Point Loma Leaders Meet with Mayor’s Staff
By Don Sevrens / OB Rag
Controversial Emerson and Evergreen project.
The City has come up with a proposed solution to strengthen and protect the 30-foot height limit on the Point Loma side of the peninsula, community representatives said Thursday, September 1st, after the second Mayor’s meeting on the issue.
Waves of community protest were ignited by the construction of four-story buildings at Emerson and Evergreen, capped by a town hall meeting attended by 250 persons.
Following the town hall, several community advocates attended the first Mayor’s meeting on the issue at City Hall at the invitation of Mayor Faulconer.
The Mayor pledged that the issue would be resolved either by administrative changes or the legislative process if necessary. A stop-work order was issued on the controversial project.
Attending Thursday’s staff-level session were:
- Jon Linney, chair of the Peninsula Community Planning Board,
- Robert Goldyn, PCPB first vice chair,
- Brad Herrin, PCPB second vice chair,
- Roseville resident Babita Souza,
- Point Loma Association Chair Clark Anthony, and
- former PLA Chair Robert Tripp Jackson.
- Jack Straw and Anthony George of the Mayor’s Office were present on the City side. The mayor was unable to attend because of previous commitments.
The community attendees said that major provisions of the City’s solution include:
- The RM zoning in the Point Loma area will be amended to 30 feet through a keynote in the zoning ordinance. All construction will be required to comply with the zoning ordinance calculation of height, which designates existing or finished grade, whichever is LOWER.
- Other areas such as Ocean Beach and La Jolla are not included, City staffers explained, because they have tighter provisions such as floor area ratios which limit the proportion of building size to lot size.
“Time is of the essence,” Goldyn said, “and this is the quickest and most effective way to move forward and protect the peninsula community from height violations.”
Following policy changes made by a little-known City body in 2013, buildings over 30 feet started popping up on the peninsula.
As more details of the City’s proposed solution become known, Linney said: “Any of us who represented the community will be able to elaborate. I can be reached at jonlinney11@gmail.com.”
The Peninsula Community Planning Board in July approved a letter to the City on the issue. That letter is posted on the board’s website, pcpbsd.net [as well as posted on the OB Rag]. It is quite likely the issue also will be on the board’s agenda for its next meeting at 6:30 p.m. Thursday, Sept. 15 at the Point Loma branch library, Linney said.
“This shows what the community can accomplish when it comes together,” said one Point Loma resident who prefers to be nameless. “Thanks are due to everyone who stood up to out-of-control construction.”
At Large
Latest posts by At Large (see all)
- Future of Journalism is in Our Hands - December 13, 2018
- 30 Arrested at Border for Nonviolent Action in Support of Migrant Caravans - December 11, 2018
- The Dorn Effect | Remembering Bob Dorn - December 5, 2018
http://www.sandiegoreader.com/news/2016/sep/06/stringers-coastal-height-limit-slips-point-loma/
“Keach said that any change coming out of the September 8 hearing will not impact existing projects under construction — like the Emerson job — only future projects.”
What “little-known City body” made the “policy changes” in 2013? Charter and ordinance state that the City Council is supposed to make policy and the bureaucracy led by the Mayor is supposed to implement. Seems like the City is running bass-ackwards.
I would not accept the assurances of City staff regarding the omission of other areas from height limits due to Floor Area Ratio (FAR) restrictions. FAR calculations are easily manipulated with regard to achieving soaring heights. I submit “The Pinnacles” in East Village as Exhibit A. Story in San Diego Free Press, March 2015 describes how they were able to increase height by at least 50% of what had been promised in the Community Plan.
Jay- Keep an eye out for lawsuits to be filed, and news investigations to be released very soon, in regard to other troubling discrepancies about Pinnacle Tower and their “public private partnership” development agreement with Civic San Diego.
Not only did they exceed the FAR, they were given over $1.5 million in taxpayer subsidized “credits” to manage the adjacent Faultline Park and its public restrooms “in perpetuity.” However- those restroom facilities have been “closed indefinitely” this summer.
In addition, Pinnacle’s private security guards often tell homeless people they cannot make use of the public park if they attempt to lie on the grass for a nap. Sunbathers and children with families are allowed to lie down and snooze. Adults observed sleeping fully clothed, however, are prohibited.
The developer cartel is concerned with making as much profit as possible. Local community interests usually conflict with their excessive profit motives. It seems the illegal Civic San Diego is still in full control of development and building decisions. They are nothing more than the cartel’s lackeys. They get away with their corrupt decisions (Pinnacle) because they are not publicly accountable, not accountable to any democratically elected officials. Civic San Diego must be disbanded.
However, the city and county face a severe housing crisis. A substantial portion of the population spends more than half their income on housing. While landlords/owners/developers are largely responsible for this emergency due to their excessive profit taking by exclusively building luxury high income housing, San Diego’s expanding population is a factor also. We do have a shortage of housing supply and we also have a shortage of available land to build on. Increasing moderate and low income high density housing supply must be part of the area’s long-term development goals. The city and county must also allocate substantially more public funds to housing assistance, for example, the Section 8 Housing Voucher Program. Otherwise, our homeless population will continue to skyrocket.
This solution that the article is trumpeting is a sham. There are two major problems with it. The first problem is that it will allow the currently, incorrectly and illegally approved projects to continue because they were not subject to this “new” rule, which is, in fact not new but is merely restating what the Municipal Code already requires. This is a maneuver by the city to avoid the lawsuits it will face if it requires the currently, incorrectly and illegally approved projects to be re-evaluated and re-designed.
The second major problem is that the city;s report contains language stating that Proposition D allows developers to measure height from the new designed finished grade not the existing grade. This is entirely wrong and if this stupidity is not corrected, the 30-foot height limit will be worthless as developers raise the grades on their properties as has happened in Roseville, and build structures beyond 30 feet. This proposed change in the Municipal Code needs to be defeated and the city needs to be required to abandon this interpretation and re-evaluate all currently approved projects.