• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Then I became a member probably around '95, something like that, '95, '96. I sat in on those meetings and I kept listening and I kept asking, "The traffic is so bad -- why encourage or recommend construction of another 3000 or 4000 units?" And the answer I always got was, "The city council says it's okay, it's acceptable. The traffic levels aren't going to be adversely affected."

Of course, we know that's not true. For every thousand units, it adversely impacts congestion. And then they say, "It's already accepted on the books, and it's private property."

Now, Valerie Stallings was our councilmember at that time, and that was Valerie Stallings's stock answer: that it's private property, it's already been approved by the city council. So then Valerie resigned and there was another election and someone passed around that Donna Frye was running. And then she agreed to run. She has no ties to the corporate world.

This Mission Valley Unified Planning Group was formed by certain individuals who went to the city council and said they wanted to be an advocate for Mission Valley, and the city council approved it and I guess they set up their rules and regulations.

They were all business interests. So it became very embarrassing, and finally the city said in the early '90s, "You have to get some residents on there, some people who live in Mission Valley." And so that's when I started going to these meetings, and it took several months before I was voted on as a member.

It's very difficult to get people to come to meetings in Mission Valley. The problem that most people have is, when you work 40 hours a week, after you fill up the car with gas and buy groceries and cook and clean and do the laundry and everything, you really don't have much time for yourself. So after working eight hours a day, you don't want to go to a meeting. If you're lucky enough to have a day off during the week, you might be able to go to some of these evening meetings.

The unified planning group meets on Wednesday at noon in Mission Valley. Most people work Monday through Friday, basically somewhere between 8:00 and 5:30. If they're lucky they can combine their breaks and half-hour lunch for an hour, but the meetings last one and a half hours, sometimes two hours.

Q. Where is the meeting conducted?

In the library in Mission Valley. And the people who attend are employees of corporations. Now, ostensibly they volunteer to go to these meetings. But they all seem to go to lunch after the meeting.

Q. Can we name some of the corporations?

Courtesy Chevrolet. Delawie, Wilkes, Rodrigues, Barker. They're architects. Sudberry Properties. Vantile, LLC. Alta Company, LLC. PM Realty Group. Commonwealth Land Title Company. Atlas Hotels, that's a big one. That's a real big one.

FSDRIP stands for First San Diego River Improvement Project. There was a big controversy, I guess, in the late '70s, early '80s, about dealing with the river. The developers said, "This land is so valuable, we don't want it underwater." And people who wanted to appreciate it and acknowledge its inherent value said, "We want to ensure some sustainability." Somewhat of a compromise was FSDRIP, which has a buffer, a vegetated buffer. Now that's supposed to be a habitat for various ambulatory and airborne beings.

The project is basically between 163 and 805. Now, west of 163 the river sort of gets really reduced. The city council allowed Fashion Valley to build that [new] parking lot in the riverbed. And I remember asking them at a meeting, why are they destroying the riverbed? And their answer was, "When it floods, it won't hurt anybody because we won't let anyone park there."

We have a lot of homeless people that sort of take up residence along the river. Now these people are disenfranchised in many ways. The planning group talks about how we have to root the homeless out of the vegetation. They want to cut down the vegetation along the river because of the homeless. They're using the homeless as an excuse to strip the land of vegetation.

Often members of the unified planning group want to further disenfranchise what remains of our open space, citing the homeless as the reason. It is shameful that the disenfranchised are an excuse to further disenfranchise what remains of our open space.

The obsession with development, evidenced by the density of condos/apartments/businesses and wretched road congestion, is insatiable. In biological terms, such a concentration of interests, such a small pool, is incestuous.

Q. What are some of the big projects currently pending that are a threat to the environment of Mission Valley and why?

A. There are three. One is the Quarry Falls development, north of Friars Road. It's bounded by Friars Road, Mission Center Road, and 805. The northern boundary is the southern boundary of Serra Mesa.

It is used as a quarry for excavation. It's been excavated for decades. The owner now wants to develop it into residential units, businesses. It's zoned for 30 units per acre. It's a 230-acre site. As we know, Friars Road is very, very congested. The intersections are the worst possible ratings. The amount of exhaust is extremely hazardous. And the proposal at this time is for 4800 condos plus support businesses.

[The developer of Quarry Falls, Tom Sudberry, is a member of the Mission Valley Unified Planning Group, as is Ronald W. Grant, who is associated with Alta Company LLC, the company that owns the Quarry Falls site.]

Q. And the second project?

It's at the west end of Mission Valley. The golf course [just west of Fashion Valley] is approximately 220 acres. Believe it or not, the city says it's okay to develop that with thousands of condos and hundreds of businesses and that such development will not adversely impact the traffic on Friars and Interstate 8 and 5 and 805.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

More from SDReader

More from the web

Comments

cece5650 May 17, 2009 @ 1:10 p.m.

I grew up in the San Diego with three dairy farms, pony rides, and highway 80 was two lanes in each direction. I watched as the dairies disappeared, shopping centers grew and every patch of land seemed to have some type of development on it. It was sad...I used to go up to Presidio Park or Hawley point and look down on the valley. I know you can't stop progress, but people should think. I have been away for awhile, but, Mission Valley has a river running through it...it floods. I do remember one year the movie theater flooding, and I remember people drowning when they tried to drive across Texas Street or the curve down by the San Diego Mission de Alcala. Mother Nature shows no mercy. There must be some open land somewhere, away from the Valley!

0

Twister March 11, 2012 @ 9:59 p.m.

Stop calling it a "valley." It's not a valley, it's a RIVER. "Flood plain?" Ok, I'll buy that, but the Great Central Valley and the San Fernando Valley are examples of valleys, not gorges that are filled from side to side with sediment dropped there from the river, winding its way across the entire width of its own sediment as its flow varies and sediments are transported.

All the development down there is part of a scheme that included/includes sucking up taxpayer money for private profit in so many, many ways, not the least of which was get zoning changed from agricultural (the highest and best use) to commercial and industrial, etc., then cry "flood protection" and get the United States Army Corps of Engineers to "protect the public" by channelizing the river at taxpayer expense, thus converting very cheap agricultural land (which was lost to the public benefit) and wildlife habitat (which was lost to the public benefit) to highly profitable and valuable commercial and industrial land as well as high-density residential.

That is, the original rip-off artists (euphemistically termed "investors") got the taxpayer to make their land values skyrocket. If that ain't a money-laundering scheme on steroids, please tell me what to call it. And, the scheming goes on. The landowners are not assessed for the United States Army Corps of Engineers' work in maintaining and managing the "flood protection" that continues to be required for development to take place.

0

RobertRodrigues March 4, 2013 @ 8:43 a.m.

I was deeply involved in the formation and implementation of FSDRIP as a principle not a "suit". There are countless errors in this article. First of all the plan was not approved in 1985. The resolution of intention and notice to proceed was granted in the fall of 87. The project was conceived some 10 years earlier when Denny Martini formerly of the Bond Ranch (owners of 3/4 of Mission Valley in 1908) and Dean Wolf (former Chairman of Federated department stores) looked down the river from Mission Valley Center and said "If we could straighten out the San Diego River and contain the annual flood event; we could re-claim all of that wasted "floodway fringe land". In the article it is mislabeled (check next time before you write)

Every year the valley would flood from the water coming down the mountain causing disruption in traffic and businesses. The river had silt and garbage that accumulated annually. The rest of the year it was a dry wasteland. The sewer pipe that ran parallel to the river seeped waste into the river bed. It was an open sewer and garbage dump.

10 years and 10 million dollars in planning funds gave birth to the concept of the FSRIP. The city got involved with some bonds at the END. Nobody cared about the potential loss of all of those planning dollars when there was no guarantee of a plan being approved.

The "humpback" construction of the banks, realignment of the river, islands, hydro seeded banks, trolley easement, riprap banking and box culverts that allowed the wetlands to be formed and wild life to return to mission valley to create the beautiful open land of today; if it were not for the original visionaries who risked their capital it still be a garbage dump. The 36 million that was spent by private investors created THOUSANDS of jobs and 100's of MILLIONS of dollars in direct and indirect taxes.

Now you have some people who are living in the exact same spot that used to be a garbage dump and cesspool and they are complaining that there is no more open space.

They obviously don't know their history. Now all of you who want to complain, imagine building your home on that land, knowing that any year it could be washed down the valley along with the rest of the abandoned tires and trash.

Being involved back then gives me insight that today's "vocal minority" just don't have. Instead of complaining why don't you put up the money to buy it and then you can turn it back into what it was before the improvements! Is that silence I hear?

0

Sign in to comment

Join our
newsletter list

Enter to win $25 at Broken Yolk Cafe

Each newsletter subscription
means another chance to win!

Close