ENCINITAS — The city has formally opposed a state budget trailer bill that could prevent Encinitas from redesigning portions of Santa Fe Drive after lawmakers approved the measure in the closing hours of the legislative session.
State Sen. Catherine Blakespear, D-Encinitas, recently backed a provision in Senate Bill 114, a broader budget bill that adjusts several years of state spending, that specifically restricts changes to Santa Fe Drive.
The language was incorporated into SB 114 on Aug. 28, three days before lawmakers approved the bill earlier this week. The proposal, now awaiting Gov. Gavin Newsom’s signature, followed Blakespear’s SB 569, separate legislation that sought similar restrictions on removing bike lanes statewide but died without receiving a final Assembly vote.
Blakespear defended the budget measure as a safeguard for a state-funded safety project and argued that the city’s planned redesign would make the corridor more dangerous.
“The idea that we should improve, not remove, remains the same,” Blakespear told The Coast News. “The (Encinitas) City Council majority’s proposed removal of the barrier-protected bike lane will unquestionably reduce safety along that corridor and put bicyclists back alongside traffic, protected only by a white line.”
Mayor Bruce Ehlers, however, sharply criticized the move, accusing Blakespear of using an end-of-session legislative maneuver to accomplish what she had sought through SB 569: imposing state restrictions that would hamstring the city’s planned redesign of Santa Fe Drive.
“A former mayor of Encinitas is trying to force her will on a duly elected council,” Ehlers told The Coast News. “My problem is the subversive nature of her tactics.”
The provision singles out Santa Fe Drive by attaching new conditions to $3.09 million in state funding awarded to Encinitas for the roadway improvements in 2023. The same language appeared in the measure’s Assembly counterpart, AB 114, which died on the Senate floor.
The original Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Project narrowed vehicle lanes to 10 feet, added back-in angled parking and installed separated bike lanes with protective barriers. It also included pedestrian improvements and traffic-calming measures intended to reduce speeds and improve safety near San Dieguito Academy, the city’s largest high school.
Under SB 114, Encinitas could not remove or modify the protected bike lanes for at least five years after the project’s completion. From five to 15 years, the city could remove all or part of the bikeway only if it repays the full $3.09 million and demonstrates that the changes would provide equal or greater safety, accessibility and mobility for pedestrians and cyclists.
As a budget-related bill, SB 114 can take effect immediately if signed by the governor.
Blakespear said her efforts reflect a longstanding commitment to pedestrian and bicycle safety, not an attempt to override the current council.
“The through line of all my public service is to try to make it safer to bike and walk on our streets,” Blakespear said. “I’m grateful to be able to ensure that Santa Fe will remain a safer corridor and the city won’t be able to revert or change it to an unsafe roadway.”
While citing other examples in cities around the state, Blakespear acknowledged that the Santa Fe Drive dispute informed SB 569, which originally dealt with removing homeless encampments and initially had the support of the Encinitas City Council.
On June 11, Blakespear used a procedure known as “gut and amend” to replace the bill’s contents with language governing changes to bicycle infrastructure statewide.
Although SB 569 did not specifically mention Santa Fe Drive, the project fit the type of state-funded bikeway the revised legislation sought to protect from removal. Encinitas opposed the amended bill, as did several other local groups concerned about local control.
Supporters, including San Diego County Bicycle Coalition and SanDiego350, argued the measure was needed to prevent cities from removing safety improvements because of political pressure or changes in elected leadership.
Ehlers traveled to Sacramento to oppose SB 569 before the Assembly Transportation Committee, where he learned that even if passed, the bill would not retroactively prevent the city from proceeding with its Santa Fe Drive redesign.
SB 569 advanced to the Assembly floor but was moved to the inactive file on Aug. 31 without receiving a final vote, effectively killing it when the legislative session ended.
The provision in SB 114, however, applies directly to the $3.09 million appropriation from the state’s Active Transportation Program for the Santa Fe Drive Corridor Improvements Project.
“This is her second sleight of hand she’s used to usurp control of our own streets,” Ehlers said.
Blakespear said the conditions are consistent with those imposed under the Active Transportation Program and disputed the city’s claim that it should be free to remove infrastructure built with state money.
“(The council majority) thinks they have the ability to do anything they want,” Blakespear said. “But the state has the ability, as it does for matters of statewide concern, to keep our streets safe.”
“The proposed removal of the protected bike lane along Santa Fe Drive was retribution against me, and it came at the expense of community safety,” Blakespear said, adding that she does not oppose other changes to Santa Fe Drive as long as the barrier-protected bike lanes remain intact.
On Aug. 29, the city sent a letter asking the governor to line-item veto the Santa Fe Drive provision. The city argued that no such restrictions were attached when it accepted the money, describing the new conditions as changing “the rules in the middle of the game.”
“When the City accepted the appropriation and when the City entered into contracts with Caltrans for the project, there were no stipulations attached to accepting the funding,” the letter states. “The amendments … three years after the appropriation … put the City and our residents in an impossible position.”
The city also contended that the provision amounts to retroactive and special legislation targeting a single municipal project.
Budget trailer bills, which make changes tied to state spending, became more common after California voters approved Proposition 25 in 2010, allowing them to pass by a simple majority rather than a two-thirds vote.
Critics argue that the process can be used to enact major policy changes late in a legislative session with limited public scrutiny. In response, voters approved Proposition 54 in 2016, requiring bills and amendments to be publicly available online for at least 72 hours before a vote.
For Ehlers, the late addition of the Santa Fe Drive restrictions exemplifies what makes the trailer bill process controversial: Policy can be inserted in the closing days of a legislative session, leaving local governments and the public little time to respond.
“She is using devious methods to impose her past mistakes on her own electorate,” Ehlers said. “Bottom line.”
Santa Fe Drive debate
The legislative battle is the latest chapter in the dispute over Santa Fe Drive.
Planning for the corridor began in 2015 and advanced during Blakespear’s tenure as mayor from 2016 to 2022. The City Council approved a design contract with Tetra Tech in April 2020, followed by community meetings. In August 2021, the council divided the corridor into western and eastern phases that could be funded and built separately.
After winning her state Senate bid in 2022, Blakespear helped secure approximately $3.1 million in state funding for the project.
Construction of the western phase began in January 2024 and was expected to be completed that summer but continued until April 2025, roughly nine months behind schedule.
Upon completion, the redesigned roadway quickly became controversial. Some residents and city officials raised concerns about congestion, emergency vehicle access, parking and conflicts among motorists, cyclists and pedestrians.
After construction problems prompted the city to terminate the eastern phase contract, staff evaluated the completed western phase through site visits, video monitoring and a survey of more than 1,000 people. The review found support for the bike lanes, sidewalks and midblock crossing but widespread dissatisfaction with back-in parking, narrow travel lanes, traffic and emergency access.
The U.S. Postal Service even suspended delivery to 24 homes along Santa Fe Drive after determining the reconfigured roadway was unsafe for carriers.
In November 2025, the City Council voted 4-1 to remove or modify several project features, including the separated bicycle lane on the south side of Santa Fe Drive, roadside planter boxes and back-in parking.
The council also directed that the 10-foot vehicle lanes be widened to 11 feet and the back-in spaces converted to parallel parking. The reconstruction is expected to cost more than $3 million.
The council voted 4-1 again in June to continue designing the changes after city engineers presented the project’s 50% design plans.
Under the current redesign concept, the city would retain the separated westbound bicycle path on the north side of Santa Fe Drive while adding conventional or buffered bicycle lanes at street level. The proposal would also include parallel parking and wider vehicle lanes.
Ehlers said the redesign addresses several safety problems in the current configuration, including what he described as seven locations at risk of right-hook collisions, in which motorists turning across the south-side bikeway could collide with cyclists.
In November 2020, Jennings Worley, a 62-year-old physician, was fatally struck in a right-hook collision while riding west in a designated bike lane on Leucadia Boulevard. The driver of a moving truck turned right across Worley’s path at Moonstone Court, fatally striking the cyclist.
The mayor also said the narrow roadway makes it difficult for motorists to pull over for emergency vehicles traveling to and from nearby Scripps Memorial Hospital Encinitas.
“We believe there are serious flaws, many systemic and embedded in the design, in the south-side separated bike lane and back-in parking and very narrow lanes, so we need to get that fixed,” Ehlers said.
Supporters of the existing configuration disagree with the mayor’s assessment and argue that eliminating the separated bicycle lane would make Santa Fe Drive more dangerous for cyclists.
Judy Berlfein, chair of Encinitas BikeWalk and a longtime cycling safety advocate, acknowledged that improvements could still be made but disagreed with the council’s approach of removing the upgrades and starting over.
“It’s not perfect. We still need to improve it, but we don’t need to remove it,” Berlfein said. “We need to finish the intersections and address conflicts with vehicles turning into driveways. We don’t have to rip everything out to do that.”
Berlfein pushed back against the mayor’s concerns related to right-hook collisions along Santa Fe Drive.
“A right-hook collision is a danger anywhere bicycle and vehicle lanes intersect,” she said. “It’s a real concern, but it isn’t unique to this project.”
Berlfein also cited recent city speed-monitoring data showing that vehicle speeds have declined along Santa Fe Drive since the improvements were installed. According to a city-prepared summary, the 85th-percentile speed — the speed at or below which 85% of motorists traveled — fell from 37 mph in 2023 to 29 mph in 2025 for eastbound traffic.
Westbound downhill speeds declined from 41 mph to 37 mph.
Separately, the City Council also reduced the speed limit along Santa Fe Drive from 35 mph to 30 mph between the two monitoring periods, potentially helping contribute to lower speeds.
“I ride on Santa Fe Drive more than I did before the improvements,” said Berlfein, who has lived near the road for years. “It’s a complicated street, and its width changes from block to block. The city faced a major challenge fitting everything in, and it was never going to make everyone happy, but I think it’s better than it was.”
Blakespear, one of the project’s most prominent defenders, disputed Ehlers’ assessment and argued that the city’s alternative would expose cyclists to vehicle traffic.
“I would not interfere with their desire to make other changes to the road as long as the barrier-protected bike lanes remained,” Blakespear said. “But removing them and returning the roadway to a less safe condition after using state General Fund money that I requested is something I would fight.”
Ehlers said he welcomes a public debate with Blakespear over safety along Santa Fe Drive but objects to using state legislation to settle a local dispute. He accused the state lawmaker of trying to circumvent the local process after failing to stop the redesign through SB 569.
“Finally, she has admitted that SB 569 had nothing to do with anywhere else in the state but Encinitas,” Ehlers said. “This ex-mayor of Encinitas is trying to force her will on this current council. We are the elected, and the buck stops with us.”
2 comments
I’m surprised Mayor Bruce isn’t in favor of sleight of hand. That seems to be his specialty.
IMO he shouldn’t be constantly inserting himself in regional campaigns if, as he stated, he will be mayor of Encinitas and not seek higher office.
Focus on filling potholes and hoping the drainage in Leucadia is completed before heavy rains begin.
Catherine Blakespear.
The grift that keeps on grifting.
Vile human being.