Dear Councilwoman Jennifer Campbell,
By Lance Murphy
PLEASE, this must stop!
The proposed CCHS (Complete Communities Housing Solutions) is apparently proceeding without sufficient evidence of mitigating its potential detrimental impacts and ‘peer reviewed’ examples of successful implementations that serve as models for deployment. I must therefore presume that this is an ‘experiment’ without appropriate oversight.
I feel that the Mayor, City Council and all involved parties must expose and explain this plan to the entire affected population with sufficient time to perform a validation of intent, impact and avoidance of ‘unintended consequences’. These efforts (similar to SB-10) seem to be an ongoing over-reach by elected representatives to completely disregard (or overrule) the intent of ‘neighborhoods’.
For as long as anyone in San Diego can remember there have been Community Planning Boards with the specific responsibility to help preserve the character and ‘live-ability’ of these neighborhoods.
That, apparently is no longer the case. With a few untested ideas there are now a sweeping change to laws and development regulations that make me very worried for my home value, my neighborhood ’shared resources’ and basically the direction of this home expansion strategy.
I’m personally beginning to question the underlying motivations of those that are proponents of these changes, I don’t venture into conspiracy theories lightly. I don’t believe that anyone has sufficiently assessed the impact of adding high density structures, converting garages to ADUs, eliminating all parking requirements and managerially deciding if development plans are appropriate.
Please let me know the most effective means that I have to understand the long-term impact and the validation mechanisms that have been applied to ensure that my fears are unfounded. My only alternative seems that I must become a energetic advocate for stopping ANY and ALL actions by any of our elected leaders as well as State, County and City organizations that are supporting CCHS and similar actions.
I don’t say this lightly:
If I cannot trust the elected persons and organizations – I must then reject all their efforts until there is sufficient evidence that they are looking out for their “invested” constituents.
After all, it is the home owners and business owners that have invested their savings and lives in this City. They have rights and care about the consequences.
Yes, seniority & tested models still have a place in this world – we cannot allow people without experience, invested assets, or TESTED models make radical changes that are guaranteed to disrupt the established norms.
Regards,
Lance Murphy
Point Loma Homeowner since 1996
Point Loma Business Owner since 2001
Mr. Murphy. Great piece. Good luck. Jen Campbell is 100% pro-development…the neighborhoods be damned. Good luck in your fight.
Actually she was a lone vote against HAP 2.0
Campbell’s lone HAP 2.0 vote was predetermined in the final secret closed door meeting prior to the Council meeting. Once again Campbell’s vote was nothing more than a symbolic and mealingless tolken vote intended for skin saving.
Correct.
An earlier version of the post mistakenly identified the author as “Vance”, not as Lance.
Vance Armstrength?
Everybody complains about new development, they never offer a housing solution in their neighborhood. This is NIMBY at its finest. If you don’t like it, fine, but propose something different that solves the problem- which means affordable housing in your neighborhood. Otherwise stop the NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) and BANNANA (Build Absolutely Nothing Near Anyone Near Anything) nonsense or things like complete communities will be shoved down the throat of neighborhoods. Offer a solution or don’t be upset when a solution is forced on you.
I appreciate your comment but what the Mayor and City Council have done is up zoned the vast the majority of the City which has supercharged property values.
I have no issue with trying to create a City that is less reliant on cars but in order to do so there needs to be strategic planning where density is encouraged along major corridors to help jump start demand for public transportation.
The current policies that have been put in place create a scattering of one off apartment complexes in single family neighborhoods, that do nothing to create “affordable housing”. The City should be putting more resources in pushing for housing in commercial areas like Convoy St. in Kearny Mesa where people can easily access stores, restaurants and other services without the need for a car.
I would argue there is more than enough housing but just not at prices people can afford. The City should be targeting vacation rentals in order to get them back to long term rentals and come up with a policy that discourages investor owned housing. If the City is really serious about affordable housing, it would be building housing on City owned land.
This notion that if you don’t like the City’s housing policies means you are a NIMBY is a gratuitous way of shutting down debate regarding housing and what kind of development makes the most sense for San Diego.
I’m not sure how thoroughly you’ve read the complete communities plan but the plan heavily prioritizes density upzoning near mass transit. While I don’t agree with everything in the plan (specifically the heaviest of the upzoning lies in Hillcrest where there are only bus lines). The scattering of apartments in single family neighborhoods has more to do with the State driven ADU laws than the complete communities plan. I think that is what you’re referring to, and that is driven at the state level- a whole different topic.
Looking at the numbers, there is absolutely not enough housing, even if you made every vacation rental a long term unit. Not even close. While short term housing is an issue, its not the main issue per say. Ultimately more housing needs to be built, we can only convert so much.
While I’m all for the city building affordable housing, I just don’t see it happening, the problem is too large without private developers coming in to help.
And yes you are NIMBY if you are against housing proposals without suggesting an alternate, I’ve watched so so many housing proposals get shut down in city council meetings for decades by residents saying “yes housing is great, just elsewhere.” Sorry there is no elsewhere, it needs to happen in every community, including yours. I’ve watch so so so many planning meetings have given residents the opportunity to have a say where the housing would go and how, and the answer was always minimal, elsewhere, and “don’t touch the character of our small community.” Sorry if I’m unsympathetic but I watched so many opportunities to do this right -with all the community input in the world- simply get flushed down the drain.
There is a huge difference between the State ADU law and the City’s Bonus ADU program. https://www.neighborsforabettersandiego.org/bonus-adu-program
As for “Looking at the numbers, there is absolutely not enough housing” There is available housing and there is more being built https://www.zillow.com/san-diego-ca/apartments
What we might be able to agree on is there isn’t enough housing people can afford and purchase and that is where the Mayor and Council have done little to improve the situation.
How many condos are going to be available for purchase when the Stadium or Sports Arena projects are complete? From what I can tell zero. San Diego is heading towards being a City of corporate owned housing.
Complete communities applies to any zone that allows medium or higher density, and is in a TPA/SDA.
Their TPA map covers like 75% of the city. Now it’s anything within 1 mile of a single bus stop/route that probably doesn’t go where you need it to, and may not even exist. I just has to be in the transportation plan for 2035.
When these TPA projects come up, now with no parking, I check the commute times via mass transit for a 8-5 job. A project in OB resulted in an 11-hour work day to go downtown, or a 13-hour day to work in Kearny Mesa. Nobody’s going to do that. And it’s physically impossible if you have kids.
KH, can you confirm the vote of the PRC.
Easier said than done when the city shuts down community input in the decision making process and only advocates for their way. Kind of funny when the mantra is affordable housing, yet builders are only required to do 17%?
Andrew, “… when a solution is forced on you…” it’s likely not a solution.
There IS no affordable housing in my neighborhood.
Everything that is being built is either too much money for my limited, retirement income, or (a few, at an incredibly high cost per unit) for rent to people who are or have been homeless.
There is no way I could afford to buy any of these new units – starting at well above $200,000, nor can I afford to rent any of them (starting at above $2000 per month).
As for BANNANA, I feel as if San Diego is turning into a banana republic – great for the well-to-do; not so hot for anyone else.
I don’t see how these are complete in any way. No outdoor space beyond some greenery on the sidewalk which would have to be quite limited. No common space for gathering. Not family oriented. Little to no parking. No place on the property for children or dogs to go outside.
They will include wider sidewalks so it’s easier to step around the homeless encampments.
LANCE MURPHY, thanks for posting your letter. With your permission I would like to copy and share it. We are having a small educational meeting that will help us decide how to proceed. Many attending the meeting live within 500-600 feet of the proposed project.
Lynne,
Feel free to distribute my comments if the goal is to support a discussion and enable a sharing of experiences, perceptions, facts and opinions. At this point I’m most concerned that the general populace are uninformed or misinformed as to the “experimental nature” of the allowed increased density with a complete removal of the historically-imposed parking needs of the occupants.
We effectively have ADU developments and “bonus” density (and conversion of garages) that increases the rental revenue while imposing street parking on the affected neighborhood. Where will all these people park? The presumption is that no cars will be added and public transit will negate the use of automobiles. Where in California has this transition ever happened successfully?
Thank you Lance. Feel free to email me if you want to talk. We are currently working to inform the public. It would be great if you came to the May 7th meeting at the Rec Center at 6:00 and read your amazing letter!
A picture of a 116-unit rental development in City Heights describes it glowingly with no parking (this morning’s UT).