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.

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."

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

Previous article

Thanksgiving Day Dining Cruise, Dua Lipa: Studio 2054 Livestream, Soft Kill: Dead Kids, R.i.p City

Events November 26-November 28, 2020
Next Article

Thanksgiving due to Handel

Pilgrims weren't so bad, but I'm glad I wasn't one
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.

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."

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

Dirty Birds proprietor cuts $500 deal with ethics commission

Hitting up Faulconer’s staff for campaign cash draws hand slap
Next Article

The history of the San Diego Union’s James MacMullen and his Coronado home

He published architectural sketches of his as-yet unbuilt mansion in the Union
Comments
2

Rich old Del Mar just cannot have things the way that its residents want. It has a busy, noisy rail line that "shouldn't" be there running right along the bluffs. And now it might have to make room for more residents and, worse yet, some affordable housing units. Never mind that the number of such units would be infinitesimal, it's the principle that matters. Right, Del Mar?

This report does attempt to explain the intricacies of zoning, planning, amending and approving changes that the state laws now appear to require. Very complicated, and ripe for years of legal maneuvering and delay. Besides that the Del Mar voters can vote for restrictive measures that would not allow the state-mandated changes and development to go forward. Finally it will likely come down to a big court case pitting the state against the tiny city, a case that Del Mar will almost certainly lose.

Anyone out there feel sorry for Del Mar?

Oct. 21, 2020

"Affordable housing" in Del Mar is absurd. Del Mar is for the rich folks. Deal with reality, not fantasy for people who want to live in a community they can't afford.

Oct. 21, 2020

Sign in to comment

Sign in

Art Reviews — W.S. Di Piero's eye on exhibits Ask a Hipster — Advice you didn't know you needed Best Buys — San Diego shopping Big Screen — Movie commentary Blurt — Music's inside track Booze News — San Diego spirits City Lights — News and politics Classical Music — Immortal beauty Classifieds — Free and easy Cover Stories — Front-page features Excerpts — Literary and spiritual excerpts Famous Former Neighbors — Next-door celebs Feast! — Food & drink reviews Feature Stories — Local news & stories From the Archives — Spotlight on the past Golden Dreams — Talk of the town Here's the Deal — Chad Deal's watering holes Just Announced — The scoop on shows Letters — Our inbox [email protected] — 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 Of Note — Concert picks Out & About — What's Happening Overheard in San Diego — Eavesdropping illustrated Poetry — The old and the new Pour Over — Grab a cup 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 Set 'em Up Joe — Bartenders' drink recipes Sheep and Goats — Places of worship Special Issues — The best of Sports — Athletics without gush Street Style — San Diego streets have style Suit Up — Fashion tips for dudes Theater Reviews — Local productions Theater antireviews — Narrow your search 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 Waterfront — All things ocean 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