2662 Garnet Ave., future site of a 60 foot, 4-5 story apartment building in Pacific Beach?
By Paul Krueger
I responded to last week’s Union-Tribune story about the state’s approval of a 60-foot tall apartment building [at 2662 Garnet] in San Diego’s coastal area in a letter-to-the-editor which was published in today’s SDU-T (and posted below). My response was also to the Union Tribune Editorial in support of local coast zone apartments published on Sunday.
My response outlines what I assume are shared concerns about the precedent that would be set by this new construction of a 4 to 5 story building.
Should the state succeed in overriding coastal area protections enshrined into municipal law 50 years ago by San Diego voters, local coastal area protections throughout the state could be similarly jeopardized.
I’m hoping you will take just a few minutes to read my response, and, if appropriate, consider a course of action that could perhaps lead to community hearings, local government appeals, and/or a legal challenge to the state’s effort to override local, voter-approved, coastal area height restrictions.
Paul Krueger letter-to-the-editor:
“Local Project May Mark New Era in Housing”
San Diego needs more housing, especially for our low-, very-low, and homeless residents.
But plans for a 60-foot-high apartment complex in Pacific Beach should be subject to vigorous public debate and, if appropriate, a legal challenge.
That’s because the project is west of Interstate 5, in an area specifically protected from high-rise construction.
In 1972, San Diego voters approved a 30-foot high limit in that and other areas west of the 5.
Our successful effort to prevent “Miami Beach” style high-rises is separate from the state Coastal Act and reflects our commitment to preserving sight lines and human-scale construction near our beaches and bay.
Now, a state agency unilaterally claims these protections must yield to developers’ plans for multi-story, low-income housing. Our city “planning” director also thinks it’s a great idea.
But we must insist on public hearings, a legal determination, and/or voter-approved waivers before gutting our landmark coastal protections.
{ 0 comments… add one now }