{"id":224550,"date":"2017-09-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2017-09-22T07:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sdnews.com\/housing-project-approved-with-second-vote\/"},"modified":"2017-09-22T00:00:00","modified_gmt":"2017-09-22T07:00:00","slug":"housing-project-approved-with-second-vote","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/housing-project-approved-with-second-vote\/","title":{"rendered":"Housing project approved with\u00a0second vote"},"content":{"rendered":"

Por Jeff Clemetson | Editor<\/p>\n

Design Review Board process under review after contentious decision<\/strong><\/p>\n

At its Sept. 12 meeting, La Mesa City Council reversed an earlier decision to reject the proposed Little Flower Haven housing project at 8585 La Mesa Blvd.<\/p>\n

The housing project by Silvergate Development will build 130 units on the property that used to be owned by the Sisters of the Divine Heart of Jesus. The project will keep some of the existing fa\u00e7ade of the church building, and add additional buildings and a parking lot.<\/p>\n

\"Housing<\/a>
An artist’s rendering of what will be the front of the Little Flower Haven housing project (Courtesy Silvergate Development)<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Many residents who live nearby oppose the project because Silvergate took advantage of a state law allowing for a reduced amount of parking spaces if it provided 10 percent of the units as affordable housing.<\/p>\n

Kathleen Brand, a resident who spoke against the project, called the move a loophole and complained that Silvergate only offered the minimum number of affordable housing units.<\/p>\n

\u201cIn a typical affordable housing project, they would have to provide 20 percent of the units at 80 percent [area median income] and increase the density on the number of units in order to get those concessions or waivers,\u201d she said. \u201cSo, if you are a proponent of more housing, we are losing out on more units and if you are a proponent of affordable units, we are losing out again.\u201d<\/p>\n

Silvergate principal Ian Gill said that despite \u201csome of the remarks made about [Silvergate],\u201d he would work with residents on solutions to any \u201cunlikely\u201d parking issues that arise in the Porter Hill neighborhood. One such solution would be an amendment to rental agreements that Little Flower Haven residents would sign, directing them to avoid parking in surrounding neighborhoods and developing an expedited way to have violators towed.<\/p>\n

Despite the concerns raised by residents, the City Council voted 4-0 to approve the project, overturning an Aug. 8 decision to reject it. Councilmember Colin Parent, who lives nearby, recused himself from the vote. Councilmembers cited the potential for a lawsuit by the developers and state laws that tie their hands at stopping affordable housing development as the main reasons for the about-face.<\/p>\n

\u201cAs far as anyone suing anyone, this came down to, \u2018What happens next?\u2019\u201d Mayor Mark Arapostathis said. \u201cAnd what I was told was that this would go to court and based on other cases and based on communication with the state, we\u2019ll lose. Then what next? Well, we\u2019ll go to court and pay attorney fees and that will hurt, but what after that? Then we\u2019ll be directed by the state to approve this. And then when we refuse? Then [we\u2019ll] be held in contempt of court, each one of [us].\u201d<\/p>\n

Resident Steve Lumpe likened the threat of lawsuit to \u201cintimidation.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI\u2019m upset because now I\u2019ve seen a bully come in and throw their weight around trying to get their way,\u201d he told the council. \u201cYou didn\u2019t give them what they wanted on the last vote, so what they did is what a typical bully does \u2014 threaten to sue.\u201d<\/p>\n

A flawed process?<\/strong><\/h3>\n

In addition to issues with the parking, the state\u2019s rules governing affordable housing and the lawsuit threat, another sticking point for residents and the City Council over the Little Flower Haven project was the city\u2019s review process.<\/p>\n

\u201cThe issue that caused me to vote last time is that I do not believe that the decision from the Design Review Board (DRB) was valid,\u201d Councilmember Bill Baber said.<\/p>\n

In the initial vote on Little Flower Haven, Baber saw the makeup of the DRB as problematic because there were members of city staff on the board who in essence were voting on their own work.<\/p>\n

In a separate agenda item, the City Council discussed ways to avoid the issues that came up with the Little Flower Haven project. Although there was no vote to make changes to the DRB at the Sept. 12 meeting, several possible changes to it were discussed.<\/p>\n

Some of the changes suggested for the DRB included banning city staff from serving on the board and increasing the time restriction on board members who previously worked for developers whose projects are up for review. One of the DRB members had worked for Silvergate just a little more than a year before the board made its recommendation.<\/p>\n

\u201cAll of those created what I saw as an inherent system where the DRB wasn\u2019t being objective,\u201d Baber said. \u201cNobody was doing anything illegal; everybody was operating in their own world trying to do their best, but the system is wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n

Another possibility to correct the system that was floated was to scrap the DRB altogether and instead have that function be carried out by the Planning Commission.<\/p>\n

Michael McSweeney, senior public policy advisor at the Building Industry Association, said he called five cities of similar size to La Mesa to find out if they had DRBs and found that none had them \u2014 that the job of design review was either handled internally by staff and the planning departments or handled at the planning commission.<\/p>\n

\u201cMy question is, \u2018Why you feel you need to have a DRB?\u2019 Because when it comes to design, everyone has an opinion,\u201d he said. \u201cWhat we have found is that \u2026 it is important to have clear design standards, then you eliminate uncertainty. You also eliminate the need to go to another body to have people opine on something they don\u2019t have a financial interest in, which then adds more time to the approval process.\u201d<\/p>\n

Several people spoke out in opposition to that idea, citing the need for qualified building and landscape architects to look at projects to make sure they fit in with La Mesa\u2019s aesthetics.<\/p>\n

John Schmitz, a La Mesa city staffer who also served on the DRB for about year, said his experience is that projects that go through a design review process are \u201cbetter for it and better for the community.\u201d<\/p>\n

\u201cI would strongly recommend that you keep the DRB,\u201d he said. \u201cIf your concern is with the makeup of the DRB, change that as you see fit, but please do not eliminate the process. The Planning Commission has a much larger scope, its focus is on land use issues. They will not have the same focus as a DRB.\u201d<\/p>\n

After public comment and discussion, the council voted to direct staff to look at the options of keeping the DRB but adjusting its makeup to reduce conflicts of interest; and also look at folding the DRB function into the Planning Commission.<\/p>\n

\u2014Comun\u00edquese con Jeff Clemetson en jeff@sdcnn.com<\/a>.<\/em><\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Por Jeff Clemetson | Editor<\/p>","protected":false},"author":778,"featured_media":224551,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_seopress_robots_primary_cat":"11548","_seopress_titles_title":"Housing project approved with\u00a0second vote","_seopress_titles_desc":"","_seopress_robots_index":"","jnews-multi-image_gallery":[],"jnews_single_post":[],"jnews_primary_category":[],"jnews_social_meta":[],"jnews_override_counter":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[11548,11551,11550],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-224550","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-la-mesa-courier","category-news","category-top-stories"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224550","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/778"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=224550"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/224550\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/224551"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=224550"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=224550"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/test.sdnews.com\/es\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=224550"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}