Opinion: A History of The Village Entrance

Share this:

By Elizabeth Pearson

After reading a recent column about the Village Entrance wherein my name was mentioned – and a letter on the subject, please note the following:

  • In March 1995, the City Council appointed a 21-community member Village Entrance Task Force to recommend a path forward for a Village Entrance. I was on the Task Force as I was a Planning Commissioner. The Recommendations from the Task Force were presented in October 1995.
  • In September 2004, the City Council appointed two City Councilmembers to work as a sub-committee to forge a compromise to move the Village Entrance project forward, with me being one of the members. (I was elected to City Council in November 2002).
  • By January 18, 2005, the subcommittee had mutually agreed upon 12 points for a Village Entrance Compromise, including moving the corporation yard to Act V, creating a beautiful park and natural pathway, retaining the digester, and building a garage with up to 580 spaces to be no higher than 36-feet high. This Village Entrance compromise was presented at an all-day community workshop on that date and well received.
  • On June 8, 2011 the Planning Commission certified the Environmental Impact Report for the Village Entrance with several alternatives and sizes, etc.
  • By March 26, 2013, I continued in the direction of the Village Entrance Compromise, but the other councilmember pursued a different direction. On that date, the two councilmembers presented separate plans for a Village Entrance project to the City Council and public. I was not pressured by the Chamber of Commerce to pursue my plan. It was a scaled down version of the original Village Entrance Compromise. The plan had a garage with three stories above ground and the balance of parking was below ground. There would be a total of 585 parking places on the site. The final cost projected by Waller Construction for my plan was about $35.3 million, before financing costs.
  • Working with councilmember Bob Whalen, we developed the financing plan that would utilize existing funds in the Parking Fund, a Revenue Bond to be paid for annually with anticipated parking meter revenues (from meters located all over town)—and other non-Laguna taxpayer sources. The Council voted to adopt this plan in June 2013.
  • After all the approvals, a councilmember said “let’s get the town to vote on this”. Thus, a group called “Let Laguna Vote” organized to fight the approved Village Entrance project, touting a cost of over $60 million. The group stormed City Hall and put up signs citywide to stop the approved project.

After much thought, I felt that the short time frame prior to a public vote would not be enough time to explain the costs and bond financing structure—nor to show Laguna taxpayers how the project would not be paid for by residents. Also, I felt that it could create a negative battle in town such as we experienced with the Montage Referendum.  Thus, after working 18 years for a beautiful gateway Village Entrance for the City which would add 10% more parking to the downtown, I decided not to move forward. There was never a public vote on the Village Entrance project.

I continue to dream of a beautiful Village Entrance that adds parking spaces at this location – just before drivers enter downtown Laguna, thus reducing congestion and the “washing machine” circling effect Larry Nokes often refers to when describing cars circling round-and-round town to find a parking space. It needs to happen and I believe it will.

Elizabeth was a 12-year councilmember and three-time mayor.

Share this:
Firebrand Media LLC wants comments that advance the discussion, and we need your help to accomplish this mission. Debate and disagreement are welcomed on our platforms but do it with respect. We won't censor comments we disagree with. Viewpoints from across the political spectrum are welcome here. While everyone is entitled to their opinion, our community is not obliged to host all comments shared on its website or social media pages, including:
  • Hate speech that is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic slurs, or calls for violence against a particular type of person.
  • Obscenity and excessive cursing.
  • Libelous language, whether or not the writer knows what they're saying is false.
We require users to provide their true full name, including first and last names, as a condition for comments. We reserve the right to change this policy based on future developments.

Scroll down to comment on this post.


  1. Thank you for the perspective Elizabeth. I love reading fact based articles not laced with vitriolic accusations. Well done.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here