Friday, August 13, 2010

June 30, 2010 Land Use Subcommittee Minutes

Land-use Subcommittee Minutes
June 30 2010
Subcommittee Members present:
Scott Glazebrook, John Kroll, Anita Margolis, Pat Shields,David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland (7 total)
City Staff present: None
Community Members present: None
Project Applicants present: Item #1 – Alex Camp, Applicant for Big Blue Box Lofts
Meeting called to order at 6:30 PM by Scott Glazebrook
Item #1
Project Name:
Big Blue Box Lofts
Project Address:
3363 C Street
Project Number:
Project Description:
Construct 4 residential for rent units on a vacant 0.16 acre site in the
GH-1500 zone of the Greater Golden Hill Planned District
Permit Application:
Process 3 Golden Hill Development Permit (Site Development Permit)
Presentation Status:
Action Item
Recommend approval of the project as submitted, presented, and discussed with the requested deviation and forwarding of this recommendation to the full committee.
Motion Passes
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 Permitted1: 4,492 SF Floor Area Proposed: 4,248 SF
Coverage Permitted: 2,520 SF Coverage Proposed: 2,090 SF
Height Permitted: 30’ Height Proposed: Varies2 (<30’)
Parking Required: 6 Spaces Parking Proposed: 7 Spaces
1. FAR Bonus for covered parking
2. Arbor is allowed architectural projection above height limit
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. Materials to be employed include: CMU (concrete masonry unit, also known as concrete block or cinder block) for foundations and one smaller building mass, cement fiber horizontal lap siding, cement fiber smooth siding, and wood horizontal lap siding. Extension of CMU retaining wall into private patio screen wall may be eliminated and replaced with wood or wood-look screen wall to match building materials. CMU building mass to incorporate “green screens” at arbor above for landscaping, and foundation plantings in front. CMU is proposed to be a darker than standard grey in smooth finish. Cement fiber siding materials will be painted a variety of earth and earthy-green tones with a few bright accents, and wood siding will be stained.
1. The arbor structure at the front of the site is “startling” in its uniqueness. Steel structure will employ “green-screen” to allow plantings to grow up and create a “birds-nest” like private patio. The top of the arbor is 5’ above the adjacent roof and is open.
2. The project may be a “disconnect” with the neighboring existing buildings. This part of Greater Golden Hill developed later than other parts and there is not currently a consistent “theme” or aesthetic, creating a “hodgepodge” of design that this project would contribute to. The proposed design incorporates elements of valued historical styles to address it’s context, possibly more that its neighboring structures. Using quality finish materials and not relegating the design down to a stucco box as a single material with accents adds value to the neighborhood. This project proposes to fill-in a development “gap” along C Street with an appropriate density (while not maximizing the allowed density). It is possible this project may be “too different” for Greater Golden Hill.
3. The use of CMU as a finish material and the tower/arbor is contentious. There is concern in comparing this project to other recently completed projects in Greater Golden Hill that used a lot of CMU. The CMU to be used is not the typical concrete block but will be a darker grey and smooth finish. It will also be enhanced with foundation plantings in front so that it becomes more of a “background” material. The CMU is proposed for this location, as it will be a visual vertical continuation of the retaining wall below. The adjacent CMU screen wall will most likely be deleted and replaced with lighter wood-like screen wall.
4. The significant division of the project into discrete masses does a great job of creating a visually smaller scale development. This is further enhanced by the use of materials and colors. To achieve this desirable scale the project has proposed to incorporate more than the 2 types of wall siding materials allowed by the PDO [SDMC 158.0301(c)(1)(C)].
5. Applicant indicated that the landscape plan includes planting to mitigate the impact of the CMU retaining walls and other CMU portions of project; and will explore revised and/or additional plantings in these locations to “soften” visual impact of the walls.
6. Pertinent issues addressed in the Assessment Letter dated June 28 2010:
a. FAR and area calculations are in question. Applicant indicated that this was due to a simple math error on the submitted plans which when corrected will show the project to be compliant with FAR requirements.
b. Design Requirements in the PDO need to be more clearly defined on the drawings, including the use of more than 2 materials. The use of more that 2 materials would be a request to deviate from the PDO (allowed under a Process 3 review). The drawings do identify the required and selected elements from the “Contemporary” architectural style in the PDO.
c. Private Exterior Useable Area may not be sufficient to meet the PDO requirements. Applicant assures that the areas provided exceed the code minimums and will clarify that in the resubmittal.
d. Transparency requirements of the PDO may not be met. The Applicant assures that the minimums have been met and will clarify on the resubmittal.
e. Golden Hill Design Guidelines should be followed. Applicant has stated that the guidelines have been followed and will prepare an exhibit showing how each of the three criteria are being met.
f. Community Plan design objectives for visual compatibility while not duplicating historic styles and maintaining the original 50-foot lot pattern require further evidence of compliance. The project site is 50-feet wide so by definition the project complies with the lot pattern scale requirement. The project proposes to incorporate characteristics of historical styles into its design (horizontal lab siding, projecting roofs, wood-framed windows for examples) and not attempting to duplicate historical styles (should projects contemporary by definition – being designed and built today – reflect a historical agendas and convention or a contemporary ones while respecting context?).
7. Overall this proposed project is an exciting and unique addition to a unique neighborhood within our unique community. While the modern aesthetic may not please all, the design creates a visually pleasing image and scale that both addresses the uniqueness of the sloping site, the frontage along C Street, and the adjacency to Highway 94.
Meeting Adjourned at 7:40 PM by Scott Glazebrook

Thursday, August 12, 2010

July 14, 2010 Minutes


July 14, 2010

Amended September 8, 2010 to include Attachment 1, Meeting Agenda

Meeting Agenda including detailed Consent Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.

Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive. Called to order at 6:35 pm by Chair Pat Shields. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present. Representatives of the two land use projects on the Consent Agenda had been present at 6:15, with information and to answer questions about the projects.

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

Addition/deletions to Agenda. San Diego County Treasurer-Tax Collector Dan McAllister was present and asked to speak to the Committee about county property tax billings. Since there was a lengthy agenda, Shields asked that he be allowed to speak first. McAllister noted that the format of the billings has been changed in the past few years to make them easier to understand. 97% of all bills are collected, they are working to make that 100%. 216,000 people got their bills lowered through the appeal process last year. He believes that although lower home prices in downtown have reduced revenue, they should rebound. The California CPI, which is the basis of tax collections, is now negative, which should result in lower assessments on the bills that will come out in September. Refunds due to property owners are processed as soon as possible. $7-8 million in refunds have not been processed due to unlocated owners; these often result from taxpayers not notifying the tax collector of a change of address, or just miscommunication. A notebook listing these unprocessed refunds was circulated. McAllister noted that his office manages $6.5 billion, which is invested with various financial institutions. At least $100 million has been invested in 14 local banks for local reinvestment. For details, contact Kroll asked why the redesigned bill displayed the Treasurer-Tax Collectors name so prominently.

Approval of Minutes: Approved minutes of 6/9/10 meeting. (Motion D Skillman, second Vasconcellos, all in favor)

Treasurer’s Report: Caffey was not present – presume no change – around $75.


Community Police Officer- Suzy de la Pena: police report is nice and quiet. John Graham is now at Eastern Division. Asked that we be observant in light of a home break-in at 26th & C, where a rock was thrown through a window and a black man (17-25 years of age, 6 ft. tall, wearing a gold hoodie, driving a white 4-door car) went in and stole a laptop computer. At a nearby location a man with the same description punched a victim. Burke mentioned a break-in at 25th & K, de la Pena noted there had been several in the area. Captain’s meeting is July 27, 5:30 pm, 25th & Imperial.

City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Congratulated Scott Glazebrook on his appointment to the Balboa Park Committee. Councilman Gloria will host a meeting about city revenue on July 15, 6-8 pm at City Heights Library. Community coffee will be on August 14, 11am, at Grants Marketplace. Distributed the District 3 newsletter.

City Council District 8 – Diana Jurado-Sainz: Announced that the City Council approval of budgets for Maintenance Assessment Districts is on the agenda for July 20 at 2 pm. Councilman Hueso’s office is working with Code Compliance on complaints about RV’s parking and staying. Asked that these be reported as soon as they park (make, model, license number) so vehicles can be marked. Vasconcellos asked if sleeping in these parked vehicles is permitted. It is not, but police staffing levels do not always allow them to respond to complaints at night. Further questions were raised about Code Compliance: Burke asked whether it is legal to distribute paper signs and leaflets. Shields mentioned a multi-unit court at 2950 B Street, where it was reported that electricity was being supplied to units by extension cords.

Mayor’s Office – no representative present.

53rd Congressional District – Kathryn Fortner. Distributed the July Davis Dispatch and highlighted Davis’ voting on the Wall Street Reform Act, upcoming events, website and mailer. Davis is co-sponsor of West Coast Protection Act. Passport fees have increased to $140 for adults. Healthcare reform provides rebates for drug costs in the “donut hole” – one-time checks are now being issued.


Jerry Ray: reported that her trashcans are being hit or moved by people parking in front of her home at 1513 Dale when they are going to restaurants or taverns in the area. She said brought this to the attention of business owners through the South Park Business Group and got some relief, but twice in the past month her cans have been moved to block her driveway. She takes pictures of cars and license plates and gives them to the police. D Skillman asked what whether, when this happens, she could call the restaurants nearby and ask those proprietors to make an announcement?

Marie Skillman: Read a letter (Attachment A) from GGHPC, thanking Laurie Burgett for her service, and circulated it for members to sign.

CONSENT AGENDA: Meeting Agenda including detailed Consent Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.

Kroll asked that Item (a)Terris Residence Addition be pulled for discussion.

Glazebrook moved, Strickland seconded, that the Consent Agenda be approved, minus the Terris item; 9 in favor.

Homeowner and architect were present to answer questions regarding the Terris Residence Addition. Strickland asked about visibility from the right of way of the new, modern addition. Will there be a fence? Homeowner expects that there will continue to be a fence, color undecided as yet but probably on the darker side. Kroll expressed concern about the stylistic integrity of the addition, which is totally different from the current homes. Homeowner noted that a 6-ft. fence is proposed, and that the 2-story addition has be lowered to align with the existing addition. Height is 15 ft. There is a olive tree as well as the fence, and a 42-ft setback from the sidewalk. D Skillman moved, Burke seconded, that we approve this item. 8 in favor, 1 abstained.


SDG&E Smart Meter Installation.

April Wildow from SDG&E explained that San Diego is entering a transitional era with regard to equipment and infrastructure for energy. The goal is to make more energy information available at our fingertips. 1.4 million electric meters and 850,000 gas meters will be installed. Examples of the old and new electric meters were shown. Wildow noted that new “Smart Meters” help consumers and the utilities pinpoint problems. She said they expect a 5-10% reduction in electric usage where these Smart Meters are installed. Several incentive programs will be introduced. The meters automatically read hourly, instead of the monthly manual read now done by SDGE staff. She said the meter reader staff will be retrained once the installations are complete.

Smart Meters are coming to Greater Golden Hill very soon. An interactive page showing the proposed dates can be found at Consumers will experience a 5-15 minute power outage when the electric meter is being installed. A letter will be sent to each user in advance of the meter change, with information about how to reschedule if there are extenuating circumstances. With the gas meter installations there will be no outage during the conversion. Once a new meter is installed, there will be a 7-day comparison done with prior usage, as a way to be sure it is working properly. Wildow stressed that installers DO NOT need to enter your home to do their installation. Installers will have appropriate identification; if you are concerned, you can call SDG&E.

D Skillman asked if the new meters would enable SDG&E to buy back excess power from people with residential solar installations. SDG&E is already doing that. D Skillman asked what had been done about reported hacking into the systems. SDG&E is working hard to provide cyber security, and is working with groups across the country on this issue. SDG&E is a leader in this program. M Skillman asked if the gas and electric meters would be installed at the same time. In some cases, they will, but not always. M Skillman asked if the 7-day comparison would be between the traditional meter and the new meter at each location. That is not the way it will work. SDG&E will compare data from the new meter with historical data for each address. Kroll asked about the timeframe for variable pricing. SDG&E hopes to begin that in 2013 – they have just begun the PUC process. Jerry Ray asked if the gas meter installation would cause the pilot light to go out. It will not, since the gas meter is not being replaced, only being updated with extra collection equipment.

CPUAC/ City Planner’s Report - Bernie Turgeon:

(1) GGHPC proposal to City for Community Mailing to Enhance Community Participation. Turgeon reported that there are 7,300 units and the cost for a 8.5 x 11 tri-fold multi-color mailer would be $4,155. Black & white would cost about half as much, a postcard even less. Doorhangers are not cheaper, unless there is volunteer labor to distribute them.

Turgeon said the City has budget $1.75 million for the 3 community plan updates. He said zero-based budgeting is wreaking havoc on these multi-year projects, and they have had to reduce the budget by $200,000. Turgeon has requested that there be a mailing to GGH but there is a question of equity with the other 2 communities.

Shields wondered why this is such a big deal, noting that it is now too late to send out anything referring to the July 29 cluster meeting. Turgeon said he understood that the mailing was to target attendance at the Charette. He said most of the budget for CPUAC is for contractors, thus funds for this mailing would have to come from a limited amount not already contracted.

The next step is to find funds in the budget for this, and GGHPC needs to decide exactly what we want on the flyer. Shields wants the whole CPU process to be explained, with dates. Glazebrook clarified that Turgeon had copies of the materials that were used for outreach to the 25th Street businesses, which could be used as a starting point. Turgeon will forward that to the GGHPC membership. The subcommittee working on this (Shields, Kroll and D Skillman) will meet with Turgeon before the next GGHPC meeting.

(2) The 25th Street Renaissance Project, funded by a SANDAG grant, is now kicking off. Staff met with consultants during the past week. The streets will be the first step to be formalized, and will need a GGHPC decision by November.

(3) The City’s manual for Community Plan Updates is now available online.

(4) Dates for upcoming CPUAC events, all to be held at Santa Fe Room at 6 pm:

7/28 Mobility (cluster meeting) 7/19, 8/2, 8/23 Open Mic sessions

D Skillman said he is concerned that too much emphasis is being put on the Charette, since it is likely that many community members participating will not be up to speed on what has been presented and discussed at previous meetings. Turgeon said he wanted to work our CPUAC about the content of the Charette. D Skillman reported that the South Park Business Group has been doing a lot of work about what they want to see in the CP. Shields will contact them to present at a future GGHPC meeting. M Skillman asked if there was a firm date for the Charette. Turgeon said that there is not, they are having issues with scheduling at locations in GGH; likely locations are schools and those offices are closed right now. Current thinking is for the Charette to be a series of 3 meetings (probably Saturday, Wednesday, Saturday) and that GGH’s would happen after North Park’s.

Subcommittee Reports

Land Use. Nothing for August agenda at this time.

Chair: Has been receiving requests from organizations wanting to make informational presentations at GGHPC meetings. She wondered how the members feel about these. M Skillman suggested that such requests be brought to full committee, and that the presentations be scheduled if GGHPC approves.

The next meeting will be August 11, 2010.

Meeting adjourned by Chair Shields at 8:34 pm.

Marie Skillman.


Attachment 1. Meeting Agenda


July 14, 2010 at 6:30 P.M.

Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive

Monthly Meeting

6:30 CALL TO ORDER – please be punctual

a) Additions/Deletions to Agenda

b) Approval of Minutes

c) Treasurers Report & Pass-the-Hat – Carole Caffey


a) Community Police Officer – John Graham [685-8206 or]

b) Council District 3 – Anthony Bernal [236-6633 or]

c) Council District 8 – Diana JuradoSainz [236-6688 or]

d) Mayor’s Office – Denice Garcia [236-7056 or]

e) 53rd Congressional Dist. – Katherine Fortner [280-5353]

f) City Planner – Bernard Turgeon [533-6575 or]

7:15 PUBLIC COMMENT – non-agenda items, 3-minute limit

7:25 CONSENT AGENDA – Consent Agenda allows the Committee to consent to the actions of Subcommittees in a single vote without presentation or debate. See Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for details. Anyone may request a Consent Agenda item be pulled for discussion.

a. Terris Residence Addition Address: 850 22nd Street Project Number: None (presubmittal) Project Description: Addition of master bedroom, office, and utility room to existing residence Permit Application: Process 1 Ministerial Building Permit (pre-submittal) Deviations Requested: None Motion: Support project as proposed with Letter of Support to City Staff (see Land-use Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for May 26 2010 for details of discussion). Vote: For: 2 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Result: Motion Passes

b. Big Blue Box Lofts Address: 3363 C Street Project Number: 210778 Project Description: Construct 4 residential for rent units on a vacant 0.16 acre site in the GH-1500 zone of the Greater Golden Hill Planned District. Permit Application: Process 3 Golden Hill Development Permit (SDP) Deviations Requested: More that 2 types of wall siding materials [SDMC 158.0301(c)(1)(C)] Motion: Recommend approval of the project as submitted, presented, and discussed with the requested deviation and forwarding of this recommendation to the full committee (see Land-use Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for June 30 2010 for details of discussion) Vote: For: 6 Against: 1 Abstain: 0 Result: Motion Passes


a) Chair’s Report

b) SDG&E Smart Meter Installation. Risa Baron



a) Airport Noise – Carole Caffey

b) Balboa Park Committee – Scott Glazebrook

c) Community Planners Committee (CPC) – Pat Shields

d) Community Plan Update Advisory Committee (CPUAC) – Bernard Turgeon

e) Code Compliance – Ruchell Alvarez

f) Clean, Green & Safe (MAD) Advisory Board – Carole Caffey

g) Historic – Angela Vasconcellos

h) Membership and Elections – Angela Vasconcellos

i) Parks – Maureen Burke

j) Transportation – Scott Glazebrook


*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


Regular Meeting Schedules

Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee

Monthly*: Second Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM

Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive

Code Compliance Subcommittee

Monthly*: Second-to-Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:00PM

Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive

Land-Use Subcommittee

Monthly*: Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM

Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive

Transportation Subcommittee

Monthly*: Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:00PM

Location: Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse at 2600 Golf Course Drive

* Traditionally there are no meetings in the month of December

Proposed Agenda Topics for Next Meetings

Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee

Items: None

Code Compliance Subcommittee

Items: None

Land-Use Subcommittee


Transportation Subcommittee

Items: None

Attachment A. Letter to Laurie Burgett

Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee

Golf Course Drive

San Diego, California 92102

July 14, 2010

Laurie Burgett

1911 Granada Avenue

San Diego, California 92102

Dear Laurie,

We want to take this opportunity to thank you for your time and dedication to the Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee.

Your many years of experience, knowledge of how the system works, and great insight have been a valuable resource for all of us. Your additional service to the City of San Diego as a member of the Balboa Park Committee has given GGHPC tremendous additional awareness of Park matters.

We will miss your participation on our committee, especially your reminders about our statutory purpose and authority. We count ourselves fortunate to have you as part of our neighborhood community.

Best wishes, and we hope to see you around GGH.

Attachment B. Land Use Subommittee Minutes from June 30, 2010.

Published separately on this blog site.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

June 9, 2010 Minutes


June 9, 2010

Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive. Called to order at 6:32 pm by Chair Pat Shields. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.

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

Addition/deletions to Agenda. In relation to the action item on the agenda relating to extending the life of Center City Development Commission, Joyce Summer from CCDC introduced Jason Elrod, a member of the Center City Advisory Committee (CCAC). Elrod explained that the City Council will be voting on 6/22/10 whether a study should be done to determine whether downtown still has blight and whether the current cap on the dollar amount CCDC can spend of increment financing funds should be lifted or raised. CCAC is asking GGHPC to support them in requesting that this study be done. Shields asked the committee members whether GGHPC should discuss this item, and whether it is within the scope of GGHPC. If not, the item would be withdrawn from the agenda. After some discussion, Kroll made a motion that we leave the item on the agenda. Baldwin seconded. 9 votes in favor, Caffey against.

Approval of Minutes: Approved minutes of 4/14/10 meeting, after corrections were made relating to Mayor’s rep and the 1 in 10 Coalition motion. (motion Burke, second Strickland, 7 in favor. Caffey, Strickland, Vasconcellos abstained)

Treasurer’s Report: No change – around $75.

Membership: Vasconcellos reported that Laurie Burgett has given up her seat on GGHPC and CPUAC subcommittee. Vasconcellos introduced Jessica Richter, a community resident who has attended 2 previous meetings. Richter has lived in the community for 5 years and wants to be more involved. Vasconcellos moved, D Skillman seconded, that she be appointed to fill a vacant seat. All in favor.


Community Police Officer: Not present

City Council District 3 - Anthony Bernal: Councilman Gloria received an award from SOHO on 5/21. Gloria will be available at the Old House Fair on 6/19 from 11 am – 2 pm.

In response to Kroll’s question at the May meeting, Bernal gave these examples of Gloria changing his vote based upon constituent input: (1) OLP school expansion. Gloria went door-to-door to find out how the neighbors felt. (2) Widening Euclid Avenue in City Heights. Gloria again went door-to-door to find out how the neighbors felt. (3) Rapid Bus on Park Boulevard. Gloria is now soliciting community opinion on this project. Kroll asked if these were examples of an open mind or changed mind. Shields said that the committee appreciates having the ear of Councilman Gloria.

City Council District 8 – Diana Jurado-Sainz: In response to Kroll’s question at the May meeting, Jurado-Sainz gave these three examples of Hueso changing his vote based upon constituent input: (1) 32nd Street Canyon. Hueso became involved due to community interest (2) fiscal year 2010 MAD Carryover Budget. Hueso’s office tallied emails and phone calls about the subject and recommended that the assessment be reduced by one half that year. Otherwise, he has had an open mind and did not need to change his vote.

Mayor’s Office – no representative present.

53rd Congressional District – Kathryn Fortner. Left before giving her report.

Follow Up Questions on City’s Role in Operation of GGHMAD.

Shields gave the background and purpose of this item on the agenda. At the previous GGHPC meeting, and prior meetings, there seemed to be many cases of “facts vs. opinions” when discussing the Greater Golden Hill Maintenance Assessment District. As a way to synthesize some questions, and save time at future meetings discussing this MAD, which is not the focus of GGHPC, Shields collected questions about MAD operations and submitted them in advance to Luis Ojeda, from the City Planning and Community Investment Department at the City of San Diego. Copies of the questions had also been provided to GGHPC members in advance, and to audience members.

The questions and responses were as follows:

(1) It appears the operation of the GGHMAD are directed by Council members Hueso and Gloria.

How does that work? Verbal instructions, email, letters?

Jurado-Sainz said that Councilman Hueso’s office does not direct MAD operations, especially not day-to-day operations. At the time of year for budget submission, Hueso’s office does speak directly with Ojeda. Hueso’s office relays service requests they receive (graffiti, mattresses, etc.) to Greater Golden Hill Community Development Corporation, the non-profit that operates the MAD, on a daily basis. They used email or telephone, and now submit requests through the MAD website. Bernal said that Councilman Gloria’s office sends service requests they receive (graffiti, mattresses, etc.) to GGHCDC with a routing slip. Tree-trimming requests get a phone call to MAD program manager. At budget times, Gloria’s office offers oversight. Ojeda said that his office uses similar means. Caffey noted that these methods of requesting service are available to the public.

(2) If the GGHCDC is not subject to the Brown Act, and it selects only those people it wants for the Advisory Committee, in what way is it “a model of accountability and transparency,” as claimed by Ben Hueso?

Ojeda replied that the question implies that the “model” of selecting the advisory committee is questionable. The Engineer’s Report lists who is to be on the advisory committee (which property classes are to be represented) and mentions that the selection process is by NOMINATION, not ELECTION. He noted that no other MAD in San Diego has the level of posting of financial and operational data for the public that the GGHMAD does, so there is remarkable transparency. Jurado-Sainz said that the GGHMAD is the only one that solicits public input on the annual budget, making it quite a bit more transparent.

(3) As a policy of fiscal accountability, GGHCDC said monthly reimbursement claims would be posted on their website. The last posting was December 2009. What happened?

Ojeda replied that GGHCDC says that this posting is not required, but it has been posting it. On 5/11/10, the GGHMAD website went down, and some of the later postings were lost. These should be restored soon.

(4) Are the GGHCDC Board members and GGHMAD employees required to have Conflict of Interest Statements on file? Who maintains these records?

Ojeda replied that the City Attorney says that these individuals are not required to have Conflict of Interest Statements on file.

(5) The GGHMAD contract has specific requirements for competitive bidding. There is no evidence that this process is being followed. Do you have any documentation that projects in excess of $5,000 (in a 12 month period) have been awarded via a 3-bid process? And those in excess of $25,000 awarded via RFP?

Ojeda replied that there is a conflict between the “boilerplate” non-profit contract language regarding procurement (Exhibit E) and the City Code. The dollar thresholds vary. The City Code should supercede all others.

The conflicting thresholds were described:

Exhibit E

For contracts under $5000 - no bids required

For contracts $5000 - $25000 - 5 bids required, must be kept on file

For contracts over $25000 - RFP and sealed bids required

City Code

For contracts under $5000 – no bids required

For contracts $5000 - $50000 - 3 bids required, must be kept on file

For contracts over $50000 – RFP and sealed bids required

Ojeda said that the City Attorney is going to see that the boilerplate “Exhibit E” thresholds are changed to be the same as the City Code. Ojeda acknowledged that some contracts over $25000 had been done without RFP’s. One contract over $50000 had been done without an RFP; that was the Urban Corp contract and they had the lowest bid.

An RFP for the GGHMAD service contract for the coming year contract has been released.

(6) Are properties being reassessed when their use chances, such as 830 25th Street?

Ojeda replied yes. Changes in property characteristics as registered with the County are taken into account on the annual roll for assessment.

(7) Are the quarterly audits of the GGHMAD by the City continuing? How are they documented and who receives the reports. When were the last two?

Ojeda explained that the City does site inspections quarterly. An audit is triggered if these inspections reveal that the contract is not being met. Ojeda said that he had received complaints from property owners who do not want the GGHMAD work done, but none that the work is not being done. He said that reimbursement requests are audited by him or his staff, and by the City Controller’s Office. Some requests have been denied. Now, some expenses are being approved in advance.

Shields asked what people can do if GGHMAD services are not being provided. Ojeda said that they could call the city. He noted that there is a “failure to perform” section in the contract, which can hold up payments until the work is being done properly. He noted that contracts are reviewed annually by the City Council. Jurado-Sainz said the GGHMAD has not been shown to be out of compliance with the contract.

Shields asked the GGHPC members if they had any questions or comments.

Caffey noted that the GGHCDC is performing the administrative services of the GGHMAD, and the Urban Corp has a contract to do the maintenance work. The proper person to contact about maintenance work is Program Manager Alex Ibarra.

D. Skillman asked Ojeda to clarify the dollar thresholds on bidding. Burke asked if the GGHMAD had been held to the procurement thresholds in Exhibit E. Ojeda said the City Code is more stringent and it has been being followed.

Shields asked if there were questions or comments from members of the audience.

Janice Davis, a single-family homeowner, said that the size of her lot is incorrect on her assessment. It is a 25 ft lot but being assessed as 69 ft. She has asked for this to be corrected but it has not been. Ojeda said that some corrections similar to this have been made in the past, based upon parcel audits. In response to a question regarding the methodology used in assessing single-family homes, Ojeda said that is part of the lawsuit filed against the City relating to the GGHMAD formation, and he therefore cannot discuss it.

Hal Tyvoll stated that the Rules of Procurement for the GGHCDC, #11, state that Conflict of Interest rules do apply (City Code section #88100). Shields suggested that he send a copy of this document to the City Attorney for review. Tyvoll said that he had reviewed the listing of assessed properties, a 67-page document, and noted that many 25-50 ft lots for single-family homes are being assessed at 69 ft.

Barbara Houlton noted that the contract between the City and the GGHCDC requires competitive bidding on contracts above $25000, and also requires that the GGHCDC’s meeting minutes record the results of this bidding. She asked if those minutes were open to the public. She also noted that the City Attorney had signed this contract with the conflicting thresholds.

Houlton said that the current contract was not signed until 8 months into the fiscal year. Ojeda replied that there had been a 2-month gap in the GGHCDC’s workers compensation coverage, which held up the contract signing. The GGHCDC eventually waived liability and then the contract was signed. Houlton asked about payments being made when the contract was unsigned. Ojeda said those payments were approved by City staff.

Kroll stated that the Engineer’s Report requires that Zone 2 properties get street sweeping and weeding 2 times per month. He asked if the City believes that this is being followed. Ojeda said yes. Kroll said no, it isn’t. Kroll thinks the GGHCDC needs more oversight. Ojeda said that those with concerns should call the GGHCDC, and if not satisfied, call the City. Kroll wondered if the property owners are expected to enforce the contract, or if the City is.

Jerry Ray said that she had called the GGHCDC several weeks ago to report sweeping not being done, and has had no response.

Clean Green and Safe.

Shields asked the committee if this update report should continue to be on the agenda. Baldwin said yes. M. Skillman asked to have a report given but have the length of comments controlled. After some discussion, it was decided to leave it on the monthly agenda.

Caffey reported that the GGHMAD Oversight Committee voted to change its meetings to bi-monthly instead of monthly. An RFP has been released for the maintenance contract (Urban Corp holds current contract). She said that the GGHMAD website – - now has a system in place for tracking complaints and will respond to reported issues. There is a 5-7 day turnaround time. She noted that GGHMAD financial data, etc. is also on that website.



Chair’s Report.

Shields, Glazebrook and Turgeon are working on how to best handle Land Use on the agenda.

Shields did the E-COW (Electronic Community Orientation Workshop) required of all new PC members.

D Skillman asked if the GGHPC agendas should be posted in the community kiosks at Grape Street and Beech Street. Turgeon said that the Brown Act rule is that they be posted 72 hours in advance at the meeting location, but we can post in the kiosks if we announce that as the official posting. He said the online posting is not adequate. Shields said she would investigate having the posting at the Golf Course Clubhouse, but would like to have them posted in the kiosks.

M Skillman moved, seconded by Burke, that the official posting of the GGHPC agenda be in the community kiosks. All in favor.

Land Use Subcommittee. Glazebrook had circulated subcommittee minutes in advance of this meeting. (Attachment A) A synopsis of the minutes is to be part of the agenda. Caffey said she thought that Land Use items were supposed to come to the full GGHPC as a consent agenda, not items for discussion. Shields said there is an issue of public notice of Land Use Subcommittee meetings. Glazebrook said they hoped to put more information about future LU meetings on the agenda. D. Skillman said he could post the LU agendas in the community kiosks.

Caffey noted that there are currently not many projects before LU, but if that changes, we don’t have time to discuss all of them in detail at GGHPC meeting. M. Skillman noted that projects mentioned on the agenda should include project number, and that the vote on them must be made part of the minutes. Shields, Glazebrook and Turgeon will continue to refine the process.

Property owners Berte Bethevon and Elizabeth Terris were present, regarding the project at 850 22nd Street (no project number assigned yet). Shields asked them if the neighbors had been contacted about the project. The applicants said they had been, and were in favor. Shields asked the applicants to appear at the July GGHPC meeting, and to come 15 minutes early with plans for the committee to review.

Shields asked about the Big Blue Lofts project. Glazebrook said this is a 4-unit project at 33rd & C Streets, to be heard at LU’s meeting on June 30.


Request for Support to Extend Life of Center City Development Committee.

Jason Elrod from CCAC explained that the City Council would be voting on 6/22/10 whether a study should be done to determine whether downtown still has blight and whether the current cap on the dollar amount CCDC can spend of increment financing funds should be lifted or raised.

He said that downtown is a neighborhood of residences and businesses, and that it belongs to the residents as well and those who visit or work there. Downtown has the unique ability to absorb housing density which can have a positive effect on the surrounding communities. He said that many people think this process is all about a stadium for the Chargers, but that there is $2 billion in other infrastructure is needed above that one project. Raising the cap does not guarantee a Charger stadium. CCAC wants the tax increment funds to be subject to a higher dollar cap and time frame. Without extending the cap, those tax increment funds will go to Sacramento for disbursement, instead of staying here in San Diego.

Baldwin asked what Elrod wants GGHPC to support. Elrod said CCAC wants support for beginning the process to raise the cap, by doing a study. Turgeon noted that there is some question about this matter being within the purview of the GGHPC, but that it is a neighboring community. Caffey asked if the study would include measuring adjoining neighborhood impacts. Elrod said that as part of the study, the Independent Budget Analyst looks at the entire region. D. Skillman asked, if the process were begun, when would there be further options for public input. Summer said it would be when the study was ready for Council review. Kroll asked if CCAC and CCDC boundaries are the same. Elrod said they were. Summer said all 8 neighborhoods of “downtown” are represented on CCAC. Shields said that she has heard that people downtown want the cap to go away. Elrod feels that all CCAC members, regardless of whether they are residents or business representatives, are in favor of starting the study process.

Shields wondered if GGHPC has any say in this. Summer said that what happens downtown does affect us. Shields asked for committee comments.

Glazebrook believes we should endorse the study, but that CCDC in its current configurations might need to be revised. Baldwin said doing a study makes sense. Caffey noted that keeping the money in San Diego is better than it going to the state. D. Skillman said the study is a good idea. He wondered why we needed to write a letter; couldn’t our vote be enough. Caffey thinks this is not within the scope of GGHPC. Turgeon noted that we could comment once the study is completed.

Baldwin moved, seconded by Caffey, “The GGHPC minutes record that we support having the study done.” 9 in favor, Kroll against, Shields abstained.

GGHPC. Proposal to City for Community Mailing to Enhance Community Participation.

Kroll, Turgeon and Shields met about doing some outreach about our work. They are asking the City to mail a 1-page news announcement about GGHPC, CPUAC, LU, etc. Turgeon thought it was a good idea.

Shields moved, D. Skillman seconded, “Requests that the City do a mailing to inform the GGH community members of important changes going n regarding the planning process, with the object being to increase community knowledge and participation.” All in favor.

CPUAC/ City Planner’s Report - Bernie Turgeon: Brought copies of City General Plan for those who needed one. He will bring copies of the Community Plan to the next meeting to those who request a copy. He also distributed copies of the GGHPC Bylaws. The latest version of the CPUAC schedule was distributed, and a summary of the last meeting. He noted that the Historic workshop scheduled for June 22 is a state requirement. Upcoming dates: 6/22 Historic Workshop; 7/19 Open MIC #3; 8/2 Open MIC #4; Cluster Meeting #2 in mid-late July.

Turgeon said that the City had heard concerns, especially from North Park group, that the meetings have been too much lecture and not much hands-on. They acknowledge that this is the case, but the City has found benefit from comments made at the meetings so far. The emphasis is going to shift to more what CPUAC members want and more hands-on. Turgeon will be doing fieldwork in the community this summer and solicited members input and assistance. He wants to keep the momentum going and do more outreach.

D. Skillman asked if the Charette, a 1-day meeting scheduled for September, is asking too much for one day. Turgeon said it might be a several day event. They want it to not be repetitive of past meetings, and might use a 2-speed process, with some sessions for those already informed and some for getting newly involved people up to speed. They may ask for feedback by email. M. Skillman suggested the individual CPUAC’s have a short meeting at the Cluster meeting. Burke shares D. Skillman’s concerns about the Charette.

Burgett’s resignation left an open seat on the CPUAC. Strickland had been on the waiting list. Shields moved, D. Skillman seconded, that Strickland fill the vacancy. All in favor.

Subcommittee Reports

Parks. Burke announced an open house at the Community Garden on 6/26, 10 am – 3 pm.

Burke mentioned her appreciation of Burgett’s service on the committee. M. Skillman will solicit comments before the next meeting for a letter of appreciation.

Membership. Vasconcellos noted that there are still 2 vacant seats on GGHPC.

The next meeting will be July 14, 2010.

Meeting adjourned by Chair Shields at 8:27 pm.

Marie Skillman.


Attachment A:

Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee

Land-use Subcommittee Minutes

May 26 2010

Subcommittee Members present: Richard Baldwin, Scott Glazebrook

City Staff present: None

Community Members present: None

Project Applicants present: Item #1 –Elizabeth Terris (Owner) and Ruediger Thierhoff (Designer)

Meeting called to order at 6:40 PM by Scott Glazebrook

Item #1

Project Name:

Terris Residence Addition

Project Address:

850 22nd Street

Project Number:

None – presubmittal

Project Description:

Addition of master bedroom, office, and utility room to existing residence

Permit Application:

Process 1: Ministerial Building Permit

Presentation Status:

Action Item


Support project as proposed with Letter of Support to City Staff*

* Draft Letter of Support to be provided prior to GGHPC meeting









Motion Passes


A contemporary addition to a relocated 1868 early-Victorian-esque cottage with existing 1987 rear addition. While the 1987 addition mimics features of the original cottage (complying with the Golden Hill Design Guidelines but likely not in compliance with current City Historical policy or with US Department of the Interior Standards), this proposed addition takes a distinctly contemporary design approach with minimal connection to the existing structure, and then only with the 1987 addition (likely in compliance with City Historical policies and with the US Department of the Interior Standards). The proposed addition would be located to the rear of the existing structure to preserve existing off-street parking and to minimize its visual effect on the existing structure at the Right-Of-Way while meeting the Owner’s desire for a design that reflects when it is built.

Zone: GH-2500 (adjacent to the Golden Hill Historic District)

Density Permitted: 2 DUs Density Proposed: 1 DUs

Floor Area Permitted: 2,250 SF Floor Area Proposed: 2,016* SF

Coverage Permitted: 1,750 SF Coverage Proposed: 1,356* SF

Parking Required: 2 Spaces Parking Proposed: 2 Spaces

Proposed project (“addition”) complies with all setback and height requirements and limits, yard areas, and Golden Hill PDO design criteria for “Contemporary” design. The addition is set-back 42’ from the sidewalk and will not be appreciably visible from the Right-Of-Way; plus an existing olive tree is proposed to be preserved between the addition and the parking and sidewalk.

* Based on scaling of provided plans


1. Creating the addition as almost a separate structure, connected by an enclosed “bridge”, preserves the integrity of the existing structure.

2. Employing contemporary architecture further preserves the integrity of the existing historically-styled structure.

3. Connecting the bridge to the newer 1987 addition causes no additional disruption to the original 1868 structure.

4. The design of the addition is very contemporary, and is placed at the rear of the property and to the side of the existing structure to both preserve the street view of the 1868 structure and to create a private garden space behind the existing residence, which relates well to the existing neighboring residential structures.

5. Subcommittee recommended preserving existing gravel permeable parking surface, if possible, as it seems more appropriate for both the existing (temporally) and proposed (aesthetically) structures.

6. Overall this proposed project makes a good effort to preserve the integrity of the existing 1868 structure while permitting a needed space addition while employing contemporary design aesthetics that allows both the old and the new to reflect the times in which they were built.

Item #2

Project Name:

City of San Diego Fiscal Year 2011 Capital Improvement Program Budget

Project Address:


Project Number:


Project Description:

Capital Improvement Program Budget

Permit Application:


Presentation Status:

Information Item
















Meeting Adjourned at 7:24 PM by Scott Glazebrook