Continuing fight against 1602 S. Coast

This weekend marks the latest round in the fight against 1602 S. Coast Highway, a proposed 54-unit, 42′ tall condo project that with traffic, density, parking and height would permanently change the character of South O (and set a precedent for other projects to do so):

• On Saturday, there is a rally at Marshall Street Park from 10am – noon. Residents will be making signs for the PC hearing. Save South O will be selling t-shirts at cost ($5/each) so residents can clearly signal at the hearing what side they are on.
• At 6pm Monday, this will return for a second time to the Planning Commission. While people can watch on Zoom or KOCT, under new city policies, only those present at the council chambers (300 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside) will be allowed to testify.

Sept. 27 PC Hearing

We had a good turnout of South O residents at the Sept. 27 hearing, both in person and online. The community members made strong arguments (summarized here) about why the project is not appropriate for South O, and needs to be sent back for changes to reduce its impact.

South O residents living nearby talked about the existing traffic and pedestrian safety issues that will be exacerbated by this 54-unit project, as well as the impact of a 42′, 4-story building looking down on their homes. Others focused on how it is under-parked, and that everyone in the room knew that — despite the parking/density bonuses of being a half mile from the Sprinter station — the residents will have more cars than parking spaces and will spillover into neighborhood streets.

But fundamentally, a majority of the PC agreed that this project is not consistent with the character of the local community. As Oceanside’s 1985 Local Coastal Program Land Use Plan (p. 34) states:

The Coastal Act requires that the visual qualities of the Coastal Zone shall be protected and that new development be sited and designed to be visually compatible with the character of surrounding areas.

On Sept 27, the PC leaned 3-1 to send the plan back for revision. However, the city planner used a procedural move to create a tied vote so that it could be reconsidered on Oct 11 (this Monday) when more PC members would be present. These PC members have not heard the testimony from Sept 27, and the one commissioner (Louise Balma) appeared to be on the fence while two (Robin Goodkind, Jolene Hayes) were opposed and the fourth (Tom Morissey) strongly supported it.

Going Forward

The developer and its land use consultant have made clear that they have no intention of negotiating any substantive changes with the city — over density, scale or parking — unless forced to do so by the city. If they lose on Monday, their clear plan is to take the existing project to the council and demand that it approve the project. That council meeting would likely be in November or early December.

Similarly, if South O loses on Monday, we will ask the council to hear our appeal. The stakes in this project are too high, as having a wall of such projects along Coast Highway would clearly destroy the unique character of South O. Other projects are in the pipeline, waiting to see what happens on this project and the maximum density they can cram into their planned projects.

We ask all South O residents to attend in person, email comments in advance (by noon Monday) to PlanningCommission@oceansideca.org, or both.

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.

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.

Coast Highway hearing June 10

Today’s Planning Commission hearing on the Coast Highway Corridor (road diet and incentive district) is postponed to June 10. From an email this afternoon to those on their mailing list:

---

Highway Corridor Study:  Status Update

Three components of the Final EIR for the Coast Highway Corridor Study – the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program (MMRP), Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations – were inadvertently not included in the online posting for this project. Consequently, the Planning Commission public hearing on the Corridor Study will be continued from May 20th to June 10th in order to afford both the Planning Commission and the general public sufficient time to review these materials. The Final EIR and associated materials can be accessed here. The MMRP, Findings of Fact, and Statement of Overriding Considerations will be posted to this link by Wednesday, May 22nd. Questions regarding these materials and their role in the environmental review process can be directed to Principal Planner Russ Cunningham at rcunningham@oceansideca.org. Public Hearing Schedule    1. Planning Commission (RESCHEDULED): Monday, June 10, 2019 at 6pm 2. City Council: Wednesday, August 14, 2019 at 2pm Both meetings will take place in the City Council Chambers at 300 North Coast Highway.

Additionally, the Fact Sheet is included again with this announcement to help answer continuing questions on the proposed Incentive District along Coast Highway. Please click on the image to the right for a copy of the fact sheet.

For more information on the Incentive District, please contact Russ Cunningham, Principal Planner at 760-435-3525 or you can send an e-mail to RCunningham@oceansideca.org.

If you have any questions, please contact John Amberson, Transportation Planner, City of Oceanside, 760-435-5091 or you can send an e-mail to Jamberson@oceansideca.org.

 

Coast Highway hearing delayed

The May 20 Planning Commission hearing on the Coast Highway Corridor project has been delayed. We will update you when we have the revised date.

Urgent: Fight Coast Highway Road Diet in next five days

On Monday at 6pm, the Planning Commission hearing will consider the revised Coast Highway Plan. Residents need to

• Testify against the road diet at the May 20 hearing
• Email the Planning Commission to express your opposition.

The city staff recommendation ignores three years of opposition from South O:

• It imposes the Road Diet citywide, shrinking Coast Highway from 4 lanes to 2
• It imposes the Density Incentives citywide, including the maximum density “transit Node” replacing the North County Times building at the NE corner of Cassidy and Coast Highway with something 55′ tall (with parts up to 65′ tall).

South O opposition has included

• An overwhelmingly negative response (90+%) in January to the latest EIR.
• A strong turnout of South O opposition at the January community meeting.
• Impassioned public testimony before the 2016 city election
• A petition of opposition signed by more than 400 Oceanside residents that was submitted to the city council

Save South O — working with and through other community groups such as the South Oceanside Business District — is working to instead present a positive vision of how to improve the Coast Highway corridor in South O.

As residents, merchants and visitors will tell you, South O is not downtown, and so South O needs a development strategy that reflects this reality — not one that imposes a one-size-fits all mandate from City Hall in defiance of the community’s clearly articulated wishes.

Reducing STR Impacts

On Monday, the Planning Commission will consider the city’s first-ever ordinance regulating Short-Term Rentals. The full agenda packet is here. It summarizes the process the city has followed to get here.

Oceanside is the last coastal city north of Coronado to address short-term rentals. Carlsbad bans them outside  the coastal zone and two condo complexesin La Costa; they are heavily restricted in Encinitas and Solana Beach (see pp. 51-53 of the staff report). So if a commercial operation wants to run a STR business, they come to Oceanside.

While the new laws are an improvement, they would be among the weakest of any city in the state. With improvements, the ordinance can potentially reduce the impacts of STRs on Oceanside neighborhoods, but are unlikely to slow STR growth and its reduction of affordable housing.

The Impact on Affordable Housing

Conversion of a owner-occupied or long-term rental into a STR reduces the housing stock. (Renting part of a home or renting an empty vacation home does not have this impact, unless a home is bought for this purpose). UCLA research has shown that a rise in STR listing brings with it higher housing and rental prices.

The state Legislature is passing one bad bill after another, taking away local control from cities in hopes of convincing the public they are “solving” the housing crisis.  The more housing gets converted from residential to STR, the more likely the state is to override local control here to force new housing units over neighborhood objections. See, for example, Gov. Newsom’s February lawsuit seeking to overturn the right of Huntington Beach to enforce its zoning laws, or SB50 which would allow 85’ towers in Seaside, Fire Mountain and South O, and passed the state senate Housing Committee earlier this month.

When the City of San Francisco decided to limit STR to 90 days (hosted by the residents), AirBNB sued (and lost). The city attorney said

While we’re happy to see a homegrown San Francisco company like Airbnb succeed, it can’t be at the expense of residents being evicted or units being removed from the housing market so people can make more money putting apartments on Airbnb.

After the law went into effect, the San Francisco Chronicle reported “Stricter rules stop homes from becoming hotels.”

The city’s proposed ordinance says nothing about the impact of STRs on affordable housing, which is the main reason allowed under state (and Coastal Commission) law. In contrast, the city of Santa Cruz says in its (Coastal Commission-approved) ordinance

The regulations contained herein will help ensure that short-term rental activities do not become a nuisance or threaten the public health, safety, or welfare of neighboring properties while helping to maintain long-term rental housing stock in the city.

The STR Impact on Oceanside

More than 70% of the STRs are west of I-5. Put another way, 4.9% of the housing stock west of I-5 is already converted to short-term rentals. Fire Mountain is the third most popular STR location.

Among these residences being converted are those along Pacific Street, where existing 3-4 bedroom homes are replaced by 8-10 bedroom mini-hotels. These commercial lodgings are not required to meet hotel (or boarding house) parking standards, which means their guests are parking on the street. Particularly around Buccaneer and Cassidy St. beach, onstreet parking has become scarce in the summer due to these large-scale commercial operations (most by a single operator).

Weakening the AHC Proposal

Monday’s proposed ordinance specifically removes (or weakens) three of the recommendations of the “ad hoc committee” that worked from August 2018 to January 2019 to develop the proposed regulations:

9. Inspection process: One-hour inspection warning for code enforcement violations.

After consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff does not support this approach due to concerns with constitutional protections. Alternatively, staff recommends having language in the GNP that requires an owner or authorized agent to respond to a complaint within one hour.

11. Three strikes policy (three citations within 12 months or five citations within 24 months may result in STR revocation of 36 months. Some violations may result in immediate revocation.)

After consultation with the City Attorney’s Office, staff recommends enforcement language stating that any STR that has been the subject of three verified complaints in a twelve-month period will be automatically referred to the City Attorney for enforcement of appropriate remedies.

13. Distinguish corporate ownership from home ownership and further regulate or cap the corporate ownerships.

At this time staff does not recommend this approach as it will be difficult to monitor and regulate.

Public Involvement

The number of STRs will continue grow (and housing affordability to decline) unless the city reduces the incentives for investors to buy residential properties for conversion to STRs.

Monday’s PC meeting begins at 6pm at the City Council Chambers (300 N. Coast Highway). The STR ordinance is item #6 (the 3rd public hearing).

This is scheduled to be considered by the City Council Wednesday May 29 at at a special 2pm (daytime) meeting. Mark your calendars.