Archives for category: Doug Chaffee

Doug-Chaffee-Hughes-Drive-Bike- Buffalo

The tale of Doug Chaffee dodging a water buffalo in India can finally be told to all…

Matthew Leslie

Good News, Everyone! Someone at the city has updated the video recording of Tuesday night’s Fullerton City Council meeting, restoring the first two hours that included public speakers on the Hughes Drive bike lane agenda item, along with Doug Chaffee’s argument that a planned Class II bike lane shouldn’t be installed on the street because he had to deal with water buffalo, cows, and goats in India where they had no bike lanes when he was in the Peace Corps. “Things should move slowly,” says the wizened Mayor pro tem, and so they will, with only two lanes, all traffic on Hughes Drive will now move just as fast as a bicyclist can ride.

 

Why does Doug Chaffee think that dodging draft animals and their street bundles half a world away is somehow relevant to providing a safe lane for Fullerton bicyclists? Only Doug Chaffee knows…perhaps he was thinking about the water main breaks below Fullerton’s crumbling streets?

 

no9cei-001.fullertonmain.05.12.15.kw

हे भगवान ! A water buffalo has been here!

Screen Shot 2017-08-16 at 8.50.34 AM copy

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.

Hughes-Drive-Wide-View-

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.

Hughes-Drive-Parking

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.

Nicolas-Street-Parking-

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-Hughes-Drive-Bike-

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?

Bruce-Whitaker-Hughes-Drive-Bike-Lane

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.)

Ass and Hole in the Ground

Two things between which the Fullerton City Council has trouble distinguishing…

Matthew Leslie

Last night the Fullerton City Council responded to a court ordered hearing over which district elections map to put before the voters in November by doubling down on their previous terrible choice of Map # 8A. No one who has witnessed any of the council’s actions in the past months could have reasonably expected any other outcome. Even in the face of legal proceedings that specifically cited the fragmenting of the downtown residential areas as being incompatible with the settlement agreement that should be governing their actions, the Fullerton City Council again chose a map presented by a bar owner that privileges the interests of downtown businesses over the rights of the area’s residents to have unified representation on the council.

Following dozens of public speakers on the subject, a motion by Bruce Whitaker to switch to Map # 11 was supported by Greg Sebourn, but failed to attract the support of any of the other three members of the council. Like Map # 8A, Map # 11 would also likely produce a 3 to 2 Republican majority on the council, but that wasn’t enough to attract the support of Mayor Jennifer Fitzgerald, who has favored Map # 8/8A from the beginning. In the end, both Bruce Whitaker and Greg Sebourn joined Mayor Fitzgerald, Jan Flory, and Doug Chaffee in a unanimous decision to stick with the map they all supported last time, the infamous # 8A, that would split up the downtown residential district five ways.

Stupid or corrupt? There are nicer ways to put it, but why bother being polite to council members who simultaneously thumbed their noses at a judge and stuck their thumbs in the eyes of multiple residents who pointed out that fragmenting the downtown residential area would deny representation to a community of interest. The council based their decision on a legal interpretation by attorney Kimberly Barlow of law firm Jones and Mayer, who represented Fullerton at the July 20 court hearing. Despite the fact that the text of the court’s Minute Order, which summarized the proceedings, clearly shows that Judge James Crandall found “some merit” in the plaintiff’s second argument, that Map # 8A “inappropriately splits the downtown region into multiple districts, thus violating community interest principles” inherent to the Voting Rights Act and the election code governing its application, Ms. Barlow argued that the judge would ultimately allow the map to pass muster.

The relevant paragraphs from the document are reproduced below, with added boldface for emphasis:

The court finds that plaintiff’s second argument has some merit, however. According to Article 21, section 2 of the California Constitution, a community of interest “is a contiguous population which shares common social and economic interests that should be included within a single district for purposes of its effective and fair representation. Examples of such shared interests are those common to an urban area, a rural area, an industrial area, or an agricultural area, and those common to areas in which the people share similar living standards, use the same transportation facilities, have similar work opportunities, or have access to the same media of communication relevant to the election process.” Id. at subd.(d)(4). It is unclear how the division of the downtown area of the city gives appropriate consideration to this principle. If anything, division of the downtown area among the five districts in Map 8A does not honor the contiguity of the population living there, and their shared interests in that area. While supporters of Map 8 and Map 8A at the Council meetings expressed the idea that all Fullerton residents should have an interest in the downtown area, it is unclear how many of these supporters actually reside in the downtown area, as opposed to simply owning businesses there…’

‘The City contends that Section 21601’s factors are permissive, and not mandatory. While this might ordinarily be true, the parties’ Settlement Agreement requires that the electoral district map be drawn in accordance with those criteria. Map 8A would seem to run afoul of at least one of those factors, in addition to being adopted through a process completely antithetical to that contemplated by the Agreement.’

Let’s read that last line again…

“…completely antithetical to that contemplated by the Agreement”! (!!!!!!)*

And yet, the council chose to listen to their own lawyer tell them what they wanted to hear, that the court record was somehow not accurate, and that she herself was confident that the judge would allow Map # 8A to be placed on the ballot in November. Indeed, Ms. Barlow was so confident in her interpretation of the proceeding that the Minute Order document wasn’t even included in the staff report to the council members in the meeting’s agenda! We have to wonder if the council even considered the consequences of Ms. Barlow being wrong. The court is scheduled to take up the matter again during a Status Conference on August 8th, and all indications are that the judge expects to see a new map.

Even the OC Register got it right last week, reporting on the July 20 hearing: “Fullerton told to find new map for district election ballot measure.

If the old map isn’t good enough for the judge, as it wasn’t on July 20, the council will have a scant three days to choose another map to put on the ballot for the November election. Despite the well-organized opposition to it, more than one member of the council has counterintuitively argued that Map # 8A has the best chance of voter approval with the district elections measure at the ballot box. Not a single member of the Fullerton City Council favors district-based elections anyway, so I would expect them to do exactly nothing more to try to fix this mess. We’ll just have to wait for the lawyer bills to find out how much the council’s intransigence will cost the taxpayers.

 

  • !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!