Downtown Specific Plan

Village Laguna was involved in the original Downtown Specific Plan and in the various amendments over many years. In this revision we contributed to the workshops and planning commission meetings and participated in the ad hoc committees of Chamber and, property and business owners in the downtown that produced documents for staff and planning commission review. The protection of the village character of the downtown is very important to our community and an important part of that is the health of our unique businesses.

Village Laguna supports making the Conditional Use Permit process more flexible given what we know about the challenges to retail business even before the pandemic. The change is especially welcome because it will be combined with the constant monitoring of the results on the mix of uses and the possibility of changing the requirements by resolution at any time. We agree that CUPs for bars, restaurants, and other more intense uses should continue to be required. Since this version of the Downtown Specific Plan update contains many important policies that respect the character and provide for the well-being of the downtown we support its adoption with the following exceptions:

We agree with the staff and council recommendations to defer the building height and parcel merger provisions and the introduction of incentives for market-rate housing and are relieved to find that all such changes have been removed from the draft.
Please also defer Chapter 4, The Urban Design section. It completely ignores the community input on the subject in its content and contains generic recommendations not appropriate for Laguna Beach. Its format is inconsistent with the rest of the plan-it appears to be part of some other document. Please edit the text to match the other chapters and include the report of the ad hoc urban design group, resolving any conflict with the Landscape and Scenic Highways Element and the Downtown Action Plan. One example of what is needed is the discussion of lower Forest Avenue. The ad hoc urban design group includes a thorough analysis and illustrations of various options, while the present report includes only one suggestion—to pave the street with brick. The trial Promenade project that just opened could inform the suggestions in the DSP and this is another reason to defer adoption of this chapter.
Don’t change the parking requirement to 3 per 1,000 square feet and don’t make it a policy in the Downtown Specific Plan.
- Existing businesses would presumably not benefit from the reduction. Reducing the required parking for new businesses would provide an incentive for property owners to replace an existing low-intensity use (a retail store, for example) with a high-intensity use (a bar or restaurant). Their increased numbers of customers would be competing for the same spaces that the existing businesses have counted on. At the same time, the retail survey says that the only businesses in the downtown that were not underperforming by industry standards were the restaurants and bars. This suggests that tipping the scales in the direction of restaurants and bars might well be the end of our precariously balanced mix of businesses.
- The change in the permit process includes safeguards against this sweeping change in uses, both by requiring a conditional use permit for restaurants and bars and by allowing revision of the CUP requirements by Council resolution. In contrast, the change in required parking is proposed as a policy and would therefore be difficult to correct. The existing Downtown Specific Plan doesn’t mention the particular parking requirements, which are listed in detail in the Municipal Code Section 25.52. At a minimum, it seems to us that any new formula for the downtown would require amendment of the code to explain it. o
- We urge you to delete Topic 4, Policy 7 that specifies the 3 parking spaces /1000 sq. ft. as inappropriately detailed for this kind of document. If you should want to amend that specific number, it will require Coastal Commission approval. If you decide to go ahead with this concept, we suggest that you make it an amendment to the Municipal Code instead of a Specific Plan policy, which might make it easier to change if it doesn’t work as intended.
Replace the table on p. 47 with the original list (pp. 11-7 and III-8 of the current Specific Plan, attached here. While historic preservation is still reported as “an important concern” and represented in Topic 1, Policies 14 through 17 (p. 45), all that’s left of the 65 structures identified as historic in the original plan is the 24 structures on the Laguna Beach Historic Register or considered eligible for the National Register. This is information that should still be included to support these policies. We are attaching photos of some examples of the important buildings that the updated plan omits
Please direct staff to correct or resolve errors or inconsistencies. While a few of our earlier corrections have been attended to, most of the errors we pointed out remain. Needed corrections are listed below:

1. Resolve the inconsistency of capitalization of “Downtown” (when used alone) throughout.

2. Chap. 2, p. 16, §1, insert names of Spanish land grants: “two principal land grants in the area (Rancho San Joaquin and Rancho Niguel, later Irvine and Moulton Ranches)” and change “the 1800’s” to “1860.”

3. Chap. 2, p. 16, § 2, replace sentence beginning “Even during those early years” and the next one with “Beginning around 1900, the first artists came to Laguna, and since then Laguna has grown as an art center.”

4. Update the description of the Village Entrance site (Chap. 2, p. 24, last §), beginning with “The Village Entrance site,” perhaps as follows: “is an important link between the summer art festivals and the downtown. A long-planned renovation, completed in the spring of 2020, has created a new first impression for everyone entering the City and provided enhanced pedestrian safety, improved traffic flow, and new public open space. Key elements of the project are protected pathways, California-friendly landscaping, outdoor gathering spaces, public art, and new parking areas.”

5. Delete Topic 9, Policy 3 (Chap. 3, p. 84), which is out of date and carries forward a leftover from the original plan in the sentence about “Permanent development.”

6. In the sentence about the “loss of existing residences” (last sentence, Chap. 3, p. 78), replace the existing phrase with what seems to have been intended, “and efforts should be made to preserve them.” (This sentence has been “corrected” since we first pointed it out, but it still seems to go off in the wrong direction.)

7. In the table showing permitted uses (p. 140), remove whichever of the “Fitness” entries is wrong

8. Resolve the inconsistency between this table of uses (p. 140), which talks about “Branded Stores,” and the definition (p. 168) and special findings (p. 167) for “Formula-based Businesses” and clarify how, if these are permitted by right, the special conditions in note g can be met. A similar problem arises with the deletion of Topic 3, Policy 5, dealing with formula-based businesses coupled with the retention of Policy 6 (p. 58), which talks about storefront review for those businesses.

9. In Figure 5.1 (Chap.5, p. 143), place the City Hall parcels in the CBD Office district (green) instead of the Arts district (red). (This follows from the renaming of the Civic/Arts District.)

10. Restore the original map of the pedestrian easement on the Central Bluffs (Chap. 5, p. 157, §1).

11. Resolve the inconsistency between Chap. 6, p. 173, Measure 5, “Request an annual report from the Police Department . . . “ and Chap. 3, p. 59, Topic 3, p. 59. Policy 17 “Require . . .

Thank you for your attention to all these points. The Downtown Specific Plan amendment is intended to serve us for years, and it’s important to get it right even if it takes a little longer.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna Nov. 20 letter(1) to City Council concerning the DSP:

The draft of the Downtown Specific Plan that you’re reviewing tonight is virtually the same as the one you saw on October 2. Since we failed to get your attention to the serious issues we raised at that meeting, we have no choice but to repeat them.

The Downtown Specific Plan was designed to protect our business district’s mix of architectural styles, small-scale buildings, pedestrian orientation, rich variety of shops and services, and sense of community. This update of it remains committed to preserving those features in most of its policies, but the Planning Commission’s overall vision for the downtown is in conflict with this objective in a number of ways. This conflict is apparent in the following policy changes:

1. The height limit.

The proposal to allow new second stories almost everywhere in the downtown violates the objective of keeping the downtown small-scale and pedestrian-friendly. Staff argues that the safeguards built into the plan will prevent the wholesale intensification of uses associated with second stories, but this argument only serves to highlight the conflict.

There’s no evidence that residents are interested in seeing more housing downtown, that there is any need for it (given the existing 400-some residential units), or that more housing would revitalize downtown business. What the Housing Element of the General Plan appears to be most concerned about is overpayment for housing, and adding second stories downtown without restricting them to affordable housing might make things worse, given that short-term rentals are so profitable and are allowed in nearly all the downtown zones.

The existing height limit is fair, and it’s been working for thirty years to help keep our downtown unique. Please don’t change it.

2. Lot consolidation.

Allowing lot consolidations of more than 5,000 square feet on Broadway and in the Arts and Office districts conflicts with the central objective of keeping the downtown small-scale (in particular p. 45, policies 19 and 20). General Development Standard A on p. 159 is clear about the intent—it says that parcels that exceed 5,000 square feet “shall not be merged together except for City-ownership projects.” The current version (Topic 8, policy 6, p. 80), which advocates “considering” doing this and specifies that it be restricted to “affordable” housing appears to recognize the danger of this idea.

Staff says that “it isn’t the intention that entire-block redevelopment would occur.” The best way to ensure that it doesn’t is to leave the important general standard (p. 159) intact and eliminate the new one that conflicts with it (p. 80).

3. The nonconforming building height standard.

The municipal code permits nonconforming structures throughout the city to be reconstructed in kind when they’re destroyed by fire or some natural disaster. The proposed new general standard (General Standards E1, p. 162) would appear to allow the owner of a downtown building to tear it down and replace it with a building of the same size, regardless of its historic defining features. There’s a conflict here with the policies encouraging preservation of all historic structures and requiring that the replacement of demolished or altered structures reflect historic character and style.”

Please modify this standard to make it clear that historic structures can only be repaired or restored, not replaced or reconstructed.

4. Flexibility in the permit process.

Monitoring the mix of businesses annually and changing permitting requirements as necessary (p. 142) is a good idea, but staff is probably right in thinking that we need to hear from the retail consultants before making detailed changes in the conditional use permit process.

Instead of committing to the current system at this point, please delay the adoption of Table 5.1 until we have received the consultants’ report and know more about the implications of making some uses “permitted by right.”

5. Parking.

The section on parking has never been closely reviewed and raises a number of questions. The draft plan (p. 63) shows that parking occupancy often exceeds the 85% standard in the summer. (Some of us would say that it often appears to exceed the standard even on weekdays during the winter.) Under the circumstances, adopting blended parking with a requirement that is far lower than the demand generated by many businesses can be expected to have a noticeable impact. The parking demand report makes two important assumptions—that any residential projects will be supplying their own parking as required and that any parking associated with new projects will be generally available to the public. The Downtown Specific Plan should include these provisions.

Please give this topic the detailed discussion it needs and consider adopting the Ad Hoc Committee’s suggestion that no changes be made until the 85% standard is met year-round and adding the committee’s recommended special finding with regard to parking for restaurant uses.

6. Historic preservation.

Omitting all mention of the Historic Resources Inventory is a premature modification that assumes that the City will be successful in dismantling the existing historic preservation ordinance next year. The plan should be consistent with the ordinance we have rather than with some anticipated one, and the deletion of the list of historic buildings will rob us of valuable information about those buildings and is inconsistent with Village Character Topic 1, policies 14, 15, 16, and 17 (p. 45) encouraging the preservation of all historic structures.

Please put the list of 65 historic buildings back and ensure that any references to historic preservation reflect the existing ordinance.

7. Urban design guidelines.

Confronted with the consultant-prepared design guidelines for the downtown and the resident-prepared alternative, staff has chosen to reproduce the first. Our impression from the many workshops conducted by the consultants was that not many of their suggested changes in this regard were enthusiastically received. At least we would like to see a comparison of the two sets of guidelines and inclusion of the resident group’s suggestions where appropriate. Now that there is also a detailed treatment of the downtown in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document and an action plan for the downtown streetscape is under way, this whole chapter seems to need reconsideration.

Please postpone adoption of this chapter until the various sets of suggestions can be evaluated and combined.

8. Inconsistencies and errors in the text.

The document still needs detailed editing to eliminate inconsistencies and errors of fact. For example, in some portions of the text the Village Entrance Project is in the future, while in others it’s in process. We’ve made a list of ordinary editorial changes that could serve as a point of departure.

Please allow time for a thorough review of the text and the graphics to make sure that the document is as clear and accurate as possible before it becomes a policy guide.

Given that the update is described as “fostering opportunities . . . to help fulfill the need for downtown housing” and “providing for greater flexibility in development standards such as increased building height and simplified parking requirements to meet future needs and growth,” it’s difficult to see how the initial environmental study can conclude that it “could not have a significant effect on the environment.” We’ve listed our reasons for objecting to the Negative Declaration in a separate letter, where we recommend that the impacts be avoided by eliminating policies that contribute to development and intensification of use in the downtown.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President Village Laguna

Village Laguna Nov. 20 letter(1) to City Council concerning the DSP:

The draft of the Downtown Specific Plan that you’re reviewing tonight is virtually the same as the one you saw on October 2. Since we failed to get your attention to the serious issues we raised at that meeting, we have no choice but to repeat them.

The Downtown Specific Plan was designed to protect our business district’s mix of architectural styles, small-scale buildings, pedestrian orientation, rich variety of shops and services, and sense of community. This update of it remains committed to preserving those features in most of its policies, but the Planning Commission’s overall vision for the downtown is in conflict with this objective in a number of ways. This conflict is apparent in the following policy changes:

1. The height limit.

The proposal to allow new second stories almost everywhere in the downtown violates the objective of keeping the downtown small-scale and pedestrian-friendly. Staff argues that the safeguards built into the plan will prevent the wholesale intensification of uses associated with second stories, but this argument only serves to highlight the conflict.

There’s no evidence that residents are interested in seeing more housing downtown, that there is any need for it (given the existing 400-some residential units), or that more housing would revitalize downtown business. What the Housing Element of the General Plan appears to be most concerned about is overpayment for housing, and adding second stories downtown without restricting them to affordable housing might make things worse, given that short-term rentals are so profitable and are allowed in nearly all the downtown zones.

The existing height limit is fair, and it’s been working for thirty years to help keep our downtown unique. Please don’t change it.

2. Lot consolidation.

Allowing lot consolidations of more than 5,000 square feet on Broadway and in the Arts and Office districts conflicts with the central objective of keeping the downtown small-scale (in particular p. 45, policies 19 and 20). General Development Standard A on p. 159 is clear about the intent—it says that parcels that exceed 5,000 square feet “shall not be merged together except for City-ownership projects.” The current version (Topic 8, policy 6, p. 80), which advocates “considering” doing this and specifies that it be restricted to “affordable” housing appears to recognize the danger of this idea.

Staff says that “it isn’t the intention that entire-block redevelopment would occur.” The best way to ensure that it doesn’t is to leave the important general standard (p. 159) intact and eliminate the new one that conflicts with it (p. 80).

3. The nonconforming building height standard.

The municipal code permits nonconforming structures throughout the city to be reconstructed in kind when they’re destroyed by fire or some natural disaster. The proposed new general standard (General Standards E1, p. 162) would appear to allow the owner of a downtown building to tear it down and replace it with a building of the same size, regardless of its historic defining features. There’s a conflict here with the policies encouraging preservation of all historic structures and requiring that the replacement of demolished or altered structures reflect historic character and style.”

Please modify this standard to make it clear that historic structures can only be repaired or restored, not replaced or reconstructed.

4. Flexibility in the permit process.

Monitoring the mix of businesses annually and changing permitting requirements as necessary (p. 142) is a good idea, but staff is probably right in thinking that we need to hear from the retail consultants before making detailed changes in the conditional use permit process.

Instead of committing to the current system at this point, please delay the adoption of Table 5.1 until we have received the consultants’ report and know more about the implications of making some uses “permitted by right.”

5. Parking.

The section on parking has never been closely reviewed and raises a number of questions. The draft plan (p. 63) shows that parking occupancy often exceeds the 85% standard in the summer. (Some of us would say that it often appears to exceed the standard even on weekdays during the winter.) Under the circumstances, adopting blended parking with a requirement that is far lower than the demand generated by many businesses can be expected to have a noticeable impact. The parking demand report makes two important assumptions—that any residential projects will be supplying their own parking as required and that any parking associated with new projects will be generally available to the public. The Downtown Specific Plan should include these provisions.

Please give this topic the detailed discussion it needs and consider adopting the Ad Hoc Committee’s suggestion that no changes be made until the 85% standard is met year-round and adding the committee’s recommended special finding with regard to parking for restaurant uses.

6. Historic preservation.

Omitting all mention of the Historic Resources Inventory is a premature modification that assumes that the City will be successful in dismantling the existing historic preservation ordinance next year. The plan should be consistent with the ordinance we have rather than with some anticipated one, and the deletion of the list of historic buildings will rob us of valuable information about those buildings and is inconsistent with Village Character Topic 1, policies 14, 15, 16, and 17 (p. 45) encouraging the preservation of all historic structures.

Please put the list of 65 historic buildings back and ensure that any references to historic preservation reflect the existing ordinance.

7. Urban design guidelines.

Confronted with the consultant-prepared design guidelines for the downtown and the resident-prepared alternative, staff has chosen to reproduce the first. Our impression from the many workshops conducted by the consultants was that not many of their suggested changes in this regard were enthusiastically received. At least we would like to see a comparison of the two sets of guidelines and inclusion of the resident group’s suggestions where appropriate. Now that there is also a detailed treatment of the downtown in the Landscape and Scenic Highways Resource Document and an action plan for the downtown streetscape is under way, this whole chapter seems to need reconsideration.

Please postpone adoption of this chapter until the various sets of suggestions can be evaluated and combined.

8. Inconsistencies and errors in the text.

The document still needs detailed editing to eliminate inconsistencies and errors of fact. For example, in some portions of the text the Village Entrance Project is in the future, while in others it’s in process. We’ve made a list of ordinary editorial changes that could serve as a point of departure.

Please allow time for a thorough review of the text and the graphics to make sure that the document is as clear and accurate as possible before it becomes a policy guide.

Given that the update is described as “fostering opportunities . . . to help fulfill the need for downtown housing” and “providing for greater flexibility in development standards such as increased building height and simplified parking requirements to meet future needs and growth,” it’s difficult to see how the initial environmental study can conclude that it “could not have a significant effect on the environment.” We’ve listed our reasons for objecting to the Negative Declaration in a separate letter, where we recommend that the impacts be avoided by eliminating policies that contribute to development and intensification of use in the downtown.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s Nov. 14 letter (2) to Wendy Jung re negative declaration for DSP revision.

Given that the current revision of the Downtown Specific Plan is described as ”fostering opportunities . . . to help fulfill the need for downtown housing with access to services and transportation” and “providing for greater flexibility in development standards such as increased building height and simplified parking requirements to meet future needs and growth,” it is difficult to see how the initial environmental study can conclude that it “could not have a significant effect on the environment.”

In our opinion, there are potential adverse effects in the following areas:

1. “Substantially degrading the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings” (1a).

By subjecting most of the downtown (compare figures 4.6 and 4.7) to the possibility of second stories for market-rate housing and, in fact, the even more profitable short-term lodging and by entertaining the possibility of lot consolidation on Broadway and in the Office and Arts Districts, it has the potential to disrupt the downtown’s “development pattern of small buildings on small lots” (Village Character, policy 20) and variation in building heights (Urban Design 1.2, #1), its views of the mountains and the ocean (Urban Design 1.2, #2), and its pedestrian orientation (Urban Design 1.3, #8). It cannot be considered to “ensure that the existing visual character of the Downtown is retained or enhanced.”

2. “Causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource” (4a).

Contrary to the Negative Declaration, it does not “maintain existing historic preservation policies” but instead anticipates the conversion of our historic preservation ordinance to a voluntary system by omitting any mention of the Historic Resources Inventory, with its wealth of information on dozens of downtown buildings, and by allowing their demolition and reconstruction without reference to their historic features (Land Use, General Development Standards, #E 1).

3. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions (6a).

The explicit intention to facilitate development and growth cannot be separated from the climate-change consequences of demolition, construction, increased population density, and traffic congestion.

4. Conflicting with the city’s many land use regulations for avoiding or mitigating environmental effects (9b).

Rather than trying to accommodate these issues in another environmental impact statement, we recommend that these impacts be avoided by eliminating the changes that encourage development (including the relaxation of the parking requirements) that would open the way for intensification of use of the downtown.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President Village Laguna

(See → plan on City Website, note: very slow load)

Village Laguna’s Nov. 14 letter (2) to Wendy Jung re negative declaration for DSP revision.

Given that the current revision of the Downtown Specific Plan is described as ”fostering opportunities . . . to help fulfill the need for downtown housing with access to services and transportation” and “providing for greater flexibility in development standards such as increased building height and simplified parking requirements to meet future needs and growth,” it is difficult to see how the initial environmental study can conclude that it “could not have a significant effect on the environment.”

In our opinion, there are potential adverse effects in the following areas:

1. “Substantially degrading the existing visual character of the site and its surroundings” (1a).

By subjecting most of the downtown (compare figures 4.6 and 4.7) to the possibility of second stories for market-rate housing and, in fact, the even more profitable short-term lodging and by entertaining the possibility of lot consolidation on Broadway and in the Office and Arts Districts, it has the potential to disrupt the downtown’s “development pattern of small buildings on small lots” (Village Character, policy 20) and variation in building heights (Urban Design 1.2, #1), its views of the mountains and the ocean (Urban Design 1.2, #2), and its pedestrian orientation (Urban Design 1.3, #8). It cannot be considered to “ensure that the existing visual character of the Downtown is retained or enhanced.”

2. “Causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource” (4a).

Contrary to the Negative Declaration, it does not “maintain existing historic preservation policies” but instead anticipates the conversion of our historic preservation ordinance to a voluntary system by omitting any mention of the Historic Resources Inventory, with its wealth of information on dozens of downtown buildings, and by allowing their demolition and reconstruction without reference to their historic features (Land Use, General Development Standards, #E 1).

3. Increasing greenhouse gas emissions (6a).

The explicit intention to facilitate development and growth cannot be separated from the climate-change consequences of demolition, construction, increased population density, and traffic congestion.

4. Conflicting with the city’s many land use regulations for avoiding or mitigating environmental effects (9b).

Rather than trying to accommodate these issues in another environmental impact statement, we recommend that these impacts be avoided by eliminating the changes that encourage development (including the relaxation of the parking requirements) that would open the way for intensification of use of the downtown.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s October 15, 2019, Letter to Planning Commission

After reviewing the concept plans for the block-long hotel planned by Mo Honarkar for the North Coast Highway Museum Hotel, the Village Laguna Board recommends that the Commission reject the plans as submitted and convey in the strongest possible way that the plans for this area need to be reconsidered.

The proposal would destroy a series of unique, compatibly designed buildings, some connected with important Laguna history, and replace it with one block long structure that fills the theoretical building envelope, reaching the 36-foot height limit for most of its length, and which appears similar to buildings we were hoping would be confined to the streets of other larger towns. In addition it proposes roof top decks which will add to the height with the highly visible umbrellas and heaters. It is bigger than the code allows (118 rooms as opposed to 74). Solving this overage by combining some of the rooms into larger suites as the applicant proposes does nothing to reduce the severely negative and bulky appearance. The scale and impact of the proposal is demonstrated by the calculation of the amount of cut soil produced by digging out three floors of subterranean parking for a total of 320 spaces. Which according to the staff report will in reality prove to be inadequate and will require 69,512 cubic yards (nearly 6,000 truckloads) of export.

The project is short of open space and too close to the residential zone behind it, and, as staff points out, (1) the ridgeline extends the length of the block at the same elevation, (2) there’s little relief to the façade, (3) it’s incompatible with the neighborhood in mass and scale, and (4) a number of neighbors have already demonstrated view impacts.

The existing buildings should be evaluated for their historical significance and worked into the final design where applicable. The Royal Hawaiian was originally the studio of artist Anna Hills, who was a founding member of the L.B.A.A., the precursor of the Laguna Art Museum. The project should be redesigned to conform to all of the city’s requirements and the policies of the General Plan, especially those regarding views, and preservation of village character– the small-scale character of this neighborhood and the city as a whole.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s August 21, 2019, Letter to Planning Commission Re DSP Update.

This draft of the Downtown Specific Plan update contains a number of good ideas, old and new, for keeping our downtown attractive and functional, and the suggestions of the Ad Hoc committee seem to us likely to contribute to that effort. We hope that you’ll continue the discussion this evening to a later meeting to get staff’s input on those ideas.

In the meantime, there are a few changes we’d like to see in what’s been proposed:

1. Retain the original plan’s 12-foot height limit for new buildings. It’s served us well in maintaining the existing mix of heights in the downtown, and we’re afraid that opening up to two stories nearly everywhere will change the small-scale, pedestrian-friendly character that everyone values.

2. Don’t allow lot combinations greater than 5,000 square feet. Elsewhere, the draft plan has it right (Topic 1, Policies 19 and 20 [p. 45] and General Development Standards A [p. 159]): small buildings on small lots is what we want in the downtown, and this policy conflicts with that objective.

3. Don’t relax the parking requirements until the 85% occupancy standard is met year-round.

4. Delete the new policy allowing reconstruction of buildings that exceed the height limit to their existing “height, floor area, placement, and density” (Chapter 5, Building Height Standards, Policy 1 [p. 161]). This would apparently permit the replacement of the movie theater, which is identified in the draft plan as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, with a building of the same size, without any reference to its historic appearance. We doubt that any Lagunan would be happy with this. The privilege of restoration at the existing height is available under the City’s standards for historic preservation and should be limited to such projects.

5. Retain the original plan’s list of the 65 downtown structures on the Historic Inventory (Laguna Beach Downtown Specific Plan, amended September 2008, pp. III-7 and 8), which gives a more accurate picture of the downtown’s character than the draft plan’s list of 20 structures on the Historic Register. Even though revisions to historic preservation policies that involve the General Plan, the Municipal Code, and other documents are being considered, the Downtown Specific Plan should be operating under adopted policies, ordinances, and General Plan policies. The 1981 Historic Inventory is still referred to in these documents, and the Downtown Specific Plan should include this information and existing preservation policies.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Read Michele Monda’s Sept. 27, 2019, column in the Laguna Beach Independent pointing out problems with the updated DSP.

Village Laguna’s January 9, 2017, Letter to Planning Commission: Comments Re MIGs Proposed Amendments to Downtown Specific Plan, Section II

1. This chapter is, of course, primarily descriptive, but we did find a policy change that we’d like to object to. Under “Land Use and Zoning” (II-1), we urge you not to eliminate the “resident-serving commercial” district of the plan.

MIG seems to have misinterpreted the intent of this zone in pointing to the fact that resident-serving uses occur in other zones. The idea was not to confine resident-serving businesses to a sort of ghetto but to attempt to even the playing field for businesses that typically make less money by giving them a place where they would be preferred. Rents have historically been lower on Ocean than on Forest, and creating a resident-serving district there was an attempt to preserve a safe haven for them. The district initially reflected the uses that were there when it was established (when we had a tailor’s shop, a bookstore, a couple of dry cleaners, a Community Clinic, and an additional bank in addition to the surviving shoe repair shop, the banks, the post office [with its own parking lot], the Zinc café, the bus station, the public restrooms, and the brokerage).

Despite MIG’s assessment that the downtown “serves most resident needs with the exception of specialty food stores and office supply stores” (Task 2.10 Recommendations regarding retail uses p. 34), its own (albeit limited) online retail survey indicates that customers desire, among other things, more “affordable clothing stores” and “stores with everyday goods (such as cookware, office supply, home goods)” (p. 35).

The resident-serving district was the only thing the creators of the DSP could think of to encourage these uses, and in the absence of other incentives it appears that we still need it.

2. The “Land Use Summary” (II-5) is 20 years old and, ironically, includes the assertion that “Another land use count in five or ten years can again be based on business license and Census data thus permitting a more valid analysis of land use change over time.”

We encourage MIG to assemble those data and make the comparison that the original DSP envisioned. It would also be useful to examine the square footage devoted to the various uses, which would probablygive a different picture of the contrast between residential and nonresidential uses.

3. The general remarks under “Public Infrastructure and Utilities” as originally written seem pointless, and specific descriptions are limited to the storm drainage system.

We suggest either omitting this part altogether, with the information on flooding to be handled under “Environmental Hazards” below, or adding discussion of other public infrastructure. (Is there something to be said about streets? Utilities? The Water District offices and the various sewage treatment facilities? The City’s corporate yard, including ACT V?)

The added language about storm drainage under this heading should be replaced by the following more recent and detailed statement about the storm drainage system in the Laguna Canyon Flood Mitigation Task Force Report (November 10, 2011):

“Over the years, highway/floodway improvements of varying capacity have been constructed by the City of Laguna Beach, Caltrans, and the Orange County Flood Control District (Appendix 4). The lack of capacity becomes acute in the downtown area, where the channel has a capacity of 2,000 cfs (cubic feet per second) entering the downtown area and continues as an open structure until reaching Beach Street. At this point, the channel goes underground, and the capacity is reduced to 1,050 cfs. A further reduction occurs at Coast Highway, where the capacity drops to 800 cfs. The result of these constructions in a heavy storm is an explosive overflow at Beach Street, resulting in rapidly flowing water down Broadway, Ocean, and Forest Avenues. Because of physical, financial, and environmental constraints, one-hundred-year flood protection appears unattainable at this time, but the situation could be improved by modifying the severe bottleneck at the ocean end of the channel.”

A suggested summary of some of the steps taken since the 2010 flood to mitigate flood damage, based on the recommendations in the Task Force Report and subsequent Council action, could be added here:

“To this end, improvements to the channel at Beach Street and between Beach and the ocean are under way, and there have been discussions with Caltrans about enlarging the outlet under the Coast Highway. Residents upstream of the downtown are notified annually of the need to clear debris that has the potential to inhibit storm drainage from the channel, and property owners in the downtown are being required to have flood gates and be prepared to use them in a potential flood situation.”

4. The section “Environmental Hazards” might include a statement of the implications for further development of the downtown’s being largely in the 100-year floodplain (elevation of new construction above the flood level and its effects on the streetscape).

Perhaps, too, as we have indicated in our line-by-line comments (attached), it should say a little about sea-level rise, which is mentioned under Policy 7.3 of the Land Use Element.

In addition to these general remarks, we offer a number of detailed suggestions for corrections or additions as “tracked changes” to the attached Word version (kindly provided by staff) of the document.

We appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important effort.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Attachment: Line-by-line suggested changes to strikethrough version

Village Laguna’s December 3, 2015, letter to the City Council and Planning Commission:

After review of the retail- use memos and recommendations for retail and commercial uses and conditional use permits, we have the following observations and comments:

We generally agree

that identification of certain permitted uses, with an emphasis on resident-serving ones, could serve as an incentive and reduce the need for CUPs.
that fees should be reduced for resident-serving businesses.
that we need a building maintenance ordinance.
that simplifying the approval process might help to reduce uncertainty.
that specific saturation levels should be established for problematic uses that could over proliferate.

We’d like more information about the following:

What is “alcohol + one,” and how would this use affect the retail mix? What is the problem it is intended to solve?
Have the survey results, particularly those critical of the current process, been reality-tested? It’s said that the CUP “could potentially be impacting the economic vitality of Downtown,” but where is the evidence that it is? On the contrary, the downtown is said to have many strengths (p. 34) and to be “one of the most vibrant and pedestrian-friendly downtowns out of the five communities examined” (p. 14).
What criteria were used in selecting the retail cities analyzed? Should Carmel and Malibu have been included? How can annual sales be compared with Newport’s, where people are buying boats? What might we learn from Carmel’s experience with managing its retail mix?
How is the use of the CUP process in the current plan “inconsistent with how the CUP process should be used according to the Laguna Beach Municipal Code”? The code (25.05.030) says that the purpose of the CUP process is to allow uses to be “modified to the extent that they can be made compatible and harmonious with adjacent uses” and consistent with the General Plan.
How do we maintain “a balanced retail mix that also allows for flexibility of business types” while streamlining and in some cases eliminating the need for the CUP process?
How will formula-based businesses be addressed, particularly with respect to the recommendation to modify Topic 3, Policies 6 and 8?
What mechanism will be used to maintain the retail and food use mix with the proposed modification of Topic 3, Policies 9 and 10?
What outdoor noise level is suggested to replace the current requirement of 60 decibels as required in Topic 3, Policy 15?
How will entertainment uses be controlled with the proposed modification of Topic 3, Policies 16 and 17?

Finally, we have the following concerns:

That combining the CBD-1 and the CBD-2 zones could reduce the number of resident-serving businesses by eliminating an area designed to be a refuge for these uses.
That encouraging more food-related uses could drive out retail uses and dramatically change the retail mix, especially since the proposed new use for food service that does not require a kitchen would be going into former retail spaces rather than former traditional food service spaces.
That an administrative use permit process would be a needless complication if certain uses were simply permitted.
That rather than eliminating the parking lots on Ocean Avenue, we should be examining ways to beautify them and to implement design features and appropriate peripheral uses that will better integrate them into the downtown ambience.
That the Central Bluffs should be considered as part of comprehensive recommendations, since they affect the retail and entertainment mix.
That changes to the current methods of handling formula-based businesses could negatively impact the character of the downtown.
That key policies that should be preserved weren’t identified at the beginning of the revision process.
That the proposed schedule does not appear to provide sufficient opportunity for public response to Sections III and IV(Issue Statement and Policies and Urban Design) of the document.

We appreciate the opportunity to raise these concerns and hope that you’ll address them.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s September 28, 2015, letter to the City Council on the DSP Proposals:

The proposals for updating the Downtown Specific Plan presented by the urban planning firm MIG last month were greeted by the City Council and the Planning Commission with open minds but very appropriate caution. As longtime activists in favor of Laguna’s village atmosphere, Village Laguna welcomes Councilmembers’ comments on the need to assess the feasibility of the firm’s suggestions and to have a policy discussion of the conflict that Toni Iseman pointed out between facilitating more housing downtown and creating more “vibrant” nightlife. As a contribution to these discussions, we’d like to draw on twenty-five years of experience in observing the operation of the specific plan to raise some questions.

As we pointed out in our previous letter on this subject, a planning process should proceed in a logical fashion–gathering information and input from the public, making conclusions on needs and goals, defining problems to be solved and then proposing alternative ways to solve them. We seem to be witnessing attempts by the consultants to solve problems before the other steps have been taken. Thus solutions are proposed for undefined problems—perhaps problems for which no solutions are even needed.

New second stories: What is the problem for which allowing more second stories would be the solution? The 12-foot height limit was introduced to preserve the downtown’s pleasing diversity of building heights, preserve public views of the ocean and hillsides, and maintain light, air, solar access to the streetscape and maintain the human scale. How would residents benefit from a relaxation of the rule that has protected the character of the downtown for all these years? Does anyone support this idea beyond the property owners who imagine that they might financially benefit from it and those who would build the second stories? How could the selective approval of new second stories be done fairly, and what would prevent the whole downtown from going two-story as each property owner insisted on the privilege granted his neighbor? Are the existing residences in the downtown a success for their occupants and their owners? Are the buildings big enough to be attractive as residences, especially given the high rents that can be expected to be charged for them? Where would the proposed new residents park their cars? More fundamentally, can these old buildings structurally support second stories? Replacement or substantial improvement for residential use would be required by law to be elevated 2 feet above the base flood level (which historically has been 1–3 feet above the ground on Forest Avenue, 2–3 feet on Beach Street, and 3–4 feet at the Coast Highway).
Replacing the gas station on Broadway with a two-story mixed-use building: How would the City manage to displace an apparently thriving business from the site, and at what cost? Is the Coast Highway, designated visitor-serving in the land-use plan, the best place for a community cultural center? Would the City own the building and lease the ground floor to businesses? Do we really need more retail stores in the downtown? (The retail study we’ve been promised by MIG has yet to appear.) Would a two-story building there create view issues for the surrounding residential neighbors? Is everyone aware that the ground underneath the gas station may well be contaminated and require extensive remediation? (This is in fact the issue that definitively sank the proposal for a new storm water channel under Broadway some years ago.)
Underground parking on Cliff Drive and behind Las Brisas: What effect would this have on traffic? Would the residential neighbors object to the intrusion of hundreds of new cars and pedestrians into their quiet neighborhood? Would the new “park” on the structure’s roof obstruct cherished views of Main Beach and the ocean? Would shoppers use the parking structure knowing that they would have to walk back up the stairs with their packages to retrieve their cars? How does the idea square with the community consensus about the need for peripheral parking rather than big structures downtown? Would the residents who recently objected to taking on $69 million in debt for a parking structure at the Village Entrance be any more willing to pay for such a project on Cliff Drive?
Moving the library: Aside from the unanswered question “Where to?”—is everyone aware that the building belongs to the County and operates on rather limited funds? (The secondhand books sold by volunteers in the basement help buy new ones for the collection upstairs.) Is everyone aware that the library is one of the oldest institutions in the City and has a loyal and active support group that generously funds improvements, the most recent of them in 2010? That the building was designed by a respected local architect in 1972? That it’s centrally located and close to the high school, whose students it serves? And is there any real community interest in opening up that particular space for a view of the ocean blocked by shops and moving cars?

Some of MIG’s other ideas—the pedestrian scramble on the Coast Highway, relocation of the bus station, and a “green” Ocean Avenue—are more appealing than these four at first glance, but we need to know what the changes would do to traffic patterns. Where would the bus station be moved to? While “greening” Ocean Avenue we hope that it will still look like it belongs downtown, not a trendy, millennial anomaly. Where everything is interconnected as it is in our tiny downtown basin, small changes can have large consequences.

Finally, beyond all the practical questions, there’s the question of benefits. We’re told repeatedly that visitors love the downtown just as it is, and we know that many residents feel the same way. Before we commit to any of these changes, we need to know how they’re linked to problems actually identified by residents and how such changes would solve those problems. As the planning process continues, we will be encouraging the City Council to keep these issues in mind.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s July 2015 letter to the Council on proposed “parklets”:

On June 16 the City Council unanimously approved two parklets proposed by the City’s Downtown Specific Plan consultant over the objections of nearly everyone who spoke on this agenda item.

Your original plan to identify locations in the downtown to foster small, informal community gatherings was a good one. What you ended up approving was turning over our street parking spaces to four restaurants and/or bars, for their exclusive use.

This proposal is unfair to our other businesses. It also takes away public parking with no benefit to the public in return. If you ask restaurants to invest in the construction of these venues, they will push to make them permanent. Sometimes a good intention can take a wrong turn. It is our retail shops, not our restaurants and bars that could use some support.

Village Laguna suggests a re-evaluation of this proposal. The City needs to craft a proposal that benefits our residents and retail establishments. Other cities have done it. We can too.

Johanna Felder, President, Village Laguna

Village Laguna’s June 2015 letter to the Council on the implementation of pilot demonstration projects:

We agree with the business owner who said the plan for temporary changes in the downtown is “a plan in search of a problem.”

We’d like to remind the Council of the tasks assigned to MIG. There are more than a dozen of them, of which I’ll read just a few:

Gather public input
Research relevant city planning efforts
Provide recommendations for mobility and wayfinding, finding parking, attracting resident-serving businesses, and improving underutilized parcels
Evaluate retail uses in detail
Evaluate parking solutions for intensification of use
Evaluate downtown parking management plan and pedestrian and bicycle circulation as it relates to the Village Entrance
Urban design height analysis
Recommendations in relation to, among other things, village character, identity as an art colony, downtown commercial uses, re-use and intensification, and parking, circulation, and public transit

All this work is to come together to produce a revised Downtown Specific Plan. When we see that, we should be able to decide whether parklets, street closures, and other features not yet considered will be appropriate for implementing our community goals.

To our knowledge, MIG has accomplished Item 1 and possibly Item 2. We see the present projects as premature and a distraction from its main tasks. We as a community won’t be in a position to evaluate these projects until the assigned tasks have been completed.

In addition, we feel strongly that the premise that the downtown needs to be revitalized is essentially flawed. Rick Barrett’s summary of public input emphasized that respondents wanted to protect the character and feeling of the town as it is, not make fundamental changes. The downtown doesn’t need revitalization, but it does need more resident-serving businesses.

It isn’t the role of our downtown (in the regional context) to be “up to date.” If residents and visitors seek an “up to date” shopping experience, there are many shopping centers in Orange County to visit. People come to Laguna Beach’s downtown because it’s different; it has a sense of history and a traditional main street environment that’s quaint, charming, shady, friendly, and right next to Main Beach Park. It offers an experience not available anywhere else. We don’t need to apply solutions developed for other towns to problems we don’t have.

We recommend that the Council authorize the planning for moving the Farmer’s Market to Ocean Avenue, and postpone any decision on the remaining items until MIG’s work is completed.

Sincerely, Johanna Felder, President