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

Development Services Dept. in service to developers

"I think we've been had," says Point Loma resident

Development Services Director Vacchi at the October city council hearing.
Development Services Director Vacchi at the October city council hearing.

On November 15, three Point Loma residents contacted me after the city council voted on a proposed municipal code change. The change is in the form of a footnote touted as closing an alleged loophole that has allowed developers to exceed the 30-foot coastal overlay height limit — in direct opposition to the will of the voters who instituted 1972’s Proposition D. One resident said, "I think we've been had."

Geoff Page, former chair of the Peninsula community planning board, was far more emphatic. In fact, Page sent a letter protesting the change to the planning commission in September and the city council in October and November, before each heard the issue.

The council's November 15 vote to add this footnote that "changed nothing in the actual measurement section and only refers to existing code.”

“The real purpose for the proposed change is to let the Development Services Department off the hook for projects it incorrectly approved that exceeded 30 feet,” said Page. “The footnote merely points to the existing municipal code section that says properties within the area of Proposition D must not exceed the coastal height limit....

“The footnote makes it look like there is a new requirement, but it’s not saying anything that isn’t already there currently. Development services convinced everyone that the code was deficient when in fact the problem was that they incorrectly read the code.”

Bring in the fill dirt: the footnote directs builders to this section, which provides a loophole to add up to ten feet of height to a structure.

Page isn’t alone in his views: a current planning-group member said in September that the proposed amendment could have the result of validating the approach that was used on the Emerson and Evergreen project.

The Development Services Department took the time to answer a few questions via email. Page was then given a chance to respond.

How will the proposed footnote change the current process? Development Services responded, “The footnote changes the base zone height to 30 feet in certain areas, thereby requiring the stricter base zone height calculation.”

Page countered, “Nothing in the measurement section was changed — that is the key to this charade. The footnote changed nothing in the actual measurement section and only refers to existing code.”

Will the proposed new language do anything beyond referring developers to the measurement section? Development Services responded, “It reduces zoning height to 30 feet in specified zones that are within the coastal height limit overlay zone and the Peninsula community plan area.”

Page countered, “Again, the footnote doesn’t change the code, it simply refers to another already existing section.”

Was the impetus for this change to avoid litigation or to quell public uproar? Developmental Services responded, “No. The city made a change in the base zone height limit in response to community concerns about coastal height limit.”

Page countered, “Community concerns were the public uproar.”

Will Development Services continue to approve projects allowing builders to measure from a higher manufactured grade until the ordinance is officially certified? Development Services responded, “Yes.”

Will there possibly be more buildings permitted that exceed the 30-foot height limit in the coastal overlay zone? Development services responded, “We cannot speculate on this.”

Page countered, “Development Services director Robert Vacchi mentioned looking at a half dozen projects at the October hearing. They could provide this information.”

I asked District 2 councilmember Lorie Zapf’s office to comment on her understanding of the change she voted on. Her office forwarded the question to Mayor Faulconer’s office. I asked the same question of other councilmembers and was consistently referred back to Zapf.

Councilman Alvarez voted for the footnote that only seems to exonerate Development Services of their poor enforcement of the 30-foot coastal height limit.

Councilmember David Alvarez was the only councilmember to vote against the ordinance in October and in favor on November 15. Before that "yes" vote, Alvarez said that Vacchi had met with him and clarified things. Alvarez didn't respond to a request to explain what Vacchi clarified.

The next stop for the municipal code change is the San Diego Regional Airport Authority and then the California Coastal Commission, each having jurisdictions for different areas in Point Loma.

Kyle Rodenbo from councilmember Mark Kersey’s office (Kersey is an airport authority member) said that this matter normally would have gone to the authority’s land-use commission before going to the city council, but was backward this time. According to him, it’s been submitted to authority staff and likely won’t go to the land-use commission. If it does, it will be within the next couple months. He said it’s just a formality, as there are no concerns of it not being certified.

Noaki Schwartz from the state coastal commission said a few factors will determine when they will see it. One being that the city is limited to three major amendments per calendar year — meaning the change may have to wait to be batched with other submittals.

If the commission changes the proposed language, it would go back to the city council to accept verbatim. If the city doesn’t accept the commission’s changes, the whole process would start over again.

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

Previous article

All stars rotate around Polaris

Home planet for the obscure and irrelevant
Next Article

A poem for Independence Day by Francis Scott Key

His poem “Defence of Fort McHenry” became the lyrics to “The Star-Spangled Banner”
Development Services Director Vacchi at the October city council hearing.
Development Services Director Vacchi at the October city council hearing.

On November 15, three Point Loma residents contacted me after the city council voted on a proposed municipal code change. The change is in the form of a footnote touted as closing an alleged loophole that has allowed developers to exceed the 30-foot coastal overlay height limit — in direct opposition to the will of the voters who instituted 1972’s Proposition D. One resident said, "I think we've been had."

Geoff Page, former chair of the Peninsula community planning board, was far more emphatic. In fact, Page sent a letter protesting the change to the planning commission in September and the city council in October and November, before each heard the issue.

The council's November 15 vote to add this footnote that "changed nothing in the actual measurement section and only refers to existing code.”

“The real purpose for the proposed change is to let the Development Services Department off the hook for projects it incorrectly approved that exceeded 30 feet,” said Page. “The footnote merely points to the existing municipal code section that says properties within the area of Proposition D must not exceed the coastal height limit....

“The footnote makes it look like there is a new requirement, but it’s not saying anything that isn’t already there currently. Development services convinced everyone that the code was deficient when in fact the problem was that they incorrectly read the code.”

Bring in the fill dirt: the footnote directs builders to this section, which provides a loophole to add up to ten feet of height to a structure.

Page isn’t alone in his views: a current planning-group member said in September that the proposed amendment could have the result of validating the approach that was used on the Emerson and Evergreen project.

The Development Services Department took the time to answer a few questions via email. Page was then given a chance to respond.

How will the proposed footnote change the current process? Development Services responded, “The footnote changes the base zone height to 30 feet in certain areas, thereby requiring the stricter base zone height calculation.”

Page countered, “Nothing in the measurement section was changed — that is the key to this charade. The footnote changed nothing in the actual measurement section and only refers to existing code.”

Will the proposed new language do anything beyond referring developers to the measurement section? Development Services responded, “It reduces zoning height to 30 feet in specified zones that are within the coastal height limit overlay zone and the Peninsula community plan area.”

Page countered, “Again, the footnote doesn’t change the code, it simply refers to another already existing section.”

Was the impetus for this change to avoid litigation or to quell public uproar? Developmental Services responded, “No. The city made a change in the base zone height limit in response to community concerns about coastal height limit.”

Page countered, “Community concerns were the public uproar.”

Will Development Services continue to approve projects allowing builders to measure from a higher manufactured grade until the ordinance is officially certified? Development Services responded, “Yes.”

Will there possibly be more buildings permitted that exceed the 30-foot height limit in the coastal overlay zone? Development services responded, “We cannot speculate on this.”

Page countered, “Development Services director Robert Vacchi mentioned looking at a half dozen projects at the October hearing. They could provide this information.”

I asked District 2 councilmember Lorie Zapf’s office to comment on her understanding of the change she voted on. Her office forwarded the question to Mayor Faulconer’s office. I asked the same question of other councilmembers and was consistently referred back to Zapf.

Councilman Alvarez voted for the footnote that only seems to exonerate Development Services of their poor enforcement of the 30-foot coastal height limit.

Councilmember David Alvarez was the only councilmember to vote against the ordinance in October and in favor on November 15. Before that "yes" vote, Alvarez said that Vacchi had met with him and clarified things. Alvarez didn't respond to a request to explain what Vacchi clarified.

The next stop for the municipal code change is the San Diego Regional Airport Authority and then the California Coastal Commission, each having jurisdictions for different areas in Point Loma.

Kyle Rodenbo from councilmember Mark Kersey’s office (Kersey is an airport authority member) said that this matter normally would have gone to the authority’s land-use commission before going to the city council, but was backward this time. According to him, it’s been submitted to authority staff and likely won’t go to the land-use commission. If it does, it will be within the next couple months. He said it’s just a formality, as there are no concerns of it not being certified.

Noaki Schwartz from the state coastal commission said a few factors will determine when they will see it. One being that the city is limited to three major amendments per calendar year — meaning the change may have to wait to be batched with other submittals.

If the commission changes the proposed language, it would go back to the city council to accept verbatim. If the city doesn’t accept the commission’s changes, the whole process would start over again.

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

"We had to get canning quickly"

In response to covid, these small brewers now offer beer in cans for the first time
Next Article

Nathan Fletcher's viral propaganda push

County supervisor to pack staff with video maker, social media star
Comments
5

Least humorous version of "Who's On First" in history. The question is simple: Will the city allow the 30' overlay height limit to be manipulated by building up lot heights, that is, by 'manufacturing grades'? At least when Abbott and Costello played word games, it was to entertain not defraud.

DSD staff and council members will continue to play word games rather than answer, because they hope to gain at least a year pretending not to hear the babysitter before the adults who run the Airport Authority and Coastal Commission get around to making them behave. But during this stolen time, their developer campaign contributors get to violate heights right and left.

The developers may think they're going to get away with this, but I have one word for them: Sunroad. It was forced by the FAA to lower its finished building after trusting the city's subsidized assurances, and had to eat the $40 million that it cost to lop off the top two floors when they tried unsuccessfully to sue the city for leading them astray.

They should remember, whores always tell their johns what they want to hear.

Nov. 28, 2016

Years ago there was an apartment complex on the east side of 805. The builder was three feet over the height limit and had to lower two of the buildings. I worked on that job and it almost bankrupt the developer.

Nov. 29, 2016

How many directors of land planning are in the city of San Diego government? How do they all tie in together? There is a director Murphy over Planning and director Vacchi over Development Services. Do they work together?

Nov. 28, 2016

The Planning Department was subsumed into Development Services as was Code Enforcement. Vacchi is the head of them all.

Nov. 29, 2016

I'm looking at thet picture of Vacchi and asking myself, "Would I buy a car from that man?" Guess what my answer it. We're told that you cannot judge folks by their facial structures, but I can't help but do that, and I'm usually right.

Nov. 29, 2016

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