4720 Edgeware Road - In the shade during the weeks before and after the winter solstice...
21. You’ve been reviewing the update to the General Plan. Two goals stated in that update are: to
Direct
growth into commercial areas where a high level of activity already
exists; and Preserve stable residential neighborhoods. These goals
seem admirable and sensible to us. El Cajon Boulevard is the
appropriate location for a 50,000 square foot block long mixed-use
commercial/office/residential mall complex. Not the backyard of a
one-of-a-kind California bungalow in a walkable, stable, historic
neighborhood.
It is unfortunate that the goals of the
developers are to bring growth to a neighborhood that not only has no
room to grow, but no need to grow, to bring job opportunities to a
neighborhood with virtually no unemployment and a median income of
$88,000, to bring a “first of its kind” development to a stable model of
an urban village that enjoys its quirky Route 66-era commercial center.
22. Back to the Municipal Code. CU-3-3 is intended to accommodate development with
a pedestrian orientation
and medium-high density residential use. Where is the medium-high
density residential use in this project? What we have is a large
retail/office complex with some token residential dropped on top. In
order to approve a Planned Development Permit, you must consider
whether the proposed development,
when considered as a whole, will be
beneficial
to the community, and any proposed deviations are appropriate for this
location, and will result in a more desirable project than would be
achieved if designed in strict conformance with the development
regulations of the applicable zone.
Based on the predominant
characteristics of the surrounding area, it would be inappropriate to
grant the height variance to allow development over 30 feet on the 60%
of the site zoned CN-1-3. And despite the allowable height of 50 feet
on the CU-3-3 portion, it is within the discretion of this body to
decide at a later date that it would be inappropriate to build at that
height in this community, given the characteristics of the surrounding
area.
23. One last note, for the record. It is the opinion of Dr.
Michael Simpson and Matt Guilliams, a grad student in Dr. Simpson’s
Plant Systematics program in the Department of Biology at San Diego
State University, that the Red Ironbark Eucalyptus in the front yard of
4166 Adams Avenue could be as old as the house, which is 84 years old,
and is at least 75 years old. According to the City of San Diego
Conserve-A-Tree Urban Forestry criteria, the age of this tree qualifies
it as a Heritage Tree, significant for its age. [To get a firm age
would require coring the tree and counting the rings.]
24.
Inexplicably, in the Initial Study the analyst checked ‘No’ in response
to the question, “Will the proposal result in the loss of any
distinctive or landmark trees?”
25. Finally, I join my neighbors
in asking that you Do Not Certify Mitigated Negative Declaration Number
105244, and that you Deny the Planned Development Permit Number 360181
and Vesting Tentative Map Number 360180. Thank you.