Wanting to have a say in their community’s infrastructure priorities, more than 100 people crammed into the Pacific Beach Presbyterian Church auditorium for the Pacific Beach Town Council and Planning Group’s combined meeting on Sept. 18.
Their mission — to help form a priority list of community infrastructure projects for funding in the City of San Diego’s 2026 budget.
After reviewing suggestions, 94 residents cast votes for their most desired of 15 proposed capital improvement projects (CIPs) in categories that ranged from public safety and traffic enhancements (vehicle, bicycle and pedestrian) to beautification and recreation.
During its Oct. 9 meeting, the PB Planning Group is expected to endorse the list of priority CIPs selected by the community before forwarding to their City Councilmember, Joe LaCava.
The residents’ hope is for LaCava to incorporate the results into his priority list for District 1 infrastructure projects submitted to the City Council at the start of the budget planning process.
“We’ve heard many times from city council members that online stuff, petitions, whatever; they just don’t look at it,” said PB Town Council President Charlie Nieto. “They don’t consider it real. So it is important for us to get out like this, in person. It’s really powerful. It sends a message that we care and whatever the results show (tonight), they will show that that’s what the community advocates for.”
Residents were given nine stickers to affix in any quantity they chose to indicate support or rejection on posters of the 15 CIPs during a 30-minute voting period. They also received a sticker to indicate their top choice.
Dave’s Hot Chicken and Seaside Pizza donated food for the event.
The vote was tallied before the meeting’s end.
The top five projects in the overall vote were:
1. Traffic calming measures at the Beryl Street and Lamont Street intersection (122 votes – 13.88 percent of the total vote).
2. North PB Lifeguard Tower (98 votes – 11.19 percent).
3. Main street neighborhood identifier sign, as seen in neighborhoods like Normal Heights and Kensington (95 votes – 10.81 percent).
4. Pedestrian and bicycle access on Garnet Avenue west of Ingraham Street (75 votes – 8.53 percent).
5. Public and joint-use community pool 64 votes – 7.28 percent).
The top five projects receiving the highest top choice votes were:
1. Public and joint-use community pool (13 votes – 13.83 percent).
2. (tie) Traffic calming measures at Beryl and Lamont (12 votes – 12.77 percent) and North PB Lifeguard Tower (12 votes – 12.77 percent).
4. Pedestrian and bicycle access on Garnet Avenue west of Ingraham Street (11 votes – 11.70 percent).
5. Fencing around Fanuel Street playground (10 votes – 10.64 percent).
Despite the clear priorities, Nieto told the gathering that more action will be required because District 1 will be competing with the city’s other eight districts that are all vying for limited funding for new infrastructure.
“Because the city is so strapped for cash, only so many projects are going to be funded,” he said. “So during the spring, the city hosts open budget hearings and we need to be there and advocate for what we think is most important. This will not just be a process that ends tonight.”
Residents gave varying reasons for their preferences.
While public safety was the predominant factor in Jennifer Tandy’s selections, merely being asked for feedback was the best feature of the process for her.
“I think this is a great process for lots of reasons,” Tandy said. “One, it has engaged so many community members. … They’re able to come in and give their input instead of a small group of people just from the Planning Group or from the PB Town Council making decisions about what the priorities should be of the community.”
Tandy said that by showing respect for the community’s opinion, both volunteer groups would be the biggest winner in the vote.
“When you lay it out so clearly like this and you give people the time to look, you’re valuing their opinion,” Tandy said. “And when you show the community that you value their opinion, they’re more inclined to be involved. So this is, I think, such a great way to engage the community, not just for today or these projects, but for the long term.”
Marta Rakovska agreed. Having settled in PB from Ukraine less than a year ago, but having no car, she voted for projects that promote bicycle and foot traffic.
However, Rakovska’s biggest support was for the evening’s proceedings.
“To be honest, in Ukraine you haven’t got this system,” Rakovska said. “So I was very impressed. I really want to go to other meetings. It’s super interesting to grow inside the community because I really love PB and I really feel like it’s my home.”
David Miramontes, Rakovska’s fiancé, voted for cycling and pedestrian projects in similar fashion. Having worked in Ukraine in the Peace Corps organizing communities to participate in the democratic process, he expressed appreciation for the evening’s effort most of all.
“It’s amazing that they’re doing it,” Miramontes said. “I know there’s a lot of hard work and a lot of background work to host this. … That’s what it takes to run our community. I’m very grateful to them and I’m really privileged to live in a place where people come together and work for the sake of others.”
There were detractors even among the admirers. Scott Rappaport commended the voting process and the extent of support, though not necessarily the range.
“I think the obvious problem with it is that it represents such a small portion of the community,” Rappaport said. “You tend to find … that the attendees are skewed toward a certain age class who have very specific ideas about how they want this community to change or to remain static. It’d be nice to see inclusion and participation from different age groups: young, middle aged, everyone.”
For Ted Ingersoll, the demographics of the group was subordinate to its size.
“It’s great to see how packed the room was tonight,” Ingersoll said. “There were a lot of concerned citizens that were here. I think that’s an important part of the process.”
With the representatives of elected officials present to give their regular reports at the town council meeting, Tandy contended that who was impressed by the event was as important as how and how many.
“I think the city folks that came saw how engaged our community is,” she said. “So it’s not like they just will go back and forget this happened. There are a lot of people and these are all voters. These are all people who care deeply. So I think they will be more inclined to pay attention to Pacific Beach.”
Despite strides made with observers, participation and priorities, Ingersoll offered a more concrete definition of success when asked if the process was effective.
“You’ll have to ask in three years, when any of these things come to fruition,” he said. “It’s all just recommendations for the next budget cycle.”
In last year’s inaugural community CIP vote, the two top priorities were adopted by the city. The Foothill Boulevard and Loring Street roundabout is almost complete and the North PB Lifeguard was partially funded; hence its recurrence on the list.
According to Nieto, the true success of the CIP vote is that it even happens.
“The thing I like to highlight is that there’s really nothing else like it in the entire city,” he said. “There’s no other planning group, town council or any group or entity that has this open process where you can help shape what the infrastructure that’s going to be allocated to the community is going to look like. There’s going to be some tweaks and little things to fix, develop and improve, but overall, the way that things are going, I think it’s a really powerful process that we have for Pacific Beach now.”