Here's something you might be interested in.
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed
Big Screen — Movie commentary
Blurt — Music's inside track
Booze News — San Diego spirits
Classical Music — Immortal beauty
Classifieds — Free and easy
Cover Stories — Front-page features
Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes
Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts
Feast! — Food & drink reviews
Feature Stories — Local news & stories
Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore
From the Archives — Spotlight on the past
Golden Dreams — Talk of the town
The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it
Letters — Our inbox
Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites
Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans
Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists
Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news
News Ticker — News & politics
Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated
Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna
Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated
Poetry — The old and the new
Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers
Reading — The hunt for intellectuals
Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails
San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds
SD on the QT — Almost factual news
Sheep and Goats — Places of worship
Special Issues — The best of
Street Style — San Diego streets have style
Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves
Theater — On stage in San Diego this week
Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative
Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work
Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego
Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads
Your Week — Daily event picks
Drowsy Council Muffs Late-Night Vote
San Diego — At close to midnight during the April 15 meeting of the San Diego City Council's consideration of the Paseo de Mission Hills project, District Seven representative Jim Madaffer observed that moments earlier he had received an e-mail from former councilwoman Judy McCarty. The e-mail's information? That three o'clock in the morning is the record for the latest the city council had ever stayed in session.
Alan Hazard, in the audience after addressing the council to oppose the project, says he remembers wondering if members had been paying attention to his testimony and other discussion on the Paseo development. Or were they on their laptops, engaged in instant messaging? Then Madaffer expressed support of the motion (subsequently correcting himself) after speaking against it. By the time Hazard got home after midnight and listened to his voice mail, his suspicions had grown. As reported by several voice mail callers, Councilmember Tony Young changed his vote after all the Paseo project's opponents, including Hazard, left the council chambers with an apparent victory.
On the first roll call, Young voted for Michael Zucchet's motion to uphold the opponent's appeal of the San Diego Planning Commission's January approval of Paseo de Mission Hills. The $40 million project, which is bounded by Washington Street and Goldfinch, Fort Stockton, and Falcon Streets, is in Zucchet's District Two. It promises to add 60 new housing units. Young's vote gave the opponents and Zucchet a five-to-four victory. Afterward, when the council had moved on to another subject, Young interrupted Mayor Dick Murphy to say, "Your honor, the vote before this, I'd like to move to reconsider; I think I misvoted."
Since Hazard had gone home by the time this happened, he later copied the video replay of the council's subsequent Paseo project deliberations. But the copy starts even before Young's request for a change of vote. I am watching it with Hazard in his living room. When Mayor Murphy, who seconded Zucchet's motion to uphold the appeal and reject the Paseo project, repeats it before taking the roll call, Hazard asks, "What could be clearer than that to Tony Young?"
Hazard and his wife Janet O'Dea call themselves committed "historic preservationists." They belong to Save Our Heritage Organisation and are founding members of Mission Hills Heritage, a group dedicated to protecting the homes and architectural styles of early Mission Hills. They say that the plans for Paseo de Mission Hills will give the development a "Little Italy look," causing it not to fit into the Spanish revival, Craftsman, Prairie, and other architectural styles that now characterize Mission Hills structures. More importantly, in Hazard's opinion, the 65 feet the Paseo project would reach is too high, and it has too many deviations from a long-standing local community plan.
The fact that the project's developer, Robert Lawrence, is a Mission Hills resident is often cited in favor of Paseo. "But Lawrence lives in a new glass home in the Presidio end of Mission Hills," says Hazard, "not in its heart of historic homes."
As we watch the video of the April 26 city council meeting, Hazard interjects kudos for Zucchet, who is saying, "If the project were under 50 feet, we would not be having this conversation." The councilman goes on to compare it to Mission Hills Commons, a redevelopment of the block just to the east, on Washington. "[That project] turned out pretty good," he says. But "Paseo pushes the Mission Hills Commons envelope quite a bit.... It pushes it a good story or story and a half higher. It sort of super-sizes Mission Hills Commons...and that evolution is a real concern to me."
But we see other councilmembers now expressing more concern for developer Robert Lawrence. After claiming that an even larger project is warranted in Mission Hills, Madaffer tells residents, "What you should do is go [by] your community plan. We shouldn't change the rules for an applicant [like Lawrence] who is simply following what's on the books." If residents don't like the community plan, they should change it, says Madaffer.
Hazard stops the video to complain that Paseo supporters have been conjuring up visions of a 150-foot project as a way to get opponents to accept the actual height of 65 feet. And changing the community plan is very difficult, Hazard notes, echoing a point he knows we'll watch councilwoman Toni Atkins make later.
Scott Peters appears on screen citing his support for last election's Proposition A, "which was to radically restrict development of the backcountry." Now development opponents, he argues, have to tackle the question of what the right kind of growth is within the city. "And it's not fair to the rest of the city for any area not to participate in that."
This point, implies Hazard, is well-taken, "and we're saying, build Paseo, but just make it a little smaller. You're still adding housing units. We met with the developer and the planning commission to see if there was room for negotiation. And we made an offer. We came off our original stance of only three floors," says Hazard. "We said we could go higher, but not to 65 feet. We asked the developer, 'Do you want to counteroffer?' And he said, 'We've done all we can do.' "
Peters, as Madaffer did earlier, argues that "this developer has lived by the rules." "Do what you're supposed to do, then," replies Hazard, as though the councilman were on the couch. "They have deviations for every floor." Hazard explains to me later that among those deviations are setbacks that are less than the community plan calls for. (Setbacks are legal distances from building's edge to the property line intended to mitigate noise and other negative factors.) The planning commission, he says, allowed the development team to get away with the deviations because they included affordable housing units in their plan. "The developer told the commission that the affordable housing units would allow teachers and firemen to live there," says Hazard. "But not if they have families. Those units are only 400 square feet. And the bigger units in the project will cost $400,000 apiece."
When Tony Young confesses his voting error, Peters also tells the council, "I would like to move that we reconsider the last vote." The video replay shows that he says this almost before Young has finished speaking. Moments earlier, while the council takes a short break between agenda items, Hazard searches the video for signs that Young is being talked into reconsidering an expected vote by Peters and three of the developer's supporters, who by this time of the night were the only people left in the audience. Although discussion before a vote must often happen, Hazard says, "That was fishy."
Councilwoman Donna Frye responds, "Most of the people have left, and I guess that's really bothering me. If we reconsider, then do we hold another hearing? And of the three people in the audience, [now] there is no one from the other side. After everybody leaves, it doesn't feel right."
But Councilman Ralph Inzunza retorts, "It's unfortunate that people have left here, but there's no way in heck I'm going to do this again."
The remark seems to ignite a remonstrance in the mayor. He already has requested advice from the city attorney's representative in attendance, who lays out several legal options. "Mr. Inzunza," says Murphy, "this is something that's likely to get us into potential litigation. [The city attorney's advice] is protecting your behind by insisting she put on the record what the rules are, so that when we vote and it's wrong, it's not your fault and you're not sued personally.... Maybe you should have noticed that things have happened in the last six months."
"I like that," says Hazard. "He's on the right side, and he's very passionate. If he had been like that all along, he'd probably be remaining as our mayor."
The council does reconsider Paseo and holds one more roll call. Young reverses his earlier vote, all the other members maintain theirs, and Zucchet's motion to uphold the appeal and reject the project is defeated five to four, the same margin as in the first vote.
But Zucchet says that he had hoped to put "other alternatives" on the table. And Murphy confesses uneasiness. "I just have to say for the record," he says, "I'm...shockingly in sympathy with Ms. Frye's position on this."
And so the council decides at last to schedule a continuance on the Paseo de Mission Hills deliberations for July 19. Another roll call vote will be taken at that time, when all parties interested in the matter can return to present arguments again. By then, San Diego's mayor will no longer be Dick Murphy, who leaves office on July 15. And, providing his corruption trial comes out in his favor, Michael Zucchet will preside over the vote as acting mayor.
Here's something you might be interested in.
Drowsy Council Muffs Late-Night Vote
Drowsy Council Muffs Late-Night Vote
San Diego — At close to midnight during the April 15 meeting of the San Diego City Council's consideration of the Paseo de Mission Hills project, District Seven representative Jim Madaffer observed that moments earlier he had received an e-mail from former councilwoman Judy McCarty. The e-mail's information? That three o'clock in the morning is the record for the latest the city council had ever stayed in session.
Alan Hazard, in the audience after addressing the council to oppose the project, says he remembers wondering if members had been paying attention to his testimony and other discussion on the Paseo development. Or were they on their laptops, engaged in instant messaging? Then Madaffer expressed support of the motion (subsequently correcting himself) after speaking against it. By the time Hazard got home after midnight and listened to his voice mail, his suspicions had grown. As reported by several voice mail callers, Councilmember Tony Young changed his vote after all the Paseo project's opponents, including Hazard, left the council chambers with an apparent victory.
On the first roll call, Young voted for Michael Zucchet's motion to uphold the opponent's appeal of the San Diego Planning Commission's January approval of Paseo de Mission Hills. The $40 million project, which is bounded by Washington Street and Goldfinch, Fort Stockton, and Falcon Streets, is in Zucchet's District Two. It promises to add 60 new housing units. Young's vote gave the opponents and Zucchet a five-to-four victory. Afterward, when the council had moved on to another subject, Young interrupted Mayor Dick Murphy to say, "Your honor, the vote before this, I'd like to move to reconsider; I think I misvoted."
Since Hazard had gone home by the time this happened, he later copied the video replay of the council's subsequent Paseo project deliberations. But the copy starts even before Young's request for a change of vote. I am watching it with Hazard in his living room. When Mayor Murphy, who seconded Zucchet's motion to uphold the appeal and reject the Paseo project, repeats it before taking the roll call, Hazard asks, "What could be clearer than that to Tony Young?"
Hazard and his wife Janet O'Dea call themselves committed "historic preservationists." They belong to Save Our Heritage Organisation and are founding members of Mission Hills Heritage, a group dedicated to protecting the homes and architectural styles of early Mission Hills. They say that the plans for Paseo de Mission Hills will give the development a "Little Italy look," causing it not to fit into the Spanish revival, Craftsman, Prairie, and other architectural styles that now characterize Mission Hills structures. More importantly, in Hazard's opinion, the 65 feet the Paseo project would reach is too high, and it has too many deviations from a long-standing local community plan.
The fact that the project's developer, Robert Lawrence, is a Mission Hills resident is often cited in favor of Paseo. "But Lawrence lives in a new glass home in the Presidio end of Mission Hills," says Hazard, "not in its heart of historic homes."
As we watch the video of the April 26 city council meeting, Hazard interjects kudos for Zucchet, who is saying, "If the project were under 50 feet, we would not be having this conversation." The councilman goes on to compare it to Mission Hills Commons, a redevelopment of the block just to the east, on Washington. "[That project] turned out pretty good," he says. But "Paseo pushes the Mission Hills Commons envelope quite a bit.... It pushes it a good story or story and a half higher. It sort of super-sizes Mission Hills Commons...and that evolution is a real concern to me."
But we see other councilmembers now expressing more concern for developer Robert Lawrence. After claiming that an even larger project is warranted in Mission Hills, Madaffer tells residents, "What you should do is go [by] your community plan. We shouldn't change the rules for an applicant [like Lawrence] who is simply following what's on the books." If residents don't like the community plan, they should change it, says Madaffer.
Hazard stops the video to complain that Paseo supporters have been conjuring up visions of a 150-foot project as a way to get opponents to accept the actual height of 65 feet. And changing the community plan is very difficult, Hazard notes, echoing a point he knows we'll watch councilwoman Toni Atkins make later.
Scott Peters appears on screen citing his support for last election's Proposition A, "which was to radically restrict development of the backcountry." Now development opponents, he argues, have to tackle the question of what the right kind of growth is within the city. "And it's not fair to the rest of the city for any area not to participate in that."
This point, implies Hazard, is well-taken, "and we're saying, build Paseo, but just make it a little smaller. You're still adding housing units. We met with the developer and the planning commission to see if there was room for negotiation. And we made an offer. We came off our original stance of only three floors," says Hazard. "We said we could go higher, but not to 65 feet. We asked the developer, 'Do you want to counteroffer?' And he said, 'We've done all we can do.' "
Peters, as Madaffer did earlier, argues that "this developer has lived by the rules." "Do what you're supposed to do, then," replies Hazard, as though the councilman were on the couch. "They have deviations for every floor." Hazard explains to me later that among those deviations are setbacks that are less than the community plan calls for. (Setbacks are legal distances from building's edge to the property line intended to mitigate noise and other negative factors.) The planning commission, he says, allowed the development team to get away with the deviations because they included affordable housing units in their plan. "The developer told the commission that the affordable housing units would allow teachers and firemen to live there," says Hazard. "But not if they have families. Those units are only 400 square feet. And the bigger units in the project will cost $400,000 apiece."
When Tony Young confesses his voting error, Peters also tells the council, "I would like to move that we reconsider the last vote." The video replay shows that he says this almost before Young has finished speaking. Moments earlier, while the council takes a short break between agenda items, Hazard searches the video for signs that Young is being talked into reconsidering an expected vote by Peters and three of the developer's supporters, who by this time of the night were the only people left in the audience. Although discussion before a vote must often happen, Hazard says, "That was fishy."
Councilwoman Donna Frye responds, "Most of the people have left, and I guess that's really bothering me. If we reconsider, then do we hold another hearing? And of the three people in the audience, [now] there is no one from the other side. After everybody leaves, it doesn't feel right."
But Councilman Ralph Inzunza retorts, "It's unfortunate that people have left here, but there's no way in heck I'm going to do this again."
The remark seems to ignite a remonstrance in the mayor. He already has requested advice from the city attorney's representative in attendance, who lays out several legal options. "Mr. Inzunza," says Murphy, "this is something that's likely to get us into potential litigation. [The city attorney's advice] is protecting your behind by insisting she put on the record what the rules are, so that when we vote and it's wrong, it's not your fault and you're not sued personally.... Maybe you should have noticed that things have happened in the last six months."
"I like that," says Hazard. "He's on the right side, and he's very passionate. If he had been like that all along, he'd probably be remaining as our mayor."
The council does reconsider Paseo and holds one more roll call. Young reverses his earlier vote, all the other members maintain theirs, and Zucchet's motion to uphold the appeal and reject the project is defeated five to four, the same margin as in the first vote.
But Zucchet says that he had hoped to put "other alternatives" on the table. And Murphy confesses uneasiness. "I just have to say for the record," he says, "I'm...shockingly in sympathy with Ms. Frye's position on this."
And so the council decides at last to schedule a continuance on the Paseo de Mission Hills deliberations for July 19. Another roll call vote will be taken at that time, when all parties interested in the matter can return to present arguments again. By then, San Diego's mayor will no longer be Dick Murphy, who leaves office on July 15. And, providing his corruption trial comes out in his favor, Michael Zucchet will preside over the vote as acting mayor.
Comments