Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Such a deck
Pacific Beach Shore Club expansion met with more resistance from residents
A group of residents has filed a second lawsuit against the city and California Coastal Commission for giving a popular bar and restaurant in Pacific Beach the green light to build an 1895-square-foot deck outside.
San Diegans for Responsible Planning, the plaintiff, filed its first lawsuit in July 2013. Now, the group is back, claiming the coastal commission and the city supported the expansion project at the Pacific Beach Shore Club without providing proper public notification and for violating parking requirements.
According to the second complaint, dated June 30, the group says the city and coastal commission were fully aware of a deficit in parking when they approved the project last year. The commission attempted to mitigate the parking deficit by creating a “Transportation Demand Management Program” that was directed to delve into the feasibility of offering valet parking at the site.
Little good that did. Instead of ensuring adequate parking, the coastal commission has since allowed the number of parking spaces to drop from 29 to 26.
"The bar and restaurant are the primary use at the Project site. In addition, the Project as approved will add an estimated 126 patrons, raising the current bar and restaurant capacity from 186 to 312. Although it will be expanding its capacity by 68% and its square footage by 43%, the Project as approved reduces parking spaces from 29 to 26."
Making matters worse for residents, the coastal commission has allowed this in spite of a July 2013 staff report that warned of "high levels of visitor parking" in the surrounding commercial and residential areas.
"Public space and public parking are at a premium, with demand usually outstripping supply," reads the staff report. "Additionally, the Pacific Beach area in general has long experienced issues related to providing sufficient parking to both public and private uses.
“Many businesses in the Pacific Beach area are previously conforming regarding parking ratios, and some rent spaces from nearby businesses that have excess parking, though the opportunities for that are rare. The surrounding residential streets experience high levels of visitor parking as people either cannot find parking by the beach or wish to avoid paid parking, and thus park in front of the homes and walk to the beach area."
Commissioners ignored the warnings and on February 13, 2013, the commission approved the parking and at the same time ordered the owners of the Pacific Beach Shore Club to implement a part-time valet-parking program. The valet-parking requirement was included even though commissioners admitted that onsite valet parking would drive patrons to park in residential areas.
"[W]hile the Commission believes the use of valet parking can maximize parking supply, fees for valet parking can also deter patrons from utilizing the on-site parking and thus lead to off-site parking impacts."
Attorneys for the San Diegans for Responsible Planning also accuse the commission of violating open-government laws by failing to notify interested parties that commissioners would be hearing the item, despite previous requests to do so.
"By failing to give required notice and by holding the meeting in a distant location, members of the public were deprived of any opportunity to comment on the revised conditions and findings. By failing to provide any specifics of the [Transportation Demand Management] Program to the Commission or to the public in advance of approval and issuance of the [conditional use permit], the public was deprived of any opportunity to comment upon the [Transportation Demand Management] Program."
Residents are asking that a judge issue a preliminary injunction needed to put the project on hold until the case is heard.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Such a deck
Pacific Beach Shore Club expansion met with more resistance from residents
Such a deck
Pacific Beach Shore Club expansion met with more resistance from residents
A group of residents has filed a second lawsuit against the city and California Coastal Commission for giving a popular bar and restaurant in Pacific Beach the green light to build an 1895-square-foot deck outside.
San Diegans for Responsible Planning, the plaintiff, filed its first lawsuit in July 2013. Now, the group is back, claiming the coastal commission and the city supported the expansion project at the Pacific Beach Shore Club without providing proper public notification and for violating parking requirements.
According to the second complaint, dated June 30, the group says the city and coastal commission were fully aware of a deficit in parking when they approved the project last year. The commission attempted to mitigate the parking deficit by creating a “Transportation Demand Management Program” that was directed to delve into the feasibility of offering valet parking at the site.
Little good that did. Instead of ensuring adequate parking, the coastal commission has since allowed the number of parking spaces to drop from 29 to 26.
"The bar and restaurant are the primary use at the Project site. In addition, the Project as approved will add an estimated 126 patrons, raising the current bar and restaurant capacity from 186 to 312. Although it will be expanding its capacity by 68% and its square footage by 43%, the Project as approved reduces parking spaces from 29 to 26."
Making matters worse for residents, the coastal commission has allowed this in spite of a July 2013 staff report that warned of "high levels of visitor parking" in the surrounding commercial and residential areas.
"Public space and public parking are at a premium, with demand usually outstripping supply," reads the staff report. "Additionally, the Pacific Beach area in general has long experienced issues related to providing sufficient parking to both public and private uses.
“Many businesses in the Pacific Beach area are previously conforming regarding parking ratios, and some rent spaces from nearby businesses that have excess parking, though the opportunities for that are rare. The surrounding residential streets experience high levels of visitor parking as people either cannot find parking by the beach or wish to avoid paid parking, and thus park in front of the homes and walk to the beach area."
Commissioners ignored the warnings and on February 13, 2013, the commission approved the parking and at the same time ordered the owners of the Pacific Beach Shore Club to implement a part-time valet-parking program. The valet-parking requirement was included even though commissioners admitted that onsite valet parking would drive patrons to park in residential areas.
"[W]hile the Commission believes the use of valet parking can maximize parking supply, fees for valet parking can also deter patrons from utilizing the on-site parking and thus lead to off-site parking impacts."
Attorneys for the San Diegans for Responsible Planning also accuse the commission of violating open-government laws by failing to notify interested parties that commissioners would be hearing the item, despite previous requests to do so.
"By failing to give required notice and by holding the meeting in a distant location, members of the public were deprived of any opportunity to comment on the revised conditions and findings. By failing to provide any specifics of the [Transportation Demand Management] Program to the Commission or to the public in advance of approval and issuance of the [conditional use permit], the public was deprived of any opportunity to comment upon the [Transportation Demand Management] Program."
Residents are asking that a judge issue a preliminary injunction needed to put the project on hold until the case is heard.
Comments