For the Santa Barbara City Council, it was just a bridge too far.
In a 5-2 vote, the council decided this week against making changes to the Mission Canyon Bridge over Mission Creek, siding with a majority of residents in the neighborhood who wanted the bridge preserved.
“I don’t see the necessity of pushing it forward when it is clearly so controversial, and not really at the heart of what is truly necessary today to be done,” Councilwoman Meagan Harmon said. “Just because we have access to grant money doesn’t mean we have to use it if it is not the right project for that area of the community.”
The stone arch bridge with a “stegosaurus” wall was built in 1891. It survived the 1925 earthquake, and it was widened in 1930. A pedestrian bridge was added nearby in 1929.
Today, however, the bridge is showing its age. According to a city-sponsored study, the bridge is “functionally obsolete” and in need of repair. It doesn’t meet current earthquake standards. In the event of a magnitude-7.2 earthquake, the stone walls are expected to loosen and force the collapse of the stone arch over Mission Creek.
At the same time, city officials have strong concerns about Mission Canyon Road above. They would like to make the curvy roadway near the bridge safer for pedestrians, bicyclists and motorists. The project hits at the heart of Santa Barbara’s evolution from a quaint, charming “American Riviera” to a bike- and pedestrian-friendly place for young renters and families — and not historic buildings.
For preservationists, it was a win — a moment to state that the bridge has a historic place in the community and is worth fighting for. For the city transportation planners and safety activists, it signified a pause, and a reminder that evolution, in all its forms, doesn’t happen overnight.
“I do see the need to make this bridge, or area, more accessible, because as it is now I don’t thnk it is very accessible,” Councilman Oscar Gutierrez said. “It’s hard for people to get across there. Our responsibility as elected officials is public safety. I think this situation is in need of serious public safety redesign.”
He said the data might not show that there are a lot of collisions, but that doesn’t tell the whole story.
“No one is recording all the near-misses,” Gutierrez said. “And that’s the thing I am very concerned with. How many times a day is there almost a collision?”
He said he respects the history of the bridge.
“But I want to see people like my 70-year-old mother and her friends being able to walk their grandchildren from the Mission to the Natural History Museum or the park,” Gutierrez said.
City staff presented three options to make the road safer, but they involved realigning the road and rebuilding parts of the bridge that support the road.
Councilman Eric Friedman said there are safety concerns with straightening the road and making it more attractive for motorists.
“I do have a concern that if we were going to widen out the roadway, someway and straighten it out, that we would increase speed in this area,” Friedman said.
He said that if the city moved forward now, it would be a divisive act for the community. He also said that the $5 million to move forward with the Mission Canyon project could be better spent somewhere else in the city and on a project with which everyone can agree.
In the end, the council voted to direct staff to return in the fall with a project that preserves the bridge while enhancing pedestrian and bike safety.
Council members Harmon, Friedman, Mike Jordan, Oscar Gutierrez and Mayor Cathy Murillo were in support of that direction, while council members Kristen Sneddon and Alejandra Gutierrez opposed it, instead wanting some changes now, including alterations to the bridge.
— Noozhawk staff writer Joshua Molina can be reached at jmolina@noozhawk.com. Follow Noozhawk on Twitter: @noozhawk, @NoozhawkNews and @NoozhawkBiz. Connect with Noozhawk on Facebook.
