YouTube transcript
Video ID: F1qCb6k7jsA
Language: en
Captions: auto-generated

[0:13] Okay.
[0:18] >> I know that Mark is not here and um we
[0:21] apologize for that, but we've got a
[0:22] really short uh time frame here. So,
[0:24] we're going to go ahead and start asking
[0:25] our questions. These are yes, no
[0:27] questions. The call.
[0:30] All right. Number one. 28 out of 34
[0:33] local cities each% have term limits. Do
[0:36] you support term limits? Measure E. Yes
[0:38] or no? Laura, start with you.
[0:41] >> Yes.
[0:43] >> Ashley,
[0:44] >> yes.
[0:45] >> Joy,
[0:46] >> yes. Karen,
[0:47] >> yes.
[0:48] >> Nick,
[0:49] >> yes.
[0:50] >> Alex,
[0:52] >> no.
[0:54] Yes.
[0:57] >> Will you commit to posting of um city
[1:00] council meeting agendas at least seven
[1:02] days before meetings?
[1:05] >> Yes.
[1:12] >> No.
[1:14] >> Alex items but generally no.
[1:17] >> Nick.
[1:18] >> Yes.
[1:19] >> Karen.
[1:20] >> Yes.
[1:21] >> Joy.
[1:22] >> Yes. But I like to see it more days.
[1:25] Ashley.
[1:25] >> Yes.
[1:26] >> What?
[1:28] >> Can I have a hybrid answer?
[1:31] >> Yes.
[1:32] >> No.
[1:35] >> Should legacy plaques on completed city
[1:38] projects read paid for by the taxpayers
[1:41] of Laguna Beach instead of the mayor and
[1:43] city council names? Yes or no?
[1:47] >> Yes.
[1:48] >> So,
[1:50] >> I think it depends, but I guess. Yeah.
[1:53] >> Alex.
[1:55] >> Yeah. Maybe both.
[1:57] >> Nick.
[1:57] >> Yes.
[1:58] >> Karen.
[1:59] >> Yes. Join us.
[2:01] >> Ashley.
[2:03] >> A different phrasing, but it should be
[2:05] about the city and the residents or
[2:08] >> sure. Yes.
[2:11] >> Does the city pay too much for outside
[2:13] consultants? Laura?
[2:16] >> Yes.
[2:17] >> Ashley?
[2:17] >> 1,000%. Yes.
[2:19] >> Joy.
[2:19] >> 2,000%. Yes. [laughter]
[2:22] >> Yes.
[2:25] >> Yes. That's why we're doing the
[2:26] efficiency issue.
[2:29] >> Mark,
[2:29] >> yes.
[2:31] >> Yes.
[2:33] >> Do you approve of the 10-year
[2:35] non-cancellable agreement with Visit
[2:38] Beach?
[2:41] >> It's not a good contract.
[2:43] >> Mark,
[2:44] >> yes.
[2:44] >> Sue,
[2:45] >> yes.
[2:46] >> Alex,
[2:47] >> yes.
[2:48] >> Nick,
[2:48] >> no. Karen, no.
[2:50] >> Joy,
[2:51] >> no.
[2:52] >> Ashley,
[2:53] >> no.
[2:54] >> Laura,
[2:54] >> no.
[2:58] >> Did you support turning the library site
[3:00] into a Did you or do you support turning
[3:04] the library site into a parking
[3:06] structure?
[3:07] >> Laura,
[3:08] >> no.
[3:09] >> Ashley,
[3:09] >> no.
[3:10] >> Joy,
[3:11] >> no.
[3:11] >> Karen,
[3:12] >> no.
[3:13] >> Nick,
[3:13] >> no.
[3:14] >> Alex,
[3:15] >> no.
[3:16] >> Sue,
[3:16] >> no. Mark,
[3:18] >> what was the question? Do we support
[3:19] turning the library?
[3:20] >> Did you or do you support turning the
[3:23] library site into a parking structure?
[3:25] >> No.
[3:27] >> No.
[3:30] >> Incumbent.
[3:32] >> Did you support taxpayer paying for $13
[3:36] million parking structure on the
[3:37] Presbyterian Church property?
[3:41] >> Mark,
[3:41] >> no.
[3:42] >> Sue,
[3:44] I don't even remember voter.
[3:47] Alex,
[3:48] >> no.
[3:51] >> Do you support building a new parking
[3:54] structure behind the police station or
[3:55] city entrance parking lot?
[3:58] >> Lawrence,
[3:59] >> no.
[4:00] >> Ashley, no. New parking.
[4:02] >> Joy,
[4:02] >> absolutely not.
[4:06] >> Uh, behind the police station, yes. And
[4:08] in act five, yes.
[4:10] >> Alex,
[4:11] >> yes, but not paid for by taxpayer
[4:13] dollars.
[4:14] >> Sue,
[4:15] >> yes.
[4:18] If it provided neighborhood relief in
[4:20] some neighborhood parking only areas and
[4:23] didn't cost taxpayer dollars, I would
[4:25] consider it. Ed
[4:27] >> behind the police station privately
[4:30] funded so the city doesn't put out any
[4:33] money.
[4:35] >> Do you support plans to spend 141
[4:37] million or more for undergrounding Luna
[4:39] Canyon Road, whether by one measure or
[4:41] otherwise? Ed,
[4:44] >> repeat that. Sorry.
[4:46] >> Do you support plans to spend 141
[4:49] million or more for undergrounding
[4:51] Laguna Canyon Road, whether by bond
[4:53] measure or otherwise?
[4:55] >> No.
[4:56] >> Mark,
[4:57] >> no.
[4:57] >> Sue,
[4:58] >> no.
[4:58] >> Alex,
[4:59] >> no. Not of taxpayer money.
[5:03] >> Nick,
[5:03] >> no.
[5:04] >> No.
[5:05] >> I thought these were yes. No, and I say
[5:08] no.
[5:09] >> Ashley,
[5:09] >> no.
[5:11] >> No.
[5:14] Do you still support undergrounding
[5:15] Lagoon Canon Road if Southern California
[5:19] hardens the power poles at no cost?
[5:23] Laura,
[5:28] >> do you need me to clarify?
[5:31] >> Okay. So, if Southern California Edison
[5:34] said that they will harden the polls,
[5:39] do you still support undergrounding the
[5:41] Luna Canon Road? So basically, even if
[5:43] they agree to pay for it, do you still
[5:46] want
[5:48] >> underground?
[5:48] >> Undergrounding?
[5:50] >> Yes, I want undergrounding.
[5:52] >> Even
[5:53] >> if they pay for it, absolutely.
[5:54] >> No, no, no.
[5:56] >> We would there would be a bond to pay
[5:57] for it
[5:58] >> then. No.
[5:59] >> Okay.
[6:00] >> No, no, no.
[6:04] >> No.
[6:07] >> Yes or no?
[6:10] [laughter]
[6:10] >> Can't answer that yesterday. Depends how
[6:12] much money Edison is putting into the
[6:13] other.
[6:14] >> Well, they were not paying for the
[6:15] other.
[6:16] >> Oh, they're not. [clears throat]
[6:20] >> No.
[6:22] >> No.
[6:22] >> Okay. Do you still uh move? All right.
[6:27] Do you support the city purchasing the
[6:30] Canon Road? Ed?
[6:31] >> No.
[6:32] >> Mark?
[6:33] >> No.
[6:33] >> Sue?
[6:34] >> No.
[6:34] >> Alex?
[6:36] >> No.
[6:37] >> No.
[6:38] >> No.
[6:40] >> Okay. Interesting.
[6:43] >> Um, do you support the city purchasing
[6:45] the state highway state coast highway
[6:48] one within Luganna city limits?
[6:51] >> What?
[6:53] >> No.
[6:54] >> No.
[6:54] >> No. No.
[6:56] >> No. No.
[6:58] >> No. Mark.
[6:59] >> No.
[7:00] >> Okay.
[7:02] Do you support a downtown specific plan
[7:04] allowing for the demolition of historic
[7:06] buildings and replacing them with
[7:08] highdensity multi-story buildings with
[7:10] residences requiring only half parking
[7:12] spaces at
[7:14] >> no
[7:18] >> no
[7:20] >> no
[7:21] >> all right
[7:23] >> do you do you support likewise
[7:25] development of Ocean Avenue
[7:28] >> floor No, no, no. Leave it alone.
[7:33] >> No.
[7:36] >> No.
[7:38] >> No.
[7:39] >> No. Please drive to Seal Beach, please.
[7:44] >> Do you support adding 675 new residents
[7:47] in downtown Canyon?
[7:51] >> Get your
[7:53] >> 675
[7:55] residential units in downtown and the
[7:57] Canyon.
[7:58] >> No. No,
[8:00] >> no,
[8:00] >> no, no,
[8:02] >> no,
[8:03] >> no,
[8:04] >> no,
[8:04] >> no.
[8:07] >> New candidates. The city council
[8:09] continues to uh refuse requested
[8:12] meetings with the school board, pushing
[8:13] meetings out to 2027. If elected, will
[8:16] you commit to regular meetings with the
[8:18] school board on issues impacting our
[8:20] city that concern both the school board
[8:22] and the city council? Laura?
[8:24] >> Yes. Yes, absolutely. Joy.
[8:26] >> Yes. Public education important.
[8:29] >> Yes.
[8:29] >> Karen.
[8:30] >> Yes.
[8:33] >> Yes. But what's going on?
[8:35] >> No. But no butts.
[8:38] >> All right. New candidates. Would you
[8:40] have presented an alternate prominade
[8:43] plan to residents in response to the
[8:45] petition signed by 873 residents
[8:48] requesting one? Ed.
[8:51] >> Say that again.
[8:52] >> Okay. Would you have presented an
[8:55] alternative prominade plan to residents
[8:59] in response to the petition that was
[9:01] signed by 873 residents requesting one?
[9:06] >> Yes,
[9:08] >> you can do this. Nick,
[9:09] >> yes.
[9:10] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[9:19] >> Do you think Okay. Do you think the 2.7
[9:23] million purchase of the Tama non-fire
[9:26] station site since resold was a mistake?
[9:29] Yes or no, Laura?
[9:32] >> Yes.
[9:34] >> Yes.
[9:34] >> Oh, yes. The mistake was buying that
[9:38] question.
[9:40] >> Yes.
[9:41] >> Alice.
[9:44] Yeah.
[9:45] >> Sue, what's the question?
[9:47] >> The TMO. Uh,
[9:48] >> was it a mistake to purchase?
[9:50] purchase it
[9:51] >> for a fire station.
[9:53] >> Well, it was purchased for a non-fire
[9:54] station.
[9:55] >> That's that's what you bought it for
[9:56] originally.
[9:57] >> For Yes, cuz we made 700,000 on it.
[10:04] Mark,
[10:05] >> is it a good idea to purchase properties
[10:07] on speculation on the city taxpayer
[10:09] money?
[10:10] >> Go ahead, Mark.
[10:11] >> 700,000. Was it a good idea to
[10:15] >> do you think that the $2.7 million
[10:17] purchase of the Tama non-fire station
[10:19] site since resold was a mistake?
[10:22] >> What was a mistake? Yes.
[10:24] >> Yes.
[10:27] >> Do you support the NCC Sance housing
[10:30] development project approved by the city
[10:33] council? Ed,
[10:36] >> it should have went to the state for the
[10:38] funding, but Okay.
[10:39] >> Is it incoming? Yes.
[10:42] Oh,
[10:42] >> incumbent.
[10:43] >> No,
[10:49] >> just incumbent.
[10:51] >> Incumbent.
[10:52] >> All right.
[10:54] >> No, you can.
[10:58] >> Okay. So, Nick,
[11:00] >> um, in the way that it was done now,
[11:02] >> here, I don't agree with how it was
[11:05] funded. Joy,
[11:08] >> I'm not sure I understand the question,
[11:10] but I don't like the fact that we didn't
[11:12] even find out the capital stack before
[11:14] we offered money.
[11:16] >> Say no, we don't support.
[11:19] >> No.
[11:21] >> Do you support using our taxpayer
[11:23] dollars to build new housing
[11:24] developments partially or fully
[11:28] um in Laguna?
[11:32] >> No.
[11:33] >> No.
[11:34] Government should not be building homes.
[11:39] >> Agree.
[11:40] >> No.
[11:42] >> Alex, [snorts]
[11:44] >> um the question.
[11:46] >> Sure.
[11:47] >> Um do you support using our taxpayer
[11:51] money to build new housing developments
[11:53] partially or fully in Laguna?
[11:57] >> I mean partially. Yeah. We still do. So
[12:02] >> uh just NCC
[12:07] Yes, if it can bring it into more
[12:09] compatible project that is a yes or no
[12:12] connection and no
[12:15] >> no.
[12:15] >> Laguna spends over 199 million year on
[12:18] the free trolley and Laguna local. Would
[12:21] you support a nominal rider fee to help
[12:23] offset trolley costs in Laguna?
[12:24] >> Okay, quick correct question. That's
[12:26] 19.1 million over five years. Five
[12:30] years.
[12:31] >> Over five years.
[12:32] Because that's a lot of money.
[12:34] >> Yes.
[12:37] >> Yes.
[12:40] >> Yes.
[12:46] >> No. I have experience with the cost
[12:49] exceed.
[12:51] >> All right.
[12:53] Um
[13:00] Okay. Should the mayor be a voter
[13:03] elected position?
[13:05] >> Yeah. Okay. Or
[13:08] >> no.
[13:10] >> Yes.
[13:11] >> Yes.
[13:14] >> I don't know.
[13:16] Fair enough.
[13:18] >> Yeah. Uh, no. Right.
[13:21] >> Alex,
[13:22] >> probably no.
[13:24] >> No.
[13:26] >> What's the question again? Should should
[13:28] the mayor be a voter elected position?
[13:33] >> Should it be elected instead of just
[13:36] made?
[13:37] >> I would say that's the community.
[13:40] >> Okay.
[13:44] >> Uh, no.
[13:46] >> All right. Uh, do you support attacks on
[13:49] second home vacation homes?
[13:51] >> No. [clears throat]
[13:52] >> Or Mark?
[13:53] >> No.
[13:54] >> S? No. Alex?
[13:55] >> No. Constitution.
[13:57] No.
[14:00] >> It's being challenged right now in the
[14:02] Supreme Court, so I don't think it's
[14:03] even possible.
[14:05] >> No. No.
[14:10] >> Do you support rent control in Lagouna?
[14:14] >> Laura? No. Ashley?
[14:17] >> No.
[14:18] >> No. No.
[14:19] >> No.
[14:22] >> No. [clears throat]
[14:25] >> No.
[14:28] Do [laughter]
[14:30] do you support a city transfer tax on
[14:34] sales of property over 5 million?
[14:40] >> Yes.
[14:42] >> Yes.
[14:45] >> No.
[14:46] >> No. No.
[14:52] No.
[14:56] >> But do you support an increase in the
[14:57] sales tax, Laura?
[14:59] >> No.
[15:00] >> No.
[15:01] >> No. No.
[15:03] >> No. No.
[15:04] >> No.
[15:05] >> No. No.
[15:10] >> Uh, do you support another increase in
[15:12] the tot?
[15:14] >> No.
[15:17] >> Increasing the tot tax?
[15:20] I'd be open to increasing tax.
[15:22] >> No. Alison,
[15:25] >> Nick,
[15:26] >> I'd be open up to it as well.
[15:28] >> Joel, Ashley,
[15:30] >> no.
[15:31] >> Ora,
[15:32] >> no.
[15:34] >> Do you support an increase in the
[15:37] business license tax based on a
[15:39] percentage of gross sales or profits?
[15:42] >> Or no.
[15:43] >> No.
[15:45] >> No. No.
[15:46] >> No.
[15:47] >> No.
[15:48] >> No. No. Okay.
[15:52] >> Do you support turning the prominade
[15:54] into an open carry liquor area?
[15:58] >> No.
[15:59] >> Mark
[15:59] >> open carry
[16:00] >> like you can
[16:01] >> drink walk around walk around with
[16:03] alcohol in the pro.
[16:05] >> Yes.
[16:08] >> Uh yeah.
[16:11] >> No
[16:14] >> uh yeah I mean I believe it is already.
[16:17] >> Yeah.
[16:20] legal.
[16:22] >> No, absolutely not. No.
[16:26] >> Do you support renting out the prominant
[16:28] public space for private events?
[16:31] >> Yes.
[16:35] >> Yes.
[16:37] >> No, it's it's for the the taxpayers pay
[16:40] for it. It should be ours, not private
[16:43] people. Karen,
[16:44] >> thank you.
[16:45] >> No.
[16:46] >> Could you repeat the question? Do you
[16:48] support uh do you support renting out
[16:50] prominate
[16:52] events?
[16:58] >> Well, that's complicated, but at the
[16:59] moment, no.
[17:01] >> No.
[17:02] >> S
[17:04] I mean Mark,
[17:05] >> no.
[17:07] >> No. Too complicated.
[17:08] >> Okay. Do you support increasing height
[17:11] of buildings in the downtown area?
[17:13] >> No.
[17:14] >> Mark?
[17:15] >> No.
[17:16] >> No.
[17:17] No,
[17:19] >> no, no, no. All right.
[17:23] Would you support a public vote
[17:24] requirement on any civic product a
[17:27] project exceeding 5 million? Laura,
[17:30] >> no.
[17:32] Yes. Great idea.
[17:37] [laughter]
[17:41] >> Um,
[17:42] no. No.
[17:45] >> No. Yeah.
[17:50] >> Would you return Zoom participation to
[17:53] the beginning of the city council
[17:54] meeting?
[17:56] >> Yes.
[17:59] >> Yes.
[18:01] >> Are you having it already?
[18:04] >> Okay. Skip that one. Do you support
[18:07] giving taxpayer money
[18:10] uh 10,000 or more to commercial
[18:13] landlords to fix up their building
[18:15] exteriors? Laura
[18:20] >> I do love but I wouldn't give the money.
[18:24] No
[18:30] >> enforcement. Okay.
[18:32] Do you support increasing the number of
[18:34] administrative staff hires?
[18:37] >> Just do I support
[18:39] >> having hiring more people?
[18:43] >> No, including law enforcement.
[18:48] >> No.
[18:50] >> Yes. Record keeping.
[18:52] >> No.
[18:53] >> No. No.
[18:57] Do you support enforcing and increasing
[19:00] fines for illegal parking, littering,
[19:01] vehicle noise violations, and drinking
[19:04] on the beach to at least a minimum of
[19:06] 100, if not more, please?
[19:08] >> Yes.
[19:09] >> Yes.
[19:13] >> Yes.
[19:13] >> Yes.
[19:15] >> Yes.
[19:19] >> Do you support more ABC liquor licenses
[19:21] in Laguna Beach, Laura?
[19:24] >> No.
[19:26] I mean we it's can we can't we don't
[19:28] control that. So
[19:32] >> I can't really answer that. I don't
[19:34] >> I'm not the ABC
[19:37] state regulated.
[19:40] >> I believe that the city can set a limit
[19:42] and then you would have to purchase a
[19:43] business that had it if you wanted
[19:45] control. The city does have control over
[19:48] >> correct. So the question is would you
[19:49] support an increase in the number that
[19:51] we currently have? So, so if we do have
[19:54] that, then it would be um the number of
[19:56] conditional use permits that are issued
[19:58] to sell alcohol. Um I'm not aware that
[20:00] we have that,
[20:01] >> right? But fair enough,
[20:04] >> but if we if we said that, I would
[20:06] support setting something like that.
[20:08] >> Okay. Thank you.
[20:09] >> No.
[20:11] >> No.
[20:11] >> No.
[20:12] >> No. Yes.
[20:14] >> Okay.
[20:16] Have you personally entered into any
[20:18] joint ventures or other business
[20:20] relationships with housing developers in
[20:22] the last two years, Laura?
[20:25] >> No.
[20:26] >> No.
[20:27] >> No.
[20:28] >> No.
[20:29] >> Nick?
[20:29] >> No.
[20:30] >> Alex?
[20:31] >> Yeah, but not never in the
[20:34] >> suit. No.
[20:36] >> No.
[20:39] Have you personally made any investments
[20:41] in or profited from any existing or
[20:43] future housing projects in Lagoon in the
[20:45] last two years? Laura,
[20:47] >> no. No.
[20:48] >> No. I wish, but no. [laughter]
[20:52] >> Can you Can you read Can you
[20:54] >> Can I resate? Have you personally made
[20:56] investments in or profited from any
[20:59] existing or future housing projects in
[21:01] Lagona in the last two years?
[21:04] Besides a single my own single family
[21:06] residence. Uh besides your single family
[21:09] residence. Okay. I own a I own a rental
[21:12] property. Single family. Okay.
[21:14] >> No.
[21:16] >> No.
[21:17] >> No. No.
[21:20] >> All right. Last question. Most admired
[21:23] person in politics. Ed.
[21:28] >> Ronald Reagan.
[21:30] >> Mark.
[21:31] >> Oh my god. Abraham
[21:37] Lincoln
[21:43] >> Alex
[21:45] >> George Washington
[21:48] >> um
[21:51] >> Abraham Lincoln
[21:55] >> the man who brought us all of our great
[21:57] parks Teddy Roosevelt
[22:00] Reagan
[22:03] Teddy Roosevelt.
[22:04] >> All right. Well, thank you. That is for
[22:08] >> Okay. Thank you, Kennets. We're going to
[22:09] jump back into some general questions.
[22:11] Thank you for your answers. Um Okay. Um
[22:14] real quick question on the initiative to
[22:16] stop runaway development. There is an
[22:18] organization called Neighborhood Voices
[22:20] um that is launching a statewide
[22:22] constitutional amendment to restore
[22:24] greater local authority and other
[22:26] California cities are now considering
[22:27] similar efforts through the League of
[22:29] California Cities to push back on over
[22:33] regulation strangulation with respect to
[22:35] housing in Sacramento.
[22:38] Yes or no question. Will you support
[22:41] Laguna Beach joining with other
[22:42] California cities in efforts to restore
[22:44] greater local control over housing,
[22:46] zoning, and land use decisions,
[22:47] including consideration of a statewide
[22:49] voter initiative of constitutional
[22:51] amendment? Yes or no? Ed.
[22:53] >> Yes. Yes.
[22:56] >> Yes. The legal city is tonight. So, I'm
[22:58] here with you guys.
[23:00] >> Yes.
[23:02] >> Yes. Together, we're stronger.
[23:04] >> Yes.
[23:06] >> Yes.
[23:06] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, okay. This goes to
[23:09] the incumbents. Um, I'm getting some
[23:12] tough questions here. Some residents
[23:14] have noticed what appear to be
[23:15] significant changes in positions by
[23:17] incumbents at the as the election
[23:19] approaches. Recent statements on Laguna
[23:20] Kenya Road, undergrounding where new
[23:22] housing should be located, developments
[23:24] in the canyon, term limits, tax
[23:26] increases, and other issues appear
[23:28] different from positions that residents
[23:30] have heard previously from the
[23:31] incumbents. They also the question
[23:33] whether or not the temporary shelving of
[23:35] projects that are expected to come down
[23:37] in the future
[23:40] is something that is a genuine change in
[23:43] policy in their position or simply a
[23:47] election year position.
[23:49] >> So let's start with Sue. Um Sue the
[23:52] question is several positions you've
[23:53] expressed recently appear different from
[23:55] positions that you've heard that
[23:57] residents have heard earlier in your
[23:58] term. Which of your business positions
[24:00] have changed? Why did they change? And
[24:03] you could can you commit that
[24:07] projects that are currently deferred
[24:08] like the DSP, Ocean Avenue tax
[24:11] increases, and future tree removals will
[24:14] not be reviewed again after the election
[24:16] without additional public review. So
[24:18] two-point question.
[24:21] >> I don't understand your question.
[24:22] Several of your positions have changed.
[24:24] >> No, I got that part.
[24:25] >> Okay.
[24:26] >> And the second question is,
[24:27] >> but you posted a bunch of things. Did
[24:28] you want me to pick one of those or
[24:29] >> No, I just it was an example. Okay.
[24:32] >> So, which of your positions have changed
[24:33] and will we not be seeing them again
[24:36] come 2027 if you're reelected?
[24:38] >> I wouldn't say I necessarily change
[24:40] positions, but you know, we learned as
[24:41] council members, for example, on Laguna
[24:43] Canyon Road. We're not I'm not the
[24:45] subcommittee. It's Bob and Hi. But we
[24:46] find out now that we can't bury the
[24:48] lines in the roadway because of cow
[24:50] tracks. So, that significantly changes
[24:52] the dynamics of whether or not we work
[24:55] on the Canyon Road. We can't if we can't
[24:56] bury the lines on the good of Canyon
[24:58] Road, then we can't it's not a viable
[24:59] project financially.
[25:01] >> Okay. Thank you. Uh Alex.
[25:04] >> Yeah. I mean, I'm always someone who
[25:06] looks at new information as relates to
[25:08] the T taxes in 2024 and both in this
[25:11] last year 2026. I was opposed to adding
[25:14] a a business license tax to the ballot.
[25:15] So, that hasn't changed. Um underground
[25:18] road. We know that 50% of the most
[25:20] devastating wildfires are caused by
[25:22] above ground utilities. It's an
[25:23] important issue, but it really the
[25:24] financials matter and the deal in front
[25:26] of us from CAL transfer relinquishment
[25:29] was not a good deal. So, I did not
[25:30] support that.
[25:31] >> And then um as relates to the downtown
[25:33] specific plan, the um you know, I think
[25:36] this was in the spring when we made the
[25:38] decision not to defer that, but instead
[25:40] of direct staff to focus on because it's
[25:41] part of our housing element to to update
[25:43] it, but to focus on the arts district as
[25:46] opposed to downtown prop. So, that's not
[25:47] deferring it.
[25:48] >> Okay. Thank you, Alex. And Mark,
[25:50] >> I'll use the Ocean Avenue as an example.
[25:52] I encourage Dave Kipar, city manager to
[25:55] um pull that particular item and
[25:58] schedule some more workshops and town
[26:00] halls and even maybe a walk like we used
[26:03] to do when we'd study the downtown
[26:05] specific plan just to help the community
[26:07] better understand some of the design
[26:10] options when it comes to sidewalk
[26:12] replacement. So, does that answer your
[26:15] question?
[26:15] >> Yes, thank you. Okay. Um
[26:19] ethics and conflict of interest. Most
[26:22] everyone starts out their career in
[26:23] public office altruistically. Longtime
[26:25] OC watchdog Shirley Grindle once asked,
[26:28] "How long does it take before an elected
[26:29] position politician becomes corrupted?"
[26:32] Her answer about three years. Residents
[26:34] have the right to expect their public
[26:36] officials will carry out their duties in
[26:37] a lawful, ethical, and professional
[26:39] manner. The appearance of impropriy is
[26:42] as much a problem as impropriy itself.
[26:45] Okay. I have a preface for Mark and I
[26:47] have questions um for others. So Mark
[26:51] residents have raised concerns about
[26:53] perceived improper priorities in
[26:54] business when financial dealings
[26:55] involving parties with significant
[26:57] interest in Laguna Beach. You and your
[26:59] wife previously worked for oh her and
[27:01] Laguna Beach Company on major
[27:02] development projects and then
[27:03] acrimoniously party since on council.
[27:06] Questions have also been asked about
[27:08] financial dealings involving you and
[27:10] your wife with parties now on the
[27:11] opposite side of that mohawker dispute
[27:13] including Mahandra Makajani continuum
[27:16] analytics and the mom entities. This
[27:18] summer, a judge adjudicated those
[27:20] disputes in Mo's favor, awarding Mo and
[27:22] his mom, JV entities, of which he owns a
[27:24] half, $1.33 billion dollars in combined
[27:27] direct damages. Mac Johnny now sits in
[27:30] federal prison unable to qualify
[27:31] released pending his trial for bank
[27:33] fraud. So the concern isn't simply
[27:35] whether something technically violated
[27:37] conflict of interest laws, but residents
[27:39] want to know whether you or your family
[27:42] financially benefited from relationships
[27:44] with people or entities whose interests
[27:46] were affected by matters involving the
[27:48] city while you were serving on council.
[27:50] So here's the question. While on
[27:52] council, have you or your wife received
[27:55] compensation, income, settlements, or
[27:57] other financial benefits from
[27:58] developers, property owners, or
[28:00] investors with interest in Laguna Beach?
[28:04] If so, will you identify those
[28:06] relationships, whether they were public
[28:07] disclosed, and if you took steps to
[28:09] avoid participating in city decisions
[28:13] to avoid conflicts of interest? You have
[28:15] 60 seconds, but that I know it's a long
[28:17] question.
[28:17] >> That's a lot. So I have not I have
[28:19] recused myself from any matters having
[28:21] to do with any one of those entities. My
[28:24] wife has worked at 70° and some of the
[28:26] adjacent properties that were once under
[28:28] my partnerships ownership since 2000 and
[28:31] she has worked continually at those same
[28:34] projects and properties ever since
[28:38] throughout different ownerships
[28:39] including a series of uh what they call
[28:44] receiverhips. Uh and she still works
[28:46] there today.
[28:50] Okay. Um, follow-up question. As mayor,
[28:54] you are the exeicio board member of the
[28:55] FOA, the Festival of Arts, which was
[28:57] directly involved in the Hanukkah
[28:59] dispute over terra operating at the FOA.
[29:02] That dispute ultimately affected
[29:03] operations at the FOA, including its
[29:05] ability to have a permanent restaurant
[29:07] on site, not sell alcohol, and host
[29:09] events. An unlawful detainer filed by
[29:12] the FOA in February against Mo and Tara
[29:14] Lagona was rejected and adjudicated
[29:16] fully in favor of Mo and Terara Laguna,
[29:18] resulting in the FO having to pay
[29:20] damages and attorneys fee agency claims.
[29:22] There is also an ongoing dispute between
[29:24] FOA and MOAR Laguna over their back
[29:26] taxes owed to the ABC that's liquor
[29:28] establishment during the period that Mo
[29:31] was in effect forcibly barred from
[29:33] entering and operating his own
[29:35] restaurant. It has since been
[29:37] adjudicated that terror was never part
[29:38] of that continuum analytics mom deal
[29:41] entanglement and that the force shutdown
[29:43] of terror was in fact wrongful. Most
[29:46] recently, the 2026 Taste of Laguna was
[29:48] cancelled because of the unresolved ABC
[29:50] licensing issues, meaning that the FOA
[29:53] effectively lost its ability to sell and
[29:55] serve alcohol. question. Given you and
[29:58] your wife's relationship with parties
[29:59] connected to these disputes, what role,
[30:02] if any, did you play in FOA decisions
[30:04] involving terror and Mohaner and you did
[30:07] you ever recuse yourself or disclose the
[30:09] conflict of interest?
[30:10] >> I think it's important to understand the
[30:12] role of guests. I am uh as all mayors
[30:15] are appointed to the board of the FOA. I
[30:18] think that's important to understand
[30:20] what happens. I go there, I give an
[30:22] update. I'm the first speaker at every
[30:24] board meeting. usually takes me no
[30:26] longer than five or 10 minutes and then
[30:28] I leave the room. I'm not a party to any
[30:31] further discussions
[30:33] non-stop. Period.
[30:35] >> Okay. So, you're representing today that
[30:37] you had no involvement in a publication
[30:40] whatsoever.
[30:41] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, question
[30:43] for Alex. After election 22 2022, you've
[30:47] gained employment as a development
[30:49] analyst with related California, the
[30:51] affordable housing developer now
[30:52] involved in NCC project. Currently, you
[30:54] are employed with City Ventures, also a
[30:56] housing developer. Both of these
[30:58] employments raised questions regarding
[31:00] possible conflict of interest while
[31:02] serving on city council on matters
[31:04] pertaining to housing and development in
[31:05] Laguna. There has also been talk
[31:08] suggesting that you have already met
[31:09] with potential housing developers to the
[31:11] Providence Mission Hospital site at a
[31:13] time when residents are still very
[31:15] concerned about losing their local
[31:16] hospital. are question, how will you
[31:19] ensure that your employment or loyalties
[31:22] will not conflict with your civic
[31:23] council obligations? And number two, how
[31:26] can you reassure residents that your
[31:27] pro-ousing development employment will
[31:29] not impact your obligation to look out
[31:31] for the best interest of Laguna
[31:33] residents and not developers? You have
[31:35] 60 seconds.
[31:36] >> I meant a little bit more. I I
[31:37] appreciate the question. I think that so
[31:39] I would uh when I was elected, I worked
[31:41] for supervisor Foley at the county and I
[31:43] didn't want to keep working at the city
[31:45] and the county. I felt like I'd become a
[31:46] part of the system. So I worked for
[31:48] Related California on projects in LA,
[31:51] nothing in Orange County. When um the
[31:54] project was definitely moving forward, I
[31:55] left employment there. I moved to a
[31:57] different company, City Ventures, that
[31:59] does for sale town home projects. And
[32:01] what's really important is that as you
[32:03] said, Jennifer, beginning of your
[32:04] question, the perception of conflict is
[32:06] just as bad as as a legal conflict
[32:08] itself. And so I made the decision to
[32:11] recuse myself throughout the whole
[32:12] process, even beyond the one-year uh
[32:14] timeline that's required by statute. And
[32:17] I think that was important. I wasn't
[32:18] involved at all in that project, as you
[32:20] know. Um and then as it relates to the
[32:22] hospital, I I uh that is uh my number
[32:26] one priority. We've been working with
[32:28] the attorney general's office to protect
[32:29] emergency access to care. I really think
[32:31] the stakes cannot be higher. It's a
[32:33] matter of life or death. and we um have
[32:36] not been meeting with any developers and
[32:38] would and um because at the end of the
[32:41] day it's about emergency access to care.
[32:43] So I I wouldn't I really take public
[32:45] safety seriously
[32:47] and think one of the problems in our
[32:49] country is the perception of of self
[32:51] dealing and so while I work in the
[32:53] private sector which I think actually
[32:55] makes me a better council member I go
[32:56] above and beyond to make sure there are
[32:58] no legal conflicts or no perceptions
[33:00] conflicts.
[33:00] >> Okay. Thank you. Um other candidates and
[33:02] we'll start with Karen. What actions
[33:04] will you take to ensure residents that
[33:06] if elected, you will serve in a lawful,
[33:08] ethical, and professional manner and
[33:10] avoid even the appearance of selfdeing?
[33:12] 30 seconds.
[33:15] >> I will confer with the city attorney,
[33:19] but I'll also confer with my own
[33:21] attorneys to make sure that there are no
[33:23] conflicts.
[33:25] >> Thank you, Joy. You're right. There's a
[33:28] fine line between perception and
[33:30] reality. And so I think that there's any
[33:33] conflict. You need to come very
[33:35] transparent, clean, and share
[33:36] everything. Thanks.
[33:38] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[33:39] >> Yeah, I mean, the job is to serve the
[33:42] residents of Laguna Beach, and um I need
[33:44] to be transparent as possible as being a
[33:46] city official and make sure that there
[33:48] is no conflict ever.
[33:49] >> Thank you, Laura. Um, I would make sure
[33:53] that that any anything that I do is
[33:56] disclosed and would not um enter into an
[34:00] agreement that that would have either
[34:01] the appearance or um a direct
[34:04] conference.
[34:05] >> Thank you.
[34:06] >> For me, it's a life experience where I
[34:09] was in front of a federal judge of 30
[34:11] years spoke to him nine lawyer opposing
[34:14] lawyers on the other side and the
[34:16] federal judge resigned 30 days later.
[34:19] So, I stand up for justice and I stand
[34:23] up for who I'm defending that day was
[34:26] myself and other people. So, that's the
[34:29] type of person you need at city council.
[34:32] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um, oh, Nick,
[34:35] I apologize.
[34:37] >> All good. Yeah. Uh, the, you know, the
[34:39] role as a city council member is to
[34:40] serve the public and so any conflict of
[34:42] interest needs to be cleared out and you
[34:44] don't want to have any of those issues.
[34:46] So, I think being transparent is
[34:48] extremely important. Okay, thank you.
[34:49] Next question. Um, we're talking about
[34:52] the NCC project St. Hanss. The city
[34:54] recently approved substantial financial
[34:56] assistance related to California's 29
[34:57] unit affordable housing unit at NC NCC.
[35:01] Related California is a major developer
[35:03] with 21,000 housing units in California
[35:05] and 13 billion in assets. The city was
[35:08] not required to provide baning, but it
[35:11] did. They approved a 50-year 2.5 million
[35:16] matched by the state at 3% in a third
[35:20] security position on a leasehold
[35:23] interest. Many residents strongly
[35:25] debrief the loan itself and also
[35:27] question the loan terms and financial
[35:29] risk concerned that Laguna taxpayers are
[35:31] not adequately protected if the project
[35:33] encounters financial problems. The fact
[35:35] that the ask was 8.25 25 and the city
[35:38] only approved 6.71 including the fee
[35:41] waver etc is not really considered a win
[35:44] by most residents.
[35:47] Finally, residents have questions
[35:48] regarding the emergency nature of the
[35:50] approval process and that it failed to
[35:52] adequately address and allow time for
[35:54] discussions on public safety, fire
[35:56] safety, parking, evacuation, traffic
[35:58] congestion, view privacy, residential
[35:59] neighborhood among other things.
[36:01] Question for all candidates. We'll start
[36:03] with uh Joy. Do you think the loan
[36:05] amount in terms was a good deal for the
[36:07] city and taxpayers? Do you support using
[36:09] taxpayer funds to fund privately
[36:11] developed affordable housing?
[36:16] I mean, we shouldn't feel sorry for this
[36:18] multi-billion dollar company. No, I
[36:20] mean, we should not have spent more than
[36:22] one. We should not have given more than
[36:24] one cent beyond the $2.5 million match
[36:27] from the state. The state said they'd
[36:30] give us two and a half if we matched the
[36:31] two and a half, but we went above and
[36:33] beyond. And I'm not supportive of what
[36:35] what my big concern is. We didn't see
[36:37] the capital stack. So I don't know what
[36:39] this developer even contributed if there
[36:41] was a dollar. And so I know this whole
[36:44] thing about affordable housing, people
[36:45] are making billions of dollars off of it
[36:48] and um until we really underwrite the
[36:51] deal, we shouldn't be giving a dollar.
[36:54] >> Thank you, Nasha.
[36:56] Yeah, I mean I don't know the full
[36:59] extent of the deal, but when I just look
[37:00] at the math, it doesn't make sense. I
[37:02] mean, it's a 30,000 foot property. We're
[37:04] only getting 20 some odd 27 29 units out
[37:07] of it. The the density just doesn't make
[37:10] sense for how much money was given. Um
[37:12] so, as I said, I don't know the full um
[37:15] full details of that deal, but the math
[37:17] does not make sense, and we should not
[37:19] be using taxpayer dollars at all for
[37:21] affordable housing. Okay, Lauren,
[37:23] >> I don't like using taxpayer dollars for
[37:25] affordable housing, but I would need to
[37:27] study the issue more. Okay, thank you,
[37:29] Ed.
[37:30] >> I don't know the details of the
[37:32] financial deal of that, but there are
[37:34] monies available from the state.
[37:36] >> Okay. Thank you, Mark.
[37:38] >> Just to be clear, all that money coming
[37:39] from the state, it's taxpayer dollars.
[37:42] So, I don't like it and I think, you
[37:45] know, a lot of your questions are good
[37:46] and there's a lot of context. I think
[37:48] that it would be beneficial for the
[37:50] community to understand, especially when
[37:52] it comes to the NCC and that's an SB4
[37:55] project and I think the community needs
[37:57] to remember that a developer could have
[37:59] come in and plop down a giant five-story
[38:02] building there and that was a
[38:03] consideration for the city council when
[38:06] we were negotiating that property. We
[38:08] were in fact cognizant of the fact and
[38:10] concerned of the fact that we're going
[38:12] to end up with a project that would have
[38:14] had a visual in a lot of our opinions of
[38:17] extremely negative impact on our
[38:19] community.
[38:20] >> Understand? Just wanted to respond to
[38:21] that. So you're talking about the
[38:22] builder's revenue. Correct.
[38:24] >> Uh no, it had to do with SB4.
[38:26] >> Okay. Thank you. S
[38:27] >> and that that's the kind of context I
[38:29] think these are the kind of
[38:30] conversations we should be having.
[38:32] >> Thank you S.
[38:33] >> Yeah, that was a good clarification. It
[38:34] is. You know, I I'm not a fan of putting
[38:36] money into affordable housing either,
[38:38] but we were in a we playing defense and
[38:40] we didn't want to we can you imagine the
[38:42] outcry we would have had if the church
[38:43] went ahead and got a a big another
[38:45] developer and had a big building there.
[38:47] People would have been outraged and it
[38:49] was as as a case. The neighbors were
[38:51] very upset about the affordable housing
[38:53] until we got to the 29 units and nobody
[38:55] complained. So, I think we got to a
[38:58] point where it was, you know,
[38:59] satisfactory to the community.
[39:01] >> Thank you, Alex.
[39:03] for the reasons outlined in the previous
[39:05] question. I I didn't participate in
[39:07] this, so I I wouldn't be able to speak
[39:08] to it because I didn't review the the
[39:09] the information. Um, and so I I don't
[39:12] have an answer to that on that. But as I
[39:14] said before, I think extending the
[39:16] ground lease, extending the the option
[39:18] for the Vista lease of senior housing
[39:20] makes a lot of sense. That's 70 units,
[39:22] the biggest senior housing in town, and
[39:23] we could give Rena for an extension.
[39:26] >> Thank you, Nick.
[39:27] >> Yeah, I think the problem here, and they
[39:28] didn't bring it up, is that why was
[39:30] there uh why were we given less than
[39:32] 24hour notice? When I had understood it
[39:34] was because there was a deadline that
[39:36] the developer had to meet. Well, if the
[39:38] developer didn't meet that deadline,
[39:39] then we have to wait until April of the
[39:41] following year. Well, that sounds like
[39:43] their problem, not our problem. And we
[39:45] could have had them wait. So, we gave
[39:46] them concessions on something that we
[39:48] didn't have to. We could have given them
[39:50] they could have taken more time. That
[39:52] was their problem. And if they if it was
[39:55] a date that just came out of nowhere,
[39:56] no, I think that date was on the
[39:57] schedule. We knew in the timeline of
[39:59] when this was going to happen, they
[40:00] could we could have had could have had
[40:02] more time if the city was more prepared
[40:04] and if they the city wasn't prepared for
[40:06] that date then push it till the next
[40:08] year. That's the developers issue.
[40:09] >> Thank you Karen.
[40:13] I think Mark's um comment about context
[40:16] is very important and I think that's one
[40:19] of the reasons why many of us are
[40:20] running is because there's a lack of
[40:22] transparency and there's a lack of
[40:24] understanding how the money gets spent
[40:26] and um as Joy said she'd like to see the
[40:31] capital stack. We need to have
[40:33] transparency and I think that needs to
[40:34] be on the dashboard on the website. Some
[40:37] cities actually have this. They they
[40:40] have their major projects. You click on
[40:42] it and you automatically see it.
[40:44] >> Thank you, Joy.
[40:48] >> Oh, you have Okay, good. We've come full
[40:49] circle. Um, quick question for Ashley.
[40:53] Um, at the last forum, you criticize the
[40:55] current council as being reactive rather
[40:57] than planning ahead. You also said that
[41:00] the council is heading toward a deficit
[41:02] without a long-term financial plan while
[41:04] looking to raise taxes. As an example,
[41:06] you said a proposed gross receipt sales
[41:08] tax would cost your restaurant more than
[41:10] $100,000 annually. Can you please expand
[41:12] on these statements and where do you
[41:14] believe the city's current financial
[41:16] planning is falling short and what would
[41:17] you do to fix it? 30 seconds.
[41:23] [laughter]
[41:24] Um I mean this current question about
[41:27] St. Ans, but it's re re uh reactionary,
[41:29] right? The ER is reactionary. every
[41:32] decision when it comes to spending has
[41:33] been very reactionary and so then that's
[41:35] why we're spending more than we need to
[41:38] um and not being transparent or
[41:39] following the budget with that. Um right
[41:42] now the issue is we have a deficit right
[41:45] and so the deficit needs to be solved by
[41:48] current revenues and not just kicked up
[41:50] every single year which is what is going
[41:52] to be happening. We need to be planning
[41:53] 5 10 15 years from now. Um and we need
[41:57] to be looking at diversifying the
[41:58] revenue. It can't just be property
[42:00] taxes. That is 60% of our current
[42:02] revenue of the general fund. So, trying
[42:05] to circle what I would do. We have to we
[42:07] have to um find ways to cut or cut our
[42:09] expenses because we don't have enough
[42:11] revenue coming in right now.
[42:12] >> Thank you, Laura.
[42:16] >> Can you repeat the question?
[42:16] >> Oh, I'm sorry. That was an Ashley only
[42:18] question. I'm going to stop it right
[42:19] there. Okay. Next question.$und00
[42:21] million bond for railing infrastructure.
[42:24] Um,
[42:26] Alex, I believe in 2024 you said public
[42:28] frustration with government stems in
[42:30] part from government failing to deliver
[42:31] on the basics. You have emphasized that
[42:33] Laguna's aging infrastructure, deferred
[42:35] maintenance, sewer problems, and the
[42:37] need to make major investments in the
[42:39] basic city infrastructure. In a recent,
[42:41] you shouldn't be so vocal, but I like
[42:43] that you are. Um, in a recent Coastal
[42:45] Living podcast, you stated that the city
[42:47] will be taking on a new bond to the tune
[42:51] of hund00 million as an affirmative
[42:53] statement to address these needs. During
[42:55] your term on council, the city has
[42:57] committed tens of millions of dollars
[42:58] for property acquisitions, housing and
[43:00] land trust initiatives, prominade, and
[43:02] other non-essential projects outside of
[43:04] basic infrastructure. This raises a
[43:06] question about this city's council
[43:08] spending priorities, city council
[43:11] spending priorities. Question for Alex
[43:13] and then question for the new
[43:14] candidates. If our infrastructure has
[43:16] been neglected to the point that you
[43:18] believe the city will need a hund00
[43:19] million bond to fix it. Why wasn't
[43:21] maintaining that infrastructure given
[43:23] priority over with these other
[43:24] expenditures? And number two, why should
[43:27] taxpayers be asked to take on a hundred
[43:29] million in debt for infrastructure that
[43:31] the city failed to plan and budget for?
[43:34] >> Okay. So, I think that you were when you
[43:36] were at first I didn't know what you
[43:37] were talking about. you're referring to
[43:38] the hund00 million um investments in our
[43:40] sewer system that need to take place.
[43:42] >> That that's what you're referring to.
[43:44] And so those that the rate that's based
[43:46] on the rates and so we get low interest
[43:48] financing to pay for it. It's not a bond
[43:50] that's going to add to people's tax
[43:51] base. That's just basically the rates
[43:53] that exist and paying for our
[43:55] infrastructure including our sewer
[43:56] system is incredibly important. So it's
[43:58] money that we already have. We actually
[43:59] have not done a good job on execution of
[44:00] our CIP for sewer. So I have what we're
[44:03] we have a we're looking at the
[44:04] organization of that. I can talk about
[44:06] that further. And then water. The the
[44:08] one thing that's really exciting about
[44:09] what we've done is we have 100% imported
[44:12] water right now. Last year as mayor, I
[44:14] worked with council member camp and we
[44:15] negotiated a deal with Newport Beach in
[44:17] Fountain Valley that will allow for 2/3
[44:19] of our water supply to come from local
[44:21] groundwater saving half a million
[44:23] dollars a year. So that that I think is
[44:24] a very important thing in addition to to
[44:26] do desalination.
[44:28] >> Okay. Uh thank you. Uh just to clarify
[44:30] then the city council will not be asking
[44:34] to float a bond of hund00 million to fix
[44:37] our failing infrastructure. Is that
[44:38] correct?
[44:39] >> Yeah, that that's correct. What you're
[44:40] referring to is the sewer master plan
[44:42] which is funded by the rate payers and
[44:43] low interest finance.
[44:44] >> Okay. Glad to hear that.
[44:45] >> Thank you. Thanks for the clarification.
[44:46] >> Um, new candidates. I'm going to forego
[44:49] that question because it looks like we
[44:50] don't have to worry about it. I'm happy
[44:51] to hear it. Okay. Um, Alex and Karen,
[44:55] we'll start with Karen. Um, well, Alex,
[44:58] in the Internet Marketing Association
[44:59] interview, you said you wanted to make
[45:00] sure teachers and police officers could
[45:02] live in Laguna Beach where they work.
[45:05] Karen, at the last debate, you suggested
[45:07] using part of the private hospital for
[45:09] workforce housing if the hospital could
[45:11] not be saved. Many residents spent much
[45:14] of their working lives commuting because
[45:16] they could not afford to live in the
[45:17] communities where they worked or in
[45:19] communities where they would have
[45:20] preferred to live. They saved, made
[45:22] financial tradeoffs, worked hard to
[45:24] eventually be able to afford where they
[45:26] wanted to live. That raises a broader
[45:29] philosophical question about the proper
[45:31] role of government. Question for Karen
[45:34] and Alex. Let's start with Karen. Apart
[45:36] from what the state housing mandate
[45:38] requires, is it your position that
[45:40] Laguna Beach taxpayers have an
[45:42] obligation to subsidize housing so
[45:44] people who work here get to live here?
[45:47] Number one. Number two,
[45:50] who qualifies? How much should taxpayers
[45:53] subsidize? Who gets to live there? And
[45:54] for how long?
[45:58] >> 30 seconds.
[45:59] >> In 30 seconds.
[46:01] [laughter]
[46:03] Um,
[46:05] so the I want to clarify what I said
[46:07] about the hospital was that it was part
[46:09] of our housing element. Um, I I don't
[46:12] think I use the term workforce housing.
[46:14] So I don't know where that came from,
[46:16] but the the hospital property is part of
[46:18] our housing element. Um, so there are
[46:21] it's zoned for it. So to answer your
[46:25] question about subsidies, I've already
[46:27] said I don't think taxpayers need to
[46:29] subsidize for affordable housing. I do
[46:32] want to clarify that I think we
[46:34] absolutely need affordable housing. And
[46:38] what what I advocate for is mixed you
[46:42] mixed income housing because when you
[46:45] build for instance for sale condos along
[46:49] with affordable housing you can pay for
[46:52] that project. Um you can pay for those
[46:56] affordable units. I've I've worked on
[46:58] projects like that in Irvine and I so
[47:02] that that's that's where that's okay.
[47:04] Thank you. Who who are the lucky people
[47:05] who get to live there? Um so so that's a
[47:09] good question and that is um dependent
[47:11] on how the entitlement process works but
[47:14] in in that case um it's it's also based
[47:19] on the city's
[47:22] u inclusionary housing ordinance and
[47:26] right now I'm um I think that needs to
[47:29] be worked out here.
[47:30] >> Okay. Thank you. Alex, same question.
[47:32] >> Yeah. And just to clarify that the the
[47:34] it's not the whole hospital that that
[47:36] it's the the back thankfully the
[47:39] hospital is zoned institutional. So the
[47:40] only there's no by red uses for a
[47:43] hospital. So just to clarify that um and
[47:47] you know Karen and I worked on that
[47:48] anyway. So um the the other question
[47:51] okay so uh for police officers and
[47:54] teachers that was whether they should
[47:57] live
[47:58] >> or anyone who works here has to live.
[48:00] Well, I don't think that anyone that
[48:01] works here gets to live here. I think it
[48:03] goes back to common sense principles
[48:05] like what what I described as it relates
[48:06] to second story residential on Coast
[48:08] Highway. You already can do second story
[48:11] commercial. So, why not make it where we
[48:13] could do second story housing in the
[48:15] same building envelope? Those are going
[48:17] to be smaller units naturally more
[48:18] affordable. And who gets to decide?
[48:20] That's for the market to decide.
[48:22] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um question
[48:25] for all candidates. Um during the city
[48:27] council's term, Laguna's retail vacancy
[48:30] has risen approximately 8% significantly
[48:32] higher than just a few years ago and
[48:34] higher than any other OC city. Empty
[48:36] historic rents like Gellson's and most
[48:38] recently Los Arena affect the fatality
[48:40] of our commercial districts, city
[48:41] revenues, and the overall experience for
[48:42] residents and visitors. Um for all
[48:45] candidates, what do you believe is
[48:46] driving the high commercial vacancy rate
[48:48] and what actions would you take? Let's
[48:50] start with Ashley.
[48:53] >> H not enough time. Um but what's driving
[48:56] it is um a lot of the landlords are
[49:00] private individuals, right? And so even
[49:03] when I went and looked at photo sushi,
[49:05] they didn't um it's brokers aren't as
[49:08] very active, right? Like I just stumbled
[49:09] upon it. And so I think that there's
[49:11] multiple things. It's the awareness of
[49:13] the vacancies. It's the upkeep of a lot
[49:16] of the buildings. Um and it's greatly
[49:19] hurting obviously our economy, right?
[49:20] And so we have so much money leaving
[49:22] Laguna that before taxing residents, we
[49:24] need to be able to fill these vacancies
[49:26] and we get more sales tax revenue. And I
[49:27] think the city can do a job of
[49:29] partnering with the um with the
[49:31] landlords to be able to make it easier
[49:34] from a codebased standpoint to upgrade a
[49:36] lot of the buildings because that's a
[49:38] huge issue is why they don't give TI
[49:40] improvement. Sorry.
[49:41] >> Thank you. No, no problem. I know it's a
[49:43] tight time frame. Laura,
[49:45] >> I think that the vacancies are primarily
[49:48] of the rents are higher here. It it it's
[49:51] hard to make a living with the the level
[49:54] of rents and many of the landlords are
[50:01] how I say it. Um,
[50:05] properties have been in families for
[50:06] years, so their cost basis is low. It
[50:09] doesn't it doesn't hurt them to hold
[50:11] properties. Um,
[50:15] the rents. Thank you, Ed.
[50:19] >> I think the landlords drive the rents.
[50:22] Um whether they're long-term landlords
[50:24] or short new landlords,
[50:28] square footage is higher here, but the
[50:30] city could work better if they spend
[50:33] more time talking to the landlords,
[50:36] develop a relationship, and also
[50:39] getting work done through the city. It
[50:41] seems like it's gotten better, but but
[50:44] the city should communicate more with
[50:46] the landlords.
[50:47] >> Okay. Thank you, Mark.
[50:49] >> This is again where context matters. So,
[50:51] we do have an economic development
[50:53] effort being managed out of the city
[50:55] manager's office and we do meet with the
[50:58] landlords and potential tenants. We do
[51:00] the best we can. As it's been mentioned
[51:01] here, there are a lot of longtime
[51:03] building owners that are difficult and
[51:05] not that interested in taking immediate
[51:07] action to rent out their spaces.
[51:09] Although the numbers that you just met
[51:11] that 8% I think we need to verify that.
[51:13] Remember that includes the Gellison's
[51:15] and the the shack those the shack is now
[51:19] full. I mean those are big spaces. Most
[51:21] of our spaces are quite boutique and you
[51:23] know small in town. So it distorts the
[51:27] percentage is my point. So
[51:29] >> thank you Sue.
[51:30] >> Yeah Mark is 100% right about that. it
[51:32] does skew the numbers but you know I've
[51:35] called personally called a lot of
[51:36] landlords and you know the landlords
[51:39] both the landlords and the property
[51:40] management companies are very difficult
[51:43] to work with I I find it astounding
[51:44] really that these property management
[51:46] people don't return calls and you'd
[51:49] think that they'd be anxious to build
[51:50] their spaces but they don't particularly
[51:52] they seem to be pretty lackadasical
[51:53] about it not only that the rents are
[51:56] exceedingly high and you know I know one
[51:59] restaurant their their rent is $36,000 a
[52:02] So, I don't know how anybody expects
[52:04] people to make money with rents like
[52:05] that and that's not atypical high rents
[52:08] in town.
[52:09] >> Thank you, Alex.
[52:11] >> Yeah, I think the biggest role the city
[52:12] can play is make it really easy and
[52:14] predictable and streamlined for people
[52:16] to open businesses here. One of the
[52:18] challenges has been that the process and
[52:20] the timelines, weight sandwiches, it
[52:21] took three years for them to open the
[52:23] parking requirements that they needed 14
[52:25] parking spaces. When you look at that
[52:26] for the lot, that would basically mean
[52:28] demolishing the whole building. It's
[52:30] it's impractical. So cutting the parking
[52:32] requirements is important, going to
[52:33] blended parking, but then also AI plan
[52:35] check. We just implemented a pilot
[52:37] program. If we could get to a point
[52:38] where where it takes an eight hour
[52:40] process and it turns into a lot shorter,
[52:42] if we get to a point where businesses
[52:44] could open within 15 days, imagine what
[52:46] kind kind of businesses would want to
[52:48] open here.
[52:48] >> Thank you, Nick.
[52:49] >> Thank you.
[52:50] >> Yeah, I'd go on to what Alex said. I
[52:51] think it's a little bit of what
[52:52] everybody actually said, but you know,
[52:55] when it's over three years and it's not
[52:56] predictable, it's not going to be
[52:58] attractive to a lot of business owners.
[53:00] So you've got the landlords, you've got
[53:01] the red tape, you've got parking, you
[53:02] got downtown action plan for the tenant
[53:04] mix. I mean, right now we see bad policy
[53:07] means we get a bunch of coffee shops and
[53:09] ice cream places and if we don't improve
[53:11] all of our documents and we don't, you
[53:13] know, open up to communication like
[53:15] more, you know, it's interesting to hear
[53:16] from council member Kemp saying that we
[53:18] tried calling and they're they're not
[53:20] listening. So I don't know if that if we
[53:22] give up or we just need new voices.
[53:24] >> All right. Thank you. Karen, did I start
[53:25] with you? Have you answered yet?
[53:26] >> No, I haven't.
[53:27] >> Okay, go ahead. Um, so I think the case
[53:31] that land landlords are locked in.
[53:33] They're they're not they're not going to
[53:35] sell as to Laura's point. But I also
[53:38] wrote down property management
[53:40] companies. I mean, I think that
[53:42] landlords are disconnected from what
[53:44] their property management companies are
[53:46] doing and [clears throat] that's adding
[53:47] to a lot of problems.
[53:49] >> Thank you, Joy. Unfortunately, the grief
[53:52] factor has set in on a bunch of these
[53:54] land owners and I think what we need to
[53:56] do is inventory of a vacancies and
[53:59] figure out some adaptive reuses and try
[54:01] to incentivize a streamline process to
[54:04] um revitalize, reuse their their space
[54:07] into something different.
[54:08] >> Okay. Thank you. This is for the
[54:10] incumbents uh deal with St. Catherine's.
[54:12] Um we know that there was um a seismic
[54:14] deadline uh with the hospital expiring
[54:16] in 2030. We also know there was a
[54:18] 10-year emergency or a 10-year uh
[54:22] requirement by the state to stay at the
[54:24] hospital that Bob Whan just wrote about
[54:27] in his letter to the editor in the
[54:28] recent paper.
[54:31] Obviously, the council knew about these
[54:32] deadlines. Why didn't we wait? Why did
[54:35] the city council wait until March of
[54:38] this year to form a hospital action
[54:40] plan? Why was the city council so late
[54:43] in responding to hospital concerns that
[54:46] we knew were coming down the pipe? Let's
[54:48] start with Sue.
[54:50] >> Well, I mean, the only way I can answer
[54:52] that question is so we've had a number
[54:54] of times we requested that Providence
[54:57] come into the council meeting and give
[54:58] us an update and they're always pretty
[55:01] vague and we didn't get anything solid
[55:03] from them until recently. And when we
[55:05] found that out, then we we put a
[55:07] subcommittee together and I'm pretty and
[55:09] I think for the council we an excellent
[55:10] subcommittee. Good choice in Bob and
[55:13] Alex. I think, you know, I'm not part of
[55:15] the subcommittee, so I only know what I
[55:17] read in the newspaper, but um I think
[55:20] we'll find a I think we're going to find
[55:21] a good solution, but I don't know how
[55:26] I don't know how I'm going to say this
[55:27] in a necessarily. I don't know how
[55:28] upfront providence has been. It's just
[55:30] my
[55:31] >> Okay. Thank you, Alex.
[55:33] >> Yeah, this is something that feels like
[55:34] it's my third full-time job because the
[55:36] stakes couldn't be higher. We know that
[55:38] there is um in 2016 the attorney general
[55:40] found that there was a huge impact if
[55:42] this were to close. The data shows that
[55:44] the number of um emergency room visits
[55:46] have only gone up since then. So the
[55:48] question is what do we do? We've been
[55:49] working very closely with the attorney
[55:51] general's office. We actually found a
[55:53] document where um for the chalk radi
[55:57] children's merger that involved a 2034
[56:00] deadline where this this ER needs to be
[56:02] open. So we're looking into that right
[56:03] now. We're also looked um you know we've
[56:06] had meetings with Providence the land
[56:07] use the land use as I said earlier is no
[56:10] by right uses meaning the city would
[56:11] need to do an amendment to its local
[56:13] coastal plan I feel very strongly that
[56:14] we are going to be in a position to
[56:16] protect emergency access because I think
[56:18] that it is the right thing to do and um
[56:20] there would be a devastating impact for
[56:22] the entire community
[56:23] >> okay thank you this is for new
[56:24] candidates only St. Catherine's was
[56:26] purchased for 23 million presented as an
[56:29] opportunity for community and
[56:30] recreational use. Many residents now
[56:32] believe it simply has become City Hall
[56:34] South with ocean views. What do you
[56:37] believe the city should do with St.
[56:39] Catherine's? Let's start with Nick.
[56:44] >> Well, we originally purchased it to be
[56:45] part of to be a community center. So, it
[56:48] needs to be that we need to be investing
[56:49] in it. We need to be working with the
[56:50] recreation committee and making sure
[56:53] that it's a community community good.
[56:55] Whether it's making sure that the the
[56:57] soccer field or the grass field is
[56:59] actually that and not just a parking
[57:00] lot. Whether it's making sure that the
[57:02] community can use the gym time and if we
[57:04] need to make it free, make it free. But
[57:06] if the community in improving the
[57:08] communication, make sure that the
[57:09] community knows that that's a a an asset
[57:12] that we have. And I think the city has
[57:14] failed uh the residents on communicating
[57:16] that that that's a you know place that
[57:18] we have.
[57:19] >> Okay. Thank you, Nick. Karen.
[57:22] >> Yeah, I toured when when they first
[57:24] bought it, they did tours and um it was
[57:26] it was marketed as a community center
[57:29] and the gym and all that. Um and then as
[57:32] it as things as time went by, um that
[57:37] didn't happen. So other ideas popped up.
[57:40] And I do believe that I to be consistent
[57:42] I said that it could be a blended use
[57:45] and I think it could be both education
[57:48] and which could be part of the community
[57:51] center just like Susie.
[57:53] >> Okay. Thank you Joy.
[57:55] >> It's underutilized and we have a lot of
[57:57] recreation. It's called the beach and uh
[58:00] there's plenty of of of trails and
[58:02] hiking and mountain biking. So I you
[58:05] know it's a cost. We bought it. I think
[58:07] we should go out to the uh private
[58:09] industry and see if there's
[58:10] opportunities for developers to either
[58:12] make it into a for a mixed use of for
[58:14] sale and maybe some affordable housing
[58:17] or something else. But I don't think um
[58:21] it it it's just sitting there vacant and
[58:23] I think it's a waste of taxpayer money.
[58:24] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[58:26] >> Um because it was purchased with
[58:28] taxpayer money, then the residents have
[58:30] a choice of what it's turned into. And
[58:31] if we um we were told it was going to be
[58:34] a community center, then it needs to be
[58:35] a community center. it's going to change
[58:37] then it needs to go to the residents so
[58:38] they can decide.
[58:39] >> Thank you Lauren.
[58:40] >> I think we need to go back to what the
[58:42] taxpayers were told and um make it a
[58:44] community center. Um it would need to be
[58:47] that at this point needs to be some
[58:49] blended use but at least a portion of it
[58:51] needs to be a community center. Thank
[58:52] you. Okay.
[58:53] >> No one said anything, but presently the
[58:56] emergency operation center is being put
[59:00] there, but I recommended to the city to
[59:04] purchase a mobile command center, which
[59:06] would have been about 850,000. The city
[59:09] spent 850,000 setting up this emergency
[59:12] operations center already. The the the
[59:16] property was a gift from the Catholic
[59:18] Church. When we purchased it, it was
[59:21] worth double. and it's probably worth
[59:23] triple today. So, we should have a
[59:26] contest with the residents of the city
[59:28] of Laguna Beach and say, "Hey, what
[59:31] should we do with this property?"
[59:33] Because right now it's a it's a
[59:35] slashhybrid of a bunch of stuff. They
[59:38] just spent $850,000
[59:40] for an emergency operations center. I
[59:42] recommended a mobile command center. And
[59:44] the only reason why I did that is
[59:46] because of my business being in uh
[59:48] emergency communications and and dealing
[59:51] with hurricane Katrina and Hurricane
[59:54] Sandy and the Maui.
[59:55] >> Thank Thank you, Randy.
[59:56] >> So anyway,
[59:57] >> okay. Thank you. Um Okay. Well, uh this
[59:59] is for the incumbents. You know,
[1:00:01] residents like to talk and rumors have
[1:00:04] swirled that there is development of
[1:00:07] what being considered to convert St.
[1:00:09] captains together with Ruby Diner into a
[1:00:12] massive development project hotel
[1:00:15] housing rather
[1:00:17] very quickly can you reassure our
[1:00:20] residents that there is no such plan of
[1:00:22] foot and if that's an incorrect
[1:00:24] statement please let us know
[1:00:27] >> there is no such plan of foot although
[1:00:29] rubies did go up for sale and we did
[1:00:31] analyze um you know what the situation
[1:00:34] what with the rubies if there was a
[1:00:36] lease on it what the cost was in in the
[1:00:39] event there there was any potential
[1:00:41] opportunity there.
[1:00:42] >> Thank you, Sue.
[1:00:45] >> No, there's no plan. And um you know, Ed
[1:00:48] was right though. That property that we
[1:00:50] bought is worth a lot of money. Way
[1:00:52] worth way more than we paid for. It
[1:00:53] wasn't a gift from the church. But if
[1:00:55] you want to talk about a good deal being
[1:00:57] a good deal, that was that was a good
[1:00:58] deal.
[1:00:58] >> The pope gave you a gift.
[1:01:01] >> It took us a year to get it approved by
[1:01:03] the pope. No kidding. I mean, it had to
[1:01:04] go to the pope. Yeah, the poll was busy
[1:01:07] so it took a while. [laughter]
[1:01:10] >> Alex,
[1:01:12] >> I think Marvin who articulated the
[1:01:15] response. Well,
[1:01:16] >> okay. Um, I think most the committee
[1:01:18] agree that was a it's a hell of a ironic
[1:01:21] a very nice piece of property. We'd like
[1:01:24] to see it better utilized. Thank you.
[1:01:27] All right, moving forward. Um, let's
[1:01:30] see.
[1:01:32] Okay. Uh staff reports often seem like
[1:01:35] recommendations of what the city manager
[1:01:37] or the city council wants to hear and
[1:01:39] approve, not objective analysis and
[1:01:42] oftentimes it emits important
[1:01:43] information. Question for all. How do
[1:01:46] you hold staff more accountable to new
[1:01:47] objective analysis and would you support
[1:01:49] changes to staff reports so that rather
[1:01:51] than a quote staff recommendation,
[1:01:54] the staff reports instead provide
[1:01:56] objective options and pros and cons for
[1:01:59] consideration by the city council. Let's
[1:02:01] start with Joy.
[1:02:03] >> Yes, we did not elect our planning
[1:02:05] staff. They should not be coming to the
[1:02:07] conclusions and recommending decisions.
[1:02:10] They should have present comments.
[1:02:12] >> Thank you, Joy. Ashley.
[1:02:14] >> Yeah, I'm actually quite um surprised um
[1:02:17] of how little information um and
[1:02:19] one-sided information these reports are.
[1:02:21] It needs to be way more in depth for
[1:02:23] anybody to make a decision on. So, the
[1:02:25] entire format needs to change.
[1:02:26] >> Thank you, Lauren. Definitely an
[1:02:28] objective analysis and if need be
[1:02:30] putting together some training sessions.
[1:02:32] >> Thank you, Ed.
[1:02:33] >> Garbage in, garbage out and historical
[1:02:37] records are needed for not just two
[1:02:40] years but 10 years, 20 years.
[1:02:42] >> Well, we'll get to the retention policy
[1:02:43] in a second. Mark,
[1:02:44] >> can you restate the question?
[1:02:46] >> Sure. Um,
[1:02:48] how will you ensure I'm sorry, wrong
[1:02:50] question. How will you hold staff more
[1:02:52] accountable to do objective analysis?
[1:02:54] And would you support changes rather
[1:02:56] than staff recommendation that the staff
[1:02:58] reports instead provide objective
[1:03:00] options and procons?
[1:03:02] >> Yes, I would support objective options
[1:03:04] and procons. However, actually the point
[1:03:08] they are thorough. Our last binder that
[1:03:10] we just had for our council meeting was
[1:03:12] 10 inches thick. I don't know how much
[1:03:14] more information that we could possibly
[1:03:16] [laughter] consume.
[1:03:17] >> Thank you, Sue. I think too and people
[1:03:20] don't realize but when we get our
[1:03:21] binders sometimes before we get our
[1:03:23] binders we we meet with the city
[1:03:24] attorney we meet with the city manager
[1:03:26] we meet with staff we residents who have
[1:03:28] concerns so there's a lot of scrutiny on
[1:03:30] those staff reports and I have a lot of
[1:03:32] discussions to staff both after the
[1:03:35] staff report has been written with my
[1:03:37] comments or before
[1:03:39] >> thank you Alex
[1:03:40] >> yeah I ask a lot of a lot of hard
[1:03:42] questions to staff about the
[1:03:44] implications implications of different
[1:03:46] decisions I also like to look at
[1:03:48] trade-offs to your point, Jennifer, and
[1:03:50] um and in general, I think that we can
[1:03:51] always do better in terms of aligning
[1:03:54] our goals, our staff reports around the
[1:03:56] budget, which should as our memo
[1:03:58] recommended should be based on outcomes,
[1:04:00] not based on incrementalism. So, for
[1:04:01] every dollar dollar we spend, what are
[1:04:03] we getting out of it? How is it serving
[1:04:04] the residents?
[1:04:05] >> Thank you, Alex. Nick. Yeah, we need
[1:04:07] improvement in the staff reports whether
[1:04:09] it's multiple options, procons. Also,
[1:04:11] when they uh deliver the presentation,
[1:04:13] the presentation that you see on the
[1:04:14] screen is not usually what you've been
[1:04:15] able to see ahead of time. And um and
[1:04:18] then that goes back to your earlier
[1:04:20] question on making sure that the agendas
[1:04:23] come out earlier in the week.
[1:04:24] >> Thank you, Karen.
[1:04:26] Um I do think that the staff report
[1:04:28] needs to give very clearly the ability
[1:04:34] the the decision makers um what they can
[1:04:37] do. They can reject it, they can approve
[1:04:40] it or they can continue it. Um and then
[1:04:44] I do think that they they should not
[1:04:47] have um one resolution that is just for
[1:04:52] approval.
[1:04:54] >> Okay. Thank you. Um, this is a yes no
[1:04:56] question for all candidates. Um,
[1:05:00] many residents express frustration that
[1:05:03] the repeated application to serve on
[1:05:04] city committees are rejected even though
[1:05:07] they're wellqualified. And it appears
[1:05:09] that only those favored by the council
[1:05:11] are selected to serve on committees,
[1:05:12] often for long extended terms instead of
[1:05:14] rotating more qualified or other
[1:05:16] qualified residents. As a city council
[1:05:18] member, will you commit to ensure that
[1:05:21] all qualified applicants who volunteer
[1:05:24] serve on city committees and that they
[1:05:27] are rotated through and limited in term?
[1:05:29] Is that a yes or no, Ed?
[1:05:31] >> Yes.
[1:05:32] >> Yes. I think you noticed my last
[1:05:33] selection. The plan commissioners
[1:05:36] that
[1:05:36] >> Yes. Alex.
[1:05:38] >> Yes. Next.
[1:05:39] >> Yes.
[1:05:40] >> Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes.
[1:05:42] >> Okay. Thank you. Um All right. Document
[1:05:45] retention policy. Um, the city council
[1:05:48] continues to shorten retention periods
[1:05:49] for city records, resulting in the
[1:05:51] permanent destruction of records
[1:05:52] documenting city actions and historical
[1:05:54] city actions. Most recently, additional
[1:05:57] changes were made and they were slightly
[1:05:59] placed on the consent calendar with
[1:06:01] little public discussion. Once these
[1:06:03] records are destroyed, they can never be
[1:06:05] recovered and neither residents nor
[1:06:07] future councils can review that history.
[1:06:09] Number one, all for no, this is for the
[1:06:12] new candidates. How does shredding,
[1:06:13] deleting more city records benefit the
[1:06:16] residents or improve transparency,
[1:06:17] especially when digital storage is cheap
[1:06:20] and easy? And will you support will you
[1:06:23] review the current policy on retention?
[1:06:25] Uh let's start with Karen.
[1:06:29] >> Yes, this is one of my biggest issues.
[1:06:32] Um I can tell you that
[1:06:34] they've lost my plans for an approval
[1:06:37] that I received and um I had to come
[1:06:40] back. Thank God I kept my copies for my
[1:06:45] for my plans, my approved plans. I kept
[1:06:47] them in the garage and the job card
[1:06:51] because the city did not have that. And
[1:06:53] I'm not the first one. And I I found
[1:06:57] several on other projects where the job
[1:07:00] card was never entered into the system.
[1:07:02] And what I understand right now that
[1:07:04] problem is existing where the plans and
[1:07:08] the job cards are not are not getting
[1:07:11] into a system that we can look forward.
[1:07:14] >> Thank you Joy.
[1:07:16] >> Yes, we need better record keeping and
[1:07:18] and especially of the blueprints and all
[1:07:20] these drawings because people are
[1:07:22] changing them in the field and then we
[1:07:24] have nothing to go back and it's scary
[1:07:26] with you going to AI. We don't have like
[1:07:29] you Ed said garbage in garbage out. We
[1:07:31] got to be careful,
[1:07:33] >> Ashley.
[1:07:34] >> Yeah, I mean there um there's a ton of
[1:07:37] softwares out there that can easily do
[1:07:39] this for us. It needs to be a priority.
[1:07:41] I don't know why it hasn't been.
[1:07:43] >> Lauren, I would definitely support
[1:07:45] better record retention.
[1:07:47] >> Ed,
[1:07:49] >> recordkeeping got changed and it
[1:07:51] shouldn't have gotten changed. If
[1:07:52] anything, we should keep as much
[1:07:55] information as possible because at last
[1:07:58] night's city council meeting, they
[1:07:59] approved or beta test. I guess they're
[1:08:02] going to use AI. Well, if you use AI
[1:08:04] with two-year information, it's like
[1:08:06] garbage in garbage out. It's useless.
[1:08:09] >> Mark, a lot of a lot of opportunities to
[1:08:13] improve our record keeping.
[1:08:15] >> Thank you, Sue.
[1:08:17] >> Yeah, I agree. I mean, this is um is
[1:08:19] this a yes or no?
[1:08:20] >> It's a yes or no.
[1:08:22] Oh, apparently it's not when you get 30
[1:08:24] seconds. [laughter]
[1:08:27] >> Well, I mean, I know um we just we just
[1:08:30] had this comment on consent as you
[1:08:31] mentioned and I know there's a lot of
[1:08:32] scrutiny for the city city attorney as
[1:08:34] well. A lot of companies struggle this
[1:08:36] too in the private sector is document
[1:08:38] retention. It's it's a kind of a hard
[1:08:40] thing to figure out, but I hope we're
[1:08:41] doing it well.
[1:08:42] >> Alex,
[1:08:43] >> yeah, I went with our city clerk um to
[1:08:45] Newport Beach to look at how they do
[1:08:47] their records and there's a lot of legal
[1:08:48] issues at play. It's really not as
[1:08:50] simple as as the way that um as whether
[1:08:53] we want records or not. It's um you
[1:08:55] know, planning records are different
[1:08:56] than other types of records. So, it's
[1:08:58] something that we always have to be
[1:08:59] really um focused on in terms of having
[1:09:02] policies to comply with the law, protect
[1:09:03] the city's liability, but also ensure
[1:09:05] that important records are are retained.
[1:09:07] >> Okay. Thank you, Nick.
[1:09:09] >> Yes.
[1:09:09] >> Okay. Did I start with you, Karen? Have
[1:09:12] you have you answered that question? I
[1:09:13] did.
[1:09:14] >> Okay.
[1:09:15] >> Okay. Great. All right. Well, this
[1:09:16] worked well. We're going to delve into
[1:09:17] litigation exposure. Um, and as an
[1:09:19] attorney, I know that sometimes the
[1:09:21] emails can hang you and sometimes they
[1:09:23] can help you. But if you're the city and
[1:09:25] the government, we expect you to retain
[1:09:27] those records. Personally, that's a
[1:09:29] different issue. All right. Litigation
[1:09:31] exposure. Um, the city faces numerous
[1:09:34] lawsuits and claims, some involving
[1:09:35] substantial potential liability. In some
[1:09:37] cases, the city has had to pay out
[1:09:39] substantial damages. One of the largest
[1:09:41] pending lawsuits is Adorn's Rimrock
[1:09:43] Canyon area suit, which claims up to
[1:09:46] $149 million in damages involving a city
[1:09:48] issued RPR report showing purchase land
[1:09:51] is biddable buildable, which the city
[1:09:53] subsequently denied as being buildable.
[1:09:55] Recently, the city had to pay $2.5
[1:09:57] million involving a residential Pearl
[1:09:58] Street property even though the
[1:10:00] residents would have been happy to
[1:10:01] settle for less or even zero had the
[1:10:04] city corrected its error. Now, several
[1:10:07] additional claims, some alleging
[1:10:08] hundreds of millions of dollars, are
[1:10:10] expected to hit the city in the near
[1:10:12] future.
[1:10:14] When the city defends a claim that
[1:10:16] ultimately has merit or unsuccessfully
[1:10:19] appeals the matter it lost at trial, the
[1:10:22] city and by extension us, the taxpayers,
[1:10:24] can end up paying not only a big
[1:10:25] judgment or settlement, but years of
[1:10:27] legal fees and costs. Some residents
[1:10:29] believe that the city and this city
[1:10:30] council too often take a fight first
[1:10:32] approach and try to bully and intimidate
[1:10:34] claimants or cover up city mistakes
[1:10:37] rather than objectively evaluating the
[1:10:39] merits and financial risk of a case
[1:10:41] early enough to pursue a reasonable
[1:10:43] settlement question. This is for the new
[1:10:46] candidates.
[1:10:47] If elected, will you ensure that claims
[1:10:50] against the city are objectively
[1:10:51] evaluated early, including the city's
[1:10:54] likelihood of success and the potential
[1:10:56] cost to taxpayers? Number one. Number
[1:10:59] two, when a claim has substantial merit,
[1:11:03] will you support resolving it early
[1:11:05] rather than spending taxpayer dollars
[1:11:07] litigating it for years and risking a
[1:11:09] much larger judgment or settlement?
[1:11:10] Let's start with Ashley.
[1:11:12] Yes, it's all about that. Yes. Yeah.
[1:11:15] Laura.
[1:11:17] >> Uh, yes, definitely. Evaluate early and,
[1:11:20] uh, resolve quickly and expeditious.
[1:11:25] >> I re I wrote a letter to the city
[1:11:28] council recommending to hire an outside
[1:11:31] retired FBI agents to investigate
[1:11:35] an investment issue and other issues
[1:11:38] because there are things happening at
[1:11:40] the city that maybe even the city
[1:11:42] council is not aware of. So, they should
[1:11:45] hire outside FBI agents to investigate,
[1:11:49] do forensic of uh because they could get
[1:11:52] out of some of these lawsuits.
[1:11:53] >> Okay. Thank you, Mark. Oh, I'm sorry.
[1:11:56] This is only for the new candidates.
[1:11:57] Sorry. Uh Nick,
[1:11:58] >> yes,
[1:12:00] >> Karen.
[1:12:02] Yes,
[1:12:03] >> Joy.
[1:12:03] >> I can tell you're an attorney. You said
[1:12:05] it best. Yes, we should we should sit
[1:12:07] down and try to get um you know, resolve
[1:12:10] it early early on.
[1:12:12] >> Okay. Um thank you. And just a note to
[1:12:14] city council or city employees who may
[1:12:17] be living in city staff. I do we do no
[1:12:19] one denies that they work hard to put
[1:12:21] those staff reports together. The
[1:12:23] question that really arises is are they
[1:12:25] objective or are they predetermined with
[1:12:29] an outcome and then they find the facts
[1:12:30] to fit it. That's the question. Okay.
[1:12:33] All right. Um thank you all. We have a
[1:12:35] number of questions but we're not going
[1:12:37] to get them all because we're trying to
[1:12:38] get you out of here by nine o'clock. We
[1:12:39] appreciate that you've been here um for
[1:12:41] almost three hours. that we have at
[1:12:43] closing. Um, oh, we had some candidate
[1:12:45] to candidate questions. Let's take those
[1:12:48] really quick. There's one that's
[1:12:49] important and I'm sure I'm not going to
[1:12:51] be able to get to the other ones, but
[1:12:52] the candid candidate questions. Um, let
[1:12:54] me go ahead and I'll just do this.
[1:12:55] Civility. Okay. As candidates for city
[1:12:58] council, each of you signed the
[1:12:59] California code of fair campaign
[1:13:02] practices pledging not to use or permit
[1:13:04] character defamation, whispering
[1:13:06] campaigns, liel, slander, or scurless
[1:13:08] attacks on other candidates. The code
[1:13:10] goes further and it says that candidates
[1:13:12] shall pledge to immediately and publicly
[1:13:14] repudiate support from any individual or
[1:13:17] group that uses these tactics on their
[1:13:19] behalf. Unfortunately, the beach
[1:13:22] politics have become increasingly
[1:13:23] contentious. It is our understanding
[1:13:26] that all of the new candidates running
[1:13:29] for city council have experienced
[1:13:30] bullying or other aggressive and
[1:13:33] scurless attacks from the incumbents and
[1:13:35] or their allies during this election
[1:13:37] cycle. Most recently, residents have
[1:13:41] raised concerns that recent post, and
[1:13:43] I'm just going to call it what it is,
[1:13:45] the Democratic Club of Laguna Beach
[1:13:47] attacking another candidate while
[1:13:49] supporting the incumbents.
[1:13:52] Several of the new candidates and
[1:13:53] business owners have been accosted
[1:13:58] and accused not accused I guess is the
[1:14:00] best word and had who they are voting
[1:14:04] for with signs in their yards being
[1:14:06] questioned aggressively. Okay, so here's
[1:14:10] the question. Residents and businesses
[1:14:12] should be able to participate in
[1:14:13] election and express their political
[1:14:15] preferences without fear of retaliation,
[1:14:17] verbal attacks or other harassment. So
[1:14:20] here's the question.
[1:14:21] And this goes to the incumbents first
[1:14:23] and we'll ask the other candidates. Have
[1:14:24] you, your campaign or anyone acting on
[1:14:28] your behalf ever pressured, intimidated,
[1:14:31] or contacted a business or person
[1:14:33] because of their candidate signs it
[1:14:35] chose to display?
[1:14:37] Regardless of whether or not you That's
[1:14:39] number one. Number two, regardless of
[1:14:40] whether or not you had the involvement,
[1:14:41] do you believe the post by the
[1:14:42] Democratic Club of Lagona are consistent
[1:14:44] with the California code, the code for
[1:14:46] fair campaign practice that you signed?
[1:14:49] And three, will you immediately publicly
[1:14:51] repudiate those attacks on the new
[1:14:56] candidates, incumbents? Let's start with
[1:14:58] you, Mark.
[1:15:00] Do No, I do not have anything to do or
[1:15:02] talk to anybody about going after any
[1:15:05] candidates, but I would encourage you to
[1:15:07] crack open social media and there's
[1:15:10] plenty being said about me on a daily
[1:15:12] basis.
[1:15:13] >> So,
[1:15:14] yeah. No, when I run my campaigns, I
[1:15:16] talk about my ideas and who I who I
[1:15:18] support. I don't if someone wants to put
[1:15:20] a sign there their story. I don't really
[1:15:22] care. Um, but I will say, you know, if
[1:15:24] you want to talk about, you know, the
[1:15:26] mudslinging, you can you can talk to the
[1:15:27] three of us up here because we get on a
[1:15:29] regular basis.
[1:15:31] It's kind of somewhat annoying, but
[1:15:32] mostly
[1:15:33] >> Alex.
[1:15:35] >> Yeah. No, I I think that it's um it's
[1:15:38] really important in democracy that
[1:15:39] people want to run for office. And as I
[1:15:41] said in the first debate, I think it's
[1:15:43] great that we have people. It would be
[1:15:44] you just said three incumbents running.
[1:15:46] Um, as it relates to the Democratic
[1:15:47] club, I reached out to them and they did
[1:15:49] posts that I thought were a little bit
[1:15:51] unkind and I said that I didn't I I
[1:15:54] didn't agree with it and I didn't like
[1:15:55] it, but it's ultimately, you know, I'm
[1:15:57] not in control of the Democratic club.
[1:15:59] And so I think that as in in general, I
[1:16:02] think one of the problems is that we by
[1:16:04] making everything so mean and and and
[1:16:07] have a lack of having a lack of
[1:16:09] civility, it leads um good people to not
[1:16:11] want to run for public office. So I
[1:16:13] think that to the we always need to be
[1:16:15] you know model uh practice ability and
[1:16:18] it really starts with each of us as
[1:16:20] individuals and focusing on the issues
[1:16:22] at hand because there's a lot of
[1:16:23] important issues and getting away from
[1:16:25] the politics of um personal destruction
[1:16:28] and I think that's really important.
[1:16:29] >> Okay, I think that is a true statement.
[1:16:30] I wish I could ask the other all the
[1:16:32] other candidates but I think it's been
[1:16:33] enough said. Um, final question before
[1:16:35] our final question. Um, incumbents,
[1:16:38] [laughter]
[1:16:40] what professional experience or point of
[1:16:43] view
[1:16:44] is missing from the current city
[1:16:46] council? And which one of the
[1:16:48] non-incumbent candidates
[1:16:51] do you feel is best positioned to add
[1:16:53] that view or experience?
[1:17:00] Alex, let's start with you.
[1:17:04] I mean, I think we have um I' I've
[1:17:07] similar experiences to to what Joy and
[1:17:10] Karen do. And so, I think it's, you
[1:17:12] know, always good to have small business
[1:17:14] owners. So, I do appreciate what Ashley
[1:17:16] does with Odo Sushi. And so, I think,
[1:17:18] you know, it's always good to have small
[1:17:20] business owners on the city council.
[1:17:22] >> Thank you, Nick.
[1:17:26] >> Oh, I'm sorry, Sue. It's only for
[1:17:28] incumbents. I apologize. Um, I don't
[1:17:31] really know any of the candidates very
[1:17:32] well. I mean, I know Laura, but I don't
[1:17:34] really know the rest of the candidates.
[1:17:35] I know kind of what Karen does, and I
[1:17:37] don't know what makes them, so I can't I
[1:17:39] can't intelligently speak to it. I just
[1:17:41] don't know. Fair enough, Mark.
[1:17:43] >> Psychologist.
[1:17:44] So,
[1:17:48] >> I I think maybe a somebody that deals in
[1:17:51] communications, strictly communications,
[1:17:53] would be interesting. I'm always looking
[1:17:55] for ways to better communicate, get the
[1:17:58] community to come together so we can
[1:18:00] address some of these challenging
[1:18:02] issues.
[1:18:03] >> Okay. Thank you very much. Um India's
[1:18:05] going to give you your last and final
[1:18:06] question. It'll be two minutes. It'll be
[1:18:08] both a question and then your closing
[1:18:10] statements. Two minutes.
[1:18:15] >> The city doesn't have a revenue problem.
[1:18:17] It has a spending problem. The city is
[1:18:20] projecting the expend that expenditures
[1:18:22] will outpace revenues in the coming
[1:18:24] years and has already relied on
[1:18:27] transfers between funds to help balance
[1:18:29] its budget. Moving money between city
[1:18:31] accounts may balance a budget in a
[1:18:34] particular year, but it does not by
[1:18:36] itself solve an ongoing gap between
[1:18:39] revenues and operating expenses.
[1:18:41] Candidate Ashley Centus recently raised
[1:18:44] a fundamental question. Before asking
[1:18:46] residents and businesses to pay higher
[1:18:48] sale higher sales, hotel and business
[1:18:51] taxes, what is the city willing to stop
[1:18:54] spending money on? So the final
[1:18:56] question, if elected or reelected, name
[1:18:58] three substantial specific expenditures,
[1:19:01] programs, positions, or projects you
[1:19:04] would consider cutting, reducing, or
[1:19:06] postponing before asking residents or
[1:19:08] businesses to pay higher taxes.
[1:19:15] All right, Ed.
[1:19:16] >> Yeah, I'll go first.
[1:19:17] >> So, city council gives direction to
[1:19:22] staff. The key staff person is the city
[1:19:25] manager. We've had a problem for 10
[1:19:28] years. We've had three city managers
[1:19:32] during that 10-year period. Last one was
[1:19:35] Shereé. Before that, John Pekk and then
[1:19:39] Dave. Dave has to spend time with the
[1:19:43] department heads to understand each
[1:19:46] department. That is his job. He he has a
[1:19:49] number of assistants. So that is his job
[1:19:52] to understand each department and how
[1:19:54] each department is run and how efficient
[1:19:57] it is. We need to go back to the 9 to5
[1:20:01] Monday through Friday. We we need to he
[1:20:05] it's his job. If he can't do his job,
[1:20:08] then sadly he needs to be replaced. And
[1:20:11] it's the city council people that gives
[1:20:14] him that responsibility. So with that
[1:20:17] responsibility, he's able to understand
[1:20:20] how the city can run better and and
[1:20:22] process whether it's hiring a lobbyist
[1:20:24] to go to Sacramento or Dave saying,
[1:20:27] "Hey, you guys, city council person XYZ,
[1:20:30] you go to Sacramento and go talk to our
[1:20:32] state senators or house of represent so
[1:20:35] that we can get money from the
[1:20:37] California Conservancy or from
[1:20:40] California Housing Agency or other
[1:20:42] government agencies so we can run our
[1:20:44] city better without raising taxes at
[1:20:48] all. So, it's it's the city manager and
[1:20:51] that's where people don't realize that
[1:20:55] runs the city. He's critical. So, him
[1:20:58] having proper support, spending time
[1:21:00] with the department heads is critical
[1:21:03] and that's how you can cut expenses at
[1:21:06] the city. And so, we don't have to raise
[1:21:10] pro uh taxes. We can just run the city
[1:21:13] more efficiently. and we are not running
[1:21:16] the city efficiently right now.
[1:21:18] >> Okay. Thank you. Um Mark, so this is
[1:21:20] both the answer to the question and your
[1:21:22] closing statement.
[1:21:24] >> So I would start with consultants first
[1:21:26] and then I would also talk you know we
[1:21:28] recently did a facilities master plan
[1:21:30] and I would probably we talked about the
[1:21:33] um St. Catherine's I would make sure and
[1:21:36] evaluate that and see if there's
[1:21:38] opportunity other opportunities with
[1:21:41] that. I think that we could accommodate
[1:21:43] a rec center over at Lane Park. And so I
[1:21:46] would those are probably the two two big
[1:21:49] things as far as my uh ending statement.
[1:21:52] Um you know I I made a couple notes as I
[1:21:56] was sitting here and and you know I'm
[1:21:58] always trying better. I I love our city.
[1:22:01] That's why I ran for this job. It's not
[1:22:03] an easy job. We're a very civically you
[1:22:06] know engaged community and that's what I
[1:22:08] love about it. But we have a lot of
[1:22:10] opinions, right? And it's difficult to
[1:22:12] manage. And a lot of the questions that
[1:22:13] you had for us tonight, they're good
[1:22:16] questions. The problem that we have is
[1:22:18] there's not full context um provided
[1:22:21] when we try to answer these questions.
[1:22:23] And certainly for the new folks running
[1:22:25] for council, and that's okay for this
[1:22:27] and for this form, but what we really
[1:22:29] need at some point is to keep coming
[1:22:31] together, keep having these discussions,
[1:22:33] and um you know, drilling down on some
[1:22:35] of these issues. I mean, we're lucky. We
[1:22:38] are the 99% luckiest people on this
[1:22:40] planet to live in this community. None
[1:22:42] of us are in need. We have our food. We
[1:22:45] have a safe community. We have a great
[1:22:47] fire department. We we This is great. We
[1:22:49] should be proud of ourselves. And um I
[1:22:52] great cities invest in themselves. We
[1:22:54] can do a lot. We have Maine Beach. We
[1:22:56] have a lot that we've done. You know,
[1:22:58] nothing is wrong with investing to try
[1:23:01] to preserve our artist in this
[1:23:02] community. That's something that we
[1:23:04] decided long ago. Those are values that
[1:23:06] we cherish in this town and I I just
[1:23:08] think that we can still come together
[1:23:10] and find areas that we can agree on. We
[1:23:12] have we all are very proud of our
[1:23:14] environment and I think we can protect
[1:23:16] our environment. I think we can pro
[1:23:18] protect our culture and work on our
[1:23:20] heritage. I think we can do it all and I
[1:23:22] think it really comes down to us um you
[1:23:25] know being patient with one another,
[1:23:27] communicating and just working together
[1:23:31] is the thing.
[1:23:33] >> Thank you Sue. Thank you. Um, well, I
[1:23:35] don't necessarily agree that we don't
[1:23:37] have a revenue problem. I do think we
[1:23:38] have a revenue problem. Um, you know,
[1:23:40] our sales taxes are always relatively
[1:23:42] flat. That's one thing we'd like to get
[1:23:44] up get performing better. So, when I
[1:23:47] think of our budget, I think of, you
[1:23:48] know, expense. I think to be simplistic,
[1:23:50] I think of expenses. I think of
[1:23:51] efficient use of capital and I think of
[1:23:53] of investment income. And one of the
[1:23:55] things we did this about 18 months ago
[1:23:58] is we moved our investment portfolio
[1:23:59] over to meter which is a private
[1:24:01] investment company and they service a
[1:24:02] lot of cities. And since we've done
[1:24:04] that, you can see you look at our we
[1:24:06] have a bubble chart we've been looking
[1:24:07] at. You were doing exceedingly well on
[1:24:09] the investments. We have some legacy
[1:24:10] investments that were made before we
[1:24:12] went to meter that are going to be
[1:24:14] coming off the fiveyear low low um
[1:24:16] return investments going to be coming
[1:24:18] off and that will help us. The fact that
[1:24:19] we had those probably cost us you know I
[1:24:22] don't know three or four million
[1:24:23] dollars. So, we're working on that and I
[1:24:25] think that's going to be better in the
[1:24:26] long run. On the cost on the cost
[1:24:28] cutting though, you know, I think we're
[1:24:30] to the point now we have to do some
[1:24:32] pretty we have to do surgical cutting.
[1:24:34] You know, sometimes in companies you
[1:24:35] could say, I'm going to do a 10% cut.
[1:24:36] You just take a take a wide swap and
[1:24:38] that's how you do it. You can't do that
[1:24:39] in cities where you're providing
[1:24:41] services. So, you have to be very
[1:24:42] careful. And I agree with Mark. We spent
[1:24:44] about $13 million on consulting dollars.
[1:24:47] Some of those consulting dollars make a
[1:24:49] lot of sense because they're kind of
[1:24:50] filling holes that we don't have or
[1:24:51] expertise, but I don't know about all of
[1:24:53] them.
[1:24:54] Um, as far as my closing statement
[1:24:55] though, I I enjoyed the forum. I think
[1:24:57] you asked a lot of good questions. I
[1:24:58] think, you know, civility is very
[1:25:00] important to me and I think the
[1:25:02] candidates up here, we all answer the
[1:25:04] questions, work well together. Um, and I
[1:25:07] also would say that our current council,
[1:25:09] we, you know, councils operate as a body
[1:25:11] and we may not when you when you watch
[1:25:14] our meetings closely, you'll see that
[1:25:16] we're we're basically negotiating with
[1:25:18] talking back and forth and trying to get
[1:25:20] a solution for all of us. And uh, we did
[1:25:22] that last night. We do almost every
[1:25:23] council meeting. And I think when I
[1:25:26] think about council meetings and I think
[1:25:27] about just how governments are
[1:25:29] functioning in general, I think it's
[1:25:31] really good if you can get people who
[1:25:32] are adults and can work well together
[1:25:34] without getting I never go home bad. I'm
[1:25:36] always I go home and I sleep quite well
[1:25:38] because I know we had a good discussion
[1:25:40] and if Mark doesn't agree with me, I'm
[1:25:41] not mad at Mark and he's not mad at me.
[1:25:43] It's just it's a good professional
[1:25:45] relationship and I think that's the way
[1:25:46] it should stay. And I had one revenue
[1:25:49] opportunity because I noticed Joy said
[1:25:50] the other night that she's a player and
[1:25:53] so am I. So, I was thinking, you know,
[1:25:54] Joy and I could play each other oneonone
[1:25:57] and uh we could raise money for one of
[1:25:59] the city's shortfalls and um thought I'd
[1:26:02] give Joy a couple months to practice and
[1:26:04] let me know when she's ready. Thank you
[1:26:06] for making bets and um Alex, go ahead.
[1:26:09] >> Yeah, thank you for the great questions.
[1:26:11] I really do think that I like hard
[1:26:14] questions because I think that
[1:26:16] transparency is important and explaining
[1:26:18] why we make the decisions that we do is
[1:26:20] is really important. And I'm someone who
[1:26:21] really like who I embrace disagreement.
[1:26:23] I often find that people who disagree
[1:26:26] with me can change my mind or they can
[1:26:28] help me understand my own perspective.
[1:26:29] So I I really appreciate that. Um you
[1:26:32] know India to your your [snorts] comment
[1:26:34] about not a revenue problem but a
[1:26:35] spending problem sounds like my memo
[1:26:37] memo from um as part of this last budget
[1:26:40] discussion when there was talk of having
[1:26:42] a um a proposed tax. are the memo
[1:26:45] basically argued that we are in a you
[1:26:48] know our fiscal position is is good and
[1:26:50] that we have reserves we have added to
[1:26:51] the disaster contingency fund but we
[1:26:54] really need to make cuts to the general
[1:26:56] fund and we identified 1.5 million in
[1:26:58] cuts we need to find an additional 2.3
[1:27:01] million because by taking money from the
[1:27:02] capital improvement fund what that means
[1:27:04] is that we're deferring investments in
[1:27:06] our infrastructure which for a 100red
[1:27:07] years old city is a is a problem um as
[1:27:11] you know part of the me [snorts] what we
[1:27:12] argued for and the council
[1:27:14] performance-based budgeting, budgeting
[1:27:16] based on outcomes, not based on
[1:27:17] incrementalism, you know, because then
[1:27:19] we're just stuck in the past. Um, in
[1:27:21] terms of your questions about specific
[1:27:22] areas, um, parking is one of them. We
[1:27:25] were able to renegotiate the parking
[1:27:27] contracts where we consolidated two of
[1:27:28] them into one and we made it where
[1:27:30] instead of having the city pay for the
[1:27:33] fee for each transaction, that would be
[1:27:36] uh it would be the the person who's
[1:27:39] parking paying that. That's an example
[1:27:41] of one thing. the ondemand program. I
[1:27:43] think there's ways that we can be
[1:27:44] strategic in looking at the times when
[1:27:47] it's not used and and leveraging data to
[1:27:49] make sure that we're keeping the program
[1:27:51] but making cuts. Uh we voted we didn't
[1:27:54] support an electric vehicle adding or
[1:27:56] adding more charging stations based on
[1:27:58] the financials didn't work. So those are
[1:28:00] a couple examples. And then finally, I
[1:28:02] think as I think about the next four
[1:28:03] years and if I have the opportunity to
[1:28:05] serve serve for them, my biggest
[1:28:07] priority is going to continue to be what
[1:28:09] it has been over the past year, which is
[1:28:10] retaining the hospital. I really think
[1:28:12] there is no issue that is more important
[1:28:14] is sort of literally a matter of life
[1:28:15] and death. I feel really confident that
[1:28:17] we can find a solution and I'm going to
[1:28:20] continue working on that when it comes
[1:28:22] to okay last
[1:28:24] >> public safety infrastructure efficient
[1:28:26] government services. Um so again thank
[1:28:27] you for the questions and I I would be
[1:28:30] honored to have your support for the
[1:28:32] next four years. So
[1:28:33] >> thank you Nick.
[1:28:35] >> Well um back to your first question
[1:28:39] about um what we would do if we were um
[1:28:42] elected on council. What would we cut? I
[1:28:44] think obviously being sued less would
[1:28:46] help and paying out long lawsuits, uh
[1:28:49] less consultants. Um into the memo that
[1:28:53] Alex and Sue wrote, they tal they talked
[1:28:55] about a lot of cuts, but they also
[1:28:56] talked about hiring another city
[1:28:58] manager, assistant city manager at 300
[1:29:00] something thousand. So, um that would be
[1:29:02] a problem there. Um you know, I wish it
[1:29:05] would, you know, we've heard a lot of
[1:29:07] great things from the city council
[1:29:08] tonight where it sounds like, you know,
[1:29:10] In my opinion, it sounds like that we'll
[1:29:11] have been residents of a certain
[1:29:12] election year every year because we get
[1:29:14] all the right things said by them. And
[1:29:17] that's obviously not what we've been
[1:29:18] seeing over the past several years. I've
[1:29:21] been going to the town halls and they've
[1:29:23] been selling us a tax for the last 10
[1:29:26] months, almost a year. And then finally,
[1:29:28] when it became very clear that the
[1:29:30] residents were not happy with that, they
[1:29:32] finally changed when it became an
[1:29:33] election year. The memo for the cuts to
[1:29:35] the budget happened during an election
[1:29:37] year. All this talk about during your
[1:29:40] yes and no questions matching us
[1:29:42] happened during an election year and I
[1:29:44] think trust has been lost with this city
[1:29:46] council and we need people who want to
[1:29:48] communicate with those who they agree
[1:29:50] with and also those who they disagree
[1:29:51] with and so I find that really
[1:29:53] interesting to hear from the incumbents
[1:29:55] when it talks about you know bullying
[1:29:57] and you know um intimidation because
[1:30:00] those things absolutely happen they
[1:30:02] happen to I believe everybody that was
[1:30:04] that's on the stage this evening and so
[1:30:06] either they're pretending not to know or
[1:30:09] Um, I don't I honestly don't know
[1:30:11] because two of them are endorsed by that
[1:30:13] group that you mentioned. So, I think
[1:30:15] for the city to move forward, we need to
[1:30:18] be able to trust our city council and we
[1:30:21] need to make sure that residents are
[1:30:23] being heard not just during an election
[1:30:25] year, but during all four years of when
[1:30:27] they're on council. And so, um, you
[1:30:30] know, when it goes back to what I hope
[1:30:32] to bring to council is to listen to the
[1:30:34] residents no matter what time of the
[1:30:36] year it is to make sure that we're
[1:30:37] planning ahead like an El Nino, not
[1:30:40] planning uh just a couple months before.
[1:30:43] And um you know, asking the tough
[1:30:46] questions. It's great that uh you know
[1:30:48] there's a lot of 5's but you know that
[1:30:50] means that um or it's great that they
[1:30:52] get along but it's not great that
[1:30:53] there's a lot of 5's and that we need a
[1:30:55] lot of tough questions to be asked to
[1:30:57] make sure that we come to a consensus
[1:30:59] and if people for example the visit
[1:31:02] Laguna contract if people didn't like
[1:31:03] that contract then they should vote no
[1:31:05] on it even if it still passes I think
[1:31:07] it's really important to make sure that
[1:31:08] people know where you stand on different
[1:31:10] issues. Thank you, Nick. Karen,
[1:31:12] >> thank you. Um, I enjoyed the forum.
[1:31:14] Thank you, everybody.
[1:31:16] I was just saying thank you. Um, I like
[1:31:18] the forum and and the government. Uh,
[1:31:22] Lugan Beach does not lack talent, money,
[1:31:24] or people who care. What we often lack
[1:31:27] is a clear connection between the
[1:31:29] problem, the policy, the spending, and
[1:31:31] the result. We can't fix that with
[1:31:33] another slogan, consultant, or a piece
[1:31:35] of software alone. We fix it by
[1:31:39] doing the fundamentals well. Let's make
[1:31:42] rules understandable and apply them
[1:31:44] consistent consistently.
[1:31:47] Um let's protect public safety before
[1:31:50] the emergency by maintaining roads,
[1:31:54] sewers, drainage, communications,
[1:31:56] evacuation routes, and local emergency
[1:31:58] care.
[1:32:00] Let's manage tourism by capacity and use
[1:32:03] visitor revenue first for in visitor
[1:32:06] impacts so that residents do not lose
[1:32:09] access to their beaches, streets, and
[1:32:11] neighborhoods.
[1:32:13] Let's help local businesses and artists
[1:32:16] by making city hall predictable,
[1:32:19] protecting worker access, and keeping
[1:32:21] downtown useful year round.
[1:32:24] Let's care for what we cannot replace.
[1:32:26] Our hillsides, our trees, our water
[1:32:28] courses, beaches, ocean, historic
[1:32:30] resources, neighborhoods, and especially
[1:32:33] our relationships.
[1:32:36] If elected, I will respect every dollar.
[1:32:38] Before approving a project, I'll ask
[1:32:41] what will it cost over its life
[1:32:44] and what will we not get to do when we
[1:32:47] choose that to spend that money. I bring
[1:32:52] more than 30 years of planning
[1:32:53] experience, the judgment of a small
[1:32:56] business owner, service to Laguna, and
[1:32:58] the determination to ask the hard
[1:33:00] questions without making government
[1:33:02] government personal or hostile.
[1:33:04] Experience brings responsibility. I'm
[1:33:07] ready to offer mine to this community.
[1:33:10] Thank you, Joy.
[1:33:12] Three expenditures I would cut. The
[1:33:15] first one would be the outside
[1:33:16] consultants. We've got a talented base
[1:33:18] right here in our town and I think a lot
[1:33:20] of people like to offer their services
[1:33:22] even for free. Number two, I'd eliminate
[1:33:24] all these new projects and capital
[1:33:26] outlays. And number three, I'd like to
[1:33:29] dive into the legal issues and and we
[1:33:32] have over two dozen lawsuits and that
[1:33:34] goes to my closing and I think I know
[1:33:36] why. I believe in the rule of law and it
[1:33:40] should apply everywhere, including here
[1:33:42] in Laguna Beach. We need to have one set
[1:33:45] of rules that apply to everyone, no
[1:33:47] matter who you know or how much money
[1:33:50] you have. This is another reason I'm
[1:33:52] running for city government. I want to
[1:33:54] see us go back to a rulesbased
[1:33:57] governance. We need to follow our
[1:33:58] general plan and other governing
[1:34:01] documents. I have been asked at other
[1:34:03] forums forums about my ongoing lawsuit
[1:34:06] against the city. It goes to this very
[1:34:09] issue. The current council approved a
[1:34:11] project on a steep hillside where their
[1:34:13] general plan prohibited development. We
[1:34:16] sued because this is a precedent setting
[1:34:19] move that exposes all of our hillsides
[1:34:22] to rampant development. Once our canyons
[1:34:24] and hillsides and beaches and other
[1:34:26] natural resources are gone, they're gone
[1:34:29] and I will protect them. Last night, I
[1:34:32] witnessed another betrayal of our rules
[1:34:35] by the incumbents, offering variances
[1:34:38] for two projects going against our South
[1:34:40] Lagoon Village specific plan and our
[1:34:43] local coastal plan. This council has
[1:34:45] produced 50 vote, one after another,
[1:34:48] even on controversial projects. You need
[1:34:51] to have at least one member who
[1:34:53] understands the importance of long-term
[1:34:55] budget plans and is willing to stand up
[1:34:58] for our environmental and planning rules
[1:35:00] rather than going along to get along. I
[1:35:03] was surprised more people didn't come to
[1:35:05] the rally for this lawsuit because the
[1:35:08] only thing protecting these hillsides
[1:35:10] outside Laguna Canyon is the 21-year
[1:35:13] open space easement. And when that's
[1:35:15] gone, let's go. Just for clarity, this
[1:35:18] city decided to go against math and
[1:35:21] science and instead of measuring
[1:35:23] steepness from top to bottom, they
[1:35:25] decide to do it from sideways to
[1:35:27] sideways. And so it's if we would follow
[1:35:31] the rules, we could eliminate the
[1:35:33] lawsuits. I love this town. I'd be
[1:35:35] deeply deeply honored to serve.
[1:35:38] >> Thank you, Ashley.
[1:35:41] >> Um, so
[1:35:43] we've been in a poor fiscal management
[1:35:45] position for the last four years. And so
[1:35:47] I think what I've seen even more so
[1:35:49] tonight is um a very siloed uh
[1:35:54] decision-m and conversations. It's quite
[1:35:57] concerning where some of the issues the
[1:35:59] other council members does didn't really
[1:36:02] know what the other ad hoc committee was
[1:36:04] working on. I think using the term civil
[1:36:06] um were civil is just putting their head
[1:36:09] in the sand to be honest. Um and it's
[1:36:12] it's concerning. So, I think that saying
[1:36:14] that we've just shaved off 1.5, not 1.3,
[1:36:18] but 1.5 um in a budget does not mean
[1:36:20] we're actually managing to the budget.
[1:36:23] That was what you were did when you guys
[1:36:25] created the budget, but I would like to
[1:36:26] see the budget to actuals um at this
[1:36:28] current state and every single month.
[1:36:30] But what I would do differently is
[1:36:32] review discretionary contracts,
[1:36:34] consultants, lower priority capital,
[1:36:36] staffing workload, and actual budget
[1:36:38] performance. um the pension, South
[1:36:40] Lagoona, insurance, staffing, all
[1:36:42] capital projects and infrastructure need
[1:36:43] to be put into a 5, 10, 15 year funding
[1:36:46] strategy. Um because we have made these
[1:36:48] commitments. Now we need to know how
[1:36:49] we're going to be able to pay for
[1:36:50] everything. Um and so my closing is that
[1:36:55] as I said, we've seen a lot tonight of
[1:36:57] reactive working ons. Um a lot of
[1:36:59] working ons and we see that across city
[1:37:02] hall. Um but that's not the standard I'm
[1:37:04] willing to accept. Leadership is having
[1:37:06] a plan before a crisis. It's
[1:37:07] understanding the trade-offs before
[1:37:09] making the decision. It's talking to the
[1:37:11] people affected before asking them to
[1:37:13] pay for it. It's knowing a funding
[1:37:15] source, a timeline, who's accountable,
[1:37:16] and what actually success looks like. I
[1:37:19] don't have all the answers, but I know
[1:37:20] how to lead complex organizations,
[1:37:22] manage budgets, build teams, and have be
[1:37:24] held accountable for results. Um, I'm
[1:37:27] going to treat this job as though my
[1:37:28] business safety, your safety, and
[1:37:30] Laguna's future depend on it because it
[1:37:32] does. Um, what we need to be asking is
[1:37:34] what did it cost, how long did it take,
[1:37:36] and did it work. The current council can
[1:37:38] point to meetings, committees, studies,
[1:37:39] and projects, but I'm asking residents
[1:37:42] to look at the outcomes because activity
[1:37:44] is not the same thing as progress.
[1:37:46] >> Okay. Thank you.
[1:37:46] >> Thank you. And
[1:37:48] >> all right. Well, the the three things
[1:37:50] that that I would cut, I would start
[1:37:52] with consultants. We have lots of very
[1:37:55] talented residents in this community
[1:37:57] that that can do a lot of the things
[1:37:59] that the consultants are doing. And very
[1:38:02] often the consultants are um just simply
[1:38:06] a vehicle to
[1:38:09] have to to [cough]
[1:38:10] present an opinion to the public. So I
[1:38:14] would I would focus on consultants and I
[1:38:16] would include in that the investment
[1:38:17] consultants um because I disagree with
[1:38:20] council member Kemp um on that matter. I
[1:38:24] would also cut salaries if possible. Um
[1:38:27] I I would like to see the organization
[1:38:31] flattened. Um there's open position in
[1:38:34] the city manager's office. Um if there
[1:38:37] are each position should be examined to
[1:38:40] make sure that it's critical to um the
[1:38:43] the public's
[1:38:45] benefit and the services that we provide
[1:38:47] to the public. And then finally, I would
[1:38:50] take a a very close look at our legal
[1:38:52] fees to make sure that we're getting the
[1:38:56] uh the most from any dollar spent um in
[1:39:00] the legal arena. If elected, I would be
[1:39:04] laser focused on city finances. that
[1:39:08] that is my career and I would um serve
[1:39:14] as a council member with the same
[1:39:15] dedication that I've served as city
[1:39:18] treasurer
[1:39:19] and
[1:39:23] bring
[1:39:24] bring that expertise to um fix some of
[1:39:28] the problems that we've had um over the
[1:39:30] last few years. I would listen to
[1:39:33] residents, follow the city rules, and
[1:39:36] where possible form coalitions of other
[1:39:39] like-minded cities to uh tackle common
[1:39:43] concerns like tourism, affordable
[1:39:46] housing, and size and retrofitting.
[1:39:49] Thank you very much.
[1:39:51] >> Okay. Um in closing, um in every
[1:39:54] relationship, there's an accelerator and
[1:39:56] a break. I'm the accelerator. India is
[1:39:59] my break. So, I want to thank her as
[1:40:00] being my co-host tonight. Um thank you
[1:40:02] to the audience for sitting around and
[1:40:04] giving us three and a half hours of your
[1:40:05] time. Thank you Mr. [applause]