Possibly paving the way for more intense development in many parts of San Diego, the City Council voted 7-2 on Monday night in favor of the controversial One Paseo mixed-use project in Carmel Valley.
Three of the council’s Democrats — Todd Gloria, Myrtle Cole and David Alvarez — joined with the panel’s four Republicans in support. Councilwomen Marti Emerald and Sherri Lightner voted “no.”
Council members in support said the 1.4 million-square-foot complex of office buildings, condos and retail stores is a strong example of “smart growth” because it will allow people to live, work and shop in the same place, reducing the need to travel.
Tuesday, February 24, 2015
Huge Carmel Valley Smart Growth project "One Paseo" approved
Read all about it in the U-T.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Here is the bottom line- The Southwest is way over developed for its nature resources. Water alone should be enough reason to stop adding more capacity for more population.
ReplyDeleteNorth County will never nor should never be a big City with transit infrastructure to support "high density without cars"…. like Paris, New York, or even Irvine or Huntington Beach. Vote no for any politician that supports growth.
In our case that means every incumbent- VO NO INCUMBENTS NEXT ELECTION.
In 2004, the San Dieguito Water District (where most of us get our water) imported 6867 acre feet of potable water.
DeleteIn 2013, the most recent year for which data are available, SDWD imported 2395 acre feet.
That's a 65% reduction. Basically, we import 1/3 as much water as we did a decade ago, even though we have a significantly larger population.
(See Table 5, page 128: http://www.encinitasca.gov/Modules/ShowDocument.aspx?documentid=3438)
How is this possible?
• For some reason, the table shows our use of recycled water has actually declined significantly in recent years, so that doesn't explain it.
• Our total potable water use from all sources peaked in 2007 at 8398 acre-feet. By 2013, total consumption declined to 6595--a decline of more than 20%. It is likely that decline comes from conservation, Less thirsty labdscaping, efficient drip irrigation systems, low flow fixtures, and the conversion of ag land to residential. These are all factors that should continue the trend into the future.
• by far the biggest factor in the decline of imported water use seems to be a huge increase in collection and distribution of local water sources. In 2004 only 454 acre-feet of our water came from local sources. A decade later, that figure increased almost ten fold to 4200. Not sure the construction of the Elfin Forrest dam can explain that dramatic change.
Interesting stuff.
Big money trumps common sense - these politicians know what trough to feed in - the developer$'!. The concept that the people will live and shop in the same location is a joke - many won't be able to afford it. This will only add to the traffic nightmare that Southern California has become and will become a crisis when the resources are scarce or unavailable. I agree with 7:10 AM - vote every incumbent out.
ReplyDelete"“Density without transit is not smart growth and it doesn’t work". Good point by Lisa Heebner. The biggest opposition was from the mall across the street. This was and always has been about adding more density and cars to an area that is already heavily traffic impacted due to the location near DM Heights. Citing smart growth is misguided at best.
ReplyDelete-MGJ
Citing smart growth is just a cover for the developer in this case. DM Heights and Carmel Valley is a rich guy area, like any area near the coast. It's not an area for students or young people. Not surprised it was approved though...
Deletehttp://www.whatpricemainstreet.com/blog/
Too bad those who qualify for "affordable units" will be looking at a huge water bill in a few years. That'll get 'em "out of their cars" because they won't be able to afford those, either.
ReplyDeleteI still wonder where So. cal is going to get all of the water it will need with these never-ending large projects, and DB? Hasn't anyone thought of that in Sacto? And, in my opinion, desalinization is not the answer, as costs are very high. It works in Israel, but the population is a lot smaller.
ReplyDeleteSacto and cities only care about the increased revenue.
DeleteThe Cabezon
There is NOOOOOOOO water shortage, it is a ruse to increase fees. If there was a water shortage why did your city put in 7 acres of water thirsty grass??
Delete11:24 AM
DeleteBecause it's using grey water which there is a surplus of.
11:24 AM Because you're paying for it?
ReplyDeleteExactly... another ripoff of the taxpayer.
Delete80% of California's water use goes to agribusiness.
ReplyDeleteAnother 6% goes to industrial uses and government.
Only 14% goes to homes.
Of that 14%, half is used for watering landscaping.
http://bit.ly/1q5rH3A
There is a case to be made that residential uses are too small to make a big difference in California's water shortage. There is also an argument that higher density development results in less irrigated landscaping per person. On the whole, we would be consuming less water if more people elected to live in higher density development.
I realize this isn't the whole story. Just pointing out that there are shades of grey in the debate.
Not for me. More people bad.
DeleteIt's that simple .
Of course not one of you has the forethought to propose the train through Encinitas be below grad, it will take a disaster like Oxnard this am to get this city moving...and even then nothing will happen.
ReplyDeleteBelow "grad" - is that a BS?
DeleteI think 3:29 means undergrad. As in, post-GED.
DeleteIf this is what's called "Smart Growth", I wonder what "Dumb Growth" looks like.
ReplyDeleteSmart growth is the same as dumb growth. Both end up with the same result -- more traffic, more CO2, more air pollution, and more of everything that is bad for the environment.
DeleteTo call it a village center is Orwellian. I lived in a village for two years in the Peace Corps Nothing like One Paseo at all
Huntington Beach is a prime example.
ReplyDeleteHuntington Beach was the Village that many people escaped to come to a smaller and slower Encinitas. Now the evil forces are working to ruin Encinitas into the next PB and Huntington Beach. The only thing that will stop it is the people. Just ask Solana Beach. They get it. I wish their City Council could run our City.
ReplyDeleteIs Mom still making your bed every day after you walk to the 7/11 for your comic book, 7:19 PM?
DeletePity she found yer stroke magazines... We wish you were living in Solana Beach, too.
7:19, If Solana Beach gets it, why do they keep adding more stop lights?
DeleteCan a use permit for one property be used to get a building permit for a different piece of property? The answer is yes if the planning commission, staff, and the city attorney approve it. The Lux Art Institute was spot zoned into residential property. The Lux board bought the adjacent Children's World parcel. The Lux board couldn't apply for a use permit for the Children's World property. The city planning department used the Children's World address and parcel number but used the Lux use permit to get planning commission approval for building permits for the Children's World property. All that renovation that was done on the Children's World's building was done illegally.
ReplyDeleteWho cares besides you? Go hire an attorney. Encinitas loses most of its court cases with their excellent City Attorney.
ReplyDeleteWe should all care...or give us your name. Next time it'll be you with a zoning bait-and-switch and the rest of us can just walk on by....
Deletenot me. I'll sue the City. they have a great record of losing cases.
Delete5:56 AM
ReplyDeleteThe city planners perpetrated a fraud using the Lux Art Institute use permit to obtain building permits for another property that didn't have a use permit.
The planning commissioners (Shannon was absent) and the city attorney Lusitana helped in the perpetration of the fraud.
Sounds like a juicy story. Why don't you speak at council about it? Or e-mail us enough details that we can post.
DeleteIt seems like these individuals with insider information are afraid to reveal more - perhaps a concern for their anonymity?
Delete