Oceanside’s new STR ordinance

On Wednesday, the council voted 4-0 on the first reading of a new ordinance regulating Short-Term Rentals. (Councilman Rodriguez recused himself because his real estate work includes being a STR manager).

Among the 24 people testifying, South O residents testified in favor of the ordinance — or something even stronger. The themes were the loud parties, changing the character of the neighborhood, and (particularly on South Pacific) parking. Several of us mentioned how conversion of long-term rentals to STRs will exacerbate the housing shortage and thus continue to raise housing prices.

As has been common, residents (and the manager) of North Coast Village asked the city leave them alone as they avoid most of the ill effects of other STRs. (All versions of the ordinance of the past year have excluded them, as did the final ordinance). A few STR operators testified against it.

Ryan Keim, the District 3 councilman representing South O, argued in favor of stronger enforcement. Since many details on enforcement were not part of the ordinance that was voted, it is not clear how — or if — the city will implement these ideas.

Two amendments to strengthen the ordinance were proposed by Councilwoman Sanchez and accepted by the rest of the council:

• Eliminate all STRs in mobile home parks — not only those going forward, but the (5?) already licensed. MHPs have rent control to provide affordable housing, and one resident testified that their neighbor’s STR made more money in a single night of renting than the entire month’s rent.
• No future STRs will be approved on flag lots, a problem with many Fire Mountain STRs. Both residents and the fire marshall testified to the difficulty enforcing parking on private easements.

Sanchez’ motion to enact the planning commission ban on all future non-hosted STRs in residential zones died for the lack of a second, although two councilmen said they might consider it if this plan doesn’t work.

The city admitted that there is a big loophole in the hosted rentals: they don’t have a permit, so they can’t lose their permit if they violate the ordinance. Neighbors will have to be vigilant to make sure these complaints get filed so that the city knows if there is a problem.

Still, this feels like a step in the right direction. We will see how effective it proves to be.

Coast Highway Victory

On Monday night, more than 50 South O residents turned out for the first Coast Highway hearing of 2019. We got most of what we wanted, marking a dramatic turnaround from where we started in Fall 2016.

The Hearing

After discussion of two long (Coast Highway) commercial projects, the Coast Highway hearing started at 7:20pm and didn’t end until around 11. It began with staff reports, more than 40 people testifying, and then discussion by six of the seven PC members (one recused herself). Reporters from the SD Union and SD Reader stayed until the end.

The main tension was between Road Diet supporters and opponents of the Road Diet from South O; the latter outnumbered the former by about 2:1. We had more than 40 supporters wearing Save South O t-shirts (of the 80 we distributed in the past week), and probably about 60 overall.

About one third of the Save South O t-shirts at the hearing.

The Arguments

There was nearly 2 hours of testimony (at 2 minutes each). The chair of the PC, Kyle Krahel, kept score, and counted: 23 South O against a South O road diet, 14 in favor of a road diet citywide, and 4 opposed to a road diet citywide.

Supporters. Among the speakers favoring implementing the Coast Highway plan citywide, four were affiliated with the bike coalition and one spoke on behalf of the Sierra Club. One South O resident testified in favor of the road diet, but in general it seemed as though if you like the idea of the road diet, you’ve already chosen to live in Seaside — east of Coast, between Oceanside Blvd. and Mission.

In general, those testifying for the Coast Highway Vision supported the road diet, bike lanes, and the increased residential housing density. A few pointedly said they wanted it for the whole city, including South O. Many accused their opponents of being ignorant, or fearful of change.

Opponents. Based on a decision made by SSO leaders in 2017, the position of Save South O and most of its supporters was we don’t seek to dictate what happens downtown, but conversely want our wishes to be respected in South O. Speaker after speakers said that the road diet and the incentive district don’t belong in South O, making arguments familiar to readers of this blog. The speakers criticized the plan — and sometimes the process — but not our fellow citizens.

Of the 24 South O speakers, eight represented South O businesses, including six from the South Oceanside Business District: the president, vice president, and four other founding members.

The general theme was that the businesses had taken financial risks, the economy was developing nicely, and we neither needed the incentives nor wanted to disruption to our traffic mobility. They also talked about how one of the high density “nodes” — tied to the Cassidy Street freeway onramp rather than any bus lines — would demolish the buildings occupied by Privateer Coal Fire Pizza and Anita’s Mexican Restaurant.

South O business owners prepare to testify against the road diet

Earlier in the day, Save South O was featured for 10 minutes on the John and Ken show on KFI AM 640. They have been very skeptical of road diets, particularly the five in Los Angeles County.

Vote

After the end of testimony, the PC members asked questions of staff and then deliberated. The PC briefly considered stopping at Oceanside Blvd. — what Save South O and the community requested this week, and what we have repeatedly insisted on for more than two years.

Instead, the PC voted unanimously to recommend Alternative 3:

• no road diet south of Morse; continue the existing road diet in the “Dip”
• no incentive district south of Morse, but have high density “Node” residential (up to 63 units/acre) for most of Coast from Oceanside Blvd. to La Salina Creek

Save South O is evaluating its next steps. In the light of our strong turnout and the PC support, it appears that the city is willing to work with us to address some of our concerns, so we want to see if there is common ground.

Thanks to all who turned out to support us Monday! And we hope to see many of you Wednesday at 2pm.

Road Diet nightmare

Monday night (6pm) is the Planning Commission hearing on the Coast Highway Corridor plan. (Wednesday 2pm is the Council hearing to enact the Short-Term Rental Ordinance).

The Coast Highway plan includes two part: the Incentive District and the Road Diet. The Incentive District would provide density and a look in South O that would make it more like downtown. South O is not downtown: it has been an economic success without such a plan, and local business owners would like to keep it that way.

The Road Diet Nightmare

The Road Diet would shrink Coast from 4 lanes to 2. South O lacks and will continue to lack the transit density of downtown, and thus for decade it will continue to be dependent on automobiles — whether electric, hybrid, fuel cell, natural gas or gasoline — and whether self-driving, shared or private.

Whatever its merits for downtown, here are 5 reasons what the road diet would be a disaster for South O:

1. Traffic Nightmares. As the “pilot project” road diet has shown, eliminating half the traffic lanes in South O will bring traffic to a standstill at rush hour and summer weekend months, making it difficult for residents and visitors to enter and exit our community and diverting traffic onto side streets of South O residential neighborhoods. According to the city’s data, a full road diet will only make it worse.
2. Against Federal Guidelines. In 2014, the Federal Highway Administration published a Road Diet Information Guide. The existing — let alone projected — traffic levels exceed the range that the FHWA says is “probably feasible” for a road diet.
3. Consistent Resident Opposition. The residents of South O have consistently voted to oppose having a road diet south of Oceanside Blvd — including the 400 petition signatures of Oceanside residents that we presented to the council in October 2016 (attached), and more than 70 people who turned out to oppose it at a community meeting held January 3.
4. Safety and Emergency Access. Coast Highway is a major ingress/egress route for all of South O, including for tsunami evacuation from the lagoon and from the “Dip”. The importance of such emergency access will only increase if Caltrans closes (as it is threatening to do) the Cassidy Street onramps and offramps.
5. Economic Impact. The city’s EIR fails to examine the economic impact of the Road Diet on the South O merchants, who depend on auto-based visitors for their livelihood. A similar Road Diet on Venice Blvd. in Los Angeles brought the closing of 15 businesses. The Board of Directors of the South Oceanside Business District has voted unanimously to oppose any Road Diet South of Oceanside Blvd.

Because of this, as we have done consistently over the last three years, Save South O and the residents of South Oceanside ask for no road diet South of Oceanside Blvd.

Moving Forward

Over the past 30 years, South O has been redeveloped with private risk taking and private investment to make our community a unique attraction within Oceanside and North County. We are not downtown — we lack the infrastructure and other attractions that have been used to justify the Coast Highway Vision north of Wisconsin.

If (we hope when) this plan is rejected for South O, the residents and merchants of South Oceanside — organized by the South Oceanside Business District and Save South O — intend to continue to work with the city to develop improvements suitable for our community. This includes completing the rail trail, adding suitable pedestrian crosswalks, and beautifying storefronts.

Unlike downtown, South Oceanside residents and merchants are strongly opposed to this plan — as we have been for the past three years. The latest staff proposal ignores both our repeated substantive input and also the community wishes in continuing to threaten our community with these drastic (and inappropriate) changes.

We ask the Planning Commission to either reject the Coast Highway plan, or to approve an option that

• does not include any Road Diet south of Oceanside Blvd.;
• modifies the incentive district in consultation with South O between Oceanside and Morse prior to the Council vote; and
• deletes any incentive district south of Morse.

Wednesday: final STR hearing

In addition to the Monday 6pm Coast Highway hearing at the Planning Commission, this week also has the 2pm “workshop” where the City Council will vote on the proposed Short-term Rental Regulations. As with all council/PC hearings, it’s at the 2nd floor council chambers on the 2nd floor of City Hall (300 N. Coast Highway).

This the end of six month “ad hoc committee” process (AHC), as well as the ratification or rejection of the unanimous April 22 PC vote.
 
We have uploaded a searchable copy of the agenda. Since this is the only item on the agenda, it is likely to begin on time. The daytime schedule means few citizens can make it, so it’s particularly important that South O turn out and be represented.

Also, if you can, you should email the council by Tuesday noon with your comments on the STR ordinance.

What’s New

On April 22, the PC took the staff’s proposed ordinance and added one major change: banning new non-hosted rentals in residential zones. This means

• Hosted means the owner/manager is on site for the entire rental. The original model of AirBNB was for people to host guests in part of their house/apartment, and thus are around to monitor the guests. Increasingly STRs are not hosted, which (rarely) means the resident is temporarily gone, but more often means that the owner has converted the building from long-term rental to a permanent STR.
• Residential zones include R-1 and R3 — essentially all but R-T (roughly Pacific from Whaley to north of the pier) and the special downtown zones.
• Banning means that existing (non-conforming) rentals are grandfathered, but new ones cannot be added after the effective date.

The staff report (pp. 8-9) summarizes the PC decision as follows:

The Commission’s motion included a revision to staff’s recommendation by including the following provisions:

1. New non-hosted short-term rentals be prohibited in the following residential zoning districts: R1, R3, RE, RS, RM and RH.

The Planning Commission expressed concerns that non-hosted STRs are incompatible in residential zones and the city should limit the number of nonhosted properties in residential zoning districts. Rather than phase out the existing 327 non-hosted STRs located in residential zoning districts, the Commission suggested grandfathering in the existing and prohibiting any new non-hosted STRs from locating in residential zones.

While this was not part of the AHC recommendations, testimony, some PC members and even some council members feel that commercial (non-hosted) STRs are incompatible with residential communities. These are also the rentals that reduce the housing supply and thus increase real estate and rental prices.

However, the staff recommendation was for the council to ignore the PC’s decision:

Staff Response: At this time, staff does not recommend prohibiting new nonhosted STRs. Rather, staff recommends implementing the proposed STR ordinance and GNP. Staff plans to review and monitor the STR program, report to Council on a regular basis,

From the standpoint of accountability and governance, treating the PC decision as irrelevant raises the question of why the PC held a hearing on this ordinance, why the general public spent 3 hours on April 22 to testify and hear the PC deliberations — and more generally, why Oceanside has a Planning Commission.

Other Issues

As noted earlier, the ordinance has major weaknesses:

1. Consequences for Ignoring the Law are not well defined.
2. Missing Complaints: the current system does not accurately track complaints so problem STRs would not be identified unless this is fixed.
3. Keeping the Host in a “Hosted Unit”: (unlike San Clemente), there is no precise definition of “hosted.”
4. Parking: other than limiting the number of occupants, (unlike Big Bear) the ordinance does nothing to address parking problems
5. Cooperation from AirBNB: Oceanside assumes it can’t get cooperation from AirBNB (etc.) to register all STRs, but San Francisco has an approach that was upheld in court and has been nearly 100% effective.

It is not clear whether the council is willing to address any of these issues, but it seems like many or most could be fixed if the city had the will to do so.
We hope to see you on Wednesday. Please email us if you have any questions.
 

Opposing the Coast Highway Plan

Since 2016, Save South O has been fighting against the Coast Highway plan being implemented in South O. Monday (at 6pm) is the first hearing before the Planning Commission. Below is what we recommend.

What is the Plan?

The proposed Coast Highway plan has two parts:

• The road diet would cut Coast Highway from 4 lanes to 2 lanes, although South O traffic exceeds Federal standards for such a road diet. It would replace traffic lights with roundabouts at Oceanside Blvd,, Morse St. and Cassidy Kelly Streets. SSO and South O residents are adamantly opposed to any road diet here.
• Development incentives providing density and height increases along Coast Highway. While all development would enjoy accelerated approval, the area marked as a “Node” (in purple) would allow heights and residential density not previously seen on Coast Highway.

In addition to the “preferred alternative”, the PC will consider 4 alternatives:

1. Road diet north of Oceanside Blvd., and incentives from Seagaze to Carlsbad
2. Road diet north of Morse St., and incentives from Seagaze to Carlsbad
3. Road diet and incentives north of Morse St.
4. Road diet citywide, but no incentives

None of these are what South O has been fighting for since 2016:  stopping both at Oceanside Blvd. In December 2017 the staff solicited an option to stop both at Morse St., and (without fanfare) the city voted to consider only stopping at Morse (#3) — leaving the road diet and incentives in the Dip.

The Future of the “Dip”

Various businesses, city staffers and council members have been complaining about some older and less attractive businesses in the “Dip” (between Morse and Oceanside Blvd.). Upgrading of commercial properties here has not progressed as quickly as downtown or in South O.

In the past two years, real estate investors have been buying up commercial property in the Dip, on the assumption that the city’s planned upzoning will make redevelopment more profitable. Under new owners, with new access to capital, the upzoning of the Sprinter station area as “Node” projects could bring rapid changes to the area, with the proposed Incentive District allowing 45-65′ (55′ average height) residential towers stretching from the north side of Oceanside Blvd. down to La Salina Creek.

The city justifies this high-density Node because of the Sprinter station south of Godfrey. It is unlike the proposed Node at the former North County Times building (which has no high-speed, high-frequency mass transit) and that would displace both Privateer and Anita’s.

However, the city’s studies show that this increased density in the Dip will force traffic into South O side streets, particularly along Morse and California east of Coast. There are also questions about parking, access to parking (since their are no side streets or alleys), and how the tall Node buildings will blend with the lower (25′-35′) buildings on Coast elsewhere in South O.

Our Recommendation

SSO has been working with the South Oceanside Business District, which represents businesses from Oceanside Blvd. to the Carlsbad city limits. Today they adopted this position:

1. No road diet south of Oceanside Blvd., and no roundabouts at Oceanside Blvd. or any point south.
2. No incentive district south of Morse St.
3. Prior to the August council hearing, the city staff should meet with South O business owners and residents to discuss and modify the Sprinter Node incentive district, both to solve potential problems and overall reduce the impact on South O.

Given certain political realities, we believe that — assuming the city negotiates in good faith — this has the best possible outcome for South O. If #3 goes badly, then we would recommend opposing all incentives south of Oceanside Blvd.

Please remember to email your comments to the Planning Commission before June 7, and show up to testify at 6pm on June 10.

Coast Highway Plan – June 10 hearing

The agenda for Monday’s Planning Commission hearing has been posted. The Coast Highway Corridor is item #4 on an agenda that starts at 6pm in City Hall council chambers (300 North Coast Hwy Oceanside, CA 92054). We have created a searchable version of the 90-page staff report and uploaded it here.

The agenda includes both the road diet (cutting 4 lanes to 2) and development incentives (density and height increases). The Save South O position has been no road diet or development incentives south of Oceanside Blvd.

However, we are working with the South O Business District, which favors a modified version of the development incentives between Morse and Oceanside Blvd. This position is not incompatible with the SSO view, as long as the “temporary” road diet is ended, and that the denser development in the “dip” transitions to the low intensity character of the rest of South O. Exact details will be posted later.

Key hearings for South O

There are two key hearings the week of June 9 that will influence the nature of South O for years to come. Both take place at the council chambers, the 2nd floor of City Hall (300 North Coast Hwy Oceanside, CA 92054).

Coast Highway: June 10 (6pm)

Rescheduled from May 20, the Planning Commission will consider both the road diet (cutting 4 lanes to 2) and development incentives (density and height increases). South O has repeatedly asked to stop these at Oceanside Blvd., but city staffers are recommending imposing these citywide. We need a big turnout from South O to explain to the PC how this plan would adversely impact South O.

This is scheduled to be voted on by the Council on August 14 at 2pm, but (like everything else) is subject to change.

Short Term Rentals: June 12 (2pm)

The City Council will consider its first-ever regulations controlling (and officially allowing) short-term rentals in Oceanside. While the original proposal had some weaknesses, the Planning Commission proposed a stronger ordinance that would limit STRs outside downtown and the R-T (residential tourist) zone. It is not clear what the council will approve.