Local Groups Sue San Diego Over ‘Reforms’ that Allow One-Mile Transit Standard and More ADUs

Two local groups have sued the City of San Diego in an effort to overturn a controversial 5-4 City Council vote back in February that allowed taller apartment buildings and more ADUs or “granny flats” when a property is near mass transit.

Neighbors for a Better San Diego and Livable San Diego contend in their suit filed April 7 that the city policy will encourage dense projects too far away from transit for most residents to be willing to use it. The Rag reported on the vote:

In a close 5 to 4 vote, the San Diego City Council yesterday approved a raft of so-called “reforms” to the building code, including the very controversial rule that allows taller apartment buildings and more backyard units when a property is near mass transit — with that transit line being up to one mile away and which may not even be built for over a decade. The previous measurement was a half-mile.

The new rules doubled the distance to mass transit to one mile, which made thousands of acres eligible for projects that could very well change the character of neighborhoods.

The lawsuit claims city officials failed to properly analyze potential impacts on air quality, noise, traffic, aesthetics and wildfire risk, as required under the California Environmental Quality Act.

With the suit, the groups seek an injunction that would prevent San Diego planning officials from approving housing projects made possible by the changes. City Attorney Mara Elliott had no immediate comment on the litigation.

The lawsuit states the city made sweeping changes to the building code without necessary review. “The city failed to consider the environmental impacts…failed to prepare and circulate required environmental analysis, failed to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation…” reads the lawsuit.

In order to implement the new regulations and loosen the restrictions, the lawsuit claims that the city is required to treat it as an entirely new project, one that completely analyzes all environmental issues and not re-use prior environmental review as the lawsuit claims the city tried to do.

Attorneys for the group are asking that a judge vacate all prior approvals of developments under the Sustainable Development Area program and forbid the city from granting any new permits until it addresses any and all environmental issues. CBS8

The groups cite studies that have found steep declines in transit use when bus and trolley stops are more than a half-mile from homes. Half a mile is a standard used by nearly all government agencies for transit incentives.

Geoff Hueter, leader of Neighbors for a Better San Diego, said city officials should seek ways to spur housing growth close to transit instead of encouraging it on sites too far for transit to be a realistic option for residents. He said:

“The city needs to take a hard look at why existing density bonuses have failed to spur enough development on our commercial and transit corridors, where it makes the most sense from the standpoint of climate action and transit equity.”

Tom Mullaney of Livable San Diego stated:

“This change would push high-density development farther from transit, worsening traffic congestion, air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.”

The groups assert that the policy change will ruin neighborhoods because the city hasn’t made sufficient plans to build complementary infrastructure for the dense housing. They also say the change will allow more dense housing in wildfire-prone areas.

The change makes 5,224 additional acres close enough to transit eligible for developer density bonuses. It also increases by 4,612 the acreage eligible for the backyard apartment “bonus” program.

In the 5-4 council vote in favor, the change got support from Councilmembers Sean Elo-Rivera, Kent Lee Stephen Whitburn, Vivian Moreno and Monica Montgomery Steppe. It was opposed by Councilmembers Joe LaCava, Jennifer Campbell, Marni von Wilpert and Raul Campillo.

The newly-filed lawsuit, however, says the city made the sweeping changes to the building code without necessary review.
“The city failed to consider the environmental impacts…failed to prepare and circulate required environmental analysis, failed to consider feasible alternatives and mitigation…” reads the lawsuit.

In order to implement the new regulations and loosen the restrictions, the lawsuit claims that the city is required to treat it as an entirely new project, one that completely analyzes all environmental issues and not re-use prior environmental review as the lawsuit claims the city tried to do.
Attorneys for the group are asking that a judge vacate all prior approvals of developments under the Sustainable Development Area program and forbid the city from granting any new permits until it addresses any and all environmental issues.
Everett DeLano represents Livable San Diego.
DeLano tells CBS 8 that the lawsuit is based on the city’s “failure to do any environmental review on what will be a massive change in how developments are handled in San Diego. The city’s staff report acknowledged going from the TPA approach to the SDA approach would result in more than 5,000 additional acreages that would be developed at higher densities.”