PL-OB Monthly reporter Steven Mihailovich had a great piece on the OB Planning Board and its latest meeting on February 3 in the Feb. 11th issue of Point Loma – OB Monthly which is published by the SDU-T.
The most interesting part of his report for us was when he summarized in detail what some OBceans commented on during the Public Non-Agenda segment of the Board’s agenda. They had attended to raise concerns and support for their efforts to preserve OB’s historic district in order to prevent large-scale, super-dense or too-high new construction in the community.
Mihailovich’s account that follows raises very important details that OBceans need to acquaint themselves with because they go to the very existential heart of OB’s character.
Here is his report:
‘Emerging’ historical district
During non-agenda public comments at the board meeting, Barbara Houlton and Lynne Miller of the nonprofit organization Coastal Caretakers addressed an expected City Council vote Tuesday, Feb. 24, on adopting legislation called “Preservation and Progress Package A.”
If passed, the package would limit the status of Ocean Beach’s “emerging” historical district to the 72 beach cottages already designated historic and potentially open the rest of Ocean Beach to the city’s “Complete Communities” development rules.
The program would qualify other projects — including those adjacent to the protected historic cottages — for denser housing, and some could exceed the city’s 30-foot coastal height limit.
“If Package A passes, then OB as we know it will be replaced by an overbuilt, overcrowded beach community,” Miller said. “The infrastructure will have to be replaced to accommodate more people, more cars, more water use and expanded sewer use.”
Houlton handed copies of documents to the board. One contained the original application for Ocean Beach historical district designation filed with the state Department of Parks and Recreation on June 2, 1999, by now-late OB Planning Board member Priscilla McCoy.
Another document was a page from the California Historical Resources Inventory Database showing the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District status based on Form DPR523A (the primary record that provides the minimum level of information needed to include a record in the filing system) and DPR523D (the district record that provides more comprehensive evaluation). For more about the forms, go to ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=28351.
Coastal Caretakers appealed for more documents about the designation from OB Planning Board archives, if available, to bolster its opposition to Package A.
“If you have more information that will help us defend historical Ocean Beach, let us know,” Houlton said. “We’ll include it in our protest. We need you to help us stand up for OB.”
The city argues that the historical designation applies only to the 72 cottages, built between 1887 and 1931.
A full historic district designation protects surrounding buildings, even ones not considered historic, to preserve community character. OB’s “emerging” status means the full designation hasn’t been attributed because the city didn’t conduct a complete survey, and thus it says protection is given only to the 72 properties.
The CHRID page contains a link to an OB Context Statement, a comprehensive scholarly document that explains why a neighborhood is historic. When the city updated the OB Community Plan in 2015, it officially adopted the context statement based on DPR523D, which it is legally bound to follow in any planning.
DPR523D describes “properties in the Ocean Beach Precise Plan boundaries: ocean on west, West Point Loma Boulevard (former bank of False Bay [Mission Bay]) on north … Froude [Street] on east and Point Loma Avenue/Adair [Street] on south.”
Should the city pass Package A and allow dense, tall buildings adjacent to any of the 72 cottages, it could encounter lawsuits under California Environmental Quality Act guidelines that grant presumptive significance to the documented district.
If Package A is determined to cause a “substantial adverse change” to historical resources by introducing incompatible density, the city could be required to conduct a costly environmental impact report rather than apply a simple checklist.
“We’ve had this … incomplete historic district because there hasn’t been an exhaustive survey of all the homes and which ones qualify,” Hastings said. “What the issue is here is the city’s responsibility to complete those surveys.”
Several local historians estimate the total number of potentially historic cottages at more than 300.
A similar issue arose in summer 2024, when the San Diego Planning Commission unanimously upheld an appeal challenging a plan to develop a three-story, 20-unit apartment complex on the site of a vacant commercial building at Point Loma Avenue and Ebers Street.
Initially the plan called for eight units, but the number was bumped to 20 through a density bonus allotted by the Complete Communities initiative.
A nearby resident filed an appeal, supported by Coastal Caretakers, arguing that a density bonus could not be used in a designated historical district, in this case the Ocean Beach Cottage Emerging District.
A city staff report argued that the historical district is noncontiguous and applies on a case-by-case basis for buildings for which historical designation has been sought. Because the building at the proposed project site was not listed among those of historical significance within the district, staff contended the density bonus would apply.
The Planning Commission said the apartment project could not move forward without significant changes either to the project or the San Diego Municipal Code.
Since then, the city has forwarded Preservation and Progress in an effort to accelerate homebuilding by softening historic preservation rules.
Included in key proposed changes is amending the Municipal Code to specify that Complete Communities can be applied to properties in the OB Cottage Emerging District if they are not registered as historic.
The Planning Commission voted 7-0 on Nov. 6 last year to approve it along with a new policy that would give the City Council more authority to overrule the city’s Historical Resources Board when the board designates a property as historic. The Ocean Beach Planning Board had voted 10-1 two days earlier to oppose the amendment.
Planning Commissioner Daniel Reeves said at the time that the amendment “is not changing the rules; this is just clarifying what the rules have always been.”
And Commissioner Matthew Boomhower said the city shouldn’t limit development on sites that don’t have historic resources just because historic cottages might be nearby.
Savvy reader: don’t forget the City Council will hold its hearing on Tuesday, February 24 in City Hall; watch this space for more details.
Here’s the remainder of Mihailovich’s report:
The Ocean Beach Planning Board compiled a list of recommended improvements for local parks to submit to the San Diego Parks & Recreation Department as the city conducts a Community Recreation Needs Assessment to help guide future actions.
The Planning Board on Feb. 3 discussed an initial catalog of suggestions drafted by its Parks Committee chaired by Chris Szulewski using input from an earlier public meeting. The board ultimately refined it.
With plans for major renovations to Robb Field and Dusty Rhodes Park already approved by the city, the emphasis this time was on enhancing smaller parks that primarily serve local residents.
“I think people might say ‘What do you need this for when they’re rebuilding the parks in Robb Field and Dusty Rhodes?’” said board member Kevin Hastings. “You’ve got to cross major roadways [to get there]. I’m not walking my kids from the house to Dusty Rhodes. These parks further south are much more accessible than those. So the location is key.”
The board parsed the committee’s initial list with an eye toward maximizing potential gains. For example, for Dusty Rhodes the board prescribed repairs to the turf and irrigation system because they are not included in the city’s plan for the park.
For Ocean Beach Park on Ebers Street adjacent to the Recreation Center, community members requested lighting until 8 p.m. during the winter, as well as a perimeter barrier, according to Szulewski.
“We can use either split rail or rope or just something different,” Szulewski said. “[But] not use a chain gate, which is one of the points in the community.”
Ocean Beach Planning Board members suggested changes for Ocean Beach Park on Ebers Street. (Bing Maps and Point Loma-OB Monthly)
Hastings and Planning Board Chairwoman Andrea Schlageter pressed for playground equipment at the Ebers park more suitable for older children attending nearby Ocean Beach Elementary School.
“We have a park next to an elementary school that serves the ages of children that don’t attend elementary school,” Hastings said. “It’s [for] 2 to 5 years old.”
Szulewski said the park’s current use is a disincentive for further development.
“One of the things people mentioned about Ebers Street park was that with all the grass area that’s there, it’s kind of unique,” he said. “So to ask for more playground equipment, would it get rid of the grass that’s there?”
Board member Chelsea Siefert noted that the only park in Ocean Beach that provides shade cover for available picnic tables is Dusty Rhodes.
“If we’re talking about Saratoga [Park] and Ebers improvements and we’re going to have picnic tables, it would seem to make sense to ask for some shade over the seating areas,” Siefert said. “Otherwise, people are having to bring a big old pop-up. It’s heavy. It’s blowing away, so they have to fasten it down.”
Board member Chris Chalupsky pressed for rehabilitation of the bike path along the San Diego River and adding lighting to help deter crime there.
“They don’t need to redevelop the whole thing,” he said. “I just think we have an obligation to continue to advocate for a safe bike path, a stable path with no potholes. It’s not that hard.”
Hastings pointed out a park feature he believes needs to be removed: the shuffleboard court at the Rec Center.
“Have you ever seen anyone use those in the history of living here?” he said. “That’s a huge waste of space. What could we do with those? Something could fit in there where now it’s just a fenced area.”
Other board members suggested a bocce court, ping pong, lawn darts and other replacements.
Schlageter appealed to the board to also recommend activities at the parks as part of the needs assessment.
Member Tracy Dezenzo proposed ideas such as a croquet tournament and a community game festival — “something that’s kind of fun and different and gets people out of the house and not super-sweaty kinds of stuff. Fun activities for families that are in the parks instead of just the Rec Center.”
Szulewski said “I feel like it would have to focus on some kind of athletics. Not to let the Parks & Rec Department off the hook, but in Ocean Beach we’re very lucky to have all the community organizations that do host a lot of great events.”
The online Community Recreation Needs Assessment survey is available through Saturday, Feb. 28, at s.alchemer.com/s3/san-diego-parks-and-rec-community-intercept-survey.
I have to ask: why wasn’t OB’s Historical District on the agenda? It’s going before the city council before the OBPB meets again. The Board did vote a couple meetings ago in support of it.
Possibly somewhere along the line, the Mayor and Council decided to take the agenda item off the docket. They have been known to decide things in secret away from the public.
The City Council will decide OB’s fate on February 24, time unknown, at city hall. Try to come; the city is so pre-occupied with parking meters they haven’t quite gotten around to dismantling the Historic San Diego image, still protected at the State and National levels.