Commission Narrowly Approves Destruction of Historic Buildings in San
Diego
Despite a request by the San Diego
City Attorney that the Commission not approve demolition of historic buildings
for suburban shopping mall, the Commission voted 6-5 (with all three San Diego
Commissioners in support) to allow the mall project to go
forward.
On December 14 the Coastal Commission reviewed
an appeal by Save Our NTC (Naval Training Center) asking that the Commission not
allow a proposal to demolish several historic buildings in pursuit of a plan to
build yet more shopping malls.
John McNab, representing Save Our NTC appealed a
decision by San Diego Development Services Department (DSD) regarding a
"substantial conformity" determination that alteration of historic buildings at
NTC was neither significant nor major.
The hearing was made interesting by the fact that
the San Diego City Attorney’s office had recently determined that McNab's
appeal was meritorious because the alterations were in fact significant and
major and that the substantial conformity determination had blatantly violated
the clear language of the NTC Precise Plan and the CDP for NTC. Since DSD's
in-house review provided no public notice or hearings and circumvented the
requirement that the San Diego Historical Resources Board and California State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) review the proposal, the City Attorney had
found the internal development and planning review to have been
flawed.
Cory Wilkerson of SD DSD said that no notice or
historic board review was required because he and DSD had determined that the
proposal was minor. Inadvertently, Wilkerson had highlighted the entire problem
at DSD and their circumscribed substantial conformity determination
process.
Coastal Staff relied on their staff report and
argued that the substantial conformance decision was appropriate given the
confusing language of the CDP. CCC staff- Deborah Lee said that staff’s
only reluctance was a feeling that the proposal should have gone to SHPO. Lee
did not mention or address the need to go through the SD Historic Resources
Board.
Commissioner Larry Clark (Palos Verdes) began the
discussion by zeroing right in on the request of the City Attorney, and asked
that the Commission’s legal counsel interpret the letter. They said that
the City Attorney can differ from DSD, but that the Coastal Commission could
safely rely on their own staff's determination that the SD DSD historical review
process was sufficient.
Commissioner Dan Secord (Santa Barbara) agreed,
and then said that in Santa Barbara substantial conformance is 15% or less
modification. He asked how SD DSD staff makes such determinations, but
Wilkerson was unable to provide any protocol whatsoever.
Deborah Lee then said that coastal staff has
disagreements with San Diego DSD (and other communities) on substantial
conformance review, but that here at NTC the modifications involve less than 50%
demolition of the existing buildings.
Commissioner Steve Padilla (Chula Vista) then
asked more particularly about the Precise Plan and the proposed modifications,
and clarified that the NTC permits do allow for a substantial conformance
determination. The question then was not if SC determinations are allowable, but
rather, were the changes proposed herein minor or major.
So how does the public participate in such a
determination?
Cory Wilkerson then said that only "new" permits
are entitled to public notice and hearings, and in this case there was no
“decision” and only a "finding." In a bothersome admission,
Wilkerson acknowledged only DSD and the developer that make all the
determinations.
Commissioner Sara Wan (Malibu) then opposed the
linguistic "findings" excuse, and said that the modifications involved a coastal
development permit (CDP)- a permit, not an abstract "finding." Wan also said
that it was clear to her that SHPO review was required, especially given the
Commission's relative lack of expertise regarding historic buildings. Wan said
the Commission would benefit from a SHPO determination.
Deborah Lee then said that the project had not
gone to SHPO, and that DSD's position is that SHPO analysis is not
required.
Commissioner Patrick Kruer (San Diego) then moved
to approve the project and deny the appeal. Commissioner Bonnie Neely (Humboldt
Co.) provided the second.
Commissioner Kruer said that coastal staff was
correct, and the proposed modifications were minor, that the process was long
and that the shops were needed.
Commissioner Mary Shallenberger (Sacramento) asked
if the public space areas within the historic I-shaped buildings were the
"critical" historical features.
Deborah Lee said no, there were other features,
such as arches, that were also historic.
Commissioner Shallenberger then said that the
ambiguity within the permit
was
reason enough to require the appeal be upheld. She said that on appeal the
issue could be clarified.
Commissioner William Burke (Los Angeles) then
agreed with Shallenberger, and said that the City Attorney of San Diego had
asked the Commission to refrain from approval- and that he was not comfortable
going forward until it is clarified.
Commissioner Larry Clark then agreed with
Shallenberger as well.
Commissioner Mike Reilly (Sonoma) then said that
he agreed as well, and that the appeal should be heard in order to clarify the
confusion.
Commissioner Dan Secord (Santa Barbara) spoke
again, and again opposed the appeal, and said that this entire project is not a
coastal issue and should be approved.
Commissioner Wan then spoke again, and reaffirmed
her belief that the matter should be clarified by the independent
SHIPO.
Then alternate Commissioner Ben Haddad (San Diego,
sitting for Commission Steve Kram), sensing that the Commission might honor the
City Attorney's request, expressed exasperation with the process, and said that
the Commissioners were "raising the bar, making it more difficult for
developers." Haddad became increasingly agitated and tried to apologized to the
Commission for the "antic's" of the City of San Diego and the City Attorney in
particular and criticized the use of "special interests" to work on these
issues.
Since all the parties in the discussion were
represented by legal counsel, people wondered what Haddad was talking about.
Could Haddad be incensed that the City Attorney might support the public and not
the mall developer? Undeterred, Haddad (a former San Diego Chamber of Commerce
spokesperson) continued to lobby adjacent Commissioners against the appeal for
the remainder of the hearing.
Haddad’s outburst was the Commission’s
first exposure to the anger that San Diego’s entrenched business and
polluter community is exhibiting toward reform minded City Attorney Michael
Aguirre.
Commissioner Steve Padilla (City of Chula Vista,
San Diego Co.) who was sitting right next to Haddad, then joined in and said
"with all due respect to the City Attorney" that the Commission should just
approve the project. Padilla was forceful and repeatedly expressed his opinion
that the "NTC site committee" was in fact the SD Historical Resources Board, and
that the DSD process was a "public process" and urged that the project be
approved because a lawfully noticed and conducted local historical review
process had occurred.
Although Padilla’s arguments were persuasive
and articulate, they weren’t correct. DSD’s in-house review had
provided no public notice or hearings.
Commission Chair Meg Caldwell then responded to
Haddad and Padilla and said that "morbid curiosity" aside, that the Commission
shouldn't be in the business of second guessing the decision of the City
Attorney with respect to matters of legal representation and interpretation.
Caldwell said that coastal staff had chosen to side with DSD, and that she would
tend to agree.
Then the Commission voted 6-5 to approve the
project and deny the appeal, with Commissioners Secord, Neely, Caldwell, Haddad,
Kruer and Padilla voting for NTC and Commissioners Burke, Clark, Shallenberger,
Wan and Reilly voting for the appeal. As a result the appeal was denied and the
project will go forward without further review.
Posted: Thu - December
22, 2005 at 06:28 PM