Parking Woes on Foothill Road

“Here we are with cars speeding, doing illegal things, and we can’t get Highway Patrol to do anything. Yet the county is going to waste taxpayer money to put parking signs and have the CHP come give tickets for no parking. How insulting is that?”

Amen to that, but it's a microcosm of the way things are done in Santa Barbara county. People speed all day long and the cops almost never pull them over. If nothing else, they could make a fortune in revenue by handing out tickets to people who go *well over* the speed limit. Merely posting signs and making it even more difficult to park isn't going to make life better for people.

I would add something unrelated: When the Foothill bridge was being reconstructed back in the 1990's. the area just around it was closed off to traffic. During this time, housecats got in the habit of walking around the area because there was no traffic. When the bridge reopened, cats started getting killed by cars and over the next month or so about I saw about a half dozen cats who had been run over so I'm hoping that if the area of Foothill in question gets shut off to traffic that this tragedy doesn't repeat itself.

When I bought my home in Mission Canyon, I avoided Foothill Road because of the traffic. After all it is State Highway 192. It is unfortunate that those residents who lose parking will have to make other arrangements but they probably should have anticipated it since traffic never seems to decrease over time. As far as safety is concerned, would you want shoulder parking on Highway 154?

I hate cats.

“The feeling is that it’s all these upper canyon people and we’re like third class citizens down here on Foothill,” said Graffy ...

Imagine what those of us on Haley Street feel like! At least we have a good coffee shop "down here" :)

Okay my two cents... I grew up near that area and have walked and driven that stretch of road often. Personally the cars on the side of the road are a hazard as some of them are parked over the line and actually into the lane. That means that there is no room for bikes or people and if you come over that hill and there is a car hanging out over the shoulder that you better hope that there is no bike and no car coming from the other direction in a similar situation. And I'm talking at 25 folks...

We all assume risks when we choose the house we live in. For some it's wildfire because of being near brush and the hills, others it is ocean damage, others choose to live on sides of cliffs (Sycamore Canyon) and there are those that choose to live on busy streets that have little to no parking. It's an assumed risk... I'm poor so I live in a crappy neighborhood and run the risk of neighbors who may choose to have loud parties or let their gang member children run wild. My options are to either make the most of it or move, as with anyone else's. Chances are that when the road is done the ditches will be reduced and there will still be a bunch of places for people to park on the side of the road. I only hope that it is safer for all involved.

Cars on the side of the road act as a traffic calming measure. This slows traffic down. A good thing.
The speeding issue on Foothill should have as high of a priority as egress during a disaster.
The residents on Foothill are first class citizens all the way!

This upsets me that they don't consider parking for disabled people. I'm disabled and have two friends in this area. I've always been able to park out front and walk up the driveway. Once they finish this project I have to park around the block and walk to their house? I can't. Where are the parking provisions for the disabled and who was the Einstein that made up the new rules? It seems like now there will be more room to park, with the new paved shoulders. Way to make life better for people

"I've always been able to park out front and walk up the driveway. Once they finish this project I have to park around the block and walk to their house? I can't. Where are the parking provisions for the disabled and who was the Einstein that made up the new rules?..."
-- Greyhoundogma

Auto density per home in older neighborhoods can increase a lot over time compared to when the neighborhood was first planned/built. That could be happening on Foothill?

In my neighborhood, most of the older long-time residents have either passed away or are moving out to retirement homes. Some have been replaced by renters who have lots more cars per home. The house across from mine has 5 cars. The new family two doors down with a one-car garage has two cars whereas the old couple that used to be there had only one. And there are some homes who bypass the city's rule of having one covered parking structure and convert into a living space or utility room.

This stretch of Foothill has never had a parking density problem. Typically there are only 5 cars parked along that part of the road at any time.

One thing that is not clear in the article is that this scrutiny is only being applied to a small part of Foothill that doesn't even span all the way from Cheltenham to Tye Road.

Other areas of Mission Canyon, that do have parking density problems and slim shoulder will remain as they always have.

And frankly, that is where people will get stuck during a fire.

BTW, the analogy with Highway 154 is ridiculous. 154 is not lined with houses.

I agree with Neal Graffy in this effort to preserve parking along this stretch of Hwy 154 (Foothill.) If there is an ingress and egress problem for emergencies that's one thing that needs to be addressed but once you remove parking neighborhood problems occur.

Las Positas Road and Calle Real residents went through this when the "community," elitists I guess, stole frontage parking for bike lanes and additional through traffic lanes. Neighbors egging and keying neighbors cars is a problem and people in the interior of the neighborhood do treat you like an underclass and will leave notes on your windshield or post no parking signs in front of their homes.

The element of elitism is not so obvious but one way to look at it is that "the community's" Foothill Road problems can get addressed at the intersections at Alamar, San Roque and Cienguitas with signals but the people who live on Foothill and actually own it and have to back out can't even get meaningful speed enforcement to help. Where's the community in that? I guess you could say that this was a nice country lane until all the elitists built up around it and ungraciously used Foothill Road.

Back to removal of parking; it really does create all kinds of problems for servicing of properties, residents and guests. What are you supposed to do when your love one has suffered a stroke and nurses need to "at home care?" Where people end up parking is often not graciously accepted by the neighbors a block or two away.

My advice to Mission Canyon including Foothill residents who cannot shelter in place during a fire, don't buy a big car. Oh and doesn't Hwy 246 through Solvang have a speed limit of 25 MPH. Why is Solvang so special? Obviously there is no reality when trying to accommodate everyones bad driving assumptions.

Don: I don't understand the reference to Solvang. Either way, bad driving is bad driving and there is very little accountability for such behavior.

When I lived on Glen Albyn, (right behind the area in question) sometimes one could barely maneuver up the street in a small sedan (which I drive) and there were times a fire truck would not have been able to get through.

Once again: Too many people crammed in like rats in a cage.

There are many reasons in the in the interest of safety to prohibit on-street parking in this area:

1) Living on this stretch of Foothill, I can tell you that when cars park near my driveway they prevent me from being able to see approaching traffic, making entering the roadway unnecessarily dangerous. When trying to get out of my driveway, the front of my car is often one to two feet into the road before I get an adequate view of oncoming traffic. I'm sure I've startled a good number of drivers as the nose of my car appeared in their paths. In a letter to Foothill Road residents in early July, Mr Graffy asserted that "By forbidding residents and their guests to park in front of their homes in existing parking spots or the news pots created by the newly widened...road is endangering us beyond belief." Mr Graffy claimed that backing out of driveways on Foothill will be made more dangerous if parking is eliminated, because the wide open road will result in an increase in speed. I'm not going to dispute that speeds will increase, but I'd rather be able to see a car coming towards me at 50 mph and be able to avoid it than be hit by a car going 35 mph that I couldn't see.

2) Emergency vehicle access/resident evacuation route. During the July 7 Board of Supervisors meeting, Supervisor Carbajal made the important point that the goal of the shoulder paving project has been to improve safety, not to add on-street parking to Foothill.

3) Has anybody ever been stuck behind a cyclist on Foothill and been unable to pass them, or been tempted to pass them unsafely? Of course you have. Wouldn't it be nice if those cyclists had a paved shoulder to ride on?

Considering that Mr. Graffy lives near, but not in the construction zone, I'm curious as to why he's working so hard to allow on-street parking. Under the current plan, up to 15 - 30 parking spaces will be eliminated (in addition to the prohibition on parking in the newly paved shoulders). The Board of Supervisors has agreed to assess the parking situation and preserve parking where it would not negatively impact safety. Is preserving the rest of the parking spaces really that important of a cause, or does Mr Graffy have an axe to grind?

My bike takes up very little room in my garage and none on the street. Would love to see more people ditch their cars in such a bike-friendly place as Santa Barbara (here's hoping).

Ok...192 isn't so bike friendly, but let's hope the new/improved shoulders have more room after this project is done!

Spirited comments! I would be curious to see the garages of the homes in this area. Are they full of stuff? Have they been converted into living space? If it's like my neighborhood in the 93111, every garage seems to now store junk and cars end up out in the street.

I tend to be a "collector" myself, but we cut back to one car plus a cargo bicycle and we can even (with a little shuffling of bicycles) have our guests park in the garage. As a nearly full-time cyclist, I would love to see more clean and safe streets. This looks like a good opportunity to make foothill safer. Good luck!

Don Lubach

The greater good in this case is to provide for ample bike / pedestrian paths beside Foorhill Road, where open ditches once stood.
It's hard to understand how roadside parking places will be lost in areas that were formerly open ditches.
The parking areas that were, in fact, areas above ditches, that were previously filled in by residents, may have to be moved further into the properties for safety's sake. Let's hope the owners can carve out the parking areas they need. Some hedges may have to go, but they can be replaced.
And, oh yeah --- shock of all shocks -- some garages that are now used for storage might actually have to be reclaimed as garages. (How un-Californian)

Foothill Road changes make us safer in Santa Barbara

Recently, a vocal resident of Mission Canyon publicly complained about the process of allocating parking spaces on Foothill Road between Tye Road and Cheltenham Road (a one block stretch). He admits to not being effected directly by the CalTrans project or the parking inconveniences, but finds it necessary to complain despite the recent and devastating fire.

Since Kathy and I lost our home in the Jesusita Fire, we feel directly affected by the recent events and I would like to take exception to Mr. Graffy’s concerns by addressing the benefits of this ten-year effort concerning Foothill Road. In context to the growing fire season in which we all find ourselves, let’s remember Santa Barbara County has had five huge fires in only two dry years: the Zaca, Gap, Tea, Jesusita, and LaBrea fires. Yet in the balmy days of August, we all know, the worst of the 2009 fire season is yet to come.

Both of our most devastating fires were unexpected. The Tea Fire in November 2008 took place near the end of the traditional fire season, and the Jesusita Fire in May 2009 occurred early in the fire season. We watched helplessly as our friends lost everything and the emergency workers exhausted themselves. Can we assume what our climate will have in store for us? Are we prepared for the next one? I don’t know.

However, lessons can be learned from both the Tea and Jesusita fires that reinforce decisions made early on by the local neighborhood, the County and City, and the State itself about Foothill Road:

1. Foothill Road is strategically located. Highway 192 is the vital link for our fire fighters between County station #15 at Mission Canyon Road, City station #_ at Stanwood, County station #_ at Cold Springs Road and the County Fire Department Headquarters at El Sueno and Cathedral Oaks Road. The one thing these stations have in common is they are all located on Highway 150. Without the ease to mobilize and converge on this highway, the city itself is in peril from the next fire of this veracity.
2. Foothill Road was the “fallback position” line during the worst of the fire’s advancement towards Santa Barbara’s urban core. In the Jesusita Fire, great efforts were made to stop the fire from lapping underneath the San Roque Bridge on Highway 192. The two-year effort of the Fire Evacuation Task Force foretold of the importance of this stretch of road.

In essence, “little” Foothill Road needs exceptional consideration because of its location. This will not be the last painful matter we will find ourselves weighing. Further challenges lay ahead in this recovery process. We need to think of what is best for everyone concerned and how to prevent loss of life and property.

Sincerely,
Tim Steele

Public safety for all residents.
The recent Indy article “Parking Woes on Foothill Road” ignores a few salient facts.
First and foremost, the purpose of the Foothill project is to improve the ingress/egress of residents within the neighboring wildland urban interface. Areas, above and to the east and west of the project, both in the City and County, that are above Foothill are in a designated “extreme fire area”. Foothill is a key evacuation road for thousands of residents.
Second, Foothill Road (aka State Highway 192) is owned by the State of California. The State totally owns a 50 foot right of way (ROW), 25 feet each side of a relatively well surveyed center line. Consequently, the line between public and private property is not in question.
Third, to our knowledge, there have been no permitted encroachments on this section of State Highway 192. Thus, Foothill residents placing private landscaping, fencing, mailboxes, privately crafted parking spaces with owner “no parking” signs, etc. have been using public property for their own use.
Fourth, on each side of the road there is room for an 11 foot vehicle lane, a 4 foot bike or safety buffer lane, and a remaining 10 feet within the State’s ROW. This remaining 10 feet provides room for moving disabled vehicles out of the traffic lane in an emergency, room for fire trucks to be near a hydrant without blocking the traffic lane, a view area without traffic for residents pulling out of driveways into the traffic lane, and, where justified, residential roadside parking.
Those who continue to crusade for personal private parking privileges on public property in perpetuity miss the point. The objective of the Foothill project has to do with the State and County’s obligation to protect the public safety for all residents.

I think that RCSmith makes the point of the LAgoHome post on the barricade. While it is important for Foothill Rd residents to understand any community trespasses it is also morally important for the "community" to be operate like a "community" and not expect so much from it's lesser neighbors. There is this beast of burden that Foothill Rd residents already carry daily but shouldn't the surrounding "neighbors" also shoulder some responsibility to "protect" their properties without expecting so much from it's neighbors?

Don Lubach should be congratulated for suggesting a lifestyle change that everyone should consider. I agree entirely.

Mr. No_name; If you think Neal Graffy has an axe to grind you should check out some of the other comments posted. Otherwise since you are suggesting that Neal Graffy has an axe to grind, what is it? Let's get it all out in the opinion because I just take everyone at their word.

Tim Steele; I'm truly sorry about your loss of your home but it is my objective to make sure that people understand the permanent consequences to the the day to day operations of a heavily used road. I guess it is Foothill Road residents responsibility to shoulder such a huge burden but then it is also time for those residing in seclusion to realize that they may have some responsibility in their own fire prone habitation.

billcluasen; The reference to Solvang was to give an example that CarTrans, as a developer, can design many types of highways and should really try to accommodate the needs of Foothill Rd residents. The "community" should pay and that is a democratic duty to treat Foothill Rd. residents without disdain as evidenced by so many posts in this article and elsewhere. Also if Glen Albyn is too dense for you perhaps you should try Los Olivos. People are a pain aren't they. Or is it their tranportation?

"Also if Glen Albyn is too dense for you perhaps you should try Los Olivos. People are a pain aren't they. Or is it their tranportation?"

I wasn't making reference to their manner of transportation, and I wasn't thinking about it so I'm not sure to what you're referring, although I do thank you for clarifying the Solvang analogy.

I lived on Glen Albyn between 1973-2005 and it went from being a rural area where the occasional equestrian was seen to being another appendage of Isla Vista. Owners saw the market for renting and the parking at times got so bad that a fire truck would not have been able to get through. I don't know the legal status (in terms of whether the owners had converted their properties to accommodate the renters) of the renters, but the urbanization of the area had certainly changed the character of the place.

Of course your comment about Los Olivos is the typical "If you don't like it , get out of town" approach. God forbid should one make an honest commentary about what is happening without dealing with some mean-spirited sarcastic comment.

billclausen; Sorry. I did mean for the comment to be humorous. I often tell people I should move to Bakersfield because I rarely use the ocean anymore, make room for those who could use it.

"billclausen; Sorry. I did mean for the comment to be humorous. I often tell people I should move to Bakersfield because I rarely use the ocean anymore, make room for those who could use it."

I didn't hear you laughing when you posted it so I thought you were being mean.