• Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

June's planning commission hearing was a preview of the tug-of-war likely to play out at September's supervisors hearing. Proponents tried to distance Newland Sierra from the 2010 version of the project by repeatedly stating, "This is not the Merriam Mountains project."

While it may not technically be the same project, Newland Communities appears to have been involved in Merriam Mountains since at least 2004. State filings show Newland Sierra LLC started out as NNP-Stonegate Merriam LLC

In September 2016, LLC registration was completed by adding member name Nash-Newland Segregated LLC. Nash Communities is the North American arm of Japan's largest homebuilder, Sekisui House. In 2009, Sekisui expanded into Australia and Russia before expanding into China and the United States in 2010.

This is when Newland formed a joint venture with the Japanese goliath. In 2012, Newland made their third acquisition with Nash (Sekisui) that included 28 master-planned communities in the U.S., including three local Newland communities (4S Ranch, Merriam Mountain, Torrey Hills).

A side-by-side comparison of the two projects shows Newland Sierra has 7-percent less density, 15-percent less acreage (1985 versus 2237), and 21 percent fewer dwelling units (2135 versus 2700). The county's general plan zones this parcel for 99 houses and commercial/office space.

Newland Sierra is keeping 61 percent of the parcel as open space (10 percent more than Merriam Mountains) but has 40 percent fewer parks (36) than Merriam Mountains (89).

Brandin said homes will be priced $343,000 to $984,000 and include 1140 single-family homes (3500-7500 square foot lots) and 995 multi-family units with 81,000 square feet of office/retail space. Construction is expected to take a decade.

Newland appears to be selling off parcels to builders. Their project website tells future homebuyers that buying a home from a homebuilder on the Newland Sierra site waives any claims against Newland or Sekisui arising out of that purchase.

They state work of team members that created the environmental documentation (that convinced county staff and most of the county's planning commission to recommend their project forward) is "not guaranteed by Newland."

County planning commissioners voted in June to recommend the project forward to the board of supervisors with only minor changes.

At June's hearing, proponents consisted largely of those working in or around the building industry (developers, realtors, consultants, etc). This is likely because the building industry association or BIA's Project Green Light organizes members to flood hearings in support of fellow member's projects. Newland Sierra is highlighted on their website asking members to attend the supervisors' hearing to support Newland Sierra.

Opponents consisted of nearby residents and nearby businesses (mostly the Golden Door) concerns about wildfire evacuations, traffic, and the environment. Proponents' drumbeat included the housing crisis and the project being the only hope for infrastructure repair.

Newland's traffic consultant was asked about mitigation on a certain road. At one point, he threw up his hands and said, "They just have to mitigate the impact due to this project, not bring it back to level of service D." Levels of service are ranked from A (best) to F (worst). If approved, the project will do some roadway improvements, the most significant being to Deer Springs Road (two-lanes to four, I-15 to Twin Oaks Valley).

Opponents are not convinced Newland's roadway remedies will be enough and say that taxpayers will end up footing the bill for their project impacts. A point bolstered by Newland backing failed Prop A (2016) to hike sales tax to pay for much needed infrastructure.

Before the planning commission vote, Beck (only no vote) said, "So, we're planning for gridlock basically, is what we're doing."

At the Merriam Mountains board of supervisor's hearing in 2010, county staff seemed unprepared to respond to Jacob's questions about their water assessment, which included conservation projections that made the math work out a little too cute.

A proponent at June's hearing declared, "we have plenty of water to go around." Someone might want to alert those throwing billions into Pure Water (toilet-to-tap) and Governor Jerry Brown who signed two laws in 2018 requiring cities and water districts to set permanent water conservation rules and strict water budgets, even in non-drought years.

The county chose to exempt Newland Sierra from the resources protection ordinance (protects sensitive lands). When Beck asked why, his question was met with uncomfortable silence until staff said they wouldn't be able to approve the project if they didn't exempt it from the ordinance (too many encroachments into wetlands and steep slopes that would not be allowed under the ordinance permitting process).

Beck sounded stunned at the county's logic of bending to the project instead of asking the project to bend to the ordinance, by perhaps reducing their parameters. "It's depressing."

As far as how the supervisors might vote on Newland Sierra, there are clues from the 2010 hearings on Merriam Mountains as four of five supervisor's voting then are still on the board. Horn and Cox supported the project and are likely to vote the same in 2018.

Jacob and Roberts voted no, partly because of issues with greenhouse gas emissions and density. These issues are still in play in 2018.

Kristin Gaspar, the newest supervisor (took her seat in 2017), may cast the deciding vote. Perhaps something can be gleaned from her appointing Michael Edwards (former planning commissioner and land use attorney defending architects and engineers) to replace Peder Norby (no vote on Merriam Mountains and general plan literalist) on the planning commission.

  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

Julie Stalmer Sept. 25, 2018 @ 12:19 p.m.

After publication, Kathe Robbins let me know that the court ruled today to not stay the board of supervisors hearing (Newland Sierra's hearing will go ahead Wednesday, Sep 26). Robbins is leading a bus load of people from Twin Oaks Valley to the hearing tomorrow.

A petition will be circulated starting Saturday for a referendum. More than 120,000 signatures are needed within 30 days.

0

Cassander Sept. 25, 2018 @ 1:30 p.m.

This is the same BIA that pushed the Climate Action Plan and density at the sacrifice of quality of life on the city with the argument that "we have to build up, not out." Yet here they are at the county level, gutting environmental protections and dynamiting mountains to accommodate sprawl.

Remember this hypocrisy the next time you read BIA president Borre Winckel have the gall to call anyone in San Diego other than himself "disgusting." https://www.kpbs.org/news/2016/nov/22/san-diego-housing-crisis-forges-new-alliance-yimby/

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 25, 2018 @ 2:21 p.m.

As people testified at the June hearing, I noted who they were and looked into each one of them. I was just curious because I catch a lot of proponents at city council and planning commission meetings that pretend they are concerned citizens when in fact they are hired guns or have some connection to someone working for the opposition or applicant (and neglect to disclose that). When you look at BIA's project greenlight, you can see why so many proponents flooded meetings. And why. It waters down the opposition numbers. Even if it's not a project they are affiliated with, they know the favor will be returned when they need it.

1

Cassander Sept. 25, 2018 @ 2:30 p.m.

And I'm sure you also see Circulate San Diego at these meetings as well. They're also paid to shill but claim to be a charity, and espouse "smart growth" for urban areas but then endorse the opposite, such as the original One Paseo and now running a highway through Civita. Their only unifying "principle" is that developers should get their way, all the time and everywhere. And with the same big builder donors footing for the astroturf, it's no wonder, https://circulatesd.nationbuilder.com/corporate

0

Visduh Sept. 25, 2018 @ 3:47 p.m.

Today, 9/25, the U-T ran its lead editorial in favor of approval of this development. That would not have been surprising a few years back when either Manchester or the Copley Press ran the rag. Now I do find it a bit surprising, because the editorials are usually those of the LAT. In this case, since it was a purely San Diego County matter, the Times probably didn't care, and let the locals write the piece.

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 26, 2018 @ 12:51 p.m.

The funny thing about Nimbyism is that it's only that if it's not in one's own neighborhood. It seems to be the way that works.

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 26, 2018 @ 1:39 p.m.

Right now, a resident that lives across from the proposed project is giving testimony as to why he doesn't believe Newland Sierra is different enough from Merriam Mountains (with charts/graphs).

Live feed here: http://sdcounty.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=9&event_id=1013

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 26, 2018 @ 4:45 p.m.

The board voted YES on Newland Sierra (Jacob absent)

Supervisor Bill Horn: "I think this is a good project." Horn said he hasn't added a lot of growth in his 24 years on the board. He also touched on his favorite argument of the site being zoned for mining. He made this same case in 2010.

Supervisor Kristin Gaspar: "We are working under some tricky conditions." The argument being that we have not built enough housing, "vicious cycle, always behind." She said every housing project is met with protest/litigation. "We need some relief."

Supervisor Greg Cox: "Whether this project is built or not, traffic is going to be a problem." He then asked about fire safety and was told by Tony Mecham Cal Fire Chief that because the project will have clustered houses it will take less resources to fight fires. "They have done as much as they can."

https://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/... https://www.sandiegoreader.com/users/...

Supervisor Ron Roberts: "We heard a lot of conflicting testimony." He said this project is different than when it was heard it before (Merriam Mountains). "We are lacking in housing period." He said we aren't building enough housing and taking thousands of units out of use because of Airbnb. "People who work here and are making decent incomes and they can't find housing." "Every time we talk about housing, we have this same battle." He touched on NIMBYISM without saying the word. He said many of the communities we have now weren't even a thought at one time. "We need housing . . . it overshadows everything."

ABSENT:

Supervisor Dianne Jacob was out (her husband died over the weekend).

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 26, 2018 @ 6:09 p.m.

Statement from Tiffany Yap of the Center for Biological Diversity after the hearing:

“The board’s approval of Newland Sierra sets the stage for the destruction of over a thousand acres of pristine wildlife habitat. This ill-conceived development will evict imperiled animals, level a beautiful hillside and create more sprawl in a region already struggling with smog and traffic. Destroying a beautiful wild place to put people far from their jobs and at risk of wildfire is not the solution to the housing challenges facing San Diego County.”

0

AlexClarke Sept. 27, 2018 @ 7:27 a.m.

The building restrictions and the cost of housing in San Diego (City/County) built Temecula. You can't be much farther away from your San Diego job than Temecula. San Diego has no affordable housing. Affordable housing is defined as 80% of market. Market rate for housing in San Diego is such the most working by the hour, also known as the middle class or working class, can not afford either market rate or "affordable" rate. Many employers think that $12 an hour is good pay. The problem is twofold: 1. Housing is too expensive and 2: Wages are too low. The Newland Sierra development is not affordable for the working/middle class.

0

Julie Stalmer Sept. 27, 2018 @ 9:30 a.m.

There are many factors and you name a huge one, wages for the average worker in San Diego don't keep up with the cost of living in San Diego.

As far as the housing being affordable at Newland Sierra. This is an exchange at June's planning commission hearing that was interesting (about not requiring Newland Sierra to have affordable housing):

There was a lot of back and forth between planning commissioner Michael Beck and county staff about how they interpreted policy he took as straightforward. When it came to county staff answering his questions, there was often a lot of preamble before getting to the answer and even then, further clarification was sometimes needed.

One example is when Beck pointed to 2-1/2 lines (H-1.9) in the general plan that requires developers requesting a general plan amendment for large-scale residential projects to provide affordable housing. County staff said it wasn't "legally feasible" to either require affordable housing or in-lieu fees because the county doesn't have an ordinance. Assembly Bill 1505 took effect in January 2018 making it easier for cities and counties to establish inclusionary housing requirements via ordinance if they want.

H-1.9: https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/pds/generalplan.html

1505: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1505

Beck expressed his frustration several times at language in the general plan he saw as straightforward that "the public thought meant something" and was being ignored because the county said "those words are not as clear as they seem to be."

1

Julie Stalmer Oct. 11, 2018 @ 5:20 p.m.

"No on Newland Sierra" petition gatherers were out in force today.

0

Julie Stalmer Oct. 18, 2018 @ 11:20 a.m.

None

The opposition got 110,000 signatures. When the signatures are vetted, the board of supervisors will vote to rescind the project or put it to voters in 2020. More to come.

1

Sign in to comment

Let’s Be Friends

Subscribe for local event alerts, concerts tickets, promotions and more from the San Diego Reader

Close