|
BY ANN CHRISTOPH
Mo Honarkar is busy proving that Measure Q is just what we need . Is he a closet member of “ Yes on Q ”? Maybe he has his own secret chapter of Laguna Residents First , the group that started the Measure Q campaign ?
His Laguna Beach Company hired signature gatherers to circle our market parking lots asking voters to sign a petition purported to oppose parking garages .
The petition is really against Ordinance # 1675 that City Council passed Aug . 16 , solidifying height limits , requiring rooftop decks and
|
their furniture to be within the 36 ’ height limit , and making special requirements when several lots are developed together as one project . The ordinance was intended to demonstrate that the city can better address the issues raised in Measure Q by passing new and improved measures — and that , therefore , a vote of the people on some development projects ( as provided by Measure Q ) would not be necessary .
On Monday , Honarkar submitted 2,600 signatures to the city clerk for verification . If the Registrar of Voters finds 1,800 valid signatures , ordinance # 1675 will be suspended . Then council can just cancel the ordinance , schedule a special election , or hold the item until the next general election in 2024 .
In April , the City hired premier political strategist Stu Mollrich to advise regarding the Laguna Residents First initiative , now Measure Q . There was never a public report of his recommendations , but Ordinance # 1645 resulted and it was approved by the usual council majority , Mayor Sue Kempf , Mayor pro tem Bob Whalen and Councilmember Peter Blake on its first reading . Interestingly , at its final
|
reading , Blake switched from his previous support of the ordinance and voted no .
Why ? At the last minute , there was a ten-page letter from high-powered Los Angeles attorneys , Latham and Watkins , representing Honarkar ’ s Laguna Beach Company , strongly opposing council adoption of Ordinance # 1645 , specifically its lot merger language . The connection to this concern is clear . The Laguna Beach Company is an “ owner , leaseholder , manager , or operator ” of properties composed of grouped individual lots — including Hotel Laguna , Laguna Village shops and the Cliff Restaurant , and properties north of the Art Museum to Jasmine Street . Since the purpose of the ordinance was to respond to Measure Q on the November ballot , Kempf and Whalen were strong on moving ahead with it . Councilmember Toni Iseman switched her vote to yes , and the ordinance was approved despite Blake ’ s no vote .
Thus the petition drives to repeal Ordinance # 1645 . ( See commonsenselaguna . com .) What it is really doing is demonstrating why approving measure Q is so important . Measure Q provides for a vote of the
|
people if large projects may present unacceptable impacts .
Three councilmembers can overturn a city ordinance under pressure from a petition drive like Honarkar ’ s — or for any reason .
So far , Honarkar ’ s other efforts have produced results at City Hall . No formerly required publicly reviewed master plan for the Hotel Laguna .
Piecemeal improvements allowed instead . Work proceeding without permits . Improper closed session agreement allowing stop work orders to be lifted — cited by the District Attorney as out of line with the Brown Act . No public review of the restoration of this important historical icon .
Work continues on changes to the beachfront and access from the sand despite Coastal appeals and encroachments onto the public beach .
Honarkar succeeds step by step in doing what he wants without public review . This pattern suggests that his or other efforts could result in the repeal of other important protective ordinances . We ’ ve seen that we cannot rely on the City Council to stand firm on City requirements . This is why Honarkar is Measure Q ’ s best advocate .
|