The University Community Planning Group clarifies its position on the City's proposed construction projects at Torrey Pines
Linda N. Colley, UCPG Chair explains to the City that the UCPG Board's concerns and recommendations are more than just about the lack of funding for the Torrey Pines projects but there were other concerns that remain unresolved. The complete text of her letter to the City is given below.
_______________________________________________________________________
From: Linda N. Colley
Sent: Saturday, January 20, 2007 11:50 AM
To: Kevin Oliver
Cc: Ellen Lirely - Coastal Commission; Paul Spiegelman; John Beaver; Joe Burwell; Mark Marney; Mark Woodward;
Subject: Re: Torrey Pines Projects
Hi Kevin and all,
I thought it might be helpful to explain the UCPG's concerns and recommendation a little bit clearer than simply to say the board was concerned with the lack of funding for the project. That was a concern but there were other concerns that remain.
It was brought to the UCPG's attention by a presentation of community members (SDMGA) that the construction projects are/were opposed by over 1268 people who signed a petition to that effect. That is a lot of concerned residents/community members and something that made the UCPG decide to re-hear the project. That is not an action that the UCPG has ever done before and thus that is important to note. It was made clear by audience members that no real public noticing of this project had gone out to a wide audience of citizens who were concerned about this project. The UCPG's agenda goes out to those who are on the list and this certainly doesn't reach that many people even though the agenda is posted in the public library also. But we do try.
The proposed clubhouse in particular was /is opposed to because it was believed to be an unwarranted intrusion on the municipal character of the golf course. Municipal properties are to be used and maintained for the public because they are a public resource and asset. They are owned by the public.
It was clear by the middle of the discussion that the proposed project would deny the community fiscal and physical access to the golf course recreation facilities. It was believed by the UCPG that the tournament support building would give a private organization with restricted membership that has its own private, non-Torrey Pines activities a permanent presence on the coastal zone with no demonstrated need to do so. The questions became, "Where was the public benefit? And Where was the public interest being represented by this project and the City?" And "Was the average person/San Diego resident going to be able to afford to play golf if the fees were going to go up in order to pay for these projects?" Those questions have never been answered.
It became clear that the costs associated with the projects would reduce the public's ability to use the facilities. It was taken seriously by the board that the costs of these projects would be passed on directly and indirectly to the golfing public and these added costs would deny the public access to the facility because as costs go up, fewer individuals can afford to play. That was not seen as a public benefit or in the best interest of San Diego citizens.
It appeared that the motivation of the City's plan(s) seems to be to price residents off the golf course and ration their access by their ability to pay higher fees. It was believed that "tourist needs" were more important than "residents needs". It was believed that "private interests" were taking precedence over "public interests". Those two observations appear to be growing more numerous in San Diego with the result that the resident continues to loose, but picks up the tab, even though "private interests" supposedly pays for these projects, only to be reimbursed by the City.
Those motivations are in direct conflict with the Coastal Act's goal of low-cost recreational facilities. So the question becomes and remains, "When is enough, enough?" And, "Who is looking out for the interests of the citizen/resident/tax-payer?"
It also became clear that the project would deny access to the scenic views which are currently available but which would be blocked by the buildings constructed. This area of Torrey Pines Mesa is beautiful and very natural, and the character has long ago been set and needs to be preserved for future generations. In this case the old adage that "less is more" applies here. San Diegan's have a beautiful public golf course already which was never intended to be a world class private golf course, and it appears that the City wants to move in that direction.
It was very disconcerting when the Mayor came up with a 5 year plan and did not engage in any dialogue with the UCPG. UCPG is primarily concerned with land-use issues which these projects are, but when there are other components to a project such as financing, the community has the right to be part of those discussions, and the UCPG was certainly not a part. The 5 year plan was mentioned as a side note. When plan specifics have been finalized by the City Staff's recommendation, and is being brought before the full City Council that is not the time to ask the public/UCPG for input. By that point, its an exercise in futility. This is a pattern with the City.
It is very disconcerting also that this project's entirety has been broken up into phases, the piece meal approach has been used to stone wall the community and the UCPG. As far as the parking lot is concerned, moving Torrey Pine trees is an imperious violation of the UC Plan because it paves over park land and removes trees and will have an environmental effect. The paved surface will act as a passive solar collector which will have long term effects on the site, and there are alternatives. The City certainly has a different vision of Torrey Pines Mesa than the community has, and appears to be unwilling to listen and compromise. The cost of paving and creating this parking lot is ridiculous, not to mention the soft costs involved. This project should have been addressed in its entirety, and the City should be acting in the best interests of all of its citizens.
As Chair of the UCPG, I can only hope that the Coastal Commissioners and staff will be apprised of the UCPG's entire list of concerns and objections to this project. If they have any questions that I can clarify, I hope they will ask.
Regards,
Linda N. Colley
UCPG, Chair