“Clairemont Engaged” Is The City’s Attempt To Bust Our 30Ft Height Limit

What We Need To Do Next To Protect It
The Online Tool was not a Free Trade of Ideas
Engaged Was Flawed From The Beginning

I’ve had my ear to the ground for over five years listening to homeowners and tenants and I think I have a pretty good idea of what they want for the future of  Clairemont, Bay Park, Bay Ho and Overlook Heights.

The City Planning Dept has been completely deaf to us for the same five years during the drafting of the MCSP.  The deafness comes from being full of their own agenda.

The defeat of sb50, yesterday, signaled the will of the majority of the people of the State of California.  We don’t want our single-family neighborhoods destroyed by allowing multi-family units to be built in the middle of them, and we don’t want luxury towers planted around transit.

And we definitely don’t want the State of California to make our local planning decisions for us.

And we’re not buying the argument that we need to “take on our fair share” of huge increases of density in the name of affordable housing because none will be built near the new trolley stations.

I didn’t expect, when I began representing our communities as a member of the MCSP Subcommittee five years ago, that City Planners would miraculously regain their hearing. I don’t expect that they will listen to us today.

Clairemont Engaged, the latest attempt by the Planning Dept to force their own version of sb50 on our communities, was flawed from the day it was released. It is flawed because it was not a free trade of ideasbetween the planning dept and the community.

It began with assumptions that overrode the will of the people of our communities.

It assumed we acceptedthe different base amounts of density, that those who used the “Tool”, were to place in several predetermined locations of our Plan Areas.  Itassumed we would be willing to take on any density without the guarantee that upgrades to our infrastructure, added necessary city services and quantifiable affordable housing would be built on-site at the predetermined locations.

None of those necessary guarantees have been made to us. Until they are, we should pushback any attempt to take on any more density than our current Community Plan allows until the guarantees are in writing from the planning department and the city council.

Because of the lack of the upfront guarantees, many of us elected toboycott Clairemont Engagedaltogether,  so that it’s results wouldn’t be construed as a confirmation of the will of the community.

The first pushback needs to be done with a concerted effort by all of our residents  who are unwilling to allow the 30ft height limit to be busted at this time.

The next meeting of the Clairemont Community Plan Update Subcommittee, which will take up the Land Use (Height & Density)recommendations, is where community will is recorded through the use of pubic discussion before a vote by the CPG is officially taken.

We will send an email alert to you once the date and location are confirmed.

Quit Expecting Planning Group Members To Vote The Will Of The Community

Believe it or not, there is nothing in the city council’s planning group rules that require planning group members to vote the will of the community. They are merely to be a composite of, as diverse as possible, a representative swath of the community’s residents and businesses.

Each sitting planning group member has their own agenda, just as each of us have our own opinion.  Some serve on the voluntary boards out of dedication to their community, true public servants.

But seats on planning groups are notorious as opportunity for members of the professional planning services, such as architects, former city planners, entitlement consultants, etc., to display their expertise to their current or future employers.

That is not a reason to demonize them.  On the contrary, they can bring special expertise to the table that the community lacks. Most recuse themselves from votes on projects that they knowingly will benefit directly or indirectly from.

Trying to determine a member’s motive is a waste of time.  Trying to convince a member against their will, is fruitless.

Some recent seat appointments of YIMBYs in some of San Diego’s Community Planning Groups (GPGs) were an organized effort to take control of planning group decisions. That is an unfortunate, but rule-allowing practice.

Community members must speak for themselves at the Planning Group Meetings if they want to be heard.  So, determining the will of the community is not a process of influencing individual planning group members to vote our way.  It is  more about the community coming out in numbers to the planning groups to voice their own opinions.

Hopefully, the true public servants will relinquish their personal will to what they believe the majority of voices want.  Without the community there to speak, how will these membersjustify their votes?

The Land Use (Density and Height) portions of the Morena Plan were discussed at Monday’s meeting of the Clairemont Community Plan Update. Only a handful of community members were present.  Consequently, some planning group members unabashedlyvoted in favor of increasing density and busting the 30 Ft height limit.

Fortunately, that meeting had to be continued because of time constraints and there will be another meeting of the Land Use Committee to finalize height limits and density in the update of the Clairemont Community Plan within 10 days.

We will send out an email alert to you once we have the date and location confirmed.

We need to gather every friend and neighbor to come to the meeting, so that we can protect the 30ft height limit until the city council  provides (in writing) the guarantees that the infrastructure upgrading and added city services will be provided at the time any project is approved by city planning, before any new additional density is accepted by us.

Please come stand up and be counted at that meeting.


Leave a Reply

Call Now ButtonCall Senator Toni Atkins Now