Economic Development and Intergovernmental Relations Committee Meeting – June 10, 2026

The Economic Development and Intergovernmental Relations Committee met on June 10, 2026, at 10:00 a.m. under the chairmanship of Councilmember Campillo. The meeting included non-agenda public comment, approval of a consent agenda (items 1–4), and an informational update on the seventh round of the Bridge to Home affordable housing program. The committee approved the consent agenda unanimously and received a staff presentation on three recommended affordable housing projects.

Consent Calendar

• Items 1–4 were approved unanimously by the committee (motion by Chair Campillo, seconded by Vice Chair Lee; all members voted yes). The consent agenda included:
  • Item 1: Approval of committee minutes of May 13, 2026.
  • Item 2: Compensation agreement with Civic San Diego for the B Street Pedestrian Corridor Project.
  • Item 3: First Amendment of software license and maintenance agreement with REI Systems.
  • Item 4: Sixth amendment to disposition and development agreement with SDEC LLC for the San Diego Energy Equity Campus at Valencia Business Park.

Public Comments & Testimony

Non-Agenda Public Comment (before consent agenda):

• Joy Sunyata urged the committee to adopt a formal plan to return to structural budget balance, noting the city faces a structural deficit.
• Max Schmidt made rambling allegations about Freemasons, telepathy, and the New World Order, and expressed support for President Trump.
• Blair Beekman advocated for ending the Flock ALPR contract (estimated savings of $200,000) and called for a community process similar to Oakland’s to transition to a more principled vendor.
• Allegedly Audra criticized the city for constantly seeking more revenue from the public and for pitting community groups against each other.
• Virtual speakers:
  • Hector criticized Mayor Gloria’s budget approach and called for the city’s relocation to Mission Valley; also expressed support for deportations and linking technology to immigration enforcement.
  • Terry Ann Skelly thanked the committee for internship programs, raised concerns about young adult cannabis use (citing the 2025 Monitoring the Future survey), and urged the removal of marijuana billboards.
  • Becky Rapp urged the committee to oppose California Assembly Bill 2697, which would allow marijuana drive-through sales, citing public safety risks and lack of child protections.
  • Francine Maxwell requested a hearing on a shared database for the Community Police Partnership (CPP) to save costs and improve coordination.
  • Judy Strang spoke in support of AB 455 (later corrected to AB 1695), which would require new state-funded construction to be smoke-free; she cited Proposition 65 and a survey showing 98% of new state-funded projects already have smoke-free policies.

Consent Agenda Public Comment (items 1–4):

• Joy Sunyata commented on items 2, 3, and 4: she noted the B Street project uses RTTF funds with no impact on the general fund; raised concerns about underrepresentation of African Americans and women in the REI Systems workforce (149 white, 351 Asian employees); praised the Energy Equity Campus but noted its challenging financial history.
• Admiral (item 4) urged that projects like the Energy Equity Campus maximize impact for students and local jobs.
• Allegedly Audra criticized the pedestrian corridor project as part of an agenda to reduce car use; warned against data monopolies with REI Systems; raised concerns about water and energy consumption of data centers and AI.
• Max Schmidt criticized “lazy language” in the consent agenda minutes and repeated claims about Freemason control.
• Blair Beekman (items 1 and 2) urged greater transparency on biometric technology in pedestrian projects and called for community discussions about ALPR policies.
• Virtual speaker Hector spoke on items 2 and 4, opposing spending on the B Street corridor and supporting technology for deportation efforts.
• Judy Strang (item 1) corrected the bill number she referenced to AB 1695 regarding smoke-free housing.

Public Comment on Item 5 (Bridge to Home Round 7):

• Joy Sunyata praised the Bridge to Home program and requested that per-unit costs be displayed in future presentations.
• Max Schmidt dismissed the item as “cult nonsense” and claimed it lacks crucial information.
• Allegedly Audra expressed skepticism about follow-through, alleging that developers commit fraud and that units are rented at market rates despite deed restrictions.
• Blair Beekman supported moderate-income housing as a way to foster mixed-income communities and reduce exclusion.
• Admiral questioned the 3% interest rate and 55-year affordability covenants, calling the rate likely a “marketing spin” on subsidized financing layers that still leave taxpayers on the hook for high per-unit costs ($500,000–$800,000).

Discussion Items

Item 5: Bridge to Home Notice of Funding Availability – Round 7 Informational Update

• Christy Marcella (Deputy Director, Economic Development) and Michelle Morano (Assistant Deputy Director) presented the seventh round of the Bridge to Home program, which aims to create long-term affordable housing (55+ years) for households at or below 80% of area median income (AMI). The program has funded 26 loans ($122 million) from prior rounds, creating 2,528 total apartments (2,049 affordable, 407 permanent supportive housing).
• Round 7 offered $16.5 million in city funding; 10 applications requested over $55 million. Staff recommended three loans totaling $16.5 million to create 430 affordable rental homes, including 128 for households at or below 40% AMI (at risk of homelessness).
• Recommended projects:
  1. Fourth & Brooks Senior Apartments (Hillcrest, Council District 3, high-resource area): 98 senior units (30–60% AMI), $7.5 million city loan (~$75,000/unit), total project cost ~$63 million. Includes 30 units at 40% AMI or less. Ground-floor retail.
  2. Polk Avenue Housing (City Heights, Council District 9, low-resource area): 267 units (mix of affordable at 30–60% AMI for families, plus 75 workforce units at 80–100% AMI for school district staff), $5 million city loan (~$18,000/unit), total project cost ~$172 million. Includes rehabilitation of school buildings, pedestrian/bicycle promenade, communal kitchen, performance space for Fern Street Circus.
  3. Teralta South (City Heights, Council District 9, low-resource area): 65 units (30–60% AMI), $4 million city loan (~$60,000/unit), total project cost ~$54 million. Adjacent to recently completed Teralta Affordable Apartments. All-electric building, rooftop solar.
• Staff will negotiate loan terms; loan agreements will come to City Council for approval in 2026. Round 8 timing is under analysis.
• Chair Campillo asked about the projects’ locations relative to the city’s AFFH goals. Staff confirmed Fourth & Brooks is in a high-resource area; Polk Avenue and Teralta South are in low-resource areas. Campillo noted the need to increase affordable housing in higher-resource areas.
• Campillo also asked about the “Green Vistas Loan” listed in the Fourth & Brooks financing. Greg Gossard (Hampstead Companies) explained it is a rare private foundation loan from a Mission Hills faith-based nonprofit, at 3% for 40 years, funded by sale of a previous affordable housing asset. He noted another group may replicate this model.
• No further questions were raised by committee members.

Key Outcomes

• The consent agenda (items 1–4) was approved unanimously.
• Item 5 was informational; no motion or vote was required. The committee received the presentation and asked clarifying questions.
• The next regularly scheduled meeting will be on Wednesday, July 8, 2026, at 2:00 p.m.