Proposed Bridge Project
On December 5, over 120 participants attended a community Zoom meeting hosted by our councilmember, Traci Park, regarding the proposal to construct a bridge over Pacific Coast Highway connecting the beach near the Will Rogers lifeguard headquarters building to the coastal end of George Wolfberg Park at Potrero Canyon Park.
It was heartening to see so many attend the meeting. Unfortunately, and despite the welcome participation of representatives from Senator Ben Allen’s office, the Bureau of Engineering, and Recreation and Parks, there was little new information disclosed about the project.
The meeting did provide an opportunity for the community to speak and raise issues and questions. I think it is fair to say the expressed opinions were about equally divided between those who support and those who oppose the bridge, belying the notion that there is “overwhelming” community support for the project.
A few issues raised, however, merit further comment. On the positive side, the city stated that it intends to build the lateral trail (as required by the current Coastal Development Permit under which the park has been created) and although there has been no visible progress, the city claimed it is working “behind the scenes” to develop the lateral trail. The lateral trail will run from the coastal end of Potrero Canyon to the traffic light at Temescal Canyon Road, thereby providing safe and easy access between the beach and park for pedestrians and bicyclists alike.
It also became apparent during the meeting that government representatives are relying on a draft 2016 Feasibility Study (which can be found at pacpalicc.org/wpcontent/uploads/2023/06/DRAFT-2016-Potrero-Canyon-Pedestrian-Crossing-Feasibility-Study-Technical-Memorandum.pdf) to support the bridge project. However, is it entirely unclear if that study actually supports the bridge under the current circumstances. Notably, the study does not require construction of the bridge for safe beach access. Rather, the study addressed four alternate choices to provide a single, safe crossing of PCH between the beach and the canyon: a new crosswalk and light below the mouth of the canyon, an underground tunnel at that location, the lateral trail or the bridge.
The first two options are not under consideration by anyone. As between the bridge and trail, the study opted for the bridge as a better choice. Even a careful reading of the study, however, failed to disclose a clear basis for that conclusion.
For example, the study acknowledged that the bridge will have far greater costs for construction and maintenance, and will have a greater visual impact than the trail. In this regard, it is worth noting that unlike the pedestrian bridges in Santa Monica, the proposed bridge will span not only PCH but also the beach parking lot, and will have a mandated 16-foot clearance across the entire span. This is far more massive than any of the existing structures in the area.
Moreover, and of greater significance, given that the city is building the trail, the question is no longer which is the best single alternative, but whether the bridge is needed and justifiable (given the over $10 million in additional costs) as a second access point between the canyon and beach. This is not an issue addressed at all by the study.
Second, we do not know what a final version of the study might have revealed, nor what work remained to turn the draft into a final report. In addition, the study is seven years old and therefore fails to consider or address current conditions regarding park usage, parking, fire and overall safety issues.
The emphasis of bridge proponents is for safe access across PCH between the canyon and the beach. That access is adequately provided by the lateral trail.
There is simply no need to spend substantial, additional taxpayer dollars for a second point of access that will only benefit the small number of people who park near the beach terminus of the bridge (anyone seeking access from any other point is better served by the lateral trail).
Jeffrey Spitz
32-Year Resident of the Via Bluffs
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
