Column: Committee approach to Laguna Canyon will not work

No one really likes committees.

So it’s ironic that cities rely on them to shape their future.

What’s worse is when cities hire consultants that kowtow to committees so much that it’s impossible to tell them apart.

Let’s talk about a current example: the Laguna Beach effort to improve Laguna Canyon.

By way of quick background, Laguna Canyon always has been the black sheep of the city.

Way back when, the infamous Timothy Leary was busted in the canyon, which perhaps cemented its defiance for all time.

For years a significant part of the canyon wasn’t even in the city — it was unincorporated.

As a result, the zoning rules have been a hodgepodge of either non-existent or non-enforceable. Whatever rules there are have routinely been ignored.

Having said all that, I love the canyon. It has become the dying but still beloved heart and soul of Laguna.

When people pine about the “good ’ol days of Laguna,” it’s essentially what you have in the dark recesses of the canyon: privacy, freedom and the confidence to create something cool and unexpected.

But, alas, in the current climate of Laguna politics and banality, creativity is not high on the agenda.

On paper, politicians and committees will claim one thing, but in reality, it’s something entirely different.

On paper, the city wants to enable the canyon to thrive with better artist live-work spaces and more desirable zoning.

In reality, it is proposing to limit live-work spaces to untenable densities that will force artists to move out of Laguna because it will be way too expensive.

All these ideas are coming to a head in the coming weeks and months in various city meetings. Ultimately, there will be a final vote before the City Council, probably by late summer.

But here’s the fundamental problem with the process: There is no true vision for the canyon.

Essentially, the city hired a consultant, MIG, and told it to look at the canyon and figure out how to make it better.

So MIG is nearing the end of its work.

It has met with neighborhood groups, studied the byzantine planning codes, researched comparable cities, etc., and this week MIG showed its latest PowerPoint presentation to the Planning Commission.

I’ll save you the 89-page report.

It’s underwhelming. Why? Because it really doesn’t propose anything interesting — certainly not innovative.

Yes, there are tweaks and reasonable suggestions. There are consolidations to zoning rules. There are clarifications about how far someone can develop from the creek (as if that has stopped people in the past).

There are color pictures of several different types of pedestrian pathways: decomposed granite, natural soil, bark mulch, compact gravel, porous asphalt or concrete.

There is considerable discussion about whether the report should include the definitions of “rustic” or “rural” as a key characteristic.

What’s clear is the report lacks vision. It’s simply an amalgam of tactics that does nothing to help protect and shape the long-term health and vitality of the canyon.

In other words, it’s a house not a home.

It’s a similar problem facing Laguna as a whole.

We’ve reached this point in our maturity curve where we know something needs changing but we don’t know how to tackle it.

So we don’t.

We ignore it or we throw money at consultants but then don’t act.

Mark my words: Nothing substantive will come out of this Laguna Canyon planning effort.

The committees will bicker endlessly, neighbors will say “not in my backyard,” and any bold ideas will get watered down until finally, the report will fit nicely on a shelf.

Residents will get nothing except the bill.

DAVID HANSEN is a writer and Laguna Beach resident. He can be reached at hansen.dave@gmail.com.