
The choices before the Fullerton City Council. Which one provides the safest route for bicycles?
Matthew Leslie
With a four-to-one vote, Jesus Silva dissenting, four members of the Fullerton City Council sold out Fullerton’s Bicycle Master Plan in order to allow what is effectively illegal overnight parking on a street near a recently built housing development in Amerige Heights. Ignoring unanimous decisions by both the Bicycle Users Subcommittee (BUSC) and the Transportation and Circulation Commission (TCC) to proceed with a planned Class II bike lane along Hughes Drive between Bastanchury Road and Nicolas Street, the City Council instead decided to force cyclists to share the road with automative traffic on a two lane street so they wouldn’t anger the residents of an adjacent housing project who use the public street for overflow parking.
Class II bike lanes provide a separate lane for riders, demarcated by thick white lines and clearly printed words designating them as such, next to vehicular traffic lanes, providing at least theoretical protection for riders. Class III bikeways are simply signed routes on roads, without a striped lane. The ultimate goal of the plan is to provide a safe bike route between Gilbert Street and Bastanchury Road.

The segment of Hughes Drive originally slated for a Class II bike lane.
Hughes Drive seems to have been a four lane street at some point, but is currently considered to be a two lane street with a center left turn lane to accommodate workers entering the Raytheon facility on the north side of the street. Don Hoppe, the city’s Director of Public Works, said that there was inadequate space for both a bike lane and the street’s center lane, and the existing parking. On the south side, residents of the tightly packed houses just over the sidewalk enjoy the benefit of parking their cars on the public street, often overnight, even though parking between 2:00 and 5:00 a.m. on any Fullerton street that doesn’t enjoy an exemption from the city’s overnight parking rule is against the law.

A close up view of Hughes Drive, where residents have the convenience of a public street to park their cars overnight, because four spaces per house is somehow not enough parking.
Residents complained that they hadn’t enough parking for guests, even though each unit has a two car garage and a driveway to accommodate an additional two cars. Councilmember Silva argued for adding the Class II bike lane, as planned, noting the existence of about forty parking spaces right around the corner on Nicolas Street.

Easy parking on Nicolas Street, just around the corner, but not close enough for residents.
Sounding for all the world like recalled Councilmember and Mayor Dick Jones, Mayor Pro Tem Doug Chaffee launched into a reminiscence of riding his bicycle in India as a Peace Corps volunteer. He argued that bicycle riders and automobile drivers should be able to share a road in Fullerton if he was able to dodge cars, cow pies, pedestrians, and water buffalo on his bike oh so many years ago half a world away. Ignoring the fact that water buffalo don’t move at twenty five miles per hour, the speed limit on Hughes Drive, Mr. Chaffee evidently thought that lowering the bar on traffic safety to the standards of India in the 1960’s was appropriate for Fullerton in 2017.*

Doug Chaffee: had to dodge a water buffalo in India fifty years ago, so you shouldn’t have a safe lane for your bike.
Mr. Chaffee then characterized the conflict between the needs of cyclists to ride safely with the desperation of nearby residents to preserve their free overflow/overnight parking by calling it a case of “the ivory tower versus boots on the ground.” In his opinion, the plan for the bike lane was approved by people in an ivory tower, somehow removed from” the reality,” even though the BUSC is populated by actual cyclists who actually ride the streets of Fullerton and know from experience what they are talking about. “Boots on the ground,” in his mind, are “all the houses that came later,” as if whole housing tracts appeared out of thin air without city approvals of plans for neighborhoods with inadequate parking, if one chooses to side with the residents, who somehow need more than four parking spaces per house.
Most shocking was the treatment given Transportation and Circulation Commission Chair Elizabeth Hansberg, who rightly observed that overnight parking was a city-wide issue that needed to be dealt with in a consistent manner all over Fullerton. She was promptly shut down by Councilmember Jennifer Fitzgerald, joined by Bruce Whitaker, who insisted that overnight parking was a separate agenda item later in the meeting, even though it was obviously germane to the Hughes Drive bike lane decision too, since the Amerige Heights residents themselves said there were cars (their own, evidently) parked on Hughes “day and night.”
Ultimately, the council chose to downgrade the Class II bike lane to a Class III bike route with sharrows, forcing bikes and cars to share the road, which can work well, but should not be adopted where there is room for a Class II instead. Remember, the speed limit on Hughes Drive is 25 mph, and most cyclists do not ride that fast (!). Cars will now be restricted to whatever speed a cyclist feels like riding.
At least Bruce Whitaker recognized the that developers weren’t providing enough parking, but he characterized the existing parking as “overflow,” ignoring the fact that residents also routinely use Hughes as their own private overnight parking lot. Either way, his acknowledgement that parking was a problem didn’t keep him from making the wrong decision about the cycling lane, even though he took the time to confirm with Public Works Director Hoppe that the Hughes Drive street segment in question was, in fact, part of the larger bike plan, and shouldn’t be considered in “isolation.” Which is worse, making a bad decision out of ignorance, or knowing full well the consequences of it, and doing it anyway?

Mayor Bruce Whitaker: recognizing the problem of inadequate parking, and making the wrong decision anyway.
Some public speakers observed that they didn’t see many cyclists using Hughes Drive, but they miss the point, as the council did, that if the city creates safe conditions for cyclists, people will ride their bikes instead of driving cars. The council’s decision, Mr. Silva excepted, was a 100% retrograde one in terms of encouraging alternative transportation in Fullerton. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Removing a safe bicycle lane from the city’s bike master plan creates a gap that affects the ability of cyclists to safely commute across the city. Doing it to privilege parking for cars not only encourages residents to rely on automobiles, but also rewards developers for providing inadequate parking for neighborhoods.
*At press time, the city’s video of the meeting has been uploaded, but the video mysteriously, and maddeningly, starts just after Doug Chaffee’s water buffalo story, cutting out the staff presentation and all of the public speakers. UPDATE: The full recording of the meeting now appears in the city’s website (August 15, 2017, 7:00 p.m.)
You neglected to mention the owner of a business on that street who somehow got away with not providing ANY onsite parking and is thus now completely dependent upon on-street parking who referred to herself before the council as a “community advocate” in support of keeping the parking and nixing the bike lane without once referring to her personal dependence on on-street parking.
So we have an under-parked dense housing project abutting an under-parked business next to a public park built with no parking – all of it dependent upon street parking. This area was developed under Mello-Roose taxation yet the developer was allowed to cut corners (even eventually refunding taxes to those who bought into the area) without providing adequate road width for the expected on/street parking.
“The Land of Bad Planning” should be Fullerton’s new monicker in place of the “Education Community.” This is the umpteenth developer giveaway – I think we have ALL had it.
LikeLike
I think you are referring to Sueling Chen, owner of nearby Arborland Montesorri Children’s Academy? The school does, in fact, have parking, but not a large amount of it. During the meeting Dr. Chen claimed to speak for hundreds of people living in local households that sometimes housed three generations each, and didn’t have enough parking spaces for birthday parties. It was odd that she didn’t identify herself as the school’s director, given that Arborland is less than a quarter mile form the proposed bike lane site.
LikeLike
There is onsote parking. By the way, if you’re advocating for bike lanes and public transportation you should be against onsite parking. If you want to make people abandon cars, quit requiring so much parking for development. Under park projects, not over park.
LikeLike
Which works if you have public transportation. Without it, cars get parked in adjacent neighborhoods. I agree, however that development should favor the carless.
LikeLike
It is hard to have sympathy for the bicyclists in which 90% show no regard for pedestrian safety on the trails. Only about 10% give any indication that they are coming up behind you at high speed, weaving between baby strollers and dogs on leashes without slowing down. The trails were made possible by the horse riders and yet there is one trail off Euclid that has become the exclusive domain of bicyclists due to their high speed and unsafe practices. And the bike lanes on the streets don’t seem to contain them, since they often ride 2 and 3 across and outside of the lanes.
LikeLike
Just to be clear, we are taking about an on-street bike lane here, not a recreational trail.
LikeLike
The people of the neighborhood spoke, the council listened. It’s called representative democracy, not alt-left social engineering. Oh, and it was a 4-1 vote against. Just socialist tool Silva voted for it.
LikeLike
Could you define “alt left” for me? I’m just hearing this term recently, and as one who has been involved in what I would call Progressive politics for many years, I am not familiar with this new term.
LikeLike
The Council has never supported safe bicycling in any conflict between parking and Class II routes so the result is no surprise. What is disappointing is the willingness of the Republicans on the Council to ignore the lack of need in this case: Nicolas, with more than 40 spaces, is less than 5 minutes walk away; and the spaces on Hughes are not available for guest parking (the principal argument made) since many of those spaces are filled with long term overnight parking. I say Republicans, because I think that the only person who was really listened to was the well-connected business owner mentioned above who has endorsed and probably contributed to all of their campaigns. Once she spoke it was all over. Good article.
LikeLike
Disclaimer: I am resident of the development block of would’ve been adversely affected if the city vote in favor of maintaining the bike master plan. The decision will only affect me on occasion since I do not require the street parking or parking available in the area. Even then I can have my friend park in the Amerige Heights shopping plaza and walk up the hill.
The issue here is bicyclist safety on Hughes drive connecting Bastanchury and Gilbert. Cyclist would argue in favor of safety for riders created by the lane, that it was part of the bicycle master plan and it encourages bicycle ridership in Fullerton. The residents and 1 business argues it would eliminate too much parking which would cause stress to the community.
These residents should have more than adequate parking since they have 2 car garage w/ 2 car driveway it really should accommodate 4 cars and that should be enough for any household. The homes really can only have 3 cars parked as the garage two car garages are really tight and unless you’re driving Tesla Model X or your vehicle door slide open instead of wing open. Even with 3 cars, that should be enough right? One for dad, one for mom and one for adult age child. The issue here this is not reality. The reality is that these are 3+ room homes with multi-generation families residing in them. Not everyone has the luxury of working close enough to bike or take public transportation to work. For some families, sadly, 3 cars is not enough. If given a choice to be able to park on your own driveway or garage vs street parking. Street parking is not a choice, it’s a necessity.
Safety is valid concern for bicyclist. Falling off going 15mph is nothing compare to being hit by a careless motorist. Additionally, I have seen several vehicles, especially at nighttime while walking my dog vehicle zooming thru more than 25mph. Of course this is anecdotal as I do not carry a radar gun during these walks. Most of these vehicles typically drive close to center that there are plenty of space on the side for a cyclist. When I was younger living in Garden Grove and then Santa Ana, I’ve always rode my bike to and from school on the side of the rode without problems. We we’re not talking about tight narrow lanes like you hear about on Los Angles. Is it better to have a dedicated lane, yes. Is it safe? Absolutely. Is it necessary? I’m not so sure.
This is not an apples for apples comparison but I believe its more like an orange and tangerine comparison. For now, consider what the city council has been dealing with in terms of parking. They have been dealing with the parking on Citrus neighborhood parking between renters and homeowners. That fight is between two very permanent groups and the renters clearly is willing to pay the cost of permits and the homeowners claiming safety in front of their own home. The Citrus renters have been showing up in numbers to each council meeting with signs and comments weekly for months now and it seems they are not going away since the issue constantly affects them negatively with some claimed to have received up to 15 tickets a month. By removing the parking off Hughes, the parking will spill over to Nicholas but Nicholas would not be able to accommodate the spill over an the city council created a yet another group of people with signs during their meetings. This must’ve been on the back of the mind of the council members that voted in favor of residence.
We can blame the city for approval such developments without adequate parking. We can blame the developers for their greed for cramming as many homes in such a small plot of land. We can even place blame on the residence for buying a home that does not accommodate their parking situation. At the end of the day, its already done and we have to deal with the consequences. The city council knows they will will anger at least one group and it really comes down to which group that will have consistent membership, that will only continue to grow and continue to bring up the issue in the future. With that in mind, the answer is obvious.
LikeLike
I really appreciate your thoughtful comments.
But there was more than 2 options. The third option was not thoroughly explored. That was removing the center lane to allow for both parking and bike lanes.
I thought it was a weak argument from staff to say that option was not feasible because a driver might go around someone waiting to make a left turn by driving in the bike lane.
On Valencia I’ve seen school buses and up to 3 cars at a time in the bike lane (and I have told the engineering and maintenance director who took the position to oppose the bike lane on Hughes). When I’m on my bike, I resolve that by merging out of the bike lane and into the traffic lane.
Using the argument that someone may not follow the law therefore there can be no bike lane, there would be no bike lanes anywhere.
If that’s the kind of non-logic coming from engineering staff, then let’s not bother with traffic lights either because someone might run a red light.
LikeLike
Thank. I was there the meeting prior to the and mentioned that the center lane should be removed in favor of 2 bike lanes between Nicholas and Bastanchury and still retain parking. I do thing that is the best option. That lane was supposed to accommodate the workers of Raytheon making that left turn but I hardly see it being used if at all. For some reason, I sometimes see Raytheon employees park on Hughes walk across the parking lot to work. It is odd considering they have a large empty parking lot.
LikeLike
It is done and it’s sad. We can continue to accommodate cars and continue to add cars to our already clogged roadways and we’ll never get out of this hole.
It has been proven in other- way more congested cities- that adding bike infrastructure relieves congestion and allows more dense housing without adding more lanes for vehicles. It also gets more people out of their cars and into the community which makes people more happy, adds more revenue to local businesses and improves health of citizens. Not building this little piece- a connector to get to Amerige Heights- stifles the whole plan to more people on bikes.
Sharrows (the bike with arrows symbol in the street) has been proven to be LESS SAFE than no bike markers at all- people on bikes think they are safe to ride in the street and cars don’t know the symbols and don’t expect bikes in the traffic lanes.
Overnight parking is not legal.
Residents park there anyway.
If you don’t have enough parking on site maybe you shouldn’t live there or ask a neighbor to use a spot.
If you have a party ask guests to ride their bike or park down the street- you knew the parking issue when you moved in.
Everyone talks about problems in the world but aren’t willing to change their behaviors or be inconvenienced just a bit.
LikeLike
So many good points here and Silva is the only one to have use his brain to think about the future rather than accommodating resident parking on the street. Developers were to supply enough parking for residents on the premises. The cars parked on Hughes Dr are residents.
This is a little piece but you are exactly right- it’s part of a bigger picture and if bike infrastructure isn’t added when streets are restriped as the Bike Plan says, it will never happen.
Of course no bikes were seen on the road- most people are too scared to ride in unsafe conditions! This piece is crucial as are roads around all points of interest: schools, shopping centers, parks, etc to allow bikes to be used for errands.
People complain about traffic and our roads but aren’t eager to try anything new to remedy- even solutions proven to work in other cities!
More bikes please.
LikeLike