14 lagunabeachindy . com OCTOBER 21 , 2022
GUEST OPINION :
Good Slogans , Bad Policy
BY LAGUNA BEACH MAYOR SUE KEMPF AND MAYOR PRO-TEM BOB WHALEN
The proponents of Measure Q certainly have catchy slogans — stop overdevelopment and put Laguna residents first . We agree with those sentiments . But catchy slogans do not make good policy , and Measure Q is a decidedly bad land use policy for Laguna . We strongly urge you to vote NO on Measure Q .
Good policy measures are the product of a sound first draft followed by a robust public debate and then revisions to address public input , missing concepts , oversights , inconsistent provisions and unintended consequences of the initial draft . Unfortunately , Measure Q was drafted by a small group of individuals without input at public hearings or a chance for others with differing viewpoints to suggest revisions and improvements to it .
We each served four years on the Planning Commission and have a combined fourteen years on the City Council . Neither of us can recall a single City land use ordinance going through the process without revisions . So , it is not surprising that Measure Q , without the benefit of a robust public discussion and revisions to reflect those discussions , has flaws that are too numerous to ignore .
The key flaws are an overly broad definition of the projects that will have to go to a public vote , a failure to exempt City projects from its provisions , and the hurdles it creates for senior and affordable housing projects .
The first section of Measure Q , Section 25.060.01 ( a ), states that its purpose is “ to ensure that large new development projects do not exceed height , density and parking requirements to preserve the existing scale and atmosphere ” along and adjacent to Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road . Had the proponents remained true to this stated and limited purpose , we would likely not be writing this column opposing Measure Q .
But rather than focusing on its stated purpose , Measure Q spreads its wings to encompass a broad range of projects with a six-part definition of “ Major Development Project ” which require a vote . Only part one of the definition focuses on the size of a project .
The other five parts of the definition focus on various other factors .
The most troubling part of the definition is part 6 , which sweeps in any project that causes a “ Cumulative Effect .” It is complicated , but this provision will subject many small projects of the type that we want in Laguna to a vote . To calculate whether the Cumulative Effect provision is triggered , you aggregate over an eight year period all projects over 3,000 sq . ft . of gross floor area for which a building permit was issued or for which an application was submitted , unless the permit or the review process has been terminated . Once the Cumulative Effect provision is triggered , all projects within the affected area ( a half-mile radius ) will have to go to a vote unless they meet the definition of the term “ Minor Modification of a Major Development Project ,” which most will not . If Measure Q is approved , the Cumulative Effect provision will immediately take effect in North Laguna and downtown , subjecting small projects to public votes .
Another troubling provision of Measure Q is its failure to exempt City public safety projects from its provisions . Why would it exempt “ a public or private K-12 school , hospital , museum , or house of worship ” of any size but not a City public safety project ? We can ’ t think of a good reason . Please join us in voting NO on Measure Q and urge your friends to do the same . We don ’ t need it to maintain Laguna ’ s character . In fact , it will undermine it .