YouTube transcript
Video ID: CzFOKfs6uRU
Language: en
Captions: auto-generated

[0:00] Nette Vegas and Lisa Brooks for our
[0:02] assistant here in Dian who work in the
[0:04] zoom. Thank you very much. Um, as our
[0:07] guests, we anticipate and appreciate
[0:09] your respect and civility
[0:11] and uh, sorry there they are. Disruption
[0:16] will be escorted out the door by those
[0:18] good-looking men who are going to enter
[0:19] the room. [laughter]
[0:22] Luna Beach has uh, approximately 19,000
[0:25] voters. um 40% 2% Democrats, just under
[0:28] 28% Republicans, and no party preference
[0:30] for independents, just under 21%.
[0:32] Although city council races are
[0:34] nonpartisan, local elections are
[0:36] politically charged. Our organization's
[0:38] values are based in faith and family,
[0:40] fiscal accountability of our taxpayer
[0:42] dollars, protection of private property
[0:44] rights, strong law enforcement, minimal
[0:46] government interference in our business,
[0:48] and personal lives. [clears throat]
[0:49] Basically, less government is better
[0:51] governance. Our questions do reflect
[0:53] those priorities, but every candidate
[0:55] will receive time and a fair opportunity
[0:57] to answer so that voters can make their
[0:59] own decisions. We welcome all who uh who
[1:02] are here in attendance in person. You
[1:04] can also watch on home channel 852 or
[1:07] via Zoom. The Zoom link is up on the
[1:10] screen there. If you also go to our
[1:11] website uh GB.com,
[1:14] click on upcoming events, you will get
[1:16] the link. Um if you're dialing it by
[1:18] phone, that phone number is 669. in
[1:21] progress.
[1:22] >> 444
[1:24] 9171. Meeting ID 873 82761182
[1:32] and the passcode is 21239.
[1:36] Uh tonight, in preparation, we reviewed
[1:38] the previous debates with the goal of
[1:39] not repeating the same questions and
[1:41] have reviewed unasked questions from
[1:43] residents from those past debates. We're
[1:45] going to dig a little deeper tonight.
[1:47] And in the words of 911 patriot Todd
[1:49] Beamer, let's roll.
[1:52] No question.
[1:54] >> Here are the ground rules.
[1:57] >> We ask that all candidates please your
[1:59] cell phones. Incumbents, because you're
[2:02] defending your council seats. There will
[2:04] be more questions for you than others.
[2:06] We are going to be moving fast as we
[2:08] have a lot of questions. Please be
[2:10] concisive with your answers. We have
[2:12] provided all candidates with pens and
[2:13] notepads for some of the multi-part
[2:16] questions. Opening statements are 30
[2:18] seconds each. General questions 30
[2:21] seconds each. These questions may be
[2:23] posed to one, several, several or all of
[2:26] the candidates depending on the
[2:27] question. 40 lightning rounds yes or no
[2:30] questions. General questions continued
[2:33] at 30 seconds. Candidate pose questions
[2:36] 30 seconds. And final question closing
[2:39] statements 60 seconds. So we will start
[2:42] with the yes no
[2:47] statements.
[2:52] Yes.
[2:54] Real briefly, you can just follow the
[2:56] lights. Um, when you see the green
[2:59] light, you can go. And when at about 20
[3:02] seconds, you'll see the yellow light
[3:04] flashing. But mostly, you want to be
[3:06] interested in when the red light
[3:08] flashes. At about 35 seconds, you'll
[3:11] hear a beep and then you'll be finished
[3:13] with your answer.
[3:15] [clears throat]
[3:18] Okay, let's start with opening
[3:20] statements. Ed, we'll start with you.
[3:23] >> Thank you. Good evening. Thank you
[3:25] everyone for coming on tonight. Um we're
[3:28] at a pivotal point in our uh city where
[3:33] we now have nine candidates, three
[3:36] incumbents, three seats. Um those three
[3:39] seats um they're they're open and
[3:43] there's six people who are qualified to
[3:45] fill them and that's a lot of people
[3:47] asking for change. My career has taken
[3:50] me through business leadership,
[3:51] emergency communications and public
[3:54] service. I've managed complex
[3:56] operations, worked on public safety
[3:58] communications projects, served on three
[4:01] state boards. Those experienced taught
[4:03] me to ask direct questions, understand
[4:07] complex situations, and listen to people
[4:10] and how their lives would be affected by
[4:13] a decision that could last decades.
[4:16] That approach matters in Laguna Beach
[4:18] today. Residents are watching decision
[4:21] decisions made by Hotel Lagona, Forest
[4:24] Avenue, Ocean Avenue, Laguna Canyon, the
[4:27] future of downtown specific plan.
[4:29] >> Okay. Thank Thank you. And I'm sorry we
[4:31] have to cut you off at 30 uh seconds. Um
[4:34] Mark, please.
[4:35] >> Good evening. Thank you for being here.
[4:37] I'm Mark Orill. I thought we're going to
[4:39] be since 1984, and it's been an honor to
[4:42] serve city council and um as your mayor.
[4:46] I'm proud of the progress we've been
[4:48] making in strengthening emergency
[4:50] preparedness, rebuilding fire station
[4:52] number four, taking steps toward a more
[4:54] reliable water supply, and made city
[4:57] hall more responsive to residents. We
[4:59] managed our finances responsibly while
[5:01] investing in services our community
[5:03] depends on. I'm especially encouraged by
[5:05] the work of stewardship. Laguna Beach is
[5:08] an extraordinary place and caring for
[5:10] its environment, culture, and heritage
[5:13] should guide the choices we make. That
[5:15] includes protecting our coastline,
[5:17] supporting the arts, preserving our
[5:19] neighborhoods, and planning carefully
[5:21] for the future.
[5:22] >> Thank you, Mark. Um, Sue.
[5:24] >> Yeah. Thank you everybody for coming
[5:26] out. I think this is our fifth form now.
[5:27] I think we have 10 or something. So,
[5:28] we're halfway done. Um, I've really
[5:31] enjoyed serving on the council and
[5:32] serving the community. As many of you
[5:34] know, I'm out and about in the community
[5:35] quite a bit and that's for me that's the
[5:37] best way to learn about what's happening
[5:38] in town. I spent like the preponderance
[5:40] of my time on council working on fire
[5:42] safety extensive fire safety programs
[5:45] and also this last couple summers
[5:47] working on visitor impacts which I think
[5:49] we've been quite successful. Looking
[5:51] forward to serving the community again.
[5:53] Thank you everyone.
[5:54] >> Thank you, Alex.
[5:55] >> Thank you. The greater Laguna Beach
[5:57] needs. Um, you know, I'm not a
[5:58] Republican, but I appreciate the
[6:00] opportunity to speak. I try to always
[6:02] answer whenever people want to talk um
[6:04] and do interviews or debates. I think
[6:06] it's important for for us to do that
[6:07] because we represent everyone as
[6:09] Jennifer pointed out. I'm really proud
[6:11] of the work that we've done over the
[6:12] last uh four years on what I call the
[6:14] three competencies of local government,
[6:17] public safety, infrastructure, and the
[6:18] efficient delivery of services. When I
[6:20] was mayor during the range of fire, I
[6:22] saw government at its best. We were
[6:24] prepared, resilient, and we were able to
[6:27] not have any damage to property. That's
[6:29] the kind of leadership I want to
[6:30] continue to have over the next four
[6:31] years. Thank you for the opportunity.
[6:33] >> Thank you, Alex. Nick.
[6:34] >> Hi. Thank you. Uh my name is Nick
[6:36] Aronov. I grew up here, went through our
[6:39] local schools and family's been here for
[6:41] multiple generations. I've had the
[6:43] opportunity to live and work and travel
[6:44] around the world, learning three
[6:46] different languages, opening up offices,
[6:48] running businesses, managing teams, and
[6:51] uh every year that every year that I've
[6:52] been coming back to Laguna, I've seen
[6:54] how it's been more and more difficult
[6:55] for residents to enjoy living in this
[6:57] town. And over the past year, I've been
[6:58] attending city council meetings and all
[7:00] the town halls and I've spent a lot of
[7:02] time listening to residents across town.
[7:04] What I keep hearing consistently is
[7:05] people want to feel heard. They want
[7:07] better transparency and smarter
[7:09] spending. and a city that plans ahead
[7:12] instead of constantly reacting.
[7:14] >> Thank you, Nick.
[7:14] >> Thank you,
[7:15] >> Karen.
[7:16] >> Hi, I'm Karen Martin. Um, I'm a Lugan
[7:19] resident and since 1986 and an urban
[7:23] planner with more than 30 years
[7:24] experience working with different public
[7:27] agencies and um different cities,
[7:31] counties in the state across California
[7:33] and also in some other states like
[7:36] Arizona and Nevada. Um, I'm running fix
[7:40] the fundamentals. I want to listen to
[7:42] residents, bring clear rules and fair
[7:46] decisions back to city hall. Thank you.
[7:48] >> Thank you, Joy.
[7:50] >> Thank you. I'm I'm a fiscal conservative
[7:52] and I want to see our city move away
[7:54] from high-profile projects that provide
[7:56] little benefits to residents and focus
[7:58] on long-term planning and critical needs
[8:01] that protect our financial stability. I
[8:03] put myself through college working two
[8:05] to three jobs, so I know how to manage a
[8:06] budget and live within my means. I work
[8:09] my way up to an executive level at
[8:10] Marriott Hotels before starting my own
[8:12] company. I see firsthand all the
[8:15] crippling regulations coming out of
[8:17] Sacramento to small businesses. And like
[8:20] most owners, I play by the rules because
[8:22] I believe in the rule of law and I think
[8:24] it should be applied here even in Laguna
[8:26] Beach. And that's why I'm running.
[8:28] >> Thank you. Joy Ashley.
[8:30] >> I'm Ashley Cintes. I own Odo Sushi right
[8:32] here in downtown Lagona. Um, every day
[8:34] at ODOT, I talk to residents, visitors,
[8:37] employees, business owners. I hear what
[8:39] everyone loves about Lagona, but I have
[8:41] heard the same frustrations over and
[8:42] over again. Um, and I want to help fix
[8:45] that. So, I've spent nearly two decades
[8:47] leading large teams, managing
[8:48] multi-million dollar budgets, and
[8:50] running complex operations. Throughout
[8:52] my career, we're working on it was never
[8:54] the standard. The standard was what's
[8:56] the plan, who owns it, when will it be
[8:58] done, what does it cost, and did it
[8:59] actually work? That's the leadership I
[9:01] want to bring to city council. I want to
[9:03] bring forward thinking, fiscal
[9:04] discipline, accountability,
[9:06] transparency, and the willingness to
[9:07] actually do the work. Laguna doesn't
[9:09] need more activity. We need results.
[9:11] >> Thank you. Laura,
[9:13] >> I am Laura Paresi, and I've been your
[9:15] elected city treasurer since 1999. I'm
[9:18] running for city council. Not because I
[9:21] am tired of being treasurer, but because
[9:24] city council and management have made it
[9:26] increasingly difficult for me to do the
[9:29] job that you elected me to do and the
[9:31] one that I'd like to do. I think that um
[9:35] with closer financial management, at
[9:37] least some of the financial problems
[9:39] that we face today could have been
[9:41] avoided. Since this is the greater uh
[9:43] GOP, uh I wanted to mention that I was a
[9:47] sponsor of the 2017 legislation SB742 by
[9:50] Morlock, Transparency and City
[9:53] Accounting, which is a law today in
[9:55] state.
[9:56] >> Thank you very much and thank you for
[9:57] being concise. We're right on time. Um
[10:00] some of the questions on the general
[10:01] questions, you will get more than 30
[10:02] seconds depending on the question and
[10:05] the multiple parts. So I just wanted to
[10:06] make that clear as well. Okay, let's
[10:08] jump right on in there. Uh the first one
[10:10] is for new candidates only and we will
[10:13] start with Ed. Um there has been
[10:15] significant community concern about the
[10:17] level of public involvement in major
[10:19] city projects including the prominade
[10:20] and most recently the downtown specific
[10:22] plan. Residents have raised questions
[10:24] about the environmental review process,
[10:26] timing and transparency of decisions and
[10:28] whether community input is meaningfully
[10:30] considered before projects move forward.
[10:32] Many residents feel their voices are
[10:34] being heard only after key decisions
[10:36] have already taken step. Question 30
[10:38] seconds. Do you believe these resonant
[10:40] concerns are valid? And if yes, what
[10:42] will you do to provide more inclusion
[10:44] for residents?
[10:46] >> I believe the answer is yes, only
[10:48] because I
[10:50] collected quite a few signatures on my
[10:53] candidate ballot uh when I registered to
[10:57] run. And all of the businesses downtown,
[10:59] quite a few, about eight of them were
[11:01] not happy with Forest Avenue. They felt
[11:04] that they weren't asked input enough
[11:07] from city council and I believe that we
[11:11] need to listen to the residents and the
[11:13] businesses and businesses downtown do
[11:16] not believe they're being listened to.
[11:19] >> Thank you. Uh next uh new candidate Nick
[11:22] Arnoff.
[11:25] >> Thank you for the question. Yes. Uh I
[11:26] believe that they haven't been listened
[11:28] to and a great example of that is the
[11:30] prominade. I don't think any resident
[11:32] was going to want a uh art installation
[11:34] from an artist in Utah to be on the main
[11:37] street in our town. Uh, another moment
[11:40] where I realized that residents were
[11:41] being listened to was uh around this
[11:43] time last year when they were talking
[11:45] about the Ocean Avenue project where um
[11:48] the business owners were saying not in
[11:50] the wintertime. Please don't do
[11:52] construction during the winter time. And
[11:53] that's when it was planned and then a
[11:54] year later it was still planned for the
[11:56] winter time before they scrapped it
[11:57] about two weeks ago.
[12:00] Thank you Karen.
[12:02] >> Yes. Um all those items that you
[12:04] mentioned I do think are valid. Um I
[12:06] think both for the residents and for
[12:08] business owners, we don't have clear
[12:10] rules. Um that causes confusion and
[12:13] acrimony.
[12:15] Um one key issue that I found is the
[12:18] construction management process. Be it a
[12:20] city process or a um you know just a
[12:24] general contractor working in a
[12:25] neighborhood. Um how to fix that? I
[12:28] think we need clearer rules and
[12:33] for major projects such as the prominade
[12:36] or street improvements like they're
[12:39] doing in North Laguna right now, there
[12:41] needs to be a a website uh that actually
[12:45] gives the
[12:47] the schedule.
[12:48] >> Okay, thank you very much Joy.
[12:50] >> Yes, they are valid concerns. I mean the
[12:53] incumbents will say oh but we do these
[12:55] workshops. know the workshops are a
[12:57] lecture to the citizens. We have an
[12:59] incredibly talented group of residents
[13:02] here and instead of lecturing to them,
[13:04] we should be listening to them. How
[13:06] would we [clears throat] fix it? Let
[13:07] them be the designers. Let them do the
[13:09] planners. We've got landscape
[13:11] architects, regular architects, artists,
[13:13] and we don't let listen to them. We need
[13:15] to fix it and let the voices be heard.
[13:18] Thank you, Ashley.
[13:21] Um, I think the overall theme is
[13:23] transparency and that's a personnel
[13:26] problem. So, if the residents or
[13:28] businesses aren't feeling like their
[13:30] voices are being heard or things are
[13:31] happening um that are different from
[13:33] what is being said like trees being cut
[13:35] in the middle of the night, that is a
[13:37] transparency problem within the current
[13:39] city council. Um, and so there can be
[13:41] done in order to do about it. more
[13:43] public hearings, a dashboard like Karen
[13:45] mentioned that is public facing where
[13:47] people can see where money is going,
[13:49] what decisions are being made, and the
[13:50] why behind everything. Um, and then
[13:53] obviously better code base to make
[13:54] things even more transparent and fair
[13:56] and concise for residents, businesses.
[13:58] Thank you, Laura.
[14:00] >> Yes, I think it's a valid point. In
[14:01] fact, I'm running for city council
[14:03] because I felt like I wasn't listened
[14:04] to. Um, I think the way to fix that is
[14:07] to um maybe hold more hearings and and
[14:10] hold people speak to the fire. Look for
[14:12] results, emphasize results with the with
[14:15] your elected officials. Thank you.
[14:17] >> Okay. Next question is for all
[14:18] candidates. We've read about recent teen
[14:21] takeovers organized by social media in
[14:23] Huntington Beach and Newport raising
[14:24] concerns about public safety, crowd
[14:26] control, and impact on local businesses
[14:28] and residents. Question, and we'll start
[14:30] with Mark. What action should the city
[14:32] take to prepare for and handle these
[14:35] destructive events?
[14:36] >> We've already taken action. In fact, we
[14:38] partnered with our neighboring cities
[14:40] and we are monitoring social media in a
[14:42] variety of different ways and have made
[14:45] preparations in the event one of these
[14:47] incidents occurs.
[14:49] >> That's right.
[14:51] >> Thank you.
[14:52] >> Thank you. I agree with Mark. we had as
[14:54] soon as this happened, we all uh talked
[14:56] to the city manager about it just to
[14:58] make sure that we had a handle on it
[14:59] because you know once these things start
[15:02] you you never know how how much
[15:04] proliferation you'll see across other
[15:06] cities but they they're monitoring
[15:08] social media very actively that's the
[15:10] best place to look for these kind of
[15:11] behaviors and so they were clued in by
[15:14] Newport and they've been um brought up
[15:17] to speed and spent a lot of time talking
[15:18] to Newport surround these things so I
[15:20] felt comfortable with what they were
[15:21] doing. Thank you, Alex.
[15:24] >> Yeah, it's a very important question and
[15:26] something that I've spoken to the mayor
[15:28] of Newport about as well as the city
[15:29] manager. The goal should be to learn
[15:31] from what what they they uh their best
[15:33] practices and what they learned from
[15:34] this experience. What we can do is we
[15:36] can fully fund law enforcement and
[15:37] that's what we've done over the past
[15:39] four years. We uh in 2022 there were 42
[15:42] out of 55 of our police officer
[15:45] positions filled. We've been able to
[15:46] really close the vacancy gap and
[15:48] actually add more officers, including
[15:50] doubling the number of park rangers. We
[15:52] have to continue investing in
[15:54] technology, investing in also
[15:56] prosecution. We have an in-house uh city
[15:59] prosecutor that we just funded and that
[16:00] will help ensure that uh quality of life
[16:02] crimes are also prosecuted.
[16:03] >> Thank you, Nick.
[16:06] Yeah, it's great to hear that they're uh
[16:08] working with uh our other cities around
[16:09] town and that obviously was after or
[16:11] around the neighborhood um Orange County
[16:14] and obviously after Fourth of July in
[16:15] Newport Beach was a big issue but we
[16:17] actually had an issue in during spring
[16:19] break earlier that spring where a lot of
[16:20] people were gathering at main beach and
[16:22] there was fights that were breaking out
[16:23] in South Lagona. So this is something
[16:25] that's been coming to Lagona. didn't
[16:26] blow up as much as it did like in
[16:28] Newport Beach. And it's really
[16:30] concerning that it took Newport for them
[16:32] to kind of see that this was becoming an
[16:33] issue. And I think that goes to not
[16:35] having enough park rangers and not
[16:37] enough eyes on the beaches. Uh and that
[16:40] goes back to what Alex said is that it
[16:41] making sure we fund law enforcement and
[16:43] we use the tourism dollars towards
[16:45] protecting our beaches.
[16:46] >> Thank you, Karen.
[16:48] >> I agree with the the other um
[16:51] candidates. Um, I'd say coordination,
[16:54] monitoring, and I think we need
[16:57] participation from our our local
[16:59] enforcement agencies
[17:01] and also state and federal so that we
[17:04] know how to handle something like this.
[17:05] I know federal agencies understand how
[17:08] to understand uh cell phone chatter.
[17:11] >> Thank you for joining.
[17:13] >> I agree. We need to monitor the social
[17:15] media, but beyond that, we need to alert
[17:17] the residents of what's going on. I
[17:19] think also the residents if we're aware
[17:21] of these things gathering out in social
[17:24] media, we can also try to diffuse it and
[17:27] also be cognizant and be aware of where
[17:29] these public locations that might occur
[17:32] because I think we're a wise
[17:34] organization and community and we can
[17:36] help also diffuse it and so along with
[17:38] all the public safety comments we heard
[17:40] tonight. Thank you, Joy. Ashley,
[17:44] >> I think it's important that we learn
[17:45] from what happened in Newport and take
[17:47] anything that happens on social media
[17:49] seriously. Um, but more importantly, um,
[17:52] be more proactive and have a plan in
[17:54] place and a calm plan in place. So,
[17:56] public safety with our police officers,
[17:59] with fire, with anybody that can be, um,
[18:02] be active when something like that were
[18:04] to happen because that's the best thing
[18:06] we can do, right? is to calms make sure
[18:08] that the repercussions of doing that is
[18:10] what could happen, communicating to the
[18:12] residents, but also having a plan in
[18:14] place when something does happen like
[18:15] that.
[18:16] >> Thank you, Laura.
[18:17] >> I agree with my predecessors. Planning
[18:19] is key and um preparation is key.
[18:24] >> Okay, thank you. Moving forward to uh
[18:26] city employee perks. Uh this is an all
[18:28] candidate question. Residents are
[18:31] frustrated that city employee perks
[18:32] continually present it to council as a
[18:34] trial or temporary then become
[18:36] permanent. Examples include city hall
[18:38] closures every other Friday, closure
[18:40] between Christmas and New Year's, no
[18:41] counter or planner availability on
[18:43] Fridays, and continued work from home
[18:45] arrangements. These policies have
[18:47] reduced public access to city staff and
[18:49] services, often causing significant
[18:51] inconvenience. At the same time, city
[18:53] employee numbers and compensation has
[18:55] risen, raising questions about whether
[18:57] service levels and employee performance
[19:00] are being adequately measured. We'll
[19:01] start with Sue on this one. Two-part
[19:03] question. Would you support reviewing
[19:05] these policies determine whether or not
[19:06] they are serving the public? And number
[19:08] two, if they are reducing access, what
[19:11] changes would you make to ensure
[19:12] residents and contractors have greater,
[19:14] not less, access to city staff and
[19:16] services? Well, I think I think you have
[19:18] to be aware in government in particular
[19:20] in in Laguna Beach, this is a hard place
[19:22] to work and it's a hard place to get to
[19:24] and so when we um and it's also very
[19:27] competitive with employees like during
[19:28] co we lost a lot of employees as a lot
[19:30] of cities did and then it became very
[19:32] competitive for employees. So we have to
[19:34] offer some benefits here and the
[19:35] benefits you know these are unions here
[19:37] and these benefits are shared among all
[19:39] different cities and they're they're
[19:41] very very much the same. Um I forgot the
[19:44] second part of your question. What's
[19:45] your second part? If they are not if
[19:46] they are reducing access, what changes
[19:48] would you make to ensure residents and
[19:50] contractors have greater and not less
[19:51] access?
[19:53] >> Well, I feel like the city I feel like
[19:54] we're very accessible. There's there's
[19:56] no shortage of ways to communicate to
[19:58] the city and I think our service levels
[20:00] are something that the council monitors
[20:02] very closely particular particularly
[20:05] with community development.
[20:06] >> Thank you, Alex.
[20:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. So, as it relates to the the
[20:09] works, um, we have to be competitive and
[20:13] so that's part of the labor negotiations
[20:14] process. I'll give an example. And then
[20:16] we we gave a 19% raise to our police
[20:18] officers. That was important to filling
[20:19] vacancies. That's we have to compete
[20:21] against other agencies. We don't want
[20:22] people going to Irvine. We want them
[20:23] staying here in Lagona. Um, and then as
[20:26] relates to the second part of the
[20:27] question, how do we align our budget
[20:28] with our outcomes? We, uh, Council
[20:30] Member Kemp and I introduced a
[20:31] comprehensive efficiency initiative. It
[20:33] includes for the first time a reduction
[20:35] in staff. We had a net production of
[20:37] seven full-time employees and it also
[20:39] made recommendations that were supported
[20:40] including um outcomes based budgeting uh
[20:43] performance audits and other elements
[20:45] that will make the city more efficient
[20:46] and aligned around the goals of
[20:48] residents.
[20:48] >> Thank you, Alex. Nick.
[20:50] >> Yeah, I think we need to go back to
[20:52] levels like before CO if it was perks.
[20:55] Feel like we gave a lot of perks away
[20:57] during CO and then now we're slowly
[20:58] trying to peel them back. We need to be
[21:00] do a large jump back to what the hours
[21:02] were beforehand. And when it comes to
[21:04] perks, you know, we're hearing that it's
[21:06] a hard place to get to. It's a hard
[21:07] place to work. Then we have to look at
[21:09] why it's becoming this big of an issue
[21:11] of people wanting to work here. Maybe
[21:12] it's a toxic work environment. Maybe
[21:13] there's leadership issues. I think we
[21:15] need to really audit each of the
[21:16] departments and find out what's going on
[21:18] and why people aren't wanting to work in
[21:20] Luga Beach because seems like it's a
[21:22] great place to live.
[21:23] >> Thank you, Karen.
[21:25] >> Um, yeah, I think the loss of service is
[21:29] um very
[21:33] I dealt with that today. I needed to go
[21:34] down to the city. It was after 12:00. I
[21:37] couldn't make it. So, um, the loss of
[21:40] service is real and it's very
[21:42] frustrating. Um, I don't see that being
[21:46] necessarily a perk to the employees. I
[21:49] think that's a separate issue. Um, I
[21:51] really think we need to bring back our
[21:53] community development department um,
[21:56] office hours from 9 to5.
[21:59] >> Thank you, Troy.
[22:01] There is no substitution for one-on-one
[22:05] human engagement. Full stop. I run a
[22:08] hotel. I don't let computers check my
[22:10] guests in. I have a human check my
[22:13] guests in. I would not reduce access.
[22:16] And I believe in a positive culture. You
[22:18] should be able to retain your employees
[22:20] and attract people if you're good to
[22:22] your team. And I agree with maybe Nick
[22:24] that we have a cultural problem that we
[22:26] have to if we're having problems. I do
[22:28] not support reducing access one-on-one
[22:31] human one human being to another human
[22:33] being. There's no substitute for it.
[22:36] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[22:38] >> Yeah, I'm I I'm in the hospitality
[22:40] industry like Joy, the highest turnover
[22:43] industry and um we don't have a problem
[22:46] here in Laguna. So, I really question
[22:49] saying that it's people don't want to
[22:50] work here. Um it's definitely more of a
[22:52] work environment problem. I don't think
[22:54] you throw perks or benefits at somebody
[22:56] in order for them to want to work here.
[22:58] We have increased [clears throat] all of
[23:00] um city hall by 37% in the last decade.
[23:03] Community development increased by 40%
[23:05] in the last decade. And I think we all
[23:07] can agree that nothing has gotten
[23:08] better. So that is the question is that
[23:10] if you're going to add headcounts, then
[23:13] things should be more streamlined and
[23:14] cutting hours does not make things more
[23:16] streamlined.
[23:17] >> Thank you, Laura. Uh yes, I would
[23:20] support reviewing the policies and um I
[23:23] think that we should look at increasing
[23:26] access um by some kind of creative um
[23:30] things like perhaps split shifts on
[23:33] Fridays or have alternative maybe some
[23:36] some staff take Mondays off, some have
[23:38] take Fridays off, but maybe have a
[23:41] skeleton crew um so that you still have
[23:44] access to the public uh five days a
[23:47] week. Okay, thank you very much. This is
[23:49] a kind of a follow-up question. Uh,
[23:51] Leida Beach has experienced significant
[23:53] growth in city staff and employees.
[23:57] So, sorry.
[23:57] >> Well, no, wait a minute. You skipped
[23:59] Marvin, but previously
[24:01] >> I want everyone to be comforting to know
[24:04] this. Uh, I have a communications
[24:06] company and so I was blessed to work
[24:09] with lots of military generals,
[24:11] admirals, people from the CIA and the
[24:13] FBI, active, inactive. And let me tell
[24:16] you all of you, we are very blessed to
[24:19] live in this country and we are safe and
[24:22] our law enforcement monitors lots of
[24:25] crap. And so the Newport Beach incident,
[24:29] believe me, our law enforcement people
[24:31] are aware of what is happening. And that
[24:33] was the 30 seconds I needed.
[24:35] >> Absolutely. Would you like to uh answer
[24:37] the other question regarding?
[24:38] >> My my comment to that is we should go
[24:40] back to Monday through Friday 9 to5 so
[24:44] residents can come down to the city and
[24:46] ask questions, submit applications, etc.
[24:50] >> Okay. Thank you, Mark. I I know I
[24:52] overlooked you. Uh do you want to answer
[24:53] please?
[24:54] >> Sure. There are a lot of pieces to this
[24:56] puzzle. There are trends that developed
[24:58] over CO that I do think deserve some uh
[25:01] reflection and some changes there. Again
[25:04] back to the lot of pieces of the puzzle
[25:05] we are refining a lot of our processes I
[25:08] do believe technology does play a role I
[25:11] don't think it's all face to face human
[25:12] we have what's called ask unit that's a
[25:15] opportunity for people to interact
[25:17] directly using technology that's been
[25:19] found to be very efficient plan check
[25:21] for instance um I think as we implement
[25:24] more technology around some of in our
[25:27] community development department is
[25:29] going to be free up a lot of time for a
[25:31] lot of the customers Okay, thank you
[25:33] very much. Uh Sue, you already answered
[25:35] that question, correct?
[25:36] >> Okay, I think Alex, you are next in line
[25:38] then. Um, next question. Laguna Beach
[25:41] has experienced significant growth in
[25:43] city staffing and employee compensation
[25:44] while pension obligations up 95.3
[25:47] million remain substantial and
[25:48] increasing. Threequarters of the general
[25:50] fund is city salaries and benefits. The
[25:52] city staff is up 87 hires of 2017,
[25:55] averaging nine hires per year. Between
[25:57] fiscal year 2425 and 2526, city staffing
[26:00] increased from 347 full-time employees
[26:03] to 366, an increase of 19 new hires in a
[26:06] single year. With a relatively stable
[26:08] resident population of over decades,
[26:11] residents are asking whether the
[26:12] continued size and cost of city
[26:14] government are sustainable and whether
[26:16] staffing levels are delivering a
[26:18] corresponding increase in services. So,
[26:20] Alex, two-part question. What do you
[26:22] believe is the appropriate staffing
[26:23] level for a city the size of Lagona? and
[26:26] two, what specific steps would you take
[26:28] to control and reduce employee and
[26:30] pension costs while maintaining services
[26:32] to residents?
[26:34] >> Yeah, thank you for that question. So, I
[26:35] think I'll take the second question
[26:37] first. Um, what that's sort of what
[26:39] we've been doing. We were able to for
[26:40] the first time have a net reduction in
[26:42] seven full-time employees as part of
[26:44] this last fiscal year budget, which was
[26:45] part of 1.5 million in cuts. And so, the
[26:48] goal here is um to appropriately staff
[26:51] the city. At the same time, we added um
[26:53] for example the ambulances. That pays
[26:55] for itself. And it's much better to have
[26:57] ambulance operators who are in-house as
[26:59] opposed to private operators. We've
[27:01] added police officers. We probably need
[27:03] to add more police officers. Um and for
[27:05] the first time in 35 years, we've added
[27:06] firefighters. So, so I think um and to
[27:09] answer the first part of your question,
[27:10] I think that goes back to budgeting by
[27:12] outcomes because we we can't really just
[27:14] get rid of a bunch of employees without
[27:16] the idea of understanding what are the
[27:18] outcomes that we're getting for every
[27:19] dollar in the budget. Thank you.
[27:20] >> Thank you. Quick follow-up question. The
[27:22] seven cuts, were they not unstaffed
[27:24] positions? So, they weren't truly cuts.
[27:26] >> Well, they they were they were vacant
[27:28] positions and then they were removed
[27:30] from the budget. So, that is a cut.
[27:32] >> Got it. So, it really doesn't mean that
[27:33] you decrease the employee size.
[27:34] >> It it did based on the number that you
[27:36] referenced before that was the full-time
[27:38] employees in the budget. So,
[27:39] >> thank you very much.
[27:40] >> Uh, Nick.
[27:41] >> Yeah. So, on that uh conversation right
[27:43] there, it's we don't know if those
[27:45] positions were in departments that
[27:46] needed to have the the staff introduced.
[27:49] I think we need to have department
[27:50] audits. We need to see really where
[27:52] we're getting um our best performances
[27:54] on the diff the different areas in town.
[27:56] So, for example, like Alex mentioned, in
[27:58] our police department, maybe we need to
[27:59] add a park ranger or two. But in other
[28:02] departments, whether it's community
[28:03] development or public works, maybe there
[28:05] needs to be reduced staff work. So, we
[28:07] have to have a full department audit to
[28:09] really understand if it's a a quality of
[28:12] worker problem or if it's just too many
[28:14] people.
[28:14] >> Thank you, Karen. Thank you for the
[28:17] question.
[28:20] I think the um one of the one of the
[28:24] main problems is the fundamentals and
[28:26] that's our record keeping and I think
[28:29] staff and um
[28:33] whether it's fire department,
[28:37] community development, building um
[28:39] they're all dependent on the
[28:41] recordkeeping and right now we don't
[28:43] have enough funding in the recordeping
[28:44] department and so staff is running
[28:48] around and they're not getting things
[28:51] done as quickly as they should. You know
[28:53] yourself when you're looking for a file
[28:56] when it comes up easily, you get things
[28:59] done quickly.
[29:00] >> Thank you, Karen. Joy,
[29:02] >> I don't think it is sustainable. I don't
[29:04] think the staffing is sustainable. You
[29:06] just heard 40% increase in community
[29:08] development with no more parcels. And
[29:11] yet, we are increasing plus the
[29:13] pensions. And so, we have to look at a
[29:15] reduction. And so,
[29:17] what what is going wrong with the
[29:19] culture? And we've tripled and
[29:21] quadrupled our legal department. It's
[29:23] just not sustainable with the pensions.
[29:25] And we have to do an audit and say, are
[29:27] these necessary? I look at my own team
[29:29] all the time. And it's not just the
[29:31] wages, it's the wages plus the workman's
[29:33] comp, plus the payroll tax plus the
[29:36] pension.
[29:37] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[29:40] Uh yeah, the current staffing levels
[29:42] it's not sustainable for this size of a
[29:44] community and for being that big that
[29:46] amount of um out of our general funds.
[29:49] Uh we we have to do reductions, right?
[29:51] It has to make sense for the business.
[29:53] If I were to go into any business and do
[29:54] a turnaround, we have to look at every
[29:56] single department and look at their
[29:58] efficiencies and are we getting
[29:59] everything we are supposed to get out of
[30:01] each and every single one of those
[30:02] departments with that headcount that's
[30:03] in there. So we would have I look at
[30:05] that do a reduction um make sure that
[30:08] there's no duplicates. It's really easy
[30:10] when you don't want to hold people
[30:11] accountable to throw more people at the
[30:13] problem. And I think that that's
[30:14] currently what's going on right now.
[30:15] >> Thank you, Ashley. Laura, I think that
[30:17] the staffing level should be based on um
[30:20] the audit of departments and the
[30:22] outcomes that you're expecting from
[30:24] them. Um a review of the outputs um
[30:28] would tell you if you can decrease
[30:31] departments in terms of maintaining the
[30:33] pension costs. not only follow the
[30:36] headcounts but also look for lower cost
[30:38] alternatives. There's a a an alternative
[30:42] pension plan for newer employees that is
[30:44] a lower cost than the uh older pension
[30:48] plan.
[30:49] >> Thank you Laura. Okay, on to the next
[30:50] question and we'll start.
[30:53] >> Oh Jesus.
[30:55] >> Come on.
[31:01] I'll be short. Our employee count has
[31:04] increased and started 8 to 10 years ago.
[31:07] So, it started under two other city
[31:09] managers. And so, the problem just got
[31:12] worse and worse and worse. And as
[31:14] everyone has been saying, Dave needs to
[31:17] spend time with department heads to
[31:19] figure out what's needed and what's not
[31:20] needed.
[31:22] >> Okay. Thank you, Mark.
[31:23] >> I'm glad you brought that up, Ed. So, we
[31:26] have hired a very competent city manager
[31:28] and keeping in mind that council is a
[31:30] policy body and Dave is responsible for
[31:33] managing the city on a day-to-day basis.
[31:35] Although we do have conversations with
[31:36] him regarding efficiencies and service
[31:39] and things of that nature, I do have the
[31:41] complete faith in our city manager and I
[31:43] he is currently looking at efficiencies
[31:45] and I know that we've made some progress
[31:47] and there's a lot more to come.
[31:49] >> Thank you, Sue.
[31:51] >> Yeah, I mean you know when you're a city
[31:53] council member what you know than
[31:55] anything else is your residents want
[31:56] service and when residents want service
[31:59] we try to deliver the best that we can
[32:01] and you know that's why we added park
[32:03] rangers people wanted more um you know
[32:05] eyes on the neighborhoods and the
[32:06] beaches and it's been quite successful
[32:08] we also started our own ambulance
[32:10] services Alex mentioned previously and
[32:12] the reason we did that was because
[32:13] outsourced ambulance services were going
[32:14] to give us very poor service and only
[32:16] wait 45 minutes for an ambulance to come
[32:18] in from someplace else in the county
[32:20] when we have a seven minute turnaround
[32:21] for our um residents here in Laguna
[32:24] Regarding pensions, that's a meaty
[32:26] topic. I'd love to talk about more, but
[32:28] one of the biggest problems was Gay
[32:29] Davis when he instituted the he allowed
[32:32] Kalpers to get out of control and all
[32:34] cities are hamstrung with this. We're
[32:36] doing quite well in
[32:37] >> Thank you, Sue. Alex.
[32:41] >> Oh, well, I do not. [laughter]
[32:44] Thanks for keeping me honest. Okay, next
[32:46] question. We'll start with Nick.
[32:48] Correct. I'm writing it down now. Uh,
[32:50] Lagona beaches and coastal resources are
[32:52] heavily impacted by over tourism
[32:53] including litter, public drinking,
[32:56] graffiti, congestion, and damage to tide
[32:57] pools despite the city's and visit
[32:59] Laguna Beach's emphasis on stewardship
[33:01] and education. Mezy, many residents
[33:04] believe these e efforts have not been
[33:06] effective. Question for all candidates.
[33:08] If stewardship and education are not
[33:10] working, what specific measures would
[33:12] you support to more effectively protect
[33:14] our beaches, neighborhoods, and coastal
[33:15] resources from the impact of over
[33:17] tourism?
[33:20] Obviously, I think the the answer is uh
[33:23] is enforcement. We need more enforcement
[33:25] on our beaches. Uh you know, you could
[33:28] say it's more with marketing. They
[33:30] decided to spend I think it was $60,000
[33:32] on the clean Laguna campaign. They uh
[33:34] for the stewardship program, they
[33:36] started with Visit Laguna, they started
[33:37] spending over about $100,000 on a new uh
[33:40] marketing video. It continues to be more
[33:42] marketing instead of using those tourism
[33:44] dollars uh tax dollars to focus on
[33:47] enforcement. That's what we need. We
[33:49] only have one park ranger from Victoria
[33:50] Beach down to three arch Bay and so we
[33:53] need to increase that and we need to be
[33:54] writing more tickets and although this
[33:57] the data says that we have we did have
[33:59] an increase in tourism in March so I
[34:01] don't think that those numbers line up.
[34:03] >> Okay. Thank you Karen. Um I brought this
[34:07] to the first forum which is a capacity
[34:10] study. Um we really truly need to know
[34:13] what our carrying capacity is. our
[34:15] carrying capacity for cars and our
[34:16] carrying capacity for people and our
[34:18] carrying capacity on our beaches. We
[34:21] cannot keep allowing more and more and
[34:24] more to come in. We're going to break.
[34:26] We can blame our current city council
[34:29] for trash, but we can't plan for trash
[34:32] until we really understand how many
[34:35] people are actually coming into our
[34:36] beaches.
[34:37] >> Thank you, Karen Joy. Well,
[34:39] unfortunately, our 50 council approved a
[34:42] multi-million dollar 10-year contract to
[34:44] market this place to people because I
[34:47] guess no one can find Lagouna Beach.
[34:50] [laughter]
[34:51] So, so I mean, we do need to protect our
[34:53] beaches. We shouldn't be advertising
[34:55] them. We shouldn't be lo um showing
[34:57] them. And we took over the South Lagoona
[34:59] beaches and it was at the expense of the
[35:01] county. Now, some it's at our expense.
[35:04] There's an example of not doing a
[35:05] costbenefit analysis forces to more
[35:08] staff. It causes us more expenses and
[35:10] now we're marketing. Well, now we have
[35:12] more beaches to market. Thank you very
[35:15] [laughter]
[35:17] Yeah. So, I think that um two points
[35:20] were made that it that kind of sums up
[35:22] the problem is you have Alex saying
[35:24] we've hired more park rangers and you
[35:26] have Nick saying we only have one at one
[35:28] of the beaches. So, the problem is um
[35:30] before we spend any more money, let's
[35:32] look at the data. Um, similar to Karen's
[35:35] point, but we have a lot of tools within
[35:36] the city council that gives us when
[35:39] people are coming, where they're coming
[35:40] from, how long they're staying, what
[35:42] parts they're staying at, and before we
[35:44] spend more money to fix an over tourism
[35:46] problem. And in order to fix it, you
[35:48] can't just do enforcement. That's just a
[35:49] tool. We need a strategy behind it. So
[35:51] then we know where to put more park
[35:53] rangers. It's not just one at one beach,
[35:55] and at what times of the day.
[35:56] >> Thank you, Ashley. Laura,
[35:58] >> um, well, I'm going to echo what my
[36:00] predecessors said. um study the problem
[36:04] figure out where the problems where it's
[36:07] uh emanating from and I would also for
[36:10] those who do come educate as much as
[36:13] possible uh tell people how how we want
[36:17] our town treated.
[36:19] >> Thank you. Just a note um I do live
[36:22] there as a resident uh who did a daily
[36:24] monitor for a period of time in South
[36:26] Libert
[36:28] is down there. It's pretty um compelling
[36:29] data. Might be interesting data point
[36:31] for y'all.
[36:33] >> Oh,
[36:36] go ahead.
[36:37] >> That's okay.
[36:38] >> I I The Visit Lagona The Visit Lagona uh
[36:43] was set up by hotels to promote people
[36:48] staying in the high-end hotels we have
[36:50] who pay taxes to the city. And so visit
[36:54] Laguna is not operating correctly that I
[36:58] see and it's causing a lot of day
[37:01] trippers to come to Laguna Beach and
[37:04] it's it's impact on our beaches and our
[37:07] trash is overwhelming. So we need to
[37:11] steer and the direction of visitors to
[37:15] the hotels spend money and visit Laguna
[37:19] needs to run a little bit better. Thank
[37:20] you. Okay.
[37:21] >> Thank you Mark.
[37:24] So, where do I start with this one?
[37:27] Ashley made a point with data. I And
[37:30] Nick made a point with the number of
[37:32] rangers that are going down to the
[37:33] beach. I think we have the data
[37:36] regarding the rangers and what's
[37:37] happening with the rangers. I think what
[37:38] we have is misinformation issue. I think
[37:41] the city needs to be better um at
[37:44] explaining some of these things.
[37:45] Obviously, I I don't know when if you've
[37:48] been able to meet with any of the folks
[37:50] from Visit Laguna to actually understand
[37:52] what they're doing, but let me just say
[37:54] this. If we turn over what visit Laguna
[37:57] does and just give it to a private
[37:59] entity, then put somebody in charge of
[38:02] Laguna region and the definition of who
[38:04] we are. Do we want the city to be in
[38:06] control of that or do we want to hand
[38:08] that over for a free-for-all to a public
[38:11] private entity?
[38:13] >> Thank you, Sue. Yeah, I think there's
[38:15] two points really to this. One is on the
[38:17] stewardship side, it's an education
[38:18] thing and Ashley will not know this. She
[38:20] sets sits on the board of physical
[38:21] lagoon. It's exactly right what Mark
[38:23] says. If we don't have visit, they want
[38:25] they can they're self assessing they can
[38:26] spend money however they want. They can
[38:28] advertise the cos and beaches like crazy
[38:31] and they're not doing that. If you watch
[38:32] if you're if you're educating yourself
[38:34] and you're watching what visit Laguna
[38:35] does, they're basically generating more
[38:38] interest in our community in terms of
[38:40] the arts, culture, and things that we
[38:42] they're really important to us. The
[38:44] other thing is on the tactical side, we
[38:46] have something called the surge where we
[38:48] do increased enforcement, um multiple
[38:51] trash pickups a day, um drone
[38:53] monitoring, ban on canopies, all those
[38:56] things have been uh successful and we're
[38:58] going to get incrementally better. You
[38:59] don't flip a switch when you have this
[39:01] many visitors.
[39:04] >> Yeah, I think that enforcement is key
[39:06] here because that's the thing that the
[39:07] city government can really control. As I
[39:08] said before, we dealt with the number of
[39:10] park rangers and the data supports that
[39:12] things have been improving. Things can
[39:14] always get better. For example, Summer
[39:15] Beach citations are up 79% including a
[39:18] 34% increase in citations for drinking
[39:21] and smoking. We've um doubled we tripled
[39:24] the daily trash pickup. Um, in South
[39:27] Luna, we have 60 or sorry, off the in
[39:29] general, 62% more trash can pants in
[39:31] South Luna. And then one of the things
[39:33] that we've identified was that we don't
[39:34] have enough prosecution of some of these
[39:36] offenses because they're they're code
[39:38] violations. They're not felonies. The
[39:40] district attorney hasn't been
[39:41] prosecuting. Now, we have we funded an
[39:43] in-house contract with an in-house firm.
[39:47] >> Thank you. All right. So, now we're
[39:49] starting with Karen. Um, this has to do
[39:51] with bidding transparency.
[39:53] Recent public discussions of the
[39:54] prominard construction bids has raised
[39:56] questions about how the city evaluates
[39:58] major public contracts. One bid included
[40:01] approximately 180,000 allocated align
[40:03] items for aderonduct chairs appearing to
[40:05] reflect a 10,000 price uh per chair. The
[40:08] city via its Instagram sibly explained
[40:10] that contractors distribute broader
[40:12] project costs including labor,
[40:13] equipment, bonding, insurance, overhead
[40:15] and profit across more than 100
[40:17] individual bid items. on individual line
[40:19] items should not necessarily be viewed
[40:21] as the actual cost of that item. That
[40:23] explanation raises a larger question
[40:25] about transparency and fiscal oversight.
[40:28] Residents reviewing public records
[40:30] should be able to understand what they
[40:32] are looking at without having to
[40:33] repeatedly seek additional explanations.
[40:36] When millions of taxpayer dollars are
[40:37] involved, residents reasonly expect that
[40:39] both city staff and the council
[40:42] scrutinize costs rather than simply
[40:43] relying upon an overall bid amount or
[40:46] outside opinions. incumbents. And we'll
[40:48] start with Alex. As council members,
[40:51] what responsibility do you believe you
[40:53] personally have to scrutinize city major
[40:56] contracts, including individual costs
[40:58] that appear excessive, and what due
[41:00] diligence did you personally perform in
[41:02] approving the promot?
[41:05] >> Um, thank you for the question. Yeah, so
[41:07] I think that as um as the the city
[41:10] pointed out, there's it's complicated
[41:12] with city procurement. You can't do it
[41:13] like the private sector, but I think in
[41:15] general, we can do better. We should
[41:16] have have been more diligent in asking
[41:18] about the line by line items as it
[41:20] relates to it. The question about what
[41:23] personal responsibility, you know, what
[41:24] role did I play? I um you know, I I
[41:28] don't remember the the date of when we
[41:29] approved that contract. So, I I just I
[41:31] I'd have to go back to you on that.
[41:32] >> Thank you. Appreciate that. court.
[41:36] >> The my personal role in it when we have
[41:38] approved the the contracts was we
[41:41] followed the rules out given to us by
[41:43] the state for general law cities and you
[41:46] look at what the lowest bidder was and
[41:48] that's what we we had chose. You have
[41:49] very little leeway to get in there and
[41:52] question various different elements on
[41:54] how they got there. It's the general
[41:56] over the the bottom line number. Can we
[41:59] be be better at some of the details
[42:01] going forward? Of course. There's always
[42:03] probably room for improvement and in
[42:05] hindsight it would have been nice to to
[42:07] actually even if we don't have control
[42:09] can't ask questions about each line item
[42:11] it would have been nice to have them
[42:13] >> okay thank you just a point isn't it
[42:15] correct that the city can actually
[42:16] reject all bids and ask them to go back
[42:18] and sharpen their pencils is that
[42:20] correct
[42:21] >> yes
[42:21] >> thank you Sue yeah I agree with Mark um
[42:25] you know government uh contracting code
[42:28] is different than the private sector so
[42:30] I'm a private sector person so it took
[42:31] me some time to get used to the way
[42:32] governments contracting bids. We have
[42:34] prevailing wages. So, they spread the
[42:36] wages over all the different areas of
[42:38] the budget. So, you know, we should know
[42:40] intuitively that aderond chair doesn't
[42:42] cost $10,000. What would cause me to ask
[42:44] a question is if I saw that on it, I'd
[42:46] ask a question before I started talking
[42:48] about it. But, um in in terms of my
[42:51] role, uh we I approved the budget like
[42:53] all other uh council members. We had a
[42:56] good bidding process. We took the lowest
[42:57] bid. We're under budget on the project.
[43:00] And so, that's my that's my role.
[43:02] >> Okay. Thank you. We'll come back to you
[43:03] on that underbudget question. All right.
[43:05] Um, for new candidates, now are we
[43:07] starting with Karen or Joy? Okay, Karen.
[43:09] If elected, what specific steps will you
[43:11] take to independently scrutinize major
[43:14] city contracts and ensure that council
[43:15] oversight goes beyond simply relying
[43:17] upon staff recommendations?
[43:21] >> Thank you for the question. Um I I
[43:25] actually did call a few different cities
[43:27] about the the budget and the contract
[43:30] award and compared um how we were told
[43:35] it's done to what they said how they do
[43:38] it and I was told that they they are
[43:41] allowed to go line item by line item and
[43:45] um I also called people in the state and
[43:47] the federal government about that. Um,
[43:49] so how I would do it is I would question
[43:53] staff and I would question legal counsel
[43:56] before I would um, approve that type of
[43:59] budget. Thank you, Karen Joyce. So, I
[44:01] was a former hotel developer for
[44:03] Marriott, I built 40 hotels from the
[44:05] ground up, and we had it as detailed as
[44:08] the beds, the headboards, and there's
[44:10] this software out there called Excel.
[44:14] And so, you can actually do exact line
[44:17] items to the detail from the
[44:19] undergrounding to the structural to the
[44:21] mechanical to the electrical. And
[44:23] there's no reason where there wasn't
[44:25] more due diligence. And it doesn't mean
[44:27] whether it's government or private. Any
[44:30] contractor has to go to that devil level
[44:33] of detail to figure out the pricing and
[44:35] that should be shared not only with
[44:37] council but the community.
[44:39] >> Thank you Ashley.
[44:41] >> Um yes, I've um somewhere looked at
[44:44] dozens of bids before. I've never seen
[44:46] something the one um that was put for
[44:49] the prominade. I think what's most
[44:51] important is that none of the questions
[44:53] were asked. So, we can sit there and
[44:54] say, "Of course, you would think, not no
[44:56] chair, it's not $10,000, but you guys
[44:59] should have been asking that." And so,
[45:00] they should have been doing their due
[45:02] diligence. And as city council, this
[45:03] isn't our money. This is taxpayer money,
[45:06] and we should be scrutinizing every
[45:07] single line item. So, if I see a $10,000
[45:10] chair, I'm going to ask the right
[45:11] questions. Thank you, Laura.
[45:14] >> I would get involved at the beginning.
[45:15] Um, I would start with the request for
[45:18] proposal, the RFP. would want to to see
[45:20] that in advance and understand how the
[45:24] bid is going to come in and what the
[45:26] components of the different line items
[45:28] would be. If it sounds like one of the
[45:30] line items would be too uh large or too
[45:35] um easily bundled, I would want to I
[45:39] would want to put it in the RIP that it
[45:41] gets it should be detailed out and um
[45:44] digestible to the public.
[45:46] >> Okay. Thank you, Ed. See, I can talk
[45:49] It's you're kidding good. The low bidder
[45:52] gets the award, but you can also rebid
[45:56] it. And I know that from doing a lot of
[45:59] construction work. So it pro it should
[46:01] have went back out for rebidding, but
[46:04] don't you got to realize the city
[46:06] council people rely on staff. So the
[46:09] staff gives them the report low bidder.
[46:12] They get the but they may not look at
[46:14] the detail the Excel line items. So, I
[46:18] wouldn't be blaming the incumbents
[46:20] exactly, but it could be staff problems
[46:24] and that's a Dave K problem. Again, back
[46:26] to the city manager.
[46:27] >> Thank you, Nick.
[46:29] >> Yeah, I think like some of our my
[46:30] colleagues appear said, it goes back to
[46:32] the very beginning. I think obviously
[46:34] people have said that the state rules
[46:36] hamstring us a little bit, but then
[46:37] we're hearing that that's not
[46:38] necessarily the case. I think when it
[46:40] comes to the line items or to the
[46:41] overall bid, I'm looking here. The city
[46:43] manager clarified last night that the
[46:46] lowest bidder was $1.2 million lower
[46:48] than the next bitter up. And just like
[46:50] for example, the uh the GOAT uh herder
[46:53] uh that bid was $300,000 lower. I think
[46:56] we should see red flags when bids are
[46:58] significantly lower than others. And
[47:00] that could have been something where we
[47:01] could have caught earlier, but that goes
[47:03] back to like what Ed said with staff.
[47:05] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Okay, next
[47:07] question. Um these are a couple
[47:08] questions for you Sue. Um you recently
[47:10] stayed at the prom night at 500,000
[47:12] under budget. Residents want to
[47:14] understand exactly how you arrived at
[47:15] that number and particularly given the
[47:17] significant spending on the prominard
[47:19] before the current construction
[47:20] contract. First question 30 seconds.
[47:23] >> What is the total amount spent on the
[47:24] prominard from its inception to date
[47:26] including prior plans studies
[47:28] engineering temporary improvements and
[47:30] what specific accounting supports your
[47:31] plan 500,000 under budget? Second part.
[47:34] If you cannot support that number today,
[47:36] will you make that accounting public in
[47:38] the next 24 hours?
[47:39] >> Well, I get that number from the from
[47:41] the finance department, from the city
[47:43] manager, and from the general contractor
[47:44] who keep, you know, they have their
[47:46] finger on the pulse. The budget for the
[47:49] um prominog was 5.5
[47:52] plus 1.2
[47:54] for contingency, which adds up to 6.7,
[47:57] and right now we're running at 6.2. I
[47:59] talked to the construction manager and
[48:01] the city manager like two days ago, and
[48:04] where we are where the budget is.
[48:06] >> Okay, that doesn't include all the
[48:08] additional pre uh design plan etc and
[48:10] temporary. But next question, city
[48:12] council originally stated the prominade
[48:14] will cost about 2.8 million. The night
[48:17] that 7.2 budget was approved at city
[48:19] council, you said, "Well, we all knew it
[48:21] was going to cost more than 2.8." To
[48:23] residents, that off-hand comment sounded
[48:26] like a bait and switch to get what you
[48:27] and or the council wanted. How do you
[48:29] respond to that comment?
[48:30] >> Well, that's not a bait and switch.
[48:31] That's we put side 2.7 as a holding as a
[48:34] holding point. But what we did which was
[48:36] really smart was we got an estimator for
[48:38] the project before we even set the RFP
[48:40] out. And the estimator was from the
[48:42] Irvine company. The Irwine company does
[48:44] tons of construction and they're very
[48:46] very good and their pencils are very
[48:47] sharp. So we hired an estimator when
[48:49] when we came when the estimator came
[48:51] back with the estimate it was 6.9. So
[48:53] staff use that as a a kind of like a
[48:56] indicator of where the bid should come
[48:58] in. I think it was a really good idea.
[48:59] >> Okay, last question. When you first
[49:01] introduced the prominade, you said you
[49:02] had personally surveyed Forest Avenue
[49:05] businesses and that they supported it.
[49:07] Some business owners said they never
[49:08] were surveyed, never spoke to you about
[49:10] it. So the question for you is, how many
[49:12] businesses did you actually survey? What
[49:14] were the results? Were they ever made
[49:16] public? And if they were not made
[49:17] public, will you make that survey
[49:19] public? I didn't formally um survey the
[49:22] businesses. I went I I talk to the
[49:24] businesses all the time. I still talk to
[49:25] the businesses all the time. I mean, I
[49:27] see Ann here. I go in her store all the
[49:28] time. We don't agree on the problem of
[49:31] but we have a lot of discussions about
[49:32] it but I I do talk to business owners
[49:34] all the time so I don't have a
[49:36] spreadsheet for you. Okay. Thank you.
[49:38] This next question is for Alex and Mark
[49:39] as incumbents. Many residents were
[49:41] excited about the prominade but not
[49:43] thrilled with the tree removal, the end
[49:45] results being different than the
[49:46] original approved design and the lack of
[49:48] transparency. Other residents felt that
[49:50] the prominade was nice to have but not
[49:52] essential in the wake of the budgetary
[49:54] concerns and the taking of money from
[49:55] other promised capital projects that now
[49:57] have to wait. What is your response to
[50:00] the residents and who oversaw the SWA?
[50:03] Who oversaw the SWA and approved the end
[50:06] alternate design result? Um, let's start
[50:09] with Mark.
[50:10] >> Who who approved the S SWA alternate
[50:13] results? That was the planning
[50:14] commission.
[50:16] >> No, the the change in design. It didn't
[50:18] appear to be what was represented in the
[50:21] pictures.
[50:23] Residents have said
[50:25] >> I I'm not familiar with that. If I look
[50:27] at the the original renderings, it I
[50:30] mean the renderings always look a little
[50:32] bit different than real life, but it if
[50:35] you look m if you try to match the
[50:38] materials and whatnot, I think that
[50:39] you'd see it was the same, but I'm more
[50:41] than happy to look at it and have
[50:42] somebody give me their opinion, but
[50:45] >> Okay, thank you.
[50:46] >> What was the other part of
[50:48] >> uh it was um the first part was what is
[50:50] your response to residents with respect
[50:52] to their concerns? So, we've been
[50:54] talking about this prominade for many
[50:56] years. I've been in town for some 43
[50:58] years. It was part of the vision 2030
[51:00] discussion which over 2,000 of us
[51:02] participated in. And if you look in
[51:04] there specifically talks about a
[51:06] pedestrian mall in Forest Avenue, a lot
[51:09] of the decisions I make go back to those
[51:11] values that were established in that
[51:13] document. And some of those uh same
[51:15] values are also reflected in our general
[51:17] plan. So, this isn't a new conversation.
[51:19] I was just um you know a part of
[51:21] obviously moving it forward.
[51:23] >> Okay. Thank you. And Alex just to
[51:25] reaffirm the the first part of the
[51:26] question is um residents are feeling
[51:28] that the uh they're not thrilled with
[51:30] the tree removal and results being
[51:32] different than the original approved
[51:33] design and the lack of transparency. So
[51:34] the first part is what is your response
[51:36] to residents? The second part is who
[51:38] oversaw the final end design result?
[51:41] >> Yeah. So as it as it relates to um I
[51:44] totally get that there are some
[51:45] residents who don't like the problem,
[51:46] not others really like it. I have a
[51:49] note. Um the last time everyone in Luna
[51:51] Beach agreed on something was 1924 and
[51:53] that was to pass a bond to get water for
[51:56] the city. So beyond that, we always are
[51:58] going to have disagreements as relates
[51:59] to the tree removal. That is something
[52:01] that was a city manager decision, but
[52:03] it's something the decision that I also
[52:05] would have made. There were two
[52:06] different arborous reports that said
[52:08] that those trees posed a health and
[52:10] safety risk. As a council, my highest
[52:12] obligation is is public safety and but
[52:15] also fiscal responsibility. when you
[52:17] have two reports saying something,
[52:18] imagine the liability if those trees
[52:20] were to fall in.
[52:21] >> Thank you very much.
[52:22] >> Thank you.
[52:22] >> Um for the other candidates and I think
[52:24] we'll start with Joy really quickly. Um
[52:26] do you think for prominadon was a good
[52:28] expenditure of our taxpayer funds? What
[52:30] would you have done differently? 30
[52:32] seconds.
[52:32] >> I wouldn't have done it. I think it was
[52:34] for the benefit of a few and at the
[52:36] expense of many. And um I I I don't
[52:40] think it's fair to the other restaurants
[52:42] that we gave four restaurants free real
[52:45] estate. the other ones didn't get
[52:47] anything. And um I believe in public
[52:49] spaces what they do in other places,
[52:51] they just close the streets out, have
[52:53] celebrations in the streets when it's
[52:55] during the holidays and then they open
[52:57] it back up so it doesn't penalize any
[53:00] the retailers. Thank you, Ashley.
[53:03] >> Yeah, I think it has more to do with the
[53:06] um the lack of planning, lack of
[53:09] execution in the decision- making behind
[53:11] it. Um, I I think that the lack of
[53:15] transparency, not keeping to the
[53:16] timeline and not keeping to the budget
[53:18] is the ultimate problem. And that's what
[53:20] we see consistently with a lot of the
[53:22] projects and initiatives that are being
[53:24] done. And so my whole thing is whatever
[53:26] we all agree on as a city, then we need
[53:29] to hold to a timeline and hold to a
[53:30] budget no matter what.
[53:32] >> Okay. Thank you, Laura.
[53:33] >> I like the idea of the the prominade.
[53:36] Um, but I think too much money was spent
[53:38] in a too concentrated of a location. I
[53:41] would have spent if I had that amount of
[53:43] money to spend, I would have liked to
[53:44] have seen it spent throughout town.
[53:47] >> Thank you. Uh heading back to Ed.
[53:49] >> Um all of my companies were run by women
[53:52] who
[53:54] they were they had common sense, good
[53:57] judgment and care. And common sense,
[54:00] good judgment didn't happen at the
[54:02] Forest Avenue construction. And if you
[54:05] go to Borders Books, you can pick up any
[54:07] tree book. Trees communicate with one
[54:10] another. they connect under the street.
[54:12] Common sense tells you if you're going
[54:14] to disrupt the whole street, you're
[54:16] probably going to lose all of those
[54:17] trees. And that's why Ocean Avenue and a
[54:21] Beach, we all need to drive down to Seal
[54:23] Beach and look at their tree planters.
[54:26] They're triple in size to ours.
[54:28] >> Thank you. Uh, next one would be Nick.
[54:31] >> Yeah, I like the idea of a prominade. I
[54:32] lived in Spain for two years and that's
[54:35] a great community gathering space. I
[54:36] think a hybrid model would have been a
[54:38] good option and it goes back to planning
[54:40] like a few of the other people set up
[54:42] here. And if you look back at the
[54:44] budget, we didn't have the money for it.
[54:45] We took almost a million dollars from
[54:47] the blooper uh storm storm drain
[54:49] project. So, you know, right before in
[54:51] El Nino and I think uh you know, the
[54:54] council say they want things to look
[54:56] like Europe, which is great, but you
[54:57] know, that looks more like Phoenix,
[54:59] Arizona than Europe. So, I think better
[55:01] better planning and and how we can
[55:04] recoup some of the costs. You know, some
[55:05] of it's a public good. That's great for
[55:06] the community, but have spending money
[55:08] for like the tables and chairs uh which
[55:11] is public money used for private uh use
[55:14] is a big problem. I think without a plan
[55:16] to recoup that those funds and we're
[55:18] seeing it as well with parking. We lost
[55:19] 40 something spaces. That's a loss of
[55:21] revenue and we still don't have a
[55:22] parking management plan.
[55:23] >> Thank you Nick Karen. Um I think that is
[55:27] indicative of many issues in our
[55:29] community and that's that we did not
[55:31] follow the general plan and um I don't
[55:34] quite know how they could say that the
[55:37] prominade was consistent with the
[55:39] general plan especially the traffic and
[55:42] circulation element. I actually went
[55:43] back and looked at it and um they
[55:46] pointed to just the land use element um
[55:50] and in the land use element all they
[55:52] said was study a potential prominade. So
[55:54] there's nothing that if somebody wanted
[55:58] to take legal action that we would be
[56:00] protected because we didn't look at the
[56:02] transportation element, we didn't look
[56:03] at the historic element, we didn't look
[56:05] at the cultural resources element. I
[56:07] think we made a mistake.
[56:08] >> Okay. Thank you. I think uh it started
[56:10] with you. Am I right?
[56:12] >> Okay. This actually is a quick question
[56:14] for Mark. Um your campaign emphasizes
[56:17] preserving Laguna's charm, heritage, and
[56:19] village character. You also s support
[56:22] updating the DSP downtown specific plan
[56:25] to allow substantially more housing and
[56:26] greater density, including second and
[56:28] third story development. How do you
[56:30] reconcile your promise to preserve
[56:32] Laguna's small town charm, character,
[56:34] and heritage?
[56:36] >> I'm glad you asked this question. So
[56:37] keep in mind that the art district is in
[56:39] the downtown specific plan. It's an
[56:41] overlay portion of the downtown specific
[56:43] plan. So that particular area up there,
[56:46] which is quite a large area, it actually
[56:48] comes right down here to the parking lot
[56:50] next to the city and and down along this
[56:52] block, um is already zoned and the
[56:56] height does allow for um three stories.
[57:01] And all that needs to be changed in that
[57:03] is actually from instead of just artist
[57:05] work live, it just needs to be lived is
[57:08] the all the language that needs to
[57:10] change in that document to accommodate
[57:11] those housing needs.
[57:13] >> Okay, thank you very much. Uh, next
[57:15] question. Patriotism.
[57:18] >> Oh, prominade art, excuse me. Okay, this
[57:20] is for um separate question for
[57:22] incumbents versus the candidates. Um,
[57:24] some residents have questioned the
[57:25] selection of an out ofstate artist for
[57:27] 85,000 for an art installation that will
[57:29] be a prominent feature of the prominade
[57:30] in a community known for its strong
[57:32] artistic heritage heritage. Residents
[57:34] have asked why local artists were not
[57:36] given grid opportunity to participate.
[57:38] Uh, incumbents and we'll start with Sue
[57:40] on this one. How did this mass black
[57:42] over happen? So, the fountain is a
[57:45] fountain. It's not meant to be a
[57:46] statement. Our piece is meant to be a
[57:48] fountain. We do have um the arts
[57:50] commission has a call out for local
[57:52] artists for a statement piece for the
[57:54] prominade and we hope to have that ready
[57:56] for the centennial and um so I'll learn
[57:59] more from that. I'm the arts commission
[58:01] liaison so I'll learn more about how
[58:02] they're going to do that but I think
[58:03] we're going to get a really nice piece
[58:04] there.
[58:05] >> Okay, thank you Alex.
[58:08] >> Yeah, it sounds like uh Sue described
[58:11] the process. I I um
[58:14] and I think we should always be looking
[58:16] for ways to have local artists involved
[58:17] with our our art. So, sounds like that's
[58:20] going to happen.
[58:21] >> Thank you, Mark.
[58:22] >> Yes, Sue did explain it. I'd like to
[58:24] just reaffirm just a bit that it did go
[58:27] through a process. It did go to the arts
[58:29] commission. They gave direction to how
[58:32] to move forward with it. They determined
[58:34] that it was in fact a fountain. They did
[58:36] not choose it to be an art piece.
[58:39] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh, next question is um
[58:41] for a separate question for incumbents
[58:43] versus candidates. Some residents were
[58:45] disappointed that Laguna did not
[58:46] recognize our nation's 25th anniversary
[58:49] on July 4th. Other nearby cities held
[58:51] commemorations. Even the little town of
[58:56] >> in France had a full program on our
[58:58] nation's 250th with a parade, a photo
[59:01] exposition, and live music for an entire
[59:03] day. The July public art display at city
[59:06] hall sadly displayed recycled Indian
[59:08] elephant props from the pageant of the
[59:10] masters. Question for the candidates and
[59:12] we'll start with Joy I believe. How will
[59:14] you ensure that historical or special
[59:16] events receive proper recognition in
[59:18] town including better suited selections
[59:20] of public art at city hall?
[59:25] >> Uh or Ashley. All right Ashley go ahead.
[59:29] So, better selection of art at city hall
[59:31] and recognizing
[59:34] like
[59:34] >> important historical days.
[59:36] >> Yes. Yeah. I mean it um I mean it's all
[59:39] of our responsibility, right? Like
[59:40] Laguna is nonpartisan and how we run the
[59:42] city should be nonpartisan. So, we
[59:44] should be celebrating anything like the
[59:46] um the 250 of our country. Um we have a
[59:50] centennial coming up. that's when we
[59:52] should be utilizing local artists of
[59:54] Lagona and everything that Laguna um is
[59:56] about as much I mean there's no other
[59:58] choice so I don't know why it was now
[1:00:01] being discussed in a very reactionary
[1:00:03] decision thank you Laura the city has a
[1:00:07] number of council appointed committees
[1:00:09] perhaps you can uh you could make an
[1:00:12] events the special events part of one of
[1:00:16] the committees uh missions make the
[1:00:19] recreation committee
[1:00:20] >> okay thank Thank you, Ed.
[1:00:22] >> I I've been fortunate to work with a lot
[1:00:24] of our military and government agencies.
[1:00:28] So, working with them makes you become
[1:00:31] you realize what they do, they sacrifice
[1:00:34] for our country. And so, a
[1:00:36] [clears throat] July 4th event and not
[1:00:39] doing any type of real celebration here
[1:00:41] was I was a little surprised. and
[1:00:44] obviously Huntington Beach did a huge uh
[1:00:47] party and other cities and so we we
[1:00:50] failed in honoring a significant 250th
[1:00:54] anniversary.
[1:00:55] >> Thank you, Nick.
[1:00:57] >> Yeah, it was really disappointing to see
[1:00:59] um you know played volleyball down in
[1:01:01] Maine Beach and there was just the one
[1:01:02] American flag. We have the American flag
[1:01:04] on our cars on the law enforcement
[1:01:06] vehicles and the council talks about how
[1:01:08] they're big supporters of law
[1:01:09] enforcement and uh and then we didn't
[1:01:12] there was nothing really planned uh for
[1:01:14] this past summer. So that was really
[1:01:15] disappointing to see. And then like uh
[1:01:18] Ashley mentioned, we have the centennial
[1:01:19] coming up and we also have the Olympics
[1:01:21] coming up in two years. And so we
[1:01:23] shouldn't be ashamed of representing our
[1:01:26] flag and our uh be proud of who we are
[1:01:28] in our country. But um it's a
[1:01:30] nonpartisan issue. And when it comes to
[1:01:32] the art installations, I think, you
[1:01:34] know, we want to have great artists from
[1:01:35] around the world that display here, but
[1:01:37] we should be focusing on the local
[1:01:39] artists first. And local artists don't
[1:01:40] feel heard. So this is kind of a
[1:01:42] culmination of a lot of issues. Thank
[1:01:43] you, Karen.
[1:01:46] >> Sure. Um, how will you ensure that
[1:01:48] historical or special events receive
[1:01:50] proper recognition in town, including
[1:01:52] better suited selections of public art
[1:01:54] at city hall?
[1:01:57] I think the um celebration of rituals of
[1:02:00] historic events actually brings us
[1:02:03] together and creates culture and whether
[1:02:06] it is our our nation's founder founding
[1:02:10] or a local founding um like the museum
[1:02:14] that just opened.
[1:02:17] I I'm going to go back to the general
[1:02:19] plan. We have a cultural arts element
[1:02:22] and if we want to keep that front and
[1:02:26] center as we move forward, we need to
[1:02:28] put that in our cultural resources
[1:02:30] commitment.
[1:02:31] >> Thank you, Joy.
[1:02:32] >> Well, I don't think government's that
[1:02:34] creative and I think that we should have
[1:02:36] less government in our special events
[1:02:39] and I would we have a talented creative
[1:02:42] uh resident base. I'd let them come up
[1:02:44] with it and listen to our creative
[1:02:47] people instead of always dictating to
[1:02:50] the residents what the event should be.
[1:02:52] >> Okay. Thank you. I think we made full
[1:02:54] circle. Okay. Circling back to the
[1:02:56] incumbents. A question for you is who is
[1:02:58] responsible for planning the city's
[1:02:59] recognition of our nation's 250th
[1:03:01] anniversary? And why wasn't this
[1:03:03] historical milestone given any
[1:03:05] recognition? Mark,
[1:03:07] >> it was designed or created from the city
[1:03:09] manager's office. As far as the
[1:03:12] fireworks show and the rest of that you
[1:03:14] saw around town, as far as the art is
[1:03:16] concerned that is done with our arts
[1:03:19] through our arts, our our cultural arts
[1:03:21] department, I do think um that you know
[1:03:24] we're we have a lot of committees in
[1:03:26] this town. We do have a lot of talented
[1:03:28] resident base. It is a very
[1:03:30] participatory town. Uh we do rely on
[1:03:33] that input from residents on on many
[1:03:36] cases. Could we have done better? I
[1:03:38] think we probably could have. Uh, as far
[1:03:40] as the art and the cultural arts
[1:03:42] department, I do think, you know, it's
[1:03:44] been 30 years since we've done a look
[1:03:45] back. I think it's healthy to do a look
[1:03:47] back just like you would private
[1:03:48] business and see ask yourself, are we
[1:03:51] getting out of the department what we
[1:03:53] expect and have times changed?
[1:03:55] >> Thank you, Sue.
[1:03:57] >> Yeah, I think on public art, you know,
[1:03:59] 75% of our public art is local artist
[1:04:01] and the other 25% is from elsewhere. And
[1:04:03] that's what makes a really vibrant arts
[1:04:05] community is when you have a good not
[1:04:07] only local art but international flavor
[1:04:09] for art. Uh in terms of the centennial
[1:04:11] on the 4th of July for example, I mean
[1:04:13] talk about our police department, we had
[1:04:15] to send people to Huntington and our
[1:04:17] police department did a very good job on
[1:04:18] the 4th of July and we had very few
[1:04:20] incidents here and I'm really proud of
[1:04:22] them and so when we talk about our
[1:04:23] police department who you know how
[1:04:25] responsive and we are to the community I
[1:04:27] think we would be exceptionally proud.
[1:04:29] >> Okay. Thank you. You really didn't
[1:04:30] answer the question as to why there was
[1:04:32] a failure to celebrate. Um, Alex.
[1:04:35] >> Yeah. I mean, I think that all of us as
[1:04:37] Americans, but also as, you know,
[1:04:39] holders of public office, we dig our
[1:04:40] vote to the Constitution of the United
[1:04:42] States, and that is a really powerful
[1:04:44] thing when you think about all the men
[1:04:45] and women who have given their lives and
[1:04:46] the ultimate sacrifice to defend our
[1:04:48] freedoms. I'm proud of what we have with
[1:04:50] the 911 memorial that that George Dubin
[1:04:53] did. I also really proud every time we
[1:04:55] have the Veterans Day Memorial Day
[1:04:57] ceremonies at Heisler Park. I I always
[1:04:59] find myself moved at at the sacrifice
[1:05:02] that people made. I think answer your
[1:05:03] question. Um, we probably should have
[1:05:05] had a public art uh uh, you know,
[1:05:08] procurement for for to celebrate the
[1:05:10] 250th uh anniversary of the country. So,
[1:05:13] >> thank thank you. Okay. Uh, this is a
[1:05:15] general question for all candidates and
[1:05:16] I think we'll start with Laura. Um, the
[1:05:19] Laguna Beach Committee Land Trust was
[1:05:21] funded with 8 million loan of taxpayer
[1:05:23] money to purchase 23072535
[1:05:25] Laguna Kender Road for 25 Arches Live
[1:05:28] Work properties with the expectation
[1:05:30] that the loan will be repaid in 5 years.
[1:05:32] The city also provided 75,000 towards
[1:05:35] closing costs. The land trust has since
[1:05:36] acquired additional profit with private
[1:05:38] donations while the city's 8 million
[1:05:40] loan remains outstanding. Three-part
[1:05:42] question, given the city's current
[1:05:44] budget challenges, was committing 8
[1:05:46] million in taxpayer funds fiscally
[1:05:48] responsible. Number two, what safeguards
[1:05:51] protects taxpayers if the land trust
[1:05:52] cannot repay the loan within five years?
[1:05:55] Number three, shouldn't private
[1:05:56] donations received by the land trust go
[1:05:58] first to pay off the city loan before
[1:06:00] additional properties are purchased?
[1:06:06] >> I'll see if I remember all three parts.
[1:06:08] Um, given the current situation of the
[1:06:11] budget,
[1:06:14] I don't think I would have made the same
[1:06:16] decision to to loan that amount of
[1:06:18] money. Um, as of
[1:06:23] the end of July, our cash position is
[1:06:26] $20 million less than the same month
[1:06:29] last year. So that, you know, you have
[1:06:33] to make choices like like anyone and and
[1:06:36] so I I don't think I would have spent
[1:06:38] that amount of money on a single uh
[1:06:42] line.
[1:06:43] >> Uh, thank you. I'm sorry. I realize it's
[1:06:45] short. I guess we'll move on to the
[1:06:47] other two questions. want to respond to
[1:06:48] it really quickly. The last two
[1:06:50] safeguards and shouldn't private
[1:06:52] donations be used to pay off the loan
[1:06:54] first?
[1:06:54] >> It would it would depend on the contract
[1:06:56] in terms of the timing of the the
[1:06:58] payoff. And the second
[1:07:02] >> second question uh the shouldn't private
[1:07:04] donations be used first to pay off a
[1:07:06] loan before they acquire additional
[1:07:08] property.
[1:07:09] >> Of course.
[1:07:10] >> Okay. Thank you. Ed,
[1:07:11] >> private loans should be paid uh first. I
[1:07:15] mean, the city should be paid first, but
[1:07:17] the city over the last 10 years has done
[1:07:19] not a good job of getting money from the
[1:07:22] state of California. California Housing
[1:07:24] Finance Agency could have done a loan or
[1:07:28] they could have done the church loan.
[1:07:30] They could have done presentation for
[1:07:31] the California Finance Agency. you could
[1:07:34] have gone to there's a number of
[1:07:36] government agencies in California where
[1:07:38] we can get money to do things in the
[1:07:41] city here and we don't do a good job in
[1:07:43] contacting those agencies.
[1:07:45] >> Thank you Mark.
[1:07:47] >> I think that they should stick with the
[1:07:48] conditions of the loan is and that's
[1:07:51] what they're doing that one part that
[1:07:52] you're missing is that gift that they
[1:07:54] received was conditioned on a specific
[1:07:57] piece of property. So they would not
[1:07:59] have gotten that gift if in fact they
[1:08:02] insisted that it go pay at the city off.
[1:08:05] >> Yeah. So we we really have lost control
[1:08:07] as to the finances of that community.
[1:08:09] >> No, I don't think we've lost control. We
[1:08:11] set terms in the loan agreement that we
[1:08:13] issued.
[1:08:15] >> Thank you, Sue.
[1:08:16] >> I'm sorry, I lost your question.
[1:08:18] >> Sure. The three questions are uh given
[1:08:20] the city's budget challenges, was the 8
[1:08:22] million loan fiscally responsible? What
[1:08:24] safeguards protect taxpayers if the land
[1:08:27] trust defaults and can't repay? And
[1:08:29] shouldn't private donations received by
[1:08:31] the land trust go first to pay off the
[1:08:32] city loan before additional properties
[1:08:34] are purchased?
[1:08:35] >> Okay. Private donations definitely. The
[1:08:37] second property is privately funded.
[1:08:38] It's not funding the city money at all.
[1:08:40] The $8 million that we spent is invested
[1:08:42] at 4% which is about what we get for
[1:08:44] life in your investment portfolio. And
[1:08:46] the safeguards are five in five years we
[1:08:48] can sell the property. The property we
[1:08:50] bought the property for under market and
[1:08:52] it was going to be bought by a developer
[1:08:54] out there. So I think we made a really
[1:08:55] good move. Alex,
[1:08:58] >> yeah, if it were $8 million in city
[1:09:00] funds that were going as a grant, I
[1:09:02] wouldn't have supported it. I made the I
[1:09:04] supported this decision based on the
[1:09:06] based on essentially two things. One,
[1:09:08] the idea that we have a loan agreement
[1:09:09] and all the people involved promised me
[1:09:11] that they'd be able to pay off the loan.
[1:09:12] But again, as Sue mentioned, there are
[1:09:13] safe cards. We can we are not paid back.
[1:09:15] we can sell the property and and be made
[1:09:17] whole. Um, and then also artists are a
[1:09:20] part of our community and I think that
[1:09:21] ultimately it's going to be private
[1:09:23] philanthropy that is going to be the
[1:09:24] solution for that problem. So, I'm
[1:09:26] excited about the work um that the land
[1:09:28] trust is going to to continue to do.
[1:09:30] >> Thank you, Nick.
[1:09:32] >> Uh, to your first question, given the
[1:09:34] budget challenges of the city, was it a
[1:09:35] good use of funds? Uh, no. Um, I think
[1:09:38] it's a complicated question because we
[1:09:39] do need to do what we can to help
[1:09:41] support our artists in town, whether
[1:09:43] it's live, work, live, um, or affordable
[1:09:46] housing uh, for the artists. Uh, I think
[1:09:48] part of the problem here is the
[1:09:50] transparency on what the actual loans
[1:09:52] are, who's uh, where the money is going.
[1:09:54] Obviously, there's been the reports in
[1:09:56] the news, but we just need to make sure
[1:09:57] that the city's being very transparent
[1:09:59] with how the each of the properties were
[1:10:02] funded. And then as well, we need to be
[1:10:03] tracking how the payment plans for the
[1:10:06] private money coming back to pay the
[1:10:07] city back. We haven't received updates
[1:10:09] on that. I think a dashboard or
[1:10:10] something like that for full
[1:10:12] transparency.
[1:10:12] >> Thank you, Karen.
[1:10:14] >> Um, I think this is another um
[1:10:17] example of the city being reactive
[1:10:19] versus proactive. Um, and if the bylaws
[1:10:23] were set up correctly with the land
[1:10:25] trust, if we understood in our housing
[1:10:28] element how these things could be uh how
[1:10:32] private money could be donated, even if
[1:10:34] the citizens could understand easily how
[1:10:36] the private money could be donated and
[1:10:39] if there were strings attached, we might
[1:10:41] be able to get more private donations
[1:10:44] um to purchase
[1:10:46] affordable housing.
[1:10:48] >> Thank you, Joy.
[1:10:51] question the fiscal uh stability of this
[1:10:53] project, but in the real world, you get
[1:10:55] a deed to trust when you loan money. And
[1:10:57] so, you're in first position, so you can
[1:10:59] either foreclose or sell. I don't know
[1:11:01] how the city sells it if we don't have
[1:11:03] title to the property. So, I I would
[1:11:06] have to question what was the cost
[1:11:08] benefit of that transaction.
[1:11:12] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[1:11:14] Um, yes, it was not fiscally
[1:11:16] responsible. I mean, the density that we
[1:11:18] get on an $8 million um purchase is
[1:11:21] similar to St. Ans and paying that's it
[1:11:24] doesn't make sense of how much money
[1:11:25] we're paying per square foot for very
[1:11:27] little housing. I understand we have
[1:11:29] mandates. Um but I think it was a very
[1:11:30] poor decision. Um it's also very
[1:11:33] concerning that the safeguard that the
[1:11:35] two of them mentioned is to just sell
[1:11:37] it. That kind of is contradictory to
[1:11:39] what the point of having the community
[1:11:40] land trust is. Um so I'm concerned I
[1:11:44] don't think that we're going to be able
[1:11:45] to give that back. And yes, if we did
[1:11:46] get private if contract got private
[1:11:48] funding, it should have gone to pay it
[1:11:50] because I don't know how it's going to
[1:11:50] get paid.
[1:11:51] >> Okay, thank you. Um, point of
[1:11:53] clarification, um, Alex, do we have a
[1:11:55] data trust on that loan?
[1:11:57] >> I don't have I don't have that answer
[1:11:58] for you.
[1:11:59] >> Do you have that answer?
[1:12:00] >> I thought we did, but
[1:12:01] >> it should be a yes. Do we not have a
[1:12:03] data trust?
[1:12:04] >> I don't want to answer no.
[1:12:05] >> No, I'm not going to answer.
[1:12:06] >> We are in first position.
[1:12:08] >> We are. [clears throat]
[1:12:08] >> You have a recorded de of trust.
[1:12:09] >> Yes.
[1:12:12] >> Thank you very much. All right. Push
[1:12:14] back on the state.
[1:12:16] This is a question for all and
[1:12:19] multi-art. California requires cities
[1:12:22] and countries or cities and counties to
[1:12:24] plan for nearly 2.5 million new homes by
[1:12:27] 2030. Yet only five jurisdictions out of
[1:12:31] 483 statewide are on pace to meet all
[1:12:34] four of their housing targets. Fewer
[1:12:37] than 6%, only 32 are on pace to meet
[1:12:40] their very low income targets. At the
[1:12:42] same time, California lost 289,000
[1:12:46] residents to other states in 2025 alone,
[1:12:48] and the state reports that California's
[1:12:50] overall population declined.
[1:12:53] Immigration, including illegal
[1:12:55] immigration, contribute substantially to
[1:12:57] California's population, housing
[1:12:59] demands, and high rents. Yet, the
[1:13:01] state's housing mandates do not
[1:13:02] separately tell communities how much of
[1:13:04] a city's projected housing is needed
[1:13:06] attributable to immigration,
[1:13:08] overcrowding, affordability, or other
[1:13:10] factors. The city council appears to
[1:13:12] treat the housing mandates like a fate
[1:13:14] of compli and many say that they have
[1:13:16] failed to protect Laguna from
[1:13:18] unnecessary housing strangulation by
[1:13:20] Sacramento before Sacramento requires
[1:13:23] communities like Laguna Laguna to
[1:13:24] dramatically increase their density and
[1:13:26] surrender more total land use control.
[1:13:29] Shouldn't residents be entitled to know
[1:13:31] who is this housing actually being
[1:13:34] planned for and are the state's
[1:13:37] assumptions correct? question multi-art.
[1:13:42] Number one, will you push the state to
[1:13:44] provide greater transparency about the
[1:13:46] population migration exits uh housing
[1:13:49] demand assumptions behind Laguna's
[1:13:50] housing mandates and challenge the
[1:13:52] one-sizefits-all requirements that are
[1:13:54] not supported by demonstrated local
[1:13:56] need? Number two, will you commit to
[1:13:59] complying with state law without
[1:14:01] exceeding what is legally required and
[1:14:05] oppose unnecessary taxpayer studies for
[1:14:07] housing developments and work with our
[1:14:09] state reps to restore meaningful local
[1:14:11] control over zoning and land use
[1:14:12] decisions? Ed, I think we're start with
[1:14:14] you.
[1:14:15] >> I think we all have a cell phone. I want
[1:14:18] you all tonight to look up the
[1:14:20] California Homestead Act. One of the
[1:14:23] reasons why people are leaving the state
[1:14:25] of California, we have a very poorly
[1:14:28] written California Homestead Act. And
[1:14:31] one of the things I've done is crafted a
[1:14:33] letter which I'm going to post on my
[1:14:35] website. And I want every single
[1:14:37] resident to cut and paste it and send it
[1:14:39] to your state senator and house assembly
[1:14:43] people because what's happening in this
[1:14:45] state the laws are being written by the
[1:14:48] state assembly and the state senators
[1:14:50] and people are leaving the state because
[1:14:53] we are being the smaller cities are also
[1:14:58] obviously don't have the advantage of
[1:14:59] being big like Los Angeles and Riverside
[1:15:04] and we don't have the And so the laws
[1:15:06] are not being written clearly. So Laguna
[1:15:10] residents of Lagona, smaller cities are
[1:15:12] being affected by these laws.
[1:15:14] >> Thank you, Mark.
[1:15:16] >> I do think that we should um try to see
[1:15:19] if we could gain some of our local
[1:15:21] control back. I do question the wisdom
[1:15:24] of what's how Sacramento handles this.
[1:15:27] However, I do think that we need to have
[1:15:29] an honest community discussion about it.
[1:15:32] And uh the way that this question is
[1:15:34] framed, it it it comes across as though
[1:15:36] we have more leeway as we really do. And
[1:15:39] I think if we can't be honest with
[1:15:41] ourselves as a community, we're not
[1:15:42] going to be able to get through this.
[1:15:43] And I think that we could all work on
[1:15:45] ways to come up with some ideas to lobby
[1:15:48] Sacramento if we can all get on the same
[1:15:50] page.
[1:15:50] >> Thank you, Mark. S.
[1:15:53] >> Yeah, I I'm not, you know, I'm not a fan
[1:15:55] of of this blur of housing laws. Um it's
[1:15:57] very difficult for cities because we're
[1:15:58] always playing catch-up. You know, we
[1:16:00] get a we get an absolute onslaught of
[1:16:02] housing laws every year. I think last
[1:16:04] year we had like 35 or 40, which causes
[1:16:06] cities to play catch-up all the time.
[1:16:08] And I'm not a fan of SB9s, for example,
[1:16:10] where you can do a resident single
[1:16:12] family lot where you can split into two
[1:16:13] and you can just basically make a lot of
[1:16:15] money when you're a single family. I
[1:16:17] don't like that either. And Sacramento
[1:16:19] does I always do. They take a hammer to
[1:16:20] things. There's no surgical work at all
[1:16:22] done on any of these um initiatives that
[1:16:25] they're putting forth as laws and then
[1:16:27] the cities are left to deal with it. So,
[1:16:29] it's very difficult as a council member.
[1:16:30] Thank you, Sue. Alex.
[1:16:32] >> Yeah, it's a very complicated and tough
[1:16:34] issue. We um we appealed our reena
[1:16:36] number back in 2019 based on the
[1:16:38] methodology. So, the city identified
[1:16:40] concerns. We were recently part of a
[1:16:41] grand jury report which identified
[1:16:43] methodological concerns and that that's
[1:16:45] going to the states. We'll see what they
[1:16:47] do. I'm skeptical that the state is
[1:16:48] going to change their tune. We had uh
[1:16:51] the mayor and I worked on state
[1:16:52] legislation as opposed to ADU laws to
[1:16:55] find a way to stop um you know, second
[1:16:58] have some a fair approach to deal with
[1:17:00] second story ADUs that were blocking
[1:17:02] people's views. It was killed before it
[1:17:05] even got a hearing in committee. So,
[1:17:06] it's a very tough issue. Huntington
[1:17:07] Beach has not succeeded in their
[1:17:09] lawsuits. Now, they're on the hook for a
[1:17:11] lot of money, including significant
[1:17:13] illegal fees. So, I think we have to be
[1:17:14] smart about how we play this.
[1:17:16] >> Thank you. We'll get to Huntington Beach
[1:17:17] in a little bit. Nick, go ahead.
[1:17:19] >> Yeah, I agree. uh you know we have the
[1:17:23] arena numbers coming up for I believe in
[1:17:25] 2029 and we need to be working with a
[1:17:27] lobbyist in Sacramento to try to
[1:17:29] advocate on our behalf to get ahead of
[1:17:31] this. Um obviously like Alex said that
[1:17:33] we appealed the decision last time. So
[1:17:35] we need to make sure that we're being
[1:17:36] proactive about the next set of numbers.
[1:17:38] We plan for it but we don't necessarily
[1:17:40] have to build it. And to the mayor's
[1:17:42] point about communicating with the
[1:17:43] community, I think it's really important
[1:17:44] for people to understand when it comes
[1:17:46] to the affordable housing who actually
[1:17:48] gets to go in it. It's It would be great
[1:17:51] if it was our first responders, local
[1:17:53] residents who can't afford it or um uh
[1:17:56] other people in the community like our
[1:17:57] teachers, but we have to understand the
[1:17:59] reality is that it is a list from the
[1:18:01] county that it's not going to be people
[1:18:03] who are from the communities. So, it's
[1:18:04] important to have that conversation.
[1:18:05] >> Thank you, Karen.
[1:18:07] >> Um as I understand it, um the 394 units
[1:18:12] are based on um numbers that are coming
[1:18:14] from SCAG and that's a jobs housing
[1:18:17] balance. And I think what we really need
[1:18:19] to look again is our capacity study. And
[1:18:21] in our capacity study, how many jobs do
[1:18:24] we have here? Our housing element
[1:18:25] doesn't look at it. Our housing element
[1:18:28] does not look at how many jobs we have
[1:18:30] in our community. Instead, it looks at
[1:18:33] how many people are that live here are
[1:18:36] employed and it states that our
[1:18:39] employment, people that live in Laguna
[1:18:42] Beach has gone down. Um, but that's not
[1:18:46] true. With six million v visitors or
[1:18:48] more, our employ has gone up.
[1:18:50] >> Thank you, Karen. Um, Joy,
[1:18:53] >> well, I think Sacramento has this wrong.
[1:18:55] I don't think it is a supply demand
[1:18:57] issue. I think it's a use issue. During
[1:18:59] the Great Recession, Wall Street and
[1:19:01] private equity bought up almost onethird
[1:19:03] of our housing stock here in California
[1:19:05] and we have a lot of vacancies. Other
[1:19:07] cities are actually looking at vacancy
[1:19:09] taxes or not a tax but an incentive
[1:19:13] because that would then offset it. But I
[1:19:16] don't think we should do it alone. I
[1:19:17] don't think I think we have to team up
[1:19:19] with other local coastal towns that are
[1:19:21] landlocked and together we have a
[1:19:24] stronger bigger voice in Sacramento. We
[1:19:27] kind of should do it a lot.
[1:19:28] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[1:19:30] >> Yeah, I um agree with both Karen and
[1:19:33] Joy. So, it is a two-part problem. Um, I
[1:19:35] know Karen mentions the general plan a
[1:19:37] lot, but it is so outdated when it comes
[1:19:39] to parts of the housing problem and
[1:19:41] transportation you can talk about later.
[1:19:43] Um, that we can't go and advocate for
[1:19:45] ourselves if we don't have the accurate
[1:19:46] data behind it. So, we need to be able
[1:19:48] to do that and then empowering the
[1:19:49] numbers. We have to work with the other
[1:19:51] cities and all get together of saying
[1:19:52] this is truly what we can provide and
[1:19:55] what we can't provide and then go fight
[1:19:56] in Sacramento.
[1:19:57] >> Thank you, Laura.
[1:19:58] >> I agree with the three people before me.
[1:20:00] Um you definitely push the state to
[1:20:03] provide the information using lobbyists
[1:20:06] other coastal cities and perhaps groups
[1:20:09] like the League of California cities so
[1:20:11] that you incorporate um even the inland
[1:20:14] cities. Thank you.
[1:20:15] >> Okay, thank you. I think I've got
[1:20:16] everybody on that one. Okay, we're still
[1:20:18] staying on the same subject. Next
[1:20:19] question. Several times um council
[1:20:21] members of soup camp in particular has
[1:20:24] stated that the city has a state mandate
[1:20:25] to build affordable housing. Luna
[1:20:28] Beach's own housing element, state law,
[1:20:30] does not require the city to construct
[1:20:32] its 394 arena numbers, but rather to
[1:20:34] implement a plan to accommodate them.
[1:20:38] This is a plan, not fund or build. And
[1:20:40] that's reaffirmed in the city's own July
[1:20:42] 2026 response to the grand jury report
[1:20:44] on state housing mandates. Yet,
[1:20:46] residents have complete repeatedly heard
[1:20:48] statements suggesting the city must help
[1:20:50] funding pro must help fund housing
[1:20:52] projects and that failing to do so will
[1:20:55] expose the city to lawsuits. What the
[1:20:57] city may do is offer inloop items,
[1:20:59] reduce fees on permits, etc., etc., to
[1:21:01] show good faith implementation of its
[1:21:03] plan. It does not need to build or fund
[1:21:06] them. That raises a serious concern
[1:21:08] about the legal advice being given to
[1:21:10] this council and the predisposition
[1:21:13] apparently of certain council members to
[1:21:15] push housing development in Lagona. If
[1:21:18] city funding is a policy choice rather
[1:21:21] than a state mandate, residents deserve
[1:21:24] to know that clearly before millions of
[1:21:26] taxpayer dollars are committed. Question
[1:21:28] for the incumbents. I think we'll start
[1:21:30] with Alex. Why is the city seemingly
[1:21:34] rushing to we must build and fund
[1:21:36] housing policy when it is not legally
[1:21:38] required to do so when the city attorney
[1:21:41] advises you that city funding is almost
[1:21:43] always necessary, which is not a true
[1:21:46] statement.
[1:21:47] >> [clears throat]
[1:21:48] >> or that the city will risk being sued if
[1:21:50] it does not fund a housing project. Do
[1:21:52] you independently verify that advice and
[1:21:55] distinguish between what the law
[1:21:56] requires or what staff maybe wants to do
[1:22:00] or council wants to do? Note, Huntington
[1:22:03] Beach lost its challenge based on a
[1:22:05] charter city challenge. Other challenges
[1:22:08] have not yet worked their way through
[1:22:10] the courts. Okay. Um, incumbents, that's
[1:22:14] your question.
[1:22:15] >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. And so
[1:22:17] you're right that the the housing
[1:22:18] element requires that we real
[1:22:20] realistically plan for 394 units over
[1:22:22] the 8year cycle. And what that typically
[1:22:24] requires is zoning updates to implement
[1:22:26] the housing element. In this last
[1:22:27] housing, we didn't need to do a zoning
[1:22:29] update. But the way that I understand
[1:22:31] the system to work is that those the
[1:22:34] unmet need uh the unmet rea
[1:22:39] will be allocated towards the next next
[1:22:41] cycle. So one of the things that I'm
[1:22:42] very interested in is the existing
[1:22:44] affordable housing that we have. Lisa,
[1:22:46] which is senior housing behind Lane
[1:22:48] Park, extending that beyond 2041, we can
[1:22:50] get Reena credit and that will allow us
[1:22:53] in our next cycle to have potentially
[1:22:55] less rea because otherwise the the unmet
[1:22:58] reena will be carried over. So I think
[1:22:59] in terms of resoning that will have
[1:23:01] implications on the community.
[1:23:03] >> Thank you, Alex. Um Mark,
[1:23:06] >> so Alex is correct. We are trying to
[1:23:08] show some compliance with with what
[1:23:11] Sacramento's goals are. Keep in mind a
[1:23:13] lot of the legislation that we're
[1:23:14] looking at or having to deal with is not
[1:23:17] uh directly having to do with just of
[1:23:19] the affordable housing. We have SB9, we
[1:23:22] have SB4, those are also we have the
[1:23:24] ADUs, right? There's a lot going on, a
[1:23:26] lot happening. What the NCC project that
[1:23:30] we were actually able to negotiate with
[1:23:32] that developer that was SB4 project and
[1:23:34] and actually uh able to work and it did
[1:23:37] cost us some money. We did get some
[1:23:39] grant money for to bring the um property
[1:23:42] or the project more in compliance that
[1:23:44] would be more compatible with the
[1:23:45] neighborhood. So, there was a trade-off
[1:23:48] there.
[1:23:48] >> Thank you. And we'll get back to the NCC
[1:23:50] in a little bit. Um, go ahead, Sue.
[1:23:52] >> Yeah, we have to we have to plan and
[1:23:54] zone. We don't have to build. We have to
[1:23:56] plan and zone.
[1:23:57] >> Um, you know, we did a really good job
[1:23:59] on that NCC project because um with us
[1:24:02] before they could build the church could
[1:24:04] get another developer, they could build
[1:24:05] a five-story building there and we can't
[1:24:06] do anything about it. So, we were lucky
[1:24:08] that we were able to negotiate to a
[1:24:10] point where we get to 29 units. We're
[1:24:11] not, you know, really destroying the
[1:24:14] neighborhood as a result. You can't, if
[1:24:16] you fight the HCD, you're going to lose.
[1:24:17] If you fight the courts, you're going to
[1:24:18] lose. We've lost, we lost one a couple
[1:24:20] years ago on something that we thought
[1:24:22] was, you know, we were pretty um sure
[1:24:24] we'd win. But HCD always wins. And the
[1:24:26] courts are following the the housing
[1:24:28] laws. Not some of the judges are not
[1:24:30] quite up to speed, but they're
[1:24:31] definitely following they're trying to
[1:24:33] follow housing laws. You just you're not
[1:24:34] going to beat the HCD.
[1:24:35] >> Okay. Thank you. And we'll get back to
[1:24:37] city lawsuits in a little bit here. Um,
[1:24:39] okay. Okay. For new candidates, um, if
[1:24:41] elected, will you require a clear
[1:24:44] distinction between what is required and
[1:24:46] what is mandated?
[1:24:48] And if the city chooses a policy, you
[1:24:51] make it clear it's a policy, not a
[1:24:52] mandate from the city. Um, and as a
[1:24:55] policy matter, it's a direct question.
[1:24:58] Do you support using taxpayer money from
[1:25:00] our general fund to build housing the
[1:25:02] city does not own? I think we'll start
[1:25:05] with uh Nick.
[1:25:09] I think what's really difficult about
[1:25:10] the affordable housing project, at least
[1:25:12] the most recent one, is the transparency
[1:25:14] behind it. We had less than 24 hours to
[1:25:16] review those documents when it came to
[1:25:18] the church project. So, it was really
[1:25:21] difficult for the residents to know what
[1:25:23] were we getting. Were we doing the
[1:25:24] actual bare minimum? And it seemed like
[1:25:26] they negotiated down from 8 million down
[1:25:27] to 6 million. I would say if elected, I
[1:25:30] would be do we would be doing the bare
[1:25:32] minimum for that. um we we shouldn't be
[1:25:36] uh contributing dollars towards
[1:25:37] affordable housing in an area where it's
[1:25:39] impacting the community so much when it
[1:25:41] comes to parking. They were doing half a
[1:25:42] parking spot for a lot of the uh
[1:25:45] buildings in the downtown specific plan
[1:25:47] and the reszoning or adding more units
[1:25:50] uh above the buildings. They were doing
[1:25:51] the same thing, reducing the parking.
[1:25:53] So, we can't be
[1:25:55] we can't be uh
[1:25:58] >> Thank you, Nick Karen.
[1:26:01] Um,
[1:26:03] I don't think we should be using
[1:26:04] taxpayer money. I don't think we should
[1:26:07] be using taxpayer money or general fund
[1:26:09] money to build housing. Um, I think that
[1:26:13] housing in Lagouna Beach can be built,
[1:26:16] affordable housing can be built as long
[1:26:18] as it's mixed housing, meaning you have
[1:26:21] market rate housing and you may have
[1:26:22] some affordable units. Thank you,
[1:26:25] George. government should not be
[1:26:27] building. They should not be building
[1:26:29] houses. And I I think that we should not
[1:26:32] be using fear to scare the residents.
[1:26:35] Oh, Sacramento says we must do it, so
[1:26:36] we've got to get it done. Build it,
[1:26:38] approve it, make it go. I think fear has
[1:26:41] been used a lot. And I don't think it's
[1:26:43] appropriate. I think we need to be very
[1:26:45] transparent to show here are the
[1:26:47] numbers. We should have a benchmark that
[1:26:48] everybody can see. ADUs count towards
[1:26:51] some of the arena numbers and so we
[1:26:53] should be very transparent about that.
[1:26:55] Thank you, Ashley.
[1:26:57] >> Um, yes, I think that um we I would
[1:27:00] definitely uh when elected to city
[1:27:02] council making sure that it is very
[1:27:04] clear what's mandated and then what's
[1:27:05] policy, not using taxpayer money at all.
[1:27:08] We are prepared to use a lot of our
[1:27:10] money. Um there's grants, there's
[1:27:12] housing bonds if we need to do any um
[1:27:14] any uh affordable housing, but I am not
[1:27:17] for building new whatsoever. Not right
[1:27:19] now.
[1:27:19] >> Thank you, Laura.
[1:27:22] Um yes, we definitely need the clarity
[1:27:25] between uh housing that's uh housing
[1:27:29] requirements that are policy versus
[1:27:31] mandate. And I am not in favor,
[1:27:34] especially if it's not mandated, of
[1:27:36] spending taxpayer dollars on housing. Um
[1:27:40] I think they should be spending on
[1:27:41] infrastructure and public safety. Thank
[1:27:44] you. And Ed,
[1:27:45] >> residents vote for city council members.
[1:27:47] City council members have the power to
[1:27:50] go to Sacramento and speak for you. We
[1:27:53] have government agencies like the
[1:27:54] California Housing Finance Agency that
[1:27:57] developers can go to for loans, for the
[1:28:00] church, for the trust. You want to build
[1:28:03] in the canyon, lowinccome or high
[1:28:04] income. You can go California Housing
[1:28:08] Finance Agency. You do a presentation.
[1:28:11] They do housing for dis disabled people,
[1:28:15] senior citizens, lowinccome. The state
[1:28:18] of California has a number of agencies
[1:28:20] where the cities can draw upon funds.
[1:28:23] The California Coastal Conservancy has
[1:28:26] money to be given to cities. We do a bad
[1:28:29] job going to Sacramento.
[1:28:30] >> Thank you, Ed. Um, quick follow-up
[1:28:32] question for you, Alex. Um you said in a
[1:28:34] recent village debate that it was
[1:28:36] important for the city to quote fill in
[1:28:38] the capital gaps when it comes to
[1:28:40] building housing. Why do you believe
[1:28:42] this and how is it fiscally responsible
[1:28:44] to use taxpayer money to build housing?
[1:28:48] >> Yeah. So I think that one of the the way
[1:28:50] that the the tax credits and and funding
[1:28:52] sources work is that a lot of it it's
[1:28:54] based on the local um contribution that
[1:28:56] makes you more competitive. Otherwise
[1:28:58] it's hard to get limited funds. And so,
[1:29:00] for example, with Vista Liso, if there
[1:29:01] was a play to be able to make a deal
[1:29:03] where this the city could put in a
[1:29:05] contribution to get to extend the
[1:29:06] affordability for 71 senior housing
[1:29:08] units, I I would be very open to that.
[1:29:11] Looking in the context of all the other
[1:29:12] priorities the city has.
[1:29:14] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, we're
[1:29:16] going to take one more question, then
[1:29:17] we're going to move on to 40 yes, no,
[1:29:19] very quick, rapid questions. Okay. Grand
[1:29:22] jury report.
[1:29:24] Thank you, Mary Loatelli, for this. The
[1:29:26] recent Orange County Grand Jury report
[1:29:28] raised serious questions um or raised
[1:29:30] serious concerns about state housing
[1:29:32] mandates and arena process and whether
[1:29:34] allocations adequately account for the
[1:29:36] unique constraints of individual
[1:29:38] communities. Liquid has 394 for its
[1:29:42] current cycle. Our city faces unusual
[1:29:44] constraints. Limited developable land,
[1:29:47] wildfire and evacuation concerns,
[1:29:48] limited access, infrastructure
[1:29:50] limitation, significant environmental
[1:29:52] protections. Yet, in this city's grand
[1:29:55] jury report, the city said it disagreed
[1:29:59] that meeting all of these 394 units was
[1:30:04] unrealistic or attainable, meaning it
[1:30:06] agreed with it. The city also
[1:30:09] represented that the Lagona community at
[1:30:11] large desired to quote expand affordable
[1:30:15] and workforce housing opportunities at
[1:30:18] large rather than representing that most
[1:30:20] in this community desire to keep
[1:30:22] neighborhoods intact and not build
[1:30:23] highdensity housing. This raises an
[1:30:25] important question. Has Lagona Beach and
[1:30:28] this city council been sufficiently
[1:30:30] challenging the state's housing
[1:30:31] allocations or has the city council
[1:30:33] simply been accepting, promoting, and
[1:30:35] facilitating development?
[1:30:38] >> For the incumbents, this is your
[1:30:39] question. On what factual basis did you
[1:30:42] approve of the Lagona grand jury
[1:30:44] response representing that Laguna
[1:30:47] community at large was in favor of
[1:30:49] expanding affordable and workforce
[1:30:51] housing? Was a revoke done? How did you
[1:30:54] come to the conclusion? And what
[1:30:56] specifically has Luna Laguna done to
[1:30:58] challenge its reign of numbers? Thank
[1:31:00] you for the 2019 um appeal. Um Alex, um
[1:31:04] that was the last question was did the
[1:31:06] city formally appeal or object to its
[1:31:08] 394 unit allocation? So um just two
[1:31:11] questions and for you uh starting with
[1:31:13] you Mark on what basis um did you
[1:31:15] represent that to the grand jury report
[1:31:19] and what have you done to challenge
[1:31:21] arena numbers?
[1:31:23] >> We have not
[1:31:26] done anything uh necessarily to
[1:31:28] challenge the green numbers. We're
[1:31:30] getting ready to receive our next uh
[1:31:32] housing element numbers in the not too
[1:31:34] distant future. Um the the um
[1:31:39] consensus or the idea that we're I
[1:31:43] believe that we can um accommodate some
[1:31:45] of these housing uh units if we thread
[1:31:48] the the the thread through the needle
[1:31:51] very carefully and I do think we can
[1:31:52] accommodate them. Not Earlier there was
[1:31:55] a reference to the city building them. I
[1:31:57] don't think the city should be building
[1:31:58] them at all. I think as far as the
[1:32:00] zoning and accommodating various
[1:32:02] developers doesn't need to be mean we
[1:32:04] need to write a check. I just think that
[1:32:06] we do have the potential to accommodate
[1:32:08] them. I do get a consensus when I'm in
[1:32:10] and around the community that there's
[1:32:12] not an overwhelming uh group of people
[1:32:15] that do not want any affordable housing.
[1:32:17] I think there's a difference between
[1:32:19] accommodating affording affordable
[1:32:20] housing and having the city pay for it.
[1:32:22] And I do think that there's opportunity
[1:32:24] to accommodate some affordable housing
[1:32:26] without the city paying for it.
[1:32:27] >> Thank you, Mark. Sue,
[1:32:29] >> sorry, what's the first part of your
[1:32:30] question?
[1:32:30] >> First part of the question is um on what
[1:32:33] factual basis did you as a city council
[1:32:36] member approve of the Lagona grand jury
[1:32:38] response represented that the committee
[1:32:40] at large was in fact in favor of
[1:32:42] expanding an affordable expanding
[1:32:44] affordable and workforce housing. That
[1:32:46] was a statement made on behalf of Luna
[1:32:48] residents
[1:32:49] >> in your grand jury response. Yeah, I
[1:32:52] don't. Um, so I kind of unders I kind of
[1:32:55] with Mark on this. When you're out and
[1:32:56] about in the community, people a lot of
[1:32:58] people want to see some affordable
[1:33:00] housing. And the reason is it's, you
[1:33:01] know, it's people who've grown up here
[1:33:03] and their kids are their kids can't
[1:33:04] afford to live here. And it's it's very
[1:33:06] sensitive topic for a lot of people.
[1:33:07] It's also a very sensitive topic for
[1:33:09] people in the school districts. Um, what
[1:33:12] was the other part? You asked another
[1:33:13] part of your question.
[1:33:13] >> Oh, the other part of what have you done
[1:33:15] to challenge
[1:33:16] >> I think almost every city challenged the
[1:33:17] arena. Every city has a problem with
[1:33:19] arena numbers and we we joined the other
[1:33:20] cities as well.
[1:33:23] >> Alex.
[1:33:23] >> Yeah. So, as as I said before in 2019,
[1:33:25] the city challenged the arena numbers to
[1:33:27] SCAG. I think every city's appeal was
[1:33:30] was denied. And um and then as it
[1:33:32] relates to state legislation, I worked
[1:33:34] with Dave Min and Diane Dixon who at the
[1:33:36] time were our representatives. Our bill
[1:33:37] was for the ADU issue. That bill was
[1:33:39] killed before it made it to hearing. So,
[1:33:41] that that didn't work out. And then um
[1:33:44] as it relates to uh I think there are
[1:33:46] ways that we can meet the housing needs
[1:33:48] in really small in smaller units. For
[1:33:50] example, right now prior to the change
[1:33:52] that we made on Coast Highway, you could
[1:33:55] do second story commercial, but you were
[1:33:56] only allowed to make 50% of that
[1:33:58] housing. We worked with the coast to
[1:34:00] commission and change that. And if it's
[1:34:01] a common sense approach that allows for
[1:34:03] more um smaller units in places where
[1:34:06] you already could build to a second
[1:34:08] story, so it's not changing the built
[1:34:09] environment.
[1:34:10] >> Thank you. Okay, this is for the other
[1:34:11] candidates. Uh, it's a yes or no
[1:34:13] question and I'm not sure where I ended
[1:34:15] up. Let's start with you Karen. As the
[1:34:18] seventh reena cycle approaches, if
[1:34:20] elected, will you commit to actively
[1:34:22] advocating for an allocation that
[1:34:24] specifically accounts for Laguna Beach's
[1:34:26] physical and public safety constraints,
[1:34:29] protect our neighborhoods, public
[1:34:31] safety, open space, and environmental
[1:34:33] resources? Yes or no?
[1:34:34] >> Yes. With the capacity study,
[1:34:37] >> Joy?
[1:34:38] >> Yes.
[1:34:39] >> Yes.
[1:34:40] >> Laura,
[1:34:40] >> yes. Ed,
[1:34:42] >> yes.
[1:34:42] >> Nick,
[1:34:43] >> yes.
[1:34:43] >> Thank you. Okay. Um, does anybody need a
[1:34:46] like a two-minute break? Otherwise,
[1:34:48] we're going to go to our yes no
[1:34:49] questions.
[1:34:50] >> Okay. Two minutes on the clock.