[1:03]

[4:26]

[4:30] we're meeting, and I will call this meeting to order four o'clock.

[4:35] and I'm going to ask the city clerk for a roll call to city council and

[4:39] the planning agency members.

[4:41]

[4:44] thank you mayor, let the record show that there is

[4:47] a quorum of council and the planning agency present.

[4:50] okay, thank you.

[4:52] all right, we're going to start with public comments.

[4:56] this is a time to address the city council on any matter, not listed on this agenda.

[5:01] that is within the subject matter jurisdiction of the city council.

[5:05] public comments are limited to three minutes per person, as determined by the mayor.

[5:10] which means I might let you finish your thought,

[5:13] because we want to keep it moving along.

[5:15] and I see we've got a lot of public comments that came in electronically.

[5:20] so we may have a lot of action today even

[5:23] though the seats aren't that full out there.

[5:27] but we've got a lot of people believe in these subject matters.

[5:32] if you are participating remotely and wish to speak, dial star nine

[5:38] on a telephone now to raise your hand to indicate you wish to speak.

[5:43] you will be identified by the last four digits of your phone number.

[5:47] and when you have been recognized to speak, dial star six to unmute.

[5:52] so I will ask the city clerk if there are any public comments on non-agendized items.

[6:01] I do not have any.

[6:04] okay, here I made this big deal that it

[6:06] was not going to be so quiet in your regard.

[6:08] >> all right, so we'll move on to an actual agenda's item.

[6:13] this is the joint meeting of the planning agency in the city council.

[6:18] and the first item is 2.1.

[6:21] a reason of our zne-0014-2026.

[6:32] general plan amendment gpa, zoning code, text amendment,

[6:36] zta, and zone change zc for net loss compliance.

[6:43] the proposal amendments consist of a general plan amendment to

[6:46] amend the land use element to comply with the known net loss law.

[6:57] the government code section 65863 by specifying that select housing element sites

[7:01] may be developed at residential densities between 30 and 80 dwellings per acre.

[7:07] item b, a zoning text amendment to implement the amended

[7:11] land use element by renaming the existing housing.

[7:22] it prints h overlay zone to housing 50 to housing 50

[7:26] overlay zone and introducing a new housing 80 overlay zone.

[7:31] and c, item c, a zone change to apply to the housing 50 overlay zone.

[7:43] and housing 80 overlay zone to 23 501 and 23 through 23, 561, ridgeroot drive.

[7:51] I'm going to read the apm.

[8:02] and paseo de valencia, apm 62221-42 and 620-221-624 and 620-21-49.

[8:09] and to additional properties are specified in the proposed ordinance.

[8:15] so we're going to conduct a public hearing.

[8:41] we're going to find that general plan amendment zoning text amendment and zone

[8:43] change are statutorily exempt from review under the california environmental

[8:45] quality act ceqa pursuant to california public resources code section 21-080.085

[8:47] as project implements the schedule of actions contained in the city's certified.

[8:49] 2,000 and 1 through 2,000 and 29 housing element.

[8:56] we're also going to adopt a resolution and look at adopting

[9:00] a resolution and title resolution of the city council.

[9:04] the city of laguna hills adopting the general plan amendment to, and this

[9:08] is the repeat of what I said in general before, but I'll do it again.

[9:28] rcne-014-2026 to amend the laguna hills general

[9:30] plan land use element for the 2021 through 2029

[9:32] planning period to incorporate revisions pursuant to

[9:34] the government code section 65863, no net loss law.

[9:53] that, that ensure that development opportunities remain available throughout the

[9:57] housing element planning period, which is through 2029 to accommodate the jurisdiction

[10:00] regional housing need allocation rhna as community development and to amend the

[10:03] laguna hills general plan and land use element to implement the housing element.

[10:20] and introduce, I'm going to introduce for the first reading and we're

[10:23] going to read by title and wave further reading of the ordinance

[10:26] entitled and ordinance of the city of laguna hills, california adopting

[10:29] zoning text amendment and zoning map amendment number rzne-014-2026.

[10:46] one, a text amendment to title nine zoning and subdivisions of the laguna

[10:49] hills municipal code to implement the general plan housing element by

[10:52] amending chapter 9-11 overlay districts to implement the amended land use

[10:55] element by renaming the existing housing h overlay zone to housing 50.

[11:16] an overlay zone and overlay zone and introducing a new

[11:19] housing 80 overlay zone and a his own change to apply the

[11:21] housing 50 overlay zone and housing 80 overlay zone to

[11:23] 23 501 through 23 561 ridge route drive apn 588-331-12.

[11:46] and then 25201, an address again through 25241, paseo de valencia apn 620-221-42

[11:50] and 620-221-44 and finally 620-221-49 and to additional properties as specified.

[12:14] in the proposed ordinance that is a mouthful, this is a public hearing for the general

[12:18] plan amendment zoning code amendment and zone change for no net less compliance

[12:21] welcome

[12:21] all and this is public hearing item public is welcome and and all will be given the

[12:24] opportunity to speak on this item, I would say tonight but it's not quite tonight yet.

[12:29] and so I will start by calling for a staff report

[12:31] and receive the staff presentation and report

[12:33] asking that of the community development director

[12:35] jennifer lowe to present that staff report jennifer.

[12:43] good afternoon mayor and members of the council, I would like to introduce amanda

[12:47] tropiano of de novo planning group she will be giving the presentation, thank you.

[12:58] good afternoon, I am excited to be back in front of you

[13:00] this evening and present an overview of the project you just

[13:03] introduced so with that we will go ahead and start with a

[13:05] review of the timeline of events which has brought this item.

[13:24] this item to your attention, first in june of 2022 the city council adopted it's 2021

[13:28] to

[13:28] 2029 housing element in substantial compliance with state housing element law in

[13:31] september

[13:31] of that same year the city received comments from the california department of housing

[13:35] and community development or hcd requesting revisions to that adopted housing element.

[13:40] and in may of 2023 the city received further comments

[13:42] that required additional modifications in order for the

[13:44] department of housing and community development to find

[13:47] that it met the requirements of the housing element law.

[14:02] in march of 2024 the city council re adopted it's 2021 to 2029 housing element

[14:05] you may also hear me referred to that as the sixth cycle housing element and

[14:07] completed the required rezoning program to make sites available at the appropriate

[14:10] densities and intensities for inclusion in the housing element inventory.

[14:12] in may of that year the housing element was certified by the department of housing

[14:16] and community development in substantial compliance with state housing law.

[14:37] so the topic that has really brought this item to your attention tonight is the

[14:41] requirement

[14:41] that cities maintain an inventory of available housing element sites at all income

[14:44] levels throughout its eight year housing element planning period and again for this

[14:48] city

[14:48] it's through 2021 through 2029 and you may hear us refer to that as no net loss law.

[14:57] this is codified in the california government code section

[14:59] 65863 and again that code states that every jurisdiction has

[15:02] the obligation to maintain adequate sites available at all

[15:04] times throughout its planning period for all income levels.

[15:18] and if and when the situation occurs where a project approval

[15:21] so project at the local level is approved that creates a

[15:23] deficiency of those available sites the jurisdiction has by

[15:25] statutory requirement 180 days to make replacement sites available.

[15:41] these six six cycle rhna is one thousand nine hundred and eighty five units and

[15:44] they are broken down by income category, but the relevant income category for

[15:48] tonight's presentation revolves around the requirement that the city maintain

[15:51] adequate sites to accommodate nine hundred and twenty one lower income units.

[15:58] in september of 2025 the city has approved for

[16:00] housing developments for a total of nine hundred

[16:02] and twenty two residential units of which forty

[16:04] four are suitable for low very low income units.

[16:14] may of this year so in may of 2026 a development

[16:16] application was submitted for one hundred residential

[16:18] units on sites identified in the city's certified

[16:20] housing element, including five very low income units.

[16:34] collectively these approvals and the application have reduced the

[16:37] city's available realistic capacity to accommodate its rhna and

[16:39] therefore the city is subject to the requirement to maintain adequate

[16:42] sites and the no net loss provisions codified in the government code.

[16:49] the state efficiency for lower income units was

[16:51] two hundred and sixty one units as of february of

[16:53] this year and has increased to four hundred and

[16:55] forty three units based on that pending application.

[17:09] so the city's obligation is to identify additional sites to include

[17:12] in its housing element inventory to essentially replace the capacity

[17:15] that has that is no longer available at those sites where project

[17:17] has been approved or the city has received a pending application.

[17:29] and the city conducted two public study sessions to obtain input

[17:32] from the city council and the public regarding strategies to

[17:34] resolve this no net loss issue and identify replacement sites

[17:37] and both of those study sessions were held in april of this year.

[17:48] the first study session at the beginning of april we discussed no net

[17:51] loss and the implications for noncompliance so all of the penalties

[17:54] that a city would be subject to should it not comply with the no

[17:56] net loss requirements as required by the california government code.

[18:08] this study session we reviewed 14 possible candidate sites and we're

[18:11] going to call those a through end as shown on the attached map and city

[18:14] council provided the consultant team and staff with direction on sites

[18:17] including the order of preference for sites to be included in the inventory.

[18:22] the council also identified other opportunities

[18:24] that required additional research for staff and

[18:26] the consultant team to pursue in addition to

[18:28] analyzing those previously identified 14 sites.

[18:38] at our second study session at the end of april we

[18:40] discussed the evaluation of 11 of those candidate

[18:42] rezoning sites so from the first study session 11

[18:44] of the 14 identified sites warranted further study.

[18:53] and the evaluation of those 14 sites was conducted by denovo

[18:55] planning group and consultation with staff and we evaluated the

[18:58] requirements of site suitability as required by the government

[19:01] code and those are generally described in four categories.

[19:17] the infrastructure available to support development of residential uses at the site,

[19:21] the site availability, meaning that it can and will be available for redevelopment as

[19:24] residential uses during the planning period, the size of the site and its zoning

[19:27] capacity

[19:28] so what is its allowable density intensity and other zoning restrictions or

[19:31] allowances.

[19:45] four sites of those 14 previously identified and presented at the first study session

[19:48] were

[19:48] ultimately identified as potential sites for rezoning to facilitate the future

[19:52] residential

[19:52] development and support compliance with the city's rhna obligations and those sites

[19:56] we

[19:56] referred to as sites d e and f which are taken together as a as a group site and site

[19:59] n.

[19:59] so d e and f located generally at alicia parkway and the five freeway is a

[20:03] total of 5.5 acres and site n on ridge route drive as a total of 9.5 acres.

[20:18] site d e and f would is proposed to accommodate a range

[20:21] of density between 30 and 80 dwelling units an acre for

[20:23] a maximum capacity of 308 units. This is currently

[20:25] developed as an office park with relatively high vacancy.

[20:32] a improvement to land value ratio and a suitable

[20:34] property owner interest so the property owner at this

[20:36] location has expressed interest and availability of

[20:38] redevelopment of of the site during the planning period.

[21:00] site n composes several different addresses along red drop drive but it is one parcel

[21:03] at 9.5 acres

[21:04] also proposed for a density of 30 to 80 to use an acre with a capacity of 532 units.

[21:07] there is some

[21:07] vacancy at this site it has a relatively low improvement to assess value ratio and

[21:10] the property

[21:11] owner at this location has also expressed interest in inclusion in the housing

[21:13] elements inventory.

[21:14] to facilitate making the sites available which again

[21:16] is one of those characteristics that we must evaluate

[21:18] for site suitability. There are amendments to both the

[21:21] general plan and zoning code and map that must occur.

[21:41] site n must be re designated in its general plan land use element from freeway

[21:44] commercial to

[21:45] mixed use and the land use element must also be updated to include some additional

[21:48] language which

[21:49] further expands upon the amendments included as part of the prior re zoning effort

[21:52] which

[21:52] identifies suitable densities allowed for sites included in the city's housing

[21:55] element inventory.

[22:00] amendment to the zoning code and zoning map is also required the zoning

[22:03] code would be amended for section 9-11.030 to establish the housing 50

[22:06] overlay zone and the housing 80 overlay zone and identify the properties

[22:09] to which each of these designation applies and those were read earlier.

[22:17] section 9-11.060 which would revise the development

[22:19] standards for the housing 80 overlay zone to establish a

[22:21] permitted residential range again of that 30 to 80 dwelling

[22:24] units per acre and a maximum building height of 75 feet.

[22:30] the zoning map would rezone site n from freeway commercial to mixed use to

[22:34] establish an underlying zoning designation that permits residential uses.

[22:59] section 9-11, the city's remaining on that rhna for the 6 cycle right now stands at

[23:02] 599

[23:03] lower income housing units.

[23:04] as a result of the proposed general plan and zoning amendments,

[23:06] the residential development capacity of the inventory available to accommodate the

[23:10] lower

[23:10] income rhna would increase from an existing capacity of only 156 units to 1091 units.

[23:16] this additional residential capacity would first and

[23:18] foremost resolve the city's no net loss issues as you

[23:20] heard earlier. There are approximately 400 units that

[23:22] need to be accommodated within this no net loss solution.

[23:44] and results in an increase capacity, we refer to it as a surplus of 492 lower income

[23:48] units beyond what would be required to meet the city's unmet lower income rhna to

[23:51] allow

[23:51] for subsequent use of that surplus against future project applications that may in and

[23:55] of themselves result in a no net loss issue during this eight year planning period.

[24:05] an environmental determination has been made that the proposed general

[24:08] plan amendment zoning text amendment and zone change are statutorily exempt

[24:11] from environmental review under the california environmental quality

[24:14] act pursuant to the california public resources resources code section.

[24:34] 21080.085 and specifically this particular statutory exemption applies because the

[24:37] proposed

[24:38] amendments implement the programs of actions identified in the city's certified 2021

[24:41] to 2029

[24:41] housing element, which included a programmatic commitment that the city would comply

[24:45] with

[24:45] the statutory requirements of the no net loss provisions of the california government

[24:48] code.

[24:54] and that brings us to staff's recommendations to conduct the public hearing, find

[24:57] that the proposed general plan amendment zoning text amendment in zone change

[25:01] are statutorily exempt from ceqa pursuant to the sections identified and adopt

[25:04] the resolution and introduced ordinance for first reading as previously recorded.

[25:13] so that concludes my presentation and myself

[25:15] and staff are available to answer any questions.

[25:34] all right. That concludes the report. Yes. Okay. So now agency members

[25:36] may now ask questions of staff about the staff presentation and or staff

[25:38] report. It's not a time for discussions really all about making sure that

[25:40] we've got the tenants of the report down and we understand that from staff.

[25:43] so I will wind it up and we'll start with dave wheeler. Thank you.

[25:49] first question is when do the public comments come in on this?

[25:52] sorry. When do the public comments come in on that I?

[26:03] we haven't opened the public hearing yet. This is just questions and answers.

[26:08] okay. First of all, could you go to page eight please?

[26:22] okay.

[26:24] I didn't realize this going to be brought up again

[26:27] because they had to be had a consensus in the meeting.

[26:30] I didn't realize till monday that n was put back in there and we had additional

[26:34] three more things in the agenda tonight which also is unaware of until two days ago.

[26:46] my recollection of that n was not included in the list

[26:48] and that we had another alternative which was I thought the

[26:50] consensus was to use another area for the north to complete

[26:53] a an area which already partially been approved for housing.

[27:01] also, I'm a revelation we had some context of increasing

[27:05] some of the densities to allow to cover the loss.

[27:11] council member wheeler, I thank you for the

[27:13] comments. So I believe you are referencing site

[27:15] c, which was adjacent to existing housing

[27:17] element sites in the north laguna hills area.

[27:24] when de novo conducted their feasibility analysis,

[27:26] site c didn't quite have a favorable score in

[27:27] terms of meeting the standards that hcd requires to

[27:29] determine if the site is acceptable for rezoning.

[27:31] we went over to the meeting. We had favorable scores. We met the deficit.

[27:40] so why, you know, just because one area is like, you know, he's not quite, you know,

[27:44] doesn't mean as many characters or the others, there's a reason not to choose an.

[27:48] so there were seven.

[27:49] so we have a list of those other areas that we talked about.

[27:53] you can pull up that slide.

[27:54] the issue with site n being considered that while sites

[27:58] d, e and f would satisfy, you know, d and f were fine.

[28:02] but the issue comes to making sure that we have the adequate amount of

[28:06] surplus so that the city doesn't enter in a state of no net loss again.

[28:10] so then this other sites, the existing housing element sites located

[28:14] in the rezoned area that have not been developed for housing.

[28:19] the density was increased to provide an additional unit count that could be available

[28:23] for development and then site n and d, e and f would help also boost the surplus.

[28:27] so we would have that adequate number to avoid a no net loss situation again.

[28:41] yeah, no, I know. I, but where are the other ones that we talked about in

[28:44] the meeting that would meet it without and so I have pulled up a recap as

[28:47] presented as part of our second study session which recorded the feedback

[28:50] that de novo had received as part of that first discussion of all 14 sites.

[29:10] and we had confirmed that the, what we had heard at that first study session was in

[29:13] order of preference,

[29:14] the sites for evaluation based on the feedback that we had received were first sites

[29:18] d, e and f,

[29:18] second site n, third sites g through m, and then finally followed by sites a, b and c,

[29:22] which had been

[29:22] as we previously noted, considered as part of the city's prior effort to adopt its

[29:25] housing element.

[29:38] however, we did reevaluate them and again, relatively speaking in evaluation of those

[29:40] 14

[29:40] sites based on the statutory requirements sites a, b and c were did not meet the

[29:42] suitability

[29:42] characteristics in de novo's professional recommendation and we identified some

[29:44] concerns

[29:44] with their suitability and likelihood of being accepted for inclusion in the

[29:46] inventory.

[29:46] and with sites c being the most challenging

[29:49] based on the characteristics we were aware of.

[30:07] now with that said, we did evaluate all 14 of those sites and ultimately brought

[30:09] forward the recommendation for sites de and f and site and to meet the immediate needs

[30:12] of the no net loss issue and provide some additional opportunity for future

[30:14] applications to be able to be considered with an existing surplus of those lower

[30:17] income.

[30:17] okay, well, I guess I have to object to some of the evaluations that it destroys all

[30:21] the parts of the city and what we'll leave after the time being, come back to it.

[30:27] page nine, please, and presentation.

[30:34] okay, I was going to confess that I made a mistake that

[30:37] I got a chart that I'm going to show in a minute or two.

[30:40] so in the presentation that the mayor just read,

[30:44] it only listed two, three, five ridge route addresses.

[30:48] this presentation and has two, three, five and two,

[30:51] three, six, which is what I evaluated in my chart.

[30:53] I'm showing a couple minutes.

[30:55] you said an error somewhere?

[31:00] is the, you know, there's a thing supposed to

[31:02] have, I guess it's a well sent under section 2.1.

[31:05] is that supposed to be in there also the two, three, sixes?

[31:16] >> [inaudible]

[31:25] >> staff is actively working on identifying a

[31:28] answer to that question if you're just about it.

[31:47] [blank_audio]

[31:55] yes, two, three, five, six, one should be included as well.

[31:59] okay, so that's an error in the presentation,

[32:01] part of it should be two, three, six also.

[32:05] okay, that's what I thought I thought something was missing there.

[32:07] okay, we have to rewrite this, I guess, then, to some degree.

[32:12] all right.

[32:15] page 16, I guess, now, page 16, I have a comment.

[32:21] I guess a lot of proof of questions right now.

[32:22] I'll hold that, I guess.

[32:24] that's going to be a little bit of questions, clear questions.

[32:29] yeah, really, yeah.

[32:30] yeah, 16 is for, we'll get to a presentation.

[32:34] okay, page 16, please.

[32:37] [blank_audio]

[32:41] 16.

[32:43] [blank_audio]

[32:52] I think, I'm sorry, my mistake, page 12.

[32:54] [blank_audio]

[33:00] okay, what I want to clarify is with the presentation that you've given here.

[33:07] well, let me ask for, what is our current obligation to fulfill no net loss?

[33:19] [blank_audio]

[33:27] the city's obligation to fulfill no net loss right now is 443 units,

[33:33] and that is inclusive of the pending application

[33:36] that the city received several months ago.

[33:39] that's 443, 443 lower-income units.

[33:43] okay, and the presentation, including the def and n, how many is that supply?

[33:48] [blank_audio]

[33:52] def taken together are 308 units, and on its own is 532 units.

[34:00] [blank_audio]

[34:06] I'm sorry, 840 units for those four sites.

[34:13] okay.

[34:15] so in essence, we have approximately 400 extras

[34:19] that we don't need to meet no net loss, correct?

[34:23] [blank_audio]

[34:26] in surplus, so there's the rhna requirement of the remaining units that are

[34:29] required to satisfy rhna, and then the surplus just to provide extra padding.

[34:34] so I'm trying to find out what I'm trying to clarify.

[34:36] we need 443, the presentation has 840 or 440 over approximately.

[34:41] correct.

[34:42] okay.

[34:43] so 402 minute.

[34:45] okay, that's all my questions for right now.

[34:47] thank you.

[34:57] [blank_audio]

[34:58] any other questions?

[35:03] [blank_audio]

[35:10] I was read, I was developing a question of my own.

[35:13] okay, so we'll now go to jared mathis' questions.

[35:16] it seems the sites that have been identified here,

[35:20] def, and you state that there's ownership interest.

[35:24] can you characterize that interest?

[35:27] that interest in what form it came and that it's serious.

[35:36] so over the last year, staff has actually

[35:38] been contacted by the property owners of both

[35:40] sites to see if the city would be interested in

[35:42] considered converting those sites into housing.

[35:47] so for example, sites def, I think the property owner

[35:49] has been experiencing low vacancy and looking for

[35:51] the highest and best use for the property, so they

[35:53] contacted city staff about converting those properties.

[35:55] at the time, this was not a housing element site, and then currently in

[35:59] the nmu zoning district, it would have to be a mixed use development.

[36:03] and then same with the property that's located off

[36:05] of ridge route, that property owner has contacted

[36:07] us, and felt that the highest and best use for

[36:09] their site would be to convert to residential.

[36:11] and so knowing that the city was going into a state of no net loss,

[36:15] they did offer up their interest to be included for the reason.

[36:18] thank you.

[36:24] okay, we'll now go to joshua sweeney.

[36:25] thank you, mayor.

[36:26] I was just had a question for staff.

[36:30] I wanted to have staff clearly explained for the residents the difference between

[36:34] rezoning property for the state law compliance

[36:36] and approving actual development project.

[36:44] >> thank you, council member sweeney. So by the city providing sites for

[36:48] housing, it does not necessarily require that number of housing units be built.

[36:52] the city is just required to provide opportunities for development

[36:55] if a developer were interested in rezoning those sites.

[36:59] so it does not necessarily mandate and development to occur.

[37:02] it's just providing an opportunity for development.

[37:10] thank you so much. And how confident is staff in the additional roughly 492

[37:14] unit cushion that will prevent another no net loss rezoning in the near future?

[37:22] so that's a hard one. To be honest, I mean to satisfy the rhna requirements,

[37:26] the way I described it previously is that it can be very much an uphill battle.

[37:33] so it depends on the second item this afternoon is whether or not the provisions

[37:37] could be in place to encourage additional affordable housing units to be provided.

[37:45] it's hard because the way the housing element is structured is that the city can count

[37:49] basically 100% of the units to go towards

[37:51] lower income to satisfy the rhna requirement.

[37:58] the reality is in terms of development feasibility,

[38:00] it just doesn't pencil out for developers

[38:02] unless they are able to access a special vein

[38:04] of financing for 100% affordable developments.

[38:08] so it's hard to say how the market's going to go, but right now we're

[38:12] hoping that this 492 surplus gets us through this planning period.

[38:25] perfect, thank you. One more just question

[38:26] for clarification. If we fail to act within the

[38:28] statutory timeline, what are the specific financial

[38:30] litigation certification and local control risks?

[38:42] the worst case scenario is that if we do not provide adequate inventory

[38:44] to satisfy the worst case scenarios that our housing element could be

[38:46] decertified, we could be susceptible to builders remedy projects again,

[38:48] and then also whether or not we would be open to litigation in lawsuits.

[38:50] thank you so much. That's all I have.

[38:57] okay, I'm going to go back to dave, but I have a couple questions of my own.

[39:01] first of all, I can't remember which slide it was, but it doesn't really matter.

[39:09] your site c was determined as a difficult one to actually develop, and I

[39:13] wanted to get, I know we've been told before, but I've spent a little while.

[39:17] I'd like to get a little clarification as to what was difficult about site c.

[39:25] site c has very high occupancy.

[39:28] it is almost fully utilized as a occupied facility.

[39:38] it has a very high improvement to total assessed value

[39:40] ratio indicating that there has been significant building

[39:43] improvements and upgrades. There is some significant investment

[39:45] in the physical structure that exists on the property.

[39:57] there has been no responsive property owner interest. The city has conducted

[40:00] outreach to property owners to solicit their interest for inclusion

[40:03] in the housing element periodically over the past number of years,

[40:06] including the preparation of the city's previously adopted housing element.

[40:11] again, a site c was previously considered for inclusion

[40:13] and ultimately not included in that adopted and

[40:15] certified element. For the same challenges we encountered

[40:18] in this cycle in reevaluating the site with fresh eyes.

[40:25] none of those market factors have changed substantially

[40:27] since that time. Nor has the property owner expressed

[40:30] any new interest in redevelopment site, which was not

[40:32] previously available as part of that prior element review.

[40:43] so with those characteristics, we did not feel that it felt it

[40:46] met the requirements that the city had outlined in its inventory

[40:48] in specific improvement to land value ratios in occupancy

[40:51] requirements and particularly with the support of a property owner.

[40:54] thank you. And I mean, since we're looking at this in our rhna

[40:58] cycle, right now it goes all the way through what 2029 correct.

[41:10] and if we were to accept these proposals, half the polls, then we're going to end up

[41:14] with a residual of something. Did I hear that right by 432 or something like that?

[41:28] 400.400. That, you know, in other words, the idea

[41:30] I assume is so that we don't need to be back here

[41:32] again that we will cover our nut and then actually

[41:34] have a little bit of a surplus. Is that true?

[41:36] that is the intent. Okay. And my last question has to do with site f.

[41:47] I know the site, well, actually site d was where the old city hall

[41:51] was when we used to rent space and that goes back about 25 years.

[41:56] but so I know the office buildings that are concerned and all the rest of that.

[42:08] I'm a little, I'm a little concerned so it's

[42:10] a question though. Site f actually backs up

[42:12] to residential. And when we're talking about 3280, 80 is a five or six story building.

[42:30] and I'm, you know, here you have single family. It looks like single

[42:33] family residential, hard for me to read the name of the street from the

[42:36] exhibit here. But you know what I'm talking about in site f is, it doesn't

[42:39] really say you're giving, you know, the overall acreage for site d and f.

[42:43] and actually in many respects site d at e right next to the freeway like that can

[42:47] handle a building in my opinion. But the point is that I'm wondering about site f.

[42:59] so the question is, what's the size of site f? And what if we were to, even if we were

[43:03] to rezone it, why, why, what if we were to

[43:05] just rezone f to 30 instead of 80, 30 to 80.

[43:07] so that you don't have a six story building hanging

[43:11] over a lot of single family homes on the other side.

[43:19] and I don't have a sense of that. I'm asking a question because I don't, these

[43:23] are all just, you know, piled together. So for what a total of five points.

[43:46] no, I mean, if I have 5.5 acres in three hundred eight units,

[43:48] can you give me a little clarification of what, what are,

[43:50] what are our choices, but, you know, what is the range of things

[43:52] that site f if wasn't incorporated in all the whole thing.

[43:54] so site f is approximately 1.3 acres and would

[43:58] yield about 71 units at the highest density level.

[44:02] so the question comes down to, I mean, obviously it's the council's

[44:06] discretion if they want to do it at a lower density for that location.

[44:18] but site f was brought together in conjunction from the property

[44:20] owner was sites dnf, denf from their assessment of what they consider

[44:21] they had done some preliminary assessments about what type of

[44:23] building size could go in, taking an account set backs and everything.

[44:25] so their proposal was to include site f.

[44:43] so if we would still maintain a surplus, if this was downgraded to a

[44:46] lower density, instead of possibly site to 30 dwelling because paragraph

[44:48] may be delivered this housing overlay at h50, just to make consistency

[44:50] and not have to revise and create a whole new housing overlay category.

[44:52] okay. So based on, you said, did you say 1.3 acres of site f?

[45:00] okay.

[45:01] can we bring that slide up?

[45:02] it would be nice to look at that page.

[45:05] I think we could find it.

[45:06] well, yeah, but if you're talking about 30

[45:10] units in acre, then you're really talking about,

[45:14] we're really talking about 40 or 50 units if we were to

[45:18] zone it down at a lower level to like 30 instead of 80.

[45:23] well, and keep in mind that the object design standards would

[45:25] still play into where there would be a stepping requirement.

[45:28] so it necessarily would be built all the way to

[45:32] the maximum 75 feet up into the property line.

[45:35] so the object design standards does require that

[45:37] stepping to offset and mitigate the height of the issue.

[45:50] okay. Okay. I'm just trying to get my arms around what the impact would be if to that

[45:54] 400 residual that we have if we didn't take site f all the way up to 80 potentially.

[45:58] that's all.

[45:59] so I think you pretty will have gotten me in the ballpark.

[46:02] I think about things in terms of the fabric of the community and not just numbers.

[46:08] so, thank you.

[46:11] and so we are back to dave if you had some questions.

[46:17] not anymore.

[46:18] okay.

[46:20] you're still, oh, he still has his line on pencil.

[46:22] okay.

[46:27] so with that, we have exhausted our questions

[46:31] from the staff from the agency members.

[46:35] and so what I'm going to do right now is open the public hearing.

[46:42] and announce the time again for that is 442.

[46:49] the purpose of this public hearing is to solicit public testimony and input.

[46:54] there will be no discussion, no debate, no

[46:57] personal opinions of agency members at this time.

[47:01] again, if you are participating remotely and

[47:04] wish to speak regarding this item on the phone, dial star 9 on the telephone.

[47:09] now to raise your hand to indicate you wish to speak, you will

[47:13] be identified by the last four digits of your phone number.

[47:17] and when you have been recognized to speak, dial star 6 to unmute.

[47:26] and so we'll get started with that.

[47:33] and I'm going to move to our city clerk and ask for public speakers in this order.

[47:41] first in favor of what we're talking about in the matter.

[47:46] and then secondly in person against the matter, third online remote.

[47:52] and with that, the city clerk will read the names of comments

[47:56] that were then submitted online, which were significant.

[48:00] so I will now open up to you, joshua.

[48:07] yes, thank you, mr. Mayor.

[48:11] the first card we have is rudy with no last name.

[48:21] thank you for your continued work towards addressing

[48:25] affordability and compliance with housing element.

[48:29] my name is rudy barbosa.

[48:31] I speak on behalf of the kennedy commission.

[48:36] for the no net loss overlay, we are asking that the city look into the

[48:40] possibility of adding a 20% affordability requirement in the overlay zones.

[48:44] first a question whether this site identification would have a

[48:48] higher confidence in the city addressing no net loss in the future.

[48:57] I think if the support ability requirement is

[48:59] introduced into the overlays and the confidence would

[49:01] go up because you would be addressing the

[49:03] affordability at the lower rhna and come categories.

[49:07] I also had a question in regards to the legality of having overlays.

[49:17] the use of overlays was found out of compliance if the base zoning did

[49:21] not allow for the density and the residential use of those overlays.

[49:31] we also had a question in the site identified adfn for the resulting

[49:35] classification, especially site and it said it would be classified as mxu mixed use.

[49:45] but we are wondering if that should be labeled as neighborhood mixed

[49:49] use in the general plan draft july 23, 2026 general plan draft.

[49:53] it says that mxu does not allow for residential

[49:56] development whereas neighborhood mixed use does.

[49:59] so we are wondering if the city can add clarification

[50:03] on to those land use designations under table ou1.

[50:07] we also ask that the city has more transparency in its website use.

[50:19] I believe there was mailer sent out with these maps

[50:21] and information for residents to look at however the no

[50:23] net loss site on the city website has not been updated

[50:26] with the presentations, maps and other information.

[50:35] and I think the use of this web page could be

[50:39] better if it is uploaded on to that one site.

[50:43] thank you.

[50:52] and I'm going to turn to jennifer and because a number

[50:54] of things were said here and if you have no comment and

[50:56] we'll just take it as a public comment, but if there's

[50:58] something that you want to respond to, then please feel free.

[51:00] well, if you would like me to address some of the comments.

[51:03] so with the no net loss website, my principal planner has just

[51:07] pulled it up and the staff report and everything is on there.

[51:15] so I'm not sure what items they were necessarily looking for but the ordinance and the

[51:19] maps and the changes to the general plan land

[51:21] use element are uploaded on that website.

[51:23] in terms of the legality of the overlay, so

[51:26] the mx use owning district does allow housing.

[51:29] the nmu is actually more restricted to the point

[51:32] where it has to be a mixed use development.

[51:35] we have changed that in the code to allow the sites that

[51:38] qualify under the housing overlay to be 100% residential.

[51:42] but the mxu does allow residential at 20 dwelling units per acre, but

[51:46] with the overlay, it is allowed to go up to the specific identities here.

[51:55] as well as for the affordable housing of 20% on these

[51:57] overlay sites, anything over 15% generally requires

[51:59] a more in depth feasibility analysis of whether or

[52:01] not 20% would actually have an access to be applied.

[52:03] so that would require some further study.

[52:06] >> thank you.

[52:07] >> thank you for that clarification.

[52:09] next speaker.

[52:14] >> we have rona henry.

[52:26] I'm rona henry, chair of welcoming neighbors home, our volunteer advocates

[52:30] advocate for affordable housing, and we have members in laguna hills.

[52:36] I always find zoning to be somewhat of a technical issue, so I was glad when I was

[52:40] copied on a public comment that the kennedy

[52:42] commission sent to you regarding this issue.

[52:44] and I think they raised some important concerns, including

[52:47] legal questions, and I urge you to look at those very carefully.

[53:00] my main concern is that the city is proposing to allow high density housing,

[53:02] which would be by right, and thus increase the value of the proposed

[53:04] sites without having any really strong program to ensure that the affordable

[53:06] housing for lower income households is included in the new development.

[53:08] we're concerned that the city may be giving up

[53:11] leverage to require affordable housing at these sites.

[53:20] in addition, I was also a little bit unclear about whether or not what the additional

[53:24] housing capacity would be, because you seem to be putting a range of 30 to 80.

[53:28] and I wasn't sure how realistic the capacity really was.

[53:37] finally, we do request the city rezone more suitable sites for housing in the context

[53:41] of we question how healthy it is to locate housing right next to a busy freeway.

[53:45] ideally, the housing sites should be located

[53:48] in your shopping, schools, services, and jobs.

[53:50] bottom line, I think we need a little bit more

[53:53] consideration on this. Thank you for your time.

[53:57] you have a question for you.

[54:04] councilman wheeler is going to.

[54:06] a clarification question on some of the things you said.

[54:09] hello, you've been here many times.

[54:11] okay, you said you should have more appropriate places.

[54:16] where would you put it?

[54:22] well, I recall that the owner of the molten shopping

[54:26] center wanted to have his site on the housing element site.

[54:30] and so that would have been a great place because

[54:32] it's right near shopping and it would have

[54:34] been, I think they wanted mixed use and I think

[54:36] that could have been mutually reinforcing.

[54:40] another site I'm blanking on the one. It's across where it's in laguna

[54:44] hills, but it's across from where bed bath and beyond used to be.

[54:48] where it costs plus importers. What's that big road? Soft of la paz.

[54:57] there's office buildings there. Yeah, so it

[54:59] was pointed out there's some office buildings

[55:01] there and that is a little close to the freeway, so that's not my favorite place.

[55:05] but the really great place would have been the molten shopping center.

[55:08] yeah, the last thing you might just write next three way, the same as the eea.

[55:12] okay. Yeah, that's not my most favorite. My most favorite is the molten.

[55:18] I'm not sure where you're talking about. Where the dmv used to be?

[55:21] there's a chinese restaurant there.

[55:22] okay, no, I know what you're talking about now, then.

[55:25] yeah, beautiful site. Thank you. Okay, any other questions? No, thank you.

[55:34] next speaker. Yes, we have anna gromis.

[55:44] welcome anna. Hi, thank you so much for having me.

[55:46] just a couple of comments that I wanted to make.

[55:47] I understand that you guys assess these sites and came to the conclusion

[55:51] that 30 to 80 dwelling units to the acre would be the most appropriate.

[55:55] but if you really want to do any kind of for sale product, 30 to

[55:59] the acre unfortunately does not pencil for any of our developers.

[56:03] we're looking more closer to 20 to the acre for single

[56:07] family town homes or any kind of for sale residential.

[56:10] if that's something that you're interested in, happy to discuss it further.

[56:14] but as we've stated previously to the city and to staff, when

[56:18] you get down to 30 to the acre, there's just no open space.

[56:22] there's parking restrictions. You basically have a

[56:25] product that is difficult to build and difficult to sell.

[56:32] so our recommendation and our ask would be that you amend the

[56:36] span to be 20 to 80 or more to the acre, please. Thank you.

[56:40] questions? Thank you very much. Next.

[56:45] we have caesar covarubius.

[56:54] welcome. Thank you.

[56:56] good evening, mayor council members.

[56:58] sessercovarubius, I'm the executive director of the county commission.

[57:04] just wanted to provide a few additional comments based on

[57:08] the presentation of my partners and some of our colleagues.

[57:18] I think the main distinction here that we're trying to draw

[57:20] is that we're here today because you have an approved housing

[57:22] element and that now has to be redone because we don't have a

[57:25] policy or program that it's going to encourage affordable housing.

[57:27] so if we do this development, the way that developments were

[57:31] done in the past, we will get the same result on these sites.

[57:41] we get market rate development that's not going to

[57:43] have been the affordable. And I think there's a clear

[57:45] distinction here where in the statute that is being

[57:47] referenced to be able to create these sites to have capacity.

[57:49] you do have the ability to provide 20% of the units

[57:53] to be affordable if you have a by right process.

[58:01] particular proposal doesn't distinguish a by right process

[58:03] that will create 20% affordable versus a traditional

[58:06] market rate approach that is just going to be by

[58:07] right where you're giving away all these incentives.

[58:10] so the main point here is we're missing the opportunity

[58:13] to capture what we're giving to a developer in this case.

[58:20] we're asking a developer, "what do you want to do?" you

[58:22] have a developer who just came up and said, "hey, if

[58:24] you give us 20% of the county, 20 units to the acre, we

[58:27] can build market rate housing that is home ownership."

[58:35] but none of it will be affordable, right? At 80 units of

[58:37] acre, 50 units to the acre, you're going to get the same

[58:39] result with market rate developers who are going to give you

[58:42] the higher density developments but all that market rate.

[58:44] and you'll be back here in a couple of years asking your staff

[58:48] to reassign sites and find sites to be able to accommodate those.

[59:04] so I think there is an opportunity to look at this clearly and be able to distinguish

[59:06] how

[59:06] do we comply with the law, how do we make sure that we also are providing the best

[59:08] benefit

[59:09] for your community where you're identifying sites and you're getting something and

[59:11] return

[59:11] and that being in the affordability for the residents that live and work in the city.

[59:13] okay, thank you.

[59:14] any questions?

[59:15] dave, you have your light on?

[59:18] I have a question?

[59:20] I'm thinking.

[59:21] I'm not sure.

[59:23] no.

[59:24] okay.

[59:25] next speaker.

[59:28] thank you for your comments.

[59:29] that is all the speaker comments cards I have.

[59:32] all of them.

[59:33] for this item.

[59:34] yes.

[59:35] okay.

[59:36] and then we can go the other direction.

[59:38] here you have any -- I'm sorry?

[59:43] we're on still 2.1.

[59:52] that is all I have for 2.1.

[59:53] okay.

[1:00:01] and do we have any that are online or by telephone?

[1:00:07] can you go ahead and announce for a minute?

[1:00:09] yes.

[1:00:16] mr. Mayor, can I make a brief announcement?

[1:00:18] yes.

[1:00:19] may.

[1:00:20] council member peehold, peehold has asked

[1:00:22] to join the meeting remotely for just cause.

[1:00:24] she is a child caregiving issue.

[1:00:27] so we have been able to have council member peehold on through audio and video.

[1:00:31] council member peehold, is there anyone with you in the

[1:00:35] room over 18 and if so, can you please state the general nature of your relationship?

[1:00:42] no one over 18.

[1:00:44] no one is here.

[1:00:47] thank you.

[1:00:48] except for me.

[1:00:52] I have no one online wishing to speak.

[1:00:54] okay.

[1:00:55] and no one.

[1:00:56] okay.

[1:00:57] so we're done public speakers.

[1:00:58] okay.

[1:01:01] okay.

[1:01:02] further time being yes.

[1:01:03] all right.

[1:01:04] so.

[1:01:05] I will call.

[1:01:06] I'm sorry.

[1:01:07] I'll be read the names that were submitted for this.

[1:01:09] go ahead.

[1:01:11] I'm in favor.

[1:01:12] I have heidi prescott.

[1:01:14] oppose.

[1:01:15] marcelo lawson.

[1:01:16] and the neutral is caesar.

[1:01:18] coperubius.

[1:01:19] ed.

[1:01:20] and renee oaks.

[1:01:21] and run a henry.

[1:01:22] okay.

[1:01:23] thank you.

[1:01:24] all right.

[1:01:26] so we have any other final questions of staff

[1:01:30] or any other members of the public from agency members.

[1:01:35] don't see that.

[1:01:37] and so with that, I'm going to close the public

[1:01:40] hearing and announce that the public hearing is closed now.

[1:01:46] so we're going to move into the city council

[1:01:50] planning agency and deliberations of this particular item.

[1:01:56] and I will start with -- well, I don't -- colin, did you want to speak to this?

[1:02:02] or did you -- you have your light on?

[1:02:03] oh, my apologies.

[1:02:04] okay.

[1:02:05] all right.

[1:02:06] dave.

[1:02:07] okay.

[1:02:08] robert, would you bring up the first part of the usb drive I gave you?

[1:02:15] I have a few comments.

[1:02:17] I'll start with the -- should you go to -- in the next page, please?

[1:02:21] okay.

[1:02:22] hold there.

[1:02:24] I did a considerable amount of work on studying

[1:02:27] this issue to try to present some basic

[1:02:29] facts and thanks for the council to consider.

[1:02:32] no.

[1:02:33] please keep it on.

[1:02:35] okay.

[1:02:36] would you go to robert?

[1:02:41] okay.

[1:02:42] next page, please.

[1:02:48] okay.

[1:02:49] I just wanted to relate to everybody, the council especially.

[1:02:53] what the current situation is.

[1:02:55] I spent considerable time going over every

[1:02:59] parcel in the city that is now zoned commercial.

[1:03:02] the whole city has just sort of two million.

[1:03:04] I'm sorry, these are -- the figures are not easy.

[1:03:08] they're not in the square miles or square feet.

[1:03:10] the program I had was meters, though.

[1:03:12] it's the relative number I think of the most important thing.

[1:03:15] the -- I mean, it's almost two million square meters of commercial.

[1:03:19] of that, the north has about a million.

[1:03:23] el toro area, 400,000.

[1:03:25] alicia area, 142.

[1:03:27] la paz, about 200.

[1:03:29] and when I call strip malls, little areas of

[1:03:31] the city is about five of them that have things.

[1:03:33] it's like the ralph shopping center where the pancake house is another one.

[1:03:40] we're smart finals is another one of those areas.

[1:03:45] and I want to point the -- the approved for rina or hed or hcd or hdl.

[1:03:50] I combined the data.

[1:03:59] the whole city has already approved 400,000 square meters to be

[1:04:03] converted basically from commercial or retail over two allow housing.

[1:04:07] the north, 116, that's basically the milk creek project.

[1:04:12] el toro, that's the mall plus little triangle area

[1:04:15] that's over across the street from mall near the freeway.

[1:04:19] nothing on alicia.

[1:04:21] la paz is the -- is the la paz village there, 17,000.

[1:04:29] for the entire city, if you look, already we have

[1:04:32] lost 27 -- I'm sorry, 20.7% of our commercial area.

[1:04:37] that's retail or off-spoting, that type of thing.

[1:04:39] in the north, that's the real creek.

[1:04:41] they took 10% of that area.

[1:04:44] the el toro, where the mall is, it's taken 67%

[1:04:46] two-thirds of that entire area, which I want to comment.

[1:04:49] that is the most valuable area in the whole city for commercial.

[1:04:53] and we've given away already two-thirds of it.

[1:04:57] la paz is around, you know, little, it's 10%.

[1:05:01] I just want to caution me, the last gentleman that

[1:05:04] spoke with the kennedy commission is kind of correct.

[1:05:06] we're going to keep getting the same results, but keep doing the same thing.

[1:05:09] we keep, you know, sacrificing these properties

[1:05:12] and reducing our retail and commercial.

[1:05:15] and we're getting, you know, we're not meeting rhna.

[1:05:17] all we're doing is just getting more and

[1:05:19] more, you know, market rate housing in there.

[1:05:22] I'm told that the market rate housing is almost getting saturated now.

[1:05:24] I'm not sure if that's true or not.

[1:05:26] but look, we've already lost 20% of what we had.

[1:05:32] we haven't got that much left if we can't go at this rate.

[1:05:34] we're not gaining anything.

[1:05:36] okay, now let's specifically come with respect to property n.

[1:05:40] we're up next page, please.

[1:05:43] I thought I made a mistake when I saw the presentation that

[1:05:47] mayor read about two, three, five ridge route addresses.

[1:05:52] I'd done two, three, five, and two, three, six.

[1:05:53] I was glad to see that it was an error and the

[1:05:55] thing that I didn't include the correct ones.

[1:05:57] this area, as you can see, this is a 25, it's 24.

[1:06:01] it's actually 25, that's new data.

[1:06:03] this is a 25-year period of how that area is done.

[1:06:07] and, you know, contrary to privately, it is actually doing well.

[1:06:10] I mean, it's not a, you know, a behemoth as far

[1:06:13] as money, but everything is improving in there.

[1:06:15] it's got the trend up.

[1:06:17] if you look around 2020, they even had their downside there with covid,

[1:06:20] but they recovered, and they're still going up.

[1:06:23] I would hate to sacrifice this area.

[1:06:25] this area is the only parcel that we've talked about.

[1:06:29] this is being totally rezoned.

[1:06:30] right now it's only zoned for commercial.

[1:06:34] what's being proposed that we changed that from commercial

[1:06:36] to mixed use, which basically may open it up to housing.

[1:06:38] so, we, you know, we take this thing off out of the, you know,

[1:06:42] realm of building our retail and just sacrifice them more housing.

[1:06:48] and they're approximately, and I count it.

[1:06:51] there's 18 currently active businesses.

[1:06:53] that's for the hdl data in that area in n.

[1:06:57] so, what are we saying to our businesses?

[1:06:59] oh, okay, this 18 business is okay.

[1:07:00] we decide to turn you into houses.

[1:07:03] so, you know, sorry, but, you know, you have to move

[1:07:05] or close that shop or move somewhere else or do something.

[1:07:08] I think that's terrible.

[1:07:09] we do that kind of thing.

[1:07:11] we need this problem.

[1:07:12] we did keep as much commercial as we can.

[1:07:15] one to comment on the end.

[1:07:21] again, I would like to bring up the a, b and c properties.

[1:07:26] I know that the criteria didn't go for that,

[1:07:29] but couldn't we increase the, increase the density of the, you know,

[1:07:35] of the height or something to allow me we've got.

[1:07:37] we only need 443, okay.

[1:07:40] and we're, it was the 840.

[1:07:43] I mean, why should we give twice as much of our property way as we need to?

[1:07:46] that's the surface of it.

[1:07:47] we're giving a double of what we, what we have to do.

[1:07:51] now, I don't know, I, again, I prefer the kennedy commission comment.

[1:07:53] we're just going to do the same thing over and over again, though.

[1:07:56] if we keep doing this, we just keep giving away property.

[1:07:57] we're getting out of the element.

[1:07:59] what we're going to degrade to, if you look at the previous chart,

[1:08:01] that 20%, we're going to degrade into a residential community only.

[1:08:05] and then they're going to start taking parts in l.a.g.o.

[1:08:07] , and other places to convert this big, the

[1:08:09] big mansions into, into part we're building.

[1:08:12] so we've got nothing left.

[1:08:13] we have to rethink this.

[1:08:14] I'm very upset with the state of california sacramento.

[1:08:18] they come in there and they, they do these things to sit.

[1:08:21] if they would go back out and look out, the

[1:08:24] eastern part of the county has land out there.

[1:08:26] there is absolutely nothing on.

[1:08:28] there's no cities out there.

[1:08:29] there's nothing to be, you know, destroyed.

[1:08:32] that's what the society's done forever.

[1:08:34] in new york city, when they grew, they went out the long, out the long island.

[1:08:37] he started building house out there in california.

[1:08:39] when la got too filled up, they came to orange county, started building places.

[1:08:43] they knew what's a riverside, aren't you?

[1:08:44] they weren't as correct on that.

[1:08:46] but they go out and build in places that aren't populated.

[1:08:48] they don't go in and try to destroy cities.

[1:08:52] so the, the, the, the, they need this to stop.

[1:08:54] and I wish the kennedy commission and, and around this group,

[1:08:56] I wish you would, would stop, you know, coming to city meetings

[1:08:59] and go to the state and do the people that really cause the problems.

[1:09:03] we could build lots of affordable housing.

[1:09:05] we'd build an out, out beyond right to start a,

[1:09:07] santa margarita and an out beyond mission viejo.

[1:09:10] there's nothing out there.

[1:09:11] absolutely nothing.

[1:09:12] if you'll believe me, after meeting throughout

[1:09:14] there, drive out there and take a look.

[1:09:15] you won't see a single house.

[1:09:18] that's something common for right now.

[1:09:20] okay.

[1:09:22] well, I, I have a couple of questions.

[1:09:26] could you put that chart back up there?

[1:09:28] do you mind if I ask you a question?

[1:09:29] absolutely.

[1:09:34] uh, you, you're going to get that, uh, back up there again?

[1:09:36] oh, not back back.

[1:09:37] no, no, there you go.

[1:09:38] that one?

[1:09:39] yes.

[1:09:40] yeah.

[1:09:41] I just want to make sure I'm understanding it.

[1:09:42] yes.

[1:09:43] so basically, uh, this is a per quarter.

[1:09:46] is this for the, I want to understand the matrix itself.

[1:09:50] okay.

[1:09:52] uh, is this what we lost it again?

[1:09:54] okay.

[1:09:56] so is this, is this for all businesses within the city?

[1:09:59] no, no.

[1:10:00] we're just, this is in.

[1:10:01] this is in.

[1:10:02] that's what I'm saying.

[1:10:03] this is specifically the two three five and two three six rid through addresses.

[1:10:08] only.

[1:10:10] so there is, and there is essentially.

[1:10:12] these are the ones that are a little more than six million dollars.

[1:10:15] no, no.

[1:10:16] that's 6,000.

[1:10:17] 6,000.

[1:10:18] oh, six thousand.

[1:10:19] yeah, I said it's not a behemoth.

[1:10:20] okay.

[1:10:21] six thousand dollars in taxes for the quarter.

[1:10:23] but there's another.

[1:10:24] yeah, per quarter.

[1:10:25] I just want to understand.

[1:10:26] yeah, so four, four dots that make up the curve is a year.

[1:10:30] but these are by quarter.

[1:10:31] okay.

[1:10:32] okay.

[1:10:33] yeah, I understand.

[1:10:34] so you're multiply by four.

[1:10:35] I can do that.

[1:10:36] so basically I didn't have all this tribe.

[1:10:37] but basically you're looking at about 35,000.

[1:10:40] okay.

[1:10:41] for a year.

[1:10:42] yeah.

[1:10:43] I mean, the overall nature of what you're, what you're putting on here is I, you know,

[1:10:49] I applaud that you did that work and you're pointing it out to us.

[1:10:53] I mean, economic development in our city is probably the most important thing that

[1:10:58] we need to do.

[1:11:00] we can't continue to be a bedroom community community forever and ever and ever.

[1:11:06] it would be out of business completely.

[1:11:09] and, you know, we put too much, you know, stock

[1:11:13] on the fact that nothing in the world ever changes.

[1:11:18] and we let them all of 50 years, you know, basically wash away, not overnight, but

[1:11:26] over probably 10 or 15 years and we didn't do anything about it.

[1:11:32] we just thought, oh, well, we've got all of the sales tax and we'll have it forever.

[1:11:36] while our surrounding communities have double cost goes and car dealerships and

[1:11:43] all kinds of stuff and they're floating in cash.

[1:11:47] so it is a, you know, the rhna stuff is a big problem for us because it is robbing

[1:11:52] us in many respects of our, what's left of our commercial areas.

[1:11:58] and that respect I do agree with councilman weeder.

[1:12:03] I mean, architect in a planner and I'm looking at this in other ways too.

[1:12:08] the problem is we have state law.

[1:12:12] I didn't say that I like the state law, but the state law requires that we had

[1:12:17] 1985, you know, available rhna units that

[1:12:21] could be developed at least from our standpoint.

[1:12:27] we're not developing them that we're making it possible.

[1:12:32] between, you know, within this rhna timeframe, which is in 2029.

[1:12:39] and so that's law.

[1:12:41] we didn't, you know, that's something that we totally control.

[1:12:44] whether we like it or not.

[1:12:47] and I do think we're making some progress.

[1:12:50] I do think that we have another subject matter of its is on the calendar today,

[1:12:55] which is on the agenda today, which is inclusionary zoning, which would certainly

[1:13:02] help on the affordability side.

[1:13:05] and I've now been on the council for almost five years and I've looked at all of

[1:13:10] this and as a planner, I can see how this is playing out in the development world.

[1:13:18] and so we got to balance all of that.

[1:13:26] and, you know, in such a way that a developer, they're in business to make money.

[1:13:34] okay.

[1:13:35] so they're not going to come in and say, oh, we

[1:13:38] want, we're going to do a whole thing, affordable, whole thing.

[1:13:41] I mean, actually, if we would present that to hcd, they'd laugh at us.

[1:13:46] because we'd say, oh, we have to zone it and solve it affordable.

[1:13:50] and then nobody would ever do it.

[1:13:51] and, you know, it wouldn't pencil.

[1:13:55] and so that would be just kicked back in our face, in my opinion.

[1:14:00] so, you know, so we're going to deal with each one of these, one at a time.

[1:14:05] the one that I have a little bit of a problem with here.

[1:14:09] because I don't mind having a, you know, so that we

[1:14:11] don't have to come back here again before 1929, 1929.

[1:14:20] but the one I do have a problem with is zoning site f to 30 to 80.

[1:14:27] I do not want to see six story buildings right up against the backyards of those,

[1:14:33] it looked like about five or six homes.

[1:14:35] that would be ridiculous.

[1:14:38] and so, I mean, I think you'd do something

[1:14:41] pretty nice in site d and e if the developer were to buy site f and make that the

[1:14:48] swimming pool and all the rest of the stuff.

[1:14:51] because it would be on the south side to get plenty of sun.

[1:14:54] and it would be much less of an issue if you're talking about, okay, now,

[1:15:01] it's not just numbers, it's not just acreages.

[1:15:04] it's about what are we doing here.

[1:15:07] and so, if I were to make a change to, or not change, but a proposal,

[1:15:14] an amendment to the proposition of doing this,

[1:15:20] and we don't even have that on the table quite yet, that would be it.

[1:15:26] and that's my comments for right now.

[1:15:30] thank you, if anyone else has any comments.

[1:15:32] dave, go ahead.

[1:15:33] yeah, but yeah, we've got to figure out something.

[1:15:37] I want to make three comments.

[1:15:40] first of all, there's this comment that keeps coming up and up over and over.

[1:15:44] it's like, well, we can't do anything that would inhibit businesses from building.

[1:15:49] I'm like, well, okay, that is one way to look at.

[1:15:52] but the other thing, why is that more important than a city's ability to exist?

[1:15:59] I mean, if we just keep letting building go rampant,

[1:16:04] then we will collapse into an all residential city.

[1:16:08] our sales tax revenue, we've got a zero.

[1:16:10] it's about six million each now.

[1:16:12] our total budget is about 25, 26.

[1:16:14] so we lose all that.

[1:16:15] the property is not going to make up for it.

[1:16:17] and we basically have a downward spiral.

[1:16:19] we can't, even now, we cannot do the annual refresh

[1:16:23] of our roads because we haven't got the money.

[1:16:27] because we're losing, we lost them all.

[1:16:29] we lost approximately two million dollars a year on that.

[1:16:31] and we keep losing to that.

[1:16:33] I don't see why it's any, it's more important to let businesses,

[1:16:37] I'm sorry, builders, you know, succeed and have a big profits.

[1:16:40] that's the expensive cities.

[1:16:42] you got to lose their cities.

[1:16:44] I think these are more important myself for right now.

[1:16:47] there's plenty of places to build out the east.

[1:16:50] now let me go back to something that's for the kennedy,

[1:16:54] kennedy commission people here in the, I guess it's welcoming neighbors group.

[1:16:58] okay. Let me challenge both of you.

[1:17:02] I've spoken to, I think the cs are still the president of kennedy.

[1:17:06] okay.

[1:17:08] yeah, I've spoken to both the groups privately in the back room, back everything.

[1:17:12] and you guys are not treating the whole problem.

[1:17:16] my challenge to you is, yes, you can get somebody at place to live

[1:17:19] by forcing the portal house in cities maybe.

[1:17:22] but that's only 30% of a person's, you know, income.

[1:17:25] that's the theoretical number you're supposed to build out.

[1:17:28] you're still at the other 70% was take care of your insurance,

[1:17:30] your family, your food, your transportation, all the other things.

[1:17:35] when you put affordable in the middle of a place where they really can't afford it,

[1:17:40] you're putting them in a very untenable position.

[1:17:42] because 70% of their income that they're going

[1:17:45] to need to exist and drive there is not there.

[1:17:49] you need to work on a whole solution, not just a 30% solution.

[1:17:52] anyway.

[1:17:54] last thing, this sort of just to comment

[1:17:57] what don said about the six story buildings.

[1:18:00] I think we approved a six story already on the pause village.

[1:18:05] it was five or six.

[1:18:06] and that's over top of at least several houses.

[1:18:09] so we've already done that.

[1:18:11] I mean, I didn't like it, but we've already done that.

[1:18:16] so I mean, to get out of having to sacrifice other retail.

[1:18:21] I don't know what you do.

[1:18:24] thank you.

[1:18:25] ok.

[1:18:26] I'm going to move to mayor pro tem, a juror at memphis.

[1:18:30] thank you, mr. Mayor.

[1:18:31] listen, nobody likes to be in this position where you have to

[1:18:35] give away local control, essentially, under the threat of penalty.

[1:18:40] it's not how good decisions get made necessarily, not the best.

[1:18:44] and I agree with everything, my colleagues have

[1:18:47] said, and from a philosophical perspective,

[1:18:50] unfortunately, we're not in a position to be able to rest on that.

[1:18:53] because the project that was just mentioned about la paz village,

[1:18:56] that was a builder's remedy project because we got outside of our housing element.

[1:19:01] and to not move forward here tonight on a number of different

[1:19:05] things and risk being outside of our housing element.

[1:19:09] and then hertz are residents without any level of control.

[1:19:16] so that concerns me, right?

[1:19:18] and so I appreciate the work that's been done

[1:19:21] in putting together these different sites.

[1:19:24] and I appreciate the work dave has done in kind of outlining what those values are.

[1:19:31] you know, just $30,000 a year is that the tail wagging the dog.

[1:19:37] I understand the sentimentality of it and

[1:19:40] the logic of protecting our commercial zones.

[1:19:43] but we have to comply.

[1:19:45] and we need to make sure that we've got a surplus so

[1:19:49] that we can further protect the city going forward.

[1:19:55] as the sites, just a pure evaluation of the sites, I think

[1:19:59] the de and f and n are completely adequate and appropriate.

[1:20:04] and while I appreciate the commentary about

[1:20:07] placing high density housing near freeways,

[1:20:10] there's also a reason that it's affordable as well.

[1:20:13] so that's just a balance that we have to strike.

[1:20:18] and I think de and do that.

[1:20:22] I also look at the idea of creating community off of that ridge route location.

[1:20:29] it's a nice big site. It's one big parcel.

[1:20:41] and it's also got a bunch of commercial next to it to really help create a dynamic

[1:20:45] situation for that commercial that is up and

[1:20:47] down that furniture road that is struggling.

[1:20:52] those businesses are struggling. There's a number of different vacancies there.

[1:21:00] so I think if the owner actually decided to develop and I think that would

[1:21:03] benefit that area from a mix perspective and create an interesting community.

[1:21:07] de and f office buildings that have a higher and better use at this point

[1:21:11] given that office buildings aren't what they used to be in our world.

[1:21:20] and the proximity to the freeway and is actually I

[1:21:24] think attractive for people that need to commute.

[1:21:31] so for all of those reasons and there's more, I would absolutely

[1:21:35] endorse the work that staff and our consultants have done.

[1:21:47] and I would say that I could agree to that amendment that don mentioned to

[1:21:51] take section f down to 50 dwellings dwelling units per acre for that reason.

[1:22:01] and I also understand that that probably can be

[1:22:03] handled through the approval process with director

[1:22:05] lowe. But I mean essentially that would take

[1:22:06] us down roughly 40 total units in our surplus.

[1:22:08] I don't think that breaks the bank one way or the other.

[1:22:12] but if it helps protect those residents, I would be for them. Thank you.

[1:22:21] right, joshua, josh, I'm leaving.

[1:22:27] was that a motion?

[1:22:30] I did not make a motion.

[1:22:32] no worries, no worries.

[1:22:33] sorry to skip over your bed.

[1:22:35] hasn't had a relationship.

[1:22:37] it's at this point in what he does, mr. Masters.

[1:22:42] go ahead.

[1:22:43] just to comment on eyes of the throughout there.

[1:22:46] I would propose, okay, we can juggle, I guess it's f to make it a little lower.

[1:22:53] maybe build up d and e. I'm sorry, that right, def, yeah.

[1:22:58] we're only a few percentage or a few hours away

[1:23:00] from making d and f solve the whole problem.

[1:23:04] so I suppose we increase the density there.

[1:23:06] maybe it's just a d and e to make it meet what we have to do.

[1:23:11] so we get through this and then throw in maybe

[1:23:14] c. I know it's a, they say it's not a problem.

[1:23:16] but even if acd looks at it, okay, we already met your number.

[1:23:20] throwing in the c is just, as the buffer if you have to have one.

[1:23:26] but again, I'm still trying to protect the businesses.

[1:23:29] thank you.

[1:23:30] okay.

[1:23:31] thank you for yielding.

[1:23:32] erica, you don't have a button to push.

[1:23:34] so I'm going to just ask you, did you have any comments or -- yes.

[1:23:38] yes. I, my comments are basically that this is --

[1:23:48] I don't think that this is adequate in terms

[1:23:51] of where the housing and zoning should be.

[1:23:56] if we look at other cities, which unfortunately

[1:24:01] that is missing in this presentation,

[1:24:04] if you look at what our neighboring cities have done.

[1:24:08] and cabbage, that is zoned for rhna.

[1:24:12] however, there's all of these independent homeowner, or excuse me,

[1:24:16] business owners that have no intention of selling.

[1:24:19] and yet that's zoned for rhna.

[1:24:23] and the same thing happens in many other areas.

[1:24:26] we're talking mission b.a.l. Lake forest.

[1:24:29] and the other cities have essentially zoned all

[1:24:33] around without the intention of pushing forward.

[1:24:42] so I'm not sure why we as a city cannot find other areas in the city.

[1:24:52] I think that -- and is -- it would be

[1:24:55] devastating to see the area I want to remember.

[1:25:02] but a group came in, a dance group came in and

[1:25:06] mentioned how many people drive down to rich --

[1:25:10] a ridge route, and how many dance studios are around there.

[1:25:14] it's kind of like a dance lane.

[1:25:16] it makes it interesting is that they shop in that area.

[1:25:21] so usually when you take your child to a game or you take your child somewhere,

[1:25:26] we don't have club soccer in our city.

[1:25:30] we don't have any high sophisticated sports.

[1:25:34] we haven't developed that.

[1:25:35] I've been trying for years.

[1:25:36] but we don't have attractions.

[1:25:38] but this is developing organically as an area that is bringing visitors to the city,

[1:25:45] which actually feeds, which is why one of the

[1:25:48] reasons perhaps that that area is doing better,

[1:25:53] and which is what dave is trying to say.

[1:25:56] I don't know what city fights the foot that feeds or bites they and that feeds them.

[1:26:06] but that's what exactly happening is that we're

[1:26:10] taking something that is creating the jobs

[1:26:14] in the building that you're in right now.

[1:26:17] the money comes from the tax revenue.

[1:26:21] if it wasn't for these businesses that feed,

[1:26:25] we won't have the employee's in the city.

[1:26:30] we won't have a city.

[1:26:32] we need to be very strategic about what we are doing to cut our hands off essentially.

[1:26:40] and so I am not supportive of n because it is

[1:26:44] not a sound business decision for the city.

[1:26:47] it's sound for a developer, but it's not sound for us as a city.

[1:26:54] so I'm not supportive, unfortunately.

[1:26:57] and I think that we need to be more strategic financially

[1:27:01] about what makes sense for a win, win solution.

[1:27:05] and this unfortunately doesn't hit the marker.

[1:27:09] no, if you notice, most cities don't just pick an

[1:27:13] area where they have retail that's starting to boom.

[1:27:17] it's just, they don't.

[1:27:19] so with that, you have my concerns.

[1:27:22] okay, thank you, josh.

[1:27:24] if I'm going to get back to you.

[1:27:29] thank you, mayor.

[1:27:33] for me, it's just really, you know, wanting residents to

[1:27:35] understand that tonight's decision isn't an overall approval

[1:27:37] for 80 drawing units per acre, anything like that.

[1:27:40] but it's just really about state law compliance and our

[1:27:44] intent to preserve the city's certified housing element.

[1:27:52] and as much as local decision making authority as the law still allows.

[1:27:57] so state mandate should never be an excuse to stop

[1:28:00] listening locally because when projects come forward,

[1:28:03] we still have to understand what they're going to do and pay serious attention to the

[1:28:07] traffic and the parking and emergency access

[1:28:09] and everything that comes along with that.

[1:28:11] so those are just my thoughts and comments on it.

[1:28:18] okay, well, I'll kind of wrap it up here.

[1:28:22] I'll actually make a motion that we accept a staff report with one amendment.

[1:28:29] and that I believe, and I'll explain, is site f.

[1:28:35] I do see if it's taken by a developer, they'll probably take de and f, by the way.

[1:28:41] but I think f should have the restriction of between 20 and 30.

[1:28:49] because that's town homes, or something is two to three stories, which I

[1:28:53] don't have a whole problem with next to a single family residential area.

[1:28:58] but I do have a problem with six story buildings.

[1:29:01] 50 is still a four story building.

[1:29:04] okay, so it's going to have the same effect.

[1:29:06] we're talking about a little more than a naker there.

[1:29:10] and so, yeah, it'll have an effect and maybe

[1:29:13] instead of having a residual of 400 units,

[1:29:16] we may end up with something more like 350 or 360.

[1:29:22] but that would be the only amendment, if that's even, we're

[1:29:26] actually have to ask staff, if that's even a doable kind of thing,

[1:29:30] or am I throwing a monkey wrench in the hole of our deal.

[1:29:34] so to qualify as a housing site, you need a minimum of 30 to all units per acre.

[1:29:39] a minimum of 30.

[1:29:41] 30.

[1:29:42] that's 30?

[1:29:43] 30, yeah.

[1:29:44] okay, but if we were to do that,

[1:29:49] I mean, I still see, I look at that.

[1:29:52] in fact, I'm not, I'm looking at the size of the site.

[1:29:55] I'm actually imagining a building there, right?

[1:30:00] and so, you know, it's, it's not the world's

[1:30:03] largest site for, you know, 80 units per acre.

[1:30:07] I'm not sure if that's really doable even if

[1:30:10] we, if we, but our planners have looked at it

[1:30:13] and these, you feel like that it's developable at that rate.

[1:30:18] and I'm going to assume, when you think of that sites

[1:30:22] where we have that kind of development like re-auto,

[1:30:25] they're, they're relatively narrow and they might,

[1:30:28] something like that could fit into that site.

[1:30:30] but I really don't want it to go down and tower

[1:30:33] over all those residential homes at the end.

[1:30:40] so, I would like to see that one basically be fb and no more than 30 density.

[1:30:49] and, and if somebody takes down the whole thing, then

[1:30:52] they'll just learn how to rearrange the deck chairs

[1:30:54] so they get the maximum use out of the whole site.

[1:30:57] and they'll probably end up with like 65 as a total across de and f.

[1:31:03] so that just be speaking from the professional side.

[1:31:07] so that would be my motion without amendment.

[1:31:10] and do we have a second?

[1:31:14] I'll second that.

[1:31:15] okay. Do we have any other amendments to the amendment?

[1:31:18] possibly. I'm going to make a comment on the first one.

[1:31:20] okay, go ahead.

[1:31:21] I just brought a picture.

[1:31:22] I wish I could throw it up on the screen.

[1:31:27] the buildings that would be next to the housing, let me pull up talking.

[1:31:36] right there.

[1:31:37] right there.

[1:31:39] right there.

[1:31:40] that would be site.

[1:31:42] site f.

[1:31:45] what I'm sure on the mayor is that the buildings next

[1:31:48] to the housing, I should have the physical layout of it.

[1:31:51] what if we just had, I mean, they get, they're

[1:31:53] probably a bit of park because there's nothing

[1:31:55] in there for the kids to play on, and a pool.

[1:31:58] what if they just, the pool and the amenities be on that site?

[1:32:01] next to the houses.

[1:32:03] then you can have the building.

[1:32:04] you'll be a setback of at least twice this room maybe.

[1:32:07] or they're a bath.

[1:32:08] and then build, we can make it.

[1:32:10] I think that's exactly what somebody would do.

[1:32:15] but we're talking about with plan numbers.

[1:32:18] I know, but you know what we need to are.

[1:32:19] they still have to bring it to us to approve it and all the rest of that.

[1:32:23] so, but then we can meet our numbers without, without lowering the densities.

[1:32:27] and hopefully not sacrifice and is my objective.

[1:32:30] so you're saying you would, you would rather have it be 80?

[1:32:35] I don't have to be 80 and sacrifice and all across if that's what it gives the number.

[1:32:42] the minimum to give is the number.

[1:32:43] I don't know what that would be.

[1:32:44] maybe I have to.

[1:32:45] that's the question.

[1:32:46] to pull back, that means we've got to negotiate with the

[1:32:50] developer who might want to do it 80 all the way across.

[1:32:54] yeah.

[1:32:55] and I'd have to yield to the.

[1:32:58] I'm afraid to see it.

[1:32:59] see if the 80 piece of numbers share it right now.

[1:33:04] you would be really for that one.

[1:33:06] so, okay.

[1:33:08] so, what do you want to do with that?

[1:33:12] I mean, you made a comment.

[1:33:13] well, all right, I'd like to make a substitute motion.

[1:33:17] and then that we, we make the density sufficient f to

[1:33:22] meet our reener requirement or no net loss requirement.

[1:33:28] but, you know, add the vision of that the amenities

[1:33:32] will be built on the housing side of the of the f.

[1:33:36] such that they have a separation of the housing.

[1:33:39] okay, I'm not sure how that.

[1:33:41] no, that's a bit complicated.

[1:33:43] I'm sorry.

[1:33:44] yeah, I'm not sure how that would play out in terms of how you write up this proposal.

[1:33:52] is there a comment from staff on that?

[1:33:56] so, seeking some clarification.

[1:33:58] for site f, you're proposing a flat 30 dwelling units per acre.

[1:34:04] and then for site n, you would like to council member wheeler would

[1:34:09] like to drop site n and then increase the densities for site d and e.

[1:34:14] no, I'm sorry.

[1:34:15] d and f, okay.

[1:34:17] we increase the density to meet our no net loss requirement.

[1:34:23] but for site n, we restrict the, I guess, the

[1:34:26] sort of the eastern part of it to the amenities.

[1:34:30] so, that there would be a setback, basically, where a pool

[1:34:33] or their playground would be for that particular project.

[1:34:36] so, absolutely separate.

[1:34:38] so, if we then have a high rise, it would be separated from the houses.

[1:34:42] would I agree with don?

[1:34:43] it's not.

[1:34:44] I used to have, you know, a six-story looking down your backyard.

[1:34:48] and then that would preserve, it would preserve

[1:34:50] our businesses and then and eliminate them.

[1:34:51] all right, I have a comment on that one.

[1:34:56] sure. If I'm reading this right and I'm looking at the potential capacities here.

[1:35:01] d and f has a capacity of three hundred and

[1:35:04] eight, which doesn't really even get us our rhna.

[1:35:07] so, you're saying next, next n, and only do d and f, and that will not meet our rhna.

[1:35:18] what do you, we got it up to three.

[1:35:20] it's 380, our requirement is only 430.

[1:35:25] yeah, 440.

[1:35:26] it's pretty close.

[1:35:27] okay.

[1:35:28] clarify for me.

[1:35:29] it's only d.

[1:35:30] it's 300 and f will meet the rhna that known that loss.

[1:35:36] you would need a minimum of a hundred and twenty dwelling units per acre.

[1:35:43] all right.

[1:35:44] I'm going to now, I'm going to get off the mic.

[1:35:49] and ask mayor pro tem jared mathis he had comments.

[1:35:53] well, there's a substitute motion, I think, on the floor.

[1:35:58] but my question for staff is if mayor casky wanted to do 30 units

[1:36:09] per acre and no more on f is that even possible in this scenario?

[1:36:16] with the dropping of site n?

[1:36:18] no, no, no, just taking f down to 30 flat.

[1:36:24] or and then the back up to that question is, are the things that we're being

[1:36:30] discussed here in terms of amenities and how the development it shapes out?

[1:36:34] are all those things possible to control through the approval

[1:36:37] process and we don't need to address the density number?

[1:36:41] I would say no, not through just if a planning application

[1:36:44] were to come in without anything development standard being

[1:36:47] adopted, I'm trying to play out what that development standard

[1:36:52] would look like on the southern property line for site f.

[1:36:59] it would need to have its own carve out specifically for that

[1:37:03] property in terms of setback of where you could put housing.

[1:37:07] because these are three separate parcels,

[1:37:09] right? So the possibility exists that the owner

[1:37:12] that's singular now could sell off each of these

[1:37:14] parcels with these new capacity numbers, right?

[1:37:19] so the idea that it's one big project could be a fantasy.

[1:37:27] it could be. I think from the property I understand point, that's how they envisioned

[1:37:31] all three parcels to be the highest invest use for coming up with the residential.

[1:37:37] we have seen some preliminary schematic designs, but nothing

[1:37:40] that actually went into more details of setbacks or whatever.

[1:37:44] I'm trying to think of how we would outline development

[1:37:47] standards to ensure that there was amenities located on site f.

[1:37:54] I'm actually looking to the city attorney because I don't know short of a

[1:37:58] potential negotiation through a development agreement, I'm not quite sure.

[1:38:02] we would have to go through development agreement because

[1:38:04] if we put in setback requirements then they can ask

[1:38:06] for a waiver or concession of those. It could physically

[1:38:08] preclude or if there's something else that happens.

[1:38:10] so it's not impossible. It would just be difficult to administer.

[1:38:16] yeah. No, I understand. I'm just trying to thread a needle in a way.

[1:38:21] so then for giving all those realities from the

[1:38:24] staff perspective, what is the best way to accomplish

[1:38:28] the goal of minimizing impact on the current

[1:38:31] residents that are going to be next to zone f?

[1:38:35] is it a reduction in the proposed density or handled through

[1:38:40] a development agreement and keep the density where it is?

[1:38:43] it's a development agreement. So when initially it was proposed to drop the

[1:38:48] density to 50, but it was going to be a loss of 26 units dropping it to 30.

[1:38:53] I don't actually know what that decrease in

[1:38:54] units for the surplus, but I think a development

[1:38:57] agreement is the only way to necessarily negotiate how they outline the property.

[1:39:02] all right, but then I will remove my proposed

[1:39:05] amendment from the motion and we'll go back to

[1:39:11] my motion. I'll go back and say my motion is

[1:39:14] basically to go with staff's recommendations.

[1:39:19] and then do we have second to that? I'll second. We can go from there.

[1:39:32] well, okay. We're going to vote on your motion too.

[1:39:36] I'm going to take it all the way back to it.

[1:39:41] we didn't have a second on yours yet. We have a second on from anyone? Erica?

[1:39:53] so that amendment dies. We're back to my original motion,

[1:39:59] which is basically staff's recommendation and I will fall

[1:40:04] back on the fact that we hopefully can develop development

[1:40:08] agreements with whoever might be doing something there at a later date

[1:40:11] to lessen the impact on people immediately adjacent to f.

[1:40:20] and we have it already. You accept the second? Yes.

[1:40:24] or the motion for the second. Okay. Any other comments? Yes, dave.

[1:40:31] okay. Is to clarify, first of all, so you're saying that

[1:40:34] d e f and m, even that's going to double what we need.

[1:40:42] that correct? Yeah, it's all of it.

[1:40:44] motion is for everything. Okay. I guess I'll

[1:40:48] throw it out there. That's probably deaf ears, I

[1:40:53] guess now, but I do not think it's wise that we

[1:40:55] take a place that is only zoned for commercial now.

[1:40:59] and now we've converted over to mixed use to change the housing. We've never

[1:41:03] done that before. We've taken mixed use and put it in basically the rhna bucket.

[1:41:12] that's the first time we've done that. It's

[1:41:14] a bad precedent. We're talking 18 businesses.

[1:41:16] hey, sianara, I just can't express how bad I think it is. It makes our city look.

[1:41:22] so, I cannot support the item. I cannot support

[1:41:26] m. Okay. Any josh, did you have a comment? No.

[1:41:33] no, I was. And I'll go again. I'll curse you back to erica.

[1:41:36] did you have any other comments? Because you don't like to push.

[1:41:40] I don't have any comments. Okay. All right.

[1:41:51] so we are now to, at that point, the motion,

[1:41:53] there is a motion and a second to prove this item.

[1:41:58] and I'm going to turn to joshua to do the vote. Yes.

[1:42:02] thank you, mr. Mayor. Council member pezled. How do you vote? No.

[1:42:07] council member sweeney. Aye.

[1:42:10] council member wheeler. Mayor caskey. Aye. And mayor per time, mathis. Aye.

[1:42:21] yeah, I just have it. Okay. All right. So, we're to the next item.

[1:42:26] do we really need to call a roll call again?

[1:42:41] we're seeing here. Or is that just a duplicate?

[1:42:45] we're going to move on to item 2.2. Yes.

[1:42:54] actually, we're going to move on to 2.2. But I want to tell everybody

[1:42:58] in the room, which 2.2 is, you know, the 70 matters inclusionary zoning.

[1:43:09] staff has done a ton of work on this. And

[1:43:11] with also outside consultants that, you know,

[1:43:13] use some of the, you know, the really dug in

[1:43:15] because one of the things that we need to do.

[1:43:19] we need to do is to make sure it isn't that we just

[1:43:22] passed something. It's going to go back to hcd for review.

[1:43:27] and it's got to be realistic on their part.

[1:43:30] and I'm not going to make an editorial out of that. I could.

[1:43:36] but the point is, is that it is like threading a needle.

[1:43:40] and so we, I do, I want to really commend staff for all that work.

[1:43:47] and what they're really trying to do is make sure

[1:43:49] that we land on a finish line, that we don't get,

[1:43:51] you know, somebody coming back and saying, even

[1:43:53] though we passed something, that they don't like it.

[1:44:00] and now here we go again. So I really commend staff and everybody's

[1:44:04] worked so diligently on this, you know, whether you voted yes or no.

[1:44:09] and, and I really thank them for that effort.

[1:44:13] so with that, we're going to move on to item 2.2.

[1:44:35] rz and e dash 0, 0, 1, 5 dash 2, 0, 2, 6, an amendment to title

[1:44:37] ix and the laguna hills municipal code to establish inclusionary

[1:44:40] housing requirements as identified in implementation programs, h dash

[1:44:42] 6, h dash 7 of the laguna hills 2021 through 2029 housing element.

[1:44:51] the project includes and ordinance establishing inclusionary

[1:44:53] housing requirements for residential development projects

[1:44:56] in accordance with state law and establishing an inclusionary

[1:44:58] housing fund into which in lieu of fees will be deposited.

[1:45:05] and a resolution establishing a schedule of in lieu of affordable housing fees

[1:45:09] and administration fees associated with inclusionary housing requirements.

[1:45:25] and the recommendation of the city to the city clant council and

[1:45:28] we will conduct a public hearing. That's what we'll be doing first.

[1:45:31] and we do find the ordinance and resolution are not subject to

[1:45:33] environmental review under the california environmental quality act ceqa.

[1:45:47] to sequel guidelines sections 15, 0, 6, 0, parentheses,

[1:45:49] print to and section 15, 378 as the ordinance and resolution

[1:45:52] have no potential to result in direct or reasonable reasonably

[1:45:54] foreseeable indirect physical change to the environment.

[1:45:57] number 3, introduce for first reading and the title

[1:46:01] being an ordinance of the city of the laguna hills.

[1:46:15] and california adopting our in our z any dash 0, 0, 1, 5 dash 2, 0, 2, 6 for the

[1:46:19] inclusionary housing program by adding chapter

[1:46:21] 9 dash through 73 dash inclusionary housing.

[1:46:40] of title ix, zoning code of laguna hills municipal code to establish an

[1:46:43] inclusionary housing program required the provision of affordable housing in

[1:46:46] certain residential developments establish an inclusionary housing fund and

[1:46:49] provide alternative methods of compliance and make findings related there too.

[1:47:08] and number 4, adopt the resolution entitled a resolution of the city council of the

[1:47:11] city

[1:47:12] of laguna hills california establishing an inclusionary housing in lieu of affordable

[1:47:15] housing housing fee as an alternative to providing affordable housing units required

[1:47:18] by

[1:47:19] chapter 9 dash 73 9 through 73 inclusionary housing of the laguna hills municipal

[1:47:22] code.

[1:47:27] so this is a public hearing for an amendment

[1:47:29] to the laguna hills code and we welcome all

[1:47:30] as we did before you all have a chance to have

[1:47:32] input and I call for the staff report now.

[1:47:35] go ahead, director lowe.

[1:47:41] good evening, mayor and members of the council, so this is a proposed inclusionary

[1:47:45] housing ordinance and in lieu fee that is being presented to you for consideration.

[1:47:49] so why an inclusionary housing program.

[1:47:55] so the housing program, the inclusionary

[1:47:57] housing program is intended to implement housing

[1:47:59] element programs h6 and h7 which call for an

[1:48:01] inclusionary housing and corresponding in lieu fee.

[1:48:06] the intent also for inclusionary housing is to

[1:48:08] create a predictable mechanism for developers

[1:48:10] of generating de restricted affordable housing as new residential development occurs.

[1:48:14] recent residential approvals have produced substantially fewer

[1:48:17] affordable units than assumed in the housing element plan framework.

[1:48:32] the previous item in february 24th of 2026 the city officially entered

[1:48:35] into a state of no net loss and then an inclusionary program would help

[1:48:38] support the city's long term affordable housing objectives reducing

[1:48:40] reliance on future corrective actions under the state's no net loss program.

[1:48:44] the proposed program would apply to residential developments of 10 dwelling units,

[1:48:47] subject to specified exemptions it would

[1:48:49] require 15% of the new units to be affordable.

[1:48:51] affordable units must be integrated within the market rate units

[1:48:55] and comparable in quality design, better mix and amenity access.

[1:49:03] the availability restrictions would be for a minimum of 55 years and developers must

[1:49:07] submit an affordable housing plan and execute a recorded affordable housing agreement.

[1:49:20] so the proposed affordability levels, the overall requirement for both rental

[1:49:22] and ownership would be 15% for rental would be divided between seven and a

[1:49:25] half percent very low and seven and a half percent lower meaning the developer

[1:49:27] could satisfy the remaining seven and a half with either low or very low.

[1:49:29] and then for ownership housing 15% with 5% lower income and 10% moderate.

[1:49:39] so the relationship to rhna with no net loss

[1:49:41] inclusionary housing is a production tool but

[1:49:43] not necessarily a substitute for the city's

[1:49:45] housing element and no net loss obligations.

[1:49:48] just to break down, the rhna is basically to establish the

[1:49:52] housing units the city must plan for by income category.

[1:49:55] no net loss would occur if the city's site inventory decreased below

[1:49:59] the threshold to be able to satisfy it with future developments.

[1:50:03] and then the role for inclusionary housing would be

[1:50:06] to create actual deed restricted affordable units.

[1:50:08] it would reduce future lower income production deficits and reliance on

[1:50:12] additional rezoning or corrective actions like we did with no net loss.

[1:50:21] but it is not intended to replace the requirement

[1:50:25] to maintain housing element site capacity.

[1:50:37] sorry. So how developers can satisfy the inclusionary requirement the baseline would

[1:50:41] be to construct the required inclusionary units within the residential project.

[1:50:45] there are methods for alternative compliance the applicant can

[1:50:48] propose alternative methods for city council consideration.

[1:50:53] those examples could be limited to offsite affordable housing, land dedication

[1:50:57] acquisition or generally any method providing

[1:50:59] an equivalent public benefit to the city.

[1:51:02] the other option is to pay the in lieu fee so would be available to all ownership

[1:51:06] units subject to the ordinance and to rental units containing between 10 and 20 units.

[1:51:21] but that being said rental developments with more

[1:51:23] than 20 units have to provide affordable housing

[1:51:25] on site unless they are able to just show that

[1:51:27] there is a case of extreme economic hardship.

[1:51:32] so what's going to support the in lieu fee the city engaged keyser marston and

[1:51:36] associates to economically study and what could be supported for in lieu fees.

[1:51:41] the study was based on the proposed income levels

[1:51:44] evaluating the fee using affordability standards.

[1:51:47] the affordability gap which would be the economic difference between a

[1:51:51] market rate unit and an affordable unit regarding rent or sales price.

[1:51:59] in local market prototypes the city used representative rental and ownership

[1:52:03] prototypes based on the housing element sites rezoning and market surveys.

[1:52:13] so the study concluded for base in lieu fees a per

[1:52:15] square foot for rental at the highest which would

[1:52:17] be the 20 units at $41 and $0.21 a square foot and

[1:52:19] $61 and $0.40 a square foot for ownership housing.

[1:52:25] keyser marston concluded that unit size affects

[1:52:27] the affordability gap so then an area based

[1:52:29] fee better correlates the fee with the economic

[1:52:31] value of the affordable housing obligation.

[1:52:43] it is a sliding scale so smaller developments the in lieu fee would

[1:52:46] be less the lower amount is basically because inclusion requirements

[1:52:49] tend to have a proportionally greater impact on smaller projects

[1:52:51] because fewer market rate units are able to offset that cost.

[1:52:56] but the full fee at 20 units would be stated $41 and $0.

[1:53:00] 21 for rental and $0.61 and $0.40 a square foot for ownership.

[1:53:07] some policy considerations so this ordinance is intended to balance affordable housing

[1:53:11] production with the need to avoid creating

[1:53:13] unnecessary barriers to new for sale housing.

[1:53:15] the proposed ownership mix is 15% with 5% lower and 10% moderate.

[1:53:20] we did not necessarily go deeper in terms of affordability just

[1:53:24] because it would further the economic burden for for sale projects.

[1:53:28] the higher project costs can affect project feasibility financing

[1:53:32] and the ability to actually bring new housing to the market.

[1:53:36] this proposed mix is intended to produce affordable ownership opportunities

[1:53:40] without discouraging new housing productions for the developers.

[1:53:45] overall the ordinance has proposed was to provide that balance between

[1:53:49] ownership opportunities while still maintaining housing production.

[1:53:53] so the rental versus the ownership in lieu fees rental housing.

[1:53:58] the market rents were studied for affordable rents for very low

[1:54:02] and low income which led to the $41 and $0.20 per square foot.

[1:54:13] ownership the market sales price with affordable units

[1:54:15] were compared and then this is where the affordability

[1:54:18] gap was substantially larger on a per unit basis

[1:54:19] which is equivalent to the $61 and $0.40 worth.

[1:54:25] the fee was generated based on the supportability gap

[1:54:28] not necessarily just the 15% inclusion and requirement.

[1:54:33] so this fee is tied to the affordability

[1:54:34] obligation established by the proposed ordinance.

[1:54:37] it is not a generic development fee.

[1:54:40] a rental and ownership fees reflects the different affordability

[1:54:43] gaps through separate market and financial analyses.

[1:54:46] this methodology used representative prototypes rather than a single project

[1:54:50] to ensure that the range of housing was accurately reflected in the fees.

[1:54:54] and then the 10 to 20 unit sliding sales to address the

[1:54:58] disproportionate financial impact on smaller developments.

[1:55:06] keyser marston recommends an annual index based adjustment and a

[1:55:09] comprehensive reevaluation every five years to reflect the market.

[1:55:13] so all in lieu fees and monitoring fees will be

[1:55:15] deposited into a dedicated inclusionary housing fund.

[1:55:24] funds may be used for affordable housing purposes

[1:55:26] including acquisition, construction, rehabilitation,

[1:55:28] development assistance, rental assistance, first time home

[1:55:30] buyer assistance and program administration monitoring.

[1:55:34] the reported affordable housing agreement would establish

[1:55:36] affordability restrictions and monitoring the resale

[1:55:38] and occupancy patrols as well as the long term compliance

[1:55:40] of the obligations over the period of the agreements.

[1:55:42] and the fee schedule may be updated periodically

[1:55:45] to reflect those changing market conditions.

[1:55:49] so that gets to staff's recommendation.

[1:55:51] staff is recommending that the city council conduct a public hearing.

[1:55:55] find the ordinance and resolution are not subject to ceqa

[1:55:59] under guidelines section 1-5-0-6-0-0-6-2 and 1-5-3-7-8.

[1:56:03] introduce the inclusionary housing ordinance as proposed for

[1:56:06] first reading, read by title only and wait for the reading.

[1:56:09] and adopt the resolution establishing the inclusionary housing in the fee.

[1:56:13] and I am available for questions as well as I have

[1:56:16] kathy head from keyser marston is available too.

[1:56:20] thank you.

[1:56:21] okay. Thank you.

[1:56:23] do we have agency that is not trying to believe that

[1:56:27] you can see members that's questions of the staff?

[1:56:30] presentation and I will go first to jared mathis.

[1:56:45] thank you, mr. Mayor. The concern that I have

[1:56:47] is whether or not this will create a situation

[1:56:49] where we don't have any further development in

[1:56:51] the city because of fees or anything like that.

[1:57:04] but let's just say that that is the impact, right?

[1:57:06] the development or building of projects goes to zero

[1:57:09] and the recommended review period is five, every

[1:57:11] five years take a look and see what this looks like.

[1:57:18] if we wanted to, we could take another look at it in five

[1:57:22] years and make adjustments based on market activity, correct?

[1:57:36] I'm wrong. Other than the different iterations of the mall that up until the last two

[1:57:40] years, 25, 26, zero developments were approved in the city of laguna hills since 2012.

[1:57:51] yes, the last development with residential and

[1:57:54] a commercial was in 2012 for oakbrook village.

[1:57:57] so the current five projects are the first projects approved

[1:57:59] since 2012, not counting the different iterations of the mall.

[1:58:00] yes.

[1:58:02] okay. Thank you.

[1:58:05] okay. I will move now to councilman wheeler.

[1:58:10] thank you. Well, let me start with that last

[1:58:13] question that the mayor for two math was asked.

[1:58:17] he said nothing has been approved since 2012. What about rihanna?

[1:58:22] 2012 was rihanna oakbrook village.

[1:58:25] rihanna was that far back. They just didn't build it to an effort. Okay.

[1:58:30] that was much more recent than that. Okay.

[1:58:35] somebody else mentioned acd review. I was under the

[1:58:39] understanding that acd did not have to review it.

[1:58:43] that we were just, you know, obliged to meet it, but they didn't check on it.

[1:58:48] so hcd does have several opportunities to basically check on the city status.

[1:58:54] so with the adopted housing element, one of the items that was

[1:58:57] called out as an implementation item was the inclusionary housing.

[1:59:00] so every year the city has to submit an annual progress

[1:59:03] report of how it's meeting its implementation requirements.

[1:59:06] there's a table that the state releases that actually lists

[1:59:10] all the city's implementation measures and then it is reviewed.

[1:59:14] the city has to provide an update of where we are on those implementation

[1:59:18] measures that we had promised to do as part of the housing element.

[1:59:23] so every year that we've turned in an apr, we have stated that we have

[1:59:27] not moved forward and continue to look into an inclusionary housing.

[1:59:31] at some point, hcd can request that we honor what

[1:59:33] we had said we would do as part of the elements.

[1:59:35] also with, I mean, hcd is constantly reviewing

[1:59:38] and checking cities for status on compliance.

[1:59:41] I mean, sharing that any policies or organs we adopt are in conformance with

[1:59:45] the housing accountability act as well as whatever we stated in the element.

[1:59:49] so this is not officially submitted, but that doesn't

[1:59:51] mean hcd would not be aware that we are doing this.

[1:59:55] then what I heard was that I'm correct, we do not have some, we do have to do a

[1:59:59] report which just says, okay, of the areas we've designated, here's how it's going.

[2:00:04] if they want to look deeper, they can.

[2:00:07] okay, so we do not have to report here.

[2:00:11] okay, page four please.

[2:00:18] the presentation of the presentation.

[2:00:26] okay, I need some clarification.

[2:00:29] excuse me, under the rental housing it says very low

[2:00:33] and lower under the ownership, it says lower income.

[2:00:38] okay, there's four categories that I think we have

[2:00:42] to meet is extremely low, very low and moderate.

[2:00:46] first of all, that's correct.

[2:00:53] extremely low, very low, low and moderate is that yes,

[2:00:57] but generally extremely low falls under the lower income.

[2:01:02] sorry, so you're saying it's on the very low and low.

[2:01:06] I wasn't clear on that.

[2:01:07] fair the influence.

[2:01:08] hcd focuses on very low and low.

[2:01:12] okay, very low and low.

[2:01:14] okay, is extremely low required or not?

[2:01:18] it is listed as a report.

[2:01:21] the calculations in terms of rina fall under the lower, which is very low.

[2:01:26] so, if we built no extremely low, we would still meet rina.

[2:01:30] correct.

[2:01:32] okay, why do we even include it then?

[2:01:34] we should eliminate that from our lexicon.

[2:01:37] I mean, I can't predict what's going to be required as part of the seventh cycle.

[2:01:41] okay.

[2:01:43] okay, then clarify, okay, we've got very low on this table and lower.

[2:01:47] so, I'm assuming that lower means low.

[2:01:51] low and very low.

[2:01:54] yeah, I know, but the word should not be lower, it should be low.

[2:01:57] it would be very low and low in the rental.

[2:02:00] so, it could be satisfied, the 15% was seven and a half

[2:02:03] percent of the units have to be dedicated to very low.

[2:02:06] and then the developer can satisfy the

[2:02:08] remaining seven and a half percent with lower,

[2:02:11] which means they could either provide very

[2:02:13] low or low to meet that remaining percentage.

[2:02:16] okay, we're probably need to ask for them because these,

[2:02:18] so this match of the actual categories we have to meet.

[2:02:20] okay, so lower, asterisk means low or very low.

[2:02:24] okay. In the ownership, lower income, is that again the same thing?

[2:02:30] only another different word usage?

[2:02:33] but also, lower income meaning very low and low.

[2:02:36] okay, so that's the same thing.

[2:02:37] I probably should be made more explicit.

[2:02:40] okay, thank you.

[2:02:42] page eight, please.

[2:02:49] okay, this is a confusion on mathematics here.

[2:02:53] $41.20 per square foot, square foot versus 61.40 per square foot.

[2:03:01] if you see the two numbers above that, those are not, those don't match.

[2:03:06] the 647 is more than twice, the 269.

[2:03:11] but be a mapper square foot is not double.

[2:03:14] so, I don't understand how those even came about.

[2:03:19] hi, I'm kathy head from keyser marston.

[2:03:22] there are two, thanks for you.

[2:03:24] there are two completely different measures.

[2:03:27] so the square footages of the units and the ownership prototypes

[2:03:31] are significantly larger than the units in the apartment units.

[2:03:36] and so when you're measuring, so that's why we

[2:03:38] showed it two ways for illustrative purposes to say,

[2:03:40] here's the affordability gap, looking at the per unit.

[2:03:44] so, the difference between what the, it's easier to explain with ownership than

[2:03:47] rental is the difference between the market rate price and the affordable price.

[2:03:51] this affordable price is the affordability gap.

[2:03:54] for each moderate income, or in this case the mix of low and moderate,

[2:04:03] then the weighted average affordability gap is $647,000

[2:04:07] per affordable unit you'd be required to provide.

[2:04:12] then the way the per square foot measure works is taking the entire project.

[2:04:17] because then the notion is there are no affordable units.

[2:04:21] and so you're just spreading that 647 over the entire mix of the project.

[2:04:26] it would generate exactly the same fee if you just use that one project.

[2:04:35] but our suggestion to use per square foot is because typically the affordability

[2:04:39] gap for smaller units will be less than the affordability gap for larger units.

[2:04:43] and so it's more fair to allocate per square foot than it is per unit.

[2:04:49] okay, I'm sorry, but that didn't make sense at all to me.

[2:04:51] okay, okay, let me make a sense.

[2:04:53] I could try it a different way.

[2:04:54] okay, there's, you have a housing unit.

[2:04:56] it has semi-square feet in it.

[2:04:58] same thing.

[2:04:59] if you multiply that time to 61, okay, you get a number.

[2:05:01] yeah.

[2:05:02] if you have a rental unit, it has square foot, square feet, it's fine to it.

[2:05:06] and if it's, let's just say for sake your environment, they're both the same size.

[2:05:11] those numbers aren't right.

[2:05:12] but they're not the same size.

[2:05:14] okay, well, you're telling me the square foot is different between the two?

[2:05:16] yes.

[2:05:17] okay, well, square foot is only the square foot.

[2:05:20] well, no, but as a per unit, it's tend to be smaller than ownership units.

[2:05:24] that's still nothing.

[2:05:26] well, no, so we have prototype.

[2:05:27] a square foot is still a square foot.

[2:05:30] it's a square foot of the total area.

[2:05:31] so you have to take the square foot times the total area of the

[2:05:35] project and then figure out what the affordability gap is for that.

[2:05:40] so it's completely different.

[2:05:41] if you look at the report, I mean, I'm happy to go through

[2:05:44] some examples from the report where we show the prototypes.

[2:05:46] and then what that difference is on a per unit basis and a per square foot basis.

[2:05:53] I have the report.

[2:05:54] we can go through it.

[2:05:56] okay, that's right.

[2:05:58] there's no more doing that.

[2:05:59] it's not apples to apples, dave.

[2:06:01] it's two different size.

[2:06:02] a four-sale home is bigger than, or unit is bigger than the four-room.

[2:06:09] it's not only that, but it's different.

[2:06:10] it's different.

[2:06:17] you're basically on a different size.

[2:06:19] yeah, my only question is, it's a multi-variable question actually too.

[2:06:27] because the cost per square foot of building a multi-story apartment

[2:06:31] building is much higher per square foot than a typical housing unit.

[2:06:35] so you've got square footages.

[2:06:37] you've got cost per square foot.

[2:06:39] so I don't know that that's where the apples and apples things come in.

[2:06:44] it's not, you're not looking at something that just crosses over

[2:06:47] and it's exactly something you can calculate quite that way.

[2:06:51] you've got elevators.

[2:06:52] you've got a different level of fire protection,

[2:06:55] all kinds of things in an apartment building.

[2:06:58] a large one especially.

[2:07:01] then you do single-family home or town homes or things like that.

[2:07:05] that's it.

[2:07:07] thank you. I don't know my math professor was avoiding oil for that.

[2:07:10] anyway.

[2:07:11] okay.

[2:07:17] for sake environment, can we say in five years, everything is different now.

[2:07:21] can we go from 15% to 20% or are we restricted, never to go up?

[2:07:29] which I've heard has happened in the past.

[2:07:32] well, we can always go up. It would just require

[2:07:34] additional feasibility studies to justify that increase.

[2:07:38] so we would have to have a feasibility study to justify anything over 15%.

[2:07:43] what do you mean by feasibility study?

[2:07:46] are you saying that now the doers are going to

[2:07:48] afford more so we're going to get more out of them?

[2:07:52] what you do with the feasibility study is you would look at the courts of determined

[2:07:56] that there can be an economic impact of creating an inclusionary housing requirement.

[2:08:00] they've found that it's a planning tool rather than an extraction so far.

[2:08:05] this remains an outstanding issue.

[2:08:06] there are court cases as we sit right now.

[2:08:09] and so, as jen just said, anything could change in the number of years.

[2:08:16] but right now, what hcd is basically said is if you have

[2:08:20] a 15% requirement, they're kind of deeming it feasible.

[2:08:24] so that's where that notion comes from.

[2:08:28] so if you go above the 15%, then you would be in a position where you had

[2:08:32] to evaluate what the economic impact was of imposing this planning tool.

[2:08:36] so clearly, there is one because the developers getting less

[2:08:40] money than they would if it was 100% market rate project.

[2:08:44] the courts didn't tell us how much that economic impact could be.

[2:08:48] they merely said it can't be confiscatory and it can't deprive

[2:08:51] a property owner of a fair and reasonable return on investment.

[2:08:55] then they left that to the jurisdictions to determine what they were comfortable with.

[2:09:02] and so, in the case of laguna hills, if you

[2:09:04] approve the ordinance, you have determined that you

[2:09:06] are comfortable with the affordable housing

[2:09:08] requirements that you're recommending at the moment.

[2:09:21] okay, long answer to say yes, okay.

[2:09:30] okay, question of why is it that the state is requiring

[2:09:32] us to build 65% of our units as some type of affordable.

[2:09:33] why should we be happy with 15?

[2:09:36] they are directly connected, but the rhna and then how

[2:09:40] you get credit for the number of units on your rezoning.

[2:09:43] they've assigned basically to allow you to count potentially up

[2:09:47] to 100% of your rhna towards low income with that feasibility.

[2:09:51] but they see the inclusionary is not to fully satisfy your rhna.

[2:09:56] it's just meant as a planning tool to help encourage additional affordable.

[2:10:01] so, they should be related though.

[2:10:03] I mean, could grief they tell us to build 1985 places,

[2:10:07] but then you're only allowed to make 15 of them affordable,

[2:10:09] which I'll get to a child in my present amenity.

[2:10:11] it's more homework on this one. That's absolutely absurd.

[2:10:15] we have to build 65, but we're only allowed to charge 15.

[2:10:20] let's see if I have another question as opposed to comment.

[2:10:26] one more comment. State law seems to try to

[2:10:30] override everything that the city tries to do.

[2:10:34] the other question is one of the questions.

[2:10:39] what the question is that even if we did approve this inclusionary,

[2:10:45] I mean, I talked to you on monday and there's like

[2:10:48] four things you mentioned to me that can be done.

[2:10:51] are there any state laws that would override this, basically?

[2:10:56] my understanding is no.

[2:10:59] so, even though there's state density bonus that generally

[2:11:02] sets the standard for certain densities to come in at 5%.

[2:11:06] the inclusionary housing, if you adopt it, would apply.

[2:11:10] the issue comes down to if you do not have inclusionary

[2:11:13] and then an sb330 application is submitted,

[2:11:15] then you're locked into whatever provisions are currently in place.

[2:11:18] if we adopt afterwards, would not be applicable.

[2:11:21] okay, I like your order answer, but okay, basically you're saying

[2:11:24] that right now, state law cannot override this inclusionary.

[2:11:27] I'm looking to the city attorney, but I'm confirming that

[2:11:31] density bonus cannot override an inclusionary housing.

[2:11:34] actually, maybe this is a column question.

[2:11:38] that's correct. I mean, state laws will still apply

[2:11:40] for the waiver's concessions and those things,

[2:11:42] but the inclusionary housing will be something that we can require

[2:11:45] from developers and even developers to request density bonuses.

[2:11:47] okay, well, you said something that bothers me.

[2:11:50] you said that they could still use other things to override this?

[2:11:53] not to override this, we can still require that 15%.

[2:11:57] this, no, not to override this.

[2:11:58] we can still require the inclusionary housing number.

[2:12:02] okay, so no state laws that can override this as of today.

[2:12:04] as of today that I'm aware of, no, that's correct.

[2:12:06] okay, no tell them what to do tomorrow, but okay, thank you.

[2:12:08] I thought my question's correct.

[2:12:11] councillor, I'm just waiting.

[2:12:14] thank you, mayor.

[2:12:15] thank you, mayor. My question is, how do the proposed

[2:12:18] requirements compare specifically with our neighboring cities

[2:12:23] when we're competing for the same development capital?

[2:12:28] so I can say that when we drafted this ordinance,

[2:12:31] it's very comparable to some of the other cities.

[2:12:33] it's modeled very closely after the city of mission vehicles,

[2:12:37] which was recently tested with their vista dellogo project.

[2:12:40] so the whole point was to not necessarily create an ordinance that

[2:12:44] wouldn't be consistent with the framework from surrounding cities.

[2:12:47] okay, thank you.

[2:12:51] and do we know the estimated annual administrative cost to the city

[2:12:55] for compliance monitoring, income certification, resale controls, all that stuff?

[2:13:00] like, what is the cost of the city having to take on this burden?

[2:13:05] so that would be the next step is to go through and conduct an rfp for an

[2:13:09] affordable housing consultant to better assess what that value would be.

[2:13:13] so at this time, I do not know.

[2:13:15] other than potentially checking with other cities to find out

[2:13:18] what their affordable housing consultant has been charging.

[2:13:21] gotcha.

[2:13:25] last question is, why is a five-year comprehensive fee review sufficient

[2:13:29] in a market that can change significantly within a year or two?

[2:13:38] what I've recommended is that you use an annual index to increase or decrease the

[2:13:42] fee based on the changes in values and then to do a full review every five years.

[2:13:46] the only reason for that is cities tend not to do any adjustments after they make one.

[2:13:52] and so having that automatic annual, either increase or decrease

[2:13:56] based on market on a very simple measure, tends to happen.

[2:13:59] but then I suggest that it does need to periodically in five years isn't magic.

[2:14:04] you could do it in seven years or ten years or I've had jurisdictions,

[2:14:07] especially when they're just adopting for the first time.

[2:14:09] to say we're going to look at it in three years and see whether

[2:14:13] development is stopped entirely or whether development is going crazy.

[2:14:16] and then we'll readjust then.

[2:14:18] so you're not found by it. These are just recommended parameters.

[2:14:23] gotcha. Okay. Thank you.

[2:14:24] you're welcome.

[2:14:25] all right. I'm going to turn to council member pazold in case

[2:14:29] you had any questions for clarification as you wanted to staff.

[2:14:33] yeah. So the item.

[2:14:46] so basically this item is requesting essentially that if they can't satisfy or that

[2:14:50] they can pay into a way to reduce the amount of low income housing. Is that correct?

[2:15:01] so the intent of the in lieu fee is that instead of providing

[2:15:03] the affordable units, they could pay that in lieu fee instead,

[2:15:05] whether it's for the full amount of affordable units or they

[2:15:07] can do potentially a partial and then have to pay the remaining.

[2:15:10] for whatever units that they're missing based on that.

[2:15:19] so my question is, how does it well, basically if a developer if you have a very

[2:15:23] wealthy developer, they could essentially pay the cost versus another developer.

[2:15:29] and so how does this help when you have developers with

[2:15:33] deeper pockets that can just pay their way out of it?

[2:15:38] the notion is the way the requirement is set up is that it's

[2:15:42] equivalent to either pay the fee or to produce the affordable units.

[2:15:50] and so the notion would be a developer would

[2:15:52] likely choose to pay the fee when they can

[2:15:54] because it provides them certainty and then they

[2:15:56] get all the upside potential on all the units.

[2:16:03] but the math is it should be equivalent and that's

[2:16:05] the notion is that's the whole affordability

[2:16:06] gap of providing the affordable units required by the inclusionary housing ordinance.

[2:16:21] so it should not make a difference. But what I will say is there are options that make

[2:16:24] it more appealing to develop and the most

[2:16:26] notable one would be the state density bonds.

[2:16:34] and then I'll be able to build what I want because I can essentially ignore that.

[2:16:52] so the in lieu fees did not take into the developers, I think we could

[2:16:55] say budget or whether or not they're a wealthy developer or not. This

[2:16:58] in lieu fee was established to create a little more of a predictable

[2:17:01] and level playing field regardless of the capacity of the developer.

[2:17:07] so the intent with the affordability gap is that this would be the

[2:17:10] true cost of whether or not they provide that unit. So if they do

[2:17:12] not decide to include the inclusionary unit into their development,

[2:17:15] they would pay the equivalent for what that cost was to the city.

[2:17:21] so there necessarily isn't an advantage to

[2:17:23] whether they build it or pay the fee. Yes, but

[2:17:25] the objective of this, the objective is to

[2:17:27] make sure that the low income housing is built.

[2:17:36] so this is a way for to have an inclusionary ordinance. It's just

[2:17:39] a way to get more money if somebody wants to just override it

[2:17:41] and then we're back to square one, which is we have to rezone,

[2:17:44] but we have more money in our pocket, the city has more money.

[2:17:53] and so that's what I am very concerned about is that we're

[2:17:57] just essentially charging a fee and we are no better off.

[2:18:12] sorry. And terms rhna. I mean, so if our objective is to make sure

[2:18:15] that each city and we don't continuously have these rhna numbers

[2:18:18] pop up and that we have to keep bringing low income housing and a

[2:18:20] developer comes in with deeper pockets, they can just pay that off.

[2:18:39] so I'm concerned that we are no better if you have a wealthier

[2:18:42] developer and then another question that I have is basically,

[2:18:44] what about the past projects that have already been zoned will

[2:18:47] this retro active and also, okay, if it's not retro active,

[2:18:58] what if a developer comes in that has already been given

[2:19:00] entitlements with this trigger if they come in for more

[2:19:03] entitlements, they change their plans with this trigger and

[2:19:05] make it so they have to be follow this inclusionary ordinance.

[2:19:11] so with the first question, the first question with the approved projects.

[2:19:19] so one, I guess the one that I can answer is that this

[2:19:23] would not apply retroactively to any approved projects.

[2:19:26] however, if a major modification were to come forward and they submit

[2:19:30] a new application, the inclusionary housing program would apply.

[2:19:35] with inclusionary housing as just developers paint out the fee, affordable

[2:19:39] housing and inclusionary housing isn't necessarily intended just to satisfy rhna.

[2:19:44] it is to provide a revenue stream if in if in luffy's are paid where the

[2:19:48] city can further perpetuate affordable housing programs or obligations.

[2:20:03] for example, if one community there 55 year sunset was coming up and the

[2:20:06] affordable agreement would be no longer applicable, the city could potentially use

[2:20:09] those funds to encourage the property owner to maintain affordable housing for

[2:20:11] even a longer period of time, so necessarily would it become a market rate unit.

[2:20:14] there's other things that could also provide assistance on affordable housing like

[2:20:18] first time home buyer loans, other incentives or rebates to encourage home ownership.

[2:20:24] okay, so this really is only for developers that don't

[2:20:28] have a deep enough pockets to pay their way out of this.

[2:20:38] it doesn't assist entirely with affordability and low income if that is our

[2:20:42] goal and objective is to make sure that we can not continuously have rhna.

[2:20:46] so, okay, thank you.

[2:20:52] I don't really have any other questions or clarification, so I

[2:20:56] do want to point out that and staff can correct me if I'm wrong.

[2:21:12] these in lieu of fees, if that's the direction it goes, it's

[2:21:14] not going into the city general fund, is going into a specific

[2:21:17] account that is really meant to make the ability to create

[2:21:19] the units that the developer doesn't want to put in happen.

[2:21:22] okay, and we're going to give you all the details

[2:21:24] and all the rest of that, but it isn't just a

[2:21:26] simple buy your way out and the city, you know,

[2:21:28] it goes and uses it on cross rocks or something.

[2:21:31] it's meant, it is meant and set aside for affordable

[2:21:35] housing, so that's my clarification, not a question.

[2:21:39] I need you to clarify that because I don't understand that.

[2:21:47] if we have to speak to it. Okay, yeah, if we get the money,

[2:21:50] so it was to buy their way out, and we get, you know, to

[2:21:52] take five and a half million dollars, what do we do with

[2:21:54] that, doesn't it go to our general fund, what does it go?

[2:22:05] by going into an inclusionary housing fund, it would be earmarked for

[2:22:07] the city to use to further affordable housing in the city. The in lieu

[2:22:09] fee would not be necessarily used to improve a park. So it would have

[2:22:11] to be, there had to be a nexus on what the city would use the money for.

[2:22:14] and the ultimate goal furthering affordable housing within the city.

[2:22:18] okay, I still don't hear my answer to my

[2:22:20] question, what does the money be used for? Do you

[2:22:22] give it out to people that buy the house and

[2:22:24] they can't afford it or where's the money go to?

[2:22:27] we would develop a program system that would dedicate, I guess the

[2:22:31] city council could decide necessarily what would constitute acceptable.

[2:22:35] so some of the things that the inclusionary housing fund could be used for would

[2:22:39] be the acquisition of property to assist with an affordable housing developer.

[2:22:49] we could assist with the cost of construction of affordable housing,

[2:22:51] affordable housing rehabilitation, development assistance, rental

[2:22:53] assistance programs, first time home buyer assistance, as well as

[2:22:55] the administration and monitoring of affordable housing programs.

[2:22:58] but right now the way this is written, we just collect the money and we have no plan.

[2:23:03] so the staff report calls out, so there would have to be a clear

[2:23:07] nexus of what the city could use those inclusionary in lieu fees for.

[2:23:11] so it would be limited to furthering affordable housing, which includes

[2:23:14] programs that we could develop similar to the ones that I just referenced.

[2:23:17] when does that plan develop?

[2:23:23] well, if the inclusionary housing program is adopted, we can begin looking at

[2:23:27] potential programs until we actually have a development that provides fees.

[2:23:35] it's difficult to necessarily assess and develop a

[2:23:39] program yet until we know how much money we can do.

[2:23:57] all right, with that, it is 620 and I'm going to open a public hearing.

[2:24:10] and, or you're on the phone with us, the council members can ask you

[2:24:14] questions or clarifications about your public opinion that you're expressing.

[2:24:19] I'm going to announce that if you are participating remotely and

[2:24:23] wish to speak regarding this item, dial star 9 on a telephone.

[2:24:27] and now race that will to us will raise your hand to indicate you wish to speak.

[2:24:33] you will be identified by the last four digits of your phone number.

[2:24:37] when you have been recognized to speak, dial star 9, star 6, excuse me, to unmute.

[2:24:43] so I'm now going to look to our city clerk for

[2:24:47] any public speakers for the public hearing item.

[2:24:55] first in favor of and then against the matter and then online remote

[2:24:58] and finally read off the names of those who submitted the computer.

[2:25:03] yes, thank you, mr. Mayor.

[2:25:05] the first name is rona henry.

[2:25:17] I'll come back again. I name is rona henry with welcoming neighbors home.

[2:25:21] we've seen this inclusionary housing, housing ordinances worked in nearby cities.

[2:25:25] and we believe it can ensure more affordable housing that

[2:25:28] will be part of future developments here in laguna hills.

[2:25:32] the proposed ordinance is a solid proposal.

[2:25:34] it's not the most strict we've seen, but it's not the easiest either.

[2:25:47] the requirement that 7.4%, 7.5% below and 7.5% very low income affordable homes

[2:25:50] be required in any new rental housing over 10 years is a reasonable requirement.

[2:25:54] likewise, the requirement for 15% for four

[2:25:56] sale homes be affordable for lower and moderate

[2:25:58] income households seems appropriate considering market conditions since I'll go see.

[2:26:01] the in-loop fee scheduled recommended by keyser marston associate seems

[2:26:05] feasible and we'd like to see it incorporated into the housing ordinance.

[2:26:10] would I like the required percentage of

[2:26:12] affordable housing to be higher? Yes, of course.

[2:26:15] but my research has revealed that 15% has been found to be

[2:26:19] economically feasible when no other supports are offered.

[2:26:24] as I understand it, the higher percentage could be perceived as of being

[2:26:28] a disincentive to housing if it's more than 15% or about 15 or 20%.

[2:26:37] so until laguna hills, the county, the state, the federal government or philanthropy

[2:26:40] is ready to offer funding for land or land to build even more affordable housing.

[2:26:44] this inclusionary housing ordinance is a step in the right direction.

[2:26:46] for too long, too many cities in orange county have been case studies

[2:26:49] for missed opportunities when it comes to building affordable housing.

[2:26:54] too many housing developments have been permitted without

[2:26:56] requiring a fair share of affordable housing to be included.

[2:27:00] this ordinance will help laguna hills meet its regional housing needs assessment

[2:27:04] goals for lower income homes as similar audiences have in other cities.

[2:27:09] and most importantly, provide much needed affordable housing

[2:27:12] options for working households and our cities retire community.

[2:27:15] thank you for your time.

[2:27:17] I have a question from dave wheeler.

[2:27:21] okay, you just said that these are reasonable numbers.

[2:27:25] if that's so, why aren't you petitioning and why aren't you marching

[2:27:29] on sacramento to tell them to make that the requirement on us?

[2:27:33] well, the 15% as I understand it is what hcd will allow.

[2:27:38] so I think that's already been done.

[2:27:40] no, I'm saying, but they're requiring 65% on us.

[2:27:42] aren't you petitioning a city if you think that's reasonable?

[2:27:45] oh, there's a different things.

[2:27:46] and I'm not the best person to explain it to you.

[2:27:48] I think stays our cooper ruby's can do it much better job explaining to it.

[2:27:53] but I feel I know it, but not well enough to explain it to you.

[2:27:57] okay, anything else?

[2:27:59] yeah, that's fine.

[2:28:00] that really wasn't a question.

[2:28:03] yeah, but we took a little over there.

[2:28:05] okay, thank you.

[2:28:06] yes, fair enough.

[2:28:08] all right, our next figure.

[2:28:10] rudy with no last name given?

[2:28:21] well, once again, I want to commend the city for

[2:28:23] your continued effort to look in a holistic approach

[2:28:25] as to how to go for the ability to really identify

[2:28:27] insights where you can meet your re-nobligations.

[2:28:29] I think the inclusionary ordinance is a great way to meet these re-nobligations.

[2:28:34] so we're in favor of the proposed ordinance at the 7.5, 7.5, 15% inclusionary.

[2:28:42] we are in favor of the kma in luffy schedule.

[2:28:49] I also want to kind of go over one of the comments council member we

[2:28:53] learned made about housing affordability only solving 30% of a problem.

[2:29:02] I think what you're referring to is the definition of what housing affordability is,

[2:29:06] which is that 30% of a person's income should

[2:29:08] not be spent on housing or more than 30%.

[2:29:14] the purpose of the standard is really to prevent housing costs from consuming so much

[2:29:18] income that a person cannot spend on other issues like utilities, basic needs, health.

[2:29:22] so that's really where this percentage comes from and it's

[2:29:25] not that we're putting them in places where they can't afford.

[2:29:30] it's not that we're opening opportunities for folks to live in places

[2:29:34] where they're open to dignified and equitable places to live in.

[2:29:45] to recalculate that the area median income for orange county says that

[2:29:49] low income household for a family of four is considered to make 148,850.

[2:29:58] 30% of somebody that family can spend up to $3,721 and they're rent so

[2:30:02] we are recognizing that orange county is a very expensive place to live.

[2:30:09] a lot of families don't make that and they're still

[2:30:11] categorize low income so our hope is that policies

[2:30:13] like this can create better opportunities for

[2:30:15] families in orange county to meet that housing need.

[2:30:22] the 2025 apr which was released early spring around march april shows up the city

[2:30:26] of laguna hills has not been producing much units for the lower income categories.

[2:30:38] I saw in the presentation in september you all did approve a

[2:30:41] couple more, but we believe that this ordinance would create a more

[2:30:43] robust solution to housing affordability here and can prevent maybe

[2:30:46] like you all mentioned sacrificing properties or commercial area.

[2:30:52] commercial areas in the future to meet these

[2:30:54] needs and potential net loss in the future

[2:30:55] by providing a more appropriate way to addressing

[2:30:57] the lower income categories in the city.

[2:30:59] thank you.

[2:31:01] any questions there? Dave.

[2:31:10] you have any questions? You don't. All right, next speaker. Thank you.

[2:31:17] marcelo lawson.

[2:31:20] thank you, mayor and city council. My name is

[2:31:22] marcelo lawson. I'm a homeowner here in laguna

[2:31:24] hills and I'm here to urge you to support the proposed inclusionary housing ordinance.

[2:31:29] I'm very concerned about ensuring that sufficient

[2:31:31] affordable housing is available in our city.

[2:31:37] I have two young children as do many of my

[2:31:39] friends. Sorry, young adult children as do many of

[2:31:41] my friends and it's frustrating to sit by and

[2:31:43] watch them struggle to find affordable housing.

[2:31:47] I also volunteer at several capacities where I see neighbors who navigate food

[2:31:50] insecurity, housing insecurity, financial insecurity and health insecurity.

[2:31:55] the high cost of housing in our area makes it very challenging

[2:31:58] for families to maintain stable housing and afford basic needs.

[2:32:02] we're all better off when young people, families and

[2:32:05] seniors in our community can thrive rather than struggle.

[2:32:09] passing this inclusionary housing ordinance will help ensure

[2:32:13] that the needed affordable housing units are actually produced.

[2:32:16] rather than having a disappointing outcome that we had with the

[2:32:20] theravita project were only 5% of the units were affordable.

[2:32:28] having this ordinance in place, everyone will know what

[2:32:30] to expect. Developers will know what's required of them,

[2:32:31] the city can count on meeting their rent goals, and the

[2:32:33] community will know that affordable housing is on the way.

[2:32:35] we know that additional affordable housing

[2:32:37] is needed to meet the needs in our community.

[2:32:43] let's make sure it's done efficiently. Irvine and mission b.a.

[2:32:46] ho have done this and it's working there. Let's do it here in laguna hills as well.

[2:32:51] I urge the council to pass the ordinance now so that all future housing development

[2:32:55] projects in our city will include an appropriate portion of affordable housing.

[2:33:20] thank you. Just a clarification.

[2:33:23] you said theravita was 5%? My understanding was a zero.

[2:33:28] thank you.

[2:33:31] >> cesar koper-rubius.

[2:33:45] >> good evening mayor, council members.

[2:33:48] we're here to support the proposal by staff.

[2:33:58] I want to recognize the hard work that's gone into this. It's a project that started

[2:34:01] with your fifth cycle in looking at what progress was developed in the fifth cycle.

[2:34:05] and looking at policies and programs or the lack of progress

[2:34:08] that happened because of those policies that were not in there.

[2:34:18] and this is a recognition, I think, from city and the

[2:34:20] staff that there needs to be policies and programs

[2:34:22] along with land use that are going to produce the

[2:34:24] incomes, pardon me, the outcomes that you would want.

[2:34:35] so, in hiring the consultant like keyser marston, who's doing this

[2:34:38] work statewide and is recognized as a leader in this area, I think

[2:34:40] you're getting the best advice that you can get, the best analysis,

[2:34:43] and try to improve the analysis that's working in other jurisdictions.

[2:34:50] where this is happening, where this opportunity

[2:34:52] is happening in sondana, and other cities

[2:34:54] in orange county, and many across the state.

[2:34:56] so, I do want to urge you to approve this.

[2:34:58] I would also mention that. This is also an

[2:35:01] opportunity to address what we discussed earlier.

[2:35:11] the shortfalls on these sites will happen if you don't

[2:35:13] have a policy or a program in place. And I think this

[2:35:15] is a good opportunity to address that along with the

[2:35:17] commitments that you already made in the housing elements.

[2:35:25] so, thank you for the opportunity to be here and thank you also for

[2:35:28] working on this. I know it's not an easy decision, but I think it's

[2:35:30] the right decision to make at this point where you have the opportunity

[2:35:33] to create housing for all income segments, not just a hiring

[2:35:35] community, to redefine what affordable housing is. We talk about extremely

[2:35:39] low, very longer time about families making 30,000, all the way to 148,000.

[2:35:44] most are working families in your community who deserve the opportunity to

[2:35:48] live here and thrive here in your community. So, thank you for doing that.

[2:36:03] >> thank you, susan. Next, I don't see anybody questions.

[2:36:06] go ahead. >> kathy, you don't?

[2:36:12] >> I think two tall for me. I'm going to do with this short one.

[2:36:16] hi, everybody. Mayor, pro tem, and everyone else.

[2:36:21] I love you guys. You guys have been rocking it so far.

[2:36:25] I'm here to support the inclusionary housing product ordinance.

[2:36:33] and one of the things that I heard over there and I just want clarification on, so

[2:36:37] the previous projects that have been approved already are not under this ordinance.

[2:36:43] >> I don't believe so. >> and did we not do this

[2:36:47] ordinance earlier in order to get them to stay around?

[2:36:55] it just seems to me because they're much bigger that they have

[2:36:59] the capacity to have helped bring down the numbers that you need.

[2:37:04] >> I'm just clarifying. >> you're basically saying something in

[2:37:08] hindsight that we're looking back and why didn't we do this earlier?

[2:37:14] >> it is basically, yeah. I definitely think that it's a good idea to do this.

[2:37:19] I'm just, why didn't we do it a little bit earlier?

[2:37:22] >> I can't really comment on that other than the fact it

[2:37:26] wasn't to gain favor or do anything special for anybody.

[2:37:34] >> yeah, and I know that some of the concern has always been that when you put some

[2:37:38] sort of limitations on people or that they may or may not choose to build here.

[2:37:42] and yet we know from irvine and how they got something

[2:37:46] like 4000 low income and very low income housing.

[2:37:49] now they've been building like crazy because they've got a lot of extra land.

[2:37:53] so that's one of our problems is we don't have lots of land.

[2:37:58] so I'm hoping, and I missed the first part of this so I don't know where some of those

[2:38:02] areas where I know you guys sent out a map last week when it came out with the things.

[2:38:05] so I know it was like little small areas because we just

[2:38:09] don't have big spaces of land anymore, which is a bummer.

[2:38:21] so basically just, yes. Yes. >> hang on there. >> I've got any questions or?

[2:38:27] >> I will actually comment on that last little piece. >> what?

[2:38:32] >> I'm going to comment on that last little piece. >> okay.

[2:38:33] >> so stay tuned. To say that a city doesn't have any land is not really the truth.

[2:38:38] and I'm just going to give you an analogy and leave it at that.

[2:38:43] you know, this city is about I think six square miles or something like that.

[2:38:48] we don't have a lot of fallow land that is ready to be developed on.

[2:38:54] we have land that already has developments on it.

[2:38:59] and so does paris and rome and london.

[2:39:02] that doesn't mean that the city doesn't change and

[2:39:06] morph and do things over hundreds of years, okay?

[2:39:09] we're 35 years old about.

[2:39:12] so, but I agree it makes things more expensive.

[2:39:15] now you're going to tear something down.

[2:39:18] you're going to, you know, all that kind of thing.

[2:39:19] but do you need to understand, you know, that

[2:39:22] is an impact if you're over in lake forest.

[2:39:24] and you've got hillsides full of land that you could do

[2:39:28] stuff, you know, it's a lot easier to do these things

[2:39:32] because you're starting with roger, a much of which, a lot

[2:39:35] of, of which in some cases was actually owned by the city.

[2:39:40] a little different scenario.

[2:39:41] so I'm just giving you a little bit of feedback

[2:39:44] that it's not quite as simple as you might think.

[2:39:47] okay, next speaker.

[2:39:49] anna gromis.

[2:40:00] good evening. I apologize. I was in a hurry.

[2:40:02] last time I gave public comment and I failed to introduce myself.

[2:40:08] anna gromis here representing the building industry association

[2:40:09] of southern california and specifically the orange county chapter.

[2:40:10] thank you for having me.

[2:40:12] we submitted a letter in opposition to this ordinance today.

[2:40:15] I hope you had a chance to review it.

[2:40:18] we did it in partnership with a number of coalitions across different

[2:40:21] industries that also share that there are concerns regarding this.

[2:40:25] and I just want to highlight just a couple of things that we have concerns with.

[2:40:30] but the bottom line is we would like to respectfully request for a continuance

[2:40:33] so that we have time to meet with staff and to discuss this in more detail.

[2:40:37] I was notified about this on monday, which is just not adequate time. Yes, me too.

[2:40:43] unfortunately, it's just not adequate time

[2:40:45] to really be able to meet with our builders.

[2:40:48] have their team assessed the fees, the methodologies, the study, the feasibility,

[2:40:52] and so respectfully we would request more time to be able to do that.

[2:40:59] we mentioned in the letter there's a recent uci study that goes into detail as to why

[2:41:02] inclusionary zoning is not working and how

[2:41:04] it actually adds to the cost of construction.

[2:41:11] and I also want to draw your attention to the city of

[2:41:13] san francisco just last month and july voted to reduce

[2:41:15] their inclusionary requirement from 15% by percent,

[2:41:17] because they realize that no development was happening.

[2:41:20] the fees were too high and the burden on construction was

[2:41:23] just too great and so it stopped all development in the city.

[2:41:31] we actually have a review process of every three

[2:41:32] years on every five years. So it was a three

[2:41:33] year review process. They realize no development

[2:41:35] is happening. We need to adjust this number.

[2:41:36] so again, city of laguna hills has always been a great partner

[2:41:39] and very collaborative with the bia and we appreciate that.

[2:41:42] we just would respectfully ask for additional

[2:41:45] time to be able to discuss further. Thank you.

[2:41:50] next speaker, victor cow.

[2:42:00] good evening, mr. Mayor. Members of the city council, my name is victor cow.

[2:42:08] and with the california department association, we have

[2:42:10] over 13,000 member companies who represent over 70,000

[2:42:13] real estate professionals in industry, who wouldn't

[2:42:15] operate roughly 2 million market rate and affordable.

[2:42:18] housing units across the state of california, apologize for my outburst earlier.

[2:42:22] I thought I was late to the meeting. I had a step out for a little bit.

[2:42:27] but this issue is so important and you are so important in this discussion.

[2:42:31] I want to cover a few things in terms of what the city's obligations are.

[2:42:35] and that's been largely covered in the previous discussion.

[2:42:45] you're required to zone, not necessarily to build.

[2:42:47] and what has also been in this discussion is that

[2:42:49] the inclusionary zoning as purported by staff and the

[2:42:51] many slides is that it's a planning tool to build.

[2:42:54] the question is, is that an effective tool, right? The difference between

[2:42:58] irvine and laguna hills is that they recently proved more than 10,000 units.

[2:43:03] they have had the capacity to do so. A large part of that inclusionary

[2:43:07] zoning housing that was done through development agreements.

[2:43:17] the housing that wasn't done through development

[2:43:19] agreements were done through inclusionary zoning fee

[2:43:21] of roughly $14,000, which begs the question in terms

[2:43:23] of transparency as it relates to what this fee is.

[2:43:33] meeting, strength criteria, right? The effective rate, right?

[2:43:35] the rate, the number that you want to see, right? Do you have the

[2:43:38] conviction that the number that's presented to you? Do you have a

[2:43:40] conviction in the math that's presented to you? Can you explain it?

[2:43:46] what we've been able to arrive is that roughly

[2:43:48] a thousand square foot to bedroom apartment has

[2:43:50] a fee of roughly $41,000, right? Much different

[2:43:52] than $14,000 to your neighbors to the north.

[2:44:05] if we're multiplying the square footage requirement, which is roughly $41 within

[2:44:08] a thousand square foot apartment, it would result in a fee of roughly $41,000.

[2:44:19] it's still higher or the requirement to build on site. It puts you in

[2:44:21] that conundrum of forcing the question of density. Density has some of

[2:44:22] its upper limits because of different building materials that are required

[2:44:24] and such. But there's also the floor in terms of the regulatory fees.

[2:44:25] your fee would be one of the highest based of what we assessed

[2:44:29] of the appendices that kma has provided in the county.

[2:44:33] again, do you have a conviction that your fee is reasonable?

[2:44:37] I don't think there's been any information as such.

[2:44:46] that's why we'd love to have a continued discussion with staff in terms of what's

[2:44:49] going to help the city meet its production goals and also its rhna requirements.

[2:44:53] I think we need more time to be able to hand that discussion. Thank you.

[2:45:02] just a quick question for you. That is all the comments I have.

[2:45:04] just a quick question, victor. Just a quick question. Does that mean you oppose this?

[2:45:18] okay. Okay, dave. I didn't see your light up on the screen until just after the fact.

[2:45:22] do we have another secret?

[2:45:24] I don't have any more cards for in-person. Okay, and any on the?

[2:45:28] we have none on mine, none on. Okay, and you want to read the list.

[2:45:40] please bear with me. In favor, we have maya dune,

[2:45:42] marjorie gully, jeffrey gautard, anne kohler,

[2:45:44] eileen munzer, or munzinger, brenda rodriguez,

[2:45:46] catherine van camp, lisa young, glen cohen,

[2:45:58] marina hamry, vera martinez, christine moore and

[2:46:00] nello, judy northrop, mickey nuzaki, joe pinnich,

[2:46:02] sandra rosencans, marilyn schroeder, laura shapiro,

[2:46:04] barbara siri, roberta valdez, erin simmons-shorj,

[2:46:28] anna henry, halla magna, john mendonka, sandra maliga, patty by taitis,

[2:46:30] marie with no last name given, susan and david deering, robert henry, sheryl

[2:46:33] hagin, kathy temple, bruce johnson, debbie sahali, david sahali, ann beltran,

[2:46:37] orcella lawson, celia gunn, pat davis, denise sledger, susan b. Parks,

[2:46:50] richard sanchez, cindy ashley, iris anderson, carolyn mcveigh,

[2:46:53] alosoto, rhett kooski, freda gorlick, suzanne motel, cesar

[2:46:55] kova-rubius, kathy es-fahani, sheryl starry, alice j, wendy

[2:46:57] washington and sarah weaver, and an opposed, anna gromis.

[2:47:11] okay, so with that, we will move on to any other questions

[2:47:13] or clarifications of staff that anybody up here has.

[2:47:22] okay, then we will close the public hearing and

[2:47:24] we will now bring her back to council and public

[2:47:26] agents planning agency for deliberation and I

[2:47:28] will open it up to the first one to lit up, dave.

[2:47:44] okay, robert, can I have my, the next part

[2:47:46] of my, okay, yeah, I did some homework on the

[2:47:48] inclusion areas to give an overview of, I guess,

[2:47:50] my vision and I think it's pretty truthful.

[2:47:53] okay, next slide, please.

[2:47:58] okay, how's the unit increase? Okay, I put extremely low

[2:48:02] on here because it's defined in the, in the literature.

[2:48:06] you can combine extremely low and very low if that is the way they want to do it.

[2:48:23] you can see the numbers 284, 284, low is 353 is

[2:48:25] required, moderate, 354, and above moderate or market

[2:48:27] rate, I guess you'd call it 710, the percentage

[2:48:29] is there of the total, 14, 14, 17, 17, 35, 100%.

[2:48:34] stuff this below market where you're required to build.

[2:48:38] if you look at 64.2%, so the rhna that we have to do, it is 64% of the 1980.

[2:48:42] okay, with the 15% inclusionary, new housing requirements would not be 1985.

[2:48:53] our housing requirements would be 8,1496.

[2:48:56] the math is on the next line. Take 62 divided by 15 times the 1985.

[2:49:06] straight forward. That's what we're required. So if we commit and

[2:49:10] by end of this, we just increased our rhna, please keep it up.

[2:49:15] if we approve this, we have just bought into our new rhna number of 8,496.

[2:49:21] just to give you perspective, the entire city of

[2:49:24] laguna hills has approximately 10,500 family units.

[2:49:36] now, if you notice, that is not a whole lot different than the 84 or

[2:49:40] 96. The percent increase in housing units would be, civil math, 8,984.

[2:49:51] 96 divided by 10,500. Basically, laguna hills has to increase by

[2:49:55] 80.91%. That is absurd. We, as I mentioned, are available of land.

[2:50:00] we basically don't have any land. All we have is land that

[2:50:04] we can change from what it is now to meet these requirements.

[2:50:11] I just, you know, I can't fathom how anybody could

[2:50:13] sit up in sacramento and profess these numbers

[2:50:15] when they actually sit down and do the math

[2:50:16] and look what it does to a small city like us.

[2:50:19] irvine was mentioned a little bit ago. They have, I understand, big

[2:50:23] financial problems. They're in debt and don't can't meet their budgets.

[2:50:27] I'm not sure if it's true, but I'm pretty sure it

[2:50:30] is. We at least still have a few dollars in the bank.

[2:50:36] and I mentioned this before, but, you know, builders should follow the same rules and

[2:50:39] percentages of the city. If we're first to build

[2:50:41] 64, then they have to be forced to build 64.

[2:50:48] there's no reason why we need to accommodate a private

[2:50:50] industry to make money as opposed to our citizens who pay tax

[2:50:52] and expect things like roads and electric lights on the

[2:50:54] street lights and all the kind of things that we provide.

[2:50:56] it just does not make any sense to me. There was a comment

[2:51:00] about england, I believe in london, just there last year.

[2:51:04] and I have to admit, I drove 26 hundred miles around england and wales.

[2:51:09] and the one thing that shocked me, you know, I got away from the big

[2:51:11] cities, the london's and the liverpool's and got out in the country.

[2:51:15] once you get outside the big cities, a country that's been there for ages and

[2:51:19] ages when, you know, we wouldn't, we were, you know, just rolling hills of trees.

[2:51:25] it's really rural, there's a lot of places out

[2:51:27] there that once you get outside of london, or

[2:51:29] outside of liverpool, you know, there's a lot

[2:51:31] of land there, which is totally surprised me.

[2:51:37] the same is true as here, and I mentioned it before,

[2:51:39] we have land outside of the cities. And just like

[2:51:41] in london, you know, we're surprised are extremely

[2:51:43] high, you get out further out, you don't have that.

[2:51:49] but yet, the prevailing sentiment is to increase increasingly, just lean on cities

[2:51:52] and make them do the brunt of this work when all they're doing is destroying cities.

[2:52:01] this market as far as housing, I'm sorry, but I think

[2:52:03] that it should go with the market. I mean, you know,

[2:52:05] supply and demand is work for years, and whether you

[2:52:07] like it or not, believe it or not, it's going to happen.

[2:52:10] and all this is just social engineering trying

[2:52:12] to do things that weren't meant to be, it

[2:52:14] was meant to be if it was a better, if it was

[2:52:16] a better mouse trap, it would have been done.

[2:52:18] and it just, it just pulls me, this rhna, although the, if it would

[2:52:22] stop the housing, I would think it would be a good thing actually.

[2:52:27] then we could have some rational thought about

[2:52:29] how to really allocate land and really get

[2:52:31] people to need housing, cheaper housing, you

[2:52:33] know, a place to live instead of forcing it down.

[2:52:39] I mean, a lot of people in laguna house have

[2:52:41] worked hard all their lives to buy a nice house, to

[2:52:43] build a nice area, and I heard some comment about

[2:52:45] that people that they deserve to live there.

[2:52:47] I can't disagree. You kind of work your way out of the thing.

[2:52:50] I didn't start out making a sound I did when I retired. You have to build on things.

[2:52:55] I mean, my son and daughter, neither one live in the state of california.

[2:52:59] when I graduated from college in new york, I wouldn't have lived in new york city.

[2:53:06] I mean, it's just too expensive. And then this is,

[2:53:07] you have to work at things. And you have to build

[2:53:09] something. And to come in and just, you know, destroy

[2:53:11] everything, you know, it's just not reasonable.

[2:53:13] it needs to be some, some planning and some

[2:53:17] doing this though. I really don't like this.

[2:53:29] I didn't comment about the ways allocated between residential

[2:53:32] and owner. I'm sorry, between the apartment and owner. I think

[2:53:34] those percentages, if we're going to do 15, it should be like,

[2:53:37] you know, 4, 4, 4, 4 and 3 for each of the four categories.

[2:53:49] so that we meet each one of them to some degree as opposed to

[2:53:52] segregated. I would be my proposal if it goes through. I guess

[2:53:54] I'm, I'm not, I'm not in favor of really doing it because it says

[2:53:57] basically a ku bought into to 8,500 new house instead of 1985.

[2:54:01] the in lieu fee to comment about that. The in lieu fees is

[2:54:04] basically they're buying their way out of building what we're,

[2:54:06] what we asked them to build. And it's just another example of

[2:54:09] like I said, not falling the supply and demand in the market.

[2:54:21] we're putting a cost of, well, I think it was

[2:54:23] $640,000 on a house. More government interference

[2:54:25] that raises the price of a house. It's just, you

[2:54:27] know, in front of apartment, what was it, 260,000?

[2:54:32] you go back there and buy a house a pretty nice house for for $260,000.

[2:54:36] anyway, just this whole thing is just a big, I'm sorry, it's just a big first.

[2:54:46] anyone else on the council? Is erica still with this? Oh, erica, did you have

[2:54:50] something you wanted? I have something myself, but I'll let you go first if you want.

[2:54:59] yes, first of all, I think that I think that

[2:55:02] we should have required this a long time ago.

[2:55:25] and it's something we've mentioned and it's something that we as a council we're

[2:55:28] trying to push for. And I think that to be to make it so that it's fair for all of

[2:55:31] the projects and entitlements to following if we if, if the state is mandating

[2:55:33] something then everyone united needs to bear the burden and have their fair share.

[2:55:36] and that's unfortunately not happening. And

[2:55:38] what's happening is if you decide, hey, you

[2:55:40] would like to be in it, you could the way to

[2:55:42] get out of this just to pay right a check.

[2:55:49] and I don't think that's right because we as a city haven't shown that we can

[2:55:53] exercise discretion and we can't show that we can handle the incoming money.

[2:55:58] we don't have anything structured for that. So to create a

[2:56:02] law without a way to enforce it is not effective government.

[2:56:15] and so I think that while it's we should do something, I think that

[2:56:17] this is the mark and doesn't support the primary goal, which is

[2:56:19] to ensure housing for people that can't afford if that is the primary

[2:56:21] goal that needs to happen. This is what the state is asking for.

[2:56:24] so I think we were going about it incorrectly.

[2:56:29] and so those are my comments.

[2:56:33] okay. Thank you. So oh, josh, would you like to speak?

[2:56:40] go ahead.

[2:56:41] if you want.

[2:56:42] and I'd injure it.

[2:56:43] which one wants to go first.

[2:56:45] I'll tell you.

[2:56:46] thank you, mr. Mayor.

[2:56:53] the question I have for staff because there's

[2:56:55] been concern mentioned about the in luffy and and

[2:56:57] maybe other ways to satisfy these the standard

[2:56:59] that's being set by this inclusionary zoning.

[2:57:01] all that has to come to council correct.

[2:57:08] for alternative methods of compliance. Yes. Yes.

[2:57:11] it is up to the city council to determine whether or not an alternative.

[2:57:14] so it all comes to us. Yes. Thank you.

[2:57:27] I need a clarification on that. It only count once we pass it, it's set.

[2:57:31] they don't have to come back. No. That's not what director load just reiterate.

[2:57:35] the standard that's being set is the 15% with the parameters for 15%, but there's

[2:57:38] also other ways to satisfy those needs and those would have to come to council.

[2:57:41] I thought not because that's why she had the 41 61.

[2:57:44] I mean, go ahead. You can say it again if you'd like director, though.

[2:57:48] so there are alternative methods compliance beyond a pain in luffy.

[2:57:53] so the in luffy is one method to comply with the inclusionary housing ordinance.

[2:57:59] other methods that could potentially happen is

[2:58:01] the developer could make a proposal to the city

[2:58:03] council that they think would be in the better

[2:58:05] interest than providing the percentage of units.

[2:58:09] so if they decide that they want to make a proposal to the council, the council

[2:58:13] has the right to consider it and determine if what the proposal is outweighs.

[2:58:18] if the benefits outweigh what the inclusionary housing

[2:58:22] ordinance provides, then the council can accept it.

[2:58:29] I'm sorry, just clarification, but if a builder comes in and says,

[2:58:33] I'll accept those, then they can do it. The 41 61, right? If we pass.

[2:58:37] yes. That's what I was getting that.

[2:58:39] if they say I'll do it, we don't it doesn't come back to us.

[2:58:43] yeah, I was talking about the alternative methods. Yeah.

[2:58:50] so other methods could include if they want

[2:58:52] to dedicate land to the city, or provide other

[2:58:54] benefits to the city that the city council would

[2:58:56] value as providing more benefit than just the 15%.

[2:59:11] thank you, mayor. Before deciding on this, I had a

[2:59:12] question actually for the city attorney, if I could,

[2:59:14] please. Can we confirm whether there's a specific legal

[2:59:17] or housing element deadline requiring adoption tonight?

[2:59:19] it is part of our housing element.

[2:59:21] I believe we said that we would adopt an in the fee.

[2:59:25] it is a housing implementation measure. Okay, and so it.

[2:59:34] hcd will be will be following what we do to see if we if

[2:59:36] we implement. I'm not sure if the deadline runs tonight,

[2:59:38] I might have to ask for help in the community development

[2:59:40] director. It's my I don't believe that it runs tonight.

[2:59:44] there is no deadline to adopt the inclusionary housing. The intent was to take it with

[2:59:48] no net loss, because once the sites become

[2:59:50] available for development on the rezone sites.

[2:59:55] if there's not an inclusionary housing and an

[2:59:57] application is submitted, it would not be subject to

[2:59:59] the 15% requirement. It could come in at whatever

[3:00:01] provisions are currently in place of the time.

[3:00:03] so if we were to continue this, let's say for 30 or 60 days.

[3:00:11] would that put at risk the housing element

[3:00:15] and or would it affect the no net loss action?

[3:00:24] it would affect the housing element per se, but it

[3:00:26] would affect that the fact the city would be open

[3:00:28] to getting additional development at providing no

[3:00:30] affordable or 5% affordable density bonuses invoked.

[3:00:32] so then we would be getting below that 15% and we'd be

[3:00:35] getting closer to go into a state of no net loss again.

[3:00:38] okay, thank you.

[3:00:55] okay, uncharacteristically, I'm going to say a lot here because I

[3:00:58] usually do that, but I do think time is of the essence in the sense that

[3:01:01] we've taken care of the no net loss, but I have to tell you that when I

[3:01:03] looked at some of the things that we've approved in the last few months.

[3:01:11] one of them was a, you know, a development that had essentially 500 houses

[3:01:15] and only 25, only 25 of them were going to be affordable at not a super low.

[3:01:28] and so 25, okay, and then when I looked at the plans,

[3:01:30] because I like to look at plans for some reason,

[3:01:32] they were all studios, practically, so I mean it's,

[3:01:34] in my opinion, the developers is making a ton.

[3:01:36] okay, it's my opinion.

[3:01:39] I'll even make it my professional opinion.

[3:01:42] and because, you know, they have the ability to do it,

[3:01:46] why wouldn't they? They're in business to make money.

[3:01:57] and so, you know, that saddens me, and so I do

[3:01:59] think kind of time is of the essence in doing

[3:02:01] something if we're going to, if we're going

[3:02:03] to do it, then this is a good time to do it.

[3:02:07] or, you know, looking at this because the minute somebody hands something

[3:02:11] in, and we haven't done anything, it's still five, five percent.

[3:02:15] okay, second item.

[3:02:17] I will try to go down this as kind of an order of things.

[3:02:23] this is a very real crisis.

[3:02:32] and economics plays a big part of this. I mean, you know, back after

[3:02:35] world war ii, people, young people, could buy a 6,000 square foot lot.

[3:02:41] okay, coming back from, you know, the military or wherever, start a

[3:02:45] family of four, and have a three-bedroom house all over the united states.

[3:02:49] okay, no matter, you know, commensurate with the prices for that area.

[3:02:58] over the last, you know, 75 years since then, it keeps getting smaller and smaller

[3:03:02] and smaller because of the economics, the cost of land on all the rest of that.

[3:03:07] and it's also much more complicated than that,

[3:03:11] but it's, you know, essentially that's it.

[3:03:15] it's only so much land and the plants that vote, certain price, then things

[3:03:19] are going to keep getting smaller and less affordable and all the rest of that.

[3:03:24] third item.

[3:03:26] and this isn't to toot my horn, but it's to say, this is very real.

[3:03:35] so, I have very real even for my own family because we

[3:03:39] adopted a family of five from families forward 10 years ago.

[3:03:47] and that, and if I adopted, I mean, we backed them up when families

[3:03:50] forward thought that they were a round peg in a square hole and said,

[3:03:54] go move to add a lonto or something like that.

[3:03:59] we couldn't do that.

[3:04:04] and so, you know, we guaranteed their rent and all the rest of that stuff

[3:04:08] at that time, that family, which was a single mom and four kids, had income.

[3:04:12] I have to know about $33,000 a year.

[3:04:17] crazy to think she was going to stay in orange county, but everywhere.

[3:04:22] okay, fast forward.

[3:04:25] this is 10 years later.

[3:04:27] she's gotten much more educated, been mentored and all the rest of that.

[3:04:33] and her income is probably close to $100,000 to the two

[3:04:37] girls have moved on through college and all the rest of that.

[3:04:41] and so, now it's a family of three with that kind of thing.

[3:04:44] so, it's a success.

[3:04:46] the point of this, though, isn't about, oh, look at me.

[3:04:50] it's really about, this is real, okay?

[3:04:52] and if you go over to sofi or any one of these apartment buildings over here,

[3:04:59] you're going to find in two bedroom places, you know, five

[3:05:03] people living in them because that's what they can afford.

[3:05:07] and what do they do? Are they derelict? Are they, what's the deal?

[3:05:11] you know, because they're paying $3,600 for two bedroom apartment, okay?

[3:05:18] no, they work at saddleback.

[3:05:21] they work, I mean, these are people with living wages and all the rest

[3:05:25] of that, but they're at the lower end of the totem pole, unfortunately.

[3:05:28] and so, it is a problem.

[3:05:31] that's all I'm really trying to say here.

[3:05:33] it is lots of times you get caught up in the numbers, the

[3:05:37] numbers for the developers, the numbers for this and that.

[3:05:40] and I, you know, I mean, I used to, you know, speak to the

[3:05:44] bia all the time, you know, when I was out in riverside.

[3:05:49] but the point is that, you know, we really do have to

[3:05:52] find as conservative as I am, we've got to find solutions.

[3:06:06] and the last item, what a city is actually supposed

[3:06:08] to do is not build these things, unless we get into

[3:06:10] the game of that affordability gap and fees in lieu

[3:06:12] of, then I guess we started getting much more involved.

[3:06:28] but, but the point is, is that the whole reason for all of

[3:06:30] this up zoning and all the rest of that is to help make it

[3:06:33] possible for somebody in the private sector to essentially maybe

[3:06:35] first build more housing, which we can argue with like crazy.

[3:06:44] and second, you know, to build, to build a certain

[3:06:46] percentage of it affordable. I don't think that

[3:06:48] it means because reena, I sit, I'm on a scag,

[3:06:50] the committee for economic development for scag.

[3:06:52] okay, for the last five years. Okay, so I know a little something about this.

[3:07:12] and, and what I'm, what I'm saying is that, you know, without drinking

[3:07:15] the kool-aid completely, the point is that it's very real and, and that

[3:07:18] cities are really their jurisdictions like us, could not, doesn't have to

[3:07:21] be a city, are there to actually facilitate the ability for it to happen.

[3:07:31] we're not the ones that are going to make it happen, and

[3:07:34] we can't absolutely, you know, force it down the throat

[3:07:36] that 60% of it has to be affordable at the lowest level,

[3:07:38] because that private developer won't be able to finance it.

[3:07:46] and that's why a department of the state of

[3:07:47] california, housing community development, if we handed

[3:07:50] something in like that, they would say we're crazy.

[3:07:52] and even though I can argue this, the opposite.

[3:08:14] because we're putting out something that's not realistic.

[3:08:17] it's what, it's all, what everybody

[3:08:18] would love to have. And yet the economics where I started doesn't make it work. Okay.

[3:08:21] so 15% is something that many cities and jurisdictions have done and has passed

[3:08:24] through

[3:08:25] the sort of, you know, we have, we have a certified housing development plan with hcd.

[3:08:28] and what we don't want to do is jeopardize that

[3:08:30] by either willingly or unknowingly doing something

[3:08:32] that's unrealistic and having them say, well,

[3:08:34] I don't know if you're so certified anymore.

[3:08:45] but for the next three, three, four years, three

[3:08:47] years. So, you know, I have to support it because it's

[3:08:49] a start. I was saddened by the fact that we have, you

[3:08:51] know, the 5% thing, but I understand it. I get it.

[3:09:09] and this, if we can do this and make a realistic effort of doing it,

[3:09:12] you know, I don't, I don't necessarily agree, dave, with your idea

[3:09:14] that it creates that we, we have a contract down with the state that

[3:09:17] the next rhna that we're going to have to do 8,300, you know, homes.

[3:09:22] so we're in the business of up zoning so that a developer, if they can make something

[3:09:26] happen that's in the right direction, happen, but it's not our duty to make it happen.

[3:09:35] last item. And I brought it up. It was a report from my scag meeting.

[3:09:39] oh, maybe four months ago, you know, you know, we meet often during the year.

[3:09:43] and it was a fantastic presentation that they made,

[3:09:47] which is not all that, it doesn't happen every day.

[3:09:51] but it was about how counties, you know, scag has six

[3:09:55] counties, I believe, in southern california, 19 million people.

[3:09:59] and how the counties and jurisdictions were doing,

[3:10:03] how jobs were doing, the whole nine yards, okay.

[3:10:17] and, and one of the interesting things that when they got around

[3:10:20] the housing that I, I took away from it, which I thought, I have

[3:10:22] to be careful how I remember it because, you know, I'm not reading

[3:10:25] from a script, but this is pretty, pretty much what it was.

[3:10:37] I was shaken by the fact that with the development that

[3:10:39] has occurred, okay, in terms of apartments and housing and

[3:10:42] stuff, that in terms of market rate housing, and I think

[3:10:44] this mainly apartments and things like that, a multifamily,

[3:10:58] that there was actually a surplus of housing that started about

[3:11:01] a year and a half ago, and is still growing, they do see it

[3:11:03] coming back to the curve again and being, you know, back where

[3:11:06] it meets with what this flying demand would be zero out at.

[3:11:20] and, but I thought it's because everyone was rushing to get these

[3:11:23] buildings up, there were six stories high, and there's an awful lot of them

[3:11:26] evidently, based on the report I got from scag, that where these

[3:11:28] apartments are sitting empty because they want to rent them at market rate.

[3:11:43] and those units are sitting, this supply is greater than the demand

[3:11:46] because the demand side of the curve basically said, no, I'm not going to

[3:11:49] pay $3,600 for that two bedroom apartment that is only, you know, 14,

[3:11:52] you know, what, not even that, 1,000 square feet or something like that.

[3:12:07] so, I say, I was a long-winded on this one, but this is something that I've

[3:12:10] really thought about deeply and from the side of the reality of it, from

[3:12:12] the side of, hey, we've got to make some kind of a movement here that's in

[3:12:15] the right direction, and I've been in design and construction all my life.

[3:12:17] so, you're not going to ever find me really up against the team,

[3:12:21] but we all got to do our part, and that's where I have to leave it.

[3:12:45] so, I'm going to, I see no more questions here unless somebody has one or

[3:12:49] deliberations, I'm going to ask for a motion, one way or the other on this.

[3:12:54] that number of 80, 80, 500 is real.

[3:13:00] I mean, that's the straight, we're supposed to

[3:13:02] be 64%, if we only make them do a 15, that's the

[3:13:04] equivalent how much it takes, so it's not a, how

[3:13:06] much it takes, but it doesn't mean we have to do it.

[3:13:08] that's true, we don't have to do it, but presumably, if, you know, hcd

[3:13:12] is, you know, on their toes, they'll say, hey, you're non-compliance.

[3:13:17] if they could take things away, anyway, if I'm going to say there's no fuzz on that

[3:13:21] number, that's if we approve it, that's a real 8,500, or we don't meet if we fail.

[3:13:25] so, I just wanted that.

[3:13:27] there's a whole list.

[3:13:28] there's not fuzzy numbers.

[3:13:29] I see the numbers, but that doesn't necessarily mean that's how it is going to work.

[3:13:37] the other side of that, I didn't even get into, it was really interesting

[3:13:41] to see the population decrease in the, in the, in the sky area.

[3:13:49] and, and they, I had to give a sky credit, which I don't always, for being pretty

[3:13:53] honest about giving us real numbers that they really felt this is what was going on.

[3:14:07] which I'm hoping that when we get to 2029, because there's a

[3:14:09] lot of people who sit on that committee who aren't necessarily,

[3:14:11] you know, one way or the other about it, other than, why are

[3:14:13] we asking for millions and millions of units to be built.

[3:14:15] when california is not growing anymore, at the moment,

[3:14:19] and that's, and that, and I'll leave it at that.

[3:14:23] so, that's, but that, we don't, we'll cross that bridge until 2029.

[3:14:29] that doesn't mean that we're not, I always have the, the affordability

[3:14:33] gap, which is partly what this is all about, this particular one.

[3:14:38] and, I'll be, I'll be quiet now, I even have a motion to make.

[3:14:44] more on me.

[3:14:52] well, I'll move, I didn't necessarily want to move both of these things, but I will.

[3:15:10] I'll, I'll move, I'll basically to accept the staff report and, and to move the

[3:15:14] inclusionary zoning ordinance in, and direct

[3:15:16] relationship to what the staff report was.

[3:15:19] I'll, I'll, I'll second with a friendly amendment that we

[3:15:23] increase the formal review process from five years to three years.

[3:15:27] if, if, if you accept that.

[3:15:29] I do.

[3:15:30] okay.

[3:15:32] okay.

[3:15:34] um, do we have any further deliberation based on the motion?

[3:15:41] all right, josh.

[3:15:45] mayor caskey.

[3:15:49] aye. Mayor pro tem mathis.

[3:15:49] aye.

[3:15:50] council member sweeney.

[3:15:51] aye.

[3:15:52] council member wheeler.

[3:15:53] no.

[3:15:55] council member pezold.

[3:15:56] no.

[3:15:58] the ayes have it.

[3:15:59] okay.

[3:16:02] okay.

[3:16:03] so.

[3:16:06] with that, I, we're going to close the public hearing.

[3:16:12] and bring it back to the city council.

[3:16:15] oh, I already did that.

[3:16:17] I'm sorry.

[3:16:18] I'm on the wrong page.

[3:16:19] sure.

[3:16:20] so we're going to now move on to really back into

[3:16:24] a city council meeting and administrative reports.

[3:16:29] and I will, well, some people might be wanting to leave at this point.

[3:16:35] I will again, thank staff, I thought that the presentation that

[3:16:39] they gave the powerpoint and explaining all of this was outstanding.

[3:16:43] and I really appreciate all the effort that went into this.

[3:16:49] it was not any kind of sneak attack.

[3:16:50] it was the fact that we, we were required by law to deal with the no net loss thing.

[3:17:02] and that's why this is a special meeting during what is normally dark for our

[3:17:05] city council so that we can meet that state law in that regard for that one.

[3:17:16] and we, and it was felt that we at least needed to put in front of the council the

[3:17:19] possibility of an inclusionary zoning ordinance

[3:17:21] that would sink in with this in terms of time.

[3:17:28] and that's really what was happening. It really had nothing to do with, you know,

[3:17:30] letting other guys go before and on nothing, nothing to do with that whatsoever.

[3:17:33] it was all the part that was all precipitated by the fact

[3:17:37] that we had a no net loss something we needed to deal with.

[3:17:41] okay, so administrative reports.

[3:17:44] I mean, the city manager who I think is going to also

[3:17:47] make one for the assistant city manager's not here.

[3:17:51] yes, mayor members of the council know city manager report this evening.

[3:18:01] but I would like with your permission to pinch head for the assistant city manager

[3:18:04] who could not be here tonight on item 3.2.1, which deals with crossing guard services.

[3:18:10] and just a little background, I think you all know that that our city does

[3:18:13] provide crossing guard services for a number of streets that we have in the city.

[3:18:19] as children move going to school and leaving school, and

[3:18:23] we hire outside contractors to do that service for us.

[3:18:30] so actually back in october of 2023 the city council ordered a contract

[3:18:34] for crossing guard services to a firm called all city management services.

[3:18:39] it went into effect in november of 2023.

[3:18:42] but the contract expired in june of 26 a couple months ago.

[3:18:48] all right, I need to tell you we should have possibly in january gone out to bid.

[3:18:55] but we did not.

[3:18:56] we missed it.

[3:18:57] I missed it.

[3:19:00] and I take forward responsibility for us missing that.

[3:19:09] but we really need to keep this service moving forward,

[3:19:13] and that's why we're here tonight to speak with you.

[3:19:24] is that we would like to propose that we go back to the all city management services

[3:19:27] and we have had an initial conversation with them and use their base contract.

[3:19:36] and have a temporary six month extension and

[3:19:40] to allow us then have time to do some bidding.

[3:19:46] but allow us also to continue to provide the service

[3:19:49] to for the kids going back and forth to school.

[3:20:03] and if that, if that would work, what we

[3:20:05] would be looking for the council to do tonight

[3:20:07] is we want to do an amendment to this prior

[3:20:08] contract where we're calling amendment one.

[3:20:10] we would ask for you to approve amendment one of the

[3:20:13] contract services agreement with all city management service.

[3:20:21] secondly, we would like to authorize the city

[3:20:23] attorney to make some minor modifications

[3:20:25] as may be necessary to make sure that it all works and it holds together well.

[3:20:30] and then finally to authorize me to sign that amended.

[3:20:51] amendment number one after our city attorney looks at

[3:20:53] it, so that we can put into place this contract and still

[3:20:55] continue to work and continue with the kids going back and

[3:20:58] forth, while we simultaneously get a bit of process going.

[3:21:02] so I'm available for any questions.

[3:21:24] there is none.

[3:21:33] thank you.

[3:21:41] all right.

[3:21:46] and dave.

[3:21:48] first of all, what is the fiscal impact?

[3:21:52] I have a few comments on this crossing guard.

[3:21:58] it's been an issue that's been around for a quarter while.

[3:22:03] I'm certainly in favor of taking care of the

[3:22:05] kids, although when I went to kindergarten

[3:22:07] pre-k, I went across many roads and we didn't

[3:22:09] have crossing guards and we all survived.

[3:22:16] anyway, I want to deal with the issue that I've

[3:22:20] talked about before and I will talk about the future.

[3:22:27] the city gets a, well, there's a thing called the property tax

[3:22:30] dollar, and I apologize I was going to give everybody a zero octopus.

[3:22:34] I'll get it to you afterward.

[3:22:36] when I talk about the future for other reasons, it was a thing

[3:22:40] built and made back before our city or shortly thereafter.

[3:22:44] it's totally out of date with realism, what's going on today.

[3:22:49] but I wanted to point out a few things that are highly questionable in the thing.

[3:23:04] so we're going to go to the next page, please, and come back to the presentation.

[3:23:07] next slide.

[3:23:08] okay.

[3:23:09] what I want to talk about, the organization that runs the

[3:23:12] scores is the saddleback valley unified school district.

[3:23:16] and I want to point out some things that are on this property tax dollar.

[3:23:20] the saddleback unified school district is unified, I'm sorry.

[3:23:26] the saddleback valley unified general fund gets 41.87% of our real estate tax dollar.

[3:23:31] their education review augmentation gets another 13.99%, 94%.

[3:23:37] okay.

[3:23:38] I'll please the next one that just for grinn to see what the data is.

[3:23:41] we're also funding right now the capstone valley

[3:23:44] school district and the irvine unified school district.

[3:23:48] we have a modest amount, but still it's, you know,

[3:23:52] irvine's a pretty big city and capstone is not as either.

[3:23:56] that's our modest numbers.

[3:23:59] if you get out at the bottom, laguna hills

[3:24:02] general fund out of the same dollar gets 5.14%.

[3:24:08] we have another three items, the csa 8 and csa 8a, 4.7 and 0.186.

[3:24:16] and then the city hill, the laguna hills city lighting fund.

[3:24:20] those are the, all the things on the bottom there.

[3:24:23] that's all we get of that tax dollar which corresponds to, I check

[3:24:27] this with eric's afternoon to make sure I was represented correctly.

[3:24:30] we get about 14.3 million dollars for that.

[3:24:34] okay.

[3:24:35] the saddleback unified school district gets 75 million, 75.4 million.

[3:24:42] now you look at the comparison of those numbers.

[3:24:44] they get 75, we get 14.

[3:24:45] they get 75 for taking care of four schools in our city.

[3:24:50] and that's all they do with that 75 million dollars.

[3:24:52] this is not a, this number is not for, that's not the number they receive

[3:24:55] from all different cities that in the saddleback unified school district.

[3:24:58] this is just us, that's just our portion of it.

[3:25:01] so that's 75 goods, just our four schools.

[3:25:05] we have to take care of the entire city.

[3:25:08] everything, lights, streets, you name it.

[3:25:12] we take care of everything for 14.3 million.

[3:25:15] so what, eric's me is that saddleback valley

[3:25:18] school district should pay for the crossing guards.

[3:25:23] it's, it's, it's just, they're just beating us, you know,

[3:25:25] to death for something that they should take care of.

[3:25:28] they're making a huge truckload of money.

[3:25:32] and, and let me give you the next page to follow them out on the next page, please.

[3:25:38] recently, sandlocking closed. So they now, not only don't have four schools.

[3:25:45] they have three schools, but I would bet, although I'm not privy to it,

[3:25:49] that the new private school that when there is paying them rent.

[3:25:53] because I can't see them giving up their building for free.

[3:25:56] so not only do we only have only three schools now,

[3:25:58] but they, they're probably getting rent from that one.

[3:26:00] which I want to put them about that, but I won't propose in the future that we,

[3:26:05] we go back to the county, which, you know, makes up this dollar,

[3:26:10] and complain and say, we want, you know, 25% back.

[3:26:14] which, which shouldn't be charged for us anymore.

[3:26:15] because they've only got three schools, not four.

[3:26:18] which would actually be one of the biggest benefits

[3:26:20] of the city, and probably the city's history.

[3:26:24] we would go from 14 million to 36 million.

[3:26:27] but that's, that's a future thing beside the point,

[3:26:29] although it's pertinent as whole discussion.

[3:26:32] so they're making even more money.

[3:26:36] and it's just, you know, I, I'm torn because I want the kids, you know,

[3:26:39] to have a school guard, I guess that's the, that's the going

[3:26:41] thing, you know, protect the kids going across the street.

[3:26:44] but this is, this is obscene that the school district won't pay for it.

[3:26:49] and I'm not particularly happy about school district

[3:26:51] because I've done some research that passed on them.

[3:26:53] I've gone over and we had a discussion last year about baseball fields.

[3:26:57] when my son played baseball, you know, he's 40 years old now, so 30 years ago,

[3:27:02] 30 plus years ago, there were three fields of valencia.

[3:27:05] my fields will be, you know, you know, parents will get out and kept them up.

[3:27:07] one of the fields is just so badly, been so badly

[3:27:10] maintained that basically doesn't exist anymore.

[3:27:12] the other one is barely there.

[3:27:14] and the third one is, isn't shambles.

[3:27:17] it's, you know, the fence is coming down.

[3:27:19] the, the infield is like really not, not their grass or everything.

[3:27:23] they don't even put their money for the kids on the school ground.

[3:27:27] they're, they're an organization.

[3:27:28] these to, you know, shape up basically.

[3:27:30] that's another issue.

[3:27:31] but I, I just object to this, this thing.

[3:27:34] and if we do pass it, I'm going to add an amendment that we send them a bill.

[3:27:39] they'll pay it, but I think we, they deserve to pay it.

[3:27:41] thank you.

[3:27:43] okay.

[3:27:45] councilman sweeney.

[3:27:46] thank you, mayor.

[3:27:47] great point, steve.

[3:27:49] and, you know, yes, we do have to protect the kids.

[3:27:53] and I want to make sure that we're doing that.

[3:27:57] the six month proposal does that include a crossing

[3:28:00] guard over at the old san joaquin site for the, like, good point charter schools or.

[3:28:07] that's nothing objective.

[3:28:08] we're paying for a private organization.

[3:28:11] and so I don't know the answer to that question.

[3:28:13] yeah.

[3:28:14] yeah.

[3:28:15] and so the council does.

[3:28:17] okay.

[3:28:18] okay.

[3:28:19] and then, if it's only through the end of year,

[3:28:23] how are we going to start the bidding process?

[3:28:27] are you going to start that soon?

[3:28:28] or what does that look like?

[3:28:29] we're going to start it soon.

[3:28:30] okay.

[3:28:31] we're going to start it in the next few weeks.

[3:28:32] okay.

[3:28:33] perfect.

[3:28:34] so we'll be, we'll be ready to go.

[3:28:36] okay.

[3:28:37] and, um, okay.

[3:28:38] that's it for now.

[3:28:39] thank you.

[3:28:40] thank you.

[3:28:41] okay.

[3:28:42] I have some comments too based on that.

[3:28:44] first of all, I'm going to come in.

[3:28:50] dave, that's some pretty interesting numbers that you've got there.

[3:28:52] and it is food for thought in many respects.

[3:28:57] we have a precedent here in which the city has done this for,

[3:29:04] I'm assuming, decades.

[3:29:06] okay.

[3:29:07] and what would councilman wheeler's bringing up

[3:29:12] is that the way to mess something is a mess here.

[3:29:15] and you can have something I miss at any point in time.

[3:29:19] and so I think it's worth looking into.

[3:29:21] and I think it's worth talking to the, you know, the school district about.

[3:29:27] um, it's a little different.

[3:29:28] what their responsibility is.

[3:29:30] that's one of the things that's not in the numbers.

[3:29:33] um, you know, in terms of, you know, teaching

[3:29:36] in the classes and all the rest of that stuff.

[3:29:39] and so I think it really what it does is it begs the question for having a discussion.

[3:29:47] and, and yet in the meantime,

[3:29:51] I don't want to see kids going back to school starting tomorrow,

[3:29:55] where the crossing guards aren't there.

[3:29:59] and so I think that for the next six months we need to

[3:30:03] maintain the, the president that we started 30 years ago.

[3:30:08] um, I'm looking at to the whole audience, but I keep looking over it's scott, sorry.

[3:30:12] um, and, uh, cause you're at, you know, but,

[3:30:15] uh, so I would be in favor of this from, you know, from that standpoint on,

[3:30:21] uh, you know, alone by itself.

[3:30:24] cause you, we, I don't want to stop anything abruptly that

[3:30:28] hasn't been looked into, uh, appropriately, which means both.

[3:30:32] he had a, you have to start a dialogue with the, with the school district.

[3:30:37] and maybe they'll have a million great reasons as to why, you know, we're wrong.

[3:30:42] uh, and even looking at it that way.

[3:30:44] but in the meantime, I also think that we need to look at, uh, you know,

[3:30:48] the possibility that we will continue and put the thing out to bid.

[3:30:52] the one thing I noticed when I went through, uh, you know,

[3:30:56] the, the contract as they, as they've got it was that, you know,

[3:31:00] here in the world that we live in right now, they wanted to 6% raise every,

[3:31:05] every year and, uh, just, you know, and so general rule.

[3:31:09] and I thought, wait a minute.

[3:31:11] so that's, I mentioned that to our city manager.

[3:31:14] and that is part of the reason why, you know, whatever we do,

[3:31:18] whether we decided it's our responsibility or somebody

[3:31:21] else's or shared responsibility that, uh, it'd be bid.

[3:31:26] and so that it isn't something where we just keep going

[3:31:28] on and on, you know, like pollyanna and everything's okay.

[3:31:33] so that's my comment.

[3:31:35] and with that, uh, jared mathis.

[3:31:38] yeah, I appreciate all the comments and the numbers that they've put together.

[3:31:42] I'll stand in unison and in full throat support of, of lobbying the,

[3:31:48] the unified school district to take their responsibility.

[3:31:52] I mean, we just approved a private high school.

[3:31:55] uh, we're not giving them, uh, crosswalk facilities, right?

[3:32:00] I mean, because it's a private institution, right?

[3:32:03] so no, no, no, no, no, the private high school,

[3:32:06] the one that we just, uh, yeah, yeah, right.

[3:32:10] so we're not doing it there.

[3:32:11] so right.

[3:32:13] the middle school that was is replacing my keen, we are.

[3:32:16] so it, that doesn't jive, right?

[3:32:19] and so, um, for me, uh, I think that there's a great argument to make

[3:32:24] their, and I'd be happy to help make that and really stick up for the unit hills.

[3:32:29] so I think those are good points.

[3:32:31] um, with that, I also agree that we got to take care of our kids for now.

[3:32:35] and I would move to approve the six month, uh, contract, um,

[3:32:41] subject to the bidding happening, you know, right away.

[3:32:44] and, and then we can fight that fight.

[3:32:47] we have a second.

[3:32:48] I'll second that.

[3:32:49] all right.

[3:32:50] I'm going to move to second it.

[3:32:55] I'm going to go back to, uh, david.

[3:32:56] um, yeah.

[3:32:57] okay.

[3:32:58] go ahead.

[3:32:59] okay.

[3:33:00] sorry.

[3:33:01] you don't have a button to push.

[3:33:02] um, I just looked up there.

[3:33:03] I didn't know whether you're really there because you seem to be in the dark.

[3:33:07] I have a son sort of that is going down.

[3:33:10] um, I haven't left from the seat.

[3:33:13] so, um, so first of all, we have.

[3:33:16] this is something that has been mentioned on

[3:33:19] a number of occasions and a number of years.

[3:33:21] and, and dave is his excuse me counsel member.

[3:33:26] wheeler has brought the numbers to show exactly, um,

[3:33:34] what the real picture is, which is really.

[3:33:37] it's, it's quite nice to be able to see and

[3:33:39] understand because the numbers are not fair.

[3:33:43] and, um, we also pay for an officer to be at the school.

[3:33:48] that's in addition to the crosscards.

[3:33:52] now I don't want to eliminate an officer.

[3:33:55] that's not the point of this, but I'm just trying to

[3:33:58] point out that we offer a lot more than just crossing

[3:34:00] guards to the school and, um, our resources are limited.

[3:34:05] um, I, my children went to private schools for various reasons.

[3:34:11] and, um, parents volunteered in the private in

[3:34:14] the private school setting to cross the children.

[3:34:18] and, um, that's something that the, that I, I've

[3:34:22] seen I know that the schools don't have the budget.

[3:34:26] the private schools don't have the budget to have crossing guard.

[3:34:28] so it was parent volunteer or organized.

[3:34:50] um, I do agree that we shouldn't cut this off, but I do know that in the

[3:34:52] past former city managers have approached the school district and have

[3:34:55] had discussions and we essentially were denied any discussions and they

[3:34:57] basically said it's because the children are crossing on our streets.

[3:34:59] so I think that we need to have a further discussion on where

[3:35:03] children are crossing or how children are getting to school.

[3:35:15] perhaps they should maybe we should try to close off the

[3:35:18] street for a little bit of time so that the children can

[3:35:20] safely get into valencia and then that might resolve one and

[3:35:22] maybe perhaps find other solutions for the other schools.

[3:35:34] I think we should have more discussions, but I

[3:35:36] think we should anticipate the, um, the past which

[3:35:38] was this, uh, saddleback as always in the past,

[3:35:40] um, communicated to the city that they will not.

[3:35:47] uh, pay for the crossing guards and they have their own justifications as to

[3:35:51] why so I think we should find other solutions if that is what we're looking for.

[3:35:56] okay, thank you.

[3:35:57] um, where are we at here?

[3:35:59] so we're, looks like a jerk, did you have something?

[3:36:02] no.

[3:36:05] yeah, I just want to ask you to entertain a, a, uh, amendment change to

[3:36:09] along with what you said, add a, I think that we'll send a bill to them.

[3:36:13] bob, they'll pay it.

[3:36:14] we'll send a bill.

[3:36:20] that's, uh, a, uh, amended, uh, motion to amend any seconds.

[3:36:28] okay.

[3:36:30] okay, we got a second moved in second.

[3:36:35] any further discussion?

[3:36:38] let's vote on the amended motion.

[3:36:44] to send a bill.

[3:36:47] just to clarify this is to approve staff, staff recommendation

[3:36:51] in addition to sending the school district they bill for this.

[3:36:54] okay.

[3:36:56] um, council member sweeney.

[3:37:00] uh, aye. Mayor caskey.

[3:37:04] um, seems ridiculous to me.

[3:37:07] no, because I'd rather have a discussion where

[3:37:09] you're really walking the door and sit down.

[3:37:12] council member wheeler.

[3:37:13] aye.

[3:37:20] council member, I think that it will create a discussion.

[3:37:32] that's true.

[3:37:34] okay.

[3:37:36] that leaves us to, uh, item number 3.3 and turn to our city clerk.

[3:37:43] can you see that?

[3:37:44] is that correct?

[3:37:45] you're going to.

[3:37:46] yes.

[3:37:47] uh, thank you, mayor.

[3:37:48] um, so this item was placed on the agenda.

[3:37:50] um, so the filing period for the november 3, 2026 election ended on august 7th.

[3:37:56] at 5 p.m.

[3:37:57] at that time, there was only one, uh, qualified candidate for district two.

[3:38:03] under the, uh, california elections code, uh, 10229.

[3:38:09] and then there's only one candidate or zero

[3:38:11] candidates that gives the council the ability

[3:38:13] to either appoint the one candidate and then

[3:38:17] cancel the election or allow the election to go on as, uh, called.

[3:38:23] and so this item tonight, uh, before you tonight

[3:38:26] is giving you that option of allow the, uh,

[3:38:28] uh, election for district two specifically

[3:38:31] to go to, um, the ballot in november with the

[3:38:34] one candidate on it, or as a council, you can

[3:38:37] appoint the one qualified candidate, which

[3:38:39] would be joshua sweeney to district two and

[3:38:41] then cancel the district to election districts.

[3:38:44] one and four would go on as planned.

[3:38:47] and so it'd just be district two that would be canceled.

[3:38:49] um, and, uh, mr. Sweeney would be appointed.

[3:38:52] and then that would make it to where no writing

[3:38:54] candidates would be accepted for district two ballots.

[3:38:57] okay.

[3:38:58] I have a quick question.

[3:38:59] yes.

[3:39:03] so that appointment, um, and I've read all this stuff.

[3:39:07] I understand.

[3:39:10] I mean, there's other cities that are doing that right around us.

[3:39:12] um, is for four years or is it till the next election?

[3:39:16] it would be the complete term for that district, which would be before your term.

[3:39:21] and that's based on california law.

[3:39:23] yes.

[3:39:24] okay.

[3:39:25] thank you.

[3:39:26] so we'll put it up to the next person on the list, which would be dave.

[3:39:32] now a question for staff.

[3:39:33] uh, this has happened twice in the past.

[3:39:36] what was done that time?

[3:39:38] those times.

[3:39:39] with a cancellation of election?

[3:39:42] there was a, there was at least two, two times in the past history.

[3:39:45] there was going to hills where there was only one candidate.

[3:39:48] and we didn't have district, but it was for the whole thing.

[3:39:50] there were only, you know, they, uh, there was only number of candidates qualified

[3:39:56] as there were offices.

[3:39:57] so what happened those two times?

[3:39:59] did the election go through or was it, or was it similar appointment?

[3:40:02] uh, I would not be able to speak to those.

[3:40:04] I would be able to, I would, I could find that information for you.

[3:40:07] but, um, since it's a district election, we would be able to cancel this, um,

[3:40:11] at larger a little bit different.

[3:40:15] okay.

[3:40:16] and that, but that would, uh, also cancel the, you know,

[3:40:22] I guess the, uh, voters right to right in.

[3:40:24] it would.

[3:40:26] is that a, I guess I'll need a press on that.

[3:40:29] do you have any?

[3:40:32] in the city no.

[3:40:33] um, but that is under state law, the council has that ability to do that.

[3:40:37] okay.

[3:40:38] thank you.

[3:40:40] um, okay.

[3:40:43] next, uh, chair at memphis.

[3:40:45] thank you, mr. Mayor.

[3:40:46] um, just responding to that question.

[3:40:48] I'm fairly sure, um, the most recent election in

[3:40:52] laguna niguel after they switched to districts.

[3:40:55] every single one of the candidates were unopposed.

[3:40:58] and they canceled the election altogether.

[3:41:01] um, so not laguna hills example, but laguna

[3:41:04] niguel, um, right next door handled it that way.

[3:41:08] there's similar thing in dana point right now too.

[3:41:12] oh, dana.

[3:41:13] okay.

[3:41:14] next on those.

[3:41:15] oh, but, uh, so anyway.

[3:41:17] so, um, from an efficiency standpoint and, uh, because there's no other candidate.

[3:41:24] and because I believe in council member sweeney,

[3:41:28] I would move, uh, to, um, appoint him to district to, uh, council.

[3:41:35] is that a motion?

[3:41:36] that's a motion.

[3:41:37] okay.

[3:41:38] do we have a second?

[3:41:39] I'll second.

[3:41:40] um, josh, you're next on the.

[3:41:45] well, thank you.

[3:41:47] uh, no, that was a great point by mayor pro tem mathis

[3:41:50] is that, uh, laguna niguel just did the same thing.

[3:41:54] they had two that were unopposed.

[3:41:55] and so they, they were appointed last night.

[3:41:57] and that was canceled.

[3:41:59] and then as well as dana point had somebody that was running unopposed.

[3:42:03] and they canceled that one as well.

[3:42:04] so it's really just more of, uh, of saving the city money.

[3:42:07] it's a cost savings, not to be put on the ballot and have, have that on there.

[3:42:12] so it really will save the, the city some, some money.

[3:42:15] um, and, so yeah, that's, that's where that's, that's going.

[3:42:19] but, uh, I have a question.

[3:42:25] and then we'll go to you, erica.

[3:42:27] and that has to do with the money thing.

[3:42:31] yeah.

[3:42:32] as I understand it, it would save between $10 and $12,000 to the city to do this.

[3:42:38] could you explain that a little bit more?

[3:42:40] yes.

[3:42:42] so, um, the estimate from the county, so they do it by a cost per voter.

[3:42:46] um, so the orange county registered voters

[3:42:48] estimated that for the district to election,

[3:42:50] it would be between $10,401 and $12,56 to run specifically the district to election.

[3:42:59] so that savings, there would be savings in there.

[3:43:01] um, and additionally, that's not included in this estimate

[3:43:05] is the city's cost of the publication of election notices.

[3:43:08] and then that we have to get those translated

[3:43:10] and then also send them to the newspapers.

[3:43:12] so those costs are not included.

[3:43:15] uh, just because we would not be able to get a, um, a complete

[3:43:18] estimate without sending the draft to all the translation services.

[3:43:23] and into the newspapers to get that estimate of what that would cost.

[3:43:26] however, that would be, um, looking at the election

[3:43:29] notices for calling the election, it was in the thousands.

[3:43:34] okay. So we would be able to reduce the costs on the translation

[3:43:37] because we would not be publishing the district to one.

[3:43:39] and then as well as all to the newspapers.

[3:43:41] all right.

[3:43:42] thank you.

[3:43:43] erica, did you have any comments?

[3:43:45] yes.

[3:43:46] I'm sorry.

[3:43:47] hang on, josh.

[3:43:48] I, I forgot to add when I, when I first spoke, I apologize.

[3:43:52] but before I addressed the item, I just wanted to clarify with the city attorney

[3:43:55] and city clerk, uh, to confirm for the record that all requirements under elections,

[3:44:00] code section 10229 have been satisfied and that I

[3:44:03] may legally participate in this discussion and vote.

[3:44:07] trying to turn my microphone on.

[3:44:11] I think we have to hang on.

[3:44:12] erica, we have a comment from, uh, our city attorney.

[3:44:15] so that's correct.

[3:44:16] all, uh, requirements of the elections code have been complied

[3:44:19] with to take this vote and you can vote on this matter.

[3:44:22] okay.

[3:44:23] okay.

[3:44:24] erica.

[3:44:28] so, um, I, I understand that we have two cities that have voted,

[3:44:32] um, on the, or that have made decisions, which, which is fine.

[3:44:37] um, I have concerns because we had a couple of times.

[3:44:45] um, we've had individuals where, for example, uh, mayor caskey decided

[3:44:49] to run because he, um, I mean, he was essentially, and, and opposed.

[3:44:55] and he did and, and made the decision that it was

[3:44:59] important to give the opportunity for people to vote.

[3:45:04] um, and not take that right away from the people.

[3:45:08] and that doesn't mean that, you know, the, you could create a complicated election.

[3:45:12] it just means that, you know, and you saw the results from mayor caskey's election.

[3:45:18] he did quite well.

[3:45:20] and, and he was still unopposed, but he did it.

[3:45:25] and I, I respect that because of the passion that mayor caskey had, which

[3:45:31] was, hey, I want to provide the residents an opportunity to vote for me.

[3:45:36] so um, I, I do have my reservations and concerns

[3:45:42] with respect to, um, with respect to that,

[3:45:46] because I, I just feel that while other cities

[3:45:50] have made those decisions, it was all districts.

[3:45:54] and I think we're in a situation where it's not all districts.

[3:45:59] we have other people running. And what is that kind of send to

[3:46:03] other areas. Okay. So your district doesn't. So that means, or

[3:46:06] just because, you know, no one else is running in your district.

[3:46:10] that means that, um, that the other districts have to go through those processes.

[3:46:16] so I just, I feel a little different because it's not

[3:46:20] apples to apples. And if, I mean, you have a city wide

[3:46:23] situation versus this isn't. And I don't. I think the

[3:46:27] optics of it doesn't look good for potential people.

[3:46:33] I think that it's important to be in a position where we are

[3:46:39] fair, especially for everyone. And, I mean, it's the work is

[3:46:45] different if you're unopposed substantially different, but the

[3:46:53] optics of being fair to everyone who is who has taken the time.

[3:47:04] and I think it's important to show as a leader, somebody

[3:47:06] who's a leader showing that they're willing to put the work

[3:47:08] in as such as what caskey and their caskey did, which was, you

[3:47:10] know, I was running that very election and, and he didn't.

[3:47:12] mayor caskey didn't have to do it.

[3:47:22] and he knew that he wanted to show his leadership and show that he

[3:47:25] was a leader and not somebody that wanted to take these way out.

[3:47:27] so anyway, I just have to say that because I think it's important

[3:47:30] when you set a precedent in a standard in the city to not flip flop.

[3:47:33] and, and that's just, I think we, we need to be cognizant and aware of consistency.

[3:47:41] okay. Mayor, I'm sorry, we do have one signed up to speak on this item.

[3:47:45] oh, I didn't even know.

[3:47:46] I'm sorry, I'm sorry.

[3:47:48] I should have asked.

[3:47:49] I apologize.

[3:47:50] so why don't you go do your public speaker. I do have one other item.

[3:47:54] I, I would have one I think I would like to say since.

[3:47:57] okay.

[3:47:58] do you want me to call the speaker?

[3:47:59] yes.

[3:48:00] scott miller.

[3:48:03] I'm looking around.

[3:48:05] I, yeah.

[3:48:06] I was waiting to see someone rush in the door.

[3:48:09] right. I don't rule mayor city council. Thank you so much

[3:48:13] for the opportunity to speak before your presence tonight.

[3:48:16] uh, this is an important election, not only for

[3:48:20] us here in laguna hills, but for the country.

[3:48:23] and, you know, I spent the last three years coming to every single council meeting.

[3:48:30] the two hour meetings, the four hour meetings, the six

[3:48:34] hour meetings and the seven point five hour meetings.

[3:48:42] and I think I've learned some things. Number one, this council is very good at

[3:48:46] understanding that you've been handed a lot of very tough financial positions.

[3:48:50] and you work very hard to overcome those positions and save tax dollars.

[3:48:59] so that's the number, that's one of the reasons why I'm asking

[3:49:03] you to appoint mr. Sweeney as a second district representative.

[3:49:09] the other is this, the filing period was open

[3:49:12] and well known to the entire all three districts.

[3:49:16] we had political parties out campaigning in all three districts.

[3:49:24] we ended up with a one on one race in the first district. And now we've ended

[3:49:28] up with a two on two race from two different parties in the fourth district.

[3:49:33] all because there were political groups out there

[3:49:36] that were campaigning months before the filing period.

[3:49:46] so, each district had the opportunity to give their voice. And the voice

[3:49:49] of the second district had the same opportunity as all the other districts.

[3:49:53] no rights were taken away from them.

[3:49:56] nobody was given a short handed opportunity in this election.

[3:50:07] but their message from the second district was loud and clear that the incumbent

[3:50:10] and the current leadership is what they want. It's what they're selecting.

[3:50:26] no one has been given a disadvantage in this election.

[3:50:28] and I am asking those who live outside of the second

[3:50:30] district to support the voice of those voters in the

[3:50:32] second district because that's why we went to districts.

[3:50:37] to make sure there was no outside influence from outside of electoral

[3:50:41] districts and the people of those districts can speak for themselves.

[3:50:50] so, for those reasons, I am asking the council, I'm encouraging you to

[3:50:54] give you unanimous appointment to mr. Sweeney in the second district.

[3:50:58] thank you so much.

[3:51:02] thank you, mr. Miller. Okay, so I have some comments to say.

[3:51:16] but I'm going to actually preface that with the

[3:51:18] fact that I don't see a council position in a town

[3:51:20] of our size and even much larger in fact until you

[3:51:22] get to something really large as being political.

[3:51:24] we're here to take care of the streets. We're here to take care of our parks.

[3:51:29] we're here to first and foremost for public safety.

[3:51:36] and we have tight budgets and all the things that we just

[3:51:40] mentioned by a public comment. And, you know, it's our town.

[3:51:48] I mean, this is not about democrats and

[3:51:50] republicans and dsa and all the rest of that. This

[3:51:52] is about taking care of our neighbors. And

[3:51:54] it's small enough to be our neighbors, okay.

[3:52:00] so, but I do want to clarify a couple of things about the fact that I

[3:52:04] ran since erica brought it up. Number one, my situation was different.

[3:52:16] first of all, it was citywide. And I was appointed when a council member basically

[3:52:20] resigned about six or eight months into their

[3:52:22] four-year term and moved to another state.

[3:52:36] and I decided that I interviewed for the project

[3:52:38] or for the project for the council position

[3:52:40] and the council made a decision to appoint me

[3:52:42] from four candidates and that was that, okay.

[3:53:05] I had my reasons. We're going into all that stuff. But I was told at that time, I was

[3:53:09] told

[3:53:09] at that time that I would have to run in the next election because I was appointed

[3:53:12] and it

[3:53:13] was a position that was made vacant from a council member who had been voted on a

[3:53:16] little

[3:53:16] different than me deciding that I wanted to run to show my leadership or something

[3:53:19] like that.

[3:53:20] and so, I did it. And it was citywide. And by the

[3:53:22] way, it was a great experience for me that having not

[3:53:24] done it ever before in my life to get out there and

[3:53:26] meet people and know people and all the rest of that.

[3:53:49] there was nothing to do with the optics. And yeah, and here's the other side

[3:53:52] of that. Because I was the only one on the ballot, what did I get? 100% of the

[3:53:55] vote, okay. So, if I could have saved my city, let's say $10,000, two and a

[3:53:58] half years ago or whatever it was two years ago to not have to deal with that.

[3:54:10] and when it was obvious, I mean, if anything, it saved my

[3:54:12] ego that I got 100% of the vote. But I don't believe that

[3:54:15] there was any right in campaign or any, all of that just

[3:54:17] is abhorrent to me, especially with our new districts.

[3:54:27] I really feel that we need to incubate those in a way that

[3:54:30] they don't become political in that kind of sense of the

[3:54:32] word or one district is working in another district to change

[3:54:34] things around and/or political party or any of that stuff.

[3:54:43] so, dan with the optics, I'm totally in favor

[3:54:45] of this, and I'm totally in favor of saving our

[3:54:47] town $12,000 for something as obvious what the

[3:54:49] outcome is going to be. So, that's my comment.

[3:55:09] do we have anybody else, jared, do you want to? Sure, your next step. Yeah,

[3:55:12] thank you, mr. Mayor. I second everything you just said. And I just want

[3:55:15] to reiterate something that commissioner miller, I think outlined very

[3:55:18] succinctly and correctly in that the district two voters have been heard.

[3:55:29] they chose not to run against joshua sweeney. And that is saying something because

[3:55:33] they want him to serve. And so, they voiced their vote already by not opposing him.

[3:55:53] and so, I take exception to the idea that somehow voters are being canceled if we

[3:55:56] vote to appoint him. I don't think that's the case at all. I think it's quite the

[3:55:58] opposite. And I think that joshua sweeney, councilman sweeney, should be commended for

[3:56:01] the service that he's given district to vote in that way to not oppose your candidacy.

[3:56:03] and as far as being willing to serve and being able to work and being willing to work

[3:56:07] for the office, anybody that puts their name on the ballot is making that commitment.

[3:56:24] and so, that's not a measure, running a campaign or not, is

[3:56:26] not a measure of your willingness to serve. And I think we've

[3:56:29] seen other examples of that. So, I just want to make those

[3:56:31] points and I wish councilman sweeney another good four years.

[3:56:39] next up, councilman sweeney. Thank you, mayor. Because this

[3:56:41] item involves my own council seat, I wanted to recognize

[3:56:44] the importance of addressing it openly and transparently

[3:56:46] like we're doing. And the facts are straightforward.

[3:57:00] the city conducted an open and open candidate process in which every eligible district

[3:57:04] to resident had the same opportunity to qualify for the ballot. When filing closed, I

[3:57:07] was the only candidate. Meanwhile, six candidates qualify for two other council seats,

[3:57:10] two in district one and four in district four. And those voters have choices to make.

[3:57:20] district two does not have a contested race. So, I believe in the absence of an

[3:57:23] opponent is a meaningful reflection of the confidence district two residents have

[3:57:26] placed in my service. And if there have been significant demand for different

[3:57:29] representation, the opportunity existed for someone to step forward. No one did.

[3:57:40] I do not take that confidence for granted, I consider an obligation to continue

[3:57:43] earning it every day. And I have worked to be accessible, responsible, responsive and

[3:57:47] focused on results, supporting strong public safety, responsible financial management,

[3:57:50] thoughtful economic development, and an excellent quality of life for our residents.

[3:57:55] and this decision is also about fiscal responsibility

[3:57:57] because state law provides a process for appointing a sole

[3:58:00] qualified candidate because taxpayers should not be required

[3:58:02] to fund an election where there is no contest to decide.

[3:58:06] the city budget approximately $45,000 for the 2026 municipal election

[3:58:10] and districts one and four will still require elections but removing the

[3:58:14] contested district two race should avoid unnecessary

[3:58:18] ballot processing and administrative costs.

[3:58:33] so, spending taxpayer money on an uncontested race would not give district

[3:58:36] two voters a choice between candidates that would merely spend public funds

[3:58:39] to confirm the only possible outcome. And the decision should be based on

[3:58:42] the law, the facts, fiscal responsibility and respect for district two.

[3:58:50] not personalities or political disagreements, rejecting the

[3:58:52] appointment without a compelling legal or public policy reason

[3:58:54] would risk disregarding the result of district two's open candidate

[3:58:57] process while imposing an unnecessary expense on taxpayers.

[3:59:02] every district deserves to have its voice

[3:59:04] respected and I'm grateful for the confidence

[3:59:06] district two is placed in me and the public

[3:59:08] service is not an entitlement, it is an obligation.

[3:59:13] and if I'm appointed, I will continue serving with humility, accountability and

[3:59:17] determination, and I will work every day to

[3:59:19] demonstrate that confidence was well placed.

[3:59:25] I respectfully support the resolution of

[3:59:27] pointing me to district two for a full four year

[3:59:29] term that follows state law, it respects the

[3:59:31] open process and it protects taxpayer dollars.

[3:59:33] thank you.

[3:59:35] dave, your line is on.

[3:59:37] yeah.

[3:59:40] the law of our land is we have elections, not just pointing somebody.

[3:59:48] this election is very similar to the first election I ran in back in 2018.

[3:59:52] there were seven qualified candidates that put their name in.

[3:59:55] the only reason we're doing this is because of we don't districts which should never

[3:59:59] have been done in my opinion and basically I was backed up by the supreme court.

[4:00:03] it's recently when they booted down changing to

[4:00:06] districts because of ethnicity and those kind of reasons.

[4:00:10] so it should have never been done.

[4:00:13] no candidates, if you look at the reason that they changed over,

[4:00:17] they wanted to have more diversity, quote unquote, elections.

[4:00:21] and looking at all the seven qualified candidates,

[4:00:24] there is no diversity of the male female.

[4:00:27] and of course party, but no he says the party is

[4:00:30] not supposed to, it can't, at local elections.

[4:00:33] so if we hadn't gone to districts, we'd have a section with

[4:00:36] seven candidates being going to be chosen by the people.

[4:00:39] in my opinion, still that the people who are doing the hills should choose their

[4:00:43] leaders from all doing the hills and not cut us up in little bitty districts.

[4:00:47] and though the, see election, it was such a quick decision to go to districts

[4:00:51] and everything, the public didn't ever have time to get it to adjust to it.

[4:00:55] I knew for a fact there were two candidates in district, two, they were considering.

[4:01:02] okay. Again, since you don't have a button to push erica, did you have any other?

[4:01:10] yes. And I read as well online that people wanted to run

[4:01:13] in district two, and the process was difficult to navigate.

[4:01:21] now, I know that, you know, everyone has an opportunity,

[4:01:24] but to express that there's no interest is disingenuous.

[4:01:28] and it dishonest. And so to say that no one

[4:01:32] wasn't, that no one was interested isn't factual.

[4:01:42] so given the fact that there are people that

[4:01:44] have expressed interest and, you know, as council

[4:01:46] member wheeler said, there were two people that

[4:01:48] had, he knows of two people that were interested.

[4:02:05] I think it's unfair to, to cancel out that out. And I think that it's,

[4:02:08] it's important to have people with the democratic process be able to

[4:02:11] vote or not vote, and to say that the people's voices have been spoken

[4:02:14] when they haven't been given an opportunity in the voting process.

[4:02:17] I mean, no one really, no one posted from the city.

[4:02:19] no, I mean, josh, I don't know if you posted. Well,

[4:02:21] if you don't run against me, that means that you're

[4:02:23] voting for me and that you have full confidence.

[4:02:26] that's not, that's not accurate either. And so to make

[4:02:30] that assumption for the people, I think, is false.

[4:02:40] I think it's quite insulting to, to express that that

[4:02:42] is the opinion, their opinions and mindsets and that

[4:02:44] that's how the people speak. It's quite insulting for,

[4:02:46] for people because the people vote through a process.

[4:02:48] and if people were to have known, okay, this is really the process.

[4:02:52] would that be the outcome, especially people expressed interest.

[4:03:00] so I just think that we are short changing the people. I, I don't, I think there's

[4:03:04] a democratic process for a reason. And I think that we should have that process.

[4:03:15] I know that we have discussions about $10,000, but I

[4:03:17] think $10,000 and $15,000 to allow people to be given

[4:03:19] the opportunity to vote is important, especially

[4:03:21] considering it's not a problem for people to travel.

[4:03:32] and more, more than that, they spend more than that

[4:03:34] traveling. And I think that we should really consider what,

[4:03:36] what the, what the dollars mean, especially when we're

[4:03:38] communicating, taking away a vocal piece for the people.

[4:03:49] very well could be that the people all vote for josh, because he's

[4:03:52] there, but he's stripping them of that opportunity, especially when

[4:03:55] they have other districts and people don't quite understand this

[4:03:57] process. I think it's important for us to be able to have a process.

[4:04:06] ultimately, I think that the decision has been made, but

[4:04:08] I am grateful for the opportunity to be able to express

[4:04:11] that for the people that aren't here that do speak

[4:04:13] because I don't speak to a lot of people in your district.

[4:04:20] and I think that the council member sweeney and a lot of people

[4:04:22] aren't happy with decisions that have been made and a lot of people

[4:04:25] do express a lot. And so to say that it's a blanket statement

[4:04:27] that they haven't said anything is just, it's just disingenuous.

[4:04:29] so I am grateful for this opportunity, even though I know you will be appointed.

[4:04:33] and I hope you do keep your promise and be fiscally responsible.

[4:04:38] I'm going to say something that I'm going to put it back to, I guess we'll

[4:04:42] get some other people. But I have to say, I couldn't disagree with you more.

[4:04:48] and actually, I think what's going on here is borderline slanderous

[4:04:53] to be able to say from outside of the district, I know people

[4:04:58] who absolutely are unsatisfied. And, you know, it's as absolutely

[4:05:06] ridiculous. I mean, it angers me what I'm hearing here, angers me.

[4:05:13] so I'm going to shut up at that because otherwise I'll go for the next hour.

[4:05:19] I'm going to go to josh sweeney if you want to say something because you

[4:05:25] thank you, mayor. Yeah, I appreciate that. There were several statements

[4:05:30] that were false and I want my denial clearly reflected in the record.

[4:05:36] and I ask council member pezold to provide verifiable evidence

[4:05:39] or withdraw the allegation. And for you, mayor caskey,

[4:05:43] I also ask that the, you know, any further discussion

[4:05:47] remain factual, professional and germane to the agenda item.

[4:05:51] but there were several statements that were made that were unfounded and untrue.

[4:05:55] and I want to make sure that that's reflected in the record.

[4:06:00] all right, and I'm going to call it. It's been moved and seconded that we

[4:06:06] appoint joshua sweeney to city council for the next four years based on the

[4:06:11] fact that he has absolutely nobody running against him, nobody that qualified

[4:06:19] for the ballot or handed anything in. And so I'm going to move the question.

[4:06:25] I'll second.

[4:06:29] council member sweeney. Aye. Council member wheeler.

[4:06:33] my vote is against districts, but no.

[4:06:37] council member pezold.

[4:06:40] my vote is no.

[4:06:42] mayor pro tem mathis. Aye. Mayor caskey. Aye. The ayes have it. All right,

[4:06:50] so that leaves us to council comments. We don't have any reports to do

[4:06:57] today, because this is a special meeting, although we managed to make

[4:07:01] it four hours. And I think for, yeah, we did four hours, 8:03.

[4:07:06] so we'll start with anyone. Does any of the

[4:07:09] council members have additional comments, dave?

[4:07:13] yes, two comments. I would like to put on the agenda

[4:07:16] discussion about the saddleback valley unified school district.

[4:07:21] and basically to discuss with them, you know,

[4:07:25] what I think is their responsibilities as

[4:07:27] far as financial. So they're supporting not

[4:07:30] only the crossing guards or maybe some other things.

[4:07:32] if I can get a second on that. I'll second.

[4:07:37] and the second thing I mentioned for some of my presentations,

[4:07:41] the laguna hills tax dollar has long been a problem

[4:07:47] as far as I'm concerned. It was like, is it created

[4:07:49] either before the city was was made or shortly thereafter.

[4:07:54] because they've probably been given it before then. I'd like

[4:07:57] to bring that up for discussion for us to take a serious look

[4:08:00] at the entire dollar. And basically, I guess, take it to the

[4:08:05] next level, which would probably be the county to ask them.

[4:08:08] and, you know, whatever necessary stuff, you have to take

[4:08:11] to get them to change it to make it a reason we we shouldn't

[4:08:14] be paying for capistrano valley school. We shouldn't be

[4:08:17] paying for, I think it's one in there for the irvine library. There's I I I withdraw

[4:08:22] that first that second. There's a lot of things that are kind of strange.

[4:08:26] >> second. >> it should be redone. >> I'll second it. >> okay.

[4:08:32] that's all. Thank you. >> any other comments said, jared?

[4:08:38] >> yeah, I just want to congratulate councilman

[4:08:40] sweeney for another term. I think it takes,

[4:08:45] you know, great dedication to be effective

[4:08:48] in this position. I think you've shown that. I think that

[4:08:52] well, I wish that our council would have been

[4:08:54] unanimous because I think that would be the

[4:08:56] classy thing to do. We couldn't do that tonight.

[4:08:59] but let me tell you that you are appreciated.

[4:09:03] your work is appreciated. Your commitment to the city is greatly appreciated.

[4:09:10] and I wish you and your family all the best and congratulations.

[4:09:15] >> thank you so much. >> okay.

[4:09:19] are we done? Josh, did you want to say something?

[4:09:22] >> just real quickly, I wanted to just put it out there. There

[4:09:27] are big storms coming in september. I know laguna niguel has

[4:09:32] already started preparation for those storms by buying extra

[4:09:35] sandbags, gloves, other stuff in preparation of the storm.

[4:09:39] so, just wanted to put it on the radar for

[4:09:41] everybody that might be something we would want to

[4:09:43] start looking into as a city. It's just get

[4:09:45] ahead of the, it may be big, it may be nothing.

[4:09:48] but I know that they're already preparing. El nino year.

[4:09:53] >> erica, any final comments from you? >> I would like to highlight our fire

[4:10:02] authority as well as the police and what fantastic job that they have been doing

[4:10:11] and there's a lot more that I think that people don't

[4:10:17] understand that they do every single day. And I think it's just,

[4:10:25] I think perhaps maybe it would be nice to have the fire

[4:10:32] authority come and speak about some of the things that they do.

[4:10:37] see, it's a lot, I think it's trying to create

[4:10:44] awareness for the community. I also want to

[4:10:47] commend them. There was a fire recently and

[4:10:51] close to the toll road. It was taken out quickly.

[4:10:55] there's a lot of concerns with respect to nellie gail. Nellie gail is

[4:11:03] not doing their job. Although we have weed abatement, we have trees

[4:11:08] that need trimmed and if it wasn't for the fire authorities response

[4:11:15] to the fire, they put their quick response and how they handled it.

[4:11:18] it could have gotten out of hand because nellie gail is many people are not trimming

[4:11:23] their trees and not taking care of the landscape and not clearing the trails.

[4:11:28] and that is a huge area of concern. And I'm hopeful

[4:11:35] that we can continue as a city to work and sort of

[4:11:39] put pressure onto nellie gail to do their job as an

[4:11:43] hoa to make sure that these trees are trimmed.

[4:11:48] that the shrubs are trimmed so that things if there is a fire potential

[4:11:52] fire in the future, that it doesn't go up and out of control.

[4:11:57] so anyway with that, I yield my comments.

[4:12:03] okay. I have some comments but dave, did you have something?

[4:12:06] yeah, I apologize. I do have one more.

[4:12:09] over the past, I don't know, month ish or maybe two months.

[4:12:13] I've been getting comments about the flock cameras. I've got a lot of

[4:12:19] several emails and I even asked mr. Burns to look into a little bit.

[4:12:25] and I don't know, you can correct me if I didn't understand it.

[4:12:28] it seems like that there's been a lot of lawsuits pending against them.

[4:12:32] and a lot of comments about their handling of data. I'm not sure how

[4:12:37] much of this founded or unfounded, but it's reached a national audience.

[4:12:43] so I'd like to put on the agenda to discuss whether we continue with them, whether

[4:12:49] it's worth it or whether we shift to somebody else or whatever the alternatives are.

[4:12:54] I think it's worthy of discussion. It is getting very, very public.

[4:12:57] I'll second that one on the basis that I think a discussion is appropriate. I'm not

[4:13:02] going to come out and say that there's -- because I have my own opinions about that.

[4:13:07] I think it is very much of a political thing,

[4:13:10] very much. But it does have to do -- I mean, the

[4:13:14] whole subject matter has to do with rights and

[4:13:16] privacy and all the rest of that kind of stuff. But

[4:13:19] you know, we won't get into the whole nine

[4:13:23] yards of it, but I think it's worth examining

[4:13:27] and actually asking for a report in that

[4:13:31] process from chief burk and, you know, and --

[4:13:37] but there's -- there's questions about how long data is

[4:13:40] being retained and you name it, but we already have a

[4:13:43] number of cases in our city where it really solved crime,

[4:13:48] serious crime, including a shooting in nellie gail.

[4:13:53] okay, because of the flock cameras. And it wasn't because

[4:13:56] of data that they had stored for months and months

[4:13:59] or whatever that. It was something that they were to

[4:14:02] pick up and follow up and basically apprehend the person.

[4:14:07] and that's just one instance. There's many,

[4:14:10] many other instances where it's worked just fine.

[4:14:13] so I think it's really more about privacy, in my

[4:14:16] opinion, and about -- it's politics. There are a lot

[4:14:22] of people who like to defund the police the last

[4:14:25] thing you'd want is a flock camera out there, okay?

[4:14:28] so, you know, in an apolitical mode, we don't seem to be

[4:14:34] very apolitical anymore, but I will second it, though, dave.

[4:14:40] okay, first of all, I do want to say

[4:14:43] congratulations to josh. You know, I -- we've served

[4:14:50] together now, and for, you know, basically almost

[4:14:55] four years together, and I've seen you as mayor.

[4:14:59] I've seen your decorum. I've seen your preparation for the meetings.

[4:15:05] I think you are, in my opinion, an exceptional council person, not just okay.

[4:15:14] and, you know, like I said, I get angry when I -- when I even smell slander. And so,

[4:15:22] you know, because I've been a victim of it myself, you know, which is ridiculous.

[4:15:27] and if you don't have anything else other than

[4:15:30] your integrity, folks, and we live in a world where

[4:15:33] people attack your integrity, just because they

[4:15:36] don't like all kinds of things about you, okay?

[4:15:39] and that's out of bounds, as far as I'm concerned, 100% out of bounds. And so, I

[4:15:47] will fight that. That's one place where my decorum kind of goes out the window.

[4:15:52] when I see somebody's integrity being attacked, and nothing behind it. So, anyway, so,

[4:15:59] congratulations. You've saved the city, or we've

[4:16:03] saved -- we've saved the city by our vote, $12,000.

[4:16:07] and I don't think that people in district 2 are

[4:16:12] upset at all about this, or the optics are bad, or

[4:16:16] any of that. So, that's my comments for the night.

[4:16:19] and with that, we're going to adjourn this meeting. It is 8:12

[4:16:23] and our next meeting is on august 25th at 6 p.m.

City Council / Planning Agency Special Meeting

Agenda

Transcript