Okay, I'm gonna jump in here.

Um, as you can see, it's about nine ten.

Uh, we actually have four of the five council members here.

We also have I don't know, upwards of a hundred people standing in line out there.

I don't know who those folks are.

I don't know if they were here to speak to non-agenda public comment.

Uh, if they were here for any particular item.

Uh, but since um somebody didn't do the courtesy of informing me what kind of turnout there would be this morning, which could have caused us to be a little more uh receptive to how we would manage the meeting, even move it to a different location that could accommodate people and move them into the faster.

Uh, we're just gonna kind of uh bite our time until we get a better sense that uh the vast majority of people that want to come into chambers or probably into the overflow room are going to be here.

So that's unfortunately where we're at, so that's why the meeting has not yet been convened.

So your patience.

Thank you, Chair Locava.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it on top of the box indicated at the table at the front of the room at the high lectern.

Please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management in-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins, and members of the public can also join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

If you need to participate by telephone, you may do so by dialing 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160499420 pound.

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

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

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

If you wish to speak to a particular item, please 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 called participant by pressing star nine on your phone.

If you raise your hand during an on-comment period, your hand will be lowered.

Chair.

All right, thank you, Sarah, for reviewing those instructions for the benefit of the public.

A quorum is now present.

I see a lot of faces that may be in chambers uh for the very first time for a committee or city council meeting.

So uh I want to remind everyone about the city's practices and procedures for public comment at uh city council and committee meetings.

We welcome your public participation.

Speakers may address the council during public comment and also in connection with specific item of business on the agenda.

However, the city must make sure that no one person or group of people disrupt the meeting in a way that prohibits other speakers from expressing their ideas and options.

So to make sure that everyone has an opportunity to address the council, I will alert an individual or individuals if I think their conduct becomes disruptive.

If the disruption continues, I will rule the individual out of order.

And if the disruption continues further, and please, please do not make me do this.

I will declare a recess so we can restore order.

At that point, I will direct the individual to leave the room, and the individual refuses.

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

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.

Sarah, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Chair Lakava.

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

Each speaker will have two minutes to provide their non-agenda public comment.

We have not received any slips here in chambers, so I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment.

We will begin with Andrea Ebbing.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, this is Andrea Ebbing.

Hello, rules committee.

Any such system where church and state are supposed to be separated in the county of San Diego, that's an impossibility.

Because we have a district attorney named Summer Stefan, who is married to a federal judge named Dana Sabrow, who was our Chief Justice until he stepped down on in February of 2025, likely as a result of the investigations taking place for the very reasons I talk about very regularly at all these meetings.

But her agendas, if she needs to make room for the Afghani refugees that she wants to import, um, who are all undocumented, unvetted, um traumatized, have no resources.

If she wants to make room for them and deport our neighbors, she can just turn to her federal judge husband who can then issue a warrant.

It's a complete conflict of interest.

Um it's a violation of our civil rights, and we really need to look at the RG system and uh the stats that we're shown at the sandag meeting.

There's no way it's an impossibility.

It's statistically impossible for the numbers to be so close between 2024 and 2025 and all the requests.

If R just was effective, my children would not have been abducted and driven across the country on a permanently suspended license for somebody who is under a murder investigation for the very same strategy he used to almost kill me on video before the DA abandoned my family and chose to prosecute the victim instead because she wanted to protect her kickbacks from my rehab owner X, who would she awarded five million taxpayer dollars?

They're involved in opioid distribution, body brokering, and insurance fraud.

She's a Rico mob boss, and we really need to audit the RJ system.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker.

Our next speaker is Al Del Mastro.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, my name is Al Del Mastro.

Um my big concern is I don't see this committee on their budgets.

I really don't see you guys going after the city's spending money.

I know you like don't want to close the the uh libraries or the parks.

Nobody wants that.

But I haven't heard anything this committee say about the attorney that works for the city that got a hundred thousand dollar raise last year and got to take a four-month world cruise, and we called that working from home.

I believe that this abuse um is is really opposed to our city.

I don't see any city council member taking up this uh abuse issue at all.

I just see them trying to attacks and give more fees to the public to generate more income, but not shut down your spending.

I believe the city staff has gone up 27% in the last five years, but the population is only going up one percent.

The other thing is that this city and its the city council that I'm addressing right now, their wages went from five years ago from 75,000 a year to 186,000 a year.

I've never ever heard of anybody, private industry or public industry for doing the exact same job, getting a hundred and forty plus percent raise.

Uh, you know, this can't continue.

We're all in a we're all asked to sacrifice and make uh concessions.

How about your salaries?

How about your spending habits?

How come we can't build affordable housing under a million dollars a unit?

I mean, how come you're not looking in the like less spending?

How many city workers come to work five days a week, even?

Why are we not seeing the transparency in your spending and what they're doing with that?

How many employees are coming to work?

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker in the queue is Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, rules committee.

My name is Becky Rapp.

I'm a public health educator speaking today on the city's proposed land development code updates with a particular focus on item number 20.

Item 20 emphasizes that the marijuana leave symbol is prohibited on signage.

And I appreciate this clarification.

It reflects the original intent of proposition 64, which prioritized protecting children and youth from exposure to a predatory industry.

The city is right to acknowledge that intent.

But the rules need to be applied consistently to be effective.

Currently, while storefront signage for marijuana businesses is tightly regulated, off-site advertising is not.

Large billboards near marijuana shops are permitted to display marijuana imagery, including the marijuana leaf, often using bright colors and cartoon style graphics.

These ads are visible to everyone, but especially the children and youth who cannot avoid them.

If marijuana imagery is considered inappropriate on a building due to public health concerns, it should not be permitted on a billboard in the same neighborhood, often across the street.

Allowing this inconsistency weakens the rule and undermines its purpose.

This is not simply a land development issue.

It is a rules issue.

It's about clarity, consistency, and enforceability.

When rules lack consistency, enforcement suffers, trust is undermined, and certain neighborhoods just disproportionately experience impacts.

I urge the rules committee to strengthen item 20 by extending signage restrictions to off-site advertising, including billboards.

So our policies align with public health goals and equity is applied across all communities.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

The five minute timer has concluded.

We have five hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no other callers beyond these remaining five hands raised.

Madison Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Good morning, Rules Committee.

I'm here today as a concerned community member responding to a recent Union Tribune report out of La Mesa.

Earlier this month, a cannabis delivery driver was shot in the neck during a robbery by a group of teenagers.

One just 18 years old, another only 16.

Thankfully, the victim survived, but the circumstances should give all of us pause.

It involved a cash-based high value delivery tied to a permitted cannabis market, operating in our neighborhoods in the middle of the afternoon.

And while Lamesa is a different jurisdiction, the risks don't stop at city boundaries.

The rules committee plays a critical role in deciding which policies move forward, which issues receive oversight, and how public safety considerations are framed across committees.

As you said, agendas and referrals related to cannabis regulation, zoning, delivery, and enforcement.

I urge you to view these issues not in silos, but through a public safety and youth impact lens.

When policy decisions increase the presence of cash products and delivery activity in rental air residential areas, they can unintentionally create opportunities for crime and for young people to be pulled into serious life-altering violence.

Thank you for your leadership and for taking these responsibilities seriously.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Blair Beak uh Blair Beekman.

Happy Wednesday to everyone.

You have CC for your meeting today, closed caption.

Thank you.

Thank you for the words of Andrea Ebbing talking about uh Argus and accountability.

I think Sandeg uh everyone on the on the board and community will be working towards better accountability uh with Argus in the upcoming months.

Andrea's offering ideas how to do that.

Thank you.

Um, I wanted to comment uh, I guess firstly from yesterday's council meeting that you worked on uh Sunday parking issues and all our public comments, they meant to be directed towards uh parking overall.

We were talking about Belboro parking, Sunday parking as part of an overall problem and how to address our future budget issues.

I tried to offer constructive ideas, other people did as well.

Um, from that, uh the council, I didn't better realize we're also trying to uh develop better practices for the Sunday parking issues.

It sounds like uh I'm not fully clear, but that certainly seems a direction.

So thank you for that, City Council that you're trying to at least uh address uh how to better improve a really awkward Sunday program at this point.

Uh parking program.

With that with that all said, um the the flock items that um the way that flock uh is being uh compromised.

Well, the city of Oakland is is made a compromise to leave Flock uh in the next two years and to be looking for a new ALPR vendor in that time.

I hope San Diego will know how to and want to follow that sort of idea because there to me is a definite sign of peace in doing that.

And it questions, it allows our local community to have control in this really different difficult national security time where Trump is now exclaiming he wants to go back down to Venezuela and Iran because of his failures in Minneapolis and Minnesota.

So we gotta be cautious and work well to keep peace at the local level.

Good luck how we do that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is John Stump.

Please unmute and begin.

Uh good morning.

Um basically retired.

But you know, I look at the council chamber.

I first started working with the city of San Diego more than 30 years ago.

30 years ago.

The council chamber did not look like it does today.

It was an austere.

Uh basically no staff room.

And in fact, it didn't have flags and plastic bullards and uh paper all over the place and staff seating.

Because council was basically a voluntary job.

And uh the city ran very well.

You know, that speaker who talked about spending was so odd.

That should be played twice today.

I hope he comes back and talks about your spending.

You know, there was an article in the newspaper today about buying a new city hall.

What the council needs to remember is that the original design of City Hall was to have the public meeting space on the terrace level and using uh the hall spaces beneath that way you didn't mix up the public when they came in these large numbers into the elevators in uh administrative part of the city.

When you look for designs about how to have a city hall work correctly, go back and look at how the city originally operated, and it was where the meetings were on the terrace level, and that's where the committees were.

Thank you.

Good luck.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Judy Strang, I've given you permission to speak.

Please unmute and provide your non-agenda public comment at this time.

Good morning, rules committee.

Uh, can you hear me okay?

We can hear you, please continue.

Thank you.

I'm at work and I really appreciate this opportunity to share some thoughts about rules.

I work with young people.

In fact, I'm preparing for an after school program as we speak, and I was very impressed with some information I received from the California department.

And I'm sorry, the tax and fee administration, it's written so small, regarding some new regulations that would help to remove cannabis and synthetic cannabinoid products from the marketplace.

I'm sure you all are in receipt these sorts of news and press releases as well.

And it continues to mention that there are many cannabis products sort of hiding under hemp titles, being sold not only from smoke shops and gas stations and small uh mom and pop stores, but they've become very available to our young people and become highly important to them as part of their drug using activities, and we need to remove them from the public marketplace.

And as this points out, it is now against the law to possess store, own or make any sort of sale of these products, and it's important to all of us who are parents and work with young people to see these laws enforced both at the federal level and the city level.

And I know our city attorney has made a grand gesture in doing more of this, and so we're grateful to see the state support.

The state has increased their civil penalties as well as the law enforcement involvement, but keep in mind, and I think we all know this here in our city, we see little enforcement activity from the state, so it falls back on our city to do more about removing these products that have synthetic cannabinoids from the marketplace that's so dramatically affecting our young people.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

And the final caller in the queue is iPhone.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Eric Wasera from District 4.

And I just want to um piggyback a little bit on the spending of city council and just the city in general.

Um and I also think about taxation with representation or without representation.

We are the eighth or ninth largest city in America.

And um, the more I learn about this, and the more I start doing some research.

You could look at other cities that are um very close to this ice, and if you look, other cities have twice as many council members, they are represented, and and we our districts are very large, and we don't feel represented.

We we don't feel like um, and when I say we, I'm talking about the community.

Um when you have one how how can one council member take care of his district when it's three times bigger than other cities that have um have as many people that they have to you know uh you know help out or or hear their concerns.

So please, if you guys can start looking at that, and what is the definition about taxation without representation?

Where does it where is that gonna be an issue here in San Diego as the city grows and we only have nine councils?

How is that how how do people feel represented in in their community?

Um thank you so much, Eric Vasera from Encanto District 4.

Thank you for your testimony and chair.

This concludes non-agenda public comment.

Okay, thank you for managing that.

We will now move to committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, and independent budget analysts for any comments.

Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President Lacava.

Um appreciate everyone who's here today.

Obviously, we have some uh big items today.

Uh Council President, I'm I'm not sure the way in which we're going to take various items.

Uh I just I would respectfully request that item two uh proceed uh as quickly as possible because it is a public initiative because uh the proponents had to wait from November, not at any fault of their own.

Uh and so I know they've had a special exception to be able to get on the agenda today in the first place uh because we lost quorum back in November.

Um, but that would be my request.

Thank you.

All right, thank you for that.

Um not seeing anybody else um asking or requesting to speak.

Um so um with that.

Do we have any requests for continuance?

Never make that assumption.

Not seeing any requests, we will now take up the consent agenda.

Sarah, please introduce the item.

Thank you, Chair.

The consent agenda includes item number one, which is the approval of the committee minutes for November 19th, 2025.

Uh this item will remain on the consent agenda unless the committee member requests to pull an item off the consent, or there are any requests to pull this item, not seeing any.

Uh Sarah, please proceed with public comment on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Chair.

We've not received any speaker slips here in chambers, but I will begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on item number one.

Each speaker will have one minute.

We will begin testimony with Andrea Ebbing.

Please unmute and provide your comments to the past committee minutes.

Uh hi, so I look at the past committee minutes.

Um and let's see here.

Um actually I'm good.

I'm gonna pass.

Thank you.

Sorry.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

To me, what was uh pretty amazing about the uh previous uh council meeting, uh committee meeting, environment committee meeting uh on uh well not environment, I'm very sorry, uh public rules.

Um meeting was that you talked uh very nicely about um uh ballot measure proposal issues and and allowed public input, the public uh sponsors and their ideas.

Um it was really nice attending that meeting, and uh thank you for it.

One of the items uh about possibly considering uh no fees for Sunday parking at Bobo Park, uh I think you're gonna be talking about here today.

So good luck.

Uh there was a lot of good ideas uh at that meeting uh uh in propositions by uh everyday community.

So good luck uh that we if they can't be propositions that they can be really continuously talked about because there were really good ideas at place.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

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

All right, uh, I'll now turn it over to committee members for questions, comments, and retain a motion.

We have a move approval of the consent agenda.

All right, council member campillo and a second by council member Ilo Rivera, not seeing anybody else wishing to speak on the consent items.

Uh please call the roll.

The consent agenda passes unanimously.

Five zero.

All right.

Uh with that, uh I respect uh both the frustration by the proponent as well as your suggestion, Councilmember Campio, but some people made extraordinary efforts to be here uh given uh what was announced as the reordering of the items.

So Sarah, please introduce item four.

Item number four is further committee review of a ballot measure proposal by shuncil member Sean Eli Rivera regarding an empty second home and vacation rental tax.

And if you're watching on City TV or the live stream online and you'd like to call into the meeting to speak, please dial 1669-2545252.

And when prompted, input webinar ID 16049-9420 pound chair.

All right.

With that, staff, please introduce yourselves for record and let us know how much time you need.

Thank you, Council President Locava.

Uh, I've got some uh introductory comments before I hand it over to Maya.

Um, as we discussed um when we initially brought this proposal forward, um, I think it's important to explain what we're aiming for with uh with the proposal that's in front of us.

Uh, the goal is the vision for San Diego is one that works for the people who live here, where the people who live here can see a future for themselves, for their families and their friends.

We know that that can only happen if they believe that they will be able to afford to live here.

And that means that they will be able to afford their housing.

The goal is to keep homes available for local families and reduce pressure on the housing market that drives up rent and home prices, protect San Diego's from displacement, between stopping investors and short-term rentals from pushing out working families from their neighborhoods, protect San Diego neighborhoods, preserve the character, safety, and community fabric of the places that we call home, and make speculative investors pay their fair share by ensuring that those who profit from our housing market help fund housing infrastructure, public safety, and the city services that San Diego needs to be a great place to live.

Um to uh get into the policy details, but I I do want to acknowledge that there are a lot of folks who've not uh been here before and who are engaging in the process for the first time.

Uh my understanding is that there were many folks who were recruited to participate today for the first time, participated in this process, um, who were paid to be here by organizations that said your voice was important.

So I want to welcome you to these chambers to participate.

I also want to make sure it's clear at the very beginning of this conversation who did that recruitment.

That recruitment was done by entities that believe people should be able to charge as much as they possibly can for rent.

People who oppose paying people a living wage and people who support for-profit prisons.

So uh Councilmember Ila Rivera, can you pause for a minute?

Um, the one thing I didn't say, there's gonna be strong feelings for and against this particular item.

Uh, we're not going to let one side or the other interfere with the timely that or the comments, whether it is not a whether it's public comment, whether it's a council member talking.

If you agree, and this is the practice at City Council that was started years ago.

If you agree with it, put thumbs up.

If you don't agree, thumbs down.

It's very powerful visual statement going forward.

Please be cognizant that when you put signs up, there are people behind you that want a visual of what is happening out here.

So be courteous to your to your neighbor.

But let's do the thumbs up, thumbs down as opposed to interfering with ongoing talks.

So, Councilman Rivera.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

I again I thought that part was important because when I see folks participating for the first time, I think the context is very important.

As someone who spent my career prior to being a council member, bringing people into the civic engagement process.

I want that I think that that part is important for folks to know.

Um, and with that, I will hand it over to Maya.

I will hand it over to Maya to present uh our proposal.

Good morning.

My name is Maya Rossas, Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy.

On behalf of Councilmember Ela Rivera, I'm here to present the further committee review of a ballot measure proposal regarding an empty second home and vacation rental tax.

And I will need 17 minutes.

The requested action for this item is as follows.

Forward the proposed measure to the city council for consideration for placement on the June 2026 ballot.

The ordinance for review today is a working draft subject to change if forwarded to council based upon feedback received and to clarify language as needed.

To provide a framing of what motivates our office to bring forward the empty second home and vacation rental proposal.

Councilmember Ela Rivera shared our vision and goals here at the outset, and these remain the same as when we introduced the item in October.

Housing affordability is a global issue.

And across the world, we see residents identifying short-term rentals and speculative investment in housing as a contributor to the housing crisis.

These are just some of the cities across the world that have pushed back against the proliferation of vacation rentals and speculative housing investment.

In the United States, the short-term rental market was estimated to reach 138.1 billion dollars in market value last year.

According to AirDNA, a leading data analytics platform, 2026 is shaping up to be the most compelling year to invest in short-term rentals since 2021.

The current housing supply shortage nationally is estimated at 2.8 million homes.

At the same time, there were 2.5 million vacation rentals nationwide.

The housing crisis requires that we increase our housing supply through new construction or conversion of other uses to housing.

Other cities are taking a stand to counter the negative impacts of short-term rentals and second homes, and they are all tailoring their approach based on local circumstances.

Aspen voters approved an excise tax on short-term rentals in 2022.

This created a 5% tax on owner-occupied short-term rentals and 10% on investment or second home short-term rentals in addition to their tourism tax.

The Montana legislature increased taxes on residential properties used as vacation homes while reducing taxes for primary residences.

In Berkeley, voters approved the empty homes tax in 2022.

The tax is imposed on homes vacant for 183 or more days annually.

In December 2025, the Maui County Council voted to ban most vacation rentals over a five-year phase out.

Washington, D.C.

adopted a tax for vacant residential and commercial properties.

The tax is doubled for blighted vacant properties.

And the list goes on.

AirDNA forecasts that the San Diego market will see a 5.8% increase in year over year revenue per available rental in 2026, the third highest rate on its list of top 40 U.S.

markets.

They also specifically analyze San Diego as one of California's top markets and say that demand remains strong both in coastal areas and in neighborhoods.

Before we are explicit about how we define empty second homes and vacation rentals, we want to be clear who will not be affected by this tax, since there has been substantial misinformation spread to the public about this proposal.

The tax will not apply to homes where San Diegans live.

If you live in the home you own, this does not apply to your home, including tier one and two short-term rental license holders.

If you are a renter in San Diego, you do not pay this tax.

If you are a landlord to San Diego tenants, you and your tenants do not pay this tax, whether your tenants are long-term or even medium-term, such as traveling nurses who rent for more than 30 days.

If you live in your home with an ADU that you keep empty as an office or for occasional visitors, you will not be taxed for your ADU.

In other words, 98% of San Diego homes are not taxed.

99% of San Diegans are not taxed, and 100% of homes lived in by San Diegans are not taxed.

Empty second homes and vacation rentals subject to this tax are homes where the owner has chosen to keep them vacant for over half a year or operate them as a whole home year-round short-term rental business.

This includes family-sized homes in residential neighborhoods, such as this short-term rental listed in North Park, as well as extravagant mansions that sit empty most of the year, like the Sand Castle in La Jolla.

Currently, short-term rental owners pay a license fee that simply covers the cost of operating and enforcing cities' regulations, and the owners remit transient occupancy tax paid by their customers, not the owner.

Yet in many circumstances, owners of second homes and short-term rentals can use those properties for tax deductions.

In fact, the so-called big beautiful bill that passed last year included additional tax breaks that will be financially beneficial to owners of short-term rentals.

Owners of empty second homes and vacation rentals do not pay their fair share for the impacts they have locally.

Empty second homes are homes that are not the primary residence of a San Diegan and are left vacant for over 182 days a year or over half a year.

These may be speculative investments or a vacation home for personal use.

Bottom line, these are homes the owner has chosen to keep empty.

Empty second homes can be high-priced downtown condos with bay views, such as these on Pacific Highway.

These pictures were taken before 9 p.m.

on a Monday night, a time when most people are home.

As you can see, many of the bay facing and top floor condos are vacant.

In La Jolla, many of these beachfront condos are also sitting empty.

But this is not just an issue with luxury high-rises and beachfront properties, which are not affordable to most San Diegans, even if they return to the market.

There are also homes in our neighborhoods that are being left vacant that many, though certainly not all San Diego families could realistically afford if given an opportunity.

Along Friars Road, there are 48 homes sitting empty and not available for a San Diegan to move into.

And there are 36 in the college area, including three in this condo building.

The proposed tax would also apply to tier three and four short-term rental license holders.

Not all owners of short-term rentals would be taxed, just the ones that are able to be used as whole home year-round businesses that are not lived in by the host.

Traditional home sharing falls into tier one and two licenses, which would not be taxed.

Someone who only rents out their home for Comic Con, for example, would need a Tier 1 license and would not be taxed for that.

Someone who rents out a room to supplement their income and who lives in that home would have a tier two license and they would not be taxed.

Only whole home year-round short-term rental businesses are taxed, which we refer to as vacation rentals in this measure.

This is a residential multifamily property with 10 units.

It is owned by a family trust that owns dozens of whole home short-term rentals.

This is an apartment building that used to house San Diegans.

They have all been converted to tier three short-term rentals.

Here are the facts about vacation rentals or tier three and four short-term rentals in San Diego.

Twenty percent are units owned by corporations, not including family trusts.

Over a third do not have a mailing address in the city.

And 17% are multifamily rental apartments.

That's nearly a thousand apartments.

Currently, 5,115 homes sit vacant with no renter or owner living in them, based on the owner's filing of a second home exemption with the treasurer's office.

That exemption is the mechanism currently available for identifying empty second homes.

The treasurer's office will be able to identify empty second homes using this available data, but will have the flexibility to adapt and use other methodologies if improved methods for identifying empty second homes becomes available.

The treasurer also maintains a list of vacation rentals since they manage the STRO program.

In total, nearly 11,000 homes remain unavailable for San Diegans to live in.

The data shows that while these properties exist across the city in every community, they are especially concentrated.

Forty-five percent of empty homes are in the downtown La Jolla, Pacific Beach and Peninsula communities.

As expected, most whole home vacation rentals are in our beach communities, but that means that 46% are in communities across the city.

For all these reasons, we have proposed an $8,000 annual tax per empty second home and vacation rental.

The tax will first be collected for a half year prorated to half of the annual tax.

So the tax will first be assessed for July 1 through December 31, 2026, and begin to be collected in the first quarter of 2027.

Then the tax will continue annually at the full $8,000 rate beginning with the 2027 calendar year.

Surcharges address additional issues stemming from empty second homes and vacation rentals.

Corporate owned homes place an additional burden on San Diego's housing crisis by removing housing available for ownership to San Diego families.

We propose a $4,000 surcharge for corporate owned vacation homes.

Corporate ownership means owners that are not a natural person, for example, a limited liability company, limited partnership, corporation, etc.

Typical family or living trusts are revocable trusts which are not corporations.

Repeat neighborhood code enforcement violator means a home that has had more than one STRO health and safety or zoning and land development code violation remedy issued in the calendar year.

We have worked closely with the building and land use enforcement team in DSD to develop this, and we will continue to work with them to make sure this definition captures our intent of taxing owners who have repeatedly violated the municipal code, causing quality of life or even health and safety issues in the neighborhood.

The surcharges will be prorated for half a year for July 1 through December 31, 2026.

We developed exclusions from the tax that are reasonable and allow for some empty second homes and vacation rentals to not be taxed.

Exclusions include for disaster period, homeowner exemption period, lease period, non-ownership period, owner death period, owner in care period, and qualifying military service period.

Exemptions are slightly different than the exclusions in that exemptions are more of a permanent state, such as when the city is prohibited by law from imposing the tax.

The main exemption that may apply is for an owner of four or fewer separate residential units, inclusive of ADUs and junior ADUs that include the owner's principal residents.

This exemption doesn't apply if the home is under corporate ownership.

We are working with the city attorney's office as well as the IBA to develop potential oversight, advisory, and independent audit measures to be included in the ordinance for council consideration.

We welcome input on the development of oversight advisory and independent audit measures and any other feedback today.

If approved, we will bring an updated ordinance that includes any changes that come from today's hearing and any clarifying measures that are needed before we finalize the ordinance.

So our requested action again is to forward the proposed measure to the city council for consideration for placement on the June 2026 ballot.

I want to express our team's deepest appreciation toward David and Brett from the City Attorney's Office, Liz, Ricardo, Matt, and Gerardo from the Treasurer's Office, and DSD's Blue Team.

We are available to answer questions.

Thank you, Chair.

All right, thank you for the presentation.

Uh we'll now turn it over to Ms.

Andalina with the independent budget analyst for their comments.

Thank you so much.

I'd like to invite Charles Monica, the city's IBA to provide some intro comments.

And thank you, Chair Lacava, thank you, Council members.

Um, and thank you to Maya for the presentation of the proposal.

Uh, my office also had the presentation this morning.

At the last rules committee hearing on this item, we were requested to take a look at the potential fiscal and operational impacts of the proposal, and the presentation that you'll hear from our office this morning will go over our office's findings.

Uh, I want to stress that that presentation will have some very preliminary estimates of potential impacts to the city's finances.

We did do significant benchmarking and research for impacts of similar policies in other cities, but the findings that we will be discussing are preliminary.

The proposal has shifted significantly between when it was initially presented in October and where it is today.

And the final form of the proposal with the tax rates and potential exemptions was only recently finalized, so our time to model fiscal impacts was somewhat limited.

I do want to stress if the proposal moves forward to council, we will spend the next several weeks further refining and validating the projections that we're about to discuss.

That will also include stress testing our modeling and assumptions with various stakeholders.

What we are presenting this morning, again, it is informed by significant research analysis and outreach, but I want to make sure that both this committee and the public understand that this is a preliminary analysis.

The potential for our projections to shift in the upcoming weeks does exist as we plan to ask experts to essentially review our work, point out strengths and weaknesses in our modeling and assumptions so that when this moves to full council, council will have the most informed set of analysis that it can as it ponders the decisions that it wants to make as to whether or not to put this on the ballot.

With that, I will kick this over to Jillian and Noah.

They will walk through our presentation and we will also be available for questions.

Thank you, Charles.

I just want to introduce myself again.

My name is Gillian Andalina with the Office of the IBA, and I'm joined by Noah Fleischmann to present our preliminary analysis of the proposal before you today.

I also have other members of our team here, including the Division of Race and Equity available for questions.

Due to time constraints, we were unable to provide a full report for committee today, but I hope our comments today are helpful in your decision making.

We will be providing a full report ahead of council consideration.

With that, I will now pass it to NOAA to kick it off the presentation.

Thank you, Jillian.

Before diving into our preliminary analysis, we would like to note that the proposal has potential fiscal and policy impacts that are beyond the scope of our office's ability to analyze due constraints on timing, staffing, and in-house expertise.

Firstly, we'll not be able to conduct a broad economic impact analysis of how this proposal may affect tourism jobs, taxable sales, or the availability and affordability of the long-term rental market.

Similarly, we will not be able to model how visitor behavior may change due to the availability of price or price of short-term rentals.

However, we do make assumptions about how owners of short-term rentals and empty second homes may change their behavior.

Lastly, we will not be able to analyze how the proposal may impact an owner's desire to sell their property or how that may impact property tax collection.

As you'll see from the following slides, our preliminary analysis does include an overview of the potential base of taxpayers that may be subject to the proposed tax and their location in the city by council district and community plan area.

Additionally, we make estimates on the number of properties that may be exempt from the tax and the number of properties that may need to pay an additional surcharge.

However, we note that the numbers of potentially exempt properties will vary greatly depending on changes to property owner behavior and the corresponding level of enforcement and departmental needs to implement the proposal in a timely manner.

We will also provide examples of similar proposals in other cities and benchmarks those tax programs against the proposal before you today.

Next, we'll dive into our fiscal impact analysis of how the proposal may affect the city's budget.

However, we will reiterate that this is a very preliminary and rudimentary analysis of the fiscal impacts and it is subject to change should the proposal advance out of committee today.

Lastly, there are additional considerations that we would like to ensure council and the public are aware of as you deliberate the proposal.

Maya has already summarized the proposed tax, but we would like to take a moment to illustrate the base tax, surcharges, and exemptions.

For example, if a two-unit duplex in Mission Beach is owned by an LLC that rents both of those units as whole home tier 4 short-term rentals, then the owner would be subject to an $8,000 per unit base fee plus the $4,000 per unit corporate surcharge for a total of $24,000 for both units.

As another example, if a two-unit duplex in Mission Beach is owned by an individual that either rents one unit as a whole home tier 4 short-term rental or uses it as a second home and lives in the other unit as their primary residence, then the entire property would be exempt from the tax.

This table provides an overview of the total number of whole homes, short-term rental vacation, excuse me, whole home short-term vacation rentals, also known as STVRs, and empty second homes, also known as ESHs, that will be subject to the proposed tax as of January 2026.

Excuse me, the data is as of January 2026.

While we believe the council and public have a solid understanding of what a whole home short-term vacation rental is, we'd like to highlight how ESHs are defined and counted.

If a property does not receive a homeowner's tax exemption from the county of San Diego, the city presumes the property to be subject to the rental unit business tax and will send the property an REBT bill.

There are nine exemptions to REBT that an owner can claim, one of them being that the property is not available to be rented any part of the year because it is a vacation slash second home.

Owners that swear under the penalty of perjury that their property is exempt from REBT as a vacation/slash second home would be subject to the proposed tax unless otherwise exempted.

Additionally, we would like to note that the number of STVRs and ESHs on this slide and the following two slides do not include exempt properties or other exits from the taxpayer base that we will discuss later.

This table shows how many whole home STVRs and ESHs are in each council district.

Approximately 78% of the potential taxpayer base is in District 1, 2, and 3.

Similar to the previous slide, this table breaks down the whole home STVRs and ESHs by the top eight community plan areas and all other 48 CPAs are grouped and summed in the second to last row.

These eight top CPAs make up about two-thirds of the potential taxpayer base.

Should council members of the public like information on the CPA not in this slide, we'd be happy to provide that.

As we previously noted, a property may be exempt from the proposed tax if it is occupied with four or fewer units or falls into a temporary exclusion category.

The only source of data that we have for owner-occupied properties is from the county's master parcel record file that has a field for owner occupancy.

However, that is self-reported information, usually when the property was first purchased and is not a true tally of the total number of properties that are owner-occupied that would be exempted from the tax.

Therefore, we would like to clearly note that this figure is likely an underestimate of the exempt owner-occupied properties.

Additionally, we do not have a method to estimate temporary exemptions or exclusions that may occur due to a disaster, lease period, owner death period, owner care period, or military service.

To estimate the amount of additional revenue that may be collected from the two surcharges, we attempted to understand the potential universe of corporate owned properties and repeat code violating properties.

While there's not a data set for corporate owned properties, we were able to analyze owner names as they are reported on title and count key identifying terms such as LLC, LTD, Corp, Inc., and Irrevocable Trust.

With that, we estimate that 101,358 STVRs, or 24%, and 61 ESHs or 1% are corporate owned.

In terms of the potential universe of properties that would be subject to the repeat code violation surcharge, who are still working with DSD to understand how many properties this may apply to.

To assess the proposal, our office benchmarked similar ordinances in other cities.

We did not find examples of cities taxing both ESHs and STVRs into the same structure, but identified cities taxing them separately.

Berkeley, Oakland, Washington, D.C., and Vancouver are four cities with empty homes taxes.

This slide shows the year the tax went into effect, the general tax structure, and the variations between preliminary estimates of and the actual data for the unit subject to the tax and the revenue collected from the tax.

We found that most cities overestimate the number of units that may be subject to the tax.

Vancouver saw a 61% drop from initial estimates, and Berkeley saw a 46% drop.

Oakland was the exception to its con due to its conservative initial assumption of 60 to 75% of parcels being exempt.

High exemption rates suggest owners either qualified but hadn't claimed exemptions until the tax was imminent or changed behavior to claim they qualified.

Consequently, revenues often fell short of projections, except in DC, where a value-based property tax kept pace with increasing property values.

Data on the impact of these taxes on housing affordability is limited.

Vancouver reported that approximately 1,000 previously vacant units returned to the rental market from 2022 to 2023.

But at the same time, vacant units make up less than 1% of housing stock and the housing prices remained high.

To offset declining taxable units, Vancouver raised its tax from 1% to 3% of assessed values.

We also reviewed statewide taxes in Rhode Island, Montana, and Utah, but these differed significantly from the proposal, and in some cases lacked outcome data due to recent implementation.

Jurisdictions like Chicago and Aspen impose additional STVR taxes on top of hotel taxes.

In Chicago, higher taxes reduced listings from individual hosts and favored professional hosts with multiple listings.

Aspen collected about 35% less revenue than initial estimates.

Our findings from these examples are that initial estimates of taxable units are often overestimated.

Since exemptions reduce revenue, these losses would be mitigated by not having too many exemptions or having strong enforcement to ensure that only qualified exemptions are granted.

Although exits from the taxpayer base would still likely occur, vacancy taxes may return some units to the rental market, but they appear to have a minimal effect on overall rent prices, particularly in high cost cities.

STVR surcharges can shrink the individual listings and disproportionately impact nonprofessional hosts.

Now I'll hand it back to Jillian.

Thank you, Noah.

Transitioning to the preliminary fiscal impacts of the proposal, we first look at the empty second vacation homes component before turning to short-term rentals.

Based on benchmarking for empty homes tax, cities saw on average an exemption rate of 46%, meaning that the number of units or parcels initially identified as vacant, 46% were determined to not be subject to the tax by the time of collection.

Given limited data, our preliminary model incorporates benchmarking of the empty homes tax to inform the revenue estimates of empty home vacation homes part of the proposal.

We note that there are many uncertainties concerning exemption activity under this proposal.

This is highly dependent on how property owners react to the tax, the tax amount, which is higher in the proposal than the $6,000 levied in other flat tax cities, the exemption and exclusion options available and enforcement efforts to the extent some owners claim exemptions they are not actually eligible for.

To account for additional uncertainty on this slide, we show tax revenue estimates from empty second home assuming an exemption drop-off rate of 46%, plus or minus 12%, which is equal to half standard deviation.

Using this approach, we roughly estimate gross revenue from empty second homes to range between 17 million to 27 million, including potential surcharges assumed corporate owned properties.

We will continue to refine our methodology throughout the process.

Turning to this short-term rental fiscal impact, first I'd like to put the new tax into context.

The mean average revenue per whole home listing according to air DNA, which we slightly adjusted to remove data outside our scope, is about 70,000.

Assuming a host pays 12.75% in TOT taxes, which is the zone two rate, they'd be paying the city about $9,000.

Adding an additional $8,000 base fee would be an effective tax increase of 89%.

Including the corporate surcharge, this would be a 133% increase.

And if a property also had a repeat code violation, it would be an effective tax rate of 178%.

Also, for additional context, the slide shows TOT revenues from all short-term rentals from tiers one through four.

Fiscal year 2025 clocked in slightly above fiscal year 2024 at 51 million, but this includes two months of revenue from Measure C TOT increases.

So now I'd like to take you through a high-level overview of our key assumptions and methodology that led us to our initial preliminary fiscal estimate.

First, we broke down short-term rentals into four groups to model varying behavior.

These include downtown, Mission Beach, other coastal, and the remaining other vacation rentals.

We modeled several scenarios with different exit rates ranging from 10% to 30%, weighted by the number of listings in each geographic location.

There were three main factors that led to the assumption that a higher exit rate is reasonable.

First is the magnitude of the tax, which I just covered, and then which I just covered, so no need to repeat.

Second is the nature of the tax being flat and not scaling with fluctuations in revenue.

Finally, what can be gleaned from the Chicago study that Noah had discussed is that when operators face significant increases in costs, either by regulation, fees or both, the ability to pass through those costs to guests and remain competitive are limited, leading to significant exits or tax avoidance behaviors.

This supports the plausibility of high exit scenarios when the cost increase is large.

Although we modeled lower exit scenarios, we believe assuming higher exits around 30% could be more realistic.

We also include a tax avoidance rate, which assumes that some operators would convert to tier two license, which doesn't have a limit on how many licenses can be issued.

Similar avoidance behavior was observed in Chicago, particularly for professional hosts.

We modeled this separately to capture the respective TOT revenue that would still be coming in only through the tier two license, but likely lower at a lower rate.

We also have a compliance factor of about 90%.

This assumption is that initial compliance may not be 100% instantaneously, and we would uh and would likely increase over time as enforcement increases.

This too was observed in Chicago.

Finally, we accounted for the negative impact of TOT from short-term rental exits by using the $70,000 average revenue per whole home listing as stated in the previous slide.

And then one key note is that we did not model repeat code violation surcharges as we currently do not have data that suggests there are currently any now.

We also didn't model temporary exemptions for things such as disasters as noted earlier, and we likely have an undercount of other occupied exemption.

With all those key assumptions and general methodology laid out, we have a preliminary estimate of a net revenue increase of about $15 million, which is associated with a 30% exit rate.

A more optimistic estimate of $30 million assumes only 10% would exit, which is likely too low given the magnitude of the tax increase and the nature of it being an inflexible flat fee.

These estimates do not take into account admin costs or loss of short-term rental application fee and license fee revenue.

We can include that as the process continues and we will continue to refine our fiscal impact range.

With our assumptions, the break-even point or the point at which exits and associated decline in tax base and loss of TOT offset new revenue is about an exit rate of 48%.

This would mean if about half of the STRO market exited, the city would not receive any new net revenue.

I've been mentioning the Chicago policy because it's only one of two cities that we found with a STR-specific fee, and we found a pretty robust empirical study on its impacts.

Expanding on what Noah mentioned earlier, it is found it was found in that report that there was not a significant increase in hotel revenues due to loss of short-term rental listings.

Although there was a 16% decline in active listings with an implementation fee of 4%, implementing a fee of 4%, and regulations, this study indicated that the positive spillover effect of short-term rentals to hotels is quite limited if it exists at all.

Additionally, the study found that after implementing STRO regulations and the fee, average nightly price and other performance metrics did not significantly change compared to other non-regulated cities.

This suggests that hosts did not raise prices or earn more per unit, indicating that additional costs were not fully able to be passed through to guests, but rather led to exits.

Overall, actual revenue received by the city will be highly dependent on behavior changes and level of enforcement.

To that end, this slide outlines some potential tax avoidance strategies that could have an impact on actual revenue received.

We could see a significant shift of tier three and tier four licenses, convert to tier two, which is uncapped, and either reduce occupancy or continue to operate as tier three and tier four.

Some could shift to long-term rental, which is a stated policy goal, but verification would be needed to ensure that the property is still not being used as a short-term rental.

Others could claim primary residency or that the owner is present for 183 days, but this would also need to be verified.

Therefore, it's critical that the city treasurer's office or CTO is resourced for auditing and enforcement, which is another fiscal consideration that will be discussed on the next slide.

The CTO currently estimates personnel costs for four new positions to administer the program to be just under $1 million and one-time system update costs of about 100,000.

These are preliminary figures that would be subject to change and grow as the program ramps up.

DSD would also have could also have administrative costs, which staff is currently reviewing.

Given the timing between the tax, when the tax may be certified and when the fiscal year 2027 budget needs to be adopted, any potential revenue should not be part of the fiscal year 2027 adopted budget.

Additionally, forecasting future revenue is made difficult by the nine months between when the budget is adopted and when actual payments are remitted, during which time new exemptions can be applicable.

So closing out our presentation, I'm gonna go over some equity policy and implementation considerations you may want to discuss.

While we do not know the universe of potential properties that may receive a multiple code enforcement violation surcharge, any tax amount would likely be in addition to fines and penalties that DSD already imposes for the same violation.

Next, if the tax becomes effective July 1st, 2026 and first bills begin going out in the first quarter of 2027, this could give the city six months to notify owners of the tax.

Community engagement is critical to avoid disproportionate impacts to property owners who may qualify for exemptions.

Regarding the corporate surcharge, some corporate corporations may be LLC owned by a single individual, while others may be corporations where short-term rentals are part of their rental portfolio.

A sole proprietor running a business like a mom and pop without filing as an LLC would not be subject to the surcharge.

But an individual that forms an LLC and therefore is taxed the same as the sole proprietor would be subject to the surcharge.

The committee should consider intended target of this surcharge.

Regarding exemptions, we expect the annual number of exemptions to quickly grow in early years as owners become aware of the tax and access information to exempt or avoid it.

And one final the final one on this slide is that since the proposed tax is a flat amount and not a percentage like TOT, the financial burden will impact other owners differently based on their operations, location, and size of their property and income and savings.

Another consideration is the impact on the rental market.

There are multiple academic studies on how limiting short-term rentals in Irvine, Los Angeles, and nationally modestly increase the rental housing stop by one to three percent.

Emphasizing what was said earlier about enforcement, given the large amount of the proposed tax as compared to the benchmark peers, this would provide an incentive for owners to change their behavior to be exempt from portions of the tax or its entirety.

Because of this, CTO and DSC will need to consider what their operational and coordination needs are in order to administer and enforce the tax.

We also want to acknowledge that there have been public discussions by members of council to enforce illicit tier two activities, impose nightly impact fee on short-term rentals.

Committee members may wish to consider the intersecting impacts of these pending proposals.

And last but not least, we note that phasing in the tax amount over time may lessen the financial impact the tax may have on owners, but this would impact our revenue projections.

Thank you very much.

We are available to answer any questions that the committee members may have.

Thank you.

All right.

Um thank you, the office of the IBA.

Uh, your independent analysis ensures that we have an informed decision making, so thank you.

This was a lot of work on your part, very much appreciated.

Uh, so a couple of housekeeping items.

Uh, one, uh, we do have commitments by at least three council members to stay for the duration of day to get through the entire agenda.

Two, for those of you who haven't been in chambers before, uh, you will if you have already seen you will occasionally see council members step away from the diet.

Uh, the sound that you hear in chambers is actually transmitted in the back, so if they go to the restroom or take a break, uh, they will hear your public testimony.

Uh the other thing I've been informed is that everybody who wishes to speak has now been located on the 12th floor.

Uh there is some overflow happening down in the lobby there, so uh that will help us with meeting management.

Uh you will now experience the magnificent and very hard-working team uh that represents the community liaison, uh Sarah, Natalie, and Ty.

Uh please be patient, uh, especially with Sarah as she navigates all the uh public comment and everybody that wants to speak here uh in person and those that will be calling in and participating remotely.

So with that, Sarah, I turn it over to you.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received about 175 slips here in chambers, and we currently have 10 hands up in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute.

If I call your name, if you can please come up to the five reserve seats here at the front of the room.

Larry Webb, we'll begin with you.

You will be followed by Marta Knapp, Michael Zuket, Kevin Vino, and Liliana Sorano.

Larry Webb, you have been seated time by Marta.

Marta, can you please raise your hand?

Think.

So you are not ceding your time to Larry Webb.

Okay.

So we will pull that.

All right.

So Larry Webb, you've been seated time by two individuals.

Donna, can Donna please raise her hand?

Donna.

She might be in the other room.

Right here.

Okay, thank you.

And Bruce Cohn.

Thank you.

All right, Mr.

Webb, I will put three minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you, Councilmembers.

Larry Webb, I'm a 40-year resident of Mission Beach, where my wife and I own two properties, a small condo where we live full-time, and another which has four units, two short-term rentals and two long-term rentals.

The larger short-term rental was our family home for over 25 years.

When I left the Marine Corps in 1980, I think I had about 300 bucks in my pocket.

Through hard work and perseverance, my wife and I started a small business, raised four children, put them through college, saved and sacrificed to own the properties that we have.

Nothing was given to us.

In just the five courts adjacent to our home, there are, I believe, eight other couples who are long-term residents who also own the short-term rental property.

We all have different stories, but two things in common.

We all actively manage our units hands-on, and we all, to one extent or the other, rely on that income for our retirement.

This proposed unfair penalty punishes us for a decision to host an SDR.

A decision that was made years ago for most of us.

The decision for my my wife and I was made in order to pay bills, fit through through college.

It was either that or sell.

Many fall into the similar category as us and our neighbors.

Most of our guests are multi-generational families who visit San Diego, stay in a short-term rental so they can spend quality time together under one roof.

Many believe that the love that rebuilds civilization comes in families spend time together.

If STRs become more expensive or eliminated, many families will no longer come to San Diego.

Please carefully consider the unintended consequences, something this council's neck neglected to do in the past.

The loss in TOT tax, sales tax, and job.

The IBA give you an estimate on lost TOT tax.

They said they can't give you an estimate on lost sales tax.

No one's talked about the loss in jobs.

Short-term rentals require frequent cleaning.

So you may be putting many small cleaning companies and their employees out of business.

Trades people, plumbers, electricians, carpet cleaners, etc.

All get a lot of work from short-term rentals.

On many properties like mine, the short-term rental subsidizes, but I charge my two long-term rentals.

If you really want to impact rental costs, stop incentivizing builders to build studio and one two-bedroom, one bedroom units like most ADUs.

Start incentivizing builders to build two and three bedroom units where families or people with roommates tend to live.

Thank you.

Marta Alligad.

Okay, I appreciate the passion, the excitement, and arguing for your side of the conversation, but we got 160 people to get through.

Thumbs up, really, thumbs down, really uh is a good visual impact.

We get your message.

Thank you.

And before you begin, are you Marta Oligad or Martin App?

Okay, okay, thank you.

I live and operate a short-term rental in Mission Beach.

I'm one of those people that sees Larry, and um, I have the same families come back every year, and I'm 66.

I can't afford this tax.

I'm not a big business.

It's me.

It's my family's come, and they don't they can't afford it.

They're not um going to hotels.

They um you're just gonna take away my income and their ability to have a vacation.

This is such a bad plan.

I can't believe it.

I'm so I if the Office of Budget wants to talk about stress, they should talk to me.

This is like crazy.

I can't afford thank you.

Michael Zouquet.

Good morning.

MEA strongly supports this ballot measure, and we urge this committee to move this forward to the full city council for uh for its consideration as has been talked about.

We've got about 11,000 housing units that we're talking about here, and this measure and the elegance of this measure is that it causes one of two outcomes.

Either those units, many of which are owned by corporations, will pay their fair share.

Revenue will come to the city that will help our neighborhoods and services and infrastructure and your ability to produce housing, or a behavior will be changed where that housing becomes available for San Diego residents.

Either way, the city wins, the city of San Diego wins, and housing affordability wins.

We urge your support of this measure to move this forward to the full city council.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay, first warning.

I hate to do that.

Please don't do that.

Please let this uh conversation proceed.

Thumbs up, thumbs down as your feeling.

Our next speaker is Kevin Vino.

Uh good evening, council members.

I just want to start out with saying, Joe, I'm in your district, and this is a huge issue in your district with vacation home rentals where half the units in my floor of the apartment are empty the majority of the year, where I don't know any of the neighbors in the same building.

I have there's families living in studio apartments struggling to pay rent.

Um, also, I just want to address the fact that many of these people have been paid to be here.

I don't know how it's legal for them to astroturf and come to City Hall when it's already hard enough to organize members to come out here.

Um, also being in your district, I get a lot of targeted ads about the companies against this policy, and so clearly they have enough money if they're fonting it around the city in our city council chambers, and so they have the money to pay for these taxes.

Furthermore, I just want to address the fact that many of these people came up in matching blue shirts, and so if they uh they came up in solidarity for the one percent, and I think that they should ditch the blue shirts and get a red cap instead.

Thank you for your comment.

So, snapping fingers actually is okay because a person can talk over snapping fingers, but we got a long way to go.

Your feelings have been already well communicated, but let us get through this.

Ms.

Soriano, if you can please hang tight for one moment while I call the next speakers up.

If Janica Faulkner, Jesus Martin, David Zapeta, Rob Brown, and Hilberto Vega can please come up to the reserve seats.

You will be the next group of speakers.

And Liliana Soriano, please begin.

Hi, rules committee.

My name is Liliana Soriano.

I am the director of policy at Youth Will, where our youth serving organization, and I'm also a real community member.

You've all seen me here multiple times.

And my family resides in District 9.

Um, they've been renters their whole life.

Housing is a fun fundamental human right for all not a profit opportunity for a select few.

While thousands of San Diegans like my family struggle to keep a roof over their heads, the ownership of multiple properties for profit exacerbates our city's housing crisis.

It is greed that costs San Diegan stability and their right to a home.

The proposed empty second home and vacation rental tax is a crucial step towards housing justice.

It returns housing to San Diegans and generates necessary revenue.

Revenue that a lot of families in the district rely on your district, Vivian's district, La Cava can't, and we do strongly support this because this approach addresses a significant portion of that budget deficit.

It will reduce the impact on the cuts and real public safety programs and services that support our community.

Please vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Janica Faulkner.

How government you to menu.

My name is Janika with Alliance San Diego.

We are asking that you at least give the San Diegans the opportunity to vote on this.

This is something that is very important, and it'll put housing back on the market if they decide to sell their homes instead of giving up the revenue.

This is extremely important to us because there are many homes in San Diego, over 10,000 homes that should be rented out to people.

It's very hard to find a house that you can rent.

And rent renting uh a vacation home is like five hundred dollars a night.

So why why can't you all afford that?

That should be possible.

So please just make sure to vote yes on this and at least give San Diegans the opportunity to vote.

Y'all believe in democracy.

Show us that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesus Martin.

David Zapeta.

Good morning, Council members.

Uh, my name is David Zapeda, and I'm a union painter and a proud member of the painters in allied trades local 1399.

I'm here on behalf of my union brothers and sisters and siblings with the simple request for the rules committee to move forward the empty homes and vacation rental tax.

San Diegans are struggling under the weight of a housing crisis.

Attainable affordable homes that once were available to working class people have been hoarded by corporations and out-of-town investors.

That kind of behavior is real consequences for working class San Diegans for people who are trying to start families and build their lives in a city they grew up in and love.

Union members support this tax because it impacts less than one percent of San Diegans and benefits over 99%.

Union members support this because we understand the city's need for revenue as well as the dangerous consequences of the housing shortage for working people.

This measure uh can help address both.

Please move forward on this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Rob Brown.

Good morning.

Common name.

There might be more than one of us.

Good morning.

My name's Rob Brown.

I'm with Teamsters Local 986 representing the lifeguards.

Uh, when lifeguards and other essential workers can't afford to live in the communities they serve, public safety and community housing suffers.

Housing in San Diego is being treated like an investment instead of a place to live, and that can hurt the workers that people rely on every day.

Teamsters local 986 strongly supports the opportunity for the community to make its voice heard via the ballot.

Please move this forward to council to give the community a chance to vote.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Hilberto Vega.

Just for the records, Vera, V E R A.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Gil Vera, and I work at the Legal Aid Society San Diego, where I am the director of the housing justice collaborative.

I'm here to voice a strong support for the proposed vacation home tax.

San Diego faces severe housing shortage with thousands of residents struggling to find state stable and affordable housing.

Meanwhile, 11,000 properties in our city are held as vacation homes or year-town year-round short-term rentals.

Sitting empty or serving as investment for out-of-town owners, not as homes for San Diegans.

This tax is fair and the necessary step.

It targets only those properties, not used as primary residence or long-term rentals, ensuring that 99% of San Diegans are not affected.

By asking vacation home investors to pay their fair share, we can generate up to $90 million annually to fund vital city services such as new affordable housing, funding for the housing, the affordable housing preservation fund, homelessness prevention services, the eviction notice registry, infrastructure, and other services that San Diegans need to offset the high cost of living.

Let's prioritize people over profits.

I urge you to move this forward.

And one last thing is those accustomed to privilege, equity feels like pressure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patrick Ferrer.

Patrick.

I'll call him, I'll call him afterwards.

We've got Brant Candelor.

Brant Candelor, Lori Lippman, Juan Hernandez, and Debbie Barber.

These individuals can please come up to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

Patrick Ferrer.

And you have been seated time by two individuals.

George Dorado is George here.

He's in overflow.

Can he can you?

George.

Dorado and Crane Friedman.

Okay, is if you can bring George in here.

Okay.

So we've got three minutes.

Thank you.

We've got three minutes total.

Thank you.

Good morning, esteemed rules committee members.

My name is Patrick Farrier.

I'm a fire captain with San Diego Fire Department.

I'm an executive board member with San Diego City Firefighters Local 145.

I'm here today to speak to you on the proponent of this ballot measure and its positive impact on public safety.

As you know, many firefighters can't afford a home in the city of San Diego right now.

They commute from San Bernardino, Riverside Counties, Tijuana, and sometimes many states away.

These commute times are hurting retention, morale, and unfortunately, when it comes to upstaffing during fire emergencies, it's creating a daunting task.

If you can remember back to when those fires crept into our backyards, the cedar, the witch fire, they created an incredible emergency.

During those times, it's an all hands-on-deck affair.

It doesn't matter, there's no days off.

You could be at dinner with your family or mowing your lawn.

When that phone goes off, firefighters always answer the call.

But when we're coming from states away, counties away, are sitting at the line in the international border, it severely impacts our ability to upscale and upstaff for exigent circumstances.

Finally, I'd like to leave you with this.

The proposed revenue from this ballot measure will go a long way towards keeping the staffing and service levels to which San Diego has come to expect from its first responders and firefighters.

We're talking about keeping response times low.

Our gear in great working order, and also the time it takes for us to rebound to emergencies will be that much faster.

Keeping that staffing level high.

Now, we all took an oath as firefighters to serve the public.

Let's work together to keep the service levels where they should be and homes affordable for all San Diegans.

I thank you very much for your time today.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Brant Candelor.

Yeah, hi, I'm Brandt Candelor.

I'm a um a local uh contact for four vacation rentals and a host for one of the rentals.

Uh this was a property that was in our family for many years.

Uh way back uh you know 85 years ago.

Um and so um and we've been doing I've been uh actively uh been a vacation rental host for a while.

Um I wanted to point out one thing which I don't understand is uh the there was a limit uh to the vacation rental host to one percent.

So you're talking about really one percent of the housing stock that is devoted uh for the at least the tier one, two, and and uh tier three uh would be one percent, and in mission beach it's thirty percent.

But I don't know how that's gonna fix the uh you know the housing crisis.

Um in Mission Beach, uh, you know, we it was always a vacation rental community.

That's why there was a big carve out, and I see I'm running out of time, but anyway, I I don't understand.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

percent of the housing stock that is devoted uh for the at least the tier one two and and uh two three uh would be one percent and in mission beach it's thirty percent but I don't know how that's gonna fix the uh you know the housing crisis um so in Mission Beach uh you know we it was always a vacation rental community that's why there was a big carve out and I see I'm running out of time but anyway I I don't understand thank you this does conclude your time thank you you could submit further comment to council committee at sandieago.gov and we will post and circulate that to the council members laurie lippmann good morning my name is Lori Lipsman I've been a resident of North Park since 1988 my husband and I own a three unit building we live in one unit and rent the other two we when more housing is available rents stabilize we have already lowered our rents and are not raising them prioritizing people over profit vacation rentals and second homes take housing off the long-term market and push rents up taxing them puts housing back where it belongs these units can be long term rentals please support the ordinance and move it forward thank you thank you Juan Hernandez good morning everyone Juan Hernandez lifelong San Diego residents I respectfully oppose the proposed tax on short term rentals due to its significant and disproportionate impact on the workforce that supports this industry and my role as a manager and employer I work with and rely on a large network of subcontractors and vendors including housekeepers maintenance professionals and other essential service providers these workers are predominantly blue collar individuals who depend on consistent employment to meet their basic needs a substantial portion of our housekeeping staff are women many of whom are single mothers working diligently to support their families pay utilities and put food on the table these are not large corporations or absentee owners there are local residents doing honest work in an already challenging job market between housekeeping maintenance and other outside vendors our operations collectively support between 100 to 200 workers any reduction in short term rental activity caused by increased taxation thank you this does conclude your time thank you for your comment our next speaker is Debbie Barber good morning council members my name is Debbie Barber and I work in the business development for a vacation rental management company here in San Diego we appreciate that San Diego already has one of the most structured short-term rental programs in the state generating meaningful revenue while requiring strong compliance because of this existing framework short-term rentals already contribute to city revenue tourism and local jobs our homeowners are individuals not corporations who rely on rental income to offset rising mortgage insurance and maintenance costs this proposed additional tax would significantly impact many owners potentially forcing them out of the market or into noncompliance which would make enforcement more challenging not easier we support fair taxation and responsible oversight and ask the city to consider whether adding a substantial fixed cost to an already robust tax structure risks unintended consequences for small property owners and local workers we welcome the opportunity to work with you on balanced data driven solutions that are appropriate for San Diego's unique market.

Thank you thank you all right our next group of speakers if you could please come to the reserve seats at the front of the room Jane Favella Heather Yorger Natalie Fitzsimmons Marcos de la Sena Sir and Irma Chavez if these individuals can please come up to the reserve seats in the front of the room please note that if you hear your name called to speak coming up soon if you're in the overflow room if you can please move into chambers and we will begin with Jane Favella in the room either either microphone will work.

My name is Jane Favela and I have one of those the classic craftsman homes in North Park when during the war after the war they allowed people to have units in the back and it just so happens that I have three units.

And I don't I don't feel that this tax proposal is going to increase the on the the housing I don't don't believe I think it's counterproductive I think that I think that uh the the core the the the bad operators and corporate operators are the ones who I don't support it.

Um I think that I think that uh the the core the the bad operators and corporate operators are the ones who I don't support it.

Thank you.

Heather Yorger.

Natalie Fitz Heather, great.

Isn't my chance hello?

In 2024, San Diego's Tourism Bureau reported that we welcome 32 million visitors.

They generated 22 billion in economic impact and supported one in eight jobs in our region.

Tourism isn't a side industry, it's a pillar of our economy.

Most of my guests are families.

They come here to spend money at local restaurants, shops, and attractions.

They're not choosing between a hotel and a vacation rental.

They need two bedrooms and a kitchen.

If short-term rentals are no longer viable, they won't stay in hotels, they'll go to another city that welcomes them.

This tax doesn't regulate, it effectively shuts down legal operators.

It won't raise many meaningful revenue because hosts simply cannot afford to pay it.

Many won't convert to long-term rentals, they'll move to midterm rentals, which won't affect housing supply at all.

San Diego already caps whole home short-term rentals at one percent of the total housing stock, and that cap has not even been reached.

Eliminating vacation rentals will not fix housing, but it will cost jobs, small businesses, and tourism dollars.

Thank you.

Natalie Fitzsimmons.

Hello.

I'm a native San Diego, and my husband is a hundred percent disabled Navy veteran.

Last year we brought we bought our short-term rental to be able to afford to live in San Diego.

We follow all the rules, we pay our fees and taxes, and we take pride in being responsible, welcoming hosts.

I love showing guests San Diego through my eyes, guiding them to local restaurants, shops, and cafes, especially in our ocean beach neighborhood.

STRs like ours drive tourism directly into the community.

This proposed tax would devastate us financially.

It could shut down our rental completely.

It would also hurt the local workers that we rely on, our cleaners, handymen, and contractors.

These are San Diego families who depend on this ecosystem too.

Please think about who you're really impacting here.

These are veterans like my husband, caregivers, and locals just trying to afford to live here.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Marcos de la Sur.

All right.

Good morning, City Council.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak here with you guys today.

I would like to oppose this uh this tax.

We need representation, not more taxes from you guys.

We need accountability.

You guys have been failing this city.

This the city is hurting.

I've been in these streets for 10 years, homeless.

Without your guys' help, I did it.

Hard work dedication survival.

That's how I did it.

This tax is unthis not good.

This is not gonna help affordable housing.

Affordable housing is a cesspool of drugs and criminals.

This is what it is.

I've been in the streets.

Sean, this is not good.

You're you're messing with our tourist income, and we need better.

Thank you.

Do you want to want me to come in and asking you to not clap and make a lot of noise?

And talk to us.

Don't demonize other people, no matter what side you're on.

Let's keep it civil.

There's a lot of technical issues that you want to get conveyed to us with no matter what side you're on this country.

So keep it focused on the technical merits and make your case without demonizing anybody.

Our next speaker is Irma Chavez and Ms.

Chavez.

Before you begin, I will call the next group of speakers up to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

Fred Sue, Joy Campanaro, Joel Garcia, Adam Bubin, and Steven Russell.

Those individuals can please come into chambers and come to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

You will be the next group of speakers, and Ms.

Chavez, please begin.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Irma Chavez, and I am a longtime resident of San Diego, and I do oppose the tax increase.

Please reconsider.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Fred Sue.

I would just like to remind the council that uh we talked about this before.

The short-term rental housing stock was capped at one percent, so this uh affordable housing really shouldn't be an issue.

I own one small condo, it's a small business, I work hard, we don't make a lot of money.

Um, and this is really taking money out of my pocket.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Joy Campanero.

Hi, um I just like to address the city council.

I'm sorry, I've never been here before, so I'm a little nervous.

Um my name is Joy Campanero, and I'm here as a short-term rental host for since 2014.

The proposal at hand would make it impossible for me to offer my home at reasonable rates to the families who want to vacation in San Diego, visit our beaches, Balboa Park, the zoo, the USS Midway, Sea World, Bagoland, restaurants, and the myriad of other family attractions our beautiful city has to offer.

And without the short-term rental economy, those families would choose other more affordable places to vacation.

My two-bedroom, three tier, two tier three home hosted 49 families last year.

And I netted 41,000 after paying the cleaning fees, the yard person, the San Diego Gas and Little.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Okay.

I just want to say one more thing, and that is that all the people who submit your comments.

Could we see her time?

Or is there any right now?

No, no.

Can you just relax?

We do this.

We've done this in previous one.

And your name again?

Boris Mayor.

I don't know what that means.

Joy, go back.

I will place one more minute on the clock for Bryce Rare.

Well, basically, after I pay all of the expenses, maybe I will walk away net net six thousand dollars.

Maybe.

That's if I don't have a property manager and I don't, I do this myself.

If you add that tax, I'm at a loss.

And by that time, the city loses $5,000 in TOT from my property.

The cleaning service loses its income.

The art guy loses his income.

The stores where I buy my supplies, they lose their sales.

The local businesses lose the guests as customers, and overall, our great city loses loyal fans because people won't come here.

And the taxes from all those entities that where they spend their money.

Moreover, a lot of short-term rental units are owned by seniors like myself and local families who rely on that income to maintain a very long-term investment for their retirement.

So making these making us turn to long-term rentals, which are very risky in the state of California.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And for the record, Bryce Mayor, I have pulled your slip in receipt of ceding your minute to Joy Campanero.

Joel Garcia.

Is Joel Garcia in the room?

And as Joel approaches the lectern, Adam Bubin and Stephen Russell.

All right.

We will move on to the next group of speakers.

Jessica Solano.

Oh, excuse me, sorry, Steven.

Stephen Russell, I'm sorry, I didn't see you approach like thank you.

Honorable committee members, my name is Stephen Russell.

I'm the president and CEO of the San Diego Housing Federation, where we believe that everyone has a right to a safe and affordable place to live here in San Diego County.

I'm also a lifelong resident of San Diego, who's watched with sadness as many of my friends have helped felt forced out of San Diego due to house rising housing costs.

This proposal today levels the playing field that requires wealthy investors and large corporate owners to pay their fair share when they keep homes off the market.

It encourages them to release homes back into the rental or ownership market or contribute tax revenue toward affordable housing and community infrastructure.

Either outcome benefits San Diegans through increased housing availability or additional funding for essential services.

Please give the voters the opportunity to vote on this.

Please support community over corporations and please help us make San Diego a place where San Diegans can afford to live.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Adam.

Thank you for having us here today.

My name is Adam Babin.

I am a sole owner of a short-term rental.

I manage it myself.

This is something that is helping me actually generate a retirement for myself and my family as I get older.

We do not make a boatload of money.

We are not a big corporation, as this gentleman just talked about, and we've seen who's coming up to speak today.

Many of us own one unit.

Many of us are here just barely getting by with that short-term rental, but we're offering it to uh a tourism industry that we've already seen a decline in this uh county uh over the last few years.

What we should be focused on is one, the housing crisis occurred long before short-term rentals became a problem.

Two, um, we put in a uh lottery, everybody got it because there's not as many short-term rentals causing a problem that we thought there was.

I think we need to look at other solutions of maybe uh providing tax benefits to getting people here, making that more less costly.

Uh, I actually had uh a tenant who was supposed to come this year and they've done it for the last four years.

They couldn't do it because it costs too much to fly here.

So let's look at other measures than just tax tax taxes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jessica Solano and Ms.

Solano, before you get started, I'm gonna call a few more speakers up.

Nelson White, Kimberly Jackson, Mark Palmyre, and Ed McBeth.

If you are in chambers or in the overflow room, if you've heard your name called, if you can please come to the reserve seats at the front of the room, you will be in the next group of speakers.

And Miss Solano, please begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Jessica, and I'm with Vicky's rental spike Kimberly.

Uh, we are a local small business here in San Diego.

My family, my co-workers, and I all live in San Diego.

Um, I'm actually in District 6, so and uh we are your constituents and neighbors.

We proudly contribute to our city's economy by hosting visitors who spend money at local shops and restaurants.

We employ local staff for cleaning, maintenance, and guest services.

We're not a big corporation, we're a San Diego mom and pop operation that loves this city.

I'm speaking speaking to urge you not to impose this $8,000 short-term rental tax on responsible operators like us.

Uh we make about 2% of housing in San Diego, a tiny fraction of total housing here.

So blaming us for this issue is a misguided.

Uh, this tax won't build a single new home.

Instead, it will punish local families.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Nelson White.

Wow, this is cool.

My name is Nelson White.

I was born at the um Stork Hospital.

For those of you who are native San Diegans, you know where the store is.

Um I own one vacation rental in Mission Beach.

I'm a single owner.

It's a retirement income for me.

I work very hard to achieve be able to purchase a home in Mission Beach, and I'm not a corporation.

I'm one person born here in San Diego.

I do not support this tax.

Please do not set it on.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kimberly Jackson.

Hi, thank you for having me.

My name is Kimberly.

I was also born at the Stork Hospital.

Um I'm the founder of a very small uh operation called Vacation Rentals by Kimberly, and I work for a number of San Diego residents.

In fact, 81% of short-term rental permit holders live in San Diego County.

When you uh, if you go to impose this tax, you are hurting residents.

These are all residents, their constituents.

We also employ local housekeepers, handymen, electricians, plumbers, pool and spa cleaners, and their jobs will go away.

The average length of stay in San Diego County is only 3.4 nights in our business.

That means every 3.4 nights we have cleaners in all of our homes.

We have handy men in our homes because things break, things light bulbs go out.

We have spool and pause pool and spa guys at our properties once a week to turn over pools and spas.

If these go to the long-term housing stock, they're there once every three weeks.

Please do not take away our jobs.

Thank you.

Paul, excuse me, Mark Palmire.

Hi, I wanted to share my perspective as a local small business owner.

I manage over 75 vacation rental homes in San Diego.

Over 80% of the homeowners I represent are local residents who rely on this income to afford living here.

Many as their primary or only income.

Based on my direct conversations with these owners, an $8,000 tax is simply not feasible, especially when nearly 70% of all San Diego's listings are one and two bedroom units, according to Air DNA's data.

An $8,000 tax would disproportionately impact smaller locally owned properties and would likely force many hosts out of the short-term rental market.

If this passes, owners won't go long term.

They'll move to midterm rentals or leave these homes vacant, which means no new housing, but less TOT revenue and less tourism spending for the city.

Thank you for your time and service.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Ed McBeth and Mr.

McBeth.

Before you get started, I'm going to call Deborah Combs.

If you can please come to the reserve seats.

And if you have people seating time to you, please be sure they come from the spillover room.

So they're here to show that they're present.

Deborah Combs, Dwayne Dixon, Amelia Malan, Mohammed Umar, and Clint Warland.

And Mr.

McBeth, please begin.

Thank you for having me.

I just wanted to let you know all of us in Blue Shirts were not paid to be here.

Um so I number one.

So my wife and I worked very hard our whole lives to buy our house here.

Uh it is it is we manage it ourselves.

It is a um it's it's a part of our our retirement income.

Just like a lot of other people said, we employ a lot of people.

We have families here going to graduations at MCRD, Navy SEALs, universities, um, getting together, they need a family environment.

You know, this, and also the other thing is I think there's a flaw with this.

It assumes that all properties are created equal.

You know, the most of these people are not getting not making a lot of money.

It assumes that everybody who has a short-term rental is somehow making money hand over fist, but we're not.

I think some other people have made a a good case that after all expenses, you know, you can you can barely eke out just the ability to keep the place.

So, and also not looking at at uh a lot of these properties are never going to be affordable housing.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Deborah Combs and Ms.

Combs.

You have been seated time by Dwayne Dixon.

Thank you.

Amelia Malon.

Is Amelia present?

Maybe in the other room.

I'll give Amelia a second to come in.

Amelia, if you are in the overflow room, if you can please come in to indicate that you are present.

Clint Warland.

Is Clint present?

Thank you.

Okay.

And one final call for Amelia Malan.

Okay, if she comes in, we'll add that fourth minute.

But for now, Miss Combs, you have three minutes to manage.

Please begin.

Tourism is down by 12 billion dollars across.

I you I am a sole owner.

I set my business up as an LLC because it shields you against somebody suing you individually.

It has nothing to do with making yourself into a corporation.

It is to help you to survive.

Now, I find it interesting.

I would like to know who initiated and backed this bill.

And I would like to also know why aren't hotels paying per room.

Because they also, like they're doing in Las Vegas as I speak.

They've lost a lot of money, a lot of revenue.

They are converting some of their hotels into long-term living.

I guess there's a hard uh house shortage there, too, along with the diminishing uh tourism.

Now, I have uh some very salient questions on this.

We are being taxed on top of the taxes that we pay on our property on top of the TOT that we're paying, uh, that hotels don't pay.

We are also being taxed for a number of other things, water, uh utilities, all of these things.

I use local people like most of us.

Look at this room.

The people who have Airbnbs, what do you think the average age is?

They're surely not 40s.

These are people that are 50 plus.

Why are we doing this?

To keep up.

We're feeding this economy.

And the last I look, you guys are not one percenters.

You do not have to deal with the ramifications, right?

Wrong.

We are all human in this human experience.

We have we are all consumers, every one of us.

You must consume to exist.

You need air, water, and food.

Basic things.

Housing depends on your location in this world.

You can sleep outside in some states.

You can sleep in a tree.

You can sleep a lot of places, but let's take you to Alaska.

You can't survive.

So it depends.

It really does.

Thank you.

That does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comments.

Conceited time.

Put the three minutes on the clock.

The three minutes has expired.

Okay.

Think about it.

You have families.

You're not one percent.

Don't vote against your own tree.

All right.

Thank you for your testimony.

Okay, knock it off.

She had some good points to make.

You may violently disagree.

Let her make her points.

Because no matter what side of the conversation you're on, everybody deserves to be heard.

This council, excuse me, this committee needs to hear them and give people an opportunity.

I do not want anybody intimidated and afraid to come up and speak their mind because someone might boo them, or someone might override their comments because they're clapping so loud.

Give everybody a chance to talk their speaker points, and for these council members to actually hear them.

Again, I don't care what side of the conversation you're on.

Let's try to treat each other a little bit better.

So thank you for your comments.

Next up.

Thank you, Chair.

We have Muhammad Amar and Mr.

Amar before you begin.

And Greg Robinson, along with Susan Lorfsky.

So if these individuals can please come to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

And if you are in chambers, just know that you will be the next group of speakers.

And Mr.

Umar, please begin.

This mission will give San Diego's the opportunity to put our local residents first and prioritize our housing needs.

I urge you to vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is William Perks.

Good afternoon, uh Council members and rules committee.

I'm here to oppose this proposal and support the STR community that are being portrayed as corporate criminals or elitists because that's how short-term rental owners are often described in the public narrative.

So I want to introduce myself.

Thank you.

I would like one minute.

We got time.

Sir, can you please state your name for the record so I can pull your slip?

Mr.

Wynne, okay, thank you.

So I will be placing one more minute on the clock for you, seated by Mr.

Wynne.

So my question is based on Councilmember Ilo Rivera's comments.

Is this even an unbiased ballot ballot measure?

He said most of these people are paid to be here.

I don't I don't see that.

How did you extrapolate the $8,000 figure for this special tax?

And it is a special tax because you're targeting one community.

And I respectfully ask for transparency and fairness before advancing a special tax that would force an economic hardness and hardship and good operators, auto compliance.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Vanessa.

Thank you.

I'm also a first-time immigrant.

Um I made my way here seven years ago.

I was able to buy a house myself.

I am myself only.

Um I'm this is crazy.

This is just crazy.

Like you guys are trying to text people who have been really working hard.

And you guys are saying we're all corporations.

I'm not a corporation.

I'm considering myself a San Diego myself.

I make this here in my home, and I want this to be my home.

I contribute to the economy.

I help people having jobs.

I work four jobs in total to be able to afford my house, which means I'm not making bang on this, like you guys are all thinking, I'm not getting paid to be here either.

I'm here because I'm scared to lose the house that I worked so hard for.

And it's not fair.

And Mr.

All, I'm thankful very thank you so much that you're opposing this.

You're the only one who reacted to some of the emails that some of us did actually send out, which says a lot about this.

I feel like, especially he, he's not even here listening to the majority of us.

Why is that?

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dale.

Dale McIn make enemy.

Stale present.

Okay, moving on to Greg Robinson.

And Greg, you have been seated time by Susan.

Is Susan here?

Thank you.

So I will place two minutes on the clock here in front of you for you to manage.

Please begin.

Okay, great.

Thank you.

Uh, I'm Dr.

Greg Robinson.

Uh, I currently serve as president of the County Board of Education, uh, but my board has not taken a position on this yet, so I speak as an individual.

But I will say I was actually struck by one of the PBS speakers about his special needs child.

The county office of education educates thousands precisely of those kinds of children.

We educate children who are foster youth.

We educate those who are in the juvenile justice system and those who are in the migrant ed program.

We also educate homeless children.

The monarch school is less than two miles from where we are right now.

During the major rains, those children were going to that school in boats.

More generally, in our community, there are 20,000 homeless children.

Those children are not being paid to be here, but their voices need to be heard.

They need the services that the city can provide to make sure their drains are cleaned out so their homes don't flood.

They need the homeless services that are so desperately, and they need housing first and foremost.

I was trained as a sociologist, and what we know the best predictor of how well a child will do in school is whether they have basic home at home to go to.

Please don't forget those 20,000 children and the thousands more of them.

They're not here to testify, but their needs need to be answered.

Please forward this, vote for it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

One final call for Dale.

And if I call your name and you're not in the room, I will come back to you at the end.

Suzanne Newian.

If Suzanne Newin can please approach the lectern, and then I will be calling Brooke Empee.

And Sarmiola Estrada, Melanie Raver, and Lonnie Silvis.

If these individuals can please come into chambers to the front reserved seats.

And Suzanne, please begin.

Hello, my name is Suzy Graft.

I have been in San Diego attending San Diego State since 1999.

I own the only dance studio in La Jolla serving a small business, small families.

I know everybody in La Jolla.

And I am a 48-year-old woman who loves our community, and I cannot afford for you to move forward with this bill.

I rent out my house as an Airbnb in the summers and on weekends, so that I, as a 48-woman person who've lived in San Diego for the majority of my life, can afford to live here.

If you move forward with this bill, I can't afford to live in San Diego.

I run my and manage my own Airbnb.

I hire all the handymans in Pacific Beach.

I hire local maids to help me clean because I am a single mom.

I need to make sure that I can pay the mortgage so that the banks don't take away my house.

And getting rid of this bill is thank you for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Brooke.

I've been coming to these meetings now for I don't know, nine years, ten years for the short-term rental.

And um, you know, we already came together after years and years of these meetings, and we agreed on common sense rules and regulations.

We've been down this road so many times.

Um, in San Diego, we already pay an occupancy rental tax for our STRs, we already pay high property taxes, we already pay a licensing fee, we already all pay sales tax, and then we pay state federal income taxes on top of all of this.

We're paying for trash now, and now we even have to pay to park over at the Balboa Park.

We're being taxed and feed to death.

It's too much.

How are we supposed to afford to live here with all of these taxes and fees?

It's too much.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Sarah Mew.

Good morning, everybody.

My name is Ansad Mio Jacrada, political director for the San Diego Building and Construction Trades Council.

Um, you know, I hear constantly from this day about the dire nature of the city's structural budget crisis.

I hear about the consequences of San Diego's lack of affordable, attainable housing.

And now this diet has before an opportunity to advance what is likely the city's only chance of afford a revenue measure this year.

On top of that, it's a real opportunity to free up housing that's been captured by corporations and out of out of town investors.

And to those who argue this will have the opposite effect, that converting vacation rentals into long-term housing will result in a revenue loss.

Oh, I would reiterate the primary two benefits.

It creates homes for San Diegans and it still generates revenue.

And if modifying the behavior of a thousand short-term rentals results in a $30 million reduction, the city will still gain millions in revenue while also putting those homes back on the rental market.

Also, you cannot build a thousand homes for 30 million dollars.

This request represents an incredible opportunity for the city, an impossible deal under normal circumstances.

New revenue, more housing available to for working people.

Please move this forward.

Thank you.

Melanie Hello.

I am considered a corporate STR owner because I pre property as an LLC to protect myself.

I have one home.

I have owned for 26 years in District 1 in Pacific Beach.

I have lived in the home for 10 years.

I have long-term rented for 15, and for the last eight months, it's been at STR.

I am not a giant corporate company.

It's just me.

I manage myself and am very present weekly at the home as well in the community.

You can often see me out front tending to the garden.

The local neighbors appreciate the change from long-term rental to STR.

I take care of my home and I'm present in the community.

You ask what side are you on?

I am not a billionaire.

I barely make enough to keep my family of five afloat.

I am working class.

I am a local San Diegan.

I employ local San Diegans.

The taxes on just please have exclusions for local owners like myself.

Thank you, Raoul, for your support.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Lonnie Silvas.

And you will be followed by David Bell, Julieta Ornellas, Bruce Karen, and Jesus Martinez.

If those individuals can please come up to the reserve seats at the front of the room, and Miss Silvas, please begin.

Good morning.

I oppose the vacation rental tax because short-term renting was a luxury, wasn't a luxury choice for me.

It was a necessity.

As a single mother mother putting my daughter through college, I turned to Airbnb after being forced to evict tenants who stopped paying rent under policies meant to protect them.

But left property owners like me carrying the burden.

My last eviction took over nine months and cost me approximately 10,000 dollars in attorney fees with no accountability to the tenant.

During that time, I was I also was stuck paying for damages done to my property, all while continuing to cover my mortgage, utilities, and maintenance.

I turned to short-term rental as a way to financially survive and keep my home.

I take it that all of you have investments.

So imagine someone stepping in trying to control how you use yours.

If affordable housing is truly concerned, why not start using some of your investments to help?

If owners are forced to sell as a result of this tax, these homes will not go to affordable housing.

They will go to the highest bidder, making the housing crisis worse.

This will also eliminate jobs for people who help us run these businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is David Bell.

Good morning, Council members.

I come with a unique set of experiences.

I'm a service connected disabled veteran.

I'm a retired contractor.

I've taken care of properties in every last one of the districts.

Where we are as a society, I have worked with the homeless since 1990.

We have homelessness only for one reason.

We as a society accept it.

We have to make a decision today.

Are we going to give people keys to a door?

Are you going to stick your key in the door tonight and forget that they're sleeping on the streets?

Yeah.

One percent of this proposal can be taken care of.

99% of people isn't what pay anything.

I think what a lot of people forget is all that money and everything they say they're losing.

Thank you.

They write it all off on their taxes.

Our next speaker is Julieta Ornellas.

Good morning.

Um, my name is Julieta, and today I'm speaking for Margo, who couldn't be here because she's working.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Margovillez.

I am the chair of the Heel Network and run San Diego.

For 10 years, I've been a blind spot in our housing system.

Despite working full-time, I have lived in stairwells on U-Halls because this city prices working mothers out of the market.

I am not a statistic.

I am a resident who has fought for every roof over my family's head.

But we are fighting a losing battle when nearly 11,000 homes in San Diego sit empty as second homes or vacation rentals.

While my daughters and I were displaced by floods and soaring rents, thousands of units were kept off the market for leisure or speculative investment.

This measure is about a fair share contribution.

It asks those who use our housing stock as a luxury to help provide the millions in annual revenue our city needs to support its residents and essential services.

Please vote yes.

Don't look past the families and workers who keep San Diego running.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bruce Karen.

Good morning, council.

My name is Bruce Karen.

I'm a Vietnam veteran, a member of HEO, and resident of Thomas Gateway insurance district.

I also have terminal cancer.

I should be resting, but I cannot rest on a few years.

I'm dying and youth on our streets.

For three years, I lived on the street.

And invisible.

I'm only alive today because of supporting housing.

I didn't cure my cancer, but it cured my homelessness and gave me my big thing.

Right now I'm only 11,000 homes in San Diego City, empty.

I rent them.

Vacation rentals.

When housing is treated as a luxury, investment instead of a basic need.

Ask those who keep home.

Keep homes off the market to pay their fish here.

You could bring many to our city every year.

We have the solution.

We just need the funding.

Thank you and God luck.

Thank you for those closing remarks.

Jesus Martin.

Final call for Jesus Martin.

Okay, I will come back to you if I've called your name and you're not in the room.

I will come back to you at the end of the meeting.

Ashley Conway, Ashley Conway, if you can please come into chambers along with Janina Padilla and Alec Padilla.

You will, and then we've got Andreas Ala.

Weston Jackson and Aaron Surimodograssi.

If you can please come up to the reserve seats at the front of the room, we will begin with Ashley Connaway.

And Ashley, you have been seated time by Janina as Janina present.

Thank you.

Alec Padilla.

Thank you.

And Andreas Padilla.

All right, so I will put four minutes on the clock in front of you to manage.

Thank you.

Good morning, Council.

My husband and I own and operate a service disabled veteran-owned small business located on Mission Bay.

We are a tourism-dependent seasonal business, and our livelihood along with the livelihood of our employees depends on a strong local economy driven by visitors and neighborhood spending.

I'm here today to oppose the proposed 5,000 per bedroom vacation rental tax.

Small businesses in San Diego are already under serious pressure.

Rising labor costs, utilities, insurance, tourism-related fees, and declining discretionary spending have narrowed margins to the breaking point.

When the city increases the cost of visiting, San Diego visitors don't stop coming, but they do spend less.

I see it firsthand every day.

Families skip activities, shorten their stays, and cut experiences that support small local operators like myself.

And when visitors spend less, it's not City Hall that absorbs the impact.

It's hourly workers, instructors, dock hands, retail staff, and seasonal employees who feel it first.

I also want to address the framing we're hearing that this policy somehow pits the working class against billionaires.

Respectfully, that framing doesn't reflect reality.

This tax does not apply to major hotel corporations or large developers.

It targets local hosts, neighborhood economies, and the small businesses that rely on visitor spending.

When vacation rentals go offline and tourism declines, hotel workers don't gain hours, fewer visitors overall means fewer shifts, fewer tips, and fewer opportunities across the entire tourism economy.

I also want to acknowledge that many supporters of this measure are unionized city employees who serve who serve our community and work whose work I do respect.

But it's important to add perspective.

Many city employees earn well above the medium income for San Diego residents and have stable salaries, benefits, and pensions.

These people most affected by this tax, small business owners, seasonal workers, and independent operators that do not have that stability.

When policies are shaped primarily by those with secure public sector jobs, the economic reality facing the rest of the community can get overlooked.

The city has suggested that this tax is meant to target target corporate-owned or empty housing.

But many short-term rentals are held in LLCs not because they owned are owned by large corporations, but because homeowners are required by insurers and lenders to protect themselves from personal liability.

Labeling them as corporate doesn't change who actually pays.

Even with all this impact, independent analysis shows this tax would only raise a small fraction of what's needed for affordable housing, while exempting hotels that dominate the visitor economy.

This tells me this isn't a housing solution.

It's a symbolic tax that weakens local economies without delivering results.

Small businesses are partners in San Diego's success, not a backup revenue source when budgets don't balance.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andres.

Umres Ala Condrice.

Andres okay, we will come back to you.

Weston Jackson.

Morning, council.

My name is Weston.

I'm an 18-year-old senior in high school here in San Diego.

I work 30 hours a week at vacation rentals by Kimberly to help pay for my tuition at Montana State University.

I leave this fall to go away for college.

My family has asked me to pay half of our college expenses, advocation rentals by Kimberly.

I work as a property inspector.

This means that every vacation rental, I every vacation rental turnover, I drive to the property and inspect the home to make sure that everything is in working proper working order for the next family to stay.

If this new proposition passes, I will no longer be able to inspect these San Diego vacation rentals as they will no longer be vacation rentals.

This means I will be out of a job and unable to help contribute half the cost of room and board intuition at Montana State starting this fall.

Please vote no and oppose this new tax.

It hurts residents here in town.

Thank you for listening, counsel.

Thank you.

Aaron.

Good morning, committee.

Aaron Saramoto Grassi, Associate Director of Alliance San Diego.

I own a condo in District 7, and I'm strongly in support of item four.

When my husband and I first moved into our condo, the unit next to us was rented as an Airbnb.

We have shared walls.

The Airbnb guests were noisy.

They kept late hours.

Did not have any consideration for the people who live there full time.

They left trash and food in the common areas, including the pool.

Our complex has assigned parking and no but nearby street parking.

The guests would take up all the resident spots, so people who live there had nowhere to park.

But worst of all, in my opinion, was that it was a rotating cast of characters.

This meant we never knew who was living next door, which is a safety issue.

It meant that we never knew if our packages were gonna be delivered to our doorstep.

It meant that we never knew if our house would be okay if we were gone.

And we never had the opportunity to have a neighbor.

Short-term rentals have a negative impact on the community.

They robbed San Diegans of the opportunity to have neighbors to build relationships with those who live next door and to create community.

We urge you to move this forward.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Our next speaker is Itzel.

It's sell if you can please come up to the lecture.

And you have been seated time by Andrea Guerrero.

Is Andrea present?

Thank you.

So I will place two minutes on the clock.

And while you're approaching the lectern, if these speakers can please come up to the reserve seats, Chris Alforo Gomez, Pamela Wynne, Christine Martinez, and Adam Harris.

And it's all I will place two minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Itzel Maranda Chavez, Civic Engagement Director with the Lions San Diego.

And here that and we are here to ask that you vote yes today on item four, the ballot measure proposal to tax second homes and vacation rentals.

The cost of renting or buying in San Diego is unrealistic for the vast majority of the people who call San Diego home.

I know this firsthand.

As young San Diego, my husband and I have struggled to find a place we can afford.

As of today, we have found none, forcing us to stay in our overpriced rental until we can.

We are both first generation SDSU graduates who love our city, and on and unfortunately, we have come to realize that as it stands now, we will likely never be able to buy in the beautiful city of San Diego.

I want to emphasize that we the people did not create this problem, but the proposed ballot measure would give us a chance to do something about it.

We are living in this housing crisis because big corporations and wealthy investors continue snatching up the properties, and at the same time, homes are left vacant or used for vacation rentals while people are living outside on the streets, right outside of this building.

This is a solution that finally gives San Diego a fair chance to rent or buy a home.

That is all we are asking for.

Nothing more and nothing less.

Just a chance to level the playing field.

We are asking for folks to pay their fair share.

And not only are we interested in solutions to the short term, we're also interested in the solutions to the long term, like the over 90 million dollars this proposal would generate to address housing, infrastructure, and essential city services that we all need.

This proposal gives the voters control in deciding how the money is spent through opportunities of public input as well as transparent oversight and an independent audit.

Thank you, Councilman Councilmember Ilo Rivera for introducing real solutions and a way to fight back against corporate interests who continue trying to take advantage of working families across our city, our county, and our country.

On behalf of Alliance San Diego, we ask that you please vote yes on item four.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Chris Sofoto.

Good morning, Council.

My name is Christoph, and I'm an organizer with the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council.

Proud to be on the side of the 99%.

We're in a moment where the working class in the city is being squeezed on all sides.

We see the signs our nurses are out on strike.

We've seen our hotel workers out on strike.

You see healthcare workers on strike, and now our teachers are prepping to strike, with one unifying pressure they are feeling being the cost of housing in the city.

And it is mind-blowing to see landlords backed by a multi-billion dollar company use those dollars to do everything in their power to keep a tax that would alleviate some of that pressure off the ballot because they know that San Diegans are fed up with the role it has played in spiking housing costs, hollowing out neighborhoods, and pushing San Diego families to the streets.

We urge your support on this item, move this to the council, and let San Diegans vote on the matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Pamela Wynne.

Hi, I'm Pamela Wynne, and my family owns two condos in Mission Beach.

And I really understand the housing and I feel for all these people that cannot afford housing.

But I don't think this will address the issue.

Because we were playing by the rules.

You changed the rules.

And in fact, the lottery came by and one of our units didn't even get uh a permit.

And we bought in 2014 when they said it's a short-term rental.

So you, the city lost over 10,000 on our TOT that we didn't give you.

We have since been, they've reinstated our permit, which is great.

So now thank you.

Thank you.

Christine Martinez.

Christine Martinez is in the overflow room.

If you can make your way here into chambers, we'll move on to Adam Harris.

I'm here to ask that you do not advance a proposal ballot measure on short-term vacation rentals.

If it passes, my family will lose my childhood home.

My father bought our ocean beach house more than 50 years ago.

I grew up there with my brother and has been part of my family for three generations.

When my father passed, we looked for at every possible way to keep the home, including long-term renting.

But long-term rent in the area simply doesn't come close to covering the utilities, taxes, insurance, and maintenance on an older San Diego property.

It wasn't about making money, it was about whether we could afford to keep the home at all.

Short-term renting became the only viable path to bridge the gap.

Even then the income doesn't fully cover the costs.

It just allows us to make up the difference.

We spent nine months renovating the house with the help from friends and family in nearly two years.

We've welcomed multi-generational families and visitors attending events at PLNU, MCRD, the convention center, and Barnes Tennis Center.

My wife and I clean and maintain the home ourselves to keep expenses down, and we are in good standing with our neighbors.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Gork.

Brian Gork can please approach the lecture, and you have been seated time by Mary.

Is Mary present?

Thank you.

So I will place two minutes on the clock for you.

And while you arrive to the lecture, and if Kevin Ring Dowell can please come to the reserve seats, follow along with Jeremy Huff, Jesse Garcia, and Bridget Browning.

And Mr.

Gork, I will place two minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Good morning.

This ballot measure purports to go after wealthy out-of-state investors, but sweeps up hardworking middle class San Diego families.

This measure violates basic property rights and conflicts with current case law.

This could tie up the city in time consuming and costly litigation.

This measure has similarities to San Francisco's empty homes tax ordinance, which the Superior Court ruled in October 24, violates the takings clause of the Fifth Amendment and is preempted by California's Ellis Act.

This case is now before the Court of Appeal.

Even Berkeley's program, which is ballot measures modeled after, could be in legal jeopardy.

The ballot language specifies that in order for a second home to be exempt from the tax, a bona fide lease would be needed.

Every property owner needs to know that housing or renting to relatives would not exempt them from this tax.

I know a number of responsible longtime San Diegans, mostly seniors who are currently housing or planning to house with or without a lease, their adult sons and daughters, elderly relatives and other family members in second homes.

In fact, any property owner that may in the future consider trying to move to a property that better fits their needs as they age and is thinking of helping a relative by allowing them to live in a family home would be hit by this tax.

The city is charging property owners $8,000 a year and increasing yearly for the privilege to house their family members, which is a fundamental property right.

In addition, the measure is being rushed without study to project the effects on housing supply and affordability on city revenues and the substantial cost to administer such a program and its effect on current property owners and their property rights.

Details are lacking, which are critical to determining impacts.

I urge the committee not to advance its flawed proposal, which harms San Diego families.

The city council and voters need to know all details of this measure and wait for the outcome of the Court of Appeals case before moving forward.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kevin Ring Dowell.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Kevin Ring Dowell.

I work for the state of California, and my husband is a public servant as well.

He's a second grade teacher here in San Diego.

Together we bought and renovated a small property in University Heights, which we now operate as a short-term rental.

When we bought the home in 2021, uh it was in serious distress.

It was occupied by a drug dealer.

The windows were shattered, broke doors were broken, uh plumbing and electrical were seriously outdated.

Um we spent our savings, uh, took out $200,000 in loans to completely renovate the property and make it safe and uh functional.

Since then, we have followed every rule that the city has uh laid before us.

We pay for our uh thousand dollar license.

We follow every ordinance.

Uh this massive tax hike feels deeply unfair to working families like ours who have acted in good faith.

It punishes responsible owners and sends a clear message that San Diego is not not worth investing.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Jeremy Huff.

Good morning, my name is Jeremy Hoff, President of the San Diego Police Office Association.

Public safety depends on a strong and reliable city revenue base.

Policies that reduce tourism, visitor spending, and economic activity, ultimately put pressure on funding for police fire and emergency services.

This proposal risk shrinking the tax base, not growing it.

Which could have unintended consequences for public safety.

When revenue falls short, essential services are often the first to feel the impact.

San Diego should be pursuing policies that build and grow the local economy and stabilize funding, not testing ideas that will likely weaken both.

We urge city council to consider the downstream effects of this proposal and reject measures that the public safety funding at risk, including this proposed tax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jesse Garcia.

Morning.

My name is Jesse Garcia.

I'm the president of Carpenter's Union Local 619, and we oppose this tax.

This this proposal is bad.

It hurts our local residents.

If your intentions are to tax the corporations to create more housing stocks, then tax the corporations that own commercial properties that are vacant, lands that are vacant and undeveloped, hotels that are vacant.

Let's turn those into adaptive reuse projects.

Let's build homes and put people into homes.

If that's the solution that we need, then let's put the taxes on the corporations, not on families that have put sweat equity into an additional home.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Bridget Browning and Bridget.

You have been seated time by John Carlo Vega and Luca Burton.

Okay, so I will place three minutes on the clock.

Please begin.

Hi, good afternoon.

Um I'm Bridget Browning.

I'm the president of the San Diego Imperial County's labor council, and we represent 200,000 workers in the county.

We strongly urge you to move this measure forward.

This is a basic choice.

Do you value housing for our workers to live in, or do you view housing as a commodity to make profit?

It's very clear to us.

Every one of these one eleven thousand homes have been taken off the market and have made the housing crisis worse.

Taxing that choice is not just reasonable, it's necessary.

We can't let the opposition fool us.

This isn't about someone renting a room or two in their home.

They are exempt.

This targets less than one percent of those with whole home vacation rentals and empty second homes.

The paid testimonies that you've heard are from investors protecting a business model that works for them.

It's hollowed out our neighborhoods.

This policy wisely exempts our military families, seniors in care, and victims of disaster.

This is a brilliant two-part victory for working people.

This policy could return up to 11,000 homes back to our communities to house our residents, or if it doesn't, it's also a win because it can generate up to 90 million dollars a year for the city.

Not from you or me, because I don't own a second home, but from speculators and wealthy people who can afford a second home.

They don't know where they're gonna live.

We urge you to move this for forward to the full city council and send this to the ballot.

Let the voters decide.

If it's a bad idea, the voters will vote it down.

But Airbnb knows that's not the case.

They know it's gonna pass, and they want to protect their billions of dollars.

Please do the right thing and stand up for workers like you all said you would do when you came to interview with us for our endorsement.

Thank you.

The next group of speakers will be Matthew Laba, Elena Fariko, Nicole Lilly, and Jesse Schmiddy, followed by Melissa Peterman.

If you've heard your name, I'll repeat.

Matthew Laba, if you can please approach the elector, and you will be followed by Elena Franco.

Matthew Laba, if you can please approach the elector, and you will be followed by Elena Franco, Nicole Lilly, and Jesse Schmiddy.

Okay.

Elena.

Nicole.

Hello.

Hi, my name is Nicole Lilly.

I am a 23-year-old renter, a resident of District 3, and the executive director of Our Time to Act, a youth-led nonprofit fighting for housing justice in San Diego, which is why I'm here today, strongly urging your support of this tax.

Housing is a human right.

It is not a tool for profit.

I am sickened by the comments I've heard demonizing and dehumanizing renters.

The majority of San Diegans are renters.

We are human beings, we are your neighbors, and we deserve a stable place to live in our city.

No matter what story you tell yourselves or this room, the fact is less than one percent of San Diegans would be impacted by this tax.

The majority of us are struggling to pay our rent, and owning a home is a dream.

The idea of owning multiple properties is a fantasy most of us never imagine.

Well, you cry punishment, the majority of us face the consequences of removing entire housing units from the market to use them as short-term rentals or leave them empty.

When we allow that less than one percent of San Diegans, please give this to the people and pass this policy.

Thank you.

Okay, I'll put that aside.

We'll call you at the end of the meeting.

Jesse Schmidty and Jesse, you have been seated time by Karen Lee.

Thank you.

So I will place two minutes on the clock for you to manage the good morning, members of the committee.

My name is Jesse Schmidty, State Policy Manager for Alliance San Diego here today in very strong support of the short-term vacation rental tax.

As a lifelong San Diegan, I have lived in more places than I can actually count.

This isn't because I wanted to, it's because we have been forced to.

Today's decision is not a this or that choice.

You have choices, choices that allow you to open your home to San Diegans.

I've lived from Imperial Beach to Encanto and pretty much everywhere in between.

This council consistently, and I mean consistently, talks about the need for affordable housing.

Well, bending the need to billion dollar corporations is not the way to get us there any faster.

Today, this council can choose whether or not to allow this billion dollar corporation to continue capitalizing off the backs of hardworking San Diegans.

Airbnb, let's call this out for what it is.

Using our community members as pawns against us in this fight to fatten and deep in your own pockets.

Fellow San Diegans, we aren't asking you to give up your income.

We're asking you to convert your short-term into long-term rentals for the people who are paying for your roads to be paved, for your schools to be built, your fires to be fought.

I'm sure we are gonna hear some grandstanding about the cost this will be to San Diegans and how the economics don't math up.

Well, let me make this clear for those at those crossroads today.

The cost of not doing this is a growing homelessness crisis, a continual gap in between our highest and lowest income earners, and a crushing defeat to the hardworking San Diegans standing in this very room.

This council should be particularly angry with Airbnb weaponizing this community.

The cute shirts, the buses, and the checks.

Think of what they could do for their host who are making five to six percent ROI annually and still struggling to get by.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Melissa Peterman.

And Melissa, before you begin, I'm gonna call the next group of people to come to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

Uh Omar Arazi, or excuse me, Araza, um, Barbara Pinto, Ana Ramos, Dee, and Ramla Saeed.

If those individuals can please come up to the reserve seats at the front of the room, and Melissa, please begin.

Good morning.

My name is Melissa Peterman.

I'm the executive director for Townspeople.

We're an affordable housing nonprofit.

And an important takeaway for me today is that I think everyone in this room is in agreement that we're all struggling to make ends meet.

San Diego is unaffordable, and that's not okay for anyone.

And while this measure doesn't solve the affordability crisis, it can help bring a vital resource, housing into closer reach for everyone, including vacation home operators.

Townspeople, we're about to rent out a new home, and we could do so as a short-term vacation rental and bring in needed revenue for the nonprofit, but doing so comes at the long-term expense of San Diegans who also want to live in their hometown too.

So I urge you to please support this common sense measure.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Omar, and you've been seated time by Dan.

Can Dan raise his hand?

Thank you.

So we have two minutes to manage, please begin.

Thank you, City Council.

We appreciate you uh putting this forward, and uh we know the situation could be uh dire to many of us in in the South Bay.

So when corporations start lobbying against uh social benefiting measures, uh society is heading in the right direction.

So as a small business owner, I own a cafe and I uh in San Isidro, and I get very a lot of locals who come in from Nestor uh Barrio Logan and many other South Bay communities, and they always talk about housing, the housing issue.

There's three things that uh you know, I'm gonna leave you from some of the comments that they've made.

Intention, gentrification, and land grabbing.

When it comes to intention, you know, Airbnb you know invested a hundred thousand dollars into the presidential inauguration, and so they're also trying to buy influence into our local election in district eight and district two.

So it's very important for us to really understand what their intention is when they come and are buying our local community members and providing this information.

When it comes to gentrification, many of outside San Diego or outside individuals uh are looking to buy communities in our South Bay because right now it's cheap.

And so we're gonna be priced, uh, we're seeing we're gonna be seeing many local residents be priced out of their communities.

Which also leads to land grabbing.

And I'm not talking about corporations as a small business owner.

Uh I'm talking about the corporations that really buy up multiple properties.

San Diego County actually was in uh two years ago was fighting um the the very thing of land grabbing, where take for instance Blackstone bought 66 properties in San Diego County.

When are they gonna start buying land in our communities down in South Bay?

This is a measure that can prevent that.

We need this measure to move forward to really secure current and future housing for our community.

Thank you.

Barbara Barbara Pinto.

You'll be followed by Anna Ramos, D Ramla Sahid, and Grace Rojas.

Excuse me.

Oh good morning.

It seems to afternoon.

It seems to me that we need to define corporations.

A lot of this is very confusing.

Doesn't seem like the tax should be applicable to everybody.

But I would like to just share that housing should be a human right for all and not just to uh profit uh opportunities for a few.

Uh this is a moral issue.

Um I think that the money should be invested and to reinvest in programs and services that we know help folks to be housed, like the housing and stability preservation program, an eviction prevention program.

We have the right to know our rights as tenants.

Um the uh vacation uh home operation tax would provide needed revenue to the city, and this tax would be an investment in people and a step toward getting to housing justice in San Diego.

Much of the housing is owned by large corporations.

Thank you.

Why don't they pay their fair share uh fair share?

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Anna Ramos Good morning, council members.

My name is Ana Ramos.

I'm a community organizer with ACE, the Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment.

Uh, and I'm here in strong support of implementing this tax because this housing crisis is simply not fair on working class families who are in need of housing.

And I say this because we have multiple members who are living in their cars because they cannot afford anywhere.

And so I urge you to really think about the sanding ins who literally don't have their basic needs before the needs of landlords who are upset about not being able to make a profit.

I also want to mention there is for a fact people in this room with blue shirts opposing this tax who are being paid by the opposition.

I have asked multiple people in here, and they've told me they were told they'd be paid uh a hundred dollars to wear the blue shirts.

Uh they're being misled about this tax and will if that about how this tax will affect them.

It's disgusting that the shirt short-term rental industry is doing this, and the fact that they make so much money that they're able to manufacture fake support should tell you just how much money is being stolen from our communities.

Thank you.

Dee?

Hello, my name is Dee.

I'm a resident of District 3.

Um, as a Native American, the dream of owning a home is now a wish.

As it is for other long-standing migrants and natives, our lives are being pushed to subscriptions instead of ownership.

We don't need Airbnbs and slum lords.

These are people who own multiple vacation homes while we cannot even buy one.

This is privileged capital mobility against community stability.

We need to look clearly at the issue because you may not be a corporation, but you own more homes than you need.

You depend on the locals to pay your bills.

You are increasing inflation, you're eroding our diverse communities, and you're exploiting the migrants for work that are already being targeted during this administration.

City Heights and San Diego particularly are one of the most diverse places in all of the United States.

We are the people that weave the diverse community fabric that is here today, and you all are against rejecting a hundred million going to the community.

And I want to thank you, Ilo Rivero, for proposing this to the community.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Ramla Sahib.

Okay.

Thank you.

Grace Rojas, and you'll be followed by James Jacob Magano, Adrian Anderson, and Jay Jones.

If you could please make your way to the front of the room.

My name is Grace Rojas Jimenez, and I was born and raised in San Diego Cumiai territory.

I am a member of Ace Alliance of Californians for Community Empowerment and a renter.

I'm here to support the vacation home tax.

I come to find that the opposers again are paying people 100 to vote 100 to vote against this bill, which is shameful to the group who are targeting people who need money.

And they have the money.

I don't have a hundred dollars to give y'all, but they sure do.

Um and I saw some the and someone literally took the blue shirt off once they figured out that they were in favor of the measure.

And with that being said, we should boycott and tax corporations like Airbnb, boycott Airbnb for their complicity of genocide and profiteering of Palestinian homes who allow listings in occupied uh Palestinian territory, and invest on affordable housing for the people.

Here, I don't and also I do not give consent for my tax dollars to be used for Israel's genocide on Palestine, nor give it to terrorist groups like ICE.

Thank you.

James Jacob Mogano, James, Adrian Anderson or Jay Jones.

Sandra Aldora Angel.

Sandra.

And you'll be followed by Karen Dang, Delma Navarro.

Hi, Council members.

My name is Sandra Eldora Angel.

I am a Colombian American minority.

My husband is my husband is um a combat veteran, 100% disabled.

We saved over 20 years to buy our second home, our retirement home in Pacific Beach.

It was a lot of um sacrifices, and I did it while I also had ovarian and uterine cancer.

I'm pausing because I've never shared that with anybody.

My doctor was Dr.

Dugan and Dr.

Bahador at Scripps Ranch.

I needed something else to focus on.

So I focused on buying that house with my husband.

He uses VA loan, and I use my savings.

In doing so, it's given me the flexibility.

Um I have someone's minute.

Anybody have time?

Thank you.

I'll place one more minute on the clock for you.

If you can please hand the speaker slipped here to my colleague.

Thank you.

So a lot of the people here are talking about unaffordable housing.

What's interesting to note is that they're not educated enough about the affordable housing that's here.

The city has received over 320 million dollars to help affordable housing.

Um Mayor Todd Gloria, just we're gonna spause your time.

I've warned you before, let people speak and speak their mind.

You may agree, you may violently disagree, but let them speak.

Please extend the courtesy.

So we're gonna go back and give you a uh put a minute back on the clock.

I wasn't paid to be here.

Todd Mayor Todd Gloria just signed a proposal for 14,000 homes in Claremont, and then another amount for San but near by San Diego State University.

I always look at that, all the positiveness that there is in San Diego.

In addition to that, there was $32.4 million for the Starling Place property that affords affordable housing.

There is also Amaser and Linda Vista in Pacific Beach, Rose Canyon, and it goes on and on.

There's so many places for affordable housing.

As a realtor here in San Diego, I can help first-time homebuyers.

There are programs through the city of San Diego to help the first-time homebuyers to defer their payments, to have lower tax credits, to go through someone that has can help them.

Thank you.

That does your minute.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Karen Dang.

Good morning.

My name is Karen Ding.

I moved here 58 years ago when I was three years old.

I'm consider myself a native of San Diego and I'm proud San Diego ambassador.

Um I am semi-retired with four side gigs.

One of the side gigs is STRO.

I have a home in Mission Beach that we rent out during the summer as STRO, and then nine months to students.

We do not leave it empty.

We borrowed money to get this home.

And we still owe $650,000.

My annual income from this STRO is $20K.

The tourism has never been lower than it has been now.

It feels like COVID.

My rentals are very low.

I want to also bring your attention to the 14th Amendment, which acts as all of us as a shield against unfair, invalid, and discriminatory taxes.

We are being discriminated as STRO owners.

Having an SDR owner is not just a side gig, it's a sacrifice, and taxing is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Thelma Navarro.

And Thelma, you have been seated at a time by Nathaniel.

Can Nathaniel please raise his hand?

Thank you.

And we have Carla.

Thank you.

And uh Charla?

Shari.

Shari, your final speaker.

Okay, I do not see a hand up for the Shari, so that will be three minutes total for you that I'll place on the clock.

Good afternoon, Chair and Council members.

My name is Thelma Navarro, and I'm a researcher and policy advocate with the Center of Policy Initiatives here in San Diego, and also a renter in District 9.

We are here to support the proposed empty second homes and vacation rental tax.

This tax could raise an estimated 90 million dollars for the city's general fund that could pay for critical services like parks, libraries, housing support, and city infrastructure, which support actual San Diegans.

Housing should be a human right for all and not a profit opportunity for the very few.

While thousands of San Diegans struggle to keep a roof over their heads, a very small number of people, 1% of San Diegans, own multiple homes that either sit empty or are used as short-term vacation rentals.

A substantial body of peer-reviewed research shows that short-term rentals like those posted on Airbnb reduce the supply of long-term housing and contribute to rent and home increases, particularly in high demand and tourist-oriented neighborhoods.

Studies using national and international data find that as short-term rental activity increases, fewer units are available to residents, and rents rise higher than average over time.

In San Diego, short-term rentals are heavily concentrated in coastal and central San Diego neighborhoods, including La Jolla, Logan, University Heights, where short-term rentals are pricing out long-term residents and families.

Consequently, residents from across the districts are displaced by uneven market that favor companies, landlords, and investors over local communities.

Misleading claims and misinformation is being circulated by the opposition.

The facts are that this measure targets second empty homes and full-time vacation rentals, not primary residents or short-term rentals or long-term rentals.

This measure makes the 11,000 people who own vacation houses and short-term rentals in San Diego actually contribute to our city and not just themselves.

Every year, San Diegans space cuts through public spaces and services like library and parks and rec while housing support and stormwater infrastructure continue to be chronically underfunded.

This tax requires those who are making money from us to pay their fair share.

The Centrum Policy Initiatives urges you to support this tax and move it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Crystal Irving.

Crystal Irving, if you could please approach the lectern.

You will be followed by David R.

Amanda Carrera, Beatrice Orozco, and Karen Chambers.

Going back to Crystal Irving.

Is Crystal Irving in Chambers?

Yep, and I have this two slips.

So we've got Marco.

Is Marco here?

Just ran out.

He's the guy with the hat and ponytail who told you that.

Um Marco and Robert Sanders.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you.

My name is Crystal Irving, and I'm proud to serve as president of SEIU Local 221, where we represent about 14,000 workers in San Diego and Imperial counties, including workers here at the San Diego Housing Commission, who are currently in a wage reopener negotiation with their hard fought and won wages in question because of budget deficits, which are also impacting staffing at this time, where we critically need to address housing accessibility and homelessness.

The empty homes tax measure overwhelmingly impacts the rich and ultra-wealthy, not your everyday working families.

And let's be honest, owning a home in 2026 is quite the feat in and of itself.

Owning a second home that is empty, that is a luxury, or a lucrative side hustle.

It's shameful to see how corporations and out-of-town investors come in and drive up the market without any accountability or making the slightest investment in our communities, making it nearly impossible for working professionals like me to even imagine owning a home.

And I also want to note that the C in LLC stands for corporation.

This tax begins the work to address the system where housing has become a commodity, and it would tip the scales towards housing justice and the understanding that shelter is a basic human right.

Three things are clear.

We need to do everything in our power to generate revenue for our city.

We must ensure more housing for working families, and we must also ensure that we have the resources to continue to serve the most vulnerable through services and resources like the San Diego Housing Commission.

And let me be clear: a no vote today in rules committee is anti-worker, anti-community, and quite frankly, anti-Sand Diego, and prevents the people from weighing in on our present and our future.

Send this to the ballot.

Allow the people the opportunity to vote on this matter.

And SCIU Local 221 is in full support of this item and urges a yes vote for the empty homes tax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is David R.

David, you will be followed by Amanda Carrera, Beatrice Orozco, Cara Chambers, and Braden Moreno, if you can please move to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

And David, please begin.

I co-own instant cleans or local cleaning company.

Our staff is made up of 90% of minorities and single mothers.

Short-term rentals provide the specific midday schedule they need to work while their kids are in school.

If these rentals disappear, the San Diegans will lose their jobs that fit their lives for working mothers.

This tax forces owners to sell or go long term.

You aren't just taxing empty houses, you're taxing the cleaning crews, the laundry services, and the handyman and the landscapers who maintain them.

Our business would lose roughly 75% of its revenue if this passes.

To the people who say city workers can't afford a home, instead of advo advocating for this tax, you should be advocating for higher pay for working professionals and emergency services.

Short-term rentals are not the reason why teachers, firefighters, and police offers officers cannot afford a home.

Short-term rentals are not the reason why we have hundreds of homeless people in the streets.

Thank you.

Amanda Carrera.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Amanda Carrera.

I'm a San Diego resident who works at a short-term rental company.

This proposed tax increase doesn't just affect property owners, it threatens the jobs of cleaners, maintenance workers, property managers, and small local businesses who depend on this work to support their families.

The short-term rental industry supports thousands of middle class jobs and brings critical tourism dollars to San Diego.

If hosting becomes financially unrealistic, visitors won't stop traveling.

They'll choose other cities.

That means less tourism spending, fewer jobs, and reduced revenue for our city.

I urge you to reconsider this proposal and work with our community on balanced solutions that protect housing without eliminating livelihoods.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Petra Sorosco.

I do see you have marked I'm donating my time too, but I there is no name under that.

If you want to go back.

We'll come back to you if you'd like to speak to my colleague about donating your minute to a speaker.

Kara Chambers.

Hello.

Um, I had a completely different speech prepared, but I really feel like I need to nail some things home here.

Um I live in District 8 and I'm a property manager.

Virtually no one is going to sell their asset or turn their home into an unfurnished long-term rental.

A major reason for this is because being a long-term landlord has become so unpalatable in California.

They will simply switch to medium-term rentals to avoid this tax, rent to travel nurses, DOD contractors, or corporate housing, not San Diegans.

And what does this mean?

The city gets zero dollars in TOT.

Cleaners, handymen, blue-collar workers lose their jobs, small businesses in the community suffer.

We all want life to be more affordable here.

Believe me, believe me.

But this tax is not the answer.

A quick stat.

Um, in 2023, Airbnb showed that guests contributed 1.6 billion dollars to our regional economy.

Do not let that revenue dry up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Braden Moreno.

And Braden, you have been seated time by Brian.

Okay, so I'll place two minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Good morning, counsel.

I'm a 20-year San Diegan and graduate of San Diego State.

Coaztex.

I'm a short-term rental owner and manager of other short-term rentals in San Diego.

We're a small business.

This proposal will not increase city revenue.

It will collapse at least 60 to 70% or more of the vacation rental market.

And council, vacation rentals are good for the economics of cities.

They generate city revenue through TOT taxes, licensing fees, visitor spending, and the income taxes paid by the service providers that support these rentals.

That money actually funds police, fire, parks, and basic city services.

It's interesting seeing signs that say what side are we on.

We are on the working class side because short-term rentals support the working class.

Tens of thousands of them.

Mainly small businesses and service providers.

Like my cleaning manager, Alba, who runs a local company with 10 employees.

If these rentals disappear, those jobs disappear.

The working class.

Eliminating vacation rentals will not will not meanfully meaningfully increase affordable housing.

Other cities have tried this, and time and time again it's been disproven.

Owners either sell, increasing housing costs, or they shift to 30-day midterm furnished rentals.

That doesn't create any revenue for the city and it removes housing.

It doesn't create more housing.

I urge you guys to vote no on this policy.

It hurts local workers, it hurts small businesses like ours, it damages tourism, and it reduces city revenue, especially during a budget deficit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jeff McGurn.

You will be followed by Aaron Bears, Rebecca Parks, and Chris Kate.

And for those that are going to be having a group presentation and you've had time seated to you, if you can please make sure the people that have seated time to you come into chambers as we wait.

So we'll begin with Jeff McGurn.

Jeff, you've been seated time by Dora.

Is Dora present?

Dora, can you please raise your hand?

Dora might be in the other.

Dora Grant, if you're in the overflow room, if you can please come into chambers and identify yourselves so we can seed your time.

And Dr.

Rhonda Crawford.

Dr.

Rhonda Crawford.

We have sea time over here if we need it.

Sir, if you would like, I can take another speaker and if you want to go find okay, and I'll call you in a few if you'd like to go find the people that have ceded time to you.

Aaron Bears and Aaron, you have been seated time by Laura Aguilar.

Is Laura there?

Thank you.

Andrew, nope.

Andrew, thank you.

Grab yet Gabriela?

Thank you.

Blanca.

Thank you.

Edith.

Thank you.

So that is a total of six minutes that I'll put on the clock for you to manage.

Won't need it, hopefully, but thank you.

I actually wanted to bring these guys up because this is the face of the people that are gonna lose jobs if this passes.

It's this let's just be really clear about this.

Look, I I'm a native-born San Diego and I was born at the Stork Hospital.

I went to Morse High School, I was a token white guy.

I went to Berkeley.

I worked for fair housing as an attorney.

So I know all of these conversations.

But we're vilifying the wrong people.

The inclusion of the term corporation is completely unfair.

Because the reality of it is all these homes are held in corporations.

You know why?

Because we get sued.

That's the only reason.

These guys aren't McDonald's.

They aren't black rock.

I have 74 units that I manage in the city.

Every single one, with the exception of four, are local residents who pay taxes and live here.

They've had their homes for the better part of 40 plus years.

No one has more than two.

These people are not rolling in the dough.

They scraped and they saved and they chose to invest in their community to support their community.

These people, I paid $775,000 in cleaning fees last year.

I spent 1.2 million dollars in allied professionals related to the trades.

So if you want to talk about the impact, that's the impact.

If this passes the reality, and Jillian actually made a good point.

I think it was glossed over.

30% is probably the number you're gonna lose.

30%.

Take out two of these people.

I I hired, I have 12 cleaners that I paid 625, 770,000 last year, too.

I spent 620,000 on TOT.

If 30% of that goes away, you lose 250,000.

Now you might make up 300, 350 in this asinine tax, but guess what?

At the end of the day, what we've talked about is all those trout tourism dollars that you're gonna lose.

Now, I get it.

People want to vilify tourism, but we are a tourism-based economy.

That is the reality.

The solution is not gonna be the two and a half million dollar house in Mission Beach that's suddenly available long term.

Now that's gonna trickle down to you know, normal heights and in North Park.

It's not gonna happen.

So you're not solving anything with this.

All you're doing is creating liability and shifting.

This is a matter of just scapegoating wealth.

It's not fair, it's not pretty.

It's not a good answer.

Okay.

These are people that work for a living, these are communities that use their dollars, these are people that travel and they support our community.

And the vilification of wealth and corporations, it's an unfair measure.

This is not corporate actors, this is not BlackRock, this is not large investors coming up buying swathes of San Diego.

There's no one here getting paid, by the way.

None of my people.

You know, they're here.

In fact, they're not getting paid today because they're here.

These people get paid for working.

They don't get paid for being here.

They are here because they know that they make money for what they do.

And that job is now threatened by this.

That's why they're here.

They got the opposite of pay.

So if you got a hundred bucks, you want to give it back to them, feel free.

They didn't get anything to be here.

They all pay taxes.

So I'm just telling you, this is uh this is an asinine solution to a problem that it isn't our fault, has nothing to do with us.

We've already paid our fair share.

We're paying upwards of 13% in taxes already on TOT.

So, Mr.

Campio, I appreciate the support.

Mrs.

Moreno, these people, many of my cleaners, six of my 18 cleaners live in your district.

So they those six could just lose their jobs if this goes through.

30% of my business goes away.

So that that's the reality.

That's that's that's what's happening.

We we already know why this is here.

It's on the ballot because of special interests, the hotels, people that don't care about San Diego.

And I'm I'm sorry you guys got roped into it because you've been sold a pill of goods.

It's not fair.

It's unfair that you got sold that bill of goods.

Hopefully, Mr.

Lee, Mrs.

Moreno, if you guys haven't decided yet, you can uh use this information to come to a conclusion that helps the city and doesn't hurt it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, and Rhonda Crawford.

I'm being seated by this gentleman here and then Guillermo.

Okay, so my colleague will come out and get your names, and so we'll put three minutes on the clock.

These gentlemen have seated their time, and please begin.

Thank you.

Greetings.

Um, I want to focus today on the economic impact because that's where this proposal creates the greatest risk.

Um and I want to be clear at the outset.

This is not an argument against housing solutions.

It's an argument against hurting San Diegans while weakening the city's financials in the process.

Short-term rentals are not just places people sleep, they're part of the neighborhood economic ecosystem.

Each year, STR's guests spend over 365 million dollars at local businesses, corner grocery stores, cafe, neighbor neighborhood cafes, family-owned restaurants, retail shops, not convention centers, not corporate campuses, neighborhoods.

If this punishing tax uh goes into effect, right, it punishes listings out of the market, and that money doesn't generally relocate it somewhere else, it disappears.

And when it disappears, the first people to feel it aren't the property owners.

They're small business owners, they're hourly workers, service staff, and neighborhood shops that rely on steady foot traffic.

Those are San Diegans like me.

I'm a second generation San Diegan, I have lived here my whole life.

We've heard revenue projections tied to this proposal, but those projections r rely on very fragile assumptions that most operators will simply pay the tax, and many won't.

There's a deterrent, this is a deterrence tax, a punishment tax.

Its purpose is to make people stop hosting.

And when people stop hosting, transient occupancy tax goes away.

Sales tax goes down, visitor spending goes down.

So the city isn't trading one revenue stream for another.

It's risking guaranteed revenue for speculative revenue.

That's a little like selling your paycheck in exchange for a lottery ticket.

Occasionally exciting, but not a strategy most of us would recommend.

We've heard estimates about how much this tax could raise, but those numbers numbers assume behavior doesn't align with the reality on the ground.

Smaller operators, especially those with modest inland properties, they're not gonna absorb an eight or twelve thousand dollar tax bill.

They'll delist and once they're gone, the tax revenue is gone, the TOT is gone, the neighborhood spending is gone.

A revenue estimate that depends on people staying in a system explicitly designed to push them out at uh out is at best optimistic.

There's also entire uh an entire workforce.

This proposal rarely acknowledges cleaners, landscapers, handyman, maintenance crews, linen services.

These are local, often minority and women-owned small businesses that pay per stay, not salaried, not buffered.

When listings disappear, their income disappears instantly.

This proposal doesn't punish platforms, it punishes workers.

I also want to address the argument we've heard repeatedly that they're driving down school enrollment.

That is just not the case.

In fact, quite the opposite.

We find school enrollment is going up in most of the areas where uh the population is more dense with uh uh vacation rentals.

Blaming STRs for school enrollment trends may be emotionally appealing, but a distraction of real issues families and schools are facing.

And importantly, many SDR operators themselves, like me, are parents, neighbors, and school supporters.

These are not absentee actors, we're part of the community.

And finally, I want to address the treatment of LLCs.

Many San Diegans use LLCs for one simple reason to protect their families, not to dodge taxes, not to hoard housing.

Please, please, please vote down this this proposal.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Rebecca Parks.

And Rebecca, you have been seated time by Renee Howard.

Is Renee in the room?

Thank you.

Okay, so I'll place two minutes on the clock.

Hi, my name's Rebecca Parks, and I'm a cleaner for the Airbnb.

Most days, you can find me and my team out at Mission Beach, Pacific Beach, Del Mar.

Um, I'm a small person in a company that I work for.

There's about 15 of us total.

And today, for instance, we didn't get paid to be here.

I lost four jobs today.

That's about $650 that I passed on to one of my co-workers so I could be here to explain to you guys how important it is for me to have this job.

Um it wasn't the job I originally started out to do, but it was the job that fell into me just when I needed it.

When my husband passed away and I was left with five children, I was able to work flexible hours, I was able to leave and take my kids to the doctors.

I was able to still pay my rent and not get evicted.

The house that I lived in since I was 13 years old.

My parents have since moved out of state and bought a house, and I was able to stay renting there from our landlords.

That's not something most people have, and I understand that.

But I could have moved out of state too.

Instead, I chose to find a way to make it work so me and my girls can stay here.

San Diego is home to us.

I've been here born and raised here.

Um I just ask that you guys take into consideration.

It's not just me, it's a lot of us.

There's maintenance people that come without them.

I can't do my job.

There's the renters.

I can't afford to go on vacation and pay a huge tax.

It's hard enough.

You save your whole life to go on that one special vacation.

And most people can barely scrape up enough to make that happen.

With this added tax, it's gonna put a lot of people out of jobs and a lot of people out of business.

So please take all this into consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Chris Kate.

Good afternoon, Council President, members of the committee, Chris Kate on behalf of the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce.

Our role is simple.

It's to advocate for policies that help San Diego's economy grow in a way that benefits residents, workers, and businesses.

Unfortunately, this proposal does the opposite.

Vic rentals bring in visitors, support small businesses, and generates significant economic activity that the city and its communities depend upon.

The majority of hosts are local San Diegans.

They already pay substantial taxes to fund city services.

This proposal offers no guarantees that the new tax revenue will improve affordability or increase the supply of housing.

If these homes are taxed out of existence, they won't turn into affordable housing.

Instead, the city will lose visitors, host livelihoods will take a hit, and small businesses will feel the pain.

San Diego needs thoughtful, accountable revenue policies, and this broad tax is not a thoughtful solution.

And we urge the rules committee to vote no today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next set of speakers will be James Styres, Mikey Nabb, Gabby Simon, Wee Tran, and Angie Strypling.

If these individuals can please come up to the reserve seats here at the front of the room, you will be with the next group of speakers.

And if you are in the overflow room and you heard your name, please make your way to chambers.

We will begin with James.

Okay, James, I will come back to you.

Mikey Nabb.

Good mor afternoon committee members.

My name is Mikey Nabb.

I'm a co-founder of Business for Good San Diego.

We represent over 130 locally owned businesses here in the city and beyond uh in uh San Diego County region.

Um we had a long discussion about this policy, and I want to read you the approved uh message from our membership.

Local businesses depend on local people.

When housing is so scarce that residents are forced to compete with tourists for homes, rents rise, disposable income shrinks, and regular customer base disappears.

A short-term vacation rental tax helps ensure that visitors contribute to the housing and infrastructure that makes San Diego livable because a city that works for residents is a city that works for business.

We urge you to support this policy and let the voters decide as if this is the best thing for San Diegans.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gabby Simon.

Hi, my name is Gabby Simone, and I'm a resident of District 3.

And fun fact, I was also born at the Stark Hospital.

I'm here in support of this ballot measure and urge the rules committee to advance this item to the full council.

At its core, this issue is about who our city is built for.

The people most affected by these decisions are often not in rooms like this.

Not because they don't care, but because many are working long hours or caring for family, something all of us can relate to.

Civic participation should not depend on having time, flexibility, or privilege.

This measure is not about punishing neighbors who rely on short-term rental income to stay afloat.

It's about fairness.

It's about ensuring that housing remains a place to live, not a financial instrument for large corporate operators who are protected from the consequences for their practices create.

I also want to acknowledge a real concern that has come up multiple times.

The residents are feeling taxed from every direction, and that's not fair to keep pushing costs onto working people.

I share that concern.

This proposal has divided people who actually share common ground.

Most residents want the same thing.

Stability, transparency, and a city where working people can't afford to stay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

James Styres.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is James Styres.

I'm a Maureen Corps veteran and a director of a local San Diego-based vacation rental management company.

I want to be clear.

Those of us who own and operate short-term rentals fully support making housing in San Diego affordable and available.

We care about our neighbors, our community, and the future of the city.

We are not asking for more inventory.

We are simply asking the city to maintain the 1% cap on vacation rentals that was passed not long ago, a cap that we have not yet reached.

Vacation rentals account for less than 1%.

Yes, some vacation rentals are in are held in LLCs and trusts, but that does not mean that owners aren't local San Diegans.

It is for liability protection and many more other reasons.

Vacation rental managers and operators consistently follow the law, enforce rules and regulations, monitor properties, and respond quickly to complaints.

We do everything that the city asks of us.

This proposed tax is unjust and misses the mark.

Many of these homes are multi-million dollar properties.

Even if they were put on the market, they would remain unaffordable for most.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um my name is Wee Tran.

I'm the executive director of Big Voices.

We represent a Vietnamese community in the county San Diego and City High Pacifically.

I want to name a couple things.

Number one, for the folks who say that you cared about a community.

How much are you doing more to help us to make it affordable?

The reality is that your home or extra home that a lot of you will can actually live in.

Right.

For the folks that also talking about affordable housing, how many of you actually will vote to help us to build up?

None of you will.

And finally, I want to name something.

Chris Gay, you need to be the council member here.

You know what a CD wanted to look like.

You know we don't have the revenue, so stop with that brand.

Stop with that narrative that you have because we do need the revenue to run the CD effectively, efficiently.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Angie.

Angie, you've been seated time by Zach.

Is Zach present?

Thank you.

Uh Jem?

Jenna.

Jenna, excuse me.

And Lauren.

All right, so I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Good afternoon.

My name is Angie Streepling, and I'm the director of housing for Path San Diego.

As you know, PATH is a family of agencies dedicated to ending homelessness for individuals, families, and communities across California.

Path provides a multitude of client-focused services, as well as building and operating affordable housing communities.

Our mission and what keeps us going, especially in difficult times like this, is to ensure that everyone has a safe place to call home.

Last year, PASS served nearly 7,500 San Diegans and housed over 1,100 individuals.

We take pride in working alongside the mayor and city council on delivering local solutions to homelessness like outreach, shelter, and affordable housing.

We are starting to see signs of success with homelessness decreasing last year, but we still face challenges.

The San Diego Housing Commission recently reported that on any given day, only 8% of people who were seeking shelter were able to actually access shelter.

Despite the work I see from our amazing team members, some of whom are here today, it is clear that our current system has three fundamental challenges.

One, people cannot move through our homeless services system because we do not have enough shelter or permanent housing, leaving people stuck on the streets or waiting up to years in shelter before being connected or finding permanent housing.

Number two is the reliance on federal and state dollars to support this system at a time when huge shifts in funding and priorities threaten to undo our progress.

And finally, and perhaps most importantly, is number three, which is affordability itself, which is what many of the speakers opposing the tax want as well.

Our PATH teams see a growing number of seniors and families, many of who are currently working or have or have fixed income, who are forced to live in their car since they simply cannot afford an apartment.

This is why PATH has chosen to support this proposal.

Homes and homelessness and the pipeline to develop additional affordable housing in the San Diego region is incredibly limited.

Ending homelessness in communities like San Diego, where there is a severe shortage of affordable and supportive housing, is very difficult work.

With growing uncertainty in federal and state funding, local resources and local solutions are more important than ever to protect the progress and continue delivering housing.

We recently opened Path Villas El Cerido, which has 40 units of permanent supportive housing, which would not have been possible without funding from the city and county.

Funds for projects like these are incredibly rare, and we need more reliable funding to build at that level, which will also impact both homelessness and affordability.

As a statewide homeless service provider, we see the best results in communities that have dedicated funding streams for affordable housing production.

For example, voters in LA County have approved mallet vet ballot measures in recent years and are on track to spend over 600 million annually just on affordable housing production and preservation.

If we included homeless services and renter protections, it would be more than one billion annually.

That is why PATH, alongside our partners, supports the measure brought forward by Councilmember Ela Rivera.

There's no single solution to the to the housing crisis.

People need access to affordable homes and supportive services to get it back on track.

Without consistent resources, we simply cannot build, maintain, and operate the affordable housing communities our neighbors need.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker will be Matt Smith.

And then if the following individuals can please make their way to the front reserve seats and or come in from the spillover room into chambers because you will be up next.

Greg Ross, Ashley, Laura, Bruce, Jason Torres, Cheyenne, Iris, and Lily, Fridell, and Kel Kelvin Barrios and Matthew Floyd.

If you've heard your name, if you can please come in and make sure you're in chambers, you will be in the next group speaking, and we will start with with Matt Smith.

Hello.

I actually was not planning on coming down here today because I have a job.

I have to work and I'll be losing that money.

But this is important, and I'm actually going to modify what I kind of planned on saying, which is that after hearing both sides, um, I can see both sides of the argument, but uh the way the plan is written uh needs a lot of work.

I'm a third generation San Diegan.

My parents, who are now both about 80, own a two-bedroom condo in Mission Beach and operated as a short-term rental, and they bought it about 30 years ago as a short-term rental.

It was a short-term rental then.

Mission Beach, as we all know, for a hundred plus years, has been the Mecca for vacationers and the epicenter of vacation rental properties.

I had to come down here a couple years ago for the big dust up over the, you know.

Can I have some time?

Yeah, hi.

Yes.

Okay.

I came down here a couple years ago to go through the whole rigmarole with the uh restrictions and all of that that were put on short-term rentals at that time and thought that argument was over.

Short-term rentals are not the enemy.

My parents rely on this income.

My dad taught school for 38 years at San Diego City Schools, okay?

We are not made of money.

Their profit margin is very low.

Okay.

We employ cleaners, maintenance people, and so forth that contribute, as everyone has pointed out, to the economy.

Many of the people on the other side are probably some of those people or affiliated with those groups.

If we are put, if this tax goes through, it will kill us.

The door will be closed, and that will be it.

That'll be it.

And just as a final note, San Diego is a tourism meca.

We need not everybody wants to stay in a hotel.

And somebody pointed out something about nurses earlier needing affordable housing.

Many of our short-term guests are nurses.

Thank you.

And for the record, Joe, sorry, I have pulled your slip as you have seated time to Mr.

Smith.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Greg Ross.

Greg, you have been seated time by Ashley.

Is Ashley present?

She had to leave for a flight.

I think I've only got two people that are here presently that I've seen Laura Povaromo and Bruce Stein.

And Bruce, uh Jason Torres, Cheyenne Pratt, Iris Sedano, Lily, and Fridell.

Okay.

So that will be three minutes on the clock.

Please begin.

Yeah.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Greg Ross, and I represent over 75 STR owners.

Uh famous president once said, you cannot tax your way to affordability, and you cannot regulate your way to prosperity.

And I want to mention to somebody, I'm not sure if everybody knows where this money goes.

It goes into the general fund, which these guys can spend any way they want.

And there's not one dollar earmarked for affordable housing.

Secondly, have you guys done studies to see what one percent of housing stock does if it's returned to the market?

I have.

You didn't even talk about the tourism.

The 1.6 billion dollars in tourism that is directly attributed to vacation rental visitors.

This tax also sets a dangerous precedent, singling out a narrow class of property owners to carry a disproportionate financial burden because it's politically convenient.

That is not sound policy and it will not withstand long-term scrutiny.

San Diego already benefits enormously from tourism generated revenue.

The answer is better enforcement of existing rules, not a punitive tax that treats responsible operators as a problem to be eliminated.

And we've heard it's only going to affect 1% of the people, but there's 18,000 jobs in the city that are directly related to vacation rental tourism.

18,000.

It's way far more widespread and reaching than 1% of the community.

I advise you to do more research on this because I don't think you've investigated nearly all of the unintended consequences of this bill would pass.

I urge you to vote no on this proposal today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Calvin Barrios.

And if I call your name and you're in the overflow room, if you can please make your way into chambers, you will be the next group of speakers.

Matthew Floyd and anyone who has ceded time to you, please make sure you are in chambers.

Haley Venegas, Christina Gonzalez.

And Avi Hansan.

And Mr.

Barrios, please begin.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Calvin Barrios.

I'm the director of government affairs for laborers local 89.

I'm here speaking on behalf of our business manager, Valentin Macedo, and our 5,000 members here in San Diego County.

We represent construction workers who build and maintain the infrastructure and housing in the city.

We do not support this item as proposed.

This is a general fund measure.

It will not guarantee any funding to prioritize San Diegans want to see, such as keeping toxic chemicals from our beaches, protecting clean drinking water, and public safety.

We ask you not to move forward with the short-term vacation rental tax.

These are not homes the average family can afford in areas like La Jolla or downtown, and short-term vacation rentals already generate TOT for the city while supporting tourism.

We are concerned this proposal could backfire, reduce that activity, and not bring in the revenue that is being projected at a time where trust and city government is strained.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Matthew Floyd.

And Matthew, you have been seated time by Lizanne.

Thank you.

Yannith?

Thank you.

And Parla?

Thank you.

So I will put four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, and thank you for being here.

I'm here to ask you to vote against this measure as written because it presents major risk for the city budget and local jobs.

This tax is explicitly designed to change behavior, to push owners away from operating vacation rentals and toward other uses.

But the new revenue projections that have been shared depend on the complete opposite that thousands of San Diego homeowners will continue operating exactly as they do today and simply pay the tax.

Those two assumptions cannot both be true at the same time.

Let's talk about the TOT transient occupancy tax, which is one of the city's most dependable sources of revenue.

According to the city public records in 2024, vacation rental vacation rentals accounted for about 50 million of that TOT tax revenue for the city for the general fund.

The TOT rate was just increased about six months ago by 10 to 30% on all of the vacation rentals in the city in 2025.

So I would expect that number to increase to over 60 million in this year.

If vacation rentals cease to operate, then those units no longer generate TOT at all.

And as a local property manager, I expect that over 50 to 75% of our homeowners would switch to midterm rentals if this measure was to pass, which would not create new long-term housing whatsoever.

That would result in direct revenue loss of roughly 30 to 40 million from the general budget, plus two to three million in lost permit fees immediately.

The measure as it stands grossly underestimates how many units would leave the visitor market, how quickly that would happen, or how much TOT would be lost immediately as a result, and that needs to be addressed.

Second, through natural supply and demand, the proposal would raise the cost of staying in San Diego, both for the remaining vacation rentals and for hotels as well.

When supply tightens and costs rise, average nightly rates will increase.

That assumption being offered is that people will keep coming anyway, but we know from real-world examples that that is not the case.

In New York City, after local law 18 sharply restricted vacation rentals in the city, hotel prices rose significantly.

What did not happen was a corresponding improvement in housing affordability.

But what did happen was a measurable shift in visitor behavior.

Visitors shortened their stays, reduce their trips, or stayed outside the city in nearby New Jersey communities.

Total tourism spend softened even as nightly prices increased because tourists had less spend left over to spend at local businesses.

That same substitution effect is relevant here in San Diego as well.

San Diego is not an island.

Visitors can shift to neighboring cities that still allow STRs like Incinitas and Carlsbad, or choose other Southern California destinations like Palm Springs that remain more affordable.

Separate from the budget, this measure would have a major effect on all small businesses and the thousands of local employees that directly support this industry, including realtors, property managers, cleaning companies, landscapers, pool maintenance, trash removal, and interior designers.

Demand for those services will drop immediately if a new tax is implemented, and unemployment claims are sure to follow.

There will be also a secondary effect on all businesses in neighborhoods where vacation rentals are popular.

Restaurants, retail stores, bars, cafes, venues, theme parks will all see revenues decline due to less tourism, and that means less sales tax revenue and parking revenue for the city.

So expect additional budget shortfalls there.

Many of those businesses struggled to survive during COVID, and this would be another major blow to uh the revenue, which naturally means they would have to cut back on staff and close down or close down completely in some cases.

Several of those business owners are here today to share their concerns as well.

Vacation rents have been a staple of San Diego's growing economy for decades, and one of the reasons, main reasons why our neighborhoods are so lively and diverse.

Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Haley Venegas.

Good afternoon, Council members.

My name is Hayley Viniegas.

I am a director at San Diego Youth Services that oversees our shelters and housing programs for young people ages 12 to 24.

At San Diego Youth Services, we believe that investing in youth today creates a better, safer, and more equitable San Diego tomorrow.

And I urge you to support this measure and take this critical first step towards housing justice for our community.

There are more than 1,500 young people who are students, athletes, dreamers, who through no fault of their own are navigating life without the basic security of a safe place to sleep here in San Diego.

Research shows that youth who experience homelessness are three to four times more likely to experience chronic homelessness and long-term housing instability as adults.

If we want to reduce long-term homelessness, we must start with prevention and investing into long-term solutions where fewer young people end up on our streets.

That's why this proposed vacation home and short-term rental tax is important.

Every dollar generated can help expand affordable housing and fund prevention programs that keep youth and families from falling into homelessness in the first place.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Christina Gonzalez.

Hi, good afternoon.

My name is Christina Gonzalez, and I'm against more taxes for short-term rentals.

In 2016, I was single mom with two kids when my mom asked me to help her to clean her new Airbnb.

The only one.

After that, my customers started me to refer me to another customer.

It seems like they like my job, so that's how I started my company.

But what I like the most is that I give uh jobs to more moms like me that I needed to support the kids.

And I give it the opportunity to other people like me that it's necessary of having a job and support their own family.

Today, our cleaning company is based on short-term rentals and only provides and I provide an employment for 27 people.

Most of it are single moms.

Please don't leave my employees without a job.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Our next speaker is Abina.

And Abina, you will be followed by Jerry Locke, Joseph I, Jay Goldberg, Arson Gazapoor, and Kyle Weinberg.

If those individuals are in the overflow room or in chambers, if you can please make your way to these front seats.

Please begin.

Thank you.

Awesome.

Um, there's two things I wanted to say in the beginning.

One, it's crazy how you can sell yourself out for the low price of a hundred dollars.

That's kind of embarrassing.

And then number two, it's really funny to see people who own more than one home complain about that because it's almost like you're saying like your lobster is too buttery and your steak is too juicy or something like that.

I, on the other hand, I'm from Vista, California, up in North County.

I now live in North Park because I've had a job here since 2023.

Um it took me four months to find that apartment that I live in right now, and you can't tell me it's not because of the other 850 listings in North Park.

I would literally like find an apartment that my Reuben and I like agree with and move forward or whatever, sit in the car, be like, hey, can I have the application?

And it's already been applied for and given to someone else during the five-minute tour I took.

Um, and so it's just hard for me to not think about how an extra 850 listings on Airbnb that tourists are staying in would not just like directly impact that.

Um, like you y'all act like this tax does not give you any other choice, but literally just rent it out to people like me and other fresh college grads.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jerry Locke.

Is Jerry in the room?

All right, if you're in the overflow room, Jerry Locke, if you can please make your way to chambers, I will call you again.

Oh, Jerry's, thank you.

I didn't hear you.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Joseph I.

I attended a town hall last November with President Lacava, and for 45 minutes, you answered dozens of city-related questions.

I came away not just impressed, I was dazzled.

I've listened to a man who was with had wisdom and thoughtfulness.

When you answered my specific question regarding this STR tax, you said you voted yes the first time to support a colleague.

That logic tracks the first time around.

Uh but the time has passed, and this proposal is still a head scratcher.

I'm a CPA with a master's degree in taxation.

This proposal is a regressive tax that does not consider profitability or wherewithal to pay.

It imposes a fifth tax regime on a single type of uh activity.

It is terrible tax policy, written to sub to appeal to the 99% unaffected mob who now demonize us for providing unnecessary service.

It will not lower housing costs and stop pitting us against each other every few years saying that it will.

Why would any of you want your good names associated with this bad idea?

If this goes to public vote, they will vote it through.

Please stop it today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker is Jay Goldberg.

Afternoon, Council members, Council President, um, CM Campio.

You think that this tax would cause a major sell-off of homes from STR investors, which would drive down housing prices, but you framed this as a bad thing.

Forty percent of these owners own more than one property in the city of San Diego.

These investors with extra houses to Airbnb are a classic case of give them an inch, they'll take a mile.

In 2022, we explicitly allowed housing to be converted to full-time hotels, a policy mirrored in almost no other large U.S.

city.

Still, they weren't happy and sued.

Airbnb is again interfering in our democratic process.

They've mischaracterized that this applies to hosts whom it does not, specifically tier two hosts.

I allege that Airbnb hired bodies for engagement this morning.

There were two LA origin buses sitting across the way.

Just let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Arson.

Hello, Council members.

Uh, my name is Arson.

I represent Swell Commercial Services.

We are an all-in-one platinum platform that helps short-term rental operates operators streamline their maintenance and cleaning operations.

Our team is made up of local cleaners, maintenance, and technicians, and dispatchers who work together hand in hand with hosts and operators to ensure properties are safe, compliant, and provide positive experience for travelers visiting San Diego.

Through our work with local hosts and operators, we we see firsthand that many would struggle to absorb this additional $8,000 per property tax.

This industry is already heavily taxed, and operators are facing border economic challenges, including rising labor insurance, and maintenance costs.

The result is that many hosts would be forced out of short-term rental market.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you for that final statement.

Kyle Weinberg.

Kyle Weinberg, president of the San Diego Education Association, representing over 6,000 union educators in San Diego Unified School District who have endorsed this measure.

We have gone from almost 120,000 students in our district to less than 94,000 students today.

The biggest driving factor in that drop in enrollment in our district is the cost of housing in our region that is driving families to leave our city or delay having kids because they can't afford to rent homes in our city.

The same neighborhoods in our city with the highest concentration of empty second homes and vacation rentals are the ones where young families can no longer afford to live, and where our schools have lost so many students that veteran teachers are being transferred out and torn away from the communities where we serve.

This measure will lead to more homes being rented out to families with children, which will save teacher jobs.

Council members, I urge you to practice what you preach about democracy, put this measure on the ballot and let the people of our city decide.

Thank you.

Our next speech speaker is Patrick Combs.

You will be followed by Tyler Andre, Isaiah Glasso, Robert Brown, and Manuel Enriquez.

If you've heard your name and you're in the overflow room, if you can please make your way to chambers to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

Patrick Combs, you have been seated time by Barbara Smith, is Barbara Smith here.

Okay, so one minute.

I think that uh I'm the fat cat that you guys have been after because I am a corporation and I do live out of town.

But here's the truth.

I can't afford to live in my only home here in Hillcrest.

So I rent a small place in Carlsbad, and I work three jobs to survive.

So why force me to pay $12,000 into the general fund, maybe for low-income housing.

I am low income.

I ask my bank account.

I'll send it to you.

You want me to pay that fee or rent it out long term to family.

A six bedroom home in Hillcrest rents for $12,000 a month.

So only ultra rich would afford it.

So instead, I will rent it to midterm corporations and I will make more money.

And here's what you'll lose.

I paid $20,000 in taught taxes last year.

More than I made.

I've owned this house for 30 years.

I still pay two mortgages on it.

It's the first home ever hill built in Hillcrest ever, and I'm there three times a week as a proud community member.

Don't punish working class owners.

If you will, I will litigate.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

Tyler Andre.

Hello, committee.

My name is Tyler Andre.

I am a Navy veteran, small business owner, a member of Business for Good, District One resident, and community activist.

I just want to say that this is the right direction to be taking right now.

Progressive taxation, we when we are in a budget crisis and an affordability crisis, one that also encourages more housing for residents.

Owners can rent their property to residents or sell for a profit if they don't want to pay, which our profits, most San Diegans will never be able to experience.

Please do not let Airbnb's money influence this.

I've already spoken with people here in opposition in the line outside who didn't even know why they were here.

That's because Airbnb knows this is popular with the people and they're scared.

This isn't the solution, but it's a step in the right direction.

Please let the voters decide on the ballot.

Thank you to Councilmember Ilo Rivera and staff for coming up with progressive solutions in this situation.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hi, Isaiah.

Hello, Council members.

My name is Isaiah Glasso, and I'm a lifelong San Diegan and a renter.

I think the way to view this issue is uh very simple.

Housing is a necessity, not a commodity.

Uh, that is very clear to renters like me in San Diego.

We face the affordability house and housing crisis every year when our leases are up and the rents raise.

As a lifelong San Diegan, I've come to see owning a single home in my hometown as a luxury.

Homeowners simply do not understand the affordability crisis like renters do.

Owning multiple homes is an outrageous luxury to me.

The choice here today is simple.

I urge the council members to choose the necessity of the many that over the luxury of the few.

Put this on the ballot and let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Brown.

Robert Brown here.

Okay, we will come back to you at the end.

Manuel Enriquez.

Manuel Enriquez.

Penny Campbell.

And as Penny is making her way up to the lectern, if Zachary Nora.

Fong Bu, Jeff McGurn, and Liana, if you can please come to the front of the room in the reserve seats.

All right, please begin.

Thank you.

As a woman-owned property management company, I think what it's very clear after listening to all this testimony is this needs to go back for further consideration.

Your presentation had multiple flaws in it.

LLCs and corporations are individual people.

Why is it $8,000?

That's just absurd.

Most of my homes are one bedrooms and two bedrooms.

Maybe some are three.

Why should they pay $8,000?

Why should it go into effect in July when you can't even predict in budget for this?

Maybe it should go into effect in two years when people can set rates and figure this out.

But you, in my personal opinion, do not have anywhere close to the right information.

I'd suggest you do a survey and talk to the people that actually live here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Fong Bui.

Hi, thank you for your time.

My name is Fong Bui speaking on behalf of the California Short Term Rental Association.

We're a coalition of mom and pop homeowners, renters, various STR industry workers across California.

We're everyday people, retirees on fixed incomes, parents, caregivers, small business owners supporting our own families.

And Calstraw strongly opposes the proposed annual tax on vacation rentals in San Diego.

This blunt approach would harm tourism, local businesses, and thousands of working families who depend on the SDR industry.

This tax is significant enough to push many mom and pop hosts to lose their rentals or push prices so high that guests will skip San Diego and choose to stay elsewhere.

And fewer SCR rentals mean fewer visitors, less spending at shops, and ultimately lower tax revenues.

STRs already contribute more than 1.6 billion dollars to the San Diego's visitor economy and supported over 19,000 local jobs.

San Diego's current system is already working, so we urge for you to reject this blunt proposal.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Jeff McGurn is Jeff in the room.

Okay, we will come.

We will come back to you.

Liana.

Hi everyone.

Uh my name is Liana Schechter.

Um I am here today.

So this morning on the way to school, my uh kid got sick, vomited in the car.

I'm here today because I have a good neighbor.

I have a fantastic neighbor who's taking care of her, so I can be here.

For the past 10 years, before the apartment that I'm living in right now, I lived in Sherman Heights, and I watched one at a time as my neighbors moved out, and the houses were were replaced with short-term rentals.

First across the street, then the duplex next door, then my neighbor behind me, all moved out and were replaced with short-term rentals.

I'm here because our housing is precious.

Our neighbors, our neighborhoods are important.

Um and um uh you know, I um I work really hard to bring my neighborhood together.

I work really hard to take care of my foster kids who have lived their entire lives with housing instability.

And in the hospitality industry, we work hard to make a tourism industry that works for all of us in San Diego.

Um please help us to do that.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Dee Cali.

If Dee is here, please come up to the front of the room.

You will be followed by Matthew Gardner, John Metham.

Cynthia Gomez.

And Neil, if these individuals can please come up to the front of the room.

Dee Callie.

Matthew Gardner.

Hello, my name is Matthew Gardner.

I own three beach rental shops, and nobody paid me to be here.

I'm defending my livelihood again.

I'm not an SER owner, but I'm strongly affected by, and I speak for hundreds of businesses throughout the Lincoln Club Business League, which I represent today as well, and the beach area merchants, all devastated by this effective ban on vacation rentals.

And let's be honest, this is a ban is steps on the face of our wonderful visiting community.