Anchor ads are not supported on this page.

4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs

State density rules squeezing Del Mar into a corner

Watermark units on Jimmy Durante Rd. will include 10 'low affordable' ones

Artist rendering of Watermark units
Artist rendering of Watermark units

The city of Del Mar passed a key zoning amendment on October 19 that helps it comply with state housing laws, but it's too little, too late for the developer of the lots, who will now move ahead by-right.

Watermark Del Mar, a controversial project that will yield 10 affordable units in the North Commercial zone, has been in the works for seven years. The zoning change allows higher density in the area, but the project still needs a specific plan amendment.

And due to local opposition all along, the developer expects only more delays.

"We have seen nothing to indicate that a viable 20 dwelling units per acre multi-family project with 20 percent affordable units will result from the city’s current efforts," said a letter from their attorneys.

It was only two weeks ago that the city approved a draft 6th cycle housing element update – all while still juggling requirements and penalties from two previous cycles.

Sponsored
Sponsored

Del Mar's sluggish pace in building enough affordable units, which requires re-zoning to allow suitable locations, has put the city out of compliance with state housing laws.

Opponents have held the project up, even after Kitchell Development Co. reduced the number of units from 48 to 38.

The latest ding came September 30, an enforcement letter from the state's Department of Housing and Community Development. Without the zoning change, the city risked having its current housing program de-certified.

According to staff reports, the city has until April 2021 – the end of its 5th housing cycle – to re-zone the Watermark lots. The 2.3-acre parcel at the corner of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and San Dieguito Road is now used as a temporary parking lot during events at the fairgrounds.

To help meet its affordable housing needs, the city long ago committed to re-zoning the North Commercial land off Jimmy Durante Boulevard, but opponents have held it up, even after Kitchell Development Co. reduced the number of units from 48 to 38 in a proposed alternative.

The city had opted to use a specific plan process for the Watermark since having 20-25 dwelling units per acre was a category that didn't exist in their regulations, but many residents wanted to keep it that way. Rallying against the increased density, they launched a ballot measure in 2016 to give voters the right to approve or reject projects that exceed the number of homes allowed on a property.

Watermark site. "That's why we're facing by-right development," said council member Dwight Worden. "Seven years went by."

Despite Del Mar's housing shortfall, the controversy hasn't gone away. Last month, council members Dave Druker and Terry Gaasterland voted against the zoning change that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre in the North Commercial area.

It took the enforcement letter and a recommendation by the planning commission to revisit the issue to bring about an initial approval of the zoning change on October 7. But a community plan amendment, which the Watermark still requires, was left out.

In a reply to the enforcement letter, the city blamed the delay in completing the re-zoning mainly on the processing of a specific plan application for Watermark.

Lacking the specific plan amendment, the developer has turned to the by-right option by taking advantage of the city’s failure to accomplish the re-zone in the timeframe required under state code.

"That's why we're facing by-right development," said council member Dwight Worden at last night's meeting. "Seven years went by. The landowner didn't pursue it because the city had worked with them on the specific plan. Why did they abandon that and go by-right? Because of the blocked vote."

The streamlined by-right approach gets around discretionary review by the design review board or planning commission, as well as environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

While developers won't have to do the rigorous environmental analysis, the city isn't off the hook and agreed to allocate $40,000 for environmental review.

According to the developers, the revised project will remove units previously slated for the hillside, protecting sensitive habitat. Since the project requires an amendment to the city’s local coastal program, it will need approval from the state coastal commission.

Under the Watermark's revised plan there will be 48 units rather than the 38 proposed earlier in an alternative. Of these, 10 units will be designated “low affordable," the rest market-rate. The numbers are consistent with the city’s inclusionary housing requirements and state density bonus law, the developer pointed out.

Phil Blair, a resident, vented his frustration with the city for ignoring the 2013 housing plan, and "activating the by-right option" as opposed to the specific plan which would have given the city more control of the process.

Council member Druker said he was "stunned that people would not believe a specific plan would pass."

The latest copy of the Reader

Please enjoy this clickable Reader flipbook. Linked text and ads are flash-highlighted in blue for your convenience. To enhance your viewing, please open full screen mode by clicking the icon on the far right of the black flipbook toolbar.

Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all
Previous article

Now what can they do with Encinitas unstable cliffs?

Make the cliffs fall, put up more warnings, fine beachgoers?
Next Article

Trophy truck crushes four at Baja 1000

"Two other racers on quads died too,"
Artist rendering of Watermark units
Artist rendering of Watermark units

The city of Del Mar passed a key zoning amendment on October 19 that helps it comply with state housing laws, but it's too little, too late for the developer of the lots, who will now move ahead by-right.

Watermark Del Mar, a controversial project that will yield 10 affordable units in the North Commercial zone, has been in the works for seven years. The zoning change allows higher density in the area, but the project still needs a specific plan amendment.

And due to local opposition all along, the developer expects only more delays.

"We have seen nothing to indicate that a viable 20 dwelling units per acre multi-family project with 20 percent affordable units will result from the city’s current efforts," said a letter from their attorneys.

It was only two weeks ago that the city approved a draft 6th cycle housing element update – all while still juggling requirements and penalties from two previous cycles.

Sponsored
Sponsored

Del Mar's sluggish pace in building enough affordable units, which requires re-zoning to allow suitable locations, has put the city out of compliance with state housing laws.

Opponents have held the project up, even after Kitchell Development Co. reduced the number of units from 48 to 38.

The latest ding came September 30, an enforcement letter from the state's Department of Housing and Community Development. Without the zoning change, the city risked having its current housing program de-certified.

According to staff reports, the city has until April 2021 – the end of its 5th housing cycle – to re-zone the Watermark lots. The 2.3-acre parcel at the corner of Jimmy Durante Boulevard and San Dieguito Road is now used as a temporary parking lot during events at the fairgrounds.

To help meet its affordable housing needs, the city long ago committed to re-zoning the North Commercial land off Jimmy Durante Boulevard, but opponents have held it up, even after Kitchell Development Co. reduced the number of units from 48 to 38 in a proposed alternative.

The city had opted to use a specific plan process for the Watermark since having 20-25 dwelling units per acre was a category that didn't exist in their regulations, but many residents wanted to keep it that way. Rallying against the increased density, they launched a ballot measure in 2016 to give voters the right to approve or reject projects that exceed the number of homes allowed on a property.

Watermark site. "That's why we're facing by-right development," said council member Dwight Worden. "Seven years went by."

Despite Del Mar's housing shortfall, the controversy hasn't gone away. Last month, council members Dave Druker and Terry Gaasterland voted against the zoning change that would allow up to 20 dwelling units per acre in the North Commercial area.

It took the enforcement letter and a recommendation by the planning commission to revisit the issue to bring about an initial approval of the zoning change on October 7. But a community plan amendment, which the Watermark still requires, was left out.

In a reply to the enforcement letter, the city blamed the delay in completing the re-zoning mainly on the processing of a specific plan application for Watermark.

Lacking the specific plan amendment, the developer has turned to the by-right option by taking advantage of the city’s failure to accomplish the re-zone in the timeframe required under state code.

"That's why we're facing by-right development," said council member Dwight Worden at last night's meeting. "Seven years went by. The landowner didn't pursue it because the city had worked with them on the specific plan. Why did they abandon that and go by-right? Because of the blocked vote."

The streamlined by-right approach gets around discretionary review by the design review board or planning commission, as well as environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act.

While developers won't have to do the rigorous environmental analysis, the city isn't off the hook and agreed to allocate $40,000 for environmental review.

According to the developers, the revised project will remove units previously slated for the hillside, protecting sensitive habitat. Since the project requires an amendment to the city’s local coastal program, it will need approval from the state coastal commission.

Under the Watermark's revised plan there will be 48 units rather than the 38 proposed earlier in an alternative. Of these, 10 units will be designated “low affordable," the rest market-rate. The numbers are consistent with the city’s inclusionary housing requirements and state density bonus law, the developer pointed out.

Phil Blair, a resident, vented his frustration with the city for ignoring the 2013 housing plan, and "activating the by-right option" as opposed to the specific plan which would have given the city more control of the process.

Council member Druker said he was "stunned that people would not believe a specific plan would pass."

Comments
Sponsored

The latest copy of the Reader

Please enjoy this clickable Reader flipbook. Linked text and ads are flash-highlighted in blue for your convenience. To enhance your viewing, please open full screen mode by clicking the icon on the far right of the black flipbook toolbar.

Here's something you might be interested in.
Submit a free classified
or view all
Previous article

Classical Classical at The San Diego Symphony Orchestra

A concert I didn't know I needed
Next Article

Syrian treat maker Hakmi Sweets makes Dubai chocolate bars

Look for the counter shop inside a Mediterranean grill in El Cajon
Comments
Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Drinks All Around — Bartenders' drink recipes Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories Fishing Report — What’s getting hooked from ship and shore From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town The Gonzo Report — Making the musical scene, or at least reporting from it Letters — Our inbox Movies@Home — Local movie buffs share favorites Movie Reviews — Our critics' picks and pans Musician Interviews — Up close with local artists Neighborhood News from Stringers — Hyperlocal news News Ticker — News & politics Obermeyer — San Diego politics illustrated Outdoors — Weekly changes in flora and fauna Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Reader Travel — Travel section built by travelers Reading — The hunt for intellectuals Roam-O-Rama — SoCal's best hiking/biking trails San Diego Beer — Inside San Diego suds SD on the QT — Almost factual news Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Street Style — San Diego streets have style Surf Diego — Real stories from those braving the waves Theater — On stage in San Diego this week Tin Fork — Silver spoon alternative Under the Radar — Matt Potter's undercover work Unforgettable — Long-ago San Diego Unreal Estate — San Diego's priciest pads Your Week — Daily event picks
4S Ranch Allied Gardens Alpine Baja Balboa Park Bankers Hill Barrio Logan Bay Ho Bay Park Black Mountain Ranch Blossom Valley Bonita Bonsall Borrego Springs Boulevard Campo Cardiff-by-the-Sea Carlsbad Carmel Mountain Carmel Valley Chollas View Chula Vista City College City Heights Clairemont College Area Coronado CSU San Marcos Cuyamaca College Del Cerro Del Mar Descanso Downtown San Diego Eastlake East Village El Cajon Emerald Hills Encanto Encinitas Escondido Fallbrook Fletcher Hills Golden Hill Grant Hill Grantville Grossmont College Guatay Harbor Island Hillcrest Imperial Beach Imperial Valley Jacumba Jamacha-Lomita Jamul Julian Kearny Mesa Kensington La Jolla Lakeside La Mesa Lemon Grove Leucadia Liberty Station Lincoln Acres Lincoln Park Linda Vista Little Italy Logan Heights Mesa College Midway District MiraCosta College Miramar Miramar College Mira Mesa Mission Beach Mission Hills Mission Valley Mountain View Mount Hope Mount Laguna National City Nestor Normal Heights North Park Oak Park Ocean Beach Oceanside Old Town Otay Mesa Pacific Beach Pala Palomar College Palomar Mountain Paradise Hills Pauma Valley Pine Valley Point Loma Point Loma Nazarene Potrero Poway Rainbow Ramona Rancho Bernardo Rancho Penasquitos Rancho San Diego Rancho Santa Fe Rolando San Carlos San Marcos San Onofre Santa Ysabel Santee San Ysidro Scripps Ranch SDSU Serra Mesa Shelltown Shelter Island Sherman Heights Skyline Solana Beach Sorrento Valley Southcrest South Park Southwestern College Spring Valley Stockton Talmadge Temecula Tierrasanta Tijuana UCSD University City University Heights USD Valencia Park Valley Center Vista Warner Springs
Close

Anchor ads are not supported on this page.

This Week’s Reader This Week’s Reader