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.
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.
Encinitas Residents Coalition Files Environmental Lawsuit Against Streetscape
On April 30, 2018, the Encinitas Residents Coalition filed a CEQA lawsuit against the city of Encinitas in Superior Court. The suit challenges the city’s action in approving the North Coast Highway 101 Streetscape project, which, the coalition says, fails to adequately consider significant adverse impacts on residents and the environment.
The plan to improve the Leucadia 101 corridor has ballooned into a $30 million project that would reduce the travel lanes to one in each direction, add six roundabouts, require the 24/7 placement of an emergency vehicle, and transform the scenic corridor into a drivers’ nightmare.
“The traffic along this section of the Coast Highway is already congested on a regular basis. For the City Council to think the reduction in travel lanes will alleviate it is magical thinking,” said coalition member Bob Hemphill.
In certifying the Environmental Impact Report for the project at its March 21, 2018 council meeting, the city approved the project despite its unavoidable adverse impacts on traffic circulation and emergency services.
“The city’s cavalier attitude toward the health and safety of its residents is shocking,” said coalition member Doug Fiske after Councilman Tony Kranz voiced support for the project and said he didn’t share the concern about emergency services.
“The Encinitas Residents Coalition wants the city to stop penalizing residents in favor of commercial and other special interests,” said coalition President Leah Bissonette.
Update on the Status of the Appeals Regarding Leucadia 101 Streetscape
Two California Coastal Commission members appealed the Coastal Development Permit (CDP) application Encinitas filed to build Leucadia 101 Streetscape. One appeal was by Commissioner Effie Turnbull-Sanders; the other was by Commissioner Steve Padilla. Turnbull-Sanders is vice chair of the commission, appointed by Governor Jerry Brown. Padilla is the San Diego coast representative, appointed by the speaker of the state Assembly. Although Turnbull-Sanders and Padilla filed their appeals independently, they are duplicates. Several Encinitas residents also filed appeals.
The commissioners’ appeals established that the CDP application is appealable, pointed out a procedural error by the city and cited several instances where the proposed project is inconsistent with the California Coastal Act of 1976 and/or Encinitas’ Local Coastal Program. I’ve paraphrased or quoted the commissioners’ appeals at the bullets below and have added my comments in brackets.
• For the approximately one-half mile between La Costa Avenue and Grandview Street, the proposed project is in the first public road adjacent to the ocean. The project is a major public works project in the Coastal Zone costing more than $100,000. Either point makes the CDP application appealable.
• Before submitting a CDP application to the CCC, the city should have submitted an application to amend its Local Coastal Program (LCP). The city did this backwards. It submitted the CDP application first and the LCP amendment application second.
• The proposed project is inconsistent with the Coastal Act and the city’s Local Coastal Program in significant ways regarding public access to the beach and being able to enjoy a recreational drive along the coast. [In effect, the commissioners are saying the proposed project is illegal.]
• The proposed project would have adverse impacts on coastal access: It’s likely to increase travel time through the corridor. It potentially will deter the public from visiting Encinitas beaches from inland. It will change the character of the coastal corridor, a scenic highway that affords intermittent ocean vistas. Driving the corridor as a recreational experience may be deterred by road changes and the potential increased congestion. Leucadia Highway 101 is a major coastal access corridor. Improvements should be part of a balanced circulation system that maintains vehicle movement and coastal access to visitor destinations.
• The city only analyzed morning and evening peak traffic, not weekend and summer traffic that could affect the public’s ability to get to the beach. The lack of analysis on the public’s ability to access the beach raises major Coastal Act and Local Coastal Program consistency concerns. [The commissioners are doubting the project’s legality.]
• The new sidewalk proposed for the east side of 101 would interfere with informal and proposed parking bays there. The city must analyze historic parking use and whether the project would have adverse effects.
• The analysis of the “Four-Lane Corridor Alternative” is inadequate. It should be further evaluated because it would “result in lesser traffic impacts” than the proposed project. The proposed project would have the potential to significantly impact public access to the coast. [The “Four-Lane Corridor Alternative” is also the “Environmentally Superior Alternative.”]
• The project proposes roundabouts at six intersections. That would put traffic signals and roundabouts very close together. That makes analysis of the alternatives inadequate because it assumes roundabouts are an all-or-nothing proposition. The city’s analysis should include alternatives with roundabouts numbering from zero to six.
Several of the points made in the commissioners’ appeals were also made in the Coastal Commission staff’s March 29 letter to city staffer Anna Yentile. Every point is valid.
Next, the Coastal Commission staff will read the appeals and separate the wheat from the chaff. They’ll pull out the points that are within the commission’s jurisdiction and that the staff judges might amount to “substantial issues.” The question is whether or not the proposed project violates the Coastal Act and Encinitas’ Local Coast Program, which itself reflects the Coastal Act.
If the staff’s judgment is that substantial issues have been raised, they’ll recommend that the full commission hears the appeal. They’ll write a succinct explanation of the substantial issues and a thorough report justifying their conclusion about them. They’ll write a motion for a commissioner to make during the hearing, and they’ll make a recommendation as to which way the commissioners should vote.
If the city doesn’t withdraw its CDP application, if the Coastal Commission staff recommends a hearing and if there are no delays, the full commission hearing will be in June or July.
The Gist of an Appeal of the City of Encinitas’ Application to the California Coastal Commission for a Coastal Development Permit for the Leucadia 101 Streetscape Project
The Encinitas Local Coastal Program (LCP) reflects the California Coastal Act of 1976. The Leucadia 101 Streetscape project is inconsistent with one or both in these ways:
• On page 4, the city of Encinitas Planning Commission Resolution No. PC 2018-12 states that “the project is not located between the sea and the nearest public road.” That’s erroneous. The project is in the first public road for the half mile of Highway 101 from La Costa Avenue to Grandview Street. It proposes to reduce that half mile from four lanes to two and install four roundabouts in it. Three of the four would be one lane. Those factors alone would restrict beach access at the Grandview stairs. By choking southbound traffic in the first public road gateway, the project would also restrict beach access south of Grandview.
• One of the stated purposes of the project is to reduce traffic volume on Highway 101. It proposes to do that by shrinking nearly 2.4 miles of highway from four lanes to two and by installing six roundabouts. Five would be one lane. Fulfilling that purpose with those features would inherently restrict beach access. The project would discourage visits to the beaches by non-residents and slow visits by residents.
• The city did a traffic study in the month of April. It projected diverting up to 7,100 car trips per normal traffic day from Highway 101 to the freeway, Vulcan Avenue and Neptune Avenue. That’s up to 42 percent of the daily volume. By intentionally diverting traffic from 101, the project would inherently restrict beach access. It’s not possible for drivers who aren’t already west of 101 to get to the beach without driving on or crossing 101.
• The project documents do not detail the current traffic congestion on Leucadia Highway 101, nor do they admit that the project would make it worse. The unavoidably long light at Leucadia Boulevard backs up northbound and southbound traffic. At afternoon commute time on weekdays, the northbound traffic backs up two lanes wide up to half a mile from the light. Whenever the southbound freeway plugs, drivers spill onto southbound Highway 101. The jams back up from the light two lanes wide as far as La Costa Avenue. That’s 1.4 miles. Reducing Highway 101 to one lane in each direction would double the distance and time of the northbound and southbound jams. The southbound jams happen regularly during the morning commute. They are worst on summer Fridays and Saturdays when hordes of drivers descend on San Diego County from points north. By making traffic congestion worse in the Leucadia Highway 101 corridor, the project would restrict beach access not only for locals but for residents of and visitors to the Southern California region.
• By making Highway 101 one lane southbound and putting five roundabouts in 8/10 mile at the north end, the project would build a virtual barrier to corridor entry from the north. That’s where the great majority of visitors come from. The project would slow their transit time through the corridor, restrict their beach access and discourage their visits. No summer weekend visitor wants to sit in miles-long traffic jams.
• By doubling the time and distance of the already bad traffic jams, the project would also double greenhouse gas emissions from hundreds of idling cars.
• The project generally favors walkers and bicyclists over drivers. The latter outnumber the former by hundreds to one. The project would restrict beach access by drivers. The documents claim the project would reduce dependence on automobiles. Everybody who lives west of 101 already walks or bikes to the beach. Few east of 101 do. Streetscape can’t raise that number because the project is west of the railroad tracks. Walkers and bicyclists can’t legally cross the tracks except at La Costa Avenue, Leucadia Boulevard and Encinitas Boulevard. The first two are 1.4 miles apart. The third is 1.1 miles from the second. The bottom line is the project wouldn’t increase access by foot or bike, and it would restrict access by car.
• The city chose the proposed project from among several alternatives. The city rejected the Environmentally Superior Alternative. That plan is consistent with the LCP and Coastal Act. The proposed alternative is not.
• The project proposes three parking bays in the railroad right-of-way between 101 and the tracks. The city has not gotten approval for that use of NCTD land nor for the land it would take to accommodate the roundabouts. The project would add 134 parking spaces. The documents say that number would be reduced when the Coastal Rail Trail comes through, but not by how many. Two of the parking bays are near streets that lead to beach accesses; the third is not. The project specifies a DG trail in the railroad right-of-way. I don’t know if that’s the same trail as the CRT, but either would interfere with parking in the right-of-way. Parking there facilitates beach access when lot and street parking at or near the accesses is full.
Please see comments regarding the project submitted by Sarah Richardson in January 2017 and Eric Stevens in March 2018.
It’s important to understand that there are now three signals in the corridor and one north-south stop sign. The signals are at the north and south ends, and roughly the middle. The stop sign is at Marcheta Street, which is about a half mile north of Encinitas Boulevard. The project calls for removal of that stop sign. These numbers and placements have been misunderstood earlier.
###
Above at the bullets are Reasons for Supporting This Appeal submitted by appellant Doug Fiske pertaining to Case No. 10-035 DR/CDP/EIR (Leucadia Streetscape)
