By Esther Rubio-Sheffrey | SDUN Reporter
Developers hoping for the opportunity to propose large-scale building projects in the Hillcrest and Mission Hills neighborhoods have once again had their hopes crushed. During their Jan. 24 meeting, the City Council voted unanimously to extend the Uptown Interim Height Ordinance (IHO).
Originally approved in 2008, the IHO was designed as a temporary measure to give community groups and residents a chance to update the current Uptown Community Plan (UCP), unchanged since 1988.
The IHO included a sunset provision of 30 months from Jan. 29, 2008 that gave the City Council the ability to approve up to two 180-day extensions, provided completion of the UCP did not occur first. Much of the discontent dividing business owners, developers, and community residents, however, stems from the fact that little progress has been made since work on the UCP began in late 2009.
The UCP provides specific guidelines for the rezoning of property and for reviewing projects that require discretionary action by the City. The overall plan attempts to achieve compatibility between the six diverse neighborhoods that comprise roughly 4.2 square miles.
The UCP’s seven individual plan elements deal with residential; conservation; transportation; community facilities and services; open space and recreation; cultural and heritage resources; and urban design issues.
The existing IHO restricts maximum building heights to 50 feet in Mission Hills and 65 feet in Hillcrest, areas where existing UCP zoning allowed maximum building heights from 150 feet to 200 feet. Several community members, business owners and developers attended the Council meeting; four of which spoke in favor of allowing the IHO to expire and seven who spoke in favor of the extension.
Councilmember Kevin Faulconer, who voted for the IHO in 2008, reminded those in attendance that the adoption of the IHO was a necessary compromise that ended controversies over individual building projects that sometimes led to lawsuits.
“Ultimately the community is going decide which heights are appropriate for their neighborhoods… this is why we have community plans and why we need to update them,” he said. “We pushed hard to get funding for this community plan to get going… but when is that plan going to get done? The business community and residents need to know [the] end date, otherwise it could go on forever, and that is just not fair to any neighborhood…. Finish the plan.”
Representatives of the Development Services citied law-required studies addressing land use policies, transportation, historic preservation, environmental impacts, urban design and others as reasons for the delay in progress in the UCP. Faulconer acknowledged that point, but alluded that the UCP had not been as proactive in implementing a plan. He asked his fellow councilmembers to support the IHO extension on the condition that the extension did not exceed two years, and that, beginning in March, the Land Use & Housing Committee receives written updates from the UCP every 160 days to ensure that the plan is completed on time.
“If I had known when we started this that it would take until 2014, I would not have supported it,” Faulconer said of the IHO, adding that councilmembers reserve the right to bring the issue back to a vote if there was a lack in progress.
Councilmember Carl DeMaio echoed Faulconer’s statements, and stressed a need for streamlining the process. “This is a broken system, a dysfunction that none of us should accept…. What we’re doing right now has the potential to affect so many neighborhoods, so I will reluctantly agree to support it,” DeMaio said.
Concerns over a shortage of housing deemed necessary for growth and statements of unfair disadvantages to the business community dominated the remarks in favor of letting the IHO expire. One Mission Hills resident expressed doubt the UCP would ever be completed, and said addressing concerns on a case-by-case basis would be a better solution.
Many in favor of the extension spoke of the value of community input and said some business owners and developers not from the area were applying unfair pressure. Several representatives from neighborhood business and resident organizations stated that each of their members had overwhelming spoken in favor of the IHO, and that clearly those against it were out touch with the needs of the communities. Many also said they felt the character of each of the neighborhoods, which makes them all highly desirable places to live, would be lost if developers were able to develop without height limits.
Councilmember Marti Emerald was absent from the 7-0 vote in favor of extending the IHO, which is now set to expire on Jan. 24, 2014. Due to concerns over substantial changes to the Ordinance, the City Attorney’s Office will provide a modified version of the Ordinance at the Jan. 31 meeting for a final reading.
