By Geoff Page
As related in The Rag’s July 19 article, the Ocean Beach Planning Board Transportation subcommittee met Monday, July 23 to discuss a couple of radical traffic ideas – a Parking District and a new road through Robb Field.
The Rag story generated, to date, 28 comments. Many were not favorable but there was also a good discussion of alternative ideas. The subcommittee meeting did not generate a similar response, only four people attended, not counting this writer.
The meeting began by electing a new chair for the four-person subcommittee. The nominations for chair opened and subcommittee member Tyler Martin immediately nominated himself — and he was elected. It soon became apparent that Martin, a new board member elected in March, was the force behind this effort. The story here may actually be Mr. Martin.
The former chair, still on the subcommittee, was Tracy Dezenzo. The other two members are Andrea Schlageter, OBPB chair, and Virginia Wilson. All three would be considered heavyweights on the OBPB with years of volunteer service on the board.
Parking District
The subcommittee, or rather Martin, went through the two proposals – the first being the Parking District. The presentation was titled, “Request to Form a Parking District Ocean Beach.” There are several references to the 13-page City Council Policy 100-18, “Community Parking District” in the request document.
The council policy goes into great detail explaining what it takes to form a parking district. The policy explains that a request to form a parking district must come from “A community planning group, City-owned nonprofit, or a nonprofit managing a City-assessment district…” This explains the OBPB’s involvement.
One sentence in Council Policy 100-18 was enough to worry anyone with experience dealing with the city, “The Community Parking District Program shall be administered by the Mayor or City Manager.”
The introduction to the subcommittee’s parking district request letter states:
Parking issues exist in Ocean Beach despite the existing management mechanisms within the community. The management solutions provided in Ocean Beach currently are a one size fits all approach and do not provide the location-specific solutions required to solve the detailed problems outlined in studies and in community conversations. The issues have been identified in a study conducted by The City of San Diego Mobility Planning Section City Planning and through ongoing community discussions.
The title of the city study is “2010 Existing Conditions Report.” This is the supporting data for the parking district request, a 14-year-old study. This appears to be a problem. The 54-page, 2010 report is attached to the subcommittee’s parking request letter.
Under a section of the request letter titled, “Suggested Parking Management Solutions,” was first a discussion of parking meters. The draft request stated, “Ocean Beach has the potential to add meters to off-street (beach) parking lots and commercial districts (Voltaire, Newport, Pt. Loma).”
When asked directly if the plan is to put meters in the beach parking lots, Martin too emphatically replied, “I don’t know” and, just as too emphatically said, “the city doesn’t know.” That reply, for anyone familiar with this city, means yes, but we do not want to admit it until we are ready.
The information on meter revenues was useful to know. After deducting all the city’s costs for managing the meter system from the total meter revenue, the remaining revenue would be shared between OB and the city. Looking at the shared percentages, the city’s purpose for promoting parking districts is readily apparent, it is a revenue generator. The parking district gets only 45 percent of the revenue after costs, the city gets 55 percent.
As bad as that revenue sharing looks, what the parking district is expected to do with some of its 45 percent reduces the 45 percent even more, and increases the city’s coffers even more. The parking district is expected to fund parking enforcement in its area with some of the 45 percent.
There is nothing in Council Policy 100-18 quantifying how much of the 45 percent the parking district would need to set aside for parking enforcement.
This looks like a really good deal for the city because its coffers will increase beyond its 55 percent of parking meter revenue. The city would no longer have to spend city money enforcing parking regulations that the city traditionally has enforced. The city’s Council Policy 100-18 looks more and more like a revenue generator getting private citizens to create and run parking districts for the city.
There is another benefit for the city not mentioned in the meeting. The request letter has a section titled “Elimination of parking requirements on private property.” It states:
The OB Parking District, and Ocean Beach Planning Area, are entirely within a transit priority area. (right) Complete Communities, ADU programs, and density bonuses for affordable have increased parking demand in the public right-of-way.
This means these parking districts, manned by private citizens, will work on trying to solve the parking problems that the city’s policies are causing. This is exactly the kind of thing the city should be doing as a part of its policies allowing construction of housing with no off-street parking.
The community will have opportunities to speak up on parking meters. There may be good arguments on both sides of the issue. If there is opposition to parking meters, those voices need to speak up. When there is money to had, the impetus will be to put meters in. This is more about a planned project than a discussion of possibilities.
Another parking management solution is a residential parking program. This solution involves residents buying yearly residential parking permits that would ensure them a parking spot on their street between the hours of “6pm to 8am.” During the day, the street would be open to public parking.
The parking permit solution has two major flaws. First, it does not solve the problem of the streets being flooded with people parking there all day from 8am to 6pm, because the building they live in nearby has no parking. Daytime will still be a mess.
The second problem with residential permits would be enforcement. Martin said no problem, tow trucks would have blanket authorization to tow any vehicle on the street without a permit. So simple. Duh.
“Increasing Parking Inventory” is another solution. The solution is a parking structure. Here is the proposal:
The committee will investigate working with city staff and property developers to enable the creation of an in-lieu parking program. As part of this program, developers would pay fees in lieu of providing on-site parking for their project. These fees would be used to construct a public parking structure or expansion of existing parking. An example of a proactive program might be one in which developers pool their parking requirements for other projects into a communal structure that would both meet their parking needs for new residential development yet could be utilized by shoppers during the day. Secondly, the committee will research the development of a community parking structure that utilizes a beneficial public/ private partnership and acts as a catalyst for further development.
The obvious problem with this idea that a great deal of development would need to occur in OB in order to raise enough “in-lieu” fees to build a parking structure. The key words in this proposal are “new residential development” and “a catalyst for further development.”
“Shared Parking” is another solution. What little available private lot parking OB has is already shared in some way.
“Additional Enforcement” is another solution that OB would need to see to believe.
There is a lot of information in the parking request letter, if nothing else, it looks like a first salvo in the push to develop OB into something very different than what it now is.
Making Connection to I-8 Through Robb Field
The subcommittee devoted the second half of the meeting to Martin’s capital improvement ideas to improve, well, almost everything. To say that the proposal overreaches would be an understatement. The depth and breadth of the proposals go far beyond anything the OBPB would have any responsibility for and far, far beyond what realistically might happen.
The one item in the CIP proposal discussed in detail was the suggestion making a connection from the end of I-8 through Robb Field. This would involve removing the skate park and paving a road to the east end of the Robb Field parking lot parallel to the tennis courts.
Martin explained that doing this would allow traffic, headed to Robb Field events from the freeway, to avoid going down Sunset Cliffs to West Point Loma and then west to Bacon Street. The main reason for this would be to accommodate people coming from outside of OB to the athletic fields. In other words, this is not necessarily for OB people.
When the subject of the skate park came up in the meeting, Martin said it was old and the concrete was old. It was pointed out that the park is only a little over 20 years old, it opened in 2000. Concrete will easily last longer than 24 years.
It was also pointed out to Martin, whose knowledge of OB and its history seemed to be lacking, that the skate park is very popular and removing it to accommodate visitors from other parts of the city would not be well received.
A member of the audience had an idea for an alternate routing. He suggested a right turn off the end-of-freeway intersection on the south side of the skate park with a road running inside the park, parallel to Sunset Cliffs. This road would be where there is now a wide, meandering sidewalk that connects the river bike path on the north end to the parking lot at Robb Field that parallels Sunset Cliffs.
The audience member then suggested widening the narrow road that connects that parking lot to the parking lots at the park entrance north of the Bacon Street roundabout. The result would be a straight through connection from the end of the freeway to Bacon Street. This idea avoided demolition of the skate park.
However, all of the ideas involving Robb Field are out of the OBPB’s jurisdiction, the park belongs to the Mission Bay Park system. For everything else proposed, read Martin’s CIP proposal.
Tyler Martin
Martin obtained a seat of the OBPB by default, there were not enough candidates running for open seats so whoever did run got a seat. This explains how a self-proclaimed developer, a YIMBY, and a fan of the current mayor wound up on the Ocean Beach planning board.
At one point in the meeting, Martin mentioned that he planned to speak to Gloria the next time he saw him, implying a relationship. If that is true, Martin could do OB a lot more good advocating for the OB Library or for a new lifeguard station. If Martin understood OB , he would understand these are the priorities.
What Martin seems to be pushing is all aimed at increasing development in OB. Some might like that, but it would not be the prevailing preference for most OBceans. The impractical nature of such far reaching proposals cannot be attributed to the naivete of youth, as Martin is in his mid-30s.
Martin’s motivation is clearly to enhance development in OB. He is pushing things Gloria would like to see, not what OB wants to see. There is nothing wrong with a differing opinion and many may like some of Martin’s ideas. But, the people he has to persuade are on the OBPB, and without their support, the proposals are dead.
Another parking management solution is a residential parking program. This solution involves residents buying yearly residential parking permits that would ensure them a parking spot on their street between the hours of “6pm to 8am.” During the day, the street would be open to public parking.
LOL we’re going through similar crap with SDSU. On campus freshmen dictated to living on the campus aren’t allowed to have a car, so those bucking the rule look to park at un permitted parking nearby clogging up nearby neighborhoods. Or a most recent campus apartment option that opened has 300 beds but 41 parking spaces. On top of the ADU rules that have eaten available parking. Even if you have a permit system, you’re likely paying the city for those permits, another no fault of your own situation. Lastly, I abhor putting stickers on my cars.
GLTY, but I’m sure as soon as you make that parking lot, Todd and/ or Elo will want it for their homeless parking dynasty.
I guess I’m confused how one person, totally new to OB and the Board, can make such waves and disrupt people’s tranquility. How did one person get all these controversial projects onto an agenda of the OB Planning Board’s?
I went to the planning board website to read about the members. All the members state how long they’ve lived in OB, how they love the community, and are hoping to keep it protected and safe, Except Tyler. His is all about his business:
Tyler is a San Diego based real estate developer who has built over 1,500 homes, open space preserves, public streets and parks, and environmental mitigation solutions. His experience implementing traffic and parking mitigation foster responsible growth while increasing desperately needed housing supply. Tyler’s decision-making is driven by the greater good – balancing the private enjoyment of ones home with sustainable growth and access to public property.
Thanks, you’re right and you quoted a description right off his business website. Truly, it appears that Tyler’s decision-making is driven by dreams of profit made off his position on the board, and not by the greater good.
Please read my comment. Thanks.
Subcommittees usually have the time to explore proposals from the public, and board members. It’s not a high bar to get on a committee agenda, it’s a starting point. If ideas fall flat, so be it. There are many people with ideas out there but few that put the effort in to package them into something coherent that can be properly scrutinized.
Interesting:
https://tmartindevelopment.com/
This is what Martin’s website says:
Tyler Martin is a southern California real estate developer. Born in a small midwestern town, Tyler relocated to San Diego in 2015 and swiftly began his career in development. A successful pre-law graduate at the University of Illinois, Tyler is adept at navigating the regulatory complexities of California’s development environment. A credentialed city planner and project management professional, Tyler’s forward planning finishes projects on-time and on-budget. As a member of his local planning group, Tyler built a reputation for increasing housing opportunities in his own community. With experience ranging from entitlements to certificates of occupancy, Tyler has an excellent reputation for permit approvals.
This line jumped out at me as a personality indicator:
“As a member of his local planning group, Tyler built a reputation for increasing housing opportunities in his own community.”
In less than four months?
I made the suggestion for a second entrance to Rob Field to enter into the park at the North end of the southeast parking lot. Not with a road parallel to Sunset Cliffs but with a right turn off of Sunset Cliffs, South of where the sidewalk turns to go to that parking lot. It would travel between the Palm trees to a stop sign at the parking lot. This would reduce out of town traffic going to Rob Field on West Point Loma and be far cheaper and easier than the other proposal.
Thanks for clarifying that, Jonathan. it was confusing to listen to and is confusing to read. Let me see if I get it.
-A right turn off SS Cliffs – east of the light at SS Cliffs and West Pt. Loma -into the parking lot parallel to SS Cliffs.
You also suggested rebuilding the road from that parking lot to the west side of ball fields that is now basically a one-lane road, correct?
The problem I see is the stop sign at the parking lot. If I’m correct, the length of the turn off SS Cliffs to the parking lot would not hold a lot of cars and would end up holding up through traffic in the right lane of SS Cliffs. The idea I misunderstood actually made some sense to me.
With any of the ideas, none will help the situation when everyone wants to leave Robb Field.
OBPB website states: “Tyler is a San Diego based real estate developer who has built over 1,500 homes, open space preserves, public streets and parks, and environmental mitigation solutions. His experience implementing traffic and parking mitigation foster responsible growth while increasing desperately needed housing supply. Tyler’s decision-making is driven by the greater good – balancing the private enjoyment of ones home with sustainable growth and access to public property.”
To be clear. This was not a planning board plan or proposal. These two items were submitted by Tyler to be reviewed by the committee. They were only information items and no action was taken. Any mention of the planning board, creating or endorsing any of these plans as of this meeting is inaccurate.
The Transportation sub-committee is obviously an arm of the OBPB and a reflection of the entire board and as such the Planning Board is responsible; it’s not like it’s an independent agency from the Board.
4 people do not represent the holistic voice of the Planning Board. If board members want to propose something it’s their prerogative and they have a right to be heard just like anyone else however implausible their proposals are. In this case, Tyler had an idea and he had the right to present it. He is only one vote on the committee of 4 and he is only one vote on the full Board. And I’ll repeat, this item was informational and no vote was taken so it went nowhere.
There ought to be some kind of vetting process for new proposals to see the light of day – would save time and energy and not waste the community’s. Tyler is now the chair of the sub-committee, which in his agenda announcement, he characterized as a “board,” plus he generously touts his brief role on the OBPB on his business website. So, he plans to make money off his position on the OBPB — so he’s more than “only one vote.”
His erroneous usage and mention of the Board in his documents has been dealt with and called out in the meeting. He was also informed by others prior, that this would likely be a nonstarter. I was technically chair for this meeting until after the vote to make him chair and allowed the presentations to be added to the agenda, but if these items were not on this agenda they would’ve been added to the next one since he is now chair. As you know, Chairs set their agenda. I wouldn’t worry too much. The chances of something coming from all of this is slim. It’s been brought up multiple times in the past and went nowhere.
It’s board members like you — responsible, common-sensical — that continue to give the board weight. Thank you.
I will second that comment.
I would support ANY parking proposal that includes putting parking meters in beach parking lots. I am so tired of watching old campers set up for the whole day and never go to the beach.
It happened in Venice, CA, a community very much like OB … when parking meters went in, the neighborhood died.
Define “died”. I have been to innumerable CA beach communities and SD is essentially the only city that has free beach parking.
… And did you actually live in any of them? Died? It lost its soul.
They did a parking study and like 1/3 of the vehicles in the lifeguard lot never moved at all, and most of the rest came before dawn and stayed all day. The pier lot was not as bad, but anyone going there can attest to the lack of turnover. Employees are also using it all day, which the Coastal Commission and city shouldn’t be too happy with.
They should have a gate and a 4 hour free, with charge after that. You have to pay to leave, of if you wanna try for more free parking you have to leave and reenter. Or it could require your license plate info and not let you back in right away. This would also make it easier to track usage.
A parking district is needed to manage these lots, and other public parking, and even private lots. This would be a new local organization, or part of an existing one. They would potentially manage a lot of funds and could reinvest some of it locally into transportation/parking related improvement projects. It’s been discussed numerous times by community members but would take a serious effort and energy to get off the ground. PB is creating a parking district.
But who’s gonna enforce and monitor this: “They should have a gate and a 4 hour free, with charge after that. You have to pay to leave, of if you wanna try for more free parking you have to leave and reenter. “??
There’s not enough code enforcement now, and some people complain they can’t ever find a police officer. A city in budget crisis even?
BTw, could you write up or comment on the results of today’s committee hearing on STRO?
I will give a summary. I’m not sure what to expect.
As for the free first parking that charges after a set amount of time, this is a common strategy for public parking lots. This is how it works at UTC mall. 2 hours free, with fees accruing beyond that. Yes you pay to leave. A longer free period would be favored by the Coastal Commission. The current setup of allowing RVs and employees to hog parking every day, is limiting beach access for visitors, and is probably hurting the businesses too.
LOL stiff the employees for parking like it’s their fault.
ENFORCEMENT, Harry, that is, and always has been, the problem. Meters won’t solve that problem.