By Michael A. Hernandez
On Thursday, May 21, San Diego-based nonprofit organization ‘Serving Seniors’ and management firm Hyder Property Management, held a resident’s meeting in the campus’ Judith L. Seltz Wellness Center to provide an update on concerns and take questions from the public.
The last-minute resident’s meeting was held two days before a press conference the Senior Residents Council was slated to take place; and comes in the wake of a recent article titled “Clairemont’s Mt. Etna Project: The Affordable Housing Misnomer,” posted on the local community initiative and media platform Explore Clairemont.
In her article, Explore Clairemont writer and publisher Tanja Kropf compiles the growing number of concerns voiced by the senior residents including the lack of parking, a rent hike, and fear for their safety, even though they were promised affordability, ample parking, and safety prior to moving in. Kropf writes before seniors even completed their first year living at the residence, just one day before Thanksgiving of 2025, they were told their rent was going up by 8.8%. The increase would be more than three times the 2.8% they receive annually from the Social Security Cost of Living Adjustment.
Another failed promise is the 465 parking spaces originally proposed for the Mt. Etna project during community planning and outreach stages in late 2018. That number was reportedly pitched by developers and city officials to ease concerns that surrounding streets would not be able to handle the arrival of so many cars. Yet just months later in March of 2019, the San Diego City Council under then mayor Kevin Falconer passed Ordinance 21507, which eliminated minimum parking requirements for multi-family residential developments within “Transit Priority Areas”.
According to the City Planning Department, these parking regulations “allow for more multifamily residential units to be built without parking to lower housing costs and encourage residents to use alternative modes of transportation such as walking, biking and transit.”, adding the regulations align with the goals of the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan and Housing SD initiative.
Kropf writes after this change in policy, that records indicate when Chelsea Investment Corporation signed the Disposition and Development Agreement, a legally binding contract between the private developer and the county of San Diego in January of 2020, that their parking obligations were to be in compliance to ‘all applicable parking requirements’.
Chelsea Investment Corporation allegedly later used the 2019 Ordinance requirement reforms along with density-bonus waivers to quietly cut the proposed parking almost in half, down to 240 spaces. On a 404-Unit Campus, that averages out to around 0.59 parking spaces per unit. The lack of parking may also be contributing to a number of on and off-site violations and safety hazards including speeding and daily parking violations in front of fire hydrants and red zones both at the complex and on nearby streets.
Of all the grievances being voiced by the seniors, the concern over their safety might be the most alarming, as the complex’s security is said to consist of just one camera at each entrance. On top of that, residents say not all the cameras are working and none of the ones that are functioning monitor activity in the hallway.
Kropf writes about one resident who reported being frightened by loud aggressive banging at her door early one morning. Without video to pull from the hallways, the identity of the person or persons involved remains unknown. But threats from the outside may not be the only kind residents have to worry about, as they had been living in the same building as registered sex offender. The question still remains as to how an individual like that was rented an apartment in tax-payer subsidized housing a mere 500-feet from the nearest school (he has since deceased). His presence along with a rent increase after her first seven months had been enough to flip resident Georgia Hornback, who has been highlighted as a success story on promotional materials for the project and is now voicing her concern over safety at the complex.
After reaching out to all parties about these issues and receiving answers described as “tepid at best”, Kropf reports a collective of seniors fueled by frustration have come together to form the group known as the Senior Residents Council, hoping their unified voices will bring about a difference. However Kopf says the problem may not be limited to the project at Mount Etna and lists issues at other affordable housing complexes developed by Chelsea suggesting the problem may be systemic.
This highlights the settlement of a lawsuit launched by senior residents at St. Teresa at Calcutta Villa, another Chelsea investment affordable housing complex, over repeatedly broken elevators, and a petition over safety, pest, and maintenance issues going around Chelsea’s Mesa Verde Apartments in San Carlos.
Despite all of the concerns coming from residents since before the project was built, to now roughly one year since move-in, San Diego Mayor Todd Gloria, the San Diego Housing Commission, and other elected officials have repeatedly touted the project as a huge success and have indicated they would like to implement the same model in other areas of San Diego.
This morning, Friday, the Senior Residents Council held a press conference right outside the Terrassini Apartments at the complex on Mount Etna Drive to publicly voice their concerns, issues and complaints.
Sources
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdhcd/docs/cd/10-15-18%20Mt%20Etna-Crime%20Lab%20CPA_NOP%20Scoping%20Meeting_FINAL.pdf – Clairemont Mesa Community Plan Amendment / Rezone 5255 Mt. Etna Drive 2nd Notice of Preparation (NOP) Public Scoping Meeting – Slide 15, promises 465 parking spaces
https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/sdhcd/docs/cd/DDA-and-all-attachments-Mt-Etna-Combined.pdf – DDA
Michael A. Hernandez is a resident of Clairemont.
Thank you for continuing to share this story. It needs to be heard. I had a typo in my article. The press conference is at 10 am on May 23 (tomorrow). The media will be there, as well as residents of the complex and surrounding neighbors. We’d love the support of others!
Didn’t see mention about Floods & mold, only 9 months NEW property!???!
And filterization & furnace/thermo. fans blowing constantly in many units. Great for SDGE, which will get there own HUGE parking lot next to Mt. Etna Complex, and CHARGE for parking on OUR land we gift them for Utilities only purposes! PS at Medical Retail buildings NO gate to tons of “under Utility Lines” Parking nextdoor..psps what ever happened to 100% under grounding of utility lines…nope only if YOU pay for it?50 years of Under hounding fees flying in the wind??…read kiss-off.
Also Note many seniors & other residents had to drive to post office to get their mail for months…opps dropped ?…daniel & Ms. Kropf tell Truth, not gaming lies…NOTE if you have funds for hundreds of flyers to mailboxes you are beholden to someone wallet, and ain’t OURS!!
Might be floating in SD River next week, but Truth IS Out there now!
Love, and peace to you ALL, but not corrupt cheaters & bullys!
Protest tomorrow 10am. Anyone that cares about the way Campbell, Gloria and City Hall continues to deceive the public to exploit our San Diego seniors for their own political expedience and personal gain, should make their voices heard loud and clear tomorrow. This project exemplifies the insidiousness of hyper-gentrification through high density projects and the fraud, the myth and the fallacy, of “affordable” housing construction that never gets built.
It is absolutely shameful the way that those that dedicated their entire lives to make San Diego such a good community are being victimized by despicable corporate landlords with the manipulative blood money blessings of our “elected representatives.”
At yesterday’s “emergency” meeting held by Serving Seniors, Hyder, and ConAm, I watched as seniors nearly broke down in tears. They were exasperated. There are only TWO disabled spaces in front of the senior complex. They are many disabled seniors living there who have to walk long distances to find parking. It’s a shame what the city and what Chelsea have done, not only at this “affordable” housing project, but at many across San Diego.
Even worse Ms. Kropf, there is no where to exchange people from vehicles to sidewalk & Senior Center, in fact closest doors to activities room is mark EXIT only, next right next to good exchange area. How do I know this, because my senior friend whom told me Judith Stelz Center operating (after I enquired for month, but never would put me on email/phone list about opening & services). She has windshield plaquard, but no where to park for ? other abilitied people!
We have to walk a half block away over multiple curbs and thru busy intersection, in fact I’ve brought 3 friends with these plaquards since, for Lunches & Bingo’s!!! I am Professional Driver, doing Sharp Hospital transport as well as Wheel Chair Van service Driver…I know this is NOT right & good chance illegal! WE, City & County (constituents) can do & deserve better, especially from HUGE Corps getting lots & lots of OUR Tax Dollar$. But WE must demand it, and keep feet to fire: “Hell NO, WE won’t G?!!!” -dMb
Edit..for Month ‘s i enquired about opening of Serving Seniors Center…and name: Judith Seltzer was on outside walls. No list of phone numbers or email address for those interested!???! They don’t want you to know, they don’t want written documents saying what is happening, because then you can enquire WHY NOT, Where’s This, how come this and not what you said,
Just like dozens of Affordable Housing & Senior not get the physical Lease paperwork.
If you don’t know, have proof, they can’t be held accountable, and sets a pattern for poor to understand…THEY are in-charge.
Luckily, i and others are too tired of this BS…and WE have Veteran Bill on our side (for now, b/c wife sick/injured), reason they moved into Mt Etna Senior Housing!!!
What’s not being shared about the rent increase is that a $35.5 million federal funding shortfall left the an Diego Housing Commission with one of two choices: Either allow the increase in rents or cut 1,700 households (about 6,000 people) from participating in the rent voucher program. Not a good choice but that’s what they had to work with.
https://www.facebook.com/reel/869797742188359
If you’ve got a problem with this, blame the Trump administration, not the SDHC, County or Chelsea.
Not to dismiss the various complaints of the residents, one must also wonder where would these 404 senior households be living if this development didn’t exist? Let’s get the complaints resolved, but let’s not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Don is fibbing, City of San Diego gas failed multiple time to meet needs for Unhoused/Homeless and has had funds taken away from Federal Government multiple times!! Then got reduction in Homeless/affordable housing assistance(aka Tax Credits & Tax funds). Whom is Don working for. Is he the lone vote for the project on Clairemount Council? I don’t know because those committees usually just weak voice in wind at City Council policy & law changes and project funding. Deals already made behind scenes by Staffers in Councilpersons offices before the Votes. And since so many $150,000 salary jobs have been added to at City Hall, we’ll never know, because those employees not beholden to CA Brown Act when they leave & seek new employment …you know those whom came in and asked for new policies & LAWS…when Law-Makers put up their hands saying:”it’s the Law, yet they write /wrote the law, they point seems very mute! Shameful that NOT ONE City official/elected came out to speak on issue! Just ex-council woman Lorie Zapf to push around candidate Mark Powell.
Opps, ‘there-it-is’ TRUTH out there, just her civil right….yeah, and your tax dollars floating away….
Not reporter, just Truth sayer. ~dMb
Dear Mr. Beeman, I don’t work for anyone. I am a retired senior private citizen expressing my opinions here. Something our Constitution entitles me to do.
Nor does the “Clairemont Council” have a voting role in projects like this, as you erroneously suggest. I believe you are instead referring to the Clairemont Community Planning Group, of which I am not a member.
And as I noted earlier, the City of San Diego is not involved in the financing or management of this project.
Not true. The City of San Diego through their Housing Authority (HA) and the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) gave 300 Affordable Housing Vouchers to this project, and million in SDHC loans.
The County owns the land, but through the joint agreement the City, the city-owned SDHC are responsible for overseeing construction and daily operation of the Mount Etna Affordable Housing project for the County, in accordance with the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA). Instead the SDHC is pretending they have no oversight powers to enforce the County’s DDA, when the DDA only allows annual 3% rent increases for Mount Etna tenants. The SDHC states since state law says annual 10% rent increases are allow, then Mount Etna is allowed to charge an additional 8.8%^ rent increase within one year of opening.
Don—the link you reference is directly related the the voucher program administered by SDHC. It also talks about rent increases in late 2026/early 2027. First, the senior units at Mt. Etna have a limited number of voucher recipients. Second, their rent increase notice came in late 2025. Third, Chelsea is absolutely the driver of this. They are bad actors and the concerns shared by the seniors in my article are happening at Chelsea properties across San Diego. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it’s a duck. Chelsea is an ugly duck. I’m not sure why it’s seems so important for you to defend the indefensible. They are hurting seniors and low-income families with their greed-driven tactics. I encourage you to show up tomorrow and speak directly with the seniors who are affected.
Tanja, I am not “defending the indefensible.” I am adding facts to the conversation.
The financing package for federally supported non-profit housing projects depends, in part, on the sustained commitment of Section 8 rent vouchers. It’s integral to the whole financial package.
When the feds failed to provide sufficient funds to meet the needs of the entire program the San Diego Housing Commission was forced to make a choice – approve a rent increase or cut thousands of recipient households from the program, leaving families out to dry. The SDHC chose the former, rasonable and decision on their part. Facts like these are important to the public’s understanding of the situation and should be included in the reporting.
https://sdhc.org/housing-opportunities/help-with-your-rent/
Again, your link refers to the voucher program, which does not pertain to the majority of these residents. I spoke directly with SDHC. They told me it is up to Chelsea to decide the rent increase amount. Chelsea decided on the maximum. The seniors begged them to keep it within cost of living allowance, but they refused. Chelsea is a morally bankrupt organization. Was it legal? Sure. Was it moral or ethical? No. Which is exactly what I reported.
It’s more complicated than that. Non-profit housing developers like Chelsea operate on very tight margins and must comply with an arcane, sometimes an undecypherable set of federal, state and local rules.
The financial packages underwriting their projects are complex. But without federal support, they would not be in the business of producing lower cost housing. We need developers like Chelsea to build housing that is more affordable than conventional housing.
The question to ask, is where would the occupants at Mt. Etna live if the project didn’t exist? How much would they be paying in rent? Can they find comparable quality housing for the same cost? Before determining their moral stature, I would want to know the answers to questions like these.
I don’t know how many tenant complaints there are. It would be nice to see the specific list and the responses, or lack thereof. But obviously these all need to be tended to, even if it’s just a handful. Hyder needs to take care of these.
But lets not forget, there 404 households now living in apartments that otherwise wouldn’t exist, but for Chelsea.
The County of San Diego is the owner of the property and Chelsea Investment Corporation is the developer and lessee and has a 99-year ground Lease. If the developer was someone other than Chelsea, there there would not be these systemic problems with Chelsea jacking up rents on publicly financed Affordable Housing projects in order to make more profits for themselves. Renters would be fine, and probably better with a different developer. Chelsea is not doing anyone any favors, they are making good money using public financing.
Chelsea is also the chosen Affordable Housing developer for Midway Rising.
The 404 households, consists of 400 units for rent, and 4 Manager Units. With 52 units set aside for developmentally disabled residents.
The 404 households would not be living in the apartments without the County of San Diego who contributed $73.4 million ( $57 million cash + $16.4 million land) of the $164.7 million total cost of the project.
Average cost per unit $407,734.
https://tinyurl.com/20200110a
The 01/10/2020 Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) between the County and Chelsea Investment Corporation included 300 Housing Vouchers from the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) for the 404 Affordable Housing Units.
See Pages 360, 361, and 368 for the monthly rents for the 3 buildings for AMI between 30% and 80% ranging from $490 to $1,675/month rent.
Page 86 states Rent is “subject to annual adjustments consistent with industry standard and not to exceed three percent (3%) (and which may be reasonably adjusted at refinance or resyndication as mutually agreed to by County and Lessee to reflect current market conditions);”
Chelsea on their own without County approval increased rent by +8.8%, not the 3% allowed by the DDA.
Page 45 states: ” The Development shall include approximately 417 parking spaces or a lesser number of spaces as permitted by the San Diego Municipal Code subject to County approval.”
Not sure if the County approved less parking. I also heard that Chelsea is allowing SDG&E to lease a larger number than usual of the residential parking spaces for Electric vehicle (EV) charging spaces. Other Chelsea projects required only 3% of parking spaces be reserved for EVs.
Page 45 also states: “4. Amenities. The Master Development shall include not less than 3,600 square feet of common indoor community space including lounge, and community rooms, and approximately 10,000 square feet of common outdoor open space at the ground level.”
I heard Chelsea does not allow the seniors to use the amenities like the common indoor community space without a worker present.
Pages 64 and 65 state annual audits of the Project are required that analyze compliance with the DDA including:
“a. Records that demonstrate that the Project meets the Premises standards set forth herein;
b. Records that demonstrate that the Project meets the requirements of this Agreement for the required Affordability Period for each Tenant assisted; and
c. Records that demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this Agreement for Tenant and participant protections.”
The County Board of Supervisors should request an audit.
The original proposal by Chelsea was for 465 parking spaces. This was only after residents of the neighborhood made an absolute stink. When they passed the TPA laws in 2019, Chelsea dropped that to 240 spaces and didn’t tell the community. They didn’t need to because it only required ministerial approval. There are, I believe, 25 EV spaces. There are 12 ADA spaces across all four buildings. There are more than 70 seniors with disabled placards. TWO of the spaces in front of the senior facility are ADA spaces. In addition, the employees of Serving Seniors, Hyder, and ConAm park ON-SITE when there aren’t enough spaces for residents.
Because the project involves federal resources, an annual audit is required. If you have ever been subjected to a federal funds audit you know how rigorous they are. Screw up and you lose your access to federal funds.
Your detailed information affirms that Chelsea isn’t the ogre some folks here characterize it to be. Fact is, it is meeting its legal and contractural obligations.
The Mt. Etna project provides decent, safe, quality housing to 400 senior households at rates below market. 75% of tenants are receiving Section 8 rent subsidies due to their income status. That would not be the case had the project not been built. I am grateful that it is now here among our other Clairemont neighbors.
The current rents to these individuals was approved by the San Diego Housing Commission, which must justify those rents. Had they not done so 1,700 households (approximately 6,000) across San Diego would be removed from the rent voucher program. The reason for this is due to federal funding shortfalls brought on by the Trump administration.
To be sure, Hyder, the property manager, must be responsive to tenant complaints. I can’t evaluate their performance in this regard because no one, to date, has provided a bonafide item-by-item list of complaints made, responded to, or still pending. At present all we have are anecdotes. But I will accept at face value that Hyder has been less than stellar on this account.
San Diego United Communities is falsely blaming Mayor Gloria and the City of San Diego for the alleged problems at Mt. Etna. The reason for this is political and it’s tied to the upcoming election. In reality, the City has very little to do with this project, other than approving the permits for construction. It’s on County-owned property, funded through the County’s housing and community development office. Chelsea conceived of the project design and led the construction effort. Day-to-day on-site management responsibilities belong to Hyder, a private company.
Of course, yesterday, SDUC held their big “news conference” on location. It was not well attended and conventional media organizations smartly appeared to ignore the event.
Still it would be helpful to see Chelsea’s and Hyder’s point-by-point responses to the allegations made. The tenants and public would be better served were they to do so.
Don, doesn’t know facts &:is like most “committee”/”council” members toeing? the line! Tanya stating True facts, Don sending up/out divergent messages to get you off the real facts. They not recording complaints, and hard to talk to hundreds that filed complaints and they probably are elders just trying to live not fight City & County Hall. If Good Biz do the right thing not dozens apon dozens into hundreds of people would be complaining in a just over 1000 person Complex!
Put together numbers peeps, realize they Truth not Carpetbagging lies, wonder what Don getting out of this ti speak??up so much….??$$$
Don will say just volunteer…but why??? Connect the dots.
PS because 23 year Affordable housing tenant, same Clairemount Complex ALL that time, never heard of Don, ever spoke to me to represent me! My 62 year Clairemount Family??! NOPE!!! & i ain’t no dope, just HOPE?????
Not true.
Only the initial rent, not the current rent “to these individuals was approved by the San Diego Housing Commission.”
When did the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) approved the +8.8% rent increase for seniors, families, and the mentally disabled including those with down syndrome. It never happened.
The Housing Commission decision to allow rent increases took place on December 11, 2025 and will go into effect in late 2026 or early 2027. Here is the story:
https://www.10news.com/news/local-news/san-diego-housing-commission-approves-rent-increases-for-housing-voucher-recipients
The link is for the San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) Moving To Work (MTW) Section 8 Housing from HUD.
HUD’s MTW does not apply to the retired seniors, and the developmentally disabled.
By the newscast, some families would seem to get a future 3.5% rent increases, but the Mount Etna DDA caps rent increases to 3%.
I already told him this yesterday. He’s conflating different things. The seniors got their rent increase in 2025, well before this article was written.
It appears you are correct.
I apparently confused the SDHC’s December 2025 move to allow higher rents for certain classes of Section 8 housing vouchers with a decision by Chelsea made a month earlier to raise rents to the top of their allowable cap. I apologize for that. My bad.
Still, this is a project that provides 300 households with Section 8 rent vouchers which caps their actual rent liability to 30% of household income. The SDHC covers the difference between that and a capped rental rate assessed by the landlord.
In otherwords three quarters of the households didn’t actually see their rent go up because their portion of the rent is capped at 30% of their monthly income. However, 100 households not on the voucher program saw a real increase in their rent.
Had the Mt. Etna project not been constructed, those 300 households would not have access to those vouchers that cap their rent to 30% of their income. And the 100 residents who do not qualify for vouchers would be paying market rate rents. Currently one-bedroom apartments in San Diego typically rent at about $2,400/month.
The kind of housing Chelsea produces is a specialty product. Most developers won’t have anything to do with subsidized affordable housing because the rules and oversight are challenging and complex.
I, for one, am grateful we have housing developers like Chelsea willing to take the risks associated with producing this kind of housing. They are not immoral or unethical.
The question to ponder is where would these households be living and how much would they be paying if the Mt. Etna project didn’t exist?
Finally, this…If there are outstanding tenant complaints that haven’t been responded to, that’s a problem and it should be fixed.
There are 24 vouchers set aside for all 404 units, as I already stated. If the tenant moves, these don’t move with them.
The San Diego Housing Commission (SDHC) promised San Diego County 300 Vouchers for the 404 Units. I did not know they changed to 24 Voucher only. Is the County paying for any Housing Vouchers for the mentally disabled?
Don. Chelsea’s allowed cap per the Disposition and Development Agreement (DDA) with San Diego County is for a maximum annual rent increase of 3.0%, not 8.8%. Where did you get the idea that 8.8% is a cap for rent increases? Statewide the cap is 10^%.
FYI although HUD requires only 30% of income for Affordable Housing Section 8 Housing Vouchers, for decade the City of San Diego has an exception through their HUD Moving To Work (MTW) pilot project.
SDHC can at any time raise tenants rent to over 100% of what an existing tenant might make, if they want to. Routinely people in Section 8 get rent increases that they cannot afford. Then get evicted by SDHC and become homeless again.
I wish San Diego would go back to the national 30% cap.
Chelsea did not put their own money to pay for construction, the public did. Chelsea did not have any financial risk.
Here’s the press release: https://sdhc.org/news-release/terrasini-grand-opening/
I went to the protest and the news conference was well attended. Several City Council District 2 candidates spoke out and vowed to help the seniors with this easily solvable problem of corporate greed.
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=1010285688230223
Solution: Have the SDHC enforce the DDA contract and have Chelsea Investment Corporation fix all ADA access and fire code violations, and reduce any past and future rent increases to 3% maximum without the County’s approval.
Don, is not being honest, this IS YOUR Tax dollars…you want to see Rich get richer or see Veteran/Handicaped(other abilitied) Seniors Housed or Unhoused?!
They’ve been playing this shell game (DT Chamber of Commerce) for decades now, along with SD Apartment Builder Groups that bully SD County & City of SD into passing over expensive project that change in price as the Bid Agreements go along…i know as I’ve been talking about this at City Council Chamber for decades. In for cheap bid, out for Millions, if not $10,000,000s more by year 2 & 3, see A street disaster…still costing US(local Tax Payers) $100’s of Millions along with NO new City Hall or Offices…same old 1960’s asbestos filled buildings!!!
Shameful bully liars…continuim from Byron Wear days, remember Homelessness Zsar Wear, before Zapf & “Dr.” Campbell??? Insider’s game, Chamber games with YOUR wallets!
Time to end this, now if I end up flooting in SD River you’ll know why, but NEVER stop going to SD River Days…never!
?????? Speak your peace! Ms.Green does, Ms. Blavatt does, and Hell NO, WE won’t Go(away, never)!!!
Old Save-Our-NTC peeps 19900’s dudes & dudettes…Green Store advocates…????????
THANK YOU for your fact digging, La Playa , always there for US, since Save-Our-NTC Truth days, 3 decades now! Thanks
dMb~ not for power, or personal gain…fact 23 year in-house Affordable Housing client…
Stratton “Blue-roofs” Apts.(Owned by Billionaire Corp Fairfield Residential as tax credit & tax write off, 2 Affordable in SD, 23 other complexes here & around USA)!
404 corporate apartment rentals gouging residents on fixed incomes represent no answer for anything. Don, your per-conceived talking points are completely without merit, they are deliberately deceiving, and imply that these over-hyped, overpriced, and Chelsea developed undelivered “affordable” units are the only place for these 404 victims of fraud could turn to for housing. Get bent.
Bears repeating: Chelsea is also the chosen Affordable Housing developer for Midway Rising.
Why aren’t there particular housing policies for a Senior project? 100 units would logically require about 10 ADA spots at least. Plus plenty of space for white curbs – Uber, taxi, family pick-up. The government entities invite the seniors and then subject them to substandard conditions. And there should be required a citizen oversight board to address complaints as they arise. Was anything resolved at the May 21 meeting?
There are 178 senior units at the complex. 12 ADA spots cover all 404 units across the senior and family complexes. And yes, Chelsea is the same developer for Midway Rising. Don likes to point to their “tight margins” but they have enough margin to pay for lobbyists, and then to turn around on that same lobbying report and make campaign donations to the polititicians who have say in these matters.
I was at the May 21 meeting. There were a lot of promises made. When the seniors pressed them on timelines for anything, they gave ZERO timelines. I know why. It’s because they scrambled this week knowing my article was being written and a press conference was being held so they need to put on a good front so they can send out another press release saying they are “working” on things. It’s absolute BS and these seniors deserve better.
I would like to know why Chelsea investment company and Hydro management company keep getting all of these contracts when they have an F rating with a Better Business Bureau. Who were they paying off?
You can start with the politicians from Todd Gloria to Weber Pierson, who’s SB 958 is being pushed to a floor vote for Midway Rising.
Chelsea’s tight financial margins using public funding, were erased with the removal of the planned and approved underground parking spaces.
Currently, I think but do not know, that only 1 of the 3 buildings has a basement with underground parking. The other 2 buildings have at-grade surface parking. The money Chelsea Investment Corporation saved but not putting in the planned basements are several million that they pocketed themselves with no benefit for the tenants or the County.
Chelsea refuses to hire a security guard and only wants limited cameras for security, as they are 100% responsible for security costs.
Tenants are not allowed to use common space amenities by themselves, or walk into the building through the main front door, which is reserved for management access only. Creepy.
Plus Chelsea Investment Corporation has the contract for 2,000 Affordable Housing units, using 100% public financing, for Midway Rising. They must be friends of Mayor Todd Gloria to get away with hurting and scaring seniors, families, and the mentally disabled including those with down syndrome.
You’re correct. There’s only one underground parking garage. It’s shared among all four buildings on a first-come, first-served basis, but the elevator access is to the family complex. At the emergency meeting, Hyder argued that cameras are more effective than a security guard–purely anecdotal and not based on any fact. However, it IS the cheapest option.
This was a comment from a delivery person at the complex: “I made a delivery there about a year ago to a resident and was saddened and worried for her health and well being. I stopped by the front desk/reception area on the way out and told them of my concerns. Their response: “thank you, we will look into it”, and dismissed me by directing me out the door. My follow up to her was “since you haven’t asked which resident I visited, how will you be looking into her situation?” Their reaction to that was just as convincing that they didn’t seem to care much about residents well being. I then reported it to the agency I was delivering for since they have avenues in place to help seniors.”
The City and Chelsea Investment is breaking ground right now on a project next to Snapdragon Stadium. Should we expect a rinse and repeat version of what happened at Mr Etna? I’m guessing yes. Leaders of Chelsea came to a Clairemont Community Planning group meeting as construction started at Mt Etna. We asked, How many units? How many people? How many parking spaces? They didn’t answer. https://www.sdsu.edu/news/2026/05/sdsu-chelsea-investment-break-ground-on-the-first-affordable-housing-at-sdsu-mission-valley
If you read about their many properties across the cities, Mt. Etna isn’t a one-off. They frequently hire ConAm and Hyder, both of which have dismal ratings. As for parking, they no longer have to provide it at all, so Clairemont is an anomaly in that sense. This won’t end well.
Really insightful breakdown of the current market conditions. The data regarding tenant retention is particularly interesting right now. When looking at the landscape of property management companies san diego, the ones surviving this shift are those prioritizing proactive maintenance and deep tenant screening over quick placements. It is definitely a market that rewards operational efficiency. Looking forward to reading your next update!
thanks citizens of San Diego for your pertinent comments,
the lessons for our city administrators should be:
“don’t trust developer promises”
and
“if you are taking advantage of elders”, then you are going to be in trouble
I live in LITCH. In East Village. I was offered an apt at Mount Etna property. I went to the interview. They were literally lying all over the place!!!! I was applying for the senior part. I was pestered for days. I love the area. However residents who lived there literally told me stay where you are. I pay 100 less and I have a designated parking spot in downtown. If I did not know how this works, I would have moved. It is dangerous. I have seen cars parked in fore lanes, lack of security. We have a security guard and a concierge between 8 to 5. Our rent is raised but after initial lease up its approved by the HUD numbers. There is a way to do this. The Orchard in the Midway district has happy residents ( parking not provided) Green Manor, Cathedral Alms and several others are better choices. I will reconsider because Clairemont is close to my family. I hope for everyone that this will be resolved.
Well it looks like putting together a press conference/protest on behalf of the Seniors at the Paul Downey Senior Center located at 5247 Mt. Etna Drive, 92117 worked.
The Manager Diane Schull produced a 10 page letter to the residents saying they are NOW going to address many of their concerns, implement changes and review others.
Good job everyone.
An easy solution to the parking problems at the Mount Etna Affordable Housing campus is to use the SDG&E Tower Right-of-Way along the west side of the property for at-grade parking. All that is needed is asphalt and striping.
Similar to the adjacent commercial buildings. With 4 rows of parking.
Then additional ADA parking spaces can be built closer to the buildings.
And SDG&E can built their Electric Vehicle charging stations on their own tax-exempt property.
Map.
https://www.google.com/maps/@32.8198376,-117.1838388,404m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDUyNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D