Previous forums wouldn’t allow debate among candidates on audience questions. That changed for the better with Council incumbent Iseman, Planning Commissioner Kempf, and Former Council member Christoph’s answers.
Question #1 to Toni Iseman: “Do you think the City Council should be allowed to usurp Measure P sales tax 1 percent intent and take away resident voter rights to vote on a 25-year bond?”
Iseman failed to answer question in first attempt saying that’s up to the voters to decide, then corrected herself when challenged as “this is not true” by candidate Lorene Laguna. Iseman added, “We’ll find experts that will make recommendations.” (Decide for you with Council vote, taking your right to vote away, usurping resident right to vote on bond funded by 1 percent sales tax Measure P.)
Question #2 to Sue Kempf: “What is your reaction to the news that our city Planning and Council members never informed residents or public agencies of the loss of 120 parking spaces, not their disclosure of just 10 spaces reported by the city for the last four years of meetings, and presentations of Village Entrance design plans?”
Kempf stated spaces lost were around 25, but Planning Commission was not responsible, and City Council was, and her role was just reviewing the landscape, lighting and fencing issues, and approval was left to Council.
This is false. The Planning Commission voted 5-0 approval on 12/13/17. This resolution authorized the project/provided the approval of C.U.P. 17-2506, Planning Commission D.R. 17-2659 and Coastal Development Permit 17-2507 (Village Entrance Project) – sent to the Coastal Commission – certified on 1/23/18 by city. Kempf failed to accept responsibility for plan, flawed design and actually second motion, approved VE project, tried to pass the buck.
Question #3 to Ann Christoph: “Do you agree with the city promoting and advertising the message of fire and fear for evacuation routes in order to sway voters to approve undergrounding power lines with the Measure P sales tax?”
Former Council member Christoph (served 1990-1994) stated she wasn’t for Measure P and closing statement erred by saying Lot 10, existing 67 parking spaces, were “not supposed to be double-counted” bought as an offset for landscape, said not fair to include in lost parking count.
This is a false statement, as Lot 10’s 67 spaces are year-round city revenue earning parking lot including pay station for last four years, was valet paid parking lot for decades before for Festivals 464 spaces exist in our city parking resources within project boundary, now reduced to 342, losing 122 existing car stall parking spaces we had access to.
Bryan Menne, Laguna Beach