Good afternoon.

Welcome to the Land News and Housing Committee meeting of October 9th, 2025.

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

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

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

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair.

Natalie, please call the roll.

Vice Chair Elo Rivera.

Councilmember Campio.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

And Chair, Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Here.

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

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

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 webpage.

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

The webinar ID is 1606 eight three zero six two three pound.

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

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

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

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

Or if you're a call participant, press a star 9 on your phone.

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

Chair.

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

A quorum is now present.

Uh as a note to the public, um item three was um previously removed from the agenda.

And additionally, I understand that item two is being requested to be returned to staff.

Is that correct?

Um so just want to update everyone on those uh changes to the agenda.

Uh we will now take up non-agenda public comment.

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

Um let's please proceed with non-general public comment.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes.

And as a reminder to our speakers, if there are eight or more speakers on a single issue during non-agenda public comment, the maximum time for this single issue will be 16 minutes.

Hi there, good afternoon.

My name is Pauly Wheatley, and I was born and raised in Pacific Palisades.

Along with my childhood memories, 90% of my business burned down in January, and I should not be here today, but I am.

I'm taking time off my work to talk to talk to you about something very important.

What we know to be true.

So why are we here?

We are here because the high-powered Pioneer Sports and Entertainment Attorneys believe they have found a loophole in the deed that runs with the city land.

Pioneer Sports believe they have discovered a way to strip the land of the deeds restrictions in its entirety, thereby opening the land up for unbridled use and development with no restrictions and that protect the land or give rights to the citizens of San Diego.

You were asked to be to be to remove these important and promised deed restrictions, though the courts have not determined if this is even legal.

Let's be absolutely clear today.

A no vote does not cancel soccer.

A no vote does not cancel the lease.

A no vote does not cost the city money.

These are established facts, and we are know these to be true today.

I have some students that have come here today.

I please, I beg of you, all of you council members, to give them your full attention.

It's really difficult to come here and to see you guys looking down and looking away.

I live this nightmare every single day.

So please, please pay attention.

Thank you, Barbara.

Thank you.

I appreciate your attention to this.

What's very, very dear to our hearts, what's happening to our environment.

I think one of the things that council should know is what was a nonprofit local nonprofit soccer organization has become pioneer sports and entertainment of for-profit sports investment, founded in 2023, based in a Florida corporation, not even California.

We're talking about Florida.

And it's owned by professional athletes and business leaders.

It operates Pioneer Sports Now operates SURF.

Okay.

And the investors are actively seeking at this point, as Polly had indicated, through a loophole to somehow remove all the restrictions on the deed, which they agreed to when they lease the property.

There are many other companies that are associated with Pioneer Sports, such as the parking.

City does not get any money from the parking that they charge, and they charge 20 dollars a day for the family members or the the uh the soccer players to park, 20 dollars a day, and the city gets no revenue from that.

There's also an athletic travel LLC that SURF controls.

If there's an out-of-state, which there's a lot of out-of-state soccer um tournaments going on, they require that the participants go ahead and get their travel arrangements through their own travel company.

This is also part of SURF, and this is also something that the city doesn't get any money for.

Um just recently was the Del Mar Food and Wine over at the at the soccer fields.

I live right across from the soccer fields, and when that was going on, there was a person at the time.

Our next speaker is Christina Leva.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um, why does this matter?

Pioneer Sports is pressuring the city council to remove exhibit B.

The only part of the deed, or the lease, excuse me, that gives the city any control.

So doing so would strip deed protections that run with the land, and then endangering sensitive habitat and their surrounding communities.

It opens the door for unregulated, intensified commercial use, giving the city no power as their landlord over their tenants who already are disregarding regulations and laws.

It removes the last legal barriers to massive development of this property, and it rewards a commercial business for not following the legal routes that other companies in San Diego have to follow, including getting permits.

They're notorious for building and then getting permanents later.

Make no mistake, this is a land grab, disguised as community enhancement, and once the guardrails are removed, it will be nearly impossible to claw back.

Please take time to read exhibit B.

Please.

There's no public benefit in the intensification of this use.

Increased traffic, environmental and infrastructure degradation, community disruption, no additional revenue to the city for all of that.

More cars does not mean more money for the city.

Revenue only comes from license field use, subleases, or license agreements, not from parking.

Surf's attorneys removed parking revenue from the lease when they negotiated in 2016.

Huge mistake.

Internal Surf run events between its own subsidiaries, Performance Lab LLC, Delmar Food and Wine, which is one of their own.

Surf makes revenue off of that.

So what is being proposed right now, the removal of this exhibit, incentivizes this under the radar expansion, sidestepping both financial accountability by SURF, who have already been audited, and thank you.

No regulatory oversight.

Thank you for that concluding statement.

Tess Wheatley, please approach the elector, and you'll be followed by Lily Bretch and Chloe Hugh.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Tess Wheatley, and I'm here today representing concerned residents, neighbors, and advocates for responsible public land use.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today.

There are huge legal and environmental implications for the city of San Diego should you vote to remove the deed restrictions and change the lease terms.

There would be a myriad of lawsuits from local residents, HOAs, and neighboring cities like Delmar and Solana Beach.

This includes neighbors who did their due diligence in researching the area and chose to buy based on the knowledge that SURF would not be allowed to grow beyond historical use.

There would also be neighbors whose property values would decline, which is already happening, not to mention the neighbors and community members that would be stuck in accidents or stuck during an evacuation because of the traffic.

There would be violations of the CEQA since environmental review was originally waived on the condition that the use would not intensify.

There would be increased risk to public safety, particularly in a fire-prone area with limited ingress and egress, like we saw in LA earlier this year.

And there are regulatory infractions, including oversight by the Army Corps of Engineers and State Water Quality Control Board, which has already issued violations and cease and desist orders to SURF or pioneer.

Very importantly, this would charge this would change to the property status and it would require a new RFP.

No new lease should be negotiated or renegotiated for this property by the city without putting it out for a bid to other potential businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lily, Britt.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lily Brock, and today I'm going to be sharing with you the promises that Surf Sports and the city staff promised in 2016.

No intensification of use, no CEQA review needed.

This includes traffic studies, environmental studies, and community impact studies, a limit of 22 to 28 event days per year not to exceed historical patterns, to complete the coast to crust trail as a matter of the lease, and more importantly, a requirement from the DSD to annually produce a calendar to the city describing all events for the following year, and lastly, to be good community members.

Instead, surf and pioneer sports in a pattern of mismanagement and broken promises was audited in 2019 for failure to provide proper accounting of their business in shorting the city by hundreds of thousands of dollars.

They failed to complete the coast to crust trail, a clear lease requirement.

They built numerous unpermitted structures, received two major violations from the state water quality board for illegally pumping water off of the property into the river valley and into the 22nd AG property.

They received a cease and assist from a California attorney general.

They dodged audits, they underreported financials and withheld revenues.

They mocked community concerns, including fire and traffic safety, even creating a website that called neighbors derogatory names.

They repeatedly lied about event size, traffic control, and environmental impact.

They blocked off public access to fields and the Coast Crust Trail.

They increased usage dramatically, often without transparency.

They built unpermitted, large concrete pad in the middle of the fields, and even now span multiple weekends and draws tens of thousands of vehicles, they are creating serious traffic and public safety risks.

None of these are opinions.

These are documented facts and public record.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chloe, Hugh.

And you'll be followed by Colin Parent, Arya Grossman, and Paul Kruger.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Chloe Who.

I'm a sophomore at Torre Pines High School, where I serve as a varsity captain, student senator, president of several clubs.

I live in Rancho Santa Fe, and I'm here as a student and a person to advocate for my community.

Now, as we close off, we ask you to consider one question.

Who truly benefits from removing Exhibit B and the deed restrictions?

Is it the citizens of San Diego, the families who were promised open protected recreational space?

Or is it for a private for-profit investment group based out of state?

This isn't just about soccer fields and money.

Council members, this is about control of public land accountability and keeping the promises made to the people of San Diego in 1983 and again in 2016.

Your vote has consequences.

If you vote to remove these protections, you are abandoning oversight, enabling unregulated private development, and triggering costly legal and environmental liabilities for the city.

This could potentially create a legacy that echoes the 101 Ash Street debacle, one that endangers all designated open space in every district, including the very one you sit and represent.

Council members, we urge you to protect the public trust, uphold the lease, and preserve the deed restrictions that safeguard this land.

Let San Diego's kids continue to play soccer transparently through 2044, just as promised, without giving away our public land to private profit disguised as community progress.

Your decision today will define whether this city stands by its people or sells out its future.

Please make the choice that honors San Diego's communities and the promises made to them.

We trust you will choose what is right for the people of San Diego and the generations to come.

We urge you to vote no.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

As a reminder to those in chambers and in the virtual queue with their hand raised, we have reached six speakers on the topic of the polo fields, so we will only take two additional callers or speakers on this topic.

Colin Parent, please approach the lecture.

Hi there, uh council members, uh, staff, uh guests.

My name is Colin Parent, and the CEO and General Counsel of Circulate San Diego.

I'm gonna use less than two minutes to introduce uh my new colleague, our policy manager, Aria Grossman.

Uh, and uh she's new to town, and we want to invite her to introduce herself to you because uh we expect both Circulate and Arya within uh a bit more frequent presence here on a going forward basis.

Thanks.

Thank you, Colin.

Um hi everyone, my name is Aria Grossman, and as Colin said, as of this past Monday, I am the new policy manager at Circulate San Diego.

Um I'm a new San Diego resident.

I just moved here from Washington, D.C.

a couple of weeks ago, um, where I worked as three years for three years as a policy aide in the United States Senate.

Um it's nice to meet everyone, and I'm looking forward to working together to improve our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in chambers for non-agenda public comment is Paul Kruger.

Uh thank you.

I I'd like to address the chairman on item number three, the surplus lands issue, which was removed uh from the agenda today, and ask you to please give us an explanation about why it was removed.

If there was an explanation given I didn't see it.

Um importantly, I'd urge one or all of you to please take a closer look at the surplus lands designation issue.

I think those of us who follow this have been extremely disturbed by what happened with the Mission Bay proposal.

The fact that it was approved by this committee, that it was put on consent for the city council.

I really believe that if it hadn't been for Jeff Page and Donna Fry, that this would not have been an issue that would have been above the radar.

Um because of what we saw after, which was um that your meeting of July 29th, you were told nothing about the two proposals which were submitted 12 days and nine days before that meeting.

Um, you were told by city staff that they had reached out to the state uh Department of Housing and Community Development, and were told no, there wouldn't be an exception made for park land.

Um, and then three weeks later, the mayor's office drops the request.

What happened in between?

And now we learn that um before this whole process started.

Um, in two lobbyists had spoken with city council staff in, I think with you personally, Councilmember Lee, according to um Richard Ledford's declaration.

That was in second quarter, which would have been before June.

And in the first quarter, um, talk with Seamus Kennedy and Lucy Contreras.

You were not told anything about these meetings.

Thank you.

Thank you, Burr.

Kevin Smith, please unmute and begin.

I'm sorry, Kevin Sullivan.

Thank you.

Um, Ken Sullivan of Allied Gardens, I'm speaking to object to four of the 2025 Land Development Code amendments, number five, fourteen, thirty-nine, and thirty-eight.

Per the city's 2025 housing report, 18 of the wealthiest communities in San Diego approved zero deed restricted housing permits in 24.

It is contrary to city policy and unacceptable for those communities currently trying to reach these goals that land code amendments now propose to allow the wealthiest neighborhoods in San Diego to slough off their 500% requirement into other communities.

Likewise, it does not serve public, it does not serve the public or for state regulations to reduce mass transit service requirements in order to allow the increase in designated major transit stops solely for the purpose of falsely upgrading mobility zones.

The most heinous quality of this is none to not enough money is programmed to increase transit services in the areas where the deed restricted housing will go because of the increase in major transit stops.

Even worse, mass transit in San Diego is not the answer for San Diego, especially when three of our council members and our mayor are on the MTS board and could easily support increased services.

Lastly, I'm voicing the strongest possible objection to code changes undermining our 44 year long effort to rid the San Diego skylines of billboards.

It's contrary to these efforts that the city has made to be an example to the nation.

It is short-sighted and misguided to allow the replacement of existing dillboards with digital billboards that will turn our city into a grotesque pygmalian figure a la Las Vegas.

24 7 flashing signs everywhere is not the answer to our budget problems, Mr.

Lee.

Please vote no, Mr.

Campio.

My thanks to the committee for its time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Madison.

Please begin.

Hi, thank you.

Good afternoon.

I'm here to highlight some compelling new research with direct implications for the land use decisions that this committee oversees, particularly regarding the citing and permitting of marijuana storefronts and delivery services in our communities.

A 2024 study published in substance use and misuse, led by researchers from USC, Kaiser Permanente, and others analyzed data from nearly 100,000 adolescents across California.

The findings were startling.

In jurisdictions that prohibited both marijuana storefronts and delivery, the prevalence of psychotic disorders among teens was 67% lower.

When only delivery was banned, rates of adolescent anxiety disorders dropped by 93%.

And teens who lived more than 20 minutes away from a marijuana retailer experienced 47% fewer psychotic disorders than those who lived within five minutes of one.

The takeaway here is clear.

Proximity matters.

When marijuana businesses are close to where our kids live, learn, and play, their mental health suffers.

But when distance acts as a buffer, the data shows that our youth are significantly better protected.

Parents like me care about responsible land use.

Based on the research, marijuana storefronts and delivery services are a serious detriment to them.

As stewards of zoning policy and neighborhood planning, this committee has the authority and responsibility to evaluate where, how many, and under what conditions these businesses are allowed to operate.

Marijuana businesses may generate short-term revenue, but the long-term costs of adolescent mental health issues will fall heavily on families, schools, and public health systems.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Becky Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of Land Houston Housing Committee.

My name is Becky Rapp, and today I want to bring to your attention the governor's recent signing of assembly bill eight, which closes loopholes by banning intoxicating hemp products, commonly known as Delta 8 and Delta 9 THC, from being sold in local tobacco retailers, smoke shops, and convenience stores.

Not only is this a critical step forward in public health policy, but it also has land use and neighborhood safety implications that fall under this committee's purview.

Across San Diego, many of these smoke and vape shops are located within or near residential neighborhoods, often adjacent to apartment complexes, schools, parks, and family-oriented businesses.

These are the same areas where we are trying to promote healthy, livable, and safe housing environments.

For the past 18 months, California has had an emergency ban on these same intoxicating hemp products, yet enforcement has been nearly non-existent.

Many retailers continue to sell these products illegally, often right next to candy, energy drinks, and flavored vapes that attract young people.

In my own community, two smoke shops have been warned multiple times and continue selling as if there are no consequences.

Meanwhile, we're seeing youth showing up in schools and even emergency rooms with symptoms of intoxication and psychosis.

Now that AB8 is law, enforcement is no longer an option.

So I urge this committee to consider the land use impacts of these retail retailers operating in and around our neighborhoods.

How will the city ensure that smoke and vape shops comply with AB8 and do not continue selling intoxicating products in close proximity to schools, homes, and youth centers?

Um, I ask you to place this issue on uh future land use and housing agenda.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

The five minute timer has concluded.

We have five hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these five.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you, Blair Beekman.

Uh, thanks for public comment today.

It was interesting.

It sounds like a group is upset that um uh a certain sports group that uh works for uh you know community and kids' things has kind of a free pass.

And uh community is upset about that.

They want them to play by the rules more.

Uh, good luck in those efforts to ask them to play by the rules more.

I I think it's uh it's a noble intention.

Thank you.

Um, I um was also interested in public comment that uh the future of billboards in San Diego.

As we had a council item on the future of the gas lamp this week, um, I failed to mention there's a huge new uh electronic billboard at the foot of uh, I guess Fifth Avenue or Fourth Avenue and um Fifth Avenue, I guess.

And uh I, you know, by the trolley station.

And uh, you know, that that billboard's got a ton of surveillance capabilities that we've never ever openly discussed in public.

And so I've been concerned about that.

And I'm concerned that you guys are gonna kind of secretly put these projects, these tech projects in the gas lamp that are going to be questionable.

Good luck that we have an open accountable process and that we address AOPR use for the specific purpose of license plate readers and not focus on how many other surveillance techniques it can offer.

I hope you have that idea in mind.

Uh, with my remaining time, I also wanted to offer that uh in our committee process a week or two ago, there was a person uh who gave a lecture, a presentation.

Um, she may have been like misquoting things and not being very factual with the process.

We gotta have an open accountable process in how we work together and make decisions for our future.

We can't afford lying to each other.

It's okay to be straightforward.

We can take the truth.

Good luck, how to do that.

And good luck to Israel can ask for peace, not war.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is phone number ending in 7234.

Please press star six and begin.

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

My name is Terry Ansgelly.

I'm a member of my plan and group where we discuss the value of good public health policy in land use decisions.

A particular interest to my planning group has been smoke-free and vapory parks and trails in our area.

Second hand smoke or nicotine vapor is air toxic air contaminant with no safe levels of exposure.

In confined outdoor spaces like canyons and valleys or areas where I walk, there can be little wind.

So secondhand smoke and nicotine vapor can accumulate and affect those of us hiking out there.

Exposure to second hand smoke or nicotine vapor can contribute to heart disease, stroke, lung cancer, and trigger asthma attacks.

Even brief exposure can damage blood vessels.

American Heart put out a press release stating, and I quote many people don't realize that cannabis smoke and vapor contains components similar to tobacco smoke.

Smoking and inhaling cannabis has been shown to increase the concentrations of poisonous carbon monoxide and tar in the blood, similar to the effects of inhaling the smoke from a tobacco cigarette.

End quote.

Now would be the best time for the city to consider a ban of public marijuana and tobacco smoking and vaping in our public lands.

I appreciate your consideration here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is the original.

Please begin.

Yes, it's interesting as I continue to gather evidence and information regarding Dreams for Change and all of the deaths, which as we are tallying numbers, it is up to actually 19, and the numbers continue to grow.

But you know, it's not just Ted City that should be looked at.

It's all of the sites that Dreams for Change is utilizing to provide what they call quote unquote safe sleeping or safe parking.

And you know, there's major code violations outside of the deaths and the sexual assaults.

I mean, there's no fire extinguishers, the fire um smoke detectors are not there.

There are, you know, rats, we know that.

Again, the food is something that people would not even want to touch, and many people who do eat it get sick.

And you know, there's a lot of money going into the hands of Teresa Smith, and it's very disturbing to hear all of the things that go on, especially things like asking people what they want for Christmas, and then not getting them anything in return.

But just asking what do you want, and then kind of like you know, throwing it in their face.

It's very disturbing the way that the homeless are treated.

And Sean, I would like you to know that on Saturday, there is a um 15th anniversary celebrating 15 years of Dreams for Change at 5605 Imperial Avenue, San Diego 92114 from noon to six.

I highly recommend that you go and check it out.

And you potentially talk to some of these individuals, Sean.

I emailed you letting you know that I'm going to be I can provide you with more information since you have said that you want to look into the deaths.

There is a lot of evidence that needs to be given so that you can have discernment.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Barbara Gordon.

Please begin.

Um, good afternoon.

My name is Barbara Gordon.

I am the advisor for a Hispanic youth group.

All of my youth live in multi-unit housing.

I am concerned with the amount of unprotected exposure to secondhand and third hand tobacco and marijuana smoke.

Drifting in into the homes of these young people and their families.

In their homes, secondhand smoke is drifting into surrounding units through windows, cracked in walls, ventilation, plumbing, outlet.

Um third-hand smoke consists of residue from the tobacco and marijuana smoke left behind after smoking, and it's building up on all surfaces.

It is an issue they are having to deal with.

We all have the right to breathe clean smoke-free air, especially in our homes.

My concern is that my youth are being disproportionately affected by the tobacco and marijuana, second and third hand smoke and are suffering the health consequences from these exposures.

I urge this committee to support a policy that favors smoke-free environments and would eliminate tobacco and marijuana smoke in multi-unit housing.

This policy will improve the quality of life for my young people and encourage healthier living.

The youth and I are grateful for your consideration on this relevant and very important issue.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

And our final speaker for non agenda public comment is Judy String.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, Chair Lee and land use and housing.

Probably like you, I care about the optics that appear in our national news regarding California.

And one national news that means a great deal to me that I read cover to cover, first thing in the morning is the Wall Street Journal.

There was an article this morning that quoted from a press release from the National Park Service, California National Park Service recently.

And they talked about how in association with their law enforcement rangers and the special agents from the Bureau of Land Management, they removed a large illegal marijuana marijuana cultivation site in Sequoia National Park last week.

I realize this is not in our county and certainly not in our city, but we have had these very removals also in our backlands.

And it speaks to sort of the nefarious activities that the marijuana industry can engage to create products that come into our marijuana storefronts.

Particular concern has been that whenever they've eradicated these marijuana grows, they also find several hazardous chemicals, many of which have been banned here in the United States.

And be cut find their way into the products that are being produced and found in our marijuana storefronts.

I think it's important to remember when we talk about land use and housing that the decisions we make about our land can affect all sorts of our health decisions and our help exposure and our opportunity to have bad health experiences, and that the marijuana products are often the product from these marijuana growths that the National Park Service is trying to eradicate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you to the public for their comments.

I actually wanted to take a moment here to answer some comments by you, Mr.

Kruger, just because I thought it would be helpful.

I appreciate you actually bringing some of this up because uh I will acknowledge that our office was also quite surprised when we found that on uh Mr.

Ledford's uh lobbying disclosures that it indicated a meeting that we had held um with a client of his or with them.

And I think all I can note is that we actually never had that meeting.

Um and so that was uh shocking to us.

Um and upon looking into it, I think we've actually confirmed and and understand that Mr.

Leverett has also confirmed that that meeting never took place.

So um just to clear on the record, it's actually a question that we've inquired with the city attorney's office as to how we can get that record corrected since it is obviously um incorrect.

Um I do think the other point that you brought up is uh fair as well in terms of items that do get posted on our agenda that get pulled off uh because I want to acknowledge that the public often comes expecting certain items.

Um I believe item three was pulled for a bit of time and returned already, uh, but item two was just returned today.

So I wanted to give um Mr.

Ackman uh Abila from the mayor's office a chance to answer uh perhaps why those items might have been pulled.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Chris Hakerman with Mayor's Office.

Just quickly on on this item.

Uh EDD did need to return to staff because we anticipate an element from the development services department that needs to be completed still.

We plan to bring that as soon as next month.

Um joint EDD DSD item forward.

So this is both items two and three.

Uh that's for item two.

Item number three, we were anticipating to have appraisals complete, but they're not quite done yet.

Um item three, we anticipate also next month, uh, having this item.

Thank you.

Uh, and and I should be clear, I think they did have that explanation already, and I just had not asked them for it as well.

And so in the future we'll we'll try to at least acknowledge when items are pulled off the agenda.

So with that, do we have any uh committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, or independent budget panelist comments?

Seeing none, uh, do we have any requests for continuance?

Hearing none, uh, we will now take up our consent agenda.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for the consent agenda is now open, and the consent agenda includes item number one, approval of the committee minutes of September 4th, 2025.

As a reminder, item two was returned to staff.

Each speaker will have one minute to speak to item one.

We do not have any speaker slips submitted for item one, but we do have two hands raised in the virtual queue.

Blair Beekman, please unmute.

You'll have one minute.

Hi, uh I wanted to speak on both consent uh calendar items.

Do I have two minutes?

Item two was returned to staff, so you have the opportunity to speak to item one.

Oh, okay.

Okay.

Uh about the um agenda minutes.

I just wanted to uh quickly offer uh that was in the early September.

Uh it was items three and four that I was interested in.

Uh just a quick mention about next steps for San Diego Affordable Housing Preservation Fund.

A great idea.

Uh, it may fit in very well with an item you're going to talk about today with community land trust issues.

Uh thanks for the item.

Sounded really interesting.

I missed that meeting.

I wish I didn't.

Uh was at the beginning of September.

Uh item four was factory built housing.

Uh, the city of Riverside, uh, they had a presentation at a recent sandag meeting.

They're doing a lot of work in that area of uh factory built housing, and they're having uh incredible success.

It feels uncomfortable to me for some reason, but they are being uh having a lot of success with it.

Uh, they would be the example to look at and how to do it well and add it to our uh choices of housing in the future.

This does conclude your time.

And our next speaker is the original.

Please unmute and begin.

You guys should be having a speak on both items because you returned it and it wasn't, it was done last minute.

But um, with the polo speakers, I appreciate them coming back again and speaking.

Um they were you know mentioned on the minutes the last time, and it's really unfortunate that you guys disenfranchise people who are calling or coming, either coming in or calling to speak about such a um, you know, uh topic, uh, any topic.

The fact that you guys silence people in non-agenda to, you know, basically eight people that can speak about something similar is ridiculous because you allow more comments for other items.

You should be um not disenfranchising those people and taking away their ability to let you know and redress you guys about things that are happening.

And when you guys are writing stuff in, you know, the record as far as what's being said, I still think you guys could be more you know specific in you know what they're really trying to say and and how upset they are about what is going on.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

I'll turn it over to any committee members for questions and comments.

Um I'll go ahead and start us off by making a motion to approve the consent agenda.

We have a second by Councilmember Moreno.

Uh seeing no other comments, let's call the roll.

And that's approved unanimous unanimously, four zero.

Thank you.

We'll now hear our information agenda.

Uh, Natalie will you please introduce item four?

Item four, community land trust.

Chair.

Short and simple.

Um we'll let the team introduce yourselves for the record and uh let us know how much time you'll need for the presentation.

Thank you.

And I'm I'm gonna go ahead and kick it off here.

Um first of all, thank you, Chair Lee for docketing this item.

Um, today I'm bringing forward this informational item on community land trusts.

Uh San Diego faces a severe housing affordability crisis and ongoing displacement pressures, especially in historically underserved communities like my district.

Community land trusts help us address housing affordability, prevent displacement, and keep San Diegans in their um in their respective communities.

Uh community land trusts, also known as CLTs, have existed in the United States since 1960.

Currently in the city of San Diego, we have two active community land trusts, both located in District 8.

Uh, the first is in San Isidro, and the second one is in Barrio Logan.

So, although community land trusts are relatively new in San Diego, it has proven to be an effective community-driven solution in cities across the country.

Uh, this is an opportunity for the city to strengthen partnerships with existing and also emerging community land trusts through land access, technical support, funding opportunities, and aid them in the permitting process.

Uh today we will hear from experts like Joshua Newton, co-founder of San Diego Community Wealth Building Coalition, also uh postdoctorate researcher at the University of California, San Diego.

Uh, we will hear uh former council member Georgette Gomez, the community development and policy officer, uh, Julie Corales, executive director at Tierra Cindígena, CLT, uh, and community leaders who have made community land trusts a reality.

Um, I do want to uh take the opportunity to thank my deputy chief of staff, Patricia Trajin, and my policy advisor Robert Broomfield uh for taking the lead in this matter and making sure that the city and its residents have a grasp on community land trust.

And with that, take it away.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

As mentioned, my name is Patricia Train, Deputy Chief of Staff for Council Member Vivian Moreno.

We will need 20 minutes for this presentation.

Today I'll be presenting Council Member Moreno's informational item on community land trust.

Today's item will cover the background on CLTs, policy changes around the United States.

We will have a representative from UCSD, Avanzando San Isidro, and Tierra San Vígenas.

And finally, we will be discussing the proposed timeline.

I'm happy to introduce Josh O'Nealton, co-founder of San Diego Community Wealth Building Coalition, postdoctoral researcher at the University of California, San Diego UCSD.

Hello, I'm Josh Newton.

I'm a co-founder of the San Diego Community Wealth Building Coalition and a researcher at University of California San Diego.

I'm going to give a little bit of background on community land trusts and also talk about some policies that have been used throughout the U.S.

to support them.

So first, community land trusts are part of a larger idea called community wealth building, which also includes things like housing cooperatives, worker cooperatives, and food cooperatives.

And some municipalities in the United States, Cleveland, Ohio being one, have kind of pushed this forward as a broader municipal model to use local resources, local financial institutions, local anchor institutions to ensure that any sort of development that happens within the city, the benefits of that actually go to local communities.

And so one of the main ways they do that is through these community wealth building models.

I'll talk about community land trusts as one example of that.

So essentially, what community land trusts are, they are nonprofits that separate the ownership of land from the ownership of whatever is on top of land.

Anything you can think about that can be developed on top of land, whether it be housing, businesses, arts and cultural spaces, green spaces, all of that can happen on top of community land trust land.

But I'm going to specifically speak towards housing today.

Any type of housing that you can think of can be built on top of community land trust land.

Essentially, what the community land trust does is has a lease with whatever development is on top of the land.

That lease is one of the first parts that creates equity.

Typically, because community land trusts care about the benefit of the community, they're going to lease land to the development for very cheaply.

In some instances in the United States, I've seen at least for as little as one dollar a year.

That makes development, redevelopment much easier.

Community land trusts don't have to have new development on top of them.

We'll hear a little bit today from Theodore Sandijanus about how current development can be purchased.

But the new development on top of that is kept permanently affordable by a resale agreement in that lease, which basically limits the equity that can be gained on the sale when the sale happens.

Community land trusts also create community decision making.

As you can see in this diagram, community members, tenants in housing, community land trust staff, and other types of supporters are included in the membership of the community land trust.

So as a member, you end up having a say in any kind of decisions that get brought before the membership.

You also have a right to vote for the board members of the community land trust, which are oftentimes going to be made up of three parts.

Tenants in housing have a third of the membership of the board, community memberships have a third, and then also typically community land trust staff or technical experts.

As was said before, we have two community land trusts in San Diego at the moment.

However, this is a model that has been much more prevalent in the rest of the United States.

There's at least 300 community land trusts in the rest of the United States, and we have over 40 here in California alone.

There's actually a great uh statewide network called the uh California Community Land Trust Network that's pushing for a lot of different types of policy change and helping kind of bring a lot of these community land trusts together to learn from each other.

Finally, there's lots of policies that have been used throughout the United States to help support community land trusts.

I'll just kind of point out three of them that I have up here on this slide.

The first being a technical assistance program.

There's a lot that goes into starting community land trusts, creating bylaws, lease agreements, resale agreements, also finding funding, getting legal help.

A technical assistance program in San Diego could help centralize all of these aspects of assistance and make starting community land trusts much quicker.

Also, uh in San Francisco in 2019, they passed a community opportunity to purchase act.

This basically makes it to where any sort of land or property that goes up for sale, community-based organizations have the first right to purchase those community-based organizations such as community land trusts.

One other thing I'll point out is that uh our surplus land act here in uh California actually has an exemption for community land trust.

Uh so if community land trusts want to purchase land from the city uh and the city agrees to it, we actually don't have to go through the process of advertising that land.

Thank you.

Thank you, Josh.

And now we will have former council member Dergette Gomez, that is now community development and policy officer with Casa Familiar and Avanzando San Isidro.

Thank you, Patricia.

And I also just want to acknowledge Councilmember Moreno that it's been a great pleasure working with your staff.

They've been pretty active and really learning and trying to figure out how to bring this conversation to city.

So really appreciative of that.

My name is George Gomez with Casa Familia.

I'm the community development and policy officer.

Next slide, please.

And I'm here to talk about a very innovative project that we've been working on for quite a bit.

It's been in the making before my time at Casa Familiar.

And really the drive is reflective of the work that Casa Familia has been doing for over 50 years in San Isidro, which is understanding there that there is a significant need for more housing that is affordable for the community.

And it also stems from the environmental impacts that are happening in San Isidro in terms of high air pollution.

So Casa Familiar utilizes community development to address some of those impacts on air pollution and how we can utilize development to create more affordability, long-term affordability, but also opportunities for wealth wealth building for generations to come, which is why co-workers and Lisa Cuestas learned about CLTs and how they can impact the community in a positive way, which now we bring up in Sando San Isidro.

Next slide, please.

So as you can see, for Gasa Familiar, community development is an opportunity to address the climate impacts and building a community that is truly resilient, and also addressed the housing shortages that are desperately needed through this model of doing communities CLT projects.

One of the opportunities that we've been able to do, and there was a lot of a lot of conversations that happened internally because the way that we went about it is Casa Familiar already had the acquisition of land.

So there was a lot of internal conversations to donate this land to this other entity that was created, which is a separate entity called Avanzando San Isidro CLT.

So that was the beginning of this project.

We can move forward to the next slide.

So it was the beginning of this project that happened internally in which Gasa made an intentional decision to donate the land to the community land trust nonprofit that was created.

Gasa Familia is part of the board.

There are residents that are part of the board, and there will be future residents that are going to be part of the board once the project is built.

This project will bring 103 new units to San Isidro.

They are target for 30 to 60% area income earners, which is a very low income earners, and it will be a rent-to-own project.

What does that mean?

That means that after the 15-year marker, because I'll talk about the financing.

15 years is the year in which we're going to do the transition for the tenants that are living in the property that will build, which they're going to have an option to become the actual owners of these properties.

And I'll talk a little bit more about that.

We are building it under a project labor agreement as well.

We have partnered with Building Traits to actually create a targeted recruitment for future San Isidro residents to enter into the building trades.

So we're utilizing our development arm to really work with the building traits to start targeting our community members to get into middle income job opportunities and development.

We are providing a high air filtration system within the development because we recognize that air pollution is an issue and it's real.

We have a strong partnership with MTS, in which the project will come with free transit passes for three years.

We've been working with the city of San Diego to improve the bikeability in the infrastructure around surrounding the project.

So there's a lot that is has been thought out.

We can go to the next slide.

Where this is where a lot of people want to talk about the financing.

So this is a traditional low income tax credit project.

And so we've been very successful, and it took us about two years to build the capital stacking for the development, which is approximately 90 million dollars that it will take to build this project.

Some people would say high number.

Yes, it is a high number, but the reason that it's a high number is like I said, it's a project labor agreement.

There's above and beyond sustainability components into the project.

And we're building this project through the lens of people are going to own it.

So it's not just a rental.

So it really influenced how the development was designed with the idea that our community members are going to own these properties.

So the stacking incorporates local money.

And then the construction side of things is a tax credit, a light tech project, which light tech, you have 15 years, and then you can do extensions to keep it affordable.

Light tech does allow for that transferring of ownership.

This will be the first project in the state of California that is actually testing Litech of ownership, which we're really proud, and we should all be proud of that.

It's been a heavy lift to get us to this point, but we've been able to do this.

There's a we also were awarded the housing, the sustainable housing, affordable housing, sustainable communities.

But needless to say, we were able to cover the entire totality that we need to build the project.

And you can go to the next slide.

And next week on October 14th, we are actually doing the groundbreaking ceremony.

And we invite everybody to come.

It is a great milestone in terms of really working with the community intentionally from the get-go.

The design has been truly influenced by the community from beginning to end.

Even the selection of the architect was the community selected the architect.

We did a community participation challenge with architects.

And now next week we're gonna do the groundbreaking.

It will be a two-year development project, 2027.

We're gonna start leasing up these units.

And then for 15 years, folks are gonna be tenants.

Thank you.

Thank you, George.

Now we will have Julie Corrales, executive director at Pierre Sindígena COT.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno, for having us here to talk about this important issue.

So TICLT was uh incorporated in 2023, but we've been in the works since 2016 when one of our uh members of our planning group who was very effective was gentrified out and had to move as well as other artists.

Um in 2018, Chicano Art Gallery was displaced because of rising rents.

And um at the time I was working for the environmental health coalition, working on environmental justice issues, bringing in parks, cleaning up the air, and community kept saying, well, that's great, but we're not gonna be here by the time the air is clean when that park is built.

So we realized that we needed to um secure ways to have the community purchase and acquire land and be able to truly steward it.

Um CLTs are great models that allow community to do just that, um, to preserve our culture, to use the land and the spaces in ways that we deem appropriate for ourselves.

Next slide, please.

Um I want to talk to you about great projects that we're working on, but I wanted to first touch a little bit on the process of creating the CLT and why.

Unlike Asa Familia, we are a small org.

We we have amazing support and backing from older orgs, including Gasa has done a lot for us.

But um CLTs are amazingly flexible and can really um launch from the grassroots.

So, why a CLT and why now?

Well, you you all are hopefully familiar with Barrio Logan.

We are BIPOC, we're on top of, we are built on top of a uh Kumiai traditional lands.

Uh, the picture there is a is a settlement, a Kumey settlement, um, which is now where Barrio Logan is.

Um, we've always dealt with displacement and gentrification, um, environmental racism and and uh divestment.

Um, as I mentioned, the community-led changes that we've been implementing is now leading to gentrification and displacement.

We are 67% significantly rent burdened, means we our people, our community pays more than 50% of their income for rent.

Um, according to the UC Berkeley displacement project, we are at risk and uh in the process of early and ongoing gentrification.

We're approximately 80% renter occupied, and we have 20% of the high, we're in the 20% uh highest rates of eviction in the city.

So we're highly impacted.

And as I mentioned, the community is tired of it.

Um they've been protesting, you see the picture there.

That was the closing of of Chicano Art Gallery.

The community came out, and we've been planning since then.

Next slide, please.

Uh again, this is I want to talk to this about the city because there's such a role that institutions and municipalities can play in helping launch these this type of organization.

Um environmental health coalition came in with 40 years of experience working with funders, lawmakers with uh with they carried um a reputation here with council, and so they uh were very instrumental in bringing to the table the big players like the San Diego Foundation, like the state grants, um, and they were a press trusted partner, they're also CBO, so we were able to have the um trust of the community to do this work.

Um in 2018, uh, after speaking to community when they said we we need to do something about gentrification, we EHC at the time I was with them, so I say we uh we secured a planning grant um from the state that then uh allowed us to launch uh Dia Ras, and I'll talk a little bit more about that on the next slide.

But since then the organization with all the support was incorporated, and they took us under their wing, San Diego Foundation, uh, as a lead applicant with TCC, and uh we won the 22.5 million dollar grant, and four million of that.

So a significant chunk was allocated to TICLT to do the work.

Um so there was a lot of trust put in community, a lot of um support um from big players, and the community needs these bridges.

There are so many amazing hardworking uh activists and organizers that are doing this work, the urban collaborative project.

I know the Navista is looking to launch, and we need the support from the city on um moving some of this funding around in this policy.

Next slide, please.

So what we were able to do with the planning grant, that was about 30 to 40K that was allotted from the planning grant.

So that was like our CLT experts, our feasibility um consultants, you know, our lawyer fees, all that.

But what was most important is that we were able to stipend 10 community members to meet weekly, $50 a meeting.

We paid their labor for over a year.

And this group of community members, there was uh paralegals and birth workers and land justice experts.

They met for a year, they looked at every line of the bylaws and and work through the incorporation process.

So that funding really allowed the community to create an organization for the community by the community.

Uh the mission, the vision, all of it.

Next slide, please.

So this is how TICLT will be governed.

Right now, we're still under the founding board.

Our first election will be in 2026.

Um, similar to what Josh was talking about, we were able to create a board that really reflects the needs of the community.

The 12 elected seats will have four leaseholders, so tenants, whether they're commercial artisans or residents will always be represented on the board.

Another third will be community members at large.

We've decided to have some seats reserved for specific folks.

Like we always want to have a cumiai person on the board because we are an organization that works in land and believes that this indigenous people should always have a role in stewarding in the land.

We want youth on our board, we want an elder on our board.

Um the last uh it's a traditional TARPI TARP board.

So the last third would be uh public seats, um, technically reserved for technical experts.

Um, so we always want an environmental justice expert on the board, a real estate expert on the board, and someone that's looking out for the um well-being of Chicano Park.

So that board is then elected by our membership.

There's also requirements for our membership.

You have to have lived, worked, or served in the community for five years at least, or be a leasee of one of our properties.

Anyone who is Kumiai can also join the membership.

Um and there are some requirements.

You have to align with our vision, mission, and values, you have to go undergo a training, and at all times 51% of our uh of our membership must be low income, less than 120% AMI of the project area, and that is to ensure that the interest of the low income BIPOC folks that are trying to not be gentrified is always represented on the board and in the membership.

So that's what we're about.

I think we're really proud of our bylaws and the way that we've structured the governance.

But the future is bright.

We, thanks to the TCC grant, we have purchased 2602 National Avenue.

We are moving in an indigenous-led women's uh birthing clinic.

The last BIPOC women's clinic was closed a couple of years ago in San Diego, so we'll be reopening one, which we're really excited about, helping them subsidizing them to be in the building.

Um we will keep uh arts and community space.

I don't know if you're aware, but Raiz Gallery on Logan Avenue, which was just gentrified out.

The rent was raised, so we lost another gallery on the avenue, but luckily Tierras is here, and we were able to move their shows over that were pending.

We launched last weekend.

Please come out and see us.

We have another show on the fourth.

Um, so we're doing big things there.

We're uh also able to keep eight families uh housed there, their SRO units in one apartment.

Any developer that would have took this property would have raised this to the ground and kicked those families out.

There's a family that's been living there since the 80s since they migrated to this country.

The first time we had a tenants meeting, the first thing they asked is do we have to leave?

And we said no.

We have a long meeting, we're gonna talk about what we're doing, but rest at ease, no one is leaving, and there was just an exhale in the room.

Um so we're really proud that we're able to keep them there, dignify their living quarters, and do stuff for them because we are subsidized, because we are a CLT.

Um, in the future, we're working with a private um developer took the cede us another property on Logan Avenue that'll be knocking on your doors about.

We need some help with DSD.

Um, and we're also uh gonna begin engaging in organizing policy reform as well as financial literacy training and housing opportunity training in the community.

So it's beyond land stewardship, it's also activating and organizing the community.

So thank you for giving me a chance to share.

Thank you, Julie, for sharing Pierre Sindicanas experience.

Our office is proposing to return to L UNH by February 12, 2026, with a recommendation to create a technical assistance program that will help CLT succeed in the city of San Diego.

The technical assistance program would also make a future supportive policies more effective.

Thank you so much.

We're now open to any questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

We'll start by asking if there's any public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Each speaker will have one minute to speak to item four.

Tyler Andre, please approach the lectern.

And you'll be followed by Cynthia Ajani, Jeff Hoider, and Goyo Ortiz.

Good afternoon, Council.

And I want to start by being uh very grateful for the work that you do.

I know that this is a tough boss to steer, and there are a lot of backseat drivers.

Uh, my name is Tyler Andre.

I am a Navy veteran, a small business owner, and an active community volunteer.

I'm here because I want to strongly express my support of community land trusts and for other models similar to that.

I don't need to describe the cost of shelter here in San Diego.

We need to be exploring models that are going to possibly fight speculation, increase affordability, and give power back to the community, especially those that are underserved.

Um I urge the council to support the San Diego Community Land Trust resolution.

It is led by experts and people with experience in these models.

Uh I also want to thank the council for unanimously supporting the minimum wage ordinance, and I think that we should continue that momentum.

Thank you.

Cynthia Johnny, Cynthia, please approach the lecture.

My name is Cynthia Johnny, um, co-owner of Cafe X by Beans Necessary and representing today uh core consulting, which is cultivating organized resilience efforts.

It's kind of an offshoot.

We realized we needed to shift our focus on um education and advocacy in this area, specifically for CLTs.

Um, when we travel to speak about community wealth building, it's come more and more clear that San Diego we're disconnected from national efforts.

Um, despite prices rising 36% here in the last five years, we still lag behind.

So, what we propose and what I'm here to advocate for is um you know our business closed this year in March.

And the fact was we just couldn't do it alone.

We need uh quite a few things so that businesses like mine don't have to pivot so much with with this.

We recognize the need to turn our attention here, and so there's a need for the city to incentivize, educate, and support establishments of cooperatives.

So our community that told you that one minute wasn't gonna do it.

We need grants.

Can I go?

Can I continue?

Somebody, somebody say yes, yield to me, please.

Okay, so yes, we need grants, not loans for your low-income entrepreneurs who start businesses because this the current banking model doesn't support that.

We need policy and incentives, small and large for mixed user developers to come in with uh tenant exclusivity for cooperative leasing.

We need to make it easier for worker owners to acquire land and buildings through local trust funds and underutilized properties.

And we can get creative, like you said, there are all kinds of cooperatives.

I urge you to consider uh for futures to support business cooperatives like ours, where communities can be come together, combine our resources, and meet affordability challenges, not only work a job but establish equity.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you for the record.

You were seated an extra minute, and we will get the speaker slip from that person in just a moment.

Jeff Hoyder, please approach the electron, and you've been seated time by Dana Gabot.

If you could raise your hand, Dan think you still have two minutes.

Thank you.

My name's Jeff Huder.

Um I wanted to speak in favor of the community land trust.

I think one of the things we've seen, and we'll see it later today with regard to the housing report is there's only so much we can do depending on the private market to provide us with housing, and the more that we can do to become market makers in housing, the more we're gonna be able to control affordability.

Um the first step we took was with the uh housing preservation fund, and this is another step, I think, that builds on that to provide mechanisms by which we can build housing, keep people in housing.

One of the things that happened is we do our community plan updates.

The first thing that happens is now these areas that were used to be communities of concern become communities of interest, but that often comes with gentrification and the very things that have characters in these communities is lost through this redevelopment process and a community land trust, particularly not just housing, but if we can couple it with commercial activities and other social activities, I think strengthens all that together.

Um, the one thing that happens is the other thing that's super important about this, and also with the preservation fund, is these can be evergreen mechanisms for funding housing.

It's not just we have a grant, we build one building, and that's it.

We have a mechanism by which these generate a return on their investments so that these can grow over time and become even bigger in terms of what housing they provide.

The one thing that I often think about with these is um there's the nonprofit part of this, there's the government part of this, but there's not really a mechanism by which individuals as private parties can invest in their communities, and I I think it'd be interesting in exploring that because there's not just the economic return we get, there's the social capital, which for a lot of people is more important than the money they own.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Goyo Ortiz, please approach the lecture, and you'll be followed by Dale McKenemy and Alexis Oberg.

Hi, good afternoon, council members and staff members.

I want to just really quickly thank uh Venon and her staff for bringing about these projects, they're very important and highlighting the the challenges uh community organizations are realizing on uh housing affordability.

These two projects are um incredibly brave in bringing about these issues and and pushing forward.

Uh I wanted to just highlight that across the country and uh cities are partnering with CLTs and co-ops and creating long-term affordability, stability, and community wealth.

San Diego has the opportunity to lead by expanding support, streamlining partnerships and dedicating public land and resources towards these models.

There are no um experimental ideas, these are not experimental ideas, these are proven frameworks for housing justice and neighborhood resilience, and they give residents a real stake in shaping the future of their communities.

I urge you to support policies, uh, funding and land access to allow community land trust to and cooperatives to thrive.

Um thank you so much.

Thank you, Dale.

Does it matter which one?

Um everyone, my name is Dale McNenny, and I'm from the South Bay.

Sorry, is it too loud?

Good.

Um, I want to express my support for CLTs as both the sociologist who studied at Columbia University and Trinity College Dublin, um, but also someone who was homeless in high school and has had to live through the worst aspects of San Diego's housing crisis.

We live in a country where corporations have had have made many parts of society unaffordable and out of reach for the average person.

It's personally heartbreaking to watch the people I love work multiple jobs is to pay for rent and basic necessities.

Um, this has gotten worse after the COVID-19 pandemic, where Blackstone and other multinational corporations have bought up tens of thousands of units across San Diego County.

This is also true across many regions in the country, and its impact on unaffordability is verified by research from multiple public advocacy groups and think tanks.

Um the city council today has an opportunity to take the first step in correcting this crisis.

And I urge the council members in front of me to support future members around CLTs.

Thank you.

Alexis, please approach the lecture, and you'll be followed by Colin Perent and Felix Lopez.

Hello, council.

My name is Alexis.

I've lived in San Diego for almost 10 years, and I'm a member of the San Diego Community Wealth Building Coalition.

I'm also a medical student at UCSD and long-term vol longtime volunteer at the student run-free clinic.

And in the past, I was on the executive board for Update Labor Union that represents workers.

The health and well-being of our community is of utmost importance to me, and I've had many conversations with workers, students, and patients, and their number one concern that I hear is of housing affordability.

Inclusionary housing seems to be the primary strategy that the city is employing to address this crisis.

And I'm afraid that this won't solve our housing crisis, and is like a band-aid on a hemorrhaging wound.

Community land trusts are a real solution that addresses this crisis at the root.

They provide permanently affordable housing, unlike the traditional affordable housing models that require new subsidies when affordability covenants expire.

I urge the council to support community land trusts through policy described by my colleague Josh Newton.

Our coalition has already met with some council member staff to discuss our resolution, and I urge the committee to introduce and support our resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Colin Perrett.

Okay.

Uh Felix Lopez, you're our final speaker in chambers.

Hey, hello, good afternoon, everybody.

My name is Felix Lopez, community engagement coordinator at Logan Heights CDC, a local nonprofit in the San Diego Promise Zone, just one mile that way.

And striking disadvantaged neighborhoods.

Thus, I urge council members to support this very important initiatives to build a more inclusive and sustainable local economies, especially for disadvantaged communities such as communities in District 8, District 9, and plenty of others in the rest of the San Diego region.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer.

There are seven hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Jesse Ramirez, please unmute and begin.

Hello, everybody.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jesse Ramirez, and I am the director of urban planning at City Heights CDC.

I'm here to I'm here today to support the community land trust efforts that are happening in Barulogan and in San Disney and in San Isidro, and that's at the city do the same.

And this time we are facing a housing crisis.

We have to get creative, and it's super interesting that it is communities like Baro Logan and San Isidu that are pioneering in the community land trust field in San Diego.

However, being on the ground, it makes sense why these efforts are happening in these communities as is our low-income folks that are facing the most pressure from the housing crisis.

For example, in early 2024, City High CDC released the Davano Without Displacement Report.

This was a three-year effort where City High CDC worked with community members to co-develop strategies to address displacement.

And this report we found that some areas in city heights had seen an increase of 60% in rate on rents and homeownership had dropped nearly two-thirds between the year 2000 and 2020.

This is a snapshot of the city.

Our next speaker is the original.

Please unmute and begin.

And you guys paid a pretty picture making little factions.

And I'm wondering who's deciding what vision it is and who how people need to align with your vision, mission, and values.

Um, who would be creating that?

Um anytime you guys are engaged with NGOs, which I like to call nefarious gangster operations, they're the ones that do the dirty work for the government.

And if we weren't an inverted world, they would actually be helping people and not harming people.

But it's a racket.

They were doing it with the invasion.

That's why they've lost funding.

That's why you guys have lost funding.

And so I'm wondering how they're even going to be able to do this.

But the city is gentrifying the city.

You're sitting there and you're improving and you know, trying to bring in new development and most of the development isn't affordable housing.

And so all of these people on the streets get to watch developments go up, and it just pushes people out.

So everything that you guys do is actually actually contradictory to what you want.

And you have dreams for change, literally keeping people from getting housing by either not giving them forms or kicking them out before they can.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Serena Pelka.

Please begin.

Hi, good afternoon.

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

In this collective future, communities building wealth for themselves and together is a critical piece to improving quality of life.

I've shared by all of the incredible experts leading these efforts in San Diego today.

CLTs are a very proven tool to create permanently affordable housing, prevent displacement, and give communities decision-making power to build a future that is both secure and safe.

So at a time when communities are struggling and the city is trying to provide serious relief.

CLTs are here and are a seriously important proven tool that address both housing justice and climate resilience.

So we encourage you to please move forward with the community belt community wealth building resolution in the near future and provide ongoing support for community land trusts in San Diego to ensure that communities lead themselves and that no one is left behind.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Uh thanks a lot for this item.

Uh, there's a number of items and ways that are really important to build the future of truly affordable housing.

And this one is a big one.

So thank you that it's here today.

It sounds like you're you it's been a good presentation and good public comment.

Um, things sound good and hopeful.

So thanks a lot for this item and keep up the good work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Mark Johnson.

Please unmute and begin.

Sorry about that.

Hi, I'm Mark Johnson, president of University Heights Community Association.

Thank you, Chairman Lee, for having this item on the agenda, and especially to you, Councilmember Morena, and your staff for shepherding this to the committee.

UHCA exists to help improve the quality of life and sense of community in San Diego's University Heights, which lies within Council District 3.

The concept of CLTs and other cooperative solutions being discussed here could not be any more aligned with our organization's mission.

And our organization supports the work of community wealth building coalition.

This is another arrow in the quiver to address our broader affordable housing crisis.

Even more importantly, it addresses more the ability to create wealth through share ownership.

Their innovative approach has proven successful in other cities around the world, and you've just heard about two local successes.

We strongly encourage the committee and ultimately the city of San Diego to support their efforts through a resolution of technical assistance and ultimately funding to help them scale up solutions to meet the needs of even more San Diegans.

Thank you so very much.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have four hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We'll take no additional callers after these four.

Sally Small, please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

Thank you very much for having this community land trust as well as any other cooperative programs.

Chances for community wealth building is necessary, especially in districts four, eight, and nine.

We need to support them as much as we can.

I'm looking forward to seeing uh the technical assistance coming in February, so that uh groups like the Urban Collaborative Project can help move forward items that are in the Choice Valley community planning group area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Carmina Paz.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Carmina Paz.

I'm with the Urban Collaborative Project.

We're based in Southeast San Diego and also in the San Diego Pramizone.

We want to thank the committee for uh inviting the speakers today to present on CLTs and cooperatives.

And we urge the council to uh approve any technical assistance programs and supportive policies that will help communities and organizations like ours lead CLT efforts in uh district four.

Uh, we currently have uh our own transformative climate communities planning grant and are following in the footsteps of environmental health coalition, Tierras and Vígenas, as well as Avanzando San Isidro, and we need more support and so that we can be able to bring about community wealth building opportunities without displacement through a community land trust and or co-op.

Again, thank you so much.

And we look forward to seeing the city support these initiatives.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is a phone number ending in 6130.

Please press star six and begin.

Good afternoon, CONCO members.

My name is Edgar, and I live in University Heights in Consul District 3.

And I'm here to express my support for community wealth building models.

Community wealth building models such as community land trusts have a record of creating more equitable and democratic development in the city of San Diego with state and the country.

They provide permanent affordable homeownership opportunities and create stability and community-facing displacement.

Additionally, in this current political moment, as our democracy is unraveling, these models create community ownership and allow working people to have a say in decisions that impact them where they work, live, and raise their families.

Please support community wealth building models and explore programs and policies that can help these institutions grow in the future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our final speaker is phone number ending in 7498.

Please press star six and begin.

Hello, my name is Melissa Elder, and I'm a proud resident in District 9 and an advocate for equitable development and long-term community resilience.

And I'm grateful for all the work that's being done by the presenters and the council to invest in community land trusts and community wealth building strategies.

This is a time when the cost of living continues to rise and displacement threatens the fabric of our neighborhoods.

And it's more important than ever that we invest in these models that keep wealth-rooted in the community and not extracted from it.

Community land trusts are a proven powerful tool for providing permanent affordable housing while giving residents a real voice in their future.

So I'm grateful for this opportunity that we have to embrace these structural solutions that build intergenerational wealth, stabilize neighborhoods, and empower residents to shape their own destiny.

So thank you again for your work to advance community wealth building models, including community land trust and cooperative ownership models, which form this holistic strategy for economic self-determination, especially for historically marginalized and disinvested communities.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment.

Thank you to the public for their comments.

As a reminder, this isn't informational items and no motions required.

We'll turn it over to the committee, starting with Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you, Chair Lee.

I do want to thank our presenters, Mr.

Newton, Ms.

Gomez, and Ms.

Corales for sharing your experience and your expertise on this very important topic.

Things to note in regards to Mr.

Newton.

This we're not reinventing the wheel, right?

This has been done all throughout the nation for 40 plus, 50 plus years now.

So thank you for bringing that to the forefront.

And also to uh former council member Gomez the funding mechanism.

I think that's the most difficult thing when you talk about building housing in San Diego and anywhere uh in the state of California.

Um it was very enlightening to see um how you guys cobbled the money together.

Um I will state that um nine million dollars for it was a hundred and eight, 103, um translates to about 873,000 per unit.

It's not too far away from uh what affordable housing is costing right now in any given city, really in the state of California.

So but thank you for highlighting the funding and also um to Ms.

Corales um the insight as to how um these organizations are getting built and uh and bringing together uh a making of the minds, if you will, uh, to make sure that um this actually comes uh to fruition.

Um I want to thank everybody who came out to speak on their expertise on CLTs.

Um, your work and commitment to community-based housing are helping to share a more equitable future uh uh for San Diegans.

Um, I often uh share that uh the purpose of pushing me pushing housing is so that my three-year-old daughter Michelle will have an opportunity in San Diego to purchase a home here, uh just as I have and other folks in this room.

This is yet another tool in the toolbox to say that we have we're in a housing crisis here in the city of San Diego is an understatement.

Uh, it's the number one issue that um that uh residents in D8 talk to me about.

Um, and I'm sure it's the number one issue for a lot of us uh sitting on this dais.

Now, will this fix the housing crisis?

No.

Uh, but it will have it is already having tangible solutions in communities such as San Isidro and Barrio Logan.

As was stated, our goal after today is to continue this collaboration and bring back a recommendation to L UNH.

Our target date is February 12th, obviously 2026.

Obviously, that was something that was brought forward.

It doesn't have to be, it could be sooner.

And it really is about focusing on creating a technical assistant program for community land trusts.

Moving forward with this recommendation will ensure that community-based organizations have the tools and resources they need to succeed.

I guess I should speak for myself how I work.

And so wanted to share that.

And so with that, I also um we wouldn't be here without our chair accepting this item as a docketed item.

So I do want to express my gratitude for you docking this item, and hopefully we see some policy changes where we can help address our housing crisis in innovative ways.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

All right.

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks for for docketing this as Councilmember Moreno said.

Councilmember Moreno, thank you for bringing this forward.

Patty, uh, thank you for the presentation.

Ms.

Gomez, Ms.

Corradas, Mr.

Newton, um, thank you for the presentation.

Uh this is a model that is um very, very um important to our office as well.

I think what stands out to me and excites me about this is the opportunity to break out of the current uh models and systems that are purely profit-driven, overwhelmingly profit-driven, and so often because they're profit-driven, greed-driven.

And with a resource and um with a resource that is as important as housing, which we we believe is a basic human right and is certainly fundamental to anyone having an opportunity to have a stable and successful life.

Um having a system that is overwhelmingly greed-driven doesn't work.

It's not working, it won't work.

And um we're gonna need different um different models in order to create a better future.

So I really appreciated the the kind of practical examples.

I appreciated the theoretical uh layout.

The the next steps that will be taken by Councilmember Moreno's office are certainly important, but I I'm curious, you know, if if you could enact policy, make budget decisions in order to maximize the impact of communic community land trust trusts in San Diego.

What would those policy decisions be?

What would that those budgetary investments look like?

Um if all three of you'd like to you know offer your feedback by all means.

I have plenty of thoughts on that one.

Um let me start by stating going back to the financing stacking that I shared.

That is traditional.

If you saw that stacking is traditional affordable housing, rental, right?

So we're challenging that system.

We're flipping it upside down because this is a rent to own, right?

And there was a lot of challenges.

There was even a period where I was fighting the state for three months because they were gonna take away the award money, right?

So there's a lot to say there that we can work collectively to change that to allow for projects like these to have access to that money because it should be available, right?

Here's a developer trying to change and challenge how we do affordable housing.

So that's one at the state.

At the local level, um, and I have to actually uh acknowledge um Mayor Gloria because we were able to partner and they were super supportive because the housing commission itself was a little bit hesitant in supporting this project, even though we were awarded local money.

Um it's the minimal in that stack, local money is like one percent of the entire stack.

Um and we were too going to lose it for other reasons.

Um, but I think there is an opportunity to put requirement in the local funding that it's available for housing to support projects like these.

That's one.

That's within your authority as the housing authority regulator.

Um then let's go into the surplus.

You have city properties that are supposed to go to regular affordable housing, but if you can provide and create a requirement that are being that these surplus lands, if there is a project that is under a CLT, they get perhaps extra points as an opportunity to really incentivize these types of projects.

Then there's the code, the land use code that we can reduce, and there's certain things within it that we can amend to make it more feasible for projects like these.

And there's many other things that I can go on.

Thank you for that, Georgia.

Just really so those are all kind of policy pieces.

Anything on the funding side?

Well, the the housing authority that manages affordable housing funds, that's that's that's where if you making it allowable.

In allowable, but also give extra points to be able to rise up with them because you're you're we're being put, at least for for our project, we're competing with regular affordable housing developers, right?

And the way right now the housing commission looks at this, being that right now the the criticism is that it's costing too much to build affordable housing.

It is true.

But if we're building housing that is creating generational wealth, generational well-being, there is a price to pay within that, right?

But we're committing, like we are ensuring that our communities are staying stable for many generations to come.

So there's a cost to that.

So that's the local financing aspect.

Got it.

Thank you.

Yeah, I would go a little further to even say specific carve-outs for community stewarded properties.

Um, so you know, the housing commission funds, not just points, but there's a certain percentage that is carved out for any project that is truly community steward stewarded.

Um the COPA, the community opportunity purchase act, I think would be phenomenal.

It's they do it in San Francisco, they do it in Oakland.

And what we found out is it really doesn't affect the private market because usually it's about 30 days that gives a chance for the smaller nonprofits, the CLTs to go find that bridge loan and be able to secure those properties before the private folks come in with cash.

A lot of times they don't, right?

They can't do it or it doesn't work out, it's not the right property, and then and then the private folks come in.

And so it's it's um it's successful um and and it hasn't disrupted um the private market.

So I think really advancing that is could be beneficial in the city of San Diego.

Um again, the carve outs with the funds, the preservation fund that's being pushed through, phenomenal, but how much of that can be carve out for CLTs?

Um, I think are are both important points.

I agree with the carve outs.

I mean, um a good example of this is in LA with the mansion tax, the carved out, I can't remember the percentage, it might be like somewhere between 10 and 20 percent goes just towards community land trust, housing cooperatives, those sorts of things.

So I think getting kind of creative with where you're putting those carve-outs would be kind of the easiest thing to push forward in terms of budgets.

Um the other thing is a lot of cities throughout the United States have looked into specifically for community land trusts, um, thinking about the way that their property taxes are assessed, um, because at the moment they're just in most cities assessed normally.

In reality, these things provide a very good public good, and so you want to make sure that those are being assessed differently.

Um, the other side that's not typically thought about is like the actual homeowners and renters living on top of uh land trust land, you can do a lot in that regards.

Um just even uh as small of a change as making sure that any kind of funding that's happening within the city that people know that that can go towards, for instance, housing cooperative ownership or community land trust ownership.

So, like kind of aligning all of the funding that's coming out of the housing commission, all those things, for instance, first-time uh home buyer assistance, make sure that people know that that can be used for community land trusts and housing cooperatives.

And I'd also like to add going back to the policy piece, um, looking at ways um carve outs like in the in-lua fees, right?

Like in that, and um also I know we do um you know, off-site building, allowing developers to build off-site, so creating policy where working in collaboration with land trusts, either donating some land to a land trust could work as an in-low of uh mechanism.

I think um making those donations easier right now.

TICLT is working with a private owner who is trying to do a right-of-way conversion on some on some old easements and setting a precedent to work with the land trust and donate some of that for us, and he's getting bogged down.

So, where are the incentives for maybe uh creating incentives during the um permitting process for folks who are donating to CLTs, I think can also be beneficial.

Thank you.

That's super helpful.

Um is there a general do the dollar amounts in terms of of homes that end up being um not necessarily just built, but kind of fit as part of this model.

Is it typically align with affordable housing in terms of cost, like on a per unit per home basis?

I would say at least for our project is pretty close to the cost of the process.

Yeah, I mean that that sounded like it matched.

Is that and then is that typically how it's gone?

It really depends because at least in California, most of it has been rehab, so acquiring already existing properties and restoring them and protecting the tenants.

There hasn't been very little um ground up.

Ground up so and the restoration is that also is consistent with what restoration or preservation would typically cost.

Yeah, I mean, uh if we're being subsidized as TSCLTs, we do have to pay prevailing wage and and the PLAs and whatnot, which we're happy to do.

I think it aligns with our values.

But yes, I mean it's it's um pretty around the mill.

I think that what makes CLTs um amazing is that um we're not traditional, you know, we're not and we don't have to just take on traditional funding.

Um so and because we're selling only the um improvements, obviously that brings the value down, but we're curious we can be creative about the kind of improvements that we build.

Um if we can find the proper financing or the proper subsidy, we can do um you know ADUs and build that traditionally um and then sell those uh as affordable housing.

So there's uh it allows us um to work outside of the traditional uh affordable housing mechanisms.

I think also once CLTs are much more firmly established, they're able to produce at even lower rates than most affordable housing.

And I think the most important piece to kind of draw out here is that CLTs create permanently affordable housing, right?

So when we're talking about how much it usually costs to build uh affordable housing, first of all, we're talking about uh uh a small percentage of units and units that are typically gonna expire somewhere 15, 30, maybe 50 years at most.

Um, this is permanently affordable.

So any sorts of subsidies in that are that are put into this are going much further than they would in normal affordable housing.

Yeah, I I appreciate you mentioning that.

I mean, that there's just a different like scope to uh the benefits of the investment, and that's certainly important to keep in mind.

Um George, what you said uh 100% true in terms of um the the value of of the city investing in community stability, um the paying the decent wages that are important for folks to be able to live in the communities where the um where they're working, all of all of those things.

And I think that there is a an apple to oranges comparison sometimes when uh we're thinking about the the cost of a building affordable housing just generally.

Um there's a lot of different ways that that's true.

We still and the city's getting better at this in terms of describing the you know per bedroom cost instead of just per unit, right?

A studio is different than a four-bedroom where you have multiple people and multiple generations living.

Um but there is this much bigger scope that we have to make decisions through.

Um the longer the benefit is, the better the investment is for the city in in most cases.

Um the last thing I will say is I think uh a lot of this conversation to me, obviously, there's there's policy levers that we need to pull, but it also um certainly highlights to me the the necessity of us adequately resourcing this city so that we have the autonomy at the local level to make investments like this.

And so long as we're uh as dependent upon state and federal funding as we are, um, that takes a lot of it out of out of our hands, not completely out of our hands, but we don't have the same level of autonomy that we would have as if we're generating as as we would with revenue generated at the local level.

And so um we're gonna continue to beat that drum because producing revenue at the local level, especially um progressive revenue models that are based on either visitors coming here or profiteers who extract wealth from this community gives us the opportunity to take those resources and invest it into uh long-term benefits like community land trusts.

Uh thank you all again for the presentation.

Really, really appreciate uh this conversation.

Chair, if I may, um I used to sit on the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee, um, which administrates federal state low-income housing um tax credits.

Um that is absolutely the marker right now, and I I I left the committee in 2020, and you were looking at one bedroom um units that were built from the ground up, they were it was 850,000.

So as I mentioned in my comments, you guys are right on the mark for that.

So just wanted to add to that.

Thank you.

Next on the lights is Councilmember Kimpeo.

Thank you very much, uh Chair, and thank you to our presenters uh for being here.

Uh I know that there's I'm really excited to see these great the great progress that's been made with the CLTs we have in San Diego right now.

I know in Linda Vista, the planning group has been working on on this idea for some time, and I know there's uh there's more hounding housing in Linda Vista than in years before, uh, which has created displacement.

And so one of the big benefits that I think uh CLTs bring is uh pushing back on displacement from people who've been living in their community for a long, long time.

So uh I'm encouraged by what we're seeing here.

I know we're gonna see this.

The recommendation said February is gonna come forward.

I look forward to seeing that.

Uh just wanted to get us one last little sense um in terms of the the home ownership opportunity is fundamentally created because one organization, which is typically a nonprofit, owns the land, separates that from the ownership of the building, and therefore uh there's a creation of the the the affordability is created by separating the two ownership interests legally, correct?

That's that's how that works.

Um of the things I saw in your presentation here is about how the membership groups elect a board, and it says tenant members, organizational members, community members, um, and then supporters.

How are those different groups of people?

Because in my mind, as I'm looking at the model, seems like the community members are the tenants uh and the organizational members are part of the nonprofit.

It seemed I'm wondering how the those organized those constituent groups are different groups of people, so I can understand how this is legally created and and organized.

Sure.

It so you know, every every land trust that is formed has has the ability to designate how their board works.

Us, for example, the difference is that a third of them are lesees, so a third of the board will be folks who uh live or rent commercial or art space from us.

Um the other third are folks that do not have any connection to the land trust other than being a member, have choose having chosen to sign on and be a member, uh play dues and whatnot.

So a third of them will be elected from the general community.

Um, and then a third will be folks that are are experts in a field, and it's required by our bylaws, an expert in real estate, an expert environmental justice, um, and eco because Barrio Logan, we chose to have an uh an eco-restoration and um or urban agricultural seat um to help with food sovereignty in the community.

So that's how ours is split up.

Um so again, least people that actually live here, people that live in the neighborhood but not on our properties, and then technical experts.

Understood.

And I I can add, I can uh share a little bit about how we're structured.

So it's a separate entity uh that GASA sponsored in the creation of that entity.

Um the board is pretty similar, a third, a third, a third, a third is Gasa representatives that Gaza board will select that representation.

Uh the other third is Sunny Sanny Sido residents uh that can be voted on.

They have to be within the CIP code of San Isidro.

And then the other third, and this is the future, is once the project is billed, we have residents, then three of them are voted by the membership.

Um, and this is all member voted.

Um it would be residents that are living in the actual project.

Understood.

Thank you for explaining that.

Last question I have is um because the two property interests are separated, um, you know, property taxes is paid to the county uh for land and improvements, and so is it that it's the nonprofit that pays the land property tax and the tenant or the owner of the building pays the improvements portion of the property tax bill?

Is that how that works?

Uh typically that's just gonna be worked out in the lease between the two owners.

Um so technically it is the CLT that's uh paying it, but yeah, uh technically it's also being paid for by the actual owners of the structure.

Okay, so the in the case of a in the case of a uh foreclosure or something like that.

How many of your tenants are that are owners uh that that own the property uh have mortgages that are due to a bank, and have you seen any issues if a person has to foreclose the bank takes over the property, but the CLT still owns the land Yeah, I can add to that.

Um being A, we don't have anybody right now because it's being built, right?

Right.

Um but the idea is that once we hit the 15 marker, the 15 years, then we're gonna start doing the sales.

We don't have the assumption, the assumption is that it's not gonna be owned 100% by the tenants, because there's some tenants that want to continue being just renters, right?

So in our in our performa, we have up to certain amount, expecting that that's the I mean we would love to be 100%, but we don't expect that.

So the CLT would still be the folks maintaining the ownership of those units.

The others that are your homeowners, then they would take the responsibility of the maintenance in property taxes.

There is an effort at the state level to do actually introduce a bill to try to minimize property taxes on CLT ownership.

Um and that effort failed last round, but there's another effort to introduce a bill.

That would be great if the city of San Diego would support it.

Um because this is also a mechanism to allow, and and I mean we and we're going back to we're working with 30 to 60 percent of AMI earners.

So the more we can incentivize for true ownership of this of this type of um income earners, I think it's a benefit for all of us.

So it's really it's it's a fluctuation of how it's gonna look.

There's not a specific answer because we have a million different scenarios in our performa.

We even have a foundation that we created to help with assistance and down payment at the beginning, um, guaranteeing the banks to loan the money, and gossip would be the guaranteeer to those loans.

So there wouldn't be the idea is to prevent bankruptcy or prevent foreclosures.

Right, understood.

It would be the uh an incredibly strange thing for someone to be foreclosed on by their bank, and then that bank is now the a tenant member who wants to be a tenant director, right?

So I appreciate that you're you've thought through a lot of that and and that uh my constituents in Linda Vista in particular are excited to see uh an item uh similar to this come forward.

So thank you for your good work.

Uh Councilmember Campia, I wanted to add that I think another benefit of of a land trust is because we're not for profit and our goal is to not displace people, and there's examples throughout the state of of folks who have um do uh create mitigation measures for folks that do follow foreclosure.

So not only are we providing um housing opportunities, we're doing financial literacy, we're helping them find the right loan products.

Um we're our tenants are we're currently um and these are rental folks, but we're creating a fund for folks that do fall behind on their rent.

So there's there's um the opportunity to get creative and do cooperative and uh interdependent models for avoiding those situations.

Very good.

Thank you.

I I'll just add to that too, in terms of the support, there's often uh models built in to kind of prepare uh either homeowners or r or renters for different types of homeownership as well, traditional homeownership.

So um there's examples throughout the United States where uh between 65 to 80 percent of people living on CLT land end up going to buy their own home.

So it's another way of kind of making sure that people stay in home ownership.

Yep, that's great.

I uh I guess the last question that just came from one of the uh points you just made.

Do the elected boards uh of these have um any direction in in or any any say in who would end up purchasing one unit from another person, so let's say uh uh a homeowner within the CLT decides to sell and it's permanently affordable, and so the affordability has to be passed on.

Do the elected boards get to have any role in saying yes or no on who can buy it other than the affordability restriction.

I'm just thinking through how I've seen different cooperatives, sometimes the cooperative boards actually veto a person potentially buying it.

And I know that's I haven't seen a lot of that in San Diego, but uh in other cities.

I I can say that in our project, the board will set up the resale um aspect of the units.

Um they will also are um empowered to set up the um equity on that resale, but there is a a cap to all of that because the intention and the bylaws do state that this project is within a certain range.

But there is a cap to all of that because the intention and the bylaws do state that this project is within a certain range.

So there's just limitations, but then the board sets the rules within those limitations.

Understood.

I'll say too that uh I think most times when the CLT wants to have control over who moves in for whatever reason they want people within the community to live there or uh you know income requirements or that sort of thing, they're typically gonna purchase the home back and then gain the control in that way, I think understood.

Thank you very much for your answers and I'm impressed with the that was off the top of your head.

Fantastic, very good.

Thank you to my colleagues for uh their comments on this.

Um I I I I'll start by thanking Councilmember Moreno for bringing this item.

I I should note it's obvious to all of you, but um when she first approached us what early summer about bringing this item forward, she was very excited about it.

Um and frankly, I think so were we, because I think we we have a lot of discussions on this IS about housing, but it tends to either be um programs that impact largely private market or just how affordable housing in the more traditional sense that we think of.

And as others have already shared, I think what we're missing in the middle is is a lot of other options that give people opportunities for ownership, and especially at the income levels that have been discussed.

You know, that is not something that we have any mechanism for today.

And so we know the private market will still exist, it has a place, we need more housing there.

Um, but with that also, you know, we we need to be able to facilitate more creative conversations about opportunities like community land trusts so that we can actually facilitate home ownership.

Um and even before the homeownership period, um, affordability for housing that is at a level that is um difficult to achieve otherwise.

Um I think my big takeaway from this conversation today is that even when you look at Custom Familiar and Tierras Indihinas, um, the examples that you've both shared, it does it's not easy to accomplish.

I mean, we already talk all the time about how affordable housing is actually much more complex, actually, than a lot of private market housing at times because of the multiple funding streams that have come into play, um, the public subsidy that does exist um through certain agencies, and so I too am interested in you know, how can everyday St.

Agans who have an interest in this find a way to be engaged?

And I think this is where I'm excited about um where Council Member Moreno is taking this, which is looking at the assistance that needs to be given because the reality is that we're not gonna see a group of residents come together and say, well, we're just gonna start one, not very likely, without support and understanding how the structure of say the nonprofit organization that is behind it works, how they might be able to achieve financing to allow for a project.

Um that that is still all very, very challenging to accomplish.

And so I think for us being able to support that effort, but then as as we did with preservation as well, I think the next big question is how do we support that effort by also allocating funding or um carving out funding that would allow for the model to actually be um utilized in ways.

And so you touched on all of these things in this conversation, which is um for me, I was very glad we were having this item here today.

And I think when you look at a lot of the discussions that we have in this committee, this is a very rare item that's very future looking in terms of opportunity.

Um I think we had a little bit of a similar discussion about factory built housing, for example, just in one of our last meetings, recognizing that what we're really discussing is different mechanisms in which we can accomplish more housing at the lower affordability um levels that are that are absolutely necessary in the community.

So I won't go further in um highlighting everything that was shared here.

I think a lot of the questions are all answered.

Um but again want to thank all of you for for coming and sharing your expertise to Councilmember Moreno for bringing this forward um and to know that we will certainly have another action item come back um in February or short um sooner if it's ready sooner to see how we can move forward.

So with that said, I think that concludes item number four.

And so we will turn uh to introduce item number five.

Thank you again.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number five, 2025 State of California housing and land use legislative and budgetary update.

And if you're watching on City TV and wish to call in to speak to item five, please call one six six nine two five four five two five two.

When prompted, the webinar ID is one six zero six eight three zero six two three pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

We'll turn it over to you, Walt, and take your time as you need it.

But once you're ready, if you want to reintroduce yourself and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, Chair.

I'm just going to need uh 10 minutes for our presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

My name is Walt Bishop, Director of Governor Affairs, and joining me today via Zoom is our Moiretop, our state lobbyist up in Sacramento.

We also have on the line in the room with us today, representatives from the city planning department and development services department for any technical questions you might have.

But with that, I will turn it over to Moira to take you through the presentation.

Moira.

Thank you.

And thank you, Mr.

Chair and members, and uh thank you for allowing me to provide this update.

Um virtually, uh it was good to see many of you yesterday, but um uh I was asked to provide an update.

Um, if you can move to the next slide, um provide an update uh kind of on the nuts and bolts of major legislation that did make its way to the governor this year.

So you can see from the overview.

Um the legislature focused on a lot of different issues, but I will say that yet again housing production and affordability and homelessness were top on their lists of um of uh delved into.

Um you'll see from the uh list of bills that we've got today that there are some significant pieces of legislation um that have passed, some of which are still awaiting governor's signature.

Um 915 bills in the governor's desk, and the governor has until Monday uh at midnight to act on all of um the remaining bills, several hundred are uh remaining there.

So, well, if you can go to the next slide.

Um, first of all, on the budget side, um the HAP program, the homeless um uh program that provides significant funding for local agencies.

Um we as we remember the governor did not include HAP 7 funding in his initial GN10 budget.

It was something we advocated for very strongly throughout the budget process.

Um 500 million dollars was included in the budget that would actually officially be part of the next year's budget.

Um it doesn't it doesn't uh technically affect um our allocation schedule since um all of the HAP rounds have always um uh have always uh draw drug a little bit longer than the fiscal year in which they're allocated.

So this actually matches up with when the allocations will occur.

But unfortunately, 500 million dollars is certainly less than the the historic one billion dollars.

It's half as much as what we're used to getting.

Um the bill is um uh the allocation is based on criteria, um, new criteria that um cities have to meet in order to receive the funds, and we expect additional criteria to be added likely early next year.

Um, there were some additional housing um allocations made, an additional 500 million dollars into the um low-income housing tax credit program.

We were just talking about that in the um in the prior item.

Um, an additional 300 million dollars into a somewhat new program, the California Dream for All program, which provides down payment assistance for first-time first generation homeowners, um 120 million dollars um added to the multifamily housing program, a historic HCD program.

And the budget speaks to addition or um increases to the existing renters tax credit in subsequent years.

And lastly, the governor made um made a priority the creation of a new cabinet level uh California Housing and Homelessness Agency.

And that was approved by the legislature.

So moving on.

Um kind of getting into some of the nitty-gritty of the bills.

I was asked to provide um some some more substantive discussion about the the bills themselves and um the the first two to talk about are uh AB 130 and SB 131.

These were companion bills that were included in the budget act.

They were trailer bills, they are significant policy um uh bills that the legislature and governor negotiated was something I think the governor put on really put on the table in his May revision and insisted on uh in order to uh kind of come to final negotiation on the budget.

Um it's really talked about as a bill that um streamlines CEQA, but it does a whole lot more than than just that, even though CEQA exemptions certainly are significant.

Um but to walk through some of the details if you'd like.

They do have to meet specific criteria, like the project can't be more than 20 acres.

The project has to be in an urban area.

It has to have been used previously developed with a urban use.

The project has to be consistent with your general plan and zoning zoning ordinances.

It can't be in an environmentally or uh sensitive hazardous site.

And the bill also does provide protections for California Native American tribes with notification and consultation for any projects that we seek.

The um bill does uh require some remediation measures that are outlined in the bill.

Um the bill also does um subject the California Coastal Commission to the permit streamlining act provisions that are applicable to other state agencies throughout California.

Um so those are uh shot clocks and turn and timelines that are important.

The bill also includes and establishes a vehicle miles traveled mitigation bank, a VMT bank, um, so that if you've got a project um that requires uh VMT mitigation, you can you can contribute um appropriate funds into an HCD TOD mitigation bank to address any obligations for VMT.

Um the bill also removes the 100 million dollar maximum investment threshold that was included in uh the CECA expedited judicial review.

Um that was the bill that Senator Atkins worked on a number of years ago that had a 100 million dollar threshold.

That threshold has been would be lift it has been lifted.

The bill also includes um a temporary freeze on building standards and codes.

So both the state building and stand building standards commission as well as uh local building standards are um are told or are paused.

Any changes are paused from October 1st of this year to June 1st of 2031, um that no changes can be made.

However, for both the state and local um changes, there are some off-ramps and some provisions that enable important changes that need to be made for specified reasons that are outlined uh in the bill.

Uh AB 130 also uh deals with homeless shelters.

It ensures that um cities and counties are inspecting their homeless shelters annually, um, requires homeless shelters to display occupants' rights.

Um the bill also addresses um and streamlines ADU and JADU rules on HOAs, so the Davis Sterling Act.

That's what the Act is for uh oversees HOAs.

Um it also applies the permit streamlining act to um both ministerial and um discretionary permits.

It prohibits certain appeals from coastal act um uh projects, residential projects.

It enumerates the specifics of it, but it does provide some exemptions to those are or prohib prohibitions on appeals for those projects.

And lastly, this is the provision uh this is the bill that includes the provision to significantly increase renters' tax credit in future in future budgets if there's an allocation.

And is this they are significant renters?

So it's so those provisions are all included in AB 130, and then the companion bill was SB 131, which also includes significant um CEQA exemptions.

It has specified categorical exemptions that include um exempting CEQA from new agricultural employee housing, specified wildfire risk reduction projects, um, state's climate adaptation strategy planning.

Um the construction or planning of a public park that's funded by Prop 4.

We do have a few of those.

It exempts daycare centers, non nonprofit food banks, advanced manufacturing, high-speed projects, and community water systems.

So it these two bills combined are incredibly far-reaching.

They will have um massive impacts, I think, from uh uh implementation perspective.

Um, we know that these were bills that were hard fought in negotiation and uh and probably will result in needed cleanup over time to make sure that all of the dates and times and streamlining all meshes together, but nevertheless, I think they are incredible, they will they will be uh known as incredibly uh important bills moving forward.

Next slide.

Um probably the the next most significant bill that um that was passed by the legislature is SB 79.

This bill has not yet been acted on by the governor.

It remains on his desk or either a signature or a veto.

Um the bill requires how um a housing development project within a specific specified radius of of existing or currently proposed major transit-oriented development stops to be allowed to be zoned in in certain residential mixed or commercial development projects.

The bill divides um or uh delineates between different types of TOD projects and it tiers them.

There's a there are tier one projects or tier one stops and tier two stops.

Um tier one stops are the major transit stops, so those are heavy rail transit and on very high frequency commuter rail stops.

And so within a quarter of a mile of those tier one um stops, maximum height is 75 to 95 feet.

Um a quarter mile to a half mile of those tier one stops.

The maximum height would be allowable, would be about 60 would be 65 feet.

And then the second tier are um major transit stops that are served by light rail, high frequency commuter rail or bus rabbit rapid transit within a quarter mile of those stops.

Um the maximum height is 65 to 85 feet, and from one quarter to a half mile of those stops, the maximum height would be 55.

And also within each of those categories and tiers, there are maximum densities and FAR allowances and different concessions that are allowed throughout the bill.

It does require um have requirements for affordability for larger projects, projects that are um 10 or more.

Um it does require HCD to have compliant or oversee compliance with the bill.

It requires HCD to promulgance and standards, and it authorizes local governments to enact an ordinance to make its um zoning consistent with the bill.

And then those ordinances have to be submitted to HCD for a finding of compliance.

Um authorizes um the TOD to designate areas within a TOD, a half mile of a TOD stop to be exempt.

So there are some exemptions authorized.

One is if there's substantial evidence that no walking path exists less than one mile from that location, or that the area is an industrial employment hub.

All these things are definitely defined in the bill itself.

So again, this bill is yet to be decided on by the governor.

It is a substantive bill.

It was a controversial bill in the legislature.

Um, and so we remain uh waiting, waiting to see what the governor's action is on that.

And I will also say that the provisions of the bill um do not take effect immediately upon um uh chaptering.

They don't so normally a bill would take effect on January 1st.

The provisions of this bill would take effect on July 1st, 2026.

So moving on into some of the lesser but still substantive bills that really that the legislature dealt with.

Just want to run through these very quickly.

AB 357 is by um our delegation member, uh, Assemblymember Alvarez, which um streamlines and accelerates the availability of affordable housing for students um at public universities in uh coastal zones.

So it provides an administrative procedure that streamlines those uh development projects.

Uh that bill has already been chaptered.

It's one of the few bills on this list that um the governor has officially acted on.

AB 507 is as a actually a substantive.

If we didn't have the other two bills, this bill is a very substantive bill about adaptive reuse.

Um it establishes the Office to Housing Conversion Act, which creates a whole structure to really promote the adaptive reuse of projects as of buildings as we moved out of COVID into uh less office space usage.

The importance of um of reusing those types of projects has become paramount.

Assemblymember Haney has tried this before.

The governor did veto it, but he I think he feels good that the labor provisions that were added into the bill, and he's hopeful that the bill will bill will get signed this year.

But it is it's a significant piece of legislation.

AB 890 is simply a bill that requires a permit um portal to be put onto uh cities and counties uh websites for central application for all housing development projects.

AB 1007 by Assemblymember Rubio expedites timelines for approval or disapproval by a public agency, which is the responsible agency for residential and mixed use developments.

It specifically reduces the time rate time frame from 90 to 45 days.

SB 489 provides some streamlining permit streamlining for the LAFCO process.

It requires LAFCOs to publish written policies and procedures necessary to complete an application.

It also not related to LAFCO specifically, but it does require a public agency to publish online any approval requirements in connection to a housing development project in the list of the and the and list the criteria that the public agency will use to determine its approval process.

And lastly, I'll mention again SB92, Senator Blake Spears bill.

This is bill sponsored by the city to address the loophole that we found we this you know the city and public experience with respect to the density bonus law resulting in the application of uh of particularly tall building um within the city limits um that really kind of uh went against the um the intent and purpose of the density bonus law.

The governor has yet to act on that bill.

Uh so we're waiting a little better breath.

Um we are hopeful that he will sign that bill, however.

And moving on, um we kind of group these uh into permitting and then post-entitlement.

The first bill kind of is a twinner between the two, but AB 18, what A 818 um requires local agencies to approve a permit for specified structures.

Um during a disaster, so if you are if you are waiting for your um your home to be rebuilt, if you need to put a temporary structure on your property, whether it's an ADU or a prefab home, that um it requires a very quick turnaround for local agencies to permit those specified structures.

AB 1026 um is a bill that required um some timelines for utilities to ensure that hookups are made once you've got projects that are ready to um ready for occupancy.

Don't let the utility hookups be the one thing that that stops um occupancy from happening.

Since we provided this uh report um uh online, or excuse me, provided the report to the committee.

This bill has been vetoed by the governor.

Um, so we'll I'm sure there will be more activity in that space next year.

But at this point, the bat that bill was vetoed.

Um AB 1308 is kind of there are a number of themes on this um particular topic, but it's a local inspection shot clock.

It requires um our city building department to conduct an inspection of permitted work within 10 days of receiving receiving notice of the completion of the permitted work.

Um, so it applies to you know exclusively residential projects, it does not apply to remodels, um, and it does uh apply to some additions meeting certain criteria, but it is a fairly quick shot clock for our our department to um turn those uh local inspections around kind of on the same in the same vein, AB 253 by Assemblymember Ward allows for uh private individuals to um kind of be to be authorized as professional plan check um authorities.

Um so it also includes the shot clock um of 30 days uh to complete the the plan checking uh for particular uh um projects.

Um AB 301 by Assemblymember Shaivo establishes specific time frames for state departments, so it was kind of nice to see that as we've require we continue to require more and more shot clocks on local agencies, which are important, of course.

Um, but our labor can be labor intensive.

That uh assemblymember SIBO applied a number of those specific time round timelines um to state agencies as well with respect to uh post-entitlement reviews uh for housing developments.

And lastly, I'll mention um AB 462.

We didn't see a whole lot of bills in the ADU space, but this is one that this bill requires coastal development um permits for ADUs to be approved or denied within 60 days.

Um uh additional provisions that provide guidance uh with respect to ADUs and the coastal coastal zone, which is uh I know something that has been talked about for for a number of years as well.

So with that, I apologize for speaking so quickly.

I was trying to get through with some of the details as quickly as possible, but again, it has been a very busy year.

Um given you kind of the nuts and bolts of what um of a lot of the legislation that we've seen.

I'll defer to city staff in terms of um how these bills will um affect the city itself and implementation as we move forward.

Although so many of these bills are up yet to really been uh decided on whether or not the governor signs them will determine obviously um the potential implementation of them.

So with that, Mr.

Chair, I'll conclude my presentation.

Happy to try and answer any questions that you might have.

Well, Moira, thank you for the presentation.

We'll turn next to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item five is now open, and we have received one speaker slip from one individual.

Okay, there's more coming.

Three okay.

So uh Jeffrey Hoyder, you've been seated time.

You've been seated time by Yvonne Jones, if you could please raise your hand and Dan, I gave a vote.

So you'll have three minutes to speak to item five.

Great, thanks.

I didn't know we were going to cover everything at the state level, so I got a couple more speakers.

But I think, first of all, with regard to the CECRA so-called reform.

I think if you really look at what happens, most of our projects are actually exempted from SQL already, they're ministerial, and so I think they'll have a lot less of an impact than people think it might.

Um, AB 507, anything that keeps housing from uh buildings from going into landfill and gets them repurposed, I think is always a good thing.

Um SB92, obviously, this was a big deal for people in Pacific Beach because it it fixes that loophole.

Unfortunately, and this is one of the things we see is because we don't really stress test a lot of these bills before they get passed because so much stuff is coming through the state.

This is how these kind of loopholes happen, and unfortunately, we're trying to fix in uh after the fact.

Um, the AB 253, the plan check, uh, one of the things that we're heading for is trying to streamline projects.

And part of streamlining projects is increasing the transparency of project information.

And unfortunately, one of the things that happens is projects get submitted to development services, and often people have to submit public records requests and get just to get information that should be readily available as part of that project submission.

And then finally, SB 79.

This is an extremely complicated and controversial bill.

And we've uh, as we know, we've objected to the city council and to the mayor that this was brought forward without any debate by the city council, and it was submitted to uh the bills offer as if this was endorsed by the city of San Diego, when in fact no such endorsement was forthcoming.

Um, we submitted public records requests, so we still haven't seen a response determine how the decision was made to support this bill and write this letter.

The letter was not written by the city of San Diego, it was written by the the person who was speaking before.

It was not on city letterhead.

This was uh very um you know, administrative act, and it really should have been front and center.

There should have been a debate about this.

It this bill had 11 amendments as it went through the adoption process.

It obviously wasn't in a fully formed state ready to be approved when it was um supposedly supported by the city of San Diego, and we hope in the future that um we have a full and fulsome discussion of of something that's just far reaching.

This is gonna be chaos for the city of San Diego.

It upends the bonus ADU laws, it upends complete communities, it makes a mess out of almost everything we're doing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

There are two hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

All right, thank you, Blair Beekman.

Only one minute shoot.

Um, you had items like this like yesterday, uh, state and uh federal you know, plans uh here at San Diego level.

I heard housing is going to be cut a bit, uh, some sort of housing programs from the federal level.

It hurts that that is happening.

Um, I have a lot of hopes in what the future of HUD can offer uh the process.

I think it can way be a way to mediate kind of a nonpartisan or bipartisan effort, you know, it's a ways to work together.

That I I to hear housing funding being cut is not the way to do that.

So good luck in these practices.

I think we have we can be setting an incredibly important standard in California that we're already developing best practices.

The city of Oakland already has ways to reduce violent crime that they're working on with their community very well.

They need funding dollars.

They don't need more overmilitarization issues.

Trump really has to learn to understand that concept.

And sit down and listen to new.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

And our final speaker is the original, please begin.

Yeah, nothing's affordable when the Marxists are gentrifying everything in the city, and Camifora has you know cannot track 24 billion dollars that was spent on homeless for five years.

So we have that kind of stuff going on all over the place.

Nothing is going to change.

And it's interesting though that um, you know, they're gonna be temporarily freezing building standards and codes till June of 2030, 2031.

That's insane.

And that means there's you know, a good reason why they're doing that because something is coming.

Um, but the homeless shelter's annual inspection of occupants and occupants' rights must be um posted.

That is something that you guys should be doing anyway.

You need to be um holding dreams for change accountable and downtown partnership.

There's massive code violations, including all of the deaths and the sexual assaults.

Like if you guys actually go there, you would see the kind of crap that gets done with the city and dreams for change in charge.

And you guys need to do something about it because people are dying.

Thank you.

Chair, this concludes public comment.

Thank you to the public for their comments.

Uh, we'll turn next to committee members for questions, comments, and item uh five.

We'll go ahead and start with Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Walt, for the update.

Um a lot happening both at the federal and state levels, and just want to say thank you for all the work that you're doing to track that and keep us um updated.

Uh the one question I had um relates to the HAP funding.

Um there's the if I understand correctly, we had this conversation uh a couple months ago.

The allocation is made at a regional level.

The city gets a portion of that.

There's a formula for the way those funds need to be and as soon as I'm wrong to step in.

There's a formula for how those funds need to be um spent down.

We had a conversation here, and I I know this isn't like fully fully on you, so um apologies here.

One, are there any changes to the way that that that formula is is broken down because uh there was a push happening, it seems at the state level to want to push more toward more permanent solutions and away from shelter.

Yeah, so on the the HAP seven that was just allocated for appropriate for next year, uh no change in the formula.

The pot overall pie is obviously smaller.

So I will say, even though it's comes off as a half a uh billion dollar cut, um there was in the previous rounds a home key uh slice that it's not in there, so it won't be a 50-50, you know, won't be a 50% cut, but still probably in the 40% range.

But in regards to the um uh how the structure of what you can spend your dollars on for seven, we won't know that yet, but for your correct in uh in regards to the hot hap six round, which we're currently going through the state for.

Got it.

Yeah, and then unfortunate home home key wasn't um obviously it's a tough budget year, but it's a program that this within the city, we've gotten better and better at it utilizing the housing commission's better at identifying properties.

Um there's nothing like it in terms of turning dollars into homes that people can move in quickly uh and doing that at a substantially lower cost, especially at the local level, uh than it there's not like literally nothing that compares to it.

And so uh to see that uh go by the wayside is is unfortunate.

Um Councilmember, if I could just say on the uh there's a lot of uh prop $1, Home Key Plus, which we worked with the housing commission to put in application and hoping to hear actually this month.

Um hopefully some good news coming on that.

But there's a lot of dollars in that space that's still left over.

So I think in regards to why the legislature didn't put some uh set aside for HAP in regards to that, is because there is a lot of home key plus dollars as part of prop one that are still uh around and haven't been allocated.

Okay, that's good to know.

And so it's a much matter of us can kind of competing and going out and winning those.

That's that's good to know.

Um the last thing I'll say, and again, this is less on on your uh for you and more for um the the mayor's office to make sure that we're doing uh lack of court if if we don't coordinate on how the city plans to spend um that ends up impacting the way the region can maximize those dollars.

Um we've seen that seen that play out in the past.

Um sometimes there's frustration on this side of the dais uh toward the regional task force on homelessness or others about how those dollars are being spent, but the city's kind of boxed RTFH RTFH in um by kind of doing its own thing.

Um so uh I hope that coordination, those conversations are happening now, and that coordination begins uh very quickly if it hasn't already already.

Thank you again, Walt Walt, and thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Uh Well, thank you uh and your team for the presentation today and really preparing um all of this uh land use and housing focused uh update um with a lot of the state bills that are um still out there.

And I recognize that many of them are still um in question until the governor takes action.

Um but I think you you've certainly done a huge amount of work in terms of advancing our legislative um agenda as a city.

Um advocating for HAP funding, obviously, is one of uh the big examples of that, which I I know it's frustrating for all of us that we wait year to year to see if it's gonna make it in the um revisions of the budget.

Um we wanted to have this update because I think everyone's aware that there was a pretty significant amount of of legislation um, especially as you mentioned, AB uh 130 and SB 131 uh related to housing this year.

And so I'd want to start off by thanking senior chief deputy city attorney Corinne Newfer for her report on both of those bills.

Uh and that report I believe is available to the public uh and it provides a pretty significant amount of background on each of these bills, more certainly shared some additional detail um for us today.

But uh for us as legislators, I have to admit that we look at the long list and the short summaries and try to trying to figure out which ones have an impact in San Diego can be a little bit challenging.

Um I I think SB 79 is probably one of those examples.

We all understand that that's been a contentious item uh at the state.

We've yet to see if the governor is going to sign off on it.

Um and at the in the meanwhile, I think we look at the city of San Diego, and the city has actually done a tremendous amount of work in terms of streamlining and advancing housing opportunities specifically around um transit as we have it.

And I think as we watched SB 79 sort of work its way through and get tweaked, um some of those definitions I think sort of moved around, what's a quarter mile versus half a mile, uh what falls under uh bus rapid transit, I think whether it's dedicated lands or not, uh all is actually pretty intricate in its details.

Um and so I understand that some of the coastal cities that we have uh in other municipalities are a little bit more concerned because of the impacts of them.

I think what I'm really curious about is if the governor was to sign SB 79, what does that actually look like from an implementation standpoint uh in San Diego?

And I know both our planning team as well as DSC is here, and I don't know if in the review that we've had thus far, if if there's been a chance to really understand, given the how much we already have in place in terms of incentives and streamlining in the city of San Diego, what is the potential impact of SB 79 look like for us?

I'm gonna use my phone of friendlifeline and uh turn it over our planning and DSD shop.

Uh good afternoon, committee members.

Uh we have had an opportunity to do some preliminary mapping um with respect to SB 79.

Um it is a fairly complex piece of legislation.

There are lots of exceptions, there are lots of nuances.

Uh we have been able to identify, you know, broadly the areas uh that would be impacted, which is uh mostly around um the trolley stations.

Um in addition to that, there are certain exceptions um that would apply in some instances our uh base zoning allows more than what would be allowed under SB 79.

In some instances, it allows less than what would be allowed um under SB 79.

Uh we're still working through the details and we're happy to report back to this committee and any of the council offices uh with additional information as we continue it to evaluate the bill.

Again, we are waiting to see um if it will be signed, um, and then we can uh decide uh what our next steps are from there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And certainly I think we have the same curiosity because you look at a map and same thing.

I think we recognize that there are some areas that we're we're already exceeding what um SP 79 might allow for, um, but that might not be the case everywhere.

So maybe we'll look forward to that up.

One of the things too is we worked with Senator Wiener's team on some change.

There were some earlier drafts that we worked with Senator Wiener's team on to make the bill uh work better for San Diego, so through our team and through our land useum as well.

So that's something that uh we worked harder on what Senator Weiner.

Understood.

And then and I totally understand that within our local agencies, there's there's differing opinions on the bill.

So I I recognize that.

That's just where we're at.

Um and I think the next step really is just seeing if the governor chooses to sign it and um what that looks like for us here within the city.

Um I think that's it on my end, and seeing no other speakers, I believe that's gonna conclude item number five.

Um, thank you again, Walt.

Natalie, will you please introduce item six?

Item six, the 2025 annual report on homes.

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

The webinar ID is one six zero six eight three zero six two three pound.

Chair.

Give the team a moment to come on up.

Thank you for patience.

Sometimes we have fewer items and still have very robust discussions.

Uh, we'll turn it over to you if you want to introduce yourselves to the record and let us know how much time we need.

Okay.

Um, council members.

Uh, my name is Samuel Solis.

I am a senior planner in the city planning department, and joining me today is uh Seth Lichney, Housing Program Manager, Tate Galloway, Deputy Director of Community Planning and Housing, and Heidi von Bloom, City Planning Director.

I am happy to be presenting the informational item on the 2025 annual report on homes.

Um, while my presentation will provide an overview of relevant data points and key takeaways, the city planning department is available to answer um any questions about the entire report and take feedback from committee for the development of future annual reports.

The 2025 annual report on homes is a comprehensive review of housing permitting data of the city during calendar year 2024, which includes the data reported in the housing element annual progress report.

The annual progress report details information on home development proposals and permitting data, the progress made on meeting the city's regional housing needs assessment target, and overall the progress made on the implementation of a general plans housing element.

The annual progress report is required to be submitted to the California Department of Housing and Community Development, which occurred on March 2025.

The annual report on home also includes an analysis of the use of the city's density bonus program, a summary of home permitting trends, an analysis of home development on sites and the housing elements, adequate sites inventory, and an assessment of the city's progress to affirmatively further fair housing.

Next slide.

While new home issuances were widely dispersed throughout the city, most new homes permitted in 2024 are concentrated in Uptown and Navajo, each exceeding a thousand homes.

Other areas with strong permitting activity included uh Kearney Mesa, Downtown, and North Park, ranging from five to seven hundred homes.

Overall permitting remained focused in central and transit accessible communities.

In 2024, Affordable Home Permitting is led by City Heights, Uptown, Claremont Mesa, and Southeastern San Diego, with one to 200 affordable homes each.

Overall, affordable housing continues to cluster in central and mid-city communities.

In total, 2,285 accessory dwelling unit homes were permitted in 2024.

A sharp increase over the previous uh previous years.

2,285 ADU homes per uh represent approximately 26% of the total permitted homes in 2024.

Also shown on this map, ADU homes were permitted throughout the city.

However, Claremont Mesa, North Park, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU home building permit approvals in 2024.

Providing a diversity of home types ensures more people have opportunities to live in San Diego throughout different stages of their lives.

About 59% of new homes were either studio homes or one bedroom homes.

Approximately 41% of new homes contain two or more bedrooms, which can meet the needs of families of various sizes.

Carmel Mountain Ranch, Uptown, and Downtown were the most common areas for homes with two or more bedrooms for building permit approvals in 2024.

Staff analyzed the utilization of city home related programs from 2021 through 2024, the four years so far in this regional housing needs assessment cycle.

The programs that are part of this review are the ADU Home Density Bonus Program, the Complete Community Housing Solutions Program, the Affordable Home Density Bonus Program, and the Affordable Home Permit Now Program.

The ADU Density Bonus Program allows homeowners to build additional ADUs than otherwise permitted by right, provide provided that there is an affordable ADU set aside for each ADU approved through the program.

In 2024, under the ADU Home Density Bonus Program, 653 homes were permitted, which 39% were affordable.

Claremont Mesa, Linda Vista, and Southeastern San Diego were the most common areas for new ADU density bonus homes.

The number of new homes approved through the ADU Home Density Bonus Program substantially increased from 2021 to 2022, from 20 new homes in 2021 to 653 new homes in 2024.

The number of new affordable homes approved through the program increased from 2021 to 2024.

Approximately 64% of homes permitted through the program in 2024 were affordable.

The top 10 community planning areas utilized utilizing the ADU Home Density Bonus Program from 2021 to 2024 are listed here on screen.

The Complete Community Solutions Program is a floor area ratio based density program that allows for higher densities within the sustainable development area.

In 2024, under the Complete Community Solutions Program, 1,917 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Uptown, North Park, and Greater Golden Hill were the most common areas for new complete community housing solution homes.

This program saw a substantial increase in utilization from 2021 to 2024, going from 150 new approved homes in 2021 to 1,917 new homes in 2024.

Additionally, 302 new affordable homes were permitted through the program in 2024, more than double from calendar year 2023.

Here on screen are the six community planning areas where the Complete Communities Housing Solutions program was used from 2021 to 2024.

The city's affordable affordable home density bonus program allows for greater densities than otherwise allowed in the base zone, provided that a portion of new homes are set aside as affordable.

In 2024, under the Affordable Home Density Bonus Program, 2,619 homes were permitted, which 16% were affordable.

Navajo, Kearney Mesa, and Uptown were the most common areas for new affordable home density bonus program homes.

Next slide.

Similar to the ADU Home Density Bonus Program and the Complete Community Solutions Program, the city's affordable home density bonus program saw a substantial increase in utilization, particularly regarding affordable homes.

The number of new homes permitted through the Affordable Home Density Bonus Program increased by about 175% from 2021 to 2023.

However, in 2024, it saw a decrease of approximately 80%.

Here on screen are the top 10 communities of affordable home density bonus program between 2021 and 2024.

The city's inclusionary affordable housing regulation encourages diverse and balanced neighborhoods with homes available for households of all income levels.

The regulation applies to all development proposing 10 or more homes outside of the coastal overlay zone, five or more homes within the coastal overlay zone, and condominium conversions involving two or more homes.

A percentage of rental or for sale homes must be set aside in eligible developments for lower income households.

The inclusionary affordable housing regulation has resulted in 235 new affordable homes in this arena cycle.

Here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas for newly permitted homes.

The Affordable Housing Permit Now Program expedites reviews for 100% affordable home projects and shelter projects.

The new program was created to implement Mayor Todd Gloria's executive order 2023-1.

The program was used to approve 3,094 new homes from 2023 to 2024.

And here on screen are the top 10 community planning areas with the most common areas for affordable housing permit now usage.

This is 21.

Oh, sorry.

Staff examined the city's home issuance data over a long period of time than the current RENA cycle and analyze where in particular home issuance have occurred in the city this RENA cycle.

To this end, the annual report on homes includes an analysis of permitted homes over the previous decade as well as an analysis of home issuance by mobility zone and resource areas in this RENA cycle.

This helps track the city's progress in meeting its housing goals in the housing element as well as progress in affirmatively furthering fair housing and in implementing the goals of the climate action plan.

The city has continued to permit on average 5,000 and what 5,100 new homes from 2014 through 2022.

The city has been averaging 9,200 permitted homes between 2023 and 2024.

Next slide.

The city is on track to meet its above moderate income housing goal with more than 28,000 homes permitted so far.

Affordable home production remains behind arena targets, underscoring the need for continued focus on lower income housing programs and incentives.

Since the start of the sixth cycle six RENA cycle, the city has permitted about 34,240 homes, roughly one-third of our total 108,000 home target.

To meet our arena goals by 2029, we'll need to permit approximately 74,000 additional homes over the next five years.

Since 2021, about 86% of all homes and nearly nine in 10 affordable homes were located within mobility zone one and two.

Mobility zones one and two are areas that have the greatest access to transit.

By permitting more homes near transit, the city is implementing the goals of the climate action plan.

The city is committed to affirmatively furthering fair housing.

A key component to furthering fair housing is providing opportunities for all community members to live in a neighborhood of their choice.

To achieve this, the city is encouraging more affordable homes within higher resource areas in the city where affordable homes do not currently exist.

For example, the city modified its inclusionary affordable housing regulation and affordable housing regulations to allow for off-site affordable homes in high and highest resource areas of the city.

Additionally, the city's affordable housing and all communities regulation permit affordable multiple home in base zones that do not otherwise allow multiple homes, provided that the location of a home development is in a high or highest resource area in the city.

Moreover, recent community plan updates have increased densities in high and highest resource area.

A substantial portion of the city, approximately 68%, is in high and highest resource area.

However, only 31% of affordable homes were permitted in high and highest resource area.

More affordable homes are needed in high and highest resource areas to ensure the city is affirmatively furthering fair housing and meeting the needs of all community members.

Almost all affordable homes permitted in the city are within multiple home development.

However, only 12% of the highest resource area and 21% of high resource area permit multiple home developments.

For the city to reach its very low, low and moderate RENA allocation, more affordable homes must be permitted in high and highest resource areas of the city.

Next slide.

In closing, I wanted to note some key takeaways and next steps.

Next slide.

1,061 affordable homes were permitted in 2024.

While this is a positive development, the city will need to permit 73,796 homes by 2029 to meet our arena goals.

Affordable homes are primarily approved through multiple home developments.

Additionally, low resource areas are producing the most affordable homes, and more affordable homes need to be built in high and highest resource area.

We will review the annual report on homes data to the planning commission later this month and the full city council in early November.

That concludes our presentation, and staff is available to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Let's uh move to public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

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

Each speaker will have one minute.

The first speaker is Aria Grossman, if you could please approach the lecture and you'll be followed by Colin Parent and then Jeff Hooter.

Good afternoon, members of the committee.

Um Circulate San Diego sent a former lot formal letter to the committee.

Uh, but I would like to take the time today to raise a few of our main points, and I have copies to pass out afterwards.

So first, 2,619 homes were permitted in 2024 under the affordable home density bonus program.

For the fourth straight year in a row, this program has been the most successful citywide program in terms of unit permitting.

San Diego was the first city in California to enact an expansion of this program.

Circulate was proud to support this policy and help extend and further expand this local innovation statewide.

Going forward, the city should continue to examine ways to expand this and other successful housing programs, like complete communities.

Options for expansion include increasing bonuses and broadening where these programs apply.

The report's neighborhood specific data demonstrates that neighborhoods with the most housing permits are nearly all areas where the city has recently updated community plans.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Colin Perry.

Yeah, thanks very much.

Really uh appreciate this presentation and the work of the planning department putting this thing together.

Um, just to just to point out, you know, I think it's it's really great to be able to see you know uh uh housing production levels that are substantially higher than than the average for the for the prior decade.

That's a really good thing.

That's because of policies that this council and its predecessors have adopted.

I hope you feel good about that.

Um but also but also recognize that there's been fewer homes permitted this this year than the prior year, and and that means that the work isn't isn't done yet.

And so doing things that are on your agenda in the in the upcoming year, making sure that you do uh adopt good uh successful community plans that allow for more homes uh will help continue the the city moving in the right trajectory.

Uh so thanks again and look forward to um seeing more progress on these issues.

Thank you, Jeffrey Hoyder, if you could please approach the lector.

And you've been seated time by four individuals, if they can please raise their hands, Susan Baldwin.

And I give vote at Yvonne Jones and Paul Kruger.

So you'll have five minutes.

Great.

I had a presentation too.

And uh I I think the dead enders back there for sticking it out to the end.

If you uh in the interest of time, if you would skip to slide number three.

So one of the things I'd like to just bring up first, this is a really big report.

There's like 85 pages in it.

But as in years past, there's some particular blind spots that we think we have in our reporting.

And part of it's because the primary use of this report is so we can report back to HCD, but I think there's other things that could be in there that would help with our own citywide policy making.

The first thing is we track permits, we break all that down, but what we don't track are how many units we destroyed.

And one of the reasons that's important is, and we're creating a uh housing preservation fund just to address this issue, is we tear down a lot of naturally occurring affordable housing, and in many cases, the number of deeded units that we replace is maybe the same, but often less than what was there before.

So we're we're getting in the cycle where we destroy naturally occurring affordable housing, we put in a few deeded units, and then we create a whole bunch of above market rate units, and that's that's not a positive win in a lot of ways for the city.

The second thing that would help us a lot is uh having some sort of rent survey, um, whether we could buy the data from COSTAR or some other source, but we were blind in terms of as we provide more housing and we're trying to make rents go down in the market, we don't really know uh what the reaction of the market is in a lot of cases.

Um the third thing is um one of the indications of overbuilding is you start to see vacancy rates rise, and tracking the vacancy rates would really help us to understand our uh is our our arena numbers really reflective of what our what the market thinks our need is because you know developers build because they can rent the units, not because there's some dictate from Sacramento.

And then finally, um, you know, short-term K vacation rentals are a high percentage of single family homes relative to what would be on, say, the MLS, and it'd be good to know that in terms of understanding how much of our home for sale market is being distorted by the fact that we let a lot of this stock to be short-term vacation rentals.

Um, looking at some of the um let's skip to slide six.

One more.

So, and here's it in a nutshell.

So, compressing it all down in terms of where we are in the READA cycle.

Were it uh we're 20% over what we need, where we need to be on a pro-rated basis on above market housing.

And of course, we're woefully under low and very low income housing.

And we would say that that nine percent number on moderate is part of the fact that moderate income housing can just be built on the market, in fact, or it can be NOAA.

And if we were tracking what our rents were in inventory by rent level, we would actually know do we really have this huge deficit in moderate housing, or is it just something we're not measuring?

So the key thing there though is we're not gonna get there in terms of our low, very low uh housing.

And the reason we're not gonna get there is if we're at 122 percent, developers are just gonna pull back and they're gonna stop developing until um vacancy rates come down and rents recover.

And and that means the idea that the market is gonna provide us with our affordable housing, it just isn't gonna get there from there.

So um going to the next slide.

One of the things I think is important.

We did the affordable houses now in 2023, and it had the predictable outcome that the uh 100% affordable housing projects put all their permits in.

Um, that's great.

We got all those permits, we should get the housing, but predictably we have a hangover in 2024, and um we're back down to uh to uh a much lower level on that.

The other thing you can see just in the details there is the other thing that we did is a lot of our programs allow you to build moderate deeded uh housing instead of low-income housing.

And what that's done predictably is we're starting to see that instead of getting the low and very low production, we're actually just getting moderate production, so we haven't won on that bargain either.

And with that, I'll close.

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.

We have five hands raised in the virtual queue.

Stephanie Ben Venuto, please unmute.

You'll have one minute.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm pleased to uh be speaking on behalf of the BIA.

Uh these positive numbers are reflective of policy progress and plan updates that many of us worked collaboratively on with you and your predecessors.

I wanted to just recenter this discussion quickly on the 8,000 households that are securely housed today and the real lives that are impacted when we're able to build.

We'd respectfully remind this body that uh permits do lag behind policy, so certain actions that have been taken, like narrowing our ADU density bonus program will appear downstream, and we should prepare for that impact and be looking for other ways to increase housing production.

We also appreciate the inclusion of data on bedroom counts and are eager to uh work with you all to identify more ways to build more homes appropriate for larger families.

So thank you for taking the time for this conversation.

We are pleased to be here.

Thank you.

Evan Strawn, please begin.

Good afternoon, chairly and council members.

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

One of the most important issues affecting our member businesses and their ability to attract and retain talent is our city's housing shortage.

The 2025 annual report on homes showcases the progress the city made on building more homes in 2024.

Uh, we want to plot the planning department, the mayor's team, and housing champions on the council for the hard work that has made this possible.

The report showcases the success and importance of incentive programs that lead to the development of housing, especially affordable and moderate income housing.

However, there's still much work to be done as the report highlights.

City must work on policies to further increase the number of homes, especially after restricting certain programs and adding recent development fees.

The chamber's ready to work with the city to continue tackling the housing crisis through tangible policy solutions, including college area community plan update.

Um was that planning commission speaking in support of that earlier today?

We submitted a letter with additional comments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is the original.

Please begin.

You guys in your page shields to call in and support your crap.

Oh my gosh, the housing racket propaganda update is hilarious because you guys are sitting here talking about permitting.

We still have to wait for them to actually exist.

And you guys are like, no, so good.

You did so good, permitting 8,782 homes.

Good for you guys.

This is put people in homes.

No, it didn't.

People are still waiting.

People are dying on the streets waiting because of all of this crap.

It is insane.

You're not going to meet your goal because you need 14,500 and uh 88.25 per year permitted homes that are affordable by 2029.

You're never going to accomplish that.

You can't even build homes, and you guys sit here in virtue signal.

How about we talk about when you build a home?

Let's show how many have been built, how many people are in the homes.

Until then, this is all a bunch of nonsense.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please begin.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Thanks for this item.

Nice slides from the last in-person public comment.

It showed very well that 43% of housing is dedicated to incomes over 121,000.

That's kind of shocking.

And uh at 19% is moderate income housing compared to 43% of 121,000 house incomes and up.

So that's quite a difference.

I know uh certain uh persons are really dedicated to moderate income housing and how that can offer an incredible array of flexibility and choices in the future of our housing, and can I think very much uh help to address uh you know that we swim down the ADU process that I feel still feel can be a great example for California in the future.

Uh I hope it's moderate income examples that can help lead the way.

As uh construction costs in San Diego are really low compared to other cities like the Bay Area who could not support uh these sort of things.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the queue is Kevin Sullivan, please begin.

Yeah, hi uh as pointed out by previous speakers, arena goals for affordable units are off track.

Allowing affordable units to continue to be siloed to be built in concentrated areas instead of requiring them throughout the city will increase VMT and especially while we're not building more trolley lines and improving bus services.

These actions will continue to frustrate achievement of the city's climate goals.

Uh so I ask, are we committed to those goals or not?

And as I said in the non-agenda comment in the beginning of this session, I'm opposed to land development code, the 2025 land development code, amendment 514 and 39.

And I urge you to uh remove these amendments from this year's proposals.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment.

Thank you, members of the public for participating.

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

Thank you.

Um, I appreciate the planning department's work in developing this document as it helps us better track the progress of the city in meeting our arena goals.

Um, I although I do recognize the work the city has done to create innovative programs to build more housing.

This report is sobering uh because it looks like we're not going to reach our RENA goal for moderate or affordable homes.

Uh, there's no doubt that without programs like our affordable um home density bonus program, ADU reforms, 100% affordable housing permitted and permitting incentives, complete community complete communities and inclusionary housing programs, we would probably have an even lower number of homes built at this time.

Um, in 2024, we have seen better progress than in previous years in some categories.

But the city needs a total of 108 um 108,000 new homes to uh to meet its arena targets for the 2021-2029 arena cycle uh through 2024, just 27% of the arena target has been met.

That's a total of 29,058 permitted homes.

Uh 24,260 of those fall in the above moderate income category, uh leaving just 4,798 being built that are affordable or moderate income homes.

Uh more people are finding it difficult to find a home to live in that meets their needs.

Um, because there's not enough affordable or moderate income homes being produced.

Uh, this report shows that 465 new moderate income homes were issued building permits in 2024, uh, bringing the total to 747 since 2021.

Um, this is actually an improvement over previous years, uh, but it certainly is not likely to meet the RENA goal of 19,319 homes.

Um, in fact, out of the 8,782 new homes permitted in 2024, only 1,061 were deed restricted as affordable, representing 12% of all permitted homes.

Um, the rest, 7,721 uh were meant for those making above a moderate income.

Obviously, that trend needs to change if we have any hope of making sure all San Diegans uh have a home.

Uh San Diego's quickly becoming a place that only wealthy people can afford to live in.

Uh, if we want to be able to continue to be a place where middle income residents can leave live, we need to absolutely change this.

Um I'm talking about teachers, nurses, firefighters, police officers, and many employees within the city uh workforce, um, they are the backbone of our economy, and we must find ways to make sure they could live in in a home that fits the needs of their families.

On the 2024 TCAC resource area distribution chart in the report, it shows that 68% of the cities considered a high or highest resource area.

Um this is where really where we should be focused on building more affordable homes.

Uh since 2021, only 19% of all homes permitted were in the highest resource areas, which compromise about 52% of the city.

There simply needs to be more homes built in these areas that are affordable or moderate.

Um what can this council do to help facilitate more affordable homes being constructed in highest resource areas?

Um thank you.

Thank you for the question.

Um, yes, thank you for noting um that particular um slide on that slide deck.

Um the city planning department has a variety of um items in its work program, including one um called neighborhood homes for all of us.

Uh we look forward um to working with this council and many stakeholder groups to identify um additional opportunities within uh high and highest resource areas, increased zoning capacity.

Um I don't think that it is a secret um that one of the constraints that has existed for many, many, many decades to having more homes in these areas that they is that they have been zoned for single family zoning for such a long time.

Um single family zoning is by and large not conducive um to affordable housing.

Um so those are the types of efforts um that we look forward to working with this committee and the council to bring forward in the coming future.

Thank you.

Thank you for that response.

Uh finally, I want uh to note that according to this report, 653 new ADU homes were issued through the ADU home density bonus program in 2024, with 253 of those being affordable.

Um I truly believe that ADUs are an important part of the city's efforts to create more homes.

And let me stress they are homes.

People do live in them.

Um however, the council altered the program earlier this year, and I would expect that that amount of homes created through this program will decrease.

Uh does staff have any projection on what those numbers might look like in the future?

Uh we do not have any prediction on that.

That is one of the reasons why we do the annual reporting is so we can monitor uh the outcomes of certain policies that have been put into place.

Um what we hope to do, as I had mentioned in the answer to your previous question, um, was um to look for additional opportunities to provide more housing.

They may not be in the form of ADUs, but may be in the form of other types of um more types of affordable housing, especially at that moderate income level, um, such as in the forum of row homes or town homes or other types of missing middle-type housing.

Thank you.

Um I look forward to continuing to work with the planning department and solving this problem because if we cannot find additional ways to build more moderate and affordable homes, our cities going to see more homeless as well as issues with attracting people to come work and live here if they don't think they could find an affordable home that their family fits in.

So again, um thank you uh for the report, and I appreciate all the work that the planning department team uh does and continues to do, and and it's a pleasure.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to Vice Chair Ila Rivera.

All right.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Thanks to the report, all the work on this.

Um just to kind of pick up where Councilmember Moreno left off.

I think the obviously there's certain progress being made.

There's um policy lovers that the city has pulled uh that are making a difference when it comes to housing production.

The next project though is to make sure that we have the sort of housing that San Diegans need in order to see a future here.

Um and the reality is is that uh while the addition of all housing helps in a sense, um we're definitely not getting the production that we need from uh in that middle income and and even more affordable uh uh range.

So I actually think this is like there's a little bit more that we can do on the planning front.

I think that what Heidi was just speaking to is important for sure, but the reality is is that um we're the market's not gonna do this for us.

Like I don't know how much we're gonna like kind of sit around and stare and hope that the corporations and those who seek or need profit in order to um uh build build housing are going to magically decide that um making housing that's affordable for San Diegans is gonna is gonna be the thing that that um they're gonna start to commit to.

And if they're not going to do that, which there's zero evidence that they will, then we have to actually ask ourselves as a city um to what extent we're willing to invest in that.

And that's going to mean resources at the local level to invest in middle income uh and and uh and and more affordable housing.

So I appreciate the work that we're doing.

I think that it's important.

I also think that it's really important for us to be honest with it with ourselves and know that we cannot plan ourselves out of this completely.

Uh that is a that is a part of it.

Um but the public is going to need to invest in the things that the market is unwilling to do, and the market has shown for decades what it's unwilling to do.

Uh and so we have to ask ourselves what we're going to do about that.

Um we've got some ideas, um, but at the end of the day, it's going to require resources here at the local level.

Um and then the the last thing I'll note is um, you know, I think that's going to be especially true when it comes to making housing that is affordable in high resource communities.

Um the land in those communities is more expensive, which makes it even more likely that the private market's just gonna do that on its own.

Um so uh I I again appreciate the work that we're doing here in this committee, but um we're gonna have to get if we're gonna get really serious about making housing that's affordable for San Diego and giving folks an opportunity to see a future here, uh, we're gonna make sure need to make sure that we resource that.

And that's gonna start with that's going to need to start with resources at the local level.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Next up is Council Member Kimpio.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to our staff for the presentation uh and uh for uh members of the public for their comments and their uh insights.

Uh I guess one of the first questions I have is I see that um the ADU bonus program this last year accounted for 653 of the permits.

Uh how many of those ADUs of those bonus ADUs were in properties over that were building four or more?

Uh given the new regulation we've put in place.

I remember the metric that we were seeing during that discussion that is that roughly 97% of the projects that were utilizing bonus ADU were three or less.

And then so that would mean that 3% were four or more.

Do we have a sense of that six how much of that 653 are units that are in the larger um construction models?

I think we can pull that data for you here really quickly if if we can have just uh a few minutes.

I'll let you pull that while we you can figure that out.

Um knowing that the state requirement is as it relates to our housing element and obviously we have to we have to meet certain requirements to remain in compliance and we have a goal of over a hundred thousand units in a decade to meet our arena goals.

Um do you have a sense of where San Diego falls relative to other municipalities in terms of percentage towards that goal?

If other cities are far behind us, if other cities are well ahead of us.

Um I've heard from the former mayor of Lemming Grove uh um saying that they're the only city in the county that's like even above or are meeting that goal.

Um because I supporting housing, especially in District 7, I'm looking at how Navajo and Linda Vista and other parts are more uh seeing their share of new housing go up.

Um I think I think District 7 probably has either the second or third most new housing units going up after District 3.

Um where do we sit as a city relative to these goals that were in essence um not mandated but uh calculated for us at the state level?

Sure.

So the the uh California Department of Housing and Community Development uh does track the progress of cities uh being uh progress being made on the RENA goals that were allocated to each jurisdiction.

And for the last I'd say um 10 years or so, it's been uh the vast majority of cities are not meeting the goal.

Um I think the the issue is that there's different uh schedules that each region is on.

So uh an apples to apples comparison to our region would only be with cities within our region, but usually it is a small number of cities that are actually meeting the goals.

Okay, and it's usually very, very small cities too, right?

Usually, yeah, because they'll get a smaller allocation and they can cover that in uh fewer developments than a larger number would be.

Understood.

But you don't know where we fall in line with other municipalities, just strictly speaking, are we in the top quartile of meeting the goal relative to what we I mean, obviously if we have tens of thousands to go, that's not that's not great because uh we don't want to miss legally required goals.

But if given all the things that go into developing housing, subsidy, uh tax credits, private, completely private, completely market-driven.

Um to get a sense of the re realisticness of that goal, given all the things that go into making that calculation.

Are we ahead of other municipalities?

Are we behind municipalities per capita real you know, in terms of how this ratio should break down for San Diego relative to other places?

Sure.

Take Gablo, Deputy Director.

I think it's something we can look into and get back to in terms of looking at pure cities for California, uh where we exactly fit in comparably.

Okay, understood.

And and what happens at the end of the cycle if we haven't met our arena goal?

So the only implication right now is through SB 35, which was a state bill that said that if a jurisdiction is not meeting its RENA target, that certain developments would be required required to be allowed by right.

So that's a builder's remedy, right?

Correct.

Okay.

Does that suggest that the vast, vast, vast majority of California is gonna have the builder's remedy because the vast, vast, vast majority of municipalities are not meeting the arena goal?

It is likely.

Okay.

I know that on certain legislation we've seen many municipalities and many counties get exempted out of housing requirements for whatever reason, and you know, San Diego wasn't uh for whatever reason.

Um I think it would be important for the city attorney's office, if I might request, to lay that out for us since we are at the mid part of the decade, mid-part of the cycle, um, to get a sense of that.

But I also think that since we haven't yet calculated where we are relative to other municipalities, uh, in terms of the percentage towards the goal, it's it seems it seems pretty strange to me that we're gonna have HCD, let's just say it's 95% of the cities in in California come down and say we have builders' remedy for 95% of the cities.

That doesn't seem like something that's very realistic.

Um, when you violate your approved housing element, that seems very realistic that they would that the building rem or builders remedy would kick in.

Um but did you find the calculation in the time you were given?

Yes, we did.

We in 2024 there were 14 uh developments of ADU bonus programs that were four homes or greater.

Okay.

How many total ADUs did that account for out of the 653?

164.

Okay.

So uh 164 out of 653, that's roughly a quarter, a quarter of the ADU bonus units were on the larger scale ones that the new regulation uh was kicked in to regulate more more strictly, and about 75 percent that were still on the on the smaller scale.

So just to give that a sense of proportionality, I appreciate you pulling that very, very quickly.

Um I don't have any other questions at this moment.

Um do we do we anticipate this going to full council for all council members to have input?

We do in November.

November.

Sorry, you had that on the slide.

Thank you.

Uh I'm sure I'll have more questions then.

Thanks for your good work.

Thank you to my colleagues.

I think a lot uh of questions have probably been answered.

Um, but I am pleased to see the report, obviously showing that we are continuing to have an upward trajectory, at least compared to the prior years before the last two years, in terms of the number of homes permitted.

Um and as Councilmember Moreno, I think shared, uh, even that number obviously is not at the level at which we would need year over year in order to hit our um target.

Um and that number in in my mind, one thing I'd love to see is that number in comparison to the capacity that we've tried to drive for housing in recent years, uh, I suspect is an extremely small percentage, um, despite some of the efforts that we have put forward with community plan updates and such, um, which I think reflects some of the conversations we've had previously about how housing capacity does not ultimately equal production.

Um my concern at the moment, frankly, is just that we are seeing ourselves in a pretty shaky economic environment at the moment.

Um we've certainly seen a slow down when it comes to commercial um office retail, et cetera.

Um I would not be surprised if what's lagging behind that is some concern about um housing as well, especially on the affordable housing side where some of the tools that we've had access to at the state level and beyond have now come off of um recent state budgets.

And we're under an administration where housing policy and what they're putting forward to that is a little uncertain.

Part of it being the high percentage of the city that is set as highest in high resource areas, and yet how few number of affordable homes get built in those areas.

And I think Councilman Riilo Rivera is not here at the moment now, but you know, mentioned just the reality of the cost of land acquisition in some of those areas makes things much more difficult.

And I think part of our challenge everywhere is that the current opportunities we have to allow for housing to develop affordable housing or more affordable housing tends to only come from within the housing ecosystem itself.

And that limitation has that's a huge limitation.

It doesn't mean that we don't need to build, it does mean that we do, but it just also means that sometimes the only amount of affordable housing we're getting is as a part of some of the policies we have that require it.

Um outside of that, it's it's difficult to um to incentivize it in a way that actually has it taking place naturally.

Um I'm glad that there are a number of uh developments within district six neighborhoods, uh Kernamesa, Miramesa, where we've had the opportunity to actually contribute to the affordable housing for those developments on site.

Um something that again, I think we we often push for within our communities, doesn't always get delivered, um, but we appreciate seeing when those opportunities get actually built within the projects themselves.

Um I too looked at the percentage of new homes that are um listed as ADU homes, um, but recognizing actually that they're really a small piece of the bigger puzzle at the end of the day.

So I know we've had a lot of tough discussions on that this year, but it's only 26% of the new homes that we're seeing.

It's not the solution to the housing crisis, uh, even if it's just a piece of it.

Um one item that I'm curious about as we track future um reports is whether AB 1033 is utilized and how it is utilized.

Um I know that that took that was a long road to getting that um initiated, and even some of the early jurisdictions, I think San Jose is an example, just had their first um units that came online under that program.

So mostly interested in that because it's uh again a rare opportunity to actually provide home ownership, um, which is not something that we typically see.

Um every year, I think one of the big things we discuss is just how hard it is to quantify what gets counted, not as low and very low, because I think because of the policies and incentives that we have, we actually get to deed restrict a number of those, but especially moderate income homes.

And so I I hear the comment about how such a large proportion of the homes that we're building are um above moderate, um, but they're also classified that way because we have no data to tell us whether they're actually whether they're within a market range for that allows us to calculate that as moderate.

And I'm not saying we use this as a as a mechanism, but obviously there was some recent discussion about how the county approaches their classification of ADUs a little bit differently, where they actually take a percentage of ADUs that they believe are built specifically to help with housing for family or other uses that are basically as they presume to be low income slash free.

Um so I I do continue to wonder.

I mean, I think part of the challenge with Arena is that it's a bunch of numbers thrown at us, but yet we don't have a tool to actually recognize where moderate income units are being built.

Um and somehow we need to be able to quantify that for us to understand because right now the report seems to show us that we're overbuilding on above moderate homes.

But if we if we actually had some way of recognizing how many of those were actually within the moderate range, the reality might be that we're just barely building enough above moderate, and that there's actually a whole slew of moderate income homes that we're not quantifying at the moment.

Um and there's just no way to know that because on paper it's all shifted into that higher category.

So I just bring that up because uh it's a conversation we've also had at Sandag in terms of how to approach these discussions with the state.

Um, again, recognizing that the city of San Diego as a whole is drastically different than some of our counterparts within the region.

So uh the challenges of reaching those goals and counting them is totally different.

Um at this uh at the very end of the day, I think what we do need to continue recognizing is that the cost of um affording to live here in San Diego is astronomical.

It has risen at a rate that nowhere um comes close to pacing what people's incomes have risen, and just the fact that a family of four needs to make well over six figures at this point in order to live in the city means that we should certainly celebrate the progress that we're making, but we gotta figure out how to amplify that in a way that um and again with limited resources that would actually allow for more families to live in San Diego and to reach the lower income levels that we may not be touching upon.

So I will go ahead and adjourn this meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next regularly scheduled meeting, which is on Thursday, November 6th, 2025 at 1 o'clock p.m.

We are adjourned.