Friday, May 12, 2017

Coastal Commission orders Rail Trail moved to east side

Union-Trib:
The commission voted to support a 1.3-mile route east of the railroad tracks along San Elijo Avenue from Chesterfield Drive north to Santa Fe Drive.

“I’m shocked,” said Encinitas Mayor Catherine Blakespear, who had spoken eloquently to the commission in favor of a placing the bicycle and pedestrian paths along Coast Highway 101 west of the railroad tracks.

“I’m very disappointed,” Blakespear said. “We’ve been working on this for the last year. I don’t know what else we could have done.”

[...]

Only a few residents supported building the trail along San Elijo Avenue.

“We need new infrastructure, and we need it on the east side where it belongs,” said former Encinitas Councilwoman Lisa Shaffer.


139 comments:

  1. Liar Lisa you are irrelevant, as is any opinion you have on anything. Please go quietly into the night and stfu.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Only a few residents supported building the trail along San Elijo Avenue."

      smh. yeah right.

      Yeah, if thousands supported it on the west side, then thousands + CCC support it on the east.

      Delete
    2. I read that thousands of people support it on the west side. I read it on the internet, so it HAS to be true.

      Delete
    3. 1:21- Actually the number of residents that signed to have it on the west side was 1400 people. I have the entire list, as per a CPRA request. I have no idea how any signed for the East side. Check with the City if you want to know who signed what.

      Delete
    4. And these 1400 out of 37k registered voters are verified residents and of voting age?

      Delete
    5. I signed me and my dog up...!

      Delete
    6. 10:00- I have the entire list of people who wanted the bikes on the west and the walking on the east.None of them are bots. There are 1405 people that signed to be exact. Anyone can get those names and the names of people who wanted everything on the east side

      Delete
  2. She's " shocked". Lololollll
    Flaming torches and pitchforks, get them ready.

    The city should decline and refuse any rail trail that is forced on us w/o our deciding where it goes and is located.

    Resist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 1.) Rail property isn't locally regulated.

      2.) It's a bike path.

      You could try chaining yourself to a large weed. Not sure it would work, but it would be entertaining for the rest of us.

      Delete
    2. chain to tracks instead?

      Delete
    3. I can see how the CCC can deny the permit on the West, in Cardiff. But it can't force an east side alignment in Cardiff, imo.

      A better placement would be on west side of tracks, in NCTD right of way, parallel to 101, through Leucadia. That Bicycle Masterplan project, INSTEAD of a $24-28 Million streetscam plan with roundabout after roundabout after roundabout after roundabout, after roundabout, after roundabout, robbing our highway of two lanes. Traffic would become choked, snarled, during Peak periods, creating back-ups, more cut through traffic thru school zone and residential streets west of 101, also further loss of our median canopy.

      Encinitas citizens can and should oppose an East side alignment that would destroy part of the neighborhood's character, part of our environmental heritage. This didn't have to be a "black or white," solution. Other alternatives, north of Cardiff, should be considered.

      Delete
    4. Leucadia, keep it crappy.

      Delete
  3. Resist!

    Deny the rail trail, spend millions in lawsuits, then loose (hint: it's not on your land) and keep Encinitas crappy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The opposing nearby residents on San Elijo will be happy when their home values increase.

      Delete
    2. 9:01- Everything is not about money. There is something to be said about quality of life, the wildlife that live in the bluffs, and a lot of the people who didn't want this to go down this way live on San Elijo. In fact, the person who started the campaign to change the original configuration, lives on San Elijo. Some people care way too much about money and don't care about Community Character. In fact, I will go so far as to say only people who live in Cardiff should have been able to say what they wanted.

      Delete
  4. There were over 1000 people in this community who signed a petition asking the City Council to change the bike lane from the east to West side of the tracks and keep the walking trail on the East. Imagine a mother with a baby in a stroller taking a nice walk along the east side of the tracks, and then here comes a bicyclist going 4 times the pace of the mother and baby. When they collide, and most likely that will happen at some point, then we will see a lawsuit. Hopefully, it will be levied at the CCC, but the City will pic up the tab, no doubt about it. And why is Shaffer even being interviewed? Oh well, so much for the bluffs and whatever wildlife might be affected. This community is getting very gentrified I will say that. I live in Cardiff and I voted for incorporation. Now I wonder?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bikes can't collide with strollers west of the tracks? I run through the dirt path every day. Never seen a stroller. Not one.

      Delete
    2. But that is already happening on the west side between Swamis and San Elijo!!!! Explain?

      - The Sculpin

      Delete
    3. 1000 people out of 65000. 37000 of which are registered voters. Less than 3% of registered voters signed petition. And cyclists never use paths that ruins the fun of riding in the middle of the street.

      Delete
    4. There are thousands of people on each side of the issue

      Delete
  5. Thank you, CCC. Me and my kids will see you on the path. We'll be going to Pipes or VG's for breakfast.

    This is delicious karma for the No Rail Trail partisan shenanigans during the last election.

    ReplyDelete
  6. 9:48- Some of us are not happy with the decision. Obviously you are. But do you really want to be this devisive to the over 1000 people who did not want this? It was not partisan shenanigans, it was what over 1000 people wanted. Not a great way to unite the community. But maybe to don't give a damn about uniting the community?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But the other 1000 people did want it.

      No one was going to win from this...

      I don't think anyone was trying to unite the community, here. It also isn't possible.

      It's been on the city and regional docs for 15+ years. People that have made investments in this community since have been doing so knowing that someday those improvements will.

      To move it now would create economic obsolescence. And still not unite anyone.

      Delete
    2. 10:18,

      I have no beef with the good citizens who expressed a preference for the west side alignment.

      The partisan shenanigans was a couple of people endorsing a partisan slate of candidates without any attempt to consult the people who signed the petition.

      I understand and respect people with different preferences on the location of the trail. I do not respect the small number who attempted to hijack a large number of voices at election time.

      Delete
  7. Does the city have to abide by this decision? What happens if they don't?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. city isn't pulling permits. they don't have to protest or accept the decision. they watch.

      Delete
  8. The community was split on this issue... so any decision that the CCC made wasn't going to unite the community

    ReplyDelete
  9. Now Blakespear's kids can ride on the east side just where she and her hero Shaffer wanted it in the first place. Back before public pressure + the election made her change her mind.

    Now Blakespear and Shaffer can celebrate. Blakespear in private and Shaffer in public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Blakespear fought like hell to get the trail on the west side... her presentation to the CCC was awesome.

      Delete
    2. Political posturing. Don think for a second she didn't know the outcome.

      Delete
    3. 3:51 she fought but only AFTER she flipped. It was the multitude of campaign signs that popped up all over Cardiff with her name crossed out that made her a west side convert.

      She blew it big and her east side support change of heart was pure politics.

      Delete
    4. 10:16 I've met Catherine, and she's a good mayor and sincere person.

      I also know politics, and here is the essence: Our candidate makes thoughtful course changes after careful reconsideration of the facts, in the best interest of his/her constituents.

      Your candidate makes politically expedient flip-flops for cynical self-serving politics.

      See how it works?

      Delete
  10. AnonymousApril 30, 2017 at 10:58 AM
    Dustin Campbell, you don't know squat, and I will bet you a contribution to some charity, that you couldn't be more wrong. The rail trail will be on the 101.

    The more pertinent question is why you hold onto this failed idea.

    Greg Cox, Gaspar, Sandag, and a couple of others, are in favor of the preffered alignment on the coast highway.

    Me thinks, you have other motivations. Give it up. The rail trail will be on the 101.

    For a review, read Catherines latest newsletter and then tell us that it will end up on San Elijo and Vulcan. You are dead wrong.

    The CCC will not go against this alignment. Do feel free to attend the upcoming meeting and let us know what you learn.


    What charity and how much ANONYMOUS?

    ReplyDelete
  11. A box of chocolates, because you never know what you are going to get.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I support informal/no concrete/rural looking Trail like San Clemente's Beach Trail east of the track and the complete streets for the bike/pedestrian trail on the west side of Hwy101.

    Build them both and they will be heavily utilized. Its not one or the other. The City should plan on building them both.

    ReplyDelete
  13. As a resident of Encinitas I am in favor of the rail trail to the east of tracks. It seems difficult to argue against in terms of environmental impact, especially given the coastal commission opinion on the matter. It seemed to be reversed in Encinitas due to a very vocal minirity of home owners in cardiff, many of whom want to cross the tracks to surf. I think the climate is more important, and walking/biking helps the climate. It's never going to work to the west.

    ReplyDelete
  14. As a resident of Encinitas I am in favor of the rail trail to the east of tracks. It seems difficult to argue against in terms of environmental impact, especially given the coastal commission opinion on the matter. It seemed to be reversed in Encinitas due to a very vocal minirity of home owners in cardiff, many of whom want to cross the tracks to surf. I think the climate is more important, and walking/biking helps the climate. It's never going to work to the west.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not for a separated bike path on the west side or the east side of the tracks.

    I'm for separated bike paths on BOTH the west side AND the east side of the tracks.

    ReplyDelete
  16. A high majority of cyclists on the 101 will not follow the rail trail on the east side. That is not why they ride along our coast. The rest of the county rail trail follows the coast highway. Not here though.

    Thanks to a couple of past and current council members who we all know, and a small majority of vocal residents who we saw at council meetings, the initial alignment got off on the wrong foot. Too bad.

    Both sides need improvements, but not at the cost of what will more than likely be happening now to the natural bluff on the east side.

    The loss of parking on San Elijo for all of us and native plants and access to the beach for those on the east side will be missed by many, with the exception of those who wanted it their way.

    Welcome to the future of minority rules. Sounds familiar doesn't it?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Why does everyone always assume their position aligns with the majority in the absence of real data?

      Delete
  17. Blakespear never really supported the West side. I know this because she told me 2 weeks ago!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. right. that's why she got the city council to write a letter of unanimous support and then prepared for weeks for a great presentation to the Coastal Commission. oh, and her mom testified that she wants the trail on the west side too. all because she never really supported the west side. uh huh.

      Delete
    2. Public pressure does wonders to "change" one's mind. Uh huh, that it does.

      Delete
    3. Off-the-rails supported Muir, and did not support Blakespear.

      Who made the better case for the West alignment to the CCC: Muir or Blakespear?

      Delete
    4. Muir didn't even bother to show up at the CCC meeting to speak. Catherine, Joe, and Tasha showed up and got in the game.

      Delete
    5. Wow.

      Surprising. So the political endorsements of the Off the Rails clique actually weren't about the rail corridor at all?

      Let me show you my shocked face.

      Delete
  18. No rail trail on West side- No double tracks. Stop the project.

    Its that simple. Screw SANDAG - Eiither put up the money to quiet zone all of Encinitas with numerous crossings - or no double tracks. Its that simple.

    Why can not we get politicians that see things this simply.

    ReplyDelete
  19. 11:23 - sorry, but lots of people actually want the trail by the tracks. this isn't a case of residents vs. government, it's residents vs. residents.

    it's not simple. not sure if you've been following this drama or not, but it's the very definition of "not simple".

    ReplyDelete
  20. It is past time to tell SANDOG where they can stick it. If they refuse to help lower the tracks and they do, what use are they. After the recent tax boondoggle, it is a good time to assert ourselves.

    This goes for the future population numbers they dole out that have no basis in fact, but are a giveaway to developers.

    Next time I hope our city will call bs on SANDOG'S housing numbers and insist they are based on fact and not influence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Speaking of housing.... Kimley Horn was a consultant on the MIG, failed project that put all of the housing on El Camino Real.

      They were fired.

      Seems like we know where this is going!

      Delete
    2. Alot of the new higher density should be on ECR.

      Delete
    3. at 5:21....

      why?

      Delete
    4. On ECR - are we talking about two stories? Or three? There is a big difference.

      Right now we are talking about two stories with our HEU, only.

      At three stories - maybe it will work. Not two.

      A two story mixed use development won't work on ECR. 1) It wouldn't pencil out. You can't get 30 units per acre above one story commercial. It physically can't happen.

      And, if the alternative is eliminating commercial and going to just residential... 1) it won't pencil out because commercial is doing well here. 2) it won't work politically because ecr brings in necessary sales tax. 3) two story apartments would look weird fronting a commercial corridor.

      I'm not against two story development for the HEU. Two story apartment would work if it is sitting on top of one story commercial for this area. Look elsewhere.

      Emotions aside, having two story development for affordable housing works in areas where it would be nestled into the community. Look to more hidden areas where it can blend into the community, but still be close enough to walk to key areas. Otherwise, you will have more density bonus applications. And the concession will be to go to three stories.

      Delete
    5. I'm not 5:21, but I partly agree with them. Every recession ECR loses big box stores. More and more people purchase goods online. ECR should have some residential, and the commercial should be services and smaller scale stores. I'm not saying mixed use. Commercial and residential can be separate, and residential can be two story, where the density comes from smaller units. With less commercial, you will have less traffic.

      Delete
    6. The Detour building has R-30 density mixed use in two stories.

      Small apartments are naturally more affordable.

      Delete
    7. The detour building has zero parking. It was build to cover 90 percent of the lot coverage. It has no open/recreational space, no storm water basins, no private storage, etc. I don't think you want to encourage that necessarily.

      It also is downtown and near the beach, where there may be trade-offs to "small" living. I don't think it is the same. "Small" living could work along 101, where new mixed use development should occur.

      Try again. I don't think we want to promote two stories with 90 percent lot coverage, no resident amenities, and no environmental water protection.

      Delete
    8. 8:46 - ECR is still here despite the recession. So I am not sure what you are saying. If we have another great recession or something bigger, I think you will have more things to worry about than where we put new growth.

      A few stores closed during the last recession, but were replaced with new and more resilient retailers. The Amazons of the world will take down some retail sectors, but not the majority of ones that are on ECR. Maybe we lose Target and Dicks' Sporting Goods, but people still will want to buy their groceries in person so they can pick their own apple, they will still want to take their car to the car wash, get fast food, do banking, and get their coffee, etc.

      And...Maybe we lose 24 hr fitness, because, let's be honest with how we are trending in the fitness world.

      I agree with 8:42. I don't think you would ever have a main street here unless you created a downtown vibe, which will not EVER be supported by the property owner when it is only at two stories.

      Delete
    9. Not everything in a city can be small lot commercial. If everything offers that same experience, then nothing does.

      Delete
    10. 9:31 sounds like density pushing staff clone. We want restrictions!

      Delete
    11. The Danforth building is not R30. It's CM1.

      Delete
    12. The Danforth building has 30 residential unit per acre density on the second floor.

      The point is, we have a working example of affordable apartments in a mixed use building that would satisfy the state, and conform to Prop A height limits, and result in a financially viable project for the developer.

      The thing that seems so impossible acually exists.

      Delete
    13. Try again, Bruce! If you put "no parking requirements" on these new sites then it will be voted down worse than the first time. Focus on ADUs!

      Delete
    14. The zoning for the Danforth building is CM1. Look it up on MyEncinitas.

      And by the way, zoning isn't per floor. It's according to where the parcel is geographically.

      Delete
    15. 5:09 - Bruce doesn't post here. Nice try slamming him.

      Why don't you show your face at the task force meetings and learn something?

      Last time the housing consultant said HCD won't accept more than 20% ADUs, so it will not be an area of "focus."

      Delete
    16. A "downtown vibe?" Enough already with the vibrancy crap. Downtown is San Diego. Go there and get your vibe on. Leave us out of it.

      Delete
    17. Bruce does post here, anonymously. And that wasn't a slam.

      Delete
    18. Del Mar is 100% ADUs... Seems to be ok to focus.

      Also state laws changed so that residents can convert existing structures to ADUs regardless of setback. That makes it even easier. Also makes it easier to legalize.

      I would say that you are not focusing on the right thing. No rezoning, without the right focus in the right area.

      Delete
    19. Have you read Del Mar's Housing Element update?

      I have.

      It doesn't support your claims.

      Delete
    20. Maybe you should read state law that says that HCD will consider other factors to support the amount of accessory units that will be produced. Its not limited. Besides, failed HEU proposed a 40% increase in ADUS and HCD agreed to it.

      City staff should re-inventory ADUs instead of commenting on blogs during work hours.

      Delete
    21. 6:53, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and attend the next task force meeting. Present the Del Mar info - it will be most welcome because, as usual, the City is getting questionable "expert" advice.

      Delete
  21. Biker down on the 101 this morning, appears was hit by a car backing out parked by Swami's Cafe.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Stop funding stupid wasteful projects like the General Giles Lifeguard McMansion and Police Peeping Station, and Pacific View toxic cleanup program and fund some worthy projects like completing the needed bicycle and pedestrian improvements on both the west and east side.

    The pedestrian and bike improvement projects would actually save lives, be good for quality of life in Encinitas, and would improve the property values and business revenues downtown. The trophy projects lifeguard McMansion and PV will not. Fund the projects with the highest return on investment and priorities the trophy projects at the bottom of the list.

    ReplyDelete
  23. 6:37- I agree about the "trophy"projects. Even if we had not build the huge Encinitas Park, which is hardly used, that could have gone to affordable housing. I am curious as to why you think the ped and bike lanes would improve property values. At least in Cardiff, the people who live on San Elijo may have a lot more noise than they anticipate if everything is on the East side of the tracks. More bikes, more skaters, more crying kids, etc. Seems to me that would lessen the property value but I am not a real estate expert so perhaps you are right. Personally, I don't care which side of the tracks it's on. I also would prefer not to pay for any of it, as I think we have other things to spend money on that are much more important. I realize SANDAG and the Railroad is picking up most of the tab, but let's face it, it is our tax dollars that pay for those organizations as well.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A 40 plus million dollar park that's hardly used. Any know the total monthly cost to maintain this park? Dog park seems to shut down for maintenance routinely. The most used portion of this money pit is the skate park and I imagine it is the cheapest to maintain.

      Delete
    2. Not only is the park an expensive unused waste of money, it's also an over-crowded noise-generating traffic machine!

      Brilliant!

      Delete
    3. Aren't unused and overcrowded contradictory?

      Delete
    4. Is 4:12 PM making an awkward abstract reference to the proximity of the freeway? And "unused" money? It was used - on the park!
      That is just one badly constructed sentence!

      Delete
    5. Just because your head is in the sand doesn't mean the park is hardly used.

      Delete
  24. What is was wrong with the path as it is. Why must it be changed?

    ReplyDelete
  25. It's not accessible - lots of people can't use it. And north San Elijo sucks. Cars parked at all crazy angles cause you to have to go out into traffic to pass.

    ReplyDelete
  26. My understanding is that a public vote, at a General or Special Election, can override the CCC's decision. People are saying there is an absence of "real data," to justify how the majority of the public feels. A ballot measure, put on the ballot by Council for only about $30-$35K during a General Election, would answer that question, definitively.

    What would be optimal is a balancing of the needs of motorists and bicyclists and pedestrians all along the railtrail/101 corridor. The CCC raised concerns about snarling of traffic by further lane deletions for motorists, when a separated bike/ped lane already exists on the west side of 101.

    The purest way to determine what the public wants and needs is through a public vote.

    ReplyDelete
  27. A public vote by residents of Encinitas won't have any effect on the CCC decision or the project. The CRT isn't a city project being built on city property, it's a regional SANDAG project being built on railroad property. SANDAG was deferring to the city on the alignment as a courtesy and because they were trying to be good partners, not because the city has the ability to decide the CRT's fate one way or another. Also, the CCC voted on the interpretation of the North County Coastal Public Works Plan, which is a regional thing not a city thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly.

      Paying for a vote when the outcome of the vote is dispositive of nothing is flushing money down the toilet.

      We could just as well pay tens of thousands of dollars on a vote to determine whether cats or dogs are better pets.

      Once you get the answer, so what?

      Doctrine of preemption says a local body cannot overrule decisions made at the state level.

      Delete
    2. Perhaps the City cannot override the State Legislature's laws, but my understanding is that the CCC decision can be "overridden" by a public vote. Also, the CCC does not do public work projects. SANDAG cannot build within our City without a City permit, either. The CCC can say no to a west side alignment, in Cardiff, by denying a LCP amendment, but it cannot FORCE an east side alignment, in Cardiff.

      What's more needed is a separated bike/ped lane in the NCTD right of way, on the west side of the tracks, east side of 101, through Leucadia.

      The CCC and SANDAG can give recommendations. They can't override a public vote, as far as I know. Regional agencies derive their power from the people. We do not elect our Coastal Commissioners; although they serve as elected representatives of various city councils and boards of supervisors.

      Delete
    3. ". . . but my understanding is that the CCC decision can be 'overridden' by a public vote."

      I disagree, but I'm not a lawyer. Can you provide an example of a local ballot item that reversed a CCC ruling?

      Delete
    4. Best thing you can do is petition the governor to appoint new members, which will align with our opinions, even if they are not the majority of Encinitas residents.

      Delete
    5. Unless the Coastal Act allows a CCC decision to be overridden by a popular vote (which I doubt), a vote wouldn't have any effect. Think about it. You'd have developers circulationing petitions to override an unfavorable CCC decision.

      The CCC decision was to not allow SANDAG to substitute the western alignment for the previously agreed to eastern alignment as part of the I-5 expantion mitigation.

      Also, unless you're going to start a funding drive, any election expenses would be borne by the city which means all residents would be paying for it. How many residents outside of Cardiff would care?

      Delete
  28. Thank you 4:47am. At last a reasonable proposition to settle the squabbling of minor and majority opinions.

    The value this community could get for that relatively minor expense would leave little doubt as to where the majority opinions are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The majority opinions are for it to be on SE.

      I just saved a bunch of money.

      Delete
  29. San Elijo right of way is not on city property? Never mind.

    Council should not contribute a dime to this re re alignment.

    We all know who pushed this in the beginning when it , the location, should have been publicly vetted first. That brought us to where we are now.

    If our city had been clear from the beginning with whichever location, so much needless crap could have been avoided and the CCC would have known where this city wanted the trail.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Methinks the point is the CCC is the higher authority. Where it has jurisdiction, the CCC can overrule the city. It doesn't matter where the city or the majority of residents want the trail.

      Delete
    2. 6:16- I don't know who pushed any of this. Could you be more specific. I know that in Cardiff there were conflicts with residents over whether people wanted the bike trail on the East or West side. But I get the sense you may know more? Could you share?

      Delete
    3. The "higher authority," in Constitutional terms, is the people. The Courts can override public votes, if a new law created by such a vote is Unconstitutional. Otherwise, a public vote should be controlling. However, the choice should not be limited to either a west side or east side alignment in Cardiff.

      Delete
    4. OK, so the people who want the rail trail on 101 can sue the CCC as the seawall people in Leucadia did and got the case to the state Supreme Court, where it was heard but hasn't been decided.

      Or the west side advocates could do the long, expensive process of getting an initiative on the ballot so the residents could vote and maybe override the CCC decision.

      If either of those scenarios is how the people are the higher authority, is either likely to happen?

      Delete
    5. 8:42 is clueless.

      1) You cant sue CCC if our own planning documents also have the east alignment.

      2) You can have a local election to overrule something that is bigger and more powerful than you. Do you have kids? Ask them to take a vote on how to educate yourself.

      Delete
    6. Read the posts that precede 8:42.

      Then consider your own stupidity, 10:46.

      Delete
  30. The railroad on the coast here... NCTD. Is public property. NCTD is a public agency. So is SANDAG.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. NCTD is within SANDAG.

      So what if it's public property?

      It's in the coastal zone, the CCC has jurisdiction, the CCC is a state agency operating under state law.

      Delete
    2. The CCC has jurisdiction to deny an LCP amendment, which would be needed. But it doesn't have the jurisdiction to force an east side alignment, only to recommend one. In other words, the CCC has the ability to deny a project, but not to force one to be built in the City's jurisdiction.

      Municipalities have a great deal of power. Local ordinances and city policy preferences are acknowledged and are controlling in many state regulations, policies and laws.

      Delete
    3. From Blakespear's newsletter:

      "The vote was 5-7 on a motion made by our region’s representative, County Supervisor Greg Cox, for a west side placement. He spoke knowledgably and comprehensively about the reasons for supporting the city and SANDAG's preferred placement. I am grateful for his support.

      "After that failure, the next motion was to require the building of the rail trail east of the railroad tracks through Cardiff – it was supported unanimously by the 12 commissioners."

      "Require" sure sounds like "force" rather than "recommend."

      Delete
    4. I don't see how the CCC can force the east side alignment. I would like to see the actual text of the motion. The CCC can deny a permit, or an ordinance. I don't see how it can force any public agency to build a public works project that it and, according to many, most locals, don't endorse.

      I thought I read an article that stated "recommend." But you're right, "require" does sound like a forcing, against our will. However, perhaps that "require" only pertains to the City's receiving grant funding, through SANDAG, for a RTC through Cardiff?

      As some are pointing out, the City should think outside the box, and begin the process of finally establishing the RTC through Leucadia, west of the tracks, and east of 101, in the NCTD right of way. The Bicycle Masterplan which envisions this has been in the works for more than 10 years. The streetscam, with special interests pushing roundabout after roundabout after roundabout after roundabout after roundabout after roundabout on Historic State Highway 101, through Leucadia, has not been "in the works for 10 years," contrary to what Catherine Blakespear has incorrectly claimed (due to lobbying from Board of Directors of L101MA) in one of her recent newsletters.

      Peltz and Associates, including Dan Burden, roundabout lobbyists, begin pushing roundabouts in 2008. Before that, the Mainstreet Association in Leucadia, was petitioning for a stop sign at Grandview and 101, and had about 50 signatures, or a few more. Thousands of people signed petitions against having five (now six, without Council's approval) roundabouts. But, with the very well paid consultants, private contractors in the mix, plus thousands of planning and engineering hours in make work projects for staff, the new "model" was to "shoot for the moon."

      After the "walking audit," on 2/23/2008, nearly every single intersection was considered, and pushed, for roundabout installation. Only a roundabout at Grandview and 101 received "enthusiastic support," in the "design charrettes." Several intersections were later eliminated because of grading challenges.

      The current plan, under environmental review, is not the plan that Council, by a majority of three council members, only, approved, on January 13, 2010, despite much public opposition from the "red shirts."

      Rather than taking away two lanes of our historic highway, and forcing more cut through traffic onto side streets, residential zones west of 101, and onto Vulcan, a school zone, the City should prioritize a separated bike ped lane, through Leucadia. Cardiff already has one on the west of 101.

      Delete
    5. 5:17- the process of the streetscape on 101 in Leucadia started in 2003. Sorry you weren't advised. None the less, we love the crappiness of the 101. We love the weeds and dirt. We love the lack of flowers and greenscape. We love the filth and derelicts in the park. We love their urine and feces in our alleyways
      WE LOVE THE CRAP.
      Leucadia KEEP IT CRAPPY!!

      Delete
  31. The arts commission will vote on the style of the bluff retaining wall along San Elijo for the double tracking. Ugly! Standard Caltrans. The photos are on the art commission agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Rail trail folks, where are you?

    ReplyDelete
  33. soooooo much drama over a freakin' trail. don't people have something better to do with their time?

    ReplyDelete
  34. 6:34am As per your tired and repetitive usual, you ignore the main deficit of the streetscape plan that you and your profiteers are pushing.

    The source of crap with any of this is yours and the handful of real estate interests. Many parts of this plan are welcomed by most.

    Separate the issue of the ill planned roundabouts from this, and we would have already made progress. It is this fact that has held up progress as long as it has.

    It appears we are going to get a first roundabout and see how that functions before any of the others are built. Where is this first roundabout going in, anyone?

    Grandview will require using eminent domain to take away private property to try to squeeze one in there. Talk about squeeze. Cars and cyclist will share the single lane roundabouts. There is not room to do otherwise at any of them

    Crappy pappy, try a new tack, instead of the same old weed an dirt.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Weeds and dirt.
      Weeds and dirt.
      Keep it crappy.
      ( I really don't see what you are afraid of, the weeds and dirt are your friends).
      You have crapaphobia. You are a crapaphobist.

      Delete
    2. Someone doesn't like the well-loved slogan, "Keep Leucadia Funky." He tries to pre-empt it with his crappy version. He's not interested in discussing the facts or in listening to others' perspectives. His fecal-phobia reigns supreme in his runaway ego, destroying logic, belittling any who disagree, cowardly attacking from the safety of his assumed anonymity. He's a caricature, Roadside Park Bum, from Leucadia Blog.

      Delete
    3. 2:13 AM?? Hard night of drinking at the leucadian?? Why so angry?? Drinks get watered down as it gets later??

      Delete
    4. Overreaction from Marvy Charles = 11:53 am.

      Delete
  35. I'm old enough to remember when people looked to the CCC to override the city's decision to put the northbound 101 past Leucadia Boulevard on a lane diet by stripping a wider bike lane. While CCC staff did express concern it never appeared to result in any change as the wider bike lane is still there. But when they do override the city (actually SANDAG) many of you are bent out of shape.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When the city illegally reduced northbound 101 to one lane north of Leucadia Blvd, the CCC staff said they and the commission would wait till the entire Streetscape plan came before them to weigh in on lane reduction, which is now proposed for both directions through the entire corridor except for a few blocks.

      Delete
    2. I'm old enough to remember that too. It was five years ago.

      Delete
  36. 204pm So says the crap master himself. Poor pappy has little else to contribute in his declining years. Pity the old fool.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Never accept legal advice from people who lose every case they've ever been involved with.

    ReplyDelete
  38. 11:53am Is that all you can come up? Assuming a late night entry has to be from staying up late and drinking has no base in fact.

    We all don't have the same sleeping habits and late night is a quiet time for some who may have slept for hours while you were out pounding them down in the evening.

    I often fall asleep in the evenings when party town is going off and enjoy the quiet of night to reflect on many things. It doesn't mean that I imbibe more than a little wine each week.

    Cheap shot when you have nothing else to offer, 11:53am.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lololollll. You are funny.

      Delete
  39. Charley boy/man child, you are not.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'd love to stay on this blog exchanging quips with you but I'd rather go and watch the lovely California poppies in front of Pandora's pizza. Flowers that I'm sure you appreciate also.

      Delete
  40. You know Charley boy/man, child, that would be a good thing if only you would go elsewhere and spend your time rather than the same old same old crappy pappy weeds and dirt car you focus on. Please do.

    You ignore the fact that the roundabouts that you stand to profit directly from is no mystery to anyone who is paying attention. Profiteering is the undeniable fact in your case. Weeds and dirt are not. Thespian would have much more support and probably would have gotten a lot further if the stupid roundabouts hadn't been added.

    I know there is no point in trying to insert reason with you over this part of the streetscape plan. All you know is weeds and dirt. Many would like parts of this plan to be implemented along with you.

    You can give up and we wish you would, but the resistance to such stupidity will not go away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Do everyone a favor, plant some flowers on the 101. That Hwy is in desperate need of beautification.

      Delete
  41. You do everyone a favor yourself and address the elephant in the room, which you choose to continue to ignore. Many of us are in favor of the same things you say you are, beautification of the corridor.

    The city has let so much die through neglect. Surely we can agree on that.

    You are hoping to directly profit by having a roundabout adjacent to your property. Nothing about you is related flowers or weeds and dirt. It is a chance to financially profit and nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How would anybody profit by having a roundabout adjacent to his property?

      Seems it would have the opposite effect.

      Ask the owner of Just Peachy if he likes the idea of a roundabout at Jupiter and 101.

      Delete
    2. 1:37- which is it?? Do you want to see a lovely 101 or a CRAP show, which it is now. You are back tracking...
      I understand the importance of roundabouts and how they move traffic and having driven them here in Enc and other cities, I hate sitting at red lights burning precious gasoline. Fair to say the elephant in the room is your desire to earn more profits from your oil stocks?? Exxon??

      Do us a favor and save your words for something you know about, but I'll give you credit you ARE entertaining. In a hemorrhoid way.

      Keep it CRAPPY!!

      Delete
    3. 9:38 Where in Encinitas is there a roundabout where there used to be a traffic signal? For that matter, where is there a roundabout where there used to be stop signs for the principal traffic directions?

      Of the six roundabouts proposed for T intersections in the Leucadia 101 corridor, only one would replace a traffic signal, and none would replace stop signs in the principal traffic directions.

      Post here if you know what you're talking about. So far, you've just been demonstrating your ignorance.

      Delete
    4. 10:33- still can't decide can you?? You want beautification but also want CRAP. Hmmmm, typical of you to try and change the subject. No problem, the roundabouts in Encinitas replace STOP SIGNS. At a STOP SIGN, you stop, and as a consequence.... waste fuel. But you love that as it FUELS your Exxon stock price, doesn't it??

      Oh and the roundabout on Santa Fe Dr replac d a 4 ways stop....lololollll. You lose again.
      But that's ok, keep it CRAPPY.

      Delete
    5. More ignorance from your addled brain, 11:09. There was no stop sign on Santa Fe in the east-west traffic direction.

      Read 10:33's first paragraph. See that it specifies stop signs.

      Any driver who comes to a roundabout opposite the principal direction of the traffic has to stop and wait for a break in the flow just as he/she would if there were a stop sign.

      Your claim is bogus.

      Delete
  42. Crapmaster, your directly profiting off of a future roundabout next to your property is not changing the subject. It is information that every one should know and precisely why you want this to happen and why it was placed there to begin with. You, of course are not the only one who stands to profit from their properties being adjacent to these ill placed roundabouts.

    If streetscape was really wanting to control traffic flow along the 2.5 mile long corridor, these would have been evenly spaced apart. Obviously this was not high on streetscapes priorities. $$$$$$$$$$$ was.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 4:41,

      Thank you for your concern.

      We at city hall value your input, and will continue to listen and engage the community in dialogue as we move forward to build all roundabouts as planned, where planned.

      If you have additional thoughts, please write them down and deposit them in one of the fire pits at Moonlight Beach.

      Peace out, and bye.

      (What I would say if I worked for the city.)

      Delete
  43. 4:41 Please explain how anybody profits from a roundabout placed adjacent to his/her property.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Increased zoning adjacent to the roundabouts is one way.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Increased zoning adjacent to the roundabouts is one way.

    ReplyDelete
  46. 4:41- I could explain how wrong you are using reason and logic but YOU ARE NOT WORTH IT. NOT WORTH IT...

    ReplyDelete
  47. 4:41- I could explain to you usingvreason and logic why you are wrong but I won't. Why?? You aren't WORTH IT. YOU AREN'T WORTH IT.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Well since you crappy pappy, say you will not be profiteering through increased zoning allowances from a roundabout adjacent to your 101 property, it must be true.

    Thanks Charley. Now we can eliminate that reason and move on. That is, until we hear differently. We can now dispel that as rumor that has no basis in fact, because you say so. Thanks again.

    ReplyDelete
  49. What a relief that we can now dispel that profiting directly through increased zoning for the property owners adjacent to the roundabouts is not true.

    Thanks crappy pappy. We can move on and leave that behind as only a rumor. What a relief.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Thanks Charley for clearing up the misconception that any of the property owners adjacent to the proposed roundabouts will be awarded an increased zoning permit. It is good to know that is no longer a consideration for your support for streetscape.

    What a relief to those of us that saw an ulterior motive for your support for the roundabouts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Where is it written that properties adjacent to roundabouts would be upzoned?

      Delete
  51. Thanks to pappy, we now know it it isn't. Never mind. We can leave this question behind, once and for all.

    ReplyDelete