Help Make Sure Gloria’s “Homes for All of Us” Includes “All of Us”
By Paul Krueger
The Mayor’s Planning Department is hosting a June 9 “community input” meeting on his “Homes for All of Us” initiative on Tuesday, June 9, at 5:30 p.m. at the Malcolm X Library at 5148 Market Street in Valencia Park.
If you care about the impact of new housing development on your community, please plan on attending. And be prepared to cut through the bureaucratic spin by asking pointed questions.
Gloria says Homes for All of Us “…will create clear pathways to build townhomes, duplexes, and small-scale multiple homes … and provide more homeownership opportunities.”
Such a program would be a positive step towards providing much-needed for-sale housing, as opposed to the high-rise, cookie-cutter, $2,750/month studio and one-bedroom apartments (with no parking) that are blighting our neighborhoods.
But there’s a very real danger that this potentially valuable initiative will morph into yet another program that serves developer and investor interests by ignoring community input, rejecting reasonable design standards, refusing to invest in needed infrastructure and parking, and producing more “stack-and-pack” apartments that provide no path to home or condo ownership.
Our city’s disastrous experiment with the so-called “Bonus ADU” Program shows us how nice-sounding initiatives can mask destructive land-use policies that can take years of community opposition to undo.
The Bonus ADU initiative was crafted by the building industry, which was given free rein by two compliant mayors and their subservient planning department. The process was devoid of public input, and the City Council approved the program without any real understanding of its pitfalls.
A city-wide grass-roots campaign eventually persuaded the council to restrict ADU density. But too many residents in our lower and middle-income neighborhoods will forever endure the legacy of this terrible program: expensive multi-unit backyard apartment buildings that were poorly constructed and have no on-site parking. The only people who have benefited from them are the speculators who built them.
How awful are these Bonus ADUs? Check out the gallery of “winners” of the Rag’s 2024 “Worst ADU in San Diego” contest.
We can and we must prevent another land-use fiasco by insisting that the Mayor and his planning department actually listen to residents in the neighborhoods where these “Homes For All of Us” will be built.
We must provide a fact-based counterbalance to the special interests who would exploit this new program for their exclusive financial benefit. We must challenge a Mayor who has been laser-focused on running up the numbers of permits issued, a politician who does not care about the expense and the scale of new units as long as their builders benefit.
Space is limited, so you must register in advance.
The review and approval process for “Homes for All of Us” will take at least six months. If there’s no space available at the June 9 meeting, there will be other opportunities to learn about the proposal and provide input.
Neighbors For A Better San Diego led the fight to reform the Bonus ADU program. We will be working hard to assure that “Homes For All of Us” benefits all San Diegans, not just the development industry and the Mayor and his political ambitions.
You can keep track of this important issue by joining our mailing list.
Good for NFABSD!!! He needs to hear the real truth, to his “affordable” housing that’s only affordable to those who make what he does. He needs to know condensing the bike lanes between two tall buildings, increases the poor air quality, with cars idling, so what good is his Climate Action Plan Dept. doing for the City of SD? He and the uninformed City Council needs to learn how communicate with the homeless their their communities, since so much money has been given to them and nothing improves. someone needs to explain to them what the individual groups need. They’re not a one size fits all. SD NEEDS more cops, they’re retiring rapidly. They’re working lots of OT to provide coverage then the community has fits because they’re getting paid to work OT and sometimes mandated to do so. Almost any community activity needs to have Uniformed cops at the event, and they get paid OT, so do the community events pay for police security? If not…. get on it Mayor. I hope people ask DIRECT questions and expect and keep re-asking the same question until he gives a direct answer. No word salads.
This whole comment is a word salad – you just brought in multiple topics without rhyme or reason. Figure out what you want to ask before you start telling people to have direct questions.
Sorry you couldn’t follow along. Those who have been in the middle of his bright ideas, know exactly what I’m talking about. those points of interest are just a few of his pricey, experiments, that have failed.
9 units are going up on a 20′ x 100′ lot next door. 40′ tall, 12′ wide, essentially a 40′ tall railroad train with a 4′ rear yard setback. Thankfully it is to my North so I’m not in perpetual shadow like the poor guy on the other side of this monstrosity. No parking of course. The catch? It was zoned for a duplex, and there are no protections unless you are in an SFR zone, although many of the neighbors are SFRs. Now with SB79, it may be 6 stories soon. Ten more years of this and we will be at infrastructure failure in all directions. Build Baby Build hasn’t been to anyone’s benefit except the politicians, developers, construction industry, and U-Haul as long time residents hit the eject button. This is ALL on Todd Gloria and the current City Council. None of them should be elected Dog Catcher at this point.
Where is this, Norman, generally?
So many SFRs have already been demolished to build 8, 10, 12 unit buildings for rent in the middle of the block of SFRs. So the plan is to demolish more SFRs to build duplexes in their place? Does this make sense? NOAH – Naturally Occurring Affordable Housing – are the properties being demolished. How many have been demolished – and so these are simply replacements years later for that destruction? Where will they go? Have to demolish more, and they won’t be affordable and they won’t be at all attractive or fit the neighborhood. And ultimately it’s the developers who build – not the mayor. If it’s not profitable for them they won’t build them for-sale. Existing, diminishing for-sale inventory will become more expensive.
Yup, everybody becomes a renter while the current rough differential from condo to SFR is about 500K and the city taxes the streets for the remaining parking. Great vision.
The link to register for the June 9 “Homes For All of Us” workshop has been removed because registration is full.
But the planning department did allow interested residents to attend a similar workshop last year after registration had closed. Those attendees could listen and observe, but not participate. So that’s an option.
You can also follow news stories, updates, and information shared by Neighbors For A Better San Diego on our website, http://www.nfabsd.org
“Planning Dept. Holding Community Input on Mayor Gloria’s ‘Homes for All of Us’ — Be There to Ask Questions – Tues. June 9th”
I can’t imagine ANYONE being able to write or speak the above statement without busting up in uncontrollable laughter.
The Planning Commission in San Diego is led by a DEVELOPER. The DEVELOPER was appointed to the Planning Commission by KEVIN FAULCONER and then promoted by TODD GLORIA after he became MAYOR.
Not only is the DEVELOPER/PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR promoting MAYOR GLORIAS vision of UPZONING & ONERDEVELOPING San Diegos HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods, she is taking full advantage of incentives including NO PARKING REQUIREMENTS; EXEMPT FROM HEIGHT & DENSITY LIMITS ETC.
Name KELLY MODEN Owner of cREate DEVELOPMENT. Recently completed “THE MINN” 1905 BROADWAY. 91 UNITS, 8 STORIES.
Rents for STUDIOS $2310/month -THREE BEDROOMS $5995/month. She is now finalizing the purchase of 101 ASH ST after her proposal was “chosen” to develop the project.
How are VOTERS expected to believe that this event is anything except PERFORMATIVE?
On the subject of “COMMUNITY INPUT “… When construction began on “THE MINN”, I went to the on-site office of the builder to ask how many “affordable and/or income restricted “ units would be included.
I was promptly, but not politely asked to leave.
A MINISTERIAL PERMIT exempts the developer from COMMUNITY OR PLANNING COMMITTEE REVIEW.
SOHOs input to city:
On behalf of SOHO and the San Diego historic preservation community, I am writing to provide recommendations as the City develops the Neighborhood Homes for All of Us program and associated feasibility study. San Diego’s historic neighborhoods already play an important role in the City’s housing ecosystem, and thoughtful planning must ensure that new housing strategies do not inadvertently undermine historic resources or displace existing residents.
Historic neighborhoods are also where San Diego’s traditional
“missing middle” housing already exists. Historic preservation and housing production are not mutually exclusive. In fact, preservation can help address the housing shortage by retaining existing housing stock, enabling adaptive reuse, and supporting context sensitive infill that strengthens neighborhoods rather than eroding them.
1. The program should recognize the role of historic neighborhoods in providing existing housing. Many of San Diego’s historic neighborhoods already contain what is now described as “missing middle” housing—duplexes, courtyard apartments, bungalow courts, and small multifamily buildings constructed throughout the early twentieth century. These building types historically provided attainable housing options and remain an important component of the City’s naturally occurring affordable housing today. Policies intended to expand housing opportunities should ensure that these historic resources are not
inadvertently incentivized for demolition or speculative redevelopment.
2. Preservation of existing housing is one of the fastest and most cost-effective housing strategies. The most sustainable and immediate housing supply is the housing that already exists. Demolition of historic structures often removes smaller and more affordable units from the market and replaces them with larger,higher-priced development.
The City’s housing strategy should prioritize retention and rehabilitation of existing buildings, particularly those that contribute to historic districts and neighborhoods.
3. Adaptive reuse should be a central component of housing policy.
Adaptive reuse—the conversion of existing buildings to new residential uses offers one of the most effective ways to expand housing supply while maintaining neighborhood character. San Diego contains many underutilized historic and older buildings that could accommodate housing through sensitive rehabilitation. Programs such as Neighborhood Homes for All of Us should actively encourage adaptive reuse and rehabilitation through streamlined approvals, incentives, and regulatory flexibility.
4. Historic districts and designated resources require thoughtful treatment.
San Diego’s historic districts represent carefully documented cultural resources that embody the City’s architectural and social history. Programs intended to increase housing opportunities must ensure that historic districts and individually designated resources are not placed at risk through ministerial processes that bypass established preservation protections. Any new housing initiatives should include clear provisions that respect the City’s historic preservation ordinance and adopted community plans.
5. Housing strategies should protect naturally occurring affordable housing.
Historic buildings frequently contain smaller units that remain more attainable than new construction. When these buildings are demolished, the resulting development rarely replaces those units at comparable price points.
Protecting historic housing stock is therefore not simply a cultural goal—it is also a practical strategy to prevent displacement and maintain economic diversity in San Diego’s neighborhoods.
6. The feasibility study should evaluate the housing benefits of preservation and rehabilitation. The February 2026 PlaceEconomics San Diego Urban Vitality Blueprint Report commissioned by SOHO, found that historic districts are significantly denser, than outside historic districts with nearly twice as many residents per square mile as the rest of San Diego. These neighborhoods demonstrate that preservation and housing production are not in conflict and that many historic areas already provide the kind of moderate-density
housing policymakers are seeking to encourage today.
As the City undertakes its feasibility analysis, we encourage the inclusion of economic scenarios that examine:
•Housing retention through preservation and rehabilitation
•Adaptive reuse potential for older and historic buildings
•The role of historic districts in maintaining naturally occurring affordable housing
•Incentives that encourage restoration and reuse rather than demolition
7. The City should look to San Diego’s historic neighborhoods for successful housing models.
As the City explores opportunities for missing middle housing, it should draw inspiration from the housing forms that have successfully served San Diegans for generations. Historic neighborhoods throughout the city contain examples of housing types that balance increased density with livability and neighborhood compatibility, including bungalow courts, courtyard housing, duplexes, fourplexes, and residential scale apartment buildings.
These historic housing forms were designed to fit comfortably within residential neighborhoods while providing housing opportunities for a broad range of residents. The bungalow courts found throughout San Diego and the residential-scale apartment buildings along Park Boulevard north of Balboa Park demonstrate how additional housing can be accommodated without sacrificing walkability, architectural character, human
scale, or neighborhood identity.
Rather than encouraging the replacement of existing historic resources with larger, incompatible development, the City should study and promote these proven historic models as templates for new missing middle housing.
San Diego’s historic neighborhoods already contain many of the housing solutions policymakers seek today. Future housing policies should encourage contemporary interpretations of these successful building types while respecting and preserving the historic resources that inspired them.
As the recent PlaceEconomics Blueprint Report notes, historic districts already contain many of the housing forms now described as “missing middle housing,” including bungalow courts, residential size apartment buildings, townhomes, and accessory dwelling units, demonstrating that preservation and housing production have long coexisted successfully in San Diego.
Sincerely,
Bruce Coons
Executive Director
Save Our Heritage Organization (SOHO)
cc: Mayor Todd Gloria
Kelley Stanco
San Diego Regional Policy and Innovation Center
Referenced report:
PlaceEconomics San Diego Urban Vitality Blueprint Report
https://www.sohosandiego.org/images/SanDiegoHPVitality.pdf
Thanks very much, Alana, for sharing this important memo. We’re fortunate to have SOHO keeping close watch on the development of the “Homes For All of Us” program, and making sure the Mayor and Planning Department listen to and incorporate your thoughtful recommendations.
Well was the result more of the inclusionary, density, no parking “Todd” view? Only thing Todd knows how to do is waste the city’s time and money with deceptive practices.
It’s really too bad the voters didn’t elect Larry Turner. But they didn’t so, now San Diegans have to deal with the determined destruction by Toddler and his non thinking elves.
Maybe Larry Turner will run again in 2028?
I’m feeling anxiety when I think that new potential Mayors don’t seem to be emerging. And imagining TGloria applying his influence and ability to raise funds to elect someone like Sean Elo Rivera. ??
We need someone who
*can responsibly manage a multi billion dollar budget.
*is NOT controlled by DEVELOPERS or UNIONS.
*expresses interest in bringing back the concept of involving VOTERS in decisions that directly affect them.
*NO ties to TGloria or his City Council.
And we need to ditch the Strong Mayor thing.
Rick V., that would be great. The scary part is I keep hearing Sean elo-rivera is eyeing Toddy’s chair. That would probably be more of the same.
No more fake slogans covering up bullsh$#%! Please!