Appendix A:
The County contradicted its letters to the Senate and Assembly Transportation
Committees:
The letters from the
County of
“Authority” contradictions
The next two quotes (1) and (2) from the County letter to the legislators is completely contradicted by
two other quotes (a) and (b) from the staff report to the County Supervisors:
(1) “While current law provides Caltrans and local authorities the ability to prohibit or restrict the use by pedestrians of freeway, or designated portions under their respective jurisdiction, the authority does not extend to county expressways.”
(2) “[This bill will] provide the Board of Supervisors the authority to restrict pedestrian access on the County’s ... expressway [roads].”
The above two quotes from the County to
the State legislators is contradicted by the two following quotes, from County
staff’s own staff report to the County Board of Supervisors (dated
(a) “Vehicle Code section 21960 provides authority to prohibit pedestrians on expressways provided the following conditions are met: The expressway must be a freeway, access can only be prohibited on portions between intersections where all rights of access have been acquired, and the portion of the freeway must be appropriately signed.”
(b) “The cities ... within their jurisdiction ... may exercise their powers to regulate
pedestrian access.”
In other words,
County staff was telling legislators that there is no authority to prohibit pedestrians
for expressways (which they claimed was needed), but the Supervisors were told
there is authority to do exactly that.
What SB 1233 actually
accomplished was to eliminate from CVC 21960 the stipulation that the
road must be a freeway, eliminate the stipulation that “all rights of access have been acquired,” and trivialized prohibiting bicycles and
pedestrians which now can be achieved by declaring any road an “expressway”
(SHC 941.4, which was unchanged), as opposed to the prior stipulations.
Master Plan contradictions
The County letter to legislators falsely
states:
“Allowing pedestrian access on these expressway segments means they have to walk on the shoulder [which] results in substantial risk.”
and falsely states that SB 1233 is:
“consistent with the expressway Master Plan.”
This is contradicted by the
"shoulder or path facilities can serve ... for occasional pedestrian use." [page 93].
In other words, the
legislators were told they needed to prohibit pedestrians from shoulder when,
if fact, the 2003 Master Plan, which they cited, supports pedestrian use of
shoulders. Furthermore, the Board in 1991 ordered staff to create pedestrian
paths along the entire expressway system. These Board actions are contradicted
by staff’s effort to change State law to eliminate pedestrians.
County
The letter by the
County to the Senate Committee (
Again, the Board never approved any such request to seek legislation to “restrict pedestrian access on ...
expressway [roads],” as
the County letter claimed to the Senate and Assembly Committees.
What was approved was an innocuous “install” and “post” traffic signs, an ability the County already
had. But instead of changing the Vehicle Code chapter “Traffic signs …” staff
changed the chapter “Pedestrians Rights …
.” There was no mention of prohibiting pedestrians.
A further deception by staff was stating “minor” in:
“This minor modification
could be made through as part [sic] of the Legislature’s annual omnibus Local
Government or Transportation bill.” [Source: 2004 Legislative Policies and
Priorities,
Details of the deception at the County
level are in Appendix D.
