By Geoff Page
A proposed project on Locust and Ingelow Streets, in the Roseville-Fleetridge neighborhood, plans to pierce the 30-foot height limit by 14 feet using the Affordable Housing Density Bonus. Fourteen feet.
An explanation of that 14-foot figure first. The building will be 44 feet high when measured from the existing grade. However, the city made a decision some years ago about how to measure height that, for unknown reasons, was never legally challenged.
That decision declared the earth inside a planter – that the new developer builds – is “finished grade.” The 30-foot height limit is measured from “finished grade.” By building a five-foot tall planter, the developer gains another five feet immediately.
After working for forty plus years in the San Diego construction industry, this writer can say with confidence that no one in that profession would agree that the earth inside of a planter qualifies as finished grade. No one at all.
The other nine feet above the 30-foot height limit consists of the thickness of the roof, a parapet, and an elevator bulkhead. The elevator bulkhead is the main intrusion.
An elevator bulkhead is a small room on the roof of a building that is part of the elevator system, housing mechanical equipment. This is a traditional design. There is an alternative design called MRL, or machine-room-less. As the name implies, it does away with the need for a machine room. Using such a system would eliminate the rooftop building.
The Project
The site is on Locust Street bounded by Ingelow on the east side and Hugo on the west side. It consists of two lots that add up to 10,000 square feet. The current site contains one home with a Hugo address and a multi-family structure with an address on Ingelow, all of which the developer will demolish to make room for the new project.
The new project address is 3401 Ingelow. For some reason, neither the parcel number of the address facing Hugo nor the Hugo address appear in the Development Services Department – DSD – project documents.
Here is the description of the project from the city website:
CONSTRUCTION OF 17 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, CONSISTING OF A 3-STORY BUILDING BUILT OVER A CONCRETE BLOCK BELOW GRADE PARKING AND PODIUM PROVIDING 11 PARKING STALLS, THIS PROJECT INCLUDES AN APPLICATION FOR DENSITY BONUS.
Five of the 17 units will be for Very Low Income tenants. The five units, about 650 square feet each, are on the bottom floor and consist of one bedroom, one bathroom, a kitchen, a living area. The Very Low Income designation means the family’s yearly income is 50 percent of the AMI or the “Area Median Income.”
For 2025, the AMI is $130,000 per year resulting in a Very Low Income figure of $57,900 per year for a family of one. That figure increases as the family size increases as seen in the table below. How large a family a one-bedroom and one-bathroom 650-square-foot apartment can accommodate is anyone’s guess. There does not appear to be a family size requirement.
The other 12 units on the upper two floors will be market rate. Those units consist of larger one and two-bedroom units.
For the 17 units, the project only proposes 11 parking places. Here is the city’s explanation for this:
In accordance with SB 743, “Transit priority area” means “an area within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is scheduled to be completed within the planning horizon included in a Transportation Improvement Program adopted pursuant to Section 450.216 or 450.322 of Title 23 of the Code of Federal Regulations.”
A “major transit stop” is defined as follows:
Major transit stop means a site as defined in California Public Resources Code section 21064.3, as may be amended, or a site that contains an existing rail transit station, a ferry terminal served by either a bus or rail transit service, or the intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 15 minutes or less during the morning and afternoon peak commute periods.
There is certainly nothing that matches this description anywhere near this site so the city is apparently relying on “planned” in the wording, “a major transit stop that is existing or planned.” Our brilliant city leaders are now allowing projects based on the idea that a major transit stop is in planning. But, is one?
Interestingly, the provision does not say anything about how much time may elapse between building a project and when a major transit stop needs to be ready. Where the future major transit stop will be is unknown at this time but will be investigated.
One can only imagine what will happen to the neighborhood with only 11 parking spots on-site for 17 units. There is a bus stop on the eastbound lane of Rosecrans ~700 feet from the site. There is another stop on the west bound side of Rosecrans also ~700 feet from the site. These certainly do not qualify as “major transit stops.”
Affordable Housing Density Bonus
The density bonus is relatively simple. A developer may exceed the Floor Area Ratio, or FAR, by a percentage based on the percentage of square footage devoted to low-income units.
The FAR is the allowable square footage that a developer may build on a lot by zone. For example, OB has a strict .70 FAR. Multiply your lot size by .70 and the result is how much floor area you can build on your property. For a basic 5,000 square foot lot, that would be 3,500 square feet. This calculation differs from zone to zone.
This project is in the RM 3-7 zone that allows a 1.80 FAR. Multiplying that by a 10,000 square foot site results in an allowable FAR of 18,000 square feet. The proposed FAR, using the density bonus allowances is 2.4 equaling 24,000 square feet. This is an additional 6,000 square feet above the RM 3-7 zone requirement. Much denser and less parking than the code requires.
Incentives and Results – Height Limit
The incentives a developer can receive are based on what percentage of the FAR will be Very-Low Income housing. This project proposes to have 15 percent low-income housing entitling the developer to five incentives.
The project plans list the following incentives the developer is seeking, and getting.
- Increased coastal height
- Increased RM 3-7 structure height limit
- No setback on Locust
- Reduced setback on Ingelow
- Encroachment element in side setback more than 30’ long
Clearly, the two incentives that matter the most are the ones about height limit. Addressing the second one first, the Increased RM 3-7 structure height limit, the concession makes no sense.
Several years ago, the community came together in an uproar because of an over-height-limit building, also in Roseville, on Emerson. This project was extensively covered by The Rag. The result of that uproar was the removal of an upper floor and a Municipal Code amendment to the RM 3-7 zone requirements that states:
Footnote (37) Within the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone in the Peninsula Community Plan area, the base zone maximum structure height shall be 30 feet, which shall be determined in accordance with Section 113.0270(a)(4)(D).
The purpose of the footnote was to make it clear that, even though the height limit for RM 3-7 zone is 40 feet everywhere else in the city, within the coastal 30-foot height limit area, the maximum height would be only 30 feet. This reinforced that the 30-foot height limit, as enacted by a public vote, overriding any zoning height allowances within the designated 30-foot area.
That sure seems to shoot down the second incentive and probably the first incentive because the two height limits are intertwined.
The first incentive, increased coastal height, is more serious. The city explained:
The applicant requested an incentive to exceed the Coastal Height Limit in exchange for affordable units (as noted on the cover sheet of the recent construction plans). Staff can support this incentive as the project is using State Density Bonus Law, is outside of the Coastal Overlay Zone, and is not an item listed in SDMC 143.0740(b) that would not be considered an incentive.
It is important to understand that the Coastal Overlay Zone and the 30-foot height limit areas are not the same thing. It is curious that the staff mentioned the Coastal Overlay Zone, which does not apply. The 30-foot height limit covers areas that are not in the Coastal Overlay zone. Roseville is one of those areas.
A reading of the specific reference cited by the city, the State Density Bonus Law, does not reveal how the city may grant an incentive to exceed the coastal height limit.
It appears that the desire to have underground parking, but not have it count in the total FAR, is one of the reasons why this is happening. The garage will be partially above and below ground, just enough to make it exempt from the FAR calculation. This allowed the developer to use all of the allowable FAR in three stories above the garage. If the garage was counted in the FAR calculation, the building could only be two stories.
The citizens of San Diego voted the 30-foot height limit into law, it was not a Municipal Code change enacted by city council as so much of the code is. The ability to grant a height concession should only apply to regular zoning requirements like the 40-foot requirement in the RM 3-7 zones. Any deviation should also be put to a public vote similar to the Midway vote.
The 30-foot height limit applies to all zones that are within the area covered by that limit. To allow this deviation on this project is to allow it anywhere. No one argues that the zoning requirements cannot be subject to concessions. But, the 30-foot height limit is not a zoning requirement, it is a law that supersedes all zoning within the area governed by that specific limit. This project needs some white-hot attention.
This should be a warning to anyone in the Coastal Height Limit Overlay Zone that the city is quietly trying to override the vote of the people. Once this precedent has been set we will see applications for “turquoise towers” along Rosecrans and around Stumps.
The mayor and this council seem hell bent on destroying single family neighborhoods. I was around in the 1970s and voted for the 30 foot height limitation, and I remember why. It was because we did not want our coastal areas to become high rise developments blocking off views and increasing density. The coastal areas have no representative to defend us. Since Jennifer Campbell was elected she has rubber stamped the mayor’s plans. When you contact her office she ignores or deflects by saying to contact the mayor’s office. With the assistance of the mayor she won her second term after the district was gerrymandering adding east Clairemont and removing Pacific Beach. This has left the Peninsula area unrepresented and permits developments to exceed our local zoning laws. Let’s make sure this next time we will elect someone who will represent the coastal area.
Another comprehensive investigation and another brilliant Geoff Page exposé, thank you.
Just so you know Geoff, that imaginary transit center is an imaginary express route that will take imaginary fans, to watch our imaginary professional sports franchise, in our cost +, future-severely-over-budget, and therefore debt spiraling, vacant sports arena.
It would be very enlightening to hear exactly what the D2 candidate’s opinions are specifically on the subject of this article. And specifically regarding the imbecilic and ambiguous usage of the word “planned,” as a “legal” term in a “law.” Stop and think about just how ludicrous it is that a bill with this kind of ambiguity somehow became a “law”.
For those playing at home… How about we take a look at the word “planned” when used in other legalese. For instance the City has “planned” the $ 1 billion design for the new OB Pier…
Meanwhile, the Santa Cruz Warf that had been almost, if not just as damaged just as the OB Pier or more, nears completion of repairs and is opening again. O’side has their pier nearly repaired and near opening after burning.