Temporarily delaying action on a state law that would open the door for a lot of homes to be built across the city.
Read more Trump and Xi wrap up summit claiming progress stabilizing US-China relations as differences persist
Closing loopholes that allowed sometimes large apartment buildings in backyards under the guise of accessory dwelling units.
Seeking an after-the-fact fix to another state law that paved the way for the controversial “Turquoise Tower” in Pacific Beach.
These and other moves might suggest San Diego is backing off its years-long effort to encourage more housing development with hopes that boosting supply will help moderate sky-high prices.
That hardly seems the case. Though city and regional leaders have taken such actions, at the same time, they continue to pursue policies and projects for potentially hundreds of thousands of new homes.
What they’re doing is taking a more prudent approach to development so as not to go too far too fast in some areas that aren’t ready for it. That’s laudable, even if it may have stemmed from the past zeal to rapidly approve of pro-housing laws at the local and state levels that have led to some unintended consequences.
The latest sign of this ethos was how the City Council injected flexibility in implementing a new state law that requires high-rise development near trolley stations and major bus stops. Keep in mind, the city in recent years already has approved rules to facilitate increased housing density along major transit corridors and especially around trolley stations.
Amid considerable debate, the council last week agreed to delay the impact of Senate Bill 79 in large portions of the city. The delay would give a reprieve to lower-income areas that lack resources and other neighborhoods with high wildfire risk, historic structures or vulnerability to sea-level rise, according to David Garrick of The San Diego Union-Tribune.
Part of the issue is whether the future infrastructure will be able to handle the development and if necessary amenities are available, like grocery stores and other commercial staples. Some opponents of the delays — one to five years, depending on the neighborhood — want the development guidelines now, contending they will act as a catalyst to bring such amenities into those areas sooner.
In something of a compromise, the council agreed not to limit the future high-rise development to only four major bus stops and instead potentially increase the number to more than 50. That decision, however, will be made by the regional transportation planning agency, the San Diego Association of Governments.
For perspective, with just the four bus stops in play, SB 79 potentially would add about 367,000 more housing units in the targeted areas. There’s no estimate yet as to how much that would grow with more bus stops, but it could be a vast increase. Even at the low end, that’s a lot more housing.
This is somewhat theoretical at this point. As with updated community plans, the numbers stated typically are the maximum homes allowed. It’s impossible to say how close some areas will eventually come to topping out, depending on such things as market and population trends.
Meanwhile, San Diego for years was on the cutting edge of facilitating construction of accessory dwelling units or ADUs, enacting perhaps the most permissive rules in California. Remember, generations before they gained the bureaucratic “ADUs” handle, these were seen somewhat charmingly as “granny flats,” with maybe one or two in a backyard or converted garage.
In modern times, that’s changed with the offer of bonus units in return for restricted rents to reserve some of the apartments for lower-income residents.
To the surprise and shock of many, the city’s loose ordinance opened the door for dozens on some lots. The infamous poster child for this is a proposed 136-unit ADU project in eastern Pacific Beach, which is tied up in litigation.
Read more From Cisco to Block, more companies are pointing to AI when unveiling job cuts
The City Council last year rolled back some of the excesses in the ordinance, though only by a 5-4 vote. As seen with SB 79, there’s still considerable sentiment for less restriction on housing development not more.
But even with the changes, in many cases, five to eight ADUs can be allowed under certain circumstances.
It was a permissive state law that paved the way for the proposed 239-foot mixed-use building on Turquoise Street in Pacific Beach that has drawn the ire of even ardent pro-housing advocates. The project’s developers sidestepped the city’s 30-foot coastal height limit approved by voters in 1972 through a state density bonus law to encourage affordable housing that apparently overrides local ordinances.
Numerous San Diego officials have supported state and local density bonus rules over the years.
Gov. Gavin Newsom late last year signed Senate Bill 92 by Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, to close what critics said was a loophole in the bonus law allowing the tower, but that measure won’t apply retroactively.
Meanwhile, the city of San Diego refused to issue permits, contending the project of 139 hotel rooms and 75 apartments above ground-floor shops is not legal as proposed.
Ironically, the massive Midway Rising redevelopment project planned for the sports arena and surrounding properties benefited in a similar way, though the politics were reversed, with city officials supporting the project.
Courts had rejected a voter-approved suspension of the coastal height limit for the project. Judges ruled environmental reviews did not properly assess the impact of lifting the height limit.
But a state agency recently determined the project can move ahead despite the height limit because of the state density bonus program.
The project calls for 4,254 total residential units, a 16,000-seat replacement arena, 130,000 square feet of commercial space, 8.1 acres of parks, and another 6.4 acres of plazas and public space. It includes a commitment to build 2,000 residential units for households earning 80 percent or less of the area median income.
A couple of Point Loma residents and their attorney have raised other questions, potentially laying the groundwork for another legal challenge, according to the Union-Tribune’s Jennifer Van Grove.
Among other things, they maintain the city has not adequately addressed the stress on the area’s infrastructure because its review did not properly consider the impacts of the nearby future redevelopment of the Navy’s NAVWAR facility, which will also add potentially thousands of homes and considerable commercial space. That can’t be overlooked.
The city may well keep its pro-housing image amid all these developments, but hopefully, officials have learned hard lessons about the need to stay ahead of the curve on addressing potential problems before they pass the point of no return.
Read more Taylor Swift, lawsuits and quirky exemptions: How empty homes tax works in other cities
