By Concerned Point Loman
While San Diego officials double down on messaging around affordable housing and equitable access in every neighborhood, an unsettling contradiction is quietly unfolding on city-owned land in Point Loma, right adjacent to Point Loma Nazarene University.
Just up the hill from the surf, in an area that embodies the classic history of the area, the City of San Diego is preparing to evict 11 low-income tenants from a cluster of historic cottages it owns literally less than a stone’s throw from the university — at 4101 Lomaland #1 — #4.
These modest cottages, some over 100 years old, are still home to seniors, families with young children, and multigenerational residents—whom pay affordable rent, maintain their homes themselves, and cover full property taxes, despite the City owning the land since 1992. This is not a failing community. It’s a thriving, affordable one that represents precisely the kind of housing San Diego claims to need more of.
What’s replacing them? Storm drain improvements and landscaping, part of the Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Drainage Improvements Project.
The city is choosing to demolish existing affordable housing in a walkable, transit-accessible coastal community, the exact kind of neighborhood city leaders say should welcome more low- and middle-income residents.
Among the homes slated for demolition is a 1966 residence designed by master architect Richard Lareau, which the City’s own historical report deems eligible for the San Diego Historical Resources Register under two significant criteria: architectural merit and association with a master architect. According to preservation rules, the demolition of this home constitutes a significant, unmitigated impact that requires a formal “statement of overriding considerations.” But that hasn’t slowed the plan down.
Also, at risk are even more rare and the very last standing- cottages from circa 1910, built as part of the Theosophical Society’s Lomaland community — a spiritual and educational center led by Madame Katherine Tingley that helped shape early Point Loma. These cottages housed students and faculty of Lomaland and form a rare surviving link to a time when this area was envisioned as a utopian campus by the sea. Today, over 100 years later they still house employees and students of PLNU.
Tenants say the neighborhood still has a communal, timeless quality. One young mother described how raising her children here has given them a deep love of history, as they walk up the hill and physically explore the historic roots of their neighborhood. Another tenant cultivates a vegetable and fruit garden.
The residents were informed of the evictions without any clear relocation plan, public hearing, or council vote. The process has unfolded with limited transparency. The city, which has owned the land for over 30 years, has done little to maintain the homes over the years, a tactic preservation advocates call “demolition by neglect.”
Despite that, tenants continue to pay about $100,000 a year in rent collectively and on top of rent, they cover the property taxes — on city-owned property. They are not a drain on the City. They are proof that deeply affordable housing can succeed in high-opportunity neighborhoods when it is simply allowed to exist.
While the City has neglected the cottages for years they have left one of the largest one vacant and unmaintained for years. Instead of using it to provide additional low-income housing or even collecting rent, the City has allowed it to decay, effectively practicing a strategy of managed decline.
The most troubling part? The City’s own housing goals actively call for more homes like these. In high-cost, amenity-rich neighborhoods like Point Loma and Ocean Beach, officials have emphasized that affordable and middle-income housing must be protected and expanded. Mayor Todd Gloria’s Middle-Income Housing Working Group even cites the urgent need to retain existing modest housing as a key part of combating the housing crisis.
So why is the City demolishing the very housing it says we need more of?
Preservation for Whom?
This raises bigger questions. Does the City even know what residential historic resources it owns? Is there a comprehensive inventory of modest and affordable housing currently leased by the City? Does preservation and smart growth only apply to private citizens and not to the City itself?
The City’s own policy documents say:
“The City continues to suffer from a lack of supply of homes affordable to people of all incomes, and more certainty is needed to allow for the building of more homes to combat this crisis.”
And yet, here we are, seeing the slow erasure of a rare, intact enclave of historic, affordable homes at the edge of a coastal park. No replacement housing is proposed. No public conversation has been had. Just evictions, empty cottages, and plans for a parking lot.
This is more than a planning issue. It’s a story about contradiction, displacement, and the quiet dismantling of San Diego’s history. If the City truly believes in equity, sustainability, and affordability, it must start by preserving the very communities that embody those values.
The City’s Historic Resources Board will consider these cottages at a public hearing on Thursday, May 22, at 1 pm [meeting begins at 12 but agenda is not until 1pm]—a final step before demolition permits are granted. After that, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) will be required for the land-use plan, costing the City hundreds of thousands of additional taxpayer dollars.
The time to speak up is now. Because progress shouldn’t mean paving over the past — or the people still living in it.
Can you publish photos of this area/structures?
One of our other writers need to do so.
In the Golden Hills area, three affordable houses are being demolished for the minimum number of affordable units in a new 180-unit building, a project for which a ministerial permit only is required, with no hearing. I agree with you – if we are stuck with these terrible decisions, they should have to consider the number of demolished affordable units being removed. The number of lives being disrupted is, obviously, not considered. But the number of units total could be. But it isn’t.
I thought that was already a requirement for projects with 5 or more existing units.
Hi:
I have been following this situation with respect to the Lareau House at 4515 Ladera—does the author of this article know if that house will also be included in the May 22nd hearing?
Thanks,
/s/ Chris Kennedy
It does not appear to be https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/2025-05/ag-2025-05-final_0.pdf
4515 Ladera was designated by the Historical Resources Board September 2019 https://sandiego.cfwebtools.com/search.cfm?local=true&res_id=18123&local_id=1&display=resource&key_id=3539
I believe that the Ladera Street house has already been designated and is still under a lease or on a month to month rental agreement with the current long-term resident.
The Hearing is May 22nd at 12:00 pm – not 2:00 pm.
The public is allowed to speak for or against the Historic Designation of these cottages. Please come and speak to save these buildings. This article is so spot on.
Thank you for the update!
Looks like the developers are having a field day.
This has nothing to do with developers. The houses are on park land. When they remove them the area will be restored with native plants.
San Diego is a America’s finest City and as a native San Diego it’s sickens me to see the historical part of what makes our City Grand destroyed thousands of other cities and countries all over the world maintain their historic places we must follow their example or there will be no history left
Excellent reporting, love historical buildings and housing…..Seems like nobody’s paying attention to historical property’s around and in City limits, such as the California Theater that has been demolished. Could have been refurbished for a diffrent use…..Parks and Pets often determine the health of a society, I would add the protection and preservation of historical structures.
IMHO the City has a plan. When we (Coastal CareTakers) won our appeal and stopped 20 units from going up, we were cautioned by City Council members that this was not a win for anyone–that the horrible corner lot was still an eyesore after 20 years of neglect. Correct! A council member said that it was clear this case would go to court, and the City would lose. Furthermore, if the City ever wanted to build a Complete Community in any Historic District, the law would have to be rewritten ‘allowing’ CC in Historic Communities. Again, IMHO the city has written, or will write soon, amendments to the CC that allow building in Historic Zones. The City’s problem is solved, and ours is more complex. I wonder how we find out what the Council and their committees are doing? We should have that information.
Some of you know me from working for the Reader for years, and I need to chime in. I lived at the foot of Del Monte for 2o+ years. My two neighbors and myself were ‘evicted’ so they could sell the property. It sits empty. There was an offer that is pending due to ‘historic designation’ needing to be removed. (I’m smiling). The houses were built in 1920 and are ALL original. Years ago it was the OB Motel. The walls inside have horsehair sand/cement from original construction. They needed attention throughout the years which we as residents maintained, but owners kids think they’re going to get millions by selling to a developer-this is one to keep an eye on. I’ve already reached out to the Planning Board so hopefully y’all make some noise.
The Property Tax rate revenue, for the County and City, created by demolition of a long time property under Prop 13, is much lower than the current Property Tax rate revenue. It’s very financially beneficial for the city to push over old homes, to build new multi family high rise homes. the word “affordable” is a word game the mayor and council play on the public. $2,800+ a month for a studio is not affordable unless you earn $110K a year.
The “Corbin House” is the one house that may stay, depending on it’s historical designation. The master plan for the park explains that. See below.
There are four houses being rented now that range from $780 to $2900 per month. The same tenants have been in them since the 1990’s as once you move into a cheap house on Sunset Cliffs you never move out. The leasing of these structures was always meant to be an interim use as this area is a dedicated park, not meant for residential. All the houses are rented on a month-to-month basis.
https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/legacy/park-and-recreation/pdf/parkdesign/sunsetcliffsmasterplan.pdf
Hi:
I want to thank everyone for answering my question about the magnificent California mid-century modern home at 4515 Ladera St. designed by Richard Lareau (I once called Mr. Lareau and thanked him for this home–he laughed and said he was surprised as most people call him to complain about his various works. Quite a guy!). The background for my question is that I have studied this home, and have known that it already has an historic designation. The issue is that, notwithstanding this designation, it has nevertheless been scheduled for demolition. The project designation number is L14005.1 (simply Googling this number takes you right to it). My own communications with the persons in charge of the project indicate that the rationale (roughly speaking) is that since the home is situated on a public park, the City Charter and public park laws require that such public park property only be used for public park use, and as this is a private residence it is inconsistent with such use regardless of the historic designation. Were the home to become something like a Park historical center or some such public use structure, then it could stay. When I saw the reference to this home in the article, it got me wondering whether the issue as to demolition was still open or being re-evaluated, but I subsequently learned that the May 22nd hearing is restricted to the Lomaland properties. In any event, I follow this Project and have remained in contact with the persons who are identified from time to time as being in charge. For example, I have emailed the current person listed in charge suggesting that, with the City having little to no money, perhaps they should consider holding off on the demolition to save what money they may still have. No reply, but I shall probably call the person next. Your suggestions and help in this regard are always appreciated!
Thanks, again,
/s/ Chris Kennedy
The follow-up article posted this morning to this article explains a lot: Apparently, both the house at 4515 Ladera and Unit #2 on Lomaland were designed by Richard Lareau (this, according to the Staff recomendation linked to the article). The picture of Unit #2 in the article looks like his work, and appears very similar to 4515 Ladera. At the meeting, Staff is pushing for historical designation of Unit #2.
/s/ Chris Kennedy
There is a Sunset Cliffs Natural Park Council that seems to meet regularly by Zoom. Perhaps anyone interested can listen in and ask questions if there is a time for that.
https://sites.google.com/view/sunsetcliffsnaturalpark/scnp-council
The overlooked item in this is the cost. 3 to 4 million dollars to demolish the housing. The city councils job is to do what is in the best interest of all San Diegans. More native plant life or keeping rec centers and libraries open? How about cuts to Lifeguards? Which of these will impact the most San Diegans? Please contact district two if you wish the money to be spent differently. Joe
The follow-up article posted this morning to this article explains a lot: Apparently, both the house at 4515 Ladera and Unit #2 on Lomaland were designed by Richard Lareau (this, according to the Staff recomendation linked to the article). The picture of Unit #2 in the article looks like his work, and appears very similar to 4515 Ladera. At the meeting, Staff is pushing for historical designation of Unit #2.
/s/ Chris Kennedy
One has to wonder if there is a plan here. The city staff is recommending only the one empty structure, neglected for at least 18 years, for historical designation but none of the other three- inhabited -structures.
Is this bone to those who fight to preserve history so the city can evict the current tenants and demolish the rest, seeming to have been magnanimous? What sense would it make to maintain this one structure at this location. Perhaps use it as a visitor-type center for the park?
Demolishing the site would be expensive. But, turning this neglected structure into something useful would also be expensive. Ensuring public access from the park below, even for the disabled, would be challenge to build and maintain. Finding the money to build something like this would take time, a long time. Meanwhile, the structure would have to be maintained and secured.
There have been rumors for years that many people favor putting a parking lot in this location. Faster. Cheaper. Easier to maintain. And, I mean, after all, no sense letting the land go to waste during the long, long search for money to restore it and make it a visitor center…
ugh anything but more parking
there is so much parking available in the area why are we paving over our park land