September 16,
2006
HQ Open Forum...
Am I confused, is Donna Frye our City Council representative?September 11, 2001 was one of the saddest days in our country’s history. Five years later September 12 marked one of the saddest days in the history of Hillcrest when San Diego’s City Council voted to allow a 12-story mixed-used development into our neighborhood. Our great councilwoman, Toni Atkins, led the City Council to a 7 to 1 vote in favor of the project. Donna Frye cast the lone vote against the development. Thank you, Donna, for trying to protect Hillcrest. You seem to be the only councilmember willing to stand up to developers.
Am I confused, is Donna Frye our District 2 representative?
We had many meetings and phone calls with Toni Atkins and her staff regarding 301 University. Each time we were told, “I have not made my decision on the project because I want to hear all the public testimony.” Were we fools to believe such a line from Toni? Did we completely trust her because she’s our lesbian sister and would never betray us? Did we believe (in the day and age of Enron and Duke Cunningham) that Toni Atkins would never sell herself out to a developer? Unfortunately the answer is yes.
Our local grassroots group, SaveHillcrest, had a confidential source within her office indicating that Toni Atkins had made up her mind several weeks (or months) before the big vote. But how could she make up her mind without the public testimony? Or did she only listen to one side? We noted that she read her position into the record. When did she have time to write it if she was listening to our public testimony? Or did she really not care about our public testimony?
I have always been proud of my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community who are elected to public office. It made me feel like a family member did well. But, Toni’s actions on Tuesday were completely inexcusable for any community whether gay or straight. She failed to lead when we needed her most. She failed to act responsibly when our community’s character was in jeopardy. She failed to delineate real issues from those driven by greed. At the end of the day, our elected officials must lead and not merely patronize the community.
I was on KPBS radio the day after the devastating vote when 301’s developer Bruce Leidenberger joined in via phone to rebut my comments. Tom Fudge, our KPBS host, asked the developer if Toni Atkins was paid off. Bruce said, “No.” Tom followed up with, “Have you ever contributed to Toni Atkins campaign?” Bruce answered, “Yes.” What real reason would one contribute to someone’s campaign at a local level unless one had some vested interest? Toni had an opportunity to lead and do the right thing, but she chose to stand with the developer and against the Hillcrest community.
So is she the right leader for District 3? Is it time for a recall? I would be happy to accept emails on this topic at JTNHillcrest@cox.net. Are we willing to let Toni control our fate for the next two years? Perhaps it’s time for another gay woman or man to step up and lead this community. In the midst of San Diego’s pension scandal, the Kroll report and now the great 301 battle in Hillcrest, perhaps Toni will do the right thing and step down? Or, will greed compromise that decision, too?
John Taylor with
www.SaveHillcrest.com…“No on 301”
September 15,
2006
— Council president Scott Peters
re: yesterday’s closed meeting with the SEC
September 14,
2006
Hillcrest
is the Talk of the Town
Hillcrest
resident/activist John Taylor of savehillcrest.com (anti 301) and Cindy
Lehman of
the Uptown Partnership (pro 301) were interviewed Wednesday morning on KPBS Radio. 301 developer Bruce
Leidenberger phoned in to say he felt his company had worked with the
community by reducing the building’s height by two stories as well as
completely redesigning the facade. Unfortunately, the project continues
to divide the community. Another resident phoned in suggesting a recall
of District 3 Councilmember Toni Atkins.
How much longer are San Diegans going to tolerate their City Council conducting the people’s business in the dark?”
— from today’s featured Union-Tribune editorial
How much longer are San Diegans going to tolerate their City Council conducting the people’s business in the dark?”
— Toni Atkins before voting in
favor of 301 University yesterday afternoon
September 13,
2006
City Council takes Toni’s lead
and Votes 7-1 in Favor of the
301 University project
Even with 1,873 signatures against and passionate pleas from neighbors like Leonard King, “(It’s) one thousand percent out of character,” Toni Atkins took the lead yesterday, and even though she stated having a difficult time making her decision, Toni voted in favor of the “monster” project that has divided our community for months. “I think it will revitalize a part of central Hillcrest, and I do think it is consistent with the city of villages,” she said. However, Tom Mullaney with Friends of San Diego disagreed, “This is the wrong project for the site. It is just too big.”
The lone vote of dissent was cast by Councilmember Donna Frye who explained, “I can’t make that finding of compatibility with existing and planned land uses on adjoining properties, which is a problem in order to approve this project.” The rest of Toni’s colleagues followed her lead in supporting the development. Jim Madaffer said, “I knew there was a lot of consternation on it, but the thing that became apparent today is that this project is exactly what you’d probably want on an urban corridor like University Avenue.” (but, jim, what other urban corridor like this one has only two lanes?1) Hillcrest leaders and residents spent hours waiting for their three minutes of public testimony including Sherri Schottlander, Steve Satz, Danielle Lo Presti, Leo Wilson, Warren Simon, Cindy Lehman and Bill Beck. The project will feature 121 paid public parking places for community use. It was also explained that the units with more than one space will have tandem parking.
September 12,
2006
1. The project is oversized, and completely out of character with the historic, low-rise ambience of the heart of Hillcrest. The lack of a “fit” with the neighborhood is apparent from the outpouring of opposition to the project. 2. University Avenue is only two lanes wide adjacent to the project, and a towering 12-story building is completely inappropriate for this street. 3. The traffic impacts would be harmful. Hillcrest is already experiencing severe traffic congestion. Police and fire response would be degraded further. 4. Additional parking structures are not needed. The existing parking garages under Union Bank and Hillcrest Village have plenty of capacity left. They are often half or 3/4 empty. In addition, the claims about “extra” parking spaces are exaggerated. Over one-half of the spaces for 301 University are tandem spaces, which are inconvenient and not utilized as fully as separate parking spaces. 5. The shading would be severe from a 148-foot tall, block-wide building. The shadows would cover one to one half blocks in all directions. Nearby sidewalk cafes across University would be in the dark nearly all day, except in summer. Buildings across Third and Fourth avenues would be in the shade either all morning or all afternoon. LEGAL REQUIREMENTS NOT MET: Letters from the City Attorney and a private attorney show that this project does not conform to the community plan and zoning — in many ways. SUMMARY: Since this is the wrong project for the heart of our neighborhood, and doesn’t meet planning and zoning requirements, we urge the City Council to turn the project down. (This will send it back to the applicant for a redesign.)
September 11,
2006
9/11 Five Years Later
Facts from the SD’s Draft Housing Element — When is enough, enough?
For the City of San Diego there is an inventory of 122,000 housing sites. This represents enough to meet demand for the next 20-25 years (based on SANDAG’s official population projections). That is, if not a single more housing unit were added to any community plan, the city would have enough sites to satisfy projected demand for 20-25 years. About 85% of this inventory is for attached housing. For Uptown: Since July 2003, 1,818 housing units have been completed or applied for in our area. Compare this to the 5,200 units per year that are projected to be built in the entire City of San Diego between now and 2020.
What is Uptown’s fair share? The Uptown Community has about 36,000 residents, which is 2.8% of the city population of 1.3 million. If Uptown provided their proportional share of 2.8% of the new units in the city, Uptown would need 146 new units per year. (2.8% of 5,200). So the 1,818 units completed or in process represent a 12-year supply! In summary, with the housing units recently completed, and those in process, Uptown already has enough units to cover its share of housing in the city for the next 12 years. (Source: Table 23 from the city’s draft Housing Element and Friends of San Diego)
September 10,
2006
— Local law professor Paul
Spiegelman re: SD’s debt, scandal & investigations
