It’s Time to Approve the State Street Master Plan
I am reiterating our support for, and urge you to vote for, the currently proposed version of the Master Plan for State Street, with some important exceptions and conditions that, if not recognized and addressed, may do an injustice to the 1300 block of State Street. First, we would like to bring your attention to how the Master Plan boundaries are defined.
The 1300 block: with a major historic theatre, thoughtfully curated retail shops, well-established locally loved restaurants, and innovative galleries, this block is clearly the natural terminus to our commercial downtown
This is acknowledged by the Master Plan in its choice to include the 1300 block within the boundaries of the ARTS District. Sort of... In some sections the Master Plan includes the 1300 block, and in other sections excludes it. We urge you to correct this inconsistent language.
Why?
In addition to being confusing, one of the most commonly-cited difficulties mentioned by stakeholders in the downtown area is uncertainty, so establishing a consistent clarity of inclusion for the 1300 block in the Master Plan would give the community confidence and clarity that this block of downtown is as valued by the city as the other blocks in the Master Plan. Many locals have told us that our block seems to be the “neglected child” of the Master Plan, so we ask the Council to dispel that perception once and for all and allow our block to be accorded the same treatment as the rest of the State Street Paseo by making sure every section of the Master Plan includes the 1300 block in a meaningful way.
Another inconsistency: differential treatment for the 1300 block and the 00 block of West Victoria, which previously were allowed to operate under the same parameters. In extending Title 31, the city is apparently asking to remove the ability to modify traffic patterns from the 1300 block but not from West Victoria. But the Master Plan expressly says that the 1300 block is a special condition with two configuration options still to be resolved during pre-construction design, hence it must evolve. But how can it, if traffic patterns cannot be modified in response to new conditions, or modified to allow the expanded outdoor dining the master plan is supposed to provide?
With greater than six years forecast between the adoption of this plan and its intended completion date, it would seem reasonable and prudent not to prohibit flexibility in the street configuration between now and then. Thus we strongly request this language not be deleted from the new version of Section 31.20.020, but retained as existing in the original version.
Second, please revisit the decision to make traffic two-way on this street and return it to one-way traffic as it was before June 2024. Without going into it here, we believe staff and council are well aware of the unfair manner in which all parklets were removed on our block, but not on West Victoria, by the previous (not current) city administration, which was enabled by differential treatment between these two areas. Having the option to revisit and revise the current traffic patterns on our block would be an important step towards restoring the collaborative approach we have always striven for when working with the city.
Retaining existing Section 31.20.020 as written does not change the Master Plan. In addition to allowing for expanded outdoor dining, it could allow one-way traffic on our block as had previously been allowed, or a return to two-way traffic, or any such decision. It simply avoids unnecessarily foreclosing the one-way alternative before the engineering and design work is complete. So please consider the one-way 1300-block alternative during pre-construction design, especially as it would facilitate greater traffic safety and facilitate safer sidewalk/outdoor dining areas.
Turning to a wider view, the broader picture of what’s best for our town and what best advances the greater public good has always been at the forefront of opal’s guiding principles, even when circumstances require us to advocate for positions key to our business needs.
Thus, automobiles on State Street.
Regarding the future of automobiles on State Street, our support of the current version of the Master Plan is based on the position we presented at the last council meeting. The Waterfront/Funk Zone has become the main attraction for visitors to our town, and tourism is a major part of our economy. With the closure of State Street at the 500 block there is no easy way for the thousands of these weekly visitors to access the upper areas of downtown State Street, as had been true in the past. Along with many businesses in the upper part of State Street affected by the street’s closure to vehicular traffic, opal restaurant and bar has experienced a downturn in business due to this closure. By preventing the easy circulation of visitors into our downtown, the street closure has concentrated the economic vibrancy into the waterfront area and does not allow our area to fully share in the commercial resource that a prime California destination city should create for its businesses.
Accordingly we would like to again present a compromise solution, upon which our support of the most recent version of the Master Plan is predicated. Since cars are allowed, we suggest re-opening State Street to one lane of northbound automobile traffic coming up from the waterfront one-way. This would allow enough space for all other vehicles to travel as they can currently, allow all existing parklets and pedlets to remain intact and preserve a relatively pedestrian friendly environment while allowing upper downtown businesses greater access to the many visitors that currently do not make their way to this part of downtown.
We propose this as an antidote to the current environment, in which two polarized groups have dominated the discussion: those advocating for the return of two-way traffic (pro-car) and those adamantly opposed to any cars (anti-car). In this all-or-nothing scenario, if one side prevails, the town loses. What If instead, we view the compromise as one where nobody gets everything they want, but everyone gets something they can live with, which better enables us to live with each other as well.
Also, this would be the least expensive thing the city could do in the interim. And… the interim is the key. What businesses asking for cars to come back are telling you is that regardless of whether or not a car-free promenade may ultimately be viable in the future, many businesses will not survive the interim unless we take an approach that brings cars back. Where we differ is we feel two lanes of cars are excessive and damaging to the businesses that are doing well in the current environment. We are seeking to encourage winners and winners, not winners and losers.
So this proposal is not necessarily a permanent solution, it is a temporary bridge between when the infrastructure work begins and when it reaches meaningful stages of completion, and when the vitally important, proposed housing begins to be occupied by downtown residents who can bring to the upper downtown what it sorely needs: people. And here is another benefit to this proposal. Set a time limit on it, at the end of which it will be evaluated for effectiveness and whether it should be continued. At the end of, say, two years, we will have data to base our decisions on. Data, instead of opinions. What better way to settle a disagreement?
At the last meeting the council expressed concern and understanding for the needs of the upper State Street business community, particularly in the interim, during which it is likely that infrastructure construction will continue to hamper easy access to customers and guests. As this option could be enacted with minimal expense, please consider authorizing as soon as possible a one-way northbound lane of automobile traffic up State Street, to allow upper State Street businesses a chance to share in the visitor-driven economic vibrancy the Waterfront/Funk Zone area currently enjoys.
****
Mr. Yates and Ms. Takaya are owners of https://opalrestaurantandbar.com
******
Ballots are out.
If you plan to vote early, start with California Current’s proposition guide—written from the only point of view that actually pays the bill: the overworked, under-appreciated California taxpayer.
We don’t hand you a cheat sheet and walk away. Every recommendation is backed by clear headed research. Click the link, read the case, then mark your ballot with your eyes open.
Please consider sharing this easy-to-use guide with your neighbors.
NO on 1. The Con Job
NO on 2. Supersizing California’s Slush Fund
NO on 3. The Forever Tax
NO on 4. Your Money, Their Campaigns
NO on 5. Recall Revenge
NO on 37. Robin Hood in Reverse
NO on 38. Pork Barrel Science
YES on 39. Trust, but Verify
NO on 40. Tax Billionaires Today, Tax Everybody Tomorrow
YES on 41. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 42. Sergey’s Silver Bullets
YES on 43. Stop Getting Steamrolled by Special Taxes
NO on 44. Unions to Draw More Blood
YES on 45. Pondering Prop 45
Note: Props 41 and 42 share one article. The Prop 44 article publication pending.
Compromise sounds nice. Everybody gets something and nobody gets everything. I get a thrill down my leg just thinking about it. Compromising with fools yields foolish results and compromises good ideas. The closure of State Street was foolish from the start. As a response to the Covid scam, nobody ever could explain how preventing cars could prevent the spread of Covid. In fact, encouraging pedestrian traffic could well exascerbate disease spread. Businesses have suffered and now if I walk down State Street I enjoy the smell of urine emanating from the landscape that the homeless hobos use for toilets. State needs to return to exactly what it was before the foolish closure. State needs to return to what has worked for 100 years. I appreciate the owners of Opal sharing their ideas on how to compromise with fools but I suggest you should concentrate on making good food and support returning State to what it was, to what has and will work into the future.
Total disgrace! Recently attempted to enjoy a few hours downtown shopping. Filthy nauseating walk. I felt like I was in a seedy part of Oakland. Bands singing LOUD in Spanish infront of a shut down business. Homeless huddling throughout. Dark scary entrances to bars and dead resteraunts. Who can stomach eating next to the street in such a deteriorating city? It seems the people on the council are totally clueless. Like 5 yr olds or they have to read out of a book how to run a city because they clearly are and have been failing for years. The whole of Santa Barbara is in disrepair. Cracked sidewalks and streets. Weeds everywhere! Dead fire risk debris left on 60yo palm trees. This is not a desired tourist location. We do want to keep our heritage and culture. We do not want to turn into Skid Row. Seems Democrat run L.A. is ALSO failing.