Open Letter to OB Planning Board from Local Residents Who Claim Ebers and Greene Project Violates Codes

by on September 6, 2016 · 12 comments

in Civil Rights, Culture, Environment, History, Ocean Beach, Organizing

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

Editor: The following letter by local residents to the OB Planning Board regarding the project at Ebers and Greene was sent to John Ambert, chair of the OBPB. Ambert responded and said that the September agenda was already full, and he invited the residents to speak during the public comment period of the Board’s agenda. We publish the letter in its entirety. 

Attn: Blake Herrschaft, Vice Chair of O. B. Planning Board and Representative of District 3.

This letter is to gather a request to be added to the agenda for the Sept. 7th, 2016 O.B.P.B. meeting.

The matter to be brought before the board is as follows:

The structure @ 2269 Ebers St. now under construction is in violation of the following codes:

(1) .7 F. A. R. (floor area ratio limit.) This building takes up more then 70% of the lot it sits upon. (3 stories)

(2) Insufficient parking. The original duplex has been offered for sale as a 3-4 bedroom house without off street parking. The new structure has been approved with an additional bedroom, storage and a three (3) car garage area. The driveway for this garage would eliminate two (2) of the already too few parking spots available on Ebers St at this time. It also does not provide an off street parking spot for each bedroom as is needed to pass inspection.

(3) Over 30 foot limit. (no explanation needed.)

(4) Violation of bulk and scale of surrounding community. 2269 Ebers St. can be seen as far away as the location on Santa Monica St. where the Ocean Beach Planning Board meetings are held. It rises far above any other building in it’s surrounding neighborhood. It’s size and appearance can only compare to the commercial buildings on Voltaire and Abbott Streets.

(5)  Misrepresented plan submitted to the city.  This Structure was submitted as an add on.  The owner has advertised the property as a two on one, before and after construction began on the 2nd structure.  The plans submitted also do not mention anything about tearing the original garage or the destruction of the brick wall that surrounded this lot for decades.  It is my understanding that tearing down of an existing structure more than 50% or an existing wall needs approval from the Coastal Commission.  (Exemption for 50% remodel.)

Your attention in this matter would be very appreciated.

A request of confirmation of informational items to be placed on the agenda regarding the  Wednesday Sept. 7th 2016 open public OBPB meeting please.

Thank you,

(Signed) Allison J. Graf Rush
Mick Rush
Gregory Cox

{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }

Avatar Blake September 7, 2016 at 8:19 pm

Hi Allison, Mick and Gregory,

Thanks for bringing it up and your dedication to OBs best district! I’m currently on the East Coast for a wedding in the family and am unable to attend tonight’s board meeting.

Points 1-3 intrigue me greatly. Is it possible to provide evidence and/or do the measurements to show these objective violations more clearly? Can anyone share the aforementioned for sale listing?

Thanks,
Blake

Reply

Avatar OB Dude September 9, 2016 at 12:06 pm

There were signs posted on the property. I am sure someone has photos. Or at least the owners attorney does :-)

Reply

Avatar OB John September 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm

Starting to look like the Ocean Beach redevelopment schemers are trying to overwhelm the local community planning board and community activists with project after project, dividing attention spans of those who love OB and who want to retain its unique character.

Reply

Avatar OB LOVER September 7, 2016 at 8:54 pm

I love this design and welcome the construction.. it’ll bring OB out of the slum that it sits.. Im looking forward to the new addition to the OB family. With much love and peace.

Reply

Avatar OB John September 8, 2016 at 8:24 pm

Even though its likely in violation of building code? If so, you definitely do not love OB.

Reply

Avatar OB LOVER September 10, 2016 at 10:50 pm

from what I was told, everything is done right, even the city lady said so.. accept change, love, hope and beauty.. there is no need to be a stiff about growth man..

Reply

Avatar Whys Cracker September 11, 2016 at 12:31 pm

Southern California is being overrun by east coasters like you.

Reply

Avatar retired botanist September 9, 2016 at 5:20 pm

This structure seems taller every time I pass by it :/. Even in its unfinished state, it is already obtrusive and dominates its surrounding. And a 3-car garage for a single home in a district of cottages is just not on, legal or not.
And I will be paying close attention to the beautiful Torrey across the street that is now eclipsed by this eyesore…

Reply

Avatar OB LOVER September 10, 2016 at 10:48 pm

its far from beautiful, its straight ugly and overgrown.. check yourself bot on what beauty really is.. chill and have another beer.

Reply

Avatar retired botanist September 11, 2016 at 11:08 am

OB Lover- Are you referring to the tree? If so, it is straight, does have a very large crown, and is a good example of a landscape tree that has been pruned over the years. This pine species in its undisturbed, native, sandstone bluff habitat would look quite different- stunted, scraggly and spreading. But that hardly makes either this urban example, or its sage scrub relatives, ugly.
I think you must be referring to the building under construction across the street- straight, ugly, and definitely overgrown, right? Whew, glad we cleared that up. :-)

Reply

Avatar kh September 11, 2016 at 10:54 pm

Oversized McMansion building beautiful, tree ugly. Gotcha. Man you should run for mayor.

Reply

Avatar kh September 10, 2016 at 2:05 pm

Even though it’s now attached to the existing house, is it not still a duplex, and therefore in violation of code? What legally separates a duplex from a single family home? Two kitchens? A door between them? There’s gotta be something enforceable there, even though it’s a single structure.

Reply

Leave a Comment

Older Article:

Newer Article: