Developers proposing to build a percentage of affordable housing units may soon qualify to receive incentives such as increased structure heights if City Council decides Tuesday, Feb. 27, to pass a series of proposed municipal code amendments.
While the city has indicated it must update its codes to comply with state law, which has undergone a series of changes over the last three years, some residents allege that the amendments would go beyond what the state requires and could jeopardize the 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone.
“We have not changed the section that says developers cannot exceed the 30-foot height limit in the coastal zone,” Dan Joyce, senior planner at the city’s Development Services Department, said in response to the claims. “There is nothing in the draft that shows that changing at all.”
The draft amendments are proposed for a section of the city code that references affordable housing density bonuses “” a regulation that allows developers to have more units per building if they provide a percentage of affordable housing.
The state’s version of that law has changed to increase the amount of additional units developers can obtain from 25 percent to 35 percent, with an added provision that would allow any development regulation deviation such as increased floor-area ratio and height as well as smaller side-yard set-backs, according to Joyce.
The law also states that developers providing senior and moderate-income housing are eligible for density bonuses, he said.
Proposed city incentives must be deemed by planning staff as financially necessary to the developer for providing affordable housing in order to be granted, Joyce said.
Requests can also be denied if incentives would have an adverse effect on the environment, people’s health and safety or historic resources, he said.
But several residents from La Jolla, Bird Rock and Point Loma are concerned that the incentives may be a way for developers to increase the 30-foot height limit in the coastal and coastal overlay zones, according to John McNab, a member of the San Diego Coastal Alliance, which held a press conference Feb. 19 in Ocean Beach.
The city’s amendments also specify that the process to gain incentives would be ministerial, or over-the-counter, according to McNab and residents Kathryn Rhodes, Darcy Ashley and Joanna Pearson.
“What this means is the City of San Diego taking a state mandate and saying, ‘Oh, goody, we can give developers a blank check,'” McNab said. “We need to revise the local laws to protect the public, and they are doing the exact opposite of that. Our contention is they are going way beyond the mandate and denying residents the right to protect their community.”
McNab argues that this would mark a departure for most coastal development, which requires a public process for projects that exceed existing height and set-back rules.
But according to Joyce, any project proposed in the coastal zone “” an area that extends inland to Interstate 5 in many places “” would also require a Coastal Development Permit, which would automatically send the developer to a community planning board for approval.
Language that protects 30-foot height limits in the coastal zones is contained in the original municipal code and derived from the voter-approved Proposition D in 1972. The proposition cannot be overridden by a City Council vote but can be changed with subsequent voter-approved initiatives, said Pam Hardy, communications director for City Council President Scott Peters.
If the affordable housing amendments are approved by City Council Feb. 27, the revised code would apply to the entire city with the exception of the first 300 feet from the inland extent of beaches (in some cases to the first coastal roadway) as well as 100 feet from wetlands. Those boundaries fall under the California Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, according to Joyce.
Residents, however, are not the only ones with reservations about the city’s proposed changes to the municipal code.
A seven-page letter from District 6 Councilwoman Donna Frye addressing environmental and growth inducement impacts of the amendments was presented Tuesday, Feb. 20, to City Attorney Michael Aguirre.
After spening four days reviewing the draft, Frye said she had questions about a supplement to the environmental impact report (EIR), which states 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.
“My concern is that no one seems to be able to understand this very well and understand the impact that is going to have on the communities,” Frye said. “It impacts the city’s ability to regulate growth and density, and the lack of public participation is a concern. A lot of it looks like there will be only a ministerial process, which flies in the face of what I call public policy. What’s the point of having a public plan if someone can come in and overturn it?”
For more information or to view the specific amendments, visit www.sandiego.gov/development-services.
San Diego City Council will meet at 10 a.m. Tuesday, Feb. 27, in the city administration building, 202 C St., 12th floor, council chambers, to vote on the amendments.