Saratoga Park Condo Site Sold for a Cool $3.8 Million

by on July 16, 2010 · 36 comments

in Economy, Environment, Ocean Beach

SaratogaPk4sale-sk

Corner of Abbott and Saratoga. Photo by Steven Kendrick.

Well, it’s finally happened. The condo site at the corner of Abbott and Saratoga has been sold. We knew it could happen – we’ve been documenting what’s been happening to this fabled corner for awhile.

And the new owners seem to be serious.  They paid $3.8 million for the property – cash.  The 2009 assessment for this property was on a total value of $3,284,438.

We’re all wondering whether the Coastal Commission approval for the 12 condos still holds.

Here’s the report from San Diego Daily Transcript:

Ocean Beach property sold for redevelopment

The Ocean Beach corner property a block from Ocean Beach Park at 1984-92 Abbott St. and 5113-19 Saratoga Ave. in San Diego 92107, has been sold for $3.8 million, cash.

The buyer was 1984 Abbott LLC, c/o Clark Realty Capital LLC, 3655 Nobel Drive, Suite 500, San Diego. Clark Realty is an Arlington, Va., headquartered real estate company.

The new ownership plans on developing 12 new townhomes with an average projected unit floor plan of 1,200 square feet. Currently, the property has 16 rental units.

The property seller (assessor’s parcel 448-010-18) was Abbott and Saratoga, LLC, whose members are Tony Struyk, Theresa Struyk, Todd Struyk, Pamela Struyk and Oakcrest Manor SD Inc. Tony Struyk is president of Oakcrest.

Tim Winslow, Ray Adams, Jason Kimmel and Kelly Strickland, of Cassidy Turley BRE Commercial represented the buyer and seller.

Here are some details our blogger/ reporter Allison W. Maris found out:

Abbott & Saratoga LLC is 20% Oakcrest Manor S D, 40% Tony Struyk and 40% Todd D. Struyk all as Tenants in Common. Sidney Frank Importing Co. Inc. is a New Rochelle, New York importer of specialty liquors. Best known for his distributorship of Jagermeister and Grey Goose vodka, Sidney Frank died in Rancho Santa Fe on January 10, 2006 of heart failure a year and a half after he sold the Grey Goose distributorship for $2 billion. …

Oakcrest Manor S D is a California Corporation with an address in Mooresville, North Carolina with a guy by the name of Bill Benson out of Yucca Valley as the agent for service of process according to the December 11, 2009 State of California Business Portal.

Tony Struyk is the agent for service of process of Abbott & Saratoga LLC. T.S. has got to have some more information than what appears on state records. Who is this guy? What can be known about him? Why should we care? At this point the herbal remedies wane… Todd D. Struyk?  …

Todd Struyk is the owner of Calpacific Mortgage in University City and a member of the Point Loma Ocean Beach Realty Association as well as Rotary Club 33, San Diego. Todd Struyk is a San Diego real estate agent and loan officer with Calpacific Mortgage. According to the Huffington Post, the Struyk household (including a self employed attorney named Jeff Lake) in Rancho Bernardo gave $5100 to the 2008 Presidential campaign of Mitt Romney.

According to I-Newswire (11/24/2009) a predatory lending suit filed on 11/20/09 in San Diego Superior Court alleged that Todd Struyk, Tony Struyk and CalPacific Mortgage Consultants Inc. engaged in loan sharking. The plaintiff, a disabled, retired sheriff’s deputy named Gregg Carling alleges that the Struyk brothers used a predatory lending scheme to defraud him out of his $3.25 million Point Loma home.

Here is more background on the property, the Coastal Commission approval and whatnot:

Coastal Commission Omission re Condos at Saratoga Park

By Stephen Scatolini / San Diego Reader / Originally published Nov. 16, 2009

City plans for the development of the parcel of land at Abbott Street and Saratoga Avenue have been approved by the California Coastal Commission, but one important consideration seems to have been given short shrift.

Currently there are 15 apartments and four detached buildings slated to be demolished, including a former location of Hodad’s restaurant at the beach. The two alleys that border the west and south sides of the property will be eliminated, and half of the alleys will become the property of the new development. The entire alley area will be turfed for pedestrian use and open space.

The new development includes plans for a 12-unit condominium building over a 27-space subterranean parking garage. Currently there are 14 parking spots for the 15 apartments. The Coastal Commission permit requires that the subterranean parking structure be “water-proof and be designed with a de-watering system.”

The permit further states: “The report therefore concludes that over the last several decades there has been no shoreline retreat in front of the site; it has not been subject to significant flooding, erosion damage or wave run-up attack in the past, including the 1982-83 El Niño winter; and the proposed habitable improvements are above any potential coastal hazard.”

In addition, the report states that “flooding, erosion, and wave run-up will not significantly impact the proposed development over its lifetime (75 years).”

{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar kenloc July 16, 2010 at 4:59 pm

Welcome to O.B. Please don’t feed our real estate developers.

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 16, 2010 at 7:12 pm

Just what this community needs…more upscale development along the beach (and from an Arlington Va. [read M.I. complex] corporation yet). So it goes; “Welcome to Ocean Beach, Don’t feed the locals!”

Reply

avatar Debbie July 16, 2010 at 7:34 pm

1,200 sq. ft per unit….I bet whoever buys these units will turn them into vacation rental units. 1,200 sq. ft. X 12 units = 14,400 sq. ft @ $300 sq. ft = $4,320,000. If each unit sells for an average of $800,000 X 12 units = $9,600,000 revenue – $8,120,000 (purchase price $3.8 Mil + construction $4.32 Mil) = profit $1,480,000. Time will tell.

Reply

avatar kenloc July 18, 2010 at 11:17 am

The beachfront condos at the end of Brighton are about the same size and are over 1 million each

Reply

avatar bodysurferbob July 17, 2010 at 9:57 am

when these condos are built, they will seriously destroy a funky corner of the community forever. can’t stop ‘progress’ i guess. and they will give a whole new look to our ‘beach front’ – 12 three-story condos with underground parking – right where it floods. good luck. but the outline of those 3 story condos will substantially alter that whole area of the neighborhood. we may even lose some of saratoga park.

Reply

avatar obDaDa July 17, 2010 at 10:50 am

$800,000 –i’LL taKe 2,,,
BeacH fronT branD neW = beTchA $1M+
Too baD tO LoSe ouR PasT..
{i maDe LoVe iN oNe oF thoSe oLd aPt.s 50 yRs aGo,,,
aNd wiThouT seeinG theM i MighT forGeT;}
oH, weLL
LiFe goEs oN,,aNd oN,,,aNd oN…

Reply

avatar Sunshine July 17, 2010 at 1:29 pm

and just what will happen to the current residents of this property? Do you really think the new owners will give any consideration to any of these families futures? Perhaps they will offer compensation to relocate them all to comperable rentals? Give the loyal renters an option to buy? Most likely, imo, they’ll simply cast out into the streets, then have the new gentrified residents complain about the ongoing homeless population in town.

When will these out-of-touch-with-the-community real estate developers realize that this is not what OB wants?

And just what does the Planning Board have to say about a new three story conglomeration that will destroy the view for all those in the surrounding area?

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 17, 2010 at 8:41 pm

If the official position of the board toward the Coronado Palms condo project at the last meeting is any indication of what the board will say regarding Saratoga Park, then we are in for a world (oil) of sh!t. Failing in violation of their own bylaws to properly notice even the board members responsible for researching the project, and discovering multiple violations of the OB Precise Plan itself, the board still crafted and passed a motion to approve the project. Their rationale for doing so lay in something called “property rights.” Even after enduring an admonishion from the Vice-Chair of the bored for gaming the system, the developer walked out of the meeting assured that the Community of Ocean Beach as represented by the Ocean Beach Board remains the loyal vassal of the Ownership Class no matter how agregious its proposals. But then again, even from the graveyard George Carlin was right! http://tinyurl.com/ykrnbsn

Reply

avatar Seth July 17, 2010 at 9:40 pm

Danny… apologies for not making sure you got to see the design of Coronado Palms project. These are public meetings, after all. As to the bylaws, I am not sure that we are looking at the same version of them. We updated ours a few years ago and I don’t see anything about issuing notices other than the agendas themselves.

Oh… and for you or anyone else who may be interested, we do have a current vacancy in District 2 than runs through March, with more vacancies possibly on the way. Just throwing that out there.

Reply

avatar Seth July 17, 2010 at 9:12 pm

I can’t speak for the Planning Board, but as someone who serves on it, I can offer some thoughts as a private citizen…

* The OBPB visited a tentative map waiver/vacation of public right-of-ways for these two properties a couple of years ago, and voted to recommend approval 4-3. It was a pretty tough vote, and I have commented on it before. Would be happy to link it or recap my thoughts.

* The OBPB was not asked to review the project’s design. As far as I understand it, design review of beachfront properties (and their underground parking) is under the purview of the Coastal Commission. There are other recently built buildings in the immediate vicinity that never came before the OPPB, although they may be the result of permits that predate my time on the Board.

* The proposed structure was not 3 stories, per se. It was 2 stories with a sundeck, and it was further setback from the property lines than the existing structures (by about 15 feet on the Saratoga side, I think). There are probably some ocean-facing rental units in the Saratoga apartment building across the street whose view would have been adversely impacted, but as someone who lives at the same intersection, I can say that it was likely a net gain for most people’s ocean views.

* I didn’t base my vote on it, but there was a lot that I liked about the proposed design. It was done by a local architect, and while it may not have been a style consistent with that of other parts of OB, it was funky and iconic and not really out of context in that location. I also found that it embraced the surrounding area — quite unlike some of the recently built walled “compounds” and towering monstrosities that are in the immediate vicinity (which again, the OBPB never visited, as far as I know).

* I see no reason why the new owner would be beholden to that proposed design. It might save them some time and money as far as permitting goes, but it is quite possible that they propose an entirely new design that would be nowhere near as good as the one being discussed here, and and this new design would never even be put before the OBPB. Perhaps we should all just keep out an eye for that, and hope the new owners appreciate the importance and potential of developing in that location, and what it means for this community.

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 19, 2010 at 10:05 pm

Seth, I was refering in the above to Art.VI Sec.3 (c)(2) of the bylaws passed as City Council Resolution 304448 on Dec. 2, 2008, This in regards to the failure of Board to notify the representatives of the pertinent district which was an issue the Board members themselves brought up. If there are any apologies due they are not due to me but to the others members of the board and to the community. But there is plenty of information that doesn’t see the light of day regarding Board policies and procedures and with that in mind I will take up your challenge to get on the board.

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 19, 2010 at 10:25 pm

Seth,
Furthermore, several members of the Board took you to task when you denied the Design Element of the OB Precise Plan regarding the Coronado Palms project. This thinking continues in your “private citizen” comments regarding the Saratoga Park thread. I’m begining to see a pattern of exploitation of the commons to enrich the private interest. After all wasn’t it your motion to approve the Coronado Palms? And wasn’t you’re rationale based in the so called “property rights” of the owner?

Reply

avatar Seth July 20, 2010 at 1:52 pm

As to my getting “taken to task”, don’t agree there either. In my personal opinion, we don’t all have to agree on everything all the time, and often don’t. I essentially made the point that there was nothing in the Precise Plan that was going to hold up the proposal, and really no legitimate public purpose to recommend a restriction of the applicant’s property rights. Certainly debatable, but the motion did carry by a vote of 7-2.

I think my voting record would show, clearly, that I am willing to place the good of the community over individual property rights, but IMO that argument does not always apply. You need a legitimate reason, and a standard that is applied equitably.

As to my use of the term “private citizen”, I am just trying to be careful to point out that I am not speaking on behalf of the board or in that capacity in discussions here. I enjoy reading people’s thoughts and want to be accountable to people, but social media is kind of a gray area for the Brown Act and our bylaws and I am just trying to stay within the boundaries. For the same reason, I do not discuss any upcoming agenda items (or likely ones), and why I sometimes get vague or engage in silly lawyerspeak like “as a private citizen”.

Reply

avatar Seth July 20, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Danny, I don’t share your interpretation here. All representatives are notified of projects, as we are emailed the same agendas prior to meetings. There was a question about whether the City and the OBPB had issued public notices to neighboring residents on a particular project. The City may not have, and the Board had apparently been advised against this practice at one point. But as you heard, it may engage in this to some extent to make sure people are aware of upcoming projects.

As to the bylaws… here is the section you cited:

“(2) PROJECT REVIEW COMMITTEE – The chairperson of the Project
Review committee shall be the Vice-Chairperson of the Board unless the
Board otherwise appoints another member of the Board to chair the
committee. The purpose of this committee is to advise, counsel and
educate the Board about the ordinances and regulations pertaining to the
land development process and to make specific recommendations to the
Board pertaining to proposed projects and applications for permits within
the planning area. It is the duty of all Board members to accept a pro rata
share of assignments to study and research proposed development
projects within their respective districts. It is the primary responsibility of
this committee to provide a recommendation to the full board for
consideration that is based on this research and presented in report form to
the Board to facilitate discussion over development projects during full
Board meetings.”

I don’t see it, or at least do not interpret it in the same way.

As to you or anyone else going for an appointment to that vacant seat (in District 2), I’m not challenging you, just giving you the information. I know you are a committed community member, and think you would do a fine job.

Reply

avatar just my 2 cents July 17, 2010 at 4:09 pm

It is progress in the big city …..at least it will generate tax funds for the area…maybe another new fancy bathroom on the beach…

Reply

avatar kenloc July 17, 2010 at 8:51 pm

If the locals want to keep O.B. the way it is they should start a movement to have locals buy properties here.Millions of people will be coming to San Diego in the next 20 years.They aren’t building any more beach. Buy now while you can.

Reply

avatar Dave Rice July 18, 2010 at 12:50 am

Beach property is uber-affordable, especially these days. If I can come up on $800K-$1M, the bottom end on what likely pricing on these units is going to be (my guess – $1.25M), I’ll have my name on a purchase contract like stink on a pair of week-old underwear, and I’ll live there the rest of my life. But right now I’m sitting here wishing I even had enough scratch for a $285K 700sf 2br/1ba apartment-to-condo conversion that sold a couple weeks ago. Trust me, the urge to own amongst some of us locals is strong. The funds, however, are weak.

My fiancee’s mom’s complex up for sale – can I get a head count on who wants to start a NYC-style co-op to buy it with me?

Reply

avatar kenloc July 18, 2010 at 11:11 am

Buy a duplex with someone you trust.Look at F.H.A. loans.3 % down.

Reply

avatar Dave Rice July 20, 2010 at 8:12 am

FHA’s requiring 3.5% now in most cases, 5% in some…more attainable than the 20% on a conventional single-family or 30% on a multi-unit property, but not chump change on something in the area.

And the bank that had the note on my old place wouldn’t work with me on a DIL or mod when my company got taken over and I got a layoff notice a couple years back, instead foreclosing. I’m one year into a three-year stay on the lending blacklist for the moment, and now that I’m self-employed again it’ll take me these next couple years to build up an income history to qualify full-doc anyway.

I’d be more than happy, however, to get you or anyone else an FHA loan – it’ll help me with that whole ‘income’ thing too…click my banner ad to the right to check out the worst website created since Geocities (/shameless self promotion).

Reply

avatar Debbie July 18, 2010 at 10:07 am

Dave Rice, I think you have a great idea. If individual ownership is not possible, then interested parties need to pool together resources and co-op. This is a great site to start that conversation.. and make it happen.

Reply

avatar Debbie July 18, 2010 at 10:15 am

One more comment….I hope the Saratoga Park Project will be funky, green and filled with good energy. New owners, if you read this blog please consider consulting with some of our local architects, Jim Bell and if possible present a preliminary design to by our planning board (before you finalize your plans) to get community feedback. It’s your money, your project but it sure would be nice to ask “OB” for their thoughts and it might just make it a better project.

Reply

avatar Pat July 19, 2010 at 8:24 am

Frank,
Thanks for the update.
I think this information is important to us that care about OB’s future.
Two sticking points for me where underground parking in a flood zone, and the city giving up property adjacent to park land allowing the developers to intensify the project.
Sunshine has a good point, people paying the big bucks for these units might complain about people hanging out in the park, fire rings, marshmallow fights, and there garages flooding.
Granted this property could use some upgrading.
But is this the type of development we want on our beach front ?

Reply

avatar kenloc July 19, 2010 at 11:15 am

There has already been that kind of development at the beach front.Lots of big expensive homes being built in OB the last couple of years.Even the apartments across from dog beach were turned to condo conversions and sold for 500k to 600k.This is where OB is headed.Having T.V. shows shoot here is going to accelerate the process.People are sitting on land that is becoming too valuable not to develop or sell to a developer.You see alot of apartment complex owners fixing up there buildings lately.New paint,new windows,landscaping,new roof.Higher rents?I think that’s what the ultimate goal is for most landowners here.To turn a profit.When the profit is turned the cost of living goes up. Who will the next generation of Obecians be?

Reply

avatar Dave Rice July 20, 2010 at 9:01 am

If you’re talking about the units at Spray and Long Branch, the developer took a huge bath on that, most of the units sat on market well over a year and were heavily discounted…but overall, you’re right – properties are getting cleaned up, and cottages are getting torn down and replaced with vertically-stacked three and four story McMansions.

Reply

avatar Seth July 19, 2010 at 12:36 pm

Pat, good thoughts. As to the flooding, I still get a kick out of the photos that each of us took that got posted here a few months ago:
http://obrag.org/?p=16896

Your other point about the City giving up property raises an issue that was never explained very well, in my opinion. The 20-foot wide public right-of-way that is on two sides of the property (it is now blocked off, but the ocean-facing side is where the residents have their tiki bar and horseshoe court) was originally used as a fire lane. The property line actually runs right down the middle of that right-of-way, and if vacated, half reverts to City property (park space) and half reverts to the owner’s use (which definitely gave him more buildable area to squeeze in a few more units). But to the best of my understanding, the City did not own all of that land, they simply had a right to use it that was based upon an obsolete public purpose. For whatever reason, it didn’t get presented or discussed that way, but for my money, there was no transfer of property involved.

There were a bunch of other good points raised for and against, and it was a very tough vote. For myself, I just didn’t think that a property owner should have to buy their own land back from the government when the government doesn’t even have a legitimate public purpose for using it.

Reply

avatar john July 19, 2010 at 9:00 am

“The permit further states: “The report therefore concludes that over the last several decades there has been no shoreline retreat in front of the site; it has not been subject to significant flooding, erosion damage or wave run-up attack in the past, including the 1982-83 El Niño winter; and the proposed habitable improvements are above any potential coastal hazard.”

In addition, the report states that “flooding, erosion, and wave run-up will not significantly impact the proposed development over its lifetime (75 years).””

HA! someone’s been into their medical marijuana prescription! what are they smoking?
The reason there’s been little erosion is that the city periodically piles up the sand, especially when they put the winter berm up.
We also haven’t had a real storm here in over a decade. Right here in the Rag someone was relating the events of the old lifeguard station’s area ansd the end of Newport when big waves demolished most of it.
Seems like someone is forgetting when mother nature wants to do something you ain’t gonna stop her.

Reply

avatar Dave Rice July 20, 2010 at 9:07 am

Even without any incredibly huge storms, I saw the intersection of Santa Monica and Abbott near the property under over a foot of water a couple times this past winter…

Reply

avatar Dave Rice July 20, 2010 at 9:08 am

Excuse me…Abbott & Saratoga.

Reply

avatar Pat July 19, 2010 at 9:17 am

Do you suppose they took into account that the sea-level is rising due to global warming?

Reply

avatar Pat July 19, 2010 at 1:28 pm

Seth,
Thanks for some clarification.
Also for your involvement in the community.
I know sometimes tough decisions have to be made when it comes to community planning.
Like you said in an earlier post it could be worse.( towering monstrosities ).

Reply

avatar Seth July 19, 2010 at 3:53 pm

Thanks, Pat… and likewise. I really could go on for days on that project (speaking only for myself, without any statement on what should or should not happen in the future, of course). Really just brought up a bunch of issues and possibilities. I’m a big believer in everyone being held to the same standards, but let’s face it, that location has to be considered one of the most “important” within OB. Whatever does or does not happen there will help to define this community’s identity moving forward.

One could look at projects like that and have legitimate concern over the gentrification and condofication of OB, just as one could see an opportunity to manage inevitable change in a way that helps to preserve the community’s funky spirit. Not sure there is a right or wrong answer there, to be honest.

In any event, here’s some renderings of the proposed design, from the architect’s website:
http://www.stevenlombardi.com/project-future-abbott.jpg
http://www.stevenlombardi.com/project-future-abbott2.jpg

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 19, 2010 at 10:32 pm

I see more acreage for the community park. Why can’t we envision something that will be a value added development for the community as a whole? Why not focus on something bigger than ouselves? Just dreamin….

Reply

avatar john July 21, 2010 at 2:29 am

FWIW when they demolished the duplex at 5166 W. Pt. Loma next to mine, and the lot stood empty for a few days, I kind of squinted in the dark and imagined it being left that way, covered in grass, a little park just for the pleasure of myself and the 3 neighbors who would be adjacent to it… what a wonderful thing I thought as I turned, opened my back gate and walked on the grass in the park behind my backyard. Oh okay it wasn’t having a park that was important, it was not having a neighbor with a 3 story monolith going up. (who I can say I’ve never had a problem with the guy, and he’s always been personable- it’s just that he’s CHANGING everything!)

Reply

avatar Danny Morales July 19, 2010 at 10:36 pm

A proposal for the Colburn Cottages at the head of the pier will be coming up for review on 7/21 6:30 Project Review Committee of the OB Planning Board in the Rec. Center…CRY FOR O.B.!

Reply

avatar Pat July 20, 2010 at 7:45 am

Danny,
Are you serious?
I’ve been out of the loop for a while.
Can you tell me more about the proposal for the Seaside Cottages?

Reply

avatar Pat July 20, 2010 at 8:37 am

I was just on the Planning Boards website. I was somewhat relieved by what I saw regarding the cottages by the pier.
You can bet I’m going to try to be at the meeting.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Before clicking Submit, please complete this simple statement to help us weed out the bots... Thank you! *

Older Article:

Newer Article: