By Robert Welsh
Here is a quote from the City’s Clairemont Community Plan, dated 1989: “In summary, Clairemont Mesa is an urbanized community and for the most part is built out.” It must be said, that Clairemont has not gotten less “built out” in the 37 years since then.
Recently I was in a discussion about excessive apartment building development in Clairemont Mesa, noting 8 locations where significant developments had been completed, were under construction or were planned. I decided to visit each location in person, to get a first-hand view, and these are my observations.
I was both surprised and shocked with what I found.
I was surprised to find that 2 of the notorious cul-de-sac ADU builds (12 units @ Shoshoni, and 17 units @ Almayo) did not look as awful from the front as they did while under construction. You might easily drive by them without noticing the depth of their development, from front-to-back. Of course, you wouldn’t be driving past them because they are both in cul-de-sacs, and the parking problems are obvious and extreme. There simply is no parking for these locations.
I was shocked to see how many smaller (4-8 unit) ADUs existed or were under construction around Clairemont ! Unless you drive around and look, you will not fathom the incredible amount of construction that has been or is being undertaken.
My focus here will be on the large builds I had mentioned.
Completed – 404 units added Mt. Etna & Genesee
This doesn’t look too bad from the front. You can see that it is large, but until you see it from the side or from behind you will not appreciate how far back it extends. Some of this is “Senior Housing”, so I did not bother to note the price range. It does appear to have some parking, and I did not see any parking issues in the neighborhood when I drove by (Saturday at 9-10am)
Completed – 531 units added at Convoy & Ronson
This is the Alexan Camellia development. Intentionally placed on Convoy so as to avail of the Convoy District, this one is even larger than Mt Etna. You can see its front-to-back dimensions as you peer through the fence where new construction of some sort is taking place, the site of the old Zion and KM Bowl (and K-Mart if you have lived here long enough to remember).
Monthly rent is $2,703-$4,468 for a Studio-2 br, 1-2 ba, 588-1,133 sq ft. Parking is $100-$150/mo for a standard vehicle, $200 for an EV.
Not quite “affordable”, is it ?
Just getting started – 7000 block of Clairemont Mesa Blvd (site of old Zion and KM Bowl). Right next to Alex Camellia, I have not confirmed what will be built here, it has only been demo’d and leveled. I expect it will be another “Camellia”
Under construction – 251 units (7 stories) at 163 Freeway & Clairemont Mesa Blvd
You can see this one from far away as it is very tall. But since there is no existing residential in the area, and it is right next to the 163, it’s not really impacting anyone’s view.
I also see a parking structure being built. It seems the major impact of this development will be to traffic at this already messy and unfortunate intersection of Clairemont Mesa Blvd, Kearny Mesa Rd, Kearny Villa Rd and the major highway of 163
Completed? – 432 units 5550 Kearny Mesa Road
This is Broadstone Soren. Almost hidden from view driving eastward on Clairemont Mesa Blvd, it is tucked in behind the Hampton Inn.
The enormity of this site is not visible until you drive north on Kearny Mesa Rd. It is gigantic ! It does have a parking structure. It is partially complete and units show as availble on Zillow, but Broadstone’s web site says “Coming Soon”.
One thing that is very noteworthy, as you continue north on Kearny Mesa Rd, it dead-ends and that is the location of a very large Amazon warehouse. The *only* evacuation route is going south on Kearny Mesa Rd.
Similar in price to Camellia:
$2,615-$4,630 for Studio-3br,527-1,257 sq ft, EV parking $150/mo, standard vehicle $100/mo
Zillow gives a rating as to how easy it is to walk, bike or use transit, and they rate Broadstone as – 4.5 (out of 10.0) walk, 5.0 transit, 4.7 bike. You can see that this project did not score well in any of these categories.
Technically, this area is Kearny Mesa, District 6.
While in this area, I must point out the grandfather of large apartment complexes in the Kearny Mesa/Clairemont Mesa area –
Sunroad Spectrum
Built on 40 acres, Sunroad Spectrum in turn is part of a larger 232-acre site that used to house General Dynamics, up until 1995. GD employed over 12,000 people here in the early 90’s before they closed.
I worked at GD when I first moved to San Diego in 1985, and became familiar with Kearny Mesa and Clairemont Mesa, and especially Convoy St as an eating destination. I’ve seen what has happened to Convoy through the years, leading to its current incarnation as “Convoy District”, one of “the largest Pan-Asian business districts in the United States and is part of the thriving economic hub of Kearny Mesa.” (This is from their own website). Since I’m focusing on large builds here, I won’t belabor the negative effects of becoming the “Convoy District” instead of simp[ly Convoy St where great (and inexpensive) meals could be had.
The closing of General Dynamics was a tremendous blow to the local economy. All of the commercial businesses in the area were affected, and especially so the Black Angus and the Butcher Shop, two prime next-door watering holes which were always filled at lunchtime or right after work.
Along came Sunroad with a plan to develop the property, and develop it they did.
You may remember the controversy from 2007 when their Centrum Tower was constructed 20 feet too tall given its proximity to Montgomery Field. Ultimately they were forced to demolish the top 2 floors in order to achieve FAA compliance, but the entire year of 2007 was filled with controversy as Mayor Jerry Sanders, who had started out siding with Sunroad, saw the controversy tarnishing Sunroad’s and his reputation, and so he switched sides and came out against it. The city had issued the permits, so Sunroad sued for $40 million, but they lost.
The Sunroad saga certainly shows “how things work” with big developers and City Hall.
Now having said all this, I find the Sunroad to be a very pleasant development. It was the only place in my 3 hours of driving around where I saw any significant numbers of cyclists. I saw 3 in the 10 minutes it took to circumnavigate the complex as it is quite large. Apart from contributing to the traffic at the poorly implemented Clairemont Mesa Blvd & 163 intersection, I see no noticeable negative effects from the Sunroad development. It appears to have been planned thoughtfully, unlike the other large-scale developments currently taking place. It is a unique location in that Kearny Mesa is exclusively commercial and industrial in this area, with no residential until you get south of Aero Drive, or east of I-15, transitioning into Tierrasanta or military housing east of I-15 at Balboa
In the works –
600 units at Balboa & Clairemont Drive
This is the north-east corner, where Goodwill is located. Nothing has been done here yet, and I could not find a “hard” source, like a permit, to confirm it. Thus, it remains a rumor, as it has since a burst of news activity one year ago. Recent rumors have stated “None of the existing retail has been given an offer to come back. He told me only the liquor store and good will are currently there and must be out by 8/31.” and “the thrift store is closing September 1st”
If it ends up being 600 units, that is crazy, just insane. This intersection is already one of the busiest in Clairemont, with traffic coming up from PB as well as from teh Balboa Transit Station (ie trolley). Clairemont High School adjacent and Clairemont Drive having its lanes reduced from 2 each way to 1 to accomodate the virtually unused bike lanes. This intersection is often the site of accidents as vehicles try to speed through and not get stuck at the interminable light. The speed limit on Balboa approaching Caliremont Dr from either side is 45mph, but speeds in excess of 60mph are routinely seen as the road dips/rises from the canyons nearby.
I didn’t have room to cover the ADU plague afflicting Clairemont, but from my first-hand observations it is far worse than you think. You have only to drive around and you will see new projects sprouting up weekly. Other communities would be well served to see how things have been panning out in Clairemont, because until somebody puts a stop to the Mayor’s Madness, they are up next.
photo list
01-shoshoni4 4602 Shoshoni Ave
02-almayo1 4601 Almayo Ave
03-alymayo-rd View of street as seen from 4601 Almayo
04-mt etna-a Mt Etna complex including Paul Downy Senior Residence & Judith Selz Senior wellness Center
05-mt etna-b Rest of Mt Etna complex
06-mt etna-f Mt Etna complex view at rear
07-camellia1 Camellia viewed thru fence of now leveled 7500 CMB (old KM Bowl)
08-8300cmb1 163 & CMB viewed from west
09-8300cmb2 163 & CMB viewed from across CMB
10-5550-km1 Broadstone Soren south side
11-5550-km2 Broadstone Soren south side
12-5550-km3 Broadstone Soren east side
13-5550-km4 Broadstone Soren east-most portion not yet finished
14-spectrum1 From west side of 163
15-spectrum2 North side just before Lightwave Ave
16-spectrum3 Eastern edge at Paramount Dr
17-spectrum4 View heading west on Lightwave towards Kearny Villa Rd
A great overview of pretty expensive extreme densification happening on Kearny Mesa and Clairemont Mesa. Excellent documentation with photos and addresses. Thank you! It seems heedless to me, little parking, no parks, a developer’s dreamscape.
I live two blocks away from the Mt. Etna project. While you may not have seen parking issues when you drove by, there are plenty. Cars park along Mt. Etna and other side streets, often with part of their car blocking driveways, parking for more than a week straight in one spot, blocking handicap curb access. It’s a nightmare.
TK – I don’t doubt it, and I apologize if I gave the wrong impression that there are no parking issues.
I only drove halfway down Mt Etna in order to get a photo from the rear. I did not see any glaring problems at that time, but from my specific location, still east of the power lines, there is no residential yet, just the commercial of Liberty Park Plaza across the street. If I had had the time to drive Mt Castle Ave, I would likely have seen what you refer to.
It is unthinkable that there would be no parking issues created by adding 404 units.
In May of this year it was written in the OB Rag that the developer used the 2019 Ordinance 21507, which eliminated minimum parking requirements for multi-family residential developments within “Transit Priority Areas” to reduce the number of parking spots from 404 to 240 spaces. No doubt the reclaimed space went towards revenue-producing units.
I feel for you. Your neighborhood was typical of the family-oriented areas that Clairemont was initially designed to provide. As evidence, Mt Everest (K-12) school is right there and John Muir (K-8) is only a few blocks away. Mt Etna park is next to John Muir as you probably know. All of this demonstrates a family neighborhood that is being kicked to the curb by relentless overdevelopment.
I don’t fault you, Robert! You caught just a snapshot. And weekends there are far fewer cars parked all over the area than weekdays. And yes, the promise to the community was that there would be parking, but that was eliminated when the TPA ordinances passed. There were also supposed to be far fewer apartments, but they didn’t listen to us there, either. Several community members also expressed concern prior to the build about sex offenders living at the complex. Their concerns were never answered and, of course, a sex offender was rented a unit there with tax-subsidized dollars. Besides Accela, you might also want to dig into lobbying records. Between permits and that, you can put together a pretty good trail of info.
Thank you for taking the time to share these photos. I think the city is acknowledging that overbuilding of market rate units is not bringing rents down significantly. Their new Affordable Home Development Master Plan is evaluating “opportunities for affordable housing, mixed income housing , and shelter sites” at city owned properties including the Clairemont library and Rose Canyon Operations Yard. But both of these Clairemont sites would have unobstructed bay/ocean views when built up, so it’s hard to fathom any developers would want to build affordable units. Your observations of the Balboa/Clairemont Dr. site are spot on. The intersection is awful, especially between Ute and Balboa during school arrival and dismissal (that’s an article in itself). According to the city Accela website, the owner opened a demolition application this month. The number of units proposed is 442: 130 base units which include 20 middle income, 13 low income and 20 very low income, plus 312 bonus units. Six stories with a 7th level roof deck. So essentially, 33 actual low income units earned 312 bonuses. Middle income units shouldn’t get any bonus IMO.
Thank you for your comment.
You make an often overlooked point when you noted that “it’s hard to fathom any developers would want to build affordable units”.
Does anyone believe developers have any other motive than profit ?
So why would they build “loss leader” units ? Only because the City will then allow them to exceed the limitations we all thought would hold rampant overdevelopment in check.
If they’re not making money on it, they’re damned sure not building it !
By the way, I am just beginning to familiarize myself with that Accela website, but I could not find much on the Balboa/Clairemont Dr. site. All I found was the temporary permit for the pumpkin patch. When driving by yesterday, I did see that the liquor store sign saying they are closing soon
Nicole Crosby is on the Clairemont Community Planning Group, and I would have thought being a city employee as she is, she would have push for the community, especially the fact she is an attorney.
Nicole Crosby is not on the Clairemont Community Planning Group. She is the past president of the Clairemont Town Council.
Crosby also attended at least one meeting of the San Diego Community Coalition, a network dedicated to moving against predatory developers.
Richard Bailey has attended the San Diego United Communities. We have invited both candidates and Richard showed up more than just once. I doubt you invited Richard to your SD Community Coalition.
there is also a large development on Convoy where Dixieline used to be
ccs – I believe that is part of the Alexan Camellia development. Please correct me if I am wrong.
It goes from Ronson & Convoy to Raytheon & Convoy, with the Sherman Williams paint store still in place (I wonder for how long ?)
The real “biggie” is the lot next door – where KM Bowl and Zion Market used to be (and K-Mart way before that). All that has been done so far is demolish the buildings and flatten the land.
Let’s consider two alternatives to “excessive apartment building”.
Alternative number 1: every new worker, child, family, or retiree that wants to move to San Diego must move to a new home built where there is space for new homes. Places like Valley Center, Ramona, or maybe we bulldoze Penasquitos canyon for new neighborhoods. These people, spread to the 4 winds, have to drive dozens of miles to get to work or downtown requiring huge freeway expansions to service all of the new long distance trips. Greenspace is non-existent as each new home requires a new road and 1/3 acre lot. Not a fun city…
Alternative number 2: San Diego doesn’t add any housing. We’re full! Every lot is frozen in existing “density”. Every first child born in San Diego waits for their parents to die to even live here let alone own a house here. Every second and beyond child is SOL. No new companies crop up because there are no new workers to hire. The city is unable to keep up with infrastructure maintenance, tax revue stagnates, nothing new is ever built. Not a fun city either…
Densification is a proven way to use fewer resources to service a greater number of people. Each one of those units is going to be rented by someone who lives and works in San Diego, hopefully their morning commute will be less than that of someone who lives in Ramona, lowering VMT/capita. Maybe their kids bike to school because it’s just around the corner. Police can actively patrol a smaller area and response times can decrease. All of these advantages must be realized all across the city in order to have long term prosperity and ensure that our precious tax dollars are not wasted on serving a community too spread out to do anything but drive on the highway to get anywhere.
I encourage you to check out StrongTowns, a data-driven and science-first organization dedicated to the responsible use of tax money by designing cities in the least wasteful way possible. This article is a great place to start to understand the implications of sprawl vs density: https://www.strongtowns.org/journal/2020-5-14-americas-growth-ponzi-scheme-md2020
There’s also a series of youtube videos that are just as informative: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJp5q-R0lZ0_FCUbeVWK6OGLN69ehUTVa
Chase — nope, sorry, your quote: “Densification is a proven way to use fewer resources to service a greater number of people.” No it hasn’t. Increasing density does not translate into more affordable homes. Building more market rate housing does not translate into more affordable ones. That’s the YIMBY mantra, however, so you fit right in with the YIMBY bubble.
“Densification is a proven way to use fewer resources to service a greater number of people.”
This quote is actually true, Frank.
You’re stuck on the affordable housing point, which I do agree with – the city needs to revamp what they consider low income and apply by community average, not a sweeping generalized approach that wraps every SD community together(City
Heights vs La Jolla is not comparable, so why do we use the same AMI chart for both?)
The resources in question:
– Public infrastructure – Upgraded Sewer/Electrical/Telecoms are condensed to one area as opposed to spread out and creating more terrain disturbance. More sprawl and more areas to maintain and service.
– Protection of Natural landscapes, surely you cant argue that a highrise housing 50 families is destroying more of the landscape than the sprawl of single-family home suburbia?
– Concentration of First responder areas covered, faster travel times and smaller network to maintain
-Proximity to community infrastructure, Schools, Post Offices, Grocery Stores – less land disturbed and spread out because the economics of putting these things closer to where people live make more sense than spreading them miles away
– Gasoline/Transportation times are also significantly reduced if we were to approach a 15-minute city design approach that prioritizes proximity over large swaths of highway and asphalt
– Carbon Sequestration – the density of one area limits the expenditure of carbon through construction, transportation, and urban infrastructure as opposed to building far and wide.
These are all REAL physical examples of using fewer resources to service a greater number of people. You’re stuck on the economic development of the argument, which is not a RESOURCE. I actually agree with you – developers need to face more scrutiny and things need to change on a policy level to accommodate for real affordable housing change. But densification literally uses less resources to service more people – lets not be naive and let our biases cloud empirical evidence.
Javier – Simply saying something is true does not make it so. Where is your proof of –
“Densification is a proven way to use fewer resources to service a greater number of people.”
What if I say “This quote is actually bullcrap, Javier” ? Does that make it bullcrap ?
Offer some proof.
“You’re stuck on the affordable housing point”
He’s not stuck anywhere – he refuted your claim, and since you made the assertion, it’s on you to provide the proof.
“City Heights vs La Jolla is not comparable”
Are you suggesting a multi-tier approach, where a wealthy community is treated differently than a mid-income or even poor community ?
Offer some proof.
” Upgraded Sewer/Electrical/Telecoms are condensed ”
Please share your experience with any of these infrastructure items. Or are you simply spitballing in the absence of facts.
Having to replace an existing sewer line with a large one is not necessarily less expensive than adding additional sewer line, it depends on the specifics which are notably absent from your comment.
“Protection of Natural landscapes, surely you cant argue that a highrise housing 50 families is destroying more of the landscape than the sprawl of single-family home suburbia?”
Don’t call me Shirley. I joke here because this statement of yours simply cannot be taken seriously. ” .. the sprawl of single-family home suburbia” ??? Wow, what a label. Do you have any inkling of how Clairemont was designed, planed and built ? Or does it simply not fit your comic book labels ?
“Concentration of First responder areas covered, faster travel times and smaller network to maintain”
I’d love to see how you measure this ! What about traffic ? What about congestion ?
“less land disturbed”
Construction somehow disturbs less land than no construction ?
“the economics of putting these things closer to where people live make more sense than spreading them miles away”
This is little more than a waste of words. “the economics” ? State them. “putting these things” ? What things ? “closer to where people live” Why don’t we all live in high-rises downtown and everybody can walk or bike to work and everything is “closer to where people live” ?
“a 15-minute city design approach that prioritizes proximity over large swaths of highway and asphalt”
Man, have someone read back to you the words you write. I’m find it hard to believe your statements are serious as they venture further and further from reality.
Show me an existing 15 minute city anywhere in the USA. It’s nothing more than a wacky theory that has zero chance of succeeding. Build one somewhere (not here) and demonstrate the benefits ! No one has done it because it is bunk. The concept simply will not work in the United States, not on any significant scale.
“These are all REAL physical examples”
Arte you kidding ?? You didn’t give even ONE physical example, just a lot of pie-in-the-sky opinions, theories and concepts
“lets not be naive and let our biases cloud empirical evidence.”
You have some nerve saying this. Why don’t you relate some FACTS with references instead of wasting time with your opinions ? Do you even know what empirical evidence is ? With your comment you have cast doubt on whether you are familiar with the concept.
Unless you are a poorly trained AI bot, I don;t see any excuse for what you have written here. Others seem to be capable of discussing divergent views, by supplying facts, why can’t you ?
All of the points I made are basic facts of proximity and density, you dont need a scientific peer reviewed journal to point out that a highrise disturbs less land area than a suburban neighborhood – .
Javier – it is disappointing yet perhaps revealing, that you refuse to provide any kind of source, documentaion or proof of your statements.
“All of the points I made are basic facts of proximity and density”
You don’t make any points Javier, you simply assert without any supporting information. You don’t even supply a reason why we should believe your opinions, such as credentials distinguishing you as something than a blowhard.
“you dont need a scientific peer reviewed journal to point out that a highrise disturbs less land area than a suburban neighborhood”
Once again, you seem to believe that you stating something makes it true. We actually DO need something along the lines of a peer reviewed study from an accepted journal to prove in some way that a high-rice disturbs less land than a suburban neighborhood. For starters, it makes a difference what is meant by “disturb”. If you mean simply the square footage consumed then you should say so. But absolutely no one considers square footage to be the prime metric for environmental impact. Carbon foot print, heat island effect, rooftop solar capabilities, parking, traffic congestion, demands on existing water and sewer lines, wind patterns, etc. It is complicated, and that is why I object so strenuously to your “coloring book” opinions. You are not even keeping it inside the lines !
Some additional arguments since you really want sources.
**Revenue per acre.** This is the one nobody wants to look at. Urban3 ran the actual county assessor data for Modesto, Turlock, and Merced – California cities, not theory – and in all six cities they studied, compact mixed-use property returned significantly more tax revenue per acre than low-density single-use development. In Asheville a renovated downtown building generated close to ten times the property tax per acre of a Super Walmart sitting on 34 acres. You asked me for a metric. That’s the metric – revenue per acre measured against cost to serve per acre. Cities just don’t publish it, because the map is embarrassing. https://civicwell.org/civic-resources/valuing-downtowns/
**Water.** Landscape irrigation is about 54% of single-family water use in Los Angeles. EPA puts outdoor use as high as 60% of household consumption in the Southwest. A unit without a lawn is a water policy. We import most of our water and pay desal prices for the rest – you tell me which pattern is using fewer resources.
**Burden of proof.** You’re demanding peer review from me while treating sprawl as the neutral baseline that doesn’t need defending. It isn’t. Sprawl IS the experiment. We ran it for 70 years and the result is a street repair backlog this city cannot fund and infrastructure we can’t afford to replace. You’re defending the intervention. I’m the control group.
**Traffic.** You asked “what about congestion?” Congestion at one intersection isn’t the measure – VMT per capita is. Dense areas have slower streets and less total driving. Those aren’t contradictions, they’re the same number viewed twice.
**Fire.** Every unit we refuse to build in Clairemont gets built in the wildland-urban interface instead. This county has watched what that costs, twice, in living memory. That’s not a theory, that’s 2003 and 2007.
**And Clairemont.** You asked if I know how it was planned. I do – it was mass-produced tract housing thrown up on open mesa in the 1950s, standardized, fast, at scale, and plenty of people at the time thought it was ruining San Diego. The pattern you’re defending as settled and thoughtful was the disruption once too. It just got old enough to be called character.
Robert — you asked for sources, so here they are.
**Carbon.** Jones & Kammen, *Environmental Science & Technology* (UC Berkeley, peer-reviewed, modeling 30,000+ zip codes): urban core households average ~40 tCO2e/year while outlying suburbs run ~50, and suburbs by themselves account for roughly half of the entire U.S. household carbon footprint. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es4034364
**Your sewer question.** *Urban Science* (2021) ran Census government-finance data against population-weighted density and found density negatively associated with per-capita municipal spending on fire protection, streets, parks, sewer, solid waste, and water — for operations, construction, and land acquisition alike. Not “it depends.” Measured, across US cities. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5030069
**Energy.** EPA’s *Location Efficiency and Housing Type*: housing type and location drive energy consumption more dramatically than efficiency upgrades do, and multifamily and attached housing carry efficiencies that detached single-family simply doesn’t have. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf
**Local.** *Right Type, Right Place* (UC Berkeley CLEE + Terner Center, 2017) modeled California specifically: the full-infill scenario meets identical housing demand with a much smaller carbon footprint and over $800 million more in annual economic growth than business-as-usual. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/land-use/right-type-right-place/ EPA also ran an infill-vs-greenfield transportation comparison using San Diego as one of three case study regions.
On “show me a 15-minute city in the USA” — you’re surrounded by them. North Park, Hillcrest, Little Italy, Golden Hill. We built that pattern for a century, then zoned it illegal to build again. Clairemont wasn’t badly planned; it was well planned around 1955 assumptions about gas prices, one car per household, and infinite land. Two of those three are gone.
And on “disturb”: use every metric you listed. Carbon, heat island, stormwater, per-capita infrastructure, VMT. Density wins on carbon, infrastructure, and VMT outright. Heat island and stormwater are real — and they’re design problems with design answers (canopy, cool roofs, permeable paving), not arguments for spreading fifty households across fifteen acres.
Javier –
**Revenue per acre.** This is the one nobody wants to look at. Urban3 ran the actual county assessor data for Modesto, Turlock, and Merced – California cities, not theory – and in all six cities they studied, compact mixed-use property returned significantly more tax revenue per acre than low-density single-use development. In Asheville a renovated downtown building generated close to ten times the property tax per acre of a Super Walmart sitting on 34 acres. You asked me for a metric. That’s the metric – revenue per acre measured against cost to serve per acre. Cities just don’t publish it, because the map is embarrassing. https://civicwell.org/civic-resources/valuing-downtowns/
Ok, finally a source ! However, Urban3 is one of StrongTowns cronies, just look at their web site !(https://archive.strongtowns.org/urban3)
Do you remember the tobacco companies’ studies that showed how cigarettes were not bad for us ? That’s why I dislike clearly biased “studies”. Nevertheless, you have supplied one source which is one more than all of your previous comments combined, so let’s examine it further.
First off, their maps show tax revenue per acre, not economic productivity per acre. Please, leave your editorializing aside – “This is the one nobody wants to look at”. You have no basis for this statement whatsoever. It is just more of “Javier’s Opinions”, which frankly I find of little use.
I dispute that tax revenue per acre is the metric by which all communities should be valued. Maybe the Mayor’s office looks at it that way, but our communities are about people, not tax revenue, and the value of a community goes far beyond its tax revenue profile. SO does it’s ecomonic prodcutivity which is not deemed wirthy of Urban3’s consideration.
“In Asheville a renovated downtown building generated close to ten times the property tax per acre of a Super Walmart sitting on 34 acres.”
Are we switching to a discussion of commercial real estate here ?
“You asked me for a metric. That’s the metric – revenue per acre measured against cost to serve per acre. Cities just don’t publish it, because the map is embarrassing. ”
Boy, you’re proud of that one factoid, aren’t you ? And then it’s right back to the cavalcade of “Javier’s Opinions”. The map is embarrassing ? To whom ? You have a source for that. Of course not.
**Water.** Landscape irrigation is about 54% of single-family water use in Los Angeles. EPA puts outdoor use as high as 60% of household consumption in the Southwest. A unit without a lawn is a water policy.
Look, don’t waste my time with your blather any more, Javier. You seem to be incapaple of speaking in sentences that include facts, not factoids, and that are consitently polluted with “Javier’s Opinions”.
“A unit without a lawn is a water policy.”
What high school manifesto did you dig that claptrap out of ?
I’m not even going to bother with the rest of your comment, it’s simply more of the same. I will not reply further to your comments, so please cancel my subscription to “Javier’s Comments”. You want the last word ? You got it .
You can repeat all your YIMBY propanagnda till you’re blue in the face, but the citizens who live here, we know bullcrap when we hear it. Maybe you should ask the Mayor if he needs help writing his next piece of urban density fiction.
Robert –
You want the last word. Sure. But first, a small housekeeping matter: I commented Four peer-reviewed and federal citations. It never got posted. Frank — you’ve been sitting on and editing my comments while this thread runs a victory lap about how I dont cite anything. Neat trick. Let’s try again, with the notes attached this time, so nobody has to take my word for anything.
**Carbon** — Jones & Kammen, *Environmental Science & Technology*, UC Berkeley. Peer-reviewed, modeling household emissions across 30,000+ US zip codes. Urban core households average around 40 tCO2e/year; outlying suburbs run closer to 50. Suburbs alone account for roughly half of the entire U.S. household carbon footprint. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/es4034364
**Your sewer question** — *Urban Science*, 2021. Ran Census government-finance data against population-weighted density across US cities and found density negatively associated with per-capita municipal spending on fire protection, streets, parks, sewer, solid waste, and water — for operations, construction, and land acquisition alike. You said “it depends on the specifics.” Somebody went and measured the specifics. https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5030069
**Energy** — EPA, *Location Efficiency and Housing Type*. Federal, not a think tank. Finding: location and housing type move energy consumption more than efficiency upgrades do, and attached and multifamily housing carry structural efficiencies detached single-family can’t match — shared walls, less exterior envelope. https://www.epa.gov/sites/default/files/2014-03/documents/location_efficiency_btu.pdf
**California, specifically** — *Right Type, Right Place*, UC Berkeley CLEE + Terner Center. Modeled statewide housing production to 2030. The full-infill scenario meets identical housing demand with a substantially smaller carbon footprint and over $800 million more in annual economic growth than business as usual. EPA also ran an infill-versus-greenfield transportation comparison using San Diego as one of three case regions — so yes, somebody did the local homework too. https://www.law.berkeley.edu/research/clee/research/land-use/right-type-right-place/
So: Berkeley, a peer-reviewed journal, and the EPA. I await the explanation for how those are Strong Towns cronies. Take your time.
And I notice what you did with Urban3 — you didn’t find an error in the numbers, you found a logo you didn’t like. That’s not a rebuttal. The underlying data is county assessor records. Public. Downloadable. Check it and show me where it’s wrong.
On revenue per acre: I never claimed it’s how we measure the worth of a community. Obviously it isn’t. It measures one thing — whether a development pattern generates enough to maintain the pipes and pavement it requires. You asked who pays for the sewer. That’s the arithmetic that answers you.
You’re free to unsubscribe from my comments. Cancellation processed, but no refund. But you spent this entire thread demanding sources, and when four of them showed up you called the messenger a blowhard and walked away. That’s the record. Anyone still reading can decide what it means – thats if Frank is honest enough to actually post my comment this time. Unedited.
Infrastructure costs are lower per capita in high density compared to low density https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020497
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1056819023017815
Services cost less per capita with increasing density
https://doi.org/10.3390/urbansci5030069
https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098015601579
As for the land use, imagine the extreme: 1 million people in one massive 200 story tower, now imagine those same million people in single family homes, which takes up less space? Which preserves more of the natural landscape?
‘Each one of those units is going to be rented by someone who lives and works in San Diego,”
As an aside from what Steph said, we won’t know that until people actually do move in to one of these units. I’m sure their will be plenty of people who move in and yes they will obviously be living in San Diego but that doesn’t mean they wont work elsewhere. I know plenty of people who live in SD but commute to Orange county or to the Riverside area or even LA. Most who move into these units WILL probably work within the city or at least county area, but even then that’s a pretty widespread space to cover. The density of these unit will have no bearing on how far they travel to work, including of they will work in the city.
Chase –
Come one man, will you be serious ?
“Alternative number 1: every new worker, child, family, or retiree that wants to move to San Diego must move to a new home built where there is space for new homes.”
People don’t move out ? People don’t die ? The poor real estate agents must be starving ! Maybe that’s what all those homeless zombies are – out of work real estate agents.
If you want to posit an alternative, and I welcome it if is something more than opinionated blather, supply facts.
Alternative number 2
“Every first child born in San Diego waits for their parents to die to even live here let alone own a house here.”
Why is it so difficult to have a coherent discussion about an important matter ? Where do you even come up with this kind of baloney ? To call it baloney is to do a disservice to baloney.
Didn’t you read even the very first paragraph written ? Here it is again:
Here is a quote from the City’s Clairemont Community Plan, dated 1989: “In summary, Clairemont Mesa is an urbanized community and for the most part is built out.”built out”
How have we survived the last 37 years ? Everyone has “to a new home built where there is space for new homes” ? Where are they all ?
“Every first child born in San Diego waits for their parents to die to even live here let alone own a house here. Every second and beyond child is SOL.”
My adult son was born here. He doesn’t live with me. He rents. Affordable housing *IS* an issue in San Diego, and I nor anyone else in this discussion has claimed otherwise.
Virtually none of these massive projects that have been rammed up our collective snouts have provided any “affordable housing”.
And StrongTowns ? How about this drivel from their “housing” page:
“Housing is an investment. Investment prices must go up. Housing is shelter. When the price of shelter goes up, people experience distress.”
What the holy hell is he even saying here ?
Housing should not be an investment. That is the CENTRAL reason why housing is not affordable, because literally EVERYONE has used housing as a way to “Make Money Fast”
The “value” of my house has increased by more than $500,000 in the 23 year I have lived here. How do you account for that ? Supply and demand ?Man, put down the crack pipe !
It’s because housing is (ab)used as a financial instrument, and homeowners have gone along with it, seduced by the false equity they can draw one without taxation. Well, it’s not false equity when you sell, and married couples can profit $500,000 – that’s half a million Sparky, without any taxation whatsoever. Is there anywhere else a regular person can make that kind of money, tax free ? I get taxed on my measly Social Security fer cryin’ out loud !
But even the simple homeowner who buys a house, who lives there, who raises children that go to nearby school, this person is not the main problem. Home equity loans are a symptom, not the problem. How does a home get overvalued ? Answer: How could it not ? EVERYBODY makes money off of overvaluation, and in the extreme !
Are you completely unaware of the sub-prime mortgage that started only 20 years ago and wreaked financial havoc around the world ? Get a clue, man ! Educate yourself with facts, not rhetoric. I have learned a lot as I have researched these issues, and many of my initial suppositions were proven wrong. That’s how we learn, or at least how I learn.
I’m not going to engage with every point, but I’d like to point out that your critique of the StrongTowns housing page is misguided. They are describing what’s called the “housing trap” where housing (inappropriately) is treated like an investment such that it *must* go up to satisfy investors. This causes hardship on the community because housing is actually shelter and when the price goes up it leaves people behind. You and I both agree with this statement. Really take a hard look at StrongTowns and I think you will find many things that you will agree with at a fundamental level 1. Housing is too expensive 2. Taxes are too high/not being used efficiently and 3. When those things are happening people (and predominantly middle and low income people) suffer. It’s a matter of what are we going do that will alleviate the suffering.
Chase – You are right, we do agree on some points, but this is not one of them –
“This causes hardship on the community because housing is actually shelter and when the price goes up it leaves people behind.”
You, or perhaps StrongsTowns, want to define housing as one thing, choosing merely one aspect of its nature instead of dealing with its nature en toto. Yes housing is shelter, but so is a tent, so is a cave, so is an RV. Housing is much more than that. Done properly, housing is a solid investment. When the prices are not controlled by speculators, housing is one of the greatest family savings plans there are, because as long as its not taxed excessively your home tracks inflation perfectly. Your real equity, the amount of the loan you have paid off absolutely represents “money in the bank”, but the potential for intergenerational wealth (ie your children grow up there, and go on to raise their own children there). This is why it was referred to as the American Dream in the past. Imagine being able to raise your kids in the very community where you grew up. The tightest of community bonds are formed here. Now THAT is a strong town. And the people of Clairemont and other communities trying to resist the effects of de facto totalitarianism where The State, as expressed by the San Franciso derived policies and politics forces every city to comply with “one size fits all” laws that address a local problem.
We do agree on these –
“1. Housing is too expensive 2. Taxes are too high/not being used efficiently ”
I absolutely agree with you on these two points, they are easily demonstrated as factual and no one suggests otherwise.
However – “3. When those things are happening people (and predominantly middle and low income people) suffer. It’s a matter of what are we going do that will alleviate the suffering.”
Now you are in opinionated judgement territory. No doubt you have a serious point here, but it is not shown when you try to say that one group or one class suffers more than others. We always think our own suffering is the worst, the the suffering of others is no big deal. Do middle and low income people suffer more because they have less money ? Possibly, but for a sweeping generalization such as this you need to make the case – not just assume we all recognize the worst case scenarios and will thus go along for the intellectual ride. For example, a significant amount of poor/middle income people remain such because they make poor choices. This is a separate debate, and a lengthy one at that, so let’s stay on topic here with the Overstuffing Of Clairemont and discuss the reasons for poverty in another forum.
You do make a good point with your very last statement (minus the suffering bit) :
“It’s a matter of what are we going do that will alleviate the suffering.”
Indeed it should be up to “us”, meaning the governed, to decide what we are going to do. But currently California exhibits the characteristics of an oligarchy. I am not alone ion this opinion – the wikipedia entry on oligarchy lists 10 sources who are described –
“Several commentators and scholars have suggested that the United States demonstrates characteristics of an oligarchy, particularly in relation to the concentration of wealth and political influence among a small elite, as exemplified by the list of top donors to political parties.”
So, what are “what are we going do” ? I want that “we” to mean the people who already live here, not some imaginary, rhetorical construct of “future residents”.
Chase, I wish I could believe that “Each one of those units is going to be rented by someone who lives and works in San Diego.” But what I’ve seen in the past 10 years is an increase in subletting of units for STVRs.
As Bonus ADU apartments and Complete Communities/ SB79 completely transform our neighborhoods, the areas that aren’t as likely to be transformed will become far more valuable. The million dollar SFR that isn’t transformed by nearby under parked dense development, will become a Unicorn. Supply & demand = traditional homes that young families aspire to, will be ever further out of their grasp. So they leave. If anything, building Borg Cubes on block after block only exasperates the problem. The rental vacancy factor is over 6%., that is not a housing shortage. Our government has sold us out to the highest bidder.
Norman – I am in total agreement – our government has indeed sold us out.
The apartment vacancy rate is an easily verifiable fact and is exactly as you say – over 6% which is a record, exceeding the previous high of 5.7% set during the 2009 recession.
Yet according to a report from Zumper National Rent Report “San Diego remains the 10th most expensive rental market in the U.S.” (July 2026)
These SB79 & friends policies are not only not helping young families into their first homes, they are pushing those homes further out of reach.
The city identified 11 pieces of city-owned land, mostly libraries and operations yards, where they want to build affordable housing. The Clairemont Library at 2920 Burgener Street is one of them. At the city-hosted meeting in University City two weeks ago (which was a joke – small hot room, no seats, no presentation, just boards with “ideas” on them), they said 56 affordable units could be built on the 0.46 acre Clairemont Library site.
But, here’s what will happen. They rip down the super cool mid-century modern original library, build a soulless, ugly library and then build as many luxury, small, dense apartments on top as possible. There is no parking for the library or apartments. There is, however, a multi-million dollar view of the bay and ocean from the 2nd-3rd floor and higher. The developer will either pay the ridiculously low “in lieu” fee (see link below) to not build affordable units at all or they will “promise” to build the units up to 3 miles away (in, no doubt, a much less scenic, safe, and desirable location) within the next five years (see link below). After one year, however, the LLC formed to do the build, shuts down and the people involved disappear. The neighborhood gains no affordable housing and no housing that anyone can buy. The neighborhood does get more people, less parking, no home/condo owners making a commitment to the neighborhood, and no new or improved infrastructure (water, sewer, streets, parks, open space, rec center, etc.).
Keep an eye on ALL projects happening in your neighborhood and the city as a whole. For example, in addition to the Clairemont Library, one of the other 11 sites the city wants to build on is the Rose Canyon Operations Yard. This 16 acre property right behind Cadden Way also has lovely views. The “idea” the city showed at the meeting two weeks ago said that 2436 apartments could be there. Yes, 2436! These types of projects that provide no or little affordable housing (but do produce developer profits and campaign donations), builds with excessive ADU’s, and whole-house party AirBNBs in once quiet neighborhoods are making San Diego no longer “America’s Finest City.”
https://www.sandiego.gov/development-services/forms-publications/information-bulletins/532
https://docs.sandiego.gov/municode/MuniCodeChapter14/Ch14Art02Division13.pdf#page=7
SSmith – Thanks for providing the informative links. They show another level of chicanery that exists enabling city leaders to pillory our local communities without fear of consequences.
You can tell by the extensive use of vague and often never defined terms that are the lexicon of “developer-speak” – inclusionary, dwelling units, sustainable, diverse, balanced, density – that they don’t want us to understand what is really being done.
I have read where developers in North Park had to lease parking in a nearby parking structure to rent their units. I guess the prospective tenants haven’t been enlightened in that cars are no longer needed. A great many of these hives without parking will saturate that market to where projects will go back to the lenders or be abandoned mid-construction. This all could have been avoided without Complete Communities, SB79, and the Bonus ADU program. The original ADU State laws of 2017 were all that was needed, and didn’t negatively impact communities.
Robert, thank you for writing this article. Our friends in the College area got slammed with supersized ADU projects first, but then Clairemont got hit really hard. After the ADU bros ran up the prices of homes in Clairemont, they moved to Linda Vista. Now, the City has started this BS program of city-owned land and “surplus lands.” If developers can easily get out of including affordable housing by paying the in-lieu (ridiculously low) fee or pushing the affordable units to a less desirable location, they will use those loopholes EVERY SINGLE TIME, especially when the location offers bay, ocean, or canyon views. It is an absolute lie to claim that these developments are for “affordable housing.”