Mission Beach residents wearing white T-shirts with the message “Save the tree, make a park” and carrying protest signs turned out April 4 to march against the current plans to redevelop the former Mission Beach Elementary School site at 818 Santa Barbara Place. The project, previously approved by the city Planning Commission, goes before San Diego City Council on appeal for review at 2 p.m. Monday, April 11.
“The Mission Beach residences/Santa Barbara residences is now considered a ‘quasi-judicial’ matter under state law. Under the law, members of the City Council are prohibited from expressing support for or opposition to land use matters under consideration,” said Donna Cleary, spokesperson for District 2 Councilwoman Lorie Zapf. Closed in 1996 because of declining attendance, the former school and its 2.23 acres of prime coastal real estate were sold at auction by San Diego Unified School District (SDUSD) for $18.5 million in May 2013 to the highest bidder, developers McKellar-Ashbrook LLC of La Jolla. The former school site, among others, was sold by SDUSD to help offset a school district operating budget shortfall.
McKellar McGowan is proposing a total of 20 buildings housing 63 individual units in a mix of duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes and one single-family residence on the site.
About 25 members of an ad hoc group known as Mission Beach Community for Responsible Development, wearing their “Save the tree” shirts (a ficus proposed to be eliminated), came out to make a statement.
“We’re not opposed to development,” said Brian McCarthy. “We’re in favor of development. But we want this development to abide by the Planned District Ordinance for Mission Beach. As they’ve proposed it, it does not.”
Andy Chotiner, characterizing developers’ plans as “an end-run around the community right through the city planning department,” said the project’s proposed park needs to be reconfigured.
“They’re supposed to have a .35-acre, open-space community park,” Chotiner said. “What they’ve done is taken a small strip along the (Mission) Boulevard, which is divided by a court and an alley. It is a buffer for the development. It has nothing to do with the park.”
For Vicki Moyer, who lives on Jamaica Court, one issue about the project stands out. “This is going to exacerbate problems with parking,” she said.
Financial planner Torrey Merriel, a 10-year Mission Beach resident, agreed. “I now have to park three nights a week in Pacific Beach because there is no parking at all,” he said. “Imagine what it’s going to be like when they put in 63 (more) units taking away 35 public (parking) spots when there’s no parking now.”
Stan Zahrt was at the rally because he said his home is surrounded on two sides by the proposed development.
“Their park is supposed to be a certain size and they’ve finagled with that,” he said. “We’re (also) trying to save the (ficus) tree, too.”
“They have two parking spaces for everyone, but where will all their guests park?” asked Zahrt’s wife, Vicky.
Gary Wonacott, vice president of Mission Beach Town Council, said the project’s traffic analysis in its environmental report is inadequate.
“They did their analysis on two days in February and March,” said Wonacott, noting the beach community’s traffic volumes grow by 30 percent during the busy summer tourist season. “They’re misrepresenting and underestimating our (traffic) baseline conditions,” Wonacott added.
Of their project, McKellar McGowan said: “We frequently hear from members of the community how excited they are that we’re replacing this abandoned school site with beautiful homes and a public park, as well as opening up three new paths of travel between Mission Boulevard and the bay. While no major project is completely without opposition, we’re proud to have taken every possible measure to ensure this redevelopment will have a positive impact on Mission Beach and on our city. City planning staff found the project in compliance with the governing rules for the area, and the Planning Commission agreed when it gave its unanimous approval.”
Concerning the ficus tree and the public park, McKellar McGowan said, “Saving the large ficus tree wasn’t an option, unfortunately, as it was deemed dangerous by an arborist. The city told the developer how large the park would need to be, and the proposed park is that size.”
Chotiner said the project would be acceptable if developers did two things.
“Modify the lot sizes to make them in accordance with the Planned District Ordinance,” he said. “And put the right-size park in there. Do those two things – and it’s done.”