voiceofsandiego.org: Cafesandiego... What Happened with the KFC?
an independent nonprofit |
We depend on your donations. Consider joining us today.

What Happened with the KFC?

Published: Tuesday, March 4, 2008 1:00 PM PST



For today, let's leave discussion of societal effects when the rule of law is not applied fairly and equitably to those at dinner parties or in sociology classes. The following case in point underscores the question of whether current city of San Diego government really supports its own City of Villages initiative.

The "code" here is the Land Development Code regulating things such as land use designations and structural setbacks. The LDC was updated in recent years to implement structural design and health and safety advances, and to reflect changes documented in the city’s General Plan and localized Community Plans. The city’s own City of Villages initiative was to rely heavily on the updated code. Many of us were assured, and thus we assured others, the city would use the code in directing development in its Pilot Villages.

Just over a week ago, local North Park community members were surprised at seeing a long standing structure gone; demolished and graded in two days. Questions led to outrage upon learning an enlarged new structure is being built on the old footprint in conflict with current LDC zoning and without required public revue. To be clear, the nature of the business, a Kentucky Fried Chicken franchise, is not at issue. The permit process that disregarded the intent of the code and circumvented the community is.

The site of the KFC redevelopment. Photo: Olaina Anderson
Under the current LDC the old building was deemed a "previously conforming" structure. The structure had set back from the street with all parking located along its University Avenue frontage. This did not conform with "CN-1" zoning requirements critical in implementing the intended pedestrian oriented nature of the district as directed in the Community Plan, and the North Park Pilot Village initiative adopted by the community and the city. Every other building in the "Commercial Node" is built to the street wall in conformance with the zoning.

What went wrong?

The city permitted complete demolition and reconstruction of a new building in conflict with the obvious intent of the code. The LDC conspicuously addresses reconstruction of previously conforming structures only where loss is due to fire, natural disaster, or act of public enemy. Voluntary demolition by default is subject to the regulations on new construction.

Instead the project was granted "exception" under a statute pertaining to "Maintenance, Repair, or Alteration of Previously Conforming Structures." While intent may be an area subject to legal wrangling, what is not is the fact that the community review process mandated under this exception was not done. Add to that allowance for expansion under another statute not applicable if the property has benefited from any "other property development exception" and, well, you get the picture.

What does this convey regarding the city’s support of the City of Villages initiative? From varied sources, city response to date is that the permit process complied with the code and that this is "done all the time." The city attorney has yet to reply to community and local business improvement district requests for review of this permit process for proper interpretation and application of the LDC.

Of interest to all in San Diego’s communities, not just those in pilot villages or commercial districts, should be the city attorney’s position on the legality of the city’s actions. This could be precedent either leading to a consistent and equitable application of the code or to open season on the demolition and rebuilding of previously conforming structures without concern for compliance with setback requirements, or perhaps land uses, and then maybe ...

-- ROGER LEWIS

Sponsored Link

We'll help you search for the exquisite San Diego restaurants through comprehensive reviews and ratings from credible critics. Fine dining has never been this easy with our recent online booking section.




6 Comments so far on this story...

Roger, I would like to know who the developer is, and I want to see plans. This sounds a lot like a 'gut and amend' manouver at the local planning level, probably done all the time to DODGE community input for connected developers. And please, let's get personal with the identification. A recent attempt at this was caught and stopped at Felton and Adams in Normal Heights. Let's catch and stop this one, too, or at least force a review. Who is the developer? Who reviewed the application? Who will benefit? Please provide this so that I can look into who they pay campaign contributions to, and then vote (and write) accordingly. Thanks!

Posted by Frank In SD | reply to this comment
September 18, 2007 9:55 am

VOSD--Roger's not Marco so you might wanna change your cafe banner. So no more corn, corn chicken and corn. I'm glad somebody said what happened. I saw that demolition over the weekend. My husband was crestfallen. Who's sticking what in there? I was hoping the housing bubble burst might slow the Hillcrestization of North Park. Guess not. No more working class food prices on the University bus line before the 805. And before anybody starts a healthy diet lecture, figure out a way to make healthy food fast & affordable for people on the way home from their second job.

Posted by North Parker | reply to this comment
September 18, 2007 10:07 am

The issue is not about KFC. The issue is whether the city is applying its permit process equally for all applicants. By deciding that the KFC permit application was "ministerial" or Process 1 action, it was then easy to avoid all public comment. In fact, had KFC retained the original footprint exactly, it might be said that they could proceed with "repair" etc., of existing previously conforming structure. However, there is nothing left of the KFC but the sign. Thus, it is obviously NEW CONSTRUCTION! Also, the expansion of the footprint is substantial. City regulations for CN1 now requires a different building, with at least 65% frontage on University Avenue. Any other developer would have to conform. The question is: Preferential treatment or not?

Posted by Patrick | reply to this comment
September 18, 2007 11:03 am

It is indeed heartbreaking that KFC has been able to disregard zoning regulations, our Greater North Park Community Plan, and the North Park Pilot Village Initiative -- all under the "watchful" eye our City's Development Services Department. The North Park Planning Committee had formerly requested to be notified of all demolition permit applications in order to keep abreast of situations such as this most recent KFC debacle. So far, the City has not even responded to this simple request. Nearly all of the redevelopment along University Avenue has been successful and North Park is now very "hip" with a thriving business district. The KFC is the only non-pedestrian oriented business place along the corridor -- now I guess it will remain so in perpetuity.

Posted by Judi O'Boyle | reply to this comment
September 18, 2007 3:42 pm

As the photographer of the KFC eyesore portrayed in this story, I can tell you that a sign prominently posted on the site fence advertises "Marks Architects, restaurant and retail architecture, 619 702 9448." The photo was taken on Thursday, five days later there is already a construction trailer on the lot and work being done to build the new restaurant. Sure, fast food has its place in our culture, as do huge chain stores whether we like them or not, but note the vandalism on the KFC Exit sign. North Park is not suffering "Hillcrestizati but it is developing into a place its citizens treat with a sense of ownership, pride and respect. We should value the potential impact that attitude has on a neighborhood. Evidence shows KFC neither respects nor is respected by the residents of North Park. North Park deserves better.

Posted by Olaina | reply to this comment
September 18, 2007 4:20 pm

Just make sure that independent businesses and megacorporations are competing on a level playing field. Giving megacorps unfair advantage ruins neighborhoods.

Posted by Poppa | reply to this comment
September 19, 2007 7:59 am


Reader feedback
  • Users may post more than one comment, but should not pose as multiple users. Multiple posts from the same IP address but with a different user name on each will be reviewed to determine whether abuse has occurred.
  • Posts with overly personal attacks or unsubstantiated allegations may be edited or deleted.
  • Please be patient with the posts -- there may be a delay before they appear on the site -- and make sure to enter the code in the "image verification" box.
Post a comment
Name:
Email:
Comments:
Current Word Count: Verification Code
a54518c

This Just In

School Testing Trouble on the Radio:

 KPBS airs a segment about student testing and its discontents. » Dec. 1 -- 10:00 am



The Beautiful People:

 Get to know some San Diegans you never might have met.

Dec. 1 -- 9:59 am


Incoming Council Members Weigh In on Budget Decision:

 Three out of the four new arrivals indicate they would have voted to save libraries and recreation centers.

Nov. 26 -- 5:22 pm


SURVIVAL IN SAN DIEGO

41 Trees in Three Days:

 An update from Alan House, the cemetery manager who moonlights as a Christmas tree farmer.

Dec. 1 -- 3:12 pm



LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Let the People Read:

 Again. ... libraries shouldn't be first to suffer at hands of city's budget crisis.

Dec. 1 -- 4:54 pm



CAFÉ SAN DIEGO

Voters Value Good Government:

 Nationally and locally, voters didn't just elect new governments on Nov. 4. They opened the door to new roles for government.

Nov. 25 -- 6:39 pm



COMMENTARY: SLOP

Our Audience:

 A quick point about that NYT article.

Dec. 1 -- 3:10 pm



COMMENTARY: RICH TOSCANO

Home Price Chartfest:

 Some more visuals on the latest Case-Shiller home price index release.

Nov. 28 -- 11:50 am


Copyright © 2008 voiceofsandiego.org. All Rights Reserved.