I now call the San Juan Capastrano City Council regular meeting of March 4th to order. Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll for tonight's meeting? Council Member Ferries. Here. Council Member Hart. Here. Council Member Taylor. Here. Mayor Pro Tem Campbell. Here. Here. If you could please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance following that,. An invocation will be offered by Council Member Hart. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands one nation under God, indivisible with liberty and justice for all. For creator, we come to you tonight. And all humility is we seek guidance and wisdom. As we conduct this house, this is for clarity. We ask for the ability to conduct business and the amount of the money we have. We ask you to bless and protect our military and our first respondent. Those who serve our community. In your name, yes. Good morning. Just prior to this meeting the City Council met in executive session and no reportable actions were taken in that meeting. Madam Clerk, do you have announcements make? I bet you do. Yes, personally bill 23. Each Each has an authority board member is received in a $50 stipend for conducting tonight's meeting. Thank you. We have a presentation this evening. Do you announce that or if we just jump right into it? Yeah, I can announce. It's item B2. It's recognition of the 2024 deputy of the year. Thank you. Captain Montana and Deputy Renegar, could you year to qualify for Deputy of the Year. I'm not going to pretend to walk through the qualifications of what Deputy Renegar has done this year to qualify for Deputy of the Year. I'm not good captain to do that. But I do want to say this. My dad was, he was with the LAPD. He was an officer in the detective with the LAPD for over 20 years. And so I know a little bit about what law enforcement is about and what you and your families do protecting our community. Just a couple of years ago my dad for Christmas gave each, I have six brothers, no sisters, so a house full of boys grew up with this cop dad and a state home mom and a couple of years ago he gave us each for Christmas a book that wasn't like an autobiography, it was just his memoirs associated with his time serving as a police officer. And the title of the book was, why the old man was the way he was. And it is a treasure in our family. Because it was really the first time in reading about his experiences written in the first person that we really did understand a little bit about who he was and that part of his life that he kind of kept in a safe space where he could do his job and keep us safe from that as well. After he retired, I said to my mom, you know, it's kind of fun. Dad's like becoming a totally different person in retirement. And he said, no, Dad's just becoming who he's always been. He's just not dealing with this much stuff at work as he's had to in the past. So on behalf of the city, on behalf of the City Council, I want to thank you for everything you've done to qualify for this award. But I want to thank Captain and all of the rest of you for what you do to keep San Juan Capastrano safe. We love you guys for it. We're appreciative of it. Thank you. And if you look back, you'll see a ton of deputies. I promise you there's some out in the street as well. But as a great showing, this is one of my favorite awards of the year for obvious reason. So first want to start off good evening. Thank you for that mayor. Awesome mayor pro 10 council member city staff. Justin Montana, your chief of police services. Also, I acknowledge my other boss. I report city manager Ben Seagal, but I have my commander, Virgil Sunchon. Some of you may recognize him. He was a city chief for Lugan and Miguel before he got promoted and he's in attendance and I appreciate you, Benio sir. So like I said, it's a privilege to stay in here before you guys to recognize one deputy who's gone above and beyond earning this esteemed title of 2024 San Juan Capastrano deputy the year. This award honor is not just individual valor, but the dedication, courage and compassion that define our finest deputies. So please again join around applause for Deputy Chad Renner. Chad serves as one of the best examples of what it means to be a community servant. Since joining the Orange County Sheriff's Department, he's consistently demonstrated unwavering courage in the face of danger, commitment to de-escalation and community building, and exceptional problem-solving skills really on a daily basis. Chad graduated the Orange County Sheriff's Department basic academy in 2013, class number 205. And put it in perspective as a class 137. So just a tad after me. In November of 2021, Chad transferred to the City of San Juan Capistrano. In June of 2022, due to his exceptional work ethic, he was handpicked to be our homeless liaison officer, which primarily deals with homelessness and other related crimes. During his time patrolling in this community, Chad has been nothing short of exceptional. He is known for frequently conducting numerous proactive pedestrian and investigative stops all throughout his shift. He just doesn't stop. These stops have yielded multiple items of stolen property, various identity theft items, and numerous illegal narcotics. All of this in an effort to make the excellent quality of life for the residents of San Juan Capastrano. In 2022, 2024 alone, Chad had over 300 total arrests. And that's physical arrests and also citations combined for San Juan Capastrano only. It's just an extraordinary amount. Further, that led the entire Sheriff's Department, every single deputy in our department, in total arrest, here in San Juan Capastrano. Just amazing. If you've seen the positive difference in homelessness activity throughout the city just in the past couple years as we have Chad is and continues to be probably the biggest reason not just me it's you Chad. Chad's actions have resonated far beyond one single incident. He's a deputy who can not only enforce the law, but he also builds bridges and fosters understanding throughout the community. It's so important in today's atmosphere. With that being said, there are numerous patrol related incidents that will show Chads exceptional, exceptional service to this community. But can't be up here all night, so I'm just going to talk about one. In 2024 Chad learned of an e-bike theft from a neighboring city. Chad started an investigation gathering information. He learned that the e-bike had an Apple air tag on it, but the location showed it was several several miles in circumference. So pretty big area if you look at a circle on a map, really big area. But not to Chad. He knew it was in a dense creek bed and one of our creek beds, and he hiked through this creek bed for quite some time. I was working this day wondering where he was at. And now I know he located in Kampin and one of these creeks, and it had two individuals inside. Chad also noticed three e-bikes in this encampment including the one that he was looking for. All three e-bikes have been reported stolen earlier and two of the suspects or two individuals out were there were arrested for the various felonies and taken to jail. All three e-bikes were returned to the rifle owners including one to all once distraught little girl. I was like a purplish pink e-bike, and now she was happy to have her e-bike back. And I know that made Chad feel really good about the work you do, Chad. Just excellent police work and investigative skills. I can't say that enough. So Chad, on behalf of a grateful community, thank you. Your courage, compassion, on the wavering dedication to service is an inspiration to all of us. You and your fellow deputies are the backbone of this community. Thank you. Your courage, compassion, and wavering dedication to service is an inspiration to all of us. You and your fellow deputies are the backbone of this community. Your service is invaluable and your commitment to holding justice makes us all proud. So in closing, I'd like to thank Chad's family for attending tonight. His wife, Leanne, both of his sons, Maverick and Nielsen back there, so cute, and his baby daughter Oakley. So again. his wife, Leanne, both of his sons, Maverick and Easton, back there, so cute, and his baby daughter Oakley. So again, in closing, please help me give another round of applause to Chad for receiving this very achievement award. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. I first off like to thank the City Council and other city members that are here. John Franco and Jennifer Ash, they're combined efforts when combating the homeless and other issues in San Juan is something that you don't see every day and it's something that's very special. I'd also like to thank our commander and our captain, Montano. I've worked many different areas in my 10 year with the Sheriff's Department and I can say one thing and the deputies, investigators, sergeants, and up that we have in San Juan is very special. It's unlike any other place. It's truly a family environment and a place that you just can't replicate. And with that, thank you. Thank you. I have a sneaking suspicion that I'm about to feel less safe. And there they go. We appreciate all of you being here tonight. We're now moving on to oral communications or public comment section of the meeting. Again, this is a time when we'd like anyone who wants to speak about something that's not on the agenda to use this window and you can come up to the microphone and share your thoughts. You have three minute limits. Again, if there's something on the agenda, this isn't the time to talk about it. This is because we'll give you a window to talk about each of those after a really staff report. But if there's something on the agenda or not on the agenda tonight, you want to bring to our attention, now would be the window to do that. Madam Clerk, do we have any speaker forms or requests to speak? Yes, Richard and Wynn, and then Sophia Zwinga. Thank you. This one over here. Yep. Because you got a camera, look at the chair. Hello. Perfect. Perfect. First of all, I'd like to take this time to thank you mayor and thank you the city council for all your dedicated service to our community here at Samuakapestrano. And I'd also like to say hello to everybody and thank you for attending the meetings night. My name is Richard Wynn and I'm going to tell you a little story. I drove home the other night, drove into my neighborhood, and all of a sudden, bam, right in front of me. There's these gigantic poles that ran all along the valley. And I'm thinking myself, where is going on here? And I was just so shocked with, they're so gigantic. So I kind of looked into it and it turns out the San Juan Hills golf course had erected these giant poles to create a net in. I guess they're renovating the golf course. And at the end of the day, I fully support the business community here in San Juan, Capastrano, but I definitely do believe that we need a balance between the business interests and also a quality of life here. For instance, I think the council, I think the city of an amazing job with the River Street development, how you seamlessly brought that development and connected it with the old town district. It's great. It's bringing people in, it's bringing business in, it's really creating a really strong vibe. However, I feel that, and it's not just me, a lot of people in my community feel that, the giant poles along the valley just doesn't seem to fit. It kind of sticks out like a soreathum. And I believe, and I'm afraid, that it's going to hurt our property values in the other day. Because if I'm driving into my neighborhood, and I see these giant poles in front of my house, if someday I want to sell my house and sell my drives in neighborhood as well, they're going to see these giant poles too. And's not the best look. It's not best look for my community. I'm sorry, it's not best look for my neighborhood but I definitely don't think it's a great look for a Stamock, Alistair, and I'll tell you why. When I was a kid, my family and I were drive down four or five and it'd be rows and rows and rows of houses, houses, houses, houses, business, business, business. But then you get to this valley, and it was the most beautiful valley in all of Orange County. And the winter was so green, it was amazing. But now you drive down the freeway and you see these giant poles, you know, and, you know, in the course of the 30 or 40 years my family's been here, some cities have done a great job in terms of integrating business with the landscape. And some companies haven't, you know, but I'd like our town to be one of those cities and I'm confident that each and one of you believe in the same youth as that I believe that we need to create this beautiful green garden and maintain this beautiful green garden because it's the one of the last places in Orange County that we have. And that if you keep it green, if you keep it beautiful, businesses will come. But it'll be the right businesses. And it'll be the right type of development that will keep income coming to the city. And really nice people wanting to live here. I already know right now, people are dying to live in San Juan Capast it is a hot spot. Thanks. That's all I have to say by way. And thank you. And also one last thing. I know there's a lot of things happening on the federal level. I also please urge you to maintain the cities, I guess, I can say, ethos and maintain and protecting the vulnerable, the elderly and the veterans here in our town. Thank you very much. That was very articulate Richard. I want to also let the public know if you feel like it's weird that we don't respond when someone makes a comment during this portion of the meeting. We typically won't because we can engage in a conversation out on something that isn't agendized. But if it were agendized to future meeting, then you could have a little bit more discussion among the council. So please don't feel like we're not listening if we don't respond. That's just the way these meetings are set up. It's not agendized. Okay. Yes, next. Sophia Zwinga. Hi, Sophia. My name is Sophia Zunika and I'm part of the Youth Advisory Board. Hold on, let me just pull my notes. Our goal is to meet the needs of the community and we have several activities and events that I wanted to tell you about. One of these events is the extravaganza, where we will be painting children's faces in possibly selling popcorn and cotton candy. Another event that we hold around this time of year is the Adeligno, and this is where we get to celebrate the kids of San Juan and provide crafts and activities in addition to face painting. In our past meetings, we had an opportunity to meet with an advisor from Tree City Organization from San Clemente. Based on her valuable information she shared, I would like to propose that San Juan Cabastrano becomes a tree city as well. One of the requirements for this designation is planting at least one tree per year with all the new development going around in San Juan Cabastrona, I believe that now is the perfect time to plant trees. Trees provide a natural canopy for roads and cities, help decrease air temperature, and can reduce the risk of wildfires. But by planting more trees, we can create a healthier and more sustainable community. Thank you. Madam Clerk are there any speakers? No. Okay. And we will, oh you know what? I skipped mayor pro-tem's recognition of commissioners President at the meeting was not intentional. I see we have Commissioner Rose. Ted Rosenfeld. Excuse me. If Commissioner Rosenfeld here and I don't see any other commission. And forget me, Ted. That's okay. If there are any other commissioners here, please stand up and applaud yourself. No all right then we will move to Public hearings Item D1 madam clerk. Could you please read the title of the item for public Yes item D1 is general plan amendment 24-001 Code amendment 24-003 conditional use permit 24-002 to the Development Agreement Amendment 24-001 with St. Margaret's Episcopal School expansion. 3 conditional use permit 24-002 and a development agreement amendment 24-001 with state markets Episcopal school expansion. We have a staff report please. Good evening. My name is Laurel Rimer. I will be presenting item D1. St. Margaret's Episcopal School was founded in 1979 with a church pre-school kindergarten and elementary school. It has gradually expanded in its 45-year history to include a middle school and high school. The campus is bounded by Ortega Highway to the North, Lenovia to the east, Caillet Royal to the south, and the Interstate 5 to the west. There we go. The school also owns two parking lots within the Ortega Village Center, and one on the southeast corner of Kaye Royo and Lenovia. The school has an enrollment cap of 1,234 students, which was established by a 2010 development agreement between St. Margaret's and the city. The development agreement provides an annual payment to the city to fully mitigate potential impacts of lost property tax and sales tax revenue associated with the school's 2010 master plan. The payment increases by 2% annually, and the most recent payment was roughly $93,000. Sorry, it's really sensitive mouth. The project before you tonight is a request from St. Margaret's to expand their campus by 3.7 acres and also to utilize 31734 Rancho Vihu Road for student instruction and athletics. The project area is 3.7 acres and it's comprised of four parcels within the Ortega Village Center. Parsels A, B and C are developed with buildings that are owned by St. Margaret's and parcel D is a common parking lot area that will come under St. Margaret's ownership later this year. The current owner of parcel D is aware of the application and has signed the application to allow St. Margaret's to pursue this. Parcel A. I don my mouth will show, so parcel A is 0.49 acres and developed with roughly 8,500 square foot single story building at 31734 Rancho Viejo Road. St. Margaret's currently owns or uses about one third of this building for their gym, which they received approvals for in 2019. The remainder of the building is vacant. Parcel B is also point 4.49 acres, developed with the similar 8500 square foot building, and is currently occupied by Davina Reenol Health Care. Davina has a lease that goes through 2029 with a five-year extension that would extend the lease to 2034. Parcel C is located at 317-26 Ranch of Ajo Road, and this is developed with a 33,672 square foot, two-story building. St. Markets also occupies about about one third of this building and utilizes it for very administrative purposes, such as IT, accounting, communications and marketing, et cetera. The remainder of the two story building is leased out to various tenants ranging from dental, financial real estate, and environmental consulting firms. Parcel D is part of the Ortega Village Center and it is their common parking lot area. The City Council did approve a tentative parcel map to section off this portion of the parking lot and St. Margaret's Bookometer ownership of this in November of this year. The entire project area has a general plan land use designation of neighborhood commercial and is owned planned community CDP 78-1. The 70 CDP 78-01 is the Ortega planned community comprehensive development plan which covers a about a 115 acre area bordered by or takega Highway to the north, Lenovia to the east, San Juan Creek to the south, and Interstate 5 to the west. It is divided into nine sectors which establish the development standards and allowable uses for those sectors. As shown here in red, the entire 3.7 acre project area is located within sector A2, which allows for various retail, commercial and public, semi-public uses. Importantly, private and public schools are not permitted within sector A2. St. Margaret's is entirely within sector D, which does conditionally permit private and public school uses. For some background, St. Margaret submitted their application to the city for a general plan amendment and code amendment in January of last year. The City Council initiated the General Plan Amendment request on March 19th. On September 4th, the applicant also submitted a conditional use permit application so they can concurrently process all of their requests. On October 18th of 2024, the cities were prepared to assist the project's economic and fiscal impacts. Those were completed and then the city entered into negotiations with St. Margaret's to amend a development agreement. Then on February 12th of just last month, the Planning Commission reviewed the item and I did recommend on a 5-0 vote that the City Council approved the project. To facilitate expansion of the applicant's campus onto the 3.7 acre area, a general plan amendment is required. This would be needed to change the project site's land use designation from public and institutional to, I'm sorry, from neighborhood commercial to public and institutional. The public and institutional land use designation is intended for schools, churches, fire stations, community centers, and office complexes. This would also ensure consistency with the applicant's existing campus land use designation of public and institutional. Additionally a code amendment is required and this would change the or take a plan or take a planned community development plan to sector designation of the 3.7 acre project area from sector A2 to sector D. This is required because public and private schools are expressly prohibited in sector A2 but conditionally permitted within sector D. No changes to the currently allowed uses are proposed, four sectors A2 or sector D, but staff is proposing to amend or add section 8.f within sector D and this would allow for existing tenants within the building located at 31726 Rancho Viharode, which is the twostory building, allowed those existing tenants to expand within that building. Additionally, staff identified various cleanup items that are needed within the CDP. Those are primarily associated with code sections and references within the CDP that are outdated. So the numbering and current code titles need to be updated. The city has the general plan states that amendments to the land use element or land use map that are associated with private school developments. Should only be considered if it's demonstrated that such a request will be for the general public benefit and will not impact the fiscal viability of the city. In 2010, the city and St. Marker it's entered into, pardon me. Additionally, a conditional use permit is requested to utilize 31734 Rancho Viojo Road immediately for student instruction and athletics. This building is currently occupied or one third of it is occupied by St. Margaret's for their gym, and now they're looking to occupy the entire building for student instruction and athletics. They would utilize, they wouldn't move any of the walls or change the interior aside from flooring, paint, and furniture, and then any required upgrades associated with the building and fire code. They do need to change the occupancy of the building to an e-occupancy. In the short term, the applicant will be utilizing this, again, for student instruction athletics, but in the longer term, they hope to modernize the building and use it as the upper school library, three classrooms, and robotics classroom and lab. The building will ultimately house four to six current staff members, and there will Will there be no staffing increase or student enrollment increase as a result of this request. So, pursuant to the requirements of sector D, a conditional use permit is required to allow for this building to be utilized for school uses. So, now onto the development agreement. So, as previously stated, the general general plan does have a policy that if there's a general plan amendment request or a general plan land use map request associated with a private school that we need to demonstrate that it's for the general public benefit and will not impact the financial viability of the city. So in 2010, St. Margaret's and the city entered into a development agreement to vest the school's 2010 master plan. And that vested those rights for a 20 year period. That master plan included various construction projects on St. Margaret's campus and also an 8.0s of an acre expansion expansion area which included certain parcels within the Ortega Village Center. So back then we required a development agreement to expand into the Ortega Village Center and the request before you tonight is to additionally expand into the Ortega Village Center. So that development agreement among other things did provide an annual payment to the city to fully mitigate the potential impacts of lost property tax and sales tax revenues associated with that 2010 master plan. That payment is due on September 30th of each year and increases by 2% annually. The 2024 payment was $93,253. It's important to note that this payment, while the development agreement itself has a 20-year development investing right, the annual payment succeeds that and does not terminate. So that annual payment runs with a conditional use permit, that permits St. Margaret's in general. And so as long as St. Margaret's is operating in this location, the annual payment is in place. So with the current request, staff retained DTA, which is an independent third party finance consulting firm to prepare an economic impact study and a fiscal impact report to analyze the applicant's request to convert the 3.7 acre area from commercial to private school use. Based on the results of the study and the report and negotiations between the city and the applicant, it was agreed to amend section 4.1.3 of the existing development agreement to require that the applicant provide the city with an additional annual payment. That payment would be $164,461, beginning on September 30th of this year. And it would increase 2% annually beginning October 1st, 2030. So this figure represents the net fiscal impact based on the loss of all potential commercial uses, currently allowed within that 3.7 acre project area, and then converting those to a school use. All other provisions of that 2010 development agreement remain in full force and effect and are unchanged. The project qualifies for a class one categorical exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. This exemption allows for the operation repair maintenance, permitting, leasing licensing and minor alterations of existing buildings. So in this case, the applicant is not looking to do a new development project. They are looking to remain within those existing buildings. So there's no physical change to the environment. So there are three recommendations before you tonight. The first staff recommends that the City Council adopt a resolution to find the proposed project categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to a CEQA guidelines sections 15301. Also approving the general plan amendment 24-001 to change the land use designation of 3.7 acre project area from neighborhood commercial to public and institutional and approving conditional use permit 24-002 to allow the property at 31734 Rancho Viejo road to be utilized for educational uses as conditioned. Additionally, staff recommends that the City Council introduce an ordinance approving Code Amendment 24-003 to amend the Ortega Planned Community Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01 to change the sector designation of the 3.7 acre project site from sector A2 to sector D. And introduce an ordinance approving the development agreement amendment 24 to 0.0.1 to amend the existing development agreement between the city and this and St. Margaret's Episcopal School to require an additional annual payment to fully mitigate the potential fiscal impacts of the lost property tax and sales tax revenue associated with the proposed general plan land use change. This concludes my presentation. Myself and the applicant are available for any questions. Thank you very much. Council members, do you have any questions of staff who are starting with Mayor Prot Tem? Thank you. My question is about 31726. That's the two story building. So it's my understanding that this actual exclude any new tenants from going into that building is that correct? That is correct. As the way it's sorted out, it will exclude new tenants from going in, but the existing tenants can expand within the building. So if St. Margaret's were to decide that there was a tenant that approached them and wanted to come into that building, what would that process look like if they were to change your mind? So they would have to come back and essentially amend the comprehensive development plan again. It would be a big deal. Correct. Okay. Councillor Mahart? Thank you, Mr. Mayor. A couple questions. First, to so I understand, in addition to the $93,253, the proposing $161,461,000. So that's on top of not increased, too, is that correct? That is correct. It would be two separate payments. So one payment associated with the 2010 expansion, and then a second payment associated with the expansion before you tonight. Okay, and then I guess I have three questions. Second question is do we have an estimate, rough estimate, guesstimate ballpark, continental figure of what right now we are gathering as far as property taxes, revenue, any sort from the current tenants that we are currently losing in lieu of this 161,461. I'm looking over our finance director, but I know the tenants will pay property tax they they just the ownership does. I guess the problem is. I guess the problem is. Or any sort of revenue I'd exhale. Yes, sales tax whatever. The bulk of the dollars that are reflected in the payment are associated with potential revenue loss. There's no sales tax dollars that are being currently paid by the existing users, but there's about $15,000 of property tax. So we're basically trading 15,000 for 161,000. And actually the differential that would change on the property tax if the general plan amendment was approved to be $7,400. Okay, so $7,400 as opposed to $15,000. It would drop from $15,000 to $8,100. Okay, so essentially we're adding 150,000, 150,000 to our revenue revenue generation which is not a bad deal for the city now the third question moving away from revenue thanks can parcel D Is a parking lot right now? One of the main concerns with my neighbors is traffic flow around that area. Currently there's an in-gress off of Ortega. Is that going to affect? Is that going to be used for traffic flow? Is that going to negate traffic flow? How is that going to impact traffic flow? as I can be used in any way to pick up the kids from school? I guess as the way I'm. As currently proposed, there wouldn't be a change to the way that the school currently operates with their pickup and drop off locations. I can have the applicant provide perhaps some more details on how that currently operates. But the parking level remain open. It will remain available for shared parking for the entire center. And the current travel patterns and pick up dropout patterns will remain unchanged. And because the project does not is not associated with an increase in student enrollment or staffing levels, the current traffic is expected to remain. So neutral impact on traffic. Correct. Okay. Thank you very much. Yeah, you know, the two lots that are in the A2 zoning that are owned by St. Margaret's. Do those continue to be neighbourhood existing zoning that does not affect those or they already been changed? Are the two ones for the parking? Right. And they're still staying in section A2. Yeah, right there. Is there any issue with those? Those can, the current use as a parking lot is a permanent use within sector A2, so there's no need to change that. No need to change that, too. Correct. And if at some point in the future, St. Margaret's would to do some sort of development on them, then they'd have to go through this same process. Okay. All right. Thank you. Any other more free? Just the term of the lease, get reset. It was originally a 20 year lease. Is this, I'm the agreement. For the development agreement. So it does not get reset with this, but the, so the primary change to the development agreement is associated with the annual payment. And that annual payment goes beyond the 20 years. So all development rights were given a 20-year vesting period and I'm going to read it to you because it all do about that. That would happen in 20 years. So in 20 years those development rights go away but the annual payments go beyond the So it says the provisions of section 4.1.3 and 4.1.4, which are the annual payment and then also an ability to increase the student enrollment from 1,194 to 1,234, which is what it's at today. But there were certain requirements about those students being San Juan Capastrano students with an 80% financial aid package. Those two items, it says, shall survive termination of this agreement and shall remain in effect co-terminus with conditional use permit 0, 2, dash 1, 4. So the 2010 development, which included, okay, that's not going to work, but it included various improvements to the campus itself. Also, the commons building, or what came recently before about the commons building, in the middle school. Those were all part of that 2010 development agreement and expansion project in 2010. So anything from 2010 that doesn't get built by 2030, all those rights are now will be gone, I guess, but except for those annual payments. And that's because the two parcels, I wish I couldn't get this mouse to. Well, there's a bit of a, I guess a backwards L. If you can kind of see that, where those two properties used to be part of the Ortega Village Center and so that those, the payment, I guess, for those to be removed from the neighborhood commercial that will remain in perpetuity until St. Margaret's were to vacate the site. Thank you. Okay. Any more questions here? We go? Then I'm opening public comment on this item. Madam Clerk, Do we have any members of the public who have asked to speak on this item? I do not have any speaker slips. Public hearing is now closed. Do council members have any comments or discussion around this item? No, I have some comments before we make a motion. If nobody else has any or you do, go ahead. When I look at this proposal, I try to look at both the positive and the negative sides of it. The loss of the commercial space in that building 31726, I think is important. It's unfortunate that that commercial space is lost and will be available to other people to lease it. However, we have a plethora of commercial space in the orange area in San Mocha, that's currently not being used. To the point where we have some developers that are considering doing other types of projects on that commercial space. So that makes me feel a lot more comfortable about that. I'd like to encourage St. Margaret's to consider adding some type of retail element in the future, perhaps up in the area where the the SMS parking lot is in that corner I'd like to encourage you to consider putting any other type of retail space that would be available to the students or to the to the residents I appreciate the consideration When they're talking about the parking of that one of our initial presentations was that parking area was going to be blocked off. It was going to be much, much larger. And they're really looking at the city's input to what is going on in that project and addressing that. I'm going to support this amendment. I think St. Mark is a good neighbor to San Juan Capastrano and I'd like to continue our relationship. Thank you. I want to address some concerns raised in a letter that was sent to the City Council in advance of the evening's meeting. And I want to address it mostly. You know, sometimes we get 100 letters on an item. And then I really feel like why I want to talk about this. And this we only have one opposing the proposed action this evening. And that's not a lot for an item on one of our agendas, but because there are concerns that have been raised in the past when our family moved two years ago. And I think that some members in the community might have similar concerns. I want to address these for the sake of maybe the author of this letter here she may be listening, but also for others who maybe have expressed similar concerns in the past. I like the the Mayor Pro Tem think that St. Margaret's and our other schools are phenomenal assets to this town. I think that we are who we are as a community because Sam and Capastrano is a great place to raise families. Whether we're in the market and the business of raising families or not, I think having a town in a city that is a great place to raise families is good for everybody who lives in the city. And this is one of several fantastic schools in our town. Some are public, some are private, they're very different, but they attract different people who are interested in coming to our town and raising a great family. So thank you for all of the work that your school is doing. We're so glad that you're here. Now some of the concerns that do get raised associated with some of these good schools is the majority of the students do not come from our city. That may be true, that may not be true. I don't know, but whenever I go out to dinner in town, I always ask the people at the tables next to me. I explain my current role in the synapse. So where you guys from? Almost never are they from San Juan, California. When they are, I'm super excited, because it's actually unusual. It is really common for them to say, no, but we spend most of our time here. Why do they spend most of their time here? There's our kids at 10th school here. And if our kids at 10th school here, and they're in soccer here after school things and then they eat dinner and support the businesses in our town. I don't think it's a bad thing. I certainly don't think the businesses downtown think that it's a bad thing that occasionally people who don't live here are in our town. And I think you guys bring great people to the town. I'm glad that that's true. Another concern is raised is that the demographics associated with the St. Margaret's student but everybody aren't reflective of the demographics of San Juan Capastrano. I don't think that that's true. I think that they're representative of a portion of the demographic of San Juan Capastrano and the same could also be true of Kenoshita Elementary, which does not reflect the entire community, but definitely reflects the segment of the population. We don't need to have every school or every organization reflect the broad diversity in and of itself. We're serving a lot of people in a lot of different ways. I think that's actually okay. It reflects part of what's awesome about this town is that we're different in really great neat ways. And St. Margaret reflects a portion of our community. It does not contribute to our tax base. While that is technically true, I think that you've heard this evening that the city very creatively over the years has found ways to make sure that financial benefits are accrued to the city so that we continue to provide services based on the impacts that we expect from the school. And lastly is that schools create traffic. Which I don't think they do, I'm kidding, they do. They do. I'm so joke. Okay, I have a bunch of kids. Schools create traffic. They also create great communities. What we're considering this evening has nothing to do with traffic. Arguably you could say that the traffic is going to go down because some uses will be leaving and the school's employee and student count is not going up. They're just using more space. And while some of our most attractive uses in our city produce traffic the most, our most successful businesses on our best schools produce traffic, but I wouldn't ask our best businesses to leave in order to reduce traffic and I certainly wouldn't ask our best schools to leave because they produce traffic, some things are in inconvenience and we deal with them because it's part of what makes up the fabric of our community. I'll be supporting this motion this evening. I do have one question, comment. I imagine that when the original agreement was written in 2010, we wrote an escalator into it because that was the historic and presumed forward looking rate of increase of the cost associated with the city providing these services and 2% was appropriate. Seems less appropriate today when we don't seem even if 2% is our target rate nationally for what we'd like the rate of cost to be going up the last five, four years it's been 5% on average. And so if this were to continue in perpetuity in 5, 10, 20 years, the cost of the city is incurring that this property taxes might be going up, this agreement wouldn't be keeping up with that with the space. And so I would make a recommendation that that agreement be modified to reflect something more like CPI index increases or something like that. That could actually capture the cost that we're going to call it. I'm not specifying that it'd be that thing. And maybe you guys are smarter and brighter or have some other way of capturing what that thing is. But I don't know that I don't have confidence that we're looking at 2% cost increases in the city. Over the next 10 to 15 years and probably the school would agree with that. even though they wouldn't like me saying that, that's probably a knowledge right there. So having said that, can we still make a motion and improve this tonight if we make a change like that? Can we approve this and give you guys latitude to finalize an agreement. Can we city manager or staff want to respond to that? Thank you, Mayor. That's a council's pleasure. We would ask the applicant if that's something they're receptive to so we could modify the agreement before the council deceive me. Is the applicant want to respond to that? Good evening. I'm Alana Cytomal. I'm the CFOO for St. Margaret's Pisticle School and I appreciate Laurel the fantastic just laying all of this out and certainly we're open. I think we stuck with 2% because that was what was already in the agreement and trying to not have multiple modifications. I would say my one request would be since we are a school who plans our budget about six to eight months before because that impacts our tuition increases and all of that where we're able to create some structure where we can have some good planning on our sites that way we're not being bad stewards of the resources that we have to be able to plan ahead. But I'm certainly fine to have a figure that's greater than 2% recognizing just the state of inflation and everything that's going on in the world. Thanks. Then what I would like to I would entertain a motion that reflects approving size actions and give staff the flexibility to work with you to create a rate that's more applicable and also one that allows you a year in advance planning for your budgetary purposes. That'd be fantastic. I'll second that. Oh, I guess I just made a motion. I wasn't entertaining. Normally I wouldn't do that but I think I just did. We'll call that a motion. I'll make that a motion. Okay. And we have a second. Any comments or discussions on that motion? All in favor? Aye. Any opposed? Okay, that passes unanimously. Mayor, I will now read the title of the Ornances. And ordinance of the City Council of the City of San Juan Capustrana, California, approving code amendment 24-003 to amend the Ortega Plan Community Comprehensive Development Plan 78-01 by changing the sector designation of a 3.7 acre area from sector 2A to sector D in order to allow educational uses within four parcels located at 317-266-317-34 and 317-36 Rancho Viejo Road, APN's 666-26104, 6666-26105, 6666-261112, and a portion of 66661-114. And finding that set action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under Sequo Guidelines Section 15301, existing facilities, class 1, applicant, St. Margaret Epscotland Episcopal School, and an ordinance of the City Council of the City the San Juan Capra Strato, California, approving development agreement and amendment 24-001 to amend section 4.1.3 of the existing agreement between the city of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano and state of San Juan Capustrano 65, 864 at Seek and finding that set action is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act under-sequid guidelines section 15301 existing facilities class 1 applicant St. Marker at Scotland Episcopal School. Thank you very much. I apologize to the public. I need to leave for a family issue and I'm going to turn the Balance of the meeting over to the mayor, Pro Tem, who's going to Bring us home. Thank you, Mayor. How are the hammer? There you go. Now moving on to item D2, user and regulatory fee study. Madam clerk, please read the title. Yes, item D2 is the user and regulatory fee study finding same not subject to CEQA. May we have a staff report, please? Here Pruitton, Council members, can not I'm chief financial officer. We're pleased to present to you tonight the results of a recently completed of the comprehensive fee study and a proposed updated fee schedule. It's been 13 years since the city has updated its comprehensive fee schedule. The an update to that schedule was contemplated some time ago but put on hold as the city evaluated and executed a successful transfer of its water and sewer utilities to the Santa Margarita water the water district. The transfer of our utilities to the Santa Margarita Water District. The transfer of our utilities to the Santa Margarita Water District resulted in changes in the organizational structure of the city and necessitated a new fee study that took into account changes in the way that overhead and chaired management costs are distributed to all activities of the city, including fee-supported activities. After the annexation of our water-resue utilities, the city went through an extensive RFP process and interviewed a number of firms and selected clear Source Financial Consulting, one of the premier consulting firms in California that specializes in performing comprehensive fee studies, and selected them to do our fee study. We further benefited from the fact that the president of Clear Source Financial Consulting, Terry Amadson, was personally managed our engagement. I do want to mention that this was a significant endeavor that required significant sapping resources from several key departments of the city as they reviewed the data and the basis for the fee study that was developed by the fee study consultant. I especially want to acknowledge the hard work of the development services department, the public works and community services department, and the engineering and environmental services department. And with that having been said, I'll turn the presentation over to Terry Madson. Vice Mayor, members of the council, thank you so much for allowing me to speak with you this evening. As mentioned, my name is Terry Mads and I'm here from Clear Source and our firm helps communities throughout the state. Identify and recover the cost of providing specific services. The purpose of this evening's presentation is to provide the City Council with an overview of study findings and then to ask direction from the City Council with regard to whether to adjust fees. I have about a 40 slide presentation. I know you have a full agenda. I know you've come off a large item so I'll do my best to avoid being long-winded. I'll make my way through the presentation and then be available to ask and to receive questions or receive any feedback that you have. Just by way of topics, we'll be talking about background and fundamentals that are sort of applicable to all cities in California. So they apply to San Juan Capastrano, they apply to your neighbors, and then the second half of the presentation will focus specifically on San Juan Capastrano and next steps for Council consideration. Just by way of background, when we think about this concept of what we call user and regulatory fees, what we say to ourselves is that cities generally collect what we call fees and charges when they are providing a direct service. So there's a direct receiver of service and that's typically an idea for in our minds we say to ourselves, well the recovery of that cost would be a direct recovery of that cost. And so broadly we might say to ourselves, we have limited, you know, general fund tax dollars with broad community needs, and we target as communities use of those general tax dollars, those property tax dollars, those sales tax dollars, toward services that provide broad community wide benefit. We think of this as public safety services, public work services, parks, maintenance services, and so forth. and when we provide that direct service, like plan review or permitting or inspection services, we frequently use fees and charges to recover those costs. This study is limited to what we would think of as service-based fees. So there's some human providing a service, whether it's your own in-house staff or contract service providers, we're thinking about items that are periodic in nature. So they're not everyday activities. They're something discreet happening. I'm doing new construction. I'm adding square footage. I'm needing a specific license or permit. We are not examining taxes. We're not examining assessments. We're not examining utility rates. These things that sort of impact us on a day-to-day basis are not involved in this study, and they're not within the scope of this work. So just by way of fundamentals, why do cities perform these studies? The primary reason we perform these studies is because we want to make sure we're in compliance with legal requirements. The California Government Code, California Constitution help us understand the difference between fees and taxes. And since these are fees, we want to make sure we follow the parameters outlined in the code regarding fee setting. We talked about that idea that when we recover the costs were by any specific services, we are by definition freeing up the general fund to provide other broad community-wide services and then I think this final bullet point is important when we recover our cost of service as a community it helps us continue to meet the service level expectation of our community. I mentioned the idea that these are linked to direction provided in the California government code and the California Constitution. fees follow very specific rules. We do not want to exceed our cost of service that we're not in the California government code and the California Constitution. Fees follow very specific rules. We do not want to exceed our cost of service that we're not in the profit making business. The idea here is cost recovery at the most. You may choose to target something less than full cost recovery and circumstances, but we don't want to exceed our cost recovery. Fees and charges are adopted by the City Council at the conclusion of a public hearing. They're intended to be dynamic. So from year to year, you can make refinements as needed as your organization changes, but it is by council direction that these fees get adopted and periodically adjusted. Throughout our staff report that you received and throughout this presentation, I make reference to these concepts of cost of service, cost recovery, subsidy. I just want to talk very briefly about those items to make sure that we're all speaking the same language because in our day to day world we may use similar phrasing, but in fee setting in California cost recovery it's very specific. So when we think about the idea of cost of service we mentioned that these are service-based fees so there is some city resource being provided. We calculate what we call a fully burdened hourly rate. We're thinking of salaries, benefits, the uniform we wear, the vehicle we drive, the technology we use, that all influences our cost of service, and then primarily we think of things in terms of intensity. So something that's less intense and requires less effort would likely have a lower cost of service than something that requires more effort. that's lengthy in time would have a higher cost of service than something that requires more effort, something that's lengthy in time would have a higher cost of service than something that can be performed relatively quickly. Our cost of service represents our ceiling for fees. Once council receives cost of service information, it frequently makes some philosophical judgments about whether it wants to recover the cost of service from the receiver of service or whether it wants to recover a portion of that cost or none of that cost. And frequently the way we think about it is can we see a clear receiver of benefit. So examples we use is if I want to add square footage to my home or I want to remodel my kitchen or something like that, I am the clear beneficiary. I enjoy the enhanced property value. I enjoy the enhanced square footage, all of those things. And so what we see is communities frequently target high cost recovery levels for those types of services. If they choose to target something less than full cost recovery that's totally within the prerogative of the council, but what we want to remember is then by definition the neighbors and other businesses in San Juan Copestrano are covering a cost, a portion of the cost of that remodel and additional square footage that I'm benefiting from. On the opposite side of the spectrum, we think about like the world of recreation. And we might say, you know, we offer youth programming or something like that, and they clearly benefit from the ability to participate in programming and so forth. But as councils, we frequently say the community also benefits when people have access to quality of life enhancements, ability to participate and learn new skills, all those kind of things. And so frequently we seek a community's target less than full cost recovery for programs like recreation and social services. We've covered this but the idea here is that the cost of service is a cost to the city of San Juan Capastrano. So if you recover that cost of service from the receiver service we would say that's full cost recovery, if you recover a portion of that cost, San Juan Capastrano still incurred the cost, but we would say you have partial cost recovery. A portion of the cost of service was recovered from the receiver of service and the difference is covered from some other San Juan Capastrano resource and that's typically your general fund tax dollars. So those concepts are common to California communities. They're common to Dana Point, common to Laguna Nicale, you name it. Every sitting California follows the same fundamental principles. The remainder of this presentation will focus on San Juan Capestrano, and I will talk in broad in broad terms you know a fee schedule has hundreds and hundreds of lines because you're trying to contemplate the various scenarios that could come through your door some of them may be rare some of them may be common and so what we do is we sort of provide the council with a 30,000 foot level and then we provide some regional fee comparison information I I'm going to move quickly through some of these charts but what I want to tell you is that we conduct this full analysis and we identify San Juan Capestrano's cost of service and then secondarily we do regional fee comparisons. We don't try and fit San Juan Capastrano into the region, but we do consider that from like a logic perspective. And what you're gonna see is it varies from fee to fee where San Juan Capastrano sits today. In some areas you may be at the low end of the spectrum, in some areas you may be at the upper end of the regional fee spectrum, but we think that everything we're proposing for City Council consideration would keep you within the realm of the region and it would just vary depending on the service you examine. So thinking about this idea of potential enhancements to cost recovery just in case it helps the council can mention the idea that it's been about a decade since these fees were comprehensively examined just the type of inflationary pressure that you've experienced in that time if we just looked at broad inflationary indexes regional cost inflation has been about 36 percent You know, these are labor-driven costs. California minimum wage has increased by 100% since the time of your last fee studies. So there's just been a lot of inflationary pressure that you deal with as a community the same way your residents and businesses face it. Now just dealing broadly, but category by category would think about building fees as a broad category of fee related services. What we're proposing is to restructure some of your building fees to make sure there's a clean correlation between the services provided and the fees that are being collected. We're hoping that the schedule is simplified and allows for easy permit estimation from your contract service community and even a resident that wants to do their own construction for these commonly requested permit types. It should be very simple fee calculations. They would accommodate online permitting and so forth. And the fees really do scale well for less complex projects paying lower dollars, higher complexity projects would pay higher fees. When we look at the regional fee comparison again, I won't linger on any of these slides, but I would just say dark blue represents San Juan Capastrano today and potentially tomorrow or July 1. And then the light blue shading represents some of your neighbors. In this slide you'll see San Clemente, Lagoonanagel, Mission Viejo, and some other slides you'll see Dana Point when their information is available, including the year of fee update. And so what we're trying to show here in all of these slides, I won't talk through each one, but we're trying to show in all of these slides that the proposed fees would keep you within the realm of the region. Everyone's pretty close here. They're all within a hundred bucks of each other. So there's nothing radical being proposed. These are just some commonly requested minor permit types. And so you'll just see that you may be at the low end of the spectrum today and moving yourself into the mid-range tomorrow. You may already be in the mid-range today and so forth. But there's nothing here that would tell us, hey, what's being proposed is sort of outside the realm of rational. One item to note is that today, San Juan Capastrano has no fee in place for installation of rooftop residential solar. A decade ago, several communities decided to sort of charge zero dollars in an idea of incentivizing these types of projects. Since that time California code has provided clarity regarding the ways to charge for rooftop solar so you'll see most of the reach and just follows that guidance that's outlined in the California government code and that's what we're proposing for San Juan Capastrano. We have noticed when we work with other communities and they monitor solar installs before and after fee change the fee is not the driver of the solar install according to the volume. In planning fees, you know, cost recovery varies widely in terms of what we're seeing. Most of your significant planning services are recovered on a time and materials basis. So we're proposing to adjust your underlying hourly billing rates and then to adjust your deposits to give a closer picture of what the applicant is likely to pay. This would minimize the need for multiple follow-ups for deposit replenishment and so forth. Again, everything you're seeing here says, San Juan Capastrano proposed would be in line with the region. There is, you have appeals fees that target less than full cost recovery. So in certain circumstances, you may not target full cost recovery. Appeals is one of these areas. We did examine that and it looks like your neighbors also choose to target less than full cost recovery in the appeals. So there is no proposed changes here. On the engineering side of the shop, we developed fees using fully burdened cost of service. There's some fee restructuring proposed that was informed by staff. And we are just trying to align your fees to the city's cost, up providing these various services and to reflect the work that comes through the door in San Juan, Capastrano today. Several of these fees are linked to project valuations and so forth. And so some of them what you'll see is they don't actually need to change. That's what this, these various charts are showing. In some cases, fees will change. In some cases, they'll actually remain the same in these common engineering worlds. Your fees aren't actually proposed for any significant adjustment. And these are, you know, primary engineering fees. So in the development fee world, we really do typically see like a high cost recovery target. In the recreation world, we frequently see less than full cost recovery. So I want to spend some time talking through that and then we'll conclude our presentation. So recreation, in terms of all the departments that we encounter, they do face unique challenges. They're facing pressures, labor pressures, utility cost pressures, insurance related cost pressures. So mandates and changes in California, minimum wage and so forth. So just a lot of inflationary pressure, but you have this idea that there's competing priorities, right? There's this idea of we face cost pressure, but we also do provide community good. And so thinking through with staff in terms of what the proposal would be for these fees. The idea is if we leave fees unchanged in an inflationary environment, we don't actually stay the same. We go back orders. So what we did is we looked at regional cost inflation since the last time these fees were adopted, and it's been about 36%. That would work out to an annualized adjustment of about 3%. And so when we make these fee adjustments we say to ourselves could we adjust these fees by the equivalent of 3% annually and feel like we're not doing something that's distorting. Sometimes that idea of like a 36% adjustment can feel really radical but in many cases it might be a couple dollars type change because we're dealing in small dollar services. Staff, it was particularly interested in sort of the impact of any proposed changes on community groups like AYSO or San Juan Capastrona Little League, San Juan Capastrona Girl's softball who make use of city fields. They have reserved use of city fields for hundreds of hours a year and they're vital to the community. So we did look at what those types of groups essentially pay today per hour of field use and what they might pay July 1 if the city council chose to adjust fees and you see that the adjustment would be you know really incremental but just it follows that that pattern that we're seeing of trying not to go backwards so it's not an idea moving forward in the right world it's just avoiding going backwards so just by way of conclusion in terms of fiscal impact, if the Council were to adopt these proposed adjustments to fees, we anticipate that the fiscal impact would be about $550,000 and it's important to note that this would be offsetting costs that the city is already incurring. So it's just recovery of costs that you're already incurring. The idea here, you know we talked about that inflation and the pressures that communities face, the proposed resolution includes an annual adjustment to fees based on regional cost inflation, but there is a cap not to exceed 3% in adjustments to fees and the idea is that you wouldn't just use that for eternity. You still have to follow California law to confirm that your fees don't exceed your cost of service so the city anticipates they would re-examine fees comprehensively every three to five years but in those in-between years it would use just base inflationary adjustments to avoid sort of stagnation in between fee studies. This concludes my presentation. The idea here is to open a public hearing and for City Council to consider whether to adjust the fees as proposed. Thank you so much for your time and attention. If you have any questions or feedback, I'm happy to receive it. Thank you, Mr. Mats. That was a very well brief very comprehensive presentation. Do any council members have any questions of staff? Councillor Unberteyner Unterty. I was looking at the, I was just curious as the regional comparisons and you see cities with three or four times what we, our new proposed fee is, you know, it's just this is just a question that why not raise ours to be equal with that and I'm not suggesting that's a good idea but I mean there's such a disparity in how is it that it could be so different? Yeah, so I'll respond in two ways. One is we want to establish fees that are linked to San Juan Capastranos costs of service and occasionally you'll see fees that may have similar names but some community says in architectural review I do X, Y and Z and in your community you do X and Y. They have the same name but it's not the same service level and so we just want to be careful of that and there are, yeah, so that's how we think about it. Yeah, and then do we do our, when we do these comparisons, do we know where they are on their, what year they last revised their pricing? We did try and identify the years of at least. So it's hard to tell when they maybe last performed a fee study, but we can see when they last adjusted rates. So some of them use that CPI idea. And it varies widely. I think Dana point, it's been almost a decade, but a couple of your neighbors, you know know they're just on this annual cycle of adjustment and so you see some 20-2024s and you see some 2016s. Okay thank you. Councilman Hart? Thank you Mr. Mayor Pro Tem. Looking at I guess a slide 40 and it's sports field or whatever. Yes. And I'm looking at I guess a slide 40 and it's a Sports field or whatever. Yes, and I'm looking at Looks like Sam Kuman is kind of the babies arms sticking out the window there Is that reflect the cost that they have regard with Beach maintenance and all that that's driving up their costs or is this really sports fields? I mean, I'm trying to figure out there's only so many ways you can cut up a sports field maintenance. I would think, are they funding other things that other cities aren't? You know, we did not establish these fees for San not establish these fees for San Climney, but we can say that, you know, field rental fees, these are for reserved use of city property. And so fields are expensive to maintain, right? The water, the maintenance, sports groups, put more intensive use onto normal fields. And so I'm not sure what their cost recovery objectives are, but if you do examine their schedule, they just generally establish a $6 per hour rate and then some additional costs if you need light use. Councillor M. Ferris. Councillor McPherson. So would the increases also affect engineering costs or appeal costs or would those be left out like we currently are leaving the mountain? So they were examined. were examined and they're just proposed to remain unchanged because they do align well to the region and we do see communities frequently say it's an area where, you know, I'm trying to solve issues with like staff tries very hard to solve issues before they reach the appeal stage, but occasionally something may make it to your level or the planning commissions level and the idea is trying to avoid seeming as if you're prohibiting appeals through pricing or something like that. And then the engineering, their link to the project's valuation which organically changes changes from year to year so you don't have to change the fees set at 3% of the project valuation. So as project values increase, the city's cost recovery will align to that. Thank you. Mayor Witton. Yes, please. Just last quick question. When the new proposed amount says subsidize, is that being, we're allowing that service to be less, we're discounting it basically. Yeah. Yeah. And that's, we did that when we saw it consistently applied in the region. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Thank you. I've got a couple of questions for you. So we're looking at an inflationary increase in the last 10, 11 years, whatever we're looking at this study of 36%. So what would you typify, you know, if you were to quantify the increase of this fee study, what would that percentage be? Overall the fee study. So today the city takes in about $3 million in fees and tomorrow or the following fiscal year after fee schedule adoption. We would anticipate about $3.7 million. So we would say the city's current cost recovery is about 51% and we would anticipate that you would move to about 60% Because you would continue to target less than full cost recovery for your community services area But your development related services you would generally target full cost recovery and you can see it varies there But in aggregate it's probably in the 70% range day or 75% range today between recovery and you can see it varies there but in aggregate it's probably in the 70% range day or 75% range today between those three primary areas planning, engineering and building and if you try and move it to about full cost recovery that's about a 30% change in alignment with that regional cost inflation. So those expenses are reflective of the fact that we're willing to for our community services we're willing to accept less than cost. So if we're to look at the building department and let's look at comparing a commercial development or a large residential development opposed to a single family home remodel. When looking at those building, planning, building costs, are we at a point right now where we are breaking even on those costs or we at a point where we're losing money on every time we do a residential, we do a residential remodel. Are we earning money or losing money or are we breaking even? So the analysis would indicate that you are currently, you're slightly under-recovering on even those residential projects. So if you look at a building cost recovery, the second column from the right says, what is my current cost recovery level? It's about 88%. So that means that your fees today do not recover your cost of building services. And it can vary from service to service, but we would generally say it's consistent amongst the residential properties and the commercial properties that there's room for some enhanced cost recovery. And Terry, that compounds because our fees are currently not escalating. Correct, so over time. With inflation, we fall further behind in terms of cost recovery. Meaning for every permit that's pulled effectively, the city's taxpayers are subsidizing that individual applicant. And the $200,000 increase reflects, I mean, now it tastes our ability department and says, okay, you're breaking even. So if someone wants to process and permit, it's cost of the $1, you have to pay a $1, thank you very much. Yep, okay. Yes. I noticed on accessory dwelling units and I was thinking about that in affordable housing and given the state mandates to try to support affordable housing. Is there restrictions on how much we can charge or a city can charge for an affordable housing project or an accessory dwelling unit? Is there a state waiting on that kind of a. Our understanding is that you're restricted by two things and this study complies with both of them. You cannot charge fees that exceed your cost of service. And I think secondarily I'm not a planning expert but my understanding is there are some things that are sort of almost like permitted by right. There's not a lot of extra review that goes into them. And so when something requires less review, you would by definition have lower fees associated with it. And so we do honor both of those. I see. Yeah, so it's just 100% cost recovery, so that's how you would. But they try and speed up the process. Yeah, you're effectively paying the building fee, but not so much the planning fee for any type of discretionary entitlement. Yeah. I was just thinking about if a city wanted to not participate in affordable housing, they would just raise their rates so high that you couldn't. Accelerate to build it. Except for just always keep in mind the law prevents the city from charging more than the cost to provide the service. Yes. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. Any council members have any other questions? I now open the public hearing. City clerk, is there anyone that's have a request for and to speak? I have no speaker slips. Is there anyone that would like to address the City Council by phone? No mayor pertain. The public hearing is now closed. The council members have comments or points of discussion regarding or concerning this item? I just like to call attention to a comment that the city manager made. Anytime we do not cover the cost of recovery, it's not like that money comes magically from somewhere else. It comes from the taxpayers of San Juan Capastrano. It means that somebody else, when your neighbors are paying for your service. And so it's important that we capture these costs accurately and that we as much as possible get up to that 60% and especially on those top three to 100%. And so with that, I'm going to move for staff's recommendation, Mr. Mayor Parton. Is there any other discussion? I'll second. Motion is made and seconded. I, to request a vote. All in favor? Aye. Aye. The votes are unanimous. Now moving on to the consent calendar. Mayor Potem, just kind of interject. I just wanted to thank Mr. Olimom and Mr. Madsen. This was an enormous Voltae your undertaking and Terry did a fantastic job presenting that in a digestible manner. But all of the staff from so many departments where fees are assessed and handled were involved and this goes back like Mr. Alamond mentioned to the Utilities Rear so this is a Maybe not the sexiest but a very significant organizational milestone So thank you for all the participate in more involvement. Thank you. Thank you very much Okay now moving on to the consent calendar items on the consent calendar are considered routine and may be enacted by one motion or vote. Are there requests from the City Council to put any consent calendar items for discussion or abstain from voting? Yeah, I would like to pull item E6 please. Is there a motion to approve the consent calendar with the motion? We also need to pull item E5 and E7 for members of the public to speak. Thank you. I'll second the motion. We have a motion in second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Do you have an anus? We have E5. Yes, E5 is the amendment to the master subscription subscription agreement with Granicus LLC for webcasting to public beatings and online management solution for conflict of interest reporting and waiver of formal bidding process with the City Council like a staff report. The seat need. Yes, please. The city has been contracting with Granicus LLC since 2011 for the web casting of public meeting. The city has been contracting with Granicus LSC since 2011 for the web casting of public meetings that includes city council and all of our commission meetings. It offers the access for the public to retrieve agendas online, be able to watch meetings live and to access our archive videos and agendas in minutes for all the City Council and commissions. With the construction of the new City Council Chamber the existing grant, the grant and Kiss system was updated last year to replace outdated technologies and required a new subscription service. Separately in 2023 we entered into an agreement for a program known as E-disclosure through Granacase that also helps with the, to manage the conflict of interest filing. That's the fair political practices, warm 700s. That are city officials and appointed commissioners have to file annually. And also the tracking of other required ethics training and harassment training for those officials. Staff is recommending to authorize the City Manager to execute an amendment to the Master Service Agreement that would extend the contract to March of 2028 for a total agreement amount of $140,494 and to waive the competitive bidding process. And I'll be happy to answer any questions. To council members have any questions, staff. We might remind me who pulled this item, the public. The public. Okay, thank you. Thank you. Maniclar, do we have any requests to speak for them? Yes, I have one speaker, Rich Heimann. Please state your name and place of residence if you wish and let me show you remarks to three minutes. Good evening, Mayor Pro Tem and City Council members. I think this is the time when one could say, perhaps this company could put this podium in that item in view of the camera. When you're watching this on TV, you can't see these as you probably know and you may have heard already before my time here. But those two items I think are very important to anybody watching this proceeding on TV. Also the audio slips once in a while and it's a little bit hard to hear sometimes the speakers. And I don't know why that is. Today I watched the City Council meeting in Los Angeles when they were debating whether the fire chief should stay. That's a pretty grand presentation and I don't propose we do that grand of thing, but anyway I would just support a little bit better presentations over this video by this company. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Madam Clerk, is there any other requests to speak? No, Mayor Patel. Thank you. Would anyone like to address the City Council by phone? I have no phone requests. Thank you very much. Do council members have any comments or points of discussion concerning this item? Council member Tim. Yes, ma'am. You know, as I have to recuse myself more than anybody on the council, unfortunately, there are times when it would be nice to, if you were seeing this from home, to be able to see the screen that is being shown right here. And I don't know, would that be granicous that would take care of something like that? I know it probably would be an additional, maybe in our next budget process. Yes, the short answer is yes. We've looked at alternatives for the podium. There's really no feasible way to do it without a second camera, which would be a substantial cost if the council wants to entertain that or the ability to view what's being displayed on the screen during the presentation. Those are all options. Some agencies that do that, most of them have a more sizable IT budget or personnel that are actually manipulating the cameras in real time, which we don't. So this is a static system that's just basically broadcasting via the web. If the council is interested in that, we can as part of the budget bring back some cost estimates for your consideration in the context of other resource allocation decisions. But there's unfortunately no easy solution to just transport the podium here and have it in the screenshot. I was just thinking maybe if there's a way to break the video from looking at the dius to looking at the PowerPoint presentation from your house or wherever you are remotely, that way you could follow along a little bit better and then you go back. That might be something. So it has a split screen version where you can click and I have it up up now, right? So you can watch the video and then you can, we have all the PowerPoints accessible as a PDF. So So as you're watching, you can click on it and see, but you have to click through it yourself. It's not being controlled by staff who's handling the power point for this pretty actual speaker. OK. So it is actually there now. Absolutely. And I can send more information now on how to access that. And maybe public science better. I don't know the public knows about it. I didn't, so that's good. Well, I'm interested in, it's something that's been a concern of mine for a long period of time as well to be able to watch a meeting online and see who's speaking. Not necessarily, although our constituents are very attractive, I'm not sure that that needs to be included, but I think it's important to have that speaker as well. To investigate that does that require councilman's action or just a request from council that you would at least explore that for the budget workshop. Clarified to see the speaker at the podium to be able to incorporate the questions that council member Taylor had. So to be able to what you're're saying is from home, there's a button that someone can watch, was they're watching a video at home, they can push a button and see the PDFs? Correct, is that okay? Or maybe there's a way that we can make the public aware because I've been watching Council meetings for years and wasn't aware of that. But the other question would be to go through the expense having a second camera to be able to see who's speaking at the podium or to see who's receiving an award. What does that require? Councilmatic action or if the council provides a direction right now first have to look at that and then bring that back as part of the budget workshop we're happy to do that. Yeah, I think so. I'd make that motion to explore that in our budget workshop. I said that. What the cost of that would be. Madam Clerk, is that is this the appropriate time for this motion or should we pass this consent item with that consideration? And you're adding that on to the staff recommendation? That's correct. Yes, that's fine. Okay, I think we have a motion in a second. All in favor? Could you clarify the motion, Mr. Mayor? Madam Pat, could you please clarify the motion? Yes, the staff recommendation is to approve the amendment to the Master Services subscription for the three-year term at the not-to-exceed amount of $140,494 and waived the competitive bidding process and to bring back as part of the budget workshop process options for a digital camera. Very good. All in favor? Hi. All opposed? That's unanimous. Thank you. Manicler, do you have the next item, please? Yes. item would be item E6, which is a request for premier equisports events for use of city owned property adjacent to Riyadhapark and writing park equestrian event parking. Do you have a staff report, please? Yes, good evening, Mr. Mayor Pro Tem members of the City Council, Matisse Ryshell assistant city manager. The city owns the writing park property that is at the corner of Ortega Highway and Avonita LaPada. The property is currently at least and operated by the Rydlin group. The writing park hosts primarily equestrian events and in order to help facilitate the holding of equestrian events on the property, historically the city has allowed unoccupied trailer parking associated with the equestrian events to occur at Riyadhapark just over the creek from the writing park property and most recently at the 2.4 acre parcel that the city also owns adjacent to the writing park. So this for this coming equestrian season, which is from April to September, the Riddling Group has contracted with premier equisports, a company that operates these large scale equestrian events and has authorized, excuse, premier to make the request directly for use of the 2.4 acres for the unoccupied trailer parking. So pending City Council approval this evening, premier would utilize that property for approximately 90 days from April to September and they would pay a fee of $115.87 per day and that is consistent with what TRG has paid in the past. And then staff is also asking for authorization from the City Council to terminate the parking agreement with 30 days notice to premiere if necessary, if for whatever reason it doesn't work out. And staff recommends that the City of Council approve the request that would be a memorialized under a facility use application. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Thank you. Do any council members have any questions? I have some questions, please.'re the 2.4 acre site, where is that located? It's in between the Oaks, private equestrian property and Riyadhapark off of Ortega Highway. Okay, would that be the area in the back where the power lines are? Correct. So there's equestrian sort of pens and that sort of thing set up there now. There are equestrian paddocks there on the site. The property was previously licensed from the city by the Oaks via Jason property for a number of years for equestrian activities. They transitioned off that property in 2017 and it hasn't been relicensed for another use since then. Okay, and then the remainder of the parking would be the Riyada parking lot itself. No, only the 2.4 acres. It's 2.4. In the past, they had used portions of Riyada proper, but it impacted other user groups abilities to use the park, so we thought the 2.4 was more appropriate. That's great, that was one of my concerns, thank you. So the staff report calls out in the analysis that goes from September 25th to a maximum of 90 days. But then it also calls out a period between, so it says April through September for a maximum of 90 days. So could you explain that statement? Does it? So you've got the maximum time a trailer can be there is 90 days. Is that? So the horse show season is approximately 90 days of events from April through September. So there will be trailer parking, there would be trailer parking pending council approval on the 2.4 acres for approximately 90 days during that span of months. During that span of time. So the maximum days they could say there is 90. Right. I'm sorry. Go ahead, please. So typically these were shows where the trailer parking would be necessary. They're around four or five day periods. So the trailer parking would occur for those chunks of time, and then there would be separation in between the shows, but through those series of months. Very good. So with this agreement, we're requiring then after that period of four, five, or six, or seven days, whatever that might be, that those trailers be moved back to the riding park, and then have the opportunity to move them again for the next event. And primarily they don't even go back to the riding park. They go back to whatever it's tables participated in the shows. And this wouldn't have any effect. The idea of using just the 2.4 acres is so they wouldn't have any effect on any events that might be scheduled for the out of park. That's correct. Very good. Do council members have any other questions? Is there any questions from the members of the public? Do we have any requested speak forms? No mayor per ten. Seeing no, can we entertain a motion? I'll move for staff. Move for staff recommendation. Second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Passies unanimously. Was there another item that was pulled? Yes. Item E7 is Professional Services Agreement with laws parking California LSE for trolley operations maintenance service for city grant funded summer weekend, especially in trolley service. Do we have a staff report, please? Mr. Mayor, pro 10 members of the council. This is simply a contract with our current incumbent who provides operation and maintenance of the city's summer trolley program. Do council members have any questions, staff? Council member Hart? Yes. I think the city manager probably knows my question. We have the, obviously the trolley has been extended across the freeway this year, which I think a lot of people are very excited about who live over by the golf course and off the Artega Highway. It's going to give people access to downtown on weekends to the free trolley service, which is going to greatly enhance their experience and the ability to beat the traffic and the parking and all that. It's going to be a great deal for the residents of San Juan. I don't believe the trolleys themselves are going to be a great deal for the residents of San Juan. Now I don't believe the trawlies themselves are going to be ready until May is that correct, but do we have contingency plans to start regardless? We do thank you. So the city was awarded a grant that will fund the purchase of two additional trawlies to provide that service. East of the i5 freeway. They're being fabricated right now. I think there's in Wisconsin and we're hoping they were going to be ready by summer but we're hearing now it's more like later summer. So we're working with Lazy the provider to offer shuttles that will be used and have very similar capacity so that will be an interim solution until the new trolley is arrived. Very good. Do any other council members have questions? Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak for them? Yes, I have Amanda Murphurt. I'm a member of the resident of San Juan. So my question, I submitted it also via written comment. But my concern was really just that with the grants that are funding the Trolley's, whether any of those are impacted by the cuts that are being made in Washington, and whether there's any concern that if we're signing a multi-year agreement, the taxpayers could be left holding the bag for a multi-million dollar contract. Thank you, staff. Is there, do you want to speak to that? Yes, thank you. It's a good question. This grant is actually through OC, the Orange County Transportation Authority's Measure M2 program, which is a half-sent county-wise sales time. Yes, thank you. It's a good question. This grant is actually through OC, the Orange County Transportation Authority's Measure M2 program, which is a half-sent county-wise sales tax that goes to provide transportation and freeway capacity improvements. And so this is part of a pot of funds for local transit circulators. And the city was successful in receiving funds that allowed for initiation of the trolley service several years ago for summer and now we received funding to continue that but also to expand it east of the I-5 freeway. So it's a local countywide in sales tax so that it appears likely then that the whatever changes are happening at the federal level wouldn't have an effect on that. Correct. Very good. Madam Clerk, is there any other request to speak for? In no may or for a time. Is there anyone that would like to address the City Council by phone? Not the City. I close that public hearing. The council members have comments or points of discussion concerning this item. Move for staff recommendation. Second. We have a motion to second. All in favor? Aye. All opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Now moving on to administrative items item F1. Madam Clerk, could you please read the title of the item? Yes, item F1A is second amendment to city manager and playman agreement and amendment to resolution 2406, 1807. The personnel classification compensation plans that amendment to deferred compensation for executive classifications. Thank you, Madam Clerk. May we please have a staff report? Yes, Honorable Vice Mayor Campbell and members of the City Council. The item before you is a second amendment to the City Manager Employment Contract, as well as some adjustments to the deferred compensation for the city's employees, executive employees specifically. By way of background, our City Manager was hired here in San Juan, Capastrano, in February of 2016. His employment agreement was last amended in March of 2020. The city manager has not received an increase since that time in 2020. And so the proposed second amendment to his employment agreement provides for several things. First, it includes a 5% base salary increase effective July first 2024 Apportion of that increase will for legal reasons be paid as a signing bonus the second thing that the amendment provides is an Additional 5% base salary increase effective July first 2025 and then finally the amendment provides for an additional 150 dollars per month in auto allowance effective March 2025. In addition to these changes to the employment agreement for the city manager, this agenda item also provides authorization for the city manager to adjust the amount of deferred compensation for the city's executive employees from $250 per month to $500 per month. That summarizes the action that is before you tonight, and I'm certainly available to answer any questions you might have. Thank you, Mr. Vellinger. Do council members have any questions of staff? Seeing none. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak for them? No. Madam Clerk, do we have any requests to speak for them? No. Madam Clerk, do we have anyone that would like to address the City Council by phone? No. Okay, close the public hearing. Do council members have comments or points of discussion concerning this item? Council member Hart. We pay the City Manager very well. There's a reason for that. He's very good and we don't want him to leave. Thank you. I'll move the item. Do I have a second? Second. All in favor? Hi. Hi. All opposed? Motion passes. Now moving on to the Housing Authority. City Council will take a recess and I turn the meeting over to the Chair of the Housing Authority. I now call the San Juan Capitano Housing Authority regular meeting of March 4, 2025 to order. The record should reflect the role call taken previously at the council meeting. We'll start with the consent calendar. Items on the consent calendar are considered routine and may be enacted by one vote. Does anyone wish to remove a consent calendar item for discussion or obscene from voting? Seeing no one, is there any motion to approve the consent can say calendar. Tell them a second. It's not a motion a second. Any discussion? Seeing none. All those in favor? Aye. Aye. Opposed? It is unanimous. There are no board action items scheduled this evening. Do commissioners have any comments? Seeing none, the meeting is adjourned to Tuesday, April 1st, 2025, at 5 p.m. for a public business session in the City Council chamber located at the community center. Mayor Pro Tem, I turn the meeting back over to you. Thank you very much, Council Member. The City Council meeting is now reconvened. We're moving on to council action items. I currently serve on the, Manclure Cree, please read the title of the item. Yes, item H1 is consideration of a city contribution to the commuter real playhouse, for tenant improvements at a new facility. Thank you very much. I currently serve on the board of directors for the community real theater. I've been advised by the city attorney to recuse myself from this matter. I'll be working with the city attorney's office to seek formal advice from the FPPC in order to determine whether I might participate in future matters involving the playhouse in the future. So I turn the meeting over to Council Member Ferries. Thank you, Mayor Prokham, and I'll wait until you step away. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Push out. You know that. No, you've already read the title. Basically my report to you, gentleman and to the city is that, as you know, or may not know, the El Camino Railway House is looking for a new home. They've gone at least and they're looking for some help, the contribution from the city. And I'm proposing that we give them a one time amount of money to help them get established and it's a space they need to build out. It's a space that will need a lot of retrofitting and it's probably a long process and I think that you know they're up to it but I think as the city is losing a tenant and on a property that we've, you know, now is going to get redeveloped, I think they provide a benefit to the community. I know it's difficult to quantify what the arts gives our community, but having a daughter that is artistically minded and not in that, not that particular world, but in that area, it's difficult for us to put numbers on them and they usually get, I wouldn't in my own opinion a little shorted. So I'm asking the city council to consider, I'm not gonna give you an exact amount, but I think if we deliberate, we might be able to come up with an amount that we can provide them. I did put, as part of the report, possibly rating one of our funds that is allocated specifically to historical depictions. It is a stretch, I'm gonna admit that, but I think it is It's difficult to even know what we're going to use that for, so maybe we might force them to do some sort of historical depiction every year of play or something. That's historically based. I don't know, whatever you guys would be comfortable with, so I'm happy to open it to questions. So any questions for me? Do you have any requests for that fund? I believe it was $50,000 or so. I think it's more like $35, somewhere between $35 and $40. I think it was hoping $50 50 but thank you. Any other questions? Okay. We'll open it up to the public. Are there any request speak forms? Yes, I have Jim Taylor, followed by Leslie Eisner, followed go to the next floor. The State Your name, the place of residents of you wish. City Council, thank you for having me. My name is Jim Taylor and I live in San Juan Capastrano. I was asked tonight to come and speak on behalf of the playhouse. For about 12 years I had my own comedy show, Monthly Show with the Irvine Improv, and then as I was starting to wind that down, the playhouse came to me and asked me to move the show to San Juan Capastrano. Now if any of you have ever seen my act before, you understand why I kept my day job. But evidently, a lot of other people felt otherwise because the majority of the shows were sold out. right now there is no place in San Juan to do comedy. It's been tried in other locations and it just doesn't work. You have the co-chouse, you need 500 people in there and any other venue. right now there is no place in San Juan to do comedy. It's been tried in other locations and it just doesn't work. You have the co-chouse, you need 500 people in there and any other venue is basically a bar show. So I can't speak to community theater but I can't speak to comedy and in South County, you really only have one or two options and one of those options was San Juan Capastrano and currently that's gone. So I would implore the council to have any consideration that could accelerate the reopening of the playhouse. I think it would be in the best interest of the community, the businesses surrounding the new location and for comedy in general. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Leslie Eisner, followed by Frank Larkin, followed by Ricardo B. Good evening city council. First before I begin I want to thank the city council for the last 36 years of your support and also the last nine City Councils that supported the playhouse. We're proud to have partnered with you all of these years and a special thank you to Ben Siegel for his guidance and helping to steer this iconic institution in the right direction. I stand before you today to advocate for a significant investment in community at Playhouse, a cultural cornerstone of our community. This institution not only enriches our local arts scene, but also serves as a powerful economic engine for our city. Remarkably, 80% of the Playhouse's 11,000 patrons travel from outside of San Juan Capestrano into the city. This influx of visitors translates into substantial revenue for our local businesses as attendees often dine, shop and explore our city before and after performances. The Playhouse acts as a magnet drawing people into our community and invigorating our economy. The arts have an undeniable positive impact on society, programs like Children's Summer Camps, introduce young minds to the transformative power of creativity, fostering personal growth, and community engagement. Initiatives such as our Pay It Forward program, student rush tickets and scholarships, ensure that the arts remain accessible to all reinforcing the playhouse's commitment to giving back to the community. It's worth noting that other municipalities recognize the value of supporting their theaters, viewing them as vital community assets. Local theaters receive support in various ways from all of their cities. Such investments yield significant returns both culturally and economically. Regrettably, Orange County stands out as the largest metropolitan area in the United States without county or city arts funding through its arts councils. In contrast, the City of San Diego allocates over $12 million annually to the arts. This disparity highlights an area which we can and should improve upon. Local businesses are eager to collaborate with restaurants and breweries extending their hours to accommodate theater goers and by supporting the playhouses relocation and development we can revitalize the surrounding shopping area, breathing new life into our city's commercial districts. I propose that the Council explores a substantial, one-time donation to support the play-assist move and build out, which is estimated to be at approximately $100 a square foot. This investment will not only preserve a cherished cultural institution, but also stimulate economic growth and enhance the quality of life in our community. Thank you for considering this important initiative. Thank you. Next speaker please. Frank Larkin, followed by Ricardo Bay, followed by Richaiman, and followed by Andrew Reed. Good evening, City Council, and our City Attorney and our Lustre Ben we appreciate all your efforts here and pay attention please. Thank you. I'm here on behalf of the playhouse and I have probably five or six different ways to raise money for the playhouse. And I haven't seen a budget, but I understood that they asked for $100,000 or or 500,000 or whatever it is. And I would like to propose that we have so many schools here that they do not pay any taxes in that. So I'm gonna personally talk to each of the schools to see if we can't set up funds for the playhouse. And one of the ways I envision this is every Friday there would be a bake sale that that school would run and our organization, our nonprofit, Rich and myself. We would administer those programs for the schools and keep a, how do you do like you put a big thing out in the corner and it shows the blood pressure and it's coming up and all of a sudden it explodes because we've raised five or ten million dollars, whatever it is for the playhouse to get it off the ground and have a place here that is so spectacular. And one of the things I recommend is that each play there will be a city council or a city attorney or Ben Siegel or one of our city clerks will have a walk on presence through that play and invariably someone will say I know that person I I want to see them on stage. And you guys all are kind of actors to a certain extent, being up here on the podium and that this way here, you can tell a joke or whatever they requested you. But I think it would be outstanding to have that as part of our city for the playhouse. And thank you, Mr. Largan, please summarize. Pardon? Please summarize your time's up. I'm speaking for Rich, too. Thank you. Next speaker please. Recarto B followed by Richaimon followed by Andrew Reed. I just want to congratulate everybody for the great job that you guys are doing for the city. And I came in here to support the playhouse and the way it is designed when you start a business, you need a big chunk of money for startups and you want to be successful and the playhouse needs a little punch in which whatever the city can afford this time, it will be the best thing for the community. And businesses give reward that when people come out of town and eat in your restaurant or whatever happens for other businesses. So being here, I would like to see as a businessman that the city if it comes with a formula that centralize nonprofits organizations there's many many that a lot of people are not aware they are and if there's a centralized where it's a communication with those nonprofits because what the nonprofits are very good for our community. And if there's someone available from staff that can generate people to help partnership between the local nonprofits, it will be great. I belong to at least in nonprofits organizations. And there's some nonprofits that are that are left out too. And if the city thinks out of the box and makes sure that the playhouse gets a big chunk for this startup, and then later I see the non-profit can benefit with other benefits because non-profit got to be educated and our community has to be educated because we have a lot of people there left out. There's a lot of great performers in town, kids, adults and if we can incorporate everything, of course the playhouse is going to do very well. It's a, I think it's a great location over there. A lot of parking. So I'm always available. I don't want to come up with ideas that are not doable because I already been in Bav with a lot of nonprofits. They are working together and they give benefit because they are the same people. And I'm here to help and of course I want to see the playhouse do well because I already been participated with them for many years. I thank you guys and think outside the box, it takes a little effort but we can always volunteer our time to make sure our community does better. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker please. Rich Heimann followed by Andrew Reed. Hello again, city council members. If you haven't seen the spelling bee, I don't know if there's any more. Are there any more? They're over. It's over. I just saw it a couple of weeks ago. It's great. I remember talking to Howard Hart about maybe a year and a half or two years ago, Councilman Hart, I should say, please make sure the Council pays attention to the playhouse and helps them get reestablished. Well, I really wanna say that I think the staff and the council should find some way to give the playhouse or grant the playhouse hundreds of thousands of dollars. I don't know how many, but I'm sure they will need that. What I would hope that maybe that could come from the general fund or someplace, but what I don't support is rating the depiction policy fund. I believe that the depiction policy fund is meant for a lasting visual effect. And I'm afraid the amount, 35,000 or whatever, is dwarfed by the hundreds that they need and would get lost. And you couldn't see any effect of that depiction fund. Those establishments that gave that money, gave it in lieu of a depiction of their own. And I think they need to see something like that in the future whenever somebody comes up. And actually, I didn't say this in the beginning. I'm speaking for the Alliance for Sound One R and we would really like to find some kind of odd object for that money some time. Thank you very much. Thank you. I believe Andrew read left the building are you speaking on his behalf? Thank Thank you, Mr. Ben Mold. Sorry, I outed you. That's okay. Andrew and Kim Reed own the brew house in the vicinity of the new playhouse location. And Andrew asked me to read this. Then I'm gonna speak at Steve Bemmerwal after that. There are many visitors too and residents of San Juan that never travel all the way back to the Capastrano Center formerly known as the Capastrano Home Center. A back eddy in our relatively small town, the center still provides key goods and services to people who need veterinary care, a mattress, physical therapy, a new sofa, or a beer. By bringing the playhouse into this center, we are bringing more attention to our hidden corner. The community that supports the playhouse will learn about a new set of small businesses that are part of the fabric of San Juan. The saying, a rising tide lifts all boats definitely applies here. Where an investment in the Alcami no Real Playhouse will create additional stimulus to our little area but will also serve to strengthen our larger community. I support the Playhouse project and hope the city can provide assistance to maintain its role as longstanding benefit to the city of San Juan Capastrano. Thank you. Now, I'm Steve Bemerwald. I live in a box by the creek. I would like to speak as a board member of the Historical Society and urge you to not raid the Historical Depiction Plan that, as Rich pointed out, has been paid into by business owners and I think they're entitled to what they paid for. As a side note, in the future, can we please do fee studies in closed session? Thank you. Are there any other speakers? Give me a second, Council Member. No, no more speakers. Okay, City Attorney, did you have any concerns? I just, just a parliamentary matter because I see we're down to three council members here. I want to give you a little bit of guidance before you went too far into your deliberations. Normally the rule, the parliamentary rule is that a majority of a quorum can pass an item. So in this case we have a quorum of three and so a majority of you would be two would be able to pass an item. However, there's a government code section that says that orders for the payment of money require a vote of three. And so I want the council to understand that if you're inclined to support an immediate payment of some amount of money as part of tonight's agenda item, that would require a unanimous vote of all three of you. If on the other hand you simply direct staff to bring something back at some later date, then that could be done by a two-thirds vote tonight. So I just wanted to kind of give you a little bit of guidance before you move too far into the discussion. I appreciate that. Council Member Hart. Thank you. I first of all thank you for all the speakers tonight. And I am going to actually propose a payment tonight. It's not going to be hundreds of thousands of dollars quite on site. I don't think we can afford that as a city at this time. But as I was listening to people talking, it's not going to be from the historical depiction fund. I don't think that, and it's not for the reasons quite honestly that we're outlined. The reasons that I have for that is because we have the 250th anniversary of our city coming up, and I think in the all-used Navy terms, we need to keep our powder dry in that sense and want to probably preserve that fund for that and so I would recommend that any payment come from the general fund. Whenever I think whenever I go to that theater for whatever reason, I think of my father. My father was an interesting guy. He's one of the smartest men I've ever met. He was a football player and a football coach. Not the kind of guy you'd normally associate with musical theater but every time he watched the music man he burst out in tears and he starts seeing in 76 trombones and all that stuff. And so I think of that and he's comedy, I would love Jim Taylor. For reasons I don't understand. But this is a gem to our community. And I'm so grateful that you found a home. I don't think we want council members appearing on stage because we actually want to see you succeed. And that's not what we're here for is trust me when I say that. But I would propose $76,000 from our general fund to help as a kickstarter. Any other comments? How's my part Taylor? Yeah. How'd you come up with 76,000? 76 trombones. Oh, got it. Okay. You know, it's, this is a tough one for me. You know, when I look at the, all of the nonprofits, you know, I spent a lot of time with a nonprofit called the Rotary Club where we fund rays and go out and do things in the community. And there's just a lot of, there's a lot of very important nonprofits that, you know city supporting children, boys, and girls club. And it's difficult for me to, we're not giving, we give money to the boys and girls club, but we get a direct benefit from it, which is the fact that we have programs to keep kids out of gangs and different issues and help them with, you know, be productive members of the community and very, very substantial of things. It's difficult. I really want to see the playhouse survive and thrive in our community. It's so important, the arts are very important. I just, I wanted to see, you know, if they had more private donation or more fundraising that they did. And I don't know what they do in terms of fundraising now. I see, you know, other organizations do gay les and various things that they have to do. I don't know if our group does much in a way of fundraising. I know you're very busy. You have probably other lives besides acting and running a playhouse, so it's difficult. I mean, I just don't think that I could support $500,000 that's just such a staggering half a million dollars. I mean, two police officers would be, you know, half a million dollars. That's, you know, I would be more inclined to have two police officers, frankly. Given that, you know, well, I'm just going to leave it there for a moment and just hear this play out. I appreciate those comments actually. That's why I made remarks about. It's difficult to fund the arts because we do start thinking about boys and girls, club, unitos, other nonprofits that directly benefit kids. But I think the, it's hard to quantify with the arts, but I could tell you as the father of someone who's artistically minded. The arts really, and I know they're doing different things, but the arts gives kids an avenue of expression. I mean, I'll try to give you my daughter's description of it. It's as much pleasure as it is therapy when you're in the arts. And I think that that's part of the benefit that's hard to quantify when we talk about our local playhouses. How do you say that's what they're bringing to the city because, you have Jim Taylor on the stage. Is that therapeutic or is it not? No, I'm kidding. It can be, right? So it's difficult to compare them to an organization like the Rotary Club where you could say this is what the direct benefit is. But I think one thing that I think it may have been pointed out in the comments but you know I believe Leslie and you could just nod 80% of the people going to the playhouse are from out of town. So when our business owners are showing up making comments I think we also have to consider what the economic benefit of the playhouses to the city Which ends up helping our cities general fund. I'm probably with you. I don't know that this council You know, I think we had the full council up here I don't know that we would give half a million dollars But I would be supportive supportive if it's $76,000 and you could get on board with that. We could move forward. Otherwise, we might be able to table it to the next to the full council. And quite honestly, this was agenda. They knew it was here. I don't know that obviously one of our members had a recuse. But if we could agree to 76,000, I mean, I think it's it's a great It it's not what they had initially asked for but I think it's it's a fair amount, you know It is our public funds and we have to you know use them wisely and and that's why I gave us the option of Looking at the historical depiction of fun because because I know we're all very fiscally responsible up here and are conservative, whatever you wish to say. And so that's why I put that out there. Now that I also brought that up, I mean, we might want to even look if that historical depiction of fun fee is something we want to continue to do. but that's, I don't know, probably part of a bigger discussion. So, I don't know if you would be willing to get on board with 76 or hurt Howard and change him out. Do we have any discretionary funds that I just comes out of? How would come out of your general fund balance, effectively this. Cities reserved fund. Yeah. All right. Okay, so I get to be on stage, right? I'm joking. Only you. All right, I will, I will, you know, I know it's hardly a drop in the bucket and you know being a commercial general contractor, I reviewed the plans of Leslie's and I think $100 of course, foot will be optimistic. So it's going to be a significant build out for for them however I do like the ability that it could help be seed money but I think we need you know the idea that we could do something you know that wouldn't take money out of the general fund that we could be helpful in other ways, you could have a fee waiver like nonprofits do to use the historic town center park to put on a play and do a fundraiser or something like that. That's easier for me to stomach. That type of, I guess I'll call it a donation. I just think, okay, so somebody want to make a motion or Councillor Emberhart? I moved for $76,000 from the general fund to the one as a one-time donation of the playhouse as a relocation fee. I'll second. Any other points of discussion? Okay. All those in favor? Hi. Hi. Passes. With three votes in favor, one absence and one is recused. Mayor Pro Tem? Our mayor pro-10 might be asleep. We'll take a one minute break. You got to tell them what they did. You're the soundproof room. That's exactly what. I'll close the software. Councillor Rikovic. Now moving to Council, City Council reports. Does anyone have a City Council report? Yes, sir. I just wanted to let the, I was at the, I suppose I was going to bring the award. The City Council received an award last week. Council Member Farias and I were there. I think Mayor Pro Tem, Campbell is on his way and the truck broke down. Had truck problems. I was there with the TCA and didn't even know where we were getting an award. We got an award for leadership in public service for the River Street Project. Sorry. I had this in front of me and I didn't. Riverwalk. So yeah, for River Street. So. So. Anyway, I just wanted to congratulate my colleagues for all the work that went into making that vote. All that happened over the years and it's been quite a while and all the staff time it took to get that going. But it's a tremendous asset. And I tell you, talking to people from other cities at this event, they all are recognizing the river streets, one of the best things they've done and been to in a long time, so it's really been quite an asset to the community, so it's really great. That's all for me, thank you. Thank you, Councilman Taylor, any other reports? City manager would say that manager would like to provide his report. Thank you Mr. Mayor Pro Tem, nothing further this evening. Okay, now I move to adjourn the meeting. The meeting will be adjourned until Tuesday, March 18th at 3pm for an executive session and 5pm for the public business session in the City Council chamber.