By Kate Callen
A development project in Bankers Hill using San Diego’s Complete Communities would demolish a historic building to build a six-story medical complex on the rim of iconic Maple Canyon — yet the building isn’t really historic and the medical complex may end up being residential, and the canyon rim is not actually a steep slope.
The canyon rim property at 2660 1st Avenue property was bought by the San Diego American Indian Health Center (SDAIHC) for $6 million in 2017. Earlier this year, SDAIHC applied for a permit to build a bigger medical complex. The proposal was submitted as part of Complete Communities because housing might be included.
San Diego’s Development Services Department (DSD) is ready to grant ministerial approval for the project. But SDAIHC just listed the property for sale at $20 million, more than triple the 2017 price. The project is branded “1st and Maple.” Global real estate giant Jones Lang LaSalle is shepherding it.
Why the abrupt shift from redeveloping the site to selling it? Maybe because a group of Bankers Hill residents called Maple Canyon SD has hired the Chatten-Brown Law Group to challenge the clinic’s proposal.
Chatten-Brown represented Friends of Bay Ho over the monstrous canyon rim project that “won” the OB Rag’s “worst ADU in San Diego” contest. The firm also now represents opponents of the notorious 23-story “pencil tower” proposed in Pacific Beach, called the Vela.
The Bankers Hill lawsuit raises troubling issues. On the environmental front, the project poses a clear threat of degradation of the iconic Maple Canyon, as it would carve a huge chunk out of its slope. Yet, right now Maple Canyon is undergoing a major restoration with $15 million from the City of San Diego.
Let’s see if we have this right: The same city government that’s paying to restore the canyon might allow development that would deface it.
As with the Bay Ho property, DSD made a U-turn on site topography. First, the canyon rim property was protected by the City’s Environmentally Sensitive Lands (ESL) regulations. Then, suddenly, it wasn’t.
“We have not seen any evidence to support the City’s conclusion that the ESL regulations do not apply,” Chatten-Brown stated in a letter to DSD. “In fact, the City already determined the adjacent sites feature ESL in the form of steep hillsides.”
The planned medical complex would carve out enough of the hillside to fit four underground parking levels. The six above-ground floors might be the site of a new medical complex. Then again, they might not.
SDAIHC is seeking an expedited review through the Affordable Housing Density Bonus program. How would a health care provider qualify for residential permitting shortcuts? By promising that someday, one of the two parcels on the site might be set aside for housing – in fact, for senior affordable housing.
That’s a worthy intention. But it isn’t a binding commitment. If the bait-and-switch gambit succeeds, the City will set an audacious precedent.
On the historic front, the existing low-slung building was the work of architects Lloyd Ruocco and Homer Delawie — two giants of San Diego Modernism.
Ruocco’s public projects included the San Diego Zoo and the Civic Theater. The City has designated nine of his works as historic resources. He was a leader in urban conservation and founder of the Citizens’ Coordinate for Century 3, a group promoting architectural and environmental integrity.
Ruocco’s advocacy “underscored that the City’s aesthetics are a intangible asset that bears a direct influence on the City’s economy,” Chatten-Brown wrote. “[His] desire to protect San Diego’s urban canyons, including Maple Canyon, is reflected in the current structure on the site.”
If this goes forward, advocates for density-at-all-costs can celebrate a trifecta. They will tear up a beloved canyon. They will give housing credit to a project that won’t include housing. And they will destroy a historic structure whose architect fought for urban preservation.
You’re reading this because Bankers Hill residents, like residents in Bay Ho and Pacific Beach, dug deep and hired lawyers to challenge an excessive development.
Editordude: one of the left-over glitches is the color of the caption — currently illegible. We apologize and add it to the tech desk’s issue pile.
Confusing post. Begins with antiphrasis that none of the buildings are historic, but then circles back to insinuate that one of them is? Yet none of these buildings are listed on any register (local, state, or national) – and none of them are listed as “Potentially Historic” in the Uptown Community Historic Resources Survey.
Proclaiming something historic when it is not, diminishes the efforts to preserve those that truly are – those buildings that have been nominated and have gone through the process to be listed under official criteria.
Author also seems to confuse these parcels with others that actually do border Maple Canyon. OR1-1 zones surround the sensitive areas of Maple Canyon which allow open space with limited private residential development. This is not one of them (nor shares a border with OR1-1) – and is instead zoned CC3-4. Absent zoning research, maybe walk around and see first-hand that these parcels have nothing to do with the canyon or its restoration?
And if you have questions for SDAIHC, why not talk to them? Instead of speculate?
Otherwise, seems like a lot of nonsense to derail a Health Center and Senior Housing.
Spoken like a true project proponent. I like to know who I am commenting on when making a comment here. This sounded like it was written by an attorney so I checked but found nothing. In fact, I found nothing about Edward Olsen anywhere.
” then circles back to insinuate that one of them is?” I reread the piece and I did not see any insinuation. Your choice of wording was antagonistic from the start.
There was proclamation that the buildings are historic but a good case was made that perhaps they should be given the architectural history.
Looking at the city’s zoning map, I do not see a CC3-4 designation anywhere. That part of the zoning map is confusing because several zones come together at that location. It appears that the actual designation is CCPD-ER.
Why talk to SDAIHC if they are selling the property? What would that accomplish?
“Otherwise, seems like a lot of nonsense to derail a Health Center and Senior Housing.” That is if developers can be trusted as to their intentions and experience has taught people to be suspicious.
Kate Callen tries to work a complicated issue into a short article. The JLL listing for 1st & Maple highlights that the parcel borders Maple Canyon Open Space which is considered environmentally sensitive land. All permits pulled for the city works at 2660 1st Ave show that the address is zoned as steep slope, which exempts it from Complete Communities. The building is over 45 years old which prompts historic review. The owner and purpose of the building is irrelevant as those things change. Maple Canyon is a great resource for the community forever, so long as the city leaders do their jobs and follow their own laws.
Another example of why our government is not trusted. We need full transparency. Save the canyon.
That’s why San Diegans NEEDED to vote for a new Mayor, but didn’t.
I can appreciate the Indian Health Center getting a new building, but why does it have to be right off this canyon? Oh, BTW, Kate is trying to alert the rest of San Diego about this project that has flown under the radar.
Edward Olsen and Bob the Builder seem to forget the City of San Diego created elements in the Municipal Code in 1988 to protect potentially historical buildings from demolition and reformed those regulations in 2008, affirming charging fees to cover staff expenses in processing and supervising that program. Although I have not heard the outcome of the Historic Resources staff on their review of the Lloyd Ruocco and Homer Delawie commercial building, it is my understanding a professional review is underway. As it happens, I am familiar with that building and consider it an outstanding example of their master design in the Mid Century Modern post and beam, floor to ceiling glass walls. Although new state laws allow the City to give some priority to housing projects, this does not mean that all rules and regulations protecting potentially historical buildings goes out the window. In point of fact, the Historical Resources Board needs to review evidence and vote on the matter. I want to see that hearing before the City of San Diego, Historical Resources Board.
That’s right. It’s either historic, or it’s not. If it hasn’t already gone through the process, it will. The original poster should be clear on its current status, the fact that there are multiple parcels here with different designation, and what the process ahead looks like.
I struggled with this story, and it shows — so much to weave in. Here are the key issues:
Residential vs. Medical: If every planned building (office, industrial, retail) added residential units to the proposal, should they all qualify for Complete Communities give-aways, like no on-site parking? That would be quite the mess. And the potential for bait-and-switch (“Oh, we changed our minds”) is alarming.
Historic Designation: I defer to Ron on this. Density advocates have declared war on historicity. In cases where a building clearly qualifies, like the Little Red Bungalow in Mission Hills, City Hall and the Gloria-appointed Historical Resources Board (HRB) collude with developers to flout the rules. This happens in full public view at HRB hearings.
Canyon Rim: Large-scale constructions on canyon rims are threats to the environment and to public safety. Steep slopes are inherently unstable. Fires that sweep up canyons spread quickly. Imagine if the Talmadge-Kensington fire had advanced on canyon-rim mid-rise buildings with dozens of residents.
City Flip-Flopping: As neighbors living near our “worst ADUs” can attest, we’ve seen a troubling pattern of city inspectors making decisions based on their professional expertise and city managers simply overruling them.
And yes, I did walk around the property — I took all the photos — looking directly down into the canyon from that site induces vertigo.
If you did walk around the property, why are you so misleading? The photo you included is from another private property a block North, past Nutmeg.
Of the two parcels you write about, one shares no (zero) property lines with Maple Canyon and the other parcel only shares 20′ of its 550′ perimeter (3.5%). Of the 75-100 parcels sharing a border with Maple Canyon, 452-706-06-00 literally has the smallest overlap…AND we know those 20′ are of little risk because the city has been using that as a right of way for storm drain replacement for the past two years.
Even the title of your post “density hustle” is misleading. Base zoning is CC3-4 with 6.5 FAR. Zoning, housing regulations, and environmental & preservation frameworks are all crystal clear and in place to address your alarmist rhetorical questions.
Considering you are throwing everything in but the kitchen sink, it makes one think this rant isn’t about the canyon or preservation. I wouldn’t call this “investigative reporting” or “digging deep”.
Edward, you seem somewhat agitated. Could you tell us why this has hit a nerve?
I hardly think this article qualifies as a rant.
The shifting sands of the city rules and regulations are mind boggling.
In my opinion there is no development which will ever be denied under the current administration.
Think Emerald and the Wizard of Oz.
The entire development site SDAIHC has listed for sale is two parcels, they are basically of equal size. The south parcel on the corner of 1st and Maple has no constraints regarding its development as far as I can tell. SDAIHC, or the future owner, can do whatever the current zoning and regulations allow for. While it has 2 existing older buildings, no one considers them to be candidates for historical designation. And the land is relatively flat and fully developed. In other words, this entire discussion is about the north parcel. Which has two significant limitations as to what can be done with it. It appears we have a win/win situation. The south half can be developed as a developer chooses, and the north parcel can be treated with respect to the simple fact it is part of the topography, hydrology, and eco-system of Maple Canyon, as well as being immediately adjacent to it, as they share a property line.
The north parcel also has a structure many experts feel is of historical significance. While the historic value is generally perceived to be in the building itself, its worth noting that one of the two architects who designed it, Lloyd Ruocco, was, at the time it was built, leading the fight to prevent 163 from being widened to 8 lanes – which would have decimated the park on either side of it, and preventing Maple Canyon from being turned into a connecter freeway between I-5 and 163.
Put simply, it’s possible to develop this site such that one part can be fully developed for housing (or whatever the future owner wants to build), while the other part preserves a significant historic structure, and all while protecting a remarkable and special urban canyon.
Well said Mr. McMakin! No speculation. No rhetoric. Informative and fair.
Save the Canyon!
I suggest anyone interested in steep slope issues associated with the site, or many others in San Diego, read the Steep Slope Guidelines in the San Diego Municipal Code. It’s a remarkable and thoughtful set of regulations that I feel are a legacy of the work started by early modernist architects such as Irving Gill and Frank Mead, as well as Kate Sessions. They recognized and promoted building in harmony topography of our canyons. They were among the first who saw the canyons as an asset to the quality of life in San Diego, not an annoying and in-the-way quirk of SD topography. This was then continued by subsequent generations of architects and urban planning thinkers, significantly Lloyd Ruocco. But by the mid 20th century our canyons were under threat of being lost. The natural beauty, as well as the inherent value in the diverse plants and critters that live in our canyons, is to be preserved. Both on public lands but also private property. This means both to preserve the integrity of slopes, but also to build structures that respect airflow, water, light, and sight-lines into the canyons. The goal of the guidelines isn’t to prevent development on the canyons, but to have development respect the canyons. We really can both build more housing and protect what makes our city so special, These guidelines are in place to help us know how to do that.
Does the city ever follow its guidelines or does it modify them to accommodate developers ?
Emerald City and the Wizard.
Save the canyon! This proposed development will also impact the residents living next to it. Does anyone care about that?