At our June meeting, the City presented its plans for a new pumping station at 69th and Mohawk. The station will be built at the site of a now inactive pumping station, but will be much larger than the previous one, and will serve City residents primarily south of El Cajon Boulevard. Some community residents object to this project because it is in the midst of a residential neighborhood, and the City has refused to consider viable alternative sites in the vicinity.

Also in June, the board reviewed a proposal for student apartments at 5030 College Avenue. Capstone Development is requesting a Planned Development Permit, Site Development Permit, and Neighborhood Development Permit to build 95 units which will house 366 students. The board voted to recommend denial of the project, since it could not make the findings required to approve it. Specifically, the board noted the following:

1. The proposed development will adversely affect the applicable land use plan, by removing the opportunity for open space and park area in a location where it is specified for in the College Area Community Plan.

2. The proposed development will be detrimental to the public welfare, by offering grossly inadequate parking, with almost 2/3rds of spaces designed as tandem, which will thereby cause residents to park their cars on adjacent Cresita Drive, and will deny on-street parking for residents of the single family homes.

3. The proposed deviations for tandem parking are not appropriate for this location because of the lack of available on-street parking in this Parking Impact Overlay Zone, and will not result in a more desirable project than would be achieved in strict conformance with the development regulations of the applicable zone. Generally, the need for 2/3 tandem parking reflects the attempt to cram too many units into an inappropriate site.

4. The site is not physically suitable for the design and siting of the proposed development, due to questionable resolution of drainage issues (connection of 30" private storm drain to 18" public storm drain) and the resulting unacceptable visual impacts for residents of Tierra Baja Drive and Cresita Drive. Additionally, the project proposes structures of incompatible bulk and scale with surrounding single family development.

5. The proposed project will result in significant and unmitigated impacts to Land Use because it does not comply with the necessary findings for compatibility with the surrounding single-family residential uses. And, the proposed project will result in significant and unmitigated impacts to Visual Resources because it proposes to construct structures that are of incompatible bulk and scale with surrounding single family development. It will result in the denial of sunshine to residents adjacent to the project. And the proposed project will result in significant and unmitigated impacts to Traffic, especially in the cumulative setting because the intersection of College Avenue and Montezuma Road have already been found to fail to serve the needs of City residents due to new construction by San Diego State University at that location.

The board also noted that the applicant originally proposed 102 units with 368 beds. The current and newly revised proposal is for 95 units with 366 beds. This results in 7% fewer units but only ½ of one percent fewer beds. By reducing the number of units, the applicant reduces the number of required parking spaces by almost seven percent (from 252 to 235), reduces the amount of required on-site open space, and reduces the required development impact fees they by almost $100,000, with negligible reduction in the number of residents or impact of the project.

Further, while the project is presented as private apartments, it is in fact a dormitory, as described in San Diego Municipal Code section 141.0304. That is, it is a facility designed for use as a residence for students enrolled at an institution of higher learning, and is officially recognized by San Diego State University, as evidenced by these facts:

1. It's on SDSU Foundation land which will revert to the SDSU Foundation in 50 years, or when purchased by SDSU, whichever is sooner.

2. The contract gives SDSU an option to purchase the project after 10 years.

3. The project will be policed by the SDSU Police Department, rather than by the SDPD.

4. There will be an SDSU student resident manager on premises

5. The project will be run in accordance with SDSU dormitory standards and policies.

Despite this evidence that the proposed project is in fact a dormitory, the project is not being built to dormitory standards, for which City code requires either:

1. Provision of one parking space per student, or

2. A parking agreement between the college or university with which the facility is affiliated and the applicant, which will allow the applicant to use college or university parking facilities to meet the parking requirement.

Therefore, to meet City code, the project should either be reduced to 237 beds, or increase the amount of parking to accommodate the 366 projected residents.

Finally, the board noted that a far less intrusive dormitory project was approved for this site, but was never built. This fact further indicates that the current project is too intensive for the site.

Also at the June meeting, it was announced that the name of the Code Enforcement and Nuisance Rental Property Committee is being changed to the Code Violation Committee, effective immediately.

The board also considered the revised draft language for the Rooming House Ordinance. Former CACPB Chair Doug Case opposed the revised draft language because it left out the wording prohibiting renting by the room, and this makes the ordinance less enforceable. Board members felt the language was adequate and voted to approve the language as it stands, but to ask if the additional language requested by Case could be added. Subsequent to the meeting, it was learned that the requested addition could not be made without delaying passage of the ordinance. The language as shown in the draft was unanimously approved by the Planning Commission on June 25, and will go to the City Council for final approval this summer.

Finally, a discussion regarding the property at 6650 Montezuma Road (the College Lutheran Church property) was continued until the July meeting, due to the lateness of the hour.