McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Consent Item #7 - Orange County Grand Jury report on California Housing Mandates From: John Thomas
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 5:15 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>; Kiff, Dave CM <[email protected]> Cc: McKay, Ann Marie CC <[email protected]>
Subject: Consent Item #7 - Orange County Grand Jury report on California Housing Mandates Before the state legislature produces any more sweeping "solutions" there are simple elements that warrant further consideration in the debate over how to address housing affordability in California including:
• Growth in the average size of a California home over time: The size of homes in square feet has grown dramatically since the 1950s - from under 1,000 Sq. Ft. to approximately 2,400 Sq. Ft. today. Buyers want larger homes, but this trend obviously impacts home prices and affordability.
To an extent this is a self-inflicted wound. We, the buyers, have exacerbated our own problem. As Pogo would say: "We have met the enemy...and he is us." • The number of second homes and uses like short-term lodging negatively impact the housing stock available for primary housing. It has been estimated that there are more than enough housing units in California to house the population, but the distribution is "unfortunate" in that some houses are only occupied as second homes.
• Land cost- it is simply a fact that the market price of land gets higher as the land gets closer to the coast and becomes a larger percentage of the total cost of a home, all other things being equal. Housing located one to two hours inland can cost 25% to 35% of the average Laguna Beach home and can be far more affordable than coastal housing. • The cost and complexity of constructing multi-story housing reduces much of the positive cost benefit of building more housing units per acre of land.
McKay, Ann Marie CC
Subject: Item 7 Response to Grand Jury report on housing From: ann
Sent: Monday, July 20, 2026 2:07 PM
To: City Council <[email protected]>
Subject: Item 7 Response to Grand Jury report on housing Finding F1
Suggest adding to this excellent statement:
"Thus, while the City recognizes the value of addressing housing affordability and housing supply, the volume and pace of legislative change have created substantial implementation challenges and demand on its resources, particularly due to its location within the Coastal Zone."
We could add:
Laguna Beach's role in providing for low and moderate income families lies mostly in its accommodating over 6 million visitors annually to experience our coast, beaches, our unique town and 22,000 acres of preserved Greenbelt. Laguna Beach and the Greenbelt have been recognized by the National Park Service as a Historic American Landscape. More people benefit from visiting than could ever be accommodated in housing. In fact what the visitors want to see is a unique historical, village-scale town, an exceptional and memorable experience. To the extent that the exceptions to waiving of normal requiements and discretionary review carved away from our carefully tailored planning process harm that experience for the 6 million visitors, overall public benefit is significantly reduced. Therefore the City recommends against so- called affordable housing incentives like waiving parking requirements (waived on-site parking means public parking is used instead), preventing design review, and restricting historic preservation.
Exempting projects that would otherwise be required to conform with CEQA is ultimately harmful to the overall environment that residents and visitors come here to enjoy. The state should refrain from imposing those kinds of exemptions, and instead provide financial incentives for lower cost housing.
Finding F6
Relates to whether the complying with RHNA numbers is unrealistic or unattainable The City's comment concludes,
"Accordingly, while the City agrees that actual housing production may be highly challenging, the City disagrees that compliance with its Housing Element planning obligations is unrealistic or unattainable."
We could add:
Laguna Beach has experienced a surge of ADU construction. This has produced hundreds of new dwelling units, yet the City is not allowed to count these toward its RHNA requirement because we cannot verify that 1 the units are either low-cost or even rented. If the state were to make those requirements of property owners (that ADUs be rented at a rate that conforms to Housing Element requirements for low and moderate income tenants) before property owners can benefit from the parking and other exemptions it would:
1. Prevent construction of ADUs that are really just home additions that are exempted from parking requirements and discretionary review. These cause neighborhood and city impacts with no public benefit.
2. Provide verifiable new housing that would apply to the RHNA requirements.
Thank you for considering these additions to the city's response.
ANN
CHRISTOPH
LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT • ASLA
California State ticense 1439
felleny, American Saclety cf Landscape Architects
(EL (949) 499 357-
2 To: Laguna Beach City Council Members RECEIVED
Re: Agenda Item 13 Downtown Specific Plan
Consent Item 7 Response to OC Grand Jury Report JUL 20 2026 City Clerk's Office
Date: July 21, 2026 City of Laguna Beach, CA
Dear Councilmembers:
I am writing in support of Agenda Item 12 and future plans regarding the downtown specific plan. In particular, I like the ideas of including broader community involvement and evaluating the entire community in assessing needs. Most of all, 1 am pleased that the City has included a legislative advocacy pillar in its forward-looking plans.
The staff report does an excellent job in summarizing the challenges facing the City of Laguna Beach when it says:
three out of every four acres within the City are subject to enhanced wildfire building standards, defensible space requirements, and ongoing vegetation management obligations. Beyond wildfire exposure, the City's ability to accommodate future housing is further constrained by steep topography, environmentally sensitive lands, limited infrastructure, and significant evacuation challenges. The community is served by only three primary evacuation routes consisting of northbound and southbound Pacific Coast Highway and Laguna Canyon Road, each of which can be compromised during, for example, a wildfire incident. These routes are fed by an extensive network of narrow, winding hillside residential streets that present additional challenges during emergency evacuations.
I would add to that list the very real potential that the City may lose its hospital and emergency room, a genuine threat to the health of both current and future populations. (It may be worth mentioning that the hospital closure threat is directly related to another Statewide regulation on seismic retrofitting.)
As the staff report says, State housing laws have been developed using a one size fits all approach. The result is that some municipalities, like Laguna Beach, end up almost in a death pact with the State. That is wrong. The State should not enact laws that force municipalities to choose between complying with the law or putting its residents at additional risk; to wit topography, which limits available land available for housing; costly wildfire management requirements and the resulting threat of adding even more residents to an already constrained evacuation system; and a medical system that may be unable to properly care for its already aging population, much less additional residents. These all increase risks to residents. And they all put increased pressure on the City's fiscal sustainability. That is the opposite of good governance.
Finally, I would strongly encourage that the City make the updates to its General Plan and its Seventh Cycle Housing Element with these thoughts in mind. Care should be taken not to include State mandates as general City policy. The City may currently be constrained by State law, but it needs to be clear in its municipal plans that it is not adopting State regulations of its own accord. The policy should be clear on what the City believes is good policy for the City and its residents.
In the same vein, the City should reconsider its response to the Orange County Grand Jury Report (Consent Item 7). For example, response to Finding Six on page six, says "the City disagrees that compliance with its Housing Element planning obligations is unrealistic or unattainable." Finding Six itself says in part, RHNA allocations are unrealistic and not attainable." The Housing Element is not mentioned in the Finding. The City comment is unnecessary and should be removed from the document.
With Regards,
Mary Locatelli