VOSD Persists in Getting Encinitas Housing Issues Wrong

Some local observers say Voice of San Diego (VOSD) has a pro-development stance because its principal funders require it. Recognizing the reporters and editors as objective journalists would be preferable, but the publication’s persistent bias in covering Encinitas housing issues makes that difficult.

VOSD is a nonprofit. According to its website, it’s “fully funded by individual members, major charitable gifts, foundations and community partnerships.” It carries no advertising. It was founded as an alternative to the Union-Tribune, which few would say has a history of objective journalism.

Publications have editorial processes to ensure objective, accurate reporting, clarity of expression and good English. Virtually no responsible publication gives its reporters free rein. What readers see has been scrutinized by editorial eyes. Reporters’ copy typically goes through a copy editor and a line editor. Weekly and monthly publications often have fact-checking departments. Dailies typically don’t because they don’t have the time or money. They have to rely on their reporters for accuracy.

With the decline of revenue, publishers’ budgets have tightened and staffs have shrunk. Factual errors, muddled writing, typos and poor English have become more common in many publications. Opinion has crept into what should be objective reporting because editorial eyes are no longer there to remove it.

VOSD has had a reporter assigned to North County for years. The personnel have changed, but the position has been consistent. The reporter writes the weekly North County Report. Currently, the reporter is Jesse Marx. In its daily Morning Report, VOSD often publishes a capsule summary of a North County Report story. Various writers compile the Morning Reports. Sara Libby edited two recent reports.

VOSD’s biased and often woefully inaccurate reporting about Encinitas housing issues seems to have begun with Maya Srikrishnan’s March 9, 2016 story headlined “Years of Defying State Affordable Housing Law Gets Encinitas Sued Again.” It’s odd the March 9 story took the tack it did because Srikrishnan’s September 4, 2015 story headlined “Encinitas Hopes to Comply With State Housing Law by 2016” was largely neutral and accurate.

A local observer characterized the March 9 story by saying, “Maya got rolled by David Meyer.” Meyer is a local developer who has sued the city and was quoted in the story.

Rather than heeding that remark or detailed comments from knowledgeable locals found below the story, VOSD stuck with the piece’s bias and inaccuracies, not only repeating them in subsequent stories but magnifying them. VOSD got on the wrong track. Despite corrective input and encouragement from several locals, the publication stubbornly stayed there.

Srikrishnan wrote the following in VOSD:

“. . . both affordable housing advocates and developers like the [density bonus] law: It lets private developers make more money if they build homes for poor people. The city of Encinitas has spent years trying to get around this law.”

“City leaders haven’t been bashful about their attempts to circumvent the law. They’ve routinely said one of their top priorities is finding ways to disobey it.”

“Residents are hostile to new development in Encinitas, density bonus or otherwise.”

Marx followed Srikrishnan’s lead, apparently with no independent research:

“. . . for years [Encinitas has] been defying California law by failing to craft and send a legally acceptable housing plan to Sacramento.”

“The voices that often dominate stories about Encinitas’ struggle to accommodate new housing are those of wealthy residents who oppose building.”

Adriana Heldiz stayed on the villainous-locals track: “Hero of the Week. This week’s hero is Superior Court Judge Ronald Frazier, who’s poised to suspend an Encinitas law giving locals final say over major land-use changes.”

VOSD has portrayed density bonus, Proposition A and HEUs in Encinitas simplistically and largely ignorantly. They’re not black-and-white, heroes-and-villains issues. VOSD has characterized City Councils and voters as trying to oppress low-income people and prevent them from living in Encinitas. No VOSD reporter has researched the topic well enough to understand it.

To get it right, VOSD would have to admit its gross errors regarding housing in Encinitas, start over and thoroughly research the issues. The publication’s integrity and credibility are at stake.

— Doug Fiske

Encinitas Convinced the Coastal Commission to Ignore the Coastal Act

To understand the Leucadia 101 Streetscape project, it must be seen in this context: Every City Council since the project’s approval on January 13, 2010 has been fiercely determined to push it through. Regardless of facts that argue strongly against it, the city has been dead set on getting the project done.

Toward that end, the city retained the civil engineering firm Michael Baker International (MBI) to design and direct the project. MBI also conducted the Environmental Impact Report and the traffic study. With those, MBI found nothing to upset its multi-million dollar contract. Ignoring the conflict of interest was part of the plan. Assigning MBI multiple roles ensured the project would go forward.

In the EIR, MBI identified only one hindrance the company couldn’t mitigate or find insignificant: The project would slow emergency response times that were already too slow. To get around that problem, the city committed about $700,000 to equip a fire department station for two personnel at the north end of the corridor. The trial period is two years. Originally, the department was to demonstrate acceptable response times before the project proceeded. The city and department are now ignoring that requirement.

In the traffic study, MBI glossed over or ignored the traffic jams that back up from the Leucadia Boulevard light. With the project, those jams will be more frequent and twice as long in time and distance. MBI could not admit the jams because saying the project would reduce beach access and increase travel time would prevent Coastal Commission approval.

MBI also ignored the effects of the placement of the roundabouts. Originally, there were six, all but one in 8/10 mile at the north end. Now there are four. Three in a half-mile stretch at the north end, one 1.2 miles south. MBI supported the false claim that roundabouts at one end and another more than a mile away would slow traffic and keep it flowing through the entire corridor.

Coastal Commission approval was a big hurdle. To help convince the San Diego staff and the commissioners themselves, MBI provided an EIR and a traffic study that were essentially false. Documents obtained through a Public Records Act request reveal that the city staff campaigned hard to have the commission staff greenlight the project. The commission staff stuck to the agency’s mandate to enforce the California Coastal Act of 1976. It prohibits anything that restricts beach access. Unquestionably and unavoidably, Streetscape does that.

On July 27, 2018, the commission staff released a report that required the city to prove the project would not restrict beach access and slow travel time. That was a condition of approval. Simply put, the city had to conduct studies to demonstrate the project’s legality.

Several residents and two commissioners appealed the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) required for approval. With other factors, the appeals cited the same points raised in the commission staff report. The city was up against a wall and had to do something about it.

Between July 27 and September 28, the city somehow got the commission staff to flip its position from effectively prohibiting Streetscape to permitting it. The September 28 commission staff report added this sentence:

“The portion of the suggested modification regarding future requirements for summer traffic surveys is not intended to be retroactively applied to projects already approved by the City.”

The staff reversed its earlier position by exempting the project. Its conditions no longer require the city to prove the project does not violate the Coastal Act.

On October 11, the Coastal Commission approved the project on the staff’s recommendation. One of the commissioners who had appealed the CDP made the motion to approve. The vote was 12-0. The commissioners who appealed the CDP did not reply to a post-hearing request to explain their reversal.

As the hearing opened, Commissioners Padilla and Uranga reported ex parte phone calls with Mayor Catherine Blakespear that had occurred days earlier. Padilla also reported an ex parte call with Encinitas Residents Coalition President Leah Bissonette. Padilla summarized the content of his conversations. Uranga said his was like Padilla’s. I requested ex parte phone calls with Padilla and Commissioner Turnbull-Sanders, who were the commissioner CDP appellants. Padilla declined, Turnbull-Sanders did not reply.

Documents obtained through a Public Records Act request show no smoking gun to explain how the city got the commission staff to flip and the commission to go along. The documents show intense collaboration between the city and commission staffs but no evidence of collusion.

A Coastal Commission attorney refused a subsequent request for documents that would explain the flip, saying internal communications are exempt from public scrutiny. That’s not transparency. It’s a coverup.

The city performed a master stroke in convincing the commission to ignore the law it’s duty-bound to enforce. How the city did that remains unknown.

— Doug Fiske

Mayor Blakespear Doesn’t Represent the Majority of Encinitas Residents

On October 14, 2018, Mayor Catherine Blakespear posted the following regarding Leucadia 101 Streetscape in her weekly newsletter:

Last Thursday the California Coastal Commission approved Encinitas’ largest infrastructure project, Leucadia Streetscape. After an appellate hearing on the second day of the commission’s three days in San Diego, the vote was unanimous to approve Streetscape and the city’s underlying policy documents.

Encinitas City Councilmembers Tony Kranz, Tasha Boerner Horvath and I addressed the Commission in support of Streetscape. Dozens of residents showed up to passionately speak both for and against the project.

Leucadia Streetscape will transform 2.5 miles of Highway 101 through Leucadia from Encinitas Blvd (also known as A street) north to La Costa Ave. This major road deserves to be a destination in itself, not merely an alternative for those trying to avoid the traffic on the I-5 freeway.

The project involves installing roundabouts, wider and continuous sidewalks for both outdoor dining and pedestrian use, dedicated bike lanes so cyclists don’t have to travel in the same space with cars, planting 1,000 trees to restore the iconic tree canopy, and creating almost 200 dedicated parking spots in the rail corridor.

If, like me, you’re justifiably concerned about the severe consequences of a warming planet, you’ll appreciate that many of Encinitas’ climate action goals are addressed in this single project – less driving, more biking and walking, more carbon-eating trees, and slower continuous speeds instead of stop-and-start vehicle traffic.

Bold and effective evolution of our transportation sector depends upon projects like this.

Change is never easy. I can viscerally feel the emotion of those opposed to this project. But if we’re going to effect change locally and for our planet, we have to summon the political courage to repurpose public space and dedicate some of it to users who aren’t in cars.

On the same day, I replied as follows:

Catherine,

Very unfortunately for the community, you are grossly and woefully misinformed. You have supported a project you don’t know much about. That’s irresponsible. It’s not leadership.

• Encinitas Blvd west of 101 is B Street. One block north is A Street. From there to La Costa Ave is 2.4 miles.

• Ninety mature trees will be removed; 839 broomstick-diameter new trees will be planted.

• Net gain on parking spaces is 134; the three parking bays total 176. That means 42 parking spaces must be lost on the west side. Parking capacity for the corridor will decline because curbs and sidewalks on the east side will prevent parking anywhere but in the bays.

• NCTD has not agreed to yield the ground for the bays and the roundabouts. Unless you and your cronies can corrupt them as you corrupted the CCC staff and commissioners, they won’t. It’s their policy not to yield property they plan to use for transit. There’s not enough room in the ROW for parking along Vulcan, the CRT, a second set of tracks, parking bays along 101, a sidewalk, and the buffer space needed between all those elements.

• What about the 16,535 sq ft of private property that must be taken for Streetscape to squeeze in? What scam does the city have going to steal that?

• Bikes and walking are not going to replace cars. That’s a downright silly notion. A few recreational bikers and walkers in Leucadia won’t do a thing to affect climate change. Virtually nobody uses a bike for transportation. You didn’t ride a bike or walk to the Cardiff forum. One person in the audience did. That represents the zero effect of your feel-good policies that are impractical and have no beneficial effect whatsoever.

• Anybody who wants to bike or walk through Leucadia can use Neptune. It’s safer and much more pleasant.

• If two traffic lanes and dedicated bike lanes will be great for Leucadia 101, why don’t we have them from Encinitas Blvd south to Solana Beach?

• Those of us who are paying attention know the true purpose of Leucadia Streetscape is to create a linear shopping mall. The tragic irony is there’s not enough commercially zoned property on the west side, and there’s not enough parking anywhere to sustain a shopping mall. For the sake of that monumentally stupid goal, the project you ignorantly support will squeeze the traffic into two lanes and force it through pointless roundabouts. Traffic gridlock and failing businesses will be the result.

Your great failing as mayor and the gross failing of the council you lead is you don’t practice representative democracy. You don’t reflect the majority view in the community. You pursue your own and the special interests’ agenda, the public be damned.

It’s a shameful and reprehensible performance. You, your council and your predecessors have destroyed my faith and confidence in elected, selected and employed Encinitas people, many of whom are my neighbors, to do the right thing.

I’ve lived in Encinitas longer than you’ve been on the planet. I’m ashamed of you.

Doug Fiske
West of 101
Leucadia

P.S.: Don’t give me the “respect” line. Respect has to be earned. It’s not granted simply because you’re sitting in the chair.

Result: Blakespear dropped me from her newsletter mailing list.

My P.S. is a reference to an earlier post from Blakespear in which she said she would discuss issues with me only if I treated her with respect. I’ve heard the same line from Tasha Boerner Horvath. Politicians use it to shame opponents.

My response: You don’t deserve my respect. You don’t represent the majority of the residents. You’re violating a fundamental principle of representative democracy. When you consistently respect that principle, you will have earned my respect.

Encinitas Deceived the Public and the Coastal Commission About Streetscape 

The city and its allies used increased parking and a tree canopy as selling points to convince the public to accept Leucadia 101 Streetscape and the California Coastal Commission to approve it.

First, parking. Documents obtained through a Public Records Act request show the city knew the parking areas were temporary at best.

The railroad right-of-way is 100 feet wide for nearly its entire length from La Costa Avenue to Encinitas Boulevard. Parking and the Coastal Rail Trail will very likely go along Vulcan Avenue in Leucadia as they go along San Elijo Avenue in Cardiff. The city and the Coastal Mobility and Livability Working Group have stated that preference. That would put the second set of tracks west of the current set — where the Streetscape plans show the three parking pods.

The North County Transit District notified the city: “Proposed parking pod locations are too close to existing NCTD track. Any approved encroachment into NCTD right of way shall provide a minimum perpendicular clear distance of 25 linear feet to the nearest running rail.” The bold type above and below is NCTD’s. Note “existing” track in each context.

The city responded: “The City respectfully requests a meeting with NCTD staff to discuss potential encroachments and easements. 22' from centerline of rail to be discussed.” From the centerline to the outside of either rail is about 2.5 feet. That means NCTD’s standard prohibits encroachments within 27.5 feet of the centerline. The city wants to shave 5.5 feet off that safety standard.

A 27.5-foot safety space is more than half the 50 feet from the centerline of the tracks to the Vulcan Avenue or Highway 101 pavement. That leaves 22.5 feet on each side for encroachments NCTD might approve.

Further, NCTD notified the city: “Proposed parking pods are too close to existing NCTD track. Any approved encroachment into NCTD right of way shall take into account the future installation of an additional Main Track within the limits of the North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape project limits.”

Further still, NCTD notified the city: “Proposed parking pods are too close to existing NCTD track. Eliminate parallel parking row closest to NCTD Main Track. Consider shifting parking lots closer toward Highway 101, elongating parking pods with a single row of parallel and/or diagonal parking.”

In a September 18, 2018 letter to NCTD, the city said, “The parking areas are designed to be truncated or eliminated as necessary to accommodate future double‐track, coastal rail trail, or other future improvements that will benefit our region.”

The bottom line: There’s not enough room for parking along Vulcan, the Coastal Rail Trail, a second set of tracks, wide parking pods along 101, a sidewalk, and the necessary safety spaces between those elements. That’s not what the city told the public and the Coastal Commission.

Second, trees. The city and its allies claimed Streetscape will add 1,000 trees in the Leucadia Highway 101 corridor. According to the EIR, the real number is 839. They will be broomstick-diameter saplings. If they ever grow to form a canopy, many decades will have passed. The city hides the fact that 90 existing trees will be removed, including the iconic Leucadia Boulevard eucalyptus.

NCTD notified the city: “Proposed trees shall be of the variety that do not grow overly tall or with large diameter canopies in order to avoid future potential to foul the Main Track or impact signal sight distance.”

In other words, NCTD prohibits tall trees and the large crowns necessary to form a canopy.

The city responded: “Existing and proposed trees and canopies are indicated on the proposed plans.” It sounds as if the city conceded NCTD’s point.

The city and its allies have been deceiving the public since Streetscape’s inception about 12 years ago. Between July 27 and September 28, the city somehow got the San Diego CCC staff to flip its position from effectively prohibiting Streetscape to permitting it. On October 11, the Coastal Commission approved the project.

Before and since that approval, the city has been trying to persuade NCTD to compromise its safety standards. The city turned the Coastal Commission. Whether or not they can turn NCTD remains to be seen.                    

— Doug Fiske

Encinitas Deserves Better Candidate and Issue Forums

As well-intentioned as they are, the League of Women Voters doesn’t do a good job of moderating candidate and issue forums in Encinitas.

The League cites members not being residents of Encinitas as a plus. In the sense that ensures their lack of bias, maybe it is. But because none of the members live here, they don’t know the issues. That means they don’t know which audience questions to ask. They don’t know a good question from a bad one.

On top of that, they take way too much time talking up the League. Then they conduct the forums at a very slow pace. The residents want more and better questions and answers. We get shortchanged.

Suggestion to improve Encinitas forums: Have them moderated by local journalists. Aaron Burgin of the Coast News, Brittany Woolsey of the Encinitas Advocate, Alison St John of KPBS and Jesse Marx of VOSD are possibilities. Choose two or three. Let them ask their own questions and select questions from residents in the audience.

Journalists moderate national, state, county and other city forums. They generally do a good job. Chances are journalists would do a good job in Encinitas.

—Doug Fiske

City namesake Señorita Encinita.

Encinita’s Cross to Bear

Jeff Spicoli told me Encinita’s is named after a Mexican señorita who was here before anybody except the Indians. That must be right.

Two things pushed me into paying attention to Encinita’s politics: the Streetscape “workshops” and Dan Dalager’s getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

I was first here as a visitor in ’63, came to surf Cardiff Reef, Swami’s and Beacon many times in ’66, and became a Cardiff resident in September ’69.

Like most residents, I assumed because it was still a small town when the city incorporated in ’86 — a place where you’d often cross paths with council and staff members — that the City Council would do right by the residents. After all, government is a representative democracy and, further, these people are our neighbors.

I was shocked and disillusioned to find that the same selfish, dishonest, backstabbing crap that goes on in county, state and federal government happens right here in little ol’ Encinita’s.

Well, I thought, they can’t be all bad, so a few years ago I devised a little test of the council’s decency, honesty and integrity. I did deep research that proved the authentic, historically accurate name of Leucadia’s midway beach access is Beacon. There was an aeronautical navigation beacon on the bluff there. That’s where the name came from. I demonstrated that the City Council circa 1986 had made a mistake in naming it Beacon’s.

I showed the documentary evidence to council and staff members. Nobody could say it was wrong. Some groped for lame reasons to keep the name wrong. The issue was agendized for a council meeting. In effect, the council said, we know it’s wrong, but we’ll keep it that way. They didn’t have the decency, honesty and integrity to admit the error and fix it.

Some people think this is a small thing. It’s not. It represents the attitude and action of every City Council since I started paying attention. They were against Prop A, they were for Measure T, they are for Measure U. With one weak exception, they are for Streetscape. Those are four examples among a countless number where the council does not represent the majority of residents. We elect them to serve us. They don’t. They do whatever they want, residents be damned.

Encinita’s cross to bear is local government that serves itself and special interests, not us.

— Doug Fiske

City of Encinitas LCP Amendment No. LCP-6-ENC-18-0034-1
(North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape)

October 11, 2018

I’m Doug Fiske. I’ve lived in Encinitas for 49 years. For 21 of those, I’ve lived west of 101 and north of Leucadia Boulevard. I worked in Carlsbad for 15 years. Highway 101 was my commute route. I’ve driven, biked and walked it thousands of times. That’s my traffic study.

This appears to be a complex issue. It actually boils down to a few simple points.

There’s an extraordinarily long light at 101 and Leucadia Boulevard. It jams southbound traffic two lanes wide up to 1.4 miles. It jams northbound traffic two lanes wide up to half a mile. Drivers spill off the freeway whenever it plugs, which is most often at commuting times and on summer Fridays and Saturdays. The southbound jams are much longer because most visitors come from the north, and it’s much easier to get to 101 from the freeway north of Leucadia Boulevard than south.

If Leucadia 101 shrinks from four to two lanes, those traffic jams will be single file. They will double in distance and time.

The project would make Leucadia 101 two lanes for 83 percent of its 2.4-mile length. It would restrict beach access and increase transit time. The project would confine east-side parking to three bays. It would prevent east-side parking everywhere else. That would reduce the parking capacity of the corridor.

The commission’s principal concerns are access to and enjoyment of the coast. The project would restrict both.

I urge the commission to deny the LCPA. If you approve it with conditions, the city will spend another year and probably hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to meet conditions that a two-lane highway stuffed with roundabouts can’t meet.

The city has wasted 12 years and millions of dollars on a project that’s inconsistent with the Coastal Act of 1976. I urge the commission to deny the project and stop the waste. 

###

Every Claim on the Sign Above Is False

Sad to say the only way Leucadia Streetscape supporters can get any traction is to deceive their neighbors.

The city of Encinitas and the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association have wasted 12 years and millions of taxpayer dollars pushing a plan that makes no sense, contradicts its main goal, is opposed by the majority of residents, and violates the California Coastal Act of 1976.

First False Claim: Alleviates congestion and cut through traffic.

Shrinking a four-lane highway to two narrowed lanes and stuffing it with roundabouts cannot alleviate congestion. That’s physically impossible. It would do the opposite. It would make the current traffic jams twice as long in distance and time.

By “cut through traffic,” Streetscape supporters mean weekday commuting traffic. They want to prohibit people who commute between beach cities from driving on Highway 101. First, it’s outrageous and monstrously arrogant to presume to stop a certain category of drivers from using a public highway. Second, just how would Streetscape distinguish between commuters and any other driver on the road? Do the city and L101 plan to issue passes that allow only locals and visitors to use the road? Third, yes the project would increase cut through traffic on Vulcan, Melrose, La Veta, La Mesa and Neptune.

Second False Claim: Pedestrian track crossing at El Portal.

The proposed Streetscape has nothing to do with the planned and funded undercrossing at El Portal. The two are completely separate projects. Streetscape provides no new track crossings from La Costa Avenue to A Street. Zero. Nada. Zilch.

Third False Claim: 4 Roundabouts for safe Hwy 101 crossing.

First, for clarification because people keep getting this wrong: The plan proposed six roundabouts. The two northernmost were to be at La Costa Avenue and New Road, which is the driveway to Cabo Grill. The fate of those two rested on what the developers of the hotel opposite the foot of La Costa Avenue did and when. What they wanted and whether they or the city started working first determined what would come of those proposed roundabouts. Since the developers will start their project before the city, they get their way. They don’t want those two roundabouts.

That puts the remaining four roundabouts at Bishop’s Gate (the private driveway to Sea Bluff condos), Grandview, Jupiter and El Portal. The first three are in the half mile from Bishop’s Gate to Jupiter. The fourth is 1.2 miles south of Jupiter at El Portal.

So to say that three roundabouts in a half mile at the north end of the corridor and another one more than a mile away are somehow going to benefit the entire 2.4-mile corridor is ridiculous. It’s laughable. The supporters should be embarrassed!

Crossing Hwy 101 to what? The proposed Bishop’s Gate, Grandview and Jupiter roundabouts aren’t opposite any of the proposed parking bays, so the only 101 crossers there would be what? Crossing to a bus stop maybe? Going east to check out the dirt in the railroad right-of-way? Going west after illegally crossing the tracks?

Granted, if the proposed project is built and when the El Portal rail undercrossing is dug, crosswalks at that proposed roundabout would probably make crossing 101 safer there. So would a ped-activated light like the one near Swami’s.

Fourth False Claim: Creates a beautiful walk & bike corridor.

How many people want to walk or bike alongside long, single-file traffic jams? It’s much safer and more pleasant to walk and bike on Neptune or Melrose or La Veta or La Mesa.

This gets us to what Leucadia 101 Streetscape is really about. The city and L101 want to create a linear shopping mall. To achieve that, one of the disingenuous, deceptive tactics they’ve used is, Hey, it will be a beautiful place to walk and bike! Gee, honey, let’s go for a lovely walk next to the traffic jams on Highway 101 in Leucadia.

As it is now, cars outnumber bikes by 50 or 100 to one, depending on what day of the week it is. Why jam traffic and grossly inconvenience drivers for the sake of a relatively few bicyclists? Especially good question when bicyclists have much safer and more pleasant alternatives. And while we’re on this point, is riding on 101 through downtown Encinitas, Solana Beach and Del Mar a beautiful biking experience? Highway 101 through south Carlsbad is a nice ride, but north Carlsbad and Oceanside are not.

Fifth False Claim: Adds 1000 trees & 134 parking spaces.

The proposed project would remove 90 existing trees, including the iconic eucalyptus at Leucadia Boulevard. It’s six feet in diameter a short way up from the base.

The number of trees the project proposes to add is 839, not 1000. They would be saplings the diameter of a broomstick. It would a dog’s age before they even started to look like trees and several decades before they became a canopy — and that’s only if the city consistently waters and maintains them, which we know the city doesn’t have a good record of doing.

There would be 176 parking spaces in the three proposed parking bays in the NCTD right-of-way. If the net gain of spaces is 134, that must mean 42 spaces would disappear from the west side of 101.

But there’s an overriding point the city and other Streetscape supporters don’t mention: NCTD has not agreed to yield the ground for the proposed parking bays in the railroad right-of-way. NCTD says they don’t want to give ground now that they might have to take back later. That has to do with the Coastal Rail Trail and doubling the tracks. There’s not enough room for the CRT, parking along Vulcan, two sets of tracks, parking bays and a sidewalk along 101, plus the necessary buffer space between all those elements.

Conclusion

Without greatly increased parking capacity and a much wider strip of commercially zoned property on the west side, the Leucadia 101 corridor cannot become a linear shopping mall. The very limited geography defeats that goal. On top of the severe limitations that kill the mall idea, the proposed project violates the California Coastal Act of 1976. It’s highly unlikely the city and L101 will get around that law.

—Doug Fiske

Comments to CCC Regarding Leucadia 101 Streetscape LCP Amendments

August 8, 2018 California Coastal Commission Meeting

Agenda No. W18f

City of Encinitas LCP Amendment LCP-6-ENC-18-0034-1 

Doug Fiske

I oppose the project.

I support denial of the amendments.

California Coastal Commissioners,

I urge the commission to reject the proposed amendments outright.

The city of Encinitas has pursued the ill-conceived Leucadia 101 Streetscape project the amendments would allow for about 12 years. If it were a good, legal project, it would have been implemented long ago. The city has wasted millions of dollars on a project that the majority of residents don’t want and that would violate the Coastal Act.

If the commission were to approve the amendments with the modifications the staff suggested and the city were to pursue achieving those modifications, the traffic reports would inevitably show that the project would be inconsistent with the Coastal Act in these respects:

• It would restrict beach access by reducing a four-lane roadway to a two-lane roadway and by stuffing it with roundabouts, four of which would be in the first public road. It would make the current traffic jams more frequent and worse.

• It would increase transit time through the Leucadia 101 corridor individually and, if Carlsbad and Oceanside were to implement similar projects, cumulatively.

In both respects, the effect would be to restrict public access to and enjoyment of the coast.

I’ve lived in Encinitas for 49 years. For 21 of those, I’ve lived west of 101 and north of Leucadia Boulevard. I worked in Carlsbad for 15 years. Carlsbad, Leucadia and Encinitas 101 were my commute route. Cumulatively, I’ve driven, biked and walked the route thousands of times. I know the traffic patterns 24/7/365.

Anybody with driving experience and a lick of common sense knows that a four-lane road accommodates heavy traffic better than a two-lane road. Widening roads lets traffic flow better. Narrowing roads congests traffic.

The traffic study the city commissioned was done in April 2015. It omitted summer traffic, so its results have no validity. If the city commissions an inclusive, truly objective traffic study, it will inevitably show the current frequent congestion, especially when nearby I-5 backs up. If the study projects the current situation into the future, including reduction from four lanes to two and addition of six roundabouts, it will inevitably show frequent, unacceptable LOS E and F levels.

Parking is another thorny issue in the Leucadia 101 corridor. There is nowhere near enough parking capacity now. The project the proposed amendments would allow would confine parking on the east side of Leucadia 101 to three parking bays. It would prevent east-side parking anywhere else. That would reduce the corridor’s parking capacity, thereby restricting public access to and enjoyment of the coast.

Setting a bad precedent is an overriding issue. If the commission were to approve the amendments with the suggested modifications and the city were to achieve those conditions and implement the project, that would mean any coastal city could make Highway 101 anything it wanted. Trends and whims would potentially be indulged. There would be no more iconic, historic Highway 101.

I respectfully urge the commission to deny the proposed amendments outright for the reasons I have stated.

Doug Fiske

West of 101

Leucadia

Streetscape Would Take 16,535 Sq Ft of Private Property

The six-roundabout version of Leucadia 101 Streetscape would take 16,535 square feet of private or property.

Encroachment locations and figures are from diagrams in Vol 2, Appendix I of the Final EIR:

                                                             Sq Ft                       APN

Between Cadmus & Daphne               360                      256 053 1600

                             256 053 1500

Jupiter                                                     670                      254 221 2400

Grandview                                             1675                      254 021 1600

Pacifica                                                  1040                      254 060 3011

Sea Bluff                                                4880                     254 430 0600

Moorgate                                                  340                     253 430 0500

New Road                                              6000                     216 041 0600

                              216 041 2100             

La Costa SE                                             390                      216 042 1200

La Costa NE                                           1180                      216 042 0500

Total                                                      16535

The Fundamental Streetscape Problem That Won’t Go Away

Long, long ago, if the California Southern Railroad and the early residents of Leucadia had put the tracks and Vulcan Avenue farther east, we wouldn’t have the space problem we have today.

If the planners, surveyors, land owners and concerned citizens had allowed enough room west of the tracks for a commercial zone and parking on the east side of 101, a wider highway and a wider commercial zone on the west side, we wouldn’t be in our unbalanced, squeezed pickle.

We’re stuck with a too-narrow corridor. East to west, it packs Vulcan, the railroad right-of-way, Highway 101 and its median, parallel parking, a sidewalk and a skinny commercial zone into far too little horizontal space.

The Encinitas City Council and the Coastal Mobility & Livability Working Group have said they want the Coastal Rail Trail between Vulcan and the tracks. NCTD won’t say where the Coastal Rail Trail or the second set of tracks will go. NCTD has not yielded the ground for Streetscape’s proposed roundabouts or parking bays.

The Cardiff Coastal Rail trail ranges from 13 to 17 feet wide. For nearly its whole length, the NCTD right-of-way between La Costa Avenue and Encinitas Boulevard is 100 feet wide.

Parking capacity in the Leucadia 101 corridor is woefully low. To equal Solana Beach’s parking capacity, Leucadia 101 would have to add 2,700 spaces. Unless parking goes underground or into two-story garages on the west side of 101, the only place to add the needed spaces is in the NCTD right-of-way between the tracks and the highway.

Leucadia 101 Streetscape’s net gain in parking spaces would be 134. It would add no access from the east and wouldn’t improve what’s already there. The project would restrict driving on 101 and slow transit time by shrinking the highway to two lanes and stuffing its north end with roundabouts. Most visitors enter the corridor from the north. Streetscape would make that entry much harder and would cause more traffic jams. The jams would be single file, so they would double in distance and time compared to the current two-lane jams. Greenhouse gas emissions would also double.

Let’s address the problem that won’t go away. Let’s use the width we have to everybody’s advantage: Coastal Rail Trail and parking between the tracks and Vulcan. Second set of tracks wherever they fit. Parking in the NCTD right-of-way west of the tracks through the whole corridor. Four-lane highway. Blinking crosswalks every one or two blocks, depending on activity. Medians where there are none. No street parking on the west side of 101. Sidewalk on the west side. Bike lanes both ways. Three ped/bike rail crossings north of Leucadia Boulevard and three south.

If implemented, the proposed Streetscape plan will be a nightmare. Let’s avoid that.

Leucadia 101 Main Street Doesn’t Know the Facts About Streetscape

Relatively few Leucadia 101 merchants and property owners are members of the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association (L101). It’s a chamber of commerce in disguise. The City Council gives the group $30,000 of taxpayer money every year because it can’t support itself.

L101 recently published an attack on an anti-Leucadia 101 Streetscape flyer distributed in the neighborhoods by volunteers. Quotes from the L101 attack are below, followed by the facts.

L101: “After construction, Hwy 101 will be a 3 lane highway.”

​Fact: According to the Baker traffic study summary, 85 percent of the 2.4-mile highway would be two lanes, and 15 percent would be four lanes.​

​L101: “There will most likely only be 4 roundabouts through the corridor because La Costa Ave roundabout and ‘New Road’ roundabout will not be constructed if the Encinitas Beach Resort stays on track to begin construction this fall.”​

Fact: The city will do its best to get the La Costa Ave and New Road roundabouts, as opposed to the Encinitas Beach Resort’s preference. Whether there are six or four roundabouts, all but one would be packed into 8/10 mile at the north end, thereby canceling the supposed benefits for the 2.4-mile corridor.​

​L101: “Bird Rock La Jolla’s Streetscape project gives us very good insight into how Leucadia’s Streetscape will function. After construction, Bird Rock saw average daily trips decrease from 21,000-24,000 to 19,500. Bird Rock was a more heavily used corridor than ours.”​

​Fact: Bird Rock is wholly unlike Leucadia 101. Bird Rock is roundabouts at five successive intersections in one-half mile​. Leucadia 101 is all but one roundabout stuffed into 8/10 mile at the north end of a 2.4-mile corridor. Bird Rock has no railroad tracks or freeway nearby. Bird Rock has no extremely long traffic light to back up traffic for up to 1.4 miles. Bird Rock has businesses, residences and parking on both sides of the street. Leucadia 101 is what the Coastal Commission calls the first public road from La Costa Ave to Grandview St. La Jolla Blvd in the Bird Rock area is not the first public road.

​L101: “A major goal of the Streetscape project is to alleviate congestion caused by cut-through traffic and improve auto circulation for residents, beach goers and patrons of Leucadia’s small businesses.”

​Fact: It’s impossible to restrict “cut-through traffic” without restricting all traffic. Shrinking the highway to two narrowed lanes for 85 percent of its length and stuffing the north end with roundabouts would make the current congestion much worse.​

​L101: “A reduction in average daily trips bypassing the I-5 will mean fewer cars on Hwy 101 overall. Traffic calming measures on Hwy 101 are designed to reduce speeds of cars entering neighborhoods and dictate improved driver behavior.”

​Fact: Streetscape is designed to make driving 101 harder. That’s​ how it intends to divert drivers to the freeway. But what it would actually do is increase the neighborhood diversions that already happen. Those increases would go to Vulcan, Neptune and the adjacent side streets.​

​L101: “Beach access is improved with safer Hwy 101 crossings for east-side residents and visitors. Coupled with rail corridor parking pods and the El Portal Rail Undercross, beach access, parking and safety is vastly enhanced.”

​Fact: Streetscape wouldn’t improve or increase access from east of 101. Aside from people who are already west of 101, the overwhelming majority​ of visitors and beachgoers come from the north. As they enter the corridor, they would be immediately squeezed into one narrowed southbound lane and forced through five (maybe three) roundabouts. Highway 101 is the first public road from La Costa Ave to Grandview St and the principal route to the beaches and everything else in Leucadia. By restricting 101, Streetscape would restrict beach access.

Fact: Streetscape doesn’t include the planned El Portal rail undercrossing.

Fact: By lining the east side of 101 with a sidewalk, Streetscape would confine east side parking to the proposed pods. That would actually reduce parking capacity because east side parking is spread through the corridor and often outnumbers the spaces in the proposed pods.

​L101: “Existing emergency response times to northern portions of Leucadia are currently not meeting standards (80% of calls reached in 5 min). To address this, the city of Encinitas has funded a pilot for an emergency response staging area in north Leucadia to meet their goals. Emergency response time to existing problem areas will be reduced and service improved with this measure. Park assist and bike lanes add room for cars to move off the road when ambulances need to return southbound to deliver victims to Scripps. Not to mention, roundabouts decrease auto accidents by 90%.”

​Fact: The Environmental Impact Report revealed that shrinking 101 and stuffing it with roundabouts would increase response times that are already too slow. Streetscape would make the existing problem worse. The city committed $909,000 to relieve the problem for the first two years.

Fact: On a four-lane Highway 101, drivers move to the right lane to let emergency vehicles pass in the left lane. Streetscape adds no advantage to that.

Fact: Little roundabouts at T intersections don’t decrease auto accidents by 90 percent. Those stats are for big roundabouts at four-way intersections.

​L101: Streetscape is safe for bicyclists.

​Fact: The roundabouts would force cyclists out of the bike lane onto the sidewalk, across the crosswalk and back onto the bike lane. Otherwise, cyclists would have to ride in the roundabouts with cars and trucks.​

— Doug Fiske

Yep, You’re Right to Call It Streetscam

In 2008, the city held workshops to, so they said, get resident input about Leucadia 101 Streetscape. I went to the first two. My impression was the workshops were a sham. The City Council and staff had decided what they wanted to do, and the purpose of the workshops was to convince residents the city had our best interests at heart.

After the workshops, there was a walk through the Leucadia 101 corridor with consultant Dan Burden. He’s “America’s most recognized authority on walkability and bikeability and a pioneer in people-first urban planning.” The city paid him big bucks to tell them what they wanted to hear. He said roundabouts would bring “bigger, grander buildings” to Highway 101. I asked him what the wisdom was of packing four (later five) roundabouts at the north end of the corridor. He wouldn’t give me the time of day.

Then talk of the project died down for a while. Later, I went to an anti-Streetscape meeting at a neighborhood house. People there who had been paying close attention to the proposal called it “Streetscam.” I silently wondered, ‘Do you mean our neighbors the 101 merchants and property owners, and our neighbors the City Council members don’t really have the residents’ best interests at heart? Do you mean there are economic and political motives behind the project? Do you mean it’s not a sincere effort to improve our community? Do you mean it’s really a scam?’ Yes, that’s precisely what the people at the meeting meant, and they were absolutely right.

For many years, City Councils have been in cahoots with the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association to impose Streetscam on a community where the great majority of residents don’t want it. If the council and association respected democracy, they would have the decency to conduct an objective poll to find out what the community does want. They haven’t done that because they’re afraid their scam will be exposed.

The Leucadia 101 Main Street Association is a chamber of commerce in disguise. A brochure they produced in 2014 revealed that only 15 percent of corridor merchants were members. If the association had real value, it would have more members and be self-supporting. The city has been giving the association $30,000 of taxpayer money annually for years. That’s public money to a private group composed of for-profit business and property owners.

The city has produced three drafts of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the project. The EIR was produced by the civil engineering company that designed and is in charge of the project. That’s a glaring conflict of interest. Of course, the company isn’t going to find problems that would prevent the project from going forward. That would scuttle their multi-million dollar contract.

Yet, the company found an unavoidable problem: The reduction of the highway’s four lanes to two narrowed lanes and the placement of six roundabouts in the roadway would further slow emergency response times. Those times had been too slow for years, but the city did nothing about it. Streetscam couldn’t go forward if it further slowed emergency response, so what did the city do? They spent $909,000 of taxpayer money to buy a new vehicle, place it in the north end of the corridor and man it for two years. This, mind you, with a grand fire station on Orpheus Avenue only 1.9 miles from La Costa Avenue via Highway 101.

The city’s gifts to the merchants’ group, its $909,000 expenditure, the millions of other dollars it’s put into the project over the past 10 years and its lack of respect for democracy are measures of its commitment. Regardless of multiple appeals of the Coastal Development Permit the city filed with the California Coastal Commission and regardless of a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) lawsuit filed to challenge the EIR, the city is going full steam ahead.

The city staff continues to pepper the Coastal Commission staff with studies and documents that are downright deceptive. The City Council, staff and Main Street Association continue to mislead the public.

Yep, you’re right to call it Streetscam.

— Doug Fiske

A Better Leucadia 101 Streetscape Plan

• Two traffic lanes in each direction
• Medians where there are none
• 35 mph speed limit
• Bike lanes in each direction
• Sidewalk on the west side
• No on-street parking on the west side
• Parking between the railroad tracks and 101 for the entire length of the corridor
• Pedestrian-activated crosswalks every one or two blocks
• If those crosswalks are not enough to slow the traffic, put some of them on speed tables.
• No roundabouts
• No tree removal
• Plant and maintain as many new trees as possible.
• Bus stops as described in the final EIR
• At-grade track crossings or, better yet, trench and bridge the tracks.
• See Solana Beach’s 101 corridor for its good and bad points.

You Can’t Fight City Hall

The headline is a cliché because it’s a fact, here in Encinitas and probably everywhere else.

Our fine city has about 240 generously compensated employees. It has a city attorney who’s also well paid. Our City Council has mega-millions of taxpayer dollars to spend as they please. They have the power to issue bonds at will. The bottom line is they overpower the residents and do whatever they want, almost regardless of public input.

Our city government is supposed to be a representative democracy. The people we elect to the City Council are supposed to express the will of the majority. They shouldn’t ignore the minority, but they shouldn’t cater to it.

Candidates make promises like preserving paradise and having deep community roots, but as soon as they’re in office, they flip. They put on a show of representing the majority view, but in the end they serve minority special interests and their own agendas.

The then-City Council was unanimously against Proposition A. The current City Council was unanimously for Measure T. The voters passed Prop A and defeated Measure T. The voters expressed the majority view. The council and the staff it directs rarely do.

We residents elect the council members to represent us. We taxpayers pay dearly for the staff to serve us. We don’t get faithful representation from the council, and the staff conspires to do the opposite of what the majority public wants.

An example of the council and staff not representing the majority is the current Leucadia 101 Streetscape project. The great majority of the residents most affected oppose the project. We’re not against dressing up Leucadia a bit but not the way the plan proposes.

We don’t want one traffic lane in each direction and six dinky little roundabouts, five of them stuffed at the north end. We don’t want a traffic and public safety nightmare, monster buildings lining the west side and more alcohol soaking our neighborhoods. We don’t want the Mom & Pop merchants pushed out, and we don’t want to lose our big old trees, especially the iconic eucalyptus at Leucadia Boulevard.

But never mind that majority public view. The City Council and staff favor the tiny minority of merchants and commercial property owners who are members of the Leucadia 101 Main Street Association. A recent brochure showed that less than 15 percent of corridor merchants are members.

The City Council gives the association $30,000 of taxpayer money every year — public money to a private merchants’ association. On top of that, the council is ignoring the public will and imposing a streetscape project that the majority of corridor residents don’t want.

There are four ways for the public majority to get the City Council and staff to do what we want: 1) a winning ballot proposition, 2) a winning lawsuit, 3) a winning Coastal Commission appeal, 4) an uprising so massive it threatens council members’ reelection. Each of the four takes big energy, money and lots of time. The council and staff know that. They know they can play a long game and in the end do pretty much whatever they want.

— Doug Fiske

Leucadia 101 Is Not Like Bird Rock

The city of Encinitas and other Leucadia 101 Streetscape supporters say the roundabouts in the Bird Rock stretch of La Jolla Boulevard are a precedent for the success they claim Streetscape would be. It’s a false claim. Here’s why:

• Bird Rock is roundabouts at five successive intersections in half a mile. Four are at four-way intersections. One is at a T. Leucadia 101 is 2.4 miles. Five of the six roundabouts proposed are in 8/10 mile at the north end. The sixth is 1.2 miles south. All six roundabouts are at T intersections.

Stuffing five roundabouts at the north end can’t calm traffic for 2.4 miles. Bird Rock’s one lane and roundabouts slow traffic for half a mile.

Nearly the entire Leucadia 101 corridor would be one traffic lane in each direction. The placement of the roundabouts would leave 80 percent of the roadway for drivers to speed in one lane as they do now in two.

• Bird Rock has businesses, residences and parking on both sides of the street. Leucadia 101 has them on one side. Streetscape proposes to replace the illegal dirt parking on the east side with legal parking in three places opposite popular businesses. NCTD has not agreed to surrender the space for the proposed parking.

• La Jolla Boulevard has no extraordinarily long traffic light in the Bird Rock area. The extremely long light at Leucadia Boulevard backs up traffic two lanes wide for up to 1.4 miles. By shrinking 101 to one lane in each direction, Streetscape would double the time and distance of the traffic jams.

• There are neither railroad tracks adjacent to La Jolla Boulevard in the Bird Rock area nor a freeway nearby. Leucadia 101 is 50 feet away from railroad tracks and about half a mile from the I-5 freeway. The RR crossing at Leucadia Boulevard and Vulcan Avenue stalls the traffic at that complex intersection. Not so at Bird Rock. Whenever the freeway plugs, hundreds of drivers spill onto 101. Not so at Bird Rock.

• La Jolla Boulevard in the Bird Rock area is not what the California Coastal Commission calls the first public road. The term identifies the public road closest to the ocean. It’s about access to the beach. At Bird Rock there are up to four streets between La Jolla Boulevard and the shoreline. Leucadia 101 is the first public road between La Costa Avenue and Grandview Street. From there south, Neptune Avenue is the first public road. But since Neptune is one way northbound, it limits access from 101 to the beach south of Grandview. Drivers can’t get to Leucadia beaches without first driving on or crossing Leucadia 101, making it the principal access to the beaches.

It’s surprising that Streetscape supporters keep making the Bird Rock argument because it has no foundation in fact.

— Doug Fiske