One Paseo Vote

[njtosd]

In a few weeks, the San Diego City Council will vote on the One Paseo project proposed for Carmel Valley. The project as currently envisioned (1.4 millions sq ft of mixed use) exceeds the current zoning restrictions for the area (which prohibit the residential elements currently included in the One Paseo plan and also restrict the development to 500,000 sq ft commercial). In the event that One Paseo is approved, I assume that there will be lawsuits by citizens against the City Council saying that they overstepped their authority, etc. but that’s just a guess. Are there any real estate lawyers or similar that can provide some predictions on this point?

[flyer]

This will be interesting, as we lived in CV for about 10 years, and still have rentals there. I’d really like to hear what others think as well.

[EconProf]

This is going to be a long, drawn-out battle about density between developers and nearby residents. The residents live in wealthier SFR’s and higher end multifamily buildings with elevated prices and rents due to their great location and demographics. They would be negatively impacted by what the developers want: cramming lots more retail and high density apartments and condos (with perhaps lower prices and rents that go with packing more people onto that expensive land). So each side has its own interests in mind in this classic battle.

[FlyerInHi]

The City Council has the authority to approve variances to zoning.

Lawsuits would likely be based on state laws requiring environmental impact reviews, etc…

[cvmom]

I have been depressed to see our zoning processes in action. Money talks, that’s for sure. The voices of residents are much less important. Seems to me that CV homeowners better get ready for the negative impacts to our lifestyle and property values. I am glad our kids will soon be out of school, and we can move if we choose to.

[livinincali]

[quote=cvmom]I have been depressed to see our zoning processes in action. Money talks, that’s for sure. The voices of residents are much less important. Seems to me that CV homeowners better get ready for the negative impacts to our lifestyle and property values. I am glad our kids will soon be out of school, and we can move if we choose to.[/quote]

If it were up to the current residents there’d never be any development after their property was built. Welcome to NIMBYism. What are the really big negatives of a mixed use density project.

1) Traffic
2) Traffic
3) Traffic
4) Low income housing requirements (aka. I support affordable housing as far away as possible from my million+ dollar property)

[njtosd]

[quote=livinincali]
If it were up to the current residents there’d never be any development after their property was built. Welcome to NIMBYism. What are the really big negatives of a mixed use density project.

1) Traffic
2) Traffic
3) Traffic
4) Low income housing requirements (aka. I support affordable housing as far away as possible from my million+ dollar property)[/quote]

Just for the record, I see no indication that One Paseo will include low income housing – and I haven’t heard that topic raised, so I don’t think that is really on the table. Is your comment based on some information that you have, or just garden variety cynicism? My understanding is that there has been Sec. 8 housing in CV for a long time – no one really pays any attention.
Traffic is the main concern for everyone, but I have a problem with ad hoc modifications of the zoning laws and ordinances (which are passed by the legislature). I think it sets a bad precedent for everyone who has relied on the zoning in their area. The city can always increase tax revenue by permitting high income businesses to operate where they weren’t originally zoned to be – whether that’s in CV or next door to anybody.

[EconProf]

[quote=livinincali][quote=cvmom]I have been depressed to see our zoning processes in action. Money talks, that’s for sure. The voices of residents are much less important. Seems to me that CV homeowners better get ready for the negative impacts to our lifestyle and property values. I am glad our kids will soon be out of school, and we can move if we choose to.[/quote]

If it were up to the current residents there’d never be any development after their property was built. Welcome to NIMBYism. What are the really big negatives of a mixed use density project.

1) Traffic
2) Traffic
3) Traffic
4) Low income housing requirements (aka. I support affordable housing as far away as possible from my million+ dollar property)[/quote]
People are naturally suspicious of change, and that is what makes us all NIMBYs. Developers are automatically seen as the bad guys, and we can all cite instances to back up our beliefs.
However, density is actually environmentally more friendly than SFRs. And if the project is designed correctly, where you can walk to shopping and entertainment, an increasing subset of the population actually wants such a neighborhood. Look at the popularity of living in downtown San Diego–an alien concept just 20 years ago. Those residents take pride in not needing 2-3 cars per household, and they get more exercise than typical suburbanites. Add the fact that millenials are no longer lusting for a SFR as soon as they can afford it, and you have a recipe for a development that may be in high demand.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The City Council has the authority to approve variances to zoning.

Lawsuits would likely be based on state laws requiring environmental impact reviews, etc…[/quote]

Looking into it a bit more it looks like you have to file a petition for a writ of administrative mandamus within 90 days of the granting of the variance. So if One Paseo is approved whatever happens will happen quickly.

Okasaki v. City of Elk Grove – http://bit.ly/17cpClB

[njtosd]

[quote=EconProf]
People are naturally suspicious of change, and that is what makes us all NIMBYs. Developers are automatically seen as the bad guys, and we can all cite instances to back up our beliefs.
However, density is actually environmentally more friendly than SFRs. And if the project is designed correctly, where you can walk to shopping and entertainment, an increasing subset of the population actually wants such a neighborhood. Look at the popularity of living in downtown San Diego–an alien concept just 20 years ago. Those residents take pride in not needing 2-3 cars per household, and they get more exercise than typical suburbanites. Add the fact that millenials are no longer lusting for a SFR as soon as they can afford it, and you have a recipe for a development that may be in high demand.[/quote]

But the push for One Paseo is in large part due to its proximity to I-5. In general the facilities are not meant to benefit local residents and the traffic impacts are projected to be enormous. It’s a desirable school district – which will cause families to move into the proposed housing, but there is no provision for a new school, or even a suggestion as to where a school could be built.

[Happs]

What is the cost of a lawsuit against the city or Coastal Commission?

[FlyerInHi]

Is the coastal commission involved?
I don’t think you sue the city council or coastal commission.
You would sue to stop the project because it violates some environmental laws. Or delay the project as long as possible hoping the developer would compromise or give up.

[Happs]

I don’t know the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction boundaries, but an HOA is suing the Coastal Commission and the city of Solana Beach over a low income housing project they claim is too dense.

http://www.10news.com/news/affordable-housing-project-proposed-for-solana-beach-hoa-board-suing-city-to-stop-it-09152014

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Is the coastal commission involved?
I don’t think you sue the city council or coastal commission.
You would sue to stop the project because it violates some environmental laws. Or delay the project as long as possible hoping the developer would compromise or give up.[/quote]

Look at my earlier post re: Okasaki v. Elk Grove. You do actually sue the city. I have heard nothing from the Coastal Commission on this, so I don’t think it is involved. Not sure how much such a lawsuit would cost – in any event there will probably be a number of lawsuits that get consolidated. The basis of the suit would be something like failure to follow the laws governing variances, abuse of power or something similar. The president of the city council is Sherri Lightner who represents district 1, which encompasses CV, so she is definitely motivated. We’ll see –

[carli]

This One Paseo debate and residents’ concern is far beyond a NIMBY response. It’s absolutely crazy that this development has made it this far.

Sherri Lightner, our area’s elected representative to the City Council, has not voiced adequate concern nor is she pushing back on the developer. What more facts does she need other than the lot is approved for 500,000 sf and the developer is proposing (in his scaled down version), 1.45 million sf?

For comparison sake, it’s projected to be similar in density to Horton Plaza downtown, and 3 times the density of UTC mall. It will be 5 times the size of Del Mar Highlands shopping center, right across the street. Most importantly, it will generate 24,000 additional car trips a day, creating huge traffic jams, making it close to impossible for emergency vehicles to respond in a timely way, and also creating huge delays entering the freeways and moving anywhere on Del Mar Heights Rd.

Believe me, many area residents are for “smart growth” with improved walkability, community connectivity and housing options, but that is not what this version of One Paseo would offer. People must not realize that there is NO public transportation on Del Mar Heights Rd or serving One Paseo at all, and there are no plans to implement any public transit until 2035, if at all. One Paseo, as it stands now, is one big car-centric over-development.

It’s crazy talk, and shocking that the project in its current form has even gotten this far. We already have zoning regulations in place, and this variance request is so far out of the scope of what’s reasonable that it’s bizarre the City Council is even considering it. Hmm, let me see, the lot is approved for 500,000 sf and the developer proposes 1.45 mil sf…why is this even being considered, and why is this not a clear waste of the developer’s time/money, as well as taxpayer’s? As one resident wrote in to the local paper in a letter to the editor: “Wouldn’t that be like me tearing down my 3,300-square-foot Carmel Valley tract home and applying to construct a 10,000-square-foot four-story apartment building in its place? What would the planning department — and my neighbors — think of that?”

San Diego residents, even if you live nowhere near this, please don’t let this happen. It will set a dangerous precedent for our city zoning regulations. Make sure your city council rep knows how you feel before the Feb 23rd vote (you can visit the following website, put together by a local resident, to send an email or sign a petition: http://www.whatpricemainstreet.com/).

[Author]

Posts