By Michele Monda
The city council majority is on a spending spree with resident’s money, and there’s no end in sight. Consider the mega-expensive projects they anticipate passing.
The biggest project is taking over Laguna Canyon Road from Caltrans. According to city staff, this will cost $141 million for undergrounding, bike and pedestrian lanes and beautification. Then, there’s a projected annual liability outlay of $12 million and $250,000 per year for upkeep (not including new staff and equipment).
The council majority stated that it’s necessary for wildfire reduction. Yet the city’s consultant, HDR, writes, “There’s a low likelihood that the relocation of utility infrastructure in the Laguna Canyon Road right-of-way will generate wildfire prevention benefits.”
A pivot was necessary. Now, the council majority says the reason for the takeover is safety, but there are other much less costly solutions for improving safety besides taking over the road and resulting annual costs.
Additionally, Caltrans will be subject to SB-960, which mandates that it implements Complete Streets. It passed the Senate and will likely pass the Assembly. This means that many of the reasons given to assume Laguna Canyon Road will have to be done by Caltrans.
Staff says the state will pay most of the $141 million with grants, but grants were not forthcoming in 2018 or 2022 (when staff said $47 million in public funds would be enough to underground LCR). The city continues exploring funding options.
We have spent $9.8 million on this project since 2017. California has a deficit, the economy isn’t good, and the outlook for grant funding isn’t good. Councilman Whalen spent his career doing municipal bond work. Can one be far behind?
Why is the council not allowing taxpayers to vote on this expensive venture that will tie up a key evacuation route for years? (Remember Third Street?)
The next spending item is participation in a desalinization plant. City council serves as directors on the Laguna Beach County Water District board. Whalen has been a liaison for the desalinization project for the past two years.
Recently, by a 4-1 vote, the city council authorized $2.6 million for the project’s first phase, agreeing to participate in the South Coast water district’s desalinization project for $23 million. This is only for building the plant. We still pay for the water that we only receive in an emergency. Getting the water requires infrastructure upgrades of $300,000 – $600,000. The water is projected to cost an estimated $2,400 per acre-foot, but maybe more like $3,500 per acre-foot as produced by Carlsbad’s desal plant.
Yet for $1,100 an acre-foot, we could get water from the Orange County Basin, where we already have water rights that will provide 80% of our water needs, plus we are currently looking at sites.
For emergency water, we have a mutual aid agreement with other OC agencies and can secure an agreement with Irvine Ranch Water District, which has two connections to our water system. Why does our city council majority think this is a good way to spend ratepayer money? Don’t we have more important priorities?
Another project: The council wants a parking structure at City Hall. Despite multiple rejections by residents of other structures at the Village entrance, they plow ahead. They have already spent $708,000 on a consultant study for a parking structure to accommodate more day-trippers. But there was no discussion about the need for a plan, the cost of the structure, who will pay for it, or how it will be funded. Another bond?
The promenade could cost another $3 to $4 million. We have already spent over $1 million on maintenance, building and rebuilding it, along with lost parking revenue. Despite any empirical data or bona fide survey, the council majority, led by Mayor Kempf, will not accept a hybrid plan that would help retailers, capture lost parking revenue and preserve our historic street.
Next expenditure: the Downtown Action Plan, estimated at $14 million. Approved in 2022, it awaits funding. Why aren’t the beneficiaries, downtown businesses, contributing?
Then there’s the $23 million spent on acquiring St. Catherine’s. To date, it has limited recreational use for residents and is used to house some city staff.
Why is the city council majority looking at projects costing millions of dollars with marginal value for residents?
Let’s get serious about using St. Catherine’s for recreation—build that community pool, parking lot, and skateboard park there, put in a preschool, and maybe a children’s library, which now stores 5,000 books.
Put more streetlights on Glenneyre for safety, upgrade our decaying sewer system and build that fire station in south Laguna.
In this difficult economic environment, we need to change how we spend. In November, elect candidates prioritizing resident-serving projects instead of wasteful pet projects.
Michèle is a 21-year Laguna resident and actively follows Laguna politics. She is the treasurer of Laguna Beach Sister Cities and is involved with the local arts scene. She can be reached at Michelemonda3@gmail.com.
