[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.