Monday, October 31, 2011

September 14, 2011 Minutes


September 14, 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.

Vice-Chair Ruchell Alvarez called meeting to order at 6:30 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, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Strickland, David Swarens, Matt Thomas, Angela Vasconcellos, Jessica Wolf. Members absent: Pat Shields

Addition/deletions to Agenda - None.

Approvals of Minutes – Minutes of 8/10/11 meeting were approved (motion Brierton, second D Skillman) 14 in favor, none opposed, Strickland abstained.

Treasurer’s Report: – balance remains the same.


City Council District 5 - Ashley Simmons: Distributed information about San Diego 311 that went into effect in May. It is a downloadable application that allows smart phone users to report public safety, quality of life, and environmental issues including photos, descriptions, and geo-tagging. Councilmember DiMaio’s office routes the issues to appropriate departments.

Rick L. Wright, architect. Wright represents the operators of Thomas Bike Shop at 1635 Fern Street. They are protesting a code violation at their property. Lot coverage percentages and FAR calculations are in question. The matter was referred to the Land Use Subcommittee.

Mike Burnett, You Are Here project: Reported that the project has been approved and permits are in process. They are hoping for groundbreaking before the end of September.

David Swarens: reported that contrary to what was said in the 25th St. Renaissance presentation at the August meeting, a corner curb cut does not make a shorter distance than regular alignment.

Carole Caffey: Thanked Bernal and Fortner for their help with an issue she reported to them.


Community Police Officer Susie de la Pena: Reported that there have been burglaries in the area. She asked that any suspicious activity, including juveniles out during school time, be reported. Reminded everyone to keep unmonitored doors and windows closed, and not to leave laptop computers unattended at coffee shops. The Captain’s Meeting will be 9/22 at 25th & Imperial. She thanked everyone for behaving during the electricity blackout – no crimes were reported.

Caffey asked what to do about illegal dumping in her alley. Kathryn Willets reported that illegal parking in alleys is preventing trash trucks doing their pickups. Strickland asked about gunshots he heard 9/13/11 at 12:30 am near 832 24th Street. Santini asked for help with traffic gridlock around Einstein Academy when school lets out - he is unable to get out of his driveway. He also reported increased graffiti in the area around 28th Street and Hwy 94.

City Council District 3 – Anthony Bernal: August was City Council recess. Street repairs are in process; those with questions can call his office. Distributed flyers on Code Compliance priorities and recycling events.

Thomas asked when the new city council district boundaries would take effect. Bernal said that they would be finalized at the end of September, but the Rules Committee is discussing following the City Attorney’s opinion that they not be enforced until after the 2012 elections.

53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner: Distributed September Davis Dispatch. Davis hosted 2 events locally in August: a Job Clinic and a Home Mortgage Clinic. 30 Tips for handling an emergency are available at Applications are being accepted for internships in Davis office.

Brierton asked about new congressional districting boundaries that are not very detailed in the online maps.

City Council District 8, 76th California Assembly District, Mayor’s Office: no representative present.


VICE-CHAIR’S REPORT. Alvarez had attended the CPC meeting. The 2050 committee proposal for “transit priorities over freeways” failed to get support. Complete Streets concept was prioritized.



b) Request to reconvene Community Plan Update Committee. D Skillman explained the reasoning behind the reconvening, which was to continue work distilling public comments from earlier meetings, to aid City planners preparing the draft Community Plan, saving rewrite time later.

Alvarez suggested GGHPC members go around the table with their comments on the proposal.

Santini and Baldwin had no comments. Brierton wondered if this would do any good, and if the City would ever show us their work in process. Burke said that there is much work to be done. We need to work on the larger issues, and comment intelligently on the City’s draft. She worries about tight schedules once the draft is issued. Thomas said it is extremely important to reconvene, to capture the vision that was articulated before it is forgotten. Meeting location problems can be overcome. Kroll said he is unsure where the process stands on certain issues. Caffey echoed Thomas, and said that a project plan is urgently needed – that would lead to shorter meetings. Alvarez said she sees both sides, but being prepared to respond to the City cannot hurt. D Skillman said any City draft could be changed. A PDO encompassing the entire community needs to be thoroughly discussed by CPUAC, GGHPC, and the community. The community needs to be informed about whatever is happening. Swarens said the highest priority is to coordinate with City staff. Forums such as the focus groups convened by Rick Accurso were a good tool and provide a benchmark for using the matrix comments. He wondered when we would get any documents from the City – would meeting before then work? Burgee said it was important not to lose momentum. M Skillman said we have put too much into this process to wait for the City draft – 30 days to review will not be enough time. Strickland said that we need to look at the current CP and highlight areas for change, and make thoughtful comments. He wondered if the City had any part of the draft completed – he said it would take several iterations for a final plan. Wolf agrees with reconvening. Vasconcellos agrees with keeping up the momentum.

Bernie Turgeon said the draft is being prepared by element, and the Land Use element might be available by early November. Staff members are working on the elements relating to their specialized knowledge.

Kathryn Willets commented about the PDO covering the entire community. PDO is an ordinance. Community Plan is the vision for the community. This brought up a question about how the PDO affects the CP. Turgeon explained that the second step of the Community Plan Update would be making changes to the current PDO to implement changes in the Community Plan.

In response to a question about whether the process would be that the CP would recommend the PDO expansion, Turgeon said that the CP would have measurable portions.

Thomas noted that Accurso did a lot of work with the matrix comments and that we should be utilizing that work. M Skillman said that the organized comments could be posted on the GGHPC blogspot. Swarens acknowledged Willets and Turgeon’s description of the PDO as a policy tool.

D Skillman made a motion that “ the CPUAC begin a series of publicly noticed meetings.” Strickland seconded.

Discussion: Swarens asked what the agenda would be. D Skillman said it would be to look at community plan and the matrix comments and compile advice for the City. Swarens thought there should be a new format. Strickland advocated continuing to review the matrix. D Skillman noted that Accurso’s work organized the matrix comments for us. M Skillman said we should approach the work by General Plan elements, as the City is doing. Brierton feels hampered by lack of information from the City. D Skillman said the GP’s organizational framework differs from our current CP – City is putting our plan into the new framework. Turgeon said the CPUAC took action on this earlier.

D Skillman restated his motion. He moved “that the CPUAC be reconvened, with the first meeting, on the first Wednesday in October, to be organizational for future meetings based upon Plan Elements, incorporating comments from previous meetings.” Strickland seconded. 14 in favor, Kroll abstained.

The question about a quorum of the GGHPC attending the CPUAC meetings was raised. D Skillman noted that CPUAC has 8 GGHPC members, which is a quorum. Swarens suggested noticing the meetings as a joint CPUAC and PC meeting, or changing the CPUAC to be a committee of the whole. Willets said the committee of the whole would be a quorum with stakeholders. Burke and Brierton liked the idea of the committee of the whole. D Skillman said CPUAC was subcommittee, and did not think GGHPC quorum in attendance was an issue. We need to check the Brown Act to clarify.

M Skillman asked if stakeholders would need equal representation. Turgeon said the stakeholder representation was not an issue, but getting a quorum of the committee of the whole present at meetings had been an issue in other communities. A quorum would be important if CPUAC was taking votes and making recommendations. Burke thought a larger committee might prove unwieldy; Swarens agreed. Caffey suggested subcommittees of the CPUAC. Willets suggested noticing of one meeting, which could be broken into subgroups. Kroll questioned what was appropriate noticing. Notices would be posted in the two community kiosks, and Turgeon said his staff would distribute to the City’s email list and post on the City website, and he would attend the meetings. Turgeon said he would research the majority attendance issues.

It was decided that a chair and secretary for CPUAC would be elected at the next meeting, if desired. Thomas will look into securing the Polish Hall as a location. Caffey said that in the future, the CDC office might be available.

a) Community Plan Update. The proposed motion “GGH Planning Committee adopts the expansion current PDO to all of Greater Golden Hill as the preferred method to guide further development and preserve community character” was not passed. Discussion:

Brierton asked Turgeon for clarification of the PDO. Burke said the motion was premature. Strickland suggested generically stating that we want a community-wide PDO. Caffey said we should defer this to the CPUAC. Willets said the current PDO is nonconforming. Swarens said we should be consistent with model motions being presented. Brierton asked if height limits were the bottom line. Thomas said the CP would define community character but the PDO would implement it. Turgeon noted that the current PDO does not cover many areas of single-family dwellings. Willets had a map showing the detail areas.

Strickland moved “GGHPC recommends that once the new community plan is completed, a PDO will encompass the entire community planning area.” Swarens seconded.

Discussion: Diego Velasco restated the CP is a vision; a PDO is an enforcing tool. Turgeon noted that this type of PDO coverage would put discretionary review on more properties, and that with either a conservation area or a PDO, we need to consider how broad the design guidelines should be. Burke said we could discuss implementation later. Swarens said charette attendees liked the concept of community-wide PDO. Brierton asked what discretionary review means. Turgeon said design guidelines drive the permitting process.

The question was called. All (15) voted in favor.


Transportation Subcommittee: Strickland said they would meet in a couple of months, about Hwy 94 project. We need a freeway agreement from the city for a park over the freeway, and it will be a big process. He will ask to have discussion on the agenda next month. Turgeon said SANDAG ultimately controls the funding.

Historic: Bugbee and M Skillman met and reviewed the City’s comments on the nomination forms for the South Park Historical District, and the forms will be resubmitted.

Balboa Park: Strickland reported (1) trail #53 in the park had been named in honor of Jerry Schad (2) There will be a Festival of Lights in the park on 10/23 (3) Sept meeting included a workshop on parking ideas for the Plaza de Panama project (4) Balboa Park Conservancy is moving forward (5) Centennial Celebration committee has hired a CEO and plans are in the works.

Airport Noise: No report

Land Use: No report

D Skillman asked Willets about the 25th St. Renaissance project. She said nothing had changed since our meeting last month. The project team was disappointed in the outcome of our votes in August; would like to bring the ideas back to GGHPC in October.

The next meeting will be Wednesday, October 12 at 6:30 pm.

Alvarez adjourned meeting at 8:25 pm.

Marie Skillman.




September 14, 2011 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

1. Approval of Minutes

2. Treasurer’s Report & Pass-the-Hat




i.Land Use Sub-Committee report. Baldwin


ii.CPC Meeting


7:10 ACTION ITEMS: time certain

a) Community Plan Update (1 Hour)

Proposed Motion:

The GGH Planning Committee adopts the expansion of the current PDO to all of Greater Golden Hill as the preferred method to guide further development and preserve community character.

b) Request to reconvene the Community Plan Update Sub-Committee

a.Mission and expected outcomes

b.Resolution of issue that majority of PC can not attend

c.Procedures: PC member chair, minutes, notice, Brown act, quorum

d.Working relationship with Planning Committee -- monthly reports

NOTE: The GGHPC will devote a minimum of 1 hour per month to Update Elements:

October meeting: Streetscape and Walkability


Airport Noise – Carole Caffey

Balboa Park Committee - David Strickland

Graffiti Hotline – 619 525-8522

Community Planners Committee (CPC) – Ruchell Alvarez

Community Plan Update Advisory Committee – City Planner Report

Historic – Susan Bugbee

Transportation – David Strickland


Note: Land-Use Subcommittee. Confirm mtg/agenda. Richard Baldwin(

Last Wednesday of the Month at 6:30PM

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

Historic Subcommittee. Confirm mtg/agenda. Susan Bugbee (

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



Community Police Officer – Suzy de la Pena [744.9514


Council District 3 – Anthony Bernal [236-6633 or


Council District 8 – Melinda Meza.

. [236-6688]

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


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


City Planner – Bernard Turgeon [533-6575 or


Wednesday, October 26, 2011

CPUAC Discussion Topics for 11/2/11 meeting

Per discussion at the 10/5/11 CPUAC meeting and the 10/12/11 GGHPC meeting, City Planner Bernie Turgeon provided this initial list of topics related to the Land Use Element of the Community Plan Update for CPUAC members and community members to review individually and provide comment at the next CPUAC meeting. The document is focused on just the land use issues raised during the CPU process that could be addressed through potential land use changes.

The next CPUAC meeting will be held 11/2/11 at 6:30 pm at the offices of the Greater Golden Hill CDC, 1504 30th Street.

Contents of Document:

Greater Golden Hill Community Plan Update

Land Use Element Topics for advisory committee discussion

Issue Area I - Potential Land Use Changes

(A) Lack of Walkable Commercial Services

Broadway High Density corridor, survey sites for land use changes

Rezone vacant lot at 28th St and E from Multi-Family to Commercial (or mixed-use) (c12)

More retail within walking distance of Broadway East of 28th St. (c13)

28th Street between A & B should be Community Commercial (broader range of commercial uses) rather than Neighborhood Commercial (c11)

Commercial center needed in Area B (charrette map, generally Broadway & 30th) (c298)

(B)Allow mixed-use to activate streets/improve connectivity

Land use changes could be large or small scale (underutilized sites) or addressed by policies developed to promote mixed-use and/or provide zoning incentives. Connectivity can also be addressed as an urban design issue without changing land use.

Consider Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial uses on Broadway West of 25th St. (a110)

Consider Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial uses on B Street between 25th 28th (c162). There are also similar ideas to strengthen connectivity between South Park and Golden Hill along A or B Streets.

Consider Mixed-Use Neighborhood Commercial

(c) Neighborhood Districts

A decision needs to be made whether to strengthen neighborhood identity with the new community plan. Various neighborhood concepts were discussed at the charrette, including identifying boundaries for South Park.

Identify South Park Neighborhood boundary in Plan (c139)

Neighborhoods should be a 5-10 minute walk, have a center, contain a variety of civic and private spaces (c33).

Neighborhood planning examples include 25th St, Juniper/Fern, Beech 30th, 28th C (c34)

Acknowledge/respect residential character/zone north of A St between 32nd and 34th Streets (c40).

The General Plan village concept is similar to a neighborhood district and location policies are on General Plan pages LU-6-11. The main issue is locating an area for public space (this can also be an opportunity). This could involve granting zoning incentives on private property in exchange for a park or plaza and/or reconfiguring right-of-way. Using the GP Village Propensity Map (Figure LU-1), staff has identified the potential for Neighborhood Villages at the 25th St and 30th/Fern/Juniper Commercial nodes and another at the higher density Broadway corridor (east of 28th St.)

(D) Review of Existing Land Use

Staff has identified several areas where the boundaries of commercially designated and zoned areas overlap with what appear to be single-family residences. The assumption is that the existing plan’s vision is for these areas to redevelop either as commercial or mixed-use. During a plan update, this vision can be reevaluated and/or changed or ‘fine-tuned’.

The issue to consider is whether the current commercial zoning is such an incentive that the loss of desirable historic or community character would likely result. Options to address this issue are adoption of design guidelines to preserve single-family character (while allowing commercial use) or to rezone the properties to single-family (with notice to property owners). Historic resources staff is also considering application of the Secretary of Interior Standards as sufficient to preserve historic resources within the proposed districts as well as for individually significant properties.

The areas initially identified are: the west frontage of 30th Street between Grape and Fir, and various lots along the periphery of the Beech/30th commercial area (west and south).

The land use designations are shown in the existing community plan:

The zoning designations are online:

Numbering: (a) Advisory Committee (c) charette