Logan Jenkins recently compared the Encinitas city council to deer in the headlights, afraid to make a decision.
Wednesday night's decision to go forward with the 101 bike lane in the face of Coastal Commission opposition will certainly help alleviate that image. They are going to start striping now and work it out with the Coastal Commission later: it's better to ask forgiveness than permission. Will Planning staff take a similarly tolerant view with unpermitted minor remodels?
While we (and the public, it seems) are pleased with the outcome, it appears that staff cut corners and deceived the public and the council on the law. One neutral observer thought David Smith's oral communication Wednesday night caught staff red-handed.
This time, the public's interests aligned with city staff. But what happens next time, when the public's interests conflict with staff's interests? Desert Rose, for example? Many council watchers believe the staff has a pro-development agenda, and presented the city council with partial facts and a biased interpretation of the law in order to push the council toward the staff's desired outcome.
Who's in charge here?
Nothing has changed except the Mayor is nice to your face.
ReplyDeleteThe city engineering staff failed to give the Council information from the city's own website about eliminating a lane from the 101 and the need for an LCP amendment.
DeleteFrom the city website:
As directed by Council, staff initiated the required discretionary permit process which includes a Design Review Permit, Coastal Development Permit and an amendment to the General Plan, Local Coastal Program and the North 101 Corridor Specific Plan (N101SP). North Coast Highway 101 is classified as a Major Arterial (four-lane roadway) in the Circulation Element of the City of Encinitas General Plan and depicted in cross sections of the N101SP as a four-lane roadway. Given the three lane configuration for Plan 4A, an amendment to the General Plan and N101SP roadway classifications are deemed appropriate. As the General Plan and N101SP are components of the Local Coastal Program, an amendment to the Local Coastal Program is also necessary.
=============================================
The engineer staff presenters manipulated the Council into voting against the required permits.
I propose that citizens from various projects like the Crest Drive project and the 101 project investigate placing complaints against the State licenses of City engineers. Rumor is that they have neglected to communicate with the Coastal Commission for the last 10 projects, which establishes a pattern of unprofessional behavior. Below is a link.
Deletehttp://www.bpelsg.ca.gov/consumers/lic_lookup.shtml
At a Council meeting recently, someone mentioned that Gus Vina was a CPA, and he did nothing to correct this misinformation. An honest person would have explained that he did not hold this credential since it is a also a State license. If you go to the CA State Accounting Board, you will see that he does not, and seemingly never did have one.
DeleteIt is too bad that city managers are not licensed through the state because someone should file complaints against Mr. Vina.
Don't blame staff on Desert Rose - they have all the information to make the right decision.
ReplyDeleteMarco Gonzalez has stated that they are asking for only 4 units more than what it is zoned for. This is not true.
DeleteA 2011 email written by Roy Sapau to a council member identifies that the project is zoned for 8 units using midrange density calculations and applying the appropriate wetland setbacks and deducutions for slope that are outlined in the Municipal Code.
Applicants are asking for 16 units on site and will pay for a 17th with an in lieu fee. They are asking for 1 low income unit on the site but will be displacing the low income family who has lived there for 20 years who care for the horses and are valued and well-liked members of the Olivenhain community.
Now Roy Sapau is denying his previous calculations for a midrange density of 8 and claims that 16 onsite units is the correct number.
This project is a walled fire trap with a single egress road that is so narrow, the road engineer that SDR hired pointed out that if a fire truck were to enter the developement as it is presented now and a burning car were parked in one of the few, internal parking spaces, the firetruck could be stuck and the firefighters could be placed in jeopardy since there is no way for a firetruck to back up or turn around.
As for the residents of this walled-complex, their planned fire escape is a trail that they would have to access on foot!
The inmates are running the asylum. It is in "staff's" best interest to grow the bureaucracy.
ReplyDeleteDon't ask such tough questions. Sacramento Guss only needs to survive three years and then he's out. 100% retirement on the taxpayers. I am going to live a very happy life he says.
ReplyDeleteDave Smith is a loser. He put the city at big jeopardy. And costs the city big dollars. Dave Smith must not like kids riding bikes and he must not like Leucadia . Oh yeah- he's a member of the KLCC.
ReplyDeleteHow has David Smith cost the city big dollars? Can you supply any details of where he has caused the city to spend extra money? The expensive consultants and many workshops would have taken place regardless of opposition. The city is required to go through the process.
DeleteI disagree that David Smith or any other citizen who exposes the growing pattern of City staff lies is a 'loser.' Anyone who expects an honest and open process is working on hehalf of all citizens.
DeleteThis is a complex issue--mainly because the staff made it this way by conflating the bike lane issue with the Leucadia Streetscape. If issues were to be evaluated on their own, they would not be able to pass.
The City always tries to justify what they want through flawed 'research,' mistakes, or recommendation. They control the records and take out or hide key pieces of public information. The public ALWAYS loses unless we fight back.
The south bound right hand travel lane will be primarily a bike lane. It will be a great place for kids to ride as cars back up behind and try to quickly move over to the left lane. Yeah, the Council really cares about safety for kids.
ReplyDeleteReferencing the "red handed" aspect of this post. This link is a coastal commission staff report for a Sept.12, 2012 California Coastal Commission meeting. This meeting is in regards of a permit for a major LCP amendment, from the city of Encinitas to change downtown on street parking on Hwy 101 and repaint lines.
ReplyDeleteMy question to the city is why dose city staff believe that this action needs a permit, and eliminating an entire lane dose not?
http://documents.coastal.ca.gov/reports/2012/9/W27a-9-2012.pdf
Because the Ca Coastal Commission has always cared about eliminating/creating parking in its zone. Historically, it has not shown its objection to creating Class II bike lanes and rebalancing the needs of a roadway to best serve its users.
DeleteDavid- Instead of threatening the City and throwing up all kinds of nonsense smoke screens all the time, which result in so much wasted time and money; why not focus on the real issue and that is to implement the Streetscape in a holistic manner as to assure there is no negative impact to the surrounding neighborhoods. Meaning- Your street will not get more cut through traffic.
What you don't understand is the whole area will experience a huge improvement in the quality of life for its residents. This is the reason why so many of residents that live in the area support the Streetscape.
The California Coastal Commission has "always cared about" eliminating a lane for motorists on a primary circulation element, "first street" from the beach (North of Grandview), a main arterial, within its jurisdiction, whereby an amendment to our certified Local Coastal Program is required because a 4 lane Major Roadway is reduced to a 3 lane configuration.
DeleteHistorically, the Coastal Commission "has not shown objection to creating Class II bike lanes," because, historically these dedicated bicycle lanes, not separated from the road, as the Class One lane for bicycles in the Rail Corridor will be, have NOT eliminated a lane for motorists on a main arterial.
The Rail Corridor Bike Lane is part of the Bicycle Masterplan Update, and already has permissions; the City would rather take a lane from motorists than maintain and extend the existing Class One bicycle lane, which currently runs from A Street to Marchetta. The plants that put out thorns, should be eliminated. The dead oleanders should be removed, not more trees. The Streetscape plan, to exist, will remove many more trees, narrowing the medians. The City approved a cartoon.
Bicyclists, according to CA Vehicle Code, could also share the only remaining lane, northbound, left for motorists, should the bicyclists want to pass, go around an obstruction, or should they be going the speed of motor vehicle traffic, which has been reduced to 35 MPH through this stretch of Historic State Highway 101. Sharrows are signs that inform motorists of bicyclists rights. We do need to learn to share the highway. People will slow down further, because of the sharrows.
We didn't need or want a lane to be eliminated. Two narrower motor vehicle lanes could have been put in, with a narrower Class II bike lane, or Sharrows on both sides of the highway, northbound and southbound. Most of the "doorings," accidents and near accidents have happened southbound, NOT northbound, where a lane was closed for motorists, ONLY on North 101 through Leucadia.
Can anyone tell us ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY where there are eight food bicycle lanes and a main artery has been reduced from two lanes in both directions to only one lane, in one direction, and two lanes on the side with the higher incident of accidents?
Who's in charge here? It's city manager Gus Vina. His goal? To push development as fast as possible to increase city revenues. He didn't learn the lesson in Sacramento that rapid growth doesn't pay for itself and that costs of services and new infrastructure to support the growth always increase faster than revenue. This leads to borrowing.
ReplyDeletePerhaps someone can explain why the city council rushed to approve the bike lane and lane reduction without Coastal Commission approval. Is there some time-sensitive grant application for funding that would put whole project in jeopardy? If so, it should have been mentioned. Or was the city council stung by Jenkins' column?
Naw. It was Kerry Miller's goal to bulldoze Leucadia and redevelop it. The Streetscape is seperate from private property and benefits all. But you can't please anyone who thinks the improvements at Leucadia Blvd are "junk".
DeleteThe improvements planned disproportionately benefit property owners with more parking and higher property value. They disproportionately benefit would-be developers because the roundabouts, not recommended for three way intersections, along a railway corridor, or where cross traffic is significantly less than the main thoroughfare's traffic, according to the U.S. Dept. of Transportation, if installed, would automatically count as "traffic calming devices."
DeleteThrough what many now see as trickery, we are already zoned, along the North 101 Corridor for mixed use, high density development. People had imagined artists living above their studios, in lofts, or shop owners, ala Dan Dalager's mother, living about the lawnmower sharpening shop. No one realized what would happen with mixed use development, SANDAG projecting artificially high population figures, or the density bonus laws involving affordable housing. Ironically, when there is redevelopment, both residential and business rentals go up; There is actually LESS affordable housing!
Particular development projects must either complete environmental review, through an EIR, or try to get a "mitigated negative environmental impact declaration," a NEG DEC. Developers are confident that roundabouts could be used to increase the density through Leucadia, to the MAX allowed under density bonus law and our already approved 101 Corridor Specific Plan.
Because the highway is a primary circulation element, amendments were required, according to the City's own staff reports from 1/13/10, 12/15/10 and 6/27/12, to the General Plan, the 101 Specific Plan and the Local Coastal Program. Facts are facts.
Property owners adjacent to the improvements along Coast Highway in Solana Beach are, and have been required to pay Special Property Tax Assessments. Here, in Leucadia, developers and property owners are using the bicyclists as pawns. L101MA, according to its Facebook page, scheduled a bicycle "rally" a drive down Highway North 101 the day of the Jan. 30 Council Meeting, to be done after the agenda item. But the meeting went until 11:30 that night!
There was another "rally" the night before at Dudek. What were supposed to be rallies in support of sharrows turned into, at the meeting, the general public being bullied by many out of town bicycle clubs, who kept repeating the same accident over and over, that involved a drunk driver at 1 a.m. drifting over into lane two, and striking a bicyclist from behind.
No one that I know of, including locals and "oldtimers," has ever seen Charles Marvin riding a bike anywhere in the City. He spoke. on Jan. 30 about his own accidents and about three friends no longer alive, another in a wheel chair for life due to bicycle accidents; but Marvin never shared their names, where the accidents happened, or if they were on the west side (southbound) or east side (northbound) side of the highway, or even on the highway or in Leucadia!
That one fatal accident, two years ago, repeated four or five times, or more, was a tragedy that wouldn't have been prevented by closing the lane to motorists, as was done this past Thurday, although the Coastal Commission set up a meeting with Staff, including Gus Vina, I'm told, on Monday morning!
Every person who spoke about accidents at the Jan. 30 Council Meeting should have been asked where they happened, on what side of the highway, if they happened on the highway at all, in Leucadia! No one was saying sharrows should not have been installed. Quite the contrary! We're glad they were. A lane should not have been closed for motorists!
You should watch the council meeting. The urgency is bicyclist safety.
ReplyDeleteI attended the council meeting. I didn't hear any compelling testimony that 101 has sudden turned into a death trap for bicyclists and that immediate action was necessary to prevent this. Many of the accidents detailed were outside the city. A delay to negotiate with the Coastal Commission seemed a prudent approach. The council chose otherwise. If the city gets fined, I hope the bicyclists will raise money to defray expenses. The fine is $6000 per day. One of the planners said privately that staff didn't have the foggiest idea how the CC would react. That's not reassuring.
DeleteAll because David smith and Lynn Braun went crying to the coast commission. Those two cost the city big
DeleteCity staff in both the engineering and planning departments cost the city, not residents. Staff hid information and has not provided transparency at City Hall. Gus Vina has done nothing to clean up the mess at City Hall.
DeleteGus Vina ECOURAGES messes as long as he gets a pay out. Whatever increases Gus' time as City Manager working towards that 3 year finish line is what Gus will support. He has no interest in anyone except for himself.
DeleteMy objective is not to stop “streetscape.” My position is now and always has been to make productive use of the railroad right of way for bike ways and walk ways and more pedestrian rail road crossings. This has been done quite effectively in the City of San Clemente.
ReplyDeleteIn a nut shell, the current plan of a lane elimination causes more problems than it solves. Most notable cut through traffic and unacceptable emergency response times.
It is my perspective that the city is avoiding due process and proper procedures to avoid their obligation to properly address these issues.
I like good bike lanes and good walkways. I just want this project done right.
The Rail Trail may have been approved by the Planning Commission, but it's still a pipe dream. A news article a while back quoted Richard Phillips at the city saying that the 4 other underground passes to the RR would have to be built BEFORE the possibility of a Rail Trail could happen. Can safety wait that long? No. Your intent may not be to thwart the Streetscape, but that's the effect your issues bring. I think we're on the same page endorsing at-grade crossings, as are most folks, but the first "tunnel to nowhere" at Santa Fe cost us $5 million. The next 4 tunnels will cost another $20 million. NCTD however says they don't want any bikes within 50' of their tracks due to airborne sand, dust and debris from fast trains (according to their studies). Someone at Wed's meeting referred to the RR property as "free land" for cyclists. Far from it. And convincing NCTD to give us acres of their property will be another crap shoot. To wait and see what might happen would stall the entire Streetscape. We need it now. Just like some tried to stall the single lane stripping with bike paths Wed night by bringing up other Streetscape elements. There's simply not room for 2 lanes and bikes on most of northbound 101. Other sentiments reported at Streetscape meetings by opponents singled out businesses as though they only benefit from the improvements saying "the businesses on 101 aren't worth it." Others seek to diminish the value of the Roundabouts we are to get by calling them "Psuedo-roundabouts" and "Traffic Circles", but if they did a little homework, they'd learn that we're getting genuine Roundabouts and that Traffic Circles are far LARGER (not smaller as some would have us believe.). I've even seen people quote their RADIUS instead of their diameter in what can only be a further attempt to make them sound half as big as they will be. "Forbidding trucks to use 101" was someone's other solution for improving the hwy. (That would eliminate all the restaurants, grocery stores and the possibility of moving in and out of the area. No thanks.) In Birdrock, they took a 5 lane road and for about a half mile put 5 roundabouts and eliminated 3 whole lanes. We're only taking 4 lanes and eliminating only 1 lane. Birdrock's side streets directly serve 8 blocks of residents. Ours directly serve only from 1 to 3 blocks of residents. Your side of this claims the Streetscape will create more neighborhood "cut-through traffic" but that is not consistent with where other Roundabouts have been installed. By removing 10 stop signs and stop lights on 101, our Streetscape increases circulation. In other words, it will take the average vehicle LESS time to go between La Costa Ave and Encinitas Blvd. than it does now. Those are my main reasons for welcoming the Streetscape. On the flip side, trenching and covering the train would be ideal but harder than anything proposed yet, and surely far more expensive and taking a lot longer to complete. We all want the Streetscape to be done right. The difference between people in our community is that most of us have good cause to believe it will be done right. And the sooner the better.
DeleteAtta boy Fred. You nailed it good.
DeleteSupport The streetscape.
Dave S.-
DeleteStiping the Class II bike path will have Zero effect on emergency effect on emergency response times and cut through traffic. You have it completely backwards. Plus by installing the Class II bike lanes, you gain a safer infrastructure for Bikes and you slow cars down from 50 mph to 35/40mph which is good. Speedlimits do nothing to slow cars down unless there is a cop present all the time.
Dave,
DeleteTry and convince you're compadre the L word to not oppose the Streetscape.
I encourage you to change your strategy/focus and politely request the City to assure the streetscape will not increase cut through traffic on your street.
Such a request is reasonable and would likely be well received by Council.
Common Dave-
Quite being the Villain and come on over to the bright side. Its much more fun and peaceful on this side. Come on Dave- I know you can do it. The waters warm.
After some reflection and discusion after the outcome from the last council session on this complicated issue I agree this is our best option as it now stands.
ReplyDeleteI have educated myself on the subject of bike lanes and now have a better understanding of them. I do support the urgency for a better class 2/3 system and apologize for my comments on weekend road bikers.
I just think the best public benefit for all citizens is a class 1 trail and sidewalks on both sides of the railroad with at grade crossings, crosswalks across 101 and bustops to actual destinations.
If that easement is too costly and not plausable for all of that and as Fred says is a pipedream and this streetscape as it stands right now is the best we can get. I will support it.
There you go Loser. I knew you'd come around. Apology accepted and I hope you have a good weekend. Now go by Fred's shop and he will give you a big hug.
DeleteIt makes total sense to put bikes on the RR property (minus the myriad of goat-head thorns). But the city's been pushing for the Rail Trail since before Chuck DuVeloper left office with no green light from NCTD but rather coming up with reasons to ditch the idea. At-grade crossings like Dave said are doable in San Clemente, and should be here too. Those would save over 17 million bucks easy. But having busses go to actual destinations sounds great, but there are just too many streets in town to accomodate them all. Kind of like the guy at city hall one night that said "For the past 200 years, trains have done 2 things: They pick you up from where you're not coming from and take you to where you're not going to." Not always the case of course, but buses too have a lot in common with what that guy said. I thought I'd ask a bus driver as I boarded once: "Could you stop by Von's on my way home?"
DeleteFred, what you doing posting during the Super Bowl ?? Watch the game.
DeleteSome terroist must have made the lights at the Superbowl and my TV go out at the same time. I had to blog by candlelight.
Delete
DeleteWe need to just declare eminent domain on a small piece of the railroad property. Then we would have room for a bike path, walkway, landscape, bus stops, but with input from people that actually live in Leucadia. The Railroad has made a lot of money from the city allowing them to sell off some of their properties and zoning them as residential and hotel/timeshare, even though these properties are not a safe distance from the track. Bottom line is, we need two north and south bound lanes and we can legally acquire the land for a bike lane, walking path, bus stops and beautiful landscaping.
And what a Super Bowl it was!
ReplyDeleteTo clarify Fred, I was trying to point out that the bus stops on the east side of 101 are very difficult to get to and from if you wish to get across the highway unless you are near the two Blvd's on each end. Some cross walks would be helpful in a few spots mid corridor.
The other joke about our bus stops on 101 and Vulcan is when you see benches without bus stops and crappy lawn chairs at the few bus stops that we have now.
NCTD SUCKS!
Gotcha on the crosswalks, LL. Phil Cotton mentioned to me at a meeting once that the speed can and should be lowered to 35 on 101 because of the bus stops on the east side of the hwy. Don't know who exactly is responsible for that one but THANKS! (It always boils down to one person who starts the ball rolling. Like Einstein said, two things can't happen at the same time.) I think NCTD had a lot to do with the improvements at the park and RR crossing. I was leery of it at first when someone abandoned boulders in the park, but I like what we got a lot. The complexion of the NCTD board has changed for the first time in over a decade so who knows, there might be hope for the old scorch mark through town.
ReplyDeleteI want to point out that since Gus Vina has arrived that the performance of City Staff has dropped. Maybe some in Leucadia are happy about the bike lane changes, but wouldn't it be better for all concerned if we had a staff that follows proceedures like reporting issues to the Coastal Commission?
ReplyDeleteStaff is on an agenda to do things their own way. They take documents out of the record or claim that no records exist. These same people who thumb their noses at the Planning Commission and other state agencies are the first ones to say that the 'City will get sued,' if they can't force through their inflated low income housing figures or give special favors to developers.
We need to clean house and get rid of Gus Vina, the Planning and Engineering Departments, and others while they are at it. We do not miss seeing Patrick Murphy and his weasly face, but he certainly set up legacy weasels in Planning!
Planning lied directly to the face of the Mayor and the other council members, and Dave Smith called them on it, they all need to go.
DeleteNow about your subtle message that the city should follow the orders of the CC, the answer is NO! Thereby stopping the bike line and the Streetscape, again the answer is NO!!
There are only 5 Leucadians that post and want the streetscape stopped at all cost. 4 of the 5 spoke at last Wednesdays meeting. Two hurt there cause and one mumbled so badly as too be unrecognizable.
Yes the city staff needs to be thinned and gutted, but it won't happen, they run city hall. After all if you can lie to the mayor and council and nothing bad happens to your job or career then don't be looking for any changes at city hall.
I think that there were more people than there appeared who were not in favor of the bike lanes. There are other interests here too, like Dudek, who stand to make money on this project going forward. Some people have said that a similar thing happened with the sports park. Out of town people who want an Encinitas taxpayer funded recreation opportunity came out of the woodwork to speak about the need for a park. If you noticed, many speakers were from Carlsbad, Solana Beach, or other areas.
DeleteThis became a very confusing issue since they linked actual needs like bikers' safety with private agendas.
If there was a scientific survey that showed that the plan that has gone through was what the majority of Leucadians really want, I would feel better about this.
Leucadians are too stoned to know what they want.
DeleteI don't live in Leucadia but in one of the other communitites; however, I think that Leucadians as a group are some of the best people in our city. They are creative, smart, politically active, and no less 'stoned' than residents in other communitites! Keep Leucadia funky!
DeleteAnon9:04: go join the KLCC. Fix up Leucadia!! Snazzy not crappy!!
DeleteFunky Not Junky!
DeleteA Sheltered Place!
A Place of Refuge!
The Art and Soul of Encinitas!
A place of refuge?? You are stoned...again.
DeleteI wish.
DeleteI agree the City would be well served by ridding Sacramento Gus before he bankrupts our City. Why didn't he make the meeting transparent when Jerome Stocks and crew were stealing all the money from all the other capital improvement programs and future capital projects and funding the Regional Sports Park?
ReplyDeleteThis is a huge issue that will affect the City for decades. Besides the huge debt to build the sports complex, the maintenance and ongoing operations costs are enormous. The true costs both present and future should have been fully disclosed to the public, before the Regional Sports Complex was start.
Now must other projects in the City will not get done. The Regional Sports Complex is gobbling up all the City Money. Is it worth it?
Fire Sacramento Gus. Jerome's former lap dog!
Yea, Gus advertised a complete park for $18 million.
ReplyDeleteWell, it is not a complete park, the cost will be more like $70 million and the maintenance cost and dept service will add to this.
That IS NOT HONEST.
HELP!!! The City, in all of its wisdom, has taken a lane away from north bound Coast Highway in Leucadia. We have more traffic than ever, thanks to all of the massive amount of new housing developements. Where I live, Coast Highway is the only thoroughfare. If there is some kind of emergency or disaster we'll only have one lane to evacuate. This City has its priorities all wrong. We need to stop this madness NOW! Is there a way we can stop them from ruining or town any more?
ReplyDeleteWhat? A lane diet for northbound 101? Who ever heard of such a thing?
DeletePull your head out! It is now too late to stop it. You should of been paying attention to all the chatter on this blog for the past three years and maybe you could of stoped it!
If there was a disaster do you really think you would not be able to cross into the bike lane or will there be too many bicycles in your way if the only way out of Leucadia is on Northbound 101?
I saw it at rush hour, No back up. All the traffic was backed up at the signals, as always! Signals suck. A true waste of life.
DeletePulling over to the right for emergency vehicles is not only the law but common courtesy to both the emergency the law personnel and those in need of their care. It takes only a few seconds to do before you're on your way again. As there will be less cars and trucks in right lanes on 101 with new striping, the areas to the right will be less congested than ever before. The single lane north will not have cement K-rails making it impossible to pull over. Any cyclist with eyes and ears will be aware of the emergency vehicles and the usual practice of everyone pulling over for them.
DeleteYou tell em LL-
DeleteI saw it today at the peak of rush hour. No back ups what so ever. I did see quite the back up at the signals though! Lets get rid of the signals! Remove the Signals and put it roundabouts. They work better!
The second leading cause of fatal injury for firefighters is vehicle collisions at intersections. The involvement of an emergency vehicle in a crash also negatively affects the efficiency of emergency response times. When you have 2 and 3 lanes of heavy traffic stopped at a signal, THAT'S what's dangerous. Drivers of emergency vehicles hope everyone can see and hear them as they're forced to get creative and zip around cars into oncoming traffic and proceed through red lights when lights for cross traffic are still green. Roundabouts are absent that problem, and with open spaces of associated bike lanes will prove to aid response times not inhibit them.
DeleteYou have also lost a southbound lane with the sharrows. Read the signs - Bicycles can use the full lane. No one is listening in city hall. This is the great experiment. Write to the Coastal Commission.
ReplyDeleteDo they have the ability to stop this?
DeleteIf you've driven 101 south much, you know that cars share the right lane with bikes already.
DeleteAGENDA 21!!! LOOK IT UP!
ReplyDeleteFor the past 5 years, auto related deaths have dramatically declined back to the number of auto deaths back in 1932 when there was only a third of our current population. That number is around 32,000 deaths. The worst year was 1972 when approximately 55,000 people were killed on our roads. I would attribute the vastly lower numbers today to better vehicles, more seat belt consciousness, and WAY less drunk drivers than there used to be.
DeleteAround 1973, President Nixon lowered the national speed limit to 55 mph. The measure did two significant things. 1. it saved lives (10,000 per year in this country, or over 100,000 while the 20 years the lower speed limit remained.). 2. it saved gas i.e. natural resources and consumer money (don't have the total number of cash or gallons handy - but a wild high guess probably wouldn't be off much). I can't help but think Nixon's mandate was a very "green" measure, especially for someone so hated by so many. However, if the President would lower the speed limit to 55 today; and even though the plan was tried and true through Nixon, Obama would be tarred and feathered by Glenn Beck & Co. for robbing our freedom and implementing "AGENDA 21".
It's what's between the eyes and ears of the drivers and bicyclists that I fear Fred. We have a severe ADD driving problem along with sense of entitlement for some in this town.
ReplyDeleteI still feel it's a good way to have a working model to see how it operates for a few years and I remain optimistic. There will be periodic backed up traffic - as there always has been, but the eventual removal of the stops at Marcheta St and at La Costa Ave will pull the plug on a most congestion. It's having to stop that assures "choke points" not rolling.
DeleteClosing a lane to motorists flies in the face of common sense; it's against the City's rules, through the General and Specific Plans and our LCP. It's against Coastal Act law. Staff recommended against it, but tried to "hedge its bets" by saying, we never had to do it right before! Staff misquoted Encinitas Municipal Code and confused CEQA exemptions for "line-striping" with Coastal Act requirements, including the city's duty to follow its own Certified Local Coastal Program requirements!
ReplyDeleteThe rail trail bicycle lane has been "in the works" since before 2005. The City doesn't have to wait, despite any quotes from Richard Phillips, asst. city manager, until the pedestrian "bridges" (underpasses) are installed. In fact, if the $20 Million planned for the 5 roundabouts, reducing both sides of the highway to one lane for 4/5 of mile, because 4 roundabouts are planned within that distance, and the additional $16.5 Million for the pedestrian underpasses, went, INSTEAD into trenching the train from El Portal to La Costa, where it's already trenched, we would have at least $36.5 million, or more to put toward a project that would truly benefit the ENTIRE community. The bicyclists could have a wide, Class One bicycle lane, there would be a pedestrian walkway, at grade crossings, and the opportunity for a beautiful Greenscape, where local artists could display their work, as the sculptures one sees along the Linear Park in Solana Beach.
We don't need a Streetscape that scrapes away our infrastructure, taking away a lane for motorists, while giving shop owners more parking, property owners higher property value, and developers the opportunity for huge increases in density through negative environmental impact declarations.
I have seen no plans for the removal of the stop sign at Marchetta! City Council was sold on a "cartoon." The dimensions of their drawings don't "pan out." Peltz and associates did NOT provide "engineered plans." To get the width the roundabouts and parking require, the medians will have to be narrowed, more and more trees will be removed; they already are being axed!
The City's "arborist" should instead get rid of the dead oleanders and the thorn plants. The thorns cause flats, and are dangerous to bicyclist safety. The oleanders have a disease, described in the Coast News, that is spreading throughout our local neighborhoods, killing old growth oleanders adjacent to the North 101 Corridor. The disease is carried by an insect, the "Sharpshooter" and becomes systemic. Infested plants slowly die, despite pruning or treatment.
Some people "shut off" when confronted with logic, with the truth. They would rather make their decisions based on emotional reactions and a feeling, reinforced by some members of L101MA of Us vs Them. We, the general public, in the eyes of City staff and the City's "partners" L101MA, are "them." They justify everything they do with "this is the way we've always done it!"
We are informed all 501 (c) 3 (non profit) organizations subsidized by the City must make their financial information public. We will be putting in a CPRA request to verify that L101MA only gets 7% of its revenue from membership fees. Almost every time we go by their headquarters, in Encinitas, NOT Leucadia, it's closed. L101MA uses city funding to lobby for the Streetscape. It was number one "Stakeholder" for the bogus workshops that were held, where there was no control on the data collected and later "massaged," and tweaked through non-scientific "surveys." Anyone who said we wanted no roundabouts and lane closure for motorists, at the last workshop was counted as "no response!" There was only one ridiculous alternative to 5 roundabouts and "lane-diet." Traffic signals, which we didn't want installed, either!
It's not over yet; and it's not a happy "ending" by any means. Wait until rush hour traffic, in the mornings. Then you'll see worse back-up. We've already seen people slamming on their brakes, trying to swerve over, to the left, when they realize the right hand lane is now only for cyclists, of which there are very few going northbound around 8 or 8:30, in the morning!
ReplyDeleteI hope people write, e-mail or call the City when they do get stuck in traffic. The back up that some say "has always been there," will last twice as long, or more! It's going to be hell in the Summer!
Some people are being very selfish, calling others out by their names, bullying, libeling (always anonymously) dividing the community, when we all want what is best for the general public, as a whole, not special interests, lobbyists, developers, and longtime property owners, paying low property taxes, who want something for nothing, and will do anything to get it! Twist the truth, disregard the law, disrespect the Coastal Commission. As long as you get your way, on the highway!
If roundabouts were to go in, and the lane "diet" is absolutely an early phasing of that, as admitted by the Jan 30 staff report, then cyclists would no longer have their wide stretch of unobstructed roadway. They would also suffer through CHOKE-POINT, one lane roundabouts, which statistics show are more dangerous for cyclists than the open highway!
The same people who wanted to blight Leucadia are in favor of the Streetscam. The are trying to go ahead and get the city to act as a de facto redevelopment agency, forcing this huge development project on us, which benefits special interests, not the public at large.
Wake up. Maybe you can find an antidote to that KoolAid you've been swilling. Many businesses wouldn't be able to make it through the construction process, either. Then our area will become truly blighted.
Keep Leucadia Funky. The ones who made up that keep Leucadia crappy club are the ones who want to turn it crappy, by encouraging overdevelopment, and the failure of our small businesses.
"The same people that want to blight Leucadia "??? It's already blighted by knuckle heads like you. The north end of town looks like a shithole. Open your old fat hippie eyes and pull your head out of your ass and look around. And tell us, can you name 3 local businesses you have used IN Leucadia in the past week?? We await your response.
DeleteWe are still waiting....
DeleteDay two of your doom and gloom prophesy and...
DeleteNo back ups, no screeching brakes, no swerving out of the way of bikes and no traffic jams.
For the most part it's business as usual on 101.
Anon/Lynn you don't even live in Leucadia! Stop pretending that you do. You are not a Leucadian and do not have the green light to speak for us.
ReplyDeleteYour chicken little comments are just scare tactics. You have no crystal ball and can not predict future disaster events that will occur in Leucadia.
You can't even state the truth about what is happening on 101 now. There are no traffic jams in Leucadia! Periodic clusters of traffic caused by the railroad signal do not count as traffic jams these always clear out by the next light cycle. Yeah, summer traffic sucks on 101 but it always has!
You don't go anywhere except maybe City Hall anyway, so what's the problem for you personally?
You're also calling folks out by name all the while posting with multible last names and as an anon.
You have no credibility and seem to be hypocrite as well.
12:30
ReplyDelete1. You've misspelled the street: "Marcheta". At least get that right after it was changed from Orpheus.
2. If you didn't complain about lowering the tracks, your 4 buddies would and call the Coastal Commission to stall your efforts. They'd claim it was a conspiracy against residents by greedy 101 merchants with "low" property taxes who just wanted monetary gain at the expense of the nostalgic feeling Americans get when they see and hear a train go by.
3. You can't count. The Streetscape does not increase parking for merchant customers. It removes many on the east side of 101. My only problem with the plan - but I'm optimistic it may be easy infrastructure to adjust later.
4. People living or working from Athena St. to Enc. Blvd have the option of calling themselves Leucadia as that's what it was originally. But why do you call yourself Leucadian at City Hall and not on this blog? (even though you live in the area you're now insisting is exclusively Encinitas). Calling it Leucadia also helps insure that merchants and residents' mail is not misdirected and accidentally delivered to SOUTH Coast Hwy 101 (in Encinitas) where the many addresses 300 to 1200 are identical to the other end of town. (I used to correct misdirected mail every day when it came to the SDHSUD mail room, or I wouldn't be aware of just how much mail could end up in the wrong place for various reasons.) Again, if an address on an envelope/parcel is missing the word or initial for "north", but it does have the word "Leucadia" on the label, most mailmen have the common sense that it belongs at the north side and not downtown. Long way to explain a small tip, huh?
"If roundabouts were to go in, and the lane "diet" is absolutely an early phasing of that, as admitted by the Jan 30 staff report, then cyclists would no longer have their wide stretch of unobstructed roadway. They would also suffer through CHOKE-POINT, one lane roundabouts, which statistics show are more dangerous for cyclists than the open highway!"
ReplyDeleteLet me get this straight. Last week you tried to frighten vehicle drivers into helping you prevent a safe bike lane from finally being painted onto 101. And this week, after you lost round one of your anti-Streetscape crusade, you're trying to frighten cyclists as though they won't be able to navigate coming roundabouts safely? Lemme guess. You're not done yet.
L-word, Sheila and Andreen have this one wrong as everything else they weigh in on.
ReplyDeleteTown Council and L101 are good for the future of Leucadia.
KLCC lead by Lynn Marr, Sheila Cameron, Bob A, and Mike Andreen are bad for Leucadia future. Its that simple.
Luckily KLCC is only 6 to 8 members.
Where LTC and L101 have hundreds of members. Thank God!
When L-word and Cameron get up to speak, people automatically yawn. Its more natural than pavlov dogs simplex.
We know L-word isn't even a Leucadian. Does Cameron really live in Leucadia? Probably not?
The rantings of Lunatics......
Notification of Appeal Period - from the Coastal Commission office:
ReplyDeleteOn January 30, 2013 the Coastal Commission office received notice of local action on the Coastal development permit (which has no permit number) submitted by the City of Encinitas Engineering. An appeal to the Commission must be filed or the city action will become final. The appeal period will end at 5:00PM on February 13, 2013.
Tick Tock, Tick Tock.
DeleteThere is a permit no: City Case Numbers 10-035DR/CDP and 10-036GPA/LCPA/N101SPA.
DeleteThat translates to the fact that in March of 2010, the City of Encinitas began the process of applying for (traffic analysis and environmental/design review still ongoing) a design review/Coastal Development Permit and amendments to our General Plan, our Local Coastal Program (certified through the Coastal Commission) and our North101 Specific Plan.
Two Commissioners from the CCC have now agreed to appeal, themselves, the City's flagrant disregard for its own process, not following its own rules, and also, not following Coastal Act law. It is the City of Encinitas, not the Coastal Commission, who has tried to "change the rules midgame," as incorrectly alleged by Kristin Gaspar on 1/30/13, at the Council Meeting, which was supposed to be to investigate, according to Tony Kranz, who set up the future agenda item, on 12/12/12, whether or not the City was doing the correct thing, PROCEDURALLY!
The Agenda item wasn't supposed to be a big bicycle and L101MA rally, to sway Council with hyperbole and hubris, testimony about bicycle accidents unrelated to northbound lane elimination on a primary circulation element.
Lane elimination is part of the North 101 Streetscape Project. Eliminating one lane for motorists is the REASON ALL THE AMENDMENTS ARE REQUIRED. No one should be able to sway our "greenhorn Council" to do the wrong thing, based on emotional reactions and irrelevant, misleading, misinformation.
Don't worry, tick tock. The deadline was made, even with only two day's notice. Multiple appeals have been filed, including, as I said, by two California Coastal Commissioners, themselves, against the City's disregard of the law and its own rules. The process is in place to protect our Coastline and to protect the public.
L101MA has been acting as a lobbyist for the Streetscape, since it's inception, as far as I can tell. This business association is highly subsidized through the city with only 7% of its revenues coming from membership dues. We don't need the City supporting lobbyists who represent special interests at the expense of adjacent residents and local commuters. Sharrows are fine, and should help. Lane elimination is wrong, was NOT vetted.
Naw, Sheila has been stellar in many ways for Encinitas. But we do disagree on this one. Can't imagine her at the same table with Mike though. Decades of friction there. One time I was with Maggie as we walked in La Especial Norte for lunch. Mike was at one table with a close friend of mine as we walked through the frost to find a table and everyone pretended not to see each other. I asked Maggie if we could go sit with them. Why not see if an axe or two can be buried? Oh no! When personality and/or power conflicts step over the line with name calling, it's pretty hard to find common ground for most. Too many wounds I guess. However, life's not that predictable sometimes. One ice-breaker was when the late Jack Orr was one of several locals who formed the committee to keep the Encinitas Library on Cornish Dr. I think it was the first time he and Sheila were on the same side of a cause. And I have to say a bit surreal to see them talking and joking (and a few zingers here and there) with each other after so much bad blood. He even divulged some secrets how he helped win elections for people and propositions. I helped with posters/brochures against Proposition H - the battle between keeping the library downtown - or creating a new Library / zoning / business district for Quail Gardens Drive. (The issue was such a pain in the butt I wanted to make a poster that changed the word Prepartion on a blue and yellow box of suppositories to Proposition H, but I was overruled.)
ReplyDeleteIdk?- you lay with rats, your bound to have fleas!
ReplyDeleteCameron lives east of I5 and has never cared for the area near Hwy101. She is the Leucadian Kook.
ReplyDeleteBoth L-word and Cameron are not real Leucadians. Just Big Mouth Kooks. Like a rotten species of fish.
Thank God she was thrown off Council.
Just a Kook, plain and simple.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSheila worked hard for years with LMA organizing and participating in events / tree plantings here etc. She was a strong proponent for Leucadia drainage improvements as already mentioned above (especially when Aspell and numerous other council members did not share her enthusiasm for helping Leucadia). It was her idea she championed for having City Council meetings televised to make local government more visible. She does live in Leucadia and has for over 30 years. She loves Leucadia and the city and is one of the very few living mayors who cares to stay involved with her community/city by active involvement with groups and of course frequent visits to the microphone at City Hall. I won't go on and on with the positive things she's accomplished here, but you know I could. She's been fed misinformation about parts of the Streetscape by others so those are a few items her and I agree to disagree on so far and I laugh to think that could decay into name calling from either one of us.
ReplyDeleteShe was NEVER thrown off Council. What happened was that a woman she helped get elected turned on her at a significant point in time and helped two others on council removed her as mayor from her rightful last month of tenure. The move was more than likely political (no pun) which empowered a three vote majority orchastrated to have James Bond titled as mayor in time to list him as such on his campaign literature when he ran for State Assemblyman - which he consequently lost. The night she was removed as mayor, 50 people (not exaggerating) publicly and strongly protested her removal. Of course that fell on 3 sets of deaf ears and they removed her as mayor because they could. She was NEVER thrown off the council but served her full term.
Once a Kook, always a Kook.
ReplyDelete