Peninsula Residents Infuriated at City’s Refusal to Provide Details on 56-Unit Project at Rosecrans and Talbot — Town Hall Meeting Planned for Oct.29

By Geoff Page

The controversial proposed 56-unit development at the corner of Talbot and Rosecrans Street was up for discussion at the Peninsula Community Planning Board meeting Thursday, October, 17. What attendees learned was how little anyone actually knows about the project, despite efforts by several people. The City refuses to provide any information.

The project has been much discussed here in The Rag, .

Because there was so much public interest in the development, the PCPB put it on the agenda for its October regular monthly meeting and invited the developer to make a presentation. The developer did not attend and has not cooperated with the PCPB’s requests for information.

The chair of the board’s Project Review subcommittee, Eric Law, explained at length the efforts he has made to get information from the city. He has met a brick wall. This is where the result of Gloria’s work to disenfranchise the community planning boards is starkly obvious.

This writer was twice chair of the PCPB and dealt with the development documentation regularly. Prior to the changes, an applicant with a project that required a Coastal Development Permit had to come before the PCPB as part of the city’s project review process. The city would send sets of blueprints to the PCPB for review along with a Cycle Review letter showing city comments.

The board had all it needed to review a project. Planning board review was a requirement. It is not anymore. Because of that, the city no longer sends any information about any projects to the PCPB. The city does not even notify the board of projects either. Now, it appears that the city has come full circle and is actively resisting providing information.

What is so infuriating is that this is just a stumbling block the city has thrown in the way to make it harder for people seeking information. The plans for this project are public documents — almost any document in the city’s possession is a public document. The city must provide the information once they receive a request under the California Public Records Act.

All the city is doing is delaying what it must do. It is a tactic designed to discourage people and buy time. The city can take, and often does, as long as six weeks to respond. And, if the request is not specific enough, the response may be insufficient requiring additional requests and more time. The city will not read outside the lines.

Eric Law said he was meeting with the city the morning after the PCPB meeting to see if the city would at least let him view the plans downtown. This is actually a right under Records Act — public officials must make public documents available for public viewing when requested. As of this writing, it is not known if he had a successful meeting.

What bits of information that are known comes from the city permit site. According to Law, the two main problems the project seems to have are violations of the 30-foot height limit and exceeding the floor area ration, or FAR. The building is described as a four-story, hence the height issue. The amount of living space versus the lot size calculation exceeds the FAR for that zone.

Law explained that the project is using the mayor’s Complete Communities program that provides advantages for including affordable housing in a development. The biggest concession is that the project is exempt from a California Environmental Quality Act, or CEQA, review.

Considering the intersection this site borders on, not having to do a CEQA review is a major benefit, maybe eliminating a possible game changer. The impacts on traffic surrounding homes and businesses, and the adjacent elementary school will not be studied, so no mitigation will be required.

The problem of traffic and parking was mentioned by several members of the public attending the board meeting. The permit information indicates 56 living units with 45 parking spaces. That is less than one car per living space. Considering the likelihood of residents having more than one car, the number of cars that will be looking for street parking would be significant.

The developer is able to provide so little parking because the project is near a “Transit Center” as designated by SANDAG. The problem is that no actual Transit Center exists and probably will not in the foreseeable future. The bus stop is at the corner of Cañon and Rosecrans seems to satisfy the requirement because it is within the new one-mile requirement from the city.

Another major concern from the public was the effect on the adjacent Cabrillo Elementary School, especially during times in the mornings and afternoons when parents are dropping off and picking up children. The site is already badly constrained for those traffic activities. But, what if the school was not there?

This small little elementary school sits on a piece of extremely valuable real estate. It would not be a stretch to imagine a future sale and redevelopment as housing someday. It would also not be a stretch to imagine that people with the city know about it.

The subject of the existing Business Development District came up. It appears that the site may fall within that district, which would prohibit residential development.

Several members of the community and the board expressed anger at the city’s refusal to cooperate. People are getting organized.

There is a group on NextDoor called the No On 1004 Rose CR.

Another group is forming and planning a town hall type of meeting October 29 at the Portuguese Hall building on Avenida de Portugal. It is tentatively set for 6:00 p.m.

For more information, contact the planning board at pcpb.net. Or check out NextDoor. To view the Zoom recording of the meeting, go here.