By Geoff Page
Mayor Todd Gloria’s Complete Communities Housing Solutions are coming for OB in the form a 20-unit anthill on a 7,396 square foot lot with virtually no parking or outdoor space.
Anyone who wants to defend Ocean Beach from this kind of mutant development showing up next door to them should attend the OB Community Planning Board meeting tomorrow, May 7, 6:00 p.m., at the OB Rec Center.
The Project
The project was detailed in The Rag’s April 16 story. The project is designed to take advantage of the city’s new Complete Communities Housing Solutions, or CCHS, program. The problem is, the city’s own CCHS documents state the project is not allowed because it is within an historic district.
The City’s Complete Communities Housing Solutions site, has a link to “What Sites Are Eligible” for the CCHS program.
Item three, bullet two on the list, is very clear:
3. CCHS projects are not allowed in the following areas:
- Sites located within Proposition A lands.
- Sites located within a designated historical district.
- Sites subject to the Old Town Planned District Ordinance.
Bullet two is what matters regarding this project as the property falls withing the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District or Ocean Beach Emerging Cottage Historical District boundaries. Because that prohibition is so clearly stated, the city has decided to attack the OB Historical district as not really an historical district.
The City’s reasoning
The city provided the following, detailed explanation when asked why the project was not categorically denied because it is within an historical district. The city agreed that CCHS is not eligible for use in an historical district.
SDMC Section 143.1002(b)(6) does state that Complete Communities Housing Solutions (CCHS) cannot be utilized within a designated historical district.
Then the city went on to discuss the OB Historical District as unique.
The OB Cottage Emerging Historical District is a designated historical district, but it is unique among all of the City’s designated historic districts, and is a holdover from an old Historical Resources Board Procedure on Establishing Historic Districts that had multiple types of historic districts.
The city admits it is a “designated historical district,” the rest of the paragraph is irrelevant.
The OB Cottage Emerging Historical District is both thematic and voluntary in nature. This means that only properties that meet the theme (statement of significance and period of significance) and are volunteered by the property owner to be designated as contributing resources fall within the historic district.
This explanation simply describes the regular application process for historical designation by a property owner anywhere in the city. This can be done inside or outside of historical districts.
Then, the city starts attacking the OB Historical District boundaries. The project sits just one block inside the OB Historical District boundary.
Although the district has a boundary (because all thematic districts need some sort of boundary, even if it is an entire jurisdiction) it only has contributing resources and does not have non-contributing resources, and only the designated contributing resources are regulated as part of the historic district.
The wording “it only has contributing resources and does not have non-contributing resources, and only the designated contributing resources are regulated as part of the historic district,” is confusing and did not come with any attribution that could be verified.
The city then stated the following:
This is stated clearly in the current HRB (Historical Resources Board) Procedure on Establishing Historic Districts, which I have attached in full, but this is the primary relevant excerpt:
From last revision 10-27-11
3. EXISTING DISTRICTS
All but one of the existing districts were established as standard geographic districts, meaning they were confined to a defined geographic area, and all identified contributing properties were designated at the time the district was established. This amended district policy will not impact the way these districts are regulated.
However, the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District was established with only a context statement and period of significance to establish the significance of the district, as well as a few properties which fell within that context and period of significance that were eligible for designation under HRB Criterion F.
The key wording here is ” the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historical District was established.” Sounds pretty clear. The city attempts to make its main, very confusing argument next.
A complete intensive survey was never completed, and therefore all eligible contributing properties are not known. Owners of properties which fall within the context statement and period of significance may bring their properties forward for designation as contributors to the district. Only those properties identified and designated as contributors are currently regulated. Because the Ocean Beach Cottage district does not have a full intensive survey, is based on a context statement and period of significance, and is limited to those properties that fall within the context and period that are volunteered by the property owner for designation, conversion of this district to a standard geographic district is not feasible.
In addition, the district’s long history as a historic district precludes conversion to a Multiple Property Submission. Therefore, the district will continue to be regulated under the prior policy. Property owners may continue to bring properties forward for designation under the established context and period of significance, and the district shall remain voluntary in nature.
Again, the key wording is “the district’s long history as a historic district.” Once again pretty clear language. The quotation from the HRB ends with:
However, no new districts will be processed under this district type.
All of that was informational and simply concluded by saying no more new districts would be created like the OB district was. But, it does not say the OB Historical District is not an historical district. The city concluded its remarks with this:
So, CCHS cannot be used on a designated contributing resource to the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging Historic District, but it can be used anywhere else within the “district boundary.”
This is a fantastic leap in logic. This is an attempt to obfuscate. Contributing or noncontributing resources mean nothing, it is an effort to confuse. Why is none of this long, detailed explanation anywhere in the Complete Communities Housing Solutions? This is just the city straining hard against the rules again.
The fact is that the OB Emerging Historical District is an historical district and Complete Communities own documentation says it cannot be used in an historical district. Period.
There are lots of city documents that refer to the OB historical district. To try and say it is somehow not really one makes no sense in the face of things like city’s own site listing the historical districts.
Historical districts attribute table
705 Naval Training Ctr Naval Training Center (NTC)
706 Balboa Park Balboa Park (National Register)
707 Point Loma Theosophical Point Loma Theosophical Inst.
708 North Park Dryden North Park Dryden
712 Asian-Pacific Asian-Pacific Thematic District
713 Gaslamp Gaslamp (National Register)
714 Golden Hill Golden Hill
715 Sherman Heights Sherman Heights
716 Grant Hill Grant Hill
717 Brown Field Brown Field
718 Shirley Ann Pl Shirley Ann Place
719 Burlingame Burlingame
720 Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District
721 El Pueblo Ribera El Pueblo Ribera
722 Talmadge Gates Talmadge Gates
Notice of Right to Appeal
Adding insult to all of this was language in the appeal notice. The “STATEMENT SUPPORTING REASON FOR ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION,” said, among other things, that the project “would not result in significant effects relating to traffic” and “can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services.”
The project is 20 units, meaning a potential if at least 20 cars. The developer is providing nine spots. How could any reviewer conclude this would not result in significant traffic effects? The utilities are a question mark. This area was not zoned for, and therefore not equipped for, such density. Water and sewer lines will be taxed.
The time to speak up is now, when the city tries to foist the first one of these extremely dense projects on a residential neighborhood in Ocean Beach. Being in this historical district should make OB immune to this kind of development. If the city is successful in these convoluted arguments, that will be the end of OB’s status as an historical district.
{ 11 comments… read them below or add one }
THIS MUST END! Call the U-T, call the newsstations, show up early and read the bring signs refelecting San Diego County Has Already Met State’s Housing Unit Mandate for Projected Population Growth Thru 2050!
Thank you very much, Geoff for all the work you did on this issue and for taking the time to write it up and share this information with with your fellow Ocean Beach residents. I hope you get a really good turnout at the public forum.
Thanks, Paul. Gotta credit several people who are involved and prompted this piece.
“Emerging Historical District.”
That is a NIMBY tell.
Everything is an “Emerging Historical District”
Perhaps you didn’t read the whole piece or you missed the list of actual historical districts. Only one is an emerging district. Everything is not an emerging historical district.
That reads more like a YIMBY “tell,” if anything.
Many cottages were not on the original list because many of the owners were seniors, and their taxes were lower than what their properties would be if they were designated. Many of these were built before 1930 and retain their historic facades, so they can apply for designation even though they are not on the list.
As far as the OB community, the OB Pier was recently declared historical. Church-row has churches that their original designs or part of them. The merchants are proud of their historical buildings. Placks with their histories adorn their fronts. Then there is the history of the community… Wonderland, drowndings, the hippie movement, etc. We live and breath history in this “Beach Town”!
How about this one? On the agenda for the PCPB for Thursday is this: They are not ready to present but the City has requested public comment! Visit pcpb.net for full agenda.
Public Comment on 4591 Pescadero PRJ-1111217
The City has requested public comment on this project. It will not be presented by the applicant at this time. The Committee will consolidate and submit public comment to the DSD project manager. ??The proposed project is a 3,836 square-feet three-story detached multifamily building consisting of (8) accessory dwelling units,(3) accessory dwelling units on the first floor, (3) accessory dwelling units on the second floor, and (2) accessory dwelling units on the third floor, at a site with an existing single dwelling unit, located at 4591 Pescadero Avenue. The 0.16-acre site is in the RM-1-1 Base Zone, Coastal (Non-appealable) Overlay Zone within the Peninsula Community Plan Area. Council District 2. This development is within the Coastal Overlay zone (NON-APPEALABLE) and the application was filed on March 1, 2024.
Applicant: Chandra Slaven
Forgot to say it is the Project Review Subcommittee meeting of the PCPB.
Oh man, not another one already. Nine units on one lot where the zoning only allows two units. This needs to stop.
Tuesday May 7th, 6 pm. OB Rec Center (Santa Monica and Ebers). Be there to help make a difference. Let’s have the voice of OB heard loud and clear.
Bravo Geoff! Gloria’s “executive order” is a joke. OB is an historical district..STOP THE OVERDEVELOPMENT! This does not create community…it destroys the existing neighborhood….and is just another remarkable reason to speak out.