Here is the staff report, dated June 23, 2025. (all pdf files)
Serving OB, the Peninsula and San Diego Beaches
Say Keep it goin' to the OB Rag
with your donation today!
on Nicole Crosby: ‘City Hall Has Ignored Us for Too Long. Here’s How We Fix It.’: “No mention of reiging in the city’s ADU policy or complete communities is concerning to say the least.” Sep 8, 18:19
on The Midway Rising Scheme is Four Years Old Today: “This is exactly the sort of problem that a proper CEQA analysis would have noted as best practice this project.…” Sep 8, 15:49
on The Midway Rising Scheme is Four Years Old Today: “I have discussed underground structural bathtub foundations as the fix to future proof against Sea Level Rise (SLR) for buildings…” Sep 8, 15:09
on Nicole Crosby: ‘City Hall Has Ignored Us for Too Long. Here’s How We Fix It.’: “As a person who ‘feels left behind’ by city hall, I don’t see how any of what she wrote changes…” Sep 8, 14:34
on The Midway Rising Scheme is Four Years Old Today: “Am I not surprised as to what is threating to you? Funny referencing Hitler. Again, you reference history some 80…” Sep 8, 13:24
on Nicole Crosby: ‘City Hall Has Ignored Us for Too Long. Here’s How We Fix It.’: “Yimbys allow endless projects to be built without parking with predictable results. Curbside parking is slammed and tenants walk blocks…” Sep 8, 13:04
on Nicole Crosby: ‘City Hall Has Ignored Us for Too Long. Here’s How We Fix It.’: “Campillo needs to follow Nicole’s lead on these topics, particularly Montgomery field.” Sep 8, 12:59
on Nicole Crosby: ‘City Hall Has Ignored Us for Too Long. Here’s How We Fix It.’: “Cute?” Sep 8, 12:17
on The Midway Rising Scheme is Four Years Old Today: “You’re the fool if you think that when fascism takes hold, it won’t affect San Diego? Let’s not let it…” Sep 8, 12:09- on LA Times Asks: ‘Why Are Young People Still Jumping Off Sunset Cliffs?’: “OB’s Lynne Miller is also quoted.” Sep 8, 11:21
Frank, can you please provide links to the actual pdfs for downloading?
I fail to see how:
1) The city can argue that replacing recreation-serving businesses currently at the 3 sites considered for declaration as “surplus land” with essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with current uses.
2) How essentially permanent residential housing is in any way consistent with the Tidelands Public Trust which reserves tidelands for public recreational access uses. The list of changes and approvals required to be met omits the State Lands Commission which has a say in the use of public tidelands.
There’s a lot more I could say in response to this highly offensive proposal to provide highly desirable waterfront residential housing existing docks and services (in high demand in San Diego. Will these be leased to the developer as well?) on highly desirable public park property, with only 25% allocated for “affordable housing”. How much of today’s “affordable housing” is actually affordable to those in greatest need of housing in San Diego? Especially after a developer has spent what is necessary to amend the Mission Bay Park Master Plan.
One additional thought – would a developer and the city use the 25% “affordable housing” enable a density bonus to expand the number of market-rate units?
No I can’t, and that’s why I had to reprint each page as a pdf.
Okay thanks. Guess I’ll have to copy and paste