One Paseo Vote

[an]

carli, are you saying then that we should freeze all building between Carmel Valley, PQ, and RB until we get public transit infrastructure in place? Or are you saying we should just keep on building, but low density housings?

[FlyerInHi]

The problem with public transport first is that it’s a huge waste of money. You end up with buses and rail without any riders.

Successful public transport is added to already dense, congested neighborhoods. There a period of congestion and inconvenience, but that’s the price of progress.

[njtosd]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Carli, population in San Diego growing. We need to build housing/shopping.

Fundamentally, we differ. I say that One Paseo is not dense enough. I won’t get my wish, but I would prefer Mission Valley type density and large condo/apartments complexes mixed with 20 story buildings, all along the 56 corridor over sprawl to other parts of San Diego.

It’s perfectly OK for the city council to approve a variance to the zoning for the area. They grant variances that all the time.[/quote]

Brian – depends on the variance. Try getting a variance to build a feedlot in 4S Ranch. It depends on what the variance seeker wants – and lots of other factors.

[carli]

No, AN, I’ve only been addressing this thread and what’s being proposed in the current version of One Paseo. It’s impossible to make any general, broad brush statements about all building in the area.

But to answer what I think your question is getting at, of course I don’t want to (nor could we) freeze all building in the area until we get public transit. Look at all that’s in process of being built by Pardee alone. That ship has sailed.

What sets One Paseo apart from other developments and makes it so worthy of a closer look is its size. Because it’s so huge, its impact will be that much more hugely felt.

Times like this one present us with the opportunity (and I think responsibility) to express and push for what we need, such as public transit, in order to make this denser housing work.

The developer is requesting a variance to build 3 times what the current zoning allows (the area allows for 500,000 sf but the current One Paseo design is 1.45 mil sf), which will generate 24,000 additional cars/day, creating massive delays, creating valid public safety and environmental concerns, not to mention the huge hassle factor. Other developments request/receive variances to current zoning, but not 3 times what is allowed for the tract, and not with this magnitude of negative impact to the public and environment. Especially not without anyone even addressing any future plans to mitigate that impact, such as public transit.

The slogan for the One Paseo opposition group is “Not THIS One Paseo”. What they’re saying is that no one is opposing development at that spot, just not this crazy huge one.

[an]

[quote=FlyerInHi]The problem with public transport first is that it’s a huge waste of money. You end up with buses and rail without any riders.

Successful public transport is added to already dense, congested neighborhoods. There a period of congestion and inconvenience, but that’s the price of progress.[/quote]Agree, you can’t build transport first, because as you said, it’ll be a big waste of $. With that said, the city planners can sit down with the developers to truly draw out the areas they want the developers to build high density, then put in plans for public transit stops around those areas. But then you’d need to add in caveats that these stations won’t be built until developers build the high density units. That would be the ideal way, but that would require a lot of fore thoughts and a lot of cooperation between all parties, which I don’t think would be a feasible thing, especially when we’re talking about about 30-50 years city planning. The other two options I think would be to either build density first, then transit will come or transit comes first, then density will come. Both have their problem. If you build density first, you’ll have problem like One Paseo, where people will say, see, no plans for transit, so too dense. If you build transit first, you’ll have issues like what’s going on on Bay Ho, where current owners are saying, no way to high density, even if there’s transit, because it’ll block their view and add too much traffic and ruin their feel of the neighborhood. So, there’s really no easy answer IMHO.

[an]

carli, so, what you’re saying is, One Paseo is too dense. But yet, you also say there’s no public transit. You also say it’s impossible to stop the development and all of Carmel Valley are zoned to be not very dense. Which mean that you don’t mind that Carmel Valley will forever be a lower density area with no public transit, since there’s not enough density for a need for public transit. Am I understanding that correctly?

I think One Paseo might be huge in term of density, but not in space. I think Pacific Highland Ranch is much bigger, yet there’s not the kind of push back you see from One Paseo. What that’s tell me is that, people in Carmel Valley don’t mind the suburban sprawl that has been going on. Soon, Carmel Valley will be built out as well. Once it’s built out, it’ll be very hard if not impossible to upzone. I don’t have a dog in this fight, so it’s really up to what people in Carmel Valley want. Too bad they can’t have a special election for all the residence in 92130 to voice their opinion.

[flyer]

I think most of us who don’t agree with building One Paseo, just don’t feel it’s right for that location in it’s current status, and frankly, for better or worse, most people I talk to prefer sprawl over density–even though they may not express it in those exact words.

It’s true that San Diego is growing, and more and more people will need housing and shopping, etc., etc., but with so little “buildable” land left, even if every tiny sliver in San Diego was built out to maximum density (within current zoning restrictions) I don’t think it would have much effect on San Diego’s affordability index going forward. IMO, the days of affordable housing in San Diego are pretty much over, but, we’ll have to see how this all plays out.

[The-Shoveler]

Like AN I don’t have a dog in this fight, but I do kind of disagree with flyer in that compared to L.A and most of OC, SD does have quite a bit of buildable land left IMO.

It just needs to be re-zoned in a lot of cases (like the 20 acre minimum in a lot of North county rural areas).

Anyway I would probably not want it in my back yard either, kind of starts to turn your nice suburb into more of a big city type of place.

I think New-port beach kind of had it right, Put High end Hotels next to your dense shopping and biz buildings if your going to have them.

[an]

The-Shoveler, flyer is right, there’s not very many buildable land left. You mention there are very many low density zoned area. However, they all have something on them already, so getting it rezoned is very difficult, expensive, and a lot of time, impossible, specifically due to NIMBYism.

[The-Shoveler]

In a lot of North county rural area’s the Land owner’s would love to subdivide their lot(s) but the county has imposed a 20 acre minimum lot size for subdividing the lots into separate buildable lots (that’s a lot of land just sitting there in most cases LOL).

I am not sure whether it’s nimbyism or environmentalism LOL.

Anyway not my fight but I can understand the people opposing it just because they don’t want it in their back yard at the same time.

[an]

Maybe it’s a little bit of both nimbyism and environmentalism. I also understand why people are opposing it. It’s not might fight, since it’s not my area. I was just voicing on opinion on what I think is needed for San Diego to grow. I’m glad Mira Mesa and Mission Valley are taking a totally different route. We’ll see how these areas play out 50 years from now.

[flyer]

If projects like this are at least minimized, I think it will work out fine for those who want to protect a particular way of life they prefer living, but, for those who haven’t taken steps to ensure their heirs will be able to preserve that way of life, (should they choose to stay in San Diego–or CA in general) it may be a problem in the future.

[spdrun]

[quote=AN]The problem with public transport first is that it’s a huge waste of money. You end up with buses and rail without any riders.[/quote]

That’s how it used to be done, though. Streetcar companies would build lines into lightly developed areas and make deals with developers to build them out. I’m talking about the late 1800s and early 1900s.

[spdrun]

FlyerInHI, you’re being way too fancypants here 🙂 No need to tear out the existing cabinets. Clean them up and repaint them. Takes about a day. Stove and dishwasher can be had for $400 for both on Craigslist, and a lot of HGTV watchers throw out perfectly good 5 year old appliances because zOMG they need to renovate. Say a grand for the countertops, and you’re up to $2000 if you re-tile the kitchen floor and change the range hood.

The house I grew up in still has its original 1950s kitchen, albeit with a slightly newer (1970s?) stove and new dishwasher. Nothing wrong with it: still works as well as any other kitchen I’ve used.

Bathroom: paint, floor tile, new cutoff valves, new toilet, new sink, new medicine cabinet, new vent blower can be done for about $2000 as well. You end up with a clean space to live. Nothing fancy, but not squalid either.

Spend the other $1000 on things like A/C units, new carpet if needed, etc.

$5,000 for an Ikea kitchen, including appliances if you do the demo and install yourself. For the price you might be able to get granite counter tops (usually about $1000 for an apartment size kitchen).

If you change electrical, plumbing, get permits, etc… the price goes up.

To remodel a 2/2 condo you’re looking at closer to $15k – $20k, for kitchen and baths, depending on how much you DIY. Plus add flooring at a minimum of $5/sf for material and install.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=spdrun]FlyerInHI, you’re being way too fancypants here 🙂 No need to tear out the existing cabinets. Clean them up and repaint them. Takes about a day. Stove and dishwasher can be had for $400 for both on Craigslist, and a lot of HGTV watchers throw out perfectly good 5 year old appliances because zOMG they need to renovate. Say a grand for the countertops, and you’re up to $2000 if you re-tile the kitchen floor and change the range hood.

The house I grew up in still has its original 1950s kitchen, albeit with a slightly newer (1970s?) stove and new dishwasher. Nothing wrong with it: still works as well as any other kitchen I’ve used.

Bathroom: paint, floor tile, new cutoff valves, new toilet, new sink, new medicine cabinet, new vent blower can be done for about $2000 as well. You end up with a clean space to live. Nothing fancy, but not squalid either.

Spend the other $1000 on things like A/C units, new carpet if needed, etc.
[/quote]

That is so half-ass. Can’t deal with that.

If I had the choice of what you propose vs a new condo, I’d move to the ticky tacky suburbs.

I’m now redoing a 1977 townhouse, top to bottom. Everything is the place was gross. But it’s gonna look like a Dwell Magazine house.

I’m in love with Ikea kitchens right now. You change out the doors and replace all the parts anytime you want. Excellent design.

[Author]

Posts