Editordude: Any time a sitting San Diego city councilmember comes out and publicly defends the famous 30-foot height limit, it’s newsworthy. Here Councilmember Joe LaCava does that and we wanted to give some public props to the La Jollan.
The coastal height limit is a reflection of San Diego’s identity — The City Council should not support the state’s push to break the rule
By Joe LaCava / San Diego U-T Op-Ed / July 22, 2024
The will of the voters in the city of San Diego is absolute. In 1972, residents took to the ballot box to limit the height of new buildings in the coastal area west of Interstate 5 to 30 feet. The measure passed citywide, withstood legal challenges, and has been recognized by the city and its residents ever since. No city, state or developer has the authority to reverse the will of San Diego voters without seeking a vote by the public.
San Diego’s 30-foot coastal height limit symbolizes a commitment to preserving the city’s coastal access and differentiating our valued shoreline from walled-off cities like Miami. The height limit is not only a regulatory restriction but a reflection of San Diego’s identity. The city does not, and legally cannot, allow exemptions to the people’s vote. Bureaucratic exceptions 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.
San Diego’s housing crisis is undeniable, and addressing our region’s lack of affordable homes is critical. Affordable, income-restricted housing belongs in every neighborhood and council district, and the coastal communities are no exception. My position is not a statement of merit but of process. We must and can do this right. We can produce and plan developments that also respect voter mandates, or proponents can seek the support of the electorate to modify the 1972 ballot measure.
Adhering to voter-approved measures not only ensures the preservation of our city’s identity and the democratic process, it also fosters public trust, encourages community participation, and promotes sustainable and affordable development. As an elected leader of the San Diego City Council, I am responsible to my district and voters citywide. I ensure that the development plans I vote on adhere to planning standards, safeguard environmental integrity, preserve the community’s voice and maintain voters’ trust. Oversight and adherence to voter-approved measures are non-negotiable as we pursue sustainable and affordable development — until the voters say otherwise.
Next week, the City Council will hear a proposal for an affordable residential infill project to be located within the city’s Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone on Garnet Avenue. At five stories tall, this proposal will breach the 30-foot limit. On its face, this is a smart use of otherwise underutilized property, however, greater than 30 feet is greater than 30 feet. For more than 50 years, this project would not have been attempted nor approved. That is until California’s Department of Housing and Community Development gave the go-ahead to move forward, and San Diego voters were damned in the process.
What of the need for affordable housing? The developer’s original proposal, and the only version presented in an open community meeting, was a height-compliant project. Clearly, the developers of the proposal can respect the voters and deliver much-needed housing.
The motivations behind the housing department’s unilateral direction may be noble, but in San Diego, we have elections, voter-approved measures and an amendment process. Take, for instance, the passage of Measure C in 2022 that lifted the 30-foot height limit for the Midway neighborhood. I twice supported putting this reasonable proposal before the voters to amend the height limit in an area that could produce thousands of new homes and jobs. The city is now using this voter-approved amendment to bring forward one of the largest affordable developments in San Diego.
There was a process for the Midway proposal then, and there remains a process now for Garnet.
As we continue proposals to increase housing options across the city, conversations between all active parties must find common ground. Community advocates, elected leaders, developers and stakeholders can collectively lay out a future for San Diego that upholds the voice of voters and our shared commitment to crafting housing solutions that benefit all residents, both present and future.
Next week, I will vote to uphold the integrity of the voters and the constituents who elected me. 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.
LaCava is the San Diego City Council president pro tem, representing District 1, and lives in San Diego.
Build the tall buildings in PB and everywhere.
The 1970s were the 1970s. It’s half a century ago and most people were really stoned.
Wake up.
That’s like saying bury the Bill of Rights, it’s so old and most people back then were drunk on ale and mead. In other words, you really don’t make sense.
San Diego has worked hard in the past to protect open space , and the freedom to choose our priorities . The Pacific is wide open too but not if we have to pay to see it . The sky is open too but not with ghettos of the wealthy blocking our view . If you want high rise I suggest going back to where ever that was ok , not here
SG, Florida awaits your triumphant return.
The problem with building the tall buildings is that as you build more and make it more affordable, more people move here (who are making better wages than you). Rents go up, housing becomes unaffordable again. House lots get developed into mini-apartment buildings, so no one can afford a house any more, other than the developers. We will always have more people than housing. It’s a desirable location until market forces make it undesirable. It’s just a question of where that set point is.
Except for Midway Rising? How special?!
My thoughts exactly. While absolutely welcome, let’s not forget this council member’s noblesse oblige is always drawn within a very narrow compass — anything beyond which he is first to cheerfully toss to developer wolves. What’s a mystery to me is how his cohorts haven’t realized his bedrock and selfish inconstancy is always ready to betray them.
My comment at the time of Measure C stands.
IF YOU GIVE A MOUSE A COOKIE!
Thx for sharing Joe LaCava’s thoughts on respecting the voters’ voice on the 30 foot coastal height lmit
If there was another election today on the same issue there would be a different result. No more frozen in time thinking binding us to outdated notions of development.
911 here. Came in from a NFABSD emailer. But don’t see it on their website?
Council President Sean Elo-Rivera is proposing to eliminate all virtual public comments from City Council meetings today at the Rules Committee.
This comes after repeated statements by members of the public who are concerned about not being heard because they cannot attend in person due to work, school, or other circumstances.
This is happening at the Rules Committee, today at 2 PM.
Here’s a link to Google Doc from SOHO with all the details,
We had it covered in our post.
Coastal Environmental protection should be more of a concern to us than greedy developers’ lobbying…
Another deflection by Joe LaCava from the University City high-density city plan being shoved down residents’ throats with new tactics not to accept online comments as the July 30 “vote” nears. The timing of this piece could not be more suspect.