Facts About Leucadia 101 Streetscape

• One lane in each direction for 85 percent of the 2.4-mile corridor.

• Four one-lane roundabouts: Sea Bluff, Grandview, Jupiter, El Portal. The first is a private driveway. The first three are in a half-mile stretch at the north end. The fourth is 1.2 miles from the third.

• Of the 22 intersections where left turns from the west onto 101 are allowed, 15 will remain as they are now.

• 176 parking spaces in 10 pods in the railroad right-of-way. That’s fewer than now.

• At least 90 mature trees will be removed; 839 saplings will be planted; NCTD will not let any trees in the right-of-way get big enough to form a canopy over 101.

• No new crossings between east and west of tracks.

• Per the 2008-9 traffic study, up to 7,100 car trips will be diverted from 101 to the freeway, Vulcan and Neptune. Yet the city and the Main Street merchants’ association say business will increase.

• The city gives the merchants’ association $30,000 of taxpayer funds per year. Fewer than 20 percent of the merchants with corridor addresses are members of the association.

• Two Leucadia women independently calculated the total cost of the project will be $55 million.

Letter to Coastal Commission Objecting to Latest Streetscape Amendments

December 15, 2019 Dear CCC Personnel, In late July 2018, the San Diego district CCC staff issued its analysis of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape project and stated conditions the city of Encinitas would have to meet to comply with the California Coastal Act of 1976. Two commissioners and several residents submitted appeals. The appeals essentially agreed with the staff report. A fundamental point was that the proposed project would restrict access to the Leucadia coastal corridor and the beaches west of it. That judgment was unquestionably correct. In late September 2018, the staff reversed its July position. The full commission unanimously approved the project in October. The various appeals were ignored.  As approved, the project violates the Coastal Act. The amendments now proposed continue that violation. The staff has not revealed what justified the reversal of its position between late July and late September 2018. The position went from legal to illegal. The commission went along with the illegality. The staff and commission have failed to fulfill their mandate. The public demands and deserves an explanation. Doug Fiske Leucadia

Bicycling for Transportation in Suburbia

The city of Encinitas and even the Main Street associations have been telling people to “get out of your cars” for several years. They’ve shamed people for driving and pitted bicyclists against drivers. They’ve put a lot of focus and money into bicycling infrastructure. They’ve claimed big health benefits and significant greenhouse gas (GHG) reductions from bicycling instead of driving.

In recent weeks, I’ve driven Highway 101 between Leucadia and Genesee Avenue in La Jolla daily at various times of day, including morning and evening commutes. I’ve used those opportunities to observe how many people are out and about on bikes. I combined those observations with what I’ve seen during regular jaunts around Encinitas.

Depending on time of day, I’ve seen anywhere from a few to dozens of recreational bike riders. The greatest number of transportation bicyclists I’ve seen is four. I’ve seen hundreds of cars on every trip.

For measurable GHG reductions to result from people switching from cars to bikes for transportation, huge numbers would have to do it every day. That’s not happening.

It’s not that people aren’t concerned about GHG emissions and don’t want to do what they can to reduce them. It’s just that riding bikes for transportation isn’t an effective means. Here in America, people get around in cars. It’s been that way since Henry Ford popularized the Model T in the early 1900s. It will be that way for the foreseeable future. Nearly the entire US infrastructure is built around cars for personal transportation. Cars are an important part of American industry and culture.

Bicycling for transportation is not convenient or practical, especially in suburbia. It’s just too hard. You can’t go far or carry much. You can’t do it in bad weather. It will never be popular enough to make a difference in GHG emissions.

Nobody wants bicycling to be unsafe. But the city’s insistence on bicycling for transportation is a misappropriation of staff time and taxpayer money. It would make a lot more sense to incentivize driving electric cars.

Now, just in case anybody is tempted to accuse me of being anti-bike on a local social media site: I rode various 10- and 12-speed bikes between La Jolla and San Clemente for 28 years. That chain broke with my umpteenth knee injury in 1998.

— Doug Fiske

VOSD Still Sideways on Encinitas Housing Issues

Here’s an email exchange I initiated with VOSD North County reporter Kayla Jimenez:

Me to Jimenez, Oct 16:

Since you’re the latest VOSD reporter assigned to cover North County, maybe you can correct your publication’s longstanding erroneous reporting on Encinitas housing issues.

VOSD has been getting many of the facts and the slant wrong for more than three years. In his farewell report, Jesse Marx persisted in getting the slant wrong.

Go here: http://wavestoride.blogspot.com/

First read the Dec 27, 2018 post, then read the April 14, 2019 post.

A journalist friend did that and replied: “They just don’t want to admit they’re wrong.”

As the new North County reporter, maybe you can right the ship.

Me to Jimenez, Oct 30:

VOSD persists in its biased reporting of Encinitas housing issues.

This is wrong: “After years of defying California law . . .”

It has never been Prop A’s or any of its supporters’ intent to defy state law. That’s a nice, shiny object for VOSD to lead with, but it’s flat wrong.

Your introductory piece is steeply tilted pro-Blakespear.

You really ought to abandon nearly everything VOSD has published about Encinitas housing, get the bias out of your head, start from scratch and get the story right. 

People who know the facts going back to circa 2010 are either a) embarrassed for VOSD or b) puzzled by your sticking to the erroneous story that started with Maya’s bad reporting in March 2016.

That VOSD has gotten Encinitas housing issues wrong for more than three years calls everything else you publish into question.

Jimenez to me, Oct 30:

Thank you for your message and your prior introductory email. I’d be happy to grab coffee with you to chat more about this and your concerns, generally. An in-person conversation may better my understanding of your concerns with VOSD’s reporting on Encinitas housing issues. Please let me know if you have some time next week if you are open to it. Thank you again.

Me to Jimenez, Oct 30:

Thank you for your reply. 

Meeting to discuss Encinitas housing issues could be a step in the right direction.

There are several people in Encinitas who know the issues better than I do. Very unfortunately, those who immediately come to mind have lost faith in VOSD’s ability to report the story in an objective, honest fashion. In other words, they don’t trust VOSD.

Give me a day or two to find a person who is better versed than I am and who wants to meet with you and me to discuss Encinitas housing issues.

Me to Jimenez, Nov 2:

As I anticipated, Encinitas activists I know don’t want to meet with a VOSD reporter. They don’t trust VOSD to objectively and honestly report on Encinitas housing issues. They think VOSD is pro-development and pro-BIA. I can’t say I blame them because VOSD’s record is terrible, at least as it regards Encinitas housing issues.

VOSD got off on the wrong foot with Maya S’s story more than three years ago and has continued in that vein since, despite my and other residents’ efforts to set VOSD straight. The first story and those since have been wrong in many particulars, but a more serious error is the slant has been consistently wrong. 

There’s no way for me to know if that’s simply amateurish reporting or the implementation of company policy. I would think that after being repeatedly hammered for bad work, VOSD would reconsider, but that hasn’t happened.

If VOSD is not pro-development and pro-BIA, why did the following occur?

On Feb 14, 2019, the BIA hosted a breakfast meeting at the La Jolla Marriott hotel. Here are the details:

“Community Relations: It Can Make or Break Project Approval
Learn the Builder’s Strategy & How You Can Help
Today, the NIMBYs have a very loud voice and are halting projects around the county. Learn from a panel of experts to see what builders/developers are doing to get projects approved and how our industry must help.”

There were four speakers on the “panel of experts.” One was VOSD Staff Writer Lisa Halverstadt.

I’ve never known a U-T, KPBS or other San Diego reporter to speak as a development expert at a BIA meeting.

If I were to meet with you, everything I would say would be on background, meaning no quotes, nothing attributed to me by name. I would want to give you a research outline, that is, what you would have to investigate to find out what really happened with the Housing Element, starting circa 2010.

If you were to do your homework and then write on the subject, your story would have to get past your editors. To publish an accurate story would mean largely contradicting what VOSD has already published on the issue. That would mean a retraction — VOSD’s admitting it’s gotten the story mostly wrong for more than three years. I seriously doubt that will happen.

Good luck in your new job.

~~~~~~~~~

Jimenez did not reply. I took that as VOSD’s admission of guilt.

— Doug Fiske