All right, good morning.

And welcome to the special rules committee meeting of February 25th, 2026.

I am Joel Locava, Councilmember for District One and Chair of the Committee.

Our committees liaison Natalie Kessler will go over instruction for today's meeting.

Natalie.

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

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

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

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

We appreciate the public's cooperation.

Chair.

Thank you, Natalie.

I will now call the special rules committee meeting of Wednesday, February 25th, 2026 to order and call the role.

Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee.

Here.

Councilmember Raul Campio.

Here.

Councilmember Vivian Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Shawnee La Rivera.

And I am present.

Also attending the meeting today, Jillian Andalina with the office of the independent budget analyst.

Kathy Steinman with the office of the city attorney.

Matt Yeagan with the office of Mayor Tagloria, and Abby Reuter, committee consultant.

Natalie, please continue with public comment instructions.

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

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

In-person testimony will conclude before virtual testimony begins.

Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

If you need to participate by phone, please dial 1669-2545252.

The webinar ID is 16049-9420 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 are watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay, so please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak.

Members of the committee are present.

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 our committee meetings.

Natalie, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

And if you need to dial by phone to call in for non-agenda public comment at this time, please dial 16692545252 with webinar ID 160439-9420 pound.

And Chair, we have not received any speaker slips here in chambers.

We'll move to the virtual queue.

And I've started that five-minute timer for those in the queue to indicate that they have non-agenda public comment.

We have eight hands raised.

We'll begin with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

I hope my Zoom will be okay if it cuts out.

I'm really sorry.

Um eight public speakers on Zoom.

That's kind of impressive.

Uh is that number rising because of the recent uh uh reporting uh that we have to have Zoom uh by July uh this upcoming.

Thank you for that mandate.

Thank you.

There is eight public speakers on Zoom.

Uh that's impressive.

Good luck in how that can be brought into the public meeting process in person as well.

I wanted to comment uh in relevant matters to the rules committee.

Uh uh to try to say it again.

I've been stating this past week that I I think it's important at that as we develop our our city narratives, um, that we have to be clear uh in the words of what Paul Kruger's been offering recently, and that it's my understanding that uh current Balboa park uh parking fees are not just going to Balboa park issues, but they're going into the general fund.

And that's not being made clear enough by city government staff.

I think we have to work together to make that clear, and that we have a narrative that's clear for all parts of the community to weigh in on and better judge and value and and and uh understand issues is really important to the process.

And for you guys to be clear on that with the public, you have a very important role to do that, and that's with tech accountability too, of course.

And my other big item of concern this week, uh, thank you very much for the words of council person Olivera who said what what we are we going to be building as a city uh in these tough budget times.

What what is going to be our goal?

Um in talking about the importance of how we can talk about tech and and it's budgeting that can bring a cost savings yet still practice good public safety.

Uh we have to uh acknowledge that uh police killings of everyday community persons is on the rise since the George Floyd's incidents across the country.

We have to work on that.

Our next speaker, Terry Ann Skelly, please begin.

Good morning, rules committee, Chair Lacava.

I came to talk about rules that make San Diego San Diego safer and healthy.

I appreciate that San Diego has bans on smoking and vaping in parks and beaches.

This includes nicotine products and marijuana products.

As doctor and UCSD researcher Laura Crady Alexander wrote in a UT article and a quote every time tobacco companies addict a new generation of kids on nicotine, they put Californians, including non-smokers, on the hook for billions of dollars in health care related costs.

End quote.

Many cities have additional laws such as bans on smoking in multi-unit housing and public side walks and places.

As a youth advocate who has volunteered for youth mentor and tutoring programs, I understand the fragility of teens' lives.

These types of policies would go a long way in protecting them from the influence second-hand smoke and vape.

They provide public health by reducing tobacco-related diseases like heart disease and cancer.

And so and resource suggests smoke-free rules help smokers quit by reducing opportunities to smoke and making it less socially acceptable.

The CDC indicates that smoke-free policies prevent countless youth and young adults from ever trying them.

Rather, the campaign for tobacco-free kids who are urging California cities to adopt smoke-free policies in all public areas and apartment complexes.

Thank you for hearing me speak this morning.

Thank you.

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

I'm just wondering when you guys are actually going to do stuff that's beneficial for the people.

I mean, you guys literally know that there's never going to be over 100,000 plus like people that are going to engage in that.

Um, and you know, the way that you set it up is intentionally so, so that you guys can push everything and then say that it's the will of the people that you're that that want it.

And it's the complete opposite because it should be it needs to have a majority that that um you know of people that are going to even know about it because like nobody gets this information sent out, you know, or knows about you guys, and then when it comes time to vote for something that they don't want, and there are a bunch of people that come, but you know, they may not do it the right way.

It has to be really specific, and you know, um, it has to be this many people, or it's just gonna pass.

Like that the way that you guys do stuff just shows that you really always want to circumvent the will of the people and make sure that you're doing your own bidding.

And I mean, as we can see with all of these things, like what Blair was talking about and the money that you know, you're bringing in this, you know, fee for parking, and it's gonna go here, and then really it's not.

So I mean, you guys just I don't know.

It's just nuts to like have to experience this and and uh know that people really just want your help, and you know, you guys just don't really care about the people.

You'll use them and exploit them and pretend that you care about them just so that you can get your way and like support, but in reality, you really don't care about the people and it shows and you know too bad for you because we'll check you guys.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Catherine Douglas, please unmute and begin.

Oh, excuse me, Catherine, before you begin, the five minute timer has concluded.

We have five hands remaining in the queue.

We will take no additional callers after these five.

Catherine.

I think the people of San Diego have reached their breaking point.

A ready shoot aim, and I'll repeat that ready shoot aim approach with half-baked ideas is too has too often become the norm.

Recently there was a very responsible proposal by council member Raul Campio at the rules committee to require clear consistent guidelines, a cost of service study, notice public hearings, and prop 218 proceedings when imposing or increasing property related fees, so that constituents can truly understand a ballot measure before voting.

Not one other council member on the rules committee voted to send council member Campillo's responsible proposal to the full council for further discussion and a vote.

Not one.

This was a clear signal that accountability, clarity, and transparency may not be as important as we all think it should be.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, phone number ending in 870.

Please press star six to unmute and begin.

Thank you so much.

Um CD3.

Uh communication and context.

Every time a new moment clicks into place, the context changes.

How do we communicate in government as citizens and leaders?

Become denominator, in my opinion, a common thread, in my opinion, is compassion and acceptance of our differences.

Every time I study an agenda item, I become more aware of this.

Every time I comment on this agenda item, my context changes.

Whether it be learning new legal terms or a closed session item, i.e.

qualified immunity, or studying water revenue bonds for a PFFA meeting.

I become aware of my changing context.

Now more than ever, I realize what a miracle it is to communicate.

So I've added a word to communicate in context, and that word is change.

Our work in city government is hugely dynamic.

Together, we ride this roller coaster.

Together, we are one people and one San Diego.

I am honored to share this ride with each and every one of you.

Have a beautiful day.

I love to all.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, John Stump, please unmute and begin.

John Stump, I've asked you to unmute.

All right, we move.

We will move on to Judy Strang.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, rules committee.

Uh Chair Lakava.

I came today to the rules committee to share a new law that's gone into effect on January 1st.

It was AB 455.

It's not only excellent for California, but it sets a trend because it's the first one in the United States to require sellers of single family homes to disclose in writing.

And they have a form they disclosure form, any known indoor smoking, vaping, third hand tobacco or marijuana smoke contamination, so that prospective buyers can beware.

Third hand smoke, I think we all realize are the toxic residues left behind when tobacco and marijuana smoke or vaping aerosols settle into surfaces like dust and building materials.

But it's important to know that both secondhand and third hand smoke and vapor are considered pollutants and classified under the California Proposition 65 as carcinites or reproductive toxins.

It helps us understand how important it is for a new buyer to know what they might have as a risk to them, their family, their children, elderly, other vulnerable people in their family.

Also, these items are recognized as environmental hazards.

This is the culmination of a long road that the third hand research center stationed at San Diego State University has traveled to bring this information to us and this legislation to us.

And I wanted to make sure we emphasized it this morning as we head into the new 2026 where this law takes effect.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Becky Rapp, please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak to you today.

When looking at the committee's documented responsibilities, three objectives stood out to me.

Open government, communications, and customer service.

The public has been asking for clear communications and full transparency of the financial impacts of the marijuana industry with one straightforward question.

Are we fully collecting the marijuana taxes already owed to the city?

Discussions today will address increasing taxes on already honest tax-paying residents.

It would only be fair if we, as community members, had a clear and transparent accounting of the marijuana industry.

Those revenues were promised to support city services, but that only works if taxes are fully reported, audited, and collected.

If marijuana taxes are undercollected, and if audits audits are infrequent, or if noncompliance goes unchecked, then creating new revenue streams does not address the real issue.

Existing laws must be enforced, and every dollar owed under current ordinances must be collected before asking residents and property owners to pay more.

Thank you.

Thank you.

John Stump.

I'll give you another opportunity to unmute.

Yes.

Ah, thank you very much.

I'm sorry, I was in my guest room seeing if it could it's ready to be taxed.

Um in the paper today, there was another announcement of demeaning comments from the chair to the about the general public's ability to understand how city government works.

And another example of how the council serves the rich and powerful first before they go to the individual citizen.

What am I talking about?

I'm talking about the fact that the rich and powerful were funded for their losses in the floods.

But we haven't gotten to the individual families that have been displaced or continue to be displaced, have lost money.

This council may talk big and talk popular, but serving the rich and powerful first and not the individual poor citizen.

Please start at the people who need the money the most to fund.

What is the balance?

How much money do you have now that you paid the six million dollars and every other settlement to fund the nearly half billion dollars worth of estimated losses by flood victims?

Judge Moss is going to have a hearing on Thursday.

And I hope that we start settling with the flood victims.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

All right.

Thank you, Natalie.

We will now move to committee members, mayoral staff, city attorney, independent budget analysts for any comments they might have this morning.

Not seeing any.

With that, uh, do we have any requests for continuance?

We do have only one item.

We'll move right along.

Okay.

We will now take up the discussion agenda.

In accordance with council policy 000-21, the rules committee may take the following actions on the discussion agenda.

One, the committee may request that proponents of a proposal or a city department furnish background information, provide analysis of the proposal, and report back to the committee.

Two, the committee may refer the measure to the city attorney's office with policy direction to prepare further changes to the draft ballot measure.

Or three, the committee may forward the measure to the council for consideration.

Or four, the committee could take no action.

If the committee takes no action on a proposal, then the committee's consideration for that proposal is ended.

With that, Natalie, please introduce the item.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

Item one, consideration of an empty home tax ballot measure proposal by Councilmember Sean Ela Rivera.

And if you'd like to call in to give comment on item one, please call 1669-2545252 when prompted webinar IDs 160-439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Natalie.

With that, I'll turn it over to District 9 to introduce yourselves for records and let us know how much time you need.

All right.

Thank you so much, Council President.

Uh I have some brief uh introductory remarks and then we'll turn it over to Maya for the presentation.

Uh, first I want to uh thank you again.

I want to acknowledge up front that it is a bit unorthodox to bring forward an item uh that is similar to one we heard just a few weeks ago, and so I appreciate your flexibility.

Our colleagues uh for making themselves available for the special meeting and the city attorney's office, the IBA, and the treasurer's office for working hard once again after already working hard on the last version.

The reason we're back here is simple.

San Diegans are paying too much for housing and families can't wait for action when homes sit empty for most of the year during housing shortage.

That hurts all of us.

Renters, first-time homebuy, and the communities that depend on teachers, firefighters, and other essential workers being able to live where they serve.

Last month we shared the vision and values motivating our broader proposal.

Uh I'll point to that again because those values have not changed.

We desire a San Diego that works for the people who live here and where everyone who lives here sees this a future for themselves, their family, and their friends.

Same values and our motivation remains significant.

The revised proposal reflects what we heard during last month's meeting, which seemed to be a willingness to move on the clearest point of consensus, vacant homes.

It's narrowly targeted, it exempts primary residences, licensed short-term rentals, and long-term rentals, and it is designed to be effectively implemented and legally sound.

Uh with that, I do have one question for the city attorney before Maya begins a presentation, and that's just a procedural question as to whether or not the rules committee can vote to advance this to council following this hearing on this new ballot measure without any additional hearings between now and council.

I'll answer that question.

Thank you.

This is a unique situation, and this committee previously heard a different version of this proposal.

Thus, it is permissible for the full council to consider this proposal under Council Policy 000-21.

Thank you so much.

With that, I'll turn it over to Maya for the presentation.

Good morning.

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

On behalf of Councilmember Ela Rivera, I'm here to present the consideration of an empty homes tax ballot measure proposal by Councilmember Sean Ela Rivera, and I will need about 13 minutes.

The requested action for this item is as follows.

Request the city council adopts the ordinance in subitem A to place on the June 2nd, 2026 municipal special election consolidated with the California state primary election.

One measure amending the San Diego Municipal Code by adding Chapter 3, Article 12, Division 1, Sections 32, 0101 through 32, 0123 relating to an empty homes tax.

Furthermore, request that the City Council adopt the resolution in subitem B, directing the city attorney to prepare a ballot title and summary and an impartial analysis, directing the mayor, independent budget analyst, and city auditor to prepare a fiscal impact analysis and assigning ballot arguments, all regarding one measure amending the San Diego Municipal Code by adding Chapter 3, Article 12, Division 1, Sections 32, 0101 through 32, 0123, relating to an empty homes tax to be submitted to qualified voters of the City of San Diego at the municipal special election consolidated with the California State Primary Election to be held on June 2nd, 2026.

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.

Once again, our vision, a San Diego that works for the people who live here, where everyone can see a future for themselves, their families, and their friends, is what guides us as well as our goals.

Homes for San Diegans protect San Diegans from displacement, protect San Diego's neighborhoods, and make speculative investors paid their fair share.

In the United States, there are nearly as many homes kept for seasonal, recreational, or occasional use than the combined number of homes listed for rent or listed for sale.

The U.S.

Census Bureau found that in 2020 there were over 4.6 million homes vacant for occasional use compared to 3.8 million for rent and 1.2 million for sale.

At the same time, the current housing supply shortage is estimated at 2.8 million homes nationally.

Other cities are taking a stand to counter the negative impacts of empty homes, and they're all tailoring their approach based on local circumstances.

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

The tax is imposed on homes vacant for more than 182 days annually.

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

Washington DC adopted a tax for vacant residential and commercial properties.

The tax is doubled for blighted vacant properties.

So what is an empty home?

Empty homes are homes that are not the primary residence of a San Diegan and are left vacant for more than 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.

What is not an empty home?

This 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.

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.

And whole home year-round tier three and four short-term rentals are not empty homes in this ballot measure and won't be taxed.

In other words, 99% 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 by the empty homes tax proposal.

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

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 returned to the market.

There are also homes in our neighborhoods that are being left vacant.

These are homes that many, though certainly not all San Diego families could realistically afford if given the opportunity.

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

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 of the rental unit business tax with the treasurer's office.

That exemption is the mechanism available for identifying empty homes.

The Treasurer's Office will be able to identify empty homes using this available data, but has the flexibility to adapt in the future.

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

45% of empty homes are in the downtown, La Jolla, Pacific Beach, and Peninsula communities.

Currently, owners of empty homes do not pay any additional taxes or fees for their impact on the cost of housing or additional impacts such as hollowing out neighborhoods, reducing school enrollment, and changing the neighborhood character.

For all these reasons, we have proposed an $8,000 annual tax per empty home beginning in 2027, which increases to 10,000 in 2028.

Empty homes held by corporate and institutional investors impose additional burdens on San Diego's housing market by removing homes from residential use and treating housing primarily as a financial asset.

Corporate ownership is also a reasonable proxy for commercial scale activity and speculative behavior that undermines neighborhood stability, reduces housing availability, and makes it harder for San Diego families to compete for homeownership in the communities where they live and work.

Corporate entities often benefit from structural advantages that individual homeowners do not, including easier access to capital, the ability to make all cash offers, portfolio strategies, and the capacity to hold properties vacant without the same pressures faced by a household seeking stable housing.

Those same structures can also make enforcement more difficult.

When an empty home, when an empty corporate owned home creates blight, code issues, or neighborhood impacts, it is often harder for the city and neighbors to quickly identify responsible decision makers and secure compliance.

In practice, LLCs and similar entities can reduce transparency and diffuse accountability, increasing public costs and delaying remediation.

For these reasons, imposing a higher rate on corporate-owned empty homes is a fair and administrable way to reflect their disproportionate impact, promote compliance, and protect housing availability and neighborhood quality.

Accordingly, the measure applies an additional surcharge of $4,000 beginning in 2027, increasing to $5,000 beginning in 2028.

We developed exclusions from the tax that are reasonable and allow for some empty homes to not be taxed with appropriate verification by the treasurer's office.

The exclusions include disaster period, family in residence period, homeowner exemption period, lease period, the non-ownership period, owner death period, legacy owner hardship period, owner in care period, and qualifying military service period.

Exemptions are slightly different than exclusions, but still require verification from the treasurer to be exempted from the tax.

The main exemption that may apply is for an owner who lives on site of a property with four or fewer separate residential units, including accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units.

If forwarded, we will bring an updated ordinance to council that includes any changes that come from today's hearing.

And should this move forward, there will be a few additional updates to the ordinance we are currently working on.

They include clarifying that licensed tier 3 and 4 whole home year-round short-term rentals are not empty homes and are not subject to the tax, adding a new exemption for empty homes that were vacant for more than 182 days in a year if they had a bona fide rental lease for more than 182 days in the previous calendar year, and updating the residential unit definition to better identify all types of residential buildings that could be subject to the tax.

So once again, the requested action for this item is as follows.

Request the city council adopt the ordinance and subitem A to place on the June 2nd, 2026 municipal special election consolidated with the California State Primary Election, one measure amending the San Diego Municipal Code by adding Chapter 3, Article 12, Division 1, Sections 320101 through 320123 relating to an empty homes tax.

Furthermore, request that the city council adopts the resolution in subitem B directing the city attorney to prepare a ballot title and summary and an impartial analysis directing the mayor, independent budget analyst, and city auditor to prepare a fiscal impact analysis and assigning ballot arguments all regarding one measure amending the San Diego Municipal Code by adding Chapter 3, Article 12, Division 1, Sections 320101 through 320123 relating to an empty homes tax to be submitted to qualified voters of the City of San Diego at the municipal special election consolidated with the California State Primary Election to be held on June 2nd, 2026.

I want to express our team's appreciation for David and Brett from the City Attorney's Office and Liz Ricardo, Matt, and Gerardo from the Treasurer's Office, and we are available for any questions.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Maya, for the presentation.

We will now hear a presentation from the office of the independent budget analyst.

With that, give us your name for the record and let us know how much time you will need.

Good morning.

Thank you, Committee.

I am Gillian Andolina with the Office of the Independent Budget Analysts.

Noah Fleischmann is here to present the report we released yesterday providing a fiscal impact analysis of the proposed empty homes tax.

The one comment I'll make before handing it over to NOAA is that if this proposal moves forward, our office will work with the CFO and city auditor to further refine revenue projections for the measures official fiscal impact statement to be included in the voter pamphlet materials as required by the municipal code.

Therefore, our analysis may be further refined over the next two weeks.

With that, I'll hand it over to Noah.

Thank you very much, Gillian.

I also like to thank the Treasurer's Office, District 9, and the City Attorney for their assistance in providing data and information.

As Gillian mentioned, our office released IBA report 26-05 yesterday evening.

That report is attached to the backup materials online for this item and is available on our website.

I am going to breeze through this slide because Maya already covered the tax rate surcharge and the exempted units under the ordinance.

However, I do want to highlight some additional ways in which properties could be exempted from the tax or exit the pool in altogether.

That would be that the property converts to a short, medium, or long-term rental.

However, that may be an intended positive outcome of the ordinance.

Properties are sold and no longer used as vacation homes.

As we'll discuss more later, the owner corrects or changes the rental unit business tax exemption to something other than an empty home that they qualify for, or the owner attempts to avoid the tax in other ways that may be illicit.

And on this last point, we'll also discuss later the importance of enforcement.

To understand the impacts this tax may have, we looked at four comparable municipalities: Berkeley, Oakland, Washington, D.C., and Vancouver.

While the tax structures vary, we'd like to highlight, with the exception of Oakland, all these municipalities saw a decline in the taxable number of units from initial estimates before the tax went into effect and the actual units that were subject to the tax.

Oakland likely did not experience this because they already assumed a 60 to 75% drop-off rate before the tax took effect.

These excluded units rates will be important when we discuss our fiscal impact model.

Some key takeaways from benchmarking.

Since other cities experienced unit drop-offs, we may want to assume in our model and estimates similar levels of drop-offs.

Revenue will decline over time, which was observed in Vancouver as more units stop being vacant and enter the rental market or are sold, but that may be an intended positive outcome of the ordinance.

In the case of Berkeley, they have a rent stabilization board that collected data on vacant rental units, and we do not have a comparable system, so we're forced to use the rental unit business tax system as a proxy for determining the potential level of vacancy.

And vacancy taxes are a tool that can reduce vacancy and add units to the market.

However, the impact on affordability may be minimal due to the scale of new supply.

So this is how we're going to understand the potential universe of taxpayers.

As Maya mentioned, we use the rental unit business tax exemption for vacant slash second homes, and just to walk folks through that a little bit more, the way that this works, if a property is sold or transferred, that new owner may fill out a form from the county that says that they would like a homeowner's exemption, which excludes $7,000 from their assessed property value, which saves them $70 a year.

If they do not fill out that form either because it is not owner occupied or it is owner occupied and they just don't fill out that form, the city presumes that unit to be a rental unit, sends them a rental unit business tax bill, and unless they otherwise exempt them from that bill, they are they pay the rental unit business tax.

One of those exemptions is that they are a vacant second home or vacation home, which is defined as the properties not available to be rented any part of the tax year.

This number, 5,115, importantly does not include other units that may meet the definition of vacant.

Also, of the 5,115 units, we estimate that 43 are corporate owned using keyword searches like LLC, Inc., LTD, and irrevocable and the recorded title names for the owners of the properties.

As I mentioned earlier, of the total universe of potential taxable properties, there are different ways that these units may be excluded.

One of them being that the tax applies, but the owner is legally exempted from one of the exemptions in the ordinance.

The owner corrects or changes the rental unit business tax exemption for the unit to something else that they qualify for, like being owner occupied, a family trust where a trustee, beneficiary, or family member lives in it, and is not rented.

The property converts to short, medium, or long-term rental, the owner sells their property, or the owner identifies other loopholes to avoid the tax.

The proposal before you is most similar to the one in Berkeley, which has only been in effect since 2024, but we have some early indicators of the amount of units that may be excluded.

Berkeley had a 45% drop between their initial estimate of vacant units and the actual number of available units.

Some reasons why San Diego may expect to see a similar or larger exit rate include the level of data accuracy.

Berkeley had a pre-existing rent board that required report reporting of vacant rental units, but San Diego does not.

Using the self-reported REBT second home or vacation home exemption data as a proxy for vacancy may introduce additional uncertainty.

And because of this, San Diego may see more data cleanup issues than Berkeley experienced.

Additionally, there's differences in the intended taxpayer.

Berkeley's tax was targeted towards vacant rental properties owned by investors with carrying costs and lost revenue opportunities when those units sat vacant.

The Berkeley tax created an additional carrying cost that further incentivized finding tenants for vacant units, especially as those units already existed as rentals.

In San Diego, the proposed tax is more directly targeted at owners who have a second home or vacation property in the city, and those properties are typically not available for rent any part of the year.

This may indicate that San Diego's owners have more financial means to absorb the tax as a new ongoing carrying cost for owning the property.

However, since the properties may be less likely to enter the rental market as opposed to already being in the rental market, like in Berkeley, owners may be more likely to change their behavior to seek exemptions, such as selling their property, identifying potential loopholes, or otherwise seeking ways to avoid the proposed tax.

San Diego's proposal also differs from Berkeley in the taxed amount.

The taxing method would be similar to Berkeley's, but the tax would be in many cases larger than the amount of Berkeley's at $6,000 tax.

The proposed tax is $8,000 or $12,000 for corporate owned in the first year, and then $10,000 or $15,000 for corporate owned in the second year, depending on, excuse me.

And this may induce additional behavior changes.

Because of these differences, we project and model a range of potential excluded units between 45% on the optimistic side and 65% on the conservative side.

These excluded ranges are also in line with what was observed in Oakland and Vancouver.

Using the universe of units that may be subject to the tax and the different percentages of units that may be excluded from paying the tax, we come to different ranges of units that will pay the tax.

We incorporate the different tax rates for corporate and non-corporate, and estimated costs for the CTO to run the program.

With that, we got a net fiscal impact range based on different scenarios of excluded units.

However, there is still a level of uncertainty within these ranges, so we applied a plus or minus 10% contingency.

With that, in year one, we estimate net revenue to be between 12.1 million on the conservative side and 23.5 million on the optimistic side.

In year two, when the tax rate increases, we estimate net revenue to be between 15.3 million on the conservative side and 30 million on the optimistic side.

And as Jillian noted, these figures are subject to change between now and the submission of our fiscal impact statement.

If changes are made to the ordinance at committee or council, and after consult consultation with the CFO and city auditor.

And these graphs illustrate the data table in the previous slide and just show that as the number of excluded units increases, going towards the right on the X-axis, the net revenue decreases along the Y axis.

Additionally, the number of units that avoid paying the tax will be correlated to the level of enforcement the program has.

This may introduce challenges to what the documentary burden of proof is for each exemption and monitoring and auditing of the exits from the taxed pool.

These documents are self-reported, and given the large new magnitude of the tax, it may incentivize bad actors to avoid the tax.

We'd also like to note the assumptions that we made in our fiscal model.

The tax would become effective on January 1, 2027, and the exemptions would be processed and the bills would be sent out and completed by the third quarter of fiscal year 2028.

That would change if there are delays to the implementation, that the treasurer operating costs are the only costs to the city.

We also assume that all units subject to the tax will pay the full amount.

We also assume that 50% of the units that are excluded from the tax will instead pay the $55 rental unit business tax fee.

Uh, but this is a minor impact on the overall fiscal impact.

And we also assume that corporate and individual owned units will have the same exclusion rate.

In terms of limitations for our fiscal model, we do not project the number of homes that may be sold or the amount of revenue that may be generated from new property taxes or the penalties that the city would get from uh fines for folks not paying that tax on time.

We also cannot estimate the number of units that will be excluded based on the type of exemption or other exits.

We're unable to analyze the likelihood of a unit paying or not paying the tax on a property-specific basis, such as unit A is located here versus unit B is located there.

Um we do not have estimated vacant homes that may be captured outside of the rental unit business tax exemption, and our office also had limited time to analyze the measure and solicit stakeholder feedback that might change the fiscal impact.

With that, council may want to consider should shortened medium-term rentals be subject to the tax, as Maya alluded to earlier.

Um, should rental unit properties uh experiencing periodic vacancies longer than 183 days in a calendar year also be subject to the tax, which Maya addressed earlier before we submitted this.

Additionally, should other exemptions for environmental remediation, new construction, new owners uh are actively seeking a tenant not be counted towards the vacancy period.

So, in conclusion, we expect the measure to generate additional general fund revenue and add residential units to the rental market.

However, if more vacant units are ultimately leased or sold for occupancy, as is the intention, uh, revenue would gradually decrease over time, as we've seen in other cities.

Revenue and housing impacts are highly dependent on owner behavior and city enforcement, and if the measure moves forward, revenue estimates and fiscal impact statements will be further refined in working with facility uh auditor as well as the CFL.

With that, uh, I and my colleagues are available to answer any questions that the council may have.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Noah, and thank you, Jillian, for that uh full presentation uh at this early stage.

So with that, Natalie, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

The public comment period for item one is now open.

We have received 33 slips from individuals in chambers, and there are 11 hands raised in the virtual queue.

Each speaker will have one minute.

If you're here in chambers, please, and I call your name, please come up to the front of the room for better meeting management.

We will begin with Zach Schlegel, please approach the lecture, and you'll be followed by Brian Grarki, Mary Grarki, and Stephen Russell.

Good morning.

Uh my name is Zach Schleigel.

I'm here today on behalf of PAF.

I want to thank Councilmember Elo Rivera for his dedication and ensuring that homes in San Diego are used for San Diegans.

One of the key challenges that providers like PAF face is the lack of throughput in the system.

The shortage of viable affordable homes means that our staff have limited options when their participants are ready to leave in an interim setting.

According to the regional task force, average homelessness duration increased for most households, rising from 169 to 200 days overall between fiscal year 22 and 24.

Nearly every month, around a thousand people exit homelessness thanks to the tireless efforts of the city and all of the homeless service providers who diligently and creatively find solutions for their participants.

At the same time, we have a slightly larger number of individuals that are still entering homelessness each month.

Meanwhile, there are over 5,000 homes in the city that are used as a vacation home or second home.

Every unit of housing stock that would come online due to this tax would meaningfully impact our efforts to combat this trend and make homelessness more rare, brief, and non-reoccurring.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Brian Garkey.

The proposed measure is similar to San Francisco's empty homes tax, which the Superior Court found violates the takings clause of the Constitution of the State's Ellis Act.

City staff's report fails to mention current relevant case law and that the matter is pending before the Court of Appeal.

While the staff report mentions Berkeley's program, it fails to mention that Berkeley property owners have filed an amicus brief in the San Francisco case in support of property owners.

Council members, affected property owners, and voters need to know the complete story.

It's striking that the ballot measure includes an exemption if the measure is found to be illegal.

If the city knows that this could be found illegal, why move forward at this time?

This would be an embarrassing and messy situation.

With recent debacles, 101 Ash Street trash fee and Bellaboa Park parking fee, the city's residents are losing trust and faith in their elected leaders.

Why risk doing it again by rushing this mallet measure through?

Forcing owners to sell or forcing them to rent is a violation of basic property rights and is a taking.

Do not move this measure forward.

Thank you.

Mary.

Most second homes have been rented, and when they were available for many years, some are elderly owners no longer rent out as they use their property to meet their families' needs and their own needs, which is all within their rights.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

I have a few more things to say.

Would anybody be willing to see me?

A few minutes.

You can submit a comment to Council Committee at San Diego.gov.

Steve Russell, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated time by Julieta Ornellis.

Julieta?

Thank you.

So you'll have two minutes.

Well, good morning, uh, honorable committee chair and committee members.

My name is Stephen Russell, president and CEO of the San Diego Housing Federation, and I'm here to speak in support of the proposed measure.

The San Diego is facing a real housing shortage, and the impact on everyday residents is impossible to ignore.

Families who live and work here are struggling to find a place to that they can afford.

They're doubling or tripling up in apartments, moving to outlying areas of the region, or sleeping in the streets.

And a big part of the problem is that large corporations and wealthy investors have purchased thousands of homes, more than 5,000, and many of those homes are sitting empty.

When second, third, or even fourth homes stay vacant, it shrinks the number of available places for San Diegans and drives the prices even further.

And it erodes the sense of community that makes our neighborhood strong.

The measure before you aims to take a practical step toward addressing this.

It would place a tax on big corporations and wealthy investors who keep homes vacant and off the market.

The idea is straightforward.

Encourage them to make these homes available for the people who actually live and work in San Diego.

And if they decide not to, the tax revenue generated would go toward building more affordable housing, supporting critical public services, and improving essential infrastructure.

Things our communities urgently need.

What this proposal really does is give San Diegans a fair chance of finding a home.

It helps free up properties that are currently locked away from the market and increases the overall housing supply.

It also includes strong transparency measures for the public so that they can see how the money is used with oversight and independent audits to keep the process accountable.

As a broad coalition of community organizations, homeless service providers, housing advocates, labor groups, and residents who support this, and it reflects a shared belief that San Diego should be a place where people can put down roots and build a stable future.

We urge you to prioritize homes for San Diegans and support this action today.

Thank you.

And if the following individuals can please come up to the front of the room, Sheila Barefoot, Kevin Darnell, Courtney Baltiski, and Kim Douglas.

So Sheila, please approach the lectern.

Good morning, Council members.

My name is Sheila Bearfoot, and I'm a retired teacher, math teacher from San Diego Unified School District.

And I'm here representing advocating for heel homeless experience advocacy leadership.

And um I'm here to uh support for the uh empty homes tax and having taught students from all walks of life.

I learned uh first hand that a child's ability to succeed in the classroom starts with having stability from a place called home.

Uh a home provides the foundation that children need in order to learn and grow.

When families lose their housing, kids miss school, fall behind, and carry incredible stress.

Would you no child should ever have to bear for that concluding statement?

This does conclude your time.

You can send a comment to council committee at San Diego.gov.

All right, thank you.

Kevin Darnell, please approach the lector.

Well, good morning, committee members.

Kevin Darnell.

I submitted a letter uh for your uh viewing pleasure.

Um as another speaker mentioned uh in San Francisco, a very similar uh ordinance was approved by the voters and overturned on summary judgment.

And that's compelling because the court found in favor of the plaintiffs on all five causes of action.

Uh not only was it found to be unconstitutional in the takings clause, it was found to be in uh conflict uh and unlawful based on the Ellis Act, which you probably are aware of, which uh uh governs rental properties and the rights of the property uh owners when it comes to renting or not renting their property.

In other words, uh the right to keep your property as you'd like it vacant, rented, occupied, is uh the property owner's right, not the right of the jurisdiction it may govern it.

I would ask that you consider this and understand that this is probably gonna be a litigated.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Courtney Baltiski, and you'll be followed by Tim Douglas, Marco Briones, and Chris Foro Gomez.

If you can please make your way to the front of the room, good morning, honorable committee members.

My name is Courtney Baltiski with the YMCA of San Diego County.

And at the Y we nurture a healthy spirit, mind and body so all can thrive.

Last year, our youth and family services housing team worked with 1,763 young people and young families who took steps towards safe, stable housing while building skills that support long-term economic stability.

Low barrier housing resources were paired with consistent supports, including case management, housing navigation, mental health services, and connections to education and employment.

Through these opportunities, young people strengthen practical skills, confidence, and work readiness, creating pathways to lasting stability that reach far beyond housing.

With more than 50 years of experience in San Diego County, we know that there's no single pathway to stability, well-being, or long-term success.

But we know that finding safe, dignified spaces to live is a growing challenge.

To know that youth in San Diego have few places to turn should spark action.

Homes for San Diego's proposal addresses this, and we encourage your support.

This does conclude your time.

Tim Douglas.

Good morning.

Tim Douglas, elected president of Ask Me Local 127 with the City of San Diego Skilled Labor.

We are in support of this measure.

We want to thank Sean Elo Rivera for bringing this forward.

We are in support of this because there is a housing crisis in San Diego.

There is also a financial deficit in the city of San Diego.

This would potentially bring in more revenue for the city.

Thank you.

Once again, we are in support of this.

Thank you.

Marco Briones, and you'll be followed by Chris Foro Gomez, Ethel Chavez, and Jesse Schmidt.

Thank you, Council members.

Good morning.

My name is Marco Briona of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council.

Thank you, Councilmember Ela Rivera, for bringing this first iteration and the second forward.

And thank you, Chair Lacava and Council members, for hearing this today.

Point blankly, we're here to support this measure.

We support the first iteration as mentioned, but we will support any measure that will work to close the revenue gap that we have so that we can ensure that our workers, our members can continue to deliver the services that our communities need and deserve.

And so we encourage and welcome this committee support.

We thank you for having us here today.

Thank you.

Thank you, Christopher O'Gomez.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Christophomez, and I'm an organizer with the San Diego and Imperial County's Labor Council.

Again, I'd like to thank Shawnee La Rivera and his staff along with city staff for bringing this item back.

Well, we're incredibly disappointed that the vacation homes portion was removed and that companies like Airbnb will continue to hollow out our communities, at least for the time being.

While we're incredibly disappointed that the vacation homes portion was removed and that companies like Airbnb will continue to hollow out our communities, at least for the time being, the return of this item shows that some of our council understands the importance of this moment and that they must do everything in their power to both address the budget and make housing more affordable and available for San Diegans.

So we urge your support.

Thank you.

Thank you.

It's Almagana Chavez, and you've been seated time by Aaron, Aaron Sumodography, and Andrea Grero.

So you'll have three minutes, please begin.

Thank you.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Itzel Maganda Chavez, Civic Engagement Director with Alliance San Diego, and we are here to ask that you put homes for San Diegans first and vote yes on item one, the ballot measure proposal to tax empty second homes.

First and foremost, thank you, Councilmember Ilo Rivera and your team for bringing this item to the attempt uh to the attention of the public once more.

Committee members, as you all are aware, we are in dire need of resources for housing infrastructure and critical city services.

This proposal is a step in the right direction, specifically to increase housing for working San Diegans by taxing big corporations and wealthy investors.

Although both my husband and I would love to plan to stay in San Diego for the long run, we are constantly worried about how we will be able to afford it.

The lack of options to rent or buy has had a real impact for our relationship.

We have delayed growing our family because staying in our one bedroom is all we can do to allow us to live here and put what we can into savings.

With the cost of living rising each year, an uncertain future in San Diego is not just on my mind.

We know the city faces an uphill battle to continue funding critical services, affordable housing, and infrastructure for our communities.

This proposal has the potential to put thousands of homes back onto the housing market for working San Diegans to rent or buy, increasing the supply and lowering the cost.

It also has the potential to generate millions that can be used to help fund affordable housing and critical infrastructure, including stormwater funding for the hundreds of families impacted by the floods of 2024.

San Diego needs more revenue solutions.

And this is just that.

One way for those who have more than one home, including big corporations and wealthy investors, to pay their fair share and help make San Diego a better place for all of us.

This proposal also puts voters in control of deciding how the revenue for affordable housing and other items are spent through public input, transparent oversight, and an independent audit.

We are looking forward to the continued efforts in getting this proposal to the full council and then the voters.

Whether empty second homeowners pay the tax or make property available to rent or buy, San Diegans win, and the housing supply increases.

For this reason, we ask you to support item one, the ballot measure proposal to tax empty homes.

Thank you so much for your time.

Thank you.

Jesse Schmidty, please approach the lecture, and you'll be followed by Janika Faulkner, Mohammed Omar, and Denise Newell.

If you could please make your way to the reserve seats at the front of the room.

Good morning, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Jesse Schmidty, State Policy Manager for Alliance San Diego, standing before you today in support of the empty homes tax.

Homes are for people, not a place to park excess assets and wealth.

This proposal would give San Diegans a fair chance of finding a home by discouraging big corporations and wealthy investors from snatching up homes and keeping them vacant and off the market.

The empty home stocks could potentially bring up to 5,000 new opportunities for San Diegans.

I had the opportunity to interview and talk to multiple San Diegans this week.

San Diegans who helped build this very city yet can barely afford to live in it.

Households here with five or more family contributors, individuals working not just one, two, but sometimes three jobs to afford housing, and families even contemplating moving to Tijuana.

These people represent the best of San Diego, all we are and all we strive to be.

Thank you.

Janica Faulkner.

How good meme, you to mean your way.

I am Janika, a D4 resident with Alliance San Diego and a member of the Community Budget Alliance.

I support this measure to target empty second homes.

It ensures the people wealthy enough to own second homes in a city where affording one home seems out of reach, pay their fair share.

While thousands of San Diegans struggle to keep a roof over their heads, people owning multiple homes that sit empty is a moral issue.

It is greed that costs San Diego's stability, dignity, and their right to own a home.

I myself have been searching for a home for over three months to rent, but with the current housing shortage have continued to struggle.

This proposal could possibly free up thousands of additional homes for San Diegans like myself to rent.

Thank you.

Mohammed Umar, and you'll be followed by Denise Newell, Jesus Munoz, and Patricia Mondragon.

Good morning, Chair and Committee members.

My name is Mohammed Omar.

I'm with the Partnership for Advancement of New American.

I'm here in support of the homes for San Diego's proposal.

San Diego families are struggling because housing costs are simply too high.

While working people are trying to rent or buy home, large corporations and wealthy investors have purchased, have purchased thousands of properties and are leaving them many of them vacant.

This empty homes reduce supply, drive up prices, and weaken the sense of community in our neighborhoods.

This proposal creates accountability.

This is about prioritizing homes for people who live and work here, not home sent to empty and investment assets.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Denise Newell.

She's calling you.

Hey, Zeus Munoz.

Good morning.

My name is Jesus Martin Gallegos Munoz.

I am a community organizing coordinator for the Chicano Federation, a member of the community budget alliance, and most importantly, a resident of District 8.

The individuals we represent at the Chicano Federation, including myself, can't afford to buy a house in our city.

Maybe I'll never be able to.

But these proposals give our communities an opportunity to thrive in San Diego.

This proposal allows us to alleviate the housing market through democratic means, as well as by bringing in revenue to our crumbling and underfunded system.

To the contrary, residents like me from low income, marginalized and disenfranchised communities who will suffer.

Human beings who reside in each of your communities will continue to struggle, especially those in District 8.

Hence, on behalf of the Chicano Federation, we urge you to do your service to your constituents to listen to us and to empathize with us.

Please vote yes on item one.

Gracias.

Thank you, Patricia Mondragon.

And you've been seated time by Andrea Vasquez.

If you could raise your hand, okay.

Do you want me to wait?

If you don't mind, yes, thank you.

Uh George Ching, please approach the lecture, and you you'll be followed by Nicole Lilly, Sparky Mitra, and Liliana Soriano Gorista, if you could please make your way to the reserve seats.

Good morning, Chair and Committee.

Thank you for your time this morning.

My name is George Shing with the Pacific Southwest Association Realtors here to speak in opposition to the proposed tax.

We agree with the with the goal of the proposed tax of creating more homeownership opportunities, but we disagree with this particular approach.

The concerns we have are relating to the negative impacts on private property rights, the um the concerns with privacy uh of the citizens, because the way that I see or understand that it's written is that all homeowners in the city, regardless of whether or not it's vacant or not, are gonna have to file a declaration uh regarding whether or not they are in the property.

Uh so there's concerns about privacy, but also administrative concerns.

If maybe there's a language barrier or somebody's elderly doesn't understand what they're declaring and mistakenly declares the other way, then they have to go through uh an appeals procedure to to correct the error.

And the other thing to consider is uh if there's the perception that a property that is vacant while being sold could be subject to this tax, it might skew like an incentive to for the property owner to rent versus sell.

Uh thank you.

Thank you.

Nicole Lilly, please approach the lecture.

Hello, my name is Nicole Lilly.

I'm a 23-year-old renter, resident of District 3, and the executive director of Our Time to Act.

We're a youth-led nonprofit organizing powerful youth for housing justice.

I'm here today again to urge you to vote for housing justice.

Every day, San Diegans are struggling to survive in the city.

A majority of San Diegans are renters, and the majority of renters are paying more than 30% of their income on housing alone.

This is an unacceptable, unavoidable reality.

This is the result of treating housing as an investment and profit gouging tool rather than the human right that it is.

As more of our neighbors are thrown into houselessness and housing insecurity every day, as we continue to fall woefully short on our housing development goals, as we face devastating cuts to essential services due to a growing budget shortages.

It is inexplicable why we should allow over 5,000 homes to sit entirely empty without consequence.

Whether it creates revenue or puts these homes back into the hands of San Diegans, your vote on this item tells you how you view housing.

Do you believe housing is a tool for profit or a human right?

I urge the committee to pass this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sparky Mitra, Sparky, and you'll be followed by Liliana Garista, Patricia Mondragon, and Wee Tran.

Hi, all my name is Sparky Mitra, and I'm a bioengineer and San Diego resident here today because the time has come to prioritize housing and affordability.

I come here today to urge you to vote for this empty homes tax.

Our city may be beautiful, but it continues to ignore its most vulnerable.

The tax would at worst help put a huge dent in the city's deficit and service, and at best ensure that thousands of additional San Diegans can rent or own property, still serving us.

The people win regardless.

Rising rents and home prices are pushing me and my friends further from our communities.

This tax is a practical step towards keeping our city vibrant and diverse and livable for the next generation.

If you're truly the champions of affordability and housing justice that the community can hope to rely on, as representatives of our needs, I urge you to vote for this empty homes tax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Liliana.

Good morning, rules committee.

I am the director of policy at Youth Well, where youth advocacy organization in San Diego.

We have been supportive of this item since its first iteration, and we are asking you all to do the same today because it is imperative to address the budget deficit the city faces.

The proposal before you is not a regressive tax.

It's a fair fee and an opportunity for people that love this city so much that already invested in a second home and are able to let it sit empty to actually give back to the improvements of this city's infrastructure.

With your support today, youth's programs will be a step closer to where they need to be.

What cannot continue to happen is you tasking youth with another year of taking away services they heavily rely on.

Due to San Diego's huge economic disparities, this is relevant to all vulnerable populations that reside within each of your districts.

Don't let the decision you make today be tied back to a political game of endorsements, campaign money, and the pockets of wealthy people.

Please pass this proposal today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Patricia, please approach the lecture.

And you've been seated tied by Andrea, if you can raise your hand.

Good morning, Patricia Bondragon, Alliance San Diego, in support of a tax on second vacant homes owned by wealthy investors and corporations.

San Diego and North Park have been my home since 1969.

Like many longtime residents, I'm still struggling to afford a home, to afford rent, and even to stay in the city that I love.

I don't want to be a renter for the rest of my life.

The cost of moving, rising rents, while state wages stay the same, make this impossible an impossible situation.

I wasn't able to buy a home earlier because of student loan debt debt.

I watched year after year as prices rose faster than working San Diegans could afford.

Even when they could afford it, the competition would outbid them.

I worked in real estate and I saw firsthand how often speculators outbid local families with all cash offers.

When our neighbor passed away, an investor bought the house next to my parents in North Park.

They left it vacant for over five years, while the value more than doubled in five years five years.

No housing was created, no family was helped, and profit was the only goal.

Homes should be for people who live and work here in San Diego, not for corporations to warehouse wealth.

A vacancy tax is reasonable step to discourage speculation, return homes to the market, and to restore opportunity for residents who call San Diego home.

Please vote yet.

Yes on today's agenda item.

Thank you, Councilmember Shawnee Lova Rivera for consistently bringing this back and helping San Diegans, working to help San Diegans.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

We tron, please approach the electoral and you'll end um after you'll be Robert Sanders, Crane Friedman, and Melissa Peterman.

If you could please make your way to the reserve seats.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is We Chinese Dective Director of Big Voices.

My community are immigrant refugee Vietnamese communities all over County San Diego.

Um a lot of us have always told that to come to America, you work really hard and you can own homes.

Um we don't.

Not in its economy.

I certainly gave up the idea of buying a home.

I ran in North Park.

Um, and I'm really saddened that a lot of my friends also move away.

We are bleeding people out of San Diego.

You have to do something about this.

And basically when you know that the cost to build houses is so high.

So this is the most logical thing that you can do is converted a lot of those second homes back into the market to make it affordable for a lot of us here.

I don't want to move away yet.

I still have a lot of work to do, and I hope that you can also help me help my communities to stay here.

We vote yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Robert Sanders.

Yes, good morning, committee members.

My name is Robert Sanders.

I'm a resident of District 4, the political and community coordinator with the SCIU Local 221 and community budget alliance member.

Housing should be a human right.

Yet in San Diego, thousands of people is struggling to stay housed while second homes sit vacant.

This measure targets empty second homes, and as those wealthy enough to pay them, pay for them or own them, excuse me, to pay their fair share.

Far too long, budget decisions have fallen hardest on working class San Diegans.

Our city must work for all of us, not just those who can afford multiple homes.

I urge this committee to support this merging and move it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Crane Friedman.

Good morning, Chair Locava and members of the rules committee.

My name is Crane Friedman.

I am the political director of San Diego City Firefighters Local 145.

Local 145 was disappointed by the way that the blockage of the first iteration of this measure, nevertheless, we stand in full support of the empty homes tax before the committee today.

The reality before us as it relates to fire is that 911 response times are too long.

We're struggling to recruit and retain firefighters, and we're overall hanging on by a thread.

This measure would generate desperately needed revenue for the city and or potentially free up thousands of homes for San Diegans, including many firefighters who currently have to make commutes of 60 to 90 minutes or more just to be able to live in a home that they can afford.

Thank you.

Melissa Peterman, and after Melissa is Nicole Lee, Zenara Velazquez, and Kevin Veno.

Good morning.

My name is Melissa Peterman.

I'm the executive director of Townspeople.

And we're a nonprofit housing provider, and we work daily with San Diegans who are doing everything they're supposed to, and yet still still struggle to afford housing.

These are seniors who are stretching fixed incomes, working families who are choosing between groceries and rent, young adults sleeping in their cars while looking for a place that they can afford.

Unsurprisingly, we townspeople believe that homes are for housing and appreciate this measure, uh, especially when we're in a housing crisis.

If a home isn't being used, it should be offered up for someone to live in or to be used to generate income that could create housing for people who need it.

Um this measure doesn't solve affordability, but as someone who would really love to work themselves out of a crisis response job, I know that we need to take every reasonable step possible to do that, and this is one of them.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nicole Lee.

Hello, my name is Nicole.

I'm a community organizer with Beat Voices.

Um I have a whole speech written out, but I feel like it's better to tell you a story about my friend Susan Vanderlinden.

She's an 80-year-old friend of mine, and I met her in Imperial Beach, and she was a very cheerful person, a very warm person.

She let everyone into her house, greets everyone with the same warmth.

And she was evicted from her apartment because of a nofold eviction to renovate the apartment.

And it was really heartbreaking to see her leave because she's such a valued community member.

Um now she's in Arizona living with her family.

Um, but it was very heartbreaking for her to uproot her whole community and her family and her life here to be able to move.

And I'm in support of this measure.

Thank you.

And you'll be followed by Kevin Vano, Gabby, Simone, and Kyle Weinberg.

Okay, hello.

Last time I spoke, it was on behalf of Housing for San Diegans.

With the inclusion of the short-term vacation rentals, we believed there was a larger incentive to return homes to the middle and long-term housing market.

Without this inclusion, housing for San Diegans has not taken an official position given its lesser impact on the long-term housing market.

As an individual, I continue to support this revised proposal because it will decrease the incentive to buy housing as a purely investment vehicle without allowing the physical space to be used to house an individual.

It would also generate much needed revenue for our city.

I would like to suggest adding an exemption for individuals in government custody.

If formerly incarcerated individuals do not have a home to return to after their incarceration, they often wind up on the streets.

And with the federal government kidnapping and jailing our immigrant neighbors for as long as possible, I do not want them to also lose their home when they finally return.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Kevin.

And following Kevin, we have our final three in chambers, Gabby Simone, Kyle Weinberg, and Omar Aritha.

Kevin, please begin.

Good evening, Council.

My name is Kevin Vino.

I'm a housing justice director at Our Time to Act.

I appreciate counsel for bringing this back despite being a bit diluted because the budget is a very big issue, and I know you guys have been working hard to fix that, but uh a lot of the issues have been definitely stemming from who is going to be paying for this budget deficit.

And so having a tax that is going to only be uh applied to people who can have the luxury of affording a second home is uh great for lower and middle income residents who have definitely been overburdened with a lot of the taxes here in the district.

Um I am a D1 resident where vacant homes is a pretty big issue in the region.

I've canvassed many areas in the surrounding region where residents have been priced out of D1 uh due to the surrounding areas being uh housing is already being taken up by folks who just leave them empty most of the year round.

So I'd strongly urge council to vote yes on this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Gabby.

Uh good morning.

My name is Cavi Simone, and I'm a community organizer with Fiat Voices, um, and I'm a resident of district three.

Um I'm here in support of the empty home tax ballot measure proposal because at the end of the day, this is about fairness.

It's hard to explain why in a city where so many people are struggling to pay rent, some homes just sit empty.

Um, I think about regular families, people working full time, doing everything right, and still barely getting by.

Meanwhile, housing is being treated like a stock to hold on to instead of a place for someone to actually live.

To me, this isn't complicated.

If we're in a housing crisis, homes shouldn't be sitting vacant.

And if they are, the city should at least use that as a way to fund affordable housing and basic services that help everyday people.

This measure feels like a small but important step toward making our city work better, uh, for work better for working families and not people who can not just people who can afford to buy property and leave it empty.

That's why I'm supporting to move it forward.

Thank you.

Thank you, Kyle.

I'm Kyle Weinberg, president of San Diego Education Association, representing over 6,000 educators in San Diego Unified School District, who have endorsed this measure.

Since 2009, our district's enrollment has decreased by almost through 30,000 students.

The biggest driving factor for this drop in enrollment is the outrageous cost of housing in our region, which is driving families to leave our city or delay having kids because they can't afford to rent homes here.

The same neighborhoods with the highest concentration of empty homes 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 or being torn away from the communities that 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 advance the democratic principles that we so desperately need during these times and put this measure on the ballot to let the people of our city decide.

Thank you.

And our final speaker in chambers is Omar.

Good morning, council members.

Omar Araisa, District 8 resident, longtime uh resident.

Uh last night I actually heard uh the budget for 2027 is gonna be in deficit of 120 million dollars.

And that's a huge gap.

So this proposal actually can help, you know, alleviate not um you know cutting libraries, public transportation, and many other services that our community really needs.

Um, you know, I understand the need of uh protections, but we also need protections against you know, corporations that are hedge funds.

And I would also include possibly an amendment or a follow-up resolution to put in 90 to 120 days before a corporation can buy a home or a piece of land.

So that way, housing first for first-time homes buyers and many other individuals that are staying local, investing in our community.

Um, that's just an idea.

Thank you.

Thank you.

This concludes in-person public testimony for item one.

We will now move to the virtual queue.

I've started the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate that they have public comment.

We have 21 hands raised.

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

Nolan Stempel, please unmute and begin.

Hi there, I'm Kat, and I live in District 7.

And I just I completely, you know, you all city council people in the mayor said that when you build bill build that the rents will go down.

We've built in the last four years over 30,000 homes.

The rent has not gone down.

Um most of those are rentals, so you're not even providing any chance for us San Diegans to purchase homes.

And not to mention, you think 5,000 homes, you're gonna tax them.

It's just a money grab.

You're gonna tax them, and that's they're gonna sell their homes, and that's gonna provide housing and fix everything.

Homelessness is still up.

Uh, you know, you're raising money taxes on everything, and all you do is sit around and think about how can we get San Diego's to pay more?

What about working for us?

Our safety, our affordability.

It's ridiculous.

You guys need to get your priorities straight.

You need to learn how to manage a budget and stop taxing us.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Andrea Ebbing.

Please unmute and begin.

Sandra Ebbing, I am suggesting we uh look at foreign investors.

I heard there's a large um Chinese uh nationals or people from China are buying up swathes of homes and um communities.

I think we should double or triple charge them for taxes if you're gonna be from out of the country.

Um, definitely the corporations, and it would be just lovely to uh go back through, I guess like the last 10 years or 15 years of like corruption and fraud cases, and whoever has served, you know, up uh has had a role in public service and benefited from that, but then found to have like misappropriated funds, committed fraud, done anything like that.

They should be uh that we should take their homes away from them and apply whatever that money is uh back toward the community because corporation, we can't just like lose millions of dollars and not have a consequence for it.

We need to have consequence for deliberate actions taken against the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman, please begin.

Hi, uh Blair Beekman.

Um this is really interesting.

Measures that are addressing how um to put people first instead of our corporate profit making structures.

Um this is quite a shift, possibly in what you're doing.

I used to consider this sort of things with with friends, you know, in San Diego like 30, 40 years ago, and this stuff is just starting to come to fruition now.

Uh I've read in the newspaper articles that the uh Airbnb is not very much against this uh item, what what's being presented or proposed.

Uh thank you to Council President O Rivera and San Diego City government staff for their research and figuring out this sort of plan that seems to be a good compromise from last uh the efforts of last time.

Uh good luck in how this is addressed, and and that we are addressing our human values uh before corporate profit.

Good luck in your efforts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The original, please unmute and begin.

Yeah, I'd like to echo what Kat said because this is all smoke and is a tool for profit for you guys, but this isn't going to make the rents go down.

And people are having rentals that they're trying to rent out that people aren't even renting.

So it's like, and and this isn't going to help people with their income or be able to purchase a home.

You guys do things and you act like this is really gonna help, but you do you raise taxes all the time.

And the fact that you're saying that if there's a disaster, it's only two years after that.

Well, people have spent two years trying to go through litigation with you guys just to retrieve back what they lost and are still trying to recoup that.

So I mean, you're gonna be punishing these people for actually your own negligence when you're doing this.

So it's like all these people that think that all of a sudden they're going to, if they can't afford rent now, it's going to just get worse.

So other things need to change.

This isn't going to move the needle forward, except where it's going to put money in your guys' pockets where people who can already pay that.

And if they can't, you'll take their home.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker, Jennifer Rosus, please unmute and begin.

Hello.

Um, thank you guys for having this um conversation today.

I I just want to say that I I work in the construction industry.

I'm an engineer.

I know that San Diego is a fabulous place to live.

Uh, I I certainly feel lucky and fortunate to live here.

Uh, but I will say that me and both my husband and I, we have a young family.

We struggle to be able to afford a home.

My husband has a PhD in genetics.

Like we are smart, capable people.

Rent is expensive.

Buying a house is astronomical.

It's not feasible for us.

I've given up on the idea.

I just want to say that I know how we are in a housing crisis.

We need to address uh supply.

And this measure, it's not meant to make money.

Okay, we're not trying to make money here.

It does it add some money.

Yeah, it's a great little side plus.

But the main goal here is getting housing available to people.

Thank you.

To try to help this desk control our time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has concluded.

We have 20 hands remaining in the virtual queue.

We will take no additional callers after these 20.

John Stump, please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

The city has a spending problem, not a budget problem.

If they could keep a budget, they wouldn't be looking at a deficit.

Next, we're gonna have a tax on vacant extra bedrooms.

You know, if everybody would take one homeless person into their house and put them in their spare bedroom, uh, we would address a lot of housing problems.

So the next thing is going to be a tax on spare bedrooms.

This the city, uh the next thing I want to say is who were the speakers, primarily they were the labor unions who are concerned that the city has overspent the budget, and they're concerned that they're gonna lose jobs.

Let's avoid a bedroom tax next.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, phone number ending at 870.

Please press star six and begin.

There are parts of this item that will only be clear as we implement and live them.

Doesn't this apply to all of life?

Yet we must have the courage to take our leaps.

Here is my main point.

We are one people, we are one family.

One family has one pot of money used to cover their needs.

In our city family that includes all levels of income and revenue for sharing.

Homeowners are part of our family's assets.

Let's do one step at a time on this item.

And if on the ballot, the family, the family will decide yes or no.

One people, one San Diego, love to all.

Have a great day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Mike Fratale, please unmute and begin.

Morning, Mike Ricalli, Council District 6.

There are three major flaws with the proposed empty homes tax.

One, no sunset clause.

Even the Berkeley tax ends in 2034.

Two, no guarantee that the funds raised by the tax will be spent on public safety or critical infrastructure maintenance.

Three, the new tax is intrusive and gives the city extraordinary audit powers.

More to the point, giving the city flexible the flexibility to adapt in the future when identifying empty homes should concern all homeowners.

Please reject this tax.

Housing is expensive in San Diego, but there are better ways to promote affordability.

You can start by selling underutilized city office buildings for residential use.

Thanks, and please have a good day.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Gil Vera, please unmute and begin.

Hello, good morning, Council members.

My name is Gilbert, and I'm the director of the Housing Justice Collaborative and Legal Aid Society San Diego.

I would like to thank Councilmember Elo Rivera and his staff for bringing this measure forward to committee.

I'm here to urge you to support the empty homes tax.

San Diego is in a housing crisis.

Yeah, more than 5,000 homes in our city, set empty for most of the year, not because they're on unlivable, but because they're held as second homes or speculative investments.

At the same time, working families are being priced out, rents remain unaffordable, and displacement continues across our neighborhoods.

The empty home tax is targeted and reasonable response that does not impact the vast majority of San Diegans.

It does not tax primary residents, rented homes, ADUs or people facing hardship.

It affects a very small share of properties, homes that are intentionally kept vacant while protecting everyday St.

Diegans.

This policy does two important things.

It encourages empty homes to go back into the housing market and it generates millions of dollars annually that can be reinvested into rental assistance, affordable housing preservation fund, eviction prevention, the eviction notice registry, and other services for the in-house.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Michael Kurr Kurin, please begin.

I've asked you to unmute.

Okay, we will move on to Noah.

Good morning, committee members.

My name is Noah Yiuk.

I'm a researcher and policy advocate with the Center on Policy Initiatives.

We've known our city has had a structural budget deficit for years now, but the mayor has failed to resource the city well.

Instead, every year the response is the same.

The mayor tries to balance the budget by cutting the programs and services working class communities rely on.

This year is no different.

There's a 120 million dollar deficit and no new revenue has been identified.

At the same time, there are thousands of San Diegans that struggle to keep a roof over their heads while homes across our city sit empty, owned by wealthy people who can afford to do so.

That is why we must support the empty second homes tax.

It is a revenue solution that stops asking working class people to pay the price and instead ask the wealthiest to contribute their fair share.

The revenue must be reinvested into what we know keeps folks housed, like housing instability and eviction prevention programs.

Supporting the empty homes tax takes a step away from austerity and toward a city that invests in people and prevents harm before it happens.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Connor Robbins.

Please unmute and beginning.

Good morning, Council.

We are in support of the empty home tax, and we appreciate Councilmember Sean Ila Rivera for bringing this item forward.

This tax supports our members' ability to build a stable future in San Diego.

Thank you for considering this item.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Kayana.

Please unmute and begin.

Kiana Price.

Hello.

My name is Kiana Price Will Pillars of the Community, and I am speaking in support of the housing.

I will first like to say that the homes for San Diego proposal will give San Diegans a fair chance of finding a home by discouraging big corporations and wealthy investors from snatching up homes and keeping them vacant and off the market.

It will put voters in control of deciding how revenue for affordable housing and other items are spent through public input, transparent oversight, and independent audit.

And it would raise millions of dollars to fund affordable housing, critical infrastructure, and essential municipal services that families and businesses rely on to get ahead.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And as a reminder to those in the queue, the five-minute timer has concluded.

You can submit a comment to council committee at San Diego.gov.

We have 13 hands remaining.

Dave.

Dave KV, please unmute and begin.

Thank you.

I have a master's degree in economics from the University of Chicago.

And I want to say that up front, this uh proposal will not improve the uh housing situation.

Uh, you're adding a cost to the housing pool by adding a tax.

That cost will be passed on to renters and to uh people who buy houses.

Uh it's just unrealistic to believe that this is going to have any effect whatsoever on the housing pool, uh, other than raise the cost of housing.

Uh secondly, you know, uh the people who have second homes have them for a variety of reasons.

Uh someone said earlier that retirees have houses, they've lived there their entire lives.

They use them to babysit their grandkids in the summertime.

Uh, you're gonna penalize people uh because of a lifestyle, not because of economic reality.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Our next speaker, Kristen Northrup, please begin.

Good morning.

My name is Kristen Northrop, and I'm here as policy advocate for Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, also known as SURF.

Surf was founded by a group of surfers for the protection of California's coastal resources.

I'm here to voice support of the for of the proposed empty homes tax ballot measure for consideration on the June 2026 ballot.

San Diego continues to face severe housing affordability crisis.

The data cited in the staff report demonstrates the clear relationship between has housing supply and rental costs.

When homes sit vacant for extended periods of time, particularly in a city with constrained housing inventory, those units are effectively removed from the market, exacerbating scarcity and placing upward pressure on rents and home prices.

I respectfully urge the council to move this measure forward to the June 2026 ballot.

Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Samantha.

Samantha Schwimmer, please unmute and begin.

Hi, good morning, Council members.

My name is Samantha Schwimmer.

I am a resident of District 8, where I'm a renter.

And I am really appreciative of the efforts of Councilmember Ila Rivera and his team bringing this forward.

I think it is imperative that our city has an opportunity to vote on what is a critical measure, not only for the revenue that it will bring into our city that we can put back into spending on affordable housing, but also in the disruption this will have on our housing market, making more houses available for working families.

We are in a crisis in San Diego where our students, our children are being pushed out of neighborhoods.

We have schools closing with and schools with dangerously low enrollment numbers.

So who knows how many more schools will close?

Who many who knows how many more neighbors will be pushed out?

Not only outside of our city, but outside of our county.

And this has an overall negative impact for our entire thank you.

And thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Gail Fried, please unmute and begin.

Hi, Gail Free District Three.

Um, the speakers were incorrect.

Rents in San Diego have actually gone down and because of building, and more concessions are being offered.

I want to add my voice to the support of this action.

Put this on the ballot.

Let's do empty commercial buildings next.

And I urge you to vote yes today.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Saad Asad, please begin.

Good morning, Council members.

I think I support this tax.

I um see that there is, I think I've voiced my concern that we have library hours and rec centers cut for the second year in a row.

So it's important to explore revenue options.

Uh, people who are not living in their homes, um, generate uh they don't generate as much economic activity as people who do.

So that means less sales taxes and that means less revenue.

Um, my main thoughts are more just implementation.

Uh right now it's using self-reporting.

People will lie and avoid it if we're still using self-reporting.

So just want to see if there's other ways.

Can we use the water data to make sure it's more accurate?

Um, and then also just making sure it's a legally clear.

I know SF was sued for its tax.

So, how do we make sure that it's legally sound?

So, most concerned about implementation and making sure that we're uh not allowing a lot of tax avoidance and legal lawsuits.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Kevin Hastings.

Kevin.

Hey, uh, I had to call all the way in from Colorado for this one.

I I've got six homes um in San Diego County, and um I just don't appreciate you guys stepping on my property rights.

I worked hard for those to achieve the American dream.

Um, you know, with the help of Prop 13 and those the kind of annual appreciation, I was able to finally retire from my job.

You know, I I tried renting these out.

Uh you know, renters are they're they're dirty, they got kids, they're always destroying the place.

I just they need to go get their own place.

I mean, they need to stop being poor, is really what it comes down to.

Stop looking for handouts.

That's all I gotta say.

Um, you guys just need to step off.

You know, I agree with those other callers.

If you build more and more housing, the prices just keep going up.

You know, honestly, maybe we should taking away some housing and the prices will go down.

That's all I got.

But thank you.

Our next speaker, Greg.

Greg Beerin, please unmute and begin.

Hello, can you hear me?

Yes.

Um, my name's Greg Barron.

I'm strongly opposed to the tax.

The proposed tax structure is very regressive and punitive.

It would double the property tax rate for a median price home while minimally affecting that for a 25 million dollar home.

The rate is about double what you have in other similar taxes in California cities.

Studies by the nonpartisan institute on taxation economic policy of similar measures in other cities found they only raised modest revenues, made slight improvements to housing availability, and had limited or no impact on housing affordability.

Those are quotes from the report.

There's also been the legal issues others have raised.

The city's San Diego City's own 2025 annual report on homes recommended much more sensible strategies for trying to improve housing affordability, primarily by encouraging permitting for ADUs and multifamily developments.

This is the third version of this proposal in less than six months, each with very different structures.

The city is having all sorts of problems with this Balboa Park parking fee plan.

The city needs to slow down, develop a holistic, rational and data-driven approach to its housing budgetary needs.

Thank you for that concluding statement.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jay Goldberg.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

Here in support.

Current policy establishes a whoever had the money first got the choice pieces of land and subsidies while everyone else is fighting over scraps.

28% of these homes are single family lots larger than 4,000 square feet, indicating a misallocation of large lots, often held for pennies.

If we do not manage land use, we will get more unwelcome massive developments versus modest infill.

If it's such a hardship for owners to pay for their extra vacant homes, they can rent them out for a few thousand a month or sell them and dab their tears with their millions.

Otherwise, I have major concerns with the treasurer being tasked with as the enforcer, despite having several full-time staff.

They failed at enforcing the short-term rental ordinance.

I object to allocating any resources to treasurer until they are audited and also agree that user self-reporting will lie about this and attempt to get out, and we need a stronger framework for managing that.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, Nancy Ben or Ben, Nancy.

Hi, can you hear me?

Yes.

Uh hi, I'm Nancy with San Diego Families for Justice and Surge San Diego.

A housing crisis requires bold solutions.

We ask you to support the empty homes tax ballot measure.

Families are delaying and choosing not to have kids because of health care costs or housing costs.

Our unhoused neighbors can't end their homelessness without housing.

This can provide necessary budget relief so that we can reclaim library and parks and rec hours.

Capitalism is going to keep doing what it does, chewing at people, our lower middle class and lower income neighbors, as evident by that previous caller with six homes who wants to discriminate against families with children.

Um we ask that you try to protect the residents of San Diego so people can choose to continue living here.

Please vote yes on this and let the voters decide.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And as a reminder to those raising their hand, the five-minute timer has concluded.

We have five hands remaining.

Tristan Beerie, please unmute and begin.

Good morning, council members.

My name is Kristen Beerie, and I'm the youth organizer at Youth Will.

I am asking you guys to approve this item.

As a former homeless youth, I am strongly in favor of this tax as the housing prices is an ever-growing issue, and there shouldn't be empty homes doing nothing to help us San Diegans.

If folks do decide to move out, that's okay because more housing and more homes is always a good thing as long as they're available.

But the reality is that most of those who own two or more homes are certainly going to be able to pay and afford that $8,000 a year.

And if it brings anywhere near the conservative projected income that was just provided by the IBA, then that is a healthy chunk of what's needed to keep youth homelessness programs funded to keep our libraries and parks, which are often safe places for youth in need, open to another budget, open another budget year.

Thank you so much, tax the rich, and please put this to the ballot.

Thank you.

Our next speaker, iPhone, please unmute and begin.

This is Michelle Krug, uh City Council District 4.

I am in strong support of this measure.

I'm very disappointed as others previously said that the need was felt, at least at this time, to exclude the Airbnbs.

I think they are a major um more issue in terms of changing the quality of life in our community, but this is something I do support at this time.

I hope we will be able to include the Airbnbs.

And I think people need to look up the definition of regressive tax because you've got it wrong.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

The next speaker is L.

Please unmute and begin.

Hello, I'm just uh I'm frustrated by all these tax measures.

The San Diego, we always we already live in one of the highest tax areas in the country.

This is just another money grab and probably a stepping stone back to the short-term rental tax.

And who knows, like the gentleman earlier said, maybe your extra bedroom is next.

Housing prices are not going to go down.

There's already over 6,000 rentals available in San Diego County and 2,500 housing units for sale.

There is an inventory.

In Vancouver and DC, prices did not go down from this.

I didn't hear any of that mentioned earlier when this uh was being proposed to us.

But I feel like this is just a trap to make people think they're gonna somehow get affordable housing by voting for this, and they're not.

And the worst thing is it's already been ruled unconstitutional in San Francisco.

So if this passes, it's just gonna go to court, fight litigation, and how much more money are you all gonna waste fighting it?

It's just ridiculous.

You just stop taxing us and find some spending cuts.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And as a reminder to those in the queue who continue to raise their hand, please send us a comment or an email at councilcommittee at Sandiego.gov.

Michael Corrian.

Michael, I'll give you another opportunity.

Hello.

Can you hear me?

Yes.

Okay, I'm a retired Navy captain.

A former crew member of the USS Midway.

I bought my house in Point Loma in 1985.

The final renter caused major damage.

After costly repairs, I made the decision to only use the house for myself and family.

I and my property would be directly harmed by this proposed unconstitutional tax.

I respectfully request the rules committee to reject this new proposal.

If this proposal goes to and is approved by the voters, it will immediately end up in litigation and will likely be dismissed by the courts for the same constitutional illegality shown by San Francisco's proposition M.

The City of San Diego is already in the grip of a financial shortfall.

It does not make any sense to allocate San Diego's limited financial resources for the preparation of a ballot measure to present to the voters, which, even if passed, would likely follow the same fate as San Francisco's proposition M's vacant home tax.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes public comment on item one.

All right.

Thank you, Natalie, and thank you to everybody who spoke here either in person or uh took the time to call in.

Uh as a reminder to my colleagues, I outline the four options that we have at our discretion as the rules committee.

Uh, but now I'll turn it over to the committee members for questions, comments, and entertain a motion.

And we'll start with council member Ilo Rivera.

All right.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh uh, and thank you to everyone uh who participated today.

I want to say a special thank you to Maya and Molly on my team, um, as well as Ben and the whole D9 team um for the enormous amount of work that they've put into this.

Um and again, thank you to the IBA, uh, the treasurer's office, and certainly the city attorney's office uh once again.

Um I do want to start with a little bit of housekeeping just to make sure that um there's some there's total clarity um uh for my colleagues in terms of of what we're asking to move forward.

Um to that end, I also want to say thank you to my colleagues for providing feedback that was actionable during our last conversation.

You know, obviously I would have liked the vote to go a different way, but that doesn't mean that the conversation itself wasn't productive and didn't lead us into a place where we could actually turn that conversation into action.

So thank you for those of you who did that.

Um the first thing I wanted to draw attention to, Maya said this, but I just want to reiterate it.

Uh two things that we intend to have um explicitly laid out if this were to move to uh full council.

Uh first is the exemption for tier three and tier four short-term vacation rental license holders.

Uh, this committee was loud and clear about uh not wanting to see those included.

Uh, we'll make sure that there's language that speaks to that.

Um it already we think it already does that.

We want to make sure it's 100% explicit and we will make sure that that happens.

The second is um ensuring that um folks who have operated in the rental market, and for some reason or another, whether it's um uh needing to make improvements to the home, um, whatever it may be, that they have an opportunity um to to not pay the tax um if they've previously demonstrated that they are um bona fide um landlords um who are renting um to folks in the community.

Um the last thing I wanted to to share is our intent to update the ballot question to wreck the to reflect the IBA's revenue projections.

Now that we have those, uh we can use those.

The number that is currently in there is a raw number based on very simple arithmetic, the number of units that we um know uh currently would uh this would apply to if it started today before exemptions or anything else times the the tax itself.

Um so uh with that um I will turn to saying thank you to the committee members who share their stories, just a few things that stood out.

Um uh uh itself, thank you for sharing that your family has made the decision to delay growing your family because of the impacts on housing.

And that that you and so many others are in that position, and it is sad and bad for our community that so many people are in that situation.

Um folks who've spent months looking for homes to rent despite having solid jobs and loving this community.

Um firefighters saying that they are hanging on by a thread, and a caller who shared that um she and her husband have a PhD and a JD and have given up on owning a home in San Diego.

And uh I think those comments underscore what's at stake that housing is foundational to dignity and stability, and that's why we don't believe homes should sit empty during a housing crisis.

San Diego is making real strides on housing.

We've strengthened tenant protections, we've increased permitting and production, we've created tools to preserve existing affordable housing, and today we have an opportunity to take a critical step toward asking the voters to provide us yet another strategy that can directly help San Diegans stay in San Diego.

An empty homes tax does two things that matter.

First, it changes incentives so that some homes currently sitting vacant are more likely to be rented or sold to people who actually live here.

We often celebrate breaking ground and cutting ribbons for housing developments with 50 homes, 75 homes, 100 homes, and we should do that.

Every home added relieves pressure in a market that has become a pressure cooker for everyday San Diegans.

We can't predict exactly how many homes will return to the long-term market if this measure passes, but we do know this.

It will change incentives and homes will come back into use.

And just like every new home we build, every home return to housing is worthy of celebration because it opens a door to a family that gets to stay in San Diego, potentially even as a homeowner.

Second, it will generate new revenue for general city services, services that support housing stability, homelessness prevention, and basic infrastructure that residents rely on.

That is a win-win for San Diego.

To top it off, 99% of San Diegans will never pay this tax because it does not apply to primary homes, it does not apply to long-term rentals, it targets a narrow category, homes that are left vacant for most of the year in the middle of a housing shortage.

I also want to emphasize how carefully this has been put together.

We worked closely with the Treasurer's Office to create a measurable, a measure that is implementable.

We work closely with the city attorney's office, so I feel confident in the legal foundation.

Uh, to that end, I do want to speak a little bit to some of the uh the issues raised around the Ellis Act.

Um this measure does not require anyone to rent a home.

It doesn't do that.

It does not compel anyone to remain in the rental business.

Nothing in this proposal changes the Ellis Act, changes eviction law, or creates any right for the city or anyone else to occupy a home.

Owners retain the full right to keep a home vacant if they choose to do so.

This measure simply sets an objective standard vacant for more than 182 days.

And if owner chooses to keep a residential property vacant beyond that threshold during a housing shortage, the property is subject to a tax because prolonged vacancy has real public impacts.

Again, they can rent, they can sell, they can even obtain a short-term vacation rental license.

Um, they can rent to individuals, they can rent to families, they can rent to uh folks like townspeople who are trying to put people together who are experiencing homelessness.

The options are plenty, they are not being compelled to rent a home, though.

Uh if I may have uh additional time.

We listened carefully to feedback about re reasonable real life circumstances where the tax should not should not apply.

For example, if a family member is living in a second home, that home should not be taxed.

If a loved one has passed away and the family is navigating probate or can't yet afford needed repairs, a situation that my family has dealt with in the past, uh the home should not be taxed.

And if someone is deployed in the military, their home should not be taxed.

These exclusions are about making sure the policy is sensible and fair while staying focused on the goal.

Getting homes back into use for San Diegans.

My priority, our office's priority is San Diego families.

This is one piece of a broader strategy to lower the cost of living and expand opportunity.

And the opportunity before us is straightforward.

We can act to address the harm caused when thousands of homes sit empty while everyday people are working incredibly hard just to afford a place to live.

Uh, to that point, uh, I I do just want to acknowledge we heard other um potential solutions that we should be pursuing.

I hear those, we support many of those.

We've not given up on the idea that the current short-term vacation rental ordinance needs to have loopholes closed because it's being exploited.

I continue to believe that there should be a waiting period for corporations before they're able to purchase homes that gives everyday people a fighting chance to buy that first home.

But we have an opportunity to act today and act in a way that really will benefit San Diego in multiple ways.

Staff recommendation, Council President.

Thank you.

All right.

We have a motion by Councilmember Elo Rivera to move the staff recommendation, and my colleagues will note that I've been criticized in the past for not managing uh these meetings very well.

And I know you all made special accommodations to uh participate in this uh special uh session of the rules committee.

And as you saw, I did put a time limits on Councilmember Ela Rivera, and I will do that on all of us.

So with that, I will now go to Council President Pro Tem Lee.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, and thank you to Councilmember Elo Rivera and your team for your efforts not only to bring this discussion to the forefront, uh, but especially in bringing it back and taking that time to further analyze and adjust this measure over the last several weeks.

Uh as I mentioned during the last hearing, we are absolutely experiencing a housing crisis.

And I want to be clear that I do believe that different types of housing stock do have impacts on housing availability and affordability.

Uh nothing seems more obvious to me than homes that are literally standing empty.

Uh given that, I remain supportive of taxing empty second homes and vacation homes.

Um I said this during uh the last meeting, but if someone can afford to own a second home and not use it for any purpose, they can absolutely afford to pay that tax, and they should.

Uh something I'd especially be curious of is actually how many owners of second homes, vacation homes don't even live within the city of San Diego.

Um the last several weeks have also given the IBA an opportunity to issue their report, uh, which I greatly appreciate.

Uh your analysis on benchmarked cities as well as offering a range of expectations based on that benchmarking, I believe is critical information as we move forward to appropriately manage voter expectations.

Um what it does indicate at the end of the day is that there is real revenue to be generated.

And I would note that the suggested range would have a significant impact on a continual budgetary efforts, especially when we look at uh the adjustments that the council tends to make at the end of each budget cycle and how much we have been able to accomplish even with that limited funding.

Um I especially appreciate the IBA for offering uh various considerations as we move forward.

Um, one of the specific items mentioned in the report was the consideration of an exemption for newly built housing so that we don't inadvertently impact new for sale housing production and the creation of home ownership opportunities that we hope this measure too might indirectly offer.

Uh so with that feedback in mind, um, I'm happy to second the item um and offer uh the following amendments to address specifically that um item that was pointed out by the IBA.

I think we're gonna get it up on screen.

Uh the first amendment would be to amend uh under definitions under empty home exclusion period to add an additional definition for newly built housing period, and then the second amendment is to add the definition for newly built housing period, meaning the period during which the a builder's newly constructed residential unit remains vacant while being actively offered for sale, provided that such period shall not exceed two years from the date that the residential unit was first issued a certificate of occupancy, uh, which I believe would help to address that particular comment, and I'll turn it back to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Happy to include those.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President Pro Tem.

Thank you.

Oh, okay.

Um with that, uh so we have a motion by Councilmember Ilo Rivera to move the staff recommendation as amended by Council President Pro Tem Lee and a second by Council President Pro Tem Lee.

And that concludes your comments, sir.

All right, with that, we will go to Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, I want to thank Councilmember Elo Rivera, the district nine team as well for bringing back a revised proposal on this item.

Uh, when the proposal was first discussed last October, uh, I had noted uh that I was open to a vacancy tax.

Um at that point I stated that a second home simply used as an inactive piece of an investment portfolio without creating any business jobs or cash flow had minimal economic productivity.

Uh so a narrowly tailored vacancy tax uh might uh achieve the goals that we are aiming for, and so I appreciate that this has come back today.

Uh and last time this issue was discussed, uh I had raised some cons uh concerns about how the previous version uh of the policy would impact everyday San Diegans, and I appreciate that this the amount of people impacted by this proposal is far, far less than what it was last time.

Uh and I think that this is a good example of how local governance ought to be.

Uh, collaborative listening uh to input and uh the proposal today shows us that.

And urgency does not mean we abandon uh diligence or rush ideas.

Uh my opinion, this is uh a really good uh example of how policy should get to where we are today, and it's back again at committee.

Uh obviously we disagreed and debated uh heavily the last two times, uh, but now here we are with something that's far more narrowly tailored.

So what we have today is a step in the right direction.

I do have a few concerns still, uh, but I would like to uh get into some depth.

Uh I think that uh I I heard a couple callers uh say some things that I think we need to uh uh uh dissuade the public of.

Uh from a purely mathematical point of view, I think this policy will bring in revenue.

Uh someone said that the proposal will raise the cost of housing.

I respectfully disagree.

Uh how could a home that is empty and generating no potential economic activity drive up the prices uh when putting the unit on the market would create more competition for housing and thereby lead to a lower or at least stable price.

Uh that comment I found to be um completely ungrounded.

Um I do have legal concerns about the structure of the tax.

Uh, whenever we are introducing a tax or a fee, we have to connect the charge to the impact of the behavior we are focusing on.

Uh and if we don't, we risk due process challenges.

Uh several people have pointed out the issue uh with a case from San Francisco.

So I do have uh some uh questions for the city attorney.

Uh first I have a question for the staff.

I noticed that one of the final um slides pointed out updates that might be coming uh regarding tier three and tier four short term vacation rentals being excluded.

It will is that part of the that's not part of the motion as it stands right now, but uh I'm wondering will that exclusion be part of the definition of what an empty home is, or will that be listed as an exemption uh under a different section of the ordinance itself.

Uh thank you, Councilmember.

Uh Deputy City Attorney David Powell.

Uh my understanding is that's going to be specifically excluded from the definition of what a residential unit is rather than an exclusion period.

Uh the exclusive periods can be added together to to equal up to more than 182 days.

So that would just be a wholesale exemption more or less from the definition of empty home, whenever we see see this at full council, we'll say tier three and tier four are not part of the definition of empty home.

That is correct.

Okay, thank you.

Um I do have a question about the the fee itself.

Uh we've seen various versions of the fee.

First it was five thousand for a room, now it's eight to ten thousand per home, four to five thousand more if it's a corporate owned home.

Um is there can the can either staff or the city attorney please explain how the how that number was derived and what the nexus is between that figure and the harm that's caused by vacancy on the rental or homeowning market.

Uh obviously the fewer units there are, the more expensive housing will be.

I'm just wondering how eight thousand dollars, four thousand dollars additional is the figure and what that nexus is.

Uh Councilmember Toby, if I if I may jump in.

Um we are aiming to do is learn from what Berkeley applied and and what their tax is, uh, some of the other cities that are are benchmarked, the San Diego housing market, um, and make sure that we're achieving the intended goal, which is to encourage folks to either put the home on the market uh for rent or for sale, um, and we believe that this is a a tax rate that is set in such a way that will encourage folks to do that.

Um that is the primary motivation.

Um and so um it's our best um estimate at what will achieve that desired outcome.

Understood, appreciate that answer.

Um the I I guess one of the concerns is that um if it's the basis of that estimate is important thing to understand so that it would be a legally defensible or uh proposal.

Um I know that you're saying that's the best estimate.

Uh there I mean there is a argument that it could be more and it would still be legally defensible, or it could be less to be more legally defensible.

Um I I hear that you're pointing out that that's that's your best estimate and and I appreciate that.

Um City Attorney's Office, people have brought up the fact that the Ellis Act, uh, Councilmember Elo Rivera pointed out uh um essentially what it is.

Uh can you elaborate on what the Ellis Act uh is at the state level?

Um I can go into high level detail on it if you'd like, but uh I think Councilmember Elo Vera did allude to it earlier is that uh it's a prohibition on the the city uh preventing uh rental or requiring certain rentals of properties.

Um I don't have an in-depth definition at hand at this moment.

I'd be happy to work with your office on on further detailing that if you'd like at a later point in time, though.

Understood.

Um I I think uh it's important.

Well are you familiar with the case, De Bain versus City and County of San Francisco?

Uh yes, Councilmember, we have reviewed that along with outside counsel.

We've had uh in-depth discussions with uh with council district nine as well on that.

Um, and our office has has worked to address the concerns that were raised in that case to distinguish what our current law has in order to make what we have as legally defensible as possible at this time.

Understood.

Well um can you explain why you think the different the outcome would be different from what the Superior Court in San Francisco did or what those differentiations between Measure MR and what this proposal outlines so that we can withstand the legal challenge?

So it's at this point it's it's difficult to say.

Um as we all know a courts can come to any ruling that they would like, and we can't guess what their ruling would potentially be.

Um however, again, in working with outside council, we do have a specific exemption uh that is listed in the in our current tax measure um that exempts uh four or more units or four or less units, excuse me, where the home where the owner is uh occupying one of those units.

Uh we believe that is um that is what will be needed in order to withstand an LS Act uh claim.

Uh and we have again worked with outside council on that specific provision uh to to make sure we address that and as it was addressed in the San Francisco law.

Understood, council president.

I see I'm close to my time.

If I could have the three minutes uh added, please.

Okay, so um so Measure M in San Francisco did not have an exemption for properties of four or less units in it?

Uh thank you, Councilman.

Uh that's my understanding.

Um I I haven't read that law in full.

Um I did I have reviewed the the ruling from uh the court in that case, but have not read the entire uh ordinance in that case.

Um but that is my understanding.

Okay.

And we're using outside council to support our efforts in analysis of this tax, right?

That is correct.

Okay.

I I if if maybe at full council, Mr.

Faye could be present or online to be able to explain this.

I know I've worked with him in my office has worked with him before, so I I I would appreciate uh his his input on that.

Um the just really quickly on that point.

If does the does this mean that does that exemption mean that single family homes uh on a property because they do not have four units on that property that are empty second homes are exempted by this law, or are single family homes that are empty going to be exempt taxed or exempted?

The way you phrase it right out sound it sounds like you're saying that essentially condo buildings and pe landlords of apartments that are keeping units open or vacant are going to be taxed.

But mm correct me if my impression is wrong.

So trying to understand give me a second here if I can't.

Um but so my understanding is that the way it's structured is if a homeowner on their property has four or less units, including ADUs, uh, and they'd live in one of those units, they would be exempt from the law.

I see.

Okay.

So if there's a single family home that doesn't have its person the person using as a primary residence, it would be taxed.

Got it.

Okay, thank you for clearing that up.

Um from the IBA, uh a question based on what I've heard someone from the public ask, it's leading down this line of questioning.

Um, how many short-term vacation rental licenses are still available under our our current system?

Do we know?

Um for tier three, it's unlimited.

And for tier four, I'd have to look it up.

Tier three is unlimited.

I thought it was one percent per planning areas.

There's still remaining licenses, tier four, there's no more left.

That's right.

So in tier three, how many do we have?

Do we know?

I'll have to work with the treasurer's office to get a number.

I I can jump in the current amount that are remaining is on is is around 900 something.

I think 950.

Okay, understood.

Uh for the IBA, did the revenue assumption uh that you put out there include potential behavior of second homeowners converting their properties to short-term vacation rentals, which would generate TOT sales tax, a license fee, other things like that.

The excluded range does include potential number of folks that are going to leave the empty home category and become short-term rentals.

We don't model how many would then generate TOT revenue or additional licensing revenue, and we also don't model uh exactly how many may leave to become tier one, two, three uh STROs.

Understood.

So the revenue assumption is potentially conservative and it could actually draw in more revenue for the city based on the secondary effects.

There's different reasons why some of the assumptions could be more conservative or optimistic, which is why we have a 10 percent contingency ban on either end, what you're describing if there were more that became tier three, um, that would be something that would make it a little bit more conservative, but there's other things that are included in it that could make it a little bit more optimistic.

Understood.

Okay.

Uh just purely logically speaking, it seems that some of the second empty second homes might become short-term vacation rentals in and increasing that market and providing other forms of uh revenue to the city as well.

Uh so I would expect that people who want to keep their home vacant for whatever reason might say they'd rather utilize a tier three license, rent it out 90 days to make sure they maintain their license uh and then keep it open for the rest of the time.

Um lastly, um I brought this up in October.

Uh I just want to touch on it again.

Um I noticed that we're not going to be collecting the revenue to potentially until 2028.

Is there a reason to put it on the June ballot instead of in the November ballot?

I would point out the data show that as of eight years ago, voter participation doubles in San Diego between a June primary and a November general election, and for young voters, that participation increases fivefold.

Just wondering why we're going for June instead of November given the voter turnout.

Yeah, Councilor Compio, I think a very important component of why we're doing that is the efforts that are underway right now to place other tax measures, uh the potential tax and the potential tax measures that could be on the November ballot.

Um in the interest of making sure that this can be given a focused uh focused consideration by the voters, um, that it doesn't confuse anybody.

Yeah, it doesn't confuse anyone.

Folks don't get confused by uh comparing this to other measures.

It this it seemed like the most uh elegant way to have an isolated decision about this.

Uh I I will say that the desire to bring revenue into the door on an accelerated level is certainly something that weigh heavily on our mind given the budget situation that we're in, and we recognize that this is not going to be easy to implement, and so in trying to find that balance, um getting it passed in November also, or excuse me, in June would also mean more time for uh preparing for implementation.

We want this to be implemented well, and and we think that having the decision made in June will allow the city to do that.

Understood.

Thank you for that uh considerate answer.

Um I think that before the item reaches the ballot, um, there's still a little more homework to be done from the city attorney's uh office to make sure we get this right.

Um, and if we do that, we we have a real opportunity to address both budget deficit and housing affordable issues.

I I would want to see both of those be successful.

Uh, I'm requesting that the city attorney's office prepare a memorandum to robustly explain to the council the city's strengths and weaknesses in defending this proposal in court, which is incredibly important for me given that another court has struck down on summary judgment, which is before trial, meaning there was no tribal facts, it was simply found to be the case by the trial court uh based on the facts that were presented that it was violated Ellis Act, had constitutional issues, uh, and I'd ask that that memorandum also include recommendations, if there are any, to make the proposal more legally viable if that's possible.

Uh I look forward to reviewing that final version before council.

Uh, given the timeline that we're looking at, uh, I'll support moving this forward to council today, uh, but I am going to be relying on that memorandum to make a final decision.

Thank you.

All right, thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

It sounded like you were wrapping up, so we threw an extra minute on there so you could complete.

Thank you, Council Potts.

Uh, with that, we will go to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you.

Um, thank you, Maya, for the presentation.

And I want to thank my colleague Ilo Rivera for bringing this item forward.

Uh, we don't agree on every item or its solution.

Uh, but your open line of communication, your dedication, and your professionalism is why we're here today, and I thank you for that.

Uh, it's no surprise to everybody that we have a high housing crisis in San Diego.

Um, we hear about it every day from our residents to our own family.

And I often think about how my daughter will be able to live in San Diego in 20 years.

My decisions are based solely on how I believe on what I believe will benefit our youth's future.

So it comes as no surprise that I've been a big proponent of building more housing since this is the solution to get us out of a housing crisis.

The item today is one way we can get more housing on the market.

These empty homes are deeply hurting the housing market in our region.

Currently, the county of San Diego, in the county of San Diego, there are 20,227 empty homes.

And looking closely to home, in the city of San Diego, it was noted that we have 5,115 homes that are used as vacation homes or are simply empty homes.

These 5,150 empty homes do not help our housing crisis.

They do not help our local economy, and they do not help our school enrollment.

In 2024, the city of San Diego permitted 8,782 new residential units, including 1,061 deed-restricted affordable residential units.

I'm very proud of that number.

According to the regional housing needs assessment, the city's annual need for construction is 13,500 new residential units.

We need to encourage building more housing in San Diego.

However, this tax is one way to bring 5,115 homes into the market.

Now we will leave it up to voters to decide if this is a tool in their tool shed.

And I think it should come as no surprise because at last meeting I said I would be amendable to vote for an item that focused solely on these 5,115 homes.

So with that, um as this proposal is solely focused on the second empty homes, I will be supportive of the motion in front of us today.

And that concludes my comments.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Moreno.

Uh seeing that everyone's spoken, I will offer a few comments myself.

I want to thank Council Member Elo Rivera, Maya, um, and all the departments that have weighed in to polish from the big idea to something very specific that can be a good candidate for the ballot.

I wanted to speak to just a couple of things.

One, um, and I think Councilmember Elo Rivera and Councilmember Campillo's questions kind of led to this.

This is not going to help us for the FY27 budget.

It probably really doesn't even help us for the FY28 budget.

Uh it if it gets out of committee, gets out of council, the voters pass it.

Uh, it would be uh potential revenue at whatever level those owners decide to operate with uh for FY29.

So it's really looking two years out.

And I actually appreciate that because while we have done a number of things, I have done a number of things that I've taken ownership of, some of which the public likes and some of which the public does not.

Um I've also been watching for 20 years where elected officials uh failed to either do small things or big things for problems they knew about our city budget uh that were more concerned about their popularity or the angry, the anger of the electorate.

Uh, and had they taken different actions over all the years, we might have found ourselves in a much different place.

I will also note that they also hid a lot of our problems, and there is more transparency today, which is why some of our pictures look a lot uglier.

Um a couple of other thoughts.

One of the criticisms, well, one of the things I've heard, those who are opposed to this and those who are in favor of this has really spanned the rhetoric of what this measure does.

And the reality, I think, is the IBA is really taking a good beat on it's gonna be someplace uh here in the middle.

I'm very interested in some of the people that have complained about the verification process and how intrusive that is.

And those same people often complain that government in fact doesn't do verification and lets people get away with things.

Uh, and that um so there's always that balance.

Um the only thing I'm gonna add to some of the good suggestions.

Thank you, Council President Prolium Lee, for your amendment.

I think it was a good one.

The other one that I would ask D9 to look into, I'm not gonna make an amendment, is to look at uh properties that are on the market.

I've decided I don't want my second home anymore.

I don't want to rent it, I just want to get rid of it.

And if the market tends to be flat, it could sit there empty uh for a number a period of time and how we might deal with that.

Um so I would ask you to just take a look in into how that might be dealt with.

Um other than that, um, if this and it sounds like it's gonna get out of committee, I might have a few more thoughts uh when it comes to um full council.

Uh but with that uh we have a motion by councilmember Ila Rivera uh as amended uh and a second by council president pro tem Lee.

And with that, uh Natalie, please call the vote.

And the motion passes unanimously 5-0.

Great.

That brings us to the uh end of today's agenda.

I will now adjourn this special meeting of the rules committee until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held Wednesday, March 18, 2026 at 9 a.m.

We are adjourned, and again, thank you to all the committee members for your willingness to show up for a special meeting.