The Coast News Group
Renderings of the Loma Alta Terraces density bonus project in Oceanside. Courtesy photo/Darnell Capital Management
Renderings of the Loma Alta Terraces density bonus project in Oceanside. Courtesy photo/Darnell Capital Management
CitiesNewsOceansideOceanside Featured

Oceanside OKs Loma Alta housing project after developer’s changes

OCEANSIDE — The City Council reversed its earlier decision to reject a controversial single-family home project in the historic Loma Alta neighborhood, voting 4-1 to approve the development on Aug. 7 after the developer made several modifications.

The project, Loma Alta Terraces, will subdivide a 2-acre parcel between Loma Alta Drive and Crouch Street, approximately 150 feet south of Walsh Street, into 13 lots for single-family homes, with one designated for a very low-income household.

Eleven of the homes will be 3,203-square-foot, three-story structures with four bedrooms, five bathrooms, and a three-car garage. The remaining two homes, including the very low-income residence, will be two-story, 1,600-square-foot structures with five bedrooms, two bathrooms, and a two-car garage.

City planner Dane Thompson confirmed that all 13 homes, including the 12 market-rate units and the one reserved for a very low-income household, will be for sale.

Mayor Esther Sanchez, who has twice voted against the project, previously said she was disgusted by the number of waivers.

Many area residents opposed the project, arguing that the large, mostly three-story homes were too tall and closely spaced, raising concerns about fire safety. They also felt the compact neighborhood, with only one entry point, would hinder evacuation during an emergency. Additionally, neighbors expressed worries about privacy, given how close the homes would be to one another.

In January, the City Council initially voted to reject the project by upholding neighbor Link Ludutko’s appeal. However, developer Scott Darnell and his team returned to city planning staff with revisions aimed at addressing the public safety and privacy concerns raised by both neighbors and the council.

However, developer Scott Darnell and his team returned to city planning staff with revisions aimed at addressing the public safety and privacy concerns raised by both neighbors and the council.

The modifications included removing rear-facing balconies on lots 4, 5, 6, and 11; reducing the height of retaining walls on lots 2 through 6, 10, and 12 to no more than 6 feet, which also helped lower the overall building height to no more than 30.5 feet; and lengthening four driveways that were previously shorter than 20 feet. Additionally, the cul-de-sac at the end of the development now has a grade of no more than 5%.

Thompson noted that additional earthwork would be done to lower the lot pads, further reducing the height of the buildings, retaining walls, and cul-de-sac grade. Darnell also added more variety to the exterior design materials of the homes.

These changes eliminated three previously requested waivers for building height, driveway length, and retaining wall height on side and rear yards, as permitted by state density bonus law.

Under state law, density bonus projects are particularly challenging for local governments, like the Oceanside City Council, to deny. The council must find and prove that the project would have a specific, adverse impact on public safety.

In January, Councilmember Peter Weiss suggested that the project’s private road, with a 16% grade, could pose a specific, adverse impact as it exceeded the 12% grade maximum. However, at the most recent meeting, Thompson explained that the 16% grade falls within the city’s engineering design manual, which allows for private streets to exceed the 12% grade with prior written approval from the city engineer, which the project had. The grade would not exceed 18% under any circumstances.

“The proposed 16% street grade would not constitute a specific adverse impact as defined by the Housing Accountability Act,” Thompson said.

Thompson added that the developer would be required to fix the road if the grade exceeds 16%, per the project’s approval conditions. He also stated that the developer made “significant improvements” and recommended the project’s approval once again.

“The applicant has made a good faith effort to address the issues raised, including less visual intrusion, more visual variety, and greater privacy for neighbors,” Thompson said.

Despite the changes, several neighbors remained unsatisfied, arguing that the revisions still didn’t address their concerns about the increased fire hazard in the community.

“What we have here are 13 wooden towers crammed into a sloped, 2-acre lot with some higher than 30 feet, most of which are only 8 feet apart, surrounded on all four sides by a planned 5 to 6-foot wall with overhead power lines bordering the eastern side and only one steep grade road—in a dry climate with nearby dry vegetation and seasonal hot and strong winds in a neighborhood with a history of fires and water supply issues,” Ludutko said.

Neighbors also raised concerns about the road’s single access point, calling it another potential hazard in the event of a fire evacuation.

“What could be more specific, more adverse, and more impactful than a catastrophic fire?” Ludutko asked.

Ludutko also claimed the developer and state agencies had threatened the city with litigation over the project.

Councilmember Rick Robinson confirmed that the California Housing Defense Fund had sent a letter advising the council to approve the project due to its density bonus protections under state law. But Robinson noted the majority of cities that have challenged the state’s housing laws have lost.

Councilmember Eric Joyce expressed reluctance to use city resources to fight a likely losing lawsuit.

Although Weiss still disliked the project, he acknowledged that the city had no legal grounds to deny it a second time.

“I agree that it’s out of character with the neighborhood, but having been through this, that’s not a reason at this time for us to say no,” Weiss said.

Leave a Comment