It could very well be back to square one for a public lifeguard tower project in Mission Beach that has already been more than a decade in the making.
Superior Court Judge Katherine Bacal recently sided with Ken Giavara and a group of neighbors in Mission Beach known as Citizens For Beach Rights (CFBR), which has challenged a new, bigger lifeguard tower on south Mission Beach first proposed in 2002.
The group is contending that the new proposed lifeguard tower is the wrong size and in the wrong place and has been shepherded through the city’s project-approval process without the proper permitting.
As currently proposed, a three-story, 3,800-square-foot tower with a first-aid station, vehicle bay, administrative offices and two observation decks would replace a 900-square-foot wooden structure built in the 1970s.
When originally proposed in 2002, the lifeguard tower project was budgeted to cost $1.1 million. That price tag has mushroomed in 14 years to just under $5 million due to delays and issues such as erosion control.
Following a Nov. 18 bench trial, Bacal sided with Citizens For Beach Rights, agreeing that a Site Development Permit (SDP) for the South Mission Beach Lifeguard Station “is void and, thus, no construction can occur under its SDP.”
The city has argued that “the SDP has not expired and that, even if it had expired, that [the rights group’s] action (a lawsuit) was barred by a statute of limitations.”
The city on Jan. 22 filed an appeal of Bacal’s decision.
“The City’s arguments will be made to the court,” said Gerry Braun, director of communications for the City Attorney’s Office.
“The SDP issued in 2006 expired in 2009,” said Giavara, who pointed out, “This is 2016. The water level is way higher. Technology has changed. You can build these things smaller now. When a permit expires, you have to go and get it renewed.”
Construction on the new South Mission Beach Lifeguard Station was temporarily halted after the summer construction moratorium ended on Labor Day in 2015, after the Superior Court issued a preliminary court injunction restricting the city from beginning construction.
San Diego Lifeguard chief Rick Wurts, speaking on the city’s behalf, argued in court that the new planned lifeguard tower was designed to minimize the impact to public views, contending the project was reviewed and approved by the San Diego City Council, which followed proper public noticing standards.
Giavara countered that, in his view, that’s simply not true. “This project was never vetted; people weren’t properly notified through the proper legal channels,” he said. “We never even heard about this project until they started doing the construction.”
Giavara said the beach rights group has “never been against a new lifeguard tower.
“We are for a nice, sleek, top-of-the-line tower,” he said, “that is not going to be affected by flooding.”
Giavara said the city has spent “thousands of dollars to construct a 12-foot-high, 300-yard-long berm to protect the unfinished south Mission Beach tower, which has already been flooded out by the most recent storm.
“You don’t need a 4,000-foot command center in the middle of the beach that’s going to be underwater,” he said, adding that “they (lifeguards) have a 4,000-foot tower in Belmont, a 4,000-foot tower at the end of Garnet and a 4,000-foot tower (proposed) on Law Street (in PB). That’s 16,000 square feet of lifeguard stations in a 2.5-mile stretch. Nowhere in the world is that done.”
“Hopefully, the city will be successful on appeal,” said Ed Harris, former District 2 councilmember, who has returned to his position as a San Diego Lifeguard sergeant.
Discussing why lifeguard towers have become more controversial of late in the public’s view, Harris said, “We’re seeing people being more protective of their view corridors,” he said.
Of the delays that continue to plague the South Mission Beach lifeguard tower project, Harris said, “It’s a shame. We hope it’s not going to set a precedent that will allow us (city) to ignore public safety.”