VOTE HERE: YES or NO to 90 FT?

Excerpt taken from: “How High is Too High?” by James LaMattery.  Read full article here.

 

The 12 owners of an area encompassing approximately 20 Acres are asking the community to allow them to build to 90FT heights.   Below are some of the project presentation made by Perry Dealy (Architect hired by owners) for the site at the Dec 5th Linda Vista Ad Hoc Subcommittee.

*Your comments (IN FAVOR or NOT IN FAVOR)  will made part of the public record and used by RTB at official meetings including Community Planning Group, San Diego City Council, and SANDAG Board of Directors.  Your use of our BLOG gives us express permission to use your comments as stated above.

SCROLL TO BOTTOM OF PAGE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS

Project Statistics:

Retail Space: 81,900 Sq Ft

Residential (Rental Apts) Space: 1,721,660 Sq Ft

Residential Units: 1,722

Density 104 units/ acre

Parking Provided: 1890 spaces (Retail 172, Residential 1,708, Storage 10)

**POST COMMENTS BELOW**

Location of Site LV90 Ft LV

Gound Floor Plan LV

PLEASE SCROLL TO BOTTOM OF PAGE TO POST YOUR COMMENTS

 

 

 

 

 

123 comments on “VOTE HERE: YES or NO to 90 FT?”

  1. Reesa Fickett Reply

    I support the addition of retail and affordable housing close to public transportation, and I do not hava any issue with the height, however I strongly urge the decision makers to ensure their is adequate parking to support the number of apartments planned. At first glance, it appears there isn’t even a one to one correspondence between the number of apartment and number of parking spaces available to residents. Please also consider requiring all new buildings to comply with strict energy and water conservation standards. Thank you for your consideration.

    • Honey Badger Reply

      This plan is utterly absurd. Nobody wants buildings that tall around the bay. All these high density units are going to do is import crime and blight to an area, that if left alone, would have experienced its own economic revival. Now all you are doing is importing a bunch of illegal border jumpers into the beach area. Ask the City of La Mesa how much more crime they’ve had since the put the trolley stop there. Nobody uses public transit and nobody ever will. So everyone needs to start voting these lib-tards out of office, and start electing representatives who aren’t going to micromanage our lives. The only reason this stupid project is even going is because the citizens of San Diego have been asleep at the switch, and now California’s failed immigration policy is finally impacting everyone. The trolley is a supreme municipal failure, yet we continue to elect idiots who support it.

  2. Barbara Burdette Reply

    Absolutely not, 90 feet structures on Morena Blvd is ridiculous. The traffic congestion alone will be a nightmare. I would support the owners building to the allowed 30 foot height limit. This is a residual neighborhood with no place for 90 foot high rises. I am adamantly opposed!

  3. Ed greene Reply

    No! And HELL no!
    Are we crazy to alllow wealthy foreign developers to turn Morena Blvd into a Miami Beach west..??
    bypassing the 30 foot height limit is an affront to the thousands of tax paying area / local Bay Park citizens that rely on “responsible development” in meeting the character of our beautiful community. There is virtually “nothing responsible” about greedy 90 foot developer ideas that border on ugly and insane!
    As a 49 year resident of this immediate area I vehemently object to any building exceeding 30.0 feet above natural grade.
    With respectful appreciation
    Ed greene

  4. Janis Reply

    Please don’t make our community into a dense, canyon-like corridor of looming 90 foot high rises. That is NOT why we purchased our home here. It’s a fantasy to think that everyone – or even a large minority – of the residents of these buildings will depend on public transportation for their daily commutes. They will have cars and visitors (where’s adequate parking?), and will clog up our already too-crowded roads. Overbuilding using (convenient) magical thinking isn’t a plan for anything but disaster. Infrastructure that supports where people want and need to go first, adequate water and energy supplies first, developers and politicians who can demonstrate that they truly care about the quality of life for existing citizens first – then let’s talk about adding well-planned development. So far, I haven’t seen it, and I don’t have much hope that I will.

    • Susan Kearney Reply

      I am totally against 90′ foot High-rise proposal .. it’s going to be very crowded and noisy. Not only that it’s going to block my view . I do not want it to look like Mission Valley . Thank you Susan Kearney … too much traffic !

  5. Anonymous Reply

    Absolutely not !! Allowing this one project to build up to 90 ft. would set a horrible precedent and a reason for every other developer to ask for the same allowances. The density increase of more than 1,500 new residences will cause a huge increase in the area’s traffic as well.

  6. Susi Reply

    No! 60 ft means 60 ft. The people of Bay Park, the ones that have lived here and the ones that have bought homes here want a 69 ft limit! Big developers want to build destroy sell and then leave the mess for us to live with! Look at Sea World, who wanted that? Who voted for that? Well in the city they are gone and look at what a eye sore that is!
    NO NO NO How many times do we have to say it?

  7. Jim Ward Reply

    This 1722 unit residential project alone will create entirely too much traffic and congestion to and from Hwy 8 via both Morena blvds and also to and from Hwy 5 via Seaworld Dr!!!
    As long as this project is reviewed and approved by area residents, limiting new housing units to no more than say 25% of what has been planned, 30 foot height limits, adequate underground or off street parking and some retail space would probably be acceptable to most residents.

  8. Lynn Schiff Reply

    Enough. San Diego TAX PAYING residents and visitors to Mission Bay do not want 9 Story condos so that developers can make even more money without ANY advantage to the people of San Diego. There will be more crowding, traffic, noise, additional use of scarce resources, parking issues, additional trash (rats are already a horrible issue here). It will make the area which has so much potential for beauty and a fabulous family area a thing of the past. Why? Because a foreign company bought the land and want to do anything they please to make as much money as they possibly can. Sound Familiar? NO NO NO or it will go on and on. Why don’t the citizens have any power or influence. Or maybe you will listen, That would be wonderful. Thanks for the opportunity to participate.

  9. Carol L Marczynski Reply

    NO NO NO. Look at how the communities of North Park and Hillcrest have been ruined by big developers. Bay Park is my HOME. It is a community. It has a 30 foot building limit for a reason. It needs to be enforced. Enough already. NO to 90′.

  10. maria trapasso Reply

    Not a good design. Not enough public input. With the proposal to make Morena Blvd. Southbound, one lane, how will these new residents be able to exit this little city within a city. What about the 30 foot height limit we keep hoping for? What are our City Council reps thinking? What is the City’s building dept. Doing? Seems like they are sleeping at their desks. Money talks. Big business usually wins and the homeowners in the area get screwed. High density is the only way the trolley would be feasible. SANDAG should be dismantled. Yes, we need housing, but not 90 feet high bldgs.

  11. Daniel Reply

    For San Diego to be a truly livable city, we need to increase density intelligently. As long as parking, traffic, sustainability, and community space are accounted for in a transparent way, an increase to a 90-foot height limit seems worth discussing.

    Sensible infill practices that combine mixed-use retail and community space along with smart transit and affordable housing will improve livability in San Diego – and that may require some places to increase height limits. Smart infill can create vibrant community space and be more environmentally sustainable than single-family-centric neighborhoods tend to be so I caution against a knee-jerk reaction to anything above 30 feet.

    • Honey Badger Reply

      Nobody who owns a home in Bay Park wants high density housing. If YOU want to live like that, go ahead and move to somewhere where you can live in subsidized housing. We don’t want high density housing, that’s why we live in San Diego. Affordable housing means get a better job. What is this sense of entitlement that you have? Stop imposing your values on people that don’t want them.

    • carol Reply

      Daniel, if you don’t live in the Overlook Heights neighborhood, please do not vote on something without all the facts. Overlook Heights has one way in and one way out. Morena Blvd. The city and Jeromes wants to put in 2000 living units with no parking. Where are these residents going to park? Not all will ride their bike everywhere, not will they all ride the trolley. Let’s assume 10% do leave their car for other transportation. How are the residents of Overlook Heights supposed to get in and out of the neighborhood. Many people are on Morena to avoid getting on 8 east in the afternoon and 5 north or south in the morning. It takes 15 mins to go less than a mile now from the Overlook Heights neighborhood. This is increase started when Pacific Rim (the development at the old University High School site across from USD) was put in. Because the city wants to put in 4000-5000 living units in the small area of Linda Vista Rd to Tecolote Rd with Savannah (just north of Morena) that means it will be increasing the number of living units by 1400%!!! There is absolutely no way this should be allowed. The emergency vehicles will not be able to get to the neighborhood. supposedly, seconds matter to save lives, well, those vehicles will be delayed by minutes if the City has it’s way. But of course, all of you in favor of this do not live here. You do not realize the impact this will have on the residents of Overlook Heights. Also consider the fact that this is not “affordable” housing. This is a private developer. the developer only has to offer 10% of the units at “affordable” pricing. And if the developer wants, they can pay the city not to not have any “affordable” housing units.
      I’m not even addressing the fact that most have bought in Overlook Heights because they like the character of the neighborhood just as it is. If they didn’t, they would have bought in another neighborhood.
      the city is doing this all over. and in almost every part of the city that is aware of it, is fighting back. Our elected leaders do not care what the citizens want. It’s not a good, viable plan for the future. The city started the infill campaign in the 70’s. See how well it worked for North Park, City Heights, Normal Heights, the closest parts to downtown. You cannot find a place to park just about any time of the day.
      Read: http://timesofsandiego.com/opinion/2017/04/24/mega-in-fill-development-is-san-diegos-hot-air-balloon/

  12. J. L. O'Connor Reply

    NO 90 ft building in the Bay Park Area. We raised the balloons to 30 ft. it was agreed to that limit and this lovely residential community does not want commercial companies destroying the neighborhood. Where are the facilities moving to that we have used over the years. Anderson’s Nursery, Toys R Us, Jeromes? This is a large County with huge amounts of space. Why do you go to one of the best small communities in the City and try to destroy the small town atmosphere that brought us here.

  13. Anonymous Reply

    I’m Ok with it down there. Maybe not 90′, but that’s not a huge difference from 60′. It’s a blow up of the overlay, but I personally don’t mind it in that section. It’s a warehouse district that offers nothing specific to the neighborhood where development could really make that a destination. I would prefer to see warehouse conversions rather than new construction, but that’s not up to me.

  14. Lisa Henley Reply

    I do have an issue with the height. Developers have been trying to get this height restriction removed for years and this is the start of overturning it again. If you allow one, the others will use it as an excuse to do it as well. People bought their homes here and paid a price for the view based on that height limitation. Sorry but I’m for keeping the height restriction.

  15. Steph Reply

    These types of development risk turning Morena into another Friars Rd. and Friars is multi-lane. The city plans to reduce/replace lanes on Morena with bike lanes. I drive on Morena almost every day, sometimes multiple times a day (no, these trips won’t be replaced by trolley rides) to travel to various businesses in the Morena District/Old Town. Once the traffic congestion from new condo developments reaches the level of Friars Rd, I will simply stop traveling to those businesses. I used to shop/eat in the Fashion/Mission Valley area quite a bit. Now, I never travel into the area unless I am absolutely required. San Diego used to be a wonderful city to explore and I enjoyed frequenting businesses in other parts of the city/county. However, now, I pretty much stick close to home. Not too many places are worth the traffic, congestion, and crowds. After decades of business in our community, it’s too bad Mr. Navarra now wants to pay his customers back by selling out to the highest bidder.

  16. Tim Bell Reply

    I’m a “NO” person, for the most part we who have lived here for 30+ years are happy with our little community. WE don’t need more congestion on what your going to make Morena blvd into.

  17. Steven Lockton Reply

    I support the proposed 90ft project. High density housing close to mass transit is a wise use of resources. This area in particular sorely needs development. However, I reflect the concerns of other commenters about the lack of parking planned.

    • Karen Reply

      I too understand the need for smart new housing but these gigantic 90 ft cell block buildings are complete anathema to a neighborhood. They are not designed to integrate into existing infrastructure, encourage an integrated flow within the neighborhood, enhance the diversity and sustainability of our area. They are designed to serve developers maximizing profit per square inch of property. Just look at th abominations along Friars Road, or in Mira Mesa or other areas in San Diego which are totally devoid of any neighborhood appeal. There is nothing wrong with a developer wanting to make a profit, and there is a housing need, but modest, well though out projects with good connections to natural features of our area, adequate infrastructure and proportional size can be planned properly and be profitable too.

  18. Jason Soares Reply

    Attachment

    I am writing to express my utmost objection to the absurd proposal to increase the development height limit to 90 ft (“Proposal”). As a long-time resident, I and my family and community would be extremely negatively impacted if the Proposal were adopted. Such impacts include a drastically unpleasant and restricted view, and a potential significant decrease in property values, among many other things.

    This is not a NIMBY-based objection; we are not opposed to growth or responsible development. We have been excited about what new development could bring to this community. However, the Proposal is unacceptable. The new height limit would set a new precedent and would change the community in a direction that no resident, guest, tourist, or visitor would want.

    I have attached an image mockup of what the view from my and neighboring homes would be if the Proposal would be implemented. The proposed plans represent a character that has never existed in this neighborhood and are not a match. Currently we are a neighborhood of quiet, single family homes, in a relaxed design district. If the Proposal were adopted, we would suddenly have what looks like hundreds of compacted, crammed units immediately adjacent to the neighborhood.

    It isn’t difficult to consider that the Proposal is an attempt to shock the public into complying with a less-extreme 60 ft limit. Even a 30 ft. height limit is not desirable to many in the community, but increasing to 60 or 90 ft is unthinkable.

  19. Peter Reply

    I am against 60-90ft but appreciate 30ft residential and retail development as well as the new trolley line. However the developers are cashing in selling the 4th to 9th floor condos with bay/ocean view destroying the view of current residents (disclosure: I don’t have a Bay view). I hope the city puts current residents first.

  20. Reba Cox Reply

    I don’t live in that area, I live in PB, however I do travel on Morena Blvd quite often. I have been against any 90ft level anywhere on the bay or beach from the beginning. Not only does it ruin the view of people living east of the of project, it is just too big for the area. I can’t imagine the idea of 1,722 residential units being built there. Living in a condo myself, that probably means 1,722 x’s 2 cars (or more), plus a huge impact of more people in that area using Morena Blvd. It would change the whole lifestyle of people living in & around there. Can you imagine the traffic jam of people trying to get on the freeway south of there? Then there is the whole subject of water & energy No–the 30ft level should stay in effect.

  21. Dr. Hanan and Elizabeth Bowman Reply

    No to 90 ft. Housing is good but not even one parking spot per unit? Really? Most families have at least 2 cars. You surely can’t believe that all occupants or even most are going to take the trolley! Traffic impact would be unmerciful to the area. It seems that the golf course on Friars will be converted to high density housing at some point also. Are we to become another Cavita area? Apartments similar to the Linda Vista Rd / Morena Blvd trolley station would be more appropriate. The roads and residents frayed nerves won’t take it. No thank you!!!

  22. John S Caffrey Reply

    No to 90′. Maximum is and should be always 30′. Our community is residential/mixed use. Not high rise.

  23. Anonymous Reply

    absolutely not,no to any 90 foot structures 30 feet height limit only, no apts or housing either,do not need more traffic problems,you have ruined fashion valley and Linda vista already. if you cant make something decent, do not build there. as far as the trolley we don’,t need it either. Every time i see the trolley go by on friars road no one is on there. I already have to wait 10 minutes in the afternoon to make a simple right hand turn onto morena. no on 90-opposing

  24. jan greason Reply

    no to 90 foot height.totally oppose this we dont need any housing or apt either. we will have mass transportation problems. it sometimes now takes 10 minutes in the afternoon to make a single right hand turn to get on to morena now. as far as the trolley we really dont need that either. everytime i see the trolley cross friars road nobody is on them. so why add more. if you cant make something decent that is 30 ft high limit,do not build here. as far as i am concerned you already have ruined linda vista and fashion valley

  25. Valerie Torres Reply

    60-90 foot structures would destroy our Bay Park community. I welcome development and would love to see something like what was done at the morena/Linda vista trolley station. As a Bay Park resident for 14 years, however, I can tell you that our existing infrastructure cannot support the traffic and demands that would come with 1,700 units. Nor would high rises suit the asthetic of our community. This isn’t downtown, and if I wanted to live in a place with no parking and a bunch of congestion on small streets, I’d live in Hillcrest. Please, don’t do this to our community! The opportunity for development should not come at the cost of destroying our existing communities.

  26. Brandon Miller Reply

    I purchased a house in Overlook Heights last year and I would welcome redevelopment to the area in question. However the concerns expressed in the majority of comments here need to be taken very seriously. We are the people that live here day in and day out, shop at the local mom and pop places, and understand the community.

    If San Diego wanted more people taking the trolley it should have been fully extended up to the 5/805 not just to UTC. Some people will take the trolley from Morena to commute down town but so many people going North will have to continue driving. What will getting on the 5 North at Sea World Drive look like at 8am with all of these additional people? What about a weekend during the summer when the Sea World Drive exit is backed up 1/4 mile at 11am with everyone trying to get to the Beach? Packing in 1700 apartments is going to make everyone unhappy except the Developers with fatter bank accounts. Allowing residential heights of 60 or 90ft should not even be considered with out detailed plans of expanding the # of lanes on Morena Blvd, optimizing the Tecolote/5 on and off ramps, and increased subterranean parking.

    Keeping building heights of 30ft is a win for everyone. It will satisfy the current residents, the new developers will make plenty of money and it will revitalize the neighborhood. It helps keep this area feeling like an actual community not a soulless sea of apartments like Mission Valley.

  27. Joe Reply

    The government is putting in a multi billion dollar trolley system. They are going to get urbanization with that type of investment.

    Having dense development around trolley stops is a good thing in the long term. I have lived in urban areas before, when it is walkable with easy access to shops and restaurants it makes people think twice about having a vehicle. If they build out the boardwalk and develop the entire corridor I have no issue with 90 feet.

    I’m all for throwing in some underground parking though.

    • Anonymous Reply

      Water table is too high for underground parking. San Diego is not a public transportation kind of town. You need a car to get around. Just talk to anyone who lives in Little Italy and they’ll tell you how inconvenient it is not to have parking for tenants and guests. Residential neighborhoods like Bay Park should not have to be compromised to accommodate the political agendas of a selected few who have no vested interests in our community. Find another area to develop!

      • Joe Reply

        As a property owner I have a vested interest in the area.

        2 billion dollars is a large taxpayer investment. It is not given out of the kindness of the governments heart, it is a strategic investment in the long term growth of this area. Having read the climate change plan, and the 2050 plan from Sandag this project fits the bill.

        Parking could be improved thought whatever form that takes.

  28. Pat Rains Reply

    I object to the 90-foot height project. That 90-foot height would add far too many people and too much traffic to Morena Blvd. My family and all the thousands of us who live in Linda Vista must travel on that section of Morena Blvd to get onto Interstate 5 north at Tecolote / Sea World Drive. We have no alternative. As it is, morning rush hour backs up traffic onto Tecolote Canyon Road, and it’s only one block long, can’t back traffic up across the intersection into the park. All of us Linda Vistans have no other way to get on the northbound 5, and no alternate roads exist that cut across Tecolote Canyon Nature Park. No, sorry, adding that many new residences and businesses to that section of Morena Blvd would turn it into a quagmire of traffic jams.
    Also, that density of housing would lower my property value, increase crime in our residential neighborhood. And 90-foot buildings would certainly pollute and block the clean breezes that blow up Tecolote Canyon from Mission Bay, which allow fog and marine layer moisture to penetrate the coastal communities, thus keeping our fire hazards down. We depend on those breezes and that marine layer.
    Also, I believe that any new residential property in San Diego should be plumbed to provide gray water recycling, so all its gray water be collected and stored on site to irrigate landscaping (no city water for this) and to fill its own emergency reservoirs for fire fighting.

    No to 90 feet.

  29. Anonymous Reply

    I object to 90-feet structures along Morena Blvd. The proposed density is not supported by the current infrastructure and the added traffic/parking problems to Morena Blvd will be an absolute NIGHTMARE! (Is there no end to the assault on the 30 ft limit??) Bay Park is a great area to live and work and the responsible thing to do is maintain the 30-foot building limit.

  30. Anonymous Reply

    Why is it that people who don’t live in our neighborhood want to change neighborhood aesthetics, traffic patterns that we have to drive in, and create higher density housing that ADDS to the traffic patterns created by these outsiders.

    Example: I have driven Clairemont Dr. from Denver up to the Clairemont Village Shopping Center for 40 years and never had any issues. 2 lanes were great to have as there are always slow moving buses and semis going up Clairemont Dr. The traffic planners who down graded Clairemont Dr. to 1 lane each way did a big DISSERVICE to the people who need to get onto Clairemont Dr when all the traffic is in 1 lane.

    12 owners who want 90 feet limits don’t care about traffic, increased crime or any of the other issues more people bring with them.

    They want to Maximize $$$$ and what ever happens to the neighborhood is not their concern.

    • Kendra Reply

      We are a residential community, not downtown. If we wanted to live and raise our children downtown, we would have done that. The parking and getting onto the freeway in the morning is a real concern.
      I have no trouble driving down the freeway to Chula Vista every morning for work, but I see how hard people are working to come north, and I have up many jobs and job opportunities that would have required I drive north just for that quality of life issue. Build the businesses down south, where the people are, or put the trolley into their neighborhoods so they can get to work efficiently! We have enough people in our neighborhoods, struggling to drive north. We don’t need more.

  31. Debra Marks Reply

    No! No! No! The on/off ramps, roads for the 5 freeway cannot accommodate the additional 2 cars commuting per unit.
    Productivity gets destroyed with too much traffic. Get real, those new residents will be driving, especially 5 North. 60′ – 90′ would greatly increase the fire danger in our Bay Park neighborhoods because the blockage of the the cooling sea breezes across Mission Bay and the marine layer would be impacted, and raise the temperatures & fire danger. To make San Diego a desirable place to live, keep the 30′ limit. Look at what developers did to Little Italy: an un-natural canyon of high rises with inadequate parking.

  32. Kathy Adams Reply

    No thank you. This is a neighborhood, and we are not interested in increasing the existing height limit. Utilize the property within the height restriction and plan for adequate parking to accommodate what is built. Everyone wins.

    • Karen Reply

      I totally agree, it is the developers obligation to plan a proportional, balanced, appropriate project for the neighborhood, not the neighborhoods responsibility to accommodate the developer for maximum profit. Our city thrives on diversity, and it has downtown, and other high rise, urban feel, higher density areas. There is no reason why a 30 ft limit compliant project can’t be conceived which is consistent with the infrspastructure and layout of the neighborhood. If there isn’t enough money in it for the developer, too bad, it means they are not a very good developer. Absolutely NO to changing the height limit. Live within it, or go somewhere else……like LA!

  33. Anonymous Reply

    I am also against anything above the 30-foot limit that now exists. This is a residential neighborhood, and we bought our house 12 years ago because we loved the location and the open atmosphere. Having high density housing in the area will ruin the neighborhood. As many have mentioned, Morena Boulevard is not built for any more traffic than it has now.

    It is almost impossible to go anywhere now during rush hour. Adding that many new residents will make it worse.

    Say NO to the 90-foot buildings.

  34. Eugenie Newton Reply

    NO 90′ height for residential or commercial. NO 60′ height. This is a residential area and those densities are totally inappropriate for the area. This is NOT urban downtown and it is inappropriate to try to turn it into a high density extension of downtown. It will ruin residential property values and destroy the opportunity for a wonderful family neighborhood to keep its safe and beautiful character.

  35. Michele McCarter Reply

    This project will impact the Bay park area in many negative ways. This project will impact the environment. There will be increased pollution . I and many others are already dealing with allergies and breathing issues. These issues will not decrease with more pollution.In addition, we already have a limited water supply. Where is the additional water to come from?

    With a large complex with 90 foot limit there will be an exponential increase in traffic. Moreno boulevard is already becoming more and more congested. Where are the additional cars to go?

    The 90 foot height increase will also block many homeowners views which will in turn decrease the
    price of their property.

    Please keep the 30 foot limit on any new projects.
    There must be an alternative use of the land which will have a less detrimental impact on the quality of life of the residents of the Bay Park.
    Please vote no on this project.

  36. Martin Habel Reply

    That does not fit in anyway with the Bay park and Linda Vista communities. We are not downtown! It would have severe detrimental effects to our way of life – traffic, parking, views, density, etc.

  37. Astrid Fausett Reply

    No to 90′ ! This is a residential community. To develop a downtown like area in the middle of Bay Park is a bad idea. It will reduce the quality of life for all residents. We purchased our home 30 years ago because this was a family neighborhood. Adding 90 foot structures would destroy our Bay Park family community. It would burden the area with unbelievable traffic congestion, pollution, and crime! This is overwhelmingly opposed by the residents of Bay Park. The infrastructure does not support the demands of this type of development. Please use common sense and respect the 30′ height limit. There is a limit because coastal views would be non-existent with development higher than 30′. Please respect the needs of the residents that purchased homes in this area, rather than a political agenda that benefits a few!

  38. Yvette Belcher Reply

    No on 90ft or 60ft building height in Linda Vista/Bay Park. Once it is ok in that area they will move on up to the mesa. No, the current limit is 30ft and should stay that way.

  39. Deborah Harvazinski Reply

    NO to 90′ structures in a residential area. This is not downtown where cars are not needed & traffic is not a factor. It is unfair to impact private homeowners quality of life as well as property values. It is unreasonable to overwhelm an areas resources with this density of people

  40. sandra belew Reply

    NO to 90 feet and to 7000 condos being proposed at this location.

    San Diego has so much high density in adjacent areas (Mission Valley, Downtown and University City).
    Not to mention Mira Mesa.

    Some think it will bring prices down which is just not true. Look at Downtown San Diego. Downtown San Diego properties are at an all time high. With this plan, the developers will make an unconscionable amount of money and the residents of this neighborhood will be left with pollution, traffic jams, and more extreme water restrictions.

    That said, additional retail, restaurants and the initial proposed number of condos all with adequate parking is something the Bay Park Community would welcome.

  41. sandra belew Reply

    NO to 90 feet and the huge number of condos being proposed at this location.

    San Diego has so much high density in adjacent areas (Mission Valley, Downtown and University City).
    Not to mention Mira Mesa.

    Some think it will bring prices down which is just not true. Look at Downtown San Diego. Downtown San Diego properties are at an all time high. With this plan, the developers will make an unconscionable amount of money and the residents of this neighborhood will be left with pollution, traffic jams, and more extreme water restrictions.

    That said, additional retail, restaurants and the initial proposed number of condos all with adequate parking is something the Bay Park Community would welcome.

  42. John S Reply

    The area could use some transit oriented development. Right now that lot essentially useless. It is not some nice green space, it is an industrial lot. The people and the families that would benefit the most from this type of development don’t have a voice in this type of forum. It is mainly property owners in the area that are looking protect their investment.

    Essentially the debate should come down to one simple thing, property rights. If the building is architecturally sound, their are no legitimate safety concerns, and it is on privately held land it should be up to the 12 owners business.

    I was reading the new gallup study recently, if this forum is going to be used as pubic record I would recommend committees read part of it before making a decision, specifically the section on housing costs.

    http://www.gallup.com/reports/198776/no-recovery-analysis-long-term-productivity-decline.aspx

    “From housing construction caps in San Francisco, to bridge and subway construction in New York City and port expansion in Savannah, Ga., NIMBYism has delayed, killed or inflated the expenses of more than 500 projects nationwide over the last decade at a cost to the economy of more than $1 trillion annually, though in truth those numbers are likely far higher.”

    • Steph Reply

      It’s actually not an industrial lot. There has been a furniture store (Levitz/Jeromes) and Toys r Us in that location for at least 40 years that the community has patronized. There is also the nursery, PetCo, carpet store, storage etc. These are businesses that have benefited the community and generated sales. So to say it is an industrial lot is incorrect. Morena has been an established business corridor for decades. It is not a blighted area. However now that housing is at a premium, property owners in the area know they can make a huge profit by selling their property for housing developments. The trolley construction has spurred this on. It’s not a crime that they want to make money on their investments. But it shouldn’t be Morena property owners winning the lottery at the expense of all the people who live here. Once the property owners leave and the housing is developed, they won’t have to deal with fighting the traffic to get their jobs etc. But the residents here will.

    • Peter Rambo Reply

      I strongly oppose 90 ft height. Terrible change to a wonderful neighborhood. How many of the 12 property owners live in Overlook Heights? Doubt it will affect where they live. Put up 90 ft buildings in their neighborhood first then come talk to us.

    • M. Smith Reply

      John,
      Are you just seeing dollar signs?
      Do you live in this area and drive around here? Have you noticed or been personally affected with these changes?
      Are you from here or those other high density areas you mention. Many people from those areas flee and come here to get away from the density and for our climate.

      Like many others, I am born and raised in this area. We are trying to save this way of living for our children.
      You can’t put a dollar sign on or purchase our sanity and casual way of life.
      Don’t sell out San Diego….. once this is ruined, where will you go?
      P.S.- I’ve shopped at those industrial lot stores over 40 years.

      • John S Reply

        I do live in the area. I live along Morena Blvd, have for a couple of years. I am not a developer, nor do I work in construction.

        The dollar signs remark leads nowhere productive and could easily be thrown back by asking if any of your motivation is to protect your own land value. I am sure it is and that is not a “bad” thing.

        My comment is fueled by recognizing, witnessing, and experiencing the struggles created by the chronic affordability crisis. I know many individuals and families, renters particularly, who are priced out of the market as a whole. This is not just a local problem, most major metropolitan areas in the United States.

        I would recommend you read the report. It is not based on some developers greed, it is just statistics laying out a picture that you may not agree with. It addresses affordability issues throughout our economy, beyond housing.

        I am reminded on my grandmother who grew up in Pasadena, she complained about the orchards and vineyards being removed. Her nostalgia is gone, as is she, but 1000’s of people benefited from that change.
        What will this area look like in 50 years? 75 Years?

        I imagine 90 feet won’t be a big issue.

    • TJ Reply

      I agree with John S. If done correctly, and with input from the neighborhood, 60-90 ft heights could provide a lot of value in the form of mixed use / commercial / shops / new restaurants + some condos/apts for more residential. The fact is more people are moving to SD every day, and more people want to move to Bay Park every day, and no one on this site can change that as much as you huff and puff and fight with NIMBYism. If there is not enough housing, then the cost of housing goes up, meaning every time someone sells it becomes tougher to buy, and there is a race to scoop up every fixer upper and turn it into a huge mansion (come see the 2 new homes on Galveston/Napier for example). Without more residential options, this neighborhood will become La Jolla in no time. Is that what everyone wants? It will price out half the people ont his board. And we all know we need far more new restaurants and shops and eateries around here, we have very very few. Adding more residential and more mixed use will give us more of everything. Traffic will increase a little, but where in SD does it not suck?

    • Anonymous Reply

      John S. do you have a financial interest in help to destroy what is a wonderful neighborhood?

      • Concerned Reply

        Exactly, who are these people who are agreeing and saying nothing is wrong with 60-90 feet. You CLEARLY do not currently have a view AND/OR you work for the people trying to ruin our neighborhood by taking our views away and adding congestion. GO AWAY, you do not care about our neighborhood and you should have no vote!

  43. M. Smith Reply

    NO! No to 90 feet, no to 60 feet. Keep the height limit in place. It’s bad enough to traffic more people with the trolley through our neighborhood, but to throw another 3,000 plus units in. The Morena Blvd boardwalk will decrease the traffic load already and then you are going to dump thousands more vehicles from the tenants and service vehicles into the already crowded streets. Try going down Morena Blvd south during rush hour towards Linda vista or Friars Road now with Trolley delays. Imagine thousands more cars. Are you adding more freeway on ramps? Move traffic flow around the Friars trolley crossing? Adding a freeway exit from the 5 freeway directly to Friars?
    Emergency vehicles already have traffic and trolley delays. What if you increased the car and trolley traffic. Not everyone will use thr light rail. You will delay responses even longer for Engine 25 (Bay Park), Engine 20 (Midway) Engine23 (Linda Vista). Are you going to add a fire station in the lower Linda Vista area? Ambulances?
    How many of those units will be mandated as low income or Section 8?
    What happened to the water crisis? Why does everyone have to let their yards, grasses, parks, and other vegetation die? The City and their Developers can build 3,000 units and at least increase the water usage in this small defined geographical area by 10,000%. Let alone all the future developments.

    If we wanted to look at high rises and obstructed views we would have bought our houses downtown or in University city. We have been bound by height limits for years for a reason. Keep the density down.
    We aren’t allowed or weren’t allowed to go over the height limits when we wanted to do remodels to slightly increase our views.
    Now you want us to live in the shadow of “Progress”. Take our sunsets away….
    NO WAY,
    This is their litmus test for developing this area. More will come if this is allowed. This is the tip of the iceberg.

  44. NATHAN Reply

    I agree with most. Not understanding the exact location of the buildings, until it is clear that these buildings would not obscure many Nieghbors view, I agree No on 90 foot or 60 foot buildings. There are plenty of areas in the valley that could be used for such large buildings. My presumption is it comes to making more money by creating better views for the new residents of the new proposed condos. All this at the expense of those who have worked their entire lives to buy a property with the current view ond open feel. I agree with building in the area, but the size and layout must be considered. This looks to me to be a slap in the face of the community. Clearly no on these monstrositys, but yes on urban development w the consideration of aesthetics . Apologies for typos. Typed on iPhone.
    Nathan Lay and family

  45. Peggy Lieb Reply

    I oppose ANY DEVELOPMENT in Bay Park over 30′. I agree with the responders who say it is the developers who will benefit to the detriment of the existing home owners. Who wouldn’t want to build a condo building and increase the height by triple on the same lot, therefore increasing the profit about triple for the same development? Is that right? – NO. Is it permitted with the present allowable height limit? NO. Is to best for the environment? NO. Is there sufficient infrastructure to support the additional density? NO Is it what the community of Bay Park/Overlook Heights want? NO

    What it will do is put extra money in the pockets of the developers while decreasing the value of the neighborhood.

  46. Soula Reply

    Imagine Overlook Heights without the Sea World fireworks during the summer or the magnificent color of the Pacific sunsets during the winter. That’s what 90 foot structures means to me – “a room without a view”.

  47. Fran Reply

    When we marched down Morena Blvd In Sept/2014 with Raise the Balloon – the red, ten-foot diameter helium balloon at 60 feet, showing how buildings at that height would impact our communities from Clairemont Drive to Tecolote Road – a video was taken. A GoPro camera was attached to the top of the balloon and a video was made. It showed that at 60 feet, Mission Bay could not easily be seen. Any chance of “good views” from buildings in between Morena Blvd and I-5 would have to go beyond that height. That’s part of the reasoning for the 90′ proposal by Perry Dealy, architect. Apartments/condos will bring top dollar with vistas from 90′, while devastating Overlook Heights residents and the views that gave rise to the name of this unique piece of Linda Vista, “beautiful view”. This height also sends red flags for the industrial portion that reaches Friars Rd farther south.. With little to no height overlay protection, this area could soar to who knows what height. With Riverwalk Golf Course on the chopping block, another wall of condos will line Friars road. I am not against Smart, Slow Growth. No, to this project of 1700+ units and 90′ heights.

    • Anonymous Reply

      LOVED that DAY! With all the marchers, kids, wagons, many people just slowly moving along! Wouldn’t that be nice! a real boulevard, sure next to trolley & Freeway, but a buffer zone, fast on south bound side, slow on north bound side, b/c you could of just taken the freeway to go fast! Problem with higher density is more low wage jobs, their already playing games with a sub-livable minimum wage increase at the fancy restaurants 3-5% surcharge, suggesting “tax” need but NO City mandate to raise price or City fee! They get richer, we pay more, and barely any goes to employees.! Hey we tip them so they are not homeless! Not to make owners richer! Would get worse with other franchise store/businesses, trolley will be used to bring those people in to work for low wages/unlivable for around here!!! Meaning second round of insurance increases, second round of new traffic congestion…see Gaslamp and downtown. All those fancy high rises, but few that work there live near there. No public restrooms or parks to take break in. And City in budget debt with little good maintenance! New Businesses should HAVE to add bathrooms, they cause the need! They SHOULD also have to maintain new park spaces, they cause that need too! And signage…Trader Joes Park, Arby’s sitting park, Wholefood restroom plaza. AAA Financial Center Park & Ride urban park and transit center…Take it off our tax burden and onto the those who cause & benefit from these new conveniences Sincerely yours. daniel Environmental Officer, but realist of Mesa College ASG.

  48. Susi Reply

    I am a native to Bay Park, My parents bought a lot in 1950 and over the last 70 years they and their neighbors have fought to protect views and the 30 ft height limit! WE will live here long after the developers build their monstrosity and move on to destroy the next neighborhood?

  49. Anonymous Reply

    I strongly oppose the 90 ft height increase. It is totally out of character with the rest of the neighborhood. I also think energy and water conservation standards should be imposed.
    Sincerely,
    Aisle Vaughs

  50. Joselyn Suria Reply

    I strongly oppose raising the limit to 90 feet. Do not let this area and Morena Blvd become another Mission Valley and Friars Rd nightmare

  51. Anonymous Reply

    How many times have this been voted down, and we keep on getting ignored !? How can they get away with repeatedly submitting … HOW DO WE PUT AN END TO THEM !? We need to STOP THEM ! We’ve already voted ! How can they continue, after we’ve voted it down already ? This is harrassment . I hope someone can tell us , how to put an end to their continuous submission AFTER we’ve already voted it down.

  52. Genie Reply

    NO! NO! NO! Low density is a valuable commodity that respects the urge of most human beings to experience natural beauty, open vistas, fresh air, safety, and ease of movement. Humans generally value spacious living conditions. There is precious little serenity in modern urban life as it is; why make plans to destroy what we have here? Let the developers and the citizens who crave bland vertical structures and a beehive of restaurants and commercial activity pitch their plans and make there homes elsewhere! Bay Park and Overlook Heights are old communities with established populations that have been passing homes from parent to child to grandchild over the decades. That kind of loyalty to neighborhood is a valuable commodity. Let us preserve what we have and improve upon it. Let’s say NO to the extinction of our space and peace of mind; for, once taken away from us, they will be impossible to regain.

  53. Sharon Griffin Reply

    Just a guess – I would bet that the 12 property owners who would like to see the 90 foot height be approved do not live in the area. If they want to live with a choked off view, blocked air circulation and a wall surrounding their homes maybe they can move downtown or to Little Italy. Find a single or two story house, and surround yourself with as much height as you desire – go for it. Bay Park and Linda Vista Overlook Heights residents say “no thank you”.

  54. Violet Macias Reply

    Please leave our community beautiful as is by keeping the current height of 30 ft, we really don’t need more density in this area or more traffic. Thank you for listening to my comment.

  55. Lora Reply

    The higher the buildings, the more people living there. I think view is not as important as dealing with the extra traffic on Morena and surrounding streets. Napa is ridiculously narrow and Morena at Tecolote Rd is a complete squeeze. There is too much traffic in this area now for the street capacity. The beginning and end of the school day at Longfellow and School of the Madeline bring traffic tie ups getting on and off freeway five at tecolote rd. If we HAVE to have building at this site, please keep it minimal.

  56. Anonymous Reply

    No to anything more than 30′-lets not have any exceptions allowing them to go to 45′! Morena Bl and surrounding streets will not be widened and neither will I-5, so we don’t need more density which will cause over crowding. We also don’t have enough water, and that’s why our rates are so high – no more reckless growth and over crowding! We don’t have to accept it! Fight back everyone!!! It worked before, so let’s keep fighting!

  57. Mary Reply

    No No No to anything above 30′, not 45′ either! Morena Bl and surrounding streets will not be widened, and neither will I-5, so increasing density will increase traffic and overcrowding. Say NO to this plan! We’re already short on water, we have restrictions in place, and our rates have gone up because of the shortage-we don’t need more residents when we don’t have enough water as it is. Be strong, fight back! We don’t have to accept this! Let the mayor and your council member know you’ll vote them out if they support this over crowding! It worked before, Lori Zapf recommended against the 90′ proposal in a memo to the Mayor. Let’s do it again!!!

  58. Patrick Leon Reply

    There are 90 foot trees all around. People are concerned about losing views to 90 foot construction. How about tree maintenance to prrserve views? That’s a cheaper view obstructuin to fix and is already a problem.

  59. Heather Doty Reply

    No! Property owners in that area paid more for their homes because of their proximity to the view. It is not fair that that be eliminated for the profit of the commercial property owners who will supply temporary housing to temporary people (renters). The City should listen to the residential property owners whose lives and net worth will be impacted by this business operation. Keep it at 30 feet or build out East.

  60. Connie Biewer Reply

    No to anything over 30 feet! I specifically bought my home with a view of Mission Bay because there was a 30 ft zoning restriction and it was a residential area. If I had wanted to live among tall buildings, I would have bought one of the high rise condos in downtown San Diego. I have followed all of the city’s zoning restrictions, rules and regulations; I am a taxpayer and a voter. I am adamantly opposed to any developments over 30 feet!

  61. Anonymous Reply

    Perhaps someone can start a thriving tall metropolis out in the desert!!!! NO NO NO. !!!!!

  62. Ron Stamper Reply

    Born and raised in the Bay Park area, I/we have seen the area become a land developer’s dream. They don’t care about our traffic congestion that has increased over the years, They don’t care about the people that live here nor blocking their views nor the on going water shortages and lack of infrastructure. The City spent 20+ years driving people out of De Anza Cove and now that they have succeeded, all they is have 3 half baked ideas on what to do with the land. 20 years to get nowhere but In only a few months they can OK 1700+ units to be built on commercial land though. I say NO, don’t let the deep pocket group of 12 ruin what we have as a neighborhood and community.

  63. khold Reply

    This area needs to focus on amenities, not density. check out the arts district of los angeles, this area is perfect for that kind of modest gentrification without adding density, or minimal, and 100% not raising the height limit. This proposed plan feels like and attempt to make this mission valley, which Bay Park is NOT and in stark contrast people moved here to get away from that sort of density and mainstream development. You have a university nearby, amenitize. Put a grocery store there and more boutique restaurants, retail fronts and creative office if anything. San Diego and Bay Park only get one shot to do it right, and this is not right.

  64. Anonymous Reply

    I love the mixed use concept, but 30 ft is enough, just like Napa St station. How many are going to want to live with the 10 pm freight train shaking the walls of the apartment? Will there be parks/green areas?

  65. maria trapasso Reply

    Absolutely No to 90 ft. height. Morena Blvd. will become so congested, we won’t be able to travel south on already overused roads. Why does issue come up over and over again? These land owners must have friends in high places at the Building, Planning Depts. and City Council. It’s bad enough our water rates continue to rise, where will all this water come from for all these new apts.? SANDAG needs ridership for their folly trolley!

  66. Klau Reply

    When my husband and I chose to buy our home, we chose Bay Park. We chose this neighborhood because it was specifically that – a neighborhood. We bought here specifically because we knew that the 30′ height restriction would keep the area modest, sweet, quiet and safe. We bought because we witnessed a sincere sense of community – neighbors who knew and cared for one another. Now, as we have a young family, that has become even more important. We’d love nothing more than to continue to dig out roots into this perfect family neighborhood but our quiet sense of safety is being directly and obviously threatened with this proposal. Increased height equals higher density which equals more traffic on our streets, less room for our kids to play, more transients roaming the streets, more crime, more noise, less views, less sense of neighborhood, etc. We deserve a voice and we deserve to be heard. Listen to us… we say NO to 90′!

  67. J B Collins Reply

    Our home has been in the family since 1954. In the last few years, we have felt the changes from the development on Friars Rd. The traffic commute to and from downtown on 163 is now scary. Especially, exiting on Friars West. The cars back up on the East exit and the traffic is moving too fast to move over. Every trip into the “valley” has to be weighed as important enough for the hassle. Using the 5 is one more long line to get up and over to Morena. Pacific Highway? Not so easy now. My point? Where would those 1700 plus residents fit into the commute? Do you really believe they will all take the trolley? It isn’t just about views – it’s about quality of life. There are plenty of glass & steel castles downtown if that’s what people want. High density living is vibrant – more sirens, more transients, more delivery trucks, etc. not everyone thrives in that environment.

  68. Judy O'Connor Reply

    It is very obvious that the residents of Bay Park, Overlook and Bay Ho love the small town atmosphere we have enjoyed for years. Why not look to making the existing neighborhood better instead of being greedy and going for 90ft? Why overload the area instead of building something reasonable that would benefit the area. We have a 30 ft. height limit and our community does not want 90ft. Listen to homeowners and look to beautifying the area not overloading it with more cars and people.

  69. Nancy Reply

    This is an unacceptable level of density for this area. Linda Vista Rd, Friars Rd, Morena Blvd will NOT be able to handle the traffic . I do not trust city officials and developers to make the right decisions for the community. This will be another disaster like Mission Valley and Little Italy.

    • Anonymous Reply

      I would like to also add that not only will residents of Linda Vista be affected, but those using the Sea World Drive onramp to 5 frwy north will be those coming from Point Loma, Ocean Beach and Mission Beach. I have sat through 3 sometimes 4 traffic lights just waiting to get onto 5 north. Everyone forgets that this is a major onramp to the frwy for so many commuters from all over! How can we possibly add over another 1,700 new units (Not to mention other proposed development in the surrounding areas) to this already overtaxed entrance to 5 frwy? Build the infrastructure first then we can negotiate!

  70. Ryan Rolla Reply

    Considering all other major properties/projects around Mission Bay for the past 40+ years have remained under 30′, *with exception to the Sea World log ride (per their master plan variance)…No exceptions should be made now for this specific Linda Vista Community Plan project on Morena Blvd, which could set a precedent for future projects in the surrounding areas of; Bay Park, Clairemont, De Anza Point, Paradise Point, Crown Point, Pacific/Mission/Ocean Beach or the undeveloped spaces at South Shores/Fiesta Island that currently thrive while striving to maintain the 30′ limit.
    It will be a very slippery slope if any variances above 30′ are made.
    This project should be redesigned to maintain the 30′ limit, if it to be considered at all.

  71. Kristen Victor Reply

    In most cities around the world living in the urban part of a city with access to smart growth planning and development requires educating the public, the policy makers and the developers specific to: the integration of placemaking (creating places for human engagement around different interests i.e. open space, parks, gardens, bicycle stations); active transportation (walking, biking, skating); transit oriented development (housing within walking distance to trolley and bus, omitting the need for cars and reducing traffic); and multi-family living with affordable opportunities (housing for the working people and/or students).

    What we see here in San Diego for the most part is poorly developed communities, not engaging in smart growth, increasing our carbon footprint with limited access to public transportation. The area in conversation is TOD (Transit Oriented Development), providing opportunities to increase open space through increased density with height. It is a simple economic equation of building quality in communities with increased density, allowing for open space for the enjoyment and enhancement of health and well being designed from the neighborhood up. This process promotes equity and opportunity to endure fair distribution of benefits and burdens, community well being, community identity, clean and affordable transportation options, energy and water resiliency, supporting healthy urban systems that regenerate habitat and ecosystem functions while minimizing the impact through materials management.

    The main reason why we see very poorly development communities is the reality and acceptance of the developer building regardless and the community fight every step of the way. This is referenced as NIMBYISM (Not in my backyard) verses YIMBYISM (Yes in my backyard). If we continue to fight rather than sit around the same table, listen to each other, learn what the options are and plan accordingly, rather than trying to prove our points, the developers will add buildings to our community without integration, aesthetic design, environment regenerative qualities, that enhance and weave our community together verses tearing it apart, weakening the connections, isolating people, increasing traffic, all due to poor planning.

    I would like to suggest, rather than say no, take a step back, realize the potential opportunity for urban development with a Smart Growth planning by checking out other cities that have done this well and all come together for the sake of our community. Check out a few resources if interested, I would be happy to share more and continue the conversation.

    http://www.pikeandrose.com/stories/
    https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/the-ecodistricts-protocol/
    http://www.beautifulPB.com

    Thank you,
    Kristen Victor
    Sustainability Matters, Founder
    beautifulPB, Co-founder

  72. greg Reply

    No ,hell no on the height.Born and raised here in Bay Park.We don’t need any of these “improvements”.The city just wants to expand the tax base,and they can’t even maintain what they have now.Take a look at most streets and side walks,haven’t been touched in years.Look at the mission beach boardwalk,it’s just embarrassing,the disrepair.How about the water problem,or lack there of.Yea sure we got some rain this year,how about next year.There are to many people living here now,let’s not jam in more people.For the people who grew up here,this used to be a great place,not so much anymore.I just hate to see this change for the worst.

  73. Jen Mayer Reply

    I bought here in Bay park explicitly for the view. And now you want to ruin my view, which will decrease the value of my property. Any neighborhood with views should keep their 30 foot limit without exception. There should be no question about it and people not affected should not even be able to vote! This is completely unnecessary and unacceptable!! NO, just NO!

  74. Joe Bell Reply

    Height is not the only reason for neighbor concern. Throngs of increased traffic on West Morena Blvd. will no doubt upset travel times to and from the area and the delicate balance of waiting times at local businesses. As to Councilwoman Zapt’s about-face on her pledge to keep heights to 30 feet with a contingency clause thrown in smells of back-handed politics! She must be defeated next time she’s up for re-election. Time to drain the local swamp of incorrigible two-faced political hacks.

  75. James Tate Reply

    Please do not destroy Clairemont/Bay Park with over development and increased heights, it is bad enough that the trolley/crime train is coming through and bisecting the community and that it is unwanted in the first place. Clairemont has and original WWWII bedroom charm and has grown immensely in the past few decades. Once upon a time there was a horse stable and an unblocked view of the canyons and bay and now it is on the verge of a sprawling cluster of unplanned development and eyesores. Enough already! The politicians have not listened to the residents of the community and have taken money from the developers who do not live here and decided against us. Sad very sad.

  76. Kimberly Wiedemeier Reply

    Changing the height limit will set a precedent for future developers to undermine the original 30 ft limit on Morena. This would absolutely affect homeowners up the hill, and is, therefore, unacceptable–unless strict regulatory measures are taken to prevent it. The fact that past regulations are being undermined now doesn’t give me hope.

  77. Dee Reply

    The vote choices are not nuanced. You should have had 3 choices – 30, 60, or 90.
    I think 45 feet would be acceptable at those trolley stops. Maybe not 90 feet, but 45-60 feet would be okay in order to have a multi-storied condos or apts over stores like the Linda Vista station. It’s difficult for some baby boomers to understand but the need to cars and a driveway is not what millenials or gen x’ers are all about. We need to have housing that is affordable – not everyone needs a 3-4 bedroom house so let’s have some mid-sized condos. And older baby boomers are not going to be able to drive as much when they get older, so having decent mass transit near where they live keeps them mobile. You need to stop the NIMBY attitude and decide what’s reasonable. We’re not talking wall to wall condos and office buildings all the way up Morena – I would be opposed to that. I am in favor of walkable places to live near the trolley.

  78. Anonymous Reply

    Absolutely NO! 30ft is plenty of height. NO need for this mass condo influx. There is already an increase of traffic and adding that many units with thousands of people and cars is absolutely insane. Already heavy traffic to get on the Freeway 5. I have lived in the Bay Park neighborhood for 43 years and this is going to ruin the community not enhance it. Leave this beautiful area as it is. Tecolote Canyon is going to be impacted with people who do not care about preserving it and keeping it pristine.

  79. rose Reply

    1700-plus homes is crazy, unfair and brutal to a neighborhood that wants to remain a neighborhood. 90-feet high? How dare you. Enough parking? Probably not. You know that you can’t force people to take public transportation. You still have to drive in San Diego, and the trolley and buses don’t cut it. Traffic flow on both sides of Morena Boulevard, or will you just leave the streets as they are? Probably. Water? We didn’t have a drought this year, fortunately, but we will again. Where will the water come from for all of these new residents?

    If I had a million dollars, I’d get a petition together to put this on the ballot. Twelve developers should NOT have the final say on how our neighborhood gets redeveloped. They have no right to destroy our community with such housing density and traffic nightmares.

    Money sways in their favor, though; it always does.

  80. Larry Reply

    Sound planning would dictate that the downtown area is appropriate for high density living. It would be more cost effective to provide infrastructure to support that lifestyle by expanding downtown in an orderly manner to the east, south and north. The trolley line is a lame excuse to leapfrog high density into the Morena area. The intendant impacts of traffic, noise and higher density living will be borne by the neighborhood and not the developers.
    The urban core needs mass transit because of high density and the attendant problems of traffic and parking. The urban core can also utilize efficient means of local transport (buses, trams, etc) to serve that core. Residents in outlying areas will also use the trolley to go downtown because of parking and traffic issues. As downtown expands, there will be a point of critical mass where using the trolley will become the preferred method to and fro.
    It is simply premature to place such development in the Morena area at this time. Once Mission Hills and Hillcrest and Golden Hill and all other areas near downtown become densely developed and the infrastructure to move people within that zone optimized, should it then be appropriate for such high density in the Morena and Bay Park area.
    For now – No on 90 feet and no change in zoning densities.

  81. Donna Reply

    No to 90 feet. This appears to be a developer’s dream to be able to build 9 story buildings (1700 units) with an OCEAN VIEW. I’m guessing that there would be NOTHING affordable about these units. Increasing density is a loser and only increases traffic in an area that cannot support 3400 cars, assuming 2 cars per unit. The idea that the owners or tenants would only have one car and would use the Trolley is a joke. I find it hard to believe that our elected official Lorie Zaph would even remotely vote for this development. If she tries to weasel out of standing up for this community then I hope she is not planning to run for re-election or (as rumor has it) for Mayor if this passes.

  82. David Reply

    60 sounds very reasonable given all the improvements and ammenities. Much better than the ugly warehouses where it’s not safe to walk through with the kids.

  83. Renee Reply

    ABSOLUTELY NO. The 90 foot building limit is ridiculous. Developers want to make Bay Park (and the immediate surrounding area) a concrete jungle just so they can line their pockets. They will destroy the quality and character of the community and they will NOT take the responsibility for the destruction of the area by adding noise, pollution, traffic, and problems caused with higher density. The current area infrastructure cannot support such a development. Developers and local politicians are notorious for promising to “upgrade” the existing infrastructure but rarely, if ever, follow through on such promises because they run out of money, the project runs over budget, etc. (remember the promise of underground utility lines). When the promises fall apart the community is abandoned and left to “deal with” the mess. The existing 30 ft height limit is gracious plenty … and even with the 30 ft limit the added structures will increase noise, pollution, traffic and infrastructure to an area that was not designed (nor envisioned) to be urban sprawl or a concrete jungle.

  84. Stephanie Reply

    The problem with these developments in desirable areas is that they don’t really solve the housing issue. This development will not be affordable. Many of the units will be purchased by investors and rented out at a premium. So, okay, students at USD will have another great place to rent while they attend school. But at the expense of homeowners and permanent residents who have lived in the area for decades? That’s total BS.

  85. Michael Colburn Reply

    As many others have stated, to think that the majority of the 1700 residents will use public transportation for their daily needs is pure fantasy, here in So Cal. Imagine the log jam for the already busy on-ramps for 5 and 8 in the vicinity of this development. Clearly, the people proposing this mess will have nothing to do with it, but those of us who bought (invested) into the community decades ago, will be reminded of it daily. Unless new ramps are planned for the freeways to accommodate all these additional trips, the traffic mess alone makes the decision obvious. NO 90 FEET!

  86. Michael Colburn Reply

    By the way, I investigated the use of public transit for my own, seven mile commute to Kearny Mesa. The time required to accomplish such a trip by public transportation is predicted to be 43 minutes, which is likely optimistic. Today, I routinely make that trip in the morning well within 10 to 15 minutes, by car. And I get to take my computer and accessories along in the trunk, and am ready for mid-day personal business, which comes up with regularity. The trolley extension goes nowhere near Kearny Mesa, so I don’t see giving up my single occupant car commute any time soon. It is also an electric vehicle, so my carbon footprint is minimal.

    It sure would be interesting to see how many of the transit bosses actually use their own service. Precious few, I would think. When public transit is efficient, economical, reliable, and safe, I’ll be the first one on. Until then…….

  87. anonymous Reply

    90ft with condensed units is a greedy idea. Longtime residents of Bay Park have a community and family mindset while developers and select locals see $$$$ signs and early retirements. Shame to some of the local residents who have been here for a while who are silently investing and buying into this idea, gathering private investors and crunching numbers behind closed doors. You know who you are!!

  88. Carol Baker Reply

    I do not support the 74 living units per acre. I live in Overlook Heights and we have 2 exits and they both put us on Morena Blvd, 2 blocks apart. With this many people, even if just 1 person has a car in these units, plus the retail cars coming and going, it will grid lock the street and landlock us in our neighborhood. If you live here, you would know because when they built the units at the old Uni School site, the traffic has gotten much worse, when traffic is heavy on hwy 8 or hwy 5 you would know that it takes an hour just to get to Office Depot. (for those that don’t live in Overlook Heights, this is 3 blocks from our exit on Morena Blvd.)
    And the idling cars exhaust will come right up to our homes. With tall building, the air flow will be blocked so it will go straight up and then to our homes when the air flow gets better.
    How will an emergency vehicle get in?
    The city does NOT require parking for living units. The current proposed plan has less than 1 parking spot for the living units. These units will NOT be affordable. They will have most likely have 2 people per bedroom. And the occupants will be parking in our neighborhood because there won’t be enough parking. The city and SANDAG keep telling us the new residents will ride the trolley and their bikes. Even if they do, they will still have a car. Where will they park it? In front of your home!
    and if you weren’t aware, they expect us to walk or ride our bikes to the retail stores that will be there and the trolley. I’m guessing that many of the residents in Overlook Heights will not be doing this. The walk/ride down the hill is fine, but I will not be walking up the hill in business clothes and heels trying to carry bags. The trolley doesn’t even come close to where anyone in this home work. So, riding the trolley is not going to happen.

    On another note, how many ride the trolley everyday to work? It’s pretty pricey. I would rather pay for my car maintenance and gas so that I don’t have to spend 3x’s as long on the trolley to get there.

    For those that don’t understand the affordable housing rules, only 10% have to be affordable and the developer can pay the to not have any affordable units. So, this is just a political ploy to play on people’s sympathies. Don’t fall into their trap.

    For those in favor of raising the density, please consider the people that live in Overlook Heights and our quality of life. The impact on us is tremendous.

  89. Harriet Sangrey Reply

    I live in Overlook Heights and I am opposed to the 90ft height limit.

    I am also opposed to the initially proposed 3,300 new units to be built in Linda Vista. The density will impact our quality of life. The traffic is horrible now what will it be like if this building moves forward.

  90. Nathaniel Kerber Reply

    Do we need to update and add more infrastructure to the area? YES! Should it be 90′? No. Is the 30′ rule outdated and needs to be looked at on a case by case basis? Yes! The area here where Jerome’s is would be perfect for a 45-50′ structure. Mid-rise apartments and condos with retail areas on the ground floor are the future for areas like Linda Vista/Bay Park. With this location being lower than the majority of the housing on the hill overlooking the bay, a 50′ structure would not inhibit your view. It would stimulate economy, add a more robust area to visit. The plan needs some more open space but as a whole we need to add apartments and condos if we want to actually keep a vibrant San Diego. In my asking around, those who are most opposed to the height limit are all older citizens of the area who don’t have to deal with the high cost of housing. As a resident of Bay Park/Clairemont area for over 6 years now, if my wife and I want to buy a home so we can finally call this place our “home” we would need to buy a dilapitated 60 year old home and look to update it with no money because it still costs around 450k when it needs everything updated.

    We need to be thinking about how the future generations will be able to afford homes and it all starts with new construction and updating of areas. There is a middle ground in the whole height limit discussion about where we want to hold that and where it needs to be adjusted. If you are on the fence that it’s never gonna go away all you are doing is hurting the future.

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Web Design BangladeshBangladesh Online Market