The Solana Highlands planned reconstruction project suffered what might be a killing blow on Oct. 20 when the city`s View Assessment Commission made a unanimous decision to refuse the issuing of a development structure permit as well as a development review permit. The commissioners did not make their decision lightly. They initially listened to complaints from several community residents during a special meeting held for two days. Most residents stated that the new structure would obstruct their views and would therefore be unfair to them. After much deliberation, Commissioner Pat Coad made clear his skepticism of the feasibility of the project. Due to local hostility, he urged the project planners to “go back to the drawing board and start over again.”

Consisting of 196 residential suites and four multi-dwelling units, the property is located in Solana Beach at South Nardo. Local real estate company, H.G. Fenton, acquired Solana Highlands in 1998 and the company has promised to demolish the old structure which was erected in 1972. The new complex will have an astonishing 315,869-sqft of residential space, over 67,000-sqft of leisure space, and more than 50,000-sqft of garage parking. There will be 25 buildings of either two or three stories, 32 apartment buildings, and recreational facilities.

Sylvia Stevens was one of the local applicants who took their concerns about the Solana Highlands development to the VAC. She made it clear that she was concerned with the dangerous precedent being set by corporations like H.G. Fenton who think they are above the law by completely ignoring preexisting city ordinances and then patronizing local residents by pretending to listen to local concerns but only end up making minor concessions. Other residents have stated that the new complex does not fit with the character of the neighborhood. Not only will it reduce property values but it will also negatively impact the quality of life for current residents.

Petitioner John Wilson III lives north of the proposed reconstruction site and he has stated that he`s had a beautiful view for more than 28 years and he is not going to let it be blocked without a fight. Appellant Sherry Lynn has stated that the imposing nature of the complex, both due to its height and breadth, would prevent her from enjoying afternoon sunsets that she has grown accustomed to.

Some residents have made suggestions to the company which, if adopted, might result in withdrawing their petitions. Some of the suggestions include construction of underground parking, lowering the maximum building height, reducing the number of buildings, and outright relocation of some of the buildings.

Google Maps

Executives of H.G. Fenton have held more than 20 community meetings with over 200 residents. They have stated that they are willing to make a number of concessions to placate the local residents’ concerns. Project manager John LaRaia has been on the ground speaking to claimants. He has said the company has sent thousands of fliers, letters, and emails to all neighbors in the area to help residents understand the many benefits of having the complex be part of their neighborhood. Mr. LaRaia has made it clear that despite his efforts not all residents are satisfied. Two of the claimants have completely refused to even meet with him for a discussion.

H. G. Fenton has made it clear that they will not budge on the issue of garage parking. The cost of building underground parking is far too high and shifting the locations of structures will end up creating a significant traffic issue for residents who eventually move into the complex. Mr. LaRaia seems to be close to his breaking point. He has made it clear to the commissioners that he does not believe anything he does is going to make everyone 100% happy with the project.

Conclusion

Before taking a vote, four of the five commissioners visited each of the petitioners in their homes to discuss whether they had changed their positions on the construction project. Commissioner Gerber failed to visit two of the seven remaining petitioners. He received scathing criticism for this from local resident Jim Ratzer who had once been on the commission. Mr. Gerber would recuse himself from discussions involving the homes he hadn’t visited but he was present for the final vote. After several hours of intense deliberation the vote was a unanimous 5-0 against the reconstruction project. The commission stated that the concerns of local residents were legitimate. Issues included the complex blocking multiple views and not being in the character of the local neighborhood.

Solana Highlands