APB Archives

CITY PANELS UNDERMINE LAND USE REGULATIONS (Oct 24, 03)

A CITIZEN'S LETTER (Oct 24, 03)

-
The following letter to the editor appeared in the San Diego Union-Tribune on October 23, 2003, responding to an earlier essay by the San Diego Regional
Chamber of Commerce.

TO THE SD UNION-TRIBUNE:
-
If the San Diego Regional Chamber of Commerce wants more affordable housing,
and sooner, I urge it to look into policy and procedures within the city's
Department of Development Services and at the decisions taken by the city
Planning Commission. These are the bodies failing to enforce currently extant zoning regulations and their underlying (Municipal Code) land-use regulations.
-
Case in point: a four-parcel lot on Euclid Avenue in an area zoned CU-1-2,
more easily understood as 50 percent of development parcel is available for
commercial/retail use and 50 percent MUST be developed as housing. On paper,
then this single lot comprising four separate parcels should have been
developed to include a minimum of four dwelling units - with eight legally
permitted.
-
The developer who purchased the lot, however, submitted to Development
Services a project plan adding NO new dwellings on any of the four parcels;
the proposed land use would be 88 percent commercial, 12 percent dwellings. Even that 12 percent was accidental; the developer would just leave in place a previously existing apartment above part of the commercial space.
-
If San Diego were actually committed to increasing affordable housing stock,
Development Services would have - and should have - rejected the initial
submission and instructed the developer to redesign - as the CU-1-2 zoning
requires - at least three additional dwelling units. But Development Services did NOT reject the initial design; no project file document suggests that Development Services ever even noted the absence of new housing construction.
-
Despite land-use codes, zoning specifications and the protests of many area residents, the developer walked away with his 88 percent commercial/retail, 12 percent (pre-existing) housing plans intact.
-
Two Planning Commission hearings later, the developer was finally instructed
to add one new housing unit. On a lot where EIGHT dwellings are legally
permitted and at least FOUR required, the city's Development Services
Department required none. The Planning Commission required one.
-
Now sit down and do the math on this. Yes, that's a lot of required but
un-built housing, isn't it?
-
That's why I recommend the Chamber of Commerce start looking at what goes on
in Development Services and the Planning Commission.

JvC

[webmaster's note: please respect the author's privacy and not make contact]