Re: Feb. 5 Council Agenda Item 11. (230.01) Capital Improvement Projects
Cars Are Basic Inc. has reviewed these plans by staff and finds most if not all of them are in violation of the City of Santa Barbara resolution to not constrict or narrow “primary transportation arteries” with the building of bulbouts. We find the expenditure of taxpayer money (regardless of the funding source) for unnecessary and questionable projects to be fiscally unsound and irresponsible considering the stated position of the mayor at SBCAG meetings and in a published letter to the editor regarding road/street costs. Bulbouts are dangerous to bicycle travel, using brute force of a concrete barrier to direct bikes directly into vehicle paths.
Since staff and the Administrator’s Office continue to bring forth these plans in violation of the council resolution, the clear danger to bicyclists and continual contradiction of CEQA, we
request the below items be immediately removed from Capital Improvement Projects. In the future all projects need to be brought into line with State of California CEQA, the California Coastal Commission, council resolutions and common sense.
Within the projects identified by staff (230.01), we find great objection to the following State Street plans.
1) The bulbouts at Pedregosa and Islay on State Street. Staff stated flashing crosswalks are to be installed. Staff cites issues of line of sight for the flashers would be building bulbouts. First,
you should be talking with Assistant City Administrator Paul Casey. Casey has been seen on multiple times at these locations and never once had a problem with either driving or walking line of sight. CAB has taken multiple pictures up and down State Street without finding the alluded to line of sight problem.
Pictures taken by CAB prove there is no line of sight issue for the following reasons:
A. State and Islay streets have significant red curb, making both pedestrians and vehicles clearly visible to both. The additional issue of the gas station entrances, and exits and an MTD bus stop provides greater ability to see up and down the street from the east side.
B. Pedregosa has a similar configuration. A better line of sight here is a result of the corner is at the top of a small hill. Traffic on State from Mission Street and from Islay Street having almost a half-block line of sight for any pedestrians and bicyclists. MTD has a bus stop on the west side of State adds to this superior line of sight. Current conditions make for extraordinary line of sight, and Mr. Casey is regularly at these locations we can find little if any justification for the building of expensive and dangerous bulbouts.
The stated reasons by traffic staff for the above are less than credible. Building of bulbouts at these locations will make turning dangerous and create dangerous conditions for bicyclists.
2) State and Calle Palo Colorado. Bulbouts and pedestrian island using again the issue of line of sight for crosswalk flashers. CAB warned then-Mayor Marti Blum and staff the placement of a second crosswalk at this location would create very dangerous conditions for the following reasons:
A. The location of the second crosswalk is far too close to the De la Vina and State Street intersection. There is no possible way for cars entering State Street from De la Vina to have proper line of site at this east crosswalk regardless whether there are bulbouts, or flashing lights. “Santa Barbara Safe Streets,” “Cars Are Basic,” a “signed petition against the Oak Park Plan” that included this crosswalk configuration, and then Councilwoman Michael Self all objected to this crosswalk. We have been proven correct.
Reasoning for the additional crosswalk was to increase pedestrian numbers. This goal failed. CAB regularly monitors this intersection during rush hour for both bike use and pedestrian use and can say categorically this has not happened.
B. Street configuration: This second crosswalk is located exactly where the “street cap” is set for drainage placing interfering with line of sight, exactly as CAB warned. Additionally, with the State Street left turn pocket for traffic headed east toward De la Vina intersection, pedestrians at the new second crosswalk are hidden from view. A significant danger to pedestrians.
C. Eastbound traffic has an excellent line of sight at the original crosswalk. The street “cap” is not an issue here. Again, there is an MTD bus stop next to the park allowing more line of
sight. Vehicles headed west have a greater line of sight for pedestrians (1) since there is a longer view and (2) the “street cap” evens out with less tilting of vehicles.
D. A contiguous traffic pattern is created because of the proximity of Calle Palo Colorado, De la Vina, and State Street. Staff, pressured after the Oak Park fiasco, stated this location has been and is incredibly safe prior to the imposition of the crosswalk. The city approved BEVMO beverage business with an increased the number of vehicles. The City of Santa Barbara Fire Department has repeatedly stated that pedestrian islands and bulbouts interfere with the safe passage of their tankers and emergency response. Barriers making it impossible to maneuver on streets with congestion. Moving the physical site of the fire station from upper De la Vina to Ontare increased the necessity of open access to the Peabody neighborhood since response time
has now doubled.
Paradoxically, staff wants to “fix” a problem of its own making and was warned about. Bulbouts at these locations will make bicycle traffic far more dangerous by forcing riders close to or into the traffic lane and pattern of both cars and trucks.
Building bulbouts at any of the identified State Street intersections are not necessary for placement of pedestrian safe crossing flashers, nor is it a rational expenditure of taxpayer money. An efficient 5-foot extension from a setback standard will meet concerns of staff. Please see the quotation at the bottom of this letter, from a document prepared by staff, and accepted by the City Council of the City of Santa Barbara regarding CEQA and projects.
3) Cabrillo Boulevard bulbouts (Anacapa and Corona del Mar). Similar to the above locations, both of these intersections have excellent line of sight requiring zero need for bulbouts for crossing flashers to be seen by drivers. It would appear staff has created a “boiler plate” approach to justification of bulbouts. This is a primary transportation artery and truck route.
The Anacapa/Cabrillo location cannot have any greater line of sight for pedestrian crossing flashers. Statements to the contrary can only be viewed as intentional for political purposes. As the center “island” on the west side of Cabrillo Boulevard has proven it has become a magnet for pedestrians who have “jumped the gun” or started crossing on “stale” timed flashing lights. This has been proven through multiple observations and talking with police. A dangerous condition created by the City of Santa Barbara.
Corona del Mar, the city has been willing to ban right turns at De la Vina and Carrillo, so to it should be willing to ban crossing Cabrillo here. There is a proven safe, signalized crosswalk at Milpas a short distance from Corona del Mar. This “T” intersection has little foot traffic crossing Cabrillo. If the council insists on a flashing crossing there is no justification for bulbouts.
The pedestrian islands, as stated above, interfere with the safe passage of Fire Department tankers and emergency response vehicles by creating in-street barriers. Barriers making it impossible to maneuver around during times of street congestion (Fiesta and Fourth of July are great examples).
CAB refers to the “Miller Council.” The very busy corner of State and Haley was slated for bulbouts by staff. Less than a month before the council voting on this proposal there was a serious accident involving three vehicles. Two of these vehicles ended up on the sidewalk. Had there been bulbouts, the pedestrians would have been severely injured. Tons of weight ending up on a sidewalk with significant kinetic energy. As witnesses stated, they were barely able to scramble out of the path of the accident. The lack of bulbouts saved them from injury.
Using our 16-year “institutional history,” CAB would like to remind staff, the City Administrator’s Office, Mayor Schneider and the council of the following facts.
A) When the issue of narrowing lower State Street, Cabrillo Boulevard, Shoreline Drive and Cliff Drive was presented to Mayor Miller, the citizens of the city loudly said no.
B) The grassroots organization Streets ‘R Us circulated a petition to bar the City of Santa Barbara from any further actions of this nature. Eight-thousand signatures were gathered and certified by the County Elections Office. The city using a change in the State of California law refused to allow this on the ballot as an advisory measure. Government crushed the will of the majority.
C) Mayor Miller after seeing the objections and anger from the residents “ordered” George Gerth not to bring back the narrowing of Cabrillo and Shoreline again. George Gerth using Rob Dayton brought back this issue again within a six-month period.
D) Bulbouts make bicycle travel at all locations dangerous. The Bicycle Coalition has objected to these obstacles on multiple occasions.
Staff is again ignoring orders and resolutions. Five foot extension arms, adequately resolves staff’s questionable issue of line of sight claims while saving the city and taxpayers hundreds of thousands of tax dollars.
There is a confounding factor the staff chooses to ignore. With the approval of the Highway 101 HOV widening project by SBCAG, Cabrillo Boulevard will revert to its historic use and access. Making Cabrillo more dangerous by building bulbouts and center islands is irrational and a waste of taxpayer dollars. The mayor’s office has stated the city needs every tax dollar necessary to cover street improvements, squandering taxes on these projects is not logical. At the State of the City presentation by Mayor Schneider and City Administrator Jim Armstrong it was disclosed the city has $255 million in projects without any funding sources.
CAB calls for the city to “bank” all transportation funds and grants to meet this unfunded sinkhole.
All of the above bulbout and pedestrian islands have significant adverse impacts on vehicle traffic with no proof that they either are safer for pedestrians or increase pedestrian numbers. During past council sessions, staff has at least twice made the statement there is no proof. Vehicle and bicycle access to the coast are part of the triad for access to the coast line and in conformity the stated purpose of the California Coastal Commission.
Tearing out pavement, increasing dangerous road conditions, leads to congestion and is cost prohibitive. We remind you of the following statement created by staff and approved by the City
Council: “Under CEQA, the city must identify feasible alternative that will avoid, or at least lessen, any significant impacts associated with a project.”
It is time to remind Traffic Division staff, the Public Works director and City Administrator Armstrong that these designs and plans are significant under the above quote. The goal of government is to be efficient, not obstructive and a tool of politics.
On behalf of the board,
Scott Wenz, president
Cars Are Basic