Item 7.2 – Written Communications
O’Steen – Received 6/ 16/ 2026
From: Michael O' Steen <
Sent: Tuesday, June 16, 2026 11: 34 AM
To: CityClerk < CityClerk@chulavistaca. gov>
Subject: Written Comment for June 16th City Council Meeting Agenda Item 7. 2 Youdon't often get emailfrom Learnwhythis is
important
WARNING - This email originated from outside the City of Chula Vista. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender.
PLEASEREPORTSUSPICIOUSEMAILSBYUSING THEPHISH ALERTREPORTBUTTON or to reportphishing@chulavistaca. gov
Hello,
I would like to submit the following statement as a recommendation to Agenda Item
7.2: Housing Authority & City Housing Funding: Approve a Funding Commitment of up to 4,000,000 for the Park Hill UMC Development or the Bayview Family Apartments Development
My hope is that the city council will vote for Resolutions C and D: award funding for The Bayview Family Apartments.
Thank you,
Michael O'Steen
Resident of Chula Vista
Sincethe City Council mee ng on June2nd, 2026, a community mee ng was organized by the church and developer. Together, they shared more details regarding the development and oeredampleme for the communityto provideinput. Wakelandhousing in parcularwas well-prepared. It is clearthat they have been busy workingto addressmany of theneighbor’s concernsand Wakelandshared how they would plan to migatethem. Regardlessof opinionson thisdevelopmentand whetherthe areacan actually support a communityof thisdensity, I dobelievethat Wakelandwill makereasonablea emptsto protectprivacy and be goodneighbors. With
that said, the overwhelmingsen mentfrom the communitywas in opposion to thedevelopment.
Residents brought well- ar culatedand researchedconcerns to thedeveloper. Par cularlyaround impactsto parking, trac, consideraonsfor the elementaryschooland nearbyhospital, privacy, and safety.
Wakelanddid accept commentcards solici ng ideas for the buildandtold us theywouldplan to implementourrecommendaons into theirdevelopmentplan. However, it does notseemrealisc that theywill be ableto overcomemostof theseissueswithoutsignicantlyreducingdensity. My biggest concernwas learning the decision makersfrom the churchwerenot in a endance. At the endof the meeng I askedifthe churchcouldprovidea responsetothe manycommentsand concerns broughtforward by its neighbors. Whenthe pastor spoke, he told us that he had no say in decidingwhetherto enter intoan agreementwithWakeland housing. He told us that heonly actsas part of their organizaon and thechoiceto reach outto WakelandHousingcame from higherup in theirdistrict. An essen al part of this communitymeeng was for the neighborhoodto have thisconversaon with theownerof the land, andwe learnedthatthe person(s) who decidedto make thisdevelopmentdidn't evenshowup.
This mademe feel like this proposalwasless aboutsupporng their missionto serve under-representedpeople, and more abouttappinga nancial incenve. As an
alternave, the churchoeredto hosta secondmee ngon the eveningof Sunday, June 14thwith their districtsuperintendent in a endance. However, dueto the mingandaddi onal commitment, less than half of the neighborsfromthe rst mee ng wereable to reconvene. I wasdisheartened tohearsome of the commentsmadeby the church’s superintendent. A erlistening to ourconcerns arounda shortage of parkingin thesite plan, he told us that “maybepeoplewith 2 cars shouldn’t be eligible foraordablehousing” whichseemedto ignore the fact thatthis developmentwill allowhouseholdswith incomes of over $ 100, 000. Thechurchalsotold us they cameto theconclusionthat theywouldpursue this developmentbehindclosed doors, members- only mee ngs. When we askedwhat consideraons they madefor the neighboringcommunityduringthesediscussions, we were told that informaon was not to be sharedoutsideof themembersmee ng. Membersof the church rearmed thattheydid care aboutthe neighboringcommunityand want to listen to our ideas. It is clearthatif theywishto listentoour concernsthatthey needto begin by loweringthe density. Simplyput, this developmentwas not designedfor projects of this density anda communitylike this putsthe local neighborhoodand infrastructureat risk. I urgethe citycouncil toseek otherop ons in awardingfundingthis fundingcommitmentto another project.