Deck Expansion at Inn at Sunset Cliffs Nixed by OB Planning Board

By Geoff Page

The Inn At Sunset Cliffs dominated the discussion during the Ocean Beach Planning Board’s regular monthly meeting, Wednesday, July 7.  A cycling issue was listed on the consent agenda but it was pulled by the board’s vice chair, Kevin Hastings.  It was placed at the end of the agenda but the meeting went on for three hours and the board did not get to it. It will be discussed at the next meeting.

Ocean Front Project Approved Without Discussion

There was a second consent agenda item that was passed:

“#1 1615 Ocean Front st. PTS# 673099 & 612237

Application for a Coastal Development Permit and Site Development Permit for the remodel and addition of 4,876 square feet to an existing single family dwelling unit located at 1615 Ocean Front Street. The 0.17 acre site is located in the RM-2-4 Base Zone.PRC voted to recommend to approve project contingent on clearing significant cycle items 3-0-0.”

On first reading, it appeared as if a nearly 5,000/SF new home was being passed with no public discussion.  However, a review of the Project Review subcommittee documents showed this agenda description was a little misleading.  The project consists of a 2,767/SF house, a 952/SF basement with underground parking, 871/SF of roof porch, and 475/SF existing garage.

The OB Project review subcommittee qualified its approval “contingent on clearing significant cycle items.”  Cycle items are review comments from the city that must be addressed before approval.  There are 22 outstanding cycle review comments. “Significant” is the proper way to describe such a list of items but the board approved the project anyway.

It would certainly not have been improper to postpone a vote on this project until the majority of the outstanding review issues were cleared. Because there was no discussion, the only commentary on the project are the meeting minutes on the Project Review subcommittee site.

The Inn At Sunset Cliffs

This project generated a lengthy discussion centered mainly around the proposed seawall and the decks seaward of The Inn At Sunset Cliffs, the small hotel on Sunset Cliffs Blvd. at the Point Loma intersection.  The Inn has been at this location since 1953.  There were two presentations, one by The Inn and another by community members who oppose what The Inn wants to do.

The main point of contention was the decking and the location of the seawall in the current proposal.  A little history first. There have been two decks at this location for many years, an upper and a lower.  The lower deck has been badly damaged and restored a number of times.  Anyone seeing the location of the lower deck could see it was in a precarious spot. To make matters worse, it was never permitted.

The unpermitted deck has a long history that comes to an end in the proposed project.  The Inn has decided to completely remove the lower deck as a generous concession hoping this show of good faith would help its cause.  There were two problems with this offer.

The Inn explained that the lower deck was destroyed and rebuilt in 2015 and destroyed again in 2019. Later, in a presentation by the opposition, it was shown the lower deck was also destroyed in 1991. Considering climate change and two destructions in the last six years, rebuilding the lower deck would be an expensive folly and probably uninsurable. Not much of a concession.

The second problem with The Inn’s offer is that they are offering to relinquish a deck that was illegally placed and never permitted.

The Inn’s proposal is to relocate the existing seawall “20 feet landward of where it exists today.” Initially, that sounds very attractive. On closer examination, it is not so appealing. The design shows the wall considerably seaward of the natural bluff top, backfilled with material, and topped with concrete.  The concrete is the upper deck. As was correctly pointed out, this design allows The Inn to occupy and use public land.

The engineering design was explained by Walt Crampton who opened his comments by explaining how long he had been doing this kind of work and how much work he had done locally. Mr. Crampton then went on to present the argument for the concrete on the top of this project – the deck, keep in mind – and his argument shot a huge hole through his credibility.

Crampton said, “It is important to maintain this upper slope, this upper concreted surface so that water cannot saturate the backfill.” He said, “it needed an impervious surface to protect the wall from hydrostatic pressure and overloading the wall.”

On the basis of a lifetime career in the construction industry, this reporter found the explanation ridiculous.  What they are proposing is large seawall, supposedly to protect The Inn, that also serves as a retaining wall that supports a large deck for The Inn. What the opposition pointed out is that the project is not designed to protect The Inn buildings, it is designed to protect the upper deck.

Hydrostatic pressure is basically pressure exerted by too much water in a confined space.  Water can be a very powerful force. It is precisely because of this issue that there are myriad designs for drainage systems behind retaining walls from very simple to very complex.  Any retaining wall of any significance contains a drainage element to prevent the problem.

A concrete slab on the surface would help but it is not necessary and would never be sufficient by itself, which was what Crampton was telling everyone. This was an argument for keeping the large concrete deck, disguised as an engineering necessity. The opposition pointed out that Crampton has never presented an alternative design during 10 years involvement with this project.

One issue that took up a number of The Inn’s presentation slides was that of public access.  The board’s Project Review subcommittee voted to approve the project “pending full consideration of ability to provide public access to south stair.” The subcommittee met on June 16. In the ensuing weeks, The Inn crafted a detailed explanation of why that would not happen.

Attorney Lee Andelin gave the Inn’s detailed explanation as to why the project did not have to provide public access to the beach below and why it was a bad idea.  It appeared that “full consideration” consisted of finding all the reasons why not to provide the access.

Andelin’s first slide was titled “A Permit Condition Requiring a Public Access Easement Would Be Unconstitutional.”  That’s heavy, bringing in the Constitution of the United States. Impressive. Adding to that was some language from the OB community plan that stated new public access had to be provided if a project had an impact on existing access, which this project did not have.

“Adequate Public Access Already Exists.” Andelin pointed out the end of Point Loma Ave. and Bermuda Ave. as two access points that satisfy the 500-foot requirement for new development in the community plan.  Bermuda is 385 feet away and still waiting reconstruction.  Pt. Loma Ave. is 15 feet away but there is no current access to the beach below from there.

“Public Access to the South Stairs Would be Burdensome and Impracticable.”  Several pictures of narrow sidewalk lanes alongside the buildings were included to illustrate how impracticable it would be. There were just three pictures, there was no overall assessment of the site, such as an aerial view of the property, showing these were the only choices.

Andelin went on to explain more about the laws governing seawalls.  He said it was consistent with the OB community plan. Four things were cited from the community plan:

• “Preserve existing hotel/motel/hostel facilities from removal or conversion to residential units.”(§   2.4.1 .)
• “Preserve, protect and, where feasible, provide and enhance lower-cost visitor serving recreational facilities and overnight accommodations.” (§ 6.0.)
• Seawalls allowed “if necessary to protect existing development.” (§ 7.1.2; see also§ 7.3.4.)
• “Identify, designate, preserve, and restore historical buildings in Ocean Beach and encourage their adaptive reuse.” (§ 9.2.5; see also§ 9.4.3.)

The only bullet that had anything to do with the project was number three about seawalls. Attorneys are trained to include all and every possible argument when advocating for a client and this illustrated that. The part about the Constitution was the dramatic element.

Livia Beaudin, an attorney from the Coastal Environmental Rights Foundation, kicked off the opposition presentation.  They have been opposing this work at The Inn for over a decade. One thing she mentioned at the outset was the lower deck failures, including the one in 1991 that The Inn neglected to mention.

Beaudin pointed out that “The principal structure is not the asset that’s intended to be protected. The project is designed to protect the deck. Because the wall is proposed to be so far seaward and backfilled it creates a usable concrete deck well beyond the natural bluff face.”

“It is an effort to continue to use private resources for private gain,” according to Beaudin.

Beaudin pointed out Crampton’s failure to consider any alternate designs.  Considering Crampton’s badly biased explanation for the concrete area above the wall, this is no surprise.  Crampton is an advocate for The Inn and designed what they wanted. His opinions cannot be considered even remotely objective.

Beaudin explained other reasons why this was a bad project based on a variety of authorities including the Municipal Code, the Coastal Bluffs and Beaches Guidelines, and the OB Community Plan.

During the discussion that followed, vice chair Hastings pointed out the project violated a requirement for a view cone. Section 4.6 “Public Coastal Views,” describes a view cone as:

“A “View Cone” is typically located at a street end, provides extensive views, and is defined by a 90 angle radiating lines from public vantage point (the centerline of the street) to the corners of the buildable envelope as defined by the setbacks of each corner property closest to the ocean or shoreline.”

Hastings showed that the view cone to the south and southwest was obstructed by structures that are there now and pointed out that the design calls for even more obstruction. Any new development would need to remedy this problem.

A motion to deny the project was based on The Inn’s plan to extend the bluff edge and the obstruction of the view cone. Another motion to approve the project and let the Coastal Commission take it from here was made.  That motion failed. The motion to deny the project passed.  This was clearly the correct thing to do.

4645 Santa Monica Ave.

This project proposed to divide a small lot subdivision into two lots.  One lot would have construction of a new house with an attached companion unit.  An existing guest quarters would then be converted into a companion unit on the other lot. As was pointed out in the discussion, this change would allow the owner to place a fourth unit at this location.

Surprisingly, and admirably, the board voted to deny the project based on this change allowing another unit to be crammed into this small project.  The motion was simply to deny the project and it passed. The vote was not based exactly on a code issue, it was more of a message to the city.  Board votes are only recommendations anyway, so such a vote is completely appropriate.

The cycling item on the consent agenda was: “#2 Replacing Car Parking with Bicycle Parking

“The Transportation Committee voted 6-0-0 to support the 2020 land development code update specifically for Municipal Code Section 142.0530 in Chapter 14, Article 2, Division 5 – Parking regulations, Table 142-05 F, the [sic] Ocean Beach Planning Board Transportation Committee supports the update to replace minimum parking requirements with bicycle parking at a ratio of two bicycle parking spaces for every 1 vehicle parking spot.”

No other information was provided.  A reading of the Transportation Subcommittee meeting minutes did not add any information either.  There was nothing to describe exactly what a bicycle parking space is. No members of the public were in attendance at the subcommittee meeting. The minutes did show the subcommittee voted 6-0-0 in favor of the change.

Of those six people, two are Peninsula Community Planning Board members and a third is a Midway-Pacific Highway Community Planning Group board member. The result was that only three OB board members voted to approve this. Because there was not a board majority voting on this issue, the Transportation subcommittee vote could be considered invalid.

Considering the effect that supporting this change will have on the public, a broader discussion is definitely in order.  Anyone interested in this change, pro or con, should contact the OB board.

Other news

•  There was a lengthy discussion of the board’s Capital Improvement Project wish list. Each year the city asks the planning boards for their recommendations, which the boards dutifully provide.  Sadly, very few of these recommendations are ever accomplished.  The board listed the recommendations by priority.  It was clear that the OB board took this responsibility to heart.
• Helene Idels from the OB Library explained that they hope to open again in the fall, staffing seems to be the issue right now.
• Board member Craig Klein brought up what is happening with Pizzeria Luigi’s that recently occupied the building on the corner of Bacon and Newport where Bravo’s Mexican Restaurant was.  The small parking lot at the rear of the building has been closed and is being converted to an outdoor patio. Klein objected to removing the parking and wanted the project looked into.  There were no permits for the concrete or block wall work that can be seen on the city’s on-line permit site.