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
Who wants a new Mission Beach lifeguard tower again?
City attorney's office of stonewalling in order to keep project alive
If the city gets its way, a $4.6 million, three-story, 3125-square-foot lifeguard station will replace this one.
On February 25, district court judge Katherine Bacal denied a request from the City of San Diego to wait until an appeal could be heard before returning a $250,000 bond that a group of residents posted in their fight against construction of a 3125-square-foot lifeguard station in Mission Beach.
"None of the city's objections to releasing the bond are persuasive," Bacal wrote in her February 25 ruling. "Accordingly, the bond issued for the preliminary injunction is released."
But the city is not rolling over without a fight, and not ready to give up the money that residents were forced to put up before moving forward with their lawsuit.
The morning that Bacal's decision was to be made final, deputy city attorney Jana Will asked Bacal to keep the bond in place in order to allow the city more time to fight the case. Bacal agreed to delay the release for ten days.
News that the city plans to file yet another appeal, the third since September, means that the issue is far from over, a revelation that bothers the residents who oppose construction of the tower.
In February 2015, Ken Giavarra and other residents in Mission Beach were informed that the city was ready to begin construction on the new lifeguard station located in South Mission Beach. It was news to them.
Plans to rebuild the station first surfaced in 2004. Two years later the city obtained a site-development permit. However, the city still didn't act. Citing funding concerns and need for additional permits, construction never began. The three-year deadline on the permits lapsed. Yet, despite the expired permit, the city eventually found funding and in 2011 obtained the necessary permission from the California Coastal Commission to build. Again, however, the city dragged its feet. Construction did not commence until March 2015, long after the permits had expired.
Residents were upset. The project had been changed since its original proposal. They were not notified. They hired attorney Craig Sherman to look into it. Sherman discovered that the permits were no longer valid and asked to meet with the city attorney before filing a lawsuit, in hopes the city would realize their mistake and start the process all over again. It never happened. Days later, Citizens for Beach Rights was formed and a lawsuit was filed on their behalf.
Just a few months after filing, in September 2015, Bacal ordered that the residents' group put up a $250,000 bond to cover the city's costs for delaying construction. If the city lost, the bond would be returned and the project would be terminated; if the city won the case, it would keep the $250,000 and construction would once again start.
On September 24, Bacal sided with residents by issuing a temporary stop until the full trial could begin. The city didn't take the news lightly. In October, before the trial began, the city council gave the city attorney a green light to file an appeal over the temporary injunction as well as an future decisions against them.
Around the same time, city staff began working on ways to prevent similar cases from occurring. According to a November 15 document obtained by the Reader, staff proposed changing the code to make the city exempt from following their own building code.
"...Amend the code to exempt capital improvement program projects from the permit utilization requirement," read the document. "Capital improvement program projects are defined as tangible City projects with a life expectancy greater than one year that is counted as a fixed asset with values for capitalization purposes (for assessment of property and financing purposes). Issues after permit approval that typically delay or add uncertainty to processing times for [capital improvement program] projects include the need to secure other agency approvals, the need to acquire or condemn property, the need to comply with contracting and bidding processes, and the need to secure funding (local, state, and federal)."
But the city was dealt another blow. In December, Bacal ruled in favor of the residents again, this time issuing a permanent injunction against the project. Using the previous October 27 city-council vote, taken before the actual trial had occurred, the city attorney immediately appealed Bacal's decision.
As the appeal was being processed, Sherman and his client requested that the bond be returned to the residents. That resulted in Bacal's February 25 ruling, and yet another appeal from the city.
Resident Giavara, the man who spearheaded the legal fight, now accuses the city attorney's office of stonewalling. He says the city attorney is playing loose with taxpayer funds by filing numerous appeals instead of starting the permitting process again.
"I'm hoping that now is the time for the Council to take a hard look at the facts," Giavarra wrote in a February 25 letter to councilmembers shortly after the hearing.... We attempted to settle the suit against the city before going to trial and avoiding all costs to the taxpayers. [But now the council continues to] defend the lawsuit which [the city] lost and more importantly are now paying for three appeals..."
The appellate court is expected to hear the motion to not release the bond money in the coming months.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Who wants a new Mission Beach lifeguard tower again?
City attorney's office of stonewalling in order to keep project alive
Who wants a new Mission Beach lifeguard tower again?
City attorney's office of stonewalling in order to keep project alive
If the city gets its way, a $4.6 million, three-story, 3125-square-foot lifeguard station will replace this one.
On February 25, district court judge Katherine Bacal denied a request from the City of San Diego to wait until an appeal could be heard before returning a $250,000 bond that a group of residents posted in their fight against construction of a 3125-square-foot lifeguard station in Mission Beach.
"None of the city's objections to releasing the bond are persuasive," Bacal wrote in her February 25 ruling. "Accordingly, the bond issued for the preliminary injunction is released."
But the city is not rolling over without a fight, and not ready to give up the money that residents were forced to put up before moving forward with their lawsuit.
The morning that Bacal's decision was to be made final, deputy city attorney Jana Will asked Bacal to keep the bond in place in order to allow the city more time to fight the case. Bacal agreed to delay the release for ten days.
News that the city plans to file yet another appeal, the third since September, means that the issue is far from over, a revelation that bothers the residents who oppose construction of the tower.
In February 2015, Ken Giavarra and other residents in Mission Beach were informed that the city was ready to begin construction on the new lifeguard station located in South Mission Beach. It was news to them.
Plans to rebuild the station first surfaced in 2004. Two years later the city obtained a site-development permit. However, the city still didn't act. Citing funding concerns and need for additional permits, construction never began. The three-year deadline on the permits lapsed. Yet, despite the expired permit, the city eventually found funding and in 2011 obtained the necessary permission from the California Coastal Commission to build. Again, however, the city dragged its feet. Construction did not commence until March 2015, long after the permits had expired.
Residents were upset. The project had been changed since its original proposal. They were not notified. They hired attorney Craig Sherman to look into it. Sherman discovered that the permits were no longer valid and asked to meet with the city attorney before filing a lawsuit, in hopes the city would realize their mistake and start the process all over again. It never happened. Days later, Citizens for Beach Rights was formed and a lawsuit was filed on their behalf.
Just a few months after filing, in September 2015, Bacal ordered that the residents' group put up a $250,000 bond to cover the city's costs for delaying construction. If the city lost, the bond would be returned and the project would be terminated; if the city won the case, it would keep the $250,000 and construction would once again start.
On September 24, Bacal sided with residents by issuing a temporary stop until the full trial could begin. The city didn't take the news lightly. In October, before the trial began, the city council gave the city attorney a green light to file an appeal over the temporary injunction as well as an future decisions against them.
Around the same time, city staff began working on ways to prevent similar cases from occurring. According to a November 15 document obtained by the Reader, staff proposed changing the code to make the city exempt from following their own building code.
"...Amend the code to exempt capital improvement program projects from the permit utilization requirement," read the document. "Capital improvement program projects are defined as tangible City projects with a life expectancy greater than one year that is counted as a fixed asset with values for capitalization purposes (for assessment of property and financing purposes). Issues after permit approval that typically delay or add uncertainty to processing times for [capital improvement program] projects include the need to secure other agency approvals, the need to acquire or condemn property, the need to comply with contracting and bidding processes, and the need to secure funding (local, state, and federal)."
But the city was dealt another blow. In December, Bacal ruled in favor of the residents again, this time issuing a permanent injunction against the project. Using the previous October 27 city-council vote, taken before the actual trial had occurred, the city attorney immediately appealed Bacal's decision.
As the appeal was being processed, Sherman and his client requested that the bond be returned to the residents. That resulted in Bacal's February 25 ruling, and yet another appeal from the city.
Resident Giavara, the man who spearheaded the legal fight, now accuses the city attorney's office of stonewalling. He says the city attorney is playing loose with taxpayer funds by filing numerous appeals instead of starting the permitting process again.
"I'm hoping that now is the time for the Council to take a hard look at the facts," Giavarra wrote in a February 25 letter to councilmembers shortly after the hearing.... We attempted to settle the suit against the city before going to trial and avoiding all costs to the taxpayers. [But now the council continues to] defend the lawsuit which [the city] lost and more importantly are now paying for three appeals..."
The appellate court is expected to hear the motion to not release the bond money in the coming months.
Comments