Somebody Is Politely Upset Over Abbott and Voltaire Condo Project

Polite Graffiti Sprayed on Construction Fence

The OB Rag was informed by the company that is building the condo project at Voltaire and Abbott that their construction fence was tagged with what they called “some pretty polite graffiti”.

Sometime late Monday night perhaps, March 14th, somebody or somebodies sprayed messages expressing discontent over the planned project, being developed by the group, Three on Abbott. The project includes 3 two-story condos. And unfortunately for the neighbors who have been parking on the dirt lot that is now fenced-in for literally decades, that convenience is now gone forever.

One of the statements said: “ask the people’s permission“.  Another expressed: “Let us vote – We have a say“.

Three on Abbott notified us by email of the tagging, sent us photos, and asked us to remind the community that –

this project was approved by the Ocean Beach Planning Board in a monumental vote of 11-3 and that the board is elected and run by residents of Ocean Beach.

The company also stated in their email to us:

They can feel free to get involved. The board meets the first Wednesday of every month in the OB recreation center on Santa Monica at 6PM and district 1 currently has a vacancy.  We’d also prefer to be contacted either on facebook.com/threeonabbott or at threeonabbott@gmail.com.

It is true that the OB Planning Board approved this project, back on September 3rd, 2014. Here is my report on the vote and the project:

________________________________

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.