GREATER GOLDEN HILL PLANNING COMMITTEE MINUTES
January 11, 2012
Meeting Agenda is found in Attachment 1 at the end of these minutes.
Meeting was held at Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse – Golf Course Drive.
Chair Pat Shields called the meeting to order at 6:30 pm. Agenda had been posted in accordance with Brown Act. A quorum of members was present.
Members present: Ruchell Alvarez, Richard Baldwin, Cheryl Brierton, Susan Bugbee. Maureen Burke (arrived late), Carole Caffey, John Kroll, Richard Santini, Pat Shields, David Skillman, Marie Skillman, David Swarens, Matt Thomas, Angela Vasconcellos, Jessica Wolf. Members absent: David Strickland
Addition/deletions to Agenda - None.
Approval of Minutes – Minutes of 11/9/11 meeting were approved (motion D Skillman, second Caffey) 11 in favor, none opposed; Brierton, Bugbee and Wolf abstained.
Treasurer’s Report: – balance remains the same.
GOVERNMENTAL REPORTS.
53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner: Distributed copies of Davis Dispatch. Highlighted: Jobs Act, Super Committee failure, recent advocacy survey.
City Council District – Anthony Bernal introduced Courtney Thomson who will be our new District Representative. For 2012 Gloria will chair Council Budget Committee and sit on Land Use, as well as serving on the new Economic Development Committee. Kroll asked if Gloria had noted abuses in the redevelopment process, and what he hopes to see at its replacement. Thomson will report back on this.
City Council District 8 – Gloria Rodriguez: Distributed District newsletter. CPR training to be held at Chavez Elementary on 1/21/12. Kroll said he appreciated Alvarez’ forthright interview on Voice of San Diego.
Community Police Officer Suzy de la Pena, 76th Assembly District, Mayors office – not present.
PUBLIC COMMENT. None
CONSENT AGENDA – Sprint Cell Tower #244119. D Skillman made a motion to approve, second by Baldwin. 13 in favor, none opposed, Swarens abstained. Swarens asked that more information about the consent agenda items be put on the agenda.
ACTION ITEM – 25th Street Concept Phase I and II.
Shields introduced the matter by noting that this has been a longstanding project with various iterations. The Mayor and City Staff had distilled a plan, which is funded, and wanted and up or down vote from GGHPC at this meeting. Brian Hannegan of RRM Engineering showed a Power Point of the current plan, and said he would provide a copy of his presentation for GGHPC archive and minutes.
Bernal noted that City representatives had been meeting with community members for the past 6 months working out this construction plan. David Li, City Engineer on the project, reminded us that in October he had shown us what would go away from the original plan without a Maintenance Assessment District (MAD) in place. There have been 2 developments since that time: (1) $1.5 million in Transnet Funds secured for the project, which must be spent in 2012 (2) $400,000 of earlier funding from CalTrans will need to be repaid if the project does not get completed.
City Engineers and District 3 representatives had meetings and determined that the construction should go on. Phase I will include restriping the entire project length (F-Russ), bulb-outs at 4 corners at B Street, sidewalks, curbs and gutters – hardscape only. Only 3-4 existing trees would be lost and no new trees would be planted. Concrete pavers would be temporarily used instead of plantings, color not yet selected – pavers being easier to redo later. Ramps at corners will be poured concrete. Phase II is contingent upon a MAD or equivalent being in place.
Brierton asked about protecting the trees. Hannegan said 3-4 would be lost at most, some are already in decline but they are trying to preserve as many as possible. Shields asked what was included in Phase I. Sidewalks, curb and gutter, striping. No furniture, trees or shrubs, only hardscape. Bernal said there would be back-in parking north of Broadway, no fancy crosswalk at Broadway & C Streets, striping at 4-way stops. Kathy Vandenheuvel asked if the City would replace any trees that got damaged during construction. Li said only if they would not create a continuing problem. Kathryn Willetts said the City had replaced trees in other areas with 15-gallon trees. Vasconcellos asked about using bigger trees.
M Skillman read a statement from Barbara Houlton. See Attachment 2. Caffey asked about intrusion into the paver areas – what is water supply line? Li said there is none in this project. Caffey asked how water would get to plantings in Phase II. Li said no water lines were going in at this time per the Mayor. Phase II would require trenching. D Skillman asked why pavers were being used if there was not water – conduit and chases were desired at our previous meeting. Li said the MAD would be hand watering in the future. Vandenheuvel suggested GGHPC put info on water lines in any motion made.
Mike Burnett questioned the cost of pavers, and if pavers will only be used at bulb-outs, not in the parkways. Li had no cost estimate on the pavers, and said other materials are not as durable. Tree wells are the only thing on the current plan. Burnett said he would like to see things match. Burnett asked about existing driveways – would they stay the same size? Li said some would be reduced to current standards, some shift slightly, none increase. Burnett said he hoped of continuing conversation with the engineers.
Craig Abenilla said the lack of irrigation infrastructure and extreme cost of pavers seems to indicate no hope for Phase II. He wishes some money would be put to better use, with less hardscape. Vandenheuvel asked if the Golden Hill Logo would be used. Bernal said it is in plans.
Willetts noted that businesses at NE corner of 25th & B want diagonal parking, wondered if the current project is planned for obsolescence. She wondered about cutting into the curb for diagonal parking. Li said a certain distance must be maintained. The curbs will change on the entire length of the project. Willetts asked if the designs we were shown were the final ones. Hannegan said some changes were still being made.
Marc Kratzschmar said he wanted GGHPC to not vote for this version of the project. Burnett asked for an open dialogue. Abenilla asked if there would be a redesign of what we had been shown. Hannegan said the NE corner has been questionable all along.
Shields asked that each GGHPC member comment:
Santini – asked if there was time to consider waste cans and bike parking before we voted – said he would vote for the project under duress. Bernal said the project is funded by CalTrans for construction, with some consultation but no conduits for water or utilities. Baldwin – asked if anything could be done to discourage cars from driving on the sidewalk at SE corner of 25th & C – it is very unsafe. Hannegan said the plan is a bulb-out to better define the driveway. Baldwin said more needs to be done.
Kroll – asked for clarification of what the up or down vote on this plan means. Bernal said the question is whether Phase I should be constructed. Brierton – stated that we want a Phase I that leads to Phase II – like including water conduits in this construction, and noted that she did not see any of the improvements GGHPC asked for earlier included in this plan. Bernal said voting down Phase I would mean that Phase II would never happen. Thomas – said voting for this Phase I is ridiculous, but he wants Something to happen. Hannegan said getting funding for Phase II would be easier once Phase I is completed.
Burke – is excited that funding has been secured but doesn’t feel the project is fiscally responsible – lack of infrastructure is foolhardy. Caffey – said “ditto” to everything that had been said. Alvarez – echoed the others.
D Skillman – noted that these are not even quite the final plans; they are major components not details. Digging up the street and not putting in conduit – what are we not being told? Does the City think Phase II will never happen? Bugbee - liked the idea of removing dead trees, but questioned the lack of infrastructure. She thinks pavers should be dropped. Will support this plan so Phase II might happen.
Swarens – agreed with others. Wants to leave the plan rather than support poor ideas – dislikes using pavers and also the geometry of the bulb-outs. Wondered how this would impact the GGH Historic District. M Skillman – expressed disappointment that the presentation was not complete or final. Wondered if the $400,00 payback was pushing the City to do just any project.
Wolf – agreed that not putting in the conduit is wrong. Vasconcellos – cautioned against voting on going forward just because we can – we are getting parking, bike lanes, concrete but not amenities and softscape.
Shields - said what she had learned from this was Politics. She agreed with everyone. The funding is real, the timelines are real, and the project with help 25th Street some. Caffey asked if Phase II could be better if a MAD was in place. Bernal said yes.
Shields said we needed to make a decision. Vandenheuvel suggested mentioning the conduit in any motion that was passed. Kroll asked about up an alternative project. Shields said the City would walk away entirely. Burke asked Bernal’s opinion. Bernal said they had pushed really hard just to get this plan; they have done what they can. Shields said this is a political decision.
D Skillman asked Bernal who had pushed back against the conduit. Bernal said City Engineering Dept. did, estimating that it would take 10 years to get another MAD in place and the conduit would be deteriorated by that time.
Swarens asked if this was a concept or a detailed plan? He appreciated the project being salvaged. Hannegan said they had listened to community input. The difference from the 12/10 project and this one in 1/12 is what is in Phase I. Swarens asked again if this was our last input, is this hard or a concept. Bernal said This Is The Project. Bernal said that Councilman Gloria was aware of all of the questions. Gloria asked that this Phase I be presented to us. There are many contingencies on Phase II.
Shields said we are to vote on Phase I and preliminary plan for Phase II. Santini asked if all the funds must be spent on Phase I, or could leftover funds go to Phase II. Bernal said there would be no leftovers. Santini asked if there was a cost estimate on Phase II – Bernal said no. Thomas asked if forming a BID would attract more funding for Phase II, Bernal said it would. Vasconcellos asked where Phase II funding would come from, Bernal said there were many contingencies.
Shields made a motion, seconded by Baldwin. “The Committee approves the 25th Street Renaissance Project, Phase I.” Motion passed – 11 voted yes, 3 no, 1 abstained.
Brierton made a motion, seconded by D Skillman. “The Committee recommends that the City reallocate money from pavers to landscape and lighting infrastructure in preparation for Phase II”.
Swarens preferred a simpler motion. Shields voiced concern about a vague motion. D Skillman suggested that ABS plastic could be used for the conduits, which has a 50 year life, not 15 years like PVC.
A vote was taken. The motion passed. 12 voted yes, 1 no, 2 abstained.
INFORMATION ITEMS:
Membership and Elections. Vasconcellos said we would talk about Committee elections at the next meeting. She asked members whose terms are expiring (Baldwin, Burke, Caffey (termed-out), Bugbee, Shields, D Skillman, Strickland and Wolf) to let her know if they would be running for re-election, and also that any community members interested in running notify her.
Community Plan Update. Turgeon had no report, except that the CPUAC will meet 1/18/12 at 6:30 PM at 1504 30th Street.
Balboa Park – Strickland has forwarded documents for members to review before the next meeting, when Plaza de Panama will be discussed.
ACTION ITEM – Verizon Cell Tower #255170 was sent back to Land Use for further review, as Shields had received more information about the project.
Meeting was adjourned meeting at 8:25 pm.
Marie Skillman.
Secretary
ATTACHMENT 1. AGENDA
Greater Golden Hill Planning Committee
January 11, 2012
6:30 PM
Balboa Park Golf Course Clubhouse, 2600 Golf Course Drive
www.sandiego.gov/planning/community/cpg
Agenda
Call to Order **6:30
Additions and/or Deletions to Agenda
Approval of Minutes
Governmental Reports **6:35
Community Police Officer – Suzy de la Pena {619.744.9514 or sdelapena@pd.sandiego.gov}
53rd Congressional District – Katherine Fortner {619.280.5353 or katherine.fortner@mail.house.gov
76th Assembly District – Lindsey Masukawa {619.645.3090 or lindsey.masukawa@asm.ca.gov}
Council District 3 – Courtney Thomson {619.236.6633 or cthomson@sandiego.gov}
Council District 8 – Melina Meza {619.236.6688 or melinam@sandiego.gov}
City Planner – Bernard Turgeon {619.533.6575 or bturgeon@sandiego.gov}
Non Agenda Public Comment **6:50
Chair Report, Vice Chair Report **7:00
Information Items **7:05
a)Community Plan Update
b)Balboa Park & Transportation – David Strickland
c)Airport Noise & Treasurers Report – Carole Caffey
d)Historic* – Susan Bugbee {bugbee@sandiego.edu}
e)Land-Use* – Richard Baldwin {kimorb_1999@yahoo.com}
Consent Agenda **7:25
Land Use – Sprint cell tower # 244119 (
Action Items **7:30
f)25th Street Concept Phase I & II. Phase 1 consists of improvements between E St and B St and will allow us to come back and easily install landscaping in the future during Phase 2. Vote to approve Phase I.
~ David Li and Brian Hannegan
g)Verizon cell tower # 255170
Adjournment **8:30
*If you are interested in attending the Historic or Land Use meeting please email the appropriate committee to confirm meeting and agenda.
**All times are estimated – Action Items may also be taken before Information Items.
The City of San Diego distributes agendas via email and can also provide agendas in alternative formats as well as a sign language or oral interpreter for the meeting with advance notice. To request these services, please contact the City at 619.236.6479 or sdplanninggroups@sandiego.gov
ATTACHMENT 2. STATEMENT FROM BARBARA HOULTON
Subject: 25th Street Revitalization
As I will not be at the Planning Committee meeting, I am requesting that you read this message to the Board members in my behalf.
Once again, you are in the position of taking action on the 25th Street project when the affected stakeholders have not been notified. As an official member of the Committee for 25th Street Revitalization, I was not notified by the city or the Consultant that these plan changes would be voted as an action item.
Property owners that I know were not notified. Please be aware, property owners have, as a minimum both a legal and financial interest in sidewalks adjacent to their property. Although you may or may not have a legal responsibility to notify them of this agenda item, it is another example of the sort of action that promotes distrust of the system.
Please make any action contingent on notifying the adjacent property owners and having a mechanism to include any objections.
--Barbara Houlton
