Ocean Beach Planners Parry Attacks from ‘Reformers’, Bicycling ‘Radicals’, and Code ‘Revisionists’

OB Planning Board in Feb. 2019. Tracy Dezenso, on left, and Chair Andrea Schlageter on right.

By Geoff Page

It was an unusually long Ocean Beach Planning Board meeting Wednesday, November 6, at three hours, but there was a lot to talk about.  The political attack on the planning boards was one of two major issues that involved some lengthy discussion.

Community Planning Group “Reform”?

There is a document posted on the OBPB website, attached to the November Agenda, titled “Taskforce on Community Planning Group Reform Draft Findings & Recommendations.”

In a nut shell, this document contains a list of 31 reforms the Task Force believes are necessary for the planning board system.  The Task Force is a group of people representing planning groups, small businesses, a Planning Commission member, a Development Services Department employee, someone from Mass Transit, a member of an Environment/ Climate Change advocacy organization, and an infill developer.  The document states:

“The Taskforce on Community Planning Group Reform convened to review existing recommendations that were proposed in the City Audit, the Grand Jury report, and the Democracy in Planning report produced by Circulate San Diego.”

Apparently these people think the planning boards are a mess. Considering that the planning boards, or groups, as some are called, are full of volunteers in powerless organizations that only advise the city on land use projects, this amount of attention seems out of whack.  But then, when put into perspective with what is happening in this country everywhere, an attempt to burden the public participation process seems almost normal.

A group called Circulate San Diego created something called the Democracy in Planning Group, which made 11 of the 31 recommendations. A visit to the Circulate San Diego website shows the group is “dedicated to advancing mobility” and that the group’s focus is “creating great mobility choices, more walkable and bikeable neighborhoods.”  It seemed odd that this group was involved so heavily in reviewing the work of planning boards and then it clicked.  One of the groups in San Diego that casts a very jaundiced eye on planning groups is the cyclists.  Having witnessed enough of these uncomfortable interactions, this all made sense.

Basically, and this is generalizing of course, the cycling radicals see themselves as looking forward into the future and the planning boards, full of old timers, as stuck in the past.  This gives some of these people a sense of moral superiority, a sense that theirs is a noble cause. Added to that is a generally a higher income and educational level results in a formidable group of advocates who don’t like planning boards.

Planning boards represent the status quo of people who drive cars either because they like cars or have no other choice. When plans come before some planning boards for things like bike lane infrastructure, the two worlds clash.

Then, add in the frustrations that developers have complaining that the public review process is cumbersome and costly and just a real pain in the ass and the “problem” with the planning board process begins to come into view.

The Task Force was stacked.  There are eleven members.  Of the eleven, two represented small businesses, one was a current or past member of the Planning Commission, one was a current or past employee of the Department Services Department or Planning Department, one was a member of the Building Industry Association, and one is an urban infill developer. More than half of the group was involved in the development world. There was also a person from a “Mass Transit/Mobility advocacy organization,” which was Circulate San Diego.

Who represented the planning boards?  There were three.  One was a young man who has been on the Midway-Pacific planning board for one year. One is a land use attorney on the Carmel Valley planning board.  One has served on the Otay Mesa/Nestor Planning Group for some time.  The Midway and Otay Mesa members are also members of a group called the San Diego Leadership Alliance.  There was a third member of this group on the Task Force represented as “a member of an Environment/ Climate Change advocacy organization,” which is the San Diego Leadership Alliance.

A person with one year of planning board experience, a planning board member that is a land use attorney, and one with experience on one of the planning boards that represents an area to the south of National City and Chula Vista.  Seems a questionable collection for representing 52 city planning boards

The OBPB went through the recommendations discussing ones they had a problem with.  A reading of the long list just makes one tired looking at all the effort this Task Force expects out of a bunch of volunteers.  As a former board member, this reporter would not be eager to do it again if these recommendations are all implemented.  The OB discussion began with #20:

“Gather relevant demographic data of CPG [community planning group] board members in an audit immediately and require new CGP board members to complete a demographic survey at every election or time of appointment. The survey should include: Age, Business Owner or Property Owner, Ethnicity, Gender, Length of Residence, Neighborhood, Professional Background, Race, Religion, Renter or Owner, Years of Service on CPGs. (A recommendation from Democracy in Planning with major modifications by the taskforce).”

Naturally, the pushback on this item was that it asked for too much private information.  Considering that these same requirements for public office deter many people from running for public office, one has to wonder if the motivation for this recommendation was to affect the willingness of people to serve on planning boards. The OBPB voted to oppose this one and the one that followed.

Recommendation #21 – “Require a termed-out board member to wait two years until they can run for their CPG again without exceptions. (A recommendation from Democracy in Planning).” The board voted against this one as their by-laws already had a one-year provision with the exception that a member could serve sooner if the board could not fill a seat. The “without exceptions” was considered unacceptable.

The board voted to modify recommendation #22 – “The Planning Department should develop methods and provide resources to improve recruiting that could result in more diverse CPG membership. (A recommendation by the Grand Jury).”

The objection to this one was that it looked like a reach for control by the Planning Department. The board voted to change it to “The Planning Department should provide resources to improve recruiting that could result in more diverse CPG membership and participation.”

The board voted to strike recommendation #27 – “CPG members must file statements of economic interest, per the Political Reform Act. (A recommendation from the taskforce).”  The objection was the same as for #20.

The board also vote to strike recommendation #28 – “Direct the San Diego City Planning Department staff to closely monitor CPG actions and provide timely guidance to preclude requests for inappropriate project additions or modifications. (A recommendation by the Grand Jury with minor modifications by the taskforce).”  Also very controlling of what the planning board does.

Whether or not the Task Force pays any attention to what the OBPB had to say is yet to be seen.

Municipal Code Revisions

The second big issue before the OBPB was to provide opinions on a list of revisions to the city’s municipal code regarding land use. These revisions take place almost yearly and are made by a an appointed group that usually consists of people involved in the development world including attorneys, architects, planners, real estate and financial interests, and developers.  The time that these people spend on this revision work is covered by their salaries.  Volunteers trying to keep up with this are at a distinct disadvantage.  The goal of the work is to make the Municipal Code more “efficient” – read as easier on developers.

The first item that was discussed involved new wording for a marijuana ordinance requiring a distance of 1,000 feet from certain things like schools and parks for facilities or advertising involving the cannabis industry.  The board voted to reduce that requirement to 500 feet.

There was a long discussion about item number 24 to eliminate the Residential Tandem Overlay Zone.  By doing this, tandem parking would be allowed to count for parking on any project where once it was limited to areas like the beaches.  There was an allowance for the beach areas for years because parking space in the beach areas has always been severely limited.  This proposed change would have a serious impact on street parking everywhere because tandem parking is seldom used as intended.  Former OBPB board member Tom Gawronski hit the crux of the issue when he said this was really about increasing density.

Part of the tandem parking language change stated that access to tandem parking had to be from an alley. The board voted to modify this one to state “except for properties that had an existing curb cut.”

The full accounting of the land development code changes can be seen here .

Dog Beach Ramp

A third topic of major interest was the city’s plan to spend $1.1 million to rebuild the ADA ramp at the entrance to Dog Beach.  See the OB Rag coverage here. The first mention of this was during the report from the District 2 city council office of Dr. Jennifer Campell by Teddy Martinez.  He said that the OBPB appeal of the project to rebuild the ADA facility was received.  Martinez said the OBPB had the Planning Department’s attention and invited the board to discuss the matter and consider withdrawing the appeal.

This was not the first time that Martinez spoke about the board withdrawing its appeal.  This was encouraging because it meant that someone in the process believed getting the OBPB on board, so to speak, was important. Martinez said, not without a few chuckles, that OB was “one of our most engaged communities.”  Spoken like a true politician.  The translation is easy, OB is a pain in the ass.

The board showed no inclination to change its position on this boondoggle project.  In an attempt to look for better solutions, chair Andrea Schlageter, invited a presentation by a company called Access Trax. The company has a product designed to provide inexpensive and easy to use access for the disabled over unpaved terrain.

The Access Trax product consisted of high-strength plastic, interlocking pieces about three feet by three feet.  The mats can be placed over uneven areas like beach sand to create a path for wheel chairs.  The pieces are lightweight and easily placed or removed.

Access Trax proposes to place two of these walkways, one on either side of the Dog Beach jetty.  One would start at the northwest corner of the parking lot and run across the sand to the high tide line.  The other would start where the current ADA ramp ends and run across the sand to the high tide line on the north side of the jetty.

It was pointed out that a solution that started at the end of the existing ramp didn’t help the board because it involved using the ramp in contention.  The other idea, placing a path on the south side of the jetty, drew praise in that it did not involve the existing ADA ramp and required no construction.

Access Trax proposed this pathway for $50,000 including a thrice weekly maintenance contract to clear sand and check connections.  The city can’t even do this for the existing ADA walkway that is often covered with sand. For more information go here .

Project at 1776 Cable

There was only one project on the agenda at 1776 Cable Street. This appeared to be a problem project that had only come before the board because it needed a Coastal Permit.  The applicant had used the 50 percent rule to avoid the coastal permit and public review of the project but had accidentally removed more than 50 percent of the existing walls, necessitating a Coastal Permit.

It is amazing how many of these “accidents” have occurred, requiring  applicants to get the needed permit and suffer the public review.  Usually blamed on a contractor or an employee, it really means they got caught and someone reported them.  Not to say that was the case for certain for this project but it sounded familiar.

The board voted to deny the project because the applicant made no provisions for parking on the site.

Planners’ Float

The last item of interest was the OBPB’s decision to have as float in the Holiday / Christmas parade again this year. This was first done last year as a way to publicize the planning board and seemed well received.  The OBPB has also invited the Peninsula Community Planning Board to participate.