Two commissioners on the San
Diego Planning Commission asked for comments and suggestions on the Housing
Elements 2005-2010 which they will be voting on in November 2006.
The document is voluminous to digest with lots of detail,
statistics and information. Many groups spent a great deal of time and energy
developing this document and establishing goals. It was appropriate to delay a
vote until the Commissioners had more time to study the document.
I am a lay person, a San Diego resident of 24 years, a Realtor for 22 and a
concerned citizen when it comes to affordable housing and a need for adequate
supply for below to moderate income people in communities. The five year time
frame seems more reasonable than a 20 year plan. Granted, it is good to project
long-range but only if flexibility and change is allowed to cover changing
trends over the years. (An example of this is the Broadway Complex plan
conceived in 1993 and now out-moded in 2006.)
San Diego has changed so much in the last 25 years and we,
as citizens and government, have not prepared for the changes necessary to make
San Diego the city it is destined to be. A good first step has been the change
to a strong mayor system. The obvious improvement is the quality of the
professionals hired to manage the functions of government so desperately in need
of help. We can no longer afford a City Council that cannot cope with
legislative, budget, redevelopment, land use and planning issues in an educated
and informed manner without political agendas.
Suggestions:
1. Offer a Council-in-Training program similar to the
training offered to Community Planning Groups but more extensive.
Council members
should be required to have a knowledge of financing, budgeting, reading
and understanding legal
documents, ethics
training and negotiating skills.
2.
Once there is a final report on properties owned and leased by the City,
the public needs to be informed. Look to other
cities for the
innovative ways they are using this information to create affordable and
special use properties or the money
from the sale or
lease of these properties to supply housing needs.
3. Re-address the Companion Unit law created in 2003 to prevent units
from being built in San Diego. This was a travesty to
the Community
Planners and the San Diego City Planners who spent months developing a
workable "granny flat"
ordinance only to
be instructed by the City Council to make the law as restrictive as
possible The group suggested a
minimum lot size of 5000 sq. ft. for adding a
unit. This was logical since 5000-7500 sq. ft. is the average lot size in the
community--making
it almost impossible to build any units. In addition, the new law does
not allow simultaneously
building a main
residence and a unit. Since it is more cost-effective and
design-conscious to build two units at the same
time, it negate a
builder/developer adding this option to a development. (Studies show
that 25% of buyers desire this
option.)
The other issue not addressed was the legality of units. It is a
known fact that there are hundreds of "granny flats" in all areas
of San Diego, especially the beach areas. If they were to be legalized and
counted, they would give a truer picture of a unit
count for state purposes. Since the state requires San Diego to have its fair
share of low and moderate income housing,
these units should be counted. Bringing these units up to code and legalizing
them should be one of the easier solutions to
the housing problems. The land is already there and it would cost the City
little or nothing to change the rules to make them
feasible. Every study that has been written weighs in favor of second units
being part of the housing solution with added benefits
for seniors, handicapped, extended families, caregivers, students, etc.
(Comparing an ordinance for second units with an
ordinance for mini-dorms really skewed the argument by the former Mayor and some
Council members.)
Communities have to be educated and convinced that
they will not be harmed by accepting more density with desirable solutions.
4. Inclusionary fees must be eliminated. They are a “cop-out”.
However, one can sympathize with developers who choose to pay
fees rather than
be subjected to the time-consuming and costly process of going through
Community Planning Groups, the
Planning Commission and finally the City Council for
approval and appeals. Unfortunately, one can not dictate “good taste”, so
some
designs leave a lot to be desired. However, much of this could be avoided. I have
watched City Council vote against projects
that have added affordable units
even when the designs complied with the planning department’s rules. Community
groups have
come in at the last minute with an appeal and swayed City Council
votes. (The biggest fiasco was the Paseo project in Mission
Hills. By the end
of the night, the Council did not realize how it had voted.)
5. Simplify and clarify the codes and zoning.
With clear cut rules a ministerial process can be followed and save time and money.
Let the Planners
do their jobs. The public needs to rely on their education and expertise
for their services.
6. Make it clear to the public that if they want to
or need to do something outside the norm that the process will be discretionary,
time-consuming and
costly. They need to understand that the more they deviate from standard the more
processes they will have
to go through to get approval.
7. The Community Planning Groups should have a say
in what is planned for the community but they need to know their role is
advisory and not
dictatorial. The training session for Community Planning Groups is an excellent idea.
It would be helpful to require
a definite time frame for decision-making.
Dragging decisions out for a year have not been uncommon in some CP Groups. Also,
appeals that get vented after the fact have been a real problem and a drain on
applicants.
8. The Planning Commission should have power to
make final decisions on projects unless they are very large, complex projects
that involve the City
as a whole and need City Council approval. (Look how hands were tied when the
Council did not have a quorum
to decide—and how long it takes to get on the
agenda for discussion and decision-making).
9. Mini-dorm rules need to be strengthened and
enforced. We are always going to need off-campus housing unless the universities
and City work
together to come up with solutions that allow for on or off-site dormitories—and both
need to work together to enforce
rules governing student discipline for
violations.
10. We need to think outside the box and come up with
innovative solutions to solve housing needs. It does no good for business and
professional groups
to make “policy statements” and then not follow-up and implement solutions.
|
