How And Why Is The City Changing Our Community Plans?

How And Why Is The City Changing Our Community Plans?

The City of San Diego and the County of San Diego is currently updating and amending our local Community Plans in their attempt to urbanize our neighborhoods in  compliance with sb 375 and several other state mandates, such as affordable-housing goals.   It is also an attempt  to lower carbon emissions, densify and diversify our neighborhoods in the belief that densification will increase ridership on the newly built trolley system.  One of the City’s overarching goals is to increase the property tax base with more housing. The mainstay in implementing the goals of ridership is Transit-Oriented Development.

SB 375 is a California State Senate Bill targeting greenhouse emissions.,,

Controversy over sb375

Excerpts from Wikipedia-

Although SB 375 supports increased density development surrounding main transit stops, this does not guarantee an increase in affordable options for housing and may even increase land values in these places, which may lead to the displacement of the people who live there.[35][36] Another way in which the bill contributes to environmental justice is that the bill requires each city to show where housing will be situated in order to meet housing allocations for residents of varying income levels and SB 375 provides direct action to curb urban sprawlas well.[37][38][39] According to a research study on accessory dwelling units by the UC Berkeley College of Environmental Design, California’s implementation of SB 375 has indeed placed more pressure on particular neighborhoods to promote affordable housing development and infill. For example, the San Francisco Bay Area is dealing with the challenges of infilling which may lead to increases in the cost of housing and further escalate the economic crisis for the communities there.[40]

There have been claims that SB 375 increases pressure from gentrification and does not improve the livelihoods of low-income neighborhoods with higher levels of minority populations. The pressure from gentrification may lead to population migration such that poorer residents may be dispaced by wealthy newcomers as a result of the SB 375 investments that fund particular infrastructure and projects in accordance with the bill. These claims further blame the bill for lacking positive funding as well as restrictions on sprawl. Moreover, opponents of the bill claim that while the bill may promote development near transit areas in urban neighborhoods, they claim that other factors such as crime rate and employment levels in these neighborhoods must not be ignored in the passage of these bills.[41]

3 Responses so far.

  1. Paul & Kathy Malchiodi says:

    Let’s keep the 30 foot height limit in tact as it has been for many years in this whole Bay Park/ Linda Vista area!

  2. Carrie Sceusa says:

    I DO NOT support updating or ammending our Community Plan to increase densification or create an urbanized atmosphere that is completely foreign to the charm and feeling of our Bay Park neighborhood. I do NOT support height over 30 feet, and in fact would prefer the 15-20 ft limit that most of the commercial businesses adhere to.

  3. Gavin says:

    Please maintain the 30 ft height limit for Bay Park, Bay Ho, & Linda Vista. At this point, the future of transit seems to be going in the direction of ride-share services like the pool version of Uber/ Lyft which are flexible, inexpensive, & decentralized. This makes more sense in an inevitably sprawled city like SD which was built around the car. The trolley is already not competitive on a price, time, or point-to-point service basis in an inevitably sprawled city. For instance, one can already take Uber Pool or Lyft Line almost anywhere in the city point to point for about $5. Once driverless cars are used for ride-share the competitive advantage on a price to service basis will increase to the point where people won’t ride the trolley unless it is publicly subsidized to the point where it is free. Why obstruct the view of the waterfront to serve a transportation system which is already obsolete and will become more so the more time passes? A large portion of Morena Blvd is still single story (car dealerships/ parking lots) and will inevitably be raised where appropriate to the allowed 30 ft limit. All buildings in the area were designed and built with this limit in mind to preserve the line of sight to the bay. Creating artificial density around the trolley is critically flawed.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.