The Ocean Beach Planning Board meets Wednesday, October 7 via Cisco WebEx – which people can join (details below)- at 6 pm. Although there doesn’t appear to be any private developments to review, there are plenty of public projects or improvements to check out. This issues at this meeting will probably have more impact on OB residents than usual meetings do.
Here are the issues and public projects to review:
- Bike Lane and Dedicated Turn Lane The Board will consider a motion to ask the City to evaluate whether to install a protected Class 1 or Class 4 bike lane and dedicated right hand turn lane to go west on West Point Loma Blvd from southbound Nimitz Blvd. OBceans for decades have turned right onto WPL from Nimitz southbound as a type of residential prerogative. This item is on the Consent Agenda, which means it may not be up for discussion – just a vote.
- OB Estuary Enhancement Project – the Board will review a proposal from the City’s Park and Recreation Dept to improve the fencing of the estuary at the end of Dog Beach.
- Time Limits at Beach Parking Lots – The Board will consider whether to ask the City for a time limit enforcement at beach parking lots and what the time limit should be.
- Ban of Cars at Del Monte Overlook? – The OB Board will review a proposal by the City to permanently ban vehicles from the Del Monte Ave overlook. Why is the City proposing this? Are nearby residents complaining? This overlook is a fave of locals – and has been utilized for literally decades. So why now does the City wish to implement a permanent ban?
- Ebers Street Park Improvements – The Parks Ad Hoc Committee has made recommendations to improve the park.
The meeting will be held via Cisco WebEx – and you can join the meeting here. If prompted, the meeting number is 126 374 9087 and the password is 92107ob or 9201762 if joining by phone.
Here’s the official agenda:
Contact info:
For more information please contact:?
Andrea Schlageter, Chair
aeschlag@gmail.com / 619-818-2555
4876 Santa Monica Avenue #133San Diego, CA 92107
Oceanbeachplanning.org
{ 23 comments… read them below or add one }
Uh, the Del Monte Street overlook is actually located in the Peninsula plan jurisdiction. The OB/Peninsula boundary is the center line of Froude Street.
By the way, I was really curious about what happened at the overlook. At the start of the pandemic beach closures, some temporary barricades and yellow tape were placed at the edge of the pavement. Some time after that , some candle type bollards were placed across the end of the paved street. Shortly after that, a number of boulders were placed to further block cars from getting onto the unpaved overlook. Then, the bollards and boulders were removed. Anybody have any idea of what was going on here? Since I had not seen any action by the Peninsula planners on their agendas, I kind of assumed that it was either an “emergency” action by the city or perhaps a volunteer action by adjacent homeowners, but I’m not really sure.
The OB Board is aware that it is in the Peninsula area, but either the city or the PCPB asked them for their thoughts.
Frank, I’m sure the OB board knows, but I’ve never lost a bet by underestimating what the City knows.
You’re correct about the community boundaries. The city came to us on this. Certainly I recommend the PCPB take a position if they see fit. The chair of their park committee usually attends our meetings.
Why is there a “consent item” on a planning board agenda? The whole point of planning boards is to give the community a chance to be heard, I’ve never seen this.
And, that item would very probably get a great deal of positive support, which would only help the board’s position.
What is the item about improving the fencing of the estuary at the end of Dog Beach? It states “improve,” which indicates something is already there. What fencing is this referring to?
This might have a bit to do with the fencing action item:
https://obrag.org/2020/09/ocean-beachs-dog-beach-its-not-for-the-birds/
Yea, thanks, Peter, I saw that article and I wondered if there was a connection. But, the agenda item said “improve” a fence. If it was about installing a new fence, I think some people might be interested in this.
Improving a fence appears to be stringing fencing between existing bollards as per the article.
Well, the article talks about building a fence, as I read it. Talks about moving two existing signs and planting several more and then stringing mesh. If that is what the item is about, I don’t think it is described well enough in the agenda. Dog Beach proponents are very wary of anyone wanting to fence something off.
In my 40 years in OB, I’ve seen attempts to do away with, or limit, Dog Beach several times. The native plant people have been making slow encroachments for years, I’ve been waiting for their fence proposal. The writer made a good case for his proposal but people also wonder why the sanctuary has to dip into Dog Beach when the whole wide river system stretches back to the freeway. That whole section has no impact from people or dogs, so why does this small piece matter so much?
I have a theory. Birders. I’ve run down that path for many years and have passed many, many birders with big cameras and high powered binoculars on the side of the path. They can get very close to the area where the birds are, this area, and take pictures. It’s much harder to do farther down the river. The birds don’t need this small area but the birders do.
Months ago the OB Board voted to allow “consent items” – which can be removed by one Board member and an audience member as well, I believe.
Well, if it were up to me, I’d ban consent items from planning board agendas. It seems to me the very idea of a consent agenda implies a concurrence among board members was made outside the public eye. Here is how one article described this:
“The Brown Act prohibits serial communications that lead to a concurrence among the majority of the members of the legislative body. Any type of communication is prohibited if that communication allows the majority of the members of the body to engage in a communication that should instead occur at a public meeting. The term “serial communication” is often used because it describes a communication that, for practical purposes, results in a meeting of the members although the members are not present at a publicly posted and conducted Brown Act meeting. The serial communication may involve a series of communications, each communication involving less than a quorum of the board, but when taken as a whole, involve a majority of the board.”
I would never accuse the OB board of doing anything nefarious but I’ve seen that happen in other places. They tried this at the PCPB, and the intentions were not honorable. I personally objected each time so the items had to be heard and they quit doing it.
Geoff, when I worked for the CCC, we always had a consent agenda. There were two main criteria for determining whether a project was a suitable candidate: did the project raise any issues and was there any opposition. Staff reports, and the analysis underlying the report, were essentially the same, but it really smooths out the meeting workload. I agree that is can be mis-used, but the consent agenda is a very useful tool.
I agree, Paul, for some kinds of meetings, it may be a useful tool but I don’t see that it has a place for planning boards. Those organizations do not have the volume of business that groups like the Coastal Commission do. And, those groups have a bunch of procedural items that are suited for the consent agenda.
The consent agenda can be used to approve items without discussion. This gives the board more time to focus on more controversial issues. This can apply to items that have passed through a subcommittee with a unanimous vote. The subcommittee meetings are all noticed and open to the public.
Any member of the board or public can speak up and request an item be pulled from the consent agenda and be discussed.
Yep, I know all that, kh, I just don’t like it for planning boards.
You implied there was something shady going on. The item was deliberated in a public meeting. Sadly the general public doesn’t show much interest in these meetings, which I find mind-boggling considering the ease of access with everything online now.
It’s not equivalent to being there in person, but it’s convenient at least. I’ve virtually attended more meetings lately than I ever could in person.
People are just lazy. (I don’t buy the busy excuse, I have tons of responsibilities and I still find time.) I’ll try my best to represent them anyways.
No, kh, perhaps you missed this from the post above “I would never accuse the OB board of doing anything nefarious…”
My points were that I have seen other public bodies use it that way and planning boards do not have the volume of business to justify using it. My opinion.
You know from experience how hard it is to generate interest in the monthly meeting. Generating interest in subcommittee meetings is almost impossible. I think it is fairer to say people are busy rather than lazy.
How are the subcommittee meetings advertised so people know they are being held? I keep up fairly well but didn’t see anything until the OB Rag story about the meeting tonight. Perhaps if there will be something like this in subcommittee, you write a blurb for The Rag beforehand, that seems to be the best way to reach a larger audience.
“time limit enforcement at beach parking lots and what the time limit should be.”
There’s no one answer here. The beach parking lots and Newport and Santa Monica West of Sunet Cliffs should be a mix of normal un-metered spots, 6-hour meters, 2 hour meters, and 30 minute meters.
Does anyone know what the plan is for the huge vacant lot on the 4500 block of Newport?
Some public data:
Sold: $4,720,000 Sold on 05/02/19
Panoramic WHITE WATER + OCEAN +++ views !!! This 10,500 sf lot can be purchased with the adjacent (7,000 sf) lots for a total of 17,500!!!! OR all by itself. Property has roughly 140′ of DEPTH! + 75′ WIDE!. Lot goes street to alley. This is NOT a mild fixer, BUT the dream of dreams for someone who desires an amazing piece of land in OB. Together with the lots next door, this could very well be the LAST opportunity in OB for someone to have 17,500 with PANORAMIC VIEWS to develop.
I’m assuming it will be for someone to develop into multiple houses,A although we may not know until it happens, since these lots are outside of the OB Planning Board’s jurisdiction.
There used to be this really cool old house up there that a developer demolished and planned to build five houses. From the city:
PENINSULA: (Process 2) Coastal Development Permit & NDP for the demolition of an existing single family and construct five 2,275 square-foot single dwelling units on five contiguous lots. Neighborhood Development Permit (NDP) for walls and stairs in ROW. The 0.40-acre site is located within the Coastal Overlay Zone (Non-Appealable) at 4537 Newport Avenue and APN: 448-652-2000, 448-652-2100 and 448-652-2200 in the RS-1-7 zone(s) of the Peninsula Community Plan within Council District 2.
The project was approved and permitted, it looks like something stalled it.
Thanks for that Geoff!
I’m no engineer, but I’m guessing there must be expensive issues regarding foundations and retaining walls on that site.
Sure thing, Sam. I’ve spent my career in construction and building on that site doesn’t really offer challenges, I think it stalled for some other reason. I’m going to see if I can find out. It’s usually money.