LJCPA Trustees 12/3/2020 Materials & Comments

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).

Meeting Agenda


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

Action Items

(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

Coastal Rail Trail

Presenter Materials

Committee & Public Comments

(deferred to January) 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.

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.

Submitted Comments

20 thoughts on “LJCPA Trustees 12/3/2020 Materials & Comments

  1. Karl Rudnick, PhD

    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!

  2. Karl Rudnick, PhD

    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.

  3. Frank Lehnerz

    (This comment pertains to Item 5.4 Coastal Rail Trail.)

    Good evening,

    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.

    Thank you,

    Frank Lehnerz
    Pacific Beach

  4. Phillip Young

    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.

    Phil Young
    Pacific Beach

  5. Renee Robinson

    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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *