Friends of the Bridge, an informal group of community members opposed to the barrier concept, cited three specific violations of state environmental law and asked Caltrans to set aside its approval of the $3 million project.
“We are trying to stop the wasteful expenditure of funds for legitimate traffic safety programs, including the widening of [Highway] 101 and many, many others,” said Marc McGinnes, an outspoken critic of the plan and spokesman for Friends of the Bridge. “We don’t do things just to delay. We have fought this in every way to make sure that this project doesn’t get done.”
Caltrans officials, who had yet to see the official court complaint, declined to comment on pending litigation but noted that the suicide barrier project has received widespread community support, including backing by suicide prevention advocates and law enforcement officials.
“We’ve always said that this is a very important safety project for the community,” said Colin Jones, a Caltrans spokesman. He added later, “We’ve completed the environmental report and we’re looking forward to moving forward on the project.”
However, the civil action filed in Santa Barbara Superior Court on Tuesday alleges a series of missteps by Caltrans in its lengthy report on the expected environmental impacts of the project.
In the report, the agency identified a mesh grid design as the best alternative and noted the inward-curving barriers would rise 6 feet from the current safety railings for a total height from the roadway of 9 feet, 7 inches.
As the project would have a significant adverse effect on cultural and aesthetic resources, such as views while driving along the bridge, McGinnes said Caltrans is required to mitigate or avoid those impacts. However, he said the agency didn’t give the public a chance to comment on proposed mitigation measures before approving the environmental report.
“It doesn’t matter what they were,” he said. “We’re not asking a judge to say these aren’t good mitigation measures. We’re asking the judge to protect the public’s right to comment on them.”
He also argued that Caltrans failed to publish a mitigation monitoring program to ensure the various mitigation measures are actually undertaken. Finally, the suit alleges that Caltrans failed to address a policy in the county’s general plan relating to impacts on visual resources.
“They just ignored it,” McGinnes said. “There is no discussion in the draft or the final [environmental report] of that policy conflict. It’s a slam-dunk case.”
Should a judge side with Friends of the Bridge, Caltrans could presumably retract its environmental impact report, address any inaccuracies or omissions, and recertify the plan.
When asked whether the lawsuit constituted a delay tactic, McGinnes said his intention since learning of the project has been to prevent the project from reaching completion, not delaying it.
“If at some point a boondoggle is perceived by enough people as being a boondoggle, it won’t happen,” he said. “I don’t know if that will happen. I’m just trusting that if enough people see what a stinker this is, it won’t happen.”
His opinion stands in stark contrast to those backing the project, including local leaders who voted unanimously at a Santa Barbara County Association of Governments for a funding exchange that will keep the barrier plan and two other critical transportation projects moving forward.
“At the end of the day, this is about saving lives,” said County Supervisor Salud Carbajal, noting that the bridge has the highest fatality rate of any single location along the state highway system in a district that spans five counties.
Sheriff’s officials have also testified to the dangerous situation facing deputies who respond to reports of a suicidal subject on the bridge, and even screened a video showing a deputy nearly falling from the bridge while trying to pull a distraught man back from the brink.
“We almost lost a sheriff’s deputy trying to save one of those individuals,” Carbajal said. “A deputy almost went over that bridge.”
McGinnes has suggested simply retraining law enforcement personnel not to risk their own personal safety to save a suicidal subject. He has also insisted building the barriers would merely divert people to other locations or means of committing suicide.
Suicide prevention advocates and Caltrans have disputed that notion, and the transportation agency cited a series of studies related to the issue.
“Regarding saving lives and possibly diverting people to jump off freeway overpasses, the purpose of the project is to reduce suicides and reduce risks to emergency personnel on the bridge itself, not at other locations,” according to the environmental report. “However, a benefit of the project … is that research has shown than often people do not go to another location to attempt self-harm.”
The 1,200-foot arch span rises more than 400 feet above Cold Spring Canyon and offers sweeping views of the Santa Ynez Valley from the top of San Marcos Pass. It is considered a scenic resource by the state and is widely recognized for its austere and graceful architectural design.
It has also been the site of at least 47 suicides since its construction in 1963, including 33 deaths in the past 25 years.