I’m one of the more than 1,400 San Diegans who have sent emails to the Mayor and council urging them not to implement state Senate Bill (SB) 10.
My reasons for opposing this poorly-written legislation generally align with those of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, a group I helped organize more than two years ago in response to the construction of a seven-unit apartment complex on a small, single-family lot in Talmadge.
But my comments here reflect my own views in these issues.
First, I urge everyone — whether they support, oppose or have no position on SB 10 — to read the text of the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation and the critique of that legislation posted on the Neighbors website at www.nfabsd.org.
And I’d like to make the following points in response to Doug’s commentary:
1) “That doesn’t mean there aren’t groups who want him characterized as public enemy number one.”
I’m pretty confident that tens of thousands — if not more — voters are deeply disappointed and disillusioned with the Mayor’s inability to make any noticeable impact on homelessness. I think he’s utterly failed to built the transitional, very-low, and low-income housing — with supportive services — that we desperately need to start reducing homelessness. Other evidence of his failure to effectively lead our city include the Ash Street debacle the stalled Civic Center revitalization plan, the city’s $5 billion infrastructure deficit, the pathetic state of public transit, and his willful failure to solicit and incorporate public input into his decision-making. But I also blame Council President Sean Elo Rivera and the council in general for failing to exercise the independent oversight required to make our strong-mayor system function as promised.
2) “First up are the NIMBYs and assorted derivatives who will tell you they want more housing and then turn around with a list of demands making construction impossible. Or opposing new construction because it’s not all designated for lower income residents.“
Critics of the city’s “bonus ADU program,” it’s “Sustainable Development Zones,” and SB 9 and 10 have from the start of this debate put forth specific strategies for increasing the city’s housing supply, including our support for state regulations that allow homeowners to build an ADU and/or JADU (without off-street parking if the owner chooses) on properties in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes. We have encouraged the construction of mulit-unit/mixed used development on and near our under-used transit corridors, especially along El Cajon Blvd and University Ave. We especially support efforts by non-profits and city government to build much-needed supportive housing near transit and in areas that can be served by the efficient use of jitneys and other creative transit strategies, that could actually make it possible for some residents to live without a personal vehicle, thus realistically reducing the need for parking.
“SB 10 allows up to 10 homes per multi-family-zoned parcel in transit-rich areas through a streamlined process along with the potential for additional homes on single-family zoned parcels in transit-rich areas. (The additional homes would be allowed subject to certain regulations, including the provision of onsite affordable homes.)”
Our single-family neighborhoods were not designed, engineered, or built to absorb the type of development allowed by SB 10. These neighborhoods cannot accommodate up to twelve housing units (ten units in a three-story building with an additional two ADUs) on a single family lot) with no off-street parking. Among other unacceptable consequences, development on that scale is incompatible with the city’s Climate Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy programs because it allows developers to strip single family lots of mature trees without meaningful replanting, turning the property into a concrete and brick heat island. The lack of any required off-street parking boosts developer and investor profits buy ignores the reality of our city’s woefully inadequate transit system, our decrepit and over-capacity streets, our lack of parks, rec centers and other basic public amenities, and our city’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit.
3) “Legalizing kinds of housing banned by zoning laws with single family as the default zoning means duplexes, townhomes and smaller apartment buildings can be built. This type of construction is called the "missing middle" and is meant to fill the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments.”
Yes, SB 10 is designed to provide more of the so-called “Missing Middle”, with a mix of townhomes, duplex’s, courtyards, and multi story buildings that “blend” with existing single-family homes. If such measured, thoughtful, street-by-street development was in fact required by the Mayor’s proposed implementation language, I seriously doubt there would be any organized or full-throated opposition to SB 10 implementation. But the Mayor and his “planning” department are not requiring that sensible approach to densification. Based on our experience with the city’s failed “bonus ADU” program, for-profit developers will build only the maximum 10- or 12-unit projects, because maximum density yields maximum profits.
Perhaps worst of all, the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation includes language that prohibits future city councils from reducing or making any changes to the upzoning imposed by SB 10. Such “poison pill” language that strips our policy makers of the ability to rethink density and development based on unforeseen consequences is contrary to accepted land-use and planning goals and an unacceptable intrusion on representative government..
As long as our Mayor, city council, and their city “planners” are unwilling to engage on these valid concerns, I and thousands of other San Diegans will fight the proposed implementation of SB 10.
I’m one of the more than 1,400 San Diegans who have sent emails to the Mayor and council urging them not to implement state Senate Bill (SB) 10.
My reasons for opposing this poorly-written legislation generally align with those of Neighbors For A Better San Diego, a group I helped organize more than two years ago in response to the construction of a seven-unit apartment complex on a small, single-family lot in Talmadge.
But my comments here reflect my own views in these issues.
First, I urge everyone — whether they support, oppose or have no position on SB 10 — to read the text of the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation and the critique of that legislation posted on the Neighbors website at www.nfabsd.org.
And I’d like to make the following points in response to Doug’s commentary:
1) “That doesn’t mean there aren’t groups who want him characterized as public enemy number one.”
I’m pretty confident that tens of thousands — if not more — voters are deeply disappointed and disillusioned with the Mayor’s inability to make any noticeable impact on homelessness. I think he’s utterly failed to built the transitional, very-low, and low-income housing — with supportive services — that we desperately need to start reducing homelessness. Other evidence of his failure to effectively lead our city include the Ash Street debacle the stalled Civic Center revitalization plan, the city’s $5 billion infrastructure deficit, the pathetic state of public transit, and his willful failure to solicit and incorporate public input into his decision-making. But I also blame Council President Sean Elo Rivera and the council in general for failing to exercise the independent oversight required to make our strong-mayor system function as promised.
2) “First up are the NIMBYs and assorted derivatives who will tell you they want more housing and then turn around with a list of demands making construction impossible. Or opposing new construction because it’s not all designated for lower income residents.“
Critics of the city’s “bonus ADU program,” it’s “Sustainable Development Zones,” and SB 9 and 10 have from the start of this debate put forth specific strategies for increasing the city’s housing supply, including our support for state regulations that allow homeowners to build an ADU and/or JADU (without off-street parking if the owner chooses) on properties in neighborhoods zoned for single-family homes. We have encouraged the construction of mulit-unit/mixed used development on and near our under-used transit corridors, especially along El Cajon Blvd and University Ave. We especially support efforts by non-profits and city government to build much-needed supportive housing near transit and in areas that can be served by the efficient use of jitneys and other creative transit strategies, that could actually make it possible for some residents to live without a personal vehicle, thus realistically reducing the need for parking.
“SB 10 allows up to 10 homes per multi-family-zoned parcel in transit-rich areas through a streamlined process along with the potential for additional homes on single-family zoned parcels in transit-rich areas. (The additional homes would be allowed subject to certain regulations, including the provision of onsite affordable homes.)”
Our single-family neighborhoods were not designed, engineered, or built to absorb the type of development allowed by SB 10. These neighborhoods cannot accommodate up to twelve housing units (ten units in a three-story building with an additional two ADUs) on a single family lot) with no off-street parking. Among other unacceptable consequences, development on that scale is incompatible with the city’s Climate Action Plan and Urban Tree Canopy programs because it allows developers to strip single family lots of mature trees without meaningful replanting, turning the property into a concrete and brick heat island. The lack of any required off-street parking boosts developer and investor profits buy ignores the reality of our city’s woefully inadequate transit system, our decrepit and over-capacity streets, our lack of parks, rec centers and other basic public amenities, and our city’s multi-billion dollar infrastructure deficit.
3) “Legalizing kinds of housing banned by zoning laws with single family as the default zoning means duplexes, townhomes and smaller apartment buildings can be built. This type of construction is called the "missing middle" and is meant to fill the gap between single-family homes and high-rise apartments.”
Yes, SB 10 is designed to provide more of the so-called “Missing Middle”, with a mix of townhomes, duplex’s, courtyards, and multi story buildings that “blend” with existing single-family homes. If such measured, thoughtful, street-by-street development was in fact required by the Mayor’s proposed implementation language, I seriously doubt there would be any organized or full-throated opposition to SB 10 implementation. But the Mayor and his “planning” department are not requiring that sensible approach to densification. Based on our experience with the city’s failed “bonus ADU” program, for-profit developers will build only the maximum 10- or 12-unit projects, because maximum density yields maximum profits.
Perhaps worst of all, the Mayor’s proposed SB 10 implementation includes language that prohibits future city councils from reducing or making any changes to the upzoning imposed by SB 10. Such “poison pill” language that strips our policy makers of the ability to rethink density and development based on unforeseen consequences is contrary to accepted land-use and planning goals and an unacceptable intrusion on representative government..
As long as our Mayor, city council, and their city “planners” are unwilling to engage on these valid concerns, I and thousands of other San Diegans will fight the proposed implementation of SB 10.