Village Matters

Two Is Not Enough

Our town is about to be torn apart once again.

We live in the sweetest town imaginable and yet we don’t seem to be able to make community decisions without strife and acrimony. It doesn’t have to be this way.

At Monday night’s meeting of the Arts Commission, conflicting responses to an artist-designed structure for the Village Entrance were fervently and emotionally put forth. The structure with five mushroom-shaped domes made of intricately woven aluminum strips would be taking up the recently completed planted and pathway area in the Village Entrance across from the Festival of Arts.

The Village Entrance has been in the planning process since the 1990s and before. Finally, when plan after plan had been scrutinized and rejected, we approved pathways, planting, new trees and a cobblestone parking area. Millions of dollars were allocated. It was installed in time for summer, and the tour I recently led enjoyed walking from downtown to festivals in a pleasant atmosphere. The earthtone fencing has given new respect to the creek, and surprisingly we appreciated the “slinky,” the sculptural row of bike racks. We have new faith in our community’s decision-making process. After all these attempts, we have an entrance that brings the canyon atmosphere to join with the downtown. It welcomes us home as well as shares this special rustic Laguna atmosphere with our visitors.

Building the proposed art structure will demolish and replace the largest portion of the park area of the Village Entrance—where the “slinky” is located and beyond. Newly planted trees will be discarded. It will be all torn up again, and all the angst that got us to a project we’ve been enjoying will be for naught. We’re in the process now of starting all over with more conflict.

Meantime the historic digester building waits nearby, its potential to be restored as an arts center and community gathering space unfulfilled. Instead of being a focal point, a companion to the water district building and the lifeguard tower, this 1930s WPA building would be dominated by the conflicting art structure. (At 69 feet long, the art structure is 20 feet longer than the historic digester building.)

The Arts Commission’s goal in proposing this art structure is to provide a community gathering space for cultural arts programming. Those very activities could take place in and around a restored historic digester building—in an area much more suited for such events, secluded and removed from noisy Laguna Canyon Road.

The Commission seems to be already in love with this—commissioners sung its praises before public input began. They have been saving funds for a project of this magnitude from their Business Improvement District yearly allocation for years. They now have $971, 575 available, plus $135,000 from the art in lieu fund. They have been working on this particular project since spring of 2018. Back then, a two-councilmember subcommittee was appointed to shepherd the project. Already $180,000 has been allocated for artist services. Why are we spending these funds here in this newly finished and already beautiful place?

How did we get to this awkward and unpleasant situation where worthy goals conflict?

We have had a process that excludes broad public input until the project is so far along that its proponents no longer listen.

Appoint a subcommittee of two councilmembers that meet privately. Tell the public and the rest of the council, “Don’t worry, let’s see how this develops. You’ll have plenty of opportunity for input when this comes back to you.” Problem is that by that time, the project is often so far along that positions are entrenched.

Two councilmembers in an ad hoc council subcommittee are not enough to make decisions that require broad participation. We’ve tried that over and over, and while it may sound like it’s expediting the process, keeping out broad involvement has negative repercussions later on.

Laguna doesn’t have a history of good results with this method. The Village Entrance parking garage proposal was abandoned after years of investment once the public found out about its impacts and costs. The recently completed fire protection plan was adopted by the council in one meeting, but missed out on the opportunity to generate broad and unified support. Now we have the inappropriate and wasteful art structure at the Village Entrance to sort out.

This method is not only expensive financially, it wears our community fabric. In the last phase of the Village Entrance, the city abandoned the two-member council subcommittee approach and used more transparent and effective ways of involving the public. This receptivity resulted in the popular project we have now. Let’s repeat that approach and enjoy public involvement from both sides of the dais.

The art structure at the Village Entrance will be voted on by the Arts Commission on Aug. 26 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Chambers.

Ann Christoph is a landscape architect and former mayor and member of the City Council.