Thursday, June 30, 2011
GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
MAY 11, 2011
Meeting Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.
Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive.
Chair Pat Shields called meeting to order at 6:34 pm. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.
Members present: Ruchell Alvarez, Richard Baldwin, Cheryl Brierton, Susan Bugbee, Maureen Burke, Carole Caffey, John Kroll, Richard Santini, Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland, David Swarens, Matt Thomas, Angela Vasconcellos Members absent: Jessica Wolf
Addition/deletions to Agenda - Shields reported that Information Item #1, Plaza de Panama, SOHO, had cancelled.
Approval of Minutes – Minutes of 4/13/11 meeting were approved (motion D Skillman, second Strickland) 10 in favor, none opposed, Swarens abstained.
Treasurer’s Report: – balance remains about $75.
Joyce Summer, CCDC. 5 new projects are in process: (1) Comm 22 will include 130 affordable units and 70 senior units. (2) Atmosphere project has been purchased by CCDC and will include 225 units, 40 supportive. (3) Denny’s property has been sold to Jonathan Segal for a project with 236 apartments, including some 700 sq ft lofts. (4) Kettner & Ash, 300 condos in 1 tower. (5) Kettner & Grape, condos. Sound Bites on 6/2 will feature Kris Michel of Downtown San Diego Partnership.
Paul Broadway, Greater Golden Hill CDC. GGHCDC office is now located at 1502 30th Street in the old Kemp Pharmacy building. Broadway apologized to Alvarez about a misunderstanding at the Community booth at the Farmers Market on B Street on Saturday mornings; Broadway is there every week. Alvarez acknowledged and said she liked the idea of PC members being at the booth as a forum for neighbors. Broadway welcomes PC members and other community groups.
Broadway said that the CDC’s income comes from rental properties and fees from the MAD. He said they do yet have tight numbers on the lost funds, but repayment plans are being worked out. Information about the loss is not yet on the GHCDC website, but he said that those with questions could talk to him at the Farmers Market Booth. He stressed keeping paths of communication open.
Community Police Officer- Suzy de la Pena: (1) car prowls continue to be an issue; cars should be locked and valuables not left in plain view (2) Homeless persons continue to sleep under overpasses and bridges. The police, including the vice squad, are working on this issue, cleanups are in process and the outreach team is doing its best.
Brierton asked about the robbery of a pizza deliveryman at 32nd & Date. De la Pena had no details. D Skillman asked if San Diego was working with the SAFE project for places for the homeless. De la Pena asked him to forward information. Jerry Ray asked about the shopping carts under the overpass near City College, which seem to be there during the day and night. De la Pena said that some outreach groups are feeding people in that area, which encourages them congregating. Bill Hillsdorf said there are issues with people leaving drinking establishments the area of 30th & Ivy/Juniper area. He wondered why new liquor licenses continue to be issued when there are already several in the area. De la Pena said the police department gives an opinion to ABC about licenses, but their advice isn’t always taken.
City Council District 8 – Melina Meza: was not present due to a budget meeting in Dist. 8
53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner. Was not present but had delivered copies of the May issue of Davis Dispatch, which were distributed.
Mayor’s Office – no representative present.
City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Distributed copies of May District 3 Dialogue. Had emailed answers to Kroll’s questions about affordable housing to all committee members. Asked that the email be included in the minutes – they can be found in Attachment 2. City budget process is in full swing. Cuts to Library and Recreation Center hours have been minimized, and brownouts at Fire Stations reduced. Many items are still on the menu.
CA Assembly - Shields said Toni Atkins would be sending a representative to future meetings.
CONSENT AGENDA. None.
Designation of GGHPC alternate at Community Planners Committee. In order to be able to vote, a named alternate must be officially designated. Vice-chair Alvarez attends this meeting of Community Plan District chairs when Shields is unable to do so. David Strickland moved, Caffey seconded, “Ruchell Alvarez is the official alternate of Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee to the Community Planners Committee.” 10 in favor, Alvarez abstained.
Shields said she met with Vicki Granowitz, chair of the North Park Planning Committee. NPPC is open to passing identical motions with GGHPC on matters of joint interest, hopefully strengthening our positions. Some matters that were discussed were:
Utility Boxes. NPPC has developed regulations for Utility Boxes and has shared their intense work. Shields asked Strickland and the Transportation Subcommittee to review this.
Sidewalk Cafes. Thomas said that Bernal had discussed the issue at the last South Park Business Group meeting. Permits for these cafes, outside a Business Improvement District or Micro business zone, are more expensive and require “more hoops” than if in such a zone. Thomas said SPBG was checking with local businesses to see if there was interest in creating one of these zones. Shields mentioned that NP has been working with these cafes and might have information to share.
Boundary between North Park and South Park. Changing the Community Plan Area boundaries had come up as part of the Update Process. The initial reason for a change was related to police issues (desire for faster response times) in the 30th & Juniper business district. NPPC wants to work with GGHPC to move the Police Department Central Division boundary North to include areas between Juniper and Switzer Canyon, but not necessarily change the CP boundary. Granowitz suggested a joint motion from GGHPC and NPPC.
Caffey asked if GGHPC was the proper group to vote on this; she wondered if there was a better group, especially since discussion has been about the police and the PC boundaries. Shields said NP was in accord on the police boundary. Caffey wondered if a petition from residents would be better. Swarens noted that in addition to the police and PC boundaries, questions had arisen about the GGHMAD and the NP BID boundaries. There is a need for explaining what each of these jurisdictions is responsible for. M Skillman asked about the Fact Sheet that was mentioned at the CPUAC meeting.
Shields said that Bernie Turgeon, City Planner, had said CPU was the right place to work on boundary issues for Community Plan Districts. In all, 7 Community Plan District boundaries are in question at the City; the City will be addressing this in the next couple of weeks.
Burke suggested that we go ahead with work on the police boundaries. D Skillman asked if the proposed change was “everything from Juniper to Switzer Canyon”; Shields said it was. Shields said that with all of the City’s budget issues, this might be a good time for police district reapportioning. Shields asked for a show of hands from those in favor of pursuing this change, all were in favor. Shields will bring a motion for an Action Item at the June meeting.
Brian’s Farmers Market. Brian Beevers was present to address the issues brought up by Gary Roberts at the March meeting. A list of questions and concerns from Roberts had been distributed to committee members in advance of the meeting. See Attachment 3.
Beevers said that advance work to setting up the Farmers Market included obtaining many permits, including Fire Department, Police Department and Heath Department. He said he had received requests from shoppers at his other Farmers Markets to have one in Greater Golden Hill. His original approach was to find a community representative; he contacted the Greater Golden Hill Community Development Corporation, met with them about his proposal, and they wrote a letter of support.
Beevers said he assumed that the GGHCDC represented the community; he was not familiar with the Community Planning Committee role, since his other Farmers Markets are on private property.
Beevers said that 4,000 people attended the first day, and that he had 650 followers on Facebook who are excited about the Farmers Market. He said all of the nearby business owners were excited, and that CDC members were generally supportive.
Roberts asked about:
Length of the permits? They are for 1 year, automatically renewed if there have been no concerns.
Donation amounts and frequency to GGHCDC? Beevers said he always gives back to the communities he operates in, and thought the GGHCDC was the proper venue for that here. He has not made a contribution yet, but expects to after the Farmers Market has been running for 8 weeks. His pledge donation is $400 per month, $100 for GGHCDC to use for advertising the Farmers Market, and $300 for them to use at their discretion. No contract has been signed
Caffey asked how this contribution compares with those he makes in other communities. It is similar. He does not make a contribution relating to his Farmers Markets at Westfield sites. The Pt. Loma Farmers Market has recently moved to a city street, he has no donation agreement in place there but is working on one.
Santini asked if there were other locations in GGH that could be used instead of a City street, such as Golden Hill Park or Einstein School. Beevers said that he had not found another location. City parks are not an option, and a Farmers Market at Einstein School a few years ago did not work out. He said he had to “build where they are” for necessary visibility.
Shields asked Broadway how GGHCDC planned to use the funds. He said they had no detailed plans in place.
Roberts asked when, in relationship to the letter of support from GGHCDC, did the monetary donation come in. Broadway said he understood that the Farmers Market was approved one month; the pledge donation was made the next month. Beevers said he knew he had spoken to Tom Darlington, another GGHCDC board member, about this, and could get the dates if necessary.
Burke asked about the issue of fire trucks not having access to the street during the Farmers Market. Beevers said the Fire Department had reviewed his plan and issued a permit. De la Pena said that a 20 ft. minimum lane and a turning lane must be maintained. That means that if shoppers were cleared, that amount of space is available in the middle of the street, between the stalls.
Alvarez asked if any cars had been towed. Beevers said the City parking division handles that and he did not have the information. Alvarez asked for the date of the supportive letter from GGHCDC. Beevers said he would get that date for us.
A question was raised about dogs at a Farmers Market. Health Code rules that pets must not be within 20 ft. of food, admittedly hard to enforce. Consequences are asking the pet to leave. Beeves said the Health Department finds his Farmers Markets a model; they were in fact filming at one of them for creating code compliance training.
Swarens said that he was willing to give the donations to GGHCDC the benefit of doubt. He asked Broadway if GGHCDC might be willing to solicit project ideas from the community; Broadway said yes, transparency is best.
Kroll noted that if the GGHCDC website gives the idea that they represent the entire community, that opens them up to questions from all of us. He asked if Community Planning Committees had been involved in other communities. They had not.
Kroll asked if residents were given notice before the Farmers Market was approved. Notice was given per city regulations. Neighbors were not personally notified, since GGHCDC had supported the Farmers Market.
Kathy Vandenheuvel said that notification was given at the Stonemark condominium complex between 27th & 28th and B Streets. The Homeowner’s Association was approached prior to the Farmers Market opening but was unable to hear from Beevers until after he opened – Beevers made the attempt. She said that Beevers had made arrangements with troubled residents.
Bernal was asked whether notification of PC is a requirement in the permit process. He said it was not. Beevers had support from a community group (GGHCDC). Shields wondered why GGHCDC did not ask Beevers to check with GGHPC. Swarens said talking to neighbors is a courtesy issue. Broadway said GGHCDC would refer items of this kind to PC in the future, and clarify what noticing was being given.
Brierton suggested and Alvarez seconded getting clarification of the ethics of the donations to GGHCDC. Beevers said he is not required to make any donations, and has not signed a contract related to this one yet. He wants to contribute because he cares about communities. Shields asked why he chose to contribute to GGHCDC. Beevers said they volunteered.
Council Redistricting. M and D Skillman presented information about the City Council redistricting process that is currently underway, based upon their attendance at a Pre-Map Hearing on May 2.
Municipal Code requires that City Council District boundaries be redrawn every 10 years, using federal census data, to account for population changes. Districts must insure “One person, one vote”. This year a 9th Council District is to be added. District boundaries will be created by the seven- member 2010 Restricting Commission. The Commission will be relying on census data as well as input from residents and stakeholders.
20 Pre Map Hearings were held in April and May. In July, the Preliminary Plan will be announced and public hearings will take place. The Final Plan must be adopted by 9/15/11. The Commission meets on the 1st & 3rd Thursdays of the month at 4 pm at City Hall, 12th Floor.
Redistricting Plans must comply with federal and state regulations, and provide fair and effective representation for all citizens of the City. San Diego’s population is 1,301,617, meaning each of the 9 districts should have 144,624 residents. Deviations of 1 – 3 % might be allowed. Population count, not voter registration, is used. Districts must be geographically compact, composed of contiguous territory, preserve “identifiable communities of interest”, have reasonable access between population centers, and be bounded by natural boundaries, street lines, and/or City boundary lines.
D Skillman noted that the census results show that Latinos make up nearly 30 percent of San Diego’s population. He said that at the May 2 meeting, several speakers advocated 2 Council Districts with predominately Latino population. “Communities of Interest” cited in the plans presented included Latino, Asian-American, LGBT, African American, University Community, and others. These groups have suggested districts drawn around those criteria. M Skillman gave some of the organization names: Asian Pacific American Coalition, Latino Redistricting Committee, LGBT Redistricting Task Force, and Coalition of Neighborhood Councils.
M Skillman said that residents of City Heights noted that different parts of their larger neighborhood are currently in Districts 3, 4, and 7. Some residents like this, some do not. Greater Golden Hill is currently split between Districts 3 and 8. Some of the proposed maps suggest South Park be in one district and Golden Hill in another, some do not. The Skillmans said they would prepare a list of links to some of the maps that had been presented and email it to the PC members.
Tim Gahagan presented a redistricting plan put forth by the Hillcrest Town Council. Gahagan said the Commission needs to pay attention to constituents. He said that the Uptown Planners (CP for Hillcrest area) want their CP area to be in one council district, not 2. He believes that which district Golden Hill ends up in is a pivotal issue.
Gahagan’s group supports a “Community of Interest” based upon proximity to Balboa Park. He cited communities with common issues of maintaining older infrastructure and historic character. He circulated the map proposed by LGBT Redistricting Task Force (See Attachment 4). His group’s boundaries would be similar except they would exclude Downtown and include Normal Heights and Golden Hill. That configuration does not add up to 144,624 residents, so the Commission would need to make up the rest. Gahagan stressed that the time for this important process is now.
D Skillman asked if the verbiage in Gahagan’s handout “Voter’s Rights District” meant District 8. Gahagan said yes, that particular groups are protected by the voting rights act. Caffey noted that this proposed district is short by 4% of the target population. Vandenheuvel asked if this was a timely issue – it is. She suggested a subcommittee be formed.
Shields said it seems that there may not be time for PC to weigh in officially, but individual input is accepted. Burke noted that the map circulated does not correctly show the District 3/8 boundary in Golden Hill. She asked Bernal if it appeared to be accurate otherwise, he said it did.
Shields polled the Golden Hill residents on the PC (Thomas, Burke, Baldwin, Strickland, Alvarez) about their thoughts on being in District 3 or District 8. Baldwin asked if we had a strong opinion as a group. Strickland said he had always wondered about the District 3/8 split. He thinks Golden Hill north of Hwy 94 should be in District 3. Swarens said that geographic and political boundaries are important, but having the CP split between 2 districts had been valuable in Sherman Heights, where he formerly resided.
Brierton said that it seemed there was not a consensus among the PC members about the issue, so individuals should make their wishes known. Jerry Ray recalled that South Park was originally in District 8; over the years the various representatives have had differing attitudes about the area.
Shields said that although there was no current consensus, Golden Hill residents might work some ideas out. If so, she will put on the June meeting agenda. Roberts wondered if people in Golden Hill would be run over with no notice. Shields said that we are behind the curve but that GGHPC will be a forum for whoever can come up with a plan. Swarens seconded that suggestion.
Thomas said he needed to see the maps before voicing an opinion. M Skillman said that she would send some website links in an email. Vandenheuvel said it is important for Golden Hill to have 2 voices on the City Council. She wondered what percent of residents are voters.
Community Plan Update Advisory Committee. City Planner Bernie Turgeon was not present due to a personal commitment. CPUAC Rick Accurso said that at the CPUAC meeting on May 4, City staff indicated that they want less full committee meetings and more work groups. Shields voiced her concern about City staff moving from public meetings into a “black box.” Bill Andersen had said that the staff needed time to work on drafting the plan so that they could show progress and assure continued funding for the process.
Accurso said he would be hosting series of focus groups. The first one will be about Balboa Park. The meeting will be at his home on 5/14/11 at 9:30 am. He has assembled the Matrix comments by topic. He said the focus group would use the Matrix comments as a basis, to maintain objectivity.
Brierton observed that the consultants come back to each CPUAC meeting as if they have never heard the comments before. She and Shields agreed that is time to get some of the ideas put forth into written form. Swarens said the Charette matrix does not always reflect everything that was said at the tables.
Shields said she thought an alliance with the NPPC might be helpful, as they have already had focus groups on some topics. She noted that Bugbee and the Historic Subcommittee had begun working on the South Park historic district. D Skillman said that City staff indicated that proposed Golden Hill historic district expansion would be better handled as a new district. Bugbee said she was hoping that community members with knowledge of that area would come forth to work with the subcommittee. Shields said we must get our feet on the ground. Strickland lives in that area and said the community is supportive. Swarens commented that City staff now seems to be resistant to expansion of the Golden Hill (slope) historic district, even though they had seemed, if cautiously, supportive on the day of the site visits. He said they seemed to feel, as he does, that more neighborhood engagement, and advocacy, will be required to make this historic district a reality.
Accurso said he wants us to develop succinct bullet points to submit to the City, so that we can hold their feet to the fire. Burke noted that Accurso has done an amazing amount of work on categorizing public comments.
Shields asked Accurso to proceed with the focus groups, and report back next month.
SUBCOMMITTEE AND LIASON REPORTS.
Membership: Shields thanked Vasconcellos for circulating the updated roster.
Balboa Park: Shields said she had made a request to the Balboa Park Committee that GGHPC be included in the list of groups making formal comments about the Plaza de Panama project.
Land Use: Baldwin said that the Café Madeline project would be back at the subcommittee meeting on 5/25/11. Shields said she had perceived a lot of public interest in this issue and wants to be sure that we have clarity on the regulations. Baldwin asked what was needed to add sidewalk café regulations to the PDO. It is part of the CPU. Swarens said he had recently attended a meeting where the ABC said that a “SOLID FENCE or DELINIATION” must be present if alcohol is being sold; a local definition of those terms is allowed.
Airport Noise: Caffey said the latest meeting was held at the Quieter Homes Project office in Liberty Station. She said they have examples of all of the windows, etc. that can be installed as part of that project, and encouraged PC members to visit the office.
The next meeting will be Wednesday, June 8 at 6:30 pm.
Shields adjourned meeting at 8:40 pm.
ATTACHMENT 1. MEETING AGENDA
GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE
May 11, 2011 at 6:30 P.M.
Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive
6:30 CALL TO ORDER – please be punctual
1. Additions/Deletions to Agenda
2. Approval of Minutes
3. Treasurers Report & Pass-the-Hat – Carole Caffey
6:40 PUBLIC COMMENT
7:00 GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS
7:15 CONSENT AGENDA: None
7:15 ACTION ITEMS:
a) Designation of Vice Chair, Ruchell Alvarez, as GGHPC alternate at Community Planners Committee.
7:15 INFORMATION ITEMS
a) Plaza de Panama. SOHO. (City next month). 20 min
b) Brian’s Farmers Market. 20 minutes
c) Community Plan Update. Turgeon
d) Land-Use Subcommittee update.
Cafe Madeleine Sidewalk Project. #235460
e) Council Redistricting at critical juncture. The Skillmans.
8:25 SUBCOMMITTEE & LIAISON REPORTS
a) Airport Noise – Carole Caffey
b) Balboa Park Committee - David Strickland
c) Graffiti Hotline – 619 525-8522
d) Community Planners Committee (CPC) – Ruchell Alvarez
e) Community Plan Update Advisory Committee – City Planner Report
f) Code Compliance – Ruchell Alvarez
g) Historic – Susan Bugbee
h) Transportation – David Strickland
8:30 ADJOURN MEETING
Note: Land-Use Subcommittee
Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM
Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive
1st Tuesday of the Month at 6:30pm
Location: 1724 29th Street (between Date & Elm)
*Times are estimates – Action Items may also be taken before Information Items
The City of San Diego distributes agendas via email and can also provide agendas in alternative formats as well as a sign language or oral interpreter for the meeting with advance notice. To request these services, please contact the City at 619-236-6479 or SDPlanningGroups@sandiego.gov.ATTACHMENT 2. ANSWERS TO GOLDEN HILL AFFORDABLE HOUSING QUESTIONS.
From: Hill, Stephen (Councilman Todd Gloria's Office)
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011, 12:13 PM
To: Bernal, Anthony
Subject: Golden Hill Affordable Housing
Here are the answers I have regarding the affordable housing questions you forwarded to me. Let me know if there is any clarification needed or if there are any follow-up questions.
Questions asked during my Greater Golden Hill Meeting:
· What proportion of developments have actually built affordable housing and what portion has paid the city instead? Most Market rate developments pay the City’s in-lieu fee as it is far more cost effective from the builder’s perspective to do so. In the Future Urbanized Area in the northern part of the city, developers are required to provide 20% affordable housing on site. Also, the Redevelopment Agency is required to spend at least 20% of its tax increment revenue on affordable housing.
· What number of affordable housing units have been built in these developments and what number of full priced units have been built in lieu of affordable housing? In 2010, 724 units of affordable housing were constructed in the City of San Diego. In 2009, 693 units of affordable housing were constructed.
· What is the net gain in affordable housing units after the demolition or conversion of buildings that formerly consisted of low-cost (eg. Single room occupancy) units? SROs are protected under the SRO Ordinance. In most cases, they cannot be demolished without replacing the units.
· What requirements are imposed on buyers of affordable housing units? They can’t have owned a home in the last three years, they have income limits and there’s a ceiling for assets.
· Are teachers or similar groups given preference? No
· Is there a goal for number of affordable housing units? SD Housing Commission has set their own goals. This information can be found on our web site, under Real Estate—Creating affordable housing:
Creating Affordable Housing
Creation of more than 700 additional affordable housing rental units for families in the City of San Diego is underway, the result of an entrepreneurial investment strategy implemented by the San Diego Housing Commission. In 2009, the San Diego Housing Commission launched an innovative Finance Plan and raised $95 million in low interest Fannie Mae and FHA mortgages by leveraging the equity of its existing properties to create additional affordable rental housing in the City of San Diego.
The Housing Commission’s ability to borrow against the equity of its public housing inventory is the result of a September 2007 agreement with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). The agreement allowed San Diego to end its participation in the federal Public Housing Program and granted the Commission sole ownership and operating authority over its 1,366 multi-family housing units. The agreement further required the Housing Commission to create “at least 350 units of both low-income and workforce affordable housing” for “families with incomes not exceeding 80 percent of the median income at initial occupancy.”
To date, the Housing Commission has committed $74.7 million to acquire directly or through development partnerships eight properties containing 721 affordable housing units, far exceeding the Housing Commission’s agreement with HUD. When completed over the next three years, the number of affordable housing units the Housing Commission owns will increase to more than 2,000. The new units will remain affordable for at least 55 years and may be rented to those earning no greater than 80 percent of the San Diego Area Median Income.
ATTACHMENT 3. EMAIL FROM GARY ROBERTS.
Subject: Wednesday May 11, 2011 GGH Planning Committee Meeting - The "Farmer's Market"
Date: May 10, 2011 8:11:32 PM PDT
To: Pat Shields"
Cc: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Tuesday May 10, 2011
Re: Golden Hill "Farmer's Market" B Street and 28th every Saturday
To: Members, Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee
I am the homeowner who attended last month's planning committee meeting who raised the point about the "farmer's market" and closure at "B" Street between 28th and 27 Streets every Saturday from 6:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. to operate a "Farmers Market." The "farmer's market" is a for-profit enterprise operated by a businessman whose permit authorizes him to tow vehicles belonging to local residents which are parked on "B" Street after 6:00 a.m. on Saturdays. He also competes with several locally-owned businesses on one of the best business days of the week for the local business owners.
This block of "B" Street is mixed use, but is predominantly residential. Yet, the operator of the "farmers market" did not obtain the consent of any of the residents who live on "B" Street -- renters and condo owners -- in applying for the permit. Instead, to use his words, he obtained the support of "all the businesses on B Street and 28th, the Teamsters union, the property owner at the old post office and the church on the corner of 27th."
Among the entities from whom he obtained support was the Greater Golden Hill CDC (GGHCDC). The business operator admits -- to use his words -- he has "pledged a donation to the GGHCDC." At minimum, and without knowing more, this "pledge" of a "donation" creates an appearance of impropriety. It is troubling given the recent disclosure GGHCDC incurred financial mismanagment involving $27,000 of GGHCDC funds, an incident which serious enough to result in somone being fired, and the case being referred to the District Attorney's Office.
"B" Street is the main west-east corridor for heavy fire trucks. It is the only level, flat street in Golden Hill running west-east. Every Saturday between 6:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., these heavy fire trucks must traverse "A" Street, "C" Street, or Broadway, all of which have hills. The downward slopes require the trucks to break more often. The hills require the trucks to expend more fuel and travel more slowly.
I submit it is unreasonable to convert a largely residential street to a commercial enterprise every Saturday, a day on which the "market" competes with several locally-owned businesses on their best business day, and given residents who park on "B" Street are expected to get out of bed before 6:00 a.m. to move their cars to avoid having them towed, or else find somewhere else to park them the night before. I am also concerned about the public safety issue, and the "appearance"
of impropriety -- whether true or not -- that a "donation" was promised the GGHCDC in exchange for its support for the "market."
Because the "farmer's market" is on the agenda as an information item, I would appreciate it if the planning committee would address the following: 1. Does our planned district ordinance (PDO) address street closures in Golden Hill to accomodate for-profit business ventures on a weekly basis on streets in Golden Hill?
2. If not, should the PDO be amended to require entrepreneurs to present their permit applications to the planning committee for review and recommendation before the city grants a permit to close a local public street and tow cards to conduct for-profit activities?
3. If so, should the planning committee take into consideration the economic impact of the proposed activity on locally owned businesses?
4. Should the planning committee recommend to the city that it tighten it's requirements for the issuance of such permits, to require the permit applicant to obtain signatures of a certain percentage of the residents who live on the street where the proposed for-profit activity will take place?
5. Should the planning committee take a position on the question of whether the Greater Golden Hill CDC should take money from a business operator who seeks the GGHCDC's support for an application to conduct a business on a public street, such as the "farmer's market"?
6. Should the planning committee take a positon on whether it's appropriate for a permittee to be able to tow the cars of local residents in order to operate a for-profit business on a weekly basis on a public street where people live?
7. Concerning the "pledged donation" to the GGHCDC by the operator of the "market": -- were there any discussions about money during the time the GGHCDC's support was sought for the permit application? -- if so, which side raised the subject of money, representatives of GGHCDC, or the "market" operator?
I thank the GGH planning committee for taking the time to consider these questions.
ATTACHMENT 4. TIM GAHAGAN’S PROPOSAL
Redistricting City Council Districts & Golden Hills
Where does Golden Hills want to go?
There is a push by a number of groups to form a district based on the communities of character surrounding Balboa Park. Many of these communities are in current District 3. Below is a map that shows the current boundaries of district 3 and a proposed new district by the LGBT task force, which is trying to create it’s own community of interest based on their shared goals. The Hillcrest Town Council approved a similar, but different map, on March 10th. That map excludes Downtown, includes Golden Hill and Normal Heights and asks the Commission to complete the population requirements by adding whichever neighboring communities the district deems appropriate.
Golden Hills currently borders District 8, a voter’s rights district and the current District 3? What District does Golden Hill want to be in? Without input from Golden Hill, the decision will be made without it. Now is the time for Golden Hill to determine its own future.