Letters to the Editor
Be careful what you wish for when it comes to the “D” word and Measure Q…
I know we are not supposed to use the “D” word in Laguna but since there really is no developable land left here, it’s actually all about re-development. I am a proponent of reasonable and responsible re-development. It’s the fresh stream of water that brings oxygen and nutrients to a stagnant lake or community and keeps it healthy.
I know he’s not going to like this, but let’s take my friend, Joe Hanauer, as an example. Joe is what I call a responsible re-developer and property owner. His re-development of the Pottery Place in 2006 is, (and I think most would agree) a model of charm and character but has a current, updated look, feel and necessities to attract solid tenants.
If measure Q were in place, this, and because of the ill-constructed “Cumulative Effect” language, smaller (much smaller) projects would require a community vote, in addition to the already overwhelming approval process we have in place.
No reasonable, responsible re-developer, property owner or small shop owner would, could or will attempt the additional process’ risk, time and costs.
My second problem with Q…our whole democracy is based on representative government. It’s why we have elections. We elect leaders to represent us and our views. The idea of having a community vote on everything is chaos and fortunately our founding fathers understood this principle long ago. We already have systems in place, in fact a very restrictive system and it works, so as my father used to say, “if it works don’t fix it.”
Third and not my last but probably best so I don’t lose you. The Voting Threshold, this was either written naively or deliberately, both are just as bad. Q calls for a “Majority of the Electorate” to approve most any project. The fact is there are about 18k voters in Laguna (this is the “Electorate”), but only 60% or 10,800 of us ever vote. This means a shopkeeper would need to survive the current approval gauntlet, then pay for a campaign that must achieve 80-90% of the votes! Who is crazy enough to make that bet? Certainly not the kind of responsible and reasonable shop owners and property owners we want and need to keep our charming little town healthy and alive.
Again, be careful what you wish for. Do we really want to stop ALL reasonable and responsible re-development in Laguna? Please Vote NO on Q.
Steve Samuelian
Laguna Beach
Alex Rounaghi explains rejection of outside PAC support
Last week, Ann Christoph revealed that I rejected the endorsement of Village Laguna. She is correct, but it was not for the reasons she stated. I want to explain why I did so – and why I am committed to being an independent candidate and councilmember.
The best part of this campaign has been the time I’ve spent talking and listening to the concerns of residents of our town. I’ve learned so much from our conversations. I’m continually amazed at the talent, kindness and passion that exists for the town that we all call home.
Do we agree on every issue? Of course not. But I believe there is more that unites us than divides us. There is no reason that our community can’t come together and find creative solutions to the complex challenges that we face. But our toxic political culture gets in the way. In this election, there has been an unprecedented amount of spending by independent expenditures. This outside spending fuels misinformation, meanness and unnecessary divisiveness in our beautiful town.
People are tired of tribalism. That’s why I declined the endorsement by Village Laguna when it was offered to me by Anne Caenn and Ann Christoph after the first candidate forum. I would do the same with Liberate Laguna/Laguna 2022 and similar groups. I will always listen to all stakeholders and find ways to collaborate to find common ground, but I intentionally have chosen not to be labeled. While that decision has cost me tens of thousands of dollars in messaging (mailers, yard signs, newspaper ads, etc.) on behalf of my candidacy, I have no regrets. The endorsement was not worth sacrificing my independence and ability to shape my own message over the course of this campaign.
If elected, I will be an independent councilmember who collaborates with my colleagues and community members across a broad spectrum of opinions. I intend to make decisions based on the merits, rather than any political alliances. When a resident shares an opinion with me, it’s important that they understand I am not on one side or the other. I will have an open mind, listen, work hard and do my best to act in the best interests of Laguna Beach, the city we all love.
I am so fortunate to have been born and raised in our amazing town and I will continue giving back to this community however I can.
I would be honored to earn your vote.
Alex Rounaghi
Candidate for City Council
Laguna Beach
Way, way too much money spent on the election for a city of our size
Just two months ago Mayor Sue Kempf and Mayor Pro Tem Whalen announced that city ordinance #1675 had been passed. This covers height, parking, mass and bulk or large buildings. This ordinance was to address a few of the issues that are covered in Measure Q in hopes it would show that the city was making defensive progress toward the threat that overdevelopment of Laguna Beach could bring.
Ordinance 1675’s height and parking provisions only reiterated the height and parking ordinances that were already on the books. The mass and bulk provisions required variegation of color, façades and roof forms every 125’. It still allowed buildings of unlimited size, so its protection added very little to what was already on the books.
Still, the development-led interests were upset enough about the modest protections offered by 1675 that they poured huge sums of money into a “recall” for ordinance 1675 which is known as a “referendum.”
Last week, the county notified the city that the referendum process was successful. Now the city has two choices. They can either bow to the developer interests and withdraw all of the protections that 1675 offered, or they can put 1675 to a public vote. Either way, 1675 is off the books for now. Developers get to ask for whatever they want.
Why is this important? Not only did the developers spend tens of thousands of dollars on a referendum for 1675, but they are also spending more than a quarter million dollars on trying to defeat Measure Q and spending an astounding $1.175 million to defeat Measure R and S which regulates hotels in Laguna Beach, including their size.
These interests have also amassed more than $200,000 to oppose those city council candidates in favor of development limits as well as supporting the two incumbents who endorse more development in town. This is being spent on a town of fewer than 19,000 voters. Truly unprecedented.
Add it all up; an outrageous sum of money. This massive sum is being spent to 1) Nullify the limited protection that city council passed as Ordinance 1675, 2) Tell residents not to enable ballot-imitative-level protections for our town and 3) Elect a developer-friendly city council. Way too much outside influence for a town our size. Because of this threat from developer interests, I am voting Yes on Q, R, and S, as well as for Flores, Pudwill and Orgill.
David Raber
Laguna Beach
Ready or not – it’s time!
It’s just a few days until the election. Yet surprisingly, people still are wondering if they understand Measure Q.
The confusion shouldn’t be surprising. First, Q is extremely complicated. Second, California’s ballot measure concept has morphed into competing advertising campaigns dominated my sound bites having nothing whatsoever to do with the essence of the proposals.
Unfortunately, the consequences of most ballot measures are so serious that what we really need is a measure that outlaws misleading rhetoric, limits the number of pages of a measure and holds those campaigning accountable for what they say. The seriousness of Measure Q is no exception.
If you’re like many, you may think Measure Q deals with keeping Laguna beautiful or only avoids over-sized developments. You wouldn’t be at fault. Measure Q’s sound bites have repeatedly been showing the artist live work project in the Canyon as a size it would prohibit. Not true. That project is below the size that would kick in a public vote.
But that’s not all. Measure Q has what it calls a Beautiful Laguna Overlay Zone. Q has nothing to do with design, architecture, color, a vision or anything to do with “beauty.” The Beautiful Laguna Overlay Zone is simply a name given to the geography Measure Q is proposing to dominate. Every single commercial area in town, as well as residences within two to three blocks of our commercial areas. They’ll all be subject to Q’s restrictions and a potential public vote.
The crazy part about Q is that it will do the opposite of addressing our town’s beauty. By causing all of Laguna’s business neighborhoods to be subject to new restrictions, the needed upgrading of our aging and deteriorating buildings will be stymied.
Laguna’s nearly 100 years old and we’re showing our age. Changes to our treasures like The Ranch, the Old Pottery Place, or the smallest buildings like the 1,400/sf new coffee shop on Broadway are hard enough to get approved without adding the risk, time and cost of a public vote on top of our city’s stringent approval processes.
You see, typically buildings only get “beautified” when ownership changes or new tenants move in. But smaller one-of-kind dining, fitness and retail concepts can’t take on the risks proposed by Q. Instead, we’ll get the opposite of what Measure Q promises. Only deep pocket developers will pick up vacant stores and take on the risk and expense of this complex process.
Q is devoid of the heart and soul you would expect in a Beautiful Laguna Overlay Zone. Its 18 pages of highly technical material. There’s nothing about a vision for Laguna. But to be clear, the writers and supporter of Q love our town as much as we do. So, how can two such passionate views differ so greatly about how to address Laguna’s future?
Consider the differing approaches to addressing traffic. Q posits that Laguna’s traffic problems are caused by businesses and it therefore proposes to put a damper on new shops and dining. And for those that are able to survive Q’s challenges, these businesses are mandated to address 100% of any impact they create.
NO ON Q understands that our beautiful beaches and wonderful Laguna experience are what attract visitors not businesses. And NO ON Q believes that beyond shops providing parking, the city has an obligation to address parking and traffic capacities. There is not a word in Measure Q about potential city actions to add parking capacity or to work with Caltrans to improve the capacity of our roads.
This is just one example of the disconnect between our differing points of view. Time’s run out. It’s time to vote. If you don’t understand Q, go to www.Citizensforlagunasfuture.com.
The entire ballot initiative is there. Please read it. If you do, we hope you’ll agree – Vote NO ON Q.
Joe Hanauer
Laguna Beach
Don’t Be Fooled by the Don’t Be Fooled Stuff that is being spread around regarding Measure Q
Don’t Be Fooled by the Don’t Be Fooled Stuff that is being spread around regarding Measure Q. Here are 10 of the top myths being spread about Measure Q and the corresponding myth busters:
Myth: Measure Q will stop all development.
Myth Buster: Projects that follow the Measure Q guidelines should have few problems being approved.
Myth: It’s too complicated.
Myth Buster: The Measure Q Overlay Zone is actually simple compared to other Laguna Beach zoning laws.
Myth: It’s too long.
Myth Buster: Rather than merely refer to a code section by number, Measure Q restates the existing code section. So, about half of Measure Q is the current Laguna Beach Zoning code.
Myth: A majority of the electorate is required.
Myth Buster: The Laguna City Attorney’s Impartial Analysis says, “A majority vote (50% plus one) in favor of the measure is required for passage.”
Myth: Q will hurt small business.
Myth Buster: Just the opposite! Measure Q protects existing small businesses in the downtown from being squeezed out by higher rents that landlords can now easily charge to more intense users like restaurants because the amount of parking the building owners need to provide has been dramatically reduced by the city.
Myth: Cumulative effect item will freeze building.
Myth Buster: Cumulative effect prevents nothing but may change timing of construction to avoid traffic gridlock.
Myth: Measure Q would prevent South Laguna fire station.
Myth Buster: A parcel map could be used. Or a lot line adjustment which is an administrative act that Measure Q does not interfere with.
Myth: Laguna already has a height ordinance.
Myth Buster: The existing height ordinance is weak and can be changed by a vote of three councilmembers. Further it is already being challenged by a referendum.
Myth: Measure Q might have problems like Costa Mesa’s.
Myth Buster: Costa Mesa’s problems are housing; Measure Q is not about housing.
Myth: An election could cost more than $130,000.
Myth Buster: The city’s own February 15, 2022 staff report estimates $8,500.
In addition to these myths, notice that every single No on Q example involves replacing a general retail use with a restaurant – which is an intensification of use – which causes more traffic, more demand for parking. And the new user never wants to mitigate the negative impacts they create. We have 141 restaurants now. How much more traffic do we want?
Example: Zinc wants to permanently keep seats on the parking lot that were temporarily allowed because of COVID.
Myth Buster: Zinc can keep the added seats if by using profits from the additional seating to purchase in-lieu spaces to replace the lost parking. That avoids a vote.
Example: Yard Bar.
Myth Buster: There is no issue with the Yard Bar. No vote would be needed.
Example: Wigz Sandwich.
Myth Buster: Wigz received historic renovation parking credits. Q would not change that. No vote would be needed.
Example: Pottery Place.
Myth Buster: If processed as two distinct projects with the alley running between – which is what it is – Q would not have impacted Pottery Place.
Two more important notes:
Note: Regarding other projects where unmitigated intensification could trigger parking issues, the city can waive some parking requirements and building owners can fill voids with in-lieu spaces.
Note: And realize that providing parking is the responsibility of the commercial building owner and not the responsibility of the merchant leasing space from the owner.
Question: Why do the opponents make this stuff up?
Answer: If they stuck to the Myth Busters, they know you’d vote YES on Q.
Question: Why have developers put more than $170,000 up to defeat Measure Q?
Answer: Developers don’t want you to regulate them.
Question: Why are politicians against Measure Q?
Answer: Politicians don’t like voters telling them what to do.
Question: Do Measure Q Opponents oppose all ballot measures?
Answer: Without ballot measures like Prop. 13 your taxes would be much higher.
Question: Will Measure Q impact the 90% of Laguna businesses that are general retail or office?
Answer: No. Any general retail or office use can replace any existing general retail or office use. No vote would be needed to replace a shoe store with a bookstore or to replace a clothing store with a dry cleaner.
Question: What about Laguna’s 141 bars and restaurants?
Answer: New restaurants can move in and replace an existing restaurant of similar service level. No vote would be needed.
Question: By opposing Measure Q, is the Chamber of Commerce hurting its current members?
Answer: Yes. By opposing Measure Q, the Chamber is encouraging new businesses to replace long-time current businesses.
Follow the money. No on Q has raised more than $170,000 from developers and their friends. Why do you think they are trying so hard to avoid over-development?
John Thomas
Laguna Beach
Print shops producing the flyers filling our mailboxes are the real winners of this election
I know with certainty who is going to be the winner in this election. The winner, for all offices, is the printing industry and those who prepare the various cards that arrive in our mailboxes touting (or deriding) the candidates or proposition the group writes about. The stack in our mailbox, with all duplications removed, measures two inches. At a cost of $7,000 per mailer (which is probably low) that pile represents a huge investment.
I hope that the candidates prove themselves worthy of our trust and votes.
Mike Kinsman
Laguna Beach
Mr. Pudwill is simply wrong when he says that planning commissioners are in the pockets of developers
Mr. Pudwill, facts seem to get in your way when writing letters to the editor. Personally, I would like you to show proof that the city council has appointed pro developer members to the planning commission. Where and from whom did you get proof of that statement?
You are running for city council and yet all you seem to be able to do is spread a bevy of misinformation and made-up facts to suit your personal agenda. If you can show me and the good folks who serve, and serve well, on the Planning Commission that we are in the pockets of developers as you claim, then I will take back everything I say here and will vote for you. I will put my record and that of my fellow commissioners up against your lack of public service any day. Show me proof of your claims, (which do not exist), or try living in the real world where good people work hard at keeping community moving forward.
Your lack of respect and facts does a disservice to our hamlet and is something we do not need on city council.
Jorg Dubin
Chair, City of Laguna Beach Planning Commission
Former Police Chief vouches for Rounaghi
As a Republican and 49-year law enforcement leader (former police chief for three cities), I support candidates – regardless of party – who prioritize public safety and get things done. For that reason, I’m urging Laguna voters to elect City Council candidate Alex Rounaghi.
At the county level, I have worked closely with Alex on initiatives related to illegal sober living homes, the fentanyl crisis and law enforcement funding. Alex’s experience/ability, integrity, and his commitment to public safety, would serve him well as a city councilmember.
Alex is endorsed by the Laguna Beach Firefighters, Laguna Beach Police, the Orange County Deputy Sheriffs and he has my wholehearted endorsement as well.
Dave Snowden
Newport Beach
Vote, vote, vote
I mentioned voting three times in the headline, not to encourage anyone to vote more than once, but to remind people how important it is to exercise one’s franchise on election day. I can’t tell you how many times I have heard the refrain, “What’s the use? My vote doesn’t count.” Well, actually it does.
Sometimes in municipal elections, you can count the vote difference between winning and losing on one hand (OK, maybe two). Just imagine your vote determining who sits on the city council or whether Measure Q passes or it doesn’t. Voting is not a quaint throwback to the 18th century; rather, it is acting out in real time one of this nation’s deepest ideals.
So, my friends, like I have said so many times before, “Vote.” I truly believe it will pay dividends far into the future.
Denny Freidenrich
Laguna Beach
