Letter to the Editor

‘A Bridge Too Far’

As some (but likely far too few) community members are aware, on December 5 from 6 to 7:30 p.m., our councilmember, Traci Park, will host an open Zoom meeting 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.

In my opinion, the bridge is an unnecessary and wasteful expenditure of public funds, which will not benefit any discernable class of persons not already served under the existing Park plans.

The ostensible purpose of the proposed bridge is to allow for a safe crossing of PCH for individuals who wish to access the Park from the beach or vice versa. However, the approved plans for the Park already include safe access between the Park and PCH.

The current Coastal Development permit under which the Park has been created requires construction of a pathway (referred to as the “lateral trail”) from the coastal end of the Park to the traffic light at Temescal Canyon Road and PCH. The lateral trail will provide safe and easy access between the beach and Park for pedestrians and bicyclists, and will be ADA compliant.

The last estimated cost for creation of the lateral trail is in the range of $1.5 million. In 2021 the state allocated $11 million for the bridge, which will unquestionably cost more than that by the time any construction is actually commenced.

Given that the lateral trail is a required part of the Park project, why do we also need the bridge (at an additional likely eight to 10 times the cost)? Who is being served by the bridge who is not already served by the lateral trail?

There are two groups of people that will be served by a PCH crossing: those coming from the Park to the beach and those at the beach coming into the Park. Anyone coming from the Park will presumably travel back to the Park when their day is done. Those persons are at least equally well served by either the lateral trail or the bridge.

Persons coming from the beach into the Park will, likewise, return to the beach at the end of the day. Many people who visit the beach park for free on Temescal Canyon to avoid paying for beachfront parking. All those people will be better served by the lateral trail, which would allow direct access to the Park from Temescal Canyon. Likewise, anyone who parks at the beach north of the Temescal Canyon entrance will have easier access to the Park via the lateral trail than from a bridge near the main lifeguard station.

It is only those persons who pay to park near the lifeguard station that will be better served by the bridge than the lateral trail. Who are these people? How many of them are there? Is it the best, or even a reasonable use, of our hard-earned tax dollars to spend an additional $12 to 15 million for an unnecessary bridge when we have so many other problems in the city that need funds?

The proposed bridge raises additional important questions for the community, including: Does the bridge increase a risk of safety to the Palisades community in general and to the rim residents and adjacent neighborhoods in particular? Will it increase the likelihood of (a) fire risk in an area heavy in vegetation and without facilities to fight a fire, or (b) unhoused persons entering the Park and starting fires, or (c) an increase in crime, graffiti (already an issue in the Park) or other vandalism of public property (note the difficulty already being experienced in keeping the one set of bathrooms in the Park and Park gate entrances open and in working order)? Have any studies been done to assess the risks of any of these factors (I am not aware of any)?

These are just some of the issues and concerns that I hope will be addressed by Councilmember Park, Bureau of Engineering, Department of Recreation and Parks, and the community before committing the substantial assets that will be required to create this unnecessary bridge.

Jeffrey Spitz
32-Year Resident of the Via Bluffs