Today would have been the 68th birthday of Zellarah (Zell) Dwelley, who died February 17 after a long battle with cancer. Zell and her husband Gary are best known because in 1988, they founded Beach Break Cafe in South O.
On Sunday, more than 150 locals met north of the Pier to remember Zell, and to witness a dozen surfers mark the occasion with a “paddle out” in the chilly May waters. Her husband Gary and two sons (and two grandchildren) were present to meet the well wishers.
Beach Break Cafe — relocated to its current location in 2010 — is both a nationally recognized as a classic diner, and also for its surfer- and skater-themed decor. Among the many restaurants in today’s South O restaurant scene, Beach Break occupies a unique niche.
The family requests that donations in her name be made to City of Hope, the Los Angeles area cancer center. May she rest in peace.
Tonight the city council voted 4-1 (Joyce opposed) for Option 1 of the three possible changes to STR regulations in the Coastal Zone. Together with December’s decision, this means a (soon to be exhausted) cap on total non-hosted STR permits across the cities. The new regulations:
All city STRs (including hosted STRs) must register
As in other cities, all STRs must post their local permit # in their AirBNB/VRBO/Vacasa (etc) advertisement so that unregistered STRs can be more quickly identified
No new STRs will be permitted inland (i.e. outside the Coastal Zone); this took effect February 10.
No new STRs will be permitted in the Coastal Zone east of Coast Highway — e.g. along Vista Way, along San Luis Rey River, or on Freeman Street.
No new STRs will be permitted in the R-1 zone west of Coast Highway. Existing ones lose their permit if
a) they expand their habitable space or
b) they have an ownership transfer such that triggers a property tax reassessment (i.e. they forfeit their Prop 13 tax assessment cap)
Cap at 480 the total number of non-hosted STRs west of Coast Highway. This about 25 more than today, but all the new ones will be in the R-3, RT, commercial zone or downtown equivalents.
Better enforcement citywide
All STRs have one year permits, which are not renewed under specific conditions
The city has a new 24/7 STR complaint number (760-435-5460) which routes to both police and code enforcement. STRs are required to post this number outside their property. The city also has an online complaint web page
Increased fines where permitted by state law
The city can’t enforce its new Coastal Zone rules until the California Coastal Commission approves them, which will likely take 1-3 years. However, once approved by CCC, any non-conforming STR will not be allowed to renew its permit (which would discourage speculators from buying a property for STR use if it can only be used for 12-36 months).
We had a great turnout of community support for Option 1, which incorporated several key suggestions from South O residents. The three founders of Save South O testified in favor of it, as did the two founders of Neighborhoods are for Neighbors. Particularly effective were two legal representatives hired by South O residents to fight nearby STRs: Marco Gonzalez of Coast Law Group and Clif Williams of Latham & Watkins San Diego. Overall, the pro-resident speakers outnumbered the pro-STR speakers 20-11, and the residents appeared to be more effective in reaching the council.
With the new regulations enacted, the key to limiting STR impacts on our community will now shift to enforcement. Neighbors who have given up complaining about problems need to start all over again, with the expectation that the hotline or web page will provide a more consistent and accurate record of complaints; going forward, such complaints seem more likely to result in fines or even stronger penalties.
The new rules are a great step forward, and we are cautiously optimistic on improved enforcement. Thanks to all the South O residents who turned out tonight, emailed the council, or otherwise got involved in this long fight to maintain the character of South O.
On Wednesday, the council is expected to approve a new Short Term Rental ordinance for the Coastal Zone. This is important to all of South O and Seaside, because STR conversions in the Coastal Zone reduce the availability of rental and owner-occupied housing for everyone West of I-5.
The council will consider three options, of these Option 1 is clearly superior to the other two. It is not what South O asked for in 2019 or last winter, but is the best option available now and the best the council majority is going to enact right now.
Why Option 1?
Since March, Option 1 changed for the better in two ways, one for the worse:
For the better
No new STRs in the R-1 zone, and existing permits cannot be transferred upon sale.
A total cap of 480 non-hosted STRs west of Coast Highway (vs. 505 proposed in March and no cap today). This means about 25 more STRs in the RT, R-3 or commercial zones (or equivalent zones downtown).
For the worse
Restricting all STRs of more than 5 bedrooms to only allowing 14 people (occupancy of 6 bedrooms under the current ordinance). This should reduce (but not eliminate) the beach-area parking taken away by these these under-parked mini-motels. This is better than current law, but the limit was 12 people in March.
In December, the city approved an ordinance banning new STRs outside the Coastal Zone, essentially capping these inland STRs at existing levels.
Meanwhile, all these promises are worthless without actual enforcement. The previous enforcement was inconsistent (with major loopholes), although the council and staff are promising better enforcement going forward
Call to Action
The conversion of residential property to STRs over the past decade has reduced the supply of housing in South O and elsewhere in the city. Adding a cap to the Coastal Zone will limit the future loss of housing that could be instead be occupied by renters or new homeowners.
Therefore, we recommend that all South O residents email the council with this message
Dear Mayor and Councilmembers, The conversion of Oceanside housing to Short Term Rentals has reduced the availability and raised the cost of housing for full-time city residents. I ask that you enact Option 1, which caps the number of STRs in the Coastal Zone, and limits the maximum occupancy of STRs to reduce the impact on beach area parking. Finally, the city needs to deliver on its promise to improve enforcement of the new and existing regulations.
Attending the Hearing
The STR is agenda item #23 Wednesday, the second of two public hearings that will be heard starting around 6pm. The city council chambers are on the second floor of Oceanside City Hall, 300 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside, CA 92054.
South O (and others) who favor protecting neighborhoods and housing supply should wear blue.
Note: Revised April 20 to clarify Option 1 details, and provide information on Wednesday’s hearing.
The council will be voting to enact a new Short Term Rental ordinance for the Coastal Zone on Wednesday April 25. The public hearing will start after 6pm. The full staff report can be found here.
The cap on total non-hosted STRs west of I-5 is now 480 (about 25 greater than current numbers) rather than 505 (500 greater)
Per 24(d)(2), no new STRs are allowed in the R-1 zone, and existing ones cannot be renewed if they changed owners or the owner received permits “to expand the habitable space of the dwelling unit.”
An existing STR permitted with more than 5 bedrooms has a maximum occupancy of 14 persons (equivalent to 6 bedrooms), rather than (for example) 18 for 8 bedrooms or 22 for 10 bedrooms.
All three options share a change to 24.2(d), defining a hosted unit.
Option 2
The new definition of a “hosted unit” is
a dwelling unit where the owner of the property occupies the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence and offers a portion of the dwelling unit for short-term rental while remaining on-site. In multi-family residential zoning districts only, the owner may occupy a dwelling unit on the same parcel as the short-term rental unit provided the owner remains on-site during all short term rental stays.
In the existing ordnance, the definition is
a dwelling unit where the owner of the property ortheir tenant occupies the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence and offers a portion of the dwelling unit for short-term rental while remaining on
Option 3
The staff report summarizes this option as follows
Additional non-hosted STRs can be established in any zoning district west of Coast Highway with the exception of the R-1 zone.
Existing STR permits for properties in the R-1 zone can continue to operate, without limitation on occupancy related to bedroom count and be renewed subject o the provisions of Section 24.3.
No cap on the number of STR permits that can be issued for properties west of bCoast Highway with the exception of the R-1 zone (where additional STR permits for non-hosted STRs are prohibited).
This option is clearly less restrictive than option 1.
In December 2023, the council enacted new regulations for short-term rentals in the inland (non-“coastal zone”) part of the city, an update to the 2019 regulations. On April 24, the council will consider regulations for the coastal zone. Both the 2023 changes and the proposed 2024 changes increase restrictions on the use of non-hosted STRs. After the changes, hosted STRs will remain legal throughout the city — as will non-hosted STRs within outside North Coast Village and St. Malo.
April 18: note that the final options before the council on April 25 are slightly different than those discussed on March 25.
On March 25, the Planning Commission considered two staff-developed alternatives for STR regulations for the coastal zone (West of Freeman in South O). Most of the community members testifying in favor of stronger (coastal) STR regulations were from South O – both in favor of limiting (or blocking) future STRs, and also for more meaningful enforcement of the city’s existing regulations.
After competing testimony from the South O community and STR owners, the PC proposed a third option. All options ban ban new STRs east of Coast Highway (particularly in Eastside/Capistrano), and other conditions given below; many of the new conditions promise to cut down on violations of the city’s STR regulations, but it is unclear whether the new regulations (or their enforcement) will actually be effective.
The differences between these options are mainly on the restrictions for STRs in the Coastal Zone West of Coast Highway, as given by new language in 24.6(d) of the STR ordinance:
Option 1 has a cap of 505 coastal non-hosted units (an increase of 50 over today)
Option 2 bans new non-hosted STRs outside the RT zone and the Strand
Option 3 bans new non-hosted STRs in the R-1 zone.
Below is the actual (or draft) language, as well as a zoning map for South O.
Because of the impact of short-term rentals on the community, parking, noise, and housing, Save South O encourages all South O residents to attend the STR hearing at 6pm April 24 at Oceanside City Hall. Testimony can refer to the proposed changes to regulations, or the impact of STRs under the existing regulations. Please contact us for more details.
Option 1
24.6 (d) Non-hosted short-term rentals located in any residential zoning district within the Coastal Zone are prohibited, with the exception of the following and subject to the provisions outlined below:
Non-hosted short-term rentals are allowed in any zoning district west of Coast Highway subject to a maximum of 505 non-hosted short-term rental permits west of Coast Highway. Any short-term rental permit issued in excess of the identified maximum number of permits identified in this Section shall not be renewed following certification of Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA24-00001) by the California Coastal Commission.
Short-term rental permits for properties in the R-1 zone shall be limited to five (5) bedrooms. Any new or renewed short-term rental permit for a property in the R-1 zone shall prohibit the owner from advertising the availability of more than five (5) bedrooms and shall prohibit the rental of more than five (5) bedrooms.
New non-hosted short-term rental permits for properties located in the Coastal Zone east of Coast Highway issued for the first time after introduction of the ordinance adopting this section shall not be renewed following certification of Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA24-00001) by the California Coastal Commission. A short-term rental permit for a property in the Coastal Zone east of Coast Highway prior to the introduction of the ordinance adopting this section is subject to renewal in accordance with Section 24.3.
Option 2
24.6 (d) Non-hosted short-term rentals located in any residential zoning district within the Coastal Zone, with the exception of the Residential Tourist (RT) zone and Downtown Subdistrict D-4(A), are prohibited.
A short-term rental permit issued prior to the introduction of the ordinance adopting this section may be renewed subject to the procedures set forth in Section 24.3. Upon transfer of ownership, a property in the Coastal Zone, for which a short-term rental permit had been previously issued prior to the introduction of the ordinance adopting this section and not previously revoked , is eligible to apply for a new short-term rental permit subject to the permitting procedures outlined in Section 24.3.
New short-term rental permits for properties located in the Coastal Zone outside of the Residential Tourist (RT) zone and/or Subdistrict D-4(A) of the Downtown zone issued for the first time after introduction of the ordinance adopting this section shall not be renewed following certification of Local Coastal Plan Amendment (LCPA24-00001) by the California Coastal Commission.
Option 3
This are the conditions described verbally at the PC hearing (final language is not yet published)
No more non-hosted STRs in R-1 west of Coast Highway, but no restrictions on existing STRs in R-1
No cap or other new limits on new non-hosted STRs in any other zone west of Coast
Zoning Map
Shared Conditions
The following new language is shared by Option 1 and Option 2, and expected to be shared by Option 3.
24.2 (g) Non-hosted short-term rental is a dwelling unit where the owner of the property does not occupy the dwelling unit as his or her principal residence, or does not remain on-site during rentals, and offers the dwelling unit for short-term rental.
24.7 Operational Requirements
New language shown in bold.
(k) The maximum number of occupants allowed to occupy the short-term rental unit shall be limited to two (2) people per bedroom plus two (2) people per unit. The operator of a short-term rental shall not advertise occupancy that is greater than the number of occupants depicted on the notice required by Section 24.7(c).
(l) The maximum number of daytime guests allowed in a short-term rental property shall be ten (10) guests, regardless of bedroom count. Daytime guests are allowed between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
(m) All short-term rental offerings and agreements shall have a minimum two (2) night consecutive stay.
(n) No amplified or reproduced sound, nor any other disturbing, excessive, or offensive noise shall be audible from the property line of any short-term rental unit between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. At all other times, noise shall comply with the limitations set forth in section 38.17 of the Oceanside City Code. . …
(p) The short-term rental permit identification number, as issued by the City, shall be displayed on the hosting platform where the short-term rental is advertised.
24.8 Violations and Penalties
(b) In addition to any penalties imposed pursuant to chapter 1.7 of this Code, any person who violates the provisions of this chapter may be issued an administrative citation by an enforcement officer pursuant to chapter 1, section 1.14 through 1.14.8 of this Code. Notwithstanding anything in chapter 1, section 1.14.1 to the contrary, the enforcement officer is not required to issue a notice of violation prior to issuing an administrative citation for a violation of this chapter.
Pursuant to Government Code section 36900(d), the civil penalties for violations of this chapter that pose a threat to public health or safety shall be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first violation, three thousand dollars ($3,000) for a second violation within one year of the prior violation, and five thousand dollars ($5,000) for each additional violation within one year of the first violation. A permittee seeking a hardship waiver as set forth in Government Code section 36900(e) shall utilize the appeal procedures set forth in Oceanside City Code section 1.14.4.
The civil penalty for operating a short-term rental without a valid permit, including but not limited to, operating with a revoked permit, shall be one thousand five hundred dollars ($1,500) for a first violation and two thousand five hundred dollars ($2,500) for a second and subsequent violation. In addition, a property owner who has received a second or additional violation for operating without a valid permit shall be ineligible for a short-term rental permit for a period of eighteen months from the issuance of the second or additional notice of violation.
During the hearing, staff said that safety violations would include an unpermitted addition, while less sever violations (e.g. noise) would start with a $100 fine.
On Wednesday, December 20, the council will be voting on an ordinance to ban new Short Term Rentals in the inland part of Oceanside (i.e. outside the Coastal Zone). This is a follow up to the Nov. 20 Planning Commission hearing on the ordinance change requested August 30 by council. The council is expected to approve this ordinance.
The position of Save South O is that while the planned change addresses some of the problem, the city also needs to address the STR problem in the Coastal Zone. Also, the testimony Nov. 20 made clear that enforcement of the existing ordinance for existing STRs must be fixed.
The council meeting begins at 5pm, and the STR item (#22) could be heard immediately after the end of the consent calendar (and before 6pm public hearings). As always, the council meets in its chambers on the 2nd floor of 300 N. Coast Highway, Oceanside 92054.
Proposed Change
The proposed change is pretty simple. It amends the existing ordinance so that no new inland rentals are permitted, and existing ones cannot be transferred to a new owner. The change would add 24.6(c) to the ordinance:
(c) Short-term rentals located in any zoning district outside of the Coastal Zone are prohibited. A short-term rental permit issued for a property outside the Coastal Zone prior to the effective date of this Section shall not be renewed after the property is transferred to a new owner.
Coastal Zone
In South Oceanside, the Coastal Zone is the area west of Freeman Street and South of Vista Way (near Buena Vista Lagoon); in North Oceanside, it also includes land near the San Luis Rey River wetlands north of Mission.
Testimony on Nov. 20 emphasized the greater impact of STRs in the Coastal Zone — in terms of the size, parking overflow, and change to the neighborhood character. In 2019, when the city was first considering STR regulations, it was claimed that coastal STRs could not be banned (or capped) due to California Coastal Commission policies. However, since then, other coastal cities have limited the number of STRs in their coastal zones in compliance with such CCC policies
Enforcement
The Nov. 20 hearing also testified to ongoing enforcement problems with STRs. This week’s staff report lists statistics on various complaints. However, neighbors believe that these statistics undercount the actual complaints — particularly after hours complaints that are filed with the police department and not code enforcement.
These statistics point to the importance of neighbors filing a formal complaint for all violations. According to city policy, complaints should be filed with the STR code enforcement phone number (760-435-5460) or using the online complaint form or using the My Oceanside app. For action to be taken (or a complaint investigated) after hours — such as for noise — neighbors must call the police non-emergency line (760-435-4900).
As reported earlier, the city is working to finish the Coastal Rail Trail from Oceanside Blvd. to the southern city limits at Buena Vista Lagoon. The public hearings have been held on the northern leg — stretch from Oceanside to Buccaneer — and the city is completing the engineering design as it (continues to) seeks state funding to pay for the trail and the bridge over Loma Alta Creek.
Meanwhile, this summer the city started the process to upgrade the original trail segment — Morse south to the city limits — to widen it and make it more suitable for cyclists and sharing between pedestrians and cyclists. The city created a Technical Advisory Committee with representatives fvarious staff representatives, and two residents: cyclist Tom Lichterman (chair of the Oceanside Bicycle and Pedestrian Committee) and South O resident Joel West.
Led by the consultants from Alta, the TAC held its first meeting July 19 and its second meeting on Wednesday. The slides from the consultants’ presentation are the bottom of this story.
For the past three months, the city has solicited public input, as the consultants identify alternatives and evaluate their feasibility. The goal is to hold additional hearings next spring and use that to recommend a specific option for council approval.
Public Input
The city ran a public survey with 343 responses so far; 65% were from the 92054 zip code (with an unknown fraction in South O). If you have not completed it, the survey (http://bit.ly/OceansideCRT) will remain open until spring 2024. The city and its consultants also had four public meetings that attracted 290 people:
Aug 7: A public hearing at city hall
June 15: at Sunset Market
July 1: at Mace Buchanan Park
Aug 19: at Buccaneer Park
Although the audiences were different, these public outreach events identified several common concerns: safety, lighting, shade, attractive landscaping.
Design Goals
The goal of building the rail trail is to allow and encourage more pedestrians and cyclists to use this Class I trail — to downtown, to South O, and to connect to the eastbound San Luis Rey River Trail on the north and the CRT through Carlsbad (someday) south to San Diego. The trail may not be suitable for the most serious cyclists (such as the bike clubs), but the hope is to attract pedestrians and casual cyclists who find the existing streets too intimidating. This would include both residents and visitors to Oceanside who want to explore the city.
The overall design goals are
Replace existing 7-8′ wide path with a wider path that allows for simultaneous use by pedestrians and cyclists
Design consistent with the newer stretches of the CRT, which call for a 10′ wide trail, with a 3′ paved shoulder on each side, and (where possible) a landscaping buffer on one side.
Connect at the north to the new segment of the CRT at the south end of the bridge crossing the Loma Alta Creek, and at the south to the exit from the city on Coast Highway crossing Buena Vista Lagoon.
ADA compliant paths (5% slope or less), both for wheelchairs and also for bicycle slopes.
Since the northern and southern terminus of this (upgraded) segment are decided, there are three major design choices:
Since the northern terminus is west of the tracks on Myers and the southern terminus is east of the tracks on Broadway, where does the trail cross the railroad tracks?
Connecting to an inland bike route at Morse Street
How to connect Broadway to the existing trail on Coast Highway.
1. Crossing the Tracks
The consultants have identified four possible crossing points: with the existing Cassidy Street grade crossing (either on the north N2 or south N3 side of the street), or an overhead crossing near Whaley/Morse (N1) or near Eaton/Vista Way (S3). In the diagrams below, neither crossing location is exact, although for N1, the further north the crossing, the lower the rails are.
Because the tracks are more submerged north of Cassidy than south of Cassidy, a Whaley bridge would not have to be as high as one near Eaton. That would make it easier to construct the slope up to a northern crossing, and thus being less expensive than a southern crossing. An underground crossing near Eaton or Vista was ruled out.
2. Morse Street Connection
Based on a suggestion by the community representative at the July TAC meeting, the consultants are now investigating possible connections from Morse Street, to connect to both inland South O and the Safe Route to School path to Lincoln and Palmquist. Community representatives at the Aug. 19 meeting at Buccaneer Park also expressed strong interest in a solution to that issue.
The design of a Morse Street connection is at a very preliminary stage. However, with the N1 option, Morse Street pedestrians and cyclists might connect to the bridge on the Broadway side. Either way, Morse Street might use the underpass along the south shore of Loma Alta Creek.
3. Joining Coast Highway
While there are good paths along Coast Highway across Buena Vista Lagoon — northbound on the east side, and bidirectional on the west side — connecting these to the trail trail pose several dilemmas:
Northbound traffic needs to turn left across Coast in front of Angelo’s. This problem exists today, and was identified by local residents at the Buccaneer Beach workshop.
Cyclists need to get from Broadway (a relatively quiet street) out to Coast Highway. Eaton (which is quiet but skinny) is one option, and Vista Way (which is wide but busy) is likely the only other option.
The safest option would be to exit south on Broadway and then cut across south of the Eaton homes West to Coast. However, that land is now owned by the Audubon Society, which in recent community meetings made clear they are not willing to have their land lagoon used for a bike trail. The city and its consultants are no longer pursuing that option.
Future Public Meetings
The consultants will develop a more complete analysis of these alternatives for public hearings in spring 2024. This blog will provide community updates for future hearings.
When completed, the Coastal Rail Trail will provide a Class 1 (fully separated) bikeway parallel to the NCTD line from the Oceanside Transit Center to the Carlsbad city limits. The trail currently stops at Oceanside Blvd., but the city has started design work on
crossing Loma Alta Creek at Buccaneer Park, completing the trail from Oceanside Blvd. to Morse.
replacing the substandard trail from Morse to Vista Way: the original trail built in 2003-2005 was only 8′ wide, instead of the 15′ standard on newer segments of the trail in Oceanside. The wider width is necessary to allow bidirectional travel and a mix of cyclists and pedestrian use.
connecting south from Vista Way to the city limits; the current trail along Broadway dumps cyclists out on the street at Vista Way.
The planned Loma Alta Creek segment (#1) is the dotted green line, and existing South O trail (#2) is the solid green line.
Finishing (and upgrading) this rail trail has been a top priority for Save South O since 2017. This will be on the agenda for the July 25 South O community meeting (6:00-7:15pm at the Moose Lodge, 2017 S. Coast Highway).
South O Trail Upgrade
For #2 and #3 (the South O upgrade), council approved starting the alignment study in February, and work has begun on gathering public input to shape that design. There are two immediate opportunities for South O to make its voice heard in this process. See also the city’s Coastal Rail Trail website for future updates.
August 7 Workshop
On Monday August 7, the city is holding a 6:00-8:00 pm workshop at the Civic Center Library downtown. The city and its consultants will provide an update on the project, and it will be a time that South O (and other residents) can ask questions questions of both.
This is the first of two planned workshops (the other in February/March 2024) before the consultants unveil their proposed alignment in the summer of 2024.
Online Survey
To understand what Oceanside, Carlsbad and other residents want for the the South O upgrade, the city has posted a 14 question survey at http://bit.ly/OceansideCRT If you fill out the survey before August 7, you will both know the questions the consultants are asking and also influence their thinking at the event.
When you fill out the survey, here are two observations.
The survey doesn’t distinguish between South O and other 92054 residents. You should indicate in the remarks that you live in South O.
When I joined a group in taking the survey, the six categories for Q6 (“What are your top priorities”) was confusing. Some clarification of these categories:
Access & Mobility refers to the part of the trip when you are not on the trail (e.g., if you bike to the harbor, the part from your home to the trail and the part from the end of the trail to the harbor).
Equity is a two-part question, a general one about “serving all trail users”, and a specific one about “historically underserved populations.”
Feasibility & Timeline is asking if you are willing to give up some of your lower priorities to get the trail made sooner.
Safety was the only question that seemed clear to everyone.
Sustainability was also clear to most, when it refers to “environmentally sustainable design practices.”
Trail Experience refers both to whether you will enjoy using the trail, and also if the trail is attractive enough to others so they will use the trail.
The alignment study will decide several questions about the preferred path through South O, which is not necessarily the same as the current trail. One key question is how the trail will connect from Eaton to the Coast Highway bike trail, since the Buena Vista Audubon Society has rejected the city’s request to have the trail connect south of Eaton using their lagoon property. Also, although the bulk of the trail (segment #2) is expected to utilize NCTD right of way, the question remains where exactly the trail will be placed along Myers and/or Broadway.
Finally, since the northern trail is west of the train tracks and the city’s southern terminus is west of the tracks, a key question is how does the trail cross the tracks? The options seem to be
Continue to cross the tracks at the existing Cassidy Street grade crossing;
Cross the tracks south of Cassidy Street, either under or over the tracks; or
Cross the tracks north of Cassidy Street, either under or over the tracks.
Crossing Loma Alta Creek
Today, the current CRT goes from the Oceanside Transit Center south to Oceanside Blvd. There is no connection from Oceanside Blvd. to the existing (narrow) ”rail trail” that begins at Morse St., between Myers and the NCTD tracks.
The city has approved connecting these two segments with a 255′ long bridge over Loma Alta Creek, starting to the existing trail at the south end of Buccaneer Park, and extending north from the bridge to Oceanside Blvd. The trail would be 14’ wide — 10’ paved, with 2’ of shoulder on each side (all paved on the bridge).
In May 2022 the total project cost was estimated at nearly $11 million, with 80% of that coming from a hoped-for grant from Caltrans. The state rejected the city’s first application, but the city is still seeking to eventually obtain state funding.
The city is in the middle of its decennial redistricting effort, to realign city council district boundaries to equalize the size of the various districts. City Clerk Zeb Navarro visited South O on Jan. 25, to highlight the 2022 redistricting effort for the bimonthly meeting of the South Oceanside Community and Merchants Association.
On Wednesday Feb. 2, the hearings and workshops will make their only appearance in South O’s district (District 3), in a 6pm workshop at Lincoln Middle School, 2000 California St., Oceanside.
As in previous years, the boundaries must be set (according to state law) to have similar population, contiguous territory, follow natural boundaries, and respect communities of interest.
City Council District boundaries, 2017-2021
When the first districts were picked in 2017 — in response to a threatened lawsuit by a shakedown lawyer — Save South O was involved in the process. In the midst of South O’s (largely successful) fight against imposing the Coast Highway “Road Diet” on South O, we asked to be placed in a different district than Seaside/Townsite, where residents sought the Road Diet (less cars, less road capacity, more walking/bikes). That desire was granted, in that the northern boundary of District 3 is Oceanside Blvd, and almost all of the area South of Oceanside Blvd. is in District 3.
District 3 is now the biggest district in the city and nearly 5% too big. The city’s 174,578 residents call for four districts of approximately 43,645 residents, so any approved plan must shed (about) 1,968 residents from District 3. (Under US law, districts are determined by residents and not voters).
Because Communities of Interest are an important (and difficult to define) construct, residents are encouraged to use the process to submit their own boundaries for Communities of Interest (COI) that should be used in setting boundaries. The city uses this definition:
A COI is a group of people in a defined geographic location that share a common bond or interest. A Community of Interest is defined as “a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of fair and effective representation.” Please tell us what defines your Community of Interest, where it is located, and why it should stay together.
For example, most South O residents would consider South O and the West side of Fire Mountain to share a Community of Interest — in terms of schools, traffic, freeway access, and shopping.
If possible, residents should attend Wednesday’s hearing. No matter what, residents are encouraged to submit their information (using the city’s process) no later than Feb. 10, so that it is considered in making the initial draft maps.
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.
Save South O 