As 25-year residents and homeowners, Frank and I are against the Ballot Initiate submitted to the City Clerk by Laguna Residents First, a Political Action Committee, through Councilmember George Weiss, founder emeritus of the political action committee. The proposal would require residents to go to the polls to approve every major commercial development in town, including any residential project over nine units.
This idea is not only unworkable, it will lead to an exodus of smart, innovative developers wanting to do any projects in this town. We need to strive for an intriguing mix of our town’s historical remnants, newness cohesive with our history, and some creative projects that connect us to the future as a sustainable city. Growth is essential to our economic health and vibrancy.
We should all be alarmed when a political action committee like Laguna Residents First, takes it upon themselves to be involved in influencing voters to make complex decisions about the future of this city. LRF is not the gate keeper or decision maker for this community — our City Council and citizen committees are.
Residents shouldn’t and don’t have to organize in clubs, PAC’s or groups to support or fight development. We placed our confidence in the election of candidates to sit on our council, study all aspects of such issues and make the proper decisions. They are aided by recommendations made by members of committees they selected such as Design Review and the Housing & Human Services Committee, who applied and demonstrated skills for the appointments. Imagine a board with 23,000 Directors—nothing would ever get done.
This ballot initiative is a high-handed way of wrestling power from the people we elected to listen to and represent us, and will further entangle us in impossible hurdles for smart projects to get approval.
The 1,700 signatures referred to for the ballot initiative will obviously be lists that LRF has already been procuring. Upon checking their website it contains debatable information along with a solicitation to add your signature to the ballot initiative. For example, the current 36-foot building height limit is firmly established. No one is challenging it, and any proposed project in excess of that would be dead on arrival at Planning Commission. Our system of checks and balances for development in this town are more than ample. Ask anyone who has tried to build here.
Lastly, when it comes to voting on every city project, the expense and communication required will be insurmountable and a huge burden on the city. We do not believe that most citizens will have the time and interest to research the complexity of development issues that they would be forced to vote on.
Becky & Frank Visconti, Laguna Beach
As one of the founders of Laguna Residents First PAC, I can unequivocally state that the Visconti’s have gotten it wrong. Their statement:
“The proposal would require residents to go to the polls to approve every major commercial development in town, including any residential project over nine units.”
bears no relationship to the language of the Ballot Initiative. The correct version (in summary) is that only proposed developments that lie within 750ft of the center-line of either Coast Highway or Laguna Canyon Road (within Laguna Beach City limits) AND which also exhibit one or more of the following “triggers” would require a plurality of votes before they could go forward:
1)Exceeds 22,000 square feet of total gross floor area;
2)Worsens traffic by causing 200 or more additional “Average Daily Trips” (as is further defined);
3)Worsens parking by providing fewer than the “Reasonably Necessary Number of Parking Spaces” (as is further defined);
4)Exceeds the height standards in the Overlay District;
5)Combines two or more contiguous lots to create a single parcel exceeding 7,500 square feet of lot area, or exceeding 6,000 square feet of lot area within the Downtown Specific Plan, with exceptions; or
6)Causes a “Cumulative Effect,” defined as when considered together with other“Cumulative Properties” (as is further defined) will cause more than 800 “Average Daily Trips” or the construction of more than 88,000 square feet of gross floor area.
In short, only really big proposed commercial developments which will worsen traffic or parking or other quality-of-life matters are likely to require a popular vote. Residential homes are excluded. Schools, museums, hospitals likewise. Experience shows that once these triggers are known, developers adjust their proposals to avoid requiring a vote. In the several years that a very similar Ballot Measure passed into law in Costa Mesa (2018), NO PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT HAS GONE FOR A POPULAR VOTE. At present (3 years later) there is 1 development that might (might) go before voters in Costa Mesa. Their city has not been overrun with special elections; unlike the dire prediction that the Visconti’s irresponsibly assert in their LTE.
The Visconit’s are fear mongering and misrepresenting the Ballot Measure. For those who want to see the actual text, please go to our website: http://www.lagunaresidentsfirst.org and read the document for yourselves (its only 16 pages).
LRF is a grassroots organization. We are made up of (primarily) Laguna Beach residents who want to ensure that our beautiful seaside village isn’t exploited for short-term financial gain by developers who can easily leave behind a gridlocked and emergency-exit-compromised city once they’ve collected their cash. Our donor average is $154, far removed from the developer PAC Liberate Laguna/Laguna Forward where 95% of the donations come from 3 or 4 developers who’s contributions are each in the 10’s of thousands of dollars each.
LRF needs to collect signatures from at least 10% of Laguna Beach registered voters to get the ballot measure onto the November 2022 general election ballot. At that point, a majority of voters would have a say as to whether the Ballot Measure should become law. And whether they believe it makes sense to give us a direct say on proposed future developments that have the potential to have significant impact on our lives.
Hogwash.
The Visconti’s rely on our city government to represent us? Yes – Peter Blake’s done such a wonderful job of listening to and representing residents.
Funny – they never mention Liberate Laguna/Laguna Forward (aka, Laguna Forsale) and how the group’s spent about a quarter of a million dollars to get its pro-development, pro-business, pro-tourism City Council candidates elected – the three-candidate pro-development, pro-business, pro-tourism bloc that now has a controlling majority vote at the council.
They never mention the Brown Act violations of the City Council – which has apparently been autocratically making community decisions in total secret during during closed doors sessions with absolutely zero transparency – residents be damned. (Where’s police chief Thompson when you need him?)
They neglect to mention how city committees are stacked with pro-development volunteers with no experience in their assigned posts. (Ummm. It’s the City Council who approves of the committee members . . . and the three Council members who control the voting all had their election campaigns co-funded by the developers of Liberate Laguna. Hmmm.)
Their claims that the Laguna Residents First ballot initiative will be ungainly and expensive totally ignores the fact that similar initiatives have been operating in Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Dana Point. Dana Point passed its program only after unchecked city government permitted the building of view-blocking multi-story megastructures that changed the character of its town and will continue to do so for decades.
Which leads to the last point – the only reason the Laguna Resident First initiative came into existence is because the city’s biased and bought rogue government has continuously and repeatedly failed to represent the needs, wants and desires of Laguna’s residents – the very opposite of what the Visconti’s purport.
It’s time that the residents of Laguna Beach take control of the fate and future of their own home town before developers and developer-supported politicians take it away from them.
Thank you, Becky Visconti, for clearly expressing why so many longtime locals find this proposed initiative to be a solution in search of a problem. For decades now, we have had the tools to prevent the kind of development that the initiative addresses. Wherever you land on the political spectrum, passing laws we don’t need is the definition of bad governance.
Well said! I agree with you 100%! Let’s invigorate not stagnant!
Jerome,
Can you please enlighten us as to how “the city’s biased and bought rogue government has continuously and repeatedly failed to represent the needs, wants and desires of Laguna’s residents.”
Michael, to be clear and transparent, the town would have to vote on any project that:
– Worsens traffic by causing 200 or more additional Average Daily Trips; or
– Worsens parking by providing fewer than the Reasonably Necessary Number of Parking.
So this means the Forest Ave Promenade would be subject to a vote, along with just about any new restaurant, bar or cafe, correct?
If you call demolishing Laguna’s charming buildings and replacing them with oversized stucco-box tchotchke shops and view-blocking multi-story hotels “invigorating” – include me out.
Once gone, it’ll be gone forever.
BTW – With 6,000,000 day visitors a year, I’m already feeling invigorated enough, thank you.
I’m not prone to indecision, but I find myself ambivalent, torn about this issue.
As a 50 year resident, a now retired builder of some 40 years experience here, I agree to a certain extent with Chris Q., yes there are general and specific area plans plus LB codes/regs that can buffer monstrous, ugly proposals.
I was involved in building several large residences and (I thought modest) a commercial project downtown that were pared down by our city approval food chain and grouchy, petty neighbors.
But one can’t rely totally upon the tools Chris Q. alludes to—-the approval process appears to rigged, infiltrated and rife with political patronage and nepotistic rewards.
I often wonder if we wouldn’t be better off electing Planning Commissioners and DRB using a district format, perhaps 7? Then they’d live among and be held directly accountable by their neighbors, including a streamlined recall process if necessary?
On the other hand, the Viscontis window is relatively small, moved here around the time that what would eventually become The Montage Resort was moving through our local approval process. Originally it was to be a 4 Star Marriott, but if memory serves the ≈500 member Merrill Lynch investment group bailed?
The Athens Development Group availed itself of thesvystem, spread around a lot of $$$ to support Council candidates, who when seated appointed like-minded persons to the Planning Commission and DRB. By 2000, it was a done deal. Did I blame or demonize them? No, like a good engineer, their CEO and attorney Kim Richards took a very smart big picture, systems approach in moving their project forward.
Ironically, Lisa and John Mansour (Athens Dev Corp executive) have proven themselves to be true locals, fully integrated into our community. I consider them to be valuable assets instead of demons. They must be amused by this initiative.
Then Pierre Omydar (eBay millionaire) wisely saw an opportunity, a bargain. Hence the launching of the resort chain. One of the main gripes by locals was that he built a 5 Star, Condé Nast iconic resort that most of us or our personal friends wanting to visit can’t afford. Not the food or room costs.
That said, like many in 2000, I thought it was the beginning of the end, we’d be immediately overrun by similar high end endeavors. Well, I was wrong and so were those like me, those greedy capitalistic hordes many feared? They didn’t appear right away, more like that famous blues band featuring blistering guitar player and vocalist Alvin Lee, 10 Years After.
It took the deep fiscal hole around 2008 to attract bottom feeding real estate investors as the nation began to recover by 2010 or so.
Contextual history is important. There is a strong, community resonant case to be made for Mr. Morris’ complex laundry list of concerns.
To me its more like a slow growth initiative, not an intolerable, Draconian zero growth one. And it does appear to many of us that City Hall has become imbalanced: Business First, Residents Second. Being runner-up, “Winning Silver” is disconcerting.
Just as Donald Drumpf was elected by those who felt disenfranchised, who resented the status quo, this initiative has great potential.
This issue has found traction, it’s audience and time. There are a lot of angry residents who may follow a similar 2016 course.
As for PACs in Laguna? Doesn’t anyone remember when a 527 PAC unjustly torpedoed Councilman Wayne Baglin, smeared and “swift boated” him during his re-election campaign? Because of reporting laws, we didn’t know how much $$$ was poured into that committee, nor who the real players with slick, gaslighting bi-fold colored fliers behind it were until he was unseated.
Personally, I despise PACs, but unless laws change, they’ll be migraines for those on the short end of the stick. There’s nearly zero accountability, and as I said, most of the time due to delayed reporting procedures, it’s over before you hear the fat lady sing.
This is going to be THE “campaign wedge issue” in 2022, so grown an extra layer of skin, buckle up, maybe wear a crash helmet, it’s probably going to be a horrifyingly bumpy ride for all.
Jerome, I again ask you to enlighten us with specifics – instead of generalities that frankly don’t exist. When you say our current government is “demolishing Laguna’s charming buildings and replacing them with oversized stucco-box tchotchke shops and view-blocking multi-story hotels,” can you provide us with examples? The only project that vaguely resembles this description is the Museum Hotel proposal, which was roundly shot down by our elected officials. So is this just fear-based hyperbole?
Roger,
We were already here around the time of the Montage development. That project, along with the Ranch, and Pottery Shops, for example, show the best of possibilities incorporating architecture that invokes historic CA with new elements. (Admiration to Morris Skenderian.) I love walking the park at Treasure Island; I worked the rocks there as a Tide Pool docent. Can’t get enough patio time at the Ranch admiring the majestic canyon views. And, I adore shopping at LB Books at the Pottery Shops. All of these experiences come at little expense.
These complicated projects were obviously the painstaking work of developers, architects, City Council and Design Review. I put my faith in these experts to study the complexity of land use, environmental concerns, traffic, the Coastal Commission, and many other considerations.
If projects like those mentioned previously were put to the voters back in the day, we might not have these enhancements to our beautiful coastal town.
Lastly, I want to mention visitors. If keeping them away is the motive of some others’ sharing their opinions in this space, we need to keep in mind we don’t own the beach or ocean, we share it and need to model good stewardship.
It would be best if we put effort into reducing the impact of visitors — traffic (carbon emissions), trash, and parking by looking for modes of transportation to move people in and out of town. Alternative energy shuttles, bike lanes & designated roads, walking paths, and scooters all deserve serious consideration by our council, committee members, and residents.
Well said, Becky!
B Fried: “So this means the Forest Ave Promenade would be subject to a vote, …”
No. The Ballot Initiative would create an overlay zone known as the “Beautiful Laguna Overlay Zoning District” (zone) which would apply to development proposals for Parcels within the zone.
“… along with just about any new restaurant, bar or cafe, correct?”
As for restaurants, bars or cafes; traffic impacts and parking provisions for the new projects would be scrutinized, as well they should be. Enough of proposals turning a quiet neighborhood restaurant into a fast-casual locale and providing NO ADDITIONAL parking (forcing parking into the neighborhoods….can you say Urth Cafe?). And enough of developers intensifying use without mitigating it, expecting tax-payers to eventually pay the bill. These types of proposals rightfully should go before voters who have to live with the consequences. The BLOZD would require different uses to provide actual physical parking spaces according to the proposed use, e.g.:
One ( 1 ) space for each 100 square feet of gross floor area , including outdoor seating
area(s), or 1 space per 3 seats whichever is greater for:
i. Group counseling/meetings;
ii. Entertainment, including bars, cocktail lounges, night clubs;
iii. Food services including, but not limited to restaurants, drive thrus, take outs, fast
food and full service, bakeries, ice cream stores, juice bars, delicatessens.
If a developer isn’t prepared to provide the required spaces (or an in-lieu fee, which the BI updates to a realistic level), then they should be required to go before the voters, IMO. But we include provisions that would allow an existing business to obtain a CUP for new/innovative uses within the footprint of their existing space, without triggering the BI (e.g. a nail salon that wants to set aside a small amount of its floor space for a coffee niche).
As for the Pottery Shack that Ms. Visconti praises, the creators of the BI also believe this project is a model for what responsible development looks like, and we took pains to set the BI’s trigger values above that which the PS project likely imposes.
I’m confused. Why is it a bad thing to let residents have a say in what their town is to look like? What are the developers afraid of???? That residents will want to keep the charm and small town feel of Laguna amidst a sea of huge developments in other cities???? I know why I moved to Laguna and not another city. I don’t trust the politicians one bit. I do trust the residents. The fear mongering about Laguna being left behind is specious – everyone I know likes the look and feel of the town just as it is.
Billy –
Please explain to me exactly why Liberate Laguna – a group of developers and commercial building owners – has spent around a quarter of a million dollars to support pro-development, pro-business, pro-tourism city council members . . . who have in turn installed their choice for City Manager and City Attorney, plus approved of pro-development City committee members with little to no experience for the posts they now hold . . . if for no other reason than to develop.
Please explain why these developers continue to meddle in city politics and push a pro-development, pro-business, pro-tourism, anti-resident agenda. (Exhibit A: Their candidate, Peter Blake)
They’re developers. That’s what they do. Please don’t act naive and pretend otherwise.
The cagey ones play the long game. They buy up city governments in order to change building ordinances, acquire variances and create specific design plans to suit their needs. And their biggest need is to maximize profits – residents be damned. (Sound familiar?)
Any read of the Downtown Specific Plan and Downtown Action Plan will reveal numerous recommendations and loosely worded gaps big enough for developers to drive cement trucks through. Clauses suggesting the demolition of buildings and the combining of those lots into bigger, larger, taller structures. Open invitations to developers to say, “See, it says right here I can do that.”
More exhibits: Exactly what went on in Dana Point, Costa Mesa, Newport Beach, and Huntington Beach. Three of those cities were mauled by developers until residents rose up, created ballot initiates like the one proposed by Laguna Residents First (which allows residents the right to vote on approving or disapproving of large commercial projects – instead of giving that discretion to pro-development City Hall members who have had financial ties to developers) and/or took their cities back at the ballot box. Doing so only all-too-often after the damage had already been done – damage that will linger for decades.
More proof of political shenanigans: the Brown Act violations of the pro-development contingent of the City Council, which has apparently been autocratically making Hotel Laguna decisions in total secret during during closed doors sessions with absolutely zero transparency for the public.
Interesting you mention the Museum Hotel as the only example of overdevelopment. You neglected to mention the plans for the oversized, view-blocking Cleo Hotel, which preceded it and possessed virtually ever last one of the same ordinance violations and signs of neighborhood indifference. And then there were the roof deck and parking issues with the proposed improvements for the Coast Inn. All typical developer overreach, grasping for maximum profit-taking regardless of residents’ expense and inconvenience.
As for checks and balances for these kind of projects – the more and more pro-development operatives we see being appointed to City Hall and its various boards and committees, the more these checks and balances are being seriously eroded.
And if you don’t believe that, please explain all the unpermitted and uninspected work and stop work orders that the City Council and City Hall have purposefully and repeated ignored in regards to the Hotel Laguna. Hell, unless recently, a complete set of plans has never been submitted for all the work being done there . . . and how long has this work been going on?!
Clearly, things simply are not on the level and are being tilted in developers’ favor as rampant preferential treatment is being doled out.
Sorry, but I’m not buying any Pollyanna, nothing-to-see-here, fairy tales about no threats of overdevelopment. We’re just on the cusp of it.
Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Dana Point didn’t think they were at risk of becoming Newport Beach, Huntington Beach and Dana Point – and then voila! – there they were and are.
It’s time that the residents of Laguna Beach take control of the fate and future of their own home town before developers and developer-supported politicians take it away from them.
‘Mr. Visconti is a pioneer in master planning new retail developments and was instrumental in introducing luxury brands to Las Vegas in the early ’90s, helping reshape the city into a premier international shopping destination.”
https://perspectivemagazine.com/030820179039/wynn-las-vegas-announces-frank-visconti-as-senior-vice-president-of-retail
He’s worked for Wynn Las Vegas and Mirage Resorts, Inc. And as “President of Retail for MGM Resorts International, where he oversaw more than 150 stores and 200 tenants within 13 resorts. Most recently, he led the development of Crystals within CityCenter on the Las Vegas Strip.”
Very impressive credentials.
Is Laguna ready for Las Vegas?
Pro-development, Pro-business, Pro-tourism = Only In Laguna Beach have the morons who loved Orange Sunshine instead of Education, bamboolzed their neighbors into thinking against all-good things like hotels, restaurants, expanded retail, that attracts high quality tourists, instead of the cheap day trippers from the IE who come for Amateur hour at Sawdust. Have any of these cheap skates been to La Jolla, Santa Barbara or Carmel? WTF is wrong with those great places? Nothing . . What’s wrong with us? Uneducated fools who write 800 word letters to the editor instead of putting THEIR money where their mouths are . . Oh, they don’t have any money, and push taxing us to promote their agenda.
Michelle Monda. In answer to your question: Because that’s how the system works. If you have a sissy fit initative every time you pass gas, it’s chaos. OK?
Jerome Pudwill. Thank you for the business background information on Mr. Visconti. The letter from he and his wife and their perspective makes sense now.
My thoughts Re: Proposed Building Initiative. The level of stepped-up vocal opposition by the Liberate Laguna Forward (For-sale) PAC developers/investors and their like-minded friends, associates and supporters is exposing just how truly threatened they are that Laguna Beach residents may be throwing a wrench in their strategic planning efforts to infiltrate our government systems and influence our public officials and appointed building related commission members. It’s becoming clearer that without this resident stakeholder Building Initiative, these big-spenders will have succeeded in paving the way to making the changes they want to see in our City. We are already seeing this in action with the ignoring of residents input by their pro-development council candidates Whalen, Kempf and Blake. City Transparency and trust is at an all time low. If it wasn’t, there would not be so much public turmoil and pushback. Laguna Beach voters – don’t let your right to give input on important future developments or government policies or building code changes that may permanently impact our city. There is nothing to lose and everything to gain. READ the initiative, SIGN the initiative and VOTE to approve in 2022. Thank you.
MJ: Just a reminder that signing the ballot initiative commits the signer to nothing.
It simply insures that this initiative will be on the next election ballot – so all residents can then decide if they want the right to approve or disapprove of any oversized commercial project that might otherwise detrimentally impact Laguna Beach
As is, the public has no direct say in this.
I’m predicting the developers and their supporters will be spending up to a million dollars to kill this initiative – just as the ones in Costa Mesa did . . . and failed.
As I said above:
It’s time that the residents of Laguna Beach take control of the fate and future of their own home town before developers and developer-supported politicians take it away from them.
Please sign the initiative and let the people decide.
Billy Fried; the Sweetwater proposal is one of those ” stucco – box ” projects that does not belong in Laguna.