In a 4-1 vote, the Encinitas City Council has started the process to allow commercial marijuana growing in their city.
Encinitas, dubbed the flower capital of the world, sees an opportunity to keep their agricultural business alive.
[...]
City council member Tasha Boerner Horvath said she conducted a survey of her own and 67 percent of residents want a store front or delivery service of some kind for marijuana.
Friday, February 17, 2017
Council to consider commercial marijuana cultivation, retail pot shops
NBC7:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Oh Jeeze....... Look, I'm all for the decriminalization of the recreational use of MJ, and I am absolutely in favor of reclassifying MJ from a Schedule 1 drug in order for pharma to work with this stuff, but I'm also a pragmatist. It is very, very clear how the Trump administration feels about this, especially Justice, so why a city council would take this on is mind boggling. Talk about tone-deaf......
ReplyDelete- The Sculpin
Sculpin(head) quakes in terror that the King with no clothes will attack Encinitas. Do you think the Moron King is going to take on pot growing in California? This idiot is trying to find all the bathrooms in the White House; it is unlikely his jumbled administration is going to pursue petty pot issues. Do you still have your "Make America Great" stickers on your car? Go goose step to the stables and let your horse clue you in.
DeleteMaybe Sculp has a point.
Deletehttps://www.google.com/amp/s/sputniknews.com/amp/russia/201506171023471826/
11:47
Delete4 illegal aliens arrested today for a savage murder in Virginia.
California can't afford to fix dams to protect citizens, but gives tax dollars to non citizens.
Trump is securing borders to protect sovereignty for all citizens. Trump has helped spur billions in reinvestment in the USA to benefit USA families.
You may want a less secure country, others don't. You may want more investment dollars to benefit non American families, others don't.
There is a reason the vast majority of Americans don't trust the mefua- fake news.
Still waiting for Trump to bring his tie manufacturing here to create jobs...the same goes for his overseas-manufacturing daughter.
DeletePut his money where his big mouth is, you know? Or do the Trumps get s pass for some reason?
Sculpin is exactly right. I hope trump cuts federal funds to all states, cities, etc. that knowingly violate federal law.
DeleteI feel sad for all the people who use fear mongering like this in order to feel superior to others.
DeleteTasha says that her "Survey Monkey" has given her a "Electorial Mandate" to approve the use, selling and cultivation of Marijuana.
ReplyDelete11:05 - According to Forbes, the Feds might view this as a "state's rights" issue.
ReplyDelete5 Ways Trump Could Affect The Marijuana Industry
http://www.forbes.com/sites/debraborchardt/2017/01/20/5-ways-trump-could-affect-the-marijuana-industry/#172417325416
The minority power seems to always have a more nuanced view of "states rights" once in power.......
Delete- The Sculpin
Approval of MARY J JUANA is nothing more than a way to increase salaries and pensions in BAD GOVT ENCINITAS.
ReplyDeleteWow, let's continue to keep Encinitas classy and full of charm and character.
ReplyDeleteSo Tasha partakes...wonder what she'd be like without the mellowing agent?
ReplyDeleteSince BH is into surveys and public mandates, she ought to survey Leucadians to find out what they think about the Leucadia 101 Streetscape plan.
ReplyDeleteSo far, all BH has done is parrot propaganda from earlier councils, the staff and L101 Mainstreet.
This Leucadia is for the Streetscape plan, as are a lot of other Leucadians..
ReplyDelete-MGJ
+1
Delete+2
Delete- Long Time Leucadian
MGJ, you are a Kool-Aid drinker from way back...no surprise here. In lockstep with the L101 crew.
Delete5:38, 5:55 and 6:04 are all the same person, and probably NOT Mr. Green Jeans, either.
DeleteI think TBH's survey was good. I agree we should have a current, independent survey re the roundabouts planned for N101.
Overwhelmingly, people would like to preserve and enhance the canopy. Many of the 101 saplings that were planted have died, due to lack of water.
I too support the Streetscape or one with more roundabouts than the planned 5. Marr and the other deadheads are the sqeeling minority on this one.
ReplyDeleteNo need for further survey or anything.
There are six roundabouts planned, 5:54.
DeleteMaybe if you and three others above (probably really the same person) who said they support Streetscape knew more about it, you wouldn't be behind it.
How are these dope smoking idiots going to get around a traffic circle. They will just go around and around.
DeleteA more current survey is needed re the N101 Streetscape, as planned, with five one-lane roundabouts. Other aspects of the streetscape are great, but may never materialize, just as Phase 2 of the Leucadia Blvd. roundabout streetscape never happened. Phase II was to include more pedestrian and bicycle improvements, and better landscaping. A classic case of bait and switch. Phase 2 of the Downtown Encinitas 101 Streetscape never was accomplished, either.
ReplyDeleteThe previous survey from eight years ago, re the L101 Streetscape, was deceiving. It wasn't statistically relevant. More importantly, it is outdated.
In November of 2014, during the General Election, 62.76% of Encinitas voters voted No on Prop F, regarding marijuana. Now, two years later, 65% of voters in Encinitas voted to allow legalization for recreational use. According to TBH's survey, over 67% of those polled favored more storefront, cultivation, and delivery opportunities in our city.
If the person posting here in favor of the ill-designed streetscape, as planned, is so sure that most people, or most Leucadians, support the project, then he should welcome a new INDEPENDENT survey. The previous one was designed by roundabout lobbyists.
The fact that this person insists there is no need for further surveys, or a public vote, points to his fear that the public would not support this foolhardy plan. We can improve Leucadia without putting multiple obstacles on our major arterial, robbing us of our highway.
Neither will the California Coastal Commission approve this project, which is already being appealed, as the draft EIR clearly states that there would be significant unavoidable negative environmental impact to our circulation element (this would negatively impact access/egress to our local beaches) and to public health and safety, as a result of slowed emergency response times.
The City would become liable for approving a plan that its own staff and consultants have found to be severely lacking. On the other hand, many of us do support more bike/ped opportunities, including a separated bike/ped lane in the RR right of way, and additional signalized crosswalks, particularly at any planned RR crossing adjacent to Paul Ecke Central.
" negativity impact access / egress of our local beaches", lololollll. What a ruse!! What a deception!! Omg, this is the biggest lie I've read/heard this year. Next thing you'll tell me is that you've planted some flowers on the101. Lololollll.
DeleteHey I have an idea, Keep Leucadia Crappy.
A wall of traffic during peak periods, such as during summer months, whereby an accident, or the freeway's being clogged, could lead to complete gridlock, would also negatively impact beach access/egress. People would want to avoid the coast as much as possible to avoid traffic snarls, and our local beaches can only be accessed, by many, by motor vehicles.
DeleteThe Coastal Commission will care about the findings in the draft EIR, even though you want to dismiss them.
The topic here, is really about how public opinion has changed, even with the last couple of years with respect to our marijuana regulations, and potential updated ordinances.
When the public is informed about the planned roundabouts on N101, we are not in favor. Most people would favor bike/ped improvements, and a few more signalized cross-walks.
Ultimately, any RR crossing would require a signalized cross-walk, just as there is a signalized intersection at the under-crossing at Santa Fe, in Cardiff.
Any Streetscape public works project must be considered in conjunction with the Bicycle Master Plan Update (bike/ped lane adjacent to 101 separated from highway) and any plans for RR crossings with respect to a comprehensive EIR.
The Coastal Act prohibits piecemeal development used as a tool to avoid comprehensive EIRs for related projects. There is no denying that these projects are all related.
Still haven't planted a flower have you?? Can't do it can you?? That would go against any sense of crapiness you enjoy. Nice you you try to avoid the facts...
DeleteKeep Leucadia Crappy Stupid
Won't you let a flower grow?
DeleteOhhh, won't you let a flower grow?
Everybody wants to know
Wont you let a flower grow?
Sorry KLCC 5:34- Its not going to happen. You and your 9 friends can bitch all you want, but the rest of the common sense thinking community have been waiting for this improvement for way too many years.
ReplyDeleteThe City knows there is serious risk for not addressing the existing hazardous safety conditions of allowing dense development next to a roadway that was designed for interstate freeway speeds. The sooner the revisions the better.
I remember when Carlsbad lost millions for not addressing the unsafe road conditions along La Costa Ave. We don't want to happen in our City.
Have the money go towards creating a safer more balanced road, not to the lawyers.
Nobody wants to keep Leucadia crappy, you moron. You reveal your deep stupidly by repeating that accusation.
DeleteSmart, responsible Leucadians want a Streetscape plan that truly improves the corridor without one-laning, without pointless stacked roundabouts, with less traffic congestion, with faster emergency response times and with easier beach access.
Survey the residents and business owners in and near the corridor to find out what they want and don't want.
If you insist there are only nine people who think the plan, as proposed, is bad, then why not encourage a current survey or a public vote? Dense development along 101 with multiple choke points, would also increase greenhouse gases, due to more stop and go traffic during peak periods. This would contradict State regulations.
ReplyDeleteAdding signalized crosswalks on 101 at El Portal and at Grandview could help alleviate so-called "hazardous conditions." Also, putting money toward a separated bike/ped lane could help tremendously.
North 101 has already had its speed limit reduced to 35 MPH. That lower limit could be better enforced; the highway did pre-exist I-5, but it was never designed for "interstate freeway speeds." Your exaggerations are not convincing.
Again, why don't you address our point? If you truly believe that "the rest of the common sense thinking community" support the N101 streetscape project with five one-lane three-way intersection roundabouts, with no throughway cross-streets, then you should welcome an updated, current survey, or a public vote.
I don't remember when Carlsbad "lost millions," for unsafe road conditions. Please enlighten us, and explain how pre-existing conditions on La Costa Avenue, which is partially located in Leucadia, are relevant to our City's spending tens of millions to instal multiple roundabouts next to the RR tracks through Leucadia on Historic State Highway 101, against the public's wishes, and contrary to both common sense and the draft EIR.
As a supporter of the L101 Streetscape, I'm heartened when I see who is opposed to it. It's a good sign that it will happen. The loudest voice has gone to war with the City hundreds of times, and she never wins.
ReplyDeleteIgnore the noise and lies. Streetscape will happen; bet the farm on it. It's going to be so groovy.
Please spell out what you describe as "noise and lies." It seems 7:50 puts out facts. 9:14 doesn't respond to the contentions or answer questions, just dismisses them, without any evidence, as "lies." Using false logic and character assasination only proves the weakness of your position. No one has said he or she doesn't support a Leucadia 101 Streetscape.
DeleteWhat is under contention are five one-lane, three way intersection roundabouts on Historic State Highway 101, where there are no throughway cross-streets. They would cause more greenhouse gases, because it would take much longer for the same amount of cars to get from Point A to Point B, with more back-ups.
It's particularly foolhardy to begin Phase 1 with a roundabout at El Portal and 101, as that is planned for the eventual site for a RR Crossing, a project which has already been awarded a $4.6 Million grant.
Any RR crossing would require a signalized crosswalk, so a SIGNALIZED roundabout would not be necessary, and is not what was described in the engineered plans. Any public works development at that intersection must have a comprehensive environmental review, that considers the highway, the crossing and any possible railtrail corridor separated bike/ped lane.
You bet your farm on it, 9:14. A streetscape will happen, but not as currently planned, with the narrow, one-lane roundabouts in a row, eliminating two lanes from a major arterial, circulation element.
What lies?
DeleteExcellent question! So glad you asked!
Let's start with: (1) roundabouts at three-way intersections, (2) roundabouts near railroads, and (3) roundabouts with unequal cross traffic.
Three lies.
Show us the source material from the DOT for your claims.
I'm a giver, so I'll help you get started. Click --> ((((HERE)))) for a link to the DOT roundabout information page.
Looking forward to your response, complete with links to DOT source materials.
No response.
DeleteLet me show you my shocked face.
Now wait a few days and post the same lies again. If the Trump era has taught us anything, it's to keep repeating the lies, even after you've been exposed.
Roundabouts were also removed in Santa Rosa, California. Please also consider alternate perspectives as shared through the following links:
Deletehttp://www.smartvoter.org/2012/11/06/ca/sn/meas/U/ [Cotati]
http://santarosa.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2011/03/news/bike-boulevard-experiment-is-scaled-back/
http://www.carsarebasic.org/traffic.html [Santa Barbara Taxpayers' Association]
And here’s a link to a story in India:
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2011-07-11/gurgaon/29760334_1_roundabouts-traffic-signals-traffic-congestion
'Over the past five years, [this was written in 2013, so more current than the "stacked surveys" through Peltz and Associates in 2008 and 2009] at least 9,000 people have died as a result of roundabout accidents in the U.S.
DeleteLittle safety data is collected about neighborhood traffic circles because they are simply circular traffic islands. However, data does indicate they increase the risk of motor vehicle, cyclist and pedestrian injuries and death."
". . . Are Roundabouts Safer for Pedestrians and Cyclists?
Unlike intersections controlled by signs and signals, roundabouts do not require motorists to stop, instead allowing them to continue along a circular path until exiting onto the desired street. Safer than older-style traffic circles because their smaller size forces motorists to reduce speeds in order to negotiate sharper curves, the number of roundabouts in the United States has been steadily increasing in recent years. However, while advocates, including the U.S. Department of Transportation, assert that they reduce the incidence of traffic accidents resulting in personal injury and death at intersections, roundabouts tend to provide safer conditions for motorists and pedestrians than for cyclists, as a crash that recently occurred in California illustrates, explains a California personal injury lawyer.
Last February, a cyclist was killed while riding in a multilane roundabout in Long Beach. Shortly after 7:30 p.m., a Toyota Scion driven by a 64-year-old man entered the roundabout and struck the bicycle rider. The rider sustained major trauma to his upper body and later died at a local hospital. According to the Long Beach Press-Telegram, the roundabout, which receives traffic from Lakewood Boulevard, Los Coyotes Diagonal, and Pacific Coast Highway, has the highest incidence of collisions in the city, with 213 recorded from January 2005 to September 2009.
While roundabouts have been touted as a safe alternative to signalized intersections, they do not benefit the users of varying modes of transportation equally. . . .
These circular intersections can be quite dangerous for cyclists, who are less protected and sometimes less visible than the motorists with whom they share lanes of traffic. Large trucks can block the view of a bicyclist from drivers. In addition, drivers, especially in the United States where roundabouts are less common, may be too distracted watching out for other vehicles to notice cyclists quickly enough to avoid them. A study by the Florida Department of Transportation found that the introduction of roundabouts led to a slight reduction in traffic-related fatalities among pedestrians and an increase in those suffered by bicyclists.
by Jeffrey Shaw and Steve Moler
Roundabout Deaths in the U.S.:
Jerrett Baker, Encinitas, CA 10/8/07
Diane Jensen, Billing, MT 6/4/12
Jaqueline Badomski, Detroit, MT 6/21/12
Keena K. Green, Milwaukee, WI 12/19/12
Fernando Hernandez-Lopez, Carmel, CA 10/1/07
Carlos Herndandez-Sanchez, Carmel, CA 10/1/07
Fernando Santiago, Long Beach, CA 12/21/12
Samantha V. Smith, Appleton, WI 1/10/12
Article: "Are Roundabouts Safer for Pedestrians and Cyclists?"
Larry Drexel - Hub Pages
http://larrydrexel.hubpages.com/hub/Are-Roundabouts-Safer-for-Pedestrians-and-Cyclists
You may also be interested in:
"Roundabout Safety: Mixed Results for Pedestrians, Cyclists"
http://wearemodeshift.org/roundabout-safety-mixed-results-pedestrians-cyclists
Roundabouts: Not a safer alternative?
http://www.wivb.com/dpp/news/erie/roundabouts-not-a-safer-alternative
Thirty-two injured on Pontypool death-crash roundabout in four years
http://www.southwalesargus.co.uk/news/9822628.Thirty_two_injured_on_Pontypool_death_crash_roundabout_in_four_years/
New numbers show roundabouts unsafe
http://www.franklinnow.com/blogs/communityblogs/59066077.html
Appropriate and Inappropriate Sites for Roundabouts
Source: MODOT Engineering Policy Guide [The referenced Dept. of Transportation guide can be downloaded as a .pdf file]
Blogs and articles from no name rags.
DeleteNothing from the DOT, as claimed.
Try again.
And Jerrett Baker was drunk out of his mind on his way to killing a family in a head on collision.
DeleteThe Santa Fe roundabout saved innocent lives.
Raise your hand if you think we should engineer roads to make it easier to drive drunk farther and faster before eventually hitting something.
You can download a pdf file through the Dept. of Transportation, which is referenced, above.
DeleteAlso, the link library.ite.org/IntersectionSafety/roundabouts.pdf is directly through the U.S. Dept. of Transportaion Federal Highway Administration. ITE = Institute of Transportation Engineers.
One again, you're factually incorrect. Some people prefer "alternative facts."
9:14am Please do breathe deeply when traffic is idling incessantly along the corridor.
ReplyDeleteThe lies originate from you and your fellow supporters. If this disaster in the making plan is not modified, the vast majority of residents who are opposed to what you and your profit seekers are pushing, the blame will be upon each and every one of you.
The roundabouts, as designed, are just plain stupid for this arterial. Other parts are welcomed.
Poll the residents and businesses most affected and the truth of your lies will be exposed for what they are.
No, I am not Lynn.
No, I don't want keep its crappy, which by the way, it isn't and never was.
Funky, sure in its own unique and classically individual way.
The past drawings at the presentations showed a completely homogenous every other beach town look with the same frontage design on every freaking unit along the whole corridor. Individuality be damned.
Real estate interests have pushed this from the beginning, along with a few misguided acquiescing tools.
Take a census and the truth will set you free. The current iteration has never been vetted and should be.
11:30, Lynn who?
Deletetoo Funny... being called moron from the KLCC seems like an honor.
ReplyDeleteGo ride a bike today KLCC No.4, maybe your brain will wake up.
Stop your obsessive lunacy of referring to the L word. She is not posting here, only in your fervid imagination. Shades of the roadside park bum! Have you been resurrected?
DeleteThe only people naming names seem to be the ones defending the nut.
DeleteShe misses the attention. Any attention is better than no attention.
ReplyDeletecarry on. Sigh.
9:10pm She was never motivated by those same obvious reasons that you are. Sigh indeed. Ever look in a mirror man/boy child? There lies the source of your misdirected ocd. right in front of you.
ReplyDeleteFor you, it is pitiful that a supposedly grown man picks on a woman who had this community's best interests, whereas, you have always been selfishly profit motivated.
Grow up crappy troll.
Self praise in the third person.
DeleteLike nails on a chalkboard.
9:20am +1
DeleteWhat's a chalkboard?
DeleteYou find it next to the ribbon candy jar.
Delete9:20am -1
Delete9:20am - 2
Delete9:20am 10:14am. I am not the object of your obsession. Grow up and buy a clue. Your have become irrelevant more and more, as you have nothing going for you, but attacking one who rarely posts these days.
ReplyDeleteTom Frank should leave Lynn Marr alone!
ReplyDeleteI am sure Tom Frank and every other common sense Leucadian would love to leave Lynn Marr alone. That is classic.
ReplyDeleteHow did Lynn Marr draw her name into this topic?
Is this person needing some attention again?
Was it because of the stupid streetscape comments. there are another 8 people who belong to the KLCC.
Commonsense Leucadians support legalization and regulation of marijuana.
DeleteCommonsense Leucadians do not support five roundabouts in a row on 101, which, according to the City's draft EIR would cause unavoidable negative environmental impact to our circulation element and to public health and safety because of delayed emergency response times and due to degraded site lines for bicyclists and motorists created by angled back-in parking.
should read: degraded sight lines for bicyclists and motorists . . .
DeleteI figured it out.... She is partaking in too much of the herb.
ReplyDeleteExpect more rambling............
Expect more ad hominem attacks, more feeble attempts at character assasination from you, 11:23 pm.
DeleteIn November of 2014, during the General Election, 62.76% of Encinitas voters voted No on Prop F, regarding marijuana. Now, two years later, 65% of voters in Encinitas voted to allow legalization for recreational use. According to TBH's survey, over 67% of those polled favored more storefront, cultivation, and delivery opportunities in our city.
ReplyDeleteOnly current surveys are relevant.
Get on with it - it is already readily available and prevalent in the community. Organize it and collect revenue. The controversy will subside.
Delete-7:48
ReplyDelete+1 with the streetscape.
Reading this thread is becomes obvious why we keep electing these sell outs into office. Our voters are way to easily distracted by completely irrelevant little things.
ReplyDeletePlease, for the sake of progress, read though the list logical fallacies.
This is yet another reason why we cannot have nice things here.
10:05AM Can you reinterpret that comment?
DeleteTest.
ReplyDeleteGive pot an equal opportunity with booze as an intoxicant of choice. The Planning Commission won't put a moratorium on the granting of liquor licenses in the downtown strip - they say it is just a few bad apples that make it appear as though there is problem downtown. $$ talks!
ReplyDeleteWhittier police officer dead tonight because idiot Californians voted to free 35,000 dangerous convicts. One of whiched killed that officer. Shame on you voters, shame on you, You and Jerry Brown are as guilty as that gang member.
ReplyDeleteSomeone needs to figure out what the saturation point is for the booze establishments. Over 80 places in a few miles seems too much. Top that off with the passing of Prop. 64 and we'll have problems that will be off the charts. People are mixing the marijuana with booze and getting overly stoned. Does any one care?
ReplyDeleteIf you're willing to accept pot in our community, you're willing to accept more alcohol establishments.
ReplyDeletenot true....
ReplyDeleteStoners tend to be mellow. That is the problem with THC, it diminishes ones ambitious drive.....
Drunks are more likely to be rowdy loud disgusting and doing illegal acts like peeing, pooping, and F(*&king in people's front yards.
Yes, the problem is called amotivational syndrome - kids are especially prone to it. Teenagers get lazier and stupider and veg out.
DeleteUse and abuse. Light or moderate use doesn't produce amotivational syndrome. Abuse does.
Delete9:40- living in denial, have another joint.
Delete9:40 is the voice of 25 years' hard-working experience.
DeleteI quick smoking pot in 7th grade because I realized it was killing my ambition to do anything fun or healthy.
ReplyDeleteGlad I did. I see so many burnt out souls. Sad but thats the world we live in.
Choose life. The world is amazing if you look at it with sober eyes and mind.
Discriminate use for a specific purpose - like with any substance.
DeletePS to 10:17- I still believe in legalizing pot. One has to chose not to poison their body on their own. Its part of the fun of being a free soul.
ReplyDelete. . . "Issues to Review When Considering Roundabout Design Alternatives
ReplyDeleteDuring the planning and alternatives development stage of a project, the following issues should be considered prior to making the decision to implement a roundabout design:
Proximity of generators of significant traffic that might have difficulty negotiating the roundabout,
such as high volumes of oversized trucks.
Proximity of traffic control devices that would require preemption,such as railroad tracks or drawbridges.
Traffic congestion that would cause routine back-ups into the roundabout, such as over-capacity signals or freeway entrance ramps. The successful operation of a roundabout depends on unimpeded flow on the circulatory roadway.
Intersections of a major arterial and a minor arterial
or local road where an unacceptable delay to the major road could be created. Roundabouts delay and deflect all traffic entering the intersection and could introduce excessive delay or speed inconsistencies to flow on the major arterial.
Heavy pedestrian or bicycle movements in conflict with high traffic volumes. (These conflicts pose a problem for all types of traffic control.)
Coordinated signal system.
Intersections located on arterial streets within a coordinated signal network. In these situations,
the level of service on the arterial might be better with a signalized intersection incorporated
into the system. [signalized crosswalks at all planned RR crossings]"
library.ite.org/IntersectionSafety/roundabouts.pdf
There's much more, which does address uneven traffic on major arterial, also bicycle safety in roundabout. Google for yourself, using USDOT.
Just build the fucking things... I'm sick of sitting at intersections without any cross traffic burning gasoline for nothing.
Delete"Issues to Review"
DeleteThey have been reviewed. Check.
Thanks.
Now build it.
6:10 Where do you do that?
DeleteThe Leucadia Streetscape project will NEVER happen stoners.
ReplyDeleteYou've been arguing about this online for a decade.
Stay on topic.
The city of Encinitas should have at least one discreet legal dispensary in the commercial district. i.e. next to CVS.
3:21 did what's called quote mining. The quotes above are edited, incomplete and removed from important context.
ReplyDeleteExhibit A:
"The existence of one or more of these conditions does not necessarily preclude the installation of a round- about. Roundabouts have, in fact, been built at locations that exhibit nearly all of the conditions listed above."
Of course all of the linked information couldn't be included. Those were direct quotes, NOT taken out of context. You asked for sources, and that was my purpose in posting these links.
ReplyDeleteBecause "roundabouts have . . . been built at locations that exhibit nearly all of the conditions listed above," doesn't mean building them here, with our conditions "on the ground," is a good idea, or that the public would support this foolhardy plan.
Of course contractors and city employees would like another make work project. Also, a few property owners and real estate interests, developers, would like this project because they imagine they will get added value/profit, at the public's expense, with no special property tax assessments, as were initiated in Solana Beach for those property owners benefiting from that city's railtrail corridor improvements.
The fact is, most of the public wouldn't want five one-lane roundabouts, which would delete the current northbound eight-foot wide bicycle lane, and would delete, permanently, two lanes, for motorists, from our stretch of PCH. A current survey could and should be done, an independent survey, not one administered through consultants/for-profit contractors that tour the U.S. promoting roundabouts, from shore to shore.
Roundabouts were rejected, on Pacific Coast Highway, in Solana Beach and Del Mar, in the latter by public vote. They were rejected by public vote in the City of Cotati, in Sonoma County. They were removed in Santa Rosa and other cities, after costly installation.
http://santarosa.towns.pressdemocrat.com/2011/03/news/bike-boulevard-experiment-is-scaled-back/
The way these EU topics are related is that in November of 2014 just over 67% of Encinitas voters said no to Prop F re medical marijuana zoning in our city. In November 2016, over 65% voted in FAVOR of recreational marijuana.
Probably, more people voted, overall, during the last General Election, because they were motivated by this issue. TBH's "non-scientific" poll showed an even greater margin in favor of people favoring cultivation and/or distribution options for marijuana within our community, over 67%.
Opinions, and demographics, change. What hasn't changed is that people, by and large, want to be able to drive on Historic State Highway 101 without being subjected to multiple obstructions/choke-points, one after another, through Leucadia. We would like a separated bike ped option; that is, a lane separated from the highway along the RR right of way.
We'd also like to preserve and protect the remaining canopy; we'd like for the City to maintain any new sapling tree plantings.
A few more signalized cross-walks could help with parking/pedestrian issues, as well. Particularly helpful would be signalized cross-walks activated by pedestrians at Grandview and 101 and El Portal and 101, which both lead to beach access points.
When Encinitas got approval for bar patrons to park on the railroad right of way, they should have installed several signaled crosswalks to cross the 101.
ReplyDeleteAs it stands now, it is a free for all, and needlessly dangerous. Where were the streetscape folks when it came to this situation? They certainly supported having all this extra parking for the bars on the railroad right of way. Safely crossing the 101 was not an issue with them. Really?