Deddeh Sues City Over Inaction on His Land : Development: State senator alleges that politics blocked permits to build on tract he owns in San Diego.

State Sen. Wadie P. Deddeh (D-Chula Vista) has sued the city of San Diego, alleging that the City Council refused to grant development permits for property he and his wife own because of back room politics.

The suit was filed Monday in San Diego Superior Court by James C. Stevens, the attorney representing Deddeh and his wife. The lawsuit was filed 10 days after the Deddehs sent a letter to city officials threatening to sue and asking the city to respond to their claim that their property rights were violated.

At issue in the lawsuit, which seeks an unspecified amount of monetary damages if the city fails to grant the necessary permits, is the couple’s ability to develop a 4 1/2-acre parcel near Chollas Creek in Mid-City.

The Deddehs claim the City Council went beyond its legal jurisdiction when it declined to take action that would have allowed the development of the property.

The complaint states that the Deddehs have already lost at least $1.2 million “stemming from the city’s permanent appropriation, taking and confiscation of the Deddehs’ property.”

The 26-page lawsuit also asks a judge to order the city “to issue all permits and approvals in connection with the Deddehs’ project.”

Lurking behind the charges that the city violated the rights of a property owner is the allegation that the city’s action was prompted by negative campaigning conducted by a rival political candidate who now sits on the City Council.

Councilman Bob Filner, another Democrat, who is favored to capture the contested seat for the 50th Congressional District, was Deddeh’s chief opponent in the June primary.

“Filner in particular conducted a negative campaign heavy with personal attacks on Wadie Deddeh,” according to lawsuit.

Citing press reports, the lawsuit states that Filner seized upon the issue of the Deddehs’ property in Mid-City.

“ ‘Anonymous’ ” political operatives ‘swamped’ reporters with phone calls, faxes and a ‘mysterious manila envelope’ designed to show that the Deddehs had improperly used Wadie Deddeh’s influence to ‘fast-track’ the project,” the suit reads, quoting an article in the San Diego Daily Transcript.

This allegation was brought to the attention of the Planning Commission and the Council, the Deddehs believe, and this action by “Filner and/or the ‘anonymous’ political operatives negatively influenced the Planning Commission and the City Council.

“These politically motivated actions made it impossible for the Deddehs to receive a fair and impartial hearing and were a proximate cause of the City Council’s ultimate denial” of the Deddehs’ request for permission to develop their property, according to the suit.

Filner declined to comment Wednesday on the allegations, other than saying, “Certainly the charges that are specifically addressed at me are ridiculous.”

The details of the litigation involve a complicated mix of land-use documents, zoning regulations and the intricate process required to obtain the varied permits and approvals needed to construct a housing development.

The Mid-City parcel that the Deddehs own is undeveloped and next to Chollas Parkway, east of 54th Street, and is surrounded by both commercial and residential properties.

“It is far from being a pristine wilderness, and, in fact, certain surrounding property owners have from time to time encouraged its development as a means of improving the neighborhood,” the lawsuit reads.

The initial paperwork filed with the city called for the construction of 39 single-family housing units, the maximum number allowed under the zoning designation that the lawsuit claims was placed on the property in 1954.

The Deddehs filed applications for the necessary permits to develop the property on March 20, 1990. After preliminary discussions, the suit alleges that city officials “abruptly changed their minds” on July 21, 1990, and declared that the property should be rezoned to a designation that would effectively bar construction on the property.

The city said the Mid-City Community Plan, the 1984 land-use document which controls development in the area, prohibits construction on the land because it was designated “open space.”

After being informed of the conflict, the Deddehs claim, they received assurances from Deputy City Atty. Fred Conrad that the property was developable as they had planned.

“The Deddehs, in reliance on the city attorney’s opinion, resumed the time-consuming and expensive process of requesting the land-use approvals for the project,” the suit reads.

Conrad, who is semi-retired from the city, said last week that he had not seen the threatened lawsuit, but he is familiar with the proposed project.

“As far as I know, they have made no effort to submit a plan consistent with the present zoning of the property,” he said.

Conrad was not available for further comment Wednesday.

Other lawyers in the city attorney’s office did not return phone calls Wednesday.

As the planning process continued into 1991, the plans were revised so only 17 units would be built. The suit alleges this number of homes would be allowed even if the city had changed the land-use designation to open space.

About one month after Conrad allegedly rendered an opinion on the project, the Planning Department officially informed the Deddehs that the open-space designation would be applied to the parcel.

“Such action constituted a ‘de facto’ rezoning of the Deddehs’ property, without notice or public hearing,” according to the suit.

The lawsuit contends that the Mid-City Community Plan never intended the Deddehs’ property to be designated as open space and that the city never took any action to change the zoning designation that had been in effect for nearly 40 years.

The Planning Department said the only way to bypass this new designation was to seek an amendment to the community plan, a process the Deddehs started in the spirit of cooperation, even though they “did not believe they were required under the law to process such an amendment,” according to the lawsuit.

The City Council voted 7 to 1 on July 7 to deny the proposed amendment. The action also put the Deddehs’ property on a list of open spaces that the city hopes to acquire.