How to Measure the 30 Foot Height Limit in Ocean Beach and Point Loma

Portugal Place, October 2014

Originally posted June 29, 2015

Editor: At a recent Ocean Beach Planning Board meeting, there was some genuine confusion over just how the 30 foot height limit is measured on a building within the coastal zone, particularly if the building is on a slope or is partially below “grade”.

The following is an instructive discourse on how to actually do that sacred measurement by Geoff Page, a former long-term member of the Peninsula Community Planning Board. Page ended up in a dispute with the San Diego city’s planning department, called the Development Services Department, over the height on a building on Avenida de Portugal over on the east side of the Peninsula.

By Geoff Page

There continues to be confusion as to how to measure a building so that it conforms to the 30-foot height limit.  I thought I had a pretty good idea of how this was calculated but learned some things had changed.

I also learned that the Development Services Department (DSD) has started using a twisted interpretation that resulted in a building on Avenida de Portugal being 36 feet high.

I would like to explain what I have learned about how height is to be measured.  There are three issues.

The first issue is the question of where on a lot the measurement is taken from.  The second issue is wording that the City has brought into the measurement language.

The third issue is the worst one, allowing measurement from future structures on a site, not existing conditions.

Where to Measure From?

The first issue boils down to the question of whether you measure from the low point on a lot or the high point on a lot. In the past, the measurement was taken from the low point on a lot. A building on a slope, for example, had to step back up the slope so that no part of the building exceeded the 30-foot height limit.

In the 7th update of the Municipal Code (MC), the language was changed to bring it more in line with what the 1970 Coastal Height Limit Proposition D actually required. The language in Prop D was simple and clear. It merely stated that building height was to be measured according to the 1970 Unified Building Code (UBC).

Here is what the 1970 UBC said:

Paragraph One, Section 507

The height shall be measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface, provided that the height measured from the lowest adjoining surface shall not exceed such maximum height by more than 10 feet.

Note that the language says “from the highest…”

By adhering strictly to this language, a building could be 40 feet tall at the bottom of a slope as long as it did not exceed 30 feet at the top of the slope. A 10-foot maximum elevation change was included in the language.

It appeared that the City’s MC had actually added enhancements to the height limit by measuring from the low point and requiring the stepping up pattern. What the 7th update did was to remove those enhancements.

This still seems to be one of the points of confusion but I have to agree that Prop D is being adhered to in this interpretation, the measurement is taken from the highest, not the lowest, point adjacent to the structure.

City Stretching and Mixing Definitions

I’ll use the City’s own words for this. The project on Avenida de Portugal sparked an email discussion I had with the DSD. The City allowed a new building’s height to be measured from the level of dirt in new planters, several feet deep, that were to be built around the new structure.

The building was able to be constructed five to six feet higher than it should have been. Here is how the DSD responded when I asked how the City determined the height for the building on Avenida de Portugal – from Bill Teachworth, a structural engineer with the city:

Based on prop D the building height is measured to finished grade which is defined as the lowest point between the face of the building and the property line.

If the property line is more than 5 feet away from the face of the building, than grade is defined as the lowest point between the face of the building and a point 5 feet away from the building. Because of that definition, prop D allows building retaining walls around the building to establish finished grade. (My emphasis.)

It is depressing to deal with the people who make these decisions at the DSD because they make it clear they are either wrong in their interpretation of the MC or are intentionally misrepresenting it. Neither Prop D nor the 1970 UBC made any mention of “finished grade.”

And, “finished grade” is not defined as “the lowest point between the face of the building and the property line.” The 1970 UBC does not have a definition for “finished grade.”

Then, the City’s representative made the incongruous leap to say that because of that incorrect interpretation, Prop D allowed grade to be established from retaining walls around the building. The glaring flaw in that statement was that planters are not retaining walls. Just to be clear for everyone, retaining walls “retain” earth behind them and support significant weight. Planters “contain” earth, dirt is placed in structures that are not classified as retaining walls.

Here is what the first sentence of Chapter 11, Article 3, Division 2, (D) (ii) on page 43 of the MC states:

(ii) The base measurement shall be taken from the finished grade in accordance with the 1970 Uniform Building Code.

This introduction of the wording “finished grade” is incorrect because, as I have shown, the UBC did not state “finished grade.”  However, the following sentence in this MC section matched the 1970 UBC exactly:

The height shall be measured from the highest adjoining sidewalk or ground surface within 5 feet of the structure, provided the height measured from the lowest adjoining surface shall not exceed such maximum height by more than 10 feet.

So, why was the City so hung up on “finished grade?” Because, they then made the leap of logic to say that finished grade only meant future finished grade, allowing them to use planters that they completely incorrectly referred to as retaining walls. What a string of tortured logic.

Allowing Use of Future Structure to Measure Height

I then asked the City where Prop D or the Municipal Code allowed a determination of height based on future construction and here was that response:

Prop D requires applicant to measure height from finished grade. Hence, if applicant build a retaining wall around the building, grade is considered the finished soil’s level. Please see our previous correspondence that was sent from Mr. Teachworth explaining how prop D works.

Thanks, Nabil Chehhade

Now, depressingly, here is a different City representative repeating incorrectly that Prop D required measurement from “finished grade” and compounding that by stating the grade could be measured from the soil inside a retaining wall the applicant built around the building. Both glaring errors and it was a planter, not a retaining wall.

I responded that this was an incorrect interpretation of the 1970 UBC, that the measurement was to be made from existing ground, and I received a response that included this:

There is nowhere in the definition of grade the 1970 requires measurement to be taken from the existing surface, it is alwas the finished surface.

Respectfully, Nabil Chehade

First, I repeat, the UBC never said “finished surface.” Second, the City took the position that only a future finished surface qualified as a finished surface and existing grade did not. The 1970 UBC said to measure to an “adjoining sidewalk or ground surface.”

What the City is blatantly ignoring is that the 30-foot height limit is a design limit intended for use as a building is designed for an existing site. The City is now saying that the design can determine the height, which is the old cart before the horse simile. It makes no sense.

It appears to me that the City is pulling what looks like a thin thread between definitions that really don’t matter because the language already discussed is enough.

Here is the thread.

The 1970 UBC’s definition of “Height of a Building” states:

Height of Building is the vertical distance from the “Grade” to the highest point of the coping of a flat roof or to the deck line of a mansard roof or to the average height of the highest gable of a pitch or hip roof.

Then, 1970 UBC’s defined “Grade” as:

Grade (Adjacent Ground Elevation) is the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building and a point 5 feet distant from said wall, or the lowest point of elevation of the finished surface of the ground between the exterior wall of a building, and the property line if it is less than 5 feet distant from said wall.

From “Height of a Building” to “Grade” to “finished surface” language. How the hell the City gets the position that “finished surface” only means the future finished surface is a mystery.

To conclude, the biggest issue facing us all is the idea that a building’s height can be measured by the design and not by existing conditions. Every design that can will include a way to raise existing grade in order to push buildings ever higher. This is truly disturbing.