Close to 40 people cleared out of City Council chambers Tuesday, Feb. 27, and chatted noisily in the lobby after a continuance was granted minutes earlier on proposed amendments to the affordable housing density bonus ordinance.
Many in attendance had trekked downtown to voice concerns to City Council about the amendments, which would allow developers proposing a percentage of affordable housing units to receive incentives such as increased building height. Council was scheduled to vote on the amendments Tuesday but instead unanimously elected to move the issue to a March 27 meeting.
“It is regrettable that this thing has to be dragged out but the process of legislation is a very complicated and long one,” said Alex Leondis, a Pacific Beach resident who, in 1972, helped write Proposition D “” a voter-approved initiative that mandates a 30-foot height limit on buildings in the coastal zone. “I have 36 years invested in this. We have to do something to protect the environment, and if we allow them to build a large wall across the coastline like Miami Beach, then we are going to suffer.”
Many residents of La Jolla, Ocean Beach and other coastal communities share Leondis’ opinion that the amendments go beyond what the state requires and fear that they could jeopardize the 30-foot height limit.
The draft amendments are proposed for a section of city code that references affordable housing density bonuses “” a regulation allowing developers to construct more units per building if they provide a percentage of affordable housing.
The state now specifies that eligible developers receive 35 percent more units, up from 25 percent. In addition to this change, the city is proposing as an incentive any development regulation deviation, such as increased floor-area ratio and height as well as smaller side-yard setbacks, according to the city’s Development Services Department.
The city must update the language in its existing codes to comply with state law, which has undergone a series of changes in the last three years, according to Jim Waring, the city’s deputy chief of economic development.
“Some of the things people have been saying about the ordinance are wrong,” Waring said. “The question of whether the state law trumps Prop D came up and the city attorney’s office said ‘no.’ It was never an issue and I never heard anyone say that state law should supersede Prop D.”
But some residents and council members said they were unclear about the language within the amendments.
At the meeting, District 6 Councilwoman Donna Frye said she presented City Attorney Michael Aguirre with a memorandum Feb. 20 addressing inconsistencies within the supplement to the draft environmental impact report (EIR) for the amendments.
Proposed language indicates that developers may ask for an incentive of reduced or waived facility benefit assessments “” fees that are charged to landowners who propose new permits for land use. This could potentially pose serious future impacts, Frye said.
The amendments would be allotted using a ministerial, or over-the-counter, process, which means projects would not have to go before community planning boards, according to Frye and other residents.
“The community has legitimate concerns,” Frye said. “It is my intention to create more affordable housing, but it is not my intention to take the community input out of that process.”
Waring told council during Tuesday’s meeting that language within the amendments was either written or approved by officials at the Housing Commission, city attorney’s office and Development Services Department, which had been working on the amendments since 2003.
He assured council that the ministerial process would only apply to projects built in a small area of the city, and that anything constructed in the coastal zone would still require a coastal development permit and review by community planning groups.
“Regardless of what council decides, a fundamental element to this ordinance is that the mayor is committed to providing more affordable housing,” Waring said. “The fact of the matter is that’s extraordinarily difficult, and out of all the recommendations we’ve seen, this is the easiest. It’s a state mandate, and if we as a city can not get ourselves around this, I’m not sure what we can do.”
Several residents, however, were not convinced that the amendments were beneficial and echoed Frye’s sentiments during public comment.
“I am requesting that before this goes back to council that there is a public hearing and that this is explained in length,” Point Loma resident John McNab said to council members, adding that he believed the amendments should be more thoroughly reviewed. “I want to request that any language we have is so clear that it can’t be misconstrued.”
District 2 Councilman Kevin Faulconer assured residents that he and the other council members would spend more time looking into their questions and concerns.
He seconded Frye’s motion to withhold on a discussion and vote on the issue.
“We want to do this right,” Faulconer said. “We are not going to do anything that affects the 30-foot height limit “” we want you to know that. But we appreciate the vigilance shown by many here today.”