Good afternoon.

Welcome to the land use and housing committee meeting of June eleventh, twenty twenty-six.

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

Councilmember Whitburn.

Councilmember Marino and Chair Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Also attending the meeting today, Chris Ackerman Avila with Mayor Todd Gloria's office, Deputy City Attorney Karen Newfer with the City Attorney's Office, Amy Lee with the independent budget analysts office, and Angeli Hoyos, committee consultant.

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

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

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins.

Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing 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 one six six nine two five four five two five two.

The webinar ID is one six one seven nine five one nine three three pound.

This information is also available on the agenda.

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

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

If you wish to speak on a particular item, wait for that item to be called, and then raise your hand to speak by tapping the raise your hand icon, or if you're a column participant, press star nine on your phone.

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

Chair.

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

A quorum is now present.

For public and staff's awareness, we will be hearing items out of order today.

After the consent agenda, we'll be hearing item three, followed by item four, which is on our information agenda, and then we'll go back to item two on the discussion agenda.

Nonagenda public comment will be heard at the end of today's uh meeting.

Uh, do we have any committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, and independent budget analyst comments?

Hearing none.

Do we have any requests for continuance?

Hearing none.

We will now take up the consent agenda.

And once again, the order that we'll be going with is items one, three, four, and then two, followed by non-agenda public comment.

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

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

Thank you, Chair.

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

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

Each speaker will have one minute to speak to the consent agenda.

We currently have one speaker who has submitted a speaker slip here in the committee room, and there's one hand raised in the virtual queue.

Maximilian Schmidt, please approach the elector.

You'll have one minute to speak to item one.

Hi, my name is Max Schmidt, and I don't mean to be facetious.

Um, I'm here in the belly of the beast of the New World Order, which is San Diego City Hall.

And I just want to say I disapprove of the committee minutes because I believe the minutes need to have a special asterisk next to them for who's a Freemason.

And the reason why is because uh Freemasons are a communist organization, and we need to figure out uh more clearly what's going on here with this occult gibberish.

Um, and also I just want to say that um the reason this is also important is why I want to asterisk Freemasons because Freemasons are actually use using English word programming to try and get people to be afraid to say God is not dead.

And if people repeat the state name Nevada, they can free their minds.

And if they repeat and people are literally afraid to say God is not dead.

However, in 1917, there was a um indisputable miracle of proving God is not dead, and we need to have an asterisk to figure out who's a Freemason in the minutes.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

There's one hand raised in the virtual queue.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and provide your comments.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Um thanks for the meeting today.

I wanted to speak on the uh quickly offer on the meeting minutes from last time that you had affordable housing fund annual plan things.

You're talking about affordable housing uh ideas this week in committee meetings uh based on middle income ideas.

And uh it's been an interesting week with that.

Thank you.

Good luck, uh, as always.

Good luck in um understanding very low and extremely low housing, what we can be doing for that.

I'm hopeful in what we can be developing at this time and and how mixed income can help a lot with that.

And to quickly uh uh conclude, not to also be facetious.

Uh it's my understanding on the surface that pre-masons tend, I feel have more of a sense of a confusionism in how they work.

And the fact that they're so dedicated to bureaucracy, that's what people get angry about.

And uh about the bloodletting things.

Um, we all kind of have those fears, and I think we work hard here, everyone at public meetings to make sure that bad practices don't happen.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker on the consent agenda.

Who raised their hand is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, land use and housing.

I'd like to speak to the main meeting notes from last month.

Excuse me.

And what I'd like to mention is that I spoke about how wise and important it is for housing and for land use in general to have smoke free and free policy.

And what I'd like to add to that is that we have a golden opportunity, and I know later on you're going to be looking at legislation, but we definitely have an opportunity to look at current pending legislation AB 455, which would give the city an opportunity to weigh in in support of housing projects that the state is helping to fund, and that they could be required to be smoke free.

A survey done by San Diego State University suggested that that is already often the case.

So this would not be an unusual thing to do.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And our final speaker on item one is Hector.

Please unmute and begin.

Oh, I thought I was going to speak on four.

I thought this was for the minutes, all right, but they're fine with me.

I'll I'll I'll do later on item four.

Okay.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

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

I'll get it started by move.

Oh, we have a motion by Councilmember Whitburn.

I'll second the consent agenda.

Seeing no other comments, we'll go ahead and call the rule.

And that passes unanimously with Councilmember Moreno absent.

Thank you.

We'll now go ahead and hear our discussion agenda item number three.

Natalie, will you please introduce the item?

Thank you, Chair.

Item number three, resolution supporting assembly bill 1903, assembly bill 1406, and assembly bill 1070 aimed at expanding homeownership opportunities.

Chair.

Thank you.

Before we begin on this item, I do want to start off by welcoming and thanking our presenters for the next two items.

Uh first is my director of policy, Madison Coleman, and then Mohammed Almadeen will be joining us today to present uh the next item uh for the land use and housing committee.

As the land use and housing chair, I along with the mayor's office and my colleagues have been eager to find uh to figure out the many ways we can continue to advance more housing opportunities throughout San Diego.

Uh today's informational item uh as well as well today's next informational item and this discussion item are meant to look specifically at home ownership with a focus on how important entry-level for sale housing is to our ecosystem.

I'm hopeful that my colleagues and the public will find this uh these presentations educational as well as to look at how we can consider policy uh now and into the future, whether it's to help meet the city's long-term housing goals or policy that is advancing at the state level as well.

So, with that said, uh, we'll pass it over to Madison.

Thank you.

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

I am Madison Coleman, director of policy for Council President Pro Tim Lee, here to present a resolution of support for the package of state bills aimed at expanding home ownership opportunities.

The housing crisis continues to be one of the greatest generational challenges we face.

This affects all San Diegans from working families to young professionals to seniors on a fixed income.

Regionally, home ownership specifically continues to become less obtainable for our communities.

In 2025, only around 17% of households in the county of San Diego earned enough to purchase a medium priced home.

Most recently, San Diego County became the fifth most expensive place to own a home out of the 50 largest metro areas in the nation.

In the city of San Diego, the median income household is approximately 11,000, while the median housing price is approximately 930,000.

As a result, San Diego's home ownership rate currently sits at approximately 47%.

In comparison, California's statewide rate is approximately 55%, while the national average is approximately 65%.

Several factors contribute to the lack of home ownership opportunities across California.

In an effort to mitigate our ongoing housing crisis, state officials have brought forward a legislation focused on expanding pathways to home ownership.

This package includes AB 1903, which aims to reduce housing costs by updating existing construction defect rules, giving builders time to correct flaws or defects in new construction, tightening the threshold for defect claims before lawyers in courtrooms get involved, and providing homeowners with clear procedures and protections for handling proven defects.

A B 1406, which will raise current limits on home buyer deposits in new housing developments, and support builders lower their construction and financing costs by reducing risk to lenders and investors, ultimately leading to lower cost homes, lower cost homes for Californians.

And AB 1070, which will direct state agencies to study how using the residential building code for small multifamily home projects could accelerate the construction of missing middle housing.

All three bills have passed the assembly floor.

With that, Council District 6 requests to work with the city attorney's office and other relevant departments to prepare a resolution to support a package of state bills that expand home ownership opportunities and lower barriers to affordable homeownership.

Thank you.

That concludes my presentation.

Happy to take any questions or comments you may have.

Thank you.

We'll see if there's public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

As a reminder, this is the public comment period for item three.

So if you're in the virtual queue and wish to provide comment for item three, please raise your hand at this time.

We have received seven speaker slips for item three here in the committee room.

Each speaker will have one and a half minutes, so one minute 30 seconds.

We will begin with Joy Sanyata.

And if I can please have the following come up to the reserve seats.

Area Grossman, Max Schmidt, and Gathery Leonard.

Good morning.

Good afternoon.

Thank you.

We have wonderful people sponsoring these three bills.

Thank you so very much.

And I do want to go ahead and thank the city attorney's office for whatever they're going to do that's required to put the reso together for us.

So really appreciate that.

I really haven't reviewed the bills.

I just haven't had time yet.

I'll share with you questions that just popped up.

I didn't have time to answer them for myself, but I'll put them out there for you.

Okay.

How many homes are available for sale?

Don't people with high incomes usually win the bidding for sale?

The houses that are for sale, they win that bidding.

How much land in San Diego is available for new homes to be built, you know, those single homes.

Is the glut of ADUs?

That's the lower priced items, a real boon for middle income people.

For me, what would be wonderful about it?

I just, it wouldn't be the house, it wouldn't be the home.

It would be touching the land that I owned.

Thank you.

So thank you so much and love to all.

Thank you.

Arya.

Good afternoon.

My name is Arya.

I'm the policy manager at circulate planning and policy, and I'm speaking in strong support for this resolution.

Thank you to Chair Lee and staff for bringing this forward.

California is facing a housing crisis, and while San Diego has made some progress, much more needs to be done to make sure that people can afford to live comfortably in our city.

This means more rental and foresale housing at all price points and all districts across the city.

These three bills proposed for support today help make progress towards this goal.

A B 1903 would address barriers that make building homes, especially critical product types like condos and townhomes more expensive and difficult, sometimes even prohibitively so.

A B 1406 would address some of the financing barriers that builders face when uh by reforming deposit caps.

Supporting these types of cost-saving measures means buyers can see lower prices too.

A B 1070 makes progress towards creating building codes appropriate for smaller multifamily homes, a critical product type that we know is key to unlocking more affordable housing.

These are good bills that warrant support by the city.

San Diego has long been a leader in California on housing.

We've produced local innovations like reforms to density bonus law that are now building thousands of homes statewide.

Circulate is happy to see the chair's continued engagement on making sure that San Diego remains a statewide leader on housing.

Thank you for your efforts here.

Thank you, Maximilian Schmidt, and you'll be followed by Guthrie Leonard, Ian Grooms, Manny Rodriguez, and Jeffrey Hoarder.

Hi, I just wanted to uh make my voice heard here at San Diego City Hall that I do not support the resolution of these three bills.

Um I do not support them at all.

I'm opposed to them, and I want to say the reason why I'm opposed to them.

The reason why I'm opposed to them is because I have reason to believe that everyone on San Diego in San Diego City Hall are uh telepathic Freemasons, and they know why I believe that.

They know they're guilty.

It's because I'm experiencing neuro-linguistic harassment.

I'm not crazy.

I know about the occult, I know what's going on.

And I just wanted to say, how about we create a bill for housing that encourages people not to be atheist because there is an enormous, extremely exciting amount of studies where it's almost hidden knowledge to the world, where if you're a person of faith, you actually have a higher mental health, and there's connections to mental health and work, mental health and uh home ownership, and we can have um maybe if you're going to steal our taxes, you can or try to mess with the market, you can at least try to promote the miracle of the sun in 1917, which is a um indisputable, non-controversial miracle instead of all this like bogus new world order stuff when a lot of you guys are Marxists who want us to not worship the one true God, but like a transgender um pride flag or something.

I just wanted to say I do not support the resolution of these three bills because you're Freemasons.

Thank you.

Guthrie Leonard.

Uh hi, council.

Uh, I had the opportunity a few weeks ago actually to go up to Sacramento and advocate for a couple of these bills.

I think they're really important and really impactful.

And more importantly to the community, like these bills wouldn't really change anything except whether the units being built are for rent or for sale.

And I really think that for sale housing is something that's not being built at all.

It's, you know, a very small minority of the units that are getting built, and also, you know, homeownership is just patently out of reach for most of San Diego.

And so I'm really excited about these bills, specifically uh AB 1406 because really this bill is a small thing, but it allows both the future purchasers of these units to have a bigger stake, and then also for the larger contributors, the larger financers of these projects, it gives them less risk, so they're more likely to be willing to put their money forward.

And it really, it's not controversial.

It brings us in line with our international and other state peers, uh, including other states that have even higher contribution caps.

So I'm really excited for these bills, and I hope you will move forward with this resolution.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Ian Grooms.

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Ian Grooms.

I'm encouraging this committee to support all three assembly bills on today's agenda.

I'd like to highlight the importance of passing assembly bill 1903.

Currently, state law allows homeowners and condominium owners to file construction defect claims if there is quote reasonable detail to support their claims.

Due to this opaque standard, condominium developments are very likely to face legal challenges.

The strong likelihood of legal challenges discourages developers from building new affordable condominiums.

In 2005, over 7,000 condominiums were constructed in the city of San Diego.

And to in 2022, only 500 condominiums were constructed in the city.

This represents a 61.5% decrease in condominium construction.

Since San Diego continues to experience a home and condominium shortage, we need to increase our supply of new homes and condominiums.

Assembly Bill 1903 ensures that frivolous legal challenges do not prevent us from building much needed housing.

I hope that this committee supports assembly bill 1903 and all the assembly bills today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez.

Good afternoon, Council members.

Great to see you all.

I'm also here to speak in support of all three bills.

A common complaint that we hear across the city from regular people is that everything being built is just for rent.

And you know, people want home ownership opportunities.

These bills are that opportunity for this council to weigh in on that and tell the people that hey, we are actually trying to make the new construction for sale, not just for rent.

These bills, specifically the condo defect liability ones will tackle some of the key issues that prevent new buildings from being for rent.

Specifically with condo defect liability, it's become too much of a hassle for home builders to build condos because of the liability being so skewed against them that they're inevitably inevitably going to face lawsuits, and there's a whole cottage mill industry about suing home builders who build condos.

So obviously, everyone's not touching condos with the 10-foot pole.

Let's fix that.

Let's endorse this bill and let's get some more for sale units built instead of full rent.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the committee room is Jeffrey.

Great thanks.

I'm uh Jeffrey Huder, um, Chair of Neighbors for a Better San Diego.

So we submitted the position paper that we sent to the uh state um legislative portal on this, so I won't go through all the details.

The one thing we want to highlight, we think SB or AB 1903 is the most important of these bills because it it unblocks the construction defect litigation, obstacle to building new condominiums.

The one thing that we are strongly asking for is there's this is all being created by having a regime of of private inspections of these processes and then certification of the buildings, and what's missing from the bill that would go a long way to making it stronger and more uh trusted by the public would be to add a condition that all of the inspection reports that are being used to certify the building be also made available as part of the disclosures of the sale.

So all that means is the the builder would take the reports that they used in order to get certification of the building, those would be included in the disclosure for the for uh to the buyer, and then the buyer would have the ability to look at those.

And what is important about this is uh for the builder is you can't very well say I didn't tell you what was going on if you give the person all the disclosure.

So we think this is a mutual benefit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

There are eight hands raised in the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer.

As a reminder, please raise your hand at this time if you have comments on item three, and we will begin with Hector.

Hector, please unmute and I'll comment on three.

Thanks for taking my call.

I'd be lear of anything that comes out of the state.

The all the state laws they passed recently for San Diego, they've never given us the money.

It's been very detrimental, it's created a lot of problems.

But they're trying to do some things up there.

Plus, the state is just crooked.

They're hiring homeless guys to pay off votes to vote on the homeless shelters.

Even down in old town, guys are giving out money for guys to sign petitions to the homeless guys.

But anyway, once we wrap up, I'm for I'm for you guys know this.

I'm for the rapid deportation of all the illegal aliens in San Diego County.

And once we do that, we can work with HUD and find them.

We know where they are, and once we get them and they're out of here, that's gonna free up a hundred thousand units of rentals.

Even the Chinese guys have homeowners, Chinese nationals up in uh Delmar Heights, they have their kids go on to that school up there, Florida Pines.

So you used to live up there for a while, quite a while.

A lot of Chinese nationals.

These aren't American citizens, and they're up to no good, man.

They're using it, they're doing places that have kids.

They do the pregnancy vacation and become citizens.

Dropping babies and then go back to China, and they're and that's totally hopefully it's gonna be effective.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

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

Good afternoon, Charlie and Council members.

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

I want to start by thanking city staff for bringing this item forward and express the chamber's strong support for a resolution in favor of this assembly bill package.

We would like to highlight our support for AB 1903 as it represents a step towards removing barriers to foresale housing construction and affordable home ownership opportunities.

In addition to these three bills, we would also like to respectfully request the committee support for assembly bill 1834 by assembly member Patel.

This bill would provide mixed use development projects with a tentative map exemption, fast tracking the approval process for mixed use projects, and streamlining multifamily housing production.

We believe this bill will work with the legislation in this package to create new tools that will boost housing production and expand homeownership opportunities for San Diegans.

We thank you for your consideration and we look forward to this resolution and to the committee's support for this bill.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippett.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee.

I want to support the earlier comment regarding future housing being smoke free, but I also wanted to speak on item AB 1903.

Like many California legislative bills on the surface, the goal is to update state construction defect laws to create a streamlined process for resolving defects in newly built homes.

That sounds good, but at the same time, the term streamline has become a red flag to San Diego residents, as it is a term that often means the public process of approval will be expedited and weakened, and in the extreme result in projects that become ministerial, losing the more robust oversight of projects that previously allowed public oversight.

It is not surprising that the building industry wants to reduce or eliminate the potential lawsuits against them.

No one likes frivolous lawsuits, but the downside is that the approval will create fewer opportunities for the public, and you need the individual feedback.

There was an article today in the union that talked about the surprise that the council was finally seemed to be coming aware of the resident, the priorities of residents.

They should not be surprised.

They would not be surprised if they had listened to the planning group, their authorized planning groups because they are the people that will tell you what is going on.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker is Natalie Rashke.

Natalie, please unmute and provide your comments.

Hi, Natalie here.

I just have um a couple questions.

Who would this really in the long run benefit?

Where do we build this density housing?

At the end of the day, is it a burden to communities that are already overburdened?

Have we researched really who benefits these assembly bills and building?

I understand needing to build more in San Diego.

But I caution in who is actually benefiting in the long run when we're doing businesses with these companies.

And from my understanding, um the oh my gosh, I lost my train of thought.

Um I'll have to come, I'll have to think about it.

I'll remember, but this is seems like always there seems to be these buildings, and it never really is investing in San Diego.

It helps big companies attain more properties and more money for them.

Are they reinvesting into San Diego?

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer concluded.

We have five hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these five.

Kenneth Bush Moreno, I've asked you to unmute.

Please unmute and provide your comments.

Thank you so much.

I would like to quickly speak in favor of the three proposed bills.

Um San Diego does need more housing, and we need to make sure that we are able to keep San Diego in our communities.

And by having more affordable and accessible housing, we can make sure that people can live in San Diego and contribute to our communities.

Again, I would like to clearly reinstate my support of the three bills that are being offered, and I would like to conclude my time.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jay Goldberg.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, I'm in District 3.

Um I disagree with A B 1903 removing the legal recourse on construction defects.

I'm the owner of a condo that had a building defect remediated by the builder.

What you're talking about here is shutting down any real adjudication of grievances.

I'm amazed that developers admit that they cannot deliver a defect free product.

In what other industry is that acceptable?

The way that businesses have operated in the last decade has changed drastically.

Deflect, deflect, deflect is the name of the game.

Have you tried reaching a real onshore employee authority to resolve an issue?

The only way they take you seriously is to file a lawsuit.

To me, the smacks of the same injustice that is forced arbitration.

California has already had to pass laws to undo the damage caused by these sorts of deprivations of justice.

CSB 940.

I have no opposition to their bills.

The missing middle is where we should have been building all along, but as you know, land cost increases to account for the excess utility created by this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Krishna Hammond, please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh is Krishna.

I'm a uh president of District 3.

Uh, I'm calling in support of item three and the uh suite of three bills.

I think that A B uh 1903 is particularly important.

I think that more condos are important for people like like me and my family who are looking to get into the homeownership game.

And uh I think that you know, there's been a real lack of opportunity in that area, particularly because of lack of supply.

And uh yeah, I think that it's really important that San Diego continues to show leadership in this area.

And uh yeah, I think that not just me, but my neighbors are really enthusiastic about the opportunities for uh new building, particularly here in North Park.

I'm a member of the North Park planning committee, and uh, you know, we've received a lot of positive feedback for some of the stuff that the council's been doing.

So uh yeah, thank you so much for your time and uh hope you have good rest of your day.

Thank you.

Tyler, please unmute and provide your comments.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Um I'm here to support a resolution in favor of these bills.

Um, as a lot of the other speakers have said, I mean, this we do need a path toward more homeownership right now.

The city uh really does focus on a lot is either apartments or um, you know, million plus dollar homes.

Um, I think this is also really important, something we need to be said about like getting my generation, generation below me, more engaged, more more um, you know, civically engaged in the in the city and where they're n they live.

I think one of the obstacles is just a sense of uh, you know, transients and the fact that you don't know where you can be able to live in a year or two or three um when you're constantly renting, you know, trying to save up first uh something that costs a million dollars isn't really feasible.

Uh so we really do need to have some options for you know other alternatives, uh, that aren't single family, um, that isn't just rental rentals.

Uh yeah, I really do think it would improve civic discourse and just get people more invested in their communities.

Um, and so yeah.

I'm in support of all these.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the queue with their hand raised is is Justin.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, Council members.

I'm here in support of uh AB 1070.

Um, as I most of the other speakers have mentioned, um, we need more housing desperately.

Um, and we have uh citizens who are uh unhoused uh on our streets, and that number is going up um every year.

Uh, easy for all of us to discuss these things um and sit here, but uh the action needs to be taken so that people can start buying homes and people can stop having situations where they're forced to either leave the state or not go or go without a house.

Um, so yeah, I support all these bills, especially AB 1070, and I hope that we can make some action on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item three.

Thank you, and thank you for the presentation.

Um I'm happy to kick us off.

Uh I want to first off thank members of the public for their comments uh on this resolution, and also to those who mentioned that they have been advocating for these bills at the state level as well.

Um housing attainability continues to be out of reach for much of San Diego.

And simply put, there are neither enough housing units nor options for those who are seeking housing opportunities.

Even with the new units that are coming online at a meaningful pace here in the city of San Diego, the lack of for sale options means that our limited supply of home ownership opportunities continues to be heavily strained.

I've especially always recognized that the housing crisis might look different to everyone in our region.

For those who have long owned their home, it may not even seem like there's a crisis.

Yet for so many working families who are trying to get by, and especially for young people, it's hard not to feel like the American dream is just that a dream.

We used to have this idea that you could go and get a good education, land a well-paying job, choose to start a family, and save up along the way to purchase an entry-level home.

And while it was easier to do that back in the day, even a decade ago, it certainly is not anymore.

For so many San Diegans, rent has gone up exponentially, meaning saving for down payments has now become out of reach before we even think of the cost of the home itself.

And if we had to purchase again, I can tell you that my wife and I could not afford our very home today.

So here in the city of San Diego, we're certainly proud to have taken steps, significant steps to broaden housing capacity, through our land use updates, to continuously update components of our code, and to streamline permitting.

We've seen the impacts of that in recent years through the number of housing permits pooled each year, and recent studies have shown that the cost of rent has been declining year over year in the city.

But the next challenge we face is to ensure that the capacity we've created actually results in actual housing production, and that we continue to specifically expand for sale homeownership opportunities as well.

I think this is where the state plays an extremely important role, and we want to share our gratitude to assembly members Wix as well as our very own assembly member Chris Ward for bringing these bills forward, which I believe help to address three different barriers when it comes to homeownership production: litigation risk, financing risk, and regulatory complexity.

Um I do also want to note that as this item moves forward that these may not be the only state bills addressing homeownership at this time.

So as we take the next step to bring this item to council, uh our team looks forward to continuing our discussions with any stakeholders uh on any other prospective bills uh and whether they should be included as long as they are focused on expanding home ownership opportunities.

Uh so with that, I'll go ahead and move the staff's recommendation and we'll turn next to Councilmember Whipper.

Thank you very much, Terry Lee, Ms.

Coleman, uh, the district six team, thank you for bringing this forward and for the presentation today.

Thank you for those who are advocating for these bills statewide and here locally and here today.

The number one concern I hear from my constituents uh is the high cost of living.

Uh and much of that is, of course, the result of the high cost of housing.

Addressing the cost of housing requires that we increase the supply of housing uh at all kinds of housing, and that includes homeownership opportunities.

During public comment that we just heard, I very much appreciated the question that Ms.

Rashke asked.

Uh she asked, who does this benefit?

And I would say that increasing homeownership opportunities and building more condos helps a lot of my constituents.

Many people want to live here in district three in the urban core of our city, but they can't afford a single-family house.

A condo may be more affordable.

And if we create the environment where more condos are being built here in this part of town, but people can stay here in an area that is close to transit, in an area that is close to jobs, close to many of the things people like about living in the center of the city.

I'm sure that's true of many of the districts.

We have a 40-story condo building going up five blocks from City Hall.

We need more of that.

And as some of these people who currently live in apartments, move into condos that frees up apartments for others and helps address the cost of uh apartment buildings as well.

So I want to also recognize the two of these bills are authored by uh assemblymember Ward.

He has been a champion in Sacramento for increasing housing opportunities and uh for making this region more affordable.

Uh I applaud that, and I am happy to second the motion.

Thank you.

We have a motion by myself, a second by Councilmember Woodburn.

We'll turn next to Vice Chair Elo Rivera.

All right, thank you, Chair.

Uh thanks for bringing this item.

Um I will have a little bit more to say on the other home ownership item that we're discussing, but um all the reasons that were said, this is it's such an important issue.

Um the way that the um the ground is shifted over the last couple decades on this issue is incredibly important for folks to recognize.

Um and there's been a lot of conversation about policy at the state level that was supposed to produce production, and people don't live in policy.

They live in homes.

Um, and these the policies that we're we're taking a position in support of today um will make it easier for folks to turn uh that policy that's been passed into actual housing opportunities, uh homeownership opportunities, and that's that's a really good thing.

So appreciate the comments that have been made, and uh I will uh very much be hoping that these bills pass.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, uh I don't believe we have any speakers, so we'll go ahead and call the roll.

And that passes unanimously, 3-0 with Councilmember Moreno absent.

Thank you.

That concludes item three, and so we'll move next to our information agenda and we'll hear item four.

Um I know we walk in in between this uh last last item, so this is of course connected to the discussion that we just had.

Um, and we're excited to welcome our presenter, uh Mohammed Alameld Dean, Alamel Dean, uh a senior policy advisor at California Yumby, uh, who's gonna talk to us a little bit more about the challenges and solutions to obtaining home ownership.

Mohammed?

Oh, if you will introduce yourself for the record as well and just let us know how much time.

Oh, no, that's great.

Thank you so much, um, Councilmember Lee.

And thank you so much to the council for um inviting me to come speak here on how basically we can incentivize homeownership at the state level, and thank you so much for moving forward that resolution, but also I'll be going over some steps of which we can incentivize home ownership at the local level.

Um, this presentation is built in two parts.

Number one, I'm just gonna explain sort of the concepts a little bit more in detail because I realize there's a lot of questions from people that attended this of like what do these bills do and how are they helpful and who does it help?

And then I'll have um a little bit longer of a discussion of how we could here in Sacramento and here in San Diego make sure everything um works out for us.

So the title presentation, homeownership is built, not bought.

Uh for years, the politically easy thing to do was to help with down payment assistance and help incentivize demand.

Uh the issue is that if you don't have enough supply and you incentivize demand, you're just moving people to the front of the line, but there's still a line.

Um, so and San Diego, everyone knows, has been building a lot of housing.

It's been doing a great job at that in the last few years.

Um, it's affordability for housing, at least rental housing, became one of the least affordable cities in the state to a little bit less so.

So we've been seeing rents easing across the market here.

But home sales and home values for entry-level homes and for home buyers, the prices keep going up and they don't really work with the wages that are being offered here.

And that's because there's been a reduction in supply for the last 40 years in general when it comes to rental.

And for homeownership, it's been reduced for about 20 to 30 years.

And it's still one of when it comes to buying a home, one of the most expensive markets in America, right?

We have a really high median home sale price, third priciest in the US.

Single family home is over a million dollars in this area.

Most of our land is zoned for just single family home use only, which is an opportunity of how much more we could build.

And basically how long it takes to just balance the market, right?

But this is a structural thing, these are policy decisions that we've been making that um all kind of tie together, right?

Like because of Prop 13, and because people have locked in lower rates, they don't want to leave the homes that they bought in like 2020 when mortgage rates um were much lower, or in 1980 when their property taxes were much lower.

And so people aren't moving from one place to another, especially when it comes when they could afford larger homes, because just this pipeline of homes being built is just sort of non-existent.

We're just building single family homes.

We are now starting to build more town homes.

We are now starting to build condos, right?

But we're we're there's a lack of options for the average resident to buy something here, and that's something that we're hoping to fix.

First, construction defect liability is a big issue.

Um I wrote a paper when I was at UC Berkeley's Turner Center for Housing Innovation about this, which helped lead to A B 1903.

Um San Diego used to build a lot of condos.

Um I heard someone quote $7,000, 7,000 units in one year.

Um this has reduced by 95%.

That is true.

Um now we're lucky to get 500 condos built in the city, if that.

Um the data when it comes to tracking a condominium and for sale home construction isn't great.

But with what was available through Zonda, we found that um it's just not meeting up with demand.

And the reason that being is that we have this system of which litigation just happens, right?

We reformed the laws in 2002 about construction defects.

Um, the tailwind takes about 10 years for lawsuits to move forward.

And during that time, um, when more and more lawsuits happened, more and more builders were just like, I'm not touching this product anymore, I'm just gonna build rentals.

Um, and I wrote I co-authored this piece with Nolan Gray for The Atlantic that really goes into detail about what happened.

Um so construction defects, AB 1903 specifically, what it's focused on is just less lawyers.

If you have a leaky window and you want that leaky window fixed, someone should go in and fix it.

We shouldn't go through litigation for three to five years, and then when they finally come fix the window, you don't have enough money to repair it, and then there's mold all over the window that no one's gonna fix.

Why are we spending three to five years in litigation?

The system here that we're trying to do is that we make sure that the buildings are built correctly at first through certified buildings, and later, if there's a problem, you could fix it nearly immediately.

Um California UNB is a crowd co-sponsored the bill, and we're really looking out for the consumers on this one.

But on top of that, we have fair litigation rules, workable financing, and right-sized codes, which are the other two bill items that you all voted for right now, which is great.

Um, when it comes to litigation rules, we're allowing for more independent inspectors.

We're having clear standards of what a construction defect is, and we're allowing for a right of repair and fair liability.

Number two is um AB 1406 digs into this, but I think we should talk about this more.

Is like new home pre-sales.

So in most of the world, first of all, we're not the first country, we're not the first state to deal with the housing crisis.

This is a very common thing.

But everywhere else sort of figured out the system that oh, if I have six people bidding on one home, we should allow the five people that didn't get that home because they lost the bid to work with a small builder, and basically they could build their own custom homes, or they could build their own homes that are new that will take two years for construction to be complete.

This money is used and financed for construction, it is bonded or insured.

Um it's easier for the developer because they just use these deposits and the bank loan to build the new homes.

It's very common in Mexico, Germany, Singapore, Egypt, it's just the United States doesn't have the system.

Right now, if you're building a new home for sale, you have to rely on banks and private equity firms.

The benefit that we're seeing in other countries is that if you allow people that could use part of their down payments for new home construction, number one, you have more homes being built.

Number two, they get the lock in a price and lock in an interest rate before interest rates rise or before prices rise.

So if they put in money for a home that's $500,000 and construction's done and that home's worth $700,000, they gain $200,000 in equity when they move in.

So it's really helpful for the home buyer.

And number three, builders are more incentivized to do this because instead of dealing with private equity firms to try to construct new homes, they could work with the home buyers that want to buy these homes.

So the product becomes more catered for these home buyers to have to wait two years.

And number three is the building codes.

So the materials that we use to build what is available.

Um A B 1070, which says that we need to study build um how building codes are adjusted for three to 10 units.

Currently, if you are building three units or more, it is treated like you are building 500 units.

Um you have multiple inspectors on site.

Um, you have um much more stringent codes, and it increases costs, hard costs by conservatively 20%.

Um, soft cost, it delays projects by six months to a year.

Um, so this is a study through A B 1070.

Um, I believe working through an engineering firm.

I think those amendments pass through, of like, okay, what is important for safety and what is uh and safety, health and safety, and what isn't so important when it comes to these construction types, so we could bring costs down but allow more construction to happen for three to ten units, right?

A reexamination because we're adopting codes for skyscrapers for a triplex.

So that system doesn't necessarily work.

Um those are sort of the state reforms that everyone is working on towards and trying to pass.

Let me add one more thing to the building codes.

The system of building codes that we use in the United States are very specific to the United States and Canada.

The rest of the world uses a whole different set of building codes.

And it's just us modernizing to what the rest of the world's doing because you're seeing much more um housing options in other places than the United States.

So what could the city of San Diego do to incentivize home ownership?

Um I was thinking about the neighborhood homes for all of us and sort of what's being proposed by the council.

Umber one, I think um shrinking minimum lot sizes would be a step forward.

Uh, we saw this in Houston.

Uh, sometimes lot sizes are just too large for just the smaller home types, especially town homes that we want to build, and height limits of about 30 feet make it very difficult to build three-story town homes.

Uh 36 feet works a lot better when it comes to that typology.

Uh number two uh we have this system of which permits are reviewed by each agency one at a time.

ADUs have shown us that you could have multiple agencies comment on something at once and to have one reviewer.

This makes it a lot easier for construction to happen because for every month of delay, that is property tax and interest that someone has to pay.

And when you're going back and forth with an agency after a review, or if there's a new reviewer that could add tens of thousands of dollars to the cost, that doesn't go to the developer.

It does make projects infeasible, but it goes to the venturable eventual home buyer.

And it's just moved a couple streets down, that should have just more of a ministerial process.

That should be just okay, we already checked this out, we know it's good, let's approve it.

Number three, a lot of cities have this issue of which if you're building rental housing and you're building for sale housing, we incur larger fees on for sale housing.

I'm not sure if San Diego does this.

I haven't had a time to look into it, but I've seen it all across the Bay Area where they say, oh, your price per square foot in this fee for rental is $13 per square foot.

Well, if it's for for sale, it's $66 per square foot.

I think there should be an examination there to make sure that the fees are equal.

If it's for sale or rental, we shouldn't be charging higher fees for for sale units, especially since it's the same residents living there.

Like the building is still the same.

And the inclusionary zoning rates.

When it comes to for sale housing, inclusionary zoning for for sale housing is much harder to absorb.

That being because once you finish a project and you sell the units, you can't have a unit that you sell that's for a lot less, because then you don't get a return.

And because of that, they're just incentivized to build rentals because you still have a rent roll every month.

And adjusting how for sale inclusionary zoning works in San Diego, because currently it doesn't work, it stops project feasibility.

Finally, uh, when you go into a restaurant, you like to go see a menu of options of what you're going to pick.

Construction doesn't have that right now.

Um, when you are building a building, you will have random improvements, either on-site or off-site, that are decided later in the process that cost tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands of dollars.

It should be it would be a lot better if builders knew about it during building permit application.

So then you're not told, hey, build a new bike lane and a traffic light here for your six units that you're building.

That's uh $300,000, $400,000 on top of the project costs that are incurred at a time that doesn't make sense during construction.

Um, or and coordinate with agencies of which if a utility pole needs to be moved, that SDGE agrees because there's a there's a project right now that's four units that the builder was telling me about that.

They wanted to move a utility pool DSD, and SDGD was saying you don't need to move this utility pool, and this delay costs about 150,000.

And finally, for local action, I will say I've been hearing a lot from the community that the city of San Diego has been a little spooked when it comes to approving housing.

Um relationships when it comes to people that approve housing types that have been the same for about 30 years, has the culture has shifted and there's a little bit more fear.

I think we need to bring back the thing that made San Diego so great at building housing in the first place, which is this culture of yes.

Yes, we want to build more housing.

We want people to live in more homes.

We want thousands of jobs that come with every job site.

We need to have more of a yes attitude when it comes to new housing coming online, especially when it comes for for four-sale housing.

So all of these work together.

We are building these units anyway.

They are mostly rentals.

I would love to see for more for sale products.

San Diego is doing a great job so far.

This condo tower is one of two that is currently being built in the whole state of California, but I am scared it might be the last, especially with market conditions and tariffs and everything that's been passed at the federal level and changes that are happening at the state level.

So but we can do things to protect housing production here.

So homeownership is not built, is not bought, it's built.

Thank you so much for my short presentation.

Thank you for the presentation.

We'll turn next to see if we've got public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item four is now open, and we have received seven slips from individuals here in the committee room, and there are three hands currently raised in the virtual queue.

We will begin with those in the committee room.

Leslie Morgan, please approach the lecture, and you'll be first, and you'll have a minute and a half to speak to item four.

You'll be followed by Joyce and Yada and Maximilian Schmidt.

Thank you for the rich and meaningful presentation.

The presentation rightly names why owners often stay put Prop 13 and locked in rates.

But there's something we could do locally that I don't think was mentioned as much.

And there's simply nowhere in the neighborhoods to move to.

Um yesterday I was in Mission Hills and I was there for a graduation party driving through.

I was struck by how many empty lots there are.

And we're talking empty lots in Mission Hills, and I've seen it before dozens of times.

Um when a last surviving member of a household passes on a home that hasn't been updated in 40 or 50 years, it gets torn down, and what goes up in its place is a 4,000 or 5,000 square foot McMansion, three or four million dollars worth from what was purchased for about 1.2, 1.5 million, because that was the only thing that makes the code financially rationale for a small developer.

We replace one unattainable unit with an even more unaffordable unit.

Working families aren't buying those homes.

Allowing multiple cottages or condos with objective design standards for small-scale homes would give developers another option, something buyers can actually afford, not a mansion.

And the smaller homes aren't just starter homes.

They're also the homes that would allow longtime residents of the communities.

A single person in a four bedroom house they've owned for 40 years to stay in their community.

They can relocate close to their doctor, their church, their neighbors.

Right now, there's no modest cottage, no neighborhood town home, nothing to do.

So please, we need alternatives to McNanches.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joy, please approach the lecture.

Okay.

Google locally green field land.

And also be sure and do this.

Google the Great Migration of 1916 through 1970.

The history of moving in the United States, it's totally fascinating.

Okay, now on this, um, I was doing my activism for affordable housing during the surge of apartments in the condos.

Lots of litigation happened.

It was a period of active, outspoken, differing viewpoints.

Let's not go there again.

And you know why?

Because affordable housing was being demolished practically, and even though there was an overabundance of litigation, there was a very sincere robust concern about keeping our affordable places where we've got to do that.

Be careful with these condo conversions.

Please don't move out our apartments for condos.

I I you're what you're saying is beautiful.

I'm with you on that.

Okay.

Now, at the end of your PowerPoint, you said lower rents are welcome.

I asked this, are more affordable house housing welcome, along with keeping the stock that we have.

Please, Max Lobby and Schmidt.

And you'll be followed by Guthrie Leonard, Manny Rodriguez, and Jeffrey Hoyder.

Hi, um, as a citizen of San Diego for the past few years, affordable homeownership is something I'm very angry about.

And it's because um I've been living in the homeless shelter because when I go to job interviews, I get neurolinguistically harassed.

I'm also getting triangulated by people using voice sensitization while I wait to wait to speak.

I think it's because I'm starting libertarian revolution among young people in SD who fight for zero percent tax.

But anyway, I just want to say that um when you take our um money for for sales and cannabis tax, it actually makes it harder to um own a home because we have less money, and then when you funnel it back into subsidized housing, all you're doing is creating inflation.

So the PowerPoint home ownership is built, not bought is also not true.

Home ownership is bought, and you're also trying to say that the American dream is dead, the American dream is still alive.

And I just want to say it's typical rhetoric of demon-possessed Freemasons to have a PowerPoint saying home ownership is built, not bought.

That's the most Marxist title ever.

And I just wanted to say that um my revolution is real, and that the American dream is still alive, and that one day we should have zero percent tax.

Because I'm homeless, and when I ask the homeless shelter about affordable housing, they say it's such a long wait list that we don't even recommend it.

So I don't even know if affordable housing even exists because it doesn't exist for me, and I've been homeless for three years.

They say the wait list is too long.

It's like impossible to even get on the wait list.

So I just want to say shame on all you Freemasons for being the most disgusting humans on the planet.

Thank you.

Guthrie.

Uh hi, council, thanks again.

Um I think a lot of these are great suggestions, and I think it's emblematic of a culture of searching for what's not working.

I think I'm I'm really passionate about political leaders who are willing to uh orient their leadership on outcomes.

And I think you guys have done a really good job on that with housing, and I would encourage you to at least research some of the recommendations from California IMB into what we can do as a city to get better outcomes.

So thank you very much.

Thank you.

Manny Rodriguez, and you'll be followed by Jeffrey and Michelle.

Hello again.

I very much admire the work that California YMB does to make the state more affordable and to build the support for housing and produce legislative ideas that you all can tackle.

Um I'd like to remind the council that per the city charter, y'all are the legislators of the city.

And California Yimby here today has some fantastic ideas that any of you, you know, Stephen, Sean, and Kent can pick up and introduce via ordinance.

Sean knows this very well.

Every year I feel like he proposes half the ordinance that the council hears.

Um, but you know, I would hope that, you know, Councilman President Pro Temli, you've been the chair of the land use and housing for quite some time now.

I hope to see um you propose some ordinances or legislation that the city council can adopt, and Mohammed here has some fantastic ideas, and I would hope to I would very gladly mobilize support for any such ideas or proposals for this council.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeffrey, thank you, council members.

Um, so I just want to address the statement that we keep hearing about we need to make it possible to uh reduce lot sizes and allow more housing on all the vacant lots that we have in the city.

Well, actually, about a month and a half ago, you actually adopted SB 1123, which does precisely that.

You have the ministerial right to subdivide any vacant lot in San Diego into 10 lots of at least 1200 square feet.

Um, and I think that's an important number because that number is consistent with the lot splitting minimum that you have at SB9, so we've settled on something that we think might be viable in this case.

Um, and what we would really urge people to do is see if this works.

I mean, already we have two more bills in the the legislature this year that are gonna blow up the the volume, the density of this housing rather than doing what this was intended to do, which is to create um small home subdivisions.

Um, frankly, we don't know why you're doing neighborhood homes for all of us, because um SB 1123 is already doing that work, and we should really be focusing on neighborhood homes for all house designs that fit within um SB 1123 profiles.

Um and uh I thank you for that.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in the committee room is Michelle Torby.

Hello, um, thank you, Council members.

Um, I just wanted to thank Mohammed for his presentation.

Um I do think it is uh full of great ideas to potentially increase uh housing supply uh as a long-term resident of San Diego who is currently renting.

Um the cost is something that is a barrier uh for me and my partner.

And so increasing the supply and increasing um the potential for homeownership is something that uh I look forward to um seeing being made a potential.

Uh thank you for your time.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

There are five hands raised in the virtual queue, and I've started the five-minute timer.

Each speaker will have one minute 30 seconds.

We will begin with Krishna.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh, this is Krishna.

Uh I just wanted to um echo my previous sentiments that I'm strongly in support of what uh California MB is doing, as well as some of the state uh legislation to try and open up more uh capacity.

Uh, but I wanted to expand on that and point out uh that in figure three B of the presentation where you see the steep drop off of condominiums.

Uh that's sort of the exact opposite of what we want to see when we are substantially increasing um not just our demand, um, but we're running out of time to meet our climate goals.

Uh in order to really reduce our emissions, we're going to have to make it so that people can walk to work, walk like walk from where they live, and that's going to require a lot more housing units and a lot more people living closer to where they need to go to reduce our trips, uh, to reduce our emission capacity.

And I think that condominiums are going to be a very important part of that because for young people like me, uh there's a point in your life where you're going to transition hopefully into homeownership.

And when you sit down roots, you want those places to be uh in the urban core itself, not in far-flowing suburbs that are really the only option that is viable for a small family.

Um, so yeah, I just want to strongly support um these efforts to sort of unblock demand.

Sorry, uh a supply-based approach.

And uh yeah, uh thank you so much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Stephanie Benvenuto.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Stephanie Benvenuto.

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

I want to thank you for this item and the and the preceding one.

Uh, this is such an important conversation.

And uh the comments from Mohammed at CaliMB are important and reflective of the environment that the builders are operating within.

So we're here to just double down on a lot of what he said.

The fact is that the costs are high and they're increasing.

The cumulative effect that that those fees have is has a real and detrimental impact on home building.

So the points about you know lower lot size, cost, fees, a culture of yes, are very, very well taken, and we want to applaud that.

Uh, I want to assure you all that we are here to work with you on implementation of any of these ideas and to be a sounding board and run those numbers.

We look forward to being able to provide more attainable homeownership opportunities in the future, and um thank you very much for prioritizing this discussion.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

Uh, thank you for this item.

Thank you for this week in that you've had a lot of housing items, and I think they're based on middle income ideas, which I think is great.

Um, I would not try to explain at a committee meeting yesterday on on middle income housing items.

Um, it's my understanding there's a bit of a housing boom actually happening in California at this time.

And it's based on market rate housing naturally.

And um the Southern California San Diego area, their housing costs are much lower than the Bay Area where I'm from, where they said they had trouble always had trouble building affordable housing because costs were so high.

We shouldn't have those problems as much here in San Diego.

And if we monitor ourselves well, I hope we can do that.

And I hope that, you know, as market rate housing is spurred a possible boom in California a bit.

Um I I I hope we can really work on the concepts of how to bring middle income housing into that housing boom development.

I mean, we have a real set pattern of how that can happen that is just I think beautiful in how it can work.

And we just have to hopefully trust it and find ways to trust it.

And um, I I hope that's what you're doing with this kind of item this week.

And I know it's aggravating to some, but it's actually a really good system for others.

Uh good luck how we uh have these conversations and and work this out, and middle income housing can be just as good a development process as market rate.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippitt.

Please unmute and begin.

First, I'd like to say thank you for the comment about cautionary tales of turning rental, turning apartment buildings into condos.

We had a friend who did that, and the quality was so poor, she wasted a lot of her money.

So that building standards are important.

Also, I hope that the lessons of 2007, when the housing bubble uh and subprime mortgage crisis collapsed and resulted in the Great Recession, are remembered in an effort to increase home ownership.

They um they should not that those lessons should not be lost.

That time the US also wanted to increase homeownership to those who previously did not qualify for loans.

So they expanded credit to subprime borrowers with poor credit and small down payments and high debt.

Mortgages were sold to individuals who didn't qualify, and they ended up losing what investment they had all together.

So you're not doing people any favors by not by failing to remember these lessons.

And so thank you for letting me speak.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer concluded.

We have one hand remaining in the queue.

John, please unmute and begin.

You're our final speaker.

Good afternoon.

Uh, thank you for this uh item.

John Brady with lift experience advisors.

I just wanted to point out that the single greatest obstruction to development in San Diego is the fact that 75% of all residential land is zoned single family.

And as we are fighting urban sprawl, which we know uh uh creates additional risks, and we want to create density where people are living in the city of San Diego.

The only way to do that is to build up.

And with 75% of our residential land, so single family, we're not going to be able to achieve that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item four.

Thank you to the public for their comments.

And I want to take this moment to thank Mohammed for the educational presentation today, uh, providing us um as well as the public a deeper dive into the impact of the bills that we uh just heard and voted on supporting.

And of course, we flip those order in uh order-wise a little bit.

Otherwise, I think probably might have made a little more sense as we took them up.

Uh, but appreciate that we got through that.

Um, each time we have discussions on the high cost of living, um, I think it's critical to again continue to state that we are in fact facing a housing crisis, uh, one that we're seeing reflected across the country, um, especially as the cost of housing has outpaced the uh inflation in wages that we've seen over the same period of time.

I think it's that marker when you compare them together that really shows us how off uh we are now.

Um, I think one important takeaway from today's discussions is um also to recognize that there's not a single uh change or even bill that is by itself a resolution to the housing challenge.

Um the crisis is complex, and what I think we've all learned is that we need a variety of tools that help us meet different needs, both at the state and the local level.

Um sometimes at the local level, that means looking at how we expand supply.

Um, what we just heard and discussed is something that I don't think we um look at often enough, which is how do we change financing, especially when it comes to buyers uh and that how that impacts builders.

Uh, and then again, looking at incentives that we ultimately take up that allow for broader options just beyond uh the pricey apartments that everyone loves to complain about, or as you had mentioned, mansion-sized single-family homes, uh, which is still in this era, truly still a thing.

Um, what's important to me as well is to ensure that the city takes up efforts that we actually can impact at a local level, and it starts sometimes at recognizing that we get caught up often with state efforts that may spark significant discussions, but not necessarily move the needle forward.

We sometimes get caught up in local discussions, are arguing over a policy area or another.

Um, that as big of as those discussions might be, sometimes distract from the little movements that are needed, whether it's from our city planning department or from development services that again help to move the needle.

Um, I want to thank you for especially looking further at how local governments can play a role.

For example, you mentioned minimum lot sizing, that was a hot topic even a year ago, but in a different way in the city, which was we saw it applied uh only in particular communities and not thoughtfully in a way that actually would move housing forward.

Um, and I think we're all looking forward and awaiting to hear uh what is planned for the neighborhood homes for all initiative to understand how as a council and as a city we actually can move forward the ability to build more townhomes and condos, regardless of what happens again at the state level.

Um, when it comes to streamlining uh permitting, I especially want to acknowledge and express our appreciation to the development services department and our director, Elise Lowe.

I think a lot of this work happens behind the scenes, and it's not the sexy part of what we do.

Um the council spends a lot of time arguing big ticket items that can be disputed on the dais and that we hear public comment on, but behind the scenes every day, uh we have a department at development services that is working with each of us to try to understand what we are hearing from builders, uh, what we are hearing from residents who are impacted by the cost of housing, and what pieces we can change internally that don't always require legislation, that don't require fighting it out over the uh with the public.

Um each of those pieces are important still when we think about how we move housing forward in our region.

Um I want to share my appreciation to our city planning director, Heidi von Bloom.

We're gonna hear from her shortly.

Heidi probably represents the piece of what we have heard at council often that is more public, which is that housing capacity uh often needs to be created, and it's something that we have to be intentional about doing.

And again, I think the city has done a tremendous amount of work on that front.

We've had many fights in terms of how we discuss housing capacity, and now I think it's up to us to really determine what levers can we move both behind the scenes with our state partners and through policy that continue to move the needle on all of these fronts to create production locally.

Um I look forward to um working with partners like Mohammed and others in this region to think about how we can move policy forward, how we can support policy that we think makes an impact at a state level, and again, how we can work behind the scenes with all of the stakeholders that exist to also advance the needle, uh, and sometimes even without doing it publicly, because that's where sometimes we have the opportunity to make a difference.

Um I'll turn it over to my colleagues.

Uh, certainly curious for their feedback as well.

And again, Mohammed, thank you for the presentation.

Uh we'll turn next to Vice Chair Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, Chair.

Um thanks, Mohammed, for the presentation here for having this conversation here today.

I think there's um a lot of important points that are made in the presentation.

Um, the roadblocks that you've shared uh are all policy choices that policymakers made in the past and and there's opportunities to change now.

Um I do think that in addition to to that, to all of those things, there's there's there's another component that um those of us who are on the pro-production side of the conversation um could lean into more, and and that is the way that um the commodification of of housing um plays a real role in in in creating barriers for ordinary everyday people to have a shot at home ownership and that plays itself out on a variety of scales from flippers you know in in neighborhoods buying cheaper attainable housing um making improvements with a sole goal of flipping that home to um make a prop profit and uh rinse and repeat um throughout a neighborhood um until the fixer uppers have gone away and um turned into the over one million dollar uh single family homes that um most folks can't afford and then obviously that happens at a larger scale as well and we've had that uh conversation here um with you know private equity buying up homes and the the reason I think this is important to mention is there's there's uh an opposition to housing that comes from people who really are opposed to the idea of um more neighbors in their neighborhoods and who those neighbors might be that's for for real that's that's real and I think the four members of this committee have been willing to put our head down and and do the work of of moving through that opposition uh but I also hear people who are becoming more and more skeptical and perhaps even cynical about whether or not the system will allow them the economic system that we live in will ever allow them a fair chance and if we don't have that conversation about the way that greed and wealth inequality play a factor in the ability to access housing I think we we run the risk of losing people who who do want to they want a chance to buy a home they want a chance to rent a home and don't see us willing to take on the those wealthy interests that are making life more difficult for folks on a variety of fronts you know we we we've tried to tackle that in a couple different ways here at the council but I I really do think that this is parts important because whether it's the comments we heard in public comment about the about preservation which is something that we're doing here but can always do more of or the folks who are aligned politically with many of us um but see buildings going up that feel unattainable to them and when they see that all they continue to believe is but but look what's in it for us and the theory of change that they'd once been presented and had bought into that more housing would create opportunity for them starts to feel like it really was a facade all along and um I just want to make sure that those of us who are who are part of the movement to create housing opportunity for everyone because we believe that housing is a human right because we want the generations that have been locked out of home ownership opportunities the generations of folks who are limiting their family size be simply because of the homes that they cannot access the bedroom the bedrooms that they cannot access that that we don't lose people from that movement because we're not willing to name some of the real um legitimate villains in this in in this battle for for housing here in California and across the country.

So I appreciate the the discussion here I will always be looking at ways that the city can move the needle um chair lee as as you said that there's folks um on the staff side of the house here at the city who every single day are committing uh a ton of time and effort and thought into um turning the policy changes that we've it we passed into action to create housing, and they're thinking about new ways that we can create those opportunities.

But the other part of this is is is really really important and um I I hope we don't shy away from that um in the future as well.

And so Mohammed I am I am curious, you know, the state organization that you're affiliated with, you know, to what extent is that part of the conversation?

And if you can share with us anything that you've seen that's been particularly effective at um, you know, moving ownership opportunities away from um private equity and and large-scale investors and into uh the hands of everyday people.

Yeah, definitely.

Thank you so much, council member, for your question.

And I also want to respond to some of the comments you said earlier too, because I have answers for those as well.

Um, for our organization, um, we're very focused on affordability for everyone, right?

And the way that we do that is by increasing supply, um, like construction defect liability, AB 1903.

When these laws were implemented with litigation, you saw a rapid decline of co-ops.

Like co-ops and land trusts just suddenly stop because general contractors didn't want to work on it because they could get sued.

So by making it easier and less of a process and less of places of litigation for things to happen when it comes to construction defects.

I'm not talking about converting apartments to condos.

I'm talking about if there's a crack in the wall, who's responsible to fix it?

That's all I'm discussing when it comes to litigation.

Um, just for some of the comments there, um, it makes it easier for different types of having housing options to happen.

On top of that, um, new home pre-sales are how basically the whole world builds more.

I mean, Singapore's social housing system doesn't work without condominium pre-sales.

Same with Vienna, um, same with a lot of places, is that right now the average down payments about 17.5% in California.

And the current system is that you will have to bid with five to six different people, and great for the seller, great for the realtor, but everyone else loses.

They are now purchasing a home that they could afford less, and everyone else has to bid more, and more homes are being inherited in California than anything else now, right?

Like we're recreating feudalism in this way.

So, what I'm trying to do is that we have solutions in other places, and it's just these new home pre-sales are a way for more entry-level homeownership opportunities.

When it comes to house flipping, I totally understand your concerns there.

Um people come in, flip houses, they do a terrible job, you have to cut everything and rebuild it again after you just bid five people for the same house.

Um the points of accessory dwelling units was just so these, well, there's a lot of points for accessory dwelling units, but these house flippers to naturally start moving to, oh, I'm just gonna build more units on this lot, right?

Like instead of me just gunning a kitchen and fixing it, I want to build these ADUs, but then we made financing these ADUs difficult because of federal challenges, which Road to Home will likely fix.

And on um the other hand is that it took a long time to get the process to build an ADU a lot easier with the city.

And a lot of general contractors are more from immigrant communities, and when you have to deal with city documents and you have to deal with all this complex system, like it's really hard to build these additional housing options.

That's why, in like, for example, in Riverside County, San Bernzino County, SB 1123, which someone quoted here, hundreds of projects are coming up there, but there's only two that I know of in San Diego, and it's because there are problems when it comes to coordination.

A lot of the housing crisis, it's less like I don't know, less sexy than you'd think it is.

It's like it's a coordination thing.

I need to know that my documents are gonna be reviewed by one person, and that I have straight feedback, and I know what the next step is.

That is so important, and San Diego does that well, but it could always do it better.

Because I mean, I was helping with the Altina rebuilds, right?

After the fires, and the county of Los Angeles was like, we have caught these permit streamlining stuff down to two weeks, which wasn't really true, it was really more two months.

But I go to Texas and it's done in 24 hours, and these people are coming from a fire.

Like, what are we doing here?

Like, why is it taking so long?

And that's just the examination that we all must do at the local level to fix with coordination.

And the main theory here is that if we make it easier for things to happen, more innovation could happen in the space.

And that prevents a lot more greed when the common man could do something or person.

Yeah, I I I hear all that.

I think again, and this is I won't belabor this too much.

I think that it's a yes and so we need to build more housing.

And what I'm what I'm really trying to get across here, and we just had a battle here to to turn um some percentage of our empty homes into housing for San Diegans.

Um the realtors spent millions of dollars to defeat that on the ballot.

Um, and so would that solve the housing crisis?

No, but there is no single solution.

But it is also a thing that really bothers people, right?

And so when whether it's hoarding in that way, or um uh again private equity buying a portion of the housing stock, right, and holding that as uh as rental units instead of allowing it to be for sale, um, etc.

etc.

The the skepticism and cynicism about the entire system not be not being designed for everyday people grows and it grows justifiably and it make it makes it more difficult, I think, for us to make the case to ever to constituents that the housing that's being built actually is for them because it's so hard for them to see that and feel that um now we've seen even in the conversation that we like district three, um, district nine, we've filled a lot of apartments, it's had an impact on rental prices.

At the same time, if you ask the average renter in San Diego, is are things better?

They would like no, they're paying way too much for rent.

And it's a it's we're doing the we're doing a lot.

We're we're and so I guess that's the that's the point here is that when we have this conversation, I think it's just important that we we name that other component as well and we don't shy away from it because whether it's one percent or three percent of housing stock, it's that's something, right?

And it I think it is important for us to be consistent.

If building a single ADU is a big deal, then you know, taking uh a single home out of the hands of someone who's hoarding it and putting it into the market is a big deal as well, but it also demonstrates a seriousness about about the addressing the problem from from the perspective of everyday people and not just in a way that benefits those who profit from the construction and development of housing.

Oh, yeah, I totally agree with you, and welcome to the club.

My first big bill was to end a tax subsidy on sex second homes that we do at the state level, and the realtors killed that too.

Yeah, um, so I totally understand, and we're looking for ways of which we could help consumers, and I I want to talk to you more about what's going on with the investor market when it comes to housing.

So you're free to reach out to me at any time.

This isn't just for developer profits.

That's there's a whole organization for that, that's not us.

Yeah, we want people living in homes, we want more affordable rents, we want more affordable homeownership, and this has been a problem for decades that's been compounding on.

We've been really tackling this for the last five years.

Yeah.

Like, come on, give us more time, we're trying our best, and let's keep working together.

All right, thank you.

Thank you.

Let's turn next to Council Member Whitburn.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, what you just said uh really resonated because while in fact it is objectively true that uh rents have come down uh for a number of folks.

If you actually start talking about that, it doesn't really resonate with people because they're paying so much in rent.

So I um I've communicated that, but I'm careful about how I do it because uh it's still a very expensive uh market in which we live.

Uh Mahabit, thank you uh for the presentation and your leadership with California YMB and all that you do.

Uh on the statewide level.

Uh appreciated the uh elaboration on some of the state reforms that are being contemplated here.

It was very uh uh peg close attention to the discussion about some of the local action that could be helpful.

Uh and you flagged that at least in some cities, uh there are different fees for essentially the same product based on whether it's for sale or for rent.

I don't know actually if we do that in San Diego or not, but I will see if I could track down that um an answer to that question because that is a uh interesting point of something worth examining.

Uh very interested in seeing permit reviews be as efficient as possible.

It is absolutely true, as the chair said that uh there's been a lot of progress in speeding up and streamlining the permit review process in San Diego.

I hear it uh from people who uh are trying to build multifamily and such.

Uh at the same time, I also do he do hear uh uh concerns about how sometimes it could feel like it's a moving target and the multiple cycles of review that are involved and uh am interested in in seeing how we can continue to further streamline um.

You uh Mohamed mentioned that you're a little concerned about the prospect of codebidia uh building drawing up.

Is that as a result of just the need for all of these reforms that we're discussing here?

Is there something else going on in the market that worries you about the prospect for future cognitive development?

Yeah, definitely.

So um thank you so much for that question.

Um my concern is that like right now it's like we have this litigation framework, it's been really impacting the amount of people that could build housing.

Um it's gotten so bad that Toll Brothers, which used to build a lot of the condos in California, has exited the multifamily market completely last year for forced sale housing in California.

Um so that was like I know that this project I think is Bosa development, which is a different like um group, but it's yeah, you know, if you keep seeing these lawsuits, if you're not making reforms and we're living with the status quo, we're going production is gonna hit rock bottom.

And um hopefully at the state level and at the local level, we can incentivize more condominiums, but also more townhomes.

Understood.

Thank you for your observations on that.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you.

Um I'll close by just following up on one or two other items as well, just to check.

Um, one of the items that we've talked about at this council uh in different committee, but um my office has brought forward a discussion on um well, we're calling a large portfolio investors of homes, but really the focus is has been largely on uh homeownership through investors.

Um, and that's a unique conversation because as we look across the country, the data is really different depending on which region you're at.

Um, and I think that's an important discussion that certainly would love to take you up on uh in the future as well.

Because I think the impact that we're seeing in other regions uh where that ties directly to um investors who are building for sale um opportunities.

Sorry.

Building for rent, single-family opportunities is not the issue that we face here in San Diego.

So that that that piece of it we don't have in existence.

And then really trying to understand like how much that has an impact in San Diego and how we uh I think to Councilman Eli Rivera's point, like target things that I think we hear and see frustrations from everyday people on when they get outbid on housing or when they feel like um there are players who are hoarding uh within the region, how we actually have an ability to impact that and do it in a meaningful way, I think is is a challenge that folks are certainly interested in having that discussion on.

Um when we talked a little bit about uh one local effort being concurrent permitting, um, I I will say that is probably one thing uh from a city standpoint that I think we have had a little bit more success on.

And um we certainly would love to work with DST further on how uh how to we've had these discussions actually, uh especially Lisa and I, on not just how we look at permitting, but also how we look at how DST bills or other departments bill, um, the client side uh in a way that actually might tie up uh our ability to get permits through in the timeline that we could.

Um and so that's something discussion that I think we can actually delve deeper into as well.

Um, because again, that's that's not ultimately something that surfaces up in these kinds of discussions but hasn't a real impact on how we get uh permits through in a quicker timeline.

Um so thank you again.

Seeing no other comment, I think that concludes item number four.

So uh with that, we'll move back to our discussion agenda on item two.

Uh Natalie, please introduce item two.

Item two, general plan maintenance fee update.

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

When prompted, the webinar ID is one six one seven nine five one nine three three pound.

Okay.

Thank you.

And speaking of our director of city planning, I'm gonna go ahead and turn it over to you, Heidi.

Uh, if you'll introduce your team and uh for the record and then let us know how much time you anticipate.

Sure, thank you.

Heidi von Blum, Director of the City Planning Department.

I'm joined here with Scott Mercer, who's a program coordinator, manages our fiscal and administrative team.

Um I think we'll need about 10 minutes.

Okay, thank you.

All right.

Uh, well, um, good afternoon.

Uh, we are here today to present a proposed update to the general plan maintenance fee, uh, which funds long-range planning activities like community plan and land development code updates.

Um, I am aware that fees are our favorite subject to talk about.

Um, but um, with that being said, um, the this particular fee uh does fund efforts, it helps streamline new development in a manner that provides both certainty for builders and for our community members.

Our department is proud to be a leader in continually maintaining our general plan to achieve its vision in a manner that best benefits our city.

As my staff will share with you, the genesis for this particular update uh did stem from uh the city council's discussion when the Department of Finance brought forward the update to the city's user fees last year.

At that time, the council asked us to develop a methodology that results in the more equitable application of the general plan maintenance fee so that the benefits are more proportional to the fee payers and to determine the appropriate amount of cost recovery to support the department's work program.

Thanks to my staff, who I'm joined with here today, Alejandro Govaldone, Scott Mercer, and our Armando Dominguez, um, that is what we are presenting to you today.

I'm going to turn it over to Scott Mercer for the remainder of the presentation and happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Good afternoon.

The general plan maintenance fee or GPMF is a fee authorized under state law to fund long-range planning and the maintenance of the city's general plan.

Most large cities in California have a general plan maintenance fee.

The current fee is a flat $737 per permit application.

The current fee is flat, meaning that all projects pay the same fee regardless of size or complexity or benefit received from the fee.

Today's action is a proposal to change this to make it more equitable, and to do this by making it a variable fee in the form of a surcharge.

The proposed surcharge is 11.25%, which is generally consistent with pure cities and reflective of the benefit of the department's work to the fee payer.

The surcharge will be applied to plan checks, project reviews, and related permit and administrative fees.

This makes the fee variable, meaning projects with more complex plan checks would pay a higher amount, and projects with less complex plan checks would pay a lower amount, consistent with our peer cities.

Again, the general plan maintenance fee funds the city planning work program, long-range planning and the maintenance of the city's general plan.

As Heidi mentioned, this provides significant benefits to fee payers by providing clear pathways to building in conformance with the city's general plan and community plans.

City planning resources have been reduced significantly over the past two budget years.

So revenue for the department for so revenue for the department to continue its work is an important consideration with this fee.

The fee is currently generating approximately $6.2 million per year.

The new fee is expected to generate approximately $7.5 million per year once fully implemented, though revenue will remain at $6 million for the first year.

This increase in revenue would modestly improve cost recovery and help stabilize funding for city planning that has been impacted by budget cuts.

This slide shows the impact of the fee on about a half dozen example projects.

Some projects, such as a 200,000 square foot research and development facility or a 400 unit residential project would experience increases in the fee.

Smaller projects such as single ADUs, small tenant improvements, or residential remodels would experience reductions in the fee.

As a closer look, this slide took a detailed look at a 432 unit apartment project, one of our 22 example projects provided in attachment eight to the staff report.

The GPMF in this is represented by the small green ball.

The fee would grow from $737 to $20,000, which breaks down to just $46 per unit and would increase project fees by six-tenths of one percent.

In this example, the existing GPMF is the small green ball at $737.

With the surcharge, the green ball to the right shows the surcharge fee of $6,210, which breaks down to just $45 per unit.

Total projects costs and this project are increasing by one half of 1%.

As a third example, the GPMF for this project is $737 or $8.28 per unit, as represented by the small green ball to the left.

The right ball shows the impact of the surcharge with a fee increasing to $5,229.

In this case, total project costs are increasing by 3.3%.

This slide shows how, under the current fee structure, a simple stucco remodel of a residential home pays the same $737 GPMF as a large apartment project, illustrating the relative inequity of the current fee.

This slide shows that with the surcharge, the fee for the stucco remodel drops dramatically to less than $100, possibly as low as $20, while the large apartment complex fee increases to roughly $25,000 or $45 per unit.

A similar comparison, this slide shows that under the current fee, a project adding a bathroom to a residential home is paying the same fee as a large multifamily project.

This slide shows how with the surcharge, the bathroom addition drops to less than $100, while the fee for the large mixed-use building increases to about $6,000 or $60,000 or $60 per unit.

This slide summarizes what we've been saying in emphasizing the equity impact of the surcharge.

Smaller projects such as ADUs, home remodels, small tenant improvements, or route remodels will see the fee drop significantly from the current $737.

Currently, these micro projects are paying the same fee as large projects such as apartments or large commercial or industrial buildings.

We benchmarked against the largest cities in California.

Our proposal is to structure the fee as is done in most large cities across the state and to move away from the flat fee.

At 11.25%, we are in the middle of the pack with Los Angeles, San Jose, and Fresno.

The surcharge has various benefits, the first being equity, and that the fee becomes proportionate to in size to project complexity.

Secondly, the fee supports faster community plan updates and land use reforms.

These actions streamline development by providing certainty and saving developers time and money on projects.

Lastly, the surcharge will result in real reductions for smaller projects and make fees for larger projects proportionate to the project size and complexity.

The slide summarizes our stakeholder outreach.

We presented this proposal to the various industry groups and the community planners committee.

Of course, no one likes fee increases, but we've also heard support for fee reductions for smaller projects, and we generally hear support for continuation of the city planning work program, although not necessarily with an accompanying fee increases.

The community planners committee requested to have additional examples of the impact of the fees on projects which we have provided.

With your recommendation, we will take the assignment of full council in July.

That concludes our presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

We'll turn next to Amy Lee with the IBA's office who has comments.

Thank you, Chairley.

Amy Lee with the IBA's office.

As the city council approves the fiscal year 2027 adopted budget earlier this Tuesday, June 9th.

I wanted to provide budgetary context on the item before you proposing to restructure the general plan maintenance fee.

The fiscal year 2027 adopted budget assumes the existing flat fee GPMF will generate $6 million in revenue.

If this item is approved, the restructured fee is also projected to generate $6 million in revenue in fiscal year 2027.

Because this aligns with the adopted budget, no budget changes are required to reflect a restructured fee.

Revenue projections will continue to be monitored throughout the fiscal year as part of the city's budget monitoring process.

There will, however, be revenue implications of a different surcharge rate or effective date were ultimately implemented.

As noted by staff, the fiscal year 2027 revenue projections for the restructured fee reflects an effective date of November 1st, 2026, four months into fiscal year 2027, as well as changes to the timing of the fee charge, as opposed to charging an upfront flat fee at initial application submittal, as is current practice, the restructured GPMF surcharge would be applied to project related review fees when those fees are charged.

With most charged when applications are deemed complete, while other plan check fees may be collected later on in the permitting process.

Thank you to the IBA.

We'll turn next to any public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item two is now open, and we have received two speaker slips from individuals in the committee room.

Joyce and Yada, please approach the electorate and you'll be followed by Maximilian Schmidt.

And you will have one minute and a half again.

You know how I love planning, right?

I just love you guys so much.

Okay, I'm gonna kind of stumble through this.

So currently yearly 6.2 million in revenue, last two physical years.

Resources reduced significantly.

Sorry about that.

Uh new fee fully implemented will be 7.5 million.

Um revenue per year.

Multifamily a lot of this confused me, but I'm doing the best I can.

So the revenue per year on the multifamily uh deal is is much higher than the hotel.

I don't get that.

You know, I don't get the hotel is lower.

Um, not sure about the ADU getting the uh 60 only $60 fee.

I think those are for garage conversions.

But I'd like to see a more if they're gonna build more than just in a garage, then I think we ought to raise that rate higher than that, uh, but lower than than the higher uh what was it, 737 or something.

So I love that the planning department performed uh their in-house, it was done in-house, the study.

That's really terrific.

And uh increase of fees aligned with the costs involved by the city.

You get big points on that.

Um, thank you.

I had one really big important thing to say, but we'll save it for council.

Thank you.

Maximilian Schmidt.

Hi, um, as a resident of San Diego the past few years, um, this housing housing is an extremely big deal to me, especially because I've been homeless.

And I just wanted to say that um we have a serious problem with of inflation in America, and this is a perfect example of how the new world order works.

Yeah, I'm in San Diego City Hall right now, the belly of the beast, to create more inflation.

It's a fee that's revenuing six million dollars, an extra surcharge upon private homeowners who want to do uh housing remodels, and then they take that money and they funnel it back into subsidized housing and it creates inflation.

So basically they're possessed by demons from doing human sacrifices in the Masonic Lodge, and these demons command them to create a one-world government, and they all get together and say, Oh, I've got a great idea.

Let's uh do a six million dollar surcharge for private homeowners, take that money and put it into subsidized housing, saying we're trying to help people, and it'll create inflation, and then we're one step closer to a one world government, and it's that's actually what's happening here.

They're not trying to help people.

If they're trying to help people, then why are they messing with me neurolinguistically and using voice sensation to mess with me?

So they don't care about the citizens of San Diego, and they don't care about me and they don't care about anything other than Satan's commands.

And it's true that these people are possessed by demons, and every one of them has done a and human sacrifice.

I suppose God is not dead.

Uh Google searched the miracle of Fatima 1917, God is not dead.

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.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and provide your comments.

Hi, uh, Blair Beekman, thanks for this item.

I'm sure you've heard budget choices and budgeting balance things, you know, uh a being yang, so to speak, uh, you know, continuously.

So I anything I can say is nothing new to you or not that relevant probably.

But I will try anyway and see if it's of any help.

Um, this this program and idea sounds okay.

Um it seems like uh there can be something consistent in what you can uh get with this fee, this new fee.

Um that's nice.

What I'm concerned about is if there is a way you can possibly lower that uh amount so much, because I have the feeling this affects uh local businesses a bit more.

At your budget meeting on Tuesday, your final budget meeting um, you know, conclusion things, it was stated at the beginning by council person Foster that you are uh specifically reducing uh development fees for you know large corporate developers.

So I that took me aback.

I was really surprised at that.

Um so you want development, so you lowered fees.

Is there a way to somehow balance these two items out together?

Lower fees a bit for this item, raise the fees a bit on the corporate uh development end, and find that middle ground uh so we can get a little bit more revenue each year.

Um, I think it would it would make all sides happy.

Definitely corporations can uh you know afford it.

Lower uh income people, uh everyday people can uh get help also.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, John Brady with Libs Advisors.

Uh, well, I would congratulate you on uh looking at a change like this.

I can't wait to see what the developer response is going to be at City Council.

Um at the same time, I want to share with you a story that my landlord shared with me when he was trying to uh legitimize a downstairs uh unit that had had been operating illegally, and he had to have an inspector come out to determine whether or not the drywall met the five-hour fire requirement, which uh which sort of stunned me because I mean seriously, I'm uh I live above.

If I haven't noticed a fire uh by the unit beneath me within five hours, I would be shocked.

But all that aside, uh, there was no clarity.

So then the uh supervisor had to come out and look at that uh unit again.

Uh and that was subsequently subsequently followed up by a manager uh solely because nobody could really determine how the law applied or whether or not it applied to this unit or the product inside the unit met the requirements.

I would highly recommend that streamlining regulations that are confusing like this.

Also, if you looked into uh if the regulations are getting to the point where the on the underground inspectors cannot interpret them uh reliably without that level of intervention, we need to do some work.

But thank you for uh making this happen.

Thank you.

Our final speaker in the queue is Natalie Raski.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, Natalie Rashke here.

It is kind of confusing listening to all the information today that's been coming through this meeting.

Uh the last gentleman who spoke in person.

This is um a big thought amongst a lot of people when you're you're pressed to a limit and you're trying to be proactive and be at these meetings, and you don't really hear anything, especially when you're in a different uh position.

I think that anything that we do when it comes to the city of San Diego is what our intent is, and how does it benefit the community the most?

Thanks.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes.

Natalie, did you raise your hand again?

No, sorry.

Okay, no worries.

Chair, this concludes public comment on item two.

Thank you.

Uh thank you for the public comments.

We'll turn next to council member comments, uh, including um any motions, and we'll start with Vice Chair Elo Rivera.

All right, uh, thank you, Chair.

Uh, thanks for the work on this, Heidi.

The the one question that I was struggling with, I'm trying to I'm trying to understand this in a way that I can explain in a simple way.

The and and Amy, you might be able to help with this as well.

The overall revenue, because I I think kind of intuitively seeing that some of the fees are going to go up a lot, there's like a an assumption or that there would be some increase in revenue for the city.

I understand that there's probably many more smaller projects that are getting charged that flat fee, but can like in in kind of simple terms that could be explained to um folks who don't come to this building often.

Why is this not yielding more in total revenue?

Um, I think you pretty much summarized it.

Most of the permits that currently pay the flat fee are smaller projects, and so we do anticipate that that revenue would decrease from the smaller projects, um, and then which is you know the equity component of this fee.

Um, and then in terms of the larger projects, although those uh fee increases are more significant, there are overall less of them.

The other thing that you're seeing in the revenue projections is that we are also uh proposing to implement a change in the time of payment.

So right now we receive the payment at application, um, and this would be paid concurrent with all of the rest of the development services department processing fees.

Got it.

May you just add, um, council member.

So overall there is anticipated to be increase in revenue over the year over the years as we get to the steady state.

I think in year four, currently in year one, which is going to be reflected in fiscal year 2027, it's a transition year.

Um, and so because of the timing of when that fee would be collected isn't going to be fully captured, and four months isn't going to be reflected of that surcharge.

Um, it's just going to look a little bit different in the first couple of years.

Um, and then the other thing I think might be worth mentioning is because it's a surcharge on plan check fees, and uh DSD has um authority to increase those annually to reflect um general salary and cost increases.

The actual the surcharge will actually be able to keep up with inflation um in a way that doesn't necessarily require uh annual increases.

Got it.

And I don't imagine this would amount to a lot of revenue, but I would also I'm curious if there's anything built in for the folks who are not getting permitted because the fees are for smaller projects because the fees are quite high for a smaller project.

Uh this does not account uh for that assumption.

Um, and so you are correct that the actuals could come in at a higher rate if more people that are currently choosing not to get permits due to the higher fee now see that their fees are actually significantly lower, it may overall increase that permit activity.

We will monitor that and um, yeah, and I'm we we we want folks to get the permits that they're supposed to get for a variety of reasons, um primarily safety um and um I hope that this encourages folks to to do that.

Um so I I think it makes a lot of sense.

Um this is a little known fee to most San Diegans, but um I think it's important that it's providing you know partial cost recovery to the city.

Um I I understand.

So we I'm seeing the letter from the industry, and I get it, the the idea of death by a thousand cuts.

Um, but this is a long overdue update.

Um and it's still pretty conservative in that it it doesn't reach full cost recovery.

Um there's still a a subsidy being provided to those who are seeking permits and there's a a fine policy argument to be made for that.

Um we want housing to be built, we want folks to get their permits, and we have to do that responsibly, and we certainly should be doing that in the most uh equitable way possible.

And I think what's kind of rubbing me the wrong way about the pushback here is that essentially we're having is a very very big industry make the case for just like average homeowners and ordinary people to subsidize their permitting.

And um that's not right.

Um because if inflation's hitting major corporations hard, it's hitting everyday people much harder.

Um and it's just not appropriate for us to be asking everyday people to subsidize corporations more than they are already doing uh throughout their throughout their lives.

Um there was this point made that builders are being asked to pay more without getting more for it.

Um many of these folks are in the multifamily rental property business, and very rarely do I see them offering more when they increase rent.

So um I'd be happy to cut a deal that we we freeze uh fees if they freeze their rents.

I would imagine that there will not be an offer that is uh uh made to us uh any time in the near future, but uh my doors open um if if that uh deal is is uh is willing to be cut.

Um so again, I appreciate the work on this.

Uh the and then you know the recommendation to further study the proposed surcharge.

Um there's a not surprising to see that.

That's a a um right from the from the the classic playbook.

Um this is a responsible thing to do, it's a fair thing to do.

I appreciate you doing Heidi, because I'm sure you've got an earful for bringing it forward.

Uh and with that I will uh motion to approve staff recommendation.

Thank you.

We have a motion by uh Councilmember Elo Rivera, uh, Vice Chair Rivera.

We'll turn next to Councilmember Whipper.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh just a few questions.

You mentioned uh that the surcharge is consistent with other cities, and that's how we sort of landed uh at the proposed surcharge.

Are our plan check fees also consistent with other cities?

In other words, would the total impact of this by and large be consistent with other cities that we've seen?

We did not do a full benchmarking analysis um compared against every other city anecdotally, uh, you know, fees are uh uh a challenge uh for permitting departments.

Um they do vary depending on the department.

Um it is also a get what you pay for type of situation, and that sometimes the fees are higher, but there's more staff available to process it in a faster manner.

It is from a permitting perspective hard to do an apples to apples comparison because some of the jurisdictions that may charge a lower fee are also taking significantly longer to issue those permits.

Understood, fair enough.

Um reviewed this, and of course the first thing that went through my mind is you know how does increasing this fee ultimately trickle down to build more housing after all these things have to pencil or people to start going to build in the market?

But I also spent some time looking at the numbers that I uh while certainly nobody is excited about additional fees.

Uh what we're talking about here is frankly a drop in the bucket compared to the overall free structure that goes into say the construction of multifamily housing.

Uh this would be, you know, give a break to people doing a bathroom remodel.

That's good, that's more equitable.

Uh, but if you look at, you know, would you add up the fees for development impact fees and inclusion area requirements, school fees and such, you're talking about millions of dollars, uh, and the impact of this would be, you know, that example of a 432 unit building, 46 dollars a unit.

So, uh would have a negligible impact, really, uh the overall cost of a project.

Yeah, yeah, the proposed fee here, uh, you know, I do want to be sensitive uh, you know, to any, you know, fee proposals here.

Um, but I think it's just the main point here to mention is that for the average homeowner or fee payer, the fees will go down, providing some fee relief, and they would um experience the significant increases in the instance where we're talking about significant is pennies, um, you know, pennies, small, small, small percentages compared to the host of other fees and the overall cost to development.

I do not anticipate that a fee of about forty-five dollar per dwelling unit, one time fee, um, is gonna have any material effect on housing production.

Thank you.

And and that was what it looked like as I read through this.

I'm uh glad to hear that that's your impression as well.

Um, do affordable housing projects pay this fee.

Yes, they do.

This fee is charged um for the processing of the project.

Um affordable housing projects like other projects are subject to the same permitting and benefit in the same manner, and sometimes even more greatly benefit um from the initiatives that the city planning department brings forward to streamline the permitting of those projects.

Okay.

So this would be consistent with the other permitting that we do.

Okay, I will uh be in support of this.

I'll second the motion.

Thank you.

We have a motion by councilmember Ilo Rivera and a second by council member Whitburn.

Um, thank you to City Planning Department for bringing this um update forward.

Uh the need for a general plan maintenance fee update is important.

Um, and as you've already noted, it helps to support the long-range planning efforts to maintain the general plan, community plans, and zoning.

Um while it's not the the only reason to update the fee.

I think it is really crucial to note that it this update is significant and that it shifts from the flat fee model that you've mentioned, um, which as you've very easily showed, um, it doesn't really have a difference uh when it comes to project size versus a surcharge model that does account for the simple fact that a small ten improvement or small bathroom room model is very different than a large-scale um project.

Um, and so I I do want to appreciate that that equitable review of the fee is important and as Councilman Ray La Rivera noted is probably a bit overdue.

Um, and I think that's what some of the benchmarking also helped to show.

Um, less perhaps the percentage numbers, since I know those were all over the place, but it helped us to understand how many of our uh pure cities are already sort of in that model as opposed to just working off of a flat fee.

Um I also would note that uh as I think the IBA had mentioned, my understanding as well was that the department has already been is tapping into a little bit of it of reserve funding um to help hold and maintain the level of service and work that you are doing, because the fee itself is also not necessarily enough.

And so this item not only tackles that equity component but it does adjust for the cost recovery to do so when I look at that 11.25% number part of what I had initially been thinking was how do we really come up with that number when you look at the benchmarks and everyone's all over the place until I understood that it is really more so also tied to trying to to maintain and ultimately increase the work that the department does.

Yeah yeah that is that is absolutely correct um as you are probably very well aware our department has experienced significant cuts over the last uh two fiscal years in particular um and while we have been able to continue to provide our baseline services we have done that through one-time revenues from uh fund balances so on a look forward basis we will not be able to continue um our current level of service um without uh some additional revenue.

Understood um and I think you know we heard in our informational item before this um even fees certainly contribute to the high cost of housing uh both when it comes to market rate and affordable housing development um and so certainly we understand that that can be a factor we're gonna hear about it from folks it's an impact that I think we always have to be careful in terms of how we choose to balance it that's something that we're very mindful of uh as well but I think in this particular case the need to make this update has has been made clear and I think the approach in terms of how we're doing it equably again is important.

Final note would be uh again thank you Amy and the IBA for just pointing out how the surcharge also allows us to attach this to plan check fees and that will adjust whereas the flat fee has been just a flat fee and I've I've been constantly surprised in my couple of years here how many fees in the city have just been held flat because at one point we determined a number that seemed appropriate and then in some cases we didn't touch it for five years, 10 years, 20 years or more.

And so the more I think that we find ways to attach things to um markers that do account for inflation and the simple fact that the city needs to pay more to accomplish the same work um it is again the right move it's unfortunate when we have to catch up on years of not doing that.

But it helps moving forward so with that I'll be supporting the item and seeing no other speakers we can go ahead and call the role.

Thank you and that passes three zero with committee member Marino absent.

Thank you.

That concludes our discussion agenda we will now take up a 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.

Let's proceed with any non-agenda public comment.

For 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 I've received three speaker slips from individuals here in the committee room and there's one hand raised in the virtual queue we will begin with those in the committee room.

Wesley Morgan please approach the lectern and you'll be followed by Joyce and Yada and Maximilian Schmidt.

Hi uh thanks for great meeting today.

Um I wanted to talk about fair housing but first um I wanted to bring something that Sean had brought up about private equity.

Um can we publish the basic facts about data about private equity in San Diego like we don't need a huge study.

The data exists I just don't want to pay for it but I think it would benefit all of us to know exactly and what it is and have a common understanding of who's buying what who owns what and just let the public react to it.

I think it'd be fair to have that conversation I've heard a dozen different you know claims on who owns what and I think the city would be great to publish that.

Moving on to to fair housing um just coming out of budget season you know I just wanted to to focus on like what can we leverage more than anything else how can we prioritize like our highest resources and you know, we we can't necessarily solve fair housing by you know you know aggressively investing as much, but we can solve it by aggressive housing policy in our highest opportunity areas.

And I think we all know the last you know several decades because of the lack of our ability to build in our highest resource areas, especially along the coast, um, that we're seeing a train of displacement through Linda Vista and east through Golden hill and east, and you know, it continues to go beyond the borders of San Diego City and into Lemon Grove now.

Um, the pathway one and pathway two change isn't just a sign of vitality, it's a sign of the system that has failed to share the load in our highest resource communities.

So, you know, as we move forward, I you know highly recommend continuing to aggressively prioritize more housing in those dark blue areas, um, and uh open up opportunity as much as we can in every initiative that we bring forward in the housing context.

Thank you.

Thank you, Joyce and Yada.

Homeless, with our ongoing budget deficits and uncertain resources for our homeless crisis, is it time to accept our homeless as they are with 90% uh of them having some kind of disability?

There is a philosophy that says, right to the city.

Who has the right to the city?

I like these words of David Harvey on right to the city, a collective right to change and remake the city to reflect a better, more equitable way of life, end of quote.

So I ask this question, as a collective, are we doing the best we can for equity for our homeless?

If we are, and I believe we are, I believe we are, then what's left is to accept what is except that they are sleeping near the door to City Hall every night.

Except that some can and will fall through the cracks, even as we do our best.

I have this to offer you, because we cannot meet the complex needs of each homeless individual.

I'll say this.

And yet I stumble, even as I do my best.

I stumbled yesterday, I won't go there.

I was doing my best.

And so even as I stumble and even as I'm doing my best, still I am living the miracle of life itself.

And that's what sustains me.

Thank you, love to all.

Thank you.

Maximilian Schmidt.

And you'll be followed by our final speaker in the committee room, Guthrie Leonard.

Um, hi, I just want to say that I've waved a Trump flag for probably over 500 hours.

And I don't know if this has anything to do with my situation in the largest homeless that's happening, the largest homeless shelter in San Diego.

I I stay at the Alpha Project Bridge shelter um in San Diego, and I think it needs to be investigated because inside that homeless shelter, um, people are triangulating me and messing with me as voice sensitization.

And what that means is people will stand around me in a triangle and they will speak gibberish out of whisper, kind of like, something that just sounds like ridiculous, and it makes it so I can't even think.

And they'll also like the only thing I can interpret out of their gibberish is like them like saying my thoughts out loud.

And I'm not crazy.

I know about the occult, I know what's going on, and it needs to be investigated.

And I'm not gonna say if staff are doing it too, because I want them to be vindictive to me.

And I even come up here worried about getting 5150, but to me, the First Amendment's still alive.

It needs to be investigated.

It's um it's worse than harassment, it's cruel and on you cruel and unusual.

I also want to say God is not dead.

Uh the Freemasons, communist Freemasons sitting here know God is not dead, because they do human sacrifices in the Masonic Lodge where they blasphemized Jesus for its lepathy to feel more like a living God.

And I also want to say not only was there the miracle of Fatima in 1917, there was a similar miracle for all this money we're spending on taxes researching aliens and UFOs.

There is a miracle in Texas, really not too long ago, similar to the miracle of the sun.

That's getting um brushed under the table, and there's no awareness about it because it was a um Catholic miracle.

And if that miracle for the for all the discovery TV shows about ancient aliens, why don't we talk about the miracle in Lubbock, Texas at St.

John Newman Church?

Why don't we talk about that?

Why don't we investigate that?

Why isn't the federal government investigate what happened in Lubbock, Texas on the Feast of the Assumption?

God is not dead.

Thank you.

Guthrie.

Hi, Council.

Again, uh, I really briefly wanted to mention there's another bill in the state legislature.

I don't think it's passed the assembly yet, but it might have is uh AB 2074, which establishes in our biggest most transit rich cities like a uh the cities would establish a downtown zone or a some zone that's particularly transit dense that would have effectively unlimited zoning.

And you know, I don't know if it's perfect bill, but one thing I think uh council member Whitburn would be an interesting thing to ask for is I know in Vancouver they've done a lot of work in encouraging three-bedroom apartments in their downtown areas, and that's led to a lot more families being able to actually live downtown.

And that's something we don't get a lot of kind of throughout San Diego, but I think especially downtown, it's a lot more single bedrooms, even studios.

So I think if that's a bill that does end up getting passed, it would be interesting to kind of leverage your experience as a council member of a downtown area to ask for something like that because I think it'd be great if families could live downtown.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

There are three hands raised in the virtual queue for non-agenda public comment, and I've started the five-minute timer.

Terry Ann Skelly, please unmute and provide your comments.

Good afternoon, Land Houston Housing Committee Chair Lee.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

I'm a parent and public health educator as well as a planning group member.

I came today because I feel that our city council cares about how our residents are housed and how our city land use land is used.

Regarding housing, we know that any city resident, regardless of their financial or living situation, would benefit equally from clean air.

It could change their health outcomes significantly.

The best way to achieve this for every resident to live and play in a smoke-free and vape-free environment.

There are two major strategies to effectively accomplish this.

Number one would be adopt smoke-free and vape-free policies for housing and public places.

And number two, make smoking and vaping products less appealing and available through better enforcement of the city's tobacco retailer's licensing law.

This summer is a great time to begin this process to implement smoke-free and vape-free policies for public places and apartment complexes.

And now is the time for our city council to hold the course.

No more stores that sell or enable the use of tobacco, marijuana, or CBD smoking and vaping products in our city.

Think how far it would go to eliminate smoking and vaping related disease and death.

This would also address disparities that occur among those less able to protect themselves from the effects of second and third hand smoke.

Thank you for hearing my concerns this afternoon.

Thank you.

Blair Beekman, please unmute and begin.

Hi, Blair Beekman.

There is simply a continuing growing political will in the past year in San Diego and across the country to no longer do business with the flock corporation.

I have been describing for months now how both the city of Oakland and its county of Alameda are creating an 18-month step-by-step process of full community input and best practices to leave flock for a new better principled AOPR vendor.

This is simply an important good model San Diego can refer to at this time.

There can be many options and choices to leave Flock at this time, including the RLP process, I think it is called, as the budget is not yet finalized.

I'm surprised this type of thinking and other options were not more openly addressed at City Council this past uh Tuesday.

As there is a considerable number of people in San Diego that want to continue AOPR use for the time being, in the lease, can we please continue to have ongoing community dialogue and conversations and how to formally leave the AOPR vendor block?

And from this to appeal to our current uh shared beliefs and a fair compromise, can we begin a deeper con uh consideration of a yearly public meeting review that can very specifically address a small incremental net reduction each year of surveillance technology from local San Diego neighborhoods, as this can offer everyone of San Diego each year better tech clarity, responsibility, and public oversight within the current tech questions and needs of San Diego neighborhood public safety practices.

A reminder uh that is my understanding that formal councilperson Monica Mon Montgomery Steph has always felt uh that the numbers of new San Diego ALPR purchases a few years ago could eventually be reduced.

And to conclude, I feel we simply need an open, accountable, full community conversation about SDPD procedures and guidelines with the future of ALPR use in real time.

Uh thanks for the words of Councilperson Ella Vera today.

Um they were really nice.

Uh really nice thinking, um, all around and uh good luck uh how we're working on our housing issues.

Uh a good week for that uh for these items.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon, everyone.

John Brady with Lived Advisors again.

Uh great meeting today.

Um, I want to give you some anecdote anecdotal evidence uh from one of our members that evictions are up in affordable housing.

It seems unclear whether this is uh an increased enforcement of HUD regulations, uh follow-up uh evictions due to unpaid uh COVID rents or uh other issues, but uh anecdotally availability and down and affordable housing is up, and so are evictions, according to this member.

I want to say at the same time that people that have issues in affordable housing continue to not have a viable way to report those issues in a manner that leads to resolution without retaliation.

Uh we engage uh consistently with folks that are frustrated in affordable housing and seem to have no way to enforce what should be basic living standards.

Uh one of the great unfairness examples that exist is the fact that while every apartment building seemingly in downtown has a three-minute loading and unloading zone, those are uncommon or non-existent in front of any affordable housing units that we regularly visit.

Uh, and this seems to be a massive oversight since generally those folks do not have vehicles.

Um a great example of this is St.

Paul uh is the St.

Teresa's uh right in downtown.

Um I really uh am well, as to the woman who came up in front of city council, we still don't have any clear resolution, uh, although I am being reached out by the property manager and the housing commission and hopefully we'll have an update, but she still does not have a place to go.

And on a personal note, when it comes to security cameras, I'll tell you one reason why the public is resistant.

I had my scooter stolen uh while I was testifying in front of city council on Tuesday, and the only way I can get somebody to look at the security footage at City Hall is by having police engage, which is ridiculous.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

The five-minute timer concluded.

We have three hands remaining in the queue.

We will take no additional call additional callers after these three.

Natalie, please unmute and begin.

Hi, I know you guys had a long day yesterday, so I'll try to make it quick.

Um, it's frustrating because I've done all of this research, and everything that with this housing and homelessness leads right straight back to HUD.

Over and over and over and time and time again, where they've created a program, and then another administration comes in and breaks that, or they do this and do that, run freeways through neighborhoods, say they're gonna re rebuild, and then they don't rebuild.

Administrations get caught, you know, funneling money, and here we are again.

And I'm caught in this loop with HUD.

Uh it's really, really overwhelming how as a society we cannot even they can't even be touched.

I just don't understand how it is that this continues to happen in this day and age.

Especially being a registered indigenous person of the United States is crazy to me.

Again, when it comes to building anybody that we're allowed to building companies' business, how come they don't there isn't a fund for any time anyone wants to do business here that's big business goes into a fee that's for homelessness?

I don't know how that is not something we thought about.

And also this is the gentleman that's talking about um the Alpha project.

When you're out there for a certain amount of time, your nervous system is never regulated.

So we're having these people walk around every day in a constant state of unregulated nervous system, and we continue to get these problems.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kathleen Lippett.

Please unmute and begin.

Thank you for letting me speak.

Um earlier, blame blaming opposition to new housing on people who don't want more people in their neighborhood or worry about those people who those people are.

That statement seems like a less than subtle assumption that the reason is bias racial or otherwise, and that seems like a very unfair and ungracious takeaway based on some very unspecified bias.

Homeowners care about protecting their property values, and they should.

They worked hard to purchase homes in communities that they want where they wanted to live.

When the city permits multi-story, cheaply built, dystopian public housing projects meant to achieve high density without consideration beyond that goal, it's problematic, it does lower property values, and people don't want that.

These projects are eyesores, and the neighborhoods that once had charm and character for housing projects destined to become previously enjoyed projects.

They've they'll likely going to become um blocked.

The absence of city required infrastructure will further cause problems in these communities, and accusing home o homeowners of hoarding is also unfair.

Those who worked and saved to own their own home should not be criticized for willing to leave it to their children.

They should have that right and not be criticized for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, land use and housing.

I'm uh speaking as kindly as I can on some concerns I have as a retired social worker.

I think it would be useful for this committee and those who are responsible for for affordable housing and for the programs that we have for the unhoused to have a really good understanding of how the county's PERC program works.

You know that that's the psychiatric emergency response team, and to understand what its applicability it is for the city at our affordable housing projects, at our housing for the unhoused, and maybe perhaps here at some of our committee meetings.

It is their intervention program done by a licensed mental health clinician that helps identify what the mental health problems might be of people involved, be they down at City Hall, or in the affordable housing multi-unit complexes, or in your own unhoused projects for those in need.

Although it is a county problem, uh program, sorry, it has a lot of utility for the city, and we need to understand how to ask them, access the program, and what they might do for us here at the city because the need is grave.

We see it even at committee meetings, and we shouldn't underestimate what they could do for us.

Unfortunately at the moment the only way you can access the team is with the 911 call.

And I think that's the first situation we need to analyze with the county there's got to be a better way than that to receive the help that we need to help those who are mentally ill.

We see them everywhere we see them sometimes here at City Hall.

We definitely see them in large multi-unit affordable housing complexes and we see them in the programs for the unhoused.

So let's get a pro get a presentation here from the county regarding how the PERC team works.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair this concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you.

That brings us to the end of today's agenda we will adjourn this meeting of the land use and housing committee to our next regularly scheduled meeting which is on Thursday July 9th 2026 at one o'clock p.m where you are