By Geoff Page
The regular monthly meeting of the Peninsula Community Planning Board, November 18, was all about changes the PCPB is recommending for the streets many people use daily. But, the only people who seem to be paying attention were from the cycling community.
There was also a letter of support for the palms on upper Newport and some projects were reviewed, two of which were more Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs).
Froude Street from Voltaire Street to Newport Avenue
The PCPB is still very much concerned that there is not a single stop sign from Voltaire to Newport and they are determined to right this incredible wrong. They composed and approved a letter. Here is the first paragraph:
“Due to a lack of stop signs, vehicle high speeds, several near misses between pedestrians and vehicles observed by community members living along the Froude Street Corridor (ENCL (1) refers). The Peninsula Community Planning Board (PCPB) is requesting that the City of San Diego Traffic and Transportation department fund a traffic feasibility study along the Froude Street corridor to determine potential appropriate traffic mitigations that addresses local community member’s concerns.”
Attached to this letter were testimonials from people living along Froude. While there was anecdotal information from these accounts, actual information about accidents along this stretch was lacking. It was mentioned at the meeting that the Traffic and Transportation subcommittee had been working on this for months, sufficient time to obtain factual information it would seem.
Here is the letter the PCPB sent Councilmember Campbell February 1st of this year that was never responded to:
“The Peninsula Community Board would advocate for the installation of a 4 way stop sign at Froude and Cape May.
Additionally, the PCPB would request the city of San Diego Traffic and Transportation Department to consider reviewing the stretch of Froude in between Voltaire and Newport to install traffic calming measures. There are currently no stop signs along this route of .44 miles. The letter was approved with a unanimous vote of 8?0. “
The second paragraph of the new letter stated:
“Based on the results of the traffic feasibility study, the Peninsula Community Board would advocate for the installation of a 4 way stop sign at Froude and Cape May (ENCL (2) refers) and traffic calming measures such as the installation of diverters, advisory bike lanes and curb bulb outs at intersections.”
Apart from asking for the same thing again, the four-way stop sign, that was asked for nine months ago with no response, this paragraph has, and had, other problems. First, a feasibility study has to have something to study — like a project. It is designed to see if something is feasible but the PCPB’s letter did not describe a project.
The wording about advisory bike lanes was removed as board members objected to it. The biggest problem with these kinds of lanes on Froude would be a narrowing of the roadway for cars to barely one lane. That is exactly what advisory bike lanes are. From the website advisorybikelanes.com:
“An edge lane road, or ELR, is a roadway striping configuration which provides for two-way motor vehicle and non-motorized traffic using a center lane and edge lanes on either side. The center lane is dedicated to, and shared by, motorists traveling in both directions. Vulnerable road users (VRUs), such as cyclists or pedestrians have right-of-way in the edge lanes but motorists can use the edge lanes, after yielding to the VRUs there, to pass other vehicles.”
A center space not wide enough for two lanes so cars must use the bike lanes, as long as no one is using them, to pass each other. This would be a major change for any street in the Peninsula and would surely deserve much more community input. Board member and cycling advocate Nicole Burgess said the language in the letter about advisory lanes was there as a suggestion, that this was an innovative idea to explore. Perhaps so in another forum.
“Diverters” were not detailed and “bulb outs” at intersections were also not explained but do show up in cycling proposals. This rash of transportation recommendations from the PCPB show the distinct influence of the cycling advocates on this board.
This writer sent a letter to the PCPB opposing the PCPB letter and it was read during the meeting. One comment in the letter was that after making thousands of trips up and down Froude in 34 years, no accidents had ever been witnessed.
Frequent OB Rag cycling commentor Paul Jameson asked why this writer’s anecdotal data was better than what the PCPB was offering in the testimonials. The answer might be that the PCPB had 14 testimonials and this writer had traveled Froude close to 2,000 times using a conservative figure of one trip a week for 34 years.
Board member Paul Webb said that stop signs are not to meant slow traffic and don’t work either. He said he lived a block away on Guizot with several stop signs before Voltaire Street and they also have a speeding problem. When asked for a suggestion to solve the problem, Webb had one word, “Enforcement.” Exactly right. It is extremely rare to see a police car on these roads unless responding to a specific call.
The letter passed unanimously.
West Pt. Loma and Nimitz bike lane letter
This letter was again all about cycling. (This writer also wrote an opposition letter for several reasons, the first of which was the continued practice of misusing cycling accidents to further a cycling agenda.) The board letter stated:
“Recent collisions between motorists and active transportation users at the intersection of Nimitz and W Pt Loma Blvd underscore the need for safety improvements in this corridor. While there are multiple factors contributing to these, including the recent fatality of a skateboarder and cyclist with a broken leg (see attachment), high motor vehicle speeds in this corridor contribute to the danger and potential deadliness of these interactions between road users.”
This paragraph was not only very poorly written, it was also misleading. The unfortunate fatality was clearly the fault of the skateboarder who tried to cross Nimitz by running a red light. The letter provided a link to a news story about the second mentioned incident.
At 11:00 p.m. on a Friday night, September 6, 2019, a man was walking or riding his bicycle in the northbound bike lane on Nimitz. He was side-swiped by a car and seriously injured. The news story said he was in the bike lane but there were no witnesses to affirm that. There was no information about whether or not he was wearing reflective clothing or had lights on his bicycle or the lighting in the area.
The misleading language about these two incidents was never removed from the approved letter. Two incidents only and both dishonestly used.
The PCPB letter requested three things. The first was to “Complete the western portion of the W Pt Loma Blvd cycle track…” The reasoning was “This is one of two segments missing to connect Old Town transit center to dog beach and all residential and commercial districts between, with class II, III, and IV bicycle infrastructure.”
The second request was to install Class IV bike lanes on Nimitz. A class IV bike lane includes a physical separation such as concrete curbs, landscaping, parking lanes, bollards, or other vertical elements. The PCPB letter stated, “Recent community feedback notes this a corridor where motorists typically exceed the posted limit of 45 mph.”
In opposition to this proposal, this writer pointed out that a bike lane on a road with traffic moving at 45 to 60 mph was not a good idea. What did cause some board members a problem with this request was the possibility that this would result in lane reductions on Nimitz.
The lane reduction question came from board member Webb who noted that this did happen on Nimitz north of Rosecrans in order to accommodate a bike facility. Other board members also expressed this concern.
Board member Burgess said when you get up over 35 mph risk to cyclists increases dramatically. Another commenter from the San Diego County Bicycle Coalition, Will Rhatigan, said it was not a matter of if there will be a fatality on Nimitz but rather when. He said a barrier would prevent that.
Both Burgess and Rhatigan advocated, very softly, for flex posts or bollards to separate cyclists from drivers but did not explain how these would prevent accidents. What the cyclists truly want is the most extreme separation possible, which was what generated the concern about losing lanes. Something like concrete K-rails would serve that purpose but they would take up much more room than the existing striped bike lanes.
The third request was:
“Design and implement bicycle safety improvements on Nimitz Blvd north of W Pt Loma as it connects with Sunset Cliffs Blvd and the I8 terminal. The existing class II bike facilities do not separate bicyclists and other micromobility users from motor vehicles traveling at high speeds. This is a critical gap in the network that will help connect the Harbor and Bayshore bikeways to Mission Bay and the San Diego River Trail, making it more accessible to all road users. Furthermore, to create safer conditions for motorists, we request lane markings for vehicles exiting I-8 southbound where Nimitz and Sunset Cliffs Blvds diverge.”
It was pointed out that the area north and east of West Point Loma on Nimitz was under the jurisdiction of Caltrans.
Burgess made a motion to approve the letter as written and refused to allow an amendment stating that improvements along Nimitz would not result in any lane reductions. This forced the board to vote on her motion first, which was defeated.
The next motion was to approve the letter with the added language about not reducing the number of lanes. This passed with only one no vote from board member Burgess, which was very telling. The long letter contained a number of important cycling agenda items but this one restriction was too much for the cycling advocate to vote yes on. A cynic might say that Burgess knows this bike lane proposal would indeed reduce the lanes on Nimitz.
Board member Brad Herrin alluded to changes that were already coming to Nimitz. He said the city’s “Nimitz bike group” was looking at all of Nimitz and that facilities are coming. Herrin did not have the details but appeared to know from conversations with the city’s traffic engineer that the city was already way ahead in planning for cycling changes on Nimitz.
Two people voiced opposition to this writer’s letter opposing the PCPB letter. One was Dike Anyiwo, a board member on the Midway-Pacific Highway Planning Group.
Anyiwo stated, “What I find ironic about this process is this letter by this person. I don’t understand why we are reading out those kinds those types of comments that are not contributing anything to the conversation. We’re giving a platform to nonsense. I guess this individual is part of the community I don’t see what was productive of putting out those thoughts.”
Despite having been on a planning group for several years, it appeared that Anyiwo still did not understand that the public had a right to express their opinions at board meetings. To say that comments that board members do not agree with should not be heard at all goes completely against what planning boards are for.
Beyond that, Anyiwo is not a member of the PCPB and was there only as a liaison. To say “We’re” giving a platform to nonsense gives the impression that Anyiwo feels he is part of the PCPB and he is not. His opinion of how the PCPB handles public comment was not relevant and did not contribute to the conversation.
Another person spoke up about this writer’s letter along the same vein. This was PCPB member Don Sevrens. He said, “That individual has run for the board perhaps six times in the last 10 years and has never been elected and I don’t think he deserves special consideration when we are debating.”
This from the person who sued his fellow board members last year. For the record, this writer was elected to the PCPB in 2010, a year that included the regular election and two run-offs that had some of the highest voting participation the PCPB has seen.
Most importantly, Sevrens showed that he also, despite many years on the PCPB, did not understand the concept of free expression at community meetings even though he sued the city and his fellow board members over freedom of speech. The attitudes of Anyiwo and Sevrens are not what the community wants in planning board members.
The cycling advocates showed up once again to voice their opinions because they were behind what was being proposed. This writer was the only member of the public who commented showing that the agenda items were not clearly enough described to alert the community about the discussions.
This appears to be a tactic. An agenda item from the April 18, 2019, monthly meeting read, “West Point Loma Boulevard Bicycle Lanes.” The room was full of cycling advocates and no one in opposition because the agenda item did not read “Reducing West Point Loma From Four Lanes To Two,” which would have a drawn a crowd. People along that route woke up to the changes one day and were mostly furious.
Cyclists have every right to pursue their agenda. It is just that the community should be aware that its planning group is very much influenced by these interests. The tactics being used to obfuscate the issues are a problem.
Palm Trees
The PCPB also voted on a letter of support for the community trying to save historic palm trees on Newport Ave. These trees have been in the news a lot in recent weeks. The letter was long and it contained all of the prevailing arguments for why the alleged need to remove the trees is questionable.
The letter states that the palms trees have an historical significance because the palms were planted over 100 years ago by Charles Collier, the father of Ocean Beach.
The letter then gets pretty technical explaining, in an understandable manner, why the airport claims about the trees interfering with airport operations do not add up.
The letter also makes the claim that the property owners own to the center of the street. This is something that is being explored and is not clearly understood yet. If that is proven to be true, it means the trees belong to the property owners and not the city. This one could have some unintended consequences.
The letter reiterated the that the community was not at all happy with how the city has handled this tree issue, specifically the lack of any community input or proper notice. If resident Tracy Van De Walker had not shown the courage to stand under trees the city wanted to cut down, those trees would have been gone before anyone could have even objected.
The end of the letter stated what the PCPB wanted:
“The PCPB respectfully requests that the FAA and City of San Diego provide the community with an opportunity for public comment and open the process that the FAA and the City of San Diego uses to determine which trees need to be cut down and which trees do not need to be cut down.”
The board voted unanimously to approve the letter of support for the effort to save these palms. This was not a controversial issue although there are differences of opinion regarding palm trees. But, this was an encouraging affirmation for Tracy and John Van De Walker, who are at the forefront of this issue, to have the planning board’s support.
Projects
There were three projects up for consideration. As one board member correctly noted, project review and land use issues are the bread and butter of the planning boards. But there was very little bread and butter during the four hour-long meeting.
Two of the projects were two more ADUs. The first one at 4268 Orchard involved demolishing an existing garage and building a new two-story building. The first and second story would each be 578/SF, the bottom being the new garage. This project passed 10-2
The second ADU was one of the more objectionable, converting an existing 527/SF garage into a one-bedroom ADU. Parking is taken away from an existing residence and no parking is required for the new ADU. This project passed 12-0
The third project involved a remodel adding a large amount of space to the first floor and an even larger second story with a roof deck. This project also passed 12-0.
Board member Joe Holasek, chair of the Project Review subcommittee, announced that there will be a special meeting December 2 to specifically discuss ADUs that are flooding the peninsula. The Zoom meeting will be at 3:00. Check here for more information.
In other news
- Board will continue remote meetings for a few more months
- The PCPB will not meet in December, next meeting the third Thursday in January 2022.
- The OB Town Council is looking for donations and volunteers to help with the Christmas efforts including the food and toys for those in need. Go to the OBTC site for more information on helping out. https://obtowncouncil.org/
D2 Representative
- Announced that rain barrel rebates are available now. Yes, that was item #1 from Campbell’s representative.
- Discover & Go – use library card to reserve free passes to museums.
- Climate action plan is being released and there will be live public meetings in the first week of December.
- Street vendor ordinance coming to council December 14. No draft is available yet for public review. Campbell’s office has been working on this ordinance for a very long time. A draft should be available to the public now considering it comes to council in three weeks, one of which is the Thanksgiving holiday week.
{ 63 comments… read them below or add one }
Extreme bicyclists lol. What does that even mean? Chill dude. Deep breaths.
“Extreme bicyclists” is even a polite term. They’re people who use the bicycle as a wedge to push others in planning groups and government bodies to make changes to the infrastructure that San Diego is not ready for – all under the guise of public safety and pedestrian-friendliness. They push so-called “road-diets” on major boulevards, cutting down the car lanes – and in doing so endanger drivers and bicyclists, – all in the name of getting rid of the carbon-producing automobile. It’s a great goal – but we don’t have adequate mass transit and masses of residents are not jumping on their bikes and using the new bike-lanes. Bike extremists want to literally push people out of their cars into a world of infrastructure that is immature. They believe that by cutting car lanes down on major feeder streets they’re doing the world a wonderful thing. Because of the pressure against cars, the city is allowed to no longer require businesses to provide parking. And then the city turns over what used to be our public commons to those restaurants who survived the pandemic to do with what they please. And then, Mayor Gloria gets to put another plum in his hat, he’s leading the metropolis into a clean environment.
And let’s get this straight: Geoff and I are both avid bicyclists. I bike 2 to 3 times a week – for exercise. We need bicyclists and good bike-paths – but we also need better mass transit and safe roadways in the meantime.
Every advocacy group has its extremists, there is nothing pejorative about that term.
OB rag is an Anti-bicycle cabal!
Baloney. You have learned nothing from our posts and comments.
Isn’t half of Froude in OB?
West side OB East side Pl..We live on Froude and the traffic is CRAZY. It is the short cut used by parents racing to get their kids to school. People leaving OB at sunset time from Cliffs. Kids having “fun” launching their cars in the big dip at Brighton and Froude. Unsuspecting people leaving car parrts behind same dip. Two AM looks like rush hour from people leaving OB bars. Before work after work be careful crossing. 45 plus MPH not uncommon. EVERY other street north south Newport to Voltaire has stop signs not Froude. We have had 5 cars hit 3 hit and runs 2 we caught them. Not counting our brick wall that got “bent” by a drunk. There are a few sections that are a few feet narrower than others that condense the traffic makes getting in and out of your car interesting. We have lived on Froude for 30 years. It has gotten way worse last few years as the secret is out..Heck Venice st a couple blocks up has speed bumps..
Good points. Happy Thanksgiving, cuz!
We go through the Brighton & Froude intersection almost daily. It is impossible to see the quickly moving Froude traffic around the always parked large vehicles whether turning right or left. A four way stop would be ideal, but just stop signs on Froude would at least slow the traffic to a light tap on the brakes, as occurs at Guizot & Brighton.
Judy, the first step to address that is to submit a request to the city to study the visibility at the intersection. They may then extend red curbs along Froude about 20’ so cars don’t park up to the corner. This benefits both drivers and pedestrians trying to enter Froude, at the expense of a few parking spots. I can help process that if you’d like.
There is a practical and reasonable suggestion.
There is no reason to keep Bacon, Ebers, Froude, Guizot, Santa Barbara, and Venice all in their current states of prioritizing auto travel when we have Cable, Sunset Cliffs, Catalina, and Chatsworth already acting as mini-highways cutting through our community.
How many north-south arterials do we need ruining livability in OB while this publication talks about “extreme cyclists”. The “extreme drivers” have been in control and continue to be. Make these streets quiet and slow again for the people who live on them. This is our neighborhood not a high speed drive through area.
:-) “This is our neighborhood not a high speed drive through area.” Absolutely! a perfect reason for stop signs on Voltaire is because people won’t slow down and respect the speed limit or neighborhood. There was another crash at Voltaire and Soto last week :-(
These are informative comments, for sure. I’d like to correct one use of terminology; the speed control devices on Venice are “speed humps” (not “speed bumps”). Speed humps are much less obnoxious and less damaging than speed bumps. Also, these particular humps are signed for a maximum speed of 15 mph which is more of a slow-down for a car than it is for a bicycle. These humps were installed in the early 80’s and seem to have stood the test of time.
You are correct, Lyle. But, there is a difference. Venice is not crisscrossed with street dips as Froude is. Froude already has built-in speed mitigation. What is doesn’t have is any police enforcement at all.
So, basically what you are saying is that Froude is exactly like every other parallel street in OB/Point Loma. I live on Guizot, which does have stop signs between Voltaire and Newport, and my experience is exactly like yours – no different. I have had parked cars hit by errant drivers. I have seen cars try to pass slower moving cars on Guizot. I have lost several drivers’ side mirrors. I suspect this is experienced by everyone who lives on Ebers, Froude, Guizot, Bacon, Cable, etc. Stop signs are not a solution.
This has been an interesting discussion..Froude street being half on OB side Half on PL side is sort of a step child nobody wants to deal with. The have stop signers are for some reason telling us we do not need stop signs. Why? What does it matter to you? People who just drive by say there are no pedestrian traffic on the street..Interesting. All the daily dog walkers etc are just ghosts?..Sorry for not being up on all the latest traffic lingo. Speed Bumps, Speed Humps and the latest Velocity Strips are all hard to keep straight. The residents I have talked to on Froude st. all agree something has to be done to slow down the traffic. It seems everybody else just does not want to lose a few minutes of their drive time by having to do so. I have seen stop signs added recently to Brighton and Cable to slow things down. There is another sign one block away. As a daily bike rider through those intersections I can say it has worked in slowing cars dow. Was not really in this thing until this article it just brought out how I felt AND trying to find a solution..
The answer, Ace, is what Paul Webb, quoted in this article ENFORCEMENT. When was the last time you saw the PD giving out speeding tickets on Froude?
But don’t enforce having your dog off a leash… or we will have another rant article.
You’re not making any sense.
https://obrag.org/2021/09/the-politics-of-fear-bicycling-deaths-crosswalks-and-dog-bites/
I would like to see some kind of information on the street vendor ordinance or at least a way to see the draft before it is voted on. I always wonder what stakeholders, which are referred to in the latest newsletter, are being included? I am pretty involved and have not seen a word. We were included in the discussion about regulating STVRs after they signed the agreement. Guess this is a repeat?
These kinds of olde crotchety pieces fuel your skeptics and do a disservice to your generally astute insights.
No, I’d have to disagree. The piece does what is needed, provides information to people unaware of what is happening and it stimulates discussion.
Mmmm, popcorn!!
PCPB shouldn’t be making any recommendations on Nimitz and Sunset Cliffs without first collaborating with the OB Planning Board. This is a main thoroughfare that serves OB residents. In fact the north end of Nimitz isn’t even in PCPB planning area.
I drive Froude often enough to know the reports are exaggerated. It’s usually a ghost town on Froude during the morning commute. The city won’t approve stop signs because there’s very few pedestrian crossings. Ironically because most residents above Froude are likely using their cars to go everywhere.
ADUs that replace required garages are required to provide replacement parking. There are new state laws exempting this but they haven’t been certified in the Coastal Zone. DSD is approving projects like this in violation of the law. In fact they aren’t even called ADUs in the Coasta Zone. The code language still calls them companion units.
The City has routinely applied new Land Use Code provisions in the coastal zone before the CCC has certified the changes to the Local Coastal Program. And, unfortunately, the CCC has always appeared to have little appetite for curbing this practice. In fact, there is little appetite for enforcement of any kind. I understand, as I was involved in enforcement activities when I was a staffer at the CCC. It is time consuming and mostly unpleasant, particularly when it involves another government agency like the City. But that’s no excuse.
Paul, it’s the city’s responsibility to implement the Local Coastal Program. I don’t know how or when the CCC would intervene when the city violates it’s own laws. There is no accountability.
Yes, it is the City’s responsibility to implement the LCP, but what I was referring to is the fact that the City changes the land development code that is the basis of the LCP and then begins implementing it, even if it is inconsistent with the LCP as certified. This should not be happening until the LCP or amendment is certified by the CCC or, if the CCC certifies the LCP subject to suggested modifications, when the City accepts and incorporates the suggested modifications.
There is a provision in the Coastal Act for periodic reviews of LCPs. I don’t know exactly how the CCC is doing it at this time. I review the CCC agenda every month and don’t recall seeing a periodic review on the agenda for some time. But I don’t think it was ever the highest priority item for CCC staff.
you know who is on the Ob planning board you want input from? absolute crazy driving buzz sawing half the time out of town second home owning defense contracter maniacs
I read this site occasionally because it’s “local” and I like to support that. However, when its small handful of routine writers have such chips on their privileged shoulders about bicyclists, it’s grim to be reminded why the site is not worth glancing at more than once a month, tops. Just utter garbage any time Geoff and now the other main publisher too embrace every chance to sh*t on bicyclists or bike infrastructure, with their “I bike too sometimes” high horses. I’ll return for the other articles once in a while, but wow, what a disgusting spectacle y’all make of yourself when Geoff holds forth on anything viewed as encroaching on your doomed car privilege and car infrastructure, that are destroying the planet.
Well, Nathan, that was a whole lot of words that said nothing. “Privileged shoulders?” What exactly does that mean? Neither the size of my bank account nor my ancestry would qualify me as privileged.
There is only one publisher and that is Frank Gormlie.
“every chance to sh*t on bicyclists or bike infrastructure.” Translation: have the temerity to express opinions that cyclists do not like. This is an example of what passes for an intelligent discussion from cyclists when they encounter people with opinions not in lock step with theirs.
Editor dude characterized he and I as avid cyclists. I do not make that claim. I do ride for exercise but I would not describe myself that way. But, I believe Frank rides much more than I do.
If you want to do your cycling comrades a solid. either don’t bother commenting or try to make intelligent comments about the specific issues at hand and leave the ad hominins out.
It’s the language you use. “Bicycle extremists” “comrades”. let’s not forget the victim blaming you have done. when someone was killed by a drunk driver you questioned what the bicyclist was wearing. OB rag is the extremists.
“Bicycle extremists” is a polite term. A very avid bicyclist friend of mine calls them “Nazi Bicyclists.” It’s that elitist attitude of holier-than-thou, ‘we know what’s best,’ ‘we are the only valid voices of the “bicycling community.”‘ That’s what we’re against.
Don’t misrepresent what I wrote Steele. In the piece I wrote I said five of the victims caused their own demise according to news reports. Sometimes victims actually are at fault. And regarding the drunk driver comment, show exactly where I wrote what you described. You won’t be able to because I never wrote anything like that.
“Unknown person in Oceanside – Cyclist was hit at 1:50 a.m. on Oceanside Blvd. near Beverly Glenn. The driver may have been impaired. Riding a bicycle at 1:50 a.m. on a major road was taking a risk. There are no details on whether or not the bike had lights or the rider was wearing reflective clothing. The driver said it was not his fault and the other witness was killed.”
There was also no report saying they were not wearing lights. You are gaslighting by asking the question on what they were wearing.
“red herring” “the straw-man argument” OB rag loves to “Gaslight”
Read what you quoted, it said the driver “may have been” impaired. The news article said the driver was arrested under suspicion of being impaired. I could not find any follow up information to confirm the driver was impaired.
I asked the same question on several of these cases that happened at night, were they wearing reflective clothing and did their bicycle have lights. That is a legitimate question but to this day, no one has come back with any information to answer those questions on a single one of these cases.
This is not a “red herring” or a “straw man.” In a court of law, these questions would answered and if the victim’s family was found entitled to compensation, the amount would be different if the victim was, or was not, properly attired and lighted to be riding at 1:50 a.m. Victims often share responsibility for their unfortunate accidents, that is a fact.
Steele:
Ummm, you don’t know how to read a paragraph? The sentence reads “THERE ARE NO DETAILS…” which I assume to mean that the author of the sentence found nothing in the record of the Official Accident Report saying “whether or not” because I’m sure Geoff would have said so which is why he did say there are no details…
Maybe you should ask the cops why THEY didn’t put this missing nugget of information in their report if it bothers you so much? Or do a FOIA search and see if that report was modified since then to include that missing info. That way you can add to the knowledge of this accident without throwing out crap like ‘red herring’ and ‘straw-man argument’ and how OB Rag loves to ‘Gaslight’ its way into fame an fortune.
Oh, how’s that ‘fortune’ turning out for you Rag folks? Got your Swiss bank accounts growing? The Maserati running okay?
sealintheSelkirks
Not really a generational thing and I’ll be so bold as to say you don’t really believe that yourself. Plenty of boomers are every bit as pro bike advocacy as you . Likewise plenty of Xers and millennials are not. Some FAR more anti bike than Frank or Geoff. I lean more on your side than I do them and I’m 60, so just stop with the “OK Boomer”attitude.
I been living, & driving OB: this time around for 30+ years! The last 20 years: quality of life has progressively gotten worse; including speeders!
$$$ tickets for reckless drivers might help, but no enforcement!
Once again: Jen Campbell is missing in action?
I want to preface my remarks by saying that I appreciate the dedication, depth, and knowledge that both Geoff and Frank bring to their news articles. However, as a (non-cyclist) grandmother of two granddaughters who will be dealing with our future climate reality I have found a negative bias toward cycling in several articles that is concerning. The reality is that we must move toward non-car options for our daily movement (not just for exercise) in order to, hopefully, meet ghg emission reduction goals that move us toward a sustainable, livable atmosphere for our children and grandchildren. And, unfortunately, the argument that we need to wait for adequate mass transit and ‘people hopping on their bikes and using bike lanes’ is similar to those often used to thwart difficult societal change. The only way forward is to continue with roadway/transit changes, painful and controversial as they may initially be, that will lead to a sustainable infrastructure and transportation system.
Electric vehicles are an option.
Thanks Nanci for your perspective. The lofty goals you cite are fairly universally accepted and I agree with them. I guess it’s a question of how do we get there?
The bias that you glean from the articles is not an anti-cycling one but one against those who intentionally or not create an easier life for the developers by doing away with regulations crafted together over the decades. We’re victims of how society was laid out – where suburbs were created out of sage brush miles from the metropole centers. Where mass transit is inadequate. To allow developers not to create parking spaces and to allow businesses to take over former parking spaces are not the answers. To force people out of their vehicles before we have adequate alternatives just does not make sense. (What about non-carbon producing vehicles?) And to equate our stand for quality of life issues for a resistance to needed social change is to stand reality on its head.
But let’s keep having a conversation. I grieve at the divisions and polarization within the biking community. But I also find those on the other side having a holier-than-thou attitude – that if you don’t bike to work or play everyday, you’re not really a qualified bicyclist, therefore your opinion doesn’t count. It’s an attitude of ‘we know better than you’, a top-down, elitist position. That’s the bias you find in these pages. And that elitism is followed by a certain authoritarianism. People, individuals are mere instruments in a grand scheme drawn up by un-elected manipulators.
Thanks again for your feedback.
Frank, I appreciate your response and perspective. I, too, have thought of these issues at great length. A couple of years ago I was the lone dissenter on a vote (in a group I belong too) to support the waiving of parking space requirements for ‘affordable’ apartment complexes built close to transit stops because of the unequal burden I felt it placed on car-owning renters. The solutions that must be found will require (sometimes difficult) paradigm adjustments from all of us and I hope we can all continue the debates in a manner that supports a livable Mother Earth in the future.
I also thank you for your comments, Nanci and I believe Frank provided a thoughtful response.
I will just address the comment about negativity. What I have been criticizing is not cycling but rather the underhanded tactics cycling extremists are using. They do everything in their power to avoid a public discussion. Vaguely written planning board agenda items that will have major impacts on the community are one example. When these items come up, the cycling community has spread the word so they are there to speak in favor of the items but no opponents are there because they had no idea what was being proposed. This is no different from any other governmental subterfuge by people who think they know what is best for the rest of us and feel our opinions are unnecessary.
Geoff, Thank you for your response and further clarification of your perspective. The tactics that you mention are not something that I was aware of, and I confess that I have not been attending our local communities meetings with any level of regularity for the past couple of years to observe firsthand. So your information will be something that I will consider from here on out. As I said to Frank, the solutions that must be found will require (sometimes difficult) paradigm adjustments from all of us and I my only hope is that we can all continue the debates in a manner that supports a livable Mother Earth for future generations.
This old OB kid wants to get in on the complaining, too! Heck, try riding on a county gravel road with serious washboards for a 2 1/2 mile ride to the nearest store. Oh, did I forget to mention the giant pick-ups these good ‘ol boys drive going 50mph throwing rocks the size of a golf ball with their monster big-lug mud&snow tires? The dust clouds alone would choke a horse out much less little old me on my mountain bike dodging flying rocks.
There, I feel better now. Now to point a few things out:
San Diego without efficient on-time cheap (or completely subsidized) public transport will never become a bicycle town as some want it to become. You want people to use it, make it worth using!
Work places are too far from homes, everything is too spread out, and the more people that are packed into the finite space available (even with turning garages into condos!) the worse it will get. At this point in time car culture is what you have that works because there are no real alternatives for most other people. I agree that there is a wishful side to not driving CO2 spewing metal juggernauts, I drive an average of 30 miles one day a week because I can but I’m lucky. I have the choice. Not so much with other people raising families and trying to pay the bills…
Cutting traffic is a noble goal. Realistically, cutting lanes for cars without putting up effective alternatives is worse than a joke because it will keep getting people hurt or killed. Stop signs are good, roundabouts are also good, but stuffing cars even closer together in one less lane isn’t all that smart.
sealintheSelkirks
Well said, seal, very reasonable. You can’t be a cyclist with that attitude, you car worshipper you.
And I didn’t even mention the washboards.! Since it only gets graded after a rain and it didn’t rain from March to September. It was hard to walk on…
At 10mph my old 4Runner, I kid you not, jumps/slides sideways. Like being on ice. Can’t describe the jolting and jarring. So yeah, can’t be a cyclist as I didn’t ride my late ’90s Gary Fischer Tassahara mtn. bike even once this year on this road; not even to the neighbor’s up around the corner. But I did get to skate one day a week when I went to town for mail (r/t=30 miles). At least I am still a sidewalk surfer!
Can you imagine on-time, well-maintained, free public transpo? That WOULD change driving habits I think. Pipedreams.
sealintheSelkirks
Please analyze my pipe dream for San Diego:
The La Playa Plan.
A Full Tidelands Reclamation and Transportation Project.
http://tinyurl.com/20190130a
Using the ancient engineering technique of storm water capture using underground water cisterns.
Similar to cistern in front of the old Point Loma Lighthouse.
https://www.lighthousefriends.com/light.asp?ID=29
The FREE public transportation part would use State- and Federal set-aside for public water reclamation projects and infrastructure to pay for the majority of engineering and development costs. The La Playa Plan would combat sea level rise by creating a new base street elevations for the tens of Billion in new Development projects including the Navy’s Old Town Campus, new Airport Terminal, trolley to the airport, Sports Arena redevelopment, and Mission Bay. The La Playa Plan would create the subsurface foundations with underground parking on which all these new projects would be built. Thereby greatly reducing development costs for any project above-grade.
The Full Tidelands Reclamation project would create new public underground space from 10 to 40 feet below grade that can be used for anything. Including co-locating all underground a transportation networks including Class I Bikeway, subways, pedestrian walkways.
While the rest of the space is used for Urban Storm Water capture using structural cistern foundations, free parking. With excess public subsurface land given to manufacturing businesses as incentive to create new local jobs. Adjacent foundations would be attached, similar to rows of bulkheads in shipbuilding.
The first proof-of-concept would be for an underground subway system from Old Town and downtown San Diego, to the Airport by creating the first watertight bulkhead channels.
http://tinyurl.com/20190130a
See Page 8 linked above for the areas in brown which are areas subject to liquefaction, with a low-water table. Prior to 1850 these areas were partially underwater, with swamp-like conditions. These are the areas that will be underground first during any future sea level rise. The La Play Plan solve this expensive problem. Sites include the Midway, Sports Arena, NTC Liberty Station, the Airport, and Port areas. Including West Point Loma Boulevard to Robb Field in Ocean Beach.
The La Playa Plan would be a straight multi-modal transportation corridor from OB to downtown San Diego. All underground. And free to all.
Great article Geoff.
http://pcpb.net/agendas/211118EnvironmentalNewportPalms.pdf
Loved the analysis that the palms trees are “well below the calculated maximum allowable height of 378 feet” and the slow growth rate of mature palm trees.
However, I do not agree that property owners own adjacent public property to the centerline of the street.
This issue came up at the end of Nichols Street in La Playa where adjacent homeowners illegally encroached on the public right-of-way because thought they owned the public Nichols Street to the centerline because it was a paper street. Their attorney Mathew Peterson of Peterson & Price assumed the right-of-way and was never accepted and recorded with the County clerk. The opposing attorney stated “when the land was dedicated to the city as a paper street, the transaction was never accepted and recorded with the county.”
http://www.sdnews.com/view/full_story/299262/article-FENCING-OVER-ACCESS
This is not correct for the Pueblo Lands of San Diego. As the 1856 Charles H. Poole “Official Map for the Pueblo Lands of San Diego” was filed with the County Clerk within the 25 year deadline. Therefore the map was accepted and is legally binding that the City owns the public property, not adjacent homeowners.
https://www.pbagalleries.com/view-auctions/catalog/id/392/lot/122095/Official-Map-of-the-Pueblo-Lands-of-San-Diego-made-by-Jas-Pascoe-City-Engineer
The made up legal issue that private property owners have a legal right to public property, right-of-ways, and streets within the Pueblo Lands of San Diego was closed down in 2007.
What is the legal reasoning for the PCPB to state that “If the City of San Diego rescinds the street right of way the property reverts to the adjacent property”?
Does someone believe the 1856 Poole’s Map was not filed with County Clerk before the 25 year deadline?
Where can I find the “right of way standards and rule” that allow public property to revert to adjacent property owners?
It’s great to hear from you, Kathryn, it has been awhile. I hope you are doing well. You always have good information at your fingertips, thanks for chiming in.
The idea that the land might belong to the property owners came from a landscape architect who is helping out. He worked on a project in Little Italy where he learned the street did belong to the adjacent property owners and an easement was granted to the city to build the street. And, I don’t believe that went as far back as the history you are describing.
This idea was floated but I’m not sure anyone has been able to verify this with any documentation. If you look at the language in the poorly written letter, it stated, “As such, the adjacent property owners owned the land to the center line of the street with an easement granted to the City for the street. If that is the case, then the palm trees in question belong to the adjacent property owners, not to the City.”
The first sentence sounds very factual but the beginning of the second sentence reveals that they overstated their case “If that is the case…” I would not have included this information unless I was certain about it, but that is the PCPB. I doubt very seriously that the “right of way standards and rule” exist, this may just be PCPB wording.
What the letter did very well was the analysis of the elevations, that was the strong suit. That and the ridiculous growth rate the airport used should be enough to save the trees.
If you know how we can check this any further, that would be helpful. Personally, this is not the argument I’d press because I think the other two positions are stronger but any and all ammunition is welcome.
Great to hear from you too. Just found the OB Rag again from a Twitter link. The OB Rag is doing great journalism. Wow. Impressive.
https://twitter.com/RescueHillcrest/status/1465785239481905153
Just noticed the OB Rag has not posted to Twitter since 10/05/2020.
Please start using Twitter again to get a larger audience. Its the only place I go for news.
https://twitter.com/obrag/with_replies
I moved from La Playa to Pacific Beach to live with family after Conrad passed. And still working on homeless issues. And still getting nowhere with the City and County.
https://en-us.topographic-map.com/maps/n0u/San-Diego/
I am not familiar with “potential interference with the line-of-sight Instrument Landing System (ILS).”
The only analysis I can think are the tall SDG&E power poles on the first steep hill going west from the airport runway may be more of a limiting factor, then palm street 1.78 miles away. On the west of Rosecrans Street the City uses white concrete instead of black asphalt due to the steep slopes.
https://en-us.topographic-map.com/maps/n0u/San-Diego/
This map is not great, and should not be relied upon for accuracy, but it is the best I can find.
Plum and Udall Streets: Elevation: 196 feet + plus 30 feet for the SDG&E poles for a height of 226 feet near the airport.
Plus the airport’s elevation is about 17 feet.
Using a straight slope after a plane clears the first steep hill and power poles near Rosecrans, the second hill plus palm trees father away seems like no problem.
I’m so sorry to hear about Conrad. I was going to ask how he was in my first comment but something told me not to. That is a shame. I hope you are doing well over there in PB.
I’m not a Twitter guy, but I think Frank may be. It seems exhausting trying to cover all the social media bases.
Thanks for the additional input. I agree, the excuse for felling these trees does not make sense as they are saying.
I do not know how to do this myself, but a suggestion to create automatic share links to post the article to Facebook, Twitter, mail, etc. below the headline of each story like the SDUT, Voice of San Diego, etc. OB Rag has great reporting that should be easier to share city wide.
https://www.voiceofsandiego.org/topics/news/the-first-year-of-covid-half-of-san-diego-pandemic-deaths-were-immigrants/
The following is just information on Nichols Street that should be saved somewhere public in case the issue of paper streets and adjacent ownership of public property on Pueblo Lands comes up again.
Paper streets in La Jolla and Point Loma were already being targeted by lawyers. La Playa’s own Norman Magneson was the lead on stopping the taking of these public lands citywide, by legal threats, and a made up legal loophole that never existed.
Subject: GIC 843584 – Nichols Street Access to the Beach.
The lawsuit states the legal base for their claim that adjacent property owners own paper streets in the City of San Diego is a note in the margin of the 1856 Charles Poole map of on file at the County of San Diego dated 11/14/1921.
The note on the margin of the Pooles map referenced Superior Court Case No. 35818 -Eugene Scharr, et. al. versus The City of San Diego, November 12-14, 1921. I went to the court achieves and found the court case referenced on the map. The case involved citizens of San Diego who were worried that the City Council and the City Clerk gave the City Treasurer possession of the two official maps of the City of San Diego. These maps were the 1856 Charles Pooles Map (Exhibit A) filed 02/04/1876; and the May 1870 James Pascoe City Engineer Map (Exhibit B).
The maps were stored in the fire-proof safe of the City Treasurer, in a separate building for security reasons. It seems that citizens wanted possession of the maps returned to the City Council and City Clerk, instead of in the City Treasurer’s fire-proof safe. The citizens also wanted access to the original 1856 Pooles and 1870 Pascoe maps because they were referenced on most County of San Diego deeds and land transactions.
The judge determined that the maps were still in the possession of the City Clerk and City Council even through the maps were in the City Treasurer’s fire-proof safe. He also said that copies of the Official Maps of the City of San Diego were to be filed in the County of San Diego Clerk with a date of 11/14/1921 for citizens’ reference and easy access.
When reading the Matt Peterson complaint for Ellis (La Playa View Holding) and Barman (Sabin), they mentioned the main reason for their case as being that the 1849 Cave Johnson Couts and the 1856 Pooles Maps of the Pueblo Lands of San Diego were filed with the County Clerk on 11/14/1921 (see Item No. 8). There is a 65 year span between 1849 and 1921.
As a note, only the Pooles and Pascoe maps are Official Maps of the Pueblo Land of San Diego and are referenced on County deeds and land transactions. The Couts map is not considered an official map. Mr. Peterson also reference the 25-year limit for filing of the maps and CCP 771.010 which is shown below.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayText.xhtml?lawCode=CCP&division=&title=10.&part=2.&chapter=4.5.&article=2.
C.C.P. 771.010 Section 771.010 – Land Dedicated for Public Improvement.
If a proposal is heretofore or hereafter made to dedicate real property for public improvement, there is a conclusive presumption that the proposed dedication was not accepted if all of the following conditions are satisfied:
(b) No acceptance of the dedication was made and recorded within 25
years after the map was filed.
(c) The real property was not used for the purpose for which the
dedication was proposed within 25 years after the map was filed.
I believe Mr. Peterson is confusing the date of the 1921 Scharr v. San Diego court case, with the official filing date of the 1856 Pooles map filed 02/04/1876 (within 20 years) and the May 1870 Pascoe map.
As seen in Scharr v. San Diego, the city accepted the Pooles map as the Official Map of San Diego by resolution at a meeting of the Board of Trustees on September 8, 1856. Also M. Keating, the City Clerk and the Clerk of the Board of Trustees of San Diego, filed the map on February 4, 1876.
The following excepts are from Scharr v. San Diego:
“That the said Charles H. Poole did make and prepare a map of plat subdividing a large portion of said lands of said City into lots and subdivisions and delivered said map to said Board of Trustees, and that on the 8th day of September, 1856, said Board of Trustees duly accepted said map and declared the same to be the official map of San Diego; that said map was then and there in charge of the aforesaid Trustees and has at all times since been and now is the property of the City of San Diego.”
“That on the 4th day of February 1876, one M. Keating was the duly elected, qualified and acting City Clerk and Clerk of the Board of Trustee of said City of San Diego; that pursuant to and by virtue of an order of said Board of Trustees made on said last named date, said Clerk wrote and endorsed upon said map made by said Charles H. Poole and so in charge and custody of the Trustee aforesaid, the following words and figures: “Filed 4 February 1876 M. Keating Clerk”: that said filing and endorsement was done for the purpose of identifying said map as being the map so prepared by said Poole and in charge and custody of said Board of Trustee, and for the further purpose of placing said map in the custody of said Clerk in his capacity as Clerk and representative of the Board of Trustees of said City.”
After former City Attorney Mike Aguirre’s Deputy Attorney Malinda Dickenson showed Peterson the creepy way their tried to hoodwink the public by purposely misinterpreting the 1921 Eugene Scharr versus City of San Diego litigation, they stopped their shady lawsuit and gave up.
Fascinating history, Kathryn, thanks for providing all that information.
It’s funny. Ever since the OB Rag and some of its writers drew a line in the sand and said Circulate San Diego is not a friend to OBceans and San Diegans, we have been attacked by a handful of commenters. We have been convinced that under the guise of bicycling safety, Circulate SD pushes a view that greatly aids the developer class in San Diego. For instance, Circulate has come out and endorsed the very worse proposal by the Navy on the NAVWAR redevelopment.
We’re erroneously labeled “anti-bicycling” — which is an old debate trick, the red herring one, “the straw-man argument,” where you paint your opponent as someone or something that nobody likes (when actually they’re not), and attack that image. Nobody can stand someone who is “anti-bicycling” – ‘OMG! How could they be that?!’
Oh, if we’re not that, we are carbon coughing car supporters, we support the death of the planet.
Well, we’re none of that. We’re against elitist bicyclists who convince everyone that they know what’s best. They convinced planning boards to create a “road-diet” on West Point Loma without an adequate public meeting or input, which is endangering car drivers and bicyclists.
These elitists are anti-democratic in this way. They don’t like public town hall meetings on important traffic and road-safety issues.
We’ll keep saying it: Circulate San Diego is not a friend of the environment but is a friend of the developers; other bicycling groups need to come to grips with that and reanalysis their relationship.
I think that’s kind of a broad brush to say it’s not a friend to Obcians and San Diegans in general. It really comes down to what side of the coin you’re on. Out and around North Park I know quite a few people who very much support Circulate SD. I’m not saying most but I am saying quite a few do. I imagine there are Obcians who do as well. I support them overall even if I don’t support every single aspect.
Chris, it’s easy to boggle people. All one has to do is inflame the emotional side of the human brain and everything else short circuits. It makes people stupid! What Frank said works, trigger the outrage even if it is bullcrap and with a very well concealed agenda like pro-neighborhood destroyers buried underneath nobody bothers to look any deeper.
Hence 72,000,000 people voted for Trump, ya know? That pretty much shows how freaking easy it is!
Want to get people out of their infernal combustion engines? Want more bike riding and bike lanes? Here’s how to make a big damn difference:
What If Riding the Bus Were Free?
Saying ‘no fares’ could make public transit better and streets safer, while speeding up climate and justice progress. Who’s on board?
https://thetyee.ca/News/2021/11/29/Free-Bus-Fare-Public-Transit/
If anybody was really serious this proposal would be in front of every city in the world…
sealintheSelkirks
The only elitists in this conversation are the ones that have the luxury of tooling around town without a car. Most everyone else cannot live where they work, and move every time their work moves, and transport their work materials on a bus or bicycle, and are free of children or other dependents that require zigzagging all over town to provide for them.
I walk for nearly everything I can buy local. I wish there were more walkable options, but they seem to be getting replaced by touristy shops. For everything else I enjoy biking, or taking the train if it goes close to where I have to go, when I have to go, and can carry what I need to get there and back. But it’s only on rare occasion those stars all line up and can replace driving a car.
Free transit would be a better approach, but I still could not ride the bus if it were free. It would take me 2 hours to get to work, and 2.5 to get home. Simply not feasible for working stiffs with families. But it might sway some, and improve ridership enough to justify more routes.
What kh has written would apply to a great many people, far more than those who can mange their lives with only a bicycle or what passes for mass transit here. And, I would guess those who can, are not burdened with the things kh and others are, such as children.
One thing that has gotten lost in this conversation is the absolutely awful service provided by transit in San Diego. Until the new blue line extension, the only population that received adequate service were border crossers who worked either in downtown or Mission Valley. Everybody else? Not so much. I offer the example of trying to go to Trolley Dances every year. They occur at, wait for it…trolley stations, so, logically I wanted to attend by trolley. Unfortunately, to get there by bus and trolley from OB takes over one and a half hours each way, for a trip that took about 15 minutes by car. So…guess which mode I chose.
One of the dirty secrets of San Diego transit is the metrics they use for determining the level of service that is provided. It isn’t customer satisfaction, it isn’t travel time, it isn’t headway, it’s fare box recovery. That is the only metric of success: how much money they collect in the fare box relative to the cost of providing service.
There is at least one city (I cannot remember which one) that has abandoned fares completely, in the hopes that more people will ride transit. Every ride is free every day. Maybe we should try that here.
Oh, and by the way, it’s official. We can no longer believe anything SANDAG says about anything. Yesterday’s UT reported that SANDAG now admits that the sales pitch for the blue line extension, relieving traffic on I-5 and connecting roadways, was a crock. It’s now about avoiding future congestion on our roads. A prominent urban planner was even quoted as saying that building transit extensions have never, repeat NEVER reduced road congestion, anywhere. Add this to the projected revenues that were supposed to result from TransNet taxes, the failure to disclose the fact that revenue projections were not met and the promised transportation projects that have not been and now never will be built and SANDAG has lost all credibility. Think about this when the next tax and road user fee comes up on the ballot.
I had never heard of the term “fare box recovery.” You are dead right, if that is how they plan mass transit routes, nothing will improve. The city’s transit system should operate as the Post Office does, under a mandate to serve everywhere, regularly.
Getting people out of cars provides a financial benefit that could be quantified, I would think. So many fewer cars, so much less road maintenance, fewer hours of first responders to accidents, things like that. If that could be quantified, it could justify subsidizing mass transit.
As for SANDAG, you are very correct. It reminds me of the old Center City Corp, maybe created for good reasons but eventually becoming self-perpetuating organs more than anything else. SANDAG has became the big dreamer for the county, something it was not created to do. I would add this deal with the Navy in trying to get a billion dollar plus Grand Central at the old SPAWWAR site to the list of big, unnecessary expensive dreams SANDAG is promoting. And, rest assured, they are spending real money on studies and consultants and their own staff time on some of these pipe dreams.