At Peninsula Community Planning Board’s July meeting, planners grappled over approving a controversial proposal to put two single dwellings on two contiguous lots on Jennings Street, before deadlocking and taking no action following multiple motions.
The project at 3424 and 3434 Jennings Street was asking for a Coastal Development Permit to construct two single dwellings totaling 4,894 square feet on the two adjoining lots totaling 0.17 acres in Point Loma’s wooded area.
“We couldn’t find anything we could ‘go after’ based on our community plan,” said Mark Krencik of PCPB’s project review committee regarding the Jennings Street proposal.
Noting the controversial project was originally approved in 2009 and permitted in 2011, (an approval which expired in 2013), Krencik said the resubmit is for “a new and improved project.”
According to the San Diego Development Services Department, there have been five building permits filed at this property over the past six years.
Krencik pointed out both homes are three stories, adding the project site is designed for up to nine units per acre.
A couple of community members spoke out against the Jennings project, arguing its bulk and scale was too great, and that the project’s style would be out of character with the surrounding neighborhood.
One critic at the July 20 PCPB meeting argued the project, if passed, would “set a precedence we don’t want to see for the whole Peninsula community.”
Another opponent contended the project’s lot size would far exceed the percentage of lot coverage typical for that neighborhood.
Other neighbors suggested the project was dangerous because it would be built on a hillside with a history of mudslides.
“None of the neighbors want two homes built on these lots — they’re too small,” argued one critic summarizing opposition to it.
PCPB planner Robert Goldyn pointed out the community plan suggests that “lots that need to be merged, we need to take a look at it.”
Other points were raised both for and against the Jennings Street project. One person argued that, with projects similar to this one, “The intent has always been to merge these substandard lots.” Yet another neighbor countered they believed current zoning regulations “do not allow building on lots less than 5,000 feet.”
“I think the neighbors should be listened to,” said board member Jerry Lohla before casting his vote on the project.
Motions were brought both to deny, and approve the project, neither of which vote carried a majority. So the project officially went down as being stalemated, with no action officially taken on group approval or disapproval of the project.