After the October 30, 2019 Workshop for the Lomas Santa Fe Corridor Improvement Workshop, the consensus of BikeWalkSolana that was sent to the City of Solana Beach is:

Great attendance, good format, lots of conversation as each table walked through the plans with staff or consultants. As a group, BikeWalkSolana would like to offer followup comments, of which these first two points apply everywhere on Lomas Santa Fe (LSF).

• We appreciate the consultant’s goal of consistent travel lane widths throughout the corridor. We believe that the target should be even narrower than 11’, namely 10’ which is the same effective width for the 2013 Hwy 101 Project, and one for which our residents have become familiar. This should slow down traffic and we believe it will have little effect on end-to-end travel times through the corridor, because all the congestion occurs at the multiple signalized intersections on either side of I-5.
• In addition to the north side multi-use Class I path east of I-5, we endorse the concept of a west-side multi-use Class I path for as much as possible west of I-5. By narrowing the target travel lane width from 11’ to 10’ this gives an extra 4’ throughout the corridor to make this possible, changing some of the wide sidewalks presented to Class I paths. Of particular interest is having a safe 2-way separated path for our children to encourage biking and walking to school.

In addition to those general comments, here are specific comments to each of the Focus Areas presented on October 30, in order per the COSB website https://www.cityofsolanabeach.org/en/city-services/city-projects/lomas-santa-fe-corridor-improvement-project.

1. Focus Area A – Highway 101 to Rios – We approve of the curb popouts for pedestrians and the hardscape for the medians. We also advocate for the alternative that others brought up to widen the north sidewalk from Rios to Cedros and not add parking.
2. Focus Areas B, C & D – Nardo to Stevens – Good job, except narrowing the travel lanes can make the 10’ north side sidewalk even wider to allow it to officially become a Class I multi-use path. Staff mentioned it would be OK if kids or casual riders rode bikes there, but please make that an actual legal use.
3. Multi-Use Path Options – Glencrest to Nardo – Again, good job but with same comments as in 2: narrower travel lanes add width to the sidewalk, which we recommend be an official Class I path for Option 1. We strongly oppose Option 2 as it would just be a short segment of Class IV cycletrack, inconsistent with all the other bike facilities (Class II bike lanes and Class I paths) for the rest of the corridor.
4. Focus Area E – Santa Helena to Plaza Shopping Center Driveway – This is good as presented, but note that 10’ travel lanes would then allow wider bike lanes, a possible left buffer on the north side and even possible 2-sided buffer on the south side to provide more protection from east-bound traffic turning into LSF Plaza. Another possible use of the extra width is to make more room for the Class I north-side path.
5. Focus Areas F & G – near Camino de las Villas Middle Entrance – Nice Class I path. This already has 10’ travel lanes, another plus, although we would like to see 10’ on the east edge of Area G as well. We would also support extending the median, circled in Area F, a little more eastward to improve safety for vehicles exiting Camino de Las Villas.
6. Focus Areas H & I – Via Mil Cumbres to Highland – Nice Class I path. Again, 10’ travel lanes would allow for wider bike lanes (or buffers) and possibly make more room for the Class I north-side path. Like the comment for Area F, the end of the median for Area H should be as far west as practicable for safety of those exiting Via Mil Cumbres to head east.
7. Focus Area J – on Highland south of LSF – We support the proposed median and planting as well as the curb extension on the southwest corner. We do not see the need for 5 parking spaces added to the country club as the country club already has plenty of parking. We would prefer a wider sidewalk as residents walk this area. The hard traffic medians will do better to calm traffic on Highland. We were surprised to see the additions on Highland south of the intersection and would put them on the lowest priority if funds were tight. We also add that the Phase II roundabout option at our east entrance would be an even better improvement, although we acknowledge it is now off the table.