stock between 12 and 18 months, which is a phenomenal time frame.

If we were to do ground up construction, you're looking at 24 to 30 months.

So there's speed to it.

And communities that have fast tracked processes set up have an advantage because our developers are already paying taxes on that building.

They're already paying the mortgage on that building, and it's not producing rent during this process.

So being able to speed the front in really matters.

We'll look at a few different incentive models.

And this one shouldn't go without saying.

Most of the buildings we're converting are 80s, 90s, early 2000 stock.

And that means that we've gone through multiple code cycles.

So having a building department that can be agile and clear about the requirements that take place for a conversion.

So I'm a cost side, we talk a lot about structural modifications, MEP upgrades, fire life safety, and on the value side, what are the tax incentives and credits?

What can we do to help with speed to market?

And how do we take advantage of those locations?

So the three cities I'm going to share with you is the work we've done with Calgary, the work we're doing in New York, and a really interesting case study in Baton Rouge.

Before the pandemic, Calgary was struggling with office vacancy.

They had office vacancies well above 50% in most of their central business district.

They were trying to figure out how to convert them into something, and then the pandemic hit and they went from bad to worse.

We were really happy to get engaged with them to do some initial analysis, and the chart you're seeing is about 20 to 30 buildings that we analyzed, all kind of prototypes of time, if you will.

A 1970s building, 1980s buildings.

And we found quickly that just under 80% of them were viable conversion candidates.

They could produce great housing.

And that represented about 10 and a half million square feet in their central business district.

Calgary created a program.

It's a very interesting program.

They went out to the development community and they said apply to be part of the program if you convert an office building to residential or to a secondary education use.

We will give you $75 a square foot, up to $15 million to convert the building.

And that will be payable upon your certificate of occupancy.

They had an application program.

Their application queue filled.

Their first projects came through.

They so far have 2.6 million square feet of vacant office that's been converted into about 2,700 residential homes.

They had to pause their program because they had to refill their coffers.

And this year they are restarting that program.

They have 40 million dollars set aside to bring that forward.

We're going to look at New York in a minute, but Calgary is an interesting example of putting the money up front because they're not doing any additional tax abatement.

So they're not abating taxes for 20 years.

They're saying, hey, 75 dollars a square foot.

We'll get the building up, and then we'll earn our tax revenues as the building is occupied and as the building continues to have value.

New York City, on the other hand, is leading the nation in conversions.

As of this morning, they have over 17,500 units under conversion in the city.

Our office is very proud to be doing about 8,000 of them.

As the city came back, and New York City has a great work balance too, so their offices aren't all vacant.

Their ability to convert and take housing was largely drawn through the City of Yes program, also known as 467 M.

467 M incentivizes the redevelopment of existing office buildings through a few key areas.

One, you have to have six or more dwelling units.

Projects that go in before June of 2028 have a 30-year tax abatement.

Projects that go in before June of 3030 have a 25 year tax abatement.

New York has also incentivized certain districts that get higher tax abatements than others.

So places where they're struggling with office vacancy, that tax abatement is 90%.

Places where they're not struggling with office vacancy, it reduces to 65%.

So in the example that I have in front of you, this is our project called Pearl House.

For Pearl House, we took the existing office building and we needed to add additional shafts to the building to take all the new MEP and plumbing throughout the it's a completely different system.

We were able to take that floor area and then reassociate it at the top of the building.

Under 467, developers are all also given an opportunity to earn a 20% floor area bump on the underlying zoning.

So they can take an existing asset and further densify it.

Throughout our work with the city, one of the things we've been impressed with is that their building department has gotten very fluid in issuing directives.

The more buildings they're converting, the more they're learning about how to do it better and how to make it more efficient.

So we're seeing a lot of continued updates for building code interpretations and building code processes to get permits into hands faster.

To give everybody an idea of timing from the time this building started demolition to the time it opened welcoming its first residence, was under 15 months.

This building is also unique because it's not a complete conversion, it's a partial conversion.

The developers and the owners of the Chase Center came to us and said, we have an idea, we'd like to convert 14 floors of the building.

So the rest of the building, by the way, is active.

We've got the only lost time.

Yeah.

Where is my mind?

Where is my mind?

Where is my mind?

Except me swear to sign a time.

Where is my is what Los Angeles is doing?

No, they haven't.

They just rolled out their program to extend what was an historic conversion program into something that addresses sort of unused office space from 70s and 80s that just uh went into effect uh January of this year, so but as something that's sort of within our jurisdiction, likely something that's going to be extended by the state legislature at some point, I guess.

You know, we should keep an eye on that and use it.

Um a couple of things that I did have a question, and I'm not allowed to ask you questions, but hopefully they'll ask them for you is uh when we talk about zoning, you know, we've done things like EMX or MX zones and whether that's enough flexibility in zoning or there's other things we need to do.

Um, you know, I'd like to get a uh uh feedback on that.

The other thing is, you know, in Calgary they had a seventy-one dollar per square foot incentive to do that.

You know, how is that different actually than you know, waiting a different or something like that mechanically?

Maybe it's just a difference in where the money's accounted for, or it's a different process all together.

Um then um you know, we're in the middle of the mid-city community plan update, and um we've had some nice um uh conversions of buildings within the mid-city already, but you know, if you need a testing ground for this, you know, at some scale, and there's particularly where there's the need for flexible zoning, I would recommend that that be a place uh that we look to take advantage of these kind of things.

So um again, um I think this is a win-win possibility for um San Diegans and and look forward to moving this forward as time goes on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We did receive a speaker's lift from Blair Beekman, but I see that he is in the virtual queue, so this will conclude in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer.

We have three hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute 30 seconds.

Phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six and begin.

Thank you, Natalie.

Uh Joyce and out of C D3.

I didn't have time to spend, uh I didn't have much time to spend on this, but uh Chair Lee, uh, and can't thank you again for this is great.

Uh but Chair Lee, I just want to compliment you because this is a great item.

This makes me feel wonderful.

It sort of relates to what was it, two, three years ago when you brought forward an item involving architects, and and it just opened up a whole new vista for me to look at land uh use, land codes, and and new ideas for housing and the future and all of that.

So uh this is great, a great agenda item, uh Chair Lee.

Uh, keep that going.

Uh so uh yes, uh isn't this just I mean when I look at all these buildings downtown, and and then I hear about the the office space that's empty, kind of makes me think of of uh um uh are you the vice chair?

Excuse me if I don't get to try Eagle Rivera, but you know, with your empty house, uh empty uh home uh item that you know we have empty office space, and I'm just excited about this.

I know it looks like there's a lot of things to look at, technical stuff, legal stuff, all of that.

But let's get it rolling.

Let's just take a leap and let's get it going.

Thank you, love to all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, the original, please unmute and begin.

Yeah, it's interesting how you'll go after you know homeowners, but then we can have these vacant buildings sitting there like all the time.

Um, and of course, like you'd want to provide housing.

Um, you guys do things on a virtuous basis or that you want to seem virtuous, but then what we do is we see the fruits of your labor, and it's like, I mean, we don't have a lack of housing.

That's the problem is you keep saying that, but it's people can't even afford to pay rent, and we sit here and we try and bring in ADUs that then people can go and buy, and it's like if they can't afford rent, what makes you think then that they can go then purchase something?

So it's like, you know, it looks good when the presentation comes in, and that like, you know, and if people don't really pay attention to what's going on around us, then they'll think that what you're doing is providing a benefit to them.

But like none of those places are probably going to be affordable to anybody that you're claiming that you're gonna help.

And so that's the problem is that you know, things cost so much, especially because you guys raise everything under the sun just to you know get full cost recovery and give people raises and blah blah blah.

And it's like when are we gonna actually see some you know good things going on?

Um it's just it's sad because you know, this doesn't move the needle forward.

It does a lot of busy work and you know, we'll bring in revenue for you guys, but I mean, when you've already proven that any kind of money you get from us, it doesn't really isn't benefiting the people, and then you just keep asking for more.

So it's like shit.

I mean, I don't know, it's just sad.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

I'm gonna pass uh on this item today.

Uh thanks a lot for the meeting today.

Good luck on your comments on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chase can quench public comment.

Thank you.

So now we'll turn and start with Councilmember Woodburn.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Chair.

Uh, thank you for docketing this uh important item.

And thank you for the very interesting presentation.

Umtown San Diego currently has an office uh vacancy rate of 26%.

Uh so converting these uh office buildings uh that are vacant to homes is always on my mind representing downtown.

Uh our downtown urban division has been working to incentivize conversions.

Uh we heard a little bit of that in the land development code update today, but you're here in downtown San Diego.

Uh how is the city of San Diego set up for conversions?

Is there anything that you think that the city should be focusing on to encourage more conversions uh to residential?

Okay, it's back on.

Um I would say expedited processes would be very, very helpful.

Um the faster we can get through plan check, the more things that we can let happen early, like demo, the faster that those buildings can move forward.

So we currently have expedited processes for affordable housing, complete communities.

So you would add office to residential conversions to that list.

I would.

Um I believe that adding that expedite for conversions actually lets somebody who's converting deliver on the promise they're making for speed.

Um otherwise they're spending almost half their build time through a plan check process, and that is um they're maintaining a building that's not producing any revenue at the same time.

That's helpful.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Ila Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for having this uh this conversation here today.

Um, and I appreciate the presentation.

Uh I found it really interesting to see how um in a relatively short amount of time um this process seems to be coming much becoming much more efficient.

Um there was this moment during the pandemic where everyone was staring at office buildings saying, why can't we do that?

It was like common sense to laymen, but folks with technical expertise said, Oh, you don't understand, it's actually much more difficult, it's much more expensive than you realize.

And then it's people started to figure it out.

And as it's been uh being figured out, costs seem to be going down, speed seems to be improving, um, and that's that's all really good because like I'm not a fan of home sitting empty, I'm not a fan of office building sitting empty.

It's the same idea, it's space that could provide housing opportunity for folks.

Um, and there's multiple negative impacts when those vacancies go on and on and on.

Um just a couple of um one one one question and then one comment.

If there was a single thing that you would kind of encourage the city of San Diego to do to really catalyze adaptive reuse in in our city, given everything else that we we do around housing, uh what you know about the market, et cetera, what would that be?

I would always advise any city if you want to really see it happen in numbers to look at an incentive system.

The interesting thing about Calgary's $75 on converted conversion and a tax abatement over 30 years, they both equal out to about 75 dollars a square foot.

And that seems to be um very good math for development teams to come in and really accelerate that conversion.

Got it.

Um and then my my comment is just wanting to make sure that we're being really thoughtful as we're contemplating what we can do here in San Diego to get the ball rolling in a you know more aggressive way uh on this, making sure that we're including our our partners in the building trades.

Um in the ideal, we would be creating a workforce that has lots of practice with this, so that we're able to do it faster and faster and faster.

Obviously, the workplace standards and safety uh standards are all extremely important.

Um the additional benefit of that is having a localized workforce that knows how to do abaptive reuse work, uh, and it's something that um that we can you know again get better and better at um as this issue um I don't think it's gonna go away in a year or two, um, and we certainly need the housing.

Um so um I hope if it's the mayor's office or um the those of us on the council who are working on this, um, I I look forward to seeing how our partners in labor um see themselves being part of the equation here, so that again this work can be done effectively, it can be done well and with increasing um speed and efficiency over the years.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um I'll conclude by thank you, Kelly, for the presentation here.

I I think this has been a topic that's been of a lot of interest to a lot of us uh here in San Diego.

And while we have not been a region that has suffered from some of the same levels of vacancies that we've seen in other uh major metro areas, uh it certainly has still been an impact here.

Um, and especially in the sluggish economy that we're facing, there's been a desire from a lot of um developers, but also even holders of commercial property to explore flexibility, just options.

And so when I look at the list that you you noted, I think a couple things that really popped out to me is that we we are in a place where we already have the mixed-use zoning.

Um in fact that it's been something that we've turned to more and more with each of our updates uh to provide that flexibility.

Um we we heard from DST today, and we've I think we've got some opportunities to explore um additional um fast tracking and expedite uh expedited processing for permitting um the codes are what they are to some degree, so there's always gonna be some work done on that front, but I think what really stuck out in the presentation is thinking about how other municipalities have thought about how incentives fit into the picture.

Um we have a an example, probably the first really big example of an adaptive reuse project currently uh underway right now, won't name the building.

Um but I will note that it is uh unique in the sense that it is a large number of units.

It is one that has a hundred percent affordable, it's tied to uh a PLA.

It it has um many of the incentives that have uh you have mentioned that we've seen as examples elsewhere, including historic tax credits, uh local, um, state federal tax credits, um, all to try to create a capital stack uh to make possible.

And if that's possible, what tells me is that I think many other opportunities would be possible as well within our region.

Um and I would agree with Council Member that you know we've got a number of stakeholders that we can really engage here.

Uh and I can imagine that given some of the examples you've shared.

I mean, everyone from preservationists to uh folks within our labor community would have an interest in seeing how we can ensure that properties that are currently sitting underutilized or not used at all would have an opportunity to convert into a use that we know there's a significant need for here in San Diego.

So this is certainly of interest, and it's certainly something that our office would love to explore uh how we can advance opportunities on this front uh right here in San Diego.

So seeing no other speakers, this was uh in an infra informational item, and so no motion is needed, and it concludes item seven.

Thank you again for the presentation.

Thank you and for answering our questions.

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

So I will now adjourn this meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on Thursday, April 9th, 2026 at one o'clock PM.

We are turned on, and we're gonna be able to get a lot of the same.

Can we make it?

Can it take it?

And we try to all down Stack Adapter, stacked to the Raptors and true.

Stacked at Actors, stacked to the Raptors and the Baster!

You and me.

Every day together.

I can't believe this could be stuff.

You and me We used to be together every day together all the way I really feel that I'm losing my best friend I can't believe this could be letting go And if it's real I don't want to know Don't think notes what you say So please stop explaining Don't tell me Cush Don't speak I know what you're thinking I don't need your reasons Don't tell the cushion Your memories with them all together mighty right you and I with my head in my hands don't speak to notes what you say So please don't explain Don't tell me because it hurts don't you know to know don't speak I know what you're thinking and I don't need your reason don't tell the custom together stop me who we are