By Keith Fink
Yesterday’s City Council meeting was at best disheartening.
What with the complete absences of some council members and the lack of interest/ attention of others, the cat was out of the bag early that the fix was in – the decision already made. It was disappointing to not see the council chambers full or to hear additional relevant arguments perhaps not emphasized enough but, alas, the results would likely have been the same had the room been silent and empty.
There does seem to be a few points raised, however, that seem to need addressing.
First, though perhaps least importantly, was the comments of the only speaker (whose name I do not recall) in favor of the Package who did not appear to be associated with a developer. He complained about the lack of development in OB and how it was needed to support business on Newport, citing all of the boarded up businesses there. As I made my way up Newport yesterday evening after drowning out my sorrows at South Beach, I endeavored to count them – finishing with the same number with which I started – zero!
Second, to what was Campbell referring when she stated it was the responsibility of the OB Historical Society to complete the survey of historic structures and that it failed to do so over a period of more than a decade? Was she just shirking the City’s responsibility to complete the survey it started? Can someone elucidate here? Why can there not be a current concerted effort to list many more homes?
Lastly, the City contends that potential historical structures in OB “are too scattered” to qualify as an historic district. Too scattered? Within, perhaps, one square mile?
That seems ludicrous.
There just seemed to be no acknowledgement of OB’s status as the last authentic beach community in Southern California (as Councilwoman Zapf recognized when moving to approve OB’s Community Update Plan in 2015) and no concern about losing it to development.
It will be attitudes and moves such as this that will convert OB to just another ocean front community and America’s Finest City to Just Another American City.
Why should 72 (or “up to 300” as stated in another OB article) historic cottages prevent needed new housing on any of the 3000+ other lots in Ocean Beach? And no I’m not a developer, just someone who recognizes we’re in a housing crisis. This is a prime example of how housing opponents attempt to weaponize historic preservation to block necessary development.
Paul: There is not a housing crisis. There is a homelessness crisis and an AFFORDABLE housing shortage, and new construction does NOT guarantee affordable housing nor guarantee solutions and assistance for most of San Diego’s homeless individuals. Look at the City’s data and reports. Most new construction has not been in the category of affordable housing. In fact, most of new construction has been in the High Income category. The City’s housing and new permit data is publicly available. There has been no weaponization of anything except the City’s use of the term housing crisis and mobilization of multiple Boards, Committees, and governing bodies to promote development and the agenda of developers.
I would add that new multi-family housing developments not only do not provide anything close to actual affordable housing, but often the new development removes existing affordable housing.
The argument that the new multi-family buildings increase the available units to address the so-called housing shortage is bogus. What it too often does in displace people from places they can afford in favor of places that only the high-end market rate buyers or renters can afford.
City Council voted 5-1. But Elo-Rivera, von Wilpert, and Campillo weren’t even there. And Council President LaCava voted against A.
For those who think this marked the end of the process for Package A, you are wrong. Stay tuned.
I could have moved next door ( Del Monte Ave)to a cottage with no steps BUT I couldn’t even afford where I was on a retired, fixed income. So I had to leave my community of friends and acquaintances after fifteen years.
Believe me, it was a really hard thing to have to do. A chunk of my heart remains in OB.
The closer you are to the beach the less affordable housing you will have
The City and a comment here are trying to say there are X amount of historic cottages. It doesn’t matter. OB is a historical district. Our official Community Plan, approved by City Council and the Coastal Commission, specifies this. And we aren’t thinking about just beach cottages in these discussions. We are thinking about the pier (although closed), Peoples, the tiles that line Newport, the OB Library, OB Hardware (over a hundred years old), Pac Shores (dates back to WW II), Church Row (all the original old churches between Santa Monica and Voltaire), the Ocean Beach Woman’s Club (101) years old, apartment buildings with open spaces, courtyards or pools, and houses and apartments with room for children to run and play outside. The City planner tries to say there are only this many of that or that many of this, but that’s not what most of us are talking about. Yes that little beach cottage on Muir might have a little yard, and that’s a good thing. Thank goodness for a little yard for the dog and some plants. Doesn’t mean it should be bulldozed and built beyond existing regulations to pack in a dozen units. And the parking is pretty difficult for everyone on Muir already.
You are right in everything you say. The developments will be larger scale than ADUs on single-family lots. Think Rite Aid, with an unidentified buyer. Look at the old post office property, or those in Mission Valley. Here, they get something special – the beach, and it doesn’t cost the developer anything.The buyer can’t be completely unidentified. Must be an LLC somewhere.
Complete Communities is a little different from the backyard ADUs. It targets Commercial locations – how many could go on the Rite-Aid site with No Parking, 405 sq. ft. per studio apartment? Same for so many OB locations, once gas stations, grocery stores – large parking lot sites. The City of Del Mar has stated that its developers must also comply with the California Coastal Act and the California Environmental Quality Act, a different approach.