Photo by Charles Landon – the crowd before the meeting began.
Before a packed community meeting room, the Ocean Beach Planning Board last night rejected a proposed development with 20 units on Point Loma Avenue. The vote was 7 to 1 – and immediately, applause broke out.
Board member Kevin Hastings made the successful motion to reject the project — an earlier motion to approve it failed for lack of a second — and Kevin based his motion on the loss of commercial space and for being out of compliance with the OB Community Plan.
Screen grab from live vid of meeting.
Many residents from south OB and nearby Point Loma neighborhoods attended the meeting and the majority appeared displeased with the project.
The volunteer board had not seen such an outpouring of residents that turned out for quite some time. People were lined up in the hallway and some turned away for lack of chairs. [For a live video of the meeting, go to the OB Planning Board facebook page here.]
Standing room only; people had to line up in the hallway. Photo by Colleen O’Connor
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
Your photos aren’t working for me. But I emailed you a few you can use.
Video recording of meeting here: https://tinyurl.com/obpbmay
Also, some questions were asked about RPIF and funding being pulled for SSC Natural Park, or funding for the pier. It’s very common for the city to move funding allocations around based on what projects are ready for money to be spent, whether it’s in planning phase or construction phase. And the funds (usually) go back to that particular project when it’s next in line. I don’t think that was clearly stated by city staff.
bad link.
Use this one: https://tinyurl.com/obpbmay7
Thanks; there’s a link in the article to the OBPB facebook which has the video.
Board member Virginia Wilson made an important comment. She said all of the laws surrounding housing, both state and local, are being challenged. SB9 is a recent example. She said all of this needs to be finally sorted out before projects are built because one like this may turn out to be an odd anomaly if the laws are overturned. Anomaly=sore thumb.
The decision to base denial of the project on the lack of commercial space is a mixed bag, but technically probably the best tack the board could take. The site is in a commercial zone, it is not intended for 100% residential.
That said, it was disappointing that the board did not stick to the historical district argument. Vice chair Kevin Hastings discussed it in detail and pointed out that every city document for years has referred to the OB Historical District. Anyone with plans to build something in OB has to go through an historical review process precisely because of the long-standing historical district designation.
The city is doing some mental gymnastics to get around two very clear facts. The Complete Communities Housing Solutions own documents say historic districts are off-limits. And, OB is designated an historical district. Period. It would have been nice if OB had included this in their motion to deny the project because this is when the community needed to make a solid statement.
The board did say that much more information is needed, especially about the city’s convoluted interpretation. It looks like it will take a legal opinion to decide this finally, but, now, today, the board would have been within its rights to deny the project based on Complete Communities not being allowed in historic districts.
Excellent point, and of course, the center of your earlier post: “the board would have been within its rights to deny the project based on Complete Communities not being allowed in historic districts.”
The millionaire prop 13 baby boomer nimby crowd comes out in force when they perceive a threat to their rent oligarchy in OB.
Editordude: the opposition shows.
As if the yimby crowd doesn’t support cracker box multi-millionaire developer driven rentals anywhere.
You DO realize the overwhelming majority of those who voted for prop 13 preceded the baby boom generation? If not, then you may want to get better informed. Those of us at the end oF boomers were not even old enough to vote yet. I was 16. I’d of those who were of age, most were not yet homeowners who.
The motion that passed also had language to encourage the city to provide clarity and consistency on the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District.
Yes, it did but it was not cited as a reason to deny. It was a well-meaning, but weak addition to the motion. “encourage the city?” The city doesn’t need encouragement at this stage, it needs hear demands that it do its job properly and within the law. These people don’t respond to encouragement.
If there is any confusion, the normal response is to put a halt to permitting until the issue is completely settled, not grant a permit while the issue is being settled. As Virginia said, this one could become an odd anomaly in that neighborhood. Once built, it will not come down.
I like your language better. I could’ve used that.
But the city has already been asked and answered, multiple ways with multiple staffers, and they are content that it is allowed. Short of someone getting a court order or something, the city is going to follow their own staff’s analysis saying the OB historic district doesn’t count.
Also, the Complete Communities program prohibits rental periods <30 days for all units in a project. Certainly that is subject to city enforcement.
A court has also ruled that an HOA cannot restrict owners from doing vacation rentals without obtaining a CDP, which is no guarantee. I’m not sure if the same reasoning might apply to nullifying a deed restriction.