By Paul Krueger
On Tuesday morning, July 30th, our San Diego City Council will debate a crucial issue for all beach and coastal area residents.
At issue is a proposed five-story (50-foot-plus tall) housing project, which would undeniably serve the crucial need for more affordable housing. Proposed for 2662 Garnet Ave, just east of Soledad Mountain Road, the development would have 59 studios for very-low income renters and veterans, with “wrap-around” services for occupants.
It’s just what San Diego needs more of, especially in neighborhoods like mine in Talmadge/ El Cerrito/ College/ City Heights, where we’re building high-rise versions of these housing projects, along the El Cajon Blvd. and University Ave. transit corridors. (Also in Clairemont,and other neighborhoods north of Interstate 8.)
But as Council Member La Cava points out in his recent Op-Ed piece in the U-T, there’s a significant and unavoidable conflict with the proposed Garnet Ave. project. (See LaCava’s UT Commentary here and at the OB Rag here.)
It would be built almost a half mile west of Interstate 5, and its five-story height blatantly exceeds our City’s 30-foot height limit for new construction in our coastal neighborhoods.
San Diego voters approved this height restriction in 1972. Our coastal height-limit law withstood legal challenges from the building industry, and, as LaCava notes in his very well-argued commentary, “No city, state or developer has the authority to reverse the will of San Diego voters without seeking a vote of the public.”
LaCava and his supporters argue that “bureaucratic exemptions to this standard undermine both the democratic process, and the confidence of voters. They circumvent voter-approved measures and disregard a charter city’s autonomy.”
Now, Council members must hear your views about the importance of respecting the city’s 30-foot height limit.
Tuesday’s agenda item (to be heard at 10 am, in Council chambers at 202 “C” St and via Zoom), is narrowly focused on proposed loans that would help fund the Garnet Ave. project.
But LaCava and those who agree with his reasoning want the Council to send a strong, unequivocal message to the state Department of Housing and Community Development, which approved the project in a brazen attempt to undermine the will of San Diego residents.
Please add your voice to LaCava’s sensible demand for due-process: Any exceptions to our city’s 30-foot coastal height limit must be presented to voters, as was done two years ago with Measure C, which lifted the 30 foot limit in the Midway area.
“There was a process for the Midway proposal then, and there remains a process now for Garnet,” LaCava said. “The city can and will increase housing citywide, yet it must be done correctly — respecting the will of the voters, and maintaining the public’s confidence in the process.”
LINKS:
See LaCava’s UT Commentary here and at the OB Rag here.
City Council Agenda for Item S500 (Note that it will be heard at 10 am Tuesday, even though it’s listed on the 2 pm agenda:
City Staff Report on Proposed Development here
Housing Authority Report on Agenda Item here.
NOTES:
1) Page 5 of the city staff report for this item claims “The Project was presented to, and received support from, the Pacific Beach Planning Group in November, 2021.” It’s my understanding that the 2021 approval was for a three-story building, and that the PBPG has not approved the current five-story design. Also, Page 3 of the staff report mistakenly claims the project is “adjacent to the multi-modal Balboa Avenue Transit Station and the Blue Line Trolley. In fact, it is .4 mile from the Garnet Ave and Mission Bay Drive bus stop, .7 mile from the Garnet Ave. and Soledad Mountain Road bus stop, and .9 mile from the Blue Line Trolley stop.
2) We need members/officers of the PBTC and PBPG to tell city councilmembers that their groups have not approved — and would not approve — the project in its current five-story form, if that’s in fact an accurate assumption.
3) We need people to demand that the City Council request a legal analysis of the conflict between the proposed project and the city’s voter-approved 30-foot coastal height limit, and to ask the City Attorney to weigh in on this issue, as an independently-elected representative of the people.
4) Opponents should also contact land use attorneys to see if we have a viable legal challenge to the project, if the city council and city attorney refuse to take action on behalf of voters.
5) Opponents should work closely with Joe LaCava’s office to help him continue his opposition to the project.
Today, Council President Pro Tem Joe LaCava (San Diego City Council District 1) announced that he will vote no on two loans for the Rose Creek Village development. On Tuesday, the City Council will hear the Rose Creek Village proposal, an affordable residential infill project located within the City’s Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone on Garnet Avenue in Pacific Beach. At five stories tall, this proposal will breach the 30-foot limit.
I have seen a legal opinion, I believe from the state AG that addresses the Coastal Commission authority and how it is not overridden by state housing laws… that they must be certified or incorporated into the LCP before they can take effect. It was a few years ago, and in reference to ADU bonuses that san diego was approving, in violation of the LCP.
Certainly it could be possible for some legislation to override CCC authority since then.
kh – the Coastal Commission has no say about the City of San Diego coastal 30′ height limit nor is the height limit subject to state housing laws. The height limit was approved in 1972 pursuant to a citizens ballot initiative. The only legal way to modify that height limit is a City of San Diego ballot measure just as was required for the Midway / Sports Arena District.
Well, when that same height limit is written into the LCP, then yes, Coastal has a say in it.
Although I checked the Coastal Zone map and it appears to cover south of Garnet, but not north. This project might not be within the Coastal Commission overlay.
By have a say, I mean that Coastal is a barrier to changing development codes. The city has a history of ignoring the LCP, and does not maintain a LCP version of the code. So it’s hard even for honest people to know what rules are in effect here.
I agree that only a new vote should be able to change the 30ft overlay. But I’ll defer to the lawyers on whether state law can override that.
Meanwhile, 50 entire apartment buildings in PB have been converted into Airbnb hotels.
https://lookerstudio.google.com/u/0/reporting/8fab3660-b037-48c8-a67d-d14bc88a1259/page/p_0m5m6s214c
Here’s one with 18 stuidos in it: https://tinyurl.com/3770ingraham
Now renting for $300 per night. https://www.airbnb.com/rooms/44472475
I city staff is misrepresenting CPG positions again. This has been happening all too frequently.
There are two possible things to do in that area: level it and start over or start building higher density and higher buildings.
50 feet is not tall enough – go higher.
Steven I totally agree. It will look nice there as well.
Have the developer buy the changes to the height limit like measure c did for Midway rising.
The state says prop d doesn’t hold… and in this particular location (flat wasteland of roads and parking lots) it won’t hurt anyone. But we shall see…
I am the broker representing the seller.
OB Rag – though we rarely agree on our projects, I appreciate the write-ups!
California didn’t spend billions on a trolley to have a 30 foot height limit.
The NIMBY attitude along the coast has caused urban sprawl and more of a reliance on the automobile…and global warming.
The very goal of the Coastal Commission is to protect the environment and yet it does the opposite by causing developers to move further and further and further inland, while only benefiting an elite few.
The Coastal Commission has no say regarding the 30′ height limit. It was created in 1972 (same year as the coastal act was approved by voters), the result of a City of San Diego citizens initiative. Modification of the height limit in the 30′ coastal overlay zone requires a majority vote of City of San Diego voters.
Seriously Tony, if you think eliminating the 30-foot height limit is going to reduce urban sprawl, you are delusional. People flocked to the area at one time because of the climate and beauty of the area. There are just far too many people that want space, and cramming more and more people into less and less space isn’t going to work very well.
The culture in this country is freedom, freedom to go where ever, whenever you want. Kind of hard to do that when you live in a city of expensive high-rises with no parking. It’s going to be very hard to change that.
I wonder, why aren’t developers putting high-rise buildings farther inland?
Money, money, money.
Yahtzee Frank. I’m sure good ole Tony above stands to make a bunch off this deal as well as the developer.
Right now Mission Beach is a city of very expensive low-rises, inside a larger city of cramped single family housing.
The idea that building more housing somehow reduces access ignores math.
The idea that everybody is simply going to pile into high rises and adopt mass transit ignoring precedent is mindless. And it’s really funny how the coastal area is taking the brunt of Yimbyism. Trying to push their way into the high rent district with entitlement attitude. Wah, I don’t have affordable housing in OB, PB, La Jolla, etc.
You have a PUC that let’s utilities run amok. A state trying to push people into electric cars without infrastructure. A grid that can’t handle excessive usage during heat waves. A water district pushing 15-20% water rate hikes. Mayor Toad with sexy streets placating the general population. And Yimby’s thinking we’re just going to walk, bike, and take mass transit building with 10% or less parking spaces. What a convoluted POS plan is this? Fing comical.
California didn’t spend billions on a trolley to have a 30 foot height limit.
What does that mean?
9 parking spaces for 59 units? That’ll be interesting.