THE MERGEHollow Victories in the 'Hills
By Ian S. Port
Monday, May 5, 2008 | The residents paying attention these days are upset about the only thing left here in Torrey Hills to be truly upset about.
Development.
 |
| Ian S. Port |
There aren't many places left to build, but if the latest additions are any indication, all the scrutiny this comfortable community can muster is still likely to result in some residents becoming supremely irritated by near-permanent impacts to their quality of life.
The community's victories -- hard-fought as they are -- always seem to end with a cruel, unexpected twist.
Take this one: Residents of a quiet street that runs along Carmel Mountain Road returned home recently to find that car headlights from the parking lot of a just-finished strip mall shine directly into the private side of their homes, illuminating their families' living-and-bedroom activities for the entertainment of sushi eaters across the street.
The local planning board thought about this possibility beforehand, and asked the developer to put in plants and a wall to block the light. But the strip mall was mistakenly built eight feet above the grade level set out in the plans -- giving diners a view over the privacy walls of the homes across the street -- and the parking lot wall was forgotten.
"We have no privacy here," said resident Yvonne Ravad, who is married to the chairman of the planning board. The view from her kitchen window now includes a parking lot and the blue neon sign of Zip Fusion sushi where deer used to run along a wild hillside.
But the strip mall actually was a desired outcome. Residents fought off a Chevron station proposed for the site (which is quite close to an SDG&E power substation) and ended up with the car lights instead.
That's the kind of victory the residents of Torrey Hills seem to get. And now there is widespread worry that the community's biggest win so far -- a lawsuit that defeated city approval of a major biotech facility -- may turn out Pyrrhic as well.
Residents were thrilled when, after three and a half years of legal battles, an appeals court finally overturned the city's approval of a biotech complex that was to be built just down the street from an elementary school. So thrilled, in fact, that the community planning board wholeheartedly embraced the developer's next proposal: To build a condominium project on the site instead.
The project would involve a rezone of the land from industrial to residential, requiring an amendment to the community plan that governs Torrey Hills. The board unanimously supported getting started on the amendment process. The two sides thought they were finally in agreement.
Diana Padgett, a community activist who helped lead the campaign against the biotech facility, even went to the Planning Commission to support the plan amendment required by the project.
"Everybody thought that was a good idea," Padgett remembers.
But after looking a little more deeply at the project, Padgett and others found it to be far denser then they originally realized. With roughly 44 residential units per acre, the project planned by Coast Income Properties would be by far the densest development anywhere in Torrey Hills. (The densest development now is an apartment complex that's 29 units per acre.) The proposed level of density isn't permitted in any of the land-use zones anywhere in the community, so the city would have to use a new zone for the four lots in question.
Upon learning all this, residents balked.
"We bent over backwards to try and make it work," Padgett said. "We tried to negotiate with them in good faith to put something there that made sense for the community. When finally we realized they were not going to budge on the density, we said we cannot in good conscience move forward with this."
No one I have spoken with in Torrey Hills is in favor of this project as it is currently proposed. And none of them -- even planning board members more sympathetic to Blake than activists like Padgett -- know any residents who support it, either. More than 300 recently signed a petition Padgett circulated opposing the project.
Thomas Blake, principal of Coast Income Properties, says the size of the project was clear from the beginning, and the Torrey Hills has simply changed its tune. (He didn't return my calls seeking comment for this story.)
Why is more density a big deal? Because it means more people -- and therefore more traffic. The Torrey Hills area, which is book-ended on the north and south ends by Carmel Valley and Sorrento Valley, respectively, already sits in one of the Merge-land's nastiest traffic zones.
So as the date for a decision by the city approaches, residents in Torrey Hills are increasingly tense. A couple dozen residents nearly exploded at the planning board's April meeting, because a majority of board members said they wouldn't submit comments on the draft plan amendment without seeing the environmental impact report on the project -- which hasn't yet been released.
The residents felt the board should take every opportunity to criticize the proposal. Board members didn't want to rush it.
"Why would they even ask us to do that? It's just not appropriate," asked board member John Dean, who has been on planning boards in Carmel Valley since the 1980s. Dean says he can't remember a time when the city asked a planning group to evaluate part of a project without all the supporting documents.
That heated, two-hour debate -- to comment or not to comment? -- brought the ironies of Torrey Hills' development politics to light.
At the meeting was a former longtime planning board member who lost her seat in an upset election -- likely in part because of community anger at the strip mall that lights up local living rooms. But the former board member, Paula Abney, also led the board subcommittee that reviews new development. She knows as much or more about the controversial Coast Income project as anyone else.
When several board members said it didn't have enough information on the project to comment on the plan amendment, Abney rolled her eyes and recited a list of problematic details.
"The people in this room understand the impacts if this gets built," Abney said. "We're going to be socked in with traffic all around."
Everyone seems to believe that that's what will happen if Torrey Hills loses this battle. After so many hollow victories, even the activists are sounding cynical about the possibility of forcing a change.
"It's frustrating and the cards are stacked against us," Padgett said. "And maybe we'll pull a win."
But even if so, what new challenge will that bring for Torrey Hills?
Ian S. Port is assistant editor of the Rancho Santa Fe Review, Carmel Valley News and Del Mar Village Voice. Contact him at iansmithport@gmail.com. Or send a letter to the editor.
Reader Feedback
Comments are now displayed with the newest at the bottom. Not sure you're seeing all of the comments? Click here:
Comments so far on this story: 1. Torches and Pitchforks wrote on May 5, 2008 8:21 AM:
"Thats what the residents of Torrey Hills are like. They all bought houses on a massivley graded hill and claim to be environmentalists. They all bought within the last 5 to 10 years, yet claim new development is bad...NOW...but not when their houses were being built. They are the epitome of NIMBYism... "where deer used to run along a wild hillside"??? BARF! The hillsides are all steep manufactured slopes sandwiched in between a substation and development and the freeway." 2. Sparky wrote on May 5, 2008 8:59 AM:
"NIMBY - NIMBY - NIMBY Why is it the loudest cries come from those who complain about traffic yet refuse to use mass transit or car pool? Help me understand the "impact" on traffic. 4 acres at 44 units per acre (176 units); the largest complex to date is 29 units per acre (116 units). The bio-tech business that was shot down would no doubt have drawn 250+ vehicles a day to the business. If people worked more toward flexible work schedules, user friendly mass transit and incentives for car pooling (preferred parking) these types of issues could not be used to shoot down the type of development being planned here. The entire Carmel Valley area is a joke to the rest of the City for their continued cries "NIMBY". Is there ANYTHING you people won't sue over?" 3. CV Mom wrote on May 5, 2008 4:43 PM:
"I think that the cries of NIMBYism are just envy and jealousy from the rest of the city, that can't control the neighborhood development in their areas. Unlike the rest of the city that is controlled by politically connected developers, Torrey Hills residents are mostly homeowners who DO NOT want large scale developments in their neighborhood. Don't underestimate their power -- the were able to block the gas station AND the biotech firm. Their residents include many folks who are well versed in fighting development interests. Interesting to see the the nasty comments are from folks who take the sides of the DEVELOPERS over the residents!" 4. Sparky wrote on May 6, 2008 10:45 AM:
"CV Mom; I am opposed to a development newly created and not fitting within the community plan when the balance of the community would be adversely affected. Carmel Valley fought, sued and screamed to the top of their lungs to stop Interstate 56. This freeway had been known about, agreed to and signed off by EVERY buyer in Carmel Valley since the late 70's. The only thing they accomplished was costing the taxpayer more money for the delays and court costs. I could go on. Their cries are NOTHING more than NIMBY. It is a select few of rich snobs who after buying their home want to decide how the rest of us live. Their homes were built by developers who received the go ahead by politicians and communities who saw the wisdom of controlled development and logical practice. Go north on 5 from 56; oops we can't; know why?" 5. Joel wrote on May 6, 2008 3:19 PM:
"It's a stretch to call this a NIMBY case. This is a clear case that a developer's greed exceeds the normal limit and irritates the community. I'm not happy if it happens anywhere. For those who cry out NIMBYism, please answer honestly whether you'd be happy if it were in your neighborhood. If no, you're a NIMBYist; if yes, are you really honest???" 6. Sparky wrote on May 6, 2008 6:53 PM:
"The developer made clear his plans from the start. There was no shell game nor an attempt to deceive. The planning board agreed completely with the plan and was moving it forward. Enter the NIMBY group who started to pressure board members and the numbers were all of a sudden realized. You buy that? If that is what happened, those on the board who supported it should do everyone a favor and quit. They did not do their homework and created this situation from their incompetence or laziness. I would not support nor deny a project of this size solely on the perceived traffic issues. What types of residences and what are the demographics of those projected to purchase would be a major consideration. 44 per acre could be shrunk to 38 and still provide a profit to the developer. Was it considered? Doubt it." 7. TH Dad wrote on May 7, 2008 12:32 PM:
"The traffic concern is totally legit. There was a hit-and-run incident due to speeding last Dec next to Torrey Hills Elementary and the proposed condo site. 176 new families will undoubtedly make it worse. Why should this developer deserve the special treatment of a new zone? The Board has the responsibility to represent the community, and it's up to the community to decide whether they'll leave or stay." 8. TH Dad wrote on May 7, 2008 12:32 PM:
"The traffic concern is totally legit. There was a hit-and-run incident due to speeding last Dec next to Torrey Hills Elementary and the proposed condo site. 176 new families will undoubtedly make it worse. Why should this developer deserve the special treatment of a new zone? The Board has the responsibility to represent the community, and it's up to the community to decide whether they'll leave or stay." 9. NIMBY Guy wrote on May 10, 2008 8:52 AM:
"Folks, Face it. The developers own the politicians in this county and that's the name of that game. Get used to it. The building will never stop until it's, "Wall to Wall Ten Stories Tall." Then what? Then they tear it all down and do it all over. I never was an environmentalist until I met my first developer. However, you can fight it, but you have to organize and stay with it. If everybody was a NIMBY the developers wouldn't have a chance. Stop writing and start fighting. You out number them." 10. South of 94 wrote on May 10, 2008 9:11 AM:
"Where is Torry Hills anyhow? City of San Diego? Del Mar? Unincorporated? Thanks." 11. Diana Padgett wrote on May 10, 2008 6:25 PM:
"Since I am quoted in the story, I thought I would clarify for some of you in the comments who think they know what we did or didn't do here. First of all it is about 40/DU on 12 acres, equaling 480 units. The plans from the City show a project so out of scale to the lots that the buildings are literally hanging over the building pads. The issues surrounding this project are varied and range from traffic, bulk & scale to fire response time and height restrictions. The fact that it is right across from our local elementary school is an added caution for us. We worked long and hard with the developer to come up with a reasonable project. I've had NIMBY thrown at me so many times (even when helping in communities where I don't live), I'm immune to it." 12. TH Resident wrote on May 11, 2008 2:23 PM:
"The NIMBY argument is nonsense. Our only objection is the massive increase in density - waaaay over the original community plan. Claims by the developer that this was the plan all along simply aren't true. The developer is practicing the time tested approach that if they misrepresent the facts often enough it becomes accepted as truth. The ambivalent/non-proac position of the planning board is disturbing. They should be taking every opportunity to see that the community is developed according to plan - that's why they are the "planning" board. However their position is consistent and indistinguishable from someone who is in favor of this massive violation of the community plan." 13. sure wrote on May 12, 2008 10:47 AM:
"the strip mall was mistakenly built eight feet" 14. Sparky wrote on May 12, 2008 2:11 PM:
""The ambivalent/non-proac position of the planning board is disturbing. They should be taking every opportunity to see that the community is developed according to plan - that's why they are the "planning" board. However their position is consistent and indistinguishable from someone who is in favor of this massive violation of the community plan." THANK YOU "TH Resident" Someone finally points out the truth. Had the TH Planning Board been doing their job correctly this most likely would not be where it is today. Ms. Padgett's attempt at explanation is self serving. What you fail to explain is why you were in support until someone pointed out the numbers that created a stink? "We worked long and hard with the developer to come up with a reasonable project." What are you trying to say Ms. Padgett?" 15. Diana Padgett wrote on May 12, 2008 3:59 PM:
"As president of the orgainzation (THCC) that led the 3.5 year legal fight against this developer and won, I know that since the developer is now going through a Community Plan Amendment (CPA) process, we had to try and come to an agreement or we would have no grounds for further challenges. Those discussions broke down because we objected to the density. Nobody "pointed out the numbers" to me, we (the THCC) pointed it out to the community. My guess is that "TH Resident" is referring to the April board meeting where members were reluctant to comment on the CPA. Myself and other members of the community demanded they comment and they did. Did you even bother reading the article "Sparky?" You seem too eager to find a "bad guy" then to get the facts straight. When that happens, the develper always wins." 16. CV Mom wrote on May 13, 2008 8:58 AM:
"Here's the key point from the article: "The proposed level of density isn't permitted in any of the land-use zones anywhere in the community, so the city would have to use a new zone for the four lots in question." In my opinion, it seems like the city is either going to EXEMPT the DEVELOPER from current zoning rules, or they will force the developer to adhere to current zoning densities. Why is it NIMBY to force the developers to adhere to current zoning guidelines? Why is it NIMBY to oppose granting the developers an EXEMPTION to current zoning guidelines. Do we want city planning people and politicians who are in the pockets of developers, who will readily EXEMPT developers from current zoning laws?"
Feedback Rules
Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Add Your Comments
|
PRINT 
E-MAIL STORY
SHARE
FACEBOOK
REDDIT
NEWSVINE
DIGG
DEL.ICIO.US
BLINKLIST