Coastal Commission will decide fate of new bike lane

Coastal Commission will decide fate of new bike lane
A new bike lane north of Leucadia Boulevard on Coast Highway 101. The bike lane could be removed, depending on what the state Coastal Commission rules. Photo by Jared Whitlock

ENCINITAS — Bicyclists aren’t out of the woods yet. 

The California Coastal Commission will rule if a new bike lane can remain on Coast Highway 101 during a public hearing, likely to be held in several months. So far, two residents and two state coastal commissioners have filed appeals against the project, triggering the hearing.

Recently, a traffic lane north of Leucadia Boulevard was eliminated to make way for an 8-foot bike lane, despite objections from the Coastal Commission.

A month ago, the Coastal Commission urged the city to hold off on the bike lane, arguing the project requires a Coastal Development permit, as well as an amendment to the city’s local coastal program, because it significantly impacts the road.

In response, city staff said the bike lane is exempt from the permit and amendment, stating it’s a minor project. Council agreed, voting unanimously three weeks ago to move forward with the longstanding plan for the bike lane.

But Council’s approval risked penalties from the Coastal Commission, an agency that oversees land use and beach access throughout the state. The penalties range from a cease-and-desist order to fining a city $6,000 a day for projects that aren’t in compliance with its standards. But according to Eric Stevens, an analyst with the Coastal Commission, financial penalties aren’t on the table.

“At this point, there’s no talk of financial penalties,” Stevens said.

However, the Coastal Commission could order the city to undo the bike lane and restore the road to how it was before with a majority vote from its 12-member body at the hearing. Also, the city installed “sharrows” — lane markings that remind cyclists and motorists to share the road — at the same time as the bike lane. Stevens said that sharrows from Grandview Street to La Costa Avenue could also be subject to an appeal and removed, but the Coastal Commission hasn’t made that determination yet.

The Coastal Commission conducts hearings on a variety of issues during its monthly meetings throughout the state. Stevens said the bike lane appeal will go before the Coastal Commission when the agency has its next meeting in Southern California, either in June, July or October — at which point the Coastal Commission will be in San Diego.

At the meeting, the Coastal Commission has the option of requesting no changes to the bike lane, forcing the city to remove it, asking the city to make small changes to the bike lane or requesting a study of the bike lane to gauge its impact.

Stevens said there are potential concerns with how the bike lane affects coastal access and safety.

“We haven’t weighed the pros and cons of the project,” Stevens said. “We weren’t aware of it until recently.”

Ed Deane, senior civil engineer with the city, said the Coastal Commission wasn’t notified several months ago that city staff determined that the bike lane is exempt from the state permit and local amendment. The city hasn’t provided a notice of exemption for quite some time, he said.

“We haven’t done that since 1995,” Deane said.

Deane said a meeting with the Coastal Commission after the Council meeting was “productive.”

And he said he’s encouraged that financial penalties aren’t being pursued.

“That doesn’t seem to be a path they want to go down,” Deane said.

 

Share

Filed Under: Featured

Tags:

RSSComments (56)

Leave a Reply | Trackback URL

  1. Concerned Leucadian says:

    It appears disingenuous of Encinitas staff to keep insisting a bike lane is exempt and that exemptions haven’t had to be filed with the Coastal Commission since 1995. First of all, it is the lane elimination for MOTORISTS on North Highway 101 that “kicks in” the City’s requirements to amend our General Plan, our N101 Specific Plan and our Local Coastal Program, in conjunction with completing the Coastal Development Permit and Design Review process, which permits were applied for on March 15, 2010 as Case No 10-035 DR/CDP. Case No. 10-036 GPA/LCPA/N101SPA) was also filed on March 15, 2010 given the “proposed three lane configuration.” These permit application numbers are straight out of the 6/27/12 City Staff report. No exemptions were filed because the CDP and LCP amendment is still being processed!

    The City of Encinitas has known since its Staff reports of 1/13/10 and 12/15/10, that reducing a four lane Major Roadway, main arterial, a primary circulation element, to a 3 lane configuration is what requires proper process. Trying to claim that this is simply re-striping, or adding a bicycle lane, which could be exempt, WERE THIS NOT A MAJOR ROADWAY, PRIMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT WHERE A LANE IS BEING ELIMINATED FOR MOTORISTS, then we could understand Council and staff’s “reasoning.” As it is, they are making lame excuses for not following the rules, not giving citizens due process.

    The reason this is of concern is because adjacent residents and local commuters know that eliminating a lane for motorists has and will severely impact the road through intensification of traffic during peak periods, when it already is often backed up. During the summer season, during rush hour, or when there is slowing or blockage on I-5, it will create longer periods of cars being backed up, at gridlock. There will be more traffic cutting through neighborhoods, including on Vulcan, a school zone, as we saw on Wednesday night, during the crisis of two policemen being shot at, and the shooter then taking his own life, in Leucadia, near I-5 , just south of Leucadia Bl vd., on Del Rios.

    Also, there would be more cut through traffic going onto streets west of Highway 101. Because the City has not filed for exemptions in the past, does not make that right. To us, this is very serious, as backed up traffic and cut through traffic also affect residents’ health and safety. Subpar emergency response times will be further lowered when longer periods of gridlock happen . . .

    The City can and should use the railway corridor to maintain and extend the pre-existing bike lane, “on the books,” since before 2005, so that the northbound bike lane extends all the way north to La Costa. This could be done, now, rather than taking away an entire lane for motorists going northbound.

    In Cardiff, where a lane was eliminated, going southbound, there are no businesses or residents (except for two homes) along Highway 101, so it is an entirely different scenario. Here, we have thousands of residents living west of North Highway 101 who will have greater and greater challenges attempting to turn left onto the highway, going northbound, especially during peak periods, including in the summer!

    If our City thinks it can break Coastal Act law and our own Local Coastal Program, certified by the Coastal Commission, with impunity, without any consequence of fines and no order to cease and desist, then that is setting a terrible precedent. If the City of Encinitas doesn’t have to follow the rules, because “we’ve not done in that way since 95″ then why should any city?

    Our new Council made a big mistake in pandering to emotional, non verified testimony, much of it by bicyclists who are not Encinitas citizens, and who originally were only asking for share the road markings, Sharrows, which most people, including those who filed the appeal to the Coastal Commission, do support. Bicyclists are being used as pawns by commercial and development interests, who know, and who openly admit that lane elimination is the initial phasing in of Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association’s Streetscape plan, which would disproportionately benefit special interests at the expense of the general public.

    • Judy says:

      This is one of the most used corridors by cyclists locally, in the state, in the country and in the world. It was also one of the most dangerous. The Bike community asked for bike lanes from the start so your statement is false. The death also occured on northbound 101 north of Leucadia Blvd. Lynn dear, get a life.

    • Concerned encinitas commuter says:

      I am concerned. I have been injured by drivers while commuting to and from work on my bicycle. Even though bicycles are allowed in traffic lanes, drivers do not pay attention and/or are blind. Would you believe it, most driver think bicycles belong on the sidewalk (even though sidewalks don’t exist in most places). But the law prohibits riding a bicycle on sidewalks.
      The bike lane makes drivers more aware that bicycles are present and can save a life.
      So show some concern for life and support the bike lane.

      It appears that the coastal commission thinks politics are more important that safety.

      If I may quote one of my heroes “Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely”.

  2. If you want to see a significant negative impact to 101, it will be IF the Coastal Commission demands that the city erases the new bike lanes returning them to their non-existant state. If you’d like to join a small group of people who would like to see the city fined $300K for making vastly safer bike lanes on 101 (that include lower speed limits here), it’s your own thing, Jim.

  3. vaterfair says:

    Now that it’s done, let’s sit back and watch. Is there a “peak period” compromise for the north bound stretch if there is an issue? as far as the sharrows, motorists had to share anyway based on CVC. How much does a web-cam cost for monitoring this?

  4. Concerned Leucadian says:

    The staff report for the 7/18/12 Council Meeting where the Sharrows were voted on, and then as bifurcated, the lane elimination for motorists, there was an alternative considered, for the phasing in of the North 101 Streetscape. Instead of lane elimination, stop signs were considered. The ACTUAL statistics show that stretch of highway on North 101, has FEWER ACCIDENTS, fewer collisions of any kind, than on similar intersections in other cities in California, over a ten year period. There is absolutely NO evidence that as Fred falsely alleges that the LANE ELIMINATION FOR MOTORISTS results in “making vastly safer bike lanes on 101.” That is conjecture and speculation, not backed up by verified statistics.

    Although a web cam sounds good, what is being ignored is that the City had ALREADY BEGUN THE MANDATED PROCESS of measuring traffic impacts. If Encinitas is allowed to short cut the process, then why should ANY city in California have to follow any STATE LAW, much less Coastal Act Law. Encinitas had already applied for a Coastal Development Permit, had already, as of the 6/27/12 Council Meeting, paid an additional $75,000 to Peltz & Associates, who subcontracted part of that out to Linscott and Greenspan to do further traffic analysis after having received “complex” questions about lane elimination for motorists from CALTRANS and the City of Carlsbad.

    Because bicycle clubs and Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association “rally” at City Hall with testimony about accidents unrelated to that particular stretch of highway where lane elimination for motorists has been forced on us, does not mean that the City should blithely disregard State Law and our own Encinitas Municipal Code, as well as local precedent about premature phasing in of a particular portion of a redevelopment project, such as what happened at the Hall Property, where premature demolition took place, with a “negative impact declaration.” The City was successfully sued by the Citizens for Quality of Life. Parts of any project, including a major public works project, cannot be “piecemealed” so as to avoid environmental review of the project as a whole.

    Traffic impact analysis is a major component of environmental review. For the City to shortcut that because it wants to cater to a particular audience of special interests, not balancing the needs of the entire community, is a violation of the public trust.

    Councilmember Tony Kranz asked that staff and Council could have a public hearing, to look at procedure, “to see if we’re doing the correct thing.” After the 1/30 Council Meeting he said, “I asked for clarity, and we didn’t get it.” The emotional testimony, which was bullying to those who raised concerns about cut through traffic and residents adjacent to the North 101 Corridor, had NOTHING to do with examining CORRECT PROCEDURE.

    • Judy says:

      The new bike lane has no effect on traffic in the area. The travel lane is now wider so the cars actually can move through it faster without having to slow for cyclists. Get a grip you people..

  5. Nick Hodgson says:

    As a 12 year leucadia resident west of 101 I am dismayed at the changes proposed and done. I have asked several locals what the chevron bike signs on the 101 meant and everyone didnt know. Such rare signs need a sign to explain what they are please.!!!
    Also to remove a lane going north seems insane while the city is allowing increased density of development which allows more cars ongoing. Its much more dangerous to enter 101 from Jupitor going north now . I am a huge supporter of roundabouts . America needs probably a hundred thousand more of them but only if they are big enough to allow for safe mobility. I am not sure they can be large enough on 101 unless they edge over onto the rail siding verge. I disdain any business along 101 wanting lanes removed to increase parking as this is not in the interests of the great majority of residents and drivers. I disdain special interest groups promoting the massive changes to the 101. All I want is a two lane road that does not get choked up before the lights. And a road that is easy to access both north and south that is not made more slow by over-planning . The Jupiter north entrance on 101 is now that much more tricky and hence more likely for an accident. Even the near invisible raised curb at Jupiter /101 has smashed more than a few wheel housings and is an act of municipal vandalism. Please don’t keep spending money on making things worse , I am not against the bike lane just wanted to know what it actually meant.. but a lot of the other plans don’t follow logic.

    • Hi Nick,

      “Such rare signs need a sign to explain what they are please.!!!”

      I agree. Bike lane chevrons are well known elsewhere, so it would be helpful to add that image to the signs posted that now give people the heads-up about bikes sharing the slow lane with cars. (Sharing that lane is really nothing new, but does raise conciousness about it with the new stripping.)

      “…to remove a lane going north seems insane..”

      That seemed insane to me too, until I learned what traffic calming measures achieve in other cities. Such as our roundabouts that will remove 20 of our current mandatory stops. When you do that, cars get through town in LESS time than they used to, even at a slower speed! A hard pill for some to swallow at first, but the evidence in other cities supports that. Jupiter St. will have it’s own roundabout and be far safer making a left turn onto the highway at that point, yeilding to one lane of traffic in the roundabout instead of 3 lanes now.

      “I am not sure they can be large enough on 101 unless they edge over onto the rail siding verge. I disdain any business along 101 wanting lanes removed to increase parking as this is not in the interests of the great majority of residents and drivers”

      The roundabouts we are getting are genuine, not “smaller Traffic Circles” as you may have been told. In fact, Traffic Circles are far larger than roundabouts and less safe.
      You’ll be happy to learn in fact the railroad is working with the city to encroach on their property some for the roundabouts AND their improved bus stops (as can already be seen).
      With changes proposed for Streetscape, parking for customers on 101 unfortunately will NOT be increased. And that’s my only problem with the streetscape and it’s a minor one because I think it could be solved later on. So I think your fear and distain of “special interest groups” robbing a lane for the sake of parking is from someone giving you false information.

    • Judy says:

      The removal of the northbound traffic lane where there are no cross intersections or stop signs has had no effect on traffic.

  6. Isolde says:

    Nick, This is a ‘smoke and mirrors’ initial step planned and organized by BIG MONEY to develop the 101 Corridor in Leucadia.

    WE wont be able to make lots of changes to their plans, since change is a coming and in many respects it is WELCOMED..But.. many of us that are starting to get it have drawn a line since ALL of OUR LANDMARK EUCALYPTUS TREES WILL BE KILLED to make way for the
    moving of the median East into the N 101 roadway!

    For the the people that have lived or enjoyed Leucadia
    for the past 40-50 years, and it’s beautiful canopy of these 100 year old giants gracing 101, SHAME ON YOU for allowing this to happen!

    At the root of this lane-diet, lies the real reason for it, not the group of pro-bicyclist that want to use this piece of the road for their personal cycle training track, but to prepare the community for the removal of all the eucalyptus trees so that the MEDIAN can be moved East into N 101. This step will give 8 feet of the needed footage for angled parking and wider sidewalks to the West side of 101.
    Just drive over, to Solana Beach, and see it for your self. Look closely at their median. That is what is coming to Leucadia..the only thing stopping them are the remaining beautiful giants Eucalyptus trees that still grace 101, since they have already KILLED and REMOVED many of the TREEs w/ the ” sic excuse ‘ that they were dying. How convenient!

    • Isolde said:
      “Nick, This is a ‘smoke and mirrors’ initial step planned and organized by BIG MONEY to develop the 101 Corridor in Leucadia”.

      No. Unlike the BIG MONEY that sought to change zoning for both sides of Quail Gardens Drive a few years back to create a new commercial corridor through town, our existing ONE sided business district’s on 101 is inherently different than the clean slate on QGD. L-101 board members not only encourage property owners here to restore and enhance what we have, we know there just isn’t room for 3 to 5 story businesses on 101. Developers who do put 3 story buildings here on N. Coast Hwy 101 are learning the hard way that they go bankrupt. A busy business fares far better and buildings far higher than one that will ALWAYS be a one sided district (save for the Rhino Art biz and a very few others of course). That’s why chain stores like Subway, Papa John’s, Laviccio’s, Right Stop, and others fail here. Board members on L-101 promote enhancing our existing buildings with and without the city encouraged “facade grant program”.

      “This step” was not planned by BIG MOENY (as twice before Redevelopment Agencies had schemed to conquer and divide with), but local residents and business owners. These plans have being polished with decades with local pubic input from locals who want better infrastructure, more beautification and safety along 101. Not MdMega businesses.
      When NCTD did their improvements at Leucadia Roadside Park and RR crossing with beautiful classic style street lamps; new sidewalks; natural rail fencing; gorgeous landscaping and better ADA access, someone from the fear of Streetscape camp put a large sign on the fence saying “Send This Junk To Disneyland!”. I think I’m one of most who d04on’t share that sentiment and the sky is not falling.

      Removing all the Eucalyptus trees is certainly not part of the Streetscape but a scare tactic.

    • Judy says:

      There is no smoke and mirrors. It is a great change for the safety of cyclist and has had no effect on traffic. It improves quality of life in Encinitas. It’s not all about cars.. it’s about life.

  7. “There is absolutely NO evidence that as Fred falsely alleges that the LANE ELIMINATION FOR MOTORISTS results in “making vastly safer bike lanes on 101.” That is conjecture and speculation, not backed up by verified statistics”

    You’re right. I did not supply any evidence. I’m just relying on the silly whim I call common sense which works everywhere else – that slower speed limits and marked bike lanes (where there were none) make for a safer traveling experience for all. But we can always raise the speed limit, keep the highway dark at night and remove bike lanes if you can sell enough of that Kool-Aid.

    “…bicycle clubs and Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Association “rally” at City Hall with testimony about accidents unrelated to that particular stretch of highway…”

    Yes, we certainly do rally at City Hall on important issues like safety. But “accidents are unrelated to our stretch of highway”? You’re WAY off. You surely don’t have a front row seat to 101 like I and many other do. Numerous cyclists have been severely injured doing chandelles over car doors when abruptly being slam stopped by careless people not looking when they exit their cars. Why? Because there were no bike lanes and cyclists had to hug all parked cars as close as possible they went past. I do have pictures of the aftermath of two of these mis-haps just on just the 1200 block if you’d like to have a look at the ambulance picking up cyclists with broken bones. Hopefully they survived, but many if not most people with such injuries suffer in ways for the rest of their lives. And it wasn’t JUST “bike clubs” that rallied for a safer highway here, but actual cyclists who miraculously survived horrific car caused injuries from poorly lit and or unmarked bike lanes.

    If taking the initiative to make a road safer by placing a lower speed limit, filling pot holes and making a safer highway is against Coastal Commision law, you’ll make sure we find out soon enough.

    Lastly, Tony Kranz is happy with what’s been done so far.

  8. Concerned Leucadian says:

    The unfortunate fact that there have been injuries on the west side of the highway, for bicyclists going southbound, due to cyclists’ being doored, has NOTHING to do with a lane being eliminated on the east side, for motorists driving northbound. So the RELEVANT stretch of highway is the east side. Fred’s logic is once more sadly lacking. Again, he resorts to emotionalism and anecdotal evidence where he supplies NO SPECIFICS, such as when the accident occurred, exactly where, or when, or the bicyclists’ names. Bicycling on a highway is dangerous. The Sharrows are a good idea, in most people’s opinions. Eliminating a lane going northbound has nothing to do with these unspecified, unverified accidents.

    The staff report referred to above, from 7/18/12, shows there are LESS accidents on “that stretch of highway, North 101, than at similar intersections. So please don’t try to confuse the issue, again, with irrelevant hyperbole about permanent injuries and broken bones. We could ban driving motor vehicles altogether, to prevent any bicyclist from ever getting doored again! But that isn’t going to happen.

    The City of Encinitas is being a complete hypocrite. Citizens are required to follow Encinitas rules re getting permits, going through the process. In fact, fees for minor redevelopment have been raised substantially to help prop up the General Fund and because “back-up costs” such as high pensions, are included in the “formula,” which is inappropriate. Building permit fees should only reflect the actual cost of inspection, according to the State.

    But the City is not following its own rules regarding required amendments to our General Plan, our N101 Corridor Specific Plan, our Local Coastal Program GIVEN THE LANE ELIMINATION ON A PRIMARY CIRCULATION ELEMENT. The policy and required process can be verified through the City’s staff reports for the Council Meetings of 1/13/10, 12/15/10, 6/27/12 and 7/18/12. The Staff reports repeatedly discuss the lane elimination or “lane diet” as being an early phasing of L101MA’s (NOT adjacent residents’) plans for the North 101 Sreetscape.

    Fred, you don’t address the fact that the 1/30 Council Meeting was to be to look at proper procedure with respect to the Leucadia 101 Streetscape and the lane elimination. It wasn’t set up to be a bicycle rally with a lot of emotional cyclists from outside of town talking about accidents that took place elsewhere, and were NOT related to the northbound lane elimination. No one was objecting to the Sharrows, which have been installed on the west side, going south, and going north, south of Leucadia Blvd. There is NO NEXUS between the lane elimination on that particular NORTHBOUND STRETCH OF HIGHWAY!

  9. Concerned Leucadian says:

    Nick, thanks for your comments. It seems to many of us adjacent residents that this is a case of “the Emperor has no clothes!” The City is the emperor. The Leucadia 101 Mainstreet Ass. and the Bicyclist Clubs (many individual bicyclists, including myself, appreciate the Sharrows, but don’t hold with the City breaking the rules re lane elimination before the traffic analysis that has been paid for has come back for a public hearing.) are the obsequious sycophants, praising the Emperor’s fine garbs, so “fine” that they are invisible.

    Individuals, who really want little or nothing to do with City Hall, who want to keep Leucadia funky, to preserve and enhance what’s left of our old growth canopy, are like the innocent child who says, “What? I can’t SEE what you claim to be true? It doesn’t make sense!”

    The 7/18/12 Staff Report, which was for the Council Meeting when Sharrows were okayed, after they went to the Traffic Commission on 6/11/12, and to the Environmental Commission, after that, stated quite clearly that the so-called “lane diet” was to be part of the early phasing in of the North 101 Streetscape. When questions were raised about the fact that traffic analysis for that project was still being conducted, that a Coastal Development and Design Review Permit were still being processed, it was later said, by staff, that the lane elimination was not “specifically part of the North 101 Streetscape! Staff and Council want to believe that if it’s only “re-striping,” then the lane elimination is exempt from environmental review with respect to traffic impact projection. That is UNTRUE! It is lane elimination that mandates all the amendments, including the amendment to our LCP, which is appealable to the Coastal Commission, as part of a major public works project, within the Coastal Commission’s jurisdiction, no matter WHAT project of which the lane elimination is a part. Fred can you grasp this?

    Lane elimination was “tacked on” to the Sharrows agenda item, WITHOUT that ever having gone before the Traffic Commission, the Environmental Commission or the Planning Commission, as it should have, for more public input and more VERIFIED analysis.

    Might doesn’t make right. The ends don’t justify the means. The City of Encinitas is being a total hypocrite. The 7/18/12 staff report stated the actual roundabouts are at least seven years out from completion. The U.S. Dept. of Transportation recommends AGAINST roundabouts near a railway corridor, OR where cross street traffic is significantly less than that of the main thoroughfare. This would be the case for four out of five roundabouts which have three way intersections, only, due to the railroad right of way.

    The City should work on the plan for the railway corridor, already on the books, for bicyclists to have a Class One bicycle lane. The Bicycle Masterplan Update was supposed to be heard at this coming Wednesday’s Council Meeting. It was already approved by the Planning Commission, but it was mysteriously “cancelled,” taken off the Agenda for Feb. 27. The BMP Update talks about the 101 Rail Trail bicycle lane, which has been on the books since 2005, or before. The existing bicycle lane from A Street to Marchetta going northbound should be maintained and extended all the way to La Costa. Eliminating a lane for motorists does cause more problems for adjacent residents attempting to turn left on to the highway, from West of N101. Lane elimination will cause longer periods of back-up and gridlock during peak periods, such as when there is significant slowing or blockage on I-5, or during the summer, during racetrack and the fair, for example.

    Whether one calls them neighborhood traffic circles or roundabouts is also a red herring. The roundabouts recommended by the U.S. Dept. of Transportation have WIDER DIAMETERS and MORE SAFETY FEATURES. What is important is the safety features, which are better for cyclists and pedestrians too, which WIDER roundabouts would have, NOT what the circles are called. In fact, it’s fine with adjacent residents that they are being called roundabouts because ROUNDABOUTS are NOT recommended along railway corridors for the reasons already detailed. If there is room in the railway corridor, it absolutely must go to a dedicated, Class One Bicycle Lane, there, which would be separated from the roadway by dirt. The thorn bearing plants, which give bicyclists flats, should also be removed by the city, NOT a lane for northbound motorists.

    I have never seen ANY verification that the stop sign at Marchetta would be removed, or that there are 20 stop signs to be removed! What Peltz and Associates gave the City and people who attended the biased workshops where marketers lobbied for roundabouts, were CARTOON DRAWINGS, not engineered plans. Fred is counting Marchetta as five stop signs! And there is no verification from the City that stop sign would ever be removed. It is a long involved process to remove a stop sign. Wishful thinking on Fred’s part doesn’t make it so! Some of the stop signs that Fred is referring to are those for people attempting to turn onto the highway from points west. Even though that stop sign might be removed, people approaching any planned roundabout would have to come to a complete stop if there is traffic in the one lane roundabout, which is to serve both northbound and southbound traffic.

    Leucadians and local commuters are being sold a “pipe dream” based on wishful thinking, emotionalism and conjecture. What has been done is against State Law, as it violates the Coastal Act. It’s also against the City’s own rules, against the Staff recommendation in its report of 1/30/12, and against the best interests of the majority of residents and local commuters. Lane elimination does not balance all of our needs, and does not take into account our concerns about increased cut through traffic, increased back-ups on the highway, more difficulty egressing from streets west of North 101, including Neptune, a “first street” primary beach access.

    • Judy says:

      The entire project was approved unanimously by the traffic commission and by city council.

    • Judy says:

      There is no gridlock.. why don’t you go ride your bike and see. This has nothing to do with Streetscape. It has to do with saving lives and allowing all users the safe use of the roads.

  10. Isolde says:

    I am working on a comparative analysis w/ an engineered survey
    of the entire 101 corridor.

    A consultation w/ an arborist is necessary, to determine if the proximity of the demolition and construction due to any movement of the median, 8 feet by my measurements of the streets in the lane-diet, will have deleterious effects on all of the trees, not just our beautiful, historic giants!

    • Judy says:

      There is no demolition of trees.. there was just paint on the asphalt.

      • Opinions are not facts says:

        Judy, Isolde is speaking about the FACT that the lane elimination for motorists is a preliminary phasing in of the Leucadia 101 Streetscape, which would include 5 roundabouts and lane elimination in ADDITION to moving the median and cutting down many more old growth trees.

    • Judy says:

      There was no movement of the median.. why don’t you get in your car or on a bike and go look. The road is exactly the same as it always was.. It just has new paint.

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.