Mayor Hopes to Stem Valley ‘Land Rush’

Hoping to “slow down the land rush in Mission Valley,” Mayor Roger Hedgecock on Tuesday proposed a moratorium on all development in the increasingly congested, flood-prone river valley.

Although Hedgecock does not intend to submit his proposal to the full City Council until June 25, when a special night meeting on development in Mission Valley is planned, the mayor said he was speaking out now to draw public attention to “the most important issue to face the citizens of San Diego in this decade.”

At a morning press conference, Hedgecock painted a grim vision of gridlock--of Interstate 8 choked with more traffic than the busiest Los Angeles freeway, of “life-threatening” smog, chock-a-block office buildings and valley access roads so congested that firefighters and police may not be able to respond to emergencies.

Faced with these possibilities, the mayor rejected all eight alternatives proposed by a plan for Mission Valley that has been seven years in the making. Instead, he proposed his own program, one that would include:

- An immediate moratorium on development in Mission Valley until “a sound land-use plan” is developed.

- Greater consideration of Interstate 8 as a crucial commuter link.

- Restoration of the San Diego River “to its original natural setting where possible,” dedicating land around the river to open space to allow flood waters to pass safely.

- A “phasing and implementation mechanism” that would ensure that when any project is developed, at the same time major improvements, particularly roads, will be installed to support it.

Hedgecock noted that some projects, particularly in north San Diego, have been built ahead of required roads, leaving large gaps in the area transportation system.

The mayor’s views quickly drew fire from Mission Valley residents and developers who have spent more than eight years writing and rewriting a detailed plan for developing the valley.

Hedgecock’s request for a moratorium was “a rather strange statement for a man to make, considering he’s not been at any of the meetings (on the Mission Valley plan) for the last eight years,” said Hugh Higgins, a Mission Valley condominium dweller who is vice chairman of the Mission Valley Unified Planning Committee.

“I don’t welcome the idea (of a moratorium),” Higgins said. “It’s a fruitless way to end after spending eight years.”

Should a moratorium be approved, it is not entirely clear how many projects would be affected. But Allen Jones, the city’s deputy director of long-range planning, listed these still-unauthorized projects now working their way through the city planning bureaucracy.

- The Atlas Specific Plan, a 95-acre mixed-used development (a hotel, an office building, some residential development) composed of eight properties owned by Atlas Hotels.

- The Levi-Cushman Project, another mixed-use project (planned for retail, offices and a hotel) on more than 200 acres now occupied by the Stardust Country Club.

- About a dozen retail, commercial or residential projects, each of them parcels of under five acres.

Jones also listed two giant projects that have been approved by the city but have not yet been built:

- The First San Diego River Improvement Project (also known as FISDRIP), on several hundred acres along the river from California 163 east to Interstate 805. The project is another large mixed-use development composed of office, residential and retail space and a hotel.

- The Northside Specific Plan, a 200-acre project east of San Diego Jack Murphy Stadium and north and south of Friars Road that is to contain retail, office and residential space and a hotel.

Jones declined comment on Hedgecock’s moratorium idea. But he noted that some alternatives offered by the proposed Mission Valley plan would create less congestion than existing zoning for Mission Valley.

“The plan would allow an intensity of development that would double the amount of traffic in Mission Valley,” Jones said. “But if you looked at the development allowed by existing zoning and the existing general plan, they would allow two times as much (traffic) as the planning staff proposal,” known as Alternative 5.

The proposed Mission Valley plan consists of a fat brown document detailing eight possible scenarios for development. They range from 1) development to continue under existing zoning, to 5) a concept dubbed “moderate development,” to 8) the Planning Committee Alternative: Multiple Use.

Alternative 5 is supported by the Planning Department and by the San Diego Planning Commission, which on Jan. 24 endorsed it 6-0. That plan envisions regional shopping and office centers, light rail transit and a natural-bottomed river.

Alternative 8, favored by the Mission Valley Unified Planning Committee, offers intense commercial, retail and residential development.

Hedgecock rejected both 5 and 8. He said Alternative 5 would allow for 17 million square feet of new office space, three times the amount in the valley now. Meanwhile, Hedgecock said, Alternative 8 would create 66 million square feet of office space--three times the total office space now found in all San Diego County.

Either alternative would require the river valley to “shrink to a narrow channel . . . A concrete canyon will be created in Mission Valley.” Also, under both alternatives, traffic will increase, particularly under Alternative 8, which would create more than 3 million trips a day through the valley and on Highway 8--”a virtual traffic gridlock, the worst aspect of the Los Angelization of San Diego,” Hedgecock said.

Without Hedgecock’s proposed “minium steps to slow down the land rush in Mission Valley . . . a congested, polluted and flood-prone Mission Valley will be the inevitable result,” Hedgecock said, and San Diego will be sentenced “to a very large slice of Los Angeles life, right in the middle of our city.”