Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Housing topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

La Mesa council requires council approval before cancelling affordable-housing deed restrictions, citing transparency

La Mesa City Council · July 8, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

By a 4–1 vote the council directed staff not to extinguish or cancel deed restrictions or affordable-housing agreements without prior council approval, citing the importance of preserving affordable housing stock and increasing transparency in density bonus implementations.

On July 8 the La Mesa City Council approved (4–1) a council-initiated direction requiring that staff seek City Council approval before extinguishing or cancelling any deed restriction or affordable-housing agreement tied to density bonus or other affordable housing incentives. The motion was introduced by Councilmembers Casares and Suzuki.

Councilmembers who supported the motion emphasized that affordable housing is a limited community resource and that any change to deed restrictions should be considered publicly by the elected body that authorized the original exchange of concessions for affordability. The city attorney described the technical context: regulatory agreements executed under the state density bonus law implement the affordable-housing commitments; historically a request to cancel a regulatory agreement could be handled through administrative site-development review and appeal processes. The motion changes the process so that cancellation requests will be routed directly to the City Council, increasing the level of public notice and deliberation.

Supporters in the public comment period, including Jack Shue and Moana Alau, urged the council to preserve the integrity of affordable-housing commitments and to use a public process rather than administrative action. Councilmember Lothian voted no, stating the existing appeals and administrative pathways were adequate and expressing concern about adding another layer of review.

Outcome: Motion carried 4–1 (Casares, Suzuki, Vice Mayor Dillard and Mayor Rapstaff yes; Lothian no). Council directed staff to implement the new process and draft ordinance/guideline changes for return in approximately 60 days.