# Forum Follow Up Questions

Ashley Cintas

**Organizer note:** Received after the final extended deadline. Answers are reproduced verbatim; headings provide navigation.

## 1  Election reform and Measure E

Response: The goal should be simple: broader voter support, fair representation and a system residents understand. If the evidence supports a change, voters should decide it at the ballot box.

## 2  Hospital and emergency care

Response: My minimum is 24/7 local emergency access with stabilization, diagnostics and the ability to treat and discharge patients locally. I also want inpatient acute care preserved if an independent analysis shows a workable model. The City should immediately pursue a parallel path: obtain independent financial and facility data, issue a request for information to qualified operators, evaluate the existing property and other sites, and identify public, private, nonprofit, county and state funding options. We should negotiate with Providence, but we cannot allow one company to be our only plan.

## 3  Forest Avenue Promenade

Response: Yes. Residents should receive one complete accounting from the temporary street closure through design, consultants, construction, furnishings, change orders, lost parking revenue and annual maintenance. The City should publish the original budget, every Council authorization, the final cost, funding sources and who approved each material change. A project cannot be judged responsibly when costs are scattered across years and accounts. I would also require a post-project review of whether the Promenade met its stated goals and what should be corrected.

## 4  Visitor-generated costs

Response: No. A special restaurant tax would also be paid by residents and would weaken local businesses. Visitors should contribute more directly through tools tied to visitor demand and cost. I support data-based peak parking rates in the highest-demand areas, stronger collection and enforcement, appropriate event and user fees, and a review of hotel tax and assessment structures. Any additional revenue should be dedicated and reported publicly for beach maintenance, restrooms, traffic management, transit and public safety. The City should first combine current parking, traffic, lodging and visitor data so the charge is connected to a measurable cost.

## 5  Emergency preparedness

Response: Yes. A tabletop exercise is useful, but it does not show whether alerts reach people, intersections move, evacuation routes work or backup communications hold up under pressure. I would require a neighborhood or evacuation-zone pilot within six months of taking office and a phased citywide exercise during the first year, coordinated with police, fire, public works, schools and regional partners. The results should be published, including failures, corrective actions, responsible departments and deadlines. Prepared is not the same as tested.

## 6  Fiscal priorities

Response: I would pause new non-emergency consulting studies and reduce outside professional-services spending by at least $500,000 while the City inventories current contracts, duplicate studies and unused software. The tradeoff is that some discretionary studies and lower-priority initiatives would take longer. Police, fire, lifeguards, wildfire work and essential maintenance would be protected. This is one part of my larger first-budget-cycle goal of identifying approximately $2 million in recurring savings or cost avoidance through contract review, vacancy control, project prioritization and monthly budget-to-actual management.

## 7  Laguna in 10 years

Response: I would be proudest if Laguna could prove that its critical systems work: a citywide evacuation system tested and corrected, dependable local emergency care, and infrastructure projects funded and delivered on schedule. That would mean replacing promises with measurable results. If I am not elected, my greatest fear is slow erosion rather than one dramatic event: losing emergency care, postponing wildfire readiness, allowing operating deficits to become normal and spending heavily without finishing core projects. Over time, that would reduce both residents' safety and the character we are trying to protect.

# Verbatim public-question answers

Original public-question numbers are retained. The submission labels each public question: “Submitted by a resident; not verified as asked verbatim during the forum.” The complete question bank is available separately. Candidate response wording below is unchanged.

## P1. Hospital, ER and inpatient services

Response: I would pursue two tracks at once. First, negotiate firmly with Providence for continued 24/7 emergency and inpatient services. Second, commission an independent financial, operational and seismic review and invite qualified hospital systems and nonprofit operators to propose alternatives. The City should evaluate the current site, other feasible sites, ownership and lease models, and county, state, philanthropic and private participation. My minimum objective is local 24/7 emergency stabilization and treatment. Serious trauma may still be transferred to a trauma center, but that does not make a local ER unnecessary.

## P2. If no agreement with Providence

Response: I would not accept Providence's decision as the end of the discussion. I would issue a request for information to other qualified operators, obtain an independent valuation and feasibility analysis, examine purchase or lease terms for the existing property, and evaluate alternative sites. At the same time, I would seek county and state participation because emergency access serves a wider coastal area. The public should see the options, costs, risks and timeline before the Council chooses a model.

## P3. Bond measure for 24/7 emergency care

Response: I would consider a bond, but I would not ask residents to approve a blank check. Before placing anything on the ballot, the City must identify an operator, define the level of emergency care, establish the site and ownership model, disclose construction or retrofit costs, and publish the annual operating obligation. Residents should then be able to compare a bond with other public-private and nonprofit funding options. If the plan is credible, affordable and protects 24/7 emergency access, voters should have the final say.

## P4. Alternative hospital location and provider

Response: Yes, I would evaluate an alternative site and a new operator if the existing property cannot be secured on reasonable terms. Building a full hospital is different from establishing a 24/7 emergency facility, so the City should compare service models rather than assume the most expensive option. Funding could include operator investment, lease or sale proceeds, county and state support, philanthropy, grants and, only after a complete plan is public, a voter-approved bond. Site safety, response time, seismic standards, access and long-term operating costs must drive the decision.

## P5. Questions for Providence

Response: The Task Force should require audited facility and service-line financials; ER visits, admissions, discharges and transfer data; the exact seismic work required and its cost; the property's independent value; sale, lease and deed-restriction terms; closure and transition dates; and Providence's willingness to sell or lease to another qualified operator. It should also ask which services are actually losing money, what assumptions Providence is using, and what operating support or transition agreement it would consider. Without that information, the City is negotiating against conclusions rather than evidence.

## P7. Campaign funding sources and amounts

Response: My campaign finance reports are public and are the source of record. Through the September 19 reporting period, my campaign reported $26,763 in contributions, including $14,000 in personal loans. State forms do not automatically classify each individual donor as a 'commercial organization' or 'Laguna resident,' so I will not invent a split. I will provide the organizer with a reconciliation by those requested categories and update it with the next filing. Every itemized donor, occupation, employer and amount can be reviewed in the City's electronic filing system.

## P8. Funding and decisions

Response: They will not. A contribution does not buy a vote, a contract or access to the agenda. Consultant contracts should be awarded through written qualifications, competitive pricing, disclosed scoring and proof that the work is not duplicating an existing study. Agenda decisions should be based on public need, timing and legal requirements. I will disclose relevant relationships, follow all recusal rules and explain my vote on the record. The same standards should apply whether a supporter, opponent or non-donor is involved.

## P9. Responding to public input

Response: Public comment should not be a ceremonial exercise. The Brown Act limits back-and-forth on items not on the agenda, but it does not prevent the City from acknowledging a question, referring it to staff or providing a later written response. I support a public question log for Council meetings that identifies the department responsible, response status and expected date. For agenda items, staff reports should summarize major public concerns and explain what changed, what did not and why. Residents may not always get the answer they want, but they deserve an answer.

## P11. Forest Avenue pedestrian lawsuits

Response: I have not seen verified evidence showing a large number of lawsuits involving pedestrians on Forest Avenue. Rather than repeat a rumor, the City should publish the number and cost of claims and lawsuits connected to the street before and after the closure. If liability was used to justify the project, that record should be part of the public accounting.

## P12. Promenade budget

Response: The City has not yet provided residents with one clear reconciliation showing the original scope and budget against the final result. Possible drivers include multiple design phases, consultants, construction changes, furnishings and inflation, but I will not state a cause as fact without the contracts and change orders. I support an independent, line-by-line accounting that identifies each increase, who approved it and whether it was avoidable.

## P13. Restaurants’ use of public space

Response: Restaurants using public space exclusively should pay a transparent, consistently applied fee that covers lost parking revenue, administration, cleaning and other public costs. They should also purchase, maintain and insure their operating furniture. Public seating and amenities that remain available to everyone can properly be City-funded. The permanent program should publish the fee formula, renewal standards and enforcement rules so no business receives special treatment.

## P14. Promenade aesthetics and value

Response: The Promenade can be an attractive public gathering place, but the current result does not yet demonstrate that residents received the best value for the money spent. Shade, planting, seating comfort and the relationship between public space and private restaurant use need improvement. Fiscally, I want the full cost, including design, furnishings, lost meter revenue and maintenance, compared with the goals Council approved. I would judge it with actual use, heat, maintenance and business data and correct what is not working.

## P15. What to do differently

Response: I would have required the hybrid and permanent alternatives to be presented side by side with total cost, lost parking, maintenance, accessibility, shade, landscaping and business impacts. I would have set a firm budget before final design, used project gates before additional spending and tested furnishings in the actual sun before ordering them in quantity. After opening, I would require a defined review period and warranty corrections. Public input should occur while choices can still change, not after the contracts are committed.

## P16. Landscape approval

Response: The City should answer that with a published decision record, not speculation. That record should identify the concept shown to the public, the final planting and landscape plan, every material revision, the staff or consultant recommending it, and the Council action or delegated authority approving it. If the final design materially departed from what residents were shown, Council should explain why and correct the elements that are not performing.

## P17. Metal chair selection and heat

Response: The procurement record should identify the designer, staff recommendation, purchasing authority and Council authorization. I would publish that record along with the product specifications and any heat or durability testing. Regardless of who selected the chairs, the City now has a duty to measure surface temperatures and correct a safety or usability problem through shade, retrofit, replacement or a warranty claim.

## P18. Furnishing invoices and prices

Response: I agree that the invoices, quantities, unit prices, discounts, freight, installation, procurement method and approving authority should be public in one place. Claims about the price of individual items should be checked against the actual invoice, not social media estimates. If the City bought in volume without competitive pricing or appropriate discounts, residents deserve an explanation and a corrective procurement policy.

## P19. Publicly funded restaurant furniture

Response: Public furniture that serves everyone can be a legitimate public expense. Furniture used exclusively by a restaurant should generally be purchased, maintained and insured by that business, in addition to a fair fee for exclusive use of public space. The City should clearly separate public amenities from private operating areas and apply the same rule to every restaurant.

## P20. Tsunami risk

Response: It should be part of the City's documented emergency review. I want the public record to show whether evacuation routes, emergency access, signage, clear travel paths and the risk from loose furnishings were evaluated. The answer is not to eliminate a downtown public space, but to make sure its design does not obstruct evacuation or emergency operations and that staff can secure the area when a tsunami warning is issued.

## P21. Promenade remedies

Response: I would begin with an independent post-project review after the space has operated through different weather and visitor conditions. Immediate remedies should include more effective shade, additional appropriate coastal planting, surface-temperature testing, more comfortable public seating, clear separation of public and restaurant areas, and correction of defective items under warranty. I would publish the cost and timeline for each change. I would not spend more simply to redo it; changes should solve a measured problem.

## P22. Future tax measures

Response: Voters have already signaled concern about new taxes. I will not support another tax measure until the City demonstrates monthly budget-to-actual control, completes a contract and consultant review, prioritizes its capital list and shows what recurring spending has been reduced. If a future Council believes a tax is still necessary, it must identify the exact purpose, amount, duration, accountability safeguards and alternatives, and voters must decide. A tax should be the last step, not the first response to poor prioritization.

## P23. Voter safeguards for large projects

Response: For a major, non-emergency project that irreversibly changes a neighborhood or creates a substantial long-term obligation, I support stronger voter safeguards. The City should first require an independent appraisal or financial analysis, alternatives, lifecycle operating costs, public benefit, neighborhood impacts and a clear funding plan. I would consider an ordinance establishing an objective dollar or budget-percentage threshold for enhanced notice, a supermajority Council vote and, for the largest irreversible decisions, an advisory or binding public vote where legally permitted. 'Return' should include measurable public value, not only revenue.

## P24. Major real-estate acquisitions

Response: A general-law city and its Council have broad authority over budgets, contracts and municipal property, subject to state law and local procedures. Legal authority, however, is not a substitute for sound process or public consent. The Promenade, Tia Amo and St. Catherine's should each have had or should receive independent valuation, due diligence, total acquisition and operating costs, alternatives, intended public use and long-term funding disclosed before commitment. For high-cost, irreversible purchases that materially change community use, I support the voter safeguards described above rather than allowing a bare Council majority to make the decision with incomplete information.

## P25. Public-safety union endorsements

Response: Public-safety endorsements can reflect confidence in a candidate's judgment, but they must never purchase a compensation vote. I am proud to have support from fire-service leaders, and I will evaluate any labor agreement using staffing needs, recruitment and retention, comparable compensation, service results and the full long-term pension cost. Contributions and endorsements should be disclosed, and candidates must follow recusal law. Respect for first responders and independent oversight are not mutually exclusive.

## P28. Tourism benefits and impacts

Response: I do not support increasing tourism simply to increase headcount. Tourism is useful when it helps fund services, supports local businesses and arts, and is managed so residents' safety and daily life come first. Laguna should pursue quality over volume: visitors who stay longer, come outside peak periods, use transit and support local businesses. We also need current data on traffic, parking, public safety, trash, beach maintenance and spending so the City can recover costs and manage impacts rather than promote more demand blindly.

## P29. Flat $5 parking rate

Response: A flat $5 rate and two-hour limit everywhere is too blunt. It could hurt residents, employees and businesses in lower-demand areas while failing to manage the most congested locations. I support zone- and time-based pricing using actual occupancy data, with higher peak rates where spaces are consistently full, lower rates where they are not, practical employee options and stronger resident permits. The objective is turnover and reduced cruising, not simply more revenue. Results should be reviewed publicly and adjusted.

## P30. Regional intercept parking

Response: A regional intercept facility near the 5/405/133 connection is worth serious study because visitor traffic begins outside Laguna. But it requires a suitable site, county and Caltrans participation, reliable funding, frequent service and proof that people carrying beach gear will use it. I would ask the County for a joint feasibility and funding study while improving Act V and other existing intercept options now. We should not keep building expensive in-town parking without comparing it to regional alternatives.

## P31. Parking-removal safeguards

Response: I understand why residents want a safeguard, but I would not support a rule that requires an election for the loss of a single space. Some spaces must change for safety, ADA access, loading or emergency operations. I would support a ballot or ordinance standard that requires public notice, replacement and impact analysis, and heightened approval when a project removes a meaningful number of spaces or permanently changes a neighborhood. The threshold and exceptions should be objective.

## P32. Resident parking permits

Response: Resident permits should provide broader, simpler benefits, but applying them without limits to every metered space could eliminate turnover, reduce access for customers and conflict with coastal-access requirements. I support modernizing the program with a digital permit, additional eligible locations and clear time protections, while preserving ADA access, short-term turnover and high-demand management. The City should test the expansion and publish the parking-occupancy results.

## P33. Heisler Park visitor costs

Response: Heisler Park is a public coastal resource, but residents should not carry visitor costs without accountability. I support measuring parking occupancy, trash, restroom use, maintenance and enforcement costs; using appropriate visitor parking revenue to fund those services; protecting nearby residential streets; and improving transit and real-time parking information. The solution is better management and cost recovery, not excluding nonresidents from public coastal access.

## P34. Parking operating plan

Response: I would replace isolated parking decisions with one operating plan. It should combine meter occupancy, traffic counts, resident and employee permits, loading and delivery needs, neighborhood spillover, intercept parking and shuttle performance. Then the City can set rates and time limits by location, improve real-time wayfinding, protect residential areas and measure whether cruising and congestion decline. I would require quarterly public reporting during the first year of major changes.

## P37. Canyon housing and development

Response: I am not for opening the Canyon to broad development. It is a wildfire corridor, an evacuation route, open space and sensitive habitat. Any housing considered there should be limited to already disturbed, appropriate sites and must pass infrastructure, evacuation, traffic, biological and fire-safety review. I would not remove downtown housing capacity blindly, either. The City should compare realistic sites citywide and avoid concentrating housing where evacuation and infrastructure constraints are greatest. We must remain legally compliant while challenging unrealistic state allocations with evidence so we preserve as much local control as possible.

## P39. Coastal sediment and sand replenishment

Response: Yes. I support completing a Coastal Sediment Assessment this term so decisions are based on measured beach profiles, sediment sources, erosion rates and priority locations. I would then consider replenishment where the science, source material, environmental review, permits and lifecycle cost support it. This will require coordination with the Coastal Commission, Army Corps, County and neighboring jurisdictions, along with state and federal funding. Monitoring must be built in so residents can see whether a project actually retains sand and protects habitat and access.

## P40. Impact taxes on inland development

Response: The City cannot simply tax development outside its jurisdiction. Any impact fee must have a lawful connection and proportional relationship to the impact being funded. I would pursue county and regional mitigation agreements, watershed and transportation partnerships, state legislation and grants so upstream or inland growth contributes fairly to documented coastal, traffic and cleanup costs. The first step is quantifying those impacts well enough to support a legal funding request rather than promising a tax the City may not have authority to impose.

## P42. Flock cameras and privacy

Response: I would allow Flock or similar cameras only as a targeted public-safety tool for serious crimes, stolen vehicles and missing persons, not as unrestricted surveillance. The Council should adopt a public policy covering limited data retention, approved users and purposes, audit logs, cybersecurity, prohibited sale or broad sharing, independent verification before enforcement action and annual reporting on searches, hits, outcomes and cost. Misuse should carry consequences, and the program should sunset unless Council renews it after a public performance and privacy review.

## P43. Community Land Trust

Response: I support the goal of helping artists, seniors and workers remain in Laguna. My concern is not the concept of a community land trust; it is committing public money without clear deliverables. Before additional funding, the City should publish the number and type of homes, affordability levels and duration, eligible residents, acquisition price, outside financing, governance, maintenance costs, taxpayer risk and timeline. If the Land Trust can demonstrate durable affordability and reasonable cost per home with independent oversight, I would consider support. Good intentions still require a workable plan.

## P44. Cannabis dispensary

Response: I have not taken a blanket position against a legal dispensary. I would evaluate one tightly regulated location only after public input and an independent estimate of net revenue after enforcement and administrative costs. Any ordinance should address location and school buffers, security, hours, odor, signage, product delivery, youth protections and local tax collection. Revenue estimates of $500,000 to $700,000 should be documented, not assumed. If residents support a carefully controlled model and the numbers hold up, I am open to it.

## P46. Staff recommendations

Response: Both. Staff reports should present verified facts, assumptions, alternatives, fiscal and legal effects, risks, public input and implementation requirements. When the subject falls within staff's professional responsibility, staff should also make a clear recommendation and explain why. Councilmembers need accountable professional advice, not a report written to steer them toward a predetermined result.

## P47. Staff pros and cons

Response: Pros and cons are essential, but withholding a professional recommendation can also avoid accountability. I want staff to separate facts from judgment, show credible alternatives and state the recommended option when it is within their expertise. Council decides policy; licensed and qualified professionals should own their technical analysis. If staff does not recommend an option, the report should explain why.

## P48. Fire Station 1 and Farmers Market

Response: My first choice for further study is keeping Fire Station 1 at its current central location and examining whether the Police Department can be relocated and the station expanded behind the existing facade. That could preserve response coverage and avoid displacing the year-round Farmers Market, but it is not a final site selection. Before narrowing options, the City should publish a side-by-side comparison of response times, seismic safety, construction continuity, land value, total lifecycle cost, access and the effect on the Farmers Market. If the current site fails those tests, Lots 10 and 15 should remain in the comparison.

# Elective composite questions

These ten questions are optional. They consolidate recurring subjects from public submissions, forum preparation and follow-up review. They are not verbatim public submissions and are not represented as questions asked during the live forum.

## E1  Promenade alternatives and Council direction

Councilmember George Weiss has stated that the Council directed staff to return with both a hybrid and a permanent Promenade design, but City Manager Shohreh Dupuis presented only the permanent design. Was that response consistent with the Council's direction? If not, what should the Council have done, and should both alternatives have been presented to the public before a final decision?

Elective response: If Council directed staff to return with both alternatives, presenting only one was not responsive to that direction. Council should have required the hybrid and permanent plans to be returned side by side before taking a final vote, with comparable costs, parking effects, maintenance, accessibility, landscaping and business impacts. If staff believed one option was infeasible, that conclusion and its evidence should have been stated publicly. Council sets policy; staff implements it, and Council must enforce its own direction.

## E2  Hospital parallel path

While negotiations with Providence continue, should the City establish a parallel path that evaluates alternative operators, sites, financing and ownership models? Identify the first concrete step you would support.

Elective response: Yes. The first step should be an independent request for information to qualified hospital and emergency-care operators, supported by a data room containing reliable volume, facility, seismic and financial information. That would show who is interested, which services they could operate, what site and capital they require, and what public support they would seek. This parallel path should begin while Providence negotiations continue, not after they fail.

## E3  Constituent assistance

Should each Councilmember have a paid aide for constituent matters, or should Laguna create one independent ombudsman service for all residents? Explain which structure would improve accountability without unnecessarily increasing costs.

Elective response: I prefer one independent resident-services or ombudsman function over five paid political aides. It should log cases, protect confidentiality, assign a responsible department, set response deadlines and publish aggregate performance data. Councilmembers would still receive and follow constituent concerns, but cases would not depend on which office a resident knows. That structure is less costly, more consistent and easier to audit.

## E4  Building decisions and independence

Should technical building and engineering decisions, including stop-work orders, be made by qualified professionals? Should the Building Division remain within Community Development or become structurally independent?

Elective response: Yes. Structural, engineering, code and stop-work decisions should be made by qualified professionals applying written standards, not political pressure. I would first commission a workflow and performance review of Community Development, including permit times, appeals, rework and conflicts. Whether the Building Division remains inside the department or becomes independent should follow that evidence. At minimum, the Building Official needs clear professional authority, documented decisions and an appeal path insulated from favoritism.

## E5  Coyotes and Animal Services

What measurable level of coyote calls, pet attacks, response times or education demand would justify another Animal Services officer, and what should the City do now before that threshold is reached?

Elective response: I would not choose an arbitrary staffing number without a baseline. The City should publish monthly coyote calls, verified attacks, response times, after-hours gaps, education requests and officer workload. I would support another officer if verified incidents rise materially for two consecutive quarters or the department repeatedly misses an adopted response-time standard because of staffing. Now, the City should map incidents, improve fast reporting, expand resident hazing and attractant education, enforce feeding rules and coordinate with County and state wildlife experts.

## E6  Aliso Creek estuary and public health

Before approving the Aliso Creek Estuary project, should Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control evaluate both pooling and discharge scenarios and establish objective thresholds for mosquito counts, bacteria, water circulation and intervention?

Elective response: Yes. Before approval, Orange County Mosquito and Vector Control and qualified water-quality professionals should evaluate both pooling and discharge conditions. The plan should establish measurable thresholds for mosquito abundance, bacteria, dissolved oxygen, circulation or residence time, monitoring frequency and mandatory intervention. It also needs clear responsibility and funding for testing, notification, treatment and stopping or modifying the project if thresholds are exceeded. Public health safeguards should be operating conditions, not promises made after construction.

## E7  Fire Station 1 and Farmers Market

Should preserving a viable year-round Farmers Market be a required condition in selecting the Fire Station 1 site, and should the City publish a side-by-side cost and feasibility comparison before narrowing the alternatives?

Elective response: Yes. Preserving a viable year-round Farmers Market should be a required project condition, not an afterthought. The City should publish a side-by-side comparison of every viable site covering emergency response, seismic safety, acquisition or opportunity cost, construction and operating cost, schedule, parking, traffic and Farmers Market continuity. If relocation is unavoidable, a funded replacement location and transition plan should be identified before the existing market is displaced.

## E8  Material project changes

When a project materially changes after approval, should new story poles, renewed public notice and a new appeal opportunity be required before construction continues? Who should determine whether a change is material?

Elective response: Yes, when a change is material. Objective criteria should include changes to height, mass, setbacks, grading, views, exterior appearance, access, public safety or environmental effects. The Community Development Director or Building Official should make the initial written determination, with an appeal to the body that approved the project. New story poles, notice and appeal should be required for changes that meet the threshold, while minor field corrections should not restart the entire process.

## E9  Beaches and sand loss

Will you support a Coastal Sediment Assessment and consider sand replenishment at priority locations when the science, permits and costs support it?

Elective response: Yes. I support a Coastal Sediment Assessment and would consider replenishment at priority locations when the science, compatible sand source, environmental review, permits and lifecycle costs support it. The City should pursue regional, state and federal funding and require before-and-after monitoring so we know whether the investment is working.

## E10  Parking and visitor impacts

What one change to parking rates, time limits, resident permits, intercept parking or transit would most effectively reduce visitor-generated congestion while protecting residents and local businesses?

Elective response: My first change would be data-based, zone-and-time parking pricing paired with stronger resident and employee permit options. Rates should rise at the busiest times and locations, not everywhere, and revenue should fund transit, beach services and enforcement. That reduces cruising for scarce spaces while avoiding a blanket rule that harms neighborhood businesses or residents. I would measure occupancy, traffic and spillover quarterly and adjust the program based on results.

## Submission footer supplied with the responses

Please place each answer beneath its numbered question and return the completed document to lagunaadvocates@duck.com. Responses will be published together and will not be substantively edited, although uniform formatting may be applied.
Advocates for Laguna Residents PAC has not endorsed any candidate in this election.
PAID FOR BY ADVOCATES FOR LAGUNA RESIDENTS PAC ID #1455392  |