Today, August 29, the San Diego Planning Commission unanimously rejected “The Point” project slated for Point Loma Avenue in south Ocean Beach.
To a person, the Commission agreed with OBceans and their lawyer that the property where the ADU apartment complex was proposed was or is within the Ocean Beach Historic Cottage District and is therefore exempted from the rules of the so-called Complete Communities housing policy of the city.
A good number of people opposed to the project — and in favor of the appeal — spoke. Originally there were 55 speakers slips (greatly pared down by time people got up to address the commission) but there weren’t that many who spoke in favor of the project and against the appeal.
Those who spoke for the appeal included Patricia Lewis who filed the appeal, Craig Sherman – the attorney who filed it, Craig Klein, Kathy Blavatt, Andrea Schlageter and others. A few spoke by phone including Kevin Hastings.
A representative of the developer gave their presentation and a member of the YIMBY Democrats spoke in favor of the project and called the appeal “frivolous.” This person made a huge deal that denying this project would deny “affordable housing” for San Diegans. The 20-unit project only had 3 units as affordable.
This is a great win for OB and that part of Point Loma, but also for residents all over the city who are trying to figure out ways to oppose the storm of apartment bogus ADUs flooding their neighborhoods right now.
The city of San Diego has hacked the state’s ADU laws and made it possible for developers to build apartment complexes under the rubric of ADUs without many of the requirements normal apartments would have to comply with.
Wait, does this mean no strippers & coke?
Congrats KH, I heard your spiel over the phone and it was right on.
Nothing to celebrate. The property owner has done a great disservice to the community letting it sit vacant and dilapidated. But that doesn’t justify breaking the law to build something.
Point taken. You know, through all of this, I didn’t see who the actual property owner is. Is it the “Bros”?
Congratulations to all. Well deserved.
Congrats to everyone who worked on this. I’m blown away that we won one!
Deeply saddened by the disgusting greed of these developers/investors who care nothing for the human beings they are building for. They see OB as a cash cow and nothing more. #barf
Their next investor podcast should be interesting.
Congratulations and thanks to all of you who stood up against this project.
/s/ Chris Kennedy
Congratulations to those neighbors that stood up for what they believed in and carried it all the way to the “powers that be.” I am sorry I couldn’t be there but am so proud of my community. Thank you Lynne, Mercedes and Rosamaria for keeping me informed .
Plus, the unanimous vote says something. I think the Commissioners didn’t like the project and hung their hats on the historic district argument.
We’ll all thankful to the folks who showed up to the hearing and who spoke out against this project. Very proud of OB.
Blown away at the outcome. So pleasantly surprised. Thank you to all who could be there!!! Seriously this is going to have an impact throughout the city imo.
Thanks to ALL for your dedication and hard work to get the result the community needed!!!
CONGRATS!!
Thanks to everyone who worked so hard on the project. The bottom line is the complete community housing solutions cannot build in what is known as a historic district. That is how we won the appeal. It was suggested to DSD that if they wanted to build any CCHS housing in OB they would have to change the municipal code to make it clear that OB was not historic. Just a heads up how do you watch for laws that will be written without your knowledge just like the CCHS mandates? Anyway, for now we are good to go, just a slight correction. This was not an ADU and the decision probably won’t impact ADU but ON is up for that battle as well. I think they were 52 of us there today and thanks again to the people who really worked hard on this thank you thank you thank you.
And thanks to you too Lynne for your articles.
I’m certain that will be their next step. And there are probably ways to do it quietly without rewriting the complete communities code and going back to the coastal commission.
DSD is supposed to be a neutral arbiter in the development process. Yet here they are bending over backwards, using tortured interpretations of code and stepping all over the community plan in order to accomodate a developer. This is very typical for them.
The commissioners clearly read up on the material and asked pointed questions. Good on them for digging in.
Perfectly stated, kh:
“DSD is supposed to be a neutral arbiter in the development process. Yet here they are bending over backwards, using tortured interpretations of code and stepping all over the community plan in order to accomodate a developer. This is very typical for them.”
I have witnessed this so many times that I retitled the department the “Developer’s Service Department.” I first witnessed this, many years ago, when I fought a project on my street that lead to my involvement with the Peninsula Community Planning Board. I was astonished at what they did to get the project approved despite obvious problems. The mental gymnastics they performed trying to justify this project, despite its location in OB’s Historical District, was another perfect example.
I am grateful to the Commissioners for their insight and focus on the INTENT of the code as written. They refused to follow along as the rules were bent and twisted, and blocked this attempt to hop gleefully through the loopholes. Today’s decision sets an important precedent in favor of protecting all San Diego Historic Districts.
Unfortunately, greed will need to be battled again and again, until the advent of developers willing to provide suitable housing at a fair profit. I am sure they are out there; people willing to work hard, follow the rules, stay in business, and serve the community. Meanwhile, let’s stay vigilant and stand up to the pirates and carpetbaggers – scrutinize their proposals under the brightest light available and question everything!
YIMBY Democrats?
Someone needs to look into this organization. Wesley Morgan, Treasurer for the YIMBY’s spoke in favor of denying the appeal. He stated it was a travesty an appeal was made and that the appeal process was wasting the city’s time and taxpayers dollars.
https://yimbydemssd.com/
Their next board meeting is September 25th @ 6:30pm 4612 Park Blvd here is the BOD https://yimbydemssd.com/our-board. The President of the BOD is Jordon Latchford her Linkedin states she is “Director of Policy Office of Councilmember Stephen Whitburn”
That YIMBY clown claimed these will be the most affordable units in ocean beach. He’s out of touch.
The investors are projecting rents at $3300-$3600 for a 600sf 1 bedroom. And $2700 for a 450sf studio. One of the “affordable” 1brs is $2900/mo. And they bragged about how much they can increase the rent year over year.
Plus $200/mo for parking. And that solar power? Charging for that too. They’ll probably have a credit card slot to put your trash in the dumpster too.
Aren’t YIMBY democrats nothing more than Faulconer republicans? Asking for a friend.
I agree,
That’s terrific. We should all join and attend YIMBY to understand and get heads dialed straight. The “family units” the Treasurer mentioned and advocated were in his or his group’s twisted heads, not reality. Even (so-called) democrats need some help sometimes. Triage alert !!
Congratulations to all who helped defeat this project. I am baffled by how it made it past staff since it is located in a historic district. I just want to echo Lynne’s comments that the Complete Communities Program is different from the ADU program. State law allows the construction of ADUs on single-family zoned parcels. Complete Communities was adopted locally and allows the construction of multi-story buildings in Transit Priority Areas (or Sustainable Development Areas) if the development includes the required number of restricted affordable dwelling units, and has an underlying zoning of at least 20 dwelling units per acre.
That issue came up and information was shared back and forth with staff on the historic district, and they gave it the green light anyways. What’s an applicant supposed to do at that point if staff says it’s kosher? He did his job.
As for the 8 unit apartment ADUs, that is not state law. That was a local law San Diego came up with during peak covid.
What is the address of the target property?
4705 Point Loma Ave
Thanks. This looks to be the site of a long-time market (though Google Maps incompetently shows elsewhere). The area should be zoned community commercial. Have STVR’s been mentioned?
Here’s something of interest that Axios has divulged:
Mike Turk, developer and head of the GOP-aligned Lincoln Club and his wife each made maximum campaign donations to Gloria earlier this month.
“He’s always been kind and supportive,” Turk, who just had a housing project in Ocean Beach rejected by the planning commission, said of Gloria. “He told me I had a good project and he couldn’t understand why they turned it down.”
https://www.axios.com/local/san-diego/2024/09/27/1-million-donation-larry-turner-todd-gloria-lincoln-club
I don’t know how all this ties together but a little known Point Loma lawyer -developer entrepreneur Steven Richter is discussed in the front page article in the San Diego Union Tribune this morning as having made a one million dollar campaign contribution to the Lincoln Club apparently to be used against Gloria..
Yeah, we saw that. The head of the Lincoln Club, developer Mike Turk, and his spouse gave the max to Gloria. So, this may help to balance out the funding of these 2 candidates.
I find no mention online of Turk, or any spouse, giving anything to Gloria.
You’re responding to a post that’s 9 months old and about an election last year? Re-read the Axios article –” Turk and his wife each made maximum campaign donations to Gloria earlier this month.”
This property is back up on the market for $2.2M.
https://www.redfin.com/CA/San-Diego/4705-Point-Loma-Ave-92107/home/172064570
I guess we’ll see what they come up with next. How about a commercial use, in a commercial zone? That would be mindblowing. Commercial also allows for residential use on top and in the rear of the property. And even *gasp* tourist accomodations.
This project would have replaced a solid commercial development (probably more than the old grocery store) with an ADU project?!? Since when does one have so many grannies and since when do grannies want to live in a commercial zone?
If the city gets a ruling that establishes that the Coastal Height limit is no longer valid, Ocean Beach will be one of the first Beach towns to be lost forever. Just imagine Newport Ave, all 22 stories high. I have not heard that the building proposed for Pacific Beach at that height has gone away.
I recently (probably yesterday) read that the developer of the cancer of PB is lying low hoping for passage of legislation to allow the cancer to metastasize (my terms).
The developer is following some very poorly written state legistation that allows you to build about anything if you provide a single affordable housing unit in the process.
The city will have to come up with some environmental or public safety reason to stop it. They’ve already said they will try to, which hopefully is enough to give the developer pause.
https://obrag.org/2025/02/sale-of-french-gourmet-clears-way-for-pb-pencil-tower-developer/
I’m sick of these councilmembers and legislators ignoring public input and passing ridiculous development laws, and then later saying “oh we didn’t think they’d do all that” despite the language allowing it. Same thing happened with the bonus ADU law. I guess it’s easy to play dumb when you are dumb.