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.