Out of the Blue: Moving Laguna forward without more cars

The Laguna Beach City Council meeting Aug. 19 saw two momentous agenda items for multimodal mobility improvements. The city was eager to move them forward, with the theme of the night being, “Let’s get ‘er done.”

That’s good news, though both seem to be more ambitious, costly and depressingly tedious than they need to be.

Take the long-awaited Top of the World pathway improvement to Arch Beach Heights. Sure, we all want to see the path improved so everyone can make safe passage. It’s all tee’d up. The public comments were overwhelmingly supportive, the affected homeowners amenable, the funding lined up, and city staff ready to pounce.

Except there are just a few more encroachments and easements to work out. And then, of course, the design and materials have to be finalized, all of which still has to be approved by the Design Review Board. Who knows how long that will take.

People wonder why it’s been over a decade and we’re still not done. As City Manager John Pieteg said, this has been a complex project with multiple easements, open space, parking and sidewalk issues, plus multiple affected homeowners — with lots of sway. City staff has worked long and hard, and now we are at the goal line.

But the public deserves an explanation of how we got here. How is it that a group of homeowners could privatize a long-standing fire road and force us to build around it? After all, this has not been cheap. The project budget is $320,000 so far, according to a staff report. And then there’s the cost to taxpayers for 10 years of staff meetings, negotiations, contracts and regulatory approvals.

How did this enclave of five super-modern homes get the right to block public egress with a gate on a fire road, a road that connects every walker, hiker, biker and commuter from Top of the World to Arch Beach Heights?

The city provided me the only information it had, a county parcel map from 1985 that stated, “The private driveway shall be owned, operated and maintained by the developer, its successors or assigns.” It’s not clear when and how a gate was erected to keep the great unwashed from passage between the neighborhoods.

Sure, it’s not a public road for cars, but why not a pedestrian gateway that would allow easy passage for those who can’t navigate the trail — and save us time, money and open space. Why wouldn’t we fight for our rights — even if it’s costly — if it’s morally the right thing to do?

The Coastal Commission does it all the time with wealthy beachfront property owners who try to block public access. Even if this project was not initiated on the current staff’s watch, it does suggest we must not be afraid to put our legal retainer to good use.

The next item on the agenda was the long anticipated Laguna Canyon Road Corridor Improvement Assessment, presented by RBF

Apart from a nifty intro video that simulated a slow heli ride over the length of Laguna Canyon Road, I saw no inspiration or creativity. I was hoping for some dynamic reimaginings of this road but was met with five variations on the same theme: welcoming more cars.

The good news is they all included undergrounding the utility poles and creating a dedicated bike lane. The bad news is every one of them included more lanes for cars. In fact, that’s all they proposed — either three or four lanes, with or without a median divider. Yawn.

Yes, Laguna Canyon is congested. But haven’t we learned anything from just a year ago when our town voiced significant opposition to a multistory parking lot downtown? Why on earth would we then have collective amnesia and allow this firm to suggest bringing even more cars into town when we don’t have any place to put them?

And why would we be OK with the project taking up to 11 years to complete? That’s 11 years of road construction, folks. Can you imagine? All to accommodate more cars, while modern cities with progressive planners around the planet are constructing ways to limit them.

And why does every alternative for Laguna Canyon Road put bikers at severe risk with a Class 2 bikeway, meaning a striped lane with no protection from motorists? The road has recently seen an unacceptable spate of cyclists and pedestrian injuries and deaths. If we are spending money to widen the road, priority one should be a Class 1 protected bike lane with a real barrier from cars.

And if we want to build an extra lane to ease traffic, why wasn’t there consideration for a public transit express lane, with a plan to build remote parking lots in the coming years?

Or what about designating that third or even fourth lane for two-way resident and commuter travel only, requiring a transponder like those used on the toll roads? Perhaps combine the lane with express public transit so visitors can use it as well — just not in their vehicles.

This is why our community needs to design these roads, not outside consultants with no dog in the fight. Thankfully, there will be a citizen task force to review this and recommend the best way forward. I trust they’ll better understand the complicated issues that confront us in the coming years and will do the right thing, if 18 people can agree on anything besides pizza.

BILLY FRIED is the chief paddling officer of La Vida Laguna and member of the board of Transition Laguna. He can be reached at billy@lavidalaguna.com