Sharp Cut Proposed for Home Building; Criticism Immediate

Incurring the wrath of developers, a San Diego citizens task force proposed an interim ordinance Wednesday that would set strict limits on the number of dwellings that could be built in city neighborhoods each year.

If adopted, the proposed ordinance would permit the construction of 9,300 residential units citywide over the next year, a sharp decrease from the 14,874 units that were added in 1986.

To achieve that goal, the measure would first set specific caps on the number of residential units that could be built in each San Diego neighborhood for a total of 8,500 units. In Mira Mesa, for example, the proposed ordinance would allow developers to build 844 units in the 12 months after the measure is adopted. From 1983 through 1985, the area averaged almost 1,000 units a year.

Devised by Task Force

The recommendation was forged by a 27-member task force of builders and community activists appointed by Mayor Maureen O’Connor in January to study the city’s escalating growth rate.

The measure would also allow a cushion or “float” of about 800 extra residential units to be parcelled out throughout San Diego by the City Council.

Yet to be decided, however, is the thorny issue of how the units will be distributed fairly among hungry developers. That question was referred by task force members to the city planning staff for further review.

“It will be a disaster,” Kim Kilkenny, spokesman for the Construction Industry Federations, said about the proposed ordinance. “It is completely unworkable. It’s going to be an administrative nightmare and an economic holocaust.”

Kilkenny predicted the development industry will be out in force to defeat the proposal--dubbed the Interim Development Ordinance--when it comes before the council for consideration in a special Monday night meeting in Golden Hall.

And other developers who sat on the task force warned that the measure would be ripe for legal attack because it does not adequately guard their right to build once a project is under way.

‘Legal Challenges’

“I think there will be legal challenges and there will be some problems,” developer Janay Kruger predicted. “I think the Interim Development Ordinance could be overturned.”

But architect Ron Roberts, who chaired the citizens panel, emphasized after Wednesday’s meeting that its proposal is only a starting point for more public discussion.

“It’s a compromise solution, no question about it,” said Roberts, a former city planning commissioner who is running for the District 2 council seat. “I think it’s a good starting point for the City Council to review, and I think it addresses the real problems in terms of the incredible growth in some of the communities.

“We’re talking about a significant reduction in development intensity in the next 12 months, with an emphasis on reducing the pressures on communities with the biggest problems,” Roberts said.

Though the task force has been reviewing the ramifications of San Diego’s heady growth on its neighborhoods--glutting streets, overcrowding schools and burdening sewer systems--the genesis of Wednesday’s proposed ordinance came from parallel work performed by Robert H. Freilich, a Kansas City, Mo., consultant who helped the city draft its original 1979 Growth Management Plan.

Warning Issued

In a report to the planning department, Freilich warned in April that the city could suffer a “serious and irrevocable detrimental effect” from a growth rate that was 2.5 times faster than projected in 1984. He proposed slapping a lid on the number of residential units that could be built in each neighborhood.

The suggestion was seized by O’Connor and Councilman Ed Struiksma, both of whom held press conferences April 29 to urge adoption of the drastic restrictions. Since then, city figures show, developers have rushed in and applied for 6,126 building permits--units the task force now recommends be included retroactively in the limits established for each neighborhood in the proposed ordinance.

Emotions ran high during the task force’s final, six-hour meeting in the lobby of Golden Hall. Developers and slow-growth advocates sparred verbally over different provisions of the proposed ordinance, including how many units would be allowed in several city neighborhoods.

Developers lost a round when they were unable to change the ordinance so it would automatically exempt a glut of units that were covered by development agreements or had received final approvals from city officials--a number that could be as high as 24,778.

Because the city had already given final approvals, the developers argued that they had “vested rights” and should be allowed to build, constructing along the way major roads and sewer pump stations.

But the change was foiled, and task force members instead recommended that projects with final approvals be considered “hardship” cases, a category of projects put first in line to receive the allocation of neighborhood units.

Committee members agreed that the proposed ordinance should be effective for one year, with a two-year extension possible if the council desires. Other provisions include exempting single-family homes on single lots, as well as remodel work.