Ocean Beach Planners Approve ‘Out-of-Character’ Three Story Houses for Bermuda

The design of the 3 story houses. Unchanged since first presented. Image diminishes the 3rd story, set back in the drawing enough to tease the viewer into thinking these are really only 2 stories.

In a stunning vote, the Ocean Beach Planning Board voted Wednesday night, Feb. 7th, to approve two 3-story houses for the 4700 block of Bermuda – houses out-of-character with the immediate neighborhood.

By a vote of 7 to 1, the Board voted to recommend the project at 4719 Bermuda move forward, giving its stamp of approval, despite the lack of any landscaping plan and despite many concerns raised about the buildings’ potential for use as short term rentals and how they’ll be the largest structures on the block. Vice-chair Blake Herrschaft was the sole vote against the project.

Before the vote, at least 6 Board members spoke critically of the project, which involves the demolition of a deteriorated single family residence, and the construction of two, 3-story large houses – that will once built will stand out uncharacteristically of the rest of the neighborhood. Each will have four-bedrooms and 3.5 baths. The two houses will be the only 3-story buildings on either side of that block, for instance (although there are some 3 story apartments on the other side of the alley).

Once discussion over, most of those critical of it then voted for it.

Presentation by architect.

When the project appeared before the Project Review Committee in mid-August 2017, it was met with an organized opposition from the community and many complaints from Board members that it didn’t follow or comply with the OB Community Plan. Board members believed the builder – in his own words –  was there to maximize profits as well as the space of the two narrow lots.

Drawings of houses from alley and other views. Garages are represented as open only for viewing, will be closed up once built.

Some would call the drawings the builders and architect presented to be of a trendy modern design — a style popular for vacation rentals and in the changing neighborhoods along the coast. After all the criticism, the design could have been changed.

But when on Wednesday night, the architect appeared with the drawings – they were clearly the exact ones presented in August. Nothing had changed. Here are some of the comments from Board members last night:

• the design shows the difference between creating a design to live in (not this one) or a design with a plan to sell – and maximizing the space;
• it’s a style of short term vacation rentals;
• needs to have a deed restriction disallowing the property from being used as short term vacation rentals (shorter than 30 days);
• it’s a standard 2 townhouses on 1 lot;
• “we’re not the style police!”
• it is maxed out; go to Newport Beach to see what OB will look like with houses built by people who don’t live in them;
• it’s out of the cottage area of OB;
• a nice, historic cottage just sat there for 5 years and allowed to deteriorate;

During a question and answer period, the new owners – a father and son team – stated that they’re considering living in one of the houses themselves. “I could sell the other for $1.6 million,” the son said. Not only are the houses 3 stores, they’ll include basements, only accessible from inside. The owners also confirmed “all the trees on the property have to come down.”

There was some discussion of when the current building would be demolished, and estimates ranged from 2 months, to 3 to 6. Chair John Ambert observed that the designs include long, straight walls with no windows on the houses’ sides. “The project is compliant,” he said, “but it doesn’t treat the neighbors well.” He added, “It lacks a harmonious relationship with neighbors.”

Two neighbors of the project did appear – and they seemed mostly concerned with the removal of trees close to their house – they wanted them removed “too many rats,” and admitted that after all these years of being next to the deteriorated building, they’re “desperate for anything; “the lot has been a mess for years.”

Yet, it was expressed that once built, each at 3700 square feet, they’ll be “the largest structures on the block – and there’s two of them.”

Blake Herrschaft worried that the 3-stories when built and sold will be turned into short term vacation rentals. He stated there’s “eight Airbnb’s on this block right now.”

There was more Board discussion:

• It’s not “harmonious to neighborhood”;
• needs a deed restriction;
• sets a precedent;
• people have a choice in how neighborhood goes; without deed restrictions, neighborhood becomes a land of “mini-hotels”; developers need to  begin to add anti-STVR deed restrictions; this can add to the sale value because buyers will know neighborhood won’t turn into mini-hotels;
• project is compliant but “maxed-out”.
• need to see landscaping plan;
• our elected representatives are not addressing issues; elected reps don’t stay for the detailed discussions like this.

A motion was made to approve the project but with language that the owner needed to submit a landscaping plan, and with some loose language recommending that a deed restriction be included.

Then one by one, each of the Board members who had voiced complaints and criticisms of the project, then voted for it. Except one – Herrschaft. After the vote, Herrschaft was pressed for the reasons for his opposition (non-compliance with Building Element of Community Plan), yet no one who voted for it were pressed for their reasons.

Those voting for it were Richard Aguirre, John Ambert, Dan Dennison, Craig Klein, Andrea Schlageter, Bill Corwin, and Andrew Waltz.

Now, it’s very difficult to place blame or criticism on community volunteers – like these Board members – who give freely of their time and energy and take on the challenging aspects of being a community planner. They take on the heady stuff of urban planning and community rules, stuff all ignored by their fellow OBceans – until it’s time for them to be affected by some development – and they face a thankless job; there’s nobody around who stands up and shakes their hand during the time of their service or at the end. Their reward is the experience itself and the knowledge that they were part of it.

So how can you get down on somebody like that?

Clearly Ambert takes a lot on his shoulders – but perhaps doesn’t delegate enough – and that can lead to burn-out (Ambert declared he is stepping down from the Board next month – which this reporter will regret).

But still these particular volunteers were voted in by their neighbors (unlike the OB Town Council board for example) and they represent them and their planning districts. Or most of them were – some were appointed to their seats to fill vacancies not timed with annual elections. And because they do represent people and are part of a quasi-government body, they have a responsibility to follow and enforce the Ocean Beach Community Plan.

But last night, in this reporter’s opinion, they didn’t do that.

Editor: More on the OB Planning Board Friday, Feb. 9th.