By Geoff Page
Please note that on Monday, February 12, the City will hold a public hearing in city hall on changes to parking rules and modifications in the city’s Municipal Code (see official notice below).
This then is a brief account of the city’s newest effort to reduce street parking and the California Coastal Commission’s (CCC) reactions. What the city wants to do is anathema to many people, reduce parking and parking requirements. But, the Coastal Commission’s recommendations can only be described as impractical.
This City Council is proposing adoption of the CCC’s modifications. First what the city has done, then the CCC recommendations.
The city modified the Municipal Code to allow eating and drinking establishments, within transit priority areas, to remove private, off-street parking spaces that they may have to develop outdoor dining spaces.
This has already happened in Ocean Beach with Pizzeria Luigi on the southwest corner of Bacon and Newport Ave. That building had a small parking lot behind it, on Bacon, that is now used for dining. Whoever used to park there before is now parking on the surrounding streets.
The CCC’s suggested modifications, to allowing the city to make this change, would require eating and drinking establishments to provide “transit passes for employees or tenants and a specified vehicle miles traveled reduction measure, such as a shared bicycle fleet, electrical battery charging stations for micro-mobility devices, or carpool parking spaces.”
Just who does the CCC think will manage all of that? Who will keep track of all the transit passes for all the eating and drinking establishments? A specified vehicle miles traveled reduction measure? And on and on. Completely impractical.
The second CCC modification had to do with the city’s Municipal Code change to the minimum parking requirements for eating and drinking establishments. The city now allows those businesses to replace required automobile parking at a ratio of two bicycle parking spaces for each automobile parking space removed.
There could be no better illustration of the cycling lobby’s ridiculous influence within this administration than this.
The CCC’s suggested modification would require eating and drinking establishments, that replace automobile parking with bicycle parking, to install micro-mobility charging stations at a rate of one charging station per automobile parking space replaced or five charging stations, whichever is less.
This modification shows how very up-to-date the cycling lobbying was, charging stations made it in. Again, who will manage this requirement? Who will keep track of all the places that did this and ensure that they all have the correct number of charging stations, that also work? Where will all the electrical infrastructure come from?
This is a public hearing so anyone who wants to speak up on this can do so by attending the meeting or submitting something on-line. This will very probably pass, another example of the sad state of our city government.
The bicycle lobby is nothing but a bunch of exreme elitist bullies that expect the world to change to their point of view. How shameful that their attitude toward the elderly and disabled is so cavalier.
Poor Sam I Am. He seems unhappy with our “cavalier” attitude. What a chump.
Too bad this public hearing is at 2 rather than maybe 6 or 7 when most people will be off from work.
That is not true. The lot behind Luigi’s is a separate parcel, not required parking. There was a furniture store in that lot that burned down in the 1950s. Get your facts straight. There is a picture of the furniture store behind what is now Luigi’s hanging on the wall as you walk into Luigi’s on the left.
It was parking before it was converted. So it is a separate parcel, who knows how it is connected to Luigi’s building.
Furthermore, Zekes fried chicken did not have any required parking. Because it has not changed use or occupancy, no parking is required at Luigi’s as that building has previously conforming rights.
Zekes Fried Chicken? The previous business was a Mexican restaurant. And do you actually know anything about the previously conforming rights for this location?
It was always a restaurant. When it was Zekes fried chicken long before Bravos there was no such thing as required parking. Yes of course I know about previously conforming rights or I obviously would not know that phrase. These are 2 separate parcels with 2 separate APNs. That’s why Luigi’s does not have required parking.
You said you “know about previously conforming rights or I obviously would not know that phrase.” But, you did not say if you knew of any previously conforming rights specifically for either property. Do you know?
Yes. Because it was a restaurant before required parking existed, it has previously conforming rights to zero parking requirements. I’m a rep on the planning board and I work for Swinerton FYI
So, you are saying that you know for a fact that the property has previously conforming rights to zero parking? Or are you making an assumption?
Happy to see anyone willing to be on the OBPB, although I’m not sure how that is relevant.
And Swinerton is a fine company. I myself have 47 years of construction industry experience. But, again, I don’t see the relevance.
Luigi’s/bravos/Zekes has never had required parking. The building takes up the entire lot and was constructed 70+ years ago when parking was not required and it hasn’t changed use since.
And after Monday the city will remove all parking requirements for eating and drinking uses in the beach impact area.
The lot was used for parking though and I believe it was for the restaurant, unless someone knows differently. Luigi’s is certainly using what was parking for dining now.
Yes, and some other adjacent commercial tenants were using it too. But it was never required parking for any of them.
Nice, more bicycle parking. This will be convenient for when my family goes out to dinner on our ebikes that are becoming increasingly popular. The cargo bike I ride with my daughter is bulky and it can be awkward finding a spot.
What kind (brand) is it?
E-Bike may need a breathalyzer bike lock.
Drunk-riding a bike isn’t much safer than drunk-driving a car. A bicycle lock/breathalyzer device alerts a pre-selected emergency contact and keep the bike locked!
Note: Under California Vehicle Code §21200.5, it is illegal to ride a bicycle while under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or both.
Not sure if Newport or any of the residential streets of OB count as a “highway”. With that being said, there is always drunk rollerblading or longboarding.
Impeccable logic from the peanut gallery.
More to quibble over:
8308. “Street” and “highway” include all or part of, or any right in, a state highway or other public highway, road, street, avenue, alley, lane, driveway, place, court, trail, or other public right-of-way or easement, or purported public street or highway, and rights connected therewith, including, but not limited to, restrictions of access or abutters’ rights, sloping easements, or other incidents to a street or highway.
The code you referenced specifically states, “highways”. Whether or not that extends to residential streets I’m not a legal expert, so I don’t know. It’s kind of a non-starter since there exists organized bike winery/brewery tours that people reserve spots for and buy tickets to participate. There are even organized bike bar crawls. I did one last Saturday. If those are illegal, no one seems to be enforcing them unless the riders do something stupid. Therefore, if I’m breaking the law then I guess I need a good wrist slap.
Odd you brought that up in the first place since all Will mentioned is going out to dinner with his family via e-bikes. He said nothing about drinking alcohol.
Under CVC 21200.5, a “highway” refers to any
-public road or
-street.5
A highway does not include a freeway. This is because cycles are generally prohibited on freeways.
Of course you’re no legal expert. Unlikely you’d ever be confused as such.
Still, driving or riding drunk or intoxicated is probably not recommended. This seems reasonable and fair.
Consider though, being drunk and riding a bicycle might not sound like that big of a deal, but the implications of a crash could mean life or death for the bike rider. Imagine if you blew through a stop sign on your bike because you were too drunk to notice one was there. Or if you drove straight into traffic? Not only could you kill yourself, but you could cause a crash that will kill others too. And imagine selfishly leaving behind young children, family, friends, etc.
No one would confuse you for one either.
I actually agree with you about riding intoxicated.
“… going out to dinner with his family via e-bikes. He said nothing about drinking alcohol…”
Yep, you’re no legal expert but, perhaps, a super sleuth not unlike Columbo, McCloud or even Quincy!
Now get back to work! And have a great weekend.
I am at work. The cool thing is your tax dollars are paying my salary lol.
Tax dollars often go to assist those in need.
Indeed, but it also allows some to sit on their butts all day and watch movies and play on the internet. Sometimes actual work will get done.
Some aren’t motivated to contribute. You’re admitting to being a slacker, are ya? Guessing military, correct?
Indeed. The DoD is the best way to be a slacker. From the bottom of my heart, I thank you for your tax dollars. I double dip with both my active duty retirement pension and GS salary.
Additionally, get some some disability from an off duty skateboarding injury from my active duty days.
“active duty”. Slag… bahahaha!
Gotta admit Vern,
when I was on the Peleliu I did have a pretty cushy office job in an air conditioned work space while the embarked Marines were on the ground in the thick of it. Some didn’t come back. Guess it’s safe to say I made the right decisions. They were getting shot at while I was at a deck watching movies and playing video games.
Again I thank you for your tax dollars. I may be a slag but I had more fun than they did.
Do you like moves about
gladiators?
Getting to know you.
A charging station for micro-mobility devices??? Since there is no charging standard for these devices how is the charging station going to be utilized? Are there even any commercially available MMD charging stations out there??
And who carries their charger with them? Everybody I know who owns an MMD understands their range limitations and they don’t travel long distances.
Sometimes I wonder if the Coastal Commission staff is grounded in the real world.
This is great, now my grandma can pack her beach gear and ride her Bird scooter out from El Cajon and won’t have to worry about finding parking.
The OB Planning Board weighed in on this issue in 2021 but did not make a recommendation. Video here, starting at 55:50. My comments at 1:23:40
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLCLrEWCLDE&t=3489s
Here is my comment I sent councilmembers today:
Removing parking requirements in the Coastal Zone for dining establishments is a terrible idea. This allows scooter corrals or bike storage in lieu of required car spots. I’m amazed that the Coastal Commission is sanctioning this.
How exactly does this preserve coastal access? Are families from inland San Diego expected to ride bikes and scooters to visit the beach? What about the elderly? And why are the giveaways for just the bars and restaurants at the expense of other business uses and others? These are precisely the businesses that require the most parking. You know those customers will still be driving in, but now they will be circling the blocks longer, taking up more public parking that is already sorely lacking.
This effort cloaked in environmentalism, is discriminatory toward the elderly, the disabled, other commercial uses, and especially discriminatory toward inland and lower income visitors and families that, unlike me, do not have the privilege of walking or riding a scooter or bike to visit the beach. Now a clothing store will require more parking than a restaurant! I encourage you to come visit Newport Ave in Ocean Beach during the peak tourist season and watch all the cars idling and polluting while searching in vain for parking, and ask yourself how this benefits those visitors, or the environment.
I agree that we need some flexibility on parking requirements, but deleting all parking requirements and encouraging removal of existing parking; is not the answer. Currently most businesses here are under-parked or have no off-street parking at all, and therefore can never expand or change use. The only workaround now is shared parking agreements which everyone knows are a joke and don’t get used as intended. Instead, Council should consider some sort of reduction (but not to zero) and allow ALL commercial uses the option of an in-lieu fee that funds public parking facilities (for automobiles).
Expecting Grandma to ride a Bird scooter to visit the beach is not realistic.
I watched the video and then I went to see The Rag story about that meeting. You didn’t mention why the OBPB did not make a recommendation and I found the reason in the last paragraph of the article.
“But, what finally put an end to the discussion was when it was pointed out the OBPB had not heard from the merchants about this. None had attended the meeting or contacted the board about it. There was a reluctance to take an action without hearing from the merchants so the item was tabled. The board plans to invite the OB Mainstreet Association to the next meeting for their input. It was curious why no one from the merchants group had attended either of the meetings to discuss this issue.”
I did not see the matter in the November and December meeting minutes, did the OBPB take a vote on this at some point? Did the merchants ever chime in?