Affordable Housing, ‘Bridge Shelters,’ North County YIMBY
Speaker 1: 00:00 San Diego City Mayor Kevin Faulkner has a new proposal on the table that would give incentives to developers to build smaller, more affordable units in areas close to public transit. The idea is to get more new housing units on the market faster in those areas, but it's likely to be controversial since it could bypass input from local community planning groups and lead to tolerant, denser developments. Joining me as Mike Hansen, San Diego cities planning director, Mike, Thanks for being with us. Speaker 2: 00:27 Happy to be here. Thank you. Speaker 1: 00:28 So give us the context of this proposal. Why is the mayor suggesting loosening regulations that until now have really defined livability in our inner city neighborhoods? Speaker 2: 00:37 Well, we think this will enhance livability because it'll create more affordable housing. We're in an affordable housing crisis, which means that we don't produce enough deed restricted affordable housing for our lower and moderate income families and we don't produce enough housing overall, which raises the cost of housing. So this is a proposal. It's an opt in incentive based proposal intended to spur the construction of smaller, more affordable units and areas of the city that are already zoned for multifamily housing near transit. Speaker 1: 01:09 How much are you motivated by the need for more housing and how much by the state mandates to cut greenhouse gas emissions? Speaker 2: 01:15 Implementing climate action plan goals is also an important goal, but our primary goal is increasing the supply of housing and increasing particularly the supply of affordable housing that is deed restricted. Speaker 1: 01:28 So who exactly would this new housing before? You know, we hear about most new housing costing over half a million dollars these days. What sort of market are we aiming for? Speaker 2: 01:36 Everybody in the city of San Diego, we are growing as a city and that's primarily because of internal growth. And by that I mean our own children and grandchildren. And this is intended to ensure that we have a place for our children and grandchildren to live in a place that's affordable for them to live. Speaker 1: 01:54 What exactly would developers have to do to be able to get an exemption from the existing height limits and build taller? Speaker 2: 02:00 First of all, this only would apply in areas that are already zoned in our community plans for multifamily development. And that's within one half miles and major transit stop. That's about 11% of the city. So it's a, it's a small geographic area compared to the city overall. So it need to be located there. Then the developer would need to go above and beyond what is required in our existing affordable regulations. So that means that they would be producing deed restricted affordable units more than they need to. And also they would need to provide neighborhood serving amenities in the project, uh, as part of the program in order to be eligible for the incentives. Speaker 1: 02:44 What sort of neighborhood amenities that you talking Speaker 2: 02:47 small parks, playgrounds, spaces that activate the public realm and make the neighborhood more visually appealing and more vibrant. Not just the residents of the structure, but people in the community as a whole. Speaker 1: 03:00 Okay. Now you had mentioned that it's owning your public transit's. What does that mean exactly? What do you define as near public transit? Speaker 2: 03:07 That means a half mile from a major transit stop, which means either a trolley line or a coaster line or when to high frequency. Best lines intersect. Speaker 1: 03:18 Hmm. Okay. So now you've already lifted parking requirements for areas near public transit and opponents say, you know, public transit, it's nowhere near the place where people can actually do without a car. So letting developers build more homes without parking spaces will just lead to gridlock. How do you respond to those concerns? Speaker 2: 03:36 I don't think that those concerns are based on the facts because we only located that proposal and areas that are near transit. So the opportunity is there for somebody to live a lifestyle that is less reliant on the single person vehicle. And we are seeing a change, especially with new technologies, rideshare of people really seeking other opportunities and set of city government forcing them to pay for parking. Speaker 1: 04:00 I mean, are you willing to admit that there could be a pretty difficult to create a transition before public transit gets up to speed and widespread enough to be really effective for all these new residents? Speaker 2: 04:10 No, I think the change is going to be incremental. We benchmarked with other cities that have done similar parking reforms and some of them took many years before they even had one project that proposed zero parking. Along with the parking initiative. We are also requiring additional transportation amenities in the project and that means things like a bike storage and ways to make it easier to live and get around the city with without additional cars. And maybe it would be the development comes in and proposes less parking then we required before. Not necessarily zero parking. Speaker 1: 04:46 No. I wondered because I know the city has had some new projects, proposed new turns out that were rejected by the local residents and I wanted to have you reached the point where you feel the situation is so dire that housing crisis, so dad that you pretty much have to bypass local approval in those areas? Speaker 2: 05:01 No, I wouldn't consider this bypassing local approval. So all of the regulations that we develop undergo a community review process just as we're going to do for the mayor's initiative that that you announced a few minutes ago. And so that's the time where our regulations go through a very rigorous review process. Once rules are on the books, if someone comes in and follows every single rule that the city has, they have a right to develop that project. So what we're saying is that once we set the rules, we're not trying to add additional layers of red tape after that, if somebody complies with the rules Speaker 1: 05:36 as a public hearing on this proposal later this month, June 26th at 2:00 PM at the Mission Valley Library Branch on Central Parkway. So Mike, thank you so much for filling us in. Speaker 2: 05:47 Thank you. Speaker 1: 05:48 It's Mike Hansen, San Diego cities planning director, and by the way, coming up later in the program, we'll hear from efforts in north county to move public opinion on new development from Nimbys. Not In my backyard. To Jimmy's yes, in my backyard. That's still ahead. Speaker 1: 00:00 California believes healthcare is a fundamental right. That is the sentiment of state democratic. Senator Holly Mitchell from Los Angeles. She led state budget negotiations to expand healthcare to people regardless of immigration status. It's all part of the state's $213 billion budget plan. And if approved, California would become the first state in the nation to offer healthcare coverage to some people living here without documents. Katie or is the politics and government reporter with Kq Ed. She's been following the budget negotiations and joins us with details. Katie, welcome. Thanks for having me. What else can you tell us about the plan to provide healthcare to some undocumented immigrants? Uh, who would be eligible? So Speaker 2: 00:42 fornia already provides a medic cal to undocumented children. This would extend it to a young adults between the ages of 19 and I'm 25. And this was a bit of a compromise on the legislature's part. They had wanted the program to extend to undocumented seniors as well. However, that was something that Governor Gavin Newsom, I'm rejected because it would have cost more than $3 billion. Uh, so that's not happening this year. Again, it's just being extended to eligible people between the ages of 19 and 25. And um, it's estimated that is about 90,000 people and it'll cost about $98 million a year. Uh, but I would not be surprised if we see an effort to include undocumented seniors, uh, coming back again in, in the coming years, Speaker 1: 01:36 lawmakers also agreed to expand subsidies for health insurance under covered California. Tell us more about those changes. Speaker 2: 01:43 Right. Um, this was an effort by California to reinstate, um, what had been the federal mandate under Obamacare, uh, Republicans in Congress and president Trump repealed the federal mandate in 2017. Um, this would require everyone in the state to have health insurance and the state in order to make that happen would offer more subsidies for people to help pay for those plants. Now to help fund those subsidies, people who did not have insurance would be find a, so that's where the revenue would come from. So there you have California trying to impose a mandate that the federal government has repealed Speaker 1: 02:24 and this is the governor's first state budget. What are some of the other notable items in this plan? And what about on education? Speaker 2: 02:32 Uh, yeah, this is a record breaking year for education. Um, they're spending huge amounts of money on it, although a lot of it is mandated by proposition 98, which is the formula under which, um, schools in California are funded. It's interesting because while schools are getting a lot of money this year, the California Teacher's association and other interests, I'm still have held large rallies around the state and in California, um, really decrying the lack of funding saying California is among the lowest in the country when it comes to per pupil spending and that we're not seeing the results that we need and that we need even more spending to go into schools. Even though lawmakers really tout this as a great budget for education. What got left out of the budget deal, I've read that governor Newsom was pushing for a 95 cent tax for safe drinking water. Speaker 2: 03:25 Yeah. He had wanted that tax, um, to help provide clean drinking water to the, about a million people in the state that are estimated not to have access to clean drinking water. Um, the problem with that is text votes are hard for lawmakers to make because it's something that they ultimately have to defend when they are up for reelection. And people say we are already taxed a lot in the states. So why are you adding even more taxes? Um, onto our tab essentially. So lawmakers, I'm got the governor to agree that they will fund the program, but they'll fund it primarily with revenues from California's cap and trade program. Uh, so instead of having to make lawmakers a vote on a relatively small amount of money, uh, the state, we'll just fund it in other ways, but the program to provide a clean drinking water still will be funded. Speaker 2: 04:22 What's been the reaction so far on this spending deal? You know, it's interesting because, um, democrats, especially democratic leadership, um, have really praised it. They have cited like reinvestments in education in early child care. They tout the benefits of extending it, extending Medi-Cal to undocumented immigrants, which they say in the long run will save the state money. Um, but there are people who are concerned, uh, about, you know, increased costs and point out that California has a $21 billion surplus. So when we talk about things like, um, mandates to help pay for health insurance subsidies, they point out, you know, the state has this money in the bank. Why are we putting another burden on consumers? Um, governor Newsom and others, uh, and his supporters will argue, will argue that we have been in a time of economic expansion and that and downturn is inevitable and they want to make sure the state has money in the bank, uh, to be prepared for that and how our Republicans reacting. Speaker 2: 05:29 There is, um, mixed reaction among Republicans. Certainly they appreciate some of the programs. Um, for instance, um, there has been talk about extending, um, tax breaks for low income people and that is something that they are generally supportive of. But again, the question of when it comes to questions of raising taxes, um, for various programs on Californians, they will point out that the state has a high tax rate already. Uh, for instance, we just passed a new gas tax and the state has a large budget surplus. So in the, from their point of view, they believe that the state really should be finding other ways to pay for these programs versus passing these costs on to consumers and to residents. And the budget's still has to be approved by the full legislature. When do we expect that to happen? Um, I expect that they will have a vote tomorrow. Speaker 2: 06:25 There is a floor session scheduled for tomorrow. Um, it has to be passed by Saturday, the 15th. But I think that it will easily make that deadline. And you know, again, the Democrats have such a large majority in the legislature that even if there are certain aspects of the budget they're not thrilled with, I don't think they would have trouble getting the votes because they just need a majority vote. So even if republicans were unhappy with the entire budget, it wouldn't really matter there. Their support, frankly, isn't needed to get it through. I've been speaking with Katie or politics and government reporter with Kq, e D Katie. Thank you. You're welcome. Speaker 1: 00:00 This is KPBS midday day edition. I'm Alison Saint John and I'm jade Hindman. The San Diego City Council voted yesterday to continue funding the city's ThreeBridge shelters for those who are homeless. But funding for the shelters is only guaranteed through June of 2020. The council's vote also included keeping the shelter operated by Father Joe's and Golden Hall instead of moving it as was planned. Bill both stad chief revenue officer at Father Joe's joins us to discuss the organization's reaction to yesterday's vote. Welcome bill. Thank you. The funding for the bridge shelters is guaranteed through June, 2020 but after that, it's unknown where the funding for the shelters will come from. His father. Joe's worried Speaker 2: 00:42 at this point? No, we're not of what was most important to us was that the funding continued and allow these programs to continue. So we're thrilled that we get to go for another 12 months and we hope and we're competent. The city and the housing commission. We'll find a way to continue beyond that. Speaker 1: 00:56 Of the 4,000 people who have stayed at the bridge shelters, 300 had been moved to permanent housing. Um, what are the challenges, shelters like yours face in moving people into permanent housing? Speaker 2: 01:06 The challenges that we have in trying to get people into permanent housing or many, you know, when we try to solve homelessness for folks, we have to remember that each person's situation is different and that the solutions are different. So it can be everything from situational, getting them employment. But the biggest challenge we have is finding them housing. And here in San Diego County housing is in short supply, especially for folks that have been on the streets. So that's our main challenge. Speaker 1: 01:27 Father Joe's operates the shelter that is currently at Golden Hall but was expected to be moved to 17th and imperial. But yesterday's vote included the counsel's desire to keep the shelter at Golden Hall. Was that a surprise to your organization? Speaker 2: 01:40 It was a surprise. You know, we, uh, we had anticipated moving to that other location. We've been operating in golden hall with the expectation that it would be a short term solution while we made this maneuver. Um, but you know, at the end of the day we're thrilled because the action the city council took afterwards laid the groundwork for fourth shelter down at that same location at 17 in imperial. And this is really where we feel like it's most important. There are thousands of people on the street on any given night and they have nowhere to go. So adding additional is absolutely the right move. Speaker 1: 02:08 Council woman, Vivian Mareno said during yesterday's council meeting that the location where you plan to reopen the bridge shelter is rife with illicit activities, unfit for the women and families. The shelter is meant to house. What's father Joe's response to that? Speaker 2: 02:21 You know, our number one focus for anybody is to make sure that we keep kids and families safe. We would never have offered to operate in that location if we didn't feel we could keep it safe. We've been operating down there for 37 years and quite frankly the prior location for the bridge shelter was only a stone's throw from there. So we felt fully confident that we could keep them safe and we're happy to see another shelter potentially operate there. Speaker 1: 02:40 Father Joe's position is that the 17th and imperial location is closer to its existing services. Talk to us about that. Speaker 2: 02:47 Absolutely. So we have been operating a campus of services down there, uh, for 37 years. Uh, the services include everything from therapeutic childcare to our federally Qualified Health Center, a job placement programs, mental health and addiction programs. Proximity to those services is, is critical for a number of our clients. Uh, the location at 17 and imperial is an ideal location because it is literally next door to those services. And do you have a sense of what the home was staying in Golden Hall want? You know, it depends. When you say the homeless staying and Golden Hall, we have 130 to 140 people living there on any given night. And so it depends on who you ask. Some of them would prefer to stay is what we heard yesterday at the city co at City Hall. And then we have others that, uh, are not coming into the shelter because they would prefer to be located down by the services. Do you have a meeting with the city plan to discuss whether or not it wants to open a fourth bridge shelter at the 17th and Imperial Avenue Location? Well, the vote yesterday indicates to me that they are laying the groundwork to do that and we look forward to working with the city and the housing commission, do whatever we can to help them in that effort. I have been speaking to bill both stad chief revenue officer at Father Joseph villages. Bill, thank you. Thank you. Speaker 1: 00:00 Well, the city of San Diego's figuring out how to handle the ongoing problem of homelessness. San Diego County supervisors are holding meetings this week to unveil how they plan to spend a $6 billion budget next year. San Diego Union Tribune reporter Charles Clark is covering this year as deliberations and joins us now to give us a glimpse of the county's priorities. Charles, thanks for joining us. Speaker 2: 00:21 Thank you for having me on here. Really appreciate it. Speaker 1: 00:23 So now this budget appears to have a lot of good news in it. There's plenty of money to devote to new programs and it looks like health and Human Services has overtaken public safety in terms of the amount of money being invested in next year. So can you tell us about the big winners? Speaker 2: 00:38 Yeah, yeah. So you know, health and Human Services is certainly, I think the biggest winner in the group. I think that's one of the areas that's got a lot of praise from, you know, certainly activists and people who have been advocating on behalf of the agency for Awhile now. Um, when you specifically get down into it, you know, it's looking like it'll be two point $5 billion in spending in health and human services this year. That's just shy of a 6% increase over the past year. And specifically it looked like mental health services is the biggest winner and they're going to be investing $408 million in spending there. Um, a lot of that has to do with staffing, including 123 a new staff positions at the edge. More district nursing facility. Yeah. And a as also there's the child welfare, uh, which obviously has been a big issue on getting a lot of attention of late and they're going to see a $218 million in spending, including 65 new staffers, which is primarily to assist with the caseload. Speaker 1: 01:33 Now the mental health budget says apparently it'll add 177 beds for mental health services. Do you, do we know if any of them will go into North county where tri city's been in the news recently because it closed down psychiatric beds. Speaker 2: 01:45 Right. So it, to me, I'll say, I don't know the exact specifics there. Presumably that seems to be the idea. Um, and I think that's part of, you know, I'm sure that contributes a bit more to the contentious exchange we've seen going on over late or have laid over that Speaker 1: 01:59 it, we remember the police shooting death of Alfred a long ago back in 2017 in alcohol and which happened partly because there was no PR teen that's the psychiatric emergency response teams available to respond to that call. Do you know if this budget would add to those psychiatric teams to respond to people in mental health crisis? Speaker 2: 02:18 Yes. So per is expanding into the program and that actually kind of ties back to something that a supervisor, Diane Drake of, uh, outlined at the start of the year. As, you know, one of her goals during her, uh, state of the county address. Um, you know, it's not quite as dramatic as say child welfare, but they are expanding the team to a degree. Speaker 1: 02:37 No, the county did invest millions more in, um, mental health services last year as an example. I think they set aside 25 million for affordable housing. Do you know, what did we actually get to show for that big budget for mental health services last year? Speaker 2: 02:51 So, you know, that's a really, you know, good question. I think as you look at it, you know, obviously our problem hasn't gone away at all. Um, I think they're doubling down on the efforts. You know, I know they've seen a lot of things, uh, specifically with affordable housing, although they dipped into the housing trust fund more to try to expedite that. Uh, if I'm not mistaken, they saw or they're in the process of creating hundreds of new units already. Um, and they've now allocated another 25 million, uh, to, you know, doubling that effort and get up to a thousand new units throughout San Diego County Speaker 1: 03:27 and drug and alcohol services as course related issue. How is that going to change? Right. So I know under the budget that it looked like they were proposing some increases as far as clinicians in particular. Uh, so that would be a big point of concern as well as, you know, just overall spending would increase. Now would you say that these priorities are reflecting a shift as a result of the change on the board of supervisors after the last election? Speaker 2: 03:51 You know, I, I think when you look at it, I think undoubtedly there's been a change obviously and how they've approached things or at least the dialogue we've seen going on. At the same time, you know, you, you still have three of the same people there. Uh, and I think in large part it's also just, you know, going back to Diane Jacobs, you know, address she can outlined at the beginning of the year that as times change, priorities change and maybe it took them a bit longer than, you know, certainly a lot of people I think in the county would have wanted, but it seems like they're really focusing in on all those issues. And I know I, in particular supervisor, Jacob and Cox have a long list of things they're hoping to get done here, uh, before they end their tenures. So that might help explain a bit, you know, this increased investment in focus, Speaker 1: 04:32 well they do have a quite a bit of money to, to play with this year. Um, in the past, I know the county was accused of having huge cash reserves, which meant they could borrow money for capital projects very cheaply, but they were accused of not spending enough money on programs for things like community health and, and housing. So would you, would you say that people who criticize them for that are satisfied now? Speaker 2: 04:55 You know, I don't know if you're going to say they're, say they're satisfied. Um, I kind of go back to one of the things that happened right when the budget initially came out. I talked to a few of the people over at sci, you, the large a county employee union. Uh, and you know, one point they made is, you know, while they're excited to see the increased investment, they also contend that you're compensating for, you know, chronically under staffing to begin with. So I'm sure there's more things they'd like to see done. It's certainly, I think in the right direction for a lot of people who are critical at the same time. Obviously the county reserves continues to be a big topic and it'll be interesting to see Thursday night at the public budget hearing if that becomes a point of contention again. Speaker 1: 05:36 Right. There is a hearing on Thursday night for the general public after work. Um, I just wanted to ask one last question, which is the, the, the actual budget is a bit smaller than last year. So where did these millions of dollars come from to expand all these programs? Speaker 2: 05:49 Right. So it's really, it was pretty clever counting, uh, from what I could tell here, you know, the, it's an overall 1% actually decrease the budget. The current budget is 6.2 $7 billion. The one that they're proposing is 6.21. Um, a lot of it is driven by reductions in one time expenditures, especially capital spending, which they spent, you know what? I think it's at 160 million less dollars on this year. Um, as well as the, you know, the way they're actually kind of compensating for some of these changes, increase in staffing as you know, they can make up for it with pulling from other places. I mean, public safety actually loses 27 staff positions under this proposal. So building less, slightly less public safety, but more in a, especially mental health. Yes. Well, thank you so much for filling us in, Charles. Yeah. Thank you for having me. That's ut reporter Charles Clark. Speaker 1: 00:00 One reason, even middle class families are struggling to find houses they can afford in San Diego County is simply that we aren't building enough new homes to meet the demand. Developers complain. They face nimby opposition that's not in my backyard. Whether they propose new single family homes on the outskirts of town or denser infill developments, there's a new group called yes in my backyard, engaging in a conversation about how we can say yes to new growth without totally sacrificing quality of life. And the North County chapter of Umb is launching tomorrow night, spearheaded by Oceanside resident James Contino. So now this year and be movement is a statewide movement. And apparently you've been involved with San Diego's a emb movement for some time. What drew you initially to the group? Speaker 2: 00:45 Yes, that's correct. So actually the way I originally found out about and bees and that group and what they're all about was actually the beginning of last year. I'm working on a political campaign in San Francisco. It was London breed, her election for the mayor of San Francisco. The can be group up there has a very strong presence. And I had never really heard of Umb is actually working on that campaign and election. I found out about UMB is and what they're all about. It really resonated with me. I found that there was a local chapter in down in San Diego and I immediately got involved. Speaker 1: 01:20 So there is some different challenges I would say in North County. In terms of attitudes to new development, how would you say they challenge the differ from from the challenges and the city of San Diego? Speaker 2: 01:31 Yeah, so some of the challenges, you know are the same at the, at the end of the day, you know, we're experienced a housing crisis throughout San Diego and throughout California in general, the conversations are, the things that are happening that are different up in north county are that north town, he's more of a suburb. So we're seeing a lot more, you know, single family homes being built, which is fine. You know, we do need more housing, but I think our challenge here in North County is going to be how do we have more infill development and more density, especially along transit corridors. Speaker 1: 02:04 Well, how do you balance that sort of priority to put more transit long, the transit dose, which are mostly in the very coastal areas, those coastal communities, Solana beach and Sanitas, uh, where the residents are really very concerned about losing the, the character of their coastal communities. Speaker 2: 02:22 Yeah, no, totally. Um, and I understand that argument. And just for example, like an ocean side, you know, the development, we are saying they're building a brand new, I don't know if it's either a hotel or a timeshare. It's, you know, right by the pier and you know, that got approved by city council and that's getting built pretty fast. So I don't understand why we can't be putting that same amount of energy and effort towards building housing that serves the actual community of San Diego and not the tourist. Um, and you know, generating just tax dollars. Speaker 1: 02:52 So the, there is this balance between commercial. Um, I mean, are you suggesting that the city should be putting density along the coast there, right along the coast by the pier even? Speaker 2: 03:03 Well, not only that, but I would say that they need to have the same amount of excitement and energy towards projects like that, not just towards catering to new business and potential new business projects like that. Speaker 1: 03:16 Now there's another big development that was very controversial in, in north county, the North River farms that would have put hundreds of new homes right there on the edge of town and sort of an agricultural area. Would you have supported that or not? Speaker 2: 03:28 That is a project that's very interesting. You know, the opponents want to say it's sprawl. I don't necessarily agree with that. Like I said before, we have a housing crisis and the housing issue, that's not density, but we really do need those homes. Um, not only in ocean side but for the overlapping communities in general. So that's a project that I feel like we need to support. And also by supporting that project, it then opens up the door for more projects in the future to be built. Speaker 1: 03:57 But are there any conditions that you would put on developers before you just basically said yes. Speaker 2: 04:03 Well, I mean, yeah, we just don't want to say yes to everything. Everything. I mean, you know, you want smart growth as well. Speaker 1: 04:10 Can you give me some ideas of things that you might have felt, you know, held to develop his feet to the fire about on that project for example? Speaker 2: 04:16 Oh yeah, absolutely. Like I mean, so that project who Taylor is not really close to a transit corridor. I mean, so that would be one thing that ideally would be nice. Also just you know, how many units or houses are going to be built that are affordable versus market rate. That's another thing that's a whole nother discussion is affordable housing. We're just trying to get more housing in general built. But affordable housing would be another thing. But I would kind of press them to build a certain number of affordable units. Speaker 1: 04:46 And of course a lot of the resistance comes from people's concerns about traffic and the fact that they are already having a hard time getting from a to B. So how would you respond to people who have those concerns? Speaker 2: 04:57 My personal opinion on that is the traffic is already there. Either way. I really don't see how a couple of hundred more homes is gonna make a huge difference in your daily commute. Speaker 1: 05:06 And what do you think about this dilemma about whether to build out, uh, places like Lilac hills that there'll be on 15 versus in, do you think that human beings should be more open to housing and both of those places or where would you stand on that? Yeah, absolutely. Speaker 2: 05:22 And this is where I think kind of like the North County group is going to be a little bit different than the San Diego group and it's for a variety of different reasons. I mean, so number one, um, the North County Jimmy Group, we're going to be a non partisan political group. So ideally, you know, it doesn't matter, you know, Republican, Democrat, whatever your political ideology, it doesn't matter. We want you to kind of join the conversation, share your opinion and your story on housing and what you think. And you know, North County is more suburban, there's a lot more space. So the projects that are currently being built are the largest single family homes. So let's maybe say yes to some projects that aren't perfect and we don't think are the best, but dovetail that into, you know, more density and future projects that kind of mimic what ideally we would like to see. Speaker 1: 06:11 Okay. So working on changing public attitudes to new development and a James where, where is in fact this meeting that you are holding to, uh, invite new members Speaker 2: 06:20 tomorrow is going to be our first official meeting is going to be at Bagby beer in Oceanside at 6:30 PM. Speaker 1: 06:28 James, thanks so much for giving us your perspective. Awesome. Thank you for having me.