OB Planning Board Approves 3 Two-Story Residences on Abbott and Voltaire

The full OB Planning Board. From L to R, sitting, Seth Connolly, Jane Gawronski, Scott Therkalsen, Mike Nieto, Drew Wilson, Rae Hartigan, Tom Gawronski, Chair Pete Ruscitti, John Ambert, Dan Dennison, Andrew Waltz, Valeria Pas, Kevin Becker, and Robert Shamoun (in red).

Originally published on September 4, 2014

At last night’s meeting, the Ocean Beach Planning Board approved by a wide margin a new development at the intersection of Voltaire Street and Abbott Street.  The development includes three 2-story houses with a modern “contemporary design”.

The Board also made two appointments – and now the OB Planning Board is at full strength with 14 Board members – the first time in many years.

The September 3rd monthly meeting of the Board was gaveled to order by Chair Pete Ruscitti. The first thing up was an agenda change and Ruscitti did a mea culpa and had to remove Action Item # One – the “condo-ization” of the Quigley Complex at 5151 Long Branch Avenue, due to a noticing problem.  It will be  heard next month.

During the public comment time, Nicole Burgess got up before the Board and informed the room that there are “rumors” that the City is considering installing a Stop Sign at the corner of Newport and Abbott. Nicole said that a round-about would be better.  She added that the City is looking into placing a round-about at the “terrible” intersection of West Pt Loma Avenue and Bacon Street. Burgess is the rep for District 2 on the City Bicycle Coalition.

Kathy Stadler of Nextdoor was next and she wanted to get the word out that her group is in OB, and has seven “neighborhoods” that reflect the OB Planning Area districts.

This author was next and suggested to the Board that the week after the heaviest day at the beach – Monday, Labor Day, was not the best time to cut the lifeguards, which the City did this week.  “The crowds will still be there, the dangerous rip currents will still be there, but the lifeguards won’t. It’s a community health issue,” I implored the Board reminding them that they have some jurisdiction over public facilities and services.

District 2 rep Chet Barfield then made  his usual announcements. He was working with the Friends of the OB Library and said he wants to assist them in fund-raising and putting pressure on the City to get the OB Library improvements back on schedule.  OB was promised a new library a decade ago – using the historic core of the present site – but building a two-story facility.  The City already purchased the building next door in anticipation a few years ago – but all before the recession hit – and everything about the new library for OB was place in a file drawer so deep that the City forgot about it.

Chet didn’t have any new info about when the OB Community Plan goes before the California Coastal Commission – sometime in October.

OB Entryway Project Delayed … Again

Sadly, Barfield had to announce that the OB Entryway Project will now take longer to complete – and now won’t be finished until November.  The good news is, he said, that there will be additional things built during this phase, and there won’t be a need for a Phase 3. Barfield said that now landscaping, permanent  paths, fencing and lighting will be installed. Unfortunately, he added, there is still no sidewalk connection to Robb Field – which has been a sore point of contention. Presently, there is no way to access Robb Field from the Entryway site – despite their proximity.

Lastly, Chet said that $8,000 “has been found” to expand the seemingly successful Security Patrol, a 3 month experiment that just ended.  “The seawall seems better,” he said.

Appointments to Board

As there were 2 vacancies on the Board, the Board made two appointments of individuals who had applied and collected their required number of signatures from residents of the districts they wanted to be appointed from.  And fortunately, both men appointed Wednesday night are renters – part of the “85%” of OBceans. The Board has been light on having renters on it – as most members are homeowners or businesspeople.

The Board appointed Dan Dennison to District 1, who has been a land and community developer. Upon questioning, Dennison stated that “the character of a community is a paramount factor” in balancing the community’s character with property rights.

Also appointed was Mike Nieto to District 5. He told the Board that he knows CEQA and is a “wetlands specialist” and “native landscaper”. He got to know the District, he said, while canvassing for signatures. He said that the people in his district are “intelligent, feisty, and proud to live in OB.” He brought a laugh when he added that he “fought for every signature”.

With the appointments of Dennison and Nieto, the Planning Board now stands at full strength – 14 members – 2 from each of OB’s seven planning districts. The Board  has not been this full for many years, as it has operated during a lull in building during the recession with anywhere from 10 to 12 members.

The models: white-colored structures are the proposed 3 units.

Voltaire and Abbott Project

After the applicants’ presentation, the Board had a lively discussion of the three planned residences at the southeast corner of Abbott and Voltaire Streets.  The Project Review Committee had been split on approving, recommending approval by a 4 to 3 vote.

Several issues were in play. The main one was parking.  As is, the application has 5 parking spaces, and includes a “lift” for the vehicles – called vertical tandem parking. Another issue was allowing the applicant to have a curb cut which would give more space for two more parking spaces – but remove up to 2 public parking spaces on Voltaire. A large third issue is whether the units – all of whom have a downstairs “office” space with a full bathroom – are classified as “one-bedroom” or “two-bedroom” residences.  Another issue was whether the proposed design fit into the community’s character.

Artist’s rendition of proposed project.

The Board had a great discussion on all these issues. In discussing the different options, it came to be known that part of the problem was that the City’s Traffic department described the units as 2-bedrooms due to the downstairs “office”. But the City’s Planning department said, no, these are one-bedroom units. It matters because required on-site parking is tied to the number of bedrooms. If one-bedroom, then there would only have to be 5 on-site parking spaces, but if 2-bedroom, it rises to 7 spaces.

The applicant also wanted to have a curb-cut on Voltaire to allow better access to the lot (there’s a rough illegal one there now). But a curb-cut would remove one and possibly two parking spaces on the street – public parking spaces. City code allows curb-cuts if a property has a minimum of 150 feet of frontage but the Community Plan requires parking access via the alley.  Yet, some of the Board members noted, the public would lose 2 spaces, but if the curb cut wasn’t allowed, there would be additional  demands on spaces by residents of the proposed project.  But the public would “benefit” because with the curb-cut, the developer would add two more parking spaces – for vehicles that would normally have to be parked on the street.

The issue of the number of bedrooms is important. Board members mused that even if the residences are called “one-bedroom” the downstairs office with full bath could easily be turned into a bedroom – and that knowing OBceans, it probably would. Two bedroom residences require more parking.   On the other side of this issue, is that the “office” is the room where the front door is located, so upon entering the building, you’re in the office and it would be inconvenient to have that room as a bedroom.

Upon questioning, the applicant admitted upfront that he plans to “condoize” the units at some point.  Board members also responded that the units would probably end up as rentals – despite one of the applicants saying he planned to live in one of the units.  The expected rent would be $3,000 for each unit.

In terms of design, a couple of the Board members thought it was “not harmonious” with the surrounding character of the neighborhood, whereas others felt the design was a nice transition between the bulking apartments of lower Voltaire and the single-story cottages to the east.

A motion was made by Jane Gawronski to approve the application as current made – with 5 parking spaces – and with a “strong recommendation” from the Board asking for the curb-cut / driveway.

The vote came down: 11 for the project, 3 opposed, and no abstentions (even though there were 2 newbies on the Board).  The “no” votes were by Scott Therkalsen, Tom Gawronski and Rae Hartigan.

This author felt that the Board’s discussion on this project was one of the best that I’ve experienced at a Planning Board meeting. Everyone was engaged, civil, and all the different options were explored.  Ruscitti sat back, and allowed for the discussion without the formal – and at times – restraining confines of rigid rules of order, and he would then attempt to summarize what the other Board members were saying.  The free flow of the give-and-take was able to be fluid enough to raise every angle.