By Jackie Connor, Special to the Independent
Laguna Beach City Council unanimously approved the decision to delay the final resolution for the $2.7 million Forest Ave Promenade project until April due to a need for clarification around the project’s scope and public process.
In a recent council meeting on Feb. 26, Mayor Sue Kempf and Councilmember Mark Orgill shared the council will revisit the previously approved plan and hinted at a potential counterproposal to the city council’s recommendations.
“I think it’s not clear,” said Kempf. “And so, what I think we want to do is come back with…a counterproposal from the city council’s recommended action and some more embellishment around the public process.”
The project aims to transform the historic Forest Ave into a permanent pedestrian plaza with workshops for a previously proposed design competition that was open to those within and outside of the Laguna Beach community, but as Orgill stated, “…the community came forward and did remind us that we have a lot of talent in this town…so that’s a lot of what drove this decision and I’m really happy about that.”
Orgill went on to say after professional input is received, the council will schedule general community outreaches.
The temporary promenade emerged as a result of the 2020 pandemic and has since been maintained as a semi-permanent fixture located on the lower end of Forest Ave. The debate on whether to make this a permanent community fixture has raised questions about public participation in planning the project itself.
Additionally, Kempf pointed out that the promenade ad hoc committee, which includes herself and Orgill, will work with staff as well as consultants to better identify the project scope as well as public involvement.
“We are taking a step back…we’re responding to some of the comments that we heard,” said Orgill. “Last part of what we are doing is …defining a project description. We are doing a constraints assessment…so we have this information to bring to the conversation so everybody’s not guessing.”
However, the public’s concern was palpable during the recent council meeting with comments suggesting unfair selection of committee members. Residents also emphasized a lack of cohesiveness regarding the strategy of the Forest Ave Promenade, as well as a need for complete transparency in the decision-making process. The project has so far created waves in the beach town community with previous concerns raised about the small ad hoc committee in addition to the project’s transparency.
“We need complete transparency,” resident Jerome Pudwill said. “And also, we need to have unbiased participants, not cherry-picked individuals, but those who are experienced and who are residents who have a voice of the public.”
Les Miklosy, Laguna Beach resident, has posted letters to the community questioning the project as well as reached out to the project manager, but received no response.
In a previous meeting, the majority of public comment showed strong opposition to the promenade’s permanence with concerns over the community’s lack of clarity around the project scope in addition to its cost and feasibility. In addition, residents expressed a lack of interest in retail operations with more emphasis placed on the dining experience and alcohol consumption, though one resident shared his business has flourished compared to his Dana Point and San Clemente locations.
As the community awaits the April city council meeting, the promenade’s fate hangs in the balance of a permanent cityscape fixture. Council members will present a project and recommendations on the public process in addition to bringing people onto the committee.
No one ever proved the need for this gimmick.
Subjective opinions about it but no verifiable, measurable advantages.
This is why it should at minimum have been voted upon, not subject to the whims of a pro-business Council.
Classic “Tyranny of the Majority,” which shouldn’t grant 3 Council members the right to hold residents hostage by favoring a few businesses.
There was nothing broken, needing fixing, renovation of what was a characteristic element of historical downtown. Forest Avenue from PCH to City Hall can be seen as a type of heritage.
That “Downtown USA” vibe has been absconded to benefit a very select few.
Les M. himself is a “classic case:” He meticulously, methodically analyzes projects and their impacts, the various scenarios and addresses necessary mitigations, ways to measure success.
I’ve seen him do it myself in our personal interaction.
He uses facts, actually delivers professional product gratis, follows the hypotheses to their logical conclusions (outputs & outcomes), and this particular issue has lacked facts for several years.
Now the Council is just stalling, delaying and paying lip service to the few brave enough to call them out on this “Emperor has no clothes” confrontation.
In this instance, another aspect to the fray is what we in my land use and enviro-assessment profession call “The Why.”
Why do this at all?
There was a temporary need, that need is over, remove the eyesore that it is.
To become even ephemeral (part time blocking off of the street), it should have gone through a robust EIR process (not an ND or MND) per CEQA, the cumulative impacts aren’t being peer reviewed in toto but in isolation.
And for the life of me, why the various parties (NGOs, PACs, et al) haven’t filed a CEQA challenge forcing the EIR issue in OC Superior Court is beyond me.
There are self-anointed PAC leaders with big $$$ in their coffers….so maybe PACs are just cash cows for those in control of the money?
Wherever there’s controversy, whether for political and/or fiscal gain, there will be ticks, leeches and snake oil salespeople ready to siphon people’s “wish wallets” to their advantage.
Dancing around in Council Chambers won’t be effective: An independent judge will.
A “uncompensated, illegitimate taking” is in progress, this is a form of municipal theft of WE, THE PEOPLE’S property.
Throughout the City, sidewalk encroachments formerly verboten are allowed, part of what’s turning us into a foreign place of a select few’s dream.
We’re not somewhere else.
Those unhappy? Move to your “somewhere else.”
Finally a sound decision made by our City Council: “We are taking a step back…we’re responding to some of the comments that we heard,” said Orgill. “Last part of what we are doing is …defining a project description. We are doing a constraints assessment…so we have this information to bring to the conversation so everybody’s not guessing.”
Thank you CC Orgil. Any significant infrastructure change and the spending of millions in public funds in our downtown or elsewhere in our city should not be decided solely by three public officials. Period.
This statement: “Additionally, Kempf pointed out that the promenade ad hoc committee, which includes herself and Orgill, will work with staff as well as consultants to better identify the project scope as well as public involvement.”
Thank you Mayor Kempf. I ask that the ad hoc committee be fully transparent by identifying by name staff, consultants and all members of the public with their local roles and affiliations selected by you and CC Orgill to serve on this committee.
Here we go again, a project without definition, purpose nor requirements. Without specified requirements the project planners don’t know what the Promenade should achieve, now WHY they built it. The Promenade was not the answer to Covid-19 in 2020, it was the answer to community space in 2010: https://lagunastreets.blogspot.com/2017/09/today-is-parking-day.html