The seven principal questions were sent to every candidate. The complete question bank shows the broader range and intensity of public interest.
1
Election reform and Measure E
Measure E requires a majority vote, while Laguna council candidates may win by plurality. Should Laguna study the Seal Beach model—district elections, term limits and a 50-percent-plus-one requirement or runoff—or other election reforms? If not, why is Laguna’s present system preferable?
Providence has stated its position. What is your line in the sand for keeping 24-hour emergency care and inpatient acute care in Laguna Beach? What is your minimum acceptable outcome for the hospital property, and what should the City do if Providence will not meet it?
Will you support one complete, public accounting of every Promenade-related cost, including the temporary closure, final construction and continuing maintenance?
Should restaurants bear any part of a special tax aimed at visitors? Whether yes or no, identify the specific tax, fee or other revenue source you would support so visitors pay a greater share of public costs attributable to tourism.
Before supporting a new tax or fee, name one City expenditure or project to reduce, postpone or eliminate. Provide the approximate amount and identify the service or benefit residents would give up.
Imagine returning to Laguna Beach 10 years from now. If elected, what accomplishment would you be proudest to attribute to your tenure? If not elected, what change or loss would you most fear seeing in Laguna, and why?
The Village Laguna forum asked whether to reduce Laguna’s $2,500 design-review appeal fee. The recorded answers divide all nine candidates:
Candidate
Status
Reduce the fee?
Sue Kempf
Incumbent
No
Mark Orgill
Incumbent
No
Alex Rounaghi
Incumbent
No
Ashley Cintas
Challenger
Yes
Laura Parisi
Challenger
Yes
Nick Aronoff
Challenger
Yes
Edward Bayuk
Challenger
Yes
Joy Berry
Challenger
Yes
Karen Martin
Challenger
Yes
Village Laguna forum · 1:13:34–1:15:20 ↗. Paraphrased from the recording/transcript. Alex said he opposed the earlier fee increase; Mark cited processing costs and Council-initiated review. Opposition to lowering the fee does not imply agreement with every prior increase.
New follow-up question · proposed, not a received answer
At the Village Laguna forum, you stated whether you supported reducing the appeal fee. Dana Point’s published October 2020 planning schedule lists $250 for residential appeals and $500 for nonresidential appeals, while Laguna’s published general appeal amount is $2,500. Dana Point’s current effective fees and any countywide ranking have not been verified. Do higher fees disproportionately limit residents with less ability to pay? What fee and hardship-waiver policy would you support, and how would you balance access, City costs and applicants’ need for timely decisions?
For Kempf, Orgill and Rounaghi: If you agree that affordability affects access, why do you oppose reducing the fee? What alternative would address that barrier?
For the six challengers: What specific lower fee would you propose, how would you fund the difference, and what safeguards would prevent delay or repetitive appeals?
Enter brief answers below. The submit button prepares an email to lagunaadvocates@duck.com. You must press Send in your email program to complete the submission.
Complete numbered question bank
The question bank is not a transcript. It includes public questions and questions consolidated or edited for clarity, brevity, duplication and fairness. Candidates are not expected to answer every question and may dispute a question’s premise.
Submitters’ names are omitted because questions were solicited without permission to publish identities. A submitter will be identified only with express permission. Inclusion does not mean Advocates endorses every premise.