By Kate Callen
At an October 23 celebration of its legal win to suspend a 186-unit A Street project, the Golden Hill community received more good news: a 28th Street canyon parcel slated for development will remain open parkland.
The private owner has agreed to donate the property to Preserve Greater Golden Hill (PGGH), now incorporated as a 501c3. In exchange, he will receive a charitable tax deduction. San Diego Canyonlands is already working with the non-profit on a long-term rehabilitation and management plan to preserve the habitat.
More than 80 jubilant Golden Hill residents cheered the announcement at a PGGH fundraiser at Matteo’s at 30th and Juniper. Six months ago, as the Rag reported on May 22, the community felt blindsided by the two high-impact projects. Now, the canyon parcel is safe, and the eight-story complex is stalled.
In the wake of a Superior Court ruling that halted further construction at 2935-2961 A Street, PGGH will insist that Chicago-area developer CEDARst scale back the project to comply with the Greater Golden Hill Community Plan.
“The opposing counsel said the developer is open to negotiation,” said PGGH President Richard Santini. “We’re holding firm. We want three stories with 10 percent of the units affordable and some benefit to the community, like frontage and trees.”
Judge Joel Wohlfeil’s issuance of a temporary restraining order struck at the heart of Mayor Todd Gloria’s “Complete Communities” program, which allows massive “transit-oriented development” where planned transit stops do not yet exist and have not even secured actual funding.
Communities across San Diego that are fighting outlier projects have been energized by the decision. Protect Point Loma President Eric Law attended the Golden Hill event in a show of solidarity, and he called the ruling “the tip of the spear.”
Law’s group is suing to block a four-story, 56-unit apartment building at 1004 Rosecrans Street. Like the Golden Hill project, the Point Loma complex is proposed for a site that has inadequate transit and scarce street parking. Both the Golden Hill and Point Loma groups are represented by land use attorney Everett Delano.
“This is a citywide fight, and Golden Hill has scored a major win,” said Law. “What the judge said can’t be ignored. The City’s push for gross expansion has no real legal foundation.”
John McNab, a long-time activist who helped orchestrate the Golden Hill court fight, said, “We’re very gratified to the court system and for the due diligence done by the judge. And we really appreciate the great work done by Everett Delano.”
Gesturing toward the euphoric crowd inside Matteo’s, McNab said, “This is people power, and it’s extraordinary. I’ve never seen a community come out for an issue like this one has.”
Details about the Golden Hill canyon project are spelled out on a webpage on the PGGH site. Ultimately, the project would “link 28th Street Canyon to Switzer Canyon and create an 80-acre protected habitat corridor under the City’s Multiple Species Conservation Program.”
This is a temporary restraining order (TRO), which may lapse unless the court grants a preliminary injunction to halt further construction.
From a legal standpoint, there are several issues with the Judge’s reasoning:
Mobility Zone 2 and SDA Eligibility
The argument that the absence of a defined maximum distance from a transit stop for Mobility Zone 2 invalidates the project’s eligibility under Complete Communities is not definitive. The City’s adopted Sustainable Development Area (SDA) map clearly places the project site within Mobility Zone 2 of an SDA. While the ordinance converting Transit Priority Areas (TPAs) to SDAs omitted specific distance language for Mobility Zone 2, legislative intent and reliance on the official map likely satisfy legal sufficiency under case law. Courts generally defer to agency interpretations when supported by adopted planning documents.
Planned Transit Stops and Density Bonus Eligibility
The Judge’s skepticism about the project’s reliance on a “planned” transit stop overlooks state law provisions. Under California Public Resources Code § 21099(a)(7), a Transit Priority Area includes areas within one-half mile of a major transit stop that is existing or planned, if the planned stop is included in a formally adopted regional transportation plan. In this case, SANDAG’s 2020 Regional Plan and the draft 2025 Plan both identify Route 2 as a future “Rapid” bus line by 2035, satisfying this statutory requirement.
Environmental Review and Ministerial Approval
The City conducted a Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) when adopting the Complete Communities ordinance in 2020, identifying unavoidable impacts from increased density and height. Courts typically defer to agencies on determinations of ministerial vs. discretionary approvals. Under California Government Code § 65589.5(d), a local agency may only deny requested incentives or waivers if it makes specific written findings, based on substantial evidence, that the incentive or waiver would result in a specific, adverse impact on public health or safety, the environment, or historical resources, and that such impact cannot be feasibly mitigated. The City’s approval of the ministerial permit implies it found no such substantial evidence. Plaintiffs’ claims of community concern, absent expert analysis or technical studies, likely fall short of the evidentiary threshold. Notably, the Writ filed on October 2 does not include such supporting documentation.
Affordable Housing and Protected Units
Plaintiffs cite a San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) report identifying two protected units on the site and requiring their replacement. However, they did not attach the report to their Writ, and a search of SDHC’s affordable housing directory does not show protected units at the project addresses. Without the report or corroborating evidence, this claim is difficult to substantiate.
Unless Plaintiffs can produce stronger evidence—particularly expert testimony or technical studies—their case to permanently halt the project appears weak. They may succeed in delaying construction, but the most compelling issues (e.g., FAA notification) are curable by the developer. The legal framework and administrative record currently favor the City’s approval.
I love that a local community is stepping up and doing what is needed. Getting a canyon donated? Standing up for their community plan??? Good for them!
We are very grateful to the group for fighting for the community. The construction has been a nightmare. We will probably have to move soon if we can’t park our work truck near our apartment and the rent of course will go up.
Zack – the protected units were DEMOLISHED. The replacement units were allocated and accepted by the SD Housing Commission by deed. Keep up.
The court’s Order includes: “The parties agree that, at this time, no major transit stop exists within one mile of the project site.” While there may be an SDA map, the parties have already agreed it is erroneous as to the subject site unless the fantasy MTS route for 2035 is funded. As to the 2035 planned transportation, the judge and SANDAG state it is part of an unconstrained plan. The unconstrained plan serves as a wish list for future transportation needs that go beyond what existing funding can provide.
Intent of the law must be able to be fulfilled and should not be interpreted in a way that would lead to an absurd result. Thus allowing development ostensibly to take advantage of public transit in order to fulfill the City’s climate action plan goals vis a vis SDA parameters is based on a wish and a hope? Not sound legal basis.
And what is at issue with regard to any proposed transportation routes, is proposed Route 637, not Route 2 (Major transit Stop: “The intersection of two or more major bus routes with a frequency of service interval of 20 minutes or less ….”)
An evidentiary record is not required at this time.
But thanks for your concern.
Cindi,
The units were indeed demolished, however the SDHC report actually says that the three affordable units CAN count towards the eight the developer is to build. Also, although rapid Route 637 (not route 2 like I said earlier) is listed under “unconstrained” in the 2021 regional SANDAG plan, tram 555 is not listed as an unconstrained transit route. Case law has held that timelines themselves do not determine what constitutes an applicable transportation plan, but instead whether the planned transit routes are are designated as having funding (or likely to) or are “visionary” and aspirational without probable funding. Such transit routes are not deemed to be part of an applicable regional transportation plan.
Putting the transit talk aside, the City did adopt the SDA map when it passed the ordinance in 2023. Even if the map does not perfectly align with the textual demarcation of the eligible SDAs based on distance to transit, the fact that the project site is squarely within the SDA area as adopted likely deprives plaintiffs of a strong argument that the City’s decision was arbitrary. Essentially, the SDA map, even if inconsistent with the text of the ordinance, has not been used arbitrarily to determine whether this project is within an SDA.
I downloaded the pleadings from the Court’s website and read through them. The Judge honed in on the “planned transit” element. Defendants should be able to counter that argument pretty easily. The judge also mentioned that Plaintiff’s have a “reasonable probability” of success which does not mean that they are more likely to win than not. It merely means that they, given the information currently known to the Court, have a plausible shot at success, but not necessarily a probable shot.
Cindi do you have a copy of the judge’s order? I would love to read it. I could only access the Writ and news articles.
I appreciate the argument about imaginary unfunded ghost transit zones. It’s a loophole for disaster. My greatest fear (and one shared by many neighbors in the immediate vicinity of the planned building) is some genius at the city seems to think it “safe” to approve an eight story tower in the direct flight path to San Diego International Airport, on a hill known to collect significant marine cloud layer at night, meaning planes dip underneath the cloud layer for visibility. San Diego residents suffered another plane crash last year. I remember the PSA North Park crash long ago. Do we really want to invite further safety risks resulting in a third plane crash right at the doorstep of an elementary school? Bad planning is putting our neighbors at risk. I see this tower plan is beyond dangerous.
There are taller buildings in Bankers Hill under the flight path and there doesn’t seem to be a problem. The FAA sets limits on building height and the Golden Hill development does not exceed them.