See Update here.
A majority of the San Diego City Council on Tuesday, July 30, voted to approve a controversial 5-story housing development in Pacific Beach despite the project’s breech of the sacrosanct 30-foot height limit and incorrect numbers given by the developer to city staff and local planning group members.
The approval was over strong objections from Councilmembers Joe LaCava and Raul Campillo, who urged the council not to reward developers who actively mislead community planning groups and violate the voter approved 30-foot height limit.
LaCava stated:
“This is most egregious bait and switch I have ever heard of in my long career (on development and housing issues). I cannot and will not vote to fund a project that is dishonest with the voters.”
Apparently, the developer had submitted incorrect numbers in terms of miles to the nearest trolley and bus lines to both city staff and the local community planning group. Some felt this was intentional and a dishonest attempt to fool staff and the public.
In fact, the proposed housing development is not “adjacent to” the Blue Line Trolley, as city staff report incorrectly states, and is not near a bus stop. It is .9 miles from the Blue Line and .4 miles from the nearest bus stop.
LaCava had more choice words:
“Todd Gloria and developers to Hillcrest and University City: sucks to be you. … The plans have been driven by profit maximization for the biggest property owners, who are going to profit richly by the process.”
And once again, Council President Sean Elo Rivera tried to limit public comment on a very controversial proposal — one to override the height limit and build a 5-story housing project in PB.
Thankfully, Councilmember LaCava spearheaded the opposition and demanded a public vote on the project.
This post is based on tweets from reporter Paul Krueger who was present at the Council meeting.
I thought this was to finance the project, not approve it.
Yes, the vote was to approve loan funding for the projec, which already has ministerial approval from the state. Which trumps all local laws, regulations, and voter initiatives. LaCava and Campillo opposed funding for the reasons stated above.
As I and others noted before, the State Density Bonus Law now supersedes land use regulations. The issue is that this developer came hat-in-hand asking for $4 million to underwrite their breach of the Coastal Height Limit. They even admitted they couldn’t afford to do it otherwise.
It’s bad enough Sacramento doesn’t respect localities; it’s intolerable when our electeds toss taxpayer money at developers like strippers to profit off that.
You left out some important details. The five-story Rose Creek project would include 59 affordable rental housing units and one manager’s unit on the site. Eighteen of the units would offer permanent supportive housing for veterans experiencing homelessness.
Gail, we did cover those details in the original announcement post here
So, it’s okay to violate the will of the people as long as there’s affordable units in the project and enough profits for the builder. Problem is compounded by the developer asking the city for millions of tax-payer monies so they could violate the 30 foot height limit.
Maybe it’s time to bring that 30 foot height limit back to the voters? A Lot has changed since 1987.
Thanks Gail; I’ve heard that argument before. In fact, you’ve been saying things like that in comments at the Rag since 2019, and conceded you’re a founding member of Circulate SD. In fact, back in Feb. 2022, you were so disgusted with the Rag, that you said you’d stick to twitter. What happened?
If you’ve heard it before then it’s probably something to consider? As for calling out something here, I will comment when I think it’s important since this story mentioned nothing about the many affordable units. Mostly try to stay away from this platform because of being called out – something you do to anyone who disagrees with you. I was an initial contributor of money to Circulate SD, so I guess yes that does make me a founding member. I’m also a founding member of Vibrant Uptown and a member of YIMBYDemsSD, Kiwanis Hillcrest All-Inclusive, LWV, Democratic Women’s Club and Ride SD.
Okay, none of those groups you mentioned, except Circulate SD, have been hellbent to destroy citizen involvement in the local neighborhood level of urban planning. Circulate, under the guise of being Eco-conscious, has led the charge in the undermining of local community planning groups, and the lessening of common sense and basic requirements of development projects coming into those neighborhoods. In the end, Circulate is not concerned about affordable housing or the environment, but has made pacts with corporations and developers and politicians (that’s Todd Gloria et al) to swing the gates of “build, build, build” open under the false premise that we have a housing crisis. We have an affordable housing crisis — there are mountains of housing out there but its all market rate or higher.
“… Circulate is not concerned about affordable housing or the environment, but has made pacts with corporations and developers and politicians…”
This is true.
Isn’t the traffic in Pacific Beach usually terrible on Grand and Garnet and surrounding streets? Does the City of San Diego have a method of measuring the traffic density? If so, it should be made public.
I think traffic problems should be solved, before the living density is increased. It makes no sense to put more people and more cars in an area, where traffic is already congested.
They did solve it. There’s only 9 spaces for 59 units. Typical profit maximization with little consideration as to how people need to get around.
According to the city, the majority of new residents won’t be using cars as they will be relying on public transportation and bicycle lanes :)
And herein lays the contradiction of this project and moment. Force residents out of their cars before there’s an infrastructure available that offers viable alternatives.
Squaring the Circle: High School Geometry shows us the difference in a a circle and a square of the same diameter. It is my understanding that the govt. uses a circular measure. Yes, they claim, it meets the distance, even if you have to crawl through your next door neighbor’s bedroom window to meet their dimensions for accessibility. Streets and sidewalks tend to be squares or rectangles. Perhaps Geoff can explain this better.