The LJCPA Trustee meeting videoconference goes live at 5:30pm, so that participants can make sure their video and/or audio are working. The Chair calls the meeting to order at 6pm. Registration is necessary to attend the meeting: please visit https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-online-meeting-instructions/ for instructions.
This page contains links to the agenda for the meeting and materials applicants, their representatives, and interested parties submitted in connection with action items. There are no materials (beyond committee minutes) for Consent Agenda items.
If you have comments on these or other agenda items, you may submit them using the form at the foot of this page (following the list of recent comments).
- Agenda (revised 11/30/2020) https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Agenda-3-December-2020-6pm-revised.pdf
- Treasurer’s report: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/treasurer-3dec2020.pdf
- Trustees 11/5/2020 (draft): https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/Minutes-5-November-2020-draft.pdf
- DPR 11/10/2020: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201110-DPR-minutes-1.pdf
- DPR 11/17/2020: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/201117-DPR-minutes.pdf
- T&T 11/18/2020: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/tt-minutes-18nov20.pdf
Consent Agenda (unless pulled)
- 6715 Neptune (668003, Marengo) see DPR 11/10/2020
- 305 Bonair (653750, Krencik) see DPR 11/10/2020
- 1542 Copa de Oro (676181, Morton) see DPR 11/10/2020
- 6375 Avenida Cresta/6360 Via Maria (667263, Duke/Crisafi) see DPR 11/17/2020
(deferrred to January)
8216 Caminito Maritimo (629762, Sammon) (Process 3) Site Development Permit and Neighborhood Development Permit for the addition of 4,515 square feet to an existing single residential condominium unit of 4,771 square feet for a total of 9,286 square feet located at 8216 Caminito Maritimo. The 0.18 acre site of the LJSPD-SF base zone of the La Jolla community plan area with prior development approval SDP#630146 & NDP#Council District 1.
La Jolla Shores Outdoor Dining
8423 El Paseo Grande
- Letter sent by President (for ratification): https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/el-paseo-grande-letter-a.pdf
- Peterson comments: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/peterson-re-el-paseo-grande.pdf
- Public MND notice: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/661815-Public-Notice-Date-10-22-20201.pdf
- Merten comments: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/merten-re-el-paseo-grande.pdf
Coastal Rail Trail
- Presentation: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/2020-1203-Coastal-Rail-Trail-La-Jolla-CPG-Presentation.pdf
- BTR executive summary: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hNceyGtb1L5yk0YdZzFpJ9qHB06iry8h/view?usp=sharing
- Traffic mobility analysis: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hE3pkIxDrJ4bwjOwabTup52Az_zNEYzZ/view?usp=sharing
- Visual simulations: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VluxlthF3o7m2MgSF1749ZiOgCePEcCo/view?usp=sharing
- BTR full: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1sabvKRSW8KibX9t13n3vkRhQk3fTw71K/view?usp=sharing
- Plans: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TFRcGx0cDeEQPtkXlPonma9vZX1sSEzv/view?usp=sharing
Committee & Public Comments
- See T&T 11/18/2020
- Issakov: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/issakov-re-gilman.pdf
- Thompson: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/thompson-re-gilman.pdf; photo https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/thompson-re-gilman-photo-rotated.jpg
- Robinson: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/#comment-1180
- Young: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/#comment-1181
- Lehnerz: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/#comment-1182
- Rudnick: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/rudnick-re-gilman.pdf
- Myrick: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-3/#comment-1190
- Chin-Purcell: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-2/#comment-1189
- Heiskala: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-2/#comment-1188
- Hanshaw: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-2/#comment-1187
- Crist: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-2/#comment-1186
- Sykes: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-2/#comment-1185
- Rudnick: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/#comment-1184
- Rudnick: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/#comment-1183
- Baross: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/baross-re-gilman.pdf
- Gurney: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/gurney-re-gilman.pdf
- Issakov: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-3/#comment-1191
- Vance: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-3/#comment-1194
- Burrows: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-4/#comment-1195
- Howlett: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-4/#comment-1196
- Schalles: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-4/#comment-1197
- Goese: https://lajollacpa.org/ljcpa-12-3-2020-materials-comments/comment-page-4/#comment-1198
(deferred to January)
Complete Communities Kane presentation Updated documents: https://www.sandiego.gov/complete-communities
DPR Bylaws Update
The LJCPA Bylaws create DPR and state that “…A quorum for standing and ad hoc committees shall be a majority of the committee members” (VI.2.B) and “LJCPA actions, including subcommittee votes, only require a simple majority of the voting Trustees, or subcommittee members, in attendance when a quorum is present” (VI.2.A.9).
The DPR Bylaws call for specific numbers of attendees, voters, or votes. So long as DPR is fully populated with 10 voting members the differences are unimportant (“50%” or “half” and “5” are the same, for example, as are “majority” and “6”), but when there are vacancies (as has been the norm recently) the differences can slow DPR’s work. Moreover, in one case (defining a quorum) the DPR bylaws fall short of what LJCPA’s bylaws require.
The LJCPA Bylaw provisions, being more recent, supersede the older DPR provisions. The proposed amendments bring DPR’s bylaws into conformance with LJCPA’s Bylaws, and clarify one ambiguity.
Trustees and DPR members were notified of these proposed amendments on 29 Sep 2020. DPR endorsed them by a 2/3 vote, as required, at its 17 Nov 2020 meeting. The amendments will take effect once endorsed by LJCPA Trustees and the La Jolla Town Council Directors.
- Current (2009) DPR bylaws: https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/dpr-bylaws-2009.pdf
- Proposed DPR bylaws (redline changes from 2009 to 2020): https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/dpr-bylaws-2009-redline.pdf
- Proposed DPR bylaws (2020): https://lajollacpa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/dpr-bylaws-2020.pdf
Elections Committee members
- Donna Aprea
- Larry Davidson
- David Dunbar
- Nancy Manno
- Kathleen Neil
- Janie Emerson
Review or Submit Comments
If you submit comments below, please identify the agenda item to which they relate. Once the moderator approves them, comments will be displayed publicly, including the name you provide.
Please be as brief as possible. At a regular meeting, comments would be limited to 2 spoken minutes; that translates to between 200 and 300 written words. Please do not include URLs or links, since they may cause your comment to be flagged as spam. At her or his sole discretion, LJCPA’s moderator will reject comments that are unrelated to agenda items, or that are offensive, ad hominem, or otherwise inappropriate to reasoned discussion of the matters at hand.
Concern Regarding Gilman Drive, Agenda Item 5.4
This “protected” bike lane only makes a cyclist FEEL protected, however, over and over again these have been shown that they don’t protect the cyclist. A downhill protected bicycle lane is only inviting cars to right hook cyclists that are descending at speed. This exact incident happened this past Saturday on Leucadia Blvd where are 64 year old cyclist that was descending in a protected bicycle lane was right hooked by a truck and killed! Yes, let that sink in. And there are 7 such intersections that invite right hooks on the proposed Gilman protected cycle track. Yes, 7! Not to mention that cyclists may also be left hooked from oncoming traffic making turns in front of on coming cyclists descending. It’s inevitable that cars are looking for vehicles in the traffic lane not a lane that’s protected off to the side. Inevitably, a car will turn in front of the cyclist as they don’t see them. As an avid cyclist myself I am always riding on the defensive, however, when you are traveling at speed downhill you have less time to respond. And what about the inexperienced cyclist, who perhaps is not as savvy in traffic but now feels safe in this protected bike lane? They are being put more at risk, not less. Please reconsider this proposal and listen to experienced cyclists who have ridden many miles and better understand that these protected bike ways do NOT provide actual protection but only a “feeling” of protection to all cyclists.
5.4. Coastal Rail Trail (action item, Gonzalez)
City Report on project being planned for Gilman Drive from I-5 to UCSD campus, request for LJCPA recommendation.
Please do not build the Gilman Drive dangerous and unmaintainable Class IV Bikeway (cycle traps)! Crazy to spend money to make things worse (can’t easily clean or repave these tracks and are dangerous).
Cyclist killed in crash in Encinitas Last Saturday 11/28/2020
Another cyclist has needlessly died Saturday due to these poorly designed “protected” bike lanes (Luecadia Blvd) making the “right hook” turn situation much worse by NOT allowing cars to move over toward the curb either going in front or behind the cyclist to make their right turn.
This gives the motorist more time to evaluate and make a safe right turn. Try making a right turn at high speed into a narrow opening designated with “protected” bike lane bollards with cars hot on your tail and you have just milliseconds to make the decision to turn right.
It is so infuriating the government spends our money to make road bicycle riding worse (dangerous intersections, more road furniture to cause bike accidents, narrow bike lanes with road furniture can’t be cleaned or repaved with standard road maintenance equipment).
Sadly these “protected” bike lanes are designed with more “safety” road furniture and the results are just the opposite.
Protected” bike lanes were sold by politicians as a way to encourage biking (health / weight reduction / mental health), protect cyclists from cars, and get the bicycles off the damn road so cars can go faster.
The government promises more people will ride if “protected” bike lanes makes them feel safe with no data to show they will ride at all or be safe. Cars are only one hazard that may get you on a bike ride.
“Protected” bike lanes have and will continue to miserably fail with more cyclists’ injuries and death.
We didn’t learn anything from the Friars Road Cycle Track installed in the late 1970’s that is usually filled with tree litter. I don’t see young kids riding this projected Cycle Track.
These “protected” bike lane designs are a lie and make riding in traffic more dangerous with too often tragic consequences.
Nick Venuto a 40-year-old, husband and father of two children was killed in 2011 by a distracted high-speed SUV driver going off the Hwy 56 freeway, onto the road shoulder, up a steep embankment, traveling more than 100 feet, and then through a chainlink fence. Nick’s riding buddy was luckier with only serious injuries. The fence, slope, and separation distance did not prevent Nick’s death.
We need to stop the newly designed Gilman Drive “protected” bike lane before it is constructed in late 2021.
Spending government money to make things worse with potential deadly consequences for bicyclists is insanity.
(This comment pertains to Item 5.4 Coastal Rail Trail.)
While I appreciate any attempt to better accommodate bicycle usage along Gilman between UCSD and Rose Canyon, I have a number of concerns about the proposed Class IV Bikeway.
These concerns are based on the poor safety record of other similarly designed Class IV Bikeways in the areas including the one installed on Coast Highway 101 where there have been dozens of injuries and close calls. Unfortunately many cyclists are reporting that they now avoid that area all together and alternative routes are far out of the way thus discouraging them from replacing a car trip by bicycle. Proponents of these facilities often argue people “feel safe” using them and that’s often true but subjective emotions do not necessarily mean the users are objectively safe.
Last weekend, an experienced bicyclist was “right hooked” and killed on while using the Class IV facility at an unsignalized intersection on Leucadia Blvd. The proposed Gilman project has a number of similar intersections and driveways. This crash type is frighteningly common on roads where Class IV Bikeways are installed.
Gillman also sits on a grade and it’s easy for even inexperienced bicyclists to reach high speeds. Add e-bikes and scooters. Operating any of these at even modest speeds inside a confined space can be dangerous.
Lastly, I’m curious whether a traffic study was done to determine whether Gilman needs all four general-use travel lanes at the current widths or if there’s justification for a road diet. The idea of widening Gilman into the adjacent undeveloped land to accommodate what’s supposed to be an environmentally friendly and economical form of transportation seems out of touch especially given the fiscal issues our governments are facing due to the economic downturn.
Gilman has a high number of bicyclists using it both for trips to and from UCSD and for North-South travel in and out of the area. It’s essential we get any bikeway design as objectively safe as possible.
Agenda Item 5.4: Gilman Drive Class IV Cycletrack
I applaud efforts to improve Gilman Dr safety for cycling. However, a Class IV facility, especially the higher speed southbound side without proper treatments at all 7 conflict points, can actually decrease safety, despite the “perceived” safety of a left-side barrier. Too many planning organizations and consultants feel that a “protected bike lane” is an inexpensive way to get more people out on bikes because it seems a safer facility. I’m fully on board with the objective, but want to caution that both location and design for Class IV facilities fully depend on context. I believe that Gilman is not only the incorrect location for such a facility, but a cycletrack per design shown would actually decrease safety. What is the current safety record on Gilman Dr?
Cycletracks used in urban contexts can succeed with careful intersection design, such as J St in San Diego. An example of cycletrack poor context is Leucadia Blvd, Encinitas. In 2017, travel lanes were narrowed for a wide buffered bike lane, with green paint alerting all bike/vehicle conflict points, an excellent facility until left bollards transformed it to a Class IV cycletrack. Complaints from experienced cyclists were ignored. On 11/28/2020 a downhill cyclist in the cycletrack was killed by a right turning truck. The bollards prevented the cyclist and motorist to safely negotiate the Moonstone Ct intersection.
Solana Beach just removed a cycletrack option on Lomas Santa Fe in favor of a Class I facility for future plans as that arterial was also not a good Class IV context location.
Please consider a Class I facility or some other design to safely accommodate more cyclists while maintaining or improving the current safety of the thousands of cyclists who currently use this stretch of Gilman Dr.
Agenda Item 5.4: Gilman Dr Cycletrack
I write as an experienced cyclist, a certified League of American Bicyclists Cycling Instructor, a Board Member of the San Diego County Bike Coalition, a founding member of BIkeWalkSolana (bike/ped advocacy advisory group for City of Solana Beach), and a North County Cycle Club ride leader.
I am quite familiar with the stretch of Gilman Dr from La Jolla Village Dr down to the connection to the Rose Canyon bike path. I have used it for 3+ decades, for transportation to downtown from North County, recreation, fitness, and leading club rides. The southbound, downhill stretch has always been especially nice as gravity allows cyclists to either relax with little effort or ride at speeds exceeding 20 mph.
I applaud the efforts to make this area more attractive and safe for cyclists. However, a Class IV facility, especially on the southbound side, without proper treatments at all conflict points (there are 7 of them), can actually decrease safety, although less experienced cyclists may claim to “feel safe” with barriers on their left side for much of this stretch. Currently, many planning organizations and consultants feel that a “protected bike lane” is an inexpensive way to get more people out on bikes because it is a safer facility. I’m fully on board with the objective, but want to caution that both location and design for Class IV facilities are entirely dependent upon context. I believe that Gilman is not only the incorrect location for such a facility, but a cycletrack as shown in your design docs would actually decrease safety. What is the current safety record on Gilman Dr, for both the northbound and southbound directions? That data should always be required when proposing a project in the name of enhanced safety.
Cycletracks used in urban contexts have been shown to be successful , e.g. downtown San Diego on J St and downtown Minneapolis on 28th St, NYC, …. Those locations are an urban context on flat, rectangular grids, with specialized treatment, signage and even phased special bike signals at conflict points where a right hook, a left cross, or a driveout entering the roadway may cause a serious cyclist injury. Class IV cycletracks work nicely in these contexts when accompanied by these extras. Gilman Dr, especially southbound is a totally different story.
A similar example in San Diego County occurred recently on Leucadia Blvd. There, in 2017, travel lanes were narrowed to make room for a wide buffered bike lane, with green stop-dash paint at all right turn conflict points, as well as dashed bike lane stripes ~200 ft prior to all such conflicts. It was an excellent facility until it was decided to add flexible delineators in the bike lane buffer zone to transform it to a Class IV facility. Complaints from experienced cyclists were ignored by the City of Encinitas and just last weekend a cyclist was killed by a right turning truck at an intersection on the downhill side of Leucadia Blvd where the cyclist was in the cycletrack and both the motorist and the cyclist probably failed to recognize the impending danger before it was too late. We do not want to see the same thing happen on Gilman Dr.
For true safety, please consider a Class I facility or some other design to safely accommodate the larger group of cyclists you are trying to attract while maintaining the current safety (or improving it with wider buffered bike lanes), especially southbound downhill. Recently, in Solana Beach an option for a cycletrack on the east-west arterial Lomas Santa Fe was thrown out in favor of a Class I path on the northside of Lomas Santa Fe the entire westbound length from the eastern City boundary to Hwy 101, with improved signaling at I-5. Such a facility on Gilman might also be considered, recognizing obvious additional expense.
Another example where a Class IV cycletrack was recently built in an incorrect context is the cycletrack on Hwy 101 along South Cardiff Beach between Solana Beach and Chesterfield. Although travel lanes were nicely narrowed as proposed for Gilman, the wider bike lanes were turned into Class IVs made even more dangerous by low wheel stop barriers between the flexible posts. The impeccable safety record (refer to SWITRS) of the past 7 yrs (ZERO reported injuries northbound from Solana Beach to the restaurants) was obliterated in the first couple months with over 20 reported crashes, several requiring ambulance pickup, and 2 serious injuries northbound at the bottom of the downhill out of Solana Beach, both with cognitive injuries, ambulance pickup, and pending lawsuits. Although the City of Encinitas was warned by experienced cyclists, they went ahead with the project with the only concession to the thousands of cyclists who regularly use the stretch for transportation and recreation being the addition of sharrows and Bikes May Use Full Lane signs on the adjacent roadway. Any cycletrack, in my opinion, should clearly indicate its optional use with sharrows and BMUFL signage for the adjacent travel lane.
So please consider an alternative design where you can demonstrate that safety will be improved for ALL road users, which include the thousands of cyclists who currently use this stretch of Gilman Dr. I look forward to changes in the current design and would support changes that demonstrate increased safety and utility for all. Let’s get many more people out of their cars and on bikes!
Item 5.4 Gilman Drive
I have biked the Rose Canyon Bike Path and Gilman Drive on a regular basis since I was a student at UCSD in the mid to late 1970s. A wider bike lane would be appreciated, but a “protected” cycle track is a poor idea for this area. On the southbound side, cyclists can easily attain speeds of over 25 mph. Vehicles will pass them and if turning right will not realize how fast they are going and with cyclists less visible in the cycle track, may turn into them. It gets worse at the I-5 on and off ramps. I have had the green light going under the bridge to the top of the Rose Cyn Path and have been almost hit by right-turning vehicles coming off the freeway who had the red. Cyclists in cycle tracks feel safe and are less attuned to the dangers that exist at intersections. Because I am experienced and aware of the danger, I was able to brake/swerve out of the way.
Cardiff is an example of a well intended plan that has turned a nice coastal strip with a safe bike lane into a hazard for cyclists and vehicles alike. Luecadia is an example of the dangers of cycle tracks with a tragic result. Gilman can be improved, but let’s not create another hazardous situation.
Item 5.4. Coastal Rail Trail: I’m writing in support of efforts to make Gilman Drive more attractive and safer for current and future cyclists. I write as a 10-year UCSD employee and current Postdoctoral Research Fellow as well as a regular recreational and commuter cyclist.
Gilman Drive is a major connection for those commuting to and from UCSD. There a more than 75,000 students, staff and faculty on campus with the student population alone expected to grow to 60,000 by 2030. UCSD recently updated its Long Range Development Plan to include a reduction in single occupancy vehicle commuting to meet campus congestion, parking and environmental sustainability goals.
The number of people in San Diego who bike for commuting purposes has remained a shockingly low 1%. Yet, the City of San Diego’s legally binding Climate Action Plan has a target of 6% bike commuting in transit priority areas by THIS year and 18% by 2035. Fear of being hit by a car is the main reason that prevents people from biking more. How people feel is the best predictor of their behavior, so if we don’t make people feel safe, they will not take up biking at the level that is meaningful for environmental and individual health.
I collected data from more than 5000 thousand UCSD students and employees which showed that 75% stated the were comfortable riding a bike on a separated facility, 40% were comfortable riding a bike on streets with a bike lane, and roughly ~15% who were comfortable riding on a regular street without any type of facility. Further, in the City of San Diego, 75% of all bike/vehicle collisions have happened on the highest stress roads – which are those with high speed vehicle traffic and insufficient bike facilities.
Based on national data, by far the most common crash type resulting in a bicyclist fatality is from a motorist overtaking a bicyclist, which accounts for 23% of crashes. (NHTSA FARS 2014‐2015 Data). A study in 12 US cities, based on 13 years of data, found that when there are more protected bike facilities, there are less serious and fatal crashes for ALL transportation modes, including motor vehicles. The best evidence we have to date shows that Class IV cycle tracks are most protective against crashes, while sharrows and shared lanes do not improve crash risk. Further, separated facilities are shown to increase bicycle ridership.
As new facilities are implemented, we MUST invest in data collection efforts so that we can understand how these investments impact usage and safety. It’s important to remember that as more people start to bike, unfortunately there will also be an increase in crashes. It’s critical to properly assess the impact of the facility on crash rates in order to design the safest possible facilities going forward.
Special attention should be paid when considering a cycle track in a location with high speeds and turning conflicts and signage to make motorists aware of bicyclists right to use the adjacent travel lane should be implemented. The City of San Diego should explore appropriate options, including a road diet to allocate more space to pedestrians and bicyclists, while maintaining a focus on meeting our active transportation and climate goals.
RE: Agenda item 5.4 – Coastal Rail Trail Alignment
As Chair of the City of San Diego Mobility Board, I write to convey our support by vote of 8-1 last evening of the proposed alignment of Gilman Drive for the Coastal Rail Trail, SANDAG and the City of San Diego seek to provide a safe, seperated (Class IV) Bikeway to link this segment of the Coastal Rail Trail to encourage increased ridership and attract new cyclists to further the overall goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and increasing bicycling mode share for the City of San Diego’s Climate Action Plan. In addition to the vote of support for the project, I will also note that all submitted public comments to the meeting were in support of this project.
While concerns have been raised regarding the potential for conflicts between cyclists and cars, I believe that a protected bikeway is the safest option overall for this and other bikeway alignments across the city. Data from across the country has shown that protected bikeways do increase safety for cyclists as opposed to standard (Class II) bikeways while also significantly increasing ridership. We encourage the city to move this project forward while carefully looking at the concerns raised for potential conflicts. I believe that city staff is addressing these concerns as stated at our meeting last night and shared detailed information on options including increased signage, bicycle specific signals and on street (green) paint treatments.
As someone who cycles daily both recreationally (fitness) and as a commuter, I am confident and comfortable riding in protected bikeways and support the goal of creating safe bikeways for riders of all ages and abilities. This important link will serve many types of riders including enthusiasts, students, health care professionals and other commuters and I feel that the City has carefully designed a project that will serve us all and encourage more people to consider cycling as a transportation option to driving.
I encourage your support for this project and it’s progress to safely connect the Coastal Rail Trail and encourage more bicycling for residents, students and visitors of San Diego. Thank you.
BikeSD is in support of the Gilman segment of the Coastal Rail Trail which is an extremely critical connection between north and south. It connects UCSD by bike to all the communities of central and southern San Diego.
Based on data and studies done, bicycle facilities are safer than what they replace. According to a study done in New York, “the installation of bicycle lanes did not lead to an increase in crashes, despite the probable increase in the number of bicyclists.”
Any protected bikeway is meant to encourage the interested but concerned riders to go by bike which represents 50-60% of people. We cannot reach our mode-share goal in the Climate Action Plan of 18% of people commuting by bike without creating the infrastructure and network that will allow more people to feel comfortable commuting by bike. Building safe, bicycle facilities for all ages and abilities is a strategy to help achieve our Vision Zero Goals. BikeSD supports the Gilman Coastal Rail Trail and recommends the La Jolla Community Planners Association supports this important and valuable mobility project.
Concerning the Gilman Dr Cycle Track
I am a recreational cyclist who has recently become more involved with the cycling community. We are unfortunately learning that Class IV “protected” bike facilities are unsafe in situations where cyclists are traveling at speed through choke points with pedestrians and cars, such as driveways, side streets and trail intersections. The serious injuries along Hwy 101 in Cardiff and now the tragic death of a cyclist traveling downhill on Leucadia Blvd are all the proof we should need that these bikeways, however well intentioned, are in fact more dangerous. Motorists do not perceive the cyclists to be part of the traffic flow, and cyclists have no space to avoid pedestrians and cars.
I urge you to consider an alternative to the proposed Class IV bike facility, particularly on southbound Gilman Dr. Something similar to the excellent Class I design along Torrey Pines comes to mind, but I’m sure there are other possibilities. Anything but being trapped in a narrow, usually debris filled bike chute going downhill past driveways and side streets.
Regarding Agenda Item 5.4 Coastal Rail Trail
I have deep concerns regarding Agenda Item 5.4. The proposal is for a Class IV Cycle Track on Gilman Dr. between La Jolla Village Drive and the Rose Canyon Bike Path. I have bicycled this section of Gilman Dr. for more than 30 years and my partner an alumni of UCSD has bicycled it for more than 40 years. She and I both applaud the attempt to improve bicycling on city streets.
A Class IV Cycle Track is designed for a flat urban setting with controlled cross traffic access. Gilman Dr. in this location is an approximately mile long hill. It is a very popular route for cyclists who often reach speeds exceeding 20 mph on the downhill. A Class IV Cycle Track is not designed for cyclists whose variance in speed may exceed 20 mph. This type of facility gives some cyclists a false sense of security. The bollards that are often used to separate cyclists from motor vehicles as well as parked cars often hide cyclists from the view of motor vehicle drivers. A shared use design that allows both motorized and non motorized operators to see each other is a much safer design. I would suggest that a buffered Class I Bike Lane coupled with “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signage as a much safer design for Gilman Dr.
Encinitas recently decided, against the recommendations of many, to install a Class IV Cycle Track on the Pacific Coast Highway. Previously this location had gone years without a reported cyclist injury accident, since the installation of the aforementioned facility there has been approximately two dozen injury accidents. Some of these accidents have resulted in lawsuits. Sections of the Gilman Dr. downhill do not have a sidewalk. This is also true of sections of the Pacific Coast Highway where the city of Encinitas constructed a Class IV Cycle Track. The result is that many pedestrians have used the facility as a walkway. Cyclists are now competing with them for a limited amount of space and have nowhere to go to avoid a collusion because of the bollards and curbs that were installed.
Please do not follow the mistake that Encinitas made. This section of Gilman Dr. is not the type of location to install a Class IV Cycle Track. There is a much safer alternative. A buffered Class I Bike Lane coupled with “Bikes May Use Full Lane” signage is a much safer choice.
Thank you for reading this,
Comment regarding Gilman Drive, Agenda Item 5.4
My name is Serge Issakov. I’m a La Jolla resident, software engineer, avid cyclist, and cycling advocate. Our family owns a retail business here in the village. I represent this district on the City’s Mobility Board.
I presume we all agree achieving the goals of the Climate Action Plan by encouraging more bicycling with safe-feeling and inviting-to-the-uninitiated bike infrastructure is important, but not at the cost of throwing Vision Zero under the bus with infrastructure that makes injury and death more likely. By routing bike traffic behind a barrier, if not hiding it altogether behind parked cars, people on bikes are made irrelevant to motorists, until they’re suddenly exposed to each other when it’s too late. That is the dynamic that killed a man on Saturday riding in a Class IV bikeway on a grade in Leucadia, much like the one proposed for Gilman Dr. He was a husband and a father, a dear friend to many, and a scientist who worked here in La Jolla, who was invaluable to us all. Gone, because of a set up created by innocent-looking infrastructure. The infrastructure proposed for Gilman would clearly exacerbate the conflicts and increase the likelihood of crashes and fatalities like this one. Many people believe they are safer riding in such facilities, but that doesn’t mean it’s true. Don’t be fooled! They are deadly! The project needs to be reevaluated. The additional width added by the project provides a wonderful opportunity to achieve Vision Zero as well as Climate Action Plan goals: build an extra wide buffered class 2 bike lane that will be inviting, and actually safe, for all. Thank you.
It is my understanding that The City of San Diego is proposing a Class IV bikeway along Gilman Drive from UCSD to I-5. In my opinion, it is not only unnecessary but dangerous, as evidenced by the recent death of a cyclist in Leucadia on a similar type roadway/bike path. As a cyclist, I do not like being trapped in a lane not only having to deal with hazards in front of me but also to my left (bollards, for example), and with the additional fear of not being recognized as having the right of way through right turn areas with cars turning from the road or entering the roadway from a driveway.
Aside from the tragic death in Leucadia, the CA-101 cycle trap in Encinitas is a perfect example of what not to do. Over 20 accidents have been recorded already. I have had to avoid several potentially severe instances myself in both the bikeway and the Bikes May Use Full Lane of traffic, including cars not looking when making right turns into parking areas, double parked cars with people unloading gear (often left in the bike lane) or looking for parking, people using the bike lane as a walkway in both directions, etc. I avoid this section of road whenever possible and now do the same in Leucadia. Instead of making these roads more conducive to cycling, the so-called bikeways are making them more dangerous.
Please discourage the La Jolla Planning Committee from recommending this change.
University City (and former La Jolla resident)
I am writing about Item 5.4 (Action Item?) on behalf of the California Association of Bicycling Organizations of which I am President.
I am recommending your caution in the decision for installation of an, as proposed, Class IV Separated Bikeway (Cycletrack) on Gilman Ave from I-5 to the UCSD campus.
The City of San Diego and most local agencies rely on National and State of California agencies (FHWA, Caltrans, AASHTO, etc.) to provide official guidance for the design, creation, and operation of adequately safe and effective bikeways, including for this proposed Class IV Separated Bikeways (titled “Protected Bike Lanes” in Federal guidance). But Federal and State agencies have yet to effectively provide such guidance and local agencies have been On Their Own. “The Devil is in the details” and the details are not even finalized yet.
Also up until now, the State has failed to provide California Vehicle Codes for the safe and lawful operation of Class IVs – Class IVs are not Bike Lanes, Class II. Issues/questions remain questions for such as: which travel mode must yield to the other when intersecting a Cycletrack; is vehicle use, vehicle parking, or pedestrian use prohibited or allowed; what E-bikes, speed limits, or direction of travel are allowed, etc.
For these and other reasons, I consider the development of Cycletrack types of bikeways to be an ongoing experiment. An experiment that will involve and encourage riding by new, less experienced, and uninformed people lured to go by bicycle.
I and most of the people with adult bicycling experience will be very likely to avoid riding in this bikeway as proposed. Bicycling may and will occur lawfully in travel lanes adjacent to this Class IV bikeway. Cycletracks and not subject to Bike Lane use requirements; CVC 21208 is applicable to Bike Lanes only. CVC 21202 is applicable to roadways but Cycltracks are NOT on or part of the roadway. (Confusing yet?)
If a recommendation for the installation of a Class IV bikeway is made, please include a request/requirement that Shared Lane Markings (Sharrows) and the signs Bikes May Use Full Lane also be installed. This is important to reduce motorist confusion about and harassment of people bicycling who have lawfully chosen to use the lanes adjacent to the Class IV.
Thank you for considering my comments.
Regarding the Coastal Rail Trail project (Item 5.4), it is clear that there is a difference of opinion in the bicycling community about the utility and safety of projects like this proposed cycle track. However, the evidence overall is that cycle tracks are good for the safety of all road users, but it is reasonable to ask about the impact of the downhill grade that exists in this setting. My experience as a long-time bike commuter, recreational rider, and person with over 30 years of active transportation planning has led me to believe that cycle tracks are a benefit, especially to the reasonably prudent rider. That should be the case here too. The recent tragic experience on Leucadia Blvd. may teach us something about cycle track safety, but at the moment, we don’t have enough information about the cause of that incident to draw conclusions from it. In any case, I trust that the design professionals involved in this project are well aware of the design challenges with cycle tracks, including with the grade on Gilman. That is why they are providing extra width in the facility, restricting parking to provide adequate sight distance at crossings, and high visibility pavement markings and signs at all crossings. Therefore, I believe this project should move forward.
Re: Agenda item 5.4 Gilman Dr. Cycle track
I look forward to the adventure your proposed cycle track will provide. Spandex clad adrenaline junkie that I am, it’s just not a real ride unless I’ve had numerous near death encounters with motorists cutting me off, not yielding the right of way while “executing” right turns after passing me but not seeing me. Nice work adding that feature at every intersection. (Especially the double jeopardy zone near the I-5 on ramp.) The debris that will be protected from maintenance by the barriers will just add more challenge. Normally I can swerve to avoid it. Now I’ll have to up my game. Kudos to your project time vs. fiscal responsibility analysis too. Why save millions on one project of less than 2 miles that could be done with paint (like the recent, beautifully functional bike lanes on Torrey Pines grade) in order to fund so many more simple approach projects that would just take longer. Keep it simple; one and done. With respect, my only hope is that you understand irony more than cycling.
I understand you’re considering a Class IV bikeway on Gilman. Oh boy, I can’t imagine a worse place to build a cycle trap. A a cyclist I am sensitive to road safety and any bollards, kerbs or physical dividers do 2 things:
1. Get in the way so if a cyclist is distracted, hits some uneven pavement or needs to avoid something, it’s easy to crash into any obstruction. Witness the numbers of crashes in Cardiff on 101. The bikeway actually causes accident and injury. It’s so dangerous almost no-one rides in it so it’s just a monument to some street designers folly, a waste of tax payer money, and a vehicle for lawyers to get richer.
2. Make cyclist and car drivers feel disconnected from each other. They don’t notice each other so when they need to cross paths they crash into each other. Cyclists may feel safe but drivers haven’t seen them and when they need to cross the bikeway; serious injury, all too often, is the result. Cyclists refer to the right hook where a vehicle and a cyclist are not aware of each other and they try to occupy the same space at the same time. Cyclists feel safe in the bike trap so they don’t notice the car about to pass them and turn in front of them. The car driver, separated from needing to watch for bikes, passes and turns right in front of the cyclist.
Please don’t let this happen. Have a look at Torrey Pines hill for a super safe cycle way. Consider this carefully. Lives are at stake.
Agenda Item 5.4
I write in support of the proposed class iv bike lanes for Gilman Dr. As a graduate student I bike commuted to UCSD, and still visit the campus to collaborate with colleagues. When I moved to San Diego, I biked to campus for the first three weeks from my apt in La Jolla Colony, until a near miss with a car that scared me away from biking for the next three years. I finally decided to try again, and while now a 10 year veteran of city bike commuting and cross country touring, I still find Gilman Dr to be a dangerous stretch of road with speeding cars and insufficient barriers between cars and cyclists. I don’t feel safe on the southbound descent at speed and for long segments ride my brake. I can sympathize with concerns of other experienced cyclists who do not support this project, and I think we need to focus instead on the larger population of potential bike riders. Survey information from the US DOT 2019 report indicated that only 4-7% of bicyclists are confident to ride on high stress traffic corridors, whereas another 50-56% percent of the polled population expressed interest in cycling, but concern over safety. As we move to try to reduce car trips to meet our climate action goals, with the added benefits of reduced air pollution and reduced traffic congestion, bicycling offers a huge opportunity to move interested students and workers to UCSD and the surrounding Torrey Pines research cluster. Protected bicycle infrastructure will help alleviate concerns for this segment of the population who we need to cater to, not experienced bicyclists who are already riding on this road with cars flying past at upwards of 50 mph. Thank you for your time and consideration.
Re: Gilman Class IV Cycle Track
PLEASE DON’T TAKE OUR PERFECTLY USABLE BIKE LANE AWAY!
Before the pandemic hit, I regularly rode my bike from eastbound La Jolla Village Drive to southbound Gilman Drive. I’m happy to see interest in improving this road for cyclists, but I’m afraid the approach being taken seems immutable more dangerous and cumbersome. My most frequent Gilman Drive ride is only as far as Villa La Jolla, where I take a left up the hill toward the Ralphs shopping center. I’ve never had difficulty [cautiously crossing the car travel lanes to get into the left-turn-only lane at that intersection. This so-called “improvement” will apparently force me to ride in the traffic lane to make this maneuver smoothly, assuming I don’t want to ride my bike in a way a pedestrian would walk…staying on the west side of Gilman all the way to the intersection, then using the crosswalk to proceed to Villa La Jolla.
Encinitas recently used this sort of strategy on the Cardiff section of the Coast Highway. They took away a bike lane and forced us cyclists to choose between a vehicular traffic lane and a “path” that has people on phones and pushing strollers aimlessly wandering around, with no means for a cyclist traveling at 15 MPH to “go around” as we’re bound in by the “track.” I almost always take the traffic lane because it’s immutably safer at the speeds I ride.
PLEASE DON’T WASTE MILLIONS $$ ON A BICYCLE “FEATURE” THAT MOST CYCLISTS DON’T WANT. THIS IS AN ILL-INFORMED DESIGN, AND A DANGEROUS ONE AT THAT.
I am an experienced cyclists with several hundred thousand mile traveled in and around the San Diego area. I have reviewed the plans for the Class IV protected bikeway along Gilman and feel that I must alert you to the dangers that this project will create. The Class IV was designed specifically for urban travel at relatively low speeds with flat terrain. This is not the case along Gilman. I have ridden this stretch hundreds of times. Southbound, 30mph is easily reached without pedaling, a relatively narrow passage with “protective” bollards and numerous driveways present a danger not easily escapable should a situation arise. While a vehicle striking a bollard will cause minimal damage and no injury, a cyclist striking the same bollard will absolutely result in injury or even death. Add to that the potential for cars turning into driveways crossing the bikeway, or any other conflict in a narrow area where the cyclist is traveling at speed, and you have the potential for catastrophe. In my experienced opinion, a Class IV should not be installed along this section of roadway. Please consider a Class I bike path for this stretch of roadway. An optimal design would be similar to the facility traveling south along North Torrey Pines Rd from Torrey Pines State Beach up the grade towards Torrey Pines Golf Course. For that facility, a road diet was implemented, creating a double wide Class 1 bike lane. A facility such as this would not impede vehicular travel, would allow vehicles to make safe turns, and would not present cyclist crash hazards. In addition, it would be far cheaper to instal, maintain and clean. Please, please, please, know and understand the ramifications of your actions here, it will save injury and lives.
As a final note, it should be understood that a Class IV bikeway is not recognized as part of the roadway, rather, it is separated. Should one be installed, the adjacent roadway should also include sharrows and BMUFL (Bikes May Use Full Lane) signage as well. Ca. Vehicle code 21202 (a)(3).