[8:49] [clears throat]
[9:01] Is is that on the close session comment?
[9:04] Okay.
[9:07] >> Feel like we got to get a better table
[9:08] for Brian. No, that's perfect for him.
[9:11] It's like the little kids table at
[9:13] Thanksgiving.
[9:15] [laughter]
[9:17] [snorts]
[9:29] Okay. Call the special meeting of the
[9:31] San Clemeni City Council for August 18th
[9:34] order, noting that all five council
[9:36] members are present.
[9:38] >> Okay. And you're ready to recess to
[9:41] close. Is there a motion to recess to
[9:42] close session?
[9:43] >> Move.
[9:43] >> I'll second.
[9:44] >> We have a motion by Council Member
[9:46] Cabral, second by Council Member Amire.
[9:47] All in favor? I.
[38:40] » [snorts]
[38:41] >> You got one of your
[38:48] [snorts]
[39:13] » [clears throat and snorts]
[39:31] » Okay, mayor, it is 5:30. Would you like
[39:33] to start the business meeting?
[39:34] >> Absolutely. We'll call the San Clemen
[39:36] City Council meeting for August 18th to
[39:38] order.
[39:40] >> And we will start with the invocation
[39:42] given by Pastor Jim Wilkey with Calvary
[39:44] South OC.
[39:49] » Thank you for this uh honor and
[39:51] privilege. Heavenly Father, we uh we are
[39:54] reminded in your word in first uh first
[39:56] Timothy and second Timothy that uh we
[39:58] are to pray for those who are in
[40:00] authority. So today we lift up our
[40:01] mayor, our city council members, our
[40:03] staff, our police officers,
[40:05] firefighters, and all those who will
[40:07] being entrusted in serving this great
[40:09] community. Lord, give our leaders wisdom
[40:11] beyond their own understanding. Help
[40:14] them to make decisions with integrity
[40:16] and courage and humility and a genuine
[40:18] concern for the people they serve.
[40:21] Lord, we also just ask that you would
[40:23] give them the courage u to make
[40:25] decisions that uh there might be
[40:27] disagreement. Lord, give them civility
[40:29] in their dis in the way they discuss and
[40:32] um among them and among the citizens
[40:35] that bring their questions and concerns.
[40:37] Lord, may our city be a place where
[40:39] families can flourish, where people can
[40:41] worship freely, where businesses can
[40:43] prosper, where our streets are safe, and
[40:46] where our neighbors look out for one
[40:48] another. Lord, we thank you in all these
[40:50] things and give you praise and glory.
[40:51] Amen.
[40:52] >> Amen. Thank you, Jim.
[40:53] >> Thank you.
[40:54] >> Is Sophia de Rocher from the high school
[40:57] here someplace? Want to come up and lead
[40:59] us in the pledge? Uh, Sophia.
[41:01] >> Okay. Up there.
[41:04] >> Oh, okay.
[41:04] >> So people can see you better.
[41:06] >> Okay. Hello.
[41:09] >> Place your right hand over your heart.
[41:11] Ready? Begin. I pledge allegiance to the
[41:15] flag of the United States of America and
[41:18] to the republic for which it stands, one
[41:21] nation under God, indivisible, with
[41:24] liberty and justice for all.
[41:29] Okay, real quick, Madame Clerk, before
[41:31] we go to the special uh presentations, I
[41:33] want to remind everybody this is the
[41:35] second meeting we have where we do uh
[41:38] accept uh oral communications from
[41:41] either Zoom or telephone.
[41:43] And what we're going to do is the same
[41:45] way we did the last meeting is we take
[41:47] all the people that are here in person.
[41:49] We take your cards first and then we're
[41:52] when we're done with those then we
[41:54] accept the oral communications for
[41:55] people who are not present. So if that's
[41:58] clear to everybody then we can continue.
[42:03] » Okay. Um next item on the just roll call
[42:06] and we will note that everyone is
[42:08] present. All council members are
[42:10] present. Next item on the agenda is
[42:13] special presentations and the first
[42:15] presentation is recogn rec recognition
[42:17] of humanitarian award recipients Sophia
[42:20] D Roshi and Ryan Quinca and I have
[42:24] plaques for both of them. Mayor,
[42:31] [applause]
[42:39] Sophia, congratulations. This one's for
[42:41] you. Um so uh this is uh because of all
[42:46] your humanitarian work that you've been
[42:48] doing throughout the city. Uh these
[42:49] applicants apply for this through the
[42:52] city and then our our uh committee on
[42:54] human resources or uh human affairs uh
[42:57] then goes through this and and uh looks
[43:00] at all their applications, looks at all
[43:01] of what they've done. They've nominate
[43:03] these through the city for our youth. So
[43:05] whereas the community safety and welfare
[43:07] committee of s of the s city of San
[43:09] clemeni recognizes the outstanding
[43:11] student leaders who have furthered
[43:12] mutual respect among fellow students and
[43:14] fostered multicultural understanding.
[43:16] And whereas Sophia de roucher has
[43:19] demonstrated a desire to make a
[43:21] difference through involvement with
[43:22] numerous organizations and volunteer
[43:24] efforts in the sami uh community. Now
[43:27] therefore, Mayor Rick Leler of the city
[43:30] of San Clemeni, acting on behalf of the
[43:32] city council and the citizens of San
[43:34] Clemeni, do hereby recognize Sophia Dur.
[43:36] Congratulations. [applause]
[43:41] » Sophia, why don't you hang on for a
[43:42] second? We'll get Ryan up here, too.
[43:44] Then we'll take a picture.
[43:45] >> Oh, well, there you are. Okay.
[43:47] >> Uh Ryan, uh my name is Steve Nobel. I'm
[43:50] the mayor pro town. I'm honored to read
[43:51] this. It says, "Whereas the community
[43:53] safety and welfare committee of the city
[43:54] of San Clementi recognizes the
[43:56] outstanding student leaders who have
[43:58] furthered mutual respect among fellow
[44:00] students and fostered multicultural
[44:03] understanding. And whereas and whereas
[44:07] uh Ryan Quinca has demonstrated a desire
[44:11] to make a difference through involvement
[44:12] in numerous organizations and volunteer
[44:14] efforts in the city of San Clemente and
[44:16] our community. Now, Rick Leler, on
[44:18] behalf of the entire city council, and
[44:20] as the mayor prom, I uh uh will honor
[44:23] you with this uh acting on behalf of the
[44:25] city of San Clemeni and the citizens of
[44:28] uh of San Clemitty recognize you, Ryan,
[44:30] for the work that you've done and the
[44:31] participation that you've done in our
[44:33] community. So, thank you very much and
[44:34] God bless you.
[44:35] >> [applause]
[44:45] » Sorry, I'll get out of the way.
[44:56] » Congratulations.
[44:57] >> Thank you.
[44:58] >> Congratulations, Sophia.
[44:59] Congratulations. Congratulations.
[45:02] >> Thank you.
[45:03] Thank you.
[45:07] >> So, we're doing the other re want to
[45:10] stick here for a second here.
[45:12] >> We got the outgoing.
[45:15] >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is
[45:17] presentation of commendations to
[45:18] outgoing commission and committee
[45:20] members in recognition of their service
[45:21] and commitment to the city of S.
[45:23] Clemeni. From the arts and culture
[45:24] committee, we have Nicholas Craze, Kathy
[45:26] Kohler, and Joshua Pascowitz. Beaches
[45:29] Parks and Recreation Commission, Sherry
[45:31] Grace, Teddy Khan, Alyssa McCann,
[45:32] Matthew Schmidt, and Dee Van Nort.
[45:34] Community Safety and Welfare Committees,
[45:36] Stuart Anderson, and Tom Hazelton. Golf
[45:39] Course Committee, Mandy Hamilton.
[45:41] Planning Commission, Gary McConn, and uh
[45:43] that is it. If you you've received your
[45:45] files,
[45:45] >> if you're here, why don't you step up
[45:48] here? We'd like to acknowledge you. Get
[45:50] a get a great photo here. [applause]
[46:00] How's it going?
[46:02] Just want to say real quick, all these
[46:05] members of our committees and
[46:06] commissions put in a lot of volunteer
[46:08] time to to do really great work for the
[46:10] city. They meet, they come up with great
[46:12] ideas to help the city, reduce staff
[46:15] time, and anyway, it takes a lot. And
[46:17] these people that are going out, we're
[46:19] going to we're going to miss them all.
[46:20] And hopefully we put in their their
[46:23] people, the replacements, are going to
[46:25] do the same kind of job. But anyway,
[46:26] these are the people that really really
[46:28] are unbelievable the the in the the city
[46:31] who put in just so much time. So, let's
[46:33] give them another big round of applause.
[46:36] [applause]
[46:40] This is going to be my Christmas card.
[46:42] So, everybody everybody smile now.
[46:53] Yeah, we're gonna take a selfie.
[46:59] » Okay, let's take a selfie. Just real
[47:00] quick.
[47:01] >> Oh, Josh got the selfie. [laughter]
[47:05] » I expect to see that on Facebook, Josh.
[47:07] >> Oh, [laughter]
[47:09] hey. Well, thank you guys so much.
[47:10] >> Thank you so much. [applause]
[47:21] » Thank you. Excuse me.
[47:30] » Next item on the agenda is presentation
[47:32] by S. Clemen Police Services Chief
[47:34] Shioalier uh presenting the Orange
[47:36] County Sheriff's Department annual
[47:37] report.
[47:39] >> All right.
[47:45] » Good evening, Mayor Laughler, members of
[47:46] the city council and city staff. My name
[47:48] is Justin Shabbay. I'm the captain and
[47:50] chief of police services for the city of
[47:51] San Clemeni. We do have a presentation
[47:53] that uh my amazing staff put together.
[47:55] It'll be right up on your guys' screen.
[47:56] So, first off, I want to say that what
[47:58] you guys are going to see in this report
[48:00] is a reflection of the collective
[48:02] efforts not only from police services,
[48:03] but everyone involved in the city.
[48:05] Specifically, uh Andy Hall, the city
[48:07] manager, the entire city staff, and I
[48:08] want to shout out to Troy and Carly. At
[48:10] the end of the presentation, I will be
[48:11] giving uh some details on the um the
[48:14] amount of work that they have been
[48:15] contributing to regarding homelessness
[48:17] in the city of San Clemeni. So uh with
[48:18] that we can move on through the
[48:19] presentation and this is going to be for
[48:21] calendar year 2025. So January 1 through
[48:24] December 31st. In total we had around
[48:26] 25,000 calls for service and out of that
[48:28] 25,000 10,000 were of proactive. And
[48:31] just so we can kind of put it in
[48:33] layman's terms. That's just about a
[48:35] little less than half um the deputies
[48:38] that work here in the city. They're
[48:39] going out and they're looking for stuff.
[48:41] Um the other amount of that which is
[48:42] around 14,000 or 15,000 those are calls
[48:44] for service that the city gets. Um, and
[48:47] we are the busiest city in the entire
[48:48] county as far as calls for services is
[48:50] concerned. So, your guys' dollars are
[48:52] going to good work here. Let me go to
[48:54] the next slide.
[48:56] And again, one of the things that I
[48:58] wanted to institute when I got here uh
[48:59] early last year in February of 2025 is I
[49:02] wanted to make sure that the deputies
[49:03] were not at the station and they were
[49:05] out in the streets being productive and
[49:07] proactive in the patrol and they have
[49:09] absolutely accomplished that in the the
[49:11] calendar year of 2025. Next slide,
[49:13] please.
[49:15] These are just some of the the photos
[49:17] that are appropriate um that we can
[49:19] share here, but this doesn't really show
[49:21] the amount of work that the deputies put
[49:23] in. I think overall in uh calendar year
[49:25] 2025, we seized hundreds of pounds of
[49:28] illegal narcotics, but again, we wanted
[49:29] to make sure this was appropriate for
[49:30] all the kids viewing uh the presentation
[49:32] tonight, but our guys do and gals do a
[49:34] really, really good job. Next slide,
[49:36] please.
[49:38] Okay, as you guys can see going back to
[49:40] the year 2022, crime has steadily
[49:43] decreased in the city of San Clemeni.
[49:45] And again, that is obviously we are the
[49:47] public safety uh uh leaders, if you
[49:49] will, when it comes to policing here in
[49:50] the city, but it's a collective effort
[49:51] with all the city leadership and
[49:53] everyone that's involved in public
[49:54] safety in the city. So, we're hoping to
[49:56] have an additional decrease in 2026 and
[49:58] so far it is looking like that, but as
[50:00] you can see, that's record lows over the
[50:02] last decade. Next slide, please.
[50:06] One of the things that's near and dear
[50:07] to my heart is community outreach. We
[50:09] have an amazing community outreach team
[50:10] that includes our crime prevention
[50:12] specialist, staff specialists, and
[50:13] office specialists, including a lot of
[50:15] deputies, our ad administrative deputy,
[50:17] and school resource officers. Um, we now
[50:19] have two um that go out and are
[50:21] routinely in the community conducting uh
[50:23] positive uh interactions with community
[50:26] and law enforcement. Our national night
[50:27] out has been a success year-over-year.
[50:29] It's coming up again October 16th, and I
[50:31] hope to see all you guys out there. will
[50:32] have a really really good showing of
[50:34] resources that the Orange County
[50:36] Sheriff's Department brings to you guys'
[50:37] city. Next slide, please.
[50:41] So, looking ahead, we're going to
[50:42] continue to reduce crime. Um, one of the
[50:44] things I wanted to do was increase our
[50:46] business uh watch program. It's just
[50:48] like neighborhood watch, but for
[50:49] businesses because they're just as
[50:51] valuable as the residents here in the
[50:53] city. So, we want to make sure that we
[50:54] continue to strengthen that uh
[50:55] relationship that we have with him.
[50:57] Obviously, crime, uh, we want to
[50:59] continue to reduce that and emergency
[51:00] response to things. I believe community
[51:02] development director Adam Tamian has put
[51:04] together a really good team when it
[51:06] comes to emergency preparedness and
[51:07] emergency management and we're going to
[51:09] continue to work well with them so that
[51:10] way when something bad does happen in
[51:12] the uh in in the emergency management
[51:14] realm we're working together and it's
[51:16] not going to be the first time that we do it. We do practice regularly. We
[51:19] have a meeting actually coming up for
[51:20] fires. Um and that is something that we
[51:22] have been doing monthly uh to make sure
[51:24] that we're completely prepared for any
[51:26] emergency incident that does occur. Next
[51:28] slide please.
[51:31] Uh just a couple plugs. We do have an
[51:33] option for you guys to register the
[51:35] locations of some of your private
[51:37] cameras that you guys do have. Um it's
[51:39] residential and commercial and it does
[51:41] not mean that Big Brother is going to be
[51:42] watching uh by any means, but if there
[51:45] is a crime that does occur, it's going
[51:46] to provide our team the ability to see
[51:49] where a camera location is. My
[51:51] department would then reach out to you
[51:53] and ask if you could personally provide
[51:55] the video to us. So, we wouldn't be
[51:57] installing any sort of devices or
[51:59] anything like that. It's merely just a
[52:00] location uh for a camera if a crime is
[52:03] to occur in an area where that camera
[52:05] is. And that's our uh real-time
[52:07] operation center uh up in Tustin. That
[52:09] would would be kind of the forefront of
[52:11] that. Next slide, please.
[52:14] Our ebike uh rider program has been
[52:16] extremely successful in the city. Um,
[52:18] we're going to continue to push that
[52:19] with education as well as aggressive
[52:22] enforcement. Uh, because the last thing
[52:24] that we want is anyone to get hurt or
[52:25] anyone to continue to think that it is
[52:27] okay to violate the rules of the road.
[52:29] Um, so with the public safety, the
[52:30] education, awareness, and enforcement
[52:32] that we have done this past year, in
[52:34] 2025, it's going to continue in 2026,
[52:36] and we're going to hope that we never
[52:37] have any major incidents regarding
[52:38] ebikes, uh, collisions or illegal riding
[52:41] in the city that that become a problem.
[52:44] Next slide, please.
[52:47] follow us on social. And then there's a
[52:48] couple stats that aren't going to be on
[52:49] here that I wanted to share with you
[52:50] guys. Um, back when I first got here in
[52:52] February of 2025, we had over 50 uh
[52:55] people experiencing homelessness in the
[52:57] city. With the efforts of Troy and
[52:59] Carly, the city, and obviously in
[53:00] partnership with the sheriff's
[53:01] department, we've been able to reduce
[53:03] that number to 10 and that is as of this
[53:05] month. Um, and again, that's through
[53:06] outreach efforts getting finding them
[53:08] housing and of course enforcement of the
[53:10] uh many municipal codes and laws that we
[53:12] have here available to us in the city.
[53:14] Uh an additional number and stat that is
[53:16] available um readily available if you
[53:19] guys ask is our priority one response
[53:20] time. Last year uh our priority one
[53:22] response time was 4 minutes and 41
[53:24] seconds. Uh in 2025 we got that down to
[53:27] 4 minutes and 35 seconds. So every
[53:30] second counts and yes that's only 6
[53:32] seconds. But again 6 seconds could be
[53:34] the difference between life and death.
[53:35] And because of the proactiveness and the
[53:36] partnership that we have with the city
[53:37] and our deputies doing an excellent job
[53:39] being out there in the streets, we've
[53:40] been able to get that time down to a
[53:42] pretty good amount. I I think we are
[53:44] leading in that category for the entire
[53:46] county as well. So with that, appreciate
[53:48] you guys. It is a pleasure to serve the
[53:50] city of St. Clemenia as Elizabeth
[53:52] Mitchell would say, but I'm here for any
[53:53] questions if you guys have them.
[53:54] >> Thank you, Chief, to start with.
[53:55] [applause] Outstanding.
[53:57] Have any questions or comments for the
[53:59] chief? Yeah,
[54:02] >> you know this issue, you know very well
[54:04] because people have been writing to you
[54:05] this past week about uh Los Ramblas and
[54:09] uh and can you just give the community a
[54:11] little bit of an update on on what's
[54:14] happening there and and how you intend
[54:17] to address that?
[54:18] >> Sure. Now, in partnership with the city,
[54:20] uh the resident uh that the residents in
[54:22] the street that is affecting off of La
[54:23] Rambla and the four beach patrol
[54:25] deputies that we have instituted over
[54:26] the last year, I think we're going to be
[54:28] able to conduct a education uh uh I
[54:31] don't want to call it a task force, but
[54:32] it's going to be heavily enforced in
[54:34] that area to make sure that that problem
[54:36] does not continue because obviously it's
[54:37] a beautiful view, but the resident uh
[54:39] the residents of that street pay for
[54:41] that beautiful view and they're entitled
[54:42] to that. I
[54:43] >> I I'm aware you're on top of it. Our
[54:45] staff's on top of it, but I just want to
[54:46] make sure the community knows that. Yes,
[54:48] sir.
[54:48] >> Things are being done.
[54:49] >> Yes, sir.
[54:51] >> Anything else?
[54:52] >> Thanks, Chief.
[54:53] >> Thank you.
[54:58] [clears throat]
[54:58] >> Next item on the agenda is council
[55:00] member reports.
[55:02] >> Anybody want to volunteer to kick it
[55:04] off?
[55:05] >> I I would actually u make a motion just
[55:07] to say to ask that we move this to right
[55:10] before um our uh consent calendar. uh
[55:14] over the past few times we have gone
[55:16] into 15 20 minutes of talking and and I
[55:20] know that we have discussed before hey
[55:21] keeping this to two minutes but we
[55:22] cannot hold ourselves to that uh amount
[55:25] so I would make a motion to move this to
[55:27] right before consent
[55:31] » Mark are you talking about this meeting
[55:33] only or as a policy and going forward
[55:36] >> just for this meeting meeting only and
[55:38] then we can discuss this for a policy
[55:40] going forward later if we if we so
[55:41] desire
[55:45] There's no
[55:45] >> I'm good on it. I I I was second of
[55:47] that.
[55:48] >> You'll second it. Okay.
[55:50] >> Okay. So, that's just for clarification.
[55:52] So, you're saying for this meeting
[55:54] >> just for this meeting to move it to
[55:55] right before consent.
[55:57] >> Okay. My my my feeling is if you if we
[55:59] want to move it, we should have
[56:01] discussion on it future agenda. That's
[56:05] >> policy change.
[56:06] >> That's fine. I was just put on itself,
[56:08] but if we want to move it and discuss as
[56:10] a future agenda item, we can.
[56:13] >> But is it is it proper without
[56:16] agendaizing the item that we that we
[56:18] >> as I understand the motion? Um, council
[56:20] meer just wants to move it for this
[56:22] meeting, which is moving things around
[56:24] on the agenda. That's proper.
[56:26] >> Okay. So, we've had a uh a motion by
[56:28] council member, a second by council
[56:30] member Woo. All in favor?
[56:32] >> I opposed. No.
[56:34] >> Loses or fails three to two. Okay.
[56:38] >> Okay. So, do you want to give your
[56:40] council member report now or you want to
[56:43] >> I I can go later.
[56:44] >> You can wait. [laughter]
[56:46] >> You just go for it.
[56:47] >> No, no. I said you could wait till the
[56:48] end if you want.
[56:49] >> Let's go. Hey, Victor, you want to kick
[56:51] it off?
[56:51] >> I'll kick it off. Uh we had a meeting
[56:53] with Love San Clemeni. We have a event
[56:56] scheduled for
[56:57] >> [snorts]
[56:57] >> uh 912 of this year as you you'll all
[57:01] know the the 25th anniversary of 911.
[57:05] It's a it's a work uh uh volunteer day.
[57:09] We're we're going to have uh [snorts]
[57:11] the Love San Clemeni event beginning uh
[57:15] on the 912 that Saturday. There's a [snorts] whole slate of of
[57:21] volunteer opportunities. Take a look at
[57:23] the Love San Clemeni website uh for the
[57:26] Love San Clemeni school projects. We had
[57:28] almost a thousand volunteers. We hope to
[57:30] have at least that many for projects to
[57:33] clean up our city. Uh we had a city
[57:36] investment advisory meeting and I'll
[57:38] leave it at that. We had a golf course
[57:41] uh committee uh review of interviews for
[57:44] the the the pro shop. Attended the
[57:47] Fiesta Music Festival. We had last week
[57:50] the OCTA study review session. Most of
[57:53] you know what happened in that meeting.
[57:56] Uh we had the arts and crafts fair this
[57:58] past weekend.
[58:00] We had the community engagement panel.
[58:02] uh uh present draft presentation review
[58:06] this week or meetings next week uh where
[58:09] we're going to talk about the options
[58:11] that are going forward for moving the
[58:13] nuclear fuel out of San Clemente. I had
[58:16] meetings with residents in SH Cypress
[58:18] Shores about uh what's happening with
[58:21] the parking down in South San Clementi.
[58:25] Residents have been very concerned about
[58:26] that. You got got together with
[58:29] residents down there. A lot of it's been
[58:31] cleaned up, but uh there's still ongoing
[58:33] efforts to to clean that up. Had a
[58:36] meeting with state parks down there,
[58:37] Scott Kirby, about some projects that
[58:40] we're working on to clean up the the
[58:42] state parks. Also, that's it.
[58:44] >> Great, Zen.
[58:46] >> Thank you, Mayor. [snorts] Um on August
[58:48] the 10th, attended OCTA Coastal Rail
[58:51] Resiliency Study public listening
[58:53] session. on August the 12th attended a
[58:57] Skag gener connect so-called 2025
[59:00] subcommittees meeting. It's the first
[59:02] meeting to kick off the preparation for
[59:05] the long-term planning document.
[59:07] Um, also
[59:10] I' I'd like to give a shout out to our
[59:12] city manager Andy Hall and worked
[59:14] diligently on the homelessness issue at
[59:18] the south south end of El Camino Ria.
[59:21] Um, I think we're getting close to a
[59:26] some
[59:29] we've made some temporary improvement.
[59:31] It's not completely solved yet, but um
[59:35] we're still working on a solution, but
[59:37] um at certain time Annie may have
[59:39] something to to share with the public.
[59:43] Um lastly, Laura, do you have my
[59:45] presentation? You can put Okay. Um, I'd
[59:48] like to um report on the I'd like to
[59:51] talk about the August 10th
[59:56] the press conference experience in front
[59:59] of the city hall. Uh, may I respect
[1:00:01] request a brief extension beyond a
[1:00:03] two-minut advisory time limit. Uh, on
[1:00:07] Monday the 10th at 4:30, a press
[1:00:09] conference was held in front of the city
[1:00:11] hall. Um,
[1:00:15] a few days earlier, the city manager's
[1:00:16] office posted a notice on the city
[1:00:19] website stating, as you can see on the
[1:00:22] screen, city officials will be available
[1:00:24] for comment beginning at 4:30 p.m. just
[1:00:28] ahead of the 5:00 public listening
[1:00:31] session on OCTA's coastal rail
[1:00:34] resiliency study. This official news
[1:00:37] release also promoted a letter written
[1:00:39] by council member Cabra acting sortly in
[1:00:43] his individual capacity.
[1:00:46] Despite the promise of city officials
[1:00:49] being available, I was never notified. I
[1:00:52] attended anyway because I found it out.
[1:00:56] Uh I want to make myself to you know
[1:00:58] make myself available to the public as
[1:01:01] expected
[1:01:03] only to be told on the spot by council
[1:01:05] member Cabra it's not your press
[1:01:08] conference
[1:01:10] even though other council members were
[1:01:12] present.
[1:01:13] Council member Cabra is entirely free to
[1:01:17] hold personal press events in public
[1:01:19] spaces whenever he chooses. My concern
[1:01:24] is the borrowed legitimacy.
[1:01:26] By using the city manager's office to
[1:01:28] advance a personal message, he blured
[1:01:32] the line between individual opinion and
[1:01:35] official city policy.
[1:01:37] We can hold a personal press conferences
[1:01:41] or we can hold a city sanctioned event
[1:01:44] where the entire council is properly
[1:01:46] notified and consulted.
[1:01:48] What we cannot do is to disguise a
[1:01:51] personal media event as official city
[1:01:53] function. This council never authorized
[1:01:56] it.
[1:01:58] Using public resources to present a
[1:02:00] personal opinion of the city's official
[1:02:02] stance damages public trust. This is a
[1:02:06] failure of institutional propriety
[1:02:08] and this council must have zero
[1:02:10] tolerance for it.
[1:02:12] Later in this mo in this meeting, I will
[1:02:14] move to agenda as a policy change to
[1:02:17] clarify our communications procedures
[1:02:20] and I hope the rest of the council will
[1:02:22] join me in this necessary review. If I
[1:02:25] do not receive a second, I will issue my
[1:02:27] findings as my own news release and I
[1:02:30] would ask the city manager office to
[1:02:33] accommodate his publication with the
[1:02:35] exact same courtesy as council member
[1:02:37] Woo's personal statement, not the
[1:02:39] city's. Thank you. Thank you, Zen Mark.
[1:02:43] Uh,
[1:02:44] >> all I like to say is that it is a it is
[1:02:47] uh back to school today. Uh, students
[1:02:49] are back there and I want to just give a quick um uh
[1:02:54] [clears throat] I want to say warning,
[1:02:55] but to the parents who have ebikers
[1:02:58] going out there, just a heads up that
[1:03:00] our law enforcement are going to be out
[1:03:02] there this week and next week uh really
[1:03:05] looking for to make sure our kids are following the laws on those roads.
[1:03:09] So, just be aware of that. Please talk
[1:03:11] to your kids um about safe uh bike safe
[1:03:15] biking and ebiking to schools.
[1:03:17] >> All right, that's all.
[1:03:17] >> Thank you, Mark.
[1:03:18] >> Steve, yes, I attended the uh as one of
[1:03:21] my colleagues has the several of our
[1:03:22] colleagues have the Orange County uh
[1:03:24] sand uh coastal resiliency meeting last
[1:03:27] week. I also attended a Chamber of
[1:03:29] Commerce ribbon cutting event for the uh
[1:03:31] Severson event. And um I also had an
[1:03:35] opportunity to drive once again in the
[1:03:36] Orange County Fair Circ uh
[1:03:40] demolition derby figure 8 race uh for
[1:03:44] the second time and the second time I
[1:03:45] actually came in first place which was
[1:03:47] enjoyable. Wow.
[1:03:48] >> Although the mayor had some problems
[1:03:49] with his car. Uh
[1:03:50] >> I saw I have a [laughter] Mr. Mayor
[1:03:54] Proam I have it on good information that
[1:03:56] they saw you tampering with my car
[1:03:59] before the race even started. I want to
[1:04:01] make a point of order on that right now.
[1:04:03] >> I'm innocent. I'm innocent. It was a it
[1:04:05] was a fun derby. We raised about $50,000
[1:04:07] for Chalk Hospital. It was a lot of fun.
[1:04:10] Um, uh, Stevenson also I attended for,
[1:04:14] uh, Shelley, uh, Kindred the her, uh,
[1:04:18] gathering for her at the OC Tavern. And
[1:04:20] it's a good thing the the fire marshall
[1:04:22] wasn't there because I'm sure we were
[1:04:24] way way over the, uh, the, uh,
[1:04:26] population limitation, but, uh, was a
[1:04:28] wonderful event for Shelley who's having
[1:04:30] some health issues, and it was nice for
[1:04:32] the community to to acknowledge her. So,
[1:04:34] >> awesome. My part.
[1:04:35] >> Thank you. Well, Laura can put up my
[1:04:37] slide of, you know, you've heard about
[1:04:39] most of the things that happened in the
[1:04:40] city, so I'll just put slide, but I want
[1:04:42] to say that August 18th is an incredible
[1:04:44] day in music history. In 1956, Elvis's
[1:04:49] Hound Dog rose to the number one status
[1:04:51] and was on number one for six months. In
[1:04:55] 1960, the Beatles made their first
[1:04:58] public appearance in Hamburg, Germany.
[1:05:00] And in 1969, as some of us remember, was
[1:05:03] the last day of the Woodstock Music
[1:05:05] Festival. Incredible day in music
[1:05:07] history. And I thought maybe we would do
[1:05:10] something. It's getting towards the end
[1:05:11] of the summer here. And uh I wanted to,
[1:05:13] you know, acknowledge just how
[1:05:14] important, you know, music is in our in
[1:05:16] our city. And I I was trying to think of
[1:05:19] what to do. And then our city manager
[1:05:20] said he was really a fran a fan of uh
[1:05:23] brother is that's Israel Kamaka we o you
[1:05:28] know as you all know one you know uh the
[1:05:31] rainbow song you know yeah well brother
[1:05:34] is so anyway I I'd like to come up and
[1:05:36] maybe do a little homage to him and I'd
[1:05:39] like I I could use some backups I'd like
[1:05:41] anybody my fellow city council members I know the city attorney has you know a
[1:05:45] great interest in music and maybe we
[1:05:47] could do this real quick if you if you
[1:05:48] wouldn't mind if you were indulging.
[1:05:56] » By the way, my CD, it's a little old.
[1:05:58] Don Ho sings the island hits with Rick
[1:06:00] Leler. Is available on Apple Music.
[1:06:02] Anybody wants to pick it up, I'm just
[1:06:05] saying. So,
[1:06:27] Happy birthday
[1:06:30] to you. [music and singing]
[1:06:34] » Happy birthday
[1:06:36] [music] to you.
[1:06:41] Happy [singing]
[1:06:42] birthday [chanting]
[1:06:44] dear Laura.
[1:06:48] Happy birthday
[1:06:51] to [singing]
[1:06:52] you. [music]
[1:07:00] ALL RIGHT
[1:07:03] [applause]
[1:07:04] TODAY.
[1:07:09] I really know how to throw a party. All
[1:07:11] right, Lois, first first order first
[1:07:15] person on oral communications. Are you
[1:07:17] singing?
[1:07:18] >> My birthday song last.
[1:07:19] >> Thank you, mayor. I appreciate that.
[1:07:22] [laughter]
[1:07:23] >> What about the backup group?
[1:07:26] >> No songs from me.
[1:07:30] >> Just some more hard facts about that 1%
[1:07:33] sales tax increase on the ballot. The
[1:07:36] sand replenishment and fire prevention
[1:07:38] measure known as the San Clemeni natural
[1:07:42] hazard protection and resilience act of
[1:07:44] 2026 will distribute the monies in the
[1:07:47] following manner of the funds deposited
[1:07:50] into the beach fund at least 70% must be
[1:07:54] used for sand replenishment nourishment
[1:07:56] beach erosion but what happens to the
[1:07:59] other 30%. Why isn't all of it being
[1:08:02] used for that? The fire protection and
[1:08:05] wildfire preparedness fund is even more
[1:08:07] mysterious. 50% is only deposited into
[1:08:12] that legally restricted fund dedicated
[1:08:15] exclusively to fire prevention,
[1:08:17] emergency response support, and wildfire
[1:08:20] risk reduction. It would include support
[1:08:23] for OPA and other fire protection
[1:08:25] services provided or contracted by the
[1:08:28] city of San Clemeni. What other agency
[1:08:30] besides OVA provides fire protection
[1:08:33] services or are contracted by this city?
[1:08:37] Resources to enhance wildfire readiness,
[1:08:40] emergency response, firefighters. But
[1:08:43] excuse me, don't we pay for this
[1:08:45] already? Just ask our city manager or
[1:08:49] the budget personnel about what
[1:08:51] constitutes the largest expense in this
[1:08:53] budget.
[1:08:55] city administered long-term wildfire
[1:08:58] prevention programs that include
[1:09:00] planning, risk assessments, and
[1:09:03] partnerships, vague terminology, to
[1:09:06] reduce hazards.
[1:09:08] The city without any expertise in this
[1:09:12] area will carry out these programs on
[1:09:14] both public and private lands. What are
[1:09:17] they going to be doing on private lands?
[1:09:20] citywide community outreach, education
[1:09:23] and management and engagement programs
[1:09:25] focused on wildfire prevention and
[1:09:28] vegetation management across both again
[1:09:31] public and private lands.
[1:09:34] Would this include providing homeowners
[1:09:37] that live on bluffs information about
[1:09:39] how to prevent slides as is already
[1:09:42] performed in other beach cities without
[1:09:45] any increase in taxes?
[1:09:48] And what happens to the other 50%.
[1:09:51] Here is a breakdown of their taxes. If
[1:09:53] we raise $10 million, $5 million will go
[1:09:56] to the sand fund. 70% or 3.5 sand
[1:10:00] replenishment. Dredging costs are about
[1:10:03] $10,000 for a cubic yard. So we get 350
[1:10:07] cubic yard of beach for that. But what
[1:10:10] happens to the other one the other one
[1:10:12] a.5 million and the $5 million placed in
[1:10:15] the firerevention restricted fund? 50%
[1:10:18] or 2.5 million is spent on fire
[1:10:21] prevention. Specific programs are hinted
[1:10:24] at, but there are no cost estimates.
[1:10:28] Neither the city council nor its staff
[1:10:30] have any expertise in this area.
[1:10:35] >> Thank you.
[1:10:35] >> What happens to the other two and a half
[1:10:37] million?
[1:10:37] >> Thank you. Like your shirt.
[1:10:40] >> Okay, I'll call up the next uh few
[1:10:42] speakers, Amanda Kinttonia, followed by
[1:10:43] Susie Lance and Rick Rodriguez.
[1:10:46] And um we'll start with those and then
[1:10:48] we have a group of individuals.
[1:10:50] >> Great. Good afternoon.
[1:10:53] Um next slide please. So um last city
[1:10:58] council meeting uh there was concerns
[1:11:00] regarding how the process how certain
[1:11:02] projects are pushed through. Um the
[1:11:05] Victoria sidewalk widening was a concept
[1:11:09] that has changed. It's undergone several
[1:11:12] changes and um at the uh beaches parks
[1:11:15] and recreation commission the staff
[1:11:17] report um said of June the 23rd that the
[1:11:21] fiscal impact the action had no cost
[1:11:24] implications. Well, that's not true. Um
[1:11:27] next slide please. Oh, also there was no
[1:11:29] arborist report in that staff report. Um
[1:11:33] according to the director of beaches
[1:11:34] parks and recreation commission, she had
[1:11:36] mentioned I do not have an arborist
[1:11:38] report for the tree. Next slide please.
[1:11:41] Um so um one of the concerns was this
[1:11:44] was a capital improvement um program
[1:11:47] project and it was from funding was from
[1:11:51] the gas tax RMR fund which was approved
[1:11:55] at the June 2nd um city council meeting
[1:11:59] under SB1. However, uh in the beaches
[1:12:03] parks and recreation commission agenda
[1:12:05] staff agenda report it said no fiscal
[1:12:07] impact. So there is a fiscal impact.
[1:12:09] There is money coming from somewhere
[1:12:10] which could have been used for some
[1:12:12] other places like T Street Bridge. Next
[1:12:13] slide please. So um one of the concerns
[1:12:17] was that you wanted to expand the
[1:12:21] Evanita Victoria to have more access on
[1:12:24] um the sidewalk. However, here's two
[1:12:27] areas. Um here's an area where two
[1:12:30] parking spaces can be um placed for a
[1:12:34] trolley line. So there's more space
[1:12:36] there. There's benches over there. Uh
[1:12:39] there's a bench there and you can put
[1:12:40] move the other bench on the other side.
[1:12:42] So you can you can have more room. The
[1:12:45] meter parking can be restored on the
[1:12:47] opposite side of the street which um we
[1:12:50] had mentioned to Andy Hall at on the
[1:12:52] June 3rd 20 June 23rd meeting that we
[1:12:55] had uh down at the pier. Next slide
[1:12:58] please. And so one of the things that
[1:13:01] the San Pier Conservancy said is that
[1:13:04] they mentioned a report an arburous
[1:13:08] report uh that its canopy had already
[1:13:11] been trimmed to improve um safety in the
[1:13:14] stairwell but there was no arburous
[1:13:16] report done and that I received
[1:13:18] confirmation from the city manager
[1:13:20] regarding that. Next slide please. So
[1:13:23] also there was also a concern regarding
[1:13:26] um on their web page it said um that
[1:13:29] they wanted to minimize traffic
[1:13:30] congestion but according to our city
[1:13:33] engineers there is no traffic congestion
[1:13:35] on a meeting of Victoria so there is no
[1:13:37] data to support that. Next slide please.
[1:13:41] So, um, one of the things that they
[1:13:42] wanted to do is to restore the majestic
[1:13:46] corridor, but if you could see here, the
[1:13:48] little circles are those are the view
[1:13:50] corridors, and it's not in front. Next
[1:13:52] slide. And then I think I'm out of time.
[1:13:55] Thank you,
[1:13:58] » Susie Lance and Rick Rodriguez.
[1:14:07] » Good afternoon, everyone. and I'm Susie
[1:14:09] Lance with the San Clemente Chamber of
[1:14:11] Commerce and I'm here with Rick from our
[1:14:13] board of directors. Um, I wanted to just
[1:14:16] take a moment to thank the council, the
[1:14:19] city staff, and all the city partners
[1:14:21] for supporting the 71st
[1:14:25] Fiesta Music Festival last Saturday. It
[1:14:28] was an incredibly safe and fun and
[1:14:31] successful event. It was also a very
[1:14:33] profitable event. We were really proud
[1:14:35] to share that our beverage booth
[1:14:37] gratuitities alone produced $10,000 in
[1:14:41] tips and those will go back to our local
[1:14:44] charities. In fact, we cut those checks
[1:14:45] today and um those include some
[1:14:48] charities such as Pet Project
[1:14:50] Foundation, Fish for Life, uh Knights of
[1:14:54] Columbus, and others. So, it's really
[1:14:56] exciting to be able to give that money
[1:14:58] out just a week later. Um the economic
[1:15:00] impact was also really significant. and
[1:15:03] a couple of restaurants shared that it
[1:15:05] was their best day on record ever. So,
[1:15:09] that was really exciting to hear. Most
[1:15:12] importantly, people stayed downtown
[1:15:14] after the event. They shopped, they
[1:15:16] enjoyed the restaurants. Um, we had
[1:15:19] really good behavior, which was
[1:15:20] wonderful. Um, even the Myiramar um
[1:15:23] shared that they had a really um
[1:15:25] successful evening. People even went
[1:15:27] down that way and enjoyed the food there
[1:15:29] after the event. So, thank you, Rick.
[1:15:32] Yeah, just want to say thank you to uh
[1:15:34] city manager and council members who
[1:15:36] were in attendance of the fiesta and
[1:15:38] experienced it firsthand. It was awesome
[1:15:40] to see you guys there. I know where came
[1:15:42] up and gave some words about how San is
[1:15:44] so great and why the fiesta is so
[1:15:47] important to the community here. Um huge
[1:15:49] thank you to the city staff that did
[1:15:52] help with the planning and the setup and
[1:15:54] everything like that. I mean without you
[1:15:56] guys it would be really hard to do. And
[1:15:58] thank you for the sheriff department for
[1:16:00] having their presence there, for RSVPs,
[1:16:03] for C. I mean, all these all these great
[1:16:05] organizations that did help us help put
[1:16:07] it on there. Um, and we are very proud
[1:16:10] of what the fiesta delivered to St.
[1:16:11] Clinton this year to our businesses and
[1:16:13] nonprofits and our community. And we
[1:16:16] hope that, you know, next year with the
[1:16:18] 72nd Fiesta that we can have the city
[1:16:21] support again to put on a great
[1:16:23] community event for the community. So,
[1:16:25] thank you guys. Well, Susie and Rick,
[1:16:27] let's thank the chamber for all the hard
[1:16:28] work to put on [applause] an incredible
[1:16:31] event. Thank you so much.
[1:16:33] >> Yeah. Thank you guys.
[1:16:34] >> Thank you.
[1:16:36] >> I did have a question though about the Raiders booth.
[1:16:40] >> Uh the Raiders booth. Yeah,
[1:16:42] >> there there will always be a Raiders
[1:16:44] booth. [laughter]
[1:16:44] >> Always. Raider Nation. Go Mendoza.
[1:16:49] Is that the last?
[1:16:50] >> No. Um the next card has several
[1:16:52] speakers on it, so I'll call you all up
[1:16:54] at once. Lucy Inis, Juke Johnston, Lucas
[1:16:58] Mora, Nate Noel, and I think it's Nathan
[1:17:01] Wondreies. I can't quite get the last
[1:17:03] name.
[1:17:04] >> Are they here?
[1:17:05] >> Are
[1:17:06] >> Oh, okay. We're all going to come up
[1:17:07] together. This is great. Okay,
[1:17:11] Chief, look out for the They look like
[1:17:14] they might be organized here. There's
[1:17:15] something going on. Keep an eye out
[1:17:17] here.
[1:17:21] » Good afternoon. I'm uh Jake Johnson
[1:17:23] representing San Clemeni Marine Safety
[1:17:25] Department and we want to bring
[1:17:27] attention to one important issue um that
[1:17:30] will be lifeguard pay. Our message is
[1:17:32] simple. San clemeny lifeguards should be
[1:17:34] getting paid more. When we compare our
[1:17:36] wages with other Southern California
[1:17:37] beach cities, San Clemen has fallen
[1:17:39] behind. San Clemeni lifeguards start at
[1:17:42] approximately 2070 an hour. Meanwhile,
[1:17:45] Huntington Beach pays roughly 2250 an
[1:17:47] hour starting. Laguna Beach pays about
[1:17:50] 2372 and Newport Beach starts about
[1:17:53] approximately 25 an hour with
[1:17:55] experienced guards earning even more.
[1:17:57] These are neighboring coastal
[1:17:59] communities asking lifeguards to perform
[1:18:01] many of the same critical
[1:18:02] responsibilities we perform here in
[1:18:04] Skeleman. [snorts] We understand that
[1:18:06] not every department structure we
[1:18:09] understand that every department
[1:18:10] structures paid differently but the
[1:18:12] overall trend is clear. Other
[1:18:14] departments have increased wages and S.
[1:18:16] Clemeny needs to catch up. And this
[1:18:18] isn't just about comparing numbers.
[1:18:20] Being a San Clemeni lifeguard means
[1:18:21] being responsible for the safety of
[1:18:23] thousands of residents and visitors. We
[1:18:25] perform ocean rescues, respond to
[1:18:27] medical emergencies, search for missing
[1:18:29] children, manage dangerous surf
[1:18:31] conditions, and make decisions in
[1:18:32] seconds that can have life or death
[1:18:34] consequences. Our compensation should
[1:18:37] reflect that level of responsibility.
[1:18:39] Competitive pay also helps San Clemeni
[1:18:41] retain experienced lifeguards. Every
[1:18:43] year guard returns, they gain more
[1:18:45] knowledge of our coastline, currents,
[1:18:47] surf conditions, hazards, and emergency
[1:18:49] response systems. Those experienced
[1:18:51] guards become leaders and train the next
[1:18:53] generation. But when a lifeguard can
[1:18:55] drive a short distance up the coast and
[1:18:57] earn significantly more comp uh
[1:18:59] comparable work, we risk losing
[1:19:01] experienced people that this city has
[1:19:03] invested years in training. We take
[1:19:05] tremendous pride in working for San
[1:19:06] Clemeni. Many of us, many of us grew up
[1:19:09] on these beaches. We know this coastline
[1:19:10] and we care about this community and
[1:19:12] we're proud to protect it. But pride in
[1:19:15] our department shouldn't mean accepting
[1:19:17] below market pay. We're asking the city
[1:19:20] to bring sleguard wages in line with
[1:19:22] comparable departments. If Sany expects
[1:19:24] professionalism, commitment, and a high
[1:19:26] standard from its lifeguards, our pay
[1:19:28] should reflect that standard. We're not
[1:19:30] asking for special treatment. We're
[1:19:32] asking to be paid competitively for the
[1:19:34] work that we already do.
[1:19:36] Additionally, we have a form signed with
[1:19:38] 26 current employees in favor of change
[1:19:40] if you guys are willing to accept. Um,
[1:19:43] we just wanted to shed some light on our
[1:19:44] current situation. Thanks for listening.
[1:19:46] Appreciate your time. And we got 30
[1:19:48] seconds left. I'll hand off the mic to
[1:19:50] lifeguard Mora.
[1:19:51] >> Thank you.
[1:19:53] >> Yeah, as you said, my name is uh Mora
[1:19:55] Lucas Mora. Um, I'm not going to be able
[1:19:57] to finish everything I have here, but I
[1:19:59] just wanted to say how grateful I am
[1:20:00] that I'm able to serve this community as
[1:20:02] a lifeguard. Um, but I wanted to shed
[1:20:05] light on how we're kind of losing
[1:20:07] experience in our department. Usually
[1:20:09] our senior towers, including tower five
[1:20:11] at T Street and tower six at Linda Lane,
[1:20:13] are staffed by much older guards, such
[1:20:15] as fifth year lifeguards and above, and
[1:20:17] they have second year or third year
[1:20:19] lifeguards working as their secondary.
[1:20:21] However, in recent years, especially
[1:20:22] this past summer,
[1:20:23] >> wait, he he can have three minutes also,
[1:20:26] we've reset that to about 230 or
[1:20:28] something like that. Go ahead.
[1:20:29] Wonderful. Continue. I'm sorry. Yeah,
[1:20:31] we've had um especially in these recent
[1:20:33] years, we've had second year lifeguards
[1:20:36] working these more advanced towers.
[1:20:38] We've also had second years working as
[1:20:40] junior lifeguard instructors and rookies
[1:20:42] working towers that usually be staffed
[1:20:43] by second and third year guards. And
[1:20:45] while our younger lifeguards are being
[1:20:46] held to a higher standard with far more
[1:20:48] responsibility, we are not being
[1:20:50] compensated for it. This year, as I'm
[1:20:52] still in high school, I was honored with
[1:20:54] the opportunity to work as a junior
[1:20:55] lifeguard instructor and work in these
[1:20:57] senior towers. And I'm a secondyear
[1:20:58] lifeguard. While I'm grateful for these
[1:21:00] opportunities, they also show that our
[1:21:02] department is beginning to lose
[1:21:03] experience. We have declining retention
[1:21:05] of lifeguards, meaning that our
[1:21:06] workforce is getting younger and less
[1:21:08] experienced. Beyond that, we are simply
[1:21:09] understaffed, causing us to be able to
[1:21:11] be unable to open some towers on busy
[1:21:14] days.
[1:21:15] Furthermore, many of our older and more
[1:21:18] experienced lifeguards have been leaving
[1:21:20] the department for what they often call
[1:21:22] big boy jobs because continuing to work
[1:21:24] for our department simply is enough to
[1:21:25] pay the bills. and then I'd like to pass
[1:21:27] it off to Garnell.
[1:21:30] >> And you can start the clock again.
[1:21:32] >> Hi, my name is Nate Newell. I'm a
[1:21:34] secondy year lifeguard. I'm super
[1:21:36] honored to serve this community. I love
[1:21:39] uh doing what I do, working at the beach
[1:21:41] every day. I grew up here. Uh my family
[1:21:43] has lived here for a really long time.
[1:21:45] Um, this summer as a second year
[1:21:47] lifeguard, I was tasked with working
[1:21:50] tower five at T Street, one of the most
[1:21:52] senior towers as the senior guard, and
[1:21:54] tower six at Linda Lane as the senior
[1:21:56] guard. And getting put in that situation
[1:21:59] as a second year lifeguard is a super
[1:22:01] stressful situation. And it just shows
[1:22:03] that as a second year lifeguard, we're
[1:22:06] losing a lot of experience because we
[1:22:08] simply just don't have the money to keep
[1:22:12] lifeguards working here. Like uh guard
[1:22:15] Morris said, as guards get older, they
[1:22:18] need to make more money. They need to
[1:22:19] provide for themselves. And working as a
[1:22:22] lifeguard here can't properly compensate
[1:22:24] uh the cost of living. And I just wish
[1:22:27] that we could be properly compensated
[1:22:29] for the work that we do. And all the
[1:22:31] lifeguards here know firsthand that if
[1:22:33] we weren't on the beach, there would be
[1:22:34] drownings. Every single summer, we make
[1:22:37] multiple rescues and save multiple lives
[1:22:39] like every day. And I just wish that we
[1:22:42] were properly compensated for the work
[1:22:43] that we do. Thank you guys.
[1:22:45] >> Thank you.
[1:22:45] >> Govern you guys hang for just one
[1:22:47] second. M Mr. City Manager, I know we
[1:22:50] had a conversation last week and while
[1:22:53] you I don't know we have the ability
[1:22:55] today to to bring them up where they
[1:22:57] need to be, we certainly need to address
[1:22:59] it. And was there some movement made in
[1:23:01] that direction? Uh
[1:23:03] >> yeah, we have some we have a meeting
[1:23:05] actually coming up with the lifeguard
[1:23:06] captain. I believe it might be as early
[1:23:09] as tomorrow. I can't I'm not sure of the
[1:23:11] date, but it's coming right up. we're
[1:23:12] going to be discussing this issue.
[1:23:14] >> Okay. And and yeah, especially in the
[1:23:16] light of both the Congress and the state
[1:23:18] legislature looking to certify
[1:23:20] lifeguards as first responders, we we we
[1:23:22] need to address that. We we have made
[1:23:24] some steps recently. We used to be like
[1:23:27] right at the top and then we went to the
[1:23:28] bottom and now we're sliding down the
[1:23:32] scale again and and we need to address
[1:23:33] that. I I'm speaking for myself and I
[1:23:36] know the city manager is is working on
[1:23:38] this problem. It's a problem we have to
[1:23:40] address.
[1:23:41] >> Mr. Mayor, I just I just want to let
[1:23:43] everyone know that this is public uh
[1:23:45] comment and so we're not allowed to do
[1:23:48] anything other than have a brief
[1:23:49] response and so the mayor has had a
[1:23:51] brief response and so we can't really do
[1:23:53] more than that.
[1:23:53] >> Well, I I would like to make even a
[1:23:55] briefer response. This morning, Newsmax
[1:23:58] uh did a report on President Trump uh uh
[1:24:01] talking about the significance of
[1:24:02] lifeguards and being the first
[1:24:04] responders. You really are first
[1:24:05] responders in a critical life-saving
[1:24:08] environment. And uh the the article was
[1:24:11] on the uh the two lifeguards in New
[1:24:13] Jersey that lost their life, but
[1:24:14] President Trump was saying we need to to
[1:24:16] recognize the uh significance of the
[1:24:18] first responders. I was honored to be on
[1:24:21] that with one of our our lifeguard
[1:24:22] personnel here in San Clementi. Uh and u
[1:24:25] we just appreciate what you guys are
[1:24:27] doing. Thank you for what you're doing.
[1:24:28] God bless you and uh keep up the good
[1:24:29] work and we'll be addressing the
[1:24:30] concerns that you just hang on just a
[1:24:33] little while longer. [laughter]
[1:24:35] at at the end of the meeting there's
[1:24:37] something called uh future agenda items
[1:24:39] there's some and if if you don't have to
[1:24:41] stay till the end of the meeting but if
[1:24:42] you want to watch something uh watch it
[1:24:44] at home and you can see if if uh we
[1:24:46] bring something up in regards to this.
[1:24:48] >> Awesome. Well, I just want to thank you
[1:24:50] guys again for your support and
[1:24:51] everything that you guys do. Thank you.
[1:24:52] >> Thanks guys.
[1:24:55] >> Okay. [applause]
[1:24:59] » Final speaker is Donna Dream.
[1:25:10] And do do we have any zoom in or column?
[1:25:13] No one. Okay. As of now,
[1:25:17] » good evening, mayor and members of city
[1:25:19] council. I'd like to speak briefly
[1:25:22] tonight about the importance of
[1:25:24] thoughtful, well-planned housing in San
[1:25:26] Clemente, particularly housing that is
[1:25:30] attainable for working people, young
[1:25:32] families, seniors, and others who are
[1:25:35] increasingly priced out of the
[1:25:37] communities where they live and serve
[1:25:40] and work. I want to give a shout out to
[1:25:43] our neighbors in San Juan Capistrano and
[1:25:45] their city council led by John Taylor
[1:25:49] for moving forward with the proposed 50
[1:25:52] unit affordable apartment development.
[1:25:55] The city is contributing dedicated
[1:25:57] affordable housing funds towards the
[1:26:00] project which is intended to provide
[1:26:03] housing opportunities for people earning
[1:26:06] less than $50,000 a year.
[1:26:10] What I what I particularly appreciate is
[1:26:13] that affordable housing does not have to
[1:26:17] mean ignoring legitimate community
[1:26:19] concerns. Parking, traffic, appropriate
[1:26:23] scale, design, and compatibility with
[1:26:26] surrounding neighborhoods all matter.
[1:26:29] Those concerns should be addressed early
[1:26:31] and thoughtfully as part of good
[1:26:34] planning. We should be looking forward.
[1:26:37] We should be looking for opportunities
[1:26:39] to create housing that our workforce and
[1:26:41] families can afford while preserving the
[1:26:44] character and quality of life that make
[1:26:47] San Clemente special. San Clemente needs
[1:26:50] additional housing. But where we build,
[1:26:53] what we build, and how it fits into our
[1:26:56] community matter. That requires
[1:26:58] listening to residents, good planning,
[1:27:01] fiscal responsibility, and collaboration
[1:27:04] among the city, developers, community
[1:27:07] members, and our regional partners.
[1:27:10] Affordable housing and neighborhood
[1:27:12] compatibility should not be competing
[1:27:15] goals. With thoughtful planning, we can
[1:27:18] work towards both. Thank you.
[1:27:21] >> Thank you, Donna.
[1:27:25] » That is it for oral communications.
[1:27:28] Next item on the agenda is motion waving
[1:27:31] reading and full of all resolutions and
[1:27:33] ordinances.
[1:27:34] >> I'll move that have the motion by Mayor
[1:27:36] Prom Nobel.
[1:27:37] >> Second by council member Ammy. All in
[1:27:39] favor?
[1:27:40] >> Pass 5-0.
[1:27:42] >> Consideration of agendaizing items
[1:27:44] requiring immediate action.
[1:27:47] >> Hearing none.
[1:27:50] >> Close session report. City attorney.
[1:27:52] >> Thank you. The council met in close
[1:27:54] session [clears throat] on items A1 and
[1:27:57] two. There's no reportable action. Thank
[1:27:59] you.
[1:28:01] >> Staff communication. City manager Hall
[1:28:03] has an update.
[1:28:04] >> Thank you, mayor and council. Just real
[1:28:06] quickly, I know that I placed in front
[1:28:08] of you tonight a map that indicates the
[1:28:10] jurisdictional boundaries at the south
[1:28:12] end of the community. It's very complex.
[1:28:14] We have everything from the Marine Corps
[1:28:16] to San Diego County Public Works, San
[1:28:18] Diego County Sheriff, Orange County
[1:28:20] Sheriff, City of San Clemeni, state
[1:28:22] parks, all in a very, very small
[1:28:24] geographic area. And so when residents
[1:28:27] identify an issue in that area, they're
[1:28:29] not always sure who to call. And so
[1:28:31] without disscent from the city council,
[1:28:33] um what I'd like to do is take the map
[1:28:35] that's been distributed to the city
[1:28:36] council, put it up on the web page so
[1:28:38] that people will have some contact
[1:28:40] numbers for that area of the community.
[1:28:43] Um, so I just wanted to pass that along.
[1:28:45] If there's no concerns of the city
[1:28:46] council, I think it'd be beneficial for members of the community to be able
[1:28:49] to have this contact and a map because
[1:28:51] it's very
[1:28:52] >> Yeah. Just for clarification since
[1:28:53] there's no slide that we're talking
[1:28:55] about the area like south of Carl's Jr.
[1:28:58] down there in that area where we we
[1:29:00] share a street with state parks and the
[1:29:03] Marines and Calrans and there's been
[1:29:05] some who who really has enforcement
[1:29:07] ability. So you've clarified it. And
[1:29:09] also on this map there's phone numbers
[1:29:10] for the residents to call if they have
[1:29:13] whatever issues they have. They have a
[1:29:15] actually a contact number to come to
[1:29:16] address that. So that's going to go up
[1:29:18] on the city website is what you're
[1:29:19] planning.
[1:29:20] >> That's correct. And there's some copies
[1:29:21] of the map in the back. So
[1:29:22] >> any dissension done?
[1:29:23] >> No, not at all. I just have a question.
[1:29:25] Oh, sure.
[1:29:25] >> Uh has there been any talk with San
[1:29:28] Diego County at all of of a possibility
[1:29:30] of just moving that yellow line to the
[1:29:33] other side of the road? Yeah, I think I
[1:29:35] think the complex part of that is that
[1:29:37] everything on the
[1:29:40] south side, if you will, of the red line
[1:29:41] is actually part of Camp Pendleton. Some
[1:29:43] of it is leased to the state parks and or San Diego County Public Works has
[1:29:48] agreed to maintain some of the roadways,
[1:29:50] but it's all federal land. And so moving
[1:29:53] the boundaries on federal land is very
[1:29:55] complicated. So what we're trying to do
[1:29:57] is make sure that that we understand
[1:29:59] everybody's jurisdictional
[1:30:00] responsibility so that we know the right
[1:30:03] people to respond that have the
[1:30:04] authority to to take care of the issues
[1:30:06] that might arise in that area.
[1:30:07] >> Okay.
[1:30:08] >> Thank you Andy. um very mining comment
[1:30:11] and first of all the you listed
[1:30:13] California CL trains um when we actually
[1:30:18] published it I I think we need to let
[1:30:20] the the let the public understand that
[1:30:24] not all encampment needs to be reported
[1:30:27] to Cal trains.
[1:30:28] >> That's correct.
[1:30:29] >> Uh if it's only if only for those within
[1:30:32] the CAL trains.
[1:30:33] >> Thank you. Great suggestion. We'll we'll
[1:30:35] further we'll further clarify what is
[1:30:37] Calrans property that's not clearly
[1:30:39] identified like some of the rest.
[1:30:40] >> And I also want to take this uh
[1:30:41] opportunity to let the public know that
[1:30:43] the county of San Diego has been very
[1:30:46] responsive to our request. They've sent
[1:30:49] a public works uh staff here to re uh to
[1:30:53] reinstall
[1:30:54] parking permits and clean up the their
[1:30:57] properties and do their maintenance
[1:30:58] work. And they also suggested that their
[1:31:03] county San Diego County sheriff will
[1:31:05] have some night patrol in this area. So
[1:31:09] that's that's in the intergovernmental
[1:31:12] cooper cooperation
[1:31:14] by large part depends on their
[1:31:16] cooperation and sometime goodwill. So um
[1:31:20] if there's any chance our our residents
[1:31:23] can appreciate their effort that will
[1:31:24] help the situation. Great. Thank you.
[1:31:26] >> Yeah. May Mr. Mayor. Yeah. We created
[1:31:28] these maps a couple of years ago and
[1:31:30] they've changed in in in in the period
[1:31:32] of two years. Uh they've changed
[1:31:34] significantly at at one point in time. A
[1:31:36] lot of this land that is now uh uh
[1:31:42] now no longer state parks is now the
[1:31:44] Marine Corps uh land. and the Marine
[1:31:46] Corps will do a much better job than uh
[1:31:50] the than the county of San Diego in
[1:31:53] enforcing they as I understand uh you
[1:31:56] know they they they're less tolerant
[1:31:58] than the San Diego uh uh sheriff. So a
[1:32:02] lot of this is has changed. We we went
[1:32:05] out there u with Lori Davies a couple of
[1:32:08] years ago and and many other of the
[1:32:11] principles and drew up these these
[1:32:13] original maps that have now been
[1:32:14] modified. But a lot's getting done out
[1:32:16] there. I, as I mentioned in my earlier
[1:32:18] report, I went out there with many of
[1:32:20] the residents that are complaining about
[1:32:21] this. Walked the area, identified the
[1:32:24] areas where residents were parking and
[1:32:28] well actually mostly uh tourists were
[1:32:32] parking and uh it's uh it it's it will
[1:32:35] be addressed uh over the next few weeks.
[1:32:39] >> Is anyone opposed to the city manager
[1:32:41] taking action of putting this on the
[1:32:42] website? Seeing nobody opposed.
[1:32:49] » Okay, we ready for the next item? Um,
[1:32:52] next item on the agenda is public
[1:32:53] hearing. The public hearing process
[1:32:55] includes a staff presentation. A
[1:32:57] presentation by the applicant not to
[1:32:58] exceed 10 minutes and public testimony
[1:33:01] not to exceed 3 minutes per person.
[1:33:03] Following closure of the public hearing,
[1:33:04] the city council will respond to
[1:33:06] questions raised during the hearing,
[1:33:08] discuss the issues, and act upon the
[1:33:09] matter by motion. And the first public
[1:33:12] hearing we have is appeal of the denial
[1:33:13] of an administrative encroachment permit
[1:33:15] for a wall in the right ofway located at
[1:33:18] 1202 Avanita de la Estustrala and
[1:33:20] findings under the California
[1:33:22] Environmental Equality Act. And we have
[1:33:23] staff here to present. Okay.
[1:33:25] >> We'll open the public hearing and I'll
[1:33:26] ask any of my fellow council members if
[1:33:28] they have any exparte disclosures to
[1:33:31] make. I'll make one. The attorney for
[1:33:33] the uh for the appellet is uh I have
[1:33:36] I've known him socially for a while.
[1:33:38] Spencer Snider note him through the
[1:33:40] Chamber of Commerce and and had numerous
[1:33:43] contacts with him through the chamber.
[1:33:45] Uh would not make me any way not to be
[1:33:47] fair and impartial on this matter.
[1:33:50] >> But we we've had this matter before and
[1:33:51] he's come and presented to us. So
[1:33:53] >> yeah, I was I was fair and impartial
[1:33:55] that time, too.
[1:33:56] >> You were too. You were. He asked for a
[1:33:57] continuence and we gave him one. So
[1:33:59] >> absolutely. So [snorts] also there any
[1:34:01] communications that have come in after
[1:34:03] this item was agendaized?
[1:34:05] We did receive a communication from the
[1:34:07] attorney and I um it's in the back of
[1:34:10] the council chambers. It's on the city
[1:34:11] website and it was sent to city council.
[1:34:15] >> Okay. And uh with with that I guess
[1:34:18] staff, are you you prepared, Zach, to go
[1:34:21] right ahead with this?
[1:34:22] >> Yes, sir. Uh Zach Ponson, assistant city
[1:34:25] engineer. Um tonight in front of you, we
[1:34:27] have the continuation of an item that
[1:34:28] was um brought to you u the second
[1:34:31] meeting of June. Uh just for a real
[1:34:33] quick um background, this was a uh the
[1:34:37] property owner's deni um appeal of a
[1:34:40] denial to keep a wall in the public
[1:34:42] rideway. Um my presentation is basically
[1:34:45] the same, but there's a couple things I
[1:34:47] did want to bring up that we didn't
[1:34:48] bring up before. This property owner did
[1:34:51] not do the recent construction
[1:34:52] modifications to this wall. Uh that was
[1:34:55] a previous property owner that was um a
[1:34:58] short owner of the property, did some
[1:35:00] remodel and and sold it to this property
[1:35:02] owner. This property owner was aware of
[1:35:04] the code case violation prior to
[1:35:06] purchasing it. We were in contact with
[1:35:08] them and and discussing some of the
[1:35:09] issues with the law. But with that, I
[1:35:12] had one slide that we didn't get to last
[1:35:14] time that just discusses the um the line
[1:35:17] of sight standard at the Orange County
[1:35:19] uh standard 1117. So, if Dave can, it's
[1:35:22] kind of at the end of our slide, so he's
[1:35:24] going to kind of zip through a few.
[1:35:26] >> Can you help us get to the last slide?
[1:35:27] >> Yes.
[1:35:33] » Oh, that was it.
[1:35:34] >> Yeah. So, what this slide showing is
[1:35:36] actual a cut and paste of the the county
[1:35:38] standards. So, the the dark area is
[1:35:41] what's shown as a limited light sight
[1:35:43] line of sight triangles. So, when you're
[1:35:45] coming out of a side street, you stand
[1:35:47] back 10 ft. you look down a certain
[1:35:49] distance down these streets. And so
[1:35:51] we've done this analysis uh during our
[1:35:53] initial investigation. Um the for a
[1:35:57] street like this, ideally you want to
[1:35:59] see about 280 ft down that street when
[1:36:01] you're seeing cars come out um at a
[1:36:04] height of about 3 and 1/2 ft from the viewer's eyes on a normal car. Uh
[1:36:08] right now with the wall out there, we
[1:36:10] believe the line of sight's close to
[1:36:11] about 150 linear feet. Uh removing the
[1:36:15] wall gets us actually close back to that
[1:36:17] 280 ft. Uh parking is allowed on
[1:36:20] streets, but we and the county does not
[1:36:23] take parking into consideration. There
[1:36:25] is a recent state law modification that
[1:36:28] now prohibits parking close to
[1:36:30] intersections that would actually kind
[1:36:32] of negate any of those issues if there's
[1:36:34] a car on there. Uh with that, staff's
[1:36:36] available for questions.
[1:36:38] >> Any any questions to staff?
[1:36:39] >> I have one quick question. The uh you
[1:36:41] mentioned the [snorts] removal of the
[1:36:42] wall gets you back to the line of sight
[1:36:44] about 260. Is that the complete removal
[1:36:46] of the wall or just reducing it to the
[1:36:48] 3ft level where it was before?
[1:36:49] >> In our staff report, we had a lot of
[1:36:51] discussion. Removing the wall down to
[1:36:52] about 30 36 in should give us back to
[1:36:55] that 280 ft.
[1:36:57] >> Thank you.
[1:36:58] >> The 180 you say, not the two.
[1:37:00] >> We would actually get back to the 280.
[1:37:02] >> Okay. Thank
[1:37:03] >> y
[1:37:04] I have a quick question. I I notic on
[1:37:07] the in the photos that going out looking
[1:37:08] at Oh, I'm sorry. going out looking at
[1:37:10] the property. Uh the stop sign actually
[1:37:13] seems to be in an orordinate distance
[1:37:16] back from the actual limit line. Uh is there a reason for that which makes
[1:37:22] cars stop where they can't definitely
[1:37:25] can't see back and and then they have to
[1:37:27] pull up into the limit line to actually
[1:37:29] look. Is there any reason why that stop
[1:37:31] sign because the street sign is about
[1:37:33] where it looks like the stop sign should
[1:37:35] be. Is there any reason why that stop
[1:37:37] sign couldn't be pushed farther towards
[1:37:39] the street?
[1:37:39] >> We we can definitely look into it. We
[1:37:41] might actually have a picture of it in
[1:37:42] one of the slides if you wanted to see
[1:37:44] it. But um ultimately what we have on a
[1:37:47] lot of cross streets in town, especially
[1:37:48] on El Camino Rale, the stop sign itself
[1:37:51] and the stop bar is often further back
[1:37:53] in anticipation for pedestrian crossings
[1:37:56] and the access ramps. So, what we tell
[1:37:58] people all the time is you often can't
[1:38:00] see from the stop sign itself, but your
[1:38:02] design is to stop at the stop sign, look
[1:38:04] for pedestrians first, and then inch out
[1:38:07] into intersections. So, we have this
[1:38:09] conversation quite a bit regarding all
[1:38:10] the streets along El Camino Rail.
[1:38:12] >> Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of
[1:38:14] staff?
[1:38:16] >> Okay, I guess it's time for the
[1:38:18] appelllet to step on up.
[1:38:21] >> Spencer Schneider.
[1:38:24] >> Thank you. My name is Spencer Schneider.
[1:38:26] I'm here on behalf of Mr. Dan Roberts.
[1:38:28] He is the homeowner of 1202 Avenue de la
[1:38:31] Estraa.
[1:38:33] What we are asking for today is the
[1:38:35] reversal of that denial of the
[1:38:36] administrative encroachment permit. But
[1:38:38] really what that entails is confirmation
[1:38:40] that the wall can remain in its current
[1:38:43] place at its current height that it has
[1:38:45] been in since the 1960s.
[1:38:48] The wall's height, the position, and the
[1:38:50] footprint haven't been changed. The
[1:38:53] updates which were done by the prior
[1:38:54] owner were entirely cosmetic where the
[1:38:58] bars in between the posts were just
[1:39:01] turned into a solid base there.
[1:39:05] And sorry, can we go to the next slide?
[1:39:08] I think we're on slide three now.
[1:39:12] Um, one more.
[1:39:19] So, a significant part of the city's
[1:39:20] denial focuses on the reduced sight
[1:39:23] distance and the increased risk caused
[1:39:25] by this reduced sight distance, but
[1:39:28] there's no evidence of the reduced sight
[1:39:29] distance or increased risk. Today was
[1:39:32] the first time we've seen this
[1:39:33] engineering or sight distance study. um
[1:39:36] it wasn't in the denial record, but the
[1:39:39] city has also said that the original
[1:39:41] wall before the modification
[1:39:43] was also blocking the site distance.
[1:39:46] It's been up for over 60 years, and
[1:39:48] there's only been one complaint about
[1:39:49] this wall. It was fairly recent. The
[1:39:53] city also hasn't identified any
[1:39:55] accidents, either auto or pedestrian, at
[1:39:58] this intersection, besides one DUI that
[1:40:00] occurred a number of years ago at this
[1:40:02] intersection. So claiming that there's a
[1:40:04] reduced sight line that in increases
[1:40:07] risk is simply unsupported by the
[1:40:10] traffic and accident data at this
[1:40:11] intersection. And just the assertion
[1:40:14] that safety is reduced isn't doesn't
[1:40:17] support the removal of a 60-year-old
[1:40:19] structure.
[1:40:23] Can we go to the next slide, please? As
[1:40:26] a council can see, parked cars do reduce
[1:40:29] the sight line here. And the blockage is
[1:40:32] from the cars. It's not the wall. Even
[1:40:34] with the removal of the wall, vehicles
[1:40:37] parked there, even far back from the
[1:40:40] intersection, are blocking the line of
[1:40:42] sight. Can we please go to the next
[1:40:44] slide?
[1:40:46] If the city has remaining concerns, a
[1:40:48] convex mirror can be installed on this
[1:40:50] intersection, and Mr. Roberts is willing
[1:40:52] to install that mirror to actually
[1:40:55] address some of the sighteline concerns.
[1:40:58] Can we go to the next slide, please?
[1:41:01] There's also similar walls at this
[1:41:03] intersection and throughout the
[1:41:04] neighborhood of equal or greater height,
[1:41:07] and enforcement against this property
[1:41:09] alone would just be inequitable. Can we
[1:41:11] go to the next slide, please?
[1:41:14] Addressing. I know the council had some
[1:41:16] concerns last time we spoke about
[1:41:19] compliant sidewalks along the rest of
[1:41:21] the block. Um it was represented that
[1:41:24] the existing sidewalk on the rest of the
[1:41:25] block is largely compliant. But as the
[1:41:28] council can see all along the block,
[1:41:30] this walkway stops, it starts, it's
[1:41:32] blocked. Um it's non-existent in some
[1:41:35] places as landscaping or walls come all
[1:41:37] the way to the street. It also has
[1:41:40] mailboxes, trees planted in the
[1:41:42] sidewalk. So changing this one property
[1:41:44] and this one wall is not going to create
[1:41:47] a compliant path of travel for the
[1:41:48] block. Can we go to the next slide
[1:41:50] please?
[1:41:52] Addressing the drainage and lights
[1:41:54] raised by those concerns that were
[1:41:56] raised by the city. The drain holes on
[1:41:58] the wall face have now been closed so
[1:42:01] nothing discharges onto the walkway any
[1:42:03] longer. And the lights can also be
[1:42:05] removed. Mr. Roberts is willing to take
[1:42:07] those down if that's what the city
[1:42:09] wishes. Can we go to the next slide,
[1:42:11] please? One of the city's proposed
[1:42:13] solutions was complete removal of the
[1:42:16] wall and grading into a slope. As the
[1:42:19] council can see from this rendering,
[1:42:21] that's completely untenable. This would
[1:42:23] be a steep drop off to the sidewalk.
[1:42:26] It'd be about 45°
[1:42:28] and this would create runoff and
[1:42:30] drainage problems, which the city has
[1:42:31] also already expressed concerns about.
[1:42:34] And as the city can see from this
[1:42:36] rendering, cars parked along this street
[1:42:39] would still be blocking the line of
[1:42:40] sight.
[1:42:42] Can we go to the next slide, please?
[1:42:44] Finally, the wall's a safety feature for
[1:42:46] Mr. Roberts and his family. It's the
[1:42:48] only barrier between an elevated yard
[1:42:51] and a drop to the public street corner.
[1:42:53] Mr. Roberts has a 7-year-old child that
[1:42:55] uses the yard daily, and removal or even
[1:42:57] reduction of the wall creates a new
[1:42:59] hazard. It's also a privacy barrier,
[1:43:01] preventing direct line of sight from the
[1:43:04] street or the sidewalk into Mr. Robert's
[1:43:06] yard or house. There is an individual
[1:43:09] living in his vehicle in front of Mr.
[1:43:11] Robert's property, which makes this
[1:43:12] privacy um point especially salient. Can
[1:43:16] we go to the next slide, please? Mr.
[1:43:18] Roberts has gathered over 124 signatures
[1:43:22] supporting that the wall remain in its
[1:43:23] place. These are his neighbors. These
[1:43:25] are constituents that have signed the
[1:43:27] petition stating that they support the
[1:43:29] wall in its current location, at its
[1:43:31] current height, that they don't believe
[1:43:33] it creates a safety hazard, and that
[1:43:35] they don't want the city coming to
[1:43:36] homeowners based on a single complaint
[1:43:39] and forcing them to undergo costly and
[1:43:42] expensive and extensive construction
[1:43:44] projects, especially to long-standing
[1:43:47] structures, and especially when there
[1:43:48] has been no proven safety risk. I just
[1:43:51] want to reiterate what we're asking for
[1:43:53] here, just that Mr. Robert's wall is um
[1:43:55] able to remain where it is at its
[1:43:58] current height and the height that it's
[1:43:59] been in since the Eisenhower
[1:44:00] administration. Thank you for your time.
[1:44:03] >> Thank you, sir. We have any public
[1:44:05] comments?
[1:44:06] >> We do. I'll call the first few speakers.
[1:44:09] Lynn Bronco, followed by Diana Lansen,
[1:44:12] followed by John Lanston.
[1:44:15] Lynn.
[1:44:18] Uh good afternoon, council. My name is
[1:44:20] Len Brango. Um, [clears throat]
[1:44:23] I'm a home owner there on La Placentia
[1:44:27] and I've been here the last time and
[1:44:29] explained to you guys that I've lived
[1:44:31] there for 40 years.
[1:44:34] There's never [clears throat] been a
[1:44:35] problem with that wall until it got
[1:44:37] modified.
[1:44:38] And since that wall's been modified,
[1:44:40] there's been situations that we've had
[1:44:42] with me personally in my own car. So, a
[1:44:46] lot of these things that these guys are
[1:44:48] saying, the wall's been there for 50
[1:44:50] years. That's correct. But when they
[1:44:52] modified it, that's when we had the
[1:44:53] issues. We didn't have any issues prior
[1:44:56] to the wall being modified because you
[1:44:57] could see the line of sight just like
[1:44:59] the engineer stated. There wasn't a
[1:45:01] problem. But once you modify the wall,
[1:45:03] you cannot see. You have to pull out
[1:45:05] past almost into the oncoming traffic to
[1:45:08] actually [clears throat] excuse me to
[1:45:10] see any traffic coming at you. And in
[1:45:12] the morning, you know, sometimes when
[1:45:14] it's kind of like dusk, it's hard to
[1:45:16] see. There's a little dip there to the
[1:45:18] left. And sometimes you what what I'm
[1:45:22] what I do is I come out, I'm looking
[1:45:24] right because I got to sneak out and I
[1:45:26] don't see anybody in the dip. Next thing
[1:45:27] you know, I got a car, you know, right next to me. So the wall
[1:45:33] modification has created a a line of
[1:45:36] sight issue. So it is dangerous the in its current state. It wasn't when the
[1:45:41] wall was in the normal state prior to
[1:45:44] his ownership, but when the wall was
[1:45:46] modified, it has created an issue for
[1:45:49] line of sight. We and I personally have
[1:45:52] had some issues, not any accidents, so
[1:45:55] that you know, like the attorney said,
[1:45:57] there's nothing reported, but I'm
[1:45:58] telling you, it's going to it's just a
[1:46:00] matter of time before it happens. The
[1:46:02] homeowner's only been there for a year,
[1:46:03] so I don't know that he's experienced
[1:46:05] any real [clears throat] real
[1:46:07] situations. Number one. Number two, the
[1:46:10] signatures that he's got on the on on
[1:46:13] the petition. I mean, I don't even know
[1:46:15] if anybody all these people are are, you
[1:46:17] know, have licenses to drive or if they
[1:46:21] even live there. I live there. I've been
[1:46:23] there for a long time. So, I I'm
[1:46:24] experiencing this every day. So, the
[1:46:27] wall is a is a problem [clears throat]
[1:46:29] in its current state. I don't think you
[1:46:31] have to take the whole wall down, but I
[1:46:34] think if it was back to where it
[1:46:36] initially was, it would be it would be
[1:46:38] fine. Thank you.
[1:46:40] >> Thank you, sir.
[1:46:45] » Diana Lansen, followed by John Lansen,
[1:46:47] followed by Dylan Odbert.
[1:46:54] Got my clock going. Hi, I'm Diana
[1:46:56] Lansen. I actually live next door to the
[1:46:59] wall. Um, I enjoy and respect all of my
[1:47:01] neighbors, so I appreciate their point
[1:47:03] of view as well. Um, I just think that
[1:47:05] we are addressing a symptom of the
[1:47:07] problem at the intersection and not the
[1:47:09] actual root cause. The wall
[1:47:13] does not create a line of sight issue
[1:47:14] for me. I'd like to say that traffic
[1:47:17] cars have two other exit points out of
[1:47:19] our neighborhood. So, there are multiple
[1:47:21] options. If you are not comfortable with
[1:47:22] the line of sight, there are two other
[1:47:24] entry and exit points. There are no
[1:47:26] crosswalks. There are no usable
[1:47:28] sidewalks. I am a mom. My kids go to Los
[1:47:30] Palmus and also the Boys and Girls Club.
[1:47:32] They cannot walk home. They cannot from
[1:47:34] either location because the whole street
[1:47:36] has no safe crossing point for children
[1:47:39] or our community. The wall is not
[1:47:41] causing a problem there. The wall is
[1:47:43] actually providing some protection for
[1:47:45] our children when they stand on the
[1:47:46] curb. At least there is a significant
[1:47:48] barrier there for them. The real issue
[1:47:50] is the line of sight issue created by
[1:47:52] other cars, which I guess the city
[1:47:54] doesn't have a solution for quite yet. I
[1:47:57] don't see any red curb. No matter how
[1:47:59] far you pull up, you saw where the stop
[1:48:00] sign is, you've seen the visuals. No
[1:48:02] matter how far you pull up, you cannot
[1:48:04] see if anyone is coming when there is
[1:48:06] any car parked in front of Dan's house.
[1:48:09] So, if we are not going to address the
[1:48:11] actual root cause of the problem, I
[1:48:12] don't think we penalize our neighbor who
[1:48:14] did not construct the wall. And yes, he
[1:48:16] does need the wall for safety because
[1:48:18] I'm pretty sure the 10 um vagrants or
[1:48:21] unhoused that the sheriff was referring
[1:48:23] to live in their cars in front of our
[1:48:26] houses. So, I also can't allow my kids
[1:48:28] to walk because we've allowed someone to
[1:48:30] live. There is literally an SUV that
[1:48:32] lives full-time in front of Dan's house
[1:48:34] and he has a 7-year-old daughter and I
[1:48:36] have children. And so, we've allowed
[1:48:37] this person, there are multiple, it's
[1:48:39] not just one car, there are multiple
[1:48:41] cars on our street. The reason the
[1:48:43] original homeowners that built the wall
[1:48:45] put the wall there who also we talked to
[1:48:47] because they were my neighbors is
[1:48:48] because they felt unsafe. They also had
[1:48:50] small children and the city has allowed
[1:48:53] numerous people to live in their
[1:48:55] vehicles right in front of our
[1:48:56] neighborhood. And so we should afford
[1:48:59] our neighbor some protection and until
[1:49:01] we address that we shouldn't ask him to
[1:49:03] take down the wall. So I would just say
[1:49:05] if we're going to ask our neighbor to
[1:49:06] remove a wall at great expense I
[1:49:09] understand the need for permits. I think
[1:49:11] there is a good solution in the interim
[1:49:13] until we address all of the root causes
[1:49:15] that being getting rid of the the people
[1:49:18] that are allowed to live in their homes.
[1:49:20] I'm using drugs, going to the restroom
[1:49:22] out all hours of the night right in
[1:49:25] front of his front door. We're doing
[1:49:28] nothing as a city to address that. We
[1:49:29] have begged the city for any kind of
[1:49:31] traffic control. Our children cannot
[1:49:33] cross the road there. There is nowhere
[1:49:34] safe for them. The cars can go to two
[1:49:36] different entry and exit points in our
[1:49:38] neighborhood if they need clear
[1:49:39] visibility to leave the street. But so
[1:49:42] far, we haven't addressed any of the
[1:49:43] concerns for the pedestrian traffic and
[1:49:44] our children. So, I would ask that we go
[1:49:47] with a temporary solution of a mirror
[1:49:49] that provides visibility both around
[1:49:51] cars and the wall.
[1:49:53] >> Thank you, Diana.
[1:49:55] [applause]
[1:49:56] >> John Lansen,
[1:49:58] followed by Dylan Odvert.
[1:50:02] >> Uh, thank you, Council. Um, and I'll
[1:50:04] probably reiterate a few things that
[1:50:06] Diana, uh, my beautiful wife just, uh,
[1:50:08] said. Um, but the main thing is we've
[1:50:10] lived there for about 7 years, and that
[1:50:13] wall has not changed height or anything.
[1:50:15] Um, even during Halloween there was
[1:50:18] times, everybody says we can see through
[1:50:19] the gate. Well, during Halloween, they
[1:50:22] would put up little ghost things that
[1:50:24] would keep you from seeing through that.
[1:50:26] And it was also, we talked to those
[1:50:28] neighbors and they wanted that wall.
[1:50:30] They love that wall because they had
[1:50:31] young kids.
[1:50:33] um to protect them. It was the only
[1:50:35] barrier uh for people not just walking
[1:50:37] right in their homes. And honestly, as
[1:50:39] you can see with all the uh pictures and
[1:50:42] everything, you have to pull up past
[1:50:44] that stop sign at least 10 ft. And if
[1:50:46] you stop your car at the front of the
[1:50:48] line, there is nothing that you can see.
[1:50:50] And if there's one car right there, should be a red line that's going
[1:50:54] down for at least two cars. Everybody
[1:50:57] has to pull all the way out. The sign is
[1:51:00] here, back here, and there's a car here.
[1:51:02] You can't see anything. And we have
[1:51:05] kids. We've asked the city multiple
[1:51:06] times to put a crosswalk in because we
[1:51:08] go to Bonita Canyon Park, which is right
[1:51:10] across the street. Beautiful park that
[1:51:12] the city maintains. That's where we're
[1:51:14] at 5 days a week. Okay. So, we have our
[1:51:17] kids crossing this 20 times at least a
[1:51:19] week, I would say. We have dogs that
[1:51:21] we're walking in the park and
[1:51:22] everything. And literally, if there's a
[1:51:24] car there, we have to have them cross
[1:51:27] the street, which is also a blind curve,
[1:51:29] to uh the other side of the street to
[1:51:31] get max viewing of coming down here. And
[1:51:34] Lynn is correct. There's a dip on the on
[1:51:37] the if you're looking to the left,
[1:51:38] there's a dip. I tell my kids, wait.
[1:51:40] You're going to look both sides, you're
[1:51:42] going to look past the cars, and you're
[1:51:44] going to wait because there's always a
[1:51:46] car in that dip. If it's a low riding
[1:51:48] car, for some reason, we always wait.
[1:51:51] And then here comes a car at 40 45 miles
[1:51:54] an hour. And we have seven year old like
[1:51:56] four to 10 year old kids that don't have
[1:51:58] fully formed brains and everything. So
[1:52:01] we are telling them you have to wait for
[1:52:03] this. Okay. But the main thing is if
[1:52:05] you're out all the way to the stop sign
[1:52:07] there, the wall has nothing to do with
[1:52:10] it. Uh you can't see because you're
[1:52:11] already too far back. Uh you have to go
[1:52:14] out. I would say the back of your car
[1:52:16] has to be on that on the on the white
[1:52:18] line to see. And that has no And now
[1:52:21] we're 10 feet past the wall. Okay. It's
[1:52:24] if there's a if there's a car parked 20
[1:52:26] feet down the way, we still can't see uh
[1:52:29] anything that's coming from that way.
[1:52:31] [snorts] So, um and I don't think that
[1:52:33] he needs to be penalized because it will
[1:52:36] cost six figures for him to fix this
[1:52:38] wall at least. Uh I put in a small
[1:52:40] retention wall few years ago with the
[1:52:42] city. It went through the whole
[1:52:43] ordinance thing and every and it was $50
[1:52:46] $60,000 for a wall that would be a tenth
[1:52:49] of what he's going to have to do cuz he
[1:52:50] would have to tear it down. And for his
[1:52:51] family's protection, he's going to have
[1:52:53] to put up another smaller wall, a
[1:52:55] retaining wall to keep uh everything
[1:52:57] from running down. Um so I don't think
[1:53:00] that we need to change the wall. It's
[1:53:02] always been that way. So,
[1:53:03] >> thank you, John.
[1:53:04] >> Thank you,
[1:53:07] >> Dylan Odd.
[1:53:18] Thank you, council. I'm a long-standing
[1:53:20] resident in the neighborhood of the
[1:53:22] retaining wall that is under discussion
[1:53:23] this evening, and I support improving
[1:53:26] safety in our street, but the corner
[1:53:27] wall is not the source of danger. It has
[1:53:30] been a place, it has been in place for
[1:53:31] decades without creating a safety a
[1:53:34] safety problem. The real safety concern
[1:53:36] is speeding and unsafe driving on
[1:53:38] Australia near the crossing used by
[1:53:40] children walking to our park. Our
[1:53:43] neighborhood has many children under the
[1:53:44] age of 10, making traffic calming
[1:53:46] especially important. The city surveyed
[1:53:49] this street 3 years ago in uh 2023 and
[1:53:52] somehow decided against stop signs or
[1:53:55] speed bumps. Neighbors were told there
[1:53:57] weren't enough incidents to warrant
[1:53:59] action. Removing a long-standing wall
[1:54:01] will not address speeding or protect our
[1:54:03] children crossing the street.
[1:54:06] Please leave the wall in place which has
[1:54:08] been there for decades and instead
[1:54:09] considered measures that will directly
[1:54:11] address the danger to our neighborhood
[1:54:13] such as speed bumps, stop signs or
[1:54:15] marked or marked crosswalks. Please
[1:54:18] focus city resources on actual safety
[1:54:20] the actual safety threat. unsafe unsafe
[1:54:23] driving on Australia. Protecting
[1:54:24] children who cross the street should
[1:54:26] take priority over removing a wall that
[1:54:28] has existed for over for a decade. Thank
[1:54:31] you.
[1:54:32] >> Thank you, Dylan.
[1:54:37] » That's it for speakers.
[1:54:39] >> Okay. So, I I guess the uh appellet has
[1:54:42] five minutes. He can rebut whatever
[1:54:45] issues they've heard.
[1:54:52] I don't need the full five minutes. Just
[1:54:54] we'll briefly reiterate it. I think the
[1:54:57] neighborhood spoken. The petition speaks
[1:55:00] for itself. There's addresses on the
[1:55:02] petition as well. But the neighborhood
[1:55:04] doesn't feel like this is a safety
[1:55:06] concern. The data doesn't support this
[1:55:08] being a safety concern, and the city
[1:55:11] doesn't have to do anything except let
[1:55:12] Mr. Roberts keep the wall where it's
[1:55:15] been for decades. Thank you. Yeah. Thank
[1:55:18] you, sir. Do we have any questions of
[1:55:20] staff before the public hearing's
[1:55:21] closed?
[1:55:22] >> Can we take a break?
[1:55:24] >> Oh, okay. What? So, the council, can we
[1:55:27] take a fivem minute break?
[1:55:28] >> Sure.
[1:55:28] >> You don't want to do questions of staff
[1:55:30] first?
[1:55:30] >> Well, I I think we want to take a fivem
[1:55:31] minute break first before we break those
[1:55:34] up. So, we'll we'll recess for five
[1:55:36] minutes. And I can't see the clock.
[1:55:38] We'll come back at like 8.
[1:55:40] At what time?
[1:55:41] >> 6:45.
[1:55:42] >> It's so at 6:50. Okay.
[2:01:15] Well,
[2:01:17] we're going to go back in session.
[2:01:22] So, I I I know Mark will be here in a
[2:01:25] second, I'm sure, and he had a question.
[2:01:26] Are there any other questions of staff
[2:01:28] while we're while we're waiting?
[2:01:31] I I I'll I'll ask one to kill some time.
[2:01:34] So, you know, we talked about a
[2:01:35] crosswalk, you know, or that was
[2:01:37] mentioned about a a crosswalk, and I
[2:01:39] went out there and was and was looking
[2:01:41] crosswalks would be it it might be
[2:01:44] interesting. I I don't know, but isn't
[2:01:45] there since there's no sidewalks there,
[2:01:47] is that problematic to do a crosswalk to
[2:01:49] up to where there's no sidewalk. Isn't
[2:01:51] that an engineering issue?
[2:01:53] >> So, uh, good question. Yes, a crosswalk
[2:01:55] at an uncontrolled intersection that
[2:01:57] doesn't have a three-way stop or a
[2:01:59] signal is always a little bit scary
[2:02:01] because you're given a false sense of
[2:02:02] security, but also having a crosswalk
[2:02:04] that leads to nowhere um would be a
[2:02:07] probably a very large ADA uh violation.
[2:02:10] And my other quick question, I know the
[2:02:11] vehicle code changed and now you know
[2:02:13] blocking or parking on corner radiuses
[2:02:17] is an issue. uh
[2:02:20] that there wouldn't be an an issue of
[2:02:22] going out there and painting that radius
[2:02:23] red, would there?
[2:02:24] >> We can do 20 ft per state law right now
[2:02:27] without going to planning commission and
[2:02:28] council. Beyond the 20 ft, typically we
[2:02:31] would go to planning commission and come
[2:02:32] back to council to codify that.
[2:02:34] >> Okay. So, we could do immediately we
[2:02:35] could paint the curb and then if it was
[2:02:37] something that we they wanted we wanted
[2:02:39] to address further, we just go to
[2:02:40] planning commission.
[2:02:41] >> Correct. And looking to the east on that
[2:02:43] intersection, it is already red curbed.
[2:02:45] >> Okay.
[2:02:45] >> And so the right side is not red curbed.
[2:02:47] Okay. Yeah. Mark, you I think you had
[2:02:49] questions of staff or
[2:02:51] >> um you address uh several of them. When
[2:02:53] was the last time we we've done a and
[2:02:56] may have missed the first part of it. Uh
[2:02:58] >> when was the last time we we did a a
[2:03:00] comprehensive view of of that entire
[2:03:03] area
[2:03:03] >> for like traffic calming and speeding?
[2:03:05] Um I believe he he mentioned 2023 which
[2:03:08] sounds correct.
[2:03:10] >> Um I do know the results of that. Uh, it
[2:03:13] was focused also on the the S-curves
[2:03:15] kind of by the tennis court where the
[2:03:17] speed was actually very slow in that
[2:03:19] stretch. I don't remember the results
[2:03:20] off the top of my head on the
[2:03:22] straightaway. If anywhere is going to
[2:03:24] qualify for traffic calming on this
[2:03:25] street, it's going to be the
[2:03:26] straightaway. The the curves further to
[2:03:29] the west, if I remember correctly, the
[2:03:31] speeds were 10, 15 miles an hour on
[2:03:34] average, not for 30 and 35 that you're
[2:03:37] looking for to qualify.
[2:03:39] >> There might be something there to this.
[2:03:41] And I I know this is mainly just on on the uh blocks itself, but for staff
[2:03:45] to look at a at a more comprehensive uh
[2:03:48] study specifically on that area because
[2:03:50] it sounds like we're having a lot of
[2:03:51] issues
[2:03:53] on top of the wall itself.
[2:03:55] >> Right. So we can definitely relook at
[2:03:56] that straightaway. I don't need a
[2:03:58] petition from the city. We if you guys
[2:03:59] give us that direction, we can we can do
[2:04:01] that. And that's something that um
[2:04:04] really the trafficcoming policy, we have
[2:04:06] a whole policy on that. We would come
[2:04:07] back to appropriate if it was additional
[2:04:11] red curb beyond the 20 ft or other
[2:04:13] measures in our toolbox including speed
[2:04:16] bumps and stuff like that that are we
[2:04:18] have a lot of measures in our toolbox.
[2:04:19] Usually it's speed feedback signs are
[2:04:22] the next option after red curbs that we
[2:04:24] try to get people to slow down first
[2:04:26] before we start going with physical
[2:04:27] barriers like uh speed cushions.
[2:04:30] >> Okay, great. Any questions?
[2:04:32] >> Yeah. Um uh a few neighbors talking
[2:04:35] about the the parked the car blocking
[2:04:39] the sight line. Uh what what is your
[2:04:41] assessment on that? And if we were to
[2:04:45] pre prevent people from parking there,
[2:04:48] then does this wall still present a
[2:04:50] sight plan issue?
[2:04:52] >> Uh yes. per the state law that we were
[2:04:54] just talking about, we can we can go out
[2:04:56] and red curb that, you know, as soon as
[2:04:58] we get a work order into the maintenance
[2:04:59] department, we can red curb 20 feet from
[2:05:02] where the straight part hits the curve
[2:05:04] of the the radius. So, by state law, I
[2:05:07] forget the assembly bill number, I think
[2:05:08] it's 418, but that one, the daylighting
[2:05:11] law, it's referred to, uh, we can
[2:05:13] actually go out and do 20 ft of red curb
[2:05:15] without changing our code. Anything
[2:05:17] beyond that, I need I usually do an
[2:05:18] investigation. I would look at this line
[2:05:20] of sight and say what's needed to get us
[2:05:22] closer to that line of sight of what
[2:05:24] we're looking for in this code. My guess
[2:05:26] is it'll go from 20 ft is one car. My
[2:05:30] guess is you would end up coming back
[2:05:32] with potentially three cars worth of red
[2:05:34] curb.
[2:05:34] >> Okay. My question is if we were to take
[2:05:37] out three parking spaces in that
[2:05:39] segment, will this
[2:05:42] because right now the parked car blocks
[2:05:46] sight line. If we were to prevent them
[2:05:49] from parking there, taking out three by
[2:05:51] taking out three parked cars, will that
[2:05:54] wall becomes a obstacle to the line of
[2:05:58] sight?
[2:05:59] >> The wall per the city, per the county
[2:06:02] standard, it it's still technically a
[2:06:04] line of sight standard because it's
[2:06:06] higher than that 42 in that the standard
[2:06:08] looks at from a driver's eye. And they look at a specific distance back
[2:06:12] from the flow line of the curb, 10 ft. a
[2:06:15] driver's eye being 42 in, how far can
[2:06:18] you see? And that standard wants you to
[2:06:20] be able to see 280 feet. And so the wall
[2:06:23] is technically still a violation of
[2:06:25] that, but part removing parked cars
[2:06:27] would help the situation for sure.
[2:06:29] >> What is what's a ramification or
[2:06:32] consequence of not abiding by the county
[2:06:36] standard?
[2:06:37] >> Um, I mean, ultimately, these streets
[2:06:39] were built prior to the county standard.
[2:06:41] Obviously, we're 1920s, right? This
[2:06:44] county standard didn't wasn't created in
[2:06:46] the 1920s. So, not all streets are going
[2:06:48] to meet this standard, but as an
[2:06:49] engineer, we we like to have some sort
[2:06:51] of guideline of what's the standard of
[2:06:53] care and what's the standard of practice
[2:06:55] in our industry of what we're trying to
[2:06:57] follow. So, most cities look at the the
[2:06:59] county standard of 117 to to try to
[2:07:02] implement what we can on that standard
[2:07:04] where we can to the best of our
[2:07:06] abilities.
[2:07:07] >> Okay. Thank you,
[2:07:08] >> Victor.
[2:07:08] >> Yeah, I I'm just trying to get a better
[2:07:10] sense of uh I'm a little bit confused. I
[2:07:12] think I understand about the height of
[2:07:14] the wall. There's some some a little bit
[2:07:16] of confusion though that the wall was uh
[2:07:19] has been there, you know, for forever,
[2:07:22] for 20 years. But but help
[2:07:25] [clears throat] me understand what part
[2:07:27] of the wall was was there and what part
[2:07:29] was not there and uh and at what height.
[2:07:37] » So, uh
[2:07:38] >> we have a couple photos that might show
[2:07:40] the pre-existing. So, um, while she's
[2:07:43] looking for those here, so here's the
[2:07:45] existing case where you're looking at
[2:07:47] >> the actual solid wall on the lower half
[2:07:49] that has been there probably since the
[2:07:51] 1950s. Okay.
[2:07:52] >> Um, that's looking at I'm guessing since
[2:07:54] it's not there today, I'm I'm guessing
[2:07:56] it's 30 to 36 in high
[2:07:58] >> and then those columns went up to 6 feet
[2:08:01] in height.
[2:08:02] >> And so, in my staff report, I talk about
[2:08:05] how those columns themselves kind of
[2:08:07] posed a line of sight issue. Even though
[2:08:09] they're not there today, you can
[2:08:10] actually see it in this photo. When you
[2:08:12] see columns in a line, they start acting
[2:08:14] as a wall at a certain angle.
[2:08:16] >> Mhm.
[2:08:17] >> And so, was it better back then than it
[2:08:20] is now? I believe so.
[2:08:23] >> Because there was this as you're
[2:08:25] approaching the wall, you can see
[2:08:26] through it, and there's only a couple
[2:08:28] feet where you're actually getting those
[2:08:29] columns start acting like a wall. Um,
[2:08:32] once they filled it in, they filled in
[2:08:35] to the tops of those columns
[2:08:36] effectively. So all that fence material
[2:08:39] you see there, the the previous owner
[2:08:41] filled it in with solid wall. And that's
[2:08:43] where it it it kind of it basically
[2:08:46] creates a sixoot wall instead of that 3.
[2:08:48] >> So when
[2:08:50] I'll clarify this maybe a little bit
[2:08:52] later, but when we're talking about that
[2:08:53] 6ft wall being there, it wasn't always a
[2:08:56] 6ft wall. It was this wall with the rod
[2:09:00] iron in in place.
[2:09:02] >> Correct. Uh
[2:09:06] there was an issue of lights on on the
[2:09:09] wall currently. Can you help me
[2:09:11] understand that?
[2:09:12] >> Um right
[2:09:13] >> gates
[2:09:15] >> I think it's the next one or right
[2:09:17] there.
[2:09:18] >> So the the the the owner before or this
[2:09:21] one somebody added those two light
[2:09:22] sconces when you [clears throat] are
[2:09:24] walking on that 2 and 1/2t wide walkway
[2:09:26] right there. It's pretty much right at
[2:09:28] like eye level for me at least
[2:09:30] >> with pretty sharp corners. And
[2:09:32] >> so I I had some concerns of that myself
[2:09:35] just kind of being at if you weren't
[2:09:37] paying attention that's not the
[2:09:39] especially on a 2 and 1/2t walkway.
[2:09:41] >> You're kind of forced into something
[2:09:42] right at your eye level.
[2:09:44] >> And the the other thing I I'm trying to
[2:09:45] get a better sense of is uh uh I think
[2:09:50] that these owners bought this house with
[2:09:52] the wall there. Was there knowledge
[2:09:55] though of the [laughter]
[2:09:57] as far as you under understand that
[2:10:00] there was issues with the wall when when
[2:10:02] it was purchased or was there there an
[2:10:05] ongoing uh action at that time? Can you
[2:10:08] help me understand that? So, from what
[2:10:11] we can I can look back, one of my staff
[2:10:13] members, Alex Lowki, he was in
[2:10:15] communications with the current owners
[2:10:17] as they were in escrow to purchase the
[2:10:19] house, and they were made aware of the
[2:10:21] code case on this prior to their closing
[2:10:24] of the purchase. But some of the their
[2:10:26] real estate agent was involved, I
[2:10:28] believe, and there were several emails
[2:10:29] back and forth of um what's out there
[2:10:33] now, what was before the fact that the
[2:10:35] whole wall was unpermitted and
[2:10:36] potentially a zoning violation and
[2:10:38] potentially a line of sight violation.
[2:10:40] >> Okay. Uh is there is there any uh
[2:10:44] obligate or consequences to the city or
[2:10:46] liability to the city uh as a result? I
[2:10:50] mean, if we if we kept the Well, this
[2:10:53] incre Well, maybe [laughter]
[2:10:55] you're not the right person to answer,
[2:10:57] but but it is it a it's a violation of
[2:11:01] the code the code the county code.
[2:11:05] >> Well, I will say though, the county is
[2:11:07] it's not exactly a code. It's a standard.
[2:11:10] >> And so standards are guidelines that you try to abide by. We have engineering
[2:11:13] standards that aren't codified. Mhm.
[2:11:15] >> We we have wiggle room in there and not
[2:11:17] it doesn't always fit especially in a
[2:11:19] historic building or a historic parking
[2:11:21] lot. We can't always get our proper
[2:11:23] backup distance for example. We we wave
[2:11:26] these standards all the time to try to
[2:11:27] help development happen in town. Um so
[2:11:30] standards aren't codified. My my my my
[2:11:34] last question would be
[2:11:36] if hypothetically we we were going to
[2:11:39] try and address the line of sight, would
[2:11:42] the entire wall have to be modified to
[2:11:44] its original or could you just modify a smaller portion of the wall uh to
[2:11:52] address the line of sight?
[2:11:55] >> That is a good question and I don't
[2:11:57] believe I have an aerial view of this.
[2:12:00] Um,
[2:12:02] that is an excellent question. It is
[2:12:03] something we can look into if that was
[2:12:06] council's direction cuz the further to
[2:12:09] the west, you know, maybe it's not an
[2:12:11] issue as you're that far down to their
[2:12:13] western property line.
[2:12:15] >> Um, somewhere between that gate and that
[2:12:17] western property line, there might be a
[2:12:19] point where that wall technically could
[2:12:21] stay.
[2:12:22] >> Well, what would what would be the the
[2:12:23] option? Could someone for could could
[2:12:25] there be glass or something that you
[2:12:27] could see through as opposed to putting
[2:12:29] rod restoring rod iron?
[2:12:32] >> Um, and that's where it kind of gets
[2:12:34] into some of our zoning standards, too.
[2:12:36] Talk about guard rails being somewhat
[2:12:38] see-through or slotted rails or or or
[2:12:40] rod iron or some of these
[2:12:42] [clears throat] things that are a little
[2:12:42] bit more see-through. So, there's
[2:12:44] different options that are usually used.
[2:12:46] When somebody were to come in today and
[2:12:48] let's say propose this,
[2:12:50] >> our zoning code usually says do your
[2:12:52] 42-in high wall and anything above that
[2:12:54] is basically see-through with rod iron
[2:12:57] or slotted uh glass like you said or
[2:13:01] glass and stuff.
[2:13:02] >> But theoretically, you know, right there
[2:13:03] in that picture, you could create uh
[2:13:07] some kind of line of sight there on the
[2:13:09] top part and keep a good portion of the
[2:13:12] wall. Otherwise,
[2:13:13] >> there's a certain point around this
[2:13:14] fence somewhere between this fence and
[2:13:16] to the west where maybe that wall could
[2:13:18] stay that height and then from I think
[2:13:21] what you're getting at is from that
[2:13:22] point
[2:13:23] >> east towards the intersection maybe it
[2:13:25] has glass or a rod iron or something
[2:13:27] like that.
[2:13:28] >> All right, those are my that's all the
[2:13:29] questions that
[2:13:30] >> I know Mark has another question but
[2:13:32] real quick is is this the photo is this
[2:13:34] what it looks like right now?
[2:13:36] >> This is today.
[2:13:36] >> Okay, Megan, did you leave this photo up
[2:13:39] for people to retrieve it quickly? Okay.
[2:13:41] Go ahead, Mark.
[2:13:42] >> Sorry, there I had one more question. Uh
[2:13:45] actually to our chief, uh there was a
[2:13:48] [snorts]
[2:13:48] mention there of of a lot of people uh
[2:13:51] parking overnight there and uh just
[2:13:54] wondering if there's uh any patrol in
[2:13:57] that area uh to to monitor that for
[2:13:59] safety or other reasons.
[2:14:02] >> Yes.
[2:14:03] >> Okay. And and you are actively in that
[2:14:06] area and working in that area?
[2:14:08] >> Yes, sir.
[2:14:08] >> Okay, great. Thank you.
[2:14:10] >> Okay. Uh quick question for
[2:14:13] clarification of the appellet. So uh you
[2:14:16] talked about a putting up a cat's eye
[2:14:18] mirror and the appelllet is willing to
[2:14:21] do that to to put one up and to maintain
[2:14:24] it. Is that my understanding? Okay, I'm
[2:14:27] getting a yes, Spencer. And the last
[2:14:29] thing is uh would the appelllet be
[2:14:32] willing to remove those lights on either
[2:14:34] side of the gate? And I get an
[2:14:35] affirmative on that also. Any other
[2:14:37] questions of staff?
[2:14:40] I I if we could ask them questions, too.
[2:14:42] I I I had a few comments. I just want to
[2:14:45] know uh your your your reaction uh to
[2:14:48] any of that or uh to to my comments
[2:14:51] about, you know, at a certain point
[2:14:54] lowering the wall if it could help
[2:14:57] impact the line of sight.
[2:14:59] >> Yes. So, I Mr. Robert's ideal situation
[2:15:02] here is that the wall can remain as it
[2:15:04] is. the alternative is having to
[2:15:06] demolish it and move it. Um, it's a
[2:15:09] retaining wall. It's going to be an
[2:15:11] expensive and serious project.
[2:15:13] >> He's willing to [clears throat] make
[2:15:13] some adjustments um that will help the
[2:15:16] line of sight, but his what he's really
[2:15:20] asking for is that the wall can stay as
[2:15:22] it is right now.
[2:15:22] >> No, I understand that. I don't I don't
[2:15:24] want to throw something out there
[2:15:28] irrational or unreasonable, but Okay.
[2:15:30] Thank you. And
[2:15:32] >> yeah, really quick quick question about
[2:15:34] the wall height for the staff. Um, the
[2:15:38] zoning code has a
[2:15:40] front front yard and side yard if it's next to the public street a wall
[2:15:46] height limit of 42 in as you just
[2:15:49] mentioned. Uh, so if we were to leave
[2:15:51] the war earlier, apparently there's a
[2:15:53] lot of zoning code issue here. Have you
[2:15:56] worked with the planning department on
[2:15:58] this? Uh we have had some conversations
[2:16:01] with them on this. Um ultimately the the
[2:16:04] what you're referring to the front yard
[2:16:05] setback uh zoning code does say uh 42 in
[2:16:09] is the maximum height of a wall on
[2:16:10] there. Normally when they go through a
[2:16:12] minor exception permit any guard rails
[2:16:14] on top of that are of see-through
[2:16:17] material. Um on the sideyard because
[2:16:20] this is a a corner lot. the sideyard uh
[2:16:23] 10 feet back from the ride of way is
[2:16:26] where anything within that front 10 feet
[2:16:28] on the sideyard is supposed to be 42
[2:16:30] inches according to their zoning code.
[2:16:32] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:16:33] >> Any other questions before we close the
[2:16:35] public hearing? Hearing none. Public
[2:16:37] hearing is closed. So, who wants to kick
[2:16:40] it off for discussion?
[2:16:41] >> I'll kick it off, Mr. Mayor, if I could.
[2:16:42] Uh I I uh depending on the the desire of
[2:16:45] the council, I think the line of sight
[2:16:47] issue is important. I think the
[2:16:48] reflecting mirror u kind of addresses
[2:16:50] that issue and the red curbing would
[2:16:52] address that issue. So I can support uh
[2:16:55] this wall has been there for 50 plus
[2:16:57] years. I can support the wall remaining
[2:17:00] with the removal of the lights, the
[2:17:01] pinning of the red curb and the
[2:17:03] reflector reflecting mechanism
[2:17:05] maintained by the applicant. Uh I can
[2:17:08] support that. Uh but uh the reduction is
[2:17:10] the second second step back from that.
[2:17:12] But I I can support the applicant with
[2:17:14] those two conditions.
[2:17:16] >> Yeah, Mr. Woo. Yeah. uh my my position
[2:17:18] or my opinion is that uh uh
[2:17:23] I'm going to follow much of the staff's
[2:17:25] recommendation. I think the six foot
[2:17:27] wall cannot stay there because it's a
[2:17:30] liability issue and also public safety
[2:17:32] issue. Um in dishing the it violates the
[2:17:35] zoning code of the wall height with the
[2:17:38] wall is never a legal non-conforming
[2:17:41] use. It's it didn't have a permit to
[2:17:45] exist there. So, it's illegal
[2:17:48] construction from the beginning. And I I
[2:17:50] think at the minimum, we need to lower
[2:17:52] the wall down to 42 in and allow the the
[2:17:57] owner to add a see-through rod iron
[2:18:01] design on top of that if that's still
[2:18:03] what he wants to make wall taller. Uh,
[2:18:07] regarding the privacy in the front yard,
[2:18:09] um, there's no expectation for privacy
[2:18:12] in the front yard. U the front yard is
[2:18:14] expected to be visible from uh from from
[2:18:18] an open street. Um the other things
[2:18:27] the the lack of accident is um
[2:18:32] it does not mean that there's no risk.
[2:18:34] It just hasn't happened because such a
[2:18:38] uh it's a it's a small
[2:18:41] location and any any risk will take time
[2:18:44] to materialize and eventually giving
[2:18:46] enough time something will happen. So by
[2:18:49] that time city will be on hook for a
[2:18:51] liability issue. So if we were to allow
[2:18:54] this to h to to stay and I need I need
[2:18:58] the the owner to indemnify the city for
[2:19:02] any future liability if something
[2:19:04] happens. But I think the solution today
[2:19:07] is to have them to lower it to 42 in.
[2:19:12] Thank you.
[2:19:15] >> I concur with uh Mr. Woo. Uh this is the
[2:19:20] issue for me here is is
[2:19:23] uh compliance and that we we have these
[2:19:26] uh design review committees in place for
[2:19:29] a reason and I understand that you
[2:19:30] bought this house from someone else but
[2:19:32] you also understood when you bought it
[2:19:33] that it was out of compliance. Um, and
[2:19:36] that's unfortunate that it wasn't done
[2:19:37] properly, but we can't be making
[2:19:40] exceptions on this and then expect
[2:19:43] others to not want to have exceptions as
[2:19:45] well and sort of uh, you know, build
[2:19:47] first or or uh, yeah, build first and
[2:19:50] ask for permission later. Um, we we need
[2:19:52] to to do this correctly. Uh I am
[2:19:55] amenable to the idea of of going back to
[2:19:59] some design that was close to what it
[2:20:01] was before of having some some gated
[2:20:03] slots in there or gate um some iron uh
[2:20:06] slats in there uh or some sort, you
[2:20:09] know, working with our design uh
[2:20:11] committee to to find a a good compromise
[2:20:13] in there to get it close to what it was
[2:20:15] before. I think that that can uh be
[2:20:18] amendable to to all parties there. Um
[2:20:21] but yeah, we it
[2:20:24] This is why we have these these codes in
[2:20:27] place. So,
[2:20:29] >> Victor,
[2:20:31] yeah. Uh
[2:20:33] I I'm not sure if it's the 32 or the 42
[2:20:36] in that that is re is required by code,
[2:20:41] but or or or 30 in is where is where it
[2:20:44] was. The lower part was before.
[2:20:47] Well,
[2:20:49] do we have to open the
[2:20:51] >> Well, yeah. I'll reopen the public
[2:20:52] hearing and the question of staff is is
[2:20:55] 42 what what you're looking for.
[2:20:57] >> 42 is the zoning code actually. So that
[2:20:59] is in our code. The the line of sight
[2:21:01] happens to also be 42. What staff was
[2:21:04] looking at was from a driver's eye and
[2:21:06] the street. So we actually put it down
[2:21:07] at 30, but I I mean we're okay with the
[2:21:10] 42 is that way it's in compliance with
[2:21:12] planning and it's a somewhat
[2:21:14] compromised.
[2:21:15] >> Yeah. All right.
[2:21:16] >> As long as we're reopen. This photo here
[2:21:19] I keep on hearing this number six feet.
[2:21:21] Are are you saying that that that wall
[2:21:23] right there is 6 feet correct?
[2:21:28] >> Just about. It kind of varies with with
[2:21:29] height because it used to have some
[2:21:31] steps in it, but I me I measured it
[2:21:33] right around in this area and I believe
[2:21:34] I was um at six feet here.
[2:21:36] >> Okay. I'm going to close the public
[2:21:38] hearing again. Okay. So is that
[2:21:40] >> my my my inclination is to uh create
[2:21:44] some line of sight uh op opportunity and
[2:21:48] I I would hope uh that you we'd be able
[2:21:52] to find a way that would uh lower it in
[2:21:55] the me in the least amount of uh space
[2:21:58] to create that line of sight either
[2:22:00] through the rod iron that was there or
[2:22:03] through some other acceptable glass or
[2:22:06] that meets the city standard to address
[2:22:09] the uh the issue of line of sight but I
[2:22:12] also think you know the lights and the drainage which has been removed and
[2:22:18] uh uh need to be addressed also.
[2:22:22] >> Okay. Uh my feeling is is that the the
[2:22:26] main issue I I drove it and made turns
[2:22:29] from both sides of the street and tried
[2:22:30] to tried to look at it and I I think a a
[2:22:33] mirror across the street there would
[2:22:35] definitely be beneficial. I also think
[2:22:38] that the the main my main problem for
[2:22:41] site was the fact that there's cars
[2:22:43] parked all the way around the radius and I think if a red curb was painted
[2:22:47] around the radius at 20 ft and more if needed that it would it would
[2:22:52] mitigate that. Uh I also like the idea
[2:22:55] of going out looking at all all traffic
[2:22:57] calming. I just don't know that lowering if we
[2:23:03] say lower lower it to 42 in and then put
[2:23:06] something rod iron whatever that the the
[2:23:08] line of sight's going to still be
[2:23:09] blocked to whatever it is. Now, I I just
[2:23:13] think that the main issue is, like I
[2:23:14] say, the cars the the cars that are
[2:23:17] parked there, and there's a lot of other
[2:23:18] things that were brought up, and I think
[2:23:20] that those are mitigated. And as far as
[2:23:21] a standard, uh, we we we don't go by the standards in a lot of places in a
[2:23:27] 100-year-old city that they're are
[2:23:29] constantly coming up and we're coming to
[2:23:31] a mitigation. We're not saying this has
[2:23:33] to be done now to code. I I mean, if it
[2:23:36] can be done, when you scrape out a lot,
[2:23:37] I think that's great. Otherwise, if you
[2:23:39] look at the neighborhood, there's a lot
[2:23:41] more, you know, there's a lot of what
[2:23:43] you would say egregious, you know, code
[2:23:46] variations than than this. So, for me, I I I would be fine with the with doing
[2:23:53] the traffic mitigation, the red curbs,
[2:23:54] the the the mirror uh with that. But
[2:23:58] again, it's whatever the whatever the
[2:24:00] majority of the council thinks is
[2:24:03] appropriate.
[2:24:04] >> Mayor, we can do both, right? the city
[2:24:06] can initiate some improvement at the
[2:24:09] location. We can we can make that happen
[2:24:12] as additional direction to the staff at
[2:24:15] the same time we address this code
[2:24:17] violation issue.
[2:24:20] Oh yeah, absolutely we can or we can do
[2:24:22] a mitigation of it and and and not hold
[2:24:24] them accountable to the code. It's done
[2:24:27] all the time. I mean, we we get we give
[2:24:30] variances, we give, you know, so it's
[2:24:32] not like we're set in stone that we have
[2:24:35] to make them take that wall down. That's
[2:24:37] just not a fact.
[2:24:38] >> My concern though is that it sets a
[2:24:40] precedent that uh throughout the city
[2:24:44] people are going to say, well, ask for forgiveness, not permission. And
[2:24:48] that that's my concern here.
[2:24:49] >> Yeah, I'm I'm certainly not in favor of
[2:24:51] not g getting a building permit and
[2:24:54] building something without getting a
[2:24:56] permit. that wasn't done by this
[2:24:58] applicant. That was done and I I think
[2:24:59] the prior owner should have should have
[2:25:01] done something. They didn't. Uh again,
[2:25:04] it's done all over the city all the
[2:25:06] time. Uh where you go out and you look
[2:25:08] at a project and you try to mitigate it.
[2:25:10] And I every project is different.
[2:25:13] There's no well he did this now I can do
[2:25:15] that because that just isn't reality.
[2:25:16] That's not how it really happens in the
[2:25:18] everyday world here in the city. So
[2:25:21] that's may
[2:25:22] >> Mayor if you go on Zen
[2:25:25] >> if you allow me if you can uh reopen the
[2:25:28] public I'd like to ask the the council.
[2:25:32] >> Sure. Okay. Okay.
[2:25:33] >> Few questions. Um,
[2:25:40] so if the city were to uh adopt the
[2:25:44] resolution 26109
[2:25:47] to partially grant your appeal, uh, if
[2:25:51] you I believe you have read the
[2:25:53] conditions on section three, there are
[2:25:56] four items. A the encroach encroaching
[2:25:59] wall improvement shall not exceed a
[2:26:01] maximum height of 30 inches. We will
[2:26:04] raise it to 42 inches. B the drain shall
[2:26:07] be removed or modified to property drain
[2:26:10] to the street and not onto the sidewalk.
[2:26:13] We're going to keep that. C. The
[2:26:15] property owners shall execute a
[2:26:17] administrative encroachment permit and
[2:26:20] agreement containing covenants affecting
[2:26:23] real property informed substantially
[2:26:25] similar to those presented to the city
[2:26:27] council. Um in other words you the
[2:26:30] property owner will have to indemnify
[2:26:32] the city and then D is just generic
[2:26:35] cash. Um with those modification is that
[2:26:40] acceptable by you by you? So that's not
[2:26:44] our preferred outcome here. We're
[2:26:46] willing to work with the city attorneys
[2:26:48] and we want to reach a resolution with
[2:26:51] this. Some of the in the proposed
[2:26:53] resolution, it really is a catchall
[2:26:56] placing a lot of um liability that's
[2:27:00] not regulated onto Mr. Roberts. So we'd
[2:27:03] want to make sure that's spelled out
[2:27:04] what Mr. Roberts is responsible for
[2:27:06] indemnifying the city for. And then it
[2:27:08] also gives the city a anytime anywhere
[2:27:11] we can revoke this. So we'd want to
[2:27:14] understand that if we are undergoing a
[2:27:17] costly height reduction that next week
[2:27:19] the city doesn't decide that they don't
[2:27:21] like this and um reverse that um
[2:27:25] encroachment permit so we'd like some
[2:27:28] ability to come in front of the council
[2:27:30] again if that ever became a case. Um can
[2:27:32] I just briefly address um Mr. Mark's um
[2:27:37] concern about exceptions to the code and
[2:27:40] this becoming a snowball effect. This
[2:27:44] while the modifications were done a few
[2:27:45] years ago, the wall has been in this
[2:27:48] footprint um location and height at
[2:27:52] least the columns since the 60s. So the
[2:27:55] snowball effect I think is kind of an
[2:27:58] unfound fear where
[2:28:01] nobody else can go out today and build
[2:28:03] something without a code and ask for
[2:28:04] forgiveness tomorrow. This has been here
[2:28:06] for over 60 years. So, while those
[2:28:11] homeowners that have
[2:28:14] um improvements on their property that
[2:28:15] are 60 years old may see this and say,
[2:28:17] "Okay, well, I guess I'm fine with
[2:28:18] that." It's not going to lead to more
[2:28:21] residents coming out trying to get
[2:28:23] around the building permits.
[2:28:27] >> Okay. I have question for the city
[2:28:28] attorney. So I just I just propose some
[2:28:32] compromise and it doesn't look like the
[2:28:34] applicant is willing to accept that. So
[2:28:37] if the council doesn't get any motion
[2:28:40] approved then what what is that what's
[2:28:43] the outcome?
[2:28:45] >> Uh so first of all the applicants
[2:28:48] agreement is not required. This is a
[2:28:50] quasi judicial hearing in which the city
[2:28:53] council is deciding an appeal. So you
[2:28:56] don't need to reach an agreement. Um
[2:29:00] if the council takes no action um that
[2:29:04] would
[2:29:08] it doesn't get staff's you know staff's
[2:29:11] recommendation stands which is the last
[2:29:14] thing that happened.
[2:29:16] >> Yeah. I I think Mr. Woo uh your concern
[2:29:18] I think is being addressed in in the uh
[2:29:21] license agreement paragraph 6 provides
[2:29:23] uh that the homeowner provide insurance
[2:29:26] liability insurance. uh it's maybe a
[2:29:28] little weak on the indemnification
[2:29:29] provision that that section could be
[2:29:31] boosted a little bit to make sure
[2:29:32] there's a specific indemnity provision
[2:29:34] if that's acceptable to the to the
[2:29:36] client for any damage caused by this uh
[2:29:38] this this uh structure. Um so I think I
[2:29:43] think your address is your your concerns
[2:29:45] pretty much been addressed in the most
[2:29:47] part.
[2:29:48] >> Uh no not to my knowledge and
[2:29:51] >> read paragraph six it's pretty pretty
[2:29:53] clear. Well, that's indemnification is
[2:29:56] just a one and also uh I think we have
[2:29:59] if I read it correctly we have uh three
[2:30:02] council members wants the height limit
[2:30:05] to address the site landing issues and
[2:30:08] uh the applicant has not expressed their
[2:30:11] uh support to accept that
[2:30:14] we have a closed public hearing.
[2:30:16] >> So are you done with your questions? I'm
[2:30:19] sorry is closed.
[2:30:20] >> Let's move forward. I'd like to make a
[2:30:22] motion that u uh we address this matter
[2:30:26] by granting the uh the applicant a uh uh
[2:30:31] an encroachment permit with the
[2:30:33] condition that the lights be removed.
[2:30:35] that uh that the uh reflector mechanism
[2:30:39] be installed at the cost and maintenance
[2:30:40] of the homeowner and that the curb at
[2:30:44] least the 20 foot uh section that we can
[2:30:46] do without additional authorization be
[2:30:48] installed on the curb uh to the right of
[2:30:50] that parking parking lot. That's my
[2:30:52] motion. I make a a friendly amendment
[2:30:54] that we also direct staff to to take any
[2:30:57] whatever study they want to do to for
[2:30:59] traffic calming in that location in
[2:31:01] general and then also once the red curb
[2:31:03] is painted if it's deemed that that's
[2:31:05] not sufficient that we go to the
[2:31:06] planning commission to extend that red
[2:31:08] curb.
[2:31:09] >> Absolutely.
[2:31:11] >> I'll I'll second that.
[2:31:13] >> Okay. I make a substit substitute motion
[2:31:16] to um to adopt resolution
[2:31:20] 26-109
[2:31:22] with a modification to section 3 a that
[2:31:26] we change the height of 30 in to 42 in
[2:31:32] >> with everything else in the original
[2:31:33] motion. Uh that's uh well the the motion
[2:31:36] in 26 to 109
[2:31:39] >> the one that grant the the one that
[2:31:42] grants there appeal but with those
[2:31:45] conditions
[2:31:46] >> with the added conditions of the mirror
[2:31:48] and the red curb and the traffic calming
[2:31:49] or you leaving those out
[2:31:50] >> those are the additional
[2:31:53] direction to the to the staff but it
[2:31:56] doesn't have to be this resolution.
[2:31:58] Okay,
[2:31:58] >> just to be just for clarity on this, would be proposing that you that
[2:32:04] the wall goes to 42 in. Uh is it also
[2:32:08] putting uh recommending that putting in
[2:32:12] slats in there or or uh see-through?
[2:32:15] >> That's that's up to the applicant. If
[2:32:17] they want to add seeth through guard
[2:32:20] rails on top of the 42 in solid wall,
[2:32:23] they they may do so with the planning department with a separate permit.
[2:32:32] >> I'll second.
[2:32:34] >> Okay. So, we have a substitute motion.
[2:32:35] We'll vote on that first. All in favor
[2:32:38] of substitute motion say I.
[2:32:40] >> I.
[2:32:40] >> All oppose. No.
[2:32:43] >> Now we go to the original.
[2:32:44] >> What was the result of that? Oh, three to two. Uh the eyes were did not
[2:32:50] carry. Uh eyes by uh council member, Woo. Those were uh
[2:32:55] myself, mayor prom Nobel, and council
[2:32:58] member uh Cabraw. So now we go to the
[2:33:01] original motion. And are we clear on
[2:33:04] >> I do have a clarification on the
[2:33:05] original motion. Um Mayor Prom, was that
[2:33:08] um your conditions that you delineated?
[2:33:10] Were that were those um changes to
[2:33:13] resolution 26
[2:33:15] 109.
[2:33:16] >> Yes.
[2:33:17] >> Thank you.
[2:33:18] >> Okay. With that, we'll vote. All in
[2:33:20] favor of the motion?
[2:33:21] >> I opposed.
[2:33:22] >> No. No.
[2:33:23] >> Okay. It passes 3 to two with council
[2:33:25] members Endm and Woo dissenting.
[2:33:28] >> Thank you.
[2:33:36] » Next item on the agenda is continuation,
[2:33:40] excuse me, let me just get there.
[2:33:42] Continuation of a scheduled public
[2:33:44] hearing to introduce um the first
[2:33:46] reading of an ordinance amending chapter
[2:33:48] 13.04 of the city of Sanini Municipal
[2:33:51] Code creating a uniform process for
[2:33:53] setting fees and adoption of a
[2:33:54] resolution adjusting water department
[2:33:56] fee schedule for miscellaneous water
[2:33:58] fees. And if the city council concurs
[2:34:01] with the information provided within the
[2:34:02] staff report, the recommendation is to
[2:34:05] continue the public hearing to a date
[2:34:06] uncertain.
[2:34:08] Okay, we have to open the public hearing
[2:34:11] to do that though, correct? So, I'm
[2:34:14] going to open the public hearing. Uh,
[2:34:16] are there any public comments on this?
[2:34:19] >> Not.
[2:34:20] >> And so, the staff's recommendation is to
[2:34:22] continue to a date uncertain. Okay. So,
[2:34:25] I'm going to close the public hearing.
[2:34:28] Does anybody have a motion?
[2:34:30] >> I'll call the question.
[2:34:31] >> Okay. Uh, motion by council member
[2:34:33] Cabal. I have a second.
[2:34:34] >> Second
[2:34:34] >> by council member Woo. All in favor?
[2:34:36] >> I. So done.
[2:34:39] >> Okay.
[2:34:41] Next item on the agenda is consideration
[2:34:43] of a resolution adopting the real estate
[2:34:46] asset management program approving the
[2:34:48] associated program policies and
[2:34:50] procedures, establishing the city
[2:34:52] council declared surplus property list,
[2:34:54] authorizing the city manager to approve
[2:34:56] future administrative modifications
[2:34:58] consistent consistent with the program
[2:35:00] and finding the action not subject to
[2:35:02] the California Environmental Quality
[2:35:04] Act.
[2:35:04] >> Are there any public comments on this?
[2:35:06] >> Yes. Okay. Uh, does anybody need a staff
[2:35:09] report from the council? You're pulling.
[2:35:11] Okay. So, let's go ahead and hear the
[2:35:13] public comments.
[2:35:13] >> Amanda Kinttonia.
[2:35:20] » Okay. I think I have a presentation, but
[2:35:22] um
[2:35:24] hopefully it's queuing up.
[2:35:29] So, um I'm just kind of wondering is the
[2:35:32] city of SM up for sale? Because that's
[2:35:34] what it seems like to me. Uh next slide
[2:35:36] please.
[2:35:38] When going through this uh reamp um and
[2:35:42] um what comes out uh comes up is it's
[2:35:45] that the entities can purchase or lease
[2:35:48] city- owned property. And so this is
[2:35:50] what I'm I'm concerned about. Um they
[2:35:53] want to you want to maximize revenue
[2:35:55] potential, but this is not what we are.
[2:35:57] We're we're about running the city,
[2:35:58] right? Not you know taking care of our constituents. um looking at public
[2:36:04] safety which thank you Mark Endm and Zen
[2:36:07] Woo did um I really appreciate that as
[2:36:09] an RN I think that public safety is
[2:36:11] number one. Next slide please. Um so
[2:36:15] when I looked at the surplus property
[2:36:16] list um it does say it does not approve
[2:36:20] the sale or lease or change uh exchange
[2:36:23] of any disposition of the listed
[2:36:25] property. However, it just I'm concerned
[2:36:27] of what is going to be used for this.
[2:36:30] What is this going to be the start of?
[2:36:32] Next slide please. So basically um in
[2:36:36] the staff report it says mentions public
[2:36:38] state public benefit but one of the
[2:36:40] things that should be really put in
[2:36:42] there that we should have a focus of
[2:36:45] number one having open space
[2:36:47] preservation should be our primary
[2:36:49] focus. Number two conversate
[2:36:51] conservation of our lands and natural
[2:36:53] resources uh to last for a long time
[2:36:55] because this is it. this is all we have
[2:36:57] right our our open land um our surplus
[2:37:00] land um land assembly I think that's
[2:37:03] really important for open space
[2:37:04] preservation and conservation to
[2:37:07] maintain it to join these properties uh
[2:37:10] support this is to support tree city USA
[2:37:13] um it's important for any surplus land
[2:37:16] to u establish parks um also municipal
[2:37:20] operation infrastructure for municipal
[2:37:22] operations as well next slide and then
[2:37:25] public safety have coarse fire
[2:37:26] mitigation following the California Fish
[2:37:28] and Wildlife standards. Um public access
[2:37:31] where it doesn't disturb conservation
[2:37:33] easements, threatened or endangered
[2:37:35] species or affects the ecosystem. And
[2:37:38] then um next slide please. So we are the
[2:37:42] Spanish village by the sea and I think
[2:37:44] we should uphold that. Um we should you
[2:37:47] know we have fought very hard to
[2:37:49] preserve our open spaces. That's why we
[2:37:51] have measure of v and all the surface
[2:37:53] land. I think that should go into the
[2:37:55] into our open space um measure V and I
[2:37:59] don't know why that isn't and maybe we
[2:38:01] could um find out if that would be
[2:38:04] considered as open space but [snorts]
[2:38:07] um I know that I fought for 5 years
[2:38:09] against the toll roads because they
[2:38:11] wanted to go into our open spaces. So I
[2:38:13] think it's very important to protect uh
[2:38:16] who we are. Um we have when the TCA land
[2:38:21] uh was under negotiation
[2:38:24] uh it was going to Tleg Maintenance
[2:38:25] Corporation Ted Associates but you know
[2:38:28] there was a cost of someone said $30
[2:38:30] million $40 million but that that's not
[2:38:32] true because it was open space. Thank
[2:38:33] you.
[2:38:34] >> Impressive PowerPoint.
[2:38:36] [laughter]
[2:38:36] >> Y any other public comments?
[2:38:39] >> No.
[2:38:39] >> We have a motion. I
[2:38:40] >> I'll make a motion. I just want to point
[2:38:42] out this is a this is a report we're
[2:38:44] required to produce by by law. Is that
[2:38:46] correct, Andy?
[2:38:49] >> At least a portion of it. One of this
[2:38:50] one of the things that this does address
[2:38:52] is our responsibility to look at each
[2:38:54] one of the city's properties on an
[2:38:56] annual basis for whether or not it could
[2:38:58] include some affordable housing. That's
[2:39:00] part of the of the state law. This
[2:39:02] allows us to do that.
[2:39:03] >> All right. I'd move the item.
[2:39:05] >> I'll second the introduce the ordinance
[2:39:08] 1812
[2:39:11] >> is
[2:39:13] resolution
[2:39:13] >> there. You want to read that?
[2:39:16] >> Uh, we don't need to read. Okay. I I'm
[2:39:17] happy to read it, but it's
[2:39:19] >> No, not if we don't have to.
[2:39:20] >> We have a a motion by Council Member
[2:39:22] Cabal. Second.
[2:39:23] >> And just to clarify, this is the
[2:39:24] introduction, the first reading of the
[2:39:25] ordinance. Correct.
[2:39:26] >> Correct.
[2:39:26] >> I'll second that.
[2:39:27] >> Well, this is a wrong This is item 10 A.
[2:39:30] There's this is a resolution
[2:39:33] >> 26135.
[2:39:34] >> Moving the item is a motion to adopt
[2:39:37] resolution 26135.
[2:39:40] >> And the motions are made by council
[2:39:41] member Cabal, second by council member
[2:39:43] Mire. And I think council member who
[2:39:45] wants to make a comment. I
[2:39:46] >> I have a question for for the staff. Uh
[2:39:48] on the uh attach attachment five
[2:39:52] proposed the policy 901-2
[2:39:56] property acquisition policies
[2:39:59] 5.4 appraisal and evaluation.
[2:40:03] Um
[2:40:05] you divide the potential transactions or
[2:40:10] land acquisition into two categories.
[2:40:13] The first one is acquisition involving
[2:40:16] compensation
[2:40:17] and the second one is a donation and a
[2:40:20] dedications
[2:40:23] and you propose that the if if the city
[2:40:25] is buying a piece of land we're going to
[2:40:28] do some appraisal but if we are
[2:40:31] accepting some land we don't do not do
[2:40:34] some
[2:40:36] appraisal
[2:40:37] um we all I I think it's well understood
[2:40:40] that uh
[2:40:42] the the the free land is not really
[2:40:44] free. A lot of time it comes with
[2:40:47] obligations for example conservation
[2:40:49] easement has a habitat management
[2:40:52] program which has a long-term financial
[2:40:55] liability. So the city is going to take
[2:40:58] over those piece of land we to take over
[2:41:01] the liabilities and and I think they
[2:41:04] have a value which is a negative value.
[2:41:06] It's worthwhile to have appraisal no
[2:41:09] matter what. So, is there a reason that
[2:41:12] you are not proposing a appraisal for
[2:41:16] donations and dedications?
[2:41:19] >> Well, the uh that's a great question,
[2:41:21] Council Member Woo. Um the appraisal is
[2:41:24] u necessary when the city is looking to
[2:41:27] expend funds to purchase a property uh
[2:41:30] to ensure that the amount of uh
[2:41:33] compensation for that property is
[2:41:34] commensurate with the property's value.
[2:41:36] on a donation of land, the value of that
[2:41:40] property is not really the issue.
[2:41:43] However, the maintenance cost, the life
[2:41:46] cycle cost, all of those types of
[2:41:48] obligations that the city may incur
[2:41:51] would be evaluated through the other
[2:41:52] aspects of this policy.
[2:41:55] So if we receive a piece of land with
[2:41:58] conservation easement
[2:42:00] uh I suppose that appraiser will do a
[2:42:04] valuation of that easement.
[2:42:07] So without that appraisal, how does the city come up with the a
[2:42:13] number
[2:42:15] >> through the other requirements in this
[2:42:17] policy which require us to look at
[2:42:20] long-term u maintenance costs uh life
[2:42:23] cycle costs the the the amount of uh
[2:42:27] funds that would be required to simply
[2:42:29] own and maintain this property.
[2:42:31] essentially then an appraisal. An
[2:42:33] appraisal is looking at the value of a
[2:42:35] property for purchase. Since there's
[2:42:39] since the property would be donated,
[2:42:42] we could take it at face value that the
[2:42:44] value of the property is is $0. Whether
[2:42:48] there are long-term obligation costs,
[2:42:51] that's that's something that the rest of
[2:42:53] this policy will address.
[2:42:55] >> So essentially staff will do the
[2:42:57] appraisal work.
[2:43:00] >> Yes. There's there's additional work
[2:43:02] that would identify those particular
[2:43:04] costs. The appraisal is really just
[2:43:06] looking at what the value of the
[2:43:08] property is. And for donated property,
[2:43:10] it's it's not really necessary since the
[2:43:13] city's not paying for the property.
[2:43:15] >> Okay. Thank you.
[2:43:17] >> Question.
[2:43:17] >> Yep. We have a motion and a second. All
[2:43:19] in favor? I.
[2:43:20] >> Passes 5-0.
[2:43:27] Next item on the agenda is consideration
[2:43:29] of an ordinance amending section
[2:43:31] 1.12.010
[2:43:33] of the Sony Municipal Code to authorize
[2:43:35] the park rangers to enforce provisions
[2:43:37] of the California Fish and Game Code and
[2:43:39] finding this action is exempt from the
[2:43:41] California Environmental Quality Act SQA
[2:43:44] pursuant to SQA guidelines sections
[2:43:46] 153075308
[2:43:48] and 15321.
[2:43:50] >> Are there any oral comments on this?
[2:43:52] >> No. Does anybody need to hear a staff
[2:43:55] report?
[2:43:56] >> I'll make a motion to move the item.
[2:43:58] >> Motion by council member, second by
[2:44:00] Mayor Prom Nobel. All in favor? I
[2:44:03] >> pass 5-0.
[2:44:08] » Lobster cops.
[2:44:10] >> Okay.
[2:44:10] >> The new reality show.
[2:44:13] Next item on the agenda is consideration
[2:44:15] of resolution number 26-136
[2:44:18] approving the arts and culture committee
[2:44:20] fiscal year 20 26 27 work plan.
[2:44:25] >> Okay. Um
[2:44:27] do we need a a staff report on this
[2:44:31] item?
[2:44:33] >> Okay. With with that uh are there any
[2:44:35] public comment?
[2:44:35] >> Yes, there are.
[2:44:36] >> Okay. Let's go ahead and hear the public
[2:44:38] comment.
[2:44:38] >> Okay. Michael Wesburg followed by
[2:44:40] Sherman Fowler.
[2:44:49] Good evening. Uh I'm Michael Wexburg,
[2:44:52] recently appointed to the Arts and
[2:44:53] Culture Committee. I helped work on the
[2:44:56] uh the work plan that you're
[2:44:58] considering. However, today I'm just
[2:45:01] speaking for myself and not for the
[2:45:02] committee. And I encourage you to um I
[2:45:06] guess accept the um the resolution.
[2:45:11] uh so that the work on the amphitheater
[2:45:14] remains part of our job jar uh on the
[2:45:17] committee because there's specific
[2:45:19] expertise that committee members have
[2:45:22] that aren't elsewhere available and uh
[2:45:25] believe we can help uh steer that effort
[2:45:28] and make it happen more quickly. Uh next
[2:45:32] slide.
[2:45:34] I started working on this a little bit
[2:45:36] after I was appointed to the committee.
[2:45:39] I wanted to come up with a process for
[2:45:41] how we'd select between sites and figure
[2:45:44] out what it needed to do. I wanted to
[2:45:47] come up with something solid to hand
[2:45:48] over to uh the city manager and staff to
[2:45:52] uh go forward with. Next slide. So I I
[2:45:56] visited a bunch of sites in the city
[2:45:59] uh uh and did an evaluation. I used some
[2:46:03] AI tools to help me and uh one of the
[2:46:08] places I didn't visit was Forester Ranch
[2:46:10] because I initially thought it was too
[2:46:12] small. But after the council meeting on
[2:46:15] the 4th uh and I saw what you did there,
[2:46:18] I did visit Forester Ranch
[2:46:21] um and did some of the same thing I did
[2:46:24] for the other sites. Uh these are some
[2:46:28] of the advantages and disadvantages.
[2:46:30] uh mainly their limitations in size and
[2:46:34] time of uh uh available to do things.
[2:46:37] Next slide.
[2:46:39] Uh but I did go through it looks like it
[2:46:42] is suitable for around a 300 uh seat
[2:46:45] amphitheater.
[2:46:47] Um uh this is a con an AI image of a
[2:46:51] concept. Uh so you should be aware of
[2:46:55] that and it's not complete but it gives
[2:46:57] you an idea of what might be done there.
[2:47:00] Um there are issues mainly with uh ADA
[2:47:04] requirements and parking that need to be
[2:47:06] considered. Next slide. Uh I also came
[2:47:10] up with uh some ideas for an execution
[2:47:12] strategy in a couple of phases. Next
[2:47:16] slide.
[2:47:17] And uh I also
[2:47:20] uh queried about potential funding
[2:47:22] sources
[2:47:24] uh for this sort of a project and it
[2:47:26] came up with a list and there's some
[2:47:28] other searches that I did. These are
[2:47:31] beyond just the the city funds.
[2:47:34] So next slide.
[2:47:36] Uh so I'm encouraging you to retain this
[2:47:39] task within the arts and culture
[2:47:41] committee. Uh we have things and I'm not
[2:47:43] just speaking about myself but other
[2:47:45] members on the committee have expertise
[2:47:48] to help guide this. We can support the
[2:47:51] effort that you've already assigned.
[2:47:54] >> Thanks Mike.
[2:47:57] [clears throat]
[2:47:58] >> Next speaker is Sherman Fowler.
[2:48:07] » Mayor city council. Uh, I just want to
[2:48:10] say I'm here um as the chairman for the
[2:48:12] arts and culture committee. I would like
[2:48:15] for you to take in consideration that
[2:48:17] when it comes to art, in order to be
[2:48:19] proficient at art, you have to be
[2:48:20] committed. And that means putting in the
[2:48:22] time. And so, uh, as you can see in in
[2:48:24] Michael's u presentation, um, it's on
[2:48:27] his dime. He put in the time. So I ask
[2:48:30] that you um let the arts and culture
[2:48:33] committee to continue its task because
[2:48:35] we were tasked to actually be a brain
[2:48:37] trust for you when it comes to
[2:48:38] creativity for the city. So to task us
[2:48:41] with a um to go out and bring
[2:48:43] information to you so you can reevaluate
[2:48:45] would would be a slap in the face to
[2:48:48] take that off of our workbook because we
[2:48:51] brought it to the workbook. We voted on
[2:48:53] it. We moved on it. We committed to it
[2:48:55] and we act on it. And tonight, I'd like
[2:48:57] to ask you to act on our workbook and
[2:49:01] continue to allow your arts and culture
[2:49:04] committee to be involved in this uh
[2:49:08] amphitheater project because I would
[2:49:11] also like to ask you to see us, the arts
[2:49:14] and culture committee, because we are
[2:49:17] your brain trust when it comes to
[2:49:20] creativity and the arts for San
[2:49:23] Clemente. Thank you.
[2:49:24] >> Thank you, Sherman.
[2:49:26] Is that all the comments?
[2:49:27] >> That is all the comments.
[2:49:28] >> Okay. You have any discussion?
[2:49:30] >> Uh yeah, mayor. Um I'd like to make a u
[2:49:34] well it's it's rare to see well um to
[2:49:37] see some newly uh appointed committee
[2:49:41] member just put in the time and start
[2:49:43] working immediately. And so that's the effort I appreciate. I think
[2:49:50] the the committee is an advisor to the
[2:49:53] security council. So I don't think it
[2:49:56] will it would hurt just to keep that
[2:50:00] item on their work plan and so keep
[2:50:03] [snorts] them engaged because they can
[2:50:05] be helping hands to the to the council
[2:50:07] while the council is taking the control
[2:50:10] of the direction they can assist the
[2:50:12] council. So with that, I'd I'd like to
[2:50:16] uh make a motion to adopt the resolution
[2:50:18] number 26136
[2:50:24] without without a removal of the
[2:50:27] uh amphitheater component.
[2:50:31] » comment. Sure.
[2:50:34] >> Yeah. Um
[2:50:36] I I I appreciate the members coming
[2:50:38] here. I appreciate the work that that
[2:50:40] you've done on this matter. Uh it's uh
[2:50:45] it is uh it looks like you're it's
[2:50:49] something you really want to do and and
[2:50:51] are engaged in and we appreciate that.
[2:50:55] Uh and I I would uh believe I I believe
[2:50:59] that you know your your your commitment
[2:51:02] to to pursuing this is something uh I I
[2:51:05] could support. Uh because I I I think
[2:51:07] whenever we get someone that actually
[2:51:10] sees the project now that's been
[2:51:13] identified, they can develop a vision.
[2:51:16] Uh we're put the effort and time into
[2:51:18] it. I think uh you're we're at the right
[2:51:20] point. So I I think uh uh I I support
[2:51:24] you guys uh continuing with that that effort.
[2:51:29] >> Any other comments?
[2:51:33] So, I I do appreciate all the work you
[2:51:34] have done on this and it it is it is
[2:51:37] incredibly apparent how much passion you have in it and it is incredibly
[2:51:41] appreciated. Um, I do believe at this
[2:51:44] point because the council voted on this
[2:51:47] two weeks ago uh to give this to staff
[2:51:50] that as as well as the job that you are
[2:51:54] doing on it, I believe that the staff
[2:51:56] can expedite this and I would love to
[2:51:58] see staff still reaching out to you and getting your opinion on on certain
[2:52:03] uh
[2:52:04] aspects of it. But as a whole for the
[2:52:07] project, uh I believe to get this done
[2:52:10] quickly and efficiently, we need to hand
[2:52:11] it over to staff. That was the direction
[2:52:13] of the council.
[2:52:14] >> Yeah. Uh I I agree real quick. The thing
[2:52:17] is there's obviously an appetite for an
[2:52:18] amphitheater and we came to some kind of
[2:52:20] proposal that we could actually bring to
[2:52:22] fruition. Uh I I I love Mike's drawings
[2:52:27] and I I'd like to have more of
[2:52:28] conversation with him. Uh let me ask a
[2:52:30] quick question before we go on. uh our
[2:52:33] director of beaches and parks. Um as we
[2:52:36] move forward with this and I I'd like to
[2:52:39] move forward with it. Could you still
[2:52:41] accept some an ad hoc from your arts and
[2:52:44] culture committee? I I I mean Mike's
[2:52:46] drawings are great, you know, and I
[2:52:48] think it might actually enhance our as
[2:52:51] we as we go forward. Uh is that
[2:52:53] something that's possible to do still
[2:52:55] even if it's not on their work plan per
[2:52:57] se? Okay. Uh well, I think that that
[2:52:59] gives us an opportunity. The thing is,
[2:53:01] well, we've how how long have the 24
[2:53:04] pickle ball courts been on our our our
[2:53:06] plan, our general plan? How how many
[2:53:08] years has that been?
[2:53:10] >> 2023.
[2:53:12] Okay. So, six years. And And we're
[2:53:14] no closer to having that than than we
[2:53:16] were then. The issue with going in and
[2:53:18] having a grandiose plan is if we know we
[2:53:21] can't fund it, then then we have
[2:53:24] nothing. And I think this gives us an
[2:53:26] opportunity to build something because
[2:53:28] there is an appetite. I think it still
[2:53:29] gives the uh arts and culture committee
[2:53:32] a chance to to weigh in on probably what
[2:53:34] it should look like. And also once it's
[2:53:36] built, it gives the uh arts and culture
[2:53:37] committee a chance to say what can we
[2:53:39] perform there? And so and I don't think
[2:53:41] that needs to be necessarily on on their
[2:53:43] work plan to do that could be part of
[2:53:45] the cultural experience in San Clemeni.
[2:53:47] What can what can we do? What kind of
[2:53:48] performances we can we do? So with that,
[2:53:51] I I just don't I think we can move
[2:53:53] forward this quickly and actually have
[2:53:55] something. I mean, look, if this becomes
[2:53:56] really really popular and we see a need,
[2:53:58] then I think we would all have an
[2:54:00] appetite to say, well, do we need
[2:54:02] something bigger? Do we need a groundup
[2:54:04] uh construction? And and at that time,
[2:54:07] we could put it back on their work plan.
[2:54:09] And I think uh I just think that the way
[2:54:12] I think we're moving from the work plan
[2:54:13] now so we can move forward on this so we
[2:54:15] don't have to go back to the committee
[2:54:17] and then where next to the arts and or
[2:54:19] the design and review committee and the
[2:54:21] so we're going to be two years before we
[2:54:23] ever see this and and I'd just like to
[2:54:25] see us go forward on it now because I
[2:54:27] think there is a need for this uh for
[2:54:29] this facility that's
[2:54:30] >> man while we're working on the design
[2:54:32] and the the awesome cultural committee
[2:54:36] can help us to to develop a program of
[2:54:38] uh
[2:54:40] on the site.
[2:54:41] >> I I Yeah,
[2:54:42] >> maybe we can have them to work.
[2:54:44] >> Yes, we can. I think I made that that
[2:54:46] comment. And I think how many people are
[2:54:48] on the arts and culture committee?
[2:54:50] >> Seven.
[2:54:50] So, they can come up with uh with
[2:54:52] three of them, right? They could be on a
[2:54:54] subcommittee that could work with you
[2:54:56] directly for that. I think I think that
[2:54:58] they should, but that still keeps our
[2:55:01] keeps the progress going on this so we
[2:55:03] can actually see it sometime. So, I'd
[2:55:05] like to see a Christmas carol done at
[2:55:07] the uh, you know, amphitheater there
[2:55:09] sometime in December, maybe. You never
[2:55:10] can tell. We might be able to make it
[2:55:12] happen. So, that's my feeling. I I don't
[2:55:14] think having on on the uh work plan or
[2:55:16] off the work plan keeps them from
[2:55:17] participating while still having the
[2:55:19] program go forward. That's my feeling.
[2:55:21] >> Yeah, I agree. I I think they will be an
[2:55:23] integral part of everything we do going
[2:55:25] forward. They're the they're the
[2:55:26] experts. I I think the the council's
[2:55:28] again, as you said, recognized a need
[2:55:30] and appetite for an amphitheater. we've identified a location and and
[2:55:34] moving forward and I like the work that the pres the work that was
[2:55:38] presented uh Michael
[2:55:40] >> but I'm not sure I I like the idea of a
[2:55:42] development fee to pay for it but uh I
[2:55:44] there are the resources but uh but uh
[2:55:46] clearly they'll be partnering as we move
[2:55:48] forward
[2:55:48] >> absolutely so I think we're on the same
[2:55:50] page but h how do we go about
[2:55:53] >> well I think what we do I think somebody
[2:55:54] needs to make a motion that we that we
[2:55:57] uh that we pass this resolution with the
[2:55:59] uh the work plan implement from the arts
[2:56:02] and culture are coming off but with
[2:56:03] direction to the staff that they will uh
[2:56:06] have a ad hoc committee from the arts
[2:56:08] and culture participate in this project.
[2:56:10] >> That's a motion. I second it.
[2:56:11] >> Okay. That that was my motion.
[2:56:13] >> Second it. [laughter]
[2:56:14] >> Okay.
[2:56:16] Just to be clear, you are making the
[2:56:18] motion to adopt resolution number 26136
[2:56:20] with the with the uh attachment of
[2:56:24] having an ad hoc committee from the arts
[2:56:26] and culture to support
[2:56:27] >> removing it from the arts and cultural
[2:56:29] committee work plan but with the
[2:56:31] implementation of a hadoc ad hoc
[2:56:34] committee to work with our director of
[2:56:36] beaches and parks.
[2:56:37] >> So that was my motion. Is that a second
[2:56:39] by council member Cabraw? All in favor?
[2:56:41] I passes 5-0.
[2:56:44] Thank you.
[2:56:45] >> Okay. Next item on the agenda is the
[2:56:48] city position on a resolution being
[2:56:50] considered by the League of California
[2:56:52] Cities at the 2026 annual conference.
[2:56:56] And um at at your last meeting, council
[2:56:59] voted to appoint Council Member Inmmyer
[2:57:03] to serve as the city's voting delegate
[2:57:05] at the 2026 annual general assembly
[2:57:07] meeting at the League of California
[2:57:09] Cities annual conference. And subsequent
[2:57:12] to that decision, the league has sent
[2:57:14] out what will be considered at that
[2:57:17] general assembly. And it's a resolution
[2:57:18] of the general assembly of the League of
[2:57:20] California Cities calling for a working
[2:57:22] group to consider a state constitutional
[2:57:24] amendment or other form of initiative to
[2:57:26] ensure final local authority over
[2:57:28] housing and land use decisions.
[2:57:30] >> Do we have Oh, are we done? I'm sorry.
[2:57:32] >> That's it. And it just council needs to
[2:57:34] decide whether or not to support uh this
[2:57:36] resolution.
[2:57:37] >> Okay. Do you have any public comments?
[2:57:38] >> We do not.
[2:57:39] >> Okay. Can we do this with consensus if
[2:57:42] on on this if if we're in consensus that
[2:57:45] we should support this? Is that enough?
[2:57:47] >> I'm in I'm consent.
[2:57:49] >> Are we supportive of this?
[2:57:50] >> As long as it does not contradict your
[2:57:52] own
[2:57:54] the consensus that we are that
[2:57:56] supporting the resolution.
[2:57:57] >> Yes. I I agree. As long as the
[2:58:01] discussion about a constitutional
[2:58:02] amendment doesn't drift beyond the issue
[2:58:05] in front. Well, I think it's I think
[2:58:06] it's the resol [laughter] it's just a
[2:58:08] resolution that the Cal Cities will come
[2:58:10] up with a committee to discuss a
[2:58:13] constit. It's like do we want to be in
[2:58:15] support of having a committee being
[2:58:18] formed under Cal Cities to look at a
[2:58:21] possible constitutional amendment?
[2:58:23] >> Yeah, that's the resolution.
[2:58:25] >> And you you'll be there the three days
[2:58:26] for to
[2:58:27] >> I will be there three days.
[2:58:29] >> Yeah.
[2:58:29] >> Okay.
[2:58:30] We have a consensus. Is that a
[2:58:32] consensus?
[2:58:33] >> Is that enough? We support it. Okay,
[2:58:35] thank you. Moving on.
[2:58:36] >> Get a lot of votes. [laughter]
[2:58:39] >> I'm going to make you wear a sandwich
[2:58:40] sign and walk around. Support this.
[2:58:44] >> Moving on to uh Sorry, my
[2:58:47] >> Are we in
[2:58:48] >> consent calendar? Yes.
[2:58:51] >> Okay. Has the public asked to pull any
[2:58:53] items?
[2:58:54] >> 11D.
[2:58:55] is in David public. Any council
[2:58:58] members wish to pull an item?
[2:59:00] >> I'd like to pull 11 H. 11H from council
[2:59:05] member Cabraw
[2:59:10] » else
[2:59:14] move the balance unless there are any
[2:59:15] other
[2:59:15] >> okay motion by mayor prom no second by
[2:59:17] councilmire in favor I okay now we'll
[2:59:21] hear the comment on 11D
[2:59:23] >> 11D
[2:59:26] uh first speaker is Amanda Kinttonia
[2:59:29] followed by Barbara Miller
[2:59:35] Um hello. I was reminded by a wonderful
[2:59:38] San Clemeni resident, a longtime Skele
[2:59:40] resident that when this was first
[2:59:42] presented um before the city council
[2:59:46] that uh there was a condition that cars
[2:59:50] would be removed or hauled away if there
[2:59:53] were complaints. And so I wanted to
[2:59:57] remind you of that because there was
[2:59:59] conversations or discussion among the
[3:00:01] city council that uh you know moving 100
[3:00:05] ft would only have to be uh if there was
[3:00:07] any complaints um because I I I think
[3:00:12] what it came down to is that um certain
[3:00:14] residents could complain, oh this car
[3:00:16] has been here for for 72 hours when it
[3:00:19] hasn't. So there I would have to be a
[3:00:22] complaint to our deputies regarding that
[3:00:25] this has been this car has been here for
[3:00:27] 72 hours. So that's where I'm I'm
[3:00:29] concerned about. Um so I don't know in
[3:00:32] this resolution if it does say regarding
[3:00:35] complaints or if it addresses it. So I
[3:00:38] just wanted to make sure of that. Um
[3:00:40] because I know sometimes uh residents
[3:00:43] could say oh yeah that car has been
[3:00:44] parked but that person's been move you
[3:00:47] know has gone and moved and you know if
[3:00:50] that space is there you know there's proof or um that they have
[3:00:55] moved. Um sorry I'm not really speaking
[3:00:58] that clearly. There have been situations
[3:01:01] on our street where a car has been moved
[3:01:06] and other residents have said, "Oh, no,
[3:01:08] that car hasn't been moved." But there
[3:01:10] is documentation to prove yes, that it
[3:01:13] was moved. So, I don't want this to be a
[3:01:15] retaliatory
[3:01:16] um uh uh ordinance to where it does
[3:01:22] become retaliatory.
[3:01:24] um you know someone reporting it to the
[3:01:26] deputies they would come out here come
[3:01:29] out to the residents mark the car and
[3:01:32] then 72 hours then if it wasn't moved
[3:01:35] then they would get hauled away. So I
[3:01:38] just wanted to make sure if there was a
[3:01:39] complaint system in place and uh that it
[3:01:43] would follow that.
[3:01:44] >> Thank you madam. I think that's it.
[3:01:46] >> And and chief, just for clarification,
[3:01:48] not the distance has changed 100 ft, but
[3:01:50] the they still come out and mark it and
[3:01:52] make note exactly where the car was
[3:01:54] parked, right? I I mean, so
[3:01:58] isn't that how it still works?
[3:02:00] >> Yes, sir. That is accurate.
[3:02:01] >> Okay. So, it would they would know
[3:02:03] whether it was moved 100 ft or not in 72
[3:02:06] hours or not.
[3:02:07] >> Correct. The only issue is if they moved
[3:02:09] 100 ft and came right back to the same
[3:02:10] spot,
[3:02:12] >> parked in the exact same spot. Yes, sir.
[3:02:15] All right. Thank you. But that would be
[3:02:17] the same and moving it six inches
[3:02:18] though, right?
[3:02:19] >> Yes, sir.
[3:02:20] >> Okay. All right. Thank you. And was
[3:02:22] there another speaker on this?
[3:02:23] >> Barbara Miller.
[3:02:24] >> Barbara.
[3:02:29] » Hello. And I agree with Amanda. Nothing
[3:02:33] is meant to be retaliatory. We just
[3:02:36] thank you so much for recognizing that
[3:02:38] this ordinance is very important and we
[3:02:41] really appreciate you passing it and it
[3:02:44] keeps us in line with the other
[3:02:45] neighborhoods and the other communities
[3:02:47] and cities around us that have passed
[3:02:48] this too.
[3:02:50] We want clean, safe streets, so we
[3:02:53] appreciate you doing this and nothing to
[3:02:55] be retaliatory. We love our neighbors.
[3:02:56] We just want clean, safe streets. Thank
[3:02:59] you.
[3:02:59] >> Thank you, Barbara.
[3:03:01] Okay,
[3:03:02] >> I'll make a motion to adopt ordinance
[3:03:04] number 1811.
[3:03:06] >> Motion by council member Mire.
[3:03:08] >> I'll second it. All in favor?
[3:03:10] >> I passes 5 0 one or 11H from Victor
[3:03:15] Pulvic.
[3:03:15] >> Yeah, this is an item I would like to
[3:03:18] table at this time. And let me let me
[3:03:21] explain why we don't have any staff
[3:03:22] here, but so I'll explain. We're
[3:03:24] currently reviewing proposals.
[3:03:26] >> Oh, wait. We we do have a staff here if
[3:03:28] you need some I think Samantha's still
[3:03:31] here.
[3:03:32] >> I'll explain it.
[3:03:33] >> Oh. Oh. So you you blame it on staff
[3:03:34] being here, but you don't not being
[3:03:35] here, but you don't really want to talk
[3:03:36] to them. Is that it?
[3:03:37] >> I don't. [laughter]
[3:03:39] We talked all day.
[3:03:40] >> Okay. No. So So we are currently
[3:03:42] reviewing proposals uh uh uh for for the
[3:03:47] golf course implementation. There's
[3:03:50] several parts to to to what we're
[3:03:52] looking at, what we're we're we're
[3:03:54] asking the companies to bid on. Yeah.
[3:03:56] The operation of the golf course, the store. One of the elements is the range. Uh and we've asked them to
[3:04:05] put together a bid on the range to say
[3:04:08] how would you change it? Uh what would
[3:04:10] you do to modify it? Uh how would you
[3:04:13] make it more profitable? How would you
[3:04:14] improve the grass, the balls,
[3:04:16] everything? But uh included in that
[3:04:18] would be their proposal to say okay we
[3:04:20] will do A b C and D and we want this
[3:04:24] percentage of the profits and the city
[3:04:27] could take another percentage but here
[3:04:29] we're spending $300,000
[3:04:33] in advance of of them even committing to
[3:04:37] do anything. And so I would rather see
[3:04:39] if there's a company out there that and they may they're they're evaluating
[3:04:44] they may look and say we will do it but
[3:04:47] we want the profits or bigger portion of
[3:04:49] the profits. So rather than us commit
[3:04:52] let us finish a process of reviewing uh
[3:04:55] all the proposals out there because
[3:04:57] that's this is part of the discussion of
[3:04:59] what whether they they want to run the
[3:05:01] range and what what percentage of the
[3:05:03] profits they want of it. I don't want to
[3:05:05] commit. And I think our our Samantha
[3:05:08] said, you know, we're not going to do
[3:05:10] this this month or next month.
[3:05:12] >> Why don't you start working your way up?
[3:05:14] Samantha might have
[3:05:15] >> start correcting me,
[3:05:16] >> but but uh so so we're going to get done
[3:05:19] with the process of reviewing the bids
[3:05:21] in in the next uh few months. and you
[3:05:25] know and then at that point we could if
[3:05:27] we tabled this we could bring this back
[3:05:29] and have make it part of uh whatever
[3:05:32] agreement we come to and see if someone
[3:05:33] wants to pay for it. Samantha, I have a
[3:05:36] question. If this project the baseline
[3:05:40] of all the proposals, they already know
[3:05:42] that the city is going to do that or
[3:05:44] they don't.
[3:05:47] >> Um
[3:05:48] the contract, well, we did the bid
[3:05:50] process. So, this would be the city
[3:05:52] originally was going to be doing the
[3:05:54] work. Even under the scenario that a
[3:05:56] potential new operator would be willing
[3:05:59] to contribute to this, the city would
[3:06:01] still manage the project and and be
[3:06:03] overseeing it given the nature of it. I
[3:06:06] think the expectation could be that an
[3:06:08] operator is going to help fund it just
[3:06:12] by it um this has happened before. So
[3:06:14] they've cut like a check essentially to
[3:06:16] >> Well, my question is when we send out
[3:06:18] the request for proposal,
[3:06:20] >> do they understand that the city is
[3:06:22] going going to do this project?
[3:06:24] >> Yes. Yes. Originally the contract that
[3:06:27] you're looking at tonight was it's a
[3:06:28] city it's a city project.
[3:06:32] >> No, the request for proposal of the
[3:06:34] operators.
[3:06:36] >> Oh, this was not part of the RFP for
[3:06:39] this the pro shop. No.
[3:06:40] >> So they don't know that the city is
[3:06:41] going to do this project. It's not
[3:06:44] pricing their proposal.
[3:06:46] >> No, this was not a piece of the RFP for
[3:06:49] this pro shop services.
[3:06:51] >> Okay.
[3:06:52] >> Is there any are any of the results
[3:06:55] coming back from that saying that they
[3:06:57] would want to be involved in creating
[3:06:59] netting?
[3:07:00] >> So, a a large element of the RFP was to
[3:07:04] allow um proposers the opportunity to
[3:07:07] say how they could contribute to the
[3:07:09] future master plan. Um we we tried to
[3:07:12] keep it very broad in that sense cuz
[3:07:14] really the longerterm vision is a master
[3:07:16] plan for the golf course. Substantial
[3:07:18] portion of that is a is a redevelopment
[3:07:21] and reimagining of the driving range
[3:07:23] facility which would include an
[3:07:24] increased netting. It wasn't
[3:07:26] specifically spelled out but for our pro
[3:07:28] shop operators who or proposers who
[3:07:31] submitted that was part of the the the
[3:07:33] conversation piece. Now the task force
[3:07:36] as the council's assigned it is going to
[3:07:38] have interviews with the um
[3:07:40] organizations who submit a proposals and
[3:07:42] through that interview process this can
[3:07:44] be a conversation piece that's
[3:07:46] incorporated into it to get more
[3:07:48] details.
[3:07:49] >> So then there's no hurry right now in in
[3:07:51] awarding this contract?
[3:07:53] >> No. Um our public works director said
[3:07:56] that there's about 120 days typically
[3:07:59] within um a bid process that a
[3:08:01] contractor is going to hold their price
[3:08:02] for about 120 days. And I feel pretty
[3:08:05] confident that we'll be able to get
[3:08:06] through interviews in the next couple of
[3:08:07] weeks here makes a decision part of that
[3:08:10] interviewing process and understanding
[3:08:12] can can be a piece of this as well.
[3:08:14] >> Okay. I' as a scratch golfer at Salty
[3:08:18] Turf, I have [laughter] I've got a
[3:08:20] question. So, what's the difference in
[3:08:23] what you're saying and what Victor's
[3:08:24] saying? I I mean, what's what's the
[3:08:26] thing here? What's our what's our
[3:08:28] >> Where's it meet?
[3:08:30] >> Yeah. I don't I don't I think the the
[3:08:31] element um that council member Capell is suggesting is to continue this item
[3:08:38] tonight allow the task force as you've
[3:08:40] appointed the pro shop operations task
[3:08:42] force to finish their job in
[3:08:44] interviewing um the folks who have have
[3:08:47] submitted proposals. Part of that can be
[3:08:49] a conversation of how will you
[3:08:51] contribute to the future funding um and
[3:08:53] improvements at the golf course and then
[3:08:56] bring it back.
[3:08:57] >> Okay. Instead of tableabling, it would
[3:08:58] be better to bring it back to a date
[3:09:00] certain.
[3:09:01] >> Is that right?
[3:09:02] >> Continue.
[3:09:02] >> We can continue it to certainly.
[3:09:05] >> Oh, go ahead, Steve.
[3:09:06] >> I have a question to the city attorney.
[3:09:08] Just just curious uh with any contract
[3:09:11] to manage the course, does that do
[3:09:13] anything for the prevailing wage require
[3:09:15] responsibilities we have in bidding this
[3:09:17] project out in the future? If a third
[3:09:19] party were to come in and contract,
[3:09:24] » the prevailing wage requirement depends
[3:09:26] on exactly what they're doing. So like
[3:09:28] pro shop does is not
[3:09:30] >> let's say let's say we're talking about
[3:09:32] driving raising the net. Yeah,
[3:09:33] >> the net.
[3:09:35] >> Um
[3:09:35] >> would that theoretically
[3:09:36] >> that's theoretically
[3:09:37] >> exclude from prevailing wage or would be
[3:09:39] stuck in prevailing wage? Do you know?
[3:09:41] >> I don't know off the top of my head. It
[3:09:42] might be either one.
[3:09:43] >> Okay, that well that's a important
[3:09:45] consideration for holding off. We may we
[3:09:47] may get an answer on that that could
[3:09:49] save us some money as well.
[3:09:51] >> Just a question.
[3:09:52] >> Well, there's there's not a way to avoid
[3:09:54] it by waiting. We if it's a prevailing
[3:09:57] wage project, it's a prevailing wage
[3:09:59] project, then it wouldn't matter.
[3:10:01] >> Well, that's the question. If we had a
[3:10:02] third party manager,
[3:10:03] >> yeah, that's not going to matter in the
[3:10:05] analysis.
[3:10:06] >> Won't matter in your opinion. Would
[3:10:07] still be stuck with prevailing wage?
[3:10:09] >> If it's a prevailing wage project, yes,
[3:10:11] >> that's the question.
[3:10:12] >> It is a prevailing wage project.
[3:10:13] >> Project.
[3:10:14] >> It is. It is. They it's been bid as a
[3:10:16] public works project which includes
[3:10:18] prevailing wage.
[3:10:19] >> Okay. So in that
[3:10:20] >> okay I know we bid it but if a third
[3:10:22] party came in and said I'm now managing
[3:10:24] this store I want to build the project
[3:10:27] on my own nickel and I expect a a higher
[3:10:30] percentage. Would that keep it in?
[3:10:32] That's my question.
[3:10:33] >> You can't avoid prevailing wage
[3:10:36] >> issues by having another party.
[3:10:39] >> Okay. It sounds like that's
[3:10:40] >> it's still prevailing wage. Yes. No if
[3:10:42] they do it or we do it. It's still
[3:10:43] prevailing wage. I like that idea
[3:10:45] though.
[3:10:45] >> Every nickel, [laughter] every nickel is
[3:10:47] important. Thank you, sis.
[3:10:48] >> Samantha, if we want to continue it,
[3:10:50] what what's the timing that works for
[3:10:53] you?
[3:10:54] >> Um, I think we'd like to get this back
[3:10:56] to you no later than your first meeting
[3:10:59] in October. Could come sooner than that,
[3:11:02] but I wouldn't just based on the timing
[3:11:04] of the contractor's kind of price
[3:11:05] holding. I'd like to get it to you that
[3:11:07] first meeting in October.
[3:11:08] >> Okay. Andy, you want to weigh in?
[3:11:10] >> Yeah, I wanted to answer your question a
[3:11:11] little bit. I I think where you're what
[3:11:13] you're asking is as part of the proposal
[3:11:16] process what we can ask and we can
[3:11:18] assess the different people that we
[3:11:19] interview is um are you willing to
[3:11:22] contribute what maybe that is a higher
[3:11:24] percentage of the um the higher
[3:11:28] percentage of the revenues generated by
[3:11:30] the driving range for whatever period of
[3:11:32] time to pay the city back for the cost
[3:11:34] that's going to be associated with this.
[3:11:36] So that'll be part of that negotiation.
[3:11:38] I think that was your question was the
[3:11:39] monetary side of it. It's very possible
[3:11:41] that we could talk to them and say,
[3:11:43] "Hey, we're going to be making this
[3:11:44] contribution and this improvement in the
[3:11:46] course. Are you willing to consider a
[3:11:48] higher percentage to the city until we
[3:11:50] are able to repay ourselves for this
[3:11:51] investment?"
[3:11:52] >> But this is also this also comes out of
[3:11:55] the the enterprise fund which is a
[3:11:58] separate fund from the general plan from
[3:12:00] our general fund.
[3:12:02] >> That's right.
[3:12:02] >> So you just want to postpone the
[3:12:04] contract until we have
[3:12:05] >> Do you want to make a motion to continue
[3:12:07] this first meeting in October?
[3:12:09] If not sooner if the staff not if not
[3:12:11] sooner has already yes that's
[3:12:13] >> okay second by mayor prom no block all
[3:12:16] in favor I ask 5
[3:12:18] >> thank you
[3:12:20] >> okay oral communications part two I have
[3:12:25] one speaker card Tony Rubilino
[3:12:32] hey council so when Mark ran for council
[3:12:37] he originally claimed that these were
[3:12:39] supposed to be nonpartisan seats. I
[3:12:41] would like you to listen to a clip that
[3:12:43] he made recently.
[3:12:45] >> See, congratulations on a 10-year
[3:12:47] anniversary. You are making a
[3:12:49] difference. You are helping to change
[3:12:51] policy up and down from the federal
[3:12:53] government to the state to the county to
[3:12:55] the local to school boards everywhere.
[3:12:58] You are making a change. Well done. Keep
[3:13:02] it up.
[3:13:04] >> That was well-wishing the Democratic
[3:13:06] women of South Orange County on their
[3:13:07] anniversary. Mark, please share with us
[3:13:10] what is it that they were doing that was
[3:13:12] so great. Was it the one of the founding
[3:13:14] members making a slit throat gesture at
[3:13:16] me while I waited to speak at a council
[3:13:18] meeting? Was it one of their more
[3:13:20] prominent members standing up and
[3:13:23] interrupting the meeting to such an
[3:13:24] egregious offense that you had to stop
[3:13:27] and recess until order could be called
[3:13:29] in council chambers? Was it that they
[3:13:32] were very prominent in supporting Eric
[3:13:35] Swallwell for California governor who
[3:13:38] then was later be found a sexual fiend
[3:13:41] and even this week we have found that
[3:13:43] the FBI may have been involved in
[3:13:45] covering up his affair with a Chinese
[3:13:48] spy. Uh so please Mark share with us
[3:13:52] what is it that is so great [snorts] and
[3:13:55] Mark I really think it's pretty
[3:13:56] hypocritical hypocritical of you to
[3:13:59] claim that these are nonpartisan seats
[3:14:00] and then to go ahead and publish a uh
[3:14:03] video like that. I would love to hear
[3:14:05] your retort.
[3:14:07] Um let's go ahead and shift gears
[3:14:09] though. I would also like to discuss
[3:14:11] Oceanfest. That was a huge huge success.
[3:14:14] It was very widely attended and a lot of
[3:14:17] the the praise that I heard was for the
[3:14:20] jet ski event. And the jet ski event was
[3:14:23] also something that as many of you
[3:14:24] recall that that was an event that the
[3:14:27] um beaches parks and reccks uh director
[3:14:30] said that that was an event that could
[3:14:32] not happen. So it turns out that that
[3:14:35] was wrong. The event was widely praised
[3:14:38] and I think that the event coordinator
[3:14:39] had originally asked for a standalone
[3:14:41] event. I would suggest highly that there
[3:14:44] would be communication if there isn't
[3:14:45] already to try and embrace a standalone
[3:14:48] event. I think that um he proved that he
[3:14:50] could pull it off. It could be safe. It
[3:14:52] could be well attended. I mean, there
[3:14:53] were people up on the pier that were
[3:14:54] getting uh jet ski spray um from the
[3:14:58] ocean and people were just loving the
[3:14:59] flips and everything like that. It was
[3:15:01] really incredible. So, thanks for that.
[3:15:03] And then the last thing is this is the
[3:15:07] last uh meeting before we head into
[3:15:09] September and October in an election
[3:15:12] year. That's usually what we call silly
[3:15:14] season. Um it sounds like that uh I have
[3:15:17] to confirm, but if Miss Kathy Ward is
[3:15:20] going to be running, there's definitely
[3:15:22] going to be have to uh some
[3:15:23] presentations because I think the public
[3:15:25] would like a refreshing on what went
[3:15:27] down over the past decade. And uh we'll
[3:15:30] see see y'all there. Thank you. Thank
[3:15:33] you.
[3:15:34] >> And we have one more speaker card. Mike
[3:15:36] K.
[3:15:36] >> Mike. Hello, council. I'll keep this
[3:15:39] short. Uh at the very beginning, we were
[3:15:41] talking about lifeguards and the
[3:15:43] potential for increasing their salary
[3:15:45] and the potential for them uh becoming
[3:15:47] first responders, and this got me to
[3:15:50] thinking of some conversations I've had
[3:15:51] with park rangers who have expressed a
[3:15:54] similar uh desire, and we've uh fleshed
[3:15:57] out some of those ideas. So, I'm just
[3:15:59] asking council as you go forward those
[3:16:01] discussions with lifeguards visav um
[3:16:04] expanding their powers and and their uh
[3:16:07] certification for first responder
[3:16:10] different types of first responder
[3:16:11] status um that you potentially include
[3:16:14] or consider the park rangers to expand
[3:16:18] their um uh abilities um in a similar
[3:16:22] manner. And both um both groups
[3:16:27] potentially could play important roles
[3:16:29] should we have a natural disaster here
[3:16:31] in San Clementi. Even things as mundane
[3:16:33] but extremely important as uh people
[3:16:36] leaving the scene of a of a fire for
[3:16:39] example coming in going doortodoor for
[3:16:41] example helping with elderly uh folks
[3:16:44] and and the rest to get them out of
[3:16:46] harm's way. um even things like that
[3:16:49] could be areas where both forces uh
[3:16:52] could come together. Lifeguard doesn't
[3:16:54] have to just work at a beach. In some
[3:16:55] instances, uh there could be roles uh
[3:16:58] for both to play. I personally have seen
[3:17:00] all of this happen in real time. I know
[3:17:02] exactly what the consequences are. I
[3:17:04] know that most towns are not prepared
[3:17:05] for these types of major disasters. Uh
[3:17:07] but these two under potentially
[3:17:09] underutilized uh groups could be
[3:17:12] included into some of these areas.
[3:17:14] There's many other areas where they
[3:17:15] could be certified for um as well and
[3:17:19] potentially measure M funds I think
[3:17:20] could go towards both of those uh both
[3:17:23] one for the beach and uh if it's fire
[3:17:25] protection uh for the uh park rangers.
[3:17:29] Anyway, I just wanted to share some of
[3:17:30] those ideas. Thank you.
[3:17:31] >> Thank you, Mike.
[3:17:33] >> Yes. Go. You want to make a comment?
[3:17:36] >> Oh, no. I was Are we done? I I was going
[3:17:38] to
[3:17:38] >> done. Yeah. No, I I was going to make
[3:17:40] >> We're getting there. Future [laughter]
[3:17:42] agenda. Future agenda items.
[3:17:44] >> Usually we let the city clerk announce
[3:17:45] it and then we go and [laughter]
[3:17:48] >> future agenda items.
[3:17:50] >> Yeah. I I think it's been discussed.
[3:17:53] [laughter] I thought we were there
[3:17:55] already. [clears throat]
[3:17:57] Uh uh I think the idea of of uh at least
[3:18:01] evaluating the our lifeguards and the
[3:18:05] role they play in our city uh and at the
[3:18:08] very least the the the the salary and
[3:18:12] equity you know with other communities.
[3:18:14] Uh I don't know anything beyond that but
[3:18:16] we would leave it up to staff to
[3:18:18] determine uh whether uh uh what the next
[3:18:22] steps are and what the best approach is
[3:18:24] and I think that's uh the place to
[3:18:26] start. So I'd like to agendaize that
[3:18:28] >> second agendaizing that.
[3:18:29] >> Yeah, we have first a second and I'm
[3:18:31] sure Mark wants to make a third but I
[3:18:33] also want to make sure that agendaizing
[3:18:35] this doesn't prohibit our city manager
[3:18:37] from doing something now that he's
[3:18:40] already got in
[3:18:42] >> action. I don't I don't know. I
[3:18:45] you
[3:18:46] >> yeah
[3:18:48] I don't want I don't want this to come
[3:18:49] across wrong. This isn't the right
[3:18:51] process for what for for evaluating
[3:18:53] salaries and you know if this is the
[3:18:56] process then we're just going to have
[3:18:57] every employee group come up here and do this and we'll just this is the
[3:19:00] way we'll do our our salaries in the
[3:19:02] future. Um what we'd like to do is take
[3:19:05] a look at this. It's a it's it's a me
[3:19:07] it's a multi-layered thing as you said.
[3:19:08] there's already another employee group
[3:19:10] that's been brought up by another
[3:19:11] resident and so this isn't the way we
[3:19:13] typically address salary scales and
[3:19:15] salaries um through this process. So
[3:19:17] we'd like to follow the correct process.
[3:19:19] We have meetings to have with our
[3:19:21] employee association. I mean they they
[3:19:23] have rights to meet and confer and talk
[3:19:25] about these things. There's there's a process that's set up in our
[3:19:29] memorandum of understanding that needs
[3:19:30] to be followed. So
[3:19:31] >> that's all I'm asking for to to help us
[3:19:35] understand that better. I mean, whatever
[3:19:38] that might be. We're not asking you to
[3:19:39] come up with you go out and negotiate
[3:19:42] something. We're just asking you cuz I
[3:19:43] don't understand the process completely.
[3:19:46] >> Perfect.
[3:19:46] >> Well, then that can be a staff report
[3:19:49] because I don't think the city council
[3:19:51] wants to step on the toe of a city
[3:19:53] manager to establish the salary scale.
[3:19:57] >> City manager has heard heard this loud
[3:19:59] and clear and I have confidence that
[3:20:01] he's addressing the issue. That that's
[3:20:03] all. So, if you want a staff report to
[3:20:06] come back at some point, if there is
[3:20:08] something that's gleaned, that's fine.
[3:20:10] >> Is this something that we instead of
[3:20:11] doing a an agenda future agenda items,
[3:20:15] is this something we could individually
[3:20:16] talk with our city manager about and go
[3:20:18] through that process uh or would you
[3:20:20] guys like to hear this this process uh
[3:20:24] in in front of uh the public? So maybe
[3:20:26] what I could do is jump to the end and I know it's not on the agenda, so
[3:20:30] I'm I'm just going to give you a real
[3:20:31] quick answer. If this is something we
[3:20:33] can accommodate within the existing
[3:20:35] budget, it's something that we would
[3:20:36] move forward. We we make salary
[3:20:38] adjustments on a pretty regular basis
[3:20:40] based on different things that are
[3:20:41] happening in the organization. And as
[3:20:43] long as we're within the adopted budget,
[3:20:45] we can do that. If it takes an an
[3:20:47] additional allocation to make this work,
[3:20:50] we bring it back to the council and we'd
[3:20:51] say, "Okay, we need some additional
[3:20:53] allocation in the budget to make this
[3:20:54] happen." But lots of times there could
[3:20:56] be vacancies. There could be some other
[3:20:58] equipment that you don't purchase or
[3:20:59] something to address it a different way.
[3:21:01] I just we haven't taken that deep dive
[3:21:04] yet to to know how we're going to
[3:21:06] address this issue. It's loud and clear
[3:21:08] to us you want us to address it. We
[3:21:10] would we'd like to address it and then let you know what the results
[3:21:14] are.
[3:21:15] >> Any council member wants to contact Andy
[3:21:16] and learn about the process is wide
[3:21:18] open.
[3:21:19] >> I'm satisfied with that. We all have a
[3:21:21] consensus on on this now.
[3:21:23] >> Okay. Thank you.
[3:21:25] Next item.
[3:21:27] May
[3:21:27] >> I have another item? Hold on. I'd like
[3:21:30] the council to review and revise council
[3:21:33] policy on media communication.
[3:21:37] >> A second.
[3:21:38] >> Okay. Just let me ask a a question. What
[3:21:40] does that mean? I'm just asking to
[3:21:43] clarify what that means. Because our
[3:21:44] current council uh council procedure and
[3:21:47] policy is very vague on how the council
[3:21:51] approach media accept media interview
[3:21:55] and uh uh calling for press conference
[3:21:58] for example who is responsible who it it
[3:22:02] only identifies that the mayor as a
[3:22:04] council as a spokesperson for the city
[3:22:08] but other than that is very vague and I
[3:22:10] think the council would benefit if we
[3:22:13] have a little more established policy
[3:22:16] and procedure.
[3:22:16] >> Are you talking about because don't we
[3:22:17] have a PIO in the city also? Don't we
[3:22:21] have Andy? Do we have a PIO? Okay. So,
[3:22:25] >> this is not about the staff. This is
[3:22:27] about a council's act.
[3:22:29] >> Yeah. No, I know. I'm just trying I'm
[3:22:30] trying to get this
[3:22:32] >> correct. Yes, we have a a public
[3:22:35] information officer. um if it would help
[3:22:38] the council, if what you're asking for
[3:22:40] is to bring back the existing policy so
[3:22:42] you can take a look at that and see if
[3:22:44] there need to be any changes, we could we could put that on the next
[3:22:47] agenda.
[3:22:47] >> Is that what you want to agendaize that
[3:22:49] we bring?
[3:22:50] >> Yeah, I for discussion bring the the
[3:22:53] existing policy back and look and see if
[3:22:54] we need to amend it or change it.
[3:22:56] >> I may assist to write some policy and see and for the council's
[3:23:00] discussion.
[3:23:02] >> Okay. And you need a staff report for
[3:23:03] that? I assume that
[3:23:05] >> well we have two council members. If I
[3:23:06] get a third one then I can use
[3:23:09] >> that's fine because I I'd like to look
[3:23:11] at the policy too. I'll give you a third
[3:23:13] and we can look at it and we can discuss
[3:23:14] it.
[3:23:15] >> Okay. Thank you. So So I have your
[3:23:16] authorization to work with the staff to
[3:23:18] come up with some more established
[3:23:21] policy and procedures
[3:23:22] >> for our discussion. I think
[3:23:25] >> well that well that I I I would be fine
[3:23:29] to have them come back with the existing
[3:23:32] policy because I don't know it that well
[3:23:35] and then we can have a discussion and
[3:23:37] see if there's any alterations we need
[3:23:38] to make to that at that time at the next
[3:23:41] meeting.
[3:23:41] >> Bring your ideas on that council next
[3:23:44] meeting.
[3:23:45] >> Sure. Okay.
[3:23:46] >> Is that fair?
[3:23:47] >> Yeah, of course. Existing policy is
[3:23:49] almost
[3:23:50] >> perfect. Okay. Any any other agenda
[3:23:53] items? I have uh two items, Mr. Mayor.
[3:23:56] The first is that uh uh regarding the
[3:23:58] amphitheater at the Forester Ranch
[3:24:00] Community Park, I I think with the end
[3:24:03] of the summer, uh we look at that
[3:24:05] facility and we we look about its
[3:24:07] capabil we're wondering about its
[3:24:08] capabilities and and and so forth. Uh
[3:24:11] and what I'd like to do is is perhaps
[3:24:13] have a uh a uh how do you call it? a dry
[3:24:17] run kickoff session where we where we
[3:24:20] have a uh a a m musical band that that
[3:24:24] plays there where the arts and and
[3:24:26] culture subcommittee can can monitor and
[3:24:28] look at uh look at what's needed in
[3:24:31] terms of uh preliminary view in terms of
[3:24:33] electricity staging lighting access
[3:24:36] through the school district additional
[3:24:38] parking sort of a sort of a dry run if
[3:24:40] you will of uh kind of what we need in
[3:24:42] the future as we go forward and I'd like
[3:24:44] maybe to have the parks and recreation
[3:24:46] department to schedule an an a impromptu
[3:24:50] uh ad hoc, if you will, pre uh
[3:24:53] presentation and maybe select a
[3:24:55] interesting local band that could play.
[3:24:57] >> Maybe we have a natural event that
[3:24:59] movies there.
[3:25:00] >> I know they do movies, but I'm talking
[3:25:02] about But that's
[3:25:02] >> You're talking about a concert.
[3:25:03] >> I'm talking about more of a concert,
[3:25:04] more of a more of a a theatrical or
[3:25:07] musical production that requires some
[3:25:09] additional uh equipment and so forth
[3:25:11] just to sort of observe. What is the
[3:25:12] next natural event that we can just move
[3:25:15] it to there and see how it works?
[3:25:18] [snorts]
[3:25:19] >> The only condition I was going to ask is
[3:25:21] it not be the musical group that
[3:25:22] performed earlier tonight. But
[3:25:24] [laughter] um
[3:25:25] >> there you go again.
[3:25:27] Everybody is right.
[3:25:30] >> No, but the I I think you know perhaps
[3:25:33] something associated with the holidays
[3:25:35] or something is going to probably be the
[3:25:37] next natural time and maybe we could do
[3:25:39] something like that. maybe have even,
[3:25:41] you know, contact maybe some of the
[3:25:43] schools and see if they're doing a
[3:25:44] Christmas concert and if they would want
[3:25:45] to do something where, you know, might
[3:25:47] get the parents involved and we can kind
[3:25:49] of see how it would work and even maybe
[3:25:50] that school we can talk to them.
[3:25:52] >> Again, Christmas is still four or five
[3:25:54] months away and I'm thinking maybe
[3:25:56] something short
[3:25:56] >> closer to more more end of the summer.
[3:25:58] Uh
[3:25:58] >> okay.
[3:25:59] >> Uh view sort of a
[3:26:00] >> Sure.
[3:26:02] >> Yeah, that's the end of the summer.
[3:26:03] >> I know that's what I mean. That's what I
[3:26:05] mean. I mean
[3:26:07] >> I mean I'll certainly second that and
[3:26:09] that's something you can just do through
[3:26:10] Samantha, right? We don't need Okay, it
[3:26:13] was something else.
[3:26:13] >> Uh yeah, second the second thing is I'd
[3:26:15] like to agendaize
[3:26:17] a a a council resolution supporting uh
[3:26:20] Prop 39. Um
[3:26:23] Proposition 39 is a election ID uh issue
[3:26:27] which uh which impacts the entire nation
[3:26:30] and impacts the state. It impacts the
[3:26:31] city of San Clementi particularly. Uh
[3:26:34] there's been a lot of uh concern about
[3:26:37] uh um accurate voting and uh this item
[3:26:43] was approved by the the citizens to go
[3:26:45] on the agenda. The attorney general
[3:26:46] turned it from a voter ID integrity rule
[3:26:49] to to a title which basically says
[3:26:51] prevent citizens from from voting unless
[3:26:54] they prevent ID. So I'd like a
[3:26:56] resolution. I I I'll present I'd like to
[3:26:58] present a resolution for the council's
[3:27:00] consideration at our next meeting.
[3:27:02] Attorney, are there any rules getting
[3:27:04] this close to election season about
[3:27:07] propositions and what the council can
[3:27:10] and cannot do in terms of supporting
[3:27:12] different propositions or not?
[3:27:16] >> The city council can take a position.
[3:27:19] >> That's my my request.
[3:27:23] » Okay. Have a second to to bring to bring
[3:27:26] it back for discussion at the next next
[3:27:29] council meeting.
[3:27:29] >> Next council meeting. Yes. Is somebody
[3:27:31] want to second that?
[3:27:32] >> I'll second it. Okay, I have a second.
[3:27:34] We don't need a staff report. It's going
[3:27:35] to be for dis discussion only.
[3:27:37] >> Correct.
[3:27:38] >> Okay.
[3:27:39] Thank you.
[3:27:40] >> Any other agenda items? Yeah, that
[3:27:42] brings
[3:27:43] >> that brings a a important um point
[3:27:47] because
[3:27:48] I I'm think um
[3:27:52] maybe we can uh also have the council to
[3:27:55] express our position on proposition
[3:27:59] 41, 42, 43, and 40. They're all about
[3:28:03] the tax. This is a big issue statewide.
[3:28:07] the state the statewide
[3:28:09] >> the state well the I believe 40 is the
[3:28:13] mansion tax but um I'm more interested
[3:28:16] in 43
[3:28:18] which is essentially ACA 22 that is
[3:28:21] asking
[3:28:21] >> okay what could you list those again I'm
[3:28:24] sorry
[3:28:25] >> yeah never mind I think about next time
[3:28:28] [laughter]
[3:28:28] >> I I was going to do my own homework on
[3:28:30] them but uh yeah okay I I mean I think
[3:28:34] we're good now all All right, next item
[3:28:39] >> report. City attorney.
[3:28:42] >> Thank you. I just wanted to clarify what
[3:28:44] I said earlier. The council can
[3:28:46] agendaize taking a pos official position
[3:28:49] on something, but it cannot advocate for
[3:28:51] or against a measure. So, that's a it's
[3:28:53] a nuance
[3:28:55] that I just wanted to clarify. Other
[3:28:57] than that, I have nothing to report
[3:28:59] except it's a pleasure to serve.
[3:29:01] >> A little more clarification on that. the
[3:29:02] council can.
[3:29:04] >> So if I I assume you'll be putting
[3:29:07] forward a resolution saying that the
[3:29:09] city
[3:29:10] >> council the city of San Clemeni
[3:29:14] supports
[3:29:16] slash opposes whatever proposition, but
[3:29:21] you can't say everybody should vote for
[3:29:24] or against it. That would be advocacy.
[3:29:26] So, there's a difference between once
[3:29:29] stating a position
[3:29:31] versus advocating for or against
[3:29:34] something on the ballot.
[3:29:36] >> Okay. Okay. Thank you. Perfect.
[3:29:39] >> All right. So, is that your entire
[3:29:41] report?
[3:29:42] >> That is my entire and longest report to
[3:29:44] date.
[3:29:44] >> So, you're you're it's you're not
[3:29:46] honored or whatever to work for this
[3:29:48] subject.
[3:29:48] >> I already said that after that musical
[3:29:50] [laughter]
[3:29:51] edition. I said it was a pleasure to
[3:29:53] serve.
[3:29:54] >> I asked the clerk. clerk. Did she say
[3:29:55] that? [laughter] I don't think she did
[3:29:56] say that. I can confirm for the
[3:29:58] >> record. Somebody's covering for
[3:29:59] somebody. Okay.
[3:30:00] >> City manager.
[3:30:01] >> No, I just I want to thank everybody
[3:30:03] that everybody from the council to the
[3:30:04] residents to the staff for it's been a
[3:30:06] really fun summer. There's been a lot of
[3:30:08] really cool events and we it's been
[3:30:09] pretty uneventful for some of the big
[3:30:11] events that we've had and I think we've
[3:30:14] all had a good time and I think it's a
[3:30:15] good kind of dress rehearsal for some of
[3:30:18] the things we're leading up to in the
[3:30:19] next couple of years with the Olympics
[3:30:20] and the 100th birthday and that kind of
[3:30:22] stuff. and we're learning about the the
[3:30:24] some of the fun things that are
[3:30:25] happening and it's been a fun summer.
[3:30:27] So, I just wanted to a shout out to
[3:30:29] everybody involved. I think the
[3:30:31] residents have been very patient with a
[3:30:33] lot of visitors in town and and it's
[3:30:34] been a fun summer without a lot of I
[3:30:37] think a lot of drama. So, it's been a
[3:30:38] lot of fun. So,
[3:30:39] >> you're here
[3:30:39] >> and our first responders have uh made us
[3:30:42] safe and done a phenomenal job.
[3:30:43] >> Just a just a huge Yeah, everybody. It's
[3:30:46] been great.
[3:30:47] >> Well, you got a parking ticket you need
[3:30:48] fixed. What's What's the deal? Anybody
[3:30:51] want to make a motion to the next
[3:30:53] council meeting?
[3:30:54] >> I'll make a motion to [snorts] adjourn.
[3:30:56] The next regular city council meeting,
[3:30:58] let me turn on the mic. Is scheduled to
[3:31:00] take place on September 1st, 2026.
[3:31:02] Closed session will begin at 4:30 p.m.
[3:31:04] and the regular business meeting will
[3:31:05] begin at 5:30 p.m. The meeting will take
[3:31:07] place in the council chambers located in
[3:31:09] 910 Gaia Negotio second floor San
[3:31:11] Clemeni.
[3:31:12] >> I'll second. All in favor? I. We are
[3:31:15] adjourned.
[3:31:21] I hope my phone's up in your office.