The Project Review Committee of the OB Planning Board meets this Wednesday night, April 17 at the OB Rec Center, at 6 pm sharp.
There is one project up for review, for 4705 Point Loma Avenue, where the owners have applied to demolish the existing structure and build 20 units in a 3-story multi-family residential building. The 20 units are either 1-bedrooms or studios. (See the full description below in the agenda.)
If it’s difficult to read the text of Action Item #2, here it is (in a simpler format but verbatim):
Project Description:COASTAL DEVELOPMENT PERMIT to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a three-story multi-family residential structure.
The residential use area would be 16,126 gross floor area, and the private decks, stairways, and circulation areas would total 2,498 gross square feet.
The project proposes 20 one-bedroom/studio dwelling units.
The project also includes landscaping and utility improvements, including utility connections that extend offsite. The project would provide a 4-foot sidewalk dedication to the City, as well as a wayfinding sign per SDMC Section 143.1025(a)(1).
The project is seeking waivers related to San Diego Municipal Code (SDMC) Section 131.0540(d) to waive common open space requirements, reduce private exterior open space setbacks, and reduce the number of parking spaces from 30 to 9.
The project is also requesting two deviations; a deviation from Base Zone CC-4-2 to eliminate the need to include commercial development, and a deviation from SDMC Table 142.04C and Section 142.0405(a)(I) to eliminate the requirement for trees and planting points related to trees.
The 0.17-acre lot is located at 4705 Point Loma Avenue in the Community Commercial designation (Pt. Loma Ave. Commercial District) of the Ocean Beach Community Plan and is zoned CC-4-2. The project site is in the Coastal Overlay (Non-Appealable) Zone, Coastal Height Limitation Overlay Zone (CHLOZ), the Parking Impact Overlay Zone (Coastal), the Airport Land Use Compatibility Overlay Zone (San Diego International Airport, NAS North Island), the Airport Influence Area (NAS North Island, Review Area 2), the Federal Aviation Administration Part 77 Noticing Area (NAS North Island), Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District, Mobility Zone 2, and the Transit Priority Area (TPA). Council District 2. (LEGAL DESCRIPTION: All of Lot 3 and that portion of Lot 2, Block 4, Sunset Cliffs, According to Map Thereof No. 1889, Filed in the office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, March 1, 1926; ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NUMBER: 448-342-10 and -11).
The sub-committee of the OBPB will also appoint a vice-chair and secretary and will consider changing meeting dates (days I believe it is meant).
Here is the official agenda:
Just to put this into perspective, this equates to 117.6 dwelling units per acre. Most of OB is has densities of either 10-14 dwelling units per acre or 15-29 dwelling units per acre.
This is obviously a minor and totally acceptable increase in density, but I’m sure all those Nimby Boomers will object.
Unlimited density is being allowed.
And to add a little context, I’ve taken a look at NYC’s zoning ordinance. The R-5 zone in NYC is described as an “infill” type of residential zone, which I’m guessing is pretty equivalent to what the City wants as part of its complete communities plan. If I’m correct in how I’m calculating what would be allowable in this zone (and I’m waffling a little bit because there are other factors included in the zoning ordinance that may or may not apply here), in New York City the maximum number of units allowed on this 0.17 acre lot would be 10 units.
I think that we have to be proud that our city leaders want us to be even more dense than New York. Maybe our bagels will get better, too.
I bet the neighbors wished they went for the VFW occupancy now. They probably could have gone to Friday fish frys or bingo or ?
Only 8 on site parking places for 20 units??? Worst case scenario is 40 occupants with 40 cars. Oh boy, the small merchants on that stretch of PL Ave are going to be pissed when all their parking is taken up by residents of the apartment house.
This craziness has to stop. Next to my son’s house on Wawona, a former single family home now has an ADU in back and they just converted the garage to a studio Six people now live there with only one off-street parking place.
It’s actually 3.5 parking spots. Whatever a half spot is. Which would go to any handicapped tenants in the building.
Multi-family units are 1 bed or studio? LOL.
20 units in a 3-story multi-family residential building.
I’d be pushing the reject button here.
Well, the site does have a Transit Score® of 28 / 100 (Some Transit).
So there’s that!
If I had a dollar for every empty bus seat in OB/PL I’d be as rich as Bill Gates.
Word!
The architect said this is not envisioned to be for families. Not family oriented. Which raised some eyebrows at last night’s meeting.
So these coffin apartments are roughly 20×20 to 20×30. Most formerly called “Master Bedrooms” are in that range for a single room, excluding the bath and kitchen, etc. And, you’ll need to make room for a couple of bicycles inside or they will be stolen. A studio with a Murphy bed is about the only way a couple of people can live in these things.
The only reason they’re at the planning group is that they’re asking for even more than the mayor gave away and they need to show they presented. FYI, there are no development impact fees on ”units” under 500 square feet – that’s why they’re building dorm rooms.
Paul Webb
If I read your numbers correctly seems like more than a small deviation @4X increased density. And OB NYC as a comparison seems a big stretch.
117.6 dwelling units per acre. Most of OB is has densities of either 10-14 dwelling units per acre or 15-29 dwelling units per acre.
“117.6 dwelling units per acre. Most of OB is has densities of either 10-14 dwelling units per acre or 15-29 dwelling units per acre.”
In 1974 I lived in a studio on Strandway between Liverpool Ct. and Lido Ct. in MB. A converted 1-car garage with a tiny bathroom & shower where the garage door used to be across the alley from the Surf Rider Apartments, with a 1bdrm apartment on top. It cost $165 a month, the same rent my parents paid for a 2 bdrm/1 bath house on Manhattan Ct. from the 1960s to 1970. Had a dining room, a separate laundry room in back, a 1-car garage on the alley. Front room had a nice fireplace, too. Had the original land tract sales office in the back yard, too. For $165 a month.
I was earning minimum wage in the restaurant I was working in 1974. That was $2.00 an hour. Rent & taxes took over half my monthly wages but food and electricity were far lower than now. I didn’t own a car, just a bike and a couple skateboards. When I moved back to OB in 1980 the 2151 Sunset Cliffs house was $400 a month which we thought was a bit high but since I took over both garages for Seal’s Ding Repair, it paid for itself.
I couldn’t imagine trying to exist in the beach areas I grew up in. It was hard enough then to be a low economic worker. Now? With this kind of greed flooding in?
___
No FrankF, this craziness does not have to stop. Not when somebody is making enough cash off this kind of crap to pay the bribe money to politicians to change the regulations and still be able to buy the piece of property and get a bank load to build it. This will go on and on until, like the 1929 Republican Depression and the 1998 Republican ‘Great Recession.’
Always remember, crashes and burns will happen at some point.
The owners, financiers, bankers, builders, architects, they don’t have to live this way. Just the rest of us, the ‘workers class’ are expected to do that.
Class War has been going on a long time with our species, and the wealth always moves up the pyramid. That’s the only thing one can be sure of. That, and death and taxes, yes?
sealintheSelkirks
Oops. Correction: Typo! The Wbush 2008 crash NOT 1998!
sealintheSelkirks
A fine time to remind how the corrupt conservatives in the SCOTUS beginning with Lewis Powell, Buckley v Vallejo, Bellotti v 1st National Bank of Boston, and the one most recognized, Citizen’s United, have legalized political bribery and unaccountability in the USA since the mid 70’s.
Holy smokes I can’t believe my eyes. The first sentence of this darn proposal on the Project Review Committee Meeting Notice and Agenda has blatantly lied. Permit to demolish an existing commercial structure and construct a three-story multi-family residential structure. Wednesday night the architect specifically said this building was not intended for families, not family oriented. Who are these multiple families in a a building not intended for families? Where else are there lies embedded in these plans? Not even embedded. Blatant and out in the open in the first sentence.