Franchises are having issues with landlords. Outside restaurants can't even get started. Everyone points fingers at someone else.
City planners try hard to keep the peace, encouraging all sides to stick to the facts, spelled out in the Downtown Specific Plan for those restaurants vying for the village.
But even the downtown plan gives mixed messages. On the one hand, it recognizes the lack of affordable restaurants, but on the other, it places untenable restrictions on new entrants.
"There are well over a dozen restaurants in the downtown and numerous retail uses have been replaced by food service," the plan states, "yet 59% of respondents to a 1995 Citywide Economic Development Survey indicated they would like to see a moderate, family-style restaurant locate in Laguna Beach."
So if everyone agrees we need more family restaurants, what's the problem?
Like most government documents, you have to read the fine print to understand reality. The plan plainly admits it wants to "discourage formula-based businesses."
By definition, that excludes all chain restaurants from downtown.
Furthermore, if existing non-food businesses close, the city does not want them converted to restaurants, which means there is little chance of new space opening up.
The policy is to "encourage retention of the existing base of retail shops by limiting conversion of retail uses to food service or food-oriented uses."
Why is it then that Tommy Bahama can get fast-track approval but Chipotle cannot?
First of all, Chipotle withdrew from the old Crab Zone site on its own, allegedly citing issues with the building.
Tommy Bahama worked closely with the city to adhere to the spirit of the downtown plan even though it arguably got a free pass on the "formula-based business" clause.