The History of Misrepresentations 

by Flower Hill and Protea Holdings

Following is a history of the misrepresentations made by the developer.  

 

Disinformation?

Jeffrey Essakow, President of Protea Holdings, the owner of Flower Hill Mall, would like the public to believe that this website - StopFlowerHill.com is providing misinformation.  All of the information provided herein has been derived and compiled directly from site plans, facts and information disclosed and promoted by Flower Hill and its representatives.

In a recent article in "The Coast News", Rose Jabin, the property manager for The Flower Hill Promenade, said:
"We want all the residents to get the same information so that rumors and misinformation does not occur". 

It appears, she meant, that they only want the disinformation that Flower Hill Promenade disseminates to occur!

Following are a few of the misrepresentations and issues made by Flower Hill Promenade on their website and in their media kit distributed at the recent Carmel Valley Planning Board meeting in September 2005.

 

California Coastal Commission 

The California Coastal Commission has sent the City of San Diego a jurisdiction letter advising that the commission has the authority over any development at the Flower Hill property.  The letter advises the city that there are several violations already in place at the shopping center that require a coastal development permit.  Concerned over these current violations at Flower Hill, including the recent Paradise Grille restaurant expansion and the addition of two illegal outdoor patio areas, the Coastal Commission sends an "enforcement letter".  Click here to read the full letter.    

 

City of San Diego cites significant issues with this proposed development.

In 2004, the City of San Diego Development Services Department reviewed the proposed expansion plans for Flower Hill Mall (Promenade).  This Preliminary Review outlined 15 pages of significant issues, conditions, requirements and concerns that need to be addressed, mitigated, and met, by Flower Hill prior to allowing this project to move forward.   

(Click here to see the complete City of San Diego Preliminary Review report.) .

 

Approximately 370,000 square feet of overall improvements.

Combined the total improvements on their 14 acres will exceed 370,000 square feet (246,000 SF of leasable improvements, plus an estimated 120,000 SF of parking structure).  Their aggressive proposal includes a 6 story office/parking structure, possible low-income housing, a new multi-plex theater complex, and more.  

 

6 Story office complex - huge bulk and mass.

The "2 story office building" is promoted as being only 2 stories "at grade level above the Promenade". 

• True it will be 2 stories above the high point of the embankment where it connects with Flower Hill Drive, but it will be 6 stories above its actual foundation grade, which is the current parking lot surface. 

• The 2 story office building is planned to sit on top of a 4 story parking structure.  This is clearly in violation of the "spirit and intent" of the California Coastal Commission's 30 foot height limit above natural grade, within this zone, although the City of San Diego does not follow the same guidelines for this location.  

• According to the City of San Diego Zoning Department, the allowable height of buildings at Flower Hill Promenade is 45 feet high.  That would only accommodate a typical 4 story building.  Note, this structure will exceed the natural grade by as much as 60 to 75 feet with customary floor heights.

In a Union-Tribune article dated March 2, 2006, Jeffrey Essakow, President of Protea Holdings the owner of Flower Hill stated: "New construction will not exceed the mall's existing roof lines".  This is totally misleading.  In examination of his most recent plans, it is clear that what he is referring to is the roof height on the small kiosk building located on the upper mall road (Flower Hill Drive) adjacent to I-5 and the sign tower.  That "roof line" is approximately 70 feet above the parking grade of the Flower Hill Promenade, and the foundation of his proposed multi-level office building/parking structure complex.  Technically he may be making a truthful statement, but, isn't this also a bit misleading?

On the Flower Hill website, they promote the office/parking complex will rise only two stories above the Promenade.  

Flawed traffic study. 

The traffic study by Linscott Law & Greenspan indicates "there will be NO DEGRADATION OF LEVEL OF SERVICE on any of the streets around the Promenade, caused by the renovation of Flower Hill Promenade".  

This is misleading as they contradict this statement within their own report by stating there will be "CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS EAST AND WEST FROM EL CAMINO REAL TO SAN ANDRES DRIVE."  

225% increase.

Their Average Daily Trips (ADT's) are estimated to be 6,910 with this expansion.  Without privilege to review their specific calculations, and their assumptions on the specific uses (still unnamed and undeclared in their site plan), it is difficult to determine the true increase in ADT's.  

With a 225% increase in floor area improvements, and a near doubling of their parking spaces, a commensurate increase in traffic may be expected.   

Fair share of what?

They propose contributing their "fair share toward the planned capital improvement project" to offset the "CUMULATIVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS EAST AND WEST FROM EL CAMINO REAL TO SAN ANDRES DRIVE."  They admit significant impacts, along the stretch of Via de la Valle roadway that is not yet certain to be widened, and is already overly congested, with frequent traffic backup.  

The proposed widening of Via de la Valle, is in dispute due to the environmental impact to the adjacent San Dieguito River Valley Park, and has been rejected by the Carmel Valley Planning Board.  (See this article)  The City of San Diego has advised that the proposed Flower Hill expansion may not proceed, until Via de la Valle is widened.  Thus, Flower Hill's resolution of their traffic impact may not be mitigated.  Stop the widening of Via de la Valle and you will stop the expansion of Flower Hill!

Don't open the traffic flood gates by widening Via de la Valle. 

On January 25, 2006, the City of San Diego held a hearing to determine if Via de la Valle should be widened from 2 to 4 lanes, from San Andreas Drive east to El Camino Real.   Nearly 25 residents, experts, agencies and committees, turned out to oppose this widening.  A number of representatives from Citizens Against Flower Hill's Expansion also appeared and spoke about our opposition to this road widening.   It was pointed out to the Hearing Officer that pursuant to the Development Services Department, Preliminary Review of the proposed expansion of the Flower Hill shopping center also on Via de la Valle, under Project No. 44879.  In Review Cycle 1 of that report Closed 9/22/2004, the Transportation Development planner, provided comments (Issue #5 on Page #8 of 15), that:

 

"Based upon our preliminary review of the draft traffic study, the project will have significant impact on Via de la Valle east of San Andreas Drive.  The widening of Via de la Valle will be required prior to any increase in this project's trip generation."

(Click here to see the complete City of San Diego Preliminary Review report.) 

Thus, as required above, approving the widening of Via de la Valle, will open the "flood gates" of this, and potentially other pending development projects, anxious to utilize any excess ADT's, or capacity created by this project.  That utilization will in turn maximize the traffic on Via de la Valle, causing a vicious cycle of once again overwhelming the roadway's capacity, to below the proposed Level C, and a future need to further expand from 4 to 6 lanes, and so on. 

The consequential future development impact of this roadway widening, as well as the immediate increase in both the volume of traffic, and inherent ultimate SPEED of traffic will forever change the serene country atmosphere of this beautiful and aesthetic, natural river valley.   

The City of San Diego Hearing Officer tabled the meeting for at least 30 days, pending a further hearing to review more specific reports and public comment.  We will post the date of that meeting on this webpage, once it is set for calendar.

 

Gridlock.

Their traffic study makes no mention of the seasonal and regional events that historically congest the section of Via De La Valle that immediately stretches in front of the Flower Hill Mall.  During the San Diego Fair and Del Mar Track events, as well as numerous ongoing events at the Del Mar Fairgrounds, Via De La Valle becomes virtually impassable, with traffic delays of as much as 5 to 10 minutes between San Andres Drive and Interstate 5.  

Perhaps their traffic engineer wasn't aware of this situation, as it may not have been apparent when he conducted his evaluation.  A thorough analysis of the potential gridlock at peak and event traffic time periods must be completed.

123% more traffic.

Neither a "turn lane", nor the widening of Via De La Valle to the east of this project, will solve the log jam experienced by the current width of the underpass at I-5.  This underpass cannot handle the existing volume of vehicles heading westbound on Via De La Valle, merging with freeway traffic exiting from both north and southbound directions of I-5.  Their traffic study does NOT consider or reflect this well known fact.  

Adding 125% more traffic to their Average Daily Trips (ADT's) will undoubtedly exacerbate this frequent gridlock issue.  

Double left turns.

The distance from the intersection of Via De La Valle and Flower Hill Drive is extremely short and cannot accommodate a significant increase in traffic volume turning north from Via De La Valle and requiring an immediate left turn into Flower Hill Drive.  The southbound traffic on San Andres already blocks the Flower Hill Drive intersection.  With the projected volume of increased traffic as proposed in their plan to be directed up Flower Hill Drive to service the office building, regular stacking and backup may be expected, that WILL NOT CLEAR THE INTERSECTION of Via De La Valle within the traffic signal sequence. This will undoubtedly cause another vehicle log jam, that will delay traffic both east and west bound on Via De La Valle and north and south on San Andres.  

There is no apparent solution to resolving this issue, due to the short span between the two intersections and the future vehicle stacking that will undoubtedly cause a backup into the Via de la Valle intersection.  

Violation of law.

Their proposal indicates that "retail construction...will occur during NIGHTTIME HOURS so as not to impact OUR TENANTS." Having already had several police reports filed from complaints about construction noise occurring at Flower Hill Promenade over the past few months, the mall management is well aware of the San Diego Municipal Code Section Noise Ordinance 59.5.0404, restricting construction work after 7:00 PM and or before 7:00 AM.  

Obviously their plan is in direct violation of this ordinance and catering to their own concerns, while ignoring the peace and quiet enjoyment of their neighbors.  A project of this scope and its planned construction duration over a span of 4 years, as advised in their promotional materials, will make for an unbearable and illegal conflict between this project and the neighborhood residents.  

Mix of restaurants will overwhelm the parking and traffic.

Their proposal indicates a mix of retail uses, however, this center is already heavily populated with restaurants complementing the theater.  Restaurant uses command twice as much parking and ADT's as general retail, at 10 vehicles per 1,000 square feet of improvements, versus only 5.  Their plan admits the addition of more restaurants, however their is no imposed limit on the overall square footage utilized by restaurants within the center.  Restaurants pay more rent, and synergistically bring in more patrons for the rest of the center.  As currently experienced, it will undoubtedly become a greater density of restaurants as a ratio to the overall leasable space. 

This ratio will change the parking and ADT assumptions, not considered in the current traffic study.   A limit must be imposed on the total square footage allowance for restaurant space within the future development.  

Unfair burden on offsite infrastructure and streets.

Their site plan illustrates an imbalance of parking spaces to be located in the 6 story office/parking complex located at the west end of their center.  The parking on the east end of the center, where substantial new retail construction will exist is inadequate, and will undoubtedly lead to offsite parking on the neighboring streets, and shopping centers.  

It is unfair to burden both the offsite public street, and private adjacent shopping center parking lots due to Flower Hill's imbalanced improvements.

Planned "25 low-income/affordable housing" residential units.

 

“If I don't recoup my investment from the retail and office space 

then I will have to reconsider a residential component.” 

Jeffrey Essakow, Protea Properties - At a “Focus Group Meeting” May, 2006

Their website FAQ's page promotes a list of new improvements, including office, retail, theater, and restaurant.   However, on their Press Release page (as of February 10, 2006) they also mention "residential units" to be constructed at the conclusion of the development in 2009.  The “Residential Units” reference has since been deleted from their web page. However, when asked by many neighbors if he will assure us that he will not reconsider residential units (which must include 25% as low-income housing pursuant to current City of San Diego requirements), Essakow said: "No.  I need to  keep my options open."    

This is highly misrepresenting their current site plan that does not indicate any residential units, at all.  A former site plan featured 25 multi-family residential apartments (low-income housing units) to be built behind the shopping center, along Flower Hill Drive.  The Preliminary Review of the project with the City of San Diego, identified this component as "Inclusionary Housing" (low-income) housing.  

(Click here to see the complete City of San Diego Preliminary Review report.) 

In a Union-Tribune article dated March 2, 2006, Jeffrey Essakow, the owner of Flower Hill, claimed the initial site plan did not call for the construction of low-income housing.  In a recent article in the Del Mar Times, Mr. Essakow stated that he "Never, ever, ever has an affordable housing component been discussed or contemplated."  It appears he has conveniently forgotten the above site plan (or doesn't wish to acknowledge it), and the City of San Diego's advice that a portion of any residential component must include "Inclusionary Housing" (low-income).  

In August of 2004, Flower Hill submitted their plans to the City of San Diego for Preliminary Review (see report) of the project.  Note, in the above site plan, produced by the developer, included "25 new residential units (inclusive of low-income housing), to be built behind the shopping center, along Flower Hill Drive."  These buildings are indicated in pink.  

In a subsequent plan presented to a group of neighbors by Mr. Essakow, the number of housing units grew to flank both sides of Flower Hill Drive, located behind the mall.  These units would be imbedded into the sensitive hillside, backed up to area residential estates.  The final plan presented by Mr. Essakow, at the neighborhood meeting, suspiciously omitted the residential and low-income housing units, as well as any improvements to the east end of the center.  The neighbors challenged this omission and suggested to Mr. Essakow that he is obviously only presenting half of his overall expansion plan.  The neighbors believe Flower Hill has a non-disclosed Phase II expansion plan that will include the residential/low-income housing component, and that he will re-seek approvals, after his larger Phase I is built.

 

Noise worth noting.

The Flower Hill plan indicates an outdoor amphitheater/plaza to be utilized by the community.  Open air entertainment, forums, and general gathering.  That translates to decibels of sound, echoing through our neighborhoods.  Here comes the noise!

Dear tenants: Get ready to pay up!

The current rents in Flower Hill are considered below market rates.  Following redevelopment, the existing boutique, non-chain store, tenants of Flower Hill can expect a significant rent increase, upon renewal of their leases.  This is consistent with other malls that have expanded and retooled.  With the expansion of Flower Hill, a number of new national tenants will be attracted.  Many of these tenants will be "credit, chain store, anchor tenants" that in turn attract other tenants.  With these anchor tenants, rents will rise, squeezing out the boutique tenants currently occupying Flower Hill.  Will Essakow turn down a "Starbucks", or "Barnes & Noble".  Not likely.  But, if they do, those "categories will be killed" [as the retail industry likes to call it], and the Panniken and The Book Store, can count their days.  In a recent San Diego Business Journal article, Jeffrey Essakow, the owner of Flower Hill, said that although it’s true he would be entitled to raise rates based on fair market pricing, he would gladly work with longtime tenants to offer below market rates. That reminds us of the movie "The End" (1978) when Burt Reynolds decided not to drown himself in the ocean.  As he got closer to shore, his offer to God, got lower..."Fifty percent, Lord! I'm talking gross!"  As Essakow gets closer to completion, you can bet his loyalty to his tenants will be skin deep, or, in this case, the thickness of a dollar.  Tenants be aware.  It's all about profits...the developers!

 

Meet their "PR" guy.

In a recent reply to a concerned neighbor, Joseph Charest, the "Community Representative" for Flower Hill Mall, made a number of statements.  Below are a list of his statements and our responses:

1.  Charest said: "Given the misinformation that has been put forward concerning our project, it is not surprising that you are voicing strong opposition."

What they would like you to believe is that if you were properly informed about the latest scope and scale of their plan, you would be in support of it.  So, why won't they hold a community presentation meeting as requested both formally and through the media?  Answer, because they don't want to reveal their plan and receive the real community input.  Especially not in a public forum.  Yes, there is a great deal of "misinformation" - being generated by the developer, such as they are currently conducting a traffic study.  How this is misinforming you, is in failing to state that the traffic study they already completed, and paid for, indicated there will be "significant negative impact on Via de la Valle".  Yes, that was determined and published in the materials presented by the developer to the Carmel Valley Planning Board in September of 2005.   Guess they forgot that, and would like you to believe that no assumptions on negative traffic impact should be considered by the public until they perform a new traffic study - more to their liking!

2.  Charest said: "We have had a lot of community input on the project and are taking that input into consideration as we develop the final design that we will submit to the city."

Unfortunately, they continue to ignore the most immediate "community input" from the neighbors that will be most affected, which is: "We don't want to see this shopping center doubled in size!"

3.  Charest said: "We'll also add plenty of parking, so that won't be a problem, and are coming up with some ways to improve traffic flow."

"So that won't be a problem".  Based on what study is that statement made? They're adding plenty of parking because they'll need it.  When this mall is doubled in size, it will double the traffic coming to it.  It is already a nightmare.  They are "coming up with some ways".  Such as what, Disney parking lot attendants to direct you to the "D Section", as in Dumbo!  They are not planning any offsite traffic mitigation, e.g. an expansion of the freeway ramps, widening of the underpass for Via de la Valle which already is choked by current traffic demands, widening of Via de la Valle in front of their mall . . . nothing!

4. Charest said: "You should know that there is absolutely no indication that our project will negatively affect property values."

That's a contrived way of saying we really have no evidence that our expansion will increase property values, which was their position to the media just two weeks ago. As Charest well knows, it is a known fact that excessive commercial development always negatively affects property values.  If not, let the developer prove that added traffic, added noise, added congestion, added visual clutter, added commercialization, added crime, etc., etc., etc., will ABSOLUTELY have no negative affect on property values!

5. Charest said: "We believe we will be offering you and our other neighbors a much improved community shopping and dining experience that you will enjoy."

[Sentence completed] ...while we destroy your way of life, your property values, and improve the market value of our shopping center and the return to our investors at your expense!  Oh, sorry Mr. Charest, we didn't realize you were going to be serving us a much improved dining experience.  That makes all the difference in the world.  Feed us more and we will be convinced that your "offering" will "much improve our community".

 

Neighborhood outcry saved the Mobil Station.

The Preliminary Review of the project with the City of San Diego, identified the demolishing of the Mobil Station.  However, after being advised by virtually every neighbor, including our group, Citizens Against Flower Hill's Expansion, that the removal of the gas station will be a loss to the community, Flower Hill decided to renew the lease with Mobil for another 10 years.  This station is one of the highest pumping stations in the area, due to its convenience on the west bound side of the street.  If this station was removed, as proposed, residents would have only 3 choices at this interchange: Arco, Shell and the Chevron Car Wash.  All three are very expensive, inconvenient, require delays at multiple traffic lights, and in the case of Arco and Shell, a u-turn to navigate back to Interstate 5.  With less competition, these remaining gas stations would likely raise their pricing even more, making the community loss even greater.  

(Click here to see the complete City of San Diego Preliminary Review report.) 

 

Conclusion.  

The density, bulk and mass of this proposed development will have a significant negative impact on, and urbanization of, the greater Del Mar coastal area.   

Stop Flower Hill Promenade from changing the character and lifestyle of our low-rise country coastal neighborhood.  Limit the overall size of this mall to 150,000 square feet and a 30 foot height limit.

Citizens Against Flower Hill's Expansion is a Not For Profit Organization representing the neighbors of greater Del Mar,

 Solana Beach and San Diego, opposed to the proposed aggressive expansion of The Flower Hill Promenade.