Clusters: ‘Blight’ or the Wave of Housing’s Future?
From their picturesque redwood home situated on the bluffs overlooking the Del Mar race track, Rod and Gail Hubbard used to enjoy a sweeping view of the Pacific Ocean.
Several years ago, however, the Hubbards planted eucalyptus trees in front of their dining room window to partially block the view--not because they had grown to dislike the ocean, but because they had wearied of looking at what now stands between them and the water.
“Look at it--it reminds me of an ugly, old gray battleship,” Gail Hubbard said, gesturing toward the imposing, largely gray complex of condominiums called Spindrift situated several hundred yards downhill and west of her home. “We hate it. It ruins the view.”
This is a case where beauty is clearly in the eye of the beholder, however. Proud of Spindrift’s contemporary design, the 144-unit project’s residents heatedly dispute Rod Hubbard’s characterization of it as “a blight on the hillside that doesn’t fit in” with the large, expensive homes that dot the slopes just north of the San Diego city limit.
‘Ties in With Theme’
“It’s sort of a beachy, driftwood look that ties in with the Del Mar beach theme,” said Barbara Theberge, Spindrift’s director of operations. Still, Theberge admits she understands the disgruntlement of some of the owners of the homes adjacent to the condo project.
“At some point, you’ve got to make the transition from single-family to attached housing, and someone has to live next to it,” Theberge said. “Obviously, that makes for some problems.”
Typical of dozens of similar disputes found countywide, the Del Mar disagreement is an outgrowth of a larger, long-simmering controversy--one that comes to a head this week before the county Board of Supervisors--over a method of housing development called “clustering,” a process that allows developers to build high-density residential projects in areas zoned for low-density construction.
In exchange for providing substantial open space throughout a project, San Diego County’s clustering policy authorizes higher residential densities in some portions of a development. For example, if a developer owns 200 acres of land in an area zoned for 2-acre lots, he would be entitled to build 100 homes. Rather than building those 100 homes on similar 2-acre parcels, the developer could “cluster” all 100 units on just a few acres, leaving most of the remainder of the property as open space.
Developers, land-use lawyers and planning consultants argue that the policy offers a fair trade-off that enhances design flexibility and preserves topographical features such as groves of trees and canyons that might be imperiled if a project’s total acreage were developed.
Environmentalists and some community groups, particularly those in growth-sensitive North County, charge, however, that developers have used the policy to circumvent zoning laws and complain that the open space surrounding the clustered housing often is steep, unusable property or private golf courses.
Review of Policy
After a series of pitched battles over proposed cluster projects, county officials last year began a comprehensive review of their policy--setting the stage for Wednesday’s debate before the county supervisors.
Last month, the supervisors approved an emergency ordinance prohibiting developers from filing applications for cluster projects pending a decision on possible revision of the policy. Earlier this spring, county planners proposed a series of changes that, on balance, would restrict clustering and give individual communities a stronger hand in controlling--or perhaps even preventing--its use.
And, though they agree on little else, clustering proponents and opponents concur in their belief that the supervisors’ decision will have a dramatic impact on local development--including the types and cost of housing available here--throughout the rest of this century.
Elimination or serious curtailment of clustering would, land-use lawyer Louis Wolfsheimer argues, return San Diego to “the Dark Ages of . . . cookie-cutter two-by-two-by-two lots covering thousands of square miles” in the unincorporated areas of the county.
Clustering Called Vital
“To ask whether clustering is important to land-use planning is like asking whether the automatic transmission is important to the automobile industry,” said Wolfsheimer, former chairman of the San Diego City Planning Commission. “It’s such a basic and valuable tool that I’m shocked that anyone would even suggest doing away with it. That’s a bit like saying that instead of using missiles we ought to go back to two-wing planes made of cloth where the bombardier holds one (bomb) in his hand and drops it.”
Critics, however, complain that clustering projects often lead to urban-style developments inappropriate for rural or so-called “estate” areas of the county, which are zoned for lot sizes ranging from 2 to 20 acres, depending on the slope of the property.
“To me, clustering isn’t as much of a planning tool as it is an end run around zoning and planning regulations for developers,” said Fallbrook activist Jack Wireman, who has organized community opposition to several clustering proposals. “It’s a backdoor way to create little urban nodes in rural areas. And those little nodes have a way of growing together into big nodes.”
County planning officials, meanwhile, have adopted a middle ground.
“Clustering is not inherently good or bad; it all depends on how and where it’s applied,” senior county planner Lee Vance said.
Pushed by Developers
Increasingly popular since the early 1970s, cluster projects can be found throughout the county. In theory, clustering offers what Kim Kilkenny, legislative counsel for the Construction Industry Federation, calls “a win-win-win situation” that benefits developers, prospective home buyers and environmentalists alike.
Through a procedure called “lot averaging,” a developer receives permission to build homes on lots smaller than otherwise would be allowed as a credit for steep slopes or preserving sensitive open space elsewhere on his property. That helps to make the project more financially feasible for the developer. Environmentalists and homeowners can take heart from the fact that substantial open space remains.
Another potential advantage is that clustering “preserves open space in large parcels available to the community at large rather than divide it up into individual backyards with fences running up and down,” said Lyle Gabrielson, president of Rick Engineering Co.
No Increase in Total Homes
Clustering does not increase the total number of dwelling units allowed within an individual project but simply affects where those homes will sit on the property.
Opponents, though, contend that clustering, by giving development credits for acreage covered by sheer slopes, flood plains and other terrain that would be difficult--if not impossible--to develop, often results in a greater number of homes being built than would be under normal circumstances.
“You’re not going to be able to build on cliffs and wetlands anyway, so a developer really isn’t sacrificing anything by leaving those areas open,” said Emily Durbin, head of the Sierra Club’s land-use subcommittee. “He’s the one who’s really benefiting because he gets to build more houses”--on level land elsewhere within his property.
Developers and others, however, scoff at the notion of “unbuildable” property.
“Even if the land is steep or a flood plain, something is eventually going to happen on that land--you can count on it,” Gabrielson said.
Clustering frequently is used in conjunction with development of golf courses, with the price of the homes that line the fairways helping to pay for the course itself. Some, however, argue that such projects violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the clustering policy’s open-space goals, particularly if the golf course is a private one not available for public use.
“Clustering is supposed to compensate people who have accepted smaller lots in rural areas with common open space,” Sierra Club official Linda Martin said. “But in many cases, they find that they’ve sacrificed the bigger lot size for open space that turns out to be a golf course with fees.”
But even Supervisor John MacDonald, whose North County district includes some of the most intense pockets of anti-cluster sentiment found anywhere in the county, said he sees nothing wrong with awarding density credits for golf courses. One of the questions facing the supervisors is whether developers should receive a housing density credit for property devoted to “commercial” recreational open space uses, including golf courses.
“Golf courses are green and provide a nice view corridor,” MacDonald said. “I don’t think the term ‘open space’ implies that you’re guaranteed the right to spread out a picnic blanket there. There are other ways to enjoy open space.”
Some of the loudest complaints about clustering projects have come from residents in rural areas who vehemently oppose the prospect of small-lot homes being built amid their multiple-acre parcels. In Fallbrook, for example, residents vociferously battled, and ultimately defeated, a recent plan to build more than 100 homes in the 140-acre Sky Lake project. (Individual lots would have been even smaller than those numbers might indicate, because a sizable chunk of the site is covered by a lake.)
Opposes ‘Postage-Stamp Lots’
“We don’t want our community chopped up into little tiny chunks with postage-stamp lots,” said landscape architect Victor Pinckney Jr., a leading opponent of that plan.
Having won that battle, Fallbrook residents now are girding for a new fight over a proposal to cluster about 200 condos on a nearby 500-acre site.
“I think the developers try to wear you down,” Fallbrook resident Wireman said. “We have to sleep with one eye open up here.”
From one perspective, community battles over cluster projects turn largely on subjective aesthetic judgments. Is it really less visually appealing, cluster proponents ask, to build 250 homes in a small corner of a 500-acre site, with the rest of the land remaining as open space, than to develop the entire site by building one home on every two acres?
Opponents answer that question with a resounding “yes.”
“We’d much prefer to have homes dotting the hillside rather than looking at a big clump of condos that give an urban feel,” said Betty Huston, a member of the Fallbrook community planning group.
Neighborhood residents who oppose cluster projects usually argue that they do so in an attempt to preserve the character of their particular community. Dense condo projects or small, suburban-sized lots would disturb the ambiance of rural areas, they say, as well as create additional pressures for future development.
Frequently, however, such neighborhood activists find themselves under fire, accused of elitism and being unwilling to accept forms of housing more modest than their own. That stance, some argue, can result in the exclusion of others who would like to live in the same area, but either cannot afford the higher price tags or do not want the added maintenance responsibilities that come with bigger houses.
“I can tell you I wouldn’t be living here if this were a $250,000 place,” said Ron Williams, who lives in a cluster development called the Circle R Ranch that surrounds a golf course in the Gopher Canyon area. “You shouldn’t have to be wealthy just to live in an open, serene area.”
Those at whom that argument is directed, however, dismiss it as an obfuscation of the issue.
“Yeah, they make it out like this is just a bunch of rich (people) who want to keep things nice for themselves and don’t care about anybody else,” Wireman said. “But when developers talk about protecting the little guy, they’re really worried about protecting their own profits. Besides, a lot of these condos they want to build go for $300,000 and up. That doesn’t sound like the guy from ‘Green Acres’ is going to be moving in.”
An Inherent Contradiction
Encinitas Mayor Marjorie Gaines argued that there is an inherent contradiction in attempts to build dense housing projects in rural or largely open areas.
“It sounds nice to say you’re going to make the country available to more people,” Gaines said. “But if you try to create an environment where more people can live in the country, pretty soon you won’t have country anymore.”
Much of this week’s debate before the supervisors likely will focus on several major changes that have been proposed by the county staff. Arguably the most controversial proposal would establish a one-acre minimum lot size for clustering projects, although the minimum could be reduced to one-half acre with community approval and if the area is served by sewer lines or a so-called package treatment plant.
Currently, there is no minimum parcel size for cluster projects in areas served by sewers or package plants--which makes it possible to build condominiums or other forms of densely packed housing even in areas zoned for multiple-acre lots.
A one-acre or even half-acre minimum would, developers and some land consultants warn, decimate the clustering policy by ruling out the potential to build condos, attached housing or even suburban-sized lots throughout much of the county’s unincorporated areas.
“If you do that, you’ve effectively done away with clustering,” land-use lawyer Wolfsheimer said.
County planner Vance, however, described the proposed one-acre minimum as “a real legitimate standard” that would help prevent rural communities being overrun with urban-style developments.
The question of how much weight should be placed on community plans in evaluating clustering projects also is expected to figure prominently in the supervisors’ decision. Though the county staff recommendation gives community groups the potential to block lots smaller than one acre, Fallbrook’s Wireman and other North County community leaders plan to press for a provision giving communities veto power over cluster proposals.
“Why not give a bigger say to the people who would be most affected?” Wireman asked rhetorically.
In response, developers argue that members of such community groups often lack land-use planning expertise and base their decisions solely on parochial, rather than regional, interests.
“When properly implemented, clustering can benefit the entire county,” construction industry advocate Kilkenny said. “An individual planning group shouldn’t be able to say, ‘Not in my backyard.’ ”
The proper place for such decisions to be made, others say, is exactly where they are made now--by the Board of Supervisors.
“If you have a neighborhood of seven-acre lots and someone wants to plop down an apartment complex there, that might be inappropriate,” Wolfsheimer said. “But I trust the elected officials to make those decisions, guided by the public input that surely will come.
“The elected officials should have a chance to review these plans and say, ‘Hey, this is dumb,’ or ‘Hey, this makes sense,’ ” Wolfsheimer added. “If you can’t trust them to do that much, then why are they there?”
