HomeIssues that matter to Laguna
Will you support one complete, public accounting of every Promenade-related cost, including the temporary closure, final construction and continuing maintenance?
Championed by Sue Kempf. The City credits her with helping introduce the Promenade during the pandemic.
Kempf’s role · City biography →
Photos supplied by Advocates · different camera positions.
Approved by the full Council, 5–0, on June 11, 2025: Sue Kempf, Mark Orgill, Alex Rounaghi, Bob Whalen and Hallie Jones. All five voted to deny the appeals and uphold the permanent Promenade approvals.
Official minutes · June 11, 2025 · pages 2–4 →Sue Kempf · Incumbent
“First of all, the project is $500,000 under budget.”
Village Laguna forum · supplied excerpt · recording check pending
“The budget for the promenade was $5.5 million plus $1.2 million for contingency, which adds up to $6.7 million, and right now we're running at $6.2 million.”
Supplied cleaned GOP transcript · Part 1 · 47:39
At 48:06, the moderator disputed whether this included earlier design, plans and temporary improvements. The exchange does not establish the complete cost from inception.
Incumbents vs. challengers on contract scrutiny →She says the costs are public record; she does not explicitly commit to a consolidated accounting or an independent audit. The under-budget statement is her claim, not a verified total of all project costs.
Sue Kempf’s full answers → · Compare all Promenade responses →
Our summaries aid comparison. Open any answer to read the candidate’s original wording.
Seeking reelection to the Council
Our summary
Says all Promenade costs and increased sales-tax revenues are public records; does not explicitly commit to one consolidated accounting.
“All of the costs pertaining to the promenade, including increased sales tax revenues are public record”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“All of the costs pertaining to the promenade, including increased sales tax revenues are public record”
Written response · answer only
Our summary
Supports a complete accounting while also documenting what the community received and distinguishing Promenade costs from work required regardless of the project.
“Yes. I support one complete public accounting of Promenade-related expenditures. It should separately identify the temporary pandemic-era closure, permanent design and construction, infrastructure, furnishings, maintenance, lost meter revenue, grants and restricted funds, and work that would have been required regardless of the Promenade.”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“Yes. I support one complete public accounting of Promenade-related expenditures. It should separately identify the temporary pandemic-era closure, permanent design and construction, infrastructure, furnishings, maintenance, lost meter revenue, grants and restricted funds, and work that would have been required regardless of the Promenade. It should include approved budgets, contracts, change orders, credits and the final project cost. That accounting should also explain what the community received. The Promenade grew from the community-driven Vision Laguna 2030 effort and its call for a more pedestrian-oriented downtown. From time to time, I hear that we could have retained vehicle traffic while adding parklets for expanded outdoor dining. While that hybrid approach would have provided dining space, it would not have created a complete promenade: a community social and gathering space free from automobiles and the noise, congestion and safety risks of vehicle traffic. Residents deserve both the complete numbers and the complete context.”
Written response · answer only
Our summary
Has no specific objection to complete accounting and says costs are public records; does not describe how a consolidated report would be produced.
“I am all about transparency, so I have no specific objection to this request. These are all public records.”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“I am all about transparency, so I have no specific objection to this request. These are all public records.”
Written response · answer only
Seeking a Council seat
Our summary
Supports one complete cost accounting, including lost parking revenue, maintenance, authorizations and changes; also wants a review of whether the project met its goals.
“Yes. Residents should receive one complete accounting from the temporary street closure through design, consultants, construction, furnishings, change orders, lost parking revenue and annual maintenance.”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“Yes. Residents should receive one complete accounting from the temporary street closure through design, consultants, construction, furnishings, change orders, lost parking revenue and annual maintenance. The City should publish the original budget, every Council authorization, the final cost, funding sources and who approved each material change. A project cannot be judged responsibly when costs are scattered across years and accounts. I would also require a post-project review of whether the Promenade met its stated goals and what should be corrected.”
Written response · answer only
Declined · intentionally keeping a low profile.
Our summary
Supports one easy-to-read report covering planning, temporary operations, construction, changes, trees, furnishings, attributable staff costs, funding and continuing costs.
“Yes. I support one complete, public accounting of every Promenade-related cost. From the planning design phase to the temporary closure and interim operation, final construction, change orders, furnishings, tree removal, landscaping, staff costs where reasonably attributable, and ongoing maintenance and replacement costs.”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“Yes. I support one complete, public accounting of every Promenade-related cost. From the planning design phase to the temporary closure and interim operation, final construction, change orders, furnishings, tree removal, landscaping, staff costs where reasonably attributable, and ongoing maintenance and replacement costs. The city has publicly stated that the permanent Promenade budget is $7.2 million. As of this writing, it was alleged to be $500k under budget. Residents would like to see those details. We should not have to search through multiple budgets, contracts and staff reports to understand what the project ultimately cost. I would support putting the full accounting in one clear, easy-to-read public report showing the original estimates, actual expenditures, funding sources and continuing annual costs. Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes the Promenade, basic transparency requires knowing the complete cost.”
Written response · answer only
Our summary
Supports a complete accounting including staff, consultants, drawings, contracts, legal costs, lost parking revenue, trees, funding and maintenance.
“Yes. I want one public accounting covering the temporary closure, staff time, SWA and other consultants, construction drawings, contracts, change orders, legal expenses, lost parking revenue, funding sources, approval dates, and ongoing maintenance.”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“Yes. I want one public accounting covering the temporary closure, staff time, SWA and other consultants, construction drawings, contracts, change orders, legal expenses, lost parking revenue, funding sources, approval dates, and ongoing maintenance. It should explain the decisions and costs associated with removing and replacing the Forest Avenue trees. I also want the City to identify when it first learned of the trees’ root and health problems and what could have been discovered before construction. Common sense should have realized if you dig up the whole street you would lose most of the trees hence why Ocean and Beach redevelopment should not happen now after learning a sad serious lesson from Forest Avenue construction. Finally, residents deserve a clear explanation of the timing, necessity, and approval of the approximately $325,000 in additional SWA drawing costs that I have questioned.”
Written response · answer only
Our summary
Supports a thorough cost accounting, including lost parking revenue.
“Yes the residents deserve a thorough detailed cost outline along with lost revenue from the parking too”
Opening excerpt · written response. Full answer below.
“Yes the residents deserve a thorough detailed cost outline along with lost revenue from the parking too”
Written response · answer only
No written response received.
The question is cost, alternatives and accountability. A construction bid line item is not necessarily the retail price of a chair.
Resident input and decision-making
In an article supplied to Advocates, former Councilmember George Weiss argues that the Promenade’s decision-making deserves scrutiny alongside its price.
The question for voters: Did residents have a meaningful opportunity to influence the alternatives, design and spending before commitments were made?
Source: George Weiss’s article supplied by the reader. These points summarize his reporting and criticism; they are not candidate statements.
Before publication, check the committee’s creation and scope, SWA selection and contract records, hearing agendas and the capital-funding transfer against the City’s documents. The reported transfer alone does not establish how much it caused cash reserves to decline. Committee status alone does not establish a Brown Act violation.
The June 11, 2025 minutes record a unanimous vote finding the project statutorily exempt from CEQA under Public Resources Code §21080.25(b), followed by denial of the appeals. Appellants urged consideration of a hybrid alternative.
Official minutes · pages 3–5 →GOP forum: compare all nine on contract oversight →
The supplied correspondence reports 875 petition signatures and questions the hearing process. That count and the claimed procedural violations have not been independently verified here.
Forest Avenue · Tree removal and environmental review
The City’s June 12, 2026 filing says a eucalyptus fell in March. Soil testing found high salt levels that likely contributed to decline; two independent arborists identified unhealthy trees, damaged or weak roots and instability, and recommended removal for public safety. The City reports nine removals on April 20 and another on May 2 after pathogen testing. The approved design had assumed these trees would remain.
The filing identifies CEQA exemptions for the Promenade and the later tree-replacement approval, including an emergency exemption. It does not confirm overnight removal or establish seawater as the source of the salt.
City’s findings and exemption filing → · Tree pathology record →
