Ocean Beach Planners Set to Debate New Proposed Community Plan at July 3rd Meeting

by on July 2, 2013 · 2 comments

in Civil Rights, Culture, Economy, Environment, History, Ocean Beach, San Diego

OBPB 6-4-13

The OB Planning Board as it looked on June 4, 2013.

At their regular monthly meeting this Wednesday, July 3rd, the OB Planning Board is scheduled to give their feedback and response, as well as offer issues and questions to City staff on the new Draft proposed OB Community Plan Update.

One month ago, City senior planner Maxx Stalheim presented an outline of the update to the Board, handing them each a copy of the 166 page document, and telling them that staff would return on the 3rd for a debate.  (It’s unclear whether Stalheim will be at this hearing, as he announced he was retiring during the month of July.) City planners are not looking for approval at that time as the update plan will not have been made officially available to the public by then.

Not until July 12th will the public “officially” view the Update. However, it has been available here at the OB Rag, on the OB Planning Board website and at the City Planning Commission website.

The Board meets sharply at 6pm at the OB Recreation Center, located at 4726  Santa Monica Avenue.

Board Chair Tom Gawronski mistakenly sent out an agenda for Wednesday’s meeting that did not include certain items, that he later corrected in a second version.  However, the first version, had this:

Discussion Item #001: Public Hearing to consider the Ocean Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program

 But the second, corrected version had this:

Action Item #003: Release of the Ocean Beach Community Plan and Local Coastal Program.    Vote to recommend approval or denial of release.

 On the planners’ website, the following statement is read:

The original published agenda for the July 3, 2013, meeting of the Ocean Beach Planning Board has been amended to reflect additional action to be taken by the Board. …

 The meeting is still scheduled for July 3, 2013, at 6 p.m., and will include a public forum on the Draft Community Plan Update. [our emphasis]

Also on the Board’s agenda is approval or denial of an application for a Coastal Development Permit to construct a 3,254 sq ft mixed-use building at 4739 Point Loma Avenue.  This project is in the Point Loma Avenue commercial district, and the owner wants to build the project  with 1 residential unit and 1 commercial space on a vacant 0.05 acre site.

The debate over the new Update continues.  See here, here, here, and here.

These are trying times for an OB planner. The City is stepping up with their Update of the original OB Precise Plan, producing a fundamentally new document, after an 11 year process.  The Board itself is in a weakened position as it has lost through attrition and term limits many of his seasoned and veteran planners, like Jane Gawronski, Seth Connolly, Landry Watson and Craig Klein.

Many of the planners who are now sitting on the Board are new to the process and are not accustomed to questioning city staff or city motives, or even reading and reviewing planning documents. Six of the Board members are new, and there are currently two vacancies on the Board.

Here is the official agenda for Planning Board:

 OB Plan Bd Agenda 07-03-13

 

.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

avatar OB Joe July 2, 2013 at 11:51 am

I really hope these planners do their homework. Also, question: in order to review the New plan, don’t people have to know the “old” plan? How can they make comparisons if they don’t have anything to compare the new draft to? Good luck you newbies! You veterans better be prepared to hold the hands of your new colleagues as well as the rest of the community. Who reads this stuff anyhow?

Reply

avatar Frank Gormlie July 2, 2013 at 9:11 pm

Yes, ideally – OB Planners ought to be able to compare the new draft to the old Precise Plan.

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: