From: Jacki Valentin
To: City Council; Jennifer Lee; Kayle McDonald
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Kennedy Commission Letter Regarding Laguna Hills 2024 APR Date: Friday, March 21, 2025 4:04:35 PM
Attachments: Kennedy Commission Letter Regarding Laguna Hill"s 2024 APR.docx (1).pdf Good afternoon,
The Kennedy Commission is submitting this comment letter in regards to the 2024 Annual Progress Report.
Sincerely,
--
Jacqueline Valentin
Assistant Projects Manager | she/them
Public Comments
March 25, 2025
Item No. 4.10
March 21, 2025
Mayor Joshua Sweeny
Laguna Hills City Council
24035 El Toro Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92653
RE: Item 10 Schedule of Future Events - 2024 6th Cycle Housing Element Annual Progress Report
Honorable Mayor Sweeney and Laguna Hills City Council Members, The Kennedy Commission (the Commission) is a broad-based coalition of residents and community organizations advocating for the production of homes affordable for families earning less than $30,000 annually in Orange County. Since 2001, we have successfully partnered with jurisdictions across the county to create housing and land-use policies that increase affordable housing opportunities for lower-income working families.
We are writing to express concerns regarding the City of Laguna Hills progress in meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation(RHNA) for lower-income households, as reflected in the recently posted 2024 Annual Progress Report(APR). The report indicates that 0 non-deed restricted and 0 deed-restricted for very low-income units. As well as, 0 non-deed restricted and 0 deed-restricted low-income units were permitted during the 2024 reporting period. This stagnant progress underscores the urgent need for stronger commitments and effective strategies to address the city’s critical shortage of affordable housing.
RHNA’s allocations for the very low income category is 568 units. From 2021 to today, the City of Laguna Hills has met 0% towards their RHNA goal for this income category. RHNA allocated 353 units for the low income category for Laguna Hills to fulfill. From 2021 to today, the City has met 0% towards meeting their RHNA goal for this income category. We advise the City to continue implementing: programs, policies, goals, and funding in the Housing Element to further promote and produce affordable housing.
We look forward to working with the City of Laguna Hills to support the creation of affordable housing to increase housing opportunities for lower-income residents. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 250-0909 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
Cesar Covarrubias
Executive Director
CC: Melinda Coy, Proactive Housing Accountability Chief CA Housing Community Development Department
1 CITY OF LAGUNA HILLS
Supplemental Agenda Material Memo
Supplemental Agenda Materials related to an item on a City Council Agenda, submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet, will be available for public inspection at the same time the materials are distributed to the City Council. Supplemental Agenda Materials are available for inspection during normal business hours in the City Clerk’s office located at 24035 El Toro Road, Laguna Hills, California. In addition, such materials will be made available for public review at the same time the materials are distributed to the City Council on the City’s website at: https://lagunahillsca.portal.civicclerk.com/ and at the respective public meeting.
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
March 24, 2025
City Council
City Staff
Jennifer Lee, City Clerk
SUBJECT: Agenda Item No. 7.2.1 – Resolution Adopting New City Council Policy No. 115 - Rules of Decorum and Procedure for the Conduct of City Council Meetings Please consider the attached document of common criticisms of Robert’s Rules of Order as an additional attachment to the staff report for Item No. 7.2.1. on the March 25, 2025, CC/PA Regular Agenda.
Attachments:
Common Criticisms of Robert’s Rules of Order
Many criticisms of Robert's Rules of Order focus on its complexity, its perceived antiquity, and its lack offlexibility, which can make it less suitable for modern, diverse, and informal settings. While Robert's Rules of Order were designed to provide structure to meeting's and ensure fair debate, some key drawbacks have led people to resist or criticize them, especially in the context of public and private board meetings. Here are some of the primary critiques:
1. Overly Complex and Hard to Learn
Robert's Rules of Order can be difficult to understand, particularly for people who aren't familiar with parliament1;1ry procedure. The rules contain many formalities and nuances (e.g., motions, seconding, amendments, and points of order), which can make meetings feel bogged down with procedural details rather than focused on the substance of the discussion. For newcomers or participants who don't regularly use the rules, it can be overwhelming.
Criticism: Many people feel that the complexity of Robert's Rules can discourage meaningful participation. This is especially problematic in meetings where quick decisions are needed, or when participants feel that they are being excluded because they don't know the proper parliamentary language.
2. Formality and Rigid Structure
Robert's Rules were developed In the 19th century with the goal of maintaining order in formal meetings. However, critics argue that the rules' formality and rigid structure can stifle open conversation, creativity, and collaboration in modern meetings, especially in informal or nongovernmental settings. In the past, these rules were used in legislative assemblies where strict decorum was necessary, but in today's fast-paced, more egalitarian environments, they may seem antiquated.
Criticism: The rigidness can inhibit genuine conversation and make meetings feel too bureaucratic.
People might feel they are simply "going through the motions" rather than having meaningful discussions. In non-profit or community meetings, this formality can create a barrier, especially for people who aren't familiar with parliamentary language.
3. Inhibits Spontaneity
Because of the formalized procedures, Robert's Rules of Order can limit the ability to engage in spontaneous, free-flowing conversations. Participants need to raise their hands, make motions, and follow strict procedures to voice their opinions, which can interrupt the natural flow of dialogue. This may be frustrating for those who prefer an open, Informal discussion.
Criticism: The rules can stifle the ability for participants to express themselves freely, leading to frustration and disengagement, especially in smaller or more casual settings where spontaneity may be more important than following procedures strictly ..
4. Barriers for New Participants
For those who are new to a board or meeting, Robert's Rules can create a steep learning curve. If a new member doesn't understand the rules, they might feel excluded or intimidated by the formality, 1i3
leading to a lack of engagement. In some cases, this can limit _the diversity of voices in the decisionmaking process.
Criticism: Newcomers may feel lost or overwhelmed by the jargon or complicated procedures, and their voices may be less likely to be heard as a result. This can lead to power imbalances where more experienced members dominate discussions, further discour<;1ging new participants from contributing.
5. Time-Consuming
Robert's Rules of Order can be time-consuming, particularly when a large group is involved or there are many motions to consider. This can drag out meetings and make them less efficient which is especially problematic when boards or committees have limited time or need to make quick decisions.
Criticism: The length and formality of meetings following Robert's Rules can result in fatigue or disengagement among participants, leading to inefficiencies that could be avoided in a more flexible meeting structure.
6. Cultural and Contextual Differences
Robert's Rules were created for a specific cultural and historical context, one where hierarchical authority and formal procedures were seen as essential. In today's more collaborative, participatory work environments, these methods may not fit well with the values or goals of many modern organizations. The formality may also clash with the more informal, consensus-driven culture that some groups or communities prefer.
Criticism: Robert's Rules may not be aligned with the values of organizations that prioritize collaboration, inclusivity, and consensus-building, especially in groups where decision-making is intended to be more democratic and less top-down ..
7. Limited Flexibility
While Robert's Rules are designed to provide structure, they offer limited room for flexibility. For instance, they don't easily accommodate changes or creative approaches that may be needed in certain situations. Additionally, in fast-paced environments, adhering strictly to these rules can slow down the process and limit innovation.
Criticism: In some contexts, especially in creative or dynamic industries, the rigidity of Robert's Rules can hinder progress and adaptability. This is especially true when the group feels the need for more agile decision-making.
8. Potential for Misuse
Because Robert's Rules are so detailed, there is a risk that they can be used manipulatively. For example, more experienced participants or those with greater familiarity with the rules may use them to control the flow of the meeting, delay decisions, or silence opposition. This can create a power imbalance, especially if some participants are unfamiliar with the rules.
Criticism: Some argue that Robert's Rules may reinforce hierarchies within a group, making it easier for some individuals to dominate the proceedings, which goes against the spirit of fair representation and equity that many modern groups strive for.
2/3
Conclusion
While Robert's Rules of Order are still widely used and can be highly effective in formal settings, many modern organizations find them to be cumbersome and impractical for their needs. They are often seen as outdated and overly complicated, and they can create barriers to effective participation and collaboration. As a result, some groups prefer more flexible alternatives, such as consensus-based decision-making or modified parliamentary procedures, which allow for smoother, more inclusive, and efficient meetings.