Politichaos

Resolving the Ruckus

901 Mission Ave

Previously known as Belvedere Mixed Use Project

Article from Coast News 6/19/24

Project specifics

  1. APN: 147-196-10-00

  2. 901 Mission Ave, Oceanside CA 92054

  3. Development Plan (RD24-00002)

  4. Density Bonus (DB24-00004)

  5. Developer: JPI Real Estate Acquisition II LLC

  6. Owner: Rahim Amidhozour (owner of 550 Seagaze building) on doc 5/22/24

    1. according to PBID, the property is owned by A & J L L C

Project Outine

  1. site: 1.513 acres (65,912 sf)

  2. building footprint: 56,337 sf (2018) -> 51,100 (2025)

    1. Lot coverage 83.9% (waiver 7) vs standard of 60%

  3. floors: 9 - 7 on Horne, 4 on Clementine (2018) -> 8 (2025)

  4. residential units: 90 live–work units 92,411 sf (2018) -> 273 units (28 lo income) 486,707 (2025)

  5. commercial: 8,357 sf (2018) -> 4.006 sf (2025)

  6. hotel: 124 units 60,111 sf (2018) -> none (2025)

  7. open space: 57,356 sf) (2018) -> (2025)

  8. common space 49,969 sf (2018) -> (2025)

  9. parking: 432 parking spaces. (2018) -> (2025)

  10. waivers requested (per Mixed Use Development Plan standards - Articles 12 and 31)

    1. allow setback encroachments (Article 12)

      1. on Horne and Clementine, 8’ vs standard of 10’

    2. Reduce useable open space requirements (Article 12)

      1. minimum site landscaping 11% vs 15% standard unless fee provided for artwork

    3. Amend required facade modulation requirement (Article 12)

    4. Increase allowable building height (upon approval of a CUP) (Article 12)

      1. building: 80’ for Horne, 95’ for Clementine vs 90’ max standard

      2. elements: 19’ vs 10’ max standard

    5. Adjust parking space extension requirement at the end of a parking bay beyond width of parking stall (Article 31)

    6. Reduce total number of parking (Article 31)

    7. Increase allowable lot coverage max (Article 12)

      1. Lot coverage 83.9% (waiver 7) vs standard of 60%

Timeline

  1. 8/4/2014 - (Project #RSC14-00001) R SUBST CONFORMITY paperwork filed

  2. 2/7/2018 - Belvedere Project given 2 year extension. Profile of project at that time:

    “The project is a proposed mid-rise, mixed-use development located on a 65,949-square-foot site (1.54 acres). It includes live-work/commercial/hotel and open/common space located at 901 Mission Avenue in Oceanside, California. The building footprint is 56,337 square feet (sf) and occupies roughly 85 percent of the site area. There are 90 live–work units on Levels 5 through 9 (92,411 sf), the commercial area consists of four units on Levels 1 and 2 (8,357 sf), the hotel area consists of 124 units on Levels 3 and 4 (60,111 sf), and the open space (57,356 sf) and common space (49,969 sf) consist of balconies, public space, a pool, a gym, a courtyard, a meeting room, and a lobby. There is also a total of 432 parking spaces.”

  3. 8/15/2022 - (Project #ADM22-00061) SB 330 Letter to allow 298 residential units and 124 hotel suites.

  4. 11/30/23 - filed paperwork in line with SB330 to allow project to adhere to density restriction in place on that date. In the city of Oceanside on this day there was no density restriction. Project as proposed on 8/20/25 at Downtown Advisory Committee meeting had density of 180.4 du/acre.

  5. 12/1/23 - City of Oceanside established density guideline of 86 du/acre. Project as proposed on 8/20/25 at Downtown Advisory Committee meeting had density of 180.4 du/acre.

  6. 5/22/24 - (Project #DB24-00004) Density Bonus Application filed

  7. 5/22/24 - (Project #RD24-00002) Development Plan filed

  8. 8/20/25 - Approved by Downtown Advisory Committee

  9. 10/15/25 - On Agenda for City Council / Community Development Committee

Documentation

  1. 8/15/2022 - (Project #ADM22-00061) SB 330 Letter to allow 298 residential units and 124 hotel suites.

  2. 5/22/24 - Discretionary Permit Application

  3. 7/27/24 - Application Review Committee - incomplete

    1. (Planning Division)

      1. VMT Project Information Form (PIF) has been evaluated per the City’s Traffic Impact Analysis Guidelines for VMT and LSA. The project is screened out from VMT analysis based on Table 2 Project Type: “Projects located in a Transit Priority Areas (TPA) or Smart Growth Opportunity Area as identified in the most recent SANDAG San Diego Forward Regional Plan and is consistent with the General Plan at the time of project application.”Sub District 2 Maximum Density = Unlimited

      2. To substantiate the justification for a Class 32 Exemption, staff recommends submittal of the following: Provide a narrative describing why the project qualifies for a Class 32 Exemption and how the project meets the above Class 32 conditions.

      3. Residential projects with more than five units must prepare a community outreach plan describing who might be affected by the project and strategy to implement community engagement efforts. Please submit a community outreach plan. A final report shall be submitted upon completion of outreach efforts and prior to deeming the application complete.

    2. Building Division

      1. The Plans do not show all EV Chargers requirements. 

      2. The Plans do not show a PV Solar Electrical System

        1. The Plans do not show all fire Resistive Construction for the Type of Construction 

        2. The Plans do not show all Exiting requirements. 

        3. The Plans do not appear to show all Disabled Access requirements

        4. The Plans do not show an Area Analysis 

        5. The Plans do not show the type of Occupancy, Type of Construction and what type of sprinklers will be used. 

        6. The Plans do not show the type of wall construction for the Type of Construction of the Building 

        7. Structural calculations, Energy calculations will be required. 

        8. Plans do not show areas of refuge.

        9. Plumbing, Electrical, and Mechanical plans will be required.

        10. The plans do not show compliance with the City of Oceanside midrise ordinance

  4. 11/26/24 - REDLINE_D&J - 3rd Submittal

  5. date - 8 story multi use Building. Conditions

  6. 6/18/25 - AQ-GHG Study

  7. date - Archaeo Report

  8. date - Biological_DRAFT2

  9. 6/9/25 - Climate Action Plan Consistency Checklist

  10. 6/18/25 - Exemption Memo

  11. date - Geotechnical

  12. 6/18/25 - Noise Report

  13. date - Paleo Resource Assessment DRAFT2

  14. date - Preliminary Drainage Study - 3rd Submittal

  15. date - Preliminary SWQMP - 3rd Submittal

  16. 6/11/25 - Traffic LTS

  17. date - Traffic VMT.pdf

2024 General Election

State of California Propositions

Featured
Prop 2
Prop 2

School Bonds

Read More →
Prop 3
Prop 3

Right to Marriage

Read More →
Prop 4
Prop 4

Bonds for Water, Wildfire Prevention, and Protection from Climate Risks

Read More →
Prop 5
Prop 5

Allow Bonds for Affordable Housing and Public Infrastructure

Read More →
Prop 6
Prop 6

Eliminates Involuntary Servitude for Incarcerated Persons

Read More →
Prop 32
Prop 32

Raises Minimum Wage to $18

Read More →
Prop 33
Prop 33

Local Government Authority to Enact Rent Control

Read More →
Prop 34
Prop 34

Restricts Spending of Prescription Drug Revenues

Read More →
Prop 35
Prop 35

Permanent Funding for Medi-Cal

Read More →
Prop 36
Prop 36

Allows Felony Charges and Increased Sentences

Read More →

San Diego County

Featured
Measure G
Measure G

Half-Cent Sales Tax for Transportation

Read More →

City of Oceanside

Featured
Measure X
Measure X

Extend Half Cent Sales Tax

Read More →

Elected Officials

Federal

State

City of Oceanside

Development Stuff

Here in Oceanside CA there are lots of development projects in the pipeline. I’m trying to understand what constraints are put upon developers, and how there might be opportunities to connect to influence development projects to fit with the neighborhood in terms of scale and scope and support the residents as well as any visitors.

 

State of California

Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD)

Surplus Land Act (SLA)

SB-330 Housing Crisis Act of 2019

  • Intent:

    • Suspend certain restrictions on the development of new housing during the period of the statewide emergency (in effect until January 1, 2025).

    • Work with local governments to expedite the permitting of housing in regions suffering the worst housing shortages and highest rates of displacement.

  • “Housing for very low, low-, or moderate-income households” means that either

    • at least 20 percent of the total units shall be sold or rented to lower income households, as defined in Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code. Housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of 60 percent of area median income

      or

    • 100 percent of the units shall be sold or rented to persons and families of moderate income as defined in Section 50093 of the Health and Safety Code, or Section 65008 of this code. Housing cost does not exceed 30 percent of 100 percent of area median income

San Diego County

City of Oceanside

2022 General Election

State of California Propositions

San Diego County Proposition

Elected Officials

Federal

State

San Diego County

City of Oceanside

Judicial

Schools

Proposition 1

Constitutional Right to Reproductive Freedom

legislative constitutional amendment

Official Summary

Existing California laws provide that every individual has a fundamental right to privacy in their personal reproductive decisions, which includes the fundamental right to choose to have an abortion and the fundamental right to choose or refuse contraceptives.

This measure would amend the California Constitution to expressly include these fundamental rights and prohibit the State from denying or interfering with an individual's reproductive freedom in their most intimate decisions.

This amendment is intended to further the existing California constitutional rights to privacy and equal protection, and does not narrow or limit these rights.

Fiscal Impact: No direct fiscal effect because reproductive rights already are protected by state law.

Notes

Proposition 26

Allows In-Person Roulette, Dice Games, Sports Wagering on Tribal Lands

initiative constitutional amendment and statute

Official Summary

Allows federally recognized Indian tribes to operate roulette, dice games, and sports wagering on-site on tribal lands, if authorized by gaming compacts approved by the State.

Allows sports wagering at certain licensed horseracing tracks in four counties for persons 21 years and older, and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering profits at these tracks; directs revenues to state General Fund (70%), problem-gambling programs (15%), and enforcement (15%).

Prohibits marketing of sports wagering to persons under 21.

Allows private lawsuits to enforce certain gambling laws.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly reaching the tens of millions of dollars annually, from racetrack and tribal casino sports betting payments and gambling penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.

Increased state costs to regulate in-person sports betting, possibly reaching the low tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increase in state revenues.

Increased state costs to enforce gambling laws, not likely to exceed the low millions of dollars annually. Some of these costs could be offset by the increase in state revenues.

Notes

In

Proposition 27

Allows Online and Mobile Sports Wagering Outside Tribal Lands

initiative constitutional amendment and statute

Official Summary

Legalizes online and mobile sports wagering for persons 21 years and older.

Such wagering may be offered only by federally recognized Indian tribes and eligible businesses that contract with them.

Individuals placing bets must be in California and not located on tribal lands.

Requires licensing fees and imposes 10% tax on sports-wagering revenues.

Directs tax and licensing revenues first to regulatory costs, then remainder to homelessness programs (85%) and nonparticipating tribes (15%).

Specifies licensing, regulatory, consumer-protection, and betting-integrity standards for sports wagering.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state revenues, possibly in the hundreds of millions of dollars but likely not more than $500 million annually, from sports betting payments and penalties. Some of these revenues would be a shift from existing state revenues.

Increased state costs to regulate online sports betting, possibly reaching the mid-tens of millions of dollars annually. Some or all of these costs would be offset by the increased revenues.

Notes

Proposition 28

Provides Additional Funding for Arts and Music Education in Public Schools

initiative statute

Official Summary

Provides additional funding for arts and music education in all K–12 public schools (including charter schools) by annually allocating from state General Fund an amount equal to 1% of required state and local funding for public schools.

Allocates greater proportion of the additional funds to schools serving more economically disadvantaged students.

Schools with 500 or more students must spend at least 80% of the funding to employ teachers and remainder on training, supplies, and education partnerships.

Requires audits and limits administrative costs to 1% of the funding.

Fiscal Impact: Increased state costs of about $1 billion annually, beginning next year, for arts education in public schools.

Notes