All right, good morning.

I will call the rules committee of Wednesday, April 22nd, 2026 to order and call the roll.

Vice Chair, Council President Pro Tam Flee.

Here.

Councilmember Campion.

Here.

Councilmember Moreno.

Present.

Councilmember Elo Rivera.

I understand he's going to be a little bit late.

And I am present.

Also attending the meeting today, Jillian Andalina with the Office of the Independent Budget Analyst, Kathy Simon with the Office of the City Attorney.

Matt Yeagan with the office of the mayor of Mayor Todd Gloria.

And Abby Reuters, committee consultant.

Sarah, please continue with public comment instructions.

Thank you, Council President.

If you're in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of the committee room and place it on the top of the box indicated at 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, and members of the public can also join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage.

If you need to participate by telephone, you may dial 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160 439-9420 pound.

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

Please note that if you're watching via City TV 24 or online, there may be a delay, and please participate via the audio on your phone and mute your TV or computer when it is your turn to speak.

If you wish to speak to a particular item, please wait for that item to be called.

Then raise your hand to speak by type tapping the raise your hand icon if you're a Zoom user or by tapping star nine on your cell phone or landline.

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

Chair.

All right.

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

The quorum is now present.

We will start by taking up non-agenda public comment.

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

Sarah, please proceed with non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

Per Rule 2.7.

Non-agenda public comment is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on the agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee, and each speaker will have two minutes.

Again, if you need to participate by telephone, you may dial 1669-2545252, being sure to input webinar ID 16049-9420 pound.

We've received one speaker slip here in the committee room, so we will begin in-person testimony with Paul Kruger.

You will have two minutes.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment at this time.

As a reminder, each speaker will have two minutes.

And we will begin with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and provide your comment at this time.

All right, thank you, Blair Beekman.

Thanks a lot for the words of Paul Kruger.

Really nice to hear.

Um, to create a study process on the middle management issues uh is a really good idea.

And somewhat long term, and I think fits in nicely to what I'm trying to describe is that we don't have to be on this dead set course of uh reducing the the San Diego budget deficit in a short amount of time.

I think we can take some time to do it, and if we're clear on that with each other, that allows us a little breathing room.

And um to also mention, you know, he Paul mentioned that you know, why wasn't the mayor coordinating with wealthy donors for when art funding is gonna be cut?

The same can be said is that he's wanting to the mayor is wanting to cut services for the Neil Good uh Day Center.

That is a vital center for the community in the area.

It's shocking he wants to do that.

Um I'm a part of that system actually, and I need that place a lot.

I mean, for showers for mail, um just a place to be in the daytime.

It's shocking he's doing this.

Why doesn't the mayor coordinate social services to be at that location and to help with people find housing and make it a regular stop for city government persons to help in a process?

Um the mayor has said, you know, it doesn't serve any part of long-term permanent housing.

Uh, which why don't we coordinate things, programs, ideas?

You know, it's that sort of thinking that is really lacking from uh the mayor.

Everyone is so dead set on cutting things that we're not better solving our problems.

And it's really disheartening.

And it really, I really ask the people who are so dead set on cutting things to review and reflect that social services are really really needed.

It's it's heartfelt.

What are you doing?

You're offering to cut things.

Thank you.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Madison.

Please unmute and begin.

Hi, good morning, Chair and members of the rules committee.

I want to highlight a federal policy change that is still very relevant to your work here at the local level.

Congress is actively revising hemp policy, including a shift to a total THC standard that is set to take effect this November.

This is significant because it changes how hemp is defined and regulated, moving beyond just Delta 9 THC to account for the total intoxicating potential of a product.

This change is in part a response to unintended consequences we've seen over the past several years, where products marketed as hemp still have had intoxicating effects, but operated in a gray area with less oversight.

For a committee like this, focused on rules, procedures, and governance.

This applies because it highlights how quickly regulatory frameworks can evolve when gaps are identified at the local level here in San Diego.

Policies around cannabis, hemp derived products, retail and enforcement may need to adapt as federal definitions change.

What is considered compliant today may look very different in just a few months.

This underscores the importance of building local government to be flexible, carefully reviewed, and mindful of unintended consequences, especially when it comes to intoxicating products that can impact youth access, public safety, and community standards.

Thank you for your time this morning.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Francine Maxwell.

Please unmute and begin.

Good morning, Francine Maxwell, Southeastern San Diego resident.

It would be nice sometimes if we would remind people that Mayor Todd Gloria is not in charge of social services.

It is the county of San Diego.

So people need to contact their board of supervisors rep that they voted in.

And again, yesterday they voted to extend their terms.

So get to know your county board of supervisor who is in charge of social services.

The rules committee should be working harder on communication and customer service with the constituents and educating them on the liability fund.

Yesterday, 450,000, 450,000 in closed session was awarded to somebody.

Unpack how come they got that?

Because you knew that you were going, if you were taken to court, they would get four times as much.

And so the community cannot build trust if they're not being educated on what's occurring right now with the different line items of money that the city has so that they can truly understand why something is being cut, why we're not going to that line item that has money.

The money that has been paid out of the liability fund needs to be shared with the community so that we can build trust so that if you do want to go back to a measure E.

If you do want to propose something about another revenue stream, we can trust that your word is going to be your bond, and that there's not going to be a loophole in tiny print on that ballot measure.

So again, let's start using our communication, the public outreach that falls under the rules commission committee on educating people.

Again, we have not heard from the SDPD about any of the investigations, why they're doing things and classifying them as miscellaneous.

Cost in the city a lot of money.

So you have the power, you're the legislative branch.

Hold the hearing, and let's be more transparent on educating our residents.

Thank you for your comment.

The five-minute timer has expired with one hand remaining in the queue.

We will take no other callers beyond this one hand remaining.

Judy Strang, please unmute and provide your testimony.

Good morning, rules committee.

Uh, regarding the budget.

And many of us spoke to our concern for youth services.

And along that same line, something that I've wanted or have been trying to say more and more over the last couple of years is the financial value of prevention, especially when it comes to the journey that our young people take into adulthood and the recognition of all of us who work with youth that alcohol tobacco and drug use primarily begins before the age of 19.

So it matters what we do on behalf of our young people and how we spend our money on youth programming.

And to that end, I would just like to reiterate how much it costs after the fact when children, young adults begin a negative journey into their young adulthood, and it costs the city, and that's why prevention is so important when we look at the budget funding.

Is this a prevention item?

Will it deter long-term costs down the way?

And I just like to suggest, since this is the rules committee, that one of the areas where rules could be really valuable and making prevention work is to do something about, and there's been efforts.

I'm not denying that, and a lot of that falls to code enforcement and to our law enforcement.

We really need to get all the illegal intoxicating products off our store front windows where you can see them, and in the store.

This would make a great deal of difference to our neighborhoods if we weren't normalizing its use by such visual displays.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

And Chair, this concludes non-agenda public comment.

All right, thank you, sir.

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

Not seeing any.

Do we have any requests for continuance?

Not seeing any.

Thank you, Chair.

The consent agenda includes item number one approval of the committee minutes of March 18th, 2026.

And item number two, amendments to the San Diego Municipal Code, Chapter 2, Article 7, Division 1 related to the San Diego Unified School District Board of Education District Primary Elections.

Thank you.

These items will remain on the consent unless the committee member requests to pull an item off consent.

And if are there any requests to pull an item?

Not hearing any.

Thank you.

The draft ordinance in item two is undergoing legal review, and the final draft may be different than what is before you today.

That concludes my comments.

All right, thank you, Kathy.

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

Thank you, Chair.

We've not received any speaker slips here in chambers.

So beginning the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on consent agenda items one and or two.

We will start with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and indicate which item or items you'd wish to speak to.

All right, one minute, please begin.

Yeah, uh, I just wanted to quickly offer that um uh on the the meeting minutes are for the uh meetings in February, and you had a really important special meeting on uh the future of uh taxing second homes issues.

It was a it was a good compromise and and and pretty good reasoning to to work that out.

So thank you for that.

I hope within that that if if there needs to be small adjustments to that, um that they can be uh listened to and um understood and and agreements can be reached to understand those things better and um Yeah, uh besides that, I think it's it had a really good uh sense about it and attempts what it was working towards.

And uh thank you for those attempts.

Thank you for your testimony and chair.

This concludes comment on the consent agenda items one and two.

All right.

Uh thank you, sir.

I'll now turn over to committee members for questions, comments, and retain a motion, and I motion to move the consent.

Um pro tem Lee, a second by Councilmember Moreno.

So again, we have um a motion by council president pro tem lee and a second by councilmember Moreno to move the consent agenda.

Let's just do a voice vote.

All in favor?

Yes.

Any opposed, abstaining?

All right, that passes unanimously.

Now moving on to the discussion agenda before I introduce item three.

As you know, we have a special process for ballot measures this time of year.

So before introducing item three, which is a ballot item, I'd like to inform the public that two other ballot measures proposals, which were submitted on time, but for meeting management purposes were scheduled to be heard in April, have been withdrawn.

Thus, we only have one ballot measure proposal for consideration today.

In accordance with council policy zero-21, the rules committee may take the following actions.

One, the committee may request that proponents of a proposal or as city department furnishing background information, provide an analysis of the proposal, and report back to the committee, or two, the committee may refer the measure to the city attorney's office to prepare a ballot measure.

Once the ballot measure has been drafted, the measure will return to the committee for a second discussion, including any additional policy direction necessary to complete a draft of the measure before the measure is forwarded to the council for consideration.

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

So with that, Sarah, please introduce item three.

Thank you, Council President.

Item number three, initial committee review of a ballot measure proposed by Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee to advance a large portfolio home ownership speculation tax.

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

And when prompted, input webinar ID 160-439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right, thank you.

Well, as you settle in, uh introduce yourself for the record and let us know how much time you need for your presentation.

Or you want to kick it off, sir.

Yeah, Council President, if you don't mind, I'll take uh a short piece of the time just to uh provide an initial kickoff.

Um we're bringing this item forward today because as we all know, the city and the city council spends quite a bit of time talking about uh the cost of housing uh here in San Diego.

And I believe that as a city we have um taken many efforts to try to address the cost of housing, everything from expanding housing capacity, uh streamlining permitting, uh, to looking at other ways to lower um the costs to actually build.

Um what a lot of that doesn't actually address at the end of the day is how attainable housing ultimately is.

And so our chief of policy, Angela Hoyas is going to be presenting a uh ballot measure for consideration that looks specifically on uh the impacts to home ownership opportunities uh here in the San Diego, uh specifically from what we're gonna be defining as large portfolio homeownership.

Uh and with that, I'll pass it to our chief of policy, Angeli Hoyes.

All right.

Thank you.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh, my name is Angie Hoyos, Chief of Policy for Council President Pro Tem Kent Lee, and I will need four minutes.

All right.

We are here today to present an initial review of a potential ballot measure regarding a large portfolio home ownership speculation tax.

Several factors contribute to the lack of home ownership opportunities in San Diego, including the growing acquisition of single family homes by speculators and an institutional investors.

Large portfolio owners often engage in the speculative investment activity of buying single-family homes and renting them out for revenue generation.

For the purposes of our measure, our office defines homes as single family residential units, condos, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.

In addition, our office defines large portfolio owners as individuals, business entities, or corporations that own 10 or more homes.

While short and long-term housing is a vital component of the housing ecosystem, this concentration of homes could otherwise be purchased by current and future San Diegan families.

This activity results in increased competition for entry-level homes, causing an already constrained inventory to be further reduced.

With that, the goal of this measure is to preserve access to home ownership opportunities for San Diegans, ensure that large portfolio owners contribute fairly to city services and generate additional revenue for the city's general fund, which would benefit all San Diegans and visitors.

As noted on the slide, there are several other conditions that make home ownership in the city increasingly unattainable for a typical family, such as the median household being approximately 11,000, while the median home price is approximately 930,000.

The homeownership rate in San Diego being around 47%.

And for context, California's homeownership rate is approximately 55%, and nationwide it's 65%.

And the city permitting more apartments or multifamily than single-family homes during the current sixth arena cycle.

We also found that at the local and state level, policymakers have expressed interest in understanding the impact of corporate ownership of homes.

Just recently in the city of Los Angeles, the city council voted to study how large property buyers may be preventing residents from becoming homeowners.

And with publicly available data, our office focused specifically on the impact of housing meant for home ownership opportunities, which again includes single-family residential units, condos, duplexes, triplexes, and forplexes.

Of these types of housing, 6,000 units were determined to be held by owners operating 10 or more as rental units, and approximately 85% of which are owned by business or investment act entities.

The city issues a rental unit business tax that is managed by the Office of the City Treasurer.

This tax is imposed annually on property that is advertised or otherwise held out for lease or rent during the calendar year within the city of San Diego.

Our office would like to explore amending this tax by imposing a new fee on large portfolio owners of single-family homes.

With that, Council District 6 request to work with the Office of the City Attorney, the independent budget analyst, and other relevant city departments to further analyze and develop language of the proposed ballot measure and report back to the rules committee.

Thank you.

That concludes our presentation.

All right.

Thank you for the presentation and the work to bring this forward.

Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Council President.

We've received two speaker slips here in chambers.

We will begin with Paul Krueger.

Each speaker will have two minutes to speak to item three.

Oh, thank you very much.

I I have a something I like to show you.

Um it's unfortunate that for six years, um, myself and others have pointed out to you one of the pitfalls of the bonus ADU program, which is um speculators like I buy San Diego, uh buying single family homes and turning them into rental complexes.

For six years, we told you that this was a significant impact on the availability of families to buy starter homes.

And for six years, you ignored us until the good people of Encanto and Henry Foster came by and put a face of equity on this issue.

I would suggest to you that you please take considerable amount of time figuring out exactly what it is you want to do with this tax and who you wish to target.

Um you're gonna run into a problem with companies, not necessarily corporations, splitting units to get under 10.

Um of them may have 15, 20.

They get a lawyer, they split the ownership, and it's not an issue anymore.

Number three, we all know that uh these big companies work their way around taxes by what?

They charge more for what they're renting.

You know, one thing I've learned in the last four years is it's really hard to outbox the market.

I'm not saying it's good or bad.

I'm saying that businesses that are in business to make profit find ways to get around these rules, no matter how well-intentioned they are.

Um people rent renting some of these homes is not necessarily a bad thing because people who may be willing to live in a house that's one they won't buy have a place to live.

So please think this through very closely.

Thank you.

Thank you for your concluding remark.

Stephanie Ben Voodoo.

Good morning.

Thank you very much for the conversation.

I want to start.

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

I want to start by thanking District 6 and their staff for being very communicative with us on this topic and what they're thinking of trying to do.

It's very appreciated that they're coming in with such a level of transparency.

We are here with the level of support for the conversation to explore housing solutions, but want to be very clear about unintended consequences and how easy it is to slip into those.

My friend Mr.

Kruger was very good about pointing out that there's nothing wrong with rental housing, and we want to ensure that we're not slipping into a situation where we are taxing rental homes to a very narrow, very specific policy should we decide to proceed with that.

Additionally, the possibility for stymieing development in single family zones where we're currently as a city looking to talk about modest density improvements, like with the mayor's neighborhood homes for all, SB 79 implementation.

Those are programs that are designed to go into single family zones and modestly increase the density there.

And we don't want to slow investment where we could see, you know, three, four, or five townhomes, something along those lines, and the investment groups that will come in to make those visions a reality.

We want to acknowledge that.

Thank you for the work that you've done, but ask that we continue to be a part of this conversation with you as we take next steps.

So thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on item three, beginning with Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

All right, thank you.

Um thank you for this item.

Um interesting.

Kent Lee is working on it.

Um I'm interested how this will be progressing.

Um it was nice to hear uh different points of view uh in the first public comments.

And um it sounds like you know, a balance is trying to be reached.

And I mean, from my previous public comment, uh after I finished my public comment, I realized I ended it a little strongly.

And to be, you know, fair, if we're going for good reasoning, that's what's key.

If we have a good reasoning around uh what we're doing at this time with these sort of issues, that's important.

And that's what you're trying to do for this item, it sounds like you know, take in all sides, all perspectives, and come out with a policy that can really serve people and housing well, and that people don't take advantage of that.

And I think we have to acknowledge this as much as we want a free market, um, that system goes out of balance and out of whack sometimes.

And we good luck what we're doing to try to address that now in San Diego.

And I think um you're trying to find good solutions and keep up the good reasoning with this sort of item.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony and chair with no other hands up in the queue.

This concludes comment for item number three.

All right.

Uh, thank you again, Sarah.

So I'll turn it back over to the committee members' questions, comments, entertain a motion for item three, and we'll start with Council President Pro Dam Lee.

Thank you, Council President, and uh thank you to my colleagues for uh considering this uh measure proposal today.

Uh the reason this item is before you today is because of a topic that we are hearing across the country, uh, which is the corporate ownership of single-family homes.

Uh we're seeing efforts to address this at every level of government.

Uh the U.S.

Senate recently passed its bipartisan 21st century Road to Housing Act, uh, including provisions uh to curb uh institutional investors uh purchasing single family homes.

The governor has called for action uh at the state level, and we're seeing uh bills move through the state as well.

And even at the local level, the county of San Diego embarked on a study to understand the corporate ownership of homes just a few years ago.

Uh the reality is that the large portfolio ownership of single family homes is commercializing the American dream.

We all hear the stories.

A new and hopeful family is looking for their very first home, uh, more challenging than ever given the costs that they are facing today.

And they find not even their dream home, but just a starter home.

Uh and they put down a competitive bid, only to find out after the home has been sold that they were outbid by an investor uh picking up that home to put on the rental market, putting down an all-cash bid.

These types of owners are taking the promise of home ownership and turning it into a profit-making mechanism uh to pad their bottom line.

And this comes at a time that Americans are trying to come up in the world with rising costs being more challenging than ever, and homeownership for many becoming a more and more distant dream.

And our focus really specifically is on homes that we consider to be the types that would be available for home ownership.

These are single-family homes, duplexes, triplexes, and fourplexes.

And what you see that is not included in the exploration of this measure is what I would consider as purpose-built rental housing, uh, which is much of the multifamily housing that we see throughout San Diego.

So to some of the public comments that you've heard, that is why this measure aims to be targeted in its implementation.

I think we've had many discussions about the corporate ownership of homes.

I think it's worth uh time that we take as a study to uh as a city to study the issue to understand uh where the impacts are to ensure that if we do put forward a ballot measure and any legislation that it is done so in a way that is targeted and does not create the unintended consequences that we could face.

Um we are flexible on the timeline.

So you will notice that we are not asking you specifically to bring this back with an immediate intent uh with the deadline to put it on November's ballot.

Um we are intentional here about wanting to hear back from stakeholders from community members, again to understand the impacts that we are facing.

Uh again, based on some of the commentary that you've heard in public comment, uh some of the things that as a council and frankly as a council member who has been very focused on expanding housing opportunity that I'm focused on is ensuring that this is not targeting newly built housing and deterring us from building new housing.

Um that we come up with a policy and a measure that does not simply result in the rents of everyday San Diegans uh being raised and seeing these costs simply passed on.

Uh we also want to keep in mind that any tax imposed should be progressive, and it would scale by uh the level of which we see um these large portfolio homeowners um operating their property.

Now, what is unique about San Diego that makes this possible is our um rental unit business tax system.

Uh what this measure is designed to do is not to tax the ownership of homes.

Uh owners of homes have choices on how they want to utilize uh the homes that they own.

And many of them choose to rent them out.

And that is why, specifically in this policy, we are looking at when we consider large portfolio, those who choose to operate 10 or more single family homes in those categories as rentals.

Um I'm certain there are going to be a lot of questions.

We're still early in the process, and we'll be looking forward to engaging uh stakeholders and the public as we move forward and certainly look forward to any of the questions that my colleagues might have today as well.

Thank you.

And I'll take that as a motion to let me go ahead and move the uh recommendation that you saw.

Didn't know if you have a change of heart.

Okay, we have a motion by Council President Pro Gemili.

It will go next to Councilmember Campio.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh thank you, Council President Pro Tem Lee, thank you, Anjali, for your presentation for bringing the item for discussion today.

Uh absolutely uh seems like the right set of steps forward.

Just very plain question, no timeline for when to bring this.

Um does that also mean you intend not to bring this this November if or it seems to me the study would take a lot more, a lot longer to get to our uh last council meeting, which I think is July 14th to actually put it on the ballot.

So when we brought this forward, the intent was certainly to look at November, but that is not necessarily the deadline.

So we'd rather um take the time to make sure that we actually get this right, especially given how complex it could be and whether that matches that November timeline is to be seen.

We also understand there are a lot of other uh circumstances at the moment for the November ballot, uh including other measures, other repeals that are being discussed.

And I think all of that is important to consider as as we look at what's being put forward to voters.

Understood.

Well, I appreciate that the that the consideration is is uh is absolutely well thought out.

Um I think what you've put in front of us today, Council President Pro Tem Lee is is the right approach to policymaking and problem solving uh of something that our constituents want to see us solve.

Um obviously this concept's coming to us early, and as you pointed out, bringing all the stakeholders together uh in public to the table uh is is what I'm observing here.

And so if we indeed want to open doors to homes to San Diegans, uh we cannot come up with those solutions behind closed doors.

So thank you for your approach.

Uh, like my colleagues uh has mentioned, uh, and as all the colleagues have mentioned at many meetings before, being in a position to buy a home is simply out of reach for the vast majority of young people, families and people whose families have lived here for generations.

And some are in a position to buy a home and lay down roots.

Others have families that pool together life savings to keep their children and grandchildren close.

And so for the chance to throw their hat into the ring for a home, whether that's a condo or apartment or single family home, they are taking a big risk.

If that's completely out of reach here, they're not going to keep waiting for the right time to buy.

They are simply going to leave.

And we've seen many of them leave to Temecula and Marietta and Menifee or out of state where there's a chance to own a home and live without crunching budgets month over month.

But our top, our region's top employers, best employers, some of the best employers in the entire world are still here in San Diego.

So the resulting sprawl and traffic continue to get worse and worse.

But as you've pointed out, Council President Pro Tim Lee, we need to be able to accurately diagnose the issue and come up with a policy that does not have the unintended consequences.

And so because you're uh looking at that and and because I know our constituents are so desperate to buy homes and remain in San Diego.

I think what you've put before us is an excellent starting point and something I'm very interested in seeing more of.

So I will second your motion and thank you very much and your team very much for what they have before today.

And I am looking forward to what the stakeholders give back in terms of their feedback of how to craft this in the best way possible.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you for that, sir.

So we have a motion by Council President Pro Kam Lee and a second by Council Member Kempio.

Uh we'll go next to Councilmember Elo Rivera.

Thank you, Council President.

Uh apologies for not being present in the room for the presentation.

I did I was able to watch.

Um and I appreciated uh Council President Pro Tem the way you kick this off, which is that you know this council in partnership with the mayor, um in terms of big cities, we probably have done the most to try to expand housing opportunity and sometimes with significant pushback.

Um but I think the commitment has been there because the understanding of the need is shared across the spectrum on this council.

Um it's as real as it gets uh for everyday people.

Housing is a human right.

Um that means that um corporate and speculative investment that makes housing more difficult to access is wrong.

Corporate owned housing and housing speculation are the opposite of of that belief that housing is a human right.

So um thank you for bringing this forward and being and and thinking creatively about the problem and how we can address it.

The purchasing and commodification of single-family homes, historically owner-occupied family housing, is a threat to the ability for San Diegans to be able to have the opportunity to buy and live in a single-family home above and beyond the low housing supply that has made San Diego so unaffordable.

Um while um this is a major issue in some other regions, and it may not have proliferated quite as much here yet, it's important to um try to get ahead of it becoming an even worse problem uh before it does.

Corporate ownership of housing is currently a major issue in the multifamily rental housing market as well.

Global investment firms that rake in tons of money for stockholders, are doing so at the expense of renters by not taking good care of their properties, um, having used algorithmic software to maximize their rent, charging as many fees as possible.

And these corporations like Blackstone and Graystar have a very visible track record of doing whatever it takes to maximize returns at the expense of renters and everyday people.

I I hope this is beginning the beginning of more leadership on this council to push back on this problem and make clear that San Diego is not a place where these faceless corporations can swoop in and extract hardworking families every last dollar for providing a basic human need.

Um, Council President uh Pro Temli, thank you for uh uh stepping up to address this to address investors purchasing and rental single single family homes.

Um what I hope we can take more action on examples like requiring a right of first refusal to families over corporations.

Um we also need to stop step up and address corporations owning thousands of multifamily rentals from afar.

Uh investors trying to get rich quick, flipping low-cost housing into luxury homes on a large scale.

And so uh some additional questions I think we need to think about as this comes back.

And obviously, you what you're working on is super complex.

You can't address every fat every angle of this uh problem in one uh potential ballot measure.

Um very glad that you are being so intentional from the front end about preventing taxes from being passed on to renters.

Um one I'm wondering if there's a tactic that could also capture large portfolio owners of multifamily rental properties or large-scale house flippers who may not own a lot of homes at any single moment in time.

And um then the other question, which is always um a difficult challenge any time we try to do anything on this front is um being able to capture the owners who decide to move properties under different ownership entities.

Um I don't know if you want to speak to any of those.

Yeah, happy to.

Actually, uh because that came up in public comment as well.

I think one of the challenges that has been recognized is that uh ownership entities can can sometimes be very muddled.

Um so our intent would be to work to develop language that um deters the aggregation of properties um just so that folks could not split into say 10 LLCs uh to simply avoid that.

Enforcement is always the challenge there.

And so um frankly, language for deterrence could be could be something that's implemented, but whether that actually is enforced becomes another question.

Um and and then to some of the other uh points that you mentioned, all helpful uh feedback that I think we've uh considered uh or would love to consider uh given the feedback that we're hearing.

I think one thing to recognize with the ballot measure is that there are limitations of what we believe would be included in a ballot measure and what might also be sparked in conversations um through this discussion and others might be items that don't require a ballot measure that could um be accomplished with other kind of council uh or city action.

Um and that that's certainly welcome as well, since uh it doesn't not everything has to go to the vote of the voters to implement.

So um that feedback's really appreciated.

Thanks, Council President Pro Tem.

Um one other point, because I I know it came up in public comment, and it comes up every time anything any time any tax is considered.

The earmarking of the funds, it of course, of course, the public would prefer that as just no no denying it.

We all know that.

We're not we're not um we're not dumb.

Like we know that it would give people more confidence.

And the way that California law is set up, because of anti-tax, anti-government radicals, that changes the threshold to two-thirds.

And that means that powerful, wealthy interests can spend relatively modest amounts of money to keep those taxes from being successful on the ballot.

So um we we know that that is the case.

Um I think our preference in many circumstances would be for that to be the case.

And there's a political reality that we have to operate within.

That we have a system that has been rigged by rich people, rigged by corporations.

They've set a standard for us to overcome that with the money that they spend in elections becomes almost insurmountable.

And so um I I just want to name that part because it's there's no ill intent from anyone I've seen who's put forward a general tax on this council to be deceptive in terms of how it's how those how those revenues are used.

It's a um a response to a reality that makes it extremely difficult for us to simultaneously take on large powerful corporate interests and pass specific use taxes that that target those interests.

So just wanted to speak to that reality.

Um I very much appreciate the effort that's being engaged in here, Council President Pro Tem.

Um I'm looking forward to see to seeing as what surrounds in the shape, um, not just what will go to the ballot, but the other part of that, the other thing that will flow from that, which is what you said, which is an understanding of okay, um this is on the path to the ballot, and these other issues which are real and should be addressed, um, should should just follow kind of the typical policy making process here in the council, and um, you know, we should we should take that on.

So uh thank you again, supportive of the motion.

Thanks, Council President.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Elo Rivera.

We'll go next to Councilmember Moreno.

Thank you.

Um and thank you for the presentation.

Um as a staunch housing advocate, I do have to say that when I read this, um, it gave me uh a little bit of uh it was concerning.

Um and my concern mainly uh stemmed from mom and pop owners who own maybe five units.

Um but um given um that I'm hearing your presentation here today, um it definitely makes me feel um uh a lot more comfortable.

I I do have a few questions though.

Um I I want to know like what is the intention?

Uh you did say that you don't necessarily need to see this measure on the ballot in November.

Uh when do you intend for this measure to come forward?

Uh who will be the stakeholders in in the meetings, how many meetings do you propose?

Um and I agree with the meetings.

I think the San Diego Housing Commission has done just a fantastic job with really bringing people uh to the table, so to speak, and really modifying some of their measures uh to fit uh the real world, as we say, right?

We're making um we're making decisions here on the council, but the real world is is very different.

And I would like to point out Blackstone uh did buy 5,500 units in 2021 from a buyer, from a seller.

There was a seller involved, there was an entity that sold all those affordable units.

So you can't this transaction it doesn't just happen out of the blue.

Um obviously we've put some measures to um preserve some of that affordable housing, and I know that's not what we're talking about here, but um I would like to know um what just a little bit more of your intention.

When do you see it coming forward?

Uh the um what else?

Oh, do you see any studies coming out of this?

Would you like to see studies just off the top of your head?

Yeah, maybe to answer the second question first.

Uh certainly I think uh some analysis and study on on this would be helpful regardless of what happens with the ballot measure itself.

What we've learned is that uh there have been some efforts to understand um this kind of data at again from the federal level, state level on down.

Um, just in the last, I think if I recall correctly, Angela, the last two years or so, the state put together um what they called sort of this larger uh corporate owned housing, institutional sort of owned housing database that they were trying to also utilize to understand across the state, where we're seeing what we are basically attributing to be mostly corporate-owned housing.

Um and so that data is still a little bit new.

So we're why we're still in the preliminary stage and asking for um the rules committee to move this item forward is to really think about moving it to the next stage.

Um we've worked heavily with the city attorney's office to understand how a potential measure could be structured, uh, especially because we're not looking at targeting folks who own homes.

We're talking about the intentional use of single-family homes as rental properties in at scale.

Um and uh the next step, I think is really to sit down with the city treasurer's office.

Uh, because we have our rental unit business tax database, that'll help us get a much better understanding of the types of homes that we're looking to address.

Um and and to your point, to really distinguish between what our home ownership opportunities uh versus what our mom and pop uh multifamily investments, which different, still could be an issue, um, but is really a different class as well.

Um so I the timeline I think is a little bit early still to share when we formulated this.

This was with the intent to bring something forward for November.

Uh but we understand that the timeline is tight between now and getting it back to committee and uh to the full council.

And so if there's an opportunity to answer a lot of these questions in the next couple of months, it might move more quickly.

Um otherwise, again, I think because of the complexity of it, we don't want to tie ourselves down to that.

I I would envision that um sitting down with many stakeholders would be important.

Uh the housing commission is a great idea and example uh of someone who could help to convene um individuals who are stakeholders here.

And and for us, stakeholders aren't just owners and entities that operate rental housing.

I I think that is part of it.

It's also the folks and the community that we recognize are representing those who are struggling to find homeownership opportunities.

And I I think that is the focus here that is a little bit different from some of the other areas uh the city is targeted, which is we're really looking at what moves the needle on home ownership and what's preventing homeownership opportunity.

So we look forward to bringing back more information.

So thank you.

When will you bring back more information?

So our hope is to at least bring uh an item back to rules uh in time to consider what the next step would be uh in the next several months.

Um but one of the other items for consideration uh would be to have an informational item at the land use and housing committee in the months ahead as well to look at discussing specifically this type of ownership of housing, what its impacts are in San Diego, bringing out uh presenters who might be able to um enlighten us on the data they they see beyond just the San Diego region.

Wonderful.

Thank you for answering uh all those questions.

Um I recently became um a coastal commissioner um and it has really opened up my eyes uh to seeing what's happening up and down the state uh and how um housing is usually not usually it is vilified in a lot of the cities because anti-growth sentiments.

Um and I I will say that I think the city of San Diego San Diego's is a model for the rest of the state when it comes to housing.

As much as we're struggling here to find for folks to find housing, we are definitely permitting housing and building housing in record numbers compared to even LA.

And I I don't always agree with the mayor, but this is one of the items that I think he's been uh really leading the way in the state of California.

Uh we we're seeing it in the city of LA.

Um they're they're struggling with a ballot measure that its intention was to go after billionaires uh who are focused on commercial um development, it really ended up hurting the multi-unit housing.

And I've even heard people say I did not understand what I was voting for.

And I if I would have known, I would have not voted that way.

And I've never been a supporter of measures that really sound good on paper, but in the long-term impact um our housing supply.

Uh and I do appreciate uh the intention that you have with this and and the way that you're walking um slowly, I guess I should say, which is not really what we want to see for housing.

Uh we want to build housing, we want to do it fast, but we want to make sure that what we put before um what we put before voters and what we put before uh as law is is something that's really, I guess I should say cooked.

Um I that's probably not the right word, but is really thought out.

So um I will be supporting the measure before us today.

Um, and I look forward to hearing uh in the next rules committee at L and L U N H and would welcome the community to get involved.

Maybe we could have some renters um in that stakeholder committee as well to give their input.

So um happy to support thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Raino.

We'll go back to Councilmember Campillo.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to thank my colleagues for uh their uh comments.

The uh just wanted to put in a couple ideas as I heard um Councilmember Moreno uh putting forth her her uh her um thoughts.

One of the things that I think is important in in the conversation of taxation is understand is is doing our best to quantify the uh the harm that we're seeing from the current status quo that you're trying to solve and the actual level of taxation so that we can truly justify in court how the tax is is correlated to the problem, and that's very hard to do.

Um but I think that uh conversations uh around uh well with economists together with lawyers who understand the economics of it is going to be an important part of me hearing the final solution and and seeing that it's justifiable.

Um then the second thing I'd say is um you know I'm not sure if I understood you saying this correctly.

I I heard you mentioned land use and housing committee.

Um you're not intending to bring forward like a info item to L UNH to have a discussion about the item there to then bring I I've I was I was losing track of what you were pointing out there.

Yeah, sorry, uh just to clarify, not not specifically on the ballot measure, but I think because this is sparking a broader conversation about sort of institutional investment in single family homes.

I think that's the that's conversation that might be worthwhile to have.

Um and and as Councilman Rela Rivera pointed out, there might be other efforts to address challenges on that front that aren't necessarily through a tax or a ballot measure.

And so I think continuing the conversation in a broader housing sense would be meaningful.

Understood.

Thank you for that.

I appreciate that.

And I do want to uh thank Councilmember Moreno for pointing out the circumstances that happen in Los Angeles uh with the tax she's referencing and how it essentially cratered investment, uh, which means less jobs for people who build housing.

Um I've even heard folks down here say they're happy that happened in LA because it brought more investment to San Diego.

And uh so if we we have to remember that we don't operate in a um in a bubble when it comes to taxation and fees that other entities, other municipalities uh look at what we're doing and we'll take advantage if we've made c uh the cost of housing more expensive.

So uh my last uh suggestion before we move to hopefully a vote right now is uh uh taking into consideration how other cities and counties uh would essentially wait for us to maybe go too far and then take advantage of that to draw investment towards them.

So uh that sort of measured approach and understanding our our position as a city within the broader economic environment for building housing is something that I'm gonna look for, and I hope that will be part of your analysis.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you, Councilmember Campbell.

And before we rush to a vote, I might have a few words.

I didn't say rush, Council President.

So I want to join the chorus and thank you, Council President Pro Tem Lee, for bringing and exploring this idea and your staff for working and starting to kind of wrap your head around what it means and how it might work.

And you know, I I do want to mention I don't know, maybe it's my observation as a council president, but I'm hearing some conversations in the public that so often we typically bring things when they're ripe, as opposed to something like this where we're starting to introduce an idea, start to kind of announce to the world that an idea has been explored, and then reach out to stakeholders.

So uh and so I appreciate uh the patience but the diligence in which I know you and your office are going to uh move forward on this going forward.

Um, you know, I as everybody kind of touched on in one form or another, and I think Paul certainly touched on it, you know, the market is uh very smart and very clever.

Um, you know, I think we can all reach agreement pretty easily on what the problems are, uh, but it's very difficult for government to be surgical in its approach and really get the intended consequences uh to be able to solve a problem, which doesn't mean we shouldn't try, uh, but it continues to be a challenge.

And I think as long as we're nimble to do something, look at what the outcome uh is in the marketplace, uh, and then pivot quickly.

Uh and I think Paul made a very valid criticism that that we were a little bit too slow on the ADU.

It had to reach a fever pitch before action was finally taken.

Uh it'll be interesting to see how that component, uh, which is not directly tied to the item in front of us today, actually manifests itself in the months and years ahead.

Um I also appreciate uh what I'll call the new BIA coming forward and engaging early.

Um, moving away from the we're opposed to everything, just keep the status quo, uh is a very encouraging sign with the new folks uh that are leading that conversation.

Look forward to more early engagement and more solution-oriented ideas coming from the BIA, because I think we're all in agreement with some of the challenges we have in our city.

And you know, it's probably too early to call it, but you know, the uh I appreciate Councilmember Campio and Council Member Moreno's uh comments that when we do things that actually could have the unintended consequences of forwarding investment, that the market is kind of reacting already to how successful San Diego has been, how successful the city of San Diego has been to encourage uh development.

Um my daughter who lives in North Park is saying we're seeing many more for rent signs than she's seen for the past two years that she's lived there.

Uh and I've talked to um investors who have said, yeah, we're not gonna bring new housing because there seems to be a downward pressure on rental prices.

Uh they're gonna kind of sit and wait it out.

Um, and that's how the market responds um to a uh an aggressive building program here locally.

So again, we have that challenge to be surgical in these broader conversations, and I know you and your office will do a great job in reaching out to stakeholders.

Um so we'll very much appreciate that.

Uh um I might be circle back and offer uh some thoughts, but you like you said, you've got a long way to go in terms of actually diving in deeper and understanding and uh trying to figure out.

But to Councilmember Ilo Rivera's uh component, you know, I can't tell you dates, but at some point housing as just a basic human need uh was a well-understood concept.

At some point, people began to realize that in certain marketplaces, building equity became an important uh component of home ownership.

Uh and then private equity understood that, hey, here's an opportunity.

We may not be in the housing market, but we're in the wealth building.

Uh and so saw as an opportunity to whether it is the rentals to take care of their daily costs with the idea of long-term speculation in the rise of the value of housing can kind of change the whole dynamic of the market.

And given private property rights, uh, it can be a very difficult thing to navigate to try to figure out how we can um pivot that to a better place for San Diegans.

So I'll I'll conclude there.

So we do have a motion by Council President Pro Tem Lee to move the staff recommendation, a second by council member Campio.

All in favor say aye.

Any opposed?

That passes unanimously.

Again, thank you, sir.

And thank you to your staff.

With that, Sarah, please introduce our final discussion item.

Thank you, Council President.

Item number four is the resolution affirming the city of San Diego's commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

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

Inputting webinar ID 160439-9420 pound.

Chair.

All right.

Thank you, Sarah.

Our office is bringing this forward, but I'm not going to have any opening comments.

I'll save them for later.

But uh Savannah Bryan, uh, thank you for bringing this item forward.

Uh please introduce yourselves for the record and begin your presentation.

All right, good morning, Council President, members of the rules committee, happy Earth Day.

My name is Savannah Stallings.

I'm a community representative for Council President Joe Lacava.

With me is Council President's Policy Director Brian Elliott.

This will take approximately five minutes.

Um today we are proposing a resolution affirming the City of San Diego's commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

This resolution is following recent actions at the federal level that have attempted to undermine what we believe to be the EPA's purpose.

Substantial progress has been made over the last 15 years to regulate greenhouse gas emissions and other dangerous chemicals.

Progress that has stemmed from the EPA's 2009 endangerment finding.

I'll take us through a little background on why this finding is the foundation of how we in San Diego approach public health and climate change.

In December of 2009, the EPA issued the final endangerment and cause or contribute findings for greenhouse gases under Section 202A of the Clean Air Act, known best as the endangerment finding.

This finding was based on decades of global climate science and established that current and projected concentrations of six well-mixed greenhouse gases threaten the public health and welfare of current and future generations, and that emissions from motor vehicles cause and contribute to climate change.

On June 26, 2012, the U.S.

Court of Appeals DC circuit upheld the endangerment finding and the associated greenhouse gas regulations.

This precedent paved the way for regulations across the nation to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, including the commitments that are in our climate action plan.

On February 12th, 2026, the Trump administration finalized the recession of this finding, ending the federal government's authority to control climate change pollutants.

The argument in the recession is based on the rejection of climate science, discrediting of the impacts of GHG emissions on a global scale, and redefining of air pollution.

This rollback has real consequences, especially as research shows that climate change is accelerating faster than predicted.

Climate impacts such as extreme heat and weather events, sea level rise, disease, and impaired air quality will have disproportionate effects on vulnerable communities.

This move is expected to lead to a 10% increase in the country's GHG emissions over the next 30 years, according to the Environmental Defense Fund.

As federal policy retreats, city leaders can remain at the forefront of climate action.

This has been shown through the city's climate action plan commitment to net zero emissions by 2035, more ambitious than most.

Our CAP goals based in science address the primary contributors to GHG emissions, starting with vehicle emissions, the single largest source of GHG emissions in the city, and decarbonizing our built environment and energy sources.

This resolution affirms that science is not subject to changing politics, and this action does not create new costs or programs.

This simply reaffirms existing commitments and the foundation on which those commitments were made.

Our action today is to request the city attorney's office work with Council District One to conduct legal analysis and prepare a resolution that upholds the City of San Diego's commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions to protect public health and the environment.

Thank you for the time.

We're available for any questions.

All right.

Thank you, Savannah, for the presentation and the work to bring this forward.

Sarah, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've not received any speaker slips here in chambers.

So beginning the five-minute timer for all those to indicate if they wish to speak to item number four in the virtual queue.

We will begin with Serena Pelka.

Please unmute and begin.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

Hi, good morning.

This is Serena Pelka from Climate Action Campaign.

We're calling in to express our support for this item.

And thank you, Council President Lacaba, for bringing this forward.

We are all bearing witness to the federal government's rollbacks of protections to public health from many directions, including from the rescinding the EPA's endangerment finding, which really is the legal cornerstone that recognizes greenhouse gases as a threat to public health and communities.

This undermines existing standards to reduce pollution and puts communities, particularly communities of concern, at greater risk from the impacts of poor air quality, extreme heat, and pollution burden.

This makes local action more important than ever.

San Diego's climate action plan needs to be implemented, and money from the climate equity fund needs to reach communities of concern.

So we urge you to support this item, affirm San Diego's commitment to reducing pollution and implement the climate action plan in full.

The health of our communities depends on it.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony.

Masada Dysonhouse, please unmute and begin.

Good morning.

This is Masada Dizenhouse, Executive Director of San Diego 350.

We know that human-made greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate disasters that are massively damaging to our economy and to our public health.

This is established science, and we can see it happening and getting worse from flooding here in San Diego to devastating fires in LA with communities of concern bearing the brunt of the impact.

San Diego 350, representing more than 8,000 supporters, was established to protect our communities from these threats.

We strongly support the endangerment finding and Council President Lacava's proposed resolution affirming the city of San Diego's commitment to limit greenhouse gas emissions.

It's important for the city of San Diego to stand up to fight climate denial at the federal level and to affirm its commitment to achieving the city's climate action plan and climate equity goals as well as state climate goals.

Our future depends on it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Lisa Ross, please unmute and begin.

Good morning and happy Earth Day to all.

My name is Lisa Ross, Chair of San Diego chapter of Sierra Club.

And I'm happy to be here on Earth Day on behalf of our 23,000 members and supporters in San Diego Imperial Counties to support the city of San Diego reaffirming its commitment to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in the face of the Trump administration's rollback of the endangerment finding.

That finding isn't political.

It is grounded in decades of science and affirmed by the courts.

It established a critical truth.

Greenhouse gases endanger public health and the well-being of current and future generations.

Worsening air quality and strain on our infrastructure are already felt here and fall hardest on frontline communities.

Case in point, Tijuana River Valley.

Today's action reaffirms the city's commitment to cutting emissions in half by 2035.

It says that even when federal leadership falls short, local leadership will step up.

It also ensures that the city remains aligned with California's climate laws and continues to meet its legal and moral obligations under the adopted climate action plan.

We commend the city for staying the course for standing with science and for protecting the people of San Diego.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekmann.

All right, thank you.

Blair Beekman, thank you for this item.

I didn't know it was Earth Day today, which describes kind of my person at this time in life.

So thank you.

Um yeah, it's you guys have been making a commitment to try to figure out uh better uh emission standards in San Diego right now, and you're trying to work this out right now, and you're doing it.

Thank you.

Good luck that um you know, in the 2014s, but in the 2010s, I guess, there uh in the second administration of Obama.

Um, you know, there was a push to redevelop uh, you know, good just a good public process on uh environmental issues.

It was really pushed back by the Republican Party and conservative agenda that did not want that climate change discussion to be an open conversation.

I lost out on a lot of better understandings of what exactly is going on and what exactly we need to be doing.

I think there's a bit of fibbing on both sides and all sides.

And um, but on the whole, we the conservative wing of our country has developed a way that we don't talk about these subjects open and clearly with good science.

There's good science that can show how to talk about these things if we take the time and patience and practice to really do that.

And I hope this is the time we can really be doing that, especially here in San Diego.

We have serious sea level rise issues that are of concern that we need to be addressing, that is being totally negated by a large majority of our society here, and that I think needs to be addressed.

I think uh we need to put things to rest and say once and for all, we have serious issues to be dealing with.

Let's deal with them and talk about it honestly with each other.

Good luck in those efforts from ourselves.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with the five minute timer exhausted, with one hand remaining, Andrew, please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

Good morning.

Thank you very much to the rules committee.

Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak.

My name is Andrew Meyer from San Diego Bird Alliance, the director of conservation there.

And happy Earth Day.

Uh San Diego Bird Alliance fully supports this action by the city of San Diego.

We've all heard climate change described as an enormous looming snail.

And as with so many issues from this federal administration, ignoring the snail will not keep it from trampling us.

Not sure if trampling is the right word, but the effects of greenhouse gas emissions on our sea levels, our shorelines, our habitats, wildlife, including birds, and our residents, is an issue we need our government to lead on.

Though it's another tough budget year, we expect the city to walk and chew gum and to work as hard as possible to get away from this snail.

Research by the National Audubon has shown that 66% of our North American birds move closer to extinction as our temperatures warm to 1.5 degrees, warm warm another 1.5 degrees, and then another 1.5 beyond that.

We support the city's stance against the climate crisis, with two-thirds of our birds in our continent at risk of extinction because of climate change.

It is a climate crisis that we need the city to act on, including especially the unregulated greenhouse gas emissions.

The endangerment finding is scientifically valid and underpins all the work all our levels of government could and should do to regulate and decrease greenhouse gas emissions.

We support the city in taking a solid pro-science and pro-wildlife stance.

And we thank Council President Lukava for prioritizing this and for continuing to prioritize the looming snail of a problem that is climate change.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And this concludes testimony for item number four.

All right.

Thank you, Zara.

Uh, again, thank you, Savannah, for the work in bringing this forward in the presentation today, and I'll kind of kick things off.

Uh, and thank you to the organizations and members of the public who called in.

When we talk about climate action plan or wetlands expansion in Deanza or increasing resiliency in our communities, we're also talking about San Diego's environmental values.

And as we celebrate Earth Day, we are reminded that when the City of San Diego acts, our actions are rooted in science and a recognition of our obligation at the local level to protect future generations from extreme weather and promoting public health.

That was also the intent of the Federal Environmental Protection Agency's endangerment finding in 2009 and subsequent actions by the Obama and Biden administrations.

Those actions curbed vehicle emissions and oil and gas extraction at the federal level, and such actions are at the heart of our climate action plan.

Why?

Because we trust the science.

We put people before polluters and we stand up to big oil and we invest in a renewable and all electric future.

So when the current federal administration decides that science does not matter, and greenhouse emissions have no association with public health impacts, we stick to our values.

And as Savannah described, that is why District One is bringing this forward, this resolution.

We have spent too long and fought too hard to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to ensure resiliency, and we will not shift course.

The APA's 2009 endangerment finding may have been rescinded at the federal level, but the science and the purpose at its core remains more important than ever.

So again, thank you to all those that spoke in support, and I will move the staff recommendation for the item.

Next up is Councilmember Ilo Rivera.

Thank you, uh Council President.

Thanks, Brian, thanks, Savannah, for your work on bringing this forward.

Definitely appreciate that we're doing this.

There's a um a lot of terrible, terrible things happening at the federal level as it relates to the environment and the long-term prospects of humanity.

Um I do think if I'm trying to see a glimmer of a positivity, is that it is a um very, very, very overt call to action for uh local governments to to not just think that um to not sit and wait for the federal government to do the right thing, um to not um take anything for granted.

And I think that this is a good example of us um reiterating something that had been uh a commitment for a long time um at the at the federal level, but now needs to be repeated here at the heard locally, and we have nothing to lose uh by by doing so.

Um the uh and when we ground um climate action in the benefits that occur at the local level from taking that climate action.

And when we ground climate action in the benefits that occur at the local level from taking that climate action, I actually think it's the best way to make the case for climate action because the benefits at the local level level are almost always the most tangible and the most in um most tangible and give everyday people uh the best understanding of of what's in it for them to engage climate activists, in being part of a city that's taking climate action.

So thank you for leading on this.

Um thank you for um uh the work you continue to do um on on as being an environmental leader, and I'm happy to second the motion.

All right, thank you, sir.

So we have a motion by myself and a second by council member Ilo Rivera.

Uh I don't see anybody else um on the lights.

So with that, I will call for the vote.

Um all in favor say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed that passes unanimously.

Thank you for the support.

So this brings us to the end of today's agenda.

I will now adjourn the meeting of the rules committee until the next regularly scheduled meeting to be held Wednesday, May 20th, 2026 at 9 a.m.

We are adjourned.

Thank you all.