More on Controversial Froude Project: Statement by Jarvis Ross at Planning Commission

The current house at 2257 Froude. An American flag flutters outside but no one lives there.

Editor: The following are prepared remarks made by Jarvis Ross before the San Diego Planning Commission on May 26 on the issue of the controversial Froude Street project. Ross is, a member of the Peninsula Community Planning Board for 15 years.  The project is slated for 2257 Froude.

Statement by Jarvis Ross

Planning Commission Chairman Haase and Commissioners I am Jarvis Ross and had been a member of the Peninsula Community Planning Board excepting term limits from the year 2000 until March of this year.

While I was on the board the Froude Street project was opposed by the Peninsula Planning Board, nearby residents and Ocean Beach Property owners backing up to the South side of Froude Street.

On pages 12 and 15 of the print version of the Peninsula Community Plan it states under Overall Community Goals:

1)     Conserve character of existing single family neighborhoods. (This project would open the door to destroying the existing character of the neighborhood.)
2)     Promote multifamily infill in areas proximate to transit lines. (The closest MTS route 35 bus stop is five blocks from the proposed project.)
3)     Reduce traffic congestion. (This project would increase traffic congestion.)
4)     Maintain and complement the existing scale, architectural features and vegetation in the Peninsula. (This project violates all of that.)

The wording and illustrations in the 1987 Peninsula Community Plan clearly states that the proposed project of two two story multifamily dwellings does not conform to the community plan.

In the Peninsula Community Plan Figure 28 one illustration clearly indicates that unity is provided by orientation of houses to each other and the use of related shapes. Beneath that row the second illustration shows a clash of shape and scale invoke chaos and restlessness. This project would fit in the unacceptable second row.

On page 108 of the printed version under objectives it states, “Maintain the existing scale and character of the residential areas of the Peninsula.

On page 110 of the printed version under building scale it states, “New development should be consistent with the scale and character of the existing development of the surrounding areas.” This project does not.

One obvious problem is the map figure 5 does not conform to map figure 4 in erroneously showing large part of Froude street as multifamily. However whomever prepared this plan covered the error by stating on page 12 that map figure 5 ,”does not by itself constitute the Community Plan.

Clearly the overall text in the existing Peninsula Community Plan supports the Peninsula Planning Board and the appeal that this project does not belong on Froude Street.