Potrero Canyon Bridge
I write to correct certain areas of misunderstanding resulting from statements and questions at public meetings related to the Potrero Canyon pedestrian bridge project (the March 7 Pacific Palisades Community Council meeting and March 14 community meeting hosted by CD 11 and the city’s bridge outreach contractor).
By way of background, I am the current PPCC at-large representative, past PPCC president and secretary, past member of the former Potrero Canyon Community Advisory Committee, and a current member of the PPCC Potrero Canyon Oversight Committee. I have 16-plus years’ experience with issues involving Potrero Canyon. I’m also a retired attorney and have reviewed every document publicly available related to the project.
1) A pedestrian bridge is not “required” by the governing Coastal Development Permit, nor has it been approved or permitted by the Coastal Commission. A new or amended CDP will be necessary for the bridge project.
2) The “lateral trail” (to run from the mouth of the canyon along PCH to the Temescal Canyon Road/PCH intersection) is required by the governing CDP, to provide safe crossing of PCH and beach access from Potrero Canyon. Although the CDP in 2014 required construction of the lateral trail, in the 10 years since, the trail has never been developed.
We have been told that a separate team at the City’s Bureau of Engineering is now working on the trail. Hopefully, we will soon obtain information on its progress.
3) Much has been made about a “feasibility study” for the bridge project (also required by the CDP in 2014, to study alternatives for direct vertical crossing over PCH from the canyon mouth). In fact, no final feasibility study was ever completed for this project. Instead, a draft feasibility study (clearly marked as such) was prepared eight years ago in 2016, never updated or finalized, and not submitted to the Coastal Commission until 2023 (and then only after extended efforts by me and Coastal Commission staff to obtain a copy of the study from the city).
The eight-year-old draft obviously did not consider current conditions, including impact on public safety because of ongoing geologic hazard (about which the Coastal Commission had for years expressed concern in the CDP). Nor does the draft feasibility study acknowledge that the lateral trail is a required element of the overall Potrero Canyon project.
4) Considering these deficiencies, the draft feasibility study should not be relied upon to substitute for a thorough and substantial study of the potential environmental impacts of the bridge project. The impacts that must be considered under the Coastal Act, which are directly relevant to this project, include the known geologic instability in the bluff area (where the inland end of the bridge would be sited) and the scenic impact of the potentially very large-sized bridge.
I hope that this letter clarifies that the bridge is not a required element of the Potrero Canyon project and that it would be inappropriate to rely on the draft feasibility study as this project moves forward. Those seeking further information can find referenced documents on the PPCC website, pacpalicc.org, and I can be contacted as PPCC at-large representative with any questions or concerns (contact information is available at the PPCC website).
Christina Spitz
The Palisadian-Post accepts letters to the editor via email at mypost@palipost.com or mailed to 21201 Victory Boulevard, Suite 267, Canoga Park, California 91303. To be considered for publication, letters must be signed, and are subject to editing for length and clarity. Opinions expressed in letters do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Post
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.
