Saturday, June 12, 2010

May 12, 2010 minutes


May 12, 2010

Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive. Called to order at 6:34 pm by Chair Pat Shields. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.

Members present: Ruchell Alvarez (arrived later), Richard Baldwin, Maureen Burke, Scott Glazebrook, John Kroll, Anita Margolis (arrived later), Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman Members absent: Laurie Burgett, Carole Caffey, Richard Santini, David Strickland, Angela Vasconcellos

Approval of Minutes: Approved minutes of 4/14/10 meeting (motion Glazebrook, second D. Skillman, all in favor)

Treasurer’s Report: Caffey was absent – assume no change – around $75.


Community Police Officer: Not present

City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Passed out copies of District 3 Dialogue for May, and pointed out articles (1) Survey of city services (2) list of infrastructure projects is on website There are 100 sidewalks set for repair, the first of 10 contracts for such infrastructure work. Kroll asked (1) what happens with email sent to Councilman Gloria’s general email address. Bernal replied that email is forwarded from the general address to the appropriate party on the staff. Kroll said he had send 2 emails to Gloria (1 month ago and 3-4 months ago) and not received a reply. (2) Could Bernal give 3 examples of Gloria changing votes based upon constituent input? Bernal said he would bring the answer to this question to next meeting. Shields asked about the Balboa Park Committee applications (Glazebrook & Strickland) she had submitted. Bernal said they were forwarded to Steve Hill (Gloria’s staff member for Balboa Park) and Jamie Fox-Rice, (Gloria’s Chief of Staff) for review. A decision should be made within 2 weeks.

City Council District 8 – Diana Jurado-Sainz: (1) Reported that transportation planning services that Councilman Hueso has been working for should pass City Council this month, for $100,000. (2) Talked about 32nd Street Canyon concerns: City brush management plan calls for clearing canyon to within 100 ft. of structures; 32nd Street Canyon contains native plants and has been restored in some areas. Hueso worked to stop a game field being put in the canyon 4 years ago and has continued to support brush management in the canyon. As to the current concern of the Friends of 32nd Street Canyon, City Code section 142.0142 specifies the work that is to be done. Hueso’s office has been working with the appropriate entities, and given the Friends group the opportunity to do the brush management work themselves and thus be more careful. The City would cut less and leave the detail work to the Friends. The Friends group is not satisfied with this solution and continues to work for a middle ground. Kroll asked (1) what was the source of the $100,000 for transportation planning. Jurado-Sainz said it came from city funds for the North Park Development Area. (2) How are council communications handled? Jurado-Sainz said the email to the general mailbox is distributed by area, then by issue, and that replies should be made within 24 hours. (3) Could Jurado-Sainz give 3 examples of Hueso changing votes based upon constituent input? Shields asked how Hueso included community input. Jurado-Sainz said community input influenced Hueso to change his stance on the 32nd Street Canyon, and she would bring other examples to this question to next meeting.

Mayor’s Office – no representative present. Shields asked if this report should be dropped from the agenda in the interest of saving space on the agenda, since a representative has not appeared for several years. Kroll and Alvarez both said NO, and the committee agreed.

53rd Congressional District – Kathryn Fortner. Passed out copies of May Davis Dispatch, and noted that the Dispatch would not be published for the next few months, since House Members are prohibited from sending mailings during the 3 months before an election. A Small Business Roundtable was held. Davis participated in the dedication of the Southeastern Post Office to Cesar Chavez, and spoke at the Second Annual Science Expo. Davis voted for improved acquisition act at Dept. of Defense, and voted against the congressional pay raise. Davis wrote a letter to USDA to look into the low food stamp rate in San Diego County; county is trying to comply with USDA recommendations. Davis went to Afghanistan and there may be an educational event related to this trip at a later dated. Kroll asked what Davis thinks about continuing the war in Afghanistan. Fortner replied that Davis we must continue the job we started.

Clean Green and Safe. Caffey was not present. D. Skillman had attended the MAD advisory committee meeting and reported that they were rearranging the Oversight Committee By-Laws to make it a subcommittee of the Golden Hill CDC. The original Oversight Committee, which D. Skillman was a member of, did not believe that was correct. Kroll asked if the proposed subcommittee is to be advisory only, and whose advice did they get about making this change. D. Skillman said the Oversight Committee was going to meet every other month, and its subcommittees on the opposite months. He also noted that according to the Golden Hill CDC, the Oversight Committee is not subject to the Brown Act. Margolis asked the status of the lawsuit filed against the City relating to the MAD formation. D. Skillman said the judge’s decision that the process of formation was flawed has been appealed and no date has been set. Shields said this is a 6-8 month process. Jurado-Sainz said that she had just heard that the MAD would continue its operations during the appeal process. She noted that the main problem is that special benefit districts such as the Greater Golden Hill MAD all have varying services, and that special benefits must be above the City’s baseline services. The matter of funds collected but unspent for MAD operations, should it be dissolved as a result of the appeal, would be decided by the appeals judge. Shields asked if it was Hueso’s position to keep spending this money until forced to stop. Juardo-Sainz said Hueso believes the MAD is legal. Margolis asked Hueso’s opinion on the use of carryover funds from one year to the next. Juardo-Sainz said she was waiting for a city staff report on this but that generally the City Council votes to carry funds over. D. Skillman said that the State Legislative Code states that a surplus “shall be used to reduce the next year’s assessment”. Juardo-Sainz said she would bring that to the attention of the City Attorney. She said that staff says that the GGH MAD has much more detailed reports and accounting that many others. Shields asked if we should put an item on next month’s agenda to discuss the MAD budget for 2010-2011. Baldwin asked what the specific question is. D. Skillman said the specific question is whether the law will be followed. Shields asked for a response from Gloria and Hueso at the next meeting, including a written answer from the City Attorney to the question of surplus funds being carried over. D. Skillman noted that the City Attorney had been asked this question before. Shields asked GGHPC members to send questions they have about the MAD to her. She will accumulate the questions and forward them to Gloria and Hueso 7 days before the next meeting. Juardo-Sainz said she would ask Pedro Anaya, Executive Director of the Golden Hill CDC, to speak about the budget at the next meeting.


Jerry Ray – Urban Corps workers (MAD) were observed walking down Dale Street, not doing any work. She spoke with them and was not pleased with their response, so she called the CDC. She is still waiting for a call back.


Burke announced (1) Bicycle Master Plan Open House to be held 5/20/10 from 6-8:30 pm at the Hall of Champions (2) CDC Community Mixer 5/26/1o from 5:30-7:30 at Luigis; members free, public $10.

D. Skillman noted the absence of Joyce Sumner of CCDC. She was at another function where she was receiving an award.


GGHPC Position on Community Garden Approval Process.

The 1 in 10 Coalition’s goal is for 1 in 10 San Diegans to grow their own food or eat locally grown food. Copies of City Information Bulletin 550, City of San Diego General Plan Recreation Element RE-A-6, RE-A-7, and RE-A-8, San Diego Municipal Code Section 141.0203 had provided to Burke explained that to encourage community gardens, the Coalition wants the permit required to be changed to a Process 1 permit with a set fee, instead of the Process 2 permit with no set fee. They would like support from Planning Committees in each of the council districts before bringing their plan before the City Council. The College Area Planning Committee has gone on record in support of the change; it also supports allowing community gardens on commercial land. Copies of their letter were provided to GGHPC members. Park Troutman from 1 in 10 Coalition spoke, stating that the land subject to these permits is private property. Community gardens on City lands fall under Park & Recreation department, with its own set of regulations, due out this month. He noted that environmentally sensitive lands or those in a coastal overlay zone would automatically be subject to requirements for a Process 3 permit. He said that Developmental Services Department has been working on their Information Bulletin about community gardens, and it was recently issued. DSD has also worked to require fewer reviews of these projects (less staff time being less expensive) and is doing a long-term study on changing the fee structure. He said applicants want to know when starting the process what the fees will be – and worry that the “new” set fees might be higher. Code compliance for community gardens applies equally on private or public land. A lease is required to operate a community garden on public land. The Coalition has found that large fees are not normal in other cities where community gardens are popular, and neither are discretionary permits. The current rules make starting a community garden difficult or unlikely. Shields questioned public land being given to a small number of people for exclusive use. Coalition members noted that leases are required, and that public land is leased for other purposes. Glazebrook asked why these were originally set up as Process 2 permits. Coalition members noted that the Land Development Code was supposed to be updated to address this, but it never has been. Margolis spoke about the lack of public noticing with a Process 1 permit, and asked why should that be. Troutman says it’s a judgment call. He said the Coalition is creating a network, training people to set up gardens. These network representatives are open to the community applying for plots. Plot-holders sign a contract and pay to cover water, insurance, etc. He noted that plot-holders are farmers, raising their own produce, interested in better heath. The gardens are quiet, not a rock concert. Burke stated that the GGH Community Garden, in Balboa Park, did community outreach when it was formed, and believes is has improved that section of the neighborhood. She emphasized that the gardens have rules. Richard Burk, who has a plot at the GGH garden, noted that it has 29 plots and they have 40 people on the waiting list. He said COMMUNITY is the key, and asked for our help to make community gardens available for common folks. David Swarens said he likes gardens, and noted that ministerial permits are exempt from CEQA. Troutman said DSD has maps so they would know what land is sensitive. Margolis supported that thought. Burke read letters (Attachments 1 and 2) from GGHPC members Burgett and Strickland, stating their thoughts on the subject. Troutman said that Kelly Boughton of DSD had suggested this Process change. Shields stated her concern about giving away public input. Glazebrook noted that mostly residential properties are involved, and that they automatically have Process 1 rights, the same as someone does building a house or doing landscaping. Margolis mentioned possible traffic impacts. Baldwin said the question is how much impact would there really be. Alvarez said that a garden is continual – not like a house construction project that is eventually completed. She wants community input. Margolis thinks the environmental process varies between public or private land, and that public land requires public input. She wants the public to have the option to comment. A gardener said the garden is quiet, not noisy, and would create park-like places in the community, and the environmental process would not make a difference in whether public noticing is required. Shields said she thinks there should be a 3rd option. A gardener says that the City wants the public to make the decision, and that leases on public land would be subject to the most scrutiny. Shields said she has no faith in how the City would handle this. Glazebrook wondered if we have a right to say how private land is used, unless there is a safety issue. D. Skillman said (1) if there is a lease, there should be various stipulations on community contact and (2) plots are small and there is not much impact.

Margolis made a motion that “the Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee support Process 1 Permitting on private land, and that the Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee support Process 1 Permitting on City-owned land if there is opportunity for public comment.” D. Skillman seconded.

Discussion: Kroll did not think we needed to make a distinction between private and public land. Margolis wants the right of comment for City-owned land. Baldwin asked if we get the right to comment on the use of other City Real Estate Assets. City Planner Turgeon said it depends.

A vote on the motion was taken, with all in favor. Troutman asked that the Coalition receive a copy of the minutes, once they are approved.

32nd Street Canyon

Jurado-Sainz restated the City position. Tershia d’Elgin spoke. She said that the Friends were given a chance to manage brush in the areas they have restored, where they have a right of entry permit, but that a right of entry permit to all areas to within 100 ft. of structures cannot be accepted. The Friends group does not have enough funds to do this amount of work. She worries about ongoing funding to remove invasive plants, stating that it costs $4,000 per acre for weed abatement. The City has no follow-on plan in perpetuity. She noted the ongoing fire problem if fuel is not continually removed. In the 32nd Street canyon, maximum public safety is wanted, without destroying old growth chaparral in the ½ acre near 32nd and B Streets. d’Elgin noted that The Friends of 32nd Street Canyon must replace the invasive plants they remove but the City workers do not. Jurado-Sainz noted that an EIR was done, taking all of this into account, when the brush management plan was approved. She thinks plants will be thinned but not completely removed, and said the City is in discussion with canyon neighbors. Replacement might be in another area. Margolis asked what GGHPC could do. Jurado-Sainz said that revising the entire Council Policy would be required and that is not feasible in this time frame. d’Elgin asked GGHPC members to contact Erik Caldwell in the Mayor’s office to express our concerns. D. Skilllman asked what the City considers weeds. d’Elgin said it means tall grasses, chrysanthemums, and radish. The Open Space director says brush management is getting rid of woody species and cutting every other plant to 6 inches. Margolis asked that further discussion of this be on the agenda next month, including report on the EIR complaints. d’Elgin said the State Fish & Wildlife Department is going to make comments to the City. Margolis asked if the brush management could be put off for another month. Jurado-Sainz said it has already been delayed; her office is trying to continue the delay. She noted that Channel 10 has been reporting this story and that Hueso has not returned their requests for comments, because is he boycotting that station due to labor relations issues.

CPUAC/ City Planner’s Report - Bernie Turgeon: CPUAC will not meet in June. Schedule changes have been made due to budget changes. The next meeting with the 3 combined communities will be in July, and the Charette is currently scheduled for September. The next Open MIC meetings will be June 7 at the Santa Fe Room. Historic workshops are to be scheduled in June.

Land Use Subcommittee. Glazebrook had circulated subcommittee minutes, including 2 “information only” projects. The concept of Land Use report being a Consent Agenda item was discussed. Shields questioned approving exceptions without seeing photos or drawings. When would minutes be approved? Could approval be revisited when project is formally made? It was decided that the Land Use Subcommittee minutes would continue to be included as an attachment to the GGHPC minutes.

Glazebrook said the Land Use Subcommittee needs more members; there are currently only 2, he would like 3 more.

GGHPC. Community Participation Proposal/process. Kroll has some ideas about community outreach. He wants more publicity about the meetings, so that more people attend and the meetings keep information flowing. He favors an aggressive stance to reports from elected officials, and says we need to ask more questions.

Other Subcommittee Reports will be received next month.

The next meeting will be June 9, 2010.

Meeting adjourned by Chair Shields at 8:445 pm.

Marie Skillman.



Email from Laurie Burgett to GGHPC Members

Re: community garden docs

Date: May 7, 2010

Thanks, for following up on this Maureen.

I found out that Park and Rec and Development Services are both working on this issue and will come out with information in the near(?) future.

I am not able to make the meeting Weds. as I am out of town, but would respectfully request that the group issue no opinion until the City offers a potential solution.

When looking at specific projects, setting precedence is extremely important. While there is no doubt that a community garden is a wonderful thing, I wouldn't want to see the public lose their ability to comment on a proposal. There has been a case where a community garden was proposed next to eco sensitive land and that was turned down, in part due to public opinion. We know the City is not always able to consider every issue. What if, for instance, a halfway house thought a community garden was a great idea for their clients? Wouldn't the community want to know more and be able to comment?

It sounds like (and I'm hoping!) this issue will have an acceptable resolution through either P&R or Development Services.

Best regards,

Laurie Burgett

Attachment 2.

Email from David Strickland

RE: Tonights Meeting

Date: May 12, 2010

2. Attached is the agenda and the goals of San Diego Canyonlands that

was handed out at the April 26th Open Mic Presentations for the

Uptown, North Park and Greater Golden Community Plan Updates. Maureen,

David and Marie were in attendance also. I really enjoyed hearing the

organizations who presented. Particularly their concerns and passon

for what they stand for. One note of concern I had was with a possible

conflict with the Community Gardens/1 in 10 Coalition and the San

Diego Canyonlands organization in that the Community Garden spokes

person that that it would be a good idea to consider the canyonlands

as possible garden sites. I would recommend members of the Community

going to these "Open Mic" sessions just to learn about these groups.

3. Question I have about the Community Gardens. I am not opposed to

them. However, I do see Laurie's point. My concerns (as mentioned

above) is the intent to go into canyons to have these gardens. This

concern could be added to a letter in support of the gardens and could

be an item that the City reviews and adds a restriction prior to

finalizing the permit for the Community Garden.

Attachment 3.

Land-use Subcommittee Minutes

April 28 2010

Subcommittee Members present: Richard Baldwin, Scott Glazebrook

City Staff present: None

Community Members present: None

Project Applicants present: Alex Camp

Meeting called to order at 6:33 PM by Scott Glazebrook

Item #1 (walk-in)

Project Name:

Big Blue Box Lofts

Project Address:

3355 C Street

Project Number:

None - presubmittal

Project Description:

New 4-Dwelling Unit Residential Project (2 Duplexes) – Owner Occupied

Permit Application:

Process 3: Golden Hill Permit (Site Development Permit)

Presentation Status:

Information Item













A new residential development of an existing vacant property between C Street and Highway 94. Project site slopes at 17% down towards the 94 with rear alley access.

Zone: GH-1500

Density Permitted: 5 DUs Density Proposed: 4 DUs

Floor Area Permitted*: 4,622 SF Floor Area Proposed: 4,570 SF

Coverage Permitted: 2,520 SF Coverage Proposed: 2,090 SF

Parking Required: 6 Spaces Parking Proposed: 7 Spaces

Proposed project complies with all setback and height requirements and limits, yard areas, and Golden Hill design criteria for “Contemporary” design. As proposed the project will incorporate wood framed windows throughout, has significantly divided massing to preserve neighborhood’s scale and character, and used multiple materials to enhance this scale and character. The definition of an “Arbor” as defined by the Land Development Code and accepted by the GGHPC is one remaining interpretation.

* FAR Bonus for covered parking employed


1. Applicant should confirm with City Staff regarding the dead-end alley situation for the possibility of the need to construct a cul-de-sac or hammerhead for fire apparatus turn-around.

2. In general the building is very aesthetically appealing as contemporary residential architecture.

3. We agree that the arbor as proposed meets the intent of the arbor requirement in the PDO for “Contemporary” design.

4. We recommend slight variation on the site planning that might permit the addition of one additional parking space. This space could be uncovered since it is not a “required” space and thus should not be included in the 50% covered parking rule calculation.

5. Shared and private outdoor spaces are spacious and well designed, with a mix of permeable and impermeable surfaces with emphasis on permeable areas and low-water using plant materials (in concept – no landscape plan was presented).

6. Project as proposed exceeds the 2 material maximum requirement in the PDO. However, this was done to further break-up the massing to comply with the PDO scale requirements. We feel this is an appropriate deviation that enhances the project, but asked the future applicant to review this further. The materials are also not your typical stucco and we appreciate the effort to use higher-quality materials.

7. Overall this should be a very pleasing project on a currently underutilized site providing 4 new owner-occupied dwelling units. We look forward to seeing the completed application with a full presentation in the next few months.

Item #2

Project Name:

Counterpoint Patio Expansion

Project Address:

830 25th Street

Project Number:

None - presubmittal

Project Description:

New “Sidewalk Café” dining expansion

Permit Application:

Process 2: Neighborhood Use Permit

Presentation Status:

Information Item













Future applicant provided printed renderings for review.


1. In general this is an appropriate location for patio dining in Greater Golden Hill, at the gateway to the largest commercial district in the community.

2. The proposed required railing design is complimentary with the existing building’s contemporary commercial architectural character, and matched the overall aesthetic theme of the existing establishment.

3. The roll-up windows along the front of the indoor dining area helps to connect the two dining spaces and enhances the pedestrian and vehicular experience for passers-by and local residents.

4. Patio dining in this location requires reduction in the parkway width to permit the relocation of the sidewalk around the patio. This section of 25th Street has excessively gracious curb-to-property line dimension, thus permitting the expansion creating an 8’ sidewalk with 3’ remaining for landscape within the parkway.

5. The existing streetlight narrows the new sidewalk to 6’, which is generally not permitted under the City’s Sidewalk Café requirements. However, these requirements are written primarily for Centre City where the Right-Of-Way is handled differently than in Greater Golden Hill. In addition, the existing sidewalk at this location is the “standard” neighborhood width of less than 6’; therefore providing the required 8’ of sidewalk around the patio that only narrows to 6’ for a brief moment is a highly reasonable and appropriate solution. It may even be appropriate, given the neighborhood standard sidewalk widths along this section of 25th Street, to request from City Staff an approval for less sidewalk paving and more parkway landscaping in this instance – say 7’ wide sidewalk and 4’ wide parkway

6. We have no design recommendations for the applicant, and find the overall appearance of this future project proposal as enhancing the neighborhood character and local business climate.

Meeting Adjourned at 7:45 PM by Scott Glazebrook