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
Quality of life allegedly threatened in Point Loma
Could 900 residents be wrong about Jessop estate project?
More than 900 residents signed a petition requesting that council not grant final approval.
The dispute over the San Diego City Council's decision to stop a development of the former Jessop property in Point Loma will move on to the appellate court.
On March 15, a majority of city-council members voted to appeal a February 23 court ruling that sided with property owner Carolyn Kutzke, who had accused the council of unlawfully rejecting the project over environmental issues that had been already been addressed.
Point Loma Summit, the name of the proposed development, called for reconfiguring a 1.45-acre property located on La Crescentia Drive; three homes would be constructed, ranging in size from 2600 to 3880 square feet. The property would also include the potentially historic Jessop estate, built in 1929. The four homes all had a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, as required by the Point Loma Community Plan.
But Point Loma residents blasted the project over potential fire hazards due to the hilly terrain and for being overly dense and inconsistent with community character. In June 2014, planning commissioners sided with Kutzke and city staff, who recommended that the project move forward.
A group of Point Loma residents, calling themselves Preserve Point Loma, appealed the commission's decision to the city council.
"The Point Loma Summit subdivision is in violation of our adopted Peninsula Community Plan; contains deviations to the existing Zoning Code regarding access, setbacks and height; is located on an environmentally sensitive steep hillside and sets a bad precedent for future deviations and variances to the San Diego City land use policies detrimental to community character and our quality of life," read the group's website.
Over 900 residents reportedly signed a petition urging the city council to reject the project.
In February 2015, the city council did just that, in spite of staff recommendations that stated the project adequately addressed fire hazards, steep canyon slopes, and the obstruction of view corridors.
Kutzke responded in April 2015 with a lawsuit against the city for inverse condemnation of her property.
The lawsuit charged the city council with overriding environmental documents to appease residents.
"Defendants violated the California and United States Constitutions by making findings adverse to an approved environmental document, which document was not the subject of an appeal. Defendants violated the California and United States Constitutions by singling out [Kutzke] for disparate treatment in interpretation of the Municipal Code."
The council's decision, read the lawsuit, had a "negative impact on Plaintiffs economically and interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations."
On February 23, 2016, Superior Court judge Joel Wohlfeil ruled in favor of Kutzke. Wohlfeil overturned the council's decision, and, according to the judgment, ordered that the proposal be "remanded back to the city council for findings consistent with the planning commission's decision..."
The case will move forward to appellate review.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Quality of life allegedly threatened in Point Loma
Could 900 residents be wrong about Jessop estate project?
Quality of life allegedly threatened in Point Loma
Could 900 residents be wrong about Jessop estate project?
More than 900 residents signed a petition requesting that council not grant final approval.
The dispute over the San Diego City Council's decision to stop a development of the former Jessop property in Point Loma will move on to the appellate court.
On March 15, a majority of city-council members voted to appeal a February 23 court ruling that sided with property owner Carolyn Kutzke, who had accused the council of unlawfully rejecting the project over environmental issues that had been already been addressed.
Point Loma Summit, the name of the proposed development, called for reconfiguring a 1.45-acre property located on La Crescentia Drive; three homes would be constructed, ranging in size from 2600 to 3880 square feet. The property would also include the potentially historic Jessop estate, built in 1929. The four homes all had a minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet, as required by the Point Loma Community Plan.
But Point Loma residents blasted the project over potential fire hazards due to the hilly terrain and for being overly dense and inconsistent with community character. In June 2014, planning commissioners sided with Kutzke and city staff, who recommended that the project move forward.
A group of Point Loma residents, calling themselves Preserve Point Loma, appealed the commission's decision to the city council.
"The Point Loma Summit subdivision is in violation of our adopted Peninsula Community Plan; contains deviations to the existing Zoning Code regarding access, setbacks and height; is located on an environmentally sensitive steep hillside and sets a bad precedent for future deviations and variances to the San Diego City land use policies detrimental to community character and our quality of life," read the group's website.
Over 900 residents reportedly signed a petition urging the city council to reject the project.
In February 2015, the city council did just that, in spite of staff recommendations that stated the project adequately addressed fire hazards, steep canyon slopes, and the obstruction of view corridors.
Kutzke responded in April 2015 with a lawsuit against the city for inverse condemnation of her property.
The lawsuit charged the city council with overriding environmental documents to appease residents.
"Defendants violated the California and United States Constitutions by making findings adverse to an approved environmental document, which document was not the subject of an appeal. Defendants violated the California and United States Constitutions by singling out [Kutzke] for disparate treatment in interpretation of the Municipal Code."
The council's decision, read the lawsuit, had a "negative impact on Plaintiffs economically and interfered with distinct investment-backed expectations."
On February 23, 2016, Superior Court judge Joel Wohlfeil ruled in favor of Kutzke. Wohlfeil overturned the council's decision, and, according to the judgment, ordered that the proposal be "remanded back to the city council for findings consistent with the planning commission's decision..."
The case will move forward to appellate review.
Comments