Quantcast
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs

$250k raised, lifeguard project stopped

"I placed 44 calls to Zapf’s office. She refused to speak on the issue."

South Mission Beach lifeguard station
South Mission Beach lifeguard station

A group of Mission Beach residents fighting against unpermitted construction of a new lifeguard tower near the Mission Beach Jetty has raised the $250,000 bond needed to stop the project until a court trial can take place.

Judge Katherine Bacal

On October 2, the group known as Citizens for Beach Rights submitted the bond money to Superior Court judge Katherine Bacal. Stopping construction, says the group's leader, Ken Giavara, was essential in order to strip a possible legal defense by the city that the project was too far along to stop.

Because the city had already hired contractor EC Constructors, and because construction had already begun, Bacal had ordered the beach-rights group to post a $250,000 bond to pay for lost revenues by the construction company in case residents lost the case. Attorney Craig Sherman tried to reduce the bond but to no avail.

Giavara assumed the high bond amount would prove to be the end of the case. The bar is set high for judges when ordering removal of new construction. Typically, the more money spent on construction, the harder the case is to win.

But Giavara's doubts were eased when residents and members of the group began pledging large amounts of money to pay for the bond.

"The fact that private citizens have to pay a bond to prove to the city that their own permit is void is just mind-boggling," says Giavara. "When the bond was set at $250,000 we had to dig in even deeper and really demonstrate our commitment to not only protect our rights but to protect the rights of every citizen in San Diego.

"It was not easy to come up with that amount of money for the bond — it was actually incredibly difficult but it was a necessity. We couldn't allow the city to win this case based on the bond issue and have the case decided on the merits of the lawsuit, which we believe are clearly on our side....

Lorie Zapf

"We are fine with building something reasonable, a state-of-the-art station," continues Giavara. "But our ultimate goal is bring it back to the public. The reason permits have expiration dates is because neighborhoods change, zoning laws change, environmental laws change, and technology changes. A lot has changed since they got this permit seven years ago.

"I’m most disappointed with Lorie Zapf’s office. I placed 44 calls to Zapf’s office. She refused to speak on the issue. This whole thing could have been avoided. The city was even given a chance to settle and they refused. Now that the bond has been paid a trial will occur. Legal fees will have to be paid. Talk about taxpayer waste..."

Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all

Previous article

Brackett and Wilder go to Hollywood

The pair collaborated on 14 pictures together
Next Article

Behind the swastikas in Santee

Dustin Hart from Alpine touched a sensitive spot
Comments
4

Disgraceful conduct by the City. disgraceful inaction by Zapf. It's disgusting that citizens have to put up $250,000 to be heard. It is very concerning that a judge would impose such a heavy bond. Good job by the beach rights people. Thank you and good luck!

Oct. 5, 2015

Do the "citizens" even know what they are talking about? It is not really all that difficult or expensive to run the plans through plan check again. Sounds like a lawyer drumming up a job out of nothing by inciting a mob and stopping progress, again. If they got their permit 7 years ago, why were they not required to obtain extensions? Why did it take so long to start the project? Previous lawsuits? The codes and zoning laws have not changed much in the past 7 years, so what's the real story?

Oct. 6, 2015

Yes Mr. Powell. I would imagine the residents and private citizens who fronted the money for a quarter of a million dollar bond- that they would forfeit if their case was lost- know what they were getting into and know what they are talking about. Please note the article referenced "residents" and citizens. The fact that residents of the area are involved is significant to me. I'm not a betting man but I would guess these residents and private citizens are the same ones who funded fire pits in south mission when the city wanted to remove them because of budgets restraints.

All of your other questions posed were answered in the article except for "previous lawsuits?" and your final question. I'm not sure if there were previous lawsuits nor am I sure what exactly you are trying to ask with those two words?

For your last question asking what the "real story" is, it is this: There is no excuse for the city not following their own rules. That's the bottom line. That's why the judge gave the opportunity for residents to front a $250k bond, and probably why the citizens are willing to put up that kind of money. What the city is doing, for lack of a better word, is sneaky. I personally expect more than dishonesty and good team of lawyers from my local government. The government institution (not sure which one it is because there are so many) is building based on an expired permit and the building is larger than what was agreed upon in the original permit. And they continued to build, without a valid permit, in an effort to put more pressure on the judge to rule in their favor, according to this article. That's not right and it sounds almost criminal (I'm not a prosecutor or an attorney). Those residents should be applauded for holding the local government to the same standards it holds its citizens/residents/subjects (however one wants to call "we the people"). If you are a homeowner of a permitted residence, I'm sure you would appreciate the Idea that government buildings need to be permitted as well. As stated in the article, the residents are all for a permitted state of the art lifeguard station. I think it's a shame it has to go to court but I'd say it has been handled pretty reasonably by the citizens/residents considering what they were up against.

I also don't think attempting to build anything during an El Niño winter in south mission is wise at all. Does anyone remember the one from the late 90's? How much is that contractor going to have to pay his workers and subs when they can't work because the whole job site is literally underwater for days at a time?

Oct. 6, 2015

Over and over, projects get so far along that they cannot be reasonably interrupted or stopped for public input, and then that fact is the reason they are permitted to continue. The city and the municipal code are not well acquainted. Nobody is asking how this building helps lifeguards save lives. And by the way, how much is it project to cost? When these plans are "run through the plan check again" maybe there will be watchful eyes who compare them to the code requirements.

Oct. 6, 2015

Sign in to comment

Sign in

South Mission Beach lifeguard station
South Mission Beach lifeguard station

A group of Mission Beach residents fighting against unpermitted construction of a new lifeguard tower near the Mission Beach Jetty has raised the $250,000 bond needed to stop the project until a court trial can take place.

Judge Katherine Bacal

On October 2, the group known as Citizens for Beach Rights submitted the bond money to Superior Court judge Katherine Bacal. Stopping construction, says the group's leader, Ken Giavara, was essential in order to strip a possible legal defense by the city that the project was too far along to stop.

Because the city had already hired contractor EC Constructors, and because construction had already begun, Bacal had ordered the beach-rights group to post a $250,000 bond to pay for lost revenues by the construction company in case residents lost the case. Attorney Craig Sherman tried to reduce the bond but to no avail.

Giavara assumed the high bond amount would prove to be the end of the case. The bar is set high for judges when ordering removal of new construction. Typically, the more money spent on construction, the harder the case is to win.

But Giavara's doubts were eased when residents and members of the group began pledging large amounts of money to pay for the bond.

"The fact that private citizens have to pay a bond to prove to the city that their own permit is void is just mind-boggling," says Giavara. "When the bond was set at $250,000 we had to dig in even deeper and really demonstrate our commitment to not only protect our rights but to protect the rights of every citizen in San Diego.

"It was not easy to come up with that amount of money for the bond — it was actually incredibly difficult but it was a necessity. We couldn't allow the city to win this case based on the bond issue and have the case decided on the merits of the lawsuit, which we believe are clearly on our side....

Lorie Zapf

"We are fine with building something reasonable, a state-of-the-art station," continues Giavara. "But our ultimate goal is bring it back to the public. The reason permits have expiration dates is because neighborhoods change, zoning laws change, environmental laws change, and technology changes. A lot has changed since they got this permit seven years ago.

"I’m most disappointed with Lorie Zapf’s office. I placed 44 calls to Zapf’s office. She refused to speak on the issue. This whole thing could have been avoided. The city was even given a chance to settle and they refused. Now that the bond has been paid a trial will occur. Legal fees will have to be paid. Talk about taxpayer waste..."

Sponsored
Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all
Previous article

Will Carlsbad's State Street go pedestrian-only?

Restaurants hope yes, retail hopes no
Next Article

San Diegans head to Phoenix

Reverse Zonies
Comments
4

Disgraceful conduct by the City. disgraceful inaction by Zapf. It's disgusting that citizens have to put up $250,000 to be heard. It is very concerning that a judge would impose such a heavy bond. Good job by the beach rights people. Thank you and good luck!

Oct. 5, 2015

Do the "citizens" even know what they are talking about? It is not really all that difficult or expensive to run the plans through plan check again. Sounds like a lawyer drumming up a job out of nothing by inciting a mob and stopping progress, again. If they got their permit 7 years ago, why were they not required to obtain extensions? Why did it take so long to start the project? Previous lawsuits? The codes and zoning laws have not changed much in the past 7 years, so what's the real story?

Oct. 6, 2015

Yes Mr. Powell. I would imagine the residents and private citizens who fronted the money for a quarter of a million dollar bond- that they would forfeit if their case was lost- know what they were getting into and know what they are talking about. Please note the article referenced "residents" and citizens. The fact that residents of the area are involved is significant to me. I'm not a betting man but I would guess these residents and private citizens are the same ones who funded fire pits in south mission when the city wanted to remove them because of budgets restraints.

All of your other questions posed were answered in the article except for "previous lawsuits?" and your final question. I'm not sure if there were previous lawsuits nor am I sure what exactly you are trying to ask with those two words?

For your last question asking what the "real story" is, it is this: There is no excuse for the city not following their own rules. That's the bottom line. That's why the judge gave the opportunity for residents to front a $250k bond, and probably why the citizens are willing to put up that kind of money. What the city is doing, for lack of a better word, is sneaky. I personally expect more than dishonesty and good team of lawyers from my local government. The government institution (not sure which one it is because there are so many) is building based on an expired permit and the building is larger than what was agreed upon in the original permit. And they continued to build, without a valid permit, in an effort to put more pressure on the judge to rule in their favor, according to this article. That's not right and it sounds almost criminal (I'm not a prosecutor or an attorney). Those residents should be applauded for holding the local government to the same standards it holds its citizens/residents/subjects (however one wants to call "we the people"). If you are a homeowner of a permitted residence, I'm sure you would appreciate the Idea that government buildings need to be permitted as well. As stated in the article, the residents are all for a permitted state of the art lifeguard station. I think it's a shame it has to go to court but I'd say it has been handled pretty reasonably by the citizens/residents considering what they were up against.

I also don't think attempting to build anything during an El Niño winter in south mission is wise at all. Does anyone remember the one from the late 90's? How much is that contractor going to have to pay his workers and subs when they can't work because the whole job site is literally underwater for days at a time?

Oct. 6, 2015

Over and over, projects get so far along that they cannot be reasonably interrupted or stopped for public input, and then that fact is the reason they are permitted to continue. The city and the municipal code are not well acquainted. Nobody is asking how this building helps lifeguards save lives. And by the way, how much is it project to cost? When these plans are "run through the plan check again" maybe there will be watchful eyes who compare them to the code requirements.

Oct. 6, 2015

Sign in to comment

Sign in

Art Reviews — W.S. Di Piero's eye on exhibits Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Best Buys — San Diego shopping Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits City Lights — News and politics Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Famous Former Neighbors — Next-door celebs Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town Here's the Deal — Chad Deal's watering holes Just Announced — The scoop on shows Letters — Our inbox [email protected] — Local movie buffs share favorites Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news News Ticker — News & politics Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated Of Note — Concert picks Out & About — What's Happening Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Pour Over — Grab a cup Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers Reading — The hunt for intellectuals Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails San Diego Beer News — Inside San Diego suds SD on the QT — Almost factual news Set 'em Up Joe — Bartenders' drink recipes Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Sports — Athletics without gush Street Style — San Diego streets have style Suit Up — Fashion tips for dudes Theater Reviews — Local productions Theater antireviews — Narrow your search Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads Waterfront — All things ocean Your Week — Daily event picks
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs
Close