By Bob Borthwick, landscape architect
The Sept. 22 Promenade Workshop was a disappointing day for transparency and public participation in our local government. This first opportunity for the public to weigh in on the planning objectives for the permanent street closure on lower Forest Avenue was instead an exercise about preferences for planting styles, hardscape and lighting. As one participant commented under his breath:
“This is like measuring for the drapes before you buy the house.”
We need to step back and consider what problems we are trying to solve. This block is arguably the most successful and lively of all of our city’s commercial areas, and its success is borne out by the high rents charged for businesses there. Then there is the question of how much liveliness or “vibrancy” is necessary or desirable. Visitor surveys have shown that Laguna has never had a problem attracting tourists, with a downtown street closure or without. Many Lagunans of all generations live here, and tourists come here expressly because our downtown has a simple, authentic, and unpretentious look and feel.
It’s important to remember that the origination of the present closure was a City Council decision in May of 2020 to provide locations for outdoor seating for Covid-shuttered restaurants. There was and has been no evaluation of a permanent Forest Avenue closure. In the two years that followed when permanent closure was discussed, public participation was still restricted by the Covid policies and Zoom meetings.
Yet in May 2022, the Council voted to hire RRM to design two concepts, both designs requiring the permanent closure of lower Forest Ave. City staff has been working behind closed doors with what they consider to be the “stakeholders” for the project [selected lower Forest Ave restaurant and shop owners]. No members of the general public were included. The public financing aspects will require up to an estimated $4 million for street demolition and plaza construction costs, and the permanent elimination of 47 parking spaces will represent an estimated at $400-500,000 annual revenue loss. The potential collateral damage to the loss of our traditional “small town main street” remains unknown.
Lack of public vetting opportunities should not mean that the public should just accept this highly consequential and expensive project without asking questions. Rather than jumping headlong into a permanent street closure design, the City should consider other planning options [if the objective is to “enliven” downtown]. For instance, the “Park Place” public plaza on the lower end of Park Ave [between the library alley and Coast Highway] was made pedestrian-only from October 2017 to January 2018 as an experiment. Considering the low budget and temporary nature of the project, it was successful. Loss of parking was only eight parallel spaces, and no businesses were adversely affected.
The current Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) includes images of “Park Place” plaza as a potential for downtown. [The DSP does not recommend closure of lower Forest Avenue.]
Lower Forest Ave could stay open for cars, parking in the existing 47 spaces, and deliveries during daytime business hours. On selected nights, from 5 to 9 p.m., the street could be converted to pedestrian-only with food from local restaurants and music/entertainment provided – a potential “Hospitality Night” street party once a week and “business-as-usual” during the day. The IBI Parking Study [2016] suggests such flexible options during non-peak parking periods. Other urban design and site planning alternatives could be explored, including dining options in selected locations.
True public participation in decisions for Forest Avenue should take place now–before this project goes further. As a community, we should consider a much-expanded list of options for the downtown in relation to what is important for our city and its future. It’s not too late for a comprehensive approach.
Mr. Borthwick,
You are writing this on the LB Indy, so I am assuming you saw the survey results from last week’s survey or maybe you started drafting this letter before the results were in? It wasn’t even close; an overwhelming majority of the public would like the Forest Promenade to become permeate. Typically, these surveys have been dominated but the activist population that has nothing to do with their lives, but the tides are shifting, and the results were very clear. How’s that for public participation?
If you have comments and would like to participate I suggestion you can write a letter to your city council person. This back seat driver approach to what city employee or officials should do is wrong. What’s next a public form, heck ballot for every type of succulents, or the chair used in the patio design. Seems excessive and not practical. If you think the public supports your ideas and would like to make a difference then run for office. People want this and they didn’t hire your firm, associates or maybe even ask your opinion to do the design, don’t take it personal.
What is this ‘column’? Really it’s just free content for the Indy. But it’s turning out to be a soap box isn’t it? People, when the public ‘weighs in’ it means they can express their viewpoint. The Council or City has no obligation to do what the locals demand. Laguna, please, learn that you should have some civility and respect the voters choices for City Council and not try to finagle a law to side wind every decision The Council makes in the name of The People who voted them in. This noble feining is getting toxic.
Bob, because your concepts make way too much sense, are pretty well thought out, pragmatic, easily do-able, middle ground, unfortunately they won’t be adopted let alone considered.
As a regulatory compliance analyst, I’m still trying to figure out how/why the Coastal Commission has allowed this to go on past Covid re-opening. The commerce-suppressing conditions are gone.
The “something must be done” urgency has often led to many a bad, hasty decision.
A permanent solution to an emergency problem that no longer exists, does it? Now we’ve lessened/deflected central district access and drivers seeking spaces move outward in a kind of spiral…into adjacent neighborhoods like those above Glenneyre, from Park to Legion or further South.
It’s not just the loss of those Forest Ave. spaces, those parklets should be in the mix as they too removed or altered…….including business delivery truck hours/access as you’ve astutely noted.
There were none to replace them in such close proximity. IOUs, TDB, TBA at some later point/date is absurd.
Now the City is looking at blowing millions to replace what we already had.
The Promenade has altered traffic circulation not only due to physical blockage of a critical flow element: Without existing replacement spaces locals drive around in a “forever forage” mode, including those relatively new or who haven’t been here in a while.
So traffic patterns, like blood flow, clog, bulge and increase vehicular chaos. And more stagnant air pollution.
Parking and Traffic circulation are on the State’s CEQA checklist, as in Air Quality, so far nowhere have I seen mandated mitigations.
And frankly, if VL et al are so savvy, why haven’t THEY filed legal challenges? Get it in front of a Superior Court Judge.
Just arguing about arranging the deck chairs now.
The name alone gives it away, I see why Ruben Flores wanted something else. Promenade: Upscale, tony, bougie types who wish to parade, see others like them and be seen. A movie “Scene,” with all of the celebrities on the lot.
Like “Sunset Boulevard,” they’re preening, ready for their closer-up Mr. DeMille!
Thank you. You state: “ The current Downtown Specific Plan (DSP) includes images of “Park Place” plaza as a potential for downtown. [The DSP does not recommend closure of lower Forest Avenue.]”
I’m baffled by the fact that we have gotten to the permanency stage without proper examination of the impacts and inclusive taxpayer vetting. Tapping only city insiders and a few businesses that directly benefit to weigh in is not what I consider city due-diligence.
And the fact that this downtown change triggers the need to replace the parking per the coastal commission at a $50 million plus investment that Peter Blake says we ill pay and businesses won’t isn’t acceptable. Thank you.
Many have commented regarding what does and what does not constitute development, what is and what isn’t a significant remodel, i.e., re-development. Many of those same people have trouble making hide or hair regarding not just Measure Q but many zoning ordinances, specific plans, etc.
The arcane language can be a turn-off, but it’s alway important to keep in mind that attorneys had a heavy hand in the verbiage—–hence guaranteed employment, a very profitable niche industry has emerged.
Like Delphic Oracles, they decipher but at $3-400/hour or more. We’ve come a long way since the Pharaohs too, they had such advisors buried with them.
There are CEQA exceptions to oversight or public hearing mechanisms, but most are emergency health & safety oriented regarding common infrastructure failures. The lead agency isn’t bound because timely protection/rehab is critical.
Once again, don’t shoot the messenger, investigate and educate yourselves: CEQA Chapter 34.
And the occlusion Bob is addressing actually qualifies as a “project,” needing some type of analyses and conclusions: Especially if there are actual physical changes and/or reasonably foreseeable indirect changes in the environment.
Look at Forest as yes, a la Ruben Flores, a virtual forest, a mini-ecosystem.
Things on the CEQA checklist, that permanently effect the air quality (smog) plus migrational foraging (traffic circulation) and nesting (parking) activities meet the mitigation required mandates via a pleading accepted as equitable:”Fair Argument Standards.” (FAS)
There’s the general catch-all, Cumulative Impacts, which using FAS, there is a legal case to be made that this blockage doesn’t conform because the mitigation needed should already be in place, not an after thought or post-facto, retroactive remedy.
Once again, with all of the attorneys in this berg, surely there must be one in LRF and/or VL populace who could file?
Filing in OC Superior Court might at least clarify instead of this long daisy chain of projects—especially ones that questionably beg for a Coastal Development Permit.
Let’s hear what a sharp legal expert up the food chain, an independent, objective 3rd party thinks. A real judge without a conflict of interest.
Then we have our precedent and guardrails.
Right now it’s about whichever side fooled the most voters, while those of us in the middle want closure.
Bob,
What problem are we trying to solve? Glad you asked. Isolation, noise, air pollution, lack of pedestrian friendly areas and community gathering spaces, the subordination of the human experience to the car, the ongoing congestion of Forest that backs up onto Coast Highway when one parked car backs up, the ugliness of sheet metal covering our “Main Street,” not enough outdoor dining in our fair Mediterranean climate. Park Plaza was ok but no store and no restaurants for outdoor dining. By the way, Main Streets of the future are car-less. Paris, New York, Milan are ridding themselves of cars and creating piazzas for more livable, people centric living. And as we evolve to ride share and driverless cars, the need for parking will become a thing of the past. Best of all, it has the potential to get bitter, isolated, lonely people who try to sabotage new ideas with data-free conjecture about negative impacts off their keyboards and participating in the human experience, which has the potential to heal them.
Great points for both sides. I love downtown Laguna beach. Before COVID, we used to frequent it for shopping, dining, etc. Typically, we’d luckily find metered parking on/near Forest. But due to Forest St area closure, we’ve returned to shop & dine there only once. PCH Street parking is beyond sparse & dangerous; parking lot fees are $$$. Regardless if closing Forest becomes permanent, a parking structure and/or lowering parking lot fees would be ideal to attract the ‘locals’ who live 10+ miles away.