THIS IS A CLASSIC TALE OF HOW THE City Council imposes “what we want” onto “what the people want.” No, it’s not the “Twilight Zone,” it’s the Santa Monica City Council zone.
Out story begins in 1999, when Pico residents asked City Hall to beautify 20th Street and Cloverfield Boulevard between Pico Boulevard and the I-10 (Santa Monica) freeway. According to Peter Tigler, former chair of the Pico Neighborhood Association who proposed the idea, it was agreed that “softening the hardscape could be done and within the budget the city had in mind.”
The project inched forward under planners from Environmental and Public Works Management. Finally, last August, preliminary design plans were presented to neighbors. In addition to greenscape, EPWM planners added $1.2 million to upgrade street lighting and traffic signals for a still-reasonable $6.7 million cost.
With the exception of some Cloverfield features and the loss of about half the parking, the plan generally met with neighbor approval. It was a straightforward design that enhanced the streetscape without creating traffic problems and that’s what neighbors wanted.
This plan was originally presented to the City Council on Dec. 11, 2007, for review. Some council persons suggested altering and restricting traffic “which was not the mission of the project,” Tigler said.
Councilmen Ken Genser, Richard Bloom, Kevin McKeown and Mayor Herb Katz suggested removing or shrinking traffic lanes, adding medians, traffic islands, bike paths and modifying intersections.
City Council couldn’t (and still can’t) refrain from nitpicking and injecting their own personal vision into the project. The problem is their vision interferes with traffic, creates congestion and will make streets less safe for everybody. “They just can’t stop their endless micromanaging,” I wrote last December. “Some on the dais didn’t have a clue this project is only about trees!”
So, guess what happened when it came back to council, last Tuesday night? Déjà vu!
EPWM planners passed over most of council’s suggestions as unwieldily or impractical. Although they stuck with the original “landscaping” mission, they hadn’t sought additional neighborhood review and without neighborhood support present, they left themselves open to criticism and the project’s mission vulnerable.
Katz again brought up trees in islands in the mid-street. McKeown still gripped bike paths in his teeth like an angry bulldog playing tug of war with a piece of meat. Calling 20th “a residential street” (an oversimplification if I ever heard one), he suggested possibly removing critical travel lanes or parking spaces to get rid of that “quasi-industrial” look he found so unappealing and to provide space for bike lanes, thus making the street a “better neighbor.” Being that Cloverfield neighbors are still upset with staff’s recommendation to remove 19 parking spaces, eliminating travel lanes and/or dozens of critical parking spaces on 20th Street will really piss people off. Genser also spoke of restricting access to side streets and “breaking down the scale of the street” by installing landscaped medians. He also suggested removing travel lanes on 20th, “If we don’t need the capacity.” If we don’t need the capacity? What kind of Kool- Aid is this man drinking? Even Katz admitted it was a bad idea for heavily traveled 20th Street with about 19,000 vehicles per day. Cloverfield carries about 39,000 vehicles per day, according to Lucy Dyke in the city’s Transportation Management Division.
Katz, made it clear when he lectured staff — “We asked you to do something” — he wasn’t pleased even though that “something” was “to go the extra step” (screw with traffic flow). Good for planning staff for recognizing council’s suggestions as being both impractical and undesirable.
What’ll happen when a revised plan with council’s “improvements” is presented — keeping in mind this has gone on for 8 years? Some folks are going to be mighty unhappy. Nevertheless, we know how this is going to come out. Pico residents will have more inconvenience, more congestion, more cut-through traffic, more pollution and more frustration forced down their throats But, it’s OK as long as its multimodal and looks pretty.
Is it ignorance or idealism that drives council-think that the Pico streetscape (or slalom-scape) with it’s narrow lanes and dangerous medians is good traffic design? Or, medians on 23rd Street below Ocean Park Boulevard that significantly gridlock traffic throughout Sunset Park are good? Genser actually praised the narrowed traffic lanes and landscaped islands on Wilshire Boulevard and 23rd Street for their attractiveness. Congestion? Who cares as long as space is broken up.
So ends our woeful tale of out-of-control egos. But, wait...
Tigler asks, “Is the city going to come up with millions of dollars more to do this, who’s going to pay and how much longer do we wait for shade trees?” If you don’t believe this project will cost $12 million, take another four years and face more contempt, I’ll teach you how to whistle “Dixie.”
Originally published in the Santa Monica Daily Press print edition on March 17, 2008. Read the original PDF.