Developers of 186-unit apartment building have the green light to continue work
By Paul Krueger
Developers of an eight-story, 186-unit apartment building in the heart of Golden Hill can resume work on their controversial project following a significant legal ruling.
Opponents of “The Lawson” housing project on 29th and A Streets had temporarily stopped excavation of the complex in October, following a favorable ruling by Judge Joel Wohlfeil.
But Judge Wohlfeil last week declined to issue a preliminary injunction against the developer, which which would have extended his initial stop-work order. In his 16-page ruling, the judge said a more thorough review of evidence in the case convinced him that the community group challenging the project does not have the “probability of prevailing” at a trial.
Judge Wohlfeil did agree with several arguments made by attorneys for “Preserve Greater Golden Hill.” He acknowledged that project opponents have a “reasonable skepticism” that a required bus stop will ever be established within walking distance of the development. He also said the community group made a strong argument that the Golden Hill neighborhood “will be irreparably diminished…if adequate infrastructure” is not built.
He also agreed that the opponents are “likely to suffer greater injury from the denial” of their request for a preliminary injunction than the developer would suffer from a continued halt to construction.
But Judge Wohlfeil still concluded that the opponents failed to show they have a “probability of prevailing” in a trial, which prevented him from granting a preliminary injunction.
The issues on which the challengers fell short include their challenge to the city and SANDAG’s “speculative” plan for a major transit stop near the project, their argument that the project lacks the required number of “affordable” units, and their contention that the development violates the city’s Climate Action Plan and will inflict “adverse health and safety impacts” on nearby residents.
The attorney for the opponents, Everett Delano, declined to comment on the adverse ruling, but said he still believes the project was “illegally permitted.” Delano also said his clients will continue to challenge the project in court.
And the organizer of the “Preserve Golden Hill” said his group is “discussing next steps” in its continuing effort to stop the project, and is preparing for a trial.
The developer, A Street Cedar Property Owner, LLC. through the attorney, Tim Hutter, made this statement after the ruling:
San Diego is facing an unprecedented housing crisis, with demand for homes far exceeding supply. Cedar is proud to partner with the City of San Diego in advancing a project that directly responds to this urgent need, providing meaningful affordable housing and investing millions in community benefits. This development aligns with the City’s Complete Communities Housing Solutions Program, which implements state and regional mandates for smart-growth, transit-oriented housing.
We appreciate the Court’s careful review and recognition that the City’s approval process was robust, transparent, and consistent with both local and statewide goals. Cedar remains committed to working with the City and the community to deliver housing for San Diegans of all income levels, helping to alleviate overcrowding, prevent displacement, and build a stronger future for our region.
Very predictable outcome. Plaintiff’s entire case was not that the developer had broken the law, but rather that they did not like the law and wanted the Judge to pretend it didn’t exist.
That’s not correct.
Plaintiffs’ (petitioners) most compelling argument, which persuaded the judge to issue the initial temporary restraining order, is that the SANDAG’s funding and timetable for the rapid bus stop are unrealistic and unenforceable.
Though the judge did deny the petitioners’ request for a preliminary injunction, his opinion pointedly agrees with petitioner’s argument that the planned bus line is, essentially, a fantasy.
I strongly suggest you read the judge’s ruling for a more accurate and nuanced understanding of the issues in this case, and the credibility of petitioner’s legal challenge.
(You can access it on line at the Superior Court’s website (for a fee) or I’ll send your in PDF, if you send me your email to pwk4871@gmail.com)
Developer’s attorney states: “… recognition that the City’s approval process was robust, transparent, and consistent with both local and statewide goals.” If the rapid transit routes are not implemented (as they are designated for 2035 timeframe), IS THE PROJECT CONSISTENT WITH … GOALS – which is aligning development concurrent with transit in order to achieve Climate Action Plan goals and thus greenhouse gas emission goals? So far, as the reality of the situation is plain to see, with three 8-story residential buildings being constructed with no changes in public transit to date and none on the immediate horizon, I’d have to say that intent of Complete Communities’ goals are NOT being met and thus proceeding within the sham of theory vs. realistic objectives is procedurally unfair.
“Demand for homes far exceeding supply.” There are thousands of vacant rentals in San Diego right now at many different price points. The housing crisis is the inability of families to buy a home and the lack of subsidized housing for the homeless population. An 8 story building is not solving either of those problems.
Recent local housing surveys show rental vacancy rates in San Diego County are relatively low, not indicative of large numbers of genuinely vacant units available for rent:
A point-in-time survey reported vacancy rates at about 3.6% regionwide and about 3.12% in the city, down from prior years. These are modest vacancy levels — not extremely high and suggest tight rental conditions. Vacation rentals are already licensed, capped, and taxed and an additional tax unnecessary and harmful to the mom and pop investors that own over 90% of these rentals. Taxing these individuals for wise capital management is unethical and will not alleviate the supply issue, but only give the city representatives more tax payer money to waste.
California and San Diego cannot afford to subsidize housing for the homeless population into perpetuity, it is unrealistic. Our goal with reducing homelessness should be to provide services that help people get back on their feet. California experienced a net domestic migration loss of about 1.46 million residents between 2020 and 2024, these individuals made a tough economic decision to leave California to earn a better quality of life for their families, why should we fund the lifestyles of drug addicts and/or untreated mentally ill instead.
San Diego and the state of California could certainly afford to build housing for the homeless on land we already own, You know, the “surplus” land that the city is trying to sell, six blocks downtown, the Midway land etc. And if you ask where the money will come from to do that, I will quote Senator Tom Harkin of Iowa, “the money is going to come from where the money went”. In other words if we had competent management downtown we could afford to take care of people. That is what government is supposed to do. That’s right, it’s right there in the preamble of our constitution, “promote the general welfare”. And your attempt to cast the poor as lazy drug addicts is akin to Trump calling people “garbage”. Not only is it wrong, it is heartless and despicable.