Bidding has begun on a project to renovate the Leadbetter Beach Restroom. It is not yet back into plan check, and there is considerable community backlash. The stated rationale for this project has been concerns for public safety and ADA compliance.
These can be addressed without the demolition of the restroom‘s changing area which provides privacy; and shower walls that protect the building from storm and tide, and the public from the elements.
Why Has the City Gone to Bidding When It is Not Ready?
Please suspend this project in order to allow meaningful community engagement to meet the needs of the public who use this facility daily, year round. The installation of ADA stalls is laudable and overdue. However, a review of the plans reveals numerous oversights and omissions. Making the facility ADA compliant would be expensive to correct after the fact.
Time is of the essence to reconsider the demolition of the existing shower walls. Although the city has agreed to delay tearing down the changing area in order to “monitor its misuse,” it is most likely a temporary reprieve, although appreciated all the same.
This facility has served Santa Barbara residents well since 1969. Almost 400 of us signed a petition to keep these features as they are. However, there are many more residents who are unaware of the proposed demolition. Over 150 Santa Barbara City College students who take ocean oriented physical education classes rinse off and change here every year. It is a busy facility.
I have learned in the process of advocating for this issue, that there is a large and vibrant community that this facility engenders. Personally, I enjoy the company of a diverse cross section of Santa Barbarans who, like me, use this space.
What We Lose
“Don’t it always seem to go, that you don’t know what you’ve got ‘till it’s gone…” —Joni Mitchell
Based on the plans published for contractors to bid on, the following will be lost:
• To make room for two additional ADA compliant toilets, one in each gender bathroom, there will be three toilets instead of five. The general public will lose 20 percent of what we currently have.
• The five spaces currently available in the women’s changing area and nine spaces in the men’s changing area may be lost unless the city intervenes before the bidding process. That is potentially a 100 percent reduction of current use. If this is the case, Director Wiltshire did suggest that the public could use the bathroom stalls. Of the 24 spaces currently available to change in, including stalls, that would leave 6 spaces remaining which is a 73 percent loss of current facilities.
• The two existing shower walls each have three shower heads and two foot washes. These fixtures are generously spaced so that people can rinse off simultaneously. It would not take much to make these ADA compliant. The detail from the plan only shows one shower pole. There are two shower heads on the pole, or “column” shower,” a taller one and a lower one for those in a wheelchair. Even if there were two shower poles as promised, there would be a 66 percent reduction in shower heads.
The shower pole design places people uncomfortably in close proximity. Even if the pole showers had additional shower heads it does not replace what we have. It crowds users into a 30” diameter space. In a post-pandemic world this is not optimal. With a 12” diameter pipe, it is doubtful that effective rinsing would take place. For those who have used this type of shower, much of the water is wind blown amounting to increase of water waste and a less serviceable shower.
Effectively, what has happened is that a beloved and viable facility has been reduced into one that does not fully benefit anyone. Did the city consider how the reduction of dressing and shower areas would impact the community? So, in the final hour, I question why the city is rushing to bid on a plan that would decrease fixtures in a heavily used facility?
Demolition Will Not End Vagrancy
During last month’s community meeting, we heard that a primary justification of the tear down was for “public safety.” This ”misuse” of the facility translates to infractions of the municipal code and vagrancy perpetrated by certain individuals experiencing homelessness. A member of our group has searched Santa Barbara Crime Maps over the time span of one year and has made a public records request with City Police Department and Harbor Patrol covering a time span of several years. No incident reports have turned up to date. The city’s crime map only shows crime occurring in the parking lot, not the walled outdoor areas of the restroom.
People defecate and urinate in the changing area when the bathrooms are closed and sometimes take over the space by exhibiting low level bad behavior. This is a problem we need to address. It is sad that in order to deal with certain homeless citizens we further tear at the existing fabric of community — a community that is thriving at Leadbetter. Demolish what we have, everybody loses.
It seems that a small number of homeless people are driving policy for most everyone else. Demolition of the outdoor structures will not provide a place for people to relieve themselves when the bathrooms close at night. As a society, I believe that there is a better way to evict abusers of public structures than to tear down the house.
Solutions Must Involve Civic Engagement
From the get go, Municipal Code requiring public notice was ignored. The project was not properly publicized. A community meeting was held December 14, 2023, for the first time, although the plans first went to ABR in November 2022. Leadbetter facility users knew nothing about this project until news came out of this first meeting. Although there was a second community meeting on February 7, 2024, it appears that the project has gone out to bid.
We seek solutions that would create better alternatives for everyone, such as the inclusion of an ADA changing stall outside. By law, these need to be ADA compliant. Why didn’t the city reach out to the Access Advisory Committee for input?
We respectfully request that you stay any further action on this project before anything is torn down. That way, the city can proceed in a manner that is transparent and thoughtful with the full knowledge and review of this Council.
I would urge Santa Barbara to consider solutions that incorporate input from the public for whom the facility is designed. Many have suggested installing fencing and gates around the structure. Leaving the outdoor structures intact would save the city considerable expense and permit its enjoyment in the near future as Santa Barbara grapples with its 30 year high water mark plan.
Petition: https://www.change.org/p/preserve-leadbetter-beach-walls-changing-areas-santa-barbara